Sagan By Way of Singh, By Way of NECSS:

here, I muse on the relationship between science and skepticism:

001. recently, at the 2010 NECSS, JREF President Grothe had discussed the etymological root of the work skeptic, which basically is 'inquirer.'  I had stated two posts ago that 'science is a form of skepticism,' as in 'a particular form of inquiry.'  This blog is centered upon scientific inquiry into naturopathy. 

002. now, Simon Singh has won his libel issue with the British Chiropractic Association, and also has put up for free on the web the chapter from Trick or Treatment what deals with chiropractic. 

002.a. that book's page 180 quotes Carl Sagan:

"at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas [...] and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas [...] this is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense."

Note: so, not to belabor the point yet to reiterate, science is a form of skepticism.  Naturopathy, though, is a form of absurdity, junk thought, and irrationality.  I engage in skeptical scrutiny here, and hopefully I'm ruthless enough.

A Nice Find -- UB Advirtising Naturopathy as a Science It Fundamentally Isn't, 2003:

here, I cite from a kind of commerce activity that results in people being harmed - false advertising circa 2003 by UB in Vegetarian Times in relation to its naturopathy program [see 001., below], and then I show the kind of nonsense UB falsely labels as science currently [see 002., below]:

001. the University of Bridgeport writes in "College of Naturopathic Medicine" (Vegetarian Times, 2003-02)[sc 2010-04-19]:

"a doctor of naturopathic medicine degree [...within the] University of Bridgeport, Division of Health Sciences [...which is within] a traditional university [p.078...] healthcare career plans [...] the chiropractic and naturopathic colleges at the University of Bridgeport are the country's first and only university-based colleges [p.081]."

Note: even in the mid-to-late 1990s, the 'typical university science' context was placed upon naturopathy by UB.

002. but, what do you really get?

002.a. well, right now you still get that label of science upon naturopathy [vsc 2010-04-19].

002.b. and, still, it is placed upon the essentially naturopathic science-ejected, e.g. see "life force" in:

LoBisco, S. (ND UBCNM) [vsc 2010-04-19].

My Impressions of NECSS 2010 & a Follow-Up With PMID14745386's Author:

here, I reflect on the 2010 NECSS, the people I met, and how that relates to naturopathy:

001. regarding the 2010 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism [NECSS]:

001.a. well, in brief, I found the entire day to be great. Proof-positive of my attendance:

And here's a blurry picture [apologies] of the "Science or Fiction" part of the SGU podcast from yesterday:

 The year before I didn't find much appealing about the afternoon part of NECSS, so I bailed early.  This year, Randi spoke last and the place stayed packed all day.  I've done the last two TAMs, and NECSS has really evolved quickly into something just as high-caliber.  I later did the 'speakers' dinner' and as chance would have it, I sat directly to the left of Dr. Kimball Atwood. Now, that was fortunate, because Naturocrit is a naturopathy skeptical blog, and Atwood wrote, for those who are not familiar, likely the most prominent journal-vetted criticism of naturopathy that I know of [per "the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of 'naturopathic medicine'"] AND THEN had some serious skeptic fun in answering the letters of righteous indignation that resulted from that criticism [see 001.b., below].

I'd hoped for the opportunity to ask Dr. A. one simple question, and I did get that chance: 

"regarding your critical analysis of naturopathy that was published in Medscape in 2003, have you had to retract anything you'd initially said in all the years that have transpired since its publication?"

Now, seven years have gone by since that article was published, and eight have gone by since I ceased the ND program at UB after four years of that cloud-cuckoo land and a few years prepping for that program's prerequisites.

Well, the answer to my question was short: "no."

Note: Atwood is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.  Yesterday, Grothe had talked about the continuity between skepticism and the scientific enterprise, and reminded the crowd that the root of the word skeptic is the Greek word for 'inquiry' ['σκέπτομαι' skeptomai, to look about, to consider].  I would argue that science is a particular form of skepticism.

001.b. the Atwood items are titled:

001.b1. "Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal" [Medscape General Medicine, 2003;5(4)][here it is on Pubmed ] whose abstract, in part, reads:

"'naturopathic medicine is a recent manifestation of the field of naturopathy, a 19th-century health movement espousing 'the healing power of nature' [this is their science-ejected concept of vitalism, which I've collected]. 'Naturopathic physicians' now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both 'conventional' and 'natural' medicine [NDs claim to be scientific overall]. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care [and it is irrational, since science and nonscience are equated, actually, in naturopathy -- and that is an absurd position for someone claiming physicianship]. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices [I completely agree]."

Note: so, lets be clear.  In the seven years since this article was published, naturopathy has not been in any manner CURBED while this 2003 article's author hasn't in any manner had to alter content that clearly lays out the evidence that naturopathy is hugely fraudulent [though Atwood doesn't use that specific term (the 'f' word), I shall do so here deliberately].  

Let me lengthen the lineage of this fraud because it encompasses my life from my early twenties onwards, back from when I was considering graduate school and reading through AANP literature in the1990s.  In 1997, the year before I started the UB ND program, I printed this document [archived here]:

which states that naturopathy is "science-based" and not a "belief-system."  The institutions responsible for the document were the AANP and its schools of that time.  Now, "science-based" and "pseudoscience" have particular meanings. It is quite clear that the essentially naturopathic is an essentially science-ejected sectarian belief system THEN falsely labeled as scientific and not belief.  If you are not what you say you are in commerce, we call that fraud and falsehood.  It is harmful, it is unjust, it is a form of institutional predation committed upon a trusting public. Naturopathy obviously does not meet the ethical standards of commerce: it is falsely labeled.  You do not get what you paid for because you get something else.  And meanwhile, naturopathy claims that something is what it is not.  Now, naturopathy also claims to meet the 'higher than commerce' standards of professionalism.  But, that cannot be possible if the lower standards of commerce cannot be met.  I started UB's ND program in 1998, and at that time naturopathy [I believe] knew what it truly is and that it was deceptively labeling itself for marketing purposes.   This has not changed.  Here, currently, is UB labeling naturopathy science while hugely based upon the science-ejected.  Here is an actual science book quite clearly stating that what is essentially 'the naturopathic' is bunk.

001.b2. and "Naturopathy, Pseudoscience and Medicine: Myths and Fallacies vs. Truth" [2004-03-24] [here it is on Pubmed]. Here is an excerpt:

"it is clear that my article raised a few hackles. I received more than 60 emails myself [...] the arguments were based on logical fallacies [...] denial [...and] ignorance [...but] not one opposing letter, however, offered an example of an inaccurate statement made in the article itself [(and that was about 7 years ago!)...] naturopaths' primary care claim is also refuted by the content of their training, which is replete with fanciful, antiscientific nonsense [...and also] there is no such thing as 'allopathic' medicine."

002. well, the fraud continues:

for me, the fraud goes with me to my grave as the student loans I've taken out for this graduate school nonsense continue and I was diverted from something else due to the absurdity known as naturopathy.  For the public at large, this fraud also continues because no matter what regulatory bodies I contact, nothing changes.  See, they're all liable for this: AANP and kind, the States that approve the schools, the Federal government that approves the accreditation body to oversee the schools, the regional accreditation bodies that approve the schools, the State ND boards, the individuals administrating this absurdity at institutions, the instructors who on a moment by moment basis prop up this nonsense.

Oh, so here's a microcosm of the whole thing: even after Atwood's expose, a new ND program started up in the AANP fold, National University of Health Science's ND program in Illinois.  It states in "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine":

"a rigorous curriculum [...a] scientific foundation [...per] the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...and within that] holistic philosophy and time tested principles [...to] promote the body’s natural healing process [...] the natural healing capacity of individuals [coded vitalism...and they love] homeopathy [...and this is] high quality naturopathic care [...and there are] rigorous professional board exams [...] the NPLEX exams which are a gateway to practice in states with licensure."

Now, homeopathy is complete bunk yet that NPLEX labels it "clinical science."  We have this claim of rigor and high quality but how can that be?  Naturopathy falsely labels the hugely-science-unsupported-for-decades "science."  That is not rigorous, it is cultic.  And we have the label of professional, but even on this supposed definitions page, they code their essential premise, the science-ejected principle of vitalism.

So, from page one, naturopathy obviously trains its proponents to deceive.

Biologist Wolpert on the Antiscience Nature of Vitalism & Holisticism (ISBN 0674929810)

Wolpert, L. (PhD KCL) states in "The Unnatural Nature of Science" (1994; ISBN 0674929810):

"vitalism is an idea which assigns to human life, particularly consciousness, a special quality which must forever remain outside conventional science [...per] an anti-reductionist stance [...] that life cannot be reduced to mere physics and chemistry and that a more holistic approach is required [...] any philosophy that is at its core holistic must tend to be anti-science, because it precludes studying parts of a system separately -- of isolating some parts and examining their behavior without reference to everything else. If every process were dependent on its part in the whole then science could not have succeeded [p.138]."

Note: naturopathy, by the way, claims to be science while vitalistic and holistic.  In other words, that 'science is nonscience.'  In that sense, naturopathy embodies 'the absurd.'

Naturopathic Luminary Claims Professionalism - Dunne, N. (NCNM 1989) at the AANP Blog:

Dunne, N. (ND ) states in "The Lack of Conference Childcare: A Barrier to Professional Development"(2010-04-14)[vsc 2010-04-14]:

"[we're told in the title obviously, and also the sidebar states] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [is naturopathy's...] national professional society [...] kids['...] needs are real, relentless and never mix gracefully with a professional learning environment [...per] the AANP convention [...whose attendees are] young professionals [...] the profession [...] a profession that was rapidly becoming majority female [...] people combining parenting with their professional career [...] accommodating family needs in professional environments [...] professional women with children [...] professional women marry professional men [...] the naturopathic profession."

Note: yeah, that typical 'naturopathy is of the professions ethically' blah blah blah.  Yet, irrational and absurd while claiming "science" as its status.  Within naturopathy, you can have your cake and eat it too. Dunne, by the way, is a past AANP, FNPLA, & MANP president.  She states that she has a "medical degree" from NCNM circa 1989.

Randi on World Homeopathy Awareness Week 2010:

James Randi states in the recent Youtube video "Randi Speaks - Homeopathy Week 2010":

"hello, I'm James Randi and I'm here to help celebrate World Homeopathy Awareness Week [...] the delusion known as homeopathy [...] that variety of quackery [...] well if it's awareness that the homeopathic community wants, then by all means lets promote that awareness [...] there is no stranger idea than the [so-called!] science  that Samuel Hahnemann came up with some 200 years ago [...] it's all a matter of vibrations, you see [...which is] acceptable to the suckers out there [...] homeopathy has been tested, and tested and tested for more than a century now [...it is] ancient nonsense [...that when tested rigorously] failed dramatically  [...] it doesn't work, it's a fake [...] quackery, nonsense, fraud [...] bullshit."

Note: nicely done.

Naturopathy and Platelet Rich Plasma Treatment: Another Dud, Methinks.

here, I compare opinions about Platelet Rich Plasma therapy by the New York Times [NYT; see 001., below], PalMD at Scienceblogs [see 002., below], and an NMD [see 003., below]:

001. Kolata, G. (? ?) reports in the NYT’s “Popular Blood Therapy May Not Work”(2010-01-12):

“platelet-rich plasma, or P.R.P. [...] it is a new procedure, based on an idea that once seemed revolutionary: Inject people with their own blood, concentrated so it is mostly platelets, the tiny colorless bodies that release substances that help repair tissues […] now, though, the first rigorous study asking whether the platelet injections actually work finds they are no more effective than saltwater […it’s] ‘an unproven therapy.’”

Note: I'd argue that PRP is seemingly on its way to being another proven placebo therapy.

002. PalMD writes in “Platelet Rich Plasma”(2010-02-23):

“there is little evidence to support platelet rich plasma for the treatment of anything. And yet it is being hyped and sold everywhere as a miracle cure for musculoskeletal injuries. Perhaps more studies will enlighten the issue further, but at this point, PRP is nothing but expensive snake oil, and those who promote and use it should re-examine the data and their ethics.”

003. meanwhile, in naturopathy-land, Cronin, M.J. (NMD NCNM 1980) states in “Naturopathic Doctor of Scottsdale Treats Golf Injuries with Revolutionary Technology”(2010-04-13):

“platelet rich plasma treatment (PRP) is a non-surgical method that regenerates ligaments and treats chronic pain […] PRP is a major component of the healing process that Dr. Cronin prescribes […] Michael Cronin, NMD […] states ‘naturopathic physicians seek to treat the causes of disease rather than to simply suppress the symptoms […] treating pain effectively and achieving complete recovery is an important part of what we do here. PRP has given hope to those whom only a few years ago had very limited options to recovery [...to] correct those nagging and painful injuries that limit their activities.’”

004. so, there seems, at first glance, to be contesting EXPERT opinions regarding PRP!

I, myself, do not think it works and would not trust an ND/NMD’s opinion of what is actually ‘in-evidence.’ ND/NMDs are, after all, the crowd that labels the hugely science-ejected for decades and hundreds of years as scientific.  That is not expertise, that is madness.

World Homeopathy Awareness Week! Irrationality Awareness Week!

here, I call attention to World Homeopathy Awareness Week [WHAW], and link it up to naturopathy:

001. the World Homeopathy Awareness Organization [WHAO] states:

001.a. at their homepage:

"WHAW starts with the week of April 10-16, 2010 [...] the theme for 2010 is homeopathy and mental well-being."

Note: seems homeopathy is claiming some kind of expertise regarding 'mental wellness.'  But what if the entire homeopathic enterprise, contextually, is irrational [as it is]?

001b. at "World Homeopathy Awareness Week" [WHAW]:

"homeopathy is a science, founded on the basis of rigid experimentation [...] homeopathy is an ever changing ever growing science."

Note: seems homeopathy is claiming some expertise regarding what science is, too.  This is quite similar to the North American naturopathic board exam stating that homeopathy is a clinical science.

 

 Meanwhile, homeopathy has been recently SO scientifically rejected that it is difficult to imagine homeopathy ever recovering whatever charity it was clinging to [much like other rejected and archaic medical ideas, like humorism -- onto the trash-heap you go].  

 

Homeopathy's position is, in my view, quite irrational these days.  Though scientifically trounced, homeopaths demand the science label [can you say 'the essentially naturopathic!'].   They speak of mental well-being, but can't stop clinging to that obsessive position.

 

The North American naturopaths have been quite SILENT about this HUGE 'homeopathy has been blown out of the water' development, and I'll spell out maybe why: a recent UK review finds homeopathy to be bunk, but for naturopathy bunk is science -- in the classroom, on board exams, clinically [if you follow 'the education of a naturopath'].

 

Homeopathy is merely one aspect of naturopathy's bunk is science.

Here's an example of some HUGE OVERARCHING BUNK that is at the heart of naturopathy ['vitalism as science'; essentially, falsely claiming that the science-ejected for decades and hundreds of years is "in fact" current science; sc 2010-04-12]:

 

 

Falsely labeled science [vsc 2010-04-12], for how many decades now?

The Promotion of the Ancient Superstition of Vitalism at NCCAM - Novella, SBM 2010-04-07:

Dr. Novella writes in "Our Visit with NCCAM" at Science-Based Medicine (2010-04-07):

"in the same [NCCAM] newsletter there is [an] article discussing the evidence for acupuncture and pain showing a model of chi and meridians – mystical life force and the lines through which they allegedly flow [...] the pattern of information is consistent – NCCAM staff talk about a strict adherence to evidence-based medicine and science being neutral, but interspersed with this is an uncritical presentation of ancient superstition as if it were science, and endorsement of treatments that are not backed by science, and in fact have been shown not to work [...] all of this confirms our worst fears about NCCAM – that its very existence, and the generally positive and uncritical information it provides to the public, is used to promote and endorse unscientific medical modalities [...] given that the CAM community is actively exploiting the existence of the NCCAM as an imprimatur of legitimacy [can you say 'naturopathy'], the NCCAM needs to take special care to avoid such exploitation."

Note: hear, hear.  Per "an uncritical presentation of ancient superstition as if it were science", that sums up my experience with naturopathy -- lack of due diligence from an area posing as professionally rigorous.

CFI Toronto and Homeopathy: It Cannot & Does Not Work:

the Center For Inquiry states in the press release "Center for Inquiry -- World Homeopathy Awareness Week: A Celebration With No Substance"(2010-04-06):

"starting April 10, homeopaths will celebrate World Homeopathy Awareness Week [WHAW]in honor of their founder, 17th century homeopath Samuel Hahnemann. Sadly, one fact will be missing from their material: homeopathy doesn't work [...] the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) [...] a committee of the Center for Inquiry which responds to scientific, technological and medical claims made in public discourse to promote evidence-based science [...] will be mustering its scientific advisory ranks to answer unsubstantiated claims made by the homeopathic community. The modern scientific method has shown that homeopathy can not and does not work."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy, even in Canada, claims that homeopathy is a clinical science.  Since in naturopathy nonscience and science are equated: therefore, contemplate during WHAW the fact that naturopathy is as scientific as homeopathy!

Naturopathy As An Academic Ponzi Scheme

here, I muse on North American naturopathy's similarity to Ponzi-style, falsehood-based, inevitably-going-to-collapse investment schemes -- particularly as such exists academically:

001. first, some thoughts:

quite a huge amount of money flows through ND programs, while overarching the entire ND enterprise is the huge ND academic absurdity that labels what is profoundly not scientific as indeed academically within the category science / medical science / health science. Like a Ponzi scheme, the situation cannot be maintained: education consumer damages from naturopathy's essential academic falsehood inducement [e.g., come study 'this branch of medical science though essentially based upon the hugely science-ejected for decades', I believe, must monetarily exceed the collective assets of these naturopathy schools' and organizations'.  

Basically: from an ounce of falsehood, you get a resulting pound of harm.

001. per Ponzi scheme:

001.a. Wikipedia defines a Ponzi scheme as:

"a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned [...] the system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors."

001.b. I'll adapt the above to naturopathy:

"naturopathy is a fraudulent academic operation that trades upon a scientific status / label it does not fundamentally occupy.  Monies are accepted from trusting education consumers by North American ND-granting academic institutions with the expectation that the operation's scientific status is not an academic falsehood.  But, naturopathy is fundamentally false [e.g. naturopathy's essential vitalism is not as claimed science but in fact science-ejected].  Since the damages due those hundreds swindled over the past decade likely exceed the assets and tuition income of these ND-granting schools and political organizations, naturopathy has already, as a system, collapsed."

002. but, turns out, you can write in detail to the regulation authorities, and nothing yet happens.

Naturopaths Actually Can Be Disciplined For Unprofessional Conduct?

here, a bizarre case of naturopathic professional misconduct, as reported by the State of Washington Department of Health in "State Disciplines Health Care Providers"(2010-04-02):
 

"in February 2010 the Naturopathy Program [whatever that is] charged Kristi D. Tompkins (NT00001626) with unprofessional conduct. While working as a caregiver, she allegedly left a patient alone for several hours before her shift was set to end and wasn’t available when the patient awoke with extreme pain."

Note: I don't get it.  If some aspect of professional conduct applies to naturopathy, how then is naturopathy able to get away with the complete and utter unprofessional falsehood of context that defines naturopathy?  What a sweetheart arrangement.

 

I am sorry that someone felt pain for a while.  What about those who went down the ND rabbit hole and now will suffer six-digit debt for life -- built upon the falsehood known as naturopathy? 

 

I image the State of Washington saying:

 

"forget the huge naturopathic unprofessionalism that essentially defines naturopathy, its the little things they can nab us on -- after all, we endorsed them."

 

Someone explain to me the regulatory charity that the ND establishment is marinating in!

Naturopathy's New Propaganda Platform - Pais's Facebook via Google:

here, I cite from a google.com web search that displays an ND's Facebook page second in the results and claims that naturopathy is a branch of medical science [see 001.a. & b., below] and that links to the ND's clinical pages that label homeopathy a science [see 001.c., below]; then, I cite from that ND's alma mater, and its huge epistemic absurdity [see 002.a., below]; and, then I cite directly from the ND luminary that is mentioned in 001.b., [see 002.b. below]; finally, I offer a summation [see 002.c., below]:

001. web searching via google.com with the parameters >naturopathic "from the sciences"< results in:

001.a. a Facebook page by Pais, G. (ND NCNM 1992, DHANP AANP 1997) that is ranked second [as of  2010-03-29] titled "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-03-26] which states:

"naturopathic physicians are trained as general practitioners specializing in natural medicine. They have a doctor of naturopathic medicine (N.D.) degree from a four-year graduate medical college with admission requirements comparable to conventional medical schools. The N.D. degree requires graduate level study in medical sciences [...] in addition to the standard medical curriculum, naturopathic students must do extensive coursework in natural therapeutics. This includes therapies from the sciences [...including] homeopathy [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science[...] naturopathic medicine is a system of medicine founded on an honored medical principle: nature heals [coded vitalism]. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health [coded vitalism] and the naturopathic physician’s role is to facilitate and support this process [...] the body’s innate healing process [...] homeopathic medicine acts to strengthen the body’s innate immune response [coded vitalism...] the following principles are the foundation that naturopathic medicine is built on: [#1] the healing power of nature. Nature acts powerfully through healing mechanisms in the body and mind [coded vitalism] to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic physicians work to restore and support these inherent healing systems [coded vitalism] when they have broken down [...this is] a philosophy that works."

Note: so, there's the science claim galore, at supposed doctoral and professional levels of rigor. There's the label of science upon homeopathy [which is resoundingly NOT SCIENCE SUPPORTED].  And there's that typical ND MO: don't overtly reveal / transparently display / honestly relate naturopathy's principle article of faith: that physiology is run by a purposeful life spirit.  Instead, naturopathy obviously disguises such sectarian such and such in naturalistic language.

 

"Works?"  I'm trying to figure out how this philosophy works: equate something with what it is not, e.g. call articles of faith / the science-unsupported scientifically-derived / -supported, hide this absurd position from the public while trading on a false position.  I seriously don't think one gets past college undergraduate courses with such HUGE irrationality [never mind those at the doctoral level!].  And how can one posture the position of 'professional ethical rigor' from such falsehood? Most properly, naturopathy is in my view a mental illness.

 

001.b. a Facebook entry by Pais titled "Why Not Treat the Person Not the Disease" [psc 2010-03-29] states:

 

"Dr. Pizzorno is one of the standout naturopathic physicians of the last several decades. He is one of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine."

 

Note: so, the four words most associated with Bastyr and Pizzorno are, as also reflected above, "science-based natural medicine."

 

001.c. Pais's clinical web pages, "For Optimal Health," state: 

 

001.c1. in "Classical Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-03-29]: 

 

"homeopathy is a scientific system of natural medicine [...] all together [homeopathy is] the best of both worlds — safe because they’re so dilute and powerful because of their energetic action [coded vitalism]."

 

Note: so we have the label of science upon homeopathy, and a supposed / putative 'energy' that is its mechanism that has never been measured -- like homeopathy's claimed affect.

 

001.c2. in "About Gregory Pais"[vsc 2010-03-29]: 

 

"Dr. Pais has been practicing classical homeopathy for fourteen years [...and he's] grounded in the science of wholistic medicine." 

 

Note: the wholistic is usually body,mind, spirit, nature, two of which are exterior to science [supernatualism, vitalism], and for naturopathy includes homeopathy.

 

002. analyzing NCNM, Pizzorno, and therein Pais's claims:

 

002.a. NCNM, Pais's alma mater, states in "Principles of Healing":

 

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...they are] the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force."

 

Note: ok, so in just four sentences, naturopathy visits upon the public EXTREME ABSURDITY.  We have the scientific claim, we have the science claim upon the hugely not scientific.  With science equated with nonscience, I can offer no other advice to anyone who falls under the shadow of such irrationality but RUN.  A profession?  As professional as it is scientific. 

 

002.b. Pizzorno states in "Total Wellness: Improve Your Health By Understanding the Body’s Healing Systems" (1996; ISBN 0761504338):

 

"some important concepts [are fundamental to naturopathy]. The healing power of nature  (vis medicatrix naturae). Our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal [coded vitalism...] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [coded vitalism...] our underlying healing systems [p.003...] the routes to total wellness. Seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life [...including] our life-force (or spirit) [overt vitalism, equated with the supernatural]. Weakness in any of these seven systems results in susceptibilities that allow most common diseases to develop. Follow the recommendations below, strengthen all of these seven systems, and total wellness is yours [p.024...] live in harmony with your life-force [p.026 ...] live in harmony with the  psychosocial/spiritual/life-force [overt vitalism, equated with supernatural and some kind of 'social mind' whatever... p.317...] in mind/body medicine, the placebo effect is recognized as a marshaling of our self-healing abilities -- the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae [overt vitalism...] it is increased awareness of and access to this teleological force, the healer within [in sum, the life force is a purposeful life spirit], that is the essence of each of us [p.333...] life force. See spiritual system [again, overt vitalism equated with the supernatural, p.410]."

 

Note: so, the leading expert in "science-based natural medicine" -- Pizzorno -- equates what is hugely not within science [vitalism, teleology, supernaturalism] with science.  That is the epistemic conflation of naturopathy -- which is a form of absurdity.  Again, run. 

 

002.c. Pais in relation: 

 

so, overall, naturopathy keeps claiming an overarching category of science-basis, while fundamentally based upon the nonscientific, which is often disguised in naturalistic language -- as Pais above demonstrates, and Pizzorno above begins from.

 

Run, run, run FAR AWAY.

Today, Two Criticisms of Homeopathy [UK, Canada]:

001. The Telegraph's Chiver's, T. (? ?) states in "Why Does Boots Sell Homeopathy Like It's Real Medicine?"(2010-03-26):

"my girlfriend went into Boots [...] and bought some arnica. Except she didn’t. She bought some sugar [...] the word 'arnica' did not immediately flag up for her the associated words 'homeopathy' and 'quackery', as it did for me (see the splendid 10:23 campaign for more information) [...] a homeopathic arnica solution [...] homeopathy [...] is based on [...] like cures like and [...] dilution increases potency [...] to increase the potency of their solution, homeopaths dilute it enormously [...] at 30C, that means there is one part active ingredient in a million billion billion billion billion billion billion parts water. That equals, roughly, one molecule of the active ingredient in a ball of water with the same diameter as the Earth’s orbit around the Sun [...] it is placebo [...] why [does] Boots, a respected high street chemist [...] sell my unsuspecting better half something labelled 'arnica' when it might be more accurately labelled 'no arnica' [...] it does nothing, because it contains nothing [...] if Boots are going to sell it, could they not put it under a sign saying 'make-believe medicine'? Or 'gullibility pills'?"

002. Rabble.ca's Mang, E. (? ?) states in "Homeopathy Preys on the Desperate"(2010-03-26): 

"there was a recent story in the mainstream media about a naturopath who went to Jacmel, Haiti to dispense homeopathic 'remedies'. Ailing Haitians who had lined up thinking they would have access to medicine, left after learning that what was being offered had no medical value [...] I see this as taking advantage of vulnerable people with a concoction that fails every on every scientific front [...] but just because something gives one hope doesn't mean it works [...] there's the problem of post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this') thinking [...] taking an unproven 'remedy' for an ailment and healing after five days. That could very well have been your body healing itself and not the unproven 'remedy' [...] so it goes with homeopathy. In short, homeopathy is water [...] we have made significant scientific advances in the past 200 years. Homeopathy defies the basic premises of physics and chemistry [...] you shouldn't be surprised that not one person has overdosed on a homeopathic remedy [...] if homeopathy is no better than a sugar pill, that it merely fools the body into thinking a curative medication has been consumed, then this defeats the notion that homeopathy is an effective medicine [...] the only way to ensure that homeopathy actually works is to subject it to a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial [...] homeopaths are reticent to do this [...] I think this gives them cover to keep making money off people desperately seeking treatment. Not only does homeopathy fail scientific testing, if it preys on the vulnerable, it is unethical [...] an open mind is a skeptical mind. It's a mind that desires evidence, but it's also a mind that welcomes change when delivered proof. If homeopathy can pass double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials, I will change my tune. Until then, homeopathy is a sham, it preys on the desperate, and despite all the good intentions of its practitioners, they should mull over the ethics of their actions."

Note: meanwhile, NDs call homeopathy "clinical science."

The Late Greenspan, D. (ND NCNM 1990), and Naturopathy's Similar Double Life

here, I cite from reporting concerning the alleged / apparent illegal-drug-dealing-related violent homicide of Oregon ND Greenspan [see 001., below]; then, I cite from his current web pages [see 002., below]; and, then I show how those web pages don't accurately / transparently represent naturopathy by comparing his alma mater NCNM's naturopathy description to that of the ND's clinic web pages [see 003., below]; and then, I connect [see 004., below]:

001. according to news.google.com:

001.a. The Oregonian's "Washington County Police Arrest Man in SE Portland Naturopathic Doctor's Death" (2010-03-19)[vsc 2012-03-29] states:

"[as reported by Helen Jung] police have arrested a man in the killing of a naturopathic doctor who was discovered dead last Sunday and initially believed to be a suicide. Detectives now think the shooting of David Greenspan, 46, of Southeast Portland was drug-related [...] Greenspan operated the Greenspan GoodHealth Clinic [GGHC] in Tigard. A 1986 graduate of Pennsylvania State University, he received his naturopathic degree from the National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM] in Portland in 1990, according to a release from the college [...] he was a past president of the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...and] served as a board member for the college [NCNM]."

001.b. KPTV reports in "Deputies Rule Doctor's Death Homicide" (2010-03-19):

"investigators initially thought the 46-year-old took his own life, but later determined he'd been killed after leaving to make a drug deal."

001.c. KGW.com states in "Police: Man Killed Naturopathic Doc in Drug Deal" (2010-03-19):

"deputies called what they found 'a troubling picture involving [presumably illegal recreational] drug use and drug sales [of such].'"

001.d. nwcn.com states in "Naturopathic Doctor Killed in Drug Deal Led a Double Life" (2010-03-20):

"a Portland area naturopathic doctor was murdered over a drug deal, his death then was made to look like a suicide, detectives said Friday."

Note: his web page biography in 2005 stated "he has also served as President of the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians and is currently Vice-President of the Board of Directors at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine." I emphasize this because what I'd like to point out is that things [people, institutions!] aren't always what they seem: I think the community is surprised that a 'doctor' was apparently / allegedly a drug-dealer. Similarly, Greenspan's web pages [see 002., below] do not accurately / transparently portray naturopathy just like his alma mater does too [see 003., below]. In other words, Greenspan's descriptions of / labels upon 'the essentially naturopathic' are incomplete and false just like his alma mater's, where he was TAUGHT.

002. Greenspan's web pages [aka GGHC; while they still are up (I've archived them too); he practiced with Mages, N. (ND NCNM 2001) most recently]:

002.a. the homepage states [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"Natural Medicine For Women and Their Families in Portland, Oregon."

Note: his practice was mainly marketed to women.

002.b. the "About Us" pages states [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"Dr. Greenspan grew up in Princeton, New Jersey and attended Penn State University, where he received a bachelor of sciences degree with honors in molecular and cell biology, in 1986. He graduated from the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1990."

Note: so, he is an NCNM 1990 ND with a bachelors in biology.

002.c. the "A Message From Dr. Greenspan" page states [in language that has roughly been going on since 2003] [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"I found a new set of scientific principles in naturopathic medicine [...] we appreciate the scientific basis in medicine, and we revere the wisdom and natural laws inherent in nature."

Note: so, the label Greenspan placed upon the principles of naturopathy is "scientific." I wonder where that came from? [see 003., below].

002.d. the "Frequently Asked Questions" page states [in language that has roughly been going on since 2003] [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"medical doctors generally operate from a perspective [...that] can produce a relief of symptoms in the short term [but] it does not really work to understand or correct the underlying cause of the problem[*]. Naturopathic physicians operate from a perspective that the body has an inherent ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] this inherent healing ability [coded vitalism...] the body's inherent self-correcting systems [coded vitalism...] this ability of the body [coded vitalism...] 'naturopathic care is not scientific' - that's what they [MDs] say. However, naturopathic medicine and its various methods are scientifically studied and proven in all types of medical research facilities and journals. There are many other aspects of naturopathic care that are better defined and studied using other scientific approaches than the typical one seen in our medical system [loosening of the rigors of science!]. Many of these perspectives are challenging to the average medical doctor [ah, those measly MDs]."

Note: so, there is the HUGE coding of the essential premise of naturopathy, and a claim of science placed upon the naturopathic per "studied and proven". 

*Of course, if you pose a solution to a problem...and you've invented the problem in the first place [like your vital force needs our treatment]...and the problem is essentially FAKE...I think such is termed RACKETEERING [because there isn't such a vital force].  So, saying 'only us NDs can truly solve your problems, regular medicine just puts a band-aid over it' smacks of that to me.

002.e. the "Digestive Health" page states [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"our physical bodies are ultimately composed of the food that we consume. Today, American's are part of a massive, uncontrolled food science experiment [...] at GGHC we understand the science behind these facts and have expertise in identifying the underlying cause of your symptoms."

Note: so, we have a science expertise claim.

002.f. the "Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain" page states [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"naturopathic medicine offers a unique perspective on fibromyalgia and chronic pain. This is because the scientific principles incorporate a study of the function in the body’s tissues and organs."

Note: so, here we are told that the principles of naturopathy are scientific.

002.g. what you don't find, via a google.com search:

mention on any GGHC page of "life force", "medicatrix", "healing power", "spirit" -- concepts which are essential to mention in order to actually be talking about 'the naturopathic'. This is on the pages of a former OAND president and NCNM board member!

Note: fascinating, things aren't always what they SEEM / are presented as.

003. what NCNM reveals about naturopathy, as compared to ND Greenspan's language:

the central NCNM web page that explains / labels naturopathy contextually is "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-03-21]. Both NDs at GGHC's pages were NCNM graduates, and those NDs practiced in Oregon under OBNM. NCNM is in Oregon. At NCNM's page we are informed that:

003.a. naturopathy is scientific and professional:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...which are] the distinguishing marks of the profession [...] These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."

Note: so, there is this overall impression / 'broad marketing claim' that naturopathy's claims are "objective", and survive scientific scrutiny.

003.b. naturopathy is based upon vitalism:

"[in principle #1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health [...which] is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

Note: so, after claiming naturopathy is "science" we're told that the "life force" is "in fact." Yet, vitalism has been science-ejected for several decades, minimally. Remember, none of this medicatrix / vital life force language was up at GGHC in explicit language.  It was up in what I call coded language: it's up at NCNM whereas it wasn't at GGHC, but both falsely label nonscience as scientific.

003.c. naturopathy is based upon supernaturalism / spiritism:

"causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors [...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [...] homeopathic medicine [...] works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels."

Note: spirit, spirit, spirit. Remember, we were told by GGHC that this was natural, natural, natural.  But, here is supernaturalism posed as within science. Yet, supernaturalism has been ejected from science for a few hundred years.  In claiming science subset nonscience and supernatural...we're really afar from what is TRUE.

003.d. naturopathy is professional:

"[our] principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [...] as a distinct American health care profession, naturopathic medicine [...] they called their profession 'naturopathy' [...] NCNM has been at the center of the profession [...] the profession has experienced a resurgence [...] National College of Natural Medicine alumni have also founded professional associations to promote and expand naturopathic medicine. This is an exciting time to join the profession."

Note: profession, profession, profession. I can't name another profession which is so wrongheaded while claiming 'highest ethical standards'.

004. naturopathy leads a double life [there's what it seems to be / appears itself to be...and there's what's really going on; just like a 'doctor' who is also a drug-dealer, allegedly!]:

it presents itself as scientific, but it is essentially science-ejected;

it presents itself as objective fact, when it is in fact a subjective belief system;

it claims professionalism but it can't occupy that level of fiduciary duty if it cannot transparently communicate its essential context as a science-ejected sectarian healing system.

Note: so, am I surprised that a member of a sectarian healing cult which HUGELY, falsely and incompletely postures itself to the community [both clinically and education-wise] was allegedly doing something similar / as doubly?

No.

one might even entertain the idea that NCNM's example TAUGHT that kind of behavior.

NDs are taught [and I think it's a crafty form of abuse, actually] that the scientific and the science-ejected are the same thing, and they are taught not to be transparent / up-front about the whole thing.

THAT is cultic, and manipulative.

now, what's also very appalling is that this naturopathic duplicity mode has been written into Oregon law! [vsc 2010-03-20]

so, I can't say it is illegal in Oregon.

Update 2012-03-29 [I mildly edited the text above, too]:

the Oregonian tells us in "Murder trial set to begin in 2010 death of Tigard physician, shot outside Cornelius" (2012-03-29) [vsc 2012-03-29]:

"[as reported by Emily E. Smith] trial is scheduled to begin next week for the man [Bement] accused of aggravated murder in the shooting death of David Greenspan, a naturopathic physician [...] prosecutors will argue that Bement shot Greenspan three times to rob him of $25,000 in cash and eliminate a debt he owed the doctor [...]  prosecutors said the two men has a business relationship in which Bement arranged drug deals and Greenspan supplied the cash [...] Greenspan died with methamphetamine, heroin and prescription drugs in his system, according to an autopsy report. His drug use and statements he made in the months before his death show he had become 'increasingly paranoid and psychotic,' defense attorneys say."

Update 2012-05-17:

it has been reported that the murderer of ND Greenspan has gotten life without parole for the crime (here).  And I do wonder, as I have since about the year 2001...

how long will naturopathy overall as a crime against reason, science, medicine and fairness continue without correction?