Wednesday, April 15, 2015

NCNM's President and CEO Schleich on the GOOD of ' Strong Evidence and Data'

here, an excerpt from a recent article at that quotes National College of Naturopathic Medicine's President and CEO:

001. Elizabeth Hayes writes in "College of Natural Medicine’s Chief on Chronic Disease, Vaccinations and Mainstream vs. Natural Medicine" [2015 archived, vsc 2015-04-15; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"David Schleich, president and CEO of Portland's National College of Natural Medicine [...]  a strategic thinker who has grown the college to a major powerhouse in the world of natural medicine [...]";

ka-ching!!!  Even while the concept of "natural" in terms of medicine is a logical fallacy.  I did a whole podcast episode on that [here].

"[the author writes] I sat down with Schleich recently to talk about the college [...and] the profession [...] our school is much more professional [...]";

that 'of the professions' claim.

"[Schleich is] so worried about the number of people with diabetes [...and] cardiovascular problems, stress, anxiety disorders, depression, childhood obesity issues and on and on [...] natural medicine approaches, coupled with the best of allopathic (mainstream) approaches, is what we need [...] different ways of bringing harmony among mind, body and spirit [...] our allopathic colleagues don’t have that time in the monetized model [...] insurance people are locked into allopathic codes. Some of the treatments naturopathic doctors want to do are hard to monetize [...]";

ah, that stupid naturopathic claim that modern medicine is "allopathic."  It's like calling astronomy astrology.  And that claim of a special efficacy to 'the naturopathic' that modern medicine lacks.  Are we creating a FAKE problem here that naturopathy has a custom-made answer to?  As in racketeering?  And that requisite supernaturalism, ironically from a place that calls itself "natural."  And that rather oddly socialistic label implied upon naturopathy that it is somehow 'non-monetized.'  All hail the peoples' medicine.  How idealistic.  And as regards codes, isn't it naturopathy that speaks in coded principles so often?  And I don't get it: a doctor charges for their time spent with a patient.  NOT HARD TO MONETIZE.  But HARD TO JUSTIFY!

"[the author asks] where do you stand on vaccination [...he answers] the profession is in support of vaccination because evidence and data are strong about it being a preventative tool [...]";

and here's were I'm very keen to point out: if something is 'good' to do, because it has "strong" "evidence and data" then WHY OH WHY does NCNM claim that homeopathy AND KIND survives scientific scrutiny as a "powerful" therapy.  This is the hugest of hypocrisies.

 "naturopathic physicians are fantastic for primary care [...]";

a SCARY claim: we can't tell the difference between placebo and effective treatments, and we are front-line.  The REVERSAL of values.
Post a Comment