Homeopathy As "Unscientific, Absurd" - The Daily Mail 2010-01-22

the UK's Daily Mail reports in "Skeptics Plan 'Mass Overdose' in Protest Against Homeopathic Medicine" (2010-01-22):

"hundreds of homeopathy skeptics are planning a 'mass overdose' of [these] pills in protest at the continued marketing of these 'useless' medicines by high street chemist Boots [...] to prove that the medicines are ineffective [...] 10.23 has accused Boots of profiting from what is an 'unscientific and absurd pseudoscience' [...] the remedies have literally nothing in them [...] in October [...] Boots' professional standards director Paul Bennett told a committee of MPs [...of the] House of Commons Science and Technology Committee [...] that there was no medical evidence that homeopathic pills and potions work [...per] 'I have no evidence to suggest that they are efficacious'".

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy claims that this "unscientific" junk and "absurd pseudoscience" is a clinical science.

New 2010 CSI Fellows Announced!

here, I briefly quote from an email I received from the Committee For Skeptical Inquiry regarding induction of new Fellows [and Fellas]:

In "Sixteen Notable Figures in Science and Skepticism Elected CSI Fellows", CSI writes:

"the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), publisher of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine, announced today the election of 16 new Fellows, chosen for 'distinguished achievement in science and skepticism' [...per] Kimball Atwood IV, physician, author, Newton, Massachusetts; Robert T. Carroll, emeritus professor of philosophy, Sacramento City College, writer; K.C. Cole, science writer, author, professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism; Christopher C. French, professor, department of psychology, and head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths College, University of London; Luigi Garlaschelli, chemist, Università di Pavia (Italy), and research fellow of CICAP, the Italian skeptics’ group; Maryanne Garry, professor, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; Harriet Hall, retired family physician, writer, Puyallup, Washington; Stuart D. Jordan, NASA astrophysicist emeritus, science advisor to Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.; Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology, Brown University; Jan Willem Nienhuys, mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands; Steven Novella, assistant professor of neurology, Yale University School of Medicine; Jay M. Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and director of the Hopkins Observatory, Williams College; Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy, City University of New York-Lehman College; Philip Plait, astronomer, lecturer, and writer; James 'The Amazing' Randi, magician, CSICOP founding member, founder, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF); Seth Shostak, senior astronomer, SETI Institute, Mountain View, Calif."

Note: hmmm, no naturopaths...go figure!  Oh, you actually have to be for rationality and science integrity!  Seems the 'big skeptic schism' has truly ended, with JREF and CSI cross-pollinating one anothers' upper membership quite abundantly.

Coyne on Naturopathy: "Anti-science", "Pre-scientific" - Mcleans 2010-01-07:

here, I briefly cite from a Mcleans.ca article written by Andrew Coyne that touched on naturopathy:

Coyne, A. (? ?) states in Mcleans.ca's "Coyne on Climategate: The Truth is Out There Somewhere" (2010-01-07):

"science has pushed the boundaries of human knowledge to limits never before imagined.  Yet all sorts of anti-scientific, indeed pre-scientific beliefs are flourishing at the same time, from the enduring appeal of naturopathy and other folk cures to the hysterias over childhood vaccines and genetically modified foods, all the way to the dreadful pseudoscience of 'intelligent design'."

Note: wow!

Naturopathy as 'the Future of Healthcare': Irrationalism and Absurdity Posed as Professionalism, Integrity and Physicianship - the AANP's Howard 2010

here, I quote from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' [AANP] 2010 "Natural Medicine Journal" article recently authored by AANP's executive director Karen Howard celebrating naturopathy's new Department of Labor [DOL] definition [see 001.a., below]; then, I decode the quite coded essential premise of naturopathy within that DOL definition using naturopathy's own ".gov" and ".edu" primary sources [see 001.b., below]; and finally, I muse upon these "metaphysicians" [see 002., below]:

001.a. in "The Future of Naturopathic Medicine: A Message from Karen E. Howard, Executive Director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians", she writes:

"the AANP’s vision is to transform the healthcare system from disease management to health promotion by incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine. The mission of the AANP is to serve our members by advancing the profession of naturopathic medicine and preserving its integrity [...] this fall, the US Department of Labor released a new definition of 'naturopathic physician' [...per] 'a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals [NHCI...] sample job titles include naturopathic physician, naturopathic doctor, physician, and doctor of naturopathic medicine' [...] this is a monumental success for the naturopathic profession."

Note: so, we have the claim of "profession", galore, [7 instances] in the article. Howard's NHCI -- naturopathy's coded vitalism m.o. -- will be fleshed out below.

001.b. regarding "the principles of naturopathic medicine" and "a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals":

001.b1. the foremost sources, in my mind, for iteration of naturopathy's "principles" are ".gov" and a ".edu" web site.  Both are based in Oregon, because that region is the 'trunk of the naturopathic tree', so to speak.  Oregon has the oldest AANP ND-granting school, and that State's ND apparatus has codified naturopathy's principles on the State of Oregon's website.

001.b1.a. per the ".gov", the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners [...] they are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college [...] 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 [(this is naturopathy's kooky claim that the science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny)...principle #1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN=VMN...] nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...principle #3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...overall] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence [!!!] of the natural healing process [INHP...] naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition [VT] 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 [IHCP...a.k.a.] the body’s healing and immune response [BIIR...] the body’s innate healing response [BIHR]."

Note: obviously, vitalism is the cardinal premise of naturopathy, per HPN=VMN= LF=VF=INHP=VT=IHCP=BIIR=BIHR. Howard's NHCI is synonymous but, NHCI is 'vitalism coded' and therefore not honest / transparent in the way it should be in order to be 'of professional ethical status' [IMO]. OBNE and the State of Oregon has just told us that a "life force" is "in fact" an objective scientific fact.  Hilarious: claiming that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny is INSANE. Vitalism is profoundly science-ejected. Science that hugely isn't science is not-at-all conventional.

001.b1.b. per the ".edu", the National College of Natural Medicine states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]. 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 [LF...#3] first do no harm -- primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [VF]."

Note: so, again the VERY WRONG continuous commercial activity of labeling as 'scientific fact' the 'in fact science-ejected vitalistic' [minimally].  This is what "natural medicine" is in AANP-land -- trading upon what is false, and known to be false 'by the preponderance of science' for several decades. Also, there's the quite wrong claim of professionalism [7 times on that page], because you cannot be hugely insanely premised and still be of credat emptor status.  What's also fascinating about the "new" AANP DOL definition of naturopathy is that naturopathy is still 'cultically coding' their essential premise.  Naturopathy is not being transparent: its supernatural, vitalistic and teleological premise / 'the science-ejected sectarian' is being falsely presented as naturalistic, science-supported, objective fact when in fact such is science-ejected / science-unsupported.  In fact, such misleading and opaque activity by naturopathy is not new; it is naturopathy's same old deceptive m.o.  Notice that they are grabbing for more generalistic titles, like "physician".  This sets up a Federal precedent that further allows AANP to achieve more State licensure laws for itself by saying "we're already Federally recognized" as _________.  I would argue that naturopathy is still quite incompletely, opaquely and falsely Federally described.  But,  why be surprised!  Naturopathy already has ".gov" support per Oregon to posture and trade upon the quite false-absurd: the idea that the scientific is what is not scientific.  I have termed this "epistemic conflation" [EC], the blending of knowledge type. EC illogically claims that something is equal to that which it is different from.  Yet, after thoroughly muddling knowledge type, naturopathy then superabsurdly-falsely represents that mingled heap as an 'epistemic delineation', per [supposedly] truly "science".  That is INSANE; and instead of this being 'a doctoral-level, scientific, professional physician context', I've termed the whole thing a fraudulent racket.  I will be blogging next post about naturopathy's goals towards expansion of all this insanity and absurdity.

002. regarding "physician", "the future of healthcare", "integrity" and "profession":

integrity's usage is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed.: "steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code [...] the state of being unimpaired; soundness [...] the quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness."  Now, the claim of "profession" is similarly a claim of trustworthyness, thoroughness, soundness.  Naturopathy claims professionalism and integrity while being completely unsound and opaque in its basic premise.

In fact, as I've said, I think naturopathic 'thinking' is INSANE: claiming that what's inside of the scientific is the same as what's outside of the scientific, that figmentations are the same as what is in-evidence / rigorously scientifically vetted.  At its core, naturopathy is simply nonsense in the 'sense' that naturopathy claims that 'something is the same as something it is profoundly different from'.  It other words, naturopathy claims that that which survives scientific scrutiny is that which has actually been ejected from science.  What is "conventional" about this kind of science?  What is even rational about it?  The fact is that such 'kind' of science, if I can be allowed such an absurd statement, is "pseudo" -- as in fake.  And such kind of 'thinking' is junk thought.

To believe in figmentation / what lacks evidence as a central premise, and to set it up as 'the truth about nature's workings' rings of metaphysics and sectic ideology.  So, I regard the 'epistemic position' of an ND not as that of a physician but that of a metaphysician, per 'the metaphysical merged with physicianship'.

The other appropriate term is sectarian medicine, as opposed to scientific medicine / modern-enlightened thought.

Naturopathy is as much "the future of healthcare" as the hugely science-ejected is the future of science.  Naturopathy is as much the future of healthcare as flat-earth theory is the future of geography.

The Florida Connection - A Really Old and New Naturopathy Science Claim - St. Petersburg Independent 1910-10-22, NUHS 2009-12-29:

here, I cite from the St. Petersburg [Florida] Independent concerning naturopathy as "science" [see 001, below].  And then, I cite from the National University of Health Sciences recent press release [see 002., below].  Then, I make 'the Florida connection' [see 003., below]:

001. in their local news, per "A Modern Method of Practice Without the Use of Medicine", we are told in the St. Petersburg Independent:

"among our late arrivals is Dr. J.H. McGilvary, naturopathic physician, a graduate of the Texas College of Science [...] naturopathy is not a faith cure, nor a suggestion cure, nor a hypnotic cure.  It is a practical and scientific treatment of all curable diseases [...] although the Dr. has lost his eyesight, it does not handicap him in the least, but rather adds to his senses of touch and hearing, and makes them more acute, which enables him to diagnose more correctly [!]."

Note: this is accessible through books.google.com.  What interests me most is the claim of "science" placed over the naturopathic at both the subject-matter and institutional levels.

002. chiroeco.com tells us in "NUHS Awards First ND Diplomas Since 1952" [2009-12-29]:

"in historic commencement ceremonies on Dec. 17, National University of Health Sciences awarded three graduates the institution’s first doctor of naturopathic medicine degree (ND) since 1952 [...] National’s current ND program opened its doors for the first class of students in the Fall of 2006 [...] NUHS is the only naturopathic medical school in the Midwest and one of only two universities in the country to offer degrees in naturopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, acupuncture, and oriental medicine on the same campus [UB is the other...] source: National University of Health Sciences, www.nuhs.edu."

Note: again, what interests me is the label "science" placed over the naturopathic.  The institution claims to be a "science" institution.

003. the Florida connection:

003.a. at NUHS's web site, "DC in St. Petersburg, Florida", we are told:

"National is now part of the University Partnership Center of St. Petersburg College (SPC). This [...] allows NUHS to offer its doctor of chiropractic (DC) degree on site at the St. Petersburg college campus. When you earn your DC degree from National University of Health Sciences St. Petersburg Campus [etc....this is] primary care chiropractic medicine. We prepare you to become a first contact physician with a strong foundation in basic sciences [...] National University of Health Sciences (NUHS) offers a doctor of chiropractic degree program in Lombard, Illinois, which has been accredited by the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) since 1971 and by its predecessor, the American Chiropractic Association Committee on Accreditation since 1966. [...] on April 20, 2009, National University of Health Sciences (NUHS), Lombard, Illinois, received approval from the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to offer the Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine degree at the University Partnership Center at St. Petersburg College in Florida. The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools may be contacted at 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 2400, Chicago, Illinois, 60602-2504, or 1-800-621-7440."

Note: science, science, science.  Coincidentally, 001. and 003. above are all about St. Petersburg, Florida.  And what happened the last time a DC program was attempted in Florida, you may ask?  Nice skeptical activism: a public university wouldn't do it, due to the backlash.

NCSE's Newton on 'Science Denial', Colquhoun on Naturopathy 'Make Believe' - Philadelphia Inquirer, UPI (2009-12-24)

here, I cite from two identically dated news articles regarding science. The National Center for Science Education's [NCSE] Steven Newton [US] writes about 'science denial' in the Philadelphia Inquirer [see 001., below], while University College London's [UCL] David Colquhoun [UK] is sourced by United Press International [UPI] concerning naturopathy 'as make believe' [see 002., below]:

001. the NCSE's Newton writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer's "Science Denial is on the Rise":

"from evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists - those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. [Such] science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning [...and] attack[s] the legitimacy of science itself […] despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic […] research is judged by the data and methodology […] as the great physicist Richard Feynman noted, 'science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.' Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing […] science denialism works differently. [E.g.] creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence […] cloak[ing] themselves in the mantle of science without being restricted by its requirements [...] they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in [publication] arenas not subject to expert scrutiny […] understanding science has never been more important than it is today."

Note: this 'cloaking' is an m.o. I continually observe naturopathy doing. When naturopathy claims that within science is nonscience, naturopathy offers no scientific findings or scientific methodologies to support that.  Naturopathy writes it -- only -- as if then magically such irrationality is then made true and rational.  I've said this many times: it's as though science for naturopathy is a letterhead on a piece of paper, and they magically believe that whatever they then write underneath that 'science' letterhead is then science.  Naturopathy is quite fantastical, and quite absurd.

002. UCL's David Colquhoun is sourced by the UPI in “Britain Urged to Crack Down on Remedies”:

“the British government and doctors should do more to crack down on those who promote [pseudo!] remedies such as curing AIDS with vitamins [...] says David Colquhoun of the University College London [...per] an editorial in the Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal [...he wrote] colleges 'avoid the hard questions by setting up committees' while the government's department of health refers the hard questions to the Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Health, which was asked to draft 'national occupational standards' for make believe subjects like 'naturopathy' [oh snap!...] Colquhoun cites two recent examples [...] the recent homeopathy 'evidence check' conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee [...admitted] 'that there was no good evidence that homeopathy worked [at all, because it's a pseudoremedy labeled, by the way, by naturopathy 'clinical science'...and] Colquhoun criticizes the head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for suggesting that homeopathy cannot be tested by proper randomized controlled trials [his original editorial submission to the BMJ is here].”

Note: I would argue that naturopathy is similarly a form of such 'science denial', except in naturopathy's case they deny:

a) basic biological science concerning physiology [e.g. by posing vitalistic and supernatural / immaterial forces as being fundamentally in control of physiology!];

b) basic pharmacological science, particularly as concerns homeopathy. 

SGU on Naturopathy - 2009-12-02, Thoms & Novella:

recently, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast dated 2009-12-02 discussed skeptical activism in Canada by Skeptic North aimed at exposing naturopathy.  For the full podcast, click here.  Here are some excerpts: 

[SN is SGU host Steve Novella; ST is SGU guest and editor of SkepticNorth.com Steve Thoms]

"SN: Steve is the editor and chief of Skeptic North which is a skeptical group, pan-Canadian blog. And we are here to talk to you about one issue that you guys have been tackling and that is the attempt that's being made by naturopaths in Canada to gain the right to prescribe medications [1].

[...]

ST: The problem is that naturopaths do not have the medical training to prescribe medical drugs. And that's kind of the bottom line here. The counter-argument that we've faced a lot is that naturopaths have eight years of education, but that's taking into account four years of university training in the undergrad. which they're not affiliated with.  Like no naturopathic college in Canada is associated with a Canadian university. So that's kind of taking credit for the Canadian university system. And also, eight years -- I mean -- I can study unicorn breeding for eight years and that doesn't mean that unicorns exist. Quality of education also matters here [2].

SN: Right, of course I agree with you. Again, for our listeners who may not be aware, naturopaths are really like a cult-like medical pseudoprofession. They believe in a hodge-podge of just about any unscientific modality that's out there. [E.g.] they prescribe homeopathy and acupuncture. And they believe in a lot of unsubstantiated notions [...] my colleague Harriet Hall calls it Tooth Fairy science, which I think is perfect. You could do all kinds of scientific studies about the Tooth Fairy and how the size of the tooth relates to the amount of money that gets left behind, whatever, it doesn't make the Tooth Fairy real. The underlying premises are pseudoscientific and so the entire endeavor is false. And this also gets to the notion that this is naturopaths trying to expand the scope of their practice, which usually happens once they get licensure and also trying to function as primary care healthcare providers being the first person that somebody sees when they're sick which is scary because they don't have the training and they don't have the dedication to science. This a very unfortunate thing [3]."

Notes:

[1]: it is not uncommon in the US for NDs to have gained legal access to prescribe certain 'medical drugs', but it varies from state to state.  In Connecticut, NDs have no such script rights, as far as I know.  In places like Oregon, the ND 'formulary' is large.  Overall, it is rather strange that NDs have rights to such compounds, since they do not abide by modern scientific premises, particularly the scientific premises of pharmacology.  This is evident in naturopathy's huge obligation to the pseudomedicinal system known as homeopathy, whose pills are claimed as medicinal / active when actually 'just water' / inert.

[2]: well, I went to ND school for four years and I can say that it truly is as absurd as 'unicorn breeding'.  When the label science us placed upon sectarian principles that are hugely science-ejected, such irrationalism / academic negligence is ethically revolting. 

[3]: yes, cult-like and a pseudoprofession.  In a deposition at 2002 about, I labeled naturopathy "cultic mystical weirdness".  It's 'mental circuit-blowing stupid' hasn't gotten any less. As scientific as the Tooth Fairy, as in completely false to this day in terms of its claim that that which is scientific is also that which is science-ejected / not-science-supported / nonscientific.  Science is a label naturopathy uses to promote what is actually hugely science-ejected.

I would argue, though, that naturopathy is categorically different than actual academic science.  It's not an issue of quality then, it is an issue of false posturing and unfair trade.  It is not what it says it is clinically or academically as a whole: so, commerce occurs and the initial conditions are untrue.

That's my take, from the inside: for naturopathy, science is a false label camouflaging their sectarian absurdity.