Monday, December 27, 2010
State of California DCA-NMC Bait and Switch - Their "Consumer's Guide to Naturopathic Medicine" Brochure
here, I cite from a brochure I just received by snail mail from the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs Naturopathic Medicine Committee [SCDCANMC] which doesn't accurately express naturopathy's overall context and instead codes naturopathy's science-ejected central vitalistic context in misleading naturalistic language and a falsely postured context of professionalism [see 001., below]; then, I use the alma mater of the SCDCANMC committee chair and another committee member, NCNM, to 'cut to the chase' [see 002., below]:
001. SCDCANMC states in "Consumer's Guide to Naturopathic Medicine" (not sure when published):
"naturopathic medicine [...] uses natural methods and substances to support and stimulate the body's self-healing process [BSHP, coded vitalism]. It is distinguished by the principles on which its practice is based [...including] 1. the healing power of nature [HPN]: naturopathic doctors (NDs) trust in the body's inherent wisdom to heal [BIWH, coded vitalism...] naturopathic medicine can benefit people who prefer a natural approach."
Note: I'll specifically decode the vitalism below in 002. expressed so noninformatively in the above.
"NDs have different styles [...] some may focus on particular [...] therapies such as homeopathy [an implauible therapy!...principle] 4. doctor as teacher: the primary role of an ND is a teacher who educates [...] licensure ensures that naturopathic doctors [...] stay current with professional practice."
Note: ah, educating and professional claims. Homeopathy is known to be an inert placebo!
002. oh how they love to bait and switch the central tenet / context of naturopathy, BSHP-HPN-BIWH:
002.a. SCDCANMC states in "Committee Members" [vsc 2010-12-27]:
"David Field is [...] committee chair [...] he received his bachelor of arts degree in biology from Colorado College in 1975 [...and] his naturopathic doctor degree at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon, graduating in 1985 [...] he co-founded the California Association of Naturopathic Physicians (now California Naturopathic Doctors Association) [...] Dr. Field is the first licensed naturopathic doctor (ND-1) in California – his license granted in January 2005 [...also on the committee] Beverly Yates, ND is a California licensed doctor of naturopathic medicine and a 1994 graduate of the National College of Natural Medicine (NCNM, www.NCNM.edu) in Portland, OR."
Note: ND Field tells us, at his web site homepage, practically NOTHING. It's apparently a single page, mentioning homeopathy, acupuncture, and naturopathy and shows him in a white coat with a stethoscope around his neck. ND Yates doesn't describe, apparently, naturopathy either at her web pages. How noninformative, though NDs claim to be educators! How, actually, manipulative.
002.b. at NCNM [the trunk of the naturopathic tree!], the alma mater of two of the three NDs on the board -- Field and Yates-- we're told in "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-12-27]:
"[naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [explicit vitalism...] these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [professional 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; nature heals through the response of the life force [explicit vitalism]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm, primum no nocere: the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...] these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [a false claim that these principles survive scientific scrutiny]."
Note: so, vitalism claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny when it is actually science-ejected is the ESSENCE of the naturopathic. This is the irrationalism and absurdity that SCDCANMC and the NDs mentioned above will not inform the public about, apparently, and that is disgusting. Actually, SCDCA repeats the supposed science-basis of naturopathy in "Findings and Recommendations Regarding the Prescribing and Furnishing Authority of a Naturopathic Doctor" [vsc 2010-12-27]:
"these principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances."
003. so, nowhere in this brochure does it mention this caution [this is 'the chase']:
naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected vitalistic [and supernatural] falsely posed as scientific and medically relevant, and in that sense, you are not cautioned that you are putting yourself into the hands of, basically, sectarian charlatans.
Specifically, the naturopathic ruse is to posture as rational, professional, science-educated when really what you get is the superstitious and irrational-archaic, deceptive, and science-ejected / absurd.
Thanks, SCDCANMC, for totally advocating for this crap and in that sense becoming an accessory to fraud, deception and manipulation. 'Your tax dollars at work', ripping you off.
But, the public deserves to be fully informed, so they can make actual informed decisions and can engage in actual informed consent, instead of engaging in this unfair trade practice / naturopaTHICKNESS.
If it involves naturopathy, it usually involves the reversal of values.
Below are jpg scans of the brochure, as well as the mailing envelope. I've put the brochure up at scribd.com as a somewhat searchable pdf after scanning it. It can be downloaded directly from SCDCA in its full digital glory, too.
I have removed my address from the envelope, though, for the sake of privacy. I received this in Connecticut from California by USPS first class mail 2010-12-27.
[Oh, and by the way, a new ND school is going to be established in California with a new class entering likely in Fall of 2012, according to the homepage of NMC. The disease is spreading]:
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Denise Mann reports at WebMD in "Is Alternative Medicine Risky for Kids?" (2010-12-23):
"the growing numbers of parents who turn toward complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to treat their children’s illnesses may often assume that 'natural' means safe and harmless. But new research in the Archives of Childhood Diseases suggests that many complementary and alternative remedies can have significant -- even fatal -- side effects [...] Alissa Lim, MD, a pediatrician at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues tracked and analyzed all CAM-related adverse events reported to the Australian Paediatric Surveillance Units from January 2001 through December 2003 [...] the greatest risks were seen among infants who were put on restrictive diets and children with chronic illnesses who were treated with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) instead of conventional medicine."
Note: well, at least something critical got reported this year about sCAM nonsense.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Some Homeopathic Miracles of ND Barker -- "The Wonders of Natural Treatment" and Its Actual Science-Ejectedness
here, I cite from a Youtube video by ND Barker that makes some huge claims of naturopathic efficacy, particularly by way of homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I remind that homeopathy is bunk [note for 001., below]; and show the science-ejected naturopathy-homeopathy context by way of the book this video promotes [see 002., below]:
001. Barker, S.J. (ND Bastyr 2000) states in "Reverse Chronic Health Problems with Natural Medicine - Dr. Simon Barker, ND" [vsc 2010-12-25]:
"[from the description] naturopathic doctor Simon Barker [...] explains how naturopathic medicine -- a subset of alternative medicine -- is able to reverse chronic health conditions [...from the video, the ND:] I went to a naturopathic medical school [...] Bastyr [...] we're trained in a wide variety of alternative health care approaches [...] we study homeopathy [...] we run the gambit on alternative therapies [...] I will often give people supplements, homeopathics [...] I've successfully treated a number of patients with a wide variety of conditions [...] children with chronic ear infections, eczema, rheumatoid arthritis, migraine headaches -- all of these conditions are reversible and I've had great success doing that by using the wonders of natural treatments [...] what I use is homeopathic remedies [...] in all of these cases the children are relieved of their present problem and the problems do not return [...and we're pointed to] 'The Beginner's Guide to Natural Living.'"
Note: so, using the wonders of homeopathy [and such], miracles happen! They must be miracles, because homeopathic pills and liquids have no medicinal value.
002. the book, Cook's "The Beginner's Guide to Natural Living" (2005; ISBN 0975536184) is riddled with the science-ejected vitalistic-naturopathic-homeopathic:
"nearly five thousand years ago the ancient Chinese recognized a vital energy behind all life forms and processes [...an] animating force [that] controls the functioning of every organ and system in the body. The Chinese call this energy qi [...] chi is known as the 'life force' by shamans, as 'prana' by yogis, as 'bioelectric energy' [...] and the 'vis medicatrix naturae' ('healing power of nature') by modern naturopathic physicians [...] this life force energy must flow freely and in the correct strength and quality for the body to function correctly [p.152...] homeopathic remedies [...] Hahnemann believed that dilution and succussion released a power that affected the life force energy [p.085]."
Note: once you accept that there's a figmentation known as a life force and your alma mater calls it "science-based", I'm guessing it's pretty easy to accept that empty homeopathic nostrums have miraculous powers.
Friday, December 24, 2010
here, sadly I cite from a web page of Canada's McMaster University which promotes a naturopathy degree as a science career path [see 001., below]; then, I cite from the web pages of one of the schools MU promotes -- that I went to -- and show that they too label naturopathy science while simultaneously stating what naturopathy is based upon contextually, which is the science-ejected [see 002., below]:
001. McMaster University Faculty of Science states in "Science: Career and Cooperative Education -- Naturopathy Schools" [vsc 2010-12-24]:
"naturopathy schools accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, www.cnme.org [...in Canada]: Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Naturopathic Doctor Diploma Program, www.ccnm.edu; Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, Naturopathic Doctor Diploma Program, www.binm.org [...in the US] Bastyr University, Naturopathic Doctor Diploma Program, www.bastyr.edu; National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Naturopathic Doctor Diploma Program, www.ncnm.org; Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Naturopathic Doctor Diploma Program, www.scnm.edu; University of Bridgeport [UB], Naturopathic Doctor Diploma Program, www.bridgeport.edu/naturopathy [...] interested applicants are advised to check the relevant naturopathic school’s website for the academic and additional requirements before submitting an application to the school of their choice [...and MU also links to] American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, www.naturopathic.org; Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, www.cand.ca; Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors, www.oand.org; Ontario Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy, www.boardofnaturopathicmedicine.on.ca; Public Health Agency of Canada, www.phac-aspc.gc.ca; Nova Scotia Association of Naturopathic Doctors, nsand.ca; British Columbia Naturopathic Association, www.bcna.bc.ca; Manitoba Naturopathic Association, www.mbnd.ca; Saskatchewan Association of Naturopathic Practitioners, www.sanp.ca; International Naturopathic Students’ Association, www.members.tripod.com/~INSA/index.html [...and this is all courtesy of] Science Career & Cooperative Education, Burke Science Building Room 127, www.science.mcmaster.ca/scce, (905) 525-9140 ext. 27898."
Note: yes, you can have that science career you always dreamed of through a naturopathy degree! Not.
002.a. states naturopathy is within science categorically in here [vsc 2010-12-24];
002.b. yet, strangely, admits that what is essential to the naturopathic is:
002.b1. the vitalistic:
see this collection of mine.
Note: which is science-ejected, see this collection of mine.
002.b2. and the supernaturalistic:
see this collection of mine.
Note: which is science-ejected, see this collection of mine. This type of crap / junk thought by way of naturopathy is the absurdity that fuels this blog.
003. some things I am concerned about, still:
education consumers are being misled, and the false inducements by the naturopathy crowd are causing huge expense and diversion from career options that are actually what they say they are;
reputable institutions are being lazy and therein being muddied by their naturopathy promotion / promotion of the essentially false.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Novella's New "Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths" DVD Course Now Available, and a Falsehood by BC Naturopathy!
here, I blatantly promote The Teaching Company's new media-based course "Medical Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths: What We Think We Know May Be Hurting Us" (2010) by Dr. Stephen Novella that I have just purchased but not yet received. Particularly, I've highlighted the areas I myself am most interested in as a scholar of naturopathy [see 001., below]; then, I quote from the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] particularly, concerning their claim that homeopathy and naturopathy are scientific [see 002., below]:
001. the course description page states:
"[there are] 24 Lectures, 30 minutes / lecture [...and lecture topics include] Medical Knowledge versus Misinformation [...] Vitamin and Nutrition Myths [...] The Fallacy That Natural Is Always Better [...] Antioxidants—Hype versus Reality [...] Vaccination Benefits—How Well Vaccines Work [...] Vaccination Risks—Real and Imagined [...] Herbalism and Herbal Medicines [...] Facts about Toxins and Myths about Detox [...] Myths about Acupuncture's Past and Benefits [...] What Placebos Can and Cannot Do [...] Roundup—Decluttering Our Mental Closet."
Note: and if you known your naturopathy contents, what's listed is a huge body slam in so many body areas to naturopathy! Like a pro wrestler coming off the ropes and landing directly on.....'the therapies and claims of naturopathy'. I must point out that naturopathy isn't mentioned on this TTC page, and I don't yet know if it will be in the course.
001.b. regarding homeopathy:
001.b1. the course states:
"[regarding the lecture] Homeopathy—One Giant Myth [...] homeopathy is a controversial belief system that should not be substituted for effective treatment [...it was] devised before the advent of science-based medicine [...and asks] why has the science community rejected its prescriptions?"
Note: yes, a science-ejected mythic belief system GALORE.
002. meanwhile, in the land of sectarian pseudoscience-based pseudomedicine:
the BCNA states (archived here)[vsc 2010-12-21] that "homeopathy is a highly systematic, scientific method of therapy."
Note: obviously, there is a collision here of claims. And BCNA are the one's who claim, overall [quote falsely], that "naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...and is built upon upon] a science-based platform" (archived here)[vsc 2010-12-22].
003. the bio. section of the course description states [and I provide here some useful web linkage]:
"Dr. Steven Novella is Assistant Professor of Neurology at the Yale School of Medicine [...with his] M.D. from Georgetown University [1991...] his personal blog [is] NeuroLogica Blog [...he is] founder and senior editor of Science-Based Medicine [...and] president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society [...and] host and producer of the organization's award-winning science show, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe."
Sunday, December 19, 2010
here, I cite from a recent article regarding an Oregon ND who has had his license suspended [see 001., below]; then, I point out the falseness that is at the heart of Oregon naturopathy overall [see 002., below]:
001. the Mail Tribune's Sam Wheeler reports in "State Levels Penalties on Medford Naturopath"(2010-12-18):
"Dr. Alan Kadish, the head naturopathic physician at Center of Health, 2612 E. Barnett Road, violated Oregon law by falsely advertising his practice and himself in 15 different instances, and preparing to administer a method of medicine that he was not certified to use [...] the board's investigation determined that from 2006 through 2009, Kadish had made 'untrue, improper, misleading, or deceptive statements in advertising by representing that he is a medical specialist or practices a medical specialty' [...Kadish has been] ordered to pay $15,000 in civil penalties and will have his license revoked for one year, the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine concluded last week [...] the practice will remain open under the direction of naturopathic physician Dr. Zack Allen [...] in addition to the false advertising, Kadish was also disciplined for preparing to administer chelation therapy to one of his patients."
Note: so, false claims in commerce are penalized by OBNM. Interesting, considering how false and irrational naturopathy is overall.
002. Oregon's '.gov' web site is actually HUGELY FALSE:
OBNM should suspend all of naturopathy -- clinically and educationally -- until they fix 'that big boneheadedness called naturopathy' so that people can make informed decisions regarding the naturopaTHICK.
For instance, OBNM's web page "Naturopathy" states:
"naturopathic medicine is a distinctively natural approach to health and healing that recognizes the integrity of the whole person. Naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process. The practice of Naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."
That is: the hugely science-ejected vitalistic survives scientific scrutiny. In other words, the falsehood at the heart of naturopathy is that the for-one-hundred-years science-ejected can right now survive scientific scrutiny.
Somehow, this is conveniently overlooked as an issue. If the premise of naturopathy is that 'something is what it is not' [vitalism is science], then why are they able to make discrete judgments about false advertising?
If science and nonscience are the same thing, then so too is truthful and false advertising!
It's all wacko, improper, misleading, deceptive.
Executive Branch on Scientific Integrity and Public Trust, and the Fake Branch of Medical Science Unworthy of Public Trust
here, I cite from recent White House documents on science [see 001., below]; then, I reiterate naturopathy's claim that it is a branch of "medical science" while essentially hugely-of-the-science-ejected, with examples provided from the National Academies and a Canadian ND [see 002., below]:
001. the White House states:
001.a. in "Scientific Integrity: Fueling Innovation, Building Public Trust" (2010-12-17):
"John P. Holdren is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy [...states] President Obama [has] issued a Presidential Memorandum on Scientific Integrity emphasizing the importance of science in guiding Administration decisions and the importance of ensuring that the public trusts the science behind those decisions [...] he highlighted six principles of scientific integrity [...] he asked me, in collaboration with other Federal officials, to craft recommendations for ensuring scientific integrity throughout the executive branch [...this includes] a clear prohibition on political interference in scientific processes and expanded assurances of transparency [...] as the President said at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences last year, 'science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before.' I am confident that today’s Memorandum will help ensure that science and technology continue to be brought to bear by this Administration with the greatest effectiveness and integrity in the service of all of the national goals the President has so clearly articulated."
Note: so, good science / science-with-integrity is worthy of trust and vital.
001.b. and Holdren specifically states in that "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies" (2010-12-17):
"on March 9, 2009, the President issued a Memorandum articulating six principles central to the preservation and promotion of scientific integrity and assigning to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy the responsibility for ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch’s involvement with scientific and technological processes [...] foundations of scientific integrity [...] scientific and technological information is often a significant contributor to the development of sound policies. Thus it is important that policymakers involve science and technology experts where appropriate and that the scientific and technological information and processes relied upon in policy-making be of the highest integrity. Successful application of science in public policy depends on the integrity of the scientific process both to ensure the validity of the information itself and to engender public trust in Government [...] agencies should develop policies that ensure a culture of scientific integrity. Scientific progress depends upon honest investigation, open discussion, refined understanding, and a firm commitment to evidence [...] adopting appropriate whistleblower protections [...] facilitate the free flow of scientific and technological information [...] establish principles for conveying scientific and technological information to the public [...an] accurate presentation of scientific and technological information."
Note: pretty good stuff. I wholeheartedly agree. It may even lead to smarter decisions, like not going to war over imagined weapons of mass destruction as we stay more grounded in reality.
002. naturopathy's absurdity / irrationalism and nonintegrity:
002.a. recently, I'd posted about the pan-naturopathic claim that goes like this:
Note: science, science, science.
002.b. now, another pan-naturopathic claim:
that naturopathy is based upon vitalism (see my collection here) [this is a figmentation they ofen hide with coded language], which is an amalgam of vitalism, spiritism and teleology, a purposeful life spirit [truly science-ejected] figmentation held responsible for physiology.
002.c. vitalism is hugely science-ejected, and that is a fact so established that it may as well be fossilized. I'll provide one quote towards that fact, from THE scientific organization of organizations, the National Academies:
John Whitfield's "In the Beat of a Heart: Life, Energy, and the Unity of Nature" (ISBN 0309096812; 2006) states:
"the problem with vitalism [...] was the belief that the explanations for biological phenomena could be found in biology. Instead, biologists should go up the chain of explanations, to chemistry and beyond. They had neglected the physical sciences to their detriment. Why invoke vitalism when so many of the forms in the living world can be explained by simple physical principles? The physics of surface tension, Thompson noted, explain why raindrops are spherical, because this shape has the minimal surface area. Likewise, he argued, surface tension could explain the shape of amoeboid cells, or the spread of sticky droplets over a spider’s web. 'Has the biologist,' Thompson asked, 'fully recognized [...] that the physicist may, and must, be his guide and teacher in many matters regarding organic form? [...] in many of the simpler cases the facts are so well explained by surface tension, that it is difficult to find a place for a conflicting, much less an overriding, force.' Vitalism, in short, was unnecessary [so PAST TENSE UNNECESSARY!]."
002.d. in sum, naturopathy has NO SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY:
when 'that which it isn't is the same as that which it is', run -- particularly when that person is claiming ability to diagnose and treat.
Note: why else do you think such nonsense as applied kinesiology would be espoused by Canadian ND Leung, K. (ND CCNM):
"applied kinesiology is a system that evaluates structural, chemical, and mental aspects of health using manual muscle testing alongside conventional diagnostic methods [hmmm, they must compare well!]. The essential premise of applied kinesiology that is not shared by mainstream medical theory [because it is false] is that every organ dysfunction is accompanied by a weakness in a specific corresponding muscle, the viscerosomatic relationship [which is bullshit]."
As regards homeopathy, we're told:
"based on the principle of 'like cures like', homeopathic medicine uses minute amounts of natural substances to stimulate the self-healing abilities of the body [coded vitalism]."
As regards acupuncture, we're told:
"based on balancing the flow of chi (energy) [vitalism] through the meridian pathways, Asian medicine includes the use of acupuncture and Oriental herbs."
His bio. says:
"Dr. Kin is licensed to practice naturopathic medicine in Alberta, and is registered with the Alberta Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...and] is also a member of the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy - Naturopathy (BDDT-N), in Ontario, and the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia (CNPBC) [...and] a member of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) and the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP)."
And CNPBC states in "Prescriptive Authority for Naturopathic Physicians: Objectives, Rationale and a Framework for Regulation: A proposal for The British Columbia Ministry of Health 22 December 2006":
"demand for naturopathic medical services continues to rise as patients seek valid, science-based alternatives [...] guided by scientific, evidence-based approaches to treatment and intervention [...] 'in common possession of scientific facts' [...] 'a shared scientific foundation'."
Note: fascinating, science-based nonscience. Evidence-based figmentation. Facts that are sectarian phantoms. A scientific-foundation not the basis of anything in science.
Naturopathy is your brain on bone-headedness.
here, I cite from the New York Association of Naturopathic Physician's [NYANP] page regarding licensure [see 001., below]; and then from the proposed licensure bill itself [see 002., below]:
001. NYANP states in "NYANP Promotes Access to Natural Medicine" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians is committed to ensuring that citizens in New York and all 50 states have the freedom to access natural health care and the broad array of alternative therapies available. Our goal is to build awareness of the efficacy of natural medicine and the positive results our patients experience [...] naturopathic doctors are specialists in natural medicine [...and] treat illness using [...] the healing power of nature [coded vitalism...] THE INTENT OF OUR LEGISLATIVE EFFORT IS TO EXPAND ACCESS TO NATURAL MEDICINE BY LICENSING NATUROPATHIC DOCTORS TO DIAGNOSE AND TREAT UNDER A DEFINED SCOPE OF PRACTICE [their caps...] it is not the intent of the NYANP to restrict the use of natural therapies to naturopathic doctors [...] it is not the intent of the NYANP to restrict the use of homeopathy to naturopathic doctors [...] WE DO INTEND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM UNTRAINED PRACTITIONERS WHO PROMOTE THEMSELVES AS DOCTORS OR PHYSICIANS, BUT HAVE OBTAINED THEIR CREDENTIALS FROM DIPLOMA MILLS. WE DO INTEND TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM PEOPLE WHO TREAT AND DIAGNOSE WITH LITTLE OR NO CLINICAL TRAINING [their caps]."
Note: what NYANP doesn't, apparently, value is transparency.
E.g.: why don't they tell us that their HPN is actually the science-ejected figmentation known as vitalism, and that it is at the heart of their worldview?
The freedom they want is the freedom to be legally deceptive [an oxymoron]. Efficacy? Well, they mention homeopathy and so much for efficacy having any meaning.
002. the New York State Assembly states in "A01370 Text" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"15 S 6577. DEFINITION OF THE PRACTICE OF NATUROPATHY. THE PRACTICE OF
16 THE PROFESSION [professions claim] OF NATUROPATHY UTILIZES EDUCATION AND NATURAL THERAPIES
17 TO SUPPORT AND STIMULATE A PATIENT'S INTRINSIC SELF-HEALING PROCESS [coded vitalism] TO
18 PROMOTE WELLNESS AND TO PREVENT, DIAGNOSE, TREAT AND PRESCRIBE FOR HUMAN
19 HEALTH CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH NATUROPATHIC PRACTICE [which is based on vitalism, supernaturalism & kind]."
Note: NYANP summarizes the bill here.
Boy, there is so much missing that is necessary to make an informed decision regarding naturopathy, both as a legislator and as a member of the public.
The coded vitalism hidden in the bill merely scratches the surface of naturopathic opacity / deception. Engaging in such nontransparency voids their claim of professionalism, period.
Does this bill protect the public, when the bill itself would license as physician's these metaphysicians who do not distinguish between the science-ejected and the scientific, between the efficacious and the figmentatious, between the natural and the supernatural, between the opaque and the transparent [more oxymorony]?
well, when you do a google.com web search with the parameters >maloney quack<, you get these first-page results:
#6. 2010-02-17 - "Christopher Maloney Is A Quack.  But Maybe Not Censorious" at Popehat;
#10. 2010-02-18 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack – For SHAME WordPress. Epic Fail" at One Furious Llama.
Note: and it goes on and on.
I don't even rank in the top 100! I have seven Naturocrit pages regarding Maloney, by the way [this is the eighth], and I never called him a quack therein. I cited those who did, surely.
I take it that Myers will not be gifting ND Maloney this holiday season with his desired 'cease and desist': the deadline was the 2010-12-14 if you use Myer's posting date of 2010-12-07, or it was 2010-12-07 if you use the letter's as written date of 2010-11-30.
I must also add, Maloney called Atwood a quack [by post title] regarding Atwood's Medline piece, and engaged in quite obvious ad hominem. The Medline papers are rock solid, in my view, and Atwood didn't get into the pigpen -- in terms of ungrounded personal attacks on competence and integrity. But Maloney went the muddy way -- possibly libeling Atwood's "level of knowledge within his own area" -- and doesn't seem to have even read the entire Medline Atwood-published arc.
The irony is killing me: NCNM ND -- a place that irrationally labels the science-exterior and the science-interior as all the some kind of science stuff [a level of knowledge akin to forth grade?] -- who claims defamation, apparently doesn't have a problem dishing it out.
here, I cite from the Alaska naturopathy practice Avante Medical Center [AMC] which claims, over the years, that naturopathy is a branch of medical science [see 001., below]:
001. the science claim of AMC, by practitioner:
001.a. Babij, M. (ND SCNM) states in "Markian Babij, ND, FABNO" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science."
001.b. Smith, T. (ND NCNM 2001) states in "Torrey Smith, ND" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] Dr. Smith loves utilizing the naturopathic tools [...] this includes using [...] the latest in scientific medical studies."
001.c. Ferguson, G. (ND NCNM 2001) states in "Gary Ferguson, ND" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science."
001.d. Harmon, J.J. (ND Bastyr 1999) states in "Jason J. Harmon, ND, FABNO" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] Dr. Harmon is committed to advancing the integration of modern medicine, bringing together the best of science and nature [...] Bachelor of Science, Pre-Medicine, Bastyr University Seattle, WA."
001.e. Wiggins, N. (ND SCNM) states in "Natalie Wiggins, ND" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science."
001.f. Nalbandian, J. (ND Bastyr 1989) states in "Jana Nalbandian, ND, MT" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] Dr. Nalbandian has been the Department Chair of Clinical Sciences."
001.g. Laing, A. (ND NCNM) states in "Abby Laing, ND" [vsc 2010-12-19]:
"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science."
001.h. Erickson, L. (ND CCNM) states in "Liane Erickson, ND" [vsc 2010-12-18]:
"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science."
002. there is, really, no larger science claim made by naturopathy, that it is essentially / categorically "science".
Friday, December 17, 2010
here, a citation illustrating the essentially naturopathic science-ejected vitalistic [see 001., below]:
001. Arizona NMD Hinojosa-Sinks, J. (NMD SCNM) states:
001. Arizona NMD Hinojosa-Sinks, J. (NMD SCNM) states:
001.a. in "Meet Your Doctor" [vsc 2010-12-17]:
"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [it is indeed a belief system] that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism...] Dr. Hinojosa-Sinks [...] firmly believes [it is indeed a belief system] that each person has the ability to heal [coded vitalism]. She focuses her assessment and therapies on finding and stimulating the body's inherent power to heal [coded vitalism], which is known as a person's 'vital force' [explicit vitalism...] she is a member of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) and the Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association (AZNMA) [...] naturopathic physicians base [a belief basis] their practice on six timeless principles [as in 'science-ain't-ever-gonna-sway-us'...#1] let nature heal [coded vitalism]."
Note: so, vital force.
001.b. in "Acupuncture" [vsc 2010-12-17]:
"acupuncture is a therapy of traditional Chinese medicine that originated in China over 5,000 years ago [...and] is based on the belief [yes, belief] that people have a vital energy, called 'qi' [explicit vitalism], that circulates through twelve invisible [as in nonexistent] energy [a misuse of the term, scientifically speaking] channels known as 'meridians' on the body [...that] irrigate and nourish the tissues [...each] is associated with a different organ system. An imbalance in the flow of qi [explicit vitalism] throughout a meridian is how disease begins [...] acupuncturists insert needles into specified points along meridian lines to [...] reestablish the regular flow of qi [explicit vitalism] through the body [...] acupuncture treatments can help the body's internal organs correct imbalances in their digestion, absorption, and energy production activities, and in the circulation of their energy [coded vitalism] through the meridians [...] all ages and all conditions can benefit from acupuncture [panacea-like promise]."
Note: yes, the invisible-figmentatious as causative, manipulable, and highly efficacious!
Wow, and not a lick of admission that this is science-ejected crap. I do not consent.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
here, I compare two positions on acupuncture. First, there's the proponent ND Kontomerkos replete with panacea-like promises regarding the efficacy of acupuncture and big statements about her 'science foundation qualifications' [see 001., below]; then, a word from skeptic Novella at Science-Based Medicine [see 002., below]:
001. Kontomerkos, C. (ND UBCNM) tells us:
001.a. in "Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine" [vsc 2010-12-15]:
"acupuncture originated over 2000 years ago [it's older than dirt...and] involves the insertion of hair-thin, sterile, disposable needles into strategic points on the body that are specific for particular complaints or conditions [really!!!...and] has been clinically shown and medically accepted as an effective tool [really!!!...] acupuncture has also been linked to increased levels of specific hormones that improve the body's immune function and its response to stress [...] how does acupuncture work? Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and acupuncture are based on a concept of balanced qi [Q, aka vitalism, the archaic belief in an imaginary force or energy governing one's physiology...] or vital energy [VE, a qi alias] that flows throughout the body. Qi regulates all aspects of the body, influencing spiritual [supernaturalism], emotional, mental, and physical balance. Disease occurs when the flow of qi is disrupted and yin (negative energy [E]) and yang (positive energy) [both vitalistic, overall] become imbalanced [...] scientists have found ways that fit their scientific model of how and why acupuncture works [and that's quite a science-claim]."
Note: so, we're told acupuncture has meaningful efficacy, and that acupuncture passes scientific muster. Its premise -- vitalism = Q = VE = E -- is communicated, but the status of vitalism as science-ejected isn't. You'll see below why such an admission cannot occur within naturopathy. The "points" are claimed to be specific, and of course you get naturopathy's requisite supernaturalism along with its vitalism.
So, the claim: science subset acupuncture subset vitalism and supernaturalism. This implies: science subset naturopathy, since this is a naturopathic clinical practice. It could be very inconvenient to admit the truth: science excludes the essentially naturopathic [vitalism, supernaturalism and kind], being that the ND's alma mater engages in commerce under a science label [that isn't true, which constitutes false advertising, roughly speaking].
Now, a word on the website's address, "let nature heal" [LNH]. This itself is a coding for naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalistic context. For example, the ND's alma mater UBCNM states in "Six Guiding Principles. Guiding Principle #1" (archived here)[vsc 2010-12-15]:
"the healing power of nature. Viz [sp., vis] medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [purposeful; goal-directed aka teleological]; nature heals [as in 'let nature heal'] through the response of the life force [LF]. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process [TP]."
So, ND Kontomerkos's web site address is indicative of naturopathy's overall vitalistic context: LNH = HPN-VMN = LF = TP.
You just have to decode it, "from the inside"!
001.b. in "Facial Rejuvenation Acupuncture" [vsc 2010-12-15]:
"Dr. Kontomerkos is certified in facial rejuvenation acupuncture
[...and it is claimed to do all these things:]
[...and it is claimed to do all these things:]
increased blood flow,
increased collagen production,
improvement of facial muscle tone,
reduction of puffiness around the eyes,
elimination of fine lines and wrinkles,
improvement in facial color,
increase in skin hydration,
reduction of sagging jowls and drooping eye lids,
increased blood and lymph circulation, tightening of pores,
reduction in acne, improvement of TMJ,
improved digestion and metabolism,
more restful sleep,
improved hormone balance,
improvement of self-esteem."
Note: quack panacea alert!
Note: quack panacea alert!
001.c. in "Services" [vsc 2010-12-15]:
"acupuncture [..is a] gentle, ancient healing technique [that] treats various health conditions, stimulates the body's healing response [coded vitalism], and promotes physical and emotional well-being [...] reiki therapy – reiki is an energetic therapy [that is, vitalistic...] reiki can decrease pain, improve health [really!!!...] it can benefit emotional health as well as physical health [...] homeopathy is a distinct system of medicine that treats illnesses with extremely diluted agents [...] homeopathic remedies [...] each remedy is chosen after Dr. Kontomerkos conducts an interview focusing on the physical and emotional characteristics of each person, which lead her to the prescription of an individualized remedy [...] Dr. Kontomerkos also performs facial rejuvenation acupuncture."
Note: whenever someone clinical claims homeopathy has efficacy...run. And acupuncture.
001.d. in "Meet the Doctor" [vsc 2010-12-15]:
"Dr. Kontomerkos was trained in the scientific model as her foundation [bullshit!] in medicine [...] she went on to earn a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] Dr. Kontomerkos offers natural medical solutions [...] the aim is to heal the underlying cause of illness [coded vitalism...and speaks of] other health care professionals [...] for Dr. Kontomerkos, the goal is to provide excellence in health care and wellness by merging cutting-edge, evidence-based research with ancient healing traditions [epistemic conflation]."
Note: so, there's the big science model / context falsehood. The science-exterior [the essentially naturopathic] cannot be science, by definition.
001.e. in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-12-15]:
"naturopathic medical schools require the same basic sciences as a medical doctor [...] naturopathic medicine is a method of healing that blends centuries-old holistic medicines with modern medical science [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training [...including] acupuncture, homeopathic medicine [etc....] naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams."
Note: so, again, a science expertise / basis claim / promise, acu. and homeo., and a claim of 'professional rigor.' Notice that the science-ejected vitalism essential to naturopathy overall is not communicated in this page which claims to contextualize naturopathy.
We ARE told, cryptically, "the premise behind naturopathic medicine is to find the root cause of illness [RCI]", and that is, overall, vitalism coded.
Therefore: vitalism = RCI, also.
001.f. in "Christine Kontomerkos, ND, MS" [vsc 2010-12-15]:
"Dr. Kontomerkos was trained in the scientific model as her foundation in medicine and has a great respect for the ever-advancing field of medicine [a HUGE science promise...she has] a Doctorate in Naturopathic Medicine from University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] Dr. Kontomerkos offers natural medical solutions [...] her services involve the use of [...] homeopathy [...and] acupuncture [etc....] by merging cutting-edge, evidence-based research with ancient healing traditions [...] Dr. Kontomerkos enhances her knowledge of the profession [...] or more information, please visit http://www.letnatureheal.com/."
Note: wow, there's a HUGE science model / context promise again, UBCNM as an alma mater, homeo. and acu., and an 'of the professions' claim.
AND who pays for this? In "Insurance and Location" [vsc 2010-12-15] we're told:
"our office accepts the following insurance plans: Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, ConnectiCare, Cigna, HealthNet, Aetna [...] for any plans not listed here, most insurance companies will reimburse 'out-of-network' for services that are rendered."
002. Dr. Novella writes at Science-Based Medicine in "Acupuncture and the Hazard of Nonsense" (2010-12-15):
"a recent study published in the Archives of Opthalmology [sp., ophthalmology!] compare patching of one eye vs acupuncture in the treatment of amblyopia in older children, and finds positive results from acupuncture [...one of sCAM's] highly implausible modalities [...] changes to clinical practice are not warranted based upon an unblinded pilot study such as this. The history of acupuncture specifically is one in which unblinded pilot studies tend to be positive, but then follow up well-controlled blinded acupuncture studies have tended to be negative. If history is any judge, these results will not hold up under further study, and therefore changes to clinical practice are premature. This episode is just one example of the hazard of studying was is essentially a nonsensical system – the notion that acupuncture needles placed in specific (and non-existent) acupoints can cause specific physiological effects [oh snap!...] there is no evidence for such wild speculation about possible mechanisms of acupuncture, and speculating about mechanisms is premature when the best acupuncture studies all find no effect [...] what we get from acupuncture, at best, are very non-specific effects from the therapeutic ritual that surrounds acupuncture [...] non-specific effects do not justify specific claims or mechanisms [...] the ultimate problem is that the underlying notions of acupuncture itself – that there are specific acupuncture points on the body, and that there are mysterious energies that can be manipulated by sticking needles in these points that then have specific physiological effects – are highly implausible. They are, in fact, nothing but pre-scientific superstition. The energy and acupuncture points of acupuncture, according to decades of research and multiple independent lines of evidence, simply do not exist. Acupuncture is ultimately a shell game of preliminary unreliable results and misinterpreted non-specific/placebo effects."
Note: yes, that is, again:
"acupuncture is ultimately a shell game of preliminary unreliable results and misinterpreted non-specific/placebo effects."
And it is business-as-usual for NDs / NMDs and their schools.
And it is business-as-usual for NDs / NMDs and their schools.
Monday, December 13, 2010
here, I cite from a recent post at The Quackometer regarding homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I suggest some similarities homeopathy has to naturopathy [see 002., below]; and I provide a specific example [see 003., below]:
001. Andy Lewis writes in "Escaping the Cult of Homeopathy" (2010-12-13):
"I would not be the first to suggest that believers in alternative medicine often display the traits of members of cults [...and] of all alternative medicines homeopathy, to me, looks the most cult-like [...e.g.] it defines itself in opposition to what it calls 'allopathy' and in doing so creates a straw man of what medicine is today [...] homeopathy is so strictly defined by its opposition to modern mainstream medicine that it will always lie at the fringes in a pseudoscientific bubble [...] it must attack and denounce alternatives – such as scientific medicine – without any form of compromise [...] the cult model explains why virtually no homeopaths have condemned the murderous practice of using sugar pills to treat fatal diseases like HIV and malaria [...this] thinking of the cult [...this] cult-like dark side of homeopathy [...this] pseudo-medical and superstitious cult [...homeopathy apostate] Wendy describes life inside the cult of homeopathy [...] Wendy talks about how the training for homeopaths is vital for creating the cult-like mentality [...] questioning was highly discouraged [...] 'my critical abilities were silenced within the first year – not by others – but because it would be considered judgmental in that society [...] I now see homeopathy as the disease. I think it is a form of madness' [...] Wendy has found the current sceptical blogging about homeopathy on the internet a useful tool in 'de-programming' and re-engaging with a critical approach to examining the claims of homeopathy."
Note: there are many parallels between homeopathy and naturopathy. And I have, under oath, labeled naturopathy "cultic mystical weirdness", I must admit.
It is a fact that:
a) ND web pages often have a "FAQs" section rhetorically posing the question 'what is the difference between homeopathy and naturopathy?'
b) naturopathy labels modern medicine 'allopathy';
c) both homeopathy and naturopathy are based on science-ejected archaic / medieval ideas such as vitalism.
003. for example, Lee, T.S. (ND Bastyr 1986) states in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-12-13]:
"what is the difference between a naturopath and a homeopath? [...] homeopaths use only the homeopathic approach, whereas naturopaths train in several forms of diagnosis and treatment, one of which is homeopathy [...which] stimulates the patient's vital force to help resolve the disease [...paralleling] the philosophy of naturopathic medicine: living things have an innate ability to heal themselves [coded vitalism]. Our vital force promotes self-cleansing, self-repair, and therefore self-healing [...] naturopathic treatments [...and] techniques and methods have long been respected throughout the world. While modern allopathic medicine is a youngster of less than 200 years old, natural medicine has been the primary medicine used by most of the human community even into the 21st Century."
Note: this result came about by using google.com and web-searching >"what is the difference" homeopathy naturopathy<. It was the second result.
Phil Plait writes at blogs.discovermagazine.com in "Mike Adams Fails Again: Astrology Edition" (2010-12-13):
"Mike Adams [...] can politely be described as an antiscience propagandist. If there’s no evidence for it, he’ll believe it: naturopathy, antivax, alt-med fluffery, you name it. He runs the website Natural News, which has an extremely high density of nonsense per electron."
Note: well said.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
here, I list some of the relevant pages in the ND Maloney - Pharyngula issue somewhat organized chronologically [as near as I can tell]:
2010-02-17 - Myers posts "Christopher Maloney is a Quack":
"Maloney is a naturopath in the state of Maine, where quacks like him get to call themselves 'doctors' [...] a student, Michael Hawkins, dared to criticize him, pointing out that 'naturopathic medicine is pure bull' and stating that naturopaths are under-qualified and do not deserve the title of 'doctor' [...] Maloney took action to silence him [...] not only is Maloney a quack, but he's a stupid quack [...] now a much bigger blog is going to spread the word that Christopher Maloney is a quack [...] let the whole world know that Christopher Maloney is a cowardly quack."
2010-02-17 - Popehat posts "Christopher Maloney Is A Quack.  But Maybe Not Censorious";
2010-02-18 - Myers posts "Christopher Maloney: Still A Quack":
"that quack, Christopher Maloney, has written to me now... with a nice little edge of hysteria and paranoia [...] 'u can call me an idiot and a quack, but when you repeat the fact that I am not a doctor and not qualified, that is a written lie or libel. I am a doctor under Maine state law and meet the qualifications of that title' [...] the plot thickens. Maloney denies getting Hawkins' site shut down."
Note: related to this, Myer's posted on 2010-02-18 "Andreas Moritz is a Cancer Quack", Steve Novella posted on 2010-02-18 "Naturopaths Can Silence Critics Too" with Maloney using the name Quackalicious in the comments, and fellow ScienceBlogs.com blogger Orac posted on 2010-02-19 "Andreas Moritz and Trying to Shut Down Valid Scientific Criticism: A Sine Qua Non of a Quack" and fellow ScienceBlogs.com blogger Joshua Rosenau posted on 2010-12-08 "Christopher Maloney is a Quack".
2010-07-27 Steve Novella posts "Maloney Declares Victory":
"made clear by this exchange is the difference between the science-based approach and Maloney’s approach, which is typical of naturopaths. I look at all the evidence for plausibility, safety, and the reasonable potential for benefit. If I am convinced that I can offer my patients the probability of benefit in excess of harm, I will use a treatment (no matter how it is labeled) with proper informed consent. But I will then closely follow the evidence and will stop using a treatment if good clinical evidence is negative. Or I will start using a treatment when new evidence shows that it is safe and effective. Maloney, on the other hand, appears to trade in wild speculation. In my opinion he has demonstrated sloppy, black and white thinking, an inability to understand the implications of published research, a bias against science-based medicine, and a willingness to prescribe treatments based upon the flimsiest of scientific justifications. He then accuses me of being 'dismissive' and has the stones to declare victory in our exchange because I eventually tired of his evasiveness and crank tactics."
Note: Maloney's compilation is here.
2010-10-14 - Maloney posts "Quack Attack: An Explanation of the Attacks on Dr. Christopher Maloney";
2010-12-07 - Myers posts "I Get Mail":
"some people just don't get it. Christopher Maloney wants to silence a message he doesn't like on the internet by serving a cease and desist order. The last time I mentioned Maloney was eight months ago, and even then it was to point and laugh at his page throwing crazy paranoid accusations at me. So now [...] he has decided to stir the pot and remind everyone that Christopher Maloney is a quack and that he keeps on quacking? [...] once again, the web will start echoing the Christopher Maloney is a quack message. It must be handy for a quack to marry a lawyer, but I don't think she's giving him good advice in this case. You might as well serve a writ on the tides to stop flowing as ask the internet to erase a piece of its data."
Note: Maloney's compilation is here.
Note: Maloney's compilation is here.
2010-12-08 - Popehat posts "If It Walks Like a Duck, and Censors Like a Duck...";
The deadline for the cease and desist request is 2010-12-14. We'll see what happens this week.