Saturday, February 28, 2015

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 008b - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 008 Part 2, titled "The 2015 Iowa NPA Naturopathy Bill", wherein I compare 'naturopathy's preponderance' to the language of INPA's 2015 draft naturopathy licensure law:

001. the Episode 008b script and annotations:

Standard Introduction:

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 two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 008, titled "The 2015 Iowa NPA Naturopathy Bill", I will compare:

'naturopathy's preponderance', the web pages of the Iowa Naturopathic Physicians Association [INPA; archived since 2010], its members' and their ND school alma maters', and the language of INPA's 2015 draft naturopathy licensure law.

Episode Question:

And my overarching question for this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 008 is:

"how does the language of the 2015 Iowa draft ND licensure law compare to 'naturopathic preponderance'?"


Episode 8 Part Two Main Body:


INPA Members' and Alma Maters' Example Web Pages:


INPA Members' Online – A VERY Rare Presence:

Well, as far as I can tell, currently there is NO LIST of members online at INPA.

There actually doesn't seem to be much of anyone to find in terms of practitioners of naturopathy in Iowa.

Therein, I think, INPA's licensure thrust is a VERY opaque process.

Whomever is behind the bill in Iowa, they are not publicly listed, yet.

But, I would think that during the process of pushing for the bill this year, other ND participants and supporters, or out of state dark horses, will become known.

By way of google.com, I did find four Iowa naturopaths, of different schools and affiliations.

One of them is NOT of the type that would be permitted to join INPA, actually.

There's:



She also lists herself as the INPA Secretary (archived 2015).

So, there's the INPA-AANP connection.

A video was done by whotv.com on ND Green and Iowa naturopathy licensure in 2014. 

In it an Iowa lawmaker states that naturopathy is "unproven and untested" [McCoy; now, he does say in the video that naturopathy is "an unproven and untested science", which is QUITE an oxymorony].

I think we can do better than that if we look at the development of science and medicine over the last say 200 years, AND, most importantly, we truly look at the contents of naturopathy comparatively to achieve what I like to call "contextual granularity" [which you can find talked about in IT circles].

With 'contextual granularity', I believe, one can't help but come to the conclusion that naturopathy is a form of fraud, abuse, and irrationality.

Now, ND Green's father, who, sadly, is stated as having lung cancer [and brain cancer] in the 2014 video, and who has recently died this 2015, states, quite mistakenly IMHO, in that video regarding conventional medicine:

"the [medical] doctor's treat symptoms."

There's that INSINUATION, again, that naturopathy is RIGHT and regular medicine is WRONG, with naturopathy uniquely situated to fix problems medical doctors can't, or won't.

ND Green tells us on her bio page (2015 archived): 

"I graduated from the National College of Natural Medicine in Portland, OR in 2007 with the clinical degree of doctor of naturopathic medicine where I was trained to be a primary care physician. I am licensed by the state of Oregon as a naturopathic physician. I believe naturopathic physicians are perfect for fulfilling the many roles a primary care physician plays [...] the profession of naturopathic physician [...] a profession [...] so aligned with the way I viewed the relationship of nature with science and health."

We're also told on that bio page:

"early in 2013 I opened my current office on Ingersoll Avenue in Des Moines, IA. Whether the objective is a preventative protocol, maintaining optimal health, or overcoming chronic imbalances to achieve stability in wellness I will design a treatment plan to fulfill the needs and goals of each individual. My practice focuses on the management of chronic health issues, preventative health measures, and optimizing and maintaining wellness. My wellness plans are centered in lifestyle counseling for each person including dietary, sleep, and exercise recommendations. I use several forms of natural health therapies including nutrient supplementation, herbal medicine, hydrotherapy, flower essences and a European form of homeopathy called biotherapeutic drainage. All of these therapies can be utilized with any stage of wellness and are focused on restoring, assisting and maintaining the body’s natural healing processes. I believe wellness is an expression of physical, emotional, spiritual, and energetic balance. I am dedicated to helping everyone realize stability on all these levels of wellness and will be your biggest cheerleader."

Let me unpack some of that.

There's NCNM, whose naturopathy page I'll cite from a little later on.

There's that Oregon ND license she holds.

In Part 1 of this Episode 008, I'd cited from the Oregon.gov naturopathy regulatory Board web page that absurdly states that the patently science-exterior is, instead, INDEED science.

So much for regulation!

There's "primary care physician."

And I have to ask:

who wants treatment regarding important medical issues from someone with '.gov' sanction to engage in falsehood and irrationality?

Isn't that what naturopathic licensure leads too, sanction and immunity?

There's "profession."

But, a profession based upon falsehood and irrationality is not a profession.

And the therapeutics, the therapeutics: practicing what sounds similar to medicine in Iowa, without a license?

Telling someone what's wrong with them, and how to fix it?

I don't know.

 I'm not versed enough in the law there to know.


But, subjecting the public to the magic beans of "biotherapeutic drainage" homeopathy?

Need I say more?

Well, perhaps:

"physical, emotional, spiritual, energetic."

I believe there we have supernaturalism as spiritual, and the vitalistic as energetic: the stuff that NCNM, her alma mater, and Oregon.gov, her licensure provider, FALSELY claim survives rigorous scientific scrutiny, along with homeopathy and its types.

At ND Green's home page (2015 archived), she tells us:

"all of these therapies can be utilized with any stage of wellness and are focused to assist and restore the body’s natural healing processes."

YES: coded vitalism, from an NCNM Oregon ND who KNOWS that that is, truly, a stand-in for "life force" -- I guess.

I guess transparency is not considered good for business.


2. The second Iowa naturopath I found is ND Seeman, a 2005 Bastyr graduate (2015 archived).

Seeman tells us on her home page dragonflynd.com:

"the goal of Dragonfly Naturopathic is to focus on your needs [...] we offer a number of treatments, and will individualize care based upon what is best for you. The dragonfly is a powerful symbol of change. It is our hope to be a source of positive change in your life."

That sounds nice.

It sounds very patient-centered in the sense of fiduciary duty, so the buyer should have faith, credat emptor.

In "About Naturopathic Care" (2015 archived), we're told:

"naturopathic philosophy blends traditional therapies tested over the standard of time with scientific therapies tested with modern medicine [...] naturopaths are trained in [...] basic sciences [...] and treatment methods [...include] homeopathy [...and] the naturopathic philosophies include [...] supporting the body's ability to heal itself."

So there is science blended, by way of "blends", and we have "basic sciences", and then "homeopathy" and "supporting the body's ability to heal itself."

Which is coded vitalism.

So much for science being a base.


How does science base the nonscientific, the science-ejected, and the science-exterior?

So much for  "what is best for you."

In "Services and Therapy" (2015 archived), ND Seeman mentions "cranial-sacral therapy."

Now, of the many bogus things that naturopathy contains, CST for me is one of the weirdest.

Wikipedia's article on it states:

"the evidence base for CST is sparse and lacks a demonstrated biologically plausible mechanism. In the absence of rigorous, well-designed randomized controlled trials, it has been characterized as pseudoscience, and its practice called quackery."

Ouch!

But NO WONDER it's so appealing to naturopathy.

3. The third naturopath is ND Cheng, a 2010 Bastyr ND graduate, who practices in Iowa as an LAc.

 If you use Ontario naturopathy as a model, then LAc is truly a subdivision of naturopathy in terms of North American naturopathy's practices because Ontario allows acupuncture practice solely with an ND degree.


And I can vouch for LAc-type stuff being in an ND degree's training, as required courses, because I took such a course when I was in ND school.

ND Cheng's web page describing naturopathy (2015 archived) is QUITE TYPICAL in terms of an ND.

We're told:

"naturopathic medicine [...] is a distinct system [...] naturopathic doctors [...] blend [...they] integrate [so there's that amazing epistemic oxymorony...they integrate] conventional, scientific and empirical methodology with the ancient laws of nature."

The epistemic conflation which is a hallmark of naturopathy.

We're also told:

"primary health care that emphasizes prevention and the self-healing process [...] a philosophy that nature is the most effective healer [...] the underpinnings of naturopathic medical practice are in six principles [...including] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae."

And that's coded vitalism.

The ND also writes:

"the therapeutic modalities used in naturopathic medicine [...include] homeopathy."

Because when 'anything is rigorous knowledge that has been scientifically vetted', homeopathy is on the table [here's the ND's alma mater Bastyr stating SCIENCE and within, HOMEOPATHY].

And though homeopathy is QUITE outside the borders of what science supports, we're told, by ND Cheng:

"naturopathic therapies are supported by research drawn from peer-reviewed journals from many disciplines [...] current research on health and human systems [...] including [...] homeopathy [...] naturopathic schools in North America [..include] National University of Health Science[s]."

So that's the 'science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy' claim.

The ND also refers to Bastyr's page on the matter, which I will get to soon.


4. Finally, there's ND Bradley:

who practices in Iowa as a DC and is a Trinity College naturopath.


I'll discuss Trinity in some detail in the alma mater's section.

Alma Mater's - More Preponderance:

I'm particularly interested in the language used at the ND-granting schools describing naturopathy as COMPARED with what their graduates employ, and the language of the INPA BILL as compared to the schools' which the bill DEFERS to in terms of 'what's naturopathic.'

I am HAPPY that, by chance, of the four Iowa NDs I've found, there is representation from NCNM and Bastyr.

And I'm also happy that I found an ND of 'them other kind', because it'll show how much is in COMMON [actually] in terms of ND-granting schools' contents.

NCNM Language:

Now, NCNM is 'the trunk of the tree' in terms of American naturopathy.

I'd mentioned in Part 1 that Oregon.gov's language describing naturopathy is also present at NCNM.

Lets look at that language.

The NCNM page "About Naturopathic Medicine" (2015 archived) states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...] these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development."

And so, science subset vitalism and supernaturalism: the essentially naturopathic, wherein science is, absurdly, ANYTHING, which is QUITE an EROSION.

Incidentally, another example of NCNM vitalism is NCNM's page "Convocation Address by Don Warren, NCNM – June 25, 2011" (2013 archived) which states:

"the vis, vital force and the use of energetic medicines such as homeopathy. Such concepts and practices are foundational to who we are as naturopathic physicians [...and we should] talk about vital force."

Yeah, about being TRANSPARENT, telling people clearly what you are all about so people can make an INFORMED decision.

That's what you SHOULD do.


His own practices' page -- a practice involving CCNM NDs O'Farrell, Lewis and Proulx (2015 archived) -- "Our Services" (2015 archived; also here), states:

"homeopathic medicine [...] the basic principle of homeopathy is that disease is a result of a disordered 'vital force' and that to find permanent cure, one must use a medicine (or remedy) that is 'vital' and has the potential for stimulating a healing response bringing the body back to a normal, healthy state."

The vis which is the vital force which is the energy which is the PROBLEM and the SOLUTION: an artificial solution for a fake problem due to a figmentation [racketeering alert!].

Sounds very NATURAL.

Bastyr Language:

Now Bastyr is QUITE the perpetrator of the "science-based" categorical label upon naturopathy.

After all, it is Bastyr founder and NCNM graduate ND Pizzorno who says he "coined" the term "science-based natural medicine" to market naturopathy.

That FACT is actually in the Textbook of Natural Medicine 4th edition, on page 19.

Bastyr is NOT so up front about the essence of naturopathy, so I think they suffer from a more fragmented cognitive dissonance.

Now, ND Cheng had referred to the Bastyr page "About Naturopathic Medicine" (2015 archived), which then directs to the Bastyr page "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" (2015 archived), ironically for a supposed "detailed description".

There, we're told, MERELY:

"the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes the body's inherent ability to heal itself [...] this healing ability in patients."

Well, that's QUITE OPAQUE for a "detailed description."

How are we to TRULY KNOW, to then decide in an INFORMED manner?

Opacity is NOT a virtue of science, but it is a characteristic of 'a manipulative system of sectarian values'.

So, there, CODED vitalism and kind.

And all the while, from Bastyr's page "Who We Are" (2015 archived) we're told:

"Bastyr University's campus in Kenmore, Washington, is uniquely suited for the study of the natural health sciences [...these] graduate and undergraduate degrees [...of] a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...] Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating [that is blending] mind, body, spirit and nature [...as] natural medicine [...] the model for 21st-century medicine."

So there's 'science subset nonscience', institutionalized.

Now you can find Bastyr's vitalism EXPLICITLY stated, but you have to dig though what I regard as 'a sophisticated manipulation'.

I'll post a link, in the transcript to this episode, to my Bastyr vitalism collection I've titled "Appendix B.01.a.09."

Obviously, Bastyr's idea of 'what's science', like NCNM, is a 'science that contains ANYTHING, a not science science', IMHO.

And I should mention, ND Pizzorno, who labeled all this, in terms of Bastyr, "science-based", is not, as far as I can tell...

a scientist.

Trinity Language:

I went to an in-residence ND program, for four years, of the Bastyr-NCNM type, of the AANMC-type, the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine.

UBCNM, like NCNM and Bastyr, claims to be "science", too (2015 archived).

These are QUITE crumby academic standards, obviously, when what's within what UB claims is science is:

"life force", "homeopathy", and what is entheogenic or as I've termed it autoentheistic.

These AANMC schools do tend to laud themselves as ABOVE other kinds of naturopathy programs, being Federally sanctioned, able to get Title IV funds, ironically by means of what I would term falsehood.

And though the AANMC lauds itself, I'd be careful you don't make the MISTAKE of thinking that a school like Trinity, which is often called a correspondence degree in type with a snicker, is HUGELY inferior to those AANMC-type schools epistemically speaking.

I regard all the naturopathy schools as epistemically crumby and hugely off-the-wall, in the sense of the 'essentially naturopathic.'

What each school type does FROM those naturopathic premises, well, yes there are differences but those differences stand apart from what I see as the initial 'framing' naturopathy programs have in common.

And to get to that stuff as a consumer, I have to ask:

should you put out upwards of $200,000 at an AANMC-type school, or pay what Trinity charges for 'naturopathy's stuff', roughly $3200 for their course of study?

Well, it turns out you get different KINDS of naturopathy depending on the school type.

I've entertained the idea of doing the Trinity ND, but as I carry national RMA credentials, I'd find myself in GROSS violation of medicine's primary ethical tenets.

And, as you'll see, Trinity's naturopathy is sectarian but not that New-Agey Pacific Northwest kind of animism or animatism-autoentheism, it is instead Bibilically centered.

The 2014 Trinity catalog titled "Trinity School of Natural Health" (2014 archived) states:

"the mission of Trinity School of Natural Health is to teach the traditional, natural health techniques and with an emphasis on Biblical knowledge. Trinity School of Natural Health is a part of Whitman Group [...] the mission statement for Whitman Group is: Whitman Group is serving the natural health needs of the world we live in through Biblically based values. We provide empowering education and quality products that are focused on improving your quality of life."

Well, at least we're not getting a whitewashing of the KIND of SECTARIAN basis of 'Trinity naturopathy.'

Now, there is NO VITALISM explicitly stated in the catalog, as near as I can tell.

And I'm wondering if, and it's an interesting IF, the Christian system there finds the New-Agey animatism and such TOO PAGAN and whatever!

I sense a rift in naturopathy, perhaps a schism!

The Trinity web page "About" (2015 archived) states:

"our philosophy is that when one is able to fully develop the physical, mental and spiritual aspects of the whole person, true health is achieved. We've designed our courses of study to support the integration of all three. Trinity is committed to furthering the holistic understanding of man as taught in the Scriptures. We take a positive position on issues of faith, such as the creation and nature of man, the resurrection, eternity and any other subject that lends itself to double-blind [...] scientific duplication or investigation."

If I sound like I smiled when I said that, well I'm smiling.

That's some WEIRD SHIT, to be honest.

But it's NOT so weird for the naturopathy realm in terms of 'general preponderant naturopathy characteristics':

we have the term holistic, a vague term that requires OTHER words to demarcate it, and therefore is a USELESS term much like the term 'natural';

the supernatural, strangely called natural;

a fundamental dogma;

and the misstatement that SCIENCE can used to base or support or process that which science can't science.

So, again, there's A LOT in common here between naturopathy school types:

the sectarian and pseudoscientific premises.

Anyway, from PREMISES, let's look at what naturopathy at Trinity is as an ACTIVITY.

On Trinity's web page "Doctor of Naturopathy (ND)" (2015 archived), we're told:

"course: SNH121 Reflexology [...] course: SNH223 Practical Iridology [...] course: SNH270 Homeopathy [...] course: SNH325 Kinesiology [which is applied kinesiology, not the legitimate kinesiology science of exercise science...] course: SNH334 Dried Blood Cell Analysis."

So, there's all that KIND of stuff naturopaths believe and do:

pseudodiagnostics and pseudotherapeutics.

One thing to note is that IRIDOLOGY, basically vanquished from North American CAND-AANP type naturopathy schools, is VERY BIG in the naturopathy programs in Australia.

But that's a whole 'nother can of worms I'll get into in a future Podcast episode.


The 2015 Iowa Draft Bill's Language:

The Iowa bill, according to the IANP home page, is both SSB 1067 and HSB 51.


"an act relating to the licensure of naturopathic physicians [...] naturopathic medicine [...is a] 'profession' [...] a person shall not engage in the practice of [...] naturopathic medicine [...] unless the person has obtained a license for that purpose from the Board for the profession [...] naturopathic physicians [...] in the practice of their profession [...and it speaks of] qualified members of other professions."

So, there's definitely an 'of the professions' claim upon naturopathy.

But, as I said earlier, since naturopathy is based on falsehood, how can it be a profession?

We're also told:

"the bill provides that the practice of naturopathic medicine means the provision of naturopathic services defined as a system of primary health care for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human health conditions, injury, and disease, and the promotion or restoration of health [...] 'naturopathic physician' means a practitioner of naturopathic medicine who has been properly licensed for that purpose by the board of medicine under this chapter, who may diagnose, treat, and help prevent diseases using a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals."

And that's ALL you get concerning naturopathy's premises and such in the draft.

And that is NOT enough to make an informed decision.

 In this case I'm wondering, do lawmakers KNOW what they are voting for?

For instance: pseudoscience masked beneath naturalistic language.

Why is naturopathy's vitalism, that essential vital life spirit at the heart of naturopathy, CODED in a '.gov' context when that '.gov' context is FOR THE PEOPLE.

 As a result, we get subterfuge AGAINST THE PEOPLE.

In coding and engaging in deception, this law is truly FOR NATUROPATHY, using naturopathy's typical MODUS OPERANDI.

The draft law also states:

"[naturopath's will be allowed to do what is] consistent with the level of training of the naturopathic physician [...from an] approved naturopathic medical program [...] a naturopathic medical education program in the United States providing the degree of doctor of naturopathy or doctor of naturopathic medicine. Such program shall offer graduate-level, full-time didactic and supervised clinical training and shall be accredited, or shall have achieved candidacy status for accreditation by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education or by an equivalent federally recognized accrediting body for naturopathic medical programs also recognized by the board. Additionally, the program shall be an institution, or part of an institution of higher education that is either accredited or is a candidate for accreditation by a regional or national institutional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Secretary of Education [...and] has passed a competency-based national naturopathic licensing examination administered by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners or successor agency, that has been nationally recognized to administer a naturopathic examination representing Federal standards of education and training."

Basically, they are deferring to the naturopathy entities CNME and AANMC which run the North American schools, and NABNE which runs the international NPLEX naturopathy licensure exam.

Accessories also include: States, and regional college and university accreditation bodies, and the Federal department of education of course.

But a couple things to note:

epistemic FRAUD, in an ACADEMIC context, without penalty, is the NORM for naturopathy schools in the midst of all these supposedly overseeing, certifying, regulating and such bodies.

They're like a tuxedo placed on top of a clown costume.

And as an extension, the NPLEX quite FALSELY labels naturopathy's homeopathy a "clinical science" (2015 archived).

And that speaks VOLUMES in terms of naturopathy's epistemic muddle.

 And we are told in the bill:

"a naturopathic physician may do any of the following [...] consistent with naturopathic education and training [...and it does speak of] homeopathic medicines."

We're told:

"a naturopathic physician [...as Iowa] licensed [...] may use the words 'naturopathic physician', 'naturopathic doctor', 'doctor of naturopathy', 'naturopathic medical doctor', “doctor of naturopathic medicine', 'naturopath' or the initials 'N.D.'or 'N.M.D.' [...] the bill provides that qualified members of other professions, including physicians and nurses, are not prevented from providing services consistent with naturopathic medicine, but these persons shall not use a title or description denoting that they are naturopathic physicians. The bill sets out these titles."

So, there's the control of title.

Now, there's obviously quite a similarity between M.D., as in medical doctor credential, and naturopathy's desired N.M.D.

ND NMD, does sound like M.D.

Plus.

But what are you getting in addition to what M.D. usually provides?

Absurdity, irrationality, falsehood.

But consumers will, instead likely, TRUST an N.M.D. to be as ethically rigorous as an M.D.

We're told:

"under the bill, naturopathic physicians are to be licensed by the board of medicine."

That's the '.gov' IBM.

I wasn't sure I'd read that right.

The Society for Science-Based Medicine, in "Legislative Update Week of February 16, 2015", states:

"IOWA: Senate Study Bill 1067; House Study Bill 51 [...] NDs would be governed by the Medical Board acting on the advice of a naturopathic advisory committee, consisting of 4 NDs, one MD or DO, one pharmacist and one public member, giving the NDs an automatic majority."

So, within the medical Board of Iowa, the IBM .gov, will be a naturopathy '.gov' Board, basically.

And that is quite a perfect veneer for naturopathy; that would just be the most perfect legitimization that naturopathy could ever ask for IMHO.

The Bill also states:

"[the naturopathy licensure applicant] provides evidence that the applicant is of good ethical and professional reputation."

Now, I teach a basic Medical Law and Ethics course on a regular basis, and what I want to discuss right now is medicine's rigorous ethical preponderance.

For instance, the "Charter for a New Millennium" -- signed off by ABIM Foundation, that's the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the ACP–ASIM Foundation, that's the American College of Physicians, and the European Federation of Internal Medicine -- states:

"[this is] a set of professional responsibilities [...and includes a] commitment to scientific knowledge. Much of medicine's contract with society is based on the integrity and appropriate use of scientific knowledge and technology. Physicians have a duty to uphold scientific standards, to promote research, and to create new knowledge and ensure its appropriate use. The profession is responsible for the integrity of this knowledge, which is based on scientific evidence and physician experience."

If the M.D. Board, IBM .gov of Iowa, is going to regulate the naturopaths in Iowa, I think the M.D. board will violate its ethical stipulations.

It's like being a vegetarian with a belly full of beef [I'm not a vegetarian BTW].

The Iowa medical Board and Society actually HAVE THINGS THEY'VE SAID regarding naturopathy.

I will get to that in the next section.

We're FINALLY told in the Bill:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine by a naturopathic physician licensed pursuant to this chapter does not constitute the practice of medicine and surgery under chapter 148."

This means, to me, that naturopaths WILL NOT be held accountable to standard of care like M.D.s.

What a sweet arrangement: they get to live in Their Own Private Ethical and Epistemic Idaho.

 I mean Iowa.

Housed within IBM.


The Iowa Medical Society and Board Positions on 'Naturopathy and Kind':

There are documents I'd like to mention that are up at the Iowa Medical Society and the Iowa Board of Medicine.

Now, the Board, IBM, is 'iowa.gov' as I've said, and their position overall regarding naturopathy is rather CRITICAL, shall I say, as compared to the ADVOCACY I'd mentioned at Oregon '.gov'.

I must note too that, in sum, these position papers were written almost a decade and a half ago, and relied on then current CAM-advocacy NCCAM articles as a central resource.


Iowa's Medical Board, medicalboard.iowa.gov:

A google.com search >site:medicalboard.iowa.gov naturopathy< yields MANY results regarding naturopathy.

In "A Policy Statement on Naturopathy" (2014 archived), at Archive.org since 2010 at that web address, we're told:

"[this is] a policy statement [...] approved by the Iowa Board [...in] 2002 [...which] is not a legally binding opinion of the board, but is only intended to provide guidance to the public [...because] naturopathy has recently re-emerged as a practice in Iowa."

It mentions:

"[the] history of naturopathy [...with] beginnings in Germany in the late 1800’s [...and how] Lust brought the philosophy to the United States [...and eventually] founded the American Institute of Naturopathy and began referring to himself as a naturopathist."

And we're told:

"the [naturopathy] profession is a little over 100 years old [...while] the Board’s position is 'buyer beware'."

WOW!!!!

That's QUITE the contradiction:

A) why give credence to naturopathy's FALSE, IMHO, 'of the professions" status, IBM?

Because:

B) a profession, particularly a medical profession, is not approached with the kind of cautions one brings to a used car lot.

There is vast difference between 'caveat emptor and credat emptor', caution versus trust.

To be SOMEWHAT fair to IBM, we're also told:

"this description of naturopathy comes largely from naturopaths and does not indicate the Board’s acceptance of the beliefs as scientifically sound."

Well, that's nice to know: that there are BELIEFS that are 'the inherently naturopathic, as in belief system'.

IBM also incidentally states:

"naturopathy declined beginning in the late 1930’s [...and] naturopathy re-emerged in the latter part of the 20th century and enjoys a high degree of popularity, especially in the western United States."

That would, of course, primarily be the Pacific Northwest, by way of Oregon and Washington State, which have two of the oldest U.S. naturopathy schools.

In this Policy, IBM informs us, and this is a very important point that the naturopathy bill itself REFUSES apparently to inform us about:

"naturopathic physicians believe that there is a natural equilibrium and harmony toward which the body will strive and its natural ability to do this is expressed as the body's 'vital force'."

Ah, that keystone point that makes naturopathy a sectarian belief system categorically.

The Policy speaks of:

"a dichotomy in naturopathy is well delineated by its two major professional [bullshit...] organizations: the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) and the American Naturopathic Medical Association (ANMA) [which is still around, by the way at http://www.anma.org/...] the AANP is a Seattle-based organization whose members have completed four years of academic training at the doctoral level and who are licensed or could be licensed and who want the profession [bullshit] regulated."

Well, AANP naturopaths KIND of want the 'so-called profession' regulated.

Naturopaths really want to self-regulate their 2+2=5 nonsense, and not be held accountable to reality, IMHO.

IBM mentions that:

"most natural methods utilized in naturopathy are largely unproven and are not grounded in peer reviewed scientific research [...] when further scientific evidence is available, the board may change its position on the modalities and practice of naturopathy [...] naturopaths attempt healing by combining dietary and nutritional counseling and selected vitamins, minerals and herbs with other therapies like osteopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, and colonics [for it is a blend...] they believe the body can build up toxins that disturb its equilibrium, which results in disease. Naturopaths believe that it is the suppression of acute illness that causes chronic illness. They see acute illness as a natural healing or cleansing process manifested by such things as colds, vomiting, diarrhea, fever, sweating and skin rash [...ways] by which the body detoxifies itself and brings about restoration of equilibrium or good health."

True enough: the toxin bogeyman.

And if you recognize echos of prescientific humoral medicine in that, well, it's there in naturopathy.

Need I mention biotherapeutic drainage homeopathy.

Particularly we're told:

"the Board has serious concerns about the efficacy and safety of the practice of colonics. The Board has found colonics to be unsafe because of the potential for electrolyte imbalances, loss of essential vitamins, bowel perforation, and disease from poor sanitary practices. The Board questions the utility of some naturopathic practices, e.g., homeopathy, and has serious concerns that naturopathic modalities may divert individuals from other, more efficacious modalities of care and delay appropriate treatment. In addition, patients may spend considerable money for treatments that may not be effective."

In other words: harm, of various kinds.

Well, as it is now 2015 and particularly regarding homeopathy and similar activities, and vitalism and similar beliefs:

preponderant science has only FURTHER expelled them two groupings.

And IBM will regulate naturopathy?

This becomes more and more absurd, but a VERY GOOD relationship for naturopathy, IMHO, wherein they'll be left alone with a cloak of standard medical legitimacy.

After all, they'll continually state:

'but we are overseen by the Board of Medicine in Iowa, and they don't have a problem with us doing our stuff.  Our standards are our own standards, and they let us apply our standards to ourselves."

And therefore we have a situation of DUAL standards.

How beneficial for naturopathy!

How not so beneficial for the consumer!

Some questions are answered in this Policy, by IBM:

"is it okay for an acupuncturist trained in naturopathy to practice naturopathy? No. Acupuncturists trained in naturopathy may not call themselves a naturopath or describe themselves as practicing naturopathy because such practices are outside of the scope of the acupuncture license [...] is it okay for another Iowa-licensed professional trained in naturopathy to practice naturopathy? That depends on the selected natural method of healing utilized and the individual’s licensing board. The Board of Medical Examiners may consider some of the methods of natural healing to be the practice of medicine [...] is it okay for a naturopath to practice in Iowa? No. It is unlawful to practice medicine in Iowa without a license, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 147.74, 148.1, and 150A.1. It is also unlawful for an unlicensed individual, i.e., naturopath, to hold him - or herself out as a 'doctor' or 'physician'."

So this is why Iowa is SO EMPTY of naturopaths.

And we're reminded:

"an M.D. or D.O. is regulated and must comply with the applicable standard of care, and the public has a State agency to go to with complaints."

Naturopathy would be a different standard of care, the kind of 2+2=5 reasoning that lets naturopaths do all kinds of whackaloon things and call it "science-based."

We're also advised:

"see the Board’s 'A Policy Statement on Homeopathy'."

Let's go there.

In "A Policy Statement on Homeopathy" (2013 archived), IBM tells us:

"this policy statement is not a legally binding opinion of the board, but is [...] intended to provide guidance to the public [...] homeopathy [...] a centuries old practice [...] classical homeopathy rests on the beliefs that the body is possessed of self-healing energy called the 'vital force' and that symptoms represent the body's effort to restore itself to health. Practitioners believe that applying the correct homeopathic medicine can stimulate the body's self-healing mechanisms."

So, there's that inherent to both homeopathy and naturopathy vitalism and its aliases.

We're also told about homeopaths:

"they believe there is a hierarchy by which a cure of chronic disease takes place. The hierarchy is that healing occurs from internal to external, from top to bottom and in reverse order of the appearance of symptoms."

That is the figmentation known as Hering's Rule [here's ND Saine writing about it; 2015 archived], which I was taught about Semester 1 in naturopathy school in 1998.

Oh, I was taught MANY figmentations Semester 1 by ND, naturopathic doctor, Sensenig, at UBCNM.

Since this document is also 2002, it sounds rather outdated when it states such things as:

"some double-blind, placebo controlled studies suggest that homeopathic treatments may be effective for a few specific conditions."

 That once HOPEFUL murmur has been dashed: the big UK and Australian recent reviews of homeopathy term it WORTHLESS.


The issue has resolved:

what you find as positive results in homeopathy is nonspecific placebo effect and kind, and when ALL the evidence is look at and ranked, 'there's no there there'.

In sum we're told by the IBM:

"the board's position is 'buyer beware'."

Again, as trustworthy as a used car lot: buyer beware for both naturopathy and its homeopathy, and yet they call this a profession that will be regulated by IBM.


The Iowa Medical Society at iowamedical.org:

The google.com search >site:iowamedical.org naturopathy< yields MANY results regarding naturopathy.

In "Should Iowa License Naturopaths?" (2013 archived) we're told:

"naturopaths should not receive licensure under the Iowa Board of Medicine [...] the Iowa Medical Society believes Iowa lawmakers should not license naturopaths [...] applying the 'buyer beware' concept to health care is risky, especially for people with serious illnesses."

So, that's an interesting contrast:

we're being told you can't trust naturopaths, but medical doctors are saying 'we have a higher standard, we can be trusted', and yet in Iowa, if it licenses naturopaths, that trustworthy Iowa Medical Board will be overseeing those untrustworthy naturopaths.

I term this a deprofessionalization of medicine.

And the IBM will oversee 'that shit sandwich they'll have to eat'.

Fascinating. 

The Ethical Code of IMS, in Part:

There's the web page "Medical Ethics" (2015 archived) at iowamedical.org, which states:

"physicians are governed in their day-to-day practices by principles of medical ethics [...to] guide physicians [...] medical ethics also protect the public's interest in their receipt of safe and quality medical care. The Iowa Board of Medicine (IBM) can discipline physicians who fail to adhere to ethical standards of medical practice."

As I'd said, for IBM, it is quite the shit sandwich to be eating as within IBM will be those unethical naturopaths.

We're told:

"the IBM looks to the AMA Code of Ethics and the AOA Code of Ethics to guide their review of possible ethical violations [...and IBM has] specific parameters on certain physician practice behaviors with ethical implications [...such as] unethical conduct harmful or detrimental to the public [...] deceptive, untruthful, or fraudulent representations."

Now, simply regarding naturopathy's claim that the HUGELY science-exterior is instead science, that epistemic muddle, I think that constitutes 'deception, untruthfulness, and epistemic fraud'.

Sanctioned, institutionalized, this will be 'ethical unethicality' just as we seen through Oregon.gov, that 'science subset nonscience' absurdity.

Because naturopathy's reversal of values marches on.

Now, the AMA Code of Ethics.

The AMA Code, in Part:

I'll hit the AMA Code somewhat obliquely, from the Medscape General Medicine piece that MD Atwood did on naturopathy in 2004 titled "Naturopathy, Pseudoscience, and Medicine: Myths and Fallacies vs Truth".

Because the AMA's Code has ALREADY been applied to naturopathy, turns out.

Dr. Atwood writes:

"physicians who consider naturopaths to be their colleagues thus find themselves in opposition to one of the fundamental ethical precepts of modern medicine. If naturopaths aren't to be judged 'nonscientific practitioners,' the term has no useful meaning [...] such collaboration is a direct violation of at least 2 formal, modern statements of medical ethics. The recently published Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter requires a 'commitment to scientific knowledge. Much of medicine's contract with society is based on the integrity and appropriate use of scientific knowledge and technology. Physicians have a duty to uphold scientific standards, to promote research, and to create new knowledge and ensure its appropriate use' [as I'd earlier mentioned...and there's] the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics [which] is even more explicit [...regarding] nonscientific practitioners: it is unethical to engage in or to aid and abet in treatment which has no scientific basis and is dangerous, [or] is calculated to deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking proper care [...] referral of patients: a physician should not so refer a patient unless the physician is confident that the services provided on referral will be performed competently and in accordance with accepted scientific standards [...] invalid medical treatment [...] treatments which have no medical indication and offer no possible benefit to the patient should not be used [...] treatments which have been determined scientifically to be invalid should not be used [...] health care fraud and abuse: the following guidelines encourage physicians to play a key role in identifying and preventing fraud: physicians must renew their commitment to Section II of the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics which states that 'a physician shall deal honestly with patients and colleagues, and strive to expose those physicians deficient in character, competence, or who engage in fraud or deception' [...these are] ethical obligations as a physician."

Hear, hear.

The AOA Code, in Part:

The Osteopathy Code is rather light as compared to the AMA's, but we are told:

"section 5: a physician shall practice in accordance with the body of systematized and scientific knowledge related to the healing arts. A physician shall maintain competence in such systematized and scientific knowledge through study and clinical applications [...] section 7 [...] no physician shall advertise or solicit patients directly or indirectly through the use of matters or activities which are false or misleading."

Hear, hear again.

The RMA Code, in Part:

Well, one ethical code that I professionally belong to is that of the AMT, as I am a member of the AMT Registry as an RMA.

In "Standards of Practice", AMT states:

"AMT seeks to encourage, establish, and maintain the highest standards [...] the following standards of practice are principles adopted by the AMT Board of Directors, which define the essence of honorable and ethical behavior for a health care professional [...] the AMT professional shall respect the law and will pledge to avoid dishonest, unethical or illegal practices."

A third and final hear, hear.

An Answer to My Episode Question:

I'd asked for this Episode 008:

"how does the language of the 2015 Iowa draft ND licensure law compare to 'naturopathic preponderance'?"

Well, TYPICALLY, you don't get properly informed about naturopathy FROM naturopathy.

The Bill is similarly OPAQUE, merely deferring to naturopathy schools in terms of 'the essentially naturopathic.'

And once you look at those schools in detail, you find ABJECT PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Preponderantly though, I think the bill therein does what naturopathy typically does:

hides naturopathy's absurd innards, and ADVANCES naturopathy with help from advocates who LIKELY don't know about naturopathy's details.

Will the bill pass this year? 

Perhaps.

And then I'll say, as I often say:

"licensed falsehood marches on."
.
.
.
Post a Comment