Refutation of Naturopathy's 'Fever Suppression is Harmful' Myth -- AAP 2011 vs. ND Speidel 1996 & Currently:

here, I cite from a recent American Academy of Pediatrics report about childhood fevers [see 001., below]; and then from an old-standby of naturopathic thought [ah-ha-ha-ha] regarding fevers, still up on-line to this day [see 002., below]; then, I wonder if naturopathy will update its contents to reflect this new scientific knowledge, as it doesn't at its core [see 003., below]:

001. the AP reports in "Doctors: Parents Shouldn't Fret Over Kids' Fevers" [saved 2011-02-28, day of release][my comments are in bold]:

"fever phobia is rampant among parents of young children, according to a myth-busting American Academy of Pediatrics report [AAP...] released online Monday in the journal Pediatrics [...] that advises against treatment every time a kid's temperature inches up [...] kids' fevers are [usually] caused by viruses and they will go away without medicine and without causing any damage [usually...]";

Which is a good thing as there are so few specific antivirals!  Now, NDs have advised for decades not to interfere with a fever, for ideological reasons.  They've claimed such interference is harmful, specifically "suppressive" in the vitalistic sense, but...

"there is no hard proof that untreated fevers lead to seizures or brain damage; there's also no evidence that lowering fevers reduces illness, according to the report which focused on children older than 3 months [...]";

I also read this to mean that there's no evidence that lowering fevers kept children sicker longer or got them better quicker, or got them sicker more often. If they were comparing illness and treatment and duration, something like that would have hopefully been noticed [I'll likely read the study later this week, and append this post as necessary].  Ironically, I've had a flu all weekend.

"there's no harm in treating a true fever with over-the-counter acetaminophen or ibuprofen. And it makes sense to do so when the child is obviously feeling ill. But the No. 1 reason to use fever-reducing medicine is to make a sick child feel more comfortable [palliation...]";

Again, no talk of a trade-off of palliation vs. harm.

"[the report] emphasizes that a fever is not an illness but rather a mechanism that helps fight infection. Fevers can slow the growth of viruses and bacteria, and enhance production of important immune-system cells [...]";

Naturopaths like to say that fevers are symptoms [that's CCNM's ND Gonen] that should not be suppressed.  But, they miss the point: a symptom is subjective, a fever is measurable and therefore a sign / physiological alteration.  The link speaks of putting wet socks on children while they sleep, for their fevers.  How pointlessly unpleasant! And again, I see no warning from the AAP here that pharmacologically lowering fever PROLONGS an illness or increases occurrence.  In terms of immunity, I would think that once the immune system deals with the infection, which may be in terms of time somewhat sped up with some elevated temperature as many metabolic processes are, in a healthy individual it doesn't matter if fever was reduced pharmacologically or not.

"parents should pay attention to other symptoms of illness, such as whether the child is unusually cranky, lethargic, or not drinking liquids and avoiding food [are these signs or symptoms?  They sound like signs]. Those are often better measures of how sick a child is and whether medical attention should be sought, the authors said [...] Dr. Margaret Scotellaro, a pediatrician at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said the report 'is right on [...] some [parents] feel that an illness changes from being something insignificant to something serious as soon as the temperature rises, which is  really not true' [...] the report will help her  relay that message";

Ah, truly educating the patient and parent about what's true.

"[but this general knowledge comes with some caveats] children with special medical needs [...] should be seen by a doctor when their temperatures are mildly elevated [...and] children with heat stroke [...and] infants younger than 3 months."

Nothing is SIMPLE in reality, unlike ideologies / cultic views that screen the world previous to evidence. 

002. Morton and Morton write in "Five Steps to Selecting the Best Alternative Medicine" (ISBN 1880032945; 1996) [neither are NDs / NMDs, by the way]:

"Dr. Stephen Speidel, an N.D. [Bastyr 1983, still in practice in Washington State, possibly...] says 'a good example of how we in naturopathic medicine use the healing force in the body [coded vitalism] is what we do or don't do when a child has a fever.  Often times a fever is a way that the body rids itself of a bacteria that only grows in certain temperatures [...] if you take the [...] aspirin or Tylenol [...] it's like taking a sledge hammer to your child's immune system [coded vitalism...] your child will stay sick longer' [p.202...]";

So, there are problems here.  There's that coded vitalism -- naturopathy's mythic premise that-dare-not-speak-its-name.  The actual pediatricians point out that most childhood fevers are viral infections, not the gooey, puss-creating bacterial type of infection that antibiotics may be used to treat. Bacteria's often have a WIDE growth temperature, not such a narrow one ranging from normal body temperature to fever-level temperature.  And there's the 'big scare' of immediate immune harm and an increase duration of illness.

Now, I admit, this is old stuff but, it is also currently up on the web.  I've doubts it will be updated!  It's canon for naturopathy.

The immune system, I'd argue, is also coding for that science-ejected vitalistic concept at the core of naturopathy.  As the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Naturopathy":

"homeopathic medicine [...] works on a subtle yet powerful electromagnetic level [never scientifically supported, by the way; coded vitalism], gently acting to strengthen the body’s healing and immune response [coded vitalism...and naturopathy's] methods of  treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [overall]."

Ah, so simple once you go to the '.gov' Rosetta Stone aka OBNM! Of course, an immune system is measurable by hematology and serology, and homeopathy doesn't alter those parameters!  Of course, electromagnetism is hugely measurable and no such changes are found via homeopathy.  While a vital force is a figment / myth, and therein...I think what we know what they're really getting at.

I can imagine the spin.  Naturopaths saying "we were right all along" and therefore you mustn't injure your vital force with fever suppression.  In other words: a little bit of scientific truth, then ramped up to falsely support a sectarian overblown / unsupported claim.

Morton and Morton also write, on that same paper page [which is also still online]:

"N.D.'s and M.D.'s [grammatically incorrect, no apostrophes needed] have some areas of common ground, namely their education.  M.D.'s are schooled in basic sciences and clinical sciences to prepare them for the various illnesses and emergencies they will face during their practice.  N.D.'s are also well trained in all these sciences in their education."

Ah, but as I've said over and over again: some science then with a sectarian ideology / belief system placed upon it all, creating a kind of knowledge muddle that, as OBNM illustrates, falsely labels as science the actually science-ejected.  Perhaps the new ICD-10 needs a code for the disorder "thinking naturopathic-style".  Even in 1996, naturopathy's true core was the vitalistic science-ejected and the supernatural science-exterior -- falsely labeled science.

003. shall there be an update to all this from naturopathyland?

I'd bet NOTHING on that.  After all, their primary vitalistic premise has been science-ejected for more than 100 years, and claims of supernaturalism is science for a few hundred years.  If anything, I'll bet science and the public will continue to be abused.

***Addendum: 

the full report is here.

British Columbia Naturopathy is Science vs. Not Science -- It's Not Science, Actually Overall

here, I cite from a recent Times Colonist article on British Columbia naturopathy [see 001, below; my comments are in bold]:

001. Katherine Dedyna reports in "B.C. Naturopaths the First in Canada to Prescribe Medications" [saved 2011-02-27]:

"B.C. naturopaths have sought prescription drug access since 1958 [...now] just about every day, Oak Bay naturopathic doctor Kristin Schnurr [ND CCNM] provides a paying patient with [...] a prescription [...] a move that medical doctors protested and still strongly oppose [...]";

So, for some strange reason, in Ontario, naturopathy is termed "drugless".  Wow, so much consistency - 'it must be natural and not a drug, until it doesn't have to be.' 

"'it's nice to have the backup of a prescription if necessary' she says. 'And for some infections, the sooner you get the medication in, the better the outcome for the patient [...] I think it makes a big difference on a number of levels - for patient safety, first and foremost' [...]";

Isn't what's really being admitted here is that "natural" remedies don't work and are dangerous for ACTUAL problems that need ACTUAL treatment!?  Is the irony just killing me?

"Dr. Bob Vroom, deputy registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons [...] and the 11,000-member B.C. Medical Association see a public safety risk, saying naturopaths do not have the training to make a medical diagnosis, never mind prescribe medical drugs to treat it [...]";

Hear, hear.

"'the training of naturopaths and the basis under which they operate [...] is not a scientific education - [and] is problematic when someone reaches for a pen and prescribes a substance' [they state...]";

I can testify to the nonscience sectarian "nature" [wink-wink] that literally couches 'the essentially naturopathic' -- the purposeful life spirit figmentation, the Vis, that they claim over-arches all things and that they falsely claim as scientific fact.

"the common-sense health and nutrition advice [which exists in-itself anyway], and rational use of some herbs by NDs [though so little of that junk is worth the trouble] is combined with 'a huge array of unscientific practices,' Vroom says [...e.g.] vega testing [...]";

Hear, hear.  How about homeopathy, too? 

"'naturopaths are not trained to make a medical diagnosis and prescribe medical treatment, so we can't support independent prescribing by naturopaths,' says Dr. Ian Gillespie, Victoria-based president of the BCMA [...]";

Hear, hear.

"naturopathic medicine is 'science-based natural medicine' [...] says the website of the B.C. [...]";

How is that true when naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected vitalistic and science-exterior supernatural falsely claimed as scientific?  The science label upon naturopathy is completely NOT TRUE because the context that is distinctly naturopathic is actually based upon the science-ejected.  How dense are people?

"a major tenet of naturopathy is that 'the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment' the BCNA says [...]";

Ah, coded vitalism.  So much for professionalism and informed consent.

"naturopath Kristin Schnurr [...] takes into consideration 'biochemical, structural, energetic and mental/emotional aspects of health' her website notes";

If that's not coding I don't know what is.  How scientific is it to misuse the term "energy" when you are really talking about the vitalistic-spiritistic science-exterior?

Overall note:

the absurdity continues.  The essentially naturopathic is not science, but it postures so.  It contains some science, but it is not science at its core as its core is definitely not medical science.

It's a core that you'll rarely hear naturopaths transparently iterate -- they've been trained to obfuscate, or they simply aren't analytical thinkers --and it's a core that shallow reporting never gets at.

Notice the false balance of this article: science as a quality is bandied about as if it is an opinion.  There's ACTUALLY a solid answer as to what naturopathy is, essentially.

But, this article perpetuates the false balance of 'science as merely an opinion-laden label'.

A 2011 Push For Naturopathy in Iowa, Where It is Presently Illegal

here, I briefly cite from an article in Iowa regarding attempted 2011 naturopathy licensure:

001. Ken Black reports for the Times-Republican in "Naturopathic Medicine Could Come to Iowa" [saved 2011-02-27](2011-02-27):

"Dr. Jessica Curcio, president of the Iowa Naturopathic Physicians Association [INPA], is spearheading the effort to get naturopathic medicine recognized as a legal form of medicine in Iowa [...presently] it is not allowed [...in] Iowa [...] 'I really think we'll see floor action on this soon' [she says...] naturopathic physicians are experts [...] Sen. Steve Sodders, D-State Center [...says] 'if you look at their training as it relates to those other medical trainings, they are very similar'."

Note: what does it take to get beyond all this shallowness?  What kind of expertise is 'naturopathic knowledge muddle'?  I don't get it: naturopathy falsely labels as science that which is hugely science-exterior.  That doesn't seem similar to medical training at all.  It doesn't seem legal, actually.

Arguing Against Colorado ND Licensure with the Wrong Reasons - Daily Camera's Editorial Board 2011-02-27

here, I cite some seriously disconcerting ignorance regarding the ethical position of professionalism as it relates to naturopathy [see 001., below; my musings are in bold]:

001. the Editorial Board of the Daily Camera [EBDC] states in "The Fight Over Naturopathy" [saved 2011-02-27]:

"on Tuesday, the state legislature's health committee will have a hearing on [...whether] naturopathic doctors [...should be] licensed in Colorado [...]";

Again.  Notice the desire is to be titled "doctor" as in 'diagnosing and treating disease' also known as MEDICINE, one of the classical professions.

"against licensure are some physicians [...] and the other naturopaths [...Daily Camera's editorial board sees ] a turf war [...] this is not a patient safety issue [...]";

I completely disagree.  What do you know, EBDC?  [Not much, it seems]. I am neither a physician nor a practitioner of naturopathy / sCAM.  I criticize naturopathy NOT based on market threat [I have none], but instead based on their claims as they relate to science, reason, and skepticism.  I did go to one of these ND 'residence' schools, so I've some inside knowledge.  A turf war insinuates an equality of claims / status when it comes to what is being argued over COMMERCIALLY, like two citizens of equal status fighting over grazing or farming rights.  Modern medical knowledge compared to naturopathic knowledge is not such an equality.  In fact, naturopathic knowledge is quite bizarre / irrational, from the get-go.  For instance, naturopathy claims that that which is science is the same thing as that which is not science [at an institutional level], and that it is appropriate to engage in commerce under such a false position wherein the science-exterior is falsely claimed as science [see OBNM]. That is scientifically wrong and ethically heinous.  That IS an issue of patient safety, since science is the best way we have of determining safety and efficacy.  Science gets thrown out the window in naturopathyland, but not so much that it isn't still used for marketing purposes.  Like creationism in the high school biology classroom, licensing naturopaths so they can indiscriminately label nonscience science [including their sectarian views which have been science-ejected for more than 100 years, actually, and sometimes dangerous and most-often-times ineffective treatments safe and effective; how can one know, in the naturopathic knowledge muddle?] is an attempt to gain science-legitimacy for that which isn't by political means instead of through the apparatus of modern science publication [via experimentation and peer-review].  Worse below.

"Kelly Parcell [...] vice president of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors, said the bill is important to protect patients. And we're all for patient safety [...]";

I don't see how consumers are protected when, inevitably, licensing naturopathy leads to licensed falsehood.  E.g., Oregon's '.gov' OBNM link above shows how NDs / NMDs label the hugely science-ejected as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  It's nuts.  As an independent board, complaints about them are referred to them.  When I've complained, they've humbly seen no problems with themselves.  Perhaps a naturopathic treatment like homeopathy -- which is an empty remedy -- isn't a direct harm, but the mere fact that the patient is being misled into the belief that the sugar pill they're getting is active and "science-based" [when it is actually science-ejected, and they're paying for it] is a kind of harm.  The patient has been financially harmed and deceived, and the relationship of trust between professional and client has been degraded to that of an self-interested buyer on a used car lot owned by a self-interested salesman.  More below.

"if people want to seek the services of a naturopathic practitioner, they are free to do so in Colorado [...] it's buyer beware -- it's up to the patients to do their due diligence on the person's practice and education [...] going to a doctor, going to a naturopath, or choosing to self-diagnose some illness on WebMD are consumer choices. All of that is up to patients, now and in the future";

So, I pick my jaw up off the floor.  It IS NOT a matter of buyer beware / commerce, EBDC.   You are COMPLETELY WRONG here.  On a used car lot, it is buyer beware.  The Latin phrase "caveat emptor" entails that.  But, in engaging with someone posing medical diagnostic and treatment knowledge, we are no longer in that 50-50 area of commerce where two self-interested parties try to make a deal.  The used car salesman is trying to get the most they can, the used car buyer is trying to get the most they can, and each does their best toward that end within legal boundaries.  Each is looking out for their-self FIRST.  But, that is ONLY IN commerce.  Professionalism is held to a higher ethical standard, particularly physicianship with its so VULNERABLE clients, which is what NDs claim to embody [I'd argue metaphysicianship!  As in metaphysical nonsense].  With professionalism, the clients' needs are placed FIRST ALWAYS.  The Latin for that is "credat emptor", let the buyer have faith -- not religious faith, but confidence of a FIDUCIARY nature -- that in their vulnerability yet, that professional be it traditionally ministry, law or medicine, would be held to a HIGHER ethical standard than just a used car lot type situation.  So, it is not buyer beware for the professions AT ALL, and it cannot be so for naturopathy.  That would be quite a bit of dangerous charity.  It is also not 'science is anything' AT ALL for naturopathy, though naturopathy embodies such a charity-resultant knowledge position as well.  What EBDC would have us do is lower standards to such an extent that medicine would merely be a relationship of commerce instead of professionalism.  That WON'T happen.  What could happen with Colorado licensure of NDs, in part: NDs would get their own board to police themselves claiming professionalism status [professions are self-policing] and science-based status, complaints would be handled by NDs about NDs' claims and methods, since naturopathy is essentially irrational and so much is science-ejected labeled science anyway, there are no standards of any consequence to uphold and they'd find nothing wrong.  Something is what it isn't in naturopathyland; science is nonscience, professionalism is falsehood [merely commerce too], wrong is right.  Nice MUDDLED arrangement.  It benefits nobody but naturopathy.

"doing it through legislation and regulation is not the way to go";

I agree that naturopathy shouldn't be licensed, but not for EBDC's dense reasons.  I actually believe, knowing what I know, that naturopathy should be prosecuted because they don't even meet the standards of commerce -- never mind the higher standards of professionalism.

I'll bet what I've said above is over EBDC's heads anyway, but to summarize: licensing naturopathy leads to licensed falsehood.  It does great harm to the public's understanding of what is legitimately science [and rational discourse] and it destroys the HUGE difference in relationship between commerce and the higher standard of professionalism / fiduciary duty.

 

Naturopathy would have it both ways: science that isn't really but labeled anyway, professionalism that isn't really but labeled anyway.  That's pseudoscience and pseudoprofessionalism -- wisely marketed.

Shallowly, probably few care until the rubber hits the road.  When cornered, NDs presumably would fall back on 'but they let us be licensed, and we are who we always have been.'

After all, "naturopathy blends."  And mislabels.  And is an interesting study in junk thought.

President of NHAND on New Hampshire's HB 351 (2011-02-21)

here, I cite from a recent letter by the President of the New Hampshire Association of Naturopathic Doctors to the Concord Monitor [see 001., below]:

001. in "Bill Removes Obstacle For N.H. Patients" [saved 2011-02-26][my comments are in bold]:

"Jaclyn M. Chasse [ND Bastyr...] president of the New Hampshire Association of Naturopathic Doctors [...states in answer to Lorna Landry's] 'This Health Mandate Fails the Science-Geek Test' [...]";

"HB 351, an act providing insurance parity for licensed naturopathic doctors [...it will] decrease health care costs, improve access to primary care and support a free market [...]";

How does imaginary medicine like homeopathy treating imaginary figmentations like a vital force save money?  Primary whackaloon care access.  I'm not sure how happy all other people paying into the pot will be so a few can treat themselves with unicorn tears and magic beans.

"NDs attend four-year clinically-based medical schools [...it's] rigorous training [...they're] prescribing science-based diet and lifestyle changes and prescribing both evidence-based natural and pharmaceutical medicines [...] the most effective multidisciplinary medical care possible [...]";

Quite a science claim and efficacy claim.  How is falsely labeling the hugely science-exterior rigorous, science- and evidence-based?  Most effectively nuts.

"opposition to this bill is often rooted in lack of knowledge regarding the training NDs obtain and the care they provide [...]";

Oh, how much I know about naturopathy!  I know things like: what it is based on, essentially, is a bunch of science-exterior sectarian figmentations and habits.  So much is not being said by the president of the NHAND.  Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky.

Overall note:

It's NDs' explanations that are soooooo lacking and unwilling to let the public make an informed decision.

I find ND Chasse's own biography page interesting at NHAND. We're told naturopathy is "natural health science."  At NHAND's page "About Naturopathic Health" we're told NOTHING TRANSPARENT about the underlying science-ejected vitalism that their principle "healing power of nature" signifies:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...#2] the healing power of nature [...] this set of principles, emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor’s training, outlines the philosophy guiding the naturopathic approach to health and healing and forms the foundation of this distinct health care practice."

Their basis is the coded science ejected, and part of their spiel is to label it falsely as scientific and evidence based.

Lies of omission; you are being manipulated.  It is their M.O.

An Antihomeopathy Petition by way of Change.org!

I've signed, colleagues have signed:

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

Colorado's HB 1173 and CoAND This 2011: A "Medical" Label, A "Science" Claim, Coded or Missing Naturopathic Premises [Opacity Written into Proposed Law]

here, I comment on the recent Facebook posting of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors [CoAND; see 001., below]; then, from CoAND and OBNM directly [see 002., below]; then from the -- quite empty -- bill itself [see 003., below]:

001. CoAND states in "Make Your Voice Heard Today in Support of  HB1173 For Licensing NDs" [vsc 2011-02-25][my comments / musings are in bold]:

"[2011's] HB 1173 has been introduced to require the regulation of naturopathic doctors in Colorado [...the] licensing of naturopathic doctors [...this] bill is strictly seeking title protection for the term 'naturopathic doctor' [poor Colorado!...]";

Another attempt in Colorado to license naturopathy, to protect falsehood.  I think "naturopathic medical doctor" and "naturopathic physician" are not possible due to the wording of previously established Colorado law concerning medical practice.

"[to] ensure that patients have a right to know [!!!]";

Wow, I didn't know that naturopaths were so concerned about knowing.  I've often illustrated how naturopaths don't transparently describe the basis and context of naturopathy, and instead falsely label such -- publicly.  I don't see how ND-patient relations can meet the ethical standards of informed consent with such continuing opacity.  Even this post on Facebook is opaque / true-context lacking.  Actually, not only do patients have the right to know, naturopathy has the OBLIGATION to tell them the WHOLE truth.  But, they don't -- which is quite ironic for these people claiming to be 'holistic'.  Licensure, I project, will simply  make sure NDs / NMDs can legally obfuscate [see 003., below].

"[a] naturopathic doctor has attended naturopathic medical school [...and] passed all the  ND medical board exams and requirements, and [...] will be held accountable by the state [...]";

The schools and the examining look like nonsense to this naturopathy-watcher.  I don't see how accountability can happen when the NDs/NMDs will police themselves, from, as Oregon exemplifies, nonsense ideas / a position of falsehood [see 002., below].

"[without it] the public cannot distinguish [...]";

Yet, it is naturopathy that does not distinguish -- 'naturopathy blends' -- the actually science-supported from the truly science-ejected.  It would seem that licensure would allow a muddle without legal recourse.  What are states going to do, prosecute themselves as accomplices to nonsense they permit?

"HB1173 would provide citizen protection by ensuring that those who call themselves naturopathic doctors have met the professional standards for this title [irony meter is exploding, Will Robinson...]";

Hmmm.  Can professionalism happen when the domain is essentially false and opaque regarding that?  Can protection happen when something is so fuzzy that it is equated with what it is not?

"your medically trained naturopathic doctor [...] medically trained ND's [x2 (a medical label)...]";

The last time I checked, medicine is medicine, naturopathy is naturopathy, science is science, the science-ejected is not science.  Naturopathy would like to equate all things irrationally.

"[CoAND members want] a license to practice legally [...]";

Hmmm.  I look at Oregon's example and see sanctioned nonscience and the elevation of the fake and false.  Wouldn't it be legal malpractice and unfair trade?  Not that I'm a lawyer.

"within a defined scope of practice [...] scope of practice very similar to that outlined in the 8 other Western States";

I'll use Oregon in 002. to attest how "defined" naturopathy is [defined by a scope of practice requiring sectarian figmentations as treatment objectives].

"ND's [...] diagnose and treat using  natural  modalities such as [...] homeopathy";

Oooops.  Empty remedies posing as "clinical science" on their board exam of such claimed rigor. ISYN.

Overall note: CoAND's fact sheet on the bill is here.  Not much explained about naturopathy at all.  Not surprising.

002. licensed falsehood via CoAND claims, then OANM specifically:

002.a. naturopathy is claimed as "science" in CoAND's "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-02-25]:

"naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science".

Note: and on that page homeopathy is claimed as "powerful" while CoAND codes naturopathy's primary science-ejected concept all-the-while.  Colorado naturopathy in fact has been very careful apparently  to NEVER have transparently explained the vitalistic science-ejected underpinnings of naturopathy.  What kind of science is so opaque?  And secretly nonscientific?  As OBNM reveals below, quite adequately.

002.b. OBNM states in "Naturopathy":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine 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  [...including] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [coded vitalism...] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [vitalism aliases...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force."

Note: yes, that is a 'surives scientific scrutiny' claim placed upon the hugely science-ejected vitalistic, supernatural, and HOMEOPATHIC [and kind] essentially naturopathic.  In my view, ND licensure licenses the fake, the false, and the irrational.  It is exceptionally harmful to science standards, the public's understanding of science, and the ethics of the physician-patient professional relationship.  It undoes science, professionalism, and logical thought -- and it's SOOOOO easy to show.  But, now that those standards exist, complaints about this nonsense go to the board who up holds this nonsense, I presume.  Licensure simply makes falsehood and unfair trade LEGAL.

003. the current bill itself is here, and it doesn't state much of anything naturopathic at all, as results from my 'typical' searches of naturopathic documents reveals:

"life force" = 0;

"vital force" = 0;

"scien" = 2;

"based" = 8; 

"medicatrix" = 0;

"power" = 2;

"principle" = 0;

"medical" = 14;

Note: this bill doesn't tell me anything about naturopathy.  It defers to the AANMC-CNME-AANP-CAND educational and political apparatus for specifics.  It truly embodies naturopathy's nonspecific strategy / opacity, and legislates that occultic modus operandi.  You'd have to dig really deep to be informed, overall, and that's quite ethically heinous.

On Naturopathy, Opaquely - ND Lepisto in Colorado's Grand Junction Free Press (2011-02-25)

here, I cite from a recent article on an ND in Colorado's Grand Junction Free Press [see 001., below]; then, I cite from the-mentioned-ND's own web page pseudo-explanation of naturopathy [see 002., below]; finally, also from an interview of that ND on Youtube [see 003., below]:

001. Sharon Sullivan reports in "Naturopathic Medicine: People Healing Themselves" [saved 2011-02-25]:

"'removing obstacles to cure' is primarily what naturopathic doctor Christopher Lepisto [ND Bastyr 2002] does to help people heal. Lepisto is a naturopathic doctor, meaning he looks for root causes of people's illnesses, rather than focusing on treating symptoms [...] 'I support people's ability to heal themselves' [coded vitalism, so he also supports uniformed consent, in my view because this actually science-exterior vitalistic context is not fleshed-out...] 'while allopathic doctors generally treat symptoms, naturopaths tend to be preventive in nature. They try and find the cause' [...] naturopathic philosophy favors a holistic approach, according to the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges, and is defined more by principle than method [I'd love to clearly hear that vitalistic principle stated transparently...] homeopathy [...is one of the] tools of the trade for a naturopath [...] Lepisto graduated from Seattle's Bastyr University, an accredited school of naturopathic medicine in 2002."

Note: ah, the overarching promise of cure, from the root. Boy, I sure wish this so-called journalism would simply state this: naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected vitalistic spiritistic and codes this reality under a false label of 'science-legitimacy'.  Because that's how it is.  The false label of allopathy upon modern medicine could also have been mentioned as FALSE -- what I call 'the reverse sectarian accusation'.  Modern medicine is as allopathic as modern chemistry is alchemic.  Naturopathic philosophy could also have been mentioned as irrational.  Homeopathy could have been mentioned as inert.  Bastyr could have been mentioned as an institution that labels as science the science-exterior, as a worldview, and then trades falsely on that science label.

002. ND Lepisto's web page "Naturopathic Medicine" (see that tab, because his web page is some really whacked flash code)[psc 2011-02-25] states:

"your doctor as teacher.  For thousands of years, traditional healers have offered nature's own prescriptions [...like] homeopathy [...] and spiritual practice [...] Dr. Christopher blends this ancient healing wisdom with modern scientific knowledge to help his patients attain optimal health in mind, body and spirit [...] like allopathic doctors (MDs) [etc....] Dr. Christopher's clinical training focuses on preventing disease, promoting health and prescribing therapies designed to stimulate your body's natural healing processes [coded vitalism...] naturopathic philosophy stresses the individuality of each patient and the importance of treating the root cause of a condition, not just dealing with its symptoms."

Note: let's root-out naturopathy, because you betcha they blend.  Yet, for some reason, we're irrationally told that such is the truly unblended "science-based" at Bastyr. Boy, it would be nice to get some transparency regarding 'the truly naturopaTHICK' here.   Homeopathy, by the way, is only about 200 years old, Mr. ND.  And mentioning so much "spirit" supernaturalism is rather strange from someone whose alma mater labels naturopathy "science-based".  Show me the science-based science-exterior!  Coding vitalism doesn't aid in being taught much of anything, either, ND-as-teacher. Again, there's this whole idea of 'regular medicine only treats symptoms'.  Well, in naturopathyland, since physiology is a symptom / effect of the 'spiritual vital force' [SVF] that animates it / cause, I can see how such can be said -- but, that SVF is a figmentation, and the body's physiology is in-itself that-which-is, biological not spiritual.

003. on Youtube, ND Lepisto states in "Naturopathic Physicians" [vsc 2011-02-25]:

"I seek to treat the cause of the condition and support the body's own ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] on a deeper level, what we're seeking to do is to treat the cause [...] the root cause [...] stimulating the body's own healing ability [coded vitalism...] the level 'what is the cause'."

Note: and, of course, "allopathic" is said.  But, again, boy there's no transparency concerning naturopathy's ACTUAL context, just a bunch of naturalistic coding.  If only they'd clearly explain the science-ejected context of the junk thought that their textbooks contain, people could make better-informed decisions, and actually be TAUGHT.

Manipulation, propaganda, culticness.

Tom Chivers of The Telegraph on Homeopathy (2011-02-23)

here are some recent words from a homeopathy skeptic:

001. Tom Chivers of The Telegraph [UK] writes in "James Delingpole, Keeping An Open Mind on Homeopathy" (2011-02-23):

"homeopathy – or 'magic water' [...is of] comforting-yet-demonstrably-untrue nonsense [...] homeopathy’s magic beans [...] the evidence – which, one supposes, sceptics are supposed to study and evaluate before making an always-revisable-in-the-light-of-new-facts judgment – suggests that it doesn’t work. At all [...] the better quality the study done into homeopathy, the more likely it is to show that homeopathy is bunk [...] large-scale RCTs and good meta-analyses very consistently show that it simply doesn’t work [...] that’s before you get into the really funny stuff [...] like the fact that a fairly ordinary homeopathic dilution [...] is the equivalent of one-third of a drop of water in all the oceans in the world [...] that the duck-liver solution Oscillococcinum [...] is the equivalent of one molecule of the original duck in more than a centillion observable universes [...] if it worked, we would have to acknowledge that there is something else going on, some physical effect unknown to science, some memory of water or mystical force or something, and we would have to look for it. But it doesn’t work. So we don’t. It’s really very straightforward [...] it’s not as if homeopathy hasn’t been studied, as though there is a great big question mark hanging over its effectiveness. It doesn’t work. So it doesn’t pose any great questions about how it works. It doesn’t work [...] the point of scepticism – true scepticism – is that it is constantly evaluating. So, I promise you, if Ben Goldacre, or James Randi, or I [...] were to be presented with solid evidence that homeopathy worked, we would alter our position."

Note: very true.

JREF and Naturopathy - Charlatans Shouldn't Be Licensed

here, I cite from a recent statement by the James Randi Educational Foundation [JREF] concerning naturopathy [see 001., below]:

001. JREF states in "'Naturopathy' Should Not Be Licensed: Statement by the JREF" (2011-02-23):

"[JREF] works to expose charlatans and help people defend themselves from dangerous paranormal and pseudoscientific claims [...has] issued this statement by JREF President D.J. Grothe on proposed licensing schemes for practitioners of naturopathy: 'states should not give out licenses for self-styled health advisers to practice what they call 'naturopathy' [...] people who aren’t qualified to practice medicine that works should not be given state approval to practice medicine that doesn’t work [hear, hear...such creates a] false impression [...that there are] standards of care that naturopaths could be required to meet [...] naturopathy is [...] vaguely defined [...] a hodge-podge of beliefs and health treatments [...with] no standards of care [of any rational consequence, I'd add...] some of which are pseudoscientific nonsense that has been repeatedly shown not to work by clinical trials [...e.g.] discredited treatments like homeopathy [which naturopathy labels science, on its own licensing exam...creating]  a seal of approval to scam treatments [...] the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges says that 'naturopathic medicine is defined by principles rather than by methods or modalities' [...but] even the principles of naturopathy contradict each other [oh snap!]."

Note: I say the biggest contradiction within 'naturopathic thought' [a ha-ha-ha, 'the naturopaTHICK'] is that label they use of "science" upon the clearly science-exterior.  We're all for science, but labeling the clearly science-exterior science and engaging in business upon that falsehood is a class-action suit waiting to happen.  Look at Oregon, wherein naturopathy is licensed and has their own '.gov' web page that does that explicit mislabeling thing.  It's sickening.  I think it victimizes the public, it elevates the fake, and it increases States' liability for complicity while it allows for shared blame from the side of naturopathy, lessening their liability.

Licensing Falsehood: Naturopathy in NYT and the Charity of Shallow Reporting, 2011-02-21

here, I cite from a recent New York Times article on naturopathy in Colorado [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Dan Frosch reports in "Colorado Faces a Fight Over Naturopathy" [saved 2011-02-21]:

"in Colorado [...]  no regulatory system for naturopaths exists [...] Marc Cooper [...] sits on the board of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors, which has proposed a bill this year that would allow naturopaths to get licenses and create training and treatment requirements for practitioners [...] 'once somebody fully understands what our medical training is and what we actually do, they look at us and say, Oh, my gosh, I didn’t realize that' he said [...] naturopaths [...] 'go to naturopathic medical school' [...per] Karen Howard, executive director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...with] completion of a four-year accredited, specialized school, passing an exam and a certain amount of clinical training [...and] contend that it is dangerously easy to get a certificate that shows expertise in naturopathy and people need some way of discerning between a knowledgeable naturopath and a quack [...] the Colorado proposal would prohibit people who did not attend one of the schools from calling themselves naturopathic doctors [...the medical field says] 'they want to diagnose medical conditions, and we don’t believe they are qualified and that they have the education to do that [...and] there is little evidence naturopathy is either safe or effective [...] said Diana Protopapa [...of] the Colorado Medical Society [I agree with CMS]."

Note: wow, the quacks [naturopathy] are calling their fellow quacks [naturopathy] quacks and denying that they are all birds of the same feather.

002. now, I'm quite familiar with the requirements and contents of naturopathy -- that is what this blog talks about -- so lets talk about it, broadly [I went to one of those AANP-affiliated schools, I'm quite familiar]:

so, as the article states, once somebody "fully understands" naturopathy, you would say "oh, my gosh."  That is not because you'd be impressed, though.  It would be because you'd be wide-eyed with naturopathy's absurdity.  But, you'd actually have to have expertise in science, medicine, skepticism, and propaganda.

NYTs didn't report on that central absurdity, and that's quite a bit of charity for naturopathy -- to such an extent that this article reads like a press release.  Also, I don't think it's accurate to say that NDs are medically trained at all, they are naturopathically trained.  Where else is an article of faith equated with a scientific fact, and archaic science-ejected ideas called science-based?

the exam and specialized schooling for NDs / NMDs is interesting: it requires that the hugely science-ejected be falsely labeled science and medically relevant, and it also requires that you disguise that reality.

and naturopathy's knowledge is interesting to the extent that it is quackery overall: claiming as safe and effective the truly science-ejected archaic.

the reporter provides no accurate context regarding these realities about the naturopathic, and naturopaths won't either, while those who are knowledgeable about it watch the absurdity increase its market.

people will still be buying the product under false premises: that which is placebo, like homeopathy, is sold as effective while truly science-destroyed, and that which is science-exterior will be sold as within a science-context even though not [their essential sectarian vitalism, supernaturalism and kind].

this goes for naturopathy clinically and in terms of its educational apparatus.

as I've said before, naturopathy is licensed falsehood.

Grant Jacobs at Sciblogs Schwacks Homeopathy in New Zealand (2011-02-21)

here, I cite from a great post about homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Grant Jacobs writes at Code For Life in "Message to Otago Daily Times: Homeopath is Not a Sound Career Option*" (2011-02-21):

"why on earth has the [...] Otago Daily Times [...] presented an homeopath in one of it’s on-going series of snapshots of people in different careers [...without] critical questioning? [...without] critically judging what they present [...] should a journalist not question the creditability of homeopathy in questioning a homeopath? Should this even be offered as a sound career option on a careers page? [...he says] yes to the first, no to the second [...because it is] nonsense [...] homeopathic remedies contain none of the proposed active ingredient in them. Nothing, nada, nil [...they're] completely diluted [...it's] a ruse [...] homeopathy is a sham. It’s utter bunkum [...] any homeopath presenting their remedies as having an effect beyond placebo is outside of good business ethics, never mind medical ones [...it's] a historic quackery [...] homeopathy is bunk."

002. well, a couple of things:

I totally agree that homeopathy is junk.

you can criticize homeopathy based on its plausiblity, and also based on quality studies: it can't work, and not surprisingly it doesnt' work, respectively.

it is, for me, one of the most troubling things within North American naturopathy.

notice who sponsors North American naturopathy's textbooks, which are huge sources of homeopathy proponentry!

the so-called "science-based profession" that labels homeopathy a science, to this day.

SCNM's ND Messer - Emphasis: Homeopathy and Cancer

here, I cite from a SCNM web page regarding treating cancer with magic beans / unicorn tears aka homeopathy [see 001., below]:

001. SCNM writes in "Physician Bios" [saved 2011-02-20]:

"Stephen Messer, N.D., D.H.A.N.P Emphasis: homeopathy for acute disease, serious chronic disease, cancer, multiple sclerosis [...] Dr. Messer has been in continuous practice since graduating from National College of Natural Medicine in 1979, and is considered one of the premier homeopathic physicians, educators, and authors in the country [...] Dr. Messer completed homeopathic emphasis training with the International Foundation for Homeopathy, as well as the Eizayaga Homeopathic Seminar series. Dr. Messer was among the first naturopathic physicians in the United States to become board certified as a homeopathic specialist. He is a founder and past president of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians. He has been a board member of the National Center for Homeopathy from 1987-2008, and the Dean of the prestigious NCH summer school homeopathic training program [...] Dr. Messer is a Professor, and the Chair of Homeopathic Medicine at SCNM."

Note: wow.  Here's his bio.

ND Mittman - SCNM & AANMC's Big Kahuna Homeopath, and Remarkable Claims of Homeopathy's Efficacy

here, I cite from a recent NDNR article [see 001., below]; then from remarkable claims regarding homeopathic sugar pills [see 002., below]; and finally, how naturopathy is wedded to science-ejected ideas and absurd therapies [see 003., below]:

001. the article "Message From the President" (2011-02) in NDNR states:

"Paul Mittman, ND, EdD, DHANP currently serves as president of both Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences [SCNM] and the American Association of Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC...] Dr. Mittman graduated from National College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1985 [...] he was in private practice until joining the faculty of Southwest College as a professor of homeopathy in 1997 [...] Dr. Mittman is a recognized authority on naturopathic medicine [...who] integrates the foundations of naturopathic medicine with homeopathy and botanical medicine [...] he is a respected lecturer in the field of homeopathy [...and] former editor of Simillimum [naturopathy's homeopathy journal] and the New England Journal of Homeopathy."

Note: so, he's a big kahuna / authority when it comes to homeopathy.

002. SCNM and AANMC:

002.a. SCNM states in "Homeopathy" [saved 2011-02-20]:

"homeopathy is a remarkable [...] therapy that stimulates our natural ability to heal [coded vitalism...it] provoke[s] a healing reaction in the person [...] it is the healing reaction [coded vitalism] provoked by the homeopathic medicine that cures, not the medicine itself [...] it can gently and permanently cure diseases and restore health [...e.g.] coughs and earaches [...] autoimmune disease and cancer [...] a gentle yet effective way to cure illness [...] homeopathy alters our susceptibility to disease [...] the majority of known acute and chronic diseases can be treated successfully with homeopathy, including nearly all of the most common reasons why people seek medical treatment [...] homeopathy is really quite extraordinary [...] and amazingly effective for people of all ages."

Note: yes, they're claiming homeopathy's magic beans / unicorn tears are THAT effective -- that it cures cancer.  This is truly SICKENING.

002.b. AANMC states in "Become a Naturopathic Doctor" [saved 2011-02-20]:

"effective traditional therapies form the foundation of naturopathic treatment, while drawing on the tools of modern science [...] naturopathic doctors made [sp, 'may'] use [...] homeopathic medicines [...] homeopathy [...] in their supervised, hands-on experiences with patients, students learn to scientifically apply [...] homeopathic medicine [...] member institutions of the AANMC [...include] Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences [...] National University of Health Sciences."

Note: science, science, science.  How does one scientifically apply what science has demolished?

And in that document, AANMC also speaks of: "a healthy respect for the healing power of nature [...] a deep faith in the power of the body to heal itself" but, we're not clearly informed about this central naturopathic context.

But, ND Mittman has explained this science-ejected vitalistic context essential to naturopathy in quite a lot of detail (here, here).  He is, after all, an authority.

003. some deep revelations from ND Mittman in "Editorials: Naturopathic Medicine, Vitalism, and Homeopathy" (1997; Townsend Letter For Doctors and Patients, #165, p.122-3)[which I own]:

"[Mittman writes about] how we define the core and essence of naturopathy to ourselves [...] Hahnemann's homeopathy linked the disturbed vital force to the diseased body, and D.D. Palmer's chiropractic saw the spine as a conduit for the 'innate wisdom' [both are vitalistic...] alternative medical practices stepped in and linked the healing power of nature with the human spirit [supernaturalism...] what forms the heart of our healing art [...we have] more than a belief in the healing power of nature [...we] directly stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae [...per] working directly with chi, prana or the vital force [...] science and medicine have spent the last 500 years divorced from religion and spirituality. As naturopaths, we must openly acknowledge and unabashedly embrace our partnership with a higher power. The only way to accomplish this is to establish energetic [euphemism for vitalistic and spiritistic] therapies like homeopathy, Chinese and ayurvedic medicine and hydrotherapy at the center of our definition of naturopathy [...per] energy medicines, the practice of homeopathy [...] there is no philosophical conflict between homeopathy and naturopathic medicine. In fact, homeopathy is probably the clearest example of the healing power of nature [...] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians gave us a clear definition of naturopathic medicine [...] patients get well because their healing begins at the deepest level of being - at the point where the body and its animating spirit meet [...per] the highest ideal of cure [...] Paul Mittman, ND, DHANP,  from The Best of Naturopathic Medicine Anthology 1996,  Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine Press.  Dr. Mittman graduated from National College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1985, after which he served as staff physician at the Portland Natural Clinic until 1990, when he began his private practice in Connecticut. Dr. Mittman has served on the editorial board of the New England Journal of Homeopathy and frequently lectures both  nationally and internationally on homeopathy. He serves as a board member on the Connecticut Society of  Naturopathic Physicians as well as the Homeopathic Community Council [p.123]."

Note: again, big kahuna homeopath ND.  Working directly with a figmentation.  Must be hard to measure, therein.  I'm sure therein, it's okay to cut a lot of corners and just settle on deciding 'yep, another case cured.'

Orac recently blogged at Respectful Insolence in a post titled "You Can't Have Naturopathy Without Homeopathy" (2011-01-28), which reminded me of this 1997 article.

Ben Goldacre on Homeopathy: Unicorn Tears

here, I briefly cite from the always excellent "Bad Science" column at guardian.co.uk:

Ben Goldacre writes in "In Case of Overdose, Consult a Lifeguard" (2011-02-19):

"at midnight, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority [...] closed its consultation on how it should label homeopathy sugar pills [...] homeopathy pills don't work better than placebo dummy pills in trials [...and] are made by taking one drop of the original substance and diluting it in

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

drops of water, then taking one drop of that solution, which is now just water, and shaking it near some pills, which you then buy to treat an illness [...] it's my view that quacks are welcome to be quacks [...] I have conducted my own consultation online. Here are the [labeling] suggestions [...] 'take as many as you like' since there are no ingredients [...] other suggestions include 'none', 'belief', 'false hopes', 'shattered dreams', and 'the tears of unicorns' [...] 'not to be taken seriously', 'in case of overdose, consult a lifeguard' [...] these label suggestions are clear, unambiguous, and they do not mislead anyone."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy considers homeopathy "science".

The Canadian Gang of Naturopathic Four and Their Science Absurdity (c. 2008)

here, I cite from the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy - Naturopathy [BDDT-N] which claims the science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny [see 001., below]; then, I decode that science-ejected idea [see 002., below]; and mention that it is not science [see 003., below]; then I muse [see 004., below]:

001. the BDDT-N hosts the document "Submission to: Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council"(2008-11-12) [vsc 2011-02-18] which states [I'm not sure this document is permanently archived by the provincial government, but that is likely]:

"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 [...including principle #2] recognition and support of the inherent self-healing ability of the individual (the healing power of nature) [SHAI-HPN...] stimulate the self-healing mechanisms (vis medicatrix naturae) [SHM-VMN...or as #1] the healing power of nature: naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent healing process [IHP] in the person that is ordered and intelligent. The body is capable of healing itself. The role of the naturopathic doctor is to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery and to facilitate and augment this inherent natural tendency of the body [...] stimulate the healing power of nature with therapies like homeopathy and hydrotherapy."

Note: what's fascinating is what isn't mentioned.  Nowhere in this document do I find the terms "vital", "force", or "spirit".  But, SHAI-SHM-HNP-VMN-IHP is claimed to survive scientific scrutiny, be objective fact, and obviously is essential to 'the naturopathic'.  The document states this is a "joint submission by CCNM, BDDT-N, OAND, CAND" and in fact has the signatures of the principals of those arms of Canadanian naturopathy within it.

There are further science claims upon 'the naturopathic', including:

"NDs have training in the clinical sciences [...] the first year curriculum stresses the basic sciences [...] in second year, clinical science is stressed [...] NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Competencies [...] basic science related to IV therapy [...] basic science (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pathology) [...] their scientific binomial name [...] program requirements for its degree or diploma of a minimum of 4,100 total hours in basic and clinical sciences [etc....] Part I of the NPLEX, the Basic Science Examinations [...] students are encouraged to take this portion of the examination as soon as they finish their basic science coursework [...] Part II, the Core Clinical Science Examination [...] beginning with the August 2007 NPLEX Exam administration, the Part II - Core Clinical Science Series will be integrated into a single examination that will include homeopathy [...] naturopathic medicine is a [...] science [...] naturopathic physicians are primary health care practitioners, whose diverse techniques include modern and traditional, scientific and empirical methods [...] Michael Traub, ND [...] he remains a member of the AANP’s Scientific Affairs Committee."

So, science science science.  Yes, that is the claim that homeopathy specifically is a "clinical science".  Let's decode SHAI-SHM-HNP-VMN-IHP via CAND's own 2009 publication, and see what it essentially is and what science says about it.

002. CAND and Lloyd, I. (ND CCNM 2002) write in "The History of Naturopathic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective" (ISBN 9781552787786, 2009)[available at Amazon.com for $40 about]:

"vitalism and holism represents the philosophy of naturopathic medicine [p.029...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] 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's the vitalism / vital force / HPN-VMN that is essential to naturopathy.  Truly, when they say "treat the cause" they are talking about a vitalistic context.  Truly, whatever language they choose -- and so often they choose to disguise their context in a crafty manner -- they are in the end vitalistically of context.

003. what science says about vitalism:

science says it is not science.

004. so, regarding this Canadian Gang of Naturopathic Four:

this is truly a feat of mislabeling on a grand scale [national!].  It is typical of the naturopathic.  How a hugely science-ejected sectarian claim supposedly survives scientific scrutiny as objective fact is truly a feat of cultic proportions.  Such is 'the science-ejected vitalism that dare not speak its name'.

Naturopathy - 'Non-Figment-Based Medicine is Harmful', 'Our Figments Are Scientific'

here, I search via google.com using the term ""first do no harm" "patient may be harmed" medicatrix" [without the exterior quotes; see 001., below]; then, I explain 'the gist' [see 002., below]:

001. the first-page results specific to naturopathy this 2011-02-17 include: 

Steriti, R. (ND SCNM) of Washington State; the State of Oregon; Thistle, D. (ND CCNM 1998) of Ontario, Canada; Nicolai, P.J. (ND Bastyr) of Oregon; Bradley, R.S. (ND NCNM) of Nebraska; Fung, S. (ND NCNM), Ortiz, N. (ND NCNM) of California; Troy, L. (ND Bastyr 2004) of Montana;

002. what are they talking about?

002.a. preponderantly:

what is being discussed is the naturopathic belief that if medicine does not take into account the vital force or energy that runs physiology, if it does not treat within the context of this figmentation first-and-foremost , then the patient will be harmed.

ND Bradley says it as "naturopathic physicians respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed."

002.b. a larger example from the above results:

002.b.1. from the Steriti page, we're told:

"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 [...#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae)[HPN-VMN...] naturopathic physicians respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed."

now, Steriti went to SCNM, and that school explains HPN-VMN as (see the archival save from 2003):

"the healing power of nature [...] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...] the essence of naturopathic medicine."

quoting Hahnemann, homeopathy's founder, ND Steriti explains:

"vitalism: 'in the state of health a spirit-like vital force (dynamis) animating the material human organism reigns in supreme sovereignty' - paragraph 9 of the Orgenon [sp., Organon]."

002.c. science has profoundly eliminated such a figmentation [vitalism, supernaturalism, teleology] from the contents of science for just reason:

there is no evidence of a vital force or energy's immediate existence, and as an explanation it is not necessary to explain ANYTHING -- even as a place-filler.

but, take care you don't harm it by ignoring it...according to naturopathy.

of course, it gets better.

that State of Oregon site above says that this vitalism survives scientific scrutiny too, "in fact".

and it's amazing -- when an AANP affiliate is attempting to pass licensure legislation -- how coded and misrepresented all this science-ejected figmentation-based thought becomes.

PANP, for instance, states that naturopathy's principles are scientific and doesn't clearly communicate the science-ejected vitalism [and supernaturalism] at the heart of the naturopathic.

overall, what's not being admitted is the fact that science, for naturopathy, contains figmentations and in that sense, has been redefined to the point of absurdity.