Naturopathy and MMS Oral Industrial Bleach [chlorine dioxide] Quackery

here, I cite from Pharyngula regarding a young skeptical man's exposure of a very dangerous sCAM panacea, oral industrial bleach [see 001., below]; then, from a New Zealand report that quotes naturopaths supporting this 'therapy' anyway [see 002., below]; and finally, from CNN which mentions the FDA has issued a warning on MMS [see 003., below]:

001. P.Z. Myers writes in "Drinking Bleach is Good For You?" [2010-10-18]:

"I haven't heard much about Rhys Morgan in the US [...] but he won an award at TAM London for his skeptical work [...he] boldly took on peddlers of evil woo: they were selling some crap called Miracle Mineral Solution, which is nothing but bleach [...] it takes some gall for a quack to prescribe a treatment for a chronic intestinal disorder that involves glugging down a corrosive poison, and then when the poor patient suffers with a painfully sore throat, vomiting, and diarrhea, to claim that they should drink more, that's a sign that it is working...but that's what they were doing [...] realize too that he's only 15 years old, so we can look forward to another hundred years or so of Mr. Morgan shredding the quacks. I almost feel sorry for the poor lying frauds."

Note: Dr. Myers is right to CONDEMN this.  Notice, some things are simply WRONG and don't deserve the charity of 'fair and balanced' reporting, since they are ABSURD and HARMFUL.

002. New Zealand's The Daily Post reports, in "Naturopath Reports Good Results From 'Harmful' Liquid"(2010-10-16):

"Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) is being marketed to cure various illnesses from colds and flu to Aids, hepatitis, malaria, herpes, tuberculosis and cancer [a cure-all / panacea!]. Medsafe has issued an official warning advising people to stop taking the liquid [...] 'the product instructs consumers to mix the 28 per cent sodium chlorite solution with an acid such as citric acid. This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment [...] high oral doses of this bleach, such as those recommended in the labeling, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and symptoms of severe dehydration' [...yet a] Rotorua naturopath [...] said she was living proof the solution was helpful not harmful [...] 'it's fast and quick acting and I've never had a negative effect [...] this is just a battle between pharmaceutical companies and complementary medicine. The sickness industry is a multi-billion dollar industry and the reason why Medsafe is against this is because it's a relatively cheap way to treat sickness' [...another] Rotorua naturopath Aiden Pargeter of the Naturopathic Center said he didn't object to the use of MMS and hadn't heard of any personal reports of it being harmful. 'It has its place. Because chlorine dioxide increases the oxygen in the blood it is good for parasites' he said.'"

Note: actually, I think perhaps OXYGEN increases the oxygen level of the blood, in certain conditions, like emphysema.  Let me think of the options here for an emphysemic, for instance: rot my guts out with bleach and go hypoxic, or take my life-saving O2 and not corrode my GI tract?

NDs, of course, have a fetish for imaginary parasites.  It was naturopath Hulda Clark, after all, who claimed an imaginary parasite was responsible for cancer, who invented a machine to zap the cancer, and who died of cancer recently.

003. CNN reports "FDA warns against using Miracle Mineral Solution" (2010-08-02):

"the Food and Drug Adminstration [sp., 'Administration'] is warning people not to use a supplement that claims to treat diseases ranging from HIV to acne, after receiving reports it is making consumers sick [...] the FDA has received numerous reports of serious side effects including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and life threatening low-blood pressure from dehydration [...] when used as directed, the FDA says Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach often used in industrial water treatment and [for] stripping textiles [...] MMS is also marketed under the name Miracle Mineral Supplement [...] if you have used MMS and its made you sick, the FDA says you should see a doctor as soon as possible.  [And] the FDA would also like to hear from you.  Click here for more information."

Note: perhaps the notorious 'supplement industry protecting' DSHEA law is shielding the maker?  As that Quackwatch article states:

"most people think that dietary supplements and herbs are closely regulated to ensure that they are safe, effective, and truthfully advertised. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although some aspects of marketing are regulated, the United States Congress has concluded that 'informed' consumers need little government protection. This conclusion was embodied in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 -- commonly referred to as 'DSHEA' -- which severely limits the FDA's ability to regulate these products."

McGill U.'s Call to Arms Against Pseudoscience - Montreal Gazette 2010-10-16

Joe Schwarcz, "director of McGill University's Office for Science and Society" writes in "Confronting the Plague of Pseudoscience" in the Montreal Gazette (2010-10-18):

"scientifically unsupported claims about therapeutic interventions that are not science-based offer false hope. Worse, they may steer patients away from proven conventional treatments [...] pseudoscience is enjoying a golden age [...it] can masquerade as science and wreak intellectual and physical havoc [...though] a definition is hard to come by because pseudoscience takes on so many forms [...it is a] plague [...an] intellectual muddling [...and] most scientists [...] would agree that when they see it, they know it. But this is not necessarily the case for people not well versed in science [...] in essence, pseudoscience encompasses any belief, process or claim that pretends to have a scientific basis but actually has none [(yes!)...] real science accumulates facts and formulates testable theories to gain an understanding of the physical world, pseudoscience relies on anecdotes, ideology and cherry-picked data to support preconceived notions [...and] is often mired in dogma [...] homeopathy would be a typical example of a pseudoscience [...per] no scientific basis [...also] distance healing [...] when scientists start raising eyebrows at such mindless twaddle, the pseudoscience champions unleash their usual attacks, claiming that scientists are closed-minded [...though] as Carl Sagan cleverly said, they may have laughed at Columbus and the Wright brothers, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Scientists are quite prepared to stop laughing when evidence is provided [...] where is the comparable evidence for astrology, iridology [a pseudodiagnostic], crystal healing, quantum healing, magnetic healing, 'chi' channels [vitalism], telepathy, or creationism? Where is the proof that John Kanzius's radio waves can cure cancer or that [naturopath] Hulda Clark's 'zapper' can zap it away? There isn't any, and Hulda is not going to produce any, given she passed away from cancer last year [(oh snap!)...] it is time to stem the rising tide of pseudoscience [...] the Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium is one of McGill's premier annual events and this year focuses on pseudoscience [...it will have] four world-renowned experts on pseudoscience [...] Dr. Ben Goldacre, medical columnist for The Guardian in England and author of Bad Science; Dr. David Gorski [...] a managing editor for the famed 'Science-Based Medicine' blog; Dr. Michael Shermer, Scientific American columnist and founder of Skeptic magazine; and the incomparable and indefatigable James Randi, the world's leading investigator of pseudo-scientific and paranormal claims."

Note: naturopathy, of course, is a world renown pseudoscience. At the Naturowatch site, Dr. Barrett's article is famous for calling the average naturopath a "muddlehead."

ASTC on the Naturalistic Basis of Science

the Association of Science-Technology Centers [ASTC] states in "Evolution in Science Centers":

"the theory of evolution by natural selection is a unifying concept that explains the incredible diversity of living things, their genetic relationship, and evidence that living things change over time [...it is] central to modern science [...]

'[from 2005] ASTC and its members -- science centers and museums around the world -- present information based on scientific evidence [...we're] committed to advancing the public understanding of science and contributing to the development of a scientifically literate society. Science is a human endeavor that uses observations and experimentation to develop explanations of the natural world. Scientific theories are grounded in and compatible with evidence [...and] is based on hundreds of years of scientific observation and experimentation and many thousands of peer-reviewed publications' [...] 

in response to public discussion about evolution [science] and creationism [nonscience] in museums, Jeffrey Kirsch, Director of the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center, San Diego, California, wrote in the May 3, 2005 issue of the online newspaper Voice of San Diego:

'scientists parse the unanswerable into something they can answer through experiment, reasoning, or observational discovery. And, in general, the new answers lead to other questions that provide the basis for future studies and...future questions. Seen this way, science is a seemingly never-ending human quest to understand how living and non-living things work. It is quintessentially open-ended, and curiosity is the universal prerequisite for a working scientist [...] belief-based explanations have one aspect in common: they cannot be tested the way a scientific model can be. The scientific understanding of biological development on earth, usually referred to as evolution, is derived from the search for natural explanations for phenomena such as the fossil record, the geological record, and our planet's biosphere. And these explanations must be tested again and again until they become generally accepted or changed to fit the facts. So, when an institution uses the word science in its name...it is understood by all to be concerned with natural and verifiable explanations for the way things work' [...]

[and ASTC recommends the following excellent resources]

 

Understanding Evolution [...] by the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education;

 

National Center for Science Education: Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools;

Evolution Resources, National Science Teachers Association;

Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents [...] by the Museum of the Earth at the Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, NY;

.Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion: Evolution, American Association for the Advancement of Science;

The Evolution Controversy in Our Schools - Letter to Academy members from President Bruce Alberts. National Academy of Sciences.  March 4, 2005;

Explore Evolution, a new exhibit at the University of Nebraska State Museum;

Evolution: Constant Change and Common Threads, Howard Hughes Medical Institute on-demand webcast of 2005 Holiday Lectures and student discussion session on reconciling religion and evolution;

Thomas Jefferson Fossil Collection, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia."

Note: while ASTC advances science understanding, it seems to me that naturopathy -- at its core -- does the opposite.  And while science is preponderantly based upon naturalism and evidence, naturopathy seems to think that it's fine to throw in supernaturalism and not worry about evidence at all.  And while mainstream science heartily admits that articles of faith aren't, roughly speaking, processable through the methodologies of science, naturopathy seems to think that what science is, ultimately, is merely the process of putting ink to page to create [mythical] facts.

But what I love most is this:

"when an institution uses the word science in its name...it is understood by all to be concerned with natural and verifiable explanations for the way things work."

That's not true with naturopathy.  Naturopathy labels the supernatural nonverifiable and downright science-ejected science at the institutional level.

A Facebook Conversation With ND Maloney [wherein he awards me a gold medal]

here, I share a textual exchange I had with ND Maloney that occurred through Facebook in August of this year [see 001., below]; then I talk a little bit about his alma mater NCNM [see 002., below]:

001. ND Maloney [ND NCNM 2002] (this is his practice page) began the exchange [my comments are centered in blue, the original exchange is right justified]:

"[the ND] I read through your some of your UB stuff and it sounds like you got a bum rap

[a bum rap is usually when you are accused of something you didn't do, so I don't really know what he's saying here because I've not been accused of anything, I'm the accuser]

[...] I'm writing a book [...] the goal is not ultimately to promote or trash anything, it's to make sure stuff like what happened to you doesn't happen to anyone else 

[perhaps he is writing a book; how nice to engage in some kind of education consumer protection; perhaps it is like this ND's book on naturopathy (ISBN 0977655245)]

[...] I don't disagree with anything you wrote

[oh, I think we disagree on a lot of things! E.g.: you practice homeopathy, apparently!]

[...and he asks me some questions (Q)...here are my answers (A) to a few]

Q: "Trashing." A: If anything is being trashed, it is science,  professional standards, human rights, and ethical rigor -- by naturopathy.

Q: "Some people shouldn't become N.D.s." A: Since 'the naturopathic' is essentially an irrational ruse, NOBODY should.

Q: I wondered if you'd mind if I provided a link to your site to give people a sense of the philosophical issues involved. A: My web pages are public, and it is well within fair-use rights to link to them or excerpt from them.

Q: The goal is not ultimately to promote or trash anything. A: I'd hope, if you are dealing with something 'professional,' that your goal is to promote the highest standards of professionalism. Such neurality [sp., 'neutrality']is epistemic cowardice.

Q: It's to make sure stuff like what happened to you doesn't happen to anyone else. A: That would be solved by stopping the false labelings going on by naturo.

[...and regarding a video he has up, I responded] now that I've seen the video [...] I'm rather disturbed by your admission that the naturo. route allows you to freely experiment on patients while, preponderantly, the health care system has constructed 'ethical safeties' in this modern era to protect vulnerable patients from experimental situations which may violate many human rights accords

[...the ND] goodness, now I'm a Nazi. Of course not. I have to meet the same ethical standards as the state M.D.s

[...me] I don't think naturo. has anywhere near the ethical standards of 'state M.D.s.' Take homeopathy for instance: pills with nothing in them, claimed to be medications. Or vital force and other supernatural figmentations claiming to be scientific fact

[yup; and, criticism of regular medicine still can't justify naturopathy]

[...the ND] have a look at the Wikipedia definition of the scientific method. It doesn't say anywhere that you should start out with an angry, closed mind. A closed mind in this case involves a belief system surrounding your experiences with naturopathic medicine and evidently a whole lot of false assumptions about conventional medicine

[I'm not angry, I'm appalled; my mind isn't closed because I've no dogma but a desire for evidence concerning naturopathy's claims; and my ideas about modern medicine still wouldn't excuse naturopathy, whose actions and contents must stand or fall on their own merit]

[...] I have no interest in debating the various aspects of naturopathic medicine with you. I would love for you to take that formidable intellect and point it toward your own sacred cow, modern medicine [...] it’s a corrupt system run by people making a profit, and it’s killing a lot of people

[if there are problems concerning modern medicine, they still do not excuse naturopathy; naturopathy which is so corrupt in terms of its ideas; and I'm sure you make money doing it]

[...] don’t you understand that regardless of your degree you are desperately needed to help oppose the catastrophic health care crisis we’re in right now? Forget the philosophy. It’s about doing some common sense things to help people. You could have spent the last eight years becoming the expert you should be in alternative medicine

[ah, but 'philosophy is the guide of life'; and I am an expert in naturopathy]

[...] it is an obscene waste of your brainpower to spend it deconstructing the idiots in any profession

[how about a pseudoprofession of idiocy]

[...] a big thank you from all of us N.D.s. Don’t you realize that naturopathic medicine has basically no publicity? Yelling about it only brings it to people’s attention. They won’t listen to you, they’ll just know to come see me. Because you aren’t offering any options

[we'll see]

[...] let me award you the gold medal you justly deserve. You win the debate, and it’s all hogwash. Now, could you get down off your stupid soapbox

[if only that medal equaled all the expense and damages!  I appreciate your candor concerning the hogwash.  And, I've a right to free speech and expression]

[...] no one cares about our philosophy

[well, since it tramples all over categories like science and religion -- and is false in terms of commerce -- I think this matters, even if NDs don't, I think, actually think]

[...] maybe you should take a deep breath, realize really crappy things happen to everyone, and move on"

[ah, if only justice was that simple; and who is to decode, expose and warn the general public about this racket then?]. 

002. NCNM states some serious absurdity in:

002.a. "Principles of Healing":

"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 [(so this is science)...] these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [professions claim]: [#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 [(hmmm, it is a sentient entity?)]; nature heals through the response of the life force [(the science-ejected)...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact [(factuality claim)], expressions of the life force [(the science-ejected)] attempting to heal itself [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [(the science-ejected)...] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [(science-exterior supernaturalistic belief)...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [(ditto)...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [(ditto)]."

Note: so, by decree, this page reveals that naturopathy claims as science that which isn't, and mandates certain 'faithy' articles by their practitioners and graduates to be so falsely labeled.  You take an oath to this stuff; this is their standard of practice.  It is quite certain that there is no distinction, from this 'philosophy' [retardedness?], between actual science and sectarian articles of faith.  Actual science was never done, replicated, peer-reviewed, and published to establish -- and I know it is quite irrational as a project anyway -- the logical equation of science with the science-ejected and science-unsupported.  It's lunacy.  But, according to ND Maloney, that doesn't really matter because people want options and I guess by that measure then, a used car dealer who rips people off is merely one option of many in the marketplace.

002.b. and this has been codified into Oregon law.

Vitalism as Spiritual Healing: Nonparsimony in the Chicago Tribune 2010-10-15

here, I quote from a Chicago Tribune article [see 001., below]; then, link it to naturopathy, freedom of conscience, and pseudoscience [see 002., below]:

001. Amanda Marrazzo writes in "For Many, Prayer Part of Healing Process" (2010-10-15):

"minister [...] Greg Barrette said he has witnessed the benefits of prayer in the healing process. 'All healing is spiritual, even healing that appears to be to coming from medicine or surgical procedure,' said Barrette, who recently led a class on spiritual healing [...] 'it's the life force within that is facilitated by medical treatment and the life force is of god' [...] the relationship between prayer and physical healing has long been the subject of conflicting studies. Some indicate prayer can help, but at least one study concluded that in some cases it can be harmful [...e.g.] in fact, researchers at Harvard Medical School and five other U.S. medical centers found that coronary bypass patients who were told strangers were praying for them did worse than those who got no prayers [...] the Rev. Neris Diaz-Cabello, a chaplain at Sherman Hospital, said [...] 'there is power in believing. There is power in knowing someone else is out there remembering them in prayer.'"

Note: here, I'll term the belief that 'all is spiritual' panspiritism / animatism.  But, to me, it's rational to distinguish between a discrete, physical, natural universe that works due to cause and effect in a very tangible / evident manner, and the lenses of projected supernaturalistic vagarities that are like a train that never shows up at the station you're waiting at. I actually think it is completely false to claim, for instance, that the process of healing is something other than the mechanisms of human biology in action, which, all in all, ends up originating from our genotype [physical, chemical, biological].

Notice the equation of "life force" / vitalism with spiritism / supernaturalism / theism -- what I've often called animatistic autoentheism.  The belief: if there's a life force within you, equated with god, then you believe that god is within you -- auto[self], en[within], theism [god belief] -- as an impersonal 'life force spirit' [animatism].  In terms of parsimony / 'what is in evidence', this belief is not needed to understand how the body works and what it is comprised of.  That is why it has been ejected from science.  Yes, there is good and bad regarding prayer rituals.  I'm all for the hope and strength that may come from prayer / praying rituals of whatever type, but I think such can be done without creating delusions / irrationalities.  Delusions, I think it is fair to say, don't create power.

002. naturopathy's animatistic autoentheistic primary  delusion / irrationality!  You'll see, when you look at the essentially naturopathic, that it is a belief system that falsely poses animatistic autoentheism as an objective scientific fact:

002.a. here are my notes from ND school that describes their "life force" aka "vis medicatrix naturae" as "god power within".

002.b. here is that program [to this day] claiming to be "science".

Note: I'm all for people believing whatever they so choose as a matter of "freedom of conscience."  It's an inalienable civil liberty.  But, academically and commercially, labeling something what it isn't is irrational and illegal. What troubles me about naturopathy, specifically, is its blithe disregard for honest categorical labels as regards belief and scientific fact.

I'll pose my historical situation [wherein this is relevant] in terms of my naturopathic education:

I read the literature of the naturopathic mother organization that [incorrectly] tells the world that naturopathy is, essentially, "science" and 'not a belief system';

I plan my life toward naturopathy based upon this label / naturopathy's claims;

I attend ND college only to find out that essentially, naturopathy is a belief system well outside what can legitimately be called science [their categorical labels were, when you dig down to the 'actual naturopathic', false];

then, Naturocrit is born [as a matter of duty].

And, you should be careful still, obviously: they don't accurately disclose their science-ejected nature.

A 'Cargo Cult' Depiction of Naturopathy: Correcting "Erica"

here, I quote from a comment from an [apparent] ND student in Canada, and I comment upon her comments / claims [see 001., below]; then, I cite from a recent Science-Based Medicine post on acupuncture [quackupuncture!; see 002., below]:

001. Skeptic North's post "University of Toronto: Bastion of Pseudoscience?" by Mitchell Gerskup (2010-07-23) has, as its third comment, this from CCNM ND student "Erica":

"I saw a classmate reading this [the 2010-07-23 SN post] and I had to laugh at the ignorance [...] naturopathic doctors will, by 2012, have the title doctor protected by the government of Ontario, be able to engage in 7 controlled acts (already engage in 6, 7th is pharmaceutical prescription), and are already primary health care providers [...] naturopathic colleges, like ALL medical colleges, were modeled after the John Hopkins medical school after JAMA came out with recommendations that all medical schools follow this standard [(Flexner)...] I’m surprised it’s believed naturopathy is considered anti-science, unless you truly do believe physiology, anatomy, neurophysiology, immunology, pathology, pathophysiology, nutrition, biochemistry, and embryology to be anti-science? [(sciences!)...] we use the same diagnostic tools and tests as medical doctors, and do all the same exams as a general practitioner would, so I’m not sure why exactly you think we’re radically different? [...] I myself remain skeptic[al] to homeopathy [...] but I do question if it were such quackery why an entire continent would make it a mandatory part of standard medical education? [...] iridology is not part of the curriculum at naturopathic colleges, that does verge on the edge of quackery, right now [...] germ theory verged on the edge of quackary [sp., 'quackery'] too once, so I can’t be certain that this will never be proven [...] are you aware that physiotherapists graduating from U of T use acupuncture regularly to treat patients? Is that under the pseudo-science heading as well [...] it just sounds like there’s a lot of heated debate here drowning in emotion and no solid logic or research [...] didn’t U of T teach you to never use Wikipedia? At least for $20 grand a year CCNM taught me that much! Hell even York did!  But yet I’m too lazy regardless to site anything here [...] would love to show you around, give you a tour, and more info (or more ammo) on naturopathic medicine! - Erica."

Note: I must admit that the first comment is my own, from July.  And I thank Erica for engaging in dialog, since it is so difficult to find NDs [or students of] doing so.  Anyway, here are some Naturocrit comments upon Erica's comments.  Regarding:

-"ignorance": 

well, when an ND tells others they are ignorant, I'd like to point out the ignorance of naturopathy.  Nowhere else but naturopathy, to my knowledge, will you find someone with so much power and so trusted unable to differentiate between the severely science-ejected [e.g., naturopathy's "life force" belief, their junk therapies, their pseudodiagnostics] and the legitimately scientific, efficacious and ACTUAL.  In fact, in terms of commerce, naturopathy is based on a very false posture yet you have, especially in places that protect them like Ontario, more rights as a consumer on a used car lot and that person isn't pretending to be a professional;

-"protected by the government of Ontario":

the protection of absurdity and falsehood only protects the offenders;

-"like ALL medical colleges":

well, the last time I looked, actual medical colleges do not, as I experienced, blend the scientific and the hugely nonscientific and then falsely label the whole thing science [when is an article of faith and a scientific fact the same thing: naturopathy]; 

-"I’m surprised it’s believed naturopathy is considered anti-science":

I actually don't think that "anti-science" is encompassing enough to describe naturopathy. Nowadays, I'd say "anti-rationality" and "anti-knowledge delineation"; 

-"I’m not sure why exactly you think we’re radically different?":

ah, because you are.  Look at their textbooks: values have been turned upon their heads.  Within naturopathy, the sectarian faithy-absurd is considered objective scientific fact.  What evidence is needed: none.  What must be ignored: science's progression;

-"if it were such quackery why an entire continent",

 just because a huge amount of people do something and believe it is true isn't in any manner a form of scientific knowledge;

-"on the edge of quackery":

well, it's nice to know some NDs don't use iridology, but look at Australia and the UK.  It is likely that iridology, though truly false, is more plausible than say homeopathy!;

-" I can’t be certain that this will never be proven";

no, you can't.  But, what is the likelihood based upon all we know, based upon prior probability?;

-"under the pseudo-science heading as well";

see 002., below; 

-"no solid logic or research";

well, I'd like naturopathy to logical ground the position they occupy which places something as equal to what it is not;

-"too lazy regardless to site anything here";

how about cite?;

-"more info (or more ammo) on naturopathic medicine";

let them talk, and it falls from the sky like manna.

002. meanwhile, up at Science-Based Medicine is the post "The Cargo Cult of Acupuncture" (2010-10-14) by Ben Kavoussi which states [contrary to Erica's support of acupuncture]:

"'cargo cult' is a metaphor that describes the act of imitating an activity or a practice without any insight into the underlying principles [...] it [specifically] refers to a magico-religious practice observed in tribal societies, where the members ritually imitate the activities of a technologically-advanced society they had contact with, so that they can magically draw their material wealth [...] the term 'cargo cult science' was introduced by Richard Feynman in a speech at Caltech in 1974 to describe pseudoscientific studies in which all the superficial aspects of a scientific inquiry are adhered to, but the underlying principles are not scientific [(naturopathy, anyone?)...e.g., in these times, there's] the plethora of two-arm acupuncture studies that compare a needling regimen using the traditional concepts and compare it with a non-interventional placebo [...] whereby 'one pain masks another' [...] a true interpretation of this finding invalidates the traditional lore of the meridian-and-points system [...] this finding echoes the position of Felix Mann, MD, the founder of the British Medical Acupuncture Society, who after decades of practice reached the conclusion that putting needles in 'wrong' places was as effective as a 'correct' treatment. He therefore wrote that 'traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes' [...] two-arm studies cannot rule out the possibility that the observed results are due to anti-nociceptive effects on the same segmental dermatome, which can occur regardless of the classical theories for point selection and means of stimulation [...] the most compelling argument to qualify acupuncture of a cargo cult is the fact that its apostles remain obstinately faithful that someday someone will prove that 'astrology with needles' is a panacea that can naturally restore health and longevity [...yet] well-conducted three-arm clinical trials that used sham controls with needle insertion at 'wrong' points (points not indicated for the condition) or non-points (locations that are not known acupuncture points) along with a non-interventional control group, have failed to demonstrate that there is a reliable difference between sham and 'true' needling [...] the most recent challenge came from a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine which concluded that acupuncture’s specific therapeutic effects – if any – are small, and its benefits are mostly attributable to 'contextual and psychosocial factors, such as patients’ beliefs and expectations, attention from the acupuncturist, and highly focused, spatially directed attention on the part of the patient' [...expect!] pointless studies that aim to validate notions that date of Galen’s era, and [to] hear the irrational narrative of the apostles of this cargo cult."

Notes: yes!  See, what I think is happening is that naturopathy itself is a cargo cult.  The rituals they mimic have to do with what it takes to develop legitimate knowledge.   But, they take huge shortcuts, and, if I remember Feynman's account of the phenomenon...

no planes ever landed [because magical expectations are not knowledge and power].

So, naturopathy is a long wait for a plane that ain't coming, in my view [e.g., I wouldn't wait too long for them to bring into the legitimately scientific such things as vitalism and supernaturalism, which are as hugely science-ejected as flat-earth-ism and phlogiston].

NDs Snider and Turner: NDNR-FNM-NCNM and BNJ-TLDP Citations Round-up

here, I cite from a recent NDNR article by NDs Snider and Turner which labels naturopathy "scientific" and a "profession" [see 001., below]; then, from NCNM which is home to the FNM project, which labels nonscience as science [see 002., below]; then from ND Turner's 1990 British Naturopathic Journal article which details naturopathy's science-unsupported foundations [see 003., below]; and finally two TLDP articles concerning ND Snider and a false science claim upon the hugely nonscientific / naturopathic [see 004., below]:

001. NDs Snider, P. (ND Bastyr 1982) and Turner, R.N. (ND BCNO 1963) write in "Nature Cure in Europe - The Transatlantic Journey From Pragmatism to Principles" (NDNR 2010-10, p.008-009):

"the Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine Project [FNM] aims, for the first time in almost 100 years, to produce a [naturopathic] textbook [...] by bringing together the wisdom and experience of the leaders of the profession from around the world, the FNM hopes to make that essential connection between the practical application of nature’s healing resources, as used pragmatically by the early nature doctors, naturopathic principles, and their integration into the evolving world of modern, scientific naturopathic medicine [...the FNM is] an international textbook of naturopathic medicine project working to codify the 'heart of naturopathic medicine' [...] the text is in development through Elsevier. The FNM is based at the National College of Natural Medicine (NCNM) in Portland, Oregon [...] its academic home [...donations are through] Friends of the FNM: Charter Corporate Sponsors [...and the second tier is named] Vital Force ($250,000) [...and the heading within NDNR for the article is] vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: yes, those are the labels "modern scientific" and "profession" upon naturopathy.  And yes, mention of their "vital force" and "vis medicatrix naturae" [vitalism].

002. NCNM, mentioned by Snider and Turner above, explains naturopathy's principles in "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-10-01]:

"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 [(vitalism, in full regalia)...this is] in fact [...and] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [(supernaturalism etc., in full regalia)...with these ideas] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and [...] examined continually in light of scientific analysis [(a 'survives scientific scrutiny' claim, in full regalia)]."

Note: yes, that is the HUGELY nonscientific ["life force" etc., "spirit" etc.] falsely labeled as able to survive science's filter.  This is, supposedly, the behaviors and knowledge claims of a "profession."

003. ND Turner states in "Naturopathy - The Identity Crisis" (British Naturopathic Journal, 1990 Jan/Mar vol.13 no.1)[saved 2008-08-10; link seems to be dead]:

"there is much ignorance about naturopathy [...] as to what exactly it is or does [...there are] basic principles of naturopathy [...] fundamental naturopathic theories [...] central to all these is the concept of a life force, or energy, which is the basis for all living matter [p.003...aka] vitalism [...and also there's] the reverse order of cure [...] as defined by the homeopath Hering [...] 'all cure comes from within out, from above down, and in the reverse order in which the symptoms have appeared' [p.004]."

Note: there is no life force, and pathological process and recovery do not happen according to Hering's model.  The fundamentals of naturopathy are BOGUS.  Of course, once you've laid a groundwork of nonsense, you can then use pseudodiagnostics like "iridology" and "radionics."

004. ND Snider states in "Naturopathic Physician on Her Career Choice: 'No Regrets'" (TLDP, 2005 Feb/Mar) [vsc 2010-10-11]:

"naturopathic medicine relies on the vital life force within human beings [...] you need to be an independent, critical, and scientific thinker."

Note: ah ha ha ha.  Science ejected vitalism decades and decades and decades ago.  An "independent, critical, and scientific thinker" has no choice, if in true possession of those qualities, but to find naturopathy absurd and irrational.

Of course, in 1992-04, TLDP also published the article "1991 AANP Convention: Into the Light" which stated [I have an actual paper edition of this]:

"[Snider] 'we believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible. Chiropractors have adjustments, acupuncturists have needles, we have vis medicatrix naturae. Our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith. Our power and our responsibility is to bring the life force into the light' [...Kane, the ND student and article author] take note of a few good, solid 'sound bytes' from Dr. Rick Kirschner [...] 'we prevent illness and restore health through scientifically validated natural medicines'."

Again, that science label upon the profoundly science-ejected.

005. summary:

So, what is there here?  There are the incorrect claims of professionalism and science upon naturopathy [whose foundation is essentially science-ejected].  There are 'articles of faith' conflated with 'the scientifically supported.'

  There's naturopathic nonsense upon nonsense as a FOUNDATION.  Quite an irrational project.

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: