Homeopathy: JREF's Novella vs. Claims of NANA

here, I purposely collide two stances regarding homeopathy, one from the position of scientific skepticism and rigor via the James Randi Education Foundation [JREF] blog, and one from the sectarian pseudoscience I'll call the 'North American Naturopathy Apparatus' [NANA; see 001., below]:

001. MD Novella writes in "FDA Ensures Magic Rituals Are Done Properly" (2012-08-20) [my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"homeopathy is pure, 100%, unadulterated nonsense. They are sugar pills [...] on which a magic ritual has been cast [...and] they don't work [...] homeopathic potions have been tested in clinical trials and they don't work [...] 'the findings of currently available Cochrane reviews of studies of homeopathy do not show that homeopathic medicines have effects beyond placebo' [...] homeopathy is bunk [...] homeopathy is quackery [...and speaks of] the pseudoscientific status of homeopathy [...] ";

did he mention THEY DON'T WORK?!  Usually, magical potions don't work in this here physical universe.

"[and regarding the FDA's criticisms of the manufacturing of these magic beans and unicorn tears] no one in the homeopathic community noticed that 1/6 [of the] bottle[s] of homeopathic product coming out of this company were just sugar pills. That's probably because the other 5/6 of the bottles are also just sugar pills [...that] there isn't the same amount of fairy dust in every pill";

this is where one starts to feel very VERY weird, like Bizzaro World weird.

002. meanwhile, NANA states:

002.a. via their national US organization, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians in "Position Paper - Homeopathy" [saved 2012-08-20]:

"homeopathy has been an integral part of naturopathic medicine since its inception and is a recognized specialty for which the naturopathic profession has created a distinct specialty organization, the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians [...] homeopathy has been recognized, through rigorous testing and experimentation, as having significant scientific evidence supporting its efficacy and safety [...] it is the position of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians that [...] homeopathy is taught in the Naturopathic Colleges and its practice should be included in the naturopathic licensing laws. Naturopathic physicians recognize other licensed practitioners of the healing arts who are properly trained in homeopathy"; 

properly trained in potions of magic beans and unicorn tears.

Note: well, that's dated 1993 and still up on their site.  There's also their more recent web page "Homeopathy: A Primer" [vsc 2012-08-20]:

"by Christopher Johnson ND, Thrive Naturopathic [...]";

by the way, I do not believe this ND is the District 9 Christopher Johnson.  I believe he is this one.

"what conditions respond to homeopathy?     Homeopathy is a complete system of medicine, and as such is helpful with the entire spectrum of human illness [...] how effective is homeopathy?  Homeopathy’s effectiveness is supported by a large body of research in the medical literature [...]";

really.

"only in naturopathic medical schools do students formally learn homeopathy both in the academic and clinical settings  [...] all other medical professionals learn homeopathy outside of their official academic and clinical training. To find a naturopathic doctor in your area who is trained in homeopathy, visit our Find a Doctor page [...]";

yes, been there, HATED IT.  So, the AANP is quite adamant that homeopathy is FUSED to naturopathy and that it works.  And they promote it.

002.b. via their national Canadian organization, the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors in "Questions: All Questions":

"naturopathic doctors use a variety of non-toxic, non-pharmaceutical treatments. All naturopathic doctors in Canada are trained in the following natural therapies [...] homeopathic remedies are minute dilutions of plant, animal and mineral substances designed to stimulate the body's 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal";

a claim of efficacy by way of an imaginary Tooth Fairy -like force.

002.c. via their North American school consortia, the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges in "Naturopathic Physicians Are Rigorously Trained" [vsc 2012-08-20]:

"licensed naturopathic physicians have attended four-year professional-level programs at accredited institutions, where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic physicians. Some member schools in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic medical schools [...] students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation [...] they offer the world a healing paradigm founded on a rational balance of tradition, science and respect for nature [...] while earning their degree, doctors of naturopathic medicine learn virtually all the modalities of proven natural therapies [...including] homeopathy";

so, there's this science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy irrationality claimed as rational.

and the naturopathy licensed falsehood apparatus marches on.

003. what I hope to see in the future:

restitution for anyone who feels they've been treated fraudulently / wrongly / falsely in the past decades by naturopathy.  I can't see how the racket can continue based upon the sentiments for justice that exist in a civilized modern society.  They just don't realize they are insolvent already.

Changelog 2012-08-12, 2012-08-19 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:

NDs Donovan and Fahoum 

to Appendix I.05.d.;

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

ND Leah Hechtman in "Clinical Naturopathic Medicine"(2011) [vsc 2012-08-13] (here's Amazon's page) states:

.

.

#ISBN07295415179780729541510 #iridology #vitalism #pseudodiagnostics

.

"[from the description] Clinical Naturopathic Medicine is a foundation clinical text integrating the holistic traditional principles of naturopathic philosophy with the scientific rigor of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to support contemporary practices and principles [...]";

so the foundation of naturopathy is claimed to have, essentially, INTEGRITY.   I don't see how that is possible in the sense of logical integrity when those very principles and their philosophy stuff, and specific practices, actually are REFUTED by scientific analysis!  For instance, as I own this textbook, the books states:

"[location 15967] naturopathic diagnosis [via] iridology: the gallbladder region can be located in the right iris and is positioned at 8 o'clock between the liver and the duodenal areas; all three regions are positioned on a straight radius extending from the pupil to the sclera border.  The realm of iridology does not extend to the ability of being able to identify gallstones as any markings in the iris refer to the tissues of the gall bladder rather than the gallbladder contents" 

but iridology is considered abject NONSENSE.  It also speaks of naturopathy's

"[location 1734] the following three principles are fundamental and are still in place today: [#1] belief in a vital force that underlies all living organisms.  It is this force that unifies all living organisms and is responsible for restoration and preservation of health" and "[location 15421] both the modern and traditional naturopath delivers treatments so that the primary goal of supporting the body's own innate ability to heal (vitality, life force, vis medicatrix naturae) is fostered" 

which is an idea quite science EJECTED.  Claiming, as is claimed above in my view, that naturopathy's foundation has integrity, particularly via scientific rigorous analysis, is quite patently FALSE.

"[from the video...] the best experts in the industry [...] 'a major gap in the market' [...] 'clinical naturopathic medicine was a logical evolution' [...] 'a solid foundation in the practice of naturopathy' [...] 'to properly equip the reader with therapeutic strategies' [...via] 'Elsevier Australia'";

oh how the irony delights me: wherein values are reversed, and what is nonsense is best, logical, solid, proper.  What's really rich is that the book's imprint is "Elsevier Health Science Division" according to books.google.com.

NPR Shallowly Defines via ND Donovan, So Let's Dig

here, I transcribe and comment upon parts of a recent interview of a naturopath in Seattle by public radio there [see 001., below]; then, I visit his practice page and share some details the interview didn't mention [see 002., below]:

001. the University of Washington's KUOW Puget Sound Public Radio (PSPR) kuow.org states in "Discussing Naturopathy With A Naturopath" (2012-08-15) (for the mp3, click here) [vsc, downloaded 2012-08-15; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[from the description, as reported by Ross Reynolds; 'RR' below] what is a naturopath? How does their practice of medicine differ from a conventional doctor's? Ross Reynolds sits down with a local naturopath to discuss training of a naturopath, the treatments they give and he takes your calls.  Guest(s): Dr. Patrick Donovan [ND Bastyr 1985; 'D' below] is a naturopath; he runs the University Health Clinic and teaches at Bastyr University [...]";

just to clarify here, the clinic mentioned is not Bastyr's teaching clinic.  It is named based upon its address in the university district of the city.  But that is a very good question: what precisely is a naturopath?  And what is the primary difference?

RR: "define naturopathic medicine to us."

yes, please do.  As an academic, this shouldn't be so hard in terms of clarity and precision.

D:  "naturopathic medicine is a practice of medicine that's based on some fundamental philosophies and concepts of living systems and how nature itself works and applying those philosophies and concepts to our patient care [...]";

and that's all you get.  What could those philosophies and concepts be?  I'll share that below in 002.

RR: "give us an example of how a naturopath might deal with a patient's problem versus how a traditional family practitioner might deal with the same problem."  D: "surprisingly, it might not be different at all [...and states] the educational piece is very similar to a medical doctor or DO [...]";

so, there's this claim of 'so little difference'.

D: "our basic fundamental education teaches us how to be a good general practitioner [...and speaks of] allopathic measures [...and] 13 to 15 hours of boards [...and says] just practice medicine [...] there's just good medicine [...] put our patient at the center of the care model [...]";

oh the riches here!   We have the claims of "good", the false label upon modern medicine as "allopathic", board exams mentioned that label such nonsense as homeopathy "clinical science", and I'm not sure if the patient can be at the center of naturopathic concerns when naturopathy first and foremost is based on philosophies and concepts as its primary framings / concerns.

 D: "naturopathic medicine is evidence-based medicine [...and speaks of] the best kind of scientific data you can have [...] one has to pay attention to a lot of things when one looks at the literature";

I take this as a claim of scientific rigor girding 'the essentially naturopathic'.

002. ND Donovan's practice page [he practices with Fahoum, M. (ND Bastyr 2004)]:

002.a. explanation of naturopathy "What is a Naturopathic Doctor?" [vsc 2012-08-15]:

002.a1. speaks of science and efficacy:

"naturopathic medicine is a system of healthcare—an art, science, philosophy and practice of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of illness. [...] naturopathic medicine is natural, effective holistic medicine [...] naturopathic methods incorporate the scientific and empiric [...] and application of the latest scientific research [...] naturopathic physicians are trained in standard medical sciences including anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, immunology, clinical and physical diagnosis, pharmacology, cardiology, neurology, radiology, minor surgery, obstetrics, gynecology, embryology, pediatrics, dermatology and physical medicine. The training also includes extensive study of naturopathic philosophy and therapeutics including clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, hydrotherapy and counseling";

I think it's safe to say the claim here is science subset naturopathy and homeopathy. But, we know homeopathy, for starters, is science ejected ineffective nonsense.

Note: partner ND Fahoum in "Dr. Mona Fahoum" [vsc 2012-08-15] states this 'naturopathy as science' claim in even more stark categorical terms: "after U of W, she went on to study the science of natural medicine at Bastyr University, graduating in 2004 with a doctorate in naturopathic medicine."  Bastyr itself labels naturopathy starkly "science based" (here's my archive).

002.a2. and speaks of 'the essentially naturopathic'":

"naturopathic medicine is defined by the principles that underlie and determine its practice rather than by the substances used. [...] the guiding principles of naturopathic medicine: [include #1] the healing power of nature: this is the self-organizing and healing process inherent in all living systems. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic physician’s role to support, facilitate and augment this process";

and that's all you get, HPN = HP.  But, we can peel back that veneer.

002.b. because ND Donovan's biography page is here and it tells us:

"he has contributed chapters to the Textbook of Natural Medicine [TNM]. "

the TNM is the Rosetta Stone of sorts to the essential premises of naturopathy.  In the interview, and in the practice page definition above, we are not fully informed but are instead shallowly informed. The "Textbook of Naturopathic Medicine" (2006, 3rd ed.; ISBN 9780443073007) [the chapter I excerpt from is archived here] states: "the vis medicatrix naturae [is] the vital force, the healing power of nature [p.034...aka] your life force [p.035...] any naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] an entire physiologic system (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.) [p.36]."  So, naturopathy's central textbook claims physiology includes a science-ejected concept known as vitalism.  This is their essential philosophy and concept.  What's really interesting is their claim also in that chapter: "science-based natural medicine was a major driving force behind the creation and mission of Bastyr."  Yet, life forces are science ejected for several decades.   In a major sense, the philosophies and concepts of naturopathy are irrational and kept SECRET often-most (yet, here's my archive of Bastyr's vitalism).

Note: so, earlier, we were told that naturopath's overall are "good general practitioners" seeking to practice "good medicine".  But, is a foundation based upon what is false good [science subset patent nonscience]?  While claiming science, incidentally and similarly, ND Fahoum also states "as a naturopathic family practitioner, Dr. Monawar Fahoum’s interests and specialties include homeopathy" [that's science subset magic beans and unicorn tears].

003: the interview description stated that how things "differ" would be discussed, but it was not dealt with in detail, so here's my take:

naturopathy and modern medicine differ GREATLY in that modern medicine is not based upon a broad foundation of irrational nonsense [the naturopathillogical] wherein the science-interior is equated with the science-exterior.  ND Donovan speaks a lot about things being patient-centered.  But, first and foremost, such a goal must place informed consent as primary.  How can one truly be informed to consent when important details are not mentioned BEFORE the patient engages with the knowledge-type muddle known as naturopathy?

what's also interesting is that the Washington naturopath's own web pages DO NOT TRANSPARENTLY INFORM either, they code.

incidentally, of what is mentioned uncoded by both Donovan and WANP, that healing is "intelligent", is patently scientifically WRONG.  Brains with minds are intelligent.  Naturopathic ideas, not.

And My Crank-o-Meter Explodes: NCNM's ND Wallach

here, I cite some INCREDIBLE claims of naturopath Wallach [see 001., below]; then I excerpt from the Skeptic's Dictionary regarding him [see 002., below]:

001. cachevalleydaily.com states in "Naturopathic Doctor Visiting Logan, Rails Against Traditional Doctors" (2012-08-07) [vsc 2012-08-13; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[as reported by Craig Hislop] Dr. Joel Wallach [ND NCNM...] advocates the use of colloidal minerals [...and] claims it has taken him five days to get sick individuals healthy enough to be taken off heart transplant lists and in the space of two months says he was able to help re-grow the liver of seriously sick liver transplant patients [...he says] 'I take people with Parkinson’s disease who are terminal Parkinson’s patients and in three months time they are normal. With us, people who have been diagnosed by five neurological clinics with terminal Alzheimer’s disease in 10 days time they’re perfectly normal. We do this all the time [...] we can re-grow cartilage, we can re-grow discs in your back and you won’t need back surgery'";

well, line him up for a Nobel Prize because such is UNHEARD of.  Perhaps it is even too good to be true.

002. 002. the Skeptic's Dictionary states in "Joel D. Wallach, the 'Mineral Doctor'":

"Joel D. Wallach, M.S., D.V.M. (University of Missouri) and N.D. (National College of Naturopathic Medicine) is a veterinarian and naturopath who claims [...] that all diseases are due to mineral deficiencies, that everyone who dies of natural causes dies because of mineral deficiencies, and that just about anyone can live more than one hundred years if they take daily supplements of colloidal minerals harvested from pits in Utah [...]";

hmmmmmmmm.

"Wallach [...] certainly didn't learn any of it from science texts [...e.g.] a research team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, reported the results of a 13-year study on 10,758 Americans which failed to find any mortality benefits from vitamin and mineral supplements [...] the study also found no benefit from taking vitamin and mineral supplements for smokers, heavy drinkers, or those which chronic diseases [...] the simple fact is that there is no compelling scientific evidence that vitamin or mineral supplements effect the health or longevity of most people. Of course, those suffering from a vitamin or mineral deficiency should take supplements, but there is no merit to Wallach's claim that most or all diseases are due to mineral deficiencies";

sounds like Wallach is American enterprise at its finest.  Good thing naturopaths like him are licensed.

NMD Deville's Homeopathy Nonsense Continues in Arizona

here, I cite from a 2012-08-10 Tuscon Citizen article by NMD (Not-a-Medical-Doctor) Lauren Deville extolling the virtues of the empty-remedy system known as homeopathy.  My comments are in unquoted bold:

001. NMD Deville writes in "Homeopathy Decreases Frequency of Hot Flashes" [vsc 2012-08-11]:

"[recently in] a clinical trial performed in France with 101 subjects, all women over 50 with more than 5 hot flashes daily demonstrated that a combination homeopathic remedy was effective in treating menopausal symptoms (specifically measured by hot flashes [...]  I have also found clinically that hormonal symptoms in general, menopausal or otherwise, respond quite well to homeopathic treatment [...]";

since homeopathic remedies are inert scientifically speaking, this statement, as scientifically and skeptically analyzed, supports the more parsimonious hypothesis that hot flashes have a very psychogenic component.

"making it a good alternative";

no, magic beans and unicorn tears posed as specifically efficacious is not an alternative unless self-deception and deceit are on the table as alternatives to legitimate knowledge and therapy.

"a remedy specific to each subject in a study doesn’t lend itself particularly well to the traditional 'double blind placebo controlled trials' that are the gold standard of medical research [...]";

this is a fake reason for lack of attempting a homeopathic study.  Even if plausibility were considered separately, homeopathy CAN be studied rigorously by having the scripts filled by a pharmacy wherein cohorts can be randomized, doses can be coded, and a cross-over could happen QUITE EASILY.  It is RIDICULOUSLY IGNORANT to think that testing a specific system of pill-dispensing cannot be run as a double blind placebo controlled cross over.  It's not even that expensive.  But, the naturopathy schools don't run them because homeopathy is a sacred cow they do not wish to show the true colors of.

"for you skeptics out there, here are a few other studies that demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathic treatment for a variety of different conditions [...such as] homeopathy for childhood diarrhea [...] how healthy are chronically ill patients after eight years of homeopathic treatment [...] homeopathic treatment of patients with migraine [...] homeopathic treatment of patients with chronic low back pain [...] homeopathic treatment of patients with psoriasis [...] homeopathic medical practice [...] I could go on.  But, as always, the proof is in the pudding, and it works. I’d love to see homeopathy introduced as part of our standard of care in this country [...] Dr. Lauren Deville is board-certified to practice naturopathic medicine";

this is called cherry picking, the selection of only favorable data of low quality.  This is often called pathological science. There's enough junk published that one could probably find selective support for all kinds of junk ideas and weird claims

and please go on.  But I dare you to go where you do not dare, to ALL the evidence, rigorously vetted, regarding homeopathy and naturopathy nonsense.

The AANP, Homeopathy, and Science: Physicians Who Don't Listen

here, I quote from a recent post at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' official blog regarding homeopathy [see 001., below]; which the naturopathy apparatus / racket in North America labels science [see 002., below]; though science has discarded homeopathy as MAJORLY BOGUS [see 003., below]:

001. the AANP writes in "Why I Love Homeopathy" (2012-08-07) [vsc 2012-08-08]:

"[by ND Edwards] I graduated from NCNM in 1988 and the Oregon College of Oriental Medicine (OCOM) in 1989 [...and now] primarily teach naturopathic medicine at Bastyr and NUHS [(that's a science subset naturopathy claim)...] the most recent post [at this blog] by my dear friend Dr. Shiva Barton was titled, 'why is homeopathy dead?' [...] once I read the post about how fewer naturopathic graduates are using homeopathy and the reasons why, it became clear to me what I wanted to write about, which is why I love homeopathy [...] I became ever more impressed with the phenomenal healing capacities of homeopathy. I witnessed significant pathology resolve and even more impressive to me, I observed significant and often deep seated psychological disorders resolved [...] this is where the correctly chosen remedy can work miracles [...] I keep hoping that the field of psychiatry will finally accept homeopathy because it will transform the practice [...] if someone were to tell me that I could only use one therapy in my practice (in addition to basic nature cure) I would choose homeopathy, because in my experience, there is no other therapy that has such profound and broad effects. That’s why I love homeopathy";

Note: now, overall, naturopathy labels itself a branch of medical science.  Here is is at their schools' consortia, a school, and 2 graduates of that school.

002. simultaneously, the licensure exam for naturopathy labels homeopathy a "core clinical science";

003. and science has profoundly rejected claims of homeopathic efficacy:

to such an extent that the continued false labeling of homeopathy as science is the BIGGEST example of falsehood I can think of being perpetrated by supposed physicians group.

the AANP is simply NOT LISTENING to science, yet hey say they are physician's who listen and naturopathy is scientific.

and here's the University of Minnesota claiming the same thing.

this is a shameful racket.

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!'"