eliminado = Caudal (l/h) x concentración máxima (mg/l)

plays an inconsistent role, along with the meaning of “natural.” Science is sometimes

demonized but is also used with regularity. It is similar to the disparagement of media as “fake

news” and justifying it with a news article to prove it. Because science (very broadly—scientists,

scientific findings, the scientific community, the scientific process) is not used or treated in a consistent way (sometimes the subject of criticism and sometimes the agent of proof), I saw it

accepted or dismissed, shared or avoided, et cetera. This became especially apparent when I read the artifacts central to Genevieve’s Mama Natural persona. For example, in Nourishing Traditions, the author expressed skepticism “When research showed that astronomical

quantities of artificial safrole caused cancer in rats” (Fallon, 1999, p. 589) and suggested “the

FDA was more concerned about eliminating competition for the drug and soft drink industries

than in protecting the populace from a carcinogen” (Fallon, 1999, p. 589). Alternatively, the

findings of a study with a similar methodology which fed cereal to 18 rats in three groups are accepted and shared (Fallon, 1999, p. 469). It spoke even louder when I evaluated Mama

Natural’s scholarly information use—she repeatedly cited from journals like JAMA, Pediatrics,

NEJM, and the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and most often linked to PubMed—a government-funded information retrieval and discovery tool. This was stunning considering one of her video is titled “Mama Natural hulks out on evil food scientist,” and her

belief that the CDC “wants to paint our children with an extremely broad brush when it comes

to vaccinations” (“What We Are Doing About Vaccines for Children Now,” 2016). Despite

distrust of these institutions, their policies, even the generic individuals who conduct this work, she uses their tools and selectively presents their findings.

Over time I did begin to see patterns in when scientific findings were accepted and shared versus when they were criticized and considered suspicious. A code that occurred across artifacts, blog posts, and videos was aligning which became a construct for absorbing

information that confirmed or aligned with preexisting beliefs. For example, take the belief that it is better to eat butter than margarine. A study finding evidence of this would be accepted and

funders examined, and its limitations used to raise significant doubt over its trustworthiness. In

Supernatural Childbirth,Jackie Mize allowed for this as well, “there are usually a few things in

every good source of information that you have to toss out because it doesn’t agree with what you are believing for” (p. 31). Aligning also extended to modifying one’s behavior to “align” with

the principles of this lifestyle.

This pattern of behavior out of context is not particularly concerning, scientists also read papers and consider the findings and limitations in line with their pre-existing knowledge. They are also known to resist evidence, findings, and theories that contradict their own

epistemological identities and oppose those whose work threatens paradigmatic shift. For example, take the Semmelweis effect which is discussed in The Business of Being Born and by

Ina May Gaskin. This was a distressing historical case of a physician realizing that physicians’

lack of hygiene caused women to die in childbirth—but the doctor was ignored and ostracized, women continued to die, and it took decades for his life-saving changes to be enacted (Gaskin, 2003). While this behavior is similar, it is not the same. Semmelweis was alone and his findings were ahead of the theory that explained them, his peers threatened or offended by his ideas. The findings and theories this worldview rejects have more evidence and scientific consensus. One could also consider it a simple case of confirmation bias, where individuals accept

information that reinforces what they already believe. I think both are at work here, but they do not explain everything I observed—particularly the tolerance or openness to behaviors one did not personally endorse or exhibit. When Genevieve had her placenta encapsulated but

Natural,” n.d.). Rather than crudely using information to confirm only her own experience, there was an allowance for range and difference of opinion, interpretation, and experience.

In this worldview, natural functions much like an epistemology. In the way a researcher

may be a positivist or a constructivist, Genevieve is a “naturalist.” Surprisingly, Mama Natural

avoids directly defining what natural means to her. Avoiding definition is a canny strategy to allow the label to be unlimited. Limiting was another code that emerged across all evidence streams. Limiting meant confining the relevance and legitimacy of information. For example, when Genevieve asserts that vaccines have saved countless lives, and then adds “other factors

have “saved” lives in regards to infectious disease like better sanitation, clean water, and good

nutrition” (“What We Are Doing About Vaccines for Children Now,” 2016) she is limiting the

information’s power.

When I debriefed with a chiropractor who avoids vaccines and pursues a natural

lifestyle, he defined natural as “a state of being of an organism that s well-adapted to its

environment, a way to describe a relationship between an organism and its environment, a well-adapted relationship” also “something left alone and unaltered by man.” Within that

definition all information that supports and aligns with this view is inherently considered more trustworthy, information disputing this view undergoes significant scrutiny and suspicion. It is similar to a positivist epistemology except it is not the knowledge that is discovered, it is a lifestyle and set of choices that are championed. Within this worldview, there is knowledge, but

it is “natural” and information is not so much constructed, discovered or found, but unearthed. There is a “natural” way of doing things, a way that “nature” intended, and all information is

interpreted through this lens, nearly all choices made to align with it.