Saturday, October 13, 2018

PopSci 2018-10: "Zero Evidence to Support the Use of Homeopathy"

here, excerpts from a book on medical history as reviewed at Popular Science:

001. authors Justin McElroy and Dr. Syndnee McElroy write at popsci.com in "So, What's the Deal With Homeopathy?"  (2018-10-09):

"late-1700s medicine was a strange and wild place. There we no shortage of theories and research, and no shortage of bizarre experiments and treatments. It was the age of Heroic Medicine, when treatments were prescribed in order to balance out the body’s humors, with plenty of sweating, bloodletting, and vomiting—and what with that being the easiest way of balancing the humours, this probably meant a lot of vomiting [...] there is zero evidence to support the use of homeopathy. Homeopathy can be dangerous, in that it keeps people from seeking out actual medicine, and it’s also a rip-off. The fact that homeopathic cures are sold alongside actual medicine is one of the dumbest things that happens on Earth, and we’re writing this in 2018, so let’s just say it’s a heated competition";

Friday, October 12, 2018

Reader's Digest: "ND Treatments Usually Aren't FDA Approved"

here, true that:

001. Colleen Travers reports for Reader's Digest in "What You Need to Know Before Seeing a Naturopath":


"Dr. Reeves says it’s important to remember that although naturopathic doctors may go through their own schooling and licensing, it’s very different from the training and licensing one goes through in a standard medical school. Most naturopathy treatments also haven’t undergone rigorous scientific testing, he explains [...]"; 

in fact, most of what is essentially naturopathic is science-exterior.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Changelog 2018-10-11 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 Adams, Badger, Chang, Gurevich, Hayes, Hayes,
Larivee, Lubin, Nagy, Olsen,
Orscheln, Palacios, Ramos, Trotta,
Scheel, Wilkinson;


ND Alioto and Corazzo;
NDs Anderson, DeLuca, and Shoemaker;

the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine;

the 'science subset naturopathy' category claims of:


the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine;

the journal Integrative Medicine, A Clinician's Journal;
the journal Integrative Medicine Research;

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

Opaque Research: 6 NDs' 2018 'Study' Describing but Not Describing Naturopathy

here, the opacity, 'ah the opacity':

001. in the journal Integrative Medicine Research,

Day, A. (ND Bastyr), Bradley, R. (ND Bastyr), Cooley, K. (ND CCNM), Goldenberg, J.Z. (ND  Bastyr), Steel, A. (ND ACNM), Yap, C. (ND Bastyr)

write in

Goldenberg, J. Z., Steel, A., Day, A., Yap, C., Bradley, R., & Cooley, K. (2018). Naturopathic approaches to irritable bowel syndrome: protocol for a prospective observational study in academic teaching clinics. Integrative Medicine Research, 7(3), 279–286. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2018.06.001

[spaced for readability]:


"naturopathic medicine is a distinct CAM system of healthcare that uses a whole systems-based approach individualized to the patient and their presentation of symptoms [...]"; 

so, there's that claim of distinction.  I think with distinction should come details, up-front and tranparent and all that.  And I've never been able to understand why naturopathy patients only have symptoms.  Surely SIGNS are also important? 

"naturopathy is a 'system of healthcare with a deep history of traditional philosophies and practice' [WNF 2015...] through which practitioners integrate medical knowledge with natural treatment options [WNF 2015...] as a profession, naturopathy is defined by core philosophies, theories and principles [WNF 2015...] while naturopathy originated in Germany, the profession is now practiced in every region of the world [WNF 2016...] these elements manifest in a clinical practice approach to treatment that is holistic and naturopathy is best characterized by this holistic clinical approach more so than specific treatments prescribed [Sarris 2014]"; 

so, we'll look at these references for further detail below in 002. because no details are provided, specific to naturopathy beside such meaningless / nebulous marketing tropes as "whole systems [...] traditional philosophies [...] core philosophies [...and] holistic."

and I think that's a strategic and manipulative choice on the part of the authors. I must also note the following from the article:

"naturopathic [...] academic teaching clinics [...include] National University of Health Sciences [...and the Sarris reference is] Sarris J., Wardle J. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. Clinical naturopathy: an evidence-based guide to practice";