Thursday, August 13, 2020

Wednesday, August 12, 2020

Pubmed.gov “Vis Medicatrix Naturae” – Results, 2020

here, the first seven results of a search for "vis medicatrix" at PubMed by relevance.  I spend a lot of time indexing naturopaths' reference to VMN [and kind], as it is their central principle.  Notice, though, how archaic the term is in terms of the years below, generally speaking.  The APA reference is below the default PubMed format and number 3 caught my eye:

1. "Vis medicatrix naturæ. Findlay W. Glasgow Med J. 1901 Nov;56(5):375-377. PMID: 30436355":

Findlay W. (1901). Vis medicatrix naturæ. Glasgow Medical Journal, 56(5), 375–377.

2. "Vis medicatrix naturae. McNutt WF. Cal State J Med. 1923 Dec;21(12):510-1. PMID: 18739163":

 McNutt W. F. (1923). Vis medicatrix naturae. California State Journal of Medicine, 21(12), 510–511.

3. "Vis medicatrix naturae: Does nature 'minister to the mind'? Logan AC, Selhub EM. Biopsychosoc Med. 2012 Apr 3;6(1):11. doi: 10.1186/1751-0759-6-11. PMID: 22472137":

 Logan, A. C., & Selhub, E. M. (2012). Vis medicatrix naturae: does nature 'minister to the mind'?. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 6(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0759-6-11.

Logan is a naturopath of this here modern era.  And he co-writes: "the healing power of nature - vis medicatrix naturae - is an ancient medical principle that includes reference to the innate ability of the body to heal itself."  Nowhere in the article is vitalism mentioned, which is that "ancient medical principle."  So, a great example of coding vitalism: the science-ejected idea that dare not be mentioned expressedly.  He is a CCNM graduate, and here [p.64] is where CCNM is specific about that vitalism as VMN.

4. "Vis medicatrix nature. Dorsey JM. J Mich State Med Soc. 1961 Jan;60:43-8. PMID: 13723969":

DORSEY J. M. (1961). Vis medicatrix nature. Journal - Michigan State Medical Society, 60, 43–48.

5. "Vis medicatrix naturæ: Inaugural address at the annual meeting of the Bath and Bristol branch of the British Medical Association, May 26th, 1909. Smith GM. Bristol Med Chir J (1883). 1909 Dec;27(106):321-336. PMID: 28896514":

Smith G. M. (1909). Vis medicatrix naturæ: Inaugural address at the annual meeting of the Bath and Bristol branch of the British Medical Association, May 26th, 1909. Bristol Medico-Chirurgical Journal (1883), 27(106), 321–336.

6. "Extrauterine foetation: Attempt at cure by the vis medicatrix naturae. Terry C. Br Med J. 1867 Sep 21;2(351):248. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.351.248. PMID: 20744876":

Terry C. Extrauterine foetation: Attempt at cure by the vis medicatrix naturae. Br Med J. 1867;2(351):248. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.351.248

7. "On the vis medicatrix naturæ: Being the introductory address at the opening of the session in the Royal Infirmary School of Medicine, 27th Oct., 1885. Anderson JW. Glasgow Med J. 1885 Nov;24(5):321-331. PMID: 30436111":

Anderson J. W. (1885). On the vis medicatrix naturæ: Being the introductory address at the opening of the session in the Royal Infirmary School of Medicine, 27th Oct., 1885. Glasgow Medical Journal, 24(5), 321–331.


Monday, August 10, 2020

Changelog 2020-08-10 and ND Video

here, I summarize recent additions to my public naturopathy database.  I also link to an ND's video each changelog, quote from, and tag the video in some detail:

[Mission emphasis: I do this continuous exercise to expose the inherent fraud that naturopathy is logically, academically, commercially, legislatively / politically and clinically.  Hugely misleading category labels such as "science based" and "evidence based" "nonsectarian" are being placed upon what truly is science-exterior and even more so disproven sectarian / quack nonsense!  Then, the largest of betrayals toward the public occurs with highly orchestrated '.gov' endorsements of naturopaths as "licensed" and "professional."  Beware, the naturopathic licensed falsehood racket marches on!]

001. added:

the vitalism [science-ejected subset naturopathy] claims of:

NDs Balajewicz, Chohan,

Clack, Jiwani, Van Gaver;

NDs Bayrd & Soto-Johnson;

to Appendix B.05.i.a.03.;

ND Brown;

to Appendix B.05.i.a.05.;

 NDs Nortman and Scholten;

to Appendix B.05.i.e.;

  ND Watson;

ND Wood;

to Appendix B.05.i.L.;

 the 'science subset naturopathy' category claims of:

ND Hammer;

ND Hines;

NDs Houtan and Phillips;

to Appendix I.05.g.;

Thursday, August 6, 2020

Vitalism is Defunct: Chiropractic and Manual Therapies, 2020

here, excerpts and reflections from

Simpson, J. K., & Young, K. J. (2020). Vitalism in contemporary chiropractic: A help or a hinderance? Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, 28(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00307-8:

001. in “Vitalism in Contemporary Chiropractic: A Help or a Hinderance?”, authors Simpson and Young write:

vitalism arose out of human curiosity around the biggest questions: Where do we come from? What is life? For some, life was derived from an unknown and unknowable vital force. For others, a vital force was a placeholder, a piece of knowledge not yet grasped but attainable. Developments in science have demonstrated there is no longer a need to invoke vitalistic entities as either explanations or hypotheses for biological phenomena. Nevertheless, vitalism remains within chiropractic [...]";

ah, yes.  Defunct.  Vitalism, also, is quite the basis of naturopathy.

"vitalism has had many meanings throughout the centuries of recorded history. Though only vaguely defined by chiropractors, vitalism, as a representation of supernatural force and therefore an untestable hypothesis, sits at the heart of the divisions within chiropractic and acts as an impediment to chiropractic legitimacy, cultural authority and integration into mainstream health care […]";

true that.

"to invoke vitalistic entities as explanatory hypotheses was an unacceptable misunderstanding of the logic of science […] the former was rejected on scientific grounds because any hypothesis involving vitalistic concepts was untestable by scientific means […] the AMA based its information campaign on two arguments: the fundamental vitalistic tenets of chiropractic are pseudoscientific, untestable hypotheses in conflict with accepted scientific evidence […] health care providers are expected to demonstrate results from their efforts and to use methods that comport with a scientific understanding of health and disease […] rather than adapting the paradigm of health to accommodate scientific advancement, vitalistic chiropractors seem to be becoming increasingly militant, levelling vitriolic ad hominem attacks on heretics and using emotion-laden labels as epithets, such as subluxation denier […]";

and the zombie corpse of vitalism keeps staggering down the road, gesticulating with its fists at the modern world that is passing it by.