Changelog 2012-04-29 and ND Video:

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

001. added:

the vitalism of:

ndhealthfacts.org whose ND/NMD editors and advisers include:

ND Iva Lloyd, ND Joseph E. Pizzorno, ND David Lescheid,

ND Paul Saunders,ND Nadia Bakir, ND Heidi Fritz,

ND Catherine Darley, ND Katherine Neubauer, ND Heidi Kussmann

to Appendix B.02.;

ND Deville, ND D'Souza, ND Derry, 

ND DeLuca, ND Dashiell

to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

[updated] Honeycutt and Milliken

(ISBN 1435486609, 9781435486607; 2011)
to Appendix B.06.b.;

alt. med. overall per New York Times 1996
to Appendix B.07.iii.;

Dye, Fassa to Appendix B.06.ab.;

ND Albano, ND Barry-Dignard, ND Hauk, and ND Singh;
ND Ayoubzadeh;

ND Ayoubzadeh and ND Chaumont

to Appendix B.05.i.a.02.;

the science claim of:

ND Abell to Appendix I.05.a.;

ND Stevens, J.; NMD Steriti, R.

to Appendix I.05.o.;

the Alaska Association of Naturopathic Physicians

to Appendix I.03.;

ND Youngren, ND Young, W.,
ND Young, J.R.,
    ND Yarish, M., ND Yik
    to Appendix I.05.p.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claim of:

[edited] Yockey, H.P. 

to Appendix C.06.e.;

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

Krier, C.A. (ND Bastyr 2003) [bio here] states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2012-04-23; my comments are in unquoted bold; the excerpts are out-of-order from the original video]:
.

.

"[the title asks] ‘What is Naturopathic Medicine?’ [via] Chad Krier, N.D., D.C. [aka here CK, to what appears to be a very gray audience…CK speaking] welcome to the naturopathic medicine lecture [...]";

and this ND's explanation of naturopathy, I promise, is very misleading in this sense: so much is left out.

"[he speaks of] allopathic institutions [...and] allopathic training […and] allopathic medicine [as conventional medicine…and] a paradigm shift [...]";

well, to label modern medicine allopathic is akin to labeling modern astronomy astrology [etc.] -- completely wrong.  If a paradigm is defined as "a system of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality" [from here], then I'll go for the idea that naturopathy has a particular paradigm. First on its list of 'ways' is to mislabel modern medicine!

"[CK says] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP...] definition of naturopathic medicine is quite involved [...and reading from a slide] a distinct system of primary health care; an art, science, philosophy and practice of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of illness [...]";

right away there's something also obvious about 'the naturopathic paradigm', it is oxymoronic! Naturopathy is claimed as distinct, yet as we will see, ND Krier does not distinctly entail naturopathy's true context: that which is labeled explicitly as science, while containing actually nonscience.  So, it is distinct but it blends.

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice; these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances [...]";

ah, one of my favorite of all naturopathy falsehoods: the 'these ideas survive scientific scrutiny, continuously' bullshit position.  Suffice it to say, naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism is in no way able to survive scientific scrutiny [nor it's supernaturalism] and therein is in no way 'objectively observed.'  How does one scientifically and objectively observe a figmentation [a vital force, spirits etc.]?  Naturopaths have missed out on a quite more-than-100-years-old scientific methodological truth: if it's not ascribed by EVIDENCE [like figmentations] then it's not science. 

"[new slide concerning NDs'] basic and clinical science […Bastyr] 1639 […] Yale = 1383 [...]";

so, there's what I call the 'naturopathy superscience claim'.  But what's the LOGIC in ever claiming actual science, like such quantitatively, when within "science" for naturopathy is obviously nonscience, qualitatively.

"[and he adds] every couple of years or so, the AANP will get together and come up with new principles based upon the new scientific advances that they discover [...]";

really? I can't think of ANYTHING that naturopathy has scientifically discovered.  Really.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but of the stuff inside their muddle that is actually supported by science [say like basic physiology], those things are not naturopathic, they are, parsimoniously, physiology.  And, by the way, the claim that scientifically speaking there is a life force and a spirit within you is not a discovery...such are figmentations falsely posed as scientific.  Such are falsehoods.

"[slide] what makes naturopaths so different than other doctors? […and he adds] namely it’s the principles and the treatments that we use […include on the slide] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN …] the healing power of nature is the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restore health.  It is the physician’s role to support, facilitate and augment this process […] one of the primary principles of naturopathic medicine, ‘vis medicatrix naturae’ ‘the healing power of nature […]";

so, HPN-VMN!  Presented in language that does not do the idea justice!  This is a coding for the idea that physiology is run by a "life force" and here it is 'in the flesh' at Bastyr, ND Krier's alma mater, in their 2001 catalog: [archived: notice, the course is TITLED "NM5136 The Vis Medicatrix Naturae: naturopathic medicine’s core clinical principle, the vis medicatrix naturae [...] the vital or life force. The course introduces the clinical application of techniques to restore health, prevent illness and optimize wellness by respecting and augmenting the vis medicatrix naturae. These techniques include water as living energy, chronobiological research and healing cycles, the vis medicatrix naturae in relationship and the healing power of prayer].  So, part of the naturopathic paradigm is, in my opinion [here as shown before a room of senior citizens, apparently], DECEPTION and absurdity posed as edification and scientific fact.  What is 'water as living energy' anyway?  No idea, it sounds BIZARRE.  I'd think too that when "life force" figmentations are posed as scientific facts, one would have to be doing a lot of praying [that the curtain isn't drawn back and the ruse is discovered].  And by the way, on that same archived page is this language: "the vitalistic context of science-based, modern naturopathic medicine is emphasized." Loving the absurdity of it all.

"[we're told] a principle objective of naturopathic medicine is to educate the patient […]";

not sure how that's going to happen with any quality if the institution that educates the ND educator conflates science and the science-ejected, and trains the ND to pose naturopathy similarly.

"licensing […] as a protective measure [..] to prevent putting the public as risk."

ah, licensed falsehood marches on: both clinically and academically.  Is there a bigger racket?

I'm in Complete Agreement: "NDs Do Not Practice Scientific Medicine" @Rosemary's

here, I cite from a 2012 criticism of naturopathy, and provide a web-search example:

Rosemary's Medical Blog writes in "Naturopaths Terrify Me. NDs Do Not Practice Scientific Medicine"(2012-04-26):

"patients beware! NDs are not MDs. No matter what they claim, naturopaths do not practice scientific or evidence-based medicine. No scientist would routinely use, promote or sell untested products or make claims about the safety and efficacy of untested products. Anyone who does that, as NDs routinely do, either doesn’t know diddle about science or is lying when he claims that he practices scientific medicine [...] with today’s NDs it is not a problem of incompetent individual practitioners. It is a problem with the entire profession. Naturopathy is a belief-based system of medicine, not an evidence-based or scientific one and the State of Vermont is giving NDs the same privileges that MDs have. This is terrifying. This is dangerous. It is also highly deceptive."

Note: hear, hear. And here's an example, via a simple google.com search:

a) searching via "naturopathic "with all other branches of medical science"" [without the exterior quotes], today's first-page FIRST result is Alaska's ND Laughlin (SCNM) and ND Del Alba's (SCNM) "Our Services" [vsc 2012-04-27] with such therapeutic jewels as:

"acupuncture [...] homeopathics [...] craniosacral [...] detoxification therapy, NAET treatments, colon hydrotherapy, flower remedies."

And we are promised:

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

and all the while, the empty remedies of homeopathy are claimed to be "particularly effective", and acupuncture is "recognized all over the world for its effectiveness in treating a wide variety of ailments", and flower remedies are posed as "safe, effective and gentle",  hydrotherapy are posed as "effective for treating a wide range of conditions", 

and of course, in that vein of naturopathic coding of their essential science-ejected context, we're told:

 "the principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae.  Naturopathic physicians prefer noninvasive treatments which minimize the risks of harmful side-effects. They are trained to know which patients they can treat safely and which they need to refer to other health care practitioners."  And that's all you get.  When this is what it REALLY is, a vitalistic science-ejected belief system posing as scientific.

this is of the holistic & naturopathic: nonsense, a ruse / deception.  And, by the way, licensed falsehood.  And simple to show.

Changelog 2012-04-22 and ND Video:

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

001. added:

the science claims of:

AANMC at the Foundation for Alternative and Integrative Medicine
to Appendix I.02.;

ND Yates to Appendix I.05.p.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claim of:

Farndon, J. in "The World's Greatest Idea"(2010)

ISBN 1848311966 9781848311961 to Appendix C.06.b.;

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

Smith, M. (ND SCNM) states in "Watch WTVI Healthwise Show 'A Natural Approach To Your Health' featuring Dr. Michael Smith" (2008-02-10)[vsc 2012-04-14] (the show's homepage is here; a PBS affiliate I guess; my comments are in unquoted bold):

.

[video not an embeddable link, so click on the above]

#homeopathy #codedvitalism #Gerson #acupuncture #reversalofvalues

.

JP: "[the channel is] WTVI [...in] Charlotte [host is] Joey Popp [JP...] this week we explore a natural approach to your health.  Naturopathic physician Michael Smith [MS] from Carolinas Natural Health Center of Matthews is here along with medical doctor Matt Brown [MB] of Boone who practices internal medicine [...to address] natural medicine, nutrition and supplements [...]";

Brown kind of chaperones Smith in this video.

JP to MB: "is it interesting that a medical doctor would appear next to an ND, a naturopathic physician?  Are you respected by your colleagues for standing by his principles?" MB: "I think so. I think this is hopefully the wave of the future [...] more comprehensive medical care [...] I think my colleagues respect that [...]";

hmmm.  So Brown stands by naturopathy's principles, such as their claim that, basically, nonscience and science are the same thing.  Wow.  Huge WOW.  I don't see much of a future in that.  And if absurdity earns respect these days...

and MB mentions "Dr. Max Gerson [...and] juicing [...] I think that is possibly one name to Google is the Gerson Institute just to find out what they do [...]";

now, the Skeptic's Dictionary states in "Gerson Therapy": "although the Gerson regimen has been around for 60 years, the empirical evidence in its support is astoundingly thin. The evidence consists mostly of testimonials and subjective reports from Gerson himself or other Gerson practitioners. There has yet to be a study that meets the basic criteria set forth by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for evaluating clinical benefit."

JP: "you brought some slides [...slide is 'Principles of Naturopathic Medicine: the healing power of nature [HPN], identify and treat the cause, treat the whole person, doctor as teacher, prevention in the best cure, first do no harm'...MS:] these six things here are actually the principles of our medicine [that] we very much follow.  The healing power of nature [...] really means that we utilize what's available to us in nature, what god has given us in this world to help to stimulate the body's own healing [...]";

so we are not told by either the ND or the MD that that HPN concept is TRULY the science-ejected concept of vitalism.  We get a little theism and some OTHER explanation...neither of which suffice to make us truly informed.  Shame.  The vitalism that dare not speak its science-ejected name.

JP: "what is homeopathy? [...MS:] homeopathy is a whole system of that is based on the laws of similars  [etc....MB:] as I heard him talk about homeopathy I though 'how eloquent' [...]";

so, a system of healing based on absurd notions and inert remedies that basically DECEIVES the patient is now eloquent to an MD.  That is not the word I would use.

MS: "acupuncture, similar to homeopathy, they both work on helping to simulate the body's own healing [coded vitalism...] what do we need to do to help to stimulate that healing that's within us [coded vitalism].  And that's what acupuncture can do as well has homeopathy or nutrition or botanical medicine.  They're all encompassing the same thing [...]";

and there you go, something glues them together, but it's not particularly mentioned: figmentations.  Acupuncture has its figmentatious meridians and chi [and effect!], homeopathy has its figmentatious 'like cures like' and vital force [which is similar to chi; and effect!], and with such figmentation-credulous standards it makes any supposed effect from supplements and herbs HIGHLY SUSPECT.

American Naturopathy's 2012 Licensing Strategy: Use Science to Support What's Actually Science-Ejected [Cherry-Picking Alert!]

here, I cite from a recent post by AANP President Cronin on their blog "Physicians Who Listen" [see 001., below]; then, I wonder if they're comprehensively listening to ACTUAL WELL-SETTLED SCIENCE based on the contents of an earlier AANP blog post [see 002., below]:

001. ND Michael Cronin, current AANP President and a 1980 NCNM graduate, writes in "Three and a Half Months In" (2012-04-19) [vsc 2012-04-20]:

"[regarding] the second quarter of 2012 […] the legislative committee chaired by Lorilee Shoenbeck, ND, Vermont [here's her practice], has been busy working with our lobbyists and staff. They are all working with AANP staff to organize the DC FLI [here] and the training provided to ND’s at the event. This year AANP will offer 2-tiered 101 and 201/301 legislative training.  Our priority is to protect several key provisions of the Affordable Care Act including section 2706 on non-discrimination in health care […] the DC FLI participants will be fortified with a new list of the 10 most relevant scientific studies on naturopathic medicine to be used in our Capitol Hill visits.  The scientific affairs committee, chaired by Michelle Simon, ND, Seattle [here's her practice], has developed the list […] another top-ten list is being developed for use in licensed and unlicensed state efforts."

Note: ah, me thinks science cloaks the AANP's political Trojan Horse!  I'm guessing that 'non-scientific' could also be a synonym for "non-discriminatory"!  And AANP is so good at posing the non-scientific as science: proclaiming such things as naturopathy being a "branch of medical science" [here, add '.pdf' to the file's title after downloading, as that's what it is].  They are being VERY SELECTIVE when it comes to 'the science that supports naturopathy', and I disagree: I believe in a comprehensive assessment, not just cherry-picking, for the most truthful of scientific assessments of 'the essentially naturopathic.'  Therein, lets go to that most essential of naturopathic essentials, their central science-ejected belief, by way of AANP itself.

002. naturopathy's essential vitalism:

002.a. this one particular AANP post caught my eye, "Letting Nature Heal" (2009-08-11) by ND Schor [an NCNM graduate], who asks:

"we 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?"

Note: he got an AANP award for this false belief in what I'll term physiological vitalism. His bio. page states:

"in the Summer of 2008, Dr Schor became the first recipient of the Vis Award presented to him by Lise Alschuler, president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians."

002.b. and ND Schor hosts a page titled "The Vis Award" which states:

"at the 2008 annual convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Dr. Jacob Schor was both surprised and honored by his colleagues as the first recipient of the Vis Award [...for] commitment to living and practicing naturopathic medicine in accordance to what is called the 'vis medicatrix naturae', or healing force of nature. The vis medicatrix naturae, or vis, [yes, they are on a first-name basis with a figmentation] is one of the fundamental principles that guides and distinguishes the practice of naturopathic medicine. The vis is the belief [in the 'faith' context of belief, as in Tooth Fairy beliefs] that every living being contains a 'life force'. When this force [etc....] Dr. Schor was selected as the first recipient of this award."

Note: now, it doesn't take much to find out the scientific consensus on such physiological vitalism.  It's written into college science undergraduate textbooks...as science-exterior!   So, I'm not sure how much cherry-picking it takes to get a list of science to support nonscience...but it seems an ABSURD enterprise best left to the ignorant and the thick-headed sectarian-manipulative.  I at times wonder how 'unwashed' one feels in that endeavor.

003. overall note:

ND Cronin tells us on his bio. page he's "founder and president, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine."  Now, I remember going to a presentation by him in Stamford, CT in the mid-to-late 1990s when I was looking for a doctoral medical science program to attend, while a graduate student at New York University at the time.  I fell under their spell, I must say unfortunately, due to that presentation, and eventually did the science pre-requisites to attend the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine, diverting myself from the Masters program I was in.  I was then rather naive about naturopathy: I thought their labels were true.  Touching on his alma mater [and Schor's], NCNM, to this day you can still find them stating that they are science-vetted while listing within their 'essentially naturopathic' details....the profoundly science-ejected [ISYN].

Changelog 2012-04-15 and ND Video:

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

001. added:

the vitalism of:

the Naturopathic Gathering to Appendix B.02.;

the World Health Organization publication 

"Benchmarks for Training in Naturopathy" 

(2010)(ISBN 9789241599658) to Appendix B.02.;

the science claims of:

the British Columbia Naturopathic Association to Appendix I.03.;

the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges
to Appendix I.01.a1.;

ND Rubino, ND Rubin, ND Rouhani, ND Roberson,
ND Rizothanassis, ND Ripley, C., ND Rios-Young, ND Reece,
ND Reddy, ND Reddish, ND Raithel, ND Rade
all to Appendix I.05.n.;

 

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

the University of Bridgeport states in "Health Sciences at UB" [vsc 2010-08-01; posted by UB to Youtube 2010-07-01]:

.

.

#healthscienceclaim #naturopathy #acupuncture #

.

"[from the video] health sciences at UB [...shows] Health Science Center [building signage x4...and ND] Brady [...who says] we're not the typical health science division [and manages to look like he's constipated or had a pine-cone stuck up his ass...and it includes] programs from the other side of the spectrum [...] wellness, holistic, complementary medicine [...and we're show the title] College of Naturopathic Medicine Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) [...and an ND student talks about] true naturopathic medicine [...ND] Skowron [talks about...ND] D'Adamo who wrote the blood-type diet book 'Eat Right For Your Type' [...and ND] Espinoza [...who says] to be successful as a naturopathy [...] you need a good foundation and that's exactly what UB offers [...] a very good foundation [...ND student Hickson talks of] a miracle [...] you come back to nature and I guess what it is to be human [...DC Goode says] we have this health sciences program [...including] naturopathy and acupuncture [...and says] our focus is on evidence-based healthcare [...description] find out why UB is one of the premier Universities in the country for a degree in the Health Sciences. We offer programs in Chiropractic and Naturopathic Medicine [...and] Acupuncture. UB is also proud to announce our new, cutting edge Physician Assistant Institute, which is now accepting applications for the Fall 2011 semester."

Note:  oh, so much to talk about!  Overall, this fits into the whole 'reversal of values' which naturopathy epitomizes.  There's the science and evidence subset naturopathy and acupuncture claim.  There's this claim of a "foundation" that is "good", and a setting that is "premier".  Just to cut to the quick, briefly: it is quite obvious to me that naturopathy labels the hugely science-ejected (archived) falsely science, at the core of naturopathy [the science-ejected defining vitalism at UBCNM, the academic and marketing label science placed upon that; which I've beaten to death on this blog].  So, what kind of "good foundation" is that?  For instance, here's UB's vitalism, archived and obviously the video above is replete with that science label.  Since when is what is hugely false good?  Only when values are absurdly reversed!  One though needs to KEEP THINKING, to cut through their current sophisticated camouflaging, wherein the science-ejected vitalism of naturopathy is not explicitly contextualized though we were told the school teaches "true naturopathic medicine."  And regarding that ND D'Adamo theory, it has been panned [hugely, preponderantly]: "the consensus among dietitians, physicians, and scientists is that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence."  I think, to stick such academically within "health science", therefore, is quite repulsive.  Falsehood and manipulation: now premier, now good.

*I also have to disclose that I attended this UB ND program for four years.  I was either taught by or I shared classes with some of the NDs and instructors in this video about ten years ago.  I left, disgusted for many reasons.  One such: required homeopathy, that huge area of figmentation that the North American ND board exam requires and quite absurdly labels "science".

 and the reversal of values marches on.

Changelog 2012-04-08 and ND Video:

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

001. added:

the vitalism of:

ND O'Dell to Appendix B.05.i.e.;

the science claims of:

ND Celik; ND Champion & ND Champion

to Appendix I.05.c.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claim of:

PhDs Klandorf, Sherwood, and Yancey in
"Animal Physiology: From Genes to Organisms"
(2nd ed., 2012; ISBN 0840068654 9780840068651)  to Appendix C.06.c.;

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

"Naturopathic Health Aid or Bod-e-Tune Bracelet" [vsc 2012-03-18] which states:

.

.

#naturopathicbracelet #healthaid #nanotechnology #painrelief #testimonials

.

"this is your naturopathic health aid [...] that counteracts the negative effects from electronic devices and acts as a tuning device [...] you'll be amazed at your instant improvement with your strength, balance [...] flexibility [...] and, over time, continued pain relief [...] also improving everything from your well being to your game performance [...based on] nanotechnology [...] atomic research [...on] the microstructure of metals [...] electronically charged to the same frequency as the human body [...] your atoms instantly mimic the atoms in the metal [...] this allows your body to achieve a significant improvement in balance and strength [...yet] we do not make the claims you are about to hear [...this bracelet] could allow your body to relieve symptoms of arthritis, carpal tunnel, and fibromyalgia naturally [...and cause] less pain and greater flexibility [...it] assists your body to do all of these things naturally [...] the health aid is yet to be approved [...] the testimonials provide the proof."

 .

 Note: loving it, 'we do not make the claims we are claiming', 'instant improvement that may take weeks or longer', 'natural yet highly based on technology'.

Two Naturopathic 'Luminaries' Heap on a 2012 Critic of Naturopathy

here, I cite from a recent article by MD Bartecchi regarding naturopathy [see 001., below]; then, I excerpt from two commentors, a naturopathy school president and a naturopathy schools' consortia web page editor [see 002., below]:

001. Carl Bartecchi (MD UPenn) of the University of Colorado School of Medicine and author of "The Alternative Medicine Hoax" (ISBN 0970755813) writes in "Naturopathic Treatment: ‘Unproven’ Medicine" (2012-03-25) [vsc 2012-04-05; my comments are in unquoted  bold]:

"what is a naturopathic doctor? [...] a practitioner who claims to use natural [...] treatments to stimulate the sick body to heal itself [...such as] homeopathy, acupuncture [etc....] most of the treatments could have little more than a placebo effect [...and] all of these entities fall under the category of alternative medicine, which by definition is 'unproven' medicine [...] the worst of which are homeopathic preparations, but also questionable Chinese medicine practices, 'natural methods' to treat cancers, acupuncture, colonic enemas and numerous other unproven therapies for real disease processes";

hear, hear.  I must add, the premise of healing in naturopathy is completely science-ejected: that a figment known as a "life force" is in charge of physiology and manipulating it reverses disease processes and causes healing, with both homeopathy and acupuncture based on such a figmentation then applied to "real" diseases.  'The vitalistic' is not just unproven, the premise is science-ejected nonsense . Yet, NDs / NMDs continue to label that central naturopathic context -- along with a whole bunch of other nonsense, as evident in what Dr. Bartecchi has listed-- "science-based.'

"the inability of naturopaths to apply science-based principles and scientific study to many of their most popular treatment modalities [and cherished BELIEFS!] has been a major concern to health care professionals";

agreed.  Regarding naturopathy's fundamental premise, that "life force", I've always found it quite revealing that there isn't any effort by them to actually scientifically establish it's existence.  They simply label it 'scientific', as if DECLARATION is what science is.  But of course, where would you look for such a figment experimentally?  What machine can measure such a figment?  That kind of a search, in light of thermodynamics and genetics and the preponderance of science, is of course, as justifiable as searching for the Tooth Fairy. 

"[...and] their longstanding opposition to childhood vaccination [...]";

the term I've often heard in naturopathic circles, particularly within their homeopathic subgroup, which labels the injury they believe happens to that vital force / life force is 'vaccinosis', which etymologically means 'a condition due to vaccination', which of course is a perceived harm to a figmentation and is akin to worrying that you harmed the Tooth Fairy's feelings.

"some naturopathic treatments are not only unscientific but blatantly unsafe [...]";

agreed.  More specifically, I'd say much more harmful / 'of risk' than beneficial and therein not reasonable as a choice particularly in terms of cost and false hope.

"naturopathic education programs are deficient in the study of the commonly used and scientifically proven effective drugs and other therapies that are so critical to modern approaches to a variety of diseases [...]";

yes.  I'd also add, in terms of naturopathic education and science overall, simply this: science is so unlimited by naturopathy that the hugely science-exterior is maintained as scientific.  I know this having gone to one of their schools for four years.  And with schools like NUHS granting naturopathy degrees, the mislabeling of "science" upon the essentially naturopathic / 'science-exterior' has reached a hyper-absurd extent.

"well-known British scientists have led the charge to drop public funding for universities providing degrees in areas of alternative medicine, which includes naturopathy, homeopathy, reflexology, Chinese medicine and acupuncture [...] these scientifically deficient practices [...even] Germany, the home of homeopathy [...] has called for a halt on public funding for homeopathy."

Australia is similarly coming around.  Next, I predict Canada, which is half of the North American naturopathy racket and a kind of hybrid of UK and US naturopathys proper.

002. the comments:

002.a. pmittman posted:

"as a naturopathic physician and president of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences I am compelled to address two inaccuracies in Dr. Bartecchi's article [...and mentions] Part II of the national board examinations (NPLEX) [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine is grounded in [...] the scientific literature. I cordially invite Dr. Bartecchi to come visit SCNM."

Note: if this is who I suspect and assume this is, this is Paul Mittman seeking to clarify "inaccuracies."   He is also a DHANP, by the way, an AANP homeopath of the highest order.  Now, what's fascinating about NPLEX part II is that it labels homeopathy a "clinical science" when the preponderance of science labels homeopathy ABSURD and IMPLAUSIBLE TO THE Nth.  I wish that inaccuracy would be addressed!  And of course, we're told 'what we do is grounded in the scientific'.  Well, here's the short tour of SCNM: nonsense falsely labeled science.  And here's the web-archived 'profession of vitalistic belief' that Mittman had up on his naturopathy school's web site (also here, live).

002.b. CoquinaDegerC, apparently / presumably the "managing editor" of the AANMC's newsletter [particularly since we are directed to an AANMC web page in the post], posted:

"I’m surprised and disappointed that this article was not more thoroughly researched or fact-checked [...]";

the irony is killing me.  It is AANMC still presenting as science that which hugely isn't.

"the accredited naturopathic education programs are very sufficient in the study of commonly used and scientifically proven effective drugs and other therapies [...] anyone seeking the facts on the curriculum that leads to earning a naturopathic doctor (ND) degree can begin their reading here: http://www.aanmc.org/education/academic-curriculum.php [...and she mentions NDs study] 'the same biomedical sciences as allopathic physicians'."

ah, the cultic label "allopathic" which is a FALSE label naturopaths / homeopaths place upon modern medicine.  Modern medicine is as allopathic as modern chemistry is alchemic. And, that science label again! But, how is homeopathy effective, scientific, proven beyond a nonspecific placebo effect when in fact THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PILL?  That is a fact.

003. overall note:

of course, once you claim that a system based upon a science-ejected figmentation is a branch of medical science, as AANMC does and I have all those pages archived, I guess ANYTHING GOES within such absurd ground-rules.  In label, I'd agree, naturopathy says "science": in fact, no.  And that pseudoscience facet is SO EASY TO SHOW.

ND O'Dell: Science Subset Naturopathy Subset Nonsense / 'The Essentially Naturopathic'

here, I quote from a 2011 audio interview by New Hampshire naturopath O'Dell wherein we are informed that naturopathy is contextually 'of the science-ejected' yet she claims too that naturopathy overall is simultaneously scientific [see 001., below]; then, I look at the language used to describe naturopathy by her New Hampshire AANP association [see 002., below]:

001. O’Dell, K. (ND Bastyr) states in 'Homepage: Listen to Dr. O'Dell speak about Naturopathic Medicine with Christine Lauer on WKXL 1450 AM' [vsc & recorded 2011-10-17]:

001.a. the science-ejected 'nature' of naturopathy:

"our main philosophy is that we realize that the body has the ability to heal itself when it's given what it needs.  Whether you call it your vis, your chi, your prana, your life force […] the life force [...] your vital force [...host] the healing power of nature, the energy […] your goal is to heal at the core […] really helping in the holistic fashion."

Note: I've been collecting scientific sources regarding this simple fact that for several decades vitalism is science-exterior.  It is as science-exterior as the Tooth Fairy and the concept of phlogiston.

001.b. a supposed fully-accredited doctoral-level science status to naturopathy:

"[went to] Bastyr University [...getting] a four-year medical degree [...and is] board certified [...in] naturopathic medicine [...] an accredited doctorate program [...with NDs] licensed [...] primary care providers [...a central principle is] the doctor is the teacher […Bastyr] is very scientifically based [...] research based, scientifically based [...] everything we are taught is backed up."

Note: fascinating!  Except for the fact that the CENTRAL framing concept of naturopathy, this "life force", is science-ejected!  This is fully accredited licensed falsehood, in my view, in terms of the 'essentially naturopathic contextually'!  Also,  on that same ND O'Dell page we're told textually:

 "we use science based protocols including [...] homeopathic medicines."  And there you go, more nonsense in a tuxedo.

002. the New Hampshire Association of states in "About Naturopathic Health Care" [vsc 2012-04-05]:

"naturopathic doctors are trained at accredited, four-year, post-graduate, residential naturopathic medical programs. The training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...] the naturopathic medical profession’s infrastructure includes [...] a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research [...] naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...including #2] the healing power of nature [aka 'vis medicatrix naturae'...] doctor as teacher [...] this set of principles, emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor’s training, outlines the philosophy guiding the naturopathic approach to health and healing and forms the foundation of this distinct health care practice."

Note: I think the promise therein is that their science as a label is actual science.  But, it isn't, in terms of theories like vitalism falsely labeled science.  They claim a scientific commitment, but in all the years I've been observing, they haven't published a single experiment regarding this supposed in-evidence vital force.  So, I'd say that vitalism is throughout naturopathy just like all that weird stuff in a fruitcake is throughout the fruitcake. And, in sum, the essence of naturopathy is logically absurd: science subset nonsense.  I also call this the naturopathillogical.

And you have to wonder, in terms of patients and students: how long with this miseducation by these 'doctors as teachers' go on?

003. yet, licensed falsehood marches on!

ND Celik: Naturopathy Mislabeling Microcosm, Canadian-Style

here, I cite from the web pages of Canadian ND Celik, who speaks of naturopathy's essential science-ejected premise and yet labels naturopathy science [see 001., below]:

Celik, S. (ND CCNM) states:

001. naturopathy's essential vitalism as if within science:

001.a. in "Homeopathic Medicine" [vsc 2012-04-02]:

"homeopathic medicine [a subset within naturopathy] is safe and has been shown to be effective in treating various diseases.  Homeopathic medicine treats your symptoms by affecting your vital force.  Disturbance of the vital force in the body is the root cause of all illness. Your symptoms have manifested as a result of a disrupted vital force.  Most of us are searching for long term cures rather than temporarily relief of symptoms. In order achieve this, one must re-balance the vital force and treat the whole person from within [...]

homeopathic medicine has been verified experimentally and clinically for over 200 years. This revolutionary, natural medical science was discovered in 1796 by German scientist."

Note: and there you go, that fake reason for illness, that figment known as a vital for at the heart of naturopathy.  Meanwhile, on planet Reality, homeopathy is considered bunk scientifically speaking.

001.b. in "Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture" [vsc 2012-04-02]:

"[in] traditional Chinese medicine [a subset within naturopathy...] the body's vital energy (known in English as 'chi' or 'qi'), flows through channels also known as meridians [...] when the flow of vital energy is functioning properly, the organs and systems are working together in harmony. However, if there is a blockage of the qi, or an imbalance, qi backs up the flow in one part of the body and restricts flow in other parts. This results in disease, disharmony and dysfunction. Re-establishing regular flow of qi is achieved through needling specific, carefully selected points using thin, sterile needles [...]

modern scientific research has recently confirmed the existence of the body's meridians using infrared thermography. This practice is safe, free of side effects and highly effective."

Note: quite a promise, regarding science and qi pathways and efficacy.  Empty promises, as recent commentary notes:

"Alastair MacLennan, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Adelaide, said the credibility of universities is under threat from what he calls hocus pocus medicine. 'Legitimate science and research in those universities are undermined by nonsensical practices. They are basically courses that earn money for the university, and give you respectability if you have a degree in pseudo-science. Some call themselves doctors but the public is not good at differentiating.'''

002. therein:

licensed nonsense marches on: the science subset nonsense irrationality and absurdity of worldwide naturopathy!

Changelog 2012-04-01 and ND Video:

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

001. added:

the science claims of:

ND Casteels; NDs Cates & Jacobs;

NDs Cornish, Nakamura, Tsnobiladze;

ND Churchill; ND Ceasar; ND Caracoglia;

ND Carter; NDs Chin & Hawco;

ND Chinoy; ND Camilleri;

NDs Cheng-Kai-On & Kim;

ND Chua; ND Chow; NDs Cheah & Fyffe;

ND Cameron; ND Campbell, E.;

ND Cardwell; ND Camp; 

all to Appendix I.05.c.;

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

Meissner, J. (ND NCNM 1983) in "Homeopathy Rocks! With Julek Meissner, N.D. http://cameo.techmagsocial.com/homeopathyrocks/" [vsc 2012-03-30] states the science-ejected vitalism at the heart of 'naturopathy subset homeopathy':

.

.

#science-ejectedvitalism #lifeforce #chi #naturaldefensemechanism #pseudoenergy #homeopathy #homeopathyproponentry

.

"our body has a natural innate ability to heal itself and I specialize in harnessing that ability [...] their unique nature.  An energy that creates those symptoms [...] it's even smaller than microscopic [...] is health and disease a biochemical issue or an energetic issue?  So we're talking about energy and we're talking about a therapeutic approach that uses energy not biochemistry [...] what is energy?  What is it that animates us?  What is it that helps us be alive.  What is life?   What is life force? [...] chi [...] energy [...] an energetic approach [...] an energetic issue [...] a mysterious force that creates symptoms and that heals [...] if we understand what's unique about the individual and their life force, we can find a way to access that natural defense mechanism [...] we are body, mind and spirit."

.

his web pages also talk about this naturopathy-essential truly science-ejected vitalism:

.(click to embiggen)

.

but of course, actual energy in science is measurable, physical, 'in-evidence.'  This naturopathic-homeopathic 'energy' is a figmentation that is not necessary to explain anything, and actually is a place-filler that stops the acquisition of actual knowledge.

.