Undermining Professionalism - 'Caveat Emptor' per Naturopathy - Perle et al. & UW, UB & ISBN 1741140544:

here, I cite Perle et al. & U.W.S.M. as regards the 'preponderant ethical rigor' required of a modern healthcare professional of any kind [see 001., below]; the University of Bridgeport's labeling of naturopathy as 'nonsectarian science' [see 002.a., below] and 'naturopathic luminaries' labeling of naturopathy as 'professional' [see 002.b., below]; and a warning -- per caveat emptor!!! -- something that shouldn't have to be said about something claiming 'professionalism' [see 003., below]:

001. Perle et al. & University of Washington School of Medicine -- on 'credat vs. caveat emptor':

001.a. apparent 'chiropractic reformers' Murphy, Schneider, Seaman, Perle and Nelson state in "How Can Chiropractic Become a Respected Mainstream Profession? The Example of Podiatry" {Chiropractic & Osteopathy; 2008, 16:10}:

"the professions, which classically included medicine, law and the ministry, are vocations whose members 'profess' to have knowledge that the laity do not comprehend. Given the asymmetry of knowledge between professionals and the laity, society has granted to the professions a certain degree of autonomous control over themselves. However, this social contract demands that each profession, and each professional, place the well-being of society and the patient, client or parishioner ahead of the profession and professional [per fiduciary duty {see 001.b., below}]. Lay persons put their faith in the professional following the dictum credat emptor (let the buyer have faith) rather than [the dictum] caveat emptor (let the buyer beware)[per typical commerce]. This social contract imparts great freedom on all professions, but with this freedom comes great responsibility. When an individual consults a member of any of the medical professions, it is reasonably [!!!] expected that the advice and treatment that he or she receives is based in science, not metaphysics or pseudoscience ['ye olde sectarian medicine']. In addition, it is reasonably expected that the services he or she receives are being provided for the primary purpose of benefiting the patient, and not for any other reason. The financial benefit to the professional is secondary, and results from the degree of clinical benefit received by the patient. Patients place their faith in the professional, and trust that they will not be subject to fraud, abuse or quackery ['ye olde sectarian medicine']. This is the social contract as it applies to chiropractic physicians [& I would add 'all who invoke the status of a healthcare professional']."

Note 01: 'trustworthy'[literally], client-centeredness, and 'overall societal well-being' are hallmarks of 'the professions' as expressed in the dictum "credat emptor." In terms of a healthcare profession, the 'knowledge and technique set' is expected to be scientific / competent as opposed to pseudoscientific / fraudulent, physicalistic / naturalistic / actual as opposed to metaphysical / supernatural / woo-woo quackery abuse.

Note 02: I list Perle [perle@bridgeport.edu; academic homepage] in terms of authorship in the title of this blog-post for no other reason than because he's a former instructor I had [for a research methods course] at the University of Bridgeport while pursuing an ND there [a fraudulently categorized degree, GALORE -- to this day, completely at odds with the above passage!!!]. Murphy [rispine@aol.com] is actually this article's lead contact.

001.b. the University of Washington School of Medicine states in "Professionalism":

"because medicine is a profession and physicians are professionals, it is important to have a clear understanding of what 'professionalism' means [...] the words 'profession' and 'professional' come from the Latin word 'professio,'which means a public declaration with the force of a promise [...] the line between a business and a profession is not entirely clear [...] one crucial difference distinguishes them: professionals have a fiduciary duty toward those they serve. This means that professionals have a particularly stringent duty to assure that their decisions and actions serve the welfare of their patients or clients, even at some cost to themselves. Professions have codes of ethics which specify the obligations arising from this fiduciary duty [...] A Physician Charter. Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium was issued jointly by the The American Board of Internal Medicine, the American College of Physicians and the European Federation of Internal Medicine in 2002. Subsequently, 90 professional associations, including most of the specialty and subspecialty groups in American medicine have endorsed the Charter. The fundamental principles of professionalism are stated as (1) the primacy of patient welfare; (2) patient autonomy; (3) social justice. Professional responsibilities that follow from these principles are commitment to competence, to honesty with patients, to confidentiality, to appropriate relationship with patients, to improving quality of care, to improving access to care, to a just distribution of finite resource, to scientific knowledge, to maintaining trust by managing conflicts of interests and to professional responsibilities."

Note: professionalism in medicine includes the principle that the patient comes first per fiduciary duty, that patients and the public are dealt with honestly [disclosure / transparency], and an overarching commitment to scientific knowledge [modern epistemic rigor].

002. naturopathy's self-labeling:

002.a. per 'of the professions' 'nonsectarian health science' by the University of Bridgeport:

002.a1. U.B.'s 'professional science' labeling, in "College of Naturopathic Medicine":

"the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine is a non-profit, co-educational professional institution which grants the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) degree to graduates who successfully complete four academic years of study including clinical training [...] 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."

Note: naturopathy is labeled a profession, a science, and nowhere in the description is the supernatural mentioned.

002.a2. in "UB Spotlight: Health Sciences Programs":

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs [...include] the College of Naturopathic Medicine [...per] Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) [...] the members of the faculty include skilled instructors with backgrounds in the biomedical and clinical sciences."

Note: the label "professional" / 'of the professions', and the label of "science" upon naturopathy by UB.

002.a3. UB nonsectarian label:

U.B. also is chartered & self-labeled "nonsectarian," and society was assured of this in 1995 by its President, per the New York Times, two years before the entry of the first students into U.B.'s naturopathy college & three years before my own entry.

002.b. per 'of the professions' by NDs Stephen P. Myers, Assunta Hunter, Pamela Snider, & Jared L. Zeff in "An Introduction to Complementary Medicine" {edited by naturopath Robson} (ISBN 1741140544; 2004):

"naturopathic medicine [...is a] profession [p.048...] the philosophy-based approach defining the profession [vitalism, et al....] the profession's ability to consistently voice its philosophy [...] the profession's unique identity [...] in 1986 the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [was established as] a newly revived professional association [...and] commissioned Dr. Pamela Snider and Dr. Jared Zeff to create a unifying definition of naturopathic medicine [...via] input from the entire US profession [...] the committee found a single element of agreement among the profession upon which it built its process. This element was the general agreement that the profession was unified by a philosophy [vitalism, et al....] the committee sifted through input from the profession cataloging six principles upon which the profession generally agreed [...] these six principles were placed before the House of Delegates of the AANP at its annual conference in September 1989 at Rippling River, Oregon, which unanimously approved them, reconfirming and articulating in modern terms its core principles as a professional consensus [p.049...this] profession [p.052...our] profession [p.059...our] profession [p.060...] one significant interprofessional challenge [etc....] another interprofessional challenge [etc....] interprofessional communication [etc....] the professionalization of naturopathic clinicians [etc. p.062...the] rapid professional evolution within naturopathic medicine [etc....] naturopathic and orthodox health [p.065] professionals [etc....] many challenges will need to be met by the profession [etc....] those within the [naturopathic] profession generally see the future as positive and the potential of their medicine and profession as immense [p.066]."

Note: their labeling of naturopathy as medical, philosophy-based [principally, a sectarian belief-set centered upon the science-ejected concept of vitalism {a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency' sectarian belief / article of faith} supernaturalism, and overarchingly 'of the professions.'

003. naturopathy's explicit untruthfulness:

in sum, pseudoscientific, metaphysical, supernatural, vitalistic / science-ejected, sectarian 'dogma & quackery' are being falsely postured as scientific and nonsectarian. Therein, naturopathy is not a trustworthy domain.

So, my warning as regards this OBVIOUS pseudoprofession known as naturopathic medicine:

"danger Will Robinson, unethical sectarian pseudoscience!"

Caveat emptor!!!

Centered around and obligated toward 'the science-ejected sectarian' [more often expressed in a coded / occultic manner] but claiming 'health professions scientific status', naturopathy severely violates many professional ethical rigors per healthcare, medicine, and education.

Science-Based Medicine: A FIRM Value, A Naturopathic Deception:

here, I highlight the FIRM foundation's mission statement particularly as regards medicine's preponderant professions-level ethical commitment to science as a basis for medical knowledge [see 001., below], and compare that to naturopathy's completely opposite and absurd position, wherein pseudoscience & antiscience are falsely postured as scientific and 'of professions-level ethical rigor' [see 002., below], and then I warn you of the complicity of American government in such [see 003., below]:

001. the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine admirably states in "About FIRM":

"the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine [FIRM...whose trustees are] Roy M. Poses MD [...] Wally R. Smith MD [...] Russell C. Maulitz MD [per 2008-12-17...is] devoted to upholding medicine's core values by empowering patients and physicians, and supporting representative, transparent[!!!], ethical, and responsible health care governance [...] physicians['...] core values [...] include [...] practicing medicine based on science and scientific principles [...yet] strong but generally unrecognized threats to these values [exist...including healthcare] pseudo-science and anti-science."

Note: the 'scientific basis' of medicine, as a value, is also similarly expressed in the Medical Professionalism Project's "A Physician's Charter" per:

"[medicine's] set of professional responsibilities [...includes] a commitment to scientific knowledge."

002. naturopathy's quite heinous deception / bamboozle; posturing a scientific status for what ain't!!!:

002.a. naturo.'s claim that they are science-based:

I have cataloged naturopathy's overarching claim of being essentially "science", "scientific", "science-based", 'a branch of medical science', "from the sciences", and "health science" here [a list that keeps growing and growing!!!].

002.b. naturopathy's actual, in fact nonscientific / science-ejected / antiscientific / pseudoscientific essential premises:

I have cataloged naturopathy's overarching and essential / mandatory [often coded, so be careful of such deceit] vitalism and supernaturalism sectarian premises here & here, respectively [2 more lists that keep growing and growing!!!].

002.c. the PROFOUNDLY actual, in fact nonscientific status of both vitalism and supernaturalism:

are cataloged here & here, respectively [ditto!!!].

003. so, in being essentially nonscientific / a belief system while claiming medical status / "health science" status, naturopathy is quite the robust example of pseudoprofessionalism.

Note: I have first-hand knowledge of all this absurdity, 'from the inside' per this blog's title, because I was bamboozled by the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, and the AANP's Alliance [which included, at that time {1997} NCNM, SCNM, and Bastyr]. I could not be a participant in "unethical sectarian pseudoscience", so I ceased and slowly began my "skeptical analysis."

Watch out, States are complicit in this deceit:

e.g., visit the State of Oregon's "state.or.us" website, where we are told, with taxpayer dollars in this year 2008, per "Naturopathy":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [{their creed}...that are] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [which is obviously bullshit...including #1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [a belief]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [a requirement...] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [their 'purposeful life spirit' belief, in sum...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving [/including...the] spiritual [{while supernaturalisms do not survive scientific scrutiny!!!}...] the physician must treat the whole person by considering all of these factors [a requirement...because, you must believe] causes may occur on many levels including [...the] spiritual [{the supernatural as a scientifically supported cause?!!?!?}...&] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development [obviously a certain kind of religiosity / supernaturalism practice] in order to be a good teacher."

Note: this is 'naturopathy's sectarian creed' mislabeled as 'able to survive scientific scrutiny' / 'objective fact' by the State of Oregon.

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!