here, I cite lunacy that's so loony I couldn't ever make such up! ND Dick wrote a letter to the editor of Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] recently, claiming that naturopathy is a profession, scientific, and overall a reasonable health care choice [see 001., below]; then I cite huge nonsense on stilts from her own web pages [see 002., below]; then I look quickly at naturopathy's essential principles [see 003., below]; and O.G. Carroll whose clinical traditions are lauded by Dick [see 004., below]; and finally I muse [see 005., below]:
001. Dick, L. (ND NCNM 1990) states in "Letter to the Editor" in NDNR [2010-05, p.003]:
001.a. that naturopathy meets the ethical rigors of professionalism:
"[per] our profession [x3...] the profession."
001.b. that naturopathy essentially [here ‘classically or traditionally’ too] is scientific:
"[per] there is a misconception that the ‘elders’ of the profession, the NDs in clinical practice who use classical naturopathy [CN], are somehow unscientific or practice without science-based, or evidence-based medicine. This is far from true [a strong science claim!…] I am not a radical naturopath and this is not a radical, uneducated, or unscientific approach [quite a promise!]. It has been, and I hope it still is, our standard of care [SOC…quoting Tilden, who presumably she agrees with] 'thousands of doctors have all the scientific data needed, but they have not harnessed their science to common-sense and philosophy [so, embedding science within a belief system, essentially…quoting Hahnemann, who again she presumably agrees with] 'since this natural law of healing [likely ‘like cures like’] is confirmed in all objective experiments and authentic experience in the world, it is established as fact [bullshit]. Scientific explanations of how it works are of little importance, and I see little value in attempting one' [wow, science without science, amazing…] please support this effort to preserve the scientific medicine of our past [quite a strong science claim] for future care of our patients for generations to come. If we must do current research or clinical outcome studies on these protocols, then let us do that [oh, and we’ll do the science part later, seeing as how it’s kind of needed!]."
Note: so, the ‘essentially naturopathic’ is claimed as science and common sense, and THAT is naturopathy’s SOC [label ‘the naturopathic scientific’]. Archaic sources like Tilden and Hahnemann are referenced as gospel. Both authors obviously have quite an antipathy to science! And then science ex post facto is advised by Dick. Absurd, completely absurd and not common sense at all. Here’s some of what I was taught by my naturopathy elder Sensenig. Yes, that is UB's completely science-ejected sectarian ND figmentations falsely labeled as scientific and nonsectarian facts. This is "the scientific medicine of our past" we're asked to preserve.
001.c. Dick’s overarching ‘philosophy’ [that to which science is harnessed / embedded within]"
"I utilize a sanipractor [aka ‘naturopathic’] clinical model […a] patient-management model fully supporting naturopathic philosophy, principles, and case management […] classical naturopathy is the philosophy put to common-sense use [...our] classical clinical model [...we must] utilize a clinical model of classical naturopathic medicine in our teaching clinics."
Note: I’ll detail naturopathy’s ‘essential or classical or traditional’ philosophy and principles in 003., below, which is huge nonsense.
002. from Dick's own web pages [for a bio. click here], we find huge nonsense on stilts:
002.a. in "Welcome to Our Clinic!" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:
"the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic is the oldest traditional naturopathic clinic in the United States [...] this application of naturopathy is founded in scientific principles and the laws of nature."
Note: again, a strong science claim. The laws of nature are also a science claim as they come about in modern thought through scientific findings. Yet, of course, in naturopathy what is science and what if figmentation are blended. Therein, in claiming science: these are the stilts.
002.b. in "Iridology" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:
"iridology, or iris diagnosis, is a way to look at the fibers of the eyes and determine weakness, ulceration, or inflammation of organ tissues […] there are areas of the iris (the colored part of the eye) which correspond to the different parts of the body […] what can be seen is an inflammatory process or irritation in that area in the iris which corresponds to the lung tissue of the body […] for example, by seeing loose or gapping iris fibers in the liver area it is then determined that there is liver irritation or inflammation […per] weak areas of the metabolism […then] a treatment protocol can be developed for each individual person based upon their needs. Both doctors at Windrose Clinic [Dick and Potenza, C. (ND Bastyr 2002)] perform this important diagnostic analysis."
Note: now, iridology is completely bunk. Therein: huge nonsense.
002.c. in "Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:
"homeopathy […] is over 200 years old […it’s] a scientific application [bullshit!] of minute [undetectable!] amounts of a substance (plant, animal, or mineral) to stimulate the metabolism [coded vitalism] to correct its imbalance. This is accomplished via the theory that like cures like [a sectarian figmentation that is not true…] for example, pneumonia with a fever may require Phosphorus 30C, 3 pellets every hour whereas an arthritic knee problem may require rhus tox 30c, 3 pellets given once a week [yes, empty remedies for real diseases]. Homeopathic remedies are curative, not simply palliative [it’s just magic!]. They don't cover up the symptoms, but rather stimulate the body to heal the condition. Homeopathy is frequently utilized at the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic and may be indicated in your healing process."
Note: here, we have the label of science upon the homeopathic. This also is huge nonsense. Claiming such as science puts it up on stilts. What’s even scarier is the use of nothing to treat something as serious as pneumonia. In the NDNR article, in fact, Dick states: “I want naturopaths to be trained and confident in their ability to treat their pneumonia patients […] without antibiotics and not refer them to allopaths [the reverse sectarian accusation!] for care.”
003. naturopathy’s principles / philosophy:
003.a. NCNM, which is Dick’s alma mater, 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: 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.”
Note: so, there’s Dick’s alma mater stating that vitalism, which is hugely science-ejected, survives scientific scrutiny, and that naturopathy is a profession. More nonsense on stilts.
003.b. Bastyr University, per ND Potenza’s alma mater, states in “Bastyr University”:
“Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [coded vitalism].”
Note: there’s Potenza’s alma mater stating that within science is the supernatural and the vitalistic. More nonsense on stilts.
004. regarding O.G. Carroll and the sanipractioning tradition:
004.a. Dick states at her homepage:
“the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic is the oldest traditional naturopathic clinic in the United States. It continues the 50+ year traditions of Dr. Otis G. Carroll and Dr. Harold Dick under the direction of Dr. Letitia Dick-Kronenberg. This application of naturopathy is founded in scientific principles and the laws of nature.”
Note: so, there’s Carroll and that promise of science again. The laws, of course, are sectarian figmentations.
004.b. Time Magazine states in “Medicine: Sanipractor” (1958-04-07) :
“Doris Hull […went] to Spokane to see Otis G. Carroll, 79, a practitioner of 43 years' experience […her husband] thought Carroll was an M.D. [but] he is actually a licensed drugless-healer -- a ‘sanipractor’[aka naturopath!…] Carroll took a drop of blood from Doris Hull's ear, put it in his ‘radionic’ device [a quack device], twirled some knobs [and] concluded […] tuberculosis. [But] Carroll did not say anything to the Hulls about TB, though state law requires drugless-healers to report such cases to public health officials. Instead, he prescribed hot and cold compresses to increase her absorption of water […] five months later, Doris Hull died of starvation and tuberculosis […] a Spokane jury last week awarded him [Mr. Hull…damages] because both he and their daughter, 2, contracted TB from her.”
Note: naturopathy is NOT a grand tradition. This is quite a tragedy.
naturopathy overall to me is a huge breakdown of higher education and professional regulation. It is not a profession since it is loony, DEFINITELY not scientific because its essential context is science-ejected, and overall it is quite an unreasonable health care choice.
Yet, the schools are fully sanctioned and unscrutinized.
Yet, the schools are fully sanctioned and unscrutinized.
The AANP's blog motto is "Physicians Who Listen," but really it should be
"Dangerous Nonsense on Stilts."