Ben Goldacre on Homeopathy: Unicorn Tears

here, I briefly cite from the always excellent "Bad Science" column at guardian.co.uk:

Ben Goldacre writes in "In Case of Overdose, Consult a Lifeguard" (2011-02-19):

"at midnight, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority [...] closed its consultation on how it should label homeopathy sugar pills [...] homeopathy pills don't work better than placebo dummy pills in trials [...and] are made by taking one drop of the original substance and diluting it in

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

drops of water, then taking one drop of that solution, which is now just water, and shaking it near some pills, which you then buy to treat an illness [...] it's my view that quacks are welcome to be quacks [...] I have conducted my own consultation online. Here are the [labeling] suggestions [...] 'take as many as you like' since there are no ingredients [...] other suggestions include 'none', 'belief', 'false hopes', 'shattered dreams', and 'the tears of unicorns' [...] 'not to be taken seriously', 'in case of overdose, consult a lifeguard' [...] these label suggestions are clear, unambiguous, and they do not mislead anyone."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy considers homeopathy "science".

Ben Goldacre on Evidence, and An Extension onto Naturopathy:

here, I cite from the Guardian's column "Bad Science" [see 001., below]; then, I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Ben Goldacre writes in "Don't Cherry-Pick NHS Findings, Minister" (2011-02-12):

"so the minister has cherry-picked only the good findings [...] he cherry-picks findings he likes while explicitly claiming that he is fairly [resembles 'objectively'] citing the totality of the evidence [again, 'objectivity'] from a thorough analysis [as in 'comprehensive']. I [too] can produce good evidence that I have a magical two-headed coin, if I simply disregard all the throws where it comes out tails [oh snap!...] it's absolutely fine [for politicians] to make policy based on ideology, whim, faith, principles, and all the other things we are used to [...] and it's absolutely fine if your reforms aren't supported by existing evidence: you just shouldn't claim that they are [because that would be false]."

Note: oh how this reminds me of naturopathy!

002. musing:

naturopathy is based on principles, including "[#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] the body's inherent ability, which is ordered and intelligent, to heal itself. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to recovery, and to facilitate and augment this healing ability" [and that's ALL you get].  But, that's some very cherry-picked language, not honoring 'informed consent' / transparency concerning naturopathy's essential premise, in my view.  But, that's Bastyr for you: posing science, coding nonscience.

so, we hop a little south to Oregon and find more information on these principles from the mother-ship, and therein we're told by NCNM: "[#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process."

ah, so it's vitalism that Bastyr is CODING / hiding and NCNM is relating transparently.  And vitalism is hugely science-ejected [not to mention the supernaturalism on both of these pages].  There simply is no life force scientifically speaking: it is an article of faith / an ideology / a figmentation! 

and guess what!  NCNM [quite moronically] claims that such [their vitalism, supernaturalism and kind] is "in fact" on that page, and that such surivives scientific scrutiny.

as they say, 'you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.'

now, a long time ago I got led into naturopathy by a similar manipulation:

 

the AANP and their schools, including Bastyr and NCNM, said [see the jpg above, which I printed in 1997 and then attended UB in 1998; it's archived here] that naturopathy was "science-based" and "not a belief system." Here it is as a rather blurry video screencapture from Archive.org [vsc 2011-02-12]:

the falsehood continues, and it is about 15 years later.

SGU 5x5 on Vitalism; HAND's Vitalism; Goldacre on Scrutiny

here, I cite from a 2008 Skeptics' Guide to the Universe 5x5 podcast concerning the science-ejected status of vitalism [see 001., below]; then from the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians [see 002., below]; and finally from Ben Goldacre [see 003., below]:

001. the Skeptics' Guide 5x5 states in "Podcast 45 November 11, 2008 - Chi and Other Forms of Vitalism" [saved 2010-12-08]:

"[the web page] SGU 5x5 - Five Minutes with Five Skeptics. A weekly science podcast discussing news in the world of science and pseudoscience. A companion to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe weekly podcast [...] podcast 45 - November 11, 2008: Chi and Other Forms of Vitalism [...the mp3, Steve] this is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about chi.  Chi, which is alternatively spelled chi or qi, the English approximation of a Chiense word which means life energy.  It is the core of traditional Chinese medicine philosophy [00.00.42...] this mystical life force or life energy [...Bob] the belief isn't limited to China, either. It's called prana in India.  It's ki in Japan.  In France Anton Mesmer called it animal magnetism [...] Bergson referred to it as elan vital, vital force [...Jay] an acupuncturist thinks that they're unblocking chi [...also] reiki [...and] therapeutic touch [...Steve] these are all forms of vitalism, the notion that there's a life energy that separates living things from nonliving things [...] it is a supernatural or metaphysical thing, a spiritual force [...] but, of course, there isn't a like of evidence for any of this.  These are all prescientific notions, the attempts of primitive societies to understand what they could not understand, the nature of health and illness for example, life and non-life.  Modern science has not verified any of these concepts of life energy or life force.  In fact, this fight was fought within the scientific world about 100 years ago and the vitalists, those who thought that there was some kind of vital force, LOST.  The evidence clearly showed, and the logic clearly led to the conclusion, that vitalism is unnecessary and that nothing like chi or like a life force exists.  It's not necessary to explain any biological process [...] it is simply unnecessary, which is the harshest criticism you could level at any idea in science."

Note: tell that to naturopathy!

002. meanwhile, to illustrate the vitalism that is at the heart of naturopathy [falsely posed as science], here's the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians' article "Vol.XIV #4 - The Centesimal And Lm Potencies, Simillimum - Winter 2001: A Comparison from the 5th and 6th Editions of The Organon By David Little" [vsc 2010-12-08]:

"[per 'life force, quoting Hahnemann] 'the life-force appears to strive to assert its superiority' [...] this action by the life force [...] 'the life force brings forth the exact opposite condition-state counteraction [...] proportionate to the life force's own energy' [...] 'after action of the life force' [...] 'our life force always and everywhere brings to pass' [...] strong medicines in large doses tend to cause opposing counteractions from the life force [...] the lebenskraft (life force) [...] to this subtle medicinal disease the life force needs to use no more secondary effect than necessary [...] 'the life force appears to strive to assert its superiority by extinguishing the alterations' [...] Hahnemann spoke of the essential role of life force in the Preface to the introduction of the 6th Organon in 1842 [...] 'homeopathy is aware that a cure can only succeed through the counteract on of the life force against the correctly chosen medicine. The stronger the life force that still prevails in the patient the more certain and faster the cure that takes place' [...per 'vital force'] so that the vital force never receives the same exact dose twice in succession. In this way, the vital force can receive the single dose or a series of doses in medicinal solution without the aggravations witnessed in the dry or unmodified liquid dose [...] once again we see the importance of the balance of the primary action of the remedy and curative response of the vital force [...] against which the instinctive vital force was compelled to direct an increased amount of energy [...] compelling the vital force to act [...] the aggravation of symptoms compels the vital force to act [...] this medicinal disease alters the vital force [...] will soon be extinguished by the vital force [...] the idea of a crisis-like aggravation compelling the vital force to increase its energy [...] an increase of energy of the vital force [...] the vital force directs its whole energy [...] the vital force heals the pathology in stages [...] the instinctive vital force [...] it may mistune the vital force [...] here the vital force is compelled to produce an antagonistic secondary action [...] in homeopathy the vital force is exposed to a very small dose [...] the curative reaction of the vital force is not disrupted by the repetition of the minimal size [...] the lebenskraft (vital force) [...] the vital force removes no mistuning [...] the vital force is moving toward the cure."

Note: HANP informs us "the practitioner of homeopathy must be well versed in the science of the body in both health and disease [...] an increasing body of scientific research is proving the potent biological action of homeopathic preparations" [vsc 2010-12-08]:.  This is false. A member list can be found here.

003. at The Guardian, Ben Goldacre writes in "Mutual Criticism is Vital in Science. Libel Laws Threaten It" (2010-12-08):

"in science and medicine, criticizing each others' ideas and practices [...is] exactly what you are supposed to do, all of the time [...] medicine is almost unique among all human activities in that it's possible to do enormous harm even when you set out with the absolute best of intentions [...] in medicine, when you make a mistake about whether something works or not, it's possible to cause death and suffering on a genuinely biblical scale.  That's why we have systems to try and stop us making such mistakes, and at the heart of all these lies mutual criticism: criticizing each others ideas and practices. This isn't something that's marginal, or tolerated by the profession. It's something that is welcomed and actively encouraged. More than that, it's institutionalized [...] in a BBC World Service documentary out today – made with the BBC Radio science unit, rather than current affairs – we explain why science is different, and why it is dangerous to have laws that restrict the everyday scrutiny of each others' ideas and practices that scientists and doctors necessarily engage in [...] Discovery: Science and Libel is on the BBC World Service [about 28 minutes...] you can listen again online through the BBC iPlayer."

Note: hear, hear.  It, it.  Again, again.

'The Fish Oil For Memory Pseudoscience Soap Opera' - Goldacre in The Guardian, 2010-07-10

Ben Goldacre writes in "Fish Oil Salesmen Find EU in the Way" (2010-07-10):

"[regarding the European Food and Safety Authority's page Nutrition and Health Claims] the first thing I typed in was fish oil [...which is] a long-running pseudoscience soap opera [...and fish oil is] the bestselling food supplement in the UK, in a global $55bn (£37bn) market [...anyhoo] pharmaceuticals company Vifor Pharma wants to claim that Eye Q fish oil capsules improve working memory in children, and so sent in references to six studies [...well] two of the six studies were conducted in children with developmental co-ordination disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [so don't count...and] three of the six studies did not look at working memory [so don't count etc....] this does not feel like compelling evidence [...and] I don't think this is a regulator being unfair. What is unfair is taking these [manufacturer] claims at face value [...] many of us enjoy pretending to ourselves that pills have proven medical effects, even though we kind of know the claims aren't for real [...] you'll never stop companies making these claims. You'll never stop people enjoying their claims. This game is at least 200 years old. The best solution I can see is an EU-mandated bullshit box, where people can say what they want about their product, consumers can join in, but the game is clearly labelled."

Note: reminds me of the spurious referencing that NDs do academically.  NDs simply ignore findings that refute their claims.  E.g., NDs ignore the fact that their essential vitalism and supernaturalism are hugely science-ejected for several decades and a few centuries [respectively, minimally].

ND Education as "On Par" via Ingram (ND NCNM 2006) - No, I think Not

here, I cite from a recent article by ND Ingram at Citizen-Times.com which states that ND education is comparable to MD/DO and post-graduate doctoral-level science education, and who demands full disclosure from nonAANP ND competitors while himself not transparently communicating naturopathy's true, science-ejected, sectarian nature and context [see 001., below]; I then visit the web pages of the Ingrams and the NCANP [see 002., 003. below]; their alma mater NCNM and their licensing board OBNM [see 004., below]; and then I muse [see 005., below]:

001. Ingram, G. (ND NCNM 2006) [and Ingram, M. (ND NCNM)] state in "Naturopathic Doctors Convene on Capitol Hill" (2010-05-11) [vsc 2010-05-14]:

"local naturopathic doctors Glenn and Marty Ingram joined with 170 other doctors, students and supporters of naturopathic medicine [...] to lobby for the inclusion of naturopathic physicians in federal health care initiatives [their FLI...is an] event organized by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...] naturopathic doctors are licensed as primary care physicians [...] their schools and degree, by Department of Education standards, are on par with those of an MD or DO [...e.g.] doctorate-level education including supervised clinical training [...] graduates of accredited 4-year post-graduate programs who pass national board exams [...] naturopathic physicians [...] bring valuable expertise [...they] facilitate the inherent ability of the human body to maintain and restore optimal health [coded vitalism...it] focuses on correcting the root cause of illness [coded vitalism...] the North Carolina Association of Naturopathic Physicians (NCANP) has been working diligently for licensure over the last decade [...] the public is entitled to full disclosure about the education and training of practitioners to whom they entrust their health [...these NDs] practice at Through the Woods Natural Health in Pisgah Forest (www.throughwoods.com)."

Note: so, we're promised that the ND education is doctoral and typical for physicianship per "on par," that the naturopathic is valuable, and -- here's where my irony meter goes off the dial -- though the vitalistic / actual science-ejected sectarian underpinnings of naturopathy are coded here by these AANP NDs, we're to believe that AANP naturopathy is all about transparency per a demanded "full disclosure."   And, the NDs get to promote themselves through the article without an ounce of criticism / counterpoint.  This article is an advertisement disguised as journalism just as naturopathy is a sectarian belief system disguised as scientific.

002. the Ingrams, at their practice homepage page [vsc 2010-05-14], state:

"the overall mission of Through the Woods Natural Health is to improve the health of individuals, the community, and the world at large [how noble...] we educate people so they can take control of their own healthcare [...] naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of medicine that uses lifestyle changes and natural therapies to stimulate the body’s own healing process [coded vitalism / contextual opacity...per] the underlying cause of your symptoms [...] principles: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process [coded vitalism...#2, we] acknowledge, respect, and work with the individual’s self-healing process [coded vitalism...#4] naturopathic physician encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development [some kind of New-Agey supernaturalism...] naturopathic doctors complete four years of post-graduate education at an accredited naturopathic medical school. Naturopathic doctors are trained in conventional medical sciences, diagnosis, and treatment [science claim] in addition to nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, and physical medicine [...] licensure will help the public differentiate between different practitioners so they may make an informed decision for their health care needs. Both Dr. Glenn and Dr. Marty hold licenses to practice as naturopathic physicians in the state of Oregon [...] the first visit is spent getting to know each other, introducing naturopathic philosophy [...] we use homeopathic remedies [...] homeopathy is just one tool that a naturopathic doctor may use. A specific homeopathic remedy is chosen for you based on your symptoms, personality, and overall patterns of dis-ease.  A homeopathic remedy helps you respond to stress in a more efficient way."

Note: so, a distinct system based upon opacity. Again, my irony meter is in danger of exploding.  If naturopathy cared about the consumer, per "informed decision," I think it would actually transparently communicate its context.  I'll talk about the NCNM philosophy below.  And obviously naturopathy loves homeopathy, homeopathy, homeopathy.

003. the mentioned NCANP's states at its pages:

003.a. 'homepage' [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"naturopathic medicine is a primary health care profession [...] the naturopathic perspective views each person as a whole [coded supernaturalism] and recognizes the healing force within each individual. Natural therapies are used to support and stimulate that vital healing force [coded vitalism...] naturopathic therapies include clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, physical medicine and lifestyle counseling."

Note: so, there's coded vitalism [though "vital healing force" is actually quite an accurate representation of their 'vital force'] and supernaturalism, homeopathic nonsense, and the claim of professionalism.

003.b. "The History of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"the naturopathic profession is committed to on-going scientific research and development. Today's practitioners add to the growing body of research by incorporating modern scientific methods that expand the understanding of the mechanisms of natural healing and therapeutics. Ongoing research in immunology, diagnosis, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, psychology and other clinical sciences contribute to the development of naturopathic medicine."

Note: again, the claim of professionalism and science.  Actually, the truth of the matter is that science has ejected that which is essentially naturopathic.

003.c. "The Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"[#1] the healing power of nature. Naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherit self-healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent [...] this inherent self-healing process [...] acknowledge, respect and work with the individual's self-healing process [all coded vitalism...] doctor as teacher. Naturopathic physicians educate their patients [...] treat the whole person [...] since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development [PSD is naturopathy's supernaturalism, in part]."

Note: so, coded vitalism, PSD sectarian whatever, and this claim of educator / teacher. 

003.d. "How is a Licensible Naturopath Trained?" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"NDs are trained in medical sciences."

Note: yes, those post-graduate doctoral-level science experts known as NDs.

004. meanwhile, in Oregon:

004.a. NCNM, the alma mater of the Ingrams, states in "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...they] stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm, primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

Note: now THERE is the full monty.  And it is INSANE: the hugely for decades science-ejected is claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  That is naturopathy's MO.

004.b. OBNM states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...that are] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...naturopathy's] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...because] illness is a purposeful process of the organism.  The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college with admission requirements comparable to those of conventional medical schools [...] they are educated in conventional medical sciences."

Note: wow, .gov propaganda and pseudoscience galore.  Straight out of 1984, but instead of war being peace, science is now nonscience.

005. so, is naturopathy "on par" with doctoral level medical and science education?

well, lets think: naturopathy codes its actual premises so the public is unable to make an informed decision about engaging with it.  That knocks it out of the box of professionalism.  Naturopathy claims that that which is well outside that-which-is-scientific is indeed scientific fact.  That makes it absurd.  So no.  Not on par at all. 

In fact, it appears that naturopathy has been a recipient of quite a HUGE degree of charity regarding its absurdity posed as professional doctoral-level rigor: engage in commerce clinically and academically under false pretenses, with huge support from academic and licensure regulatory agencies.

Ben Goldacre has an interesting piece up about whistle-blowers.  I'm hoping that the eventual crack-down on naturopathy [which I see as inevitable] is previous to some kind of clinical malpractice harm someone suffers at their hands.  The academic malpractice harm, well, that's ongoing -- obviously.

Naturopathy, Its Homeopathy, and Bad Scholarship - Goldacre via BMJ Group:

here, I first show how homeopathy is essential to naturopathy [see 001., below]; then I cite from a recent Guardian article from the British Medical Journal Group [BMJG] which quotes Ben Goldacre's testimony [see 002., below]; and finally I provide examples of naturopathy's scholastic negligence / absurdity:

001. naturopathy's essential homeopathy: 

001.a. the NCCAM states in "Homeopathy: An Introduction":

"homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics) [...] critics argue that continuing the scientific study of homeopathy is not worthwhile [hear, hear...] homeopathy is also part of the medical [huh?] education for naturopathy [...] national certification may be obtained through organizations such as [...] the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians [HANP]." 

001.b. the current president of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges is "a diplomate of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians (DHANP)".

001.c. AANMC states in "Naturopathic Medicine FAQs":

"naturopathic medicine combines many methodologies [...including] homeopathy [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training [...including in] homeopathic medicine."

002. the Guardian's "MPs Criticized Homeopathy This Week. What's Their Evidence?" states:

"the theory that homeopathic remedies become more powerful the more they're diluted isn't supported by scientific evidence [...] Dr. Ben Goldacre said: 'if you look at all of the trials in the whole, collectively, what you see when you look at the best-quality trials is that homeopathy pills work no better than placebo pills. You can select individual trials and say: we have got this individual trial, or even ten individual trials, which show that it works, but if you cherry-pick your literature and pick out only the positive results and ignore the unfavorable results, you can make any treatment work, including ones that are known to be ineffective or even dangerous. That is just bad scholarship.'"

003. the bad scholarship / scholastic negligence of naturopathy: 

I cannot emphasize HOW BAD naturopathy is, academically speaking.  Now, here are two examples from my personal experience in a naturopathy school: 

003.a. the labeling of the profoundly science-ejected as science: 

e.g., here's my alma mater, the University of Bridgeport, which states clearly that naturopathy is both essentially vitalistic and essentially supernatural, and simultaneously essentially scientific.  Wow. 

003.b. the labeling of the profoundly sectarian as nonsectarian: 

e.g. here's that same school stating that it is nonsectarian while adhering to profoundly sectarian science-ejected dogma.

Note: and what's really fascinating about naturopathy, from the AANMC down, is that they do not most of the time clearly indicate what they essentially are all about.  For instance, that AANMC page I've cited in 001.c. does not transparently communicate naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism, though it does state naturopathy's essential supernaturalism.

This is not much different from a homeopath giving you an empty pill and not telling you so.

That, by the way, is something I had had to do in school at UB.  I found it so ethically revolting that I stopped pursuit of that ND absurdity, and as an extension of my academic duty, began exposing their gross falsehood / scholastic negligence.