001. at kplu.org, in "Change of Heart: Sound Effect, Episode 37", we're told:
"Britt Marie Hermes [of naturopathicdiaries.com] first came to the world of naturopathic medicine after a disappointing visit to a dermatologist for a chronic skin condition. Hermes went on to study and then practice natural medicine, until she saw something that made her think that there was more harm than good coming from this world. Gabriel Spitzer hears about her decision to leave behind her career and her friends [...then] checks in with Bastyr University's Jane Guiltinen, dean of the School of Naturopathic Medicine."
interesting, first the one-who-left and then one of the ND big-wigs as possible rebuttle.
002. in the mp3, some interesting things that come up include:
"she discovered natural medicine [...] eventually it became her profession [...she became a] naturopathic doctor";
again, I'll say it: how can a profession be based on falsehood?
"I was thrilled to find Bastyr [...] it was exciting [...first she though] naturopaths had some special information source [...] we knew things that other people didn't know [...and she speaks of] the homeopathic remedy I learned today in class [...and something called an] onion ear muff [...and mentions Bastyr's label of] science-based [...] but that fervor would later turn sour [...leading to a] change of heart [...] my education was not on par with that of a medical doctor [...] when I started to see things that I could not be a part of [...] an accumulation of small events [...and she speaks of witnessing an ND's] malpractice [...and] federal crime [...and she] notified the authorities [...and she is] actively working to prevent the progress [of naturopathy...]";
wow.
"I never would have considered myself a skeptic [...] and now I think it is so dangerous [...] it's been very difficult, I'm still going through it [...] I miss my friends, without a doubt [...the number who have cut off] all [...] it's awful [...]";
I know the pain. The pain I'm also aware of in my experience is the knowledge that with different values and ethics than the ND crowd I used to know, their shunning is a sign of their BIGOTRY. And it's hard to admit to oneself that one's values friends are INTOLERANT BIGOTS and their shunning shows it was a very shallow friendship. I'd say it took me about eight years to really wash out of myself the junk and trauma of ND school. It is like withdrawal from a cultic society one was a part of. And it took me another couple of years to create what I could call a 'metacriticism' of the area. E.g., this is the new Season Two introduction to the Naturocrit Podcast that will be posted up before the end of the year:
003. the new intro. metacriticism:
Welcome to, as that robot voice says, The Naturocrit Podcast, and thank you for boldly listening. What ARE we even talking about? Well, this podcast series is my take on naturopathic medicine, an area I've been studying for about twenty years, including my time in so-called 'scientific nonsectarian naturopathic medical school'. My approach is a pairing of scientific skepticism and a deep knowledge of naturopathy's intimate details. In previous episodes of this series, I established that naturopathy is, essentially, a kind of knowledge blending, misrepresentation, and irrationality. I have termed naturopathy both 'an epistemic conflation falsely posing itself as an epistemic delineation' and 'the naturopathillogical': the science-exterior is mixed with what is scientific, then that whole muddle is absurdly claimed to be science as an entire category, while particular sectarian science-ejected oath-obligations and -requirements are coded or camouflaged, therein effectively disguising naturopathy's system of beliefs in public view. Naturopathy's ultimate achievement is a profound erosion of scientific integrity and freedom of belief packaged in the marketing veneers "natural, holistic, integrative and alternative" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".
004. the rebuttle of sorts by the Bastyr ND Dean:
*now there is a big misrepresentation by the host, that ND Guiltinin used to practice conventional medicine. She didn't. She was a medical technologist, and they don't practice medicine.
the host: "I checked in with Bastyr University [...the ND] naturopathic [...] the moment I heard the word, I knew that's what I wanted to do [...] just hearing the word I knew I wanted to do it [...and went to] John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] our profession [...]";
wow, quite a shallowly-decided commitment. Interesting that she pronounced the word as 'nature-pathic' which is NOT how it is spelled or properly said. It is nature-o-pathic, if you speak things the way they are said. And as soon as Bastyr is mentioned, I must say also regarding PECULIARITY: their definition of science includes the supernatural and vitalistic. So, they are QUITE FALSELY BASED. Period.
"[and here comes the zinger from the host, who states] the world that you came from values experimental repeatability, evidence-based practices [...] science-based medicine [...when it] shines those lights on naturopathic medicine, a lot of times they say 'there's no underpinning for this type of practice, or that type of remedy' [...] do you have that voice in your mind, is that still there? [...and the ND answers] absolutely [...] I am an advocate of evidence-informed practice and evidence-based medicine [...] and I wholly embrace research and science [...and] reproducibility of studies to document that what you do actually works and if you find out that it doesn't, that you discard that practice [...]";
wow. And yet I know of NO movement within Bastyr to more accurately portray epistemic types, e.g. that science cannot deal with what is supernatural, that naturopathy's homeopathy is complete bullshit, that naturopathy's vitalism is science-ejected. In allowing such within "science", basically the Bastyr stance is that 'science is anything you want it to be'. So I call bullshit. Why hasn't HOMEOPATHY been discarded, ND Guiltinin?
"[and the host says] but Bastyr definitely has certain kinds of modalities that traditional science-based medicine would say is NOT based on evidence, right? [...] things like homeopathy [...] do you feel that that has a strong enough evidence base to warrant teaching it at the University? [...and the ND doesn't answer yes or no, but says homeopathy is] one of the more controversial modalities [...] there is some evidence for homeopathy [...] it's mixed [...] I remain open-minded [...] we still do teach it [...]";
wow, great GREAT interview. Kudos. But there is NO CONTROVERSY, homeopathy is completely science-ejected many times over. The response is quite an ADMISSION, actually. It's not science-based. It's not mixed, unless your practice of science is so skewed that you cherry-pick what you want to hear about what you do and believe, and IGNORE better quality evidence. When shit is mixed with wine, would you drink it? Yes, if you have NO STANDARDS and anything is wine to you. That's not a very helpful kind of openmindedness. The ND shouldn't be open minded, she should be biased toward what SCIENCE supports, because the school says "science-based natural medicine."
