The "Naturopathic Physician Sect Leader" - 1980:

001. New Hampshire's Nashua Telegraph states in "Sect Leader Convinced Doomsday at Hand" (1980-05-01) [see news.google.com]:

"Missoula, Mont. [...] Leland Jensen [...] the 65-year old leader of a religious sect [...] the sect, an offshoot of the Bahai'i faith [...] he served four years in the Montana state prison at Deer Lodge after being convicted of sexually molesting a child in 1969.  Warden Roger Crist said Jensen started a chapter of his sect at the prison [...he's a] 'naturopathic physician' [...] Jensen [...] describes himself as the U.S. leader of the 'Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant' [p.008]."

002. boy, naturopathy is interesting.

003. Wikipedia has an entry on Jensen here.

Note: fascinating.

Naturopathy, Its Homeopathy, and Bad Scholarship - Goldacre via BMJ Group:

here, I first show how homeopathy is essential to naturopathy [see 001., below]; then I cite from a recent Guardian article from the British Medical Journal Group [BMJG] which quotes Ben Goldacre's testimony [see 002., below]; and finally I provide examples of naturopathy's scholastic negligence / absurdity:

001. naturopathy's essential homeopathy: 

001.a. the NCCAM states in "Homeopathy: An Introduction":

"homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics) [...] critics argue that continuing the scientific study of homeopathy is not worthwhile [hear, hear...] homeopathy is also part of the medical [huh?] education for naturopathy [...] national certification may be obtained through organizations such as [...] the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians [HANP]." 

001.b. the current president of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges is "a diplomate of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians (DHANP)".

001.c. AANMC states in "Naturopathic Medicine FAQs":

"naturopathic medicine combines many methodologies [...including] homeopathy [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training [...including in] homeopathic medicine."

002. the Guardian's "MPs Criticized Homeopathy This Week. What's Their Evidence?" states:

"the theory that homeopathic remedies become more powerful the more they're diluted isn't supported by scientific evidence [...] Dr. Ben Goldacre said: 'if you look at all of the trials in the whole, collectively, what you see when you look at the best-quality trials is that homeopathy pills work no better than placebo pills. You can select individual trials and say: we have got this individual trial, or even ten individual trials, which show that it works, but if you cherry-pick your literature and pick out only the positive results and ignore the unfavorable results, you can make any treatment work, including ones that are known to be ineffective or even dangerous. That is just bad scholarship.'"

003. the bad scholarship / scholastic negligence of naturopathy: 

I cannot emphasize HOW BAD naturopathy is, academically speaking.  Now, here are two examples from my personal experience in a naturopathy school: 

003.a. the labeling of the profoundly science-ejected as science: 

e.g., here's my alma mater, the University of Bridgeport, which states clearly that naturopathy is both essentially vitalistic and essentially supernatural, and simultaneously essentially scientific.  Wow. 

003.b. the labeling of the profoundly sectarian as nonsectarian: 

e.g. here's that same school stating that it is nonsectarian while adhering to profoundly sectarian science-ejected dogma.

Note: and what's really fascinating about naturopathy, from the AANMC down, is that they do not most of the time clearly indicate what they essentially are all about.  For instance, that AANMC page I've cited in 001.c. does not transparently communicate naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism, though it does state naturopathy's essential supernaturalism.

This is not much different from a homeopath giving you an empty pill and not telling you so.

That, by the way, is something I had had to do in school at UB.  I found it so ethically revolting that I stopped pursuit of that ND absurdity, and as an extension of my academic duty, began exposing their gross falsehood / scholastic negligence.

Colquhoun on Homeopathy & Trees, and an ND's Tree Iridology:

here, I quote from eminent UK pharmacologist Colquhoun about homeopathy's ridiculousness [see 001., below]; and then I quote from a Canadian ND who uses tree essences and iridology at what is labeled a "Health Science" school [see 002., below]:

001. David Colquhoun, "Research Professor of Pharmacology, UCL" states in answer to the question "Should the NHS Fund Homeopathy?" (2010-02-26):

"no [...] the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee’s report restores one’s faith in reason [...per finding] that there was no reason to believe that homeopathic pills had more effect than a placebo, therefore they should not be paid for by the NHS and neither was more research justified [...] most of the medicines contain no medicine whatsoever. Zero, zilch, nothing. That’s why they are placebos [...and] homeopathy also involves the preposterous idea that the more you dilute a remedy, the stronger it gets [...] homeopaths misrepresent the evidence [...it is] a dishonest placebo [...] homeopathy is on a par with talking to trees. No decent health service should pay for it."

 Note: the connection with  trees piqued my curiosity, so I did a search of 'naturopathic and trees'.

002. here's an ND that uses "tree essences", and she writes:

002.a. in "Dr. Carol Magda Naturopath, Author and Tree Essence Practitioner":

"Dr. Magda practices integrated naturopathic medicine and teaches the full spectrum of such an approach in all subjects she teaches at the International Academy of Health Sciences, where she is the Director of Iridology and Nutritional Studies. In particular she teaches the use of Canadian Forest Tree essences within the parameters of an iridology practitioner in her emotional iridology programs."

Note: hmmmmm.

002.b. in "About Us":

"'trees speak' [...] trees collect energy [...] in China one name for this energy is 'chi' and in Indian yoga it is called 'prana' [...] life energy [...] prana [...] 'factor x' [...]  an unbeknown energy factor [...] essences are a way of recording the energy impressions or memory of trees. They are vibrational in nature [...] each tree has its unique song. As when you are with a tree, feeling connected, nourished in its presence, so when you ingest an essence you are in effect listening to the music of a tree."

Note: so, iridology, vitalism, and tree talking = naturopathy!

Homeopathy - ND Cates vs Richard Dawkins:

here, I compare two competing positions regarding homeopathy: an ND who graduated from NCNM who claims that homeopathy mightily works [see 001., below]; an eminent scientist who clearly disagrees, but [generously!] proposes an experimental design which would appropriately test homeopathy [see 002., below]:

001. Cates, T.H. (ND NCNM 2000) states in "Homeopathy Basics" (2010-02-24):

"below are some common questions a curious consumer may ask a retailer regarding the most effective ways to take advantage of homeopathy’s healing properties [...Q] do scientific studies support the use of homeopathic prescriptions? [A] Because of the unique method in which homeopathic remedies are selected, standard scientific studies do not often adequately portray the true efficacy of homeopathy ['excuse' alert!]. Despite this fact, studies have shown ['cake and eat it too' alert!] long-term treatment with homeopathy can reduce disease severity and improve quality of life in patients with a variety of acute and chronic diseases [...] homeopathy is a gentle and effective way to enhance a person’s immune system [while NO SUCH  EFFECT has ever actually been reliably measured!] and treat acute illnesses such as the flu ['delay appropriate care' alert!...] homeopathy can provide great immune support and relief from various health concerns ['panacea' alert!...] homeopathy can help individuals enhance wellness and overcome illnesses."

Note: so, we have the 'you can't science it' and a simultaneous 'but science supports it' irrationality.  We have the promises of 'broad efficacy', that homeopathy treats / cures.  ND Cates is a member of HANP.

002. Richard Dawkins writes in "The Trouble With Homeopathy" (2010-02-24):

"if homeopathy really worked, it should be easy and cheap to demonstrate it [...] I am personally convinced that homeopathy doesn't work. The best way to test any proposed therapy is the double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial (DBCRT) [...] homeopathy is eminently eligible for, indeed vulnerable to, double blind testing [so excuses about it not being science-able are complete bullshit...] here's my experimental design [which I won't detail here...overall] if experiments as carefully controlled as this one reliably and repeatably showed that the extremely diluted homeopathic substances were effective, what should we conclude? [...IMAGINE!] it would mean that a hitherto unknown principle of physics had been discovered [...] the homeopath [or naturopath!] who made such a stunning discovery should receive the Nobel Prize for Physics, as well as the Nobel Prize for Medicine. With such a holy grail in view, shouldn’t homeopaths [and naturopaths!...] be beavering away, night and day, in the laboratory to demonstrate the effect? And are they? No. They are much more interested in taking money off patients who believe in the treatment because – like any placebo – it sometimes seems to work [...] until homeopathy is demonstrated to work (which it almost certainly will never be) it should not be supported by the NHS [hear, hear]."

Note: Richard Dawkins is an actual scientist.

003. as far as I know, no AANP or CAND school is directly scientifically investigating naturopathy's absurd claims, such as:

003.a. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that there is a vital force;

Note: while vitalism is science-ejected.

003.b. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that there is spirit;

Note: while supernaturalism is outside the boundaries of science.

003.c. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that homeopathy actually works.

Note: while naturopathy labels homeopathy a clinical science / health science, upon the preponderance, homeopathy is truly "useless and unethical".

004. overall note:

Naturopathy has taken millions of dollars from people in tuition [e.g., I have six-figure debt due to their ruse], and from the NCCAM to selectively study its methods [what a WASTE!].  Dawkins proposes a very simple and rigorous experimental design.  And yet, North American naturopathy is not actually doing the ESSENTIAL SCIENCE which is necessary to establish the actuality of the 'essentially naturopathic'.  All the while, naturopathy is not afraid to label their claims science, hugely. 

This is why my collection of [false] claims / labels by naturopathy that they are science [when they are not] is called "the science that ain't science". 

The AANP's Definition of Naturopathy -- Coded Vitalism Claimed as Scientific:

here, I quote from the 'great naturopathy mother-ship', the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP]: 

001. the AANP states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?":

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism!...the] bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism!...per] the best of modern medical science [...naturopathy's] six timeless principles [are] found[ed] on medical tradition and scientific evidence [...#1] let nature heal [...per] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...#3] use low-risk procedures and healing compounds [...including] homeopathy [...#5] we each have a unique [...] spiritual makeup."

Note: I'll flesh out the coded vitalism in 002., below.  Obviously, 'naturopathy is claiming that the essentially naturopathic' is scientific [more here].  This includes vitalism, homeopathy, and supernaturalism -- none of which have supporting scientific evidence, overall.  AANP's overall MO, as exemplified to their minions from this supposed definition, is to opaquely represent naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise and falsely label what lacks scientific support as having scientific support.

002. as a 'master decoder', I recommend my compilation detailing naturopathy's essential vitalism belief.

003. regarding the lack of scientific support for homeopathy -- which naturopathy falsely labels a "clinical science" on their licensure exam -- this is now quite decided.

Homeopathy per HCSTC 2010 - "Placebo" and "Implausible":

DC's Improbable Science blogs in "MPs Urge Government to Stop NHS Funding and MHRA Licensing of Homeopathy"(2010-02-22):

"the [House of Commons] Science and Technology Committee concludes that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy [...] as they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA [...] the Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible."

Note: yes, yes, yes.  Meanwhile, North American naturopathy labels homeopathy a "clinical science".  For course, naturopathy is famous for its irrationality / absurdity.

NPLEX in Wikipedia, 2010-02-13:

Wikipedia's entry "Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations" [vsc 2010-02-20] states:

"1 NPLEX Part I - Basic Science Examination, 2 NPLEX Part II - Clinical Science Examination [...] NPLEX Part I - Basic Science Examination. Assesses students understanding of core medical sciences [...] NPLEX Part II - Clinical Science Examination [...] Part II is a three day examination process designed to assess whether the naturopathic medical school graduate can apply medical knowledge, skills and understanding of clinical sciences [...and includes] homeopathy."

Note: science, science, science.  The [supposed] clinical science application is located here.

"Christopher Maloney Is a Cowardly Quack" - Pharyngula (2010-02-17):

here, I cite from Pharyngula [P.Z. Meyers] where we are told in "Christopher Maloney is a Quack" (2010-02-17):

"Maloney is a naturopath in the state of Maine where quacks like him get to call themselves doctors [...] Michael Hawkins, dared to criticize him, pointing out that 'naturopathic medicine is pure bull' [...] that naturopaths are underqualified and do not deserve the title of 'doctor' [...] Maloney complained to Wordpress, where Hawkins blog was located, and got them to shut it down [...] now not only is Maloney a quack, but he's a stupid quack [...] now a much bigger blog is going to spread the word that Christopher Maloney is a quack. I'm also going to ask all of you out there who reads this to echo the message: Christopher Maloney is a quack [...] Christopher Maloney is a cowardly quack."

Note: oh snap.

Addendum [2010-02-20]: P.Z. Meyers has advised civility in this matter per "Do Not Harass the Quacks!"[2010-02-18] here, that there are bigger fish to fry per "the prime quack has been identified: Andreas Moritz"[2010-02-18] here, and Orac has posted regarding A.M. in "Andreas Moritz and Trying to Shut Down Valid Scientific Criticism: A Sine Qua Non of a Quack" [2010-02-19] here.

Now, the historical joke is that N.D. stands for "not a doctor", but I also like P.Z.'s "N.D. is short for 'noisy duck.'"  Though, I must say, naturopathy operates actually very covertly.  After all, they are the ones who'll tell you their essential premise is scientific without ever speaking to the fact that their essential premise -- not transparently communicated in the first place -- is actually HUGELY / clearly science-ejected.

Ask A Question of the AANMC - 2010-02-23:

the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges asks, in "February 2010 Webinar":

"what would you like to know about naturopathic medicine?"

Note: I have two quick suggestion questions:

a) if naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected and science-unsupported, essentially, how can the essentially naturopathic still be labeled by AANMC as "science" and "professional"?

b) since naturopathy education has been offered for more than a decade as "science" when hugely not, how do you plan on compensating the educational consumer victims of your falsehood?

CAM's Essential Vitalism: Apologist Beyer, J.H. (? ?):

Beyer, J.H. (? ?) writes in The Minnesota Daily's "Alternative Medicine is Complementary, Not Quackery" (2010-02-15):

"Dr. Renee Wellhouse [whom we are not told is, apparently, a naturopath] looked into my eyes and diagnosed me with a hormonal imbalance [...per] iridology, an ancient [!!!] complementary alternative medicine technique linking colorations in the iris to specific organs or areas of the body that are overactive or distressed [...] CAM is intuitive [...] a fundamental difference between many CAM and Western approaches is the recognition of an immeasurable life force."

Note: iridology simply doesn't work.  Such diagnostics, based on intuition, are wacko.  And there is no such thing by definition as an "immeasurable life force."

UB's 'Naturopathy and Acupuncture are Science' Claim – Clinic Pamphlets 2010:

here, I cite from 2 current pamphlets the University of Bridgeport [UB] uses to advertise for paying patients for their naturopathy clinic [see 001., below] and acupuncture clinic [see 002., below]; then, I quote from sources quite in disagreement [see 003., below]: 

001. UB writes in the pamphlet “Naturopathic Medical Clinic”:

“the University of Bridgeport Health Science Center.  Quality and affordable healthcare.  Naturopathic medical clinic […] Health Sciences Center, 60 Lafayette Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604.”

Here's a glimpse:

.

Note: apparently, quality is the same thing as absurdity, wherein a University takes your money under the label of science, when truly the domain in question's essential premises are science-ejected.  Fascinating 'junk thought'.

002. UB also writes in “Acupuncture Clinic”:

“the University of Bridgeport Health Science Center.  Quality and affordable healthcare.   Acupuncture clinic […] acupuncture is a health science […] Health Sciences Center, 60 Lafayette Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604.”

Here's a glimpse:

.
003. my favorite antidote quotes to the above [false] claims:

003.a. regarding naturopathy, there is the Center for Inquiry's Richard Hull who states: 

"naturopathy is a fraudulent approach to medical causation, depending on the hypothetical 'life force' that supposedly guides healing. No life force has ever been detected, nor has any other supernatural force or being."

Note: here is UB's requisite vitalism and supernaturalism.

003.b. regarding acupuncture, there is Science-Based Medicine's Ben Kavoussi who writes::

"as long as Chinese metaphysics and vitalism are perceived as anything but pre-scientific and disproved worldviews, pseudo-doctors and purveyors of TCM woo-woo will continue to provide the community of believers with medical astrology, alchemy, humoral pathology and even dialogue with the dead, heal with incantations, crystals, colors or sounds, remotely or via touch, and make implausible medical claims –- all with the full blessing and endorsement of the CA Department of Consumer Affairs."

Note: I include CT in that list of endorsers of sCAM, both in terms of the general consumer and the education consumer.

Naturopath Defends Homeopathy - Keranen in The Minnesota Daily, 2010-02-10:

here, I cite from a [rather haughty!] defense of homeopathy by ND Keranen in The Minnesota Daily [see 001., below]; then, I do some 'math' regarding naturopathy's absurdity [see 002., below]; and, I then muse a little [see 003., below]; then, I share some of Keranen's claims about naturopathy from her own web pages [see 004., below]; and finally, I warn about naturopathy's M.O. [see 005., below]:

001. Keranen, E. (ND SCNM 2009) states in "Response to 'Homeopathy'" (2010-02-10) [vsc]:

"as University alumna and as a licensed naturopathic physician, I take offense [!!!] to the Feb. 9 'Homeopathy Promoted at University' attack on alternative medicine [...] there are many types of alternative medicine that are evidence based [...] I want to argue against the idea that 'lack of evidence' equals 'quackery' [...] I would like to suggest that if a seminar or workshop hosted by the University doesn’t fit in with your beliefs or understanding of science, either open your mind to new [!!!] concepts or simply don’t attend [sorry we will attend, naturopathy's OVERALL activities are PUBLIC]."

Note: I love this stuff!  An ND's claim of physicianship, expertise regarding 'the scientifically in-evidence and supported', and expertise in discerning the difference between belief and science.  Plus, the 'close-minded' accusation!  The concepts underlying homeopathy and 'the essentially naturopathic', by the way, are NOT at all new.  Yet, naturopathy's essential principles are often coded/ kept QUITE SECRET, as even exhibited by  ND Keranen [see , below].

002. now, for a little math [that is: an example of naturopathy's internal logical inconsistency / absurdity]:

002.a. naturopathy claims it is fundamentally scientific.

Note: e.g., OBNE states "the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...which are] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] naturopathic philosophy serves as the basis for naturopathic practice.  The current scope of naturopathic practice includes [...] homeopathic medicine [..which supposedly] works on a subtle yet powerful electromagnetic level, gently acting to strengthen the body’s healing and immune response [coded vitalism...] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [...] nature heals through the response of the life force [naturopathy's essential vitalism clearly stated on the same page]."

002.b. homeopathy is labled by naturopathy as science, therein.

002.c. naturopathy is based upon vitalism & kind, therein.

002.d. homeopathy is based upon vitalism & kind, therein.

002.e. vitalism is UTTERLY science-ejected.

Note: so, what is inside the cranial cavity of an ND?  Brain?  Perhaps.  Intelligence?  None that I see, essentially. I think the illogic and irrationality / the sheer absurdity illustrated by my 'math' above speaks volumes concerning naturopathy's nuttiness / stupidity.  Oh, and that same OBNE page states that NDs 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 with admission requirements comparable to those of conventional medical schools."  I don't think so.

003. some musings on the ND's attitude:

003.a. nobody cares that you have been "offended."  Naturopathy itself is a humongous offense to reason.

003.b. claiming that that which is utterly science-ejected is "evidence based" is professionally untenable.

003.c. historically speaking, treating patients with what is known not to work [homeo.'s empty remedies, anyone?] IS quackery.

003.d. what is objective and in-evidence has NOTHING to do with belief, which by definition is subjective and faith-based.

Note: let me muse now on an ND's understanding of science.  In ND-land, science is the same as what is nonscience.  Plain and simple: for an ND a scientific fact and a sectarian article of faith are the same thing -- which it utter nonsense.

004. ND Keranen's:

004.a. homepage [vsc] states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the following principles: [#1] the healing power of nature."

Note: and that's all you're told.  HPN is of course naturopathy's coded science-ejected vitalistic premise, as illustrated by OBNE.

004.b. "Services" [vsc] states that naturopathy uses homeopathy.

004.c. "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc] states:

"naturopathic medicine is a unique profession [...it is a] science [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...which are] based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles [...we use] modern and traditional, scientific and empirical methods [...we study] the basic medical sciences [...] the same basic sciences as an M.D. or D.O. [...a] comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...] NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic doctors in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams [...and] the clinical science examinations [...that] include [...] homeopathy."

Note: ah, the 'of the professions' claim.  And the science-science-science claim, upon the naturopathic and homeopathic.

004.d. on that same "Naturopathic Medicine" page we are told:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...is] the body’s inherent self-healing ability, which is ordered and intelligent [...a] healing ability."

Note: and that's all you are told.  So, do you trust someone's explanations about what is 'in fact' when in fact they don't transparently define their essential context?

005.  falsely posing vitalistic, science-ejected, homeopathic / naturopathic sectarian belief as scientific fact is naturopathy's defining M.O.

New ND Licensure Push in Iowa:

the Iowa Politics Insider states in "Naturopathic Medical Bill Advances in Iowa Senate":

"naturopathic physicians would be licensed by the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners under a bill approved Thursday by the Iowa Senate State Government Committee [huh?  naturopathy isn't even 'medical'...] Sen. Jack Hatch, a Des Moines Democrat who is the bill’s floor manager, said the proposal is unlikely to win final passage [it shouldn't!!!...] the bill would require naturopathic doctors to obtain a bachelor’s degree, followed by four years of medical education [but naturopathy school hugely IS'NT medical school!!!...] naturopathic medicine is an alternative form of medical care that includes natural remedies and emphasizes the body’s ability to heal itself [coded vitalism]."

Note: no comment.

Benda at AANP's Blog - 'Lofty Nontransparency':

here, I muse on a recent post by ND sympathizer and promoter MD Benda at the AANP's blog page, that had some rather lofty language related to naturopathy's / natural medicine's intentions / plans for Haiti [see 001., below];  then, I cite from an article Benda participated in along with many of the luminaries of AANP naturopathy that did not properly characterize / admit naturopathy's vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological essential sectarian woo [see 002., below]; and, last, I decode that essential naturopathic wacko premise using an ND co-author of Benda's specific language [see 003., below]:

001. Benda, B. (MD ?) in "Haitian Rhapsody" mentions:

"our naturopathic duties to the people of Haiti [...] our role in Haiti will be to restore health and comfort and to teach sustainability after the first wave of emergency care has completed its mission [...] Natural Doctors International, born in 2003 with the goal of bringing naturopathic healthcare to under-served populations while creating socially responsible opportunities for naturopathic physicians, is preparing a humanitarian response to the Haitian crisis [...] the AANP, CAND, all North American medical colleges, NABNE, and NMSA have joined us this effort, and should you choose, you can as well [...] the truth is that the vis medicatrix naturae is not just about the human body; it is about the human soul [true, Pizzorno states that VMN is actually spirit]."

Note: "duty", "sustainability", "socially responsible", "humanitarian", "the truth"?  Let me think.  How can a dishonest and deceptive area like naturopathy posture "duty"?  How can an egregiously illogical and irrational area like naturopathy posture "sustainability"?  How can a false position sold to North American students as true, leading to a magnificent amount of collective expense, posture "social responsibility"?  And "humanitarian"?  Lets see: naturopathy claims that a scientific fact is the same thing as an article of faith, therefore throwing under the bus any possibility of respect for 'freedom of conscience' / 'belief'.  "The truth"?  How can Benda posture "the truth"? I don't think such happened in a certain article he co-authored with the AANP group, where I don't' see any sensitivity for accuracy, completeness, and transparency [see 002., below].
 

002. I recall Benda's contribution to the promotional piece AANP and kind published in the Journal of Family Practice [JFP], wherein we're not at all truthfully / transparently / adequately informed about naturopathy's essential vitalistic, science-ejected premise, titled of all absurdities, "applied evidence".  Six AANP ND luminaries and his MD self state, regarding that core naturopathic principle:

"naturopathic medical practice is based upon the premise that it is intrinsic to the nature of living organisms to heal [...and is centered upon] the inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes [...] naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature".

Note: and that's all we're told there.  One of the co-authors is Pamela Snider, ND who co-chaired naturopathy's 'ND sectarian creed'.   I'm fascinated by the choice of language in that JFP article.  It is quite selective, and it is quite absurd, just like that '.gov' junk thought, 'naturopathic falsehood preponderance' OBNE hosts.  Hmmm, what underlies what's known?  How can you even know it exists, then, if it is beneath the known?  Naturopathy in fact equates scientific fact [the known] with such "inherent" figmentation [the unknown], and the irrationality fascinates me.

003. Luckily, if you read enough of naturopathy's stuff, like co-author ND Snider in:

003.a. the TLDP article "Naturopathic Physician on Her Career Choice: 'No Regrets'" [Benda isn't a contributor or mentioned], you start to see the real naturopathic context:

"naturopathic medicine relies on the vital life force within human beings."

Note: yes, IMAGINARY forces ejected from biology for several decades are supposedly underlying what's known.  Of course, there's no way to actually know this.  This is the 'epistemic conflation' of naturopathy: stating as known what is not known / equating knowledge types / labeling something it is not.

003.b. the TNM Chapter 3:, which Snider also co-authored [Benda isn't a contributor or mentioned], you're told:

"the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] an entire physiologic system [is comprised of] (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.)".

Note: again, naturopathy's science-ejected / science-unsupported IMAGINARY forces are claimed to be responsible for healing, supposedly governing actual physiology -- of course, all falsely labeled as science [physiology!].  

Sorry, but that blog post's lofty language does not impress me: yet, naturopathy's irrationality fascinates me.  It would be a shame if this sCAM got involved with the Haitian people, who are already hugely suffering. 

Imaginary Prophylaxis: Homeopathy Instead of Vaccination - ND Cage, President CNDA:

here, I cite from the website of the President of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association [CNDA] regarding vaccination [see 001., below]; then, from a recent editorial in the San Fransisco Chronicle [see 002., below]; and again, from this ND who promotes homeopathy-as-a-vaccine-replacement [see 003., below]:

001. Cage, A. (ND SCNM 2002) states in "Vaccinations, Natural Immunity and Patient Rights":

"the vaccination process [...] bypasses all the body's outer defenses [and is therefore bad...vaccination] injects pathogenic organisms directly into the bloodstream [bullshit]. To make matters worse, most modern vaccinations are multi-valent [...] consist[ing] of multiple pathogenic organisms, which arrive in the body's bloodstream, at full strength [bullshit...] these pathogens have the full run of the body until the immune system can respond [...and] most of these vaccines contain various preservatives and other contaminants, such as the poison mercury, which can cause their own health problems."

Note: this sounds very false, as well as very antivax.  His facts are simply WRONG.  Vaccines are attenuated, which means that they are not full strength at all.  Therefore, vaccines are not pathogenic, because they are made to import immunity without pathosis. This sounds like typical ND science-illiteracy bullshit posturing as expertise.  The CDC has a web page "Vaccine Safety", if you want some legitimate expertise.

002. the San Fransisco Chronicle has an editorial today, "A Reality Check on Autism and Vaccines", which states:

"many worried and angry parents of an autistic child believe that vaccines may cause the disease. But it's pure myth - disproved by numerous studies and now a final slap from a British journal disowning a report that started the dangerous nonsense.  Will these parents accept reality - and allow their children to receive shots against a dozen or more illnesses? And will fringe groups [naturopathy, anyone?] that play to fears of autism give up their indefensible claims? [naturopathy, anyone?...] the Wakefield study provided an easy and dramatic message: shots [supposedly] cause autism. Avoid vaccines and save your child from the troubling condition. It's [supposedly] a scientific fact confirmed by a doctor. His findings expanded on other, equally ungrounded fears about other contaminants in vaccines [!!!]. But it was pure quackery [...it was] a flawed theory [...and all about] a disregard for science [naturopathy, anyone?]."

003. ND Cage tells us on the same page as 001.:

"treat prophylactically with homeopathy [that is, inert 'remedies'] during known outbreaks of infectious diseases [so you can falsely believe you are protected!!!...] homeopathy has been used as a preventive measure during known epidemics and has been shown to reduce both the incidence of diseases and the severity in people who do catch the illness [so why does Boots Pharmacy state otherwise?].  Treat prophylactically with homeopathy according to a schedule [so, endanger children!!!]. This in essence is similar to the vaccination process, but without the side effects of the vaccinations [and without any immunity imparted!!!]."

Note: we are told at ND Cage's biography page:

"he is currently a contributing author to the Foundations Project, a collaborative, international effort to produce a new textbook on naturopathic philosophy [which I am eager to read!!! I'll add it to my collection of ND absurdities], which is a synthesis of the traditions of naturopathic medicine [sectarian articles of faith and sCAM] and the advances of modern science [junk thought, like the above!!!]. Dr. Cage's chapter is on the Physics of the Vital Force." 

Yes, naturopathy's vitalism will be interpreted through physics.  That is, the science-ejected placed into science as if -- by a nonphysicist.  If forces belong in physics, and there is no such thing as a life force, hmmm.  Doesn't seem that vitalism-within-science can happen.  I'm thinking that the scientific basis for the science-ejected / science-unsupported is INSANE.

That's naturopathy.  INSANE.

UK BHA Homeopaths 'Misrepresented Science':

here, I cite from an article recently published in The Guardian concerning homeopathy and its homeopatheticness:

Ian Sample (? ?) reports in "Homeopathic Society 'Misled' MPs in Inquiry" (2010-02-05):

"the British Homeopathic Association has been accused of misrepresenting scientific evidence on alternative medicine in documents it gave to a parliamentary inquiry [...] 'it is extremely disappointing to be fed misrepresentations of science, whether it's deliberate or incompetence,' said Evan Harris MP, science spokesman for the Lib Dems and a member of the parliamentary committee [...] Edzard Ernst, a scientist who investigates complementary medicine [...] said the BHA's interpretation of his study was 'grossly misleading' because they failed to mention important caveats published in the study [...] homeopathic treatments are usually made by diluting a substance so much there are no molecules of the original ingredient left. In November the chief pharmacist at Boots, Paul Bennett, told the inquiry he had no evidence that homeopathy works."

Note: "nothing", of course, doesn't work.

Naturopathy Defends Their Required Homeopathy and Attacks Scientific Skepticism:

here, it cite from a post at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] blog defending homeopathy and attacking scientific skepticism [see 001., below]; I then define scientific skepticism [see 002., below]; and analyze that AANP post author's own web pages and those of his AANP state association, where he/they state 'naturopathy's essential sectarian premises are scientific' and make the typical 'naturopath as science expert' false claim [see 003., below]:

001. the AANP's blog hosts the post "Getting Over It" (2010-02-01)[vsc] by Johnson, C. (ND SCNM) which states:

"[the picture is a statue of homeopathy's founder, Hahnemann, which is in Washington, DC I believe and which, actually, I may or may not have pissed on] a group of so-called 'skeptics' [!!!] recently staged public relations events at various cities in Great Britain designed to discredit the science [!!!] of homeopathy [...] these hooligans [ah, sounds a lot like Scientology talking about their critics!!!...] purport to stand up for scientific principles, while in fact their zealous dogmatism [!!!] and denial of evidence [!!!] would make Galileo’s persecutors proud [ah, the 'reverse sectarian accusation'...] they['ve] named their campaign '10:23' [...and now for some huge absurdity!!!] homeopathy [...can improve] any of a vast range of diseases [bullshit!...] this is just another tantrum by the clueless wing of the scientific/medical community [so clueless, in fact, that they are demanding evidence and rationality to support the absurd claim that homeopathy does anything beyond a typical nonspecific placebo effect!...quoting Fisher] 'it is effective' [...and the sidebar of the blog states that NDs are] 'Physicians Who Listen' [...this is] the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional [ah, the 'of the professions' claim] society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs [I know what that's like!]. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [hugely based on a belief, actually] that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism...aka the] bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [of course, this essential premise is not transparently communicated here in its full science-ejected and sectarian vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological context]."

Note: so, according to the above AANP labeling, homeopathy is a "science" -- though there's NOTHING in the remedies and IT CAN'T WORK.  As Dr. Novella recently stated at his Neurologica blog in the post "6.022137 × 10^23"(2010-02-02):

"Samuel Hahnemann invented the principles of homeopathy [...] in the 1790s [...] he 'discovered' nothing [literally, Hahnemann created a serial dilution procedure which makes something into nothing...] he died in 1843, long after the scientific community knew that his 'law of infinitesimals' was rubbish [...] 6.022137 × 10^23 [...is] Avogadro’s number [...which is] the number of atoms or molecules of a substance in a number of grams of that substance equal to its atomic mass [...] Hahnemann claimed that the more a substance is diluted the more potent a medicine it becomes in violation of the chemical law of mass action which dictated that chemical reactions proceed more quickly the more substrate there is [...] Hahnemann missed Avogadro’s boat and spent the second half of his life denying the advances in science that rendered his fantasies nothing but nonsense [...] more amazing is that homeopaths continue in [maintain!!!] Hahnemann’s delusion today, more than a century after Avogadro was honored for his insights [...this is] the absurdity of homeopathy [and obviously, naturopathy]."

Yet, the AANP's licensing exam falsely labels homeopathy a science, as do AANP NDs.  For naturopathy -- keep in mind -- science is what is [absurdly] nonscience, and therein, 'an ND's expertise in science is indeed basic science illiteracy'.  As for the reverse accusation of "dogmatism" and 'denialism', here is naturopathy's essential cultic dogma, per naturopathy's "Principles of Healing" [what I call the 'ND sectarian creed'] wherein the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural are falsely labeled science.  I call naturopathy cultic because SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE: what is not in evidence scientifically, and as I've called it figmentatious, is yet labeled science-based objective fact.  This is exceptionally irrational and yet...maintained.  That is cultic.

"Getting over it" is really an apologetic from a sectarian / cultic belief system that poses as something rational and 'in-evidence'.  If NDs were "physicians who listen", they'd acknowledge the scientific consensus regarding the scientific rejection of naturopathy's essential belief set. And they'd acknowledge the fact that articles of faith [e.g.: a vital force / purposeful life spirit figmentation -- which is what 'the essentially naturopathic' truly is] that have no evidence to support them [by definition] cannot be labeled scientific actuality.  And you are not a profession if your foundation is false, nonsense, fantastical, and absurd and your interface with the public is opaque.

 002. scientific skepticism, according to the Wikipedia entry "Scientific Skepticism"(2010-02-03), is:

"scientific skepticism [SS] or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence [...] from a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.  By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise [...] scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism [pyrrhonism], which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it [...SS] uses critical thinking and inductive reasoning while attempting to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis [...] scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science [...] scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity [...e.g.] psychics, parapsychology, dowsing, astrology, creationism, homeopathy, tarot reading, alien abductions, and ESP, which are either pseudosciences or unsupported by existing evidence [...] many skeptics are atheists or agnostics, and have a naturalistic world-view, however some committed skeptics of pseudoscience including Martin Gardner express belief in a god."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy requires homeopathy and science-ejected / science-unsupported concepts falsely labeled scientific.  So, when an ND claims "so-called skeptics", they are really distracting from the fact that their science is indeed so-called / pseudo.

003. Johnson and VAANP:

003.a. ND Johnson, VP of the Virginia Association of Naturopathic Physicians [VAANP], states:

003.a1. in "Dr. Johnson"[vsc]:

"Dr. Johnson favors two areas of therapeutics which he believes to be the most effective to address illness of all types [including] homeopathy."

003.a2. in "Homeopathy"[vsc]:

"[quoting Ghandi] 'homeopathy [...] is beyond doubt [dogma alert!!!...] the most complete medical science' [...Dr. J. says] it is extremely safe and gentle and yet can produce dramatic results [...] homeopathic remedies can work wonders with nearly any type of condition."

Note: also at that page Johnson provides some celebrity and scientist name-droppings / anecdotes, and some select references / cherry-pickings.  Reference to authorities / celebrities are irrelevant when considering homeopathy's evidence basis, and obviously we are not being provided ALL THE EVIDENCE.  NDs claim to be holistic / comprehensive, but truly NDs have a narrow view.

003.b. at the VAANP we are told: 

003.b1. in 'homepage'[vsc]:

"the Virginia Association of Naturopathic Physicians (VAANP) [is] an affiliate of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] professional trade association [...and they seek] to promote naturopathic medicine as well as support and strengthen the standards of naturopathic practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia."

Note: so, VAANP is an arm of AANP.  We have the 'of the professions' claim, and a claim of 'standards'.  I do not deny that naturopathy has standards / habits.  The most remarkable naturopathic standard is the claim that something [science] is what it is not [nonscience]. Overarching that is the wacko example naturopathy sets, as I interpret from its behavior: that professionalism and absurdity is the same thing.

003.b2. in "Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"naturopathic medicine is an art, science, philosophy and practice [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...which are] based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles [...] naturopathic medicine is a scientifically proven and tested system of (successful) healthcare [...] naturopathic doctors (N.D.'s) [...have studied] the basic medical sciences [...and] homeopathy."

Note: so we have the HUGE science claim upon the principles of naturopathy.

003.b3.  in "History of Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"naturopathic medicine [...is] a distinct health care profession [...based on] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [VNM-HPN / coded vitalism...which] remains one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy to this day [...] naturopathy continues to grow and evolve as a body of knowledge. Naturopathic medicine as an organized profession is committed to research and development. It incorporates many elements of scientific modern medicine."

Note: again, the 'of the professions' claim.  We have the admission that VMN-HPN is their central concept, and claim that science-based medicine is something they acknowledge [obviously selectively!].  But, growing?  Evolving?  How about IGNORING huge aspects of scientific advancement, like the fact that science does not contain what is not within science!!!

003.b4. in "Naturopathic Doctor"[vsc]:

 "naturopathic doctors hold a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from one of five accredited four-year, graduate-level, regionally accredited naturopathic medical schools [...] The doctorate degree prepares naturopathic doctors to be primary care general practitioners [really]."

Note: so we have doctoral level irrationalism and absurdity, fully regionally accredited.  And a GP scope of practice / status.

003.b5. in "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [VMN-HPN].  [#1] naturopathic medicine recognizes the body's inherent self-healing ability, which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery and facilitate and augment this healing ability [coded vitalism...#5] total health includes spiritual health [supernaturalism!!!], naturopathic doctors encourage individuals to pursue their own spiritual paths [supernaturalism!!!]".

Note: again, coded vitalism.  And the supernatural.  All within a domain claiming professionalism and scientific expertise.

  
003.b6. in "Naturopathic Modalities"[vsc]:

"homeopathic medicine: this powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old and is widely accepted in many countries. Homeopathy is based on the principle that Like cures Like. Homeopathic medicines are very small doses of natural substances that can stimulate the body's self-healing response [coded vitalism]. Homeopathic medicines, when properly prescribed, affect the body's 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal".

Note: wow, empty remedies are "powerful" because they affect a "vital force" figmentation. At least, here, we see that the to "heal" in naturopathy is admitted to be based upon a force that doesn't scientifically exist at all.  That is naturopathy's VMN-HPN.

003.b7. in "Education"[vsc]:

"a naturopathic doctor (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. or D.O. [...] the training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...] the training is based on the principles of naturopathic medicine [...] in addition to a standard medical curriculum, the naturopathic doctor is required to complete four years of training [...including] homeopathic medicine [...] naturopathic doctors take a national board exam, Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Exam (NPLEX)."

Note: so, again the science claim couched in the science-ejected / -unsupported.

003.b8.  in "Licensure"[vsc]:

"NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic doctors in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams (anatomy, physiology, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology and immunology) which are taken after the first two years of medical school. The clinical science examinations are taken following graduation after the fourth year of school. They include: clinical and physical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging, botanical medicine, pharmacology, nutrition, physical medicine, homeopathy, minor surgery, psychology and lifestyle counseling, and emergency medicine."

Note: so, licensure supposedly requires a basis of science and from that scientific application clinically.  Including homeopathy, within that science.  This is why I titled my repository of naturopathy's science claims "the science that ain't science".

004. as I often like to warn:

"danger Will Robinson...unethical sectarian pseudoscience."

Rebecca Watson on Carpool - Great Skeptical Edutainment, But Let's Get Naturopathy Right:

here, I'm being picky because I think naturopathy was let off easy by Rebbecca Watson when she was recently on Robert Llewellyn's Carpool talking [at one point] about homeopathy nonsense: 

001. Phil Plait has embedded the episode at Discover Magazine's Bad Astronomy in the post "Rebecca Teaches a Low Mass Star About Skepticism" and Rebecca Watson [R.W.] similarly at Skepchick in the post "I'm on Carpool With Robert Llewellyn":

"[R.W.] I remember actually taking homeopathic remedies because in Seattle it was just taken for granted [09.46...] nobody knew what homeopathy was [10.00...] a lot a people still today assume that homeopathy is just naturopathy.  Using natural ingredients to heal yourself.  That's not what it is [10.16]."

Note: well, I'd add that there is nothing "natural" about the 'nature' of naturopathy, not in the post-Enlightenment sense, so to speak.  Since naturopathy includes the supernatural / figmentatious as natural [and actually as scientific as well], naturopathy is as absurd and sectarian and as irrational as homeopathy.  It has often been commented that alternative medicine has hugely won the language battle.  I recommend the principles webpage at National College of Natural Medicine, once called National College of Naturopathic Medicine, for direct verbiage which places the hugely science-ejected and sectarian vitalistic and supernaturalistic falsely within science.  When you get "inside" naturopathy, it is the worst kind of junk thought posing as science and medicine. E.g.: at NCNM's page we are falsely told that a "life force" or "vital force" [and such figmentations as "spirit"] are objective scientific fact when in fact they are hugely outside of science.  And yes, there you can read about the essential homeopathy of naturopathy, which naturopathy claim's on their NPLEX board exam is a "science".  Additionally, at that NCNM page, they claim that homeopathy is "powerful".

002. R.W. will always be famous in my head for getting married live in front of myself and everyone else attending that TAM.  And for being on Carpool.  Cheers R.W.

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism Irrationality – ND Kellerstein in NDNR 2010-01:

In “Why Waste Time?” (Naturopathic Doctor News and Review 2010-01, p.019), Kellerstein, J. (DC CMCC 1980, ND CCNM 1984), “the first Chairman of the Department of Homeopathy with the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine", states:

“[regarding] today's homeopathic education […student question] Hahnemann continues to expound that the vital force [blah blah blah...Kellerstein] the vital force can only be sustained [blah blah blah...Kellerstein directly quoting Hahnemann] aphorism 9: in the healthy human state, the spirit-like life force (autocracy) that enlivens the material organism [blah blah blah...Kellerstein] the mind (in-dwelling rational spirit) and the vital force are very different [...] Hahnemann's idea of the vital force was not spiritual but spirit-like. This means immaterial or invisible […] the footnote to the first aphorism is testimony to the view of Hahnemann. He wanted a practice of medicine founded only on the fully observable with no speculative filters in the way of pure observation.”

Note: such vitalistic-spiritism, as I call it, is profoundly science-ejected.  Science has rejected vitalism for several decades, and supernaturalism for a few hundred years.  The larger issue here, though, is the lack of sanity within naturopathy's calculus.   NDs apparently do not think cogently:

a) since when is the immaterial and invisible [immeasurable figmentation] also fully and purely observable [actual]?

b) but, then again, the school I went to in Connecticut is no less irrational / absurd [cultic], wherein the vitalistic and supernatural are falsely labeled science.