AANP's Blog and NMJ Postures 'Myth vs. Fact, Fact vs. Fiction' – So Let Us Too, Pannaturopathically

here, I cite from a recent post at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] blog and a release about their journal [see 001., below]; and then I follow their 'myth-fact' model to its logical conclusion [see 002., below]:

001. the AANP writes:

001.a. in the blog post “It’s Time to Bust the Myths About Chocolate” (2011-02-11) by ND Bishop:

“enjoy your chocolate your way, since only you can be the true judge [...after presenting a bunch of] myth [...and] fact [...and the sidebar states]  'Physicians Who Listen' [PWL] is the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] national professional society  […] naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [IHA; coded vitalism].”

001.b. in "Natural Medicine Journal Helps Clinicians and Patients Sort Fact From Fiction" (2011-01-18):

"the Natural Medicine Journal provides scientifically valid, patient-centered, peer-reviewed health care information to the medical community [...] when it comes to the field of natural medicine, it's not always easy to discern the credible and reliable research from the unsubstantiated claims [(my irony meter has exploded)...] the go-to resource for cutting-edge information [...for] scientifically valid, patient-centered healthcare information [...] to maintain quality of content, clinical articles go through a rigorous peer-review proces [...] 'the discerning eyes of experts' [...] the journal's high-quality content [...an] extensive editorial board [...] many of the foremost leaders in integrative medicine [...published by] Karolyn A. Gazella, in partnership with the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] launch[ed] Natural Medicine Journal [...] Tina Kaczor, ND,  FABNO [is] the journal's medical editor."

002. let's decode IHA and see where it stands in relation to science:

002.a. IHA is the concept of vitalism, if you look at naturopathy preponderantly:

I'm not sure how a group can be professional if they can't be transparent about their essential sectarian belief / figmentation.

Note: you'll notice that naturopathy claims that that life force is “in fact”.

002.b. vitalism is hugely science-ejected, in fact:

so, in naturopathyland, facts and myths / fictions are conflated.  Yet, they'll pretend they delineate at their convenience, as with that PWL post.  I'm not sure how a group can be professional if their essential claims are false and their mannerisms are so opaque

In such a context of knowledge conflation, I find the NMJ's language preposterous.

Naturopathy, EBM, and SEBM - ND Barrett at Natural Medicine Journal, 2010-11

here, I cite from a recent interview of one NCNM ND by another at Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ] regarding evidence based medicine [EBM; see 001., below]; then, I illuminate the 'actual naturopathic' [see 002., below]; and, I muse on the lunacy [see 003., below]:

001. in NMJ's "Clinical Roundtable (audio)" [saved 2010-11-06], Kaczor, T. (ND NCNM 2000) and Barrett, R. (ND NCNM 1986) state:

"ND Kaczor: Dr. Barrett, as you know, there is a general acceptance of the evidence-based model as the paradigm in which all medicine should be practiced [...] in particular randomized-controlled trials [00.00.43...] can you speak to some of the pros and cons of using evidence-based medicine in the application of naturopathic care [00.00.58]?

ND Barrett: [00.01.03] I actually prefer the term evidence-informed medicine [...] I'm definitely leaning towards the pro side [00.01.14...] but, on the other side, I'm very much a naturopathic doctor in philosophy and outlook as well.  I think a lot of people say that you kind of have to pick one side: either [the] scientific point of view or have fidelity to naturopathic philosophy.  I think that's really a false dichotomy [00.01.56...with the philosophical context including] the Therapeutic Order [TO...and] the Naturopathic Principles [NP, 00.02.17...and then quotes] David Young [...] someone outside the field [...who is not an ND then, obviously, said, defending naturopathy,] 'naturopathic physicians are in the possession of the same set of scientific facts as conventional physicians, but conscienciously differ on how to apply that knowledge.'   I think that sums it up pretty well [00.02.44].

ND Barrett: [00.15.00] We always want to use the filter of the philosophy."

Note: so, there is a strong claim of the naturopathic being science, and there's talk of within all that are the NP and TO filters.  What is, specifically, within these 'filters'?

002. hmmmm, their filtering -- 'the actual naturopathic' / the 'essentially naturopathic' -- is, indeed, science-ejected woo [these are only two aspects of this sectarian belief system, there are many more!]:

002.a. naturopathy's vitalism, via their TO, is stated in their textbook's chapter, "Chapter 3 - A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order: The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine":

"the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature. This is the first step in the hierarchy of healing and what naturopathic physicians may call the overarching clinical theory of naturopathic medicine: the therapeutic order [p.034]."

Note: vitalism is hugely science-ejected.

002.b. naturopathy's supernaturalism, via their NP, on one of their State board '.gov' web pages, the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine's "Naturopathy", which states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...#1] nature heals through the response of the life force [...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher [...] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual [...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors."

Note: any supernaturalism is hugely science-ejected, though the OBNM claims in these principles' contents such is "objective" and "in fact" able to survive scientific scrutiny.  Notice that vitalism is in there too, just as falsely claimed to be just as scientific.

003. so, here's the 'naturopathy lunacy':

the hugely not science claimed as science.

Note: so, in the ultimate reversal of values, naturopathy is essentially 'science-ejected based medicine' [SEBM]. 

I would place scientific rigor on this continuum, starting from least to most scientifically rigorous: SEBM, EBM, SBM [science-based medicine].  

SEBM is categorically / by definition, NOT SCIENCE. 

You can find this lunacy explicitly stated at the alma mater and employer of these two NDs, NCNM.  This is truly the naturopaTHICK.

AANP's Natural Medicine Journal: Naturopathic / Holistic "Spiritual Science" Epistemic Conflation Nonsense

here, I offer an example of 'the essentially naturopathic nonsensical', such oxymoronic labelings as "spiritual science" in the AANP's Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ; see 001., below]:

001. NMJ's Freedenberg, R. (ND NECNM[IL]) states in "Naturopathic / Holistic Treatment of Mild to Moderate Depression" (2009-10)[vsc 2010-10-05]:

"[the] following are a number of evidence-based, effective alternative / naturopathic treatments [...e.g.] anthroposophic medicine [...which] is a spiritual science [...which] use[s] medicines based on homeopathic principles [(lovely)...and] uses the anthroposophic view of the human being as a blend of three interdependent aspects: the physical body; the life force [vitalism], understood as the source of growth and regeneration and sometimes called the soul [supernaturalism]; and the 'astral body,' which mediates between the body and the soul, also called the 'ego' or 'consciousness' [more supernaturalism in the sort of panpsychic / dualistic yet tripartite sense]."

Note: the equation of the holistic and alternative with the naturopathic, and the subset within that of anthroposophic "spiritual science."  That is a nonsense term, like a 'square circle.'  I've termed this error of knowledge blending "epistemic conflation."  It is a hallmark of naturopathy to inappropriately place nonscience and science-ejected matters together, such as supernaturalism and vitalism, and then falsely claim it all is within science.  Notice the immaterial / other-than-physical "life force" / "soul" equation as well.  We have stepped well outside of science and the science-based when we enter the evidenceless faithy-beliefy area of such sectarian models.  Of course, this is all one huge issue of knowledge-type incompetence / callousness.

002. now, NMJ claims, in "Statement of Purpose" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"the Natural Medicine Journal provides scientifically-valid, patient-centered health care information [...] readers of the journal and visitors to the site will find scientifically-valid, clinically-relevant information."

Note: and here's a link to their editorial board members.

003. but, of course, the science-ejected and science-unsupported is not in any way scientifically valid / within science [that's irrational]:

Basically, what's happening is that types of knowledge are being blended, then mislabeled as one type of knowledge.

You can get a sense of that from naturopathy's own definition, wherein they state, and I use Canada's NSAND site as an example per "What is a Naturopathic Doctor?" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends [...and] cooperate[s] with other branches of medical science."

Legitimate science, though, is not also nonscience just as a square and a circle are not the same.

But, naturopathy is NUTS LIKE THAT!  Something is defined as equal to what it isn't: the utmost reversal of values.

Natural Medicine Journal and UBCNM's 'Proven For Centuries' VMN Basis [A Coded Sectarian Science-Ejected Figmentation]

here, I cite from a recent article in Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ] regarding the fundamental context of the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM; see 001, below]; then, I decode their coded sectarian science-ejected VMN figmentation [see 002., below]:

001. NMJ states in "College of Naturopathic Medicine at the University of Bridgeport is Strong and Growing" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"in 2011, the Connecticut-based College of Naturopathic Medicine at the University of Bridgeport (UBCNM) will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of its first graduating class [...] over the past 10 years the school has remained steadfast in the philosophy that guides its teaching and clinical training. The philosophy, vis medicatrix naturae, means 'the healing power of nature' [...which is part of the] philosophies and healing modalities whose effectiveness has been proven for centuries [...] UBCNM continues the vis medicatrix naturae tradition by offering a program of professional education to prepare naturopathic physicians to provide compassionate healthcare that addresses the cause of disease."

Note: how to break the coded?  Hint: visit the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine. So, they are "steadfast" to VMN and claim it is "proven for centuries."  Overall, we're given the impression that naturopathy is "professional" and "compassionate."

002. if you did such, then you know:

002.a. VMN is naturopathy's opaque Latin coding for the superstitious concept of a "life force."  As the OBNM site states:

"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 [...] 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."

 

Note: so, "life force" is claimed as "in fact."

002.b. but, "life force" hugely isn't...in fact:

e.g., Richard Dawkins writes in "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" (2008; ISBN 0199216800):

"life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]."

Note: "life force" is science-ejected.  Yet, as we've seen, naturopathy holds on to it "steadfast" and claims VMN is "proven for centuries."  This is HUGELY false.  Are we told the truth about naturopathy's principle context: that they label as science that which isn't, that they code and disguise their sectarian beliefs?  No, instead we are misled.

Therein, as I personally experienced at UBCNM between the years 1998-2002, this is NOT 

"professional" or "compassionate."  Unless you embrace what I've termed 'the reversal of values', wherein something and its logical opposite [e.g. science and nonscience] are falsely equated, and then therein wrongly called 'the same thing'. 

Naturopathy as 'the Future of Healthcare': Irrationalism and Absurdity Posed as Professionalism, Integrity and Physicianship - the AANP's Howard 2010

here, I quote from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' [AANP] 2010 "Natural Medicine Journal" article recently authored by AANP's executive director Karen Howard celebrating naturopathy's new Department of Labor [DOL] definition [see 001.a., below]; then, I decode the quite coded essential premise of naturopathy within that DOL definition using naturopathy's own ".gov" and ".edu" primary sources [see 001.b., below]; and finally, I muse upon these "metaphysicians" [see 002., below]:

001.a. in "The Future of Naturopathic Medicine: A Message from Karen E. Howard, Executive Director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians", she writes:

"the AANP’s vision is to transform the healthcare system from disease management to health promotion by incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine. The mission of the AANP is to serve our members by advancing the profession of naturopathic medicine and preserving its integrity [...] this fall, the US Department of Labor released a new definition of 'naturopathic physician' [...per] 'a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals [NHCI...] sample job titles include naturopathic physician, naturopathic doctor, physician, and doctor of naturopathic medicine' [...] this is a monumental success for the naturopathic profession."

Note: so, we have the claim of "profession", galore, [7 instances] in the article. Howard's NHCI -- naturopathy's coded vitalism m.o. -- will be fleshed out below.

001.b. regarding "the principles of naturopathic medicine" and "a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals":

001.b1. the foremost sources, in my mind, for iteration of naturopathy's "principles" are ".gov" and a ".edu" web site.  Both are based in Oregon, because that region is the 'trunk of the naturopathic tree', so to speak.  Oregon has the oldest AANP ND-granting school, and that State's ND apparatus has codified naturopathy's principles on the State of Oregon's website.

001.b1.a. per the ".gov", the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners [...] they are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [(this is naturopathy's kooky claim that the science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny)...principle #1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN=VMN...] nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...principle #3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...overall] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence [!!!] of the natural healing process [INHP...] naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition [VT] of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person [IHCP...a.k.a.] the body’s healing and immune response [BIIR...] the body’s innate healing response [BIHR]."

Note: obviously, vitalism is the cardinal premise of naturopathy, per HPN=VMN= LF=VF=INHP=VT=IHCP=BIIR=BIHR. Howard's NHCI is synonymous but, NHCI is 'vitalism coded' and therefore not honest / transparent in the way it should be in order to be 'of professional ethical status' [IMO]. OBNE and the State of Oregon has just told us that a "life force" is "in fact" an objective scientific fact.  Hilarious: claiming that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny is INSANE. Vitalism is profoundly science-ejected. Science that hugely isn't science is not-at-all conventional.

001.b1.b. per the ".edu", the National College of Natural Medicine 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: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]. 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 [LF...#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 [LF] attempting to heal itself [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [VF]."

Note: so, again the VERY WRONG continuous commercial activity of labeling as 'scientific fact' the 'in fact science-ejected vitalistic' [minimally].  This is what "natural medicine" is in AANP-land -- trading upon what is false, and known to be false 'by the preponderance of science' for several decades. Also, there's the quite wrong claim of professionalism [7 times on that page], because you cannot be hugely insanely premised and still be of credat emptor status.  What's also fascinating about the "new" AANP DOL definition of naturopathy is that naturopathy is still 'cultically coding' their essential premise.  Naturopathy is not being transparent: its supernatural, vitalistic and teleological premise / 'the science-ejected sectarian' is being falsely presented as naturalistic, science-supported, objective fact when in fact such is science-ejected / science-unsupported.  In fact, such misleading and opaque activity by naturopathy is not new; it is naturopathy's same old deceptive m.o.  Notice that they are grabbing for more generalistic titles, like "physician".  This sets up a Federal precedent that further allows AANP to achieve more State licensure laws for itself by saying "we're already Federally recognized" as _________.  I would argue that naturopathy is still quite incompletely, opaquely and falsely Federally described.  But,  why be surprised!  Naturopathy already has ".gov" support per Oregon to posture and trade upon the quite false-absurd: the idea that the scientific is what is not scientific.  I have termed this "epistemic conflation" [EC], the blending of knowledge type. EC illogically claims that something is equal to that which it is different from.  Yet, after thoroughly muddling knowledge type, naturopathy then superabsurdly-falsely represents that mingled heap as an 'epistemic delineation', per [supposedly] truly "science".  That is INSANE; and instead of this being 'a doctoral-level, scientific, professional physician context', I've termed the whole thing a fraudulent racket.  I will be blogging next post about naturopathy's goals towards expansion of all this insanity and absurdity.

002. regarding "physician", "the future of healthcare", "integrity" and "profession":

integrity's usage is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed.: "steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code [...] the state of being unimpaired; soundness [...] the quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness."  Now, the claim of "profession" is similarly a claim of trustworthyness, thoroughness, soundness.  Naturopathy claims professionalism and integrity while being completely unsound and opaque in its basic premise.

In fact, as I've said, I think naturopathic 'thinking' is INSANE: claiming that what's inside of the scientific is the same as what's outside of the scientific, that figmentations are the same as what is in-evidence / rigorously scientifically vetted.  At its core, naturopathy is simply nonsense in the 'sense' that naturopathy claims that 'something is the same as something it is profoundly different from'.  It other words, naturopathy claims that that which survives scientific scrutiny is that which has actually been ejected from science.  What is "conventional" about this kind of science?  What is even rational about it?  The fact is that such 'kind' of science, if I can be allowed such an absurd statement, is "pseudo" -- as in fake.  And such kind of 'thinking' is junk thought.

To believe in figmentation / what lacks evidence as a central premise, and to set it up as 'the truth about nature's workings' rings of metaphysics and sectic ideology.  So, I regard the 'epistemic position' of an ND not as that of a physician but that of a metaphysician, per 'the metaphysical merged with physicianship'.

The other appropriate term is sectarian medicine, as opposed to scientific medicine / modern-enlightened thought.

Naturopathy is as much "the future of healthcare" as the hugely science-ejected is the future of science.  Naturopathy is as much the future of healthcare as flat-earth theory is the future of geography.