Naturopathy As "Evidence Based" - False, False, False:

Ian, H. (NMD SCNM) states in the Daily News-Sun as reported by Turner, E. (? ?) in "Doctor Uses Naturopathic Medicine to Complement Traditional Cancer Treatments" {2009-06-09}:

"Dr. Hanna Ian [...at] www.thenaturopathicphysician.com [...] believes in the power of naturopathic medicine [...quoting Ian] 'I would advocate that people make an informed choice [...] naturopathic medicine is evidence based. Were not just using folktales,' she said.' It's research-evidenced based.'"

Note: if you are actually informed, you know that naturopathy is belief-based [e.g., vitalism]. And, ironically, to 'believe in the power' is quite right: their 'healing power of nature' is the belief in a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency'. That is the core of naturopathy, and such is outside of science...NOT EVIDENCED. But, at the Dr.'s site, that vitalism is quite coded. So much for being informed.

When are figmentations / articles-of-faith evidence-based? Naturopathy.

See here for a Digg of this article.

Institute for Natural Medicine: Its Occultic, Science-Ejected Vitalism Foundation 2009:

here, a little parsing of the Institute for Natural Medicine's [INM] web pages that claim that they [naturopaths] have 'reliable, trustworthy, credible, authoritative evidence-based information' [see 001.a., below]; while, when INM explains naturopathy as scientific and HPN-based [see 001.b., below]; INM is ACTUALLY being absurd since it is not transparently and accurately contextualizing naturopathy's PROFOUNDLY science-ejected vitalistic premise [see 003., below]:

001. INM:

001.a. promises, on their web homepage (archived here):

"[per president Yirku, S. (? NCNM VP for College Relations)] naturemed.org [is] your guide to patient driven medicine [...] we at INM believe that you deserve the opportunity to make informed choices about your healthcare. The goal of this website is to provide reliable information for patients and the public about natural healthcare options [...] our guiding philosophy is our firm belief that it is vitally important for people to have access to trustworthy information about the natural treatment options that are available through naturopathic medicine [...] make informed choices [...] I urge you to be cautious, and do everything you can to make sure the information you gather is credible [...] the mission of the Institute for Natural Medicine (INM) is to assist in the dissemination of credible information about naturopathic philosophy and natural medicine [{good luck!!!}...] the Institute for Natural Medicine is uniquely positioned and qualified to provide unbiased, evidence-based, and authoritative information concerning natural and preventive approaches to health [aka naturopathy et al.]."

Note: so, according to INM, we'll be "informed" with "reliable information" and "trustworthy information" per what's "credible information" and "evidence-based" per a source that is "unbiased" and "authoritative". Therefore, we can make an informed choice.

001.b1. defines naturopathy in "Naturopathic Medicine" as science:

"[naturo. is] an approach to medicine based on the human body's innate ability to heal itself, [aka] the healing power of nature [IATHI-HPN...that is] guided by modern scientific medical diagnostic science and standards of care [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [this 'naturopathy is a medical science branch' claim is also stated by INM here]."

Note: so, naturopathy with its IATHI-HPN, is claimed to be explicitely science. Notice that naturopathy is labeled "scientific" "science", which is a claim of being very VERY scientific indeed.

001.b.2. defines naturopathy's key principles in "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" including:

"the healing power of nature [...] it is the naturopathic physician's role to support, facilitate and augment this process."

Note: and that's all you get at INM regarding HPN, a key premise of naturopathy.

003. presenting the 'scientific science-ejected' / the naturopathic absurd aka the 'scientific vitalistic':

003.a. NDs Murray, Pizzorno, & Bradley and PhDs Levin, Bland, & Schmidt graciously clarify naturopathy's HPN context per "The Textbook of Natural Medicine" (ISBN 0443059454, 1999 - 2nd ed.):

"[per Levin, Bland, and Schmidt] naturopathic medicine has consistently aligned itself with the vitalistic side of [...the] argument [{as if there is one}...] between 'vitalistic' and 'mechanistic' approaches to life and health [...] naturopathy recognizes a vital force – vis medicatrix naturae, or healing power of nature – that is present in all living things, including the human body. For naturopaths, it is this vital force which is ultimately responsible for healing [...] this recognition of vital force in naturopathy [...] the spirit of vitalism [{literally!} p.004...and per Bradley, R.S. (ND NCNM 1981-ish) naturopathy] has always identified the Latin expression vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) as its philosophical linchpin [...] the expression vis medicatrix naturae, by itself, does not provide a clear picture of naturopathic medical philosophy [p.041...] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [...] the principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature: vis medicatrix naturae [p.047...] the practice of naturopathic medicine is grounded in vis medicatrix naturae [p.047...] a thorough grounding in vis medicatrix naturae [p.048]."

Note: vitalism, galore. Murray and Pizzorno are the editors of this central ND textbook. So, naturopathy is essentially vitalistic, and this was not told to us on the INM page though they promised quite a lot of guidance for us! Instead, INM [falsely] used naturalistic language and [falsely] promised us 'naturopathy is science'; that they were trustworthy, and that the public would be reliably informed.

003.b. yet [me don't thinks so!], the National Association of Biology Teachers at the National Center For Science Education states in "National Association of Biology Teachers Scientific Integrity Statement" regarding the nonscientific status of vitalism:

"nonscientific notions such as geocentrism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot be legitimately taught, promoted or condoned as science in the classroom. "

Note: hmm, naturopathy's vitalism is essentially science-ejected. INM didn't tell us this actuality, either -- in order for us to make an 'informed choice'. INM said naturopathy is evidence-based and scientific. Ain't -- and our choices regarding naturopathy would be based upon falsehood, therein.

004. obviously, naturopathy drips with absurdity, wherein the profoundly nonscientific is labeled scientific and all the while naturopathic premises are often occultly portrayed to the public as naturalistic and scientific [coded]. Many would call this strategy a 'bait and switch', and a 'confidence game'.

Homeopath Causes Death of Daughter [AU]:

Australia's Daily Telegraph reports, in "Homeopath Thomas Sam Guilty of Daughter Gloria's Death":

"Gloria Thomas's parents have been found guilty of manslaughter by failing to get her conventional medical care before she died from an infection caused by chronic eczema [...] Mr. Sam, a homeopath, and his wife were accused of breaching their duty of care as parents to 9-month-old Gloria in the days before her death in May 2002 [...] the Crown successfully argued the couple were criminally negligent by persisting with homeopathic remedies to treat their daughter's eczema instead of seeking conventional medical help in the last two weeks of her life."

Note: obviously homeopathy, in all its bogosity / stupidity, can kill.

Iris Bell on Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - ISBN 1600373879:

here, I point out 'ND elbow-rubber' & 'MD psychiatrist' Bell's explicit description of naturopathy as essentially vitalistic:

001. Bell, I.R. (MD SU, PhD SU) states in "Getting Whole, Getting Well: Healing Holistically from Chronic Illness" (ISBN 1600373879; 2008):

"note: naturopathic medicine or naturopathy is a CAM alternative medical system [...] philosophically, naturopathy is similar to homeopathy, Chinese medicine, and ayurveda in that it proposes that there is a healing power or vital life [p.104] force in the body that establishes, maintains, and restores health. Practitioners work with the patient with a goal of supporting this power [p.105]."

Note: for an autobiography see here, where 'she equates alternative medicine with holism', and for a CV see the American Medical College of Homeopathy, where they have a video regarding homeopathy that states:

"amazing, monumental, inspiring, passionate, quantum,compassionate, enlightening, captivating, life-changing, integrative, captivating, insightful, wholistic, passionate, wonder-full, tender, joyous, persevering, beautiful, peaceful, provoking, nurturing, natural, glorious, rewarding, global, collaborative, new-paradigm, self-awakening, pure energy, healing, the future. American Medical College of Homeopathy. Transforming lives."

They forgot 'dumb-assed'.

002. I think Dr. Bell, who appears to be quite the vitalist, knows a thing or two about:

002.a. naturopathy:

here she sits with their luminaries.

Note: on that panel is Sensenig, my instructor at UBCNM in 1998.

002.a. vitalism:

per "Iris Bell MD, PhD, Professor of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine, who presented 'An Empirical Approach to Modeling the Vital Force'."

Some Recent Quotes on Simon Singh's Appeal, per The Quackometer 2009-06-04:

here are some recent quotes regarding Simon Singh's litigation vs. British chiropractic, per The Quackometer's "Simon Singh to Appeal Bogus Decision" {2009-06-04}:

.

.
001. Stephen Fry [author, broadcaster]:

"it may seem like a small thing to some when claims are made without evidence, but there are those of us who take this kind of thing very seriously because we believe that repeatable evidence-based science is the very foundation of our civilization. Freedom in politics, in thought and in speech followed the rise of empirical science which refused to take anything on trust, on faith, on hope or even on reason. The simplicity and purity of evidence is all that stands between us and the wildest kinds of tyranny, superstition and fraudulent nonsense [guess what I'm thinking of?]. When a powerful organization tries to silence a man of Simon Singh's reputation then anyone who believes in science, fairness and the truth should rise in indignation. All we ask for is proof. Reasoned proof according to the established protocols of medicine and science everywhere. It is not science that is arrogant: science can be defined as 'humility before the facts' — it is those who refuse to submit to testing and make unsubstantiated claims that are arrogant. Arrogant and unjust."

002. Diana Garnham [The Science Council's Chief Executive]:

"delivery of professional health care should be based on science, not libel laws. It goes without saying that all professional health care scientists must be expected to base their professional practice on scientific methodology, encompassing both a rigorous evidence base and open peer review [guess what, for example, the NDs haven't done!]."

003. Richard Wiseman [author, Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology]:

"England's strict libel laws can deter individuals from speaking out against bad science, even when they have strong evidence for their argument. Simon's campaign deserves the support of everyone who cares about fighting pseudoscience."

Note: sign the support statement!

Randi on Homeopathy - "Quackery, A Farce, A Fake, Flummery" 2009:

here, a quick quote from James Randi regarding the nonsense known as homeopathy:

001. Randi writes in "Homeopathy Qualifies for the Million Dollar Challenge":

"homeopathy is eligible for the million-dollar prize [MDP...] we've offered it on BBC, in print, by lectures, all over the world, and it [homeopathy] has always – 100% of the time – failed tests. It was reported as a failure in Nature Magazine [...] if anyone can show that homeopathy works, the James Randi Educational Foundation will pay them the million-dollar prize [...] homeopathy DOES NOT WORK. It's quackery, pure and simple. It's a farce, a fake, and flummery. Prove it works, and win the million dollars."

Note: of course, the naturopaths claim homeopathy is a "clinical science":

"the core clinical science examination is a case-based examination that covers the following topics [...which includes] homeopathy."

002. Let's think:

since NDs claim they are science experts, and that homeopathy is science, why haven't they claimed the $?

If homeopathy is science, IT IS ALREADY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.

The MDP would be easy winnings.

Something smells HUGELY fishy about naturopathy.

Wikipedia on Science, Vitalism and Naturopathy - 2009-05-30:

here, I parse the current Wikipedia naturopathy entry in terms of science [see 001.a., below] and vitalism [see 001.b., below];

001. Wikipedia's current naturopathy entry states, regarding:

001.a. science & naturopathy:

"naturopathy (also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine) [...its] training differs from that undertaken by MDs in that it includes scientifically disproven modalities, such as homeopathy, often called [a] pseudoscience and quackery [...its] homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience [...] naturopathic medical school [...] includes the study of basic medical sciences [...] naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse [...] all forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science [...] naturopathic treatments such as homeopathy and iridology are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery [...quoting Atwood] 'an examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices' [hear, hear]."

Note: not science.

001.b. vitalism & naturopathy:

001.b1. within the Wikipedia naturopathy entry:

"naturopathy (also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine) [...] focuses on natural remedies and the body's vital ability to heal and maintain itself [{'vital' then links to the article parsed in 001.b2.}...] Lust [...] the 'father of U.S. naturopathy' [...] described the body in spiritual and vitalistic terms [...this] naturopathic ideology [...per] trusting to the 'healing power of nature' [...includes] rejection of biomedicine in favor of an intuitive and vitalistic conception of the body and nature [...per 'ND sectarian creed' tenet #2] recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae, a form of vitalism) [...naturopathy's] many methods rely on immaterial 'vital energy fields' [...naturopathy contains] concepts irreconcilable with modern medicine, such as vitalism [...] naturopathy is viewed with [scientific] skepticism for its reliance on or association with unproven, disproven, and controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings."

Note: vitalism is 'essential to the naturopathic'.

001.b2. within the linked Wikipedia vitalism entry:

"Bechtel and Richardson [of the 1998 Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy] state that today vitalism 'is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine' [...and quoting Sokal] 'nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism' and [he] added that 'mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time' [{hear, hear}...and quoting Williams] 'today, vitalism is one of the ideas that form the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems [e.g., naturopathy] that claim that illnesses are caused by a disturbance or imbalance of the body's vital force'."

002. note: I am not involved in any way with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's naturopathy entry has improved. It was not long ago that Wikipedia defined the underpinning vitalism of naturopathy as an unqualified "natural life force", as if such a sectarian figmentation / premise / article of faith was prima facie fact. Yet, Wikipedia's naturopathic medical school article makes no mention of the unethical sectarian pseudoscience basis of naturopathy, and codes the vitalism.

Decoding Naturopathy's Essential Science-Ejected Vitalism -- ISBN 184593413X, 2009:

here, I quote from a 2009 book describing naturopathy in not very transparent terms [see 001., below]; and, I peel away that opacity to reveal 'the essentially naturopathic' [see 002., below]; and, as usual, I issue a warning [see 003., below]:

001. Preedy, V.R. (? ?) and Watson, R.R. (? ?) state in "Botanical Medicine in Clinical Practice" (ISBN 184593413X, 2009):

"naturopathic principles are based on vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN], where treatment is used to support the innate healing potential of the individual [IHPI, p.582]."

Note: and that's all you're given. This is what such specifically means to naturopaths:

002. when you look at the naturopathic primary sources regarding VMN-HPN-IHPI, you will find that it represents the science-ejected concept known as vitalism. For the sake of clarity, I will use:

002.a. SCNM's 2003 archived homepage page to represent naturopathy's essential vitalism:

"the healing power of nature [...] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...that is] the essence of naturopathic medicine".

002.b. Richard Dawkins's recent editorial comments on vitalism from "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" (ISBN 0199216800, 2008) to represent the scientific and particularly modern biological view regarding vitalism:

"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]."

003. so, again, a warning regarding descriptions of naturopathy...

there is a sectarian ABSURD underneath that is rarely honestly, competently and accurately expressed.

University of Bridgeport's Science Absurdity, via Brady: AKA,'UB is Not Academically Fraudulent and Abusive Like Them Guys' [While Actually F & A]:

here, I detail a recent Dynamic Chiropractic article by University of Bridgeport Health Science Vice Provost Brady criticizing 'them bogus guys', AKA competitors in the realm of 'woo education' [see 001., below]; and, I point out his hypocrisy, per UB's complete bogosity [see 002., below]:

001. David M. Brady

[DC TCC, ND UBCNM; a DC whom I had as an instructor at UB {1998-2002}, and a fellow ND student while he was doing his ND there {I ceased on ethical grounds, he graduated}]

"Vice Provost of the Division of Health Sciences [etc. {which includes naturopathy ISYN and chiropractic} ...] at the University of Bridgeport [UB]",

states in "Academic and Credential Fraud and Abuse Must Stop" [Dynamic Chiropractic; 2009-06-17 -- vol. 27, iss. 13]:

"dubious and quasi-degrees [...] bogus, nonaccredited, internet-only, graduate and terminal credentials or degrees [...] nonaccredited, substandard degrees [...] fraudulent credentials [...per] various web-based diploma mills and nonaccredited correspondence institutions [...are] a very alarming and destructive trend [...per] an attempt to gain more credibility and attract new patients [...per] 'quasi' credentials [...misleading] the public into believing they are following the advice of a legitimately trained individual [...] these institutions are propagating academic fraud at the expense of their unenlightened students and public safety [...this] demands our immediate attention [...] the curriculum and infrastructure of these institutions simply do not meet acceptable criteria to grant such degrees legitimately [...per the] rigid standards of self and independent review [...of] regionally and specialty-accredited institutions [...] program[s...] licensed by the Department of Higher Education of the home state of the institution and [...] regional accreditation by a federally recognized organization [and Brady lists the Big 6...and mentions, appositely] Council on Naturopathic Medicine (CNME)-accredited naturopathic medicine program graduates are eligible [...for] state registration, certification or licensure."

Note on 001.:

this is like Bernie Madoff being called in to advise on GM's bankruptcy restructuring. See 002. below for UB's "academic and credential fraud" absurdity, in their own words and as analyzed through National Center for Science Education & National Association of Biology Teachers [NCSE-NABT], American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], and Popular Science Monthly [PSM].

Some of the critical words Brady uses: dubious, quasi-, bogus, substandard, fraudulent, alarming, destructive, misleads, [il]legitimate, academic fraud, [un]acceptable.

My irony meter has exploded: for he has described his own school, UB -- which is merely 'academic fraud in a tuxedo'.

002. UB naturopathy's nonsense position of 'it is what it isn't':

002.a. UB naturopathy's claim of being nonsectarian and scientific:

002.a1. nonsectarian:

I've a collection here.

002.a2. scientific:

I've a collection here. This is part of naturopathy's overarching science claim.

002.b. UB naturopathy's vitalism sectarianism:

I've a collection here.

Note: vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected.

002.c. UB naturopathy's supernaturalism sectarianism:

I've a collection here.

002.d. what NCSE, AAAS, and PSM specifically say about the scientific status of the above 'essentially naturopathic' [it ain't science]:

002.d1: NCSE on vitalism via NABT per "Scientific Integrity":

"science [...has] internally-consistent methods and principles that are well described [...] proposed causes and explanations must be naturalistic [...] the data concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline [...] NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific process. Any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific ways of knowing [...] science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [{like naturopathy!}...] nonscientific notions such as [...] vitalistic theory ['the essentially naturopathic'], therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [...] materials, methods, and explanations that fail to meet these ongoing tests of science are not legitimate components of the discipline and must not be part of a science curriculum [...] the principles and theories of science have been established through repeated experimentation and observation and have been refereed through peer review before general acceptance by the scientific community."

002.d2. AAAS on supernaturalism, per "A Study Guide For The Evolution Dialogues":

"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]."

002.d3: PSM on the sectarian, per "A Minority But Not a Sect":

"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved [naturopathy's vitalism & supernaturalism], for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed ['the essentially naturopathic']."

Note on 002.:

UB's "health science" and naturopathy are the most egregious of "academic and credential fraud" I've ever seen, as personally experienced, with the HUGELY science-ejected and nonscientific labeled science, and the HUGELY sectarian labeled nonsectarian -- all wrapped up in a NEASC ND from UB.

Warning to all: UB naturopathy, with their PROFOUNDLY absurd 'something is what it HUGELY isn't', is THE MOST RETARDED OF RETARDATIONS.

UB naturopathy is one OBVIOUSLY 'bogus, accredited, in-residence, graduate and terminal credential and degree'.

UB naturopathy is dubious, quasi-, bogus, substandard, fraudulent, alarming, destructive, misleading, illegitimate, academically fraudulent and unacceptable.

AND, regional accreditation, state- & federal- sanction are, through UB's naturopathy example, merely alternates these days for 'accessories to fraud'.

003. overall note:

I look forward to Dr. Hall's analysis of chiropractic at this year's "Science-Based Medicine" conference, "A Scientific Critique of Chiropractic".

Note on 003.:

and, I will continue to inform the CTAGO and the USDE about UB & FNPLA naturopathy's disgusting academic predation. But, realistically, I'm alerting State and Federal authorities about a fraud they are accessories to.

AANP's Legislative Action Center - Advocating Through Deception:

here, I point out recent language by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] on their web page [see 001., below] regarding their annual PAC activity; and I reiterate / expose their central science-ejected article of faith, which that language fails to mention or codes [see 002., below]; and since that article of faith is truly 'faithyness' [see 003., below]; I ask the obvious question [see 004., below]:

001. the AANP states in "Advocacy: Legislative Action Center":

"[a request] be a naturopathic advocate [...{an order?!?!}] NDs, ask your legislators to support health care reform that includes patient-centered health and wellness services [PCHWS]."

Note: so, the claim is that naturopathy is PCHWS. This is rather opaque: something lies underneath it all, which, as usual, they are not revealing on this web page.

002. but, lets look at naturopathy's other descriptors, and where they stand 'upon the preponderance':

naturopathic.org currently states that naturo. is a "science"; and specifically is founded upon "scientific evidence [...supporting] the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [...per] let nature heal [...per] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...per] self-healing".

Now, rationally speaking, the body does have healing mechanisms and THIS IS NOT A BELIEF, it is a fact. But, naturopathy uses this fact to then code their article of faith / belief nonparsimony [subtextually]: that healing isn't biological, but instead is -- as a scientific fact / after scientific scrutiny -- due to a 'purposeful life spirit' [PLS] entity / "life force" / "vis medicatrix naturae" [VMN] occupying the material body.

Claiming belief=fact and fact=belief -- epistemic conflation, overall -- is the hallmark of naturopathic 'knowledge-type' absurdity.

In no sense is their "let nature heal" coding of their PLS-VMN belief scientifically supported: look analytically, and you will see that this is their vitalism belief, claimed as science fact, when in fact science-ejected.

So, it appears that PCHWS is now a stand-in to legislators for all of this naturo. NONSENSE.

003. naturopathy's PLS-VMN belief as 'truly faithyness':

the Vancouver Sun's McKnight, P. (? ?) states in

"Naturopathy's Main Article of Faith Cannot Be Validated : Reliance on Vital Forces Leaves Its Practices Based on Beliefs Without Scientific Backing" {2009-03-07}:

"[quoting Snider, P. (ND Bastyr 1982) who OVERSAW the canonization of naturopathy's beliefs per 'Rippling River'] 'we believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible . . . our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith ' -- American Association of Naturopathic Physicians Convention; Townsend Letter for Doctors [...] the faith of naturopaths [...] belief in the life force [...] reliance on weird metaphysical forces [...] that very philosophy effectively destroys naturopathy's pretensions of being scientific [...] the anti-scientific philosophy of naturopathy [...] a philosophy known as vitalism, which posits the existence of 'vital forces,' mysterious and mystical forces possessed by all living organisms [...] no scientific methodologies will be forthcoming because the life force is not a scientific concept. It's an article of faith, and one that appeals to many people precisely because it speaks to the existence of something greater than that which science can investigate. And that means that naturopathy can never become scientific, unless it abandons the very belief that makes it so popular [...] scientific developments [...] spelled the end of vitalism [...] science consigned vitalism to the dustbin [...] naturopathy is not science".

Note: OH SNAP! I'm so JEALOUS I didn't write that article!

004. "be a naturopathic advocate?" No thanks.

How is such deception [per note for 001., above] remotely centered around a patient's health and wellness?

How is this reform? It's not progressive: it's regressive and ethically unacceptable.

Naturopathy is a self-serving, sectarian ideology- / belief-system- centered, 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience' that is constantly recoding its fundamental science-ejected / science-unsupported premises.

That coding habit -- instead of transparency -- is their essential deception.

The Absurdity of Naturopathy PPPs - Jones, D. (ND UBCNM):

here, I cite a recent article written by Jones, D. (ND UBCNM) informing us of AANP naturopathy's new self-labeling / coinage per "primary prevention professionals" [see 001., below], what I consider to be another naturopathic false self-definition [see note to 001., below]; and I cite an earlier, similar, false self-definition / coinage [see 002., below] and parse that out with other internal ND sources to reveal the actual context of naturopathy's science-ejected central premise [see note to 002., below]; and yet, AANP's new, revised language regarding the central premises of naturopathy -- their new self-labeling / coinage -- is STILL and FURTHERMORE completely nontransparent / coded / deceptive / false [see 003., below]:

001. Jones, D. (ND UBCNM) states in "Naturopathic Physicians are Primary Prevention Professionals"{2009-05-07}:

"the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP], our national organization, sponsors a [...] DC federal Legislative Initiative [{lobbying campaign}...] during the first weekend of May [...] each year it is wonderful to get the opportunity to educate our law-makers and their staff on [...] naturopathic medicine [...there's] a shortage of general care professionals [...] we are trained to fill those exact positions [as if!]. Not only are naturopathic physicians trained in general care, we are always stressing the importance of prevention through education, lifestyle and behavioral change [...therefore,] we have coined the phrase primary prevention professionals [{PPPs}...] Dr. Dae [...] is a naturopathic physician who completed her training at the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine."

Note: obviously, "professional" is a self-label that naturopaths use frequently. I have previously pointed out that the nontransparency / explicit untruthfulness of naturopathy's self-definitions are antithetical to professionalism's ethical doctrine of 'credat emptor': e.g., "Undermining Professionalism - 'Caveat Emptor' per Naturopathy - Perle et al. & UW, UB & ISBN 1741140544".

002. I have seen such false self-labellings by AANP naturopathy before, wherein naturopathy is falsely categorized to lawmakers and the public [they snookered me]:

002.a. SCNM, Bastyr, NCNM and AANP -- in this 1999 archived example "The Alliance Legislative Workbook" [ALW] {ten years of such fraud in my life, and counting} -- stated per an intention "to educate our law-makers and their staff" and the public:

"we ask for your [legislators'] careful scrutiny. Be demanding with us [...] naturopathic physicians are the modern day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."

002.b. but, and I went to ND school so I know, naturopathy is a belief system that is in fact nonscientific:

002.b1. ALW was 1999. Atwood, K.C. (MD) states in "Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal: The Naturopathic Belief System"{2003-12-30}:

"naturopathic beliefs -- including those of 'naturopathic physicians' -- are rooted in vitalism, the pre-20th-century assertion that biological processes do not conform to universal physical and chemical principles. Naturopaths describe [this per] a 'healing power of nature'."

002.b2. and, as NCNM's Meletis, C.D. (ND NCNM? 1992-ish) states in OHSU's "Oregon CAM Course at OHSU"{2004-ish?} [archived by WBM since 2005]:

"[per] '10 Vocabulary Words Used In Naturopathic Medicine As Defined by Chris D. Meletis, N.D.' [{the 2003-2004 AANP ND of the Year, by the way - see ISBN 0275983943}...term] vis medicatrix naturae - simply defined as the healing power of nature. It speaks to the belief that the body has been instilled with the innate ability to heal. It is thus the goal of the physician to support and bolster the vital force [...] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [...] one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy today [...term] vital force - the inherent ability of the body to heal and regain life sustaining homeostasis. An individual’s ability to heal is dependent upon the quantity of vital force present at the time of onset and during the course of an illness. The greater the vital force the more able the body is to heal with minimal external intervention [...] if a host subject is well nourished and possesses sufficient vital force, they can be exposed to a pathogen and shall not get ill [...and of course we're told] naturopathic physicians are trained at accredited, four-year, post-graduate, residential naturopathic medical programs. [Claim:] the training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences."

Note: vitalism, vitalism, vitalism - claimed to be within science.

Meletis, additionally, has been the Dean of Naturopathic Medicine at NCNM and such, as he relates:

"Dr. Meletis' extensive experience as a Dean and Chief Medical Officer for the NCNM, the oldest four-year post baccalaureate school of naturopathic medicine, makes him uniquely qualified to guide the IHA in its mission of empowering and educating individuals on the scientifically and clinically relevant steps essential to the healthy aging process [...per] teaching the science of healthy aging [...] Dr. Meletis also has served as the Chief Medical Officer and Dean of Naturopathic Medicine for the NCNM for seven years and subsequently served as the NCNM's Senior Science Officer."

Specifically, naturopathy claims to be a branch of medical science, but, that's nonsense / absurd -- minimally in light of their vitalistic 'central theme' -- as I have previously pointed out: e.g., "Naturopathy: Science by Mislabel, Vitalism By Oath, Diagnosis by Woo -- Pincott, I. (ND NCNM 1985)". What are we, all to be considered as idiots? Vitalism is profoundly science-ejected.

003. currently, AANP states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [{coded vitalism}...] naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence [{science claim}...#1] let nature heal. Our bodies have such a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing. By finding and removing the barriers to this self-healing -- such as poor diet or unhealthy habits -- naturopathic physicians can nurture this process [coded vitalism]."

Note: hmmm, in 1999 naturopathy was not a belief system, yet in 2009 it is 'belief based'. Obviously, the above current 2009 AANP language is a coding for their vitalistic belief, as directly expressed by Meletis in that 2004-ish OHSU document AS A BELIEF!

004. in sum:

PPP's? Scientific? Educators?

Don't you believe them - caveat emptor.