Naturopathy's Electrodermal Screening [Pseudo]"Science" - Hopkins, C. (ND FNUN)

here, I cite the "science" label -- by an ND of the non-AANP variety -- placed upon quite 'scientifically-decided nonsense' [see 001., below]; and I briefly analyze the 2009 article from the Oklahoman that got this up on my radar, which calls sCAM's BUNK "cutting edge" [see 002.,below]: 

 

001. Hopkins, C. (ND FNUN) states in "Services: Electro-Dermal Screening":

"electro-dermal screening is actually utilizing pathometry [measurement of disease] or the measurement of disturbed electron flow in the body. The measurements are obtained at the acupuncture site mainly on the hands and the feet [...] it is a 'data acquisition process' used to determine the areas of electrical imbalances in the body. It allows the practitioner to conduct an 'interview' with the body’s organs and tissues, showing much about the basic function of those areas [...] the system has been designed to send an electrical current through electrical pathways or meridians recognized by scientists throughout most of the world. Many pathways (meridians) have been verified by thousands of years of use within the science [of?] acupuncture while others have been recently discovered by modern science. Each pathway corresponds to organs or systems within the body itself [...] we would then team together and use nutritionals and homeopathics for a time to neutralize the allergen and detoxify the body."

Note: note the science-y language, particularly the word "science" [;)]. When, actually -- meridians don't exist per science and the EDS diagnostic method is BUNK, and so are the therapeutics [per homeopathy, and per detox]. The diagnosis and treatment of disease is, by the way, what most consider to be practicing medicine.

002. the Oklahoman states in "Oklahoma Naturopaths Offer Natural Therapies To Aid In Healing" (2009-06-21) [vsc 2012-02-21]:

"[as reported by Jennifer Palmer] cutting-edge natural therapies [...] at Healthy Solutions [...per] Hopkins and two other practitioners use reflexology, bio-energetic screening [EDS]and other methods, whereas Taylor specializes in iridology, the study of the iris of the eye."

Note: the AANP and affiliates are cited twice in this article, though the ND in this article is not of that affiliation. This is not clearly stated. We have this promise of "cutting-edge", which most people believe is 'of best current scientific support.' That is not true, it is a mislabel.

Reflexology is BUNK, and iridology is BUNK.

This is journalism?

[this post was mildly revised and reformatted 2012-02-21]:

Addendum: I've tried to find, three years later, naturopath Hopkins on the web.  No luck.  Here's a naturopath who recently made similar claims in 2012: 

"NMD" Griffith had this 2012-01-31 press release [vsc 2012-02-21] which states:

"Barbara Griffin, NMD, CNC, clinical director, Vital Health, Inc. [...says] iridology [is] the scientific interpretation of the iris [...] iridology is the science of interpreting the structure of the iris as it relates to the organs of the body [...] a powerful window to the genetic make-up of the body and means of assessing conditions and levels of health [...] a powerful tool in assessing what is going on inside the body through a painless examination of the eye's iris [...] Dr. Griffin's specialties include traditional naturopathy [...and] EAV Meridian Stress Assessment [...and] iridology, SKASYS, live blood cell analysis [...and] BioCleanse foot detox."

She additionally writes in "About Us" [vsc 2012-02-21]:

"Barbara has a naturopathic degree [her NMD I assume!] from Arkansas College of Natural Health [(something dealing with this school is here)...and is a] certified iridologist."

Naturopathy is a "Harmful Pseudoscience" - Science-Based Pharmacy (2009-05-19):

Gavura, S. (? ?) states in "Ontario Government Repudiates Advice on Naturopathy" (2009-05-15):

"on May 11, the Ontario government announced sweeping new roles and responsibilities for health professionals in Ontario. But the most satisfying part was what the announcement DIDN’T mention. The government’s own advisers had previously recommended that naturopaths be granted the privilege to prescribe drugs. This advice was resoundingly rejected. Is the Ontario government starting to realize that naturopathy is harmful pseudoscience? Let’s hope so."

Note: the author reminds us "[that naturopathy's] homeopathy is recognized by the scientific community as disproven practice that involves the provision of placebo therapies." Homeopathy [amongst other woo] is why I left N.D. school: it is quite an ethically repugnant thing to claim that the inert is in fact proufoundly effective.

Overall, naturopaths, due to the falseness of their claim that the profoundly science-ejected is scientific, do not meet the ethical structures required of a professional.

Naturopathy is epistemologically repugnant.

Bastyr Naturopathy's 'Science Basis' Camouflage - AGLO 1979:

here, I delve into the State of Washington's online historical legal repository regarding naturopathy, wherein we're told about a supposed 'basic science' context for ND degrees [see 001., below]; yet, that science context is merely a veneer / camouflage because naturopathy labels what is completely not science as scientific [see 002., below]:

001. wa.gov states in 'AGO Opinions, AGLO 1979 No. 23 - June 01, 1979' per "Community Colleges - Contracts - Naturopathy - Authority of Community Colleges to Offer Basic Science Course Under Contract With College of Naturopathy":

"[per Norris & Terrey, Gorton & Anderson] a state community college district may offer, under contract with a private college of naturopathy, a two-year course in basic science representing the middle two years of a six-year curriculum leading to the issuance, by the private institution, of an N.D. (doctor of naturopathic medicine), which two-year basic science program would be required to be preceded by two years of college level studies [x2...] a certain community college district proposes to contract with a [certain] private college of naturopathy [I'll guess that this is Bastyr] to offer a two-year course in basic science [...] offering of a basic science program of study, instruction, or training, paid for by a private college, falls clearly within the usual, ordinary and commonly accepted meaning of offering 'educational services'."

Note: "basic science" shows up in this document 7 times, "naturo" 9 times. It would appear to me that the context presented to the State of Washington regarding naturopathy is that its basis is science, therein the requirement for "basic science" courses. In other words, it is reasonable to take from this the impression that naturopathy is a subset of science [they do claim this; see Final Note, below, as well]. Assuming this document deals with Bastyr's initial years in Washington, since Bastyr is the ND school in Washington State, one would project that that N.D. degree specifically is science.

002. you would be wrong - 'the science that includes supernaturalism / scientific nonscience absurdity':

002.a. Bastyr University states in U.S. News & World Report's "Home > Education > Best Colleges > Bastyr University":

"Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating [blending, conflating] mind, body, spirit and nature [...] our mission: we educate future leaders in the natural health arts and sciences, respecting the healing power of nature and recognizing that body, mind and spirit are intrinsically inseparable [blended, conflated]."

002.a1. parsing the above, basically what Bastyr is stating is that the context of their N.D. [amongst other degrees] is science, and that HPN is within science, and that spirit / supernaturalism is within science. Now, science does not include the science-ejected, by definition. Science does not contain the nonscientific, by definition:

002.a2. HPN and supernaturalism as nonscientific & science-ejected:

HPN is naturopathy's vitalism basis, and vitalism is science-ejected. Science also does not contain supernaturalisms.

003. so, beware folks. Beware. They are the education robbers.

---

[addendum] Final Note: the new naturo. textbook "Naturopathic Physical Medicine [blah blah blah...]"(ISBN 9780443103902; 2008) - which I'm currently holding in my hands, as I write this -- in its authors and contributors section, states:

"Jared Zeff, N.D. Adjunct Professor, Bastyr University of Natural Health Sciences [p.x...and per the chapter Zeff co-wrote] the key principle in naturopathic medicine [...] that first principle is vis medicatrix naturae, ('the healing power of nature'), which establishes naturopathy as a vitalistic medicine [p.002]."

Colquhoun on sCAM Incompetence per AK and CST:

David Colquhoun states in "The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) Wants To Waive The Rules":

"the attitude of the GCC to evidence is amply illustrated by the fact that they have said that the rather crude myths known as craniosacral therapy [CST] and applied kinesiology [AK] fall within their definition of evidence-based care. Any organization that can say that is clearly incompetent."

Note: similarly, when I was at the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine, a yearly Connecticut ND get together on campus around 1999 actually had a CST hands-on seminar [my first exposure to this woo], and a few courses required AK as a diagnostic method [that I avoided].

NDs love CST, per here. And AK, per here.

UB, of course like all of naturopathy, calls this science.

When is crude myth [like naturopathy's essential vitalism] falsely postured as "science"?

Naturopathy.

Clearly incompetent:

an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'.

"Competition Science Vision" on the Science-Ejected: Vitalism, c. 1828:

"Competition Science Vision" [India?], "a specialized magazine for medical [school] entrance", states in "Chemistry" (2008-01):

"q: what was vital force theory [...a:] organic chemistry is defined as the chemistry of carbon compounds [...] Berzelius indicated [in 1815] that the organic compounds can only be synthesized in nature by living organisms under the influence of a mysterious force known as vital force, i.e., life force [...aka] vital force theory [...but] Wohler synthesized the first organic compound [in 1828...it was] a serious blow to the vital force theory [in hindsight, not the the death blow!] and this theory was subsequently discarded [ decades ago!; p.1529]."

Note: historically speaking, the next two nails in the coffin for vitalism were thermodynamics and genetics. But, this science-ejected concept has refused to peacefully rest. E.g.: naturopathy claims the that such 'profoundly science-discarded' woo heartily survives scientific scrutiny...today. They are 'the education robbers'.

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.