001. the Episode 005d (Part 4 of 5) script and annotations:
Standard Introduction:
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 continuing Naturocrit Podcast
Episode 005, titled "The 'Science-Based'
Science Exterior Canadian-Based Naturopathic Interior" -- really -- I have been looking at naturopathy in
the province of Ontario, Canada chiefly through associations centered
around ND Iva Lloyd.
In Part One, I visited the biography
page of ND Lloyd at the AANP's Natural Medicine Journal, a journal
she sits on the editorial board of, and then other example NMJ pages.
I also visited web pages of the AANP proper, to get an idea of 'what-AANP-regards-as-science', which turns out to be anything, though AANP's NMJ is claimed to 'scientifically filter' its contents.
In Part Two, I visited ND Lloyd's practice's web pages, and those of her alma mater and place of teaching, CCNM.
In Part Three, I visited the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors [OAND] and Ontario's Board of Directors Drugless Therapy - Naturopathy [The Board].
In this Part Four, I'll visit the CAND, its ND Lloyd-edited journal Vital Link, and the the naturopathy 'wiki' ND Lloyd edits [ndhealthfacts.org].
As a reminder, in this Episode's final Part Five, I will visit two of ND Lloyd's paper-based books, and then summarize this five-part episode.
And, for the sake of organization, I will be tabulating the findings of all this rummaging in the transcripts to this episode, which, as usual, will be posted at the Naturocrit blog.
Episode Question:
And my overarching, ongoing question for this NPE5 is:
"what does naturopathy in Ontario promise, preponderantly, and what is underneath, essentially?"
Overarching Focus:
For this episode's parts, I will generally look for naturopathy's 'science, evidence, rigor and fact' -type claims and then explore naturopathy's contents as commitments, ideas and activities that belie those labels such as:
naturopathy's essential vitalism belief, homeopathy and such activity, supernaturalism, and ANY other naturopathic off-the-wall-ness.
The Canadian Association of
Naturopathic Doctors, CAND:
The Canadian national mothership of naturopathy is CAND.
Its sister organization in the US is the AANP.
Together, rather in lock-step, they oversee 'licensed' naturopathy in both countries.
We're told about CAND on a page of the Canadian Naturopathic Foundation, whose geographical address is Ontario.
Apparently, this is a charitable wing of CAND [vsc 2014-07-02].
“History of Naturopathic Medicine” [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2012, states:
“laws regulating naturopathic practice were enacted in Ontario by 1925 [...] the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) has been representing the profession’s interests in Canada since 1955 [...] naturopathic medical education began in Canada in 1978 with the founding of the Ontario College of Naturopathic Medicine (OCNM) in Toronto.”
That school is now CCNM.
1978 is an interesting year.
ND Pizzorno signifies [vsc 2014-07-02][also in the TNM 4th] that that year as the year he coined “science-based natural medicine” as a naturopathic marketing slogan.
And we're also reminded on that CNF page:
“'the healing power of nature' [HPN...] remains one of the central principles [oops, I say premises by mistake!] of naturopathic medicine.”
So, there's a little history, a professions claim, and a little bit of what's essential to naturopathy, HPN.
Notice that HPN is coded there, yet naturopathy is claiming “profession.”
In that sense, we have a nontransparent NATIONAL 'self-proclaimed profession' that OBVIOUSLY usually HIDES its essential premise.
Because, apparently, we don't deserve to know, so we can then CHOOSE in an informed manner!
So much for patient and consumer rights!
And because that HPN premise is, essentially, a certain kind of supernaturalism falsely labeled as science-based, both science and freedom of belief in addition to patient and consumer rights, in my opinion, are greatly harmed.
A CAND Document That Covers It All:
“Naturopathic Medicine in Canada 2008” [vsc 2014-06-09], archived in 2013, is a typical document covering many of my general areas of interest in terms of naturopathy's contents, representations, and omissions.
There's CAND's PROMISE of science-based:
“[CAND's] Vital Link print journal […] provides science-based, peer reviewed articles and research […naturopathy has] a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research […a goal] to promote scientific interest and investigation in the field of naturopathic medicine […with NDs] interpreting knowledge of a scientific nature to the public […and there's mention of the ND-granting school in the US] National University of Health Sciences Naturopathic Medicine Program […and the US and Canada licensure exam] NPLEX Clinical Sciences Exams.”
So, overall, one comes away with the impression 'preponderant modern science subset health science subset clinical science subset naturopathy'.
There's CAND's vitalism-supernaturalism in this document, as coded vitalism and overt supernaturalism, that belies that document's science-based overarching promise:
“naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles. This set of principles outlines the naturopathic approach to health and healing and forms the foundation of this [...] form of health care […with #2 being] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). Naturopathic doctors work to restore and support the powerful and inherent healing ability of your body, mind and spirit […] naturopathic medicine addresses the structural, functional, psychological, spiritual and environmental aspects of health [...] Appendix A: guide to the ethical conduct of naturopathic doctors […] the naturopathic physician […] shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae).”
So, obviously, adhering to naturopathy's principles is NOT optional for NDs.
An ND would be violating naturopathy's ethical code if NOT adhering to naturopathy's principles, with the first and foremost principle being HPN.
There's CAND's homeopathy and such that belies that science-based promise:
“the range of modalities available to naturopathic doctors […includes] homeopathy [...and] traditional Chinese medicine […] practitioners may also have additional
training in [...such things as] colon
therapy.”
And all the while there's CAND's claim of integrity:
And all the while there's CAND's claim of integrity:
“[the ND] will recognize that the
profession demands integrity and dedication from all its members […it
demands] maintenance of professional integrity […that the ND] build
a professional reputation based on ability and integrity.”
Integrity, integrity, integrity.
There's CAND's use of the nebulous term holistic:
“our holistic education and founding
principles […] naturopathic doctors apply all of the above
principles […and they're] truly holistic […] naturopathic doctors and
other holistic health care practitioners […doing] holistic health
care […a] shift towards becoming more integrated and holistic in
nature.”
And there's CAND's use of “profession”.
This happens at least 92 times in the
document.
There's CAND's claim of “distinct”:
“naturopathic medicine is a
distinct system […] this distinct form of health care.”
And, by the way, the CAND Board of
Directors for 2008, the year of publication of this document,
included:
“Chair Dr. Iva Lloyd, ND [of] Markham,
ON.”
In “Natural Therapies” [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2014, we're told:
More CAND Vitalism:
Overt Vitalism:
In “Natural Therapies” [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2014, we're told:
“homeopathic medicine: this powerful
system of medicine, when carefully matched to the patient, they are
able to affect the body's 'vital force' [...] to stimulate the body's
innate healing forces […] traditional Chinese medicine /
acupuncture: the key principle that defines and connects all of
Chinese medicine is that of chi, or vital energy. The chi of all
organs must be in balance, neither too active nor too dormant, for a
person to be healthy. The chi of the body's organs and systems are
all connected in meridians or channels that lie just under the skin.
A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to
assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance.
Acupuncture […] has proven to be very effective especially for pain
relief and chronic illness.”
Similarly, this is at “Naturopathic Principles” [vsc 2014-07-02] and “Questions: All Questions” [vsc 2014-07-02].
By the way, a search >“a
naturopathic doctor will use” chi < is quite robust.
In addition to pages by CAND, there
are first-page results from:
a. Ontario's
absolutehealthscience.com:
which is CCNM NDs Turk and Cordes [vsc 2014-07-02] who state in “Naturopathic Therapies” [vsc 2014-07-02]:
“homeopathic medicine: this powerful
system of medicine […] when carefully matched to the patient they
are able to affect the body's 'vital force' […] to stimulate the
body's innate healing forces […] traditional Chinese medicine /
acupuncture [...and then it states all that chi stuff as I previously mentioned from CAND].”
And of course, in “FAQ” [vsc 2014-07-02] we're told:
“naturopathic medicine is a
distinct primary health care system that blends.”
Blended: that's rather interesting for a
business claiming to be “absolute.”
Vitalism: that's very interesting of a
business claiming to be “science.”
And there are similar pages in that
search by:
b. Ontario's ND Gurske [vsc 2014-07-02];
c. and the Prince Edward Island Association of Naturopathic Doctors [vsc 2014-07-02].
What else is currently up from CAND?
CAND's Youtube channel:
The video “Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors” [vsc 2012-02-02] [also] states:
“science-based naturopathic medicine
[…] that naturopathic doctor […] helped me understand it […]
safe, effective health care […] CAND.”
So there's that broad science and efficacy claim
upon all things naturopathic.
Yet, their video “Training and Scope of Naturopathic Doctor Compared to Homeopath -- 'What's Up Doc?'" [vsc 2014-07-02] states:
“[according to ND Dempster] a licensed
naturopathic doctor in Toronto, Ontario […] naturopathic
modalities [...include] traditional Chinese medicine and
acupuncture [...and] homeopathy”, contents that belie that science-based label.
Now, these videos mention Ontario's
exploreyourhealth.ca, which is the Ontario-located Canadian
Naturopathic Foundation I'd cited from earlier.
I'll fold more of CNF's contents into
this CAND section, particularly because CNF is Ontarian and they cover a
lot of ground:
CNF's homepage [vsc 2014-07-02] states:
“naturopathic treatments and
recommendations are based on scientific investigation and
evidence.”
CNF's page “Naturopathic Training” [vsc 2014-07-02] states:
“prerequisites an undergraduate
degree from an accredited university including pre-medical sciences,
with a cumulative grade point average of 3.00 on a four point scale.
Prerequisite courses: biology, biochemistry, chemistry, organic
chemistry, introductory psychology and humanities […] naturopathic
doctors undergo training similar to medical doctors with the
inclusion of naturopathic disciplines. The four areas of education
covered in the four year, full-time naturopathic medical curriculum
are [...] basic sciences [...] this area of study includes anatomy,
physiology, histology, microbiology, biochemistry, immunology,
pharmacology and pathology […] pass the Naturopathic Physicians
Licensing Exam (NPLEX), board exams that are written after the 2nd
year and 4th year of study. NPLEX are standardized examinations used
by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic doctors in North
America.”
And NPLEX does claim homeopathy is a clinical science.
And NPLEX does claim homeopathy is a clinical science.
The page “Naturopathic Medicine” [vsc 2014-07-02] tells us:
“naturopathic
medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends [...]
naturopathic doctors [...] cooperate with other branches of medical
science [...with] a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific
research [...naturopathy includes] homeopathy [...and] the
naturopathic philosophy is to stimulate the healing power of the body
[...] emphasizing nature’s inherent self-healing process [...and it
speaks of] the physiological, structural, psychological, social,
spiritual, environment and lifestyle factors affecting health [...] naturopathic medicine
emphasizes disease as a process rather than disease as an entity
[...] naturopathic doctors can also complement and enhance health
care services provided by other health care professionals [...] a
clear understanding of the factors that affect health [...] providing
safe and effective ways to restore health [...] naturopathic medicine
is very effective [...there are] tremendous benefits.”
So, that's quite a claim of efficacy and notice what belies the science label.
So, that's quite a claim of efficacy and notice what belies the science label.
And I have found
overt vitalism at CNF which [also] belies that science-based label.
In “Natural Therapies Used by NDs” [vsc 2014-07-02] we're told:
“the range of
modalities used by naturopathic doctors allows them to develop
treatment plans that address not only the physical aspect of a
person, but the mental and emotional aspects as well. Naturopathic
therapies are all based on the same principles, they all assist the
body’s healing response [coded vitalism...] homeopathic medicine: this
powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old and is widely
accepted in many countries. Homeopathic remedies are made from
specific dilutions of plant, animal and mineral substances. When
carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body’s
'vital force' and to stimulate the body’s innate healing forces on
both the physical and emotional levels, with few side effects. Some
conditions that do not respond well to conventional medicine respond
effectively to homeopathy. Traditional Chinese medicine /
acupuncture: the key principle that defines and connects all of
Chinese medicine is that of chi, or vital energy. The chi of all
organs must be in balance, neither too active nor too dormant, for a
person to be healthy. The chi of the body’s organs and systems are
all connected in meridians or channels that lie just under the skin.
A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to
assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance.
Acupuncture is the use of very thin needles inserted into specific
meridian points. The practice of acupuncture has been around
for over two thousand years and has proven to be very effective
especially for pain relief and chronic illness.”
Homeopathy, TCM, vital force, qi: not science-based at all.
More so, figmentations falsely claimed to be scientifically true, scientifically supported, scientifically studied, and able to survive scientific scrutiny [00:19:28].
Homeopathy, TCM, vital force, qi: not science-based at all.
More so, figmentations falsely claimed to be scientifically true, scientifically supported, scientifically studied, and able to survive scientific scrutiny [00:19:28].
CAND's Vital Link:
According to ND Lloyd's biography page at her practice [vsc 2014-07-02], she is editor of Vital Link.
It is, as far as I can tell, not possible to get an entire, unified copy of this CAND 'journal' or 'newsletter' online unlike NMJ, the AANP's official journal, which you can publicly subscribe to in electronic format.
Vital Link apparently is revenue generating through advertising, and is meant only to be intranaturopathic: you have to be a CAND member.
CAND tells us about Vital Link in “Publications” [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2012:
“Vital Link is a newsletter that is distributed to all members of the CAND three times a year. This newsletter keeps the profession informed and up-to-date with current happenings and provides science-based articles and research on specific health topics. As the Vital Link is the most widely read publication among the profession in Canada, it provides unequaled advertising opportunities to those suppliers and distributor companies seeking exposure to the Canadian naturopathic medical community.”
So, “science-based”, “most widely read”, and commerce.
The ND Lloyd edited wiki I've yet to talk about, ndhealthfacts.org, tells us in “Vital Link” [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2014:
“Vital Link is the journal of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND). It is distributed to all members of the CAND. It provides science-based articles and research on specific health topics related to specific causal factors of disease, clinical practice articles and case reviews, as well as international updates on the profession.”
So it's a newsletter, or its a journal.
You can find an index to its articles.
ndhealthfacts.org tells us in “Articles From Vital Link” [vsc 2014-07-02] that there are two groupings of Vital Link articles:
But, none of the articles are available there for reading.
There's the 2005 Winter article “Energetic Viewpoint on Diabetes” by ND Lloyd, that I've done a web search for but cannot find anywhere.
“Energetic” is, of course, a stand-in for vitalism-spiritism.
ND Lloyd, on her practice page “Articles Written by and Featuring Dr. Iva Lloyd, ND” does host the 2008 Fall Vital Link article “The Root Cause of Disease is Never Another Symptom” [vsc 2014-04-11] where we're told, and I think this quite belies that science-based label CAND promised:
“the initial disruption of health arises due to three main factors: 1. disharmony between a patient’s life and their personal essence […] the personal essence is a descriptive concept of an individual’s vitality or life force. The collective life force, or vital force, is a common pool of subtle energy that connects everyone together and interconnects people to their environment. Personal essence refers to an individual’s life force or vital energy, which comes from the collective life force […] the personal essence resides in the inner core and permeates the psychological, the functional, and the structural aspects. The personal essence acts as a guide and a filter on a person’s life. It holds a person’s deep core beliefs and their values. It is a person’s blueprint and it determines what they look like, their susceptibilities and influences, and how they perceive their world and interact within it.”
So, vitalism as: personal essence = life force = vital force = subtle energy = vital energy.
And a vitalism that to me is large enough in scope to comprise a quasi-religious metaphysics.
Ah, the church of Iva Lloyd.
We're also told there:
“wholistic [this time spelled with a 'wh'] medicine focuses on body, emotions, mind, relationships and spirit. This extends the range of conceptualization of the causes of illnesses and of potential ways for dealing with them.”
Yes, extended into supposed causes I'd argue, that include FIGMENTATIONS falsely claimed as science-based.
There is also a CAND Facebook page with various covers of Vital Link but no links to the articles or issues themselves.
Let's call this journal or newsletter:
Vital 'missing' Link.
There is some echo of naturopathy's vitalism in Vital Link's title, but ironically though VITAL, just as naturopathy's vitalism cannot be found as a force or energy in any substantive way, Vital Link, as a newsletter or journal, is quite a rumor without corporeality for members of the public like me!
And I wonder, how VITAL can it be without accessibility of its content? [00:24:50].
NDHealthFacts, that ND Lloyd Edited Unwiki:
What do you do when a huge, public, participatory consensus, like Wikipedia.org, labels your stuff fake and unethical -- and untenable! -- as in 'archaic unethical vitalistic pseudoscience'?
Wikipedia states about naturopathy overall:
"naturopathy or naturopathic medicine, is a form of alternative medicine based on a belief in vitalism [as in belief system], which posits that a special energy called 'vital energy' or 'vital force' [which has no physical basis, and therefore is not energy or force in terms of science] guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation [...] 'practitioners of naturopathy often prefer methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine, and in doing so, reject the tenets of biomedicine and modern science. Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices'."
Wikipedia states about naturopathy's vitalism:
"vitalism [...is] now rejected by mainstream science [...] vitalism is no longer philosophically and scientifically viable [...] 'it has served altogether too often as an intellectual tranquilizer or verbal sedative, stifling scientific inquiry rather than encouraging it to proceed in new directions'."
Vitalism: that useless placeholder, full of sound and fury signifying pseudoscience.
Yet, Ontario naturopathy's regulator, whom I'll term THEMSELVES, in their code of ethics [vsc 2014-06-29] holds members to that vitalism as HPN, which is vitalism coded, WHILE requiring NDs to:
"deal honestly with all patients, colleagues, public institutions and legal bodies, and refrain from giving any false, incomplete or misleading information."
And that same code of ethics containing document, undersigned by The Board, OAND, CCNM, and CAND, "Review of Non-Physician Prescribing and Administration of Drugs Under the Regulated Health Professions Act", states regarding "misleading":
"the Board will define misconduct and incompetence as [...] providing inappropriate, deleterious, unnecessary or incompetent treatment or false or misleading information to a patient [...] false, misleading, incomplete or otherwise improper [...] is false, fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, sensational, flamboyant, self-laudatory or has a tendency to mislead the public."
Really!
And, of course, one can ask the glaring question:
what if naturopathy's -- shall I say -- 'epistemic stringencies' regarding 'the scientific' and what truly is scientific, are not the same?
Here is a supposed profession supposedly emphasizing the communication of supposed scientific information while unable or unwilling, FUNDAMENTALLY, to distinguish science from nonscience.
Have you ever heard of a profession that cannot be trusted CATEGORICALLY?
While The Board claims to hold provincial NDs to such a high bar that members are therein "above reproach" in terms of "misconduct" and "incompetence".
As if an ND as a credential is a form of science-expertise and -training, as if naturopathy's ethics are at all, ironically, ethical.
Wikipedia states about naturopathy's homeopathy:
"homeopathy is a pseudoscience and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebo."
And you can find Ontario ND s doing the same -- such as NDs Ferreira, Boyer, Kahrobaei, MacDonald [vsc 2014-06-29] who state, as archived in 2013, that naturopathy and homeopathy are branches of medical science [vsc 2014-06-29] -- which is quite a form of science incompetence and professional and scientific misconduct IMHO.
Wikipedia state about naturopathy's detoxification:
"many alternative medicine practitioners promote various types of detoxification, such as detoxification diets. Scientists have described these as a 'waste of time and money'."
Yet, sister organization AANP states, in an article written by a UB ND former classmate of mine, "Six Naturopathic Methods to Combat Prostate Cancer" [vsc 2014-07-02]:
"detoxification: deep in our tissues we store toxins that can interfere with our ability to heal. Old and new toxins should be let out from our bodies in a balanced way without inducing any damage. Removing toxins from our bodies can be accomplished by optimal nourishment, sweating, regular bowel movements, mild exercise, and herbs that assist in liver health [...] a naturopathic physician should be sought out for proper guidance in detoxifying."
Wikipedia states about supernaturalism, which we saw was a categorical synonym for naturopathy's essential vitalism according to 'the authority' ND Pizzorno, in "Science":
"supernatural explanations should be left a matter of personal belief outside the scope of science. Methodological naturalism maintains that proper science requires strict adherence to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating explanations for observable phenomena. The absence of these standards, arguments from authority, biased observational studies and other common fallacies are frequently cited by supporters of methodological naturalism [...and scientific skepticism] as characteristic of the non-science they criticize."
And of course, UNDERLYING naturopathy's so often naturalistic language used to bait the public, such as "body's inherent healing ability", is a SUPERNATURALISM – of a kind.
And, as I've mentioned before, at the National Center for Science Education, in "National Association of Biology Teachers (1995)", we're told in this document that had stated:
"nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom",
particularly about supernaturalism:
"science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge, non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems."
So, to reiterate:
naturopathy's NATURE that is SCIENCE, which I'll term its marketing label, is actually a SUPERNATURALISM that is SCIENCE-EXTERIOR.
Which is completely illogical, and of those unethical 'things that naturopathy's ethical code promises to prevent'.
Yet, and here's where I'll start citing from the ND Lloyd edited unwiki, the ndhealthfacts.org homepage [vsc 2014-07-02] tells us that it is:
“the wiki of the naturopathic medical profession […with] the goal of this site [...] to return the logic to health and disease.”
Really!
So, again, what do you DO if you are a sectarian healing system FALSELY claiming "science based" upon the PATENTLY science-exterior, and the now-a-days dominant internet reference source, Wikipedia.org, doesn't support your marketing claims?
What do you do if you are epistemically path-illogical?
As in the naturopathillogical?
As you are REFUSING to acknowledge scientific consensus and work WITHIN scientific methodology, and ethical academic, professional, and commerce categorizations and stringencies because you first and foremost are OBLIGATED to your wacko sectarian ideas, commitments and activities?
Well, you COULD circle the wagons, put up a wall, RETREAT, and create your own narrow, sectarian, cargo-cultic realm of hyper-controlled weirdness!
Call it ndhealthfacts.org, and get out the brain-washing soap.
In terms of information technology, it's your own supposedly publicly accessible, as in Wiki, but privately edited, as in unwiki, portal of propaganda.
I'll term it a wiki without public participation, posing as the publicly participatable Wikipedia.
Now, there's Wikipedia.org proper – which operates openly and collectively, and democratically -- and there's the generic wiki format that can be employed by anyone even in a kind of 'private, insular, dictatorial' sense which I find antithetical to, ironically, the wiki participation ethos
Pcmag.com has a 2012 article "How to Create Your Own Wiki" and it states:
"[Wiki] tools are all geared toward the sharing, not the keeping of secrets [...with] the knowledge and input of literally thousands of contributors."
Or NOT, if you so choose, in your wiki.
But of course naturopathy poorly resembles, and reverses values!
Compulsively.
Ndhealthfacts.org's controlling insularity is the electronic version of, I'll muse:
retreating to Guyana with your followers, and locking the world out, like Jim Jones.
Now, that certain cult and sect leader was afraid "that men would 'parachute in here on us'", and of course it all ended in actual tragedy in actual meat-space.
If only such an intervention DID occur to avert tragedy!
Or, I'll muse, that ndhealthfacts.org's controlling insularity is like:
living in Plato's Cave wherein:
"people [...] lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall [...] watch[ing] shadows."
As a Phi Beta Kappan, well before I actually went to AANMC naturopathy school in CT, with our values of "freedom of inquiry and liberty of thought and expression", I find naturopathy's insular wiki intellectually repugnant, I therefore call it an unwiki.
I find Ontario naturopathy's overall logic to be as FAKE and ignorant as the UB homeopathy I was required to study, believe, know and apply in naturopathy school, which is why I left UB's so called doctoral health science cloud cukoo land.
So, ndhealthfacts.org is the address of naturopathy's unwiki, a Plato's Cave -ike cultic or sectarian compound posing itself as open, collective, democratic by way of, what I see, is a false label, wiki.
It was deliberately set up to be insular and barricaded, and narrowly CONTROLLED.
To be unwiki.
The unwiki tells us in “Heath Facts:About” [vsc 2014-05-30], archived in 2012:
“unlike many wiki-based websites, only naturopathic doctors that are recognized by their national associations (CAND) in Canada and (AANP) in the United States may be granted access to add information to NDHealthFacts. To request an access account please contact the managing editor [...] at info@NDHealthfacts.org.”
What a prison.
I guess you must keep your nonsense in a bastion, or it may be assailed with knowledge, truth, and competent analysis.
The Wikipedia.org page on Plato's Allegory of the Cave states:
"[Socrates believed] the enlightened must return to the cave in order to share their enlightenment with the prisoners, even if it results in death [...] Socrates is implying that the enlightened philosopher must descend from a continuous intelligible contemplation of the good to share in the visible lives of his fellow citizens for the well-being of the whole."
Like freeing the prisoners from that cave, I similarly believe that naturopathy's wiki should be allegorically laid siege to and busted open.
For the well-being of the whole, such would be very wholistic.
Well, I'm going to drop in on naturopathy's cyberspace tragedy, the intellectual gulag known as ndhealthfacts.org, to do some reconnaissance [00:39:40].
And, as usual, this is myself alone, philosophizing with a hammer: currahee.
By the way, CAND-AANP naturopaths are, as we know, in an obligatory sense in terms of their education and in an elective sense in terms of their activities, homeopaths.
Homeopaths plus.
The most illogical thing I can think of in terms of therapy.
That same ndhealthfacts.org page "Health Facts:About" tells us:
"naturopathic therapies [...include] homeopathic medicine."
A page that promises logic, and nobody can participate except for them.
So truly, as I'd quoted in Part 1 of this Episode 5, regarding homeopathy at Wikipedia.org:
“Ben Goldacre says that homeopaths who misrepresent scientific evidence to a scientifically illiterate public, have 'walled themselves off from academic medicine, and critique has been all too often met with avoidance rather than argument.'”
Same for the naturopaths!
Such insularity – walling, avoidance -- parallels my favorite quote about sectarianism, from The Popular Science Monthly from 1889, which states:
"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what cannot be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed."
How does narrow-minded / wall-off / fenced-in sectarianism flourish:
ignorance.
Its enemy is enlightenment.
I say intervene, and flood the cave with light.
Now, ironically, that "Health Facts:About" page also states its intention is:
"to show-case the breadth and depth of naturopathic medicine."
But, it is more like a fake documentary, drama posing as authentic, the narrow and shallow posing as wide and deep.
Because at this unwiki, naturopathy has decided to stay out of the open and deep water of typical discourse, and instead create its own cargo-cult emulation of Wikipedia.org.
We're also told on that page:
"the aim of NDHealthFacts is to provide individuals with an understanding of the naturopathic approach."
Understanding in a kind of LIMITED way, I'd argue.
I think it is already copiously indicating 'what's up with naturopathy', just not in the way it intends!
We're told by ndhealthfacts.org, in “Health Facts: Editors”, archived in 2013, that its
“founder and editor-in-chief”
is ND Lloyd and that other members of the editorial board include NDs Bakir, Saunders, Fritz, Darley, Kussmann, Neubauer
with advisers NDs Pizzorno and Lescheid.
The ND Pizzorno link there is to his homepage which is, in terms of archive.org, ROBOTS BLOCKED currently.
Let's see what else ndhealthfact.org has, so we can understand.
And let me emphasize here that the address of this unwiki includes the word "facts."
As if [00:43:23].
Science at the Unwiki:
A Search for "Science-based":
The search >site:ndhealthfacts.org "science-based"< yields:
four pages [four individual web pages] related to ND Pizzorno, Good Old Science-Based Joe, which collectively state:
"Joseph Pizzorno, N.D., is one of the world’s leading authorities on science-based natural medicine":
#1.
The first page "Total Wellness" [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2014, which is ND Pizzorno's 1997 print book.
#2.
The second page is "Textbook of Natural Medicine e-dition: Text with Continually Updated Online Reference, 2-Volume Set" [vsc 2014-07-02] archived in 2012 [I've vsc the 2014 one with the specific language], which is a collection ND Pizzorno co-edited.
#3.
The third page "Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine" [vsc 2014-07-02] archived in 2014, which also adds:
"scientifically well researched and documented, this is your complete health adviser to the natural approach."
#4.
And the fourth page "Natural Medicine Instructions for Patients" [vsc 2014-07-02] archived in 2014.
There's also:
talk of Vital Link on the page "Vital Link" [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2014, which states:
"the Vital Link is the journal of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) [...] it provides science-based articles and research."
And finally:
there's the page "Flexner Report" [vsc 2014-07-02] archived in 2014, which speaks of:
"those institutions that emphasized science-based medicine."
Naturopathy teaching history!
By the way, in terms of history, the 2009 ND Lloyd authored book "The History of Naturopathic Medicine, A Canadian Perspective", which I will deal with in part 5, is mentioned at least 100 times at ndhealthfacts.org.
Nothing like creating your own wiki and then mentioning your stuff what seems like endlessly!
A search for "scientific":
There are more than 100 results.
I'll pick one, the page "Naturopathic Medicine Research" [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2013, which states:
"[quoting ND Pizzorno] 'not only do we have good scientific basis for what we do, but we also use the same scientific literature orthodox MD's use to prove the validity of what we do and to discredit much of current orthodox medical practices' [...and we're told also] the practice of naturopathic medicine has always been supported by research [...] there are many ways in which the scientific method is used and applied appropriately to naturopathic medicine, but there are also many ways in which this method is neither appropriate not applicable [fascinating, you can be science-based and you don't use the scientific method? Because it's neither appropriate and not applicable to what is considered science?...] with advances in new forms of research there is a greater abilty to design effective research studies that address the vitalistic and holistic principles of naturopathic medicine."
Promises, promises.
So, there we go, an admitted overarching sectarianism that then guides or shall I say HOBBLES inquiry.
I've often called this "science as the sword of sectarianism":
wherein supposed science research is claimed to support the patently and preponderantly science-exterior and even science-ejected like the 'vital force' of naturopathy's vitalistic, and the supernatural spiritism of naturopathy's holistic!
A search for "sciences":
A search for "sciences" yields more than 60 results.
My favorite is "National University of Health Sciences (NUHS)" [vsc 2014-07-02] archived in 2014.
NUHS has an ND program, so the claim is science subset health science subset naturopathy and all its science-exterior stuff!
My second favorite page is "Bridgeport" [vsc 2014-07-02] archived in 2013.
This is my alma mater, which claims, just as NUHS does, quite falsely, that naturopathy is categorically SCIENCE and also NONSECTARIAN.
A search for "science":
I'll employ the page "Naturopathic Basic Science Boards Study Manual: 2005 Edition" [vsc 2014-07-02] archived in 2014.
Now, the term basic in the category "basic medical sciences" does not mean 'simple.'
It means foundational, it means that what's built upon it will be contextually SCIENCE.
A newbie may come away with an impression, knowing nothing about naturopathy and perhaps not much about science, that naturopathy is based in science since its education begins with foundational medical sciences.
But, as I learned, somehow in four years of education, an ND student progresses through basic medical sciences into abject NONSENSES, like homeopathy with science-exterior sectarian 'principle' obligations overarching all things naturopathic AS AN OATH.
That's like an accounting program moving from basic arithmetic to end up claiming 2 + 2 = 5 by the fourth year.
Vitalism-Spiritism at ndhealthfacts.org:
Now, the typical OPAQUE phrase used to describe 'what naturopathy does and believes' is support “the healing power of nature.”
The ndhealthfacts.org entry “Healing Power of Nature” [vsc 2014-03-25], archived in 2014, states:
“the healing power of nature is one of the key principles of naturopathic medicine […] the term vis medicatrix naturae [...] means the healing power of nature [...] this healing power is an inherent self-organizing, ordered healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health [...] the vis medicatrix naturae is the power of nature to heal, an extension of creator consciousness or cosmic consciousness [how THEOLOGICAL in that sort of pantheistic way...and we're told the] aim of naturopathic treatments [...is to] direct the vital force to stimulate the body's own defenses and healing ability [...and that the founder of homeopathy Hahnemann is quoted] 'the spirit-like force which animates the material body rules supreme as dynamis' [...] this energetic template or spiritual blueprint."
And there we go, within the entry, from naturopathy's usual opaque naturalistic language 'foot in the door' into explicit supernaturalism and religiosity UNDERLYING it all, with one facet being what I've termed autoentheism, wherein inside a body supposedly is god-power and god-mind
[Actually, while in ND school in 1998, in an ND program labeled science and nonsectarian to this day, HPN-VMN was termed by by instructor ND Sensenig the "god power within you." Here's a link to him in action, the video "Dr. Sensenig -- Philosophical Differences Between Naturopathic and Allopathic Medicine", vsc 2013-11-26]
and explicit vitalism and spiritism.
And there we are: healing power of nature = autoentheism = vital force = spiritism.
These sectarian beliefs are then what structures naturopathy's activities, which I'll categorize as their sectarian rites.
The “Vitalism” [vsc 2014-07-02] [also] proper page at the unwiki , archived in 2012, which the “Healing Power of Nature” page links to, adds some more detail:
“the concept of vitalism [...] is held by naturopathic medicine […] vitalistic thinking […] vitalism, or vital force describes the intelligence that animates each and every person. This is a concept that has been recognized universally for thousands of years and called by many different names, including life force, breath, chi, ki, prana, and mana, depending upon the particular culture or tradition […] vitalism is a central tenet in the philosophy of naturopathic medicine. It refers to the view that life is governed by forces beyond the physical self. Often vitalism is associated with concepts of personal essence, spirit or soul and the term vitality refers to the inherent capacity of an organism to live, grow, develop and heal […] a distinct quality that is not readily explained by mechanism" [00:51:48].
Actually, so distinct that its not necessary to explain anything physiologically, and has never been quantified as energy or force, and there are no effects that it accounts for.
Quite distinct, as a quality.
So there's explicit vitalism-supernaturalism and all those DIFFERENT vital force aliases.
And in the entry, we're also served this heaping platter of bullshit regarding vitalism-supernaturalism-theism:
"there is no conflict with the findings of biomedical science.”
That's rather true, EXCEPT all that sectarian stuff is not IN science the way naturopathy falsely states that it is.
Well, I see a conflict.
When vitalism-supernaturalism-theism, which has no evidence to support it and is actually, respectively, science-ejected and science-exterior, is FALSELY claimed to be WITHIN science, I see a huge CONFLICT of basic epistemic categorization.
Now, as articles of faith in terms of categorization, I greatly respect a person's freedom to BELIEVE whatever they choose.
The vitalism page's listed reference sources are an ND Lloyd book, a homeopathy book by two NDs, and a TNM chapter edited NDs Pizzorno and Murray and written by ND Bradley titled “Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine.”
And, of course, the unwiki has that distinct while blended inanity.
The page “Category:Naturopathic Medicine” [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2013, states:
“naturopathic medicine is a distinct system [...] it blends."
Of course naturopathy's science-exterior and science-ejected ideas aren't seen to be in conflict [with science] when you don't acknowledge the reasonable differences between, even, WORDS like distinct and blends.
When you have that wacko naturopathic mindset which says 2 + 2 = 5, and then state that there's no conflict with that finding and the fact that 2 + 2 also equals 4 .
You call them the same.
In fact, the "Vitalism" page states:
"the holistic approach of naturopathic medicine recognizes that the spiritual, psychological, functional, and structural aspects are one and the same."
But they are NOT fused and the same, in the same way that psychology is not religion, anatomy is not physiology, and 4 is not 5.
And just to hit upon the TCM vitalism-spiritism that is within an Ontario ND s scope of practice, the 2014 archived page “Chinese Vital Substances” [vsc 2014-07-02] states:
"qi: is the animating life force. It is considered the essence of life and the origin of all other vital substances: thoughts and emotions, tissue and blood, inner life and outer expression. It is responsible for the generative and protective aspects of life. Qi is an energy which manifests simultaneously on the physical and spiritual level."
Homeopathy:
There's the page "Homeopathy" [vsc 2014-07-02], archived in 2013, which states:
"homeopathy was based on the belief that the curative power of medicines stemmed from their ability to induce in healthy persons symptoms analogous to the diseases for which they were administered. Hahnemann and his followers, subscribed to the vitalistic approach to medicine, believing that a spirit-like force was present in every organism and that sickness was due to an alteration of the vital force [...] the higher the potency the more it tends to work on the psychological and spiritual levels [...] homeopathy is an energy medicine system [...] there is a growing body of research that supports the use of homeopathy."
So there's vitalism as vitalistic = spirit-like-force = vital force = energy, and that entry also forwards to the "Vitalism" page.
And there's that claim of efficacy on this ABJECT homeopathy NONSENSE, while there is no outright claim of science on the page, I must admit.
But I would say with this page the word 'research' is assumed to be modern scientific support.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment