Salzberg and Ernst on Chiropractic Education and Pediatrics, Extended Towards Naturopathy

here, I cite from Steven Salzberg's recent Forbes piece on chiropractic education nonsense [see 001., below]; then, Edzard Ernst's recent Guardian piece on chiropractic pediatric nonsense [see 002., below]; then, I extend those veins of criticism towards what's an even greater nonsense, naturopathy [see 003., below]:

001. Steven Salzberg writes at Forbes's Fighting Pseudoscience in "Why Does the Government Subsidize Chiropractic Colleges?" (2012-06-10) [my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"the U.S. is having a political debate about college tuition loans [...] politicians disagree about how to pay for the subsidized rates [...] lost in this fight is any discussion at all about which students – and which colleges – get these subsidies [...]";

any such anything, I believe, with Title IV access!

"what about institutions that provide a substandard education?  Or worse, what about institutions that educate people in quackery and pseudoscience?  Subsidies to these institutions are worse than useless.  These so-called colleges spread misinformation that will require much more investment to correct, if it is even possible [...]";

yes.  And, as I will mention in 003., many of them absurdly pose nonscience as science at the doctoral level.

"why, to be specific, is the U.S. government subsidizing students to attend chiropractic colleges? [...an area based on] subluxations [...which as an idea is] nonsense [...being that] subluxations have never been shown to cause disease [...and] have not even been shown to exist [...a] thorough lack of evidence [...]";

good question.

"low-cost student loans provide a benefit to many students and their universities.  But we don’t need to subsidize erroneous and misguided colleges that teach their students nonsense [...] lending students money to learn pseudoscience."

hear, hear.  I, to be clear, was lent money by the federal loan program to study naturopathic pseudoscience. And I will carry that debt with me until I die.

002. Edzard Ernst writes in "Chiropractors Continue to Treat Children Despite a Lack of Evidence" (2012-06-12):

"most Guardian readers will know that my friend and co-author Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for writing in the Guardian that the BCA was 'happily promoting bogus treatments' for a range of childhood conditions. The case ended with victory for Simon, not least because there is no good evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation does more good than harm for paediatric conditions [...]";

preponderantly.

"[yet] recent overview of data from 20 European countries showed that, internationally, chiropractors continue to treat children. The report suggests that skeletal, neurologic, gastrointestinal, infectious, genitourinary and immunity problems are being treated most frequently [...this] reluctance of chiropractors to get their act together, despite a lost court case, scientific evidence and mounting negative public opinion, is more than a little disconcerting. [...] the UK College of Chiropractors still has a 'paediatric facility' [...and] this weekend they will hold a Paediatric Chiropractic Symposium in London [...]";

you gotta start them young in order to have them as adult patients who then have children to become therein later adult patients!

003. naturopathic fully federally accredited and often licensed NONSENSE / FALSEHOOD:

well, I've talked about this to death on this blog.  You have the patently science-ejected falsely postured as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  You have naturopathic ideas such as "life forces" running physiology when they are in fact science-ejected, all the while naturopathy schools are labeling naturopathy essentially scientific.  You have naturopathic methods which are similarly 'of nonsense', like homeopathy and the like.  For years, due to naturopathy's false position, I've regarded the racket as insolvent...if only already existent consumer protections were implemented by the LAZY consumer agencies that I complain to.  I, personally, would want compensatory and punitive damages.  Let them feel that big pain, as they have abused the public's trust of the institutional status of education and physicianship.  It is false commerce and not the 'of professionalism' that they label themselves as.  After all, professionalism involves truth not falsehood, and is not operating worse than a really bad used car salesman.

it is pseudoscience, it is quackery, it is bogus misinformation,  it is the absurdity of presenting as 'in evidence' that which is anything but.

it is harm to the educational consumer and to the public's understanding of science.

Changelog 2012-06-10 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 Caprio; ND Campitelli;

to Appendix I.05.c.;

ND Mann and ND Yates;

ND Marcus; ND McCalment-Fuqua

to Appendix I.05.k.;

ND Doig

to Appendix I.05.d.;

the 'naturopathy is pseudoscience and quackery' claim of:

Orac / MD PhD Gorski 

 at National Geographic's Science Blog Respectful Insolence 

to Appendix K.00.;

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

Galarowicz, R. (ND TCNH 2006) states in "Naturopathic Doctor Naturopath Holistic Alternative Medicine Dr. New Jersey New York" [vsc 2012-06-10]:

.

.

#Galarowicz #naturopathicdoctor #scienceclaim #professionalclaim

.

"[title on video] Robert Galarowicz ND.  Naturopathic Doctor.  Expert in Clinical Nutrition, Mind-Body Health & Natural Health Sciences [...he states] what is a naturopathic doctor? [...] professionals like me [...] a naturopathic doctor [...] the human body is pretty much viewed in the same way [...] we use natural treatments to help someone [...] vitamins, minerals [...] lifestyle changes [...] I'm in an office with a couple medical doctors [...] what we are looking for is the root cause [...] toxicities, nutritional deficiencies [...] visit my web site."

So, lets do that.

ND Galarowicz states in "The Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine By New Jersey New York Naturopath – Essex County NJ" [vsc 2012-06-10]:

"naturopathic medicine is a natural approach to health.  It recognizes that the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process has a set order and intelligence, and that it knows that nature heals through the power of its own life force [vitalism]. The physician’s role is to guide and nurture this process [...] it is these principles that distinguish naturopathic medicine from other medical approaches: [#1] the healing power of nature: naturopathic medicine is a distinctively natural approach to health and healing.  It understands that the body has an innate ability to fix and repair."

And in "Natural Health Services" [vsc 2012-06-10]:

"the term natural health describes a fully scientific, reason-based approach to health care. The unifying beliefs, concepts, and general attitudes of natural health practitioners fall under the term [...] much of the knowledge and practice of such techniques have repeatedly stood the test of modern scientific scrutiny. Natural health is not anti-scientific or anti-rational; it rests on a foundation of objective study and research into natural phenomena [...] 'an evolution is occurring in health care as more natural medicines gain acceptance. Interestingly, this acceptance is largely a result of increased scientific investigation and the public's awareness of this research [...] science is paving the way for the medicine of the future -- a medicine that recognizes the healing power of nature.' [from] Encyclopedia of Nutritional Supplements by Michael T. Murray, N.D."

Note: so, we have the label professional and science placed upon the patently science ejected vitalistic and this is called reason-based, not anti-scientific and not anti-rational.

hilarious.

now, this ND is of the nonAANP type, but says exactly what the AANP types do.

A 2012 Letter to the New York State Senator Sponsoring Naturopathy's Licensure Bill

here, I reproduce the short letter I wrote this morning to Senator LaValle [see 001., below]; then I share how you can contact him, too [see 002., below]: 

001. I wrote, using the Senator's own contact page:

"Dear Honorable Senator,

I write this as a watcher of naturopathy who also went through one of their ND programs.  What I know is quite 'from the inside' and I've also continued my research publicly at the blog Naturocrit. 

I am a critic of naturopathy, in sum, after finding out all that I know, and I am not  alone.  The licensure of naturopathy is the licensure of falsehood, I can bluntly state. A very highly trafficked web site is 'Respectful Insolence' up at National Geographic's  Science Blogs. MD and PhD Gorski has a recent post about naturopathy and I've commented upon naturopathic licensure there. 

I scratch my head, after all that has been published (see  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14745386 ), concerning why consumer protections would  be so thrown under the bus by legally sanctioning what I think is an apparatus engaged in delusion, deception, irrationality and quackery. New York State, much like Oregon, will, by placing the State's Seal over naturopathy commerce, becoming an accessory to such. 

Though I am not a New York resident, I was born there, and my family resides there. I went to the City University of New York.   I took undergraduate science classes there. Naturopaths claim what they do is science-based in their document "Benefit Analysis of Licensing Naturopathic Doctors May 2011" [vsc 2012-06-08], stating  'naturopathy is a science-based health care practice.' This is patently false, regarding the essentially naturopathic like homeopathy. What they label as science, basically, would get you an F in an undergraduate science class taught to the national science standards. 

I've been watching this licensure process with trepidation. NDs likely will get their way, as they have in other states, and with licensure, they will regulate themselves eventually and licensed falsehood will be quite satisfied with  itself, yet still false. 

Thank you for your time, Rob Cullen."

Note: one thing to note is that if naturopathy as-what-it-truly-is is licensed in New York State and is legislated as "science-based", wow.  It would be as egregious as licensing 1+2=5.  It's really that simple. 

002. you too can contact this misguided lawmaker at:

Kenneth P. LaValle

Albany Office
188 State Street Room 806, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
United States
Phone: (518) 455-3121

District Office
28 North Country Rd Suite 203
Mount Sinai, NY 11766
United States
Phone: (631) 473-1461
Fax: (631) 473-1513

Note: perhaps we should send copies of books that explain what science supports and what science doesn't support, too.  As well as a book on ethics.

2012 NYANP Licensure Activity - What May Be a NEW Licensing of Falsehood

here, I cite the text of 2 emails from the AANP New York apparatus recently [see 001., below]:

001. NYANP writes:

001.a. in the emailing "Licensure is One Call Away" (2012-06-08) [vsc 2012-06-08; my notes are in unquoted bold]:

"[from] Rick Brinkman ND NCNM 1980 President of the AANP 1996-1999 [...] to my fellow NDs [...]";

I'm not an ND / NMD and I don't pose as one, obviously.  But, I've likely been on the NY ND emailing list perhaps since naturopathy school.  What's interesting is that when they try for licensure, they are merely NDs, and once they get something established, they expand to the credentials NMD.  Since Brinkman is an NCNM graduate, here's where I mention their explicitly stated NONSENSE BASIS which is at that school's own web page.

"speaking to you as someone who has been an ND for 32 years, who spent 7 years on the AANP board, 3 years as president, I have observed legislation moves slowly a step at a time [...it will] provide more patients experiencing the positive results of our medicine [...]";

yes, they have been creeping towards more and more licensure, and perhaps that SO SLOW creeping is an indication that naturopathy is no much of a revolutionary answer to much of anything in terms of healthcare.  After all, there are only so many people who aren't that sick, but chronically mildly sick, whose regression to the mean is the bread and butter of naturopathy's ruse.

"a law with some limitations is a lot more than no law at all which is a total restriction on practicing.  A law will [...] create more NDs in NY state and those together will lead to more support to over time expand the law of what we can do [...] passing this bill is the first step in NY [...]";

once legalized, as the example of Oregon.gov shows, they don't have to basically please anyone but themselves -- no matter how ridiculous their point of view comes across as, when you think about what they are claiming.  If history is any guide, the New York can then become an accessory to some really dumb-assedness, wherein figmentations are falsely posed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.

"I don't have to tell you that the current allopathic disease management is collapsing under it's overpriced interventions that come too late in the disease process. We need to be there as a licensed profession, promoting true 'healthcare' as a recognized alternative [...]";

and we are offered something revolutionary.   Allopathy, of course, is a sectarian label that naturopathy uses which isn't appropriate at all.  It falsely positions modern medicine.  I do agree that a lot of lifestyle-induced illness could be prevented, but those interventions are not essentially naturopathic.  They are diet, fitness and the like.  The public already knows what it basically has to do.  I'm not sure how naturopaths hope to get them eating better and exercising BEFORE they get sick and GO TO A NATUROPATH because they are AREN'T ill.  Regular medicine is facing the same problem.  People, for instance, are just getting fatter and fatter and may not get serious until they've diabetes or cardiovascular issues.  Are they going to MANDATE lifestyle interventions posed as 'the naturopathic' when regular medicine can't even get that Draconian?  Brinkman seems to be implying that regular doctors want to see their patients get ill and keep them ill to make money off of them.  When, actually, I think even in a world with great lifestyle habits we'd only be delaying what is being posed as an altogether avoidable cost: middle age problems would be pushed a couple decades into the future for that person as different problems associated with agedness.  Cost is also the design of our never-designed healthcare system: for profit insurance coverage and fee-for-service.  Actually, if doctors were rewarded for keeping their patients healthier like in the UK, we'd know by scientific studies what works and what doesn't, and I don't think that naturopathy wants such a measure placed upon their "true healthcare."  As Orac recently wrote, "I’ve lost track of how many times over the last 7 years I’ve mentioned that naturopathy is not science-based. The evidence is overwhelming. All you have to do is to look at the wide variety of quackery that fits comfortably into naturopathic practice to realize that most of naturopathy is quackery. Traditional Chinese medicine? Check. Various 'energy healing'? Check. 'Detoxification' woo? Check. Homeopathy? Check."

 001.b. in the emailing "A3057C: The Best Bill We Can Get in New York" (2012-06-08) [vsc 2012-06-08; my notes are in unquoted bold]:

"the fact is: that the whole naturopathic profession is fully aware of and is behind this bill. This bill is endorsed by the AANP and it’s president Dr. Cronin, as well as the AANP legislative director Gene McGill, and the NYANP [...]";

hell, licensing AANP nonsense so that it can't be prosecuted is great for its purveyors posing as professionals you can trust.

"you have to start with a basic bill, and then add scope of practice and change things we do not agree with as time goes on. This is how the political system works [...]";

the stepping-stone strategy.

"do you deserve a full scope of practice with no [MD] supervision? Of course you do - but it will not happen in NY when licensure begins [...] it is a vaguely defined term on purpose, with little to no real-world effect on your everyday practice [...]";

so, is this, I suppose, requirement, being ignored from the beginning?

"those of you NDs in New York who have chosen not to be a part of this legislative process, and instead remain quiet, save for 11th hour letters and phone calls of opposition, are hurting your profession both within our state, and nationally [...you] NDs opposing our own bill [...] you are, in actuality, dismembering your naturopathic profession by proving the profession as disorganized and not united [...] shooting inward [...]";

a little civil war amongst the woo-meisters?  I am not a New York resident, but once was.  I was going to write to whomever about this bill.  But, I've already previously write to the prosecutorial authorizes in NYS in regards to naturopathy's education fraud and clinical / consumer fraud. 

"the medical society and legislature are now thinking: 'why did the NDs oppose their own bill? What are they hiding? They are not serious professionals. Let's watch them destroy themselves [...]";

well, part of this blog's purpose is to reveal what naturopathy truly is, and minimally it is not professional since professions aren't based on falsehood.  I doubt this will destroy them, though.

 "the medical society in New York is powerful. The only reason this bill is able to pass is because Senator LaValle is on our side and has told the medical society that they must allow a licensure bill to pass [...]";

so, we know who to blame for licensed falsehood in New York, when it happens.

"as AANP past president Dr. Michael Traub describes the current New York situation [...] 'currently, we are faced with the continued threat of being investigated, arrested and/or fined for being a naturopathic doctor in New York without this bill [...] starting with a less-than-full scope of practice is a situation that has happened in many other licensed states, and will need to happen here in New York [...] we will have our foot in the door and a seat at the table. From that position we can go back next year and add to the law as an established profession [...] we have to demonstrate that we are safe and effective' [...]";

actually, this bill will erode consumer rights.  I imagine a far future for New York naturopathy without restraints, whereby, like Oregon and Washington, falsehood is legalized.  The efficacy thing really never happens, by the way.  For instance, NDs have been and will likely always be using homeopathy, doing colonics, fixing people's chi, and the like no matter that science says that stuff is NONSENSE. Homeopathy, by the way, is the "basis" for ND Traub's practice. 

so licensed falsehood marches on.

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."