Singh & Ernst's "Trick or Treatment" - Missing Naturopathy's Essential Premise Entirely:

here, I critique the authors of this very good book for not being explicit regarding naturopathy's vitalistic, science-ejected, sectarian premise:

001. in "Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine" (ISBN 0393066614; 2008) authors Simon Singh (PhD{physics} ?) and Edzard Ernst (MD ?, PhD ?) state:

001.a. regarding naturopathy:

"naturopathy [...attempts to] promote self-healing [...] naturopaths are convinced of nature's own healing power (vis medicatrix naturae), a gift that all living organisms are believed to possess [p.318]."

Note: that's it, in terms of explaining the 'essential premise' of naturopathy, according to the authors! We can do better, and provide explicit "undeniable fact."

001.b. regarding the nonscientific status of vitalism:

"[acupuncture's] life force (ch'i) [p.040...] vital energy or life force [p.043...& homeopathy's] vital force [p.104...] there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of a vital force [p.105...the premise] makes no sense at all from a modern scientific point of view [p.148...such] life forces [like] yin and yang [...] are not a reality but merely the products of an ancient Chinese philosophy [...and in light of modern scientific knowledge, they're] implausible [p.326]."

Note: the authors are in agreement with the preponderance of the scientific community -- it is an "undeniable fact" that vitalism is HUGELY nonscientific. Both acupuncture and homeopathy -- and their requisite vitalism -- are mandatory courses within AANMC ND granting institutions. And though Singh and Ernst's naturopathy definition didn't mention vitalism, vitalism is the 'essential premise' of naturopathy:

002. what's missing from this book -- explicit mention that science-ejected vitalism is naturopathy's central premise:

002.a. naturopathy is essentially vitalistic.

002.b. therein, naturopathy 's coded, vitalistic, essential premise -- often disguised, as in this book, as something like "nature's own healing power (vis medicatrix naturae)" -- is hugely science-ejected.

003. overall note:

I wish this very good book had done better in terms of its naturopathy entry!

Parsing Encarta's Definition of Vitalistic Medicine, 2008:

Encarta has quite a confused and confusing definition of "vitalistic medicine", wherein scientific terms are used to describe the scientifically-ejected:

001. Microsoft's Encarta encyclopedia states in "Vitalistic Medicine":

"vitalistic medicine, in alternative medicine, [is the] generic term for a range of therapies based on the theory that disease is engendered by energy deficiency in the organism as a whole or a dynamic dysfunction in the affected part. Such [energy] deficiencies or [dynamic] dysfunctions are regarded as preceding the biochemical effects in which disease becomes manifest and upon which orthodox medicine focuses. Acupuncture, crystal therapy, homeopathy, magnet therapy, and naturopathy are all vitalistic therapies."

Note: I do agree that acupuncture, homeopathy, and naturopathy are essentially vitalistic as therapeutic modes, but, this Encarta definition is predicated on this falsehood:

a "theory" of the vitalistic, of a "dynamic" process / "energy" "preceding biochemical effects."

002. this is exceptionally WRONG in terms of science:

a) energy is actually an a posteriori [!!!] physical / biochemical / MEASURABLE property that does not precede the physical world / biochemical BY DEFINITION -- because it IS a physiochemical / worldly property. What does precede the physical world, by definition, is metaphysical and idealistic woo -- and lots of other a priori imaginings / concepts / musings / fantasies -- such as the vitalistic.

b) a theory, in the scientific science, explains robust FACTUAL observations [per a particular type of a posteriori knowledge] that are inherently of the physical world. A theory without factual evidence is no theory at all -- like the vitalistic -- scientifically speaking:

to quote Wolfgang Pauli, such nonsense "isn't even wrong" it's so wrong.

c) the dynamic is, in the context of alternative medicine, an alias for vitalistically-based a priori conceptions (e.g.):

"energy deficiency" and "dynamic dysfunction" are vitalistic and have nothing to do with science.

003. overall note:

the misuse of the terms energy and theory by Encarta is quite obvious, to the scientifically informed. Energy and theory are quite scientifically-sound, but 'the vitalistic' / 'the dynamic' a priori is actually in quite an opposite context:

scientifically-ejected.

Therein, this Encarta definition is quite absurd in that it explains the PROFOUNDLY nonscientific a priori with scientific language as if it is categorically a posteriori and scientific.

There's a lesson herein: this is what the deception called alternative medicine does by definition --

it engages in what I'll term "epistemic conflation" aka pseudoscience:

it labels -- in terms of knowledge type -- that which is profoundly outside of science as robustly within science.

Decoding Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - Connecticut Center For Health 2008, UBCNM, AMA:

Usually, practicing NDs don't honestly / transparently describe / fully disclose naturopathy's central science-ejected belief premise of vitalism, instead they mislabel, code and miscategorize this article of faith, violating a central ethical and legal obligation in a 'patient-physician interaction,' informed consent. Here's an example:

the NDs at the Connecticut Center For Health [CTCFH] state the central principle of naturopathy [see 001., below]; the Connecticut ND-granting school, the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM], expressly communicates naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise [see 002., below]; while the concept of vitalism is profoundly science-ejected [see 003., below]; so, the so-called profession of naturopathy does not abide by one of the central ethical obligations of medicine, informed consent -- but, I imagine a truly ethical description an ND might give of what they do [see 004., below]:

001. CTCFH states in "Naturopathic Principles":

"naturopathy and naturopathic medicine are based on the following principles: [#1, the primary principle:] the healing power of nature [HPN]. Nature acts powerfully, through healing mechanisms in the body and mind, to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic physicians work to restore and support these inherent healing systems when they have broken down, by using methods, medicines and techniques that are in harmony with natural processes."

Note: HPN is not explained in terms of vitalism AT ALL -- which is what it actually contextually is to NDs. The NDs are: Germain (NCNM), Liva (NCNM), Samuelson (NCNM), Kane (Bastyr), Louden (NCNM), & Hunter (Bastyr). Why the ruse?

002. naturopathy's essential vitalism:

oo2.a. UBCNM states in "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, the Healing Power of Nature":

"the healing power of nature, viz medicatrix naturae [...] nature heals through the response of the life force."

Note: so, essentially / contextually inherent healing systems=HPN=vitalism. The school improperly labels such as science: fascinating.

oo2.b. CTCFH states such vitalism in "What Is Acupuncture":

"the practice of acupuncture is based on the understanding that a vital energy, referred to as 'qi' [...] flows along channels or meridians throughout our bodies. When this qi becomes blocked or does not flow freely, it can cause disharmony or disease. In order to correct this disharmony, the qi must be stimulated so that it moves freely again. Acupuncture uses very fine needles to stimulate specific points located on the body, in order to influence the qi of the body."

Note: nowhere is it stated that this is vitalism and as such is IMAGINARY / science-ejected, and mislabeling the imaginary as 'energy' is quite pernicious in terms of the integrity of science.

003. I've amassed various citations regarding the nonscientific status of naturopathy's essential vitalism here.

004. regarding informed consent:

004.a. the principle of informed consent, via the AMA's "Informed Consent":

"informed consent [...is] a process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient's authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention [...] the physician providing or performing the treatment and/or procedure [...] should disclose and discuss with your patient: the patient's diagnosis, if known; the nature and purpose of a proposed treatment or procedure [...] this communications process [...] is both an ethical obligation and a legal requirement spelled out in statutes and case law in all 50 states [...] providing the patient relevant information has long been a physician's ethical obligation, but the legal concept of informed consent itself is recent."

004.b. what NDs could say, in order to abide by this MANDATORY ethical and legal principle of disclosure:

"as NDs we treat an imaginary / putative 'purposeful life spirit' figment aka qi aka 'life force' aka 'vital energy' aka 'vis medicatrix naturae' that we believe is the bioagency responsible for your life, sickness and health -- a concept that is truly profoundly science-ejected, yet, is the foundation for our worldview, one that we mislabel as 'science and not a belief system' because, honestly, accurately stating that our belief-based pseudomedicine is truly an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience' is quite bad for business."

Note: I think it's obvious why NDs generally do not disclose the true nature of their central sectic belief premise / article of faith -- that 'old-time vitalism that's as scientific as the Tooth Fairy' -- and instead engage in miscontextualizing / camouflage / nondisclosure:

$$$$.

Obama & Creationism / ID, NCSE-NABT & Scientific Integrity, & Naturopathy's Vitalistic Woo:

President-elect Barack Obama is on record favoring upholding the integrity of science education, as reported by The Guardian [see 001., below]; the National Center For Science Education [NCSE] recently published a collection of position statements from major science organizations as regards "scientific integrity" [see 002., below]; naturopathy's vitalistic woo falsely labeled as scientific when truly profoundly science-ejected is a textbook example of a threat to the integrity of science [see 003., below]:

001. The Guardian's Adam Rutherford reports in "The Evolution of Science Teaching: Keep Creationism Off the Curriculum But Train Teachers To Deal With Questions About Intelligent Design" {2008-11-07}:

"[quoting Obama, likely from the York Daily Record interview of 2008-03-30] 'I believe in evolution, and I believe there's a difference between science and faith [...] they're two different things [...] it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry'

[...and, Rutherford writes, as regards some UK science teachers claiming that creationism is a valid scientific theory] we potentially have one fifth of science teachers who don't understand their subject [their 'blatant science illiteracy'...overall] we have two problems

[...#1] a proportion of science teachers are not fit for purpose [i.e., a situation of 'academic malpractice']. [E.g.,] those who think that creationism and evolution should be considered equally in a scientific context do not understand evolution [...moreover,] they do not understand science and need either to be rigorously re-educated, or removed from the science classroom [!!!]. [Obviously,] the process of teacher training has failed these poor deluded souls, and they should not be allowed to pass on their ignorance to pupils

[...#2] creationism [...] despite clearly being unscientific [...] does have a relationship with the only valid rational explanation of life, namely evolution by natural selection. [So,] science teachers should be able to deal with it in the classroom, succinctly and without endorsing it. Creationism should not be part of the national curriculum for science but should be included in science teacher training [...teachers, therein] can be fully tooled-up to explain why [scientifically speaking] evolution is right and creationism is wrong."

Note: so, claiming the nonscientific [belief / articles of faith & kind] as scientific [what survives scientific scrutiny] 'clouds scientific teaching' / 'undermines scientific integrity' -- according to the President-elect. Rutherford additionally points out that within the ranks of UK teachers there's blatant science illiteracy & academic malpractice, as forms of delusion & ignorance that are just plain factually wrong in the context of science are being claimed to survive scientific scrutiny!

002. NCSE states in "Voices For Evolution" (ISBN 0615204619; 3rd. ed., 2008):

"[per the] National Association of Biology Teachers (1995) [NABT]: Scientific Integrity [...] the data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes.

Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [p.154]."

Note: overall, teaching as science what is profoundly not science is harmful to scientific integrity -- "vitalistic theory" is one of these nonscientific concepts.

003. naturopathy is an example of harming scientific integrity by posing what's profoundly science-ejected as scientific:

naturopathy is explicitly centered / obligated to "vitalistic theory" woo, yet claims to be science, while science has HUGELY ejected vitalistic theory.

004. the math:

when is something [falsely] labeled what it is not...

the absurdity known as naturopathy.

The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism, & UBCNM: Wikipedia 2008:

here's a rather generic citation, from Wikipedia, concerning the HUGE scientific rejection of vitalism [see 001., below], while the University of Bridgeport, expressly vitalistic per their College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM; see 002.a., below] claims that naturopathy is science [see 002.b., below] while "science-based" medical advocates regard naturopathy as a "pseudoscientific cult" [see 003., below]:

001. the Wikipedia article "Philosophy of Biology" [accessed 2008-10-31] states:

"vitalism is the view, rejected by mainstream biologists since the 19th century, that there is a life-force (called the 'vis viva') that has thus far been unmeasurable scientifically that gives living organisms their 'life.' Vitalists often claimed that the vis viva acts with purposes according to its pre-established 'form' (see teleology). Examples of vitalist philosophy are found in many religions. Mainstream biologists reject vitalism on the grounds that it opposes the scientific method [it's antiscientific]. The scientific method was designed as a methodology to build an extremely reliable understanding of the world, that is, a supportable, evidenced understanding. Following this epistemological view, mainstream scientists reject phenomena that have not been scientifically measured or verified, and thus reject vitalism."

Note: vitalism, of any stripe, is scientifically rejected, rejected, rejected -- and blatantly ANTISCIENTIFIC.

002. meanwhile, naturopathy claims vitalism as a basis & an overarching label of science:

002.a. UBCNM states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Six guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, the Healing Power of Nature, Viz Medicatrix Naturae" currently [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"six guiding principles: guiding principle #1, the healing power of nature, viz medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: this is also in UB's 2006-2008 catalog as:

"Principles and Practice 512 [...] the philosophical foundations of naturopathic medicine,
which form the basis for therapeutic intervention [...our] vitalistic medicine [...and] Principles and Practice 522 [...our premise of] the vital force and its role [as bioagency] in the healing process [p.291]".

002.b. UBCNM labels naturopathy overall "science":

002.b1. in "College of Naturopathic Medicine", currently [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care — an art, science and practice of preventing, diagnosing and treating conditions of the human mind and body [...within our] Health Science Center."

Note: this "science" label is also used by UB at "UB Spotlight: Health Science Programs" [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs are housed in the Fones School of Dental Hygiene, the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Acupuncture Institute, and the Nutrition Institute."

Note: UB claims that this ridiculous basis of 'science-ejected science' meets the standards of 'the professions'!!!

002.b2. in "Dean's Welcome", 2002 archive per the then UBCNM Dean:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician, practicing scientific medicine."

Note: UBCNM currently states this as well in "Today's Naturopathic Medicine" [accessed 2008-10-31]:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician, practicing scientific medicine."

003. Dr. Atwood has written at "Science-Based Medicine" that this 'quite absurd naturopathic medicine thing' is a "pseudoscientific cult" per "Another State Promotes the Pseudoscientific Cult that is 'Naturopathic Medicine'".

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism Premise - Gabriel, N. (ND Bastyr 2000) et al. (ISBN 0977655245; 2008):

this 2008 "integrative medicine" career [mis]guide informs us of 'the essential vitalistic spiritistic belief premise" of 'modern' AANP-CAND-FNPLA naturopathy [a sectarian medical system; see 001., below] -- a premise which is profoundly science-ejected [see 002., below] WHILE naturopathy labels itself 'firmly scientific' [see 003., below] and 'not a belief system' [see 004., below] {welcome to the naturopathic ABSURD!!!}:

001. Gabriel, N. (ND Bastyr 2000), Wengell, D. (MBA Emory) state in "Educational Opportunities in Integrative Medicine: The A-to-Z Healing Arts Guide and Professional Resource Directory" (ISBN 0977655245; 2008):

"Chapter 8: Naturopathic Medicine (ND) [...sidebar] naturopathic medicine is an integrative and vitalistic medical system [...main entry] naturopathic medicine is defined as much by its holistic principles as by its techniques. There are seven principles of modern naturopathy [...#2] respect the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). There is an innate healing force within all life that is always attempting to prevent and / or heal every possible illness [...] so long as this 'life force' flows in a balanced, unimpeded way. Naturopaths help their patients to optimize this innate force [...] most medical systems in place before the rise of modern western medicine [...] were 'vitalistic' in nature, meaning that a spiritual 'vital force' or 'life force' was believed to be both the source of existence and the essential healing force for every person. Ayurveda's 'prana,' Chinese medicine's 'chi,' and Hippocrates' 'humours' are all versions of the vital force [p.120...] naturopathic medicine is an integrative and vitalistic medical system [p.122...per a belief in] life force [p.124]."

Note: the book's title suggests its contents are 'of the professions'! And we are told by the authors, overall, as concerns this particular concept of bioagency -- naturopathy's supernaturalization of healing, aka vitalism:

"belief in this spiritual healing power is termed 'vitalism' [p.016...a putative power which is] unquantifiable in a scientific paradigm [p.175...e.g.: naturopathy's requisite homeopathy is] vitalistic, energetic, invisible, panacea-like, instantaneous, life force manipulating, and inexpensive [p.197]."

So, naturopathy is, make no mistake about it, a belief-centered spirit-manipulating system [shamanistic etc.; or as I'd said when deposed, a "cultic mystical weirdness"].

Also note: the homeopathy that is described above is considered a clinical science by FNPLA naturopathy.

002. keep in mind, as regards vitalism, it is profoundly science-ejected.

003. while, as regards naturopathic self-labeling, these health sectarians insist that they are science-based and this book states, as regards Bastyr University -- THE AUTHOR'S ALMA MATER -- who has already stated in the book that naturopathy is based upon vitalism & supernaturalism beliefs:

"Bastyr University was founded with the intent that science would be a cornerstone of naturopathy not merely a supporting figure [p.121...that Bastyr's context is ] science-based [p.048]."

004. for an AANP et al. 1997 document that absurdly simultaneously states that they are scientific and not a belief system [while essentially of the 'nonscientific science-ejected'], see this per:

"naturopathic physicians are the modern day science-based primary care doctors [...this] is not a belief system."

Note: for similar educational career misguidance from Bastyr directly, wherein they state that they are simultaneously scientific, supernatural and vitalistic [a logical impossibility] see this per:

"Bastyr at a glance [...] Bastyr University [...has] a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...per] the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [shorthand for their vitalism context and 'science-nullifying' 'knowledge-type nullifying' epistemic conflation!...aka, this is] natural medicine."

005. judgment:

"danger, Will Robinson, 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience!!!'"