Monday, June 21, 2010
here, I reach back into the archive.org repository to cite the 'essentially naturopathic science-ejected' by way of: the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine's [BINM] rather opaque NM description [see 001., below]; the British Columbia Naturopathic Association's [BCNA] rather opposite and opaque NM description [see 002., below]; the BINM's rather tucked-away but transparent NM description [see 003., below]:
001. BINM states in "Naturopathic Medical Training" [vsc 2010-06-21]:
"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession founded in the time honoured belief in 'vis medicatrix naturae', the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN..] the following is a list of treatments commonly provided or prescribed by naturopathic physicians [...] homeopathy [...] Chinese Medicine."
Note: so, we have the claim of profession, and VMN-HPN. Yet the essential context of naturopathy, which these expressions represent, is not transparently communicated. Therefore, I call this opaque because you are not being informed, which is very unprofessional. Let me help. BINM is in British Columbia, so lets see what BCNA says regarding naturopathy and VMN-HPN.
002. BCNA states in "About Naturopathic Medicine -- The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-21]:
"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...it is built upon upon] a science-based platform [...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...] is threefold. First, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism, given the correct climate for healing. Determining the correct individualized therapeutic environment [in this context] is at the core of naturopathic medicine."
Note: so, we're actually told the OPPOSITE of what the essentially naturopathic is. That it is science. And we are not given a transparent definition of VMN-HPN. Very unprofessional and manipulative. As usual. I like this 1999 link for this particular article because it is the oldest so far that I've been able to find. This ruse has been going on for quite some time: eleven years plus.
003. but, back at BINM, you do get that often underlying / coded vitalism context quite transparently communicated in "Natural Selections: Focus on Allergies" (2008-10; vol. 1, iss. 1) [vsc 2010-06-21]:
"we all have an innate ability to heal called the 'vital force'. When this force is weak you are susceptible to disease [...and the sidebar states that the] principles of naturopathic medicine [...include #3] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [...] acupuncture stimulates your vital force and promotes drainage [...] homeopathic remedies will desensitize you to your allergen, relieve your symptoms, promote drainage, and stimulate your vital force."
Note: so, there's the full context, assembled piecemeal from various BINM web pages. You often don't get that science-ejected essential naturopathic sectarian premise stated so up-front. It is usually underLYING.
Yet -- absurdly, simultaneously -- BINM states in "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: The Only Naturopathic Medical School in Western Canada Opens New Campus" [vsc 2010-06-21]:
"naturopathic medicine is a science-based alternative medicine approach to healthcare that combines state- of-the-art scientific research with evidence-based traditional healing systems."
As I often say, "Danger Will Robinson, unethical sectarian pseudoscience."
Saturday, June 19, 2010
here, I cite from Peterson's “Graduate Programs in Business, Education, Health, Information Studies, Law and Social Work 2004” (ISBN 076891146x, 2003) regarding National College of Natural Medicine's [NCNM] claim that the vitalistic is within the science-based [see 001., below]: then I cite from the State of Oregon's Board of Naturopathic Medicine [OBNM] and similar nonsense [see 002., below]:
001. the 'professional science-based vitalistic' at NCNM:
001.a. Peterson's NCNM entry states:
“naturopathic medicine is a science-based, vitalistic philosophy and practice rooted in the principle of vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature […] students pursue a vitalistically grounded and rigorous academic clinical program [p.2113].”
Note: so, naturopathy is essentially vitalistic. The 'back-stage' context of naturopathy is vitalism, even when naturopathy cleverly codes the premise so as not to allow for informed, transparent communication of that essential 'nature.' NCNM is the oldest of the AANMC schools, and this vitalistic context is canonical. Now, science has ejected the vitalistic, hugely. Yup. And to be grounded vitalistically is about as sensible as if dentistry centered itself around the figment known as the Tooth Fairy. Rigor? Thoughtless is more like it. Cultic.
001.b. regarding science, the entry states:
“the first two years of study are focused on the standard medical sciences […] naturopathic medicine integrates natural healing methods from around the world with solid foundations in Western sciences.”
Note: I'm not sure how science can be standard and solid when what is science and not science is regarded as equal within the naturopathic realm. That is about as standard as stating that sense and nonsense are the same thing. So, a solid foundation in science is when science is ANYTHING you wish it to be?
001.c. and of course, we're told this is ethically rigorous / professional per:
“founded in 1956, National College of Naturopathic Medicine is the oldest accredited naturopathic medical college in North America. As such, it has been the heart of the profession.”
Note: what kind of profession is so FLAWED at its very core that it appears irrational, insane, scientifically-illiterate, and opaque?
002. OBNE states in “Naturopathy”[vsc 2010-06-19]:
"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners trained as specialist in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis. It is these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#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: so, more nonsense.
naturopathy is quite false at its core. You have States, their Departments of Education, the Federal DOE, regionally accredited colleges and universities, and college / university career guides spewing quite dunderheaded sectarian dogma posing as legitimate “science.”
Peterson's UBCNM ND Program Profile: The Label of Professional Science, The Reality of Nonprofessionality and Nonscience Irrationality
here, I cite from Peterson's “Graduate Programs in Business, Education, Health, Information Studies, Law and Social Work 2004” (ISBN 076891146x, 2003) [below, I will simply call this source “Peterson's”] which falsely labels UBCNM naturopathy 'professions-level science' [see 001., below]; while simultaneously labeling that program 'nonscience' i.e. essentially vitalistic and essentially supernatural [see 002.a., below]; then, I use UB's own web pages to show naturopathy's underlying essential nonscience context [see 002.b., below]:
001. Peterson's states in “University of Bridgeport College Of Naturopathic Medicine”:
001.a. per “profess”:
“the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine offers an intensive program of professional education leading to the doctor of naturopathic medicine N.D. degree [p.2119].”
Note: professional, INTENSIVELY professional. Supposedly.
001.b. per “scien”:
“during the first two years, studies include the foundation medical sciences […] the second two years are devoted to the clinical sciences such as [...] homeopathy […] the College offers state-of-the-art facilities through a newly renovated multidisciplinary Health Sciences Center, a complete outpatient medical center which includes treatment rooms, laboratories, X-ray capabilities, hydrotherapy facilities, and rehabilitation equipment under the supervision of naturopathic doctors […] each of the science courses [required for admission] must include a laboratory, must be passed with a grade of C or better, and must be a course offered for science majors […] a minimum GPA of 3.0 in science courses is preferred [p.2119].”
Note: so the claim is that the foundation of the naturopathic is science. NOT! And homeopathy is not a clinical science, by far. Of course, UB places naturopathy categorically within the realm of health science anyway. And obviously UB demands science-expertise and -acumen from their incoming doctoral candidates! What's the point when...
002.a. Peterson's also states, on the same page:
“naturopathic medicine is grounded in the vitalistic tradition of medicine.”
Note: vitalistic, as in the “life force” figmentation or as I often express the whole thing, a belief in a 'purposeful life spirit' in charge of physiology. You are not informed that labeling the vitalistic scientific is about as accurate as labeling Creation Science scientific.
002.b. you can see what the actual context of UBCNM naturopathy is at UB's own web site:
the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural sectarian irrationally labeled scientific. Folks, that is called pseudoscience, and I've often called it, because it is so irrational, a mind-fuck. Galore. In fact, I've even called it “cultic mystical weirdness” at a deposition.
Note: this book, that declares itself “the authority,” is full of false nonsense regarding UBCNM naturopathy. It is likely that MANY people were induced by it into studying naturopathy through its false labelings. Again, seems to me that the pages of this book should be regarded as false-advertisement space. Unfortunately for the unknowing public, the commerce is unfair and the State of Connecticut is quite complicit so ain't nothing going to be done about it: here's CT's own University system promoting naturopathic irrationality.
003. the professions:
adhere to the highest of ethical standards, credat emptor [let the buyer have faith]. But, obviously, naturopathy is so academically and institutionally incompetent and wacko [I'm being polite here] that the buyer shouldn't have any faith / trust in naturopathy at all. Because naturopathy does not tell the truth about itself.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Peterson's Bastyr U. ND Program Profile: The Label of Profession and Science, The Reality of Nonprofessionality and Nonscience
here, I cite from Peterson's "Graduate Programs in Business, Education, Health, Information Studies, Law and Social Work 2004" (ISBN 076891146x) [below, I will simply call this source "Peterson's"] which falsely labels naturopathy 'professions-level science' [see 001., below]; then, I use my alma mater's own web page to show naturopathy's underlying essential nonscience context [see 002., below]:
001. Peterson's states in "Bastyr University School Of Naturopathic Medicine" [you can search much of it at books.google.com]:
001.a. per "profess":
"Bastyr University offers a four-year program of professional education leading to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine N.D. degree. The naturopathic medical profession [etc. p.2107]."
Note: professional, professional, professional. Supposedly.
001.b. per "scien":
"the goal of the program is to educate future physicians in the tradition of medical science and the art of natural healing […by] providing a comprehensive understanding of the basic medical sciences […] students receive a thorough foundation in the basic medical sciences […] the University’s mission includes the pursuit of scientific research […] Bastyr University was founded as a naturopathic medical college in 1978 to meet the growing need for scientifically trained naturopathic physicians […via a] comprehensive education in the natural health sciences [p.2107]."
Note: science, science, science. Supposedly.
002. underneath these labels, you can see what the actual context of naturopathy is:
Note: nonscience, at its core. Truly. By oath, though often the context is coded in naturalistic language. While only one large aspect of the naturopathic belief amalgam, vitalism is thoroughly science-ejected.
So WOW! A book that declares itself "the authority" is full of false nonsense. It is likely that MANY people were induced by Peterson's and Bastyr into studying naturopathy through false labelings. Seems to me that the pages of this book should be regarded as false-advertisement space. Unfortunately for the unknowing trusting public, e.g. the Bastyr entry, naturopathic commerce is unfair.
003. the professions:
adhere to the highest of ethical standards, credat emptor [let the buyer have faith]. But, obviously, naturopathy is so academically and institutionally science-illiterate, incompetent and unethical / false / lacking in integrity and rationality that the buyer shouldn't have any faith / trust in naturopathy at all. The buyer should run, instead: be that buyer a clinical patient or an academic customer.
Naturopathy cannot meet the laxer standard of caveat emptor [let the buyer beware]. Used car dealers are held to higher standards than naturopathy, which is allowed to basically be legalized robbery.
This misreference book has a prized place on my bookshelf.
the Economist states [via Carr, G. (? ?] in "Biology 2.0":
"the science of biology is being transformed [...] post-genomic biology -- biology 2.0, if you like -- has finally killed the idea of vitalism, the persistent belief that to explain how living things work, something more is needed than just an understanding of their physics and chemistry [...] no biologist has really believed in vitalism for more than a century [...] the promise of genomics, that the parts list of a cell and, by extension, of a living organism, is finite and cataloguable, leaves no room for ghosts in the machine [...] viewed another way, though, biology 2.0 is actually neo-vitalistic [huh?]."
Note: what a muddle, really. If the properties of a living organism are essentially due to the organization of their material [read physical and chemical] components [e.g., DNA all the way upwards], then we are not being vitalistic. AND, emergent properties which occur at higher levels of bioorganization that are not seen at lower levels of bioorganization do not support the idea of vitalism. That immaterial 'something more' is now, as it has been for several decades, a figmentation. Yes, but the author's language is a muddle. Neo-vitalism? That's like stating that a new astronomy discovery is neo-astrology. So, another final nail in the coffin of vitalism yet the author apparently still wishes to play with the 'ghost in the machine' figmentation. Something more is indeed needed beyond knowledge of JUST basic components [the micro]. We also need to know the larger say ecological picture when dealing with living things [the macro]. But, just because we're appreciating the micro and and macro conceptually, ghosts and figmentations should not be embraced if we wish to maintain science's epistemic and ontologic integrity.
here, I cite from a recent Telegraph article promoting naturopath D'Adamo's Blood Type Diet [BTD; see 001., below]; then I cite heavy-weight criticism of the whole apparent woo [see 002., below]:
001. Walden, C. (? ?) states in "The Blood-Type Diet: Weight Loss Need Not Be in Vein" (2010-06-16):
"ever since Cheryl Cole put her steadily dwindling figure down to the blood-type diet 'Eat Right For Your Type', British women have been pulling up their sleeves and baring their veins to nutritionists all over the country. First advocated by Peter D'Adamo, a naturopathic physician who believed he had found a link between a person's blood type and the foods their bodies would best be able to digest and absorb, the blood-type diet claims to be as much about health, energy and longevity as it is about weight loss [...] Carole Symons, a medical herbalist and nutrition adviser [...states] 'the future is clearly in the more accurate science of nutrigenomics' [...] this new science involves studying the effects of food on our genes in order to understand the relationship between nutrition and health [...] having ascertained that I'm blood type A Rhesus negative, she makes a few preliminary diagnoses [...] generally speaking, type As should stick to vegetarian-based diets; Bs to a varied diet of meat, grains, dairy and vegetables; ABs should be mainly vegetarian, with occasional meat, fish and dairy; and Os should stick to meat-based diets."
Note: how the article promises 'more accurate science.' The author apparently doesn't have any medical or scientific credentials. Her bio. at the Telegraph states "Celia Walden is a novelist and commentator who writes caustically about many troubling aspects of modern life, from male grooming to talkative taxi drivers." I guess the hair and the punning balance out the whole thing. Deep.
002. criticisms of the BTD, which are not hard to find even for a novelist, include:
002.a. the Mayo Clinic states "there's no scientific evidence to support the so-called 'blood type diet.'"
002.b. Wikipedia states:
"the consensus among dietitians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence [...and] another criticism is that there are no clinical trials of the Blood Type Diet. In his first book Eat Right 4 Your Type, D'Adamo mentions being in the eighth year of a 10 year cancer trial, but the results of this trial have never been published."
Note: sounds like a long wait for a train that ain't coming.
003. it's interesting when journalists don't adhere to journalistic standards, and instead become acolytes.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Dr. Stephen Salzberg writes in "Save Taxpayer $$$. Eliminate Alternative Medicine Research"(2010-06-16):
"this past week, President Obama called on all federal agencies to voluntarily propose budget cuts of 5%. Well, Mr. President, you might be surprised to learn that there's a way for you that [sic., 'to'] cut the National Institutes of Health budget without hurting biomedical research. In fact, it will help [...] save over $240 million per year in the NIH budget by cutting all funding for the two centers that fund alternative medicine research -- the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM). Both of them exist primarily to promote pseudoscience [...] these two organizations use our tax dollars – and take money away from real biomedical research – to support some of the most laughable pseudoscience that you can find [...] in addition to funding pseudoscience, NCCAM also 'educates' the public about alternative medicine. I put 'educate' in quotes because much of what NCCAM has on its website is misinformation, which serves to mis-educate rather than to inform [...e.g.] homeopathy [...which is] based on principals that scientists know to be false [...] getting rid of NCCAM and OCCAM won’t be easy. These 'alt.med' agencies have grown at the direct behest of the U.S. Congress, particularly Sen. Tom Harkin, who is woefully misguided where science is concerned."
Note: hear, hear.
Edzard Ernst writes in "Homeopathy: Curing With Kindness"(2010-06-15):
"numerous studies have shown that homeopathic remedies don't work. Why, then, do millions of patients swear that they do? The answer, says Professor Edzard Ernst, should be a lesson to all doctors [...then EE] the British Medical Association recently called homeopathy 'witchcraft', and a parliamentary committee recommended stopping all NHS funding for it [...] British homeopaths are this week celebrating their annual Homeopathy Awareness Week – a good occasion to try and find some answers [...] homeopathic remedies are so diluted that typically they no longer contain a single molecule [...] the theory of the 'memory of water' provides the answer, according to homeopaths. It postulates that, during the dilution process, some mystical 'energy' is transferred from the onion to the water. And that 'energy' then triggers a healing response in our body. This is all wishful thinking and romantic fantasy, scientists insist [...] many researchers across the world have reviewed the evidence and concluded that homeopathic remedies are pure placebos [...] the solution to the conundrum is quite simple, however: the remedy does nothing and the homeopath does everything [...] good medicine should always employ specific therapeutic effects (which homeopathic remedies do not possess), as well as the non-specific effects of the therapeutic encounter, i.e. time, understanding, empathy and human warmth, which homeopaths have lots of. Using only one or the other is quite simply not good medicine [...] Professor Edzard Ernst is the professor of complementary medicine at Peninsula Medical School, University of Exeter."
Note: hear, hear.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Edzard Ernst, "professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter," writes in "Homeopathy Awareness Week: Is This the Homeopaths' Last Stand?" (2010-06-14):
"[this week] British homeopaths are celebrating Homeopathy Awareness Week [...] earlier this year, a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the principles of homeopathy are implausible and that the evidence fails to show that it works better than placebo. The MPs also criticized homeopaths for trying to mislead the public by providing inaccurate information [...] last month, the British Medical Association described homeopathy as 'witchcraft' [...] homeopathy's fortunes have been crumbling for quite some time [...] in 2005, The Lancet even pronounced 'the end of homeopathy' [...] even as homeopaths celebrate their 'awareness week,' bloggers and skeptics – enthused by their success on the chiropractic front – might already be considering action against any unsubstantiated claims made by UK homeopaths. This could truly be the end of homeopathy [act II!]."
Note: speaking of inaccurate information, North American naturopathy, immune from developments in medical science and reason -- after all, they do still falsely label their essential vitalism "science" when truly discarded for more than several decades by science -- even now labels homeopathy science.
E.g., Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Frequently Asked Questions":
"Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine’s curriculum is science based and comprehensive. It offers a solid foundation in the basic sciences [...] the main healing modalities for an ND include [...] homeopathy."
So, with naturopathy, what is witchcraft, implausible, and doesn't work is a main method of treatment.
Monday, June 14, 2010
here, I cite from a recent AANP blog post by ND Birdsall [see 001., below]; then, from his employer Cancer Treatment Centers of America [CTCA] and its naturopathic absurdity [see 002., below]:
001. Birdsall, T. (ND Bastyr 1985), the AANP ND of the Year 2009, states in "The Problem with Research" (2010-06-10) [vsc 2010-06-13]:
"I began to ponder the question, 'what’s wrong with research?' A part of me becomes enraged at the reductionistic, allopathic [!!!], biomedical model [really!], which breaks things down into components so small that all synergism, all interdependence is stripped away [bullshit!], and then declares those components to be ineffective [ah, the 'closed-minded' accusation...] for naturopathic medicine to survive and thrive in the 21st century climate of evidence-based medicine [...] we should be willing to judge ourselves critically and objectively, and subject our therapies (and ourselves) to scientific scrutiny [great idea, you were SUPPOSEDLY DOING THIS ALREADY!...] in the end, we must create and validate the tools to dethrone the randomized controlled trial [RDBPCT] as the gold standard, and construct new ways [read: easier ways!] to validate clinical approaches to health issues. Much as the homeopaths of 2+ centuries ago [!!!] created the proving as a way to better understand and utilize their remedies, we must refuse to be limited by the way conventional medicine views health and disease [in other words, lets lower the bar and not demand quality evidence!...] only then will we be able to use the tools of research [weakened!] to promote and defend naturopathic medicine [because naturopathy has no quality evidence when standards are high!...sidebar] 'Physicians Who Listen' is the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [I'll say!] that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism]."
Note: well, sounds to me like naturopathy wants to greatly lower the bar by getting rid of rigorous inquiry. Once homeopathy is offered as a shining example, well...we've then hugely entered absurdity. It seems that what is preferred is vagarity over 'quality of inquiry.' Yes, critical, objective, scientific scrutiny of naturopathy is needed. It has actually happened. It doesn't seem like such has been done from within naturopathy. Yet, naturopathy is claiming such a 'has been done already status' when it labels itself "professional" and "science-based." When critical, objective, scientific scrutiny occurs -- from without because they don't do it themselves within -- naturopathy whines and claims alternate standards. The problem isn't what's wrong with research, the problem is a certain unethical sectarian pseudoscience amalgam.
002. CTCA, where Birdsall works as "Vice President of Integrative Medicine" states:
002.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-13]:
"naturopathic medicine [...] makes use of time-tested, scientifically grounded, natural methods to strengthen the body’s ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] this plan will include personalized natural therapies -- backed by scientific research -- to fortify you before, during and after your cancer treatment."
Note: so the claim is that naturopathy is science.
002.b. in "Kidney Cancer Treatments – Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-13]:
"the following principles are the foundation for the practice of naturopathic medicine:[#1] the healing power of nature: your 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: ah, ye ol' science-ejected life force. Not science, really.
So when is what's science actually absurdly what is science-ejected? Naturopathy.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
AMA and State of Alaska on Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism and "E-3.01 Nonscientific Practitioners"
here, I quote from the "AMA Scope of Practice Data Series: Naturopaths" (2009-09) document as hosted by the State of Alaska:
"[r.e. the] principles of naturopathy […] students in naturopathy schools world-wide are taught to abide by these principles: [#1] first do no harm […] illness is a purposeful process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generations of symptoms that are, in fact, an expression of the life force […] the vis mediatrix [sp., medicatrix] naturae, the healing power of nature […#2] the healing power of nature (vis mediatrix [sp., medicatrix] naturae) [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The naturopathic physician’s role is to facilitate this process [p.007...] therapies involving these putative energy fields are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy. This vital energy or life force in known by different names in different cultures, such as qi […] the vital energy or life force [p.012...] many naturopathic treatment modalities are not scientifically supported; yet practitioners of naturopathy continue to offer patients such treatments. Such behavior would not be tolerated in the practice of medicine. Care that is not premised on scientific evidence, and for which the patient is not informed of its experimental nature, would be considered unethical by the standards of the medical profession. Specifically, AMA Ethical Opinion E-3.01 states: 'it is unethical to engage in or to aid and abet in treatment which has no scientific basis and is dangerous, is calculated to deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking proper care' [p.006...] the Massachusetts minority report also notes that the medical code of ethics precludes physicians from collaborating with unscientific practitioners, such as naturopaths [p.018].'"
Note: hear, hear. Processes in the body are essentially based upon cause and effect, not purpose and not intelligence. This is teleology / goal-orientedness, and it often accompanies vitalism. Both are science-ejected. Ah, the old 'in fact life force' aka vis medicatrix naturae 'purposeful life spirit' science-ejected sectarian premise. AMA has spelled medicatrix wrong, as mediatrix [but hey]. And of course, unethics! I have often labeled naturopathy "an unethical sectarian pseudoscience." It's great to see some skeptics being referenced, including Atwood and DeAngelis.
I actually thing AMA is being rather kind: when in fact naturopathy's premises are science-ejected, and naturopathy is still engaging with the public under the false label of science, there's a whole-lot-o'-thievery going on.
I'm going to hazard that there is quite a collision forthcoming, and hopefully no more states will grand ND/NMD licensure to these whack-a-loons.
Perhaps some justice may happen for all those education consumers whom naturopathy had deceived.
The Alaska Association of Naturopathic Physicians' homepage is here.
The Alaska Association of Naturopathic Physicians' homepage is here.
Friday, June 11, 2010
the Center For Inquiry states, in "Acupuncture: A Science-Based Assessment":
001. per the synopsis:
"in recent decades, public interest in acupuncture has grown dramatically. Proponents of acupuncture repeatedly make the unjustified claim that acupuncture is an efficacious and cost effective complement to conventional medicine. These claims rely on dubious and discredited research data [ouch!...] acupuncture has no intrinsic clinical value [ouch!...there is] mounting empirical evidence against it [...] acupuncture has become increasingly embedded within the American healthcare system, in part through government funding of integrative medical clinics. The Center for Inquiry's paper on acupuncture, written by Robert Slack, Jr., offers compelling evidence that the uncritical adoption of acupuncture adds significant costs to the United States' already overburdened healthcare system, lowers standards of medical training and treatment, and lends dangerous and undue authority to pseudoscience, ultimately degrading respect for science in the public realm."
Note: hear, hear. The same could be said for naturopathy overall, which, at least when I was in school, taught a required course in acupuncture. I can't count how many NDs also are LAcs!
002. the main paper is available here. Highly recommended.
here, I compare two quite incompatible labels employed by naturopathy: one states that naturopathy is science-based, at the Massachusetts Society of Naturopathic Doctors [MSND; see 001., below]; and, the second states that naturopathy is essentially science-ejected, at MSND member Maiella [see 002., below]:
001. MSND states in “What Is Naturopathic Medicine?” [vsc 2010-06-11]:
“naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care […a] science [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances […] a licensed naturopathic doctor (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. […] they integrate scientific research with the healing powers of nature [HPN / coded vitalism…] as professional leaders and pioneers in science-based natural medicine, naturopathic doctors [etc.]."
Note: science, science, science. I always particularly like the claim that the essential principles of naturopathy survive scientific scrutiny [not!] and that naturopathy is “science-based” [not!].
002. Maiella, E.C. (ND Bastyr 2006) states in “Naturopathic Therapeutic Order” [vsc 2010-06-10]:
“[#1] stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae [HPN] (other names for 'vis' include 'qi', 'prana', 'life force'). This is the force that moves us towards health; it is the essence that invigorates us. Some modalities that we utilize to stimulate the 'vis' include hydrotherapy, exercise, yoga, mediation, craniosacral therapy, energy medicine and homeopathy.”
Note: this vis is the science-ejected / sectarian central principle of naturopathy. The large State-wide organization doesn't specifically reveal it transparently as the essential principle, but member Maiella does though neither communicate the fact that vis is science-ejected.
003. Distinct? Distinguished? Objective? Continually scientifically reexamined? Same science? Professional? Absurd.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
NMD Marcantel on Naturopathic / Integrative "Knowledge": Empowerment! E.g., Homeopathy the "Pharmaceutical Science"
here, I cite from a Youtube video by NMD Marcantel which speaks of 'empowering you with naturopathic knowledge' [see 001, below]; then, I visit her practice web pages where we're told that NMDs' science is 'typical' and they'll again empower you [see 002.a., below]; and, we're told that homeopathy is a science [see 002.b. and 002.d.]; and get a glimpse of naturopathy's underlying science-ejected vitalism [see 002.c. and 002.d.]:
001. Marcantel, T. (NMD SCNM 2003) states in "Meet Dr. Tina Marcantel, Naturopathic Physician" [vsc 2010-06-09]:
001. Marcantel, T. (NMD SCNM 2003) states in "Meet Dr. Tina Marcantel, Naturopathic Physician" [vsc 2010-06-09]:
"'I practice integrative medicine [...] or naturopathic medicine [...] I believe passionately in integrative healthcare [...] I've been a healthcare professional for over twenty years [...I'm] a licensed naturopathic physician [...] I'd like to take a few moments to share with you my philosophy about the practice of medicine [...] there are four guiding principles I like to use when working with patients [...#3] I will empower you with knowledge [no mention of naturopathy's essential vitalistic underpinning...] let's talk about these key points [...] it is necessary that we establish a relationship based on trust between the Dr. and patient [...] I'll empower you with knowledge [...subtitle] empowerment through knowledge [...] another of the underlying principles of naturopathic medicine is the Dr. as teacher [...] I want to teach you how your body operates [...] DrMarcantel.com.'"
Note: naturopathy's actually premise is not mentioned ['the Vis'] WHILE we are promised empowering knowledge. That seems like a little cruel. How can we make a truly informed decision? Trust? Professional? Ah, the sectarian underpinnings that dare not speak their name.
002. at DrMarcantel.com, we're told:
002.a. in "What is a Naturopathic Physician?"[vsc 2010-06-09]:
002.a. in "What is a Naturopathic Physician?"[vsc 2010-06-09]:
"naturopathic physicians (NMD’s) are primary care physicians clinically trained in conventional medical sciences with an emphasis on preventative care [...] in natural medicine the doctor seeks to teach and empower each person [...] in Arizona, naturopathic doctors are licensed and regulated by the State of Arizona Naturopathic Board of Medical Examiners. Physicians must have graduated from an accredited four-year, graduate-level naturopathic medical school and pass national board examinations [NPLEX]. The scope of practice in Arizona includes [...] homeopathy, acupuncture [...] and other modalities."
Note: ah, the promise that 'this is still regular science' and 'teaching and empowering' again. NPLEX itself labels homeopathy "clinical science."
002.b. in "F.A.Q."[vsc 2010-06-09]:
"what is a naturopathic physician? Naturopathic physicians (NMD’s) are primary care physicians clinically trained in conventional medical sciences with an emphasis on preventative care [...] What is 'homeopathy'? Homeopathic medicine is a natural pharmaceutical science."
Note: again, science.
002.c. in "Acupuncture" [vsc 2010-06-09]:
"acupuncture is a health science used to treat pain and other dysfunctions in the body. This science began in China and has been used as a medical treatment for over 2,500 years [...] how does acupuncture work? The human body’s energy (call the 'chi' in Chinese medicine) flows through meridians or channels that are normally balanced. The meridians can be likened to the flow of blood through the meridian blood vessels. If a disruption of energy flow exists, it can affect the entire body system, producing pain or symptoms throughout different areas of the body. Correction of this delicate balance corrects the body’s dysfunction or problem."
Note: there's some underlying science-unsupported science-ejected vitalism [remember when we were told that we'd be empowered with knowledge, and NMD's study regular science? Well, science has excluded such vitalistic figmentation for several decades, charitably speaking] falsely labeled science. This reminds me of the University of Bridgeport claim that within a division of health science is both naturopathy and acupuncture.
002.d. in "Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-06-09]:
"Homeopathy: A Little Dose Goes a Long Way [...] homeopathic medicine is a natural pharmaceutical science [...] the remedies stimulate the person’s immune system [bull...] immunization is also based on the principle of similars [bull...] the remedies used in homeopathy are very diluted. Paradoxically, the more dilute the remedies are, the more effectively they work. Although homeopathic medicines may be so dilute as not to have any molecules of the original substance, an energy or essence of the substance remains."
Note: so, a science label placed upon the energetic vitalistic science-ejected. Typical for naturopathy. Also typical is the warping of immunization into something that supports homeopathic figmentation -- when it doesn't actually. Gimpy has posted about the lack of EVERYTHING concerning homeopathy.
No. Knowledge that is not factually correct is not empowering. Engaging in commerce in such a manner, well...we know what that is.
Friday, June 4, 2010
here, I go back to THE scientific skepticism wellhead -- my 1957 copy of Martin Gardner's “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” (ISBN 0486203948) which Wikipedia describes as “a classic in the literature of entertaining scientific skepticism [...and] perhaps the first modern book of scientific skepticism of pseudoscience" -- and partly quote from what it says about naturopathy:
“Chapter 16 – Medical Cults. In no other field have pseudoscientists flourished as prominently as in the field of medicine. It is not hard to understand why. In the first place, a medical quack – if he presents an impressive facade - can usually make a great deal of money. In the second place, if he is sincere, or partly sincere, the healing successes he is almost sure to achieve will greatly bolster his delusions. In some cases, of course, the doctor is an out-and-out charlatan [..] there are two great secrets of the quack’s success. One is the fact that many human ills, including some of the severest, will run their course and vanish without treatment of any sort [p.186...] the other [...is] due to the fact that many of life’s ills are wholly or in part psychosomatic […] in this chapter we shall glance at four outstanding medical cults, all of them founded by pseudoscientists, which have won many millions of disciples in the United States […] the first medical cult of any importance in America -- homeopathy -- had its origin in the mind of a German doctor, Samuel Christian Hahnemann. He published his great opus, The Organon, in 1810 [p.187...] Hahnemann believed that as the drug became less 'material' it gained 'spiritual' curative powers [p.188...] the homeopathic error was to take both these limited truths, exaggerate them to the point of absurdity, and apply them universally to all medicines […] 'allopathy' [is] a homeopathic term, now obsolete, for orthodox medicine […] the cult spread rapidly over Europe in the 1820’s, reached England and America in the 1840’s, and came to its pinnacle of success about 1880 in the United States [p.189...] naturopathy, like homeopathy, is a world-wide medical cult which had its origin in Europe. Unlike homeopathy, however, it has no single founder […] in essence, it is a complete reliance on 'nature' for healing […] hundreds of strange methods of therapy clustered about the movement, so it is not easy to say exactly what the tenets of naturopathy are [p.191...] hundreds of schools calling themselves naturopathic sprang up here and there in the early years of the century. They were as frowsy as could be imagined […] there was little unity of beliefs behind these schools [p.192...it includes] iridiagnosis is the diagnosis of ills from the appearance of the iris of the eye […] anyone who thinks no medical movement could be more insane than iridiagnosis, is much mistaken [p.193...] shrewder schools of naturopathy have abandoned indiagnosis [p.195]."
Note: one big thing that has change regarding naturopathy is that naturopathy codified their tenets and belief-set in the late 1980s. That set of nonsense, insanity, and absurdity can be best found as sponsored by the State of Oregon.
002. for Gardner's Wikipedia page, click here.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Jeff Schweitzer states in "Redefining Life: God Need Not Apply" (2010-06-02):
"the fact that scientists have discovered no simple quality that defines life, after endless years of effort, is an important hint that life is not something materially different from non-life but instead represents a natural place in a continuum from simple to complex. History has failed to give us a good definition precisely because life was viewed not on this continuum from inanimate to animate, but as a huge leap from one to the other. To be alive meant having a special essence, something beyond the normal mechanisms that governed inorganic chemistry and physics. The tendency to invoke 'vital forces' to explain life endures today in much of the general public [...such] vitalism, the principle of endowing the living with a life force, is tautological and explains nothing. If something is alive, it must have a life force; if it is dead, a life force must be absent. That is not helpful. We now know that no life force exists. The laws of physics and chemistry are indifferent to our struggle to define life, and operate identically on the same principles whether we deem something to be living or dead. The carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and other atoms that come together to form our bodies are just atoms; they are the same elements that are found in the iron skillet in our kitchens and the nitrogen in the soil fertilizing our gardens. The atoms in our bodies are not special or endowed with any properties different from the atoms in every object around us. Iron is iron is iron, whether attached to hemoglobin in our blood or flaking off the hull of a rusting ship."
Note: right down my alley. Naturopathy, of course, instead claims that a life force is a scientific fact.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
at their blog page Naturopathy in New York, the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians hosts the essay "Preventing Chronic Diseases through State Licensure of Naturopathic Medicine" by [apparent nonND and undergraduate student] Goldstein, S. (? ?) who states:
"allopathic and osteopathic doctors [...] a naturopathic doctor who is trained in both allopathic and homeopathic medicine [...] naturopathic doctors, who will most likely see fewer patients in the same period of time when compared to allopathic and osteopathic doctors [...] after the four years, just like allopathic and osteopathic students, naturopathic students have a cumulative exam to license them as naturopathic doctors [...] naturopathic, allopathic, osteopathic [...] allopathic-MD, naturopathic-ND [...] pharmaceutical companies persuade allopathic and osteopathic doctors (M.D.’s and D.O.’s) [...] allopathic and osteopathic general practitioners [...] alternative (defined as other than allopathic) treatments [...] organized medicine (allopathic) [...] allopathic doctors [...] the allopathic health care field [...] allopathic and naturopathic [...] licensed allopathic and other physicians [...] allopathic physicians tend to practice within the structured framework of their medical doctor license [...] there is a considerable difference between how allopathic and naturopathic doctors are taught to treat their patients [...] allopathic drugs [...] teachers at the naturopathic medical schools, just like the allopathic medical schools [...] an allopathic medical student [...] allopathic medical students [...] allopathic medical community [...] allopathic medical community [...] allopathic and osteopathic doctors [...] allopathic and osteopathic doctors [...]
# of hours of basic & clinical sciences [...] conventional medical schools [...] ≈1524 [...] 4-year naturopathic medical schools [...] ≈1535 [...]
curriculum at one of the four, 4-year federally accredited naturopathic medical schools [...] spring & summer courses [...] The Vis Medicatrix Naturae [VMN...] credits [...] 1.5 [...] future naturopathic doctors in medical school are taught the six guiding principles of naturopathic medicine, such as 1) healing power of nature (trusting in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself) [coded vitalism...] the six principles of naturopathic medicine [are used] as the guiding reason for selecting specific treatment modalities."
Note: allopathy, allopathy, allopathy. It is as accurate to label modern medicine allopathy as it is to label modern astronomy astrology. So, I regard the categorical labelings of this long essay as unsound. I have labeled the mislabeling of modern medicine by naturopathy "the reverse sectarian accusation."
Also, it is not true that having a greater numbers of science classes in an ND degree than an MD degree makes naturopathy scientifically legitimate. I call this "the ND superscience claim."
When all is said and done, VMN overarches naturopathy's context, which is HPN, which is the science-ejected vitalistic context of naturopathy [coded here, because that is the naturopathic MO]. I call this "the thing itself."
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
here, I compare two quasi-historic book-published descriptions of the underlying principle of naturopathy [aka vis medicatrix naturae / healing power of nature / life force / spirit] from this current 'naturopathy revival' era. One, naturalistic, comes from the Murray and Pizzorno authored "An Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine" (1991) [ENM; see 001., below]; and the other, supernatural, comes from Pizzorno's [yes, same author as 001.] “Total Wellness” (1996) [TW; see 002., below]; then, I ask a simple question [because absurdly, in naturopaTHICKland, what is naturalistic and scientific, and what is supernatural and nonscientific ARE EQUATED; see 003., below]:
001. in ENM [ISBN 1559580925, 1991][which I own], Murray [ND Bastyr 1985] and Pizzorno [ND NCNM 1975] write:
001.a. in the dedication:
"[dedication] to the beauty, truth and wisdom [BTW] of naturopathic medicine. This book is dedicated both to naturopathic medicine [...] and to those physicians and healers who have bestowed the virtues of the 'healing power of nature' [HPN] throughout history and those who will do so in the future."
Note: so, we have HPN, and this claim of BTW. We will see that naturopathy's illogical actual position is ugly, untrue, and unwise: that that which is science-based is that which is science-ejected. Many would call that madness, instead of wisdom.
001.b. in the preface:
"this book was written in an effort to update the public's knowledge on the use of ‘natural’ medicines in the maintenance of health and treatment of disease. It dispels a common myth about the use of natural remedies - that natural medicine is 'unscientific'. This book contains information based on firm scientific inquiry and represents countless hours of research [...and] is without question the most thoroughly researched and referenced book on the use of natural medicines ever written for the public [...] it is designed for use in conjunction with the services provided by physicians practicing natural medicine. Readers are strongly urged to develop a good relationship with a physician knowledgeable in the art and science of natural and preventive medicine, such as a naturopathic physician [...] Michael T. Murray ND [and] Joseph E. Pizzorno, ND."
Note: so, there's a claimed goal of 'public enlightenment' [just as naturopathy has this oath-bound requirement of 'physician as teacher'], a claim of scientific and thorough rigor, a promotion of naturopathy as science, and a use of the label natural upon 'the naturopathic.' Now, JEP claims to be an expert on naturopathy the "science-based natural medicine", still.
001.c. in the first chapter of the book "What Is Natural Medicine?":
"[after the standard wacky quote by Edison that medicine will not medicate in the future, thus naturopathy (which loves to dispense medicaments!)] science and medicine now have in their possession the technology and understanding necessary to appreciate the value of 'natural' therapies [...] at the forefront of this revolution is naturopathic medicine [...whose] philosophical roots can be traced back to Hippocrates [p.003...] the naturopathic physician is trained in finding the underlying cause rather than treating or suppressing the symptoms [...] naturopathic medicine [...] traces its philosophical roots to the Hippocratic school of medicine circa 400 BC [...] prehistoric people believed that disease was caused by magic or supernatural forces, such as devils or angry gods. Hippocrates, breaking with this superstitious belief, became the first naturalistic doctor in recorded history [...] Hippocratic practitioners assumed that everything in nature had a rational basis; therefore, the physician’s role was to understand and follow the laws of the intelligible universe. They viewed disease as an effect and looked for its cause in natural phenomena - air, water, food, etc. They used the term vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN], to denote the body’s ability to heal itself [BATHI]. Naturopathy or 'nature cure' [...uses] natural means of preventing and treating human disease [p.004]."
Note: [so, ignoring the fact that NDs love to give out medicine, particularly from their own dispensaries, which is usually seen as quite an ethical conflict in actual healthcare] there is the overall claim that naturopathy is a form of naturalism, and that it survives scientific scrutiny. The Big H. is appropriated to support this claim. There is the equation of VMN-HPN-BATHI. Explicit in this explanation is that naturopathy's VMN is naturalistic, and that such survives scientific scrutiny.
001.d. in that same first chapter, we're told of the essential vitalism of naturopathy [this is why the 1991 edition of ENM is a real keeper -- I've had one since the early 1990s, and relied on its misguidance to plan for graduate school as well as the AANP's misguidance]
"vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature. Fundamental to the practice of naturopathic medicine is a profound belief [truly] in the ability of the body to heal itself [p.006...NDs] trust in the vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [p.012...] naturopathic medicine is 'vitalistic' in its approach, i.e. life is viewed as more than just the sum of biochemical processes [e.g., spirit is therein too], and the body is believed [truly] to have an innate intelligence [vital force] that is always striving for health. Vitalism [p.006…] a wide variety of different types of therapy can be employed by the naturopathic physician in the treatment of an individual, including nutrition, botanical medicines, homeopathy, acupuncture, physiotherapy, counseling and lifestyle modification […] homeopathy is a system of medicine that treats a disease with a dilute, potentised agent, or drug, that will produce the same symptoms as the disease when given to a healthy individual, the fundamental principle being that like cures like. This principle was actually first recognized by Hippocrates […] acupuncture is an ancient Chinese system of medicine involving the stimulation of certain specific points on the body to enhance the flow of vital energy (chi) [ p.007]."
Note: so, at the heart of naturopathy is vitalism. And vitalism is hugely science-ejected [this is a position paper published by ACTUAL scientists in 1995, a year before the TW book that Pizzorno published in 1996 (see below)]. Homeopathy is hugely bunk, and hugely vitalistic as I was taught when pursuing my ND at UBCNM. Take away the ancient Chinese medieval beliefs from acupuncture and you basically have a weak parlor trick. And again, we see naturopathy hijacking the Big H.
001.e. in that same chapter, we're told regarding naturopathic education:
"the first two years concentrate on the standard human biological sciences covering anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, microbiology, etc. The second two years are oriented towards the clinical sciences of diagnosis and treatment […] the therapeutic sciences [p.011]."
Note: science, science, science. Except, those sciences are not standard at all because permitted within them -- overall, because overarching naturopathy overall, by oath -- is the nonscientific sectarian.
002. JEP writes in TW (ISBN 0761504338, 1996)(also here)[vsc 2010-06-01]:
"some important concepts: the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae. Our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal […] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [p.003…] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life: the immune system, the detoxification system, the inflammatory system, the metabolic system, the regulatory system, the regeneration system, and our life-force or spirit [p.024...] live in harmony with your life-force […] each of us needs to become more aware of the activity of the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) deep within us [p.026...] the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae […] this teleological force, the healer within, that is the essence of each of us [p.333]."
Note: so, now VMN is spirit, which is life force, which is the underlying healing model for naturopathy, and it's purposeful, which means it has a mind of its own. And, now we're truly into the absurd: wherein, that which was claimed to be scientific and naturalistic is now science-ejected, supernatural and sectarian. This is naturopathic thinking at its core: an insane 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'.
when is something what it is not? The absurdity known as 'the naturopathic.' Naturopathy wishes to be both scientifically vetted and trades upon that label, but underneath that holds on to sectarian idealizations / contexts which are profoundly science-ejected -- mainly secretly.
How? By half-the-time engaging in opaque labelings / falsehoods. Not professional at all.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
here, I extend recent comments by UK doctors concerning homeopathy onto North American naturopathy [see 001., below]; which absurdly labels nonscience as science, particularly homeopathy [see 002., below]:
001.a. the Telegraph's Donnelly, L. (? ?) writes in "Homeopathy is Witchcraft, Say Doctors"(2010-05-15):
"hundreds of members of the BMA have passed a motion denouncing the use of the alternative medicine [homeopathy!], saying taxpayers should not foot the bill for remedies with no scientific basis to support them [yes they shouldn't!...] the BMA has previously expressed skepticism about homeopathy [!...] the annual conference of junior doctors has gone further, with a vote overwhelmingly supporting a blanket ban, and an end to all placements for trainee doctors which teach them homeopathic principles. Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in England told the conference: 'homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace' [...homeopathy's central concepts are] dismissed by scientists [...based on] principles which had no place in science [...] the motion was supported by BMA Chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum [...] the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said there was no possible reason why such treatments [...] could be effective scientifically."
Note: so, homeopathy is regarded preponderantly as 'nonscientific,' "witchcraft," and a "disgrace."
001.b. that British Medical Association meeting, "Junior Doctors Conference 2010: Motion 81," is available here [4:55:30 to 4:58:43].
002. naturopathy's absurd claim that homeopathy is science [really]:
002.a. see Nortman, D. (ND CCNM) who states in "This is Why Homeopaths Emphasize Clinical Results Over Theory":
"classical homeopathy is first and foremost a clinical science."
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
here, I quote some bizarre word-usage bending [as is typical of naturopathy's category blending] by MD Benda at the AANP's blog [see 001., below]:
001. MD Benda states in "Double Vision" (2010-05-24)[vsc 2010-05-24]:
"visionary [...] a word we’ve all heard countless times as we meander the naturopathic path [...but] visionaries who can discern reality are fewer in number [wow, quite a vote-of-competence for naturopaths in general...who see] the reality of our culture [...] and of our profession [hmmm, realism, how novel for naturopathy...and of] your fellow professionals [...naturopathy] is not always pretty, and definitely not as pretty as our conference and clinic brochures tend to proclaim [...] our organizations avoid dealing with whispered dissent from their membership [...] our internal dysfunctions [...] I believe your profession is at a crossroads [...naturopathy must make] a difficult and objective assessment at what is real in the present."
Note: profession, profession, profession!
I'm always amazed at how SCAM-type people take common usages and turn such on their head.
Now, AHD 4th characterizes "visionary" as: "[01.] characterized by vision or foresight [...02.] having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory [...] imaginary [...03.] characterized by or given to apparitions [...] daydreams [...04.] not practicable or realizable; Utopian [...] unrealistic [...] idealistic."
There's actually nothing in the word's usage that applies to here and now type realism / objectivity! Yet, Benda seeks to reverse the usage of the word. Perhaps that what he means by "double vision?" Doubling back on the definition? Wacko!
"Visionaries who can discern reality" is much like stating 'realists whose perceptions are inhibited by figmentations.' Therein, there is no delineation. And well, doesn't that go back to naturopathy's central talking point: "naturopathy blends". A long time ago by blogging standards, MD Barrett at Naturowatch characterized naturopaths as 'muddle-heads.' Perfect.
002. the AANP blog's sidebar states:
"[NDs are] 'Physicians Who Listen' [...this is] the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism]."
Note: again, profession. Yes, naturopathy is based on "belief." But, as usual, AANP hasn't accurately contextualized that belief basis. Instead, their language is selected to sound naturalistic and science-compatible.
003. a call to realism and transparency [and sanity!] aka the dissolution of naturopathy:
might I suggest naturopathy actually 'objectively assess' naturopathy's essential premises, realize reality, and communicate naturopathy transparently!
What is wrong with naturopathic thinking? I've termed it "naturopathy's blending / usage-reversal irrationalism."
Wherein figmentations are falsely posed as scientifically-based; and professionalism is posed as the same as manipulation.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Dr. Peter Lipson writes in Science-Based Medicine's "Naturopathy For Allergies" [2010-05-20]:
"naturopathy is an unusual chimera. It is basically a collection of old fashioned medical superstitions presented under a veneer of highly speculative, quasi-scientific assertions [...] it is important, from time to time, to evaluate specific claims made by this particular non-science-based belief system [...including] vitalistic mumbo-jumbo [...] a visit to a national (US) naturopathic association website [the AANP] is a painful lesson in how naturopathic believers view health and disease [...they say] 'very often, simple changes of diet, nutritional supplements, and homeopathic remedies can relieve this extreme reaction and the resulting inflammation that triggers most allergy symptoms' [...] none of these assertions is backed up by evidence. Most of it isn’t even promising enough to bother with [...AANP says] 'homeopathic remedies involve taking an extremely diluted form of selected allergens in liquid or sugar-pill form sublingually (under the tongue). These minuscule doses serve somewhat like a vaccination, stimulating your immune system to an effective rather than extreme response' [...] vaccination is to homeopathy as horseback riding is to unicorn wrangling [...] naturopaths, it would seem, are not 'medicine plus', but 'everything but.' Since they do not use proven, effective therapies, the[y] throw unproved, implausible therapies at their patients perhaps hoping that when the allergies relent as a natural course of the disease, they might finally claim credit. That’s what all the best shamans do."
Note: oh snap! He called naturopathy a "non-science-based belief system" while AANP states that naturopathy is "science-based" and "not a belief system."
I agree with the former.