Thursday, October 22, 2015

The Naturocrit Podcast - s02e01a [Episode 011a] - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 011 Part 1, titled “Naturopathillogical Microcosms: NDs Zampieron and Brady”.  In this s02e11a, I will cover ND Zampieron, ND Raistrick, ND Ali and associated institutions:

001. the Episode 011a 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 veneers "natural, holistic, integrative and alternative" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

Episode Synopsis:

In this two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 11, aka s02e01, titled

“Naturopathillogical Microcosms: NDs Zampieron and Brady”,

I'll take a look at the audio-, video-, web-, and printed- published materials of two naturopaths who are based in Connecticut and their associated institutions, that I've archived.

You may have noticed, by the way, that I've changed the introductory music to the podcast.

I've decided that each group of ten episodes will be termed a "season", and with so much music laying around that I've co-written and co-performed with friends, well, the introductory music will be changed each season.

For the time being: emergency services sirens!

That's an improvised song we'd done titled “Inside the Machine”, with some new overdubs:

used by permission, of course, like the previous music, with me granting 1/3 of the permission.


As the title of this episode indicates, I'll be looking at NDs Zampieron [zam-peer-own] and Brady.

Both currently are employees of the University of Bridgeport in CT, and both currently are also in private practice in CT as licensed NDs.

By the way, when I show what these NDs are doing in terms of 'naturopathic commerce as false', well, that's when I'll use the phrase 'licensed falsehood':

the general expression I use to describe 'false-while-licensed naturopathy commercial activities'.

As a disclaimer:

I attended that UB ND program for four years, and these two NDs were instructors or supervisors I'd had during my time there, at some point.

I took a leave of absence from that program after 4 years, disgusted.

That leave was in 2002, and I'll include in the transcript of this episode, a scan of the Dean's signed authorization.

[Here's the paperwork from 2002.  I've redacted some of the personal info.  Notice that where it says "adviser", I wrote "never had one" because I never did.  Under "reasons for leave of absence", I wrote "such parameters will flesh themselves out in due time", and even now I'm still processing!


I then filed a lawsuit, because I had nothing else to do -- nobody at the school EVER advised me, or gave me recourse -- because I was blackballed from achieving the clinic patient contacts hours and amounts that I needed to graduate.

 A lawsuit that was SURPRISINGLY dismissed, summarily.

Also, therein, I LEARNED from that:

naturopathy is licensed falsehood, with UB completely protected while committing FRAUD academically, commercially, clinically.

Therefore, I began this LONG war.

Pardon my French but I'll say this outright:

naturopathy is quite the mindfuck, and they're fucking nuts.

And naturopathy has found a perfect footing:

Connecticut, aka Corrupticut and Con-ecticut [as in flim-flam].

This is Bridgeport, and I'll adapt an adage of a critic of P.T. Barnum:

there's a sucker suckered here every minute.

What's fascinating is that the school, via their lawyers at a deposition for that lawsuit, IGNORED my situation, and instead attacked me – verbally, of course.

They did not consider themselves to have any kind of DUTY to this student who was trying to abide by academic integrity standards and trying to do what impossibly they offered:

'science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy'.

So, I consider the University of Bridgeport to be the LOWEST of the low in terms of abusiveness.

And I guess I'm still on leave, unable to quiet the fire in my belly about this whole thing, because that's not the kind of person I am.

Much like Khan, in Star Trek II:

"to the last, I will grapple with thee... from Hell's heart, I stab at thee... for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"

Because you carry the harm, “to the last.”

These two NDs haven't been chosen due to any kind of personal gripe, by the way.

Though I'd never found ANY ND I had as a supervisor or instructor ADMIRABLE, or even remotely intelligent or ethical in terms of physicianship, I don't particularly dislike either of these NDs personally.

I HIGHLY DISAPPROVE of what they do, but I'm not particularly invested emotionally in them as personalities I dislike.

It just so happens, though, that there's a lot of book, web, and audio-visual material available from both NDs, in either podcast, printed, or video format, and therefore they serve me well as examples due to this, shall I say, abundance.

I've also had at least two insults sent my way directly from both NDs, separately, over the years, and that's always fun to recount.

So, let me delve into ND Zampieron in this Part 1, then ND Brady in Part 2, as examples of what happens on Main St. in Naturopathyland.

There will be mention of ND Brady in Part 1, simply because there's so much UB material that features him.

And since both of these NDs are intimately involved with a naturopathy college, let's say they'll be good examples of 'what happens at Naturopathyland University.'

ND Zampieron as a Microcosm or Biopsy of Categorical Falsehood:

Here's an ND who is an interesting microcosm or biopsy of naturopathy's false epistemic categorization, aka DEEP DUMBASSEDNESS:

Eugene R. Zampieron, a 1990 Bastyr ND graduate.

Now, I'm not calling the ND dumb, that would be an ad hominem.

What's going on though, epistemically, when you delve down and get to 'the things themselves', by way of his website, books, and spoken examples, well, that I'm cumulative calling dumb:

doing, as commerce, 'science subset nonscience', is EASILY dumb, as you will see.

I'd say minimally, it's wrong and in terms of outcome, well, there are means to prosecute such stuff over time.

Local State prosecution may not be possible, because locally things are 'naturopathy self-regulated' and it appears 'judicially protected'.

But, there are OBJECTIVE national heavy-hitters who can be drawn upon, theoretically.

As I'd said, I didn't particularly dislike, or like, ND Zampieron, he just seemed like 'a typical ND', who likes to talk a lot

His current web presence is, an address that has been in since 2001.

According to his bio. page [2015 archived]:

"Eugene R. Zampieron is a doctor of naturopathic medicine and is licensed by the Board of Naturopathic Medical Examiners in CT as a naturopathic physician."

This sounds, on its surface, REASSURING:

State regulated via “licensed.”

They have been examined, supposedly.

Because when you have a license, because you have taken a board exam, and you are harmful, it can be taken away, when you do the things you are not supposed to do, and you can't be around the people therefore to harm them.

But it is such 'naturopathic authorizing entities' as the “Board of Naturopathic Medical Examiners in CT” that permit naturopaths to do what they do, and two members of that board of three are naturopaths, by the way:

falsely posture their contents as a certain kind of categorical knowledge, when such ISN'T true, and engage in commerce in that context without penalty.

Therein, there is this 'licensed falsehood racket' that is naturopathy.

So, lets look at how ND Zampieron does this, and then associated entities.

Perhaps he is an archetype, because he does laud himself on his page "Practice" [2015 archived] as:

"the doctor who is one of the founding fathers of the resurgence of naturopathic education on the Eastern seaboard [...] the doctor / professor who trains the next generation of licensable naturopathic physicians, the doctors of the future."

So, this ND is very WED and BOUND UP with UB and the naturopathy '.edu' project:

he's part of the apparatus that is cranking out NDs from the CT school and the banner is, essentially, 'science subset nonscience falsely categorized as science at a University doctoral level'.

And I have to ask, in terms of the label “the doctors of the future”:

is the future of medicine false epistemic categorization?

Is it PATENT nonsense?

Because that's what's at the heart of naturopathy education, and I'll continually show how easy that is to show.

It is currently in-evidence, and I went through such, historically.

This is where I mention how often naturopathy is a 'reversal of values', where the archaic is now termed “the future.”

Let's get to the point.'s Broad Science Claim:

First, there's got to be 'a stringent epistemic categorization' to then show 'a violation of such claimed stringency'!

Otherwise I'd find no fun it this.

And ND Zampieron does not disappoint:

such hypocrisy is easy to point out in this part of Naturopathyland.

On the ND Zampieron page "Biography" [2015 archived]

[also here; 2015 archived][also here; 2015 archived][also in “An Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide to Arthritis“ ISBN 1587612585 9781587612589 2006][also here; 2015 archived]

we're told:

"he attended Bastyr University of Natural Health Sciences in Seattle, WA [...where] he received his doctorate degree in naturopathic medicine."

So there's the BIGGEST categorical science claim I can think of that naturopathy does:

'science subset naturopathy in activity and idea' in a .edu, DOCTORAL, multiply-accredited University institutional setting in this day and age.

Nothing like a summary of your CV with a false broad or categorical claim within!

Science language on that page also includes:

"healing arts that study the scientific aspects" etc.

Now, ND Zampieron's home page terms all this stuff he does, as is common for naturopaths to do:

"science-based natural medicine."

This term "science-based natural medicine" is also used on the page "Practice" [2015 archived].

So, ABUNDANT 'science subset naturopathy' claims.

We're also told on his bio. page:

"he is on the advisory board to the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine, and is a associate professor [there] in naturopathic and botanical medicine."

He hosts a PDF scan of a UB article about him titled "Eugene R. Zampieron: Naturopathic Medicine"

which shows the ND standing at the UB curbside sign that reads:

"University of Bridgeport [...] health sciences [...including] naturopathic medicine [...and he's quoted saying in the article] 'naturopathic medicine [...] is a political science'.”

More 'science subset naturopathy' claims.

That sign, on the UB campus, is actually a few minutes from where I live, and I've taken many pictures of it over the years.

Since it is partially cut off in the article's picture, I'll include a couple pictures of my own in the transcript to this episode.

[From curbside, a picture {not a couple}:


So, as has been mentioned, two educational institutions are associated with ND Zampieron.

So, let's look at those two UNIVERSITIES, Bastyr and UB, in terms of THEIR science claims upon naturopathy, because such '.edu' institutions are the entities that create NDs like Zampieron and perpetuate these false epistemic memes like:

'science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy and kind'.

Bastyr's Science Claim:

ND Zampieron's alma mater has an interesting motto.

We're told in "Who We Are" [2015 archived] at

"Bastyr University is a nonprofit, private university offering graduate and undergraduate degrees, with a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...] Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature."

That's the claim 'science subset naturopathy and supernaturalism', minimally.

That's a 'science is anything' claim, essentially, or as I like to say:

an epistemic conflation posing as an epistemic distinction.

It is IRRATIONAL, and illogical, and therefore:


And this is ND Zampieron's alma mater, a person who then shaped the formation of the naturopathy college at UB, as he states in that UB article about himself:

“in 1996, he served on an advisory council for then- [UB] president Richard Rubenstein to propose founding the College of Naturopathic Medicine at the University of Bridgeport. This appointment gave him the opportunity to contribute to developing a school dedicated to naturopathic medicine in the Northeast, fulfilling a personal vision.”

So, the 'epistemic conflation disease' that was at NCNM, the trunk of the U.S. naturopathy tree, then went to Bastyr which was founded by NCNM graduates like ND Pizzorno, then made its way through this vector ND to CT's UBCNM.

That's political science:

nothing exists in isolation.

I've tried to figure out why science standards are SO LOW in the Pacific Northwest, where NCNM and Bastyr are, where they claim 'science subset patent nonscience'.

One fact that has come to light recently, by way of, is that the States of Oregon and Washington, c2012, had SUCH LOW ratings in terms of state science education standards for public K-12: 

Oregon had a rating of “F”, Washington, a rating of "C".

That is pathetic.

And that's interesting because, as explains, on the page “Board of Naturopathic Medicine”:

naturopathy's “principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."

So, that's the claim of “science” subset naturopathy, while within those principles is “nature heals through the response of the life force” which is science-ejected vitalism.

Such irrationality.

That's on an web page!

But I guess you wouldn't see it as irrational if you went through schooling in Oregon.

You'd have no fucking idea what science is. 

The ignorance and cooperation regarding this ignorance in Oregon is APPALLING.

Yet, just north of Oregon, in Washington State, which has a higher science standards rating, though sucky, we don't' get that TRANSPARENCY, no matter how irrational it is.

At, that's Washington State's Department of Health, there's NO EXPLANATION of naturopathy that I can find.

So, either irrational transparency aka Oregon, or what I regard as manipulative opacity, aka Washington State.

But NO honest communication of the science-ejectedness of the essentially naturopathic, so consumers can make an informed decision.

Yet, you can find Washington State posing naturopathy as science, categorically.

There' is a hosted "Washington State [ND] Licensure Packet" [2015 archived] PDF which states:

“all NPLEX basic and clinical science examinations are required for Washington State naturopathy license […] Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX): Part I Basic Science Examination [and] Part II Clinical Science Examination […] to qualify for license as a naturopathic physician in Washington State, you must have graduated from a naturopathic school approved by the Board of Naturopathy. The following schools have been approved […] National University of Health Sciences, Naturopathic Medicine Program, Lombard, Illinois.“

Now, all the ND schools are listed, including NCNM, Bastyr, and UB, but I include NUHS in the quote above because they performed quite the coup:

they put science as a categorical label in the name of the school that contains naturopathy.

As if.

So, lots of stupid up in the Pacific NW as regards naturopathy, which seems to be quite the beneficiary of a certain kind of epistemic charity and ignorance.

UB's Science Claim:

So, Bastyr was ND Zampieron's alma mater.

UB is his employer.

In the late 1990s, the University of Bridgeport placed their NEW naturopathy program within a "division of health sciences" [1998 archived] [that label, currently used 2015; 2015 archived].

That's the broad claim 'academic commerce subset science subset naturopathy.'

And, of course, there's homeopathy and other things within, which are patently science-exterior, to this day.

So, from scratch, naturopathy set itself up to be marketed under false labels at UB, and that context has been a constant throughout the life of the UB naturopathic college.

Even in 2014, the UB page “11th Annual Naturopathic Gathering“ mentions:

"Dr. James Sensenig: Back to the Future, Vitalism on the Cutting Edge.”

Why would what's patently science-ejected, vitalism, be presented as if science?

How ignorant.

Because naturopathy is 'as if': a mockery of rationality and science-integrity.

A reversal of values.

The UB page, at, "Graduate Health Sciences Programs" [2015 archived] also tells us:

“UB’s health sciences programs include the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Acupuncture Institute, the Physician Assistant Institute and the Nutrition Institute.”

And I have to say:

I would not let a PA near me in any way, shape or form if the institution they graduated from doesn't have any care for scientific integrity.

There is a set of ethical values a PA must abide by, which is part of the medical doctor values, and an inherent part of that is scientific integrity.

And here you have an institution, graduating PAs into that ethical context, yet the institution has no care for scientific integrity or duty to students.

That "Graduate Health Sciences Programs" page has a four-minute embedded video from UB's YouTube account, titled "Changing the Way Healthcare is Taught and Practiced at the University of Bridgeport" -- I think it should say degrading, instead of changing -- which tells us:

"David M. Brady, ND [ the] Vice Provost of the Division of Health Sciences. [And he says] I have the pleasure of overseeing seven colleges, institutes and schools all with deans, and facilities, and students ['s] a truly integrative healthcare model [] integrative or functional healthcare model [...UB is] a center of excellence [...] our mission is to change healthcare […] I get to affect the education, the training, and really the thought process of a lot of future healthcare practitioners [...] I've been at the University of Bridgeport for [17 years...] and I originally went there as a faculty member in their college of naturopathic medicine.”

So, that's the second ND we'll look at in Part 2.

So there's a science claim upon 'it all', that term “integrative” and that term “functional”, “excellence” supposedly, and a big-wig ND who, I must mention, sat in ND classes with me as a student during my time at UB and also was an instructor for some of my classes.

That is because ND Brady had a DC, teaching those classes, but was working on an ND at the same time.

I'll briefly state this about the marketing label “integrative or functional healthcare model” that ND Brady uses:

to integrate is to blend, different qualities of knowledge specifically.

Me, I'd want solely the BEST quality knowledge for my medical care.

Call that a preference for rigor.

And as regards “functional medicine”, I think that contains a dog-whistle kind of accusation that regular medicine is IGNORING physiology and naturopathy and kind isn't.

It's this idea that naturopathy is better, more knowledgeable, has better answers, has more science.

It is the creation of a FAKE problem and for that fake problem they've offered a solution that naturopathy then benefits from.

I believe that is, actually, functionally, a form of racketeering.

There's also the UB profile page “David Brady” [2015 archived] which states, regarding science:

“[his job] title: Vice Provost of the Division of Health Sciences […his] department: health sciences […] he is [...also] an associate professor of clinical sciences at the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut […] for more [health sciences] program information [ on the provided links below, including] College of Naturopathic Medicine […and UB's] Health Sciences Postgraduate Education.”

So there again are broad science claims upon naturopathy, for sure.

also states:

“UB’s health sciences programs include [...] the College of Naturopathic Medicine […] watch the overview of our programs.”

Now, what KIND of material is within 'UB post-graduate science education'?

Well, recently they had “The Levels of Health by Professor Vithoulkas” [2015 archived][also here; 2015 archived], a homeopathy conference.

That's right, 'science subset homeopathy':

that is a WRONG claim, so patently wrong, but it is right on Main St. in Naturopathyland.

It is right there at Naturopathyland University.

One could argue that claim is on the passport, even, to enter Naturopathyland.

That ten-and-a-half-minute embedded Vimeo-hosted video overview, which was posted three years ago titled “Health Sciences Programs”, states in its description:

“UB's health sciences programs include [...] the College of Naturopathic Medicine […] watch the overview of our programs.”

And in the video, we're:

“[shown UB's claimed] health sciences center [with the UB logo above that signage...and signage outside the] health sciences center [...and we see Dr. David Brady who says] I'm the Vice-Provost of the Division of Health Sciences [...] we're not the typical health science division [...] we combine many standard or traditional health science programs [...with] programs from the other side of the spectrum [...] wellness, holistic, complementary [...and we're show the title] College of Naturopathic Medicine Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) [...and we're shown the blood type book by D'Adamo] Eat Right For Your [blood] Type."

I hear therein a half-admission:

we're told “not the typical.”

But then we're assured:

“from the other side of the spectrum.”

I think, inherently, we're being assured by UB's agent that UB is still broadly within the science spectrum.

But, you can't just make up the science-status of what's nonscientific.

Yet they have, and they've engaged in commerce under that label.

So I can say, UB ABUNDANTLY categorically labels naturopathy a “science.”

That is FALSE marketing within the academic realm, because naturopathy is NOT throughout science and the ESSENTIALLY naturopathic is not science at all.

That featured ND D'Adamo book, by the way, has been SAVAGED by scientifically-minded critics.

For instance, at Wikipedia, we're told in “Blood Type Diet”:

“the consensus among dietitians, physicians, and scientists is that these diets are unsupported by scientific evidence […] as of 2013 there is no scientific evidence to support the blood type diet hypothesis and no clinical evidence that it improves health. Peter J. D'Adamo is the most prominent proponent of blood type diets.”

Who needs evidence, in Naturopathyland!

Just slap a “science” label upon what you're doing, and go full-speed, clinically speaking.

Back on the UB “David Brady” profile page, we're also told:

“Dr. David M. Brady is a Connecticut licensed naturopathic physician [...] his original clinical education [was] at Texas Chiropractic College where he graduated as a doctor of chiropractic […] he then completed his training in naturopathic medicine at the University of Bridgeport, College of Naturopathic Medicine.”

He seems to no longer used the “DC” credential, which obviously was his academic credential before his ND was acquired at UB.

TCC, by the way, states currently in “About TCC” [2015 archived]:

“for more than 100 years, Texas Chiropractic College has been a leader in educating doctors of chiropractic who are grounded in science and respect the principles upon which the profession was founded.”

Well, that sounds a lot like naturopathy:

science subset principles.

Except, the principles chiropractic were founded upon are science-ejected!

Like, at's post “The Enigma of Chiropractic: A Brief Review with a Perspective on Chiropractic as a Specialty” wherein DC Homola tells us:

“chiropractic in particular continues to be problematic for its failure to renounce the scientifically indefensible, nonfalsifiable subluxation theory that defines the profession as a whole […] the vertebral subluxation theory that defines the chiropractic profession has been rejected by the scientific community […] there is no credible evidence to support the contention that a vertebral subluxation, a joint dysfunction, or compression of a spinal nerve can cause nerve interference that will affect general health or cause organic disease. A simple review of anatomy and the nervous system seems to provide enough evidence to refute subluxation theory […] as long as chiropractic is licensed as a health-care profession based on subluxation theory or some other unscientific approach, it will continue to be subjected to scrutiny and criticism by the science-based community. It is, in fact, the moral and ethical responsibility of science-based practitioners to oppose any form of unscientific health care, wherever it might exist, separating sense from nonsense without being influenced by politics, special interest, pseudoscience, or belief systems.”

Hear, hear.

Replace subluxation theory, with vitalistic theory and supernaturalism, and you could be talking there about naturopathy. 

And it's interesting:

ND Brady came to naturopathy from chiropractic, NUHS was initially just a chiropractic school then started an ND program, UB initially had a DC program then opened an ND program.

And the parallels continue:

the principles naturopathy was founded upon are science-ejected, yet they claim to hold science grounding overall in naturopathy.

I remember him in a homeopathy class I had to take.

As for publication and web portals, we're told:

“Dr. Brady’s latest book 'Dr. Brady's Healthy Revolution: What You Need to Know to Stay Healthy in a Sick World' was published by Morgan James Publishers and released in early December of 2008 […] Dr. Brady […] currently practices at Whole Body Medicine in Trumbull, CT [] […] learn more about Dr. Brady at”

We shall, we shall.

There's also the four-minute YouTube video “University of Bridgeport Health Sciences Spotlight - Dr. David Brady”, which tells us:

“the University’s professionally accredited health sciences programs [...include] the College of Naturopathic Medicine [...and in the video we're shown UB's] Health Sciences Center […and] Dr. David Brady […] the Vice Provost of the Division Of Health Sciences [and we're shown the sign that ND Zampieron was standing next to that says...] Health Sciences Center [...including] naturopathy […and ND Brady says, as in the other video] not the typical health science division.”

I'll say.

Let's see how, a little later.

Now, UB is a little less up-front about the supernaturalism within naturopathy, unlike Bastyr, but I'll get to that too.'s Contents which are Science-Ejected:

On that same bio. page for ND Zampieron that I'd mentioned, we're told:

"he practices in Woodbury [CT] with an emphasis in [...such things as] detoxification therapy using hydrotherapy [and] nature cure [...and] homeopathy [...and there's mention also of] traditional Chinese healing and acupuncture."

Now, merely dealing with homeopathy:

that broad science label he uses upon 'his stuff' is quite FALSE if you are including homeopathy within that label.

That's just a simple fact.

But, detoxification regimes are also considered a sCAM, and as regards acupuncture, well, we know the rigorous studies show that:

'it doesn't matter where you stick the needles or even if you stick the needles.'

In other words, placebo and kind; in other words, parlor trick.

The ND Zampieron page "Practice" also mentions:

"some of the therapies and lab assessments offered are: biochemical [...which includes] homeopathy (both classical and contemporary / combination therapy) [...and] nature cure [...including] supervised detoxification.”

There's homeopathy and detoxification again.


or as I like to call it 'toxin boogeyman fear-mongering'.

So, if you follow the lineage, Bastyr permits anything to be science, trains ND Zampieron, who sets up practice in CT with a similar epistemic non-rigor, who then abets the establishment of UB's naturopathy college, which similarly isn't epistemically rigorous.

Bastyr and UB Contents That Are Science-Ejected:

Well, it's not difficult to find the homeopathy that's baked into naturopathy, at both Bastyr and UB.

There's so much more permitted that's truly not science-based yet marketed as science, but I'm content, right now, concerning what NDs DO by way of homeopathy, to provide two links:

which therein BELIES that “science” label they use categorically,

and one to UB's homeopathy [2015 archived] that does similar.

And in terms of what NDs REQUIRE as belief, or thinking habit, here's an example of how limitless their definition of science is.

I've already shown Bastyr's supernaturalism, along these lines, and UB does, inevitably, speak about science-exterior "spirit" or supernaturalism, though it is so often OMITTED on UB's landing pages [2015 archived] concerning naturopathy.

The University of Bridgeport's catalog [2015 archived] specifically states:

"since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development."

And it is interesting that a supposed "science" that is supposedly "natural" is advocating for the supernatural.

 You may BELIEVE that 'total health MUST also include spiritual health' but since we're talking about a "division of health sciences", well, obviously we have an explicit position here of 'science subset REQUIRED supernaturalism.'

And that is WRONG, in so many ways.

It's ironic because UB terms itself "nonsectarian", but to be medicine based upon supernaturalism is classically to be termed "sectarian medicine."

Buy the way, that same catalog page states as "program objectives" for the ND program, that the naturopathy student will:

"demonstrate the ability to integrate naturopathic philosophy and principles with biomedical science."

That's a 'blending or integrating agenda':

with one facet being 'science blended with supernaturalism then falsely labeled as the nonblended type science.'

By the way, that landing page at UB I just mentioned states, quite NOT supernaturalism-including, in terms of describing naturopathy's supposed science context:

"our curriculum combines traditional biomedical sciences with the latest developments in genomics and molecular biology to deepen your understanding of health, disease, and therapeutics."

So, the apples, the trees they fall from, and all that they do and believe.

Now, I'd mentioned the State of CT as an ally in all this.

So lets throw in here some of their web pages.

State of CT Naturopathy Falsehood Partnership:

So, we are talking about two State of CT licensed NDs.

The State of CT charges, currently, $565 for a ND to initially get their CT license [2015 archived].

Lets term that a consideration:

a consideration to then engage in falsehood.

There's a State of CT provided study guide for the CT jurisprudence licensure add-on which is termed “The State Law Examination” [2015 archived].

It reiterates the current CT ND law and mentions what an infraction is, such as: 

“an act which, if the applicant were licensed, would not conform to the accepted standards of practice of the profession [...this] regulated profession.”

Therein, is the label “profession” by the State of CT upon naturopathy falsehood.

And bad things are mentioned like:

“incompetence, negligence, fraud or deceit; illegal conduct [...] aiding or abetting.”

The irony is killing me, CT.

There's actually at least 66 usages of the term or root “profess” in this document.

But, since when is it ever professional to be false?

And CT LICENSES this, in an “aiding and abetting” kind of way.

The term “examiner” is there at least 13 times, which I'll return to.

The State of CT has the page "Naturopathic Physician Licensing Requirements" [2015 archived] whose address is stated as:

"Connecticut Department of Public Health, Naturopathic Physician Licensure, 410 Capitol Ave. […] Hartford, CT."

So, the CTDPH permits naturopathy.

Now, at the heart of naturopathy, as I've often pointed out, is FALSEHOOD, and this CTDPH page is a great example of that because it states:

"in order to be eligible for licensure, an applicant must have: completed two (2) years of preprofessional college education; graduated from a school of naturopathy approved by the Connecticut State Board of Naturopathic Examiners and Department of Public Health [CTDPH], with award of the Doctor of Naturopathy degree. Approved schools include only those schools accredited or in candidate status with the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME); successfully completed both the Basic Sciences (Part I) and Clinical Sciences Examination (Part II) of the Naturopathic Physician Licensing Examination (NPLEX)."

Oh, so much there to unpack.

So, there's basically premedical coursework as "preprofessional college education" -- and by the way, those undergraduate science class standards would not permit, as science, what doctoral level naturopathy claims as science, that is a simple fact -- there's the partnership of the Board of Examiners of Naturopathy, the Department of Health, the CNME as in 'this school in its operations / contents are "approved" by us', and there's a two part "science" examination termed NPLEX.

What 's fascinating is that, where the rubber meets the road, as in at the schools and within the NPLEX, there's the continuous activity of naturopathy labeling what isn't science as "science."

Merely regarding NPLEX, there's this fact:

And that is HUGELY false:

'science subset homeopathy'.

So, you need to be either ignorant or a charlatan to be a licensed ND.

And I don't think either of those qualities are professional:

ignorance of what is easily researchable, and posing scientific expertise one doesn't have.

This is why I term naturopathy "licensed falsehood."

So, instead of the REASSURING effect of licensure that one on first glance may feel, for instance from an ND's biography page on the web, INSTEAD, what we are ASSURED of with naturopathy licensure is:

a reversal of values, wherein science is whatever you want it to be since even what is hugely and patently science-ejected or -excluded is falsely labeled science.

It is delusional, it is negligent, it is ignorant.

And with that State-partnership, by the way, complaints about naturopathy get sent to...naturopathy.

And I can't imagine absurdity having a problem with absurdity because why would absurdity have a problem with its own absurdity?

With ND Zampieron, as I'd said, 'he just seemed like a typical ND', and you can see by way of his web presence, we are right on Main St. in Naturopathyland in the marketplace.

The CT naturopathy statute, "Chapter 373 Naturopathy" does not specifically mention homeopathy, but begins with the words:

“the practice of naturopathy means the science...”

The stem or root “scien” is in that paragraph at least 5 times.

Really, they hit us with science first, when in actuality it's pseudoscience galore as regards the essentially naturopathic.

It also states: 

“natural substances means substances that are not narcotic substances [...] do not require the written or oral prescription of a licensed practitioner to be dispensed and are only administered orally.”


That's all it takes to be a natural substance?

That means that the term “natural” is essentially MEANINGLESS, as I've pointed out in the past, due to its ironically NEBULOUS nature.

The study guide I'd mentioned had stated, and so does this statute:

“the State Board of Natureopathic Examiners shall continue to consist of three members, two of whom shall be practicing natureopathic physicians of this state and one of whom shall be a public member. The governor shall appoint the members of said board.”

The term “fraud” is in that document at least three times.

So, if at the heart of naturopathy is fraud, at the schools, and you don't similar act, I think you are being fraudulent in terms of naturopathy's standards, by not being fraudulent.

It's all so twisted.

It's all so twisted because, in that study guide, it specifically states, from the ND law in CT:

"said board shall (1) hear and decide matters concerning suspension or revocation of licensure, (2) adjudicate complaints against practitioners and (3) impose sanctions where appropriate."

But HOW can you 'sanction, adjudicate, suspend and revoke' as an ND on that board when YOU YOURSELF, as we shall see with those board members, are engaged in typical naturopathic falsehoods, deceptions, and omissions which are perfectly acceptable in Naturopathyland?

Now, as if the State of CT isn't deep enough in naturopathy absurdity and fraud, there's the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health document

Report to the General Assembly: An Act Concerning the Department of Public Health’s Oversight Responsibilities Relating to Scope of Practice Determinations: Scope of Practice Review Committee Report on Naturopathic Physicians[2015 archived].

The root or stem “science” is in there at least 8 times.

It states:

“in order to qualify for licensure as a naturopathic physician in Connecticut, an applicant must have graduated from a naturopathic medical school that is accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education [...] and pass the [...] NPLEX Part I: Basic Sciences and Part II: Core Clinical Sciences [...] the nationally recognized standard examination for ND licensure.”

Yes, that is inevitably sanctioning of naturopathy's “science subset homeopathy” absurdity and fraud.

We're also told:

“naturopathic medical school is a four year graduate level training program. The first two years includes a basic science curriculum […] coursework includes anatomy, biochemistry, microbiology, physiology, embryology, histology and genetics as well as additional coursework in clinical diagnosis, pathology, laboratory diagnoses and diagnostic imaging, naturopathic philosophy and therapeutics, nutrition, mind-body medicine, homeopathy and botanical medicine.”

Again, a science as basis claim, then within, homeopathy and kind.


And they tell us:

“Connecticut General Statutes, Section 20-34 defines the practice of naturopathy as the science, art and practice of healing by natural methods as recognized by the Council of Naturopathic Medical Education and approved by the State Board of Naturopathic Examiners, with the consent of the commissioner.”

Ah, the cabal.

And there's the claim of rigor:

“in Connecticut, only licensed naturopathic physicians who have met rigorous education and training requirements as well as passed a national competency examination are legally able to practice naturopathy.”

Well, 'patent nonscience within science absurdity' is not rigorous to me:

it is not doctoral level, it is not EVEN undergraduate level.

And naturopaths are still pushing for prescriptive authority this 2015-10.

Recently, by the way, ND Zampieron apparently left a comment on one of my Naturocrit posts which was titled “UB Homeopathy Round-Up Absurdity”.

That post was a listing of all the pages, live at that time at, with homeopathy on it.

The ND Zampieron comment stated:

“you haven't interviewed any patient helped by homeopathy or pets dogs and infants which can't respond to placebo. You're an assassin.”


a) a direct defense of homeopathy by someone who claims it is science-based, and is licensed by the State of CT, even though it is patently science-ejected in the most obvious way;

and b) I've been called an assassin!

Well, they assassinated by career, so, 'what's sauce for the goose...'

I don't claim that homeopathy doesn't work 'as well as placebo and kind'.

And what I mean by that is that upon shallow observation, it may seem to work on people and pets.

And it may be similar to the kind of shallow observation wherein:

someone says 'hey, science includes this obvious nonscience', the kind of ND shallowness that seems to be at the core of naturopathy.

But, we know all the confounds involved in observing what happens with a therapy.

Merely, laxly observing, well, that's not science, that's anecdote.

Studies, actual science, show it does not work because everything has been controlled for, and there is statistical analysis.

But I will say, if speaking the truth about naturopathy is being as assassin, then so be it:

I like killing lies.

Now my response to the ND was:

“how would I interview a dog, or perhaps an iguana, BTW?  Well, I don't wrestle in slop, but I DO try to get done 'a little assassination of ignorance and falsehood' every day.  It's part of my exercise of free speech, and the conscientious thing to do: share my opinion, expose a ruse.  [Presumably] Your web page speaks of 'Dr. Zampieron's encyclopedic knowledge of science-based natural medicine [...and] the use of safe and effective therapeutic methods and substances.'  And your web page speaks of homeopathy as 'biochemical'.  And I assume you, as naturopathy does and your alma mater Bastyr does and your employer UB does, whose advisory BOARD you sit on, throw homeopathy into that epistemic categorical label 'effective science based'.  But particularly in these times, for decades: 'science subset homeopathy' is batshit crazy.  And I'll have 'yous CT ND types' know, everything I do in terms of my so-called 'assassin' activity gets turned in to State's and Federal executive / prosecutorial branches on a periodic basis.  Fun stuff.  What the FTC and FDA are going to presumably do to homeopathy, that is, 'no special treatment and complete transparency', well, there will be quite a load of schadenfreude involved there, for me, regarding that 'cultic mystical weirdness'.  I could remind that 'the plural of anecdote is not evidence', and that 'the supposed placeboless responses of animals and infants is a MYTH', but instead I'll just say: welcome to Season 2 Episode 01 of the Naturocrit Podcast (aka Episode 11). -r.c."

 There hasn't been an answer.

ND Zampieron's Arthritis Book of Woo:

On the ND Zampieron page "Radio Show" [2015 archived] we're told:

"major books authored by Dr.s Zampieron and Kamhi [...include] Arthritis: The Alternative Medicine Definitive Guide […] 1999."

Let's look at that book, from:

ND “science-based”, from ND “definitive.”

I own it, and I have OCR'd it in order to easily search it.

I also own the 2006 second edition, and it's also OCR'd.

At the end of this section I'll briefly cross-reference what I've used from the first edition to the second edition, out of curiosity mostly, to see if there are any changes in content or emphasis between the two editions.

I have to ask, about 'alternative medicine that's definitive':

how CAN you define such a nebulous area as “alternative medicine”?

It's the 'not conventional medicine' moniker.

It beats me.

And even Bastyr naturopathy, within alternative medicine, says it is 'a distinct area that blends' [2015 archived].

How can you be blended if you are distinct?

Beats me again.

But that's my problem, I'm still thinking.

I guess it's the same way you can be science-based when actually you are not.

The 1999 book has ISBNs 1887299157 and 9781887299152, and is about 400 pages.

You MIGHT expect, if ND Zampieron is defending homeopathy currently, that he'd support homeopathy in other places, at other times.

And you would be right.

Homeopathy and other woo are LAUDED in this book.

Plus, I'm surprised to say, certain apparently EXPERIMENTAL therapies are CASUALLY recounted within the ND's practice.

I would not have imagined that it is SO EASY to just do ANYTHING with naturopathy patients in Connecticut.

Where is the application for, approval of, and registration of an experimental trial?

Where are the ethical protections needed by way of oversight by an independent institutional review board, and such?

It seems like the Wild West.

Now, the first edition of the book is about 15 years old, admittedly.

And it makes A LOT of strong claims about the efficacy of its contents.

The table of contents alone states:

“arthritis can be reversed. Success story: out of his wheelchair with alternative medicine […] what alternative medicine can do for arthritis. Success story: a holistic approach alleviates arthritis. Undoing arthritis in stages — the scope of this book.”

And I have to wonder:


It has been 15 years and these things are still 'naturopathy only' secrets?

Well, that can't be true, they're printed in a very accessible book.

Where is the change in standard of care that these amazing things would have caused if their results were so AMAZING, not just merely in terms of palliating but in terms of REVERSING a common degenerative disease NOT KNOWN to be reversible generally speaking?

Amazing is the eye of the beholder, or the woo-meister, one might presume...

Or amazing is in the pen of the authors, when “undoing arthritis” is written down on paper, like amazing fairy tales are written down:

similar to UB writing down 'science subset homeopathy and kind', as if true.

First I will mention that there is a strong 'science expertise' claim in the book.

We're told in the author's bio.:

“Eugene R. Zampieron, N.D. [] his doctoral degree in naturopathic medicine from Bastyr University of Natural Health Sciences in Seattle, Washington.”

Yes, Bastyr, which is a 'science subset anything' kinda place.

We are to believe 'science-based subset ND subset this book.'

Now, lets look in the book at a very typical naturopathic woo, the kind of stuff we've already seen vigorous support for:


Then we'll look at other stuff in the book such as:

electrodermal screening, applied kinesiology, TCM, reflexology, and detoxification.

Some of these are therapies, some of these are diagnostics.

Or a skeptic would say:

pseudotherapies, pseudodiagnostics.

Now, you will read of some things in the book that are reasonable and not essentially naturopathic, such as some pathophysiological descriptions of arthritis, and some recommended exercises.

And there are piles and piles of recommendations about supplements, vitamins, and herbs.

But, I'm just not interested in talking about them, because, I believe, if such were doing AMAZING stuff, in all these decades I've been a naturopathy watcher, then I think there'd have been a shift in standard of care.

Instead, it merely seems as though people are spending huge amounts of money on junk, annually.

And to point out the weirdo nutty highly implausible stuff in the book is to point out how low the standards are for what is considered accurate, effective, and worthwhile.

Supplements, vitamins and herbs are at least quite plausible, though, I believe generally speaking, a waste of money.

After each woo I'll talk about from the book, I'll give a brief example of 'what science preponderantly says'.

Homeopathy in the Book:

There is a lot written in the book about using homeopathy for arthritis.

Now, homeopathy is inert.

And yet it is a front-line therapy here, apparently as comparatively effective as anything else that's suggested from naturopathy's armamentarium.

And so, I think, if that is the case, then 'it doesn't take much in Naturopathyland to be considered effective.'

There are at least 84 instances of the root or stem “homeop”.

We're told such things as:

“Dr.s Zampieron and Kamhi have years of experience treating arthritis and will show you how to keep your joints healthy and, if you already have arthritis, how you can reverse it. You'll learn more about these self-help options [...including] safe and effective pain-stoppers [...including] homeopathic remedies [...] we also gave him Streptococcinum nosode […] a homeopathic preparation, to decrease the abnormally high numbers of antibodies to this bacteria in his body […] a homeopathic nosode is a super-diluted remedy made as an energy imprint from a disease product, such as bacteria, tuberculosis, measles, influenza, and about 200 other substances. The nosode, which contains no physical trace of the disease, stimulates the body to remove all taints or residues it holds of a particular disease, whether it was inherited or contracted. Only qualified homeopaths may administer a nosode.”

So, there are promises of 'reversal and efficacy', with such no-things as homeopathy.

In using a nosode, I assume the ND considers himself a qualified homeopath.

Now, scientifically speaking, there's never been such a measured effect from a homeopathic remedy as:

“to decrease the abnormally high numbers of antibodies.”

If there were, I promise you, there'd be NOBELS awarded.

And what exactly is an 'inherited taint of a particular disease' and an “energy imprint”?

Energy in science is QUANTIFIED.

This is masked vitalistic and ultimately superstitious woo.

Here's a summary of a treatment which to me sounds dangerously experimental:

“first, we prescribed the homeopathic remedy Streptococcinum 200C at three sublingual pellets, once a day between meals, for one month. We also prepared an oral auto-sanguis nosode […] in auto-sanguis dilution therapy, small doses of the patient's blood are prepared as a homeopathic remedy and administered to the patient. The effectiveness of this therapy relies on the homeopathic principle that small doses of a substance that in large doses causes disease symptoms can help to reverse the disease […] through the following method: an extraction of a small amount of Yvonne's blood was placed in a centrifuge for 20 minutes; then, one part serum was mixed with nine parts Willard's Water […] the mixture was shaken vigorously 100 times. This process produces a homeopathic nosode at 1X potency. To increase the potency of the nosode, the process was repeated six times, rendering the remedy at a potency of 6X; we added 15% ethyl alcohol to stabilize the solution. We instructed Yvonne to place ten drops of this solution under her tongue three times a day. Upon her second visit, we increased the potency of the original nosode to 12X [I accidentally say 20x] potency; her third visit to 30X potency; and finally to 60X potency […] we then mixed into the same syringe 1 cc of the homeopathic nosodes Streptococcus viridans-injeel and Streptococcus haemolyticus-injeel, and 1 cc of the homeopathic remedies Traumeel and ZEEL (indicated for inflammation and degenerative processes). The mixture was agitated 20 times rendering a solution at 1X potency and was injected into her buttock. The process was repeated to produce a remedy of 2X potency and injected as well. Yvonne returned for treatment once a week for one month. During this time, injections reached a potency of 4X.”

I cringe!

I cringe at how casually this OBVIOUS experiment was done.

And we're also told:

“we suggested that, in the future, Yvonne should receive preventive homeopathic treatment with Streptococcinum 200C before visiting the dentist [p.219].”


I don't think that's going to protect her from possible endocarditis.

We're also told:

“homeopathy was founded in the early 1800s by German physician Samuel Hahnemann [...] homeopathy's […] main principle of 'like cures like,' meaning that a substance which causes particular symptoms in large doses can cure those symptoms when given in small doses […] when treating rheumatoid arthritis, the body's immune response can be modulated through therapies drawing upon homeopathic principles […] when treating the autoimmune response of rheumatoid arthritis, the practitioner's job is simplified because the patient's own bodily fluids (blood or urine) contain the causes and agents involved in the disease and are therefore perfectly suited to the patient's specific profile.”

We're told:

“we also gave him Rhus Tox 60C (three times daily), a homeopathic remedy specifically for muscular and rheumatic pain and stiffness that is made worse by inactivity […] for treatment of heavy metals, we recommended the homeopathic detoxosode program […] we began at this point to deal with her parasite infection, using homeopathic preparations [...] homeopathic parasite formulas […] we started her on several homeopathic remedies […] we also gave him homeopathic yeast and mold drops […] homeopathic remedies for liver and kidney support during the detoxification process […] camphor [...] can sabotage the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies.”

Except, except, except:

it doesn't work.

Science says, regarding homeopathy, according to “There Is No Scientific Case For Homeopathy: The Debate Is Over” at this 2015 by Edzard Ernst:

“what we did find was sobering: our trials failed to show that homeopathy is more than a placebo; our reviews demonstrated that the most reliable of the 230 or so trials of homeopathy ever published are also not positive; studies with animals confirmed the results obtained on humans; surveys and case reports suggested that homeopathy can be dangerous; the claims made by homeopaths to cure conditions like cancer, asthma or even Ebola were bogus; the promotion of homeopathy is not ethical […] now, the internationally highly respected Australian National Health and Medical Research Council have conducted what certainly is the most thorough and independent evaluation of homeopathy in its 200-year-long history. Already their preliminary report had confirmed that homeopathy is nothing other than treatment with placebos.”

EDS in the Book:

Electrodermal screening is perhaps the most 'blatantly fake of diagnostics' I can think of in Naturopathyland.

It is merely measuring conductance, and that depends upon the moisture and salinity of a patient's skin, and how hard the probe is pressed.

There are at least 13 instances of the root or stem 'electroderm' in the book.

We're told:

“electrodermal screening (EDS): we use electrodermal screening to determine where to start the protocol of intervention for the arthritis patient [...] we use EDS testing to prioritize which system in the patient's body needs attention first. By quickly pinpointing problems, EDS can indicate the degree of stress that is affecting an organ and prevent unnecessary guesswork testing. As a cross-reference, specific blood, urine, and stool analyses can then be ordered to confirm electrodermal results [...a caption under a picture of coauthor Kamhi] Ellen Kamhi [...] performs electrodermal screening on a patient [...] other effective and more convenient tests for identifying allergens, or allergy-causing substances, include [...] electrodermal screening [...] electrodermal screening (EDS): electrodermal screening is widely used by holistic practitioners in Europe and the United States to screen for a wide range of allergens, including food and environmental substances. It determines what remedies to use to properly neutralize allergic reactions as well as monitors the success of prescribed remedies [...] additional alternative medicine screening tools to diagnose the presence of parasites include electrodermal screening (EDS) [...] electrodermal screening (EDS) is a form of computerized information gathering which is based on physics, not chemistry. A blunt, noninvasive electric probe is placed at specific points on the patient's hands, face, or feet, corresponding to acupuncture points at the beginning or end of energy meridians. Minute electrical discharges from these points serve as information signals about the condition of the body's organs and systems, useful for the physician in evaluation and developing a treatment plan. EDS can indicate the degree of stress that is affecting an organ and can monitor the progress of therapy, avoiding trial and error and general guesswork. EDS can use a computerized list or vials containing specimens of various parasites to test the meridians of the patient; if parasites are a factor, there will be a corresponding weakened EDS reading.”

Science says, about EDS, in “Electrodermal Testing Part I: Fooling Patients with a Computerized Magic Eight Ball“, at

“electrodermal testing makes no sense and is not supported by any credible evidence. It is not based on science or grounded in reality; it is more akin to divination with a Magic 8 Ball. It merits a favorite phrase of Orac's: a fetid load of dingo’s kidneys.”

AK in the Book:

There are at least 16 instances of 'applied kinesiology' in the book.

We're told:

“alternative medicine diagnostic tests [...include] applied kinesiology [p.056] other effective and more convenient tests for identifying allergens, or allergy-causing substances, include applied kinesiology [...] applied kinesiology: we use the basic techniques of applied kinesiology [...] to test for food allergies [p....] applied kinesiology, developed by George Goodheart, D.C., of Detroit, Michigan, is the study of the relationship between muscle dysfunction (weakness) and related organ or gland dysfunction. Applied kinesiology uses simple strength resistance test on a specific indicator muscle that is related to the organ or part of the body that is being tested. For example, the deltoid muscle in the shoulder shares a relationship to the lungs and therefore is good indicator of any problems there [...] additional alternative medicine screening tools to diagnose the presence of parasites include [...] applied kinesiology [...] applied kinesiology, is the study of the relationship between muscle dysfunction (weak muscles) and related organ or gland dysfunction. Applied kinesiology employs a simple strength resistance test on a specific indicator muscle that is related to the organ or part of the body that is being tested. If the muscle tests strong (maintaining its resistance), it indicates health. If it tests weak, it can mean infection or dysfunction. When testing for parasites, the practitioner challenges a strong muscle while the patient holds a vial containing parasite specimens; the muscle will weaken if one of these parasites is causing their health problem [...] natural therapies for allergies [...include] applied kinesiology [...] applied kinesiology […] if the muscle tests strong (maintaining its resistance), it indicates health. If it tests weak, it can mean infection or dysfunction. A special application that uses kinesiology to detect food allergies is the Nambudripad Allergy Elimination Technique (NAET). Developed by Devi Nambudripad […] this method also helps to eliminate allergies by using acupuncture (or acupressure) and chiropractic. After determining the allergy-inducing substances through muscle testing, the patient again holds the offending substance while the NAET practitioner uses acupuncture or acupressure to reprogram the way the body responds to the substance, thereby removing the allergic charge.”

Science says, about AK, in “Applied Kinesiology: Phony Muscle-Testing for Allergies and Nutrient Deficiencies” at Quackwatch:

“the concepts of applied kinesiology do not conform to scientific facts about the causes or treatment of disease. Controlled studies have found no difference between the results with test substances and with placebos. Differences from one test to another may be due to suggestibility, distraction, variations in the amount of force or leverage involved, and/or muscle fatigue. If you encounter a practitioner who relies on AK muscle-testing for diagnosis, head for the nearest exit.”

[Some of the AK we were taught within UB's "division of health sciences":

what bullshit.]

TCM in the Book:

I'll deal here with the fundamental premise of TCM, that article of faith known as qi.

Now, scientifically speaking qi is science-ejected vitalism and supernaturalism.

And I want to be careful here:

I highly respect another's right to freedom of belief.

Qi is fundamental to many religions.

But, that doesn't give the believer in qi a right to falsely pose it as 'medically pertinent', as able to pass scientific filtering.

There are at least 50 instances of "qi" in the book, as 'qi'.

I'll choose 3.

I'm interested in the one's that equate qi with "life force" or "life energy", since such is THE basic premise of naturopathy.

We're told in the book such things as:

“traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) originated in China over 5,000 years ago and is a comprehension system of medical practice that heals the body according to the principles of nature and balance. A Chinese medicine physician considers the flow of vital energy (qi) in a patient through close examination of the patient's pulse, tongue, body odor, voice tone and strength, and general demeanor, among other elements. Underlying imbalances and disharmony in the body are described in terminology analogous to the natural world (heat, cold, dryness, or dampness) [...] qi [...] is a Chinese word variously translated to mean 'vital energy', 'essence of life', and 'living force.' In Chinese medicine, the proper flow of qi along energy channels (meridians) within the body is crucial to a person's health and vitality [...] the oriental body therapies, such as acupuncture or acupressure, work to balance the flow of qi (vital life energy) through energy meridians. These meridians run throughout the body and are associated with different organs—if there is a block in the energy meridian, it will be expressed as health problems in the organs associated with the blocked meridian. Blocked qi can be released by applying pressure to specific points along the energy meridians. Acupuncture uses needles, while acupressure [...] uses rubbing, kneading, or other types of pressure from the fingers and hands.”

Science says, regarding such vitalism, in “Vitalism” at Wikipedia:

“vitalism [...a] doctrine that 'living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things' [...]where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the 'vital spark', 'energy' or 'elan vital', which some equate with the soul. Although rejected by modern science, vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: most traditional healing practices posited that disease results from some imbalance in vital forces. In the Western tradition founded by Hippocrates, these vital forces were associated with the four temperaments and humours; Eastern traditions posited an imbalance or blocking of qi or prana.”

Reflexology in the Book:

There are at least 19 instances of the root or stem “reflexol” in the book.

We're told:

"a respected authority on natural healing [coauthor] Ellen Kamhi [...] holds a doctorate in public health and degrees in nursing and education. She is certified in reflexology […] reflexology is based on the idea that there are reflex areas in the hands and feet that correspond to every part of the body, including the organs and glands. By applying gentle but precise pressure to these reflex points, reflexologists release blockages that inhibit energy flow and cause pain and disease […] a number of physical therapies, including […] reflexology […] can be effective in treating all types of arthritis."

Science says, regarding reflexology, in “Reflexology” at Wikipedia:

“a 2009 systematic review concluded that there was no convincing evidence that reflexology is effective for any medical condition […] reflexology's claim to manipulate energy (qi) [...] there is no scientific evidence for the existence of life energy (qi), 'energy balance', 'crystalline structures,' or 'pathways' in the body."

Detoxification in the Book:

There are at least 205 instances of the root or stem "detoxific".

I won't bother quoting such.

I will just say that my nickname for the idea is 'the Toxin Boogeyman'.

Science says, about detoxification, in “The Detox Scam: How to Spot It, and How to Avoid It”, at

“any product or service with the words 'detox' or 'cleanse' in the name is only truly effective at cleansing your wallet of cash. Alternative medicine’s ideas of detoxification and cleansing have no basis in reality.”

Comparatively, in the book's second edition, there is still all the:

homeopathy, electrodermal screening, applied kinesiology, TCM, reflexology and detoxification that I just went through.

And other crap like darkfield microscopy tea-leaf -like readings.

“Darkfield” is in the 2nd edition at least 25 times.

And we are warned, in “The Pseudoscience of Live Blood Cell Analysis” at

“the use of darkfield techniques in examining live blood for cellular shape and detail is suspect and is not offered by most reputable medical laboratories because it has little diagnostic value.That fact has not deterred some alternative medicine practitioners from providing live blood cell analysis (darkfield blood analysis) to the unsuspecting public […] live blood cell analysis is not currently recognized by the laboratory profession as a worthwhile laboratory test because it reveals very little diagnostic information […] laboratories that perform evidence-based medical laboratory testing in the United States are regulated by the Clinical Laboratory Improvements Amendment (CLIA) passed by Congress. This legislation requires that all highly complex medical laboratory tests be performed by qualified personnel and that all laboratory tests offered must be continually validated by special programs. Out of ignorance or to avoid these restrictive regulations, live blood cell analysts simply do not register their activity with the federal government and therefore are not inspected. The actual enforcement of medical laboratory standards in most cases falls under statutes set by each state. Some states have closed down live blood cell analysis when they are aware of such activity. Other states have not investigated the issue or simply allow alternative medicine practitioners to continue their practice.”

And we're still told, in that second edition:

“Dr. Eugene R. Zampieron is a licensed naturopathic physician and an alumnus of Bastyr University of natural health sciences.”

 “The Board of Naturopathic Medical Examiners in CT”:

ND Zampieron had mentioned “the Board of Naturopathic Medical Examiners in CT”, so out of curiosity, I thought I'd take a look.

I'll abbreviate this entity BNME [or NBME].

To be honest, I have to wonder what kind of paper tiger BNME is:

after all, in Connecticut, naturopathy operates as 'science subset nonscience' falsehood, and the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners falsely labels homeopathy as  “clinical science.”

With the CONTINENTAL overseer so fucking falsehood-engaged, what kind of stuff isn't permitted by one of its U.S. State affiliates?

I can't imagine any “Naturopathic Examiners” having a problem with, for instance, an ND who is engaged in apparent unrestrained experimental and CLIA-violating activity.

After all, the foxes are the hen-house guards CONTINENTALLY speaking.

'Them foxes' in partnership with the State of Connecticut.

There is a homepage for this NBME [or BNME] entity titled “State Board of Natureopathic Examiners“.

Now there's a letter “e” in that spelling of naturopathic, by the way, after the “r”, which can really start skewing searches, so be careful about that.

The Board is comprised of two ND members and a so-called public member.

The two ND members currently are NDs Raistrick and Young, whose practices we'll take a look at momentarily.

The minutes to the BNME's meetings are archived from 2000 forward.

From those minutes, and I'll provide those links, I can list the members of the BNME from the year 2000 forward, with the first-listed ND the chairperson:

2000-2005 was NDs Murphy and Raistrick; 

2005-2008 was NDs Raistrick and Goodman;

2009-14 (here, here, here, here, here, here) was NDs Raistrick and Ali.

All those minutes are hosted by the Department of Health at

And there doesn't seem to be much going on by way of these minutes.

It seems mainly concerned with protecting naturopathy's turf from various 'other kinds' of naturopaths.

I will now look closely and NDs Raistrick, Young, and Ali.

ND Raistrick:

ND Raistrick, a 1990 Bastyr ND graduate and the current BNME chairperson, according to his [2015 archived], has served on that BNME since 2000.

They both practice in Watertown, CT.

His practice page address is, and his practice is called “The Center for Natural Medicine.”

And you might think, since he sits on the regulatory board for naturopathy in Connecticut, that you'd get some transparency, and some accuracy, regarding certain things about naturopathy from him.

And you'd be WRONG.

He doesn't have many pages, but lets see what he has.

His homepage states, in terms of “natural”:

“the Center for Natural Medicine […] providing a wide spectrum of natural family medicine […] a natural health care facility, is to encourage wellness in each and every person. Today’s medicine is symptomatic and reactive. Determining and eliminating underlying factors in the disease process as well as using prevention is the medicine of the future.”

Nowhere are we told that this idea, “natural” medicine, is a fallacy.

And obviously there's a big schwack at conventional medicine:

implying that it is negligent, shallow, and not patient-centered because it is merely “symptomatic and reactive.”

In other words, that conventional medicine is violating its fiduciary duty.

That's quite an accusation.

He claims naturopathy gets to the “underlying” and is “the future."

Well, is the future falsehood?

Like 'science subset nonscience' falsehood, which is how naturopathy CONTINENTALLY operates?

Is that not a violation of commerce standards?

On the page “Naturopathy” [2015 archived] we're told:

“naturopathic medicine is […] a blend [...and] based on the premise that the human body can heal itself [...and] treatment for the whole person [involves] evaluating physical, mental, emotional, nutritional, environmental, genetic and lifestyle factors.”

So, there's blending that so BELIES that science categorical claim at Connecticut's and Washington State's naturopathy schools, UB and Bastyr respectively, coded vitalism, and that idea of “whole” without mention of the supernatural.

You know, that supernatural that has right up on its mission page.

And we're also told:

“for additional information regarding naturopathic medicine please go to the link below, [...]”

That's a link to the AANP, who actually also falsely state homeopathy is science.

And notice, we're not clearly told what naturopathy is on the naturopathy page.

This is opaque manipulation.

On the page “Treatment / Services Provided” [2015 archived] we're told:

“biochemical [...which includes] homeopathy […] physical / neurological […] acupuncture [...and] colonic therapy.”

Homeopathy is as biochemical as flying carpets are aeronautical. 

Now, the ND practices with another ND, Amicone.

At the bio.s page, “About Our Doctors” [2015 archived], we're told about their mutual alma mater, Bastyr:

“she achieved her doctorate in naturopathic medicine from Bastyr University in Seattle, WA, a school renowned for its foundation in the medical sciences […] she has a special interest in naturopathic detoxification.”

So science, and yet...

homeopathy, detoxification, and colonics, for starters.
ND Young and Co.:

This ND practices with a few other NDs at in Manchester, CT.

In “Our Physicians” [2015 archived] were' told:

that ND Young is a UBCNM ND graduate;

that ND Burkman is an ND graduate of NUHS, that's National University of Health SCIENCES;

that ND Pasternak is a Bastyr ND graduate;

and that ND Fasullo is an NCNM ND graduate.

And we're also told there that ND Young sits on CT's NBME [or BNME].

Would you believe, like at ND Raistrick's web pages, the term “medicatrix” is NOT on this practice's web pages?

As far as I can tell.

But, there is a page “About Naturopathic Medicine” [2015 archived] which states:

“naturopathic physicians [...and their] science based natural therapies.”

So there's a science claim subset 'what we do'.

And yet we're told:

“botanicals and homeopathy work with the body’s unique biochemistry and energy to promote its own ability to heal and balance.”

That's homeopathy and coded vitalism.

And as I've said, 'herbs' and homeopathy are presented usually as 'just as effective' as each other by naturopathy and yet we know homeopathy is inert.

What does that say then about herbs aka botanicals!

And speaking of coded vitalism, we're told:

“there are six defining principles that make naturopathic doctors unique among other physicians. [#]1 the healing power of nature: the healing process is ordered and intelligent. The role of the naturopathic physician is to support and facilitate this process by removing obstacles to health and recovery.”

That's coded vitalism, and that's all you get.

And finally, I'll mention that they write:

“naturopathic physicians address all aspects of a persons well-being including [...] spiritual aspects.”

Ah, supernaturalism.

We're also told about “science based treatments” in “What is Naturopathic Medicine” [2015 archived] with vitalism again coded.

“feel free to email me and I’ll be happy to send you my PowerPoint with all the science and 'how to's' from my lecture.”

And on the homepage [2015 archive] we're assured:

“our physicians use science based natural medicine [] homeopathic remedies.”'s Naturopath ND Ali:

I think this is THE MOST AMAZING of NDs I'll look at in this episode due to his location, academically speaking.

There is, and I find it amazing to say:

a full-time employed naturopath at Yale University.

He is practicing pediatrics by way of, and he is academically installed at Yale Medical School by way of

And this is WHILE Yale Medical School states:

that naturopathy is essentially centered upon the centuries-old science-ejected.


Yale Medical School, by the way, is a school I attended, for a wee bit, ACCIDENTALLY:

when I was admitted to the ND program at UB in the fall of 1998, it turns out that we had to take an Epidemiology and Public Health course on the campus of Yale Medical School in the fall of 1999.

It was a large lecture hall, and YMS students took it as well, though I'm not sure which graduate programs.

It was taught by naturopathy-lover MD David L. Katz, who, one day, will get a whole Podcast episode concentrating on himself.

He deserves it.

Katz had written about naturopathic medicine at HuffPo, in 2014, in a very supportive article titled “The Nature of Medicine, and the Medicine of Nature“ [2015 archived] for Naturopathic Medicine Week, but, interestingly, WITHOUT clearly indicating naturopathy's essential premise in that article.

In the article, he does say:

“careful and responsible use of scientific evidence is essential”

and that naturopathy is based on

“countless hours in classrooms learning about basic science”

but there's no mention of the science-ejected backbone at the heart of naturopathy.

That's quite opaque; that's quite an omission.

You are being led to believe 'science subset naturopathy.'

Yes, he called the article “the nature” of the “medicine of nature” without transparently communicating naturopathy's centerpiece "nature":

the nature of naturopathy that dare not speak its true nature.

sCAM people have such LOW ethical standards, I must note.

And by the way, when I was a student of MD Katz, I wasn't impressed.

Now, ironically, does communicate naturopathy's centerpiece, inevitably, which I'll get to.

Because that 'nature of naturopathy' BELIES naturopathy's simultaneous science label, I have to wonder what is up with MD Katz:

he is quite familiar with the contents of naturopathy, I would think, because he has co-published with Yale's naturopath, ND Ali.

In the 2009 paper “Preventive Medicine, Integrative Medicine and The Health Of The Public”, hosted at of all places, MD Katz and ND Ali state:

“the goal of integrative medicine should be to make the widest array of appropriate options available to patients, ultimately blurring the boundaries between conventional care and CAM [that's a very interesting agenda, by the way, 'to blur']. Both disciplines should be subject to rigorous scientific inquiry so that interventions that work are systematically distinguished from those that do not […] patient empowerment and autonomy [...] should not be at the expense of science and evidence […] when treatment approaches are unsafe, ineffective, poorly supported by science, [and] less effective than other options […] they should never be used. When a treatment is safe, effective, supported decisively by science, better than any other therapeutic option [...] it should always be used.”

Amazing, by these very standards set up by the authors MD Katz and ND Ali, naturopathy's essence is a NEVER:

it is distinguished systematically by rigorous scientific inquiry as NOT science supported.

Of course, if your agenda is to blur, well, then you may not wish to distinguish what's obviously distinguished, and you'll support and practice naturopathy.

Katz also has on ongoing 'dialog', shall I say, with critics of the 'medical scientific skepticism' vein.

For instance there's the 2015-04-15 MD Gorski post, at, “Integrative Medicine, Naturopathy, and David Katz's 'More Fluid Concept of Evidence'”, which states, to summarize:

“Dr. David Katz is undoubtedly a heavy hitter in the brave new world of 'integrative medicine,' a specialty that seeks to 'integrate' pseudoscience with science, nonsense with sense, and quackery with real medicine […] he’s taken another broadside at us at Science-Based Medicine in blog entry at The Huffington Post […] what is it about naturopaths Katz so admires that he’s willing to go to bat for them in front of the legislature in his own state [Connecticut] and speak of them in such glowing terms? Is it their use of quack treatments […] is it their advocacy of major quackery […] is it their advocating 'detoxification,' herbs, and acupuncture to treat infertility? Is it how naturopaths embrace the four humors? Is this what he means by embracing a 'more fluid concept of evidence'? Apparently so. After all, the humors were believed to be fluids […] perhaps Dr. Katz really doesn’t know what naturopathy is actually about. If that’s the case, I’ll take the opportunity to educate him and suggest that he read Kimball Atwood’s classic critical appraisal of the vitalistic pseudoscientific mystical practice that is naturopathy, after which he might be interested in what naturopaths say amongst themselves when they think no one is listening.  Then he should read Britt Hermes’s confessions of a former naturopath and her description of naturopathic education. Let’s just say, the facts about what naturopathy is and how naturopaths practice contrast starkly with the naive view Katz presents in his testimony.”

Hear, hear.

In that 2015 testimony Katz states that:

“naturopathic physicians are rigorously trained […] the basic science curricula are identical.”

And he terms modern medicine "allopathic", which is quite the false label.

I'm going to return to such kinds of “testimony” in front of the CT legislature when I deal in Part 2 with ND Brady.

ND Ali, as I'd said, was one of the two NDs on the NBME [or BNME] until recently.

I'll add that I've never met the guy, and a quick review of his published works does not leave me impressed.

If ever one has doubts about how infiltrating this 'naturopathillogical meme' is, well, take a look at this:

a medical school of high-bar, Yale Medical School which actually has a entrance GPA rate of 3.8 according to Wikipedia, now contains the most abject of sheer stupidity, of 'a zero GPA nature' aka merely 'alive without intellect' aka 'the naturopathic'!!!

And I'm talking about and the PATENTLY science-ejected sectarian!

There are two main pages for Ather Ali, ND, a 2003 Bastyr ND graduate:

both are titled “Ather Ali, ND, MPH, MHS. Associate Research Scientist in Pediatrics (General Pediatrics)”.

There's a “Department of Pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine” page at [2015 archived] and there's a “Yale School of Medicine” page [2015 archived] at

Both pages have a link to the page “Integrative Medicine at Yale” [2015 archived].

Yes, “integrative”, which states:

“integrative medicine at Yale is a program designed to provide a sustainable, central forum at Yale for interdisciplinary, inter-institutional, and international collaboration, research, and education in complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine. Through open-minded exploration and rigorous scientific inquiry, we aim to improve awareness and access to the best in evidence-based, comprehensive medical care available worldwide, with the goal of optimizing health and healing.”

Obviously, there's a promise there:

that the filter upon what is “integrative [...and] complementary” will be “rigorous scientific inquiry”.

As in "best".

As in "improve awareness".

 As in "education".

And I have to ask:

DOESN'T that eliminate ND Ali's ND credentials and Yale's own page describing naturopathy titled “Naturopathy” that I'm about to quote from?

Because the contents which are essentially naturopathic cannot survive "rigorous scientific inquiry".


And this is what I mean regarding the ND credentials not surviving:

if Bastyr's definition of science is 'whatever you so want', like 'natural health sciences that integrate body, mind, spirit and nature” subset such junk as homeopathy and kind', which I think it is, that epistemic footprint would not pass through a “rigorous scientific inquiry” filter.

This does not sound like the “identical basic science curricula” that MD Katz testified about.

How could it pass scientific muster, when it's so PATENTLY not science-supported?

Therein, an ND as a qualification cannot pass through, yet is claimed to be, and that is a FALSELY POSED science filtering, as if it has passed through.

And I've said this often:

that which DOES or would pass through, that is within naturopathy's cornucopia, well, it stands alone as a body of knowledge and there's nothing essentially naturopathic about it.

Here are Yale's own pages dedicated to naturopathy.

First, there's the page “Naturopathic Medicine.”

That's the Yale Office of Career Strategy which has placed that “Naturopathic Medicine” [2015 archived] page within supposed “health professions”.

It states:

“naturopathic physicians are the highest trained practitioners in the broadest scope of naturopathic medical modalities. Their education includes therapeutic nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, natural childbirth, classical Chinese medicine, hydrotherapy, naturopathic manipulative therapy, pharmacology and minor surgery. Naturopathic physicians teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and cutting edge natural therapies to enhance their body’s ability to ward off and combat disease.”

There's coded vitalism, homeopathy, and TCM for starters.

In the next Yale page, you'll see why that "enhance their body’s ability to ward off and combat disease" is coded vitalism.

That page refers us to the AANP, AANMC, CNME and Explore Health Careers.

And it's exceptional sad that I have to say this about

watch out, because by way of these sources is some super-duper mindfucking.
So I'd say this, an ND at YMS is like at ASTROLOGER at NASA, or its like someone who is innumerate as chair of a math department.

Just Fucking Nuts.

The second naturopathy page is YMS's “Naturopathy” [2015 archived] which states:

"what is naturopathy? […] naturopathy's main goal is to use the natural healing power of the body to fight disease, also known as the vis or life force […] therapeutics [...include] homeopathy […] acupuncture, and other naturally-oriented therapies.”

So I would argue what they're saying is 'life-force oriented therapies'.


There it is, the Full Monty:

that's natural healing power = vis = life force.

Or lebenskraft, if you are German.

That's science-ejected vitalism, and science-ejected homeopathy, and acupuncture theater.

Thanks for the OMITTED heads-up YMS:

we SHOULD be told 'there be quackery here' aka sectarian pseudomedicine, as a matter of transparency so our right to informed consent is respected.

Now, lets touch back on Bastyr, ND Ali's alma mater, and this “life force [...] vis” stuff that Yale communicates.

Because it is SO CENTRAL to naturopathy as an oath-bound commitment, and they HIDE IT so well so often.

This is what I mean, in the introduction to this podcast:

“while particular sectarian science-ejected oath-obligations and -requirements are coded or camouflaged, therein effectively disguising naturopathy's system of beliefs in public view.”

Here, I'll say it again, apples and the trees they fall from, and all that.

Bastyr's Epistemic and Ontological Muddle [again]:

Here's the tree ND Ali fell from, so to speak, in terms of apples and trees, training and implementation.

Now, I won't spend much time on, but I'll mention, Bastyr University's MISSION from their page “Who We Are”.

There they state:

“Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature […] Bastyr University is a nonprofit, private university offering graduate and undergraduate degrees, with a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine […this] study of the natural health sciences.”

What does that MEAN?

Knowing the contents of naturopathy, it means 'science subset nonscience' basically.

It says 'science is anything', which is absurd.

So, I have to ask, since Bastyr's ND Ali sat on the NBME [or BNME] in CT for years:

shouldn't all of naturopathy have been SANCTIONED during your tenure for fraud?

Because you KNOW about naturopathy and its contents.

But, then you'd have to have sanctioned yourself, too.

And how can that happen, particularly when naturopathy's logic-model, that they taught you, is:

2 + 2 = anything.

What can the Naturopathic Board of Medical Examiners examine when there's no distinction between things “integrated”:

good, bad; up, down; science, nonscience; violation, non-violation; natural, supernatural; rigorous and dumbassedness.

Yale's page “Naturopathic Medicine” also assured, by the way:

“almost any illness can be treated by naturopathic health care providers.”

Ah, no thank you.

We're also told:

“the difference between conventional medicine and naturopathic medicine lies in the types of treatment.”

I don't think that's accurate.

There are PREMISES previous to treatment, a muddled epistemic lunacy that isn't being talked about.

We're also told:

“naturopathic therapies may include […] homeopathy, acupuncture [and] Oriental medicine […] naturopathic doctors often work in cooperation with other health care professionals […] naturopathic medicine […] uses blood work, imaging, and other well-researched diagnostic measures.”

Like ND Zampieron's applied kinesiology and EDS diagnostics?

All of that is perfectly acceptable as science within naturopathy.

Never sanctioned.

Even homeopathy, that bullshit, and TCM, that medieval prescientific junk, is fine, is science within naturopathy.

But when ever is a professional to be based upon and to be promulgating:


This has been...

Post a Comment