Tuesday, March 25, 2014

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 005a (Part 1 of 5) - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the Part One of the fifth episode of The Naturocrit Podcast, titled "The 'Science-Based' Science-Exterior Canadian-Based Naturopathic Interior".  I will look at naturopathy in the province of Ontario, Canada chiefly through associations centered around ND Iva Lloyd.   In this Part One, I will visit the biography page of ND Lloyd at Natural Medicine Journal, "the official journal of the AANP", and then visit pages from the journal itself, which she sits on the Board of:

001. the Episode 005a (Part 1 of 5) script and annotations:

Standard Intro.:


Welcome to, as that robot voice says, The Naturocrit Podcast, and thank you for boldly listening. 



What ARE we even talking about?



Well, this podcast series is my take on naturopathic medicine, an area I've been studying for about twenty years, including my time in so-called 'scientific nonsectarian naturopathic medical school'.



My approach is a pairing of scientific skepticism and a deep knowledge of naturopathy's intimate details.




In previous episodes of this series, I established that naturopathy is, essentially, a kind of knowledge blending, misrepresentation, and irrationality.

I have termed naturopathy both 'an epistemic conflation falsely posing itself as an epistemic delineation' and 'the naturopathillogical':




the science-exterior is mixed with what is scientific, then that whole muddle is absurdly claimed to be science as an entire category, while particular sectarian science-ejected oath-obligations and -requirements are coded or camouflaged, therein effectively disguising naturopathy's system of beliefs in public view.



Naturopathy's ultimate achievement is a profound erosion of scientific integrity and freedom of belief packaged in the marketing veneer "natural" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

Episode Synopsis:


In this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 005, titled "The 'Science-Based' Science-Exterior Canadian-Based Naturopathic Interior" -- really -- I will look at naturopathy in the province of Ontario, Canada chiefly through associations centered around ND Iva Lloyd and four naturopath entities that often function there 'in joint':

CCNM, OAND, the Ontario Board and CAND.

In this Part One, I will visit the biography page of ND Lloyd at Natural Medicine Journal, "the official journal of the AANP", and then visit pages from the journal itself, which she sits on the Board of.

In part Part Two, I will visit ND Lloyd's practice pages, and her alma mater and place of teaching, CCNM.

I will, in later parts, also visit:

OAND and Ontario's Board of Directors Drugless Therapy Naturopathy in Part 3,

CAND, its ND Lloyd edited Journal and the Wiki ND Lloyd edits in Part 4,

and finally I'll quote from two of ND Lloyd's paper-based books in Part 5.

For the sake of organization, I will tabulate the findings of all this rummaging in the transcript to this episode, which, as usual, will be posted at the Naturocrit blog.

Episode Question:

My overarching question for this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 005 is:

"what does naturopathy in Ontario promise, preponderantly, and what is underneath, essentially?"

About Ontario's ND Lloyd:

I'll begin with Ontario ND Iva Lloyd, a 2002 graduate of Ontario's naturopathy college CCNM.

Biographically, we're told in the 2014 archived article “Iva Lloyd[vsc 2014-02-18] at naturalmedicinejournal.com that she sits on the Board of that journal, Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ].

This biography page will serve as a very useful hub, shall I say, since it states:

"Iva Lloyd, ND […a] registered polarity practitioner and reiki master […] founded Naturopathic Foundations [her Ontario practice]. She teaches part-time at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine and writes for various journals and magazines. She is editor of the Vital Link [which is] the journal of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors [in Ontario]. Dr. Lloyd is the author of […2009's] 'The Energetics of Health, A Naturopathic Assessment' [...and 2009's] 'History of Naturopathic Medicine, a Canadian Perspective'."

Polarity and reiki, by the way, are termed [or quite 'of the camp of other'] 'vitalistic pseudosciences' at Wikipedia.

Naturopathy itself is termed a 'vitalistic pseudoscience' at Wikipedia which states:

“naturopathy, or naturopathic medicine, is a pseudoscientific form of alternative medicine based on a belief in vitalism.”

Isn't it all, in terms of the essentially naturopathic, “vitalistic pseudoscience”?

So why go on with this?

To quote Samuel Becket, 'I can't go on, I'll go on...'.

In other words, I'll go on because naturopathy is just so deliciously absurd.

And it is the right thing to do: blow the whistle, so to speak.

Going on, therefore, obviously ND Lloyd is quite high-up in the North American naturopathy food chain, in terms of both the AANP and CAND:

that consortia which shares the AANMC, NABNE, NPLEX and FNMP!

And I apologize for the vegetable soup!

So, from that NMJ biography 'hub' page's mentions, this Episode 5 will now look at, in this order:

NMJ, ND Lloyd's practice page, CCNM, OAND and the Ontario Board, CAND and that Wiki, and finally ND Lloyd's books.

Those areas will be the spokes running out from that hub page.

NMJ directly:

The editorial board of NMJ [vsc 2014-02-19; which I may at times refer to as the J. of Natural Medicine, accidentally] includes, as archived in 2013, NDs:

Alschuler, Baral, Birdsall S.M., Birdsall, T.C., Brown, Calabrese, Chasse, Crinnion, Espinosa, Hangee-Bauer, Hudson, MacKay, Marshall, Martin, Morstein, Murray, Pournadeali, Rubin, Schor, Seely, Smith, Traub, Walker, Webb, and Yarnell.

And, of course, ND Lloyd.

NMJ Posed Epistemic Differentiating:

Now, regarding its NMJ, the AANP tells us in “Natural Medicine Journal Helps Clinicians and Patients Sort Fact from Fiction [vsc 2014-03-04], archived in 2011 – really, I'll repeat that, “sort[ing] fact from fiction” by way of AANP naturopathy's OWN NMJ:

“when it comes to the field of natural medicine, it’s not always easy to discern the credible and reliable research from the unsubstantiated claims [I'll say. Sometimes, its very easy though, as well, very easy to see a Naked Emperor quite often in the land of natural medicine]. That’s what led veteran healthcare publisher Karolyn A. Gazella, in partnership with the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, to launch Natural Medicine Journal in late 2009 […] the purpose of Natural Medicine Journal is to provide scientifically valid, patient-centered healthcare information to the medical community […] the Natural Medicine Journal provides scientifically valid, patient-centered, peer-reviewed health care information to the medical community […] trustworthy, peer-reviewed natural medicine information […] the go-to resource for cutting-edge information about integrative medicine […] 'one essential way to guarantee the impartiality, thoroughness, and accuracy of Natural Medicine Journal’s content is to put it in front of the discerning eyes of experts before it reaches our readers,' explains Tina Kaczor, ND, FABNO, the journal’s medical editor […] the burgeoning field of natural medicine […] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians is a professional association that strives to make naturopathic medicine available to every American, and to increase recognition of naturopathic physicians as the identified authorities on natural medicine.”

So, there's obviously naturopathy's claim of differentiating or discerning:

fact / credible-reliable / scientifically valid / trustworthy / impartial / thorough / accurate /and professional information versus fiction / unsubstantiated information.

Since they claim to be scientifically vetting its contents, you would think that the Journal of Natural Medicine would exclude:

NOT fact / NOT credible / NOT reliable / NOT scientifically valid / NOT trustworthy / NOT impartial / NOT thorough / NOT accurate / and NOT professional stuff.

You would think, that there wouldn't be blatant nonsense aka FICTION at AANP itself, as well as that journal, with this 'sorting' fact from fiction posture or filter.

But, you would be wrong.

AANP's own web pages pose as scientifically valid the quite fictitious.

There's the page “Homeopathy – A Primer [vsc 2014-03-04] written by ND Johnson, archived in 2012, which states, quite falsely and unthoroughly:

“homeopathy’s effectiveness is supported by a large body of research in the medical literature. There are hundreds of well-designed trials published in peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate its effectiveness.”

In fact, when you look at ALL the evidence in terms of QUALITY, homeopathy is quite the science-ejected placebo.

And yet there's also AANP's “Zicam is NOT Homeopathy![vsc 2014-03-04], written by NDs Coward and Lewis, archived in 2012, which states:

“homeopathy is a 200 year-old medicinal science.”

Obviously, AANP is quite NOT discerning in terms of separating the scientifically valid from the scientifically invalid ON ITS OWN “naturopathic.org” pages.

As for their NMJ, let's see, as test subjects, how much vitalism and homeopathy is at NMJ that therein belies AANP's posed 'knowledge sorting' posture.

Let's see also how much language claiming “science” is there as well.

Now, these are not articles written by ND Lloyd, but they are journal articles which have been approved by the NMJ editorial collective of which she is a member.

naturalmedicinejournal.com vitalism, that prescientific fiction:

ND Schor tells us in "Telomere Length and Respiratory Health" [vsc 2014-02-12], archived in 2013:

"in our training as naturopathic physicians we often speak of a person’s 'vital force' [...] vitality and the ability to heal from illness [...] this 'force'."

That is, supposedly after NMJ scientific peer-review, uncontested science-ejected fiction: vital force.

And there's more.

Of course, there's more.

There's "An Evidence-based Review of Qi Gong by the Natural Standard Research Collaboration" [vsc 2014-03-24], archived in 2014, which states:

"written records referring to qi and its effects are thought to be as old as 3,300 years [...] the therapy is based on the traditional Chinese belief that the human body contains a network of energy pathways through which vital energy, called qi [...] circulates [...] there are 2 main types of qi gong practice: internal and external. Internal qi gong is the self-directed practice of techniques used to cultivate the circulation qi throughout the practitioner’s energy system. The practices involve meditation, subtle movement, visualization, and breathing techniques. External qi gong is an interpersonal healing practice in which a practitioner projects qi into another person [...] qi gong is a major branch of Chinese medicine that denotes methods used to cultivate, regulate, and harness qi (vital energy, life force) for general self-preservation and health, healing, self-defense, longevity, and spiritual development."

So much for distinguishing, even on a page that claims to be taking a “evidence-based” perspective:

there is a much scientific evidence for qi / vital energy / life force and the supernatural as there is for the Tooth Fairy!

Such may be historically interesting, but here, it is UNCONTESTED.

And there's "Acupuncture: Bottom-line Monograph" [vsc 2014-02-12], archived in 2014, which states:

"Chinese medicine theory holds that the human body contains a network of energy pathways through which vital energy, called 'chi' [...] circulates [...] the meridians contain specific 'points' that function somewhat like gates or way stations through which chi flows as it circulates through the body. Acupuncture needles are inserted into these points to regulate the flow of chi through the meridians. Illness and symptoms are believed to be caused by problems in the circulation of chi through the meridians [...] good health is considered an indication of the proper circulation of chi [...] chi is believed to have subtle qualities [...] the chi proposed by Chinese medicine theory is not electricity and is not directly detectable with scientific instruments."

Again, the UNCONTESTED scientifically-filtered science-ejected.

This even happens with ND Kaczor, NMJ's “senior medical editor [ND NCNM 2000]” who tells us in the 2014 archived "Medical Qigong Improves Quality of Life, Mood, and Energy in Cancer Patients" [vsc 2014-02-12]:

"from an Eastern perspective this improvement is centered around the improved flow of energy or 'qi' throughout the body."

So much science exterior uncontested vitalism!

If you are keeping score [in terms of this episode's overarching question]:

science was promised, within can be found the patently NOT scientific because in naturopathyland, epistemically speaking, anything is science.

And I must mention the CODED vitalism at NMJ, which is the TYPICAL way of expressing to the public naturopathy's essential premise.

A google.com search, >site:naturalmedicinejournal.com "healing power"<, has these current pages I haven't yet used, which code vitalism:

1. “AANP Recognizes Contributions to Naturopathic Medicine” [vsc 2014-03-24] which states:

“Paul Anderson, ND, received the VIS Award, which honors and celebrates the life and work of Dr. William A. Mitchell, ND by acknowledging a person who represents the VIS, the healing power of nature.”


“over the past 10 years the school has remained steadfast in the philosophy that guides its teaching and clinical training. The philosophy, vis medicatrix naturae, means 'the healing power of nature' […] UBCNM continues the vis medicatrix naturae tradition [...and we're also told] students study modern biomedical science and diagnosis, as well as philosophies and healing modalities whose effectiveness has been proven for centuries [...within] 'our health sciences division' […] says Beth Pimentel, ND [ND Bastyr 1995], associate dean for academic affairs at UBCNM.”

My alma mater, claiming science upon HPN-VMN!

I wonder what the ESSENTIAL context of HPN-VMN is?

That NMJ .com page about UB does not specify.

Well, UB writes in “Graduate Course of Instruction”:

”Principles And Practice 522, Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine II […] nature acts powerfully through healing mechanisms in the body and mind to maintain and restore health [...] students will gain an important perspective of the vital force and its role in the healing process, when used in conjunction with naturopathic principles […] Principles and Practice 512, Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine I [...] this course will explore the philosophical foundations of naturopathic medicine, which form the basis for therapeutic intervention. Vitalistic medicine in the United States of America as an influence on the creation of the naturopathic profession will be discussed.”

Oh, vitalism.

That's what UB means in that NMJ article.

You don't deserve to know up-front, you have to read the fine print by rummaging at bridgeport.edu.

And in that UB pdf, ironically, is the term science 153 times, including within the naturopathy section.

naturalmedicinejournal.com homeopathy, the great therapeutic imposter:

The presence and lauding of homeopathy is quite THE indicator of NO STANDARDS in an area of healthcare, IMHO.

At NMJ, ND Johnson [ND SCNM] is credited as the author of “Primary Homeopathic Treatment of Cancers of the Pancreas, Stomach, Gallbladder, and Liver” [vsc 2011-04-07, apparently no longer accessible there].

That's a pretty scary sentence, actually.

I've called this in the past 'cheer-leading oncology absurdity'.

At his practice page, ND Johnson reiterates that homeopathy is, supposedly, and QUITE ABSURDLY, “the most complete medical science” [vsc 2014-03-24].

And he tells us also in "Events" (2010) [vsc 2014-03-24]:

“homeopathy works tremendously" and it is “deeply grounded in science.”

Yes, these tremendous cancer effecting science-ejected sugar pills.

So much for the promise of NMJ's epistemic filtering!

And like I said, the presence of homeopath is an indication of NO standards.

naturalmedicinejournal.com science-claim:

So, there's piles of homeopathy, three pages of search results actually, and yet here's a couple broad or blanket or overarching statements regarding the supposed scientific status of such naturopathic contents.

There's the search by way of google.com >site:naturalmedicinejournal.com "science-based"< which results in:

1. The 2012 archived “Arts and Sciences Merge at Bastyr University[vsc 2014-03-24]

-- yes, many things merge at Bastyr University, epistemically speaking -- which states:

“Bastyr promotes a curriculum founded in science-based natural medicine [...] Bastyr’s science-based natural medicine program [...such as] Bastyr University’s Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree program [...which includes, according to] Daniel K. Church, PhD [then] Bastyr University President […] 'those things that wouldn’t traditionally be thought of as science'.”

Really, that last bit is quite an admission of a certain kind of, say, 'relaxation' of the boundaries defining science and nonscience if ever I heard one:

the science of our sectarian type.

2. And where would be be without Old Science-Based Joe, who is mentioned in "First International Clinical Congress a Success" [vsc 2014-02-17] which states:

"the conference featured keynotes from two leaders in the field of integrative medicine: Tracy Gaudet, MD, and Joseph Pizzorno, ND [...] Pizzorno is the founding president of Bastyr University, author of several widely acclaimed books, and a leading authority on the subject of science-based natural medicine."

NMJ's 'scientific and homeopathy', the great naturopathillogical epistemic collision:

By way of a google.com search >site:naturalmedicinejournal.com scientific homeopathy<, one gets two pages worth of results.

There's “Recent OncANP Conference Delivers Exceptional Content [vsc 2014-03-24] which states:

“the conference curriculum did, in fact, feature bold content anchored by scientific research […] scientific rationale […] scientific studies […] for physicians interested in using homeopathy in their clinical practice, Jen Green, ND, FABNO, and Paul Saunders, PhD, ND, gave practical advice illustrated by case studies and the scientific literature. They explained that homeopathy can play a key role in offsetting side effects of conventional treatments. Green mentioned that this is one area where animal data can be compelling because it removes the oft cited criticism of homeopathy, the placebo effect.”

And yet, regarding homeopathy, we're told overall at Wikipedia.org:

“the lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy and its use of remedies without active ingredients have led to characterizations as pseudoscience and quackery […] Ben Goldacre says that homeopaths who misrepresent scientific evidence to a scientifically illiterate public, have 'walled themselves off from academic medicine, and critique has been all too often met with avoidance rather than argument.' Homeopaths often prefer to ignore meta-analyses in favor of cherry-picked positive results, such as by promoting a particular observational study […] as if it were more informative than a series of randomized controlled trials. Referring specifically to homeopathy, the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has stated: 'in the Committee's view, homeopathy is a placebo treatment and the Government should have a policy on prescribing placebos. The Government is reluctant to address the appropriateness and ethics of prescribing placebos to patients, which usually relies on some degree of patient deception. Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice - which the Government claims is very important - as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful. Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine' [...and overall we're told] homeopathic remedies are found to be no more effective than a placebo, and homeopathy is widely considered a pseudoscience.”

And regarding homeopathy and animals specifically, we're told “placebos can play active roles in influencing pet owners to believe in the effectiveness of the treatment when none exists.”

Interesting, a sort of placebo-by-proxy.

It fits well with homeopathy's like cures like VOODOO proxy.

You'll notice that the collision is at once massive and trivial here:

naturopathy's claims upon homeopathy is scientific is massively demolished, and science proceeds on its way without blinking like a train pushing a gnat aside.

I use Wikipedia.org because I want to show how PEDESTRIAN, at least these days, information is regarding naturopathy's FALSE status and labeling.

When such a thing happens, well, one response is to CREATE your own Wiki, which I'm very excited to look at in Part 4.

I muse that naturopaths have therein “walled themselves off” because they cannot withstand the withering analysis of modern ACTUAL scientific filtering.

Conclusion for this Part 1 of Episode 005, "The 'Science-Based' Science-Exterior Canadian-Based Naturopathic Interior":

In this Part 1, I've established the hub that the episode will center around, Ontario's ND Iva Lloyd.

I've cited from the AANP's NMJ wherein ND Lloyd sits as an editorial board member, and from the AANP itself.

I have done this to establish a kind of preponderance concerning  the typical naturopathic' that I will then carry over into further parts.

My overarching question for this NPE5 is:

"what does naturopathy in Ontario promise, preponderantly, and what is underneath, essentially?"

What I've found so far, in answer to that question, is TYPICAL of naturopathy, and that is the preponderance I seek to establish:

a broad science claim, and contents – as beliefs that than direct NDs' activities – which belie that label!

In other words, as the introduction to this podcast states,“an epistemic conflation falsely posing itself as an epistemic delineation" is typical commerce for naturopathy.

But, I have not gotten Canadian enough yet, and specifically Ontarian.

AANP is American and NMJ isn't associated with a location.

At NMJ, their contact link directs to email only and we're merely told “Natural Medicine Journal ISSN 2157-6769.”

The Facebook page, though, lists Boulder, Colorado as the location and the contact as publisher Karolyn Gazella.

In future parts of this Episode 005, I will hone-in on 'the essentially naturopathic' specifically in Ontario, Canada.
---
Post a Comment