Licensed Falsehood*: Naturopathy, Supernaturalism, Vitalism and Kind, and the Scientific / Science-Based

here, I outline a future printed publication 'in the works', linking its sections to current appendices:

Licensed Falsehood*: Naturopathy, Supernaturalism, Vitalism and Kind, and the Scientific / Science-Based:

Table of Contents:

001. the modern definition of naturopathy;

002. naturopathy's supernaturalism;

003. naturopathy's vitalism and kind;

004. naturopathy's claim of being science-based / science subset naturopathy;

005. the scientific rejection / exclusion of the supernatural, vitalistic and kind.

Note on falsehood:

“an untrue statement; lack of conformity to truth or fact; inaccuracy; a lie; the practice of lying.”

Obviously the word covers a wide scope.

Naturopathy Down Under - ND Hogan, Science, Supernaturalism and Vitalism

here, I cite from the web pages of Australian ND Hogan [see 001., below]; and then I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Hogan, F. (ND[AU] SSNT?) states:

001.a. in "What is Naturopathy?" (2011-01-24)[vsc 2011-01-31]:

"naturopathy can easily and succinctly be broken down to define the 'natural path' [really?  so much for etymology...] Hippocrates [...] first formulated the concept of the 'healing power of nature' [HPN] linking the body, mind and spirit to inherently be able to heal itself. Naturopathy is the practice of health care that combines both traditional wisdom of natural medicine with modern scientific based evidence. It is the practice of treating the body as a whole and taking the body, mind, spirit and environment into account whilst preventing, assessing and treating conditions [...] the therapies I use may include [...] homeopathy [...] naturopaths are able to treat most ailments."

Note: the credential for an ND in Australia is often "BHSc: ND."  She links to the Southern School of Natural Therapies, so perhaps that is where she went to school.

001.b. in "The Seven Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" (2011-01-31)[vsc 2011-01-31]:

"naturopathic medicine or the practice of natural medicine is based on seven principles [...] 1. the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN]: naturopathic medicine recognizes that all living systems have an innate ability to heal it-self. Our vital force [vitalism] promotes self-cleansing, self-repair, and thus self-healing. The naturopaths role is to facilitate this natural process [...] causes can exist at the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual levels [...] they take into account the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and environmental factors that make up the total state of health [...] naturopaths educate their patients [...] I am a qualified naturopath with a Bachelor of Health Science [BHSc-ND] - I have had a lifelong passion for nutrition and natural medicine -I also continue to invest in ongoing professional education."

Note: oh, so much to talk about here!

002. well:

obviously the label "science" is being placed upon the naturopathy domain, from the language above: science subset health science subset naturopathy.  You get a lot of supernaturalism, and HPN-VMN=vitalism.  And all this is "science" and "natural."  That's strange because science does not contain the nonscientific supernatural and vitalistic.  Also, upon this falseness you get the label "professional".  But, how can a profession be based upon falsehood? You'll notice too that the North American naturopathy principles have migrated to the Australian schools.

When is science nonscience, natural supernatural, professional false, educating misleading?

Naturopathyland.

Dana Ullman Goes After the Homeopathy Skeptics at HuffPo [again]

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post piece by homeopath Dana Ullman [see 001., below]:

001. Ullman writes in "Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously" (2011-01-30):

"Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, has surprised the scientific community with his strong support for homeopathic medicine [...] most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used. Most clinical research conducted on homeopathic medicines that has been published in peer-review journals have shown positive clinical results [...] Montagnier [...say] 'high dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules' [...]  electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects [...] although skeptics of homeopathy may assume that homeopathic doses are still too small to have any biological action, such assumptions have also been proven wrong [except for the fact that they have been proven RIGHT]."

Note: it is interesting to see someone so adamant about sugar pills.  It is quite interesting.  I think Montagnier has gone off the science reservation, so to speak, much like Pauling did.  Separating out Ullman's sophistry [which he is quite good at, actually], quality evidence does not exist that homeopathy works.  It is so irrational, in fact, that it is labeled implausible.  And that's based upon ALL the evidence.

My Lovely Question to ND Pais and Its Answer (10 months ago)

here, I cite from a comment I received from ND Pais (NCNM 1992):

001. Pais, G. (ND NCNM 1992) states in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2011-01-29]:

"naturopathic physicians are trained as general practitioners specializing in natural medicine [...] this includes therapies from the sciences [...like] homeopathy [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science."

Note: wow.

002. so I asked him this question:

"I'm wondering why vitalism isn't mentioned in your description, and spirit? Thanks. -r.c."

003. the answer:

"Hi Rob, In this basic description I laid out the outline, didn't fill it out completely. To me, the Healing Power of Nature is vitalism. As far as spirit goes that is always addressed -- whether we acknowledge it or not."

Note: again, wow.  Loving it.

Another Anthem of Naturocrit: "Broken Arrow" Leads To "I Will Not Go Quietly"

here, I muse [truly]:

001. the film Broken Arrow (1996) has this dialog:

"[henchman] they went like lambs [presumably after killing the train crew]."

Note: I assume that the 'lambs to slaughter' adage applies here.

002. and this reminded me of a Don Henley song, "I Will Not Go Quietly":

"Woke up with a heavy head 

And I thought about leavin' town

I could have died if I wanted to

Slipped over the edge and drowned

But, oh no baby, I won't give up that easy, no."

Note: we REFUSE our slaughter. And yeah, Axl.

The Washington Post on Evolution Teaching in the Science Classroom 2011-01-29

Wow.  Just Wow. Valerie Strauss writes in "Study: Most High School Biology Teachers Don’t Endorse Evolution"(2011-01-29):

"in the same week we learned that most American students did not do well in science on a test known as 'the nation’s report card' [...wherein] 34 percent of 4th graders and 30 percent of 8th graders were deemed proficient or better in science [so MOST were NOT proficient!...] a study about biology teachers in public high schools was published [...stating that] most high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse [...] the central theory of biology [...] evolution [...] here’s the position of the National Science Teachers Association on evolution: 

'the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K–12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and many other scientific and educational organizations. NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, 'creation science,' and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.'"

Note: we need our country to be great.  Not mired in crap.

Inspired by Scienceblogs.com - RI on Naturo. and Homeo., and My Expansion of the Matter

here, I cite from Scienceblogs.com's Respectful Insolence blog concerning the relationship between naturopathy and homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I list 13 random AANP-type naturopaths who label their mandatory homeopathy "science", from my archives [see 002., below]; finally, I expand upon the naturopathic pseudostructuring of knowledge types as a type of 'epistemic pathology' [see 003., below]:

001. Orac writes in "You Can't Have Naturopathy Without Homeopathy" (2011-01-28):

"the bottom line is that, for how badly its practitioners want to represent naturopathy as science-based and rational, in reality naturopathy is anything but [hear, hear! it is truly the reversal of all values]. It embraces virtually any form of CAM therapy [sCAMs!], no matter how irrational, and its practitioners simply choose what subset of woo they want to use in their practice. If you want to know just how credulous and pseudoscientific naturopathy is, just remember that not only is homeopathy embraced by naturopaths, but knowledge of homeopathic practice is mandatory. It's taught by naturopathy schools, and naturopaths have to know enough about it to pass the NPLEX, which includes homeopathy on it. Homeopathy and naturopathy: two crappy woos that taste crappy together [damn, I thought 'like cures like', and the woos would sum to zero!  So much for that 'law']."

Note: yes, you cannot graduate from North American ND / NMD schools without taking their homeopathy series of courses and treating a certain amount of patients in their clinics homeopathically [this was certainly true when I was in ND school, and it is homeopathy that principly disgusted me most about that experience at the University of Bridgeport to the point that I stopped my schooling in the forth year].  But, NPLEX not only requires homeopathy, it falsely labels homeopathy a "clinical science".  Homeopathy is as much as science as the reading of tea leaves, astrology, the laying on of hands, and Mesmerism.  Yes, that is falsehood on a supposed professional licensure exam!  Irrationality marches on!

But, homeopathy is not the principle issue regarding the 'pathology of the natural' / naturopathy.  Removing homeopathy from naturopathy would merely be removal of a diseased branch of a diseased tree, and then incorrectly stating that the tree is well.  As I go through this post, we'll approach the trunk of that tree, the nexus of the disease afflicting the whole tree: what I see as naturopathy's principle 'knowledge type disease'.  I choose the tree metaphor because naturopathy does too.  It labels itself from the very top [here too] and from the very bottom one of the "branches of medical science".  But, that wouldn't be science from this world; it might be science in Bizarro World.

002. 'homeopathy is science' according to:

002.a. Palka, K. (ND SCNM) who states in "About Naturopathic Doctors" [vsc 2011-01-16]:

"curricula at the seven accredited naturopathic medical schools are comparable in basic medical sciences, such as anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, to traditional medical school.  In addition, naturopathic science courses include nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, hydrotherapy, mind/body medicine and other therapeutics."

002.b. Pratt, S. (ND NCNM 2004) who states in "Education and Licensing" [vsc 2010-06-11]:

"a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...] to enter into the clinical training of the third year, students must pass all basic sciences and diagnostic courses [...] NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic physicians in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams (anatomy, physiology, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology and immunology) taken after the first 2 years of medical school. The clinical science examinations are taken following graduation after the 4th year of school. They include: clinical and physical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging, botanical medicine, pharmacology, nutrition, physical medicine, homeopathy, minor surgery, psychology and lifestyle counseling, and emergency medicine."

002.c. Kanevski, J. (ND Bastyr 2006) who states in "Our Services" [vsc 2009-02-10]:

"the medical science of homeopathy was founded by a German physician, Samuel Hahnemann about 200 years ago. It is being used extensively in Europe, Israel, and India. It is gaining popularity in the United States. Health professionals that practice homeopathy include naturopathic physicians, osteopathic doctors, medical doctors, chiropractors, veterinarians, and trained professional homeopaths."

002.d.  Kargman, S. (NMD SCNM) who states in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-08]:

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.s or N.M.D.s) are general practitioners trained as specialists in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences as well as complementary modalities. Naturopathic physicians treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling, Oriental medicine and acupuncture, natural childbirth, and hydrotherapy [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science."

002.e. Coe, C. (BINM), Gallant, J. (ND BINM), Vandekerkhove, A. (ND BINM) who state in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2011-01-29]:

"naturopathic physicians are trained in the conventional medical sciences and pathology to diagnose in a manner similar to medical doctors (MDs) […] they use therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, clinical psychology, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine […] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medicine."

002.f.  Cohen, H. (ND CCNM 1990) who states in "Dictionary" [vsc 2011-01-29]:

"homeopathy is a holistic medical science […] homeopathy practiced by naturopathic physicians, WHEREAS homeopathy has been an integral part of naturopathic medicine since its inception and is a recognized specialty for which the naturopathic profession has created a distinct specialty organization, the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, WHEREAS homeopathy has been recognized, through rigorous testing and experimentation, as having significant scientific evidence supporting its efficacy and safety […] naturopathic medicine, sometimes called 'naturopathy,' is as old as healing itself and as new as the latest discoveries in biochemical sciences […] the naturopathic medical profession's infrastructure includes accredited educational institutions, professional licensing by a growing number of states, national standards of practice and care, peer review, and an ongoing commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research [...] naturopathic medicine […is a] science […] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles […] a licensed naturopathic physician (ND) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD."

002.g.  Coward, S. (ND SCNM), Lewis, K. (ND SCNM) who state in "Misconceptions Aside, Homeopathy Has Stood the Test of Time" (2009-06-25):

"homeopathy is a 200-year-old medicinal science."

002.h. Cronin, B. (ND Bastyr 2002) who states in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-23]:

"in addition to the basic medical sciences and conventional diagnostics, the naturopathic doctor is required to complete additional training in therapeutic nutrition, homeopathy, botanical medicine, physical medicine and counseling. A naturopathic doctor takes rigorous professional basic science and clinical board examinations so that he or she may be licensed by a state or jurisdiction [...] naturopathic diagnostic and therapies are supported by scientific research drawn from peer-reviewed journals from many disciplines, including naturopathic medicine, conventional medicine, complementary medicine, clinical nutrition, etc.."

002.i. Bailetti, K. (ND CCNM) who states in "About Katia Bailetti ND" [vsc 201-01-23]:

"licensed naturopathic doctors in Ontario have achieved the following training [...] successful completion of North American licensing exams including basic sciences, (anatomy, biochmistry [sp., biochemistry], microbiology, immunology, physiology and pathology), as well as clinical sciences (physical and clinical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging, pharmacology, emergency medicine, clinical nutrition, physical medicine, botanical medicine, psychology, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture and homeopathy)".

002.j. Beaty, J.K. (ND Bastyr 1988) who states in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-20]:

"naturopathic medicine is as much a philosophy of life as it is a science [...] naturopathic doctors [...] are educated in the conventional medical sciences, diagnostic techniques and methods, but prefer to treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling and hydrotherapy [...] we cooperate with all other branches of the medical sciences."

Overall note: I think it is clear that preponderantly -- and the naturopaths above are from the schools in the U.S. and Canada -- naturopathy claims homeopathy is science, and homeopathy is inseparable from naturopathy as it is "required" and "integral".  The Cohen link is useful because the AANP has buried its position papers.  This happened particularly after the Atwood pieces were published several years ago in MedGenMed.  Homeowatch has a 1993 version up, so its still publicly accessible.

003. naturopathy's 'epistemic pathology' by way of the  the "Textbook of Natural Medicine" (ISBN 0443073007, 2005, 3rd. ed.) sample chapter, freely available:

"many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [vitalism, a science-ejected concept...] homeopathy and acupuncture are primary methods of such stimulation [so, now the scientific is premised on the science-ejected, science=nonscience...] humans are spiritual beings. They are spirits that reside within bodies [so, now the scientific contains the science-exterior supernatural, science subset supernaturalism]. Though the general purview of the physician is the body, that instrument cannot be separated from the spirit, which animates it.  If the spirit is disturbed, the body cannot be fundamentally healthy [so, now we have a conflation of knowledge-kind and ontological kind: the supernatural and the physical are one, the physician is metaphysician, the naturalistic and supernaturalistic are indistinguishable, articles of sectarian faith and scientific objective fact cannot be delineated]. Hahnemann, the brilliant founder of homeopathy [oh, they so love their homeopathy], instructs physicians thus. Disturbance in the spirit [he said lebenskraft or dynamis, which is vitalism aka life force] permeates the body and eventuates in physical manifestation [if that's not a sectarian belief system, I don't know what is]. Physicians are responsible for perceiving such disturbances and addressing them. At colleges of naturopathic medicine in Australia and North America, faculty work with naturopathic medicine students to develop their ability to perceive the spiritual nature of an individual."

Note: now, the book's principle editor calls naturopathy "science-based".  Yes, that is a 'knowledge type pathology' of a grand scale.  I think it approaches a 'cultic insanity' type level.  What naturopathy does is CONFLATE in order to achieve its goal: to disguise and falsely posture sectarian faithy-beliefy crap that has either been science-ejected or is simply unscienceable and therefore science-exterior, as scientific fact in order to further its market.

My expansion is simply this: even if naturopathy divorced itself from homeopathy -- if it cut off that branch, so to speak, from the tree -- it would still be naturopathy IN PRINCIPLE, literally.  It would still mislabel what is not science but instead items and methods of faith / belief / quasi-religion / sectarian medicine.

That is the trunk of the rotten epistemic tree known as naturopathy; that is the root cause, with their nutty homeopathy only a symptom of a deeper irrationalism.

My Favorite 'Science Excludes Supernaturalism' V4E3 Quotes

here, I cite from the National Center For Science Education's "Voices For Evolution" (3rd ed., ISBN 978-0-6152-0461-1, 2009) [V4E3] regarding the preponderant exclusion of supernaturalism from science:

001. "Kansas Academy of Science [...] 2006 [...] ideas that involve a supernatural agent are not scientifically testable, and therefore not scientific [p.059]."

002. "National Association of Biology Teachers [...] 1995 [...] science may appear to conflict with other ways of knowing about the universe, unfortunately leading some groups to see selected theories of science as a threat to their belief systems. This is not the case; science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge, non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [...] any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific, ways of knowing [p.154]."

003. "National Science Education Leadership Association [...] 1990 [...] creationism, and other pseudo-sciences, are premised upon supernatural explanations of natural phenomena and therefore are outside the realm of science [p.161]."

004. "New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education [...no date] these people denounce the theory of evolution and would substitute a non-scientific, supernatural explanation of the origins of life forms on earth [...] the creationist goal is to allow supernatural explanations into science in order to change the very basis of science. Science deals with natural explanations for natural phenomena. Creationism or intelligent design, if allowed, would change this to promote supernatural explanations for natural phenomena – a contradiction in terms with regard to science [p.167]."

005. "University of Oklahoma Department of Zoology: Statement on Evolution [...] 4/19/2006 [...] in science, not all explanations are equal. By the rigorous criteria of science, supernatural mechanisms, including intelligent design creationism, are not scientific because they do not generate testable predictions about how species change or diversify. To argue that supernatural explanations merit discussion in science classrooms so that ‘both sides’ of the issue are taught is to advocate that nonscience be legitimized as science. In an era where scientific solutions to complex problems are of first priority, this is dangerous logic. We thus oppose any attempt to weaken scientific standards with respect to evolution, or to broaden the science curriculum to include the supernatural. In this, we stand with our colleagues in the National Academy of  Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other scientific organizations [p.179]."

Note: guess what area claims -- absurdly -- that science INCLUDES the supernatural and science-exterior?

'Naturopathy is Best Medical Science and Common Sense' - ND Yates on KXTV ABC 10 San Francisco - 2011-01-05

here, I stretch the limits of your absurdity meter by quoting from a recent AANP video [see 001., below]:

001. Yates, B. (ND NCNM 1994) states in the Youtube video "Beverly Yates, ND, on 'Sacramento & Co.' - Weight Loss Alternatives (January 5, 2011)" [vsc 2011-01-25]:

"[host] naturopathic doctor Beverly Yates shares how we can shed pounds and maintain a healthy weight the natural way [...] tell our audience what naturopathic medicine is [...Yates] naturopathic medicine is what I would consider to be best practices from medical science and the healing arts. It includes [...] food as your medicine [...] homeopathy [...] and the ever popular common sense."

Note: so, we're told "science" and "sense".  And "homeopathy".

002. now, lets test those science and sense claims by going to a) the State of Oregon's '.gov' description of naturopathy [which the NDs wrote], which paralles b) the description naturopathy at Yates's alma mater NCNM [the seat of the ND revival]:

002.a. OBNM states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic Medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine  [...] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [NHP...] naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease [...that] are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms,which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself."

002.b. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...] principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...they are] the distinguishing marks of the [supposed] profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VNM...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF]. The  physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself."

002.c. what's in common, 'the essentially naturopathic', and what is NOT ABLE to pass scientific muster and is nonsensical to call science IN FACT:

002.c1. naturopathy's essential vitalism -- the VF, NHP, HPN-VMN, LF, VF junk -- is indeed HUGELY science-ejected:

explaining life processes vitalistically is like explaining fire phlogistically or the earth's shape planarly -- scientifically illiterate.

002.c2. homeopathy is indeed science-ejected.

003. when:

is the science-ejected falsely labeled a scientific fact;

the absurd common science;

medicine based upon fairy dust;

commerce couched in false labels: 

naturopathy -- and its 'reversal of all values'.

So beware.  By the way, ND Yates is the "2010 National Media Spokesperson for American Association of Naturopathic Physicians" [saved 2011-01-27].

Disinformed Consent - ND Gleixner Describes Naturopathy Opaquely - Times and Transcript 2011-01-26

here, I detail what I'll call naturopathic pseudojournalistic propaganda.  A New Brunswick, Canada ND disinforms the public about the basis of naturopathy (not surprising, IMHO)! First, I cite from the article itself [see 001.a., below], then from that ND's own web pages [see 001.b., below]; finally, I decode the whole thing via the Canadian ND national organization [see 002., below]:

001. Gleixner, M. (ND BINM 2008) states [a bio. is here]:

001.a. in "Guiding Principles Form a New Health-Care Paradigm" (2011-01-26)[vsc 2011-01-26]:

[notated as I go!]

"Dr. Martin Gleixner, MSc, ND owns the Moncton Naturopathic Medical Clinic [...and] offers professional health care [...] Dr. Gleixner is a qualified naturopathic doctor presently accepting new patients. Additional information can be found on www.monctonnaturopathic.com. His column appears every fourth week on in Life & Times [...] in two previous columns, I wrote about improving health care in New Brunswick as well as for all Canadians (see www.monctonnaturopathic.com for previous columns) [that web page kicks to an ndaccess.com page he has up...]

Note: so, this is an advertisement!  Wow, smart.  Publish in a newspaper and direct the readers to your practice!  So, I guess this is trade / commerce.  I see a science credential / posture above!  Not the ND, the MSc.

[...here, he proposes] an integrated approach [...] a new health paradigm [model, just say model!] that aims to determine and address the true cause of one's medical concerns [...] we can start now by adopting a new approach in the way we think about medicine [...] a  new vision for practicing medicine [...] a framework that can best promote a  patient's health [...therefore these are] ways that we can improve medicine [...this is] change that our health-care system desperately needs [...] 

Note: hmmm.  I wonder what he's offering!  There's a lot of talk of things that are "new" and "true", and an improvement / good change.

  adopting the naturopathic principles discussed herein is not only a timely undertaking, but can help infuse a necessary framework into the way we practice medicine in New Brunswick and Canada [...] as a qualified naturopathic doctor, the following six principles [...these] time-tested guiding principles [...] have provided me with a unique understanding and strong foundation in the way that I practice medicine [...all of them] first do no harm (primum non nocere), co-operate with the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix  naturae), identify and treat the cause (tolle causam), treat the whole person, doctor as teacher (docere), prevent disease and promote health [...]

Note: oh, THAT'S what's being offered, the 'ND sectarian creed'.  I'm an expert on it.  But, what's offered above is only cursory.  Details, if you want to call them that, are offered below.  Then, I'll offer real details so you can make a truly informed decision.

[in detail (wink-wink), via] the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND), www.cand.ca, the following excerpt provides an excellent summary of the guiding principles [...]

Note: I'll add to the selected CAND language in 002. below, for the sake of clarity. Needless to say, though the ND congratulates himself on his version of these principles, I find them to be manipulatively inadequate.

[#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN; I've moved the Latin up from 'treat the whole person' principle as that was an error in the article, as the summary listed attests to]: your naturopathic doctor works to restore and support the powerful and inherent healing ability of your body, mind and spirit and to prevent further disease from occurring. Naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery, facilitating and augmenting this ordered and intelligent healing ability [...] for a more in-depth explanation of this principle, please visit www.monctonnaturopathic.com [...]

Note: HPN-VMN is naturopathy's vitalistic central premise, coded here.  What a douche.  We'll see what his own web pages represent it as below.  You do get a glimpse of the supernatural element in naturopathy from the above.

[...#4] treat the whole person [...]  your naturopathic doctor takes into account not only your physical symptoms, but also mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, spiritual and other factors [...] 

Note: more supernaturalism. 

[...#5] doctor as teacher (docere): your naturopathic doctor will assist you in understanding health and illness. He/she will provide you with an understanding of the factors that affect your health and help you balance and become more capable of maintaining your own health [...]

Note: so, you are also promised that you will be informed, and empowered with naturopathic knowledge!  Wow.

your naturopathic doctor applies all of the above principles [...] these principles can also enhance a doctor's ability to diagnose health conditions, improve patient-doctor interactions, lead to better treatment success, minimize the use of invasive procedures and medical complications, to name a few [...] these guidelines provide reassurance, help them understand the causes behind their disease so that they know how to take care of themselves in the future, and provide them with an understanding behind suggestions and treatments provided by the doctor."

Note: so, the principles are mandatory, and posed as useful. Let's put these claims to the test.

001.b. we're told by ND Gleixner at his ndaccess.com web page:

001.b1. regarding HPN-VMN particularly:

NOTHING.  Yes, that's right, when I search the web page ndaccess.com/MonctonNaturopathic for "force", "medicatrix", "power", and "vital", I get NOTHING.

Note: really.  Wow.

001.b.2. but regarding science, the ND makes a science-competency claim in "NDs and MDs Should Work Together" [saved 2011-01-26]:

"both NDs and MDs are equally trained in the diagnosis of health conditions, in the core medical sciences (anatomy, pathology, physiology, etc.) and in specialty medical fields (pharmacology, gynecology, obstetrics, oncology, geriatrics, etc) [...] naturopathic medicine is not yet regulated in New Brunswick, however, the members of the New Brunswick Association of Naturopathic Doctors (NBAND) are presently working with the provincial government to achieve that goal [...see] www.nband.ca."

Note: so, that's it.  No real information.  Just a claim of science, like the MSc posture.

002. decoding what has been mentioned by the ND:

002.a. NBAND and CAND state, regarding HPN-VMN [respectively]:

002.a1. in "About Naturopathic Medicine":

[notated as I go]

"the principals of naturopathic medicine are [...#2] to cooperate with the healing powers of nature - we cannot have healthy people on a sick planet, so we must take care of our environment and use the gifts of the earth in a respectful manner [...] the aim of the naturopathic doctor (ND) is to support and stimulate the body’s innate ability to heal itself [...]

Note: coded vitalism, still.

 the modalities used by a naturopathic doctor include [...] acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine - the insertion of sterile needles along meridian points to stimulate the bodies own healing energy (qi) [...] homeopathy [...] minute quantities [...] are given to strengthen vitality and heal body, mind and spirit [...]

Note: ah, some explicit science-ejected vitalism and supernaturalism.

medicine [...] is the art and science of disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention [...] a naturopathic doctor blends modern clinical sciences with traditional healing practices [...] training to become an ND includes the prerequisite three years of university premedical sciences courses.  The four year full time ND program at an accredited college includes the human medical sciences."

Note: but there's quite a 'science expertise' claim.

NBAND states at their home page:

"the objectives of the New Brunswick Association of Naturopathic Doctors [...includes] to educate the public on the philosophies and values of naturopathic medicine [...] to provide up-to-date and accurate information as it pertains to naturopathic medicine [...] for the protection of public interest [...] within the province of New Brunswick."

Not happening, yet.  HPN is quite opaque at their site about the FACT that qi / vitality and supernaturalism are not science-supportable and are in fact science-ejected.  Perhaps we'll have better luck at CAND, the national Canadian organization, directly below.

002.a2. in the CAND book "The History of Naturopathic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective" (ISBN 15527877882009, 2009)[which I own]:

"copies [...] are available for purchase from the CAND office [...] a limited number of hardcover books have been printed [...] all proceeds from the book will go to support the marketing efforts of the CAND [see  http://www.cand.ca/index.php?id=232...amongst many references to naturopathy's defining vitalism] the aim of naturopathic physicians is to treat the patient, not the disease, by directing the vital force and encouraging it with naturopathic therapeutics to stimulate the body’s own defenses [p.031]."

Note: so, there you go.  It's elusive, and you really have to get inside naturopathy to get that explicit, pan-naturopathic vitalistic context transparently stated.

Now, like NBAND, you can also get a glimpse of naturopathy's essential vitalism in CAND's "Questions: Naturopathic Treatments":

"homeopathic remedies are minute dilutions of plant, animal and mineral substances designed to stimulate the body's 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal. Traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture. Based on balancing the flow of chi (energy) through meridian pathways under the skin, Oriental medicine includes the use of Oriental herbs and acupuncture to regulate and release chi in order to bring the body into balance."

003. comments:

so, what you get represented in a journalistic context from naturopathy just doesn't cut the mustard in terms of professional standards, journalistically or medically.  Beware!  If you are seeking to make a truly informed decision about the naturopathic, you'll have to look further than their propaganda.  They are trained to be opaque about their underlying premise, and to employ a fake science label upon the whole thing.

This junk is not "new": a science-ejected vital force that is a true cause?  No.  Conflating the scientific with the science-exterior is not an improvement of any kind.  Useful?  No.  I guess it is excellent in naturopathyland to propagandize and manipulate.

File naturopathy 'under lying'.  Lies of omission, that is.  And commission.

In honor of ND Gleixner's pseudojournalistic opacity, I've made a Wordle of his 001.a. article:

Now, if you want a little better transparency about naturopathy's essential vitalism, visit ND Cage, the President of the California Naturopathic Doctor's Association [I kid you not] who states: "naturopathic medicine is based on the philosophy of vitalism."  Here's what a Wordle of that page looks like:

Sir Paul Nurse on Science and Skepticism - BBC Horizon's "Science Under Attack" (2011)

Sir Paul Nurse, current president of the Royal Society, states in "Science Under Attack" (2011):

"the authority science can claim comes from evidence and experiment and an attitude of mind that seeks to test its theories to destruction.  Skepticism is really important [...] I always tell my students and post-doctoral workers 'be the worst enemy of your own idea, always challenge it, always test it' [...] healthy skepticism [...] is a fundamental part of the scientific process."

Note: very nice.

Orac on the B.U.-G.U. Partnership - Quackademic Pseudoscience (2011-01-26)

here, I cite from a recent Respectful Insolence post on naturopathy [see 001., below]; then, I add some thoughts of my own [see 002., below]:

001. Orac writes in "The 'Integration' of Pseudoscience into Medicine Continues Apace" (2011-01-26):

"there are many forces that conspire to insert sectarian versions of medicine into bastions of scientific medicine [...] 'quackademic medicine' [...or] 'complementary and alternative medicine' (CAM) or 'integrative medicine' (IM) [...] its infiltration into various academic medical centers has been one of the more alarming developments I've noted over the last several years [...it is] in reality nothing more than 'integrating' pseudoscience with science, quackery with medicine [...] prescientific understanding of the world with science, religious faith healing [...] and magic with reality [...] the 'integration' of quackery with science-based medicine [hear, hear...] if you want to see [such] 'integration' behold the academic 'integration' model championed by Georgetown University, [once!] a school of science-based medicine, and Bastyr University, a school of naturopathy [...] that's right. Georgetown is partnering with schools of pseudoscience [...] I think that medical students should be taught about CAM modalities, but they should be taught about them from a the perspective of the state of the science, the evidence, and clinical trials. They should be taught about skepticism and critical thinking [hear, hear...] institutions like Georgetown are betraying science-based medicine by being so open to the point of its brains falling out [...by] partnering with Bastyr to integrate nonsense with sense, pseudoscience with science, and quackery with medicine."

Note: I COMPLETELY concur.

002. my thoughts:

I know a heck of a lot about naturopathy. I went to one of their schools for four years [lured in by false labels], left it in 2002, and I've been maintaining a database on naturopathy ever since then.

Naturopathy still fascinates me in its position as what I call an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'.

Let me parse Bastyr's marketing slogan, as a microcosm of what naturopathy's MO is. 

A Google.com web search with the parameters "body mind spirit nature Bastyr" [without the quotes] gets you to results that include, first on the list, Bastyr's entry [which the University penned, obviously though I'm not sure if USNWP gets paid to advertise the school] in U.S. News and World Report [saved 2011-01-26] which states:

"Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [...] respecting the healing power of nature and recognizing that body, mind and spirit are intrinsically inseparable [...included is the program for] doctor of naturopathic medicine."

There's a lot said in those few words.  You have the label "science" overarching it all: science subset naturopathy.  You have supernaturalism within that: naturopathy subset supernaturalism.  You have some kind of conflated belief system which melds / conflates that supernaturalism with, apparently, everything.  And the BIG THING, that they are so good at, is coding their underlying sectarian belief in a 'purposeful life spirit' [vitalism, teleology, supernaturalism] in deceptively naturalistic language.  Their "nature" and the "healing power of nature" is that sectarian belief, coded.  Do not expect transparency on that matter, for the most part -- it gets in the way of their growth.

So, overall, naturopathy's claim is that the profoundly science-ejected is within science / science-based / survives scientific scrutiny.  That is absurd, irrational, and insane.

It is naturopathy.  It is fraud.  It is a violation of human rights.

And Naturocrit continues:

because naturopathy falsely labels the supernatural natural, the science-ejected and science-exterior science, sectarian articles of faith objective fact, and OVERALL trades on this falsehood and absurdity academically and clinically particularly across the U.S. and Canada.

And that is not just completely wrong, it is illegal.

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.