AANP's Blog Doubles Down on Homeopathy

here, I cite from a recent 2012 post by an ND up at the AANP's blog regarding homeopathy [001., below]:

001. Shiva Barton (ND Bastyr 1983) "2011 AANP Physician of the Year" writes in "Why is Homeopathy Dead?" (2012-06-05) [vsc 2012-06-05; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"I have quite a few naturopathic students and young doctors that visit my office. My most recent visitor was Dr. Laura Chan, a recent graduate of Bastyr [...]";

so, the experienced ND teaches the recent graduate.

"one of the things she was most notably not enthusiastic or excited about was homeopathy. Dr. Chan was interested in homeopathy when she first arrived at Bastyr [...] her training in homeopathy led her to believe that homeopathy was too complicated to use as a treatment modality in a general naturopathic practice [...] almost all of the students that I have been a preceptor for,  no matter the college, have had an experience like Dr. Chan. So my question is, 'what's up with the way the ND schools are teaching homeopathy?' [...]";

why SHOULD anyone be excited about EMPTY PILLS aka homeopathy?  Barton's complaint is that ND schools teach homeopathy from a rather ORTHODOX manner -- too orthodox, in his view.  The irony here is that current ND graduates are not doing homeopathing because it is asinine, but because their required homeopathy courses convinced them that 'it is complicated.' 

 

"it seems like the version that is taught in the ND medical colleges is something similar to the following [...with causes such criticisms as it is] taking too long, waiting too long, too much danger [...particularly] you can really do incredible, irreparable harm to a person's vital force if you pick the wrong remedy. I mean, we are not just talking about vital force, for gosh sakes. We are talking about VITAL FORCE here. You don't want to screw with someone's VITAL FORCE, do you? [...] too little income and too many rules [...]";

yes, ND / NMD schools require homeopathic nonsense.  In fact, on their board exams, homeopathy is falsely labeled a "clinical science."  And of course, a vital force is a figmentation long discarded by science yet naturopathy uses the label 'branch of medical science' subset homeopathy all the time.  Yet, central to naturopathy.  And regarding the income, naturopaths usually DIRECTLY sell the supplements and herbs that patients are prescribed, and it isn't uncommon that half the practice's income is their dispensary.

"homeo [...] is a valuable tool for the general ND practice [...] you SHOULD use it [...] homeopathy creates an 'aha' reaction [...] homeo works very quickly – acutely within hours and chronically within a day or two. Nothing else generally works this fast [...] just use it [...] you will find a very valuable tool to help people get well";

when placebo pills are valuable tools from a practitioner's point of view...run.  You have someone who thinks nonspecific treatment effects are as useful as pronounced effects, all the while they are deceiving you with empty pills.

Note: meanwhile, homeopathy's reputation is quite DESTROYED.  Sure, there have been recent attempts to salvage, but those attempts themselves have been destroyed.

Appendage (2012-06-07):

Over at National Geographic's Scienceblogs, Orac has posted quite the skewing of this AANP homeopathy post. 

Changelog 2012-06-03 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 Parvoti

to Appendix B.05.i.f.;

NDs Pizzorno and Snider in Micozzi's ISBN 0443065764

to Amazon.com as a brief review;

the science claims of:

ND Ruthensteiner 

to Appendix I.05.n.;

ND Schostag; ND Sharif; ND Sims; 

ND Smith, A.; ND Stadtmauer;  

ND Sura and ND Walker; ND Singh; 

ND Schehr; ND Sinatra; 

to Appendix I.05.o.;

ND Herring and ND Rho;

ND Hoffmann, M.;

to Appendix I.05.g.;

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

the National University of Health Sciences Youtube video "Dr. Sarah Ouano - NUHS, ND Class of 2011" [vsc 2012-06-02; my comments are in unquoted bold] which states:
.

.

#sciencesubsetnaturopathyclaim  #NUHS #sciencesubsetsupernaturalclaim

#sciencesubsethomeopathyclaim

.

"[from the description] Meet Sarah Ouano, ND, who earned her doctor of naturopathic medicine degree at National University of Health Sciences in Lombard, Illinois [...] he Midwest's only ND degree program [...]";

yes, the claim science subset naturopathy.

"Sarah works in an exciting integrative medical clinic [...]";

ye old blending.  Truly to integrate is the meld.  What with what though?

"[from the video] 'I was accepted to an allopathic school' [...]";

ah, the false labeling of regular medicine as allopathy.

 "I work at the National Center for Integrative Medicine [IM...in the the wing for] complementary and alternative medicine [CAM...and speaks of] all three aspects of your life, mental, physical and emotional and spiritual [...]";

ah, so there's our blending that is CAM / IM: science subset supernatural.  Wow, the scientific contains the nonscientific, call Stockholm and issue the Nobels.

"at National we're so trained to be on our toes all the time as far as being abreast of current research [...]";

incidentally, there is no current research that justifies placing the supernatural within the scientific.  Find me research that says what science cannot falsify is indeed scientific.  Welcome to retard land.

"I work with everything [...including] homeopathy [...]";

so now we're at science subset 'the absurd'.

Naturopathy in Botswana: A Recent Definition

here, I cite from an 2012 African naturopath's article regarding the definition of naturopathy [see 001., below]:

001. naturopath Tebogo Bagopi-Van Nieuwenhuizen writes in "Naturopathy: The Holistic Approach to Health and Disease" (2012-06-01)[vsc 2012-06-02; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"naturopathy is based on the belief that the human body has an innate ability to heal itself. Naturopaths say their medicine is guided by principles rather than methods and that a special energy - vital energy or vital force - guides the body's processes [...]";

so, there you go, vitalism-at-naturopathy's-core.  It is naturopathy's DNA.

"the West, with their well-developed systems have experienced allopathic medicine at its peak [...]";

and there you go with the false labeling of modern medicine as allopathy, a name that the homeopathy founder Hahnemann created for the dominant-medicine-of-his-time, that heroic medicine so famous for bleeding George Washington likely to death [prescientific medicine].

 "naturopathy recognizes and understands the body and mind function and their regulatory mechanism that maintains homeostasis or the correction of imbalances in the body [...] both pathophysiology and naturopathic methods are applied in understanding the nature of a disease [...]";

yes, "understands" by inventing a fabrication called a 'vital force' instead of using the actual knowledge that modern science provides, for which 'vital force' is merely a place-filler.

"naturopathy provides and supports this mechanism [...] humanity is the expression of life enlivened with the life force. Life force is the creator of physical and emotional nature and rules all the activities.  This includes food, air, water and the mind, making a human being [...] the ability to absorb and use universal energy strengthens our true nature, energies and our being. It can prevent and cure ailments [...] acupuncture is another method used by naturopaths.  Acupuncture works to balance the body's energy by unblocking the tension in certain parts that impair blood flow.  The theory of yin and yang is the fundamental concept of Chinese medicine [...] these are the natural laws that maintain nature as well as human nature";

ye grand old prescientific superstition LAWFULNESS.

"the author is a naturopathic doctor."

yes, he says he is.

Note: so, though repeated on this blog perhaps weekly, it must be said again, the fundamental basis of naturopathy is a science-ejected figmentation known as vitalism.  It is as actual as the Tooth Fairy.  They talk about it as if it were true, but when figmentation and truth are conflated, I really distrust any claims that come from such a muddle.

---

 

appendage (2012-06-09): a very critical response, from "consumerwatchdogbw.blogspot.com [...or] Facebook group [...] 'Consumer Watchdog Botswana'", at the same online web site, followed the above ND's article several days later, stating such things as:

"in Mmegi last Friday an 'naturopathic doctor' wrote a piece entitled 'Naturopathy: The Holistic Approach to Health and Disease' which included a variety of observations, suggestions and claims [...there are] claims made in the article that, shall we say diplomatically, are patently false. For instance the article claimed that 'a special energy - vital energy or vital force - guides the body's processes'. What evidence is there for this mythical 'force'? None [...] the author claims that 'acupuncture is an effective tool for pain as well as increasing energy in the body' [...] I have to ask where the evidence to support this claim can be found? In fact ALL the scientific evidence on acupuncture shows that it's effects are no better than an equivalent placebo. In other worlds acupuncture is a sham and bogus treatment that offers no provable benefits at all [...] the naturopath in Mmegi discussed 'the modern lifestyle that comes with diseases like diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure and other ailments' as if to say that modern life caused these problems. What modern life and the benefits of modern science and medicine have given us is a life-expectancy and quality of health that our great grandparents would have dreamed of. Denying this is false testimony".

Who Not to Trust: Naturopathy in New Hampshire via NPR then NHAND

here, I cite from recent 2012 credulous proponentry regarding naturopathy by National Public Radio [see 001., below]; then, I point out SOME nonsense that DEFINES naturopathy by way of their own pages in New Hampshire [see 002., below]:

001. NPR reports in "Baby Steps For Naturopathic Doctors In New Hampshire" (2012-05-31)[2012-05-31; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[as reported by Emily Corwin] although naturopathic doctors (NDs) undergo virtually the same training as medical doctors [...]";

NDs / NMDs no do have the same training as MDs, and I state this point-blank.  It is an entirely different worldview beginning with the typification of knowledge itself. Now, if you go the trunk of the naturopathic tree, NCNM, you can see this readily.  Medicine, by ethical decree, is committed to scientific knowledge and maintaining the integrity of such knowledge.  You can find this code at 2002's "Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter", which states, in part: "commitment to scientific knowledge: much of medicine's contract with society is based on the integrity and appropriate use of scientific knowledge and technology. Physicians have a duty to uphold scientific standards, to promote research, and to create new knowledge and ensure its appropriate use. The profession is responsible for the integrity of this knowledge, which is based on scientific evidence and physician experience." Meanwhile, in stetting up naturopathy's epistemological muddle, NCNM tells us that the patently science-unsupported survives scientific scrutiny.  This is not even modern thought, never mind 'the preponderance which is doctoral level science.'  As a measure of these nonexistent science standards, on that same NCNM page, homeopathy is labeled therapeutically "powerful" while, preponderantly, we know that homeopathy is so 'out there' from what actually is within science that there has been a call for it being completely DEFUNDED since it is a PLACEBO.  And there you are, within the epistemology and ontology of naturopathy: things are what they are not.  Science is the science-ejected, inert substances / magic beans and unicorn tears 'act powerfully'  -- a complete reversal of values.  So, don't trust them.  Amongst the items pictured in this article, ironically, are HOMEOPATHY PELLETS.  This is like an Onion satire. 

"today, naturopathy looks appealing to politicians for two reasons. First, states like New Hampshire are struggling with a shortage of primary care doctors — a service NDs are certified to perform. Second, about 75% of health care spending nation-wide goes to treating chronic diseases [...] these are the very diseases naturopaths excel at treating and preventing [...] so much data demonstrates cost savings [...they] don’t even want to look at the data [...]";

based on a completely unethical epistemological position [nonsense marketed as scientific], is it really wise for politicians to license falsehood?  I don't want a PCP who tells me that empty lactose pellets will act powerfully in my body, thank you -- and that it hugely science-ejected nonsense from the 1800s survives current scientific scrutiny.  Perhaps someone could have gotten away with such in 1850, as medicine itself was quite scary.  So, the group that tells us that magic beans and unicorn tears are powerful also tell us that they "excel" and have "data."  Well, how ironic: objective data shows us that naturopathy is rife with misrepresentation, from their ideas all the way down to their clinical interventions.

 "[...and the reporter speaks of NH's] ND Bert Mathieson  [...and] past president of the NH Association of Naturopathic Doctors Jaclyn Chasse [...and] Laurilee Schonebeck, an ND [...]"; 

so the web page for ND Mathieson's practice, who also practices with ND Beaudoin, is in New Hampshire (here) [so too for ND Chasse, who also practices with ND Chojnowski and ND DiBacco (here). ND Schonebeck is someone I can't find online].  This leads us to the NHAND.

002. the NHAND states [one of their sponsors is a homeopathic company!]:

002.a. on ND Fassler's page on homeopathy "Classical Homeopathy in Naturopathic Practice":

that homeopathy is a "science", which is bogus, 

and talks about using this sympathetic magic for someone with a "seizure disorder", which is scary.

002.b. on ND Martlew's biography page she uses:

"homeopathy" and "iridology", and her own practice page on naturopathy lists homeopathy,

and her therapies page states that iridology is a "science" that is diagnostically "powerful"

and that is quite WRONG.

003. licensed falsehood marches on:

if even through baby steps. 

what really gets to me here is the completely credulous, lazy, shallow reporting by a media marque name such as NPR.

'naturopathy's nonsense ideas, diagnostics, and therapeutics' are SO EASY TO SHOW -- the naturopathillogical.

Supposed Vaccinosis: ND Clinton's Solution, 'My Supplement'

here, I cite from a ND's recent post at mothering.com that, in my opinion, plays on unwarranted fears of 'general vaccination complications' and may exaggerate the benefit of supplementation for otherwise normally nourished pediatric populations [see 001., below]; and, I wonder what Paul Offit would say [see 002., below]:

001. Clinton, C. (ND NCNM) states in "Examining the Link Between Nutrition and Vaccine Outcomes" (2012-05-29)[vsc 2012-05-29]:

"Catherine Clinton is a board certified naturopathic physician, currently practicing in Oregon [...] with the birth of her son in 2009, Dr. Clinton turned her focus to pediatric health and founded the supplement company WellFuture. Seeing an urgent need for nutritional support to meet the needs and challenges of today’s children [...]";

now, naturopathic board certification is not what most would believe it is.  It is merely Oregon licensure as an ND PCP. In the land of MD / DO medicine, board certification is a specialty qualification.  Do not mistake this ND for a pediatrician, therein.  She is not a board certified pediatrician.  I can't say whether the difference is being deliberately underemphasized here.  Also, I think the posed issue here is that typical children cannot get enough nutrition from what they are given to eat.  I don't believe that is true, and such a claim is kind of odd from a domain, naturopathy in all its oddity, that claims so often 'let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food.'

"she developed VacciShield, the first-ever nutritional support for babies and kids during vaccinations [...] a blend of non-dairy probiotics, vitamins, minerals and an amino acid and it's backed by current research showing how the ingredients in VacciShield support health during vaccinations [...]";

here's where she lists the research (here).  Now, regular pediatrician's don't, as far as I know, recommend any of these supplements during vaccination.  I think the vaccines are already potentized for best effect, and safer than ever.  Perhaps, therein, the ND's nutritional supplementation recommendation is not necessary, at best.  So much supplementation is just creation of expensive urine, as they say.  After all, her web page warns "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any diseases."  Ah, the slippery-slimy world of 'you need this for that but I can't say anything about that which that this can greatly help with...and here's the shipping and handling cost for this highly effective not-known-exactly-what-it-effects product.'

"I researched.  I examined everything.  I read books and magazines, case studies and clinical trials. I attended talks, lectures, and seminars [...]";

ah, thoroughness.  An interesting position from an ND of a school that claims that the patently science-exterior passes scientific muster.  But, keep in mind with this treatment, that no apparent rigorous trial has been done comparing the outcomes of children who took and didn't take this product.

'now there is obviously a lot of controversy surrounding the pros and cons of vaccination. Opinions range [...]";

actually scientific opinions are quite of the preponderance that vaccines are highly safe and effective...just the way they are for the general population.

'the consensus on all sides, however, is that if you choose to vaccinate there can be unwanted side effects.  To name just a few, there can be flu-like symptoms, moodiness is common and there is always some amount of inflammation [...]";

well, there is potential for 'side effects' from a glass of water too, but that is separate from harm-that's-lasting, I believe being implied here.  Inflammation of WHAT, always?  The injection site?  Where else?  Hmmmm.

"what surprised me was the large amount of research into the effect of nutrition on vaccine outcomes. There’s all kinds of good stuff that will help a body prepare for and process a vaccine";

perhaps the body of a healthy child with a healthy diet already has all it needs for this to occur.  And here's me thinking a little more analytically than perhaps the ND would like: vaccines are very-much used world-wide.  This includes places of impoverishment and malnutrition.  I am not aware, but I am willing to be informed of any known studies regarding if such exist, dramatic differences in vaccination 'side-effects' between well-nourished say 'first-world' pediatric populations and 'third-world' similar populations.  I would think that we'd have a lot more known population differences in that regard in all these decades after the implementation of vaccinations world-wide.

overall note:  I wonder here about exaggeration, if we are being quite oversold on a 'supplementation is necessary' naturopathic position while simultaneously a potential for harm from vaccination is posed as certain [to some extent, if even transitory].

002. perhaps:

such experts on vaccination as Dr. Paul Offit (also here), whom I've seen speak live at NECSS a couple of years ago, can comment on this ND's product claims of 'side-effect prophylaxis' [while unclaimed, ironically] and her interpretations of supposed vaccine risk [I've forwarded the mothering.com link].

Changelog 2012-05-27 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 University of Bridgeport 

to Appendix B.01.a.99.;

the science claims of:

ND Cavaiola

to Appendix I.05.c.; 

reformatted, add added bio.s to, and republished

Appendix I.05.c.;

the 'naturopathy is pseudoscience and quackery' claim of:

Australia's Courier Mail 

to Appendix K.07.;

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

002.a. ND Chan, V. (ND CCNM) of British Columbia, Canada states in "Close Look TV Show-Young & Successful Naturopath - Dr. Victor Chan--www.closelook.ca" [caution, annoying accompanying piano throughout!] (2011-06-20 upload) [downloaded 2012-05-26]:

.

.

#naturopathicpremisecoding #opacity #baitandswitch #dysinformedconsent

.

"[the interviewer is Simmy Cheema] today we're going to talk to Dr. Victor Chan [...] he's a naturopath  [...and mentions MDs] don't have enough time for the patients [...Dr. Chan] I am a naturopathic physician [...] for about eight years [...] I treat pretty-much anything and everything that comes in through my door [...] all of my treatments are focused on stimulating the body's natural ability to heal [...particularly with] therapeutic injection therapies [...] it s partly the naturopathic philosophy that the body has the innate ability to heal [...and] doctor as teacher [...] a lot of my visit is about teaching [...] I am in a profession [...] the body always has the ability to heal."

Note: so, lets take a CLOSER look than the above close look, to look below this language at what naturopaths ACTUALLY believe regarding healing via ND Chan's provincial association preponderance.

002.b. the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] states:

002.b1.  that naturopathy is science-based in "Dear Editors" [vsc 2012-05-26]:

"Dr. Christoph Kind [ND NCNM], BCNA President [...says] published data shows that science education for NDs meets or exceeds that which MD’s receive [...] naturopathic students receive more training in basic and some clinical sciences at accredited naturopathic colleges than students who attend standard medical schools [...] we look forward to continuing to provide high-quality, science-based health care [...] Dr. Oetter would assert otherwise [...perhaps] she is knowingly out to deceive."

Note: so, it is safe to say, NDs as a group claim to be 'scientific'.  They then accuse the regular MDs of not being careful in their statements, and even perhaps being deceptive about the true nature of naturopathy.  The irony is killing me.  Yet, strangely enough, BCNA also places within 'their claimed science stringency' the patently science-exterior.  You can find such at the alma mater of ND Kind quite easily and within the ND licensure laws of the state that school is in.  What do BC NDs think the general public is, stupid?  This is SO EASY to find.

002.b2. naturopathy's 'healing' premise, truly the science-ejected contextualization of physiology known as vitalism, in "Sharon Gurm, ND" [vsc 2012-05-26]:

"Dr. Gurm [ND CCNM, same as ND Chan] believes strongly in the body’s innate ability to heal itself. By working with the vital force of the individual using a holistic approach, true healing and optimal health can be achieved."

Note: and there we go, we've gotten beneath ND Chan's coding to the heart of naturopathy's healing context, the science-ejected premise of 'vital force'.  The epistemic claim is science subset nonscience, which is madness surrounded by ignorance surrounded by thickheaded pseudoscientific sectarianism.

003. overall note: 

so, this is what I enjoy so much about studying naturopathy, the RUSE and the lack of care for informed consent / deception, though their supposed principles stress 'doctor as teacher' and science supposedly when it comes to naturopathy's overall 'healing context'.

would you go to a doctor who, essentially, believes a figmentation [vital force] and a scientific fact [there is no vital force running physiology] are the same thing?  Is that safe?  It seems to me to be quite a contradiction: a supposed professional who isn't transparent towards whom they hold a fiduciary duty; a supposed profession founded upon falsehood.  It is quite the reversal of values.

who benefits from this licensed falsehood?

Pressure Continues to Clean Up Pseudoscience Fiddle-Faddle Education in Australia

here, I cite from Australia's Courier Mail regarding the push in Australia to protect particularly education consumers from nonsense [see 001., below]:

001. Des Houghton reports in "Quacks Galore in Facade of Quirky Medicine" (2012-05-26)[my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"several US studies have shown that garlic does not lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, St John's wort does not treat depression, ginkgo does not improve memory, chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine do nothing for arthritis, milk thistle does not help with hepatitis, and echinacea won't cure a cold [...] scientists spent $374,000 recently asking people to inhale lemon and lavender scents to see if it helped their wounds to heal. It didn't. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the US also outlaid $700,000 to show that magnets are no help in treating arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome or migraines. The center spent $390,000 to find that old Indian herbal remedies do not control type 2 diabetes and $406,000 to prove coffee enemas do not cure pancreatic cancer. It's the same story around the globe. One by one, weirdo treatments are being exposed as bunkum [...] latest research says dietary supplements and megavitamins, acupuncture and chiropractic are of little use and may even be harmful [...] chiropractors have now been discredited by every reputable medical organization from the Royal Society down [...] Professor Edzard Ernst and Peter Canter found no convincing data to support claims the technique was effective [...]";

yes.  Now, I don't think it's a waste of money.  The negative findings are useful as indicators that the implausible usually is quite INEFFECTIVE.  What does suck is that sCAM proponents usually say NCCAM means there's something to sCAM.

"why are people so gullible, handing over their hard-earned cash for unproven alternative therapies? Why do usually sane people get sucked in by pseudo-scientific fiddle-faddle such as homeopathy, reiki, reflexology, naturopathy, aromatherapy, iridology and crystals? [...]";

because, perhaps largely, sCAMsters are licensed and that imprimatur confuses the public.  When you licensed falsehood, they are also PROTECTED by the statutes and the State is therein a party to fraud.  Probably one of the reasons the State of Connecticut ignores my complaints is because they'd have to investigate themselves and find themselves liable for victimizing the public via their naturopathy statutes which licenses falsehood. 

"34 of Australia's most prominent doctors, medical researchers and scientists have voiced their concern that the public is being misled about health treatments. The Friends of Science in Medicine includes notables such as Professor Ian Frazer and Sir Gustav Nossal [...] Friends of Science in Medicine says universities offering courses in alternative therapies give them credibility they don't deserve [...]";

grand.  

"the Friends deplores universities that offer courses in sciences and health 'that are not supported by valid scientific evidence' says Rob Morrison, a scientist and professorial fellow. 'We want the public to be aware of the importance of the treatment they receive being based on scientific evidence [...] alternative therapies may have a placebo effect, but wrapping them up as science and discussing them in the same way as treatments that pass rigorous efficacy and safety tests is harmful for everyone' [...] Professor Marcello Costa from Flinders University [...states] 'it is disturbing to see a center of learning, of supposed excellence, teaching and perpetuating health practices based on beliefs in principles that are totally unscientific [...] it encourages the spread of quackery within the Australian health system, misuses the public's health dollars, encourages unnecessary 'treatments' and may delay effective treatment when true disease is present' [...and] John Dwyer, Emeritus Professor of Medicine at UNSW [...and of] Friends of Science in Medicine [which] has the support of 700 Australian and international scientists, clinicians, lawyers and consumer advocates [...] says [...] while many such approaches may be harmless, they all too often cause harm by delaying an accurate diagnosis and treatment [...] he is concerned with claims made by chiropractors he considers 'dangerous' [...and] 'Australians are at last being warned by their government that a large number of diagnostic and therapeutic claims made for so-called alternative and complementary medicine [sCAM!] are without merit' [...]";

you said it, mates.  I'm hoping that here in North America the naturopathy education racket will eventually be held accountable both legally and financially.  I cringe thinking how much money has been spent by education consumers based on naturopathy's false labels.  Most of the money is Federal Title IV loans that follow one for the rest of one's life.  I for one feel I was bamboozled and diverted. Hell, they're still doing it! Here's the science label upon the patently science-exterior still going on at my own alma mater [the root 'naturo' is in that document 43 times, the root 'scien' 57 times!].

"the Federal Government scrapped the taxpayer contribution to private health insurers for homeopathy, reiki and aromatherapy [...] for ear candling, crystal therapy, flower essences, [applied] kinesiology and rolfing [...]";

good news.

A Supposed Naturopath-Skeptic Crazily Claims Homeopathy Works

here, I cite from the column of ND Deville, who claims to be a skeptic but purveys homeopathic magic beans [see 001., below]:

001. Deville, L. (NMD SCNM) states in "Homeopathy: It’s Not Just Voodoo" (2012-05-25)[vsc 2012-05-25]:

"I’m a skeptic (believe it or not).  I’ve got a degree in biochemistry and molecular biophysics – that is to say, I’m not (as a general rule) satisfied to accept that something works if I can’t explain why it works [...]";

a skeptic isn't defined by their degrees, and 'that something works' is different from 'why it works'.  The best science has shown us that homeopathy actually DOESN'T work and therein there is NOTHING to explain.

"when I got to naturopathic school and I heard that extremely diluted substances (homeopathic medicines) could affect miraculous cures, I promptly placed the idea in my 'skeptical box' and forgot about it. And then I saw it work.  Over and over and over again [...]";

interesting.  Because I too got to naturopathy school and was introduced to homeopathy, and never saw it work EVER.  Not personally, not in clinic, NEVER.  I did see fans of homeopathy galore: fellow students, administrators, instructors, patients.

"bear with me for a minute while I describe the philosophy behind it.  This isn’t an explanation, it’s just a theory [...]";

oh, boy.  So, our supposed science-backgounded skeptic is now confusing a theory, which DOES explain facts, with a figmentation / fairy tale, which explains magic beans and unicorn tears.  There is no theory about how homeopathy works because it isn't needed being that homeopathy doesn't and can't work.  And being someone who has studied philosophy both formally and personally, it's a sad day for 'the love of wisdom' [if that's what philosophy is] when nonsense is labeled philosophizing.

"it helped me to get over the hurdle of thinking homeopathy was just 'magic' to recognizing that a scientific explanation does exist [...]";

no, actually, it's a pseudoscientific explanation awaiting something to explain.  No explanation gets over the hurdle / fact that homeopathic pills are INERT / empty.

"according to Newton’s Third Law of Motion [...]";

ah, a little classical physics.

"living systems always seek homeostasis (or balance), which means they have to adapt to any interference we introduce into them [...]";

ah, a little biology.

"the word homeopathy literally means 'same as the disease,' and it is based on the principle of 'like cures like' – that is, the remedy given is the one that would produce, in a healthy patient, the same symptoms that the ill patient is currently experiencing [...]";

this is known as sympathetic magic, like VOODOO.

there are no actual molecules of the original substance left in the remedy.  By the time you put it in your mouth, it’s essentially just lactose pellets, or water, depending on the delivery method.  We call that 'energetic medicine.' I know.  Ridiculous, right?  [...]";

yes. In science, energy is measurable.  But, there is nothing to measure in the pill but the stuff it is made out of.  What really is the basis of dilution was the idea by homeopathy's founder that as the dilution occurred, the remedy was basically becoming spiritized / immaterial and therein effects the patient not physically but dynamically / spiritually.  Those are Hahnemann's terms.  Not mentioning this is like talking about Christianity and excluding Jesus in the whole explanation.

"how do they work? [...] we don’t really know how it works [...]";

show that they work first.

"water itself can take on different organizational structures, and perhaps this is the mechanism of energetic imprinting in homeopathy.  But the process may very well be quantum mechanical in nature [...]";

there are lots of jokes about the memory of water.  And then there's QM abuse by the sCAMsters.

"three things can happen when you take a homeopathic remedy: you get better, you get worse and then you get better, or nothing happens [...]";

it's more honest to say, if I give you a placebo...

"some of the fastest and most impressive cures I’ve ever seen have followed a well-chosen homeopathic remedy. You can think I’m crazy if you want, and I’m okay with that [...]";

the claim that an empty remedy cures...IS crazy [thus crazily in my post title, you have given me permission to call you crazy if I like].  Taking money for it, though, is not crazy, it's unprofessional and repugnant and NOT OKAY.

002. NMD Deville:

 describes homeopathy also at her own web page (see here).  Her alma mater also (see here), falsely labeling it "amazingly effective."  Her board exam falsely labels homeopathy a "clinical science" (see here).  Now, I've been studying naturopathy since the mid nineties. Homeopathy is central to naturopathy.  It is in fact FUSED into naturopathy.

other science-ejected, stupid, deceptive practices and beliefs are too -- skeptically speaking (actually).

I highly recommend "Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy" which stated:

"there is no credible evidence of efficacy for homeopathy, which is an evidence-based view [...] by providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should not endorse the use of placebo treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should not be funded on the NHS and the MHRA
should stop licensing homeopathic products."

Science-Bases: MD Gaby Grossly Contradicts Naturopathic Orthodoxy at NMJ [don't they realize]

here, I cite from recent audio up at the AANP's Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ] regarding the importance of scientific research, ISYN [see 001., below]:

001. Gaby, A. (MD UM) states in "Renowned Nutritional Medicine Expert Alan Gaby, MD, Discusses the Importance of Scientific Research" (2012-04-03) [vsc & mp3 download 2012-05-24; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[from the description, as] interview by Karolyn A.Gazella, publisher of the Natural Medicine Journal [...]";

NMJ is the AANP's official journal.

"section: sponsored podcasts [...] about the sponsor: Integrative Therapeutics [IT...] is North America’s leading manufacturer and distributor of proprietary, natural, dietary supplements for medical professionals and their patients [...] well-known for developing the highest quality, most effective and proven natural health solutions in the industry [...they are] clinically proven, effective products [...] their ingredients have been the subjects of more than 2,500 independent, peer-reviewed-published clinical trials and studies [...] Alan Gaby, MD, explains why he constantly reviews the scientific literature";

from what I can tell, IT is owned by a supplement conglomerate.  I'd be interested to know if Gaby has his hand in that or any other supplement company, and if he shares that information with the public.  Notice the emphasis on experimental evaluation...that is, SCIENTIFIC study leading to convincing evidence and PROOF.

"[from the audio, Gazella talks of him] distilling the research [...and asks] why have you focused so heavily on staying abreast of the most current scientific research? [...]";

again, the talk of scientific research, at the official journal of the AANP / American naturopathy.

"[Gaby] it's not just the current scientific research, but obviously you need to know all of the research that is out there in order to provide a balanced perspective [...] to try to figure out what's real and what's hype in this field [...] what research is good [...to] get people on the straight path [...]";

again, talk of science and looking at ALL that science has to offer, to determine what is actual and what is, as I often term it, a figmentation.  The fact that this language is at an AANP site has vaporized my irony meter.

"[and Gaby speaks of] absolutely no effect [about blah blah blah...possible] research fraud here [regarding blah blah blah...and speaks of] the basics of how to interpret medical research [...that] I've probably read over fifty thousand articles in the past 35 years [...and speaks of] randomized clinical trials [...and] confounding factors [...] we just have to be careful with what we're doing [...] there's this block there [...the] substandard [...many things are ] easily debunked.";

ah, nice. So, we have the claim that what is supported by evidence and therein scientifically supported can be separated from what cannot / what is bunk / what is substandard.  Why, FFS then, does this happen at the principle naturopathy school in North American, NCNM, if such is true: the hugely science-ejected is falsely posed as within science / scientifically supported.  This AANP hypocrisy is disgusting, careless, and quite a block. You got their journal talking up the importance of scientific rigor, yet their primary school [and their main textbooks] absurdly claims that that which is for-several-decades and also for-a-few-hundred-years exterior to science IS SCIENCE [that is easily debunked].  I've been doing it for years.  Talk about fraud!  He speaks of this preponderance of research, of high quality measuring devices and carefully weeding through their flaws, but herein we have that so bullshit-laden position naturopathy places itself within: we're scientifically supported when HUGELY NOT.  E.g: 

how is it that naturopathy's label is 

science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy-vitalism-supernatural spiritism-craniosacral therapy-qi-prana-blood type diet-genotype diet-electrodermal screening-colonics-NLP-AK-Bach flower remedies-balneotherapy  [etc. etc. etc.].

don't they realize that in stating the importance of scientific rigor, they simultaneously contradict their claims that the science-debunked is science [after all, you can't have something WITHIN a category that it EXCLUDES], which is their orthodoxy?

naturopathy is, again, pretend science, pretend rationality, pretend expertise, pretend sanity and intelligence.

Bogus Diagnostics and Therapeutics: ND Pincott, an Electrodermal Ruse, and Recommended Orthorexia

here, I quote from a recent glowing piece on naturopathy in Canada [see 001., below]; then from scientific criticism of the naturopathic methods and claims [see 002., below]:

001. Kristen Douglas of campbellrivermirror.com reports in "Breaking Down Barriers to Naturopathy" (2012-05-22) [vsc 2012-05-22] [also here; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"as a naturopathic doctor [...] Pincott's work is all about [...what is] 'safe, effective, and proactive' [...]";

lets put that to the test.

"Pincott sees patients with an array of medical issues – from cancer to high blood pressure. 'I treat everything, all sorts of conditions,' Pincott says. 'I have people coming in because they’re infertile, I’ve treated kids with attention deficit, I’ve treated kids with autism. I treat men with prostate problems, you name it' [...]";

I think it's safe to say that NDs think that they can treat any type of problem...and do.

"Pincott has several patients with asthma [...] 'we teach the underlying causes of disease. For example, with asthma, it's dairy [...] 'getting people off dairy is a big one' [...]";

I do not think that is true, in terms of scientific evidence. 

A 2005 study "Milk Consumption Does Not Lead to Mucus Production or Occurrence of Asthma" states: "there is a belief among some members of the public that the consumption of milk and dairy products increases the production of mucus in the respiratory system. Therefore, some who believe in this effect renounce drinking milk [...] in some types of alternative medicine, people with bronchial asthma, a chronic inflammatory disease of the lower respiratory tract, are advised not to eat so-called mucus-forming foods, especially all kinds of dairy products. According to different investigations the consumption of milk does not seem to exacerbate the symptoms of asthma and a relationship between milk consumption and the occurrence of asthma cannot be established."  Sounds to me like "with asthma, it's dairy" is quite an empty promise by ND Pincott and quite a torture visited upon a patient: therein, orthorexia.

"'we're a tiny profession compared to the medical profession [...] trying to educate people' Pincott says [...] Pincott writes a monthly column for North Island MidWeek as well as monthly Ask the Expert pieces in the Mirror [...] Pincott has several binders full of educational newspaper clippings and a bulletin board full of health pamphlets [...] to find out more information, visit Pincott’s website at www.DrPincott.com [...]";

ah, yes, PROFESSION, EDUCATION, EXPERTISE, INFORMATION! We will visit.

"Pincott encourages people to come in and find out more about naturopathic medicine [...and offers] free candida testing or free taste testing [...to] try nutritional supplements [...] the candida test is a five-minute, electro-dermal acupuncture that gives the doctor an idea of a person’s intestinal health. It also determines how sensitive a person is to yeast growth in the gut [...] Dr. Ingrid Pincott sees some abnormalities as she tests [...a patient's] organs for signs of illness [...] through organ testing [....which] can sniff out illness before a patient actually feels sick [...]";

so, electrodermal, acupuncture, and some kind of projection of results upon the patient's poop pipes. This Pincott page confirms that 'organ testing' involves a machine called an "EAV Dermatron".  And here she talks of an "organ testing machine" (and here).  Here she mentions "EAV organ testing",  and here the "EAV organ testing machine."

002. some criticisms of electrodermal screening (EDS) and acupuncture:

002.a. the EAV Dermatron or Vega-like machines:

002.a1. Quackwatch writes in "Quack 'Electrodiagnostic' Devices":

"thousands of practitioners use 'electrodiagnostic' devices to help select their recommended treatment. Many claim to determine the cause of any disease by detecting the 'energy imbalance' causing the problem. Some also claim that the devices can detect whether someone is allergic or sensitive to foods, deficient in vitamins, or has defective teeth [...] the diagnostic procedure is most commonly referred to as electroacupuncture according to Voll (EAV) or electrodermal screening (EDS), but some practitioners call it bioelectric functions diagnosis (BFD), bio resonance therapy (BRT), bio-energy regulatory technique (BER), biocybernetic medicine (BM), computerized electrodermal screening (CEDS), computerized electrodermal stress analysis (CDCSA), electrodermal testng (EDT), limbic stress assessment (LSA), meridian energy analysis (MEA), or point testing [...] the first EAV devices were developed by Reinhold Voll, a West German physician who had been engaged in acupuncture practice in the 1950s [2]. In 1958, he combined Chinese acupuncture theory with galvanic skin differentials to produce his EAV system. His first transistorized model was the Dermatron [...] the devices described in this article are used to diagnose nonexistent health problems, select inappropriate treatment, and defraud insurance companies. I believe that EAV devices should be confiscated and that practitioners who use them are either delusional, dishonest, or both. If you encounter any such device, please report it to the practitioner's state licensing board, the state attorney general, the FDA, the Federal Trade Commission, the FBI, the National Fraud Information Center, and any insurance company to which the practitioner submits claims that involve use of the device."

002.b.  acupuncture:

002.b1. MD Novella writes in "Why I Am Skeptical of Acupuncture":

"acupuncture is the practice of placing very thin needles through the skin in specific locations of the body for the purpose of healing and relief of symptoms. This practice is [supposedly] several thousand years old and is part of traditional Chinese medicine [...] acupuncture has recently been transplanted to the West, riding the wave of tolerance for unscientific treatment practices marketed as 'complementary and alternative medicine' [...] the scientific medical community has still not accepted the practice as a legitimate scientific practice [...] Acupuncture is a pre-scientific superstition [...] taken as a whole, the pattern of the acupuncture literature follows one with which scientists are very familiar: the more tightly controlled the study the smaller the effect, and the best controlled trials are negative. This pattern is highly predictive of a null-effect – that there is no actual effect from acupuncture."

there you go, baby.

003. what's really 'breaking down':

it appears our collective rationality is breaking down, and fantasy is overtaking reality.  Naturopathic figmentation is posing as what is true, while such falsehood is protected by licensure, and journalistic integrity is nonexistent.  Why not a single criticism of this nonsense by reporter Douglas?

2 American ND Bach Flower Purveyors and Science-Based Medicine

here, I cite from a google.com search and a recent post from the blog Science-Based Medicine, both regarding the unicorn tears and magic beans known as Bach flower Remedies [BFR]:

001. a google.com search "naturopathic medicatrix Bach flower remedies" [without the exterior quotes] yields:

001.a. Botwick, J.D. (ND UBCNM) who writes in "The Principals of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2012-05-22]:

"naturopathic physicians treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling, Bach flower remedies, laboratory testing, gynecological exams, nutritional and dietary assessments, metabolic analysis, allergy testing, and other diagnostic tests [...] they cooperate with all other branches of medical science."

Note: a science subset naturopathy subset Bach flower remedies [and homeopathy!] claim.

001.b. DeGrandpre, Z. (ND NCNM) states in "What I can help you With" [vsc 2012-05-22]:

"I may suggest vitamins, supplements, botanical medicines, energy medicine such as homeopathy, reiki or Bach Flower remedies."

Note: so we have this idea of 'energy' subset homeopathy, reiki, BFR.

002. Dr. Harriet Hall writes in "Bach Flower Remedies" (2012-05-22) [my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"Bach flower remedies [...] contain a very small amount of flower material in a 50:50 solution of brandy and water, and are said to work by transmitting a vibrational energy through the memory of water (not the same as homeopathy, but equally implausible). Bach was trained as a homeopath [...and]  used his intuition to access a psychic connection to plants. He would hold his hand over different plants to see which one affected his emotional state, and he would collect the dew from that plant to use as a remedy [...]";

ok, not so much unicorn tears as 'dewdrop of psychically fondled flower.'

"[in] Bach’s 1936 book The Twelve Healers  [...] he offers no evidence of any kind [...and] the nature of the disease is immaterial. The mind shows the onset and course of the disease, and the outlook of mind is all you need to consider. Heal the mind and the body will heal itself. He isn’t just offering to affect psychology: he promises to cure all that ails you [...]";

and aren't we now in the land of the quack idealist / panacea-ist.

"the descriptions sound more like personality types in astrology than like temporary manifestations of illness [...]";

because it is 'big woo.'  It reminds me of the Genotype Diet personality types.

"the indefatigable Edzard Ernst did a systematic review of randomized clinical trials as of 2010, concluding that the most reliable trials did not show any difference between flower remedies and placebos [...]";

shocking!

"people actually believe this rubbish [...] the naturopathic Bastyr University teaches Bach flower therapy and even sells a book about flower remedies for animals."

and naturopaths pose such as scientific directly, or scientific by use of such terms as 'energy' which, without evidence and based on absurdity, isn't science at all.  It is a bait and switch.

BFR, oh what wonderful company you keep!

Changelog 2012-05-20 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 Cressman, A.;

ND Cressman, C. & ND Hirji;

to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb.;

ND Jangaard, H., ND Jangaard, R.;

ND Jones, D.D.

to Appendix B.05.i.c.04.;

the science claims of:

ND Aberle & ND Oppitz;
ND Andre; 

ND Aberdour & ND Lin;

ND Andrews, S.;

ND Arbour; ND Aresco; 

ND Abrams, M.; ND Au & ND Barker;

ND Ayoubzadeh; ND Ashney, 

ND Axelrod, ND Hudson, 

ND Meager-Benson, ND Raydon, ND Skinner

to Appendix I.05.a.;

ND Fabbro; 

ND Fabricius;

ND Farshchian and NDYoung;

ND FitzGerald, ND Hrkal, 

ND Markou, ND Silva

to Appendix I.05.e.;

ND Greenspan, J.; 

ND Gagliardi; ND Gerber;

ND Grieder; ND Gryner [candidate];

to Appendix I.05.f.;

ND Wright;
ND Wong, B.;
ND Weeks;
ND Takashima; 
to Appendix I.05.p.;

ND Bolliger, ND Leong, ND Sidhu, ND Somody;
ND Bothma;
to Appendix I.05.b.;

the 'homeopathy is science-ejected' claim of:

the Vancouver Sun 

to Appendix K.07.;

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

[special guest!] Senator Tom Harkin [who is not an ND] states in "Naturopathic Physicians Provide Wellness to Americans" [vsc 2012-05-17; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

.

.

#senatorkarkin #pseudoscienceproponentry #naturopathic #naturopathy #reversalofvalues

.

"I'm Senator Tom Harkin [...speaking about] AANP's federal legislative initiative [this 2012...whereby NDs] educate your members of Congress on the benefits of naturopathic medicine for both our physical health and our fiscal health [...]";

Harkin is regarded as quite the defender of the supplement industry and its loopholes.  Now, NDs have a tenet 'doctor as teacher.'  But, in order to educate you have to be knowledgeable.  What do NDs know?  Well, absurdly, they claim that science-ejected ideas are scientific when hugely / patently they are not.  They miseducate after being miseducated.  And I wonder, how does a system based on a metaphysical figmentation benefit us PHYSICALLY, and if their treatments are bogus [like colonics, homeopathy, acupuncture, iridology, and the like]  How does that benefit us fiscally?  It benefits them, for sure.

"the Affordable Care Act includes my amendment [...] a nondiscrimination clause to protect naturopathic physicians regarding participation in a health plan [...] this will insure that insurance companies cannot exclude NDs and other allied health professionals from practicing under the capacity of their training and licensure [...]";

and so, nonsense [NDs education, training, claims] gets sheltered.  We've seen this in Oregon, wherein NDs legislated FALSEHOOD.

"as naturopathic physicians know all to well, we don't have a healthcare system in America, we have a sick care system [...] we spend peanuts on prevention.  This is absurd and it's unsustainable [...and speaks of] a genuine wellness society [...] NDs and integrative medicine can and must play a very big role in this transformation [...] an expanded role for NDs [...their] sharp emphasis on wellness and prevention [...their] pragmatism in taking full advantage of the very best available therapies [...]";

the IRONY is killing me.  In finding fault with the current healthcare system, we should embrace NONSENSE?  Like naturopathy's homeopathy?   Let's DO get genuine and talk about what's unsustainable: naturopathy is a patent pseudoscience [in their own words, they pose what isn't science as science, it's completely disingenuous].  Pragmatism?   Best therapies?   Pragmatically speaking naturopathy's claims are quite bogus.  E.g., they laud homeopathy as POWERFUL, yet it is completely placebo!!!