Wednesday, July 27, 2016

A 'Now Open' 2016 Letter To Elsevier Regarding Science Degradation

here, a recent query to publisher Elsevier:

001. in an email I'll term "A Letter To Elsevier Regarding Science Degradation", I recently wrote:


To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to request comment regarding a long-standing categorical claim that has appeared in a published article of the Medical Clinics of North America which I think is false.

Let me provide some background.

Naturopathy is a subject I've been researching for almost twenty years, including my four years of attendance at an in-residence North American naturopathic 'medical' school in Connecticut.

As part of my research, I publish a podcast about naturopathy and its relationship or lack of relationship to medicine and science, in terms of both epistemology and ethics.

Currently, I am in the midst of writing, recording and publishing Episode 012, which is titled "Preponderant and Universal Medical Ethical Codes and North American Naturopathy's Transgressions"

[see ].

Your MCNA article from 2002, that I feature prominently in this Episode, is titled appropriately
"Naturopathy" and here is the citation

[see ]:
Here is the problem, as I see it, and I'll briefly formulate it based upon what I'll call
'preponderant sources':a) Notice the language from your article "with all other branches of medical science", which is a categorical claim that naturopathy is a subset of science. I've checked the language of this abstract with the bound / paper-based article, which I own, and it is the same language the naturopath-authors use in their summary within the article. This "branches" claim, by the way, is quite typical for naturopathy. Here is one of the ND granting schools stating it currently 

[see ].

b) What isn't disclosed in your article, and by naturopathy also, is this illogical situation:

b1) Science is claimed categorically upon 'the naturopathic';b2) In their own words, globally, naturopathy is based upon a "vital force (vis vitalis)" which has been for-decades science-ejected. Just this June 2016, the World Naturopathy Federation, which includes the AANMC which is a consortia of North American naturopathy schools including SCNM that I've included a link to above, published their "Naturopathic Root's Report" and that language
specifically that I have just quoted

[see either 1.pdf
or the curated

The authors of your naturopathy article are graduates of an AANMC school;

c) The Next Generation Science Standards actually chose vital force / vitalism / vis
vitalis as an EPITOME of the science-ejected. You can easily find this at The National
Academies Press, in the publication "A Framework for K- 12 Science Education:
Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)"

[see ]

which was authored by the Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, the Board on Science Education, the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and the National Research Council. I would like comment regarding this situation, and that could include your current editorial staff, the original editor of the issue, and the ND authors of the article.

How can what is based upon the science-ejected essentially categorically be termed "science", and specifically "medical science"?

How do we get this nonsense to make sense?

One of the biggest problems I see is pollution of the MEDLINE database by a false categorization, and an unnecessary degradation of scientific integrity.

I thank you for your time, and your consideration of this issue.


Bridgeport, CT"

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

The Naturocrit Podcast - s02e02c1.2 [Episode 012c1.2] - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the second part of the first half of Part Three of Episode 012 of The Naturocrit Podcast [or Season 02 Episode 02], aka Episode 012c1.2:

001. the Episode 012c1.2 script and annotations:

Standard Introduction:

Welcome to, as that robot voice says, The Naturocrit Podcast, and thank you for boldly listening.

What ARE we even talking about?

Well, this podcast series is my take on naturopathic medicine, an area I've been studying for about twenty years, including my time in so-called 'scientific nonsectarian naturopathic medical school'.

My approach is a pairing of scientific skepticism and a deep knowledge of naturopathy's intimate details.

In previous episodes of this series, I established that naturopathy is, essentially, a kind of knowledge blending, misrepresentation, and irrationality.

I have termed naturopathy both 'an epistemic conflation falsely posing itself as an epistemic delineation' and 'the naturopathillogical':

the science-exterior is mixed with what is scientific, then that whole muddle is absurdly claimed to be science as an entire category, while particular sectarian science-ejected oath-obligations and -requirements are coded or camouflaged, therein effectively disguising naturopathy's system of beliefs in public view.

Naturopathy's ultimate achievement is a profound erosion of scientific integrity and freedom of belief packaged in the marketing veneers "natural, holistic, integrative and alternative" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

Episode Synopsis:

In this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 12, aka s02e02, titled "Preponderant and Universal Medical Ethical Codes and North American Naturopathy's Transgressions", I've been looking at modern medicine's ethical commitments, and comparing those stringencies to naturopathy's 'anything goes' laxity.

In this Episode 012c1.2, which is the second half of the first part of the third part of Episode 012, you'll have to forgive me, I cover:

a 1997 AANP-published book and a 2016 World Naturopathic Federation survey,

the current AANP 2012 Code of Ethics,

the Hawaii ND law and its ND ethics and ND standard of care,

a recent Hawaii NPR radio interview of a naturopath by a board certified internist,

and I visit the web pages of three Hawaii NDs.

Monday, July 25, 2016

Friends of Science in Medicine 2016 - 'Acupuncture is a Theatrical Placebo'

here, bad news for Chinese medievalism:

001. Friends of Science in Medicine just published "Is There Any Pace for Acupuncture in 21st Century Medical Practice?" (2016) which states:

"acupuncture has been studied for decades and the evidence that it can provide clinical benefits continues to be weak and inconsistent. There is no longer any justification for more studies. There is already enough evidence to confidently conclude that acupuncture doesn’t work. It is merely a theatrical placebo based on pre-scientific myths.  All health care providers who accept that they should base their treatments on scientific evidence whenever credible evidence is available, but who still include acupuncture as part of their health interventions, should seriously revise their practice. There is no place for acupuncture in Medicine";

 hear, hear.

Friday, July 22, 2016

Australia's Sting's Oz Homeopath's Fake Vaccines

here, an Oz sting on that fakest of fakenesses, homeopathy: 

001. Rose Brennan at reports in "Brisbane Homeopath Cyena Caruana Selling Vaccinations and Boosters Made From Refined Sugar" (2016-07-22):

"a Brisbane woman [...] homeopath Cyena Caruana [...] selling homeopathic vaccinations or boosters for diseases including whooping cough, polio, meningococcal and malaria has been found to be selling nothing but refined sugar [...]";

because that's what homeopathy is. 

"the Courier-Mail obtained Ms Caruana’s vaccination and booster pilules for adults traveling to Morocco, Egypt and Europe from her Homeopathy at Home business. Expert pharmacists at the Queensland University of Technology then tested them, revealing them to be sugar [...]";

physical evidence through a postal system is always great evidence. 

"Australian Medical Association of Queensland president Dr Chris Zappala slammed the sale of the sugar products and called for an investigation by the health ombudsman [...] 'it is crazy and it’s very dangerous' [...]";

it certainly is both.