this is the script and annotations for the multi-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 015, aka s02e05, titled “The JACM 2019 Special Issue on Naturopathy”.
in this final third of Episode 015 Part 1, I continue a traipse concerning 'fake integration' versus 'true integration' particularly as relates to hacking and ignoring evidence as seen through naturopathy’s knowledge-type coining, fake labeling, camouflaging, and recalcitrance. Here, an Australian ND's [surprising] advice to embrace critical thinking, an example American naturopathy oncology IM practice and its denials of quackery while endorsing homeopathy and kind, and then criticisms from Steven Salzberg at forbes.com and Britt Marie Hermes at seti.org:
in this final third of Episode 015 Part 1, I continue a traipse concerning 'fake integration' versus 'true integration' particularly as relates to hacking and ignoring evidence as seen through naturopathy’s knowledge-type coining, fake labeling, camouflaging, and recalcitrance. Here, an Australian ND's [surprising] advice to embrace critical thinking, an example American naturopathy oncology IM practice and its denials of quackery while endorsing homeopathy and kind, and then criticisms from Steven Salzberg at forbes.com and Britt Marie Hermes at seti.org:
001. Episode 015a 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.
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.
In this Episode 015,
also known as Season 02 Episode 05, titled “The JACM 2019 Special Issue on
Naturopathy”, aka SIN, I’ll be primarily looking at a collection -- as published [2019 archived] in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine and
sponsored by the University of Technology Sydney, Australia
-- of around 15 articles specifically about naturopathy from contributors
largely located in Australia and North America.
I will also look at some of the issue’s contributors’ various publications, some of the issue’s referenced sources, the Journal’s other naturopathy and kind articles, associated institutions, mentioned individuals, and provide, at times, example naturopaths and their practices.
One cautionary statement I’ll make before I delve down deeply into the naturopathic muck and such is:
just because one has a doctorate or is a ‘doctor’ and is doing research and publishing it, that doesn’t mean one is necessarily doing science.
And it doesn't mean that one has properly prioritized 'what must be communicated effectively for the public good.'
In other words:
just because an ISSUE is about naturopathy, that doesn’t guarantee that it deals with naturopathy’s ISSUES; and just because ‘doctors’ of various kinds are publishing ‘research’, that research could be crap.
Ultimately, it gets really interesting when the UTS research project, this SIN, explicitly states that scientific rigors must be loosened to allow for the area in question to fall within such a knowledge and methodology domain – as in science done without distinctions, without controlled variables, without clarity, as in science done naturopathillogically – while simultaneously claiming, particularly for commerce outcomes, to be of normal science boundaries.
Some may term that a masquerade, an hypocrisy, or even -- as I have done in the past -- a mindfucking grift.
Overall, regarding naturopathy’s supposed INSTITUTIONAL 'of science and of evidence' posture, as compared to naturopathy’s 'for-decades historical preponderance and core or what's essentially naturopathic', what I can say is, as evidenced by this special issue and its associations:
the ruses continue, the delusions continue, the junk thoughts continue, the denials and aversions of gaze from the big glaring issues continue…
And therefore ‘naturopathillogical mindfucking grifting and voluntary sectarian self-delusion’ marches on.
Along the way in this delve, you’ll see that so many institutions – of education, government, and commerce – are tarnished and even incriminated in the process of supporting and promoting the continuing irrational illness which is ‘this unethical sectarian pseudoscience falsely posing as rational, legitimate, scientific medicine’.
I will also look at some of the issue’s contributors’ various publications, some of the issue’s referenced sources, the Journal’s other naturopathy and kind articles, associated institutions, mentioned individuals, and provide, at times, example naturopaths and their practices.
One cautionary statement I’ll make before I delve down deeply into the naturopathic muck and such is:
just because one has a doctorate or is a ‘doctor’ and is doing research and publishing it, that doesn’t mean one is necessarily doing science.
And it doesn't mean that one has properly prioritized 'what must be communicated effectively for the public good.'
In other words:
just because an ISSUE is about naturopathy, that doesn’t guarantee that it deals with naturopathy’s ISSUES; and just because ‘doctors’ of various kinds are publishing ‘research’, that research could be crap.
Ultimately, it gets really interesting when the UTS research project, this SIN, explicitly states that scientific rigors must be loosened to allow for the area in question to fall within such a knowledge and methodology domain – as in science done without distinctions, without controlled variables, without clarity, as in science done naturopathillogically – while simultaneously claiming, particularly for commerce outcomes, to be of normal science boundaries.
Some may term that a masquerade, an hypocrisy, or even -- as I have done in the past -- a mindfucking grift.
Overall, regarding naturopathy’s supposed INSTITUTIONAL 'of science and of evidence' posture, as compared to naturopathy’s 'for-decades historical preponderance and core or what's essentially naturopathic', what I can say is, as evidenced by this special issue and its associations:
the ruses continue, the delusions continue, the junk thoughts continue, the denials and aversions of gaze from the big glaring issues continue…
And therefore ‘naturopathillogical mindfucking grifting and voluntary sectarian self-delusion’ marches on.
Along the way in this delve, you’ll see that so many institutions – of education, government, and commerce – are tarnished and even incriminated in the process of supporting and promoting the continuing irrational illness which is ‘this unethical sectarian pseudoscience falsely posing as rational, legitimate, scientific medicine’.
Subpart 3:
An Australian ND’s Advice to Employ Critical Thinking and to Demand Evidence:
My direct bridge into Australian naturopathy…
Yes, you heard that correctly.
Now, I’m not saying a naturopath MEANT to inspire a BROAD application of critical thinking and weighing of evidence to naturopathy, CAM, and IM but…
One definition of critical thinking, from criticalthinking.org [2019 archived], is:
“the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.”
Excellent, sounds like TRUE integration.
Let’s list some opposites:
unintellectual, undisciplined, stagnant, coarse, dimwitted and credulous, preconceived, unreflective, unreasoning, siloed, unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, inconsistent, irrelevant, without or refuted by evidence, bad reasons, shallow, narrow, and UNFAIR.
In videoland this 2019, there has been recent advice from an Australian naturopath by way of an Australian naturopathy school's YouTube account, that I’ll expand upon downward and backward, and not just upward and forward...
As in globally.
Let me explain.
In the Endeavor Australian naturopathy college November 2019 YouTube video “Rachel Arthur: The Importance of Naturopathic Community and Applying Critical Thinking to Post-Graduate Education”, an ND gives advice to IM-CAM-naturopathy types to apply critical thinking obviously AFTER ‘ND school and kind‘ graduation.
The ND tells us what her content will be for the video’s hour-long duration:
“what we’re going to be talking about tonight is how important community is and how important critical thinking is […and she speaks of] applying critical thinking to your education.”
What she specifically has in mind is critical thinking within the context of continuing education, as in post-graduate education.
The naturopath, Rachel Arthur, has a LinkedIn bio. and she tells us there:
“Rachel Arthur qualified as a naturopath from Southern School of Natural Therapies in Victoria in 1997. She has been actively engaged as a naturopath specializing in nutrition since this time in a variety of capacities, including private clinical practice, lecturing, research, writing and corporate health.”
And there we are told she has two “health science” bachelors, with one that “naturopath” degree from SSNT.
So, a ‘science subset naturopathy’ claim.
Another science claim she states, in the video, is:
“I think that the first step is we need to correct the misinformation and the misunderstanding about who we are, how we’re trained, and what we can contribute […] they had no idea I had done a four-year degree with a huge amount of medical science […] they thought I’d cut my qualification out of a cereal box.”
I’ll cover Endeavor, and SSNT, in this Episode, and let me tease something that contradicts that “science” hugeness within EC's naturopathy particularly – iridology!
Arthur seems, too, to be in-part modeling ‘a need for evidence’, such as when she states in the video:
“I love this quote by Anton Chekhov: ‘don’t tell me that the moon is shining, show me the glint of light on broken glass’ […] are you able to provide me with independent supportive evidence for this?“
And as regards critical thinking, she states:
“one of the things I want to really make clear is we should always, no matter where the information is coming from, apply an appropriate level of discernment, an appropriate level of critical thinking […] we have to apply critical thinking […] who’s telling me this, what’s their agenda, what’s in it for them? […] is this skewed? Is this only part of the story? […] if we don’t apply this filter […] then we take all information as being of equal value. And if we take all information as being of equal value […] then this is going to put some really sad limits on us.”
That’s quite a healthy dose of skepticism aka discernment aka critical thinking.
And she has some kind of ‘valid versus invalid’ process operating, as evidenced when ND Arthur states:
“I wasn’t sure about the validity of [...] the zinc taste test [...] and I was thinking well I want to answer that question and then if I find that it’s not entirely valid then I want to know how we all ended up doing this […] I did find that it was not a valid way for assessing.”
And therein, with invocation of science, evidence, discernment and validity, I see an imminent collision:
the narrowness and SINS [a deliberate pun of course] of naturopathic laxity versus the greater academic community’s virtues and rigors; the dunderheaded sectarian orthodoxy of naturopathy versus a broad, liberal, little L, education.
In other words, fake integration versus real integration, fake science versus real science, evidence versus dogma.
Ironically, too, speaking of collisions, she also states:
"I’m a big fan of Medscape […which is] fantastic, incredibly up-to-date, very well regarded.”
And, of course, in terms of critical thinking concerning naturopathy, Medscape is where Dr. Atwood published his quite damning, quite long-standing -- as in never retracted, as in never found fault with -- FANTASTIC 2003 and 2004 articles on naturopathy.
Future-wise, she postures and advises:
“our profession is in a great position […] our education is strong […] we should really be raising the bar for ourselves and in turn getting the industry to respond in a positive progressive way by telling them what good information [is], what good education, what non-biased education looks like […] it’s doesn’t mean that you don’t still apply critical thinking [even she indicates to] ‘naturopathic association journals, seminars and conferences’ […] I’ve still got to apply the same level of discernment […] when you’ve got a mentor, you still got to ask yourself ‘where are they getting their information from’? […] let’s find that way to keep learning, keep applying critical thinking, communicating with the rest of the healthcare community […] diversification of your sources of education is a great start […] we do need constant trickle of new information and education […and she speaks of the acronym] SMART […containing such points as] accurate […] rational, rationale, [and] respectful.”
Such present and forward-looking virtues!
Well, I’m looking ALL around, even backward and downward, at the roots of naturopathy – which so often says it UNIQUELY treats the root cause – specifically spending a good deal of time in the episode eat ND schools in Australia, and therefore looking at ND education as a root.
I’m going to get INCLUSIVE, dare I say HOLISTIC, or employing the rebranding of such INTEGRATIVE -- truly integrative -- and emphasize that such virtues should be GLOBAL, as in without boundary, as in freely applied, as in liberal, little L, analysis.
Therefore, beyond North American naturopathy and into Australian naturopathy in this Episode.
So, from that Oz ND school video, I’ve taken encouragement for expansion!
I claim, by way of the ND’s language, permission granted to me to Naturocrit.
I’m going to expand the ND’s intentions, broadly in terms of naturopathy, IM and CAM here.
As, therein, NO holy cows.
As, therein, no unassailable knowledges.
For me, yet, it all smacks of the hypocrisy of sectarian positions, prejudices, preferences and modes initially established in ND school then followed LATER with advice for broadening such yet all WITHIN the restrictions of their initially instilled UNQUESTIONED narrow constraints!
Because naturopaths don’t, from the start, look at IT ALL, critically!
Example:
the Oz ND after all says ND education is “strong”…
Yet at Endeavor, within their “Bachelor of Health Science in Naturopathy”, there are such things to do and promote as:
iridology, vitalism and homeopathy.
I believe, too, that to catch a problem while it is merely in the bud is PREVENTATIVE!
Which naturopathy claims to hold as an elemental principle.
Again:
I’m inspired to take the Oz ND’s and Endeavor’s – they are the outlet for the video -- LIMITED advice on critical thinking and evidence for continuing education and expand it all around, smashing the idols and the holy cows if necessary that naturopathy so fervently protects.
Let’s in some small way escape a straight-jacketing of critical thinking and kind that occurs through the false ideas and commitments that naturopathy instills in the young who naively go through particularly naturopathy’s educational inculcations…
An American Example: Rubin et al., Acupuncture, Homeopathy, OncANP FABNO‘ing, and Quackery:
Speaking of discernment and of a smashing the idols, here’s
my ‘unannounced American example’, to be folded into the Canadian practices
I’ve employed as examples of the typically naturopathic.
I had, basically, said earlier:
“in the SIN, as a subset of naturopathy, the root ‘homeop’ occurs 17 times within the [ND Reid et al. article…] alone […and] if you can’t even criticize such nonsense [and instead are lauding it as a therapeutic option in the SIN, which is nuts…] well, IMHO, your ‘critical appraisal’ is lacking that essential critical part.”
Well, here are some musings that began when a series of YouTube videos for 2019’s Naturopathic Medicine Week caught my attention.
One of the videos [2019 archived] features an ND Rubin and an ND Darling, and in it he is adamant that naturopathy is in no way quackery to such an extent that he states that even posing that question is itself quackery.
Talk about ‘lacking that essential critical part’!
That struck me as quite a [an?] hypocrisy and quite inane.
So, I’ll smash away with the hammer of discernment.
Because many of Rubin's practice's pages state that their treatments could include acupuncture and homeopathy, and that naturopathy is defined by vitalism, while they’ve stated simultaneously, broadly, that they have better science knowledge and are of better thinking than regular contemporary mainstream conventional doctors.
So, I’m interested, and I’m riled up, because they claim to be, also, oncologists.
Let me detail all that, before I speak of a recent ‘of science’ ‘intellectually emotional’ criticism of IM and its acupuncture, and IM’s apparent interference with surviving cancers that are curable.
The Rubin et al. practice has a current web address of listenandcare.com and it is composed of various NDs.
Here’s a perhaps partial list, in no particular order:
Rubin (Southwest), Smolinski (Southwest), Alschuler (Bastyr), Coats (Southwest), Darling (SCNM), Waite (SCNM), Crinnion (Bastyr), and Kozin (SCNM).
The practice’s site is rather disorganized in that their main practitioner page only lists some of these NDs, but a search of the site turns up other ND-dedicated provider profile pages which are either current or out of date.
All naturopaths just listed are SCNM ND graduates except for Alschuler and Crinnion, who are Bastyr ND graduates.
Here is one of their broad science claims, with quite a lot of conceit too, from a video on the YouTube account for the practice, named “Naturopathic Specialists, LLC.”
The 2018 animated video "What is a Naturopathic Doctor?" [saved 2019-11-25] states:
"[from the description] a lot of people don't know the difference between a naturopathic and a medical doctor, and they want to know how they compare. With medicine constantly evolving and giving people more and more control over the type of care they receive, it helps to know a little bit more about your options! Naturopathic doctors are highly trained and are excellent at treating the whole body and are highly educated to do so. To find out more about the naturopathic doctors at Naturopathic Specialists, take a look at our physician's pages on our website! [...and from the video] let's compare an N.D. (naturopathic doctor) against an M.D. (medical doctor) [...] how are they the same? [...and we're told and shown for both] 4 years of pre-med preparation: chemistry, biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, cellular biology, labs [and we're shown a bunch of science images...and for both] 4 year medical degree [...] in fact in most ways you can think of naturopathic doctors and medical doctors are very similar [...] but it's what makes them different that might surprise you [...] it's how they think [...] a naturopathic doctor thinks more like a fireman [...] firemen understand the science behind fighting a fire [...fighting fire] at its source [...getting to the] underlying factors [...] not just [treating] your symptoms but the real factors behind them."
So, in sum, claims of:
HIGHLY TRAINED, excellent, HIGHLY EDUCATED, of mainstream premedical sciences, MEDICAL, just like medicine but BETTER, better THINKERS as in not negligent and shallow like regular medicine but of some kind of deeper better "science" knowledge and approach.
Then there’s their web page “What is Naturopathic Oncology”, which has an embedded video of the same name [saved 2019-11-30].
And in that we’re told:
“[from its description] Dr. Rubin explains naturopathic oncology, and how the principles of naturopathic medicine help improve patient outcomes.”
Now, the principles of naturopathy basically are science-ejected and science-exterior things falsely claimed to be able to in-fact survive scientific scrutiny.
That’s a given.
HOW does such HELP?
In the video, ND Rubin states:
"a naturopathic oncologist is a naturopathic physician [...who uses] the core of naturopathic medicine, our precepts, our fundamental types of treatment approaches [...like our precept #1] the power of nature [...] the healing power of nature, that the body has the inherent ability to heal itself [...we have] a myriad of options [...including] traditional Chinese medicine [...and] homeopathic therapeutics [...] the world of integrative oncology [...] the most appropriate approach to the treatment of people with cancer, globally [...] the integrative approach is the most appropriate approach overall."
Wow.
So, that's:
most appropriate, coded vitalism, and bogosities like homeopathy and acupuncture.
For cancer patients.
I’ve come to realize that the reason that naturopaths say they have so many therapy options is because they don’t filter what they do rigorously.
Therefore, for them, it’s all good.
They are undiscerning.
Except for the vitalism that they filter or scrub out at times, because there was a time when Rubin was more transparent about the essential vitalism at the heart of naturopathy’s precepts.
There's his 2009-archived 2006 presentation "Naturopathic Medicine: Ways, Means, and Practicality" from the retired naturopathicspecialists.com address, wherein Rubin tells us:
“precepts: vis medicatrix naturae [...] vis medicatrix naturae. Vis = energy, strength or force [...] the body possesses the inherent ability to restore health. The physician's role is to facilitate this process with the aid of natural nontoxic therapies [...] the vital force. This describes the energy essential for life, the innate life principle, or the inherent power within every living organism. Naturopathic doctors seek to support the vital force.”
That’s abject vitalism, the abject science-ejected, archived forever.
Yet, there’s always a yet, in terms of science, in the same presentation he tells us:
"education: core sciences [...which includes naturopathy's] modalities [...which include] therapeutic nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, natural childbirth, classical Chinese medicine, hydrotherapy, naturopathic manipulative therapy, pharmacology and minor surgery."
So, a blatant science subset ‘such things as homeopathy and acupuncture as part of classical Chinese medicine’ claim.
The typically naturopathic
Pseudoscience.
Quackery.
The homeopathy pages at this practice include the page “10 Weight Loss Tips from Dr. Coats” [2019 archived], which states:
“we can offer help at NS with many of the great tools naturopathic medicine offers from acupuncture to homeopathy and more […] written by Melissa Coats ND FABNO.”
That’s ‘naturopath subset oncologist subset great tools subset quackeries’.
The practice also has a YouTube video with ND Coats [saved 2019-11-25] in front of a model of the human body with the meridians and points drawn on it, wherein she tells us:
“little did you know it’s actually an acupressure point.”
What’s interesting, too, is that in another video [saved 2019-11-25] she states she has a master’s degree in bioethics and that acupuncture is a part of naturopathic medicine.
So there’s a baseline of the typically naturopathic from Rubin et al.
I’d basically earlier said:
“one of the videos features an ND Rubin and an ND Darling, and in it he is adamant that naturopathy is in no way quackery to such an extent that he states that even posing that question is itself quackery.”
Now, I recently blogged about this Rubin position from the video, and I think he’s is a great example of ‘naturopathy’s sectarian credulous straight-jacketed pseudoscience tolerance effect wherein criticism is anathema’.
I will need an acronym for that one!
While in real science areas, and truly integrative areas, in intellectually honest areas, criticism by way of critical thinking, discernment and analysis, and such, is essential.
The North American ND-credentialing AANP-suborganization that grants the Fellow by the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology FABNO is the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians OncANP.
And in a presentation [2019 archived] that claims to define the area, at oncanp.org, we’re told:
“[a] common misconception is that complementary medicine is not evidence-based. Over several decades there has been exponential growth in science and clinical research. Integrative oncology is supported by evidence and most importantly, by very real benefits achieved by those living with cancer.”
So, there’s that claim of ABUNDANT science and evidence.
And I just quoted ND Coats as basically saying:
I’m an FABNO and I endorse homeopathy and acupuncture.
So ‘abundant science and evidence subset naturopathy subset naturopathic oncology’ is the pose, is the claim.
And, of course “very real.”
Therefore, my nausea grows and grows as I get more and more riled up!
Keep in mind, too, that OncANP states that they abide by naturopathy’s principles, by way of “philosophy”, though presently there is no “medicatrix […] vital force […] life force […] vitalism […or] vitalistic” on OncANP site by way of a google.com site-specific search and there isn’t even “healing power” or a list of naturopathy’s principles.
Should they be allowed to visit such opacity on cancer patients, such manipulative opacity?
It just seems so bad to be so opaque, for starters, to a population that is so vulnerable.
There is, too, this assertion on the OncANP “Vision and Mission” [2019 archived] page:
“mission: to advance the philosophy, science and practice of naturopathic medicine in oncology care. Vision: to enhance survival and quality of life for people living with cancer through the integration of naturopathic medicine in cancer care.”
And you notice there, first and foremost, philosophy.
And as I said before, true integration is neither fake, false, or opaquely manipulative.
What so ever COULD that philosophy they dare not mention at their site be???
Wink-wink.
And I would argue that that philosophy is ‘science subset nonscience falsely posed as science’, amongst other things.
Hardwired, hard-coded, baked-in.
OncANP goes on, in the presentation, this time with special pleading:
“research limitations and opportunities […the] reality is that practice, particularly naturopathic, is not monotherapeutic but holistic. [Naturopathy] need[s] more observational research and pragmatic, real world clinical trials. [And] need[s] whole systems practice research to evaluate real world application of naturopathic oncology.”
So, there’s the invocation of wholistic and whole, and insistence that typical rigors cannot be applied for some special reason.
And, of course, the SIN is all about whole systems, and lowering rigors, which we will get to later in this Episode.
Principally, I’d argue that that ‘special reason’ is an artificial boundary that naturopathy erects to protect naturopathy’s nonsense contents from rigorous analysis.
Those are the velvet ropes protecting the idols.
It's a claim of impenetrability, I’ll call it, or as I’ve iterated in the past, epistemic charity.
And speaking of nonsense, specifically FABNO oncanp.org nonsense, when posed within ‘science, evidence, and what’s real’, they write at oncanp.org in “Guidelines to Case Report Writing for Naturopathic Doctors” [2019 archived]:
“naturopathic dx (include[s] assessment by TCM, ayurveda, homeopathy, etc. as relevant).”
No wonder ND Coats endorsed homeopathy and acupuncture, such is written into FABNO diagnostic guidelines.
Yet, OncANP has a page “What is Integrative Oncology?” [2019 archived] that states:
“integrative oncology provides patients with safe options for combining conventional cancer treatment with natural and supportive therapies. The goal of this collaboration among multi-disciplinary health care providers is to best support optimal health and well-being: physically, mentally and emotionally.”
So, you have stated, in sum:
the archaic prescientific and science-ejected as “naturopathic diagnosis” at oncanp.org, such as by way of homeopathy and TCM, and over that the claims of evidence, science, real, options, and best.
And over that a hidden philosophy / set of principles!
That’s the org.:
fake integration, manipulative opacity, irrationality and the like.
Anyway, to the centerpiece of this Rubin et al. practice example.
The ND Rubin video at that "Naturopathic Specialists, LLC" YouTube account and is titled "Google Autocomplete – Day 2 of Naturopathic Medicine Week 2019" [saved 2019-10-16].
I’d written in the blog post:
“[from the video’s description] in this series from Naturopathic Medicine Week 2019, our doctors [...] answer the top questions about naturopathic medicine as found on Google autosuggest [I’m not sure if they’re aware, but whoever was logged into Google if logged in to their Google account at the time of the searching or the suggesting or the completion suggestions would have a different autosuggest results as compared to someone else logged similarly or not logged in at all...including] is naturopathic medicine quackery? [...from the video itself, ND Darling asks the question] 'is naturopathic medicine quackery?' [...and ND Rubin answers] 'no it's not quackery. I think it's quackery for anyone who would pose that question. And I think anyone who would put that out on the internet and insinuate that I just think that a lot of times there's a lot of dogma in that. Maybe fear. And that they've never spent time in a good licensed naturopathic doctor's office or sat with them' [...Darling] 'I agree and that's why I think it's important that we all take the time to educate one another on what we do offer' [...and Rubin adds] 'we're licensed naturopathic physicians. We went to school, we got a degree, we passed our boards, and we're regulated by our state board'.”
So MUCH there!
Especially that “q” word, quackery.
While homeopathic, ayurvedic, and TCM diagnostics, IMHO, by way of OncANP, are the epitome of quackery.
And they are essential to naturopathy.
And most importantly:
the response to the question of whether naturopathy is quackery from Rubin is so absolute and yet shallow that it really points to a kind of instant force field that naturopaths erect regarding scrutiny.
That’s dogmatic, when you cannot even withstand the proposition of analysis never mind going further with such scrutiny and self-reflection in terms of granularity.
It strikes me as a ‘beyond reproach’ kind of umbrage that is too absolute, absolutely unassailable, too immediate, and SO reflexive.
Sort of a consciousness of vulnerability which instantly causes spasms…
If ‘facts are stubborn things’ -- the fuller John Adams quote being “facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” from founders.archives.gov -- well then, obviously the naturopaths being outside of the facts have decided to be even more stubborn than the facts.
The way an ostrich is stubborn about a storm.
They avert their eyes, they refuse to self-assess, their sectarian strictures are hard-coded and hardwired.
No critical thinking allowed!
They are straight-jacketed regarding critical thinking.
That is how NDs are inculcated, via ‘a deliberate lack of self-assessment dogma’.
That’s how fragile their ‘whole’ menagerie is.
But, to analyze ANY aspect regarded as healthcare or posing itself as healthcare, as to whether or not it is quackery, CANNOT be quackery.
It sounds like due diligence.
It sounds like scholarship.
It sounds like intellectual thinking.
Quackery is basically someone engaged in fraudulent exaggeration particularly within medicine and pharmacy.
The old Dutch 'quack-salver', a hawker of salves.
Diligently assessing an area of medicine cannot be quackery, or dogma, because it is evaluation and inquiry, it is critical thinking, it is due diligence.
I’d also basically written in that blog post:
“Rubin's own alma mater [and so many of his practice-ND peers], SCNM according to his bio., [2019 archived] in the SCNM 2018-2019 student clinical handbook [2019 archived], states that central to those [oath-mandatory] naturopathic precepts is the science-ejected concept of vitalism as ‘life force’ [never mind the science-exterior supernaturalism also within naturopathy, which is an article of faith] and yet SCNM also states concurrently [2019 archived] that categorically naturopathy is science at its foundation.”
Does not compute!
Where is intellectual and academic integrity here?
Instead, you get the naturopathillogical '.edu'.
What that ‘epistemic nonsense’ proves is that even after ND Rubin’s insistence that naturopathy can’t be quackery since, as he states in the video, “'we're licensed naturopathic physicians. We went to school, we got a degree, we passed our boards, and we're regulated by our state board'” none of those assurances mean that naturopathy isn’t quackery…
If the standards associated with those procedures and structures have been basically hacked…
If the institutions are corrupt…
Such as what we also saw in Ontario…
If “a good naturopathic doctor” is obviously a product of an education factory that cranks out quackery…
Ontario is the location, by the way, of CCNM, another naturopathy school, which claims categorically “science” and has as usual such things within it as homeopathy and vitalism.
So, ND Rubin’s position and that of the naturopathy oncology organization, to me is one of ‘fake integrity and fake integration’ in terms of naturopathic thought by way of, primarily, fake science.
Homeopathy and acupuncture, and ayurveda, are great indicators of the acceptance of crap.
Obviously, you can pick apart naturopathy’s position so easily.
So, let me again list ‘some opposites’ of critical thinking:
unintellectual, undisciplined, stagnant, coarse, dimwitted and credulous, preconceived, unreflective, unreasoning, siloed, unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, inconsistent, irrelevant, without or refuted by evidence, bad reasons, shallow, narrow, and UNFAIR.
And I can advise this, directly:
“Mr. Rubin -- I will not demean the title doctor, either in terms of ‘the medical’ or as ‘teacher’, since I am a health professions instructor -- you are not a holy cow and neither is naturopathy. The area is not above analysis and criticism, and analysis -- and dare I say discernment -- is not quackery. And it is NOT unfair.”
What is unfair is naturopathy.
I say this as a wizened customer of naturopathy education, particularly, and as a long-time observer.
Unfair trade!
I was recently looking over my 2002 Dean-signed leave of absence from UB, an ND program I left in good standing because I was so disgusted after four years there.
And though the form says the leave of absence only lasts for 1 year, I consider myself STILL a naturopathy student on leave in good standing because though I live right off that campus, pretty easy to contact, there was never a formal end.
There was me stating in a deposition that naturopathy is "cultic mystical weirdness."
So UB has just let it persist, and I’m still on leave, and therein still a bilked consumer who got netted into a skillful grift as offered by a regionally accredited U.S. university that took Title IV monies in the practice of their crooked commerce.
I am perpetually on leave, but I am still a student.
And therefore, analysis, critical thinking and scholarly sentiments herein.
I say wizened because as you become more deeply and more widely educated, the mind becomes more comparative, and hopefully more critical and discerning, and one must consider, in shorthand…
Plausibilities, criticisms, what’s truthful and what isn’t.
And because such is a slow process, to unfuck a mindfuck, honestly:
naturopathy school.
One last interesting quote that the Australian ND invokes in the Endeavor video is:
“‘when there’s an elephant in the room, introduce him’.”
Welcome, ‘wide deep education with its appreciation of analysis, critical thinking, scholarship, plausibility, evidence and reality‘ versus ‘sectarian credulities and delusional dogmatic self-perfections’, all of which, as language, I’ll likely return to at the end of this Episode.
After I go on a bit of a walkabout, after the Episode 15 Part 1.
A forbes.com Salzberg Criticism:
I’d spoken earlier, basically, of “a recent ‘of science’ ‘intellectually
emotional’ criticism of IM and its acupuncture, and of IM’s effect upon surviving
cancers that are curable.”
I invent that description or observation, ‘intellectually emotional’, as an appreciated ‘explanation for why criticize’:
having knowledge that then leads to moral indignation that then leads to a motivation for some kind of action like analysis, comparison, discernment, and exposure.
Here, such is from the perspective of science, by a scientist.
An interesting article was recently published November 2019 by Stephen Salzberg at forbes.com.
There’s a bio. of the author at the bottom of that article wherein he states:
“I'm the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Biomedical Engineering, Computer Science, and Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University. From 2005-2011 I was the Horvitz Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Maryland, College Park. Before joining UMD, I was at The Institute for Genomic Research, where I sequenced the genomes of many bacteria, including those used in the 2001 anthrax attacks. At TIGR I was part of the Human Genome Project and the co-founder of the influenza virus sequencing project […] my research group develops software for DNA sequence analysis, and our (free) software is used by scientific laboratories around the globe. I did my B.A. and M.S. at Yale University, and my PhD at Harvard University, and I have published over 250 scientific papers. Follow me on Facebook or Twitter […] or visit my lab page […] salzberg-lab.org.”
Not a coiner…a doer…a SCIENTIST!
Oh, and I do have to say:
“hey Steve, I finally did make it to Australia… through this Episode… if not likely ever actually.”
The article is “Prestigious NY Cancer Center Will Spend $3.7M to Study Bogus Cancer Treatment” [saved 2019-11-30] and it was published 2019-11-25.
There, Dr. Salzberg writes:
"sometimes I'm not sure whether the best response to pseudoscience is to ignore it, or to patiently try to explain why it's wrong, or to get mad. This week I'm mad. My anger and frustration was triggered by a tweet from Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Integrative Medicine account […] for those who don't know, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is one of the world's leading cancer centers, both for treatment and research.”
"sometimes I'm not sure whether the best response to pseudoscience is to ignore it, or to patiently try to explain why it's wrong, or to get mad. This week I'm mad. My anger and frustration was triggered by a tweet from Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Integrative Medicine account […] for those who don't know, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is one of the world's leading cancer centers, both for treatment and research.”
So, they’re getting on board the IM gravy train, which
usually is not justified in any way by research reprioritizing or realigning
the practice of modern medicine, but by wealthy donors who have the sCAM bug.
He goes on:
“not everything at MSK is world class. Unfortunately, they
have an ‘integrative medicine’ center that offers a mixture of therapies
ranging from helpful to benign to useless.”
That sounds familiar!
Now, even if naturopathy bogosity isn’t immediately
happening at MSK -- I've searched, I find nothing -- you will see how the presence of IM lends credence to
naturopathy-IM bogosities all over the place.
A quick search of MSK online, by the way, which is mskcc.org, reveals no hits for:
“naturopathic […] naturopathy […] medicatrix […] vitalism
[…] vitalistic […or] FABNO” -- currently, but I think I have copiously illustrated that acupuncture is
an intrinsic part of naturopathy, and we also see here of IM generally
speaking.
Now, MSK tells us:
“at the Bendheim Integrative Medicine Center, we offer a
number of holistic health services, including acupuncture […] acupuncture is a
safe, painless, and evidence-based complementary therapy. Pictured is MSK chief
of integrative medicine Jun Mao with [a] patient.”
“acupuncture is a therapeutic component of traditional
Chinese medicine. It involves the use of very thin needles along with heat,
pressure, or electricity to stimulate points on the body, promoting the flow
and balance of internal energy.”
While the “internal energy” is... wait for it…
A coding for the vitalistic force in TCM, as we’re quite
aware, known as qi.
It is an energy that doesn’t exist in any scientific sense of the world energy.
So, already, we’re down the Rabbit Hole.
They do get to qi, on that page, by the way, expressedly.
Salzberg writes, in terms of this IM at MSK:
“one of their biggest activities is acupuncture, which they
claim offers a wide range of benefits to cancer patients. The MSK tweet shown
here was boasting about a new $3.7 million study funded by NIH to study the
effect of acupuncture on pain that cancer patients experience from chemotherapy
and bone-marrow transplants. Here's why I'm mad: cancer patients are extremely
vulnerable, often suffering the most frightening and difficult experience of
their lives. They are completely dependent on medical experts to help them.
When a place like MSK suggests a treatment, patients take it very seriously, as
they should […but] offering these patients ineffective treatments based on
pseudoscience – and make no mistake, that's what acupuncture is – is immoral.”
Therein, moral indignation that I am quite in agreement
with.
As background, we’re reminded by Dr. Salzberg:
“I've written about acupuncture many times before […] but
let me explain afresh why it is nonsense. Acupuncture is based on a
pre-scientific notion, invented long before humans understood physiology,
chemistry, neurology, or even basic physics, which posits that a mysterious
life force, called ‘qi,’ flows through the body on energy lines called
meridians. As explained in this article by MSK's Jun Mao: ‘according to traditional Chinese medicine ... interruption
or obstruction of qi was believed to make one vulnerable to illness. The
insertion of needles at specific meridian acupoints was thought to regulate the
flow of qi, thus producing therapeutic benefit.’ Today we know that none of
this exists. There is no qi, and there are no meridians […] in that same
article, Jun Mao continued by admitting that ‘the ideas of qi and meridians are
inconsistent with the modern understanding of human anatomy and physiology’.”
Ya think?
And therefore, aren’t all the naturopaths I’ve employed in
this Episode looking quite WRONG in all their claims of vital energy, meridians
and points along those meridians?
Like Naked Emperor kind of wrong, except instead of no
clothes, it’s no actual vital energy and a network for that vital energy.
As for the quality of science being produce at MSK in terms
of magnifying acupuncture’s 'nonspecific, theatrical placebo and counter-irritant
effect', Salzberg writes:
“just to be certain, I read one of the latest studies from
MSK, published early this year, which claims to show that acupuncture relieves
nausea, drowsiness, and lack of appetite in multiple myeloma patients who were
going through stem cell transplants. It's a mess: totally unconvincing, and a
textbook case of p-hacking (or data dredging) […e.g.] I counted 24 different
p-values, most of them not even close to significant, but they fixated on the 3
that reached statistical significance. The two groups of 30 patients weren't
properly balanced: the sham acupuncture group started out with more severe
symptoms according to their own scoring metric […and overall] Figure 2 in the
paper makes it pretty clear that there was no genuine difference in the effects
of real versus sham acupuncture. But they got it published (in a mediocre
journal), so now they point to it as ‘proof’ that acupuncture works for cancer
patients […] this study, bad as it is, appears to be the basis of the $3.7
million NIH grant that they're now going to use, they say, in ‘a larger study
in 300 patients to confirm these previous findings.’ And there you go: the goal
of the new study, according to the scientists themselves, is not to see if the
treatment works, but to confirm their pre-existing belief that acupuncture
works.”
The general consensus regarding acupuncture, when rigorously
studied, is that basically it doesn’t matter where you stick the needles or
even if you stick the needles.
And therein that its effect is so nonspecific and mild that
any benefits, if any, are not caused by the treatment itself [e.g., see SciAm and Wikipedia].
Further claims than that are to me a kind of deception, a
kind of bad faith.
But, crap research, like
‘exaggerated and hacked effect reporting’ is the coin, sorry for the pun and
the continual ‘coin-age’, of the sCAM realm…
Fake integration by way of marketing fictions and blatant hackings.
Fake integration by way of marketing fictions and blatant hackings.
And to return to his passion about this matter, Dr. Salzberg
writes:
“I'm mad. I'm mad that NIH is spending millions of dollars
on yet another study of a quack treatment (acupuncture) that should have been
abandoned decades ago, but that persists because people make money off it […] finally,
let me point to this study in JAMA Oncology from last year, by doctors from
Yale, which looked at the use of so-called complementary therapies
among cancer patients. They found that ‘patients who received complementary medicine
were more likely to refuse other conventional cancer treatment and had a higher
risk of death than no complementary medicine.’ And also see this 2017 study
from the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which found that patients
who used alternative medicine were 2.5 times more likely to die than patients
who stuck to modern medical treatments. That's right, Memorial Sloan-Kettering:
patients who use non-traditional therapies are twice as likely to die. That’s
why I’m mad. This is not okay."
And I must thank Dr. Salzberg for taking the time to bring
this all to light in a concise manner.
We know acupuncture and kind, for those with cancer, is
similarly pushed -- again, sorry for the pun -- in Naturopathyland.
I did cite a video of ND Coats promoting the benefits of
acupuncture generally, and Rubin’s clinic actually has an informed consent form [2019 archived] which states:
“I understand that the evaluation, diagnosis and treatment
by a naturopathic physician, and specifically by the naturopathic physicians at
Naturopathic Specialists may include but is not limited to […such things as] homeopathy […and]
acupuncture.”
Remember, Rubin had stated that even raising the question as to
whether or not naturopathy is quackery is quackery!
Also, at Rubin’s practice, on their page “Supportive Naturopathic Cancer Therapies” [2019 archived], so specific to oncology, we’re told about acupuncture:
“acupuncture is a facet of traditional Chinese medicine
(TCM) which is one of the oldest medical systems on the planet. Estimates place treatment with acupuncture to
be over 2500 years old [this is the argument from antiquity]. Acupuncture can
be used to treat a variety of symptoms and conditions associated with cancer as
well as cancer treatments. Acupuncture
is increasingly being recognized as a safe and effective adjunctive treatment
by the conventional oncology world. It
is used in many major cancer centers throughout the United States such as
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.”
Small world, small IM world.
And I mean that so literally.
And I mean that so literally.
I’d basically said “naturopathy bogosity isn’t immediately
happening at MSK, [but] the presence of IM at places like MSK lends
credence to naturopathy-IM bogosity all over the place.”
That’s that kind of PERMISSION that large prestigious IM
places are lending to naturopathic bogosities!
The oncology naturopaths go on regarding acupuncture:
“in traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture points are
chosen based on a TCM diagnosis.
Different points are located on different meridians that run throughout
the entire body. Qi flows along these
meridians and blockages along meridians can lead to disease and dysfunction. Using specific acupuncture points stimulates
the flow of qi which in turn harmonizes the meridians, alleviating disease and
promoting health.”
Ah, yes, that claimed 'better science and better thinking'
that is the science-ejected and the prescientific medieval.
We’re also told:
“acupuncture has been found to treat many common symptoms
associated with cancer as well as conventional cancer care. It has been found
to alleviate chemotherapy as well as surgery induced nausea and vomiting […] people have found
that acupuncture was helpful in the alleviation of chemotherapy-induced
peripheral neuropathy […] acupuncture has been found to help alleviate fatigue
in patients undergoing both chemotherapy and radiation therapy […] acupuncture
has been found to alleviate hot flashes in women on these therapies. Acupuncture has also been found to help:
reduce cancer-related pain, improve xerostomia, improve white blood cell
counts, reduce insomnia, and improve well-being.”
Or does it?
And they state:
“at NS we use acupuncture as part of a comprehensive
treatment plan. If you would like more
information about acupuncture and would like to incorporate it into your
treatment plan, schedule a time to speak with one of our doctors.”
So, it sounds like the naturopaths have quite a financial dog
in this fight, in terms of this therapy acupuncture, which they promote as being able to do SO MUCH.
Now, this brings me to a video ND Rubin and ND Coats did
about the JAMA Oncology paper of July 2018 that Dr. Salzberg mentioned.
Obviously, such a prestigious and noticed study could slow
down the cash register, so to speak, at an IM oncology practice.
I say that, by the way, as a certified physician practice manager in terms of one of my credentials.
I say that, by the way, as a certified physician practice manager in terms of one of my credentials.
Or at least make patient contacts a little less SMOOTH if
they are knowledgeable, if they start discerning, perhaps even refusing, probing, exposing, critically thinking.
The NDs are really interesting to watch, in the video, in light of all
I’ve shared in this episode about ‘denied naturopathy
pseudoscience-bogosity-quackery and kind’ -- those reflexes -- which includes OncANP FABNO
naturopathy as a subset of AANP-CAND North American NPLEX-licensed naturopathy.
The video is "Integrating Conventional and Alternative Medicine Safely - Ad Hoc With a Doc" [saved 2019-11-25] and it was uploaded 2018-08-17.
Therein, we're told that both Coats and Rubin are
"board certified naturopathic oncologists."
Two very scary words when especially used together, IMHO:
naturopathic oncology.
naturopathic oncology.
From the video’s description, we’re told:
“does complementary medicine negatively impact patient
survival? An article published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has stated that people with
cancer who seek alternative medical care are less likely to follow through with
conventional, standard of care treatments. Dr. Dan Rubin and Dr. Melissa Coats,
both naturopathic oncologists at Naturopathic Specialists, LLC discuss what you
need to look for in selecting a qualified naturopathic doctor to add to your
cancer team. Find out what the doctors at Naturopathic Specialists say about
the safe integration of conventional and naturopathic cancer care, and learn
some of the common pitfalls to avoid in today's Ad Hoc With a Doc.”
So, guidance.
Oh good:
we know how well-educated NDs are, and how great
naturopathic thinking is!
So, discuss to us.
From the video, the NDs state:
“one of the types of complementary therapies mentioned in
the discussion section of the article was naturopathy.”
The study states, in it:
“there is a broad spectrum of CM used by patients with
cancer including herbs and botanicals, vitamins and minerals, traditional
Chinese medicine, homeopathy, and naturopathy, as well as specialized diets […]
types of CM previously identified include herbs and botanicals, vitamins and
minerals, probiotics, ayurvedic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine,
homeopathy and naturopathy, deep breathing, yoga, tai chi, qi gong,
acupuncture, chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation, meditation, massage,
prayer, special diets, progressive relaxation, and/or guided imagery.”
So that’s a long list.
The authors will refer to them all as “these therapies” in
the next quote:
“we cannot comment on
any specific type of CM and its association with survival. Regardless, except
for mind-body therapies that have been shown to improve quality of life, there
is limited to no evidence that these therapies have been shown to improve
cancer survival as a CM.”
Rubin states in the video, in light of that poor association of naturopathy with early death in treatable cancer care in the JAMA
Onc article, regarding the naturopathy and the naturopaths doing it:
“we don’t know if they’re physicians […or] board certified
naturopathic oncologists […and] there’s a difference between naturopathy and
naturopathic medicine […the former being] nonphysician practitioners […the
latter being] a licensed naturopathic physician.”
He is stating, I think rather absurdly, that it is naturopathy that has bad
associations, not ‘physician-level naturopathic medicine’ and particularly not 'naturopathic oncologists.'
Hmm, I think he's being critical, I think he's being discerning, when it works for him…
And in terms of institutional permissions, if this sound familiar, again, we get the insistence
that:
“we graduated from a naturopathic medical school, we hold
the license to practice naturopathic medicine in the state of Arizona, and both
of us are board certified naturopathic oncologists […] physician-level […]
we’ve both chosen that as our specialties […] our specialty is recognized by
the Arizona Naturopathic Medical Board […] I sit on that board […] it’s our
expertise and our specialty […what’s] medical.”
Let’s look at that Board for a second.
Rubin is listed as a member.
Their web page is nd.az.gov.
We’re told on their home page:
We’re told on their home page:
“as a naturopathic physician licensed in Arizona, part of the licensure renewal process requires completion of 30 hours of CME each year […] the Board accepts CME from programs approved by one or more of the following organizations [round up the usual suspects]: the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians or any of its constituent organizations; the Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association; or any naturopathic licensing authority in the United States or Canada.”
And we know how good those CME's, in Naturopathyland, are.
They have up their licensure law, which states:
“the required NPLEX examinations [...are] Part I Biomedical Examination, Part II Clinical
Science Examination [...which includes] Core Clinical Science Examination and the
Clinical Elective examinations in acupuncture, and minor surgery.”
And, not the beat the horse dead any further than it is dead, within that Part II is homeopathy, though that is not stated there at nd.az.gov.
And, not the beat the horse dead any further than it is dead, within that Part II is homeopathy, though that is not stated there at nd.az.gov.
You have to go to NABNE who runs the exams to find that out.
And at that .gov, there are no hits when searched for:
And at that .gov, there are no hits when searched for:
vitalism, vitalistic, vital force, life force, or
medicatrix.
Their definitions page, which is a redirect to azleg.gov which I assume is the Arizona legislature online, and we're told:
“’practice of naturopathic medicine’ means a medical system
of diagnosing and treating diseases, injuries, ailments, infirmities and other
conditions of the human mind and body [which, by the way, when naturopaths are treating mind body and spirit, have they expanded their scope beyond their legal definition?], including by natural means, drugless
methods, drugs, nonsurgical methods, devices, physical, electrical, hygienic
and sanitary measures and all forms of physical agents and modalities […] ‘natural
substance’ means a homeopathic, botanical, nutritional or other supplement that
does not require a prescription pursuant to federal law before it is
prescribed, dispensed or otherwise furnished to a patient and that is
prescribed by a physician who is licensed pursuant to this chapter to enhance
health, prevent disease or treat a medical condition diagnosed by the
physician.”
Well, as we’ve seen:
such a regulatory apparatus guarantees NOTHING -- even when it ends in .gov, or perhaps particularly -- and we’ve
seen how ‘nonsense has no problem with itself.’
A search of azleg.gov gives no vitalism hits in relation to
naturopathy but does have the “spiritual vital force” as a hit in relation to Hahnemannian homeopathy which is what naturopathy schools teach, which is what naturopath schools teach, the kind of homeopathy at naturopathy schools, which hearkens back to that ND Pizzorno CME course 'life force as spirit'.
And there’s the typical board exams science claim, at azleg.gov, in a 2017 Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association letter [similar here] which states:
“a licensed naturopathic physician (ND) attends a four-year,
graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same
sciences as an MD or DO [now I adamantly refute that because mainstream science is not equated with pseudosciences the way they are in naturopathy, so that is not of the same science…] the NPLEX exam consists of two parts in three
subject areas: Part I Biomedical Science Examination, Part II Core Clinical
Science Examination, and Part II Clinical Elective Examinations […and we’re
referred to the] North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners […at]
nabne.org.”
And in the video, about the JAMA article, Rubin speaks of:
“[the importance of being] highly highly skilled [yes, times
two…of being a] skilled physician […who] understands […who can] sit down
responsibly with a patient and discuss options […the importance of] the
appropriate skill, training, designation […of being a physician who can
discuss] at the highest level of discussion […] what it means to go through
integrative or complementary therapy […] complementary medicine or alternative
or integrative.”
And ND Coats states:
“sometimes these articles spin it.”
And at one point Rubin states, without any irony:
“it does come down to semantics.”
Ah, like what is BENEATH the coded language of naturopathy’s
precepts?
Well, that all sounds like CRITICAL thinking and a desire
for CLARITY.
As opposed to positioning oneself as uncriticizable and
hiding under manipulative opacities.
Now, hilariously, ND Rubin states, speaking of semantics:
“one of the highest precepts of naturopathic medicine is
called DOE-KAY-RAY, or doctor as teacher and actually the initial dictionary
definition of doctor was teacher […] I hold that as a very high precept […and
he states of his practice] we’re so interested in the evolving education of our
patients.”
He’s speaking of the word d-o-c-e-r-e.
Well, I murder Latin too, all the time.
But this one makes me laugh, in the context of his smugness,
his conceit, his dominance, his unassailablity.
I’ve listened to worldwide pronunciations, out of curiosity, of that word, but I’ve never heard it as what Rubin said,
as “kay”.
The American English preponderance is apparently DAA or DOE SEER
or SAYR.
So da-seer or doe-seer, or da-sayr or doe-sayr.
So da-seer or doe-seer, or da-sayr or doe-sayr.
I’m partial to the Italian pronunciation, myself:
doe-che-re.
doe-che-re.
We also get Rubin stating:
“we are very open and transparent […] we are participants in
the greater community of oncology globally and we welcome that.”
Ah, another welcome.
My advice then:
My advice then:
welcome the critical thinking, the analysis, the
discernment, the judgment.
Embrace clarity, transparency, honesty, rationality, and rigor!
Speaking of critical thinking about naturopathy, and
community and globally, at the end of this third subpart, I’ll in what follows
just run through what Dr. Salzberg has previously written about naturopathy at
forbes.com.
“a form of quackery.”
“offering treatments that are little more than snake oil to
cancer patients is ethically indefensible.
Believers in acupuncture, naturopathy, reiki, and homeopathy will argue
that they are not unethical, because the treatments work. This argument, though, flies in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Those who argue that these therapies really work only demonstrate that
they are unqualified to offer medical care.”
“quacks never give up. In their never-ending quest to make money from bogus treatments, they
try all kinds of strategies to convince people that what they’re selling
really, really works, despite the evidence to the contrary. One strategy is
creating a legal licensing system. If
the government licenses your profession, it must be legitimate, right? Legislators wouldn’t approve a licensing
system for nonsense, would they? Of
course not! So it’s strange that the Maryland legislature is considering a bill
in its upcoming session to allow naturopaths to practice medicine in the state
of Maryland […] most disturbing, perhaps, is that the new Maryland bill would
require physicians to violate medical ethics.
The AMA code of ethics states 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.’ By adding a naturopath to the
Maryland State Board of Physicians, and by requiring them to license
naturopaths to practice medicine, the legislature is forcing physicians to act
unethically.”
“today's versions of medieval bleeding include acupuncture,
homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, reiki, ayurveda, healing touch, various 'detox' treatments, and more. Science has figured out that all of
these are nonsense, and moved on.”
“has NIH provided good scientific evidence that any of the ‘alternative’
methods – which include acupuncture, homeopathy, naturopathy, ayurveda,
therapeutic touch, reiki, aromatherapy, and others – actually work? The answer
to all these questions is no.”
A Summary for this Beginning Part:
So, we’re at the end of the beginning of Episode 015.
And I’ll quote now from a recent podcast episode from, of
all places, seti.org.
That is the web page for the SETI Institute, with SETI often
meaning the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, though the Institute more broadly explains:
“the mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin and nature of life in the universe and the evolution of intelligence.”
“the mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and explain the origin and nature of life in the universe and the evolution of intelligence.”
From its description, we're told:
"the harm from pseudoscience can go far beyond your
wallet – especially when it promotes unscientific treatments for serious
disease. Find out what alarming
discovery led one naturopath to quit her practice and why scientific ignorance
is not bliss [...] Britt Marie Hermes – former naturopath doctor; now doctoral
student in evolutionary genetics at the University of Kiel, Germany."
The interview starts at about 33.15 and is roughly 20
minutes long.
Therein, Britt states, and I find this to be a very
accidentally appropriate summary for this Episode 015 Part 1 and also an
accidental bridge toward the next section that will delve into the 2019 JACM
SIN:
"naturopathy really refers to a wide range
of practices that are commonly characterized as complementary and alternative
medicine [...] people from within the naturopathic community are trying to
study naturopathy but they're not doing so using […] rigorous clinical trial
designs in order to assess their research questions [...] from my perspective,
the studies that are evaluating naturopathy have serious methodology problems
and therefore we can't really rely on the information from these studies [...] because the parts of it that work are medicine, they're not naturopathy. The thing that is true naturopathy, the stuff
that is the core of naturopathy, is all of the stuff that is alternative to
medicine, all of the stuff that is not scientifically based. And it's all of
the stuff that is really based on these archaic, and pseudoscientific, and
prescientific ideas […] even if you are not going to a naturopath for something
serious like diabetes or cancer, there's a real risk to it.”
Hear, hear.
And speaking of a similar kind of ‘growing outward from the
very insular’, an example of what I've termed TRUE INTEGRATION, and acting from
an emotional source, both of which I can personally identify with – my emotional motivation was, as I’ve said, disgust, as I
began the process of what I call ‘unmindfucking from naturopathy school
mindfucking’ –
Britt states, in answer to what Seth asks about 'what causes
someone to stop their antiscience views':
"well, you know I was really scared [upon
withdrawing from naturopathy as an activity...] I think this fear really
motivated me to start to look for answers and start to look for information
that was critical of naturopathy. I
always knew that there were critics of naturopaths [I say 'naturopathy'] out there. I knew Science-Based Medicine existed, I knew
that Quackwatch existed, but I chose to ignore this information because it
wasn't in alignment [oops, I say 'aligned'] with my belief system.
And so, once I no longer had that need, once I no longer felt like I
wanted to be defined by naturopathy, then I was really truly able to take in
information from the outside and really to start to evaluate naturopathy from a
more objective perspective."
Which reminds me of some words in Jean Paul Sartre's play
The Flies:
"only she can rid herself of it. For she is free."
So, do feel free to delve into the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 15 Part 2…
This is the end of the third and final subsection of the first part of the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 015.
Thank you for boldly listening.
This is the end of the third and final subsection of the first part of the Naturocrit Podcast's Episode 015.
Thank you for boldly listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment