Skeptic North vs AANP Alliance - Naturopathy, "Science" & "Belief System":

here, I cite from a recent Skeptic North [SN] post regarding naturopathy, wherein naturopathy is labeled 'a nonscientific belief system' [see 001., below]; meanwhile, the AANP Alliance, which drew me into naturopathy in 1996, falsely labels naturopathy 'scientific' and 'not a belief system' [see 002., below]:

001. in "A Skeptic North Response to the Naturopaths' Rebuttal"(2009-11-30), Jonathan Abrams and Steve Thoms write:

"the rebuttal clearly demonstrated that naturopaths are not science-based medical practitioners, and that they lack the training, understanding of science, and qualification to prescribe [...] it's time to take a stand for medical care based on science [...] naturopathy is an unscientific practice of medicine [...] naturopaths do not respect science [...] for decades they have derided science-based medicine [...] the authors seem to want it both ways: science is bad for being reductionist, and yet, naturopathy is a totally legitimate science [...] there is no evidence that any treatments offered by naturopaths, but rejected by medicine, have any effect on disease [...] four years of specialized education is also meaningless if the subject is meaningless [...]  naturopaths often use homeopathy, a placebo treatment [...] four years learning about the details of homeopathy is of no use if homeopathy does not work [yet NDs call it a clinical science on their boards!...] naturopaths turn to pre-scientific views of healing such as 'medicatrix naturae' [vitalism, which is science ejected...] it was a textbook example of the typical circular reasoning and self-defeating logic that naturopaths use to justify their particular belief system."

Note: SN clearly states that naturopathy is a nonscientific belief system.

002. in "The Alliance Legislative Workbook" (1997) (archived here), the AANP Alliance, composed of "the AANP, Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences", states:

"naturopathic physicians are the modern day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."

Note: so, AANP Alliance claims the polar opposite of SN.  If you look at the current AANP schools list, it includes National University of Health Sciences and they have an AANMC ND program there -- so, therein again we get this huge science label upon the nonscientific-naturopathic.

003. since naturopathy clearly states its beliefs (here, here) which are not scientific facts but are articles of faith [hugely], yet naturopathy states such falsely as scientific fact / able to survive scientific scrutiny [ISYN], I'd not believe them since they are patently ABSURD.

Note: it is a basic human right / freedom that people may choose to believe or not believe that which is a matter of 'belief or conscience'.

My take on naturopathy: their beliefs are foisted upon the vulnerable [patients, students] as [false] objective fact, and therefore naturopathy has no sensitivity for basic human rights.

In fact, when I was at UB and told 'this is science', and told by the first AANP president and the school's first dean Sensenig that what runs my body is a 'purposeful life spirit' otherwise known as 'god power within', my human rights were violated.

Why?

Because matters of faith are choices, and objective scientific facts aren't.

Yet, in naturopathy, there is no distinction [look at OBNE, as linked too!]. 

Literally, the science-ejected is falsely labeled scientific fact -- naturopathy is nonsense of the highest order.

When a choice is no longer offered as a choice, but instead you are mindfucked into thinking it is 'all there is to choose from and therefore no choice at all', your basic human rights have been seriously abused.

What's more disgusting is that this occurs clinically and academically, primarily.

Part of the Naturocrit project is to advocate for a procedure -- likely through the United States Department of Education, the Connecticut Department of Education & kind [they are accomplices in all this, so don't hold your breath] -- that will compensate for damages due to the quite sophisticated false inducements [unfair trade?] implemented / administered by these pseudomedical pseudoprofessionals / naturopaths.

An ND Teaches Us About Science [!] - Macart, T. (ND CCNM) at PQBNEWS.com:

here, I cite from a recent article in the Parksville Qualicum News by ND Macart who there poses as a science-expert. I then show how naturopathy is essentially nonscientific, while, en masse, they keep claiming otherwise:

001. British Columbia CCNM ND Macart tells us in “Making Sense of Science” (2009-11-16):

“jumping to conclusions is a mistake made by many researchers and readers when it comes to interpreting science. Initially, a hypothesis is put forward so it may be evaluated by the scientific method. An experiment is designed to support or disprove the hypothesis and then the discussion section deals with any flaws in the experiment that could confound the decided conclusion. In fact, very little science is truly definitive [...and] science begets science.”

And we are warned, and advised:

“[there may be] mercury contamination in our food supply […and to consider] detoxification via chelation [...which is] worth considering and incorporating into one’s healthcare plan […] Dr. Tara Macart owns OPti-Balance Naturopathic Medicine.”

Note: the irony here is killing me. We have an ND posing as an expert in science, and advising from that position about our health. Macart, coincidentally [!], provides chelation therapy at her practice, where it is touted as a virtual panacea.

002. naturopathy's essential vitalism & science expertise claim:

002.a. Macart states in “Naturopathic Medicine”:

“what is naturopathic medicine? […] our goal is to stimulate the body’s natural healing abilities [coded vitalism!…] an individualized treatment plan is proposed to facilitate the healing process [coded vitalism!…] naturopathic principles. [#1] vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature). Based on a tradition of vitalism [yup, vitalism IN THE FLESH], naturopathic medicine evokes the healing power of nature. We all have an inherent capacity to heal ourselves. Naturopathic doctors help patients tap into this power in order to improve their health […and we are assured] with consent, naturopathic doctors support open lines of communication.”

Note: vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected (see here for my collection).  If communication were truly open, we'd be getting informed by naturopathy of what they really are: an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.  Without that information, consent cannot happen [see below].

002.b. the British Columbia Naturopathic Association states in “General FAQs”:

“homeopathy is a highly systematic, scientific method of therapy that respects the wisdom of the body [coded vitalism]. It is a method based on the implementation of a pharmacological law called similars [which doesn't actually exist]. A German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann first pronounced this law, in 1796 [scientific laws are not decreed, they are a preponderance based upon scientific evidence…] homeopathy stimulates the body's natural healing mechanisms [coded vitalism].”

002.c. the American Association of Naturopathic Medical Schools claims that naturopathy is assuredly scientific.  This claim was made personally to me.

003. overall, I will reiterate my usual warning regarding naturopathy:

“danger, Will Robinson...unethical sectarian pseudoscience.”

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism in NDNR 2009-11 - Misak, D. (ND NCNM 2000):

here, I highlight naturopathy's fundamental sectarian belief as recently stated by an NCNM ND in the publication Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [a.k.a. NDNR (or Naturopathic Doctors Are Not Rational!); see 001., below]; and then, I quote from NCNM's quite irrational web page concerning the essentially naturopathic [see 002., below]:

001. Misak, D. (ND NCNM 2000) states in "Holding on to Our Truths: Let's Keep Our Focus on the Patient" [NDNR 2009-11, p.010]:

"[in] our profession [...] we all [NDs] hold to vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] with the recognition that each person has an individual vital force [VF...and we're also told] iridology [is] a science [...and] as we hold to the natural laws inherent in our principles, I think our profession should use science to prove and validate our theories."

Note: so, there's the "profession" claim, and obviously naturopathy's VMN=VF.  Now, such vitalism is not anything like science's laws of nature, or science's idea of what a theory is.  Vitalism is not in any way evidence-supported, and nor is iridology.

002. if you go online to NCNM [National College of Nonsense Medicine!], Misak's alma mater, you are told in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...which] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [these principles are claimed able to survive scientific scrutiny...#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae [HPN=VMN...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent [purposeful]; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force and the rational use of natural agents."

Note: obviously, naturopathy is centered upon vitalism and claims that such in fact survives scientific scrutiny.  But, that is not so.

Therein, naturopathy is hugely irrational / absurd / false, at its foundation.

Blogger Fun with the AANP - 'Science & Profession, Huh?!' (part 1):

so, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] have a blog titled "Physicians Who Care" [PWC], and I asked a simple question there:

001. in the AANP PWC post "Diversity and the Changing Face of Naturopathic Medicine", Alschuler, L. (ND Bastyr) states:

"it is true that with each passing year, I find myself settling a little further back into the proverbial armchair and surveying the profession [...] for many years, I have been alternatively disappointed and alarmed and [sp., at!] the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the naturopathic profession [...] it only makes sense that the naturopathic profession, as a part of its inexorable emergence, embrace diversity [...] naturopathic medicine, itself, is color blind."

Note: we have naturopathy's 'of the professions status' claim GALORE, and a "color blind" claim. 

By the way, a 2009-11-17 press release "Expert Naturopathic Oncologist and Teacher, Lise Alschuler, ND, FABNO Joins Emerson Ecologics as Vice President, Quality and Education":

"Emerson Ecologics looks to bring quality and education within the industry to a new level with Dr. Alschuler's leadership and experience [...] Emerson Ecologics, LLC announces the addition of Lise Alschuler, ND, FABNO to the newly created role of Vice President, Quality and Education [...] Dr. Alschuler is currently president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. 'Lise is passionate about education and quality,' said Fran Towey, CEO of Emerson Ecologics. 'Combined with her experience, she will confirm Emerson's position as a pioneer in the industry for the advancement of quality and education. We are very fortunate to have such an accomplished and recognized professional join our team.'"

So, we have the label again of 'of the professions', and we have this emphasis on education and quality GALORE.

002. well, I asked simply this, in my comment:

"'per: 'naturopathic medicine [...] is color blind.' Might naturopathy also be blind to the parameters of science?" -r.c. naturocrit."

003 because:

naturopathy is not a profession [when exploitative, manipulative & kind] and is blind to the preponderant parameters of science [truly pseudoscientific, sectarian & kind].   In past posts and complants to governing bodies, I've covered this.  

It's as simple as this: ND granting schools falsely label the nonscientific and science-ejected as science.  They are members of the governing AANP, who sets the epistemological perspective and doctrinal creed overarching naturopathy.  How, therein, is the AANP president an expert in education when AANP education is ABSURD?

"Physicians Who Care?"  I don't think so.  What's the point in going to someone who claims the status of physician and 'science-based', and their science is allowed to be ANYTHING?

Scary.  And I say that as a former UBCNM [an AANP school] ND student.

Perhaps, instead of surveying this supposed 'science-based profession', the AANP president should survey what actual science and professionalism are [oh, snap!].

004. just in case my comment or the entire blogpost disappear, I've screencaptured:

005. by the way:

it is AANP & company  whose false descriptors induced me into studying naturopathy at UB.  Naturopathy was labeled 'science not belief' when in fact it is 'nonscientific and belief-centered'.  And UB, to this day, still falsely labels naturopathy science and nonsectarian, when in fact naturopathy is centered upon the science ejected sectarian.

Facebook Fun with the AANMC's 'We Are Science-Based' Mislabeling, 2009-11:

here, I share some communication between myself and the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] per their Facebook page [see 001., below (I've screen-captured it [sc], in case they decide to expunge)]; and, I share my take on AANMC's 'we are CERTAINLY science-based' false self-labeling, particularly based upon what actual, scientific, academic, national organizations say about the essentially naturopathic [see 002., below]:

001. the AANMC:

001.a. has a Facebook page that states:

“considering a career in health care [?…] AANMC schools: Bastyr U., BINM, CCNM, NCNM, SCNM, UBCNM, NUHS.”

.[sc]

.

Note: this is, essentially, an advertisement.  They are attempting to increase their market with certain claims.  This is a commercial page for a claimed 'of the professions consortia' on a social networking site.

001.b. so, I asked this simple question on that AANMC page:

“I'm wondering, is naturopathy based upon science? I've heard different things, and I'd want my medicine to be science-based.”

.[sc]

.

Note: I asked this question based upon 'naturopathy is science' claims made by AANMC on their web pages, e.g. “Naturopathic Medicine - FAQs”, which states:

“q: which classes or literature would be helpful prior to enrollment in a naturopathic physician program A: for a basic science foundation and overall exposure to help prepare you for naturopathic medical studies, consider the following: read the 'Textbook of Natural Medicine' [TNM] – a very comprehensive and often-used reference among NDs and MDs as well.”

001.c. AANMC answered:

“NDs must actually spend more hours studying the sciences than in some allopathic [yikes!  a sectarian label!] medical schools. So the answer to your question is a resounding 'YES!' - naturopathic medicine definitely has its basis in science.”

.[sc]

.

Note: my jaw dropped when I read this...the confident certainty, the absoluteness!  The specific label, in terms of commerce and supposed 'professionalism'!

001.d. my comment to this [false] claim was:

“naturopathy is based upon vitalism and supernaturalism, essentially. I have the textbooks, that's a fact [e.g., TNM!]. Both concepts are in-fact-science-ejected, and therein not science based. And that's a fact.”

.[sc]

.

Note: simply put, facts. And, to quote that great line that Eugenie Scott recently wrote in the U.S. News and World Report article "Scientist Genie Scott's Last Word to Creationist Ray Comfort: There You Go Again" (2009-11-03):

"[per blogmaster Gilgoff] here's the final post in a God & Country debate between scientist Eugenie Scott, who heads the National Center for Science Education [...per Scott] 'anyone who honestly examines the data supporting evolution [& kind] — even a young-earth creationist [or other such sectarian kind] — concludes that the science is strong. If you reject evolution [& kind], you are doing it for religious reasons [& kind]. You're entitled to your religious opinions—but not to your own scientific facts' [a modification of a line often attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan]."

002. what I think, knowing what I know [this label of “science” upon the essentially naturopathic, by AANMC & kind, is bullshit]:

002.a. let's look at what the TNM & co. says. Naturopathy is based upon vitalism & supernaturalism [the hugely science-ejected]:

a) the TNM site has the chapter up for viewing titled "Chapter 3" [a pdf by NDs Zeff, Snider, and Myers; to be archived here].  It states:

"Dr. Sensenig [my UB instructor in 1998, here are my notes on naturopathy's essential premise, from when I was a UB ND student of his] presented 'Back to the Future: Reintroducing Vitalism as a New Paradigm' [very old vinegar, 'new wine' label -- quite egregious poison! p.004...] vitality (properties beyond physiochemical constituents) [supernatural!!!, p.032...] vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [VMN=VF=HPN; and per Sensenig, VMN = autoentheism = a.k.a. god power within]. This is the first step in the hierarchy of healing and what naturopathic physicians may call the overarching clinical theory of naturopathic medicine [therein, the 'essentially naturopathic!']: the therapeutic order [p.034...] address weakened or damaged systems or organs [...e.g.] the life force [p.035...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] an entire physiologic system (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.) [p.036]".

Note: so, the essentially naturopathic is based upon the vitalistic, and a form of theism [minimally] -- when you boil it down.

b) UBCNM, where Sensenig taught me in 1998 under what I consider completely false labels [UB labels naturopathy science, still / to this day -- a page to be archived here ASP], states

in "Six Guiding Principles [#3]" [archived here]:

"illiness [illness!!!] is a purposeful process [teleological!] of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact [a claimed fact!], an expression of the life force [vitalism!] attempting to heal itself [...] this healing process [...] he [the!] viz [vis!] medicatrix naturae."

c) and the supernatural.  The TNM chapter cited above also states regarding the essentially naturopathic supernatural:

"[the TNM also speaks of] mental/spiritual remedies [p.029...] part of the reason for the failures within modern medical science is the mechanistic basis of it, with its fundamental ignorance of and disrespect for [...] the natural laws of physiology governing health and healing, and especially for all things spiritual [p.032...] psycho-emotional/spiritual state [p.033...] the naturopathic physician evaluates the patient with these areas in mind, looking for aspects of disturbance, first in the spirit [p.034...] spiritual integrity. Humans are spiritual beings. They are spirits that reside within bodies. Though the general purview of the physician is the body, that instrument cannot be separated from the spirit, which animates it. If the spirit is disturbed, the body cannot be fundamentally healthy [...] disturbance in the spirit permeates the body and eventuates in physical manifestation [...] at colleges of naturopathic medicine in Australia and North America, faculty work with naturopathic medicine students to develop their ability to perceive the spiritual nature of an individual [p.035...] as [NDs] Pizzorno and Snider wrote: 'we are natural organisms, our genomes developed and expressed in the natural world. The patterns and processes inherent in nature are inherent in us. We exist as part of complex patterns of matter, energy, and spirit' [p.036...] the patient as a whole being: spiritual, mental/emotional, and physical [p.038]."

Note: so, the essentially naturopathic, per AANMC member school UBCNM, is based upon the teleological and vitalistic.  We also get a glimpse of UB naturopathic supernaturalism in "Six Guiding Principles [#4]", and a requirement for supernaturalism from UB NDs in "Six Guiding Principles [#5]".  Vitalism is hugely science-ejected.  As well as supernaturalism. According to the National Center for Science Education [NCSE] hosted page "Appendices: Science; Transitional Fossils; and Embryos":

"by now it should be clear that vitalistic and supernatural hypotheses that invariably postulate vague and amorphous mechanisms whose workings are beyond human comprehension are untestable and uninformative and hence not scientific. In fact they are not even explanations, but statements of unsolvable mysteries beyond the powers of scientific investigation."

002.b.  Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM 1975), that self-proclaimed "science-based natural medicine" dean of this naturopathy revival, sums up the 'sectarian absurdity amalgam' which is the 'naturopathic belief system mislabeled as science' in his article "A Systems Approach to Wellness" excepted from his book "Total Wellness":

"[to be well, you must] live in harmony with your life-force [...] each of us needs to become more aware of the activity of the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) deep within us [...] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life [...including] our life-force (or spirit). Weakness in any of these seven systems results in susceptibilities that allow most common diseases to develop. Follow the recommendations below, strengthen all of these seven systems, and total wellness is yours."

Note: quite a promise.  That naturopathy is science-based is quite a false promise, and in fact absurd. I summarize this fundamental naturopathic science-ejected premise as 'purposeful life spirit', to encapsulate its teleological, vitalistic, and supernatural-spiritistic sectarian characteristic.  The fact that it is mislabeled as science and often disguised is unforgivable.

003. it has been fun playing with AANMC on Facebook.  I look forward to more exchanges.