ND Maloney on Homeopathy: Whereby the Anecdotal Trumps Profound Scientific Consensus

here, I cite from a recent video up at Youtube by ND Maloney claiming that homeopathy's results are "dramatic and astonishing" [see 001., below]; then from Wikipedia's definition of anecdotal evidence [see 002., below]; and finally from a profound scientific consensus regarding homeopathy bunk [see 003., below]:

001. Maloney, C.L. (ND NCNM) states in his Youtube video "Homeopathy.MOD" [vsc 2011-03-21]:

"[from the description] Dr. Christopher Maloney, N.D., discusses homeopathy. Category: Science and Technology [...from the video] I want to talk to you very very briefly about homeopathy [...] I'm a very aggressive, very acute prescriber [...] I've seen it do things that are only explainable as a result of the homeopathic remedy [working beyond placebo...] I've seen acute infections go away over a three to five hour period.  I've seen ears drain in real time, you know, remedy in [then] ears drain. I have people who get significantly better within an hour of taking a remedy [...] when I'm giving people remedies, I'm expecting a result within 30-60 seconds because it's either going to hit them or not.  I'm not going for placebo effect.  If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.  We'll just try this one, and this one, and this one, and this one [...] I'm giving five, six, seven remedies in a row.  If it's a placebo effect, why didn't the first one, the second one, the third, forth, fifth, why this sixth one suddenly works? [...] the results are variable but they're dramatic and astonishing [...] I've given as far as twenty-one remedies to someone and then the twenty-first remedy kicks over.  I've had a child I've gave remedies to for two weeks and then finally got the right one and the wheeze stops pretty-much within 3 minutes of taking a remedy.  And at that point anyone who is explaining that to me as anything other than effect, I've tried forty other remedies on this kid.  This remedy, somehow my placebo action was just going right on this one?  I don't think so [as in not placebo, he claims].  This is an active pharmacological result [...] it's basically life-altering [...] I think I'm keeping that around."

Note: homeopathy is not a science or technology category, folks.  But anyway, ND Maloney appears quite convinced that homeopathic remedies are 'active pharmacologically', causing "dramatic and astonishing" results.  This is, though, ALL ANECDOTAL, as his account has illustrated.  The repetitive attempts [fails] remind me of a psychic cold-reading their mark.  In so many attempts, that psychic eventually gets a hit and that is what is remembered.  ND Maloney may have some seriously gullible and patient patients if he's being allowed to try forty homeopathic remedies [as if they can be distinguished / are fundamentally different based on their empty contents!] on a child who is ill.

002. a definition of anecdotal evidence via Wikipedia [which is good enough]:

"in science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as: 'information that is not based on facts or careful study, non-scientific observations or studies [...] reports or observations of usually unscientific observers, casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis, information [...] not documented scientifically' [...it's] considered the least credible [...it is never] validating evidence [...as it lacks a] reliability by objective independent assessment [...] the term is [obviously therein] often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts [...while] anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a 'typical' experience; statistical evidence [quite more formal] can more accurately determine how typical something is [...] in science and logic, the 'relative strength of an explanation' is based upon its ability to be tested, proven to be due to the stated cause, and verified under neutral conditions in a manner that other researchers will agree has been performed competently, and can check for themselves [...e.g.] in medicine [...] only double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials can confirm a hypothesis about the effectiveness of a treatment independently of expectations [...] anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence [...] misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy [...] a common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second [...or] inductive reasoning [...] a faulty or hasty generalization [...] selected individual cases prove nothing [...because] anecdotes often refer to the exception, rather than the rule [...] 'anecdotes are useless precisely because they may point to idiosyncratic responses [... ] 'the plural of anecdote is not data'."

Note: so, even a guy on Youtube wearing scrubs calling himself doctor, speaking about his own apparently successful clinical experience with a supposedly specifically active therapy such as homeopathy, is relying on THE WORST KIND of support regarding that intervention.

003. that consensus:

the United Kingdom's "Evidence Check" of homeopathy was HUGELY dismissive of the entire homeopathic endeavor.  It stated:

"there has been enough testing of homeopathy and plenty of evidence showing that it is not efficacious. Competition for research funding is fierce and we cannot see how further research on the efficacy of homeopathy is justified in the face of competing priorities."

Note: ouch.  I cannot imagine a greater disparity: ND Maloney says in his experience homeopathy works [anecdote], but the scientific consensus is that it is profoundly bunk [rigor].

004. musing:

I think this is an excellent example of why medicine benefits from EXCLUSION of practitioner and patient informal experience [anecdote] and replaces such with a more rigorous evidence- and science- basis [formal investigation].  Otherwise, crap therapeutics appear to work when if fact they don't. Now, ND Maloney has taken a licensing exam that presently labels homeopathy "science", and his alma mater claims that the science-ejected is indeed within science -- as an overall worldview.  So, in my opinion, ND Maloney's use of homeopathy and his faith in it is merely a symptom of naturopathy's knowledge-basis problems.

would you visit a physician who was trained NOT to distinguish what genuinely has effect from what is an empty pill / bunk, whose knowledge-basis laxly blends the rigorous scientific and the nonsensical science-ejected and then labels the whole thing "dramatic and astonishing" and rigorously scientifically supported [I think that's what is implicit at ND Maloney's alma mater's regulator in Oregon, OBNM]?

The ND Douche Who Doesn't Answer Me and Makes Crap Up About Me

here, I reiterate my request to ND Maloney that he retract his claim that I flunked out of the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic [False] Medicine [see 001., below]:

001. so here are the screen-captures:

Note: I've had no response so far.

spaceScat is FINALLY noticed by ND Maloney [that ass!]

here, I cite from and notate a [crazy, NOT FU**ING PAYING ATTENTION!] post by ND Maloney regarding a song we recorded about him [I find it very ironic that ND Maloney is accusing P.Z. Myers of defamation, and yet engages HUGELY in such with me; remember, defamation is about stuff that is NOT TRUE and hurts one's character!]:

001. ND Maloney states in "Wow! I’ve Got My Own Song Now!" [vsc 2011-01-18; that means video screen captured in-case of slimyness a**hole!!!]:

"as a disclaimer, I never attended U of Bridgeport

[he attended National, the school of 'epistemic conflation' and science-mislabeling nonsense at the heart of naturopathyland].

The individual involved has no specific knowledge of me

[I do have SOME knowledge, particularly in terms of his relationship with MD Novella and P.Z. Myers and their bickering],

and appears to carry a strong grudge against my profession

[naturopathy is as much a pseudoprofession as it is a pseudoscience!!!].

There’s someone who flunked out of University of Bridgeport 

[ND Maloney is now stating quite a hurtful falsehood concerning me, as in defamation of character; as my UB days were outright fraud and I voluntarily left there without an ounce of accusation against me, as in 'left in good standing'; and I sued their Telfon-coated a**es to no avail since apparently the Connecticut judiciary protects them; so maybe we'll just consider suing Maloney for this 'flunked out invention' one day!]

who has spent the last ten years trying to get back at them

[no, I'm more concerned with public enlightenment of that fraud aka naturopathy]

and has now decided I merit not only continued harassment

 [huh?]

but my own song?

[yes, you get your own song, no charge -- but continued harassment?  Please, lets not get too exaggerated!  YOU you just libeled ME!  A**...]

evidently I need to be immortalized

 [all naturopathy frauds need such fame!  In fact this blog is dedicated to immortalizing naturopathy's absurd position which includes within science what's nonscience, and then trades on that]

in what sounds like a very cool (ala Grateful Dead)

[I think that's a complement!]

very disturbed response

[really?  I think we're rather avante!]

to my request that he remove any of my information from his blog

[huh? A**!  You don't own information you post in PUBLIC, or that you communicate to me through Facebook - a SOCIAL site].

I should like to point out that this was instead of write back to me like an adult

[that's Maloney's cave-man like grammar, folks! but such is forgiven...]

     I’m attaching links to his original lyrics, because I’m pretty good at deciphering song lyrics and he sounds like he’s been imbibing herbs in large quantities before singing

[actually, my naturopath buddy is the singer / song-writer a** and we're all quite sober!].

I think I could probably do better lyrics, so next time he should probably collaborate with me

[no thank you parasite! Find your own whining ND to write about].

[...] his lyrics involve some kind of relationship with me

[dream on!]

I simply contacted him to ask for permission to reprint a small portion of his blog for an upcoming book entitled:  “ND vs. MD” which would help people decide which path is the best fit for them

[bullsh*t, according to my transactions with ND Maloney on Facebook!  I think our contact involved more than that subject, a**!].

Here are the lyrics from his blog

[yes, these were ad-libbed by Lon (ND UBCNM) as we jammed, the original is here; what's hilarious is that Lon never read anything about Maloney beforehand and the song came about from a couple of minutes of me talking about the general situation wherein someone engages in a public forum and then whine about the fallout]:

“You told me the things you do

You’d video taped and shown it 

To everybody else

and you wanted some feedback

 I captured your comments 

and reposted them in blogspace

Somehow, you think I’ve violated you

And my ethics are in question 

but I’m really not concerned much

If you had something important to say

I’m sure it wouldn’t be so much about my approach

 About my approach to you 

and my handling 

of the things you say that you can do

The things you say your medicine does

The things that just probably are not true

Don’t tell me that I can’t tell you 

the things that I think of the things you do

You know sometimes people say the things 

they don’t even know about

sometimes they’re wrong too

I’m just taking what you said 

and putting it on blogspace

so don’t get all excited about that

 Don’t you have anything better to do

then make a big deal about me and you?

Don’t you know I care about 

the things you say and others too?

I want the truth, not a bunch of phooey

Not a bunch of phooey.”

[...]  here’s a link."

002. I'm loving it:

I transcribed Lon's ad-libbed lyrics and created the song title, and ND Maloney has repeated them!

  It's almost as good as shaking someone's hand after wiping your own a** with it, and then watching that person eat chocolates with that same hand [sad!!!; yeah Mallrats].

Or it's like someone snapping on their own mom [weird, crazy!!!].

The video up at that Vimeo link, by the way, shows a UB I-95 billboard that falsely labels UB naturopathy as science -- to this day.

That I can't believe: false commerce, nowhere close to fair trade, never mind supposed professionalism, abusing the public trust.

That's naturopathy for you.

It's also the cake-and-eat-it-too area, wherein:

someone claims victim-hood but has no problem defaming another quite overtly,

tries to argue specifically but doesn't pay attention to detail,

and where, overall something is labeled something it isn't.

[Hypocritical] Maloney is getting harassed by me as much as me getting 'flunked out' is true.

ND "Christopher Maloney is a Quack", Still [according to google.com]

well, when you do a google.com web search with the parameters >maloney quack<, you get these first-page results:

#1. 2010-12-08 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack" at scienceblogs.com's Thoughts From Kansas;

#2. 2010-02-17 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack" at scienceblogs.com's Pharyngula;

#3. 2010-02-18 - "Christopher Maloney: Still a Quack" at scienceblogs.com's Pharyngula;

#4. 2010-05-04 - "Christopher Maloney is still a QUACK!" at scienceblogs.com's Pharyngula;

#5. and #8. 2010-02-18 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack" at A Hot Cup of Joe;

#6. 2010-02-17 - "Christopher Maloney Is A Quack. [edit] But Maybe Not Censorious" at Popehat;

#7. 2010-12-08 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack" at Botswanna Skeptic;

#9. 2010-02-18 - "Naturopaths Can Silence Critics Too" at Neurologia;

#10. 2010-02-18 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack – For SHAME WordPress. Epic Fail" at One Furious Llama.

Note: and it goes on and on.  

I don't even rank in the top 100! I have seven Naturocrit pages regarding Maloney, by the way [this is the eighth], and I never called him a quack therein. I cited those who did, surely.

I take it that Myers will not be gifting ND Maloney this holiday season with his desired 'cease and desist': the deadline was the 2010-12-14 if you use Myer's posting date of 2010-12-07, or it was 2010-12-07 if you use the letter's as written date of 2010-11-30.

I must also add, Maloney called Atwood a quack [by post title] regarding Atwood's Medline piece, and engaged in quite obvious ad hominem.  The Medline papers are rock solid, in my view, and Atwood didn't get into the pigpen -- in terms of ungrounded personal attacks on competence and integrity.  But Maloney went the muddy way -- possibly libeling Atwood's "level of knowledge within his own area" -- and doesn't seem to have even read the entire Medline Atwood-published arc.

The irony is killing me: NCNM ND -- a place that irrationally labels the science-exterior and the science-interior as all the some kind of science stuff [a level of knowledge akin to forth grade?] -- who claims defamation,  apparently doesn't have a problem dishing it out.

Will PZ Myers "Cease and Desist" Concerning ND Maloney? - We'll Know This Week

here, I list some of the relevant pages in the ND Maloney - Pharyngula issue somewhat organized chronologically [as near as I can tell]:

2010-02-17 - Myers posts "Christopher Maloney is a Quack":

"Maloney is a naturopath in the state of Maine, where quacks like him get to call themselves 'doctors' [...] a student, Michael Hawkins, dared to criticize him, pointing out that 'naturopathic medicine is pure bull' and stating that naturopaths are under-qualified and do not deserve the title of 'doctor' [...] Maloney took action to silence him [...] not only is Maloney a quack, but he's a stupid quack [...] now a much bigger blog is going to spread the word that Christopher Maloney is a quack [...] let the whole world know that Christopher Maloney is a cowardly quack."

2010-02-17 - Popehat posts "Christopher Maloney Is A Quack. [edit] But Maybe Not Censorious";

2010-02-18 - Myers posts "Christopher Maloney: Still A Quack":

"that quack, Christopher Maloney, has written to me now... with a nice little edge of hysteria and paranoia [...] 'u can call me an idiot and a quack, but when you repeat the fact that I am not a doctor and not qualified, that is a written lie or libel. I am a doctor under Maine state law and meet the qualifications of that title' [...] the plot thickens. Maloney denies getting Hawkins' site shut down."

Note: related to this, Myer's posted on 2010-02-18 "Andreas Moritz is a Cancer Quack", Steve Novella posted on 2010-02-18 "Naturopaths Can Silence Critics Too" with Maloney using the name Quackalicious in the comments, and fellow ScienceBlogs.com blogger Orac posted on 2010-02-19 "Andreas Moritz and Trying to Shut Down Valid Scientific Criticism: A Sine Qua Non of a Quack" and fellow ScienceBlogs.com blogger Joshua Rosenau posted on 2010-12-08 "Christopher Maloney is a Quack".

2010-07-27 Steve Novella posts "Maloney Declares Victory":

"made clear by this exchange is the difference between the science-based approach and Maloney’s approach, which is typical of naturopaths. I look at all the evidence for plausibility, safety, and the reasonable potential for benefit. If I am convinced that I can offer my patients the probability of benefit in excess of harm, I will use a treatment (no matter how it is labeled) with proper informed consent. But I will then closely follow the evidence and will stop using a treatment if good clinical evidence is negative. Or I will start using a treatment when new evidence shows that it is safe and effective. Maloney, on the other hand, appears to trade in wild speculation. In my opinion he has demonstrated sloppy, black and white thinking, an inability to understand the implications of published research, a bias against science-based medicine, and a willingness to prescribe treatments based upon the flimsiest of scientific justifications. He then accuses me of being 'dismissive' and has the stones to declare victory in our exchange because I eventually tired of his evasiveness and crank tactics."

Note: Maloney's compilation is here.

2010-10-14 - Maloney posts "Quack Attack: An Explanation of the Attacks on Dr. Christopher Maloney";

2010-12-07 - Myers posts "I Get Mail":

"some people just don't get it. Christopher Maloney wants to silence a message he doesn't like on the internet by serving a cease and desist order. The last time I mentioned Maloney was eight months ago, and even then it was to point and laugh at his page throwing crazy paranoid accusations at me. So now [...] he has decided to stir the pot and remind everyone that Christopher Maloney is a quack and that he keeps on quacking? [...] once again, the web will start echoing the Christopher Maloney is a quack message. It must be handy for a quack to marry a lawyer, but I don't think she's giving him good advice in this case. You might as well serve a writ on the tides to stop flowing as ask the internet to erase a piece of its data."

Note: Maloney's compilation is here.

2010-12-08 - Popehat posts "If It Walks Like a Duck, and Censors Like a Duck...";

---

The deadline for the cease and desist request is 2010-12-14.  We'll see what happens this week.

"Ode to ND Maloney" - spaceScat 2010

After I'd gone through some 'Maloney tantrum' experience 2010-11 [see 001., below], spaceScat improvised a song during our jam that same month [see 002., below]:

001. Through Facebook, ND Maloney had said this to me:

"Dear Bob, I noticed that rather than actually continue our conversation, you took the time to post your excerpts (with snide comments) [here...] I can only take this to be the act of someone who lacks basic social skills. I must apologize to you, because I mistook you for an intellectual equal. My comments should not be taken out of context, and I do not give you permission to reprint any of our personal correspondence on your blog. You have shown yourself to be both unethical and underhanded. Christopher Maloney, N.D."

Note: oh well, lost another Facebook friend.  Damn!  Hmmmm, since when is Facebook, a SOCIAL site, personal anyway? And isn't my personal correspondence equally MINE?  Hmmmm...

002. Here's the song, embedded from Vimeo. First, though, I've transcribed the lyrics.  I don't do much with video, but the background picture of the video (from this Naturocrit post a year ago, here) is, for me, quite an accurate representation of naturopathy in this day and age [claimed as science when HUGELY not]:

"You told me the things you do

You'd video taped and shown it 

To everybody else

and you wanted some feedback

 I captured your comments 

and reposted them in blogspace

Somehow, you think I've violated you

And my ethics are in question 

but I'm really not concerned much

If you had something important to say

I'm sure it wouldn't be so much about my approach

 About my approach to you 

and my handling 

of the things you say that you can do

The things you say your medicine does

The things that just probably are not true

Don't tell me that I can't tell you 

the things that I think of the things you do

You know sometimes people say the things 

they don't even know about

sometimes they're wrong too

I'm just taking what you said 

and putting it on blogspace

so don't get all excited about that

 Don't you have anything better to do

then make a big deal about me and you?

Don't you know I care about 

the things you say and others too?

I want the truth, not a bunch of phooey

Not a bunch of phooey."

.

.

.

.

Thanks Popehat for your recent Maloney post, which got me off my ass to get this Naturocrit post together.

ND Maloney vs. MD Atwood - The Medline Piece and ND Deflective Nastiness:

here, I cite from a 2010-07 blog post by ND Maloney regarding the 2003 MedGenMed piece by Atwood:

001. Maloney, C. (ND NCNM 2002) states in "Christopher Maloney, Naturopathic Doctor, Responds to Medline Quack Attack on N.D.s" (2010-07-30) [vsc 2010-11-21]:

"'where there are idiots, there is idiocy' [hmmm, I wonder who he's talking about?]. The most definitive negative information about naturopathic medicine on Medline was published back in 2003 by Dr. Atwood [there as a 2004 follow-up, too...supposedly] this is not an objective piece of writing [...] in looking through the study [it's actually a review / analysis / commentary, and the original unfortunately isn't up anymore at MedGenMed, but its follow-up is here] that Dr. Atwood did to become the established expert [...] on naturopathic medicine [strawman?], I found that Dr. Atwood had read a book [I have the original paper, and no, it's not informed by 'a book', it has 53 bibliographical endnotes...] the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine [wrong book, it's the Textbook of Natural Medicine that's referenced, which makes up 8 of those 53 endnotes...which is] a compilation of articles for the lay public [...] we must assume that Dr. Atwood is only as well informed as the lay public about naturopathic medicine [really?...and basically opines that Atwood lacks] the proper humility common to all good clinicians [oh snap!...] I do not need to clarify this contrast with what Dr. Atwood did.  His expertise is in internal medicine, but by claiming expertise based on a single book reading I begin to doubt his level of knowledge within his own area.  Anyone who feels comfortable expressing such definitive opinions with such little information seems unlikely to be exploring his own area with a great deal of diligence [seeing as how Maloney didn't actually read the actual study he is taking umbrage with, apparently, I think this is quite an ironic insult...] Dr. Atwood is unpublished in his own field [...and] seems unable to meet the standards necessary for peer review publication of a contribution within internal medicine [...] if Dr. Atwood were serious about studying naturopathic medicine [etc.]."

Note: so, it appears that ND Maloney only read the article's abstract and assumed its source.  Maloney's defense / rebuttal of the contents of the Medline pieces is, therein, uninformed character assassination / ad hominem.  He has not addressed anything substantive.  How can he, without having read the actual article!  He has accomplished nothing here but to spotlight the very thing about himself that he accuses another of: intellectual laziness.

This type of uninformed condescension / deflective nastiness makes sense, though, if you were part of a cultic group that has trained you to defensively prevent yourself from exposure to criticism of your group's contents.

A Facebook Conversation With ND Maloney [wherein he awards me a gold medal]

here, I share a textual exchange I had with ND Maloney that occurred through Facebook in August of this year [see 001., below]; then I talk a little bit about his alma mater NCNM [see 002., below]:

001. ND Maloney [ND NCNM 2002] (this is his practice page) began the exchange [my comments are centered in blue, the original exchange is right justified]:

"[the ND] I read through your some of your UB stuff and it sounds like you got a bum rap

[a bum rap is usually when you are accused of something you didn't do, so I don't really know what he's saying here because I've not been accused of anything, I'm the accuser]

[...] I'm writing a book [...] the goal is not ultimately to promote or trash anything, it's to make sure stuff like what happened to you doesn't happen to anyone else 

[perhaps he is writing a book; how nice to engage in some kind of education consumer protection; perhaps it is like this ND's book on naturopathy (ISBN 0977655245)]

[...] I don't disagree with anything you wrote

[oh, I think we disagree on a lot of things! E.g.: you practice homeopathy, apparently!]

[...and he asks me some questions (Q)...here are my answers (A) to a few]

Q: "Trashing." A: If anything is being trashed, it is science,  professional standards, human rights, and ethical rigor -- by naturopathy.

Q: "Some people shouldn't become N.D.s." A: Since 'the naturopathic' is essentially an irrational ruse, NOBODY should.

Q: I wondered if you'd mind if I provided a link to your site to give people a sense of the philosophical issues involved. A: My web pages are public, and it is well within fair-use rights to link to them or excerpt from them.

Q: The goal is not ultimately to promote or trash anything. A: I'd hope, if you are dealing with something 'professional,' that your goal is to promote the highest standards of professionalism. Such neurality [sp., 'neutrality']is epistemic cowardice.

Q: It's to make sure stuff like what happened to you doesn't happen to anyone else. A: That would be solved by stopping the false labelings going on by naturo.

[...and regarding a video he has up, I responded] now that I've seen the video [...] I'm rather disturbed by your admission that the naturo. route allows you to freely experiment on patients while, preponderantly, the health care system has constructed 'ethical safeties' in this modern era to protect vulnerable patients from experimental situations which may violate many human rights accords

[...the ND] goodness, now I'm a Nazi. Of course not. I have to meet the same ethical standards as the state M.D.s

[...me] I don't think naturo. has anywhere near the ethical standards of 'state M.D.s.' Take homeopathy for instance: pills with nothing in them, claimed to be medications. Or vital force and other supernatural figmentations claiming to be scientific fact

[yup; and, criticism of regular medicine still can't justify naturopathy]

[...the ND] have a look at the Wikipedia definition of the scientific method. It doesn't say anywhere that you should start out with an angry, closed mind. A closed mind in this case involves a belief system surrounding your experiences with naturopathic medicine and evidently a whole lot of false assumptions about conventional medicine

[I'm not angry, I'm appalled; my mind isn't closed because I've no dogma but a desire for evidence concerning naturopathy's claims; and my ideas about modern medicine still wouldn't excuse naturopathy, whose actions and contents must stand or fall on their own merit]

[...] I have no interest in debating the various aspects of naturopathic medicine with you. I would love for you to take that formidable intellect and point it toward your own sacred cow, modern medicine [...] it’s a corrupt system run by people making a profit, and it’s killing a lot of people

[if there are problems concerning modern medicine, they still do not excuse naturopathy; naturopathy which is so corrupt in terms of its ideas; and I'm sure you make money doing it]

[...] don’t you understand that regardless of your degree you are desperately needed to help oppose the catastrophic health care crisis we’re in right now? Forget the philosophy. It’s about doing some common sense things to help people. You could have spent the last eight years becoming the expert you should be in alternative medicine

[ah, but 'philosophy is the guide of life'; and I am an expert in naturopathy]

[...] it is an obscene waste of your brainpower to spend it deconstructing the idiots in any profession

[how about a pseudoprofession of idiocy]

[...] a big thank you from all of us N.D.s. Don’t you realize that naturopathic medicine has basically no publicity? Yelling about it only brings it to people’s attention. They won’t listen to you, they’ll just know to come see me. Because you aren’t offering any options

[we'll see]

[...] let me award you the gold medal you justly deserve. You win the debate, and it’s all hogwash. Now, could you get down off your stupid soapbox

[if only that medal equaled all the expense and damages!  I appreciate your candor concerning the hogwash.  And, I've a right to free speech and expression]

[...] no one cares about our philosophy

[well, since it tramples all over categories like science and religion -- and is false in terms of commerce -- I think this matters, even if NDs don't, I think, actually think]

[...] maybe you should take a deep breath, realize really crappy things happen to everyone, and move on"

[ah, if only justice was that simple; and who is to decode, expose and warn the general public about this racket then?]. 

002. NCNM states some serious absurdity in:

002.a. "Principles of Healing":

"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 [(so this is science)...] these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [professions claim]: [#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 [(hmmm, it is a sentient entity?)]; nature heals through the response of the life force [(the science-ejected)...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact [(factuality claim)], expressions of the life force [(the science-ejected)] attempting to heal itself [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [(the science-ejected)...] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [(science-exterior supernaturalistic belief)...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [(ditto)...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [(ditto)]."

Note: so, by decree, this page reveals that naturopathy claims as science that which isn't, and mandates certain 'faithy' articles by their practitioners and graduates to be so falsely labeled.  You take an oath to this stuff; this is their standard of practice.  It is quite certain that there is no distinction, from this 'philosophy' [retardedness?], between actual science and sectarian articles of faith.  Actual science was never done, replicated, peer-reviewed, and published to establish -- and I know it is quite irrational as a project anyway -- the logical equation of science with the science-ejected and science-unsupported.  It's lunacy.  But, according to ND Maloney, that doesn't really matter because people want options and I guess by that measure then, a used car dealer who rips people off is merely one option of many in the marketplace.

002.b. and this has been codified into Oregon law.

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.