Naturopathy's Coded Essential Vitalism - SCANP.org

here, I reiterate the opaque language offered by the South Carolina Association of Naturopathic Physicians [SCANP] to NOT explain naturopathy's essential premise [see 001., below]; then, I provide some transparency [see 002., below]:

001. SCANP writes in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-08-17]:

"naturopathic medicine is not defined by the substances used in treatment but rather by the principles, which underlie and determine its practice. These principles include: the healing power of nature, find the cause, do no harm, treat the whole person, doctor as teacher, prevention and wellness [...we have a] reverence for the wisdom of nature [...] the principles of naturopathic medicine [...include #1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]. Naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in the body that is ordered and intelligent.  Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to recovery as well as to facilitate and augment this healing ability."

Note: and that's all you get.

002. since three of the four board members currently listed at SCANP are Bastyr University NDs, I thought Bastyr would be a good choice to decode / accurately describe / reveal what HPN-VMN is:

this is the 'vitalistic context' / sectarian backbone / science-ejected belief amalgam which essentially is naturopathy.

Note: it's a given that most often naturopathy codes its actual context in what I'll call 'mundane naturalistic language.'  This is part of their ruse / foot-in-the-door propaganda MO.

Wherein Nonsense Metastasizes - Bastyr. U.'s New California Branch

here, I cite from the Bothell-Reporter / Kenmore-Reporter regarding Bastyr University's ND program expansion [see 001., below]; then, I dig up the grand old lie [see 002., below]:

001. in "Kenmore's Bastyr University to Open California Branch" [2010-08-13], the B-R / K-R states:

"offering the school's doctor of naturopathic medicine degree, Kenmore's Bastyr University plans to open a branch campus in the state of California, according to university President Daniel K. Church [...] 'we are thrilled to expand the university’s presence and provide prospective students greater access to Bastyr’s widely acclaimed naturopathic medicine program,' Church said [...] the state of California has experienced a 250-percent increase in the number of practicing naturopathic doctors over the last four years. Today, there are more than 400 licensed naturopathic doctors in California with approximately 350 actively practicing."

Note: that's a lot of woo.  "Widely acclaimed?"  No, widely misplaced acclaim -- unless irrationality and sectarian pseudomedical beliefs disguised as science-survivable are now exemplars.

002. as for my experience, a long time ago [1997 and still ticking], I trusted BU along with other AANP member schools as the AANP-Alliance to actually be describing themselves accurately and rationally.  Here's my most memorable lie by BU et al., wherein an ND is described as:

"naturopathic physician's are the modern day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."

Note: yet, the principle idea at the heart of naturopathy -- which an ND is obligated to by oath -- is a belief that is science-ejected.

All this nonsense is still amazing to me.

Naturopathy's Coded Vitalism, Science-Expertise Claim, and Professions Claim - Chronogram Magazine 2010-07-28

Klosterman, L. (PhD{zoology} UC Berkeley) writes in "Naturopathic Medicine: A Holistic Profession You Need to Know About":

"[NYANP President  Wilson (ND Bastyr 2000)] 'naturopathic doctors are a group of highly trained professionals' [...] naturopathic doctors take four or five years of graduate-level classes in medical sciences [...] naturopaths work from the following set of foundational principles: [#1] the healing power of nature.  The body has an inherent ability to health itself, and seeks a healthy equilibrium; a naturopathic physician guides patients toward reestablishing health by addressing multiple facts that may be out of balance [coded vitalism...] the body's natural healing abilities [coded vitalism...] naturopathic doctors refer to the 'therapeutic order' when considering interventions."

Note: obviously, we have the label of "profession" and the claim of science expertise.  But, what profession codes its basic science-ejected premise deceptively?  HPN -- that science-ejected concept known as vitalism -- is not accurately communicated here.  The therapeutic order is also within a vitalistic context -- ye olde 'harmonize life forces'.  This is not journalism, this is propaganda.

Naturopathy's Coded Vitalism - ND Seddig

here, I cite the noninformative language of a California ND regarding naturopathy's essential premise [see 001., below]; then, I go to her alma mater for a more complete picture [see 002., below]:

001. Seddig, E. (ND NCNM 2001) states in "What Is The Difference Between A Naturopathic Doctor And A 'Regular' Doctor?" [vsc 2010-08-14]:

"naturopathic philosophy is based upon the following principles [...#4] the healing power of nature."

Note: and that's all you get.

002. well, let's go to National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM] and see what they say:

002.a. the school's 2009-2010 Course Catalog [vsc 2010-08-14] states:

"naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world and emphasizes the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement and support of the inherent healing power of the body. Methods of treatment are chosen that respect the natural healing process [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [p.024...] principles of naturopathic medicine: the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [!!!]. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [p.025...] HOM 510 – Introduction to Homeopathy [...] students will learn about vitalistic medicine, the history of vitalism, the vital force in health and disease, the nature of medicines, and ways to affect the vital force [p.035]."

Note: so, there's naturopathy's HPN explained.  HPN is a sectarian figment, much like the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

002.b. but that's not my favorite NCNM page.  This is, "Principles of Healing", which states:

"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: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] 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 [...#3] 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 [...] the actions of vis medicatrix naturae [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

Note: I wonder why this ND doesn't disclose naturopathy's absurdity, so the public can make an informed decision?  After all, both NCNM citations label vitalism as 'in fact science', when vitalism is in fact GREATLY science-ejected.  I wonder how safe it is to have someone embued with this kind of absurd thinking playing doctor?

Dr. Oz, an Honorary Bastyr Doctorate, and Their Misrepresentation of Naturopathy's 'HPN Primary Principle' - Mission Accomplished.

here, I cite from a recent print edition of Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] regarding Dr. Mehmet Oz's apparent ignorance of naturopathy's "healing power of nature" [HPN] primary principle [see 001., below; I've added a note at the end of this post as 2011-10-09 appendage, below]; and then, I provide some transparency and non-bullshit per HPN, naturopathy, and where it sits in terms of actual science [see 002., below]:

001.a. NDNR writes in "NDNR Interview: Dr. Mehmet Oz Comments on Naturopathic Medicine and His Recent Honorary Doctorate" [NDNR, 2010-08]:

001.a1. "Dr. Mehmet Oz [MD UPSM 1986] vice chair and professor of surgery at Columbia University [and his wife...] recently received honorary doctorate degrees from Bastyr University [BU...which he calls] 'a wonderful validation [...] gratifying [...] an affirmation [...from] the minds that I admire most in alternative and progressive medicine' [...making him now] part of the professional natural medical community."

001.a2. "[NDNR] you seem to embrace the six principles of naturopathic medicine [...Oz] to understand and embrace these principles [...] like the healing power of nature [...] you don't need a huge lecture [...or honest information apparently] I tell them to simple visit a park [...] or buy a bird feeder or go for a mountain bike ride or sit in silence in a field [...] when they say they feel better, mission accomplished [yeah, that's what that premise is -- not!]."

Note: I actually can't recall recently hearing such a blatantly opaque misrepresentation. Notice how NDNR, along with Oz, does not accurately contextualize HPN, either. The actual premise of HPN will be accurately contextualized in 002. WITH BASTYR'S OWN WORDS.

001.a3. "[Dr. Oz] the first thing I want to do is thank all the naturopathic doctors for their contribution to Western medicine. The West has a long way to go [really!...] institutions like Bastyr are spectacular in presenting knowledge and research in a way that traditional medicine understands [really!...] to promote understanding [...later Oz says] what I know about natural medicine I learned from Lisa [his wife].'"

001.a4. "[Bastyr's President Church (the irony is glorious!), this] person's profession[al] or personal life exemplifies the values and supports the mission of the university [...] honoring them also honors Bastyr University [...and Oz] believed that Bastyr University [...] had done more to elevate and make credible the practice of naturopathic medicine [...] than any other single entity has he was aware of."

Note: by the way, Bastyr hosts an announcement about the awarding here. And here is Church FALSELY stating that naturopathy is science-based, in "Bastyr University - Message from the President" [vsc 2010-08-13]: 

"Bastyr University continues to champion science-based natural medicine."

001.a5. "[Oz and Bastyr seek to] bring together Western and Eastern, allopathic and naturopathic."

001.b. This is some amazing and absurd bullshit. Modern medicine is falsely labeled allopathy and Western a few times.   

Here are some of my thoughts regarding the above excerpts:

per 001.a1. Columbia University is a rather august institution; Bastyr, less so.  Obviously, Oz is happy with this honor and quite supportive of BU and what they do and Bastyr is similarly happy with this arrangement.  The question: is this progressive or regressive?  My expertise informs me that it is the latter: when thinking occurs that results in something being equated with what it is not, we're back in a kind of thinking that is earlier than juvenile.   And professional?  I don't think DECEPTION is professional [more below].

per 001.a2. Ah, those six principles [that's NCNM's non-edited version!].  Well, I'll discuss what HPN really is below.  Needless to say, what Oz describes here as HPN is completely NOT what HPN actually is.  He offers nature-appreciation / aesthetics as HPN's context, but that is is so incomplete that it is hugely wrong.

per 001.a3. I don't think modern medicine is Western or allopathic.  It's simply scientifically-centered and -minded, as opposed to prescientific superstition-centered Eastern and sectarian pseudomedical belief systems.  Our supposed West, in reverting to such archaic junk, couldn't benefit: e.g., how would chemistry benefit by reverting to concepts from alchemy, astronomy benefit from reverting to such from astrology, geography benefit from reverting to a flat-earth theory, biology benefit from reverting to Lamarkism or vitalism, and most important here, how would science benefit from reverting to a way of thinking [I'm being generous here] that doesn't care for the presence or quality of evidence when judging a claim?

Let's make it a little more personal for Dr. Oz, to emphasize his hypocrisy: how would Dr. Oz's cardiothoracic practice benefit by reverting to surgical techniques from 1880?

So, does Bastyr promote knowledge?  They don't even clearly or honestly contextualize their own principle's page HPN premise.  That's manipulative propaganda: it's as cultic as the Scientologists getting you in their church [ah-ha-ha-ha, my irony muscle is strong today] by labeling their religious practices 'a personality test'. 

And honestly, if all Dr. Oz knows about this area is from his wife, does he know much at all? Is that something to brag about?  All I know about naturopathy is from studying it for 15 years and having gone to UB's CNM for four years.  Has he read the Textbook of Natural Medicine?  You can read about naturopathy's hugely science-ejected HPN vitalistic premise there, quite easily.

per 001.a4. The essentially naturopathic is not credible, unless non-disclosure is now ethically equivalent to professions-endorsed informed-decision-making, and science and nonscience are now the same thing.  This seems to be quite a dunderheaded, mutual admiration circle-jerk.

per 001.a5.  The blending of prescientific knowledge / beliefs and modern, scientifically-derived knowledge and then it all being falsely labeled science is naturopathy's MO.  After all, it is Bastyr especially that trades on this insane expression [from their home page]:

"a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...] Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [vitalism]."

But, the science-based excludes supernaturalism and vitalism [and physiological teleology, that 'intelligent' aspect of HPN]. That's a basic fact. So, in blending science and nonscience and calling the whole thing science -- yes, for Oz and Bastyr, mission accomplished.  This phenomenon is what I've labeled "epistemic conflation" [EC]-- it's analogous to the label pseudoscience.  But whereas pseudoscience is a question of 'science or not', epistemic conflation looks at the entire spectrum of knowledge-type [e.g., from the a priori to the a posteriori].  Here's how illegitimate this EC is: it would be hugely ground-breaking in terms of modern thought if it was progressive, applicable, useful, rational, productive, world-changing; the Nobel Committee would have awarded their prizes already for this huge sea-change in epistemology.  Instead: silence from Stockholm.  And judgments of irrationality, ignorance, and insanity from many observing from the wings.

001.c. Bastyr has video up of the ceremony:

him, her [vsc 2010-08-13].

002. what HPN actually is FOR NATUROPATHY [not what Dr. O. said, at all]:

002.a. how Bastyr represents HPN, and then digging a little deeper for full-disclosure / transparency / honesty [pseudoscience!]:

002.a1. Bastyr misrepresents HPN as:

""the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes the body's inherent ability, which is ordered and intelligent, to heal itself. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to recovery, and to facilitate and augment this healing ability."

Note: and that's all you get there.

002.a2. now, here's a 2001 internal Bastyr document that clearly states that HPN is a "vital force,"  and this figmentation is QUITE different from what Oz and Bastyr [from directly above] describe HPN as:

"NM5136 - The Vis Medicatrix Naturae [...] naturopathic medicine’s core clinical principle, the vis medicatrix naturae, is shared by traditional systems of medicine throughout the world. This course explores clinical research, writings and techniques from various systems of medicine which incorporate nature’s influence on healing, the nature of the healing processes, and the vital or life force."

002.b. NDNR, at times, has been transparent [but not in this Oz article] about that central naturopathic HPN premise.  Here's ND Cage vitalizing in “Tolle Causam - Abnormal Cell Growth in Light of Naturopathic Philosophy” [Cage, A. (ND SCNM); NDNR - Feb. 2006, vol. 02 issue 02]:

“this concept of the energetic anatomical structures and the energy conducted by them is entirely harmonious with a third naturopathic principle – the vis medicatrix naturae – the healing power of nature, often referred to as the vital force […] vitalism […] the term vital force appears to be the European translation of qi or prana […] qi, prana, and the vital force […] qi  / energy [p.007].”

002.c. what science says about HPN [vitalism]:

it's not science-based, it is science-ejected.

002.d. What Bastyr falsely labels naturopathy / vitalism, still, to this day:

science-based.

003. So, overall, huge absurdity -- still. 

Is it honorable and professional to promote the absurd, and in the process annul national medical, academic and particularly science standards [and sanity] with sectarian nonsense and sectarian irrationality?  No, because it is a misrepresentation.

Thankfully that mission is unaccomplished.  But, these knowledge conflationists seem to be working really hard toward that mission [vsc 2010-08-13] and engaging in commerce under HUGELY FALSE labels [unfair business practice].

------------------------------------------------------------

2011-10-09 appendage [too good to contain!]:

So, I'd mentioned "Dr. Mehmet Oz's apparent ignorance of naturopathy's 'healing power of nature' [HPN] primary principle" above, but isn't this interesting...

Though what I've shared above doesn't seem to indicate that Dr. Oz understands HPN-VMN in any significant manner [a falsely labeled as science actually science-ejected archaic sectarian article of faith that is physiological nonsense], while he claims "to understand and embrace these principles", there is a source I recommend for a transparent explanation of naturopathy's basic context which overarches ALL THEIR PRINCIPLES [the one ring to rule them all!]:

[my scan of the book's cover]

This is Blackwell's Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Fast Facts for Medical Practice [editors Herring, M.A. (BSN IWU, MSN UH), Roberts, M.M. (MD UA)](2002; ISBN 0632045833 978-0632045839; strangely-quite-wrongly published under the "Blackwell Science" imprint) [I own this book, ocr'd 2011-10].

The book's cover states "experts in their respective fields provide current and objective information" so the physician -- yes, this is written for physicians -- "can educate yourself and your patients [...and] be ready [...] to address patient questions."

Specific to naturopathy, in his ch. 14, then Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences faculty member Ehrlich, S.D. (NMD SCNM) writes:

"naturopathy is a distinct system of medicine that is based on an understanding that the human organism contains a powerful healing intelligence called the 'vital force.' Naturopathic physicians, as licensed practitioners are referred to in most states, support the vital force by following the six principles of naturopathic medicine:  1. support the healing power of nature [etc....] naturopathy is unique in that it is defined by its principles rather than its modalities. A variety of interventions are used to help mobilize the vital force in patients to bring about cure [...including] nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, mind-body medicine, physical medicine, and lifestyle counseling [...and] the Eastern modalities of acupuncture and ayurveda [...] as these schools of medicine complement the vitalistic medical philosophy of naturopathy [p.091...] the symptom is merely an expression of imbalance by the vital force, which hints of underlying patterns of disharmony [...] by treating the cause, symptoms are alleviated naturally and permanently, the vital force no longer needing to express a condition of imbalance [p.092...] naturopathy has continued to evolve and integrate more conventional Western medical science with its vitalistic teachings to become the modern system of naturopathic medicine that exists today [...] fast facts for medical practice: naturopaths treat the whole person, using the healing power of nature to enliven a patient's own 'vital force' or innate healing ability [p.095]."

So, everything about naturopathy is couched in vitalism -- that hugely science-ejected archaism [Southwest too loves to claim such survives scientific scrutiny!].  But, that's not what's most interesting about this book.  Get this:

Dr. Oz wrote its Foreword!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  He seems to have forgotten its contents with respect to naturopathy.  Oz writes [my comments are in bold]:

"the information gap between patients and the modern medical practitioner continues to grow [...] we have a communication gap [...]";

Well, Dr. Oz really hasn't helped us understand naturopathy via NDNR, TRANSPARENTLY, so he's in my opinion on the wrong side as regards being informative!

"this book helps to provide a substantive foundation that physicians can bring to their discussions with patients to reestablish the precious covenant that they expect [...by way of] aggressive pursuit of the newest knowledge [...] I am optimistic that this book will facilitate this process [...]";

The irony is killing me: COULDN'T Dr. Oz have turned to ch. 14 and then explained during the NDNR interview ACTUAL NATUROPATHY and not employed 'a naturopathy as nature appreciation' ruse?  Furthermore, what are the ethics of all this?  Bastyr who-gave-him-the-degree falsely labels the naturopathic endeavor "science-based"; Dr. Oz should know better but I guess this doesn't bother him.

It's signed: "Mehmet Oz, M.D. Director of Cardiovascular Institute Associate Professor of Surgery Department of Surgery College of Physicians and Surgeons Columbia University New York, New York."

And, shamefully -- and obviously with Dr. Oz's participation, merely in the book's first chapter alone -- the misconstruction / false-labeling of modern medicine as "allopathy" or "allopathic" occurs...wait for it...

26 times. Yes, the homeopathic term "allopathy" is falsely placed upon modern medicine twenty-six times in the first chapter alone.

Also [interesting for me in that homeopathy is as committed to vitalism as naturopathy is, and naturopathy is quite committed to homeopathy, even to the extent that homeopathy is falsely labeled "science" on the North American ND / NMD licensure exam and is REQUIRED for the degree and licensure], the homeopathy chapter states:

"in homeopathic theory, symptoms are produced when the vital force, the energy maintaining life in the individual, is out of balance [p.062]."

Naturopathy as Portrayed in the Yakima Herald-Republic: Incomplete, Misleading (What's New)

here, I cite from from an article in Washington State's Yakima Herald-Republic concerning naturopathy, and I respond to some of it [see 001., below]; then, I quote from some of ND Robel's own web pages [see 002., below]:

001. Emily Gwinn reports in "Naturopathic Medicine is on the Rise in the Yakima Valley" (2010-07-15)[vsc 2010-08-08]:

001.a. "[ND] Heidi Robel [...says] the essential difference between her medical practice and others [is] 'education, education, education [...] we teach people to make educated choices about their health [...] we're just like other family doctors' [...] Robel [...] grew up in Yakima and decided to return here after medical school."

Note: I believe here that naturopathy is being confused with and falsely portrayed as modern 'medicine'. And as regards education: being that naturopaths are hugely miseducated to spread the huge falsehood that that which is science-ejected is able to survive scientific scrutiny, I'd run away from any 'naturopath trying to educate me.'  When science is the same as nonscience, the clowns are leading the band and the inmates are running the asylum.

001.b. "naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability, and naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies' ability to ward off disease [coded vitalism...] naturopathic medicine is a system of health care described by the Washington Association of Naturopathic Physicians as an art, science, philosophy and practice of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of illness."

Note: the actual belief that naturopathy is centered upon is called, though this article fails to mention it, vitalism. The NCNM link above transparently describes that, though it also falsely states that such survives scientific scrutiny.  The WANP also FAILS to transparently describe naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism on their own page defining naturopathy.  This is why I term naturopathy an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience.'  You don't get the absurd truth that is naturopathy -- wherein the hugely exterior to science is falsely labeled science -- not from naturopathy or from reporters writing about naturopathy.

001.c. "medical doctors and doctors of osteopathic medicine also use alternative medicines, but only when they've been proven to be responsive through clinical studies that follow the scientific method [...] 'there are many ways of finding truth,' said Dr. Deb Harper, President of the Washington State Medical Association. 'I am going to dedicate myself to what is scientifically true' [...] 'it's dangerous to use art alone without science,' she said."

Note: Harper is quite on point.  No matter how much 'care' is involved in terms of naturopathy, if basic premises are false -- e.g., there's a vital force that is a scientifically supported, objective fact -- the outcomes don't stand much of a chance of being true.

001.d. "naturopathic medical colleges are four-year graduate schools with the doctor of naturopathic medicine degree awarded after classroom, clinic and practical study. In Washington, Bastyr University in the Seattle suburb of Kenmore offers naturopathic medical education and training."

Note: Bastyr is a great example of what I term 'naturopathy's epistemic conflation' and  'knowledge type mislabeling.'  BU claims that within science is the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural (e.g., "the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating [blending] mind, body, spirit [supernaturalism] and nature [vitalism]") and then, obviously, after blending all kinds of knowledge claims, trading on this muddle with a false label that this all is a certain singular type of knowledge (e.g., "science").  This type of thinking doesn't pass freshman undergraduate ANYTHING class, never mind 'graduate medical'-level strictures.

002. ND Robel's web pages state in:

002.a. "Meet The Dr." [vsc 2010-08-08]:

"Dr. Robel [...is] highly trained in Western science and alternative medicine and thus uniquely qualified to determine what is best for her patients [...] Dr. Robel earned a Doctorate in Naturopathic Medicine and a Masters in Acupuncture from Bastyr University, the leading medical institution in science-based natural medicine. She also holds a Bachelors of Science in Neurobiology from the University of Washington."

Note: science, science, science!

002.b. "What’s the Difference Between Medical Degrees?" (a 2008-05-28 linked article written by Sara Bristol) [vsc 2010-08-08]:

"naturopaths have had four years of graduate education, and are educated in all of the basic sciences like D.O.s and M.D.s [...] N.D.s are highly trained in Western science."

Note: science, science, science!

003. boy these ND's really don't want to reveal their nonscientific actuality.  In fact, they claim to be science-experts.  It's quite a ruse.  But, if you look hard enough, you can get to the sectarian center that lies beneath all the opacity and camouflage that is usually presented to the public:

For instance, here's Bastyr University, Robel's alma mater, explicitly stating naturopathy's essential nonscientific vitalistic core belief in "Bastyr University Catalog 2002-2003":

"NM5131 Naturopathic Clinical Theory 1 [...] the vitalistic context of science-based,
modern naturopathic medicine is emphasized [...] NM5136 The Vis Medicatrix Naturae [...]  this course explores clinical research, writings and techniques from various systems of medicine which incorporate nature’s influence on healing, the nature of the healing
processes, and the vital or life force [p.097...] NM9118 Energetics of Natural Medicine [...] this course presents an analysis of the vital force [p.101]."

Note: truly absurd.

ND Amell's "Natural" Delusional Exceptionalism = Jail Time!

here, I cite the recent convition of a Canadian ND for tax evasion [see 001., below]; then , I wonder what else 'the natural' could be used as cover for [see 002., below]:

001. Canada's Chronicle Herald reports in "Naturopath Jailed For Failing to Pay Taxes" [vsc 2010-08-07]:

"a naturopathic doctor in Saskatchewan who claimed he didn’t have to pay taxes because he was a 'natural' person was sentenced Friday to 16 months in jail. Douglas Amell, 42, of Moose Jaw was also ordered to pay $190,000 — the amount of tax he should have paid on income of $683,000 from 2003 to 2006 [...] a pre-sentence report showed Amell was earning $18,000 a month from his naturopathic clinic [...yet he was deliberately receiving money from] 'government programs designed to assist poor children and poor families' [...such was] 'a crime against every Canadian.'"

Note: perhaps naturopathy suffers from what may be called "exceptionalism."  This ND seemed to believe that "natural" is a magic, stay-out-of-jail card.

002. the delusion of naturopathy's "nature":

002.a. it is quite common for naturopathy to call itself "natural medicine."  For instance, a google.com web search >"natural medicine"< returns as a first hit NCNM which used to be called National College of Naturopathic Medicine but now is called Natural College of Natural Medicine.

002.b. and looking at NCNM's description of naturopathy, which I believe is thoroughly fraudulent, delusional and insane [particularly the idea that the science-ejected "healing power of nature" vitalism & science-exterior supernatural survives scientific scrutiny], I believe that all North American naturopathy suffers from a kind of cultic / exceptionalist thinking which, like Amell, leads to the delusion that what they are doing isn't a problem / that the rules are different for them!
 

The Coded Vitalism of Bastyr University Naturopathy 2010

001. BU states in "Academic Degree Programs: Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-08-06]:

"[#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes the body's inherent ability, which is ordered and intelligent, to heal itself. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to recovery, and to facilitate and augment this healing ability."

Note: nowhere on this page is their the term "life force", "vital force" or "vitalistic".  There is supernaturalism, though [which is science-exterior]: "[#5] total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual path."

002. even now, I say wow.  Wow.  What they aren't telling us about! Their mother-ship school, so to speak, NCNM, is useful to decode what Bastyr has coded.  This is how naturopathy gets the hook set: opaque language and falsely labeling that coded stuff which is science-exterior as science.  So, uninformed consent and falsehood.

Naturopathy's Wackaloon Claim of Scientific Superiority - Ritz, J. (ND SCNM):

here, I cite a naturopath's 'ND superscience claim' [see 001., below]; then, I illustrate how this same ND does not transparently communicate to the public 'the essentially naturopathic non-scientific' [see 002., below]; by comparing his definition of 'the naturopathic' with pages I've gathered from SCNM, his ND alma mater [see 003., below]:

001. Ritz, J. (ND SCNM) states in "Naturopathic versus Allopathic Basic Science and Therapeutic Modality Hours" (2010-07-14) [vsc 2010-08-04]:

"an ND's basic science education [...MD per UWSM then ND per Bastyr, respectively] anatomy & embryology: 13, 19;  histology: 6, 5; physiology: 5, 14; biochemistry: 8, 12; pathology: 10, 12; microbiology / immunology: 11, 10.5."

Note: the MD column has the absurd and false label of allopathy upon it.  I call that naturopathy's 'reverse sectarian false accusation.' But, lets take a moment to encapsulate what this 'ND superscience claim' hides, even if the hours in science that are tabulated here are quantitatively greater [with the ND having more than the MD]: naturopathy is absolutely obligated to a science-ejected premise that is falsely labeled scientific / naturopathy's definition of science is so broad contextually that science and nonscience are actually indiscernible [see 003., below]. Therefore, it doesn't matter how many hours of science an ND studies, it cannot make the naturopathic scientific because: a) the essentially naturopathic is centered upon a science-ejected figmentation that NDs are committed to by oath and which frames everything naturopathic and b) science has been needlessly unbounded and therefore is improperly used as a label by naturopathy.  NDs won't tell you this, though.  And they should.

002. ND Ritz's practice page "History of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-08-04] states:

"naturopathy has been around since ancient times [not true, it was invented rather recently IMHO]. Hippocrates, a physician who lived about 2400 years ago, formulated one of the main principles of naturopathic medicine, vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN...] the popularity of more institutionalized large scale 'scientific medicine' contributed to the decline of naturopathic medicine by mid-century [...] naturopathic medicine is based on a holistic approach combining safe and effective traditional therapies along with modern scientific approaches in medicine [...] naturopathic medicine is based on six philosophical principles [...#2] the healing power of nature - vis medicatrix naturae: the body has an inherent ability to restore health through nature’s healing properties [VMN-HPN...] licensed naturopathic doctors (N.D.s) have attended a rigorous four-year graduate level medical program at an accredited institution. During the first two years of the program they are trained in the same basic science and clinical applications that traditional medical students are educated in [...and are licensed after] passing national science boards [...our treatments] are scientifically researched and formulated."

Note: ah, so much to comment upon here.  Regarding:

a) "around since ancient times" - bullshit.  I'd argue that naturopathy is less than 110 years old, and specifically it has only been around as it is since the AANP unanimously passed their ND sectarian creed at the Rippling River convention in the late 1980s;

'based on VMN-HPN' - this is a coding for the vitalistic-spiritistic-teleologic science-unsupported sectarian belief amalgam that is at the core of naturopath's 'philosophy';

the scare quotes around scientific medicine - this implies 'so-called', as in not actually so, but it is naturopathy that is not actually what it says it is [not science] calling modern medicine what it not actually is [allopathy];

"holistic" - this is, for me, a meaningless / nebulous label but, minimally, it contains supernaturalism and here the ND is admitting that the supernatural [the non-science-supported] is absurdly within what's being labeled science;

"rigorous" - when different things are labeled identical, e.g. science and what's profoundly nonscientific, no, that is not rigor -- this, in part, is what makes naturopathy CULTIC;

"same basic science" and "science boards" - when what preponderantly ISN'T science is falsely labeled science, then the science isn't the same and the boards [which I completed, by the way] are a ruse because overarching an 'doing naturopathy' are those sectarian principles of their creed which science actually EJECTS;

b) if we assume this is an explanation of naturopathy, we aren't being fully informed about important aspects of the truly naturopathic.  But, it is truly naturopathic to label the profoundly non-science-based as science.  So, to a large extent, this is the real thing: naturopathy's systemic falsehood of placing scientific labels upon figmentations!

003. now, this ND's alma mater, SCNM [with some help from me as a gatherer], states that naturopathy is:

003.a. science;

003.b. and is, I kid you not, actually premised upon the science-ejected: 

Note: and that is wackaloon.

How Naturopathy's Science Claims Violate Grade 8 Science Standards:

here, I deal with the absurdity of the science claim naturopathy places upon the hugely science-ejected.  First, there is what naturopathy falsely labels as science, and I take this from my alma mater UBCNM [see 001., below]; then, there is 'the preponderant national science standards for grade 8' [see 002., below]; then, I muse on naturopathy's violations of just a small part of these junior high school national science standards [see 003., below]:

001. well, to quote a line from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica, "all this has happened before, and all this will happen again":

the University of Bridgeport labels as science the hugely science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural [vsc 2010-07-26].  This is at the doctoral level and it claims professions-level rigor.

002. the State of New Mexico states in "New Mexico Grade 8 Science Standards" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

"Strand I: Scientific Thinking and Practice.  Standard I: Understand the processes of scientific investigations and use inquiry and scientific ways of observing, experimenting, predicting, and validating to think critically [...] 5-8 Benchmark II: Understand the processes of scientific investigation and how scientific inquiry results in scientific knowledge. 1. Examine alternative explanations for observations. 2. Describe ways in which science differs from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge (e.g., experimentation, logical arguments, skepticism). 3. Know that scientific knowledge is built on questions posed as testable hypotheses, which are tested until the results are accepted by peers."

003. so, where are the violations? 

In my view, regarding UB's claims, NO SCIENCE has been done.  And what is preponderantly science has been ignored.  A bunch of words have been written, instead.  Clearly from the science standards for eighth graders, SCIENCE IS A SPECIFIC KIND OF ACTIVITY and it generates a specific kind of knowledge -- and all that has been ignored.

So, regarding:

"thinking", "practice", "processes", "ways", "observing, experimenting, predicting and validating", and "investigation" -- science is 'a verb';

"inquiry", "critically", "skepticism" -- invoke the need to analyze and not be gullible / credulous;

"alternative explanations", science is never stuck with one dogmatic assertation;

"ways in which science differs from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge", one should know when, for instance, we're dealing with a scientific fact versus an article of faith;

"testable hypotheses", science can only process what is scientifically processable;

"logical arguments" deal of course with careful reasoning.

Where has UBCNM gone wrong [perhaps]:

they have taken away the activity part of science, and instead deemed that it is enough to place -- via a posture of dogmatic authoritarianism -- the label of science onto pages that they then have filled up with whatever they wanted [e.g., "health science" pages which contain the science-ejected vitalistic and science-unsupported supernatural sectarian];

they have dogmatically / sectarianly taken that 'whatever' and not been critical, curious, or skeptical of it [e.g., the vitalistic page states that a "life force" is "in fact"; while it's not even 'in evidence'!];

from that position, they have not looked at alternatives to that dogmatic whatever, by definition because it is absolute / authoritarian / cultic;

they do not acknowledge that there are different kinds of knowledge, instead they epistemically conflate [they blend knowledge type] and they epistemically misrepresent [e.g., they're claiming that what's hugely science-exterior is within science];

they falsely position the supernatural and mystical-nebulous as scientifically processable / testable [e.g., the invisible immaterial thing that is immeasurable is in fact scientifically supported];

and all in all, their claim that science is whatever they write it to be, and that, in sum, science is the same as the science-ejected -- is illogical, absurd, irrational.

But, I've said this for ten years and more.  Yes, eternal recurrence.

Welcome Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicians - To the False Science Claims Fold:

here, I cite from the rather recent Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicans [PANP] web pages regarding naturopathy's supposed science credentials [see 001., below]; and then I show how coded their essential vitalism is [see 002., below]:

001. PANP writes in:

001.a. "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

"naturopathic medicine is a [...] science [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...] naturopathic doctors [...] diverse techniques include [...] scientific and empirical methods."

Note: science, science, science.  Explicitly, PANP states that when current modern scientific rigors are visited upon naturopathy's ideas, the ideas survive legitimate scientific scrutiny.

001.b. "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

"naturopathic medicine is a form of health care that blends old, proven remedies with new scientific knowledge and advancements [...] scientific research has shown that many medical conditions can be treated as effectively with food and nutritional supplements [...] a resurgence of scientific research in Europe and Asia is demonstrating that some plant substances are superior to synthetic drugs in clinical conditions."

Note: science, science, science.  Of course, there's huge illogic in stating that naturopathy survives rigorous scientific scrutiny and then stating that naturopathy is a blend of science and ________.  The 'old and proven' could very well not be scientifically supported and instead by scientifically refuted: take naturopathy's homeopathy for instance.  It is old, and it came about through 'provings.'  And it is bunk.

001.c. "Naturopathic Education" [vsc 2010-07-25]:

"NDs are trained in medical sciences [...] the seven naturopathic medical schools are as follows [...#7] National University of Health Sciences."

Note: when your science does not discriminate between what is science and what is not science, I don't think you were trained in all that much of any science.  Now, NUHS claims obviously by its name that its contents are science: so why is naturopathy within it?

002. of course, I can't find a transparent / honest description of naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalistic context on the site at all:

002.a. instead, we get coding / opacity in PANP's "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...] 1) the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). The healing power of nature is the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic doctor's role to support, facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external environment [...] 3) first do no harm (primum non nocere) [...] naturopathic doctors respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed."

Note: no "life force" or "vital force" on this page.  Just the staunch claim that these ideas survive scientific scrutiny.  Supernatural spiritism is on there twice, though.  Well, coded or not, vitalism and supernaturalism do not survive scientific scrutiny.  To get the full monty, you have to go to a more established AANP State organization, like, say, Oregon.  There, you will get the transparent vitalism of naturopathy, plus the PANP-like false claim that such survives scientific scrutiny.

002.b. due to what's missing / opaque at PANP, I'll provide some balance:

naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise, falsely labeled science and coded usually -- as is the case with PANP --  is truly science-ejected and sectarian / cultic. Being that naturopathy does not distinguish a science-supported fact from a figmentatious article of faith, you may place yourself at considerable risk in visiting an ND as naturopathic mindsets and methods are quite -- absurd.

The Science-Ejected Vitalism of "Clinical Naturopathy" (ISBN 9780729539265, 2010)

here, I detail a new naturopathy book that reiterates naturopathy's essential science-ejected premise: vis medicatrix naturae / vitality / vital force [see 001., below]:

001. Sarris, J.

who's publisher-provided credentials are, I kid you not:

PhD (UQ), MHSc HMed (UNE), BHSc WHMed (ACNM), Adv Dip Nat (ACNM), Adv Dip Acu (ACNM), MNHAA, NHMRC Clinical Research Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, and Brain Sciences Institute, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, Australia Formerly School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia 

and Wardle, J.

who's publisher-provided credentials are [same page], I kid you not:

BHSc Naturopathy (ACNM), MPH (UQ), NHMRC, Public Health Scholar, School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Director, Research Capacity Stream, NORPHCAM; Trans-Pacific Fellow, School of Medicine, University of Washington, USA

write in "Clinical Naturopathy: An Evidence-Based Guide to Practice" (ISBN 9780729539265, 2010) [and who both seem to suffer from inflammation of the credentials]:

"[in chapter 01 'Naturopathic Case Taking' with authorship attributed to ND Connolly] naturopathic philosophy and principles [...two] essential philosophical concepts intertwined with the historical development of naturopathy [are] vitalism and holism [p.002...] vitalism.  A fundamental belief of naturopathy is that ill health begins with a loss of vitality.  Health is positive vitality [...] health is restored by raising the vitality of the patient, initiating the the regenerative capacity for self-healing.  The vital force [...] vitalism is the belief that living things depend on the action of a special energy or force that guides the processes of metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation and interaction.  This vital force [...] the vital force necessary for life to exist.  The vital force is non-material and occurs only in living things.  It is the guiding force [...] the vital force is seen to be different from all other forces recognized by physics and chemistry [...] vitalists [...] naturopaths use a 'moderate' form of vitalism: vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature.  Vis medicatrix naturae defines health as good vitality where the vital force flows energetically [...] whereas ill health is a disturbance of vital energy [...] naturopathic philosophy further believes that a person's vital force determines their susceptibility to illness [...] those with poor vitality will succumb [p.003...] vis medicatrix naturae sees the role of the practitioner as finding the cause (tolle causum) of the disturbance of the vital force.  The practitioner must [...] restore the vital force [...] vitalistic theory merges with naturopathy in the understanding of how disease progresses [...] when the vital force is strong [ good things etc....when] the vital force is weakened [bad things etc. p.004]."

Note: I came across these promotional free chapters at http://www.slideshare.net/ . This is apparently being offered by Elsevier Australia, here specifically. 

Some word counts:

"life force" is a term not present in these sample chapters; "vitality", which is obviously a stand-in for 'vitalism', occurs 31 times;  "vital force" itself happens 13 times [yes, though immaterial and immeasurable, Adobe Reader was able to quantify it!]; "vitalism" 10 times; "medicatrix" 3 times; and overall 'vital*'occurs 65 times.

002. there isn't, of course, a vital force in any scientific sense of 'force' or 'energy.'  It is simply a holdover from medieval superstition and ignorance.

AANP Falsehood From 1997, Science-Based Honesty in 2010

here, I cite from a 1997 archived American Association of Naturopathic Physician's [AANP] description of their Textbook of Natural Medicine [see 001., below]; then, from Dr. Atwood's recent letter to the top administrator of the NCCAM [see 002., below]; finally, I muse [see 003., below]:

001. AANP writes in "A Textbook of Natural Medicine" c1997 [vsc 2010-07-25; linked to from the AANP's main site]:

"the most comprehensive and thoroughly-researched reference on natural health sciences [...] scientific documentation of the healing power of nature [HPN...] scientific and practical review [...] scientific indications [...] thoroughly referenced to the scientific literature."

Note: science, science, science as a label placed upon the 'essentially naturopathic,' particularly their HPN. This is nonsense.  The TNM 3rd. ed. states that the HPN is actually the science-ejected premise known as vitalism.  The third chapter of the TNM 3rd. ed., "A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order," states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice. These principles include the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [p.032...] the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [p.034]."

It is irrefutable that vitalism is science-ejected.  It was so even in 1997, which, by the way, as a year before I started at UBCNM [which falsely labels vitalism science, to this day].  So, AANP was basically labeling the hugely science-ejected as 'the science supported' and this still hasn't changed 13 years later.  E.g., TNM co-editor ND Pizzorno still labels naturopathy "science-based natural medicine," yet he is a 1975 NCNM ND grad. and the requisite vitalistic nonsense can still be found at their web page.

002. [actual] Science-Based Medicine's Dr. Atwood writes in "Open Letter to Dr. Josephine Briggs" (2010-07-23) [where do I begin!]:

"let me address the principal reason for this letter: it is disturbing that you will shortly appear at the 25th Anniversary Convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] group [that] is best characterized as a pseudoscientific cult, and nothing since has altered that opinion [...a] pseudomedical pseudoprofessional organization [...] NDs claim to be well trained to practice what most people think of as family medicine or primary care medicine, although their version of training is chock full of pseudoscientific nonsense [...] let me assure you that there are no promising ideas emanating from naturopathy [...] consider homeopathy, a core claim of naturopathic medicine [...] the British Medical Association and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have seen through the ruse of pseudoscience that is homeopathy, the former declaring it 'witchcraft' and latter making this statement: 'the Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible' [...] certainly science must remain neutral in the face of not-yet-seen data from rigorous studies [...but] science and skepticism [...] are not distinct. Good science involves, first and foremost, skepticism [...] Dr. Briggs, please consider the possibility that you no longer must hide your considerable scientific prowess in order to be a good NCCAM Director [...as apposed to] giving undue credibility to unfeasible and dangerous claims."

Note: I haven't found anything Dr. Atwood has ever written about naturopathy to be in disagreement with my own observations.  In fact, at this year's NECSS dinner, I'd said to Dr. A. that my best description of it all is "cultic."

003. another issue that comes to mind:

as a public servant [let's put aside her duty to society in terms of the ethical obligations of her medical oath and membership], Dr. Briggs has a duty to report BLATANT FRAUD to the appropriate Federal authorizes.

So, let me offer two specific examples of naturopathy's fraud:

academically, how about a regionally accredited university falsely labeling the hugely science ejected science, and engaging in commerce under those conditions [I've linked to the University of Bridgeport, but any of the AANMC schools fit this bill];

State-wide government-hosted false labeling of the hugely science-ejected as science [specifically here, Oregon].

Wow, that was so easy to do.

ND Maloney, Homeopathy, and Coded Vitalism - The Baloney He Doesn't Transparently Reveal

here, I survey the web pages of ND Maloney.  First, there are his claims that homeopathy-naturopathy are scientific, along with NABNE-NPLEX's [see 001., below]; then, his coded vitalism as well as use of NCNM to decode it [see 002., below]; then, the irresistible [see 003., below]:

001. homeopathy is thoroughly enmeshed / melded with naturopathy [thus homeopathy-naturopathy here] and claimed to be science:

001.a. Maloney writes in "Homeopathy":

"homeopathy should be considered both scientific and validated."

Note: here [vsc 2010-07-23] it is live. It is archived c2004 here [vsc 2010-07-23].

001.b.  here [vsc 2010-07-23] is Maloney describing the ND-requisite and elective homeopathy he studied at NCNM [8 courses total]; here [vsc 2010-07-23] is the NPLEX ND board exam similarly labeling homeopathy "science" many times.

001.c. "Who Am I?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I am a doctor [...] my education [miseducation!...] four year medical degree [false, he has a naturopathic degree] from National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland, Oregon; national science boards and clinical medicine boards [false, the national science standards do not include the science-ejected]."

 

Note: science, science, science supposedly.

001.d. and to be scientifically clear about homeopathy, to quote a recent post by Dr. Novella at Science-Based Medicine (see here):

"homeopathy is having a bad year. From a scientific point of view, it has had a couple of bad centuries. The progress of our scientific understanding of biology, chemistry, and physics has failed to confirm any of the core beliefs of homeopathy. Like does not cure like (this is a form of superstition known as sympathetic magic, with no basis in science). Diluting substances does not make them stronger – a notion that violates the chemical law of mass action and the laws of thermodynamics. And countless clinical studies have shown that homeopathic preparations are nothing more than placebos. That homeopathy cannot work and does not work is settled science, as much as it is possible for science to be settled."

Note: not science, preponderantly.  I'm sure naturopathy will ignore this fact, and continue to live in their own private Idaho, wherein the science-ejected and -unsupported is falsely labeled science and fraudulently traded upon.

002. the coded vitalism of ND Maloney and vitalism in its full ugliness at his alma mater, NCNM:

002.a. several Maloney pages describe naturopathy without actually transparently describing naturopathy's essential, science-ejected, vitalistic 'healing' context:

002.a1. "Who Am I?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I believe the body can heal itself [coded vitalism] if given the proper support."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.a2. "What Will I Do?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I acknowledge and work with the body's ability to heal [coded vitalism...] naturopathic treatment philosophy [...#6] the body, supported, heals itself [coded vitalism]."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.a3. his ND Sectarian Creed, along with its coded vitalism, also occurs in the archived page, "Services" wherein we're ONLY told, again:

"naturopathic philosophy of practice [...#6] the body, supported, heals itself."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.b. but here's the Rosetta Stone, so to speak, of all this opacity / coding. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"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."

Note: but, there simply isn't a life force aka 'purposeful life spirit' even though NCNM on the same page states it survives scientific scrutiny per "these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."  

Q: when is a sectarian figment 'objectively observed' and a scientific fact?  

A: in naturoland, the pseudoscience, the pseudoprofession.

003. lets call this whole thing [as it is irresistible, I must admit]:

Maloney Baloney.