Thursday, December 29, 2016

The Naturocrit Podcast – s02e02d3.2 [Episode 012d3.2] - Script & Annotations

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

001. the Episode 012d3.2 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 final – that's right I said FINAL – and twelfth audio file of this Episode 12, aka s02e02, 

titled "Preponderant and Universal Medical Ethical Codes and North American Naturopathy's Transgressions",

I'll finish looking at general professional ethical commitments and specifically modern medicine's ethical commitments, and comparing those stringencies to naturopathy's 'anything goes ethical laxity and required fraudulence'.

In this ultimate section, I'll be looking at:

the two 2003 and 2004 Medscape papers by MD Atwood that are critical of naturopathy,

and I'll answer “those two old questions formulated by NEASC from 2004”,

and, as I said in the introduction to this Episode,

“part of my conclusion will be what I call 'naturopathy's unethical code of misconduct', which will be a summation of naturopathy's past and current behaviors generalized into 'rules of misbehavior'.”

Plus, I'll briefly reflect upon the phenomenon of 'gaming the system' aka licensed falsehood.

Main Text:

The first MD Atwood article is titled “Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal” and it was published December 2003.

Its citation is “MedGenMed. 2003 Dec30;5(4):39 [...with Pubmed ID]14745386” [here's the comments thread]

and the SOLE author's listed full name is “Kimball C. Atwood IV, MD.”

And as I'd said earlier, I once sat with MD Atwood and chatted a bit about his two naturopathy-critical articles at a scientific skepticism gathering a few years after their publication.

Obviously, the piece was published 13 years ago and what's important to note too is that:

NO RETRACTIONS, NO CORRECTIONS, or ADDENDUMS have ever occurred – that I can find and that I know of – though the naturopaths and their supporters, as we'll see, were adamantly unhappy with what MD Atwood had to say.

We know this because Medscape published eleven of their letters, and they too are indexed at Pubmed

Now, I do NOT disagree with MD Atwood on any point he makes, and I do QUITE disagree with most if not all of what the naturopathy apologists wrote in rebuttal.

So, I'll spend a little time on the naturopaths' stuff, too.

Now, MD Atwood's naturopathy articles didn't take 7 authors or even 2 authors to write, like, respectively:

the JFP article, and the MCNA and JEBCAM articles promoting naturopathy.

[I don't mean to sound disparaging of co-authored work, BTW.  I actually have half a Master's in Interdisciplinary Studies and I think some of the best naturopathy criticisms are such co-authorings].

And let me be clear:

this MD Atwood 2003 article is NOT promoting naturopathy.

Since it is “critical,” it is:

pro-science, pro-critical thinking, and pro-ethicality, which means, unfortunately for naturopathy since we know what naturopathy is all about, that it is anti-naturopathy.

As I am.

The article's abstract, at, states:

“'naturopathic medicine' is a recent manifestation of the field of naturopathy, a 19th-century health movement espousing 'the healing power of nature.' 'Naturopathic physicians' now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both 'conventional' and 'natural' medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices. Despite this, naturopaths have achieved legal and political recognition, including licensure in 13 states and appointments to the US Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee. This dichotomy can be explained in part by erroneous representations of naturopathy offered by academic medical centers and popular medical Web sites.”

Agreed, and things have only gotten WORSE in the ensuing 13 years for consumers, as can be measured merely via what I showed by way of what's online in the previous Episode part through:

That was science subset JUNK, in sum.

Live, at Medscape, this 2003 article is broken down into separate sections that stand alone as web pages.


and References [Java embed on every page listed just above].

There's actually an error on the pages whereby the "abstract and introduction" sidebar hyperlink is mistakenly titled "the naturopathic belief system."

But, no worries.

I'm going to get into some of those sections.

The References Section:

First, I want to do something extracorporeal in terms of the 2003 references.

The 2003 Atwood reference I'm going to 'embellish' is

"Pizzorno JE, Murray MT, eds [and also NDs]. Textbook of Natural Medicine. 2nd ed. London, England: Churchill Livingstone, 1999",

which was referenced at least seven times.

I actually own ALL versions of this REALLY BAD supposed textbook:

from the 3-hole binder first edition, through to the current 4th edition from 2012 which is available at for about $216 in paper format.

This book is labeled obviously "textbook" which to me is an academic claim, which as a context therein brings along with it a whole bunch of academic values and virtues.

And, as the introduction to this podcast states, I maintain that naturopathy is falsely categorized academically as science.

This textbook is actually one of the prime culprits, besides the schools, that commit that intellectual violence.

For instance, the root or stem "scien" is in the book at least 871 times, and "vital force" at least 30 times.

The textbook's Chapter 3 is titled "A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order, A Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine" and which was written by NDs Zeff, Snider, Myers, and DeGrandpre.

Yes, the same 'homeopathic nosodes are better than vaccines' ND Zeff.

And here's what is said categorically in terms of science about naturopathy:

"in 1978, with a desire to create a college based on science-based natural medicine, Joseph Pizzorno, ND [...] and his colleagues, Les Griffith, ND [...] Bill Mitchell, ND and Sheila Quinn created the John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine in Seattle, WA [...] not only did this new college double the profession's capacity to produce new doctors, it also firmly placed the profession on the ground of scientific research and validation. 'Science-based natural medicine,' coined by Dr. Pizzorno, was a major driving force behind the creation and mission of Bastyr. Both Drs. Bastyr and Pizzorno had significant influence and leadership in achieving this focus."

So, a categorical science claim -- and 'science-based natural medicine' is acutally written on the back cover of the TNM as well [checked] --  and the revelation that that label was manufactured or "coined", as opposed to earned and actual.

And that label is alive and well.

If you go to Bastyr currently, online, you get the page "About" [2016 archived], which states:

"Bastyr University is a nonprofit, private university offering graduate and undergraduate degrees, with a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [including naturopathy...Bastyr is] recognized globally for its rigorous curriculum and strong research [...] Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature. A pioneer in natural medicine since its inception, Bastyr continues to be in the forefront of developing the model for 21st-century medicine."

Read that closely:

science subset the supernatural and coded vitalistic, aka 'science is anything'.

That's such a persistently false naturopathic marketing label, going on for almost 40 years.

That's Bastyr and the TNM, in microcosm:

coined science, as opposed to the actual PROCESS.

Because Bastyr is artificially, ironically, and quite wrongly, placing the supernatural, the science-ejected, the science-unsupported and the coded vitalistic within a categorical academic science label.

And as I'd said, since 2003, these falsehoods have only gotten worse.

Within the TNM's "science-based" claim, that Chapter 3 tells us:

"many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature."

So there are some aliases for the science-ejected vitalistic at the core of naturopathy.

We're also told in the book that for naturopathy:

"the 'vital force' [] the motive plan or spirit animating mind and body expressed as physiologic and psychological functionality and adaptability."

And there you get the ultimate alias:

spirit, a purposeful spirit as "motive plan" running the body and mind.

For years, I've summarized the naturopathic central belief as:

purposeful life spirit, aka vitalism mixed with teleology-finalism mixed with supernaturalism.

And as I was taught at the University of Bridgeport, mixed with god because we were told the vital force is "the god power within you", which I've termed autoentheism.

Of course, the actual sciences of physiology and psychology don't and can't invoke '4th cause type supernatural dualistic figmentations' and obviously naturopathy has NO STANDARDS when it comes to epistemics and such:

the science-vetted, beliefs, it's all science to them and therein scientific integrity is nonexistent since science therein is boundless.

But watch out for what naturopathy poses as, they are experts at deception.
Now, I regularly visit naturopath organization web pages.
Take for instance the page "About Naturopathic Medicine" [2016 archived] at the New Hampshire Association of Naturopathic Doctors, NHAND, where currently, they tell us NOTHING about the vitalistic-spiritistic belief at the heart of naturopathy.
They tell us INSTEAD:

"naturopathic medicine is a profoundly effective form of medicine for people of all ages  [...] it is a potent combination of art and science [...and includes] homeopathic medicine [...which is a] profound way to stimulate the body’s natural ability to heal itself [...and we're told] the principles of naturopathic medicine are what guides each encounter one has with a naturopathic doctor [...including] the healing power of nature."

So, absurd efficacy claims upon such nonsense as homeopathy, and coded vitalism.

And what's even more interesting is the COMPLETE lack of the term "spirit" on the page, not even in their principle "treat the whole person."

There's we're just told:

"physically, mentally and emotionally."

And all that obviously BELIES the TNM fourth edition's contents and context as definitions that do not transparently define, 'wholes lacking all their parts'.

Such 'liars of omission extraordinaire.'

But it's not just science that is harmed here, it is also freedom of belief and transparency in commerce regarding belief, wherein belief is masked as science and rammed into peoples' brains unfairly in fake context, or simply secretly happening without people knowingly consenting as PAYING students or patients.

It just seems SO WRONG.

Touching back on Phi Beta Kappa virtues I'd mentioned earlier in this Episode, particularly as regards freedom of belief or conscience, as I write this Episode, I've noticed that at Mary Troyan reports in "Congress Passes Bill to Protect Non-Believers for First Time" (2016-12-21):

"in updating an 18-year-old religious freedom law, Congress this year decided for the first time to expressly protect the rights of people around the world who practice no religion at all. President Obama signed the International Religious Freedom Act on Friday, hailed by Republicans and Democrats as way to strengthen the ability of the United States to call out countries that oppress or persecute people for their religious beliefs. But now the law includes a reference to nonbelievers as well: 'the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is understood to protect theistic and non-theistic beliefs and the right not to profess or practice any religion,' according to the new law governing international programs, which passed the House and Senate unanimously, without controversy'."

Now, at Wikipedia, the article "International Religious Freedom Act of 1998", which also can be regarded at twenty or so years persistent, states:

"the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 [...] was passed to promote religious freedom as a foreign policy of the United States, and to advocate on the behalf of the individuals viewed as persecuted in foreign countries on the account of religion. The Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 27, 1998."

So, foreign or international.

More domestically, Wikipedia also has the entry "Freedom of Religion in the United States which states:

"in the United States, freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right provided in the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Freedom of religion is also closely associated with separation of church and state, a concept advocated by Colonial founders such as Roger Williams, William Penn and later founding fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson [...] under the doctrine of Incorporation, the first amendment has been made applicable to the states. Therefore, the states must guarantee the freedom of religion in the same way the federal government must. Many states have freedom of religion established in their constitution [...] democracies interpret 'freedom of religion' as the right of each individual to freely choose to convert from one religion to another, mix religions, or abandon religion altogether."

So what happens for naturopathy in such a context, since I believe it is violating both scientific integrity and freedom of belief, in an ongoing manner?

I've no idea.

I had discussed such ideas as “the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion” earlier in this episode, and I'd pointed out how Hawaii ND law mandates a certain supernatural belief.

Aka sectarianism.

And the introduction to this podcast includes the language:

“naturopathy's ultimate achievement is a profound erosion of scientific integrity and freedom of belief.”

So, in mandating a belief as a State within the US government, an illegal religious test is obviously in place falsely marketed in so many ways.

So, there's naturopathy's nonsense in a nutshell:

unmerchantable science subset nonscience and a forced set of beliefs falsely disguised as within science.

Even has a page explicitly detailing naturopathy's "vital force" and tell us us

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

and it too falsely claims such survives scientific scrutiny

[as the language "these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."]

Again, the physician as metaphysician.

How for back does naturopathy's 'science not belief while essentially belief' claim go?

Well, let me resurrect a citation I haven't used this Episode 012 – but did use in Episode 003 -- because it is one of the MASSIVE organized North American naturopathy falsehoods that induced me into studying naturopathy in Connecticut starting in 1998.

The AANP-Alliance page “The Alliance Legislative Workbook” at -- first archived in 1998 but read and printed by me in 1997, a year before I started ND school, a printout I still have -- states:

“naturopathic physicians are the modern day science based primary care doctor […] it is not a belief system.”

So, a 'non-belief science claim' by those who've built their worldview around 'science-ejected beliefs falsely labeled science'.

And THAT has been going on for about twenty years.

Isn't this all so crazy.

That “Alliance” was comprised of:

“the AANP, Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences.”

I relied on this Alliance description, in great part, in making my decision to go the ND-school route.

As I've said:

I was the foolish fool, who thought colleges and universities don't blatantly misrepresent.

At a basic level, the Textbook of Natural Medicine is a hugely stupid book, that canonizes naturopathy's stupid ideas.

My advise is don't waste your money on it, the book or the education, WHILE the AANMC – the North American schools' consortia -- tells us in "FAQ" [2016 archived]:

"for a basic science foundation and overall exposure to help prepare you for naturopathic medical studies, consider the following: read the 'Textbook of Natural Medicine' – a very comprehensive and often-used reference among NDs and MDs as well [...] some AANMC-member schools require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic medical schools [...] prior to admission into [...] naturopathic medicine programs, the typical entering ND student has completed three years of pre-medical training and earned a bachelor of science degree [...] for complete information on application processes and deadlines, feel free to request information directly or contact the individual institutions [...including] National University of Health Sciences [...] naturopathic medical students at accredited ND colleges study the same core medical sciences as MD students."

And we're linked to the product page for that TNM.

So that was "science foundation" subset "Textbook of Natural Medicine", aka commerce subset FRAUDULENT claims as is easy to point out.

What a MESS.

"Same core medical sciences", when nonscience and belief is within?

I don't think so.

So all that's fleshed out from the 2003 MD Atwood paper's reference section.

And, as I'd said, in terms of MD Atwood's 2003 and 2004 criticisms, NDs Smith and Logan's paper is not referenced.

I'll return to that TNM in the 'belief section.'

The next section I'll deal with is his conclusion.

There, MD Atwood writes:

"this is the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of 'naturopathic medicine.' If physicians continue to consider naturopaths and other 'alternative' practitioners as inconsequential -- or, if the only articles on CAM that most physicians read are uncritical -- pseudoscience will continue to make inroads into patient care and health policy. The information presented herein illustrates why official sanctioning of naturopaths as health care providers, including their appointments to the MCAC, should be considered unwise."

So that's:

"pseudoscience will continue to make inroads [...] if the only articles on CAM that most physicians read are uncritical [....and naturopathy is simultaneously considered] inconsequential."

Well, 13 years have transpired and those inroads are not merely 'dusty backwoods footpaths'.

Just by way of ADEA, the University of Bridgeport, and Yale University, one can see that 'for naturopathic pseudoscience that is uncritically promoted', 'life is a highway.'

It has made massive inroads.

This is not inconsequential for public health policy, especially for those who are exploited by all these fraudsters and their allies.

And promoting naturopathy as categorically "science" as they do is BEYOND unwise.

And yet the naturopaths think they are wise.

MD Atwood wrote:

“'naturopathic medicine' is an eclectic assortment of pseudoscientific, fanciful, and unethical practices [...and he speaks of] implausible naturopathic claims [...that naturopaths] have been steeped in homeopathy and other highly implausible, ineffective practices [...and of a] current wave of unexamined CAM fascination […e.g.] the web site of the University of Washington School of Medicine portrays 'naturopathic physicians' as well trained to practice 'primary care integrative natural medicine,' with a 'scope of practice [that] includes all aspects of family and primary care, from pediatrics to geriatrics, and all natural medicine modalities […] naturopathic diagnosis and therapeutics are supported by scientific research drawn from peer-reviewed journals from many disciplines.' None of these statements [by UW] can withstand rigorous scrutiny [in other words, oh how naked the emperor is!…] WebMD, the parent corporation of Medscape, offers this: 'a naturopathic doctor often combines many different complementary therapies to enhance the body's natural vital force' [how contrary to that science claim…] graduates of campus-based, 4-year naturopathic programs who have passed a standardized examination may demonstrate consistency from one practitioner to the next. But that says nothing about the validity of what they do -- which can be determined only by reference to the facts of nature and by rigorous testing of biologically plausible claims.”

Here, we're told by MD Atwood: 

“naturopathic beliefs -- including those of 'naturopathic physicians' -- are rooted in vitalism, the pre-20th-century assertion that biological processes do not conform to universal physical and chemical principles. Naturopaths describe a 'healing power of nature,' which is compromised by modern medicine […] naturopaths invoke a few simplistic theories to explain the causes of disease. These include the actions of ubiquitous 'toxins' […] widespread food allergies; dietary sugar, fat, and gluten; inadequate vitamin and mineral intake; epidemic candidiasis; vertebral misalignments; intestinal 'dysbiosis'; imbalances of qi; and a few others. To diagnose these entities, naturopaths use an assortment of nonstandard methods, among which are iridology or iris diagnosis [...] applied kinesiology [...] hair analysis [...] electrodiagnosis [...] 'live cell analysis'; 'pulse' and 'tongue' diagnosis; and others […] they state that they can 'boost the immune system' with herbs and homeopathic preparations.”


anything goes.

Speaking of belief systems, and imposing belief, the Textbook of Natural Medicine fourth edition actually, even after all its science categorical mislabeling, has the word “unani” in it at least 100 times.

And here we see naturopathy's complete hypocrisy. 

Now, unani is the Arabic word for Greek, basically, and therefore unani medicine is actually 'ye old Galenic prescientific humoral medicine from the middle ages'.

The TNM tells us unani's goal is to:

“restore balance to humors and organ systems […] unani medicine bases its medical theories of diagnosis and treatment upon this specific understanding of the intradependent relationships that exist between the four humors.”


The chapter author, ND Abdelhamid, also writes:

“epistemology and ontology deal directly with the nature of knowledge [...] and the study of existence or 'being.' Because unani medicine is rooted in the Islamic tradition, it is from this spiritual source where one must search for the answers to the questions regarding its theories on knowledge and existence.”

So, there's some philosophy terminology, and at least the ND is being transparent about the religiosity basis of unani.

And remember, the TNM's cover says this is 'science-based natural medicine', so the claim now is 'science subset world religion'.

And here's where my hypocrisy alarm massively goes off.

We're told by the ND:
“modern Western medicine […the] deity of system […is supposedly] secular atheism; agnosticism; modern evolutionary nihilism [...while for unani the deity of the system is] Abrahamic monotheism; primarily god (Allah) of Islam […] one may perceive the vis […] the self-healing power, the vital force, or the vis medicatrix naturae […] as being the thread that holds the fabric of the human body, mind, and soul together in close conjunction with the spirit. This is the general medical theory of the 'healing power of nature' that unani medicine posits as a guiding principle upon which is built more complex specific understandings of human health and disease.”

Sounds to me like distinctions are being made:

between what's religious and what is secular, and sectarian details are being provided.

It sounds like HPN is a belief system to me, just like the contents of the religion that's mentioned, and the chapter author sounds rather unhappy with and intolerant of the fact that modern biology and medical science cannot and do not contain the theistic and supernatural, of whatever sectarian kind.

Like I'd said, the book is atrocious:

placing a categorical science label upon such belief content on its cover as “science-based natural medicine.”

And the naturopathic belief system obviously, hypocritically undoes itself, as in no intellectual integrity:

if the unani chapter is belief and then so is naturopathy's healing power of nature essentially-inherently belief just like Islam,

and if the TNM makes distinctions in that chapter between science and the theistic generally speaking,

so does naturopathy and therein its categorical science self-labeling is bogus based upon the supernaturalism-religiousity of its contents.

Some of the 2003 Naturopathy Criticism Article's Apologists:

Medscape published, in 2004, follow-up letters by naturopathy apologists, a lot of them, actually eleven.

What I mean by “apologist” is:

I'll pick a few.

They are mainly naturopaths, and one is a medical doctor.

Now, currently, ND Gagnier apparently is employed at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and his bio. page there has a CV [2016 archived] that tells us he's a 2001 CCNM ND graduate and that he has a 2010 PhD from the University of Toronto.

And I find it hard to believe that there isn't some kind of mental conflict for the ND-PhD:

the naturopathic crowd claims the categorical label science,

and simultaneously claims vital force spirit and kind,

and the national science standards for K-16 employs vitalism and supernaturalism as epitomes of the science-ejected and science-exterior.

And for example, ND Gagnier tells us he has maintained an Ontario ND license since 2001.

And you gotta love the OAND, the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors at, who tell us currently in “About Naturopathic Medicine” [2016 archived]:

“naturopathic medicine involves a functional medicine approach to healthcare, identifying the biochemical and physiological imbalances within the individual, and using natural, scientifically-proven solutions to rectify these imbalances […] naturopathic doctors treat the root causes of disease and address preventable risk factors, using a wide range of science- and evidence- based, natural and conventional therapies.”

That was:

“scientifically-proven […] science-based […] evidence-based.”

And it's oh so mundane sounding.

And but, of course, on that same page in this here year 2016, you find, in the sense of extra-mundane:

homeopathy, acupuncture, coded vitalism, and supernaturalism.

Does not compute, does not compute:

does not have intellectual integrity.

On his CV, ND Gagnier tells us also:

“Degree: Doctorate of Philosophy, Medical Science / Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics […] 2010 […] Institute of Medical Science, Faculty of Medicine.”

Now, at the University of Toronto, which is, there's the 2002 document “Principles and Responsibilities Regarding Conduct of Research” with the address being “”

The root or stem “integr” is in there at least 16 times, as in integrity not as in integrated.

And there we're told:

“emphasis on high ethical standards is important at the beginning of a research career in learning the methods and techniques of science [...] the faculty emphasizes that it expects faculty members to [...] respect and support an environment of scientific integrity and scientific creativity by role-modeling high quality and honest scholarship […] universities have a unique and distinctive role in promoting an environment of scientific integrity because we supervise and train students, postdoctoral fellows, and other young researchers. By appropriate role modeling and mentoring, we can foster scientific integrity in future generations.”

So I don't see how an ND degree can sit well within someone in contrast to the standards of their other academic degrees, like a PhD, generally speaking.

But, perhaps that's just me.

Here are some things from ND Gagnier's 2004 response to MD Atwood that catch my eye:

“I would like to thank the editors of Medscape General Medicine for allowing me the opportunity to comment on […] 'Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal.' As a first comment, I would like to offer some clarification […] Atwood fails at supporting his hypothesis that NDs are inadequately trained to be primary care practitioners. If medical doctor (MD) training is considered to be the 'gold standard,' let us compare naturopathic educational programs with MD programs. A comparison between MD and ND training reveals that the basic science instruction [...] is virtually identical in terms of quantity, content, and intensity […] clinical education [...] is also very similar between the 2 schools.  The main difference between these 2 educations is clinical instruction, interning, and residencies […] both professions sit rigorous licensing exams that include basic science and clinical science components. Both licensing exams are national, standardized, and designed to assess competence relative to each profession.”

So we're told there categorically:

“rigorous […] science […] competence.”

That perpetual naturopathic science categorical claim.

And we were told "the main difference" is just mainly other sundries besides their epistemic bases, which I think is completely false.

But, by way of his own Ontario association, I'd argue:

naturopathy's scientific boundaries are not rigorous at all, they have no limits, anything is allowed to be science, and such is in direct conflict with preponderant academic values as regards “scientific integrity.”

And remember, that national licensing exam that's mentioned has a clinical science section currently that claims within it homeopathy.

How invalid.

MD Katz, of Yale:

In response to Atwood's 2003 article, medical doctor Katz wrote a letter titled “Acting in Defense of the Medical Literature”.

I recall the brouhaha when Katz, speaking about how to get CAM stuff scientifically supported, stated that what was needed was “a more fluid concept of evidence.”

Well of course, how do you get something to be science when it can't be science:

move the goal posts.

As MD Gorski wrote at the blog, in “Integrative Medicine, Naturopathy, and David Katz’s 'More Fluid Concept of Evidence” from 2015:

“seven years after he introduced his more 'fluid' concept of evidence, Dr. Katz has failed to give a satisfactory or convincing answer to the question of just what he meant. The best he can come up with, after whining about how nasty we 'self-appointed guardians of the definition of EBM' with an Internet connection and too much time on our hands [...] seems to be either to substitute anecdotal evidence for RCT evidence whenever he thinks it appropriate or to seek a 'middle way' between SBM and quackery. If that means embracing homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, and naturopathy, apparently that’s fine with him. Unfortunately, Dr. Katz is not alone. He is on the vanguard of a whole movement advocating a more 'fluid' application of evidence who, with good intentions, have brought rank pseudoscience into bastions of academic medicine.”

Agreed, as well.

Currently, Katz tells us on his bio. page at [2016 archived] that he's:

“the founding director [..] of Yale University's Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center.”

That Center has him still there currently as the “center director” [2016 archived].

Now, that's a Yale entity, and Katz is a medical doctor, and Yale employs a naturopath as a pediatrician.

And it's amazing, how, through Yale alone, one finds this contradiction:

the nonscience belief nonsense at the heart of naturopathy through Yale's own naturopathy definitions [2016 archived],

Then, WHY OH WHY blatant promotion of naturopathy???

It's crazy.

Now, MD Katz really really seemed to have gotten offended by MD Atwood's article:

all twisted out of shape and so it's suitable that I find his language quite warped therefore.

He wrote:

"the misleading and objectionable elements of Dr. Kimball Atwood's so-called 'special' article on naturopathy begin with the title […] that this article is flagrantly biased is almost too self-evident to warrant discussion […] from extensive professional experience I might well be roused to praise and defend naturopathic physicians with whom I have worked closely, but am here to do neither. Rather, I am acting in defense of the medical literature where critical appraisal should be something other than an opportunity to broadcast one's personal prejudices.”

That is quite a load of umbrage.

Coincidentally, as I've said in other Episodes of this podcast, Katz was one of my teachers when I was in ND school, for a public health class at Yale Medical School in New Haven.

And, I must say, he never came off as a belligerent hot-head.

Yet, his letter astounds me as 'raging'.

I've never heard of another doctor tell another doctor, and I mean medical doctors, that their application of rigorous scientific and ethical standards is:

“misleading and objectionable […] biased […and of] personal prejudices.”

And if you want a good seat at a good fight, then take in all the volleys that have been going on between MD Katz and MD Gorski and Co. over the years by way of

NDs Boggs and Mittman:

So, this was the reply by big-naturopathy, the letter titled Naturopathic Medicine Is an Emerging Field in One of Medicine's Most Dynamic Eras”.

ND Boggs was then the “President, American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP...and practiced at] Bitterroot Natural Medicine, Missoula, Montana”,

and ND Mittman was then the “President, American Association of Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC...and simultaneously] President, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine [SCNM], Tempe, Arizona.” 

And ND Mittman has also the credential DHANP, as well as ND, which is Diplomate of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians.

Now, speaking of naturopathy's beliefs, at, ND Mittman wrote in “Naturopathic Medicine -- This I Believe”, archived in 2007:

"I believe in the healing power of nature [...] something inside me coordinated the healing and repair, without me even thinking about it, completely involuntarily. Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, described that 'something' as the vis medicatrix naturae -- the healing power of nature. It is that same force that helped my wife's broken leg mend and grow straight when she was a teenager, and my father heal from coronary by-pass surgery last year. Nearly every culture has a name for it: the Chinese call it chi, in India they refer to it as prana, the Japanese call it ki. Present when we are born and gone when we die, this animating force exists in every living plant and animal, including humans [...] this powerful, healing force in people [...] therapeutic lifestyle changes remove obstacles to cure, permitting the vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature to flow freely and help us regain that equilibrium we call health."

So there's naturopathy's underlying science-ejected vitalism.

And if you notice, unlike the TNM, they usually refuse to make the equation that VMN is like spirit in Judeo-Christian tradition, because then I think people start to get it:

the beliefiness at the center of naturopathy.

They'd rather give you some words that are distant cultures, exotic, unequated with what people generally consider religiosity.

Tricky, tricky, tricky but it is titled "This I Believe" because, in the end, they believe that a purposeful life spirit is running the body.

And SCNM also claims that such survives scientific scrutiny.

By the way, similarly in terms of supposedly being science, in 2003, the AANP's stated on their page “Definitions”:

“naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles and are chosen upon the basis of patient individuality. Naturopathic physicians are primary health care practitioners, whose diverse techniques include modern and traditional, scientific and empirical methods.”

So, a categorical claim that such science-ejected things as vitalism-spiritism survives scientific scrutiny, and it's a strange definition.

It says anything 'of knowledge' is science, and that naturopathy 'as knowledge' is basically anything:

"modern and traditional, scientific and empirical", anything and everything at all as knowledge kind, and somehow this muddle is an acceptable basis for “primary health care practitioners."

And then AANP claims such 'anything and everything' is something specific instead, the much smaller footprint of 'scientifically vetted knowledge'.

Bizzaro, naturopathillogical.

NDs Mittman and Boggs specifically wrote in their 2004 apologetic letter regarding naturopathy and science:

"naturopathic medicine [...has] accomplished [...] standards of education, accountability, and science that stand any fair and appropriately informed examination [...] the sooner our medical colleagues understand that the naturopathic medical profession is well grounded in the biomedical sciences and evidence-based medicine, the sooner we will accomplish the delivery of safe, effective, and cost-effective healthcare to the nation."

Oh if only such were TRUE:

as I often say, Nobels would have been awarded BUT Nobels are not awarded for bad stupid fake.

What's amazing is the ridiculous FAKE bad stupid posture taken by the NDs whereby they actually accuse anyone who'd refute naturopathy's self-positioning through false science self-categorizing.
If you point out that not everything is science within naturopathy as they wrongly claim, then you are accused of being unfair, uninformed and an impediment to good things such as "safe, effective, and cost-effective healthcare."

Now, remember, when I was reading this in 2004, live, I'd left ND school two years before.

Organized naturopathy and the University of Bridgeport had put that ND school in a “division of health sciences” categorized as "non-sectarian", within NEASC accreditation, WHILE my first semester taught me that what ran my body was the “god power within me” and I had mandatory homeopathy classes which had you memorize and recite Hahnemann.

That sectarian SHIT is does not survive scientific scrutiny as:

“well grounded in the biomedical sciences and evidence-based medicine” and was not of “standards of education, accountability, and science that stand any fair and appropriately informed examination.”

I've said this before in this episode and I'll say it again:

fuck you University of Bridgeport and fuck you for what you continue to do.

Overall, as I've said, there have not been any retractions or corrections or addendums to this MD Atwood article.

Now, there was a great comment to the article.

There's a discussion thread online still at the address

You may need to be logged into Medscape to use the link I'll provide.

We're told:

“[from] drm4239 [...whose misspellings I've corrected] Mar 17, 2004 [...] I am a health care professional (RN) [...] I wish to address the central theme of antagonism in most of these posts [...that] merely resort to name-calling, accusations, conspiracy theories, and bashes against all or aspects of mainstream medicine instead of attempting to cast a more positive light on naturopathic medicine [...] I did not see many rebuttals to the specific points, opinions or observations made by the author or his references among these posts [...] if the platform of naturopathic medicine isn't as horrid and fantastic as the author presents, please present any specific positive aspects within naturopathic medicine that are directly contrary to the author’s assertions [...] an even limited study of basic biology, physiology, anatomy and physical sciences will provide a basis for understanding of the rationale for healthcare as practiced by mainstream medicine. To accept treatment based on naturopathic theory, are we required to accept the justification for them on faith? If the core catalyst behind any therapeutic practice of naturopathic medicine relies on a vitalistic belief, I believe the author has made his point. We should all reserve the right to be free from religious imposition. A 'medical' practice not based on our current observational understanding of anatomy and physiology, and which depends on faith in a vitalistic force is not medical practice, it is religious practice. We can believe that religion and medicine are intertwined in the health of the human body and soul, and that both are equally important. Yet, we must believe in the separation of Church and State. There should be no tax dollars subsidizing religious practice or faith-based 'medical' treatment. There should be no laws governing its practice except to prevent its imposition on the general populace. There should be no legislation identifying vitalistic 'medical' practice as anything but the practice of religion. Otherwise [...] a basic constitutional right is jeopardized [...] as a healthcare community, we are morally obligated to provide our best guess for treatment and care of illness and injury. A best guess is the one with the most predictable outcomes. Morally, all that we do as healers must have some basis in our generally accepted knowledge base that is made up of observations about nature (a.k.a. physical sciences.) Otherwise, our practice is no better than the next opinion; we risk opening our medical practices up to superstition, mysticism, personal fancy, usurpers and robbers [...] we owe the infirm[ed] and injured our best guess for treatment that is based more on practical observations than warm reassurances, based more on demonstrable predictability of success than individual testimony, more on understood efficacy through scientific process than ancient tradition.”

Hear, hear.

MD Atwood's 2004 Rebuttal:

Now, I won't spend much time on MD Atwood's excellent 2004 rebuttal to the naturopathy apologists, but he did thoroughly demolish their positions, mainly by pointing out their illogical and fallacious reasonings.

What's fascinating is that, in comparison, the Journal of Family practice, a year later in 2005, published a pro-naturopathy piece and that journal didn't require that the ND authors deal with any of Atwood's points.

Basically there, the NDs were allow to keep up their naked display pretending they were extravagantly clothed.

“it is clear that my article raised a few hackles. I received more than 60 emails myself,
running about 4:1 opposed to what I wrote. Most of those who opposed were doctors of
naturopathy (NDs). Not one opposing letter, however, offered an example of an
inaccurate statement made in the article itself […also] there is no such thing as 'allopathic' medicine, a pejorative term coined by the founder of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann. Those who use it to describe modern medicine only betray their ignorance […and he mentions, which I have detailed in this Episode] the recently published Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter [...with its] commitment to scientific knowledge [...and] the American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics [...and its position that] it is unethical to engage in or to aid and abet in treatment which has no scientific basis and is dangerous, is calculated to deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking proper care.”

Oh snap!

Yet, in the Journal of Family Practice article from 2005, "Naturopathic Medicine: What Can Patients Expect?", ridiculously categorized as "applied evidence", and written by 6 NDs and 1 MD, we were MERELY told about naturopathy's central premise, as I earlier pointed out:

"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."

And that's all they say there about VMN, and that is SO INCOMPLETE, 6-NDs incomplete.

You don't deserve to know, truly what is "underlying".

File this 'under lying', as in lies of omission because one of the NDs who authored that JFP article is ND Pizzorno, one of the co-editors of the TNM.

And in his 1996 book "Total Wellness", ISBN 0761504338, he wrote about that VMN:

"some important concepts. The healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). Our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal [...] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [...] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life [...including] our life-force (or spirit). Weakness in any of these seven systems results in susceptibilities that allow most common diseases to develop. Follow the recommendations below, strengthen all of these seven systems, and total wellness is yours [...] live in harmony with your life-force [...] live in harmony with the psychosocial/ spiritual/ life-force [...] our self-healing abilities -- the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae [...] it is increased awareness of and access to this teleological force, the healer within, that is the essence of each of us [...] life force. See spiritual system."


So that's, like the TNM, direct equation of a certain kind of SPIRIT as VMN / HPN / life force.
ND Pizzorno had also written, in 2001 with JFP article ND co-author Snider, a chapter tiled "Naturopathic Medicine" in the book "Fundamentals of Complementary and Alternative Medicine", which is ISBN 0443065764.

They wrote, regarding naturopathy:

"naturopathic medicine [] powerfully vitalistic [...] the healing power of nature, a traditionally vitalistic principle [...] what distinguishes naturopathic medicine [...] is a collective confidence in the perception of a vital force or life force [...] the shared perception that [...] there is order in the healing process [...] based on the life force, which is self-organized, intelligent, and intelligible [...] we can research the life force [...] six powerful concepts provide the foundation that defines naturopathic medicine [...] the six core principles of naturopathic medicine are as follows [...#]1. the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] naturopathic medicine is therefore 'vitalistic' in its approach [...] belief in the ability of the body to heal itself -- the vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) [...] the body is believed to have an innate intelligence or process (the VMN), which is always striving toward health. [Aka] vitalism [...] belief in the healing power of nature [...] the context and life force of naturopathic medicine is its vitalistic core [...] vitalism has reemerged in today’s terms in the body-mind-spirit dialogue."
Again, vitalism and supernaturalism aka BELIEF at the heart of naturopathy:
aka sectarian medicine.

And to be "powerfully vitalistic" is for me very very funny:

as in a powerful superstition.
And that vitalism-spiritism is OH SO DIFFERENT, in both the TNM and Total Wellness, and that CAM book naturopathic medicine chapter, from what the JFP article disguises.

MD Atwood versus MD Perlman:

One conflict that never happened that I'd like to have seen happen, is between MD Atwood and the MCNA CAM edition guest editor MD Perlman.

You have NDs Smith and Logan stating that naturopathy is a branch of medical science in Perlman's compilation, and you have Atwood stating that naturopathy is instead pseudoscience.

You have Perlman teaching a course at Duke titled "Ethical Issues in Integrative Medicine" and you have MD Atwood stating that supporting naturopathy is unethical, with both being board certified in internal medicine.

And I have to quip:

how about sanity issues in integrative medicine?

Those Two Old Questions Formulated by NEASC:

The two NEASC questions were:

"are students and prospective students given timely, sufficient and accurate information to serve as a basis for their decisions regarding pursuing a degree in naturopathic medicine? [...and] are students in naturopathic medicine provided with adequate academic advising?"

Well, there's not much I have to write here:

no, no.

Merely by way of the University of Bridgeport's naturopathy college, which is NEASC accredited, this is what SHOULD be said by UB that isn't:

come here if you want to be unethical and engaged in sectarian pseudoscience,

and continue along here if you want to be unethical and engaged in sectarian pseudoscience.

Cheers, NEASC.

Naturopathy's Unethical Code of Misconduct:

Now, for a long time, I have been watching naturopathy from near and far, obviously.

And I can summarize the behaviors that the schools inculcate, minimally and simply as:

#1. Lie.  Lie to yourself first and foremost, and then lie about naturopathy in order to get patients in the door and to grow naturopathy, and then lie to yourself that you are lying to yourself;

#2 Pretend.  Pretend that what constitutes science as an understanding of reality is arbitrary and mainly an exercise of ink to paper;

#3 Mimic.  Mimic modern medicine, science and academia but don't let your marks get too close because they may see the ruse.  When they do, pretend they don't and lie;

#4 Cling.  Overall, cling to the narrow, egotistical, outdated and irrational premises of naturopathy at all cost, like a gosling that just hatched imprinting upon the first moving entity it encounters.

Gaming the System:

And finally, let's talk about gaming the system, aka licensed falsehood.

This is actually a simple formula.

First, by way of naturopathy's unethical code of misconduct, get your schools established, get a gullible lawmaker to sponsor your naturopathy bill, and get all your commerce going.

Second, self-accredit by stocking your self-designed specialty accreditor with your own 'experts' who demand deference from general accreditors, populate your naturopathy licensure board with naturopaths who demand that only naturopaths can judge naturopaths, and ignore basic and professional commerce ethics.

Third, publish in the medical literature in places that don't really care to look deep enough to understand your unethical code of misconduct, therein polluting the medical literature with junk propaganda, places that can hold their noses shut quite firmly as they nervously look at your commercial, ethical, and epistemic transgressions.

Indulge Me:

Let me repeat a part of my general introduction:

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, and 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".

This has been Episode 012 of the Naturocrit Podcast.

Thank you for boldly listening.
Post a Comment