Friday, December 15, 2017

A New Packaging Ruse: The "Biological Medicine" of NDs Drobot and Thom

here, same old naturopathic labeling of 'not science as science', just a new absurd label:

 001. at Arizona's "The American Center for Biological Medicine" ISYN, Drobot, J. (ND NCNM) and Thom, D. (ND NCNM) state in "Biological Medicine in Scottsdale AZ" [2017 archived]:

"biological medicine [...] is essentially the science of healing [...] biological medicine is no new concept. It consists of theories, sciences, and practices that have been around (at least in ‘concept’) for thousands of years [...] each one of our medical professionals has a full understanding of the sciences [...including] our biological medicine in Scottsdale practices include (and exceed) the following: naturopathic medicine, conventional Western medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, orthomolecular medicine, ayurvedic medicine, physiotherapy, homeopathic medicine, herbalism, traditional detoxification protocols, dentistry, mind-body connection, philosophy, lymphatic drainage, electromagnetic stimulation, toxicology, acupuncture, chiropractic, massage, reiki, touch therapy,  hydrotherapy, other physical therapies, and of course, technological therapies";

so, minimally, that's science subset naturopathy, homeopathy, reiki, therapeutic touch, TCM-acupuncture. What's wrong with that categorical label?

002. what's wrong:

002.a. being "biological" with them woos:

first of all, if "thousands" of years old then something is quite likely NOT scientific since science isn't that old.  They are not synonymous.  Now, biological is a specific modern science context that, quite PATENTLY, excludes naturopathy's / TCM's /  acupuncture's / homeopathy's / reiki's / therapeutic touch's primary concept: vitalism spiritism.  Duh: the vitalistic and supernatural are NOT science.  The NDs' alma mater, NUNM nowadays, states that science-ejected vitalism and that supernaturalism quite clearly as the basis of naturopathy.  And there too says they survive scientific scrutiny.  But that is false.  So, again as we see so often in a standard manner, naturopaths expanding the footprint of science into absurdity aka the naturopathillogical.

Post a Comment