Q and A with the AANMC Regarding 'The Science of Naturopathy' on Facebook 2010-06

here, I recount an exchange I had at the AANMC page on Facebook.  I'd asked AANMC directly about naturopathy's science-basis, and AANMC indirectly answered [see 001.a.]. I then present a summary of AANMC's 'homeopathy and naturopathy are scientific' absurd claim, as if from their own perspective [see 001.b. etc., below]:

001.a. the recent exchange [vsc 2010-07-04]:

Q: "I've noticed that on your web site you state naturopaths' 'diagnoses and therapeutics are science based.' I was wondering if AANMC has a preferred definition of 'science'?"

A: "Rob, naturopathic medical schools require their students to study anatomy, biochemistry, human physiology, histology, human pathology, immunology, macro and microbiology, neuroscience and pharmacology in the first two years [science!]. Naturopathic physicians use science and their knowledge of holistic therapies to diagnose and treat patients. You can read more about the academic curriculum for naturopathic students by following the link below. Thank you for your question and interest in naturopathic medicine."

Note: my question wasn't directly answered, yet the impression of the AANMC answer is that naturopathy's science is 'the preponderant science.'  The AANMC linked to the AANMC page "Academic Curriculum", which makes these claims:

"naturopathic medicine students [...] are educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic physicians [...] during their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences and diagnostics [...] some member schools in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic medical schools [and AANMC links to ALL of their member schools]. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

So, science, science, science -- as a foundation / base!  A word on AANMC's label "allopathic": it is a bogus label applied bogusly to modern medicine.  It is as proper to call modern medicine allopathy as it is to call modern astronomy astrology.  Wow, naturopathy is so [not] into being ACCURATE!  Now, one naturopathic statement that hugely contradicts all this "science" background / expertise / content is the absurd label that AANMC puts on naturopathy's homeopathy -- the sugar-pill treatment! -- in "AANMC Brochure" [vsc 2010-04-07]:

"the final two years [of ND school] offer comprehensive clinical training in the holistic and nontoxic approaches to disease treatment and prevention that distinguish naturopathic medicine. In their supervised, hands-on experiences with patients, students learn to scientifically apply [...] homeopathic medicine." 

Yet, homeopathy is bunk.  So bunk, in fact, that in the UK it is considered akin to witchcraft.

   

001.b. also at Facebook, AANMC claims in "Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC)'s Photos - Naturopathic vs. Allopathic Science Hours" [vsc 2010-07-04], through one gallery diagram in particular, "An ND's Basic Science Education" [vsc 2010-07-04]:

"[first number is 'allopathic MD', second is 'naturopathic ND'] anatomy & embryology: 13, 19; histology: 6, 5; physiology: 5, 14; biochemistry: 8, 12; pathology: 10, 12; microbiology / immunology: 11, 10.5."

Note: I'd boil this down to a claim by naturopathy that naturopathy students, overall, study more basic science than regular medicine, and therein naturopathy is claiming equal in science if not more science expertise than regular medicine.  Yet, HOW does homeopathy, hugely science-implausible and without merit, get labeled "science" -- even on naturopathy's board exams?  This goes back to my question to AANMC.

So, I believe naturopathy's definition of science could be posed like this: science is like a letterhead on a blank piece of paper to us, which we then fill up with any kind of nonsense we please.

002. so, how absurd is the claim by naturopathy that 'the naturopathic survives scientific scrutiny'?  

to sum it up, this is how absurd naturopathy could be posed as: 'even when science hugely ejects profoundly nonscientific things [by definition!], we here at 'naturopathy central' still falsely label such science.  Take our homeopathy, for instance!  It's science -- to us.'

AANMC has stated quite overtly that naturopathic therapeutics and diagnostics are science based.

But, naturopathy's homeopathy hugely contradicts this claim.

6 Current Examples of the Coded Vitalism of Naturopathy's Code of Ethics [ISYN]!

here, I search Google.com with the language >"code of ethics" medicatrix<.  I chose 6 examples from the first two pages of hits.  Have you ever seen a [supposed] code of ethics [COE] that is so opaque that the language used codes [not to pun!] for 'that which we dare not overtly speak about [our science-ejected vitalism]?'  Naturopathy's COE is explicit proof that, from the get-go, naturopathy is 'NOT what it usually presents itself as' [aka, look closer and you'll find ABSURDITY]:

001. the American Naturopathic Medical Association's "Code of Ethics" [vsc 2010-07-02] which states, different from AANP types / competitors:

"I will [...] practice the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: and that's all you're told there.

Naturopathy's decoding of HPN-VMN occurs:

a) in their central textbook, wherein we're told by NDs Zeff, Snider and Myers:

"the vis medicatrix naturae,[is] the vital force, [which is] the healing power of nature [p.034]."

b) at the College of Naturopathic Medicine of the University of Bridgeport, which states on this page [vsc 2010-06-29]:

"guiding principle #1, the healing power of nature, viz medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force."  This is also in the overarching Connecticut ND oath, by way of the Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association page [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"according to my best ability and judgment, I will use methods of treatment that follow the principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] vis medicatrix naturae - to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature."  Oh, how they hate to be explicit!  Coded codes of ethics, galore.

002. Fasig, A. (ND Bastyr 2003) in "Naturopathic Medicine Code of Ethics" [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health by providing individualized care, according to his/her ability and judgment, following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: such essential naturopathic vitalism is also coded here in "Naturopathic Principles" and in "Naturopathic Oath."

003. Wing, L.H. (ND NCNM 1984), Morrison, M. (ND NCNM 1995), Lenger, B. (ND Bastyr 2001), Grove, A. (ND Bastyr 2002) in "AANP Position Paper: Naturopathic Code of Ethics":

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health by providing individualized care, according to his/her ability and judgment, following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: the NCNM NDs particularly should know that they are coding vitalism, because that school explicitly states it here.

004. the Quebec Association of Naturopathic Medicine [QANM]states it in "Guide to the Ethical Conduct of Naturopathic Doctors" [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"the naturopathic doctor will practice the art, science and spirit of the profession to the best of his/her ability and judgment following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic doctor shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: additionally, we're told in that COE, after being [falsely] told that this is a profession and science, that the "[ND] will recognize a responsibility to give the generally held opinions of the profession when interpreting knowledge of a scientific nature to the public."  So, if the 'profession' deems science to include the nonscientific -- as it does -- you are bound by naturopathy's 'ethics' to also do the same.

QANM does not transparently communicate naturopathy's essential vitalism in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" instead stating:

"naturopathic medicine is a comprehensive primary health care profession distinctive by its unique philosophy and practice.  It seeks to promote health through education and the scientific use of natural therapeutics [...] the philosophical foundation of naturopathic medicine is based on the following five basic principles [...#4] vix [sp., vis] medicatrix naturae: only nature heals."  Yes, they misspelled "vis" "vix"!  Yes, instead of revealing the science-ejected nature of their nature, they instead claim that their HPN-VMN survives the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

005. Queensland, Australia ND Noakes, J. (ND ?) (bio page here) in "Naturopathic Code of Ethics" [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health by providing individualized care, according to his/her ability and judgment, by following these 6 principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: North American naturopathy language has been spreading globally.

006. the Minnesota Association of Naturopathic Physicians page "About MNANP" [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health by providing individualized care, according to his/her ability and judgment, following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: again, coded vitalism is a supposed code of ethics.

NYANP - Naturopathy's Vitalism-UnExplicit Code of UnEthics

here, I analyze the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians [NYANP] page "Code of Ethics" [see 001., below]; and then I illustrate how naturopathy is fundamentally unethical, even on this AANP chapter's ethics page [see 002., below]:

001. NYANP states in "Code of Ethics [COE]" [vsc 2010-07-01]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health [...] following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#1] first, do no harm [...] primum non nocere [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae) [...#4] the naturopathic physician shall educate [...] doctor as teacher [...] the naturopathic physician shall acknowledge the worth and dignity of every person [...] the naturopathic physician shall act judiciously to protect the patient and the public when health care quality and safety are adversely affected by the incompetent or unethical practice by any person [...] the naturopathic physician shall [...] strive for professional excellence through assessment of personal strengths, limitations and effectiveness and by advancement of professional knowledge [...] the naturopathic physician shall conduct her/his practice and professional activities with honesty, integrity and responsibility for individual judgment and actions [...] the naturopathic physician shall strive to participate in professional activities to advance the standards of care, body of knowledge and public awareness of naturopathic medicine [...] the naturopathic physician shall respect all ethical, qualified health care practitioners and cooperate with other health professions to promote health for the individual, the public and the global community [...] the naturopathic physician shall strive to exemplify personal well-being, ethical character and trust worthiness as a health care professional."

Note: I will respond to what's in red in 002.  Note: NYANP lists their Board of Directors as:

"Donielle Wilson, ND [Bastyr] - President [...] Peter B. Bongiorno ND [Bastyr], LAc - Vice President [...] Sharon Stills, ND [SCNM] - Treasurer [...] Ed Murach, ND [Bastyr 2003] LAc - Secretary [...] Robert Woodbine, ND [NCNM...] James Prego, ND [Bastyr 2004...] Paul Mittman, ND [NCNM 1985...] Sean Heerey, ND [NCNM]."

002. analysis of 001.'s COE highlights:

002.a. regarding "self-healing power of nature [...] vis medicatrix naturae [SHPN-VMN]":

this is naturopathy's vitalistic context, coded.  Wow, this COE gets off to a really bad, unethical / opaque start!  How are patient's to be adequately informed if EVEN the COE of naturopathy doesn't transparently disclose naturopathy's essential sectarian science-ejected context and instead engages in coding?  This doesn't meet the disclosure requirements of commerce, never mind the higher transparency requirements of professionalism!  In order to be informed fully, NDs would need to tell you explicitly what SHPN-VMN means and that it is indeed science-ejected.  Here's some help, by way of the alma mater of four of the NYANP BOD members (Stills, Woodbine, Mittman and Heerey), NCNM, who hosts the page "Principles of Healing" which states:

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process."  Ah, that science-ejected premise of vitalism, transparently stated at the source of North American naturopathy.  But, I wouldn't be too relieved: NCNM, on the same page, states "these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."  Yes, NCNM then states the falsehood that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny.  In fact, on that page, NCNM states that vitalism is "in fact."

 
002.b. regarding "first do no harm":
 

the context of this rather naturalistic- and reasonable- sounding principle is actually vitalistic.  Again, via NCNM and that same page, we're told clearly:

 

"first do no harm -- primum no nocere.  The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae; therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized."

 

Note: so, again, vitalism is at the CORE of naturopathy BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION.  But, you may ask, why won't NYANP tell the public that directly / themselves?  Something as simple-sounding as nonmalefeasance [!!!] / do no harm codes a sectarian, figment-centered article of faith context.

 

002.c. regarding "the naturopathic physician shall educate":

 

well, seeing as science has hugely ejected vitalism from itself for hugely mundane reasons, I wouldn't count on anything but miseducation from, as Barrett has said, 'these muddle-heads'!

 

002.d. regarding "naturopathic physician shall acknowledge the worth and dignity of every person";

 

when the alma mater / trunk of all this is so FALSEHOOD based, hmmm.  How is incompetence, science-illiteracy, and plain old irrationality going to lead to such a noble goal?  In embracing this nonsense, I don't even think NDs are acknowledging their own worth and dignity!

 

002.e. regarding "when health care quality and safety are adversely affected by the incompetent or unethical practice by any person":

 

my irony meter is off the scale!  Naturopathy is both incompetent and unethical!  It's very premise, that the science-ejected is the scientific hugely degrades health care quality and safety, because it's INSANE!

 

002.f. regarding "professional excellence [...] professional knowledge":

 

they love the professional label.  But, insanity is not excellent.  And when all kinds of knowledge are blended and mislabeled as science, then no knowledge actually exists.

 

002.g. regarding "honesty, integrity and responsibility":

 

well, this COE page is dishonest, in my view.  So, so much for that.  All of the NDs listed as NYANP BOD members do not, even on their own web practice pages, clearly communicate the science-ejected vitalistic core that is naturopathy.  There is no integrity.  None of this nontransparency fulfills the responsibilities of professionalism.

 

002.h. regarding "to advance the standards of care":

 

NDs label homeopathy a "clinical science" on their NPLEX board exam. That's like dentistry including the Tooth Fairy in their SOC.

 

002.i. regarding "knowledge and public awareness of naturopathic medicine":

 

again, the irony meter is almost busted!  NDs don't abide by the preponderant / consensus definition of what actually is within science: and that excludes vitalism, supernaturalism, and teleology.  And they don't transparently communicate 'the essentially naturopathic.'

 

002.j. regarding "ethical, qualified":

 

not.

002.k.regarding "cooperate with other health professions":

not health professionals.

002.l. regarding "ethical character and trust worthiness as a health care professional":

ha, ha, ha, ha.

ISYN

you cannot make this stuff up:

Fairfield, CT.

Naturopathy's Superscience Claim - a Google.com Search 2010-06-30

here, I use Google.com and the term >"more hours of basic and clinical science"<.  Guess what pseudoprofession it entails?  Here are the first-page hits, excluding my own appendices and some indirect junk:

001. the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges pages [vsc 2010-06-30]:

001.a. "Academic Curriculum" which states:

"naturopathic medicine students learn to treat all aspects of family health and wellness, from pediatrics to geriatrics. They attend four-year graduate-level programs at accredited institutions, where they are educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!] physicians. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences and diagnostics [...] some member schools [the link then lists ALL AANMC schools, where we're told "these superior colleges are accredited and meet both federal and academic standards"] in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: so there's naturopathy's 'science as a basis and foundation', and naturopathy's 'superscience' claim of studying more science than MD programs which they mistakenly label allopathic [calling modern medicine allopathic is akin to calling modern astronomy astrology].  Yet, naturopathy falsely labels what is well outside of science as science. This is, of course in their view, "superior."

001.b. "Naturopathic Medicine FAQ" which states:

"for a basic science foundation and overall exposure to help prepare you for naturopathic medical studies, consider the following: read the 'Textbook of Natural Medicine' – a very comprehensive and often-used reference among NDs and MDs as well [ISYN...] earn a bachelor’s degree, preferably with a pre-medical or other science major [...] students are educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD or DO as well as the latest advances in science [...] ND students are educated in the same basic sciences [...] as allopathic [!] medical students. Some AANMC-member schools require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools [...] prior to admission into a naturopathic medicine programs, the typical entering ND student has completed three years of pre-medical training and earned a bachelor of science degree."

Note: regarding the TNM, all I have to say is WOW!  So this is of "a basic science foundation", the TNM's explanation of naturopathy's science-ejected essential premise.  Wow.  When searched, you'll learn such science-ejected and science-exterior essentially naturopathic contexts as:

"the removal of the obstacles to cure, which allows the action of the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [...] is the first step in the hierarchy of healing and what naturopathic physicians may call the overarching clinical theory of naturopathic medicine: the therapeutic order [p.034]."

  "Danger Will Robinson, science and nonscience are the same thing -- in naturopathy." 

Such cruelty!!!

001.c. "Naturopathic Physicians Are Rigorously Trained" which states:

"licensed naturopathic physicians have attended four-year professional-level programs at accredited institutions, where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!] physicians. Some member schools in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools.  During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences [...] students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation [...] today’s naturopathic physicians artfully blend modern, cutting-edge diagnostic and therapeutic procedures with ancient and traditional methods. They offer the world a healing paradigm founded on a rational balance of tradition, science and respect for nature."

Note: now, that last sentence is really stating that naturopaths label as science ALL kinds of knowledge.  "Nature", of course, is their science-discarded vitalistic, supernatural, teleological context.

002. Naturopathic Doctors International's -- which includes NDs Parker, T. (ND NCNM),Neubauer, T. (ND ), and MD Benda, B. (ND ) --  "FAQ's" which states:

"licensed naturopathic physicians have attended four-year professional-level programs at accredited institutions, where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!]  physicians. Some naturopathic schools may even require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools.  The first two years of study focuses on basic and clinical sciences [...] naturopathic physicians use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: science, science, science.

003. ExploreHealthCareers.org's "Naturopathic Doctor" which states:

"licensed naturopathic physicians have attended four-year, professional-level programs at accredited institutions, where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!] and osteopathic physicians.  For admission into most naturopathic medicine programs, students must have a bachelor of science degree, including three years of pre-medical studies.  The ND curriculum is comparable to that of any major allopathic [!] or osteopathic medical school. In fact, some naturopathic medical schools require more hours of basic and clinical science than do top allopathic [!] or osteopathic medical schools."

Note: science, science, science.

004. Innovations Wellness Center's -- Wilson, K. (NMD SCNM) -- "Naturopathic Medicine"  which states:

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] licensed naturopathic physicians have attended a four-year undergraduate program plus a four-year professional-level programs at accredited institutions, where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!] physicians. These programs actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences [...] students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: science, science, science.

005. Association of Washington Businesses's "Member Profile: Bastyr University: Moving Health Care Forward Naturally" which states:

"the Seattle area has long been known as a center for biomedical research and education. Not so well known is that, tucked away on a wooded 51-acre campus east of Seattle is one of the world's leading academic centers for the natural health arts and sciences -- Bastyr University [...] students who go to Bastyr to earn their undergraduate, graduate or doctoral degrees know they are not only choosing 'the road less taken' academically and vocationally — they are also enrolling in a school that requires more hours of basic and clinical science than many of the nation's top medical schools [...] once [conventional] practitioners started talking to our clinicians and scientists, they quickly realized that they are rigorously trained in science-based natural medicine' said Callahan [(PhD{education} UW)...] vice president for research and collaboration [see http://www.bastyr.edu/academic/profiles/people/tcallahan.asp) which states "Callahan is overseeing the curriculum, assuring that there is consistency across programs, and that the basic sciences in every program are rigorous and at the 'science-major' level]."

Note: science, science, science.

006. Tacoma Clinic's -- who are NDs Lamson, D.W. (ND Bastyr), Hinchcliffe, C. (ND Bastyr), Ellis, W. (ND NCNM), Franks, O. (ND Bastyr), Russel, L. (ND Bastyr), Tompkins, K. (ND Bastyr), Sherman, J. (ND NCNM), Zeoli, D. (ND ) and MDs Wright, J.V. (MD ) and Janes, M. (MD NCNM) -- in "Naturopathic Physicians":

"naturopathic physicians combine the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science [...] a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) has attended a college or university, both completing required 'pre-requisites' such as undergraduate chemistry and biology, and earning a four-year B.A. degree. He or she then has attended a four or five year graduate-level accredited naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...] naturopathic medicine students learn to treat all aspects of family health and wellness, from pediatrics to geriatrics. They attend four-year graduate-level programs at accredited institutions, where they are educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!] physicians. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences [...] some schools in the American Association of Naturopathic Medical Colleges actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic (MD) [!] medical schools. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: science, science, science.

NY MD Whitmont's 'Homeopathy is Science' Absurdity

001. the Epoch Times's "The Greening of Medicine: Part 2" [2010-06-30, vsc 2010-06-30] by Whitmont, R.D. (MD ) states:

"scientific disciplines like homeopathy [etc....] the scientific principle known as the Law of the Minimum Dose."

Note: if homeopathy is scientific, so is astrology.

002. Whitmont's own web site states in "Homeopathy With a Special Focus on Treatment of Cardiovascular Diseases" [vsc 2010-06-30]:

"the homeopathic treatment of disease included consideration the underlying causes of that affected the health promoting energies of the body. Hahnemann called this the 'vital force'.This energy system which Hahnemann called the 'vital force' was postulated to act as a governor in the balance between health and illness. If this state of energy was disturbed, then the physical body became susceptible to infection, and disease as a secondary event. Hahnemann believed that homeopathic medicines were capable of redirecting and rebalancing this vital force as a way of assisting the body and regaining health."

Note: such an idea is, of course, science-ejected.

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.