Overheard from the 210th annual emergency meeting of the Society for Evidence-Free Healing.
Chair: The meeting will come to order.
Some Dude: Seconded.
Chair: Um, I’m the Chair. I don’t need a “second”.
Some Other Dude: That sounds like an oppressive application of the dominant paradigm.
Chair: Fine, fine. Would anyone object coming to order? No? Thank you very much.
While it may seem to many of you that we have made great strides in having our ancient, holistic healing methods given an official stamp of approval (and perhaps Medicare reimbursement) we have some very troubling developments.
The forces of so-called science-based medicine are starting to rally. In fact, they are actively opposing our efforts to set up shop in universities, hospitals, and government.
Some Dude: That’s so not cool. How are they doing this?
SOD: If I may?
SOD: They are trying to hold us to a certain type of oppressive standard. They are demanding “evidence” of the efficacy of our methods. When presented with the evidence, they always have another excuse for why our evidence isn’t good enough.
First, they are trying to tell us that our patients’ experiences are not valid evidence. This clearly demeans our patients, and belittles our experiences…
OD: You have to be kidding me! What could be more important than what the patient in front of you says?
SOD: It may sound crazy but they want us to actually publish our stories. And then when we go ahead a put something in Medical Hypotheses, they go and, what was it they call it? Oh yeah, they “move the goalposts” and demand even more evidence.
To quote one of our esteemed Leaders:
Although validation of the individual modalities used by naturopathic physicians such as nutrition and herbal medicine is important in establishing the usefulness of these therapies, it does not evaluate the eclectic approach of the discipline. The method of healing is not always consistent from patient to patient, which makes naturopathic medicine difficult and expensive to study. Consequently, at present, the evidence supporting the use of multiple concurrent complementary therapies remains almost completely empiric in nature.
Chair: You see? We cannot be bound by their definitions and standards. They fail to recognize the special nature of our art; one that recognizes only individuals and their experiences, and not heartless statistics.
What we need is a way to get at these “evidence monkeys” when they’re young. Dude?
SD: I have implemented a program to bring speakers to medical schools to indoct..er…educate these young minds before they become hardened.
SOD: And how is it going?
Chair: This is where the good news comes in…