Friday, March 18, 2011
here, I cite from web pages of the Hawaii Society of Naturopathic Physicians [HSNP] regarding naturopathy's primary context, supernatural physiology [see 001.a., below] and a member they promote who uses Vega diagnostically [see 001.b., below]; then, I cite from that ND's own web pages [see 002., below]; then, some words on the nonsense of placing supernaturalism / vitalism within science / physiology, and the use of Vega diagnostically [see 003., below]:
001. HSNP states:
001.a. in "About Us" [vsc 2011-03-18]:
"naturopathic medicine [...] practice us guided by the following principles: [#1] use the healing power of nature [HPN]: the body has the ability to maintain and restore health. Healing occurs as a result of the revival of our 'vital force' [VF] - qi [Q], prana [P], spirit [S]."
Note: so, HPN = VF = Q = P = S. All those terms, equated, I'll express as vitalism / supernaturalism -- that is quite ironic for an area claiming to be natural and science based. So, where is the natural and the supernatural the same thing, the scientific and nonscientific? The naturopaTHICK. Therein, naturopathy supernaturalizes physiology with some sort of spiritism -- THAT is a sectarian belief, if even of a nebulous kind.
001.b. in "Dr. Ian Cholewa" [vsc 2011-3-18]:
"Dr. Cholewa provides high quality, consistent electrodiagnostic [Vega] assessments based on the system of German bioenergetic medicine [BM]. He utilized electronic methods of diagnosis [Vega] to identify the underlying causes of ill health and help individuals and families achieve and maintain optimal health."
Note: Vega BM pseudodiagnostics galore!
002. Cholewa, I. (ND Bastyr) [whose web page link is on the above HSNP page] states:
002.a. in "Dr Ian Cholewa" [vsc 2011-03-18]:
"Dr. Ian Cholewa received his bachelor's degree from University of British Columbia and his doctorate of naturopathic medicine from Bastyr University in Seattle [...] Ian Cholewa, ND has been practicing as a naturopathic physician since 2000 specializing in German bioenergetic medicine. He integrates naturopathic medicine with non-invasive and painless electronic method of diagnosis [Vega] based on the German system of bioenergetic medicine [BM]. Dr. Cholewa finds this method extremely useful in identifying the underlying cause of ill health and optimizing your health and well being."
Note: BM again. The claim is that this Vega stuff is "extremely useful." I don't get his listing when I search Bastry's alumni registry.
002.b. in "What is an ND" [vsc 2011-03-18]:
"naturopathic physicians are educated in all basic medical sciences [...and have] medical science education [...] modern naturopathic medicine applies [gram., 'the'] latest scientific methods [...and are] specialists in natural medicine [...using] natural therapies and treatments [...] to support the body's natural healing ability [coded vitalism...offering] safe and effective alternatives [...] naturopathic physicians adhere to rigorous educational and professional standards [...with] rigorous professional board exams [...] rigorous professional board exams administered by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE) [...] the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education and the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners set naturopathic education and examination standards. The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) sets professional standards to assure public health and safety [...] AANP works to develop and preserve professional standards [...] ensuring public health and safety by developing national education and examination standardized for naturopathic medical colleges [...it's] a distinct health care profession "
Note: science, science, science. Natural, natural, natural. Coded vitalism, a claim of safety and efficacy, rigor, professionalism, rigorous professionalism, a claim that health and safety benefit from the essentially naturopathic!
002.c. in "The Practice" [vsc 2011-03-18]:
"Dr. Cholewa's practice incorporates both naturopathic and German bioenergetic medicine approaches with the goal of identifying the underlying causes of ill health. He uses the German VEGA assessment instrument during most visits. This method assesses the body’s autonomic nervous system responses [BANSR] to standardized frequencies that have known relationships to organs, hormones, toxins and allergens [...] performing comprehensive electro-diagnostic assessments [...] German bioenergetic medicine: Dr. Cholewa tests all dispensed medicines and supplements for maximum effectiveness and optimal tolerance using the German bioenergetic medicine Vega Test instrument. This approach helps him to decide what medications to treat with and what proper dose should be used for each individual patient [...] Vega electro-diagnostic assessment [...] accurate diagnosis is Dr. Cholewa’s primary concern. He utilizes the Vega electro-diagnostic method coupled with standard laboratory tests to uncover the underlying causes of your condition. The results of the electro-diagnostic assessment serve as a baseline to monitor your treatment progress [...] his eight-year experience using the German bioenergetic system of electro-diagnosis enabled him to achieve high success rate in helping people uncover and treat the root causes of their conditions. His skill in providing high quality, consistent electrodiagnostic assessments is what makes him excel not only in treating disease but also in helping people build health reserves by finding weaknesses in and optimizing the condition of the key organ systems: digestive, hormonal, cardiovascular, lymphatic, respiratory, nervous and genitourinary [...] 'naturopathic medicine coupled with German electro diagnosis offer a new and unique approach to health care. They provide an efficient way to reveal the underlying imbalances and offer effective health building solutions. My goal is to increase the regulatory and self-healing capacity of the body [coded vitalism] to restore optimal health'."
Note: Vega, BANSR and frequencies, and quite a lot of claims of its accuracy and efficacy.
002.d. in "Frequently Asked Questions" [vsc 2011-03-18]:
"Dr. Cholewa specializes in German bioenergetic medicine and electro-diagnosis. He uses the Vega Test instrument [...] German electro-diagnosis [...] is a non-invasive, safe and painless electro-diagnostic assessment method that is performed during most first office visits. The instrument measures micro-current electronic changes in the body and provides valuable insights into the most common root causes of ill health such as food and environmental allergies, toxicities and functional organ imbalances. During testing a probe is used to measure the electrical resistance at points on the hand, points similar to acupuncture points [...] during a standard first office visit, Dr. Cholewa will [...] perform appropriate physical exam, and carry out a comprehensive electro-diagnostic assessment [...] some of the conditions Dr. Cholewa treats include: fatigue, digestive and intestinal problems, food and inhalant allergies, mercury and other heavy metal toxicities, yeast/mold related illness, sleep disturbances, depression, headaches, blood glucose imbalance, diabetes, high blood pressure, various skin conditions including eczema, osteoporosis, arthritis, immune dysfunctions including recurrent sinus and respiratory infections, menopause, fibromyalgia, elevated cholesterol, arteriosclerosis, heart disease and more [...] a standard first office visit lasts 60-90 minutes and consists of a naturopathic consultation and a comprehensive electro-diagnostic assessment [...] the following are some of our basic fees: First office visit: $165-245, depending on case complexity and visit length. Return office visit: $75; extended return office visit: $95."
Note: that's quite a lot of treasure. And that's quite a lot of the use of "electro-diagnostic" on one web page.
003. on vitalism, supernaturalism, Vega, and science:
003.a. vitalism is science-ejected:
I've talked about that to death. Check with the national science organizations.
003.b. supernaturalism is science-exterior:
I've talked about that to death. Check with the national science organizations.
003.c. Vega testing is bunk:
the real energies of science are measurable physical quantities: electricity and skin impedance, in the case of what Vega really is measuring. It's a parlor trick. We know that there isn't a distinct bioenergy / vital force / spirit running physiology because all the evidence preponderantly points to physio-chemical explanations. We know there aren't places on the skin where such a bioenergy can be accessed. And we know there aren't routes from those supposed points connecting to organs and whatnot. That's all fantasy.
004. overall warning:
the homepage of HSNP states [saved 2011-03-18]:
"naturopathic physicians base their medical practice on six proven principles: [#1] the healing power of nature [coded vitalism and supernaturalism...] the Hawaii Society of Naturopathic Physicians (HSNP) is the professional association representing licensed naturopathic physicians in the State of Hawaii [...with] your best interest at heart."
the inaccuracy and irony is killing me. Naturopathy truly is the reversal of all values: when what's claimed as proven and extremely useful medically is actually what is science-ejected pseudomedical belief / fantasy nonsense.
the buzzer in my head goes off: "Danger, Will Robinson, danger...unethical sectarian pseudoscience."
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
here, I cite from a blog post of Ontario's ND Long who labels naturopathy science and professional, and claims critics are merely uninformed and thoughtless [see 001., below]; then I cite from the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctor's [CAND] publication that defines naturopathy [see 002., below]; I'll also cite from AANMC schools in 003. and the web pages of ND Long and partner ND McKeown in 004.:
001. Long, M. (ND BINM 2010) states in "What Is[n't] Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2011-03-16; my comments are in bold]:
Note: the title of the post says a lot about naturopathy's M.O. Naturopathy wants to have it both ways, be what it is and what it isn't: pose itself as distinct, transparent, objective and be held to high scientific standards [what it isn't / epistemically demarcated], and yet remain undefined, vague, opaque and relative / subjective to maintain its contents [what it is / epistemically conflated]. That knowledge-type duality-posed-as-unity is the slime marinade that naturopathy wallows in.
"in actuality, we are rooted in science, requiring bachelor of science degrees as a prerequisite for entry in to naturopathic doctor programs [...we] use the latest natural evidence-based medicine with our patients. Natural medicine is not stagnant, grasping on the whim of historical findings -- just like all branches of medicine, trusted therapies of old are refined continually as the evidence evolves -- out with the old, in with the new [...and speaks of the] available evidence [...] the actual evidence [...about] the profession [...] real naturopathic doctors [...of] the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [variety...] we are deeply trained in clinical sciences [...] our education is not a joke [...I] only use interventions strongly supported by the peer reviewed evidence [...] most of naturopathic medicine is of sound reasoning [...]";
science, evidence, science, evidence, science, reasoning. Hmmmm. In actuality, such is NOT rooted in science or even what's rational, but I'll get back to the central Canadian naturopathy textbook of "real" naturopathy [in 002., below]. There's talk of evidence and being progressive but that CAND textbook -- which summarizes naturopathic thought -- indicates naturopathy is quite preponderantly OTHERWISE, really. As this blog states, 'in their own words': science is a garnish for a bunch of science-ejected and science-unsupported sectarian beliefs and methods unsoundly / falsely labeled science-based objective fact. That is the ACTUAL evidence: the false / unsound position of labeling as science that which HUGELY is not. This precludes naturopathy from using the label "profession" because professions are not based on falsehood and manipulative opacity.
"prereflective judgment is the most rudimentary type of thinking where a person merely assumes, as they are either unable to differentiate fact from belief [...] reflective judgment is considered the most advanced form of rational thinking [...where] opinions are critical assessments, formulated by weighing all available evidence before reaching a conclusion [...]";
I prereflectively TRUSTED the naturopathy apparatus to be telling the truth when I financially engaged with the AANMC school I attended as a career path. The AANP Alliance had termed naturopathy "science based" and "not a belief system". Later, with MORE EVIDENCE accumulating as I went through ND school, I found that the area is at its core -- upon a DECADE plus of REFLECTION -- nonsense. I prereflectively assumed, I'll admit, that a University that was fully regionally accredited and State sanctioned wouldn't be based on nonsense and that '.gov' type oversight wouldn't be either. Now, reflectively, I can parse naturopathy's deceptive M.O. using ALL the evidence I've acquired over more than 15 years of study of naturopathy. The "fact from belief" mention has my irony meter destroyed: it is precisely naturopathy's labeling of belief [no science] as fact [scientific] that IS its knowledge-type muddle. As a proponent of "science based medicine" and not merely "evidence based medicine", I do appreciate the ethos of looking at "all available evidence." I have, particularly plausibility. I know more than most NDs / NMDs about naturopathy, actually, and naturopathy's relation to science and the science-ejected.
"we cannot easily define naturopathic medicine based on what it is [...] I am going to define it based on what it isn’t [...] we are not witch doctors, quacks, hippies, or miracle curers. We do not have voodoo dolls, cauldrons, or potions [...]";
you will have to do better than that, if you are going to use the labels "science" and "profession"! Part of the purpose of this blog is to do better than that. Here's an example: when I was in ND school, an ND instructor diagnosed patients with a pendulum and applied kinesiology, and treated people with homeopathy, UNDA numbers, and acupuncture. Sounds a lot like what's done in the later part of the citation directly above. So, therein I just described part of what naturopathy IS. Since ND Long doesn't have the ability [or perhaps desire] to pin-down 'the essentially naturopathic', I will, in part, below.
002. CAND's textbook (ISBN 9781552787786 2009, by ND Lloyd):
I highly recommend this book as a 'key' to the contents of naturopathy, from the Canadian side. You can buy it directly from CAND for not very much money. It's also at Amazon. Here's some of it:
"vitalism and holism represents the philosophy of naturopathic medicine [p.029...] 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.030...] modern day science recognizes that the concepts of vitalism and holism are as integral to understanding health and disease as the concepts of reductionism and mechanism. The true picture, and hence the answer to health promotion and disease prevention, lies in the blending of all the knowledge."
Note: so, there you go. Vitalism, which is hugely science-ejected actually, claimed as science. And science, which is a knowledge-type demarcation, blended with the nonscientific and then falsely labeled science -- overall a knowledge-type conflation, the 'we must blend knowledge' yet claim that as unblended science naturopathic M.O. When is knowledge demarcation equated with knowledge conflation -- naturopathy. When is science nonscience -- naturopathy. So, I don't see the accuracy of ND Long's claim of being "rooted in science", "out with the old", "rational thinking", "all available evidence", and "profession".
03. AANMC schools:
ah, the mother ship. Wherein the hugely science-exterior vitalistic and supernatural is claimed to survive scientific scrutiny. Blogged this so often it's mundane.
003.b. BINM, ND Long's alma mater:
on the other hand, is cryptic / opaque / manipulative / incomplete about the essentially naturopathic. Their definition page of naturopathy, "Naturopathic Medical Training" [vsc 2011-03-16] states:
"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession founded on the time honored belief in vis medicatrix naturae, 'the healing power of nature' [...] the body's inherent healing abilities [...] it is a holistic [coded vitalism, supernaturalism and kind and meaningless vagarity...] the following is a list of treatments commonly provided or prescribed by naturopathic physicians [...] homeopathy: the use of minute amounts of natural substances to stimulate the body's self-healing abilities [coded vitalism]."
Note: oh, how opaque. I wish I could be told the full picture: that naturopathy is based on vitalism and kind, and that vitalism and kind is science-ejected AND naturopathy falsely labels the science-exterior science and trades on that irrationality. But, that's asking too much! So, the supposedly rooted-in-science cannot do what science must do always: be transparent, use only that which is based upon evidence, not include the science-exterior and science-ejected [like vitalism and kind in all its guises] and such science-ejected bunk as homeopathy.
004. ND Long and McKeown, K. (ND BINM)'s practice [linkedin.com says they are co-owners of the practice]:
004.a. describe naturopathy in "Optimum Integrative Philosophy" [vsc 2011-03-16]:
"at Optimum Integrative we [...use] the latest in evidence-based medicine."
Note: so you'd think the context of naturopathy is scientific and evidence-based as a FOUNDATION or ROOT.
004.b. in "Naturopathic Philosophy" [vsc 2011-03-16]:
"the principles of naturopathic medicine are the foundation for naturopathic practice [...including #2] vis mediatrix [sp., 'medicatrix'] naturae - the healing power of nature [...] naturopathic doctors are compelled to act morally, ethically, and professionally in accordance with the Naturopathic Physicians Oath: I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of naturopathic medicine [...] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine [...including] to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [...and] to heal the whole person [...] I pledge to remain true to this oath."
Note: ah, the foundation that dare not speak its vitalistic science-ejected context clearly and instead falsely labels it science. That is the ROOT / foundation of naturopathy: an irrational knowledge-type muddle. How can you engage in a professional relationship with such opacity / falseness / irrationality? Naturopathy's supposed 'oath-bound' ethical posture is hilarious, in that light: by oath, I'd argue, they are committed to the context of the science-ejected vitalistic, supernatural and kind, and then by that oath's example / mode also to a mannerism of manipulative opacity that doesn't transparently state 'the essentially naturopathic is the science-ejected falsely and irrationally claimed as science'.
and that is my reflective judgment: naturopathy is QUITE an absurdity. This is from someone STEEPED: who went to an AANMC school for four years, and has continually studied this junk thought.
Monday, March 14, 2011
B.C. ND Claims B.C. MDs are Misleading While Naturopathy Stuff (like foot bath detox, homeopathy, vitalism) is Grounded in Scientific Rigor
here, I cite from a recent letter by an ND in British Columbia, Canada to the Vancouver Sun defending naturopathy on scientific grounds [see 001., below]; then, from that BC ND's own web pages [see 002., below]; and finally that ND's own BC organizations [see 003., below]:
001. the Vancouver Sun's "More Options for Patients Makes for a Healthier Population" (2011-03-14 and save):
"[regarding] License to Prescribe Still Rankles B.C.'s MDs [2011-03-07...states] Dr. Caleb Ng naturopathic physician [of] Surrey [...believes] the information and opinion of the medical doctors [...] Dr. Bob Vroom and Ian Gillespie [...regarding naturopaths] cited in this article are misleading [...] health professionals such as naturopathic physicians [...are] grounded in the scientific rigor they [the MDs] so boldly assert is theirs alone [...the MDs] do not seem to take into account the education, training and ability required for our registrants to be licensed by our government-recognized regulatory body, the College of Naturopathic Physicians of BC [CNPBC]."
Note: oh, that huge, broad, overarching claim that naturopathy is SCIENCE. Again, and again, and again. Why is it up to me to illuminate how UNTRUE that science claim is? Naturopathy is based on falsehood [one of the largest being an inappropriate use of the label science upon the science-exterior], and therein such annuls their professional claim too. But lets see if ND Ng, CNPBC, and BCNA are MISLEADING on their own web pages!
002. Ng, C. (ND CCNM)'s practice -- Mountainview Wellness Center, a partnership with Bogatch, G. (ND CCNM), Patton, A. (ND CCNM), Ram, S.M. (ND CCNM), Van Alstyne, T. (ND CCNM) -- collectively states:
002.a. on their page "About Us - The Mountainview Doctors" [vsc 2011-03-14]:
"naturopathic medicine is [...] based on 'vis medicatrix naturae,' a medical philosophy that utilizizes the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN, coded vitalism, because that's all they give you!...] naturopathic doctors trained in natural therapies and prevention, but are also trained in the art and science of diagnosis [...] the Platinum Energy Systems Detoxification Foot Spa is a non-invasive highly effective method of removing toxins from the body through the feet or hands. This system is scientifically proven [...] Dr. Ng is a member of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association and the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia.[...] we are registered and licensed with the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia [...] CCNM offers a four year accredited program including courses in [...] homeopathy."
Note: so, there's coded vitalism, which is ironically MISLEADING! I think ND Ng protests too much to the Vancouver Sun. There's the science claim again, on foot detox of all things.
Now, Quack Watch's Device Watch states, regarding this type of thing: "the bottom line is very simple. All such devices should be considered medically worthless." Ouch: when is the "scientifically proven [...] highly effective" actually bunk? Naturopathy: whose science expertise claim has dissolved.
I'll look at the org.s in 003., below.
002.b. in "Services Offered" [vsc 2011-03-14]:
"acupuncture is based on the belief that health is determined by the balanced flow of vital energy (qi) through the meridians of the body. By restoring proper flow of qi, we can restore balance to the system."
Note: so, there's a glimpse of their vitalism belief, and this time it is transparently described, though not fully described as in fact a science-ejected and -unsupported belief. You should BE TOLD BY THEM that naturopathy is based on in fact science-ejected or -unsupported beliefs, diagnostics, and therapies before you go to one! I believe it would allow for informed consent.
003. CNPBC and BCNA:
003.a. CNPBC states in "Code of Conduct":
"the naturopathic physician [...] shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] will practice the science and art of naturopathic medicine."
Note: again, the coded vitalism and a false science claim upon it. What I argue is this: even the CNPBC Code of Conduct is a guideline for NDs showing how to engaged in misinformation, opacity and manipulation as opposed to accuracy, transparency, and informed consent.
Ironically, it emphasizes:
"[the ND] shall conduct her/his practice and professional activities with honesty, integrity and responsibility for individual judgment and action [...] shall respect all ethical, qualified health care practitioners and cooperate with other health professions to promote health for the individual, the public and the global community. [...] the naturopathic physician shall strive to exemplify personal well-being, ethical character and trustworthiness as a health care professional."
Truly naturopathy is the reversal of all values. I don't think this absurdity and irrationality aids population health. If something is nonsense, is it really an option? Again, I think ND Ng protests too much to the Vancouver Sun.
003.b. BCNA states in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine":
"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...includes] vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism [coded vitalism...] embracing these tenets, on a science-based platform, is at the heart of naturopathic care."
Note: so, the heart of naturopathy is to not transparently label their sectarian vitalistic belief-based system as science-ejected and indeed to falsely label such science and ethical.
I can see the apples and the very-near tree they have fallen from.
Yet, I like B.C. in this sense: they've a lot going on up there and a lot gets printed to then blog about.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
here, I cite from an American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' [AANP] endorsed book wherein naturopathy's science-ejected central premise known as vitalism is clearly-ish stated [see 001, below]:
001. in "A Guide to Alternative Medicine: Ancient and Modern Therapies to Expand Your Medical Horizons" (ISBN 0785319840, 1997), the AANP states [my comments are in bold]:
"this publication was reviewed by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...specifically] Kathi Head, N.D., Rita Bettenburg, N.D., Tim Birdsall, N.D., and Lori Kimatan, N.D. [...] all members of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] the AANP's mission [...is] to transform the health care system [...] by incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine [imprint...]";
so, the principles are that-which-they-seek-to-superimpose, and the book seems to represent a preponderance of 'AANP naturopath approval';
"Eric S. Jones, N.D., Dean, Naturopathic Medical Program, Bastyr University [...says] the information [...here on] natural-health [...] is presented from an objective perspective [...] if your goal is to be an informed, educated consumer [recommendations page...]";
the irony is killing me, that great "objective" claim upon this hugely subjective / beliefy stuff that they claim to accurately represent and actually educate about;
"the principles on which it's based and the methods it employs are much older, many dating to ancient times [...they're] time-tested [...] naturopathy operates on the basis of six principles of healing [...#1] the healing power of nature [HPN...] healing mechanisms in the body and mind [HMBM...] inherent healing systems [IHS...] the body's way to heal itself [BWHI...] the natural healing process [NHP...] the body's healing power [BHP...] naturopathic medicine is natural medicine [...using] a variety of treatments that are intended to work with the body's natural healing mechanisms [BNHM...p.294...]";
old / ancient doesn't mean correct, at all, and time-tested just means persistent, not scientific. So, there's HPN-HMBM-IHS-BWHI-NHP-BHP-BNHM, naturopathy's euphemisms for...
"[#5] naturopathic physicians share information with their patients [...] therapies used in naturopathy [p.295...include] homeopathy -- the science of homeopathy [...it] dovetails well with the naturopathic philosophy of the healing power of nature [see 260-264...] naturopathic medicine is, by no means, frozen in time [...] practitioners follow advances in science [...] as long as they are in keeping with the philosophy of naturopathy [p.297...] first two years of training are in basic medical science [p.299...]";
I wish they'd share the scientific fact that homeopathy is not a science! If science has ejected HPN and naturopathy is still there, then they ARE frozen in time. Science is helpful, apparently, provided it doesn't get in the way of science-ejected principles. I think it is obvious that science is subservient to their beliefs;
"oriental medicine: naturopathy has a great deal in common with oriental healing philosophies [...] the oriental concept of life force, or qi, and the naturopathic concept of the healing power of nature are similar in theory if not language [..] traditional Chinese medicine places primary emphasis on the balance of qi [...] or vital energy [...] this vital energy comprises two parts: yin and yang [p.346...] diagnosis aims to detect patterns of disharmony or imbalance in vital energy [...] treatment seeks to help individuals re-balance this vital energy [p.347...] vital energy, or qi, flows through certain pathways in the body called meridians [p.169...] the Chinese believe qi [...] or vital energy, is responsible for health, and that imbalances of qi results in illness. Acupuncture is used to correct the flow of qi [p.173...]";
and there it is, the science-ejected vitalistic that is the basis of the naturopathic.
this book is a great 'Rosetta Stone' to get at that-which-naturopathy-so-often-codes. This was published a year before I went to naturopathy school. Naturopathy at this time was stating that it is "science-based" and "not a belief system."
Friday, March 11, 2011
here, I cite from an article about naturopathy in Canada [see 001., below]:
001. hqyellowknife.com reports in "Should Naturopathy be Licensed Medicine in the NWT?" [saved 2011-03-11]:
"Yellowknife, N.W.T. [...] Glen Abernethy [...] MLA [...] said five provinces in Canada recognize naturopaths as medical professionals, and he wants the Health Dept. to start offering licenses to them in the NWT [...] naturopathy – a practice offering natural methods of treatment [...] 'these people that we're referring to, do take a significant amount of education [...] 'clearly we need to get them into regulation, which would protect their titles' [...] naturopathy – a practice offering natural methods of treatment the naturopaths can continue to practice here, but more work needs to be done before they can deemed 'doctors.'"
Note: yeah, here are some suggestions for the "work" that needs to be done for naturopathy:
figure out how to maintain the label "medical professional" when based on falsehood and not medically educated but naturopathically educated;
figure out how licensing falsehood helps the public;
figure out how to get "natural" methods that are without scientific merit and often are scientifically implausible legitimate;
educate naturopaths so that they understand that science does not contain the science-exterior;
figure out how protecting the titles of a false position is worthwhile.
Lots of work to be done.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
How the AMSA Loves Naturopathy - Enough to Promote Naturopathic Opacity and Have ND D'Adamo Speak at AMSA's 2011 Convention
here, I cite from the naturopathy promotion page of the American Medical Student Association [see 001., below]; then, from their promotional material which states that ND D'Adamo will speak at their 2011 convention [see 002., below]:
001. AMSA states in "Naturopathic Medicine" [saved 2011-03-10]:
"naturopathic medicine has as its basis the premise that the body has an innate intelligent force [IIF] capable of healing itself [coded vitalism] and our duty as physicians is to support that process by stimulating that force [coded vitalism...] naturopathic physicians (NDs) attend 4 year full-time residential medical schools and are primary care providers trained in conventional medical sciences [...] all licensed NDs must complete four years of graduate medical education at a school accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) and pass a two-step board examination (similar to USMLE Steps 1 and 2) [NPLEX]. Currently, 16 states, the District of Columbia and the US territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands have licensing laws for naturopathic doctors."
Note: now for some information. That IIF is a coding for the science-ejected idea of vitalism. There is no such force, scientifically speaking. It's nonsense. How do you stimulate a figmentation? Now, a science background is claimed for NDs, but isn't it a basic premise of science that you actually have EVIDENCE? Where is the evidence of this IIF figmentation? Aren't IQs dropping at the medical doctorate level! Without such evidence, but in still claiming such via science, naturopathy is a belief system falsely posing as scientifically based. The schools of the CNME in fact label the science-ejected science, on their own web pages. The exam labels same said. The oversight organizations at the '.gov' state level also perpetrate this falsehood. Why would AMSA want to be involved with this? Why doesn't AMSA state this actual context on their naturopathy web page, and instead is complicit in this manipulative opacity?
002. AMSA states in "Don't Miss Dr. D'Adamo at the Convention on Saturday, March 12 5pm!" [saved 2011-03-10]:
"[Rebecca Snowden posts] hello convention-goers! I want to take this moment to explain to you all a jewel that awaits you at Convention. Dr. Peter D'Adamo will be presenting on the implementation of holistic principles into modern medical practice [...via] personalized genomics [...] he is known to millions of readers worldwide for his New York Times bestselling Eat Right For Your Type [BTD] series of books, which detail the link between blood group polymorphisms, secretory variations in the gut, and their consequential use in nutritional and dietary optimization."
Note: regarding the BTD, the Mayo Clinic has this to say: "there's no sound scientific evidence that the so-called blood type diet is any more effective or any more beneficial for weight loss than is any other diet [...] there's no solid research evidence to support claims about a blood type diet." Time Magazine had this to say about D'Adamo's genotype diet: "if there's anything scientifically sound about any of this, we haven't seen the signs."
Great company AMSA keeps. Quite a jewel. I'd argue that a chief holistic / naturopathic principle is to label as science that which is not. Period. Be it vitalism, supernaturalism, the science-ejected, the science-unsupported, the science-exterior. D'Adamo is a Bastyr grad., and their motto is that within science is the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural. Enough said.
001. at the Times Colonist, D.M. Bell writes in "Naturopathic Doctors Can Keep Us Healthy" [saved 2011-03-10]:
"from my extensive personal and family experience, I can attest to the quality of the medical system's surgical and critical care interventions. But where this system falls down, and miserably so, is in its focus on disease rather than promoting health [...and is an] expensive specialist trap [...] naturopathy shines [...it stresses] prevention [...] naturopathic doctors are well trained [...] they're worth it - and so are we."
Note: I think the disease vs. health tactic is a false dichotomy. First, we'd have to decide what constitutes evidence: the archaic imaginary, or what modern science illuminates. Naturopathy has made-up reasons for disease that have no scientific support, like "toxicity" and warped vital forces. Yes, medicine may be expensive but that shouldn't open the door for naturopathic nonsense. Isn't it more expensive to pay for magic beans and unicorn tears overall? Naturopaths, in my experience, equate the science-ejected and the science-based, falsely label the whole thing science, and therein are NOT well trained or scientifically competent. That is not worth paying for, it doesn't even sound worth trying for free. It is nonsense, and nobody deserves that kind of false basis for their medical care if they have any self worth.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
NMD Stengler's ISBN 0735204446 2010 - Coded Vitalism, Huge Homeopathic Proponentry, the Erosion of Scientific Integrity
here, I cite from a recently updated book by California's NMD Stengler which opaquely states naturopathy's principles, and lauds homeopathy and its scientific basis [see 001., below]; then, I decode those principles using the NMD's alma mater and the State of Oregon [see 002., below]; and bust those homeopathic claims [see 003., below]:
001. Stengler, M. (NMD NCNM) states in "The Natural Physician's Healing Therapies" (ISBN 0735204446 and 9780735204447, 2010):
"I believe there are six principles of holistic health [these are naturopathy's principles...] they are [...#2] tap into the healing power of nature [coded vitalism...] I want you to know that the natural remedies and therapies in this book are proven [efficacy claim...he's a] homeopathic doctor [...] the practice of homeopathy is based on the science of 'like cures like' [...] many scientists have been baffled by the healing effects of homeopathy [...] the power of homeopathy [...] homeopathy has produced results that seem to defy expectation [...] homeopathy is one of the most fascinating and effective healing therapies [...] the amount of scientific evidence for natural remedies is more than ample to convince the skeptical person of potential benefits [not me, once you know what has happened to science in the naturopathic worldview / ideology]."
Note: the fact that Stengler is an NCNM grad. comes in handy [see 002., below]. The book is available at books.google.com for limited preview, and I own it through Kindle. It's basically a supplement-ailment index. There's nothing of substance / transparent said about 'the naturopathic' in terms of its principles. That is the typical opacity I find, though another naturopathic principle Stengler lists is, ironically, "your doctor is your teacher."
So, there's Stengler's equation of naturopathy with "holistic health", his coded vitalism, a claim of overall efficacy, homeopathy proponentry, and a science claim upon homeopathy and the like.
002. naturopathy according to NCNM and the State of Oregon:
002.a. NCNM, NMD Stengler's alma mater, states in "Principles of Healing":
"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...] the distinguishing marks of the profession [...] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [science-ejected vitalism]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [science-ejected vitalism] attempting to heal itself [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [some kind of institutionalized supernaturalism]."
Note: so much for scientific integrity, rationality, human rights, and logic unless, of course, science and what is science-exterior is the same thing, unless of course a sectarian article of faith that science has ejected is the same thing as that which is indeed scientific.
002.b. OBNM, which oversees NCNM and Oregon NDs, states in "Naturopathy":
"naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...] these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis. It is these principles that distinguish the profession [...] [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher."
Note: ditto. That "you should be CAREFUL" is an understatement. What has happened to science! Naturopathy, obviously, claims that that which is science-exterior -- the vitalistic, the supernatural and kind -- is in fact scientific. That's nonsense; that's false. Therein, a profession cannot be based on falsehood. Naturopathy is the complete destruction of scientific and professional integrity.
003. the truth about homeopathy, specifically:
Note: of course, NMD Stengler and his ND wife state "naturopathic medical education taught Dr. Stengler the same basic sciences studied by MD candidates". But, I don't see how naturopathy's idea of science is what preponderantly is known as science unless, of course, now science and nonscience are the same thing.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
here, I briefly cite from the AANP's blog [see 001., below]; then I decode their jargon [see 002., below]:
001. ND Alschuler writes in "Humility" on 2011-03-07 [saved 2011-03-07]:
"true humility - with each other, our patients and, yes, with disease, too – affords us the best opportunity to support the Vis and allow healing in."
Note: so, we're told nothing particular about "the Vis" in that post. Therefore, I'll elucidate.
002. the Vis is:
according to the same blog, the science-ejected belief known as vitalism, e.g. "are we not supposed to be naturopaths and is not our goal supposed to be to stimulate the vital force or the vis medicatrix naturae?" [saved 2011-03-08].
Monday, March 7, 2011
here, I cite from the naturopathy web page of the National Center For Complementary and Alternative Medicine [NCCAM] which does not accurately contextualize the science-ejected basis of naturopathy, still [see 001., below]; then, I provide some clarity [see 002. and 003., below]:
001. NCCAM writes in "Naturopathy: An Introduction" [saved 2011-03-07]:
"naturopathy [...aka] naturopathic medicine [...is] guided by a philosophy that emphasizes the healing power of nature [the coded science-ejected...] a central belief in naturopathy is that nature has a healing power (a principle practitioners call vis medicatrix naturae) [the coded science-ejected...] practitioners view their role as supporting the body’s inherent ability to maintain and restore health [the coded science-ejected...] the practice of naturopathy is based on principles that are similar to and consistent with the principles of primary care medicine as practiced by conventional physicians [bullshit, truly unless for both 'science and non-science are the same thing'...#5 is] healing power of nature [the coded science-ejected]. Seek to identify and remove obstacles to the body’s natural processes for maintaining and restoring health [the coded science-ejected...] some beliefs and approaches of naturopathic practitioners are not consistent with conventional medicine [duh! Ya think?], and their safety may not be supported by scientific evidence [not merely that, their beliefs' EXISTENCE isn't...] the NCCAM-funded Naturopathic Medical Research Agenda [...] brought together representatives from a broad range of scientific and clinical backgrounds to develop priorities for scientific exploration of naturopathic medical practices and principles."
Note: oh how the SLIME oozes from NCCAM across all that they attempt to discuss. I'd really like to be told THE TRUTH. I'd like a TRANSPARENT definition of 'the essentially naturopathic'. Because even the United Stated Federal Government won't provide such, I'll do so in 002., below. The public deserves transparency.
002. VMN as the science-ejected concept of vitalism, which is at the heart of naturopathy:
read this blog's other posts, I've talked about this simple fact TOO OFTEN. What essentially happens in the naturopathic mindset is that science is so loosely defined that it has lost any meaningfulness because with naturopathy, science is equated with the profoundly science-ejected. Science is a false label placed upon the essentially naturopathic and is used for the purpose of their gaining commerce unfairly and positioning their pseudoprofessionalism.
003. overall comment:
yes, Federal agencies spend tax dollars ludicrously scientifically investigating the profoundly science-ejected. It's akin to money being spent attempting to equate the number two with the number three. Oh, I'd love to know how NCCAM seeks to scientifically gird the supernatural and the vitalistic, both of which are hugely science-exterior [and the gap is only growing; just as something is not what it is not]. I'd love for NCCAM to inform the public that VMN means "life force" or "vital force" and that such is a sectarian science-ejected belief that has no medical relevance. I'd love to hear that naturopathy, as it is, is based on falsehood and that NCCAM has partnered with it.
Slime and further slime; the reversal of all values.
here, I cite from part of a complaint I've recently filed with the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] regarding misrepresentations of naturopathy within their USPS-mailed admissions material:
001. after receiving an admissions packet from Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences last month, I submitted this to the FTC:
"I'd like to bring your attention to a categorical misrepresentation that I've discovered as a consumer who is knowledgeable about what is & isn’t categorically science.
Recently, I requested & received admissions materials from Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences, a doctoral program that costs approximately $164,000 to complete, according to their figures.
The USPS-mailed paper-based admissions packet states:
'[SCNM is] a school of medicine and health sciences grounded in naturopathic principles […] the principles of naturopathic medicine are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually re-examined in light of scientific advances [...including] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN, that’s Latin for their quite science-ejected idea of vitalism...] the curriculum at SCNM, as in most medical programs, includes a strong foundation in biomedical sciences […] a licensed naturopathic doctor attends a four-year professional level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD.'
I’ve been studying naturopathy for 15 years, and I consider these labels of science upon the naturopathic nonscientific to be, as they obviously must be if we are not to evaporate into absurdity, FALSE.
I’m concerned that education consumers are being exploited. Citizens engage with schools like SCNM in good faith & such education consumers will be miseducated along the lines of what naturopathy falsely and irrationally claims: that science supports what is truly science-ejected, that what is science-based is the same thing as what is science-exterior. I’m also concerned that graduates will, by way of the example of their own alma mater, then feel that it is ethically and commercially acceptable to engage with the public using such false science labels.
Also, being quite familiar with the naturopathy scene, I know that SCNM has been making this false “science” claim [along with their mother organization and fellow schools] for quite some time (see http://web.archive.org/web/19990221212454/http://www.teleport.com/~aanp/alliance/main.html ).
I’m bothered by this situation because I’ve personally gone through a similar situation – 4 years in attendance from 1998-2002 at a different naturopathy doctoral program in Connecticut -- that categorically labels itself science (see http://www.bridgeport.edu/admissions/healthSciences/ ) yet is essentially based upon the truly science-exterior (see http://web.archive.org/web/20040405090645/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm )."
Note: but, this is nothing special. I've done it before, and I'll do it again.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
here, I cite from an article in the Chicago Tribune about homeopathy [see 001., below]:
001. Julie Deardorff reports in "Homeopathy Prospers Even as Controversy Rages" (2011-03-06) [my comments are in bold]:
"homeopathy [...is] scorned by scientists and most Western-trained doctors [...] the British Medical Association [...considers] any effect to be placebo [...and] activists have staged mass public 'overdose' events outside pharmacies to demonstrate there's literally nothing inside the small white pills [...] the final preparation no longer contains a single molecule of the original ingredient [...] Dr. Edzard Ernst, a longtime critic of homeopathy and professor of Complementary Medicine at Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter in the U.K. [...] calls homeopathy the 'worst example of faith-based medicine' [...] it's based on principles that defy the laws of chemistry and physics [...]";
This should be enough for any educated person to dismiss homeopathy, to a large extent.
"one U.S. group, meanwhile [the JREF], has offered $1 million to anyone who can prove homeopathy works and has challenged major drug retailers such as CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreens to stop selling the products [...]";
Go JREF, go JREF.
"few things rile scientific skeptics more than homeopathy [...] the practice has no known scientific basis. Most analyses have concluded there's no evidence it works any better than a sugar pill. Yet homeopathy hasn't just survived the years of scathing criticism; it's prospering [...]";
A sucker born every...
"Dr. Tim Fior, director of the Center for Integral Health in Lombard [...says] 'homeopathic medicines are so dilute that they work more according to a biophysical or energetic paradigm [...not the] molecular paradigm' [...]";
Enter the proponent with the pseudoscientific jargon...
"'it has been a big problem bringing science to homeopathy' said Dr. Josephine Briggs, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine [...]";
Of course, NCCAM hasn't ever, as far as I can recall, dismissed a sCAM based on a scientific consensus / preponderance -- such usually needs more study.
homeopathy is only a controversy if one thinks there's an actual contest between modern science and the reality it reveals, and archaic prescientific systems of thought. Is there a controversy about insanity and sanity? Is there a controversy about the world being round or flat? It seems flat as one walks around, just as placebo seems to be a specific effect, until one embraces the larger picture that evidence reveals. So, saying there's a controversy regarding homeopathy is akin to saying there's a controversy regarding the shape of the earth or about sanity and insanity, and that's absurd.
This is the kind of manufacturoversy / hyperbole that sells newspapers.
here, I cite from a recent British Columbia newspaper's not-very-knowledgeable piece on naturopathy and medicine [see 001., below]:
001. in "Time to Clarify Health Priorities" (2011-03-06), the Victoria Times Colonist states [my comments are in bold]:
"British Columbia has become the first province in Canada to let naturopaths write prescriptions [...] virtually the entire range of approved medications [...] essentially all pharmaceuticals [...and] naturopaths can use the title 'doctor' without having to give naturopathy as their field [...]";
That's deplorable, actually. Knowing what I know about modern medicine and naturopathic medicine, wouldn't it be NICE to be able to distinguish between someone held to a standard of care in the context of modern scientific knowledge and someone who has no standard of care and equates medicinal compounds with magic beans and unicorn tears? Naturopathy is not a field, by the way, it is a sectarian ideology centered around science-ejected ideas such as vitalism, supernaturalism, and physiological teleology plus it has incorporated many mundane medical ornamentations.
"the province's physicians are opposed. They believe overwhelmingly that naturopathy lacks a satisfactory evidence base, because many of its remedies have not been clinically tested. There are also concerns that the training program falls far short of a medical degree, both in depth of study and time allotted [...]";
That's an understatement. Actually, naturopathy's principles HAVE been tested and are SCIENCE-EJECTED. Do your homework before opining. Do you think their training falls short: no residencies of any consequence, equating things like homeopathy and Vega testing with effective medicine and useful diagnostics? Equating articles of faith the scientifically supported fact... And how about falling short ETHICALLY? How many NDs do you hear state this simple fact about naturopathy: naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected and medically irrelevant idea that physiology is controlled by a figment we call the vis medicatrix naturae / vital force. We treat this figment, first and foremost because it is the ultimate cause of illness and wellness." Not EVER have I read such a transparent statement in more than 15 years of studying naturopathy.
"there is a long history of physicians disparaging alternate approaches to medicine. Louis Pasteur was ridiculed for proposing the germ theory of disease [...]";
Ah, yes, they laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Bozo the Clown too, to quote Carl Sagan. Now, Galileo and Bozo are indistinguishable. Pasteur, of course, DID THE SCIENCE. He had the evidence. Naturopathy doesn't. E.g., show me the evidence for what naturopathy claims is within science: vitalism, supernaturalism. They don't have it, or they'd have Nobels. But they maintain the absurdist position that such is science, which inevitably places naturopathy in the penalty box known as pseudoscience.
"naturopathy emphasizes natural healing processes. It views mainstream medicine as a second-best solution [...]";
Actually, lets better contextualize naturopathy: naturopathy is based upon a science-ejected supernatural, teleological, and vitalistic concept that's certainly not naturalistic or natural, and it views scientific medicine as second-best because such does not include naturopathy's said sectarian principles.
"so long as the disorders being treated are aches and pains [...] chronic conditions [...] the idea of patient choice makes sense in such cases [...] when it comes to life-threatening ailments [...] the situation is different [...]";
How would a naturopath know what's what without adequate training and without adequate scientific integrity in their worldview? People don't show up in the clinical setting with "mild" and "chronic" tagged on them. How would a patient make a choice when NOT INFORMED PROPERLY? And without proper information, how can the patient then CONSENT?
"allowing naturopaths to write prescriptions will almost certainly increase the consumption of drugs in B.C. [...] the most rapidly expanding area of the health budget [...and] double-doctoring [...] and that is the real issue [...] every dollar [...] there are too many mouths to be fed [...]";
No, that's not the real issue. The actual issue is the erosion of scientific and professional standards. Another issue is the erosion of journalistic standards. Another is the way special interests can use the political process to gain status without putting up the goods while in fact -- scientific fact especially -- being absurd.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Colorado Naturopathy Licensure Is Permission to Practice "Non-scientific" Medicine -- Colorado Rep. Brown
here, I cite from a recent Summitdaily.com article regarding the failed 2011 AANP licensure attempt [see 001., below]; then, from a web page of the NDs interviewed in that article [see 002., below]:
001. Kathryn Corazzelli reports in "Summit County Naturopaths Fight for Recognition" [saved 2011-03-05]:
"this past Tuesday, a bill that would regulate naturopathic doctors in Colorado failed in a House Health and Environment Committee vote [sure did...] Dr. Kimberly Nearpass [...says] 'this is about public awareness and safety [...] there's no regulation in terms of public safety; there's no way for the public to know that their naturopathic doctor has any formal training [...] there's also no way to file a complaint with the state in terms of public protection [...] there's no board overseeing the licensable ND's in this state [...] we're looking for protection' [...] Nearpass and her husband Dr. Justin Pollack own the Mountain River Naturopathic Clinic [...] both [are] licensed to practice in Oregon [...] where the profession is regulated [...] Rep. J. Paul Brown, R-Durango, told the Colorado News Agency [...] 'it may be too soon to go down this path, formally authorizing a non-scientific practice'."
Note: the irony is killing me. They sure are looking for protection: their own. But, not the public's, in my view, because I agree with Rep. Brown that naturopathy is "non-scientific", overall. He gets it. I'm in no way, though, endorsing his political platform.
Nonscientific medicine, because it leads to dumb-assed ideas, practices, and eventually harm, indicates that naturopathic licensure would be AGAINST the best interest of the public. Their doctorates are "formal training" in nonsense, as the contents of the Oregon '.gov' board and the ND / NMD licensure exam indicates.
I don't see how such a board, in any state, could enforce / oversee naturopathy's nonsense. How do you violate the nonsensical principles which are naturopathy's standard of care; what do they accuse you of, making sense? Practicing actual scientific medicine? Being rational? Truly the reversal of all values.
002. ND Pollack [Bastyr 1999] and Nearpass [NCNM 2003] state, on their web page "Services" [vsc 2011-03-05]:
"our main treatment methods include: [...] constitutional homeopathy (very dilute substances that stimulate the body's vital force)."
Note: enough said, not science. Meanwhile, both Bastyr and NCNM -- their alma maters -- state that naturopathy IS science.