The Essentially Shifty Naturopathic via Cranio-Sacral Therapy: ND Mackler Decoded as a Key to ND Mackler Coded

here, I illustrate what naturopathy is essentially all about.  First, there is the opaque iteration of naturopathy that so usually codes its actual contents in what I'll call naturalistic language [see 001.a., below].  Then, there is the transparent iteration of naturopathy that provides naturopathy's full science-ejected context in full regalia [see 001.b., below].  What's interesting is that these versions are authored by the same NCNM ND who makes absurd and imaginary claims about cranio-sacral therapy [CST; see 002., below for criticism of CST]:

001. Mackler, J. (ND NCNM 2005) states:

001.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2012-02-07]:

"naturopathic physicians such as Dr. Mackler define themselves by their philosophy and principles [...] the principles of naturopathic medicine are: [#1] healing power of nature: the body has the inherent ability to maintain and restore health. The physician's role is to support and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm: illness is a natural process. Symptoms are the body's expression of that process [...] if you are interested in finding out more about our education please go to the National College of Naturopathic Medicine website at www.NCNM.edu [now known as National College of Natural Medicine]."

Note: and that's all you get from this ND's own web iteration of naturopathy's context.  But, she has written about that context differently / in more detail other-wheres [see 001.b., below].

001.b. in "Cranio-Sacral Therapy: Gentle but Profound Healing" [vsc 2012-02-07]:

"every living being is filled with a 'life force' [vitalism! she has more here] that affects all aspects of our health [really!].  Different healing traditions call this invigorating energy by different names.  Naturopathic physicians call it the 'vis medicatrix naturae,' which means 'the healing power of nature.' Chinese medicine practitioners call it the 'qi' (pronounced 'chee'), which is often translated simply as 'energy.'  No matter what you name it, this positive energy helps us to grow and thrive, as well as to fight infections and heal injuries [really!].  Cranio-sacral therapy [CST] accesses and balances that energy to assist you in optimizing your health. Cranio-sacral therapy is a gentle yet powerful [similar to naturopathy's claim that homeopathy is subtle yet powerful!] form of body work."

Note: so, there you go.  Opacity compared to transparency.  You can verify this iteration's context at NCNM's own definitions page.  Plus, look up this vitalism in relation to science and you will see that it is SCIENCE-EJECTED, yet naturopathy continues to claim an overarching science status.  I'm always intrigued as to why NDs don't usually put all their sectarian cards on the table when it comes to the beliefs they actually are all about.  They engage in evasion instead, most often. People say 'oh, they're natural' quite naively, but really, truly so often, 'they're science-ejected, sectarian, trained manipulators.'

002. regarding CST [quite a manipulation!]:

last year I posted about CST [excerpt]:

"the Craniosacral Therapy Association of the UK [...calls it] 'a subtle and profound healing form' [...] CST practitioners believe that they can 'listen with their hands' to up to three separate cranial rhythms [...] around the brain and spinal column and by doing so, diagnose a wide range of conditions — both physical and emotional and many of a serious medical nature [...then they treat] by [supposedly] gently manipulating the bones that make up the skull and sometimes the spine [...] to help to heal these conditions [...] what's the evidence? [...] the mechanism by which CST practitioners claim they can detect the rhythms of cerebrospinal fluid and by which they claim to influence the body into healing itself are biologically implausible [...and] no robust evidence has been produced that would validate these claimed mechanisms [...] there is no good evidence that CST is effective for any condition."

Note: something silly falsely claimed as diagnostic and efficacious = naturopathy.  When I was in ND school around 2000, I was first exposed to CST on campus at a regional naturopathic conference here in New England.  The patient's laid flat on their backs. The practitioner supported the head of the patient in the palms of their hands. To sum it up, I realized then that I was surrounded by a lot of idiots -- basically.

Friends of Science in Medicine versus Naturopathy: MacLennan @ABC, Dwyer @NYT

here, I cite from two recent articles on 'science, pseudoscience and naturopathy / alternative medicine'.  First, there's an Australian ABC radio interview [see 001., below]; then a New York Times article [see 002., below]:

001. Professor Alastair MacLennan [AM] stated [from which I have excerpted] on Australian ABC radio (2012-01-23) [saved 2012-02-05]:

Host: "[regarding] the diminishing of standards applied to the teaching of science in our universities [...] are we seeing nonevidence-based courses coming into our universities?"

AM: "yes, 19 of our 39 universities offer nonevidence-based health courses in things like naturopathy, iridology, homeopathy, chiropractic, energy medicine [...] none of these are truly evidence based.  They're basically based on myths and are potentially dangerous at times [...e.g. chiropractic's] mythical subluxations or the naturopath's are giving them [children and babies] herbal medicines for diagnoses that are mythical."

Host: "how can this be taught at a university?  Are these serious universities?"

AM: "they're not serious anymore [...they] are all teaching nonsense courses, pseudoscience courses that hugely undermine their credibility.  Why should these universities ever have science funding from the government if they're teaching nonsense? [...] we don't mind universities teaching critical thinking about alternative medicines but if that's a subterfuge to give them a degree to practice iridology or naturopathy  [...] then that's not a appropriate imprimatur to say they can go out and basically mistreat the public."

Host: "iridology [...] how has this infiltrated our universities, our places of evidence-based learning?"

AM: "all the universities are cash-strapped at the moment"  [sounds like unfair trade to me, principally about money!!!].

Host: "what are some of the dangers of people coming out of a university with a degree in iridology?"

AM: "well, they begin to dilute the health dollar [...with] false diagnoses and false treatments [...causing] harms [...such as] delay in diagnosis [...the] waste of health dollar [...] side effects [...realization] that these things are mostly placebos [...regarding FSM] we have now 400 members."  

Note: I am in agreement with AM.

ABC has an accompanying post up too, "Mumbo Jumbo Medicine in Our Universities" [vsc 2012-02-05] which states:

"a new group called 'Friends of Science in Medicine' [...] formed to address what they consider the 'diminishing of the standards applied to the teaching of science in our universities' [...] what they call 'pseudoscience'  [...aka] 'courses in the health care sciences that are not underpinned by convincing scientific evidence' [...aka] 'so-called complementary or alternative medicine masquerading as, and sitting side-by-side with, evidence-based health related science courses' [...] the practices, the Friends of Science in Medicine say, have no 'scientific principles based on experimental evidence' [...like] energy medicine, tactile healing, homeopathy, iridology, kinesiology, chiropractic, acupuncture and reflexology."

002. the New York Times states in "Australian Universities Defend Alternative-Medicine Teaching"(2012-02-06)[vsc 2012-02-05]:

"[as reported by Liz Gooch] Friends of Science in Medicine, a recently formed group that includes more than 400 prominent scientists, doctors, academics and consumer advocates from Australia and overseas [...] outlined their concerns about what they called the 'diminishing of the standards applied to the teaching of science in our universities' and 'the increased teaching of pseudoscience' [...of] 'courses in the health care sciences that are not underpinned by convincing scientific evidence'  [...aka] so-called ‘complementary or alternative medicine’ [...] courses like chiropractic, homeopathy, iridology and reflexology [...] 'we take the view that those universities involved in teaching pseudoscience [...] give such ideologies undeserved credibility, damage their academic standing and put the public at risk'  [...] John Dwyer, co-founder of Friends of Science in Medicine and an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales, said [...] 'for many of us, we’ve been concerned for a long time that in this most scientific of all ages, pseudoscience seems to be flourishing' [...] Mr. Dwyer said more than 50 scientists from Britain, the United States and Canada involved in similar efforts had expressed their support for the Australian group [...] David Colquhoun, a professor of pharmacology at University College London [...said] 'courses in alternative medicine are dishonest, they teach things that aren’t true, and things that are dangerous to patients in some cases.'"

Note: there is no mention of naturopathy in this NYT article!  Why does it get such a pass in North America?  But it's quite easy to find North American naturopathy web pages concerning homeopathy claimed as science, iridology claimed as science, and reflexology claimed as science.  In fact, NDs often call themselves the general practitioners of such alternative medicine.

003. some thoughts:

well, it's great to see this movement involving 'the truth about naturopathy' getting a head of steam.  I've been fascinated by the 'licensed falsehood' known as naturopathy for more than a decade.  In fact, this month is the ten-year anniversary marking when I QUIT naturopathy school here in Connecticut, USA.  Similar to what is currently happening in Australia, the school claims TO THIS DAY to be SCIENCE and yet the contents and the 'oathed-to' context is SCIENCE-EJECTED / NOT-SCIENCE.  I could say it is nice to be right, but I found all this out by being grossly financially harmed: false labels were used, lots of money was borrowed and that debt is with me for life, I was diverted etc.

I find the defense of these sCAMs quickly untenable: it is often the claim 'we are science' or minimally 'we've studied sciences'.  The letters-in-defense should be quite amusing.

Here's a quick little microcosm of naturopathy as I see it in North America: there's the overarching MARKETING and ACADEMIC claim and label of science-based versus the in-fact science-ejected beliefs and methods.

Changelog 2012-02-05 & ND Video

here, I summarize this week's additions to my public naturopathy database.  I also link to an ND video each changelog, and I quote from and tag the video in some detail:

001. added:

the vitalism of:

AANP's J. of Nat. Med. to Appendix B.04.b.,

AANP's FMP to Appendix B.02.;

the science claims of:

NDs Noe and Stadtmauer to Appendix I.05.L., ND Neal to Appendix I.05.L.,

NDs Novins and Torrance to Appendix I.05.L., ND Nguyen, K-D. to Appendix I.05.L.,

ND Nguyen, K. to Appendix I.05.L., ND Neubauer  to Appendix I.05.L.,

ND Neale to Appendix I.05.L., ND Marciano to Appendix I.05.k.,

NDs Murray and Pizzorno  to Appendix I.05.k.;

added the 'naturopathy is pseudoscience and quackery' claim of:

Asian Scientist to Appendix K.07.;

002. video of the week link [not to pun]:

the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors states in "Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors" that naturopathy is "science-based natural medicine" [vsc 2012-02-04]:

#sciencebased #naturopathy #Canada #naturalmedicine #primaryhealthcareprovider

#efficacyclaim #nonpharmaceuticalclaim #www.cand.ca 

Note: for 'compositional accuracy', so to speak, here's a CAND member's web page -- ND Lee of CCNM no less -- who practices "iridology" and tells us "Jason was also the class valedictorian for McMaster University’s graduating science class of 1999." So, within this so-called science-based domain of CAND naturopathy lies....iridology.

Lies, lies, lies: iridology, which is hugely BUNK.  This is too easy.  What went wrong here in terms of regulation, education, and consumer protection?

Huge Naturopathic Science Claim: 2012's "Textbook of Natural Medicine 4th Edition" (ISBN 1437723330 , 9781437723335 )

here, I cite from the product descriptions at Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble for the future edition of naturopathy's "Textbook of Natural Medicine" which has been so rife with NATUROPATHILLOGICALITY in earlier editions that, really, I'm salivating thinking of what further absurdity / irrationality has been conjured up:

001. Amazon.com states in "Textbook of Natural Medicine, 4e [Hardcover]" (ISBN 1437723330 , 9781437723335 ) [vsc 2012-01-31]:

"more than 10,000 research literature citations show that the content is based on science rather than opinions or anecdotes [...] coverage of the philosophy of natural medicine includes its history and background, with discussions of toxicity, detoxification, and scientific documentation of the healing actions of nature and natural substances [...] a scientific presentation [that] includes the science behind concepts and treatments [...] a comprehensive, scientific treatment plan [...] evidence-based coverage of diseases and conditions to help you make accurate diagnoses and provide effective therapy [...] in-depth, evidence-based coverage of 73 diseases and conditions includes key diagnostic criteria, pathophysiology of diseases, and therapeutic rationales [...] diagnostic procedures include practical, easy-to-follow descriptions of evidence-based techniques";

Note: science, science, science.  And, of course, within all this, are naturopathy's "common therapeutic modalities [...like] acupuncture, homeopathy." I have the book on preorder for May.  Looking forward to exposing MORE of the naturopathic nonsense that is so ABUNDANT within the second and third editions of this book.

002. Barnes and Noble states in "Textbook of Natural Medicine / Edition 4" [vsc 2012-01-31]:

"covers in-depth, evidence-based natural medicine approaches [...like] ayurveda [...] colon therapy [...] homeopathy [...and speaks of the] scientific basis of acupuncture";

Note: the publisher is, we're specifically told, "Elsevier Health Sciences."

Changelog 2012-01-28 & ND Video

here, I summarize this week's additions to my public naturopathy database.  I've also decided to link to an ND's video each changelog, to quote from, and to tag the video in some detail:

001. added:

the vitalism of:

NDs Henson and Panych to Appendix B.05.i.c.02.,

ND Hughes to Appendix B.05.i.c.03.,

ND Camilleri to Appendix B.05.i.bb01.,

ND Cheng-Kai-On and ND Kim to Appendix B.05.i.bb02.;

the science claims of:

ND Ingels to Appendix I.05.h.,

ND Zampieron to Appendix I.05.p.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claim of:

Kwok, S. to Appendix C.06.c.;

the 'naturopathy is pseudoscience and quackery' claim of:

telegraph.co.uk to Appendix K.07.,

melbourneweekly.com.au to Appendix K.07.,

medscape.com to Appendix K.07.;

002. video of the week link [not to pun]:

ND Hughes of British Columbia, Canada.
.

(for a bio., click here, http://www.mapleridge-naturopathic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=97).

.

.

#meridiancharts #intravenous #supplements #annecdotes #naturopathicphysician#rheumatology #phlebotomy #holistic #primarycare #chakracharts #balance #mindbodymedicine#stress #mentalemotionalcausesofdisease #sphgmomanometer #stethoscope #doctorasteacher #answertoallills #idealism #emptypromises

(from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaYH-pt5D0U)[vsc 2012-01-27]

his most disturbing promise: "my job is to allow people to be their own best doctors so they can be healthy for the rest of their lives" 

[quite a promise!  implied: you got sick not because this ND didn't have the answers, but because you didn't learn from my teachings and do the right things.  Reality: the body fails, eventually, of a specific illness / failure of function].

(for his list of the diseases he treats, click here, http://www.mapleridge-naturopathic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=82)

(for his claim of homeopathy efficacy, click here, http://www.mapleridge-naturopathic.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=89)

Changelog 2012-01-22

added the vitalism of:

ND Mead to Appendix B.05.i.d.03.,

added biographical links to Appendix B.05.i.d.03.,

ND Mercer and ND O'Brien to Appendix B.05.i.d.03.,

ND Haynes & ND Penney & ND Pierceto Appendix B.05.i.c.02.,

ND Hornyak to Appendix B.05.i.c.03.,

ND Vojtisek to Appendix B.05.i.L.,

the journal Naturopathic Doctor News & Review to Appendix B.04.b.;

added the science claims of:

ND Ney to Appendix I.05.L.,

ND Nguyen, R.H. to Appendix I.05.L.,

ND Vuksinic to Appendix I.05.p.,

ND Vacher to Appendix I.05.p.,

ND von Schneidau to Appendix I.05.p.,

ND Vagias to Appendix I.05.p.;

Pennsylvania Naturopathy's HB 1717 Naturopathic Licensure - Take Action Now 2012

here, I quote from a recent email I got from the AANP ND organization in Pennsylvania [see 001., below]; then, some ND examples from PA [see 002., below]:

001. PANP tells me in an email titled "Support HB 1717 Naturopathic Licensure in PA" (2012-01-18):

"all Pennsylvanians deserve access to safe, responsible, qualified healthcare providers. Let your legislators know that you feel it is important to license naturopathic physicians this year! We will need you to sign and ask as many Pennsylvanians as you know to do so as well. There is a public hearing Thursday January 19 in the licensure committee on this bill.  Thanks in advance for your help!"

Note: the irony is killing me.  Hmmm.  Seems like they believe that licensure of NDs leads to GOOD things.

002. PANP examples [the bad things that NDs do, really] / PANP state in:

002.a. "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

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

Note: such a science, science, science claim upon the naturopathic domain!!!

002.b. "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2012-01-20]:

"[a page with the root 'scien' on it three times'] many illnesses, both acute and chronic, can be effectively treated using natural techniques, some of which may include [...] homeopathy is a powerful system of medicine that is more than 200 years old. This medical system uses highly diluted substances to cure illness. Homeopathic remedies act to enhance the body's innate immune response."

Note: wow, homeopathy!

003. in sum:

I have often stated that licensure of naturopathy leads to licensed falsehood. This idea of science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy is absurd.  Science has truly annihilated homeopathy as efficacious.  But, in licensing naturopathy, what happens is:

"science" can be the science-ejected, the inert is now powerful [homeopathy as an example], truth is now falsehood, what is "safe, responsible and qualified" is now bogus, predatory, and whackaloon.  

It would be very interesting to contact who is sponsoring the bill.  Take action!!!

The 2012 Excellent Demise of UK Naturopathy, and My Ten Year US Anniversary

here, I cite from reports of the annihilation of public funding for UK naturopathy pseudoscience education [see 001., below]; and then, I recount my personal US naturopathy experience here in Connecticut, a land of licensed falsehood [see 002., below]:

001. UK funding for 'science degrees in the naturopathic' has ended, as reported:

001.a. by Lars Bevanger at Deutsche Welle in "UK Universities Drop Alternative Medicine Degree Programs" [vsc 2012-01-19](2012-01-18) which states:

"as of just a few years ago, there were 45 different degree possibilities across UK universities in what nearly all mainstream scientists would call pseudoscience like homeopathy, naturopathy and reflexology [...] starting this year, it will no longer be possible to receive a degree from a publicly-funded British university in areas of 'alternative medicine,' including homeopathy, naturopathy, and reflexology [...] until last year, students at Salford University in Manchester could take a bachelor of science degree in homeopathy, Chinese medicine or acupuncture - all disciplines regarded as non-scientific in the wider science community [...and as] 'quackery' [...] last year, both the British and German governments called for a halt to public funding of homeopathy [...] nearly all scientists dismiss this and other alternative medicines like acupuncture and chiropractic as unscientific [...] 'they're dishonest, they teach things that aren't true, and things that are dangerous to patients in some cases,' said David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College London, who has led the charge to shut down these programs [...] 'there'd be nothing wrong with teaching about acupuncture or chiropractic or homeopathy as quaint things that people used to believe before we knew better,' he said. 'But these are being taught to kids so that they can go out and treat patients as though if it was all true. And this is a terrible situation for a university to be in' [TRULY!...] five years ago, he started campaigning to close what he calls university courses in 'quackery.' Since then, 21 out of a total of 45 courses across six UK universities have been shut down [...] the overwhelming majority of such treatments have not shown that they actually work' [...] said Edzard Ernst, a [former] professor of complimentary medicine at the University of Exeter [...] 'homeopathy has to be taught in such a way that nobody would ever dream of practicing homeopathy because it is not supported by clinical evidence - and therefore academically speaking you cannot support it'."

Note: excellent.  Meanwhile, in the Dodge City / Wild West region known as North America, the naturopathy apparatus -- engaging in what I call licensed falsehood, unfair trade, and mindfucking -- quite blatantly uses labels such as 'homeopathy is a clinical science that is powerful' and 'naturopathy is science based' and 'reflexology is a science'.

002.b. by David Colquhoun actual, in "The Demise of Quackademia: Progress in the Last 5 Years Leaves Michael Driscoll and Geoffrey Petts Isolated" (2012-01-01) which states:

"if you try to put science into homeopathy or naturopathy, the whole subject vanishes in a puff of smoke [agreed!!!...] since writing about [such] anti-scientific degrees in Nature (March 2007), much has been revealed about the nonsense that is taught on these degrees [...] degrees in homeopathy, naturopathy and 'nutritional therapy', reflexology and aromatherapy have vanished altogether from UCAS [...] for many years, Westminster was the biggest supplier of BSc degrees in quackery. [E.g.] at the beginning of 2007 they offered 14 different BSc degrees in homeopathy, naturopathy, nutritional therapy, 'complementary therapies', (western) herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine with acupuncture."

Note: again, excellent.

002. well, an anniversary of sorts:

002.a. a recounting, from Rob Cullen actual:

in the mid 1990s, I'd read the literature of the naturopathy colleges here in the US and began working on prerequisites to attend [sent by USPS, by the way]. They used and still use such labels upon naturopathy as "science-based" and 'same scientific foundation' and 'not a belief system'.  I began attending the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1998 -- which they MARKET as within a "science" division -- and stayed in that program until 2002.  Along the way, I got to know the 'essentially naturopathic' and found it ethically heinous.  Particularly, naturopathy requires homeopathy to graduate and for its licensure exam and QUITE FALSELY labels homeopathy "science".  So, I stopped the program and I can honestly say this: what a pile of bullshit.  I never took the naturopathy oath, I never gained my ND, and never sat for that so false piece of crap called the NPLEX.  Derailed, I decided to publicise what I knew about naturopathy and this continues to this day.  I'm sad that the UK has such higher science standards than the US.  I'm also sad that student rights do not exist in the US.  I've watched the North American naturopathy racket grow, instead, and victimize people more and more with its academic and clinical false commerce.  I see I was right, back in 2002, with 10 years of distance and these great developments from the UK.  Of course, what I'm recounting in this blog isn't merely my opinion: it is directly stated most often in the words of the naturopathillogicalists [trademark Rob Cullen], and top-tier scientists.  Where is the legislation to protect the public from such sectarian predation?  And to compensate the harmed who are victimized financially and whatnot by crap-that-pretends-not-to-be-crap?  My whistle-blowing will continue.

The Applied Kinesiology of NUHS.edu 2012

here, I detail the bunk diagnostic known as applied kinesiology [AK] at National University of Health Sciences [NUHS]:

001. at NUHS, we're told:

001.a. in "Clubs and Organizations" [vsc 2012-01-16]:

"professional development and networking practice your skills with [...the] Applied Kinesiology Club [...] to contact a club or for more information, call the Office of Student Services at 630-889-6541 or email studentservices@nuhs.edu";

001.b. "Bulletin 2011-2012" [vsc 2012-01-16]:

"activities and organizations [...] Applied Kinesiology Club [...] Elective Course Descriptions [...] EL1100 Applied Kinesiology: A Survey Course Credits 1.0 This survey course focuses on the procedures used in the practice of, and its relationship to health care outcomes of Applied Kinesiology (AK). Students will also explore the literature involved in AK in order to broaden their understanding of the issues in the field. Students will be exposed to the history of AK and to the description of mechanics of neurology. This material will be presented in discussion and lecture. Prerequisite: None";

Note: and in that school catalog, the root "scien" occurs 691 times!

001.c. in "About Us - Our Faculty" [vsc 2012-01-16]:

"Terese Black, DC [...] is certified in acupuncture and applied kinesiology";

002. the National Applied Kinesiology Club web page states [their Facebook page is here]:

002.a. in "National Applied Kinesiology Club: What is AK?" [vsc 2012-01-16]:

"applied kinesiology (AK) is a form of diagnosis using muscle testing as a primary feedback mechanism to examine how a person's body is functioning. When properly applied, the outcome of an AK diagnosis will determine the best form of therapy for the patient [...] AK draws together the core elements of many complementary therapies [...like] joint manipulation or mobilization [...] myofascial therapies, cranial techniques, meridian therapy, clinical nutrition, dietary management and various reflex procedures [...] the determination of your need for dietary supplements requires knowledge of your symptoms along with an examination for known physical signs of imbalances and a dietary history. Blood, urine, saliva or stool analyses may be added [...] it takes hundreds of hours of study and years of practice to perfect the multitude of diagnostic techniques that have been developed in AK [...] applied kinesiology is only taught to persons licensed to diagnose in the health care field [...] the International College of Applied Kinesiology and the courses offered by the College are only open to those individuals who are health care practitioners, licensed to diagnose, or students enrolled in an accredited college program who, upon completion, will be granted a license to diagnose";

Note: diagnose, diagnose, diagnose.

002.b. in "National Applied Kinesiology Club: Applied Kinesiology Fundamentals Course" [vsc 2012-01-16]:

"this practical series is designed to introduce students and practicing physicians to applied kinesiology principles with hands-on workshops.  No previous AK knowledge is required [...] the advanced diagnostic system of applied kinesiology fundamentals can be used to evaluate the efficacy of any and all healing systems [...] Allan Zatkin, DC, DIBAK: Dr. Zatkin has been in practice for over 23 years and teaching AK since 1987.  Dr. Zatkin has been in practice with the founder and developer of applied kinesiology, Dr. George Goodheart, since 1985.  His step-by-step approach makes the basic AK fundamentals easily understood and applicable [...] location: National University of Health Sciences 200 East Roosevelt Rd, Lombard IL 60148¨ Janse Hall Room 139(630)889-6702 [...] registration [cost...] 1st time student $135 [...] repeat student $85";

Note: diagnostic again, and not a cheap club to be a part of.

003. some scientific skeptical analysis:

003.a. the Wikipedia article "Applied Kinesiology" [2012-01-16] states:

"nearly all AK tests are subjective, relying solely on practitioner assessment of muscle response [...] some studies have shown test-retest reliability, inter-tester reliability, and accuracy to have no better than chance correlations [...] skeptics have also dismissed AK as 'quackery,' 'magical thinking,' and a misinterpretation of the ideomotor effect. It has also been criticized on theoretical and empirical grounds, and characterized as pseudoscience [...] a review of peer-reviewed studies concluded that the 'evidence to date does not support the use of [AK] for the diagnosis of organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions'";

Note: oh snap.  Diagnostically, AK is bunk, apparently.  I do not participate in any Wikipedia editing, by the way, not even the entry on naturopathy.

003.b. Quackwatch states in "Applied Kinesiology: Phony Muscle-Testing for 'Allergies'and 'Nutrient Deficiencies'":

"applied kinesiology (AK) is the term most commonly used to identify a pseudoscientific system of muscle-testing and therapy [...] the concepts of applied kinesiology do not conform to scientific facts about the causes or treatment of disease";

Note: and there you go.  NUHS claims science subset AK, in my opinion.  And quite hugely AK is regarded as bunk, preponderantly. The Skeptic's Dictionary has a nice entry on the ideomotor effect and an entry on AK.

Changelog 2012-01-15:

added:

the vitalism of:

-ND Habib to Appendix B.05.i.c.02.;

-ND Hubbs to Appendix B.05.i.c.03.;

-ND Epstein to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

-ND Fry to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

-ND Franzoni to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

-ND Frketich to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

-NDs Gerber and Schenck to Appendix B.05.i.c.00.;

-ND Godby to Appendix B.05.i.c.00.;

-added biography links and video screen captured
various archive.org links to Appendix B.05.i.c.00.;

the science claims of:

-NDs Liu and Morrison to Appendix I.05.j.;

-video screen captured archive.org links 

of ND Lee, J. and added more of his amusing

and bizzare science claiming to Appendix I.05.j.;

-ND Shegeft to Appendix I.05.o.;

-ND Selassie to Appendix I.05.o.;

-ND Scurtu to Appendix I.05.o.;

-ND Schnurr to Appendix I.05.o..

[and the absurdity of 'science-ejected science' = naturopathy marches on 

academically and commercially].

Good Bye New York Times

some thoughts:

001. so, before a bunch of Conservative whackaloons decide that what I'm saying supports their crappola [somebody say FOX NEWS], I'm not voluntarily cancelling my NYT web access:

it's just that the NYT has erected a paywall on my account.  Now, I read the NYT much more often than several times a day -- I am an old-time liberal and slight radical grounded in the 'reality-based fact set'.  I think it's great that the NYT has a science section separate from a technology section.  But, unfortunately, I will not pay something like $35 a month to read it directly now that I am blocked from reading NYT stuff as much as I want throughout the day.

002. likely, if articles show up on news.google.com, I'll be able to read the content.  But, as a born-New Yorker, the NYT has been my go-to source for decades of my life.

Note: I'm grateful that the NYT gave me a free year of web subscription before all of this just happened today. But, in this economy, I'M NOT PAYING.

so, therein, I'm changing my browser home page from the NYT homepage to the news.google.com homepage [I don't believe in teasing myself with thing I can't read on my PC, phone, or Kindle Fire - all of which I use in a day].

I wish NYT the best, in this tough era of 'old media' versus 'new media.'  I really hope they keep up their very astute reporting.

and, therein, my patience being thinned out to an extreme: sayonnara, 'southern Yankee break my heart...'.

I regret that the 'paper' couldn't get an advertising revenue stream to accommodate my usage of their resources.

---

Robin Gibb, Cancer and Naturopathy - Via Orac 2012

here, I excerpt, and direct to the source post:

000. at Respectful Insolence, Orac writes in "Naturopaths vs. Stayin' Alive" (2012-01-12):

"what irritates me about this article is not so much that Gibb is undergoing naturopathic treatment. He's dying; he's desperate; he has a wife is is, to put it kindly, very prone to woo. What would be amazing is if he managed to stick to science-based treatment for palliation. He's also incredibly wealthy; so the usual complaint of quacks sucking down the last money of a dying man doesn't apply as much as it usually does. And, make no mistake, 'naturopathic oncology' is quackery, just as naturopathy is [...e.g.]  homeopathy is part and parcel of naturopathy [AND I'll add falsely labeled science by that whole shebang...and] there is no quackery that naturopaths don't embrace[agreed].  'Energy healing,' 'detox' woo, unscientific use of supplements, these are just a few of the sorts of pseudoscience naturopaths embrace enthusiastically. What irritates me is the typical reporter lazily buying into the spin that naturopaths put on their quackery that 'good nutrition' can stimulate the body's natural ability to heal itself, even to the point of healing an advanced malignancy [a dangerous and quite abusive absurdity...]contrary to what proponents of 'natural healing' tell us, eating the 'right' diet is no guarantee that you won't get cancer [...and] having a posse of naturopaths plying Gibb with their quackery isn't helping matters. We can only hope that it doesn't actually hasten his end."

Note: what I also am struck by is how obvious naturopathy is all the things highlighted above, and yet how false the North American naturopathy apparatus is in labeling and trading upon its absurd marketing label of "science-based natural medicine".  The unfair trade, if that's the right word [I prefer racketeering myself], I'll guess, has amounted into the hundreds of millions of dollars so far.  The whole post is up at the above link.

Changelog 2012-01-08:

I've decided to periodically list what changes I've made to these Blogger pages about naturopathy:

-added the vitalism of:

ND Walker to Appendix B.05.i.L.; ND Tam to Appendix B.05.i.k.;

ND Sandstrom to that of ND Knickrehm to Appendix B.05.i.c.05.;

-added the science claims of:

ND Godby, ND Groenewoud & ND Matsen,

ND Grobe, ND Gaul, ND Gatis to Appendix I.05.f.;

-changed the by-line of Naturocrit to include the term "naturopathic pathillogical".

My Naturopathillogic Invention: How the NaturoPATHic PATHillogical Came to Be a New Naturocrit Label

here's a short rundown of this wordsmithing I couldn't help but do: 

I've exposure to naturopathy since the early nineties, when there was only 2 schools, Bastyr and NCNM.

A sample AANP document I'd read, of a web site they had at the time which no longer is active on the web but is permanently archived 

(see http://web.archive.org/web/19990221212454/http://www.teleport.com/~aanp/alliance/main.html)

labeled naturopathy "science" and "not a belief system".

Well, ultimately, there are central components to the essentially naturopathic which are not-science and quite 'of-belief'.

And therein is the 'illogic': science that is not science, 'not beliefs' which actually are beliefs.

In states where they are licensed I term this 'licensed falsehood'.
 
I've watch the whole thing grow, like an epidemic: therein, the 'path'.

Thus, the naturopathillogic.

Research continues to support this simple fact: there is quite a pattern of overt false labeling or covert coding of naturopathy's contents, and the misinformation MO of naturopathy continues to this day.

There are thousands of naturopathic web pages I've indexed and archived belonging to individuals, institutions & governments documenting this falsely labeled commerce in North America and abroad. 

There are scores of books, too: particularly the Textbook of Natural Medicine 

(see http://www.naturalmedtext.com/storedfiles/sample_Chapter%203%20-%20A%20Hierarchy%20of%20Healing%20-%20The%20Therapeutic%20Order.pdf?CFID=1001876&CFTOKEN=10594692)[vsc 2012-01-08]

Yes, live on the web right now: labeling naturopathy "science-based natural medicine" subset science-ejected "vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the
healing power of nature" and supernatural "humans are spiritual beings" and the lovely fake therapy known as homeopathy which they label BRILLIANT.


So, therein: science now contains nonscience, supernatural beliefs are no longer beliefy, physiology is run by a mystical-immeasurable 'underlying' energy or force hugely science-ejected but under their banner of science-based, and QUITE empty pills are lauded.


I've often labeled such nonsensical blending of knowledge types epistemic conflation.


I've sometimes labeled the whole thing mindfucking.

There's also all the schools' literature I've received [and libraries and undergraduate institutions have received] over the years through the US Postal Service.