Tuesday, December 13, 2016

The Naturocrit Podcast – s02e02d2 [Episode 012d2] - Script & Annotations

here, I provide an annotated script for the second third of the fourth part of Season 02 Episode 02 of The Naturocrit Podcast:

001. the Episode 012d2 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 second third of Episode 012 Part Four [aka s02e02], I'll cover:

a recent piece by ND Wiancek claiming naturopathy's homeopathy is categorically science,

a 2011 paper by Caulfield and Rachul that surveyed Canadian NDs' sites and found them to be replete with therapies that lack scientific support,

and the 2002 MCNA naturopathy proponentry paper by NDs Smith and Logan that categorically falsely labels naturopathy science.

I will also delve into some of that 2002 article's supporting references.

Main Text:

First, I have to correct two spoken mistakes I found in the first third of this Part Four of Episode 012.

I mispronounced merchantable, for whatever strange reason, using a hard 'c' instead of the 'ch' that was spelled out on the page I was reading from.

And, I must admit, I've never heard the word said.

Also, I stated the wrong word in another part, not the "suppositions" that was written on the script but instead accidentally using the word "superstitions."

I've made notations in that respective transcript regarding these wee errors.

To quote Nigerian author Ben Okri, according to goodreads.com:

"where there is perfection there is no story to tell."
Before I get into the 2002 ND proponentry paper, I'd like to briefly offer, as a typical CURRENT example, a naturopath visiting falsehood upon an unsuspecting public through mass media:

ND Wiancek [excuse any mispronunciation]:

I recently posted, at the Naturocrit Blog, the entry “Wherein I Ask an ND to Retract Her Claim that Homeopathy is a Science” (2016-10-18).

ND Wiancek, a Bastyr ND graduate, wrote, at vaildaily.com, in "Health Insights Column: Naturopathic Medicine Week was Oct. 10-16; Learn More About These Practitioners" [2016 archived] (2016-10-17):

"naturopathic doctors are primary-care practitioners trained as specialists in natural medicine. They treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling, acupuncture, natural childbirth and hydrotherapy.”

My comment there, at vaildaily.com, about that science claim, was:

"The Naturocrit Podcast and Blog: Homeopathy is not a science. Check the science. I think a retraction is in order regarding labeling homeopathy as science. I'd ask the same if you'd labeled astrology a science. -r.c."

Never mind acupuncture, as well!

There hasn't been an answer, or a correction to the article as of eleven days later [and counting].

And my comment upon the article is the only comment, currently, which speaks volumes about naturopathy's lack of popularity.

Now, the ND's primary PRACTICE web pages are at healthref.com, and that practice is in Colorado.

There, similar to that vaildaily.com article she authored, is ND Wiancek's current PDF document titled “Adult Intake Form” [2016 archived] which states:

“naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are general practitioners trained as specialists in natural medicine.  Naturopathic physicians treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy and hydrotherapy.”

What naturopaths truly are are specialists in PERPETUAL false science claims, because this is the year 2016 and in sum homeopathy enjoys NO such epistemic status.

Also, ND Wiancek currently has up a page titled “What is Naturopathic Medicine?” [2016 archived], which obviously has a posture of supposedly being explanatory.

The root “homeop” is on that page at least three times, and yet naturopathy's essential vitalism is coded, NOT explained, so the ND is not telling us “what” at all:

naturopathy's 'manipulative opacity MO' is obviously a pattern of bullshit artistry.

Her state ND organization is the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors at coloradond.org.

One of my favorite bullshit-laden biographies there is that of ND Pais [2016 archived] who, according to his own bio. page [2016 archived], is a 1992 NCNM ND graduate and DHANP aka "board certified in homeopathy by the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians."

Now, that CoAND biography page is titled “Gregory Pais” and there we're told:

“grounded in the science of naturopathic medicine, Dr. Pais's passion and love for natural living and healthy eating permeates his practice. The depth and power of action of homeopathic medicine is augmented by Dr. Pais's extensive knowledge and decades of experience in helping people create and maintain an optimum lifestyle.”

I don't make this shit up:

they do.

Now, while we're in the North American naturopathy marketplace and observing what naturopaths say to the public on their web pages to drum up customers, let's briefly look at the 2011 paper

"Supported by Science?: What Canadian Naturopaths Advertise to the Public":

The paper, which was published in "Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology [...the] Official Journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology" is up at nih.gov's National Library of Medicine in full-text [Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2011; 7(1): 14. Published online 2011 Sep 15. doi: 10.1186/1710-1492-7-14].

There, authors Caulfield and Rachul write:

"those who are supportive of naturopathic medicine often support the field by claiming that the naturopathic treatments are supported by science and scientific research […] a review of the therapies advertised on the websites of clinics offering naturopathic treatments does not support the proposition that naturopathic medicine is a science and evidence-based practice […] many of the most common treatments -- such as homeopathy, chelation and colon cleanse -- are viewed by the scientific community to be of questionable value and have no scientific evidence of efficacy beyond placebo […e.g.] homeopathy does not work and there is no scientific reason to think that it could work."

Yet naturopathy's science claims continue and continue, and ND Wiancek is such an example.

Lets look at such from 2002, and appreciate just how long-standing this scatolalical pattern is.

The 2002 MCNA NDs' Smith and Logan Paper:


The journal citation for this paper is:

Medical Clinics of North America, Volume 86, Number 1, January 2002.

Coincidentally, 2002 is the year I voluntarily left naturopathy school in good standing, disgusted, WHILE I was unable to complete what they required of me:

clinic patient contacts that my ND supervisors had blackballed me from experiencing,

health science” in categorical label that included abject science-ejected junk,

and “non-sectarian” in categorical label but essentially a sectarian form of 'faithy pseudomedicine'.

Three Catch-22's!

That I'd then take an oath to [vsc 2016-10-16]?

No thanks:

I sought, instead, to live an examined life.

By the way, as a graduated initiate in Naturopathyland, if one is a newly minted ND, that ND Oath requires:

"I will honor my teachers and all who have preserved and developed this knowledge.”

This JUNK knowledge.

For instance, one would definitely have to honor ND Zeff, the ND promoting homeopathic nosodes instead of modern scientific vaccination that I covered in the first third of this Part 4 of Episode 012, and who is one of the NDs who chaired naturopathy's 'principles composition'

[which is: AANP Position Paper, 1989 Snider P., Zeff J., Co-Chairs: Select Committee on the Definition of Naturopathic Medicine AANP House of Delegates, Rippling River, Oregon].

Yes, you have to honor such asshats who keep this junk knowledge nonsense going:

like the science subset supernaturalism and science-ejected of the whole shebang.

ND Zeff, by the way, is cited by this Smith and Logan paper and I'll be delving into more of his writings in this Episode part.

And since we're in an ethics episode, which deals with behavioral obligations, I might was well deal with naturopathy's Oath right now:

I want to have said it IN FULL at least once in this episode.

I'll use the ND Oath iteration that's online from

ND Fasig

a Bastyr ND graduate who teaches at Bastyr [her bio. is here; 2016 archived].

Her web practice address is queenannenaturalmedicine.com.

On her own web page, the ND tells us, because it would be naturopathy without false epistemic categorical labels, that naturopathy's

“centuries-old remedies have been subjected to 20th and 21st century scientific experimentation and have been proven to be effective” [here; 2016 archived]

and that

“homeopathic medicine was developed in the 18th century, and its science has been verified experimentally and clinically” [here, 2016 archived].

That is one MOUNTAINOUS steaming cow pie.

an epistemically fraudulent position when there are truly no rigorous distinctions, a whole bunch of FICTITIOUS science.

“I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of naturopathic medicine. I will honor my teachers and all who have preserved and developed this knowledge, and dedicate myself to supporting the growth and evolution of naturopathic medicine. I will endeavor to continually improve my abilities as a healer through study, reflection, and genuine concern for humanity. I will impart knowledge of the advanced healing arts to dedicated colleagues and students. Through precept, lecture, and example, I will assist and encourage others to strengthen their health, reduce risks for disease, and preserve the health of our planet for ourselves, our families, and future generations. According to my best ability and judgment, I will use methods of treatment, which follow the principles of naturopathic medicine: first of all, to do no harm; to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature; to address the fundamental causes of disease; to heal the whole person through individualized treatment; to teach the principles of healthy living and preventive medicine. I will conduct my life and the practice of naturopathic health care with vigilance, integrity, and freedom from prejudice. I will abstain from voluntary acts of injustice and corruption. I will keep confidential whatever I am privileged to witness, whether professionally or privately, that should not be divulged. With my whole heart, before this gathering of witnesses, as a doctor of naturopathic medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath.”

So, spreading what's false – naturopathy's ideas that then lead to naturopathy's activities – is supposedly good for humanity, shows a concern for humanity?

And is of integrity, and NOT of corruption?

Naturopathy's MO is quite apparent in this oath:

notice the coded vitalism at the heart of their oath.

Not even in a document that's supposed to be 'all the good stuff' do we get that most important 'good thing':

And she has up the page “Code of Ethics” [2016 archived] too, believe it or not, but it's actually the AANP's defunct code of ethics that was previous to their 2013 update.

This MISTAKEN page, though, is what's currently there, and it has been archived since 2013 at archive.org.

That's how out of touch NDs are with their code of ethics, they don't even KNOW what their current code of ethics is.

But what's interesting about that defunct code is that it is the code that was operating when NDs Smith and Logan published their paper [checked: here it is archived from naturopathic.org in 2002].

And that code obviously has within it a commitment to the science-ejected coded vitalistic, since we're told:

“the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae).”

And we're assured:

“the naturopathic physician shall strive to exemplify personal well-being, ethical character and trust worthiness as a health care professional.”

Now, as I've said, NDs Smith and Logan stated in 2002 that naturopathy categorically is a branch of science.

Let's lump NDs Fasig, Smith, and Logan together with this observation, by way of this code of ethics:

it is literally ethical in Naturopathyland to be manipulatively opaque and hide the science ejected sectarian, and to be epistemically FALSE about the nature of that sectarianism.

All that then is termed being of:

“ethical character and trust worthiness.”

So, it is ethical by way of naturopathy's Code of Ethics, to reverse values.

Now, the ND Smith and Logan article is titled “Naturopathy”, and it is on pages 173 through 184 of the MCNA CAM issue.
And access from Science Direct costs $36 for that one article in the entire issue.
And as I've said, I have this as hardbound paper.

The article states:

“from the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, Ontario. Canada [...with the authors being] Michael J. Smith, MRPharmS, ND, and Alan C. Logan, BA, ND.”

So, ND authors and an ND institution's imprimatur.

Again, I'll state this so awful weirdness up-front:

this 2002 paper claims naturopathy is a branch of medical “science.”

Specifically, as written, the authors tell us of:

“naturopathic cooperation with all other branches of medical science.”
But that is a label placed upon the patently nonscientific essentially naturopathic:

such things as homeopathy, vitalism, teleology-finalism, and supernaturalism MINIMALLY.

You know, the perpetual stuff naturopathy clings to and defines itself by way of.

You are even expected, according to the article, to come in with preponderant science as your background, as we are told:

“all entering students are required to complete the standard premedical science courses.”

So, standard science for an area that ignores science's boundaries.

That sounds cruel.

And remember, ND Smith told us in his book of the same year that CAM is CAM because it hasn't passed scientific muster.

Contradictions abound in Naturopathyland:

this so awful weirdness.

There's a hint of that sectarian clingedness and lack of boundary, at the heart of naturopathy, upon what has been falsely termed “science”, when we're told by Smith and Logan:

“practitioners combine the art and science of medicine, using traditional forms of healing and modern scientific knowledge to treat and prevent illness.”

The “AND” there matters, greatly.

That was combine “modern scientific knowledge [...AND the] traditional”.

That's a blend of wine AND mud, epistemically speaking:

science AND something else, then falsely termed COLLECTIVELY science.

That is not logically potable.

Part of that something else is indicated when we're told in the article:

“the profession is not unified by therapeutic modalities but by a philosophy to which all naturopathic practitioners adhere. This medical philosophy guides practitioners in making therapeutic choices.”

So, again, naturopathy's ideas, including their “six unifying principles” and the figmentations claimed within, GUIDE naturopathy's activities as naturopaths' “therapeutic choices”, which include the “traditional.”

That is why it is important to discuss naturopathy's beliefs, assumptions and figmentations because from there naturopathy acts, and it acts disguised as 'all science' PARTICULARLY in this MCNA paper.

The authors assure:

“there appears to be a rapid professional evolution within naturopathic medicine [...and a] patient receiving naturopathic care can expect the practitioner to be held to high standards, established by state or provincial law.”

No, that evolution is contradicted by naturopathy's sectarian clingings:

with homeopathy and kind quite LOW standards, with supernaturalism, vitalism and kind quite LOW standards.

So low that they're false, in fact, to label, as they do, science.

And as we've seen through Hawaii law, the “law” requires that a figmentation be treated:

 the vital force figmentation of naturopathy.

And that's quite LOW too and quite against “a rapid professional evolution” if you are engaged in 'mandated superstition that belies a science categorical label'.

So when naturopaths claim 'their law protects the public', it may just be a law to protect naturopathic nonsense, to ENFORCE naturopathic nonsense.

And I must mention, since I've pointed out that I'm obligated to the preponderant VALUES of the medical profession in the United States and Europe, in terms of many Codes of ethics for medicine though I'm not a physician, such nonsense protecting laws have to be combated.

After all, the AMA Code of Ethics states:

“a physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.”

And though, again, I am not a physician, I'm still bound-up with these behavioral obligations, as ethical obligations, and I don't see how 'a mandated figmentation' is in anyone's best interest.

It is a legislated belief, and I do believe that is unconstitutional.

And the paper states:

“naturopathic medicine incorporates many complementary medical approaches to treatment […] as with other complementary therapies, an appreciable amount of the evidence supporting naturopathic medicine is primarily empiric or folkloric (or both) in nature [as in anecdote, as in not science…] naturopathic medicine shares many issues with other complementary therapies when it comes to evaluating efficacy and safety […] objectively and effectively evaluating this form of evidence can be particularly challenging […] more detailed evidence is required to show conclusively safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness.”

So the authors tell us naturopathy is without scientific evidence CONCLUSIVELY though the paper categorically CONCLUSIVELY labels naturopathy “science."

And there's naturopathy lumped in with CAM again, which again I'll state:

Smith told us CAM is CAM because it's not supported by science in the year 2002.

And what I find amazing also is how, in the 14 years since publication of this Smith and Logan paper, naturopathy still hasn't any science to back up 'the essentially naturopathic', and science has further distanced naturopathy's essences from science's boundaries.

As I've said, in those 14 years, within North American naturopathy:

you see NO experimental attempts to prove the existence of a vital force spirit,

you see NO experimental studies using naturopathy's SO important POWERFUL therapy homeopathy which the AANP claims is a “medicinal science”,

you have the NGSS actually invoking vitalism as a perfect example of the science-ejected,

and you have the national science organizations stating that science does not and cannot include the supernatural.

The Smith and Logan paper is NOT a report of experimental findings that legitimize that essentially naturopathic stuff I just listed as not scientific, minimally.

Otherwise, Nobels.


But there haven't been any Nobels.

There hasn't even been publication in a major science journal about such ground-breaking findings globally, because they DON'T EXIST.

Yet the paper rubber-stamped naturopathy “science" in 2002, and remains uncontested and without warnings.

Well, I'm contesting that perpetual false claim, and I'm warning:

as usual, naturopathy is labeling something science without DOING science.

The paper is rhetoric, propaganda, not true, it is an end-run, it is a cheat.


Also, as I write this Episode section, the 2016 U.S. “Naturopathic Medicine Week” just passed, and you'd think that that would be a great time to highlight the science that backs naturopathy's claim of science.

But there hasn't been any ground-breaking announcement like:

we've legitimately established the science foundation for what has been kicked out of science
[like their vitalism, shown below]
Instead, naturopathy merely reiterate its principles.

And usually that vitalism is coded, sadly, and I'll include a Bastyr University coded vitalism example in the transcript.
As I've said, within naturopathy 'hypocrisy abounds':

because in the same year as the publication of this paper with its broad science label upon naturopathy, one of the co-authors, ND Smith, defined naturopathy in his 2002 CAM book as CAM

'with CAM being what hasn't been accepted by mainstream medicine because it lacks scientific support'.

That is quite contradictory.

It's like naturopathy wants 3 + 3 to equal 6, or 7, or 5:

it's merely good enough for naturopathy that the answer provided is a number, any number.

Close enough.

Just as for naturopathy it's good enough that the knowledge provided is any knowledge kind.

It's like they say:

well, science is written in words and numbers, and we've done similar, used words and numbers, so we're now science.

Then they call it all rigorous, they call it all "grounded in the same biomedical sciences", they call it all high standards, they advertise and they ring your money up at their cash registers.

In the sense of such '3 + 3 vagueness', the authors speak of the:

“eclectic approach taken by naturopathic physicians […that] naturopathic medicine is an eclectic form of primary health care”,

like Smith's CAM book does.

And for me, 'eclectic' is a substitute word for:

irrational, blended, confused, variable, shady.

Before I go any further, let me temporally locate naturopathy's institutional composition at the time this ND Smith and Logan paper came out.

The paper lists the AANP and the CAND, then called the CNA, as naturopathy's “national professional organizations”,

and the ND-granting schools at the time are listed by the authors as Bastyr, CCNM, NCNM, SCNM, and UB.

We're ASSURED that Bastyr and UB also have met regional accreditation standards and that all the schools have met CNME accreditation standards.

And let me emphasize, as I went to UB for four years between 1998 and 2002 under the assurances of such accreditations by CNME, NEASC and the State of CT:

I got science subset science-exterior / science-discarded,

I got non-sectarian subset sectarian,

I got the impossible to achieve.

So, I got screwed.

Let me quote the 2004 archived idiotic language of the Dean of my ND program at the time, naturopath Peter Martin.

Now, Martin is also a chiropractor, and he was the 2014 Chiropractor of the Year by way of the Florida Chiropractic Association.

I'll link to an article at palmer.edu [2016 archived] that tells us about this award, and hilariously excludes from a summary of his career his time as UB's naturopathy program dean.

At archive.org, there are the two UB pages from bridgeport.edu with the language "Dr. Peter Martin, Dean" on them, which attributes authorship of the pages:

"Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1" and "Today's Naturopathic Physician".

The first contains the science-ejected as the essentially naturopathic, while the second claims science as naturopathy's essential category.

Can you say 'does not compute, does not compute.'

The first page states:

"the healing power of nature, viz [his spelling, instead of 's'] medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process, to act to identify and remove obstacles to health and recovery, and to support the creation of a healthy internal and external environment."

So that's science-ejected vitalism, explicitly stated.

There's even more vitalism on another page, "Guiding Principle #3."

The second page states:

"today's naturopathic physician serves on the front line of health care as a primary care physician practicing scientific medicine."

So that's quite a categorical science claim UPON the science-ejected.

To pose those two contrary claims as simultaneous, as if not inherently contradictory, is IDIOTIC.

And one reason I know the claim of 'science subset nonscience' is bogus, historically, is because Dean Martin didn't receive a Nobel for his AMAZING discovery.

And yet, in the midst of all this sectarian psychopathy, UB had a College of Naturopathic Medicine page "Accreditation" that assured:

"the University of Bridgeport is a nationally recognized university."

Nationally recognized stupidity and idiocy and CRAZY.

And UB had a College of Naturopathic Medicine page "About University of Bridgeport" which assured:

"accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), and the Connecticut Department of Higher Education."

Such partnership in fraud, stupidity, idiocy and crazy!!!

How much Title IV and personal monies has the University of Bridgeport purloined over the years with their cultic mystical weirdness under the false label of "health science" and nonsectarian?

How many people has UB and North American naturopathy diverted from legitimate health science studies over the years?

How much damage has been done to scientific integrity over that time?

And it's all still going STRONG, just like the false science claim of NDs Smith and Logan in this 2002 MCNA article.

Now, both authors actually assure, even after the stuff I just mentioned by way of UB, which was contemporary to this assurance:

“naturopathic medicine is one of the most widely regulated complementary health care professions in North America. Legislation governing naturopathic medicine and its role in primary health care is established in 4 Canadian provinces, 11 states, and Puerto Rico, as follows: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont, Washington.”

So that was:

“widely regulated […] legislation governing.”

Again, I'll point out, in what I believe to be paraphrased words of the great Edzard Ernst:

'the strict regulation of nonsense is not going to make that nonsense sense'.

For example, just because that Hawaii law mandates that naturopathy's vital force be treated doesn't make that vital force any less fantastical, figmentatious, nonsensical, perverse.

Now, I've often mentioned how the North American licensure exam NPLEX falsely PERPETUALLY claims homeopathy is a "clinical science."

The 2002 paper tells us about this 'licensure of falsehood' exam:

"in addition to graduation from an approved institute, laws governing naturopathic medicine require the successful completion of basic science and clinical board examinations."

At the time, those were the two main sections:

"basic science and clinical", and then there were what are termed "add-on" exams.

I'll embed scans of my 2000 NPLEX Part 1 admittance letter and test results.

Those documents list all those NPLEX parts, including:
the supposed sciences that supposedly base naturopathy as basic medical sciences, a separate homeopathy exam, and a separate acupuncture exam.

Both of those documents were sent via USPS, and I still have the envelopes.

What's interesting too, touching back to our friend ND Traub from Episode 007, is that Traub is listed on those 2000 documents as the president of the NABNE organization that runs the NPLEX.

He would later become the AANP president [2001-2003].

Currently, we're told by NABNE [2016 archived], who run the NPLEX, that the sections of NPLEX are now:

"Part I – Biomedical Science Examination [...] Part II – Core Clinical Science Examination [...with that part 2 including] homeopathy."

So, even as more and more externalization occurs in terms of homeopathy and science in REALITY, naturopathy has intensified its wrong epistemic label upon homeopathy in Naturopathyland.

Let me mention:

National University of Health Sciences only started their naturopathy program a few years ago.

That's health sciences as a title of the university, subset naturopathy, subset homeopathy.

It's completely batshit crazy.

Regarding NPLEX, the paper states:

"currently the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination (NPLEX) is the standardized examination required by all jurisdictions. The NPLEX format and validation procedures were established by naturopathic physicians working with a professional testing agency with the common goal of providing a recognized standard for naturopathic credentialing throughout North America. The North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE) has assumed the responsibility of administering the NPLEX basic science and clinical examinations. NABNE approves the credentials of candidates for NPLEX examinations and ensures that the examinations are administered without bias. NABNE responds to an advisory committee comprising appointees from licensed jurisdictions, the CNME, and the Federation of Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Authorities. Additional local licensing examinations such as jurisprudence also are required in most jurisdictions. Completion of the 4-year education and NPLEX are prerequisites for membership in the profession's national organizations."

So that was:

“standardized […] validation […] credentialing […] ensures […] without bias […] prerequisite.”

So, NPLEX is necessary in order to joint the naturopathy North American party, and it is “standard” for one to accede to its falseness in order to operate as an ND in North America.

As in 'homeopathy is science' [and kind].

What's quite ironic, from an historical view, is be told NPLEX categorically went through a process of “validation” and that it is objective as opposed to biased.

Sticking with nonsense claimed as sense to me is quite a bias:

NPLEX has actually ramped-up its corruption in that it melded homeopathy into that Part 2 and added upon that mishmash the explicit label science.

Now, that Smith and Logan mentioned Federation of Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Authorities, FNPLA, and FNPLA did not last for too long, if you are curious.

The web site fnpla.org, at Archive.org, is present from 2002 until 2009, and it then appears again from 2013 to the present.

That later block is something unrelated in Japanese.

I must emphasize that FNPLA was the pinnacle of the North American naturopathy regulatory racket during its time, comprised of the different state and provincial ND licensure organizations.

The FNPLA's contents online are therefore quite a preponderant representation of naturopathy:

it's the language of naturopathy's “authorities”, in those years in early 2000.

It's the tip of the pyramid.

Let's take a look.

There's a 2002 archived page with the URL “Master_Frameset.htm”, with various tabs.

Now, this FNPLA page is of the same year as that MCNA paper by NDs Smith and Logan, and it states “science” broadly just like UB of that era WHILE also stating in detail naturopathy's science-ejected innards.

First, on the page's “Philosophy" tab, we're told:

"the philosophy of naturopathic medicine […there are] six principles of healing [that] form the foundation for naturopathic medical practice […] naturopathic medicine is a distinctively natural approach.”

There's that distinct claim upon the blended-nebulous-eclectic.

And with the term natural itself being nebulous, it's strange to realize they're saying naturopathy is specifically-nonspecific.

We're told naturopathy is:

“heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, naturopathic medicine emphasizes the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process.”

There you go, 'sectarian science-ejected nonsense superstition mandated by the licensing authority'.

The first principle is detailed as: 

“the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process.”

And the third principle is detailed as:

“first do no harm, primum no nocere: illness is a purposeful process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae. Therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized.”

Ah, the “in fact” vital force / life force / HPN-VMN figmentation-superstition.

We're told: 

“causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual. The physician must evaluate fundamental underlying causes on all levels, directing treatment at root causes rather than at symptomatic expression […] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. The physician must treat the whole person by taking all of these factors into account.”

So, there's supernaturalism.

Again, PROVE TO ME naturopathy that you can actually assess the supernatural:

prove to me that the supernatural actually CAUSED something.

Another principle tells us:

“the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher.”

That's mandated supernaturalism, of a kind, one that develops.

Now, I'm a teacher by profession, and I think I'm a good one, and I don't need or teach supernaturalism, to order to be good.

But, there again, is naturopathy's mandated supernaturalism, mandated as a practitioner of naturopathy.

And we're told by FNPLA:

“the physician's major role is to educate and encourage the patient to take responsibility for health […] the physician is a catalyst for healthful change, empowering and motivating the patient to assume responsibility.”

Well, my first act of responsibility if a patient of naturopathy would be to dump naturopathy, to keep these weasels out of my head because:

spreading falsehoods to patients about their body and how it works, about therapies that don't work and can't, is not good NOR empowering nor helpful NOR responsible.

We're also ironically told:

“the physician must strive to inspire hope as well as understanding.”

Understanding from the people who won't explain.

Well, I understand that for instance to hope for vitalism and supernaturalism and kind to be validated by science is quite hopeless.

And here's the science claim.

In the FNPLA 2002 "About" tab, we're told:

"naturopathic physicians: naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care physicians who specialize in holistic medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences, but are not orthodox medical doctors (allopathic physicians, or M.D.)."

So that's science, as a category, and that false label "allopathic."

But if you're university-level science contains the patently science-exterior, well, "conventional" is quite the wrong word to describe yourself with.

Additionally, we're told:

"naturopathic students must do extensive coursework and clinical study in natural therapeutics. Practice [...] the goal of the naturopathic doctor is to [...] devise a uniquely individualized treatment using natural therapeutics to support the body in healing itself [...] the current scope of naturopathic practice includes [...] homeopathic medicine: homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of 'like cures like.' It works on a subtle yet powerful electromagnetic level, gently acting to strengthen the body's healing and immune response."

Again, typical coded vitalism and fictitious efficacy claims upon homeopathy.

In the "History" tab, we're told:

"history of naturopathy: naturopathic medicine, sometimes called 'naturopathy,' is as old as healing itself and as new as the latest discoveries in biochemical sciences. In the United States, the naturopathic medical profession's infrastructure is based on accredited educational institutions, professional licensing by a growing number of states, national standards of practice and care, peer review, and an ongoing commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research."

So that's also QUITE a science claim and an assurance via "accredited [...] licensing [...and] standards of practice."

Additionally, we're told:

"modern American naturopathic physicians (NDs) receive extensive training in and use therapies that are primarily natural [...including] homeopathy [...these] naturopathic medical colleges recognized by the US Department of Education [...] Hippocrates, a physician who lived 2400 years ago, is often considered the earliest predecessor of naturopathic physicians, particularly in terms of his teaching that 'nature is healer of all diseases' and his formulation of the concept vis medicatrix naturae, 'the healing power of nature.'  This concept has long been at the core of indigenous medicine in many cultures around the world and remains one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy to this day [...aka] the body's own healing powers."


that vague label natural, an oversight and quality assurance, and coded vitalism.

Now, history according to naturopathy, did naturopathy wrong, overall.

We're told:

"naturopathic medicine was popular and widely available throughout the US well into the early part of the 20th century. Around 1920, from coast to coast, there were a number of naturopathic medical schools, thousands of naturopathic physicians, and scores of thousands of patients using naturopathic therapies. But the rise of 'scientific medicine'."

They put that term scientific medicine in what many people call scare quotes as if they're stating 'supposed scientific medicine'.

Because naturopathy is not happy with the boundaries of legitimate science which then determine what is legitimately medically useful.

And we're told:

"in the last half of the 1990s, exactly one century after it put down roots in North America, naturopathic medicine is finally enjoying a well-deserved renaissance."

No, you did not deserve, you got their by not being transparent and by being false.

So, I must emphasize that this is all in the year 2002:

a very interesting year as regards naturopathy, in my life and for naturopathy.

It's the year I left ND school, disgusted.

It's the year naturopathy was termed science in a medical journal, uncontested to this day.

It's the year naturopathy's cumulative preponderance illustrated quite publicly QUITE CLEARLY even then that that science categorical label was patently false:

a falsehood that has persisted in that journal for 14 years and counting.

By the way, in MD Atwood's 2003-2004 Medscape pieces, no ND Smith mention or citation occurs, and no FNPLA mention or citation occurs [checked].

He'd published his material a year after NDs Smith and Logan's paper, and FNPLA was publicly available.

I'm NOT faulting either that oversight or choice by MD Atwood, but those omissions alone are good reason for doing this Episode.

As I've said, I'm interested in exposing naturopathy's intimate details,

and what Smith wrote regarding naturopathy's nonscience status in his 2002 CAM book as compared to his 2002 MCNA paper's science label upon naturopathy,

and what UB and FNPLA expose in that same time period as the essentially naturopathic,

is quite a useful contradiction.

In place of FNPLA, there is now the Federation of Naturopathic Medicine Regulatory Authorities, FNMRA, which is comprised of [2016 archived] all the usual suspects including:


FNMRA also has a list of all of naturopathy's '.gov' current partners in crime,

 which help them control this licensed falsehood market under the guise of public protection,

 and nowhere do I find a description of naturopathy currently on FNMRA's pages.

Because we don't deserve to know so we can then decide.

Now, if it isn't obvious already, I must admit that I'm going at this Smith and Logan article in a wandering and associative kind of way.

This right now may also be thought of as deliberately bass-ackwards:

I'm going to delve into the article's citations, references, or bibliography.

 On the article's p.184, in the end notes, there are two citations, actually the last two citations, numbers 38 and number 39, that particularly catch my eye.

They are articles by ND Zeff, our 'homeopathic nosodes are better than modern vaccines' ND that I'd earlier mentioned in the first third of Part Four, who is also the coauthor of the modern iteration of naturopathy's principles.

The citations state:

“38. Zeff JL: The process of healing: A unifying theory of naturopathic medicine. Journal of Naturopathic Medicine 7:122-125, 1997 [...and] 39. Zeff JL: The cornerstones of naturopathic medicine. Journal of Naturopathic Medicine 8:62-65, 1998.”

By the way, if you want a homeopathy course, and who doesn't, as offered by the Naturopathic Medicine Institute, there's "Clinical Homeopathy: A Practical Approach to Homeopathic Prescribing with Jared Zeff, ND, LAc".

That's practical nonsense, all for $50!

So, those two citations are from the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine.

It is not easy to get Journal of Naturopathic Medicine material, but I coincidentally have that very rare publication in paper, too.

Let me look actually at three ND Zeff articles from that Journal:

there's the just mentioned 1997 and 1998 articles, plus there's a 2000 “part II” to that 1998 article which Smith and Logan don't cite.

What do we have in those articles that tell us about naturopathy, preponderantly?

Well, in them is the essentially naturopathic which is, like those UB and FNPLA sources, NOT science.

The 1997 ND Zeff Article:

We're told in the article, and again I must mention there's nothing experimental about this article:

“this article explores the process of healing as the origin of naturopathic philosophy […and seeks] to set forth a clarification and expansion of naturopathic philosophy, and model the practice which naturally arises from it.”

So, naturopathy's IDEAS which then guide naturopathy's activities.

We're told:

“naturopathic medicine embraces [...certain] assumptions […] the first of these naturopathic assumptions is contained within vis medicatrix naturae […] naturopathic medicine is vitalistic, relying upon the wisdom and intelligence of the body […] we rely upon the healing wisdom, vital energies and intelligence of the organism to restore normal and healthy function […] restoration of health can be defined by four principles […including] stimulation of the vis medicatrix naturae [...aka] general stimulation of the vital force.”

So, that's vitalism and teleology-finalism:

naturopathy's idea that there is a 'life-giving energy that is purposeful aka has wisdom aka is intelligent.'

Such is truly an article of faith not found within the science of physiology, which explains the functioning of the human body.

How do you stimulate this science-ejected figmentation?

With magic beans, unicorn tears, flying carpets and the like, of course, because Zeff tells us:
“specific stimulation of the vital force […] is accomplished through: homeopathy, a patient-specific system of stimulation of the vital force, which works through bioenergetics, and [...] acupuncture [...which is] more invasive than homeopathy.”

That was “specific” instructions on how to stimulate a figmentation, with noneffective methods.

Well, there's a certain kind of consistency there.

And we're also told, in spite of the nonscientific status of such as ideas and activities:

“the naturopathic model for healing therefore presents a scientific basis for evaluation, in both teaching settings and clinical practice.”

So, the science-ejected as idea and activity is absurdly offered as a scientific basis.

This is a certain kind of fictitious science!

Now, when I studied philosophy in college, it wasn't dumb and crazy.

But naturopathy calls all this dumb and crazy “philosophy.”

And I can't say this too often about 'the essentially naturopathic' no matter what kind of tuxedo they dress it up with:

it's dumb and crazy.

I prefer my philosophy not to be dumb and crazy, not to be a cover for 'pseudoscience and sectarian irrationality'.

And just to support that 'naturopathy equals homeopathy plus nature cure' historical composition process I'd mentioned earlier, the bibliography to this paper includes Hahnemann's homeopathy book and Lindlahr's nature cure book.

ND Zeff's 1998 Article:

In this article, Zeff tells us such things as:

“all medicine comes down to a question of validity: what works and what doesn't […] the current foundation of reliability is the scientific method.”

Well that's quite ironic.

And yes, that is where the rubber meets the road, epistemically speaking.

Historically, we're informed:

“in 1986, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), the newly revived professional association, under the presidency of Dr. Cathy Rogers, commissioned Dr. Pamela Snider and myself to create a unifying definition [for naturopathy...] we pledged to continually reexamine these statements in the light of further experience and scientific advancement […] the committee sifted through input from the profession and cataloged six principles […] the six principles […the six principles include #] 1. vis medicatrix naturae: the healing power of nature […] we rely upon the healing wisdom, vital energies and intelligence of the organism to restore normal and healthy function […] it is our privilege and responsibility to work with the vis medicatrix and assist our patients in their healing process.”

So, a pledge to use science as a lens, but you'd have to know science's boundaries in order to do that and not merely think you can label anything science, like a vital force.

But naturopathy does precisely that:

labels anything science.

So, there's that vitalism that belies that science lens promise:

pulled out of its coffin in modern times, the late 1980's, as if viable but actually for-decades scientifically invalid.

Ironically, around the year 1986, I was studying modern mainstream science in high school, the stuff that does not include imaginary figmentations.

But, you'd said “scientific method […] scientific advancement”, not 'science-ejected sectarian dumbassedness' ND Zeff!

Now, this paper ROBUSTLY gets into naturopathy's supernaturalism.

ND Zeff speaks of:

“spiritual causes […] causes of disease manifest in four groups or levels [notice the sectarian specificity there…] these four aspects […] spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical […] the human being is not simply a physical entity. We have minds, we think. We have emotions, we feel and we translate these feelings into meaning. We are spiritual beings. Most of the early naturopathic writers, such as Lindlahr, Lust and Hahnemann, believed that illness began in the spiritual aspect of the person. I share this belief […] it is crucial, in my opinion, that we direct more attention to the spiritual aspect […] the spirit is the center […] if there is a distortion on the spiritual level, it will create distortion throughout the system, like ripples from a stone thrown into a pond.”

Now this supports the idea that the vital force is actually a spirit:

in the sense that naturopathy continually speaks of how important it is, centrally, and now you have Zeff saying spiritual is important, centrally.

Plus we had the Hawaii naturopathic society equate vital force with spirit.

Again, I must emphasize:

if naturopathy is claiming to be a science, categorically, which it is,

then there is no supernaturalism in science

and when it is put there, then corners are being cut, deceptions are mightily underway,

and knowledge types are being grossly IGNORED but simultaneously grossly EXPLOITED as false labels.

Also, as I've said, I'm all-for freedom of belief, but that is not the freedom to engage in false commerce:

clinically, academically, politically.

As for mandatory supernaturalism as a naturopathy practitioner, ND Zeff tells us:

“we can discuss with patients […] their spiritual practice, or absence of it, and our perceptions of their health or happiness in these regards. This requires that we pursue our own personal spiritual development.”

So, as an ND one is occupationally bound to supernaturalism and a kind of ministry.

'Supernaturalism within health science' is one of the reasons I left UB's naturopathy program:

the school claims the label “non-sectarian” upon its health sciences programs [2016 archived] ,

yet the UB catalog [2016 archived] to this day mandates

“naturopathic physicians [to] encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development.”

Now, that's not just the practitioner having to be supernatural or spiritual, as naturopathy's language stated earlier, but also a requirement to actively “encourage” or proselytize such to naturopathy patients to and society.

This nebulous “spiritual development” is, inherently, a KIND of belief practice, a kind of faithiness, because we're told such details by ND Zeff as:

“emotional causes: the emotional body of the patient is a transient expression of the more constant spiritual center […] the extent to which […] the person can accept change on a spiritual level, will determine whether healing can occur.”

Whatever that means.

Sounds like further details of a belief system to me, and, outright, ministerial activity of enough detail to be a certain advocating of a certain metaphysical position.

I was the fooled fool, admittedly, because I was naive and didn't think a University with mainstream credentials would lie to me when I went into UB ND school, which falsely claims that categorical label “science” upon naturopathy.

And I also foolishly mistakenly thought that the school's other label, “nonsectarian”, meant that specific religious / supernatural / ministerial beliefy-faithy requirements WEREN'T present there and obligations for naturopathy overall and as a newcomer being trained in naturopathy.

And then Zeff gets really weird, would you believe, in a 'beyond the Pale' kind of weirdness, if that's possible.

He insists:

“illness is a great teacher. Death is not defeat. It is neither our responsibility nor prerogative to prevent death or heal illness.”

I've no idea why someone posing as a physician would say such a thing, but I guess if you are truly a metaphysician as opposed to merely a physician, then, well, boundaries are nonexistent and you can say whatever you want.

It would seem to me that first and foremost a physician's duty is to create the most good for their patients and society, which would include reducing morbidity and mortality, generally speaking.

But, I'm still thinking.

Now, Zeff did write, in a fuller sense:

“it is neither our responsibility nor prerogative to prevent death or heal illness. It is our privilege and responsibility to work with the vis medicatrix and assist our patients in their healing process.”


So, an article of faith is placed as MOST IMPORTANT, that figmentation:

patient's can live or die, heal or not, but as long as a naturopath has worked with the vital force spirit figmentation, naturopathy's central article of faith, then the naturopath has done what he/she needed to do.


How sectarian.

Overall, Zeff also has this admission:

“as a profession we acknowledge the existence of a spiritual aspect of the person […] this spiritual aspect of reality [...] but [we] do not teach a methodology to work with it.”

So, naturopathy claims expertise in the supernatural OUTWARDS to the public – as 'spirit, body, mind expertise' that must be engaged with – and yet WITHIN itself, naturopathy privately admits that naturopaths have no training and no means to engage that “spirit” non-thing they claim is so important and they claim to the public to be able to manipulate.

Fakes, naturopaths are fakes in so many ways.

And Zeff does speak of, strangely enough:

“our American culture, with our freedom of religion or freedom from religion.”

Yeah, you honor those boundaries about as well as you honor science's boundaries!

As in not.

And he urges:

“our profession must develop a language with which to discuss the spiritual aspect of healing without reference to religion.”

I'd argue it has, by coding and by pseudoscience.

Naturopathy's vitalism and kind, IMHO, is a religion unto itself quietly denying its faithiness and instead camouflaging itself as science categorically.

ND Zeff's 2000 Article:

We are told in this article, regarding vitalism:

“there is an order to the process of healing, referred to in naturopathic medicine as the therapeutic order or the hierarchy of therapeutics [oops, I say 'therapies']. The order is determined by how the body heals. It has six steps […including] stimulate the vital force […] stimulation of the vital force will overcome the inertia of illness, and more rapidly propel the person toward normal function.”

As for alternates to “vital force”, “medicatrix” is in the article at least 6 times.

ND Zeff writes:

“as the disturbing factors are ameliorated and the vis medicatrix naturae is stimulated, I expect to see the patient improve […] this requires a real trust in the process of healing and the wisdom of the vis medicatrix naturae […] naturopathic physicians respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed. This is a direct quote from the definition of naturopathic medicine as explicated by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians […] it is in understanding the process of healing and respecting the vis medicatrix naturae that we work with our patients and see the amazing recuperative potential of the body […] we choose to intervene with therapies that support the vis medicatrix naturae rather than suppress it […] trust the vis medicatrix naturae, and expect success.”

And we're told naturopaths:

“stimulate the self healing mechanisms [...with] hydrotherapy, homeopathy, acupuncture.”

Back to Smith and Logan:

So that was some exploration of some of Smith and Logan's citations, to further show that their label upon naturopathy as “science” belies the essential nature of naturopathy!

Now, though the citations are rife with vitalism and supernaturalism, Smith and Logan's paper isn't.

Editorial choices have been made, at the expense of transparency, at the expense of the whole truth.

In the MCNA paper, the NDs Smith and Logan MERELY tell us:

“the following six principles are the basis of naturopathic medical practice in North America: [#1] vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature: the healing power of nature is the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic physician's role to support, facilitate and augment this process.”

No vital force transparently communicated there!

In the entire article, there is actually neither “vital force” or “life force”, “vitalism” or “vitalistic.”

Really, how manipulative:

'vitalism and kind' only coded.

This is the manipulative opacity that is naturopathy's usual MO.

If you didn't know any better – which most readers don't, even if they are medical doctors and researchers, who are most of the direct audience of MCNA – you'd interpret those words on face value, in terms I'll call mundane.

But naturopathy means more than those mundane words.

Such a circumstance would be an example of someone taking advantage of others' ignorance, which through MacDonald and Gavura, we saw was unethical in terms of commerce.

Now, incidentally, let me mention another naturopathy paper that is similar in its coding because this coding is not accidental, it is institutionalized.

As I'd said, this is naturopathy's usual MO, particularly in medical Journal articles.

You'd think you'd get the MOST TRUTHFUL representation in such sources regarding naturopathy, but, as we can see, you actually get the WORST.

The other paper I'm thinking about is “Naturopathic Medicine: What Can Patients Expect?”, which was published in the Journal of Family Practice in 2005 [here it is by way of ND Wolf; 2016 archived] and which was written by 6 NDs and a medical doctor.

Talk about fluffing up CVs.

You shouldn't be surprised when I say that paper has no OVERT vitalism within it.

“What can patient's expect?”

Well, the WORLD can expect to be manipulated by naturopathy, manipulated by coding, by opacity.

Lies of omission.

There is one hit for “medicatrix” in the paper.

We're told, briefly:

“Western medicine rarely takes into consideration the inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes such as metabolism or tissue repair. Naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature.”

How subtle.

I regard “underlying known physiologic” to be an esoteric-metaphysical Cloud Cuckoo Land / Wolkenkuckucksheim reference

-- excuse any mispronunciation there, but I just love that word --

because it's basically stating that there are forces underlying the physical universe known to science from a somewhere otherwheres,

much like the Idealism of Plato's Theory of Forms.

How wooful, how neither modern thought nor science, how typically manipulative and exploitative.

I put this "underlying known physiologic" in my naturopathic database under LYING.

Again, lies of omission.

And there is one reference to supernaturalism in this Journal of Family Practice paper.

We're told:

“naturopathic medicine ascribes to a therapeutic hierarchy that integrates the full spectrum of modern biomedicine in a continuum that includes mental, emotional and spiritual therapies.”

So that's medicine returned to its fusion with with religion, from pre-Hippocratic ancient times.

As regards science, we're told in this paper:

“the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE) credentials candidates and administers the NPLEX […which is] twenty basic science, clinical science and specialty exams [including homeopathy]”

and we're show a table which creates the impression of what I often call 'naturopathy's superscience claim',

wherein the authors tabulate the BASIC science hours of naturopathy educational [1125]

as compared to medical doctor education [1079].

It's hilarious:

be based on the science-ejected in ideas and activity at the end of ND education and as an oath and as a standard of care,

but throw on top of that science courses at the beginning of ND education and require science prerequisites as COVER.

That mixture is admitted:

“the goal of naturopathic medical education is to prepare clinicians for the challenges of general practice, with a foundation in current medical science as well as traditional naturopathic theory.”

But, you can't be both:

a foundation in science abrogates traditional naturopathic theory.

That's quite a cognitive dissonance, for no reason other than sectarian perpetual obligation.

And the root “homeop” is in the paper at least 5 times.

We're told naturopathy's:

“clinical tools typically include nutrition evaluation and dietary revision, counseling for lifestyle modification, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, and mind-body therapies [...which are] naturopathic therapeutics [...or] modalities.”

Ah, homeopathy as a tool, as in:

'hand me my invisible screwdriver.'

And therein:

anything goes.

So much for the Journal of Family practice, so much 'uncontested epistemic charity'.

Back within ND Smith and Logan's paper, we get that mandated supernaturalism and ministerialism when they tell us:

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

What's interesting is that Zeff said

“this requires that we pursue our own personal spiritual development” as one operates occupationally as an ND,

and now NDs Smith and Logan say that patients must “pursue their personal spiritual development” too.

Spiritual “development” is obviously a kind of spirituality, I'd argue, and therefore sectarian in the sense of a specific kind of religious / spiritual continued practice and route.

And Zeff admitted NDs have no methods to achieve this!

As the Talking Heads sang:

we're on a road to no where.

Now, as I'd said, NDs Smith and Logan label naturopathy categorically “science”, but now we see mandatory supernaturalism within that label.

And the Smith and Logan paper IRONICALLY warns us:

“outside of regions where licensing laws govern naturopathic medicine, it is a case of consumer beware. Without the protection of laws governing practice, individuals who have completed no, or limited, formal educational programs can refer to themselves as naturopathic physicians. This situation leads to confusion among the general public and other medical professionals regarding who naturopathic physicians are and what the formal training involves. It is anticipated that future licensing laws will provide clarity to this issue and, more importantly, ensure the safety of the public. As Boice correctly pointed out in her book on naturopathic medicine, legislative bodies may have difficulty understanding the practice because of the multimodality approach. Precedent has been set, however, and consumers should have the right to know, as they do in licensed areas, that their health care professional has met rigorous standards for education, training, and testing.”

So that was:

trust AANP-CAND naturopathy because we're licensed, even though they are licensed falsehood;

because we're educated, even though they are miseducated;

because we're tested, even though that test is loopy;

otherwise confusion but we provide clarity, in all their naturopathic opacity and muddle;

and consumers should have the right to know, plus overall rigor.


as if.

Now, lets visit the phenomenon of what I'll term referential incestuousness:

aka 'naturopathy supporting itself with naturopathy references' by way of ND Boice.

The Boice book that was just mentioned by NDs Smith and Logan and that is cited in their references is “Introduction to Naturopathic Medicine” from 1996.

I think this actually refers to ND Boice's book “Pocket Guide to Naturopathic Medicine” which is ISBN 0895948214 and 9780895948212.

“Introduction to Naturopathic Medicine” is actually Boice's Chapter 1 title, so I think NDs Smith and Logan have a small error in that reference:

they cite the chapter name but not the book name, nor do they provide an ISBN.

And the reference is, let me emphasize, a soft-cover trade paperback.

Are they conveniently disguising in this fact?

I own and have OCR'd that Boice book.

The root “homeop” is in the book at least 54 times.

Boice is a 1994 NUNM ND graduate and, coincidentally, a Phi Beta Kappan.

In the book, we're told:

“the template of healing outlined below is common to both naturopathic and homeopathic medicines [...and are known as] The Laws of Cure [wherein] healing occurs: from inside to outside internal organs first, skin last; from top to bottom from the head region down to the feet; from most recent to most distant recent symptoms recur first, followed by older symptoms-in other words, in reverse chronological order; front least important to most important organs.”

Such has no scientific support.

She writes:

“Chapter 2 will explore some of the major healing systems that fall under the umbrella of naturopathic medicine.”

And in that Chapter 2, she states:

“many physicians have dismissed the effects of homeopathic remedies, declaring them placebos. Voluminous clinical studies, however, have demonstrated the efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Recent double-blind research also conclusively demonstrates the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies in treating particular diseases.”

Now that is 1996, and I don't think that was true even then, because we'd be living in a different world today, twenty years later, in 2016.

And as regards acupuncture, ND Boice tells us:

“acupuncture works with the body’s own energy currents, which are measurable as electromagnetic forces. This magnetic force, or 'river of energy,' follows predictable patterns in the body. Chinese practitioners, after centuries of study and observation, have mapped these currents of energy and designated them as 'meridians' correlated to particular organs and systems in the body. Acupuncture helps to direct the energy flow, or qi, through the meridians. Very thin needles inserted into points on the body help redirect areas of pooled energy stagnation and encourage qi to flow into areas that are deficient or undernourished. Ultimately, the acupuncture needles help to rebalance the body’s electromagnetic currents, thereby supporting the internal organs and all the body's physiological systems. Redirecting the body’s energy currents through acupuncture also has the capacity to restore mental and emotional balance.”

So certain about what doesn't exist!

And such pseudoscientific labeling.

This 'efficacy conclusivity' wasn't true then, in 1996, for homeopathy or acupuncture and certainly isn't true now.

And I abhor the misuse of the term energy or electromagnetic forces.

So, a great reference for a medical journal article!


Incidentally, on her web pages, because I just love the shit NDs say, Boice writes about teaching the use of homeopathy for first aid.

Her current web page “About Naturopathic Medicine” also actually excerpts from that book's 1996 Chapter 1.

We're told:

“naturopathic medical students study all of the medical sciences […] in addition naturopathic physicians spend several hundred hours studying courses that have disappeared from most medical school curricula, including counseling, nutrition, exercise therapeutics, homeopathy, botanical medicine, hydrotherapy, and physical therapies […] today’s practice of naturopathic medicine combines the best of contemporary technology with time-honored, effective remedies from the past.”

So, homeopathy, ironically 'of the disappeared' yet assured to be currently “effective”.

We're also told:

“the philosophy of naturopathic medicine unifies this group of diverse practices […] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature: both our human bodies and the Earth have an innate wisdom that governs the cycles of birth, growth, maturation, and decay. Body health is supported by moving and living in harmony with these natural cycles. Some of the most potent healing substances come directly from the Earth: fire, water, air, and earth […] botanical medicines rely on the healing capacities of the Plant People. Plant, mineral, and animal substances provide the foundation for homeopathic medicines. Each of these medications has an intelligence and healing ability onto itself. This native, 'natural' intelligence interacts with our own bodies’ healing wisdom to bring about balance, harmony, and health within ourselves. Health is the result of balance, which may be maintained by what appear to be destructive forces (e.g. fever or inflammation) that ultimately restore the health and vitality of our bodies […] a treatment plan might include nutritional counseling, a homeopathic prescription, and discussion of how a specific exercise program would benefit the patient’s health.”

So, some sense mixed with some really weird shit.

And I want to know, I'm dying to know, who are the Plant People?

And coded vitalism:

as VMN-HPN / innate wisdom / intelligence and healing ability / healing wisdom.

It's always quite ironic how something WRONG, vitalism claimed as science, is so often termed by naturopathy to be 'wisdom and intelligence'.

And notice that the ND goes all superarchaic and calls fire a substance, like the discarded idea of phlogiston from the 17th century.

And she writes:

“identifying the cause requires seeking the root of the problem, seeking psychic, social, and spiritual as well as physical causes of disease.”

So there's supernaturalism.

We're told:

“the physician’s primary function is to provide information, to empower people to regulate their own health.”

Of course, what KIND and what extent of information is the key issue.

And she also tells us:

“abandoning my certainty about the causes of disease provides much more room for the great mystery of health and disease to express itself.”

How epistemically nihilistic, how esoteric and charitable, how nonrigorous because there are things we definitely know, and science has provided that knowledge.

Certainly much so much of reality has been abandoned by way of ND Boice.

And we're told:

“a naturopathic doctor differs from other physicians only in how she or he treats the diagnosed illness, in what he or she does with the information gathered.”


there are much more foundational and earlier naturopathic sectarian assumptions previous to treatment.

After all, when you say a vital force spirit is the cause, that is quite a different diagnosis than modern medical science provides.

And in a 2013 interview, [2016 archived], Boice states:

“we complete all of the same basic sciences and clinical sciences any physician would.”

Would that naturopaths understood science.

Now, the second to last thing I'll bring up from the 2002 NDs Smith and Logan paper is what I've called 'the naturalness fallacy.'

We're told:

"the term naturopathy originally was coined by German homeopath Scheel, combining the Latin and Greek to translate literally as nature disease. Despite this misnomer and dissatisfaction expressed by some early pioneers as to its appropriateness, the name has stood the test of time and reflects the discipline's use of natural methods to approach health and illness.”

Now, that means that naturopathy began erroneously, as a “misnomer”, and still is one, that's quite indicative of naturopathy's half-assedness.

That's quite portending.

Yes, I do believe naturopathy is a disease, as “nature disease” using “natural methods”, as what I've termed 'the naturopathillogical.'

Because “natural” is quite nebulous in context, usage, and meaning.

Natural is so flexible that my first question when “natural” is used in a statement is “what do you mean?”

And when we have to replace a word with more specific alternates, well, that's quite a useless word, as in 'fallacious indicator'.

But vague words are great in terms of marketing.

Consumers fill-in their own meanings, and therein such words help cast a wide net.

Now, since NDs Smith and Logan place quite falsely the categorical label “science” upon what preponderantly as 'the essentially naturopathic' isn't science, well, this PAPER like their term “natural” is quite useless in terms of the truth and it is even worse because it is quite useful as propaganda for naturopathy.

Let me repeat what I said earlier:

the paper falsely rubber-stamped naturopathy “science" in 2002, and that claim within that journal remains uncontested and without warning to this day and counting.

Well, I'm contesting that perpetual false claim, and I'm warning:

as usual, naturopathy is labeling something science without DOING science.

The paper is rhetoric, propaganda, not true, it is an end-run, it is a cheat.

I maintain that it must be retracted, even after 14 years and counting of persistent falsehood.

Finally, I'll mention one last FALSE ASSURANCE from authors Smith and Logan.

They tell us:

“legislation of naturopathic medicine has worked well in jurisdictions where it is legislated and has led to uniform standards of education and practice.”

So, therein, we're supposed to believe that naturopathy laws create GOODNESS overall.

That's quite a FALSE assurance.

Obviously, naturopathy is protected or licensed falsehood, because once they have a law, they self-regulate and they find no problems with their nonsense.

Naturopathy is bad for consumers both clinically and academically, bad for scientific integrity, and generally bad in terms of public health.

Next up will be the final third part of this Episode 012 Part 4.

There, I'll list ND sources that claim like NDs Smith and Logan 'naturopathy is a branch of medical science',

and I'll also detail a request I just submitted to the Federal Trade Commission regarding naturopathy schools' absurd labeling of themselves as categorically “science”,

and, of course, I'll also get into MD Atwood's Medscape 'naturopathy-criticizing' articles.
Post a Comment