Benda at AANP's Blog - Naturopathy's Blending / Usage-Reversal Irrationalism:

here, I quote some bizarre word-usage bending [as is typical of naturopathy's category blending] by MD Benda at the AANP's blog [see 001., below]:

001. MD Benda states in "Double Vision" (2010-05-24)[vsc 2010-05-24]:

"visionary [...] a word we’ve all heard countless times as we meander the naturopathic path [...but] visionaries who can discern reality are fewer in number [wow, quite a vote-of-competence for naturopaths in general...who see] the reality of our culture [...] and of our profession [hmmm, realism, how novel for naturopathy...and of] your fellow professionals [...naturopathy] is not always pretty, and definitely not as pretty as our conference and clinic brochures tend to proclaim [...] our organizations avoid dealing with whispered dissent from their membership [...] our internal dysfunctions [...] I believe your profession is at a crossroads [...naturopathy must make] a difficult and objective assessment at what is real in the present."

Note: profession, profession, profession!

I'm always amazed at how SCAM-type people take common usages and turn such on their head.

Now, AHD 4th characterizes "visionary" as: "[01.] characterized by vision or foresight [...02.] having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory [...] imaginary [...03.] characterized by or given to apparitions [...] daydreams [...04.] not practicable or realizable; Utopian [...] unrealistic [...] idealistic."

There's actually nothing in the word's usage that applies to here and now type realism / objectivity!  Yet, Benda seeks to reverse the usage of the word.  Perhaps that what he means by "double vision?" Doubling back on the definition? Wacko!

"Visionaries who can discern reality" is much like stating 'realists whose perceptions are inhibited by figmentations.'  Therein, there is no delineation.  And well, doesn't that go back to naturopathy's central talking point: "naturopathy blends".  A long time ago by blogging standards, MD Barrett at Naturowatch characterized naturopaths as 'muddle-heads.'  Perfect.

002. the AANP blog's sidebar states:

"[NDs are] 'Physicians Who Listen' [...this is] the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism]."

Note: again, profession.  Yes, naturopathy is based on "belief."  But, as usual, AANP hasn't accurately contextualized that belief basis.  Instead, their language is selected to sound naturalistic and science-compatible.

003. a call to realism and transparency [and sanity!] aka the dissolution of naturopathy:

might I suggest naturopathy actually 'objectively assess' naturopathy's essential premises, realize reality, and communicate naturopathy transparently!

What is wrong with naturopathic thinking?  I've termed it "naturopathy's blending / usage-reversal irrationalism."

Wherein figmentations are falsely posed as scientifically-based; and professionalism is posed as the same as manipulation.

Benda at AANP's Blog - 'Lofty Nontransparency':

here, I muse on a recent post by ND sympathizer and promoter MD Benda at the AANP's blog page, that had some rather lofty language related to naturopathy's / natural medicine's intentions / plans for Haiti [see 001., below];  then, I cite from an article Benda participated in along with many of the luminaries of AANP naturopathy that did not properly characterize / admit naturopathy's vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological essential sectarian woo [see 002., below]; and, last, I decode that essential naturopathic wacko premise using an ND co-author of Benda's specific language [see 003., below]:

001. Benda, B. (MD ?) in "Haitian Rhapsody" mentions:

"our naturopathic duties to the people of Haiti [...] our role in Haiti will be to restore health and comfort and to teach sustainability after the first wave of emergency care has completed its mission [...] Natural Doctors International, born in 2003 with the goal of bringing naturopathic healthcare to under-served populations while creating socially responsible opportunities for naturopathic physicians, is preparing a humanitarian response to the Haitian crisis [...] the AANP, CAND, all North American medical colleges, NABNE, and NMSA have joined us this effort, and should you choose, you can as well [...] the truth is that the vis medicatrix naturae is not just about the human body; it is about the human soul [true, Pizzorno states that VMN is actually spirit]."

Note: "duty", "sustainability", "socially responsible", "humanitarian", "the truth"?  Let me think.  How can a dishonest and deceptive area like naturopathy posture "duty"?  How can an egregiously illogical and irrational area like naturopathy posture "sustainability"?  How can a false position sold to North American students as true, leading to a magnificent amount of collective expense, posture "social responsibility"?  And "humanitarian"?  Lets see: naturopathy claims that a scientific fact is the same thing as an article of faith, therefore throwing under the bus any possibility of respect for 'freedom of conscience' / 'belief'.  "The truth"?  How can Benda posture "the truth"? I don't think such happened in a certain article he co-authored with the AANP group, where I don't' see any sensitivity for accuracy, completeness, and transparency [see 002., below].
 

002. I recall Benda's contribution to the promotional piece AANP and kind published in the Journal of Family Practice [JFP], wherein we're not at all truthfully / transparently / adequately informed about naturopathy's essential vitalistic, science-ejected premise, titled of all absurdities, "applied evidence".  Six AANP ND luminaries and his MD self state, regarding that core naturopathic principle:

"naturopathic medical practice is based upon the premise that it is intrinsic to the nature of living organisms to heal [...and is centered upon] the inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes [...] naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature".

Note: and that's all we're told there.  One of the co-authors is Pamela Snider, ND who co-chaired naturopathy's 'ND sectarian creed'.   I'm fascinated by the choice of language in that JFP article.  It is quite selective, and it is quite absurd, just like that '.gov' junk thought, 'naturopathic falsehood preponderance' OBNE hosts.  Hmmm, what underlies what's known?  How can you even know it exists, then, if it is beneath the known?  Naturopathy in fact equates scientific fact [the known] with such "inherent" figmentation [the unknown], and the irrationality fascinates me.

003. Luckily, if you read enough of naturopathy's stuff, like co-author ND Snider in:

003.a. the TLDP article "Naturopathic Physician on Her Career Choice: 'No Regrets'" [Benda isn't a contributor or mentioned], you start to see the real naturopathic context:

"naturopathic medicine relies on the vital life force within human beings."

Note: yes, IMAGINARY forces ejected from biology for several decades are supposedly underlying what's known.  Of course, there's no way to actually know this.  This is the 'epistemic conflation' of naturopathy: stating as known what is not known / equating knowledge types / labeling something it is not.

003.b. the TNM Chapter 3:, which Snider also co-authored [Benda isn't a contributor or mentioned], you're told:

"the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] an entire physiologic system [is comprised of] (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.)".

Note: again, naturopathy's science-ejected / science-unsupported IMAGINARY forces are claimed to be responsible for healing, supposedly governing actual physiology -- of course, all falsely labeled as science [physiology!].  

Sorry, but that blog post's lofty language does not impress me: yet, naturopathy's irrationality fascinates me.  It would be a shame if this sCAM got involved with the Haitian people, who are already hugely suffering.