Friday, March 11, 2016

The Naturocrit Podcast - s02e02a2 [Episode 012a2] - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 012 Part 2 of Part 1, aka s02e02a2, titled "Preponderant and Universal Medical Ethical Codes and North American Naturopathy's Transgressions": 

001. the Episode 012a2 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, and 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 veneers "natural, holistic, integrative and alternative" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science."

Part Two of Part One: 


I will first finish-up with what I've called 'obligations I am bound to, or modes that define me, for the sake of transparency'.

Then, I'll provide four examples of 'the essentially naturopathic' to 'keep it real', plus, in that, I'll look at the regional accreditor's standards for the CT naturopathy school.

I figure I might as well mention such:

 since such is offered by one of these NDs as a supposed guarantee of a certain kind of 'highest quality ACADEMIC, professional and commercial context', much like a professional code of ethics,

since the bases for this Episode are STANDARDS.

And finally in this Part Two of Part One of this Episode 012, I'll look at the authors of what I've called:

'the two very different articles about naturopathy that will inform this episode'.

I'm a Phi Beta Kappan Since 1994:


Now, I don't regard myself as anyone remarkable -- after all, what have I done? -- but, I am QUITE aware of a contrast in my academic background between:

'naturopathic supposed doctoral level health science standards'

and

'my for-decades academic affiliations'.

Central to my affiliations is Phi Beta Kappa [PBK].

I regard PBK as the pinnacle of all my undergraduate honors, the Mt. Everest so to speak, which contextually has 'certain obligations and embedded values'

[I got one of these and one of these, too.  But again, I don't consider myself remarkable.  Because nothing amazing has been...DONE!  In fact, I just feel like a mark exploited by academic charlatans in terms of my graduate school experiences].

In case it is not known, PBK is an ACADEMIC honor that requires 'study in certain undergraduate arts and sciences areas with a certain minimum GPA'.

One must be of "good moral character".

The idea is to be well-rounded, and of high grades, as opposed to narrow and mediocre.

Do you sense the CONTRAST I'm heading towards?

PBK wasn't intentional, by the way.

Actually, during my B.A., I was just taking courses I found interesting and trying hard while I commuted to school and worked at the same time.

All the while, my tuition was covered by grants due to my lack of financial resources.

But not enough to live outside of the house I grew up in, and not enough to stop working while in school.

When I was told of my invitation to PBK, my surprised response was:

"how'd that happen?"


PBK also had a 2-year foreign language requirement, and as I'd mentioned in another episode, I studied Japanese.

And PBK is not one of those 'Greek life' social fraternities or sororities, though it does have a secret handshake, at least on the campus where I was inducted, that I can't talk about.

I should NOT have even mentioned that...

The Wikipedia article "Phi Beta Kappa Society" states:

"the Phi Beta Kappa Society (ΦΒΚ) is the oldest honor society for the liberal arts and sciences [...] in the United States. Widely considered to be the nation's most prestigious honor society, Phi Beta Kappa aims to promote and advocate excellence in the liberal arts and sciences and to induct the most outstanding students of arts and sciences at American colleges and universities. Founded at The College of William and Mary on December 5, 1776, as the first collegiate Greek-letter fraternity, it was among the earliest collegiate fraternal societies and remains the oldest existing American academic honor society. Phi Beta Kappa (ΦΒΚ) stands for 'love of learning is the guide of life'."

That motto suits me fine because, particularly as regards naturopathy, I just can't stop learning more and more about it.

Naturopathy fascinates me, obviously.

At pbk.org, in "About PBK", we're told:

"since our founding in 1776, Phi Beta Kappa has celebrated excellence in the liberal arts and sciences and championed freedom of thought. As America’s most prestigious academic honor society, we are uniquely equipped to advocate for the value and benefits of [a] liberal arts and sciences education. We do this because we believe the curiosity and creativity cultivated by a liberal arts and sciences education are essential to making the most of life’s experiences. This is why we: honor the best and brightest liberal arts and sciences undergraduates from [...] top schools across the nation; grant lifelong membership through a highly selective, merit-based invitation process that takes into consideration academic success and breadth of study; connect members to a diverse network of high achievers who are active in science and health care, business and technology, the arts and humanities, and law and philanthropy; advocate for the importance of liberal arts and sciences education to the individual and to society through our National Arts & Sciences Initiative; provide opportunities to participate in engaging events, programs, and community service projects offered by the national office, our local chapters, and alumni associations; equip members with information and tools to thoughtfully engage in American society as leaders, volunteers, and citizens; offer members quarterly publications and monthly newsletters, which provide perspectives on public affairs, literature, science, history, culture, and career development; recognize the exceptional achievement of writers and scholars in the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and mathematics [...] an Emblem of High Achievement and Strong Potential [...] for more than two and a quarter centuries, the Society has embraced the principles of freedom of inquiry and liberty of thought and expression [...] the foundations of personal freedom, scientific inquiry, liberty of conscience, and creative endeavor [...] today, the Phi Beta Kappa Society celebrates and advocates excellence in the liberal arts and sciences. Phi Beta Kappa chapters invite for induction the most outstanding arts and sciences students at [...] leading U.S. colleges and universities. The Society sponsors activities to advance the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences in higher education and in society at large [...] the ideal Phi Beta Kappa member has demonstrated intellectual integrity, tolerance for other views, and a broad range of academic interests [...] famous or not, all of our members have one thing in common their rigorous pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences [...] at the time of induction into the Phi Beta Kappa Society, one joins the nation's oldest and most prestigious honor society for life. [The] Phi Beta Kappa membership shows commitment to the liberal arts and sciences, and to freedom of inquiry and expression."

Lots of adjectives there!

And lots of 'values and virtues'.

I mention all that because, contextually with academic obligations to those 'values and virtues', or in-sum embodying these 'values and virtues', I was accepted into ND school in Connecticut.

I then went for four years, and left disgusted because I 'found out' naturopathy to be, academically, commercially, and clinically, quite opposed / quite opposite 'what is good' in terms of virtues and  values, in terms of the amoral character naturopathy seeks to imbue.

Naturopathy is:

not excellent, not excellence, not a rigorous pursuit of excellence PARTICULARLY as regards science because naturopathy is pseudoscience, academically and commercially and clinically speaking, since it has enlarged the footprint of science with such INTENTIONALLY low standards that naturopathy perpetually terms, essentially, ANYTHING science and accepts monies within that misrepresentation.

I found naturopathy to be:

not free thought;

not prestigious; not curious; not creative;

not best, not bright, not top, not meritorious.

Naturopathy is ignorant instead of informed or broad-minded.

It is not thoughtful, not of intellectual integrity;

and not tolerant especially if you, like me, refuse their INHERENT absurdity and refuse to wear what I'll call 'naturopathy's slimy veneer'.

So I found naturopathy to be: 

POSED and PROMISED falsely, deceptively, negligently, psychopathically.

Because I believe people who expertly and harmfully manipulate others are termed psychopathic, as in having psychopathy.

I'll include a link in the transcript of this Episode to a 2014 Psychology Today article "How to Tell a Sociopath from a Psychopath", just for fun.

Because studying naturopathy is like studying mental illnesses, and some it is delightful in its absurdity.

There's a reason why, when I was deposed by UB Naturopathy, 'when I was deposed by my abusers and not apologized to but attacked', that I DELIGHTEDLY termed what I experienced at CT Naturopathy Inc.:

"cultic mystical weirdness."

PBK Derived Academic Virtues:

Now, specifically regarding the kinds of academic virtues I just mentioned,

 such as "freedom of inquiry and liberty of thought and expression [...] freedom of expression [...] personal freedom, scientific inquiry, liberty of conscience, and creative endeavor",

I'd like to define those and kind, or unpack those and kind,

from big preponderant sources, in case they come in handy later at this Episode's conclusion.

I'll add that on admission to ND school way back in 1998, I was also someone who had earned an education B.A. four years before, and I had taught health science part-time at the college level.

And when I think back now, too, I'd achieved a 95 or so in 9th grade, in New York State, in junior high school, on the New York State Board of Regents Biology Exam and I have an above average score on the Praxis II Biology Exam, that I took in Connecticut in Bridgeport at Bassick High School, which is the content exam for high school biology teachers:

that preponderant biology that naturopathy DEFIES.

Like the preponderant concepts in modern science that: 

life is physiochemical and not based upon a medieval 'intelligent vital force spirit' or as naturopathy terms it internally "the vis", which is Latin for 'the power',

'that science doesn't invoke or mandate the supernatural',

that rigorously derived evidence and rigorously applied parsimony are fundamentally necessary for science.


The Virtues of Liberty of Thought and Liberty of Conscience:

Wikipedia tells us in "Freedom of Thought":

"freedom of thought [...] also called the freedom of conscience or ideas [...] is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints."

I have always thought for myself, as in:

 cogita tute.


Excuse any mispronunciation: I never studied Latin the way I studied Spanish and Japanese.

The Virtue of Freedom of Belief:

Wikipedia tells us in "Freedom of Religion":

"freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief [...] freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right. In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths [...] in 1993, the UN's human rights committee declared that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 'protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.' The committee further stated that 'the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views.'  Signatories to the convention are barred from the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to recant their beliefs or convert."

 I also think it is a fundamental human right NOT to be coerced into having to believe, by say:

a supposed health science doctorate that mandates supernaturalism and mandates that you falsely pose such as science WHILE the school ironically terms itself "nonsectarian."

Perhaps I can say it this way:

science occurs in a secular commons, and the sectarian is antithetical to science.

The Virtue of Liberty or Freedom of Expression:

Wikipedia tells us in "Freedom of Speech":

"freedom of speech is the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. The term freedom of expression is some used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."

Good stuff.

Therefore I can say such things as:

fuck you UB and North American naturopathy!

The Virtues of Scientific Inquiry, -Freedom and -Integrity:

The National Science Teacher's Association states in "NSTA Position Statement: Scientific Inquiry" [as PDF here]:

"the National Science Education Standards defines scientific inquiry as 'the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Scientific inquiry also refers to the activities through which students develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas [...] scientific inquiry reflects how scientists come to understand the natural world [...] implement approaches to teaching science that cause students to question and explore and to use those experiences to raise and answer questions about the natural world."

Natural, natural, natural.

And as you'll see below, naturopathy claims that within science is instead 'the supernatural science-ejected vitalistic spiritistic teleological, and such no-things as magic beans, unicorn tears, and flying carpets'.

And we're told:

"regarding students’ understanding about scientific inquiry, NSTA recommends that teachers help students: understand that science involves asking questions about the world and then developing scientific investigations to answer their questions, that there is no fixed sequence of steps that all scientific investigations follow [...] that scientific inquiry is central to the learning of science and reflects how science is done [...and they stress] the importance of gathering empirical data [...] the importance of being skeptical when they assess their own work and the work of others [...and] that the scientific community, in the end, seeks explanations that are empirically based and logically consistent [...] the National Science Teachers Association recommends that all K–16 teachers embrace scientific inquiry and is committed to helping educators make it the centerpiece of the science classroom. The use of scientific inquiry will help ensure that students develop a deep understanding of science and scientific inquiry [...] NSTA recommends that teachers help students: learn how to identify and ask appropriate questions that can be answered through scientific investigations, design and conduct investigations to collect the evidence needed to answer a variety of questions, use appropriate equipment and tools to interpret and analyze data, learn how to draw conclusions and think critically and logically to create explanations based on their evidence, communicate and defend their results to their peers and others."

As references we have the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences [AAAS] and the National Research Council.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has the document "Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility", which states:

"the Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility [...is] a standing committee of the AAAS [...] the increasing complexity of the interactions among science, technology, and the public interest raise new issues and problems concerning the human rights, freedom of scientific inquiry, and professional responsibilities of scientists and engineers. The Association affirms at the outset that scientific freedom is grounded in basic human rights and implies special responsibilities to extend and disseminate knowledge for the good of humanity."

And in NSTA's document "The Nature of Science", we're told:

"science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts [...] the National Science Teachers Association endorses the proposition that science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [...] although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work […] science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge."

Unlike naturopathy.

Let me reference that point directly from UB, right now, as I've mentioned it peripherally a couple of .

 UB's page "Health Sciences Programs" (2016 archived) states:

"the University’s professionally accredited health sciences programs are housed in the Fones School of Dental Hygiene, the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Acupuncture Institute, Nutrition Institute, and the Physician Assistant Institute. Several offer clinics and resources to the public."

That's a 'commerce subset academic subset UB subset science subset health science subset naturopathic' claim.

It's also a claim of  'commerce subset academic subset UB subset science subset Chinese medievalism'.

So, interesting epistemic laxities abound at UB which fail to pass through the knowledge filter known as science.

Like UB's page "Curriculum and Program Requirements" (2016 archived), where we're told:

"the College of Naturopathic Medicine curriculum follows a sequential course of study in which students continuously build upon a deepening foundation of biomedical and clinical sciences. Concurrently, students are integrating naturopathic philosophy, principles, and therapeutics into their medical knowledge. Students are admitted as a cohort and are expected to follow the curriculum as it is structured [that's what I didn't do, when I refused SO MUCH during my time...] at the completion of the program, students will have met the following requirements for graduation: demonstrated competency in the didactic and clinical portions of the program; satisfactory completion of a thesis paper. The naturopathic program, including all graduation requirements, must be completed within seven (7) years of matriculation [...including] semester IV [...] homeopathy I [...] semester V [...] homeopathy II [...] semester VI [...] homeopathy III." 

So that's science subset crap.

b)
And in the UB Catalog for 2016 (2016 archived), we're told in the naturopathy section:

"the following principles are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice [...] since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development."

That is 'forced supernaturalism' within claimed "science".

Junk thought galore.

Marches on...



The Virtues of Freedom of Inquiry and Academic Freedom:

Well, one thing I'll state about this is that there are no holy cows, aka INQUIRE AWAY.

But if there truly were 'supernatural cows', science wouldn't be able to study such 'of the supernatural' while I don't know how something empirically validated would ever be supernatural.

'Empirically validated supernaturalism' seems to m to be a contradiction in terms:

measures would have been repeated, which isn't that miraculous, which isn't that rend in the physical laws that govern what we know as the universe and term, when rended, 'of the supernatural'.

So I think this idea of science subset supernaturalism or 'scientific supernaturalism' is illogical:

naturopathillogical. 

Wikipedia states, in "Academic Freedom":

"academic freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts, including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities, without being targeted for repression, job loss, or imprisonment [...] in the United States, academic freedom is generally taken as the notion of academic freedom defined by the '1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure', jointly authored by the American Association of University Professors [...and] the Association of American Colleges and Universities [...] the Principles have only the character of private pronouncements, not that of binding law. The six regional accreditors work with American colleges and universities, including private and religious institutions, to implement this standard."

That's very good, and we'll get to UB's regional accreditor soon.

The Virtues of Excellent Teacher Ethics:

Let me deal with this idea here:

if naturopaths are committed to their principles by oath, which they are, then they are committed to the act of or the behavior of teaching and educating, since one of these principles is "physician as teacher".

What preponderantly is 'excellent teacher ethics'?

Well, plainly, I don't think it is MISREPRESENTATION of one's knowledge competency, as science expert, and then the implementation of junk thought, as in pseudoscience.

4 Unvirtuous Examples of 'The Essentially Naturopathic':


Let's keep it real, so lets take a look at 'naturopathy fiction'.

This Part One needs meat on its bones, examples.

There are four 'epistemically unvirtuous' sources I'll use here:

ND Glidden, ND Cluney, ND McPherson, and UB-NEASC.

The NDs happen to be NDs I've recently written about, and the school is my neighbor and alma mater.

First, there's ND Glidden, whom I'll often say "is a lot of fun".

Quite the delight.

ND Glidden:

ND Glidden is a 1991 Bastyr University ND Graduate.

Now, Bastyr's language states, regarding 'naturopathy's epistemic and ontologic footprint', so to speak, in "Who We Are" (2016 archived):

"Bastyr University [...] offering graduate and undergraduate degrees with a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [including naturopathy...] Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature. A pioneer in natural medicine since its inception, Bastyr continues to be in the forefront of developing the model for 21st-century medicine."

So that's:

science, subset natural health sciences, subset naturopathy, subset 'everything' including the supernatural and the coded vitalistic.

What that means, briefly speaking, is that for naturopathy 'science is anything'.

But, of course, science ISN'T anything, because that's ridiculous.

So if ND Glidden says such too, like BU, that basically anything is science, well, he learned his lessons at BU well.

And he does not disappoint.


"here, I excerpt from a ND Glidden youtube.com video that discusses naturopathy's principal tenet, that a 'purposeful life spirit' aka 'divine intelligence' aka 'spiritual force' is responsible for physiology, and here, particularly, the chemical activity of insulin."

I'm not making this up, or creating a forced interpretation.
 
At YouTube, uploaded by his own account "Glidden Healthcare", in "Dr. Glidden Interview on The Leon Show (DIVINE INTELLIGENCE)" [not my caps; 2016-02-26; vsc 2016-02-26], ND Glidden states:

"our therapeutics work [...] this is the fundamental philosophy [...of] naturopathic medicine [...and] homeopathic medicine, herbalism, Ayurveda, chiropractic.  Every holistic type of medicine argues [that] the human body is endowed with a spiritual force, a spiritual intelligence, a divine intelligence which is directing the show."

Ah, the claim of efficacy, and then 'them sectarian items'.

Now, obviously, we're not in the realm of science if we invoke the supernatural and the divine.

This is that 'purposeful life spirit' central tenet of naturopathy which is a combination of 'vitalism, teleology, and spiritism' and with "divine", 'theology'.

And we're being told, basically, that this is medically TRUE, medically relevant, necessary medically speaking.

ND Glidden goes on:

"there are millions of metabolic processes happening right now in our bodies completely beyond our conscious control. Somebody's running that show.  It's the divine intelligence in the human body that's running that show [...evident as] the body knows how to fix itself.  The body want's to fix itself [...health as] the way nature and god intended [...] the way god intended [it] to [...] insulin floats through the blood, binds to the cell walls.  How does it know how to do that? You would think that that would be an interesting question to ask, but medical doctors don't ask that question.  How does it know where to go and what to do?  It's a biochemical.  How does it know where to go and what to do? Well I'll tell you how it knows where to go and what to do.  Because there's divine intelligence guiding it, period [...] this is academic, this is not arguable [...] even though I went to a fully accredited naturopathic medical school, all the licensing everything, eight years of medical education, thousands of hours of clinical supervision, I'm only allowed to practice medicine in 18 states [...] so what does that mean, that the laws of nature, and physics and science change when you cross a state line?  No [...] it has everything to do with politics."

Interesting, interesting:

WHY do molecules have to "KNOW" anything?

WHY do they have to be "RUN"?

WHY do they have to be "GUIDED"?

When I was in ND school, ND Sensenig termed this "divine intelligence" the "god power within you" at UB.

[autoentheism, as I've termed it]. 

Oh, I agree that this "divine intelligence" is "not arguable" but in the opposite direction of ND Glidden's assertions:

this unarguably is fully accredited PSEUDOSCIENCE being IMPLEMENTED by one of its graduates.

Molecules that need piloting is kind of like seeing a cloud move across the sky, and then having the a priori requirement that one assume someone must be inside it piloting it.

Because.

So, that's an example of a fruit BU bears 'as the ND operating in society', an apple that has fallen from the tree of BU.

And with ND Glidden's invocation of "accreditation", I must, when I talk of UB CT Naturopathy Inc., discuss UB's accreditor.

Because, you'll be surprised to know:

BU's accreditor has no problem with what BU is doing, just as happens with UB.

Neither does the Washington, California, and Connecticut States' Departments of Education and Health and Consumer Protection , and neither do similar FEDERAL oversight organizations.

Accordingly, THOUGH what's happening is professionally, medically and academically ethically WRONG, it's perfectly NATUROPATHIC.

It's perfectly protected by licensure in 18 states.

That's what naturopathic licensure is for:

the protection of nonsense, the self-regulation of nonsense.

And ND Glidden is 'the perfect naturopath', in my view.

And I'll add that I fully acknowledge his right to believe whatsoever he wishes, as BELIEF and article of FAITH, but:

I am completely in disagreement that such 'a priori religious stuff' is medically relevant, and 'good to falsely pose as science and as TRUE', in terms of 'science and the medical'.

It is actually false in terms of science, and unsupportable in terms of science, and FUN in terms of crazy.

ND Cluney:

ND Cluney is also a Bastyr ND graduate, circa 2010 according to Bastyr's online alumni resource [vsc 2016-03-04]. 

I'd blogged recently, 2016-02-17, about this Oregon ND in a Naturocrit post titled “Portland's ND Cluney: Homeopathy is 'Particularly Most Effective and Firmly Science-Based'”.


I'd called it a "microcosm of naturopathy's 'science subset abject nonscience' MO".

At her homepage (2016 archived), ND Cluney writes:

"Dr. Paula Cluney offers compassionate natural healthcare in the downtown Portland area [...] individualized and quality care [...] her practice strongly utilizes homeopathy as a therapeutic treatment and she aims to create the most natural and effective therapies to support your entire system [...and we're told] 'the natural forces within us are the true healers of disease' - Hippocrates'."

ND Cluney writes in "Services" (2016 archived):

"modern naturopathic medicine [...is] firmly science-based [....and she uses] homeopathy as a common supportive therapy [...] classical homeopathy serves to get to the deepest cause of a person’s illness by addressing the mental, emotional and physical aspects of a person as well as childhood history, previous illnesses and causation of a disease [...] homeopathic remedies are particularly effective in treating common conditions such as depression and anxiety, allergies, infections, digestive problems, skin problems and many other acute and chronic conditions such as headaches and colds and flu."

So, this is a science and efficacy claim on what is neither, from another Bastyr "science-based natural medicine" graduate.

That is SO NATUROPATHIC.

Another disciple of 'BU's epistemic and ontological naturopathillogical model'.

ND McPherson:

With this ND, we're getting closer to CT Naturopathy Inc., because she is a UBCNM ND graduate (2016 archived) and ND College instructor employee there (2015 archived).


Now NDNR is Naturopathic Doctor News and Review, and it is supposedly peer-reviewed.

It has been published for 11 years.

In NDNR's "About" page [2016 archived], they state that there are 8200 North American CNME-accredited NDs and ND-students, that homeopathy is an integral part of naturopathy, that naturopathy is a profession, and they state regarding NDNR, "the content consists of articles written by practicing NDs for practicing NDs."

This NDNR article has survived the scrutiny of ND McPherson's ND peers.

But, as I am fond of saying, why would absurdity take issue with absurdity?

Absurdity represents consensus within naturopathy.

I wrote, in that post:

"here, wow!  Just WOW! [...] in Naturopathic Doctor News and Review, 2016-02, there's the article 'Homeopathy: Keynotes and Restoration of Health' (2016 archived) by Florence McPherson, ND, wherein she writes about the vitalism-supernaturalism that is at the heart of homeopathy."

The article is available online.

I'll provide the link, and a link to what I've pushed into Archive.org.

And here are some excerpts:

"Vis Medicatrix Naturae: Homeopathy: Keynotes and Restoration of Health [...] Florence McPherson, ND.  Prescribing to a patient's life force plus the totality of symptoms makes cure possible [...] as a homeopath, I am always close to or aware of the operation of the vital force in each of my patients - that force that animates the physical body in feelings, functions, sensations and awareness - the vital force that exists in all living things and gives life or autocracy to all physical life forms. This life force or energy becomes the basis of all operations in the person - physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual.  It is the life force in health that keeps bodily functions balanced and in order. It is this same life force in illness or dis-ease that creates imbalance or symptoms in the body, or alterations in form, feelings, and functions in the body.  When we are focused in this manner, we can gain insight into how to enhance a patient's health, leading him or her on a path to wellness by focusing on the whole life force rather than just their diagnosis [...] whether I am prescribing a naturopathic treatment protocol or prescribing a single homeopathic remedy, I am attuned to the process of the vital force in each individual patient. A patient may have an endocrine imbalance, a bacterial infection, a viral infection, etc; it is not only the physical but also the totality of symptoms and the vital force of the patient that is to be cured or assisted on a path to wellness in each instance [...] what is vital force? In Samuel Hahnemann's Organon of the Medical Art, 1st through 6th editions, he refers to the life force as 'dynamis,' 'wesen,' and 'genius' to describe this animated force existing in nature. The term genius is found widely in homeopathic literature. Reading the Organon, written in German and subject to translation, one finds difficulty finding proper English words to express what he was intending to teach via these terms in his writings. However, we can understand the concept through his work.  In Aphorism 15, in the 6th edition of the Organon of the Medical Art, Hahnemann writes: 'the suffering of the morbidly mistuned, spirit-like dynamis (life force) enlivening our body in the invisible interior, and the complex of the outwardly perceptible symptoms portraying the present malady, which are organized by the dynamis in the organism, form a whole. They are one and the same. The organism is indeed a material instrument for life, but it is not conceivable without the life imparted to it by the instinctual, feeling and regulating dynamis, just as the life force is not conceivable without the organism. Consequently the two of them constitute a unity, although in thought, we split this unity into two concepts in order to conceptualize it more easily. (Hahnemann S. 1997)' [...] how does restoration of health come about when prescribing to the individual patient's vitality or dynamis combined with the physical or totality of symptoms?  In aphorism 17 of the Organon, 6th ed, Hahnemann expresses the following: when a cure occurs through the taking away of the entire complex of perceptible signs and befallments of disease, the internal alteration of the life force which is lying at its base (consequently the totality of the disease) is simultaneously lifted. It follows, therefore, that the...practitioner has only to take away the symptom complex in order to simultaneously lift and annihilate the internal alteration (i.e., the morbid mistunement of the life principle) and consequently the totality of the disease, the disease itself. When the disease is annihilated, health is restored. (Hahnemann S, 1997)' [...] it was how her expression, her story, her feeling of being traumatized, was affecting her life force and body that was important [...] thuja can have this 'expression' of guilt in the vital force [...] the vital essence of the patient has to have a match to the vital essence of the remedy that we prescribe medicinally. These keynote symptoms are often reliable in leading us to the correct remedy [...] with homeopathy - using diluted, vitalistic substances and according to basic homeopathic principles [...] as a homeopath and physician, it is necessary to understand disease and its processes - causation, prodrome, disease symptoms, exacerbations, associated symptoms, and alterations to the physical body; yet, diagnosis is a piece of the homeopathic or vitalistic treatment."

'Ye old prescience superstitious pseudopathophysiology'!

For this skeptic, the juxtaposition of 'homeopathic and genius' is just too amusing.

Of course, there's some HARDCORE:

 prescientific, medieval, science-ejected vitalism there.

Yet, the ND claims homeopathy is science, of course:

"the practice of homeopathy becomes a dedication - a life-long study, a commitment to a scientific paradigm shift which can only be learned, honed, and understood by experience through prescribing [...] for the purpose of this article, I attempt to highlight important concepts in this scientific way of viewing health, disease, and cure [...] principles of prescribing and philosophy are clear and concise, as laid out in Hahnemann's Organon of the Medical Art. It is vast and deep material, offering us a different scientific paradigm with which to help our patients heal."

Such bullshit junk thought:

blatant UB ND-graduate pseudoscience-pseudopharmacy, FULLY naturopath peer-reviewed.

Such DUH.

Another 'perfect naturopath' because, I would argue, the ND was trained into this misrepresentation, as what I termed in Part One of this Part One:

"required fraudulence."

So, lets look at UB's accreditation ruse, the tree ND McPherson fell from.
 
UB and NEASC: 


Just like ND Glidden, UB LAUDS its accreditation as some kind of guarantee.

On the UB page "Accreditation and Membership" (2016 archived), we're told: 

"the University of Bridgeport is accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges [NEASC]. The University also is accredited by the Connecticut Office of Higher Education."

So, NEASC and my State government.

The consortia that the ND College at UB belongs to, the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC], states in "Accredited ND Schools" (2016 archived):

"the seven accredited naturopathic medical schools at eight college campuses [...include] University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine (UBCNM) - University founded 1927; ND program est. 1997; granted CNME accreditation 2006 [AFTER all my complaints]. Health Science Center, 60 Lafayette Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 Phone: 800.EXCEL.UB ext. 4108 [...] the importance of accreditation: students choosing a naturopathic medical college should realize that physicians carry an enormous responsibility, and must be trained accordingly. Physicians diagnose and treat diseases; any mistakes that they make can have major repercussions for their patients. A physician’s education and training must therefore adequately qualify them for this role.  The three key organizations working to ensure the quality of an ND education are: the U.S. Department of Education (ED) issues college accreditation. All U.S. AANMC member schools have been accredited – or are in candidate status for accreditation – by an ED-approved regional accrediting agency; the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) issues programmatic accreditation. Each of the individual naturopathic medicine programs of the member schools have been accredited – or are candidates for accreditation – by the CNME. The recognized accrediting body for naturopathic medical programs in North America, the CNME has helped develop and maintain the highest standards of education for naturopathic doctors for over 15 years; the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE) grants doctor licensure. Students graduating from the naturopathic programs of AANMC member schools are then eligible to sit for the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX), administered by NABNE. Passage of the NPLEX is required before a doctor of naturopathic medicine can be licensed by a state or provincial jurisdiction as a primary care general practice physician. What all this means to your students is the assurance that all AANMC-member school ND programs have been reviewed and approved as meeting acceptable medical school standards, and continue to receive ongoing oversight.  The CNME is aware of some correspondence schools that offer 'ND' degrees, but graduates of these programs are not recognized as part of the naturopathic profession. While correspondence courses can be useful in many disciplines, the CNME maintains that they are not adequate to prepare students to become licensed physicians. When a student graduates from one of these CNME-accredited ND programs, he/she can be confident about being thoroughly prepared for a career as a practicing primary care naturopathic physician."

Round up the usual suspects!

Ah, and throw in the Federal Government, too.
 
And the usual EMPTY assurances.

So, that's the claim of science subset naturopathy, and mentioned are intranaturopathy enablers like NABNE, an entity which RIDICULOUSLY terms homeopathy a "clinical science" on the ND North American board exam NPLEX that is supposed to insure competence.

This is the sausage that is shot out of the naturopathy factory POST-application of accreditation standards and POST-oversight by so many entities.

Obviously, accreditation is NOT a guarantee of anything.

Neither is oversight.

But such are falsely posed as if they are, all the time, in the naturopathy education realm.

 We're led to believe that accreditation and oversight creates what is BEST:


 as in "thoroughly prepared",


as in "acceptable medical school standards",

as in of "highest standards of education."

Sadly, I do not make this stuff up.

Obviously, accreditation and oversight FAILS.

 It leads to NDs like whom I've just covered falsely posing as science-supported what CATEGORICALLY PATENTLY isn't science-supported.



NEASC, aka 'Them Who FAIL Through the Years':

Now, another thing I must be transparent about is that I have a LONG history with UB's accreditor, NEASC.

NEASC is one of those several regional accreditors mentioned in that Wikipedia "Academic Freedom" article.

I contacted NEASC in the early 2000s about my four-year experience at UB, incidentally.

I personally got no remedy for those ills, and in terms of the marketplace, to this day, 'UB's scummy in-partnership falsehoods' continue.

Ah yes, the VALUE of accreditation and oversight, the HIGHNESS of higher education:

his or her naked HIGHNESS.

It didn't protect this consumer, nor current consumers:


the ruse continues, protectively girded in so many ways,

as a highly polished, glistening, fully-accredited turd ruse.

I have NEASC's response from my 2004 complaint, which one day may become an episode unto itself, because the binder I duplicated to NEASC back then for that complaint is 2 inches thick.
.

.
Back then, to NEASC, I'd included, actually, MD Atwood's 2003-2004 Medscape naturopathy pieces that this Episode deals with.

Here's the response I got from NEASC in 2004:

"Dear Mr. Cullen: I write to follow up on the material you submitted regarding your complaint against the University of Bridgeport [...] and the letter from Dr. Charles M. Cook saying we would review your materials and contact you regarding the disposition of the matter you raise. We are prepared to forward your materials to the University of Bridgeport, per our policy on complaints against affiliated institutions, stating that while we do not question the right of the University of Bridgeport to offer a program in naturopathic medicine, we are asking them to respond to your complaint as follows: 1. Are students and prospective [I may have accidentally said 'perspective'!]  students given timely, sufficient and accurate information to serve as a basis for their decisions regarding pursuing a degree in naturopathic medicine? 2. Are students in naturopathic medicine provided with adequate academic advising? Based on our Standards for Accreditation, our policy on complaints against affiliated institutions, and the materials you submitted, this is the basis on which we are prepared to pursue the matter with the University of Bridgeport. Kindly advise us if you wish us to proceed on the above basis. Sincerely, Barbara Brittingham."
.

.

So that is:

the New England college and university accreditor INSISTING that UB has the UNQUESTIONABLE right to engage in 'the essentially naturopathic', which is essentially FALSE.

Really, when you KNOW naturopathy.

I think by the end of this episode, we'll be able to answer those two OLD questions formulated by NEASC, from 2004, with the benefit of 12 retrospective years of UB naturopathy and North American naturopathy behavior.

Keep something in mind, which I'll state simply:

 UB is a client of NEASC and NEASC serves at the pleasure of its membership, as a member-centered service.

NEASC is serving UB's interest primarily, by design.

Because here's a little known fact about accreditation:

the schools pay the accreditor to come and visit and accredit and to remain so.

NEASC publishes a scaled dues and fees schedule page (2016 archived), which I'll link to.

Welcome to the club.

There's a full-time enrollment fee, which runs annually from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars depending on the institution, a comprehensive evaluation fee, a focused visit fee, a substantive change fee, and an eligibility evaluation fee.

That last fee alone is $10,000.

That's quite a load of treasure there.

But you are getting, like the Pinkertons of old, your own private policing force, and they have, one doesn't really have to imagine, a certain, lets say, LOYALTY to the MEMBERSHIP who write their checks.

Naturally.

That's how higher education works in this here good old U.S. of A.:

'fat cat banks and fat cat nonprofiteers'.

I find, actually, that all the overseeing entities are taking care of their clients, primarily:

whether those entities be private or .gov.

The general public, as consumers both academically and clinically, are merely peasants for these aristocrats to feast upon.

Accreditation and oversight, in my view, is:

toothless, edgeless, pointless, camouflage.

Otherwise the sausage out of the fully-accredited CT Naturopathy Inc. factory wouldn't be:

pseudoscience and anti-human rights.

But, let's see what NEASC currently says, because, for this Episode, I directly requested NEASC's standards, this 2016.

They must have me in their Rolodex, since we're such long time pen pals.

First, they timely and politely responded by email:

"Dear Mr. Cullen, I wanted to let you know that your copies of the old and new Standards for Accreditation are being mailed to you today. You should be receiving them by the end of the week.  You are correct single copies are free. Best regards [...] Sara R. Hart Administrative Assistant to the President Commission on Institutions of Higher Education New England Association of Schools and Colleges [...] Burlington, MA  [...] neasc.org."

And, in a timely manner, I've received those standards by, I'm happy to say, the US Postal System.

I enjoy getting sent 'falsely postured bullshit' through the USPS.

Over the decades, I've actually received A LOT of North American naturopathy material by USPS, from either ND-grating schools, the AANP itself, or naturopathy's partners like NEASC.

There's so much POSTAL CODE then involved, so many 'potential CRIMES' that can be charged to 'false posturers'.

True academic freedom at UB Naturopathy would not be, as I experienced it, unfair and discriminatory:

it would be the freedom to avoid bullshit and maintain one's integrity without reprisal,

it would be the freedom not to be embedded and obligated to fraud. 

NEASC actually speaks of "fairness and non-discrimination" and "thoughtful self-reflection".

In NEASC's document "Mission" (2016 archived), we're told:

"the Association: the New England Association of Schools and Colleges is a voluntary membership organization of public and independent schools and colleges. It is composed of four autonomous commissions serving public schools, independent schools, schools abroad, and institutions of higher education. Each commission decides matters of accreditation in the context of standards derived and reviewed by its membership. The accreditation work of the commissions on public, independent, and schools abroad is reviewed and approved by the Board of Trustees. The Commission on Institutions of Higher Education operates separately and independently in all matters of accreditation. Along with the Board of Trustees, each of the four Commissions is dedicated to the accomplishment of the mission, assurance, and goals of the Association. The Association is a not-for-profit corporation that adheres to fundamental principles of fairness and non-discrimination [...] the mission of NEASC is to assess and promote the quality of education through the accreditation of its members. Our assurance: 'accredited [oops, I say accreditation] by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges' assures that our members: strive to achieve rigorous and common standards in education, demonstrate substantive institutional commitment to continual improvement, commit to balancing the creative tensions that exist between local autonomy and public authority, nurture individual creative accomplishment. Accreditation is a catalyst for school improvement [Really!]. Our Goals: the New England Association of Schools and Colleges aspires to provide a process for meaningful, ongoing whole school improvement while honoring the unique culture and context of each institution we support. In this spirit, we: encourage the pursuit of a unique mission in distinctive circumstances by each member, advocate for thoughtful self-reflection guided by meticulous peer review, promote public recognition of the challenges that accredited institutions face both in common and in particular, elucidate the value, philosophy and practice of accreditation for our member schools, the public, legislative bodies, and governing boards, assist member schools in navigating accreditation in a context often dictated by federal, state, or local mandates and by limited means."

So there's quite a Imperial posture.

That's right, NEASC assures:

quality and continuous quality improvement, rigor, common educational standards, meticulous peer review and thoughtfulness, and fairness and nondiscrimination fundamentally.

Wouldn't that be nice, if it were true, by way of UB naturopathy, in my humble experience: 

posing the hugely science-exterior falsely as science, since 1997 at UBCNM when it all started up, is quite UNFAIR, overall,

and since of such sectarian zeal, their response is not correction, it is discrimination.

Because when you call out such nonsense, you are blackballed as I experienced, and when you call out the fact that you have been blackballed, you are ignored by all supervising participants.

How comfy, how faux.

And SO MUCH is unchanged after all these years... 

Currently, NEASC's Commission on Institutions of Higher Education web page “Standards for Accreditation” (2016 archived) states:

"the Standards for Accreditation are an articulation by the higher education community of what a college or university must do in order to deserve the public trust. They also function as a framework for institutional development and self-evaluation. Covering areas of institutional academic and administrative operations, the Standards are largely qualitative, in keeping with their need to apply to a variety of institutions with different missions. The Standards are fully updated at least every ten years, with the participation of member institutions, to reflect the Commission's heightened emphases and to anticipate future directions of the higher education community. At the five-year point in that cycle, they undergo a mid-course revision, with changes and clarifications based on the experience of institutions and the Commission in using the Standards. The most recent mid-course revision occurred in 2011. In January 2016, the Commission concluded a two-year process to revise the 2011 Standards. The new Standards were adopted on January [...] 2016 and will be effective on July [...] 2016."

So that's:

standards for accreditation, higher education, a 'must do' consensus, public trust, improvement, qualitative, updated, revision, and changes and clarifications.

It seems over the years the standards are revised, but the UB ND product remains the same:

whackaloon.

The deck chairs are arranged periodically, as if that steers the ship, but the ship's overall course is the same.

And they call that "substantive."

And these pirates must laugh all the way to the bank with their 'nonprofit corporate exec six figure or more salaries'.

So, one big question is:

is accreditation and oversight a form of superstition?

When you think something does something it doesn't actually causally do...

Now, I don't have specific New England financial figures, but accreditation allows the national US college and university scene to operate.

According to The Pew Charitable Trusts, in "Federal and State Investments in Higher Education", States and the Federal governments "invested", in academic year 2013 alone, a combined 148.3 billion dollars.

So, just think of how much educational monies are NEASC abetted, as 1/7th or so of that scene regionally speaking, both in a positive and a negative sense.

After all, there are many Ivy League schools in the group, on the positive side, as well as 'shitholes like nonsectarian subset UB Health Sciences subset nonscience and mandatory supernaturalism-sectarianism'.

On the positive side, I likely wouldn't have gotten a higher education if it weren't for Title IV financial aid grants way back during my B.A.

But, then again, Ivy League member and NEASC member Yale University, on the NEGATIVE side, promotes naturopathy's 'failed pseudomedical medieval paradigm'.

medicine.yale.edu has the page "Naturopathy" (2016 archived), because they have a full-time naturopath working for them, which states:

"naturopathic medicine is over 100 years old. There are more than 3,500 licensed naturopathic physicians (ND) in the United States and 7 accredited naturopathic medical schools [...] naturopathy's main goal is to use the natural healing power of the body to fight disease, also known as the Vis or life force [...] they rely on natural and lifestyle therapeutics [...] naturally-oriented therapies [...] including [...] homeopathy [...] naturopathic doctors often work in cooperation with other health care professionals."

Is that "professional" at all?

"Life force"?

No.

Again, quite the quality RUSE.

So, coincidentally, NEASC's updated Standards take effect this 2016.

I'll be using my OCR'd 2016 version, just received, and I'll provide a link to NEASC's online version (here; 2016 archived).

In "Standards for Accreditation Commission on Institutions of Higher Education" [ocr'd version] NEASC speaks of, in their Preamble:

"the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education [...is] a constituent element of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges [...and is one of several] regional higher education accrediting bodies in the United States [...] its primary purpose [is] the accreditation of educational institutions [...] the Commission provides public assurance about the educational quality of degree-granting institutions that seek or wish to maintain accreditation."

There, again, is that posture of 'you can rest assured, with accreditation, America, that your yearly 150 billion dollar support of higher education isn't for:

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID'.

But even Yale's Medical School is...stupid infected.

NEASC goes on:

 "the Standards for Accreditation establish criteria for institutional quality [...] the Commission expects affiliated institutions to work toward improving their quality, increasing their effectiveness, and continually striving toward excellence. Its evaluative processes are designed to encourage such improvement [...] the institution that meets the Standards: has clearly defined purposes appropriate to an institution of higher learning; has assembled and organized those resources necessary to achieve its purposes; is achieving its purposes;  has the ability to continue to achieve its purposes [...] self-regulation is an essential element in the success of accreditation [...] the importance of higher education to the individual and collective well being of our citizenry and for our economy [...] the Standards represent the accrued wisdom of over 200 colleges and universities and interested others about the essential elements of institutional quality, and they offer a perspective that stresses the public purposes of higher education [...] self-regulation obliges institutions to adhere to the Standards as a condition of their accredited status; accredited colleges and universities demonstrate their integrity through their continued voluntary compliance to these criteria."


So, that was:

public assurance about educational quality, quality, quality, and improving quality, self-regulation, higher education and the well-being of society, obligation, integrity, and voluntary compliance.

Integrity, in light of all that's easy to show?

No.


How many sides of a mouth can one speak out of, NEASC? 

Consumer protections have been deferred to a trade/industry group that has, first and foremost, a duty to its clients first.

I don't' sense fiduciary duty here in terms of the public consumer, at all.

That's enough of NEASC, they make me sick.

Connecticut's Office of Higher Education is the other accreditor UB listed.

The University of Bridgeport is listed at ctohe.org in "Colleges and Universities" (2016 archived) as "licensed to operate in Connecticut."

Licensed to ill.

But, their "About Us" page (2016 archived) states:

 "the Office of Higher Education seeks to advance the promise of postsecondary education for all state residents, and to advocate on behalf of students, taxpayers, and the postsecondary schools and colleges which fall under its purview. The Office carries out its mission by assuring that students have access to postsecondary institutions which meet the highest standards of academic quality, by administering the state’s student financial aid programs, and by serving as an information and consumer protection resource. Key state responsibilities, in addition to student financial aid administration, include the licensure and accreditation of Connecticut’s independent colleges and universities (programmatic and institutional; non-profit and for-profit), licensure of in-state academic programs offered by out-of-state institutions, regulation of more than 150 postsecondary career schools and operation of the Alternate Route to Certification.  Major federal responsibilities include AmeriCorps, Veterans Program Approval, and the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program."


Promises, promises.

That's a KIND of consumer protection posture.

Yeah.

Right.

They said:

"highest standards of academic quality" and "consumer protection."

And they say they're responsible.

You must be responsible for your responsibilities.

The Office of Higher Education has the page "Related Links" which ironically lists such entities as:

 "Board of Regents for Higher Education [...] CT Dept. of Consumer Protection, CT Dept. of Education, CT Dept. of Public Health, CT General Assembly [...] Governor Dannel P. Malloy [...] New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), New England Board of Higher Education [...] Office of the Attorney General, State of Connecticut [...] U.S. Department of Education."


They never answer me.

And it seems CT has ethics SOMEWHERE on its radar.

Now, CT owns 17 Colleges and Universities, as The Connecticut State Colleges & Universities (CSCU), with a 191 million dollar budget.

I think they don't exist in an island alone.

They can't if such entities as NEASC are part of their "related links".

That CSCU CT entity is governed by a Board of Regents.

There are ethics stipulations for that Board.

Their bylaws state:


"members of the Board of Regents shall serve for the public good and not for personal interest or gain. They shall comply with the provisions of the Code of Ethics for Public Officials set forth in Sections 1-79 through 1-90 of the Connecticut General Statutes. A Regent may not directly enter into a contract for a fee or be employed by the Board of Regents or any of its colleges or universities. A Regent shall not engage in any activity that violates the intent of this section and shall avoid any appearance of impropriety."

If only all of accredited education would serve the public good, and comply with ethical stipulations.

If only the State of CT would, while ct.gov too has an Ethics page.

 So ethics register SOMEWHERE here in Corrupticut.


But, looking at the KIND of sausage that comes out of that naturopathic factory...

I can say we just have words, words, words.

This is what oversight of UB's fraud is like:

imagine going to a beach and the signs say "lifeguards on duty."

So, there are people swimming, there are lifeguard stands with figures on those stands wearing lifeguard gear -- zinc cream, rescue tubes and all --

except when you look closely you see that the figures are mannequins.

And a loudspeaker occasionally informs, in a very organized manner:

excellent, safe, quality, fair, BE ASSURED. 

'The bait and the switch', the feeding sharks dressed as friendly koala bears, 'the well-fed not-for-profit wolves in wool sweaters', the nonprofiteers...

Such INTEGRITY, preying on the public trust.

With such organization!

This doesn't even sound legal, never mind of the higher bar of what's professional.

Isn't this the kind of thing that RICO was created for?

Speaking of words, let's go to our authors.

[01.14.00]


The MCNA and Medscape Authors:

About Naturopathy Proponents NDs Smith and Logan, the Medical Clinics of North America Journal [MCNA] which Published Them, and Specifically Its 2002 CAM Issue:

The pro-naturopathy piece I'll be focusing on -- there are others that will get their own episodes -- by NDs Smith and Logan, was bundled in an early 2002 issue of MCNA.

That bimonthly issue, titled “Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, was quite NOT critical and quite promotional.

The journal's homepage is medical.theclinics.com, and it is published by Elsevier.

The journal tells us about itself, on a web page titled “Medical Clinics of North America”, at us.elsevierhealth.com:

"Medical Clinics of North America provides concise and comprehensive coverage of the issues physicians face every day. Each bimonthly issue [...] presents the latest information on a specific topic, with contributions from leading experts. No other publication keeps you as informed on the spectrum of health problems encountered in clinical practice."

Now, I take issue with this issue because, with it having not included SIGNIFICANT criticism of CAM, with its articles being more-so promotional pieces -- written most-often by practitioner-promoters -- how is MCNA being “comprehensive”, how is MCNA presenting a “spectrum”?

Hmmmmm...

There are missing "leading experts" in terms of criticism of CAM.

By the way, Elsevier is quite a source for publishing naturopathic material.

It is also the publisher of 2010's "Clinical Naturopathy: An Evidence-Based Guide to Practice" by NDs Sarris and Wardle, which is very North American naturopathy in type.

And Elsevier is publisher of 2011's "Clinical Naturopathic Medicine", by ND Hechtman, which is very Australian in terms of its naturopathy type.

And I believe Elsevier will be publishing the future BIG tome that is termed “the foundations of naturopathic medicine project”, which is postured as being very international, in terms of its contributors, with its academic home in NCNM in Portland, Oregon the trunk of the naturopathy tree..

This is not to knock all of what Elsevier does.

I love their medical coding textbook books I teach with.

At medical.theclinics.com, when I search with the terms 'naturopathy' and 'naturopathic', the first-listed item is the naturopathy article I've mentioned, by NDs Smith and Logan.

You can buy that article directly there from MCNA for about $32.

I actually own the entire January 2002 compilation, in hardcover paper, which I have OCR'd, which was, as I'd mentioned, titled “Complementary and Alternative Medicine”.

It was 'guest edited' by MD as in medical doctor, and MPH, Adam I. Perlman.

At the time of publication, Perlman was at the “Siegler Center for Integrative Medicine [...at] Saint Barnabas Medical Center [...in] NJ.”

Perlman, currently, is at Duke University's Duke Integrative Medicine in North Carolina.

Perlman's bio. at dukemedicine.org tells us, also, that he has:

board certification: American Board of Internal Medicine, Internal Medicine.”

ABIM.

Wonderful!

Because their ethical code is of primary importance to this episode.

Actually, this 2002 CAM issue is the only location for the three items that the medical.theclinics.com internal search “naturopathic” produces.

That CAM issue also had articles on:

energy medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, TCM, homeopathy, and 'the supernatural as prayer and spirituality, etc.'

The article's exact citation is:

[title] Naturopathy [...written by] Michael J. Smith, MRPharmS, ND […] Alan C. Logan, BA, ND […] Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada […] January 2002 Volume 86, Issue 1, Pages 173–184.”

So both are NDs, and ND Smith is also an MRPharmS.

In the contributors section of the collection, on p. iv, we're told that, at the time of publication:

Michael J. Smith, MRPharmS, ND, Associate Dean, Research, Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.”

So, an associate dean has been caught up in our net.


And also in that contributors section, we're told:

Alan C. Logan, BA, ND, Clinic Intern, Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.”

The current biographies of both ND Smith and ND Logan inform that they are both CCNM ND graduates.

Therefore, Canada, oh Canada.

The Medscape Critic, MD Atwood:

Now, some background on naturopathy critic MD Atwood.

According to his bio. at the blog sciencebasedmedicine.org, titled “Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD”:

Kimball Atwood IV, MD is a practicing anesthesiologist who is also board-certified in internal medicine. He had been interested in pseudoscience for years […in addition to being a SBM editor] he is an associate editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and co-editor of Naturowatch […] Dr. Atwood has written many articles and treatises on implausible medical claims, among which are several concerning naturopathy [...he was] a member of the Massachusetts Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medical Practitioners, and subsequently wrote its Minority Report opposing licensure for naturopaths.”

That's ABIM internal medicine board certification, just like MD Perlman.

ABIM is a partner in creating the very eminent ethical code known as the "Physician's Charter" that I'll be covering later in Part Two of this episode.

So, between the two MDs and what they propound, perhaps we'll see a difference in what I'll call 'ethicality'.

MD Atwood also has a brief Wikipedia page, which additionally tells us:

Atwood is an outspoken critic of naturopathy, with a paper he published on the topic in 2004, which was understandably unpopular with naturopaths.”

Usually, when you find faults with a PROFESSION, it takes that criticism to heart and says 'thank you for helping us improve', by the way.

But, like I said with naturopathy, criticism leads to a response of discrimination!

In that paper, the "Authors and Disclosures" section states:

"Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD, Anesthesiologist, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, Newton, Massachusetts; Assistant Clinical Professor, Tufts University School of Medicine; Contributing Editor, Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine; Chairman, Committee on the Quality of Medical Practice, Massachusetts Medical Society [...] Dr. Atwood has no financial interests to disclose."

I must state, too, that, in my wanderings, I've personally met Dr. Atwood:

several years ago in New York City at a scientific skepticism conference, and in Las Vegas at a similar kind of conference.

I was very serious when I said that his article reminded me of the writings of the Scottish skeptic David Hume, whom I greatly admire.

Also, me and the guys I play music with, spaceScat of the theme music for these podcasts, caught a Dr. Atwood talk in Boston one night at a skeptics of Boston meeting.

Never did get together to get "hammeed"...

The apparently shuttered Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine [SRAM], listed at sciencebasedmedicine.org, by the way, has a copyright as "Center for Inquiry" [CFI] on its "About" page.

The last activity at SRAM is about 2001, it seems.

And CFI's home page states:

"the mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values."

I like those, as a secular commons.

MD Atwood is also listed as a fellow of the Committee for Scientific Inquiry on their page "CSI Fellows and Staff".

And the "About CSI" page tells us

"the mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. To carry out these objectives the Committee: maintains a network of people interested in critically examining paranormal, fringe science, and other claims, and in contributing to consumer education; prepares bibliographies of published materials that carefully examine such claims; encourages research by objective and impartial inquiry in areas where it is needed; convenes conferences and meetings; publishes articles that examine claims of the paranormal; does not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examines them objectively and carefully.  The Committee is a program of the Center for Inquiry, a nonprofit educational organization. The Committee was launched in 1976. The Skeptical Inquirer is its official journal. Some of the founding members of CSI include scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, Martin Gardner, Sidney Hook, and others. A list of CSI fellows is published in every issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. CSI, encourages careful, rational, critical examination of unusual claims”.

So, what I would argue, is that MD Atwood's perspective on naturopathy is of quite an established lineage:

scientific skepticism, free inquiry, and epistemic RIGOR.

And the OBVIOUS trajectory of modern thought is toward MORE RIGOR along those lines, particularly in health science.

After all, Hume began so much of the revival of this skepticism stuff in the mid-1700s, except within a framework of empiricism, and we are getting more and more granular and exacting as the years go by.

I say revival because, as is so often, one can trace kinds of 'skepticism' back to antiquity.

As for Medscape, as the outlet for the MD Atwood's critical articles, the Wikipedia article "Medscape" tells us:

"Medscape is a web resource for physicians and health professionals. It features peer-reviewed original medical journal articles [...] continuing medical education, a customized version of the National Library of Medicine's Medline database, daily medical news, major conference coverage, and drug information [...] all content in Medscape is available free of charge for professionals and consumers alike, but registration is required."

And Medscape itself states, in "About Medscape":

"Medscape is a part of WebMD Health Professional Network [...] Medscape offers specialists, primary care physicians, and other health professionals the Web's most robust and integrated medical information and educational tools [...] after a simple, 1-time, free registration [...] a medical Web site rich in content, broad in appeal, and high in quality."

That's "integrated" but not in that integrated medicine sense, instead in the 'coordinated' and 'continuity' kind of usage.

This is the end of Part Two of Part One of Episode 012 of the Naturocrit Podcast.

In Part Two proper, I'll provide an overview of two broad medical ethical documents:

the Physician's Charter and the AMA Code of Ethics, both of which concern conventional medicine, that set what I've call 'a universal preponderance for proper modern medical behavior'.

 Thank you for boldly listening.
.
.
.
Post a Comment