Friday, June 24, 2016

The Naturocrit Podcast - s02e02c1.1 [Episode 012c1.1] - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the first part of the first half of Part Three of Episode 012 of The Naturocrit Podcast. First, I briefly cover the New Haven County Medical Association and their ethical strictures, and Yale University's 'naturopathillogical boosterism', then I go in-depth into 'naturopathy's pseudorules' by way of a 2012 AANP presentation that gets us toward the AANP Code of Ethics.

001. the Episode 012c1.1. 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 Part Three of Episode 012, aka s02e02, I'm going to look in detail at what I'll call 'naturopathy's pseudorules.'

Part One will be broken into two halves, because it has gotten rather long. 

In the first half, which I'll term Episode 012c1.1., I'll cover a 2012 AANP national naturopathy annual conference presentation 

by ND Traub, that I've purchased.

 In the second half, which I'll term Episode 012c1.2.,

I'll cover the AANP's 2012 Code of Ethics, which is freely available, that that presentation concerns and I'll look at NDs in Hawaii whom I think violate their own ND licensure law, which contains that Code and a Standard of Care.

In Part Two of this Episode 012 Part Three, which I'll term Episode 012c2., I'll cover a 2015 AANP webinar on the AANP's Vimeo account

which features ND Brinkman and the AANP's "Government and Public Affairs Director" Mike Jawer, which is up for free.

And I'll also cover the two documents that that video presentation concerns:

the AANMC's Clinical Competencies begun in 2014, and the AANP's Guidance for Naturopathic Practice and Care begun in 2015.

The Code, Guidance, and Competencies documents, all together, for this Episode 012 Part 3, I think, will provide a reasonable representation of what US naturopathy thinks about:

'ethics, rules and requirements'.

Let me emphasize here the prefix 'pseudo'.


First, I need to clarify this Episode's part's contents.

I'd said, at the very start of this Episode 012:

"in Part Three, I'll explore naturopathy's lack of ethical strictures, because -- you may be surprised to find out -- NO such similar formalized mandatory broad ethical code applies to naturopaths [...] in other words, very little, by way of behavior, bothers naturopathy [...] I'll also look at what U.S. naturopathy has begun, quite recently in 2015, in terms of an ethical code, which is: quite optional, quite sparse, and therein quite a joke for an area that terms itself primary care."

I tangled and truncated things there, a bit, unintentionally.

This comes about because I'm publishing this Episode as I complete each part, and details emerge and clarifications become necessary.

For the Code of Ethics of the AANP, I had misspoken the year as 2015 when it actually was ratified in 2012.

2015 is actually the year the AANMC and AANP made the video “Guidance for Naturopathic Practice and ND Core Competencies”, which is, as I said in the synopsis:

a combination of the AANMC Clinical Competencies (2016 archived) begun in 2014, and the AANP's Guidance for Naturopathic Practice and Care (2016 archived) begun in 2015.

We'll be looking at all three documents, and ALL are OPTIONAL, except, as we'll see, in certain geopolitical circumstances.

Main Text:

Before I get into 'naturopathic pseudorules', I'm going to briefly 'add-on', here to Part Three, something directly related to Part Two of this Episode 012:

one more Connecticut medical society.

I haven't mentioned or looked at the New Haven County Medical Association, at

The New Haven County Medical Association:

There's a good reason to look at another medical society in Connecticut:

New Haven County is the Connecticut 'county' that contains prestigious Yale University School of Medicine.

And promotes naturopathy WITHIN their medical group, while there is a medical society for New Haven County.

I'd briefly mentioned Yale's naturopathy boosterism in the second half of Part One of this Episode 012 when I was discussing NEASC.

Here are some more details. is the "Yale Medical Group" web address.

Yale Medical Group actually supports and promotes naturopathy SO MUCH SO that:

Yale Medical Group EMPLOYS a naturopath who practices for them, ND Ali, who is a Bastyr ND graduate.

And simultaneous to this:

Aka, Yale is up it its nostrils in the naturopathillogical.

What a juxtaposition, Yale and naturopathy:

'prestigious sectarian nonsense'.

Because, as I've pointed out time and time again, Yale's ND's credential, as 'Bastyr's knowledge model', is that anything is science, as 'natural health science (2016 archived) subset the hugely science exterior' (2016 archived).

If such credentials get one a prestigious Ivy League '.edu' position, then we truly are living in Bizarro World.

And in the name of transparency, I must remind listeners that I accidentally went to Yale Medical School for a course for one semester:

when, at UB's naturopathy college, our Fall 1999 "public health and epidemiology" course mainly happened at YMS on Yale's New Haven campus.

It was taught by Yale instructors

It wasn't impressive and therein it reminded me of my graduate school courses at New York University:

Now, for years I've thought about the conflict between 'naturopathy's inherent bogosity and its effects on society', and 'the obligations of public health and medicine'.
The Centers for Disease Control actually has the page "Public Health Ethics" (2016 archived) which is linked to from their "Scientific Integrity" (2016 archived) page.


Since naturopathy is 'an unethical sectarian pseudoscience' that preys on the consumer in so many ways for its own benefit -- clinically, academically, commercially -- while public health is obligated to 'our collective wellness -- and scientific and ethical integrity' -- this CONFLICT is hopefully going to be detailed in a Naturocrit Podcast episode one day:

narrow vs. broad interest,

science vs. pseudoscience,

ethicality vs. perversity.

So, with naturopathy at Yale as 'medicine subset naturopathy', of course, in the sense of 'medical doctor behavioral stringencies', I'm curious as to what the NHCMA publishes online in terms of ethical language.

I'm writing this script, actually, within New Haven County, coincidentally:

at the Ikea of New Haven, and minutes away is that Yale Medical Group naturopathy practice.

Unlike the Fairfield County Medical Association, the term 'sectarian' does not show up with a site search, but, the AMA Code of Ethics does.

In "About NHCMA" (2016 archived), we're told:

"the name of this organization is the New Haven County Medical Association, Incorporated [...] the purposes of the Association shall be [...] to bring together into one organization the physicians of New Haven County, to increase their scientific knowledge, and to make relevant information available to patients and colleagues [...] to support the highest ethical and clinical standards of professional practice in medicine [...] the principles of medical ethics of the American Medical Association [...] will govern the conduct of members and their relations with one another and with the public [...] violations may lead to suspension or expulsion by the New Haven County Medical Association."

So that was:

scientific knowledge, highest ethical and clinical standards of professional practice in medicine, the AMA Code of Ethics, and sanctions.

And the AMA Code is listed in detail, as I've covered previously.

And so this collision arises between 'Yale Medical Group subset naturopathy' in light of medicine's preponderant overarching ethics:

we've got 'abject junk thought', the essentially NATUROPATHIC, 'being espoused publicly as if it is true by MEDICINE', as obviously Yale polishes that turd.

How is such an ACTIVITY, to use the language of the AMA Code from that NHCMA "About" page:

'for the benefit of the patient / a responsibility to the patient first and foremost / a regard for responsibility to the patient as paramount',

'not contrary to the best interests of the patient',

'honorable behavior' and 'honest',

'competent and of compassion and respect for human dignity and rights',

'of professionalism',

'not of deficient in character or competence and engaging in fraud or deception',

'of continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge',

'of maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public',

'of improvement of the community and the betterment of public health'?

And specifically, from the Chapter's language:

'to increase their scientific knowledge'?

By not pointing out that naturopathy is essentially pseudoscience [here it is on a list of pseudosciences at Wikipedia], Yale Medical Group and are actually:

degrading medicine's standards, degrading medicine's integrity, degrading medicine's reputation.

Now, let's just reinforce that naturopathy presence at Yale University's '.edu'. tells us that ND Ali is a 2003 Bastyr ND graduate (2016 archived) (also here) working in pediatrics.

Yeah, because that's were we want 'of nonsense Bastyr credentials' to practice.

What are the ethics of 'allowing parents to expose their children to naturopathic nonsense'?

In "Patient Care" (2016 archived), tells us:

"the clinic is directed by Ather Ali, ND, MPH, MHS [...] Yale Adult and Pediatric Integrative Medicine is a practice of the Yale Medical Group and is located at 1 Long Wharf Drive, 5th Floor in New Haven, Connecticut 

[my picture from the parking lot].

[...] clinical services include integrative medicine evaluations, naturopathic medicine, evaluation of dietary supplements, nutritional counseling, exercise / fitness / weight loss, and expert guidance regarding complementary and alternative therapies for a variety of conditions."

The basis of ND Ali's expertise is, of course, his ND bogosity.

And here's the prize, overarching all this.

The Yale Medical Group page at "Naturopathy" (2016 archived; also here) states:

"naturopathic therapies [...are] naturally-oriented therapies [...and] may include [...] homeopathy [...] 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 [...] naturopathic medicine is a lot like conventional medicine."


'Medicine subset homeopathy bogosity, vitalism bogosity', that doesn't sound a lot like medicine to me, with its commitments to scientific integrity.

I see HUGE ethical conflict therein; truly, a collision in so many ways.

And such violent collisions are part of the JOY of writing about naturopathy.

I LIKE the idea of a demolition derby of ideas, it fulfills my dream of philosophizing with a hammer aka critical thinking!

Now, here's a little glimpse of 'abject contradiction hypocrisy' in terms of naturopathy, science, medicine and Yale., which is the "Yale Program on Climate Change Communication", has the "In the News" page up online titled "Cruz’s ‘Pseudoscientific’ Climate Claims" (2016 archived).

Ah, pseudoscience!

It is dated 2016-02-01, and links to a page (2016 archived) of the same title by Vanessa Schipani.

You mean we can factually check claims, like homeopathy and vitalism?

She writes:

"while on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz gave a speech to local residents that contained inaccurate and misleading claims about climate science and its terminology [...] can natural phenomena explain all of today’s climatic changes? Scientists have found strong evidence that suggests anthropogenic causes, like the burning of fossil fuels, contribute to changes in our climate in addition to natural causes."

Hypocrisy alert!

Why is naturopathy's bogosity such a holy cow at, not fact-checked, but other claims are critically examined?

So, claims need strong evidence, one side of's mouth supports, while the other side says:

'come use our accredited unethical sectarian pseudoscience naturopathy pediatrics'!


So, I just covered that New Haven County stuff to round out the medical societies I've covered so far.

Later in this episode part, I'll briefly cover the Connecticut NDs' society in terms of ethics.

Naturopathic Pseudorules:

Now, I'd started off this Episode part half stating that I'd said way back at the onset of this Episode 012:

"in Part Three, I'll explore naturopathy's lack of ethical strictures, because -- you may be surprised to find out -- NO such similar formalized mandatory broad ethical code applies to naturopaths.  In other words, very little, by way of behavior, bothers naturopathy."

That was a bit of a necessary oversimplification at the time:

if and where there are rules, they are not imposed.

This is very similar to 'naturopathy's claim that it is categorically science as a set of behavioral rules of activity' though 'naturopathy is not fundamentally behaving within those boundaries'.

A reminder:

science itself is an activity because it is a methodology.

Science is not just words written down and then all-of-a-sudden they become magically true, scientifically speaking, and naturopaths claim a pile of science upon things that don't survive that epistemic filter.

Now here's a little oddity:

when I was a child, I wanted to be a science-fiction writer.

Little did I know I'd be writing about fictitious science instead.

Naturopaths SAY science, but they don't DO science:

naturopaths do propaganda.

Science is a set of rules that naturopathy doesn't abide, while naturopaths are fine in benefiting from the camouflaging label.

So, therein, rules are claimed that are not imposed, and naturopaths are fine with that RUSE.

'The pseudoscience ruse aka required fraudulence' will not get you sanctioned by your naturopath peers.

What are they gonna do:

sanction their national organizations for doing that,

their state organizations for doing that,

their specialty organizations for doing that,

their individual naturopaths who are merely doing what the institutions trained them to do,

for doing that?

For example, I covered ND Shikhman in Part Two of Part Two, and there's what I just covered at Yale with ND Ali.

Both NDs are in perfect standing with their peers as 'doing it right naturopathically speaking.'

Less simply stated, I can say naturopathy exists in layers:

it is therein NOT transparent, not what it seems on its surface.

There's a surface facade, and there's the deep reality.

Boundaries and rules are postured to manipulate others for the benefit of naturopathy, to promote its agenda, but then ignored in terms of what's actually naturopathy on a day-to-day basis.

And in that sense, naturopathy lacks ethical aka behavioral strictures, as a mandatory broad ethical code including a commitment to scientific integrity, as is so evident by how naturopathy allows piles upon piles of mistruthful claims and actions.

And disguises so much.

And so I'll spend time in this Part Three of this Episode looking at the phenomenon:

much like how naturopathy says illogically 'it is a distinct system that blends', here we'll have 'ethical codes and guidelines that are merely suggested', aka pseudorules.

Pseudorules #1:
[#2 will be part two of this episode part, 012c2].
An AANP Ethics Code by Way of an AANP Conference, ND Traub's 2012 “Thinking Ethically [...]” Conference Presentation

The conference presentation “Thinking Ethically [...]”, by ND Traub, will get us to the AANP's Code of Ethics he'd announced within that presentation as having been 'just ratified.'

It's NOT a great presentation, or even a half-way good presentation, so I won't spend too much time on it.

Yes, 2012's "Thinking Ethically [...]" is, as you may guess, about naturopaths TRYING to think ethically, perhaps for the FIRST time.

But the biggest question may be 'thinking ethically on top of what'?

In other words, have the naturopaths gone far enough into their foundational assumptions and bad habits 

– and weeded out their abundant sectarian nonsenses and reversals of values –

so they can establish 'an objective base of rationality, goodness and truthfulness'?

Otherwise, in the sense of contamination, naturopathy ends up structured as, illogically,

'nonsense and unethicality subset ethicality':

aka Swamp Castle, 'a good structure built upon bad mire':

with their sectarian obligations and proclivities the mud, with the Castle attempts to perfume-up the mud and elevate!

We'll see if naturopathy can RISE while in a BASE of mucky muddle.

I purchased the presentation online from, an AANP retail and fundraising portal.

Choice-wise, there was a couple of formats for purchase.

I got the mp4 video, which includes ND Traub's slides accompanying his audio narrative, though you do not see the speaker, or any people for that matter, just the slides.

Let me emphasize that the year is 2012 and the slides basically correspond with the newly ratified 2012 AANP Code of Ethics.

That's QUITE late to the game, I think, for a U.S. naturopathy Code of Ethics to be contemplated and implemented:

lots of bad habits had been, by then, institutionally imbued / tattooed into naturopathy's identity, and what was called an ethical code before then is admitted as unuseful in the presentation because 'it was merely repetition of naturopathy's philosophical principles [here they are at the AANMC coded], not behavioral strictures'.

And, I'll add, for a diverse group that tends to have anti-authority contrarian reflexes, and free-wheeling independence, this presentation is also a pitch towards CONFORMITY of a kind.
The 90-minute lecture's description, at its retail page (2016 archived) states:

“why does the naturopathic profession need a code of ethics? We will address this question.”

I don't know, why does a car need an engine or a motor?

Why does the solar system need the sun? 

You mean for all the NDs attending this national ND conference and listening to the presentation by Traub, 

as a cumulative group,

from their four years in naturopathy school and then in all that practice time afterwards,

they NEVER contemplated ethics seriously since their resurgence in the 1980s?

This was an icebreaking QUESTION for naturopathy, and NOT a requirement in 2012, by 2012?


I take the lecture as ND Traub pitching this idea:

'a NEW superimposition on naturopaths' activities called rules, regulations and ethics is necessary NOW.'

Lawmakers take note:

an overarching code of ethics was a newly broached topic at that time, while naturopathy posed as 'a supposed profession of primary care' for decades previous to 2012.

What were lawmakers thinking?

What else don't the naturopaths have that lawmakers think they have, that lawmakers merely assume naturopaths have as they support naturopaths' licensing ruses?

Because lawmakers never really look deeply.

They are usually selected to support a bill because they are already fans.
Overall, the presentation sounds to me like a reluctant broaching:


'sure it was great when we had no rules, but by the way, we should be good and these are the boundaries you must conform to, though previous to all this you could do whatever you wanted to do because we had no rules since we hate rigorous distinction, analysis, and delineation.'

The description goes on:

"[this is] an interactive discussion of the evolution of a naturopathic code of ethics [...] guidelines that will allow us to sustain a practice with integrity, compassion, and confidentiality [...ND Traub will demonstrate] real cases of ethical violations [..and] examine the core etiologies of ethical violations from which insight and change can occur [...] such instances as professional sexual misconduct [...] breach of confidentiality [...] false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading advertising [...and instances of being false, fraudulent, deceptive or misleading regarding one's] professional status [...] failure to disclose [...] falsification [...] misleading or deceptive communication [...and] failure to acknowledge."

So that was, roughly speaking:

a process of evolution,

a naturopathic ethical code,

ethical violations,

what's core,

insight and change,

professional misconduct, breaches, falsehoods, fraudulence, deceptions, and misleadings concerning how you present yourself as a naturopath to the public,

failure to disclose, falsification, being deceptive and misleading in communication, professional status, and failure to acknowledge.

This list doesn't sound like what naturopaths DON'T and SHOULDN'T do, it sounds like naturopathy in operation!

And I say that with about twenty years of 'naturopathy watching experience'.

For instance, NOW, when ND Shikhman and Yale tell us that naturopathy is based on the science-ejected in ideas and activities, when they mention the science-ejected basis of naturopathy -- vitalism and homeopathy, to begin with -- but don't DISCLOSE that such IS fundamentally science-ejected or unsupported, aren't we:

NOT part of an evolution and change of knowledge,

NOT getting an ethical account,

NOT given what's core overall by way of insight,

getting the short end of professional misconduct,

being fed falsehoods, fraudulence, deceptions, and misleadings?

Aren't we recipients of 'failure to disclose and failure to acknowledge' as members of the public, reading these public web pages?

This is happening NOW, fundamentally speaking, currently, in 2016, post-ratification of the AANP Code that I'll soon detail.

And with knowledge of what's within the code, we'll see just how much is USUALLY VIOLATED and therein I term the Code as:

nonmandatory, optional, lax, a ruse, posed, a veneer, not actual.

Just like the science status of naturopathy's innards:

we find that naturopaths truly are 'ethically unfettered'.

The Lecture Proper:

ND Traub, a 1981 NCNM ND graduate, is introduced by ND Carrie Runde (2016 archived), a 2011 Bastyr ND graduate, according to

ND Runde's 2013 bio. tells us:

"Dr. Runde currently serves on the Board of Directors of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians and is the Vice President of the Maryland Association of Naturopathic Physicians."

She states:

“welcome to the last morning of the convention. My name is Carrie Runde and I'm one of your AANP board members and I am excited to introduce Dr. Michael Traub this morning [...who] graduated from NCNM in 1981 […] he cofounded the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians and received is diplomate from the HANP in 1989 [that's his DHANP diplomate in homeopathic unicorn tears woo...] he's a fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology [ABNO] and serves on their board of medical examiners ['naturopathic oncology' the two scariest word in healthcare for me…he has also served as] AANP President from 2001-2003 [(I was in ND school at that time)...and] in 2006 received the AANP's Physician of the Year Award [...] he has taught dermatology in most of the accredited naturopathy medical schools in North America.”

And she mentions ND Traub's 1985 textbook:

“Essentials of Dermatologic Diagnosis and Natural Therapeutics” and his 2008 follow-up textbook “Essentials of Dermatologic Diagnosis and Integrative Therapeutics” [here it is at].

Isn't it interesting how, in those titles, we see the evolution of the marketing term 'natural' into the rebranding 'integrative'.

And she mentions his for-decades Hawaii practice, and the fact that he's been chairman for four terms of the Hawaii Board Of Naturopathic Examiners, the Hawaii ND regulatory body.

Not going to find any problems with bogus practices there, in Hawaii, by the NDs, like HOMEOPATHY!

And she says “please help welcome Dr. Traub this morning.”

A Quick Look at HANP:

Now, HANP, the naturopathy homeopathy specialty association, is QUITE interesting, and so is ABNO, the naturopathy oncology specialty association:

in terms of being 'ethically lacking'.

Regarding HANP, when arriving at their homepage, it would be ethical, based upon best current knowledge, to have a disclaimer that homeopathy is bullshit.

But no such thing happens.

Instead, we're told:

"our mission is to promote excellence in the practice of homeopathy among naturopathic physicians [quite a contradiction in terms, 'excellence of homeopathy']. We establish and uphold specialist standards, provide education and mentorship, and are committed to protect and preserve homeopathy as a core therapeutic modality within the naturopathic profession."

So, 'excellent in perpetual naturopathic-homeopathic bullshit, as core'.

And they DO plan to be perpetual.

HANP's President ND Amerine writes in "A Bright 2016 for the HANP!" (saved 2016-05-26), in a 2016 HANP blog post that is coincidentally robots blocked [as of 2016-06-01]:

"2016 is about reestablishing the foundation of homeopathy within naturopathic medicine."


you ain't gonna see homeopathy leave naturopathy, ever, no matter how much such is on the wrong side of history.

In "HANP" (saved 2016-06-22), we're told by HANP:

"the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians (HANP) is a specialty organization within the naturopathic medical profession. We are affiliated with the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...and we're told this is] vitalistic medicine."

So, HANP is:

NOT 'thinking ethically' in terms of what's objectively known and then deciding what's good and bad.

Instead, they're 'thinking sectarian':

as in narrow-minded, as in doctrine, as in avoiding objective knowledge such as 'that vitalism is bunk and so is homeopathy'.

No sanctions from AANP there:

because we are right on Main Street in Naturopathyland, the core of Main Street in Naturopathyland.

A Quick Look at FABNO:

at, we're told in "About Naturopathic Oncology" (2016 archived):

"naturopathic doctors and physicians are trained in accredited naturopathic medical schools in modern scientific nature cure. They are trained in both modern science and natural medicine. They emerge from their training well versed in the use of botanical medicine, homeopathy, diet, fasting, nutritional supplementation, orthomolecular medicine, psycho-immunology and other complementary and alternative medical techniques; they serve as capable guides for patients interested in exploring alternative medicine [...] OncANP is a recognized affiliate of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), the national professional association of naturopathic physicians in the United States [...] qualifying doctors whose applications are accepted must pass stringent examinations in order to be awarded the status of Fellow by the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology. Examinations demonstrate competence in both naturopathic and conventional oncology. These naturopathic physicians meet the highest standard of the profession as specialists in naturopathic oncology [...] naturopathic oncologists can guide patients through this confusing marketplace [...] they understand the science."

That is, currently:

'science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy and other bullshit' as "highest standard" and "stringent" in the "marketplace".

Do you really want somebody to help you with your cancer who considers homeopathy science?

Think about that.

And ND Traub is listed on that board's Board known as "the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology Board of Medical Examiners [...] ABNOBOMEx."

It is truly ethically sickening to EXPLOIT cancer patients the way naturopathy institutionally does.

Obviously, they're NOT 'thinking ethically' too:

naturopathy's narrow self-interests are paramount.

And no sanctions from AANP there either:

oncology is a growth area for Naturopathyland.

For both organizations, 'pseudoscience and therein self-interest is business as usual'.

And these areas are major parts of our ND ethics presenter's credentials.

In the words of the ND schools' consortia, AANMC, ND Traub's curated bio. at from 2013 states:

“[he practices] naturopathic oncology, dermatology, and homeopathy […and was the] Chairman of the [Naturopathic] Board of Examiners for the State of Hawaii […and had been on the] Board of Medical Examiners, American Board of Naturopathic Oncology [for at least 16 years which he calls 'a long tenure'…also, he was the] American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) Physician of the Year [...for] 2006 […and he is a] past president of the AANP […and a] past president of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians […and a] past president of the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners […and was the] secretary / treasurer [of the] Federation of Naturopathic Medical Licensing Boards […and was a] board member, Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination”

and other such LUMINOUS things if luminosity is dimness, because that NPLEX claims homeopathy is a "core clinical science."

Again, oh the reversal of values.

A Quick Look at ND Traub's Practice and HSNP:

ND Traub has had his practice listed and described at his Hawaii State association HSNP, the Hawaii Society of Naturopathic Physicians, since at least 2002, according to 

ND Runde said:

"Dr. Traub has been medical director of his clinic on the big island of Hawaii for the past 25 years."


medical director without medical credentials, IMHO.

Naturopathic credentials, certainly.

We're told in HSNP's 2002 curated “Michael Traub (ND, DHANP, CCH)":

"Lokahi Health Center [at …is ND Traub's practice with his] areas of focus: full-time general practice including pediatrics and women's health care, allergy testing, board-certified in homeopathy, chelation therapy, colon therapy, detoxification programs, cancer and HIV therapies […I] listen to my patients. I provide a safe place for them to tell their story and ask their questions. I consider the whole person and look at the causes of illness at all levels - physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, social, and environmental. I view health care as a partnership and a shared responsibility."


homeopathy, chelation, colonics, detoxification,

a claim that naturopaths somehow have 'special spiritual or metaphysical insight and interventional skills therein' and that 'the spiritual level', whatever that means, can directly cause one illness -- as opposed to 'the mundane-psychological-tangible' explanation, the parsimonious explanation' -- which they can somehow remedy.

Round up the usual bogosity and inflations-of-skill.

Such 'active and responsive supernatural' is a claim of immanence, which means we're being told here that the supernatural can be influenced and is influencing.

Aka 'a belief system'.

And of course, I'm all for freedom of belief but, PROVE to me, naturopaths:

that you actually can measure, in a reliable way, this supernatural to know that 'it's broken', and then show me how you can remeasure such later after your intervention to know 'it's fixed.'

Show me HOW you know what you know.

Show me that you KNOW something there, empirically speaking.

Because I don't think you KNOW what you say you KNOW, reliably, the supernatural.

Sure, naturopathy has words, words, words.

But I think naturopathy's claims of KNOWLEDGE concerning supernatural spiritism is bullshit.

All such can be handled through 'psychology with mundane explanation':

because when we use science for mind, emotions and behavior we employ psychology and psychiatry in MEDICINE, not religion. 

But we are supposed to genuflect to naturopaths' 'authority concerning what's religious', some kind of 'special ability', while religion peeled off from medicine quite some time ago, with medicine now quite mundane and not merely 'pulled out of one's ass' imaginatively.

The religious has separated from medicine except in Naturopathyland.

I must admit that for years I've been fascinated by what HSNP's language describing naturopathy reveals in terms of what they specifically have written, way off there in the middle of the ocean, in their own private Hawaii, aloha...

From curated years 2012 to 2016, HSNP tells us in “About Naturopathic Medicine”, and my last review of this was in 2016-03 (2016 archived):

“how does naturopathic medicine differ from conventional medicine? The profession of naturopathic medicine is unique because of its philosophy. We differ from conventional medical doctors in that our practice us guided by the following principles [...#1] use the healing power of nature: the body has the ability to maintain and restore health. Healing occurs as a result of the revival of our 'vital force' – qi, prana, spirit.”

There you go:

'the vitalism-supernaturalism at the heart of naturopathy'.

The place of intervention is the supernatural, which actually is religion FUSED with medicine, as I've often observed about naturopathy:

'a medieval paradigm of superstition'. 

That while lab overcoat veneer, and beneath:

the black vestment base.

I'll term this equation, and you'll have to forgive how horrible this term sounds:

Sorry to visit that upon you, but I find it useful as:

the analogizing of an impersonal power over which people believe they have some measure of control.

As in 'Hawaii NDs can reliably measure, fix, and reassess your 'qi-prana-vital-force-spirit.'

Perhaps this the the "spiritual" that ND Traub mentions?

In that sense, Hawaii NDs are not just doing medicine, they're self-defined kahunas, taking care of the physical-natural and the metaphysical-supernatural.

A sort of Swiss Army Knife of All Things.
Yet, I don't recall any special training at Naturopathyland University that would allow NDs to be so 'competently ministerial'.

But how do you get to spirit without BELIEF?

How can you be science WITHOUT evidence and parsimony?

I don't believe naturopaths KNOW what they say they KNOW:

I believe naturopaths just pull it out of their asses as they need to, because in Naturopathyland, 'science equals fairy tales' -- the world is magically enchanted, even physiology is spiritually enchanted -- and therein anything goes.

And there's, archived since 2008, which has quite a detailed CV up (2016 archived),with the root 'homeop' on there at least 15 times.

It also explains that the CCH credential he carries is "Certified in Classical Homeopathy."

So, he's double-homeopathy 'qualified'.

One item he had authored that's listed is:

 "'Homeopathic Prophylaxis,' Journal of Naturopathic Medicine, 1993."

That's homeopathic vaccination, basically.

As if unicorn tears confer protection.

I actually have that Journal of Naturopathic Medicine in paper.

Yes, I have some 'seriously deep naturopathy crap' in my possession, which I've collected over the decades.

I've just pulled that '1993 Vol. 5, No. 1 issue' down off the shelf behind me.

It says within:

"official publication American Association of Naturopathic Physicians."

The issue is titled "Vaccines and Other Determinants of Immunity."

It's interesting that in the issue, you'll not find "www":

the era we're talking about, in terms of communication technology, 1993, is actually PRE-internet.

There are five lead articles listed on the cover, and three of them have the word "vaccine" in them, and within there are piles of advertisements for supplements and homeopathics in the Journal, as well as for naturopathy schools.

I'll include a scan of Bastyr telling us naturopathy is categorically "natural health sciences" and includes homeopathy.
[Journal of Naturopathic Medicine, 1993.  Vol. 5, No. 1; #falseadvirtising].

ND Traub admits in the article:

"for a number of years I made extensive use of homeopathic prophylaxis."

Oh really!

What did your unicorn tears prevent?

Also, there are at least six instances of "vital force" in the article.

We're told:

"if a patient's vital force is weak and / or the patient is highly susceptible, then a nosode prescribed prophylactically may leave a lasting miasmatic effect on that individual's vital force [...] not only can the latter leave a disease-related miasmatic effect, but the vital force may also be affected by the chemicals used in the vaccine [...] there is much merit in the idea that the 'true' homeopathic method of prophylaxis lies in the prescription of the constitutional remedy to raise the vital force [...] people whose vital force should have [etc....] a high vital force alone may [etc.]."

Because, according to naturopathy perpetually, vital force is running the show.

ND Traub also makes an interesting epistemic distinction in this article:

"the anecdotal evidence [is] that homeoprophylaxis appears effective. It is not scientific proof, [and] should not be presented as such."

So, how is it that so much in Naturopathyland is categorized as science while lacking "scientific proof", yet here ND Traub tells us 'nonproof is not enough to be scientific'?

Hypocrisies and contradictions ABOUND within naturopathy.

 There's an interesting year 2000 curated statement by ND Traub on the AANP's site, by the way,, titled "Response to Article in Arch Ophthalmology Journal" in which he defends bogus iridology as an:

"objective measurement of progress [...yet also he terms it an] esoteric diagnostic method."

Contradiction alert!

It cannot be both:

what's objective is not what is esoteric.

Oh the joys... 

His administrative title stated then was:

"Michael Traub, ND, DHANP AANP. Vice-President. Chair of Scientific Affairs."

Back to the Presentation

Here are some ND Traub quotes that I think are quite useful from this quite painful presentation.

We're told by ND Traub:

"this presentation was done at the request of the convention committee chairman, [ND] Jacob Schor [...this is] a talk on ethics [...] why does the naturopathic profession need this? […] as the years have gone on [...] I've come to understand the importance of a code of ethics for our profession […] to regulate this profession […when] our law in Hawaii was modernized […] the legislature imposed a requirement that we also have a code of ethics […] it was not something that we did [in Hawaii] because we wanted to [...] we actually had to [...] it was mandated by the legislature."

Ah, naturopathy:

'ethically reluctant'.

'Hawaii naturopathy's ethics' were created due to OUTSIDE pressure, as in 'externally imposed'.

And it would seem that once a licensed state, such as Hawaii, had such, the national organization, the AANP, either needed to adopt such or found it easy to adopt such since Hawaii NDs had done much of the leg work.

As I compare the documents, they are structurally almost identical.

'Modernized or modernization', by the way, generally for naturopathy means expanded scope.

ND Traub says with modernization:

"we gained prescriptive authority and authority to do parenteral therapy and minor surgery."
But 'modernized or modernization' doesn't mean stringent scientific vetting, as in modern medical knowledge, in method and theory.

Truly 'modernized professional naturopathy' would get rid of all the naturopathy bogosity in naturopathy and leave us with stuff already present in the healthcare arena as provided by other more ethical practitioners.

In my view, true modernization of naturopathy obliterates naturopathy.

And they can't have that, in terms of their self-interest!

So I find it quite ironic that ND Traub states in the early parts of the presentation:

"people are primarily concerned about their self [...] we live in a selfish world [...] we live in a culture of greed."

That's admission that even for NDs, you have to MANDATE altruism.
In order for NDs to think outside of 'typical selfishness', rules need to happen, 'a structure of ethical guidelines'.

ND Traub goes on:

"the evolution of the code of ethics of the AANP was that in 1990, the AANP House of Delegates passed a document that has been our code up until last year [which is about 2011] when it went through a process of revision [...] the problem with the 1990 code of ethics was that it didn't have a clear set of ethical behaviors like most professions."

So, from 1990 and then for about 21 years, naturopathy had a fake Code of Ethics.

Why aren't I surprised.

Specifically, Traub explains:

"[that old code's reiteration of the] principles of naturopathic medicine were not really ethical precepts."

In other words, it was only stating naturopathy's principles without dealing with behavior.

Here now, I'll take the opportunity to briefly talk about NCNM and those naturopathy principles.

NCNM is Traub's alma mater and the trunk of the naturopathy tree in the U.S.

Naturopathy's principles are false and wrong, which is quite an ironic situation since those principles posed as ethical precepts for so long!

I don't make this stuff up!

On the National College of Natural Medicine page "Naturopathic Principles of Healing" (2016 archived), the naturopathy trunk tells us:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession."

So, that's:

the DOING of naturopathy, as practice, comes from the method of knowledge DOING known as science.

And the claim is that this is what makes naturopathy UNIQUE or distinguished.

But that's not right in the sense that modern medicine is scientifically vetted and therein naturopathy is NOT unique as "science", if science at all.

You MIGHT think then -- from this claim of science -- that the PRINCIPLES NCNM lists would be able to survive rigorous scientific scrutiny.

That's what they claim, that's what they want you to think.

The first principle listed is "the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae."

NCNM defines HPN there as:

"the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae."

But a life force is science-ejected, IN FACT.

Yet, naturopaths say 'it is the basis of physiology and particularly healing and disease', and that this figmentation can be manipulated.

And of course, able to survive "scientific analysis."

SO MUCH DUMB-ASSED FALSEHOOD in just several sentences.

Fully-accredited dumb-assedness.

We're also told:

"causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors. The physician must treat the whole person by taking all of these [...] into account."

That's mandated supernaturalism and vitalism as 'the essentially naturopathic.'

But, science doesn't support the supernatural WHILE here obviously NCNM is claiming 'science subset supernaturalism and vitalism' which is the irrational claim of 'science subset the science-exterior and the science-discarded'.

NCNM is a fully-accredited Oregon College full of 'sectarian pseudoscience' from the get-go.

You may be surprised to find out that that naturopathic principle article of faith -- vitalism -- made its way into the State of Hawaii lawmaking process, actually explicitly into the ND Hawaii law, just as they also made its way into the '.gov' pages of the State of Oregon.

Now, don't feel badly for these secarianisms because they no longer have a monopoly on the ND Code of Ethics.

NDs still take an OATH [on p.014 of their competencies] to them in order to graduate ND school.

And that's one big reason why I stopped ND school.

 I eventually would have had to take that oath:

and become 'a dumb-assed sectarian falsely posing such nonscience, irrationality, insanity and badness as science, rational, sane, and good'.

As I said earlier in this episode, in the second half of this Episode's Part 1, naturopathy education has the GOAL of creating:

That reversal of values, from the get-go, was not for me.

And I've often thought about this:

with this 'institutional permission' to be so 'Bizzaro-reversed from the get-go'
-- e.g, science is anything, figmentations are fact, nonsense is exemplary --

 no wonder ANYTHING GOES in Naturopathyland.

It's sick and its sickening. 

ND Traub goes on in his presentation:

"[Hawaii's] Regulated Industries Complaint's Office [aka RICO, not the RICO of racketeering by the way...required] standards of practice or guidelines [...] that set forth the conduct that would be allowed [...requiring citation for] conduct or practice contrary to the recognized standards of ethics of the naturopathic profession [...they said as part of proving a violation, RICO] would have to to compare [...] conduct against some generally accepted standard of practice or ethical standard [which is now in the Hawaii ND law]."

I'll provide examples of naturopaths in Hawaii particularly in violation of the Hawaii ND Code of Ethics at the end of this episode part.

Because that's fun.

We're told:

"ethical precepts are actually our protectors. They protect us, they protect other people, and they protect our profession [...] we should let them be our ally not our master."


are we going to follow the rules or not?

That's my question.

We're told:

"with a code of ethics, we can dedicate ourselves to precepts because we can see ourselves [...] in every person [...] these precepts can bring us a sense of deep responsibility [...] we confront ethical dilemmas in everyday life."

So, are naturopaths bound to these strictures?

First he says they're not our master, then he says we are dedicating ourselves to them.

Muddle, muddle, muddle.

But I'll remind here:

it is possible to 'write rules that allow bullshit and call them, inaccurately, ethical' too.

Naturopathy has its 'licensed falsehood' and 'accredited pseudoscience' shields.

Here, we add, and create the trifecta:

what I'll call 'perverse ethicality' on top of that "licensed falsehood" and "accredited pseudoscience" terms I've created as labels upon naturopathy.

And then we get some real weirdness.

We're told:

"at the same time, ethical precepts can have a shadow.  Like any guideline, if they are taken too rigidly, they can breed self-righteousness, humorlessness, and even vengeance justified as helpful criticism. They can be used as a weapon against others."

Are they rules or aren't they?

That's my question.

If you don't take them 'too rigidly', they're not rules.

And if you don't declare people are in violation of them, as in the sense of 'a weapon against others', then what are they there for in the first place?

This sounds like a movie pitch, a kind of horror movie:

'in a world where values are reversed -- naturopaths say science and nonscience are the same thing, naturopaths say good has bad aspects -- you present yourself to your naturopathic oncologist...

And then my irony meter done bursted.

ND Traub states:

"it's often true that people hide behind ethical precepts and practice in secret the opposite of what they preach."

Oh, yeah.

ND Traub also states:

 "the Hawaii board of naturopathic medicine had to come up with a code of ethics [...] we were tasked with coming up with a code of ethics [...] we needed to organize and consolidate a concise code of ethics [...] we looked at the original AANP code.  We reviewed codes from other professions [...and he also mentions Hawaii's] uniform practice act [...] that applies to all licensed or regulated professions in Hawaii."

It's fascinating that he doesn't directly mention two big medical codes of ethics that already existed around this time:

the ABIM Code, and the longer-standing AMA Code.

Then, ND Traub tells us:

"I'm referring here to the sections in the Hawaii code [...] I thought that what we had come up with in Hawaii would provide a good model [...for] the AANP House of Delegates [...] the AANP House of Delegates on Tuesday night [...] accepted [...a new] code of ethics [...] these sections refer to the Hawaii code but they're very similar to what the AANP adopted."

So, let's go to the AANP Code of Ethics directly.

This is the end the first half of Part One of the Naturocrit Podcast Episode 012 Part Three.
Post a Comment