The Naturocrit Podcast - s02e02c2.2 [Episode 012c2.2] - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the second part of the second half of the third part of Season 02 Episode 02 of The Naturocrit Podcast:

001. the Episode 012c2.2. 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 veneers "natural, holistic, integrative and alternative" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

Episode Synopsis:

In this Episode 012c2.2, which is the second part of the second half of the third part of Season 02 Episode 02

-- again, you'll have to forgive me for my structural preferences sometimes --

first, I'll cover, after reviewing the idea of 'feasances',

 a recent interview of CCNM's ND Seely of Ontario, Canada that is quite the piece of journalistic laziness and propaganda.

Then, I'll look at an AANP Vimeo video from 2015 and its pertaining documents as Pseudorules #2.

Main Text:

I had said, at the beginning of this Part 3:

“I'll explore naturopathy's lack of ethical strictures […noting] very little, by way of behavior, bothers naturopathy […and noting] if and where there are rules, they are not imposed.”

I think the AANP Board I've just covered in the immediately previous section of this Episode copiously illustrates that point.

To be science is to abide by a set of rules, and to engage in good communication practices is also to abide by a set of rules:

but, naturopathy is fundamentally pseudoscience and bad communication, even way up in its leadership at their own practices and institutions.

So, as I'd written:

"naturopathy is not fundamentally behaving within those [postured] boundaries."

As I've often noted, naturopathy's deviance does not have a problem with itself.

How can the AANP's governing Board

– so comfortable with their own practices of 'quackupuncture and homeopathy, supernaturalism and vitalism, all falsely posed as reasonable, science-supported, and effective', which is what those NDs were taught and are required to do, and require other NDs to do –

find NDs in violation of behavioral stipulations without finding themselves in the same situation?

So, all is acceptable, unless exterior pressures dictate a sacrificial lamb be put out on display from time to time.

Therefore, I'll repeat what I said at the beginning of this third part of this Episode.

Naturopathy's:

"pseudoscience ruse aka required fraudulence will not get you sanctioned by your naturopath peers.  What are they gonna do: sanction their national organizations for doing that, their state organizations for doing that, their specialty organizations for doing that, their individual naturopaths who are merely doing what the institutions trained them to do, for doing that?"

Is the AANP Board going to sanction Board member ND Ingels for:

pseudodiagnostics [2016 archived] and pseudotherapies?

It doesn't seem likely:

naturopathy is teeming with such, intentionally and continually.

Is the AANP Board going to sanction their ENTIRETY for not properly locating, epistemically, the 'essentially naturopathic'?

'Falsehood and manipulative opacity' is indeed, as I've said in this Episode:

“doing it right naturopathically speaking [...and] there's a surface facade, and there's the deep reality. Boundaries and rules are postured to manipulate others for the benefit of naturopathy, to promote its agenda, but then ignored in terms of what's actually naturopathy on a day-to-day basis. And in that sense, naturopathy lacks ethical aka behavioral strictures, as a mandatory broad ethical code including a commitment to scientific integrity, as is so evident by how naturopathy allows piles upon piles of mistruthful claims and actions” and disguises so much.

Pseudorules #1 for this episode was:

the AANP's ND Traub Conference presentation, and the current AANP 2012 Code of Ethics, and then a look at the AANP Board members' practice pages and how they compare particularly to the AANP Code of Ethics claims of 'good communication', and general lack-of-compliance with that AANP Code of Ethics.

Now I'll look at an AANP Vimeo video and its pertaining documents as Pseudorules #2.

What is posed, and then not imposed?

But first, a review of feasances.

Reflection on Feasances:

Now, a general usage of "feasance" can be found by way of dictionary.com.

We're told there:

"the doing or performing of an act, as of a condition or duty." 

I had said, back in this Episode's Part A1 from the Wikipedia entry "Professional Abuse":

"professional abusers […] professionals can abuse in three ways: nonfeasance - ignore and take no indicated action – neglect; misfeasance - take inappropriate action or give intentionally incorrect advice; malfeasance - hostile, aggressive action taken to injure the client's interests."

Let's keep this in mind in light of what I've just culled just previous to this Episode part from the AANP Board and affiliates.

Now, in law, there's the term tortfeasor, which means 'wrongdoer', and etymologically, perhaps even:

'the maker of evil'.

So, regarding the three kinds of harmings, shall I say -- nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance -- which I think we all can agree are evils of a kind, and I mean that in a general secular sense, let me find another supporting source for definitions.

We're told in “Malfeasance”, from West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

“nonfeasance [...] is a failure to act that results in injury […] misfeasance [...] is an act that is not illegal but is improperly performed […] malfeasance [is] the commission of an act that is unequivocally illegal or completely wrongful [...it's] used in both civil and criminal law to describe any act that is wrongful [...it's] used generally to describe any act that is criminal or that is wrongful and gives rise to, or somehow contributes to, the injury of another person.”

What I'm most interested in right now is the idea of not doing something one MUST do, aka nonfeasance, which can perhaps be synonymously termed dereliction of duty, when a duty exists, in the sense that physicians, who do have a duty -- who have an obligation to patients and society -- to police nonsense within their ranks.

Let me think about what the AANP Board is DOING in relation to these terms, grossly speaking.

Now, I don't have any background in law, but I think the AANP Board's 'communication mannerisms' are used to further naturopathy's own interests both politically and commercially at the EXPENSE of common citizens, causing harm to the body politic.

For example:

in not being told what naturopathy is, essentially, and in taking their word for something that is actually falsely marketed

– like homeopathy as efficacious and science-vetted, like 'supernatural science wonderfulness' –

not only is a patient's money wasted or that 3rd party insurer's money wasted and belief-rights trampled upon,

but we have a broad degradation of science's and medicine's standards,

which is patently a public health threat.

Naturopathy's professional conduct is essentially unprofessional because it is, inherently, a kind of professional abuse and neglect.

As I've often said, naturopathy is all about a reversal of values:

which is grossly evil and again I mean that in a secular / universal sense of evil.

Now, some may say that that little bit of evil is worth a greater acquired good, in sum, but, I must ask:

show me the benefit beyond the direct benefits to naturopathy.

Show me how you justify that huge harm for what is a not-to-be-found greater good.

NDs will try.

Like...

ND Seely.

An Interview With ND Seely Regarding Science:

While I'm writing this episode, coincidentally on 09-09-2016, Canada's cbc.ca posted the DISAPPOINTING and PROPAGANDISTIC interview

“The ND Trying to Take Pseudo-Science Out of Naturopathy” [2016 archived].

This sounds SO topically appropriate for this episode!

Now, the title is quite misleading and absurd to me, when you know naturopathy and then listen to and read the interview.

So, we're already within BAD journalism.

The ND in the interview is positioned as a supposed 'science-imposing system-fixing noble hero'.

But, in my view, he isn't heroic but instead comes across as slithery, self-absorbed, and obfuscating.

Perhaps this indicates the host's or outlet's pro-naturopathy bias, as the host does call the ND, strangely enough:

“one of the good guys when it comes to science.”

That's like calling a butcher 'one of the good guys when it comes to vegetarianism', or an exterminator 'one of the good guys when it comes to insects.'

It's just simply ABSURD!

Let the bromance and deflection begin because the interviewer is SO nice to the naturopath and the naturopath is SO nice to naturopathy in the interview.

In fact, ND Seely's OICC actually 'liked' the interview on Facebook, asking readers to "please check it out":

The interview is all about, inevitably:

a practitioner of an edifice run-through with 'sectarian epistemic fraudulence' now bizarrely posed as a 'heroic science-imposing paragon'.

Ontario 'tolerance of what's patently unacceptable and quite the reversal of values' reminds me of that other 'science fraudulence permissive O place':

Oregon.

Be careful Mr. Host:

what you and society regard as science, well, naturopathy systemically has a broader definition which permits patent nonscience.

And perhaps you do, too, based upon the interview's title and what's happening AT the ND's practice:

because naturopathy is what happens when science has no boundaries, it's nonsense in a white lab coat.

For instance, since the interview happens in Ontario, here's 'a grossly manipulative omission example' by that ND's overseeing College of Naturopaths – which is not a school but a self-regulatory body for naturopathy – which I'll refer to as 'the CON':

when I search collegeofnaturopaths.on.ca for “vital force […] life force [...or] medicatrix”, I get no hits.

ISYN:

we don't deserve to know, apparently.

That's 'a grossly manipulative omission' of naturopathy's keystone idea and therapeutic goal.

Transparency of such is apparently bad for business.

Yet, as if they care, 'the CON' tells us at their homepage [2016 archived]:

“as the regulatory body for the profession, the College of Naturopaths of Ontario supports the public’s right to safe, competent and ethical naturopathic care” and they have the document “Guidelines Informed Consent” [2016 archived].

But, in terms of 'informed', where is the disclosure of the essentially naturopathic, like vitalism-supernaturalism and kind?

We have rights, but not the right to know such?

HOW are we then informed to then consent, at a most basic level?

People have basic human rights, naturopathy.

Instead of 'honestly communicating naturopathy's underlying sectarian pseudoscientific basis that preponderantly defines naturopathy', we're told such things by the CON as:

“Dr. Rosemary Hnatiuk, ND [...] graduated from CCNM in 2008 and started practicing [...at] Etobicoke Naturopathic Clinic […] her goal is to offer patient’s the very best in science-based alternative medicine”,

while at that practice [2016 archived] one can find such bogosities as

detox, acupuncture, homeopathy, bowen, colonics, electrodermal screening, and reiki.

Again, Mr. Host, be careful what you lazily assume, and be careful what you eagerly become a party to in terms of propaganda:

naturopaths say science but their science boundaries are so lax that naturopathic knowledge-type delineations are meaningless.

Just look at what they're practicing, which is the sausage that comes out of that factory.

And, the CON's absurdity exponentially expands.

That ND's “very best in science-based” claim I just quoted is from the CON document “Council of the College” [2016 archived] which additionally states:

“the Council of the College of Naturopaths includes naturopathic doctors and members of the public […who are] appointed by the Lieutenant Governor […and] are responsible for administering the Naturopathy Act and providing strategic leadership for the College. Members of the Council have a duty to protect the public interest, and are accountable to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.”

And that ND, with her 'science subset nonscience' commerce, is a member of that Council!

It's fucking crazy:

pseudoscience galore practiced clinically and falsely posed as science by someone tasked with “a duty to protect the public interest.”

Because naturopathic self-regulation is the protection of naturopathic fraud.

The illogic is that being false and quacky, and then taking your money for such, is within the public interest.

Cutting through the shit in Ontario, of which I regard this interview to be a part of, I'd prefer the interview's title to be:

“Inured: The ND Who Won't Criticize Naturopathy Specifically, and Who Takes Care of Himself When He Could Do Much More to Combat Naturopathy's Essential Systemic Falsehood Conspiracy.”

In my opinion, it's TRULY silly to expect an ND to have a problem with ND nonsense:

wackaloons are regulating their peers after a wackaloon education, and nonsense therein abounds because why would nonsense have a problem with itself?

But, science is posed because science is good and good marketing, yet obviously when you peel back that veneer, you find ethical and epistemic rot.

For the interview, there is text and there is audio.

I'll excerpt from both because not everything said made its way into the transcription.

Amazingly, the host of the program is a physician, Dr. Brian Goldman, who wears, assuringly, a stethoscope around his neck in the header to the page.

Dr. Goldman's bio. at Wikipedia informs that he's a University of Toronto graduate who obtained “family medicine (emergency medicine)” specialization in 1985.

His bio. at cbc.ca tells us:

“Dr. Brian Goldman is a veteran ER physician and one of Canada's most trusted medical broadcasters […he's] an award-winning medical reporter [...with] a proven knack for making sense of medical baffelgab [...he] shows what really goes on [...he] offers a compelling inside view into an often shrouded world.”

So that's:

trusted, award-winning, and proven knack.

Let's put the good doctor to the test regarding his:

supposed 'unshrouding' abilities, exposing 'what's really going on' abilities, and helping listeners 'make sense' abilities.

When I heard there was an interview by a mainstream Canadian media outlet, it seemed like an EXCELLENT opportunity for either:

'responsible and rigorous scrutiny' of naturopathy, or reckless 'epistemic charity' for naturopathy.

As always!

The title alone supports, so far, the latter, but the contents could be better so lets look.

Either the physician-journalist will:

rise to the occasion, or as is so common with journalists in terms of naturopathy typically, disappoint us with ABJECT UNEXCELLENCE.

It's not looking good so far:

lauding an Ontario naturopath is like lauding a Ponzi schemer.

The interview's text informs:

“Dugald Seely, ND is trying to take the pseudoscience out of naturopathy. The naturopathic doctor says a scientific, evidence-based approach is essential at the Ottawa Integrative Cancer Center, (OICC) of which he is the director.”

Well, there seems to be an AGREEMENT that such a thing as 'fake science' aka pseudoscience exists particularly in naturopathy.

That's quite the admission!

But the title doesn't make sense in this specific sense:

one clinic doing its own thing in a very myopic manner cannot solve naturopathy's systemic epistemic fraudulence.

Obviously, the title is half-baked:

the remedy being offered is not suitable for the situation.

 It's simply not getting to the problem.

It's like a patient presenting with a high fever from a serious bacterial infection, and all that is being treated is the fever:

while, ironically, one of naturopathy's "principles", according to the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, is "treat the cause".

You may say to yourself 'this is not acceptable.'

You may ask yourself:

why isn't the CON, the systemic sentinel, doing its job?

Well, to somewhat quote The Talking Heads regarding naturopathy's pseudoscience:

how did it get there?

My answer is:

it BELONGS there as 'the naturopathic normal.'

Actually, I'd argue that the CON is doing its job, protection of naturopathy:

letting naturopathy be pseudoscientific because that defines naturopathy.

So, again, I'd be careful when an ND is posed as being “scientific”:

it's shallow marketing propaganda that belies naturopathy's underneath actuality.

I'll ask again, how did pseudoscience get there?

Here's a specific mechanism:

the ND education apparatus PUTS it there!

FFS, ND Seely is a graduate of CCNM [2016 archived], the Ontario ND-granting school that poses as science, you guessed it:

the supernatural science-exterior and the vitalistic science-ejected and kind, and trains ND-students to clinically behave centered around those science-exterior ideas.

There's such things as:

CCNM's publication “Body, Mind, Spirit” [2016 archived], CCNM's alumni magazine.

So, there's supernaturalism.

By the way, I'll excerpt from that publication in a future part of this Episode because the September 2016 issue [2016 saved] features ND Smith, the co-author of the ND-proponentry paper this episode is centered around.

Yes, of that same paper I've requested to be retracted from MCNA due to issues of scientific integrity.

And of course, CCNM categorically claims [2016 archived]:

“naturopathic medicine is founded on the principle of healing through the co-operative power of nature. It involves harnessing science to unleash this healing power”.

That is coded vitalism, the PATENTLY science-ejected opaquely expressed, claimed to be able to survive a scientific filter along with that supernaturalism by the school's President who isn't, by the way, an ND.

That "naturopathic medicine harnesses science to unleash nature's healing power" claim is also at a CCNM clinic, at ccnmbntc.ca, which is called the Brampton Naturopathic Teaching Clinic and which speaks of:

"[being] the teaching clinic of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine [...as a] team of regulated health-care practitioners [...] regulated naturopathic doctors [...doing] naturopathic oncology [...] acupuncture [...and] the mind, body [...] spirit [...] naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care that addresses the root cause of illness or disease [...] naturopathic medicine plays an important role in integrative health care"

and other pages there speak of

"acupuncture/Asian medicine, botanical medicine, physical medicine [...] clinical nutrition, homeopathic medicine, and lifestyle counseling" therapies

with that acupuncture based on "qi" and

that homeopathy based on a "vital force"

and which all are grossly labeled "effective".

There's also another CCNM clinic at rsnc.ca that expresses that vitalism figmentation outright [2016 archived], stating:

“homeopathic medicine: NDs use diluted doses of natural substances […] to stimulate the body’s vital force and promote self-healing. Acute remedies help manage symptoms and constitutional remedies address the cause. May be taken orally or applied topically.”

Both are from CCNM's clinics:

but you said science, Dr. Dumb-Ass Naturopathic School President, and within is patent nonscience!

That's right, nonsense, at the root, which then infects the whole tree systemically:

it begins with ND education and the behaviors that education inculcates.

Yes, therein, huge pseudoscience within naturopathy as a norm, as an educational basis spreading outward:

a miseducational basis.

By the way, in common with my Board of AANP preponderance, it turns out CCNM doesn't detail naturopathy's principles EITHER currently on a page [2016 archived] supposedly specifically defining those principles.

And ND Seely, with such a loony and substandard epistemic educational basis for his 'doctoring credential', does oncology at “Ottawa Integrative Cancer Center”?

Where there [2016 archived] he tells us:

“the OICC is a not-for-profit regional center of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine.”

So that's a third CCNM clinical branch.

At oicc.ca, you can find such nonsense pages as “Reiki” [2016 archived], which states:

“reiki is a safe and gentle technique for stress reduction and relaxation that promotes healing […] reiki is administered by very light touch and / or [...] not touching at all […reiki] is based on the idea that an unseen 'life force energy' flows through us. From an eastern medical perspective, when blockages arise in the body, ill health ensues, but if these blockages can be removed [by hovering hands], energy returns and flows properly. Reiki treats the whole person including body, emotions, mind and spirit creating many beneficial effects that include relaxation and feelings of peace, security and well-being."

So, there's vitalism-supernaturalism efficacy figmentation by way of a kind of laying-on-of-hands claimed as specifically efficacious.

Well, I guess if you can imagine all that up, you can delude yourself that your actually specifically helping people.

I personally think reiki is creepy because I seriously wonder about a reiki practitioner being delusional and imbecilic, in these modern times.

OICC has the page “Our Therapies” [2016 archived] which lists:

“reflexology therapy […and] Mistletoe […] therapy.”

The YouTube channel for OICC features a header with ND Seely prominently wearing a stethoscope.

There are at least 35 videos there.

They have a video titled "Reflexology for Cancer Care" [saved 2016-09-20], which states:

"[from the description] reflexology is [...] based on the reflexes in the feet, which correspond to every part, gland, and organ of the body [well that's nonsense...] research demonstrates reflexology’s effectiveness [really!...and from the video we're told] reflexology is a natural healing therapy [...using] nerve endings within each foot [...which] relate to a specific body part or a specific area of the body or a specific system in the body such as your endocrine system or your cardiovascular system [...it's] similar to how acupuncture works [...] you are applying acupressure [...] and creating a stimulating response up into the target area of the body [...] to improve function of that area of the body [...so the patient can] rest, repair, and heal."

So that was IMAGINARY ANATOMY falsely posed as worth the time, money and energy of someone with something as serious as cancer.

OICC: where vulnerable cancer patient's are being led down a rabbit hole of delusion and falsehood.

Another video [saved 2016-09-20] calls such looniness, broadly:

"a thoughtful, complementary approach"

and shows ND Seely apparently doing a physical exam on a cancer patient.

And the host had said ND Seely, the “founder and executive director” [2016 archived] of that CCNM clinic, was:

“one of the good guys when it comes to science.”

And ND Seely had said:

“a scientific, evidence-based approach is essential at the Ottawa Integrative Cancer Center.”

Huh?

Doing reiki, reflexology and mistletoe for ANYTHING, is BATSHIT CRAZY if you are using such a supposed stringent science and evidence epistemic filtering!

Now, if naturopathy is all about treating the cause, by the way, and has the problem of 'a pseudoscience infestation', which it does, well, shouldn't ND Seely's “trying to take the pseudoscience out of naturopathy” first begin at the root cause, aka the contents of the ND school he graduated from and works for, the things the clinics are doing there, and the standards of the CON which oversees him?

That would be QUITE preventative, in terms of 'unnecessary pseudoscience fraudulence foisted upon the public', quite 'to the root cause'.

But, there's no word of such systemic solution.

And, it's quite ironic to read “a scientific, evidence-based approach [...for the] integrative” because, as is abundantly clear, 'integrative' as a marketing term is a deliberate blending of science and 'nonscience and the science-ejected then falsely put out there as science'.

It has often been called a Trojan Horse.

ND Seely is naturopathillogicality at its height of absurdity:

as scientific nonscience, like science subset reflexology.

And that's me going through only the first two sentences of the DAMN interview's text!!!

The text goes on, with ND Seely appraising naturopathy in this manner:

“[ND Seely] believes most naturopathic doctors DO rely on science, as do the schools where they train.”

Oh, so there's no problem, wink-wink, the problems are outliers.

“Most naturopathic doctors do rely on science”, really?

So WHY THE FUCK is there [2016 archived] the patently nonscientific at CCNM, like supernaturalism and vitalism, homeopathy AND, believe it or not, promotion of the electrodermal diagnostic quackery of an alumnus who's practice actually is called “drdetox.ca”.

At that practice, CCNM alumnus ND Lad claims:

“at our clinic we can test for food sensitivities via blood work or electrodermal testing. Electrodermal testing is a non-invasive means of testing for imbalances that may occur due to a food or food group. It involves testing various foods against energy points on the hand, which correlate with traditional Chinese medicinal meridians. On average over 150 foods can be tested by this method and a report is generated within the visit [...] information on the technology can be obtained from the following link […] biomeridian.com/voll.htm” [2016 archived].

Oh my, that's pseudodiagnostic quackery, to be precise, PROMOTED at:

“the schools where they train […where they] rely on science.”

CCNM also has “Bowen Technique” [2016 archived] as continuing education currently, a course which costs about $2100 dollars Canadian.

Wikipedia tells us:

“there is no clear evidence that the technique is a useful medical intervention”

while that CCNM course tells us “Bowen therapy is [...] known for its efficacy.”

So, supposed schools and practitioners who “rely on science.”

That's ND Seely's ERRONEOUS depiction of his ND colleagues and their North American educational institutions as systemically of 'high standards', and such erroneousness at his own clinic.

Why SHOULD ND Seely be trusted at all in terms of basic things, like the color of the sky, never mind in terms of oncology of all serious things, a medical specialty area that needs super-stringent science not 'anything is science' fraudulence?

Yet, ND Seely states he's personally:

“'very much committed to using an evidence-based approach.'”

Well, my question would be, based on his education at CCNM and what the CON permits, and a naturopath's by-oath commitments, and based on naturopathy's so bad epistemic standards in terms of how they define science and therein evidence, even by way of his clinic:

HOW would ND Seely know what stringent evidence is?

HOW can ND Seely be trusted to delineate such from crap?

If naturopathy trains NDs to falsely portray science-ejected and science-exterior crap as within science and therein worthwhile, CONTINUOUSLY?

Now, apparently, ND Seely thinks he's being ethical if MERELY he's not doing some of the nonsense that fellow NDs do.

We're told:

“when asked about some of the more 'fringe' elements of the services provided by some naturopaths at other clinics, such as chelation therapy, reiki and homeopathy […] when asked if some of those fringe therapies should be 'jettisoned' [...ND Seely said] 'I would say within the realm of complementary medicine I would say there there are certain therapies, yeah, I wouldn't use, I wouldn't take on' [even though reiki is at his clinic…] he personally does not practice homeopathic medicine, and admitted to being uncomfortable with some of the things his colleagues do […] 'I am uncomfortable about claims that are made that are exaggerated, I am uncomfortable about a lack of good informed consent for the patients, I'm uncomfortable with things that are mischaracterized'.”

The irony is gonna kill me.

Why, ND Seely, 'reiki, reflexology and mistletoe', and NOT homeopathy?

If you are using the filter “evidence-based approach”, then that which is patently not science-supportable should be quite discomforting.

Such hypocrisy.

It seems ND Seely is quite uncomfortable with how naturopathy operates on a day-to-day basis, sometimes, and quite selectively!

And his demarcations are quite hypocritical and contradictory.

He seems, also, though, comfortable minding his own business and not demanding a systemic remedy.

Of course, he's an agent of the problem:

an employee of an ND school, an employee of an ND school's clinic, an employee implementing naturopathic nonsense.

But I thought the interview was about doing something about naturopathy's pseudoscience via a hero-paragon science-imposer!

ND Seely's self-absorption is not enough, by the way, in terms of ethics.

Knowing what he knows, and seeing what his clinic permits, ND Seely is OBVIOUSLY an epitome of nonfeasance and malfeasance in an area as serious as medicine which is supposed to internally police itself.

Maybe we should call him Dr. Seedy instead, 'Dr. Fox watching the henhouse'.

ND Seely also defends ND's supplement dispensaries, stating:

"having a dispensary does allow for the assurance of quality and potency, and also it does allow for certain remedies not available in a retail setting."

That's a claim of efficacy for things not known to be efficacious specifically, overall, but sold as in commerce, as if.

I warn:

with homeopathy claimed as powerful by NDs, with reflexology claimed as useful by naturopathy, watch out for naturopathy's efficacy claims, overall, in terms of 'things pharmaceutical' that they dish out from their lucrative dispensaries, and in terms of 'things therapeutic'. 

Like hovering your hands over someone to magically fix them.

And the ND is almost EVILLY skilled at deflection.

He is recounted as stating:

“'there are much larger problems in public health than the risks of naturopathy [...because there's] really very, very low risk of public harm [with naturopathy…] hospital induced death is perhaps the third-leading cause of death in the States [...] that's where we should be putting our attention to […] this is where public health policy should be at.'”

In other words:

get off our backs, go after someone else who is worse.

Broadly, because science hasn't been properly applied to the naturopathic, ND Seely really doesn't KNOW what he claims he knows.

So his claims of risk are not really known, as they have not been scientifically investigated.

It's just a feeling.

And sir, I beg to differ in terms of who deserves scrutiny:

ALL of medicine deserves illumination and correction, INCLUDING when there's bad mainstream stuff.

But also, ALL 'unethical sectarian pseudosciences and pseudomedicines and pseudodiagnostics' are worthy of illumination and correction.

And I'd also add prosecution.

You are not a holy cow.

I'd argue that naturopathy's undermining of consumer rights in terms of 'settings that are educational, commercial and clinical' are MASSIVE harms:

taking money for crap therapies and crap education, not being transparent in terms of science and belief.

Ask the person who is harmed who deserves to get a pass!

Have some empathy and compassion and integrity, and pull your head out of your sectarian self-absorption.

You do not get a pass:

naturopathy is still responsible for the effects of its own reprehensible behaviors.

So, with naturopathy pervasively so LOW in epistemic standard, is it no wonder we're told:

“Seely also said that the scientific bar for some therapies can be lowered.”

Nothing like making special rules for oneself.

Ah, no:

science is science.

Perhaps you can lower your need for scientific evidence, if you wish to not separate crap from good stuff, but you can't change the boundaries of science as in 'lowering the scientific bar', as in now calling what isn't science science-supported.

You don't get your own lax boundaries in terms of science, your own personal definition of science, just to do the nonsense sectarian things you're committed to, just to continue to engage in the public deceptions you find so normal.

The host does not contest this lowering of stringencies, and does not raise the issue of the junk at the ND's place of practice and the junk that's at the school that owns that place of practice and trained that ND, with all of this stuff readily attainable.

So, in sum, isn't it interesting how CHARITABLE the text version of this interview is, and PARTICULARLY how misleading the interview is in terms of its title?

This medical journalism is a HUGE fail, IMHO:

where, oh where, is there ANY description of ANY action ND Seely is taking to get “pseudoscience out of naturopathy” systemically, as the title of the interview poses?

The title is of a systemic scope, and all we get from ND Seely is a:

'I take care of my own shit' position.

And shit it is, mixed with other things naturopathy appropriates.

Style-wise, in his lack of pointedness, in his lack of closed-ended questions, I'm greatly disappointed in Dr. Goldman.

Here are some suggestions for the next time, if you want to cut through the 'epistemic muddle' that is naturopathy, if you really want to start talking about naturopathy's fake science and sectarian obligations, and not just be their tool.

Ask:

is naturopathy's definition of science what is preponderantly science's definition as a methodology?

Because truly the answer is no, which makes naturopathy fraudulence when it uses a science label.

Does naturopathy distinguish between science-supported fact and act of faith / belief?

Because truly the answer is no, which makes naturopathy fraudulence when it claims beliefs as science-fact.

Does naturopathy place the supernatural within science?

Because truly the answer is yes, which makes naturopathy a sectarian pseudoscience essentially, and shows just how lax its science filtering is, and how little it cares for freedom of conscience.

Does naturopathy meet the same ethical standards as modern medicine?

Because truly the answer is no, which is why ND Seely isn't actually doing ANYTHING in terms of getting “pseudoscience out of naturopathy”, systemically speaking.

He doesn't HAVE to:

naturopathy doesn't have such an ethical stipulation.

It's fine within naturopathy for a naturopath to merely watch other naturopaths and the naturopathic institutions be unethical.

And I'd go further and say:

it's fine for naturopathy to reverse values and say what's unethical is ethical, just as they say what's nonscience is science. 

And of course, the ultimate question would be:

why do you permit some nonsenses but not others and falsely label what you do permit?

Because in Naturopathyland, hypocrisy abounds.

This is what happens in the interview:

naturopathy's GROSS nonsense is permitted and approved because such is falsely portrayed as stray data points by the falsely-elevated ND when actually those anomalies are not aberrations but business as usual.

For this skeptic-in-the-know, it doesn't work.

Now, I did listen to the audio version of the interview as well, and what I can say is, generally:

ND Seely is quite evasive and careful, and not very helpful.

With the additional vocal data, I get the sense of his slithering.

It's interesting that the host terms lots of nonsense like homeopathy “less-scientific”, which is quite the act of charity, as opposed to the actual 'science-ejectedness' of homeopathy.

Gray is employed, when actually the contrasts are much more stark.

When bogus is now “less scientific”, we have pseudoscience enabling going on.

What's not scientific should be called precisely that, and even more-so, when what's being talked about is science-ejected bogosity, it should be called that.

Even ND Seely calls such charitably:

“less evidence based [...and compares] a clearly valuable proven therapy and something that doesn't have that kind of clarity around the evidence.”

That graying is unnecessarily permissive.

It is a sly rhetorical device in naturopathy's favor and not in the public's favor.

Truly, starkly as opposed to vaguely:

homeopathy and reflexology, for instance, are PATENTLY implausible science-ejected nonsense, not merely “less evidence based” and 'in need of clarification', because homeopathy and reflexology have been well-studied and CLEARLY have NO EVIDENCE in terms of specific efficacy, based on ALL that we know, in sum.

When asked about the presence of such things as homeopathy within naturopathy, ND Seely answers that complementary and alternative medicine is “extremely broad.”

But that was not the question, that is quite the astute deflection.

Tim Caulfield's criticism of naturopathy as pseudoscience continually offering such pseudoscience is mentioned by the host, and the ND says Caulfield is being polarizing to 

“create the sense that there is […] rampant pseudoscience”

-- well there is, I'm mean that's obvious --

and the ND claims most ND practices aren't doing such pseudosciences with

“the curriculum at the college in Toronto and Boucher and other accredited colleges across America are emphasizing an evidence-based approach in their curriculum.”

Bullshit, sir.

The ND states “I can only speak to what we're doing at the OICC [...as] a more evidence-based practice.”

Bullshit, again sir, if we use your reflexology there as the litmus test.

When asked if certain naturopathy practices should jettisoned all together, the ND again broadens his answer to “complementary medicine” yet merely also speaks for himself when he says “I don't practice homeopathic medicine.”

But you do promote something equally as stupid, reflexology, sir:

pseudoscience selectively.

The ND speaks of using therapies not known to be helpful as:

“maybe engaging their own healing systems in a way […] certainly the placebo response is a powerful one [...and states] I think that you can't entirely tease out the specific effects from the contextual effects.”

I don't think that's true:

placebo is NOT powerful, and we certainly CAN separate nonspecific from specific effects.

We have invented a tool called science.

Again, creating special rules for naturopathy that then permits nonsense.

It's all gray in this world of inteGRAYtive, of blending, by definition:

they do not like clarity, they do not like transparency, they do not like honesty, they do not like integrity, they do not like rigor.

And that ND Seely sentence I just quoted from also seems to contain vitalism, coded.

And the ND speaks of “allopathic medicine”, which is a false label, creating a kind of false equivalence between modern medicine and science, and medieval prescientific and science-ejected nonsenses.

So I had spoken of Dr. Goldman's supposed:

'unshrouding abilities, exposing what's really going on abilities, and helping listeners make sense abilities as he is trusted, award winning, and has a proven knack'.

Well, I don't see it:

not from this interview.

Pseudorules #2 - The 2015 AANP Account Vimeo Video:

The 1 hour 14 minute video “Guidance for Naturopathic Practice and ND Core Competencies” [2016 archived] is dated 2015-11-23 and prominently displays the badge of the AANP.

It is co-hosted by ND Brinkman, an NCNM ND graduate and Mike Jawer, the AANP's “Government and Public Affairs Director.”

To start it all off, ND Brinkman states:

“welcome everyone to the AANP State Alliance webinar series […] today we are going to talk about the AANP's new Guidance of Care and AANMC's Core Competency documents.”

Notice that they are not terming it “standard of care” but “guidance of care”, and we'll get to know why in all of its not-standard electiveness.

Jawer adds:

“those of you who are students and NDs, welcome to the call [...we're going to cover] two important guidance documents.”

And we're shown a slide which states:

“AANP's Guidance for Naturopathic Practice and Care August 2015 […] and AANMC's Clinical Competencies for Naturopathic Medical School Graduates October 2014.”

As PDFs, both documents are available online, and I'll of course include links to the former  [2016 archived] and to the latter [2016 archived].

Now, the documents were just termed “important”, and 'care guidelines and competency' both seem rather important, in terms of practice and education, by a bunch who claim to be “primary care physicians”.

BUT we are told in the next bullet on the same slide:

“both are voluntary, not compulsory.”

So aren't we neck-deep in the slimy, as 'important voluntariness':

like neither solid nor liquid, neither present nor missing, useful as supposed rules to keep up appearances but not inconvenient in terms of day-to-day naturopathic practice as actual imposed rules.

Oh, what a tangled web...

Naturopathy IS rather CRAZY.

Internally, naturopathy infrastructure wants 'anything goes' because these things are optional, yet we're also told in this video's introduction:

“together they [both documents] establish a set of baseline expectations for ND practice and patient care.”

So, a baseline that you can ignore:

a guideline that doesn't matter at all?

This hurts my brain:

'the this that's not this'.

In other words, the answer to 2 + 2 is overall rather various, for these crazies.

Deliberately, naturopathy infrastructure wants to pose two contrary positions:

'let's ha-ha pretend we have serious stringencies.'

AANP is talking out of both sides of its ass, as usual:

having its cake, eating it too.

Regarding the documents' purpose, we're told in the video they both are:

“to advance public awareness and licensure […] not just within the profession [...but] with legislators, regulators, MDs, insurers, et al.”

So, it's a postured rigor for political and marketing purposes.

It's a veneer.

Because it's naturopathy, it's propaganda by way of:

opacity, manipulation, camouflage, EXCEPTIONALLY poor mimicry of excellence, and many reversals of values.

Oh the slime!

I'll return to the video after detailing the PDFs.

I'll start with the AANMC 'Competencies PDF', since an ND-student is trained first at an AANMC school before they go out and practice in society as an AANP ND in the U.S. and a CAND ND in Canada.

The “Competency PDF”:

So, the document is “AANMC Core Competencies of the Graduating Naturopathic Student” [2016 archived].

This describes what the sausage is expected to do when it comes out of the factory.

Before I get into its particulars, keep in mind that the AANMC, the North American naturopathy school consortia, permits quite the load of bullshit to happen on its watch.

This is part of how they get bodies into their classrooms.

For instance, at aanmc.org, there's homeopathy as explicitly 'of naturopathy'

and then a broad claim that naturopathy is essentially 'of science'

all with the assurance:

“AANMC’s accredited naturopathic schools meet both federal and academic standards”.

I disagree in so many ways:

patent nonscience is not science, that would be academically STUPID and in commerce terms, fraud.

But the U.S. Federal Title IV nozzle continuously flows, in partnership.

Let me deal with the term competency.

In education parlance, competency-based education is described at Wikipedia as:

“an approach to teaching and learning more often used in learning concrete skills than abstract learning.”

Therein, these naturopathic competencies are ethically judgeable as behaviors, as performed “concrete skills.”

Now, the document is only 13 pages long, and if about “competencies” as per the title, then about 'concrete or observable skills.'

One of the first things done in the PDF is a reiteration of naturopathy's “core principles.”

I prefer to call these 'naturopathy's sectarian obligations, often coded.'

We're told:

“the practice of naturopathic medicine is guided by six core principles as defined by [the] American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) […] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the naturopathic physician recognizes an inherent self-healing process in people that is ordered and intelligent. The naturopathic physician acts to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process.”

Now, that's coded vitalism.

So, AS USUAL, manipulative opacity.

But to cut through the subterfuge, we can use AANP's state affiliate in Alaska, the Alaska Association of Naturopathic Physicians.

AKANP has a post up titled “Standards of Care in Naturopathic Medicine” [2016 archived; also here, 2016 archived] which states:

“naturopathic doctors (NDs) […] philosophy is derived in part from a Hippocratic teaching more than 2000 years old: vis medicatrix naturae […] naturopathic principles […include] stimulating the patient's vital force to promote healing [...the] vis medicatrix naturae or vital force […] or replacing the action of the vital force when the patient is unable to respond to curative treatment.”

How do you replace the action of a figmentation, and then concretely measure such as a competency?

So, 'science-ejected vitalism competency impossibility', while AKANP tells us naturopathy:

“is based on the same basic bio-medical science foundation that allopathic practice is”

in that same document.

It's also quite the figmentation to pose modern medicine as “allopathic”, by the way.

So, the PDF does not disappoint:

it's cut from the same fabric as all the rest of naturopathy's perniciousness.

We're also told:

“since total health also includes spiritual health, the naturopathic physician encourages individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development.”

Ah, spirituality of a kind.

So isn't it interesting that something “concrete” as a “competency” includes figmentations like vitalism and supernaturalism!

All falsely claimed, by naturopathy overall, as within “science” as a foundation.

Related, we're also told:

“naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession that combines the traditions of natural healing with the rigors of modern science.”

So that's a distinct claim upon a blend.

We've seen that many times before:

science plus nonscience as an indistinct blend, then falsely termed the distinction “science.”

Yet, we're also told:

“naturopathic medical graduates critically appraise, assimilate and apply scientific evidence to improve patient care. They demonstrate an understanding of the strengths and limitations of research. Naturopathic graduates are dedicated to ongoing personal reflection and lifelong learning.”

How can this “critically appraise, assimilate and apply scientific evidence“ happen with science so without-boundary, so without-integrity and misused all the time within naturopathy?

With science so warped.

You'd think “lifelong learning” would sort that out, but apparently the effect of ND education is to permanently warp an ND student's intellectual acumen.

Yet, somehow within all this epistemic warping -- as I've often said 'cultic mystical weirdness' -- we're told an ND graduate:

“facilitates informed patient decisions by presenting evidence-informed therapeutic and wellness options including risks, benefits and alternatives to therapies.”

We'll then, naturopathy should be offering an alternative to something like their homeopathy:

the truth, like homeopathy is bullshit and we are bullshit artists for calling it science.

But instead, like by way of ND Seely, we don't get the truth, we get obfuscation and deflection.

Now, the competency document tells us too, as regards those principles, that an ND graduate:

“develops an individualized treatment plan […] consistent with naturopathic principles.”

So, as I've said before, you MUST treat towards that vital force figmentation and the spiritual as “addresses physical, spiritual, mental and emotional aspects of the patient”, overall.

How NOT concrete, how not directly observable.

It's like forcing a student to prove to you that they just caught the Easter Bunny.

Naturopathy:

where the concrete and 'esoteric-metaphysical-mythical' are now the same, insanely.

Speaking of insane, we're told that the ND graduate:

“recommends and / or administers therapies used in the individualized care of patients, including […] homeopathic medicine.”

A competency document which includes one of the most incompetent of pseudotherapies known, homeopathy.

Now, nowhere in the document are we informed that naturopathy is essentially an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.

Instead, we're quite ironically told, regarding communication, that the ND graduate:

“promotes practice and relationships through effective public and professional communications […] communicates effectively with patients, and when appropriate [to] their families and significant others, describes succinctly what naturopathic medicine is [!!!], and the role and responsibilities of naturopathic physicians […] naturopathic medical graduates communicate effectively to optimize patient relationships and patient care.”

So, those are ideals that are IGNORED, in terms of communicating “what naturopathic medicine IS”, obviously.

A large part of the PDF is spent on ethical behavior.

But, with naturopathy's epistemics so fucked up, how can ethicality happen?

How can 'the good' happen if there's no distinction between 'reality, myth, and figmentation'?

Ironically, in a court of law, that would be termed 'incompetent as in INSANE'.

Yet these naturopathy competencies emphasize:

“naturopathic medical graduates provide personalized, compassionate, ethical, holistic patient care […] naturopathic medical graduates demonstrate professional behavior, personal integrity, and altruism […each] maintains legal and ethical standards, including but not limited to patient confidentiality, informed consent, documentation of care, scope of practice, mandatory reporting, professional boundaries, [and] conflicts of interest […each] recognizes and addresses ethical issues arising in practice.”

Really!

Now, 'to the vital force' and 'to the spirit' is an ethical obligation within these competencies, and overall, such figmentation must be posed as “science” because:

the institutions say it's so and train it as so, when it's not, and that's essential to naturopathy.

So, how can you be ethical from that basis?

When we're told ND graduates

“exemplify the principles of naturopathic medicine personally and professionally as health care professionals and leaders in the community”

what's really happening is the seeding outwards of the naturopathy's perverse mannerisms.

It's amazing:

the message is be ethical within this unethical mode we've trained you towards.

Be professional upon this unprofessional stuff; rationally run with this irrational ball.

It's TORTURE, plain and simple.

Without any kind of greater good.

Therein, it's purposeless, mindless, and stupid.

It's the naturopathillogical.

Such is a situation of:

noncompassion, nonethicality, nonprofessionalism, nonintegrity, nonaltruism, nonlegality, and noninformed consent.

So let me reiterate a common motto I've invented that this PDF facilitates:

'licensed falsehood marches on'!

so far

mention the two studies as a touchstone.

Let's Return to the Video:

Now, after the video's introductory stuff that I've already quoted from, we get about an hour and ten minutes of talk from a few people.

Jawer does invoke the falsely-elevating label “profession”, stating variously regarding naturopathy:

“across the profession […] NDs as a profession […] this profession […] the ability of the profession to demonstrate its maturity and capability of regulating itself.”

But, a profession acts professionally.

So, on top of that “profession” claim, there was that self-regulation reality that is SO SWEET when you are bogus-unreality-based!

Also, we're told quite ironically:

“[the guidelines are meant to] advance public awareness [...these] good practices [...which are] voluntary […] not compulsory, they are not standards […that show naturopathy is] maturing [...and the guidelines can be an aid to] advance licensure […] there will be [such] value in promoting these documents.”

So, there's the end-game:

expanding naturopathy politically.

The “awareness” that is manipulative opacity and omission; the “good” that is not honest.

And I wonder, in its impossiblity:

how are you regulating yourself with voluntary guidelines?

The fucking logic eludes me; it's like being inside someone's schizophrenia; its a walking nightmare.

As I've often said, studying naturopathy is like studying mental illness.

And I do want to make a note here that I have extreme compassion for people suffering from mental illness.

And the conspiracy is complete, because Jawer acknowledges:

“with these documents we're really unified: students and NDs, members of AANP, members to be of AANP.”

Ah, a unified madness.

There are three speakers within the video:

ND Yanez the AANMC Executive Director,

ND Bradley of the AANP Task Force on Guidance of Care,

and the AANP Executive Director Cliche [k'leesh].

Cliche speaks first.

He calls naturopathy “a small profession” and the AANP “the only national association representing licensable NDs.”

He calls the documents “great” and “important tools”, and he speaks too of “professional unity.”

And he goes on and on about AANP's virtues, particularly emphasizing that AANP membership brings business to member NDs.

It's a guild.

Because, no matter whether we're talking about naturopathic education, naturopathic clinical activity, or naturopathic political activity, in the end, this “unity” is all about promoting a certain kind of PRODUCT which occurs in a MARKETPLACE.

By hook or by crook.

Cliche then hands off to ND Yanez who first talks about the AANMC competency document's history.

It's amazing how much attention and care, resources and time, went into a document that won't tell the truth and won't provide what people essentially need to know.

That mannerism is not, obviously, an accident.

Yanez even says:

“we agonized probably over every single word in this document.”

She calls the competency document “a loose recipe” of expectations from “somebody who just received their diploma.”

And she goes into some detail:

 slides show the parts of the document that mention “scientific evidence […] lifelong learning […and] personal integrity.”

Really:

I left naturopathy school to MAINTAIN my integrity, and here's the school consortia agent stating naturopathy education results in a product-student expected to have integrity.

Also, ND Yanez says:

"we were very specific to have the principles of naturopathic medicine in here."

Yet, being “very specific” didn't encompass actually including the essential specifics of those principles.

No, that's bad for business.

I'm sure they agonized over that exclusion.

And she speaks of the “potential use / application” for the document, because it is a tool made to further naturopathy's agenda.

Next is ND Bradley.

He first speaks of the history of the AANP Guidance document and shows a slide where one can see that the term Standard of Care, in the process, morphed into Guidance of Care.

He says that change “weakens” the document but also is “more accurate”, and says:

“there's language incorporated very intentionally into this document […] it has been a very thoughtful process.”

Again, the language is very deliberate, it is directly said.

ND Bradley does mention that Hawaii law has within it the AANP's 2006 Standard of Care, which the AANP no longer specifically supports.

If you remember, that law mandates that a naturopath must be therapeutically:

“stimulating a patient's vital force.”

He speaks of “the political needs of the profession” and says “legal review” concerning the GOC occurred many times.

He emphasizes “voluntary” and says “it is ultimately at your discretion whether or not you wish to follow them”, them being the GOC specifics.

And yet he does call the GOC, and I think this is quite not voluntary:

“one element of a community-defined standard of care”

and ND Brinkman broadly says, in a quite not voluntary context,

“I think having standards certainly shows credibility.”

This is nuts.

ND Bradley speaks of the intentions and purposes of the document, that it, ironically:

“informs the public […] protecting and improving the health of the public [...] to help the health of the public […is] our highest value […] the emphasis on the public is very intentional […] it's the peoples' medicine […] we add unique value to healthcare delivery […] this document does help inform the public about who were are and about what our values are […] it also clearly informs patients […] that you have their best interests in mind […] we have the responsibility to be […] part of the greater public health community […] we are not excused from that […] you have a broader responsibility to the public health environment.”

And he speaks of “informed consent” and “continuing education.”

Promises, promises.

And, I must say, sadly quite in the sense of schadenfreude, he speaks of:

“the first tenant [...and] the second tenant [...and] the third tenant [...and] tenant four […] the tenants of [naturopathic] philosophy are included within patient management”

when what should be written and said is is the word TENET.

How embarrassing, and the basic error is never corrected by anyone else.

Sounds like naturopathy.

ND Bradley shows just how permissive and just how dangerous naturopathy potentially is.

We're told:

“if you choose to only use hydrotherapy in you practice to treat diabetes, that's fine […] it [the guidelines] gives you a lot of freedom and flexibility in the nature of your practice […e.g.] homeopathic treatment of Lyme disease [solely...is] acceptable […] we would never limit you in that way.”

Again, I must say, anything goes within naturopathy:

the standardless standard, yet ND Bradley speaks of the Guidance document's potential usefulness for any “disciplinary action.”

Because even though dangerous nonsense is fine internally, the racket may need a sacrificial lamb from time to time to keep up appearances externally.

And ND Bradley speaks of “beneficent”, and that:

“experimental approaches may be offered [...because] most of the therapies within naturopathic medicine are considered experimental […] they are not generally approved by the FDA for treating disease [...but] you patient needs to know.”

Do you really thing naturopaths sit down and say:

"I'm going to experiment on you.  You must sign this to permit such?

ND Bradley says:

“many of the tenants [sic.] of the philosophy of naturopathic medicine are specifically included here [...like] promote self-healing.”

More hugely coded vitalism and continued apparent partial illiteracy.

He calls the document “powerful language” and speaks of “self-empowerment” and “self-scrutinizing.”

He says “it's ethical to” at least once, and he says:

“we shouldn't make up our diagnostic process [...use] naturopathic diagnostic techniques […those of] homeopathy […those of] TCM.”

In other words, stay within the boundaries of our standard figmentations.

He says the document shows naturopathy's:

“respect of patient values […that] it does help facilitate informed consent and public health safety."

My jaw is on the ground...

Let me remind listeners, in the next section of this Episode, I'll be getting into the two documents I'm most concerned with:

the naturopathy proponentry piece, and the naturopathy criticism piece.

That will be Part Three.

Thank you for boldly listening.