Thursday, February 12, 2015

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 008a - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 008 Part 1, titled "The 2015 Iowa NPA Naturopathy Bill", wherein I compare 'naturopathy's preponderance' to the language of INPA's 2015 draft naturopathy licensure law:

001. the Episode 008a 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 008, titled "The 2015 Iowa NPA Naturopathy Bill", I will compare: 'naturopathy's preponderance', the web pages of the Iowa Naturopathic Physicians Association [INPA; archived since 2010], its members' and their ND school alma maters', and the language of INPA's 2015 draft naturopathy licensure law.

Episode Question:

And my overarching question for this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 008 is:

"how does the language of the 2015 Iowa draft ND licensure law compare to 'naturopathic preponderance'?"

Episode 008 Part One Main Body:

Naturopathy's Preponderance:

I will use, as 'main trunk'-type source material in this section, to describe naturopathy's 'preponderant innards', the INFAMOUS naturopathy web page, and OCR'd pages of the Textbook of Natural Medicine 4th edition and "Getting to THE Root" by ND Lange, who coauthored the homeopathy chapter in that Textbook of Natural Medicine.

Now, I call this web page INFAMOUS because, by political decree, you have the State of Oregon embracing as science the PROFOUNDLY science-ejected.

In that sense, the State of Oregon is a partner to 'naturopathic preponderant FALSEHOOD'.

WHO has ever heard of such a thing?

A supposed profession that cannot be trusted, a State of the Union promoting abject falsehood, in this here 2015.

And with this all CODIFIED in terms of '.gov' INSTITUTIONALIZATION, the naturopathy web page is quite 'here to stay', IMHO, and therefore it's quite useful as a group-consensus in establishing naturopathy's 'preponderant innards.'

The first result when you do a web search  > "life force"< is's Board of Naturopathy page "Naturopathy."

It has been archived in this iteration since 2012, and I have pushed it into this 2015.

We're told on that page:

"a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college with admissions requirements comparable to those of conventional medical schools [...] they are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...which are] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."

So, part of naturopathy's 'innards' is the categorical claim of 'able to survive rigorous scientific scrutiny'.

And within those principles, we're told, by

"methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...] 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 [...] symptoms [...] are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher [...and there's] homeopathic medicine: this powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old. Homeopathic medicines act to strengthen the body’s innate healing response."

So, within naturopathy's categorical label of SCIENCE is what is EXTERIOR to science.

THAT is what is the 'preponderant naturopathic': epistemic conflation, falsehood, and absurdity-irrationalism.

The Textbook of Natural Medicine, 4th Edition:

The Fourth Edition of the Textbook of Natural Medicine, which I own in paper and which I have entirely OCR'd into searchable PDF format, is edited by NDs Pizzorno and Murray, and was published in 2013.

Its ISBNs are 1437723330 and 978-1437723335.

The paper book is $171 shipped at Amazon Prime, currently this 2015-02.

And this book is all about naturopathy's premises, and SUPPLEMENTS, as 'supplements, herbs and homeopathics', to treat specific diseases.

There are TONS of citations, in a Gish Gallop kind of manner, at the end of every chapter.

And, in light of the recent 'naturopath' Lindsay Duncan / Dr. Oz fiasco, in which Duncan was promoting a supplement with fabricated claims for his own gain without revealing the conflict of interest, I'm wondering:

what are the INTERESTS of the editors and authors here in terms of these PRODUCTS?

I don't know, but I can't help but ask, since we ARE in such a SHADY area:

cui bono?

As I murder Latin:

to whose benefit?

The results COULD be surprising, or perhaps not.

The book states ND Pizzorno has interests in Bioclinical Naturals, a supplement company [an article by ND Nasager there on ND Pizzorno calling Pizzorno the Godfather of naturopathy; 2015 archived], and ND Murray's interests in Natural Factors Nutritional Products are deep.

And I'll add this:

when you claim to be a TEXTBOOK, I think there is a certain kind of INSTITUTIONAL-level academic integrity postured.

And you better be right, because when you are wrong, you are societally EROSIVE.

Now, the TNM states naturopathy is SCIENCE-based:

"now in its fourth edition, Textbook of Natural Medicine is the gold standard in science-based natural medicine [...and it speaks of] evidence-based coverage of more than 70 diseases and conditions."

And we're told by the editors ND Murray and ND Pizzorno:

"the scientific support for the PHILOSOPHICAL and therapeutic foundation of natural medicine has evolved remarkably over the past 35 years."

And we're also told:

"in naturopathic thinking, this is the removal of the obstacles to cure, which allows the emerging action of the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature. This is the first step in the hierarchy of healing and what naturopathic physicians may call the overarching model in the clinical theory [...] of naturopathic medicine: the therapeutic order."

So, there's that vitalism within that science label.

And we're told:

"we exist as a part of complex patterns of matter, energy, and spirit."

There's supernaturalism with in science, supposedly.

So hand out the Nobels.

Well, actually, NO.

And according to the Nation Center for Science Education, vitalism and supernaturalism posed as science in the classroom is UNACCEPTABLE:

"science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge, non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [...] nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom."

Back then, there were only about half as many naturopathy schools in the US and Canada as there are now.

And to just make one more observation about the TNM:

the book has at least 408 instances of the root "homeop", with 214 of them within the homeopathy chapter.

So, that is a science subset homeopathy claim, overall.

The homeopathy Chapter 39, co-authored by ND Lange, states:

"homeopathy plays an important role in the context of modern naturopathic medicine [...] naturopathic medical schools in the United States have remained one of the few resources for clinical training in homeopathy [...and] Simillimum [is the] Journal of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians."

Homeopathy is, of course, FUSED to 'nature cure', therein CREATING the term naturopathy.

And searching with the root [or stem] 'effica', as in efficacious, in that homeopathy chapter, we're told:

"combination homeopathic medicines [...] many studies support their efficacy [...] demonstration of efficacy in clinical trials [...] efficacy and activity beyond placebo [...] the effects and efficacy of homeopathic substances [...] published studies demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathic treatment for treatment of headache, bruising, cancer-related symptoms, attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder in children, asthma, upper respiratory tract infections, otitis media, arthritis, allergies, male infertility, influenza, cardiac insufficiency, herpes, osteoarthritis, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome [...] efficacy in the control of stillbirths [...] those aware of its efficacy."

Now, a typical chapter for treating a disease, such as Chapter 178 "Infectious Diarrhea", written by ND Bongiorno of NYANP, of previous podcast episodes, will tout "therapeutic considerations."

Included is "homeopathy", with such remedies suggested as:

"podophyllum, aloe, china, mercurius, phosphorus, nux vomica, sulfur, aconite, veratrum album, and arsenicum."

And look at me getting all misty-eyed.

I feel like I'm back in clinic, at UBCNM, during my ND-school days, listening to either:

And ND Bongiorno tells us, in that chapter:

"given the safety and historical effectiveness of homeopathy, it should be thoroughly considered as part of the natural medicine practitioner's therapeutic choices."

Because magic beans, unicorn tears, and flying carpets are on the table, in naturopathyland, as 'effective choices.'

What is rather interesting in the book, too, is that its Section 5, "Pharmacology of Natural Medicines", has NO homeopathic remedies in it.

The book tells us on p.095:

"homeopathy is a special case in standardization, in that chemical standards are largely irrelevant for remedies that rely on ultradilutional remedies that may contain no molecules of the material originally potentized."

SUCH a special case!

I think that's quite an inadvertent admission:

ND Lange's Book:

Since ND Lange co-authored that TNM homeopathy chapter, I thought it would be interesting to look at his "Getting to THE Root: Treating the Deepest Source of Disease", which is ISBN 1556433956, and which was published in 2002.

The jacket tells us that he ran Bastyr's homeopathy department.

Bastyr, which ND Pizzorno lauds as "science based."

The same ND Pizzorno whose 1996 book, "Total Wellness", equates naturopathy's vital force with spirit.

Now, you can get the book for about $4 shipped at

We're told on the book's jacket, about "THE Root":

"when he writes of 'getting at the root,' he means the REAL core of disease, where the most serious and intractable maladies hold their deepest grip. Commoditized medicines mainly treat symptoms."

So, there's that claim that naturopathy does what other things can't.

The insinuation that regular medicine only treats symptoms, and naturopathy can get to the real cause and fix it.

Now, that cause, generally speaking, as we'll see, is a figmentation, the vital force.

So I think, in creating a fake solution to an artificial problem, well, to me that reminds me of racketeering.

Its imprint mentions the two Library of Congress subjects:

"homeopathy [...and] vitalism."

The book states:

"this book is an investigation [...] it engages a vitalistic philosophy, in which our study of the body views consciousness as the central influence on physiology [...] vitalism is the recognition of the life force as the organizing substratum of material form [...] vitalism recognizes a capacity for the organism to self-regulate, to maintain or reestablish homeostasis [...] its vitalistic perspective is to understand the inner state of the patient and prescribe at the deepest level possible [...] historically, vitalism has been an attempt to engage the life force or soul [...] a life force or spirit. The spiritual or metaphysical [...] in the treatment of disease. Since science has overwhelmingly rejected the possibility of such influences by isolating the description of human life solely to its physiological models, vitalistic methods have been ignored or condemned."

Let me spend some time unpacking that:

we have vitalistic = consciousness = life force = soul = spirit = spiritual = metaphysical.

Just like ND Pizzorno's "Total Wellness" equation.

And there's quite an admission of how EXTERIOR or FRINGE all that is to modern science.

And HERE's quite an admission of how UNLIMITED science has to become to include a "life force."

ND Lange writes:

"the scientific method that has come to dominate modern medicine is only one representation of science. It ignores what is beyond its method."

So, instead of playing within the rules, obviously, naturopathy needs to CHANGE them, to lower the bar.

But ND Lange's book is SO WEIRD, honestly, that I'll hopefully get to basing an entire multi-part episode on it.

Preponderantly, What is All This Stuff, Historically Speaking?

Historically speaking, the Textbook of Natural Medicine has been around for QUITE a while claiming science and efficacy upon its contents.

I have its first edition, which was printed as a three-holed two-binder set, and is dated 1988.

Naturopathy claims homeopathy is effective, and it claims supplements are effective.

I don't recall there being a 'less effective that supplements' claim to homeopathy by naturopathyland.

In fact, though an empty placebo remedy, homeopathy is instead usually called "powerful" [2015 archived].

Obviously, historically speaking, I am GLOBALLY skeptical of naturopathy's claims of efficacy for ANYTHING, with values being SO reversed and all:

for instance, placebo = powerful.

AND, these supposedly 'noticeably effective therapies as supplements, herbs and homeopathy', and all the diseases that are listed as treatable in the book by them...well...

They've been trumpeting, or quacking at full pitch for decades, in the TNM that 'supplements, herbs and homeopathics are as effective as drugs' without that stuff ever really 'changing the game'.

How can something so "SCIENCE BASED" and IN EVIDENCE for so long make NO MARK across the medical science landscape?

WHERE is the revolutionary NEWS that such is now BETTER or at least RATHER GOOD when compared to something medical doctors use as standard of care?

It has been thirty years!

Where's news FOR EVEN ONE OF THESE CONDITIONS being improved in a convincing manner by naturopathy's 'supplements, herbs and homeopathics'?

I pay attention to the media, and I'm sure naturopathy would hugely get behind promoting such NEWS.

And the news likes NEWS.

Yet, when you look at what naturopathy has put its research money behind in those thirty years -- for instance at Bastyr University in studying what I would assume are the MOST PROMISING compounds applied in the MOST NEWSWORTHY way -- what do we have as results:


For instance, Bastyr had researched St. John's wort, as reported in 2008's "St. John's Wort No Better Than Placebo For ADHD, Bastyr Study Finds".

You'd also think that the NCCAM or NCCIH, as it is now known, would also spend their research monies wisely and most self-benefittingly in terms of researching what's most-promising to generate GOOD NEWS.

And what do we have after spending so many millions in research dollars:

I would think that SO MANY compounds, for so many conditions, would score a goal once in a while.

But what do we have:

 NO game-changing revolution.

Maybe the ONLY way to see newsworthy effects, is to put on the same kind of reality-distorting lens that naturopathy views HOMEOPATHY, REIKI, APPLIED KINESIOLOGY, CRANIOSACRAL THERAPY, COLON IRRIGATION and kind with.

Because when I see homeopathy's magic beans claimed as effective and powerful, I'm thinking standards are so low now that the naturopathic belief system sees:

NO DIFFERENCE between effective and placebo.

INPA's Web Pages:

[Trivial: the INPA Facebook Page is here].

Now, I've been meaning to podcast about Iowa naturopathy, and what got me finally moving is IRONICALLY an email from INPA on 2015-01-31 titled "Iowa Naturopathic Physicians Association Newsletter."

On Facebook, Twitter, and Google+, I tend to follow and therefore get postings on the things I disagree with as much as the stuff I support.

But an EMAIL from the Iowa naturopathy organization: well, this one was something that I took as a call for action, for some reason!

INPA wants some DIRECT love, and I will be DIRECT – and detailed – in what follows.

The email stated:

"the Iowa Naturopathic Physicians Association (INPA) is a physician led organization pursuing licensure for the state of Iowa. Our goal is to create and maintain legislation that allows full scope of practice for naturopathic physicians (ND and NMD) within our level of training [...] the bill numbers and subcommittee members in both chambers have been assigned [...they are] Senate [bill] SSB 1067 [...and] House [bill] HSB 51 [...] please email the members of both subcommittees and let them know you support the licensure of naturopathic physicians in Iowa."

And it is suggested that a letter be sent which should read:

"dear Senator or Representative [...] licensure of ND's will provide residents of Iowa access to [...] quality health care [...] all Iowans deserve access to safe, responsible, qualified healthcare providers [...] science and evidenced-based medicine of highly educated and trained [...] providers of primary care [...] naturopathic physicians [...who are] a solution for the growing physician shortage [...and it speaks of] an undergraduate pre-med training, followed by four years of graduate-level education from a naturopathic school of medicine recognized by the U.S. Department of Education [...and] a national board exam [...] licensure will also provide the state of Iowa proper oversight of the profession [...] licensing will allow for the creation of integrative health centers in Iowa, such as the Cancer Treatment Centers of America."

So, I'll comment upon some things in the email.

"Full scope of practice for naturopathic physicians":

Well, if you follow from naturopathics' epistemic muddle, which is at their foundation, I believe "full scope" of practice I really 'permission to call legitimate the illegitimate': to call what's not science SCIENCE, to call what's a figmentation IN FACT, to call what's HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE very statistically certain.

"ND or NMD":

well, to me, that's just cruel, for the general public, to confuse them FURTHERMORE between MD, medical doctor, and NMD.

As if they are just SO CLOSE that the MD is actually kind of MISSING that N.

And isn't that one of the criticisms naturopathy has of what they call 'medical doctor medicine' or allopathic medicine, again a label I consider false, that those medical doctor MDs JUST DON'T INCLUDE ENOUGH in their worldview the way NMDs do.

Since their view contains THIS world, and what one may call OTHER worlds: in the sense of the ideal, the metaphysical, the figmentatious.
"Quality health care [...] responsible, qualified [...] highly educated [...] science and evidence-based medicine":

I have to ask, is one getting QUALITY when standards don't essentially exist or values are so reversed?

Is one highly educated when one's idea of what is science at the doctoral level violates the science standards of K-12?

Is it responsible to claim the marketing and academic label "science and evidence based" upon naturopathy when ACTUALLY what has been labeled as such, the essentially naturopathic, is obviously ACTUALLY NOT?

"The profession":

Again, whenever I see naturopathy calling itself a profession, I have to ask:

'who has ever heard of a profession based upon falsehood?'

And "CTCA": oh, THANK YOU for a CTCA mention. 

 Now I can go there.

Let's add a little bit to naturopathy's preponderance by way of a hospital-as-institution.

At Cancer Treatment Centers of America, there's the current page "Meet Clinician Blogger Christina Shannon Christina Shannon, ND, FABNO" (2015 archived).

FABNO is naturopathy's created board certification in oncology.

ND Shannon is a Bastyr ND graduate and she states:

"one of my goals when I first chose the field of naturopathic medicine was to introduce this science to as many people as possible.  Here at CTCA, I am fulfilling that goal each and every day."

And yet the CTCA page "Naturopathic Medicine" states [2013 archived]:

"throughout your treatment, your naturopathic physician will recommend natural therapies to support you during treatment, including [...] homeopathic medicine [...for] specific health issues[...because] naturopathic physicians focus on the safe and effective use of evidence-based natural therapies [...] personalized, evidence-based naturopathic recommendations."

How do we even begin to talk about the DECEPTION involved in treating people with CANCER with placebos, as in homeopathy, falsely labeled "effective" and "evidence-based"?

The sidebar of the email reads that naturopathy:

"addresses the cause of illness thus eliminating expensive ongoing care. By addressing and treating the cause of disease, the need for repeated, expensive and often ineffective symptomatic treatment is eliminated. Naturopathic physicians use state-of-the-art diagnostic testing, thorough history and complete physical examination to diagnose underlying causes of disease."

So, there's that INSINUATION, again, that naturopaths do what others, particularly medical doctors, can't or won't:

get to a CAUSE, are TRULY curative.

And we're referred to:

"[the] American Association of Naturopathic Physicians 818 18th St NW, Suite 250 Washington, DC 20006"

And of course, at, the QUITE preponderant U.S. naturopathy guild headquarters, we're told quite FALSELY in "Zicam is Not Homeopathy" that homeopathy is a "medicinal science."

Now, what I'm REALLY curious about is how INPA describes naturopathy as compared to what stated.

What has been chosen to be included, or excluded, in presenting naturopathy to Iowans?

Well, currently, there isn't even a page describing naturopathy's principles.


INPA apparently has shuttered or DISAPPEARED their 'naturopathy-descriptive' pages, as they get into licensure mode this 2015.

I guess we don't deserve to know, so we can then understand, and then properly choose in an INFORMED manner.

Oh what a wicked web we weave...

Or maybe I could say, oh what a wicked web that cannot be completely erased because, as luck would have it, INPA 'naturopathy-descriptive' pages exist from a couple of years ago and are publicly accessible.

At, the web address has been crawled and saved since 2010.

The page "Naturopathic Medicine", last archived in 2013, states:

"naturopathic medicine [...] is a distinct and comprehensive form of medicine that blends [...] naturopathic physicians are specifically trained to integrate [...] as integrative doctors."

HOW can you be DISTINCT if you are the opposite of that word, blended or integrated or as I commonly say, conflated?

The page also states:

"naturopathic practice is predicated upon the assumption that the human body is inherently capable of healing itself."

And that's all you get. 

That, obviously, is coded vitalism: QUITE different from the language of

We're also told:

"training for naturopathic physicians includes [...] homeopathic medicine
 [...] homeopathic medicines are very small doses of natural substances that can stimulate the body's self-healing response."

So, empty remedies and coded vitalism.

"Education: naturopathic physicians attend four-year, graduate level programs at institutions recognized by the US Department of Education. There are currently six such schools in the United States. Naturopathic medical schools provide the same basic and clinical sciences coursework as conventional medical schools. In fact, ND programs often provide more pharmacology and physiology than conventional medical schools. The same premedical coursework required by conventional medical students is required for entry into a naturopathic medical school."

And that's a kind of 'doctoral level typical or better' claim upon the naturopathy degree.

And I'm always amazed: how can you state that you study MORE physiology and at the CORE of naturopathy is the FALSE physiological claim that the body is run by a "life force."

So if academically better were true, IMHO, then why is naturopathy be claiming 2 + 2 = 5, roughly speaking?

And what I mean, bluntly, is that science is NOT typical science in naturopathyland.

Bastyr says it best in "Explore Bastyr Open House" [2015 archived]:

"Bastyr teaches a rigorous science-based curriculum with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature. We take pride in our academic excellence."

So we got science-based blended with the supernatural and the vitalistic.

So we have something that's NOT rigorous academic excellence in an academic CATEGORICAL sense: we have science that contains the patently unscienceable or science-ejected.

A house so open that all the brains have fallen out:

wherein science is ANYTHING including the supernatural as spirit which is unscienceable, and vitalism as nature which is science-ejected.

And we're also told:

"ND students must sit for and pass two board exams known as the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Exam (NPLEX) [] exam is divided into 2 parts [...] Part I is the equivalent to USMLE step 1 and [...] Part II is comparable to USMLE Steps 2 and 3 with a slanted focus towards naturopathic therapeutics."

The NPLEX, which FALSELY labels that naturopathic therapeutic homeopathy "science."

And we're also told:

"Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [...] was established in February 2001, to propel and foster the naturopathic medical profession by actively supporting the academic efforts of accredited and recognized schools of naturopathic medicine [...] member schools [...include] Bastyr University [...] National College of Natural Medicine [...] National University of Health Sciences [...and the] University of Bridgeport - College of Naturopathic Medicine [...the schools'] Council on Naturopathic Medical Education's (CNME) mission is quality assurance; serving the public by accrediting naturopathic medical education programs that voluntarily seek recognition that they meet or exceed CNME's standards."

So there are all the perps, academically speaking: the quality assurance that isn't even categorically academically correct.

And the once available page "FAQs", also last archived in 2013, states:

"why license naturopathic physicians? [...] regulation ensures adequate standards in education and best practices."

Ah, ha ha ha.

Makes you want to weep, really.

Now strangely, the ONLY live page right now is their homepage, which repeats or consolidates much of the once available "Naturopathic Medicine" page.

It states, in part:

"naturopathic medicine bridges the gap between natural and conventional medicine. It is a distinct and comprehensive form of medicine that blends [...] naturopathic physicians are specifically trained to integrate."

Again, that BLENDING, that epistemic muddling.

And we're told:

"naturopathic practice is predicated upon the assumption that the human body is inherently capable of healing itself."

Again, that coded vitalism.

So I would say, in comparison to, INPA is quite opaque regarding naturopathy's supernatural and vitalistic essential core.

And I often regard that opaqueness as a callousness regarding informed consent.
Post a Comment