Regarding Marketplace and Homeopathy: Naturopathy Offers Silence As Defense of Their Science-Mislabeled Homeopathy [and we should picket their upcoming NPLEX testings!]

here, I remind that North American naturopathy claims that homeopathy is a clinical science [see 001., below]; then, I cite from two criticisms of that not-science-at-all [see 002., below]; then I muse [see 003., below]:

001. the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners [NABNE] states in "About NPLEX":

"the Core Clinical Science Examination now required by every state and province that regulates the practice of naturopathic medicine. [...] a case-based examination that covers the following topics [...included is] homeopathy."

Note: hey, NABNE's homepage has a 2011-02-01 through 2011-02-04 NPLEX exam set listed.  I suggest that skeptical activists demonstrate at these locations in the name of the public trust.

002. two criticisms of recent importance explicitly stating that homeopathy is a delusion:

002.a. in Canada 2011:

the CBC program Marketplace investigated homeopathy and schwacked it in a manner it truly deserves [someone has posted a Youtube clip of it].

002.b. in the UK 2009:

the UK government's investigation into homeopathy similarly schwacked it in a manner it truly deserves.

003. what has naturopathy said?

nothing specific, and I've looked.  I'll keep looking and perhaps I'll find something.

  now, if homeopathy truly was a science in a truly scientific sense, I'd think it would be quite easy to have both sources I've cited in 002. retract their schwackings once naturopathy presented the stuff that makes a science a science -- evidence.  But, that HUGE SILENCE speaks volumes concerning just how disparate actual science is from naturopathy's 'anything-is-scientific' evidenceless context.

Homeopathy: The Quackometer vs. NABNE

here, I contrast labels concerning homeopathy.  There's is the skeptical, science-minded person who regards homeopathy as pseudoscience [see 001., below] and there's the credulous, sectarian, science and nonscience conflating pseudoprofession [naturopathy] that regards pseudoscience as science [see 002., below]:

001. Andy Lewis writes on his Quackometer blog in "Can Homeopathy Cure Mastitis in Cows?"(2010-09-12):

"a new study has been published in The Journal of Dairy Research looking at if you can use homeopathy to treat mastitis in cattle. The paper fails to demonstrate that you can. And as such, that is not a surprise. These cows will have been given water drops as if it is medicine: homeopathy is a superstitious hang-over from 18th Century ways of thinking about health. Of course it does not work. What is surprising is that the homeopathic world is again leaping on this negative study as if it is proof of the positive benefits of homeopathic pseudoscience [...] this paper will be added to the large pile of junk science that is used to promote the nonsense of ultra-dilutions [...] this is how homeopathy continues. Weak or non–existent evidence is trumpeted as success."

Note: hear, hear.

002. meanwhile, in naturopathyland, naturopathy's licensure test-administration wing, the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners, claims in "About NPLEX" [vsc 2010-09-12]:

"the first NABNE administration of the Part I - Basic Science Examinations was in January 2000, and the first NABNE administration of the Part II - Clinical Science Examinations was in August 2000 [...] the Core Clinical Science Examination now required by every state and province that regulates the practice of naturopathic medicine [i.e., U.S. and Canada]. The Core Clinical Science Examination is a case-based examination that covers the following topics [...including] homeopathy."

Note: so, there we have quite opposite labels upon what truly is archaic nonsense [pseudoscience, science].  I find naturopathy's labels of 'science, science, science' to be quite nonsensical: after all, naturopathy, by its own definition, does not make a distinction concerning what is within and what is exterior-to science, and yet naturopathy is quite happy to falsely label that thought-muddle science and trade upon the misrepresentation.

ND Maloney, Homeopathy, and Coded Vitalism - The Baloney He Doesn't Transparently Reveal

here, I survey the web pages of ND Maloney.  First, there are his claims that homeopathy-naturopathy are scientific, along with NABNE-NPLEX's [see 001., below]; then, his coded vitalism as well as use of NCNM to decode it [see 002., below]; then, the irresistible [see 003., below]:

001. homeopathy is thoroughly enmeshed / melded with naturopathy [thus homeopathy-naturopathy here] and claimed to be science:

001.a. Maloney writes in "Homeopathy":

"homeopathy should be considered both scientific and validated."

Note: here [vsc 2010-07-23] it is live. It is archived c2004 here [vsc 2010-07-23].

001.b.  here [vsc 2010-07-23] is Maloney describing the ND-requisite and elective homeopathy he studied at NCNM [8 courses total]; here [vsc 2010-07-23] is the NPLEX ND board exam similarly labeling homeopathy "science" many times.

001.c. "Who Am I?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I am a doctor [...] my education [miseducation!...] four year medical degree [false, he has a naturopathic degree] from National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland, Oregon; national science boards and clinical medicine boards [false, the national science standards do not include the science-ejected]."

 

Note: science, science, science supposedly.

001.d. and to be scientifically clear about homeopathy, to quote a recent post by Dr. Novella at Science-Based Medicine (see here):

"homeopathy is having a bad year. From a scientific point of view, it has had a couple of bad centuries. The progress of our scientific understanding of biology, chemistry, and physics has failed to confirm any of the core beliefs of homeopathy. Like does not cure like (this is a form of superstition known as sympathetic magic, with no basis in science). Diluting substances does not make them stronger – a notion that violates the chemical law of mass action and the laws of thermodynamics. And countless clinical studies have shown that homeopathic preparations are nothing more than placebos. That homeopathy cannot work and does not work is settled science, as much as it is possible for science to be settled."

Note: not science, preponderantly.  I'm sure naturopathy will ignore this fact, and continue to live in their own private Idaho, wherein the science-ejected and -unsupported is falsely labeled science and fraudulently traded upon.

002. the coded vitalism of ND Maloney and vitalism in its full ugliness at his alma mater, NCNM:

002.a. several Maloney pages describe naturopathy without actually transparently describing naturopathy's essential, science-ejected, vitalistic 'healing' context:

002.a1. "Who Am I?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I believe the body can heal itself [coded vitalism] if given the proper support."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.a2. "What Will I Do?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I acknowledge and work with the body's ability to heal [coded vitalism...] naturopathic treatment philosophy [...#6] the body, supported, heals itself [coded vitalism]."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.a3. his ND Sectarian Creed, along with its coded vitalism, also occurs in the archived page, "Services" wherein we're ONLY told, again:

"naturopathic philosophy of practice [...#6] the body, supported, heals itself."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.b. but here's the Rosetta Stone, so to speak, of all this opacity / coding. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#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."

Note: but, there simply isn't a life force aka 'purposeful life spirit' even though NCNM on the same page states it survives scientific scrutiny per "these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."  

Q: when is a sectarian figment 'objectively observed' and a scientific fact?  

A: in naturoland, the pseudoscience, the pseudoprofession.

003. lets call this whole thing [as it is irresistible, I must admit]:

Maloney Baloney.