Bastyr U.'s Naturopathy "Science Based" Claim - Natural Healers, BCNH, AANMC, Peterson's, GPIS (2009-06-29):

here are the results of a recent google.com web search per >bastyr science based naturopathic<:

001. Bastyr University writes:

001.a. on the naturalhealers.com page "Bastyr University - Naturopathic Medicine Program":

"Bastyr University's School of Naturopathic Medicine [...of a] a distinct multidisciplinary, science-based approach to teaching with an emphasis on understanding the mind, body, spirit and nature [...quoting Whorton] 'Bastyr University [...] bringing scientific legitimacy to natural medicine' [...] a rigorous, science-based education [...of the] the natural health sciences."

Note: how did supernaturalism get science-based [and naturopathy's requisite vitalism {the science-ejected}], and the Nobel committee missed giving Bastyr an award for such a PROFOUNDLY revolutionary breakthrough? [It's not true].

001.b. on the bastyr.edu page "Clinical Resources for Naturopathic Medicine":

"the science-based naturopathic medicine of today [...the] Textbook of Natural Medicine, 3rd ed. Edited by Joseph E. Pizzorno and Michael T. Murray. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2005. This two-volume set has long been the standard reference for science-based natural medicine [...] Kent, J. T. Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy [...] it includes information on how to take a case history and determine the proper remedy, and how to scientifically understand what constitutes a cure [...] Lindlahr, Henry. Philosophy of Natural Therapeutics. Maidstone, Kent ; Saffron Walden, Essex, England: Maidstone Osteopathic Clinic; C.W. Daniel, 1916. (Reprinted in 1985.) Henry Lindlahr, M.D. (1862-1924), a proponent of scientific naturopathy."

Note: "scientific naturopathy" is as logical as scientific nonscience.

001.c. on the bastyr.edu page "Interviews and Profiles: Gannady Raskin, MD, ND Enhances Bastyr's Naturopathic Education Position as Dean":

"our science-based approach to natural medicine continues to garner worldwide respect."

Note: how does absurdity get respect?

002. Bastyr Center For Natural Health states:

002.a. on the bastyrcenter.org page "Naturopathic Medicine: Overview":

"while firmly science-based, modern naturopathic medicine [etc.]."

002.b. on the dexknows.com page "Bastyr Center For Natural Health [...] Science Based Natural Health Progs, Graduate/Undergraduate":

"respected internationally for its science-based natural health programs."

003. Bastyr University President Church states on the AANMC page "Bastyr University - Message from the President":

"Bastyr University continues to champion science-based natural medicine."

004. Bastyr states on the Peterson's College Guide page "Bastyr University - School of Naturopathic Medicine":

"Bastyr's fully accredited four- to five-year Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) program is internationally renowned for its rigorous, science-based curriculum. Combining a distinct multidisciplinary, science-based approach to teaching with an emphasis on understanding the mind, body, spirit, and nature [...] students receive a thorough foundation in the basic medical sciences [...] the field of natural health sciences [...] scientifically trained naturopathic physicians."

005. Bastyr states on the Graduate Programs In Science [GPIS] page "Bastyr University: Naturopathic Medicine":

"the School of Naturopathic Medicine at Bastyr University is internationally renowned for its rigorous science-based curriculum [...] modern medical science [...] a strong preparation in the sciences [...] the natural health sciences."

Note: since when is 'nonscience as a basis' [the essentially naturopathic] the same as 'science-based' [what science actually supports, which sure as scat doesn't include supernaturalism and vitalism - minimally], academically speaking?

DC's Improbable Science on U.W. Naturopathy 'Make-Believe Nonsense' - Next For the Chop?:

DC's Improbable Science [UK] -- David Colquhoun -- writes in "More Make-Believe From the University of Westminster: This Time It’s Naturopathy":

"[at] the University of Westminster [...recently] luckily for science, they have a new dean who knows bullshit when she sees it [...e.g. their naturopathy degree] Health Sciences: Naturopathy [...which is] as delusional as homeopathy [...] rumor has it that naturopathy may be next for the chop [...here's some of] what the hapless students get taught. Remember that according to Westminster this is a bachelor of science degree [...e.g.] emotrance [...] pure vitalistic psycho-babble [...] preposterous made-up gobbledygook [...] the idea that stuff of this sort is appropriate for a bachelor of science degree is simply ludicrous. I have no doubt that Westminster's new dean can see that as well as anyone else. She has the delicate job of extirpating the nonsense."

Note: similarly, I know of a Connecticut University [USA] posing vitalistic nonsense [amonst other nonsense] as health science, by way of a doctoral health science label.

Homeopathy as 'Natural, Life-Force Based, Effective, Rational, Evidence-Based, Remarkable, Scientific Method' - Dodds, C. (ND Bastyr):

001. Dodds, C. (ND Bastyr 1993) states in "Homeopathy: A Time-tested Medicine For Today":

"homeopathy is a system of natural medicine [...wherein] health is a state of equilibrium maintained by a life force or essence [{LF, E}...when] the life force becomes disturbed [...it] expresses its imbalance in the form of symptoms [...which are] the outer expression of this inner state of [its] disturbance or disease [...] the role of homeopathy is to stimulate the life force [...] as the life force is restored to balance, the symptoms recede and the individual returns to a state of health [...] in 1810 Dr. Hahnemann [homeo.'s founder] published the 1st edition of the [homeo. bible] 'Organon of Medicine' [...] in it he outlined the principles of the art and science of healing [...homeo. is] an evidence-based system [...] and a reliable method of assessment and treatment [...its] a rational philosophy of healing and a scientific method of treatment."

Note: so, LF=E. We are promised by ND Dodds:

a. on his homepage:

"Dr. Cam Dodds is a licensed naturopathic physician with a focus in classical homeopathy. Homeopathy is a remarkable method of natural medicine effective in stimulating healing and restoring health."

b. and in "About Homeopathy":

"homeopathy is a safe, gentle, and effective method of treatment for both acute and chronic illness."

002. meanwhile, overall:

there is NO SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT for either a life force, or homeopathy's efficacy.

NDs Coward & Lewis Absurdly Defend Homeopathy as "Medicinal Science" - Citizen-Times, 2009-06-25:

here, I detail the absurd claim of two Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine [SCNM] ND graduates that homeopathy is a "medicinal science" [see 001., below]; while, overall, homeopathy is "utter rubbish" and "a classic pseudoscience" [see 002., below]:

001. Coward, S. (ND SCNM) and Lewis, K. (ND SCNM) state in the Citizen-Times article "Misconceptions Aside, Homeopathy Has Stood Test of Time" {2009-06-25}:

"homeopathy is a 200-year-old medicinal science [...unlike] Zicam [...which is] an impostor [...because] typical homeopathic remedies are much, much more dilute, often so dilute there are no molecules of the original substance left [{yikes !!!}...yet] the assertion that homeopathy is not supported by quality research is false [{oh really}...] studies of true homeopathy [...] show both safety and effectiveness [{oh really}...overall,] homeopathy has stood the test of time."

Note 01: AANP NDs take a national board exam that labels homeopathy "clinical science". SCNM -- the alma mater of these NDs -- labels naturopathy overall, including its requisite homeopathy , science in its web article "The Naturopathic Physician":

"naturopathic doctors['] practice is based on the same basic biomedical science foundation that allopathic [!!!] practice is [...we use] natural modalities such as [...] homeopathy [...] a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a four-year professional level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...and they take] rigorous professional board exams [...] the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine requires four years of professional level study in the medical sciences."

Note 02: by the way, the President of CEO of SCNM, who is simultaneously the President of the AANMC -- Mittman, P. (ND NCNM 1985, DHANP AANP), 2007 AANP Physician of the Year -- is a homeopath.

Note 03.a.: Coward also tells us at his practice's web page, per "Homeopathy":

"homeopathy is a scientific method of treatment."

Note 03.b.1..: Lewis tells us at her practice's homepage shared with ND E. Lewis:

"we are experts in both the science of medicine."

Note 03.b.2. and Lewis tells us in "What is Classical Homeopathy?":

"homeopathy is a science."

002. homeopathy, is -- of course, as these NDs has stated above -- 'nothing but water'. E.g., Novella, S. (MD GUSM) recently wrote in "Homeopathy Awareness Week":

"I would like people to be aware of the fact that homeopathy is a pre-scientific philosophy that it is based entirely on magical thinking and is out of step with the last 200 years of science [!!!]. People should know that typical homeopathic remedies are diluted to the point that no active ingredient remains, and that homeopaths invoke mysterious vibrations or implausible and highly fanciful water chemistry. I would further like people to know that clinical research with homeopathic remedies, when taken as a whole, show no effect for any such remedy [...] I am all in favor of homeopathic awareness. The scientific community should use this week to make the public acutely aware of the fact that homeopathy is, put simply, utter rubbish. It is a classic pseudoscience and has no place in a 21st century science-based health care system."

Note: in other words, labeling homeopathy a "medicinal science" is absurd -- misconceptions aside!

003. warning, NDs are not the 'competent science-qualified physicians' that they claim to be.

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.