Skeptic North's "Guide to Magical Thinking" Series [highly recommended]

here, I cite from the very excellent Erik Davis penned Skeptic North series that will run with a new post each day of this week [see 001., below]:

001. Erik Davis writes in "A Skeptic’s Guide to Magical Thinking – Part 1" (2010-10-25):

"in my mind I’d formed a rough ontology that sorted all magical practices [...] in the first category, I put the sympathetic magic practices above.  In the second, I lumped everything that had to do with a life force or vital essence [vitalism...] in the third category was everything that posited some sort of internal or external super-intelligence [...yet] many practices fit in more than one of my categories [...e.g.] homeopathy, while generally identified as sympathetic magic, is often said to work by impacting a vital force [(that's what I was taught in ND school!)...and] some superficially similar practices have very different underlying mechanisms [...] animism is generally considered alongside theism as a religious belief, yet its spirits typically profess no intelligence, making them more akin to a vital energy than a god."

Note: I'm loving the material and the approach -- go there, read it,  gnaw at it, comment!

ND Recommends "Homeopathic Flu Prophylaxis" But Not Seasonal Flu Vaccination [what a surprise]

here, I cite from one of the articles by ND Pincott who is in British Columbia [see 001., below]:

001. Pincott, I. (ND NCNM 1984) states in "Questions For Your Naturopath" (2010-10-25)[vsc 2010-10-25]:

"Q. What is the best thing I can do to prevent H1N1 or other flus? A. Regular cleansing programs. Take a good probiotic regularly. Take cod liver oil daily. Take homeopathic flu prophylaxis from October until April of every year for you and your family. Limit sugar intake. Get 8 hours of sleep every night."

Note: the take-home message seems to be that this treatment protocol will be "best".  I'll comment on two things: "cleansing programs" are for detoxing imaginary toxins naturopaths continually warn us about; "homeopathic flu prophylaxis" is absurd as protection [prophylaxis; the function of vaccination, which actually works] since there isn't anything in a homeopathic remedy.  If your family members are at risk for flu (say very young, very old, or particularly compromised), this does not sound "best" yet it is stated in quite an absolute manner.  Now, a lot of people say 'oh, what's the harm so long as modern medical treatment is being used concurrently.'  But, ND Pincott in no manner advises here that which works best for the particularly vulnerable to prevent flu morbity and mortality: seasonal vaccination.  Horrid.

And nowhere is it disclosed that homeopathic treatment is placebo therapy.

Accreditation is "Broken": NCAHF, CCAP and Some Personal Experience

here, I cite from a recent Consumer Health Digest issue by the National Council Against Health Fraud [NCAHF] which cites a recent Center for College Affordability and Productivity [CCAP] report [see 001., below]; then, I quote some from that report [see 002., below]; then, I attach it to naturopathy [see 003., below]:

001. the NCAHF states in "Consumer Health Digest #10-42 [...] U.S. Education Accreditation System Called 'Broken'" [2010-10-21]:

"[CCAP] has published a detailed analysis of the role that accreditation has played in American higher education [... it] concludes 'our current system of higher education accreditation is broken [...] it does a poor job of conveying important information to those funding it, including the customers themselves (students) as well as major donors (governments, private philanthropists) [...] this study outlines a series of different  approaches to introducing a new system [...] new approaches to the accreditation process could give consumers more practical information on the strengths and weaknesses of institutions [...] and be ultimately governed by persons far removed from those being accredited' [...NCAHF says this] is relevant to consumer health because the current system permits schools to promote health care approaches that are not science-based."

Note: yeah, baby!  I'll take it one step further [see 003., below].

002. in that the position paper "The Inmates Running the Asylum? An Analysis of Higher Education Accreditation", Center for College Affordability and Productivity [2010-10] authors Gillen, Bennett and Vedder state their major recommendations:

"accreditation  [...] needs to be changed [...] first, any system of accreditation or certification must focus on quality control and improving matches of consumers and producers [...with] complete public disclosure not only of accreditation reports, but also of information about student outcomes [...] second, the current binary system where schools are either approved (accredited) or not-approved (not accredited) is unacceptable, and should be replaced by a system that provides vastly more indicators of quality in a far more nuanced fashion [...] third [...] most notably, accreditation today was largely created by institutions themselves to promote institutional self-interest, not the public interest [...or] broader public needs. Fourth [...] a replacement system would be far more outcomes-based than current accreditation [...] fifth [...] the role of a single regulatory authority, most notably the federal government, should be minimized [...p.047] a move in this direction is badly needed and grossly overdue [p.048]."

Note: though issues of quality are matters of extent, I must emphasize that my criticism of naturopathy is not a sliding gray-scale like slippery-slope.  When naturopathy states that it is scientific and nonsectarian, I know it to actually be categorically [as opposed to qualitatively], at its essential core [e.g. vitalism, supernaturalism, etc.] not science and actually science-ejected.  Yet, they persist and they cannot be held accountable, because, as I know all too well, the system is as hugely broken as naturopathy essentially is hugely nonscientific.

003. I'll restate NCAHF's take [my words, not theirs, from my immediate experience]:

'this is relevant to consumer health because the current system permits schools to promote health care approaches that are not science-based and falsely label them as science-based.'

Note: e.g., naturopathy schools.  And, it's no longer then a matter of quality, but of categorical commercial fraud.

Announcing the [anti-sCAM] Nightingale Collaboration!

the Nightingale Collaboration states:

"misinformation about complementary and alternative therapies is rife on the internet, in newspapers and magazines and on the high street and this misinformation misleads the public. It is particularly important that the public have accurate information about healthcare so they can make informed choices [...] it needs to be challenged [...] it is possible to confront and highlight misleading information, have it withdrawn and those responsible held to account [...] the Nightingale Collaboration will work to improve the protection of the public by ensuring claims made about complementary and alternative therapies are not misleading [...by] challenging misleading claims made by practitioners on their websites, in adverts and in their promotional and sales materials and subjecting these to scrutiny by the appropriate regulatory bodies [and by] striving to ensure that organisations representing complementary and alternative practitioners have robust codes of conduct for their members that protect the public and that these are rigorously enforced [...] the Nightingale Collaboration will make tools and resources available so that others can pursue their own individual campaigns with maximum effect [...] more information will be released on the website over the coming weeks and months [...] Alan Henness & Maria MacLachlan, Directors."

Note: oh, goodie. This was reported in the Guardian.

SCNM's "Public Health Commitment" - East Valley Tribune 2010-10

here, I cite from an East Valley Tribune article concerning Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Science's new clinic facility [see 001., below]; then, I muse on SCNM's claimed "public health commitment" [see 002., below]:

001. Channing Turner [me thinks; a person with no science or medical background, apparently] reports [quite credulously and supportively, IMHO] in the East Valley Tribune article "Naturopathic Medical School Opens Tempe Facility" [vsc 2010-10-23]:

"the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences officially opened a new medical center in Tempe recently [...] Paul Mittman, president and CEO of SCNM [... ] 'the school has a significant public health commitment,' he said. 'We expect (the center) to have a greater impact on public health' [...] naturopathic physicians can prescribe nearly every treatment available to a medical doctor, including prescription drugs, Mittman added. But the naturopathic method emphasizes prevention and supports the body’s ability to heal itself [(coded vitalism)...] 'you need to take a holistic approach.'"

Note: there is a claim here of a 'commitment to public health' via the 'holistic' 'body's ability to heal itself.'  Let's bear that out, and decode [which is quite relevant].

002. naturopathy's epistemic muddling [blending of knowledge type; a threat to public health, if public health is to be based upon the best kind of knowledge regarding reality, and the public's understanding of science has value]:

002a. naturopathy's coded vitalism [such deceit is a nonprofessional attribute minimally; an issue of false commerce overall]:

well, "the body’s ability to heal itself" is, when we get down to brass tacks with naturopathy, a belief that has been science-ejected: that physiology is run by a purposeful life spirit.  They code this, all the time.  You can find a glimpse of SCNM's vitalism in uncoded full-regalia at this collection I've put together.  ND Mittman stated this belief explicitly as belief, and here it is archived [vsc 2010-10-23].

002.b. falsely claimed as science:

SCNM's overarching [false] label of science placed upon all this science-ejected beliefy stuff I've collected here.

Note: ah, so THAT is the holistic -- code your essential premises, falsely label them, engage in commerce, rinse and repeat.

Live Blood Cell Analysis - MD Crislip vs ND Fredericks

here, I cite from two opposing claims regarding 'live blood cell analysis' [LBCA].  First, there's super-naturopath Fredricks in Australia, who is a LBCA proponent and labels it "science" [see 001., below]; then, there's Oregon MD Crislip of the Science-Based Medicine blog who labels it a pseudoscience and a form of augury [see 002., below]:

001. Fredricks, G. (ND ? 1987, ND ? 1996) states in "What is Live and Dry Blood Analysis?" [vsc 2010-10-22]:

"live and dry blood analysis is an unobtrusive testing procedure where a single drop of blood is taken painlessly from your finger [...] the results can be viewed immediately [...] during your naturopathic consultation, live and dry blood analysis will be used [...] this scientific approach to naturopathic medicine can get to the bottom of stubborn and recurring health issues, in effect, giving you a number of different nets so you can catch all of the issues that are blocking your health and energy, and address them at the source."

Note: so, we're told this is "scientific."

On ND Fredricks's bio. page, he doesn't share from where his TWO ND doctorates [which makes him a super-ND!] come from.  The microscope, I presume, is on this page and this page.  And he does do "postal consultations", and I'll guess those are 'dry'.

On his homepage, we're told:

"Greg believes people can be empowered to take control of their own health and longevity and reverse many disease conditions if they are given the proper blueprint [...] he has learned from some of the world’s leading biologists and scientists to develop this unique naturopathic assessment [...] Greg Fredericks uses many screening modalities in finding your personal blueprint including: saliva hormone analysis, blood analysis live and dry, iridology / sclerology, Tibetan style eye diagnosis, physical constitution and personality type assessment, Chinese and ayurvedic body diagnosis.  This is one of the most comprehensive naturopathic screenings in the world [...and it's] covered by all major health funds."

Wow, fully covered pseudodiagnostics.  Quite empowering, quite proper, quite comprehensive.

002. Crislip, M. (MD ) states in "Live Blood Analysis: The Modern Auguries" (2009-02-13):

"I saw a patient last week [...who] had been seeing a DC / ND for a variety of symptoms [...and was] diagnosed him with an infection, based on live blood analysis [...] live blood analysis is one of these alternative methodologies that has a hint of legitimacy that is extrapolated far out of proportion to its validity [...LBCA] practitioners [...] grow a forest of fantasy and magic [...] some practitioners also practice dry blood analysis, where they examine clot to look for patterns that are allegedly indicative of disease [...] in live blood analysis, the 'physician' takes a drop of the patients blood and examines it under a high power phase contrast or a darkfield microscope. Changes in the constituents of the blood are noted and linked to a variety of ills. It is an impressive and expensive system: microscopes and various support equipment start at around $5000 [...] live blood analysis has the opportunity to be lucrative in the right hands as the patient often gets weekly analysis to see how the interventions (usually supplements sold by the blood analyst) are working. Evidently in the hands of a skilled snake oil salesman, an income of $100,000 a year to more can be generated [...] virtually every diagnosis in live blood analysis is nonsense and much of the alleged pathology is either normal or artifact on the slide. The alleged pathophysiology is also nonsense; they just make this stuff up [...] live blood analysis does not resemble most alternative medicine modalities, but is more akin to high tech reading of tea leaves or the entrails of pig to divine the future. It is the cargo cult of quackery, with the trappings of science but none of the substance [...] it is microscopic paradolia, with the practitioners seeing their own imagining in the structures on the slides [...] there is no validity behind almost all of the claims made by the practitioners [...] pseudoscientific jargon and imaginary physiology combined with the a microscope [...] gives the live blood analysis proponents the trappings of real science."

Note: said as only Dr. C. can.

The AANP's President: Naturopathy is An Unsustainable Career

here, I quote from a recent blogpost by the AANP's President which speaks of the unsustainability of a career in naturopathy [see 001., below]: and I comment on some of his language [see 002., below]:

001. AANP President Hangee-Bauer, C. (ND Bastyr 1984) states in "The Cream Rises to the Top" (2010-10-18)[vsc 2010-10-18]:

"I am always on the lookout for trends and conditions in my communities, both local and national, that have effects on my practice and my profession [...it is reported]  many licensed acupuncturists are finding it hard to make ends meet [...e.g.] Lisa Rohleder [...] concludes that 'acupuncture education, and the conventional acupuncture business model [...are] NOT SUSTAINABLE. May take years of your life and leave you with nothing, except huge student loans' [...they] graduate and get licensed, but then struggle for years to pay off student loans and get paid appropriately [...] many fail. Sound familiar? [...] acupuncturists are dealing with some of the same frustrations and challenges that affect the naturopathic profession [...] we are not alone [...] our colleges have to do a better job at preparing our graduates to enter the healthcare marketplace [...] the cream rises to the top,' it's said, and naturopathic medicine is the gold standard for people seeking new choices and new directions for their healthcare."

002. my comments:

-"on the lookout for trends": how about that trend in modern thought wherein 'the essentially naturopathic scientific' [that which lacks evidence, or has been replaced by better information] is science-ejected?;

-"profession": yup, 'ye olde naturopathic of-the-professions claim';

-" many licensed acupuncturists are finding it hard to make ends meet": yet, many NDs carry LAc.s as an attempt to increase their income and practice scope;


-"our colleges have to do a better job at preparing our graduates"; how about your colleges begin transparently engaging the public concerning the actual science-ejected sectarianism that defines naturopathy, and therein your graduates would be better prepared at being factually accurate and more ethical when it comes to their descriptions of 'the essentially naturopathic absurd'?;

-"the cream rises to the top": oh, how folksy;

-"NOT SUSTAINABLE"; good, because it's also not efficacious;

-"huge student loans": know what that's like;

-"many fail": and this is a BAD thing?;

-"the same frustrations and challenges that affect the naturopathic profession"; yes, there you go, naturopathy is as 'not sustainable' and hopefully the scientific blogging community is helping to choke them off;

-"naturopathic medicine is the gold standard": naturopathic medicine's standards are as golden as engaging in commerce with false labels;

-"new choices and new directions": actually, naturopathy is a throw-back to the times when knowledge types were all blended together and by modern standards that is quite 'not new'.

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.