B.C. ND Claims B.C. MDs are Misleading While Naturopathy Stuff (like foot bath detox, homeopathy, vitalism) is Grounded in Scientific Rigor

here, I cite from a recent letter by an ND in British Columbia, Canada to the Vancouver Sun defending naturopathy on scientific grounds [see 001., below]; then, from that BC ND's own web pages [see 002., below]; and finally that ND's own BC organizations [see 003., below]:

001. the Vancouver Sun's "More Options for Patients Makes for a Healthier Population" (2011-03-14 and save):

"[regarding] License to Prescribe Still Rankles B.C.'s MDs [2011-03-07...states] Dr. Caleb Ng naturopathic physician [of] Surrey [...believes] the information and opinion of the medical doctors [...] Dr. Bob Vroom and Ian Gillespie [...regarding naturopaths] cited in this article are misleading [...] health professionals such as naturopathic physicians [...are] grounded in the scientific rigor they [the MDs] so boldly assert is theirs alone [...the MDs] do not seem to take into account the education, training and ability required for our registrants to be licensed by our government-recognized regulatory body, the College of Naturopathic Physicians of BC [CNPBC]."

Note: oh, that huge, broad, overarching claim that naturopathy is SCIENCE.  Again, and again, and again.  Why is it up to me to illuminate how UNTRUE that science claim is?  Naturopathy is based on falsehood [one of the largest being an inappropriate use of the label science upon the science-exterior], and therein such annuls their professional claim too. But lets see if ND Ng, CNPBC, and BCNA are MISLEADING on their own web pages!

002. Ng, C. (ND CCNM)'s practice -- Mountainview Wellness Center, a partnership with Bogatch, G. (ND CCNM), Patton, A. (ND CCNM), Ram, S.M. (ND CCNM), Van Alstyne, T. (ND CCNM) -- collectively states:

002.a. on their page "About Us - The Mountainview Doctors" [vsc 2011-03-14]:

"naturopathic medicine is [...] based on 'vis medicatrix naturae,' a medical philosophy that utilizizes the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN, coded vitalism, because that's all they give you!...] naturopathic doctors trained in natural therapies and prevention, but are also trained in the art and science of diagnosis [...] the Platinum Energy Systems Detoxification Foot Spa is a non-invasive highly effective method of removing toxins from the body through the feet or hands. This system is scientifically proven [...] Dr. Ng is a member of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association and the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia.[...] we are registered and licensed with the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia [...] CCNM offers a four year accredited program including courses in [...] homeopathy."

Note: so, there's coded vitalism, which is ironically MISLEADING!  I think ND Ng protests too much to the Vancouver Sun.  There's the science claim again, on foot detox of all things.

Now, Quack Watch's Device Watch  states, regarding this type of thing: "the bottom line is very simple. All such devices should be considered medically worthless."  Ouch: when is the "scientifically proven [...] highly effective" actually bunk?  Naturopathy: whose science expertise claim has dissolved.

I'll look at the org.s in 003., below.

002.b. in "Services Offered" [vsc 2011-03-14]:

"acupuncture is based on the belief that health is determined by the balanced flow of vital energy (qi) through the meridians of the body. By restoring proper flow of qi, we can restore balance to the system."

Note: so, there's a glimpse of their vitalism belief, and this time it is transparently described, though not fully described as in fact a science-ejected and -unsupported belief.  You should BE TOLD BY THEM that naturopathy is based on in fact science-ejected or -unsupported beliefs, diagnostics, and therapies before you go to one!  I believe it would allow for informed consent.

003. CNPBC and BCNA:

003.a. CNPBC states in "Code of Conduct":

"the naturopathic physician [...] shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] will practice the science and art of naturopathic medicine."

Note: again, the coded vitalism and a false science claim upon it.  What I argue is this: even the CNPBC Code of Conduct is a guideline for NDs showing how to engaged in misinformation, opacity and manipulation as opposed to accuracy, transparency, and informed consent.

Ironically, it emphasizes:

"[the ND] shall conduct her/his practice and professional activities with honesty, integrity and responsibility for individual judgment and action [...] shall respect all ethical, qualified health care practitioners and cooperate with other health professions to promote health for the individual, the public and the global community. [...] the naturopathic physician shall strive to exemplify personal well-being, ethical character and trustworthiness as a health care professional."

Truly naturopathy is the reversal of all values. I don't think this absurdity and irrationality aids population health.  If something is nonsense, is it really an option? Again, I think ND Ng protests too much to the Vancouver Sun.

003.b. BCNA states in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...includes] vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism [coded vitalism...] embracing these tenets, on a science-based platform, is at the heart of naturopathic care."

Note: so, the heart of naturopathy is to not transparently label their sectarian vitalistic belief-based system as science-ejected and indeed to falsely label such science and ethical.

I can see the apples and the very-near tree they have fallen from.

Yet, I like B.C. in this sense: they've a lot going on up there and a lot gets printed to then blog about.

Gushing Endorsement of Naturopathic Efficacy, & Analysis - 'A News Vancouver Island' on Youtube, 2010-11

here, I cite from a 2010-11 Youtube bit from British Columbia, Canada that cannot say enough good things about naturopathy [with not a peep mentioned about its lunacy; see 001., below]; then, I cite from the web pages of the ND who is spotlighted in the video [see 002., below]; and finally, I offer a little bit of British Columbia ND lunacy [see 003., below]:

001. 'A News Vancouver Island' reports in "Prescription Pads Now Legal For Naturopathic Physicians" (2010-11):

"naturopathic physicians have for years used nontraditional remedies very effectively to help their patients [...now] BC naturopaths have been granted the authority to administer drugs to their patients [...] Dr. Neil McKinney, B.SC., ND, naturopathic physician in oncology [...talks of] 'herbal tinctures and homeopathic remedies [...] Chinese medicine [...] I have a broad set of tools to work with [... ] we are very well trained' [...the prescriptive rights do not include] federally regulated drugs with high abuse potential  [...and NDs say they now can] serv their patients better [...and we're told by the reporter] it's not about who is right or wrong, its about what works."

Note: wow, hugely gushing endorsement.  Is this journalism or advertisement?  "Very effectively" and "what works"?  HOMEOPATHY [remedies with nothing in them]?  Fascinating that we're informed that this ND has a science degree [this is a confidence game!].

002. the McKinney, N. (ND NCNM 1985) web site (click here) states, in "Therapies and Services" [vsc 2010-11-06]:

"cancer treatment [...] natural medicines can help cancer patients at any stage. Therapy may include Iscador Mistletoe Therapy (an advanced cancer therapy from Germany) [...] homeopathy: since 1974 Dr. McKinney has been building a foundation of experience and training in classical constitutional and complex homeopathy for acute and chronic illnesses [...] Dr. McKinney offers a gentle homeopathic version of a flu shot that works with your immune system to give excellent protection [...via] Natural Immune Boost Injection (our version of the flu shot) [by] Heel of Germany has created two all natural homeopathic injectable remedies for influenza prevention.  When taken together they form a powerful resistance to colds, flu and other viral diseases.  The ingredients are simple herbs in a very dilute form, they stimulate the immune system to a high state of readiness to meet and defeat whatever strains may come along [...] we [also] offer a homeopathic approach to de-sensitizing allergies and sensitivities [...and] herbal homeopathic injections [...and] electrodermal screening assessment."

Note:

Iscador is known NOT to work, according to PubMed, as an antitumor agent in mice. It is one of these anthroposophy/Steiner strange ideas, and as Quackwatch states: "in 1984, the expert working group of the Swiss Society for Oncology concluded that there was no evidence that Iscador was effective against human cancers [...] more than 30 clinical studies have investigated imistletoe as a cancer treatment. The National Cancer Institute has concluded: 'reports of improved survival and/or quality of life have been common, but nearly all of the studies had major weaknesses that raise doubts about the reliability of the findings.'"

Homeopathic flu prophylaxis is ABSURDLY IMPOTENT, according to Science-Based Medicine's "Homeopathic Vaccines" by Dr. Crislip (2010-11-05): "the sad thing is parents will be fooled into thinking that their children are protected from infectious diseases, when, in fact, they are not.  Vaccines do not provide perfect protection; neither do seat belts.  But a vaccine is superior to the nothing of homeopathy and I would bet that parents would not rely on a child car restraint made by the same process as homeopathy." 

Electrodermal screening is what I've termed a pseudodiagnostic, and Science Based Medicine's "Another State Promotes the Pseudoscientific Cult that is 'Naturopathic Medicine' - Part 1" (2008) by Dr. Atwood reminds us that: "the FDA has, for practical purposes, declared such devices illegal."

003. the BCNA and NCNM's lunacy [since ND McKinney doesn't describe naturopathy at all, so one can make an informed decision]:

003.a. the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] states in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-11-06]:

"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...includes] first, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment [coded vitalism]. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism [coded vitalism...] embracing these tenets, on a science-based platform, is at the heart of naturopathic care."

Note: now, there's quite a 'science promise' in that description. The lunacy is that VMN is hugely a science-ejected idea, when you look at what naturopathy essentially means by it - vitalism.  So, the heart of naturopathy is deception and irrationality.

003.b. ND McKinney's alma mater, National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM], exemplifies this irrationality.  In "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-11-06] NCNM states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis.  These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] nature heals through the response of the life force [etc.]."

Note: so, a sectarian science-ejected figmentation [a 'life force'] is falsely labeled 'in fact able to survive scientific scrutiny.'

[And we were to believe -- falsely -- that naturopathy is very effective and about what works].

The Essential UnderLYING Science-Ejected Vitalism of BINM By Way of BCNA By Way of BINM

here, I reach back into the archive.org repository to cite the 'essentially naturopathic science-ejected' by way of: the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine's [BINM] rather opaque NM description [see 001., below]; the British Columbia Naturopathic Association's [BCNA] rather opposite and opaque NM description [see 002., below]; the BINM's rather tucked-away but transparent NM description [see 003., below]:

001. BINM states in "Naturopathic Medical Training" [vsc 2010-06-21]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession founded in the time honoured belief in 'vis medicatrix naturae', the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN..] the following is a list of treatments commonly provided or prescribed by naturopathic physicians [...] homeopathy [...] Chinese Medicine."

Note: so, we have the claim of profession, and VMN-HPN. Yet the essential context of naturopathy, which these expressions represent, is not transparently communicated. Therefore, I call this opaque because you are not being informed, which is very unprofessional. Let me help. BINM is in British Columbia, so lets see what BCNA says regarding naturopathy and VMN-HPN.

002. BCNA states in "About Naturopathic Medicine -- The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-21]:

"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...it is built upon upon] a science-based platform [...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...] is threefold. First, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism, given the correct climate for healing. Determining the correct individualized therapeutic environment [in this context] is at the core of naturopathic medicine."

Note: so, we're actually told the OPPOSITE of what the essentially naturopathic is. That it is science. And we are not given a transparent definition of VMN-HPN. Very unprofessional and manipulative. As usual. I like this 1999 link for this particular article because it is the oldest so far that I've been able to find. This ruse has been going on for quite some time: eleven years plus.

003. but, back at BINM, you do get that often underlying / coded vitalism context quite transparently communicated in "Natural Selections: Focus on Allergies" (2008-10; vol. 1, iss. 1) [vsc 2010-06-21]:

"we all have an innate ability to heal called the 'vital force'. When this force is weak you are susceptible to disease [...and the sidebar states that the] principles of naturopathic medicine [...include #3] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [...] acupuncture stimulates your vital force and promotes drainage [...] homeopathic remedies will desensitize you to your allergen, relieve your symptoms, promote drainage, and stimulate your vital force."

Note: so, there's the full context, assembled piecemeal from various BINM web pages. You often don't get that science-ejected essential naturopathic sectarian premise stated so up-front. It is usually underLYING.

Yet -- absurdly, simultaneously -- BINM states in "FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: The Only Naturopathic Medical School in Western Canada Opens New Campus" [vsc 2010-06-21]:

"naturopathic medicine is a science-based alternative medicine approach to healthcare that combines state- of-the-art scientific research with evidence-based traditional healing systems."

As I often say, "Danger Will Robinson, unethical sectarian pseudoscience."

An ND Teaches Us About Science [!] - Macart, T. (ND CCNM) at PQBNEWS.com:

here, I cite from a recent article in the Parksville Qualicum News by ND Macart who there poses as a science-expert. I then show how naturopathy is essentially nonscientific, while, en masse, they keep claiming otherwise:

001. British Columbia CCNM ND Macart tells us in “Making Sense of Science” (2009-11-16):

“jumping to conclusions is a mistake made by many researchers and readers when it comes to interpreting science. Initially, a hypothesis is put forward so it may be evaluated by the scientific method. An experiment is designed to support or disprove the hypothesis and then the discussion section deals with any flaws in the experiment that could confound the decided conclusion. In fact, very little science is truly definitive [...and] science begets science.”

And we are warned, and advised:

“[there may be] mercury contamination in our food supply […and to consider] detoxification via chelation [...which is] worth considering and incorporating into one’s healthcare plan […] Dr. Tara Macart owns OPti-Balance Naturopathic Medicine.”

Note: the irony here is killing me. We have an ND posing as an expert in science, and advising from that position about our health. Macart, coincidentally [!], provides chelation therapy at her practice, where it is touted as a virtual panacea.

002. naturopathy's essential vitalism & science expertise claim:

002.a. Macart states in “Naturopathic Medicine”:

“what is naturopathic medicine? […] our goal is to stimulate the body’s natural healing abilities [coded vitalism!…] an individualized treatment plan is proposed to facilitate the healing process [coded vitalism!…] naturopathic principles. [#1] vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature). Based on a tradition of vitalism [yup, vitalism IN THE FLESH], naturopathic medicine evokes the healing power of nature. We all have an inherent capacity to heal ourselves. Naturopathic doctors help patients tap into this power in order to improve their health […and we are assured] with consent, naturopathic doctors support open lines of communication.”

Note: vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected (see here for my collection).  If communication were truly open, we'd be getting informed by naturopathy of what they really are: an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.  Without that information, consent cannot happen [see below].

002.b. the British Columbia Naturopathic Association states in “General FAQs”:

“homeopathy is a highly systematic, scientific method of therapy that respects the wisdom of the body [coded vitalism]. It is a method based on the implementation of a pharmacological law called similars [which doesn't actually exist]. A German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann first pronounced this law, in 1796 [scientific laws are not decreed, they are a preponderance based upon scientific evidence…] homeopathy stimulates the body's natural healing mechanisms [coded vitalism].”

002.c. the American Association of Naturopathic Medical Schools claims that naturopathy is assuredly scientific.  This claim was made personally to me.

003. overall, I will reiterate my usual warning regarding naturopathy:

“danger, Will Robinson...unethical sectarian pseudoscience.”

BCMA vs. BCNA - Somebody's Position is False (Guess Who?):

here, I cover some ground concerning the [bogus] scientific commitment of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] and the [actual] scientific commitment of the British Columbia Medical Association [see 001., below]; and I quote from a recent Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] article regarding this matter, and cite NDNR's explicit iteration of naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism sectarian belief [see 002., below]:

001.a. the BCNA has stated, regarding naturopathy, [archived since 2006 for posterity], in "About Naturopathic Medicine: The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" by Cassie, G. (? ?):

"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...] is threefold: [#]1. [first and foremost!] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism [this is naturopathy's vitalism, coded and claimed as science]."

Note: fascinating. So, VMN is science. Except, of course naturopathy is not being transparent / honest, since VMN is actually their vitalistic context which in fact is science-ejected. This is the typical naturopathic falsehood - claim science, hide the sectarian belief system you actually are beneath naturalistic language.

So, in the absurd land of naturopathy, lies of omission and obscurity are ethically fine, and the science-ejected is the same thing as the science-based. I find it ethically repugnant.

Additionally, BCNA has emphasized (here) :

"there is no 'ND biology' or science education that is any different than the science education MDs receive."

Note: my answer - bullshit. NDs have a complete lack of integrity when it comes to what is truly science -- e.g., the school I attended claims that within the scientific is the vitalistic and teleological, and supernatural. That's idiotic. It's also fraudulent trade. They have redefined science to the point of idiocy.

001.b. the BCMA has stated, regarding its goals, in "The BCMA Submission to Minister George Abbott on Proposed Amendments to the Naturopathic Physicians Regulation" (2009-02-19) :

"the BCMA has a track record of successful collaboration with government to achieve our shared objectives of improving health care access and quality. We share the objective of providing the citizens of BC with access to health practitioners with adequate training who are able to offer assessment, advice, and services supported by scientific knowledge."

Note: I do not have knowledge of the BCMA stating such outright absurdities as the BCNA. So, I have a higher degree of trust in their scientific integrity - BCMA seems mainstream and does not appear to be an entity dedicated to promoting cultic health sectarianism.

002.a. the NDNR article "British Columbia Association: Scope of Practice Update" (NDNR 2009-09, Vol. 5, Iss. 9) written by BCNA President Kind, C. (ND NCNM) states:

"in April 2009 the British Columbia Ministry of Health Services formalized regulations for licensed NDs that recognize the education, training, expertise [!!!] and historical and contemporary practice of naturopathic physicians [...] the announcement formalizing regulations for NDs is a result of an extensive review of the evidence and benefits of science-based naturopathic medicine by the provincial government [{wow, what a thorough job -- now the nonscientific is scientific}...] the announcement recognizes the benefits to patients of allowing NDs to practice to a greater extent of their education and training, while streamlining and improving the delivery of healthcare [...] naturopathic medicine has been a licensed profession in BC since 1923 [...a] health profession [...] the organization representing BC’s medical doctors, British Columbia Medical Association (BCMA), refused to meet with us during the negotiation process and decided, instead, to spread comment that was both unconstructive and often false. There were many instances of egregious and even malicious media comment [...] the intent of the new legislation is to remove barriers to interdisciplinary practice which are not generally in the public interest [...and speaks of] the benefit of patients [...] although the BCMA seems unwilling to openly embrace the shared scopes model it benefits patients and provides better health options [...] for over 50 years, members of the profession, staff, family and patients have participated in an effort to [mis!!!]inform politicians and bureaucrats of what naturopathic medicine is and what it has to offer."

Note: so, we have the claim that the naturopathic is science-based, meets the ethical strictures of professionalism, and overall that naturopathy's 'ways' are a benefit to the public. I say 'more bullshit' - this severely harms the positions of professionalism and science. It's HUGELY absurd that the 'false ones a.k.a. naturopathy' can claim -- with impunity, while they hold a false position with impunity a.k.a an education racket -- that they have the higher ground regarding 'the scientific' and 'medical'.

It is an interesting question as to whether BCNA has libeled BCMA.

002.b. that same NDNR issue states naturopathy's essential science-ejected sectarian vitalism per publisher and SCNM ND Tallman, and kind.

003. what naturopathy has to offer, overall - falsehood, exploitation and the degradation of standards [the hugely science-ejected falsely labeled scientific, traded to a trusting public both clinically and educationally].

Naturopathy's Superscience Claim - Wolfe, P. (ND CCNM 1987) BINM 2009:

here, I cite the numbers naturopaths use to imply that they have science-expertise:

Wolfe, P. (ND CCNM 1987) states in "An Eight Year Accredited Medical Degree Program":

"[per] the average number of hours of basic sciences studied by naturopathic (ND), allopathic (conventional MD) and osteopathic (DO) medical students [...] naturopathic [...] 1225 [...] allopathic [...] 1079 [...] osteopathic [...] 976 [...] there is today a considerable and growing body of evidence-based research validating naturopathic methods in peer-reviewed scientific journals [...] Patricia Wolfe, ND. President and Executive Director Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine."

Note: modern medicine is not allopathic, that is a false label. The biggest question I have is how come then, if so science-steeped, NDs still claim that the profoundly nonscientific is in fact science?

Because they're naturopaTHICK.

CAND NDs Falsely Claim the Ethical High Ground: BCNA Accuses BCMA of Deception 2009:

here, I cite an accusation by the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] that the British Columbia Medical Association [BCMA] is being deceptive when describing naturopathy's scientific basis [see 001. & 002., below]; yet, if you look at what is 'essentially naturopathic' -- their vitalism, supernaturalism, autoentheism & kind -- you find that such 'articles of faith' are well-without scientific support [see 003.a.-003.c., below]; also, I offer a diagnosis of naturopathy's 'knowledge typification retardedness' -- what I've termed 'epistemic conflation' [see 003.d., below]; and, regarding the actual ethical high ground, I take a look at a statement concerning why it is improper to label naturopathy a "profession" [see 004., below]:

001. the BCNA's homepage states {2009-03-09}:

"the BC Medical Association: misinformed [i.], and spreading deceptive [ii.] and disingenuous [iii.] comment not in the interest of patient care."

Note: some definitions [courtesy of the AHD 4th ed.]: i. "to provide with incorrect information"; ii. "the use of deceit [falseness]"; iii. "not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating." So, BCNA says that BCMA is basically being misleading, false, and acting in bad-faith.

002. BCNA then links to this pdf which states:

"[in spite of the BCMA's contention] there is no 'ND biology' or science education that is any different than the science education MDs receive [...& quoting Pelletier, NDs have] 'solid grounding in biomedical sciences' [...naturopathy is a] profession [also, BCNA's Cassie states naturopathy & its principles are "science based" here {yes, they've spelled naturopathy wrong in that web address}]."

Note: specifically, BCNA is accusing BCMA of lying about naturopathy's scientific foundation. BCNA is stating that naturopathy is scientific, and that their science is in fact mainstream science. Also, BCNA is stating that they live up the ethical strictures of the professions. I beg to hugely differ: it is naturopathy that is in fact not scientific, essentially [they have unlimited the boundaries of science to include, absurdly: the science-ejected, the science-unsupported, and the unscienceable!!!], and it is in fact naturopathy that is engaging in deceit, incorrect information, and bad-faith [see 003., below].

003. naturopathy's nonscientific essential principles:

003.a. vitalism:

naturopathy is essentially vitalistic.

Note: vitalism is in fact hugely nonscientific.

003.b. supernaturalism:

here are some examples.

Note: supernaturalism is in fact hugely unscienceable.

003.c. autoentheism [the belief that the "life force" within oneself is god; self-divinity & kind]:

see my notes from ND school.

Note: as a supernaturalism / theism of a particular stripe, this sectarian premise is also hugely unscienceable.

003.d. overall, naturopathy's 'epistemic pathology' is this retardation [science has progressed, they developmentally haven't!]:

***the conflation of the scientific and the nonscientific then all labeled scientific aka epistemic conflation.

Note 01: now, BCNA lists naturopathy's principles on the Cassie page I cited above, stating after them "embracing these tenets [003.a. particularly], on a science-based platform." The primary principle, "vis medicatrix naturae" [003.a.] isn't even honestly described on this page as being the actual 'purposeful life spirit / god power within you' woo that it actually is! So, therein, it is BCNA that can be best described as misleading, false, and acting in bad-faith. Naturopathy does not accurately describe themselves, they falsely label themselves, and then they have the nerve to posture from an supposedly ethically righteous position.

Note 02: as a result, naturopathy's self-labeling of "science" is really meaningless, because for naturopathy, science is no longer science at all. This seems like thought from 1000 years ago, when any kind of knowledge could have been labeled science [the Latin 'to know' -- the NDs don't seem to acknowledge that science isn't just a stick-on label that can be applied to any kind of knowledge]. But, truly, an article of faith isn't even processable through science, and naturopathy's ultimate claim that an article of faith is the same thing as the science-based is hugely science-illiterate.

004. the strictures of the professions. Ironically, the university that ripped me off -- I was a UB ND student 1998-2002 -- has a current faculty member who recently coauthored a very useful paper concerning the professions and sectarian medicine:

"the professions, which classically included medicine, law and the ministry, are vocations whose members 'profess' to have knowledge that the laity do not comprehend. Given the asymmetry of knowledge between professionals and the laity, society has granted to the professions a certain degree of autonomous control over themselves. However, this social contract demands that each profession, and each professional, place the well-being of society and the patient, client or parishioner ahead of the profession and professional [fiduciary duty]. Lay persons put their faith in the professional following the dictum credat emptor (let the buyer have faith) rather than caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). This social contract imparts great freedom on all professions, but with this freedom comes great responsibility. When an individual consults a member of any of the medical professions, it is reasonably expected that the advice and treatment that he or she receives is based in science, not metaphysics or pseudoscience. In addition, it is reasonably expected that the services he or she receives are being provided for the primary purpose of benefiting the patient, and not for any other reason. The financial benefit to the professional is secondary, and results from the degree of clinical benefit received by the patient. Patients place their faith in the professional, and trust that they will not be subject to fraud, abuse or quackery."

Note: self-labeled science but essentially HUGELY not science, naturopathy doesn't even meet the legal standards of regular commerce per 'caveat emptor' -- you do not get what they claim they are selling [as a patient, as a person going to one of their schools etc.]. Therein, it is absurd to call this fraudulent area 'professional'.

Misrepresentation of Knowledge IS 'The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine' - BCNA 2009, ISBN 9780443073007:

here, a little exercise in contradiction! The British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] strongly claims naturopathy is a science and incompletely explains naturopathy's central premise [of vitalism], while actual science speaks oppositely about 'what is essentially the naturopathic' [the vitalistic; see 001., below]; I then cite naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise from naturopathy's central textbook [see 002., below] and compare it to scientific consensus [see 002.'s notes, below]:

001. BCNA's Cassie, G. (? ?) states in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [a web address that actually has naturopathy spelled wrong in it!]:

"alternative medicine is the medicine of the 21st century [...] many people have chosen naturopathic doctors (NDs) as their primary health care professional [!!!{professions claim}...] naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [!!!...] the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [...] is threefold: [#1] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: the body has the inherent capacity to heal in the proper therapeutic environment. NDs believe in the recuperative power of the organism, given the correct climate for healing [...we're] embracing these tenets, on a science-based platform [!!!...] 'a comprehensive foundation in the biological and biomedical sciences' [!!!...] the same scientific fashion [!!!...] the scientific basis and validity of naturopathic protocols [!!!...] naturopathic journals [...] 'the division between alternative and orthodox medicine is not of a scientific nature'[!!!]."

Note: the HUGE assertion that naturopathy, with its central premise of VMN, is SCIENCE. But, in a nutshell, this is bullshit:

a) the coding VMN, the central premise of naturopathy, is, after all, when you turn that rock over, naturopathy's essential vitalism disguised in naturalistic language;

b) such vitalism is hugely science-ejected;

c) yet, BCNA does not transparently explain that important fact to the public -- e.g., an honest statement might be something like "our central premise is science-ejected but we call it science, which means we're crazy-ignorant whack-a-moles pretending to be scientific medicine professionals" -- which is, minimally, dishonest and therefore professionally unethical.

002. and just to emphasize naturopathy's essential vitalism, remember that the Textbook of Natural Medicine (ISBN 9780443073007; 2006 3rd ed.) states:

"[per homeopath-naturopath Bradley, R. (ND NCNM, DHANP AANP)] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [!!! p.080...and, he believes, vitalism has] no conflict with the findings of biomedical science [!!! p.081 {see note 01, below -- it has only been kicked out of science!}...and supporting vitalism is, according to Bradley] the problem of entropy. Entropy is the tendency of any closed system to find equilibrium, that is, the state of least organization. In other words, systems tend to run down and become less complex over time. In defiance of this universal rule, life, up until the point of death, consistently creates more complex systems out of simple ones [see note 02., below {this 'entropy strategy' is used by creationists and vitalists to invoke supernaturalisms such as vitalism & biblical literalism -- and remember, vitalism is best explained as a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency' belief -- by falsely claiming life defies the 'laws of nature' and is therefore supernatural]."

Note 01: for naturopathy, there is obviously no difference between what is science and what is nonscience! That which is nonscience -- like the vitalistic and spiritistic supernatural -- and that which is science are all labeled science, which is an egregious misrepresentation. Yet, at an actual science organization site, the National Center For Science Education [NCSE], we find this pronouncement excluding vitalism from science [and oh, what company vitalism keeps on the trash heap of discarded ideas!] in "Scientific Integrity":

"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." This, contrary to Bradley's assertion, is quite a conflict, because it is an exclusion.

Note 02: and NCSE has this to say about the falsehood that life defies 'entropy' in "Creationism and the Laws of Thermodynamics":

"as long as the evolution of life on earth took longer than 10.7 or 11.8 days, the First and Second Laws [entropy is within the 2nd] of Thermodynamics are not violated, respectively."

SGU's Novella: "A Naturopath [BCNA's Swetlikoff] On Water," and UBCNM:

some 'right on the money' excerpted comments regarding naturopathy by Dr. Novella from the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast blogpage, "The Rogues Gallery" [see 01. below]. Being quite familiar with the University of Bridgeport's naturopathy pseudoscience [I am one of the snookered!], I've provided an immediate example of UB naturopathic nonsensical 'scientific nonscience' [see 02. below], and some related -- rather coded -- material from Dr. Swetlikoff's own site [see 03. below], and the BCNA site [see 04. below]:

01. Novella, S. (MD ?) states in "A Naturopath On Water"{08-10-2008}:

"[truly] it is a menace to the public when governments license nonsense. It is a betrayal of the public trust, it diminishes all professionalism, and it generally propagates confusion in an area where licensure is meant to provide clarity. One egregious example is naturopathy [...] naturopaths are health care pseudoscientists [...] essentially, they are what happens when medicine is completely disconnected from science, evidence, and even common sense [...you get] pure pseudoscience - complete with superficial medical jargon but delightfully devoid of any evidence or scientific rationale [...e.g. Canada's] Lorne Swetlikoff [ND Bastyr 1988] is the current president of the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia [BCNA]. To a non-critical thinker the pseudoscience spewed by Swetlikoff and other naturopaths may sound compelling and 'sciencey.' But on close examination it is pure pseudoscience."

Note: one of the best definitions of pseudoscience I've ever come across is at Wikipedia:

"pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

02. UBCNM's irrationality / 'epistemic fraud:'

02.a. UB states that naturopathy is science;

visit this compilation.

02.b. UB states naturopathy's essential vitalism;

visit this compilation.

02.c. vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected;

visit this compilation.

Note: obviously, UB's label upon naturopathy as scientific is completely misleading.

03. what Dr. Swetlikoff says:

03.a. in "About Dr. Swetlikoff" we're told:

"naturopathic medicine [...is] science-based holistic health care."

03.b. in "About Naturopathic Medicine" we're told:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct healing science and philosophy [...] the art and science of supporting the natural healing processes of the patient [...] the naturopathic physician will practice the art, science and spirit of the profession to the best of his/her ability and judgment following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#1, the primary principle] vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature). The naturopathic physician shall [must!] recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being [vitalism; for more such essential, mandatory naturopathic vitalism {so often, as here, coded}, click here]."

Note: the great irrationality of naturopathy can bee seen in these Swetlikoff examples -- placing the label science upon that which is preponderantly HUGELY nonscience [vitalism, supernaturalism & kind].

04. the British Columbia Naturopathic Association states in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine":

"[per Cassie, G. (MA ?), BCNA Executive Director] naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine. The third major difference is the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [..with #1, the primary principle] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: the body has the inherent capacity to heal [...] embracing these tenets [like VMN], on a science-based platform, is at the heart of naturopathic medical care [...NDs have studied] all the basic sciences any general practitioner receives [...NDs have] 'a comprehensive foundation in the biological and biomedical sciences' [...and] 'the commission believes that the division between alternative and orthodox medicine is not of a scientific nature' [huh?!?!]."

Note: the coding, the coding!!! The vitalism that dare not speak its name. Visit the Federation of Naturopathic Physician Licensing Authorities to see that the expression VMN is truly, contextually, a representation of naturopathy's overarching vitalism figmentation.