'Naturopathic Oncology' Absurdity - Cancer Specialists Who Admit They're Not Qualified:

here, I cite from web documents at Naturopathic Specialists [NS] of Scottsdale, AZ wherein: NS tells us that naturopaths can get a board certification in oncology and that they are 'world leading cancer experts' looking out for a patient's best interests [ see 001, below]; yet, we are also told by NS that naturopaths are NOT primary care physicians and are NOT best-qualified to handle oncology [see 002., below]; then, I highlight two NS 'at odds' labels which are also naturopathy-wide, that the naturopathic is essentially vitalistic [and supernatural!] while essentially scientific [see 003., below]; I then list the NS NDs [see 004., below]; and, finally, then I show Bastyr's and SCNM's 'vitalistic scientific absurdity' since they are the two alma maters of these oncological NDs [see 005., below]:

001. NS states in "Board Certification in Naturopathic Oncology":

"Board Certification in Naturopathic Oncology. Both Drs. Rubin and Alschuler are Fellows of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology (FABNO).  This Board Certification represents the highest expertise in the area of naturopathic oncology by being recognized as such by our national association, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...which] is rigorous [...] naturopathic oncologists are experts in the application of naturopathic medicine in an oncology setting and are not trained or certified to offer conventional oncology care such as that offered by medical or radiation oncologists [...] Drs. Rubin and Alshuler are experts and world leaders in naturopathic oncology [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler believe that good communication is essential to proper treatment [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler believe that the highest precept of medical care is to educate people with cancer about their disease. Once people truly better understand what is happening in their body, they often become more empowered. In this sense, education becomes a healing modality [...] empowering people: the goal at Naturopathic Specialists is to make you truly 'in-charge' of your well-being to help motivate, encourage, enable and empower you [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler help you navigate the maze of available treatment options and those which may be better suited to you as an individual [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler can provide the keys to the myriad of opportunities for treatment that exist in the world of integrative medicine [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler are not only skilled in the aspects of your oncological and immunological problems, but are your advocates in all aspects of your treatment."

Note: so, NDs Rubin and Alschuler are marketing themselves as "rigorous"ly qualified, "expert" "world leaders" in a kind of oncology. I disagree with SO MUCH. Ah, the rigor of the AANP: yet, AANP grossly labels the profoundly science-ejected as science. Ah, the rigors of good naturopathic communication: yet, NDs do not transparently communicate their fundamental science-ejected premise. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic education / educating: wherein, absurd sectarian figmentations are labeled scientific and nonsectarian at AANMC schools. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic empowerment: wherein, you are fleeced as their pockets are lined commercially. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic guidance: wherein you are given sugar pills like homeopathy and told that they have a profound or powerful effect on health. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic treatment expertise: wherein wacko therapies like reiki and craniosacral therapy are mislabeled as hugely efficacious. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic advocacy: wherein, naturopathy poses a fiduciary duty / 'professional ethical status' that naturopathy cannot possibly live up to [because it is couched in absurdity (see 003., below)].

002. NS states in "Consent to Consultation" [vsc 2010-03-06, 2012-01-13]:

"consent to consultation [...] Naturopathic Specialists [...] provide[s] services to people [...] who have been diagnosed with cancer [...] the patient understands that Naturopathic Specialist’s Physicians [...] are not primary care physicians [PCPs], board certified medical oncologists or immunologists. Dr. Rubin is board certified in naturopathic oncology. None of the physicians are trained nor qualified to manage the overall care of a person with cancer [...] the patient understands that the physicians may not be able to manage the overall care of a person with cancer [...] the patient understands that the treatment suggestions provided by the Physicians are not all accepted by the United States FDA and therefore should not be taken as such [...] I have read and understood the above criteria and give my full consent to a consultation and / or treatment from Naturopathic Specialists."

Note: I find the disconnect HUGE.  NDs usually hugely claim to be PCPs, yet here we get the admission that they don't think they are.  After claiming a huge ability to coordinate a patient's cancer regimen as 'oncologist', they then state that they are not qualified to be 'physicians'.  Plus, as a patient you get to be a part of experimental, unapproved protocols in all this illogic / absurdity.  Who would consent?  Sadly, likely, the desperate or unaware cancer patient.

003. naturopathy's essential absurdity -- the vitalistic science-ejected posed as science [a subset of naturopathy's 'anything is science' posture!]:

003.a. Rubin, D. (ND SCNM) of NS states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Naturopathic Medicine: Ways, Means, and Practicality" [vsc 2010-03-06]:

"precepts. Vis medicatrix naturae [slide 010...] vis medicatrix naturae. Vis = energy, strength or force [...] the body possesses the inherent ability to restore health. The physician's role is to facilitate this process with the aid of natural nontoxic therapies [slide 11...] the vital force. This describes the energy essential for life, the innate life principle, or the inherent power within every living organism. Naturopathic doctors seek to support the vital force."

Note: ye old science-ejected vitalistic nonsense.

003.b. Alschuler, L.N. (ND Bastyr 1994) of NS states naturopathy's supposed science basis in "Meet Our Physicians":

"she believes that her job as a naturopathic physician and educator is to stimulate and support the innate healing processes within each individual by applying a scientifically based strategy that utilizes the most natural and least harmful approaches possible."

 Note: so, naturopathy therein is the science-based nonscientific being that 'naturopathy supports the science-ejected vital force scientifically', in sum.

004. currently, NS lists their NDs as:

Rubin, D. (ND SCNM 1997, FABNO AANP), 

Alschuler, L.N. (ND Bastyr 1994, FABNO AANP), 

Coats, M. (ND SCNM 2008), 

Turner, L. (ND SCNM 2007).

Note: so, we might assume that these NDs learned 'naturopathy's essential absurdity M.O.' from their alma maters Bastyr and SCNM!

005. therefore, turning to Bastyr and SCNM [naturopathic institutional absurdity alert!]:

005.a. Bastyr states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Alternative Medicine: Homeopathy and Children” (Seattle P.I.; 2007-08-01) via Mercer, N.J. (ND Bastyr 1987):

“[she's a] naturopathic physician specializing in homeopathy and an adjunct faculty member, Bastyr U. [...] how does it work? Homeopathy turns on the 'self heal' switch. Chinese medicine calls it the 'chi.' Naturopathic medicine calls it the 'vis.' Homeopathy calls it the 'vital force.' They all describe the energy inhabiting the human body that when stimulated moves the human system toward greater health" while claiming the naturopathic is essentially scientific.

005.b. SCNM states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Is Alternative Medicine For You?" (2003):

"the healing power of nature [...] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...] the essence of naturopathic medicine" while claiming such is essentially scientific.

Note: all the while, such vitalism is hugely science-ejected.

Note: this post was lightly updated 2012-01-13.

Iowa ND / NMD Legislation Dead!

The Des Moines Register reports in "Legislative Funnel: What's Dead" (2010-02-05):

"Naturopathic Doctors: Would have allowed for the licensing of naturopathic physicians. SF 2262."

Note: apparently, this was the proposal, in part:

"a naturopathic physician licensed under chapter 154G may use the words 'naturopathic physician'  or the initials 'N.D.' or 'N.M.D.' after the person's name [...] 'naturopathic medicine' means a system of primary health care for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human health conditions, injury, and disease; the promotion or restoration of health; and the support and stimulation of a patient's inherent self-healing processes [coded vitalism!!!]  through patient education and the use of naturopathic therapies and therapeutic substances."

Fascinating, the bill itself wasn't even transparently communicating naturopathy's actual science-ejected sectarian premise of vitalism.  Yet, it labeled naturopathy 'of professional ethical status'.  Absurd.

Fabricating "Science-Based Natural Medicine"

here, I do a simple Google search and report the first-page results [see 001., below]; and then add some commentary [see 002., below]:

001. a Google web search per >"science-based natural medicine"< results in such first-page hits as [2010-03-04]:

001.a. two web pages by Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM 1975) who labels himself "one of the world¹s leading authorities on science-based natural medicine" (here, here);

001.b. a web page promoting Kuzniar, L. (ND CCNM) that states "naturopathic doctor practicing science-based natural medicine";

001.c. a Bastyr University page that states "Drs. Les Griffith, William A. Mitchell, Jr., and Joseph E. Pizzorno, Jr. [...built] the school on a science-based foundation [...] 'we had already decided on the basic foundation — science-based and accredited' [...] Dr. Bastyr was an early champion of science-based natural medicine";

001.d. an Amazon.com page titled "No Hype, Science-Based Natural Medicine" apparently by ND Appleton, J. (ND NCNM);

001.e. a web page at naturalhealthcare.org titled "Naturopathic Medicine/ Science-Based Natural Healthcare";

001.f. two web pages from the Science-Based Medicine blog that critique naturopathy either in their post body or the comments (here, here);

001.g. the Wellpath Clinic of Nobrega-Porter, K. (ND CCNM) that states "using current science-based natural medicine we provide safe and effective therapies to help achieve excellence in whole patient sustainable wellness";

001.h. the Natural Medicine Journal  which states "leading our scientific advisory team are two of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine -- Joe Pizzorno ND, educator, researcher, expert spokesperson, and founding president of Bastyr University";

002. well, the jokes on everyone who believes that 'the naturopathic' is "science-based":

002.a. naturopathy is committed to the concept of a purposeful life spirit running physiology;

002.b. such is hugely science-ejected;

002.c. therein, naturopathy is a huge, irrational fabrication.

CCNM's "Healing Power of Nature" Within Science Claim - An Internal Search:

here, I do an internal text search of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine [CCNM] per  >healing power of nature<:

001. these are the four results [2010-02-27]:

001.a. in "Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic (Teaching Clinic)"[vsc 2010-02-27]:

"the Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic (RSNC) [...] the teaching clinic of CCNM [...] naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care that addresses the root cause of illness or disease. Promoting wellness and prevention, naturopathic medicine harnesses science to unleash nature’s healing power."

001.b. in "Prospective Students"[vsc 2010-02-27]:

"CCNM brings new thinking, new research and new approaches to health care, harnessing science to unleash the healing power of nature."

Note: so, there's that typical science label upon HPN. 

001.c. in "Areas of Study"[vsc 2010-02-27]:

"naturopathic medicine is founded on the principle of healing through the cooperative power of nature [...] the principles underlying the practice of naturopathic medicine include [...#2] recognition and support of the inherent self-healing ability of the individual (the healing power of nature) [...] students will develop the skills to practice in a manner that exemplifies professionalism, strong ethics and a commitment to the principles of naturopathic medicine."

001.d. in "CCNM Celebrates 27th Convocation"[vsc 2010-02-27]:

"'the 94 graduates represent a critical addition to Canada’s healthcare resource,' says President CEO Bob Bernhardt. 'They are skilled in harnessing science to unleash the healing power of nature.  Each graduate has a minimum of seven years of post-secondary education culminating with an intensive and challenging four-year program of basic and clinical sciences and practice.'"

002. what CCNM doesn't reveal is that HPN is indeed science-ejected.

Note: naturopathy, 'harnessing absurdity.'

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.