Tuesday, July 26, 2016

The Naturocrit Podcast - s02e02c1.2 [Episode 012c1.2] - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the second part of the first half of Part Three of Episode 012 of The Naturocrit Podcast [or Season 02 Episode 02], aka Episode 012c1.2:

001. the Episode 012c1.2 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 Naturocrit Podcast Episode 12, aka s02e02, titled "Preponderant and Universal Medical Ethical Codes and North American Naturopathy's Transgressions", I've been looking at modern medicine's ethical commitments, and comparing those stringencies to naturopathy's 'anything goes' laxity.

In this Episode 012c1.2, which is the second half of the first part of the third part of Episode 012, you'll have to forgive me, I cover:

a 1997 AANP-published book and a 2016 World Naturopathic Federation survey,

the current AANP 2012 Code of Ethics,

the Hawaii ND law and its ND ethics and ND standard of care,

a recent Hawaii NPR radio interview of a naturopath by a board certified internist,

and I visit the web pages of three Hawaii NDs.

Main Text:

Before I go through 'the national optional AANP Code of Ethics' -- but not optional in Hawaii, as we'll see, for NDs licensed and practicing there -- I'd like to point out something that for naturopathy is QUITE a long-standing strategy:

omission, manipulative omission.

Few people likely know that there is a 1997 AANP-published book titled "A Guide To Alternative Medicine", with ISBN 0785319840


1997 was the year UB set up its from-scratch naturopathy college within a "division of health sciences", while, within that AANP book, you can easily find that naturopathy's basis is science-exterior.

You can easily get the book for almost nothing.

I recommend using addall.com, and I've acquired a few copies over the years.

We're told in the book's front material:

"this publication was reviewed by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. The AANP's mission is to empower members of the association with the knowledge, tools, skills, and guidance to help them succeed in educating and guiding their communities and patients toward greater health and well-being and to transform the health care system from disease management to health promotion by incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine."


supposed AANP 'member empowerment' through knowledge, and a posed 'needed transformation' as if 'modern medicine is completely on the wrong track and negligent, while naturopathy has something UNIQUE and superior, its principles, to fix it'.

For instance, the book states:

"although the traditions and practices that fall under the heading alternative medicine are diverse, most share a common principle that sets them apart from allopathic medicine: health."


Two things:

modern medicine is not allopathic, unless you think that modern medicine right now is the medicine of the late 1700s,

and modern medicine does spend great amounts of time on health promotion and disease prevention.

Take pediatrics, for instance, and the preventative vaccination for childhood illnesses.

So, I think this is a FALSE problem, yet naturopathy says it's a problem naturopathy's principles can FIX.

But, if you look at those principles, for instance at Oregon.gov, you'll quickly see that what's not science is claimed to survive rigorous scientific scrutiny.

So, that's the claim that 'illogic and falsehood is a FIX'.

That can't work:

there's no categorical integrity to the claimed problem or any categorical integrity to the claimed solution.

Well, isn't that akin to racketeering?

Convincing a mark that they have a problem they don't have, that one solves wink-wink after inducing their behavior, and that one materially benefits from:


So, you'd have expectations from AANP of 'health, knowledge and empowerment' just from those two sentences I quoted.

Yet, the book has a section titled "Naturopathic Medicine", which tells us:

"naturopathy operates on the basis of six principles of healing. These precepts circumscribe a time-tested approach to healing that spans many traditions and still has room to grow and incorporate new therapies as they arise [...#1] the healing power of nature: naturopathy believes that nature acts powerfully through healing mechanisms in the body and mind to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic physicians seek to restore and support these inherent healing systems through medicines and techniques that are in harmony with natural processes."

And that's all you get.

Now, when you compare that language with how NCNM describes naturopathy, as I often detail, AND the Hawaii law, as I will detail, I simply must state:

the AANP and its members LIE all the time.

The type of lie is one of omission, where AANP and company pretend to be giving you a definition, but, in reality, they completely avoid being transparent and 'to-the-thing-itself', that "life force" or "vital force" that's science-ejected.

The AANP manipulates by coding, by being opaque, by falsely posturing.

And that's not healthy, that's not knowledge, that's victimizing not empowering, that's a reversal of values.

Jump currently to this here year 2016, and as I often mention, the AANP falsely labels homeopathy a "medicinal science" (2016 archived), neglecting to mention that homeopathy is INSTEAD scientifically false.

And of course we're told this whopper in the same section of the 1997 book:

"the science of homeopathy is a prominent part of many naturopathic practices."

I agree, it's prominent, but it's not science.

Now, homeopathy wasn't science in 1997, and its science-exteriority has only increased across the decades.

So, in my view, naturopaths are FUCKING NUTS:

decades of fucking nuts.

And if you let naturopaths speak or write long enough, they begin to expose their omitted underbelly accidentally.

We're told in the same naturopathic section in the 1997 book:

"the oriental concept of life force, or qi, and the naturopathic concept of the healing power of nature are similar in theory if not in language."

That's an equation, that's an admission of coding.

But that “life force” wasn't in AANP's DEFINITION of healing power of nature in the book a couple of pages before, or on AANP's 1998 web page supposedly defining naturopathy (1998 archived) when I started naturopathy school at UB, and it isn't in AANP's current definition (2016 archived).

Now, in a previous part of this episode, I'd mentioned naturopathy's fusion of medicine and religion.

This book has some interesting things to say along those lines.

We're told:

"religion and spirituality [...] the search for meaning and an understanding of how we fit into the world is central to the world's religions. While the names may differ, virtually all cultures and societies hold a belief in a higher power or universal life force. In the 'West, the most common religions are focused on the Judeo-Christian god. A number of cultures recognize a universal [life] force or life energy, such as qi in China or prana in India."

So that's an admission that 'vitalism-spiritism aka HPN aka animatism is like monotheistic religious belief'.

But, as I've said before, science doesn't support such supernaturalism-religiosity-theology and instead does its job through evidence, mundanity, and parsimony.

But naturopathy does do that 'belief voodoo', while lying to us all that it is categorically "science" and medically relevant, which is a degradation of scientific integrity, and freedom of belief, a basic human right:

because my freedom to believe or not believe, if I were to be WITHIN naturopathy as I was for four years as an ND-school student, is being abrogated by Naturopathy Inc. insisting that 'what is merely one choice of many choices as an act of faith or belief' is instead an objective fact.

And AANP says they EMPOWER.

Now, here's an amazing document that just graciously reared its head which is also helpful at exposing naturopathy's often hidden essence:

the World Naturopathic Federation's "Naturopathic Root's Report" [2016 archived] of June 2016.

We get in it naturopaths talking to naturopaths globally, and a look beneath naturopathy's usually opaque public facade.

Here are its American participants.

"Appendix 1: Demographics of Respondents / Naturopathic Institutions" lists:

"Marcia Prenguber, ND.  Dean.  University of Bridgeport, College of Naturopathic Medicine [...@] bridgeport.edu [my alma mater...] Jane Guiltinan, ND. Dean. Bastyr [University...@] bastyr.edu [...] Melanie Henriksen, ND, LAc., CNM.  Dean.  National University of Natural Medicine [...@] ncnm.edu [...] Paul Mittman, ND, Ed.D.  President.  Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine [...@] scnm.edu."

And the "Naturopathic Roots Committee" includes:

"Dr. JoAnn Yánez, ND, MPH, CAE" who is the AANMC's Executive Director, that North American ND school consortia.

The document tells us:

"the World Naturopathic Federation [...] Naturopathic Roots Committee was created in
June of 2015 to collect and codify the foundational knowledge of naturopathy including
naturopathic history, definitions, principles and theories from around the world. A mandate
of the WNF Naturopathic Roots Committee [...] is to create ways of conserving, clarifying and communicating the traditional and global naturopathic knowledge and the core
foundational principles and theories of naturopathy / naturopathic medicine [...] Survey Design and Process.  Between November 2015 and January of 2016 a twenty five (25) question survey was created and approved by the WNF Naturopathic Roots Committee. The survey included seven (7) questions specific to information relating to the person that filled out the survey and general questions about the school that they represented; four (4) questions were specific to the general curriculum; twelve (12) questions related to how naturopathic history, philosophy, principles and theories are integrated into the curriculum; two (2) questions related to the teaching of naturopathic and clinical diagnostics and modalities. The survey request was sent by email in February of 2016 to eighty-five (85) naturopathic institutions from forty-nine (49) different countries with a complete naturopathic program and a minimum standard of 1500 teaching hours [...] follow-up email requests and phone calls were made to participants who did not respond initially. By the end of April 2016, thirty-six naturopathic institutions had responded to the survey; the ones that were incomplete or that were duplicates were deleted. We were left with thirty (30) complete responses, representing seventeen (17) different countries. The survey response rate was 36%."

And here's were we get 'the essentially naturopathic', what they called the "core".

The results included:

"there is high agreement on the six naturopathic principles taught at the naturopathic institutions.  The six consistent principles with their associated percentages include [...] healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) - 97% [...] the following ten (10) naturopathic philosophies and theories are taught in over 70% of all naturopathic institutions [...including] vital force [...which is] taught in 96% of all schools [...and] the following seven naturopathic modalities are core to most naturopathic programs [...including] homeopathy."

So there's hugely solid information from within naturopathy on a global scale:

naturopathy is at its core committed to the science-ejected.

There's an interesting equation, too.

We're told:

"vital force [...aka] vis vitalis [...aka the] theory of vitality."

Now, I've often pointed out that in the Next Generation Science Standards, "vis vitalis" is chosen as an example of the science-ejected.

At nap.edu, that's National Academies Press, we're told from "A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)" which was authored by the Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, the Board on Science Education, the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and the National Research Council:

"science is replete with ideas that once seemed promising but have not withstood the test of time, such as the concept of the 'ether' or the vis vitalis (the 'vital force' of life)."

And because the University of Bridgeport was a respondent to that WNF survey, and "vital force" is so core to naturopathy, isn't it interesting that UB's ND program is housed within a "division of health sciences" and that UB's explanation of VMN in their school catalog does not transparently describe that "vital force"!

UB merely states:

"the following principles are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice: the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process."

And that's all you get.

We SHOULD be told:

vital force --> science-ejected --> whackaloon science definitions --> and 'all that kind of transparency'.


Again, manipulative omission.

We don't deserve to know, so we can then DECIDE.

Oh, and, by the way, UB's naturopathic college Dean, ND Prenguber, was the one who spoke before the Connecticut General Assembly, aka lawmakers, in 2014 [see "PH Committee Hearing Transcript for 03/14/2014"; 2015 archived].

"my name is Marsha Prenguber [...] I'm a naturopathic physician, and I've recently returned to the state of Connecticut to live and work here as a newly appointed dean of the College of Naturopathic Medicine at the University of Bridgeport [...] I received my naturopathic medicine degree from the College of Naturopathic Medicine in Oregon [now National University of Natural medicine, formerly NCNM]. I also completed a residency in naturopathic oncology. I'm the past president of the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education [...] the US Department of Education-recognized programmatic accrediting body for naturopathic schools. That experience provided me with the skills to evaluate the academic and clinical aspects of the naturopathic schools, and evaluate each program against the rigorous standards of the accrediting body."

So that is an ASSURANCE.

But keep in mind the world assurance does begin with the letters A-S-S:

these asses, and their assurances.

Pseudorules #1 Continued, The Current '2012 AANP Code of Ethics':

The public document at the AANP's naturopathic.org, "Code of Ethics" (2016 archived), states in its purpose:

"a naturopathic physician shall abide by the following code of ethics [...in order] to provide protection to the general public."

So that's:

rules to protect the public clinically, academically, and commercially -- as in globally.

That's an assurance, while in this series and just above, I've easily shown that naturopathy is a racket clinically, academically, and commercially.

So, with 'false assurances' galore, naturopathy in North America is a confidence game, from bow to stern.

Regarding an ND violating AANP's Code of Ethics, we're told:

"the failure to comply with any of the provisions of this section shall subject a member to reprimand or revocation of membership in the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians."

But what if the AANP itself violates its Code of Ethics each and every day particularly in terms of web communication?

And they do:

claiming 'science subset homeopathy' is quite dishonest, which is, as we'll see, a violation of AANP's first principle of honesty,

and in not transparently defining healing power of nature, we have AANP violating their stipulation "convey relevant information in terms the patient can understand", which is AANP's eighth principle.

In violation for decades...

Now, in earlier in this Episode, I'd said such things as:

"naturopathy's anything goes ethical laxity and required fraudulence [...] professional and medical ethical codes and naturopathy's lack thereof [...] no such similar formalized mandatory broad ethical code applies to naturopaths [...] without a mandatory ethical code, naturopaths can do what they want, in terms of rules within naturopathy, basically [...] quite optional, quite sparse, and therein quite a joke [...] naturopathy's 'anything goes' pattern of behavior [...] ethical standards exist in every profession except naturopathy [...] because naturopathy doesn't have such standards [...] all professionals share the obligation of being accountable for their choices and actions, of course naturopaths aren't if they don't have a code of conduct."

With AANP itself in violation of its own Code of Ethics -- who has ever heard of such a thing, never mind seen such a thing -- I'll repeat my overarching term 'pseudorules' and reinforce the FACT that that Code of Ethics is couched in:

laxity, required fraudulence, anything goes, opacity, duplicity, and reversed values.

The AANP Code is simply FAKE:

it's as fake as the "science" label UB and BU use upon the patently science-exterior and -rejected.

Now, AANP membership like AMA membership is optional.

Yet, in Hawaii for instance, this Code, as we'll see, is in the ND law.

So, that sets a kind of preponderance there WITHOUT AANP membership.

In that sense, for Hawaii, there IS a mandatory naturopathic ethical code because it is the law.

What's weird, as we'll see, is that therein, what must be enforced is:

that laxity, required fraudulence, anything goes, opacity, duplicity, and reversed values


rigorous, not fraudulent, limited, transparent, honest, and forthright.

Comparatively, in Connecticut, were I live, THERE IS NO CODE OF ETHICS mentioned that I can find that would be implemented by the State or the Connecticut naturopaths:

at least in terms of the CT naturopathy association, the CT law, and the CT ND school.

That's a sweet arrangement.

In that sense, naturopathy doesn't have a mandatory ethical code in Connecticut and naturopaths have no such, shall we say, 'worries'.

And even if a Connecticut ND were an AANP member, I don't think there are any worries:

naturopathy is all about 'a deep-seated comfortable fakeness'.

Specifically, at the Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association, CNPA, at cnpaonline.org, there are no hits for "code of ethics" when searching the site.


And there is no ethics document to be found when searching the site for the term "ethics."


So, it's surprising to say:


That's me having talked about the CT naturopaths' association for this episode in terms of ethics because it's simply an ethics wasteland, and therefore such a brief entry is ALL I have to include.

And naturopathy's push here in Connecticut for what they call 'modernization' (2016 archived) is not being forced to create a code of ethics or standard of care by any State entity the way Hawaii NDs were forced by the State of Hawaii even though that modernization will include quite aggressive and invasive procedural permission.

CT NDs are, in that sense, 'without ethical boundary' aka 'ethically unfettered' and the lawmakers supporting them are quite ignorant regarding a need for necessary restraints.

It looks to me like the State actually favoring a particular belief system, which is an Establishment Clause violation:

regular medicine has to be much more 'epistemically true without sectarian obligation', and so much more transparent.

And it has ethical boundaries.

Now, Hawaii legislated naturopathy's sectarian belief system within their ND law, that vitalism-spiritism, along with a standard of care directed at that figmentation, as we'll see.

You may think I'm kidding, and that alone I'd find amusing because it's quaint when I find someone getting wide-eyed about this lunacy called naturopathy.

So, when naturopathy critics state BROADLY that "naturopathy doesn't have ANY standard of care or code of ethics," they are WRONG.

It depends on location.

What exists is relative geopolitically.

It is more accurate to say:

"naturopathy has an OPTIONAL broad ethical code, if you are an AANP member, but Hawaii has legislated that code and with it a FANTASTICAL standard of care."

Because, just because there are rules be careful you don't assume such are RATIONAL.

I say 'fantastical' because naturopathy is legally mandated in Hawaii towards treatment of a science-ejected, supernatural figmentation.

And as it stands right now, I know of no other state that has 'mandatory pseudomedical naturopathic sectarian behavioral strictures' so explicitly stated, not even in the Pacific Northwest.

And of course here's another point:

breaches by NDs are peer-reviewed.

In other words, even if there are rules, naturopaths regulate themselves.

And if the AANP is any measure of such, 'no worries' again:

is AANP going to cite members for implementing AANP's own strategy and mimicking AANP?

Regionally, the Hawaii naturopathy board looks at accused naturopaths there.

And I can't imagine someone like ND Traub, who headed that Hawaii board for so long -- who is very deep into naturopathy's homeopathy and is a graduate of NCNM which perpetually miseducates 'so much not science is science' -- having a problem with pseudoscience, pseudotherapeutics, pseudodiagnostics and such.

Why would absurdity have a problem with itself?

At the very bottom of the AANP Code document, we're actually told:

"[it was] scheduled for review August 2015 [...and was] approved as [the] full Code of Ethics August 2012."

So, it has been ratified, and then reviewed in the course of the last 5 or so years.

There are 9 general areas in the AANP Code:

honesty, improper relationship, privacy, performance, obligation, competence, discrimination, communication, and conflicts of interest.

I'll now run through the parts that I feel are pertinent.

The AANP Code Principle "Honesty":

We're told in the AANP Code:

"a naturopathic physician shall conduct himself or herself in an honest manner; shall not represent him or herself to patients or the public in an untruthful, misleading, or deceptive manner; and shall not engage in advertising that is false or deceptive."

By the way, I consider ANY naturopathic web page, written by either naturopaths or their organizations to be DRAWING towards naturopathy practices, so I consider them to be advertising.

So that's:

honesty, not being untruthful, not being misleading, not being deceptive, and not being false.

But naturopathy is pseudoscience and 'pseudo' MEANS false.

And though NO false and deceptive advertising is allowed, why is it that RIGHT now I can quote false categorizations from ND Shikhman and bridgeport.edu, the CT ND school?

ND Shikhman's bio. page (2016 archived) states, FFS, that she's an AANP member!

And UB's naturopathy school promotes, in their school catalog (2016 archived), the AANP definition of naturopathy, while UB claims affiliation with the AANP on its "Accreditation and Associations" (2016 archived) page.

At bridgeport.edu, we've got the page "Health Sciences Programs" (2016 archived) housed within a "Health Sciences Center", which includes:

naturopathy and UB's naturopathy has mandatory homeopathy.

THAT is dishonest, untruthful, misleading, deceptive, false.

Again, why is it that right now I can go the the fucking AANP itself,

using the google.com search filter >site:naturopathic.org homeopathy medicinal science<,

and get the document "Zicam is Not Homeopathy!" (2016 archived), wherein NDs Coward and Lewis tell us falsely:

"homeopathy is a 200 year-old medicinal science."

That is dishonest, untruthful, misleading, deceptive, false.

Why is it that on the AANP's description of naturopathy, the web page titled "Definition of Naturopathic Medicine" (2016 archived), we're not told of the science-ejected vitalism-spiritism at the heart of naturopathy transparently.

We're merely told, as in that 1997 AANP book:

"the following principles are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in people that is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process."

Such manipulative OPACITY.

That's coded vitalism, a 'strategic lie of omission' which is:

not honest, not truthful, misleading, deceptive, extremely false in the sense of "definition."

And that's me having only read ONE sentence from the first AANP Code of Ethics item:

so much for public protection.

And those two last examples are from the AANP itself, the adjudicating source of the AANP Code of Ethics.

The AANP ENFORCES ethicality, wink-wink.

The AANP Code Principle "Performance":

We're told in this section:

"a naturopathic physician shall perform professional tasks and responsibilities to the best of the naturopathic physician's ability, and standards of care and refrain from engaging in any behavior that will detract from his or her ability to engage in the competent practice of naturopathic medicine."

So that's:

best, a naturopathic standard of care, the competent practice of naturopathic medicine.

The Hawaii "naturopathic standard of care" -- like what I've mentioned from NCNM, ND Shikhman, Yale, AANP and the World Naturopathic Federation -- mandates, as we'll see, that naturopathic clinical activity aka PERFORMANCE be directed towards its 'vital force / healing power of nature figmentation'.

That would be competent PERFORMANCE in Naturopathyland.

In fact, as we'll see in the second half of this Episode 12 Part Three, the AANMC's "Professional Competency Profile" (2016 archived) -- which has the root or stem 'princip' in it at least 28 times -- mandates:

"integrate naturopathic philosophy, theory and principles with naturopathic medical knowledge in the care of patients and case management including the assessment, diagnostic and treatment phases [...] these principles are the cornerstone of the naturopathic doctor’s approach to the patient and their application provides for individualized care [...] these core principles [...include] co-operate with the healing powers of nature."

I'll term this AANMC's directive to 'fix that figmentation while pretending its a fact':

in other words, the heart of naturopathy is lunacy, the naturopathillogical, where clinical activities are 'pretended to be scientifically effecting a figmentation'.

And by the way, that AANMC document DOESN'T have the terms 'vital or force' in it though it stated naturopathy's principles.

Opacity again:

that is quite obviously dishonest and business as usual.

One could argue that this naturopathic act is quite the performance.

The AANP Code Principle "Obligation":

Obligation is one of the larger parts of the AANP Code.

We're told:

"the fundamental and primary obligation of a naturopathic physician is to the patient, and the maintenance and improvement of the patient’s health and well-being."

So that's:

fiduciary duty aka 'the primacy of patient welfare.'

Supposedly, because purveyors of falsehood are first and foremost obligated to THEMSELVES and their LIES.

Obligation goes on:

"a naturopathic physician shall at all times seek to employ methods of diagnosis and therapy that are consistent with naturopathic medical philosophy and principles of practice, scientific principles and evidence, and the naturopathic physician’s training and experience, and shall provide patients with information about these diagnostic approaches, therapies and potential alternative diagnostic approaches and therapies so that the patient may give fully informed consent to the recommended diagnostic approaches or treatments [...] as part of the obligation to provide care, a naturopathic physician shall use his or her best efforts to facilitate a patient's access to high quality, safe and reliable medicines, medical devices, diagnostic tests and supplements [...] a naturopathic physician shall offer alternative sources for obtaining the items [...] as long as those alternative sources do not compromise safety or clinical effectiveness [...] the naturopathic physician shall refrain from recommending medicines or treatments of a secret nature [ISYN they say 'of a secret nature'], and shall adequately disclose the contents of medicines or the nature and description of treatments recommended to a patient [...] furthermore, all therapies shall be monitored by the naturopathic physician in a timely manner utilizing reliable means in order to accurately assess the patient’s response to employed treatments."

So that was:

compliance with 'naturopathy's principles and philosophy', i.e. vitalism-spiritism and such and, I'd argue, compliance with a 'science as anything worldview falsely posed as legitimate science' aka 'naturopathy's essential pseudophilosophy'

-- because actual philosophy is about 'a love of learning not about a love of sectarian ignorance and knowledge warping';

the term "scientific" explicitly stated but if you look closely it is serially listed in terms of priority as 'also there' secondarily and therein not required to be the filter in terms of creating 'a knowledge rigor'; 'naturopathy's principles and philosophy' are instead the primary obligation, an obligation to a 'knowledge laxity' -- therefore I'll call this 'scientific a al carte';

'as if fully informed consent' by providing INFORMATION yet naturopathy's knowledge and information demarcations are shit so their knowledge is shit and how CAN one fully consent in such a shitty knowledge context, PLUS naturopathy is HIDING so much simultaneously as shit camouflaged as an edible sandwich therefore 'naturopathy's knowledge quality is a shit sandwich';

'safety and effectiveness' but how are you safe and effective if you are 'batshit crazy willfully ignorant', therein you wouldn't even know what you know, you wouldn't know much of anything in terms of actual knowledge;

no secrets regarding ironically "nature";

and disclose, reliability, accuracy, and diligent follow-up.

But, wasn't hiding the essential vitalism at the heart of naturopathy in the AANP's principles I'd just mentioned making truly, literally, the NATURE of naturopathy's healing power of nature:


Secret nature:

'coded, obscured science-ejected vitalism'.

Now, the language in this “Obligation” principle is:

"consistent with naturopathic medical philosophy and principles of practice, scientific principles and evidence, and the naturopathic physician’s training and experience."

Since science and evidence, and naturopathic philosophy and principles of practice, are QUITE at odds, "consistent" is QUITE the IMPOSSIBLE goal.

The message is:

'you must comply, be consistent, with our institutionalized inconsistency, and pose it as sane'.

Also, though "accurately assess" is mandated, how in THIS WORLD do you accurately assess 'a nonparsimonious figmentation and for effects upon that figmentation'?

And in this "Obligation" section, it seems naturopaths have given themselves permission to engage in retail sales particularly in relation to what they advise their patients take as supplements.

Let's call this:

permission to double-dip.

For example, later I'll mention how ND Traub's naturopathic oncology patients are alerted to the fact that they'll be buying $250 worth of supplements from his practice a month.

The AANP Code Principle "Competence":

In "Competency", we're told:

"a naturopathic physician shall maintain proficiency and competence, and be diligent in the provision and administration of patient care [...] a naturopathic physician shall recognize and exercise professional judgment within the limits of his or her qualifications, and collaborate with others, seek counsel, or make referrals as appropriate [...] when expanding the naturopathic treatments or services provided to patients, a naturopathic physician shall pursue the appropriate advanced education and training [...] a naturopathic physician shall dedicate sufficient time to each patient in order to provide (to the best of the naturopathic physician’s ability) accurate, comprehensive, and individualized patient assessment and treatment."

So that's:

proficiency, competence, diligence, professional judgment, qualification limits, collaboration and referral, advanced education and training, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and individualization.

But isn't labeling what is patently science-exterior for DECADES as science -- academically, commercially, and clinically -- quite an OBVIOUS:

incompetence, and lack of proficiency, diligence, judgment, accuracy, and comprehensiveness?

Blame them naturopathy educational institutions which are the patient-zeros of 'the epistemic infection of stupid' that characterizes the naturopathic.

I can't state this strongly enough:

naturopathy, at its very basis of knowledge demarcation, is GROSSLY INCOMPETENT to the point of mental illness.

Or perhaps retardation!

The AANP Code Principle "Communication":

I think communication is where so much ALSO 'goes wrong', so to speak, in terms of naturopathy's relationship with society.

We're told in this section:

"a naturopathic physician has a duty to not only communicate effectively with a patient, but also to educate the patient and convey relevant information in terms the patient can understand, providing adequate opportunity for the patient to ask questions and discuss matters related to the patient's care [...] naturopathic physician[s] shall treat the patient as a respected partner in their health and illness process, and treat with respect communication of the patient’s concerns, symptoms, perspectives and medical history as a highly valued resource in determining the individual underlying cause(s) of the patient’s illness or ill health."

So that's:

duty to effectively communicate and convey relevant information, educate, discussion, respect, and highly valued.

You've GOT to be kidding me, because, for almost twenty years I can say this, outright, as an unwitting participant and now critical observer in this lunacy:

naturopaths are experts at miscommunication and suppression of relevant information.

This is abundantly clear.

Published paper-based materials, including the ND Smith and Logan paper from 2002 which I'll be getting to, USPS-sent materials from the principals, and web page upon web page upon web page are:

opaque, or false in their claims.

And here's where I get super-deep into the naturopathillogical:

naturopath's are quite concerned that their treatments not "suppress" their vital force spirit (2016 archived) figmentation [that's a Bastyr ND],

while naturopaths hide or suppress that concept so often while claiming to define naturopathy [even at AANP].

So, huge suppression is the naturopathic way, not naturopathy's antithesis:

suppression of knowledge.

So how can there be informed consent, generally speaking.

There's finally the requirement that:

"a naturopathic physician shall only provide or recommend services that are medically necessary or deemed to be beneficial for an individual patient."


So that's:

medically necessary and required benefit.

An ND would violate both by providing something not beneficial or something not medically necessary.

Oh my!

Treating a vital-force-spirit figmentation is NOT specifically medically necessary; giving a homeopathic remedy is NOT specifically beneficial.

Minimally, therein, ALL the ND schools that train these ways are in violation of this 'beneficence mandate' with their healing power of nature -based Oath to graduate, 

and mandatory homeopathy courses and clinical homeopathy competencies required of ND students to graduate:

because figmentation falsely posed as fact is not beneficial,

because empty remedies are not beneficial or necessary,

unless you think deception is beneficial and necessary,

and nothing-but-placebo is beneficial and necessary.

So, that's what I find pertinent from the AANP's Code of Ethics, currently.

There may never be a greater hypocrisy in existence:

North American naturopathy deserves some kind of 'pinnacle of deception' award.

Naturopaths in Hawaii, Their Law, and That Law's Ethics and Practice Standards Requirement:

Now, when I search the Hawaii naturopaths' collective site, their society, hawaiind.org, it turns out there are no hits for the term "code"or "ethics"


Amazing again:

a code of ethics is written into the naturopaths' law but the naturopaths don't put it on their own naturopath society's site.

HSNP appears to have 'an attempting-to-be-hidden' code of ethics:

what they MUST abide by they do not transparently, easily share.

What's new!

Naturopathy's omissions are quite ubiquitous.

My state CNPA comparatively has NOTHING to hide, which also means NOTHING to abide by, as we saw.

Though I would think, if you are a State AANP affiliate, you would have to abide by the AANP's Code of Ethics and you would publish that, if you were forthright.

If you made sense.

The Hawaii HSNP NDs have hidden their Code or at least don't share it freely, apparently.

Perhaps they hope that the public won't be finding any naturopaths being unethical if the public doesn't have 'a something' to compare an ND's behavior against.

But, the State of Hawaii does detail that 'something', a naturopathic Code of Ethics and Standard of Practice because this is what is legally required, so it is iterated in a law.

And the law must be publicly posted.

This is a good example of why private entities must be muscled for the common good, in terms of freedom of information and in terms of public protection.

Let's take a look at what Hawaii has available, as rules governing NDs.

Let me remind that I'm emphasizing the prefix "pseudo" this whole Episode part, fake.

Hawaii's ND Law:

At cca.hawaii.gov, there's the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Professional and Vocational Licensing page "PVL Hawaii Administrative Rules" (2016 archived).

On that page, there's a link titled "HAR Chapter 88 – Naturopaths."

Notice the label "professional", supposedly overarching all those listed.

The list includes "boxing" and "pest control."

I'll call this document "16-88", for the sake of brevity.

Now, I guess this is the ND licensure law's particulars, though the directing page confusedly tells us:

"these are unofficial Hawaii Administrative Rules."

What a bureaucratic delight:

how does that work?

One unofficially breaches those unofficial rules or something and is unofficially sanctioned?

And this is a statute, and they do this officially...

I abhor vagueness particularly when it comes to basic citizen rights:

like the right to clarity, the right to be duly informed, the right to have 2 + 2 equal 4.

Someone is laughing their pants off in 'sadistic bureaucratic anticlarity psychopathy', me thinks.

But, I'll take this page as 'the ND rules'.

These are the "rules" created by naturopathy in partnership with the Hawaii ".gov", in the context of 'commerce and consumer protection', supposedly.

And OH HOW STRANGE they are, as we'll see.

16-88 tells us:

"this chapter is intended to clarify and implement chapter 455, HRS, to the end that the provisions thereunder may be best effectuated and the public interest most effectively protected."

This led me to find a cca.hawaii.gov page "HRS Chapter 455 – Naturopathic Medicine" (2016 archived).

Its file path is:

"home » boards » licensing area: naturopathic medicine » statute / rule chapter » HRS chapter 455 – naturopathic medicine".

It only contains a link to a PDF titled "Chapter 455 Naturopathic Medicine" (2016 archived), and it is worth looking at briefly.

This seems to be the law behind 16-88, and 16-88 seems to be its implementation.

For brevity, I'll refer to it as "455."

The only thing 455 says about ethics is that a naturopathy governing board:

"shall establish standards of practice, care, and ethics [...and it shall sanction] conduct or practice contrary to recognized standard of ethics of the naturopathic profession."

455 lists bad things such as:

"procuring, or aiding or abetting in procuring, a criminal abortion; employing any person to solicit patients; obtaining a fee on the assurance that a manifestly incurable disease can be permanently cured; betraying a patient's confidence; making any untruthful and improbable statement in advertising one's naturopathic practice or business; false, fraudulent, or deceptive advertising; being habituated to the excessive use of drugs or alcohol; or being addicted to, dependent on, or an habitual user of a narcotic, barbiturate, amphetamine, hallucinogen, or other drug having similar effects; practicing naturopathic medicine while the ability to practice is impaired by alcohol, drug, physical disability, or mental instability; procuring a license through fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit or knowingly permitting an unlicensed person to perform activities requiring a license; professional misconduct or gross carelessness or manifest incapacity in the practice of naturopathic medicine; conduct or practice contrary to recognized standards of ethics of the naturopathic profession; using medical service or treatment which is inappropriate or unnecessary; submitting to or filing with the board any notice, statement, or other document required under this chapter which is false or untrue or contains any material misstatement of fact; failure to report to the board any disciplinary action taken against the licensee in another jurisdiction within thirty days after the disciplinary action becomes final; using the title 'physician' without clearly identifying oneself as being a naturopathic physician; prescribing, administering, and dispensing naturopathic formulary that are not included in the formulary established by the board under section 455-6; and [regarding] violation of any provision of this chapter or rules adopted under this chapter [...] any fine imposed by the board after a hearing in accordance with chapter 91 shall be no less than $500 and no more than $10,000 for each violation."

So let me get this straight:

what is basically 'an untruthful confidence racket and bad' is barred from betraying a patient's confidence, being untruthful, and basically being bad.

And 455 does mention:

"homeopathic medicines [...as part of the] naturopathic formulary [...along with] vitamins, minerals, dietary supplements, botanical medicines, hormones, and those legend drugs consistent with naturopathic medical practice [...and] legend drug means any drug falling within section 503(b)(1) of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and which is required to be labeled with the statement Rx only [...] parenteral therapy means the administration of substances by means other than through the gastrointestinal tract, including intravenous, subcutaneous and intramuscular injection."

We're also told:

"naturopathic medicine means the practice of the art and science of diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of disorders of the body by support, stimulation, or both, of the natural processes of the human body."

So, science is posed and natural is posed, as opposed to not science and supernatural.

But, of course, science and natural are not specifically defined.

So we are to take these definitions, I would then say, 'as what is typical', and of course, 'naturopathy's usage of those terms is anything but typical'.

And that was too, if you noticed, coded vitalism.

And as we can see from naturopathy, science is anything including the patently science-ejected and -unscienceable, and natural can contain supernatural figmentation.

Now, back to 16-88, which is a large document:

the law's implementation.

I've already covered the Code of Ethics part, which basically mirrors what I excerpted from the AANP Code.

And I do wonder if the AANP adopted the existing Hawaii code in 2012 as COVER, due to Dr. Atwood's 2004 Medscape criticism, as something to point to 'as if'.

Like their 'science' as if.

In this document the ethics part is outlined as "16-88-80."

The Standard of Practice part is what I want to detail now, outlined as "16-88-81."

The first thing I've noticed is that the root "scien" is not in the "16-88" document.

The Standard of Practice of Hawaii naturopathy is NOT obligated to science as its primary knowledge type.

So, basically, epistemically speaking, naturopathy's treatments are UNFETTERED when it comes to knowledge type, in this day and age, as if now were the Dark Ages, as if we are now intellectually previous to the Enlightenment.

For naturopathy, any knowledge kind goes, as a standard of practice, and from that therein anything as activity is permitted as 'medicine', can be justified as 'medicine'.

And that's an antistandard, IMHO, 'a standardized antistandard'.

This is quite the reversal of values:

standards without a reliable, mundane epistemic baseline while there is a requirement for "a mechanism for timely evaluation of plan effectiveness."

But, without a directly mandated requirement that such be of scientific rigor, well, I guess a Ouija board, a divining rod, astrology, or a pendulum are also acceptable as mechanisms for assessing a naturopathic treatment's efficacy.

And we all know how reliable people are with those tools.

Now, this will blow your socks off, in terms of just how sectarian and lunatic this Hawaii law is.

After 455 told us

"[not to be] untruthful and improbable [...] false, fraudulent, or deceptive [...not to engage in] fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit [...] professional misconduct or gross carelessness or manifest incapacity [...not to do what is] false or untrue",

we're told in the Hawaii ND law that an ND's treatment must be

"based on naturopathic principles including [...] stimulating a patient's vital force to promote healing or, in special instances, supplementing or replacing the action of the vital force when the patient is unable to respond to curative treatment."

But "vital force" is the falsest of premises in terms of modern science and to pose such as science and medically relevant is, as I’ve stated in a deposition:

"cultic mystical weirdness".

The naturopathic:

of diseased nature, of diseased knowledge, of diseased thinking.

No wonder science is not required as a filter, naturopathy would lose its focus:

a science-ejected medieval supernatural nonparsimonious superstitious figmentation!

How is such LEGISLATED figmentation relevant to human health and illness, diagnosis and treatment?

It's like legislating belief in Odin or Zeus.

And how does such a 'legislated sectarian mandate' relate to civil rights particularly concerning religious freedom and religious neutrality, aka the Establishment Clause?

In other words, should a State mandate a particular belief into law?

Is that not a religious test?

And how is holding up such sectarian falseness as relevant and actual, not:

untruthful and improbable; false, fraudulent, or deceptive; fraud, misrepresentation, deceit; professional misconduct or gross carelessness or manifest incapacity; false, untrue?

Now, coincidentally, an NPR interview at a Hawaii radio station was just published online featuring tooth-sucking Hawaii ND Benchouk [ben-chook], an SCNM graduate, while I'm writing this Episode part.

The claim is that we'll be 'truly informed' about naturopathy.

So this caught my ear.

So let's talk about that for a little bit and the two geniuses involved, the two informing paragons:

an naturopathic doctor and a medical doctor host.

At ND Benchouk's alma mater SCNM, you get simultaneously, I should add:

a broad science claim (2016 archived) upon naturopathy, and details of its pseudoscientific commitments and activities (2016 archived) within that categorical label, which as we've seen abundantly is typical communication for naturopathy.

The radio show is "The Body Show", and the 2016-06-06 episode is called "Naturopathic Medicine" (2016 archived) [here's the mp3; 2016 archived] [also here, 2016 archived here]

What's interesting is this confluence, in terms of this Episode 012's concerns:

the show is hosted by MD, as in medical doctor, Kathy Kozak, an internist, who, according to the American Board of Medical Specialties' credential database "Is Your Doctor [Board] Certified?", is ABIM certified like medical doctors Atwood and Perlman.

She says she spent three years training at the Mayo Clinic, and states at one point:

"if even the Mayo Clinic is looking at some of these things, clearly there is something to be said [...concerning] this complementary or alternative approach [...] we need to look at it from a more comprehensive approach."

Well, this episode of The Body Show wasn't "comprehensive" or even NEAR the mark in terms of necessary information, and in that sense it's what wasn't said that is more important as omission.

And, in terms of journalism, the interview is quite the circle jerk.

The episode's description tells us:

"we'll talk with a naturopathic physician about how different approaches to medicine can work together to improve overall care" as a "combination."

I think that's quite the collaboration:

medicine and naturopathy.

It's like talking about the 'goodness' of a collaboration between astronomy and astrology in improving knowledge.

So I have to ask this question off-the-bat:

is promoting an ND in the way her program does, without much detail as to 'the essentially naturopathic', 'an ethical violation of preponderant modern medical ethical code'?

Because though we don't get an honest, informed definition of naturopathy from the show, we do get PROMOTION of naturopathy while naturopathy is naturopathy and MD Atwood's 2004 Medscape article "Naturopathy, Pseudoscience, and Medicine: Myths and Fallacies vs Truth" pointed out how naturopathy is, from its DNA outwards, in violation of ABIM and AMA ethics principles.

He'd written, twelve years ago:

"such collaboration is a direct violation of at least two formal, modern statements of medical ethics [...the] Physician Charter [...and] the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics."

Without its breaks, announcements, and commercials, the radio episode is about 1 hour long, and the host terms her general content category in her introduction for the show as "health and fitness."

But then she goes on to speak for the hour with the ND about the general content category I'd call MEDICINE, stating:

"we [...] as physicians", and she covers diseases, diagnoses, and treatments.

I think that's sloppy labeling, so we're right on naturopathy's Main Street when it comes to fuzzy thinking.

MD Kozak does begin with "aloha", of course, and specifically says to the ND:

"I'm glad you're here."

Because this is quite the softball interview, and he is very welcomed.

Cradled, in fact.

She terms naturopathy:

"a different approach to medicine [...] an alternative scenario" and titles the ND "a naturopathic medical doctor" and "expert."

She says, regarding MD medicine as compared to ND medicine:

"today were going to explore the different philosophies a bit [...and that the ND will] explain the trajectory that this field of medicine has taken [...because] a lot of people have preconceived notions as to what it means to be a naturopathic physician [...] there is a lot of rigorous training."

So the host is cheer-leading.

The assumption by the host is:

medicine subset naturopathy, and rigor, with a promise of explanation, with a promise of understanding MEANING.

But we don't' get such in the "philosophy" or "meaning" sense, in the essentially naturopathic sense, even from the naturopath, who states:

"a lot of people ask what a naturopath is. What I always tell them is: 'a naturopathic doctor is basically a primary care physician that specializes in alternative and integrative care'."

But, that's by far NOT enough.

What does that mean?

In other words, what underlies that?

What underlies that 'elevator explanation'?

That doesn't tell us about what I'll term the 'mandatory metaphysicality', 'epistemic corrosion' and 'ethical laxity' that is at the heart of naturopathy, which is the defining difference between medicine and naturopathy.

The naturopath instead EQUATES the realm of an ND with that realm of an MD, stating:

"as far as schooling, it's very similar to MD school [...] prereq.s in undergrad. [...] chemistry [...] anatomy [...] biochem. [...] all those things [...then in ND school] the first two years are heavily science-based [...] all your -ologies [...] pharmacology [...] embryology [...] gross anatomy [...] all the same things an MD curriculum would have you do [...] then you do your [...] science boards [...] then you go into clinic [...] where some of the differences lie [...and then] you take your clinical boards [...] after four years [...] and then you get licensed by the state where you are practicing."

Would that naturopathy actually was science-based and not science-posing.

E.g.: the ND mentions homeopathy as part of the curriculum, and acupuncture.

And he states, coincidentally:

"I know there's a Dr. Michael Traub on the Big Island."

The MD-ABIM-internist-host also spends a lot of time equating ND-land with MD-land:

as in "find some common ground", "it's almost identical", as in "two years of basic science, two years of clinicals", "you also have to pass board certification examinations just like I do", and "instead of either / or, we're talking about AND [...as in] complementary modalities."

But I think the differences are stark.

They are differences that make a great difference.

Now, I'd say this too, in correction:

it is a gross mistake to call the NPLEX for their basic licensure a BOARD CERTIFICATION.

"Board certification examination" usually means capstone specialty board certification in MD-land, not general licensure certification exam.

But naturopaths are fine with the misnomer, and don't correct it:

the ND doesn't correct her in the episode when she does this.

The host does mention, too, "our standard of care treatment."

And the naturopath describes regulation and consumer protection regarding supplements as "the Wild West."

And the MD host spends a lot of time excusing naturopaths' dispensaries, as in:

"[being] similar to my prescription for [a drug...and] one of the reasons naturopathy may actually have these different types of vitamins and minerals in their office is because that's one of the few ways that you can make sure someone's getting the right thing [...] which explains a lot [...] sometimes people say [...] I go to see a naturopath and they want to sell me something from their office [...and she rationalizes this as a product with better] quality [...] purity [...] if it's going to work you want to make sure its the right amount and dose."

The ND does state:

"they don't have to buy any supplements from me."

And NEVER, NEVER in the hour long-time, would you believe, is that heart of naturopathy, that science-ejected sectarian metaphysical item of vitalism-spiritism at the heart of naturopathy, that defines naturopathy, MENTIONED.

Yet, it's in the Hawaii naturopathy law and it's on their society's page, as we have seen, as the essentially naturopathic.

So it's like they talked about swimming for an hour without mentioning that you get wet.

That defining basis stays OCCULT in the radio show, while, in fact quite misleadingly, the show itself is called "The Body Show", as if naturopathy is merely mundane and corporeal like that.

What a mess.

The ND actually terms the basis of naturopathy's healing INSTEAD, as in coding vitalism-spiritism:

"that natural biochemical healing mechanism [...] we do think the body can heal on its own [...] the healing mechanism [...] that natural healing pathway."

But a vital force spirit is not a mechanism, not the body, not a pathway, and its not even natural in the sense of natural versus supernatural.

It is a science-exterior figmentation and article of faith.

The ND states:

"I want them to take control of their health", but apparently ironically, NOT their information!

How paternalistic, what a grift.

I find this camouflaging to be quite strategically manipulative, and quite ND-typical.

I guess we don't deserve to know, so we can then make an INFORMED decision, as I often say, while we were promised by the host:

"today were going to explore the different philosophies a bit."

If find it quite ironic that the host states at one point regarding naturopathy:

"I think there's a bit more [to naturopathy] than some people may think."

Oh yeah.

And she also accidentally ironically states a goal of:

"kind of get an overall viewpoint" regarding naturopathy and "well that's what we're here to learn today."

And the ND states ironically at one point:

"we can only measure certain things [...and] we're all trying to find the cause and not just chase [the] symptoms."

Well, if true, in terms of getting 'to the thing itself' and measurement, that should also include naturopathy's essence.

As for his touted "more holistic approach" he merely mentions:

"diet [...and] the whole body."

Such things are mentioned by the ND as:

supplements, herbs, supposed toxins getting in the way of healing, heavy metal toxicity as "pretty big in Hawaii [...as specifically] high mercury levels", IV therapy, homeopathic injections and injections into acupuncture points, ozone injections, and adipose stem cell injection.

But acupuncture points don't anatomically exist:

they are figmentations.

And many of these procedures sound like 'NOT FDA approved experimentation without ethical protections in violation of international treaties'.

And we're told by both the MD and ND:

"there's a lot of hope."

That's how you catch your marks:

the bait is hope.

But you'd be crazy to hold your breath in hope of naturopathic transparency and competent definition.

And the MD states:

"we do have to take a more scientific approach to looking [...at] alternative medicine."

Like, yeah.

Like the scientific view, already established if you'd just get of your lazy ass and look [I'm talking here about intellectual laziness, BTW, not making a comment on the MD's physical appearance; I don't want to be misinterpreted as body-shaming], that shows naturopathy is bogus and science-exterior, essentially.

"The Body Show" 2016-06-06 episode "Naturopathic Medicine":

pretty pathetic propaganda.

As For Legislating the Science-Ejected:

I'm so embarrassed for the State of Hawaii for sanctioning a standard of care based upon:

'the figmentations of a nonsensical, immoral, and magical kind of archaic thinking'!

And you must, you must, you must if you are a Hawaii ND.

We're told in "16-88":

"to protect the general public, a naturopathic physician shall make a good faith effort to abide by the standards of practice and patient care provided in this section [...] the failure to comply with any of the provisions of this section shall subject a licensee to discipline under chapter 455, HRS, and this chapter."

A Hawaii ND would be breaking Hawaii ND law if he or she DIDN'T practice vitalistically, aka figmentatiously or superstitiously or science-ejected and -exteriorly.

 It's like the Taliban of healthcare:

a decreed theocracy, or better yet, an animatocracy.

And somehow, in mandating the vitalistic-spiritistic in terms of clinical activity,

which is usually hidden from the public as they don't deserve to know but they do deserve to be exploited because such is posed as medically necessary and science FOR MONEY,

the State of Hawaii is somehow protecting the public with this law.

It's crazy:

because the law itself is a form of fraud, created by fraudsters to protect fraudsters.

Is this NOT the height of ‘cultic mystical weirdness’ ever!

Because it’s not even possible to know if one has done what the law requires, because ‘nobody truly knows such of belief stuff’ in any kind of reliable way.

That’s why we call it an act of faith, a belief, a leap.

What is "good faith" about an article of faith, a vital force spirit, falsely posed as medically relevant and able to survive scientific rigor?

How is the general public protected by such falseness?

It THOROUGHLY reeks of ‘bad faith’, of religious test, and religious favoritism.

Who has ever even imagined such a situation:

State-mandated mythology dressed up as empirically verifiable fact?

Imagine if you were legally obligated to do something as absurd at your job like ‘take care regarding  the vital force spirit'.

Perhaps if you were a fisherman in Hawaii, you'd be required to look for the Lock Ness monster before casting your line.

Perhaps if you are a Hawaii pilot, you'd be required to search the sky for dragons before take-off.

Perhaps if you are a Hawaii gardener, you'd be required to watch for any fairies in your garden before you dig.

I could go on and on with such, but I won't.

But I see this issue as similar to the argument against introducing a particular religious explanation in high school public biology classrooms:

sure it's NOT science and therefore academically WRONG, but more so in terms of the Constitution, in favoring ONE kind of religiosity, the government violates its neutrality concerning a matter of faith, and the government therein cumulatively promotes pseudoscience and violates the Establishment Clause.

Overarching all this, we're told:

"a naturopathic physician is trained to be a primary care family practice physician."

This is especially helpful when your family is composed of, say, cryptids.

Because you might as well believe such can walk into your office as an ND at any time since your patients are walking in possessed by a figmentation.

Cryptid families need a PCP who knows a thing or two about mythology:

when your daughter is a fluey little Jersey Devil, and your son is a colicky little Big Foot.

Then naturopaths are the ones to call, with their enchanted human physiology and unfettered factuality.

What else is in the Hawaii naturopathy Standard of Care beside 'science not required and figmentations required', by the way?

There are requirements:

"[for] ongoing education [...to] critically and without bias evaluate [...] to continually evolve [...to] make appropriate interventions [...to keep] clear and concise records documenting patient care."

How do you chart a vital force spirit, clearly and concisely, reliably?

Because if you had true ongoing education, if you were truly evolving in terms of your intellect, you'd quickly realize there is not such thing as a vital force spirit in biology, which is the science that medical physiology is a part of, because you'd be thinking like an educated person, which is thinking that is critical and not blinded by sectarian bias, not obligated to sectarian articles of faith falsely posed.

Then, treating such a figmentation would be seen for what it is:

an inappropriate intervention.

And posing such as medically relevant would be seen as TRULY BOGUS.

We're told about how OPEN it all is for naturopathy:

"a naturopathic physician shall use conventional medical diagnostic criteria in the establishment of a diagnosis [...] other diagnostic criteria may be used, including those of non-western medical traditions. All diagnostic criteria shall be consistent with other health care disciplines that utilize the same criteria. A naturopathic physician may use a combination of conventional and other diagnostic criteria."

That is a global statement of absolute tolerance, aka 'our standard of care has no boundary'.

In other words, whatever garbage and non-garbage that you want to use, as an ND, you are permitted to use, as long as you are consistent with your chosen system of garbage.

We're told also:

"consent to treatment.  A naturopathic physician shall inform the patient of the patient's right to informed consent and freedom of choice in health care and present the patient with all the options for medical care in an unbiased manner."

But that hiding, of vitalism-spiritism to me, is quite biased and quite not informed.

Truly presented consent between an ND and a patient would run, in my mind, like this:

"I'm about to pull a whole bunch of shit out of my ass and mix it with some half-decent stuff as well, and if you stay here you're gonna need this clothespin for the smell. And because this is your health and your life, please acknowledge on this line with your signature that you want my shit and that you don't therein really value your life, your money, or your time.  Let's now undermine medicine, science and basic rights together."

Now, here's an interesting parallel and indication of how 'from the top down' American naturopathy's vitalistic / science-ejected primary focus is:

the Hawaii state ND Code of Ethics became the AANP national Code of Ethics as I have illustrated, and WOULD YOU BELIEVE, if you go to naturopathic.org, the web address of the AANP, the national naturopathic organization, the ND Standard of Practice parallels Hawaii's, right down to "vital force."

In AANP's 2012 published "A Comprehensive Review of the Naturopathic Profession" (2016 archived) we're told, as we were in Hawaii:

"the naturopathic physician develops a specific written treatment plan for each patient that is [...] based on naturopathic principles including: 1. stimulating the patient’s vital force to promote healing or, in special instances, supplementing or replacing the action of the vital force when the patient is unable to respond to curative treatment [...] naturopathic considerations [...include] vis medicatrix naturae or vital force."

What's really interesting are the current proposed ND licensure laws that forego usage of this language.

In that sense, NDs get their laws written without being forthright.

Because such truths about naturopathy are actually licensure impediments.

I'll now look over the language of the practices of three NDs in Hawaii.

Hawaii ND Examples:

Naturopaths use their web pages to get customers IN ‘to sell naturopathy'.

So, let’s look at Hawaii NDs' ‘advertising and communication’, by way of Hawaii NDs' ‘language describing what they do and what they’re about’ from their own web pages.

Hawaii ND #1, ND Traub:

I'll mainly focus in this part on the practice of ND Traub himself, at michaeltraubnd.com

[got a pic.]:

the big man on the Big Island

[got a pic.]

our old friend.

First, we're told on the practice’s homepage (archived 2016) https://web.archive.org/web/20160704125408/http://michaeltraubnd.com:

“naturopathic physicians combine the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science.”

That, obviously, is a statement of blending:

science with whatever the "wisdom of nature" is.

Now, I don’t think and never will think that ‘naturopathic thought’ gets it:

in stating blending or combining 'science with' you just incriminated naturopathy’s SIMULTANEOUS claim that naturopathy is science and science-based, categorically and essentially.


an epistemic distinction 'science' is not an epistemic mixture 'science plus nonscience'.

I'd argue that that “nature” in ND Traub’s “wisdom of nature” is naturopathy's “healing power of nature or vital force”, and so the statement is an opaque admission that naturopaths mix science with not just the science-exterior and nonscientific, but with the coded science-ejected.

That activity is very basic and fundamental to naturopathy and that is why it is included in the introduction to each of these episodes.

We're told there too, in support of that, that naturopathy is:

“steeped in traditional healing methods, principles and practices.”

I’d argue that 'steeped' means obligated to the archaic, as in traditional, as in prescientific, as in NOT modern science-based:

like supernaturalism within science, like vitalism, like ‘any OLD junk.’

Regarding naturopathy's essential premise, we're MERELY told:

“naturopathic physicians help facilitate the body / mind’s inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health.”

OH SUCH coded vitalism, and we DESERVE better.

We're told:

“naturopathic physicians treat all medical conditions”.

But, since a vital force spirit is what naturopaths essentially treat and a vital force spirit is a figmentation, how is this statement true?

We should be told:

naturopaths treat metaphysically first and foremost, a vital force spirit.

And a metaphysical figmentation in not a medical condition.

AND we're told this whopper:

“naturopathic physicians keep themselves up-to-date on the latest scientific research and incorporate this evidence into their treatments.”

YET, if naturopaths truly DO keep themselves up to date regarding “the latest scientific”, then the vital force supernaturalism idea at the heart of naturopathy is truly KNOWN by them to be bogus science, and their homeopathy then is truly KNOWN by them to be bogus science.

Therefore, "keep themselves up-to-date", is an admission of deceit.

We're told:

“naturopathic physicians [...] bring to the patient a whole new arsenal of treatments and insights. Instead of waiting for a disease to emerge, naturopathic physicians work to head it off before it happens.”

There's that claim of ‘special insight’, as if modern medicine is severely negligent, and not preventative.

But naturopathy is, in some kind of special way.

But, if that insight is false, which I think it is, like reliable insight into your vital force spirit, then you're being told you have a FAKE issue that has been fakely measured an then the ND will treat that in a very fake way.

That, to me, is the epitome of racketeering:

creating a fake problem that one then benefits from the fake remedying of.

It's like a protection racket except it's not your deli the gangsters are smashing up if you don't pay them to protect it from themselves, it's your vital force spirit.

And ND Traub tells us:

“I specialize in naturopathic oncology.”

And if you remember, the American Board of Naturopathic Oncologists, ABNO, which ND Traub is a member of as an FABNO, had stated falsely that naturopathy is:

“scientific nature cure” [told in "About Naturopathic Oncology" (2016 archived)], 

a science categorical label that Hawaii NDs’ own legislated standard of practice BELIES with its vital force contents explicitly stated, that the AANP national standards of practice BELIES.

Welcome to the massive swindle.

Oh boy.

There is a dedicated page “Homeopathy” (2016 archived), of course, from your double-homeopathy certified ND.

We're told:

“Dr. Traub underwent extensive postgraduate training and study in homeopathic medicine. He became board certified in classical homeopathy. He uses this as a basis for his practice.”

So, oncology with unicorn tears as a basis.

That's quite scary.

We're told, concerning homeopathy:

“any substance that can produce specific symptoms when given experimentally to a healthy person, can cure those same symptoms in a sick person.”

But in pharmacology that is known as bullshit fantasy.

And there's this huge claim of homeopathy's efficacy:

“homeopathy has a distinguished record in the treatment of an extensive range of problems, which includes first aid situations, acute illnesses, and all manner of chronic conditions.”

Not in this universe, perhaps in the Bizzaro universe.

There's also the page “Cancer” (2016 archived), of course, where we're told:

“Dr. Traub is board certified in naturopathic oncology by the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology (ABNO), and is a member of the ABNO Board of Medical Examiners. For more information [...see] oncanp.org.”

So there's that naturopathy-created supposed cancer expertise assurance, from the people who can't get science's basic boundaries right.

They will now be your person treating your cancer.

We're also told there:

“various natural therapies include: dietary recommendations, exercise, stress management, nutritional and herbal supplements, homeopathy, high dose intravenous vitamin C and other IV treatments, detoxification, and psychospiritual support.”


supplements, things borrowed from other areas and termed “natural”, homeopathy, crazy inert things like vitamin C IVs, the Toxin Bogeyman, and whatever “psychospiritual support” is.

It sounds ministerial: again, the white lab coat and beneath, the black vestment, medicine INTEGRATED with religion, essentially.

Now, I'd argue that that “spiritual”, in a naturopathy context, is minimally that “vital force spirit” figmentation, which they claim underlies everything, and which the Hawaii ND law mandates, employed in some kind of parapsychological fashion.

As psychospiritual is this hijacking of psychology by sectarian supernaturalism, a fanciful psychology.

We're told:

“protocols are extensively researched and largely based on published studies found in mainstream medical and scientific journals.”

But homeopathy, which ND Traub said is the basis for his treatments, is not to be found therein.

Homeopathy is PATENT science-ejected pseudopharmacy.

And the supernatural 'itself' can be found in mainstream scientific journals?


It’s the antithesis of science.

And here comes the back-end.

We're told:

“costs [...] initial visits average $275 for 60-90 minutes [...] return visits average $100 for 30 minutes. Medications and supplements average $250 per month for a cancer patient. Ho'o Lokahi provides [those] high quality necessary supplements at a reasonable cost [...the] comprehensive cleansing program averages $3000 for a one-month program [...] method of payment: Ho'o Lokahi accepts cash, checks and credit cards […] insurance coverage for naturopathic medicine is limited. Dr. Traub is a provider for Hawaii Medical Assurance Association [...] payment is required at the time of service.”

WOW, 'there's gold in them there woo'!

So, just with what I just presented from those three pages, what are we in violation of from the Hawaii state statute for NDs in terms of Ethics and Standard of Care?

Well, IMHO:

I'd go with honesty, performance, obligation, and competence, generally speaking.

And I'd go with this too, hugely, communication:

because ND Traub never says he treats the vital force explicitly, would you believe, when you search his site:

[got a pic.]

though the Hawaii law is explicit as to what an ND must treat,

though he is quite the North American naturopathy luminary,

though he was our ethics presenter.

Because the truth is bad for business, when what’s truth is nonsense.

Hawaii ND #2:

Now, ND Traub's practice states on the web page “Our Doctors” (2016 archived):

“Corinne Maul de Soto, ND, joined [...his practice] in June 2014. Her focus is on naturopathic pediatrics and family medicine. See […] drmauldesoto.com.”

So, let's go there.

ND Maul de Soto is an NCNM graduate (2016 archived) and an AANP member.

ND Maul De Soto's page “What is Naturopathic Medicine” (2016 archived) states, and this is just wonderful knowing what we know about naturopathy essentially as compared to what is communicated on the page:

"Dr. De Soto’s mission as a naturopathic physician is to provide high-quality, flexible and individualized pediatric and family healthcare [...] she uses the latest research and diagnostic tools plus clinical experience, historical knowledge, and intuition to integrate the best of modern medicine and natural therapies [...] education is a key component of every visit and Dr. De Soto encourages people to take charge of their own health while promising to be a partner on their journey.”

We're also told there:

"treatments you can expect to receive may include herbal medicine, nutrition, homeopathy, micro- and macro-nutrient supplementation, craniosacral, osseous manipulation and soft tissue body work, [and] pharmaceutical prescription and management."

So that's:

high-quality, latest research, knowledge, intuition, integration, education, empowerment and partnership and then things like homeopathy!

But you promised “high quality [...and] latest research [...and] empowerment”!

And as I've said before, since homeopathy is nothing and is lumped in with a bunch of other stuff as if they are all basically equal as choices, therapeutically speaking, what does that say about all that other stuff?

On that same page, we're told:

"she views every intervention through the lens of naturopathic philosophy [...] the philosophical tenets of naturopathic medicine are as follows [...#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in people that is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process [...] the naturopathic physician seeks to identify and remove the underlying causes of illness rather than to merely eliminate or suppress symptoms [...] treat the whole person: naturopathic physicians treat each patient by taking into account individual physical, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. Since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development."

So, coded vitalism which is covert supernaturalism and requisite explicit supernaturalism.

I say requisite as FORCED.

From this sample, which quite inaccurately calls itself a “definition”, what are we in violation of from the Hawaii state statute for NDs in terms of Ethics and Standard of Care?

Again, I can use all the criticisms I listed for ND Traub:

violations regarding honesty, performance, obligation, competence and communication.

Because we have coding, and we have nonsense posed as therapy, and nothing is contextualized as such.

Like ND Traub, ND Maul de Soto never says she treats the vital force explicitly in this naturopathy definition, though the Hawaii law is explicit as to that being what a Hawaii ND must treat.

And homeopathy is always a great litmus test of integrity aka lack of integrity.

When I search her entire site, actually, there is no mention of "vital force":

we should be told, ethically speaking, that such is the goal, and that such is science-ejected, along with so much else that's being done.

But such truths are bad for business.

Hawaii ND #3:

ND Joy Ostroff is also an NCNM graduate (2016 archived) and AANP member.

Now, she DOES mention "vital force", copiously.

So, though it’s a science-ejected idea, at least there’s some transparency there as to her goals and naturopathy's basic context.

In "Natural Pregnancy" (2016 archived), we're told:

"after the detoxification process is complete, nutritional absorption and vital force is enhanced, and getting pregnant occurs as it is intended in most cases."

That's quite a promise about:

the Toxin Bogeyman figmentation then affecting the vital force figmentation.

Creating fertility.

Because in naturopathy, even obstetrics is centered around figmentation.

I wonder if there’s a stork in the picture somewhere.

In "Allergies" (2016 archived), we're told by ND Ostroff:

"homeopathic medicine offers natural allergy treatments as alternatives to the ingestion of chemicals into the body. A naturopathic approach uses minute amounts of plants, minerals or animal substances to cure a variety of ailments by promoting inner healing to balance the vital force."


And, of course, there's her page "Homeopathic Medicine" (2016 archived) which tells us:

"homeopathy is more than 200 years old, and is widely accepted and used in other countries.  Homeopathic medicine is a system of treating disease discovered by Samuel Hahnemann in the 1800s. It is based on the theory that like attracts like. Homeopathic remedies are minute doses of a substance from the animal, vegetable or mineral kingdom that have been prepared in such a way that the chemical structure of the medicine cannot be determined. These remedies work by stimulating the vital force of the individual, enabling it to cleanse the offending poison from the system, much like an immunization. Homeopathic medicine can work on mental/emotional issues as well as for physical problems."

So there's some homeopathic supposed theory, and a claim of efficacy.

And I would argue that the structure of the medicine is quite known:

water or sugar pellets.

Now, what's most interesting about the page is that "vital force" is hyperlinked.

When you click on it, it takes you to her defunct "naturopathic glossary" entry for "qi", a synonym.

So you know you’re in the land of the archaic when your central premise has a synonym from prescientific times.

Also, since anything goes diagnostically speaking, according to the Hawaii ND law, is it not surprising that ND Ostroff offers:

electrodermal screening as diagnosis and "iris diagnosis" (2016 archived), which are both termed "appropriate tests."

Appropriate when anything goes, and there is no epistemic baseline.

Now, she does have more transparency than the previous NDs I looked at in Hawaii, but...

there's essential nuttiness there, too, not properly labeled as nutty, not couched in a warning:

here be monstrous woo.

Such honest warnings are bad for business.

So, without going into too much detail just now with ND Ostroff, I think she’s a great illustration of just how stuck the ND law gets an ND:

even if you do what it allows, and do what it requires, you’re quacking like crazy because that’s what sets naturopathy apart from modern medicine, its unfetterness, its without-boundaryness, its without scientific-rigorness.

Now, I’ll readily admit this wasn’t a complete survey of Hawaii NDs, just a small sampler, so as not to enlarge this episode part too much.

It's long enough.

And I became curious about one other thing in doing this in Hawaii:

the AANP Board Members and how they relate to their AANP Code of Ethics.

So, at the start of the next part of this Episode 012, which I’ve termed Episode 012c2, I’m going to first take a look at those NDs, since the AANP’s page listing its board members, at naturopathic.org, also links to their practice pages.

Let's see what they're communicating and therein DOING.

Thank you for boldly listening.
Post a Comment