001. at washingtonpost.com, Consumer Reports reports [really!] in the Health and Science article "‘Natural’ Doctors Face Skepticism* From Practitioners of Conventional Medicine" (2018-04-09):
*yeah "skepticism"!
"among the most controversial
health-care professionals you might run into these days are those who
practice what’s known as naturopathic medicine. That approach to health care is based
on the belief that the human body possesses 'an inherent
self-healing ability', according to the American Association of
Naturopathic Physicians, or AANP [...]";
so, there's naturopathy's coded vitalism, in full splendor. See how the coding strategy works? Not even these two prestigious organizations state "vitalism" anywhere in this article. The sectarian premise / belief that dare not speak its name. Of course, at AANP, their own explanation page for naturopathy's essential stuff also doesn't explicitly state that vitalism. It's all so ingeniously manipulative!
"critics say that many keystones of
naturopathic care, such as homeopathy and intravenous vitamin
treatment, haven’t been scientifically proved. Confusing distinctions [...]";
it's actually WORSE than this very softball sentence. Naturopaths falsely claim, grossly, that what is within naturopathy is categorically science when it isn't, and engage in commerce therein falsely or unequally. Such as the aforementioned AANP to this day stating on their web page that homeopathy is a "medicinal science." And that's balderdash! A page up now for almost ten years, actually, while homeopathy hasn't the goods to be what they're claiming, grossly. Truly, "confusing distinctions": science as anything nonsense. Welcome to the naturopathillogical. And welcome to an area that gets no prosecutorial attention...I wonder WHY?
"critics — including the American
Academy of Family Physicians, or AAFP, which represents many
primary-care doctors — worry that granting NDs the same rights and
privileges as MDs and DOs could harm consumers [...and we're reminded] NDs
aren’t as rigorously trained as medical doctors and that many
naturopathic treatments are ineffective and potentially dangerous [...]";
ya think!?!?!? With falseness claimed as truth, this is already happening in Naturopathyland in so many ways. And you'll notice: ineffective and dangerous without internal or external consequences. So much regulatory CHARITY.
"'patients can
easily be misled into thinking that an ND license is the same as an
MD’s,' says Britt Hermes, a former naturopathic doctor who says
she grew disillusioned with the field after observing what she
considered unethical treatment of cancer patients [...and] Timothy Caulfield, a professor of
health law at the University of Alberta in Edmonton and a longtime
skeptic of alternative medicine [...says]
many of their treatments aren’t evidence-based [...like] homeopathy [...and] a large and growing body of research has found that
homeopathy doesn’t work any better than a placebo [...]";
hear, hear.
"some critics say that even less
contentious parts of naturopathy tend to be steeped in pseudoscience [...] Michael Munger, president of the AAFP [...says] 'a lot of the specifics
naturopathy offers are bogus' [..like] NDs sometimes base dietary
advice on a patient’s blood type. But a 2013 review in the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that there was no scientific
evidence to back that approach [...]";
ND D'Adamo promised the evidence about twenty years ago. A long wait for a train that isn't running. Yet, you could still get a Center for Excellence named after you at a University with a health sciences division containing naturopathy and homeopathy! And licensed and fully accredited falsehood marches on...
No comments:
Post a Comment