001. in a rather long concordmonitor.com opine, titled "My Turn: Consumer Reports is off-base on Natural Medicine" (2018-02-16), some body named Sol Solomon writes:
"'did you see the article in Consumer Reports on naturopaths?' my friend asked [...] the March issue [...] has a
front-page headline 'The Health Risks of Natural Medicine'. My friend
knows I’m an avid supporter of our local naturopathic doctor [...and he speaks of] our local naturopath is a
licensed medical professional [...] the tools at her disposal are homeopathic medicines, herbal
remedies, and nutritional supplements [...] the
current article, 'How Natural Can Hurt You' is filled with
misinformation [...] these presumed authorities [...] they
might ask their staff to try homeopathic Arnica next time they get
bruised, Apis when stung by a bee, Nux Vomica for a hangover, or
Gelsemium at the onset of flu symptoms. The results are often instant,
and remarkably effective, with no side effects [...] the reason millions of people
around the world turn to naturopaths, homeopaths, chiropractors,
osteopaths, acupuncturists, and Chinese medicine, is because they get
results [...]";
so, hooks already in the man and lots of motivated reasoning. But, naturopaths do not take the same ANYTHING in terms of rigor and ethical code and testing that medical doctors do. So, to present naturopathy as medicine is like presenting a kite flyer as a commercial pilot. Homeopathic medicines are tools of deception and trickery and delusion. And look at that list of woo.
"when it comes to natural vs. conventional medicine, they [Consumer Reports] sadly remain in the Dark Ages [...]";
meanwhile, it's actually naturopathy which is in the dark ages, with its blended knowledge falsely labeled a specific knowledge kind. That's not only misinformation, it's dysinformation. Dysfunctional.
"[he takes umbrage with the article stating] 'many keystones of naturopathic care, such as homeopathy and intravenous vitamin treatment, haven’t been scientifically proved' [...stating] Consumer Reports’ claim that homeopathy has not been scientifically proved is simply not true. There have been numerous studies proving its efficacy [...] homeopathy is a form of medicine you would expect Consumer Reports to support. It’s effective, a very good value, does no harm, and is readily available [...]";
well, that IS true. And it's not a matter of lay opinion, it's a matter of professional science vetting: homeopathy does not work, and cannot work. And by the way, technically science doesn't prove, in that mathematical or logical 'permanent sense'. But I'm being technical. Obviously, the man is uninformed, and cherry picking. But it's amazing to see how his article actually provides PROOF that naturopathy is indeed inherently BOGUS, by way of naturopathy subset homeopathy. Duh.
"Consumer Reports warns of using unlicensed naturopaths. The same could be said of using any unlicensed practitioner. Buyer beware! There are quacks in every profession [...]";
except naturopathy is inherently quackery. It's what I was taught in ND school, explicitly inured to be a quack including homeopathy.
"I challenge Consumer Reports to test the medicines the same way they test anything else. Rather than rely on the testimony of those already prejudiced against them, as they do in this article, have the Consumer Reports staff use homeopathic medicine during this awful flu season. Many will find they are able to counteract any symptoms as they arise, preventing the flu from taking hold [...] empirical evidence is the cornerstone of Consumer Reports. It’s time they applied it to natural medicine as well [...] I hope in future reports they will subject homeopathic medicines, herbal supplements and other natural therapies to the same rigorous in-house testing they use for a bicycle or washing machines [...]";
yeah, that's a good study design, if you like not science studies to support something science-discarded. And flu is KILLING people. This sounds DANGEROUS. We know so much about homeopathy that in sum, a double-blinded placebo controlled randomized cross-over study for a major health risk is simply UNETHICAL. There's very little you can do to an inanimate object that would be so risky.
"Consumer Reports correctly states that naturopathic medicine’s 'approach to healthcare is based on the belief that the human body possesses an inherent self-healing ability.' But the statement suggests there’s something amiss with this belief, despite the fact it refers to our immune system, the body’s primary healing mechanism [...] all holistic approaches attempt to bolster our immune system, whether through herbs, homeopathic medicines, nutritional supplements, or stimulating and balancing the flow of energy with acupuncture [...]";
actually, that's WRONG. Naturopathy codes its underlying 'vital force spirit' belief, and you have been HAD my friend. You are an example of the manipulated. No, it's not the immune system, and I was taught it was the "god power within you [...] vital force [...] bioplasmic energy [...] vis medicatrix naturae [...] dynamis [...] chi" in ND school. Not physiology but behind or inhabiting the physical, as autoentheism. And of course, "energy" is a science word here being misused as a synonym for that 'purposeful life spirit' that naturopathy believes runs the body and is responsible for health and illness.
002. so:so, hooks already in the man and lots of motivated reasoning. But, naturopaths do not take the same ANYTHING in terms of rigor and ethical code and testing that medical doctors do. So, to present naturopathy as medicine is like presenting a kite flyer as a commercial pilot. Homeopathic medicines are tools of deception and trickery and delusion. And look at that list of woo.
"when it comes to natural vs. conventional medicine, they [Consumer Reports] sadly remain in the Dark Ages [...]";
meanwhile, it's actually naturopathy which is in the dark ages, with its blended knowledge falsely labeled a specific knowledge kind. That's not only misinformation, it's dysinformation. Dysfunctional.
"[he takes umbrage with the article stating] 'many keystones of naturopathic care, such as homeopathy and intravenous vitamin treatment, haven’t been scientifically proved' [...stating] Consumer Reports’ claim that homeopathy has not been scientifically proved is simply not true. There have been numerous studies proving its efficacy [...] homeopathy is a form of medicine you would expect Consumer Reports to support. It’s effective, a very good value, does no harm, and is readily available [...]";
well, that IS true. And it's not a matter of lay opinion, it's a matter of professional science vetting: homeopathy does not work, and cannot work. And by the way, technically science doesn't prove, in that mathematical or logical 'permanent sense'. But I'm being technical. Obviously, the man is uninformed, and cherry picking. But it's amazing to see how his article actually provides PROOF that naturopathy is indeed inherently BOGUS, by way of naturopathy subset homeopathy. Duh.
"Consumer Reports warns of using unlicensed naturopaths. The same could be said of using any unlicensed practitioner. Buyer beware! There are quacks in every profession [...]";
except naturopathy is inherently quackery. It's what I was taught in ND school, explicitly inured to be a quack including homeopathy.
"I challenge Consumer Reports to test the medicines the same way they test anything else. Rather than rely on the testimony of those already prejudiced against them, as they do in this article, have the Consumer Reports staff use homeopathic medicine during this awful flu season. Many will find they are able to counteract any symptoms as they arise, preventing the flu from taking hold [...] empirical evidence is the cornerstone of Consumer Reports. It’s time they applied it to natural medicine as well [...] I hope in future reports they will subject homeopathic medicines, herbal supplements and other natural therapies to the same rigorous in-house testing they use for a bicycle or washing machines [...]";
yeah, that's a good study design, if you like not science studies to support something science-discarded. And flu is KILLING people. This sounds DANGEROUS. We know so much about homeopathy that in sum, a double-blinded placebo controlled randomized cross-over study for a major health risk is simply UNETHICAL. There's very little you can do to an inanimate object that would be so risky.
"Consumer Reports correctly states that naturopathic medicine’s 'approach to healthcare is based on the belief that the human body possesses an inherent self-healing ability.' But the statement suggests there’s something amiss with this belief, despite the fact it refers to our immune system, the body’s primary healing mechanism [...] all holistic approaches attempt to bolster our immune system, whether through herbs, homeopathic medicines, nutritional supplements, or stimulating and balancing the flow of energy with acupuncture [...]";
actually, that's WRONG. Naturopathy codes its underlying 'vital force spirit' belief, and you have been HAD my friend. You are an example of the manipulated. No, it's not the immune system, and I was taught it was the "god power within you [...] vital force [...] bioplasmic energy [...] vis medicatrix naturae [...] dynamis [...] chi" in ND school. Not physiology but behind or inhabiting the physical, as autoentheism. And of course, "energy" is a science word here being misused as a synonym for that 'purposeful life spirit' that naturopathy believes runs the body and is responsible for health and illness.
of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but matters of homeopathy and naturopathy bogosity are FACT. For someone to assume their expertise in broadly opining is the same as the scientific and skeptical specific expertise needed in terms of dealing with sCAMs, well, that's wrong too and may be the root problem. Hubris.
I suggest Sol listens to Episode 013 of the Naturocrit Podcast.
