001. the Seattle Times reports in "Suspended Bothell Naturopath Defends Use of ‘Cancer Vaccine’"(2014-04-18) [vsc 2014-04-19; my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"[as reported by Carol M. Ostrom] John Catanzaro, a Bothell naturopathic physician [...] license was recently suspended by the state [...for use of a] 'cancer vaccine' he created [...]";
well, if you are familiar with the history of naturopathy, it has been quite antivaccine. So, hearing that an ND was 'into vaccines' made me double-take, though NDs are sometimes known to push quite bogus 'homeopathic vaccination'.
"the charges allege that Catanzaro, who was medical director of the HWIFC Cancer Research Group, did not obtain proper permits for research on patients, had no independent oversight and did not keep adequate records to determine whether the cancer vaccine was working. In addition, the state alleged his lab had no certification or quality-control data to show that the vaccines he created for injection into ;vulnerable cancer patients; were safe [...]";
sounds VERY serious. I'm quite CONFUSED though. Here we have a "naturopath" being labeled "medical." An MD or DO is medical, a naturopath is naturopathic. This is part of the 'credential charity' that happens towards naturopathy. This sounds VERY 1800s: ye old snake-oil cancer vaccine donkey cart coming to a town year you soon? Is the guy on the 1800s donkey cart "medical" as well?
"in his response, Catanzaro said he was not guilty of any basis for sanction, including unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, misrepresentation or fraud [...] 'I have not been negligent, incompetent or committed malpractice in the use of the vaccine' [...] and had not violated any federal statute or administrative rules regulating his profession or setting patient-care standards [...]";
of course not.
"[Bastyr ND] Leanna Standish, medical director and founder of Bastyr University’s Integrated Oncology Research Center, reviewed the case for the state board [...]";
wow, naturopathy reviewing itself in partnership with the State of Washington. How objective. And now it gets interesting.
"Standish, in her review of evidence for the board [...] she said, evidence showed that Catanzaro’s 'disregard for basic quality controls and research protocol creates substantial and imminent risk for patients [...] it does not appear that psychologically vulnerable cancer patients are fully informed about the research in which they are asked to participate [...such] presentation of [...] clinical care in the guise of a research study is a ruse [...Catanzaro] 'has attempted to mislead the Naturopathy Board with inaccurate representations' [...] from a scientific point of view this is unethical.”
I'll deal with this in 002., below. The hypocrisy here is killing me, really.
002. speaking of evidence, science, and 'the unethical' / ruses / disregard for informed consent / misleading:
002.a. evidence and science:
do you know that Bastyr University, the alma mater of both Standish and Catanzaro, claims that the patently science-exterior is science-based? You want to talk about being 'scientifically unethical' and engaging in a ruse! Here BU is with the statement 'science-based body mind spirit nature' as "natural health science." The supernatural is EXTERIOR to science, and "nature" is a stand-in here for that vitalism which is at the heart of naturopathy which is quite science EXTERIOR.
002.b. informed consent callousness:
so, where do you find Bastyr transparently stating that the RULES they've set up in terms of epistemology, the study of knowledge, are HUGELY irrational and false / a ruse? Nowhere. Yet it is patently observable. They should be saying "in our world, science is whatever we want it to be, which is NOT what science truly is." In other words: 2 + 2 can equal 4, or 5, or whatever.
002.c. the ruse / the misleading:
the epistemic ruse is quite apparent: science that contains nonscience and not being clearly communicated at absurdity.
003. overall note:
it is perhaps QUITE poetic that an ND trained in Washington State at Bastyr which engages in quite academically false labeling, in cooperation with Washington State, is now accused of deceiving the ND Board and patients.
but, since naturopathy is 'the reversal of all values', there is GREAT hypocrisy here. How can a Bastyr ND tell another Bastyr ND what is and isn't scientifically acceptable when at the heart of naturopathy is a complete relaxation of the boundaries of science and nonscience, and of 'what's good and what's bad' to do?
this is a farce.