Changelog 2012-08-05 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 Visocchi; ND Verslycken;

NDs Vanderaa and Westlake;

ND Yurko; ND Wojcik; ND Wright; 

to Appendix B.05.i.L.;

ND Mackler; ND Marciano;

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

ND Mercer;

to Appendix B.05.i.d.03.;

ND Schostag;

to Appendix B.05.i.i.00.;

ND Shegeft; ND Simone; ND Singh;

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

ND Stadtmauer; NMD Sundene; 

to Appendix B.05.i.i.03.;

ND Hermiston; ND Henson;

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

ND Horne-Paul; ND Hindman;

to Appendix B.05.i.c.03.;

ND Born, Jones, Stagg, Yimoyines;

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

ND Bloom, Schor;

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

ND Bar-Shalom;

to Appendix B.05.i.a.03.;

the science claims of:

NDs Larrow, Morgan, Raithel
to Appendix I.05.j.

[whose video is below];

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

002.a. NDs Larrow, Morgan, Raithel state in "Revolutions Docs" [vsc 2012-08-03]:

.

.

tags: #IVtherapy #codedvitalism #efficacyclaim #healingpowerofnature

.

"[from the description] Revolutions Docs - the next step in the evolution of modern medicine [...from the video] the naturopathic difference: six principles, #1 do no harm; #2 the healing power of nature [shows their dispensary of herbal tinctures and supplements...] #3 discover and treat the cause, not just the effect; #4 treat the whole person; #5 the doctor is a teacher; #6 prevention is the best 'cure' [shows patient receiving IV bag].  Safe and effective naturopathic therapies."

Note: oh so much to talk about here.  Is naturopathy EVOLUTION or DEVOLUTION in terms of the MODERN?  In terms of its principles, are we being TRULY informed regarding HPN and such?   We are told the doctor is teacher, but does the teacher actually understand effect, noneffect, cause, and the boundaries of of science?  I will talk about these issues in the section below. 

002.b. uncoding:

the nonscience falsely labeled 'science, effective and modern' [if we're going to teach, then lets REALLY teach and not miseducate]:

002.b1. what does HPN mean?

here's a BIG 'web page Rosetta Stone' that the school that these three NDs graduated from, SCNM, has titled "Is Naturopathic Medicine For You?" [that's the 2003 archived version] which states: 

"the healing power of nature [...was supposedly] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...is] the essence of naturopathic medicine";

Note: so, HPN is the ancient / classical science-ejected premise of a vital force governing physiology and delineating dead from living.  How medieval.  Is this therein MODERN?  An EVOLUTION?  To step back into the discarded and defunct?  No.  Obviously.  So much for being taught right to therein be teachers.  Coincidentally, SCNM labels naturopathy, grossly, in "The Naturopathic Physician" [that's the 2008 archived version]:

"naturopathic doctors practice is based on the same basic biomedical science foundation as allopathic practice" though their essential vitalistic premise is outside of science and modern medicine is not allopathy.  This is a false label concerning the overall knowledge state of 'the essentially naturopathic'.

002.b2. what is 'effect' in naturopathy?

naturopathy, by its own decree, claims that empty remedies / homeopathy are highly effective in "Breaking Free of Panic Attacks" [vsc 2012-08-04]:

"[by ND Natalie Ham] thankfully, this is also an area where homeopathy can really shine—providing safe, effective, and often quick relief that far surpasses most conventional treatments."

Note: yet, IN FACT, even the makers of homeopathic so-called remedies in the UK are thinking of rebranding those 'effective' remedies, and I shit you not, "confectionery".  So, when a naturopath talks about treating the cause, not the effect, I don't think they have very high standards in terms of demarcating their knowledge enough to understand all that much at all.

002.b3. are we being taught?

no, the public is being indoctrinated by sectarian bullshit, obviously.

ND Rothenberg Promotes Homeopathy Patent Nonsense at Huffpo (2012-07)

here, I cite from a recent piece up at the Huffington Post regarding the patent nonsense known as homeopathy which is essential to naturopathy [see 001., below]:

001. Rothenberg, A. (ND NCNM), "licensed naturopathic doctor",  states in "Homeopathy for Poison Ivy: A Case in Point" [vsc 2012-07-30]:

"I enjoy treating acute problems with homeopathy in the context of my naturopathic medical practice [...] a patient of mine for 15 years [...] has the worst case of poison ivy and it was either calling me or going to the emergency room [...]";

wow, naturopathy-homeopathy woo or actual modern standard of care, equated.

"as have many naturopathic doctors, I see effects of poison ivy that truly take the breath away. I have observed large, excoriated tracts of skin weeping and crusting. I have seen faces blow up to be unrecognizable and limbs grotesquely distorted by swelling. I have been privy to genital exfoliation and plantar disintegration, all from the effects of this ubiquitous and pesky weed. Swede presents none of the above. Instead, what I see when she gingerly rolls back her gauzy cotton sleeve, is a small strand of pearly vesicles, no more than two inches long [...]";

always make sure when treating someone with sugar pills that the battle isn't too up hill.  You may otherwise be seen as truly naked in your invisible clothes.

Note: in the light of what science says about homeopathy (see here), the mentioned ND licensure is state-sanctioned protection of quite false ideas and practices, obviously.  We are offered a link at the end of the article "for more on natural health", and therein it is quite obvious also that 'natural health' is 'of a strange wasteland'.

Changelog 2012-07-29 and ND Video:

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

001. added:

the science claims of:

the University of Minnesota

to Appendix I.01.b.;

ND Eason; ND Frigerio;

ND Frketich; ND Futterman;

ND Fry; ND Freeman; ND Franzoni;

NDs Flynn and Parasson;

NDs Ferchoff, McCleod, Nguyen, Thurston;

NDs Ferreira, Houmed, Kahrobaei,
Lescheid, MacDonald, Zarzeczny;

to Appendix I.05.e.;

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

002.a. Burt, S. (ND ACNT) states in "What is Naturopathy?" [vsc 2012-07-22; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

.

.

#naturopathy #naturopath #iridology #behavioraliridology #JimVerghis

.

"[from the description] Sarah Burt gives an introduction to naturopathy at the Broadstone Clinic in Dorset, UK. Naturopathy literally means 'nature care' and the naturopath will attempt to offer an individually tailored treatment program using the most natural means possible to make a patient feel well again [...from the video] what naturopathy is about [...] naturopathy just means nature cure [...] a philosophy of medicine that's actually been around for about 2000 years, since the time of Hippocrates [...] to treat the person and not the illness [...] ";

so, we have here a naturopath in the UK.  Natural, natural, natural.  A fallacy.  Sorry, but if I'm ill, and I go to someone claiming they're a physician, they they better 'treat the person WITH the illness'.

"modern pharmaceutical medicine actually tends to suppress a person's symptoms and therefore suppress the immune system, what naturopaths are trying very hard to do is to not suppress the immune system and rather to try and get to the root cause of the problem [...]";

and here we are with the racketeering: regular medicine harms you, naturopathic medicine knows how not to harm you and to help you.  A fake problem they claim a solution to; a problem that is SO FAKE that they've obviously invented it.  If modern medicine knows anything about the immune system, it is how to implement it for the patient's benefit: like with immunology and vaccination.

"naturopathy is an educational process [...]";

and OH WHAT PSEUDO-FACTS we are taught in this video.

"I've been trained in a system called iridology which is the study of the colored part of your iris under magnification of torch [...] reading different signs, and markings, and colorings in the colored part of your eye which will hopefully help me get to this root cause of the problem.  Because like reflexology, all of the organs and the systems that are in your body are actually shown in the iris [...] by determining what those signs and different color variations mean, I can hopefully get to where the problem area lies  [...and then] make up a herbal formula [...shows ND Burt doing iridology on the interviewer / patient]";

and here we are with the pseudodiagnostic.  Invoking reflexology to support iridology is quite hilarious.

Note:  Rational Wiki states in "Iridology" (2012-07-28):

"iridology is a form of pseudoscientific medical woo that claims that an examination of the eye, specifically the iris, can reveal the health of its owner. While this is true for some medical conditions [...] iridology stretches this far beyond medical science, by claiming that the iris will change to reflect injuries, such as broken bones, and that observation of these changes can be used to diagnose such ailments. This type of delusion is known also known as sympathetic magic. Iridology was invented by a Ignatz von Peczely, a Hungarian physician [...] one of the weirder claims made by iridologists is that having green eyes is clear evidence of massive medical issues, because only brown and blue eyes are 'natural'. [...] although some specific disorders may manifest symptoms elsewhere in the body, there is no evidence to support the existence of the general purpose diagnostic system required for iridology to be anything more than woo."

002.b. her other pages include:

002.a. "Iridology" [vsc 2012-07-28]:

"the history of iridology has many varied sources of human knowledge and observational sciences included in its formation [...]

iridology is as scientific as the Easter Bunny.

"there is no one exact person or time that can claim to ‘own’ the knowledge of iridology but can only present a long lineage of various pioneers that have added to its vast database of understanding and wisdom [...]";

really, wisdom and knowledge?  Ah, the argument from antiquity fallacy.

"[page 2] Ignatz Von Peczely [...] this young physician trying to free a trapped owl from his own garden [...] in freeing the bird from its entrapment he himself (Peczely) inadvertently broke the animal’s leg. He then took it upon himself to heal the sick animal and nurse it back to health and in doing so noticed a dark lesion had formed in the owl’s iris. This [iris] area was cataloged and observed as the bird returned to health. As it did so it was then noticed that the [iris] lesion began to slowly knit and repair its self much like the broken bone in the owl's leg";

if the iris is so reactive to physiological changes, then home come based on the myriad of diseases and conditions that people suffer from, has iris changes not be noticed grossly before in general medicine?  Doctors look in the eyes of patients all the time.  Even the video above only examines the iris once, and we don't see evidence that upon follow-up, the patient's problems were solved and most importantly, that the iris CHANGED to reflect that improvement.

"[page 3] an example of an iridology iris map. Note: The positions of the organs in the eyes reflex the state of that particular organ in the body. The right iris represents organs on the right side of the body i.e. right eye. The left iris represents organs on the left side of the body";

fanciful.

"[page 4] Von Peczely is considered today to be the father of modern iridology [...] a physician and homeopath";

well, there's another great pseudotherapy to mention, homeopathy.

"[a pdf] click PDF button to download an Iridology sample slide showing
various iris and associated bodily conditions";

yeah, right.

002.b.1. "Behavioral Iridology":

"a second approach to iridology is the use of a behavioral model of interpretation, this is an area I have been personally involved in the last 3 years. Behavioral iridology is a model put forward by Jim Verghis (USA), adopting a closer relationship between the original physical model and the emerging school of behavioral work [...]";

because woo knows no bounds in terms of creativity.
 
"over the last 3 years I have been working closely with Jim and and now happy to be able to offer this work in my own naturopathic practice. The iris map on the following page outlines just some of the behavioral aspects that are possible to distinguish in the iris";

I doubt it.

002.b.2. "the behavioral iridology iris map":

"positions in the right eye are related to the left brain and your fathers side of the family. Positions in the left eye are related to the right side of the brain and your mothers family";

hmmmmmmmmmm.

Blog Birthday!

This blog began in 2008 on this date:

That's four long years, 668 posts including this one, and if stats are in any way consistent, today should break 30,000 reads.

Not bad for these 'little musings', which, inspired by greater minds than mine in terms of scientific skepticism and activism, stand on the shoulders of giants including:

David Hume, James Randi and the JREF, Carl Sagan, Steven Barrett and such blogs as Science Based Medicine, Neurologica, Respectful Insolence, the Quackometer, and such groups as Friends of Science in Medicine and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

-r.c.

Durango Herald Advocates Colorado Naturopathy Licensure, 2012

here, I excerpt from a recent Colorado article on that State's naturopathy-licensure tension [see 001., below; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

001. Luke Groskopf reports / advocates in "Naturopaths – License or No?" (2012-07-23) [vsc 2012-07-23]:

"Joslyn Erica [...says] 'if licensure would give naturopathic doctors the recognition they deserve, I’m all for it' [...]";

sounds like someone believes naturopaths deserve RECOGNITION.  What licensure really is is approval, but should naturopaths' behaviors and beliefs be sanctioned / legitimized?

"how do you know your doctor is legitimate? The letters behind his or her name – MD – are generally a trustworthy signal. Under current law in Colorado, however, anybody can claim to be a doctor of naturopathy regardless of education history or training [...]";

so, licensure will lead to sanctioning / legitimization of naturopathy.  But, based on their education and training, in my opinion, they are NOT worth trusting with one's medical concerns.  After all, it is naturopathy, at its core, that falsely labels the nonscientific sectarian as medical science. That falsehood is already sanctioned by the seal of the State of Oregon, and why the hell should consumers in Colorado be so similarly victimized?
\

"naturopathy is a branch of alternative medicine that avoids invasive surgery and synthetic drugs. Instead, it calls upon herbs, vitamins, massage, diet changes and lifestyle counseling to facilitate the body’s 'innate healing' abilities' [IHA aka coded vitalism...there's] Nicola St. Mary, a naturopathic doctor [(SCNM 2004)...and] Nancy Utter [(Bastyr 2003)], a naturopathic doctor [...says] the licensure debate is [...] 'about clarity for patients and their peace of mind' [...and there's] Jennifer Letellier [(NCNM)], a naturopathic doctor [...]";

for what IHA's true meaning, see ND St. Mary's alma mater SCNM wherein we're told it is the science-ejected idea known as vitalism, and see ND Utter's alma mater Bastyr where same is said, and see NCNM, the trunk of the naturopathy tree, telling us that science is the same as nonsense. Well, said but at both institutions falsely labeled with the umbrella term "science-based" (SCNM, Bastyr).   But, if Kitzmiller et al. taught us anything, it is that even in a court of law, there is a reasonable distinction between science and patent nonscience.

"since 1994, the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors has proposed licensure bills seven different times [...] sixteen states plus the District of Columbia have passed legislation licensing naturopaths [...] the goal remains the same: clarifying the credentials needed to call oneself a naturopathic doctor [...past] criteria [has] included a bachelor’s degree, a post-graduate naturopathy degree from a four-year, Department of Education-accredited institution, at least 1,200 hours of supervised clinical training and completion of board exams. Just five schools in the United States meet these requirements [...]";

so, based on what I know about naturopathy, a domain what trades on false labels and manipulative language seeks to be approved by States to keep themselves out of trouble.  This is known, at Naturocrit, as licensed falsehood.  The irony of stating "clarifying" when it comes to naturopathy, which from the get-go states that its fundamental characteristic is that it "blends".  As you can see, in blending science with nonscience and calling, absurdly, the whole thing science, we are quite not-clarifiable and quite false in label.  This is know as required stupidity.  Obviously, as well, the USDE will accredit anything all all, even doctoral level NONSENSE.  This is institutionalized racketeering.

"among those opposed to licensure is the American Medical Association and its state affiliates, which lobby on behalf of conventional physicians. Colorado’s chapter, the Colorado Medical Society, believes licensing naturopaths as doctors wrongly endorses pseudoscience and allows them to prescribe and treat beyond their capabilities, according to a statement from CEO Alfred Gilchrist [...]";

hear, hear.  Pseudoscience is quite the correct label for a domain that labels science and the science-exterior SCIENCE.

"Shauna Young [...of] the Colorado Coalition for Natural Health [who] opposes licensure [...] holds a Doctor of Naturopathy degree from the Herbal Healer Academy, a correspondence school based in Arkansas, and was awarded a doctorate in Natural Sciences from the University of Natural Medicine in Santa Fe [...] neither are members of federally endorsed accrediting bodies [...]";

as evidenced, though, the USDE accreditation is NOT GUARANTEEING integrity or any kind of consumer protection as an education customer.  After all, as I went there and I therefore know, the University of Bridgeport labels patent science-ejected cultic nonsense "health science" and it is fully-accredited.

"[ND] Young thinks graduates from the 'big five' are creating a sweet deal for themselves at the expense of all other practitioners [...]";

oh, yeah, baby!  The 5 schools in question have a consortia body that also states quite falsely that that which is NOT in any way scientific is scientific.  Licensing such nonsense is quite protective of that nonsense.  Sweet! 

"former state Rep. Jim Reisberg, D-Greeley, was a sponsor of H.B. 11-1173.  He supports licensure for consumer-protection reasons [...]";

as I have already pointed out, how are particularly EDUCATION consumers protected by licensure of falsehood?  In fact, I term this Title IV fraud.

Note: and licensed falsehood, the naturopathillogical, marches on.  How quite an obviously absurd issue gets the 'both sides are equal' journalistic treatment is beyond me.  Therein, I label this article 'proponentry' / 'advocacy'.

'Much of Naturopathic Medicine is Placebo': A Reported Fascinating Admission by NCNM's Zwickey

here, I cite from an 2012 article that claims that placebos are not, essentially, placebos but are 'therapy' and 'ethical' [see 001., below]:

001. the Portland Tribune states [NCNM is hosting this article] in "A Pill to Cure All Ills?  It's Just in Our Heads" (2012-07-05) [vsc 2012-07-19]:

"[as reported by Peter Korn] Heather Zwickey, dean of research at Portland's National College of Natural Medicine [vsc 2012-07-19] says that much of naturopathic medicine is indistinguishable from the placebo effect, and it would be unethical not to offer placebos to patients who might be helped [...] 'some people might think of those as placebos [...] for us it's therapy [...] our brains do it for us' [the caption on the picture states] when knowing too much can inhibit healing";

Note: wow, there is SO MUCH wrong with this.   Yet, it is now hosted at NCNM. Up at Science Based Medicine, Steve Novella had this to say about placebo in 2010:

"Hróbjartsson  and Gøtzsche have been studying the placebo effect for years, reviewing the literature, especially for trials that contain a no-treatment arm. Their most recent review is very illuminating. They conclude 'we did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed' [...that is] they found that when you look at any objective or clinically important outcome – the kinds of things that would indicate a real biological effect – there is no discernible placebo effect. There is no mind-over-matter self healing that can be attributed to the placebo effect."

I, personally, want REAL effects from interventions and I don't believe there is a benefit, ethically speaking, to what I'll call 'misinformed consent' / patient deception.

Changelog 2012-07-22 and ND Video

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

001. added:

the vitalism of:

ND Pyne; ND Pryce; ND Pun;

ND Powell; ND Pilgrim;

ND Picard; ND Park;
to Appendix B.05.i.f.;

the science claims of:

ND Zeitlin 

to Appendix I.05.p.;

the venerable 

State of Connecticut

to Appendix I.03.

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

002.a. Duncan, L. (ND ?), whose bio. page doesn't tell us what school he went to [isn't that ODD?], states:

002.a1. in "Dr. Lindsey Catches himself on TV on the Plane" [vsc 2012-07-21]:

.

. 

tags: #naturopathiconcology #NDDuncan #DrOzwoo #promotionofnaturopathy

.

"[from the description] Dr. Lindsey Duncan flips the channel and sees himself on The Dr. Oz Show. It was a re-air of his segment, the best supplements to support cancer prevention";

Note: ah, the naturopath as oncologist.

002.a2. in "How Do I Cleanse My Body of Toxins?" [vsc 2012-07-21]:

.

.

tags: #cleanse #NDDuncan #fakeproblem

.

"[from the description] Dr. Lindsey Duncan explains his 3-7 day cleanse program to completely cleanse every organ in the body [...from the video] 3, 5, 7 -day cleanse [...] I take fiber, I take bentonite clay, I take super-fruit juices [...] I take pancreatic tablets, and I take greens [...] this is if you want to cleanse [...] if you are sick or you have a disease go talk to your doctor [...] if you are just tired and toxic, that is the best thing.  That will change your body so fast";

.

Note: promises, promises.  Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article has a 'big ouch' for fans and proponents of detox junk:

"body cleansing and detoxification have been referred to as an elaborate hoax used by con artists to cure nonexistent illnesses [...] medical experts state that body cleansing is unnecessary as the human body is naturally capable of maintaining itself, with several organs dedicated to cleansing the blood and gut. Professor Alan Boobis OBE, Toxicologist, Division of Medicine, Imperial College London states that:

'the body’s own detoxification systems are remarkably sophisticated and versatile [...] it is remarkable that people are prepared to risk seriously disrupting these systems with unproven ‘detox’ diets, which could well do more harm than good.'

The apparently satisfied testimonial and anecdotal accounts by customers can often be explained by disguised employees companies or individuals creating false anecdotes, legitimate customers who are experiencing the placebo effect after using the products, natural recovery from an actual illness that would have occurred without the use of the product [regression to the mean], psychological improvements on illnesses that are psychosomatic or the result of neurosis, or the lack of a larger number of dissatisfied customers not posting equally applicable anecdotes about their poorer experiences."

003. an ND Duncan page that really raises alarms:

003.a. in his "The Green Coffee Bean: Weight Loss Myth or Miracle? Plus Bonus Weight Loss Tips!", we're told:

"what has the media and the scientific community so excited about Green Coffee Bean Extract [GCBE] is that people don’t have to do anything different when taking this food supplement, they don’t need to exercise, they don’t need to diet, they just appear to drop pounds!"

Note: but, there has been quite a bit of GCBE debunking done by people-in-the-know.  at Science-Based Pharmacology, Scott Gavura writes in "Green Coffee Beans for weight loss: Dr. Oz loves it, but where’s the evidence?":

"green coffee bean supplements have the characteristics of a bogus weight loss product. The supplement lacks plausibility, the only published clinical trial is tiny, and it appears to have have some serious methodological problems. Ignoring all of this, Dr. Oz has instead embraced it as the newest panacea for weight loss. Obesity is a real health issue, yet Dr. Oz seems quite content touting unproven products instead of providing credible, science-based information. In the real world, permanent weight loss is difficult, and there are no quick fixes. But not in the Land of Oz."

003.b. and we are advised by the Federal Trade Commission, regarding diet scams:

"when it comes to evaluating claims for weight loss products, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recommends a healthy portion of skepticism. Before you spend money on products that promise fast and easy results, weigh the claims carefully. Think twice before wasting your money on products that make any of these false claims [...including] 'lose weight without diet or exercise!'"

Hulda Clark's "Quackery" Lives On This 2012, via ND Andrews of Connecticut

here, I cite from a LICENSED naturopath's web pages extolling the quite 'out-there ideas' of the late UNLICENSED naturopath Hulda Clark [see 001.a., below] and other 'therapies' [see 001.b., below]: then, I excerpt from criticism [see 002., below]; finally, I wonder what Connecticut licensure of naturopathy EVEN guarantees [see 003., below]:

001. Andrews, S. (ND UBCNM 2008) states:

001.a. in "Frequency Healing: Overview and History" [vsc 2012-07-14; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"Dr. Hulda Clark [...] studied the principles of naturopathy at the Clayton College of Natural Health which offered a six-month study at home course.  Six years later she developed an electronic device for scanning the human body and detecting and treating diseases through frequency [...via] the 'zapper' [...]";

and thus was born a whole Clark industry.

"what is frequency healing and how does it work? [...it is] a type of treatment developed in the early 1900s [...] based on theories of resonance and vibration [...] frequency healing is a therapy associated with specific signature frequencies [...] signature frequencies of viruses, bacteria, disease states, healthy organs, bones, even thoughts and emotions have been identified [...] disrupting unwanted frequency occurs similarly to the way an opera singer breaks a glass [...] the same can be done with bacteria and virus by bombarding them with amplitude of resonant frequency beyond their ability to absorb [...and] optimal health can be supported by providing the desired frequency at the desired amplitude.  When the body resonates with this frequency it creates the optimal conditions for health [...]";

so, 'frequency, frequency, frequency.'  Quite frequently used.  The citation for these claims is ND Clark's "The Cure for All Diseases" (1995).  At Amazon.com, the book is, in my view, ridiculously priced still at $20 new (1st edition) and more, and there are, in the "sponsored links" section on the bottom, Clark Zappers for sale somewhere online to this day.  Sadly, the book has 4 out of 5 stars.  

"the western paradigm for health has been mechanistic [...]";

this is another way of saying that 'modern science requires evidence and rigor, but that's not fair.'  Bullshit.

"if you have two bodies side by side with all the systems intact and capable of functioning, yet one is alive and one is dead, what is the essential difference?  The difference is the absence or presence of life force. Scientists call it ‘factor X’ [...aka] vital energy, chi, prana, organizing principle [...]";

a life force is in fact science-ejected.  But, it is also the basis of naturopathy which falsely labels itself, while based upon this science-ejected premise, science-based.  More bullshit.

 "one example of a western energy healer is Franz Anton Mesmer [...] Mesmerism is the foundation of many modern day energy-healing systems [...]";

actually, what's really interesting about Mesmer is that he was debunked in the 1700s.  And that's a fact.  Between frequency, life force, Mesmer as a basis for this "frequency healing", I smell a heaping pile of bullshit.

"the foundations of frequency healing began in the 1920’s. The key pioneers were Dr. Albert Abrams, Dr. Ruth Drown, Royal Rife, and Dr. Hulda Clark [...] all the energy devices of the past 30 years stand on the shoulders of these four people [...] what these pioneers all have in common is a strong scientific background, conventional recognition, and scientific standing until the moment they moved outside of conventional knowledge [...]";

"conventional knowledge" is a euphemism for 'off the deep end', me thinks.   And here at least, the word energy is a euphemism for bullshit.  Quackwatch has a great article up titled "The Bizarre Claims of Hulda Clark."

001.b. in "Definitions" [vsc 2012--07-17]:

"energy balancing: energy refers to life force, a vital force that animates and organizes life.  There are three key structures that are involved in the flow and utilization of life force. Energy flows through channels in the body called meridians, is collected and transformed in energy centers called chakras, and radiates through a field of energy around the body called the aura.  Energy balancing assists the smooth flow of life force through all the energy structures and removes energetic obstacles to energy flow.  Energy flow is affected by injury, habitual tension, mental attitudes and beliefs and emotional upset. Energy therapies believe that energy patterns underlie physical conditions and that as energy is shifted, physical manifestation changes too.  There are a multitude of techniques used to balance energy including reiki, aura balancing, EMF, not to mention acupuncture, acupressure and chakra balancing [...] energy balancing is often incorporated into other bodywork sessions such as massage therapy [...]";

energy, energy, energy.  So, here's a great 'key' to decoding naturopathy's camouflaging of a very science-ejected concept, vitalism-figmentation, with science-sounding words like energy.

"homeopathy is an alternative medicine first defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the 1700’s.  Homeopathy believes disease and sickness are caused by a disturbance in the life force (energy) of the person [...] training in homeopathy is part of the training for naturopathic doctors [...] homeopathic remedies are inexpensive, easily obtained and very effective [...]";

homeopathic remedies ARE NOT "very effective".  We know this scientifically.  It is also part of the science-ejected junk that comprises a naturopathic degree.

"naturopathic medicine is a branch of medicine that uses natural interventions to promote health [...] teatment is individualized, treats the whole person (body, mind, emotions and spirit), and seeks to stimulate the bodies natural healing mechanisms. It uses lifestyle change, herbs, nutrition, homeopathy and other treatment options [...] licensed naturopathic physicians must pass comprehensive board exams [NPLEX] set by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE) after having completed four years of academic and clinical training at a post-graduate college certified by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME). Naturopaths are trained in conventional medical sciences, diagnosis and treatment of illness, pharmacology, minor surgery and natural therapeutic interventions [...] Connecticut has recognized and licensed naturopathic doctors since 1926.  Naturopathic physicians here are considered specialty care doctors as opposed to primary care doctors.  The scope of practice in Connecticut consists of diagnosis and treatment and includes a variety of treatment modalities such as acupuncture and oriental medicine,  botanical medicine, homeopathy [etc....]";

ye old natureopathy (how the CT statutes spell it) that labels as science (NPLEX) that which is nonsense (homeopathy and kind) aka specializing in nonsense.

"Chinese medicine [...] acupressure is the art of skillfully pressing key points (acupoints) that stimulate the body's natural self-curative abilities. Pressing acupoints in systematic combinations releases muscular tension, promotes circulation, stimulates the flow of chi and aids the body’s healing processes [...] a session may integrate meridian stretching and other bodywork therapies as well as healing imagery and emotional processing to eliminate the underlying causes of energy disturbance [...] acupuncture is a traditional Chinese medical technique used to restore and maintain health.  Stimulation of acupoints unblocks the flow of chi (or qi) along meridian pathways to balance opposing internal forces.  There are more than 350 acupoints traveling on 12 main meridian pathways [...] treatment is aimed at restoring harmony; with harmony, chi flows freely within the body and a person is healthy. When a person is sick, diseased, or injured, there is an obstruction of chi along one of the meridians [...] modern acupuncturists utilize other modalities to stimulate the flow of chi such as herbal medicine, moxibustion, physical exercise, elemental nutrition, meditation, breathing exercise and more [...]";

the chi that does not exist that causes and cures.

"reflexology is the treatment of the whole body through reflex points located on the feet and hands.  This system divides the body into reflex zones; each zone ends at a specific location on both the front and back of the hands, wrists, feet and ankles.  Stimulating these points can have affects along the entire zone.  In this way the whole body can benefit from treatment to the hands and/or feet [...]";

simply nonsense.

"sound healing is a form of vibrational medicine. Everything in the universe is in a state of vibration. Resonance is the frequency that an object naturally vibrates at. Everything has resonant frequency including each organ, gland, tissue or structure of the body.  In fact the body can be considered an orchestra of harmonics [...]";

vibration, vibration, vibration.

"craniosacral therapy is a subtle modality which assists the body's natural capacity for self-repair [...] the rhythm of the breath, cerebral-spinal fluid, organ movement, cardiac rate and many more body rhythms are brought into synchronization in a craniosacral session [...]";

and more nonsense.

002. meanwhile, Orac, over at Science Blogs' Respectful Insolence states in "Requiem For a Quack, Part II: Hulda Clark, Author of The Cure for All Cancers, Died of Cancer" [saved 2012-07-17; these are rearranged excerpts]:

"über-quack Hulda Clark [...] let's review the titles of some of her books [...] The Cure for All Advanced Cancers [...] The Cure for All Cancers  [...and] The Cure for All Diseases [...] the woman who [obviously] said that she had the Cure for All Cancers [...] died on September 3, 2009 [at the age of 80]. I was criticized for entitling my post Requiem for a Quack, but [...] Clark’s quackery had [likely] contributed to the suffering and deaths of an unknown number of cancer patients [...]";

"I was curious what the cause of Dr. Clark’s death was [...] then, a reader sent me a scan of Hulda Clark’s death certificate, and this is what it listed as the cause of death: multiple myeloma, [a] cancer [...]  the woman whose quackery caused so much suffering among cancer patients during her life ultimately succumbed to the very disease she claimed to be able to cure but was not [...] ";

"I suspect that Hulda Clark really did believe that she had the cure for all cancers, even though it was clear from her own end that she didn’t have a clue about cancer [...] by rejecting science-based medicine in favor of her own quackery, Clark blew her best chance at treating her cancer and maintaining her quality of life for as long as possible [...]";

"the excuse used to explain why Clark died of cancer when she had spent so many years claiming that she could cure it is lame in the extreme [...that she couldn't treat herself because] she physically could not use her Syncrometer techniques to investigate it because her hands and arms did not work well enough [...]";

"ironically, Dr. Clark documented helping a multiple myeloma sufferer in The Cure For All Advanced Cancers [...]";

"Hulda Clark’s death teaches us something important about quackery [...] it tells us that many of the practitioners are just as deluded and misguided as those whom they lure away from scientific medicine and towards ineffective and even harmful quackery [...]";

003. note upon the pot calling the kettle black aka so, does licensure of naturopaths guarantee ANYTHING?  Yes.  Their protection:

003.a. the Wikipedia page for Clark [and the Quackwatch article too, in quoting Pizzorno, roughly] states (2012-07-17):

"Hulda Clark has been criticized because her claims lack scientific validity and consist of anecdotal evidence [...]";

agreed.

"Joseph Pizzorno, a prominent naturopathic physician, evaluated Clark's claims [...] Pizzorno concluded that Clark's treatments were ineffective and that treatments based on Clark's recommendations 'pose a substantive public health danger' [...]";

ha, that's a safe bet. ND Pizzorno is, though, quite a bit 'out there' as well so I'm not sure why his opinions matter at all.  I'm quite the expert in what Pizzorno has either written or overseen as editor.  His "Textbook of Natural Medicine" is a great example of pseudoscience.  His alma mater NCNM's claims, too.  I suspect, like Clark, such NCNM graduates and current students devour that NCNM nonsense page's intellectual swill like sows at the feed trough.

independently from that, we're told in the Wikipedia article, also: "there is no scientific basis for Hulda Clark's hypotheses and recommendations, including her suggested treatments."

Note: so, a licensed ND -- in terms of 'out there' non-science-supported ideas and therapeutics -- is like an unlicensed ND, often.  One difference: with the protection of the Seal of the State of Connecticut, the licensed ND has a lot less to worry about in terms of reprimand, sanction, interest, and penalty.

003.b. the State of Connecticut, regarding naturopathy licensure, tells us, in "Naturopathic Physician Licensing Requirements" [vsc 2012-07-19]:

"please familiarize yourself with the general licensing policies. In order to be eligible for licensure, an applicant must have: Completed two (2) years of pre-professional college education; graduated from a school of naturopathy approved by the Connecticut State Board of Naturopathic Examiners and Department of Public Health, with award of the doctor of naturopathy degree. Approved schools  include only those schools accredited or in candidate status with the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME); Successfully completed both the Basic Sciences (Part I) and Clinical Sciences Examination (Part II) of the Naturopathic Physician Licensing Examination (NPLEX) [...] official report of successful completion of the NPLEX Basic Sciences and Clinical Sciences examinations [...]";

likewise, one of those CNME schools is the University of Bridgeport which labels naturopathy "science" and contains required homeopathy and is based on ideas and obligations that are science-ejected and the NPLEX itself states that contents it labels "science" includes nonscientific crap like homeopathy.

"documentation requirements applicants shall arrange for submission of the following documents directly to this office from the source: A completed application form and fee of $565.00 in the form of a bank check or money order payable to, 'Treasurer, State of Connecticut' [...]";

and so the State of Connecticut is engaged in a kind of commerce and academic fraud itself.

"all supporting documents should be forwarded to: Connecticut Department of Public Health Naturopathic Physician Licensure 410 Capitol Ave., MS# 12 APPP.O. Box 340308Hartford, CT 06134Phone:  (860) 509-7603 Fax:  (860) 707-1931Email:  dph.healingarts@ct.gov Content Last Modified on 3/29/2012 3:21:52 PM [...]";

there they are if any Federal agency is interested in intervening.

Note: basically, naturopathic falsehood is licensed and shielded.

ND Rothenberg at HuffPo (2012-07): 'ND Roots' That Dare Not Speak Their Roots

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post piece by ND Rothenberg of the New England School of Homeopathy and a graduate of National College of Natural Medicine who [supposedly] defines and describes naturopathy [see 001., below]; then, I go to the tenets web page of her alma mater and REALLY reveal naturopathy's 'core absurdism' [see 002., below]:

001. Rothenberg, A. (ND NCNM) writes in "Naturopathic Medicine Roots"(2012-07-10)[vsc 2012-07-10; my notes are in unquoted bold]:

"here's what naturopathic doctors believe: [#1] we should support the healing power of nature -- that the body's innate ability to heal is strong and that we can also capitalize on the healing energy of foods, plants, light, and other natural substances [...#2] we best identify and treat the root cause of illness whenever possible [...]";

are we REALLY told in this article "what naturopathic doctors believe"?  No, I don't think so!  It's interesting what this language LEAVES OUT [not to pun on all her tree talk within the article].  I'll fill in what is not provided in 002., below. 

"[#3] we ought to aim, like all physicians [...]";

dare I term the status of the naturopath METAphysician, as opposed to physician, when you get-right-down-to-it?  Yes.

"to uphold the classic tenet: first, do no harm [...]";

there is SUCH an interesting HIDDEN context to this idea-that-isn't-fleshed-out, which I talk about below in 002.

"we'd better educate patients. Knowledge is power, so we work to educate patients [...] we give good explanations as to why and how things work both with the body and with our approaches. We welcome questions from our patients. During this information age, we are often partners with patients who may come in quite well-informed [...]";

oh, how the irony is killing me: claiming to educate, inform, and explain without truly sharing / revealing naturopathy's beliefs clearly!  Knowledge IS power and even holding back facts is, in terms of successful marketing, A POWERFUL MODUS OPERANDI for naturopathy [there's some Latin for you, naturopaths-who-love-Latin].  Not mentioning in the Huffpo article naturopathy's absurd position of science subset nonscience IN NO WAY is a "good explanation".

"I love having a medical philosophy that is clear and consistent and that does not shift. I love being able to look at new approaches that may come along and to ask myself, 'is this within the bounds of the philosophy I so embrace?' And if not, to let it go' [...] my naturopathic medicine roots [...]";

I call this the 'ND sectarian creed'.   This type of stance, which here I applaud for its sectarian honesty, reminds me of a quote I often use from Popular Science published around the year 1900.  It states: "science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian.  Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed."  At Phi Beta Kappa, I'm reminded that "for over two and a quarter centuries, the Society has embraced the principles of freedom of inquiry and liberty of thought and expression."  And I was a PBK long before I got snookered into naturopathy school.

"[a naturopath has] an elegant philosophy [...] one that leads to effective treatment [...]";

hmmm.  If naturopathy's philosophy is so elegant, why it is SO EASY to destroy with the information in middle school science textbooks?  And effective?  Since when are such things as homeopathy, craniosacral therapy, applied kinesiology, reiki, colonics, and chelation therapy for heart disease effective?

002. at NCNM's 'Rosetta Stone' ND tenets web page [this is the TRUNK of the naturopathic North American tree] we're told in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2012-07-15]:

"[principle #1] the healing power of nature — vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...]";

so there you go, HPN=VMN=LF.  This is a TRULY science-ejected idea.

"[principle #3] first do no harm — primum no nocere: the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...aka] this healing process [...aka] vis medicatrix naturae [...aka] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force";

I do not believe that ALL PHYSICIANS believe that "first do no harm" involves a vitalistic figmentation that has been EJECTED from science.  So, here is naturalistic language HIDING the explicitly sectarian-naturopathic.  It's always good to add a little Latin to naturopathic camouflage, too, keeps people off-guard.  Symptoms are as "in fact" "life force" effects as the money under a child's pillow is "in fact" from the Tooth Fairy.  This is their "root cause", essentially: a "life force" that is impeded by whatever and needs unimpeded to 'work right' and govern the body properly.  Yet, it does not exist BIOLOGICALLY in the same way that scientifically speaking FIRE isn't phlogiston but is instead CHEMISTRY and PHYSICS.  The body simply DOESN'T work via a life force figmentation.

"[and overarching all this sectarian metaphysical nonsense, we're told] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [...]";

so, what kind of profession can be show to be full-of-falsehood using eighth grade science standards?  What kind of profession says that sectarian subjective figmentation survives continuous scientific rigor?

the naturopathillogic, of course, wherein, on this same NCNM page, homeopathy is labeled "powerful" [and the supernatural is also as-falsely-claimed to be within science, too].

Note: here is where ND Rothenberg, at her Connecticut practice, claims that homeopathy is a "science".  And what's even more interesting, compare her 'tenets' page to that of her alma mater.  Look at what isn't written on her page that claims to explain naturopathy!  Essential homeopathic and naturopathic vitalism, why-for-art-thou-so-coded?  What happened to the ethos claimed in the HuffPo article, wherein the ND's role was to 'educate, inform, and explain'?  Doesn't this throw informed consent out the window along with professionalism?

Changelog 2012-07-15 and ND Video:

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

001. added:

the vitalism of:

ND Edge

to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

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

Oxbro, K. (ND CCNM? 2008) states in "Dr. Kimberly Oxbro" [vsc 2012-07-08]:

.

.

"[from the description] Dr. Kimberly Oxbro, ND , Nova Health naturopathic centre [...from the video, she says] at the clinic we focus on looking at diseases of all types [...] such as heart disease and diabetes [...] one of our focus is to get patients off medications and really get at the root [...] things like type II diabetes can be easily treated [...] a lot of the focus is intravenous therapy [...] to reverse disease [...] things like cardiovascular disease can be easily treated by chelation therapy";

.

tags: #chelationtherapy #unapprovedexperimentation #unethicalexperimentation

.

Note: meanwhile, the very pedestrian Wikipedia states, in "Chelation Therapy":

"the American Heart Association states that there is 'no scientific evidence to demonstrate any benefit from this form of therapy' and that the 'United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American College of Cardiology all agree with the American Heart Association' that 'there have been no adequate, controlled, published scientific studies using currently approved scientific methodology to support this therapy for cardiovascular disease' [...]";

what's new, naturopathy falsely claiming something works when it does not.  When is "easily" the same as 'bunk'?  Naturopathy.

Revealed: ND Runbeck Got $105,000 A Year to Head Arizona's ND "Public Safety Agency"

here, I cite from a recent piece at Arizona's The Republic regarding that State's naturopathy regulatory board drama [see 001., below]; and then, IRONICALLY, I wish I too could be paid six-figures a year to regulate nonsense [see 002., below]:

001. Yvonne Wingett Sanchez reports in "Arizona Naturopathic Board Head Clashes with Members, Resigns" [vsc 2012-07-13]:

"[ND Runbeck] the longtime executive director of the state board responsible for licensing about 700 naturopathic doctors abruptly resigned effective today [...a] $105,000-a-year post [...]";

there's gold in them there regulatories!

"he sped up his departure [...] after becoming aware of 'background conversations' by some board members to 'take over' the board [...and] that some board members may have repeatedly violated the state Open Meeting Law [...saying] 'I cannot in good conscience continue to serve' [...]"; 

it's always interesting to see the ND / NMD crowd go at each other.  Ironically, I LEFT NATUROPATHY due to my conscience, way back in 2002.   And to this day, I do not regret the decision in terms of ETHICS and what I learned in those four years and subsequent is why this blog exists: to illuminate what is unconscionable. 

"since January, Gov. Jan Brewer has appointed four people to the seven-member Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board. E-mails show Runbeck believes the governor's appointments of 'inexperienced' members is a disservice to the board and public [...]"; 

I'll talk more about how this licensed falsehood OVERALL is the key issue when it comes to disservice. 

Note: here's a copy of  the resignation letter [vsc 2012-07-13] which is written under the Seal of the State of Arizona.  Yes, the State endorses naturopathy with its seal and its '.gov' web address.  In part, it states:

"the Board has been warned by me and by Assistant Attorney General Monty Lee that communicating with one another outside of a properly agendized and noticed meeting about Board business is illegal. In addition these actions undermine confidence in us as a public safety agency."

ah, a CABAL!!! So, I've learned two things from this azcentral.com piece: there's BIG MONEY in State regulatory board positions and perhaps the ND / NMD board in Arizona will be mildly reprimanded.

002. and now for the big, overall, naturopathillogical:

002.a. it doesn't take much effort to get to the HEART of the naturopaTHICK:

ND Runbeck is an SCNM graduate [according to the video in 003., below], which is a school in Arizona.  And, I find SCNM's web pages very VERY enlightening.  Here's naturopathy's MO in a nutshell: claiming science (my compilation of naturopathy's 'science' marketing and academic label) upon what is patently not science (my compilation of the primary naturopathic vitalistic tenet {though there is much more in terms of what they DO yet to be documented; with all due respect to the departed}).  There you go: calling something which it is not.  In other words: all things are equal, science is the same as nonscience in terms of knowledge labels, nonsensical clinical diagnostics are the same as what science truly supports.

Note: you HAVE to wonder about ETHICS in all this.  How is it that the President and CEO of SCNM has no problem with applied kinesiology [though it is so bunk] while his school puts a broad label upon the naturopathic as a 'branch of medical science'?  Boggles the mind.

003. here is a 2009 video [the embedded link below is the same video at Youtube] with ND Runbeck in it, speaking of ethics -- and the FOUNDER of SCNM, ND Cronin [an NCNM graduate], whom I'd seen live in the mid 1990s and whose presentation in Stamford, CT then was a deciding factor in my going to ND school -- and I find the video's contents, in light of what truly is 'the essentially naturopathic', to be quite ironic:

.

.

tags: #posedfiduciaryduty #NDRunbeck #NDCronin

.

"[...ND Cronin, President of the AANP board, interviews ND Runbeck.  ND Cronin asks] 'what advice you would give to practitioners to say out of trouble and stay on the good side of the law?' [...ND Runbeck says things like] 'maintaining documentation on their continuing medical education [...and charting / SOAP] records [...to] follow the train of thought [...or that is] unprofessional conduct [...] a doctor has a certain position of privileged in our society.  We hold them to a high standard. We expect that individual to hold the highest ethical qualities [...in marketing] the consumer needs to be able to make an informed choice [...] the players [in commerce] are on an equal field.  Well that doesn't exist with a physician and a patient [because the relationship is fiduciary...] it's of special importance in the regulatory arena for physicians that you not take advantage of that [influence...] if someone files a complaint against you, if someone feels that you have acted unethically [...] if you always treat your patients like they're number one [...] the golden rule' [...]";

the IRONY is killing me.  Of course, if naturopaths stayed up to date with what is and isn't SCIENCE, their 'essentially naturopathic' stuff would evaporate.  And speaking of trains of thought, isn't falsely labeling what isn't science science quite the derailed thought train?  For the life of me, I can't see how professional conduct happens from an initial position that is of a foundation of falsehood [like ND Cronin's so excellent alma mater page].  How is nonsense, absurdity, and irrationality a basis for a) a profession and b) "highest ethical qualities" [and how is this public safety]?  How can fiduciary duty happen?  I truly believe huge advantage has been taken, that naturopathy is fake and unethical, and here we see how the foxes govern their own behavior as they watch the hen-house.

the Arizona Board's motto is "protecting the public's health."  But, what I see more than anything else, is naturopathy protecting itself.