this is the script and annotations for the three-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 014, aka s02e04, titled “ND Smith
and Spoliation of Higher Education Science Integrity and Medical
Ethics.” In this second third of Episode 014, I delve into the ND Smith 2008 naturopathy textbook:
001. Episode 014b Script and Annotations:
Standard Introduction:
001. Episode 014b 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, 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.
Episode Synopsis:
In
this three-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 014, aka s02e04, titled “ND
Smith and Spoliation [spo lee a tion] of Higher Education Science Integrity and
Medical Ethics”, I'll be exploring the personal web pages, books, and
associated institutional web pages and web media of ND Fraser Smith and co. who
is currently [here; 2018 archived here] the:
“Assistant Dean, Naturopathic Medicine. Associate Professor,
Naturopathic Medicine [...at] National University of Health Sciences.”
Part 02:
The Textbook "Principles and Practices" by ND Smith:
The version I’m referencing here is
a hardcover copy I own and OCR'd.
At
Amazon, it is available for $100 in paperback.
That’s a lot of money for a book
that doesn’t have an index.
What kind of textbook that touts
itself as an important academic and clinical reference doesn’t allow for quick
indexing of its contents?
Though the book does have a
references section and a recommended reading section, and many of these sources
I already have.
So, I’ll first refer to the language
of the outside rear cover, and then to its preface.
Outside Rear Cover:
Here there’s a bio. of ND Smith
which states:
“Dr Fraser Smith, BA, ND, is the
Assistant Dean of Naturopathic Medicine at National University of Health
Sciences in Lombard, Illinois. A graduate of the Canadian College of
Naturopathic Medicine, Dr Smith has emerged as a leading educator in his
profession.”
So, that science categorical claim,
and that luminary claim.
We’re also told:
“Principles and Practices provides a
strong foundation for required upper-year courses in clinical nutrition,
botanical medicine, homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine, physical
medicine, hydrotherapy, and lifestyle counseling […while also] this is the
first textbook published for use in introductory courses in naturopathic
medicine […the book] ingrains best-practices [and what’s] evidence-based.”
So, as I’ve already pointed out:
upper-years required homeopathy,
pseudopharmacy, and Chinese prescientific medievalism.
For starters.
Plus, the lower-years introductory
stuff.
All posed as a subset of science.
So, through the book we get a wide
swath of what happens in the 4 years of dyseducation that is an ND
degree.
Speaking of that lower-years
introductory stuff, NUHS has the since 2011 web page up “Doctor
of Naturopathic Medicine” [2011
archived; 2018
archived] which states:
“NT5110N Foundations of Naturopathic
Medicine I - Credits 2.0 […] prerequisite: none […] this course forms the basis
of the clinical theory stream of courses in the ND program, which serves as a
framework for practice. The course begins with an overview and the vision and
ultimate goals of the ND program […] the naturopathic principles are discussed
at length. Major concepts such as […] vitalism […and] spirituality.”
Now, vitalism is science-ejected and
spirituality is not within and not supportable by science.
And I’m all for freedom of belief and
liberty of thought, but, here, obviously, is an expansion of the footprint of
science that’s so crazy that science is now containing the grossly
science-ejected and the grossly unscienceable.
I’ve often said this before and I’ll
say it again:
to state that certain supernatural beliefs are scientific facts from a position of institutional power is a violation of international human rights because, therein, one is falsely asserting as a fact upon your members what each member actually has as a true choice.
So, junk thought all wrapped up in a
false science veneer:
naturopathy.
'Duh' can have some very serious
consequences.
We’re also told that the textbook,
which I’ll guess is used in such a course as Foundations of Naturopathic
Medicine:
“links naturopathic philosophy and
clinical theory to standards of practice.”
Now, what 'standards of practice'
are those ideas and procedures being linked to?
Treating the vital force, overall,
and the supernatural, all falsely posed as medicinal clinical science.
Those standards are NOT the standard
of care of medicine, by any means, which is analytical and delineating, for
obvious reasons.
E.g.: as we’ve seen already,
naturopathy is a pseudoscience while medicine is actually an applied science
that leaves such areas as the ministerial to the ministry, the experts in that
area, while naturopaths are sectarian hacks in so many ways.
I’ll also return to that idea before the end of this Episode.
Naturopathy is Janus-faced and of
'two hats':
naturopathy’s idea of standards is
as all their stuff is, a reversal of values wherein the idea of standards is
‘do what you want NDs’, because for them facts are beliefs, beliefs are facts, even bad is good.
We’re told the book is:
“designed to comply with the
curriculum established at leading naturopathic colleges affiliated with the
Council of Naturopathic Education (CNME).”
And CNME has NO PROBLEM with
‘science subset science-ejected and unscienceable’ in their schools, obviously.
The DC Winterstein Preface:
The rear cover of the book states,
concerning this preface’s author and THEIR institution:
“Dr James Winterstein, DC, is the
President of National University of Health Sciences, a leading international
institution in natural medicine education.”
So, there’s that ‘big net’ kind of
institutional labeling of what used to be a merely chiropractic institution and
their ‘in sum’ marketing veneer:
natural medicine.
The preface proper states:
“this book is the work of a highly
intelligent and dedicated graduate of the Canadian College of Naturopathic
Medicine, who is now the Assistant Dean for Naturopathic Medicine at National
University of Health Sciences (NUHS), responsible for the academic component of
this degree program […] it has been my privilege and pleasure to work with Dr
Smith in the development of the naturopathic medicine degree program at NUHS
[…] the faculty of National University of Health Sciences has a long and strong
tradition of scholarly work, so it is truly a pleasure to celebrate the
publication of this outstanding text by the leader and developer of the
naturopathic medicine program at National […] Dr Smith […] I am proud of you
and your accomplishments, especially as they are characterized by your academic
work here and by your authorship of this fine textbook […] this excellent
book.”
And of course, the ACADEMIC,
commercial and clinical categorical claim is:
‘science subset naturopathy and
kind.’
I don’t think that’s:
“highly
intelligent […] scholarly […] outstanding […] fine […or] excellent” at all.
Because it’s DUH.
We are provided some history
regarding NUHS and naturopathy.
Winterstein tells us:
“this program is new to National and
old at the same time. From approximately 1920 to 1952, we offered an ND degree
under our former name, the National College of Chiropractic. Dr Henry Lindlahr,
presented in this book as a founding father of naturopathic medicine as a
profession, was a member of the faculty at National and a close associate of
National's president at the time.”
So, again, this makes this Episode
rather significant in terms of its naturopathy connections.
And just to emphasize that there is
quite the categorical science claim overall concerning NUHS naturopathy and
this textbook, we’re told by Winterstein:
“the profession needed this textbook
of fundamentals to help standardize naturopathic curriculum in health science
colleges […it’s] ideally suited for use in the classroom and in the clinic.”
So, as I often point out about
naturopathy, ‘the ideal is the duh’, as in reversal of values.
The Book’s Science Claims:
Now, the book doesn’t have all that
much to claim in terms of science.
There are about 36 instances of the
root “scien” in all.
Besides what I’ve already mentioned,
ND Smith tells us that:
“National University of Health
Sciences [is] my academic home.”
While true academic science doesn’t
contain what’s science-ejected and unscienceable.
Smith also states:
“special thanks to the students in
the naturopathic program at NUHS; you are the audience for this book and you
are the future of naturopathic medicine.”
Well, that’s depressing:
a future wherein, after a kind of duh indoctrination, duh is playing doctor.
Ironically Smith writes:
“any science rests on observation,
hypothesis testing, formation of theory, and classification.”
Ya think?
Then explain to me the huge
violations of parsimony that defines naturopathy, and the failure when tested
of the essentially naturopathic.
General Contents:
The textbook's pseudomedical
posturing includes chapters titled:
"cardiology, endocrinology,
gastroenterology, gynecology, hematology, hepatology, immunology, neurology,
pulmonology, rheumatology, and urology" all under the section title
"practices of naturopathic medicine."
Each of those -ology sections
include, roughly, "presentation, assessment, prevention, treatment"
with such things as homeopathy prescribed for chest pain, hypertension,
constipation, diarrhea, GI bleeding, anemia, excess clotting, acute vital
hepatitis, multiple sclerosis, asthma, UTI, and pediatrics in general.
As if.
And that as if is given away by an
entire chapter dedicated to homeopathy.
Naturopathy’s Essential Vitalism:
Now, as an idea, naturopathy claims
a vital force runs the body and when it is messed up it causes disease.
Additionally, as a goal, naturopaths
claim they can manipulate that vital force either directly or indirectly to
reverse or prevent disease.
While, as I’ve mentioned in the
past, the Next Generation Science Standards point out that such explanations
are perfect examples of the scientifically ejected.
Another naturopathy textbook details
naturopathy’s vitalism idea and goal, too:
the Textbook of Natural Medicine by
editors NDs Pizzorno and Murray.
Basically, it states in the Chapter 3 of the 2005 third edition, under the categorical label "science-based", written by the architects
of naturopathy’s central principles aka sectarian items:
“many naturopathic modalities can be
used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] the removal of the obstacles to
cure [...] allows the action of the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force,
the healing power of nature […the aim is to] harmonize with your life force
[...therefore] strategies are used to restore optimal function to an entire
physiologic system [including] (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force,
endocrine, etc.) [...] part of the reason for the failures within modern medical science is the mechanistic basis of it [that's actually called rigorous scientific standards, in nonsectarian places], with its fundamental ignorance of and disrespect for the wholeness of the individual, the natural laws of physiology governing health and healing, and especially for all things spiritual [...] the naturopathic physician evaluates the patient [...] looking for aspects of disturbance, first in the spirit [...] factors that most disturb health [...include] spiritual disharmony [...] humans are spiritual beings. They are spirits that reside within bodies [...] the body [is] that instrument cannot be separated from the spirit, which animates it. If the spirit is disturbed, the body cannot be fundamentally healthy. Hahnemann, the brilliant founder of homeopathy, instructs physicians thus. Disturbance in the spirit permeates the body and eventuates in physical manifestation. Physicians are responsible for perceiving such disturbances and addressing them. At colleges of naturopathic medicine in Australia and North America, faculty work with naturopathic medicine students to develop their ability to perceive the spiritual nature.”
So:
naturopathy’s overall goal and practice, by their own admission, is much like a religion aiming to tidy up the problems with a member’s spirit, soul, afterlife, thetans, demons, ghosts and such.
And life force is not a physiologic
system, duh.
Also, in NDNR, a 2013 article
concerning naturopathy’s vitalism was published by ND Gilbert and then ND
student Murphy titled “The
Healing Power of What?” [2018
archived].
They write:
“the vis medicatrix naturae, which
is at the crux of naturopathic philosophy and principles, is often referred to
in naturopathic texts, but rarely defined or examined in detail.”
Now, the Textbook of Naturopathic
Medicine had equated “the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing
power of nature […the] life force.”
And Pizzorno, the coeditor of that
book, labels naturopathy “science-based.”
In that NDNR article, we get
synonyms that are opaquely communicating that vitalistic / sectarian article of
faith and figmentation, including:
“the vis […] self-healing […] an
inherent process […and] an inherent, self-healing mechanism.”
The authors politely term this
opacity a “variability of definitions” though they do admit toward the
article’s end “the vitalistic roots of the naturopathic profession.”
Doesn’t sound very scientific to me
but we’re promised:
“the vis can be understood from a
physiological, or even mechanistic perspective.”
Well, no, not.
Vitalism is specifically
science-ejected, and that’s as I’ve said, written within the Next Generation
Science Standards corpus.
They also state, in their two-faced
kind of way:
“the vis is defined as something
which cannot solely be explained by science and physiochemical forces. The
notion that the vis is part of a larger-scale, universal, and spiritual aspect
of life, is often stressed.”
So, this is a religious concept first
and foremost and admitted as not within science and the physical universe’s
phenomena.
That is QUITE 'a variability of
definitions'.
And the authors present a tabulated
compilation of the language used to portray this vitalism at naturopathy
schools and their political organizations in North America, titled “Key Terms
in Professional Definitions of the Vis Medicatrix Naturae”, and none of the
language is transparent vitalism.
In other words, naturopathy is
collectively DISHONEST in its camouflaging.
We’re told:
“for instance, the National
University of Health Sciences (NUHS) lists the 6 principles in English,
including ‘the healing power of nature’ without expanding further on its
meaning or application.”
Ironically, we’re told:
“our word choices reflect our beliefs and values […and] it is beneficial to adapt and / or simplify philosophical concepts in order to make them digestible to the public.”
Yeah: deception.
Oh yeah: 'that's good for us'.
They do not value transparency and
informed consent, because sectarian ideas transparently communicated and then
falsely termed science-based are indigestible.
So, they're vague about the specifics of those sectarian ideas, and they are usually using science as their wrapper.
Anyway, back in Smith’s textbook, ND
Smith tells us:
“naturopathic medicine is the
embodiment of a tradition in medicine that could rightfully be called
'vitalistic' [...] the vitalistic tradition is based on the premise that the
body has an inherent ability to heal [...] the role of the physician in this
vitalist tradition of medicine is to support the self-healing ability of the
whole being [...naturopathic] doctors are vitalistic in their approach to their
patients, trying to work with their intrinsic ability to heal [...] vitalistic
therapies, including homeopathy, hydrotherapy, and traditional Chinese medicine
[...] homeopathy is an energetic or vitalistic medicine.”
“Self-healing”, is a synonym for
vitalism, and is in the book at least 69 times as a part, basically, of very
treatment protocol.
And 'medicatrix' is in the book at
least 13 times and the most succinct definition is:
“the vitalistic tradition is based
on the premise that the body has an inherent ability to heal, a premise
referred to in Latin as vis medicatrix naturae (healing power of
nature).”
And Smith tells us:
“the flexibility and open-ended
nature of this concept is a good thing.”
Well, that may be good for poetry
but not for science and not for articles of faith that should be clearly
communicated to respect peoples' rights.
And we’re also told:
“the discernment of the necessity of
working with the vis medicatrix naturae is what makes naturopathic medicine a
distinctive field.”
So again, that duh:
the vagueness that gives us
distinction, the hugeness that makes us
minuscule, the bad that makes us better.
Smith does write:
“this healing force […] the inner
healing force of the individual.”
Well, if we’re being scientific,
then you’ve got to prove that such a force or energy or spirit exists and
actually science has realized that such a force is unnecessary to explain
phenomena in biology and there is no such in evidence.
Yet, of course, naturopathy has its
doctrines such as the book’s glossary entry:
“dynamis: a term used by Samuel
Hahnemann in homeopathic medicine. [It] Refers to the life force, a dynamic energy
that maintains the human organism in health.”
By the way, there are about 26
instances of Hahnemann in the book -- homeopathy's founder -- with all but
three of them spelled wrong.
Oh, and overall, there are at least
11 instances of the term “vital force” in the book, such as:
“children have a strong vital force
[…] the more specific principle of homeopathy, that disease symptoms are
efforts by the vital force to re-establish equilibrium […] TCM is founded in
the principle that energy in the body flows along specific pathways called
meridians. This energy is known as qi. Qi enters the body at conception and
remains the vital force in the body, which is slowly used up throughout the
course of life. When the flow of qi through the meridians is harmonious and
uninhibited, good health results. When the flow of qi through the meridians is
inhibited or blocked, disease results […] Hahnemann taught that disease was due
to the ‘untunement’ of the vital force, the part of the organism that allowed
it to respond and adapt to life. Whether that meant shivering in response to
cold or experiencing fear in response to a threat, the vital force was a
dynamic aspect of the human being […] medicines that stimulate the vital force
may be given […] real cure comes from treating any derangement of the vital
force.”
Naturopathy’s Essential Detox:
Now, one of the most prevalent
naturopathic ideas in the book is detox, believe it or not.
The root “detox” happens at least 92
times, such as this blanket statement:
“naturopathic physicians attempting to support the restoration of health in their patients, regardless of the particular disease, must support the body's natural detoxification system.”
And to align this idea with what is
essentially naturopathic, we’re at one point also told:
“homeopathy can be a useful adjunct
in promoting detoxification.”
What great company detox keeps, homeopathy pseudopharmacy.
So, my favorite overall synopsis of naturopathy’s bogus clinical theory in the book is:
“treatment approach one […] 2. enhance physiological function by supporting the systems of detoxification. 3. Promote self-healing processes by using a homeopathic medicine to stimulate the vital force […] treatment approach two: 1. promote self-healing processes by using a homeopathic medicine to stimulate the vital force.”
Detox, homeopathy, vitalism:
let’s call that 'treatment approach duh.'
let’s call that 'treatment approach duh.'
Other Instances:
There are also at least 26 instances
of the term “spirit” and 67 instances of the term “evidence”
including:
“Principles and Practices is
evidence-based throughout.”
ISYN:
yes, the evidence-based science-exterior, science-ejected and unscienceable.
yes, the evidence-based science-exterior, science-ejected and unscienceable.
Duh.
But Detox:
Now, in a 2017 Science-Based
Medicine blog post, pharmacist Scott Gavura wrote in “Top
Ten Signs Your Detox May Be a Scam”:
“most detoxes are only successful at
cleaning you of your savings, not your toxins. Here are the top ten signs that
you may be getting scammed, or risking your health, with a detox. 1. Watch for
the word ‘homeopathic’ […because] homeopathic products don’t contain any
‘medicine’ at all. They are effectively and sometimes literally sugar pills […]
homeopathy is an elaborate placebo system […therein] surprisingly, there is no
convincing evidence to show that homeopathy has any medical [opps, I say medicinal] value […]
homeopathic detox, like homeopathic anything, is a scam […] 6. The detox is
promoted by a naturopath […] if anyone suggests a detox or cleanse to you,
remember that you’re hearing a marketing pitch for an imaginary condition.”
Hear, hear.
And THAT is a naturopathy textbook.
This is the end of Part Two of the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 014, aka s02e04.
Thank you for boldly listening.
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment