A Search Sample of Naturopathic Contextual Coding and Mislabeling via 'accessmylibary.com', 2009:

here, I do an experiment of sorts and search the Gale database 'accessmylibrary.com' with the search parameter >naturopathic medicatrix<. I got 11 hits, 9 of which were useful. What I am most interested in here is whether the actual vitalistic premise [a.k.a. VMN] of naturopathy is communicated clearly to the reader, i.e. whether that premise is honestly explained as a hugely nonscientific sectarian belief, or instead, naturopathy miscommunicates and misleads [take a guess, most of the time, what happens!]:

001. so, this is them:

001.a. "Epistemology of Naturopathic Medicine [...]", from the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients [TLDP] 2005, by then NCNM student Krebs, R.M. (ND NCNM 2005) which states:

"[naturopathy's] six philosophical tenets [were] developed with the 1985 formation of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians: 1. vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] (the healing power of nature)."

Note: there is no clear communication of naturopathy's essential vitalism.  There is no clear communication of vitalism's science-ejected status.

001.b. "Naturopathic Medicine: What Can Patients Expect? [...]", from the Journal of Family Practice 2005, by NDs Dunne (ND NCNM 1989), Kim (ND ?), Mittman (ND NCNM 1985), Barrett (ND NCNM 1986), Snider (ND Bastyr 1982), and Pizzorno (ND NCNM 1975), which states:

"[there are supposedly!!!] inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes [...] naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature [...] the goal of naturopathic medical education is to prepare clinicians for the challenges of general practice with a foundation in current medical science."

Note: again, VMN's context is not transparently communicated, while science, particularly medical science, is claimed as a foundation of the naturopathic.

001.c. "Naturopathic Medicine", from American Fitness 2004, by ND Wotton, B. (ND Bastyr 1995), which states:

"treatment plans recommended by NDs are based on the six guiding principles of naturopathic philosophy: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). NDs support the inherent healing wisdom of the body to promote, maintain or restore normal function [...] naturopathic doctors complete a four-year, graduate-level, accredited naturopathic medicine program to receive a doctorate of naturopathy (N.D.) [...] this program is similar to conventional medical education, with the first two years concentrating on medical sciences."

Note: again, VMN is not contextually explained and medical science expertise is claimed.

001.d. "Naturopathic Medicine, Integrative Medicine and Women's Health", from TLDP 2001, by ND Hudson, T. (ND NCNM 1984), which states:

"[there are] seven principles are the foundation for Naturopathic medicine: 1. the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae).  The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain and restore health [...] natural medicine has also matured, particularly in the areas of scientific research, educational institutions, virtual numbers of licensed practitioners, and professionalism, and is now poised to serve those who seek its gentle ways [...it is a] vitalistic holistic healing art [...based on] our vitalistic philosophy."

Note: now, we get some transparency, but I completely disagree with the label "profession" and "science" upon the essentially naturopathic.

001.e. "Healing Communities", from Alternatives Journal 2005, by ND Meyer, M. (ND ?), which states:

"naturopathic medicine bases itself on the principle vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [...and later mentions] the vital force [VF]."

Note: but, there is no mention of where VMN/VF stands in relation to science.

001.f. "Naturopathy: Prevention Before Cure [...]", from Natural Life 1997, by Gervais, R. (ND Bastyr 1993), which states:

"vis medicatrix naturae -- the healing power of nature. Fundamental to the practice of naturopathic medicine is a profound belief in the ability of the body to heal itself, given the proper opportunity [...] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature, to denote the body's ability to heal itself  [...] the first two years concentrate on the standard human biological sciences [...] the second two years are oriented towards the clinical sciences [...] the therapeutic sciences."

Note: again, no explanation of VMN as being essentially science-ejected.

001.g. "William (Bill) Mitchell, Jr. ND [ND NCNM] (in memoriam)", from TLDP 2007, by ND Reichenberg-Ullman, J. (ND Bastyr 1983), which states:

"Bill had an unfailing belief and confidence in the power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature)."

Note: ditto.

001.h. "Botanical Solutions [...]", from TLDP 2002, by Walker, M. (? ?), which states:

"the human body holds a restorative capacity, the vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: ditto.

001.i. "Whole Foods [...]", from TLDP 2003, by NDs Meletis (ND ?) and Barker (ND SCNM), which states:

"our understanding of vis medicatrix naturae [...] Dr. Meletis [...] sits on scientific advisory boards."

Note: ditto.

002. I'm not surprised.  Generally, science is claimed by naturopathy and their nonscientific vitalistic premise isn't transparently communicated -- lets call this misinformed consent.  And lets call all this SLIMY.

Note: a lot of the NDs listed above are NCNM or Bastyr grads.  You can go to NCNM's web page where they explicitly state the essential vitalism [and supernaturalism] of naturopathy and tell us all that such survives scientific scrutiny, which is false.  You can go to Bastyr's page where they state that naturopathy is "science based natural medicine", which, again, is false.

Jerry Kopel - You Are Wrong (Colorado Statesman, 2009-10-16):

001. in "Kopel: Will Sun Rise on Naturopathic Medicine?  Medical Society Spurns Naturopath Regulation" Jerry Kopel (? ?) writes:

"the NP [ND!] practice can be summarized as 'helping the body heal itself in the least invasive, most fundamental curative manner possible' [...] NPs function under regulation, they have successfully attended accredited four-year graduate level naturopathic medical schools [...] practitioners who don’t meet the high standards set out for NPs [etc.]."

002. actually, 'the ND practice' is based upon the concept of vitalism falsely labeled science and usually, as above, relayed in coded language. To state otherwise is to mislead, or be ignorant.  You'd hope somebody writing in a newpaper would do some research first:

there are no such high standards for NDs, particularly via the AANP schools mentioned. E.g., where else but naturopathy do you find a sectarian belief set, claimed as nonsectarian, and science when actually science-ejected?

AANP Falsely Labels Naturopathy a "Scientific"- and "Common Sense"- Based Profession (ISBN 9781935297185, 2009):

here, I quote from a 2009 paper-based booklet authored by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP]. I find so much of it, frankly, to be duplicitous / false [in other words: typical of the ND realm]. In this booklet, the AANP labels naturopathy: of professional-level in ethical stricture, scientific, rigorous, while bound to the ND principles [see 001.a. through 001.c., below]. I illustrate the AANP's nontransparency / coding of naturopathy's essential premise [after they've told us to trust them, that they meet professional ethical strictures!]; and I compare AANP's language in the booklet to the language of the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners [OBNE] who promise us that vitalism and supernaturalism are science, and that naturopaths are professionals [see 003., below]; and I caution [see 004., below]:

001. the AANP states in "Naturopathic Medicine: Wisdom of Nature, Rigors of Science" (Better Nutrition Magazine's Healthy Living Guide; vol. 19 2009; ISBN 9781935297185) [available through online bookstores]:

001.a. by way of general overview, per the booklet's cover:

"[naturopathy is ] patient-centered health care [...and NDs are] experts [...] providing safe and effective healthcare [...naturopathy has] a strong foundation of steep tradition and scientific validation [...] this booklet provides comprehensive information about naturopathic medicine from a trusted source [...the AANP, which] is a professional society [...whose] vision is to transform the healthcare system [...] to a comprehensive health program incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine."

Note: fascinating. We have the claims: "patient-centered" a.k.a. 'they're looking out for you!', 'expertise', 'efficacy', 'a strong science foundation', that we are being 'comprehensively informed', that AANP is 'trustworthy', and "professional". Overall, the AANP's agenda is, explicitly, to get their naturopathic "principles" dominating healthcare [for their essential principles, see 002., below].

001.b. specifically, that naturopathy is science:

"[NDs use] the best of modern medical science [...per meeting] the rigors of modern science [p.004...that ND degrees are granted by] National University of Health Sciences in Lombard, IL [(also listed on p.031)...that NDs study] diagnostic sciences [...and] clinical sciences [p.007...] naturopathic medicine is based on scientific evidence as well as common sense [p.012...] a growing amount of scientific research supports much of what we already know [p.015...] naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence [p.023...] returning to the roots of healing does not mean abandoning science [p.024...in the ND oath, the] science of naturopathic medicine [p.029]."

Note: science, science, science.

001.c. naturopathy's claimed professionalism is stated explicitly:

"[AANP is] a professional society [...] CNME is the only professional body [etc. p.008...] the legitimate naturopathic medical profession [...of] professional organizations [p.009...] "[regarding] license[d] naturopathic physicians. Licensure of health care providers helps ensure public safety and a high standard of professionalism. Professional licensure for naturopathic physicians is presently available [...] the AANP and other professional naturopathic organizations [p.027...] naturopathic physicians have the medical training, the professional network [p.028...] specialty organizations, state associations, and professional affiliates [and they list their North American apparatus p.030, including UBCNM p.031]."

Note: professional, professional, professional.

001.d. naturopathy's claimed of rigor:

"[naturopathy meets] rigors of science [cover...] qualified naturopathic physicians undergo rigorous training before they become licensed healthcare practitioners [(and they list their schools, including UBCNM)...] after graduation from a CNME accredited naturopathic medical program, graduates are eligible to take a rigorous national naturopathic physicians licensing examination (NPLEX) [p.007]."

Note: rigor, rigor, rigor.

002. but, in this booklet, naturopathy's essential premise / context is:

002.a. mainly coded:

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [...the] bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [...NDs are] steeped in [...] principles [p.004...these] principles of naturopathic medicine. [Which] naturopathic physicians base their practice on [...#1] let nature heal [LNH...] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...] this process [p.023..] naturopathic physician's oath [...] the fundamental principles adhered to by naturopathic doctors [...include] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine [...including] to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [HPN, p.029]."

Note: most fascinating is that the words "force", "vitalism", "vitalistic" do not show up in this "comprehensive" and 'trustworthy' document. Instead, we get naturalistic language, and it is not being specific. I will reveal naturopathy's actual context [see 003., below].

002.b. though slightly hinted at contextually:

"homeopathy [...] the father of homeopathy [...] Hahnemann [...] taught that every person has a vital source. He believed that the homeopathic remedy must be diluted enough so that it doesn't overwhelm this vital source [VS], or spiritual core [SC, p.017]."

Note: in sum, LNH/HPN and VS/SC are, upon the preponderance, naturopathy's 'vitalism' [see 003.a., below], which is science-ejected [see 003.b., below]. It should be noted that in this booklet, the AANP is telling us that within the scientific is the supernatural 'vital source'. Science does not contain the supernatural, or support it.

003. naturopathy's essential principle -- vitalism -- via OBNE:

003.a. OBNE states in "About Naturopathy":

"naturopathic medicine is a distinctively natural approach to health and healing that recognizes the integrity of the whole person. Naturopathic Medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...naturopathy's] principles [...] distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#1] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] the physician must strive to inspire hope as well as understanding. The physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher [...] naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners trained as specialist in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."

Note: I've collected examples of naturopathy's essential vitalism. I've collected examples of naturopathy's science claim they place upon the essentially naturopathic.

003.b. in reality, vitalism is hugely science-ejected and so is supernaturalism.

004. the AANP's promises / claims are empty and false:

so, where is the common sense? When you label something [science] equivalent to what it hugely isn't [nonscience], that's absurd. Seems to me, the AANP seeks to transform healthcare into their 'hugely burning stupid'.

where is the science? Their ain't none to support vitalism or supernaturalism: science actually REJECTS both.

where is the truth? Your tax dollars are at work deceiving you, via OBNE .gov;
and AANP is at work deceiving you.

The ND M.O. in MT - Naturopathy's Science-Based Nonscience Context Via Troy, L. (ND Bastyr 2004):

here, I do the typical: illustrate ND nonsense. An ND claims that the naturopathic is science [see 001.a., below], codes vitalism [see 001.b. and oo1.c., below] and warns the public that if ND beliefs aren't followed they'll be harming themselves, and I reveal the ill-logic / figmentation / ruse [see 003., below]:

001. Montana ND Troy, L. (Bastyr 2004) states:

001.a. in "Licensure":

"a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in the same basic sciences as medical doctors [...NDs are] professional leaders and pioneers in science-based natural medicine."

Note: so we have this claim of typical science upon 'the naturopathic'.

001.b. in "Naturopathic Principles":

"principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature - vis medicatrix naturae [HPN/VMN...] naturopathic physicians respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process [SHP] is not respected the patient may be harmed."

Note: so we have the premise HPN / VMN / SHP.

001.c. in "Homeopathy":

"homeopathic medicines stimulate and encourage the body’s own natural healing forces [BONHF...] the individual’s innate healing powers [IIHP] are encouraged."

Note: so we have the premise BONHF / IIHP.

002. obviously, HPN / VMN / SHP / BONHF / IIHP have be labeled science by this ND.

003. don't you believe it:

003.a. VMN or whatever other euphemism / disguise NDs use to describe their 'healing context' is the science ejected concept of vitalism.

Note: this is NDs' M.O., claim science as a context while hiding naturopathy's actual nonscience context. Since the concept of vitalism is as scientific as the Tooth Fairy, warning people that if they don't respect a just-as-imaginary 'purposeful life spirit' that supposedly runs one's physiology [VMN] is as dangerous as a dentist warning a patient that if they don't make offerings to the Tooth Fairy, they are in serious trouble.

When is typical science NOT science at all: naturopathy.

004. so, though two articles by NDs were recently published in Montana's Great Falls Tribune newspaper on 2009-10-05 (Arnold, Oleynik), I'd be wary about ND claims of medical expertise.

Trust in Nonsense: Naturopathy's 'Science-Based Therapeutic Order' - A Free Chapter Courtesy of Elsevier's naturalmedtext.com:

here, I link to 'the essentially naturopathic', a freely offered chapter out of the Textbook of Natural Medicine [3rd ed., a.k.a. TNM3] as provided by, I'll assume, publisher Elsevier [see 001., below] wherein the nonscientific is ridiculously labeled science; and, I cite the claim that TNM3's principal, ND Pizzorno, can be trusted [see 002.,below]; and I point out that vitalism is hugely science-ejected [see 003., below]; and then I provide a bit of advice [see 004., below]:

001. TNM3's “Chapter 3: A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order, The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine” by NDs Zeff, Snider, and Myers states (archived here):

001.a. naturopathy's essential vitalism:

“this is the removal of the obstacles to cure, which allows the action of the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], the vital force, the healing power of nature [HPN p.034...treatment must] harmonize with your life force [p.035...] to stimulate the overall vital force [...] the entire physiologic system [...includes the] life force [ p.036].”

Note: I regard this as the Rosetta Stone for 'decoding naturopathy's coded vitalistic context'. E.g., here's a typical iteration of 'the essentially naturopathic'. NDs Lai [ha! 'NDs lie!!!'] and Sinclair, both graduates of SCNM, state in “What is Naturopathic Medicine?”:

“N.D.s treat disease and restore health by implementing therapies based on the following naturopathic principles […#5] the healing power of nature.” And that's all you get. What's so fascinating is that these ND s do not in any manner that I can find express VMN for what it is, a science-ejected sectarian article of faith / belief. They're not even slightly hinting at the 'belief' actuality that vitalism is. Instead, HPN is mentioned in naturalistic language and never defined contextually, while their frakking web site name is “healingpowerofnature.com”!

001.b. claimed as science:

“[naturopathy is] 'science-based natural medicine' [SBNM p.028...the] definition of naturopathic medicine [...states naturopathy is a] science [...based on] vis medicatrix naturae [p.032].”

Note: so, the 'essentially naturopathic is to claim that within science is VMN. Now, it should be noted that Pizzorno claims to have “coined” this status of SBNM based upon VMN. What's so fascinating about that is that he didn't do any science to establish the scientific basis of naturopathy's contextual premise [VMN]. As near as I can tell, he wrote some words... and voila!!! Pizzorno didn't do any ACTUAL science and then publish that science in science journals and establish the scientific basis of vitalism & kind. It seems it's easier to just use INK! I call this 'science by decree'.

002. naturalmedtext.com's homepage states (archived since 2007):

“[regarding the editor] you can trust Pizzorno [...and that the book is] unsurpassed in its authority and scope […it's] the most thoroughly researched and carefully referenced text on natural medicine […] with Pizzorno: Textbook of Natural Medicine […] e-edition, you'll have a textbook that stays updated throughout the life of the edition, so you always have access to the latest evidence-based information on natural medicine.”

003. now, vitalism is hugely science-ejected. Here's one of my favorite quotes, by Crick:

"when facts come in the door, vitalism flies out of the window". And he wrote that in the mid-1960s.

004. so, don't trust Pizzorno. Or naturopathy. That's my advise. When is a groundless figment a 'theory' and 'science'? Naturopathy. When are you asked to trust in nonsense? Naturopathy:

E.g.: that Lai and Sinclair practice also claims in “Homeopathic Medicine”:

“[homeopathy is] a powerful system of medicine [...that] effectively treat[s] both acute and chronic disease […by] stimulating the body's natural healing response [coded vitalism].”

Homeopathy, of course, is empty sugar pills.

Nobels in Physiology or Medicine For 3 Americans - But Where is ND Pizzorno & NCNM's?

here, I ponder a great mystery. Three Americans have been awarded Nobels today for their work in genetics [see 001., below]; but, why haven't ND Joseph E. Pizzorno (NCNM 1975) [JEP] & his ND-granting alma mater National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM] similarly been awarded Nobels in physiology or medicine for HUMONGOUS discoveries that are MUCH MORE Earth-shaking? [see 002., below]; oh [see 003., below]:

001. the New York Times reports in "Three Americans Share Nobel Prize for Medicine" (2009-10-05):

"the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded this year to three American scientists who solved a problem of cell biology with deep relevance to cancer and aging [...] the three winners are Elizabeth H. Blackburn of the University of California, San Francisco, Carol W. Greider of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and Jack W. Szostak of Massachusetts General Hospital."

Note: kudos.

002. the hugely science-ejected decreed as science by JEP and NCNM:

002.a. naturopathy is labeled overall as science by both:

002.a1. JEP on this 2007 archived WebMD blog post per:

"my basic beliefs [...#4] health care decisions should be made on the basis of good scientific evidence [...] when starting Bastyr University in Seattle, WA, in 1978, I coined and implemented the concept of science-based natural medicine. I knew that for this medicine [naturopathy, natural medicine] to be accepted, it had to have a strong scientific foundation [...I] coauthored the Textbook of Natural Medicine, the most widely read definitive work on science-based natural medicine."

Note: so, science-science-science!

002.a2. and NCNM in their 2009-2010 catalog:

"[the] principles of naturopathic medicine. 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. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession ['professional ethical status' claim]: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]. 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 [p.024...#2] respect and cooperate with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling [p.025]."

Note: the [absurd] claim is that VMN [& supernaturalism & teleology] survives scientific scrutiny, and since science is self-testing and self-correcting, what is implied is that this set of principles are not DOGMA / CREED, but continuously and especially current scientifically supported fact.

002.b. both JEP and NCNM also describe how, within that science, are the naturopathic concepts of:

002.b1. vitalism (for JEP, see "Homeopathy: Where Less is More?" in Vegetarian Times, 1992-03 {books.google.com has it for free}). E.g. specifically for NCNM [in addition to what I've cited in 002.a2.], by way of p.035 in that catalog, fused into an ND is:

"homeopathic medicine [...per the course] HOM 510 – Introduction to Homeopathy (2 lecture credits). This course introduces students to the principles and philosophy of classical homeopathy. Students will learn about vitalistic medicine [VMN aka 'the essentially naturopathic'], the history of vitalism, the vital force in health and disease, the nature of medicines, and ways to affect the vital force. Prerequisites: NPH 410 [Naturopathic Med History & Phil & Ther I]."

Note: interesting how this supposed "science" area called naturopathy doesn't mention that several decades ago vitalism was thumped to death by science.

002.b2. supernatural spiritism (JEP). E.g. specifically for NCNM, we're told in that same catalog:

"[homeopathy] promotes the return to health on physical, mental and spiritual levels [p.027]."

Note: interesting how this supposed "science" area called naturopathy doesn't mention that supernaturalism was thumped to death by science a few centuries ago.

002.c. and here are some aggregations of these naturopathic claims:

their science claim, their vitalism reality, their supernaturalism reality.

Note: the obvious absurdity is naturopathy's claim that science and nonscience are the same thing.

002.c1. SO, naturopathy is claiming itself collectively science, vitalistic, and supernaturalistic.

003. these discoveries by naturopathy are EARTH-SHAKING:

wait. Oh. My bad. Turns out that vitalism is hugely science-ejected; supernaturalism is hugely science-ejected; and naturopathy is indeed considered a cultic pseudoscience.

Note: you see, naturopathy is false and they are making a lot of money off of false labels. Labeling what is hugely not science as a science degree is ethically and morally repugnant. And so on. JEP had said that health care decisions should be made using good science. Hmmm.

004. a Venn diagram, of my creation, that entails much of this:

Naturopathy [mis]Labeled a "Profession" - ND 'Doc' Gunther in the CT Post, 2009-10-04:

Burgeson, J. (? ?) writes in the Connecticut Post article "'Doc' Gunther: A Lifetime of Service" (2009-10-04):

"George 'Doc' Gunther of Stratford [CT...] holds the record as Connecticut's longest-serving legislator [...] he retired from the legislature in 2006 [...] Gunther gets his 'Doc' nickname from his profession -- he's a naturopathic physician."

Note: I severely disagree with that 'professional ethical status' label. It's as true as the scientific basis of the essentially naturopathic.

SBM on NCNM's 'Wrongness' - Oregonlive.com 2009-09-30:

I recently added a comment to a Science-Based Medicine post by Mark Crislip titled "What's Wrong With This Picture?" regarding this Oregonlive.com article. Many of the comments are a hoot. Here's mine:

daijiyobu on 02 Oct 2009 at 3:24 pm

Coincidentally, I’m holding in my hand right now a USPS mailing I received from NCNM’s admissions department on 2009-10-28.

I like to keep up with NCNM’s postal fraud: the labeling of the completely science-ejected as science, and the coding of their sectarian belief set in manipulative / deceptive naturalistic language.

It has some nice examples of such in it, too:

“[NCNM's] three exceptional degree programs [...] in the art and science of natural medicine [...the] ND [...the] MSOM [...the] MAc [...all based on] NCNM philosophy [...centered upon] the intrinsic healing power of nature [...] the human body is in tune with a natural force that moves living things toward a healthy state [(coded vitalism)...within a] body, mind and spirit [(supernaturalism)...and] Rita Bettenburg, ND. Dean of Naturopathic Medicine [...says] ‘the medicine is proving itself [...] in science’.”

I’m a junkie for the naturopaTHICK [my term for their stupidity / absurdity].

The oregonlive.com article’s picture may pertain to these THICKnesses:

a) NCNM’s MSOM, “Master of Science in Oriental Medicine”:

at http://www.ncnm.edu/admissions-home/school-of-classical-chinese-medicine.php we’re told that the “science” is “holistic life science” that “will take you outside the Western concept of science” and that Oriental Medicine is — ISYN — “an independent science that has its own parameters and does not require validation by other scientific systems” ["THICK" enough for you?].

b) NCNM’s ND, “Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine”:

at http://www.ncnm.edu/admissions-home/school-of-naturopathic-medicine/about-naturopathic-medicine.php we’re told that the hugely nonscientific survives scientific scrutiny ["THICK" enough for you?].

These degrees are truly EXCEPTIONAL: as in ‘except your science isn’t science at all’!

Perhaps their answer: ‘oh, you thought we were science! No, we’re not science, we’re science.’

-r.c.

ANMA ND Millie Hinkle's Camel Milk Cure-All Therapy:

here, I quote from a recent Salisbury Post article covering an ND's assertions about camel milk [I highly recommend visiting the article for some REALLY ODD pictures; see 001., below]; and I visit that ND's commercial web-site to see what else she's claiming [see 002., below]:

001. the Salisbury Post's Shavonne Potts (? ?) writes in
"Practitioner of Natural Medicine Researching Camels' Blood, Milk, Urine as Potential Cures":

"Millie Hinkle says camels are good for what ails you. In fact, Hinkle, who practices natural medicine as a doctor of naturopathy [an ND!], says the animal's milk, blood and even urine may have healing properties that can help people with a host of medical problems [a cure-all claim!...] 'camel's antibodies can go into the blood, the body and the brain and destroy toxins,' Hinkle said [really!]. Hinkle said the milk and blood have properties that can cure diseases or disorders from autism to diabetes. She and other proponents even tout its benefits for treating cancer. But some scientists are skeptical [yeah, baby!]. Dr. Wei Jia, who researches the health effects of certain foods, said he would not believe any animal's milk or blood would have significant anti-cancer effects on humans. 'We know it does not cure these diseases,' said Jia, co-director of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro Center for Research Excellence at the N.C. Research Campus in Kannapolis [...] Jia said he wouldn't think an animal's milk, blood or urine would have health benefits for humans. 'That's far from being likely. It's probably not true,' he said [hooray for PLAUSIBILITY!...] Hinkle says camel antibodies are smaller than any other mammal antibody, which means they can enter tissues and cells that other antibodies can't [...] the goal is to put the blood and urine in pill form or a concentrated amount in capsule form [$$$]. 'From that, they can rehabilitate an immune system,' Hinkle said."

Note: I commend the author for obtaining expert opinion on this matter.

002. ND Millie Hinkle writes at "About Camel Milk USA and Dr. Millie Hinkle":

002.a. per her biography:

"Millie Hinkle, ND, DH, HHP, has been in practice since 1987. Having received her training in the U.S., Germany, and France, she is board-certified by the American Naturopathic Medical Association. Other certifications include a Holistic Health Practitioner through the American Association of Drugless Practitioners. She also holds a nursing degree, has training in radiology, and an associate degree of applied science in dental hygiene. She also holds a Bachelor of Science degree and a Bachelor of Health and Physical Education. She has also held memberships in the National Health Federation, the American Preventative Medical Association, and the Coalition for Natural Health."

002.b. and per the section "Facts About Camel Milk":

"here are some interesting medical facts about camel milk [...it's] easily digested [...] antibacterial and antiviral [...] anti-tumor [...having] apparent positive effect on breast cancer [...it] has been used for centuries to treat liver disease, and studies have been performed for hepatitis and liver cancer with promising results [...it] protect[s] against types of cancer [...] camel milk has been used to cure the following illnesses [...] autism [...] milk allergies [...] tuberculosis [...] Crohn's disease [...and this ND has said] 'the health benefits for diabetes, autism, cancer and many more illnesses are endless' [and that's a cure-all!]."

Note: these are quite incredible cure-all claims.

SFC & SPI on an ND's Swine Flu Expertise - Reporter Robbins on NCNM ND Peters (2009-09-21):

here, I cite and comment on some of the canards that are used when journalists uncritically promote naturopathy [see 001., below]; and I delve particularly into this article's coding of naturopathy's science-ejected vitalistic context [see 002. & 003., below]:

001. Robbins, N. (? ?) states in the San Francisco Chronicle article which mostly deals with naturopathic swine flu treatment [yikes!] "Naturopath Bridges Gap in Treatment, Prevention" [also in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer](2009-09-21):

[the title itself is a canard - a gap? what problem is not being addressed that NDs can better assist with? oh, see below - vitalistic & supernatural fantasies in the place of scientific knowledge and honesty / misrepresented as science and frankness];

"like most doctors [ND] Karen Peters is gearing up for a flu season [but, NDs are far from 'like most doctors' - for instance, NDs' education and collective creed falsely labels that which is profoundly science-ejected as science - which is quite dishonest / absurd]";

"as a licensed ND - [a] doctor of naturopathic medicine - Peters believes that the body has an innate ability to heal itself [more on 'BIAHI vitalistic coding' in 002., below]";

"when it comes to promoting mass flu vaccinations, she pauses [wow!...] 'we cannot always count on science to solve all our health problems,' she says [wow, just simply WOW! but NDs are not shy about labeling themselves 'science, medicine & prevention experts']";

"she cautions against trying too hard to lower fevers [...] taking heavy doses of medicine to reduce fevers may work against the body's virus fighting power [really! - prove it. sounds like a delay in care, when time is critical and ACTUAL expert advise highly warranted]";

"naturopathic medicine [is] geared to prevent illness, and more conventional medical protocols [are] devoted to treating illness [really! oh, so our modern medical and public health systems don't prevent and only treat, and the ND takes up the 'prevention slack'. but, seeing as she doesn't expressedly support science or vaccination...hmmm.]. Naturopathic medicine is a personalized, not a mass, approach to health care [in other words, relativistic]. She tells her patients there is no one-size-fits-all flu fighting formula [actually, science provides actual answers, not antiscience relativistic 'answers from my ass']. What buffers one body against the onslaught of flu symptoms may not work for others [really! if knowledge is so relative and science doesn't have the best answers, how can we trust that she knows ANYTHING actual!]";

"Peters considers herself an old-fashioned family doctor [really! well, if you as an ND are based on what is in 002., below, which is true, then yes you'd be quite old-fashioned - which NDs are]";

"patient Crystal Paul, 28, of Pinole, said [...] 'she listens to me, and gives me hope and confidence in my body's ability to heal itself' [again, regarding 'BAHI vitalistic coding', see 002., below]";

"to find a naturopathic doctor [the reporter recommends]: California Naturopathic Doctors Association: www.calnd.org";

Note: the author's web page is http://www.noellerobbins.com/, her bio. is http://www.noellerobbins.com/bio.html

002. regarding BIATI / BATI:

if you delve into the context that underlies naturopathy, you find that NDs' 'body's healing blah-blah-blah' is the science-ejected concept known as vitalism. What's really sad is that the patient is being given FALSE HOPE: in a vitalistic fantasy not being fully / transparently explained.

003. what ND Karen Peters's web site says:

003.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine" we're told:

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) complete a four-year postgraduate level training [...] the curriculum covers traditional medical science [...] the latest in conventional health sciences [...] and in addition, coursework is infused with holistic philosophy [...] extensive training in holistic medicine [...e.g.] natural healing therapies such as [...] homeopathy [(empty pills!)...] six principles guide the naturopathic practitioner [...including the] healing power of nature [HPN...] what distinguishes naturopathy from conventional medicine [...] for patients, working with a naturopath often requires a paradigm shift [(I'll say)...] a flexible state [I'd say gullible state, with wallet out & open] that allows for optimal function to sustain the body and develop the spirit [supernaturalism]. The belief that the body uses the healing power of nature -- its innate ability to heal -- is inherent in naturopathy."

Note: but, there is no transparency to what exactly HPN is here, either.

003.b. in "Meet the Doctor" we're told:

"[that she's a graduate of NCNM and that] a cornerstone of Dr. Peters’ practice is her confidence in the body’s innate ability to heal [(coded vitalism, again)...and that this is] progressive medicine."

Note: if you have any doubts about her alma mater NCNM's false portrayal of the science-ejected vitalistic and kind as science and kind, see it blatantly expressed here.

So, I'm supposed to trust someone to treat me medically for serious things who does not distinguish between what is in fact scientific and what isn't [it's something an NCNM graduate is obligated towards!] -- and who can't tell me straight what they're all about [an NCNM tradition!]?

Now, calnd.org also, in "Naturopathic Medicine - The Basics" states naturopathy's supposed science expertise while coding vitalism: "naturopathic doctors are trained at accredited, four-year, post-graduate, residential naturopathic medical programs. The training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...with] a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research [...and] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [...] remains one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy today [coded vitalism]."

No thanks - progress is not backwards into medieval thinking. And it is quite absurd to claim that you are science when your central / defining context is a belief that is hugely science-ejected. Wacko.

PalMD on HuffPo's Homeopath Dana Ullman - 'A Dangerous, Idiotic Twit':

PalMD writes in "A New Low At HuffPo":

"Dana Ullman [...] has started blogging at the Huffington Post [...] the stupid truly burns brightly in this one [...that's] certainly an appropriate venue for his brand of cult medicine belief [...and his] stunning level of ignorance of basic human biology [...we know] there is a science to medicine -- our instincts and hunches often betray us, and only by studying the body systematically can we form valid conclusions. Or, if you're lazy or deceitful, you can just make shit up. Which brings us to Dana Ullman [...and his] ignorant load of horse shit [...] one can view the human body in one of two fundamental ways: as a typical biological organism that is subject to the usual laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, and therefore understandable through systematic investigation; or as some sort of mystical thing infused with an elan vital, subject to the whims of the supernatural and fundamentally mysterious. It's pretty easy to verify which is a better model of reality, and which is a fundamentally arbitrary fantasy [...] confounding a reaction with a purposeful, beneficial response is idiotic [...it's a] type of teleologic[al] thinking [that] is child-like [...] Dana Ullman is an ignorant twit who leads a fringe medical cult which promulgates dangerous falsehoods [...per] his pet medical cult, homeopathy."

Note: one of the central reasons I left naturopathy was due to its cultic, vitalistic & teleological supernaturalism falsely postured as 'science not belief'. The retardedness known as homeopathy is actually labeled a science by naturopathy.

Decoding Naturopathy's Science-Mislabeled Vitalism - Meyer, M. (ND UBCNM):

here, I analyze the verbiage of a University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine ND graduate Melanie Meyer who disguises naturopathy's essential vitalism and mislabels the naturopathic as scientific [as she was trained / miseducated to do]:

001. Meyer, M. (ND UBCNM) states in "About Naturopathic Medicine":

"there are six principles that serve as the foundation of naturopathic care [...#2] the healing power of nature - vis medicatrix naturae [...this is] at the core of naturopathic philosophy is the belief that human beings have an innate ability to heal [...] education: naturopathic doctors [...are educated within] a basic biomedical science foundation."

002. lets analyze this:

002.a. VMN, according to this ND's alma mater, UB, is the concept of vitalism.

Note: here's a larger collection.

002.b. also according to UB, naturopathy essentially is science.

002.c. but, most interesting, national science organizations such as the National Center for Science Education and the National Association of Biology Teachers emphasize that vitalistic theory is OUTSIDE of science / NOT science.

Note: this consensus statement was made before UBCNM opened / was approved by the State of Connecticut.

003. so, again, naturopathy falsely labeling as science what is hugely the science-ejected.

BCMA vs. BCNA - Somebody's Position is False (Guess Who?):

here, I cover some ground concerning the [bogus] scientific commitment of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] and the [actual] scientific commitment of the British Columbia Medical Association [see 001., below]; and I quote from a recent Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] article regarding this matter, and cite NDNR's explicit iteration of naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism sectarian belief [see 002., below]:

001.a. the BCNA has stated, regarding naturopathy, [archived since 2006 for posterity], in "About Naturopathic Medicine: The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" by Cassie, G. (? ?):

"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...] is threefold: [#]1. [first and foremost!] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism [this is naturopathy's vitalism, coded and claimed as science]."

Note: fascinating. So, VMN is science. Except, of course naturopathy is not being transparent / honest, since VMN is actually their vitalistic context which in fact is science-ejected. This is the typical naturopathic falsehood - claim science, hide the sectarian belief system you actually are beneath naturalistic language.

So, in the absurd land of naturopathy, lies of omission and obscurity are ethically fine, and the science-ejected is the same thing as the science-based. I find it ethically repugnant.

Additionally, BCNA has emphasized (here) :

"there is no 'ND biology' or science education that is any different than the science education MDs receive."

Note: my answer - bullshit. NDs have a complete lack of integrity when it comes to what is truly science -- e.g., the school I attended claims that within the scientific is the vitalistic and teleological, and supernatural. That's idiotic. It's also fraudulent trade. They have redefined science to the point of idiocy.

001.b. the BCMA has stated, regarding its goals, in "The BCMA Submission to Minister George Abbott on Proposed Amendments to the Naturopathic Physicians Regulation" (2009-02-19) :

"the BCMA has a track record of successful collaboration with government to achieve our shared objectives of improving health care access and quality. We share the objective of providing the citizens of BC with access to health practitioners with adequate training who are able to offer assessment, advice, and services supported by scientific knowledge."

Note: I do not have knowledge of the BCMA stating such outright absurdities as the BCNA. So, I have a higher degree of trust in their scientific integrity - BCMA seems mainstream and does not appear to be an entity dedicated to promoting cultic health sectarianism.

002.a. the NDNR article "British Columbia Association: Scope of Practice Update" (NDNR 2009-09, Vol. 5, Iss. 9) written by BCNA President Kind, C. (ND NCNM) states:

"in April 2009 the British Columbia Ministry of Health Services formalized regulations for licensed NDs that recognize the education, training, expertise [!!!] and historical and contemporary practice of naturopathic physicians [...] the announcement formalizing regulations for NDs is a result of an extensive review of the evidence and benefits of science-based naturopathic medicine by the provincial government [{wow, what a thorough job -- now the nonscientific is scientific}...] the announcement recognizes the benefits to patients of allowing NDs to practice to a greater extent of their education and training, while streamlining and improving the delivery of healthcare [...] naturopathic medicine has been a licensed profession in BC since 1923 [...a] health profession [...] the organization representing BC’s medical doctors, British Columbia Medical Association (BCMA), refused to meet with us during the negotiation process and decided, instead, to spread comment that was both unconstructive and often false. There were many instances of egregious and even malicious media comment [...] the intent of the new legislation is to remove barriers to interdisciplinary practice which are not generally in the public interest [...and speaks of] the benefit of patients [...] although the BCMA seems unwilling to openly embrace the shared scopes model it benefits patients and provides better health options [...] for over 50 years, members of the profession, staff, family and patients have participated in an effort to [mis!!!]inform politicians and bureaucrats of what naturopathic medicine is and what it has to offer."

Note: so, we have the claim that the naturopathic is science-based, meets the ethical strictures of professionalism, and overall that naturopathy's 'ways' are a benefit to the public. I say 'more bullshit' - this severely harms the positions of professionalism and science. It's HUGELY absurd that the 'false ones a.k.a. naturopathy' can claim -- with impunity, while they hold a false position with impunity a.k.a an education racket -- that they have the higher ground regarding 'the scientific' and 'medical'.

It is an interesting question as to whether BCNA has libeled BCMA.

002.b. that same NDNR issue states naturopathy's essential science-ejected sectarian vitalism per publisher and SCNM ND Tallman, and kind.

003. what naturopathy has to offer, overall - falsehood, exploitation and the degradation of standards [the hugely science-ejected falsely labeled scientific, traded to a trusting public both clinically and educationally].

Naturopathy's Essential Cultic Vitalism, NDNR 2009-09 - Co-Author Loomis, M. (ND NCNM) & Publisher Talman, D. (ND SCNM):

the current issue of Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] has two interesting statements regarding naturopathy's essential vitalism [a science-ejected concept]:

001. the NDNR article "Nurturing the Child's Well-Being [...]" (Vol. 5, Issue 9) by Loomis, M. (ND NCNM) and Luvmour, J. (PhD ?) states:

"the organizing principle [OP]. There is an organizing principle in each stage of childhood [...] the organizing principle is a life force [vitalism] that determines the general ways in which human energy, capabilities, inclinations, and interactions are structured and act. The goal of each organizing principle [p.001] is optimal wellness [p.004]."

Note: so we have OP = LF.

002. in this same issue, NDNR publisher Tallman, D. (ND SCNM) states:

"the axiom 'the faith of a child' has its place in medicine as physicians rely on faith in the vis [vitalism] while making therapeutic decisions [...] physicians [should] understand and have child-like faith in the vis [p.003]."

003. I don't know about you, but I don't believe that a supposed physician [ND] should be approaching a supposedly fundamental premise of a supposed profession with the mentality of a child:

Vitalism -- naturopathy's vis medicatrix naturae / life force: some call it faith, some call it belief - I call it ignorance. Naturopathy mainly calls it a scientific fact, which it isn't.

I caution: overall, to take one's mentality into such an credulous realm resembles the thought-control of so many cults, which infantilize and subjugate call critical thought.

This is thought reform, and it is pernicious.

As A Follow-Up -- 12 Fraudulent Years On:

here, I reiterate the fundamental falsehood that is University of Bridgeport Naturopathic Medicine -- wherein, a label of science [see 001., below] is put upon the profoundly science-ejected [see 002., below]:

001. UB labels naturopathy and kind science:

obviously.

Note: simultaneously, UB states naturopathy's essential vitalism (and here) [and teleology, and supernaturalism].

002. the scientific status of the vitalistic [teleological and supernatural]:

vitalism and such is science-ejected.

003. note:

I call this "12 Fraudulent Years on" because around 1997 is when I was lured into UB's naturopathy program -- a new program, labeled science, based upon the for several decades and for a few centuries science-ejected.

The exploitation by this stinking pile of horseshit continues.