Tuesday, January 7, 2014

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 004a (Part 1 of 5) - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the first part of my five-part Episode 004 of The Naturocrit Podcast, "The NYANP: Their 2014 Bill Fabrication and Content History". In this first thirty-minute section, I explain the episode's structure, quote in-part from the NYANP Webinar, and from archived ND Koda web pages:

001. the Episode 004a (Part 1 of 5) script and annotations:

Standard Intro.:

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 veneer "natural" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

Episode Synopsis:

In this five-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 004, which I have titled "The NYANP: Their 2014 Bill Fabrication and Content History", after having spent about an hour in Episode 003 on AANP-Alliance web and ND Pizzorno printed materials from the 1990s,


I will quote from and comment upon the 'quite strategically selected' language of the nascent New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians' 2014 naturopathy licensure bill as informed through a recent fall 2013 NYANP public webinar.

What I seek to display, by way of this webinar example, is naturopathy's tendency to disguise its essence, a tendency that I'll term here "fabrication."


I will also compare this NYANP bill language describing naturopathy to that of NYANP principals', their alma maters', and those schools' state organizations ['principal' as in peoples'].

So, we'll jump from Episode 003's naturopathy claims from about twenty years ago to the present 2014-01, and near future, and do some language comparison based upon 'content history' or what I'll call 'an historical preponderance'.


And finally, since we ARE dealing with science and New York, I will cite from the Next Generation Science Standards by way of the National Academies Press, archived New York Academy of Sciences web pages, and a few other ACADEMIC sources regarding the nonscientific status of naturopathy's essential, core or defining vitalistic-supernatural and teleological therapeutic obligations.


Because, interestingly enough, the primary regulator for 'the professions' in NY is their ".gov" Department of Education, and based on how the NDs have worded their 2014 bill, with naturopathy labeled broadly as scientific and its specific contents mainly coded in language that doesn't clearly communicate the actual nonscientific obligations and activities that DEFINE naturopathy, NYS will be approving a law that allows the false labeling of what's nonscientific as "scientific", quite in contradiction to preponderant science education academic STANDARDS. 

Yes, NYS's ACADEMIC authority will place the state seal upon naturopathy's 'quite eventually obvious' false categorizations.

Much like the State of Oregon, we will then end up with endorsement of quite an unnecessary and unenforceable epistemic muddle that completely erodes consumer protection and completely betrays the public trust.

This New York naturopathy licensure law will be a legal endorsement of the practice of pseudoscience, subterfuge or opacity, and falsehood, and the perpetrators will be....

regulating themselves...

in partnership with the State of New York.

I'll add this as an aside right now: epistemic distinctions CAN be made.

Philosophers of science seem to often run aground on the shoals of the 'demarcation problem' -- overemphasizing legitimate 'gray' knowledge areas, that I believe can exist – and therein surrendering to a kind of inappropriate epistemic nihilism wherein ALL knowledge is then claimed, based on those narrow, gray areas, to be indistinguishable.

This strikes me as lazy thought, and need I mention Kitzmiller v. Dover and the distinctions that were made therein!

I've thought about this a lot and what I use right now is this example: there are distinctions to be made between science and abject nonscience just as we can starkly distinguish between midday and midnight.

There are ALSO knowledge vagarities of a kind that exist much like twilight, or specifically demarcating an exact end or beginning to night and day, or what will temporally endure scientific scrutiny and what will not.

But just BECAUSE both areas exist, the stark and the vague, science now and the no longer scientific, that doesn't make knowledge, with one lazy brushstroke, 'all the same' -- vague and indeterminable.

It doesn't strike me as rational to argue that just because the narrow borders of a largely distinct scientific area are ambiguous or in flux, that then ALL areas in question internal and external to that largely distinct scientific area are therein ambiguous.

We can exert some honest mental muscle and be more, shall I say, granular and analytical than that.

Otherwise, like I said, we succumb to a kind of epistemic nihilism.

The overarching question for this Episode 004 is:

"will NYANP naturopathy accurately define and locate itself for the public and legislators in the New York State licensure bill that they are drafting for 2014 along the lines of its 'illegitimate informed consent and actual non-fiduciary status' and 'inauthentic epistemic categorization'?"



By the way, my next episode of this podcast, Episode 005, will deal with part of the rich vein of naturopathic 'current and historical preponderance' that exists across the Northern international border of the U.S. and my home state of New York: the naturopathic shenanigans in Ontario, Canada where naturopaths have been regulated since 1925.

There are over 1200 NDs on the Ontario naturopathy register!

This has rather randomly come about as an episode topic.

In the NYANP webinar I will use for this current Episode 004 we're told:

"[in NYS] a naturopathic doctor [...will be, in the proposed law] prohibited from performing acupuncture [01.14.13]."

In Ontario, NDs CAN practice acupuncture without a separate acupuncture license.

So, I was reminded of how the web pages of NDs up there, which I have read for years, and some of which I do use in this Episode 004, with acupuncture and TCM in their scope, reveal SO MUCH in terms of naturopathy's essential so-often HIDDEN beliefs and therapeutic goals.

I. Vimeo and The Webinar:

I.i. NYANP's Vimeo account and membership:

The Vimeo account of the NYANP [vsc 2014-01-04], where I accessed the webinar, appears to be about one year old based upon the time stamp of their first video upload.

The account has total of eight videos, as of 2013-12.

Incidentally, the content at Vimeo.com is not only public; you can directly download Vimeo videos quite easily.

Three NDs feature prominently in these 8 videos:

Brinkman, R. (NCNM 1980), the current NYANP President;

Koda, S. (Bastyr 2003), who is also a lawyer and the 2014 bill's architect [this was his web site when he practiced];

and Wilson, D. (Bastyr 2000), the current Legislative Chair and past NYANP President.

Rounding out the NYANP are these NDs listed as their current Board of Directors [vsc 2014-01-04]:

Bongiorno, P.B. (Bastyr 2003), the Vice President; Heerey, S. (NCNM), the Treasurer;

The NYANP membership list [vsc 2014-01-04] -- which is a little padded by way of repetitions, and maiden / married surname redundant entries [and an ND who has moved out of the state] -- also includes these NDs:

Hoffmann (Bastyr 2010) [who moved back to Washington per "Dr. Hoffmann returns to Washington following a busy patient care experience on Long Island, NY"];

I will later cite from the web pages of some these practitioners, their alma maters, and their state organizations.

Of all the NDs I've just mentioned, ND Mittman is quite supreme in the naturopathic organizations' hierarchy.

He is the President of the AANP-CAND North American school consortia the AANMC, as well as President of SCNM.

Mittman has published some very SPECIAL stuff that is very specially illuminating in terms of 'the essentially naturopathic' that I will make sure to get into.

I.ii. The NYANP Vimeo webinar video overview:

The webinar itself is the video titled "Bill Language Webinar - Large 540p" [vsc 2013-11-28] and it has been up on the NYANP Vimeo account for about 3 months as of 2013-12.

ND Koda is the centerpiece in the video as the bill architect and what I'll call the 'language selector'.

Also in the webinar, is ND Brinkman who serves as a host:

ND Brinkman explains:

"Welcome NY NDs. This is Dr. Rick Brinkman on behalf of the NYANP Board, and this is a legislative update. A crucial webinar to get your feedback [...about] the proposed law [...] helping us do that is Stephen Koda, who is a naturopathic doctor and an attorney [00.00.45...who in Washington state] was a past board member and treasurer of the Washington Association of Naturopathic Physicians [00.01.00...a state where he also] maintained a health practice [00.01.08...but now apparently he is solely in NY] practicing law [...as a] patent litigator and prosecutor [00.01.13...he has] helped draft the changes to the second round of the proposed licensing bill [00.01.24...] Steve wasn't a member of the NYANP [for the 2012 first round] and now is [...he] has put [in] quite an amount of hours going through this, making numerous presentations to the Board [...] you did a great job here [01.27.04]."

ND Koda states:

"It definitely was time to step up and contribute what skills I have beyond the skills of a naturopathic doctor to make a difference [01.27.17]."

I pulled out those excerpts as a general introduction to the theme of the webinar: licensure by way of an ND writing the proposed law's language, and the language very much pleasing the President of the NY AANP-AANMC type naturopaths!

Now, the 2012 NYANP licensure effort failed and oddly enough, ND Koda THEN was one of the NDs that OBJECTED to the proposed law.

There was quite a lot of in-fighting amongst the NY naturopaths in that first round, and I must admit that I, too, contacted the central sponsoring legislator to voice my opinion.

In the past, I have also shared material from my experience of 'naturopathic school miseducation', in Connecticut and from my further research, with the New York Attorney General's Office, particularly because it is NYSHSC or some 'NYS .gov' entity like that, which holds my consolidated student loan aggregate from my graduate studies.

I suppose it is ironic that my college and university studies have led me, in sum, to a position of CRITICAL analysis of naturopathy, which is an activity I regard as an academic and ethical duty.

And it is in no way ironic that the student loan bills which I've amassed on this journey -- this journey into monstrous falsehood -- well, I'll be paying towards those for the rest of my life and I will not even dent them.

The lessons we learn, the monsters we meet!

I plan in 2014 to do another round of such 'sharing' with the people in NY, by the way, to point out, as the introduction to this podcast states, naturopathy's "misrepresentation and irrationality", though this licensed falsehood and pseudoscience likely will simply just march on.

I.iii. "Language: An Historical Preponderance":

I thought it would be interesting to FIRST visit the PREVIOUS language used to describe naturopathy that can be found at ND Koda's own practice page, at WANP, and at the AANP.

What's claimed and what has been omitted?

a.) My first example of 'historical language preponderance' is ND Koda's own practice page:

These pages are apparently no longer live online but they are archived.

Archive.org indexes vsnaturopathy.com from 2005 until 2013.

a.i.) What's claimed, science broadly:

ND Koda's 2006 [vsc 2013-01-05] and 2012 archived page "Twenty Questions About Naturopathy" states:

"is naturopathic medicine scientific? Yes [...] many of the individual therapies of naturopathic medical practice have been scientifically validated [...including] homeopathy [...and ND Koda writes of] state-of-the-art double-blind and placebo-controlled studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

I think that can be taken as a categorical "yes", or what I often call the 'science subset naturopathy claim': that pretense of being scientific.

Now, we're also told:

"naturopathic physicians use therapies [...] according to the naturopathic principles [...this is a] philosophical approach [...using] treatments that work in alliance with the natural healing mechanisms of the body [NHMB]."

It is not, in my view, strange to EXPECT then that naturopathy's principles and treatments SHOULD be science-supported, since we have been told categorically or broadly "scientific yes."

In the 2006 archived page "Our Services" [vsc 2013-01-05], we're told:

"patient diagnosis and assessment [...is] consistent with the principles of naturopathic medicine."

In the 2006 archived "VS-Flyer" [vsc 2013-01-05], which is a pdf snail-mail kind of brochure, were told:

"naturopathy is a distinct system."

The previously cited page "Twenty Questions About Naturopathy" also called naturopathy:

"a distinct American medical profession [...and also stated] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) supports legislation to license NDs in all states in order to distinguish properly trained physicians from [the] lesser trained individuals who may present a danger to the public."

A distinct and distinguishing proper scientific profession!

And we're also told, from that Flyer pdf:

"products distributed from the premises are distributed under prescription, and include nutritional supplements, botanical medicines, homeopathic remedies, and glandular extracts [...] our treatment modalities [...are] modalities consistent with the principles of naturopathic medicine [...and they] include [...] homeopathy [...and also mentioned are] bioenergetic techniques."

Yes, so I'll again say one would feel reasonably led to believe that it would be quite 'distinctly true' to think that naturopathy's principles and treatments would be properly scientific, since we have been told "scientific yes" and "distinct".

And we're also told by ND Koda on that [Flyer] page:

"one of the naturopathic principles is to treat the whole person. We recognize that you are body, mind and soul."

Now, a soul is a supernatural article of faith and not a science-supported claim.

As I've said in the past, I'm all for freedom of belief, because it is a fundamental human right.

But science, patently, does not contain the supernatural.

Calling the supernatural scientific is WORSE than calling iron ore a fruit just because it is colorful.

a.ii.) What's omitted, vitalism nonscience:

And finally we're told, from that same Flyer page:

"another [naturopathic principle] is that we recognize your innate self-healing ability [ISHA]."

Oh, the LURING by way of coding or omitting that naturopathic core: vitalism.

That callousness concerning consent!

Even with ND Koda's 2011 archived page "Therapeutic Order" [vsc 2014-01-05] we're NOT clearly told about that vitalistic therapeutic goal, all we're told is:

"[goal] #2: stimulate and support the self-healing processes [SHP...with such things as] classical / elemental homeopathy."

We're not told transparently that SHP is vital force, even though a vital force as a therapeutic goal is mentioned explicitly in the official therapeutic order in naturopathy's central textbook [vsc 2014-01-05] as:

"the vis medicatrix naturae, [which is] the vital force, [which is] the healing power of nature."

And, even in ND Koda's 2010 archived page "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2014-01-05], we're only told:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are part of what distinguishes the naturopathic approach to health care from the conventional approach and are based on objective observation of the nature of health and disease. The following principles are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]: naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process [ISHP] in the body that is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to recovery as well as to facilitate and augment this healing ability [THA]."

We have a supposedly "distinct" and 'distinguishing' system supposedly talking about what "distinguishes" it, claiming that "it" is objective fact, yet the specific "nature" -- excuse the pun -- of that "it" is presented by ND Koda in a veiled manner.

Again, so much for INFORMED consent.

"It" of course is that vital force spirit figmentation [VFSF] that they believe runs physiology 'intelligently.'

As another chapter in that central textbook states [the 3rd edition of The Textbook of Natural Medicine by NDs Pizzorno and Murray, which I own in paper; see it here in part at books.google.com]:

"the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [...] naturopathic medicine is grounded in vis medicatrix naturae [...a belief in] life's 'special quality' suggest[ing] an 'organizing force' that goes beyond what is possible from mere chemistry [...] proponents of vitalism and naturopathic medicine have always understood that the 'healing power of nature' is an inherent property of the living organism. Vis medicatrix naturae is the living organism's 'desire' and ability to heal itself."

That intelligent, goal-directed, 'desire' aspect of VFSF is roughly known as teleology by way of what's often called dualism, by the way.

But in science, physiology IS biochemistry and is due to causes not goals or desires, and in psychology which is the science of mind, intelligence is a mental characteristic that emerges as the functioning of a rather complex BRAIN.

Oh, the indistinction between science and nonscience: naturopathy's inane MOs of the 'camouflaged distinct' and the 'distinctly blended'!

So, just to summarize ND Koda's 'defining style' from his recently defunct web pages describing naturopathy: claim science upon the veiled nonscientific [that coded vitalism as ISHA, NHMB, SHP, ISHP, HPN-VMN, THA, or IHP] and abjectly nonscientific [such as homeopathy, bioenergetic therapies, and the supernatural].

Also note that I'm not saying, as I EMPHASIZE in the podcast introduction, that ALL of what naturopathy labels as science ISN'T science.

The problem is that with abject nonscience also called science by naturopathy, institutionally on-downwards to the individual ND, naturopathy's epistemic labels cannot be TRUSTED and therein one cannot consent in an INFORMED manner.

And I'm talking again about the STARK: it's like equating taking an aspirin for a headache and hitting yourself over the head with a hammer for a headache as equally valid.

There is some stark DIFFERENCE there.

Or, better yet, it's like saying an article of faith, which is a choice as in a leap of faith in the absence of evidence, isn't that but instead an objective scientific fact, which an act of faith or believing isn't, therein taking away a person's CHOICE in terms of belief or nonbelief.

So what appears to have been taken away?

Your right to know and your right to choose.

Because we don’t' get to CHOOSE how the physical world really is when scientifically vetted and known, as we do get to choose what we believe or don't believe in terms of freedom of belief.

If you are misled that what you DO get to choose is instead and obligatory OBJECTIVE FACT, well that seems to be quite a violation of a basic human right: freedom of belief.

It also seems dangerous to me to be unable or perhaps unwilling to discern the DIFFERENCE between what's a fact and what's a figmentation when it comes to the safety of the public, who are looking towards NDs for rigorous, SCIENTIFIC, medical expertise!

NDs, from what I see by way of their NONDISTINGUISHING and manipulative MO, wear the white lab coat of medical science and simultaneously the black vestment of the ministry, and in all that in-sum greyness BOTH the integrity of science and freedom of belief are quite harmed.

And this is called being a "properly trained physician" by the AANP, according to ND Koda's page...

Well, all that is not very proper or helpful because, overall, who has ever heard of a supposed professional who cannot be TRUSTED?

And trust them I would not.

I'll be tabulating similar results from the examples I've used in this episode, and I will include that summarizing table in the transcript of this podcast at the Naturocrit Blog.

This has been part one of this five-part Episode 004.

Post a Comment