Sunday, February 1, 2015

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 007 - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 007, titled "Naturopathy's Supposed Value", wherein I cite from and comment upon a late 2014 NYANP blog series authored by NDs Heerey, Henninger, Brinkman and a 2013 book by ND Finker, "It's About Wellness, Naturally":

001. the Episode 007 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 Naturocrit Podcast Episode 007, titled "Naturopathy's Supposed Value", I cite from and comment upon a 6-post blog series that the NYANP NDs Heerey, Henninger and Brinkman authored at the end of 2014 titled "The Value of Naturopathic Medicine in New York."

Episode Question:

And my overarching episode question for this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 007 is:

"if you're values are reversed like naturopathy's, should your self-assessments regarding your VALUE be trusted?"

Episode 007 Main Body:

I'll begin this Episode 007 with an example that I think serves as a microcosm of what I'll call 'naturopathy's naturoPATHillogical nature'.

It's the 'in sum science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy' ABSURDITY.

First, there's the current, 2015, FALSE claim of homeopathy's efficacy at

This is quite the false product their selling.

The 2015-01 post by ND Kachko (2015 archived) -- a graduate of my alma mater, UBCNM, who practices at with NDs LoGiudice, Bongiorno and Hanlon --titled "What is Homeopathy and What Can It Do for Me?"(2015 archived)(also at his practice) [vsc 2015-01-22] states:

"one of many tools at the disposal of a naturopathic doctor [] homeopathy [...] an extremely effective and comprehensive system of medicine [...] its efficacy is further explained by a principle foundational to naturopathy: that the body has an inherent capacity to heal itself [coded vitalism...] homeopathic remedies serve as targeted stressors or 'messages' which stimulate our adaptive capacity [coded vitalism...] the adaptive healing tendency unique to each individual [coded vitalism...] homeopathy often serves to create clarity [...] the study of homeopathy helps us gain a better understanding of our patients and forge closer relationships with them, and allows us to truly understand the whole person."

So, some things to immediately note:

- a claim of homeopathy's efficacy as "extremely effective";

- homeopathy's supposed virtues of creating "clarity", "better understanding", and improving naturopath-patient bonding;

- coded vitalism as "the body has an inherent capacity to heal itself", "our adaptive capacity", and "adaptive healing tendency unique to each individual" directly bound-up with homeopathy's supposed efficacy.

And to be clear about how CODED that "life force" vitalistic concept is in this NYANP homeopathy post by that UBCNM graduate, I refer you to the 2014 catalog at (2015 archived) -- his alma mater, my alma mater -- which tells us:

"philosophy of naturopathic medicine [...] students will gain an important perspective of the vital force and its role in the healing process, when used in conjunction with naturopathic principles."

Wouldn't want to state "vital force" or "life force" TRANSPARENTLY at NYANP, now would you?

That would be bad for business.

That would be TOO MUCH informed consent.

Now, homeopathy doesn't work, scientifically speaking.It is an elaborate placebo, which we're also not told of in the post.

Again so much for informed consent.

Homeopathy's CUMULATIVE scientific vetting is exceptionally thorough in its scope.

I will pick from two very comprehensive studies with high standards.

There's the 2009 UK report, from, which stated, to briefly summarize:

"by providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA licensing of products which subsequently appear on pharmacy shelves, the Government runs the risk of endorsing homeopathy as an efficacious system of medicine. To maintain patient trust, choice and safety, the Government should NOT endorse the use of PLACEBO treatments, including homeopathy. Homeopathy should NOT be funded on the NHS and the MHRA should STOP licensing homeopathic products."

And there's the 2014 Australian report by the NHMRC, whose conclusion was nicely summarized by a article titled "NHMRC Rule Homeopathic Remedies Useless for Human Health."

These two overviews are truly of 'highest rigor, preponderance and consensus.'

Yet, in this ND Kachko post, lauding homeopathy, the OPPOSITE regarding homeopathy is claimed:

"extremely effective."

How to we get to this?

Because naturopathy is, obviously, VERY FRINGE and truly a REVERSAL of values.

As I've said in earlier episodes, I left UBCNM because of, primarily, HOMEOPATHY.

As my academic transcript from UB shows, which I've placed in the transcript at the Naturocrit Blog for the Naturocrit Podcast episode 006, I kept dropping homeopathy because I found it ETHICALLY UNTENABLE.

The fact that the University of Bridgeport, to this day, falsely labels 'naturopathy with its requisite homeopathy, vitalism and supernaturalism' 'nonsectarian doctoral level health science' is HORRIBLE.

So, there's a little thumbnail, or microcosm, of the naturoPATHillogical.

Now ND Kachko had said:

"homeopathy helps us gain a better understanding of our patients and forge closer relationships with them."

By way of placebo.

If I was a patient of an ND giving me placebo pills, who was quite wrong stating they're effective, I don't think my relationship with that ND would be getting 'forged closer.'

But obviously, this would be a matter of patient education CONTRARY or above and beyond the junk being told to them by their naturopath.

So, in that example microcosm of naturopathy's 'basic reversal of values naturoPATHillogical' nature, again, I'll ask the question:

should naturopathy be TRUSTED in its self-assessments?

I don't think so.

Naturopathy's content seems contrary to its labels.

They are UNTRUSTWORTHY, but I want to know more.

All this 'homeopathy efficacy falsehood' is happening while NYANP claims a position of HIGHEST trust:


Yet, who has ever heard of a profession that cannot be trusted?

Who has ever heard of a profession that violates the two MOST basic premises of professionalism:

credat emptor, let the buyer have faith as in 'utmost trust' by way of fiduciary duty, that the client's needs will be first and foremost?

Going beyond my thumbnail, here's more 'science subset naturopathy's homeopathy' at to further UNDERMINE naturopathy's supposed professional status and show in more detail this PATHillogical pattern!

Because, being a native New Yorker, I can ironically state:

"I love New York ANP!"

A gift that keeps on giving, for Naturocrit.

Further Homeopathy and Science Claims at, Because Naturopathy's PATHillogicality is ABUNDANT:

Regarding homeopathy, there's also the page "The Top 5 Homeopathic Remedies of Depression" (2015 archived).

I think they mean 'for depression', which obviously claims EFFICACY for something very serious by way of a therapy that has no specific scientifically unsupported effects.

This webinar was sponsored by the Maryland ANP, and geared toward naturopathy continuing education.

It is, by the way, at that we are told in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" (2015 archived):

"licensed naturopathic doctors [...] are required to pass two rounds of board exams, one testing the basic biomedical science, and the second testing the clinical sciences" with homeopathy within that second bank of tests.

That's that same old naturopathic mislabeling, at a State guild organization pushing for licensure this 2015.

Let's call it all 'continuing miseducation.'

Speaking of attempted licensure, the NYANP page "Intent of Legislation" (2015 archived), which is the NYANP's 2015 licensure attempt, states:

"it is not the intent of the NYANP [law] to restrict the use of homeopathy to naturopathic doctors. The only restriction we promote would apply to those who identify themselves as naturopathic doctors, whom we believe must have a license in order to identify themselves as naturopathic doctors, and as such, also be eligible to prescribe a homeopathic remedy or any other natural therapy."

And the page "What is a Naturopathic Doctor?"(2014 archived) states:

"naturopathic doctors use a variety of natural and non-invasive therapies, including [...] homeopathy."

So, abundant homeopathy, which is quite the 'epistemic litmus test.'

NYANP Overarching or Categorical Science Claims:

And, of course, NYANP tells us 'it's science, including its homeopathy'.

In "Learn about Naturopathic Medicine" (2014 archived) we're told:

"in the United States, the naturopathic medical profession’s infrastructure includes accredited educational institutions, professional licensing, national standards of practice, peer review, and a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research [...] naturopathy continues to grow and evolve as a body of knowledge. Naturopathic medicine, as an organized profession, is committed to ongoing research and development of its science. It incorporates many elements of scientific modern medicine."

That's right, not just "science", but "state-of-the-art science."

On the NYANP page "Speakers"(2014 archived) we're told:

"Dr. Anne Williams completed her doctorate in naturopathic medicine and a master’s in acupuncture at Bastyr University, one of the leading centers for science-based natural medicine."

That's the HUGE false label of 'science subset naturopathy' that I've covered before as COINED by Bastyr founder ND Pizzorno.

And yet, though science is claimed, on that same page there's naturopathy's homeopathy.

We're told:

"Michael Traub, ND [NCNM 1991], DHANP [that's a naturopathy homeopathy board certification...] Maria Cronyn, ND [SCNM ], DHANP [...] Dr. Cronyn has completed examinations of Diplomat of the Homeopathic Association of Naturopathic Physicians."

At ND Traub's own page "Homeopathy" (2013 archive) we're told:

"early in his career, Dr. Traub underwent extensive postgraduate training and study in homeopathic medicine. He became board certified in classical homeopathy. He uses this as a basis for his practice."

At ND Cronyn's own page "Frequently Asked Questions" (2015 archived) we're told:

"homeopathy is the safest, MOST EFFECTIVE medicine I have ever encountered. In order to use it effectively, I went through long years of study to understand the human body and its ability to cope with disease."

Their DHANP credentialing organization, that Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, in "What is Homeopathy?" (2014 archived), states:

"an increasing body of scientific research is proving the potent biological action of homeopathic preparations."

Bull shit, IMHO.

"Most effective", "a basis", "science"?

And isn't that the PROBLEM with naturopathy, that false claim 'science subset naturopathy subset HOMEOPATHY and kind.'

So, to map this kind of like the Romans once did, I'd say, regarding the territory naturopathy occupies:

careful, there be MONSTROUS quackery here.

And while were at it, in terms of homeopathy proponents, lets look at ND Kachko.

ND Kachko's Four-ND Practice:

The practice's web address is

We're told on the page "Homeopathy" (2014 archived):

"homeopathy is a form of medicine that utilizes dilute, potentized remedies made from plant, animal and mineral substances. It is based on two fundamental principles: the greater the dilution of a remedy the more powerful is its medicinal effects, 'like cures like', which means a dilute, potentized substance will produce the same symptoms as the disease when given to a healthy person."

This is pharmacological NONSENSE.

There's the practice's video of October 2013, "Dr. Pina LoGiudice Explains Homeopathy on the Dr. Oz Show" (2015 archived).

That video, titled "Homeopathic Starter Kit", is at Dr. Oz's web site (2015 archived).

The description states:

"tired of reaching for over-the-counter medicines and antibiotics? If you’re looking for a natural way to heal and treat your family, homeopathy might be for you! Dr. Pina LoGiudice joins Dr. Oz to explain the basics [...and the ND says] it's great."
What's most interesting, in the video, is that the ND tells us to match our symptoms to the proper remedy.

But, isn't naturopathy always accusing the regular medical people, medical doctors aka MDs as in Mary, of 'merely treating symptoms' and not 'the thing itself'?

The practice's web page "Naturopathic Services"(2014 archived) also states:

"naturopathic medicine combines safe and effective traditional therapies" and that would include its homeopathy.

The practice's pdf "Tips for Parents: A Ten Point Naturopathic Medicine Plan for ADHD" (2015 archived) states:

"author: Pina LoGiudice ND, LAc [...] Peter Bongiorno ND, LAc, source: New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] in many cases, there are wonderful natural, non-drug treatments that can help a child balance, focus and calm [...] there is growing evidence regarding the effective use of individual natural therapies for this condition [...such as] homeopathy [...which is] used extensively in Europe and India, homeopathy is an energetic medicine that uses the law of ‘like cures like’ by using infinitesimal dilutions of various compounds. In children, homeopathy seems to be effective for many conditions, as a child’s energy [this is coded vitalism, of course] is usually quite strong and responsive to this modality. We have used homeopathy quite effectively for a range of conditions, include infant colic and sleeping issues, pediatric fevers and colds, as well as mood balancing."

The practice's pdf "Seasonal Allergies" (2015 archived), by ND Siobhan Bleakney, states: 

"natural treatments are proven to be just as effective in preventing and treating allergies as the OTC medications are, and come with fewer if any, negative side effects [...] homeopathic remedies are safe and effective for treating allergies."

So, I think there's a lot of homeopathy and a lot of supposed efficacy claimed at by its various naturopaths.'s Science Claim:

There's the page "Dr. Peter Bongiorno ND, LAc" (2014 archived) (also here) (2011 archived) which states:

"Dr. Peter Bongiorno graduated from Bastyr University, the leading accredited university for science-based natural medicine."

Again, that "science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy" absurdity: the 'naturoPATHillogical', a reversal of values regarding science, professionalism, and LOGIC.

So, there's a little more beyond my thumbnail or microcosm. 

And now onwards to that 6-post series....

The NYANP 6-part Blog Series:

Now, this late 2014 series is titled:

"The Value of Naturopathic Medicine in New York: Cost-Effective Primary Care for Disease Prevention and Health Improvement."

And, if naturopathy's false labeling of homeopathy as science is any indication, watch out value-wise!!!

The main author is "Dr. Sean Heerey", the current 2015 NYANP Board of Directors' Treasurer.

According to his practice page biography (2014 archived) at, he is a graduate of NCNM and likes practicing craniosacral therapy and "energy" medicines like homeopathy.

By way of, the ND educational context is embedded in ABSURDITY.

As I have written many times, it's the ND sites themselves which provide the best evidence of naturopathy's 'naturoPATHillogical'.

NCNM, for instance, states at "Learn About Naturopathic Medicine" (2015 archived):

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature — vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...which is] in fact [...and homeopathy is] powerful."

Check please!!!

That basis is FALSE!

Vitalism does not survive scientific scrutiny.

Homeopathy is NOT powerful.

We're also told:

"the physician must also make a commitment to her / his personal and spiritual development."

Though I highly respect freedom of belief, supernaturalism does not survive scientific scrutiny.

So why should such issues of personal belief or disbelief be required for an area that claims 'scientific filtering'?

And, overall, this false science position of 'including the science-ejected and unscienceable supernatural with science' is categorically misleadingly termed "proven natural therapies."

And NCNM states, on that same page:

"our mission is to educate and train [per...] the art, science and research of natural medicine."

That same old naturopathic nuttiness.

Because once you are science-educated enough, naturopathy FALLS APART as a cohesive body of knowledge

Anyway, onwards to "The Value of Naturopathic Medicine in New York" series.

And being that homeopathy in activity and naturopathy's central premises in belief aren't mentioned AT ALL IN NAME in the series, you can perhaps expect this thing to be quite the opaque veneer.

In this part, titled "The Problem: Chronic Disease", we're told:

"this is the first article of a six-article series on the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety of naturopathic medicine when it comes to health promotion and disease prevention based on research from across the country [...] naturopathic medicine is a medical system defined by its philosophy of treating the 'cause of disease' and not just alleviating symptoms [ speaks of] patient empowerment [ mentions] U.S. Senate Resolution 221 of the 113th Congress [...which states] 'naturopathic medicine is a safe, effective, and affordable means of health care [...and speaks of the need for] licensure of naturopathic doctors [...licensure] helps address the shortage of primary care physicians in the United States, while also providing people with more choice in health care [...] the problem [...] chronic disease is overwhelming the medical system and our economy [...] according to the Center for Disease Control, chronic diseases [...] more than 75% of health care costs are due to chronic preventable conditions [...] according to the New York State Department of Health, 'chronic diseases affect the lives of six million New Yorkers, and account for 73% of deaths in New York State annually' [...] many chronic diseases are linked to lifestyle choices that are within your own hands to change. Eating nutritious foods, becoming more physically active and avoiding tobacco can help keep you from developing many of these diseases and conditions."

Part 1 Commentary:

Regarding Chronic Disease:

Now, I'm all for reducing people's morbidity and mortality in terms of ALL diseases, including chronic disease.

So, the logic, I take it, is that people need to make better lifestyle choices by way of diet, exercise, tobacco avoidance therefore NATUROPATHY.

But WHAT exactly in those answers is essentially NATUROPATHIC?

The healthcare professionals who do those interventions / therapies ALREADY exist.

One of my majors was physical education or exercise science, and I carried certifications as a personal trainer and medical exercise specialist.

So, I know the contents of exercise science, and there's nothing there that's essentially naturopathic.

I would think it is dietitians and nutritionists, and fitness professionals, who are most suited by referral to solve the problem the naturopath poses.

So, again, WHAT exactly in those answers is particularly NATUROPATHIC requiring?

And those already established healthcare professionals, roughly speaking, don't bring the baggage of 'science subset nonscience by institutional decree' that naturopathy does.

Regarding PCPing:

As for primary care, it is actually SCARY that NDs would be considered experienced and skilled enough to be PCPs.

They don't do residences, they don't do internships.

They don't see particularly 'very ill' patients in their training, as in hospital-bound patients.

And they don't have to abide by preponderant standard of care.

Perhaps they can be primary care metaphysicians, speaking of ethereal life forces and POWERFUL empty remedies. 

Regarding the Senate Resolution:

That resolution is NOT a scientific vetting.

It is a political decree by proponents who hold office.

In the resolution is the claim of efficacy.

But, that blanket label is WRONG, scientifically speaking.

How about naturopathy's false claim that homeopathy has efficacy.

Again, all naturopathic claims are suspect!

Regarding Patient Empowerment:

How are patients empowered when values are so reversed?

Regarding Naturopathy's Philosophy:

There is QUITE the insinuation that MD, medical doctor, medicine only treats symptoms and not the 'cause', as naturopathy does.

Well, the web page of ND Heerey's alma mater can help us out here.

The "cause" in naturopathyland is a FIGMENTATION.

Didn't I say values here are SO REVERSED.

We're told by NCNM, in "About Naturopathic Medicine" (2015 archive) that it is a "life force" that causes the body's symptoms:

"the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself."

A life force, scientific speaking, is science-ejected: it is as "in fact" as leprechauns.

So that's Part One of an autoendorsement from those who cannot be trusted.

Part 2 (2014 archived):

In this part, titled "Evidence Based Chronic Disease Prevention", we're told:

"according to the New York State Department of Health Division of Chronic Disease, its top priorities are [...etc.] the World Health Organization has estimated that if the major risk factors of chronic disease were eliminated [...etc.] although the evidence is well known that chronic disease is preventable and reversible the MD (allopathic) dominated healthcare system to this day does not integrate it into treatment as the prevalence of chronic disease shows [...] 'naturopathic doctors are experts in guideline-directed, evidence-based lifestyle modification.'"

Part 2 Commentary:

So, in this part, they're still talking about "chronic disease" and they've mentioned "evidence based."

Yet, for example, because something as absurd as homeopathy is being FALSELY positioned as "effective" and "science based" institutionally by naturopathy, one should be cautious.

Whenever naturopaths talk of SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT and what's being done is ESSENTIALLY naturopathic, like homeopathy, it's usually the OPPOSITE of scientific preponderance!

And when what's being talked about IS scientifically supported, you'll find that that claim or therapy isn't ESSENTIALLY naturopathic.

Diet and lifestyle modification AREN'T essentially naturopathic, yet they claim themselves therein 'the experts.'

How are ND s experts, and legitimate primary care providers, when their mixing of what is actually supported by science and evidence, and what is REFUTED by science and evidence, are broadly, and falsely muddled together under the label "science based"?

There's also what I call the 'reverse sectarian accusation', wherein MD medicine is improperly termed "allopathic."

One should keep in mind that 200 years ago, the founder of HOMEOPATHY invented that term to describe the medicine of HIS time.

Allopathy, historically speaking, is that era where medicine was post-medieval but prescientific!

They bled you to death, in other words.

Yet, it seems to be catching on especially with those who don't know their history.

So that's Part Two of an autoendorsement from those who cannot be trusted.

Part 3 (2014 archived):

This part is titled "Training" and makes what I call the 'naturopathy is superscience' claim.

It states:

"comparison of academic curriculum hours for US naturopathic (ND), allopathic (MD) and osteopathic schools [...] profession: naturopathic, allopathic, osteopathic [notice the false parallels there...] anatomy: 350, 380 [...] physiology: 250,125 [and that is quite humorous because the functional life force is a physiological claim and it is wrong, so quantity is not helping us here in terms of naturopathy's absurdities...] biochemistry: 125, 109 [...] pharmacology: 100, 114 [...] pathology: 125, 166 [...] microbio / immun.: 175, 185  [...] total: 1125, 1079 [...we're also told]

there are 6 naturopathic medical schools in the United States [including] Lombard IL [...] minimum pre-requisites are 3 years of pre-medical sciences at a university including biology, biochemistry, chemistry, organic chemistry, introductory psychology and humanities [...]  

CNME [at] is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the profession’s programmatic accrediting agency [...] graduates from CNME accredited programs are qualified to sit for professional proficiency exams administered by the North American Board of Naturopathic Medical Examiners (NABNE) [@] and written by the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination (NPLEX)."

Part 3 Commentary:

Again, that "allopathic" reverse sectarian accusation.

And that "profession" claim.

Regarding Science Education:

So, and I shit you not, based on these comparative numbers, naturopathy claims quantitatively, MORE science than MD medicine.

MD medicine that actually has PROBLEM with and SANCTIONS for those within who pose as science that which hugely is not.

And yet, as NCNM, the trunk of the ND tree shows, QUALITATIVELY, science has been so unlimited through naturopathy's philosophical lens on the world, that even vitalism, supernaturalism and homeopathy are claimed, quite falsely, as as able to survive rigorous scientific scrutiny and are objective scientific fact.

And I must note that intranaturopathically, such is NOT found to be a problem, because it IS the inherently naturopathic.

For instance,

Regarding Lombard, IL:

The location is mentioned as an ND school site.

That school, in name, is National University of Health Sciences.

So, 'science subset naturopathy subset all that essential to naturopathy NOT science stuff.'

And NO SANCTIONS there, business as usual.

Actually, NUHS is an epitome of naturopathy's epistemic conflation falsely posed as an epistemic delineation.

Regarding the Undergraduate Background:

So, it becomes quite obvious that naturopathy's position of 'doctoral science subset nonscience' cannot survive even UNDERGRADUATE level scrutiny.

Regarding NPLEX:

Now, it even gets better in terms of falsely positioning the not-science-supported as science.

We're invited to visit NABNE.

Let's go there.

"the NPLEX Part I Biomedical Science Examination may be taken upon completion of all biomedical science coursework at an approved naturopathic medical program [...] the Part I Biomedical Science Examination contains 200 items and covers the topics of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry & genetics, microbiology & immunology, and pathology [...] the NPLEX Part II Clinical Science Examinations [...are required for] every jurisdiction that licenses/registers naturopathic physicians requires that you pass the NPLEX Part II Core Clinical Science Examination [...includes] homeopathy."

That's right, the BOARD exam that supposedly creates ND qualification falsely labels HOMEOPATHY as "science."

So, in getting licensed through NABNE's NPLEX, you become an ACCESSORY to a kind of epistemic FRAUD:

science subset homeopathy and kind.

I actually took Part 1 of NPLEX and passed it while in ND school, but, I'd left in my seventh semester due to my ethical revulsion to homeopathy particularly.

By that time, I began to see naturopathy's true DUPLICITY.

So that's Part Three of an autoendorsement from those who cannot be trusted.

Part 4 (2014 archived):

This part it titled "Cost Effectiveness."

And I now find it HUGELY silly, having talked about naturopathy's wacko epistemic base

 – the naturoPATHillogical wherein 2 + 2 = 5 --

 to then say:

'here are treatments not essentially naturopathic being posed as such and effective, and cost effective' when, along with that TRICK or RUSE comes a HUGELY ABSURD position of 'science is whatever we say.'

So, when citations are used, BE CAREFUL with sCAM people – so-called complementary and alternative medicine – because they have created their own publication outlets and peer-review systems to promote what legitimate science's bar does not allow.

For instance, this part states:

"naturopathic medicine reduces chronic risk factors and saves significant healthcare costs ['s] high quality care."

Well, the stuff that essentially works is not essentially naturopathic, and then in implementing naturopathy part and parcel, we get to destroy scientific integrity on the way.

[So that's Part Four of an autoendorsement from those who cannot be trusted.]

Part 5 (2014 archived):

This part it titled "Safety".

It is very short and states:

"malpractice claims against CAM practitioners occur less frequently and typically involved less severe injury than claims against conventional physicians."

But isn't posing what isn't effective as effective a kind of 'mal' practice, minimally in the sense of false commerce?

And if homeopathy, an empty remedy, is safe well it's safe in the same manner that flying carpets, magic beans, and unicorn tears are safe.

So that's Part Five of an autoendorsement from those who cannot be trusted.

Part 6 (2014 archived):

This part is titled "Patient Satisfaction" and we're told, would you believe:

"efficacy = patient satisfaction."


And that's obviously BULLSHIT.

But it does allow for such a LOW BAR in terms of what NDs do that the happy homeopathy patient is now equal to rigorous scientific vetting of homeopathy's efficacy.

And we're told:

"according to a study comparing complementary alternative medicine vs. allopathic medicine."

Again, that reverse sectarian accusation.

As a conclusion, were' told:

"naturopathic medicine is safe evidence-based medicine focused on the prevention and recovery from chronic disease with proven cost savings."

And my answer:

I don't think so.

Just by taking homeopathy as an example: if I pay you for empty pills, where is cost savings there?

There isn't even good value there.

There is just deception, and delay of treatment. 

And that's the end of NYANP's 2014 the 6-part series, authored by ND Heerey, but there's a little more I'll discuss.

Books by Naturopaths:

Being that NYANP promotes in its current banner on each of its web pages "Books Written by Naturopathic Physicians", I thought I'd go a bit ISBN here!

Because the best sources for my argument EXPOSING naturopathy is their own words!

Now, there are books listed at "Books Authored by NYANP Members" (2015 archived).

ND Finker, an SCNM graduate, has a book titled "It's About Wellness, Naturally" (2013; ASIN B00FLCUIS6 ISBN 978-1483915180).

It's a book but its rather short, more like a pamphlet, and I own it via Kindle, and its subtitle is "Dr. Finker Reveals the Healing Benefits of Naturopathic Medicine."

So here is supposedly a nice broad 'about naturopathy' -type book ENDORSED by NYANP, and written by one of its members.

And I wonder what it contains!

We're told by ND Finker:

"my intention in writing this book is to dispel the many MYTHS about naturopathic medicine [...] I invite you to explore my world. I’ve provided a THOROUGH overview of the naturopathic approach to health [...] to obtain a FULL picture of naturopathic medicine [...] I welcome you to the wonderful world of naturopathic medicine."

I'll add, "Alice": let's go down the rabbit hole!

So we're promised a "thorough overview" and a "full picture" but strangely enough, naturopathy's essential premise, that vital force or life force, is NOT in the book.

And regarding myths, well, is it like dispelling the MYTH that homeopathy and kind is effective?

Because that's a myth.

Is it like dispelling the MYTH that vitalism and kind survive scientific scrutiny?

'Cause that's also a myth.

Now the ND is an SCNM graduate, and you can find that stuff, that she will not mention, mentioned at her alma mater.

But, apparently, in a book claiming "overview", we don't deserve to known so we can then decide in an informed manner.

But, there are A LOT of science claims:

"Chapter 11: Evidence-Based Therapeutics [...] naturopathic doctors have a scientific and accurate understanding of health information [...] naturopathic doctors are trained in the same manner as medical doctors especially in the basic medical sciences [...] naturopathic doctors combine the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science [...] there are many scientific studies supporting this premise [...] there are a number of scientific studies indicating [etc....] they also look at scientific studies that offer dosage recommendations [...] is there scientific evidence that naturopathic medicine is effective? Naturopathic medicine is 'evidence-based,' meaning that almost every treatment is supported by a scientific foundation. There are many studies available that demonstrate this, including extensive research showing that alternative modalities cause little or no harm, and are effective in healing diseases. Where can I find this scientific evidence? PubMed [...] patients can access links to medical articles and journals, medical libraries and medical databases to learn about the safety and efficacy of almost every procedure and treatment included in a naturopathic doctor’s practice. Despite some misinformation about naturopathic medicine conveyed by the media, the totality of scientific evidence available on naturopathic medicine is overwhelmingly positive. Naturopathic treatments are based on sound medical practices and researched scientific evidence. The results are all-inclusive [...] patients can be assured that the effectiveness of the naturopathic approach has been confirmed by studies that adhere to standard medical parameters [...] that has been scientifically shown."

Yet, within this science label, ND Finker hugely promotes homeopathy:

"Chapter 4: Nutrition, Herbs and Homeopathy [...] does homeopathy really work? Naturopathic doctors also use homeopathy to help heal the body. Homeopathy entails using diluted substances to cure illnesses. It is a system of medicine that has been around for over two hundred years, and is considered one of the safest ways to treat a wide array of illnesses. The main principle of homeopathy is based on the idea of the dilution of different substances, which greatly reduces the chances of unpleasant side effects. However, because these medications are so highly diluted, people often suspect that the healing power of homeopathy is just based on a 'placebo effect' — a phenomenon in which a patient’s symptoms are relieved simply because she believes in the treatment (the treatment actually contains an inactive substance). While many consider this viewpoint to be true, homeopathic remedies have [...] shown to work countless times on infants and animals. These populations have no concept of 'medicine,' thus casting doubt on the placebo effect, and reinforcing the importance of homeopathy as a viable and effective treatment modality [...] people often wonder if a naturopathic doctor is the same as a homeopathic doctor or a nutritionist. In fact, an ND could be considered both, because a naturopathic doctor is trained both in nutrition and homeopathy. NDs are experts in utilizing nutrition, herbs and homeopathy [...] naturopathic doctors are trained to be physicians first, and they use their medical training to discern when and how to employ different modalities, such as homeopathy and nutrition [...] therefore, a naturopathic doctor can be considered a nutritionist, herbalist and homeopath in addition to being a highly trained medical doctor [...] in addition to standard medical school training, the curriculum for naturopathic doctors includes [...] homeopathy [...] both the Department of Education and the Carnegie Institute classify the ND degree as a first-professional degree under Doctorate-Professional (clinical), on par with MD and DO degrees."

So I'd mentioned earlier the idea that homeopathy matches a remedy to a patient's symptoms, and I'd also mentioned that naturopaths claim not just to treat the symptom but the cause.

Which is a strange contradiction.

And we're told in the book:

"naturopathic doctors value the concept of 'holism' emphasizing the importance of the body as a whole [...] the difference between a naturopathic doctor and a traditional medical doctor can best be understood by examining the difference between a 'symptomatic' versus a 'holistic' approach to health [...] they take the entire body into consideration, with all of its organ systems [...] naturopathic doctors routinely look beyond the patients’ surface symptoms to find and treat the underlying cause of these symptoms [...] when a traditional medical doctor is presented with a symptomatic patient, he prescribes the appropriate medications to alleviate the patient’s symptoms and that may be where the consult ends ends. Some traditional medical practitioners do not look deeper into the actual cause of the symptoms, so their approach is considered only 'symptomatic' in nature."

Which I think is bullshit.

If you showed up to an emergency room with a high fever, you're not just given a fever reducer: you're given the damn antibiotic which will cure you and save your life.

So, it seems to me that instead of dispelling myths, this book is PRODUCING them.

This myth that there's some underneath that naturopaths get to that nobody else does.

And remember, way underneath is that life force, which scientifically speaking is a figmentation. 

And again, if naturopathy treats beyond symptoms, then why does its fake therapy homeopathy CENTRALLY RELY on them?

So, basically, the naturopaths are holistic in the sense of metaphysical or imaginary.

And they consider NOT being holistic, in the metaphysical / imaginary way, to be a form of mistreatment.

And again, if naturopathy treats beyond symptoms, then why does its fake therapy, homeopathy, centrally rely on them?
ND Finker also writes:

"naturopathic doctors are primary care doctors [...] there are rare occasions when a patient presents with a condition that I’ve never treated [...] I also invite you to visit my website"

That's quite a boast and quite a dare.

I shall visit...

ND Finker's Web Site:

Her bio. page is "About Dr. Finker".

And here are her science claims:

"naturopathic medicine is founded in science and based on the philosophy that the body has the innate ability to heal itself when given the right tools. Also, naturopathic medicine concentrates on whole-patient wellness and emphasizes prevention and self-care. This medical system has been shown to be very effective healing many different health problems naturally. A naturopathic doctor utilizes the science and philosophy of diagnosing, treating and preventing disease by using modern and ancient techniques all based upon the naturopathic medical model. Education: in the United States, the naturopathic medical profession’s infrastructure includes accredited educational institutions, professional licensing, national standards of practice, peer review, and a commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research. Based upon its holistic foundation, naturopathic medicine utilizes safe and effective traditional therapeutics along with current advances in modern medicine. This allows ND’s to manage a broad range of health conditions afflicting people of any age. Both the Department of Education and the Carnegie Institute classify the ND degree as a first-professional degree under Doctorate-Professional (clinical), on par with MD and DO degrees. Naturopathic medical colleges are four-year, post-graduate level medical schools with admissions requirements comparable to those of other medical schools. ND’s are trained in all the medical sciences: anatomy, cardiology, biochemistry, neurology, physiology, pediatrics, pathology, dermatology, microbiology, obstetrics, immunology, gynecology, radiology, pharmacology, minor surgery, lab, physical diagnosis, etc. Throughout the four years, there is training in naturopathic therapeutics; including: therapeutic nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, bio-identical hormone therapy, pharmacology and minor surgery. The CNME has currently accredited four schools to provide such education. These schools are Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, and the University of Bridgeport [and I would add now, NUHS]."

ND Finker tells us in "Education" (2014 archived):

"ND’s are trained in all the medical sciences";

ND Finker tells us in "Natural Doctor" (2014 archived):

"[a naturopath] heals the cause, not just the symptoms. Heals the whole body, not just the parts.  Emphasizes preventative cure. Naturopathic medicine is founded in science and based on the philosophy that the body has the innate ability to heal itself when given the right tools. Also, naturopathic medicine concentrates on whole-patient wellness and emphasizes prevention and self-care. This medical system has been shown to be very effective healing many different health problems naturally. A naturopathic doctor utilizes the science and philosophy of diagnosing, treating and preventing disease by using modern and ancient techniques all based upon the naturopathic medical model."

And there's homeopathy, in "Natural Therapeutics" (2014 archived) which states:

"homeopathy is a powerful system of medicine that is more than 200 years old. This medical system uses highly diluted substances to cure illness. Homeopathic remedies act to enhance the body’s innate immune response."

Same old naturopathic nonsense.

Episode Question's Answer:

I'd asked as my overarching episode question, for this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 007:

"if you're values are reversed like naturopathy's, should your self-assessments regarding your VALUE be trusted?"

In short, I'd answer NO.

A confident NO.

Naturopathy is WRONG at its epistemic foundation:

that something is what it is not, as in 'science-based nonscience'.

All "value" is suspect what's being evaluated, at its core, comes with such ABSURDITY and science-integrity eroding cost.

Naturopathy claims to treat the cause, not merely symptoms.

So, if a veneer of science is naturopathy's outer symptom, and the beneath is science exterior nonsense within that label, then I diagnose the naturoPATHillogical's CAUSE:

epistemic conflation posed as epistemic delineation, overall disguise and falsehood.
Post a Comment