Thursday, March 12, 2015

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 009a - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 009 Part 1, titled “The Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association [CNPA] and A Supposed Modernization of Connecticut Naturopathy."  In this Part 1, I begin looking at a CNPA video on the matter, and then the web pages of NDs Gruber, and Liva and company:

001. the Episode 009a 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 2-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 009, titled “The Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association [CNPA] and A Supposed Modernization of Connecticut Naturopathy”, I will look at naturopathy in Connecticut particularly because naturopaths here are quite active this 2015 requesting prescriptive rights.

I say “here” because Connecticut, or shall I say in Federal prosecutor parlance 'Corrupticut', is the State in which I live and here is where I went to naturopathy school for four years.

So let me share with you the virtues of my naturopathic neighbors and their accomplices.

Episode Question:

And my overarching question, as two questions technically, for this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 009 is:

“if naturopathy, at its core, violates preponderant modern values concerning the physician-patient relationship

e.g. transparency and patient empowerment, as opposed to archaic opacity and paternalism,

and violates preponderant modern boundaries as regards science

e.g. that science is a rather specifically defined epistemic delineation, as opposed to an archaic vague epistemic conflation,

CAN this political process that is happening this 2015 in Connecticut accurately be termed modernization?  Or is it a kind of corruption?”

Episode 009 Part 1 Main Body:

First, I'll mention a post I received from CNPA by way of Facebook that spurred me into doing this episode.

I'll include a screen-capture of it in the transcript:
Dated 2015-03-04, it mentions:

“in this video interview, Dr. Rick Liva discusses how patients, doctors, and medical students benefit from a modernized scope of practice [for CT naturopathy...and it mentions] instructions for writing letters to your legislators.”

Now, ND Liva was an instructor I'd had back in ND school at UBCNM

ND Liva is a 1982 NCNM ND graduate, a “founding member” of the AANP, and “Member of the Advisory Council to the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine” [according to his bio (2015 archived)].

It so happens that, helpfully, most of the NDs he practices with are also NCNM ND graduates, or they are Bastyr ND graduates!

The NDs are: Germain, Samuelson, Kane, Louden, and Hunter (see here) (2014 archived).

And ND Liva states that he carries ND licensure in CT and Oregon.

That will be VERY helpful too.

Incidentally, ND Germain also states she is 'an AANP founding member'.

Let's go to that CNPA video, which is up at Youtube presently.


we're told in the description:

"in this video the President of the CNPA, Dr Rick Liva, discusses the 2015 Legislative effort to modernize the ND scope of practice to include prescriptive authority. Connecticut NDs, medical students, and patients will learn how they may support this effort."

So, there's the "modernize" term, and that desire for “prescriptive authority.”

And I have to ask:

IF naturopathy, in terms of its INHERENT therapeutics is SO AMAZING, as what they call “natural” medicine, why do CT naturopaths need pharmacy rights?

I should mention that ND Liva is a pharmacist as well as a naturopath.

Is it perhaps because those “natural” therapies are NOT SO AMAZING?

I'm just asking!

Because usually NDs are maligning prescription medications as “unnatural” and 'merely treating symptoms.'

Also, do I take issue with the label “medical students” upon naturopathic students I would call “naturopathy students.”

Now, if you look closely in the video, it shows the MOTTO of CNPA, the Latin phrase "vis medicatrix naturae."

Really, what a gift!

I WONDER what that could mean, wink-wink?

I HOPE they specify, it would be much obliging.

But if they don't, no worries.

Since so many of the NDs at ND Liva's practice are of NCNM, a definition will be quite easily attainable, even if I have to go outside of CT to find it.

Anyway, we're told in the CNPA video itself:

“Hi, I'm Dr. Gary Gruber [an ND who graduated from Connecticut's UBCNM (2015 archived), my alma mater too...who will talk with ND Liva about] the 2015 legislative update.”

That mentioned, I will return to the CNPA video after looking at:

ND Gruber's web pages,

ND Liva's web pages,

UBCNM's web pages,

and NCNM's and's web pages.

I'll be moving from the little guy individual ND, to larger ND collectives, to State-level .gov ND institutionalization.

I do this because I don't automatically assume listeners are familiar with what I call 'naturopathy's preponderance'.

In that sense, each Naturocrit Podcast Episode must, to some significant degree, stand on its own legs.

And I do this because:

though VMN is the CNPA motto, CNPA DOESN'T, which is incredible, DOESN'T transparently explain the context of VMN.

And if you don't know what that context is, you'll be amazed in terms of how they falsely categorize it.

NCNM, the trunk of the naturopathy tree here in the US, does explain that context and it is AMAZING that the CT naturopathy school, the University of Bridgeport, puts the label “science” upon that hugely science-ejected context.

And due to the nature, wink-wink, of my episode question, a preponderance regarding VMN has to be established in order to shed light on CT naturopathy's 'violations and corruptions'.

ND Gruber's Web Pages:

ND Gruber's Not-In-Evidence “Life Force” Admission:

ND Gruber's practice web page is

It is not, by the way, 'nature is science.'

Instead, there is the impression that two different things are being put together: science and nature, perhaps the healing power of nature, which is VMN in Latin.

How apt to combine, to blend.

At, on the page “Reiki for Cancer” (2015 archived), I think something very telling is written by ND Gruber which is OPPOSED to general naturopathic preponderance, including that which exists at his alma mater, UBCNM.

He writes:

“reiki energy itself is the energy of the life force, which aids the body in renewing and regenerating itself during times of trauma. While evidence of this cannot be proven.”


I take it the premise “life force” is the “this”, while a supposed efficacy is firmly claimed.

So, what was stated is that the article of faith known as vitalism is not supportable by science.

That is from a UBCNM ND graduate, as I'd mentioned.

I actually think that is QUITE REMARKABLE for an ND to state.

It is quite reasonable to state that what isn't science isn't science, because that is what is accurate scientifically speaking regarding the science-ejected idea of a life force.

But what's rather remarkable is that UB HAS ALWAYS, TO THIS DAY, claimed the label science upon naturopathy's core vitalistic and supernatural sectarian items, which I'll get to.

Naturopathy: the area truly based on a figmentation falsely labeled science, admitted so by very few NDs, because most NDs or NMDs are too busy using the label “science” upon naturopathy for marketing purposes.


I'll quibble a bit also with some language in that ND Gruber quote.

He says “prove” but science does not PROVE.

Science statistically and tentatively supports in a sense that isn't so ABSOLUTE and PERPETUAL as “prove.”

Yet, I get the gist: there are some kinds of knowledge claims which are NOT processable by science.

Following from that, you would think that ND Gruber has a HIGH bar in terms of evidence, generally speaking, in terms of what he DOES.

But, I don't think so, and in that sense he is 'typically naturopathic'.

There's his practice page “Naturopathic Treatments” (2015 archived).

There, we're told:

“[the] primary naturopathic treatments used in my practice [...include] homeopathic medicine [...which] can stimulate the body’s self-healing response without side effects [...a] gentle, effective system of medicine […and] Oriental medicine: trained in the fundamentals of oriental medicine and diagnosis, I use acupuncture, acupressure, and Chinese herbal medicine to release blocked energy and promote healing […and finally there's] bioenergy medicine: I recognize that the human body is a complex system of electromagnetic communication [hmmm, I thought we were a chemical soup?  Anyway...] this system is the very core of cellular repair. By stimulating this system with therapies such as microampere current, ultrasound, far-infrared, and cold laser light, unhealthy tissues are repaired.”

So, there's science-ejected homeopathy absurdity.

There's the MISUSE of the science term energy to describe TCM's central premise, qi.

Ah, the qi that dare not speak its name!

And there's bioenergy posed as the electromagnetism of science.

Well, let's be distinct.

There's bioenergy in terms of thermodynamics, as in biomass fuels and such.

But I don't think that's the context here: vitalism is the “core” mechanism for healing in naturopathy, as we shall see.

So, bioenergy is a stand-in for life force, qi and kind.

After all, “bio” is life in medical terminology [Latin], and therein we have 'life energy'.

And life energy in terms of science is in no way measurable, so it is not energy, and it is not electromagnetic.

So I think we have a coding going on, and a false equation of the electromagnetic with vital energy. 

Also, scientifically speaking, and I've been teaching anatomy and physiology for 15 years and counting, I've never heard of the body having an "electromagnetic system".

This reminds me of ND Pizzorno's book "Total Health", wherein he invents a whole bunch of supposed systems including "life force or spirit."


ND Gruber's supposed bioenergetic treatments are physically actual, unlike a life force or life energy.

Cold laser light itself is a give-away that MORE is being claimed than is reasonable for such MUNDANE interventions which are primarily therapeutic heat sources.

When I search online I get a lot of dubious claims regarding those lasers.

Wikipedia's article is quite deflating.

It mentions, quoting Quackwatch:

"there's no reason to believe that they [these lasers] will influence the course of any ailment or are more effective than other forms of heat delivery."

So, overall, so much for HIGH standards in terms of evidence and accuracy.

Claiming efficacy by way of homeopathy is like stating you broke the sound barrier on your flying carpet.

It's that absurd, IMHO.

Yet still, I respect the ND's admission that vitalism – as life force, life energy etc. – is not science-supportable even while his therapeutic claims and methods are also NOT science-supported or are very sexed-up.

I do not respect the CODING of vitalism though, but it seems to be a CNPA and CT naturopathy MO.

Vitalism is an article of faith at the heart of naturopathy, and they should state that because people deserve to know, so they can then decide in an informed manner.

Speaking of coded vitalism, ND Gruber gives us the naturopathic physician's oath at his web pages.

“I dedicate myself to the service of humanity […] I will endeavor to continually improve my abilities as a healer through study, reflection, and genuine concern for humanity [...] I will conduct my life and the practice of naturopathic health care with vigilance, integrity, and freedom from prejudice. I will abstain from voluntary acts of injustice and corruption.”

Those are noble goals and values, which I think naturopathy at its core contradicts, obviously.

And there's that word, “corruption.”

The corruption of Corrupticut naturopathy?

We shall see.

The Oath also states:

“I will use methods of treatment which follow the principles of naturopathic medicine [...including #2] vis medicatrix naturae: to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature.”

But there are no contextual details about this by-oath commitment to VMN while, ironically, the first naturopathy principle is “do no harm.”

But, in NOT letting people KNOW what VMN is essentially, hasn't patient consent been hugely harmed?

And claiming science upon science-ejected vitalism, hasn't' scientific integrity been harmed too?

And in placing a science label upon an article of faith, hasn't the exercise of freedom of belief, a fundamental civil right, also been harmed?

Harmed, corrupted...

And NDs' commitment to their oath itself is stated:

“with my whole heart, before this gathering of witnesses, as a doctor of naturopathic medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath.”

“True” to the corruption of epistemic boundaries and modern practitioner values, I'd argue.

This is not an oath I took, by the way, at UBCNM.

It was on my mind for years before I left ND school, and it kept looking filthier and filthier the more I got to know about the insides of naturopathy.

And ND Gruber has more non-contextualized VMN.

"a guiding principle of naturopathic medicine is the physical body will heal itself when the obstacles to that healing are removed. This principle is called vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature.”

Again, that's ALL YOU GET.

And I will firmly state: that is not enough in terms of what I often call 'contextual granularity.'

And finally, there's ND Gruber's PINNACLE of bullshit page “Naturopathy” (2014 archived).

Now, as I sat down to draft this episode, I'd never heard the name ND Gruber, but oh what a reward it already has been to take a look!

The page states:

“naturopathic physicians are highly trained […] completing a four-year post-graduate program in basic and clinical sciences, as well as clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, acupuncture, physical medicine, and counseling […] natural healing treatments, such as acupuncture, homeopathy, counseling, botanicals, biofeedback for stress reduction, and others […] with an ND, you have a guide to lead you through the confusing maze of nutrition, exercise, and general health information. Naturopathic medicine [...] delivers exceptional healthcare to thousands of people throughout the country […] naturopathy['s…] scientifically proven natural methods of healing [..with] treatment of the root cause of illness [...and] simultaneous treatment of body, mind and spirit [ way of a] strong patient-doctor relationship.”

There's so much to unpack there!

There's “highly trained” and “exceptional.”

There's science as a basis.

There's “scientifically proven."

There's homeopathy.

There's supposed guidance.

There's supernaturalism.

And there's this supposed “strong” relationship.

How 'strong' of a patient-doctor relationship can occur, though, I have to ask when it is SO EASY to show that it is QUITE WRONG to claim that homeopathy is supported by science, as well as supernaturalism?

So, to sum up ND Gruber, I've found:

explicit vitalism, coded vitalism, homeopathy, an of science claim, and supernaturalism.

And there's this VERY COGNITIVELY DISSONANT obvious item:

science subset naturopathy except for naturopathy's core ideas -- vitalism, supernaturalism and kind.

Oh, and I should add one more point about ND Gruber.

He employs what I call 'the toxin bogeyman.'

As does ND Liva's practice, because its a standard naturopathy strategy.

ND Gruber writes in "U.S. Health Care Crisis – Part 1: The Myth of the Medical Model" (2015 archived):

"look at the leading causes of death that create the spiraling costs for Americans: heart disease, stroke, and cancer [...] our medical model for dealing with these killers is based on the science of treating infectious diseases […] the basic mythology built into this model is that there is a drug to cure every disease.”


That's an ODD statement.

Perhaps I'm stupid but, to pull from that disease list, I don't think medicine believes there's a drug to CURE every disease listed there and since when is STROKE prevented or treated with the strategies used to prevent or treat INFECTIOUS disease generally?

I mean, HOW STUPID is that idea or am I stupid?

So this mythology that is created is really centered upon a straw man, an absolute: "there is a drug to treat every disease."

The mechanisms of the listed diseases MOSTLY fall outside of infectious disease causally, and I think that medical science shows that clearly and knows that.

This is, of course, acknowledging that some cancers are caused by viral infections, like HPV causing cervical cancer.

Medicine truly tries to steer people's lifestyle choices in terms of antihypertension and behaviors which can reduce clot formation, which both can cause stroke.

So what an ODD and MISLEADING statement: the creation of a problem that doesn't exist.

You might say the creation of a myth that's a myth.

You might say the creation of a problem, a myth, about a myth.

  And it is the accusation that modern medicine has it wrong and naturopathy has it right.

And the medications used for those three disease listed are not antimicrobials, and they are not generally expected to be curative, as such conditions end up being managed in many ways.

We're also told:

“this [infectious disease] model is simply wrong, and it needs to be replaced by new practices that enable us to detoxify ourselves [...because] we live in a toxic soup."

Yet, medical science says toxicity isn't the issue for most people's health concerns.

Wikipedia has a SCATHING article on the matter, stating such things as:

”body cleansing and detoxification have been referred to as an elaborate hoax used by con artists to cure nonexistent illnesses.”

Ouch, that's gotta hurt [an accusation of racketeering].

I know that was rather hasty, by I'll do this again with UBCNM, ND Liva's pages, and NCNM and and you'll then quite easily see a preponderant pattern.

ND Liva's Web Pages:

The practice pages of ND Liva and company are at

At their homepage, we're told:

“[this is] an alternative medicine center using naturopathy, herbal medicine, nutrition, homeopathy and physical medicine […] medical science has identified seven key health factors that determine whether you will be healthy or sick.”

It's always interesting to see the term “science” on the same page as the term “homeopathy.”


The practice's page “Naturopathic Principles” (2015 archived) states:

“naturopathy and naturopathic medicine are based on the following principles: [#1] the healing power of nature: nature acts powerfully, through healing mechanisms in the body and mind, to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic physicians work to restore and support these inherent healing systems when they have broken down, by using methods, medicines and techniques that are in harmony with natural processes […#4] treat the whole person: health and disease come from a complex interaction of physical, emotional, dietary, genetic, environmental and lifestyle factors. Naturopathic physicians treat the whole person, taking into account all of these factors.”

SUCH OPACITY and omission!

WHERE is the information necessary to make an informed decision about the BASIS of naturopathy so one can then decide whether to engage with naturopathy?

DETAILS are NOT on this page supposedly about the BASIS of naturopathy.

When I discuss the alma maters of the NDs at this practice, I'll specifically draw upon NCNM and Bastyr materials that DO indicate TRANSPARENTLY, the vitalism and supernaturalism which DEFINES naturopathy, all within supposed “science.”

In “What is Homeopathy?” (2015 archived), and I must say to this practice thank you for having a distinct homeopathy page, we're told:

“the Connecticut Center for Health dispensary carries the highest quality homeopathic remedies for common health problems […] homeopathy is a healing process in which homeopathic medicines stimulate and encourage your own natural healing forces of recovery […] to stimulate your innate healing powers […] the concept of homeopathic medicine and remedies was developed more than 200 years ago by Samuel Hahnemann […] like Hippocrates 2,000 years earlier, he realized that there were two ways of treating ill health: the way of opposite (allopathic) and the way of similars (homeopathic). Conventional medicine is 'allopathic' medicine […with homeopathy] the focus is on the cause of your disorders, not the suppression of individual symptoms.”

I think only skeptics slap their knee and laugh loudly when they read something like:

“highest quality homeopathic remedies.”

Notice the coded vitalism as “natural healing forces” and “innate healing powers.”

And there's the typical naturopathic maligning of modern medicine as “allopathic” and somehow inherently negligent in not treating a root or cause that naturopathy does treat, since allopathy supposedly shallowly and hastily deals with a patient's issues.

Both of these claims, in my book, are false categorizations that I often term, respectively, “naturopathy's false reverse sectarian accusation” and “naturopathy's false negligence characterization.”

And that “false negligence characterization”, to me smacks of racketeering:

creating a fake problem one has created an actually unneeded answer for.

Modern medicine is based upon science, not a philosophy such as allopathy.

I've said it many times, but accusing modern medicine of being allopathic is like accusing modern chemistry of being alchemic.

It's simply anhistoric.

Allopathy is actually a label coined by Hahnemann to describe the crazy heroic medicine of his time that I think we all agree was rather prescientific, just like homeopathy to this day ironically.

We're additionally told, regarding the supposed thinking of modern medicine:

“the allopathic or conventional approach is to give a drug to induce artificial sleep, which FREQUENTLY may cause side effects or addiction.”

This is a gross oversimplification and scare tactic.

I think it portrays modern medicine as having a shallow understanding of what patients' signs and symptoms may indicate, when I think that understanding is far more PROFOUND.

And to say “frequent” and “side effects” to me is a contradiction in terms.

The things a drug does that are frequent are its effects.

And I don't think addiction, in terms of modern hypnotics, is frequent either.

May I remind you that ND Liva is a pharmacist as well.

Let's look at a pharmacy resource.

At, Medline Plus states in "Hypnotics":

"hypnotics are prescribed for insomnia [...] before taking a hypnotic for sleep problems, you and your doctor should consider the following: address any mental health problems, such as anxiety or depression, first [...] behavioral or psychological techniques can sometimes cure insomnia.”

So, there is modern medical standards going BEYOND shallow symptoms and signs to get to underlying issues.

NOT QUITE the negligent oversimplification that the NDs' describe.

Medline Plus also tells us:

“these drugs include benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines […] benzodiazepines are, in general, safe and effective medications for insomnia and some anxiety disorders. However, their long-term, daily use can lead to addiction in some people.”

That is QUITE DIFFERENT from the “frequently” the NDs' describe.

Now, the NDs' tell us:

“in contrast, the homeopathic approach is to treat insomnia by giving you a tiny dose of a substance [I'll say…] often as a tiny pill that you allow to dissolve under your tongue […] that, in large doses, would cause sleeplessness in a healthy person. Surprisingly, the tiny dose reduces the insomnia […] remedies work.”

Well, what's fascinating is that in terms of what science has to say about homeopathy, there ISN'T a specific effect shown for ANY homeopathic medication, even those for sleep.


James Randi is famous for downing a whole bottle of homeopathic sleep pills and not even getting drowsy.

The group Sense About Science, in "Sense About Homeopathy” states:

“homeopathy is marketed as a safe and natural treatment for a range of conditions. It works on the principles that 'like cures like' and that the smaller the dose the more potent the cure. There is no scientific evidence for these principles and homeopathy has repeatedly been found to be no better than the placebo controls in clinical trials.”

Oh snap!

Yet we're told by the NDs, though there is not specific effect for homeopathy objectively speaking:

“homeopathy offers several advantages [] can be quite effective. When the correct remedy is given, results can be rapid and complete.”

Quite effective and complete placebo.

And I have to ask:

how come, in naturopathic thinking, a homeopathic pill isn't creating “artificial” sleep but a pharmaceutical drug is?

Are they not both artificial in the sense of interventions above and beyond normal physiological processes, seeking to change what's happening in the body?

It all sounds quite artificial to me as in man-made.
And if anyone is merely being shallow and only treating towards symptoms, it is the naturopath practicing homeopathy.

The NDs tell us:

“to select a remedy, the homeopathic doctor carefully matches your symptoms to the symptom profiles listed in [...homeopathy] publications for the more than 2,000 remedies currently in use.”

Well, enough of these naturopaths' beliefs and activities.

Let's look at their science labeling and general efficacy claims.


Well, 'it all works it just takes a heck of a lot of time', may be the take-away message from the NDs at this practice.

In "Frequently Asked Questions" (2015 archived) we're told:

"how much will my treatment cost? The cost of your treatment depends on two factors. The first factor is the nature and severity of your health challenges, which we identify during your health assessment. For example, if you have a severe chronic disease, your treatment will take longer and cost more than if you have a simple infection. The second factor is your level of commitment to removing the causes of your health problems. If you've had a chronic problem for twenty years, it's probably not going to disappear in a matter of weeks. Conceivably, it could take months or years to fully recover from a chronic disease […] full recovery requires that the causes of the condition are corrected or removed. Removing the cause takes longer and is more work than just suppressing your symptoms. Regaining full function and health will likely be more expensive than trying for a 'quick fix' […] regaining and maintaining good health is a life-long process.”

It seems RECOVERY or CURE is rather promised and implied, even with CHRONIC disease, which to me is not that plausible.

If naturopathy HAS such REMARKABLE results with the chronic and intractable, wouldn't we know about it by now?

If even just by publishing the REMARKABLE health outcomes of naturopaths THEMSELVES, the holder of these secrets who presumably would keeps themselves first and foremost in great shape in terms of AVOIDING causes of health problems.

That, by the way, is a study I'd like to start working on:

the life expectancies of naturopaths compared to both MD populations and to the general population.

Now, to string people along for so long, to me, smacks of a violation of a fundamental medical ethics requirement:


In other words, be of benefit to the patient.

Taking money from someone for YEARS while they're not improving in this model they've presented, is rather shady.

But, since naturopathy doesn't have to abide by the ethical strictures of modern medicine, I'm sure they're fine with such a business model.

Sounds rather lucrative.

Find the patient [wink-wink], credulous, wealthy mark.


On the same page, we're told:

“the degree, doctor of naturopathic medicine, requires four years of graduate level study in the medical sciences. These include anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pathology, pharmacology, physical and clinical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis, immunology, cardiology, radiology, gynecology, dermatology, rheumatology, minor surgery, pediatrics and other clinical sciences […] naturopathic therapeutics [...] include therapeutic nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, naturopathic manipulative therapy and lifestyle counseling […] how do I know that naturopathic medicine works? Many of the treatments that we use have been researched and validated by conventional scientific methods. There are literally thousands of medical studies that support the efficacy of vitamins, herbs, and natural treatment methods [and I assume that includes homeopathy]. Some natural medicine methods, like acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, are proven by the results they have achieved over hundreds of years.”

So, I think that's a broad 'science backed' claim as in “graduate level study in the […] sciences.”

We'll see similar broad labeling at the CT naturopathy school, the University of Bridgeport.

Science-backed homeopathy?

And the qi of TCM?

I don't think so.

Were also told:

“naturopathic physicians are licensed primary care physicians who specialize in natural medicine [...] we treat disease and restore health […] naturopathic physicians must pass a national and state level board examination in order to become licensed to practice naturopathic medicine […which includes] clinical nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, acupuncture, and lifestyle counseling.”

So, an examination.

That's actually the NPLEX.

I took and passed half of the NPLEX, in 2000.

I did not stay around naturopathy school until the end of the fourth year to sit for the second half.

Did you know that the NPLEX falsely labels homeopathy as “clinical science”?

So much for standards.

Yet, the NDs state:

“education is a cornerstone of what we do. We take the time to sit with you and explain a disease process or educate you about self-care in relation to your overall health.”

Well, what if the education that NDs receive is miseducation?

More on that when I talk about most of these NDs' alma mater, NCNM.

Finally on this page we're told:

“in addition, naturopathic physicians are subject to a review by a state board of examiners.”

More on that when I talk about, the regulatory board of Oregon naturopathy, which is were NCNM is.

In “Natural Treatment Methods for Your Health” (2015 archived) ND Liva's practice tells us:

“naturopathic medicine utilizes natural treatment methods that activate your innate healing mechanisms [...these] modalities of treatment that naturopathic physicians use [...include] homeopathic medicine […] homeopathic medicines act to strengthen the body’s innate immune responses.”

Yeah, right.

More coded vitalism, for a therapy that, if it doesn't work, we're advised to keep at it for a few years.

A long wait for a train that ain't coming.

There's also “Seven Key Factors that Determine Health or Illness” (2015 archived).

A page which states, regarding the toxin bogey man:

“the most threatening form of pollution today is chemical pollution […] the amount of chemical pollution today is unprecedented in human history […] it’s no wonder that 9 out of 10 mothers on the face of the planet are nourishing their infants with breast milk laced with DDT. Nearly all of us are carrying DDT and a host of other chemicals in our body. A large amount of scientific evidence supports the idea that these accumulated chemicals are a factor in the majority of degenerative diseases […] environmental pollution does not occur 'somewhere else'. It is in your immediate environment -- your home, your car, your office, your neighborhood, your city. You are exposed to chemicals from the air you breathe, the water you drink, and the food you eat. In other words, you are surrounded daily by chemicals that are either toxic or have unknown health consequences […] any plastic product or packaging may release undesirable chemicals. Possibly you have sprayed your garden or lawn with pesticides or herbicides. Even personal care products such as deodorants, shampoo, and cosmetics may contain materials that are unhealthy […] chemical and other kinds of pollution are a serious threat to your health” according to naturopathy.

The NDs state:

“negative effects of environmental toxicity include decreased immune function, nervous system problems, depression, irritability, fatigue, and memory loss [...and] internal pollution occurs as a result of processes inside your body […] some contributors to this health problem are weakened digestive ability, unsuspected gut infection, or hormonal imbalances. Another example of internal pollution is pathogenic organisms such as candida albicans yeast. Candida proliferates in your GI tract anytime you take antibiotics. It produces a large variety of toxins, including alcohol. This is one reason why some people with chronic yeast infections report that they feel intoxicated. Negative effects of candida overgrowth include fatigue, gas, bloating, depression, diarrhea, constipation, brain fog, vaginal yeast infections, chronic urinary tract infections, and chronic prostatitis. A third example of internal pollution is chronic constipation. When you are constipated, a significant amount of toxic waste matter does not leave the body. Instead, it is reabsorbed by the lower intestine and circulated back into the bloodstream. 'Internal' pollution is a very important but often overlooked cause of poor health.”

Of course.

But, again, I'll repeat what Wikipedia said about this issue:

“body cleansing and detoxification have been referred to as an elaborate hoax used by con artists to cure nonexistent illnesses.”

Yet we were told at the NDs' homepage that these issues of “environmental pollution [...and] internal pollution (toxicity)“ are supported by “medical science.”

Up at WebMD is the article "Chronic Constipation: Facts vs. Myths" which states:

"chronic constipation myth: toxins accumulate in the intestine when bowel movements are infrequent. The truth: contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence that 'toxins' accumulate when bowel movements are infrequent or that constipation leads to disease such as cancer."

But this autotoxicity myth is truly a perpetual article of faith for naturopathy, as opposed to a medical science fact.

But what science says doesn't matter, for naturopathy, call it science anyway.


HOW anti-modernization!

But naturopathy, of course, thinks everything is inside of science.

Therefore, by way of naturopathy, it's amazing what is “science” specifically in Connecticut, as we will see by way of UBCNM, the next source I'll cover, which I consider Corrupticut's center of quakademia.

Part One Wrap Up:

At the end of this Episode 009 Part 1, let me revisit my episode question:

“if naturopathy, at its core, violates preponderant modern values concerning the physician-patient relationship [e.g. transparency and patient empowerment, as opposed to archaic opacity and paternalism], and violates preponderant modern boundaries as regards science [e.g. that science is a rather specifically defined epistemic delineation, as opposed to an archaic vague epistemic conflation], CAN this political process that is happening this 2015 in Connecticut accurately be termed modernization?  Or is it a kind of corruption?”

What we've seen so far, and there's a ways to go still in this episode, is unacceptable opacity, omission, and false science labels placed upon what science doesn't support in terms of what naturopaths believe, claim, and do.

We see myths being posed as actual; we see a reversal of values.

Sounds corrupt, so far, thought the ND oath, ironically, says 'don't' be corrupt.'

And these naturopaths claim to be 'modernizing'.

If such appears to be a very thin and deceptive veneer that's being placed upon a quite crappy and manipulative 'beneath', well, welcome to the world of the naturoPATHillogical.

By the way, there is a hearing about the ND Bill this 2015-03-15.

And you man submit testimony electronically as well, CNPA informs, in Word or PDF format, by 2015-03-13.

The web address is . 

I WILL be submitting the transcript to this podcast episode there.

So, so far, I've mentioned the idea that naturopathy wants to “modernize.”

And both sources of naturopathy in this Episode 009 Part 1, ND Gruber and ND Liva and company, are hugely into homeopathy as efficacious.

That is so wrong.

This “just in.”

I say it in quotes because this is ANOTHER final nail in homeopathy's coffin after a few such final nails have happened over something like that last ten years.

In The Guardian in the UK, Melissa Davey reports this 2015-03-11, in "Homeopathy Not Effective for Treating Any Condition Australian Report Finds":

"homeopathy is not effective for treating any health condition, Australia’s top body for medical research has concluded, after undertaking an extensive review of existing studies […] the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has for the first time thoroughly reviewed 225 research papers on homeopathy to come up with its position statement, released on Wednesday [ states] 'based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are NO health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.'”

So, something hugely obvious must be asked:

if naturopathy intends to “modernize”, then SHOULDN'T naturopathy tend to its own existing innards and dump all the archaic / legacy stuff MODERN science does not support BEFORE EXPANDING its footprint?

Otherwise, isn't naturopathy simply IGNORING science.

And if they get what they want in Connecticut, while IGNORING science, won't the citizens of the Constitution State get this:

supposed primary care providers with prescriptive authority who do not respect, employ, and maintain a knowledge base of highest modern epistemic quality?

But, it's worse than that, actually.

Because as we shall see in the second part of this Episode 009, not merely ignoring science, naturopathy is actually CORRUPTING science by labeling what is patently not science as within science.

For instance, at the AANP,, the national mother ship of naturopathy, homeopathy is called to this day a "medicinal science." 

Post a Comment