The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 014c [s02e04c] Script and Annotations

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 last third of Episode 014, I delve into standards:

001. Episode 014c 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 03:

Standards, Complicity, Ethics and Spoliation:

I’d listed, by way of NUHS, organizations or entities that partner and support NUHS either through academic accreditations, permissions, approvals or certifications of whatever kind.

I’m now going to look at some of the standards of some of these organizations or entities, or organizations like them for a preponderance.

The comparison should be interesting:

contradictions may be plentiful, and complicity.

HLC:

I’m most interested in NUHS’s regional accreditor:

“the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association, 230 S. LaSalle St., Suite 7-500, Chicago, IL 60604-1413, 800-621-7440, 312-263-0456.”

NUHS tells us on the page “Accreditation” [2018 archived], which I’d used earlier in this episode:

“in September 2005, National University submitted a request for change to include approval for a doctor of naturopathic medicine program […] National University's Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine program was granted accreditation by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) on October 13, 2012.”

So, I’ll look at CNME too.

While there is so much WRONG with naturopathy epistemically speaking as an academic product, apparently the general accreditor is fine with patent pseudoscience falsely marketed as science at the doctoral level.

NUHS tells us, in sum, well-after the naturopathy program was up and running in all its perfidy:

“in July 2016, NUHS received a full 10-year reaccreditation from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC).”

So, things should compare 'finely', right, as in 'just fine'?

Only if wrong is right, me thinks, and eyes are kept shut and duh is considered good.

At Wikipedia, if you look at the U.S. map provided there, then you see that the HLC's footprint is a very large swathe of the middle of the country.

There, we're also told that HLC is USDE and CHEA recognized.

Online, HLC has up “Policy Book November 2017” [2018 archived], which is about 240 pages.

There are at least 15 instances of the root “ethic” in there, and at least 14 instances of “integrity.”

Versions of the word “accurate” are in there at least 21 times.

In the section “Eligibility Requirements”, we’re told:

“an institution must meet all eligibility requirements before it is granted candidate status.”

Well, NUHS is well-past candidacy status but there we're told:

“the institution has educational programs that are appropriate for an institution of higher education.”

Now, naturopathy’s science standards violate the science standards of K-12, so NUHS isn’t even meeting the lower standards of primary school science yet here they are permitted at the higher doctoral level to be duh.

Now, there’s a criterion for edibility that goes like this:

“16. Integrity of Business and Academic Operations. The institution has no record of inappropriate, unethical, and untruthful dealings with its students, with the business community, or with agencies of government. The institution complies with all legal requirements (in addition to authorization of academic programs) wherever it does business.”

I don’t think pseudoscience passes through this criterion.

Pseudoscience is unethical, untruthful, and when occurring with monies exchanged, illegal IMHO as commerce.

Then there’s a section “Criteria for Accreditation.”

HLC speaks of these as being “standards of quality” while naturopathy is categorically false, not merely incrementally lacking quality.

We’re told that it is required that “the institution’s mission is clear and articulated publicly.”

Well, what’s clear is that naturopathy is being falsely categorically labeled and NUHS is not indicating that to the public.

NUHS naturopathy should be stating to the public that their mission is:

to train NDs to engage in a certain mode of grifting achieved through false science and quality assurances.

What I like best about this mission section is the requirement that:

“the institution’s mission demonstrates commitment to the public good […that the institution has] a public obligation.”

But fake medical science is not a positive influence on the public good:

it violates an obligation for the institution to be truthful to the public, the public that gives the institution permission to operate.

Then, the accreditation requirements state:

“Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct. The institution acts with integrity. Its conduct is ethical and responsible […and speaks of] fair and ethical behavior on the part of its governing board, administration, faculty, and staff.”

It's agents.

But NUHS's agents are not, categorically, of integrity:

 'science subset naturopathy subset homeopathy-vitalism-supernaturalism and kind' speaks volumes to that categorical fact, as presented in a textbook by one of NUHS's administrators and faculty.

Yet we’re told an accredited member:

“presents itself clearly and completely to its students and to the public […and] the institution is committed to freedom of expression and the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning […] the institution provides effective oversight and support services to ensure the integrity of research and scholarly practice conducted by its faculty, staff, and students […] the institution has and enforces policies on academic honesty and integrity.”

We’re told:

“Teaching and Learning: Quality, Resources, and Support. The institution provides high quality education, wherever and however its offerings are delivered […] the institution’s degree programs are appropriate to higher education […] the institution demonstrates that the exercise of intellectual inquiry and the acquisition, application, and integration of broad learning and skills are integral to its educational programs. 1. The general education program is appropriate to the mission, educational offerings, and degree [oops, I say general] levels of the institution.”

Later, we’re told:

“the institution maintains specialized accreditation for its programs as appropriate to its educational purposes.”

This is where CNME gets involved.

There’s a section titled “Assumed Practices.”

Well, accreditor, I think you assume a health sciences university is not teaching patent pseudoscience, the opposite of what's happening at NUHS.

And therefore NUHS maintains its membership.

Assumed is:

“Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct […and that] the institution provides its students, administrators, faculty, and staff with policies and procedures informing them of their rights and responsibilities within the institution […] the institution assures that all data it makes public are accurate and complete.”

Well, the public and students have to right to know about naturopathy’s falsehoods but instead they’re told “science.”

There’s actually a section “Policies Required by Federal Regulation.”

Other statements include:

“an institution demonstrates that it makes available to students and the public fair, accurate and complete information in catalogs, student handbooks, and other publications.”

If only.

Now, HLC does have a “policy on fraud and abuse” [2018 archived], wink-wink.

And let me read that in full:

“an institution shall not engage in fraud and abuse, as outlined in state and federal law and regulation, or in practices or procedures that are designed or have the tendency to create a falsification or deceive students. If the Commission receives an allegation of fraud and abuse concerning an institution from the federal government, any state entity or other party, the Commission will determine whether the alleged fraud and abuse constitutes a violation of the Criteria for Accreditation, particularly related to institutional integrity. In considering any allegation of fraud and abuse, the Commission may consider the nature of the allegation, whether the alleged fraud and abuse appears to meet the Commission’s understanding of fraud and abuse as outlined in this policy or in federal or state definitions of fraud and abuse, and whether the source of the allegation has provided any evidence of such fraud and abuse. The Commission will review such allegations through its complaint process or through other mechanisms provided for in Commission policy and practice. An institution that has been determined through those processes to have engaged in fraud and abuse as outlined in this policy shall be considered to be in violation of Commission standards related to institutional integrity and may be found to be in violation of other Commission standards as well and shall be subject to Commission sanctions or withdrawal of accreditation as outlined in those policies. The Commission shall report suspected incidents of fraud and abuse to the U.S. Department of Education as outlined in its policy on the Relation with the U.S. Government.”

So, that’s supposedly:

fraud, abuse, falsification and deception are not allowed.

Then why oh why is NUHS allowed to house naturopathy, generally speaking, which has no epistemic integrity by way of its own Janus-faced definitions?

Let me quote from the 2012 National Academies Press publication “A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas” for emphasis concerning this naturopathic epistemic fraud, this categorical fraud and deception, wherein what’s science-ejected categorically is categorically falsely termed science.

 

On page 79 of the nap.edu PDF for their ISBN 9780309214414 where told:

“epistemic knowledge is knowledge of the constructs and values that are intrinsic to science. Students need to understand what is meant, for example, by an observation, a hypothesis, an inference, a model, a theory, or a claim and be able to readily distinguish between them. An education in science should show that new scientific ideas are acts of imagination, commonly created these days through collaborative efforts of groups of scientists whose critiques and arguments are fundamental to establishing which ideas are worthy of pursuing further. Ideas often survive because they are coherent with what is already known, and they either explain the unexplained, explain more observations, or explain in a simpler and more elegant manner. Science is replete with ideas that once seemed promising but have not withstood the test of time, such as the concept of the ‘ether’ or the vis vitalis (the ’vital force’ of life).”

How inconvenient for all these goons.

There’s also this great news concerning holding homeopathic fake pharmacy’s feet to the fire, by way of the Center for Inquiry this 2018.

In “Center for Inquiry Sues CVS for Fraud Over Sale of Homeopathic Fake Medicine” [2018 archived; here's the legal doc.], at centerforinquiry.org, we’re told:

“for immediate release: July 9, 2018  […the] Center for Inquiry […] a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization […which] strives to foster a secular society based on reason, science, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values […and that is] home to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and the Council for Secular Humanism […] has filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia on behalf of the general public against drug retailer CVS for consumer fraud over its sale and marketing of useless homeopathic medicines. CFI [...] accused the country’s largest drug retailer of deceiving consumers through its misrepresentation of homeopathy’s safety and effectiveness, wasting customers’ money and putting their health at risk […] homeopathy is an 18th-century pseudoscience premised on the absurd, unscientific notion that a substance that causes a particular symptom is what should be ingested to alleviate it […and] its alleged effectiveness rests on the nonsensical claim that water molecules have ‘memories’ of the original substance. Homeopathic treatments have no effect whatsoever beyond that of a placebo.”

And a July 24th 2018 video by CFI, “Why Are We Suing CVS?” at youtube.com, states:

“you know how some of the medicines you see in drug stores are sometimes labeled as homeopathic? You might have heard somewhere that homeopathy is a ‘natural’ way to treat things like colds, the flu, aches and pains, sleeplessness, and a million other things. Let’s just get this out of the way right now: homeopathy is bunk […they’re] untested, ineffective fantasy products […] based on a bizarre idea from the 1700s that water molecules have memory in which dangerous substances are diluted so much that the ingredients literally aren’t there anymore. It doesn’t work, it can’t work, it’s fake medicine […] drug retailers, they know this […] this is why the Center for Inquiry […] is suing CVS for fraud […and] deception.”

So why oh why: naturopathy and homeopathy within science at NUHS?

Because NUHS and these naturopathy-homeopathy sectarians are successfully gaming the system, a concept I’d spoken of in a previous Episode.

And you won’t find any homeopathy critical articles at NUHS, that’s for sure.

They’re not going to embrace that null hypothesis.

It’s just sickening.

CNME: 

Speaking of what’s sick-fraud-deception, CNME is naturopathy’s specialized accreditor.

Specialized duh.

CNME is online at cnme.org, and there NUHS is listed as an accredited program this 2018 [2018 archived] along with the two Bastyr University campuses:

BU which is famous for categorically labeling naturopathy explicitly “science-based” [2018 archived] while including, like NUHS, the science-ejected homeopathic and vitalistic, and the unscienceable supernatural.

ND Joe Pizzorno, the founding President of Bastyr and that Textbook of Natural Medicine co-editor, actually admits to “coining” naturopathy’s false marketing label “science-based natural medicine” [2018 archived] pretty-much all over the internet.

Yeah, that’s how you do science, like a Madison Avenue advertising company creating copy, in Naturopathyland.

On CNME’s homepage [2018 archived] we’re assured, literally:

“our mission is quality assurance. The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education serves the public by accrediting doctoral programs in naturopathic medicine in the U.S. and Canada that meet or exceed our educational standards […] purpose of accreditation. The Council’s in-depth accreditation process promotes high-quality naturopathic education and training, and safe and effective practice. Our educational standards provide the basis for licensing / regulating naturopathic doctors in the U.S. and Canada. CNME is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education to accredit doctoral programs in naturopathic medicine […] naturopathic medicine: an overview. Blending modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine.”

So, what does the fox say who guards the pseudoscience golden eggs in the hen-house?

The fox says don’t worry, be assured, we’re serving the public, with standards, with high-quality, with safe and effective, with regulation and licensure.

In partnership.

By way of blending, by way of permitting deception and falsehood.

So, we’ve got false assurances, and that brazen admission of core knowledge blending that in-sum truly BELIES that NUHS’s claim of science as a categorical distinction.

As "science-based."

And, would you believe, CNME does not speak of a life force, a vital force, vitalism or vitalistic on its pages though it does claim to be explaining naturopathy there.

I think you do believe that, if you’ve listened this far into this Episode.

A search of “medicatrix” does uncover a “Handbook of Accreditation” [2018 archived] dated January 2017.

We’re told in that PDF at cnme.org, which lists NUHS as an accredited program and the new Puerto Rican “Universidad del Turabo Naturopathic Medicine Doctorate Program School of Health Sciences” as a CNME candidate for accreditation:

“core principles. The practice of naturopathic medicine is guided by six core principles, as defined by American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) […] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): the naturopathic physician recognizes an inherent self-healing process in people that is ordered and intelligent. The naturopathic physician acts to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process.”

And that’s all you get:

no contextual transparency, while in the PDF there are three instances for homeopathy, and five for “evidence-based”, and also five for “spirit.”

Ironically, we’re told regarding fraud:

“if a program or its institution is found by the Council or a judicial court — or a federal, state or provincial agency — to have engaged in fraudulent activity, or if the institution loses its authority to grant the doctor of naturopathic medicine degree or designation, the Council will withdraw accreditation.”

Really.

And, actually, NUHS has a 2013 page up “University Urges Springfield: Bring Naturopathic Medicine to Illinois” [2018 archived] which states:

“[naturopathic] licensure laws also safeguard the public from poorly trained practitioners and physicians with fraudulent credentials - protection that is lacking in unlicensed states.”

Ha:

as if the science at NUHS that contains homeopathy and kind survives that assurance "poorly trained practitioners and physicians with fraudulent credentials."

And as regards categorical epistemic fraud, the root “scien” is in the [handbook] PDF at least 28 times.

CNME tells us such things as:

“under rules adopted by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners, only currently enrolled students or graduates of programs that have accreditation or candidacy from the Council are eligible to take Part I (Basic Science Examinations) of the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX), and only graduates of these programs are allowed to take NPLEX Part II (Clinical Science Examinations).”

So, NPLEX which falsely labels such things as homeopathy “clinical science.”

You see a lot of irony here, as when the handbook asks:

“does the review process take into account findings identified by the program’s and / or institution’s assessment processes and advances in medical sciences and education?”

Well, did any of you duh sectarian fucks, from the NDs and DCs who started the NUHS ND program all the way through to the overseeing CNME read the Next Generation Science Standards which would then guide you not to falsely posture naturopathy overall as science?

Did you duh sectarian fucks read long-standing science boundary guidelines that existed well before more than half of the current naturopathy schools of North American opened for business?

Yet, we’re told by CNME:

“the courses in clinical sciences prepare students to utilize naturopathic therapeutics [including homeopathy] to diagnose the cause of a disease and treat patients” while naturopathy’s homeopathy therapeutic is not a clinical science since it is science-ejected.

CNME actually tells us that their supposed science isn’t truly science when they state:

“naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession that combines the traditions of natural healing with the rigors of modern science.”

The distinction that is a combination, the science that isn’t science because it’s also anything else within it.

Yet, we’re promised:

“naturopathic medical graduates critically appraise, assimilate and apply scientific evidence to improve patient care.”

How can this happen authentically, when science is allowed to be anything, like 'homeopathy, vitalism and supernaturalism and kind'?

Would you believe that the root “ethic” is in the handbook at least 14 times?

Such as:

“the naturopathic medical graduate […] recognizes and addresses ethical issues arising in practice […and] maintains legal and ethical standards.”

Well, how can that happen if 'up was taught as down' in naturopathy dyseducation?

Yet, we’re also promised:

“naturopathic medical graduates provide personalized, compassionate, ethical, holistic patient care […and they speak of being] consistent with legal, institutional, and ethical requirements […and they speak of] the ethical behavior of students, clinical faculty, administrators and staff […and of] an understanding of medical ethics […and of] a solid understanding of practice management, professional ethics and jurisprudence […and of] clinically competent, caring and ethical primary care / general practice physicians / doctors.”

Wink-wink.

Those are some interesting coinings, that is some interesting copy.

Illinois, the NGSS and NUHS:

Now, the State of Illinois was a partner in creating the Next Generation Science Standards and has adopted those standards, while NUHS doesn’t even apparently have a webpage discussing “scientific integrity.”

There is an NUHS PDF on institutional standards, signed by DC Winterstein, that states:

“NUHS shall be committed to the achievement and maintenance of the highest levels of institutional integrity as listed below […including] support, encourage, conduct, finance and publicize research grounded in scientific principles.”

Ah, that might include ND Smith’s textbook?!

And NUHS does have a 22-page student Code of Conduct, a Student Handbook, and a Profile of the Practice of Naturopathic Medicine [RB; saved 2018-07-27].

And I’ll here excerpt here, in part, from all three.

The NUHS The Student Code of Conduct:

The Student Code of Conduct PDF cover has a gavel and the scales of justice represented, in front of an American flag.

Really.

Strap in, this is going to get really loopy.

Generally, we’re told:

“the NUHS Student Code of Conduct should be broadly construed as the primary document governing the conduct, competencies and additional clinic standards of all University students […] this NUHS Student Code of Conduct has been formulated to promote and fortify optimal learning conditions that advance the University’s Mission Statement, protect individual student liberties and safeguard the interests of all members of the NUHS academic community […] as a condition of enrollment in NUHS, all students are automatically enjoined to share this responsibility to abide by the standards, rules and / or policies set forth in the NUHS Student Code of Conduct, the NUHS Clinic Intern Manual, [and] the NUHS Bulletin and other official University publications.”

Sure, sure.

And specifically, in that student code of conduct, NUHS states concerning fraud:

“revocation of admission, certificate, and / or degree: admission to the University, or any certificate or degree that has been awarded by the University may be revoked for fraud, misrepresentation, or other violation of University standards in obtaining a certificate and / or degree, or for other serious violations committed by a student prior to graduation.”

The school aims to:

“encourage and maintain an environment conducive to educational development.”

So, a degree that fraudulently represents its epistemic context has problems with fraud and misrepresentation, and what is that conducive to?

Dyseducation:

what a mindfuck conducive to crazy.

We’re told such things as:

“a University is an academic community […and] it relies upon ‘core’ values that reflect the collective beliefs, governing principles and boundaries of deportment that are expected of its individual members […its] virtues and obligations […] these common values […its] ‘rules of conduct’ the most basic expression of these core values includes […] ‘justice […defined as] some form of obligation to mutual aid and mutual abstention from injury, and, in some form and in some degree, the virtue of honesty’.”

Are you enjoying all this yet in its full irony and perfidy?

NUHS goes on:

“at NUHS we […] believe that civilized conduct and an atmosphere conducive to intellectual and personal development are vital if learning is to flourish […] we believe the soundest way to ensure the requisite conditions exist for learning and personal development is for every individual at NUHS to assertively claim their personal stake in the collective ownership of the welfare of our University, and likewise, for every inhabitant within it […and it speaks of] a higher degree of responsibility, moral reasoning, personal accountability or ethical deportment expected of the students enrolled in programs that include intern training within a[n] NUHS clinic.”

Hmmm:

like an NUHS naturopathy clinic where homeopathy is falsely claimed to be efficacious because it has been labeled as “science”?

We’re also told, regarding science – beyond the five occurrences of the school’s name fully written out and the 94 occurrences of the school’s name abbreviated as NUHS -- 's' for science:

“for over a century, NUHS has proudly asserted a leading role in healthcare education by maintaining a learning community firmly grounded in a tradition of progressive, science-based thought, high academic standards, and a steadfast belief in the inherent strength and viability that accrues to an organization when it draws from a diverse talent pool of human beings.”

Ah, so that very explicit term "science-based", that false science marketing or coining again:

'Good Old Science-Based ND Joe Pizzorno' would be proud  of such marketing and coining.

We’re told:

“our University is deeply committed to the principle of equality […] and in the fair and unbiased treatment of individual differences […] NUHS does not discriminate in the admission, housing and education of students or in policies governing discipline, extracurricular life or student activities.”

Well, NUHS does discriminate against national rigorous science standards, IMHO, in favor of the preferences of archaic sectarian pseudomedical pseudoscience.

Actually, there’s one occurrence, speaking of the pseudo-, of the root “naturop” and none of “homeop” in this document.

They state:

“prohibited conduct […includes] attempting and / or claiming to practice chiropractic, naturopathy, acupuncture, Oriental medicine or therapeutic massage without proper authorization and supervision.”

They also state:

“during the internship phase of a program, clinicians assume the primary role of supervisor / instructor to the interns assigned to them. Clinicians are faculty members tasked with the responsibility of evaluating an intern's skill at distilling all the information acquired from their academic coursework into [oops I say to] useful clinical knowledge. At the same time, clinicians are also evaluating an intern's development of non-cognitive skills, character traits and personal attributes that are just as important as clinical knowledge […] these skills are revealed over time through acts of compassion, trustworthiness, sound judgment, personal accountability, respect for others, and the capacity to exceed mere compliance with rules or avoiding prohibited behavior.”

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

So what happens as they're practicing in an NUHS naturopathy clinic: bullshit?

I guess you're told 'wow, you learned your bullshit well therefore you visiting this bullshit upon patients reflects your:

 "compassion, trustworthiness, sound judgment, personal accountability, respect for others [...and your] capacity to exceed mere compliance with rules or avoiding prohibited behavior."

Also, under prohibited conduct is:

“any student or student organization found to have committed the following types of misconduct [...] shall be subject to the disciplinary sanction(s) described in this Code [...and here's where it gets so loopy] falsification, distortion or misrepresentation of information before the Committee on University Discipline or the Dean of Students [...] institution of disciplinary proceeding without cause or knowing the charge was false or with reckless disregard of its truth [...they speak of not permitting acts of] extortion [...] blackmail [...] or bribery [...or] retaliation [...towards anyone] bringing a complaint, testifying, or participating in any manner in an investigation or proceeding [...and they speak of] academic misconduct [...]  examples include but are not limited to [...] cheating [is this institution not greatly cheating?...] bribing or blackmailing or attempting to bribe or blackmail a member of the University community or any other individual to alter a grade or commit any other act of academic misconduct [...] plagiarism [...] intentional and unauthorized falsification or invention of any information or citation in an academic exercise. This includes but is not limited to: knowingly reporting data, research or reports so that either the process or the product is shown to be different from what actually occurred."

Also mentioned as prohibited are:

“acts of theft [...] alteration, forgery or misrepresentation […] false representation. Providing false information to the University [...and] unauthorized practice.”

The 2017-2018 NUHS Student Handbook:

This NUHS Student Handbook states the term “dishonest” at least 8 times, such as:

“academic integrity is founded upon the following five values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility. Supporting and affirming these values is essential to promoting and maintaining a high level of academic integrity. If a student is to acquire knowledge and have it properly evaluated, it must be pursued under conditions free from cynicism, dishonesty, and moral ambiguity […] students shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent the occurrence of academic dishonesty. They shall by their own example encourage academic integrity and shall themselves refrain [oops I invert those two words] from acts of cheating and plagiarism or other acts of academic misconduct […] faculty members shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent the occurrence of academic dishonesty through appropriate design and administration of assignments and examinations, careful safeguarding of course materials and examinations, and regular reassessment of evaluation procedures […] when instances of academic dishonesty are suspected, faculty members shall have the responsibility to see that appropriate action is taken in accordance with institutional regulations […] a student may be expelled or suspended from the University for, among other reasons, academic deficiency or for academic dishonesty, such as, but not limited to, the use of dishonest means in any examination, the plagiarism of class assignments, and / or the falsification of previous academic records."

And of course, how can the University claim moral authority in terms of adjudication, in terms of measuring honesty, if their basic position is pseudoscience, misrepresentation and dishonesty?

As in good is bad, honesty is dishonesty, pseudoscience is science.

There are at least 16 instances of “integrity” and we’re told:

“compassion, integrity, concern for others, interpersonal skills, interest, and motivation are all personal qualities that a student must possess to successfully complete the challenges encountered in training.”

But how is one to be 'compassionate of integrity with concern for others' when the overall category of what one is studying such as 'NUHS subset naturopathy subset homeopathy' is basically permitted, inculcated, and reinforced exploitation, manipulation and nonintegrity?

Now, there are at least two versions of the categorical label “science-based” in this student handbook.

We’re told the WHOPPER falsehood:

“in 1963, National moved to Lombard, Illinois, where, on approximately 38 acres, it provides the finest science-based curriculum and clinical experience for students from all over the world, and three available teaching clinics for its massage students.”

This statement occurs twice in the document, WHOPPER-WISE.

And “health sciences” is in there at least 98 times.

And WHOPPER-WISE, simultaneously we’re also told:

“in addition to group activities, many of our student organizations promote special events, lectures and activities for the entire NUHS community […including a] Homeopathy Club […] doctor of naturopathic medicine. Assistant Dean – Fraser Smith, ND. Naturopathic medicine is a distinct method of primary health care — an art, science, philosophy, and practice of diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of illness. Naturopathic physicians seek to restore and maintain optimum health in their patients by emphasizing nature’s inherent self-healing process, (what Hippocrates referred to as the vis medicatrix naturae). This is accomplished through education about lifestyle — determining factors of health — and the rational use of natural therapeutics such as clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, physical medicine, manipulation, acupuncture, homeopathy, and hydrotherapy.”

What a mess:

the falsely labeled as science-based science-unsupported and -ejected, along with the coded vitalistic.

And we’re also told in the Student Handbook:

“faculty members shall share responsibility for academic integrity” and that’s also mentioned in the separate NUHS PDF “Academic Integrity and Dishonesty Policy” signed by DC Stiefel in 2016 [saved 2018-07-27].

Oh yeah, ND Smith and DCs Winterstein and Stiefel, “responsibility” by way of misrepresenting and lauding the misrepresentation that's so revealed in ND Smith's 2008 textbook.

NUHS’s “Profile of the Practice of Naturopathic Medicine”:

Now science is required to be transparent.

Boy this Profile isn't.

This “Profile of the Practice of Naturopathic Medicine” was signed by Winterstein in 2009 it says it was adopted in 1989 [rb; saved 2018-07-28].

It states:

“National University of Health Sciences (NUHS) and its related colleges hold that the practice of the alternative and complementary healing arts and sciences including naturopathic medicine, must embrace the whole person, with emphasis upon conservative health care, which facilitates the inherent potential of the human organism to develop and maintain a state of self-regulation and to invoke self-healing processes with minimal therapeutic risk at reasonable cost. We recognize a diversity of factors that impact upon human physiology, among which are biomechanical dysfunction, altered energy patterns, genetics, trauma, hygiene, microorganisms, nutritional status, exercise, motion, posture, environment, stress, emotion, and human relationships. Naturopathic practice embodies [...] the recognition of those aspects of human health and disease detailed above [...] naturopathic medicine is based on the following six principles [...] the healing power of nature [...naturopathic medicine] is the primary care of patients based upon diagnostic evaluation including patient history, physical examination, clinical laboratory data, diagnostic imaging and other special diagnostic measures as well as those procedures that are unique to the naturopathic evaluation of the human condition […naturopathic medicine] promotes, as a central component of practice, the application of the principles of botanical medicine, homeopathy, proper nutrition, and hydrotherapy [and it] includes the use of other means including but not limited to, physiologic therapeutics, meridian therapy / acupuncture, trigger point therapy, exercise, lifestyle counseling, emotional support, articular manipulation, and stress management. The doctor of naturopathic medicine is a primary care, first contact physician who practices within the legal scope of licensure, emphasizes the importance of the doctor / patient relationship, recognizes the need for other forms of therapy when indicated, and interacts fully with other members of the health care delivery team, always in the best interest of the patient.”

So that’s:

a science claim, homeopathy, coded vitalism and that's "always in the best interest of the patient."

Right.

The NUHS Faculty Handbook:

The NUHS "Faculty Handbook FY 2017-2018" is a 99-page PDF [rb; saved 2018-07-29].

The root "naturop" is in there at least 19 times, "scien" at least 95 times, homeopathic twice, and “ethic” at least 20 times.

And because this document is full of directives, the word “must” is in there at least 58 times.

We're told naturopathy:

"promotes, as a central component of practice, the application of the principles of botanical medicine, homeopathy, proper nutrition, and hydrotherapy"

and yet also that

"National University of Health Sciences [is] advancing the sciences of healing […the] Chair-Clinical Sciences […is] Kristina Conner, ND, MSOM.”

So, sectarian therapeutic obligations and I’ll mention more details about the science-ejected vitalism core of that NUHS MSOM a little later.

We’re told:

"the doctor of naturopathic medicine program is a part of the National University of Health Sciences [...] the purpose of the doctor of naturopathic medicine program at National University of Health Sciences is to create competent physicians who are ethical, effective practitioners of naturopathic medicine [...and they speak of the goal of the program to] enable students to further the knowledge of the naturopathic profession with education in critical thinking, independent research, and philosophical inquiry [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine [...] is based on the following six principles: [#1] the healing power of nature […NUHS naturopathy is] guided by […] naturopathic tenets and principles.”

We’re told they:

"teach students to earn the trust of patients by always placing the needs of the patient foremost [...to act] always in the best interest of the patient."

Somehow:

 pseudoscience, deception and opacity don’t seem too trustworthy to me, and of patients' welfare first and foremost.

NEA's COE:

Now, HLC had spoken of “the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning”, which reminds me of certain preponderant national education strictures.

I thought it would be interesting to look at the National Education Association Code of Ethics, which is dated 1975.

I’d have a look at the USDE and such, but they’re feckless:

I’ve never gotten a response from them.

 [audio starts to dither]

NEA's page “Code of Ethics” at nea.org states:

“the National Education Association believes that the education profession consists of one education workforce serving the needs of all students […] the education profession is vested by the public with a trust and responsibility requiring the highest ideals of professional service […] the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession indicates the aspiration of all educators and provides standards by which to judge conduct […] the educator, believing in the worth and dignity of each human being, recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of the democratic principles […] the educator accepts the responsibility to adhere to the highest ethical standards […] the desire for the respect and confidence of one's colleagues, of students, of parents, and of the members of the community provides the incentive to attain and maintain the highest possible degree of ethical conduct […] Principle I, commitment to the student. The educator strives to help each student realize his or her potential as a worthy and effective member of society. The educator therefore works to stimulate the spirit of inquiry, the acquisition of knowledge and understanding, and the thoughtful formulation [oops, I say formation] of worthy goals. In fulfillment of the obligation to the student, the educator -- 1. Shall not unreasonably restrain the student from independent action in the pursuit of learning. 2. Shall not unreasonably deny the student's access to varying points of view. 3. Shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter relevant to the student's progress. 4. Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health and safety. 5. Shall not intentionally expose the student to embarrassment or disparagement. 6. Shall not on the basis of race, color, creed, sex, national origin, marital status, political or religious beliefs, family, social or cultural background, or sexual orientation, unfairly -- exclude any student from participation in any program, deny benefits to any student, grant any advantage to any student 7. Shall not use professional relationships with students for private advantage. 8. Shall not disclose information about students obtained in the course of professional service unless disclosure serves a compelling professional purpose or is required by law […] Principle II, commitment to the profession […] in fulfillment of the obligation to the profession, the educator -- 1. Shall not in an application for a professional position deliberately make a false statement or fail to disclose a material fact related to competency and qualifications. 2. Shall not misrepresent his/her professional qualifications. 3. Shall not assist any entry into the profession of a person known to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute. 4. Shall not knowingly make a false statement concerning the qualifications of a candidate for a professional position […] adopted by the NEA 1975 [oops I say 1995] Representative Assembly.”

So, I think NUHS compares very very badly to these expected attributes as I wonder, grossly, about their science incompetency, which is epistemic in terms of category, and unethicality, which is behavioral in terms of category.

And I am an educator, I must admit academically speaking, ever since I earned my B.A. in, of all subjects, physical education, in 1994, an began my teaching in 1995 adjuncting in an Exercise and Sport Science department.

Speaking of long-standing education standards in science, up at the National Center for Science Education, there’s the 1995 – yes, that long-ago long-standing – position paper by the National Association of Biology Teachers “National Association of Biology Teachers (1995)” at ncse.com.

It states:

“NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes. Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom […while] any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific, ways of knowing. These attempts, which commonly result from a misunderstanding of the nature of science itself, have no place in science, or in the science classroom or laboratory.”

Again, how inconvenient, and what a very very bad comparison to NUHS:
 
#scienceisanything.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science Position on Scientific Integrity:

There’s a great link at AAAS.org, on a scientific integrity page, to a very appropriate 2005 editorial from Science Magazine titled “Redefining Science” by Alan I. Leshner, a man who, in addition to his Rutgers PhD in physiological psychology “has been awarded seven honorary Doctor of Science degrees.”

He writes at science.sciencemag.org:

“[we must be] clear about what science is [...] to distinguish clearly between scientific and belief systems, in schools and in various public venues devoted to science […] why are scientists so upset about the growing movement to bring ‘intelligent design’ (ID) into science classrooms and public education venues such as science museums, zoos, and theme parks? As we mark the 80th anniversary of the Scopes trial, the pressure to teach ID as a scientific alternative to evolution has been gaining ground in many U.S. states […] are scientists so insecure that they are afraid to subject the core concepts of evolution to public scrutiny? Not likely. They're accustomed to that. Scientific theories and principles are routinely subjected to close examination and systematic [oops, I say systemic] testing. Moreover, scientists are notoriously argumentative and enjoy debating theories with one another. The problem is that ID advocates attempt to dress up religious beliefs to make them look like science.”

I’ll touch on the naturopathic as religious before the end of this Episode, particularly through ND Pizzorno.

Leshner goes on:

“ID advocates […] by redefining what is and isn't science […] put the public—particularly young people—at risk of being inadequately prepared to live in modern society. Twenty-first-century citizens are regularly required to make decisions about issues that have heavy science- and technology-related content, such as medical care, personal security, shopping choices, and what their children should be taught in school. To make those choices wisely, they will need to distinguish science-based evidence from pseudoscientific claims.”

I like it.

And we’re told:

“there is an important distinction between a belief and a theory. ID is cast by its proponents as a scientific theory, an alternative to evolution, but it fails the criteria for achieving that status. In our business, a theory is not an educated guess nor, emphatically, is it a belief. Scientific theories attempt to explain what can be observed, and it is essential that they be testable by repeatable observations and experimentation. In fact, ‘belief’ is a word you almost never hear in science. We do not believe theories. We accept or reject them based on their ability to explain natural phenomena, and they must be testable with scientific methodologies […] scientific theories such as evolution and gravity are accepted only after they have been subjected to validation through repeated observation and experiment, vetted extensively through the peer review process. ID can pass none of these tests. Its proponents assert its scientific standing without undertaking the scientific processes that are required to establish it.”

Is this not fun?

Doesn't ID's methods parallel sCAMs such as naturopathy?

He goes on:

“at the same time, it is important for scientists to acknowledge that not all questions can be answered by science. Scientific insights are limited to the natural world […if] it is a matter of belief […its] outside our realm […and therein] we cannot answer that question scientifically […] what is taught in science class should be limited to science. Redefining science to get a particular belief into the classroom simply isn't educationally sound […] it is appropriate to teach about belief-based concepts like ID in humanities courses, in classes comparing religious points of view, or in philosophy courses that contrast religious and scientific approaches to the world.”

Hear, hear.

[audio gets worse 1.00.00]

   The Naturopathic Medical Student Association:

Naturopathy is a form of truly bad mimicry, you’ll notice, as you measure them across time.

Take the Naturopathic Medical Student Association, at naturopathicstudent.org, which has up the recent undated document “Naturopathic Medical Student Bill of Rights: A Concise Statement of Naturopathic Medical Students’ Rights and Responsibilities” [2018 archived] which was admittedly "adapted from the AMSA Student Bill of Rights.”

The document is divided into rights and responsibilities.

We’re told:

“naturopathic medical students have the right to […] receive high-quality training in an institution committed to their mentoring and education, which will prepare them to become competent, compassionate and ethical physicians.”

Stop there:

naturopathic training is instead a training in boundary erosion, opacity and grifting.

We’re told those rights include the right to:

“learn in a safe and humane environment where education is the primary goal.”

But what if 'dyseducation indoctrination' is instead happening?

And we’re told:

“naturopathic medical students have the responsibility to […] learn, integrate, practice and preserve the core principles and philosophies of naturopathic medicine.”

I must insist that that includes the posing as science what is not, which is at naturopathy’s core.

And I would argue that that position is mandated within naturopathy education because we’re told the naturopathy student must:

“maintain [the] standards of academic performance established by their institution and for each course in which they are enrolled.”

By way of NUHS and kind, those standards are reversals of values.

And yet, along the lines of a contradictory, naturopathillogical mindfuck, we’re told the naturopathy students must also:

“conduct themselves in a professional and ethical manner […while they] embody the medicine that they will provide clinically.”

Now the AMSA Student Bill of Rights can be found in the document “Constitution and Bylaws and Structure, Functions and Internal Policy and Preamble, Purposes and Principles 2002-2003” at amsa.org.

And let me emphasize that this is mainstream medicine, of the MD and DO kind.

And I won’t do a detailed comparison, but one stricture in the AMSA PDF that isn’t in the NMSA PDF is this:

“the American Medical Student Association […] condemns health-care fraud, specifically the is mispromotion of remedies.”

That line is precious.

Medical Ethics and Virtues:

We are told in the NUHS document “Student Handbook”:

“a student must also be able to adapt to change, display poise and flexibility in the face of uncertainties and stressful situations, and to independently demonstrate empathy, integrity, compassion, motivation, and commitment commensurate with the habits and mannerisms of professional training to become a professional health care provider […] the Committee on Admissions will admit only those candidates who in the judgment of the University are of good character […and] academic integrity is founded upon the following five values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility.”

And we were told in a video by NUHS about their students and graduates becoming "a true medical professional."

All within an environment, for my concerns here naturopathy, that lacks truthfulness and instead is an inculcation into a mode of grifting.

I stand by my introduction language concerning naturopathy’s epistemic kind and the Academy:

“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.”

Well, let’s briefly mention true medical ethics and allied healthcare ethics, in terms of what one is required to responsibly do when falsehoods, grifting and unethicality and kind, basically, are discovered:

snitch.

Here, I’m not going to go into in detail regarding allied healthcare ethics because I’ve dealt with medical ethics in other episodes, particularly Episode 12.

Let’s just summarize it all as this:

what essentially is required of a true medical professional who has integrity is to report fraud, and other issues of pertinent immorality or wrongfulness like naturopathy’s huge persisting and enlarging epistemic FRAUD.

Spoliation in Sum:

I find myself ending this episode nauseated due to all the duh.

By the way, for this Episode I haven’t used the current NUHS Academic Bulletin, which is their catalog, but instead I decided to employ lots of their other web content.

I would say though that their Bulletin also contains, grossly speaking, that content.

Now, as I’ve mentioned in the past, one of the reasons I left naturopathy school in Connecticut, after four years there in the late 1990s, was disgust.

I’m still disgusted, and this time it’s through NUHS, ND Smith's textbook, and their associations.

I’d mentioned the idea of HARM that all these players, including those I call 'the permission organizations', are a party to:

the spoliation of higher education science integrity and medical ethics.

Harms concerning:

money, consumer rights, one's future, student rights, scientific integrity, and healthcare and higher education values.

There’s a current NUHS webpage offering “Patient Care Naturopathic Services” [2018 archived; patient care homeo also here, 2018 archived].

And it states and claims:

“the following methods are safe, gentle, and based on the healing power of nature […as] naturopathic services […which are] proven […such as] homeopathic medicine […an] effective therapy that uses a micro-amount of natural substances to promote a beneficial healing response.”

It sounds crazy to say that a patent pseudoscience managed by sectarian hacks, called naturopathy, is so thoroughly permitted in plain sight in this day and age.

Let me reference an email I directly received from NUHS ten years ago in 2008, ironically the same year that ND Smith's textbook was published.

It states:

“[from a cferandez@nuhs.edu] explore your future at National [...] are you interested in a career in health care? National University of Health Sciences, a fully accredited institution in Lombard, Illinois, offers several degrees [...including] doctor of naturopathic medicine [...] an advanced degree [...come to our] campus visit day."

Enticing, inducing:

science subset naturopathy, all approved, as health care, as an advanced doctorate.

Licensed falsehood marches on.

Now, as a little microcosm of all this, let me quote from two assuring and enticing NUHS pages.

First, there’s “Why We Need More Naturopathic Doctors in America” [2018 archived] by an ND Biscoe, who is an ND graduate of NUHS full of assurances.

You hopefully do not think that we need more false inducements in this world.

I’d like to see less.

ND Biscoe states:

“naturopathic medicine doctors (NDs) […] combine the wisdom of cooperating with nature with the rigors of modern science, utilizing gentle treatments that support the body’s own healing power […] nature’s healing power […] treatment modalities can include nutritional counseling, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, and minor surgery […] those who visit an ND, who has a degree from a CNME accredited program, can rest assured that he / she is trained in […] the six principles of naturopathic medicine […] licensure ensures that an ND holds a graduate degree from an accredited naturopathic medical school — such as National University of Health Sciences — [and has] successfully passed national board exams, and complies with practice and professional standards set forth by State legislators. All of this means patients can trust they are receiving quality care.”

So, though irrational naturopathillogical pseudoscience at its core, we’re assured:

rigor, trained, licensed, board exams, compliance, standards, state-sanctioned and monitored, trustworthy, and quality.

And our good old friend ND Smith has up an NUHS page “What It Really Means to Be a Naturopathic Doctor” [2018 archived] where he tells us:

“the following blog first appeared as a featured article for the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges in December 2017”

because, after all, as I’ve mentioned, ND Smith is the AANMC’s current President.

He writes:

“the whole concept of the body healing itself captivated me - when I discovered there was a local College of Naturopathic Medicine I had to investigate. When I saw how many brilliant faculty and students were there, who had the same vision of the future of medicine as myself, I knew what I wanted to do, what I had to do […] I had a direction in a field that called me to serve others.”

So, coded vitalism, the claim that naturopathy school is of all things a place of brilliance -- which usually means intelligence, but what I’ve shown is duh instead -- and a mention of calling.

Calling all marks to our grift, to serve our sectarian purposes…

But, ND Smith assures us too:

“most of our patients […] want what Dr. Joseph Pizzorno has referred to as ‘Total Wellness.’”

So, there’s mention of ND Pizzorno again, and his book from 1996 that's actually titled “Total Wellness.” 

Now, that’s a strange book to reference because in it we find patent pseudoscience and a particular kind of supernatural belief system.

Are most people looking for such, falsely posed as science?

He writes or his wife writes in the book:

“[in naturopathy] vital force [is the] the vis medicatrix naturae […the] psychosocial [is the] spiritual [is the] life-force […] our life-force or spirit […] the vis medicatrix naturae [or] life-force deep within us […] our self-healing abilities — the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae […one of the] systems of our body […along with the] detoxification system.”

And that gets to the science-ejected vitalism that is the basis of naturopathy, that is definitely not a system in any kind of scientific sense, the Toxin Boogeyman, and also to the unscienceable basis of naturopathy that is the supernatural as spirit.

The term “toxin” is actually within the book a whopping 323 times, at least.

And as I’ve said, Pizzorno quite publicly admits to “coining” the label “science-based” upon such way back in 1978.

That be a long-time grift…

Oh, and coincidentally, ND Pizzorno has out “The Toxin Solution.”

Let’s call it Toxin Boogeyman Part II.

He tells us there:

"from my earliest years, I've had a strong orientation to evidence-based medicine. Everything I will recommend in this book, based on years of clinical experience, is scientifically validated [...it’s] a truly science-based approach […and] my 1996 book Total Wellness [...] fully addresses how to optimize all aspects of your physiology."

Let’s call that pseudophysiology within a pseudobiology within a pseudoexpertise.

Back at ND Smith’s NUHS article, he writes:

"National University of Health Sciences has set standards of educational excellence in health career education since 1906.”

And ND Smith has the page at NUHS up titled “5 Myths About Naturopathic Medicine” [2018 archived] which includes:

“[myth #] 1) naturopathic medicine is not based in science. Some people interpret naturopathic medicine as being unscientific, but a closer look tells a different story.”

That would be a myth about a myth:

close up naturopathy really is not science based.

I don’t think the public wants science and excellence subset duh.

Those last two ND Smith NUHS pages have a link to the NUHS document “A Career Guide to Becoming a Naturopathic Doctor.”

Or in sum should we now say instead of guide:

‘NUHS’s misguided guiding, dyseducation educating’?

I must mention at least once an NUHS page [2018 archived] that projects a cost of attendance for a naturopathic student of about $21,000 dollars per trimester and with there being ten trimesters.

I think that works out about $210, 000 and their current schedule of courses [2018 archived] for all trimesters lists four homeopathy classes.

Now, let me expand for a moment beyond naturopathy to show that within the NUHS umbrella, other kinds of false postures occur in other degrees.

For instance, there’s the admissions page “Master of Science in Oriental Medicine - Illinois Campus" [2018 archived; qi also here, 2018 archived].

This is the MSOM degree, and that page states:

“Oriental medicine relies on a highly comprehensive and individualized diagnosis of a patient's qi (or chi) energy. The weakness, excess or imbalance of qi affects key organ systems in oriental medicine and is the underlying cause of disease and disharmony. The oriental medicine practitioner uses a broad scope of therapies to restore balance to a patient's qi, thereby encouraging health and healing.”

But qi is science-ejected since it too is a prescientific vitalistic belief.

There’s gold in them-there reversals of values.

In that “Career Guide”, homeopathy occurs six times and NUHS speaks of “our expert faculty specialized in homeopathy.”

So much for standards of excellence, and so much for science.

Yet, we’re told:

“naturopathic medicine is a holistic, science-based health care practice that is focused on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of illness. It is a distinct primary health care profession that combines the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science. It is dedicated to nature’s healing powers and is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice.”

So, a science contextual claim upon science-ejected bullshit such as homeopathy, and a distinction claim upon the combined, and coded vitalism.

So, as happens with naturopathy all the time:

bullshit.

So much endless bullshit.

Now, there is an NUHS employee handbook [rb; saved 2018-07-29] which states:

"NUHS Mission Statement […] we value the substantive quality of our curricula through emphasis upon academic excellence […] we value students as unique individuals seeking quality health sciences education through our service and support […] the mission of National University of Health Sciences is to provide and promote the necessary leadership, management, and resources for the advancement of education, new knowledge, cultural diversity, outreach, and the ethical practice of the healing arts and sciences as taught within the programs of this university. […] fraud and abuse allegations: the University prohibits incidents whereby a patient, federal, state, or third-party payor are misled, overcharged, incorrectly billed, duplicate billed, or otherwise inappropriately handled in regard to financial matters with the University. Employees who believe there is fraud or abuse taking place should contact human resources immediately. Infractions of the standard of conduct will result in immediate investigation and may lead to disciplinary actions up to and including termination […] whistle-blower policy: it is the policy of NUHS that all employees shall be free to report, without fear of retaliation, activity occurring in University operations that the reporting person believes in good faith to be illegal, dishonest, unethical, fraudulent, or not in compliance with University policy. Reported allegations will be treated confidentially to the greatest extent possible, and will be promptly investigated. The University provides various mechanisms to assist and encourage employees to come forward in good faith with reports or concerns about suspected compliance issues. Please refer to the NUHS Whistleblower Policy for additional information.”

Well, that’s encouraging.

I guess someone there COULD do something good…someday…about this perfidy. 

Now, what I argue is not only is naturopathy in disguise, but that one must understand that to obligate oneself to naturopathy’s principles as an ND is also to obligate oneself to being a disguiser, to inure oneself to deception.

You must present a veneer, 'science and excellence', and not particularly be bother by the unethicality that UNDERLIES it all, the sectarian duh.

So, naturopathy at National University of Health Sciences:

file under-lying.

.

.

.