AANP's Annual "Vis Award" - Honoring Naturopathy's Science-Ejected Basis, 2008:

here, ISYN, I highlight the first annual recipient of "The Vis Award" -- 'Vis' [Latin, 'power / force'] being an abbreviation for naturopathy's essential sectic belief in 'a purposeful life spirit' bioagency, per vitalism, teleology, & spiritism/animism [see 001., below], which naturopathy RIDICULOUSLY claims is scientific [see 002., below], while this belief-cluster is in fact SEVERELY science-ejected [see 003., below]:

oo1. we are informed by naturopath Schor, J. (ND NCNM 1991[?], FABNO ABNO[!]):

001.a. in "About the Doctors":

"in the summer of 2008, Dr. Schor became the first recipient of the Vis Award presented to him by Lise Alschuler, president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP...&] Dr. Schor is serving his second term on the Board of Directors of the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians [OANP...& naturopathy is] the perfect profession."

001.b. in "The Vis Award":

"this August, at the 2008 annual convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Dr. Jacob Schor was both surprised and honored by his colleagues as the first recipient of the Vis Award [...for] living and practicing naturopathic medicine in accordance to what is called the 'vis medicatrix naturae', or healing force of nature. The vis medicatrix naturae, or vis, is one of the fundamental principles that guides and distinguishes the practice of naturopathic medicine. The vis is the belief [!!!] that every living being contains a 'life force' [...] Dr. Schor [...has] a private practice focused on cancer treatment [yikes!!!...& is] a Fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncologists [FABNO; e.g.]."

001.c. in "Ask the Doctor":

"naturopathy is a licensed medical profession [...&] homeopathy fits the philosophical tenets of naturopathy. The medicines work by stimulating the what homeopaths call the vital force or in naturopathic terms the vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature."

Overall 001. note:

so, naturopathy is a BELIEF SYSTEM centered around vitalism, and claims professions-level ethical status.

002. we are informed by Schor's alma mater, NCNM -- right now, 2008-12-14 -- that vitalism [supposedly] survives scientific scrutiny, in "Naturopathic School Information":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that are] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis 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 [...#3] first do no harm -- primum no nocere: the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact [!!!], expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...per] vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: NCNM is the trunk of the North American naturopathic tree. Vitalism is claimed as "in fact", and currenlty able to continually [!!!] survive scientific scrutiny. Naturopathy is claimed to meet the ethical standards of a "profession."

003. well, vitalism is -- in fact -- SEVERELY science-ejected.

004. so:

004.a. q: when is 'sectarian pseudoscience' 'medically professional'?

004.b. q: when is science-illiteracy and actual-expertise the same thing?

004.c. a: naturopathy.

Overall note:

and yikes, what does it mean -- ethically -- to claim cancer-expertise / science-expertise / professions-status when one cannot distinguish between an obvious article of faith / a belief [the superstition of vitalism & kind]...

and what is in fact scientific?

[As the knights say in Stronghold Crusader,

"this is too easy!"].

Dawkins, Orac - On The Nonscientific Status of Vitalism, 2006 & 2008

here, I reference two sources concerning the nonscientific status of vitalism, a famous UK evolutionary biologist and a famous [:)] US surgeon / scientist & blogger from scienceblogs.com:

001. Richard Dawkins writes:

001.a. in "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" [ 2008; ISBN 0199216800]:

"what neither Mendel nor anyone else before 1953 knew was that genes themselves are digital, within themselves [...] life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]."

Note: so, vitalism FINALLY was totally 'not viable' before 1960, in terms of the history of the idea per scientific thought.

001.b. in "The Digital River" from "The Science Book" [2006; ISBN 1841882542]:

"our genetic system [...] there is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes of digital information."

Note: vitalism has NO SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT, yet is claimed as the basis for a supposed medial science at a Connecticut [supposed] University -- right now -- a [supposed] College also centered around a 'supernatural, dualistic' premise, also science unsupported.

002. Orac per Respectful Insolence has written, in "That'll Teach 'Em For Using An Actual Valid Placebo Control" [2008-11-17]:

"I never for a minute considered that the whole rigmarole about 'unblocking' or 'redirecting' the flow of that mystical life force known as qi had anything to do with whether or not acupuncture did or did not have efficacy treating disease or other conditions. That was clearly a holdover from the prescientific medicine times in which most beliefs about the causes of disease involved either the wrath of the gods or vitalism [that is, superstitions!!!], the latter of which is, when you come right down to it, the philosophical basis upon which many 'complementary and alternative' (CAM) modalities are based, especially the so-called 'energy healing' modalities, such as reiki, therapeutic touch, and, of course, acupuncture."

Note: and naturopathy.

003. Are you appalled yet?

Caveat emptor [something I should not have to say about a University program, and about a domain claiming to meet the standards of modern science and medical professionalism].

Naturopathy's Neomedievalism - Mittman 1997 (ND, DHANP, AANMC Pres.):

here, I demonstrate the 'epistemic conflation sectarianism-absurdity' which epitomizes so-called 'modern scientific' naturopathic medicine -- the combining and mislabeling of knowledge types as if they are the same; that is, claiming that certain types of nonscientific knowledge are within science / supported by science / are science when such profoundly isn't -- via a 'top-dog naturo.-homeo. quackademic':

001. Paul Mittman (ND NCNM 1985, DHANP AANP), the 2007 AANP Physician [!!!] of the Year, President and CEO of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and President of the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges writes in "Naturopathic Medicine, Vitalism and Homeopathy" (Townsend Letter For Doctors and Patients; 1997):

001.a. concerning naturopathy's essential vitalism:

"[naturopathy is centered around] a belief in the healing power of nature [...we] use medicines and modalities that can directly stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae [...aka] chi, prana, or the vital force [...via] energetic therapies like homeopathy, Chinese and ayurvedic medicine [...] there is no philosophical conflict between homeopathy and naturopathic medicine. In fact, homeopathy is probably the clearest example of the healing power of nature [naturopathy's central belief...per] Hahnemann's homeopathy linked the disturbed vital force to the diseased body [...as] D.D. Palmer's chiropractic saw the spine as the conduit for the 'innate wisdom' [...this] animating spirit [belief...is] the core and essence of naturopathy."

Note: for more 'essential naturopathic vitalism' - a sectarian belief system per a 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency / 'god power within' keystone premise -- see here.

001.b. and concerning knowledge-type conflation / requisite sectarianism / religiosity:

"science and medicine have spent the last 500 years divorced from religion and spirituality. As naturopaths, we must openly acknowledge and unabashedly embrace our partnership with a higher power."

Note: the overall agenda here is to place supernatural figmentations / superstitions within the scientific and medical, per their religious, vitalistic, spiritistic "higher power" intervention keystone concept -- which I'll term shamanism / autoentheism / neomedievalism / pseudoscience / 'the resectarianizing / neomedievalizing of medicine'

-- since the 'knowledge type' road forked a long time ago, science does not contain such or support such:

a distinction that has been quite pronounced FOR AT LEAST A FEW HUNDRED YEARS, since the 1600s by Mittman's own admission [for what AAAS says, see 002., below].

Obviously, naturopathy is a retrograde movement, seeking to equate a scientific fact with an article of faith / the supernatural / and superstition.

001.c. YET AANMC, the organization that Mittman is President of, states that the naturopathic is FIRMLY scientific :

001.c1. in "Naturopathic Medicine: Naturopathic Physicians Are Rigorously Trained"(2003):

"licensed naturopathic physicians have attended four-year professional-level programs at accredited institutions, where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!; naturopathy's 'reverse sectarian accusation'] physicians. Some AANMC member schools require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools [naturopathy's superscience claim]. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences [science, science, science...our] students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

001.c2. in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine"(2003):

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science."

002. such 'medieval knowledge-type blending / epistemological distortion' is nonscientific, and harmful to scientific integrity, and therefore actively criticized by the world's most prestigious science association. The American Association for the Advancement of Science states:

002.a. in "A Study Guide For The Evolution Dialogues"(2007):

"what science is and is not. The scientific method uses observation and logic to develop testable hypotheses. Scientific theories encompass many tested hypotheses and are continually refined as new data is discovered. [But,] no aspect of science can address supernatural questions [p.020...e.g.] creationism and 'intelligent design' deal with supernatural questions that [truly] cannot be addressed through the scientific method. Science and religion ask and answer different questions [p.031...] supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation [...] one reason that modern science has flourished since the seventeenth century is that it has limited itself to natural explanations alone [p.032]."

Note: naturopathy absurdly claims that science 'foundations' / bases / contains / supports what it cannot / does not -- that within the scientific is the naturopathic sectarian belief set --

I say bullshit, reasonable distinctions exist between these knowledge types: something is not the same as what it is different from.

002.b. in "Advances"(AAAS Monthly Newsletter; 2005):

"AAAS has become a leading voice in [...] speaking out against attempts to blur distinctions between scientific evidence and other ways of knowing, including those concerned with the supernatural [...we are] defending strong, high quality science education [...] thank you for supporting the effort to defend the integrity of science education [signed Leshner, A.I. (? ?) -- CEO, AAAS]."

Note: the irony of naturopathy, aka "natural medicine", is that their conception of nature is not the naturalism of modern science, but instead the 'blended knowledge kind' of preEnlightenment medievalisms.

Cutlery & Cultlery: Spoon- and 'Knowledge Type-' Bending per Randi on Canada's New Minister for Science & Technology, UB's ND, & WTF!:

after reading this shocking bit of Canadian bad news via the JREF as regards Goodyear [see 001., below] with its reference to cutlery, a few associations occurred: my peripheral, first-hand involvement with Randi, Geller, and cutlery [see 002., below]; my history with University of Bridgeport cultlery and similarly 'not science credentialed' quackademics [see 003., below]; and furthermore, per such 'naturopathy pseudoscience cultlery', I am reminded of Kim Atwood's 2008 labeling of naturopathy as a "pseudoscientific cult" and my 2002 Connecticut deposition wherein I labeled UB's ND program "cultic mystical weirdness" [see 004., below]:

001. James "The Amazing" Randi writes in "Canada Officially Goes Woo-Woo" {2008-11-26}:

"the newly-elected Canadian government has officially declared that science is not a subject of importance to the citizens of the country, that no well-informed person is in charge of science education, and that the country has opted to take a back seat among the civilized nations of the world, in that respect [...] prime minister Stephen Harper [...] has selected a man without any science credentials, not a scientist nor a technologist, to serve as Minister of State for Science and Technology [...] his qualifications for this critical position? [...] Goodyear is a practicing acupuncturist and chiropractor! Neither acupuncture nor chiropractic have any supporting evidence, they are both internationally recognized examples of quackery [...having been] tested endlessly all over the world [...& having] failed all examinations [...] however, the rumor that Harper is planning to appoint Uri Geller as Minister of State for Cutlery, is a base canard."

Note: your WTF moment may be 'how does one become the steward of an area of knowledge one hasn't qualifications within?' Keep in mind that Geller is the [in]famous 'psychic spoonbender' whom Randi has thoroughly debunked [it's a trick -- PARTICULARLY it's not 'psychic force' at work] much as acupuncture-, chiropractic- and naturopathy-as-cure-alls have been debunked / are essentially unsupported in their essential woo [science-wise: they don't work as cure-alls, and their supposed mechanisms are Tooth Fairy-isms -- PARTICULARLY, there's no healing chi / 'innate intelligence' force {vital forces} at work].

002. speaking of cutlery, I've been with Randi while we've [and I mean WE'VE!!!] performed Geller-esque, but not psychically miraculous, spoon-bending feats under the tutelage of Dr. Wiseman:
.

.

.
003. naturopathic cultlery at UB and the Goodyear-esque:

003.a. cultlery:

there is no better term I can manufacture for this area of PROFOUNDLY science-ejected knowledge that claims -- remarkably, falsely; at 'university doctoral level' -- current scientific status than CULTLERY. Knowledge-categories are bent and pawned off fraudulently at the graduate doctoral level, much like a Geller spoon is claimed to have been psychically bent when it's all merely a cheap, slight-of-hand parlor trick. To believe that UB naturopathy's science-ejected vitalism and such is science after studying science at the doctoral level, one would have to be like a brainwashed Jonestown acolyte -- able to swallow some seriously poisonous mindlessness, of a variety much more extreme than the people who gullibly believe spoons can be bent mentally.

003.b. the 'not science credentialed' running [supposed] "science":

003.b1. apparently, a Goodyear-esque "man without any science credentials" [they list only an ND] runs the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine per:

"[2008] are you interested in a career in a field of medicine that works to support the natural healing power of the body, mind, and spirit? In naturopathic medicine we call this Vis Medicatrix Naturae (the Healing Power of Nature) [VMN / HPN] and it is our guiding philosophy."

Note: "spirit" is explicit supernaturalism which is not science supported; the VMN / HPN concept -- contextually, within UB naturopathy, explicitly, is ACCORDING TO UB! -- the science-ejected concept of vitalism. But, perhaps things here are well-suited: 'a man without science credentials' runs a College whose sectarian premises are without similar. I call the UB pseudoscience phenomena 'the epistemic conflation of a school of though claiming to be scientific.' You can find the school's previous Dean's similar 'epistemic conflation' -- a similarly 'without science credentials' person claiming a professions-level scientific status for the science-ejected or nonscientific, here per:

"[2002] naturopathic medicine is a profession [...it is] scientific medicine [...centered upon] Vis Medicatrix Naturae /Only Nature Heals."

003.b2. yes, all categorized as "science", still per:

"[2008] 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: science? Bullshit, Will Robinson...

004. use of the word "cult" as regards naturopathy pseudoscience:

004.a. Atwood, per:

"[2008] another State promotes the pseudoscientific cult that is naturopathic medicine [...] I have continued to observe NDs’ cult-like behavior since then, and have seen no indication that they have begun to awaken from their collective, pseudoscientific stupor. "

004.b. myself:

"[2002 deposition] I'm embarrassed to have gone to a school that called itself health science and what I get is a whole bunch of cultic mystical weirdness [...an ND is] a farce [...and] my professional track is also screwed up now, and its just been the most bizarre experience ever."

Note: word's that bring me great delight, yet, UB's 'epistemic conflation' / knowledge-type bending is sickening. In the process of that unsuccessful complaint, UB held up the 1997-1998 school catalog and pointed out that it states regarding naturopathy: "this is not a contract." So, in the sense of this amazing overall naturopathic pseudoscientific cultlery, I was told that I have less consumer / civil rights than someone on a used car lot, that UB had NO DUTY or professionalistic responsibility as regards this whole thing, which is the complete opposite of medical and academic professionalism***.

[***This was the capstone upon my whole 4-year UB experience, illustrating a simple fact from the University of Bridgeport 'top echelon' downward to the clinic conference room and naturopathy classroom:

this is an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'].

Amazing, buyer beware!!!

[more on such predation in future blog posts]

005. And yes, WTF.
.
.

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.