here, I cite from a recent post at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] blog and a release about their journal [see 001., below]; and then I follow their 'myth-fact' model to its logical conclusion [see 002., below]:
001. the AANP writes:
001.a. in the blog post “It’s Time to Bust the Myths About Chocolate” (2011-02-11) by ND Bishop:
“enjoy your chocolate your way, since only you can be the true judge [...after presenting a bunch of] myth [...and] fact [...and the sidebar states] 'Physicians Who Listen' [PWL] is the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] national professional society […] naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [IHA; coded vitalism].”
001.b. in "Natural Medicine Journal Helps Clinicians and Patients Sort Fact From Fiction" (2011-01-18):
"the Natural Medicine Journal provides scientifically valid, patient-centered, peer-reviewed health care information to the medical community [...] when it comes to the field of natural medicine, it's not always easy to discern the credible and reliable research from the unsubstantiated claims [(my irony meter has exploded)...] the go-to resource for cutting-edge information [...for] scientifically valid, patient-centered healthcare information [...] to maintain quality of content, clinical articles go through a rigorous peer-review proces [...] 'the discerning eyes of experts' [...] the journal's high-quality content [...an] extensive editorial board [...] many of the foremost leaders in integrative medicine [...published by] Karolyn A. Gazella, in partnership with the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] launch[ed] Natural Medicine Journal [...] Tina Kaczor, ND, FABNO [is] the journal's medical editor."
002. let's decode IHA and see where it stands in relation to science:
002.a. IHA is the concept of vitalism, if you look at naturopathy preponderantly:
I'm not sure how a group can be professional if they can't be transparent about their essential sectarian belief / figmentation.
Note: you'll notice that naturopathy claims that that life force is “in fact”.
002.b. vitalism is hugely science-ejected, in fact:
so, in naturopathyland, facts and myths / fictions are conflated. Yet, they'll pretend they delineate at their convenience, as with that PWL post. I'm not sure how a group can be professional if their essential claims are false and their mannerisms are so opaque
In such a context of knowledge conflation, I find the NMJ's language preposterous.
