Monday, January 19, 2015

The Naturocrit Podcast - The Second Half of Episode 006 (006b) - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the second half of the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 006, titled "The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific".  I revisit my self-published 2006 'thesis', which demolishes 'naturopathy' as a legitimate academic category and clinical activity.  This second part covers:

*And I have to greatly thank The Skeptic's Dictionary's Dr. Carroll for adding links to his/the naturopathy entry for both my 2006 thesis and my Naturocrit Podcast.

001. the Second Half of Episode 006 (006b) 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 two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006, I will revisit a 2006 'self-published thesis' I wrote which is briefly titled:

 "The Epistemic Conflation Of A School of Thought Claiming To Be Scientific."
I'll oftentimes abbreviate that as ECSTCS.

Technically, its full title, as you will hear, is: "'Prophets Facing Backward:' Naturopathy and Knowledge Type from the Inside – The Epistemic Conflation of a School of Thought Claiming to be Scientific." 

This piece basically set up much of my current approach to naturopathy.

It came about after leaving naturopathy school in 2002, after four years there, and then researching and thinking about naturopathy for about another four years. 

I consider it 'my doctoral thesis for my ND', a degree I voluntarily ceased because, essentially, I found that whole ND shebang to be: 

'essentially based upon FALSEHOODS'. 

[Two 'essentially's for the price of one!] 

Now, my nickname in ND school was Dr. Bob Ironic and perhaps this is the greatest of my IRONIES:

'my doctoral thesis for my ND' quite easily dismantles naturopathy as a legitimate academic category and cohesive body of thought, and dismantles naturopathy as a supposed ethical or professional clinical application.

I will, at times, interject the phrase "2015 comment #", and I will detail those NEW 2015 comments at the end of my recitation / republication.

I will also, of course, provide a full transcript at the Naturocrit Blog.

My 2015 spoken word, this Episode 006, will be in black-colored font.

That transcript will, in addition to any '2015 comment' additions to the original text, contain, at times, strikethoroughs of my original 2006 text.

These strikethroughs, which will be in light blue, are often parentheticals, hyperlinks, details or thoughts from 2006 which I feel, if spoken, would bog down this audio recitation.

Episode question:

And my overarching question regarding this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006 is:

what holds up from 2006's ECSTCS, and how may I have changed in my criticism and analysis of naturopathy since publishing this almost 10 years ago?

Main Text of ECSTCS:

Part IV. Naturopathy’s [overarching] science category claim:

[See Appendix I 'Naturopathic Science Claims' (click here,].

Historically, in terms of the AANP, the two 'most remarkable' statements that portray naturopathy as an en masse scientific endeavor / category, and which collectively induced me towards ND school along with the statements [and descriptions] of UBCNM, are these:

[From the AANP Alliance, an AANP schools consortia and PAC]:

"naturopathic physicians are the modern day science based primary care doctor."

[and it clearly misstates naturopathy is "not a belief system"];

(this AANP Alliance statement is archived here, here for a youtube slideshow of the page, and

[As exemplified from the co-chair of the 'AANP's ND principles committee' which assembled those principles in1989]:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles upon which its practice is based. These principles [including vitalism, spiritism, and teleology-finalism -- at least] are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances."

(archived here,[notice vitalism has been cleaned out of it]

Currently [c 2006], very little has changed in terms of 'AANP type ND' science claims.

[From a practitioner] the naturopathic is "science-based whole-person healthcare".

(for this practitioner statement, click here, here,

[From a hugely popular promotional site]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis".

(click here, here,[apparently, this site has been run by current AANP ND Bubis, E. since 1996, before he was an AANP naturopath, see and][also, here's a search per >"objective observation" naturopathic< here].

[From the FNPLA, an AANP schools consortia]:

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] naturopathic medical students study the same core medical sciences as MD students".

[for the former part before the ellipsis](for the AANMC AANP schools consortia statement, click here, here,[for the latter](for this AANMC naturopathic schools consortia, click here, here,

[From a State AANP org.]:

"naturopathic physicians [...] are educated in conventional medical sciences".

(for this state AANP organization, click here, here,

[From an ND practitioner]:

"the degree, doctor of naturopathic medicine, requires four years of graduate level study in the medical sciences".

(for this practitioner statement, click here, here,

[From the AANP proper]:

"the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians 19th Annual Convention & Exposition [...held] September 8-11, 2004 [...] the theme of this year’s gathering [] 'Naturopathic Medicine: Honoring the Science of Natural Healing'".

(click here, here,

Specific science claims of UBCNM, my alma mater, include:

[for further UB citations, click here,].

"the two health science doctoral programs, chiropractic and naturopathic medicine".[27]

"the Division of Health Sciences includes the Fones School of Dental Hygiene, the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, and the Nutrition Institute".[28]

[a TCM degree has been added, as a Masters in Science, more recently];

"today's naturopathic physician [] practicing scientific medicine".[29]

"the exciting science of naturopathic medicine".[30]

"ayurvedic medicine, the natural science".[31]

[I tend not be be vulgar in public documents, but, here I'll say it, calmly: to claim that the healing branch of Hinduism, derived directly from Hindu scripture, employing Hindu articles of faith / Hindu supernaturalism / a Hindu worldview / Hindu ideology etc., is 'natural science' is complete bullshit {like a great German castle but made of bullshit, naturopathy has many similar false statements -- that amount to towers of bullshit}][Along the lines of MORE complete bullshit, naturopathy schools claim in their curricula "basic medical science." I want to correct that inaccurate label. Lets more accurately call it "adjunctive medical science" -- some science on the side, a la carte with the naturopathic articles of faith in the center {their TRUE base of vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism and kind}, which utterly lack scientific support. If science truly was their "base" which is what "basic" refers to in "basic medical science," the naturo.s would begin from / within science, which essentially excludes the 'not in evidence' supernatural. Now, if you tell me that that merely is a bias {say something like 'philosophical naturalism'} you must reasonably support your claim that there is legitimate scientific EMPIRICAL evidence that the preponderance of the scientific community will accept, regarding a) the supernatural / idealistic / metaphysical, and b) how said affects health. In other words, you must put up the goods -- as YOU are the claimant, making the extraordinary claim -- and you must meet the standards of the scientific community and provide the extraordinary evidence to support your claim. If, instead, you are going to redefine the boundaries of science to permit that which isn't permitted when standards are rigorous -- you have evaporated into the ether, and you are a medical sectarian / cheater / pseudoscientist, as opposed to someone playing by the rules.].

But specific statements of epistemic conflation, in my UB classroom experience, quickly began first semester, in 1998, in the course "Naturopathic History and Philosophy," taught by the former first AANP president and the first Dean of UBCNM, wherein science was directly equated with religion, and vitalism [along with holistic spiritism; articles of faith I often call 'animatistic New Age pantheism'] was euphemized into:

"let’s assume that by vital force, we simply mean that force or tendency which organizes and 'balances' the individual – the innate intelligence [...or] prana [...or] the God Power within you [I've termed this 'autoentheism' equal to the science term] homeostasis [...which indicates VFS is thus] physiological".[32]

"Fixed principles" "governing health and disease" [sectarian dogma, doctrine] such as "vis medicatrix naturae" [VFS] and "Herring’s Rules" [sp., usually it’s Hering] were brought forth as "natural laws"[33] [which I'll specifically call 'sectarian therapeutic principles'
which all the science information was to be embedded within.  So, instead of being overarchingly science, what we have is instead an overarching sectarian belief couching science.]

Being that a religious organization then and now controls all of UB [the Unification Church {notice, I'm not using the term 'owns'}], and being that I was concerned therefore that my experience at UB might be abusive due to reports I'd heard of that organization’s behavior, yet because UB is chartered non-sectarian, and the profession and the school specifically stated they are scientific -- I thought enough firewalls were in place to prevent categorical deviance and surreptitious proselytizing [that is, sneaking in specific supernatural beliefs disguised as something else; being STRANGE OVERALL].

I was wrong, since delineations aren't honored -- the experience is [what I call] an 'animatistic-pantheistic New Age seminarian indoctrination,' and I fell down that UBCNM sectarian rabbit hole.

Part V. Conclusion:
In light of what I’ve described, the example being the scientific a posteriori and the vitalistic a priori as not the same epistemic kind -- by consensus they exclude one another, while particularly the AANP and UBCNM state they are the same -- specifically

to the AANP branch of the naturopathic supposed profession and to the University of Bridgeport I have to say

"you lied to me then, you’re lying to us now."

2015 Comment #002.

But, such a statement is only true if we are all truly of one community at-large sharing professional, academic, and ethical standards, and we value culpability and accountability.

If maverick autoendorsements are the sole arbiter of type, then obviously anything goes:

there is no commons, lies are the same as truth [the scientific is the same as what's not scientific!; particularly, per naturopathy, the scientific is the same as 'the supernatural- metaphysical-idealistic non-empirical'], harm is the same as benefit, and nothing legally remedial is possible when harmful infractions occur.

That, though, would not be a state of civilization, in my view, by definition – but, it would be very 'natural,' if one appreciates a state of 'nature' in the primitive sense of 'before development of human intelligence and community concerns.'

I maintain that the AANP and UBCNM have an unavoidable responsibility as relates to the direct effects caused by what they fraudulently induce through miscommunication [e.g., my still growing six-figure student loan debt and such] and towards answering matters of fact as arise in relevant criticism from the communities they claim to be a part of, since such participation and ownership are required for responsible community membership.

Neither the AANP-type NDs nor UBCNM have addressed much of anything, though a primary, overarching, imperative question surfaces in comparing the naturopathic school of thought's claims, definitions and mannerisms [including their autoendorsement which I'll represent with the expression 'vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism and whatever else supernaturalism- idealism-metaphysicalism is scientific'] to those which are generally accepted academically, legally, ethically and professionally [preponderant descriptors].

The general question raised, in my view, from the point of view of scientific knowledge, is:

"why should that which is legitimately categorized as scientific, life science, medical science and science-based be unlimited?"

If that which comprises the scientific shouldn’t be unlimited, and it shouldn’t in my view, then the naturopathic crowd are abusive frauds.

If science should be unlimited, wherein everything and thus nothing is scientific [as naturopathy illustrates so clearly] – which cuts against quite an established grain [e.g., Kitzmiller v. Dover, click here, ><] then I think we're arguing for absurdity at the highest level of post-secondary education.

Due to what I’ve experienced and what I presently know, I’m compelled to ask four additional penultimate questions, which are more specific but concern all pertaining epistemic types:

a) "why should science readmit vitalism?"

b) "why should the supernatural, metaphysical, idealistic, and religious / sectarian be relabeled as the scientific, secular, non-sectarian and naturalistic?"

c) "why should modern medicine resectarianize based upon perverse 'philosophies and ideologies'?"

d) "should a supposed profession that trades upon an external veneer of categorical and contextual delineation it itself doesn't actually internally acknowledge be considered a peer of professions and academic disciplines held to much higher standards, preponderant descriptors and ethical contexts?"

I doubt the naturopathic profession will directly answer these important questions.

They seem to prefer spinning fables and avoidance.

I must also ask, ultimately, to summarize this unlimitation and dysterminology issue -- because both are essentially about the deviant naturopathic mislabeling agenda that ignores and manipulates accepted understanding toward a self-serving end without providing adequate indication or justification; a covertness, a perversity, or what I'll call in activity or means a use of "science as the sword of sectarianism" and an obvious "parasitism" – employing a term used by author Meera Nanda in her recent scholarship critical of 'postmodern science studies':

 "for what reason beyond preferred belief and sectarian habituation should the ruse of scientific non-sectarian naturopathy be granted 'epistemic charity?'"[34]

In my analysis – professionally, ethically, legally, and academically -- 'because they want so and say so to benefit so' is not an adequate justification.

Such 'epistemic laxity' would be exceptionally charitable, quite intellectually costly and socially harmful, and thus an untenable response.

Vitalism was abandoned because it was a nonexplanation -- an a priori and nonparsimonious ideological / metaphysical preference that ended up empirically nonproductive.

That fifth force or substance

[literally, the quintessence; e.g., alchemy's search for a 'fifth element' or a 'fifth essence' before chemistry developed; and later in history, e.g. a 'vital principle' per a 'quantum physics-girded' 'VFS as scientific' claim by proponents, that VFS is scientifically actual like the other basic physical forces which are known to science, while uniquely nonphysicalistic, metaphysical, and immeasurable {huh?!}; a reference, in “Sorcerer's Stone: A Beginner's Guide to Alchemy”(2004, ISBN 0806525452) author Hauck, D.W. (? ?) states “in Hindu alchemy, the quintessence is the spirit of breath (p.056) known in Sanskrit as prana. Very similar to the Western concepts of pneuma (Greek) and rauch (Hebrew). In all these traditions, both East and West, there is only one thing that the quintessence can be. It is the life force itself (p.057)”] 

was never found, but a direct implication resulting from publication of the Dunne et al (2005) [autoendorsement] – since the journal hosting the claims, the Journal of Family Practice, describes itself as scientific in context and has termed the section that this article appears in as "applied evidence, new research findings that are changing clinical practice" specifically -- is that naturopathy's VFS, amongst other even more bizarre and fallacious ideations stated as science-based that are wrapped up with naturopathic vitalism, like teleology-finalism and spiritism, are now of scientific 'evidenced' type and what's more, medically 'applicable.'

The Journal of Family Practice, a [supposedly] mainstream, scientific, peer-reviewed publication has participated in an idiosyncratic and insular autoendorsement by a marginal, unethical, radical, physician-imitating, science-imitating, abusive so-called profession / 'school of thought' whose clinical theory is centered upon scientifically-failed, metaphysical, supernatural, sectarian doctrines and idealistic dogmas that, by definition are, minimally:

i) ‘philosophical-metaphysical-idealistic-supernatural’ / a priori [thus not able at all to be scientific], as opposed to sensuous / a posteriori [potentially scientific]; and, since claimed as science ["scientific medicine, science-based"] in type by the AANP, its members, and UBCNM but not by the scientific community at-large, thus

ii) pseudoscientific, as opposed to scientific.

From an informed perspective, it is easy to see that 'the naturopathic' – inherently operatively fraudulent -- is not identified properly in type particularly by the AANP and their academic and clinical agents, and naturopathic dissembling obscurantism [disguise and omission] has been facilitated by the [CAM-enabling] Journal of Family Practice.

AANP President Dunne, and American Association of Naturopathic Medical Colleges and Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine President Mittman, have jointly stated:

"we have accomplished standards of education, accountability, and science that stand any fair and appropriately informed examination [...] the naturopathic medical profession is well grounded in the biomedical sciences [...] we believe [in] fostering mutual understanding and collegial relations with accurate information [...that] future medical students and current allopathic physicians[35] should be well informed about the practices and principles of naturopathic medicine."

[While: according to the New York AANP, Bastyr is "at the heart"of naturopathy, AND THEIR MISSION IS EPISTEMIC CONFLATION!!!{which is the essential naturopathic characteristic, it follows}. (Click here, ><): “Bastyr University […] the leading university for natural health sciences […] founded in 1978 by practicing naturopathic physicians, Bastyr University integrates the pursuit of scientific knowledge with the wisdom of ancient healing methods and traditional cultures […] its mission is to educate future leaders in the natural health sciences that integrate mind, body, spirit, and nature;" For more, (click here, per >integrates spirit "natural health sciences" Bastyr<, here). To integrate is to blend. Naturopathy claims science contains the supernatural BEFORE evidence, unlimiting the boundaries of science by DECREE, not empirical necessity. This is their extreme epistemic conflation, wherein that which is supernatural / metaphysical / idealistic {and kind; the sectarian} is equated / blended / melded / fused with that which is empirically rigorous / secular / parsimonious / pragmatic {the scientific}. How is naturopathy not sectarian medicine? Naturopathy since 1989 states that their articles of faith {the supernatural, metaphysical, idealistic and kind} are science, arrived at through "objective observation." Since there is NO scientific evidence concerning the supernatural that passes the muster of the scientific community, and thus, by definition, spirits and kind {that which lacks scientific support} are articles of faith {simply NOT scientific or science-based}, this typical naturopathic statement shows how irrational, misleading, abusive, and simply bizarre the school of thought is -- neither fair nor appropriate.]

[A Venn diagram {click to enlarge} of the great naturopathic self-delusion and fraud {not necessarily the ONLY one!} -- that the supernatural and nonscientific is within the scientific! I've in the past termed this "cultic mystical weirdness.":]

These claims are false; and are as equally valid as Dunne and Mittman's claim that:

"naturopathic medicine [] an invaluable medical specialty [...that] is forging a path [] an emerging field [...concerned with] benefiting providers and the public alike"[36] -- because, these prophets are truly facing backward.

[As regards "emerging" & "forging": HOW can you be "emerging" and "forging" as "scientific medicine" if your central SUPERNATURAL tenets have ALREADY been scientifically dismissed DECADES AGO??? Who benefits, besides naturopathy, from this EPISTEMIC MISREPRESENTATION?].

2015 Comments Section:

2015 Comment #001: 

I've borrowed the phrase "prophets facing backward" from author Meera Nanda's 2003 book "Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India" (ISBN 0813533589).

[see ].

And I truly believe naturopathy, essentially, is ENDARKENING or a reversion to preEnlightenment thought: a failed medieval paradigm.

I'll expand on this in my answer to my episode question.

2015 Comment #002:

UBCNM's current, 2015 description of naturopathy has WORSENED as compared to what was active on the web in 2006.

You no longer can find the Dean Martin explanations of naturopathy [though they are saved at].

You can no longer find explanations of naturopathy's principles anywhere at that are transparent and complete enough to categorize as 'informed consent'.

For instance, while still labeled as within a "division of health science", naturopathy's central vitalism premise is merely called, in the "Life at UB" Spring 2014 pdf publication:

"what is naturopathic medicine? [...] the AANP (American Association of Naturopathic Physicians) defines naturopathic medicine as follows: 'naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession, emphasizing prevention, treatment, and optimal health through the use of therapeutic methods and substances that encourage individuals’ inherent self-healing process. The practice of naturopathic medicine includes modern and traditional, scientific, and empirical methods.'"

So there's the epistemic BLENDING or conflation, claimed absurdly as "distinct."

And as for VMN-HPN proper in that document, we're merely told:

"the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in people that 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."

There's the teleology-finalism [as "intelligent"] but the "vitalism" language is masked as "inherent self-healing process."

And were' also told:

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

which is quite a sectarian-type doctrine for a school that claims "nonsectarian."

Even in the 2014 UB catalog, the explanation of HPN-VMN is not clearly stated.

We're told:

"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."

And again, currently, if you go to's naturopathy site, which is naturopathy's trunk explaining itself, we're told:

"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. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process, to act to identify and remove obstacles to health and recovery, and to support the creation of a healthy internal and external environment."

The language discrepancy is fascinating.

And of course, whether masked or transparent, vitalism DOES not survive the scientific scrutiny that they claim it does to this day.

Answer the Question:

In answer to my question, 

"what holds up from 2006's ECSTCS, and how may I have changed in my criticism and analysis of naturopathy since publishing this almost 10 years ago?",

I must say I am EVEN MORE convinced about my position regarding naturopathy since 2006's publication of ECSTCS, as I have 'educated myself' further along this 20-year harmful course that naturopathy induced me into.

I highly enjoy how Canada's Committee for Advancement of Scientific Skepticism has written that naturopathy is a "failed medieval paradigm." 

Yet, what has aided my INCREASED confidence in my argument, ironically, mostly, are primary naturopathic sources themselves.

But, I must acknowledge, regarding ECSTCS, that I write differently now.

Over time, I've become more organized and pinpoint, and writing for a spoken form leads to a better narrative, I find.

But, ECSTCS was definitely worth rehashing.

Some of its sources regarding epistemology may be useful to revisit for future episodes, because without epistemology I don't know how we'd know what we know, categorically speaking.

 And I do apologize for the visual mess that including all of ECSTCS in the transcript to this 2015 recitation causes.

And speaking of revising, I do hope to devote a Naturocrit Podcast episode to Dunne et al.'s 2005 autoendorsement piece, particularly contrasting it with Atwood's excellent 2003 Medscape piece -- with fresh, 2015 or later eyes.

Warning aka "Will Robinson, there be fraudsters here!":

Now, I just got a December 2014 transcript from UB.

I'll include scans of it in this Podcast episode's transcript:

You will see, amongst other things, typical science courses MIXED with highly science-ejected JUNK:

like HOMEOPATHY and 'naturopathic history and philosophy', aka both being 'the essentially naturopathic'.

So, though labeled categorically "science", you have naturopathy falsely posing along with what is science that which profoundly isn't.

Which is the thesis of this Podcast: epistemic conflation FALSELY posed as an epistemic delineation.

And I'm thinking, because I received this through the mail:

isn't this, the United States Postal System, being used to further a continuing FRAUD that began, for me with UB, in 1997 when I started my application process with the institution?

And aren't there strict laws against that?

Surely, EVEN doctoral-level State-endorsed, regionally- and Federally-accredited commerce that is FALSE....

is still FALSE no matter how many fervent acolytes of the Naked Emperor state his clothes are magnificent!

And furthering falsehood through the postal system, aka 'the essentially naturopathic' as science as my transcript falsely poses, with naturopathy within "health science", is still ILLEGAL.

Another part of this warning: 


Four years in school at the doctoral level costs.

Plus, think of the derailing that happens due to inducement into a false 'path', forgive the pun.

As I recently wrote about at the Naturocrit Blog, "Tim" at National University of Health Sciences, a naturopathy student there, talks about how an ND degree costs about $200,000.

So, HOW MANY people in North America have gone through this "science subset naturopathy false apparatus" in the past thirty years?

Several thousand.

And, to be generous, lets say the cost of an ND is instead $100,000.

Times lets say, generously, four thousand graduates.

Wow: $400,000,000. 

And that's just the cost of the 'miseducation', setting aside the damages of the diversion!

This is the end of the Naturocrit Podcast Episode 006.

And, as usual, I will post a transcript at the Naturocrit blog.
Footnotes as Endnotes:
[18]See reference 9.
[19]Science-based whole person health care. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[20]Naturopathic Medicine Network. Naturopathic Medicine. Philosophy. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[21]Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges. Naturopathic Medicine. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[22]Federation of Naturopathic Physician Licensing Authorities. Naturopathic Physicians. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[23]Connecticut Center For Health. Frequently asked questions. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[24]Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges. Naturopathic Medical School E-Newsletter. Issue 4, December 2005. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[25]Integrative Medical Alliance. Industry news and legislative updates. American Association of Naturopathic Physicians 19th Annual Convention & Exposition. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[26]The University of Bridgeport. Engineering Ph.D. a milestone for UB; opportunity to earn doctorate part-time. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[27]College Profiles. The University of Bridgeport. The University at a Glance. Once directly available at: >< . Access available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[28]The University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine. Today’s naturopathic physician. Available at: >'s_Nat.htm<. Accessed January 18, 2006. [The male in the picture is Michael Armentano (ND UBCNM), female Tina Zigo (ND UBCNM)]. (Archived here: >'s_Nat.htm<).
[29]The American Association of Naturopathic Medical Colleges and the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine. “Satisfy your passion for Medicine. Make meaningful Connections with Patients. Become a Naturopathic Physician!” Public forum promotion. E-mailed from "Dan Saraceno" to "Clare" Clare1414@[omitted for privacy].com Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:15:56 -0500 (EST) [Clare Cullen].
[30]The University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine. Naturopathic Principles and Practice. Principles and Practice 519E. Fundamentals of Ayurvedic Medicine. Available at: ><. Accessed January 18, 2006.
[31]Sensenig, J.S. (ND ?), instructor; former Dean of UBCNM; former President of the AANP. University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine. Naturopathic History and Philosophy (PP511). Fall 1998; Syllabus, Lecture Four handout.
[note on 31] Let me be as clear as I can regarding naturopathy-CAM-ayurveda pantheism {positing the divine-human 'God-man'; and / or practicing Asian pantheistic religion in general kind like Hinduism's ayurveda and Taoism}, which UBCNM calls a "natural science": a) per the American Institute of Vedic Studies' {which is the study of Hindu scripture, where ayurveda comes from} Frawley, D. {click here, ><, archived here ><}: "ayurveda works along with yoga to prescribe helpful asana, pranayama, mantra and meditation methods for optimal health and spiritual development {UBCNM requires SD}. The asanas that are good for one person or good for one season, just like the food articles, may not be good for another. Pranayama has its energetic effects. By strengthening prana or the life-force we can improve perception and circulation and add more energy to counter all diseases. Indeed prana is the second form of God, the Prana Brahma of the Upanishads"; b) per CQ Researcher 02-14-1997 {>my database; common librarian reference<}: "ayurvedic practitioners regard disease either as an imbalance in the life force ('prana') or, in some cases, as karmically preordained" {a Hindu worldview; which is also justification for caste hierarchy; not exceptionally American in terms of equality values}; c) the Alternative Medicine Channel reports: "in 1902 Benedict Lust, considered the father of naturopathy, wrote, 'in a word, naturopathy stands for the reconciling, harmonizing and unifying of nature, humanity and God' {conflation of epistemic type GALORE, obviously reenchantment of the 'natural' and positing the 'man-God'}{click here, ><><}].
[32]Sensenig (Lecture One handout).
[33]Nanda, M. Prophets Facing Backward: Postmodern Critiques of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2003: 125-159.
[34]There are no current allopathic medical physicians or schools, because current medicine is scientific and not ‘allopathic philosophy based.’ This is a sectarian false reaccusation: the a priori sectarian group states that the a posteriori group is just like them – another unjustified naturopathic conflation.
[35]The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. AANP responds to Medscape article. Available at: ><. Accessed January 19, 2006. [Obviously, though in this article they promise response to Atwood's content, Dunne et al 2005 sidestepped all essential points].
[36]In movement from left to right, the first column as ‘kind’ disappears midway, and that’s when the second column as ‘kind’ begins -- roughly.
[37]Sensuous, necessary but not sufficient to be scientific.
[38]In the sense of what the community of scientists accept as science, in the sense of ‘the science that scientists do.’
[39]Naturopathy’s homeopathy as a sub-example (see Gevitz N. Sectarian medicine. JAMA. 1987;257,12:1636-1640; and the reference I’ve previously cited at, since Flexner pointed this out in 1910, that sectarianism’s hallmark is a priori preference flying in the face of evidence or claims not ascribed by evidence [nonparsimony].
[40]I want particularly to state that court decisions clearly indicate that science is neither religious nor a religion (it is not of sectarian hidebound untestable supernatural doctrine), that I’m not criticizing naturopathy from the point of view of another religion, and particularly, as I previously state in references, it is a fallacy to call modern medicine ‘allopathy’ or ‘allopathic,’ which is an unjustified naturopathic reverse-accusation of modern medicine as being ‘sectarian.’
[note on 40] The mislabeling of 'MD' medicine as allopathy is quite pervasive in the naturopathic arena, e.g.: . Holston, E. (ND NCNM) states: "glossary […] allopathy - is a termed coined by the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, for conventional medical practice that utilizes medications whose effects are different from the disease being treated and which have no relationship to the disease symptoms"; . (click here, ) (archived here, ) . {This is quite an accusation.}].
[41]That which essentially is required at UBCNM (historically, currently) within an area claiming to be a branch of medical science and nonsectarian (historically, currently) {with nonsectarian, reasonably, labeling UBCNM as a program and naturopathy as a professsion with no certain supernatural beliefs required to enter or later required / imposed to accomplish the education / degree / DO the domain; yet to believe in spirit is a certain kind of supernaturalism / article of faith, and to believe that 'the spiritual' can be developed is also a certain kind of supernatural article of faith}.
[note on 41: The University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine'srequirement of "personal spiritual development," e.g.: . “six guiding principles. Guiding principle #5 The physician as teacher. Viz docere […] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher”; . (click here, (archived here,
[42]E.g. naturopathic ‘supernatural naturalism,’ ‘naturopathy is a distinct profession that blends,’ a non-sectarian University containing a sectarian program or two or three, a retrograde profession that’s ‘emerging,’ ‘naturopaths are general practitioners who are specialists’ etc.
[43]E.g. naturo. combines opposites and says they’re the same thing, or combines different things and then says they're the same thing, conflates...and is irrational in the sense of the non sequitur, all of which is irrational; while the scientific is about rational analysis and rational thinking.
[44]Naturopathy claims to be “emerging” and “developing,” but truly -- through delimiting knowledge type, ignoring and manipulating the connotations of shared language and the responsibility ‘safety nets’ that modern society has established in terms accountability and culpability -- naturopathy is retrograde ‘old wine constantly being repacked in new bottles with new labels,’ and exploiting the public trust.
[45]There are many synonyms for the ‘unthingly thing’ that is posited as the ‘vital entity,’ and in needing a term that adequately expresses the conglomeration and syncretism of synonyms, and its epistemic status, I use “vital-force-spirit” (VFS). In support: I’ll quote two different naturopaths across the naturopathy spectrum, one from the American Naturopathic Medical Association (ANMA) or ‘correspondence education’ branch, 1) Minard, P. (ND) Available at ><. Accessed January 22, 2006. “elan vitale [...aka] the Spirit of Life or the Vital Life Force”; and one from the aforementioned AANP ‘residence education’ branch 2) Abrin, T.A. (ND) Available at ><. Accessed January 22, 2006. “use the Healing Power of Nature. The body has the ability to maintain and restore health. Healing occurs as a result of the revival of our ‘vital force’ - qi, prana, spirit.” (for further illumination on what 'life-force' is typically equated with, see this search per, click here).
[46]I’ll tackle this in three parts, per: 1) ‘The animatistic’ is a general spirituality type according to anthropology, and is sometimes called pre-animism and sometimes called post-animism though both animatism and animism are often stated to occur simultaneously. I term naturopathy “animatism” per The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2003) “a belief that all animate and inanimate objects are infused with a common life force [VFS].“ Available ><. Accessed January 16, 2006. Per Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (2001) “the belief that everything in nature, animate and inanimate, contains a spirit or soul.” Available at >http://0/<. Accessed January 16, 2006. These definitions are entirely appropriate, and fit very well as concerns VFS; per: 2) the ‘New Age,’ see the entry for naturopathy (in Melton JG et al. New Age Encyclopedia. Detroit: Gale Research Inc.; 1990: 214-215). Melton is an expert in religious types and fringe groups [though Rick Ross advises that Melton's more recent 'RNM scholarship objectivity' is questionable]; per: 3) Naturopathy is ‘pantheism,’ in that ‘all has generic impersonal vital-force-spirit,’ and thus the divine is therefore immanent, which is a basic definition of pantheism: “immanence, conception in philosophy and theology that the intelligent and creative force or being that governs the universe [VFS for naturopathy; after all it is “intelligent” and “purposeful” in governance as sectarian ‘Natural Law’] pervades the natural world. Immanence is a fundamental doctrine of pantheism and can be contrasted with transcendence, which conceives of the intelligent and creative force as existing outside the natural world. In pantheistic systems of thought, for example, all material objects in the universe are pervaded with the infinite divine presence [the supernatural, the divine; the VFS]” from Microsoft Encarta (2006). Hinduism is pantheism and prana is one name for Hindu universal spirit, and Sensenig equated VFS with Hindu prana and ‘God power within’ my first semester at UBCNM, which if not anything else is a pantheistic ‘divine within’ [and currently, as I’ve indicted, UBCNM falsely states that Hinduism’s Ayurveda is a “natural science”]. The naturopathic equation of “healing power of nature” as qi as VFS indicates that Taoistic animism is also part of their beliefs. Therefore, ‘the naturopathic’ -- as expressed in the most transparent and direct manner that I can – is an ‘animatistic New Age pantheism’ spectrum.
[47]In the sense of this world.
[48]E.g. the naturopathic fixed principles, and what they actually mean in knowledge type, perfectly exemplify this.
[49]Modern medicine does not set up a required idealistic metaphysical supernaturalism that their practitioners must embrace (i.e. religion is a personal matter of choice outside the scientific, different from scientific claims of ‘how the world, and the human being within that world, work’) and then represent it as science; while I acknowledge that there are scientists with personal religious views.
[50]As previously cited, per a UBCNM Dean and a UBCNM ‘philosophy’ instructor -- "naturopathy blends!"
[51]The naturopathic aversion toward finding out how living things work can best be illustrated by their disparagement of “reductionism” but I want to make clear that holisticism as type is NOT tantamount to vitalism and their supernaturalism, there is a science type holistic that’s not vitalistic and is parsimonious, and I refer to Allen as previously cited in Encarta and also, (Allen GE. Mechanism, vitalism and organicism in late nineteenth and twentieth-century biology: the importance of historical context. Stud Hist Phil Biol & Biomed Sci. 2005;25:261-283), which is some rare objective scholarship on vitalism and holism types. Scientific holism, or the concept of emergent properties and the like in biology, results from the organization of physical material, not an 'unthingly thing' 'geist in the machine' such as VFS.
[52]Averse to self-testing and self-correcting habits; intellectually lazy; also, finding what’s wanted from the science corpus to the extent that only what is within preconceptions is selected, and no beliefs will ever be put aside (rigorous science has dispensed with vitalism; naturopathy is defined by it).
[53]Testable, correcting - minimally; passes a high scientific peer-bar.
[54]To affirmatively posture that which lacks factual empirical evidence never mind scientific evidence; I must add fundamentalistic, in the sense of narrow-minded and unwavering adherence per current Wikipedia "the term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite possible contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship." Available at ><. Accessed April 15, 2006.
[55]Teleology is the logical fallacy also known as reverse-causation (but, the future does not determine actions that lead up to it) .
[56](See Weisz, PB, Keogh, RN. The Science of Biology, Fifth Edition. NY: McGraw-Hill). Available at ><. Accessed January 22, 2006.
[57]The vital-force-spirit is by definition, immaterial and naturopathy’s concern -- "the underlying cause."
[58]Scientifically, like it or not parsimoniously, the human being in terms of this life is a material or substance phenomenon, i.e. within the laws of chemistry and physics etc. without need to grasp for nonparsimonious explanation; mind as an emergent property of brain, entirely dependent upon brain.
[59]This is what the vitalist Driesch had been called. (Available here, ><. Accessed January 22, 2006). I can’t take credit for a label which I think is entirely appropriate for naturopathy, though I wish I could!
[60]The previous citations of Allen encompass this polarity.
Note on [60]: Perhaps this position encompasses modern medical science's point of view (per being based in post-Enlightenment scientific mannerisms):
Kurtz, P. (PhD ?) states: [in "Skepticism and Humanism: The New Paradigm"(2001)]: "we should never abandon scientific methodology [...] we should endeavor to test all claims by reference to justifying evidence and reasons [...] the scientific naturalist argues that we should seek natural causes and explanations for paranormal and religious phenomena [...that of the] 'transcendental, supernatural, occult, or paranormal realm' over and beyond the natural world [p.120...] secular humanism [...] it's commitment to naturalism [...which] can be construed in many senses [...a)] a methodological rule [...per] we should always seek to find natural causes and regularities to explain phenomena and reject occult or nonnatural explanations [...b) also] naturalism can also be properly construed as a theory of reality or a cosmic outlook, especially in response to supernatural, paranormal, or idealistic worldviews [...] naturalists are nonreductive materialists [...e.g.] the universe does not seem to present purpose or design, nor is there evidence for an ultimate spiritual universe [...] for the naturalist, the most reliable accounts of nature are provided by the sciences, and this suggests that nature is basically physical-chemical at root, that natural processes are undergoing evolutionary change, and that different manifestations of phenomena appear on different levels of observation [p.150...] naturalism natural science was able to develop freely in the sixteenth century only when it abandoned occult explanations [...] naturalists are skeptics, atheists, or agnostics about the god question; they reject the existence of the 'soul' or belief that is survives the death of the body [...] what do we mean by naturalism? There are at least three senses [...1)] naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations [...e.g.] the Darwinian revolution of the nineteenth century was so impressive because it sought naturalistic explanations for biological phenomena [...also 2)] as a generalized description of the universe [...wherein] nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry [...that is] natural processes at various levels of observation and complexity [...from] electrons and molecules, [to] cells and organisms, [to] flowers and trees, [to] psychological cognition and perception, [to] social institutions and culture [...] naturalistic explanations at various levels of complexity [...necessarily] a nonreductive naturalism [a 'holism'...because] we cannot at this time reduce [...the very complex to] physics and chemistry [...without] 'spirit' or 'purpose' in nature, and least of all a divine being for which there is insufficient evidence [...a creator or designer] is to leap outside of the naturalistic universe [p.202...] today, it is possible to defend [...] nonreductive materialism, on empirical scientific grounds [ is not simply an] abstract metaphysical speculation [...] the universe is basically physical-chemical or material in structure, it is evolving in time; and human life is continuous with other natural processes and can be explained in terms of them [...] naturalism [...] is an alternative to supernaturalism [...which is based on] a literature of faith and piety, supported by powerful religious institutions [] mythical illusions [...but] unsupported by scientific evidence [...3)] naturalism has an ethical dimension [...per] naturalistic ethics [...which] relates human values and principles to the desires, interests, and needs of human beings [...] humans are responsible for their own destinies individually and socially [...and] rejects the idea that you have to believe in god to in order to be moral [p.203]"(ISBN 0765800519);


VI. Appendix A. - "Impressions Gradient Diagrams:"
[Illustrations and citations intended to detail naturopathic medicine / naturopathy, nature cure, natural medicine, naturopathy CAM, or naturopathy "holistic medicine" {h.m. is one of the terms naturopathy uses to brand themselves, click here -- encompassing 'the naturopathic' with that label} in terms of specific conceptualizations / language / equations!]:
"Table A1 -- Naturopathy, knowledge type, and associations - an impressions gradient:"[37]
[This is a jpg, click on it to enlarge into a readable image {what YOU view web-based jpgs through will determine its quality}]:

[Vocabulary of this jpg: scientific medicine, national science standards, sectarian, non-sectarian / nonsectarian, evasive, misleading, manipulative, exploiting, direct, transparent, honest, socially responsible, spiritual development, non-spiritual / nonspiritual, mystical, confabulating, oxymoronic, practical, parsimonious [in this sense: click here, and click here], rational, logical, antique, modern, nonvitalistic / non-vitalistic, naturalistic [in this sense minimally, "a wholly naturalistic framework, eschewing vitalism, finalism or teleology, and creationism," click here], vital-force-spirit (VFS), supernatural, secular, animatistic New Age pantheism {ANAP: what I call an animism-animatism-pantheism syncretism}, otherworldly, doctrine, dogma, a priori, a posteriori, conflating, delineating, non-rigor, high rigor, mental, belief, conjecture, teleological, immateriocentric, sensuous, physicalistic, evidence, causalistic, materiocentric, metaphysician, physician, 'metaphysical vitalistic nonparsimonious holism,' 'materialistic nonvitalistic parsimonious holism'];
"Table A2 -- (a further gradient):"


VII.a. Appendix B. - 'The Vitalism of Naturopathy' (click here,;
[This is a continually updated indication of the extensivity of the required vitalism of naturopathy, from large overarching institutions to the practitioners naturopathic schools produce. There are piles more; and even more depictions that don't honestly reveal naturopathy's vitalistic underpinnings, and instead use misleading 'naturalistic' language. Examples I've used are 'explicitly vitalistic' inside naturopathy and per the CAM areas naturopathy embraces];
VIIb. Appendix BB. - 'The Spiritism of Naturopathy' (click here,;
VIII.a. Appendix C. - 'The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism' (click here,;
[Dawkins is my favorite, the parallel of 'the power that explains life as elan vital' as therefore 'lifeliness,' and 'the power that explains a train as force locomotif ' as therefore 'trainliness,' is quite amusing and illuminating - science seeks to understand, not use place-fillers like 'mysterious / unknowable VFS look no further' in the place of knowledge. This list is continuously growing, and contains, amongst others, explicit statements by Nobel laureates in science that vitalism is a scientifically discarded explanation];
VIII.b. Appendix CC. - 'The Scientific Rejection of Supernaturalism' (click here,;
VIII.a. Appendix D. - 'ND Sectarian Creed' (click here,;
[Often abbreviated as their 'holistic philosophy' per AANP nat. org.; recommended web searches: (per, >"based upon a holistic" naturopathic<, click here; per, >"founded upon a holistic"< here)];
VIII.b. Appendix DD. - 'Hoax, Fraud and the Like' [yet to happen];

IX. Appendix E. - 'ND Sectarian Oath: (for a practitioner example, click here,;
X. Appendix F. - 'ND Sectarian Therapeutic Order:'
[Present in the new 2005 edition of the "Textbook of Natural Medicine" (click here,; (a) click here, per AANP practitioner example,; b) click here, per AANP ND sect. creed co-chairs reference,];
XI. Appendix G. - 'Naturopathic Knowledge Conflation in Detail' (click here,;
XII.a. Appendix H. - 'The University of Bridgeport's Non-Sectarian Claims' (click here,;
XII.b. Appendix HH. - 'On Sectarianism' (click here,;
XIII. Appendix I. - 'Naturopathic Science Claims' (click here,;
[as scientific en masse as phlogiston, 'Christian Science,' or 'scientific creationism,' or astrology, or flat-Earth geography etc. {as in NOT}].
XIV. Appendix J. - 'Coded VFS - Naturopathic Nontransparency of the VFS Underpinnings' (click here,;
XV.a. Appendix K. - 'Science and Pseudoscience' (click here,;
XV.b. Appendix KK. - 'On Skepticism' (click here,;
XVI. Appendix L. - 'Methodological Naturalism, Science, Supernaturalism, Skepticism, Humanism" (click here, ><) [yet to happen];
XVII. Appendix N. - 'Supernatural Definitions' (click here,;
XIX. Appendix O. - 'Naturopathic Claims of Being Professional' (click here,;
Post a Comment