WTNH's Reiki Advertisement - Magical Beliefs Strangely Categorized as Health and Fitness, and Natural

here, is an example of a magical belief masquerading as a plain Jane health and fitness article [see 001., below]; then, I cite from a recent Skeptic North article on magical beliefs [see 002., below]; then, from my own compilation covering how 'vitalism is science ejected' [see 003., below]; and finally, from the Quackwatch article on reiki [see 004., below]: 

001. Connecticut's WTNH states in "Relax with Reiki" (2010-10-25)[vsc 2010-10-26]:

"reiki is a Japanese form of energy healing that treats the whole person [...a] Japanese term [...] 'rei' means universal and 'ki' means 'life force energy' [LFE...it is] the energy found within all living things [...and is] passed from the practitioner to the recipient through the practitioner’s hands [...and] brings balance and maintains health and well-being [...this is] a natural way to heal the body [...] it encourages the body’s healing response [...] reiki can help with a variety of emotional and physical ailments from anxiety and stress to injury, and cancer."

Note: so, by use of hands, we're naturally healed by LFE.  I argue that reiki is an engagement with the supernatural, and that LFE is imaginary.  There is a six minute video segment on the WTNH page, where we're told it has "amazing benefits."  And, of course, the terms "chakra" and "meridians" come up.  I call this an advertisement because it is completely credulous and offers no other opinion besides overwhelming support.  Even the so often fair-balanced distortion at least would be bad journalism.  This isn't journalism.

002. Skeptic North's recent post "A Skeptic’s Guide to Magical Thinking – Part 1" (2010-10-25) states:

"by tying it to the scientific method, we admit that there are three possible values for a magical belief: the belief has not been tested, the belief is un-testable by scientific means, the belief has been tested and is false [...] vitalism – the belief that living things posses an animating energy or life force [...] I['ve] lumped everything that had to do with a life force or vital essence [...including] reiki [...such] animism is generally considered alongside theism as a religious belief, yet its spirits typically profess no intelligence, making them more akin to a vital energy than a god."

Note:  so, reiki categorically is in the magical, animistic, vitalistic woo area.

003. LFE is science ejected.

004. Reiki's cousin, therapeutic touch, specifically, was scientifically dismantled by an 10 year old girl.  See "Reiki is Nonsense" at Quackwatch where we're reminded:

"reiki has no substantiated health value and lacks a scientifically plausible rationale. Science-based healthcare settings should not tolerate its use, and scarce government research dollars should not be used to study it further."

Note: hoo-ya.

Skeptic North's "Guide to Magical Thinking" Series [highly recommended]

here, I cite from the very excellent Erik Davis penned Skeptic North series that will run with a new post each day of this week [see 001., below]:

001. Erik Davis writes in "A Skeptic’s Guide to Magical Thinking – Part 1" (2010-10-25):

"in my mind I’d formed a rough ontology that sorted all magical practices [...] in the first category, I put the sympathetic magic practices above.  In the second, I lumped everything that had to do with a life force or vital essence [vitalism...] in the third category was everything that posited some sort of internal or external super-intelligence [...yet] many practices fit in more than one of my categories [...e.g.] homeopathy, while generally identified as sympathetic magic, is often said to work by impacting a vital force [(that's what I was taught in ND school!)...and] some superficially similar practices have very different underlying mechanisms [...] animism is generally considered alongside theism as a religious belief, yet its spirits typically profess no intelligence, making them more akin to a vital energy than a god."

Note: I'm loving the material and the approach -- go there, read it,  gnaw at it, comment!

A 'Cargo Cult' Depiction of Naturopathy: Correcting "Erica"

here, I quote from a comment from an [apparent] ND student in Canada, and I comment upon her comments / claims [see 001., below]; then, I cite from a recent Science-Based Medicine post on acupuncture [quackupuncture!; see 002., below]:

001. Skeptic North's post "University of Toronto: Bastion of Pseudoscience?" by Mitchell Gerskup (2010-07-23) has, as its third comment, this from CCNM ND student "Erica":

"I saw a classmate reading this [the 2010-07-23 SN post] and I had to laugh at the ignorance [...] naturopathic doctors will, by 2012, have the title doctor protected by the government of Ontario, be able to engage in 7 controlled acts (already engage in 6, 7th is pharmaceutical prescription), and are already primary health care providers [...] naturopathic colleges, like ALL medical colleges, were modeled after the John Hopkins medical school after JAMA came out with recommendations that all medical schools follow this standard [(Flexner)...] I’m surprised it’s believed naturopathy is considered anti-science, unless you truly do believe physiology, anatomy, neurophysiology, immunology, pathology, pathophysiology, nutrition, biochemistry, and embryology to be anti-science? [(sciences!)...] we use the same diagnostic tools and tests as medical doctors, and do all the same exams as a general practitioner would, so I’m not sure why exactly you think we’re radically different? [...] I myself remain skeptic[al] to homeopathy [...] but I do question if it were such quackery why an entire continent would make it a mandatory part of standard medical education? [...] iridology is not part of the curriculum at naturopathic colleges, that does verge on the edge of quackery, right now [...] germ theory verged on the edge of quackary [sp., 'quackery'] too once, so I can’t be certain that this will never be proven [...] are you aware that physiotherapists graduating from U of T use acupuncture regularly to treat patients? Is that under the pseudo-science heading as well [...] it just sounds like there’s a lot of heated debate here drowning in emotion and no solid logic or research [...] didn’t U of T teach you to never use Wikipedia? At least for $20 grand a year CCNM taught me that much! Hell even York did!  But yet I’m too lazy regardless to site anything here [...] would love to show you around, give you a tour, and more info (or more ammo) on naturopathic medicine! - Erica."

Note: I must admit that the first comment is my own, from July.  And I thank Erica for engaging in dialog, since it is so difficult to find NDs [or students of] doing so.  Anyway, here are some Naturocrit comments upon Erica's comments.  Regarding:

-"ignorance": 

well, when an ND tells others they are ignorant, I'd like to point out the ignorance of naturopathy.  Nowhere else but naturopathy, to my knowledge, will you find someone with so much power and so trusted unable to differentiate between the severely science-ejected [e.g., naturopathy's "life force" belief, their junk therapies, their pseudodiagnostics] and the legitimately scientific, efficacious and ACTUAL.  In fact, in terms of commerce, naturopathy is based on a very false posture yet you have, especially in places that protect them like Ontario, more rights as a consumer on a used car lot and that person isn't pretending to be a professional;

-"protected by the government of Ontario":

the protection of absurdity and falsehood only protects the offenders;

-"like ALL medical colleges":

well, the last time I looked, actual medical colleges do not, as I experienced, blend the scientific and the hugely nonscientific and then falsely label the whole thing science [when is an article of faith and a scientific fact the same thing: naturopathy]; 

-"I’m surprised it’s believed naturopathy is considered anti-science":

I actually don't think that "anti-science" is encompassing enough to describe naturopathy. Nowadays, I'd say "anti-rationality" and "anti-knowledge delineation"; 

-"I’m not sure why exactly you think we’re radically different?":

ah, because you are.  Look at their textbooks: values have been turned upon their heads.  Within naturopathy, the sectarian faithy-absurd is considered objective scientific fact.  What evidence is needed: none.  What must be ignored: science's progression;

-"if it were such quackery why an entire continent",

 just because a huge amount of people do something and believe it is true isn't in any manner a form of scientific knowledge;

-"on the edge of quackery":

well, it's nice to know some NDs don't use iridology, but look at Australia and the UK.  It is likely that iridology, though truly false, is more plausible than say homeopathy!;

-" I can’t be certain that this will never be proven";

no, you can't.  But, what is the likelihood based upon all we know, based upon prior probability?;

-"under the pseudo-science heading as well";

see 002., below; 

-"no solid logic or research";

well, I'd like naturopathy to logical ground the position they occupy which places something as equal to what it is not;

-"too lazy regardless to site anything here";

how about cite?;

-"more info (or more ammo) on naturopathic medicine";

let them talk, and it falls from the sky like manna.

002. meanwhile, up at Science-Based Medicine is the post "The Cargo Cult of Acupuncture" (2010-10-14) by Ben Kavoussi which states [contrary to Erica's support of acupuncture]:

"'cargo cult' is a metaphor that describes the act of imitating an activity or a practice without any insight into the underlying principles [...] it [specifically] refers to a magico-religious practice observed in tribal societies, where the members ritually imitate the activities of a technologically-advanced society they had contact with, so that they can magically draw their material wealth [...] the term 'cargo cult science' was introduced by Richard Feynman in a speech at Caltech in 1974 to describe pseudoscientific studies in which all the superficial aspects of a scientific inquiry are adhered to, but the underlying principles are not scientific [(naturopathy, anyone?)...e.g., in these times, there's] the plethora of two-arm acupuncture studies that compare a needling regimen using the traditional concepts and compare it with a non-interventional placebo [...] whereby 'one pain masks another' [...] a true interpretation of this finding invalidates the traditional lore of the meridian-and-points system [...] this finding echoes the position of Felix Mann, MD, the founder of the British Medical Acupuncture Society, who after decades of practice reached the conclusion that putting needles in 'wrong' places was as effective as a 'correct' treatment. He therefore wrote that 'traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes' [...] two-arm studies cannot rule out the possibility that the observed results are due to anti-nociceptive effects on the same segmental dermatome, which can occur regardless of the classical theories for point selection and means of stimulation [...] the most compelling argument to qualify acupuncture of a cargo cult is the fact that its apostles remain obstinately faithful that someday someone will prove that 'astrology with needles' is a panacea that can naturally restore health and longevity [...yet] well-conducted three-arm clinical trials that used sham controls with needle insertion at 'wrong' points (points not indicated for the condition) or non-points (locations that are not known acupuncture points) along with a non-interventional control group, have failed to demonstrate that there is a reliable difference between sham and 'true' needling [...] the most recent challenge came from a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine which concluded that acupuncture’s specific therapeutic effects – if any – are small, and its benefits are mostly attributable to 'contextual and psychosocial factors, such as patients’ beliefs and expectations, attention from the acupuncturist, and highly focused, spatially directed attention on the part of the patient' [...expect!] pointless studies that aim to validate notions that date of Galen’s era, and [to] hear the irrational narrative of the apostles of this cargo cult."

Notes: yes!  See, what I think is happening is that naturopathy itself is a cargo cult.  The rituals they mimic have to do with what it takes to develop legitimate knowledge.   But, they take huge shortcuts, and, if I remember Feynman's account of the phenomenon...

no planes ever landed [because magical expectations are not knowledge and power].

So, naturopathy is a long wait for a plane that ain't coming, in my view [e.g., I wouldn't wait too long for them to bring into the legitimately scientific such things as vitalism and supernaturalism, which are as hugely science-ejected as flat-earth-ism and phlogiston].

Adam Dreamhealer's 'Naturopathy is Science' Claim and Coded Vitalism:

here, I quote from energy healer and apparent naturopathy fan Adam Dreamhealer [see 001., below]; then, from Skeptic North [see 002., below]:

001. Adam Dreamhealer states in "What is a Naturopathic Doctor"(2010-03-14):

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with [etc....] naturopathic medicine is the art and science of disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention [...] naturopathic doctors [...] enhance health care services provided by other health care professionals [...and] cooperate with other branches of medical science [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine is based on 6 principles: [#1] the healing power of nature: the body is a self-regulating and self-healing organism [...NDs] choose therapies that gently support and stimulate normal function [...] this healing process."

Note: I enjoy the CAND / AANP-like language wherein one states that that which is distinct is a blend / integration [quite naturopathic in their 'something is what it isn't' style]; since science blended with an overarching nonscience isn't science, stating that naturopathy is a branch of medical science isn't logical -- particularly after stating that naturopathy is 'some science mixed with lots of nonscience' [but, after the distinct-blend precedent, we're already being steered into a land of huge illogic]; we have the claim of professionalism placed over naturopathy, yet why is it that we are not told [as is typical of the ND MO] that that #1 principle is in fact the science-ejected premise of vitalism?  Such coded vitalism / opacity emphasizes to me how indistinct, nonscientific, and nonprofessional naturopathy actually is. AD appears to be working towards an ND.

002. Skeptic North states in "Adam Dreamhealer - Are His Intentions Valid?"(2009-11-24):

"[per Polevey] Adam has been exposed in articles the Skeptical Inquirer, James Randi Foundation, Skeptic Magazine [...] several skeptical web sites have exposed Dreamhealer's powers as bogus, including LiveScience.com and ScienceBlogs.com [...] he claims to be enrolled in a naturopathic college, but the two most logical ones in Seattle and in the Vancouver area deny that he is a student there [...] Adam seems to have grown fond of Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, where he holds regular workshops at the naturopathic college's main auditoriums."

Note: so, there are mixed messages about AD's ND future.  I personally don't believe such powers exist.  If so, why hasn't AD won Randi's million?

SGU on Naturopathy - 2009-12-02, Thoms & Novella:

recently, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast dated 2009-12-02 discussed skeptical activism in Canada by Skeptic North aimed at exposing naturopathy.  For the full podcast, click here.  Here are some excerpts: 

[SN is SGU host Steve Novella; ST is SGU guest and editor of SkepticNorth.com Steve Thoms]

"SN: Steve is the editor and chief of Skeptic North which is a skeptical group, pan-Canadian blog. And we are here to talk to you about one issue that you guys have been tackling and that is the attempt that's being made by naturopaths in Canada to gain the right to prescribe medications [1].

[...]

ST: The problem is that naturopaths do not have the medical training to prescribe medical drugs. And that's kind of the bottom line here. The counter-argument that we've faced a lot is that naturopaths have eight years of education, but that's taking into account four years of university training in the undergrad. which they're not affiliated with.  Like no naturopathic college in Canada is associated with a Canadian university. So that's kind of taking credit for the Canadian university system. And also, eight years -- I mean -- I can study unicorn breeding for eight years and that doesn't mean that unicorns exist. Quality of education also matters here [2].

SN: Right, of course I agree with you. Again, for our listeners who may not be aware, naturopaths are really like a cult-like medical pseudoprofession. They believe in a hodge-podge of just about any unscientific modality that's out there. [E.g.] they prescribe homeopathy and acupuncture. And they believe in a lot of unsubstantiated notions [...] my colleague Harriet Hall calls it Tooth Fairy science, which I think is perfect. You could do all kinds of scientific studies about the Tooth Fairy and how the size of the tooth relates to the amount of money that gets left behind, whatever, it doesn't make the Tooth Fairy real. The underlying premises are pseudoscientific and so the entire endeavor is false. And this also gets to the notion that this is naturopaths trying to expand the scope of their practice, which usually happens once they get licensure and also trying to function as primary care healthcare providers being the first person that somebody sees when they're sick which is scary because they don't have the training and they don't have the dedication to science. This a very unfortunate thing [3]."

Notes:

[1]: it is not uncommon in the US for NDs to have gained legal access to prescribe certain 'medical drugs', but it varies from state to state.  In Connecticut, NDs have no such script rights, as far as I know.  In places like Oregon, the ND 'formulary' is large.  Overall, it is rather strange that NDs have rights to such compounds, since they do not abide by modern scientific premises, particularly the scientific premises of pharmacology.  This is evident in naturopathy's huge obligation to the pseudomedicinal system known as homeopathy, whose pills are claimed as medicinal / active when actually 'just water' / inert.

[2]: well, I went to ND school for four years and I can say that it truly is as absurd as 'unicorn breeding'.  When the label science us placed upon sectarian principles that are hugely science-ejected, such irrationalism / academic negligence is ethically revolting. 

[3]: yes, cult-like and a pseudoprofession.  In a deposition at 2002 about, I labeled naturopathy "cultic mystical weirdness".  It's 'mental circuit-blowing stupid' hasn't gotten any less. As scientific as the Tooth Fairy, as in completely false to this day in terms of its claim that that which is scientific is also that which is science-ejected / not-science-supported / nonscientific.  Science is a label naturopathy uses to promote what is actually hugely science-ejected.

I would argue, though, that naturopathy is categorically different than actual academic science.  It's not an issue of quality then, it is an issue of false posturing and unfair trade.  It is not what it says it is clinically or academically as a whole: so, commerce occurs and the initial conditions are untrue.

That's my take, from the inside: for naturopathy, science is a false label camouflaging their sectarian absurdity.

Skeptic North vs AANP Alliance - Naturopathy, "Science" & "Belief System":

here, I cite from a recent Skeptic North [SN] post regarding naturopathy, wherein naturopathy is labeled 'a nonscientific belief system' [see 001., below]; meanwhile, the AANP Alliance, which drew me into naturopathy in 1996, falsely labels naturopathy 'scientific' and 'not a belief system' [see 002., below]:

001. in "A Skeptic North Response to the Naturopaths' Rebuttal"(2009-11-30), Jonathan Abrams and Steve Thoms write:

"the rebuttal clearly demonstrated that naturopaths are not science-based medical practitioners, and that they lack the training, understanding of science, and qualification to prescribe [...] it's time to take a stand for medical care based on science [...] naturopathy is an unscientific practice of medicine [...] naturopaths do not respect science [...] for decades they have derided science-based medicine [...] the authors seem to want it both ways: science is bad for being reductionist, and yet, naturopathy is a totally legitimate science [...] there is no evidence that any treatments offered by naturopaths, but rejected by medicine, have any effect on disease [...] four years of specialized education is also meaningless if the subject is meaningless [...]  naturopaths often use homeopathy, a placebo treatment [...] four years learning about the details of homeopathy is of no use if homeopathy does not work [yet NDs call it a clinical science on their boards!...] naturopaths turn to pre-scientific views of healing such as 'medicatrix naturae' [vitalism, which is science ejected...] it was a textbook example of the typical circular reasoning and self-defeating logic that naturopaths use to justify their particular belief system."

Note: SN clearly states that naturopathy is a nonscientific belief system.

002. in "The Alliance Legislative Workbook" (1997) (archived here), the AANP Alliance, composed of "the AANP, Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences", states:

"naturopathic physicians are the modern day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."

Note: so, AANP Alliance claims the polar opposite of SN.  If you look at the current AANP schools list, it includes National University of Health Sciences and they have an AANMC ND program there -- so, therein again we get this huge science label upon the nonscientific-naturopathic.

003. since naturopathy clearly states its beliefs (here, here) which are not scientific facts but are articles of faith [hugely], yet naturopathy states such falsely as scientific fact / able to survive scientific scrutiny [ISYN], I'd not believe them since they are patently ABSURD.

Note: it is a basic human right / freedom that people may choose to believe or not believe that which is a matter of 'belief or conscience'.

My take on naturopathy: their beliefs are foisted upon the vulnerable [patients, students] as [false] objective fact, and therefore naturopathy has no sensitivity for basic human rights.

In fact, when I was at UB and told 'this is science', and told by the first AANP president and the school's first dean Sensenig that what runs my body is a 'purposeful life spirit' otherwise known as 'god power within', my human rights were violated.

Why?

Because matters of faith are choices, and objective scientific facts aren't.

Yet, in naturopathy, there is no distinction [look at OBNE, as linked too!]. 

Literally, the science-ejected is falsely labeled scientific fact -- naturopathy is nonsense of the highest order.

When a choice is no longer offered as a choice, but instead you are mindfucked into thinking it is 'all there is to choose from and therefore no choice at all', your basic human rights have been seriously abused.

What's more disgusting is that this occurs clinically and academically, primarily.

Part of the Naturocrit project is to advocate for a procedure -- likely through the United States Department of Education, the Connecticut Department of Education & kind [they are accomplices in all this, so don't hold your breath] -- that will compensate for damages due to the quite sophisticated false inducements [unfair trade?] implemented / administered by these pseudomedical pseudoprofessionals / naturopaths.