The Michael Coren Show Naturopathy Debate 2010-06 - Selected Quotes - ND Tardik

here, I cite from the 2010-06-22 Michael Coren Show episode, which centered on CFI-CASS vs. NDs [Dr. Behzad Elahi and Michael Kruse vs. NDs Rouchotas and Tardik]!  This post concerns statements by ND Tardik:

Tardik, G.  (ND CCNM) stated:

"[concerning what he does as an ND] there’s lots of semantics.  You see complementary medicine, alternative medicine, now the buzz word is probably integrative [medicine...which is specifically] settings where you have practitioners from various disciplines working together [3.40...] we work together as a team for best outcome [5.12...] we work in a team environment [5.12...] it comes down to choice [4.38...] we do details. I’m a naturopathic doctor [5.03...] the context [...] the details are very important [5.39...Coren] there’s a certain text [...] there’s a primary work, a selection of primary works that you go by, and that you learn by, and that you study by? [21.20...ND Tardik] yeah, it’s called PubMed which is the universal database for all medical research [21.30...] I don’t know anything about the memory of water.  I’m probably more skeptical of homeopathy than you are [he said to the skeptics...] we rigorously analyze the research.  And what we do in practice, many times, is based on the very same evidence that any medical doctor would use [23.11...] the greatest amount of practitioners of natural medicine are medical doctors [44.10...] we’re not oblivious to the fact that naturopathic doctors have a long way to go [41.14…] we look at the science." 

Notes regarding:

-"integrative medicine [...and] work[ing] together as a team for best outcome", I can't figure out what is "best" as an outcome when regular medicine is positioned alongside the huge absurdity known as naturopathy -- as if they are 

equally legitimate [slumming!];

-"it comes down to choice", which was repeated many times.  When absurdity is compared to something rational, there really isn't  a choice because the facts then speak for themselves.  With naturopathy irrationally conflating knowledge that is scientific with complete and utter medieval figmentation, modern medicine is ahead by leaps and bounds;

-"we do details. I’m a naturopathic doctor [...] the context [...] the details are very important", well, if that were true and details where important, naturopathy would transparently explain itself, its context -- but, how do you stay in business then when you explain to the public that you are based upon an irrational conflation of knowledge type falsely labeled as a specific knowledge type!;

-"it’s called PubMed which is the universal database for all medical research", this was a surprising answer for me.  I'd expected the answer to be the "Textbook of Natural Medicine."  Instead, we're told that naturopathy is based upon perponderant medical science consensus, which sure as hell is the OPPOSITE of what the essentially naturopathic is;

-"I’m probably more skeptical of homeopathy than you are [...] we rigorously analyze the research [...we're] based on the very same evidence that any medical doctor would use", well, this actually SHOCKED me.  It must be hard to be ND Tardik.  Homeopathy is CENTRAL to naturopathy, and its philosophical creed is based in part of homeopathic philosophy.  Homeopathy is premised, as naturopathy is, on a vitalistic figmentation.  Is ND Tardik denying the principle premise that his ND oath is centered around?  The position offered instead is one of 'typical evidential rigor.' It reminds me of the "same basic medical sciences" label that naturopathy claims as the BASIS for itself, only to then add their overarching science-ejected figmentations from Cloud Cuckoo Land;

-"the greatest amount of practitioners of natural medicine are medical doctors", is an odd statement.  This may be true, but it doesn't make them right.  As far as I see it, "natural medicine" is inherently irrational and unethical: e.g., labeling the science-ejected sectarian as science-based nonsectarian.  I actually think the regular medical community, at least on paper e.g. the AMA Code of Ethics, polices regular doctors whereas the ND community actively trains their members into naturopathy's opaque, 'hide the true naturopathic and label it instead as science' mode;

-"we’re not oblivious to the fact that naturopathic doctors have a long way to go", is another shocker.  I haven't seen the ND community at all attempt to weed out its woo from the aspects of healthcare that are legitimate that it has subsumed.  How do you get there if you ain't even spinning your wheels? E.g., my naturopathic alma mater claims that science includes the nonscientific, and engages in commerce in that context.  I don't see ANYONE on the ND side making strides towards fair trade standards in naturopathic education, which would be a beginning towards bringing up naturopathy's academic standards to the actual professional rigor that they are already supposed to meet.  You have more rights on a used car lot!;

-"we look at the science", bullshit.  It is moreso this way: science is a commercially successful label that we place upon the science-ejected naturopathic.  We cherry-pick Pubmed citations, but on the preponderance, the essentially naturopathic is indeed a nonscientific belief system masquerading as 'science-based medicine.'

The Michael Coren Show Naturopathy Debate 2010-06 - Selected Quotes of ND Rouchotas

here, I cite from the 2010-06-22 Michael Coren Show that was a debate between CFI and CASS's Dr. Behzad Elahi and Michael Kruse, and NDs Rouchotas and Tardik! The focus of this post are the not-very-surprising-things said by ND Rouchotas:

001. ND Rouchotas stated [I've tried to transcribe this as accurately as possible, all mistakes are my own responsibility, of course; I'll check against my video screen capture master if mistakes are pointed out]:

"[…to the moderator] we’ve nothing to hide, sir [3.15...] first and foremost, we want to take to time to differentiate someone with the qualifications of a naturopathic doctor from other people who masquerade as qualified complementary healthcare providers.  A naturopathic doctor has undergone no less than seven years of, and usually more years of post-secondary training [...] what differentiates our profession from many others is that we are given the legal right to make a diagnosis.  Now, what would be different in treatment? [...] we’re very apt to use a completely different array of therapeutic strategies [6.59…] the Naturopathy Act has just been established under the RHPA, Regulated Healthcare Practitioners Act  [...] sir, what makes you think that modern naturopathic medicine isn’t progressing? [14.41 and cites papers he’s read by Dr. E...] I’d be much more excited to discuss the evidence base as it exists toward naturopathy [19.19...] provide us an example of something we do that is not evidence based [...] are you up to speed on that? We are [25.03...] Artemisia has some interesting evidence for prostate cancer [25.57...] you are not making reasonable arguments.  You’re just not [28.02...] you giggle! [...] read, sir. Read [36.12...] this is well-entrenched science [36.50...] we are healthcare professionals, sir [38.55...] sir, again it’s about choice [...] and it is not true to say that it is not even close [44.38]."

Notes regarding:

-"we have nothing to hide" and "masquerade", I'm wondering why at Rouchotas's practice web site explanation page "Philosophy", naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism isn't overtly explained even though one of his ND colleagues at that same practice is author of a book on just that?  Oh, I think hiding that premise -- the essentially naturopathic 'vitalism that dare not speak its name' -- is quite a naturopathic modus operandi;

-"take the time to differentiate" and "no less than seven years of, and usually more years of post-secondary training", there actually is a distinction to be made between the science-supported and the hugely science-ejected (much as there is a distinction between noon and midnight) and naturopathy's essential vitalism is actually in undergraduate texts as SCIENCE-EJECTED;

-"profession", "we are healthcare professionals" an actual profession is obligated to the best interests of the client [fiduciary duty, credat emptor].  How are ND clients' best interests served when the we're not being dutifully informed about that 'naturopathic science-ejected essential figmentation' in the first place?  That one of the reasons this blog exists!;

-and "it’s about choice" and "it is not true to say that it is not even close", informed consent is a basic ethical requirement within modern medicine: the patient decides after all relevant details are disclosed. The real choice that would be honestly offered, I imagine, by an honest ND [!!!] would go like this: either you can go the medical route which is based upon the best current scientific evidence, or you can go the naturopathic route which has conflated the idea of evidence with nonevident sectarian figmentations -- and has labeled the whole thing science and nonsectarian;

-"the Naturopathy Act" and "RHPA", it mistakenly labels naturopathy a "profession",

-"what makes you think that modern naturopathic medicine isn’t progressing?", well, for starters, it is back in the 1500s as evidenced by the fact that it includes, within the label science, the supernatural -- conflating all knowledge types when in fact in this day an age there is delineation of such;

-"evidence", "the evidence base as it exists toward naturopathy" and "provide us an example of something we do that is not evidence based", well, the essentially naturopathic is indeed science-ejected [e.g. no vitalism in science, or supernaturalism] which is even worse than being science-unsupported;

-"are you up to speed", well, if such were true for naturopathy, it would stop using the false labels of science and professional upon itself;

-"you are not making reasonable arguments", I've never seen so as much nonsense as naturopathy and its claim that a sectarian figment-belief amalgam is an objective scientific fact;

-"read, sir. Read", strange, simply strange.  If any group is unread about the contents, methods, and limits of science -- it is naturopathy.

002. ND Rouchotas states at his practice, where he practices with 4 other NDs:

002.a. at his bio. page [vsc 2010-06-27]:

"Dr. Philip Rouchotas, BSc, MSc. ND [...] Philip graduated from CCNM in 2004, preceded by an honors undergraduate degree, and Masters of Science degree, both in Nutritional Science from the University of Guelph."

Note: science, science, science.

002.b. and the homepage for that practice states [vsc 2010-06-27]:

"the practitioners bring a strong scientific and energetic [see 002.d. for what this actually means] understanding to patient care. They also work with other health care professionals, as needed, to provide an integrated treatment plan."

Note: what is really being said is that science and vitalistic nonscientific nonsense have been blended here, and we are professionals -- though we can't, for the life of use, distinguish the hugely science-ejected from the actually science-supported.

002.c. the practice's page "Our Philosophy" states [vsc 2010-06-27]:

"our philosophy. Achieving health goals is a process and a journey. It involves becoming aware of the way your life impacts your health and understanding the changes, healthy lifestyle patterns and support that are the most beneficial for you. The body has a wonderful ability for self-healing. At times it is important to support this process and to recognize what needs to be changed. As trained health practitioners, our intention is to identify the healing strength of your body, to recognize obstacles and to recommend steps to initiate your body's innate ability to heal and/or to improve the quality of your life. We welcome the opportunity to walk with you on your journey to health and wellness."

Note: coded vitalism galore.

002.d. at the practice's page "Naturopathic Medicine: Philosophy and Principles" [vsc 2010-06-28], naturopathy's premises are supposedly explained:

"philosophy and principles: first, do no harm; support the natural healing process of the body [coded vitalism]; identify and address the root cause of disease; treat the whole person [coded supernaturalism]; teach the basis of health and self care; focus on prevention."

Note: and that's all you get.  Coding, coding, coding.

002.d. at the practice's page "Clinic Services: Energetic Therapies" [vsc 2010-06-28], they equate the 'energetic' with the 'vitalistic':

"energetic therapies. All living things have a 'vital' force and unique energetic pattern. When energy moves freely, health is present. When it is obstructed, stagnation occurs resulting in pain, discomfort or disease. The quality of life is directly impacted by the quality of your vital force. The focus of energetic therapies is to assess the body from an energetic perspective and then to employ different techniques that move energy blockages to improve the quality of your life [...per] energy which increases or decreases health [...] the energetic therapies that are practiced at Naturopathic Foundations Health Clinic include: polarity therapy, cranial sacral therapy and reiki [the NDs also label their homeopathy 'energetic', but I'll deal with that in the next Naturocrit post]."

Note: vitalism, vitalism, vitalism.  Overall, pardon my language: what a mindfuck.

003. well, NDs in debates aren't surprising, at least not in the case of ND Rouchotas.  The wild rolling eyes and the chair wobbling were delightful.  I haven't seen that kind of theatrical zealotry and squirminess in quite sometime.