Utter Nonsense Labeled as Science, Compassion & Caring - Utter, N.L. (ND Bastyr 2003):

here, I muse upon naturopathic miscommunication and outright unethical twistedness:

001. the Durango Herald's article "Bringing Compassion Back into Medicine" (2009-09-14), topically labeled "Green Medicine", by Bastyr naturopath Nancy Utter, states:

"I have a dream that health care in this country [etc....] in my dream, every person has access to health care that heals the whole person - body, mind and spirit [...] one place to start is to rekindle compassion in medicine [...a.k.a.] 'the sincere wish to alleviate the suffering of another' [...by] creating a setting in which doctors can be more caring and let their innate compassion show [...per] practicing good medicine [...] one of these models is practiced by naturopathic doctors [(really!)...] the essential premise of naturopathic medicine is that doctors must support the mind and the spirit as well as the body to promote full healing [...] it creates trust [...] it helps to lessen suffering [...] join me in my dream of putting the 'care' back into health care [...] Nancy Utter is a naturopathic doctor who completed a five-year training program at Bastyr University in Seattle."

Note: hold on while I VOMIT in my own mouth.

002. how compassionate and caring are Bastyr NDs? Compassionate and caring enough to totally misrepresent the scientific enterprise and not abide by the typical duty of "informed consent" that binds the physician-patient relationship:

002.a. naturopathy's misrepresentation of science:

Bastyr has this nonsense description of their programs and of naturopathy therein in "Bastyr University":

"Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit [supernaturalism] and nature [vitalism]."

Note: so, we've an outright science label placed falsely upon the supernatural and coded vitalistic science-unsupported / science-ejected. How is it caring and compassionate to pretend that that which is in no way scientific is science? How do people benefit from such so-called compassion? How is this "good"?

002.b. not relating naturopathy's actual nonscientific position and therein violating informed consent:

to me, it is not permissible to misrepresent [per 002.a. above] the actual "nature" / context of naturopathy, literally -- which is the science ejected concept of "vis medicatrix naturae" aka vitalism.

003. this is quite a twisted version of compassion and care, in my view. It victimizes and exploits. It abuses the relationship between practitioner and trusting patient. It seems to me that NDs care much more about maintaining their sectarian, deceptive agenda than rationality, accuracy and patient autonomy.

004. Utter tells us at her own web page "Medicine by Naturopathic Physicians":

"naturopathic physicians (NDs) take a holistic approach to healing, and aim to cure disease by taking advantage of the body's self-regenerative powers and harnessing the restorative power of nature [(vitalism coded)...] naturopathic physicians work to identify and eliminate the cause of disease, and are guided by seven basic principles [...#1] the healing power of nature - facilitate each individual's own healing processes [(again, vitalism coded)...NDs are] educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...a.k.a.] the same basic sciences as allopathic physicians [...] a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with other medical professionals [...] naturopathic physicians are rigorously trained [...] during 4 years of intensive study the curriculum includes all basic and clinical science courses offered in traditional medical education [...] students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: so, we're not told of the actual vitalism that defines naturopathy [though we are told of the actual supernaturalism that does] with any kind of transparency, but we are told falsely that there's this 'foundation of science' to the naturopathic. And we get the 'trust us' claim of 'professionalism' and supposed 'rigor'.

But, the scientific basis of the nonscientific is -- Utter nonsense [irresistible!].

N.D. Hulda Clark Has Died - Hey, Nobody Really Noticed [Or Cared That Much, Which is Good]:

here, I cite recent postings by Orac and Dr. Barrett mentioning the death of naturopath Hulda Clark [see 001., below]; and I do a Google search per "Hulda Clark Dies" for a sense of her significance [see 002., below];

001.a. at Respectful Insolence, Orac writes in "Requiem For A Quack":

"what can one say about 'Dr.' Hulda Regehr Clark? I call her a quack, because that's what she was [...] this is a woman who for over two decades has [...] preyed upon the fears and scientific ignorance of average cancer patients in order to sell them useless 'cures' [...] far be it for me to be hypocritical and feign much in the way of sorrow when a woman who has done so much harm to so many patients for so many years is finally [...] rendered unable to do any further harm [...] she could rightly be called the Dark Lord of Quackery."

001.b. Dr. Barrett states in "Consumer Health Digest 09-37":

"Hulda Regehr Clark, author of The Cure for All Cancers, The Cure for All Diseases, and a few similar books, died on September 3, 2009 at the age of 80 [...] Clark wrote that all cancers and many other diseases are caused by 'parasites, toxins, and pollutants' and can be cured by killing the parasites and ridding the body of environmental chemicals [...] admirers portray her as a great 'research scientist' even though she published no scientific reports. Critics regard Clark as a quack and charge that she exploited desperate patients [and Quackwatch has the article The Bizarre Claims of Hulda Clark which states 'Clark also listed a naturopathic (N.D.) degree from the Clayton College of Natural Health' and mentions that infamous-to-me N.D. Pizzorno testified AGAINST her in terms of her zapper contraption]."

002. searching Google, per "Hulda Clark Dies" reveals some interestingly trivial rankings [these are the top three as of 2009-09-12]:

002.a. a memorial page for Dr. Clark, "to honor the legacy of healing Hulda Clark left us with";

002.b. a link to Respectful Insolence [not to say this blog is insignificant];

002.c. a link to the Cancer Treatment Watch article "How Hulda Clark Victimized My Parents" by Patricia Chavez;

Note: on the bright side, these are not major media outlets in the sense of television or cable, or large newspapers communicating a 'significant cultural loss'. And in that sense, Clark's passing has not been noticed. Wikipedia, by the way, has an entry for her that seems very N.D. sympathetic, whereby again Pizzorno is cited for his expert opinion regarding physiology [ha!] and the article states Clark "held a naturopathy degree from the Clayton College of Natural Health, a school that lacks accreditation from any accreditation agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education."

Danger! The USDE, whom I've written to many times, has done nothing about the 'naturopathy education racket': as I have often written, there are MANY fully-accredited naturopathy schools that are completely bogus in their claims of what actually is scientific and science-based [Pizzorno's Bastyr, my alma mater U.B. -- for starters, check out 'The Education Robbers'].

003. I should also mention that today's North East Conference on Science and Skepticism had a small mention of Clark's harmfulness and passing during the live Skeptics' Guide to the Universe taping. My impression was that the audience was aghast at her activities and that her activities had gone on for so long in supposedly civilized and lawful North America.

Science-Based Medicine vs. Science-Based Natural Medicine [Rationality, UTTER Nonsense - Respectively]:

here, I compare two schools of thought or movements [see 004., below regarding these loose expressions], Science-Based Medicine [SBM; see 001., below] and supposed Science-Based Natural Medicine [SBNM; see 002., below] in terms of their mutual claims of being scientific, and then I expose the one that is UTTER NONSENSE [see 003., below]:

001. according Dr. Stephen Novella in "Announcing the Science-Based Medicine Blog" at the blog "Science-Based Medicine", SBM:

"[promotes] the highest standards and traditions of science in medicine and health care. The mission of this blog is to scientifically examine medical and health topics of interest to the public [...] it is in everyone’s best interest for health care to be systematically evaluated by the best science available [...] science is nothing more than a systematic and careful use of evidence and logic to evaluate factual claims [...] good science possesses certain virtues that are not unique to science but generic to all intellectual endeavors: fairly accounting for all available evidence, using valid and internally consistent logic, using unambiguous concepts and language, proper use of statistics, being quantitatively precise and accurate, and above all being honest [{intellectual integrity}...] collectively, science builds one cumulative model of the natural world. This means we can make rational judgments about what is likely to be true based upon what is already well established. This does not necessarily equate to rejecting new ideas out-of-hand, but rather to adjusting the threshold of evidence required to establish a new claim based upon the prior scientific plausibility of the new claim [...] this is why the authors of this blog strongly advocate for science based medicine – the use of the best scientific evidence available, in the light of our cumulative scientific knowledge from all relevant disciplines, in evaluating health claims, practices, and products."

Note: SBM aims for "the highest of standards", per "the best science", intellectual integrity, AND cumulative & rational investigation of the natural world based upon prior plausibility [in other words, 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence']. This sounds to me like a very good thing.

002. regarding SBNM:

002.a. according to the leading proponent of SBNM, J.E. Pizzorno, ND (NCNM 1975):

"Joseph E. Pizzorno, Jr., N.D. [JEP...] is one of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine [per his credentials as] a naturopathic physician [...] he travels worldwide, consulting, lecturing and promoting science-based natural medicine [...he has been honored for his] 'decades of work establishing the scientific and educational foundation of natural medicine' [...] Dr. Pizzorno is the author of Total Wellness [TW] and co-author of the internationally acclaimed Textbook of Natural Medicine [TNM]."

Note: the claim is that being a naturopath is equivalent to being an expert practitioner of the "science-based" because naturopathy supposedly is "science-based natural medicine". This position is also found at the ND granting school Pizzorno founded, Bastyr University, which claims:

a) at their web page "About Us [concerning Bastyr's programs]":

"Bastyr.edu is a science-based natural medicine university [...] Bastyr University is a non-profit, private university offering both graduate and undergraduate degrees, with a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...] Bastyr’s international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature."

b) in their Peterson's.com advertisement:

"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 [...naturopathy is within] the field of natural health sciences [...we create] scientifically trained naturopathic physicians."

Obviously, [Pizzorno's] Bastyr claims that the naturopathic is scientific; and by definition, Bastyr claims that SBNM is science. Also, notice that Bastyr claims that the supernatural is science, as well as what they term "nature" [see 002.c2. below, where I expose what "nature" is within naturopathy].

Obviously, Dr. Pizzorno claims to excel at "science", and Bastyr claims the same. It should be noted that Pizzorno does not apparently possess science credentials in any significantly meaningful sense per 'high echelon academia' [I'll call it], and anyone or any institution who/that establishes the scientific basis of what is 'the essentially naturopathic' [vitalism, spiritism-supernaturalism, cosmic teleology & other science-ejected kind] would upend several hundred years of scientific advancement to such an extent that I'd at least think by now Nobel Prizes would have been awarded. After all, the NDs have been formally claiming that vitalism and their other beliefs [spiritism, cosmic teleology] survive scientific scrutiny since at least 1989 with the unanimous ratification of their creed at Rippling River! But, no such because instead of actually producing scientific verification of their claims through the channels that science requires, NDs merely write words and posture their claims as science without producing the actual EXTRAORDINARY evidence needed to establish the hugely/profoundly nonscientific as indeed scientific -- and this racket/farce of SBNM has been feeding the ND luminaries $$$ for at least a couple decades].

002.b. I'll reiterate these facts, before I go on:

JEP is a graduate of National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM], 1975. NCNM is the oldest North American ND school, and the trunk of the ND tree so to speak. JEP is the author of the primary North American ND textbook, the TNM.

002.c. naturopathy claimed as science while based upon vitalism [a vitalism, spiritism, teleology amalgam] / a.k.a. the science-ejected -- what TW, TNM, and NCNM tell us:

002.c1. naturopathy claimed as science:

002.c1.a. in TW, JEP states on its dust jacket (ISBN 0761504338; 1996):

"Joseph Pizzorno, N.D., co-author of A Textbook of Natural Medicine and Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine, is one of the world’s leading authorities on science-based natural medicine [...this book is] grounded in scientific research [...and speaks of] the body's potent, innate healing systems [{in the book, one of those systems is the 'life force'; see 002.c2.a., below} p. xi]."

Note: and in the preface, JEP writes: "I have used and taught the concepts in this book for 25 years [...and] I reviewed the scientific literature for the latest research." In chapter one, we're told by JEP: "all the information in this book is fully referenced to the scientific research literature [p.006]."

002.c1.b. in TNM, co-author JEP states in "Preface" and "Chapter 3" (ISBN ISBN0443059454; 1999):

"[along my ND Murray] the scientific support for the philosophical and therapeutic foundation of natural medicine has evolved remarkably over the past 25 years [p.xxviii...along with ND homeopath Bradley] while modern vitalism is inherently holistic in its view and has an emphasis on circularity as its causality (i.e. feedback loops), there is no conflict with the findings of biomedical science [p.044...] the point is only that vitalism is a medical philosophy based on observable scientific phenomena [p.045...] conventional medicine, as the dominant health care system and a representative of mechanism, has claimed for itself the title of 'scientific medicine'. However, it is inherently no more or less scientific than vitalistic medicine [...] the criteria of the scientific method can be met by vitalistic medicine, but only when the researchers recognize that it cannot be studied as though it is reductionistic or based on a simplistic model of linear causality. When the experimental model acknowledges the complexity of a living system in a social context (i.e. holism and circularity), vitalistic medicine proves to be both verifiable and reproducible, and thus scientific [p.046]."

Note: so, vitalism is science [only when the strictures of science are annulled!].

002.c1.c. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...and later they state that the essentially naturopathic is] in fact."

002.c2. naturopathy's essential vitalism [the context of its "nature" or its "innate healing systems"]:

002.c2.a. per TW, JEP states:

"[remember these] important concepts. The healing power of nature [HPN]. Vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]. Our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal [...] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [p.003...you need to] live in harmony with your life-force [LF...such is a] belief [...a] spiritual value [...] each of us needs to become more aware of the activity of the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) [p.026...] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life: the immune system, the detoxification system, the inflammatory system, the metabolic system, the regulatory system, the regeneration system, and our life-force or spirit [S]. Weakness in any of these seven systems results in susceptibilities that allow most common diseases to develop [p.024...] live in harmony with the psychosocial [PS]/spiritual/ life-force [p.317...] the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae [...it is] this teleological force [TF], the healer within [THW], that is the essence of each of us [p.333]."

Note: so, HPN = VMN = LF = S = PS = TF = THW. This is naturopathy's essential vitalism [vitalism, spiritism, teleology], and such is [falsely] claimed to be science. Why a "life force" or "spirit" equals the "psychosocial" is beyond me.

002.c2.b. TNM states in "Chapter 06 - Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine":

"[a chapter ascribed primarily to ND homeopath Bradley] this chapter examines the philosophical foundation of naturopathic medicine [...] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [...] the philosophy of vitalism is based on the concept that life is too well organized to be explained simply as a complex assemblage of chemical and physical reactions [...he claims] vitalism is a medical philosophy based on observable scientific phenomena."

Note: again, the essentially naturopathic is vitalism, which is claimed to be scientific.

002.c2.c. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [teleological]; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] first do no harm -- primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

Note: so, at JEP's alma mater, HPN = VMN = LF = VF. AND, NCNM claims on this page that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny - such is an obligation of an NCNM ND and particularly an ND practicing in Oregon by .gov decree! Along the same lines, a Bastyr ND is obligated to a similar absurdity merely in different language. Notice also the claim of meeting the ethical strictures of professionalism.

003. ohhhh, the OBVIOUS nonsense that is SBNM [because vitalism is hugely not science, along with supernaturalism & teleology - 'something is not equal to that which it is hugely different from, and excludes']:

there actually is no science basis for what is essentially 'the naturopathic'.

Though claimed as science, naturopathy at its core is actual science-ejected: vitalism is hugely science-ejected, and so is supernaturalism [teleology as well].

004. on 'school of thought' and 'movement':

004.a. school of thought:

Wikipedia states in "School of Thought":

"a school of thought is a collection or group of people who share common characteristics of opinion or outlook of a philosophy, discipline, belief, social movement, cultural movement, or art movement."

Note: I would say that SBM fits the loose definition of a school of thought. But, SBNM isn't much into thinking at all, when you consider its falseness and nonsense -- to be elevated to the status of 'academically soundness'. I'd rather term SBNM as school of idiocy, incompetence and dishonesty.

004.b. movement:

Wikipedia states in "Movement":

"philosophical movement, is either the appearance or increased popularity of a specific school of philosophy, or a fairly broad but identifiable sea-change in philosophical thought on a particular subject."

Note: I would argue that SBM is mainstream and quite mundane scientific movement, while SBNM is a cultic / sectarian philosophical/intellectual RUSE that is quite nonsensical, incompetent & dishonest.

To the extent that SBM is 'philosophical', it promotes the priority of a posteriori empirical knowledge [which includes science]; while SBNM / naturopathy is a pile of a priori beliefs falsely labeled science [pseudoscience; and quite an abuse of the institutions of education, physicianship, and professionalism overall -- to such an extent that I regard it as a human rights violation to the extreme].

Homeopathy - WHO Says No to Such "Dangerous Quackery", UB Naturopathy Says Yes:

here, I look at two positions which are quite at odds regarding homeopathy -- a mandatory ND subject area for the degree, labeled a "clinical science" on their NPLEX licensing exam -- that of a proponent of scientific medicine [see 001., below], and that of an ND degree granting CT institution that falsely labels the profoundly nonscientific as science (specifically naturopathy and its 'essentially naturopathic' contents, such as homeopathy) [see 002., below]:

001. at Neurologica, Dr. Stephen Novella states in "WHO Says No to Homeopathy" (2009-08-21):

"the World Health Organization [WHO], which does not have a good track record when it comes to pseudoscience in medicine (being too much of a political organization), has recently made a number of statements against the use of homeopathy [...] this is good news, as homeopathy is dangerous quackery."

Note: Dr. N. further describes homeopathy as:

a) "a pre-scientific philosophy that it is based entirely on magical thinking and is out of step with the last 200 years of science";

b) "literally nothing but pure magical thinking";

and Dr. N. states:

c) "[homeopaths] want to re-frame the conflict between scientific medicine and homeopathy so that it is not about science (since they have already lost the scientific war) but about culture, politics, and ideology [...] homeopaths are much better at that than scientists who are dedicated to honesty and transparency."

002. but, according to the naturopathy establishment, e.g. the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM] even though homeopathy is a "pre-scientific [...] dangerous quackery [...] based entirely on magical thinking":

002.a. it is required within an ND degree and labeled "medicine";

002.b. and, since within UB's label of naturopathy as science overall, homeopathy is labeled therein science;

Note: so, when is a supposed "medical science" actually not science at all but instead junk falsely labeled science?

Yes, naturopathy.

Explaining Without Explaining: Naturopathy's CODED Central Premise Via Lane, K. (NMD SCNM):

here, I show a typical ND / NMD ruse -- via Kiera Lane NMD -- presenting in naturalistic language [see 001., below] an actually sectarian science-ejected premise [see 002., below]:

001. Kiera Lane, an NMD graduate of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine [SCNM] states in "Philosophy":

"what are the [essential] principles of naturopathic medicine? 1. Healing power of nature [HPN]: naturopathic physicians utilize the healing power of nature to facilitate the body’s own healing process. Their role is to facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and wellness."

Note: and that's all you are told. Can you make an informed decision based on this? No, and I'll tell you why not [you have to know what they are coding in order to understand that they are masking their sectarian science-ejected central premise].

002. the actual context of HPN, via that "Dr.'s" alma mater, SCNM:

002.a. SCNM states in "Is Alternative Medicine For You?":

"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 [...] the essence of naturopathic medicine."

Note: this is vitalism, essentially.

002.b. and, vitalism is hugely science-ejected.

003. would you know that from the "Dr.'s" web page? No. And, being that the "Dr." describes herself as a "medical director", isn't medicine ETHICALLY obligated to the INTEGRITY of its scientific knowledge and not misleading its patients?

Note: fascinating. I got thousands more ND sites like this.