Naturopath Defends Homeopathy - Keranen in The Minnesota Daily, 2010-02-10:

here, I cite from a [rather haughty!] defense of homeopathy by ND Keranen in The Minnesota Daily [see 001., below]; then, I do some 'math' regarding naturopathy's absurdity [see 002., below]; and, I then muse a little [see 003., below]; then, I share some of Keranen's claims about naturopathy from her own web pages [see 004., below]; and finally, I warn about naturopathy's M.O. [see 005., below]:

001. Keranen, E. (ND SCNM 2009) states in "Response to 'Homeopathy'" (2010-02-10) [vsc]:

"as University alumna and as a licensed naturopathic physician, I take offense [!!!] to the Feb. 9 'Homeopathy Promoted at University' attack on alternative medicine [...] there are many types of alternative medicine that are evidence based [...] I want to argue against the idea that 'lack of evidence' equals 'quackery' [...] I would like to suggest that if a seminar or workshop hosted by the University doesn’t fit in with your beliefs or understanding of science, either open your mind to new [!!!] concepts or simply don’t attend [sorry we will attend, naturopathy's OVERALL activities are PUBLIC]."

Note: I love this stuff!  An ND's claim of physicianship, expertise regarding 'the scientifically in-evidence and supported', and expertise in discerning the difference between belief and science.  Plus, the 'close-minded' accusation!  The concepts underlying homeopathy and 'the essentially naturopathic', by the way, are NOT at all new.  Yet, naturopathy's essential principles are often coded/ kept QUITE SECRET, as even exhibited by  ND Keranen [see , below].

002. now, for a little math [that is: an example of naturopathy's internal logical inconsistency / absurdity]:

002.a. naturopathy claims it is fundamentally scientific.

Note: e.g., OBNE states "the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...which are] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] naturopathic philosophy serves as the basis for naturopathic practice.  The current scope of naturopathic practice includes [...] homeopathic medicine [..which supposedly] works on a subtle yet powerful electromagnetic level, gently acting to strengthen the body’s healing and immune response [coded vitalism...] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [...] nature heals through the response of the life force [naturopathy's essential vitalism clearly stated on the same page]."

002.b. homeopathy is labled by naturopathy as science, therein.

002.c. naturopathy is based upon vitalism & kind, therein.

002.d. homeopathy is based upon vitalism & kind, therein.

002.e. vitalism is UTTERLY science-ejected.

Note: so, what is inside the cranial cavity of an ND?  Brain?  Perhaps.  Intelligence?  None that I see, essentially. I think the illogic and irrationality / the sheer absurdity illustrated by my 'math' above speaks volumes concerning naturopathy's nuttiness / stupidity.  Oh, and that same OBNE page states that NDs are "educated in conventional medical sciences [...] a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college with admission requirements comparable to those of conventional medical schools."  I don't think so.

003. some musings on the ND's attitude:

003.a. nobody cares that you have been "offended."  Naturopathy itself is a humongous offense to reason.

003.b. claiming that that which is utterly science-ejected is "evidence based" is professionally untenable.

003.c. historically speaking, treating patients with what is known not to work [homeo.'s empty remedies, anyone?] IS quackery.

003.d. what is objective and in-evidence has NOTHING to do with belief, which by definition is subjective and faith-based.

Note: let me muse now on an ND's understanding of science.  In ND-land, science is the same as what is nonscience.  Plain and simple: for an ND a scientific fact and a sectarian article of faith are the same thing -- which it utter nonsense.

004. ND Keranen's:

004.a. homepage [vsc] states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the following principles: [#1] the healing power of nature."

Note: and that's all you're told.  HPN is of course naturopathy's coded science-ejected vitalistic premise, as illustrated by OBNE.

004.b. "Services" [vsc] states that naturopathy uses homeopathy.

004.c. "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc] states:

"naturopathic medicine is a unique profession [...it is a] science [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...which are] based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles [...we use] modern and traditional, scientific and empirical methods [...we study] the basic medical sciences [...] the same basic sciences as an M.D. or D.O. [...a] comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...] NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic doctors in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams [...and] the clinical science examinations [...that] include [...] homeopathy."

Note: ah, the 'of the professions' claim.  And the science-science-science claim, upon the naturopathic and homeopathic.

004.d. on that same "Naturopathic Medicine" page we are told:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...is] the body’s inherent self-healing ability, which is ordered and intelligent [...a] healing ability."

Note: and that's all you are told.  So, do you trust someone's explanations about what is 'in fact' when in fact they don't transparently define their essential context?

005.  falsely posing vitalistic, science-ejected, homeopathic / naturopathic sectarian belief as scientific fact is naturopathy's defining M.O.