The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 010 Part 1 - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 010 Part 1, titled “Integrative-Holistic-Quackademic Woo, Information Asymmetry, Immanence and Fiduciary Duty: Minnesota '.edu' -Style." In this Part 1 of Episode 10, I will define certain terms I'll be using, then visit the web pages of UMN, NCNM and oregon.gov:
 
001. the Episode 010a 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 10 - Part 1 Introduction:

In this two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 010, titled “Integrative-Holistic-Quackademic Woo, Information Asymmetry, Immanence and Fiduciary Duty: Minnesota '.edu' -Style”,

really,

I will look at a very rich trove of the NATUROPATHILLOGICAL by way of:

the University of Minnesota, aka UMN herein [which I may accidentally state as UNM at times but I'm not going to fix those accidental inversions], and the Northwestern Health Sciences University, aka NWHSU herein.

Now, as I start this, I'll admit I know NOTHING about the great State of Minnesota.

I've never even been there, and I don't even know anybody there.

Therefore, I just looked at Wikipedia's entry on the State to be reminded of some elementary things.

Minnesota is, apparently, on the border with Canada, specifically Canada's provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.

So, Minnesota, being so close to Ontario, is truly near a very active epicenter of naturopathy.

I'd spoken about Ontario's naturopathy shenanigans in the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 005.

And TRULY I am amazed, simply AMAZED, at what I've found regarding naturopathy in Minnesota.

And I'm so very excited about this episode's contents.

Episode Question:

And my overarching episode question for this Naturocrit Podcast Episode 010 is:

“what does the abundant CATEGORICAL false labelings of naturopathy's contents as science, as demonstrated by Minnesota post-secondary academic institutions, indicate regarding the ethicality of contemporary U.S. higher education, and its regard for consumer protections and patient informed consent?”

Episode 10 Part 1 Synopsis:

In this Part 1 of Episode 10, I will define certain terms I'll be using, then visit the web pages of UMN, NCNM and oregon.gov.

In later parts [part 2] of this episode, I'll visit the web pages of the Minnesota ND state organization, the individual web pages of its NDs, the second school this episode concerns, NWHSU, and a couple pages from national science organizations.

And now I'll clarify some episode title vocabulary.

To Clarify the Term “Quackademic” from the Episode Title:

In the Wikipedia article “Quackery” we're told that:

“[physician] R.W. Donnell coined the phrase 'quackademic medicine'.”

Specifically, in a 2008 post, at his blog, titled “Exposing Quackery in Medical Education”, R.W. Donnell wrote:

“academic medical woo […] maybe we should start calling it quackademic medicine.”

rationalwiki.org defines woo in “Woo” stating:

“woo is a term used among skeptical writers to describe pseudoscientific explanations that have certain common characteristics […] woo is understood specifically as pseudoscience, uses a science-like formula, and attempts to place itself as scientifically, or at least reasonably, supported […] woo generally contains most of the following characteristics [...including] an invocation of a scientific authority […] woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example, homeopathy may occasionally give results, but as [...] placebo. The explanations for these occasional results, e.g. water memory, are woo […] woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit.”

Agreed.

And in terms of quackery itself, that “Quackery” Wikipedia article states:

“quackery [as a term] is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. A 'quack' is a 'fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill' or 'a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan'. The word 'quack' derives from the archaic word 'quacksalver', of Dutch origin […] literally meaning 'hawker of salve'. In the Middle Ages the word quack meant 'shouting'. The quacksalvers sold their wares on the market shouting in a loud voice. 'Health fraud' [as a term] is often used as a synonym for quackery, but quackery's salient characteristic is its more aggressive promotion […] 'pseudomedicine' is a term for treatments known to be ineffective, regardless of whether their advocates themselves believe in their effectiveness.”

These definitions, of woo and quackery, health fraud and pseudomedicine, will be very helpful as we look at these Minnesota higher education entities.

By the way, while in naturopathy school at UB, I'd remember some ND instructor stating QUITE WRONGLY, that quack came from quacksalver which meant quicksilver, as in mercury, which was once used as a treatment by doctors.

That ND then stated, to paraphrase:

'so, then, of course, that means the allopaths are truly the quacks using mercury, which is a poison.'

My naturopathy education, and naturopathy overall:

typically WRONG at a very basic level.

To Clarify the Phrases “Information Asymmetry” and “Fiduciary Duty” from the Episode Title:

The Wikipedia entry “Information Asymmetry” states:

“in contract theory and economics, information asymmetry [IA] deals with the study of decisions in transactions where one party has more or better information than the other. This creates an imbalance of power in transactions, which can sometimes cause the transactions to go awry […] examples of this problem are adverse selection, moral hazard, and information monopoly.”

And if you know a little about the relationship of the professions to the laity, IA is unavoidable:the profession of medicine is hugely impenetrable and intimidating to most people, minimally in terms of its language and technicality.

To compensate for this INEQUALITY or power imbalance, usually the professions are held to a much higher ethical standard than simple commerce, to protect the laity:the ethical stricture is that the clients' needs are primary, aka fiduciary duty, or “the primacy of patient welfare”.

And I think it's a great thing, if I'm sick and vulnerable, to go to someone looking out for my best interests, NOT THEIRS.

But, can naturopathy – which is based upon falsehood and perpetual false projections of its contents, FOR ITS OWN GAIN – in any meaningful way be considered professional and able to function in such a fiduciary capacity?

To Clarify the Term “Immanence” from the Episode Title:

And now we get into the depths of naturopathic BELIEF.

Wikipedia states, in “Immanence”:

“immanence refers to those philosophical and metaphysical theories of divine presence in which the divine encompasses or is manifested in the material world. Immanence is usually applied in monotheistic, pantheistic, pandeistic, or panentheistic faiths to suggest that the spiritual world permeates the mundane [mundane here meaning worldly]. It is often contrasted with theories of transcendence, in which the divine is seen to be outside the material world.“

So, the divine-spiritual FAITHY as worldly-physical, so to speak, is immanence.

What does this have to do with naturopathy, you ask?

Aren't they “natural”?

Well, at its heart, naturopathy is a belief system.

Naturopathy posits that in order to properly reap the benefits of its “natural” domain, one MUST include the supernatural, as “spirit”, or as I was taught in ND school, “god power within you” and “spiritual development.”

That's very divine / spiritual / faithy stuff.

Now, historically, such 'get the supernatural in' requirements go back to the FOUNDER of naturopathy, Benedict Lust, whose Wikipedia page states was looking for:

“a new synthesis [...opening] the American School of Naturopathy in New York City, the first naturopathic medical school in the world” in the early 1900s.

Well, let me be more specific:

in the beginning, for Lust it was 'become one with the divine.'

As ND Telfair informs – a 2005 Bastyr ND graduate whom I've randomly chosen, who tells us on her bio.page [2015 archived] that naturopathy is “science based natural medicine” – Lust explained:

“in a word, naturopathy stands for the reconciling, harmonizing and unifying of nature, humanity and god.“

And the ND writes:

“the principles of naturopathic medicine [...include] treat the whole person: naturopaths recognize the importance of an individual’s physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health.”

Really, that's on her current bio. page:

“science” subset the supernatural as “god” and “spiritual”.

That is quite a synthesis, a new age synthesis:

of religion, and medicine, and science.

And there's also a recent audio interview with ND Villalobos, a 2000 NCNM ND grad., who states in New Mexico State University's krwg.org's "Curandera Without the Egg?" [vsc 2015-05-30; 2015 archived]:

"[from the embedded mp3, that NDs] have training very similar to MDs [...and] get all the basic sciences [...and use] hard science diagnostics [...] the principles of naturopathic medicine [...include] the healing power of nature. It's called the vis medicatrix naturae, which I refer to as god and the spirit within us that's strong and vital."

And I'll add to this a web page from the College of Naturopathy UK, "What is Naturopathy?" which states:

"naturopathy sees humankind as a holistic unity of body, mind, and spirit […] from

Steven Langley's ‘Naturopathy Workbook’ naturopathy, or nature cure, is underpinned by a fundamental principle, vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature. This was made clear twenty-five centuries ago […] medicine, religion and science were intimately related and man was seen as a whole: a physical, mental, emotional and spiritual being. The same vital force or chi (qi) that made up the universe and nature flowed through man and it was his dislocation from this source that caused illness. Early naturopaths realized that if you could restore the vital force to the patient, the body would naturally heal itself."

So, there's that melding of science with the supernatural /divine / spiritual / religious, and that explicit science-ejected vitalism, all termed “natural” and required for health and wellness.

A “holistic unity”, just like the word describing Lust, as looking for a “synthesis”.

And finally on this point, I'll reiterate an excerpt from a 2011 presentation by ND Sensenig, founding president of the AANP and founding dean of UBCNM.

The lecture is from the Northwest Naturopathic Physicians' 55th Annual Convention, and is titled "The Power of Vitalism”.

In the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 001b, I heavily analyzed this lecture.

ND Sensenig states, quoting Lindlahr:

“'the vitalistic conception of life regards the vital force as the primary force of all forces coming from the great central source of life. This force that permeates, heats, and animates the entire created universe is an expression of divine intelligence and will, the logos or the word of the great creative intelligence [...] it is intelligent energy [...from] the will and the intelligence of the creator [...] this supreme intelligence [...] crude matter [...] is an expression of the life force itself a manifestation of the great creative intelligence which some call god.'”

Now if that's not a specific kind of belief system, well then calling something a belief system is meaningless:

god, life force, energy [or spirit].

There are all particulars within naturopathy's articles of faith.

Therein, there's naturopathy's requisite divine-spiritual, that they call the “holistic” and “integrative”, and ABSURDLY, “science”.

That blend, of science with nonscience, is the integrative because to integrate is to blend or conflate.

I often call this naturopathy's “sectarianism”:

SPECIFIC supernatural belief obligations and clinical activity by way of epistemic and ontological conflation.

So, there are some operational definitions for my chosen vocabulary for the Episode title.

I'll be revisiting those ideas as I detail the language of these two Minnesota schools.

And I'm immediately wondering, in light of those terms and what I know about naturopathy:

in placing its welfare foremost by engaging in falsehood and absurdity, through that posture of false marketing by way of 'science subset PATENT integrative holistic quackademic medical woo', with information asymmetry all the while, is naturopathy CONTENT to ignore the fiduciary duty of a professional and therein merely MAINTAIN its mode of self-serving exploitation?

Because something that claims to be science must be, inherently, 'self-testing and self-correcting'.

Is there any movement towards such betterment, ethically and epistemically, within naturopathy?

Let's take a look at naturopathy's 'integrative-holistic-quackademic woo' in Minnesota, to answer such questions, and perhaps generate further questions.

The University of Minnesota, aka UMN:

The first Minnesota school whose web pages I'll delve into is UMN.

As background, we're told at Wikipedia, in “University of Minnesota System”:

“the University of Minnesota was founded in Minneapolis in 1851 […it has] one of the largest endowments among public universities in the country […] as of 2007 […that endowment was] $2.8 billion.”

And UMN is rather highly regarded.

UMN itself tell us this in "Reputation":

"what makes our University great? […] founded in 1851 […] the University of Minnesota is known worldwide as an outstanding institution with top rankings [...] the University of Minnesota is one of the top public [...] universities in the United States […a] Big 10 University […] we rank 16th as a destination for international students in the U.S.”

Well, lets see how 'great, outstanding, and top-ranked' things are at UMN by way of its naturopathy pages.

UMN's main web portal, apparently, is “twin-cities.umn.edu”.

On the UMN page “About Us” we're told:

“we are Minnesota's research university. We change lives through research, education, and outreach. Research: we seek new knowledge […] at the University of Minnesota students do research alongside top professors in all majors. Education: we prepare students to meet the great challenges facing our state, our nation, and our world […] outreach: we apply our expertise to meet the needs of Minnesota, our nation, and the world. We partner with communities across Minnesota to engage our students, faculty, and staff in addressing society's most pressing issues.”

Research, education, outreach, knowledge, challenges, community partnership, pressing social issues!

Postured greatness!

My kind of stuff...

Now, concurrent with all these positive descriptors at UMN and often by UMN is, believe it or not, promotion of naturopathy at UMN using FALSE labels.

ISYN.

To skip ahead a bit, UMN does tell us that naturopathy is supposedly “science-based” and that naturopathy's homeopathy is a supposed “science” on UMN's page about naturopathy.

And, as I'll demonstrate:

it's EASY to do RESEARCH and find those categorical science labels to be false in terms of KNOWLEDGE.

And I think it is quite abhorrent to have an EDUCATIONAL institution engaged in such falsehood, no matter how lauded.

And from that false position, UMN's message is a kind of harmful OUTREACH toward their neighboring communities, their state, the world, as opposed to PARTNERSHIP.

And I can honestly state that this MISLEADING naturopathy stuff at UMN is a perfect example of a CHALLENGING SOCIAL ISSUE:

quackademic woo.

In other words, the epistemic charity that this junk gets.

And quackademic woo is NOT GREAT, it is NOT OUTSTANDING, it is NOT top-ranked.

Naturopathy at UMN:

The main naturopathy page at UMN is addressed “csh.umn.edu”, with csh standing for “Center for Spirituality and Healing.”

If naturopathy is within “spirituality and healing” then it MUST be supernatural and about BELIEFS, me thinks, a kind of shamanism / faith-healing category, aka pertaining to immanence:

that the supernatural is active in this here world, influencing and influence-able, and amenable.

Excuse the pun, but I just couldn't' help myself.

I'm CONFUSED!

Because UMN is calling that faithy / faith-healing stuff, as I'd just mentioned, categorically SCIENCE!!!

And science is NOT such an a priori belief system, it is an a posteriori methodology:

a distinction that has been teased apart in many, many, many Federal-level court cases in the 'evolution versus creationism aka science versus belief' area.

Ahead, I will be quoting from national science organizations on how it is a MISUSE of science to claim that science supports the 'essentially science-unsupportable supernatural and kind'.

Anyway, Naturopathy at UMN's CSH:

“Expert Contributor Paul Ratté, ND”, according to UMN – and I will call him Ratte because I seriously doubt the man's last name is rat – writes on the umn.edu page “Naturopathy” [2015 archived], a page that has been up at that specific URL since 2009:

“naturopathic medicine is a science-based tradition […naturopaths] cooperate with all other branches of medical science.”

There's THE big falsehood:

science, subset naturopathy and its contents.

That's the broadest categorical claim I can think of regarding naturopathy's knowledge kind aka epistemic type, at UMN.

And though it is hugely wrong as a label, it is a TYPICAL label across the naturopathy academic landscape.

Now, the first archived “takingcharge.csh.umn.edu” page that I've found, from 2006, states:

“Taking Charge of Your Health is a free online resource from the University of Minnesota’s Center for Spirituality & Healing, a national education and research leader. We created this site to provide accurate and credible information so you can make informed decisions about your healthcare.”

Really:

“accurate […] credible” information.

I don't think so.

And there's all kinds of junk in the archived pages of CSH, the kind of stuff that naturopaths so often do, as described on their own web pages.

So I'll include them here, from UMN's CSH.

Perhaps the take-away message from all this is that once you supernaturalize medicine and healthcare, once you conflate medicine and religion:

ANYTHING GOES.

Including and especially:
 

nonsense and falsehoods posed as credible and accurate.

MD Novella recently wrote, at the blog sciencebasedmedicine.org, in “Trying to Impose Religion on Medicine” this 2015-06:

“science-based medicine not only works, it is necessary if we are to have any effective regulations and standard of care. Introducing philosophical and religious beliefs into medicine goes hand-in-hand with eroding the standard of care and failing to protect the public from false or misleading claims, and unsafe or ineffective practices [I'd also add, 'from figmentations']. Further, similar to creationism and other anti-science movements, CAM proponents want to role back the clock to a pre-scientific era. They want to rehash a fight they lost a couple centuries ago. Vitalism and dualism were given more than a fair chance, and they completely failed, because they are not scientific notions and they are not based in reality. We should no more integrate these discarded notions back into science than we should reintroduce astrology back into astronomy, phrenology back into neuroscience, or alchemy back into chemistry. These ideas are best left on the trash heap of history.”

Agreed.

Anyway, there's the UMN 2007 archived page “Reflexology” at takingcharge.csh.umn.edu what which states:

“reflexology is the application of appropriate pressure by thumbs and fingers to specific points and areas on the feet, hands, or ears in order to improve the recipient’s health. Reflexologists understand that these areas and reflex points correspond to different body organs and systems, and that pressing them has a beneficial effect on the organs and person’s general health […] in reflexology, points and areas on the feet, hands, and ears correspond to specific organs, bones and body systems. Practitioners access these points on the feet and hands (bottom, sides, and top) and the ear (both inside as far as the finger can reach and outside) to affect organs and systems throughout the [...] body […e.g.] the left foot corresponds to the left side of the body and all organs, valves, etc. found there.”

[Here's an Ontario naturopathy practice's reflexology].

Meanwhile, in biologic reality, we're told at Wikipedia in “Reflexology”:

“the best evidence available to date does not demonstrate convincingly that reflexology is an effective treatment for any medical condition.”

Well, that makes sense: can you imagine our ancestors walking barefoot on small rocks, and accidentally changing what their heart valves were doing?

Having 'buttons to your organs on the bottom of your feet' does not seem advantageous in terms of such things in biology as natural selection.

There's the UMN 2007 archived page “Healing Touch” at takingcharge.csh.umn.edu [2007 archived] which states:

“healing touch is an 'energy therapy' that uses gentle hand techniques thought to help re-pattern the patient’s energy field and accelerate healing of the body, mind, and spirit. Healing touch is based on the belief that human beings are fields of energy that are in constant interaction with others and the environment. The goal of healing touch is to purposefully use the energetic interaction between the healing touch practitioner and the patient to restore harmony to the patient’s energy system [… ] healing touch practitioners believe that this process balances and realigns energy flow that has been disrupted by stress, pain, or illness. The process eliminates blockages in the energy field so that the patient is in an optimal state for healing to occur […] even though the results of these therapies have not been measured quantitatively in a reliable way, some new instruments, such as the superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) are showing promise for research with energy therapies […] many of the techniques used in energy therapies come from practices in shamanistic and Asian traditions with thousands of years of use […] concepts borrowed from ancient shamanic and aboriginal healing traditions.“

[See reiki for an ND example].

Ah, yes, 'ye old laying on of hands' from 'ye old prescience days'.

This healing touch is, of course, a version of therapeutic touch, for which there is a similar page currently up at UMN.

Now, Wikipedia states in “Therapeutic Touch”:

“therapeutic touch […] is a pseudoscientific energy therapy which practitioners claim promotes healing and reduces pain and anxiety […] practitioners of therapeutic touch state that by placing their hands on, or near, a patient, they are able to detect and manipulate the patient's energy field. One highly cited study, designed by the then-nine-year-old Emily Rosa and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998, found that practitioners of therapeutic touch could not detect the presence or absence of a hand placed a few inches above theirs when their vision was obstructed. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst concluded in their 2008 book Trick or Treatment that 'the energy field was probably nothing more than a figment in the imaginations of the healers'. The American Cancer Society has noted, 'Available scientific evidence does not support any claims that TT can cure cancer or other diseases.' A 2014 Cochrane review found no good evidence that it helped with wound healing.”

And I'll just note too that the word energy there really is a misappropriation:

its a scientific term which is quantifiable and of course here energy has become an alternate for some kind of invisible spiritual force.

There's the UMN 2007 archived page “Reiki” at takingcharge.csh.umn.edu which states:

“reiki is a spiritual, vibrational healing practice used to promote balance throughout the human system. Reiki does not involve physical manipulation or the ingestion or application of any substances, but works with the subtle vibrational field thought to surround the body. Reiki is commonly translated from the Japanese as universal life energy.”

[Here's ND Lloyd doing this kind of 'laying on of hands'.]

Now, Quackwatch tells us in “Reiki is Nonsense”:

“reiki has no substantiated health value and lacks a scientifically plausible rationale. Science-based healthcare settings should not tolerate its use, and scarce government research dollars should not be used to study it further.”

Reiki ga, iya na desu ne.

Reiki is not good, if my two years of college Japanese haven't totally failed me.

And there's the UMN 2009 archived takingcharge.csh.umn.edu portal page which lists, truly, all things woo-ful including naturopathy.

And again, what was promised:

“accurate […] credible” information.

Bullshit.

There's also the 2009 UMN archived “What is Homeopathy?” at takingcharge.csh.umn.edu which states, specifically citing naturopathy:

“is naturopathy the same as homeopathy? While naturopathy is not the same as homeopathy, it does incorporate homeopathic remedies and principles within its scope of practice. In the early 1900s, naturopathy was founded in North America by another German, Benedict Lust […] naturopathic physicians have not only taken a standard medical curriculum, but have completed four years of training in clinical nutrition, acupuncture, homeopathic medicine, botanical medicine, psychology, and counseling […] modern naturopathic physicians [...] all have some [mandatory] training in homeopathy […] some naturopaths study beyond their standard training, focusing in homeopathy, and may go on to become certified in homeopathy.”

Logically speaking, UMN itself just totally discredited their own broad science label that they placed upon naturopathy with the admission 'naturopathy subset homeopathy-as-within in a mandatory kind of way'.

This is some seriously irrational, illogical, naturopathillogical SHIT at UMN.

This is quite a trove.

There's also UMN's 2009 archived “Is There Good Scientific Evidence for Homeopathy?” at takingcharge.csh.umn.edu which states:

“is there good scientific evidence for homeopathy? Scientific evidence takes many forms, including laboratory and clinical research. Both of these have some limitations in studying homeopathy […] the gold-standard, biomedical research model for drug interventions – one disease or symptom, one drug, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective trial – is not an ideal research process for homeopathy […] one hundred different people with medically diagnosed osteoarthritis and joint pain each have different overall presentations, constitutions, levels of vital force, etc.”

Ah, so:

according to UMN, homeopathy is science – because UMN is labeling naturopathy subset homeopathy science – but it is unscienceable.

And of course, there's vitalism.

Let UMN mindfuck continue.

And there's also “What is the Philosophy Behind Homeopathy?” at takingcharge.csh.umn.edu that has an ND's book as a reference.

Of course.

UMN states:

“vital force: Hahnemann proposed that the 'wesen,' or life force, keeps all parts of the human organism in harmony and allows it to function […] see his classic text, The Organon of the Medical Art [which I had to study in ND school, by the way...] when people are sick, this life force is dynamically mistuned, which is evident in the symptoms of their illness. Hahnemann believed that a cure could only occur by making a dynamic impact upon the life force and that homeopathic remedies do this. Hahnemann's life force is now most commonly referred to as vital force. In modern terminology, this is the 'energetic field' of the body, and homeopaths believe that the remedies impact this energetic field. Other complementary therapies, including acupuncture, healing touch, and reiki, are believed to work through energetic mechanisms in the body. However, because bioenergetics are not well understood or even accepted in conventional scientific medical circles, the ability of homeopathy to act is not understood and often still distrusted by conventional physicians.”

[Here's that book at bastyr.edu].

Therein, is a claim that homeopathy actually acts, without a mechanism that's understood, but we know scientifically speaking that homeopathy is merely equal to placebo and kind.

Now the UMN naturopathy page goes on with its science claims, as if they haven't misspoken enough:

“the ND degree requires graduate-level study in conventional medical sciences, such as cardiology, biochemistry, gynecology, immunology, pathology, pharmacology, pediatrics, and neurology [...] this includes therapies from the SCIENCES of clinical nutrition, botanical medicines, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, lifestyle counseling, and hydrotherapy, which is the use of water to treat a disorder or disease […these] non-toxic natural therapies […] naturopathic practitioners are trained as general practitioners specializing in natural medicine.”

Yes, a 'homeopathy is SCIENCE claim', which is 'truly batshit crazy and so FUCKING ignorant'.

SO HORRIBLE and negligent, NEITHER accurate nor credible.

Does the public feel informed yet, so they can make an informed decision?

As I say often, truly with naturopathy, we are dealing with a REVERSAL of values.

The URL and header for these umn.edu pages is “taking charge of your health and well being.”

How?

How is false information posed as true, and figmentations posed as fact, empowering?

And, of course, there's what I call 'the naturalness fallacy', as “natural therapies […] natural medicine” as if there is inherently something useful in the label “natural.”

After all, we're in a spiritual area calling its stuff natural, so natural and supernatural are now the same.

And we're in a bunch of falsehoods claimed as true, so now truth and falsehood are equated.

This is natural in their naturalness. 

Truly fallacious. 

And we're also told on UMN's naturopathy page:

“the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) defines naturopathic medicine as 'a distinct system of primary health care […] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles upon which its practice is based. These principles are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances. The techniques of naturopathic medicine include modern and traditional, scientific, and empirical methods'.”

So, there's the categorical claim that naturopathy's principles' contents and contexts survive scientific scrutiny.

Yet, regarding those principles, on the page, we're merely told:

“naturopathic medicine follows a number of key principles: [#1] the healing power of nature: The body has an inherent ability to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic physicians facilitate this healing process by removing obstacles to cure and identifying treatments to enhance healing.”

That is coded vitalism, as we will see.

And we're told that naturopathy is “a genuine practice of medicine” but you couldn't even tell me your explicit vitalism at the core of naturopathy.

You had to code it opaquely?

How genuine is that?

How distinct, how distinguished?

Well, it's fascinating to see how opaque this UMN version of HPN is when compared to what's written in Oregon at NCNM which ND Ratte links to on his own practice bio. page and Oregon.gov, which oversees where this page's author, ND Ratte, got his ND from.

One of the references for this page is “Northwestern Health Sciences University”, which is the second Minnesota school that I'll visit in this Episode 010.

And this UMN naturopathy page is used as a reference, incidentally, in the Youtube video “Naturopathy What is Naturopathic Medicine?”

So it wields some weight and influence.

What I'll do now is go to NCNM and Oregon.gov to get to naturopathy's core, which is claimed to survive scientific scrutiny but that's false.

NCNM and Oregon.gov for that HPN Context:

Now, at UMN we've already been told science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy subset vital force.

Here, I'd like to get, directly, naturopathy subset vital force.

And that's very easy to do at ND Ratte's alma mater and at the Oregon '.gov' board.

By the way, the majority of NDs who are members of MNANP are NCNM graduates.

NCNM states, in “About Naturopathic Medicine”, a page I am VERY FOND of quoting from and that NDs obviously are very averse to quoting the SPECIFIC and COMPLETE language of, as we'll see when we look at MNANP members' web pages:

“these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [...] 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 […] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae […naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force […our] homeopathic medicine […] works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels.”

So, there's, in part, the science-exterior or -ejected core of naturopathy, its “distinguishing marks”:

vitalism and its handmaiden teleology, supernaturalism, and homeopathy figmentation WRAPPED in pseudoscience.

Yet, we're also promised by NCNM on this page that this core is:

“based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and [...and that core is] examined continually in light of scientific analysis.”

Yes, NCNM claims that the patently science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny.

Similar language is at Oregon.gov, in “Naturopathy” where we're ADDITIONALLY told:

“naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [and this is, again, oregon.gov], respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process […] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. The physician must treat the whole person by considering all of these factors.”

So there's vitalism again, and the supernatural that is amenable and requisite.

And I've wondered if the State of Oregon should, in terms of the Establishment Clause, be promoting a kind of belief?

Is this clearly secular, or is this a particular sectarian interest?

And what's worse, the State of Oregon is participating in the ruse that this science-ejected stuff survives scientific scrutiny, as the page also indicates when Oregon.gov tells us:

“it is these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches […] these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis.”

So what do we get from Oregon.gov?

The claim that it is professional to be based on what's falsely postured – 'sectarian beliefs and activities are science' – that it is professional to be based upon, essentially, pseudoscience and manipulative opacity.

That is professional to patently harm the integrity of science, and trample upon freedom of belief.

Reflections So Far on Minnesota's Naturopathillogical Sectarianism: Combining, Equating, Ignoring, Exploiting:

Well, due to the SUPPOSED high ACADEMIC status of UMN, I'm particularly disgusted this episode and perhaps that's why my profanity this episode is so much more abundant than usual.

Here are some responses to categorical descriptors I've mentioned this Episode 10 Part 1.

Regarding “self-testing and self-correcting”, I DON'T see naturopathy altering its wicked ways though it claims to be of science -- a "science" -- which must have those qualities.

Instead, naturopathy is dogmatic, opaque, and exploitative.

Sure, I realized at 2002 when I quit naturopathy school at UB that I'd been lied to along the lines of 'division of health sciences subset naturopathy subset homeopathy and kind.'

That I'd also have to for a career, be a liar, if I chose to be an ND.

But actually, in the time since AMAZINGLY, MORE naturopathy programs have opened under such a false banner, like the naturopathy program at NUHS.

If anything, naturopathy is obviously perpetually pseudoscientific.

So what does that say so far about 'naturopathic higher education categorical false-labeling and higher education's ethicality':

well, there isn't any ethicality and there isn't any CARE for consumer protection and informed consent.

There's just a parcel of rogues whose essential activities are quite:

quackademic, woo-ful, health fraudulent, and pseudomedical once one rubs away the very thin patina of legitimacy that they have dyed themselves with.

And all this camouflaging and opacity is going on WHILE academic integrity and fiduciary duty are ignored, and professionalism is still claimed, while also information asymmetry is unavoidable contextually speaking, which is why a professional relationship must happen.

So, though naturopathy MUST be for the patient and consumer, professionally speaking, in order to be of the professions, it isn't.

I'll call naturopathy's sectarianism right now the:

combining / melding / unifying, and equating or conflating,

of knowledge and activities that are of the

supernatural / divine / spiritual / religious and nonscientific with

a secular context which is what science legitimately can support.

And then it is all mislabeled “science” as an entire category, which is an epistemic distinction, though naturopathy is truly an epistemic conflation, in terms of its knowledge and activities.

Yet, at UMN, this new age synthesis gets even kinkier:

because after being labeled "science" it then is all labeled “spirituality.”

And if you go up to an even higher institutional level than just ONE government owned university, UMN, if you go up to a State '.gov' level, oregon.gov, we're again told 'able to survive scientific scrutiny.'

It's like an Russian nesting doll set that keeps changing its epistemic categorical label with each layer.

But I do hope this RUSE has become apparent, because with enough analysis, one can get down to 'the thing itself', and this 'naturopathic thing itself' can be summed up in two words:

fucked up.

Again, so much for the integrity of science and freedom of belief.

And I truly do believe that when matters of faith are claimed to be science-supported and within science, both kinds of knowledge are quite harmed.

[end].