here, more of the obvious same for an area that wants both the benefits of appearing as science and the benefits of not actually having to do that work and impose those rigors:
001. Peter McKnight writes at the Vancouver Sun in “Peter McKnight: Naturopath's Lawyer Offers Unusual Defense After Ban on Fecal Transplants to Treat Autism” (2022-07-08):
"the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia [in the UK sense of regulatory body] has been cracking down on its members in the past few years, and naturopath Jason Klop is the latest [...] at issue is Klop’s use of fecal microbiota transplants [...] to 'treat' autism in children [...]";
yes, improbability alert. But as is later discussed, there's even more glaring improbability at the core of naturopathy.
"naturopathic organizations have long gone out of their way to emphasize their medical and scientific bona fides [...yet] the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors details numerous approaches offered by naturopathy, some with little scientific evidence to support them, including 'botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, naturopathic manipulation and traditional Chinese medicine.' [...] Klop’s lawyer Jason Gratl [...] seized particularly on homeopathy, stating that it’s 'certainly non-scientific at its core' [...and Gratl] questioned what it would take to act in a manner unbecoming a naturopath given that naturopathy 'is so broad and open to interpretation' [...and argues] that a lack of scientific evidence for Klop’s treatments shouldn’t prevent him from offering the service because naturopaths 'are not bound by science' [...]";
they certainly do. It certainly is. They certainly aren't Because ANYTHING does go. Basically, 2 +2 = 7 in naturopathyland and then they pretend they do math just like everybody else.
"this portrait of naturopathy as a freewheeling, unscientific, undisciplined discipline raised the hackles of the [regulating] College [...]';
ah, I think they protest too much! Caught in the act of a reversal of values.
"[and now the author] naturopathy [is] non-scientific at its core. Virtually every naturopathic organization [unless they intentionally hide it!], including the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, identifies as the core principle of naturopathy the doctrine of 'vis medicatrix naturae' — the healing power of nature [...the] theory of vitalism, the theory that living matter is animated by a 'vital force.' This mysterious, non-material force has been known in different cultures at different times by a variety of names including elan vital, chi or prana. Illness was conceived of as the result of an imbalance of vital forces, and the healer was therefore responsible for restoring balance and harmony [...] naturopathic literature remains riddled with vitalist language. The Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors website for instance stresses that homeopathic remedies are 'designed to stimulate the body’s ‘vital force,’' and that naturopaths use traditional Chinese medicine 'to regulate and release chi in order to bring the body into balance' [...]";
ah, yeah.
"modern medicine and biology dispensed with vitalism long ago [...] any non-material forces are the province of metaphysics or religion and therefore cannot occupy a place in the scientific canon [...]";
yes, naturopathy's central Oath-bound premise is science-ejected and basically medieval / prescientific.
"[and now the authors BIG question] for all the naturopathic protestations to the contrary, this reliance on vital forces is no more science than is providing fecal microbiota transplants to treat autism. And if the former is OK with the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia, then why not the latter? [...]";
ah, that return to plausibility. Some may argue because they have no ethical structure. What they have is a deliberately built disguise.
No comments:
Post a Comment