Crislip on Naturopathy at PortlandTribune.com: "Pre-scientific, Pseudoscientific, Magical Thinking"

here, I cite from a guest editorial Dr. Mark Crislip did in response to an April article concerning 'naturopaths as primary care providers' at PortlandTribune.com [see 001., below]; then, I provide that April article's link as hosted by NCNM  [see 002., below]; and the OBNM iteration of naturopathy's essential absurdity [see 003., below];

001. Dr. Crislip writes in "Guest Opinion: Naturopathy Providers Water Down Health Care" (2010-05-20) [vsc 2010-05-22]:

"regarding the Tribune story 'Paging Dr. Alternative' (April 1), naturopaths should not be primary care providers or prescribe medications. Their training and experience in biologic sciences and clinical medicine are inadequate [...] in the end it is the underlying paradigm of naturopathic education – pseudoscience and magic – that precludes their functioning as primary care providers [...] fundamental to the naturopathic curriculum is the teaching of magic: Homeopathy. Water therapy. Reiki. Energy Therapy. Craniosacral manipulation. Acupuncture. All are based on a supernatural or pseudoscientific understanding of reality with no basis in known anatomy, physiology, chemistry, biochemistry or physics. They offer nothing beyond a meager placebo effect [...e.g.] homeopathic nostrums are pure water [...] a ritualistic form of magic [...and] a mainstay of naturopathic training [...such] pre-scientific, pseudoscientific, magical thinking that [...] health care in the U.S. has numerous problems for which I have no solutions, but that is not a validation of naturopathy. Naturopathy has to stand or fall on its own principles and practices [...] Mark Crislip, MD, is an editor for the Science Based Medicine blog and the producer of the Quackcast, voted 2009 best Health and Medicine podcast."

Note: hear, hear.  I heartily agree, and I did four years in ND school. I'd add to the phrase "underlying paradigm of naturopathic education, pseudoscience and magic" though: "falsely posed as science."  See, naturopathy is fraud / a racket: no matter how much science they study, there are sectarian science-ejected figmentations that over-arch the entire naturopathic context BY OATH.

002. the 2010-04-01 article is titled "Paging Dr. Alternative: State Pushing Naturopaths to Fill Shortage in Primary Care" [NCNM, likely pleased, hosts that copy though it is not text-searchable] [vsc 2010-05-22].

Note: so, the State of Oregon is promoting naturopathy fraud just like the naturopathy apparatus.

003. the State of Oregon and unrepentant naturopathic sectarian absurdity:

here's the completely insane ".gov" site for 'Oregon naturopathy central,' the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine's "Naturopathy," wherein the profoundly science-ejected [e.g., "methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force"] is falsely labeled as able to survive scientific scrutiny [e.g., "continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis"].  And such legislated fraud is labeled professional.

004. Crislip's bio. states:

"Mark Crislip, MD has been a practicing infectious disease specialist in Portland, Oregon, since 1990."

Note: so Dr. Crislip is at the heart of the naturopathic world, since Portland hosts the AANMC's oldest school.

SBM on Naturopathy This NMW 2010

here, I cite from a post by Dr. Crislip at Science-Based Medicine in response to the anti-vaxx. rant of a self-described ND:

001. Mark Crislip, M.D. states in "Nine Questions: Nine Answers"(2010-05-07):

"David Mihalovic, ND [...has written] '9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims' [...] the vaccine questions are grounded in misinformation, ignorance or laziness [...] Mr. Mihalovic [hear, hear per 'Mr.'] identifies himself as 'a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research.' However, just where the research is published is uncertain as his name yields no publications on Pubmed.  BTW, I specialize in  beer research.  Same credentials [hear, hear (my credentials sit in front of my rectus abdominis!)...] as long as we are on the topic, since he evidently places great store in science, could Mihalovic please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of naturopathy? [...] could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of naturopathy? [...] Milhalovic,  could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to naturopathy? [...] Milhalovic, could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of naturopathic nostrums in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any naturopathic nostrum study? [...] could you please provide scientific justification as to how applying naturopathy to a human being is beneficial to human health and prevents disease? [...] I am neither stumped not defeated. I know how to search Pubmed for medical information. My response directed specifically to the questions. My arguments are based on modern studies that a 12 year old can find in less than a minute, none of which have been disproved once, much less over and over. SBM is an open mainstream venue. I do feel like I just had won Jeopardy playing against Prof. R.J. Gumby; where is the honor in that? And people wonder why I question the wisdom of allowing naturopaths to function as primary care providers."

Note: well, I can't place this ND in terms of credentials.  But, I'll keep my eyes open.  The posture is ridiculous, because the science behind vaccination is quite robust. Naturopathy itself is hugely misinforming, ignorant, and lazy can be a great umbrella for their overall lack of rigor.  My basic position is that since the naturopathic is the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural, Dr. Crislip's 'science support' cannot occur.  Whatever naturopathy can generate regarding actual science legitimacy does not concern the 'essentially naturopathic,' it concerns items borrowed from stand-alone areas of inquiry that naturopathy has subsumed and gerrymandered.