here,
I provide an annotated script for the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 010
Part 2b, titled “Integrative-Holistic-Quackademic Woo, Information
Asymmetry, Immanence and Fiduciary Duty: Minnesota '.edu'
-Style." In this Part 2b of
Episode 10, I will visit the web pages of the Northwestern Health Sciences University and a couple of science organizations:
Standard Introduction:
001. the Episode 010b2 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.
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 2b 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 am looking at a very rich trove of the NATUROPATHILLOGICAL by way of the University of Minnesota, aka UMN herein, and the Northwestern Health Sciences University, aka NWHSU herein.
“Integrative-Holistic-Quackademic Woo, Information Asymmetry, Immanence and Fiduciary Duty: Minnesota '.edu' -Style”, really,
I am looking at a very rich trove of the NATUROPATHILLOGICAL by way of the University of Minnesota, aka UMN herein, and the Northwestern Health Sciences University, aka NWHSU herein.
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?”
And if you've listened to Part 1 and 2a, it's
not going well so far for UMN as a microcosm of higher education's
ethicality, and naturopathy of both stripes in Minnesota.
Episode 10 Part 2b Synopsis:
In this final section of Episode 10, I'll be looking at naturopathy at the Northwestern Health Sciences University, a couple of science organization pages, and wrapping the whole thing up.
The Northwestern Health SCIENCES
University:
Well, here's the second school this
Episode concerns, FINALLY.
nwhealth.edu is the web address of the
Northwestern Health SCIENCES University, aka NWHSU.
Let me please emphasize:
“.edu [...and] science”, in this
here day and age, which is a claim of academic rigor regarding a
certain kind of health knowledge.
Now, neither UMN nor NWHSU have
naturopathy degree-granting programs, let me also emphasize, but, UMN
is a huge proponent as we've seen, and NWHSU offers naturopathy
clinically, as you'll see.
This episode's Part 2a showed how SEEDY the whole naturopathy enterprise is in terms of commerce, and
intellectually, particularly epistemically, by way of the products of
naturopathy educational institutions:
naturopaths.
I DON'T consider UMN to have integrity,
by way of what I've exposed, but lets be open to the idea that NWHSU
may be 'of integrity', particularly 'scientific integrity', since
they claim to be a 'science .edu'.
So I pose this:
perhaps one might find intellectual and
particularly epistemic integrity at NWHSU regarding naturopathy and
kind.
We won't know until we look.
NWHSU could say:
'based on what we know
in terms of science and how we DO science, the essentially
naturopathic is pseudoscience.'
In other words, NWHSU COULD dismiss
naturopathy, in terms of scientific stringency.
Now, if you are starting to feel I am
straining in my charity toward the matter, I am, because:
they DO naturopathy at NWHSU, and a whole bunch of other woo.
And that is partnership and agency in
the matter.
And I believe the school's name is a
categorical label, so it's contents and rigors should live up the
qualities of that label:
science.
If they don't, in a patently obvious
ways, aren't we then in an area best described as FALSEHOOD instead!
NWHSU's Accreditation:
Now, I really
didn't deal with the credentialing bureaucracy behind or above
UMN, but let's look at such for NWHSU before I go to their naturopathy
pages.
It turns, by the way, that UMN and NWHSU are partnered with the
SAME regional accreditor, and state and federal government
overseers.
And I wonder if such approvers and abettors, aka the
credentialing and permission bureaucracy, have standards that permit
or forbid FRAUD in terms of 'academic commerce'.
Perhaps, perhaps...perhaps not.
The
NWHSU page “Accreditation” [2015 archived] states:
“Northwestern
Health Sciences University is accredited by the Higher Learning
Commission and is a member of the North Central Association of
Colleges and Schools (NCA) [...which] was founded in 1895 as a
membership organization for educational institutions [...and is] one
of six regional institutional accrediting associations in the United
States […] it accredits and grants membership to educational
institutions in the 19-state North Central region [...and is]
recognized by the United States Secretary of Education and by the
Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Accreditation was extended
to Northwestern in 1988, and was renewed in 1993, 2001 and 2010
[...and] Northwestern Health Sciences University is registered as a
private institution with the Minnesota Office of Higher Education.”
I believe
the expression one then uses is 'round up the usual suspects':
a
regional accreditor North Central Association of Colleges and Schools,
the the United States Department of Education, the Council on Higher
Education Accreditation, and a Minnesota State Department of
Education.
Let's look at those entities, and find some standards perhaps.
Wikipedia tells us in “North Central Association of Colleges and Schools”:
“the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA), also known
as the North Central Association, is a membership organization,
consisting of colleges, universities, and schools in 19 U.S. states,
that is engaged in educational accreditation. It is one of six
regional accreditation bodies in the United States, and its Higher
Learning Commission is recognized by the United States Department of
Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)
as a regional accreditor for higher education institutions.”
The
Higher Learning Commission states, in “The Criteria for Accreditation and Core Components” [2015 archived]:
“the
criteria for accreditation are the standards of quality by which the
Commission determines whether an institution merits accreditation or
reaffirmation of accreditation […] criterion two: integrity:
ethical and responsible conduct: the institution acts with integrity;
its conduct is ethical and responsible […] integrity in its
financial, academic, personnel, and auxiliary functions; it
establishes and follows policies and processes for fair and ethical
behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty,
and staff […] criterion three: teaching and learning: quality,
resources, and support the institution provides [...] high quality
education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered.”
So,
that's quality, integrity, ethical, responsible, and "high quality
education."
Member schools MUST do that stuff.
We're also assured:
“the
institution presents itself clearly and completely to its students
and to the public […] the institution is committed to freedom of
expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning […]
responsible acquisition, discovery and application of knowledge by
its faculty, students, and staff […] the integrity of research and
scholarly practice conducted by its faculty, staff, and students […]
the ethical use of information resources […] the institution has
and enforces policies on academic honesty and integrity.”
That was
clarity and completeness, truth, knowledge, research, ethical, and
“academic honesty and integrity.”
Member schools MUST do that
stuff.
The USDE, in "Program Integrity Questions and Answers - Misrepresentation", tells
us:
"the Department identifies actions it may consider taking in
response to a finding that an institution has engaged in substantial
misrepresentation [...] do the misrepresentation regulations extend
beyond substantial misrepresentations made about the nature of an
eligible institution’s educational programs, its financial charges,
or the employability of its graduates? [...] no. The Department
recognizes that section 487(c)(3)(A) of the HEA provides the
Department with the authority to act in response to substantial
misrepresentations that may be made in three broad areas. The
Department will not evaluate, nor potentially sanction, institutions
for their substantial misrepresentations that do not fall within one
of these three categories."
So there's this idea of “substantial
misrepresentation” as relates to the “nature of an eligible
institution’s educational programs, its financial charges, or the
employability of its graduates.”
Now what I could say is that for
schools that graduate NDs or NMDs:
it is quite a misrepresentation to
state that naturopathy is categorically within science.
And to know this epistemic “nature”
of naturopathy is then to know you, as someone hiring an ND or NMD,
would NOT want fraud to be hired.
So, perhaps the whole naturopathy
education enterprise is within such an “program integrity […]
misrepresentation.”
Perhaps.
But, as I'd said, neither UMN nor NWHSU
have naturopathy degree-granting programs, so far.
The Council for
Higher Education Accreditation hosts the document "Accreditation and Academic Integrity" which
states:
“what's the connection between academic integrity and higher education accreditation? […] one answer: because that's what accreditation is about. Accreditation is about the integrity of the educational enterprise; it announces, for example, that promises made in statements of learning outcomes, or competencies, for example, are being kept. 'Accreditation is validating that we are doing what we are supposed to do.'”
So, that's academic integrity, promises, and actually doing what you say you do.
“what's the connection between academic integrity and higher education accreditation? […] one answer: because that's what accreditation is about. Accreditation is about the integrity of the educational enterprise; it announces, for example, that promises made in statements of learning outcomes, or competencies, for example, are being kept. 'Accreditation is validating that we are doing what we are supposed to do.'”
So, that's academic integrity, promises, and actually doing what you say you do.
For instance, if you call yourself science, if we process your contents through science and it does not survive that process, are you doing what you say you do, naturopathy educational edifice?
I don't think so.
Minnesota Department of
Education:
education.state.mn.us is the web address of the Minnesota
Department of Education, who partners with UMN and NWHSU, since they operate within that state.
Their page
“Science”
[rb; saved 2015-08-17] states:
“science is the active study of the
natural and man-made world […] science students use their senses
and tools to observe, record and analyze data about the world and to
make conclusions based on evidence. Scientifically literate young
people can understand basic science concepts, use skills for doing
scientific investigations, solve technical problems, and design
technologies for today’s world […] the Minnesota K-12 Academic
Standards in Science were revised in 2009 and implemented by all
schools beginning with the 2011-2012 school year. The 2009 standards
are scheduled to be revised again in 2017-2018 […] Minnesota is a
lead state in the development of the Next Generation of Science
Standards. This is a cooperative effort of several states to provide
standards that could be adopted by all states. The standards are
based on A Framework for K-12 Science Education
developed by the National Research Council. The framework sets the
vision for science education and identifies science and engineering
practices, core disciplinary ideas, and cross-cutting concepts […]
the Frameworks for Minnesota Mathematics and Science Standards is an online resource for use by
educators for planning instruction, professional development,
curriculum design and assessment. It provides instructional resources
directly connected to each standard. It also has sections focused on
best practices and standards implementation. The website is a
collaboration of Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and
SciMathMN and reflects the expertise of teachers in identifying
resources.”
So, there's science as “natural and man-made” as
opposed to supernatural, science literacy, the a posteriori as in
“senses and tools” in knowledge type, evidence, and the NGSS.
What
a gift.
It is, as I like to point out, page 79 of that NRC book A Framework for K-12 Science Education that
states:
“science is replete with ideas that once seemed promising
but have not withstood the test of time, such as the concept of the
'ether' or the vis vitalis (the 'vital force' of life)”, and yet it
is NCNM that states that that vital force survives scientific
scrutiny.
And those are K-12 science standards,
for basic science literacy.
Naturopathy is DOCTORAL level, you'd think the stringencies would become MORE stringent.
The Minnesota Department of Education
states in "Minnesota Academic Standards Science K-12 2009 Version" [rb;
saved 2015-08-17]:
"the practice of science [...] scientific
inquiry is a set of interrelated processes used to pose questions
about the natural world and investigate phenomena [...] use
observations to develop an accurate description of a natural
phenomenon and compare one’s observations and descriptions with
those of others [...] grade K."
Yes, that's right, it is a
science education standard in Minnesota for KINDERGARTNERS that
science deals with the “natural world [...and] natural phenomenon.”
As opposed to the SUPERNATURAL.
KINDERGARTEN.
On the page "K.1.1.2. Inquiry" [rb;
saved 2015-08-17] we're told:
"grade: K. Subject:
Science. Strand: Nature of Science and Engineering. Substrand: The
Practice of Science [...] scientific inquiry is a set of interrelated
processes used to pose questions about the natural world and
investigate phenomena [...] use observations to develop an accurate
description of a natural phenomenon and compare one’s observations
and descriptions with those of others [...] from their very first day
in school, students should be actively engaged in learning to view
the world scientifically. That means encouraging them to ask
questions about nature and to seek answers, collect things, count and
measure things, make qualitative observations, organize collections
and observations, discuss findings, etc. […] anticipating an
eventual understanding of the scientific world view, these early
science experiences can be designed to bring out one aspect of the
belief in the unity of nature: consistency […] these activities
should serve to stimulate curiosity and engage students in taking an
interest in their environment and the workings of nature."
The
NATURAL world.
And these “higher education” institutions in Minnesota, like UMN and NWHSU, are claiming that within science is THE
SUPERNATURAL.
We've seen that with UMN and I will show you that with NWHSU.
That is a collision between actual science as a domain -- as I believe we value our kindergartners and tell them the truth, as in 'science deals with the natural world' -- and wacko pseudoscience all dressed up in flowing pseudo-scholarly
robes.
But I don't expect any overseeing entity to care:
I get the
feeling that all these entities treat the schools they supposedly
oversee as clients.
So, let's look at the NWHSU naturopathy stuff to
see the labels used upon the stuff they do and claim, in this "science" school.
NWHSU Pages:
One
page to start with is the nwhealth.edu page “Integrative Approach” [2015 archived].
Yes,
that marketing slogan “integrative”, which is right up there in
terms of vagueness as the terms natural and holistic.
It is a
MARKETING slogan.
They are bait.
The page states:
“Northwestern is creating new and
collaborative ways to provide integrative, patient-centered care and
we educate our students to practice using this emerging healthcare
model. As a student at Northwestern – whether studying acupuncture
and Oriental medicine, chiropractic or massage therapy – you learn
about natural health care beyond your own field of study. You’re
exposed to students in other academic programs and interact with
healthcare providers in multiple disciplines […] we prepare you to
effectively interact with other healthcare professionals to provide
integrative care, whether you’re a solo practitioner or part of a
larger clinical practice. You'll be able to communicate with
healthcare providers from medical schools, nursing schools, physical
therapy programs, and other allopathic or natural health schools.”
So,
there's integrative, educate, professional, natural healthcare, and
that term allopathic.
But, as has been said by me many times, what are
we blending or integrating?
Because wine plus mud does not result in
something that's potable.
The good stuff is ruined, and the bad stuff
gets to benefit from the good stuff's reputation.
Now, historically
speaking, NWHSU, like National University of Health Sciences in
Illinois, was once solely a chiropractic college.
We're told in
“Northwestern History" [2015 archived]:
“founded
in 1941 as Northwestern College of Chiropractic, Northwestern Health
Sciences University has grown in size and influence in the practice
of natural health care in Minnesota and beyond […] Northwestern has
grown in size, scope, and influence […] it still holds to its
founder’s vision: a high-quality, science-based education that
prepares practitioners for the ever-growing field of natural health
care [...and it speaks of a] rigorous academic program [...and] the
quality of the students and faculty [...and] other natural healthcare
degree programs […] in 1983, the [then] college moved to its
current location, a 25-acre campus in Bloomington, Minnesota, just
south of Minneapolis. The new complex provided students with all the
structure and amenities of a university […] in 1999, Northwestern
Health Sciences University was established to reflect its new
identity as a leader in natural healthcare education, clinical
services and research […] the College of Undergraduate Health
Sciences was created in 2011.”
So, there's “science-based”
subset “natural health care” in Minnesota, promised as
“high-quality [...as] rigorous […academically as a] sciences
university” -level education.
And of course, this is a label of
science upon the “integrative.”
And growth, growth, growth.
I glean
there's a BURNING desire for this institution to get an ND-program up
and running.
After all, an ND or NMD is often marketed as the terminal
degree in “natural” healthcare, and they've had NDs on staff for
quite some time, and are clinically practicing naturopathy at the
school.
We'll see.
Other Specific NWHSU Claims of “Science-Based”:
A Science Label Upon
Chiropractic:
There's the NWHSU Chiropractic College page
"Science-Based Curriculum" [2015 archived], with
a person looking through a microscope, which states:
"the basis
for effective chiropractic care begins with a strong foundation in
the basic sciences. Study the core basic sciences. When you learn the
why behind the how, you build a strong foundation for practice
success with our core basic science curriculum. Your courses include
gross anatomy, human physiology, microbiology, biochemistry,
histology and the neurological sciences. Learn about: normal human
structure and function, pathology and dysfunction, disease
processes at the cellular level, the process of inflammation. Learn
from experts in the sciences. Our faculty include those who hold dual
degrees in clinical and basic sciences, for example a PhD and DC.
Our faculty understand the essential role of a strong scientific
foundation in the success of a future doctor of chiropractic. You can
get one-on-one help from our faculty, who are approachable and have a
strong desire to help you succeed. Become a well-informed doctor. Our
science-based curriculum helps you develop the critical thinking
skills needed for an evidence-informed practice. Understanding
underlying pathology enables you to make informed clinical decisions,
including diagnosis, treatment planning and the need for referral.
The curriculum: Trimesters 1 and 2. Emphasize basic sciences,
introductory radiology, and chiropractic principles and methods.
Trimesters 3-8. Complete the basic sciences, moves to the clinical
and chiropractic sciences (including pathology and diagnosis), and
proceeds to advanced methods and radiology. Trimesters 4-10.
Integrate basic science education with clinical and chiropractic
sciences as students deliver patient care during clinical clerkships
and internships. View entire chiropractic curriculum outline."
So,
science science science.
Of course, strangely enough, chiropractic really hasn't gotten
ANYWHERE in terms of its treatment method in the past several decades
in terms of efficacy as compared to conventional medicine's.
[See the documentary "The Alternative Medicine Racket: How the Feds Fund Quacks" which mentions how an NIH study states: "the concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science."]
I've never seen the point of chiropractic, and I sat at UB for about four or so semesters sharing classes with chiropractic students and being taught by chiropractors while is was in the naturopathy program there.
[See the documentary "The Alternative Medicine Racket: How the Feds Fund Quacks" which mentions how an NIH study states: "the concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science."]
I've never seen the point of chiropractic, and I sat at UB for about four or so semesters sharing classes with chiropractic students and being taught by chiropractors while is was in the naturopathy program there.
Actually, half of my UB transcript says my classes
were within the chiropractic department.
I see it as a joint-cracking traveling sideshow based on a false theory to begin with.
I see it as a joint-cracking traveling sideshow based on a false theory to begin with.
A Science
Label Upon Massage:
NWHSU writes in "Become a Massage Therapist" [2015 archived]:
"Northwestern
Health Sciences University's science-based massage therapy curriculum
[…] as a Northwestern Health Sciences massage therapy student […]
Northwestern Health Sciences University's School of Massage Therapy
[…] Northwestern Health Sciences' Massage Therapy Program benefits: a comprehensive science-based curriculum."
So, it's safe to say
NWHSU loves that science-based label upon its contents.
NWHSU's Many Naturopathy
Pages:
Now, oddly enough:
I don't get any search results for “medicatrix” at all or "healing power of nature" as relates directly to naturopathy, through google.com, currently at their site,
I don't get any search results for “medicatrix” at all or "healing power of nature" as relates directly to naturopathy, through google.com, currently at their site,
.
.
.
.
but “naturopathy [...and]
naturopathic” are quite abundant, as well as homeopathy and
homeopathic, and “science-based” and of course “health
sciences.”
There's the current NWHSU page “Natural Care Center at Woodwinds” [vsc 2015-05-17; 2015 archived] which
lists as “healthcare providers […a] naturopathic doctor” and
which has a link to “patient forms [...for] naturopathic medicine”
and has “clinical services […] naturopathic medicine”.
On that
page, they also tell us:
“the Natural Care Center at Woodwinds is an
integrative health clinic which provides chiropractic, acupuncture,
Chinese herbal medicine, massage therapy, naturopathic medicine and
physical therapy services.”
So, they're in the business of
naturopathy, clinically speaking.
They practice naturopathy at NWHSU
under the banner “science.”
So much for my 'charity of science stringency'.
Affirming their naturopathic clinical activity is the NWHSU page
"Clinical Services" [2015 archived] which
states:
"Northwestern Health Sciences University is a leader in
the field of integrative and collaborative care with our team-based
care. Through well-developed, evidence-informed care pathways, our
patients are experiencing improved outcomes and high satisfaction
[...] we make evidence-informed decisions based on your individual
needs [...] we offer chiropractic, acupuncture, Chinese herbal
medicine, massage therapy, naturopathic medicine, physical therapy
and healing touch services [really, healing touch...] naturopathic medicine prevents or
addresses illness and restores health by recognizing the body’s
innate healing ability. Your naturopathic doctor will offer treatment
plans that include nutrition, lifestyle counseling, botanical or
ayurvedic medicine, and homeopathy. Your diagnosis may require lab
tests and the treatment plan my include natural supplements and
vitamins."
So, there's integrative, evidence, CAM, naturopathy,
coded vitalism, ayurveda, and homeopathy, and supplements.
So,
therein, we get the epistemic claim at NWHSU, in an academic '.edu'
setting of HIGHER education:
science subset naturopathy and contents, and all these
similar kinds.
The broad or categorical claim that naturopathy is
within science.
That's right, “sciences” as a categorical label
there, in the name of the school, and therefore “sciences” as a
categorical label upon the school's academic contents and clinical
activities, and therefore “science” as a categorical descriptor
for such things as:
NWHSU's homeopathy as stand-alone homeopathy, and
the homeopathy that's within NWHSU's naturopathy.
That is so UNTRUE,
categorically.
And I certainly think that when you say “health
sciences university”, a certain kind of PROMISE is being made upon
the school's academic contents and activities, which echoes the
overseer's language:
like 'what we're saying is academically
scientifically true.'
But I get the feeling we are being DICTATED as
in RULED by an authority:
this is what we say we are, and what matters
here at NWHSU is that we say “science.”
Science's actuality on the other hand is
quite not true.
By way of naturopathy, ND Ratte – who works at NWHSU,
as we'll see in detail -- had promised to: “educate [...and]empower.”
How is what's false able to do that?
Such is the state of
HIGHER education in Minnesota:
false claims upon academic contents and
academic clinical activities.
And as regards supplements, supplements,
supplements for health issues, well, once a body of thought says
homeopathy is “powerful”, as the NCNM NDs like Ratte are taught [2015 archived], and
then that body thought says something else, anything ELSE also WORKS,
I am SKEPTICAL.
Because when nonsense is falsely posed as GREAT by whatever source, then I think all judgments from that source are
highly suspect, since values are then reversed and standards are
without stringency.
The homepage for NWHSU catalogs is the
page “University Catalog” [2015 archived].
The NWHSU 2014-2015 catalog [2015 archived][here's
the 2011-2013 NWHSU catalog, 2015 archived][here's the 2006 catalog 2015 archived] states:
“Northwestern's
Natural Care Centers are unique, integrative natural health care
clinics providing chiropractic, acupuncture, Oriental medicine,
massage therapy, physical therapy, sports medicine, naturopathic
medicine, healing touch, and advanced practice nursing services [...]
The Natural Care Centers feature a variety of patient services,
including chiropractic, massage therapy, acupuncture, Oriental
medicine, healing touch, naturopathy and advanced practice nursing
services […] faculty[…] Nita J. Champion, Assistant Professor […]
ND, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, 2007 […] Amrit
Devgun, Assistant Professor […] ND, Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, 1995 […] Paul J. Ratté, Assistant
Professor […] ND, National College of Naturopathic Medicine,
1997 [...] credential references [...] ND Doctor of Naturopathic
Medicine.”
So, the NDs at nwhealth.edu are or have been:
Champion,
Devgun, and Ratte, whose practice pages we talked about in Part
2a.
If you recall, as I'd quoted from in Part 1 of this Episode, ND
Ratte apparently wrote the UMN naturopathy page with all those false
BROAD science categorizations of naturopathy and its contents, as a
“expert contributor”.
At
nwhealth.edu, ND Ratte's faculty web page, “Paul Ratte” [2015 archived], states
he's an:
“assistant professor [...in the colleges of] chiropractic
[...and] acupuncture and oriental medicine [...and a] lecturer [in the] college of
acupuncture and oriental medicine [...and we're told he has a] doctor
of naturopathy, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, 1997.”
And
on the nwhealth.edu page "Instructors - Annual License Renewal Seminar 2014" [2015 archived] we're
told:
"Paul Ratté, a naturopathic doctor, is an authority on
functional medicine, a science-based health care approach that
improves physiological function and restores health. He is a 1997
graduate of the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in
Portland, Oregon. He is an assistant professor at Northwestern Health
Sciences University where he teaches clinical nutrition to
chiropractic, acupuncture and massage therapy students. Ratté is
also a practitioner at Rhythm of Health, Inc. in Woodbury, Minnesota,
where he creates personalized wellness programs for his patients that
prioritize their health concerns and reflect their commitment to
change. He believes it is not enough to treat disease using natural
medicine, aspiring instead to teach health using nutrition,
resilience and physical activity. He is a passionate proponent of
integrated health care and has experience collaborating with medical
professionals to provide the best care for his clients."
So,
functional medicine as science based, natural, and best.
Yet,
“functional medicine” has its critics.
At the scienceblogs.com
blog Respectful Insolence, in 2013's "Naturopathy, Functional Medicine, and Other Quackademic Medicine at the University Of Kansas Medical Center", Orac
writes:
"functional medicine, a nebulously defined 'specialty,'
is pure quackery, as has been described before."
What I find most
interesting relating to Ratte is the nwhealth.edu page "Raul Ratte, ND" [2010 archived] which states:
"Dr Ratte is a
licensed naturopathic physician who graduated from National College
of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon. His vision is to
provide a systematic and comprehensive approach to health based upon
physiological function. He educates, empowers, and motivates clients
towards self-reliant health in body, mind, and spirit. He is an
accomplished public speaker with a strong interest in the promotion
of wellness and preventative medicine. He currently teaches and
practices at Northwestern Health Sciences University."
Let's talk of such naturopathic
scatolalia, for a moment:
the shit it speaks.
If you look at what
naturopathy is by way of NCNM, you'd see that what they claim as able
to survive scientific scrutiny can't and doesn't, like vital forces
and supernaturalism and such things as homeopathy, yet here we have an expertise
claimed regarding “physiological function” by ND Ratte, and the placement of
supernaturalism within science.
Which is quite CONTRADICTED by
Minnesota state kindergarten science standards.
And as regards
“physiological function”, well, that is quite the redundancy, me
thinks.
It seems to say 'of functional function', kind of like saying
'anatomical anatomy' aka 'of structural structure.'
MORE naturopathy mindlessness:
like their typical label upon themselves as
“a distinct system that blends” and 'general practitioners who specialize'.
The nwhealth.edu page “Naturopathic Doctor” [2015 archived] states:
“your doctor will recommend a
treatment plan that includes nutrition, lifestyle counseling,
homeopathy, and botanical or ayurvedic medicine. Your treatment plan
will prevent or address illness and restore health by recognizing
your body’s innate healing ability. Learn more about naturopathic
medicine [and the link is to...] Amrit Devgun, ND.”
So, there's
homeopathy, ayurveda, and coded vitalism.
And as I'd mentioned
earlier, ND Devgun's bio.page mentions
a special interest in “iridology [...and] detoxification.”
Speaking
of naturopathy's iridology, there is, in fact, up in Ontario Canada –
the location of the ND's alma mater CCNM – a program now in place
by OAND, the Ontario naturopaths' association, titled “Legacy
Project.”
In the vimeo.com video "OAND - The Naturopathic Medicine Legacy Project (FULL)" (saved 2015-08-15) we're told:
"[from the description] OAND - The
Naturopathic Medicine Legacy Project: Acquire, Transfer and Archive
Naturopathic Medical Wisdom and Knowledge. Legacy Project
Seminar Series [...] the seminar videos are a monthly hands-on
workshop series by the Naturopathic Legacy Committee, whose mandate
is to preserve and teach core clinical methodologies of naturopathic elders which are critical to advancing the profession [...from the
video] Dr. Helena Ovens, FCAH, CCH, CBHT: Homeopathic First Aid [...]
principles of naturopathic medicine [...include #3] vis medicatrix
naturae: use the healing power of nature. Naturopathic medicine
stimulates the patient's vital force, also known as qi, chi, prana
and life force. This increase in energy facilitates the healing
response [...] Dr. Edie Pett, ND, DT: Iridology [shows the iridology
homunculus of Jensen...] Dr. Avram Sussman, ND, DC: Body, Mind and
Spirit in Action: Talking with the Human Energy Field [including the
use of a pendulum]."
Yes, that's homeopathy, vitalism,
iridology, and energy pendulums.
This is what they value as "core clinical methodologies."
By the way, it is OAND on the page
"About Naturopathic Medicine" who
states:
"naturopathic doctors treat the root causes of disease
and address preventable risk factors, using a wide range of
science-and evidence-based, natural and conventional therapies."
But
SCIENCE isn't whatever you want it to be, you learn that in kindergarten actually.
nwhealth.edu's other page
also titled “Naturopathic Doctor” [2014 archived] states
the same and links to the NWHSU page:
“Stephani Waldron-Trapp,
ND.”
If you remember from Part 2a, that ND is a HUGE proponent of homeoprophylaxis.
In the nwhealth.edu page “Stephani L. Waldron-Trapp: Assistant Professor Bloomington Natural Care Center" [2015 archived] we're
told:
“I am a doctor of naturopathic medicine at the Bloomington
Natural Care Center. I educate my patients on how to address their
healthcare concerns through a combination of lifestyle changes and
natural medicine and therapy. I provide lifestyle guidance to help
my patients improve their nutrition, physical activity, sleep/wake
patterns and stress levels. I prescribe natural supplements and
therapies that may include homeopathy, herbal medicine, Bach Flower
remedies, vitamins, minerals, amino acids and water therapy. Specific
recommendations for detoxification and weight loss or weight
management may be included. I have a specialty interest in women’s
health which includes balancing hormones and reducing depression,
anxiety and fatigue. I specialize in balancing gastrointestinal
function to improve digestion and absorption of nutrients, providing
treatment protocols to manage pain, chronic diarrhea and/or
constipation, and resolving eating disorders. I also enjoy working
with the pediatric population, as I have children of my own which
give me great insight into their world. Education [...] doctor of naturopathy, University of Bridgeport, 2005. Special
interests [...] detoxification/purification.”
So there's educate, natural, supplements,
homeopathy, a wide net, and detoxification.
Yet, at the nwhealth.edu
page “Naturopathic Medicine” [2014 archived] we're
told:
“naturopathic medicine services are no longer available.”
It
seems some changes are going on.
One site seems to be called Woodwinds, and the other site is Bloomington.
It adds:
“naturopathic medicine is a
form of health care that consists of diagnosing, treating and
preventing disorders by using natural methods, medicines and
remedies. It is based on the foundation that your body has the
ability to self-heal […] treatment approaches include nutrition,
lifestyle counseling, botanical or herbal medicine, homeopathy, and
detoxification […] naturopathic medicine can treat […] acute care
and injuries […] allergies and immune system disorders […] food
or environmental allergies, recurring colds and infections […]
osteoarthritis [and] rheumatoid arthritis […] cancer […]
cardiovascular conditions […] digestive disorders […] emotional
issues […] pediatric conditions […] skin disorders […] women’s
health issues.“
So, there's coded vitalism, homeopathy, detoxification, and a
wide net.
NWHSU: Full of Woo:
Here are some other pages from NWHSU that
are within their categorical label “science” because they are HAPPENING there.
There's applied
kinesiology woo, in "Kinesiology Applied to Functional Medicine" [2014 archived].
There's
homeopathy, by way of "Tim McCollough, DC, DABCI" [2008 archived].
So,
Fully Accredited Bullshit:
So, NWHSU has the same crap going on in
terms of naturopathy that UMN does.
NWHSU's accrediting HLC, as I've
mentioned, is ALSO the accreditor for UMN.
As UMN tells us in
“Accreditation”:
“all
campuses of the University of Minnesota operate with the
accreditation of the Higher Learning Commission.”
Reflexively I have
to state:
isn't accreditation BULLSHIT.
Insuring NOTHING.
Schools don't
do what they MUST, they do what they WANT.
I've been there myself.
I
attended the ND program at UB for four years, a school that's FULLY
accredited and yet we get such craziness as a claim that naturopathy
is within a “division of health sciences” while containing to
this day the science-ejected homeopathic and a very strange belief
system that's also science exterior
And I'll lead you to some links at archive.org regarding Dean Peter Martin [here for the essential vitalism; here for that "scientific medicine" claim while including "the synthesis of body, mind and spirit"].
So, I'd say this about accreditation by
way of naturopathy:
it is a marketing PLOY.
The overseers are
accomplices and co-conspirators.
That's what I think, that's how it seems.
Reflections
on Episode 10:
Well, I've got an episode question to answer, after all
that heavy lifting concerning naturopathy in Minnesota.
And I'd
mentioned that I'd include a couple pages from national science
organizations, of some kind.
This Episode's question was:
“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?”
To get to an answer for this question, I'll pick
just two items within naturopathy's many items that both UMN and
NWHSU claim are science, which patently aren't.
There's the claim that homeopathy as
science, which is batshit crazy, though this is what AANP-CAND
naturopathy maintains.
Recently, at sciencebasedmedicine.org, Jann
Bellamy posted the article "Society for Science-Based Medicine: Comment to FDA on Homeopathic Drug Regulation"
(2015-08-06), which
stated:
"the Society for Science-Based Medicine welcomes the
FDA’s examination of homeopathic prescription and OTC drug
regulation. In many respects, the current regulation of homeopathic
drugs resembles that of all drugs prior to the passage of the Food,
Drug & Cosmetic Act in 1938 (FD&C Act) [...wherein] there was
no premarket regulation.”
And that is not good, unless you are a
CRAZY libertarian who thinks 'the necessary rules for a civilization
impede FREEDOM.'
Because before such consumer protection, there was
EGREGIOUS exploitation and harm, like the case of Eben Byers.
SSBM We're
told:
“according to the FDA, Americans now spend about $3 billion a
year on homeopathic drugs […] proponents of homeopathic products
testifying at the hearing gave examples of available online sources
[…] these sources simply repeat the unproven claims that homeopathy
is safe and effective for a wide range of diseases […] the website
of the National Center for Homeopathy [...] contains information that
can only be described as fantastical from a scientific standpoint
[...and] the American Institute for Homeopathy website states that
homeopathic remedies 'stimulate the person’s own healing power,'
which is nothing more than vitalism, a pre-scientific, and
long-rejected, belief in an incorporeal 'healing force' erroneously
credited with healing powers. It falsely claims that homeopathic
drugs are 'deep-acting medicines [that] can be used to treat persons
experiencing many kinds of medical conditions' […] the homeopathic
industry has the public fooled […] consumers apparently have no
understanding that the perceived 'effectiveness' of homeopathic
products could well be due to such things as the natural course of
disease, motivated reasoning, placebo responses, regression to the
mean, confirmation bias, conditioning, the post hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy, or the effect of other treatments. In fact, from a
scientific standpoint, these are the only plausible explanations for
the putative effectiveness of homeopathic products […] there has
been no objective, third-party confirmation of safety and
effectiveness by the FDA or otherwise. Claims of efficacy are in
direct contradiction to basic principles of physics and chemistry and
no reputable scientific authority supports the fantastical postulates
upon which homeopathic remedies are reputed to 'work.' Clinical
trials confirm the obvious: homeopathic drugs do not work as claimed
[…] the FDA is fortunate that the Australian National Health and
Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recently completed a comprehensive
evaluation of the evidence. The resulting analysis, 'Effectiveness of
Homeopathy for Clinical Conditions: Evaluation of the Evidence'
(2015), concluded: 'there is a paucity of good-quality studies of
sufficient size that examine the effectiveness of homeopathy as a
treatment for any clinical condition in humans. The available
evidence is not compelling and fails to demonstrate that homeopathy
is an effective treatment for any of the reported clinical conditions
in humans […] based on the assessment of the evidence of
effectiveness of homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there is no health
condition for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is
effective' […and] the UK House of Commons Science and Technology
Committee, in its 'Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy,' after a review of
the evidence, concluded: 'in our view, the systematic reviews and
meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products
perform no better than placebos. We could find no support from
independent experts for the idea that there is good evidence for the
efficacy of homeopathy'.”
In conclusion, we're told:
“nothing in
the FD&C Act permits the FDA to avoid its regulatory mandate
[...] homeopathy is highly implausible, unsupported by scientific
evidence, ineffective in treating illness and, when relied upon
instead of actual medicine, dangerous and even deadly. The FDA
should apply the FD&C Act as Congress intended. The law offers no
exception for homeopathic products."
And my response to all this
is:
hear, hear.
And there's
the even more egregious area of supernaturalism as science, which is
quite DANGEROUS in terms of basic human rights, in my view:
because
when someone tells you that something you CAN choose to believe or
not believe is an OBJECTIVE FACT instead, falsely claiming that a
belief is a fact, then that person or organization is taking away
CHOICES from you by curtailing a basic FREEDOM.
I cannot help but cite
two things from Bastyr University, an ND-granting school unlike UMN
and NWHSU, first and foremost, as a microcosm of this claim of
science subset supernaturalism.
Bastyr states in "Who We Are":
"[that they have a] a
multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine
[...as] natural health sciences."
Bastyr then states that this
science area has:
"an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit
and nature."
So science, that will not stay in its cage, so to
speak, but can be, basically, ANYTHING.
That's not what Minnesota
teaches its kindergartners!
Also, Bastyr recently emailed me a newsletter, this 2015 [2015 archived], which
stated, in an article written by “Mallory Anderson, ND, resident at
Bastyr Center for NATURAL Health”:
“running can shape up your
body, mind and spirit.”
The spirit part:
how do you MEASURE that,
Bastyr, in terms of your science subset spirit epistemic claim?
I call
BULLSHIT.
What's funny is that the article states:
“running improves
overall mental health and cognitive performance, relieves stress,
increases confidence, builds strength in the muscles and joints,
provides weight control, strengthens the immune system, promotes
cardiovascular health and reduces blood pressure.“
How secular, how
mundane:
all of that is psychology and physiology.
Where's that spirit part?
You promised in your title
SPIRIT.
You keep offering things that aren't THERE.
Now, in my view,
from a point of view of scientific skepticism, science polluted with
supernaturalism is like wine polluted with mud.
It is the mixing of
vastly differing kinds, and to then call the whole thing 'still
wine', is quite erroneous.
It's like stating 2 + 2 equals 5.
And we've
seen, on an ELEMENTARY level, that science is naturalistic, not supernatural-containing.
Now, up at PBS -- and I can think of no
better, BIGGER, mainstream source regarding a definition of science,
in terms of 'a consensus' -- there's the page "Defining Science Transcript".
The
text is for the 2007 NOVA documentary “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial”.
The documentary mentions:
“the very nature of scientific inquiry […as relates
to] legitimate science or religion in disguise.”
I think naturopathy
would be appalled that such a DISTINCTION is POSSIBLE:
they'd rather
INTEGRATE, as in blend and conflate.
It's easier, it's simplistic.
By the way, I highly enjoy Ken
Miller's comment, regarding putting intelligent design or nonscience
into science:
“it's a violation of everything me mean, and
everything we understand, by science […] it makes people
stupid.”
And I'd call naturopathy's similar 'putting' as 'a STUPID
violation'.
Anyway, the transcript states:
"Nick Matzke, Public Information
Project Director, National Center for Science Education [of which I
am a member, by the way, I must declare...] avoiding the
supernatural: one of the core features of science for hundreds of
years has been the reliance on natural explanations. And while it's
true that there's various gray areas in defining the edges of
science, in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, the issue of
the supernatural is not one of those gray areas. If you really look
at the history of science, many scientific fields really didn't get
started until supernatural explanations were discarded and natural
explanations were adopted […as in] a useful, natural explanation
for a natural phenomenon and come up with a solution to a natural
problem [...] Ken Miller, biologist, Brown University. Science and
religion: there are a lot of ways to define science. But I think the
best definition is one that I've actually seen several states adopt
for their K-12 educational programs, and that is that science is the
human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we see in the
natural world […] saying that the supernatural can be investigated
by science, which always has to work by natural tools and mechanisms,
that's simply incorrect […] by placing the supernatural as a cause
in science, you effectively have what you might call a
science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you
can by definition investigate it no further […] Robert T. Pennock,
philosopher and evolutionary scientist, Michigan State University […]
natural explanations: science is characterized, if nothing else, by
its methods. It's not just the discoveries that we've made. It's
characterized by the way of thinking, a way of providing answers in
terms of empirical evidence […] there's a big fancy term for this,
it's methodological naturalism, scientific naturalism. And it says we
can't appeal to the transcendent; we can't appeal to the divine […]
what creationists hope to do is to change the ground rules of science
and to reintroduce supernatural explanations into science. That's the
thing that disqualifies it […] Eugenie Scott, Executive Director,
National Center for Science Education. Science tests its claims […]
a scientific view. Science makes its decisions by testing its claims,
not just by accepting them because they sound good. So, because we
have to test our claims, we can only use natural claims, because
natural claims are the only ones we can test. Natural claims are the
only ones that we can hold constant variables for. They are the only
claims that we can control variables for. You can't control for the
effects of god."
In the video, an ACLU lawyer states:
"when
you loosen the rules around what is science and permit the
supernatural, permit deities, you are really destroying what makes
science so vitally important to the progress that our civilization
has witnessed over the last four or five hundred years. You are going
back before the scientific revolution. And that's a pretty scary
thing."
And the narrator states:
"with the scientific
revolution, the work of Galileo, Newton and others banished
supernatural explanations from science."
Now, from the point of
view of basic human rights, freedom of belief and disbelief, freedom
of religion, is a basic human right and I highly respect other's
right to belief, or not believe, whatever they so choose in the
realm of what I'll term articles of faith.
Wikipedia defines such
freedom of belief in "Freedom of Religion" stating:
"a
principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in
public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally
recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to
follow any religion [...and we're reminded] The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) guarantees freedom of
religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public
order in ways detrimental to
society."
Now,
here's a weird concurrence"
just outside the high school I graduated from is Thomas Paine's cottage.
One of my favorite Paine
quotes is:
“what we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is
dearness only that gives everything its value.”
In other words,
let's think a little harder and a little deeper, let's not be so shallow, let's have an historical memory.
Paine, of course, is
the author of “The Rights of Man”, if you recall from your
ELEMENTARY history.
So I'll add this quote from that:
“rights are
inherently in all the inhabitants.”
And what I'll say is this,
bluntly:
naturopathy does NOT have the right to redefine science to
support its own 'New Age whatever beliefs and practices' or its prescientific 'preferred beliefs and practices.'
And
naturopathy does not have the right to NOT warn, up-front, about its
redefinitions.
And naturopathy definitely doesn't have the right to
engage in commerce, of any kind including academic, under false
labels.
That is DETRIMENTAL to scientific integrity and freedom of
belief, and to society.
As Paine wrote:
“each societal institution
that does not benefit the nation is illegitimate.”
And naturopathy is an illegitimate profession because it is based on falsehood.
Now, I must talk
of tolerance, because I can picture naturopathy responding I am being
persecuting and intolerant.
Wikipedia defines tolerance in
"Tolerance" as:
"tolerance
or toleration [...] the state of tolerating, or putting up with,
conditionally, also to suggest a fair, objective, and permissive
attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion,
nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."
Now,
it is not intolerant to require that naturopathy be up-front in terms
of its contents.
It's not bigoted to require that naturopathy engage
in fair trade, in whatever contexts:
be it clinically or academically.
Now,
naturopaths are really BIG on claiming that they treat the root
cause.
Well, here's my epistemic diagnosis, which gets to the heart of
the matter regarding naturopathy:
both the false labeling of
'homeopathy and supernaturalism as within science' are merely
symptoms of naturopathy's underlying disorder, epistemic conflation
posed as epistemic distinction.
That is the blending of knowledge
kinds posed as one knowledge kind.
So, with naturopathy as a
microcosm or biopsy of higher education, particularly in Minnesota,
here's an answer to my episode question:
higher education is NOT SO
HIGH.
Therein, not so ETHICAL, as in GOOD.
This is not what SHOULD
happen:
falsehood elevated, a reversal of values.
Consumer protection and patient informed
consent DON'T, in the naturopathy realm, exist.
CRAZY runs the
asylum.
Now, my episode wouldn't be complete without talk of the MONEY
involved with this naturopathy apparatus and racket.
This is, after
all, higher education in America.
The Princeton Review, I must say,
has been CORRUPTED with naturopathy's marketing.
The
princetonreview.com page "Naturopathy/Naturopathic Medicine" [2015 archived] states:
"naturopathic
medicine [...is] a holistic approach [...] a collection of ancient
practice[s...] rather than isolating and treating patients’
symptoms alone, naturopathic practitioners focus on the complete
well-being of a person and consider the patient an active participant
in their own recovery and well-being.”
So, there's holistic, ancient, a swipe
at conventional medicine, an idea of being comprehensive, and posed
empowerment.
And I have to say, that “complete well-being”, in my
view, is this kind of thing:
wearing the white lab coat of science and
underneath wearing the black vestment of the ministry, of the lergy.
Complete, as in
EVERYTHING under the sun and BEYOND into the metaphysical
supernatural divine etc., but then calling the whole thing “science.”
We're
told:
“in addition to the same basic science and clinical training
conventional medical doctors receive, naturopathy students are
grounded in naturopathic philosophy and theory and explore an
exhaustive array of both Western and Eastern medical techniques.”
So,
I think that is a BLEND.
Specifically, they state that blend
includes:
“classical Chinese medicine, nutrition, herbal medicine
and homeopathy, natural childbirth, hydrotherapy and naturopathic
manipulative therapy, as well as standard medical practices such as
pharmacology, diagnostic medicine, and surgery.”
And finally, the
description states:
“graduates are eligible to take state board
exams for licensure [...] as a naturopathic physician (N.D.)."
So,
there's that NPLEX.You know, the so rigorous test for ND licensure
that falsely labels homeopathy as “clinical science.”
The page
then gets to the money side of things.
We're told:
"according to a survey by the
American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, naturopathic doctors
generally earn in the low- to mid-range of family practice doctors. A
beginning N.D., just starting up his or her practice, working
part-time or building a staff, may earn between $20,000 to $30,000
per year. However, an N.D. who runs or partners in a large, busy
practice makes an average estimated income of $80,000 to $90,000 per
year--and may make upwards of $200,000."
And I'd say that is done
under the banners of “science-based” and efficacious, including
homeopathy and a whole bunch of other weird things science says is
junk, along with things that are rather conventional.
So, how many NDs are practicing in North America doing such?
The ucsf.edu 2001 Arkay Report stated
that at that time, there were about 2000 licensed naturopaths.
So lets
adjust some numbers since it is 14 years later.
I'll guess there are
4000 naturopaths now between the CAND and AANP and their seven schools, and I'll multiply
that number by that $80,000 in INCOME, and that about $320 million
dollars in income yearly.
Of course, I'm just guessing right now, but
I feel I'm low-balling it all.
Now, as regards the education
apparatus, the same Princeton Review page tells us about the tuition
and enrollment of five ND schools out of the seven in North
America.
And basically, with some guesstimating as well, I get to a
combined TUITION ONLY number that those students will spend of about
$175 million for their four years of ND schooling.
So, CRAZY not only
runs the asylum, CRAZY has a FAT WALLET.
And that's only tuition, they take out massive loans for cost of living during those four years as well.
And naturopathy didn't get to where they are now:
truthfully, accurately, actually, or transparently.
No comments:
Post a Comment