001. in SAGE Open Medicine's "Immunology Beliefs as a Factor in Vaccine Opposition Among Complementary and Alternative Medical Providers" by Bean and Catania, the authors write:
"the providers who accepted some vaccines and opposed others (conditional) held either fully science-based beliefs or co-mingled (mixed) science-based and alternative beliefs [...] innate intelligence [II]. A belief described frequently by naturopaths, homeopaths, and chiropractors is that the body has an innate ability to heal. Of course, this is the definition of innate immunity as contrasted with immunity acquired from a previous infection or from prophylactic vaccination [...] innate intelligence. There are a lot of chiropractors that believe that the human body can heal itself [...]";
except, of course, this is NOT what naturopathy believes according to the top of their worldwide consortia, the World Naturopathic Federation. What the authors have done is take what naturopaths say and convert it into a biochemical / physiochemical poor analogy. I also totally disagree with the idea that the "science-based" is of belief. Belief occurs without evidence, belief is another matter. The science-based is as far from belief as flying carpets are from jet airplanes. Now, II is truly a belief, in that there is no evidence for it and piles of science refutes it. To merely say that II is about the body healing is stupid, because II is about HOW the body heals: by an unseen energy or power. Physiochemically, modern medicine acknowledges that the body heals. After all, after a surgery, a surgeon wants that closure to heal. Duh. Naturopathy's idea of II is not innate immunity, that is physiochemical. Naturopathy's idea of II is metaphysical. These authors are not that savvy. Not "of course." Duh. This is a very bad analogy. How did this survive peer-review? I mean, come on, intelligence requires MIND and consciousness. How is mechanistic innate immunity that? This is STUPID. This is so bad it isn't even wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment