"Cancer Was Cured in 1934" - West, S. (ND INHS) & Pseudomedicine:

hey, bet you didn't know this: according naturopath West, cancer is curable with a Rife machine [see 001., below]. But, be skeptical, as  Wikipedia has some interesting things to say about Rife's contraption [see 002., below]: 

001. West. S. (ND INHS) states in "Natural health: A Look at a Controversial Cancer Treatment" (2009-12-18):

"as a naturopath and health researcher [...] once in a while I find an herb, nutrient or device that is truly remarkable [...such as] the Rife Frequency Generator [...made by] Royal Raymond Rife [...which is one of] Rife’s great scientific works [...I've observed] Rife Generators and ionic foot bathes [at an Arcata clinic...it's] a miraculous tool for defeating cancer and a host of other diseases [...] I never seriously investigated the claim until early in 2009 [...] my good friend Scott lent me his unit for my practice [...] in any case the generator is programmed to deliver micro current technology to destroy virtually all known pathogenic bacteria, virus and fungi. This is so because all life forms have a micro electric signature that maintains their life force [(vitalism!)...it] destroy[s] these organisms without harming the host [...] in 1934 [Rife treated] 16 stage four terminal cancer patients [...in] a 70-day trial [...] by the end of the trial [...] 14 of the 16 terminal patients were cancer free while the remaining two took another 60 days to be cured [...so,] cancer was cured in 1934."

Note: a Rife organization still claims that cancer was cured by Rife with his device.  "Life force" is a fundamental tenet of naturopathy's doctrine, and it simply doesn't exist.

002. Wikipedia states in "Royal Rife":

"Royal Raymond Rife (May 16, 1888 – August 5, 1971) was an American inventor known for his belief that he could observe and render inert a number of viruses which he thought were causal factors in several diseases, most notably cancer. The observations were made though a specially designed optical microscope [...] Rife's claims could not be independently replicated, and active scientific interest in the devices had dissipated by the 1950s [...] an analysis by Electronics Australia found that [...a] Rife device consisted of a nine-volt battery, wiring, a switch, a timer and two short lengths of copper tubing, which delivered an 'almost undetectable' current unlikely to penetrate the skin. Several marketers of such devices have been convicted for health fraud, and in some cases the Rife devices have led to the deaths of cancer patients who used them instead of medical therapy. Rife devices are a subset of radionics devices, which have been classified as pseudomedicine."

Note: a casual Google search resulted in this Ontario ND's practice, Pragnell, N.R. (ND OCNM 1981), who states: "radionics is a healing technique directed at a patient's subtle energy fields."  Again, imaginary vital forces and what likely would also be termed pseudomedicine.

A Google News Archival Search For 2009, >vitalism science<:

here, I do a search with news.google.com using the terms >science vitalism< [see 001., below]:

001. for the year 2009 only, current results that occur are only June through December [up to today's date, 2009-12-15, to be exact] and here they are:

001.a. a Salon 2009-09-17 review of "The Age of Wonder" by Holmes, R. (? ?) (ISBN 0375422226, 2009) titled "The Beauty and Terror of Science" by Berger, K. (? ?) which states:

"Holmes limns the darkness with a scintillating chapter on Mary Shelley and 'Frankenstein,' describing how her novel arose out [of] the popular 'vitalism' debates between physicians who argued that human life was animated by some external force like electricity, and those, such as fearless young doctor William Lawrence, who argued there was no such thing, that the 'human body is merely a complex physical organization,' Holmes writes."

Note: of course, this 'debate' is a little archaic.  The idea that the 'what makes lifeliness argument' essentially concerns 'the physical' versus 'the electrical' is nowadays silly, since both are physical.  Electricity at that time was little understood and rather magically imbued. It served to represent the science-ejected idea of a vital principle [there really is no such thing!] that was apart from 'the physical', and yet mystically animated or ensouled the physical. The book is recommended by the reviewer.  I personally highly enjoy Frankenstein in its full historical context.  I also enjoy noticing that science-fiction as a genre has much of its origins, as is often observed, in the literature of a woman writer!

001.b.a 2007 Nature Genetics article titled "Cipher Sleuth" by Goldman, M.A. (? ?) which I don't have free text access to and which apparently has been dated / spidered by Google 2009-06-15.

Note: FFS, it's 2009 and information really needs to be easily available, not locked up in [obscure] publications with hilariously overpriced access fees!

001.c. a 2002 Skeptical Inquirer article by De Robertis, M. (? ?) titled "A [Canadian] University's Struggle With Chiropractic" which states:

"chiropractic has remained on the margins by choice, refusing even today to reject vitalism in all its guises [...] there is considerable doubt that a four-year university program culminating in a D.C. degree is necessary to treat musculoskeletal conditions, something conventional therapists do with comparable effectiveness but without the vitalistic baggage [...] even if some alternative therapies are eventually found to be effective and safe, until colleges adopt contemporary biomedical paradigms instead of millennia-old vitalistic notions - i.e., get rid of the nonsense in their curricula and make an attempt to [actually] educate its practitioners - no university should contemplate an affiliation."

Note: hear, hear. Again, this has been [falsely, sort of] dated by Google's algorithm 2009-06-06, likely because that was the last respidering though published earlier at an older URL.  This is an excellent article, in my view.

001.d. readers' responses to a Sydney Morning Herald 2009-06-15 article by Simon, B. (? ?) that includes this comment by Dunlop, R. (? ?) "Vice-President of Australian Skeptics, Petersham":

"it appears Australia is about to repeat Britain's mistakes about regulation of alternative medicine. It should be self-evident that it makes no sense to set educational standards in a subject without having decided whether that subject is nonsense. If it is, what does 'educational standards' mean? Your article cites naturopathy, which subscribes to a form of pre-19th-century vitalism. I fail to understand what it means to be properly qualified in ideas that the educated world left behind 200 years ago."

Note: yup.

001.e. a New York Times book review that uses the term "literary vitalism".

001.f. a New York Times book review that is similar to the Salon review:

"Holmes devotes a chapter to 'Frankenstein,' placing Mary Shelley’s 'ghost story' in the context of the [then] contemporary debate about vitalism."

001.g. a 2006 Nature Chemical Biology article titled "The Origins of Chemical Biology" which doesn't provide free direct text access.  But, through the magic of a Google web search, I believe it states:

"chemical biology has historical roots that date back to the birth of chemistry and biology as distinct sciences [...] chemical synthesis requires no ‘living’ or ‘vital force’ to make biologically active compounds. Remarkably, some [false!] belief in vitalism still persists within current popular culture."

001.h. a 2000 Skeptical Inquirer article "The Roots of Qi" by Mainfort, D. (? ?)  which states:

"according to ancient Chinese medicine [...] illnesses were viewed as an imbalance of qi, or vital energy, in the body. Qi was believed to exist everywhere in the universe - a life force such as that referred to in pre-scientific Western medicine as élan vital. Vitalism is the belief in an invisible, intangible, unique form of energy that is supposedly responsible for all of the activities of a living organism. The vital force in Chinese traditional medicine is called qi, the concept upon which acupuncture is based [...] the earliest known record of the term qi occurs in the book Liji, prior to the Spring and Autumn period, between three and four thousand years ago. At that time there was no modern physiology or biochemistry, nor was there understanding about nutrition or the healing mechanisms of the body. The existence of cells, blood circulation, neurology and hormones were also unknown."

Note: an yet, this figmentation is what naturopathy claims as able to survive scientific scrutiny.

002. obviously, there is a certain amount of heavy-handed automation happening here, and what I just listed is a snapshot of the abilities [and lack therein, to some extent] of Google's news archive search engine.

AANMC Informs Us of UBCNM's "Science" status - 2009-12:

here, I cite from a recent Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] publication labeling naturopathy "science" [see 001., below]:

001. the AANMC recently published "UBCNM Increases Efforts in Integrated Medical Care" which states:

"the University of Bridgeport School of Naturopathic Medicine is one of the AANMC schools [...] UBCNM has partnered with St. Vincent’s Medical Center [...per] Dr. David M. Brady [is] vice provost of the University of Bridgeport Health Sciences Division [...] UBCNM professors' research published [...] UBCNM’s Dr. Jody Noé recently authored an article [...in] Integrative Cancer Therapies [...] ICT is the first journal to spearhead and focus on a new and growing movement in cancer treatment, a movement that emphasizes the scientific understanding of alternative medicine [...] UBCNM faculty member, Dr. Jared Skowron, will also be published this month. Fundamentals of Naturopathic Pediatrics [...] is a reference text for diagnostics and treatment of common pediatric conditions [...] it documents the scientific proof that natural remedies have been studied and are a safe and effective option when treating children [...] Coquina Deger.  Managing Editor, AANMC.  www.AANMC.org."

Note: so, we're told that naturopathy is academically "science", that it is "scientific", and supported by "scientific proof".

002. naturopathy loves to label itself scientific . [e.g.:

].

003. naturopathy is fundamentally based upon ideas that are science-ejected.

004. you could blow a brain gasget trying to get a handle on this absurdity.

ISBN 0738710776 - The Nonscientific Status of Vitalism - Forciea 2007:

recently, I added the following citation to my appendix titled "The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism".  The author admits that vitalism thoroughly lacks scientific support [see 001., below], but then promotes an analogous figmentation that to me resembles science-fiction and science-illiteracy [see 002., below].  Then, I quote from Richard Dawkins [see 003., below] and the National Center for Science Education [see 004., below]:

001. the newest appendix addition:

Forciea, B. (DC Parker) states:

.

[in "Unlocking the Healing Code: Discover the 7 Keys to Unlimited Healing Power"(2007)]

.

[Note: a woo-proponent's argument for sCAM]

.

"in the philosophical camp called vitalism, vitalists believed in a vital force, a life force that permeated all living beings.  The vital force is what kept things alive, but no one was ever able to measure this mysterious force [p.013...] believers in vitalism believe [!!!] in a vital force that permeates all life.  Some call it chi, others prana, still others energy.  The presence of the vital force is what separates the living from nonliving.  Alternative systems of healing work to support the vital force [e.g., naturopathy].  Science has a problem with vitalism.  Science has never been able to measure the vital force or even a vital energy […] this energy is not in any form known to science [yet energy, by definition in terms of science, is quantifiable!!!].  Scientists have yet to measure a vital force […] science's view of life is founded on a different philosophy [!!!] than vitalism.  At the core of science and medicine is mechanistic materialism [!!!].  In this view life emerged from matter.  There is no hidden vital force, no living energy.  Life is seen as a self-sustaining process that produces complex structures [p.003]";

.

(ISBN 0738710776)

 Note: I'm highly enjoying the verbiage "believers in vitalism believe".  Vitalism is, after all, nonfactual.  It is also quite a strain to state that 'how science collectively explains its factual collection is merely a philosophy', as if all ideas / ideations / views are of equal epistemic status.

002. the author's leap into science-fiction and -illiteracy:

"science does have an answer to the mystery of the vital force […there's] a ubiquitous field of information […] the zero-point field […] a sea of subatomic particles popping into and out of existence [(i.e. dark matter) p.003...so] the essence of the vital force is [this] information […] information is the link between mechanistic materialism and vitalism [p.004...whereby] living beings actually thwart the immutable law of entropy [p.013].”

Note: so, 'the vital force figmentation' is claimed to be essentially "information" which is comprised of dark matter, and life is claimed as able to defy nature's physical laws.  I've often gotten the impression that nebulousities like vitalism, when not able to claim tangible evidence in direct support of their supposed existence, then veil themselves in another nebulousity / mysticism layer.  Dark matter is that new veil, here.  Also, like creationists who want to supernaturalize biology, vitalists often claim that life defies physical laws and therefore vitalists are minimally indirectly categorizing life as a supernatural event / phenomena.  The vital force is about as mysterious as the Tooth Fairy, or fairies under the garden.

003. regarding vitalism and information in terms of the life science / biology, biologist Richard Dawkins states [coincidentally on that same appendix page I've linked to above]:

[in "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing"(2008)]

.

"what neither Mendel nor anyone else before 1953 knew was that genes themselves are digital, within themselves [...] life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]";

.

(ISBN 0199216800)

Note: true information, in the sense of biology and its phenomena, is genetic.  And that is biochemical.

004. and regarding misconceptions surrounding life and thermodynamic law, the National Center for Science Education has this interesting explanation here:

"if the earth were a closed system, then every living organism on earth would be defying entropy on a daily basis. But, the earth is not a closed system; thus, respiration, growth, reproduction, and evolution happen on earth on a daily basis without violating the second law of thermodynamics."

Note: when looked upon as a whole, in terms of our solar system, life does not defy physical law.

University of Bridgeport's "Health Science" Advertising 02 [pictoral] - 2009-12:

here, I share a picture I took today along I-95 in Stratford, CT of a billboard advertising the University of Bridgeport's “Health Science” division [see 001., below]. Now, it may shock the uniformed to know that: a) within this supposed “science” category, UB includes naturopathy [see 002., below] because b) naturopathy has, as 'it's essential worldview', a context exterior to science since naturopathy REQUIRES -- by its own definition -- the science-ejected concepts of vitalism [see 003., below] and supernaturalism [see 004., below]. So, WOW [see 005., below]:

001. this is a shot I just took this afternoon along I-95 in Stratford, CT with my Pentax K-1000 [go chemical image media!; sorry for the support wires, but this was the safe way to get the shot, as opposed to roadside]:

Note: it says "UBelong Here.  www.bridgeport.edu. UB.  Our degrees in Health Science make everyone feel better.  University of Bridgeport.  Opening doors.  Building futures."

002. here is where UB includes naturopathy in their "science" academic category, stating in "UB Spotlight: Health Sciences Programs":

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs are housed in the Fones School of Dental Hygiene, the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Acupuncture Institute, and the Nutrition Institute."

Note: we have the claim that naturopathy is ethically 'of the professions' and epistemically of 'science'.

003. UB states, explictly, the science-ejected concept of vitalism that undergirds naturopathy ESSENTIALLY here, in "Six Guiding Principles.  Guiding Principle # 1. The Healing Power of Nature":

"nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: if anyone is in doubt about naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism, visit their primary textbook's sample chapter here. Page 30 has the gem statement: "Dr. Sensenig presented 'Back to the Future: Reintroducing Vitalism as a New Paradigm'".  Dr. S. was my teacher at UB, the founding dean of that naturopathy school, and the founding president of the AANP.  Here are Sensenig's notes equating this "life force" with the notion of 'god power within' -- an article of faith that I've termed autoentheism.

004. and, of course, supernaturalism runs rampant in naturopathy, supposedly a "science" here, in "A Systems Approach to Wellness [by] Joseph Pizzorno N.D.":

"the routes to total wellness [...per our] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body [...include] our life-force (or spirit) [...] the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) deep within us."

Note: notice how the science-ejected concept of vitalism equated with supernaturalism, by JEP, the don of naturopathy per his self-label as "one of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine".  And supernaturalism is science-ejected.

005. so, my response to this "science" label upon naturopathy is UB is WOW:

as in "Danger, Will Robinson, unethical sectarian pseudoscience."  How do they get away with this?

What's rather ironic about his whole this is the name "Barrett" in the billboard.  Barrett, in another context, has much to say about these "muddleheads".

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.”