Science Rejects Supernaturalism and Vitalism - Hall's 2010 ISBN 0763760390

here, I cite from an undergraduate science survey text centered on evolutionary science.  Note how, even within the undergraduate, nonscience major context, concepts such as supernaturalism and vitalism are overtly stated as nonscientific [see 001., below]; then I point out the anomaly of naturopathy, which at the doctoral level makes the absurd claim that those two concepts are indeed within science [see 002., below]:

001. Hall, B.K. (PhD{zoology} UNE, DSc{biological sciences} UNE) writes in "Evolution: Principles and Processes" (0763760390;2010) [the book is viewable at Amazon.com, in part]: 

"[this book is] written for students without a scientific background taking a one-term course [...and it] begins with a introduction to the nature of science [{on back cover}...regarding] vital force [or] vitalism [...] gaining freedom from such [religious-like, vacuous!] constraints was more difficult for biology (especially for evolution) than it was for physics or chemistry [p.433...] vitalism: the concept that the activities of living organisms cannot be explained by any underlying physical or chemical principles but arise from unknowable internal or supernatural causes [p.g21...] Darwin's works made clear that society no longer needed to believe that only the actions of a supernatural creator could explain biological relationships [p.435...] despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution as a natural process, some religous groups adhering to creation[ism] have developed intelligent design as a purported scientific alternative to evolution.  'Intelligent design' is latter-day creationism [...but] Kitzmiller v. Dover [..ruled it] a form of religion and not science [...] because intelligent design relies on supernatural explanations rather than natural causes, it is not science [...] religious arguments [...] are not scientific explanations and should not be confused with, or regarded as, scientific explanations [p.440]."

Note: science does not, obviously, include supernaturalism and vitalism.  Dr. Hall has both a doctorate in zoology, and in biological sciences.  This is a mainstream undergraduate biology textbook that, I think, speaks well for the preponderance of science regarding these two issues.  Vitalism, historically, impeded research, thus the language of "gaining freedom from such constraints."  It was regarded as a place-filler that diverted scientists from the gaining of actual knowledge, much as the "god did it" supernatural place-filler explained nothing -- essentially.

.
002. now, for the naturopathic.  Two versions come to mind that disqualify the naturopathic context or worldview as scientific.  There is the 'simple' Bastyr statement [see 002.a., below] and the 'more fractured' University of Bridgeport statement collection [see 002.b., below]:

002.a. Bastyr University, which has a naturopathic program that claims a "robust basic sciences curriculum" states, in their U.S. News and World Report [false] advertisement "Bastyr University" [vsc 2010-06-29]:

"Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature."

Note: the "nature" of course is naturopathy's central vitalistic context, the healing power of nature.  So, there you go, the supernatural and vitalistic falsely claimed to be within science.  Facts speak otherwise.  Integrating of course means to blend.  I have called such knowledge-type blending "epistemic conflation" [EC].  Science, truly, is not a conflation of knowledge types, but an "epistemic delineation."

002.b. the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine does the same type of EC, except it is spread across more than one web page:

002.b1. UB states vitalism and supernaturalism in 5 of their 6 defining naturopathic principles / strictures [vsc 2010-06-29]:

"Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, the Healing Power of Nature, Viz Medicatrix Naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism]. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process ['the vitalistic context!'...] Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #2, Identify and Treat the Cause, Viz Tolle Causam" [...] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional and spiritual [supernaturalism...] in "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #3, First Do No Harm, Viz Primum no Nocere" [...] illiness [sp., illness!] is a purposeful [that is, teleological, which is also science-ejected] process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [vitalism, claimed as fact!] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process ['this vitalistic context']. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of he [sp., 'the!'] viz medicatrix naturae [...] Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #4, Treat the Whole Person, The Multifactorial Nature of Health and Disease" [I guess they couldn't swing the Latin on that one, and considering the likelihood that their 'viz' is supposed to be 'vis', we're grateful] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism,a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. The physician must treat the whole person by taking all of these factors into account [...]  Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #4,The Physician as Teacher, Viz Docere [...] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher."

Note: so, they can't spell or proofread well and their Latin sucks.  So, five out of the six UB naturopathic strictures involve vitalism or supernaturalism [or teleology!].  Then, it is all labeled "science" [vsc 2010-06-29].  Again, EC.

003. fascinating.  Commerce, here in the academic area and then into the clinical area, occurring under OBVIOUSLY false labels. 

Note: now, an ND is obligated to this false position, by OATH.  Here is that oath [vsc 2010-06-29] by a Canadian CAND-AANP-AANMC type ND:

"I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of naturopathic medicine [...] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine: first, to do no harm; to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [vitalism!]; to address the fundamental causes of disease; to heal the whole person [supernaturalism!] through individualised treatment; to teach the principles of healthy living and preventive medicine. With my whole heart, before these witnesses, as a doctor of naturopathic medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath."

Note: the label of "science" upon principles, which, when looked at in detail, are science-ejected.

The big INTERNATIONAL logical inconsistency and ethical absurdity, of course is:

I pledge to remain true to this falsehood, for the benefit of society!  In actuality, society is being deceived, and science, modern doctoral education, and plain old common sense are being defecated upon.

The Magical Thinking and Made-Up Science that is Homeopathy - BBC 2010-06-29

Nick Triggle reports, in "Doctors Call For NHS to Stop Funding Homeopathy" [2010-06-29]:

"the NHS should stop funding homeopathy and it should no longer be marketed as a medicine in pharmacies, doctors say [...who] voted on the issue at the British Medical Association's annual conference [...they] dismissed the highly-diluted remedies as 'nonsense' and potentially harmful to patients as it can lead them to shunning conventional medicines [...] Dr. Mary McCarthy, a GP from Shropshire, said there was no evidence from hundreds of trials that homeopathy worked beyond the placebo effect [...] 'we risk as a society slipping back into a state of magical thinking when made-up science passes for rational discourse.' Peter Bamber, from the BMA's consultants committee, added: 'if you want to buy a bottle of water go to the supermarket.'"

Note: 'made-up' science is also called pseudoscience, IMHO!

The Michael Coren Show Naturopathy Debate 2010-06 - Selected Quotes - ND Tardik

here, I cite from the 2010-06-22 Michael Coren Show episode, which centered on CFI-CASS vs. NDs [Dr. Behzad Elahi and Michael Kruse vs. NDs Rouchotas and Tardik]!  This post concerns statements by ND Tardik:

Tardik, G.  (ND CCNM) stated:

"[concerning what he does as an ND] there’s lots of semantics.  You see complementary medicine, alternative medicine, now the buzz word is probably integrative [medicine...which is specifically] settings where you have practitioners from various disciplines working together [3.40...] we work together as a team for best outcome [5.12...] we work in a team environment [5.12...] it comes down to choice [4.38...] we do details. I’m a naturopathic doctor [5.03...] the context [...] the details are very important [5.39...Coren] there’s a certain text [...] there’s a primary work, a selection of primary works that you go by, and that you learn by, and that you study by? [21.20...ND Tardik] yeah, it’s called PubMed which is the universal database for all medical research [21.30...] I don’t know anything about the memory of water.  I’m probably more skeptical of homeopathy than you are [he said to the skeptics...] we rigorously analyze the research.  And what we do in practice, many times, is based on the very same evidence that any medical doctor would use [23.11...] the greatest amount of practitioners of natural medicine are medical doctors [44.10...] we’re not oblivious to the fact that naturopathic doctors have a long way to go [41.14…] we look at the science." 

Notes regarding:

-"integrative medicine [...and] work[ing] together as a team for best outcome", I can't figure out what is "best" as an outcome when regular medicine is positioned alongside the huge absurdity known as naturopathy -- as if they are 

equally legitimate [slumming!];

-"it comes down to choice", which was repeated many times.  When absurdity is compared to something rational, there really isn't  a choice because the facts then speak for themselves.  With naturopathy irrationally conflating knowledge that is scientific with complete and utter medieval figmentation, modern medicine is ahead by leaps and bounds;

-"we do details. I’m a naturopathic doctor [...] the context [...] the details are very important", well, if that were true and details where important, naturopathy would transparently explain itself, its context -- but, how do you stay in business then when you explain to the public that you are based upon an irrational conflation of knowledge type falsely labeled as a specific knowledge type!;

-"it’s called PubMed which is the universal database for all medical research", this was a surprising answer for me.  I'd expected the answer to be the "Textbook of Natural Medicine."  Instead, we're told that naturopathy is based upon perponderant medical science consensus, which sure as hell is the OPPOSITE of what the essentially naturopathic is;

-"I’m probably more skeptical of homeopathy than you are [...] we rigorously analyze the research [...we're] based on the very same evidence that any medical doctor would use", well, this actually SHOCKED me.  It must be hard to be ND Tardik.  Homeopathy is CENTRAL to naturopathy, and its philosophical creed is based in part of homeopathic philosophy.  Homeopathy is premised, as naturopathy is, on a vitalistic figmentation.  Is ND Tardik denying the principle premise that his ND oath is centered around?  The position offered instead is one of 'typical evidential rigor.' It reminds me of the "same basic medical sciences" label that naturopathy claims as the BASIS for itself, only to then add their overarching science-ejected figmentations from Cloud Cuckoo Land;

-"the greatest amount of practitioners of natural medicine are medical doctors", is an odd statement.  This may be true, but it doesn't make them right.  As far as I see it, "natural medicine" is inherently irrational and unethical: e.g., labeling the science-ejected sectarian as science-based nonsectarian.  I actually think the regular medical community, at least on paper e.g. the AMA Code of Ethics, polices regular doctors whereas the ND community actively trains their members into naturopathy's opaque, 'hide the true naturopathic and label it instead as science' mode;

-"we’re not oblivious to the fact that naturopathic doctors have a long way to go", is another shocker.  I haven't seen the ND community at all attempt to weed out its woo from the aspects of healthcare that are legitimate that it has subsumed.  How do you get there if you ain't even spinning your wheels? E.g., my naturopathic alma mater claims that science includes the nonscientific, and engages in commerce in that context.  I don't see ANYONE on the ND side making strides towards fair trade standards in naturopathic education, which would be a beginning towards bringing up naturopathy's academic standards to the actual professional rigor that they are already supposed to meet.  You have more rights on a used car lot!;

-"we look at the science", bullshit.  It is moreso this way: science is a commercially successful label that we place upon the science-ejected naturopathic.  We cherry-pick Pubmed citations, but on the preponderance, the essentially naturopathic is indeed a nonscientific belief system masquerading as 'science-based medicine.'

Call to Ban Homeopathy by UK Doctors:

the UK's Telegraph reports, in "Doctors Call For Homeopathy Ban" [2010-06-27]:

"delegates to the British Medical Association's conference are expected to support seven motions opposing the use of public money to pay for remedies which they claim have 'no place in the modern health service.' They are also calling for junior doctors to be exempt from being placed in homeopathic hospitals, claiming it goes against the principles of evidence-based medicine. The conference will also hear calls for homeopathic remedies to be banned from chemists unless they are clearly labeled as placebos rather than medicines."

Note: hear, hear.

Canadian Naturopathic Homeopathy Nonsense - naturopathicfoundations.ca

here, I cite from the homeopathy pages of naturopathicfoundations.ca [see 002., below] after I mention the NDs at that practice [see 001., below].  Then, I remind the reader that homeopathy, per the recent UK evidence check, is utter nonsense [see 003., below]:

001. the NDs at naturopathicfoundations.ca include:

Lloyd, I.R. (ND CCNM 2002), Konstantinou, T.F. (ND CCNM?), Rouchotas, P. (ND CCNM 2004), Rozendaal,E. (ND CCNM 2009), Smrz, D. (ND CCNM) [as of 2010-06-28].

002. naturopathicfoundations.ca states, regarding homeopathy, by way of several web pages:

002.a. in "Homeopathy: Philosophy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"homeopathy.  Homeopathic Medicine is an 'energy' system of medicine that recognizes that our body is dense fields of energy [naturopathicfoundations.ca explains elsewhere that this is a vitalistic / "vital force" type explanation]. Symptoms or diseases will manifest when there is a disturbance to the body's energy field [...] the philosophy of homeopathy is: [#1] like cures like. The healing response is stimulated by giving sick people extremely diluted forms of natural substances that cause the same symptoms when given to healthy people in a larger dose [etc.]"

Note: so, we're told by the NDs at naturopathicfoundations.ca that naturopathy's homeopathy is premised on the science-ejected vitalistic, and "like cures like."

002.b. in "Homeopathy: Uses of Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"uses of homeopathy: [#1] acute conditions are aided by stimulating and speeding the healing process of the body; [#2] chronic conditions often affect the physical, mental and emotional aspect of a person. The ability of homeopathy to work on all these levels provides hope, support and valuable treatment options; [#3] psychological imbalances respond well to homeopathics even if they are due to intense trauma [etc.]."

Note: these are claims of efficacy.

002.c. in "Homeopathy: Deciding on a Remedy" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"deciding on a remedy: [#1] homeopathic remedies are gentle and very effective [...#4] remedies may work very quickly, especially with acute conditions [etc.]."

Note: again, claims of efficacy.

002.d. in "Homeopathy: Homeopathic Remedies" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"homeopathic remedies [...#3] are highly dilute solutions that contain the energetic vibration of its source, not crude materials. For example, a 12X remedy has been diluted so that one part of the original substance is mixed with nine parts water or alcohol and then shaken vigorously (succussed). This solution then undergoes a series of 12 dilutions using the same 1:9 ratio; [#4] the effectiveness, potency and ability of the remedy to get deep within the body increases as the remedy becomes more dilute."

Note: again, the vitalistic science-ejected is called upon as the premise for homeopathy's action.  Efficacy is increased, they claim, by dilution of the "remedy."

002.e. in "Homeopathy: What You Can Expect" [vsc 2010-06-28]:

"what you can expect: [#1] symptoms often disappear in reverse order to their original appearance; [#2] healing progresses from more important organs to less important ones; [#3] healing progresses from the top of the body downward; [#4] the body seeks to externalize disease, keeping it to more external locations; [#5] symptoms lessen in intensity, you feel better and your mood and energy improves; [#6] initially, the symptoms that you have may aggravate for 24 - 48 hours. If you have any questions about your reaction to your homeopathic remedy, please call your naturopathic doctor [Hering's Law or the Law of Cure]."

Note: the idea of ADIO, "above down, inside out" aka the two fake laws above, is bunk.

003. meanwhile, back in reality, the 2010-02-08 evidence check that was published by the UK's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded:

 "by providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine [when it ain't!].To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should stop licensing homeopathic products [...] it is unacceptable for the MHRA to license placebo products—in this case [homeopathic] sugar pills—conferring upon them some of the status of medicines [...] for patient choice to be real choice, patients must be adequately informed to understand the implications of treatments. For homeopathy this would certainly require an explanation that homeopathy is a placebo. When this is not done, patient choice is meaningless [in other words, it is unethical because it cannot lead to informed consent...] we argue that the provision of homeopathy on the NHS, in effect, diminishes, not increases, informed patient choice [...] we conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note that this is the settled view of medical science [...] we consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible [...] there has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious."

Note: so, in sum, naturopaths are unethical for use of homeopathy -- period.  Now, I left ND school in 2002 particularly because I refused to participate in naturopathic unethical sectarian pseudoscience, including homeopathy.  That school STILL labels naturopathy "science" and within that, there is huge amounts of homeopathy.  But, then again, what's to be expected from a school that labels the hugely science-ejected for decades "science"?  My current timer for all this is titled "15 Fraudulent Years On."  That is, 12 years ago I started at UBCNM, after a few years of science-prerequisites. 

004. meanwhile, naturopathy persists in labeling homeopathy a "science", particularly on their NPLEx licensure exam!

The Michael Coren Show Naturopathy Debate 2010-06 - Selected Quotes of ND Rouchotas

here, I cite from the 2010-06-22 Michael Coren Show that was a debate between CFI and CASS's Dr. Behzad Elahi and Michael Kruse, and NDs Rouchotas and Tardik! The focus of this post are the not-very-surprising-things said by ND Rouchotas:

001. ND Rouchotas stated [I've tried to transcribe this as accurately as possible, all mistakes are my own responsibility, of course; I'll check against my video screen capture master if mistakes are pointed out]:

"[…to the moderator] we’ve nothing to hide, sir [3.15...] first and foremost, we want to take to time to differentiate someone with the qualifications of a naturopathic doctor from other people who masquerade as qualified complementary healthcare providers.  A naturopathic doctor has undergone no less than seven years of, and usually more years of post-secondary training [...] what differentiates our profession from many others is that we are given the legal right to make a diagnosis.  Now, what would be different in treatment? [...] we’re very apt to use a completely different array of therapeutic strategies [6.59…] the Naturopathy Act has just been established under the RHPA, Regulated Healthcare Practitioners Act  [...] sir, what makes you think that modern naturopathic medicine isn’t progressing? [14.41 and cites papers he’s read by Dr. E...] I’d be much more excited to discuss the evidence base as it exists toward naturopathy [19.19...] provide us an example of something we do that is not evidence based [...] are you up to speed on that? We are [25.03...] Artemisia has some interesting evidence for prostate cancer [25.57...] you are not making reasonable arguments.  You’re just not [28.02...] you giggle! [...] read, sir. Read [36.12...] this is well-entrenched science [36.50...] we are healthcare professionals, sir [38.55...] sir, again it’s about choice [...] and it is not true to say that it is not even close [44.38]."

Notes regarding:

-"we have nothing to hide" and "masquerade", I'm wondering why at Rouchotas's practice web site explanation page "Philosophy", naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism isn't overtly explained even though one of his ND colleagues at that same practice is author of a book on just that?  Oh, I think hiding that premise -- the essentially naturopathic 'vitalism that dare not speak its name' -- is quite a naturopathic modus operandi;

-"take the time to differentiate" and "no less than seven years of, and usually more years of post-secondary training", there actually is a distinction to be made between the science-supported and the hugely science-ejected (much as there is a distinction between noon and midnight) and naturopathy's essential vitalism is actually in undergraduate texts as SCIENCE-EJECTED;

-"profession", "we are healthcare professionals" an actual profession is obligated to the best interests of the client [fiduciary duty, credat emptor].  How are ND clients' best interests served when the we're not being dutifully informed about that 'naturopathic science-ejected essential figmentation' in the first place?  That one of the reasons this blog exists!;

-and "it’s about choice" and "it is not true to say that it is not even close", informed consent is a basic ethical requirement within modern medicine: the patient decides after all relevant details are disclosed. The real choice that would be honestly offered, I imagine, by an honest ND [!!!] would go like this: either you can go the medical route which is based upon the best current scientific evidence, or you can go the naturopathic route which has conflated the idea of evidence with nonevident sectarian figmentations -- and has labeled the whole thing science and nonsectarian;

-"the Naturopathy Act" and "RHPA", it mistakenly labels naturopathy a "profession",

-"what makes you think that modern naturopathic medicine isn’t progressing?", well, for starters, it is back in the 1500s as evidenced by the fact that it includes, within the label science, the supernatural -- conflating all knowledge types when in fact in this day an age there is delineation of such;

-"evidence", "the evidence base as it exists toward naturopathy" and "provide us an example of something we do that is not evidence based", well, the essentially naturopathic is indeed science-ejected [e.g. no vitalism in science, or supernaturalism] which is even worse than being science-unsupported;

-"are you up to speed", well, if such were true for naturopathy, it would stop using the false labels of science and professional upon itself;

-"you are not making reasonable arguments", I've never seen so as much nonsense as naturopathy and its claim that a sectarian figment-belief amalgam is an objective scientific fact;

-"read, sir. Read", strange, simply strange.  If any group is unread about the contents, methods, and limits of science -- it is naturopathy.

002. ND Rouchotas states at his practice, where he practices with 4 other NDs:

002.a. at his bio. page [vsc 2010-06-27]:

"Dr. Philip Rouchotas, BSc, MSc. ND [...] Philip graduated from CCNM in 2004, preceded by an honors undergraduate degree, and Masters of Science degree, both in Nutritional Science from the University of Guelph."

Note: science, science, science.

002.b. and the homepage for that practice states [vsc 2010-06-27]:

"the practitioners bring a strong scientific and energetic [see 002.d. for what this actually means] understanding to patient care. They also work with other health care professionals, as needed, to provide an integrated treatment plan."

Note: what is really being said is that science and vitalistic nonscientific nonsense have been blended here, and we are professionals -- though we can't, for the life of use, distinguish the hugely science-ejected from the actually science-supported.

002.c. the practice's page "Our Philosophy" states [vsc 2010-06-27]:

"our philosophy. Achieving health goals is a process and a journey. It involves becoming aware of the way your life impacts your health and understanding the changes, healthy lifestyle patterns and support that are the most beneficial for you. The body has a wonderful ability for self-healing. At times it is important to support this process and to recognize what needs to be changed. As trained health practitioners, our intention is to identify the healing strength of your body, to recognize obstacles and to recommend steps to initiate your body's innate ability to heal and/or to improve the quality of your life. We welcome the opportunity to walk with you on your journey to health and wellness."

Note: coded vitalism galore.

002.d. at the practice's page "Naturopathic Medicine: Philosophy and Principles" [vsc 2010-06-28], naturopathy's premises are supposedly explained:

"philosophy and principles: first, do no harm; support the natural healing process of the body [coded vitalism]; identify and address the root cause of disease; treat the whole person [coded supernaturalism]; teach the basis of health and self care; focus on prevention."

Note: and that's all you get.  Coding, coding, coding.

002.d. at the practice's page "Clinic Services: Energetic Therapies" [vsc 2010-06-28], they equate the 'energetic' with the 'vitalistic':

"energetic therapies. All living things have a 'vital' force and unique energetic pattern. When energy moves freely, health is present. When it is obstructed, stagnation occurs resulting in pain, discomfort or disease. The quality of life is directly impacted by the quality of your vital force. The focus of energetic therapies is to assess the body from an energetic perspective and then to employ different techniques that move energy blockages to improve the quality of your life [...per] energy which increases or decreases health [...] the energetic therapies that are practiced at Naturopathic Foundations Health Clinic include: polarity therapy, cranial sacral therapy and reiki [the NDs also label their homeopathy 'energetic', but I'll deal with that in the next Naturocrit post]."

Note: vitalism, vitalism, vitalism.  Overall, pardon my language: what a mindfuck.

003. well, NDs in debates aren't surprising, at least not in the case of ND Rouchotas.  The wild rolling eyes and the chair wobbling were delightful.  I haven't seen that kind of theatrical zealotry and squirminess in quite sometime.

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - ND Lloyd's ISBN 0443069557

here, I cite from Canadian naturopath Lloyd's 2009 book "The Energetics of Health: A Naturopathic Assessment" which is all about naturopathy's central, science-ejected vitalistic premise!

001. Lloyd, I. (ND CCNM 2002) states in "The Energetics of Health: A Naturopathic  Assessment" (ISBN 0443069557; 2009):

"the body has an innate ability to heal (vis medicatrix naturae) [p.xi...] we once again believe that human life is integrated with nature (holism) and that there is a force, beyond ourselves, that guides us (vitalism) [and teleology per its purposefulness, p.004...] Socrates [...] used the term logos or 'will to live' to describe the vital principle present in man, yet the origins of vitalism are often associated with Aristotle [..] the 'soul' animated and directed the body [p.005...] vital substances [...include] qi [...] qi is the animating life force and substance.  It is considered the essence of life and the origin of all other vital substances [p.021...] naturopathic medical principles and philosophy [...] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [p.029...] the naturopathic principles and philosophy are [...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [p.030...] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae).  The healing power of nature is an important principle of naturopathic medicine. [Quoting NDs Murray and Pizzorno] 'the basic philosophical premise of naturopathic medicine is that there is an inherent healing power in nature' [p.032...] the personal essence is a descriptive concept of an individual's vital or life force.  Vital force is considered the primary force of all forces.  It is the divine creative intelligence.  The collective life force, or vital force, is a common pool of subtle energy [...] personal essence refers to an individual's life force or vital energy, which comes from the collective life force [p.040...] systems theory supports the concepts of vitalism and holism [p.060...] qi or life force [p.102...] the naturopathic definition of health and disease is based on the concepts of holism and vitalism [p.120...] the life force or qi [p.196...] life force is the force, power or energy which enlivens the material organism [...] the spirit-like life force that enlivens [...] prana is the life force, equivalent to qi [...] the vital life-sustaining force [...] qi is a Chinese term for vital energy or life force [...] the concept of qi, or some similar life force, is incorporated into many therapies used in the holistic approach to health [p.238...] vitalism is the view that life is governed by forces beyond oneself.  There's forces are unique to living beings and permit them to go on living. The forces cannot be reduced to physical laws.  Often it is associated with the notions of spirit or soul [p.239]."

Note: particularly how this central naturopathic belief incorporates aspects of vitalism, spiritism, and teleology, what I call naturopathy's "purposeful life spirit" belief amalgam.  Energy, of course, is a cooptation of a scientific concept -- here, serving the purposes of supernaturalism. Actual energy is a property of the physical universe, not an ethereal metaphysical figmentation.

002. I've employed this Lloyd citation as an introduction to posts that will follow concerning the debate that recently occurred on Canada's The Michael Coren Show between CFI-CASS members and NDs Rouchotas (CCNM 2004) and Tardik (CCNM).

Rouchotas practices with Lloyd, and stated [quite condescendingly, in my opinion] on Coren:

"sir, what makes you think that modern naturopathic medicine isn’t progressing? [14.41...] read, sir. Read [36.12...] this is well-entrenched science [36.50]."

My answer would be this: 

well, what makes me think that so-called modern naturopathy isn't progressing is the fact that so-called modern naturopathy has ignored the progress of science, in the biological arena particularly, that has been occurring for several decades, wherein such essentially naturopathic concepts like vitalism, supernaturalism and teleology -- what Lloyd gushes over for an entire book -- are indeed science-ejected.

Read, sir, read [ya smarmy git].

In the sense that, truly, the science-exterior is falsely labeled science by naturopaths, ND opinings of  'the scientific basis of ____' or 'the scientific evidence for ____' are quite ABSURD!

Warning: science has been unlimited by naturopathy to such an untenable extent that naturopathy's use of the words science and evidence are meaningless.

UWSMPH Naturopathic Nonsense: NDs Fleming and Gutknecht in "Primary Care" 2010-03

here, I cite from a recently published article by ND Fellows of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health [UWSMPH] which makes certain 'certainly absurd' claims about naturopathy [see 001., below]; and those claims deserve some analysis, ex post facto [see 002., below]:

001. Fleming, S.A. (ND Bastyr 2007), Gutknecht, N.C. (ND NCNM) state in "Naturopathy and the Primary Care Practice" [Prim Care Clin Off Pract 37 (2010) 119-136; for the Pubmed citation, click here]:

Note: these NDs' bio.s are available at University of Washington School of Medicine and Public Health - Department of Family Medicine's "Current Family Medicine Fellows" [vsc 2010-06-23].  It is quite interesting [alarming!] that the Atwood Medscape articles [here, here] are not, in any way, recognized by the authors!  Can you say insular-cultic!

001.a. naturopathy's supposed science expertise-basis [there are 9 instances of "scien"]:

 "[listed from strongest to weakest, in my view] accredited naturopathic medical schools in the United States and Canada [...include the] National University of Health Sciences [p.124...from its references section] the future and foundation of naturopathic medical science [p.136...] candidates for admission to naturopathic medical school are required to hold a baccalaureate degree, and to have completed all standard premedical undergraduate course work prior to matriculation. The first 2 years of naturopathic medical education focuses on     basic and diagnostic sciences including anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, histology, pathology, embryology, neuroscience, immunology, pharmacology, physical and clinical     diagnosis, and laboratory diagnosis. The final 2 years of naturopathic medical education     focuses on clinical sciences and practicum. [p.120-121...] naturopathy is a distinct type of primary care medicine that blends age-old healing traditions with scientific advances and current research [p.119]."

 

Note: science, science, science.  I have an extensive collection of such 'naturopathic false science claiming / aka the science that ain't science.'

 

Overall, the claim is that the basis of naturopathic is science.  I'm pretty sure that the absurdity that I show in this post wouldn't pass muster at the bachelors level!  

 

Yet, this article speaks of a kind of expertise in all this [per 8 instances of "doct"]:

 

"principles of naturopathic medicine [...#4] doctor as teacher (docere) – NDs educate patients [...] NDs are trained over 4 years at accredited doctoral-level naturopathic medical schools [p.120]."  

 

So, we are to believe that NDs have the qualifications to be legitimate educators with doctoral-level rigor!

001.b. naturopathy's essential nonscience, per "life force" [1 instance] and coding of such as "medicatrix" [2 instances]:

 

"naturopathic therapeutic order [...its requirement #3] address weakened or damaged systems or organs [...its point #7] harmonize life force [LF, p.123..] Box 1: Principles of Naturopathic Medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN are codings for LF...p.120...] Box 2: Naturopathic Therapeutic Order [...#2] stimulate the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): the self-healing processes [again no transparent mention of vitalism, p.123...other euphemisms of naturopathy's defining vitalistic context include] the body's innate healing capacity [p.119...] the body's natural healing mechanisms [p.120...] the body's natural healing mechanisms [p.124...] autoregulatory and self-healing processes [p.127]."

Note: vitalism, vitalism, vitalism defines naturopathy, upon the preponderance.  Such is hugely science-ejected, which means that what naturopathy really is is a pseudoscience / hoax.

001.c. naturopathy's supposed professionalism ["profess" has 8 instances]:

 

"the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC) [...] acts to promote the naturopathic profession by ensuring rigorous educational standards [p.120...] the naturopathic profession [p.122...] the licensing of NDs is determined at the state or province level in countries that regulate the profession [...] NPLEx follows the same standards as the National Board of Medical Examiners (for the USMLE), the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, the National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, and other health care professions [...] licensing laws for NDs increase public safety by ensuring consistency of education [and] professional standards [p.123...] excessive standardization to cater to credentialing needs may be unfavorable to both NDs    and their patients, as individualized care is fundamental to the profession [p.124...the] naturopathic profession [p.125...from references, the] naturopathic profession growing rapidly in US and Canada [p.133]."

 

Note: since professionalism is this highest relationship that can occur between a discipline and the public, I think a lot is being promised here ethically. But, obviously, it is a facade.  For instance, "homeo" occurs in this article 33 times.  Rigor? No.

002. for insight into the nonsense that this all is, I go to the alma maters of both NDs:

 

002.a. at Bastyr University, we're told in "Bastyr University" [vsc 2010-06-23]:

 

"Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences [not supernaturalism or vitalism] with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit [supernaturalism] and nature [vitalism]."

 

Note: yes, we are being told that within science is the nonscientific.  In essence, we are being told that different mutually exclusive types of knowledge are equal, similar and within one another.  Insane.

002.b. but, NCNM is BY FAR the larger, more verbose repository for such huge knowledge-conflation insanity per "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-06-24]:

 
"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: 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 [...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development."

 

Note: so, herein we're told by the heart of the ND world that the science-exterior is science-interior.  Not.

 

003. so, the 'nonsense knowledge-type conflation insanity' known as naturopathy continues.  It poses as legitimate [though not] in the form of academic institutions, people in white lab coats, and in supposed professional journals [minimally].

The Essential UnderLYING Science-Ejected Vitalism of BINM By Way of BCNA By Way of BINM

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."

Peterson's Entry for NCNM: Ye Old “Science-Based Vitalistic” Naturopathic Nonsense

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.

003. beware:

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.

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:

the science-ejected vitalistic.

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 on Vitalism's Death [Ah, Dead Again]:

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.

Gushing Over the Blood Type Diet at The Telegraph, and then Actual Science:

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.