NDs Snider and Turner: NDNR-FNM-NCNM and BNJ-TLDP Citations Round-up

here, I cite from a recent NDNR article by NDs Snider and Turner which labels naturopathy "scientific" and a "profession" [see 001., below]; then, from NCNM which is home to the FNM project, which labels nonscience as science [see 002., below]; then from ND Turner's 1990 British Naturopathic Journal article which details naturopathy's science-unsupported foundations [see 003., below]; and finally two TLDP articles concerning ND Snider and a false science claim upon the hugely nonscientific / naturopathic [see 004., below]:

001. NDs Snider, P. (ND Bastyr 1982) and Turner, R.N. (ND BCNO 1963) write in "Nature Cure in Europe - The Transatlantic Journey From Pragmatism to Principles" (NDNR 2010-10, p.008-009):

"the Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine Project [FNM] aims, for the first time in almost 100 years, to produce a [naturopathic] textbook [...] by bringing together the wisdom and experience of the leaders of the profession from around the world, the FNM hopes to make that essential connection between the practical application of nature’s healing resources, as used pragmatically by the early nature doctors, naturopathic principles, and their integration into the evolving world of modern, scientific naturopathic medicine [...the FNM is] an international textbook of naturopathic medicine project working to codify the 'heart of naturopathic medicine' [...] the text is in development through Elsevier. The FNM is based at the National College of Natural Medicine (NCNM) in Portland, Oregon [...] its academic home [...donations are through] Friends of the FNM: Charter Corporate Sponsors [...and the second tier is named] Vital Force ($250,000) [...and the heading within NDNR for the article is] vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: yes, those are the labels "modern scientific" and "profession" upon naturopathy.  And yes, mention of their "vital force" and "vis medicatrix naturae" [vitalism].

002. NCNM, mentioned by Snider and Turner above, explains naturopathy's principles in "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-10-01]:

"these principles 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 [(vitalism, in full regalia)...this is] in fact [...and] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [(supernaturalism etc., in full regalia)...with these ideas] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and [...] examined continually in light of scientific analysis [(a 'survives scientific scrutiny' claim, in full regalia)]."

Note: yes, that is the HUGELY nonscientific ["life force" etc., "spirit" etc.] falsely labeled as able to survive science's filter.  This is, supposedly, the behaviors and knowledge claims of a "profession."

003. ND Turner states in "Naturopathy - The Identity Crisis" (British Naturopathic Journal, 1990 Jan/Mar vol.13 no.1)[saved 2008-08-10; link seems to be dead]:

"there is much ignorance about naturopathy [...] as to what exactly it is or does [...there are] basic principles of naturopathy [...] fundamental naturopathic theories [...] central to all these is the concept of a life force, or energy, which is the basis for all living matter [p.003...aka] vitalism [...and also there's] the reverse order of cure [...] as defined by the homeopath Hering [...] 'all cure comes from within out, from above down, and in the reverse order in which the symptoms have appeared' [p.004]."

Note: there is no life force, and pathological process and recovery do not happen according to Hering's model.  The fundamentals of naturopathy are BOGUS.  Of course, once you've laid a groundwork of nonsense, you can then use pseudodiagnostics like "iridology" and "radionics."

004. ND Snider states in "Naturopathic Physician on Her Career Choice: 'No Regrets'" (TLDP, 2005 Feb/Mar) [vsc 2010-10-11]:

"naturopathic medicine relies on the vital life force within human beings [...] you need to be an independent, critical, and scientific thinker."

Note: ah ha ha ha.  Science ejected vitalism decades and decades and decades ago.  An "independent, critical, and scientific thinker" has no choice, if in true possession of those qualities, but to find naturopathy absurd and irrational.

Of course, in 1992-04, TLDP also published the article "1991 AANP Convention: Into the Light" which stated [I have an actual paper edition of this]:

"[Snider] 'we believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible. Chiropractors have adjustments, acupuncturists have needles, we have vis medicatrix naturae. Our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith. Our power and our responsibility is to bring the life force into the light' [...Kane, the ND student and article author] take note of a few good, solid 'sound bytes' from Dr. Rick Kirschner [...] 'we prevent illness and restore health through scientifically validated natural medicines'."

Again, that science label upon the profoundly science-ejected.

005. summary:

So, what is there here?  There are the incorrect claims of professionalism and science upon naturopathy [whose foundation is essentially science-ejected].  There are 'articles of faith' conflated with 'the scientifically supported.'

  There's naturopathic nonsense upon nonsense as a FOUNDATION.  Quite an irrational project.

Naturo.’s Dangerous Nonsense on Stilts as a Total Breakdown of 'Higher Education and Professional Regulation’ - ND Dick in NDNR 2010-05

here, I cite lunacy that's so loony I couldn't ever make such up!  ND Dick wrote a letter to the editor of Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] recently, claiming that naturopathy is a profession, scientific, and overall a reasonable health care choice [see 001., below]; then I cite huge nonsense on stilts from her own web pages [see 002., below]; then I look quickly at naturopathy's essential principles [see 003., below]; and O.G. Carroll whose clinical traditions are lauded by Dick [see 004., below]; and finally I muse [see 005., below]:

001. Dick, L. (ND NCNM 1990) states in "Letter to the Editor" in NDNR [2010-05, p.003]:

001.a. that naturopathy meets the ethical rigors of professionalism:

"[per] our profession [x3...] the profession."

001.b. that naturopathy essentially [here ‘classically or traditionally’ too] is scientific:

 "[per] there is a misconception that the ‘elders’ of the profession, the NDs in clinical practice who use classical naturopathy [CN], are somehow unscientific or practice without science-based, or evidence-based medicine. This is far from true [a strong science claim!…] I am not a radical naturopath and this is not a radical, uneducated, or unscientific approach [quite a promise!]. It has been, and I hope it still is, our standard of care [SOC…quoting Tilden, who presumably she agrees with] 'thousands of doctors have all the scientific data needed, but they have not harnessed their science to common-sense and philosophy [so, embedding science within a belief system, essentially…quoting Hahnemann, who again she presumably agrees with] 'since this natural law of healing [likely ‘like cures like’] is confirmed in all objective experiments and authentic experience in the world, it is established as fact [bullshit]. Scientific explanations of how it works are of little importance, and I see little value in attempting one' [wow, science without science, amazing…] please support this effort to preserve the scientific medicine of our past [quite a strong science claim] for future care of our patients for generations to come. If we must do current research or clinical outcome studies on these protocols, then let us do that [oh, and we’ll do the science part later, seeing as how it’s kind of needed!]."

Note: so, the ‘essentially naturopathic’ is claimed as science and common sense, and THAT is naturopathy’s SOC [label ‘the naturopathic scientific’]. Archaic sources like Tilden and Hahnemann are referenced as gospel.  Both authors obviously have quite an antipathy to science! And then science ex post facto is advised by Dick. Absurd, completely absurd and not common sense at all. Here’s some of what I was taught by my naturopathy elder Sensenig. Yes, that is UB's completely science-ejected sectarian ND figmentations falsely labeled as scientific and nonsectarian facts.  This is "the scientific medicine of our past" we're asked to preserve.

001.c. Dick’s overarching ‘philosophy’ [that to which science is harnessed / embedded within]"

"I utilize a sanipractor [aka ‘naturopathic’] clinical model […a] patient-management model fully supporting naturopathic philosophy, principles, and case management […] classical naturopathy is the philosophy put to common-sense use [...our] classical clinical model [...we must] utilize a clinical model of classical naturopathic medicine in our teaching clinics."

Note: I’ll detail naturopathy’s ‘essential or classical or traditional’ philosophy and principles in 003., below, which is huge nonsense.

002. from Dick's own web pages [for a bio. click here], we find huge nonsense on stilts:

002.a. in "Welcome to Our Clinic!" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:

"the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic is the oldest traditional naturopathic clinic in the United States [...] this application of naturopathy is founded in scientific principles and the laws of nature."

Note: again, a strong science claim. The laws of nature are also a science claim as they come about in modern thought through scientific findings. Yet, of course, in naturopathy what is science and what if figmentation are blended.  Therein, in claiming science: these are the stilts.

002.b. in "Iridology" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:

"iridology, or iris diagnosis, is a way to look at the fibers of the eyes and determine weakness, ulceration, or inflammation of organ tissues […] there are areas of the iris (the colored part of the eye) which correspond to the different parts of the body […] what can be seen is an inflammatory process or irritation in that area in the iris which corresponds to the lung tissue of the body […] for example, by seeing loose or gapping iris fibers in the liver area it is then determined that there is liver irritation or inflammation […per] weak areas of the metabolism […then] a treatment protocol can be developed for each individual person based upon their needs. Both doctors at Windrose Clinic [Dick and Potenza, C. (ND Bastyr 2002)] perform this important diagnostic analysis."

Note: now, iridology is completely bunk. Therein: huge nonsense.

002.c. in "Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:

"homeopathy […] is over 200 years old […it’s] a scientific application [bullshit!] of minute [undetectable!] amounts of a substance (plant, animal, or mineral) to stimulate the metabolism [coded vitalism] to correct its imbalance. This is accomplished via the theory that like cures like [a sectarian figmentation that is not true…] for example, pneumonia with a fever may require Phosphorus 30C, 3 pellets every hour whereas an arthritic knee problem may require rhus tox 30c, 3 pellets given once a week [yes, empty remedies for real diseases]. Homeopathic remedies are curative, not simply palliative [it’s just magic!]. They don't cover up the symptoms, but rather stimulate the body to heal the condition. Homeopathy is frequently utilized at the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic and may be indicated in your healing process."

Note: here, we have the label of science upon the homeopathic. This also is huge nonsense.  Claiming such as science puts it up on stilts. What’s even scarier is the use of nothing to treat something as serious as pneumonia. In the NDNR article, in fact, Dick states: “I want naturopaths to be trained and confident in their ability to treat their pneumonia patients […] without antibiotics and not refer them to allopaths [the reverse sectarian accusation!] for care.”

003. naturopathy’s principles / philosophy:

003.a. NCNM, which is Dick’s alma mater, states in “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. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: 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.”

Note: so, there’s Dick’s alma mater stating that vitalism, which is hugely science-ejected, survives scientific scrutiny, and that naturopathy is a profession.  More nonsense on stilts.

003.b. Bastyr University, per ND Potenza’s alma mater, states in “Bastyr University”:

“Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [coded vitalism].”

Note: there’s Potenza’s alma mater stating that within science is the supernatural and the vitalistic. More nonsense on stilts.

004. regarding O.G. Carroll and the sanipractioning tradition:

004.a. Dick states at her homepage:

“the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic is the oldest traditional naturopathic clinic in the United States. It continues the 50+ year traditions of Dr. Otis G. Carroll and Dr. Harold Dick under the direction of Dr. Letitia Dick-Kronenberg. This application of naturopathy is founded in scientific principles and the laws of nature.”

Note: so, there’s Carroll and that promise of science again.  The laws, of course, are sectarian figmentations.

004.b. Time Magazine states in “Medicine: Sanipractor” (1958-04-07) :

“Doris Hull […went] to Spokane to see Otis G. Carroll, 79, a practitioner of 43 years' experience […her husband] thought Carroll was an M.D. [but] he is actually a licensed drugless-healer -- a ‘sanipractor’[aka naturopath!…] Carroll took a drop of blood from Doris Hull's ear, put it in his ‘radionic’ device [a quack device], twirled some knobs [and] concluded […] tuberculosis. [But] Carroll did not say anything to the Hulls about TB, though state law requires drugless-healers to report such cases to public health officials. Instead, he prescribed hot and cold compresses to increase her absorption of water […] five months later, Doris Hull died of starvation and tuberculosis […] a Spokane jury last week awarded him [Mr. Hull…damages] because both he and their daughter, 2, contracted TB from her.”

Note: naturopathy is NOT a grand tradition.  This is quite a tragedy.

005. so:

naturopathy overall to me is a huge breakdown of higher education and professional regulation.  It is not a profession since it is loony, DEFINITELY not scientific because its essential context is science-ejected, and overall it is quite an unreasonable health care choice.

Yet, the schools are fully sanctioned and unscrutinized.

The AANP's blog motto is "Physicians Who Listen," but really it should be

"Dangerous Nonsense on Stilts."

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism Irrationality – ND Kellerstein in NDNR 2010-01:

In “Why Waste Time?” (Naturopathic Doctor News and Review 2010-01, p.019), Kellerstein, J. (DC CMCC 1980, ND CCNM 1984), “the first Chairman of the Department of Homeopathy with the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine", states:

“[regarding] today's homeopathic education […student question] Hahnemann continues to expound that the vital force [blah blah blah...Kellerstein] the vital force can only be sustained [blah blah blah...Kellerstein directly quoting Hahnemann] aphorism 9: in the healthy human state, the spirit-like life force (autocracy) that enlivens the material organism [blah blah blah...Kellerstein] the mind (in-dwelling rational spirit) and the vital force are very different [...] Hahnemann's idea of the vital force was not spiritual but spirit-like. This means immaterial or invisible […] the footnote to the first aphorism is testimony to the view of Hahnemann. He wanted a practice of medicine founded only on the fully observable with no speculative filters in the way of pure observation.”

Note: such vitalistic-spiritism, as I call it, is profoundly science-ejected.  Science has rejected vitalism for several decades, and supernaturalism for a few hundred years.  The larger issue here, though, is the lack of sanity within naturopathy's calculus.   NDs apparently do not think cogently:

a) since when is the immaterial and invisible [immeasurable figmentation] also fully and purely observable [actual]?

b) but, then again, the school I went to in Connecticut is no less irrational / absurd [cultic], wherein the vitalistic and supernatural are falsely labeled science.

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism in NDNR 2009-11 - Misak, D. (ND NCNM 2000):

here, I highlight naturopathy's fundamental sectarian belief as recently stated by an NCNM ND in the publication Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [a.k.a. NDNR (or Naturopathic Doctors Are Not Rational!); see 001., below]; and then, I quote from NCNM's quite irrational web page concerning the essentially naturopathic [see 002., below]:

001. Misak, D. (ND NCNM 2000) states in "Holding on to Our Truths: Let's Keep Our Focus on the Patient" [NDNR 2009-11, p.010]:

"[in] our profession [...] we all [NDs] hold to vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] with the recognition that each person has an individual vital force [VF...and we're also told] iridology [is] a science [...and] as we hold to the natural laws inherent in our principles, I think our profession should use science to prove and validate our theories."

Note: so, there's the "profession" claim, and obviously naturopathy's VMN=VF.  Now, such vitalism is not anything like science's laws of nature, or science's idea of what a theory is.  Vitalism is not in any way evidence-supported, and nor is iridology.

002. if you go online to NCNM [National College of Nonsense Medicine!], Misak's alma mater, you are told in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...which] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [these principles are claimed able to survive scientific scrutiny...#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae [HPN=VMN...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent [purposeful]; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force and the rational use of natural agents."

Note: obviously, naturopathy is centered upon vitalism and claims that such in fact survives scientific scrutiny.  But, that is not so.

Therein, naturopathy is hugely irrational / absurd / false, at its foundation.

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 Essential Cultic Vitalism, NDNR 2009-09 - Co-Author Loomis, M. (ND NCNM) & Publisher Talman, D. (ND SCNM):

the current issue of Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] has two interesting statements regarding naturopathy's essential vitalism [a science-ejected concept]:

001. the NDNR article "Nurturing the Child's Well-Being [...]" (Vol. 5, Issue 9) by Loomis, M. (ND NCNM) and Luvmour, J. (PhD ?) states:

"the organizing principle [OP]. There is an organizing principle in each stage of childhood [...] the organizing principle is a life force [vitalism] that determines the general ways in which human energy, capabilities, inclinations, and interactions are structured and act. The goal of each organizing principle [p.001] is optimal wellness [p.004]."

Note: so we have OP = LF.

002. in this same issue, NDNR publisher Tallman, D. (ND SCNM) states:

"the axiom 'the faith of a child' has its place in medicine as physicians rely on faith in the vis [vitalism] while making therapeutic decisions [...] physicians [should] understand and have child-like faith in the vis [p.003]."

003. I don't know about you, but I don't believe that a supposed physician [ND] should be approaching a supposedly fundamental premise of a supposed profession with the mentality of a child:

Vitalism -- naturopathy's vis medicatrix naturae / life force: some call it faith, some call it belief - I call it ignorance. Naturopathy mainly calls it a scientific fact, which it isn't.

I caution: overall, to take one's mentality into such an credulous realm resembles the thought-control of so many cults, which infantilize and subjugate call critical thought.

This is thought reform, and it is pernicious.