Monday, December 5, 2016

Changelog 2016-12-09 and ND Video

here, I summarize recent additions to my public naturopathy database.  I also link to an ND's video each changelog, quote from, and tag the video in some detail:

[Mission emphasis: I do this continuous exercise to expose the inherent fraud that naturopathy is logically, academically, commercially, legislatively / politically and clinically.  Hugely misleading category labels such as "science based" and "evidence based" "nonsectarian" are being placed upon what truly is science-exterior and even more so disproven sectarian / quack nonsense!  Then, the largest of betrayals toward the public occurs with highly orchestrated '.gov' endorsements of naturopaths as "licensed" and "professional."  Beware, the naturopathic licensed falsehood racket marches on!]

001. added:

the vitalism [science-ejected subset naturopathy] claims of:

ND Babin;
ND Baker;
ND Baldwin-Sayre;
NDs Barnow and Posmantur;

ND Block;

NDs Breen and Weiner;

the International Congress on Naturopathic Medicine;

Friday, December 2, 2016

Homeopathy Must State It Doesn't Work - Royal Society of Chemistry

here, the Royal Society of Chemistry on the 2016 FTC ruling on homeopathy:

001. Emma Stoye reports at, in "Homeopathic ‘Medicines’ Will Have to State They Don’t Work" (2016-11-23):

"over the counter homeopathic remedies sold in the US will now have to come with a warning that they are based on outdated theories ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the product works’. Failure to do so will mean the makers of homeopathic remedies will risk running afoul of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  The agency argues that unsupported health claims included in the marketing for some of these remedies are in breach of laws that prohibit deceptive advertising or labelling of over the counter drugs. The body has released an enforcement policy statement clarifying that homeopathic drugs are not exempt from rules that apply to other health products when it comes to claims of efficacy and should not be treated differently [...] it adds that the FTC will ‘carefully scrutinise the net impression of [over the counter] homeopathic advertising or other marketing … to ensure that it adequately conveys the extremely limited nature of the health claim being asserted’";

hear, hear.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

My Request to the FTC About Naturopathy Doctorates' False Science Categorical Label

here, just another request to the FTC:

001. as a comment to the FTC article "OTC Homeopathic Drugs: Established FTC Proof Standards Apply" that recently went up, I wrote [I've added hypertext links the the version below]:

“The Naturocrit Podcast and Blog:

This is great news, particularly in terms of consumer informed consent:

since the FDA was hamstring (or unwilling), you stepped up to the plate in terms of marketplace governance.

I am interested in an FTC opinion regarding:

a) fully-accredited (actually multiply-accredited) in-residence naturopathy degrees in the U.S. that claim, contrary to this enforcement policy for homeopathy for instance, that homeopathy and kind is squarely SCIENCE

b) and also, actually, specifically, that the supernatural is squarely SCIENCE, and what clearly is implausible and without evidence is squarely SCIENCE.

I've been writing letters for years:

like the FDA, it seems that Federal and States' Departments of Education and Consumer Protection either are

a) hamstrung, committed-colluding, or simply do not care

b) about this egregious, unmerchantable product on the market called 'a naturopathy doctorate' that has Title IV access though academically CATEGORICALLY fraudulent.

There are lots of 'shoulds' to ask, such as should:

AANMC-AANP naturopathy be allowed to falsely MARKET the contents and activities of naturopathy as categorically / broadly SCIENCE?

The Naturocrit Podcast is on iTunes.


002. the comment might be approved for the above FTC page by FTC. The article is attribututed to:

Lesley Fair, "a Senior Attorney with the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, where she has represented the FTC in numerous investigations of deceptive advertising and consumer fraud."

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 012d2 [s02e02d2] MP3 Link

here, in this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 012, aka s02e02, titled "Preponderant and Universal Medical Ethical Codes and North American Naturopathy's Transgressions", I'll be looking at general professional ethical commitments and specifically modern medicine's ethical commitments, and comparing those stringencies to naturopathy's 'anything goes ethical laxity and required fraudulence'.

In this Episode 012d2 aka s02e02d2, which is the second third of the Episode's Part Four, I cover: a recent piece by ND Wiancek claiming naturopathy's homeopathy is categorically science, a 2011 paper by Caulfield and Rachul that surveyed Canadian NDs' sites and found them to be replete with therapies that lack scientific support, and the 2002 MCNA naturopathy proponentry paper by NDs Smith and Logan that categorically falsely labels naturopathy science.  I will also delve into some of that 2002 article's supporting references: