AANP's "Transforming Healthcare" Goal – AHJ Show 06, Chapter 05 – Current UnderLYING Ontological Conflation, Historic NaturopaTHICK Legislator Deception

here, I cite from part of the AANP sponsored American Health Journal series "Discoveries in Alternative Medicine: Naturopathic Physicians" up at the AANP's site, Show 06, Chapter 05 [see 001., below]; and then from a quite deceptive / erroneous 1997 AANP document [see 002. below]:

001. the AANP states in "Naturopathic Physicians - Show #6, Chapter 5: Transforming Healthcare" [vsc 2010-10-09]:

"[narrator] we took our cameras to Washington, D.C. to talk with Karen Howard [(who is not an ND, by the way)...] the executive director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...Howard] 'our vision, at the AANP, is to transform today's healthcare [...] if we're going to reform our healthcare system [...we must] transform how we view a person [...] your head isn't separate from your body, and your spirit isn't separate from your body either.  It really is a complete and holistic way of looking at healthcare [...] with this transformation of healthcare, with what we work at at the state and federal level, we're educating policy makers  [...] we urge you to go to our web site, at www.naturopathic.org [...] what naturopathic doctors do is enable a patient'."

Note: fascinating, the claim that the body and spirit [whatever that is] aren't separate.  But, in terms of modern thought, they are quite different in 'being' [ontology] and I think once we start to describe and locate the supernatural and such, we're BELIEVING.

AANP's transformation essentially involves a belief system that blends / conflates ontological types: the not supernatural and the supernatural.

Regarding AANP's educating and enabling, now, when you go to their naturopathic.org site, you find that they claim that naturopathy is science: "founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence."

Yet, the highest scientific authority in the land points out that supernatural stuff is science-exterior:

"[e.g.] the risk, if intelligent design is incorporated into school curricula, is to undermine scientific credibility and the ability of young people to distinguish science from non-science [...] in Kansas, advocates of 'intelligent design' are attempting to redefine what is and is not science, in direct conflict with the science standards recommended by both the National Academy of Sciences and AAAS [...] to reject a definition that limits science to natural explanations [...] so that science will include supernatural explanations."

Naturopathy / the holistic is nonsense at its finest.  AANP's transformation essentially involves a belief system that blends / conflates ontological and epistemic types: which is neither transformative or reformative -- it is regressive.

002. the AANP wrote, in 1997's "The Alliance Legislative Workbook", directly to legislators:

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

Note: so, the science not belief label though really, they don't make that distinction on the inside.

Elsevier's "Science" Label Upon Naturopathy 2010 (ISBN 0729539261)

did you know, did you know, did you know:

the publisher Elsevier labels [imprints!] their "Clinical Naturopathy: An Evidence-Based Guide to Practice" by Sarris and Wardle (2010; ISBN 0729539261) "science" [at least this happens at books.google.com].

It appears to be an Elsevier of Australia phenomenon.

They appear to have the book up at slideshare.com too.  Elsevier Australia has their account set up so that you can download the presentation as a pdf, and I highly recommend the book's Page 003, which outlines naturopathy's essential vitalistic context.  Of course, vitalism is science-ejected.

So, the obvious absurdity arises: a science book based essentially on nonscience, titled "evidence-based" yet the central framing context is evidenceless [and in fact science-ejected].

And naturopathy's reversal of values continues!

Jacques Neirynck on Vitalism: Abandoned and Eclipsed (ISBN 3540875220)

Jacques Neirynck writes in "Your Brain and Your Self: What You Need to Know" (2008; ISBN 3540875220):

"the end of vitalism [...] for a long time it was believed that living matter was essentially different from inanimate matter in that is [sp., 'it'] was inhabited by a vital principle [...] but with discoveries about DNA [...] and the more recent elucidation of the human genome, the idea was eclipsed [...] we have abandoned the vitalist theory in the scientific world [...] life [...] has a physical reality [p.105...] the organization of a molecule of DNA alone explains the mysteries of living matter [...] life is an emergent property of matter."

Note: tell that to naturopathy!

The 'Reversal of Values' at Yale's Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics?

here, I visit some web pages of Yale University [see 001. and 002., below]:

001. Yale University's Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics states in "Member Directory" [vsc 2010-10-03]:

"Ather Ali: Assistant Director of Integrative Medicine, Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, Yale School of Medicine [..and who] also completed a NIH fellowship in complementary and alternative medicine research [...is] a clinician scientist trained in complementary medicine [...who is] often struck by the ethical issues arising from research in and the practice of non-mainstream medicine [...e.g.] the necessity of informed consent for 'unproven' therapies [..whose] daily activities often produce a number of ethical issues [(I bet)...who] received a BS in psychobiology from UCLA, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND) [2003] from Bastyr University, and MPH from the Yale School of Public Health."

Note: ah, Bastyr's ND, what a great credential for physicianship wherein, ISYN, you must conform to 'the naturopathic irrationality standard' -- that within science is nonscience!

002. YICM also states:

002.a. via Smith, D.H., the YICB director, in "Welcome" [vsc 2010-10-03]:

"[at the] Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics [...] our primary focus has been, and will continue to be, biomedical ethics we are dedicated to the teaching of ethics [...] our main sources of support are the Office of the Yale Provost, the Institute for Social and Policy Studies, and The Patrick and Catherine Weldon Donaghue Medical Research Foundation."

Note: when the 'good' is, by way of naturopathy, now its opposite as in 'the bad', bioethics ends up not having much sense and naturopathy has succeeded in doing to ethics what it has done to epistemology -- reversed meanings, wherein nonscience is science, and good is bad.

002.b. in "Mission Statement" states: 

"the Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics exists to encourage informed discussion [...] we want to do all we can to support systematic inquiry and analysis in the Yale curriculum and community, as well as in the broader communities of the state, nation, and world."

Note: suggestion, look towards naturopathy, and clean up your house.

003. now, I know naturopathy as 'quite a load of nonsense':

So, overall, seems YICB is embracing naturopathic nonsense wrongly claimed to be scientific fact as a legitimate basis for physicianship.  I actually took a course at Yale Medical School while in ND school in CT, and though I think that ended, the UB-Yale-Griffith thing has been continuous.

CBS News Schwacks the Blood Type Diet via Mayo

Davis W. Freeman states in "Blood Type Diet Debunker: Does it Really Work?" up at CBS News [2010-10-06]:

"can eating according to your blood type help you lose weight?  Fans of the so-called 'blood type diet' say it can [...] but mainstream health experts disagree. The diet was first popularized more than a decade ago by naturopathic physician Peter D'Adamo in his book 'Eat Right 4 Your Type' [...] according to D'Adamo, people evolved to eat according to their blood type [...] 'there's no sound scientific evidence that the so-called blood type diet is any more effective or any more beneficial for weight loss than is any other diet,' Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., says on the Mayo Clinic website [...] in other words, if you're trying to shed a few pounds, adopting the blood type diet might be a bloody waste of time."

Note: there's a lot that can be placed, regarding naturopathy, under the column "no sound scientific evidence", including the 'essentially naturopathic'.

The Skeptic's Dictionary Adds "Science-Based Medicine"

Bob Carroll writes in "Science-Based Medicine" [as of 2010-10-06]:

"science-based medicine (SBM) evaluates health claims, practices, and products by the best scientific evidence available [aka ALL the evidence]. Central to the idea of science-based [...] is the notion that science exists as an interdependent network of theories, knowledge, and laws [(how, ironically, HOLISTIC!)...while] evidence-based medicine (EBM) [narrowly / merely] considers as scientific evidence any results from a clinical trial [...] regardless of whether that clinical trial was grounded in scientific plausibility [(which isn't ALL the evidence, scientifically speaking)...] some claims are so implausible that clinical trials tend to confuse, rather than clarify the issue [...] when RCTs are performed on ineffective treatments with low prior probabilities, they tend not to yield merely ‘negative’ findings [...] they tend [...] to yield equivocal findings [(favoring the 'not-evident'!)...] it is illogical to give more weight to a set of questionable clinical trials that indicate some minimal level of support for a treatment than to a body of scientific knowledge that indicates the treatment lacks any scientific plausibility. EBM doesn't consider scientific plausibility as significant [...while] SBM considers scientific plausibility a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition [...] SBM holds that Bayesian probability is a superior measure of the data from a clinical trial than is the p-value of 'frequentist statistics' [...and we're reminded with a quote from Bausell] 'it's become politically correct to investigate nonsense' [aka NCCAM!]."

Note: as a moderately frequent commenter to the sciencebasedmedicine.org web page, I think this is a fine addition to the Skeptic's Dictionary.

Naturopathy's Medicatrix - News.Google.Com's 2005 Current Five Results

here, I do an archival search at news.google.com with the parameters >naturopathic medicatrix< and I summarize the current contents for Jan-Dec, 2005 [vsc 2010-10-06]:

001. news.google.com lists these hits for the above parameters:

001.a the Journal of Family Practice article "Naturopathic Medicine: What Can Patients Expect?" (excerpted)[vsc 2010-10-06] which states:

"Western medicine rarely takes into consideration the inherent organizing forces underlying [ah, the occult!] known physiologic processes such as metabolism or tissue repair. Naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], or the healing power of nature [HPN]."

001.b. the AANP press release "Naturopathic Physicians Convene for 20th Annual Convention" [vsc 2010-10-06] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is not new. Hipocrates [sp., 'Hippocrates'], a physician who lived some 2400 years ago, is considered the earliest predecessor of naturopathic care. His teachings emphasized nature is healer of all diseases from which he created the concept vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of  nature. This concept has been at the core of  medicine in many cultures and is a central theme of naturopathic physician care in the United States."

001.c. the naturalnews.com article "How the Care of Naturopathic Physicians Differs From that of Conventional Doctors: an Interview with Dr. Joseph Pizzorno" [2010-10-06] which states:

"Mike: It sounds like it's an approach that has a lot of faith in nature and faith in the human body to heal itself. Dr. Pizzorno: Very much so. We in naturopathic medicine have this theme called vis medicatrix naturae which is 'the healing power of nature.'"

001.d. an article from Alternatives Journal by Meyer, M. (ND CCNM) titled "Healing Communities.(Letter from Ottawa)(Benefits of Naturopathic Medicine)" [vsc 2010-10-06]:

"naturopathic medicine bases itself on the principle vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature. It never ceases to amaze me how effectively my patients can regain health after serious, acute or long-term chronic and degenerative illness."

001.e. another version of the AANP press release for their 20th Annual Convention [see 001.b.][vsc 2010-10-06].

002. what all these items have in common:

they do not explain what VMN-HPN is, specifically.

AANP's Natural Medicine Journal: Naturopathic / Holistic "Spiritual Science" Epistemic Conflation Nonsense

here, I offer an example of 'the essentially naturopathic nonsensical', such oxymoronic labelings as "spiritual science" in the AANP's Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ; see 001., below]:

001. NMJ's Freedenberg, R. (ND NECNM[IL]) states in "Naturopathic / Holistic Treatment of Mild to Moderate Depression" (2009-10)[vsc 2010-10-05]:

"[the] following are a number of evidence-based, effective alternative / naturopathic treatments [...e.g.] anthroposophic medicine [...which] is a spiritual science [...which] use[s] medicines based on homeopathic principles [(lovely)...and] uses the anthroposophic view of the human being as a blend of three interdependent aspects: the physical body; the life force [vitalism], understood as the source of growth and regeneration and sometimes called the soul [supernaturalism]; and the 'astral body,' which mediates between the body and the soul, also called the 'ego' or 'consciousness' [more supernaturalism in the sort of panpsychic / dualistic yet tripartite sense]."

Note: the equation of the holistic and alternative with the naturopathic, and the subset within that of anthroposophic "spiritual science."  That is a nonsense term, like a 'square circle.'  I've termed this error of knowledge blending "epistemic conflation."  It is a hallmark of naturopathy to inappropriately place nonscience and science-ejected matters together, such as supernaturalism and vitalism, and then falsely claim it all is within science.  Notice the immaterial / other-than-physical "life force" / "soul" equation as well.  We have stepped well outside of science and the science-based when we enter the evidenceless faithy-beliefy area of such sectarian models.  Of course, this is all one huge issue of knowledge-type incompetence / callousness.

002. now, NMJ claims, in "Statement of Purpose" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"the Natural Medicine Journal provides scientifically-valid, patient-centered health care information [...] readers of the journal and visitors to the site will find scientifically-valid, clinically-relevant information."

Note: and here's a link to their editorial board members.

003. but, of course, the science-ejected and science-unsupported is not in any way scientifically valid / within science [that's irrational]:

Basically, what's happening is that types of knowledge are being blended, then mislabeled as one type of knowledge.

You can get a sense of that from naturopathy's own definition, wherein they state, and I use Canada's NSAND site as an example per "What is a Naturopathic Doctor?" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends [...and] cooperate[s] with other branches of medical science."

Legitimate science, though, is not also nonscience just as a square and a circle are not the same.

But, naturopathy is NUTS LIKE THAT!  Something is defined as equal to what it isn't: the utmost reversal of values.

Natural Medicine Journal and UBCNM's 'Proven For Centuries' VMN Basis [A Coded Sectarian Science-Ejected Figmentation]

here, I cite from a recent article in Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ] regarding the fundamental context of the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM; see 001, below]; then, I decode their coded sectarian science-ejected VMN figmentation [see 002., below]:

001. NMJ states in "College of Naturopathic Medicine at the University of Bridgeport is Strong and Growing" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"in 2011, the Connecticut-based College of Naturopathic Medicine at the University of Bridgeport (UBCNM) will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of its first graduating class [...] over the past 10 years the school has remained steadfast in the philosophy that guides its teaching and clinical training. The philosophy, vis medicatrix naturae, means 'the healing power of nature' [...which is part of the] philosophies and healing modalities whose effectiveness has been proven for centuries [...] UBCNM continues the vis medicatrix naturae tradition by offering a program of professional education to prepare naturopathic physicians to provide compassionate healthcare that addresses the cause of disease."

Note: how to break the coded?  Hint: visit the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine. So, they are "steadfast" to VMN and claim it is "proven for centuries."  Overall, we're given the impression that naturopathy is "professional" and "compassionate."

002. if you did such, then you know:

002.a. VMN is naturopathy's opaque Latin coding for the superstitious concept of a "life force."  As the OBNM site states:

"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 [...] illness is a purposeful process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself."

 

Note: so, "life force" is claimed as "in fact."

002.b. but, "life force" hugely isn't...in fact:

e.g., Richard Dawkins writes in "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" (2008; ISBN 0199216800):

"life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]."

Note: "life force" is science-ejected.  Yet, as we've seen, naturopathy holds on to it "steadfast" and claims VMN is "proven for centuries."  This is HUGELY false.  Are we told the truth about naturopathy's principle context: that they label as science that which isn't, that they code and disguise their sectarian beliefs?  No, instead we are misled.

Therein, as I personally experienced at UBCNM between the years 1998-2002, this is NOT 

"professional" or "compassionate."  Unless you embrace what I've termed 'the reversal of values', wherein something and its logical opposite [e.g. science and nonscience] are falsely equated, and then therein wrongly called 'the same thing'. 

Ye Olde 'Naturopathy is Science' Claim - UBCNM 2010-10

hey, back to basics -- "science" falsely used upon the naturopathic as an overall academic category / marketing label when what is essentially naturopathy is QUITE exterior to science:

ND Birdsall on the AANP Youtube Channel - Naturopathic Oncology is VERY Scientific

here, I compare contrary claims regarding naturopathic oncology FROM WITHIN THE SAME CANCER HOSPITAL.  First, there's the AANP Youtube.com channel who has CTCA ND Birdsall stating in a CTCA partially-funded video series that the naturopathic approach is "very scientific" [see 001., below]; then, there's what CTCA says about naturopathy, which is that it is based in-fact upon the hugely science-exterior [see 002., below]:

001. Birdsall, T. (ND Bastyr 1985) states in "Naturopathic Physicians - Show #2, Chapter 2: Integrating Cancer Treatment (2 of 5)" [vsc 2010-10-02]:

"we take a very scientific, evidence-based approach [00.04.06...] utilizing scientific rationales, scientific studies, and clinical evidence [00.04.19...and we're reminded that this series was partly sponsored by] Cancer Treatment Centers of America [CTCA; see here]."

Note: science, science, science.

002. naturopathy's science-ejected basis via CTCA:

002.a. CTCA states in "Naturopathic Medicine for Pharyngeal Cancer" [vsc 2010-10-02]:

"listed below are some of the founding principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the healing power of nature: naturopathy applies the healing power of nature and the body's inherent ability to establish, maintain and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. Your naturopathic practitioner's role in pharyngeal cancer treatment is to facilitate and augment this natural healing process."

Note: yet, we are also told by CTCA in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-09-30]:

"[that naturopathy is] scientifically grounded."

002.b. but, such "life force" vitalism is science-ejected.  So, naturopathy's overall absurdity is that it claims a label that the essential naturopathic is in-fact excluded from: science.

Naturopathy's "Objective Observation" of 'Subjective Figmentations' - A Google.com Search Round-Up

here, I use the Google.com web search engine and the parameters >"objective observation" naturopathic< and list all the first-page results [as of 2010-10-01; see 002., below]; then I muse on their false-labeling / knowledge-type muddle [see 002., below]:

001. results:

001.a. the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine web page "What Is a Naturopathic Physician?" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are based upon objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances."

Note: so, the overall promise is that naturopathy's tenets are 'scientifically in-fact.'  You will see this promise made from naturopathy's highest echelon national consortia all the way down to the individual NMD practitioner.

001.b. the practice page of Dye, J. (NMD Bastyr), Groves, A. (NMD SCNM), and Terlisner, A. (NMD Bastyr) titled "What is Naturopathy?" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the practice of naturopathy emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."

001.c. a Skeptic North comment of mine along the same lines as this current post.

001.d. the grand illusion, the Oregon.gov web page "About Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis. It is these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches."

001.e. the National College of Natural Medicine page "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-10-01] 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."

001.f. the practice page of Smith, G. (NMD SCNM) titled "Doctor as Teacher: Naturopathic Medicine of Southern Arizona" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.g. the practice page of Stephens, J. (NMD SCNM) titled "Naturopathic Philosophy" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are based upon objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.h. the practice page of Steriti, R. (ND SCNM) titled "The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians Definition of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.i. the web page of Providence Health and Services and Aschtgen, C.D. (ND Bastyr) titled "Naturopathic Oncology" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are based on objective observation of the nature of health and disease."

001.j. the practice page of Bubis, E. (ND NCNM) titled "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis. It is these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches."

001.k. the practice page of Cox, S.E. (ND NCNM) titled "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis. The following tenants [sp., 'tenets'], reaching far back to the time of Hippocrates, distinguish the profession from other medical approaches."

001.L. the practice page of Keaton, D. (NMD NCNM) titled "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.m. the practice page of Awad, R. (ND Bastyr) titled "AANP Definition of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.n. the practice page of von der Heydt, L. (ND NCNM) titled "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] 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."

001.o. the practice page of Engard, K. (NMD NCNM) titled "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.p. Chaitow's naturopathic textbook, via books.google.com, titled "Naturopathic Physicial Medicine: Theory and Practice for Manual Therapists and Naturopaths" (2008, ISBN 0443103909) which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice.  The principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances.  Methods used are consistent with these principles [p.002]."

001.q. the practice page of Patterson, J. (ND UBCNM) titled "About Jaquel Patterson" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.r. the practice page of Holk, L.E. (ND NCNM) and White, D.J. (ND NCNM) titled "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underline 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. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.s. the practice page of Sakonyi, J. (ND Bastyr) titled "The Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are part of what distinguishes the naturopathic approach to health care from the conventional approach and are based on objective observation of the nature of health and disease.  The following principles are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice."

001.t. the practice page of Rios-Young, M. (ND Bastyr) titled "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine it’s [sp., its] practice. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease."

002. the false label of "objective observation" placed upon 'subjective figmentations':

well, for starters, a defining principle of naturopathy is that the body is run by an immaterial 'vital force' which I'll condense as a 'purposeful life spirit.'  This force doesn't exist.  It is a figmentation.  It is a belief in the sense of a without-evidenced-article-of-faith.  Vitalism has been ejected from science for OH SO MANY YEARS.  It is a subjective figmentation, and not an objectively observed phenomenon. 

This muddle of 'kinds of knowledge' essentially defines naturopathy [epistemic conflation].  Perhaps what also defines naturopathy is a lack of intellectual rigor in terms of being able to make the distinction.

Notice that I've not even touched upon the science-exterior supernaturalism which is also built into the naturopathic belief-amalgam.

Note science, not transparent, not a profession.

CTCA's ND Kellman and the 'Coded Naturopathic Science-Ejected' - AANP Youtube Style

here, I cite from an American Association of Naturopathic Physician's [AANP] Youtube channel that opaquely explains naturopathy's essential premise [see 001., below]; then, I decode that so-often coded science-ejected premise through AANP and Cancer Treatment Centers of America web pages [see 002., below]:

001. the AANP's Executive Director Karen Howard has up on Youtube the video "Daniel Kellman, ND, FABNO, on 'Good Morning Texas' - Cancer Treatment (September 15, 2010)" [vsc 2010-09-28]:

"[interviewer Rob McCollum] when someone gets a cancer diagnosis, they want to do whatever they can to fight it.  Now that includes taking advantage of traditional treatments and naturopathic medicine.  Daniel Kellman is a naturopathic clinician at Cancer Treatment Centers of America.  Good to see you sir, welcome. [the ND] Nice to see you Rob. [McCollum] Thank you for driving in from Tulsa this morning.  So, tell me a little bit about what exactly naturopathic medicine is and how that can help reduce some of the side effects that come along with cancer treatments. [the ND] Well, naturopathic medicine uses what is called the healing power or nature or the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] to restore and maintain health. [McCollum] Wait, say that again. [the ND] Vis medicatrix naturae, which is Latin for the healing power of nature.  And so we utilize that in cancer treatment to protect healthy tissues while patients are undergoing some of the chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery  treatments [then some supplements are shown and talked about...and] acupuncture [...and] homeopathic medicines [mentioned...plus some slides for] Cancer Treatment Centers of America [are shown...McCollum] what kind of training to you have to have to become a naturopathic clinician? [...the ND] four years of undergraduate, four years of medical school [...] we have the training to keep people safe."

Note: notice that VMN was never really detailed.  In the interview, the interviewer then later referred to it as 'the body's systems.'  Well, that's the game NDs play, which I will detail in 002.  For ND Kellman's bio. at CTCA, click here [vsc 2010-09-30].

002. decoding what should have been transparently communicated to facilitate informed consent and accuracy in commercial advertising:

002.a. AANP:

002.a1. naturopathy's essential vitalism "vis" belief:

you can get a glimpse of the underlying vitalism [as in, usually, 'file under lying' -- as in 'lie of omission'] from the AANP's blog, such as ND Schor's "Letting Nature Heal"(2009-08-11)[vsc 2010-05-10] wherein he states:

"are we not supposed to be naturopaths and is not our goal supposed to be to stimulate the vital force or the vis medicatrix naturae [...] let me quote a respected medical writer on nature’s healing properties [...Hahnemann!] 'what the vital force does in these so-called crises and how it does it remains a mystery to us like all the internal operations of the organic vital economy.'"

Now, Schor is an NCNM graduate, and here's the essential vitalism of his alma mater.  Now, Schor received AANP's "Vis Award"[vsc 2010-09-30] in 2008, and he explains:

"at the 2008 annual convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Dr. Jacob Schor was both surprised and honored by his colleagues as the first recipient of the Vis Award [...] this award was created to honor those naturopathic doctors who have exhibited similar characteristics of service to their patients and commitment to living and practicing naturopathic medicine in accordance to what is called the 'vis medicatrix naturae' or healing force of nature.  The vis medicatrix naturae, or vis, is one of the fundamental principles that guides and distinguishes the practice of naturopathic medicine. The vis is the belief [yes, belief!] that every living being contains a 'life force'. When this force is given proper building blocks and freed from obstacles, each being will come to a state of ideal health and balance."

So, vitalism vitalism vitalism.  A belief.

002.a2. naturopathy's science claim [upon the vis, particularly]:

here's an archived AANP definition of naturopathy, circa 2006 [vsc 2010-09-30], which states, in terms of science, that their principles, including that all-important "vis", are based upon "objective observation" and are "continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances."

Note: that's quite a promise.  And you'll notice that even on that AANP page, there's no explicit / transparent explanation of 'the vis.'

002.a3. the science-ejected status of vitalism:

well, that's quite easy to show.

002.a4. 'we are irrational':

so, you have the hugely science-ejected falsely labeled 'able to survive scientific scrutiny', which is hugely irrational.  AANP's label could be, if it were to be honest about its essential 'nature', "we are irrational."

002.b. CTCA:

002.b1. details naturopathy's essential vitalism:

in this archived page [vsc 2010-09-30] circa 2004.

002.b2. while falsely labeling it science:

as in "scientifically grounded" [vsc 2010-09-30].

002.b3. in terms of irrationalism, ditto, and cancer is a very serious affliction which I'd hope would be approached from rationality instead of naturopathy.  Ironically, Kellman's bio. page at CTCA states:

"he is a good listener, has an investigative and scientific mind, and is compassionate." 

It didn't take me too long just here to scientifically investigate naturopathy's essential premises for the sake of the public good [compassion!].

Interesting that the elephant in the room is so easily missed by NDs, and so well-camouflaged by them in their 'explanations.'

CCNM to CPSO: 'Look Very Closely At Us, and Embrace Us'

here, I cite from the 2010 submission by the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine [CCNM] to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario [CPSO] regarding CPSO's 'Complementary Medicine' policy which asks for scrutiny of naturopathy [see 001., below]; and then I scrutinize, analyze and share their essential nonsense [see 002., below]:

001. CCNM states in "Complementary Medicine Consultation Feedback: Responses from Organizations […] Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine" (2010-07-29; vsc 2010-09-27):

"thank you for the invitation to comment on the current College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) policy [titled] 'Complementary Medicine' […] given the focus of the Ontario government on fostering more collaborative healthcare in support of better patient outcomes, this review is as timely as it is important [...] the growth in complementary medicine [...] the collaboration between naturopathic doctors and members of the CPSO […] CPSO’s Duties to the Patient include Collaborating with Patients and Others, this is an inadequate framework to address the nature of collaboration required for effective patient care […] we improve the collaboration between professions in order to provide the quality of care that patients in Ontario expect and deserve. CCNM is Canada's premier institute for education and research in naturopathic medicine. The college offers a rigorous four-year, full-time doctor of naturopathic medicine program [...requiring] standard premedical prerequisites and strong academic transcripts [...] program graduates must pass North American-wide entrance-to-practice examinations [...question] does the policy provide useful guidance? [...answer] within the field of complementary medicine it is critical to distinguish between the highly educated and regulated practitioners, and others […] the policy needs to distinguish between regulated professionals within the complementary field and others. In particular, with respect to naturopathic doctors the policy should state that 'it is not misconduct to refer' […] the policy requires physicians to 'act honestly and always in their patients’ best interests' our hope would be that the requirement should be that they 'act honestly and without bias' [...question] are there any issues not included in the current policy that should be addressed? [...answer] the policy provides far too little direction with respect to the interaction with respect to other medical practitioners […] naturopathic doctors are experts in [...such things as ] homeopathy [and] traditional Chinese medicine […] the policy should explicitly forbid the discontinuance of care to a patient based solely on the patient’s choice to see a regulated health professional providing complementary care […] the policy should also make it clear that many areas of complementary medicine require extensive education and training for safe and effective practice [...question] how could the policy be improved? [...answer] physicians should consider referring to naturopathic doctors as specialists in naturopathic medicine just the same way they refer to other medical specialists […] in arriving at a diagnosis and determining appropriate treatment plans naturopathic doctors rely upon laboratory reports in the same manner that physicians do […] naturopathic doctors possess a unique expertise […] given the long history of naturopathic medicine as a regulated health profession in Ontario […] any examination of a policy on complementary medicine must by necessity look closely at naturopathic medicine […] that policy review must focus most of all on approaches to collaboration between physicians and naturopathic doctors, as well as other regulated health professionals […] we appreciate the opportunity to provide input and we encourage the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to develop a policy in support of effective and efficient patient-centered care that recognizes the value of naturopathic medicine in healthcare. We would be pleased to meet with the committee that is conducting the review to provide detailed information with respect to the practice of naturopathic medicine in Ontario."

Note: where do I begin?

002. some skeptical analysis and scrutiny: 

-"better patient outcomes," really.  How do outcomes improve when naturopathic archaic crap is blended with much-better-vetted modern medical knowledge [e.g., like mixing placebo therapies like homeopathy and acupuncture with things which are actually having a specific effect]?  And since naturopathy confuses the public immensely by labeling that which is hugely science-ejected as science...[ah, the absurdity];

-"growth," and popularity doesn't justify legitimizing and cooperating with nonsense, otherwise known as "collaboration";

-"an inadequate framework," recalls, for me, the entire naturopathic framework, wherein the hugely science-ejected sectarian is falsely labeled as able to survive scientific scrutiny;

-"between professions", "a regulated health profession", "other regulated health professionals", "to provide detailed information with respect to the practice of naturopathic medicine in Ontario", except naturopathy isn't ethically able to be 'of the professions.'  Here's an example of manipulation and a lack of informed consent: an Ontario ND stating naturopathy's basis without actually / clearly stating naturopathy's science-ejected basis [oops, that's not an ND, my mistake, that's ALL OF THEM IN ONTARIO];

-"quality of care" and "regulated health professional" and "the same manner that physicians do", hmmm.  Is this quality of care: pseudodiagnostics and crap therapeutics?  Who deserves that?  And who expects such crap from a supposedly 'regulated profession?'  It's like a dentist using a Ouija board to determine which tooth is actually the one that is hurting you, and then using a fairy wand to fix it;

-"rigorous"?  Well, a CCNM education is blatantly archaic and sectarian, e.g. "homeopathic medicine: NDs use diluted doses of natural substances (plants, animals and minerals) to stimulate the body’s vital force and promote self-healing";

-"standard premedical prerequisites" and "strong academic transcripts," what's the point? You'll enter an ND program with high academic standards only to be, quite truly, mind-fucked: e.g., health science with be taught as equivalent to that which is exterior to science;

 

-"North American-wide entrance-to-practice examinations", which is the NPLEX, falsely labels homeopathy [empty pills postured as profoundly medicinal] as "clinical science";

-"highly educated and regulated practitioners, and others" and "unique expertise", but as we see [as I personally went through], ND education sucks and is a long, expensive road ending up in absurdity, nonsense, and irrationality;

-"regulated professionals", yeah, sure.  "Being is doing" and I don't see such;

-"it is not misconduct to refer", well, it IS.  CPSO is right to regard participation with NDs as misconduct.  Naturopathy itself is misconduct on so many levels;

-"act honestly and always in their patients’ best interests", hmmm.  Since when is it in someone's interest to participate in wacko archaic pseudomedicine or plain old pseudotherapeutics & pseudodiagnostics?  Aka naturopathy;

-"act honestly and without bias", when, actually, naturopathy is honestly and objectively NOT HEALTH SCIENCE.  The honest / non-biased evaluation of naturopathy is that it is a not-modern belief system from the 1800s that doesn't properly label itself;

-"other medical practitioners" and "other medical specialists", where we go with the 'we're medical' just like naturopathy's false self-labeling as a "branch of medical science";

-"experts", experts in nonsense and absurdity;

-"forbid the discontinuance of care", well naturopathy makes a mockery of physicianship and I can understand doctors' frustration;

-"extensive education and training for safe and effective practice" and "effective and efficient patient-centered care", but as we've seen, since naturopathy conflates scientific knowledge with archaic 'beliefy-stuff' and then labels the whole thing "science", how could they know what is safe and effective in such a knowledge-type muddle?  It is a mockery of professional education and training;

-"look closely at naturopathic medicine", yes, and see the nonsense;

Wherein CNME Falsely Credentials Me "ND" and Asks Me For Money [ISYN]

here, I cite from some recent snail mail I received from the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education [CNME]:

001. CNME states in this 2010-09 letter:

"CNME [is] the accrediting agency for naturopathic medical programs in the U.S. and Canada [...] I want to see naturopathic medicine gain its rightful place as a licensed medical profession [...] I'm writing to ask you to join me in supporting the Council my making a generous financial donation [...] CNME sets high standards for naturopathic medical programs and ensures that colleges in our field meet these standards [...it is] quality education [...and] extensive professional education [...] financial support provided by naturopathic doctors like you is essential to the CNME [...] Nancy Scarlett, N.D. Member CNME Board of Directors, Faculty Member, NCNM."

Note: well, I'm not an ND.  I merely went to UB's ND program for four years and left it IN DISGUST because of its absurd crap and the fact that based upon the number of patients I was seeing and the needed quota to graduate, I would have had to be there for some ten years worth of tuition.  So, I'd practice crap medicine after being hugely gouged.

002. some criticism of the above language:

-naturopathy is essentially based upon absurdity and deception, therefore it is not and can't be a profession;

-I wouldn't ever give naturopathy money to continue such an agenda;

-"high standards"? "Quality"? No.  I don't see that at all.

003. an example of CNME-naturopathy's low quality & absurdity, direct from NCNM, ND Scarlett's institution [and the trunk of the North American naturopathy tree] from NCNM's own web page "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-09-27]:

"[we are told that] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...which] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...including #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 [vitalism, which is science-ejected]. 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 [again, vitalism, claimed as scientifically in-fact when in-fact science-ejected] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...aka] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [more vitalism...] the physician must strive to inspire hope as well as understanding. The physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [some kind of supernaturalism-religiosity, also science-ejected...] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [more science-ejected supernaturalism...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [and more supernaturalism], mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors [...and] homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of 'like cures like.' Clinical observation indicates that it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level [bullshit], gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels [again, more supernaturalism-religiosity]."

Note: so, we have a claim that the science-ejected vitalistic, supernatural, and homeopathic survive scientific scrutiny.  That is fundamentally irrational.  The overall absurdity: science no longer requires evidence, it is merely a marketing label that can be placed falsely upon 'that which hugely isn't science supported.'   Or, to put it another way, that that which is scientific is the same thing as that which isn't and it's all good.  Such quality! That is not legally or morally tenable.  I'm all for freedom of conscience, wherein a person is allowed to believe or not believe what they please.  But, this is commerce, this is a postured professionalism, wherein money is taken for something falsely labeled and trust is abused.

As Moynihan once stated, "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

Sandwalk Schwacks Naturopathy

here, I cite from a recent blog post by scientist Larry Moran on his Sandwalk blog here on blogspot:

001. in "What Is Naturopathy?" [2010-09-23], Larry Moran writes:

"I really don't know much at all about the differences between 'naturopathic medicine' and quackery [...until I] look[ed] at an authoritative source, the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine right here in Toronto [...from their definition] now I know the difference between naturopathy and other forms of non-evidence based medicine (i.e. alternative medicine, quackery). There isn't any."

Note: yes!  I must credit the Richard Dawkins Foundation web page for this lead.

Craniosacral Naturopathic Nonsense & the ASA Judgment 2010

here, I cite the five first-page pro-craniosacral therapy [CST] naturopathic hits that google.com yields [see 001., below]; then, I summarize a recent ASA [UK] dismissal of this pseudotherapy [see 002., below]:

001. a 2010-09-19 google.com web search with the parameters >naturopathic craniosacral< results in such top results as:

001.a. Wiener, J.M. (ND Bastyr 1998) of Massachusetts who states in "Additional Services" [vsc 2010-09-19]:

"craniosacral therapy: this hands-on method enhances the craniosacral system, which is comprised of fluids that surround and protect the brain and spinal cord. Using a soft touch, this method releases pressure and improves the functions of the central nervous system. This therapy is increasingly used as a preventative measure against disease and a variety of medical problems."

Note: Wiener tells us in her bio., as NDs are apt to do: "[she] received her doctor of naturopathic medicine degree from Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, one of the country's four medical schools specializing in science based natural medicine and research."

001.b. Skinner, D.A. (ND Bastyr 2002) of California who states in "Craniosacral Therapy" [vsc 2010-09-19]:

"craniosacral therapy gently stimulates the body’s natural healing abilities [...] for decades (since the early 1900’s) various forms of cranial manipulation have been used to treat a range of conditions, from headaches and ear infections to stroke, spinal cord injury and nervous system disorders [...it] encourage[s] and enhance[s] the body’s own self-healing and self-regulating capabilities, even in the most acute pathologies [...it] uses very light touch and is suitable for people of all ages, including babies, children and the elderly, and can be effective in acute or chronic cases [and a host of diseases are listed]."

Note: Skinner's bio. states: "[she is a] licensed naturopathic doctor / certified craniosacral therapist [...] she has further focused her education in craniosacral technique [...and] is a certified craniosacral instructor."  Also of note, the NDs Skinner, who practice together, have stated in "Constitutional Hydrotherapy for Home Application" [vsc 2010-08-06]: "constitutional hydrotherapy [...] the purpose of this treatment is to stimulate a more rapid improvement in health [...] it is tonifying to the digestive system, helps to normalize circulation, soothes the nervous system, and stimulates the eliminative processes and the 'vital force' [which is a figmentation]."

001.c. Shah, S. (ND CCNM) of Canada states in "Craniosacral Therapy" [vsc 2010-09-19]:

"craniosacral (osteopathic) therapy (or cranial therapy) is a gentle non-invasive therapy [...] American osteopathic physician, Dr. William Garner Sutherland, discovered that there was a movement of the bones of the head (cranium) [which are actually FUSED in an adult...] at birth it is possible that some distortion or warping pattern of the cranial bones can result in possible misalignment of the spinal bones.  This misalignment of the spine almost always follows on from the cranial area, to which the spine is joined [...] this discovery and the osteopathic therapeutics to be able to correct this problem has undoubtedly been [a] great contribution to health restoration [...] it is therefore probably one of the most significant advances in healthcare delivery to have taken place in many years."

Note: really!  And we're told on her page "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-09-19]: "naturopathic medicine is 'vitalistic' in approach [that is, again, based upon figmentation]."

001.d. Montague, G. (ND ICNHS 1988) states in "Services":

"craniosacral therapy is an extremely gentle and subtle form of hands-on bodywork in which a highly trained practitioner is able to sense the innate rhythmicity of the central nervous system through all the body tissues. This movement is known as the craniosacral rhythmic impulse, and can be felt anywhere on the body, although the head (cranium) and the base of the spine (sacrum) are usually key areas of attention by the practitioner. Because craniosacral therapy is a hands-on approach to energy work, it is a useful method of integrating the hysical/ biomechanical and the energetic/emotional aspects of the whole person."

Note: really!  I love the coding of vitalism / supernaturalism per "energetic" and then its conflation with emotion.  WTF is "hystical" anyway?

001.e. Abrin, T. (ND NCNM) states in "Naturopathic Treatments":

"craniosacral therapy is a gentle bodywork technique [...per] the rhythmic movement of the craniosacral system [...] craniosacral therapy is performed on a person fully clothed. Using a light touch, the practitioner monitors the rhythm of the craniosacral system to detect potential restrictions and imbalances. The practitioner then uses delicate manual techniques to release those problem areas and relieve undue pressure on the brain and spinal cord. Craniosacral therapy can help alleviate a range of illness, pain and dysfunction."

Note: I should add something about my own experience with CST.  In 1999, while in ND school in CT, the school had a 'conference' and CST was part of the workshop set.  So, I'd never heard of it before, and did that workshop, and lay as a patient while someone held my head in their hands and was told what to look for etc.  I came away from that experience with the sinking feeling that I was now in a cult.

002. the National Council Against Health Fraud's "Consumer Health Digest #10-37" (2010-09-16) states:

"[the UK's] ASA Nixes Craniosacral Therapy Claims [complaint reference #125766]: the Advertising Standards Authority has concluded that a Craniosacral Therapy Association (CTA) leaflet was misleading because it contained claims that could not be substantiated [...] craniosacral therapy (also called cranial therapy) is based on the notion that a rhythm exists in the flow of the fluid that surrounds the brain and spinal cord and that diseases can be diagnosed by detecting aberrations in this rhythm and corrected by manipulating or lightly touching the skull [...] there is no logical reason why pressing the skull should influence the course of ailments throughout the body [...not-in-evidence] claims included [...that CST] assists the body's natural capacity for self-repair [...] is often beneficial for fragile or acutely painful conditions, as well as during pregnancy, after an operation, accident, fall or injury, and for young babies [...that it] aid[s] people with almost any condition [...that it is] helpful for 40 different conditions [...] the ASA determined that 'a body of robust scientific evidence, such as clinical trials, would be required' [...and that] even if craniosacral therapy could relieve symptoms, the ad could discourage readers from seeking essential treatment for serious medical conditions from a qualified medical practitioner."

Note: ouch!

003. so, there is quite a contrast:

NDs love CST [better to call it CSPT -- craniosacral pseudotherapy] and it lacks any kind of substantive evidence or even that most important kind of initial evidence to even warrent further consideration: plausibility.  

Like so much within naturopathy, that falsely labels itself a "branch of medical science", there simply isn't any substance to the 'science-supported' claim.