ND Stanclift on Bad Ideas and Skepticism [oh, the irony!]

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post piece by a naturopath which mentions the idea of a "bad idea" and the value of skepticism, ironically [see 001., below]; then, I expand upon the idea of bad ideas and apply skepticism to the VERY ideas of naturopathy and its science-ejected claims [see 002., below]:

001. Stanclift, M. (ND Bastyr 2011) states in "Is It a Bad Idea to Take Supplements and Herbs Without Medical Guidance?" (2012-09-20) [vsc 2012-09-21; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"if you feel a little lost in the vitamin aisle [...and] many of us dabble with vitamins and supplements [...]";

naturopaths, by the way, sell vitamins and such directly from their practices (example).

"how do you tell which one of these products might help you? How do you tell if it's actually working? [...]";

ah, that 'efficacy question'.  Well, the issue may be rephrased like this, too: can you trust a naturopath to tell you what is effective and scientific if even ineffective science-ejected homeopathic sugar pills (example) and acupuncture needlings are termed "powerful" (example) when we know they are NOT?

"a professional recommendation [...] the professional guidance from another licensed health care professional. Naturopathic doctors are specifically trained to give this kind of guidance [...] how much should they trust these recommendations? [...] to answer this, I ask more questions [...and speaks of] sound advice [...] take excellent care of yourself, and seek sound advice [...] appropriate medical guidance [...]";

ah, that 'naturopathy is of the professions' claim.  And SOUND advice, that's appropriate, that can be TRUSTED.  Well, I'm all for questions, to question is at the heart of science and skepticism.  So, the issue may be rephrased like this, too: if at the heart of naturopathy is quite the UNSOUND reasoning, can we get to trustworthy, sound, appropriate, professional advice?  I am highly skeptical.

"conflicting information or evidence [...] it takes a skeptical (and professional) eye to find discrepancies that may explain the findings of medical studies [...]";

yes, it does.  And when you apply high-rigor, scientific skepticism to the supposed evidence-based claims of naturopathy [the distinctly naturopathic, not the stuff they appropriate and label naturopathic though derived from other areas, like diet and exercise, which I will do below]...those claims evaporate.

"the bottom line: supplements and herbs work [...]";

actually, supplementation, except in rare conditions, is not known to work and it seems that whenever an herb HAS an effect that can be markedly observed, it is pulled from the retail market because THEREIN it is a drug and needs regulation.  Science Based Medicine has a large repository on drugs and supplements.

002. the essentially naturopathic / the bad ideas, and the above ND's and his alma mater Bastyr's web pages:

002.a. boiling down naturopathy to its essence:

I refer you to the web page that I cite so often, at the 'trunk' of the naturopathic tree, so to speak, NCNM's explanation of naturopathy, wherein the patently science-ejected or exterior is claimed to survive rigorous scientific scrutiny and be "science-based."  So, overall, in terms of knowledge, the essence of naturopathy is NONSENSICAL and IRRATIONAL reasoning that is SO EASY TO SHOW.  Labeled professional, but not quite, me thinks, skeptically, based upon evidence.  What a racket, and there are so many organizations with the hands in the cookie jar.

002.b. yet, at ND Stanclift's web page "F.A.Q.s.", we are told [vsc 2012-09-22]:

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) practice truly integrated medicine [...]";

how right his descriptor is!  If to integrate, is 'to blend', then the knowledge claims of naturopathy truly are MUDDLED.  But, then, obviously, falsely claimed as a specific 'of science' knowledge type.  Perhaps ND means 'not delineated' and 'not disclosing' that falsehood fact.

"NDs are trained in the same medical sciences as MDs [...] a licensed naturopathic physician (ND) attends a four-year, graduate-level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD [...]";

bullshit.  If science is not nonscience, as it is in ND land, I don't think this 'of that same kind of preponderant science' label is true.

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct and comprehensive system of health care that combines a variety of natural medicines and treatments with conventional medical diagnostics and standards [...]";

ah, a sentence that argues against itself: the distinctly blended.

"naturopathic doctors seek to restore health and promote wellness using the safest, most effective and least invasive therapies available [...]";

yeah, like homeopathy.

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) blend centuries-old knowledge and a philosophy that nature is the most effective healer with current research on health and human systems [...]";

yeah, and somehow it is distinct.

"the therapeutic modalities used in naturopathic medicine (including physical manipulation, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy and hydrotherapy) integrate conventional, scientific and empirical methodology with the ancient laws of nature [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training [...including] homeopathic medicine [...]";

yeah, same basic science basis.

"the underpinnings of naturopathic medical practice are in six principles [...including] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] a naturopathic doctor’s approach to treatment is called naturopathic medicine, and it involves the six principles [...]";

ah, ye old coded vitalism principle that dare not speak its name.  Very much kept under the table.

 "a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [...]";

board exams so rigorous that the patently science-ejected homeopathic is falsely labeled a "clinical science".  What kind of profession is based on falsehood? 

002.c. and at Bastyr, we get the patently science-ejected falsely labeled science, as usual.

Changelog 2012-09-9, 2012-09-16 and ND Video

here, I summarize this week's 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:

001. added:

the vitalism of:

ND Komonski; NDs Kaganovsky;

ND Kontomerkos; ND Koo;
ND Kimble;

to Appendix B.05.i.c.05.;

the science claims of:

ND Quan

to Appendix I.05.n.;

ND Axtell

to Appendix I.05.a.;

Bastyr University in The Bothell Reporter

to Appendix I.01.a2.;

NDs Bell and Graham;

NDs Bowker and Martez;

ND Botwick;

to Appendix I.05.b.;

NMD Helms

to Appendix I.05.g.;

NDs Kiani and McGuire; 

ND Komonski;

to Appendix I.05.i.;

ND Le Provost; 

ND Logan;

ND Lambert'; 

to Appendix I.05.j.;

ND Murray

to Appendix I.05.k.;

002. video of the week link [not to pun]:

002.a. Kimble, P. (ND NCNM 1999) in  "Dr Peter Kimble, Naturopathic Doctor visits Topeka Natural Food Coop" [vsc 2012-09-15]:
.

.

#vitalenergy #vitalism #naturopathic #scienceejectedpremise #NDKimble

.

"[from the description] Dr. Kimble visited on Sat. June 9th. and talked with members and shopper about the benefits of naturopathy. Dr. Kimble is Topeka's only resident naturopath. He can be reached at: 785 234 0015 [...from the video] my name is Peter Kimble I'm a naturopathic doctor [...] many people would wonder what naturopathic medicine is.  The short answer is it's a type of medicine that encourages the person's vital energy to help heal their own body."

Note: and that's naturopathy's science-ejected premise stated succinctly.

002.b. ND Kimble's web pages reveal:

002.b1. in "Naturopathic Medicine" we're told quite absurdly "homeopathy is a medical science" [vsc 2012-09-15] which it sure as hell ain't.

002.b2. and we're also told of naturopathy's vitalistic basis here.

Popular Science Schwacks Homeopathy

here, I excerpt from a recent Popular Science piece that looks at homeopathy's claims mathematically [see 001., below]:

001. Emily Elert reports for Popular Science in "Is Homeopathy Really As Implausible As It Sounds" [2012-09-12; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"the new British minister of health has recently become the target of scorn and mockery, after a science writer with The Telegraph noted that he supports homeopathy, a branch of alternative medicine most health experts view as quackery. But just how quackish is it? [...]";

let's see.

"there’s a difference between something that hasn’t been proven to work and something that couldn’t possibly work [...]";

ah, yes, the idea of ALL the evidence / prior knowledge / plausibility.

"could it be that the practice of homeopathy is simply untested and unfairly stigmatized, or is it truly implausible? [...]";

a great question.

"let's first set aside some of the more philosophical / hypothetical principles of homeopathy [how polite!]. Let's ignore, for example, the homeopathic notion that illness is caused by a disturbance in an individual's 'vital force' rather than something external, like a bacterium or virus [...]";

yet naturopathy calls this idea an objective scientifically vetted fact.

"let's focus instead on what matters most: whether or not the medicine makes people better [...]";

sure, sure.  We could have to rectify our models of chemistry, biology, physics and the like if effect was noted that is specific and better than placebo.

"all homeopathic remedies are available in a huge range of concentrations. But there’s a big difference: those concentrations are really small. In homeopathy, less is more, so homeopaths think of a large dose as a high dilution, instead of a high concentration [...]";

and now we start to feel like homeopathy is making us feel stoned.

"the fatal flaw lies in just how much homeopathy says to dilute things [...]";

yup.

"well past the point where plausibility breaks down [...] in fact, most available treatments are sold at even more absurd dilutions [...]";

but that's fine if you BELIEVE [said Peter Pan]. 

Note: loving it.  Yet, naturopathy claims homeopathy is a science on their North American board exams.  "How quackish."  I say 'lock them up.'

ND Murray & Pizzorno's 2012 ENM Absurdity: Science Subset Nonscience

here, I excerpt from the 2012 edition of the "Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine" [ENM] by NDs Murray and Pizzorno regarding their overarching claim of science subset naturopathy, and show therein they place patently nonscientific claims and ideas which I will term 'the essentially naturopathic' [see 001., below]; then, I cite from the alma mater's of the two NDs, and perhaps therein why can understand why they falsely label nonscience science [see 002., below]:

001. Murray, M.T. (ND Bastyr 1985), Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM 1975) write in "The Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine" (3rd ed. 2012, ISBN 1451663005 978-1451663006) [page numbers are from the paperback edition; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

Note: I'm only here excerpting from the first two chapters, which set up the "natural medicine" premise.  I own all three editions of this book now, and perhaps I'll later do a post which compares these two chapters across the editions.  This new edition was only $20.  That's quite a bargain for a nugget of American anti-intellectualism and pseudoscience irrationality!!!

001.a. the overarching science claims:

"[from the coauthored preface] readers are strongly urged to develop a good relationship with a physician knowledgeable in the art and science of natural and preventive medicine, such as a naturopathic physician [...]";

NDs, which the two authors are!

 "[ND Pizzorno writing about ND Murray in the book's acknowledgements] Dr. Michael Murray has had a remarkable impact on decreasing disease and suffering through his research, teaching, and writing, and his advocacy of science-based natural medicine [...]";

science-based medicine" is a label that naturopathy uses upon itself.  In fact, on his own biography page, Murray states: "one of the great myths about natural medicines is that they are not scientific. The fact of the matter is that for most common illnesses there is greater support in the medical literature for a natural approach than there is for drugs or surgery."  That's quite an overarching science label 'upon the naturopathic'.  What defines naturopathy, which we will see in 002.b., that above is labeled by Murray as "a natural approach", is quite shocking if you are looking for rigorous actual science content.

"[from the coauthored first chapter, 'What is Natural Medicine?'] this book was written in an effort to update the public's knowledge about the use of natural medicines in the maintenance of health and treatment of disease. It dispels a common myth about the use of natural remedies—that natural medicine is 'unscientific'. This book contains information based on firm scientific inquiry and represents an evidence-based approach to wellness. This encyclopedia is without question the most thoroughly researched and referenced book on the use of natural medicines ever written for the public [p.017...]"; 

promises, promises.  So, we are promised that we will be disabused of our myths via science.  Let the reversal of values begin.

"Bastyr University with its focus on teaching science-based natural medicine [p.005...]";

again, that big, overarching science label upon natural medicine / naturopathy.

"[Bastyr's] landmark achievement of accreditation [p.005...]";

I have been asking the FEDERAL education apparatus if there is a mechanism for pursuing fraud in their membership / consortia.

"the nutritional approach has considerable support in the scientific literature that proves its safety and effectiveness [p.014...]";

a pill for every ill, according to naturopathy.

"if doctors had not been so biased against scientific data on nutritional supplements [p.014...]";

sounds to me like the straw-man of the bashing of regular medicine as stubborn and closed-minded.  But, I have to ask, if preponderantly the assessments of 'nutritional treatments of disease' by 'supplements as medicine' is known by scientific inquiry to be ineffective overall [except in rare cases], who is being biased and cherry picking studies that only support that bias [perhaps this entire book].

"currently, there are seven schools in the United States and Canada that train naturopathic physicians with accreditation [...] National University of Health Sciences [...] University of Bridgeport—College of Naturopathic Medicine Health Science Center [...p.015]";

ah, that continuous 'science subset naturopathy' claim. As a disclosure: I went to that UB program for four years and couldn't bide its ethical position wherein academically, clinically, and commercially, crap such as homeopathy was falsely labeled science-supported.

 "one of the pervasive myths about naturopathic medicine has been the belief there is no firm scientific evidence for the use of the natural therapies naturopathic physicians employ. However, as this book attests, scientific studies and observations have upheld the validity not only of diet, nutritional supplements, and herbal medicines but also of some of the more esoteric natural healing treatments, including acupuncture,  biofeedback, meditation, and homeopathy [p.017...]";

homeopathy?  Labeling homeopathy science-supported is like labeling astrology science.  It is indeed a myth that homeopathy is supported by science.  So, herein, when I speak of the reversal of values, naturopathy wins the prize: a myth is presented falsely as a scientific fact.  I have often termed this 'epistemic conflation' or 'knowledge ambiguation'.

"scientific investigation has not only validated the natural measure but also led to significant improvements and greater understanding [p.017...]";

promises, promises.

 "the reality is that many believe faith and medical science are mutually exclusive despite the fact that numerous scientific studies have now fully validated the efficacy of faith, prayer, and religion in healing [...] scientific investigation into the healing power of prayer has shown that prayer can affect physical processes in a variety of organisms [p.022...]";

ah, more conflation, wherein now miracles / supernaturalism has been verified by scientific experimentation.  Hand out the Nobels.

001.b. the 'essentially naturopathic':

001.b1. vitalism [their supernaturalism I've ready cited above]:

"naturopathic medicine—a system of medicine based on the belief that the human body has a remarkable innate healing ability [...] naturopathic medicine is a system founded on seven time-tested principles: principle 1: the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). Naturopathic physicians believe that the body has considerable power to heal itself. It is the role of the physician to facilitate and enhance this process with the aid of natural nontoxic therapies [...] naturopathic medicine is built upon seven underlying principles. Principle 1: the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] naturopathic therapy [...] traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture Traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture are part of an ancient system of medicine involving techniques used to enhance the flow of vital energy (chi). Acupuncture involves the stimulation of certain specific points on the body along chi pathways called meridians [...] the body has two internal mechanisms to maintain health. The first is the inherent internal healing mechanism, vital force, chi, or primitive life support and repair mechanism that operates even in a person who is asleep, unconscious, or comatose. The second mechanism involves the power of the mind and emotions to intervene and affect the course of health and disease in a way that enhances or supersedes the body's innate vital force [...]";

oh how they love imaginary invisible archaic science-ejected forces.  The body doesn't heal by vital forces, in this here modern science-informed age.

001.b2. the love of homeopathic magic beans and unicorn tears:

"in 1902, Lust founded the first naturopathic college of medicine in the United States in New York City. It taught a system of medicine that included the best of what was then known about nutritional therapy, natural diet, herbal medicine, homeopathy, spinal manipulation, exercise therapy, hydrotherapy, electrotherapy, stress reduction, and other natural therapies [...] naturopathic medicine is inclusive, in that it incorporates a variety of healing techniques. The current treatments naturopathic physicians are trained in include clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, Oriental medicine and acupuncture, hydrotherapy, physical medicine including massage and therapeutic manipulation, counseling and other psychotherapies, and minor surgery [...] the term homeopathy is derived from the Greek words homeo, meaning 'similar,' and pathos, meaning 'disease.' Homeopathy is a system of medicine that treats a disease with a dilute, potentized agent, or drug, that will produce the same symptoms as the disease when given to a healthy individual, the fundamental principle being that like cures like. Homeopathic medicines are derived from a variety of plant, mineral, and chemical substances [from the first two chapters...]";

oh how they love their homeopathy.

002. alma maters [their science claims, and the 'essentially naturopathic concepts and philosophies']:

002.a. Bastyr [Murray, and a school Pizzorno founded]:

I've collected Bastyr's science claims, and their mention of naturopathy's underlying science-ejected vitalistic premise [falsely labeled able to withstand scientific scrutiny].

002.b. NCNM [Pizzorno]:

I've collected NCNM's science claims, and their mention of naturopathy's underlying science-ejected vitalistic premise [falsely labeled able to withstand scientific scrutiny].

003. overall note:

so, this "natural medicine" premise is quite absurd in terms of its basis.  If the ENM's two first chapters are an indication of naturopathy's boundaries concerning what constitutes legitimate science and knowledge -- and it is quite easy to see that science and nonscience are muddled together as a single kind of knowledge type termed 'natural' -- then I have very little faith in the accuracy of the book that follows.  To paraphrase the writers at the blog Science-Based Medicine: science involves looking at ALL the evidence and not MERELY a) ignoring what one finds inconvenient and b) cherry picking what supports one's preconceived notions.

I'll cite two quotes from ND Murray:

a) the one above: 

"one of the great myths about natural medicines is that they are not scientific. The fact of the matter is that for most common illnesses there is greater support in the medical literature for a natural approach."

which I will now alter to a 'better condition of truthfulness':

"one of the great myths about natural medicines is that they are scientific. The fact of the matter is that for most common illnesses there is PREPONDERANT little or no support in the medical literature for a supposed natural approach."

 b) and from his own web site post  "Solving The Healthcare Crisis" (2012-07-25) [vsc 2012-09-12]:

"one of the pervasive myths about wellness-oriented medicine is that there are no firm scientific studies substantiating its use. Scientific studies have upheld the validity of not only diet and nutritional supplements, but also of other healing methods such as acupuncture, biofeedback, meditation and homeopathy [...] it appears that the concepts and philosophies of wellness-oriented medicine will persist and be a major part of the medicine of the future—medicine merely known as good medicine."

my response, BULLSHIT.  This I will now alter to a 'better condition of truthfulness':

"one of the pervasive myths about naturopathic medicine is that there IS firm scientific studies substantiating its use. Scientific studies have in rare cases upheld the validity of diet and nutritional supplements, and has discarded their other healing methods such as acupuncture [for instance...] and homeopathy [for instance...] it appears that the concepts and philosophies of naturopathic medicine are PATENTLY UNTENABLE when viewed scientifically and cannot persist and will NOT be a major part of the medicine of the future because it is the science-discarded medicine of the past — medicine now known as REALLY BAD medicine."

beware. 

Jeremy Hunt, Homeopathy Nonsense, and If So Naturopathy Too

here, I've excerpted from three articles citing criticism of the new UK minister's stance regarding homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, because North American naturopathy quite nonsensically labels homeopathy science, oh how easy it is to show naturopathic health fraud! [see 002., below]:

001. sources via news.google.com:

001.a. Steven Salzberg at Forbes.com writes in "New British Minister of Health Believes in Magic Potions" (2012-09-10):

"the new British Minister of Health, Jeremy Hunt, is a firm believer in homeopathy, which treats disease using magic water solutions [...] within hours, Tom Chivers, a science editor at the Telegraph, reported on Hunt’s belief in homeopathy: 'the man put in charge of the nation’s health policy is on record as supporting spending public money on magic water to cure disease [...] this is not unlike putting someone who thinks the Second World War began in 1986 in charge of the Department of Education' [...] homeopathy is one of the most absurd, wildly implausible forms of quack medicine [...] homeopathy is founded on two basic notions, both of them dead wrong: infinitely diluted substances are more potent than substances at higher concentrations, and 'like cures like', meaning that if a substance causes a symptom, you can use that substance to cure the symptom [...] homeopathy is simply magical thinking.  There has never been a shred of scientific evidence to support it, and the British Medical Association declared in 2010 that homeopathy is witchcraft."

Note: ouch!  I prefer the full "magic beans and unicorn tears" to fully mock homeopathic dumb-assed-ness.

001.b. the AP reports in "New British health Chief Causes Dismay With Homeopathy Views, Dubbed 'Minister for Magic'" (2012-09-06):

"Jeremy Hunt, Britain’s new health minister [...] in 2007 [...] signed a motion welcoming the 'positive contribution made to the health of the nation' by homeopathy and called for the government to actively support it [...] a practice that many experts liken to snake oil [...] many scientists view homeopathy as modern day quack medicine [...] the U.S. government has stopped paying for studies of homeopathic treatments [...] a 2010 report from a House of Commons science committee recommended the government stop paying for homeopathy [...] the magazine New Scientist labeled him 'the new minister for magic' [...] 'this is a jump back into the last century,' said Edzard Ernst, an emeritus professor at Exeter University. 'We need someone who believes in science and evidence for a health secretary, and that is not compatible with believing in homeopathy' [...] Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, Britain’s leading independent scientific academy, said [...] 'it could be that in his new position he will read more thoroughly [...] if we are to make the case for evidence-based medicine, then there shouldn’t be any homeopathy'";

Note: hear, hear.

001.c.  the Guardian states in "Jeremy Hunt Under Fire For Stance on NHS Tribute, Homeopathy and Abortion" (2012-09-04):

"new health secretary Jeremy Hunt is under fire for backing the use of homeopathy to treat illnesses [...] leading scientists have [...] questioned Hunt's suitability to be responsible for the NHS because he endorses homeopathy, which many scientists believe has no value and is a waste of NHS funds [...] Professor Sir John Krebs, professor of zoology at Oxford University and former head of the Food Standards Agency [...said] 'there is overwhelming evidence that homeopathic medicine is not effective. It would be a real blow for those who want medicine to be science-based if the secretary of state were to promote homeopathy because of his personal beliefs'."

002. meanwhile, in naturopathyland -- the land of the naturopathillogical [copyright ME!] -- this simple google.com web search of >naturopathy homeopathy "from the sciences"< reveals such marketing falsehood jems as [from the first page of results; this is one of my favorite searches!]:

002.a.  Purcell, A. (ND SCNM 2002) who tells us at her naturopathic commerce site in "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" [vsc 2012-09-10]:

"naturopathic physicians treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, nutritional supplementation, botanical medicine, homeopathy, counseling, hydrotherapy, and naturopathic manipulation to name a few."

Note: and that is clinical false commerce.

002.b. the University of Minnesota [apparently quite the short-bus of the university realm, herein] which states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2012-09-10]:

"naturopathic medicine is a science-based tradition [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles upon which its practice is based. These principles are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances [...] they cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] naturopathic students must do extensive coursework in natural therapeutics. This includes therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicines, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, lifestyle counseling, and hydrotherapy, which is the use of water to treat a disorder or disease."

Note: and that's quackademic false commerce. 

002.c. the practice of Germain, J. (ND NCNM), Hunter, S. (ND Bastyr), Kane, M. (ND Bastyr), Louden, C. (ND NCNM), Liva, E. (ND NCNM), Samuelson, K. (ND NCNM) in "Recently in Newsletter Archives Category" [vsc 2012-09-10]:

"naturopathic physicians treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling, acupuncture, natural childbirth, and hydrotherapy."

Note: oh how licensed falsehood marches on.

Changelog 2012-08-27, 2012-09-02 and ND Video:

here, I summarize this week's 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:

001. added:

the vitalism of:

ND Ceaser; 

ND Celik 

to Appendix B.05.i.bb01.;

ND Chinoy; 

ND Charney; 

ND Chua;

to Appendix B.05.i.bb02.;

the science claims of:

ND Han; ND Hernandez, M.;

NMD Hinojosa-Sinks; ND Hokayem; NMD Hoppe;

ND Hughes; ND Horne-Paul; ND Handwerger;

NDs Hickman and Matthews; ND Harden; 

NDs Hitkari, Montroy, Wong; 

NDs Holdorf, Johnson, Singley 

to Appendix I.05.g.;

002. video of the week link [not to pun]:

Steels, B. (ND CCNM?) states in the piece "Healthwatch: Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2012-09-01]:
.

.

#appliedkinesiology #darkfieldmicroscopy #livebloodanalysis #pseudodiagnostics #NDSteels #homeopathy #antipathic #tricks

.

"[from the description] what is it and who can it help? Pamela VanMeer takes a look at naturopathic medicine in this report [...from the video, the reporter] Brenna Steels is a doctor but not in the traditional sense.  She's not a medical doctor.  She is a naturopathic doctor.  She can treat any condition that an MD treats [shown is a dark field microscope] but in a very different way [...the ND] as a naturopath  [etc....shows in the dark field microscope's field on a monitor...the reporter] Steels a has a lot of tricks up her sleeve [shown is the ND doing dark field microscopy...] one of them is live blood analysis [shown is blood being taken and put on a slide...the ND] we can see how the liver is stressed.  We can see if there is any viruses, pathogens, bacteria [then we hear patient testimonials...shown is applied kinesiology x2...the reporter] NDs have a bachelor degree and four years of medical school  [the practice door is show saying] nutrition and homeopathy, acupuncture, live blood analysis [...] they study things like [...] homeopathic medicine [...and we here from]  Dr. Adam Prinsen  [who tells most type of medicine is] antipathic ";

Note: oh how woo marches on, oh Canada. "Tricks" is quite the appropriate word.  Here's a thorough evisceration of live blood cell analysis at Science-Based Medicine.  Here's Quackwatch's take on applied kinesiology.

Naturopathic Student Debt: Starts with Institutionalized Falsehood and Doesn't End

here, I point out the false labels naturopathic North American educational entities and overseers use including schools, schools' consortia, ND organizations, States, the Federal government, and accreditation bodies [see 001., below]; then, I remind any such future educational consumers that student loan debt is hugely nondischargeable / for life [002., below]:

001. institutionalized falsehood / a "branch of medical science" that is, at its heart, of claims and methods that are patently science-exterior:

Note: what I will point out here is the claim that naturopathy is "science based" or a "branch of medical science" or "of the same science foundation", and then show that that very-same area has, at its heart, quite a science-ejected or non-science-employing core.  And one thing to note too: this is SO EASY TO DO.

001.a. schools:

I have, for years, collected and archived many of the 'science subset naturopathy' claims of the North American schools.   On this web page (here), see section I.01.a2. through I.01.a8.

001.b. schools' consortia:

on that same page, see section I.01.a1.

001.c. ND organizations, States, Federal:

on that same page, see section I.02. and I.03.

001.d. accreditation bodies:

I'll just list the accreditors for the 5 U.S. schools:

in Connecticut for UBCNM, this is UB's page listing their overseers;

in Illinois, for NUHS, this is their list;

in Arizona, this is SCNM's list;

in Oregon, this is NCNM's list;

in Washington State, this is Bastyr's list.

Note: what a RICO-type apparatus.  You have more consumer rights on a used car lot, though a naturopathy education is like a quarter of a million dollars in cost if you include the prerequisites.

002. student loans are for life according to the United States Federal Government Department of Education [perhaps in essence just a branch of the banking industry], in "Forgiveness, Cancellation, and Discharge":

"you must repay your loans even if you don’t complete your education, can’t find a job related to your program of study, or are unhappy with the education you paid for with your loan.  However, certain circumstances might lead to your loans being forgiven, canceled, or discharged."

Note: "certain circumstances" my ass.  The conditions look quite favorable for banks never to have their loans discharged.  But, I notice, there is one category missing in the title of this .gov site: prosecution.  I have written in the past to the ed.gov requesting they pursue prosecution of the naturopathy apparatus.  This is highly unlikely, as they'd have to prosecute themselves.

and you will be quite wrong, in sum, claiming professionalism subset science subset naturopathy subset nonscience.