Career Misguidance: American Dental Education Association, Their ExploreHealthCareers.org, and a Misrepresentation of 'the Essentially Naturopathic'

here, I show how the American Dental Education Association [ADEA] promotes naturopathy's false claim of "scientific":

001. ADEA states:

001.a.  in "Our Mission" (saved 2011-01-23):

"ExploreHealthCareers.org is [...] designed to explain the array of health professions and provide easy access to students seeking information about health careers [...] helping more of today's students become the health professionals of tomorrow [...] ExploreHealthCareers.org gives students a reliable, and comprehensive source of accurate, up-to-date information about the health professions."

Note: oh boy.  So, ADEA's claim is that their content is for professional career guidance, and is reliable, up-to-date and comprehensive.  I disagree, specifically regarding ADEA's representation of naturopathy.

001.b. in "Management Team" [saved 2011-01-23]:

"American Dental Education Association [...] Sue Sandmeyer [...] co-principal investigator [...] Jeanne Sinkford [...] co-principal investigator [...] Henryne Green Tobias [...] project director."

Note: their page "Partners" does not list any naturopathic organizations.

001.c. in "Naturopathic Doctor" [vsc 2011-01-23]:

"naturopathic medicine is based upon six fundamental principles: [#1] the healing power of nature - trust in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself [coded vitalism...#5] treat the whole person - view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical and spiritual dimensions [supernaturalism...] naturopathic physicians collaborate with all other branches of medical science [...] you can download, save and print a PDF of this career profile [ ...] source: www.naturopathic.org."

Note: there's your trouble, the source!  The SOLE and SINGLE source for this description is the AANP. So much for being comprehensive, or even accurate. It is a fact that naturopathy is based on the science-ejected and science-exterior [the vitalistic, the supernatural, and kind].  Since when is a branch of science not even on the tree?  Naturopathy. This is very sad career misguidance.  An educational entity miseducating.

Addendum [2011-01-29]: the AANMC -- the North American AANP-type school consortia  -- is so pleased with this description that they also have the entry up on their site, and they've added links.

The Coded and Noncoded Scientific Vitalism of ND and Homeopath Forbes

here, I cite from the web pages of Maine ND Forbes regarding naturopathy's science claim, coded vitalism, and supernaturalism [see 001.a, below]; I then decode naturopathy's principles, contrasting ND Forbes's version with her alma mater NCNM [see 001.b., below]; and cite her homeopathy proponentry [see 001.c., below] and buried explicit vitalism [see 001.d.]:

001. Forbes, J. (ND NCNM) states:

001.a. in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-23]:

"naturopathic medicine is a scientifically based approach [overarching science claim] to supporting the body’s own healing power [coded vitalism] with the use of safe, natural therapies such as [...] homeopathic medicines [...] naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process [coded vitalism] in the person which is ordered and intelligent [teleological!]. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process [coded vitalism...it's] a blending of scientific advancements [science claim] in diagnosis with the safe and sound principles of naturopathic medicine [sound?  really?...] recognizing symptoms and signs from the body, mind and spirit [supernaturalism...] I see my role as assisting with the inherent self-healing process [coded vitalism]."

Note: so, there's the science claim overarching the homeopathy proponentry, the supernaturalism, and the coded vitalism.  Sound?  We'll see below.

001.b. now, ND Forbes is an NCNM graduate and has conveniently edited / removed some essential information regarding naturopathy, a lot of which can be currently found at her alma mater's web page explaining naturopathy, NCNM, who states in "About Naturopathic Medicine: Principles of Healing" [vsc 2011-01-23]:

"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 [science claim...#1] these principles stand as the distinguishing marks [they're essential] 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 [vitalism is mandatory...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [factual claim upon vitalism...it's] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [explicit vitalism...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [mandatory supernaturalism of some kind that 'develops']."

So, there's the essential vitalism context claimed as objective fact / able to survive scientific scrutiny.  There's requisite supernaturalism, similarly claimed as within science.  Neither are supported by science and it is in fact false to claim so.  So, are naturopathy's principles sound?  No.  Unless labeling the hugely science-exterior and the science-interior the same thing is sound.  Unless insanity as a way to approach reality is sound.  Such are not.  Such are irrational.  The amount of opacity / editing / nondisclosure in ND Forbes's version of "About Naturopathic Medicine" compared to the source -- which is hugely irrational itself --  is AMAZING.  But, that is naturopathy's usual MO: claim science basis upon the coded nonscientific, and don't transparently communicate the irrational and falsity / unsoundness -- professional standards be damned.  Naturopathy is truly the reversal of all values.

001.c. in "About Dr. Forbes" [vsc 2011-01-23]:

"homeopathy is my main treatment modality [...she's a] classical homeopath [...] acute and chronic illnesses can be treated very successfully with homeopathy [...including] asthma, allergies, strep throat, candida, cancer, hypertension, ear infections, depression, anxiety, heart disease and many other common ailments that limit peoples lives."

Note: that's quite a claim of efficacy for some very serious diseases for something now truly 'thrown into the rubbish bin'.

001.d. in "Interfering or Possibly Antidoting Factors" [vsc 2011-01-23]:

"huge stresses, emotional shocks, grief [...] they can so overwhelm the vital force that a new remedy may be indicated, or the former remedy may need to be repeated in a high potency [...] if someone is exposed to a particular stress we may classify as an antidoting factor, the vital force will rebound and the beneficial effect of the remedy will remain intact, especially if the harmful stimulus (coffee, etc.) is eliminated from the diet."

Note: and there's some explicit vitalism, buried within a pdf buried on her web site. She is, after all, a classical homeopath and an NCNM graduate.  Vitalism -- that cultic science-ejected belief -- is mandatory in those two sectarian domains.

The label science upon nonscience is mandatory too, obviously.

"Danger, Will Robinson!!!  Beware of unethical sectarian pseudoscience!"

Naturopathy's Bold and Absurd Push Into Oncology - The "New Hope" That They Promise

here, I cite from a recently posted Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] web page that talks about naturopathy's science competence in regard to cancer yet offers fairy dust / homeopathy amongst other things as treatment plus without disclaiming such remedies' inertness [see 001., below]; then, I provide example as to why those science competencies are a joke [see 002., below]; and finally, I caution [see 003., below]:

001. the AANMC states in "CAM Offers New Hope in Cancer Treatment An Interview with a Naturopathic Oncologist" (2011-01-21)[vsc 2011-01-22]:

"CAM treatment [sCAMs!] typically involves guidance from naturopathic oncologists [...] combining conventional medical therapies and surgery with CAM therapies such as [...] homeopathy [...] can increase tolerance and decrease the side effects of conventional treatments like chemotherapy and radiation, while promoting healing and improving overall outcomes [a promise of benefit...] one such practitioner is Chanchal Cabrera, medicinal herbalist and faculty chair in botanical medicine at Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine (BINM) [...] 'people are turning to naturopathic medicine because we are not winning the war on cancer' explains Cabrera. 'More and more people are recognizing that the drugs don’t always work' [...] Dr. Cabrera is quick to note that while patients often get excited by the potential benefits of CAM, they should always seek the advice of trained professionals who understand the science."

Note: so, there's the naturo-sCAMs recommended such as homeopathy [which we know is inert!] for someone very vulnerable and seriously ill, the promise of benefit, and just because we're not making the huge gains against cancer we'd like we're recommended fairy dust without disclosing its fairy dustness, and ironically we're told that the 'other drugs' don't work.  Disgusting.  And to top it all off, a 'science expertise' position is claimed.  Sounds as empty as those hoemopathic remedies.  The other science claim is the upper right corner of the web page, which lists one of the ND / NMD granting schools: "National University of Health Sciences."

002. a short glimpse of AANMC absurdity: they are the North American naturopathy-school consortia who claim that:

002.a. naturopathy is a branch of science; 

002.b. while based on the science-exterior vitalistic and supernatural, and hugely implausible [CST is a 'laying-on-of-hands' mindf*ck, essentially].  Of course all within their label of science.

003. this sounds dangerous:

the reversal of values is striking.  This new hope is old crap, posing as science and viable, rigorously vetted treatment.  Remember, the North American ND / NMD licensure exam labels homeopathy as "clinical science."

if such things as homeopathy is what science is within naturopathy -- and they strongly claim it is science -- people with cancer who go to an ND / NMD may be in for absurdity and trouble of a very serious nature.

Quackometer Does It Again (2011-01-21): "Homeopathy is Classic Pseudoscience"

Andy Lewis at his website The Quackometer states in "When the Regulator Believes in Fairies, Who Protects the Public?" (2011-01-21):

"homeopathy is classic pseudoscience. As are most forms of alternative medicine. Being cowardly in saying so risks peoples' health, defrauds them by allowing government endorsement of useless products, and undermines our regulators abilities to carry out their duties to protect the public. Recognising that training is not the same as expertise would be a good first step. Real expertise comes from critical thinking and having an ability to understand the limitations of personal knowledge. Those are attributes that are nearly non-existent amongst practitioners of the pseudo-medical cults."

Note: wow.  Read the whole post, it's great.  Ah-hmmm, naturopathy anybody?

Regarding Marketplace and Homeopathy: Naturopathy Offers Silence As Defense of Their Science-Mislabeled Homeopathy [and we should picket their upcoming NPLEX testings!]

here, I remind that North American naturopathy claims that homeopathy is a clinical science [see 001., below]; then, I cite from two criticisms of that not-science-at-all [see 002., below]; then I muse [see 003., below]:

001. the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners [NABNE] states in "About NPLEX":

"the Core Clinical Science Examination now required by every state and province that regulates the practice of naturopathic medicine. [...] a case-based examination that covers the following topics [...included is] homeopathy."

Note: hey, NABNE's homepage has a 2011-02-01 through 2011-02-04 NPLEX exam set listed.  I suggest that skeptical activists demonstrate at these locations in the name of the public trust.

002. two criticisms of recent importance explicitly stating that homeopathy is a delusion:

002.a. in Canada 2011:

the CBC program Marketplace investigated homeopathy and schwacked it in a manner it truly deserves [someone has posted a Youtube clip of it].

002.b. in the UK 2009:

the UK government's investigation into homeopathy similarly schwacked it in a manner it truly deserves.

003. what has naturopathy said?

nothing specific, and I've looked.  I'll keep looking and perhaps I'll find something.

  now, if homeopathy truly was a science in a truly scientific sense, I'd think it would be quite easy to have both sources I've cited in 002. retract their schwackings once naturopathy presented the stuff that makes a science a science -- evidence.  But, that HUGE SILENCE speaks volumes concerning just how disparate actual science is from naturopathy's 'anything-is-scientific' evidenceless context.

ND ______ - 'We're Science, I Mean Nonscience, I Mean Science...These Different Things Are the Same Things'

here, I employ a few North American ND / NMD sources' claims about the context of naturopathy to illustrate the 'epistemic and ontological conflation' of the whole nonsensical muddle:

001. a few ND sources:

Canadian alternating with American -- who claim "science" as the overarching category or methodology of naturopathy [the '#a' parts] and simultaneously claim nonscience / the preponderantly science-ejected as the category or mechanism of naturopathy [the '#b' parts]:

001.a. Canada nationally: the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors states:

001.a1. in "May 4-11, 2008 - Naturopathic Medicine Week" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine. Naturopathic doctors diagnose, treat, and prevent disease using natural therapies including botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, naturopathic manipulation, traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture, and lifestyle counseling. Naturopathic doctors are primary health care providers with 7 years post-secondary education that practice safe, effective, science-based natural health care."

Note: so science [a distinct kind of knowledge], it is claimed, and: while distinct blended yet distinct...and natural [with within that the supernatural; more on that with Pizzorno towards the end].  Loving it.

001.a2. in "Natural Therapies" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

"naturopathic therapies are all based on the same principles [...] assist[ing] the body's healing response [coded vitalism...e.g.] homeopathic remedies [...] when carefully matched to the patient [...] affect the body's 'vital force' [science-ejected vitalism...stimulating] the body's innate healing forces [coded vitalism...e.g.] the key principle that defines and connects all of Chinese medicine is that of chi or vital energy [science-ejected vitalism...] the chi of the body's organs and systems are all connected in [imaginary!!!] meridians or channels that lie just under the skin. A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance."

Note: so the science-ejected concept of vitalism, explicitly stated and in a couple of guises.  Yes, this is the NATIONAL Canadian naturopathy organization stating that science is nonscience, basically.  And, no disclaimer that their 'philosophy' / logic is nonsensical at its core.  But, they do like to label their irrational and absurd domain "professional" [vsc 2011-01-21].

Though I'll highlight naturopathy vitalism in the '#b' sections of this post, do keep in mind that under the overarching science label that naturopathy uses is also explicit supernaturalism and coded vitalism.

E.g., CAND states in "Guiding Principles" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...] emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor's training [making it ESSENTIAL...which] forms the foundation of this distinct form of health care [...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [coded vitalism, how distinct]: your naturopathic doctor works to restore and support the powerful and inherent healing ability [coded vitalism] of your body, mind and spirit [supernaturalism...] naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery, facilitating and augmenting this ordered and intelligent healing ability [coded vitalism...#4] in treating the cause of any condition your naturopathic doctor takes into account not only your physical symptoms, but also mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, spiritual [supernaturalism] and other factors."

So, therein, naturopathy 'thinks' within this essential mode: the distinct is the coded / opaque, the natural is the supernatural, and taken along with the science claims, the scientific contains the science-exterior.  Fascinating, bizarre.  Where ever else have you seen supposed / self-claimed professionals, on a national level, being so irrational, absurd, and employing an explanatory approach to the public that is SO OPAQUE?

001.b. US nationally: the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians states:

001.b1. in "Naturopathic Principles and Philosophy" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

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

Note: so, science and able to survive scientific scrutiny and objective.  But, since when is the sectarian-figmentatious vitalistic [and supernatural!] such?  And "philosophy"?  Philosophy means the love of wisdom.  Irrationalism and absurdity and downright manipulative falseness are not wise.  And you shouldn't love such, or abide it! IMHO.

001.b2. in "Letting Nature Heal" (2009-08-11) [vsc 2010-05-10], the AANP's blog:

"[per ND Schor] is not our goal supposed to be to stimulate the vital force or the vis medicatrix naturae [there's that all-important equation that CAND didn't offer...aka] stimulating the vis [...] the vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing power of nature [...] let me quote a respected medical writer on nature’s healing properties [...Hahnemann!] 'what the vital force does in these so-called crises and how it does it remains a mystery to us like all the internal operations of the organic vital economy' [yeah, that's admirable]."

Note: Schor was the AANP's first recipient of their Vis Award [yes, they have a vitalism award].

He tells us at his own web page "The Vis Award" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

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

So, the science-ejected sectarian vitalism belief is essential to naturopathy galore.  VMN-HFN is the distinguishing principle of naturopathy that they so often refuse to be distinct about!  They'd rather use a false label.  It's better for commerce / trade.

Being opaque about that principle is actually coded into their ethical code.  And when I say coded, I really mean it [per the Quebec Association of Naturopathic Medicine; their vitalism just stated as "the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being". No "life force", "vital force" or "qi / chi" etc. Along with a bunch of supposed ethical requirements that naturopathy can't fulfill -- as even that web page illustrates -- like "will recognize a responsibility to give the generally held opinions of the profession when interpreting knowledge of a scientific nature to the public"; QANM can't even transparently communicate that vitalism in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?"  yet we're told on the same page "naturopathic medicine [...] seeks to promote health through education and the scientific use of natural therapeutics" (vsc 2011-01-21)]. Amazing.

001.c. Canada provincially: the British Columbia Naturopathic Association states:

 

001.c1. in "About Naturopathic Medicine -- The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-12-22]:

 

"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...built upon upon] a science-based platform [...that there's an abundance of evidence concerning] the scientific basis and validity of naturopathic protocols [...and speaks of] naturopathic scientific journals."

 

Note: science.

 

001.c2. in "Sharon Gurm, ND" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"Dr. Gurm believes strongly in the body’s innate ability to heal itself. By working with the vital force of the individual using a holistic approach, true healing and optimal health can be achieved."

 

Note: vitalism.

 

001.d. US state-wise: the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians states:

 

001.d1. in "Links - Schools" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"fully accredited naturopathic medical colleges & universities [...include] Bastyr University: Natural Health Sciences."

 

Note: science.  NYANP links up to the AANMC [which covers all North American AANP-type schools]], which states in "Academic Curriculum" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"naturopathic medicine students [...] attend four-year graduate-level programs at accredited institutions, where they are educated in the same biomedical sciences as allopathic physicians [a false sectarian label!; and they don't mention that this 'sames science includes the science-exterior]. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences and diagnostics [...] some member schools in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic medical schools [the super-science claim!]. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation [so they 'found' the science-exterior with science]."  What a trip.

 

001.d2. in "Naturopathy" [at archive.org, vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"naturopathic medicine encourages the self-healing process, the vis medicatrix naturae [coded vitalism...] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [coded vitalism] naturopathic medicine recognizes in the body an inherent ability, which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery and facilitate and augment this healing ability [coded vitalism...] homeopathic medicine. This powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old and is widely accepted in many countries. Homeopathic medicines, when properly prescribed, affect the body’s 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal."

Note: vitalism.  The NYANP explicit vitalism that NYANP has now apparently expunged -- furthering NYANP's licensure cause by hiding what naturopathy essentially is?

 

001.e. Canada ND-wise: Ontario's Shahram Ayoubzadeh, N.D. states:

 

001.e1. in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"naturopathic medicine [...] is an art and science of disease diagnosis, therapy, and prevention [...] to be registered as an N.D., one must have successfully completely a four-year program at an accredited college of naturopathic medicine. Before that, one must first complete three years of premedical sciences at the university undergraduate level. Chiropractors and medical doctors must also complete these three years of premedical sciences before they are eligible to apply to their respective programs [...] the first two years of the four-year program focus on basic medical sciences and diagnosis."

 

Note: science.

 

001.e.2. in "Frequently Asked Questions" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"the very nature of homeopathic remedies is integrated, working harmoniously and directly on the vital force instead of merely on the physiological body [...] conventional medicine has its place in health therapy when there is irreversible structural damage or when the manifestation of the disease has compromised an individual's health to the extent that the vital force is no longer capable of stimulating a viable curative response."

 

Note: vitalism.

 

001.f. US ND-wise: the practice of NDs Phillips, Stretch, Celmer, Oberg, Karp, Risley, Deichert, Aschtgen states:

 

001.f1. in "About Our Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are based on objective observation of the nature of health and disease [...] the naturopathic medical education consists of 2 years of basic science classes."

 

Note: objectivity, science.

 

001.f2. in "About Our Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"homeopathy stimulates the body's vitality [...] homeopathy is a system that is encourages the body to heal itself, stimulating the body's vitality to initiate healing [...] treatment with NMT produces a physical 'release' which can encourage metabolic function, stimulate vital energies [...] TCM is based on the Chinese concept of 'qi' (pronounced 'chee' and usually translated as 'vital energy') and the theory of 'yin and yang' (the harmony of all the opposite elements and forces that make  up existence). Qi flows through the body in channels, called meridians."

 

Note: yes, that is the same web page that claimed objectivity and science claiming sectarian vitalistic-figmentation.  The ultimate of equations.

 

001.g. Canada school-wise: the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine states:

 

001.g1. in "Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2009-12-15 from Google.com's cache]:

 

"naturopathic medicine is science-based, holistic philosophy and practice rooted in the principle of vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [coded vitalism...] the first two years of study, include the foundation medical sciences [...] for those applicants whose academic background does not include the sciences, CCNM offers a naturopathic college preparatory program."

 

Note: science.

 

001.g2. in "Healing Arthritis" [vsc 2011-01-21 from archive.org]:

 

"the Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic located at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] NDs address the underlying cause(s) of [...] rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [...and] osteoarthritis (OA) [...via] traditional Chinese medicine: TCM is used by NDs to help balance qi (energy flow) to reduce illness and promote health. Interventions include acupuncture, acupressure and Asian herbs and foods. Homeopathic medicine: NDs use diluted doses of natural substances (plants, animals and minerals) to stimulate the body’s vital force and promote self-healing."

 

Note: vitalism.

 

001.h. US school-wise: the National University of Health Sciences states:

 

001.h1. it's name says it all.

 

Note: science.

 

001.h2. in "Bulletin 2009-2010" [2009-2010 Bulletin] [vsc 2010-08-28]:

 

"NT5110N Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine I [...] this course forms the basis of the clinical theory stream of courses in the ND program, which serves as a framework for practice. The course begins with an overview and the vision and ultimate goals of the ND program. The naturopathic principles are discussed at length. Major concepts such as health, holism, and vitalism [...] spirituality and its importance to life and healing, and the need for the physicians to be whole themselves, form the concluding portion of the course."

Note: vitalism, supernaturalism.

002. on 'epistemic and ontological conflation':

 

'epistemic conflation' is a term I invented some-what, I'll admit.  Perhaps it's the word 'pseudoscience' in a tuxedo.  I think it's pretty accurate.  Epistemology is the study of knowledge-type, roughly.  There is all knowledge and subsets of that group.  Within that entirety are the subsets science and nonscience, and a whole bunch of other kinds of knowledge.

 

also within knowledge is the science-ejected.  It is exceptionally absurd for naturopathy to categorically claim a context of science upon the HUGELY science-ejected.  Naturopathy is claiming two locations for the same thing, when they are mutually exclusive / different locations.  

 

in doing so, overall about the 'essentially naturopathic', naturopathyland is claiming that distinctions in knowledge-type are not possible for distinctions already PROFOUNDLY preponderant.

 

not only is science and nonscience blended / conflated i.e. 'epistemic conflation', they are then labeled the nonblended knowledge type known as science.  And that is quite irrational and absurd.  Because money changes hands, it is also a matter of false trade.

 

perhaps their horseshit words say it best: naturopathy blends yet is distinct, NDs are generalists who specialize, the profoundly / essentially science-ejected is able to survive scientific scrutiny.

ontological conflation comes into play once things are so indistinct / equated / simultaneous / irrational.

 

 with ontology the study of 'being', the 'being' / boundaries so to speak or properties of things, built from a position of epistemic conflation, then hugely blur.

i'll use ND Pizzorno as an example of the outcome of this blending / conflating / integrating mode.

in his book "Total Wellness", he tells us that one of the important systems in the body is the "life force" akin to "spirit" and overall that naturopathy is "science-based" and "natural".

how much more conflated and illogical can you be [once you know them from the inside, that is]?

vitalism and supernaturalism are science-exterior and the science-exterior is different from the science-interior, the natural and the supernatural are different, body's and spirits are usually considered different.

 

something is not equal to something it is different from.

The ND Douche Who Doesn't Answer Me and Makes Crap Up About Me

here, I reiterate my request to ND Maloney that he retract his claim that I flunked out of the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic [False] Medicine [see 001., below]:

001. so here are the screen-captures:

Note: I've had no response so far.

The Vitalism of NZCC - 2011

Dynamic Chiropractic reports in "Dr. Eric Russell to Assume Presidency of New Zealand College of Chiropractic" (2010-12-30)[saved 2011-01-19]:

"source: New Zealand College of Chiropractic [NZCC...] Dr. Eric G. Russell is the new president of the New Zealand College of Chiropractic, becoming the first Chiropractic Philosophy diplomate to be named president of a chiropractic college. He is a 1996 graduate of Palmer College of Chiropractic [...] 'the New Zealand College of Chiropractic has a great reputation for supporting vitalism throughout the curriculum, rigorous and innovative academic instruction, and progressive subluxation-based research,' said Dr. Russell."

Note: so, NZCC is vitalistic in context just like naturopathy.  I'm not sure it's so great to be associated with an idea that is LONG-GONE from science.  Of course, the science-ejected nature of vitalistic figmentation is never communicated to the public, and, in that sense, they are abused.

 

How can you consent in an informed manner when opacity is the overall sCAM mode?

ND Roush on Homeopathy - "Science Based" [not!]

here, I cite from a recent article gushing over naturopathy [see 001., below]; that then led me to the web site of the ND in that article [see 002., below]; whose claim that homeopathy is science-based -- as well as vitalism -- is bunk [see 003., below]:

001. Montana's Independent Record states in "Naturopaths Look Beyond the Symptoms" (2011-01-19) [vsc 2011-01-19]::

"[written by Sara Groves] over the course of the last several months, I’ve learned a lot about taking care of myself [...] to see for myself what naturopathic medicine is all about, I visited Dr. Jeff Roush [ND Bastyr] with Natural Medicine Plus here in Helena [...] an N.D. [...] a naturopathic doctor receives education that is, in many ways, similar to what a conventional M.D. receives. In fact, the first two years of a naturopath's education are nearly identical to the coursework that an aspiring M.D. takes, such as anatomy, physiology, microbiology, histology, biochemistry and immunology [as in science!...] 'naturopathic physicians should be every person's front line defense to guard their health,' said Roush. And I agree."

Note: wow, gushing endorsement.

002. Roush, J. (ND Bastyr) states:

002.a. along with Aagenes, N. (ND Bastyr) -- a former AANP President and Physician of the Year -- in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-19]:

"the practice of Naturopathy emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...]  based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] these principles forms the basis of all treatment. They are [#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. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: wow, that's vitalism claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  Not true.

002.b. in "Family Medicine for Every Body" [vsc 2011-01-19]:

"Dr. Roush offers healthcare for the whole family.   As a primary care physician, he evaluates, treats, and manages a variety of acute and chronic conditions using the least toxic therapy and science based naturopathic medicines.  Some of the therapies Dr. Roush may use include: clinical nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, and pharmacology."

Note: ah, so homeo. is science-based?

003. I don't think so:

if that's science, all is suspect in naturopathyland!  I disagree with the above endorsement of naturopathy.  The first line of defense of one's health shouldn't be pseudoscience.

Bob Park on Homeopathy - "Totally Meaningless"

the great Bob Park writes in "What's New" (2011-01-14):

"the 18th century German inventor of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, believed in 'vitalism,' a spiritual essence that goes beyond physics or chemistry. This is by no means unusual; most people believe in spiritual or religious cures even today. 'Medicine is most powerful,' Hahnemann wrote, 'when it communicates nothing material' [...]  Hahnemann typically used a dilution of 30C [...] this would exceed the dilution limit of the entire Earth, which is to say it's a meaningless result [...] Oscillococcinum [...] also marketed as a homeopathic cold remedy [...is] at a ridiculous dilution of 200C. That would exceed the dilution limit of the entire visible universe and is thus totally meaningless. The average consumer is totally unaware that he's shelling out 10 bucks for a teaspoon of sugar."

Note: hear, hear.

spaceScat is FINALLY noticed by ND Maloney [that ass!]

here, I cite from and notate a [crazy, NOT FU**ING PAYING ATTENTION!] post by ND Maloney regarding a song we recorded about him [I find it very ironic that ND Maloney is accusing P.Z. Myers of defamation, and yet engages HUGELY in such with me; remember, defamation is about stuff that is NOT TRUE and hurts one's character!]:

001. ND Maloney states in "Wow! I’ve Got My Own Song Now!" [vsc 2011-01-18; that means video screen captured in-case of slimyness a**hole!!!]:

"as a disclaimer, I never attended U of Bridgeport

[he attended National, the school of 'epistemic conflation' and science-mislabeling nonsense at the heart of naturopathyland].

The individual involved has no specific knowledge of me

[I do have SOME knowledge, particularly in terms of his relationship with MD Novella and P.Z. Myers and their bickering],

and appears to carry a strong grudge against my profession

[naturopathy is as much a pseudoprofession as it is a pseudoscience!!!].

There’s someone who flunked out of University of Bridgeport 

[ND Maloney is now stating quite a hurtful falsehood concerning me, as in defamation of character; as my UB days were outright fraud and I voluntarily left there without an ounce of accusation against me, as in 'left in good standing'; and I sued their Telfon-coated a**es to no avail since apparently the Connecticut judiciary protects them; so maybe we'll just consider suing Maloney for this 'flunked out invention' one day!]

who has spent the last ten years trying to get back at them

[no, I'm more concerned with public enlightenment of that fraud aka naturopathy]

and has now decided I merit not only continued harassment

 [huh?]

but my own song?

[yes, you get your own song, no charge -- but continued harassment?  Please, lets not get too exaggerated!  YOU you just libeled ME!  A**...]

evidently I need to be immortalized

 [all naturopathy frauds need such fame!  In fact this blog is dedicated to immortalizing naturopathy's absurd position which includes within science what's nonscience, and then trades on that]

in what sounds like a very cool (ala Grateful Dead)

[I think that's a complement!]

very disturbed response

[really?  I think we're rather avante!]

to my request that he remove any of my information from his blog

[huh? A**!  You don't own information you post in PUBLIC, or that you communicate to me through Facebook - a SOCIAL site].

I should like to point out that this was instead of write back to me like an adult

[that's Maloney's cave-man like grammar, folks! but such is forgiven...]

     I’m attaching links to his original lyrics, because I’m pretty good at deciphering song lyrics and he sounds like he’s been imbibing herbs in large quantities before singing

[actually, my naturopath buddy is the singer / song-writer a** and we're all quite sober!].

I think I could probably do better lyrics, so next time he should probably collaborate with me

[no thank you parasite! Find your own whining ND to write about].

[...] his lyrics involve some kind of relationship with me

[dream on!]

I simply contacted him to ask for permission to reprint a small portion of his blog for an upcoming book entitled:  “ND vs. MD” which would help people decide which path is the best fit for them

[bullsh*t, according to my transactions with ND Maloney on Facebook!  I think our contact involved more than that subject, a**!].

Here are the lyrics from his blog

[yes, these were ad-libbed by Lon (ND UBCNM) as we jammed, the original is here; what's hilarious is that Lon never read anything about Maloney beforehand and the song came about from a couple of minutes of me talking about the general situation wherein someone engages in a public forum and then whine about the fallout]:

“You told me the things you do

You’d video taped and shown it 

To everybody else

and you wanted some feedback

 I captured your comments 

and reposted them in blogspace

Somehow, you think I’ve violated you

And my ethics are in question 

but I’m really not concerned much

If you had something important to say

I’m sure it wouldn’t be so much about my approach

 About my approach to you 

and my handling 

of the things you say that you can do

The things you say your medicine does

The things that just probably are not true

Don’t tell me that I can’t tell you 

the things that I think of the things you do

You know sometimes people say the things 

they don’t even know about

sometimes they’re wrong too

I’m just taking what you said 

and putting it on blogspace

so don’t get all excited about that

 Don’t you have anything better to do

then make a big deal about me and you?

Don’t you know I care about 

the things you say and others too?

I want the truth, not a bunch of phooey

Not a bunch of phooey.”

[...]  here’s a link."

002. I'm loving it:

I transcribed Lon's ad-libbed lyrics and created the song title, and ND Maloney has repeated them!

  It's almost as good as shaking someone's hand after wiping your own a** with it, and then watching that person eat chocolates with that same hand [sad!!!; yeah Mallrats].

Or it's like someone snapping on their own mom [weird, crazy!!!].

The video up at that Vimeo link, by the way, shows a UB I-95 billboard that falsely labels UB naturopathy as science -- to this day.

That I can't believe: false commerce, nowhere close to fair trade, never mind supposed professionalism, abusing the public trust.

That's naturopathy for you.

It's also the cake-and-eat-it-too area, wherein:

someone claims victim-hood but has no problem defaming another quite overtly,

tries to argue specifically but doesn't pay attention to detail,

and where, overall something is labeled something it isn't.

[Hypocritical] Maloney is getting harassed by me as much as me getting 'flunked out' is true.

Fetching James Randi (NYT 2011-01-17)

I couldn't help but notice in "Sit. Stay. Parse. Good Girl!" currently up at the New York Times, that a certain picture in the article resembles James Randi!

It's a very interesting article.  From this teacher's point of view, oh how I'd love such diligence!

I'll try to ask him, when I get the chance at some meeting forthcoming, if he's felt a certain kind of 'gnashing' feeling.

If so, I've proven voodoo -- and I want my million.

-r.c.

ND Thomson and Naturopathy's OVERALL Irrationality

here, I briefly logically engage some 'nonsense naturopathy-speak' [NNS]:

001. Thomson, R. (ND NCNM) states in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-17]:

"naturopathic medicine blends centuries-old natural therapies (such as herbs, nutrition, and water therapy) with current advances in medical science (like medical imaging, modern biochemistry, and lab testing) [...] naturopathic medicine has been growing steadily in popularity as a source for scientifically-based 'alternative' medicine."

Note: so, we're told that naturopathy is science mixed with nonscience then we're told that naturopathy is science.  Hmmmm: is wine+mud still wine? I don't think so.

Of course, Thomson is an NCNM graduate, a school that states that the scientific and the science ejected are the same thing.

I see a source of knowledge conflation and its progency.

In the land of NNS, wine and wine+mud ARE the same thing.

Beware.

CBC.ca on "Natural Health Products" and the Misleading Words of Heather Boon [et alii]

here, I cite from an article concerning sCAM 'natural health products' that includes 'consumer rights advocacy' from UT's Boon [see 001., below]; then, I cite from a pro-naturopathy paper Boon was the lead author of that is quite misleading regarding naturopathy's basis (so much for informed consent) [see 002., below]:

001. Joh Hembrey reports in "FAQ: Alternative Therapies -- Natural Health Products: What You Should Know" (2011-01-14)[vsc 2011-01-16]:

"natural health products [...include] vitamins and minerals, herbal remedies and teas, homeopathic medicines and probiotics [...and are a] $4.3 billion [Canadian market per 2004...] natural health products are now considered a subset of drugs under the Food and Drug Act. Health Canada says it ensures that natural health products are safe, effective and of high quality [...except] Health Canada treats homeopathic medicines -- which are made by extremely diluting substances that are said to have effects similar to the condition being treated -- differently [...and] there is also a category for traditional claims, where companies need to submit evidence that a product has been used by a branch of traditional medicine to treat a particular condition consecutively for 50 years, she says, adding they do not have to submit clinical data [...] 'it's based on the evidence [...] if you have good scientific evidence you can make pretty much make any claim you want [...e.g.] if the claim the company wants to make is this cures your headache, then yes, we need to see double-blind, clinical trials [...] the labels have a lot more information then they used to and I think people need to stop and take some time to read the label,' says Heather Boon, associate professor at the University of Toronto [...she says] the package should also include the name and quantity of each medicinal ingredient [except for homeopathy, which doesn't have any!], recommended use and duration, expiry date and risk information [...] Health Canada says consumers should speak with a health-care professional, such as a medical doctor, nurse, pharmacist or naturopathic doctor, if they have any further questions about natural health products."

Note: so there's big money in this, and a huge exemption regarding safety, efficacy and quality for a privileged subset of these medicinal products -- the homeopathic / 'empty placebo remedy'.  Boon tells us that we deserve to be well-informed in the sense of "science" regarding claims on products.  That's a good thing, though exempting items is an unusually kind act of charity.  Does Boon abide by that 'informed consumer' / 'consumer rights advocacy' sentiment herself?  Health Canada labels naturopaths "professionals", but do NDs / NMDs deserve that level of trust and that position of self-policing? [I offer answers below, in 003.]

002. pronaturopathic propaganda / 'a survives scientific scrutiny claim upon the hugely science-ejected naturopathic':

002.a. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine has up the Boon lead-authored study "Practice Patterns of Naturopathic Physicians: Results From a Random Survey of Licensed Practitioners in Two US States" (2004):

"naturopathic medicine [...has] a primary goal [their foremost principle, actually] of enhancing the individual's innate self-healing ability [coded vitalism...] naturopathic medicine is defined by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) as 'distinguished by the principles upon which its practice is based. These principles are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances."

Note: so, you'd reasonably take from this the idea that naturopathy is, as they claim in exhibit A, scientific.  Nowhere in the article is the truly science-ejected vitalistic basis [exhibit B and C, respectively] of naturopathy communicated.

Year-round, I add to those three databases: exhibit A which is the ND claim of science, exhibit B which is the ND basis of vitalism, exhibit C which is the scientific rejection of vitalism -- it's quite an interesting collision to track.

Anyway, you are being misled but, that is a typical naturopathy M.O.:

claim science-basis, don't reveal the science-ejected underneath actuality.

Again, so much for informed consent.

003. so:

does Boon abide by that 'informed consumer' / 'consumer rights advocacy' sentiment herself?

I wish I could confidently say so.

do NDs / NMDs deserve that level of trust and that position of self-policing?
 
How can you trust that which is false and opaque, and has to problem with it?  

ND Kassam, ND Smith: Science Subset Naturopathy Subset Homeopathy

here, I quote from two Portland, Oregon NDs who claim homeopathy is science, as is naturopathy:

Kassam, N. (ND NCNM), Smith, K. (ND NCNM) state in "FAQS" [vsc 2011-01-15]:

"ND's are trained in medical sciences [...] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] maintains high standards of education and medical practice and encourages scientific research [...] is naturopathic medicine scientific? Yes [...] homeopathic medicine is a subset of naturopathic science."

Note: science, science, science.  But, if naturopathy and homeopathy are science, then it also means that nonscience is science.  And that's absurd.

ND Purcell - Naturopathy "Makes Sense, It's Logical", 'Vitalism is the Future' [aka Naturopathy's Reversal of Values!]

here, I've cited ND Purcell first from a Youtube.com video that claims naturopathy "makes sense", is "logical" and is of the "future" [see 001.a., below]; then, from another Youtube video wherein she explicitly states naturopathy's vitalistic context and that naturopathy is "the medicine of the future" [see 001.b., below]; then, I cite her homeopathy proponentry and coded vitalism from her web pages [see other parts of 001., below]; finally, I reflect on naturopathy's HUGELY absurd context [see 002., below]:

001. Purcell, A. (ND SCNM) states [from either Youtube or her own web pages]:

001.a. in "Meet Dr. Andrea Purcell" [vsc 2011-01-15]:

"naturopathic medicine makes sense.  It's logical.  The concept that we are regenerative instead of falling apart [coded vitalism], the philosophy that naturopathic medicine stands upon.  Such as: doctor as teacher, treat the cause, do no harm. These are all incredibly important components of health care. Now and for the future."

Note: so, sense and logic and coded vitalism!  It's very interesting that "life force" / vis medicatrix naturae isn't explicitly communicated here.  We'll get some of that old time, science-ejected, naturopathy-overarching vitalism from ND Purcell in the next video, below.  And, obviously overall, naturopathy's context is claimed by the ND in this video as "the future".

001.b. in "Ask Dr. Purcell - Integrative Natural Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-15]:

"[description] naturopathic health care provider Dr. Andrea Purcell explains integrative natural medicine [naturo.'s more recent marketing label!] and why she believes it is the health care approach of the future [...video] integrative natural medicine is the medicine of the future.  This is where science meets the art of good medicine [...] as medicine evolves, it's going to be much more important to look at the person as a whole.  And not just the parts, or a mechanistic view.  Is really going out of style and a vitalistic, whole-body perspective is coming into style.  And for good reason."

Note: ah, so the "vitalistic" which is hugely science-ejected.  So, naturopathy isn't science of the future, it's stuff from the past that is science-ejected.

This is an example of naturopathy's reversal of values:

science is nonscience,
the past is the future,
what's important is the discarded unimportant,
good medicine is sectarian illogical nonsense,
a scientific fact is also an article of faith! 

001.c. in "Dr Andrea Purcell Lecture series - Boosting Immunities" [vsc 2011-01-15]:

"I'm an ND, naturopathic doctor [...] I specialize in natural and alternative medicine [...] natural medicine often has the other side of the story [I'll say QUITE A STORY...] there's just so many more options when it comes to natural medicine [...since] nature provides for us."

Note: I'd think that when science equals nonscience as it does in naturopathy, yes, there is quite a vast selection of junk to call nonjunk.  You can make whatever you wish up and call it macaroni.  But, there can be made reasonable distinctions in spite of naturopathy's desire to integrate / blend / conflate all things into a meaninglessness of knowledge type.

001.d. in "What Is a Naturopathic Doctor?" [vsc 2011-01-15]:

"naturopathic doctors in North America [...are] trained in conventional medical sciences, diagnosis and treatment [...they] blend the best of modern medical science and traditional natural medical approaches [...such as] homeopathy [...]

naturopathic medicine explained.  Naturopathic medicine is defined by its own philosophy. The philosophy is based upon these six principles: [...]

2. doctor as teacher [...] we believe that it is our role as naturopathic doctors to educate our patients about their health and the steps necessary to stimulate the natural recuperative processes within them [coded vitalism...] naturopathic doctors are committed to educating you [...]

5. the healing power of nature [HPN]: nature acts powerfully through healing mechanisms in the body and mind to maintain and restore health [coded vitalism]. Everyone has within them the power to heal [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic physicians work to restore and support these inherent healing systems [coded vitalism...] naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [I'll say] that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic physicians teach their patients to [...] enhance the body's ability to ward off and combat disease."

Note: so they love homeopathy, in fact labeling it [falsely] a clinical science on their board exams [more homeopathy in the next section].  But, in this supposed explanation of the basis of naturopathy above, notice that they don't love to be transparent about HPN.  Though the ND has stated the vitalistic explicitly in the second video I mentioned, it's not on her web pages -- though it is EXPLICITLY at her alma mater.

I for one don't feel very educated / taught when I'm not given the 'actually science-ejected essential to naturopathy context' in a transparent manner by an ND.  How can I engage in informed consent and a fiduciary relation -- an ethical / professional relationship -- when NDs hide their premises?  I can't even engage in honest commerce when things are so opaque, never mind the higher standard of professionalism!

001.e. in "What is Homeopathy?" [vsc 2011-01-15]:

"homeopathy is a system of therapy in which very small non-toxic doses of natural medicines are given to stimulate a healing reaction in a person [...] I use homeopathy with each person [!!!] because it is very effective in stimulating your body’s own healing mechanism [coded vitalism] allowing your body to overcome the disease state naturally [...] patients of all ages and a wide variety of problems can benefit from this form of natural medicine.  Conditions homeopathy is effective [!!!] at treating include but are not limited to: acute and chronic pain, ADD / ADHD, anxiety, arthritis, behavior disorders, chronic ear infections, chronic fatigue syndrome, depression, fibromyalgia, gastrointestinal disorders, migraine headaches, PMS/Menopause."

Note: so there's the claim of  homeopathy's broad efficacy, and its use by ND Purcell on every patient.  Again, as often is the case, the vitalistic context is coded and never stated as 'science-ejected but lets do things -- like take homeopathy's empty pills -- in that figmentatious context anyway'.

002. some reflections concerning naturopathy's absurdity and reversal of values:

where else can you find such JUNK THOUGHT? 

E.g.: wherein, science is falsely used in supposed professional commerce as a label upon the hugely nonscientific?

If you were a physicist, you'd have to put a minus sign in front of so much said by NDs to arrive at the truth.

The Anthem of Naturocrit - "Ballad of Accounting"

here, I've transcribed the lyrics to Ewan MacColl's "Ballad of Accounting" and linked to a version performed by Karan Casey:

001. lyrics:

(Ewan MacColl)

In the morning we built our cities
In the afternoon walked through the streets
Evening saw us leaving
We wandered through our days as if they would never end.

All of us imagined there was endless time to spend
We hardly saw the crossroads and small attention gave
To landmarks on the journey from the cradle to the grave,
cradle to the grave, cradle to the grave.

Did you learn to dream in the morning?
Abandon dreams in the afternoon?
Wait without hope in the evening?
Did you stand there in the traces and let them feed you lies?
Did you trail along behind them wearing blinkers on your eyes?
Did you kiss the foot that kicked you?
Did you thank them for their scorn?
Did you ask for their forgiveness for the act of being born,
Act of being born, act of being born?

Did you alter the face of the city?
Did you make any change in the world you found?
Did you observe all the warnings?
Did you read the trespass notices?
Did you keep off the grass?
Did you shuffle off the pavements just to let your betters pass?
Did you learn to keep your mouth shut, were you seen and never heard?
Did you learn to be obedient and jump to at a word,
Jump to at a word, jump to at a word?

Did you demand any answers?
Who, the what, or the reason why?
Did you ever question the setup?
And did you stand aside and let them choose while you took second best?
Did you let them skim the cream off and give to you the rest?
Did you settle for the shoddy and did you think it right
To let 'em rob you right and left and never make a fight,
Never make a fight, never make a fight?

And what did you learn in the morning?
How much did you know in the afternoon?
Were you content in the evening?
Did they teach you how to question when you were at the school?
Did the factory help you grow, were you the maker or the tool?
Did the place where you were living enrich your life and then
Did you reach some understanding of all your fellow men,
All your fellow men, all your fellow men?

Note: that pretty-much sums it up for me.

002. the embed: