Sunday, September 7, 2014

Why Doesn't Newport Beach Independent's Gina Dostler Inform Us About Naturopathy Fully?

here, I muse on bad / manipulative reporting on naturopathy:

001. Gina Dostler writes in "Moment for Health: Naturopathic Medicine – A Wellness Option" (2014-09-06) (archived here 2014) [my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"according to the [...] California Naturopathic Doctors Association [...] naturopathic medicine is a unique and distinct system of healthcare [...]";

ah, the DISTINCT claim.  Yes, there is something rather ironic about naturopathy, it 'distinctly blends'.  And calls its contents science-based, even though those contents are patently science-exterior.  That is, distinctly labeled, something I term epistemic conflation and licensed falsehood.

"[naturopathy] emphasizes Hippocrates, a Greek physician who lived 2400 years ago, advocated the healing power of nature with his, 'vis medicatrix naturae,' a concept that has been alive in many cultures’ core medicine practice for hundreds of years [...] it’s actually not a new concept [...]";

so, this distinct system uses HPN-VMN to explain itself, an 'old' concept', but have we been told enough about the concept?  Does the author actually know anything about what HPN-VMN contextually means within naturopathy, once you strip back all the naturalistic coding that's usually used?

"the naturopathic doctor  [] guided by six principles [...] emphasized throughout the entire training and form the foundation of this natural health care practice.[...] (2) the healing power of nature [...] naturopathic doctors (NDs) are trained at accredited, four-year, post-graduate, residential naturopathic medical programs [...]";

ah, again, so HPN.  Let's use one of those schools to EXPOSE the HPN-VMN TRUTH!

002. so,  there's NCNM, the trunk of the North American naturopathy tree:

002.a. at that " accredited, four-year, post-graduate, residential naturopathic medical program", we're told in "Learn About Naturopathic Medicine":

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm,  primum no nocere: the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae [...]";

so, the "in fact" life force that is HPN-VMN.  Well, that's useful to know, behind the codings that occurs with typical explanations of naturopathy.  We're also told by NCNM:

"these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."

so, there's the science claim upon "life force."  Except, one little glitch in this whole BASIS for naturopathy, "life force" is scientifically refuted.  Period.  That is the corruption at the heart of naturopathy.

003. now, ironically, the author writes:

"if the sound of naturopathic medicine brings to mind a 19th century horse and buggy with a hustler peddling snake oil, think again  [...]':

well, I say to the author, "think in the first place."  This is what I call "shallow reporting", wherein the self-definitions of naturopathy are used by reporters as if what's being said can be trusted.  Also at NCNM, on that same page, is this false claim:

"homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of 'like cures like'  [...] it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level,."

this is utterly refuted by modern science.  It does NOT work better than placebo, and energetic is the misuse of a science term upon what eventually turns out to be a "spirit-like force" conception which is "life force" which is NOT "in fact" and in fact is not "objective."  Such a conception is actually a sectarian article of faith, that science does not support.  And if ever there is such a thing as "snake oil", it is homeopathy.

part of the naturopathy hustle, wherein, and I'll use CNDA here:

so much for patient and consumer rights.
Post a Comment