Naturopathy in New Hampshire, and State Science Standards

here, I first cite from recent 'actually researched' reporting by New Hampshire  journalist David Brooks regarding naturopathy [see 001., below]; then, I demonstrate naturopathy's 'knowledge conflation' irrationality -- which is so easy to do [see 002., below]; finally, I look at New Hampshire's public school science standards [see 003., below]:

001. David Brooks of the nashuatelegraph.com writes in "Insurers Must Cover Therapies of Naturopathic Doctors in NH"(2013-01-29)[vsc 2013-01-29; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"naturopathic medicine [...] has long battled for acceptance because it includes controversial practices like homeopathy, in which medicine is diluted until it is considered worthless by mainstream medicine [...] medical doctors regard homeopathic medicine as a placebo, at best";

yes, very worthless from the point of view of modern medical science.   Recently, at sciencebasedmedicine.org, Dr. Novella wrote in "Are You Ready For the Oz Manifesto?"(2013-01-30): "we have discussed homeopathy many times – it is a pre-scientific superstition that has been utterly rejected by modern science. Its principles have no basis in reality, and clinical studies show that it simply does not work."  That is likely the most succinct 'two sentance' scientific summary I can think of.

"critics say the field depends on a long-discredited theory of 'vitalism' or life energy that was left behind decades ago by evidence-based medicine [...]";

that vitalism has been for-decades exterior to science is a fact.  Yet, it lies at the heart of naturopathy, which quite absurdly labels itself a branch of "medical science."  Often, this vitalism is expressed in Latin as vis medicatrix naturae.  One thing to add that is even more perverse about naturopathy, it has included witin its science label something even MORE 'for-decades exterior to science.'  That is the whole realm of the supernatural, which is 'for-centuries' science exterior [IMHO].

Note: it is not very often that a reporter presents points and counter-points in an alternative medicine related article. When that does occur, the 'alternative' looks like no equal choice at all, but usually a really really weak and bad 'other choice.'  I'm actually excited that this happened.  Most reporters apparently don't care to look, and instead their pieces usually sound much more promotional than journalistic because they merely parrot the talking points provided to them by the sCAM people.  But, the scientific status of homeopathy and naturopathy isn't hard to find, and 'scientific skepticism' criticisms of naturopathy and homeopathy are quite damning and quite unassailable.   What I argue is that falsely labeling hugely nonscientific stuff science is at the heart of naturopathy clinically and academically, causing science to be interchangeable with nonscience but falsely labeling that mixture as all science, and this muddle I've termed naturopathy's 'epistemic conflation' or 'knowledge conflation'.  Mentioned in the Brooks article are ND Greenspan, the New Hampshire Association of Naturopathic Doctors, and the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut.  I will use these three sources to demonstrate naturopathy's knowledge conflation irrationality in 002., below.

002. naturopathy's conflation of knowledge types: 

002.a. NHAND states in "New Hampshire Administrative Rules Nat 100-500" [vsc 2013-01-30; this is their licensure act]:

"Nat 302.02 [...] to be an approved naturopathic medical college, the educational institution shall meet the following standards [...] the basic sciences program shall include in-depth study [...] a basic science program may also include, without limitation, courses in public health and naturopathic philosophy [...] the clinical sciences program shall include [...] homeopathy [...] a clinical sciences program may also include, without limitation, courses in acupuncture."

Note: so, there is a perfect example of licensed falsehood.  You have a statute that falsely labels the nonscientific, including naturopathy's homeopathy, vitalism, and acupuncture, SCIENCE as a norm. What's really interesting is that the act further states "obligation to obey: the ethical standards set forth in this part shall bind all licensees, and violation of any such standard shall result in disciplinary standards [...] a licensee shall submit only truthful and correct information in any application or other document filed with or statement made to the board."  Ok, so: a) an ND must comply with the false positions which the act embodies as the 'ethical norm', and b) an ND must be yet truthful and correct.  It's like one of those Isaac Asimov robot novellas wherein two contradictory positions mandated upon the robot's positronic brain cause it to become psychotic.

hey, I went to one of those "approved naturopathic medical college"s for four years.  What else is within "naturopathic philosophy" that is also being falsely labeled?  Well, we can use the University of Bridgeport for that, coincidentally where I went.

002.a. UB states in 'Dean's Welcome' [vsc 2013-01-30; this was the dean during my time at the school, and I've no idea why the web page is still active]:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician, practicing scientific medicine [...] recognizing the synthesis of body, mind and spirit.[...] a system based on the precept of vis medicatrix naturae / only nature heals."

Note: fascinating, science subset supernaturalism & vitalism aka nonscience.  Welcome to the middle ages [and you'll see in 003., below, this 'higher education doctoral science' position does not meet the mundane science requirements of New Hampshire's K-12 public school science curriculum.

002.c. ND Greenspan [vsc 2013-01-30; who practices with NDs Chan and Salob]:

laud homeopathy (here), acupuncture (here), and craniosacral therapy (here).  Those would be their "clinical sciences" that are nonsense, actually.  They tell us in "Natural Medicine" [vsc 2013-01-30]: "naturopathic medical training is rooted in conventional medical knowledge [...] an advanced knowledge [...including] homeopathy [...] humans are a complex being that have spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical characteristics."   Again, nonscience labeled science nonsense at its core.  I don't think that is conventional or advanced.

Note: I can take it farther.  ND Greenspan went to NCNM according to this directory; ND Chan went to Bastyr; and ND Salob went to NCNM.  It is very easy to find Bastyr's 'epistemic conflation' mission, and NCNM is famous for its similar absurdity.

003. the New Hampshire state science standards, titled "K-12 Science Literacy New Hampshire Curriculum Framework", state:

"science can only deal with events or things that can be measured, observed or detected. It cannot be used to investigate all questions. There are beliefs that cannot be proved or disproved by their very nature (e.g., the meaning of life or the existence of supernatural powers and beings) [...a] comparison of ways of knowing [...there's] religious knowledge: explanations can include supernatural forces [...] philosophic knowledge: explanations can include supernatural forces and viewpoints [...] cultural knowledge: explanations can include supernatural forces and other historical viewpoints [...] scientific knowledge: explanations cannot include supernatural forces."

Note: so, it is interesting.  A state's science standards are the consensus of what mundanely science is and isn't.  Naturopathy, quite obviously, is posing the nonscientific as science and engaging in [what I call false] trade academically and clinically.  They have codified falsehood as legal act.  Trade under false labels seems to me to be illegal, but if a law itself is logically and factually broken so that it lets NDs legally deceive, apparently NDs are then protected from prosecution.  The ND is a doctoral level absurdity, and licensed falsehood marches on. It's a shame that in this era of inflating health care costs, nonsense is allowed a piece of the 'insurance reimbursed' pie and the Title IV student loan pie.

Changelog 2013-01-26 and ND Video

here, I summarize recent 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 Eriksen

to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb00.;

ND Robinson

to Appendix I.05.i.h.;

ND Zeff by way of

the Burton Goldberg Group

to Appendix B.06.a. 

[a 1994 book, ISBN 0963633430, so old 

it doesn't have web or email contacts in its citations for naturo. org.s;

one of the oldest published

'naturopathic sectarian pseudoscience premise' sources

I've come across];

the science claims of:

ND Bothma;

NDs Bove, DeClemente, Maiella, Sayball;

to Appendix I.05.b.;

NDs Cambell & Kennedy;

ND Campbell; ND Crawford;

to Appendix I.05.c.;

Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine

to Appendix I.01.a4.;

NDs Chevalier & Featherstone; 

to Appendix I.05.c.;

College of Naturopathic Doctors of Alberta

to Appendix I.03.;

ND Dayal & McIntyre; 

ND Dunn; ND Derry; 

to Appendix I.05.d.;

the Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine Project 

to Appendix I.02.;

ND Martin, H.A.; 

ND Moore; ND Meissner; 

ND Myers, D.; 

to Appendix I.05.k.;

NDs Murray and Zeff 

by way of the Burton Goldberg Group

to Appendix I.06.01.;

[the same 1994 book, ISBN 0963633430, 

that detailed naturopathy's science-ejected central premise]

the North American Board of Naturopathic Medical Examiners 

to Appendix I.02.;

NDs Sleggs & Verdouw; 

to Appendix I.05.o.;

 

ND Trebilcock 

to Appendix I.05.p.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claim of:

Mark Hanson in c2cjournal.ca 

to Appendix C.04.;

the 'naturopathy is not science, is pseudoscience and / or quackery' claim of:

Jann Bellamy at sciencebasedmedicine.org 

to Appendix K.00.;

Tom Flanagan in c2cjournal.ca

to Appendix K.07.;

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

002.a. 'ND' Jones of New Zealand tells us in the article "Naturopathy Satisfying Career Choice" (2013-01-16)[vsc 2013-01-24]:

"[via Karina Abadia] she studied a bachelor of health science (complementary medicine), an advanced diploma in naturopathy and an advanced diploma in herbal medicine [...from] South Pacific College of Natural Medicine [...] 2004 [...] at the initial consultation Ms Jones will administer a live blood analysis. She analyses a drop of blood under the microscope, enabling her to pinpoint such things as nutritional deficiencies, inflammation, allergies and dehydration [...] there are plenty of misconceptions out there, the most common being that naturopathy is not research-based, she says."

Note: so, there's a science-expertise claim [of a certain level], an alma mater, and "live blood analysis."

002.b. that article has the embedded video "Meet Annaliese Jones" [vsc 2013-01-15]:

tags:

#naturopathy #livebloodanalysis #detoxification #BHSc

"[from the description] 'meet Annaliese Jones Naturopath. Annaliese is a naturopath [I've termed her 'ND' here due to this label] and nutritionist in Mt Eden, Auckland. For more information, please visit her website http://www.naturalhealthcheckup.com [...] Annaliese Jones Naturopath, ND BHSc [...from the video, as the ND sits next to a blood analysis microscope] 'I have a diploma in naturopathy [...and] herbal medicine [...] and a bachelor of health science and complementary medicine [...] naturopathy is the use of natural medicines to increase somebody's health and to help to treat a range of different health conditions [...such as] acne, infertility [...] asthma [...] autoimmune diseases [...] we often will do diagnostic techniques as well, look at their blood [...] the results from the live blood analysis are instant, so we do that right in clinic.  We're actually looking at the blood, and the patient can look at the blood [...] its just a great way to see nutritional deficiencies, and overall health [...and also does] detoxification."

Note: there's the 'I'm a naturopath' label, the science-expertise claim, more life blood analysis, and detoxification.  Now, LBA is considered bunkum in terms of  such an overstated 'overall health' diagnostic.  And detoxification is quite-the-naturopathic gimmick.

002.c. her alma mater, South Pacific College of Natural Medicine tells us in:

002.c1. "Why Study with SPCNM?":

"we have a comprehensive science based curriculum that maintains traditions and philosophies of natural medicine [...] the knowledge and skills you are taught at the College are underpinned by the latest national and international research."

Note: yes, therein that wacko claim of science subset naturopathy subset science-exterior [like, say, homeopath and iridology, anyone?].

002.c2. in "What is Homeopathy?":

"homeopathy is a natural, safe system of medicine based on the idea of using very small doses of natural substances to stimulate the body’s ability to cure itself [...] homeopathy heals and strengthens the whole person, including the immune system and helps prevent future illness by finding and treating the root cause of disease rather than suppressing its symptoms."

Note: the most bunkum of bunkum? I believe posing fake problems that only you can solve is known as a racket.

002.c3. in "Bachelor of Natural Medicine Course Descriptions [...]" (also a briefer description here ):

"[we have bundled] Homeopathy, Iridology and Exercise [...] credits 15 [...] included will be homeopathy – laws and principles, dosage and acute prescribing/first aid [...] iridology – practices, relating iris signs to body systems; Exercise – the benefits, the different types of physical skills, and which types of exercises lead to which outcomes [...] applies a critical understanding of iridology as a secondary diagnostic aid [...] applies homeopathy in first aid situations [...] homeopathy: laws and principles [etc...] iridology [...]  the ten constitutions [...] sclera signs relationship to body systems."

Note: of course, exercise is quite scientifically supported.  But not the other two;

Homeopathy is "Rubbish": England's Chief Medical Officer, 2013

here, I briefly excerpt from a recent article in the UK's Daily Mail regarding homeopathy [see 001., below]:

001. Fiona MacRae reports in "Homeopathy is 'Rubbish' and Shouldn't be Available on the NHS, says Britain's Top Doctor" (2013-01-23):

"Britain's top doctor has dismissed homeopathy as 'rubbish' and admitted she is 'perpetually surprised' it is available on the NHS. Professor Dame Sally Davies [my link to her Wikipedia biography], also described homeopaths as 'peddlers' and spoke of her concern that they prescribe pills and potions to treat malaria and other illnesses. Giving evidence to an influential committee of MPs, the chief medical officer, said that homeopathy doesn't work past the placebo effect [...aka small subjective improvements seen in patients due to] receiving attention and simply expecting to feel better [...] the BMA [British Medical Association] has taken a similar stance and, in 2010, one of the leaders of its junior doctors committee told a conference that 'homeopathy is witchcraft'."

Note: oo-ee oo-ah-ah, ting-tang, walla-walla bing bang.

Tim Caulfield on Naturopathy's Homeopathy Pseudoscience in the National Post, 2013

here, I cite from a recent critical piece in Canada's National Post by Tim Caulfield regarding naturopathic pseudoscience [see 001., below]; then, I delve into some Alberta NDs' web sites for a big dose of the naturopathillogical [see 002., below]:

001. Tim Caulfield writes in "Timothy Caulfield: Don’t Legitimize the Witch Doctors" (2013-01-22) [vsc 2013-01-22; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"the [recent] granting of regulated status, which includes the creation of the College of Naturopathic Doctors of Alberta [...] may create the impression that the[ir] therapies are supported by good science [...but this is] a veil of legitimacy [...]";

I've often called the science-labeling language naturopathy uses a camouflage or a veneer.  I like veil, and it reminds me of mask, and disguise.  Deception, deception, deception.  It is really really disturbing when a government sides with falsehood.  And I thought Canadians were so nice, especially to each other, and that Canada was like America but with a better social safety net and sense of fairness / solidarity!

"in fact, many naturopathic practices are based on a semi-spiritual theory (the healing power of nature), and have no foundation in science. They reside largely in the realm of pseudoscience [...as absurd as] the argument that 2+2 = 5 [...]";

yes, he speaks the truth.  The "semi-spiritual theory" is a combination of two or three science-ejected / science-exterior ideas: vitalism, spiritism, and teleology.  Naturopathy, at its core, claims that there is an 'intelligent spiritual life force' governing physiology.  One could philosophically place these ideas within idealism and sectarian belief.  Naturopathy layers Latin upon this idea to dress it up, but here it is clearly stated and quite falsely stated as able to survive scientific scrutiny [aka pseudoscience] at the oldest American school of this 'nonscientific medical idea revival', NCNM.  By the way, these science-exterior ideas are well-vetted and not exterior to science because they are yet to be supported by evidence.  They are exterior to science because humongous heaps of various aspects of modern science have won-out in terms of evidence, parsimony, and rigorous vetting.  Yet, regarding naturopathy's core science-ejected premise and homeopathy efficacy claims nonsense, there's Alberta's Robinson, M. (ND BINM) who states in "Naturopathic Services" [vsc 2013-01-22]: "homeopathic remedies are made from specific dilutions of plant, animal and mineral substances. When carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body's 'vital force' and stimulate the body's innate healing forces on both the physical and emotional levels with few side effects. Beneficial for both acute and chronic conditions in all ages."  This ND serves as quite the example of pseudoscience underlying a science and efficacy claim.  As is Canadian custom, on the above page she lists all her degrees as "Dr. Melanie Robinson B.Sc., ND."  Therein, we have a claim of science expertise [of a certain level], as a bachelor's of science.

"I recently worked with a University of Alberta colleague on an analysis of the websites for the naturopaths in Alberta and British Columbia [...] in Alberta, the[ir] number one most commonly advertised service is homeopathy [...] homeopathy is a 'treatment' so obviously devoid of scientific merit that it is consistently mocked on TV shows, by comedians and, of course, by skeptics. Nevertheless, for naturopaths, homeopathy is not some fringe practice utilized by a few rogue clinics that have decided to shun modern science. Homeopathy is central to naturopathic medicine [...]";

yes, these assertions are also true.  Homeopathy is fused with naturopathy.  Here's my alma mater's curriculum page.  Here's naturopathy's North American exam absurdly claiming homeopathy is a clinical science.

 "a homeopathic remedy is either nothing but water or, if in capsule form, a sugar pill [...homeopathy's] 'like cures like' and super dilution have absolutely no foundation in science [...] what the good research consistently tells us is that homeopathic treatments do not work any better than placebos do [...] in summary: there is no evidence that homeopathy works, and given the absurd nature of the proposed mechanism of action, no scientifically plausible reason that it should work [...]";

I'd call that the educated position.  As opposed to the pro-homeopathy, narrow, cherry-picking, nutty and desperate position.

"embracing unproven therapies [...and] the supernatural and pseudoscientific [...] moves health-care policy in the wrong direction, further away from science and empirically provable, efficacious and safe treatments [...]";

I'm completely in agreement.

Note: perhaps one can say 'give them a college, and they take a mile'  The original article is here [vsc 2013-01-22] with many hypertext links in support of his argument including those of the aanmc.org, pubmed.gov, sciencebasedmedicine.org, ukskeptics.com, nih.gov, and ccnm.edu.

002. Alberta examples of naturopathic-homeopathic pseudoscience:

002.a. a governing body, the College of Naturopathic Doctors of Alberta [CNDA, which is not to be mistaken for an academic institution, by the way] states in "Frequently Asked Questions About Naturopathic Doctors in Alberta" [vsc 2013-01-22]:

"[regarding science] naturopathic programs include basic and clinical medical sciences [...] NDs study the same basic medical and clinical sciences as other healthcare professionals, such as MDs, DCs, DDSs, and RNs. These sciences lay the foundation for detailed history, intake, physical and laboratory diagnosis [...] is naturopathic medicine proven by science? Many naturopathic treatments have been researched and been proven safe and effective for numerous conditions [...] scientific examination of naturopathic methods is important, helping to bring clarity and refinement to the traditional and historical use of various therapies [...]";

ah, the foundational sciences that lay the foundation for pseudoscience.  Fascinating.  Notice the 'of the professions' claim.  But can naturopathy be a profession if it is based on falsehood and deception?  I don't think so.  How absurd!  Scientific examination is claimed as vitally necessary, yet, such rigor is the very thing that undoes naturopathy's claims.  I therefore don't think these sciences are taken seriously as filters regarding naturopathy's contents and context.  By the way, in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?", CNDA tells us: "naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine [...] in Canada, the naturopathic medical professions infrastructure includes [...] a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research."  How is something science-vetted when it is fundamentally science-exterior?  How is something distinct if it is blended?  That's absurdity at its finest.

 "[regarding evidence] there are also numerous randomized control trials and evidence‐based studies in the literature that have shown the efficacy of the approaches and modalities used in naturopathic medicine [...]";

if you ignore ALL the science, and cherry-pick.

[regarding rigor] NDs must successfully complete rigorous North American board examinations [...] naturopathic doctors are trained in homeopathy as part of the many therapeutic modalities that we can use [...]";

exams which are so rigorous, in terms of falsely labeling homeopathy a science, that they are basically saying 2 +2 = 5.  I think, though, that even if homeopathy was removed, you'd only be scratching the surface of the issue.  The problem, fundamentally, is epistemological and logical: naturopathy claims that science and nonscience are interchangeable / equals.

002.a. two Alberta NDs who say naturopathy is science-based including its homeopathy:

002.a1. Mountain, R. (ND CCNM) of Airdrie, Alberta states in "Frequently Asked Questions" [vsc 2013-01-22] :

"naturopathy is an umbrella term that includes homeopathy [yes...q] is naturopathic medicine research based? A: Naturopathic doctors are trained as primary care doctors to diagnose illnesses utilizing the same researched standards as conventional medical doctors.  Furthermore, naturopathic medical therapies have a long history of safe and effective use that is supported by research [...] is well documented throughout scientific research. Nutritional medicine has a large body of research from numerous large clinical trials for an extensive range of health concerns. Many herbal medicines also have a long history of traditional use that is validated by current medical research and safety data. The evidence base supporting the safety and effectiveness of naturopathic medicine continues to grow daily as new research findings are published [...] naturopathic doctors (ND’s) are trained in medical sciences and may use the same scientific resources your family physician uses to diagnose and treat your condition [....] naturopathic college consists of four years of naturopathic medical training.  The first 2 years contain primarily biomedical sciences similar to the curriculum at a conventional medical school and includes an introduction to naturopathic practices."

science, research, science, research.  The claim is science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy as supported by rigorous scientific research.  And that is absurd.

002.a2.  Eriksen, T. (ND CCNM) of Sherwood Park, Alberta states in "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2013-01-22]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] including #2] vis medicatrix naturae, use the healing power of nature [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...] illness is a purposeful process of the organism [...and] tolle totum, treat the whole person [...] the whole organism [...involves] physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. The physician must treat the whole person by taking all of these factors into account."

so, therein we have the crazy claim that it is an objective scientific fact that the science-exterior survives scientific scrutiny. But, the irony gets ever more amusing.  ND Eriksen writes in "Dr. Tamara Eriksen, ND" [vsc 2013-01-22]:

"Dr. Eriksen's undergraduate training was at the U of A in biological sciences [...] considering herself a 'science geek from way back,'she makes a point of staying up on the cutting edge of medical science and alternative medicine. Her treatment philosophy is to lay the groundwork with sound medical science [...] and to always consider the psycho-social, emotional, spiritual health of individuals [...] the body/mind/spirit is inextricable!"

and therein, she sadly has been looked over again by the Nobel committee for the amazing REVOLUTIONARY discovery that science includes what it excludes.

003. perhaps one can also say:

 'give them a college, and since their baseline is nonsense, they're fine with each others' nonsense.'

and they call that regulation.

ND Rothenberg, Massachusetts Licensure, and a 'Science Subset Not Science' Absurdity

here [we go again] now in 2013 at HuffPo via ND Rothenberg, with that claim that naturopathy should be licensed, is rigorously vetted by way of science, and such [see 001., below]; but, once you illuminate the contents of 'the essentially naturopathic' [its ideas and methods], I don't think so [see 002., below]:

001. Amy Rothenberg ND writes in "Licensure for Naturopathic Doctors" (2013-01-14) [vsc 2013-01-15; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"after 18 years of legislative effort, countless hours educating [miseducating!] state senators and representatives with information about our training, education, scope of practice and more, the Massachusetts Legislature passed bill S.2377 [which is here...but] Governor Deval Patrick [...] chose to veto this bill last week [...]";

I will get back to the miseducation that naturopathy claims is education in 002., below.  And it is SO EASY to demonstrate.  So, the lawmakers don't mind licensure of falsehood and all that that entails in terms of their State's status as an accessory to such.  That's weird.  The governor may have accidentally done the right thing simply due to procedural issues inherent to that legislative session.

"from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians website [here...she quotes] 'naturopathic physicians combine the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science. Steeped in traditional healing methods, principles and practices [...] naturopathic physicians help facilitate the body's inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health' [...]";

so, the impression, to me at least, that is intended is that naturopathy [in its ideas and methods] survives rigorous scientific scrutiny.

"licensing NDs makes good sense [...]";

and that naturopathy makes sense, good sense [as opposed to nonsense or bad sense].

"consumers seek doctor-level practitioners of natural medicine [...]";

and that this is all 'top level academic rigor' worthy of the caliber 'doctorate'.

002. the science subset nonscience miseducation-absurdity at the heart of naturopathy:

002.a. ND Rothenberg is of NCNM, and her alma mater NCNM describes naturopathy's principles and methods in detail, illuminating exactly what the context of the "wisdom of nature" and the "body's inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health" is and how it is treated.  In "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2013-01-15] we're told that:

"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 [...] the distinguishing marks of the profession [...including] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] the whole organism [...is] a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors [...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [...] homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of 'like cures like.' Clinical observation indicates that it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels." 

so, what I think again is intended here is the claim claim 'science subset naturopathy including vitalism, supernaturalism and homeopathy.  But, none of these things are within or supported by science.  And that is simply true.  There is no subtle argument there.  Vitalism is science-ejected [see the Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing], supernaturalism is outside the realm of science by default [see the National Center for Science Education], and homeopathy is patent bunk [see the Wikipedia preponderance which explains: "the scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham; the American Medical Association considers homeopathy to be quackery, and within the medical community the provision of homeopathic remedies has been seen as unethical."].  So, when is patent nonscience falsely labeled science: naturopathy DOCTORAL education.  When is what is bunk falsely claimed as 'in fact'?  NCNM: science subset nonscience miseducation-absurdity.

002.b. her primary therapeutic is that nonsense known as homeopathy which she describes as "a distinct medical art and science."  Not science, no.

003. the bill (here as a searchable PDF) [vsc 2013-01-15], by the way, states [in part]:

"in accordance with naturopathic principles [...]";

which we know via NCNM to be science-ejected sectarian ideas.

"the practice of naturopathic health care shall include [...] homeopathic preparations [...]";

which is bunk yet homeopathy is mentioned 4 times.

"a standardized national examination, including the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination [...]";

and that exam absurdly and quite falsely includes homeopathy within science.

"to establish a code of ethics for naturopathic doctors [...] the board may issue an order to a licensee directing the licensee to cease and desist from unethical or unprofessional conduct if the board finds, after notice and the opportunity for a hearing, that the licensee has engaged in such conduct [...]";

if science is nonscience in naturopathy -- if values are reversed and muddled so -- if big delineations are blended into unnecessary ambiguities, then how can good and bad be differentiated?  Following the logic of naturopathy, to be unethical and to be ethical, to be professional and unprofession is equivalent.

Changelog 2013-01-10 and ND Video

here, I summarize recent 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:

Bastyr University 

to Appendix B.01.a.09.;

NDs Bender-Pattinson, Cowan, Danby,  Dare, 

Esposito, Kempinska,  Park,  Peters, Raina,  Reid,  Stix, Yablon

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

Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine 

to Appendix B.01.a.29.;

NDs Coles, Elliott, Steelsmith

to Appendix  B.05.i.bbb.;

ND Johnson

to Appendix B.05.i.c.04.;  

ND Lee

to Appendix B.05.i.d.00.;   

ND Mazza

to Appendix B.05.i.d.02.; 

ND Misaghi; ND Meissner

to Appendix B.05.i.d.03.;  

National University of Health Sciences

to Appendix B.01.a.49.; 

ND Steelsmith 

to Appendix B.05.i.i.03.;  

ND Yates; ND Watson

to Appendix B.05.i.L.;

the science claims of:

NDs Bender-Pattinson, Cowan, Danby, 

Dare, Esposito, Kempinska, Park, Peters, 

Raina, Reid, Stix, Yablon

to Appendix I.05.b.;

the Idaho Chapter of 

the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians 

to Appendix I.03.;

ND Lee, L.W.

to Appendix I.05.j.;

NDs Quinn & Verfurth;  

ND Rose; ND Roy

to Appendix I.05.n.;

the University of Bridgeport 

to Appendix I.01.a8.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claim of:

Scott Gavura of sciencebasedmedicine.org 

to Appendix C.02.;

Steven Salzberg at forbes.com

to Appendix C.06.e.;

John Timmer of arstechnica.com

to Appendix C.04.;

     
the 'naturopathy is pseudoscience and quackery' claim of:

Steven Salzberg at forbes.com; 

Jann Bellamy at sciencebasedmedicine.org; 

to Appendix K.00.;

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

amajordifference.com states in "The IonCleanse® Ionic Foot Bath for Naturopaths" [vsc 2013-01-10; a manufacturer marketing to naturopaths]:

"[from the description] learn how the IonCleanse® detoxifying foot bath can help your naturopathic practice [...from the video, according to their Glenn Wilhelm, they are] the world's number one foot bath detoxification system [...the company is in] Denver, CO [...] it's an incredible modality [....] in can provide incredible benefits for vitually all of your patients [...] make the right choice [...it] is consistent with the foundation of naturopathy [...] the Ionclease can make a significant impact in your business  [...] tremendous income can be generated [...] over $40,000 annually [...they've] sold well over 10,000 Ion Cleanses [...]";

Note: meanwhile, foot detox is complete bunkum.  So yeah, I'd say this is right in line with naturopathy's foundation of 'a complete reversal of values', wherein that which doesn't even work is termed incredible, wherein that which is patently science-ejected is falsely labeled science etc.

Naturopathy's Bunk Iridology in the Clinical Advisor, 2013

here, I cite from a recent mild scientific criticism of the pseudoscience known as iridology [see 001., below]; then, I do a brief search of the web to see what turns up [see 002., below]:

001. Sherril Sego writes in "Iridology: Detecting Impaired Organ Function with the Iris" (2013-01-08):

"in recent years, naturopathic practitioners have renewed interest in a disease recognition method that is based on detailing characteristics of the human iris. Iridology represents the study of carefully mapped sections of the iris and the assigned organ systems represented by those areas [...] evidence-based studies do not support its safety and utility [...] the study of the iris for systemic disease indications is far from being a viable clinical tool";

Note: I completely disagree with the author's claim that "iridology is based on intriguing possibilities."  This may highlight the 'rigor gap' that exists between evidence-based medicine and science-based medicine.  Let's in ALL the evidence.  An understanding of basic anatomy and physiology blows apart any plausibility to the claim that the iris is some kind of homunculus for the body's organ systems.  Yet, we do know that the eyes have diagnostic utility when it comes to some indications of extra-ocular / systemic abnormality. As Steve Novella states at sciencebasedmedicine.org, "iridology is an excellent example of pseudoscience in medicine."

002. a current google.com search reveals [first-page results via >iridology naturopathic science<] iridology going quite strong in naturopathy, actually, internationally:

002.a. there is the Guild of Naturopathic Iridologists which tells us "iridology is a safe, non-invasive analytical science";

002.b. ND Koufos who tells us "I am a naturopathic doctor certified in reflexology and iridology. I can help you feel your best through natural means";

002.c. the Holistic Health College which tells us "naturopathy and iridology: these are the cornerstones of the Holistic Health College's complementary health courses";

002.d. and ND Meredith who tells us "iridology is the scientific analysis of patterns and structures in the iris, the colored part of your eye, as well as the sclera, the white part surrounding the iris, to locate inflammation or degeneration in tissues and to identify them as possible causes of physical complaints [...it's] a very good diagnostic tool ";

Note: you'll notice that most of these sources are registered or state-sanctioned.  But, of course! 

 absurdity in a tuxedo is naturopathy's avatar.

'Naturopathic Oncology' Absurdity - Steven Salzberg and Cancer Treatment Centers of America's Naturopathy

here, I quote from a recent expose by forbes.com writer Steven Salzberg regarding the pseudoscientific oncology offerings of CTCA [001., below]; then, specific to naturopathy, I look at the history of their 'science subset naturopathy' claim which I've been monitoring and archiving for quite a long time [see 002., below]:

001. scientist Steven Salzberg writes in "Making a Profit from Offering Ineffective Therapies to Cancer Patients" at forbes.com (2012-12-31) [vsc 2013-01-03]:

"Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), a private, for-profit company with five cancer hospitals scattered around the U.S. [...mixes] conventional treatments [...with] highly questionable unscientific treatments [...] questionable, unscientific therapies [...] CTCA offers a palette of pseudoscientific treatments [...including] acupuncture, acupressure, chiropractic, naturopathy, homeopathy, mind-body medicine (including reiki and qi gong). None of the treatments in this list has any scientific support showing that they provide a benefit to cancer patients [...] offering [such] treatments that are little more than snake oil to cancer patients is ethically indefensible [...] these are extremely vulnerable patients, and CTCA is taking advantage of them to sell ineffective therapies [...] when the benefit is nonexistent. (See Science-Based Medicine for a summary of the [lack of!] science behind these and other alternative therapies [...] there is no justification for offering treatments based on pseudoscience [...]";

hear, hear.

"CTCA makes multiple unsupported, unscientific claims for its alternative treatments, such as: 'naturopathic medicine can help reduce [...cancer-related] symptoms, strengthen the immune system and support the healing process throughout your brain cancer treatment [...] acupuncture may help to alleviate [cancer] treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting [...] when used during your leukemia treatment, our chiropractic care services can help correct bone, muscle and joint problems and restore nerve function'[...yet] the website [quite falsely!] claims that its integrative treatments are 'scientifically-based supportive therapies' [...]";

ah, the science subset naturopathy claim of CTCA has been going on for quite some time.  Is it a decade?  Lets see [see 002., below].

002. at CTCA:

002.a. presently, in:

 "Bone Cancer Treatments – Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2013-01-06] we're told that naturopathy is based on science-ejected premises and uses science-ejected methods;

 yet, concurrently, we're told in  "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2013-01-06] that naturopathy's "personalized natural therapies [are] backed by scientific research [...and are] scientifically grounded."

ah, yes, the science subset nonscience absurdity.

002.b. historically:

you can find those science-ejected premises and methods as far back as 2003 at archive.org; 

and that science claim too.  So, that's about decade of naturopathic oncology falsehood.  And, in that time, naturopaths have created their own oncology board, wherein you can be credentialed in magic beans, unicorn tears, and junk thought.

and licensed falsehood marches on.

Great Falls Tribune, a Bastyr ND, Her Ionic Foot Bath Nonsense and the L.A. Times

here, I excerpt from a Montana ND's article that promotes the huge quackery known as ionic foot bath detoxification [see 001., below]; then, I pull from an article employing scientific skepticism that informs us correctly [see 002., below]:

001. Nancy Ann Patterson (ND Bastyr 2001) [verified at bastyr.edu] states in "Naturopathic Corner: Lymphatic System an Underrated Protector" (2012-12-24) [vsc 2013-01-03; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"Nancy Patterson is a doctor of naturopathic medicine at Inner Reflections Health Care [...and she tells us] the lymphatic system supports every other system in the body including the digestive, detoxification, respiratory, nervous, circulatory and immune systems [...] you can ensure your lymph system stays healthy in several ways [...including] use ionic foot bathes to help remove toxins";

actually, there is no system in medical science known as the detoxification system.

002. meanwhile, in the land of the science literate:

ionic foot baths are considered quite the quackery. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2010 in "Ionic Foot Baths Have Achilles' Heel":

"ionic foot baths are a 'detoxifying' treatment that have become popular at health fairs, alternative health clinics and spas. Many companies also sell ionic foot baths online for home use [... ] scientists say that's bunk [...] a foot bath may be relaxing, but claims of detoxification 'make zero sense,' says Steve Gilbert, an affiliate associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Gilbert is managing editor of Toxipedia, an online toxicology database. According to Gilbert, there's simply no way to draw large amounts of chemicals, toxic or otherwise, through skin. 'The skin is a darn good barrier that's designed to keep things in the body. [Claiming to pull] stuff across that barrier is nutty.'"

003. but that's naturopathy for you.

ND ---> NMD: What Connecticut Naturopaths Want For 2013 [wrapped up in false claims and miseducation!]

here, I cite from my own State's '.gov' page regarding Connecticut NDs' request for changes to their scope of practice for 2013 [see 001., below]: and, then I delve a little bit into the Connecticut naturoPATHOLOGICAL landscape, wherein 'junk thought' is considered a suitable basis for a physician [see 002. and 003., below]:

001. CNPA president Ann Aresco (ND SCNM) requests in a letter to the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health [dated 2012-08-15; vsc 2012-12-28]:

001.a. for scope and title changes:

"on behalf of the naturopathic physicians practicing in the state [...] the Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association (CNPA) is requesting a scope change for 2013 [...including] prescription rights for all schedule I through V pharmaceuticals [...] all methods of delivery including injection and IV [...] change designation of ND to NMD for naturopathic medical doctor (NMD) [...] added CE’s required for pharmaceutical prescriptive rights [...]";

other states do use the NMD title, and eventually grant greater scope.  You see, naturopaths are 'natural and drugless', to get traction...until they are not, once the foot is in the door.  Therein, natural medicine means not regular medicine but something different until it is, simply, quite the same [until you delve].

0001.b. there is the root 'scien' in this document 13 times and we are told by CNPA such things as:

"naturopathic physicians are trained in the art and science of natural health care [...] in order to be licensed to practice in any state naturopathic doctors need to have graduated from an accredited naturopathic medical school, have successfully completed both the basic sciences (part I) and clinical sciences examination (PART II) [...]";

yes, science science science.  I believe the claim here is science subset naturopathy.  HOW EASY THIS IS TO DISPROVE CATEGORICALLY.

"the NPLEX Part I - Biomedical Science Examination is an integrated, case-based examination that covers the topics of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry & genetics, microbiology & immunology, and pathology [science, science, science]. The NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Examination is an integrated, case-based examination that covers the topics of diagnosis (using physical & clinical methods and lab tests & imaging studies), materia medica (botanical medicine and homeopathy), other treatment modalities (nutrition, physical medicine, health psychology, and research), and medical interventions (emergency medicine, medical procedures, public health, and pharmacology) [...] every jurisdiction that licenses/registers naturopathic physicians requires that you pass the NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Examination [science, science, science]";

so, herein, I believe the claim is science subset 'the naturopathic and naturopathy things like homeopathy'. That is such a bogus claim: that science contains that which is truly / abjectly nonscience.  But, it is naturopathy's marketing way: to absurdly state that that which is not science is indeed science-supported and engage in trade both educationally and clinically.

"naturopathic medical schools in the US and Canada [...include] National University of Health Sciences [...]";

again, that science subset naturopathy claim.

"basic and clinical sciences (see comparison for description) naturopathic physicians - 1500 hours, conventional physicians - 1500 hours [...]";

oh, so it's all the same.  Except of course, it isn't.  Science itself is quite not science when it comes to naturopathy, though, as you'll see below and that makes them frauds.

001.c. and the word effective is in there 20 times including:

"safe, effective and cost-effective natural health care [...] safe, effective natural therapies [...] effective therapies [...] the profession of naturopathy along with those of acupuncture, homeopathy, botanical medicine, etc. [...] they are all very effective and cost effective [...] the profession of naturopathic medicine has continued to use and treat with the effective modalities that have come down through time because they are effective [...]";

effective, effective, effective.  But, then why is homeopathy and acupuncture therein -- elaborate placebos, basically?  And if nonscience is science, and placebo is marked effect, how the hell can you tell what either isn't or is effective anyway?  Ah, how low the standards are! And, there's that 'of the professions' claim: but what profession is based on falsehood and absurdity and junk thought?

002. what ND Aresco's school and web pages reveal:

002.a1. SCNM, her alma mater [where two of ND Aresco's pages directs us, here and here], states:

we are todl here that naturopathy is science-based, and here is the science-ejected homeopathy that is contained with that science-based false label, and here is the life force premise at the heart of their beleifs that is science-ejected;

Note: THIS IS TOO EASY!  But, it should be easy to point out sheer idiocy.

 002.a2. ND Aresco is a typical ND:

marketing herself as "holistic" and big into "homeopathy" [see "Naturopathic Medicine";vsc 2012-12-29]; 

setting up to sell nutritional supplements online [vsc 2013-01-01];

advocating for archaic ideas that are quite science-exterior while claiming "science first" [vsc 2013-01-01];

Note: it really doesn't get any better for a 'science subset vital force' farce at a particular practice site.

 002.b. my miseducation at a naturopathy school in Connecticut:

so, to stake my interest here clearly, I went to an ND program in CT from 1998-2002 and I can say that that experience was the most falsely labeled product I can think of that I have ever paid for [and borrowed Federal Title IV monies for]:

you have the science claim, upon ideas patently science-ejected, and methods hugely science-ejected;

003. and as I am fond of observing:

licensed falsehood marches on!