Tuesday, January 21, 2014

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 004d (Part 4 of 5) - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the fourth part of the fourth episode of The Naturocrit Podcast, "The NYANP: Their 2014 Bill Fabrication and Content History".  I compare the NYANP draft bill language describing naturopathy to that of New York University, and NYANP principals' alma maters' and state naturopathy organizations':

001. the Episode 004d (Part 4 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 Part Four of this five-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 004, I will compare the NYANP draft bill language describing naturopathy to that of, believe it or not, New York University and a naturopath practicing at NYU, and then NYANP principals' alma maters' and their state organizations'.

This Part Four, like Part Three, will be unusually longer than my typical 30-ish minutes [about 63 minutes].

If you recall, in Part One: I briefly described the NYANP public Vimeo webinar I've used as the primary source for this Episode 004 and went in-depth with the PREVIOUS language used by lawyer and ND Koda, the 2014 NYS naturopathy licensure bill language architect, from his now archived practice pages.

In Part Two, I covered what I've called the 'historical language preponderance' of WANP and AANP, and then the language of that 2014 NYANP-AANP bill draft.

In Part Three, I quoted from the web pages of the NYANP's principals.

In Part Five, I will cite from the Next Generation Science Standards by way of the National Academies Press publication "A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)" because there is a HUGELY IMPORTANT section directly relating to naturopathy's CORE IDEA in that document.

I'll also employ archived New York Academy of Sciences web pages, and a few other ACADEMIC sources including NYU's Alan Sokal, and then this multiparted Episode 004 will be finished.

Naturopathy at NYU:

ND Bongiorno, in Part Three, had told us he's "an adjunct faculty member at New York University."

Well, since this is an Episode about New York, lets go there too.

Coincidences, coincidences!

I attended NYU before UB's naturopathy college, and the naturopath practicing naturopathy there is actually a former classmate.

So, we'll now look at that ND's ".com" pages and NYU's ".edu" pages.

NYU's ND Espinosa:

We're told at urology.med.nyu.edu "prostate-cancer" in "About Geo Espinosa, ND, Lac" [vsc 2014-01-17]:

"Geo Espinosa, ND [...] a renowned naturopathic urologist [...] a recognized authority in natural and complementary treatments for benign and malignant urological conditions [...] the director of the Integrative Urology Center at New York University Langone Medical Center [NYULMC...] a center of EXCELLENCE in research and integrative treatments for urologic conditions. He received his doctorate of naturopathic medicine and masters in acupuncture from the University of Bridgeport."

And, may I add, both programs are housed within UB's health sciences division.

There's also a video of ND Espinosa at urology.med.nyu.edu [vsc 2014-01-14] which talks of oncology and:

"the science of lifestyle medicine [...and] the science behind [etc.]".

So, employed labels: "excellence", "medical", "science" subset naturopathy and acupuncture!

I'm, of course, more interested in digging DEEPER into the nonscience FURTHER BEHIND these areas labeled as having 'science BEHIND them'.

We're told, in a 2011 archived page selling VERY expensive supplements [vsc 2014-01-17], that ND Espinosa's "professional associations" include:

"[the] American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...and the] New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians (NYANP)" and that he's the "chief SCIENCE officer at Prostate Research Labs."

At ND Espinosa's 2013 archived page "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2014-01-17] we're told:

"naturopathic principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...] principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature: the naturopathic physician’s role is to support, facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external environment."

'Scientific' vetting, AND that's all you are told about their HPN.

We know their healing power of nature is "life force" which is also called "qi", and I will use the AANP's 1997 book to support that equation.

Now, if that ND Espinosa language LEADS one to believe that HPN-VFSF survives scientific scrutiny, essentially, one would be wrong.

One would have been misled.

But, you have to go BEHIND this typical naturopathy language, BEHIND their typical claim that science is BEHIND a CODED science-exterior context.

It's complicated: oh, what a tangled web we weave...

NYU 'Page 01':

NYULMC states in the 2011 archived page "Naturopathy" at med.nyu.edu [vsc 2014-01-17]:

"what is naturopathy? Naturopathy or 'natural medicine' [...or the] 'holistic' [...the] principles of naturopathic medicine [...include] a CLOSE connection to vis medicatrix naturae [...] the premier practitioners of this form of medicine are naturopathic physicians (NDs) [...] the DEFINING principle of naturopathy is vis medicatrix naturae or nature’s healing power. From this perspective, disease is caused by departing from the natural way of living and health is established by returning to it [...] naturopathic medicine attempts to find the UNDERLYING cause of the patient’s condition rather than focusing solely on symptomatic treatment [...it] seeks to treat the cause of an ailment and not just its symptoms [...it's] based on a philosophy that acknowledges the patient as a participant in treatment and care [...as] whole-patient wellness [...] whole-person wellness."

Ehhhhhhhh, I don't think that's GOOD ENOUGH regarding 'what it IS' for us to be TRULY informed as consumers.

And ESPECIALLY if we are patients who are placing quite an amount of TRUST in an ND doing ONCOLOGY.

'It' of course being that VMN.

Ah yes, EXCELLENT medical science.

Omissions, omissions.

When you know what's "underlying".

We're also told:

"much of conventional medicine’s current interest in diet and lifestyle came into being through the influence of naturopathic practitioners [...naturopathy] is one of the most important branches of alternative medicine, exerting an influence far beyond the actual numbers of its formal practitioners."

Oh, the spin, the swagger!

[The bullshit].

And then we are WARNED, by NYU, after these labels of excellent, medical and science, STRANGELY ENOUGH:

"[for herbalism] growing scientific evidence [not to pun...and] considerable evidence [...] naturopathic practitioners are also famous for emphasizing the use of vitamins and supplements [...] orthomolecular medicine [...an] approach now incorporated into naturopathy [...] that the roots of many diseases may be found in a subtle form of malnutrition [...] when nutrient levels in the body are increased, the theory goes, the body will have the means to heal itself [...] on this principle, naturopathic practitioners often recommend that people take relatively high doses of certain nutrients in the form of supplements [yet we KNOW this theory is NOT TRUE...] another traditional naturopathic emphasis revolves around the concept of detoxification [...wherein] toxins [...] accumulate in the body. These toxins are said to be a major cause of disease, and removing them from the body is believed to promote health. Detoxification methods include adopting a healthful diet, drinking large quantities of water, using cleansing herbs and supplements, and undergoing special processes such as colon-cleansing, liver-flushing, and removal of mercury fillings [...yet specifically] as yet, there is little scientific evidence that [...naturopathy's detoxification] methods enhance general health [...] immune support [...] naturopathic practitioners utilize a number of treatments that they believe will enhance immunity [...yet specifically] it has proved difficult to establish scientifically that any treatment does indeed 'boost' immunity [...] naturopathic practitioners frequently recommend treatments they believe will help the adrenals [...] there is little in the way of specific scientific evidence to indicate that methods used to support the adrenals are beneficial for any disease."

Interesting: a broad EXCELLENT medical science label upon junk therapeutic ideas like megasupplementation and detoxification, and ADMITTED as claims that are QUITE EMPTY in terms of SCIENCE.

The epistemic dissonance there at NYU, in sum: 

it's like getting punched in the face and caressed at the same time / "But of course he loves me, that's why he beats me."

NYU 'Page 02':

The NYULMC states in the 2013 archived page "Urology: Naturopathic Medicine FAQs" at urology.med.nyu.edu [vsc 2014-01-17]:

"naturopathic medicine blends."


There we have it!

Epistemically blending, in their own words the "centuries-old" and the "current."

Yet, broadly claimed as CURRENT science which ISN'T an epistemic blend but an epistemic distinction.

And, here's NYU employing naturopathy's ULTIMATE broad science claim:

"a naturopathic physician (ND) is a primary care primary care physician [it really reads like that, by the way...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] an ND cooperates with all other branches of medical science."

I observe NOT MUCH proofreading, or THINKING going on there!

The new excellence!

Question: does NYU simply think we are DUMB?

First, we're BROADLY warned that so much of naturopathy's activities aren't science-supported, then there's this blanket statement of being a branch of "medical science."

So, how is the not-science-supported bloody-well scientific?

Yes, the epistemic dissonance there at NYU!

Again, HOW DUMB do they think we ARE, or, perhaps, how dumb are they at this ACADEMIC ".edu" site?

That first NYU page, "Naturopathy" at med.nyu.edu, had stated naturopathy:

"tailors treatments and medicine to the patient [...] naturopathic medicine concentrates on and is tailored to the patient [...and it said NDs are] the only primary care physicians clinically trained in the use of a wide variety of natural therapeutics [...including] homeopathy [...which] is part of the repertoire of therapies employed by naturopathic doctors [...] naturopathic medicine encompasses homeopathy and several other natural therapies [...and an ND is] an expert in natural medicine."

You know, placing the patient first in naturopathy's context of "concentrates" and "tailored" sense is an iteration of 'fiduciary duty'.

In HOW MANY WAYS does a therapy which is EMPTY, such as the "natural medicine" homeopathy, violate that fiduciary duty virtue?

You know, if you throw STUPID at me in terms of treatment by way of magic beans and unicorn tears, specifically recommending for me HOMEOPATHY pills, I don't feel tailored to.

Calling homeopathy scientific is like calling calling iron ore a fruit just because it is colorful.

Yes, in this episode I'm going to, likely sadly, keep at that VERY BAD analogy I made-up during my thinking about all this.

Well, obviously, I don't feel tailored to, I'm feeling like I'm in the company of CRAZY!

Like I'm back in naturopathy school and at that very weird moment, while watching one of the NDs on the faculty do craniosacral therapy for the first time at the on-campus regional ND conference, when I realized that right in front of me was deluded CRAZY.

What ISN'T funny is that all this second NYU page stuff is MIRRORED at NYULMC's 2014 archived "Psychiatry" page at psych.med.nyu.edu [vsc 2014-01-17].

Yes, we are being quite psyched.It's not funny to me because I figure people mentally, emotionally, or behaviorally VULNERABLE as in potentially ill or suffering psychologically or psychiatrically, are now getting this EXCELLENT naturopathy language-abuse.

And here's an offhand language comparison by way of "an unequal equation":

that first NYU page had told us "naturopathy or 'natural medicine' is one of the most important BRANCHES of alternative medicine" and that second NYU page told us "naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other BRANCHES of medical science."

Naturopathy is posed as a branch of BOTH science and AM, as if those trunks are the same.

But, alternative medicine is NOT medical science.Those branches are on DIFFERENT epistemic trees, so to speak.

For supposed 'holistic' people-looking-at-the-forest and not-just-the-trees, there is quite a bit of terminological dissonance here:

the yes that is no, the excellent that is crazy idiotic, the .edu that is .nuts.

But, this is as one would expect when things are conflated instead of delineated, and swallowed whole or hol- instead of analyzed, when values are reversed.

That first NYU example page had also stated:

"the INFORMATION [is] COURTESY of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...and we're invited to] visit [...] naturopathic.org [...to find] more information [...and it spoke of] accredited colleges in North America [...including] Bastyr University [...] Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine [...] Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] National College of Natural Medicine [...] Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine."

Speaking of the company of ACADEMIC crazy, those AANP and CAND naturopathy schools we've yet to VISIT in this episode along with their state or provincial organizations.

I LOVE information, especially from the AANP, so I will now do a further COURTESY and DECODE this NYU LMC language by way of the AANP's own book from 1997, which I own and have digitized.

But first, one more item about NYU.

Now, to give NYU a LITTLE break, but one that therein displays NYU's huge intellectual dissonance or hypocrisy regarding 'what is and isn't science', there's the med.nyu.edu 2013 archived page "The Blood Type Diet: Eat Right for Your Type" [vsc 2014-01-17].

Now, this is ND D'Adamo's stuff I'd talked about in Part Three.

We're told:

"developed by Dr. Peter D’Adamo, a naturopathic physician [...] the theory that our blood type determines what we should eat or what kind of exercise we should do is not supported by scientific evidence [...it's not] based on solid science."

And here I am THINKING:

NYU broadly claims that naturopathy is of the current "sciences", which therein includes all the abjectly nonscientific 'essentially naturopathic' stuff like its coded supernatural-vitalism beliefs and its homeopathic ACTIVITIES etc., and yet here a rather potentially biologically-possible or -plausible idea is evaluated as nonscientific.

So, let me get this straight:

if it doesn't have supporting evidence but is processable by science 'it' is nonscientific in NYU's world, which is rather rational, but if it is abjectly science-ejected and outside the boundaries of what science can even process...

it's science, which is irrational.

AANP's 1997 Book:

I have to wonder if anyone knows about the existence of the rather long book "A Guide to Alternative Medicine: Ancient and Modern Therapies To Expand Your Medical Horizons" written "in consultation with the AANP".

It is ISBN 0785319840 and dated 1997, just about the time that the naturopathy program started at UB within their supposed division of health sciences.

The book's "contributing reviewers" were NDs Head, Bettenburg, Birdsall, and Kimatan and we're told:

"this publication was reviewed by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. The AANP's mission is to empower members of the association with the knowledge, tools, skills, and guidance to help them succeed in educating and guiding their communities and patients toward greater health and well-being and to transform the health care system from disease management to health promotion by incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine."

An interesting mission: disempowering epistemic conflation spread by miseducating.

In sum, in my humble opinion.

And we're told:

"naturopathy operates on the basis of six principles of healing [...including] the healing power of nature: naturopathy believes that nature acts powerfully through healing mechanisms in the body and mind to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic physicians seek to restore and support these inherent healing systems through medicines and techniques that are in harmony with natural processes."

And that's all you get there: NOT ENOUGH to really know what it's all about.

It being that HPN:

"natural processes" that, strangely enough, when you dig deep enough, are, essentially, 'supernaturally governed' by 'it.'

But, with the power of a searchable pdf of the physical book, you can find that "it" that's in the whole or hol-, that VFSF:

"acupuncture views illness as an imbalance in the body's vital energy force, or qi [...] the oriental concept of life force, or qi, and the naturopathic concept of the healing power of nature are similar in theory if not in language [that is quite useful...] in the West, the most common religions are focused on the Judo-Christian god. [Similarly] a number of cultures recognize a universal force or life energy, such as qi in China or prana in India. Whatever definition you choose, [this] religion or spirituality [that is quite useful, as well]."

And there you go, by way of the AANP: VFSF equated with a kind of religiousy or beliefy system.

I've used various terms to describe naturopathy's particular brand of sectarianism:

autoentheism, pananimatism, and my favorite, from a DEPOSITION between myself and UB, "cultic mystical weirdness."

As I'd said earlier, that white lab coat of SCIENCE and underneath or underLYING, the black vestment of SECTARIANISM.

Also, we're told:

"homeopathy is [...a] therapy that dovetails well with the naturopathic philosophy of the healing power of nature and treating the whole person."

Agreed: ND Mittman in Part 3 of this Episode 004 gave us a quite detailed 'reading from the book of Hahnemann.'

As for science as a claim, there are at least 45 instances of the word "scientific" in this book.

And there are such jewels as:

"evidence is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry [...] the ancient Chinese science of acupuncture [...] the science of homeopathy is a prominent part of many naturopathic practices".

And there are, at least, 182 instances of the root "homeop".

Showing its historical place, the late 1990s, we're told in the book:

"there are currently three colleges of naturopathic medicine in the United States [...] Bastyr [...] National College of Naturopathic Medicine [...and] Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences [...and] Canada has the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine."

There are more schools than that now!

As evident at the NYU page that listed six, but for whatever reason omitted NUHS, which brings the tally to seven.

Count on naturopathy to OMIT things.

II.b. NYANP Members Alma Maters:

Now, the schools from which the NDs of the NYANP membership got their doctorates in naturopathy from, which are either in the United States or Canada, are:


NUHS gets a pass in this episode.

I've been collecting the broad science claims and the essential vitalism beliefs that these schools have published for several years.

I'll pick an example for each and link to my main Appendix collections for those listeners interested in the larger PREPONDERANCE.

I actually don't have Appendices on naturopathy's overt supernaturalism, as it's simply SO ABUNDANT and LESS VEILED than their vitalism which, as we know now, ends up being a form of supernaturalism, as we saw by way of ND Pizzorno in Episode 003b and ND Mittman in Part 3 of this Episode 004.

Bastyr .edu:

broad science claim, supernaturalism and CODED vitalism [see the science-claim collection here]:

There is this 'hole in one' sentence that Bastyr uses to define itself, which is a combination of words quite unique to that school.

From the 2002 archived page "Vision/ Mission" [vsc 2013-12-27] we're told:

"our vision: Bastyr University will be the world's leading academic center for advancing knowledge in the natural health sciences. Our mission: we educate future leaders in natural health sciences that integrate mind, body, spirit and nature."

Yes, science subset OVERT supernaturalism, and coded vitalism by way of "nature".

overt vitalism [see the collection here]:

In the 2001 archived page "Courses" [vsc 2013-12-27] we're told:

"Sally Ringdahl, ND, MEd, dean, Pamela Snider, ND, associate dean [...] NM5131 Naturopathic Clinical Theory [...] the therapeutic order is introduced. The vitalistic context of science-based, modern naturopathic medicine is emphasized [...] NM5136 The Vis Medicatrix Naturae [yes, a course named after their VFSF...] naturopathic medicine’s core clinical principle, the vis medicatrix naturae, is shared by traditional systems of medicine throughout the world. This course explores clinical research, writings and techniques from various systems of medicine which incorporate nature’s influence on healing, the nature of the healing processes, and the vital or life force [...] NM9118 Energetics of Natural Medicine [...] this course presents an analysis of the vital force."

So there's overt vitalism, buried DEEP in the archives of bastyr.edu.

BINM .edu:

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

There's the 2006 archived page "The Only Naturopathic Medical School in Western Canada Opens New Campus" [vsc 2013-12-27] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is a science-based alternative medicine approach."

overt vitalism [see the collection here]:

There's the 2013 archived page "Natural Selections: Focus on Allergies" [vsc 2013-12-27] which states:

"we all have an innate ability to heal, called the 'vital force'. When this force is weak you are susceptible to disease [...and the sidebar states that the] principles of naturopathic medicine [...include #3] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [...and we're told] acupuncture stimulates your vital force and promotes drainage [...and] homeopathic remedies will desensitize you to your allergen, relieve your symptoms, promote drainage, and stimulate your vital force."

overt supernaturalism:

There's the 2013 archived page "Natural Selections: Focus on Kids" [vsc 2013-12-27] which states:

"homeopathy is a system of medicine that is quickly gaining popularity in Canada. It offers people a gentle yet highly effective means of treating the body, mind, and spirit [...and it speaks of] the natural healing power of the body, mind and spirit."

CCNM .edu:

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

We're told, for CCNM's entry at naturalhealers.com, in the 2007 archived page "Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2014-01-17]:

"naturopathic medicine is science-based."

overt vitalism [see the collection here]:

We're told in the 2010 archived page at ccnm.edu "NPH101" [vsc 2014-01-17]:

"this course engages students in an exploration of the basic underlying principles of naturopathic medicine [...] concepts such as holism, vitalism and health."

overt supernaturalism:

A 2011 archived page shows that the CCNM alumni magazine is called "Body Mind Spirit" [vsc 2014-01-17].

NCNM .edu:

I think the single page "About Naturopathic Medicine" at NCNM handles the broad science claim [see the collection here], the vitalism [see the collection here], and the overt supernaturalism inherent to 'the naturopathillogical' very well:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in [the] light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...#2] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development."

SCNM .edu:

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

The 2003 archived page "Frequently Asked Questions" [vsc 2010-07-29] states:

"is naturopathic medicine scientific? Yes [...and it speaks of] state of the art studies that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals".

overt vitalism [see the collection here]:

The 2004 archived page "Prolotherapy" [vsc 2010-06-12] by way of ND Schwaiger, an SCNM graduate, in SCNM's Fall 2004 Newsletter states:

“the healing power of nature or vis medicatrix naturae is based on the principle that the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process.”



That's a contradiction!

Well this is naturopathy: where I've often pointed out naturopathy's many reversals of value, like their 'distinct system that blends' and their 'general practitioner who specializes' weirdnesses.

So, similarly oddly, in the 2014 archived "Student Handbook 2013/2014" [vsc 2014-01-17] we're told:

"SCNM is a school of medicine and health sciences grounded in naturopathic principles [...our] core values [include the acronym] S.P.I.R.I.T.: service, professionalism, integrity, respect, innovation, teamwork."


Such virtues!

So this is the institution that ND Mittman RUNS, the ND who serves as the HEAD of the ND school consortia the AANMC, and who had told us in Part 3 of the Episode 004 is that the basis of naturopathy is a belief that:

"healing begins at the deepest level of being, the point where the body and its animating spirit meet."

SCNM, a school "GROUNDED in naturopathic principles" that dare not mention naturopathy's essential supernaturalism, unless as an oddly defined or oddly employed acronym.

A 'values reversal', almost literally: what is usually in naturopathy a supernatural term, spirit, used to represent virtuous secular values as the acronym s-p-i-r-i-t.

Odd indeed.

UBCNM / bridgeport.edu:

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

The 2004 archived page "Today's Naturopathic Physician" [vsc 2014-01-17] states:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician, practicing scientific medicine."

overt vitalism [see the collection here]:

In the 2004 archived "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1" [vsc 2010-06-29] we're told:

"the healing power of nature. Viz [sp., vis] medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

overt supernaturalism:

In the 2014 archived "Schools and Professional Programs" [vsc 2014-01-17] we're told:

"since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development [...]

[and they also state] the inherent healing wisdom of nature [is] the vis medicatrix naturae [...] the following principles are the FOUNDATION of naturopathic medical practice: the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self- healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process."

If you notice, there's a little alteration in language there, from 2004 to 2014, in terms of describing that HPN-VMN.

Where did the words "life force" go?

Nowadays, you can't get "life force" as a search result from bridgeport.edu as relates to NATUROPATHY.

So, the place is MORE OPAQUE or coded in 2014 than in 2004.

And also, this language at UBCNM / bridgeport.edu, "self-healing process", brings us back to the CHOSEN coding of ND Koda for the NYANP 2014 draft naturopathy licensure bill in New York State.

II.e. AANP State Orgs of NYANP Members' ND Schools:

New York / NYANP, no school:

I'm going to include NYANP in this section even though they don't host a naturopathy school, since the NYANP'-AANP legislation in question is in new York State

We must know if NYANP's 'historical language preponderance' tells us more or less than the language of their new bill.

Coincidentally, historically, the first naturopathy school was opened in New York State in 1901 according to wikipedia.org.

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

The 2013 archived page "Memorandum in Support: Licensure of Naturopathic Doctors S1803 LaValle / A1937 Hoyt" [vsc 2014-01-17], signed by ND Wilson, with the NYANP Board of Directors comprised then of ND Wilson, ND Bongiorno, ND Stills, ND D'Adamo, ND Woodbine, ND Prego, ND Heerey, MD Kenny, and ND Mittman, states:

"naturopathic doctors practice [...] using science-based natural therapies."

overt vitalism [see the collection here]:

In the 2004 archived page "Naturopathy" [vsc 2013-05-29] we're told:

"naturopathic medicine encourages the self-healing process, the vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) naturopathic medicine recognizes in the body an inherent ability, which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery and facilitate and augment this healing ability [...naturopathy's] homeopathic medicine: this powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old and is widely accepted in many countries. Homeopathic medicines, when properly prescribed, affect the body’s 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal."


No significant mention.

Washington State / WANP, the home of Bastyr:

I already dealt with WANP earlier in this episode.

If you remember, science was broadly claimed, vitalism was coded, and supernaturalism was overt.

In contrast, particularly as concerns vitalism, it can be unearthed at bastyr.edu.

British Columbia / BCNA, the home state of BINM:

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

Now, it is the BCNA which has likely my most favorite science posture.

Glenn Cassie, whom I'd received postal snail-mail material from specifically the AANP document written by Bergner, which was very courteous, and who is not a naturopath, writes in this 2011 archived page "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2013-12-27]:

"naturopathic protocols are based on research and study. Naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine. The third major difference is the philosophy of naturopathic treatment, which is threefold. First, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism [...] embracing these tenets on a science- based platform is at the heart of naturopathic care [...] a comprehensive foundation in the biological and biomedical sciences [...] in common possession of scientific facts [...] in the same scientific fashion [...] the scientific basis and validity of naturopathic protocols [...] naturopathic scientific journals [...] the division between alternative and orthodox medicine is not of a scientific nature."

Ah, the coded vitalism, the science claim upon it!

The science, science, science, science claim.

overt vitalism [see the collection here]:

In the 2012 page "Your Health" [vsc 2013-12-27] we're told:

"traditional Chinese medicine: TCM is an ancient medical science employed by various health professionals. All NDs are educated, trained and examined in TCM [as I'd said in the 'teaser' at the beginning of this Episode 004, TCM and acupuncture are within the practice scope of NDs in some Canadian provinces without a separate Lac type license...] acupuncture and/or acupressure therapies which link pressure to specific organs or other parts of the body. TCM as a whole is focused on chi, the body’s life force, and involves not only acupuncture, but herbal remedies and consultation with a physician who detects imbalances via the pulse."


No significant mention.

Ontario / OAND, the home of CCNM:

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

In the 2011 archived page "HPRAC Recommends Larger Role for NDs [...] Selling and Compounding February 2, 2009" [vsc 2014-01-17] we're told:

"science-based, safe and effective, patient-centered care are at the heart of all ND care."

vitalism [see the collection here]:

There's the 2007 archived page "Homeopathy: An ND's Perspective" [vsc 2014-01-17] which states:

“[via ND Rose] the remedy then stimulates the body to heal itself. It does this by supporting the ‘vital force’ of the person. Hahnemann described this vital force as the energy that animates all living things […] when an imbalance occurs, Hahnemann refers to this as a disturbance in the person’s vital force, symptoms, signs or susceptibilities appear.”

Another reading from the book of Hahnemann.


In the recent "Calls for Proposals Now Open!" [vsc 2014-01-17] we're told:

"our theme for 2014’s convention, Clinical Perspectives on Women’s Health – Body, Mind, and Spirit."

Oregon / OANP, the home of NCNM:

Ah, the US mothership of naturopathy: Oregon.

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

In the 2002 archived page "A Short Historical Background" [vsc 2011-07-02] we're told:

"the modern resurgence of naturopathic medicine has been built upon scientific knowledge of the mechanisms of natural healing and therapeutics. Ongoing research in immunology, diagnosis, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, psychology and other clinical sciences contribute to the development of naturopathic medical science."

vitalism and supernaturalism [see the collection here]:

In the 2014 archived page "Traditional Medicine Is But One Approach To Wellness" [vsc 2014-01-17], an OANP mirrored Oregon newspaper article from 2013-10 published in The Register-Guard we're told:

"[by way of ND Elliot, former OANP Board member] our attempts at scientific method can also be inadequate to the phenomena we seek to understand. The standard methods are not well suited to investigate the 'qi,' or life force, of Chinese medicine, or the vital force of homeopathy. If we begin with a belief that life is biochemical only [in other words if we start from the scientific preponderance], we will naturally seek our answers using the tools of biochemistry [in other words, we will do science]. If we see life as a harmonious interplay of the physical and the biochemical as well as energy, soul and spirit [in other words if we have a sectarian supernaturalistic metaphysical system previous to the findings of science], we will begin to open up to a much broader universe of possibilities. In the case of the latter, science must not restrict what we are open to discovering, but rather illuminate it."

Wow, what a STRANGE perspective, and it is quite naturopathic.

So, first we're told by OANP that science supports the mechanisms of naturopathy, and now we're told at the same web site that science cannot explain, prove, support, or 'do' the very mechanism that naturopathy claims is WHY naturopathy works and what their therapeutic goal is, that VFSF.

A strange argument because the beginning of what I just read by ND Elliot said 'science cannot support this, so don't look to science to get there' but the end of what I read says 'so we'll get there by way of science.'



I argue those are not the same science 'ways': one of them, the former, is actual science as "standard method", the other, ND Elliot's latter, is the kind of supposed science where fabrications, figmentations, vital forces, souls and spirits supposedly scientifically exist.

Wink, wink: the kind of science without evidence, where anything you want to be science is labeled science.

ND Elliot's 2006 archived page "Naturopathic Medicine", by the way, tells us:

"holistic: Dr. Elliott is guided by an understanding that each human being is comprised of: the physical (anatomy and physiology) [I believe we call that science, by the way], the energetic (called the chi, ki, prana, etheric, or vital force in different cultures) [I believe we call that the VFSF], the emotional/menta[l...and] the spiritual."

Ah, that's what's in the 'hol' or whole.

But, as an argument, that doesn't make what ISN'T supported by science, actual preponderant science, science.

It merely is a statement of beliefs mixed with science, and while the boundaries of those two areas ARE discernible, we're then quite improperly told it can all be called something that science can "illuminate."

When science is claimed as able to "illuminate" what it can't, then so much for keeping the torch of the Enlightenment lit.

Welcome to the Endarkenment.

Coincidentally, naturopathy was recently termed, in 2013, a “failed medieval paradigm“ by Canada's Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism.

Which reminds me again to tease that the next episode of this podcast series will deal with naturopathy in Ontario.

Perhaps creating the ZENITH of irony for MY WHOLE LIFE AS LIVED SO FAR, ND Elliot tells us in that article:

"when we allow our biases, whether conscious or unconscious, to influence the methodology and interpretation of scientific investigation, science becomes pseudoscience" while, on ND Elliot's 2006 archived biography pages were told:

Are you sure you know what 'pseudo' means?

Arizona / AZNMA, the home of SCNM:

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

In the 2002 archive page "Scientific Validation - Naturopathic Medicine Passes the Test" [vsc 2014-01-16] we're told:

“it is difficult to find another disciple which has successfully withstood as much scientific scrutiny as naturopathic medicine has [LAUGH!...] students are taught [...] a comprehensive foundation in the biological and biomedical sciences [...] a solid foundation of science and scientific understanding [...] naturopathic treatment methods are supported by conventional science [...] prepared by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians."



No significant mention.

No hits for even "power" or "medicatrix."


No significant mention.

That is interesting, those deficiencies are interesting.

Arizona is the state where an ND can also have the credentials NMD, where it is quite possible for consumers to confuse the ND stuff with MD stuff by way of that 'overlapping' credential NMD.

Why is there quite a lot of censoring of 'the essentially naturopathic' at AZNMA?

Again, so much for INFORMED consent.
Connecticut / CNPA, the home of UBCNM:

broad science claim [see the collection here]:

We're told in the 2014 archived page "Dr. Michael Gazsi, ND" [vsc 2014-01-17]:

"Dr. Michael Gazsi graduated from the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon, the oldest institution in the United States dedicated to the study and research of naturopathic sciences [...] naturopathic physicians [...] their philosophy [...is] vis mediatrix naturae [yes, medicatrix spelled wrong...] nature is the healer of all diseases. Their practice is based on the same, basic, bio-medical science foundation that allopathic medicine is."

Now, if you don't know the history of the word allopathic, it was invented by the founder of homeopathy, Hahnemann.

And I often call this quite the 'reverse sectarian accusation' by naturopathy towards conventional medicine or modern medicine.

Medicine, these days, is no more allopathic than chemistry is alchemic or astronomy is astrologic.

It's an empty, crazy, sectarian label: much like accusing veterinary science of having a specialty in unicorns and their tears, or biology's botany having a specialty in magic beans.

coded vitalism [see the collection here]:

All the vitalism, in CT at CNPA, is coded as far as I can tell: coded like the 2005 archived 'homepage' [vsc 2014-01-17] where we're told:

"core values: 1. the CNPA Board of Directors and its members are to abide by the Naturopathic Physician’s Oath [...and it quotes from the oath] 'according to my best ability and judgment, I will use methods of treatment that follow the principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] vis medicatrix naturae - to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature.'"

And that's all you get.

Gee, I wonder what THAT Latin term MEANS?


No significant mention.

 Again, what I find most interesting is what ISN'T mentioned.

So, by way of CNPA, we still do not deserve to KNOW so we can CHOOSE.

Part Four Conclusion: 

Obviously, amassing naturopathy's 'historical language preponderance' is NOT too difficult.

If it begin to get monotonous, well, that's my point:

whether the source is an ND school, an ND, or an ND political or guild organization, their language doesn't stray too far, in the end.

You have:

a broad or blanket science claim subset usually coded vitalism and usually blatant supernaturalism.

What doesn't happen is proper epistemic labeling IN SUM.

I know of NO naturopathy source that states outright that naturopathy is essentially:

a sectarian belief system based on specific articles of faith / prescientific ideas and methods that do not survive scientific scrutiny.

It my contention that optional subjective beliefs are being falsely posed as obligatory objective scientific fact.

This is a violation of two basic human rights, in my view:

a) the public's right to know what's reasonably what,

b) and their right to exercise freedom of belief / their right to choose.

Therein, how is it therefore possible as a patient to legitimately consent in terms of the physician-patient relationship?

And how can a 'physician' fulfill their necessary patient-centered fiduciary duty in such a context?

Well, just as science standards are thrown out the window by naturopathy, patient rights are too.

In the 2014 bill draft, there is a special mandatory requirement for New York State patients that the naturopaths are calling "consent required", but this is a misnomer.

Surprise, surprise!

Patient's actually must WAIVE their important consumer rights in the NY naturopathy bill, so NDs will not have to worry about the LIABILITY of being held to the higher standards of the conventional medical community.

They can be held to their own standards, their naturopathic standards, where unicorn tears and magic beans equal actual scientific knowledge.

Welcome consumer Endarkenment!

A slide in the webinar reads:

"each naturopathic doctor licensed pursuant to this article, shall advise each patient as to the importance of consulting with a licensed physician regarding the patient's condition and shall keep on file with the patient's records, a form attesting to the patient's notice of such advice, such form shall be in duplicate, one copy to be retained by the patient, signed and dated by both the naturopathic doctor and the patient and shall be prescribed in the following manner: 'we, the undersigned, do affirm that (patient) has been advised by (licensed naturopathic doctor) to consult a physician regarding the condition or conditions for which such patient seeks naturopathic care.'"

By the way, NDs in this bill will not be allowed the term "physician."

So, if you get hurt by the ND either through acts of commission or omission, then the form comes out, and you're told by the ND 'I'm off the hook, you were warned that I'm not a physician.'

And NDs' clinical quality will not be subject to comparisons to 'medical' standard of care, either.

So, if you get hurt by an ND, since 'science is whatever they want it to be', there's really no fiduciary point of reference anyway since the ND point of view equates actual science with sectarian articles of faith, since values are so rampantly reversed and muddled.

I imagine this situation:

a) a patient complains that the naturopathic doctor they saw did wacky things and falsely called it medical science, 

b) the new naturopathy board and ACADEMIC as in NYSDE accessories find that that's OK, because an ND is not a physician essentially but a...


based on vitalistic-supernatural 'beyond' stuff, and engaged in activities to alter that 'beyond' or 'meta' stuff.

ND Koda states, in that webinar:

"this requirement that a naturopathic doctor get in writing consent from every patient that they have been 'advised by the doctor to consult a physician regarding the condition or conditions for which such patient seeks naturopathic care' [ 1.03.05...] this is a compromise [...] something the acupuncture profession is required to do [as well...] it was adopted by us as a TACTIC to reduce resistance to licensing of naturopaths [01.03.25...yet our] full scope of practice would [...include] cancellation of [the] consent requirement regarding consult[ing] a physician [01.21.39]."

The real compromise is consumer protection and consumer rights.

I think what is meant in that bill language there is:

"as a citizen of New York State which has licensed naturopaths, you have decided to seek care from a naturopath, but you're advised by NYS to INSTEAD seek care from an ACTUAL physician. In so doing, receiving care from a naturopath in NYS, understand that you have placed yourself OUTSIDE of the rigorous and high standards of ACTUAL physician care and the consumer rights that are bundled therein. The naturopaths have our PERMISSION to do their whatever, so whatever happens, good luck, they regulate themselves mostly. But, understand that herein, you are waiving your right, with this 'consent' which is actually a waiver, to seek JUSTICE in the event of such things as physician HARM and medical malpractice through the NYS judicial apparatus, as that process is for patients of physicians who practice medicine and not for unhappy observants participating in a sectarian cultic mystical weirdness."

Why isn't this 'consent' called what it is, a waiver of rights and not a consent?

Oh, this is naturopathy: wherein NDs get to play doctor and the patient has WAIVED their rights to seek appropriate JUSTICE in the event of such things as HARM and malpractice!

It fits perfectly within what I see as naturopathy's exceptionally callousness regard for consumers' rights both clinically and academically.

And ND Koda reminds us, regarding the subjective, 'anything goes' situation naturopaths enjoy:

"naturopathic doctors are not going to be regulated like medical doctors. There's not going to be 'a patient is diagnosed with this disease and there's this standard of care that has to be performed' [00.18.29...] we're covered. We get to treat the same things as a medical doctor does, when this bill gets passed [00.31.48......but] a naturopathic doctor can't claim to practice medicine [01.18.33...yet] I don't think that it really makes sense to say that we have a naturopathic diagnosis, that it's not a medical diagnosis because it is a medical diagnosis. We do diagnose disease [00.37.42...] we still have permission to be able to use the diagnostic codes for these illnesses that we have identified [00.38.05]."

Oh, the slime!

So naturopaths in NY get to be the doctors who don't have to worry that much in their doctoring, in terms of liability.

And, as I said earlier, they get to regulate themselves.

ND Brinkman states:

"and specifically to ditch the concept of supervision by a medical doctor. This we already got through Senator Lavalle's committee as acceptable [01.03.37]."

And I can add:

to ditch the concept of our liability because we've arranged it so that a patient has waived their right to grievance using preponderant and rigorous standards against us the way they can with a conventional physician because they signed our "consent".

But you can't ditch what you ARE, your 'historical language preponderance.'

You haven't FOOLED everyone.

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

Post a Comment