CFI's CASS: Naturopathy Unscientific & Dangerous (2010-04-30), and Here's a PEIAND Example:

here, I cite from a Center for Inquiry [CFI] press release which takes a stand [in title only, maybe] against naturopathy [see 001., below]; then I provide an example of naturopathy's MO via the Prince Edward Island Association of Naturopathic Doctors [PEIAND; see 002., below]:

001. CFI states in "Center for Inquiry: Naturopathy Unscientific & Dangerous, Says Canadian Skeptic Society" (2010-04-30)[vsc 2010-04-30]:

"May 3rd to the 9th marks Naturopathic Medicine Week in Canada. The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) believes that when evidence is evaluated scientifically, we find much promise [really!], but few reasons to believe naturopathic treatments [that's quite generous, actually]. Naturopathic interventions include therapeutics like traditional Chinese medicine [and] acupuncture [...and] homeopathy [...there is] 'weak, if any, evidence,' says CASS spokesman Michael Kruse [...and] 'the biggest problem with naturopathy is the lack of a standard of care' [I disagree...] CASS engages scientific claims made in public discourse, addressing misinformation by promoting evidence-based science. CFI -- which runs CASS -- is an educational charity promoting reason, science, secularism, and free inquiry [which is great]."

Note: I'd argue that when you look at naturopathy scientifically, you don't see "promise" you see obfuscation and figmentation.  'Weak evidence' for figmentations and the science-ejected falsely labeled science? Well, that is being quite generous.  When you know the whole naturopathic picture, you see irrationality, unprofessionalism, and outright fraud [clinically, academically etc.].  I would argue that 'pseudoscience without transparency' IS naturopathy's standard of care / MO.  That is not a problem about a uniform 'standard of care.'  That is a problem with lawful commerce and the higher standards of professionalism -- which naturopathy doesn't meet, cannot inherently meet.

002. here's an example of naturopathy's false scientific position:

002.a. naturopathy claims science, professional ethical status:

002.a1. PEIAND states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"naturopathic doctors can also complement and enhance health care services provided by other health care professionals. They cooperate with other branches of medical science."

Note: obviously, there is a claim here of professional ethical status ['profess' is used three times on the page] and of science [used four times on the page] by naturopathy [used eleven times on the page].  CAND, the mother organization of PEIAND, published a similar claim (here) falsely labeling 'the essentially naturopathic' "science-based natural health care."

002.b. naturopathy claims to be based upon certain things:

002.b1. PEIAND states in "What Can Naturopathy Do For You?" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"it is the approach, philosophy and training of naturopathic doctors that sets it apart from other forms of health care [...] the naturopathic philosophy is to stimulate the healing power of the body [HPB] and to treat the root cause of disease [RCD]."

Note: so, there's philosophy, HPB, and RCD.

002.b2. PEIAND states in "Guiding Principles" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...that are] emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor's training [...and are] the foundation of this distinct form of health care [...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN=VMN...] the powerful and inherent healing ability of your body, mind and spirit [HPBMS] and to prevent further disease from occurring [...] this ordered and intelligent [teleological] healing ability."

Note: so, this is the 'big page' for defining a central premise of naturopathy, HPB.  Obviously, HPN=VMN=HPBMS.  But, the public is not being informed transparently.  I've spent a lot of words on this blog decoding this premise, which is vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological and science-ejected.  The naturalistic language [except for the spiritism-supernaturalism] is a disguise, and therein, naturopathy really isn't interested in patient rights / informed consent.  This is a ruse.

002.c.1. PEIAND states in "Natural Therapies" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"the naturopathic therapies are all based on the same principles, they all assist the body's healing response [coded vitalism...] homeopathic medicine [...is a] powerful system of medicine [though the remedies are EMPTY!...] homeopathic remedies  [...] when carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body's 'vital force' and to stimulate the body's innate healing forces [naturopathy's vitalistic context...] traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture.  The key principle that defines and connects all of Chinese medicine is that of chi, or vital energy. The chi of all organs must be in balance, neither too active nor too dormant, for a person to be healthy. The chi of the body's organs and systems are all connected in meridians or channels that lie just under the skin. A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance [naturopathy's vitalistic context]."

Note:  so, there it is, the vitalism at the heart of the naturopathic.

003. dangerous as fraud, and I can think of more:

when science-ejected figmentations [HPB-vitalisms, supernaturalisms and kind] are falsely labeled as within science and acted upon in a medical context, I seriously doubt that medicine is improved or society benefits.  After all, if a figment is a fact, the RCD that's being supposedly treated by naturopathy is quite suspect, and I'm sure the diagnostics and therapeutics within such a structure of 'epistemic conflation' are quite unreliable / unknown / dangerous therein.

Naturopathy is pure absurdity: an article of faith is a scientific fact, the distinct is the blended, the science-based is the science-ejected...

NCSE Spanks Dr. Larry Dossey (2010-04-26), and the Pseudoscience of Vitalism (1995):

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post [HP] response by NCSE to a recent HP post concerning science by Dr. Larry Dossey [see 001., below]; then, I do some archeology and quote from a classic NCSE page that strikes at the heart of naturopathy's belief amalgam -- vitalism [see 002., below]:

001. the National Center for Science Education's [NCSE] Steve Newton states in "In Defense of Scientific Methodology" (2010-04-26):

"in a recent piece titled 'The Scientific Method: An Educational Train Wreck?' Dr. Larry Dossey made a number of statements so factually inaccurate, so misrepresentative of the nature of science, that it reads like some ill-conceived parody gone awry [...a] rot [...] Dossey accuses scheming educators of trying 'to inculcate children with the scientific method' [...] I plead guilty. There is great value in [...] teaching [...] students about scientific methodology and nature of science [...] students come to the classroom with a host of misconceptions about the world [...] it is the proper job of science educators to help [...] student[s] see the world as it really is, rather than to reinforce their prejudices [hear, hear]. Biology students should learn that the theory of evolution is correct and that vaccines do not cause autism [...] chemistry students should understand why homeopathic claims about 'water memory' are not true. [hear, hear]. Science education can -- and should -- help students understand reality [...] a scientific understanding of the world brings food to the table [...] science has reduced human suffering and needless deaths, and produced longer and better lives [...] the misconception of scientists as cold, remote individuals comes from movies and television, not reality [...] science fiction is a poor basis for characterizing all scientists [...] there is a place for everyone in science [...] Dossey's essay misrepresents science, scientists, educators, and students. It is Dossey, not science, who has jumped the rails."

Note: now THAT is a spanking [verbally, of course].

Another Steve, Novella, in "Dossey on the Scientific Method" (2010-04-27) also spanks Dossey.  Included is this scathing criticism:

"Dossey is in no position to lecture about the deficiencies of the scientific world-view. He disguises his ideological problems with science in borrowed legitimate observations, and mixes them with howling straw men that no scientist would recognize in themselves. The result is not even 'a cleverly constructed tract of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship,' because no one would confuse this for scholarship."

PZ Meyers in "Another HuffPo Pontification on Science as It is Not Understood" (2010-04-26) states, in summary:

"he's a credulous magic man."

002. NCSE states in "National Association of Biology Teachers (1995): Scientific Integrity" (Board of NABT, 1995-03-15):

"the credibility and utility of science, and therefore biology, depend on maintaining its integrity. NABT has a special obligation, to promote this integrity in life science education. The data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes. Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom."

 Note: seeing NCSE quickly activated in response to the HP Dossey post is quite inspiring.  Seeing that NCSE maintains the NABT 1995 position paper, which trashes naturopathy's supposed scientific position of vitalism, is quite awesome.  What's coolest about the whole thing is that UB established their ND program after that date, and likely didn't even bother to pass their ND contents across the desk of any legitimate science organization for review.  So, from the get-go at UBCNM, naturopathy was falsely labeling the hugely science-ejected [e.g., vitalism, supernaturalism] as "health science."  Here we are, in 2010, and UB still labels vitalism science.  If anything, vitalism is more and more exterior to science.  

So, a higher education institution trades upon false premises, and that is truly morally repugnant.

CFI-Canada's CASS Trashes Homeopathy [yes!]

here, I cite from a recent National Post [Canada] article looking at homeopathy-the-absurdity from the point of view of scientific skepticism:

Mitchell Gerskup, Ryan Gray, Michael Kruse, Iain Martel, and Justin Trottier state in "A Vestige of the 18th Century" (2010-04-20):

"Hahnemann [...invented] homeopathy [...about 1800 and it] still doesn't work [...] Hahnemann termed the contemporary practice of humoral medicine 'allopathy' [...and] he suggested that disease should be treated [...instead with] homeopathy [...wherein] there is none of the original ingredient left in the solution [...it is] a prescientific (or at best protoscientific) point of view [...it is] prescientific thinking [...it is] a lot like magic [...within an] 18th-century quasiscientific context which became outmoded as modern science grew in its proficiency [...it is] archaic [...and upon] the dustbin of science [and therein TRASHED!...it is] based upon the antiquated notion of 'vitalism' (the idea that a life-force, or spirit, dwells within the body and can be manipulated to improve health [...homeopathy and vitalism were] abandoned by physicians and researchers [...along with other methods] based upon vitalism [...from the] 18th and 19th century [...] the National Council Against Health Fraud [...] has stated that 'homeopathy meets the dictionary definitions of a sect and a cult' [...] the authors are members of the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism [CASS] and the Center For Inquiry-Canada [CFI-Canada]."

Note: by extension, this article encompasses naturopathy, since naturopathy requires homeopathy in its educational and board examination processes -- all across North America (AANP, CAND).  And that sectarian system falsely claims homeopathy is a clinical science.  Also, since allopathy was a term for medicine of the mid- to late- 1700s, it is not accurate to call today's medicine allopathy.  That is akin to calling today's chemistry alchemy, or today's astronomy astrology.  But, NDs use that inaccurate label ALL THE TIME.

Vitalism is Paranormal, Immature, and Science-Ejected (ISBN 1405181222, 2009)

Smith, J.C. (PhD{psychology} MSU 1975) writes in "Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit" (ISBN 1405181222, 2009):

"the traditional paranormal explanation is that acupuncture [p.006] frees the flow of a mystical energy, qi (or chi) [p.007...] children [...] in attempting to make sense of the world [...] may erroneously think of objects as possessing consciousness and agency or intentionality [...] eventually children outgrow such simplistic thinking patterns and learn to explain the world more accurately in physical, biological, and psychological terms [...] the idea that objects possess energy and intentionality is called vitalistic causality or vitalism, a type of thinking that also characterizes adult belief in the paranormal. Vitalistic thinking also characterizes early human thought and philosophy [...e.g.] a life-giving soul [...] in the 19th and 20th centuries physiologists proposed a vital force underlying all living things [...aka] life force, vis essentialis, vis viva, entelechy, elan vital, and soul atoms [...] vitalism is clearly a paranormal concept.  There is no evidence of vitalistic energy, much less a thinking energy with intentionality, outside the energies physics has discovered.  Children give up such vitalistic thinking as they mature [...] civilization gave up vitalistic explanations for those based on science [...] vitalism persists in energy treatments of complementary and alternative medicine [p.271]."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy [which places itself within so-called CAM] calls its vitalistic premise "the healing power of nature," per a life force which is "intelligent."  And it labels itself "science-based."  In that sense, naturopathy is absurd, since what is within science and what is exterior to science are equated, and nonscience is falsely labeled science.

AANP's President: There's Supposedly 6000 Licensed NDs in North America

here,  I quote from the AANP President [see 001., below], then I visit his practice web site [see 002., below] and go a'searching for a transparent explanation of the central premise of naturopathy [not provided!]:

001. the American Association of Naturopathic Physician's [AANP] President Hangee-Bauer, C. (ND Bastyr 1984, LAc SFCA 1988) states in the AANP blog page "Naturopathic Leaders and Leadership" (2010-04-21)[vsc 2010-04-25]:

"it is currently estimated that there are about 6000 licensed NDs in the United States and Canada."

Note: perhaps that number is accurate. Though, exaggerating it would be beneficial to the ND movement.  Is naturopathy THAT disorganized that they can't count active North American licensees?  I don't think so. Remember, they are claiming professionalism.  In fact, on that blog page, "profess" shows up 8 times.

002. now, a short point I'd like to make about the current AANP President's own web pages describing [supposedly] naturopathy -- you can't get naturopathy's context presented to you in a transparent manner (what's new!):

002.a. Hangee-Bauer ND writes in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"naturopathic medicine is a primary health care profession which emphasizes the prevention and treatment of disease, maintenance of optimal health, and promotion of the individual’s inherent self-healing process which naturopathic physicians refer to as the 'vis medicatrix naturae,' the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN...] naturopathic doctors follow six key principles in their practices: [#1] the healing power of nature. Naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process [ISHP] in each of us which is both ordered and intelligent [teleological!]. NDs act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this self-healing ability [SHC...] NDs study the same basic and clinical sciences as do other medical students."

Note: there's the claim of professionalism, science, and VMN-HPN-ISHP-SHC.  But, nowhere on that page is the actual context of naturopathy transparently communicated - a vitalistic science-ejected figmentation is responsible for sickness and healing.  Instead, you get camouflage, and that is not what science and professionalism do!  Remember, this is the HEAD of the AANP.

002.b. Hangee-Bauer ND writes in "Frequently Asked Questions" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct [etc....] naturopathic doctors [...] follow six important principles in caring for their patients [...#3] trust in the healing power of nature - the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself. [#4] Treat the whole person - view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical and spiritual dimensions [...] both NDs and MDs attend four-year graduate level accredited medical schools, with similar training in the basic sciences such as anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and pathology [...and we're told NDs are] using scientific methods.[...] according to traditional Chinese medicine theory, acupuncture works by promoting the smooth flow of qi."

Note: so, again that camouflaged vitalism while ironically the ND claims that naturopathic is distinct.  But, you can see that supernaturalism that naturopathy also contains while claiming science-expertise.  Qi, of course, is vitalism and a figmentation.  It is interesting how many NDs are also LAcs - the vitalistic underpinnings of both are quite compatible.

002.c. Hangee-Bauer ND writes in "Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) & Acupuncture" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"TCM is based on the concept of qi (pronounced chee) which is the life force or vital energy. Qi is the animating force that serves to warm us, protect us from external pathogenic factors, promote the functions of the body and hold our organs and tissues in place."

Note: that's vitalism.  Now, qi is on that page 8 times.

002.d. now, I'll bridge all these vitalistic euphemisms from 002.a. and 002.b. with what I may call a "Rosetta Stone" web page from the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine.  UB states in "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1" [vsc 2010-04-25] [archived here]:

"the healing power of nature. Viz medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: so, naturopathy is vitalistic.  No matter how it represents itself, which is mainly in an opaque / science-disguised / falsely labeled manner.  

And to quote from the song "For America" by Jackson Browne:

"with everyone from the President on down trying to keep it from you."

Brenders in HP: Demolishing Ullman But Perhaps Epistemic Delineation as Well

Brenders, D. (PhD ?) states in the Huffington Post's "Want to Help Save 34 Billion a Year in Health Care Costs?  Be a Skeptic" (2010-04-23) :

"I am an expert on B.S. -- a teacher of persuasion, an authority on sham arguments. Let's remove the sham arguments from Mr. Ullman's case and see what's left [...there is an] enlightening word: skeptic [...] a skeptic is a person who proportions his/her belief to the evidence [...] a properly skeptical person does not accept just any 'evidence' that matches his/her preconceptions and ignores the rest; evidence must pass certain tests of verity and must be verifiable independently and abundantly. No evidence, no belief [...] the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee['s...] inquiry and report could not have been more reasonable, thorough, even-handed, or damning to the credibility of homeopathy [...] Professor David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacy at UCL put it [succinctly]: 'if homeopathy worked the whole of chemistry and physics would have to be overturned' [read: implausible...] what's left of homeopathy with the sham arguments removed? [...] nothing."

Note: I agree with the 'it's placebo nonsense' verdict per homeopathy, in sum.  But, I have issue with Brenders's choice of the word "belief" to represent 'confidence in facticity' / scientific knowledge.  I classically divide epistemology into that area that is in-evidence / a posteriori [which includes science], and that area that is taken on faith / a priori [religion, dogma].  Belief, in my view, essentially belongs to the second category. So, evidence is antithetical to belief, in that sense.  Or perhaps a better word is irrelevant.  Evidence leads to tentative knowledge premises and degrees of certainty / doubt, while faith / leaps-without-evidence lead to belief.  To say that someone, for instance, believes that the earth is round because so much evidence warrants that conclusion is silly.  We know [not believe] the earth to be round[ish] and not flat.  So, I don't think a skeptic believes, I think a skeptic doubts in proportion to the quality of evidence available. Beliefs occur no matter what facts say.

CAND & CASS: Naturopathic Medicine Week is May 3-9

here, I cite from CAND first, then CASS regarding NMW:

001. the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors [CAND] states:

001.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine Week May 3-9" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) will be hanging up their lab coats [how sciencey!] during Naturopathic Medicine Week [NMW...happening] across Canada May 3-9 [...] to teach members of the community about natural medicine [...] and the benefits of  naturopathic medicine [...see] British Columbia Naturopathic Association, www.bcna.ca; Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, www.binm.org; Alberta Association of Naturopathic Practitioners, www.naturopathic-alberta.com; Saskatchewan Association of Naturopathic Practitioners, www.sanp.ca; Manitoba Naturopathic Association, www.mbnd.ca; Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors, www.oand.org; Nova Scotia Association of Naturopathic Doctors, www.nsand.ca."

Note: naturopathic, naturopathic, naturopathic.

 001.b. in  "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends [etc....] the naturopathic philosophy is to stimulate the healing power of the body [HPB, coded vitalism] naturopathic treatments are chosen based on the individual patient – their physiological, structural, psychological, social, spiritual [supernaturalism], environment and lifestyle factors [...] natural therapies including botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy [!!! etc....] the naturopathic medical profession’s infrastructure includes accredited educational institutions, professional licensing, national standards of practice, participation in many federal health committee initiatives, and a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research."

Note: so, we get the nonsense of the blended distinct, and we get coded vitalism which is business-as-usual, supernaturalism, homeopathy, and the label of professionalism and a supposed science committment.

001.c. in "What Can It Do For You?" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"the naturopathic philosophy is to stimulate the healing power of the body [HPB] and to treat the root cause of disease."

Note: and that's all you are told.  Coded vitalism again.

001.d. in "History of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"Hippocrates, a Greek physician who lived 2400 years ago, first formulated the concept of 'the healing power of nature' [HPN]. This concept has long been at the core of medicine around the world and remains one of the central principles of naturopathic medicine."

Note: codes, codes, codes.  Hijacking the Big H.

001.e. in "Guiding Principles" [vsc 2010-04-23]:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...a] set of principles emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor's training [which] outlines the naturopathic approach to health and healing and forms the foundation of this distinct form of health care [...from #1] acknowledge and respect the individual's healing process [coded vitalism...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] this ordered and intelligent healing ability [coded vitalism]."

Note: so, the CAND's actual definition page for the principles of naturopathy veil naturopathy's actual vitalistic context in naturalistic language.  This is typical.

001.f. digging deeper, a global google.com search with the parameters  >cand.ca "vital force"< results in the CAND page "Natural Therapies" [vsc 2010-04-23] which states:

"homeopathic medicine [...a] powerful [!!!] system of medicine [...] when carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body's 'vital force' [vitalism] and to stimulate the body's innate healing forces [vitalistic healing...] traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture.  The key principle that defines and connects all of Chinese medicine is that of chi, or vital energy [vitalism]. The chi of all organs must be in balance, neither too active nor too dormant, for a person to be healthy. The chi of the body's organs and systems are all connected in meridians or channels that lie just under the skin. A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance."

Note: the same is roughly said here by CAND [vsc 2010-04-23].  Notice that the explanation of naturopathy's primary premise of HPN there does not transparently communicate naturopathy's essential vitalistic science-ejected context.  But, from the above, we have vitalism as the core of naturopathy's homeopathy and naturopathy's acupuncture, two of naturopathy's flagship therapeutics, and overall that is the core of the 'naturopathic natural.'  

Here's naturopathy's central textbook all about that vitalistic context, if you have any doubts: "the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the
healing power of nature [p.034]."

Here is that concept on science's junk pile.   

Here is CAND talking up 'science, science, science' [vsc 2010-04-23].

 Here is CAND on Youtube with the label "science based natural medicine" [vsc 2008-04-06] overarching naturopathy.

002. the Center for Inquiry's Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism [CASS] states in "Center for Inquiry: Homeopathy Week a Skeptical Success":

"WHAW has gone [...] homeopathy is part of a scope of practice used by naturopaths, embracing a theory of 'vitalism' based upon an incorporeal spirit. Naturopathic Medicine Week will be celebrated May 3rd to 9th. CASS will be ready to confront more bad science [...] World Homeopathy Awareness Week (WHAW), organized as a celebration of homeopathy, was successfully hijacked by the skeptical community and critical appraisals of homeopathy dominated the internet. CASS engages with scientific, technological and medical claims made in public discourse, addressing misinformation by promoting evidence-based science. CFI - which runs CASS - is a registered educational charity promoting science and secularism."

Note: I totally agree.  In sum, I'd characterize the vitalism of naturopathy, their often disguised healing context, as a belief in a 'purposeful life spirit.'  Now, if I really want to inflict big philosophical words on the reader I'd state it as an amalgam of: vitalism, spiritism, teleology and autoentheism.

Dana Ullman Recommends Naturopathy and Homeopathy, HP 2010-04-20:

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post [HP] article by absurdity/homeopathy proponent Dana Ullman [see 001., below]; then, I REALLY discuss naturopathy and homeopathy [see 002., below]:

001 Ullman, D. (MPH ?) states in "How Scientific Is Modern Medicine Really?":

"I have previously made clear that my own point of view on this subject is that we must develop a more 'integrative model' of medicine and healing and that we should utilize various naturopathic and homeopathic methods as a way to honor the Hippocratic tradition of 'first, do no harm.'"

Note: first, the "really" from the title. This is a really half-assed really but don't take my word on it: Orac does a quite thorough debunking of this fallacious tack. The criticisms against regular medicine are no more supportive of naturopathy and homeopathy [absurdities] as the criticisms against jet plane travel are no more supportive of using flying carpets [absurdity] instead [I borrow that from Dr. Atwood, 2004].  It's a false dichotomy to structure an argument as 'this or that' when the choices are by no means equal. 

Overall, knowing what I know about naturopathy and homeopathy, the "harm" that Ullman is likely concerned about relates to that hugely debunked sectarian figmentation known as 'the vital force.'  For instance, when the State of Oregon discusses "Naturopathy" and "do no harm," it states:

"[naturopathy's principle #3] first, do no harm. Primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful [teleological] process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [vitalism] attempting to heal itself [...] the physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae [vital force...per principle #1] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [...] healing process is ordered and intelligent [teleological]; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism...] therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes [what's primarily harming the VMN] are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized [...because] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [vitalism], respecting the intelligence [teleology] of the natural healing process."

Note: vitalism, teleology and that other naturopathic belief in 'spirit' that I'm not even discussing here are all external to science, as either science-ejected or fundamentally unsupportable by science.

002. really:

002.a. naturopathy:

is, clearly, the nonscientific [vitalistic, teleological, supernaturalistic] falsely labeled as scientific, violating the basic principles of commerce and the more stringent principles of professionalism [and you get the added value of the State of Oregon on that B.N.M. page falsely labeling the scientifically-ejected as 'able to surivive scientific scrutiny'].

002.b. homeopathy:

clearly doesn't work.

003. a note on integrative:

so, what is "integrative" really?  It is the lowering of standards to such an extreme that that which is profoundly, preponderantly nonscience is then labeled science and fraudulently traded upon.  This is what the State of Oregon endorses.  So,  I don't rely on Dana Ullman to inform me about what is "really." His rhetorical skills are quite formidable, but, when you peel back all that ornate manipulation, you get to the essentially sectarian-absurd that he [along with Oregon] is promoting.

Flexner At 100 By Way of Novella, Applied to Naturopathy By Me:

here, I cite from a recent post Dr. Novella put up at Neurologia regarding chiropractice [see 001., below]; then I alter it and apply it to naturopathy [see 002., below]:

001. Dr. Novella writes in "The Chiropractic Conundrum" (2010-04-20):

"2010 is the 100th anniversary of the Flexner Report – essentially an expose on poor scientific regulation of medical practices that led to a scientific revolution in mainstream medicine. Chiropractic is in major need of its own Flexner Report [...] they need to clean house if they want to become respected members of the evidence-based mainstream medical community [...] as Ernst writes – their failure to do so constitutes an ethical and public health issue."

Note: they'd have to limit themselves to certain back pain issues and likely drop that "Dr." status.  I doubt such will happen, but I'd never visit one myself.

002. let's turn Novella's statement into a statement about naturopathy by replacing the chiropractic with naturopathic, and adding some points I think are necessary:

"[this is now an alteration of Dr. Novella's original statement, please keep in mind, therefore NOT HIS OWN WORDS!] 2010 is the 100th anniversary of the Flexner Report – essentially an expose on poor scientific regulation of medical practices that led to a scientific revolution in mainstream medicine. Higher education, in general, is in major-need of another Flexner Report [...] complete crap posing as science has slithered into the State- and Federally-sanctioned, regionally-accredited institutional tier [...] for instance, take naturopathy [please!], whereby patently science-ejected premises are falsely labeled as able to survive scientific scrutiny. In such a Flexner-again process, naturopathy should cease to exist if justice is carried through, because the area is essentially an irrational and absurd, unethical sectarian pseudoscience that owes so much reparation to those it has victimized as educational consumers that naturopathy is essentially insolvent."

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!