SGU 5x5 on Vitalism; HAND's Vitalism; Goldacre on Scrutiny

here, I cite from a 2008 Skeptics' Guide to the Universe 5x5 podcast concerning the science-ejected status of vitalism [see 001., below]; then from the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians [see 002., below]; and finally from Ben Goldacre [see 003., below]:

001. the Skeptics' Guide 5x5 states in "Podcast 45 November 11, 2008 - Chi and Other Forms of Vitalism" [saved 2010-12-08]:

"[the web page] SGU 5x5 - Five Minutes with Five Skeptics. A weekly science podcast discussing news in the world of science and pseudoscience. A companion to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe weekly podcast [...] podcast 45 - November 11, 2008: Chi and Other Forms of Vitalism [...the mp3, Steve] this is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about chi.  Chi, which is alternatively spelled chi or qi, the English approximation of a Chiense word which means life energy.  It is the core of traditional Chinese medicine philosophy [00.00.42...] this mystical life force or life energy [...Bob] the belief isn't limited to China, either. It's called prana in India.  It's ki in Japan.  In France Anton Mesmer called it animal magnetism [...] Bergson referred to it as elan vital, vital force [...Jay] an acupuncturist thinks that they're unblocking chi [...also] reiki [...and] therapeutic touch [...Steve] these are all forms of vitalism, the notion that there's a life energy that separates living things from nonliving things [...] it is a supernatural or metaphysical thing, a spiritual force [...] but, of course, there isn't a like of evidence for any of this.  These are all prescientific notions, the attempts of primitive societies to understand what they could not understand, the nature of health and illness for example, life and non-life.  Modern science has not verified any of these concepts of life energy or life force.  In fact, this fight was fought within the scientific world about 100 years ago and the vitalists, those who thought that there was some kind of vital force, LOST.  The evidence clearly showed, and the logic clearly led to the conclusion, that vitalism is unnecessary and that nothing like chi or like a life force exists.  It's not necessary to explain any biological process [...] it is simply unnecessary, which is the harshest criticism you could level at any idea in science."

Note: tell that to naturopathy!

002. meanwhile, to illustrate the vitalism that is at the heart of naturopathy [falsely posed as science], here's the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians' article "Vol.XIV #4 - The Centesimal And Lm Potencies, Simillimum - Winter 2001: A Comparison from the 5th and 6th Editions of The Organon By David Little" [vsc 2010-12-08]:

"[per 'life force, quoting Hahnemann] 'the life-force appears to strive to assert its superiority' [...] this action by the life force [...] 'the life force brings forth the exact opposite condition-state counteraction [...] proportionate to the life force's own energy' [...] 'after action of the life force' [...] 'our life force always and everywhere brings to pass' [...] strong medicines in large doses tend to cause opposing counteractions from the life force [...] the lebenskraft (life force) [...] to this subtle medicinal disease the life force needs to use no more secondary effect than necessary [...] 'the life force appears to strive to assert its superiority by extinguishing the alterations' [...] Hahnemann spoke of the essential role of life force in the Preface to the introduction of the 6th Organon in 1842 [...] 'homeopathy is aware that a cure can only succeed through the counteract on of the life force against the correctly chosen medicine. The stronger the life force that still prevails in the patient the more certain and faster the cure that takes place' [...per 'vital force'] so that the vital force never receives the same exact dose twice in succession. In this way, the vital force can receive the single dose or a series of doses in medicinal solution without the aggravations witnessed in the dry or unmodified liquid dose [...] once again we see the importance of the balance of the primary action of the remedy and curative response of the vital force [...] against which the instinctive vital force was compelled to direct an increased amount of energy [...] compelling the vital force to act [...] the aggravation of symptoms compels the vital force to act [...] this medicinal disease alters the vital force [...] will soon be extinguished by the vital force [...] the idea of a crisis-like aggravation compelling the vital force to increase its energy [...] an increase of energy of the vital force [...] the vital force directs its whole energy [...] the vital force heals the pathology in stages [...] the instinctive vital force [...] it may mistune the vital force [...] here the vital force is compelled to produce an antagonistic secondary action [...] in homeopathy the vital force is exposed to a very small dose [...] the curative reaction of the vital force is not disrupted by the repetition of the minimal size [...] the lebenskraft (vital force) [...] the vital force removes no mistuning [...] the vital force is moving toward the cure."

Note: HANP informs us "the practitioner of homeopathy must be well versed in the science of the body in both health and disease [...] an increasing body of scientific research is proving the potent biological action of homeopathic preparations" [vsc 2010-12-08]:.  This is false. A member list can be found here.

003. at The Guardian, Ben Goldacre writes in "Mutual Criticism is Vital in Science. Libel Laws Threaten It" (2010-12-08):

"in science and medicine, criticizing each others' ideas and practices [...is] exactly what you are supposed to do, all of the time [...] medicine is almost unique among all human activities in that it's possible to do enormous harm even when you set out with the absolute best of intentions [...] in medicine, when you make a mistake about whether something works or not, it's possible to cause death and suffering on a genuinely biblical scale.  That's why we have systems to try and stop us making such mistakes, and at the heart of all these lies mutual criticism: criticizing each others ideas and practices. This isn't something that's marginal, or tolerated by the profession. It's something that is welcomed and actively encouraged. More than that, it's institutionalized [...] in a BBC World Service documentary out today – made with the BBC Radio science unit, rather than current affairs – we explain why science is different, and why it is dangerous to have laws that restrict the everyday scrutiny of each others' ideas and practices that scientists and doctors necessarily engage in [...] Discovery: Science and Libel is on the BBC World Service [about 28 minutes...] you can listen again online through the BBC iPlayer."

Note: hear, hear.  It, it.  Again, again.

N.D. Hulda Clark Has Died - Hey, Nobody Really Noticed [Or Cared That Much, Which is Good]:

here, I cite recent postings by Orac and Dr. Barrett mentioning the death of naturopath Hulda Clark [see 001., below]; and I do a Google search per "Hulda Clark Dies" for a sense of her significance [see 002., below];

001.a. at Respectful Insolence, Orac writes in "Requiem For A Quack":

"what can one say about 'Dr.' Hulda Regehr Clark? I call her a quack, because that's what she was [...] this is a woman who for over two decades has [...] preyed upon the fears and scientific ignorance of average cancer patients in order to sell them useless 'cures' [...] far be it for me to be hypocritical and feign much in the way of sorrow when a woman who has done so much harm to so many patients for so many years is finally [...] rendered unable to do any further harm [...] she could rightly be called the Dark Lord of Quackery."

001.b. Dr. Barrett states in "Consumer Health Digest 09-37":

"Hulda Regehr Clark, author of The Cure for All Cancers, The Cure for All Diseases, and a few similar books, died on September 3, 2009 at the age of 80 [...] Clark wrote that all cancers and many other diseases are caused by 'parasites, toxins, and pollutants' and can be cured by killing the parasites and ridding the body of environmental chemicals [...] admirers portray her as a great 'research scientist' even though she published no scientific reports. Critics regard Clark as a quack and charge that she exploited desperate patients [and Quackwatch has the article The Bizarre Claims of Hulda Clark which states 'Clark also listed a naturopathic (N.D.) degree from the Clayton College of Natural Health' and mentions that infamous-to-me N.D. Pizzorno testified AGAINST her in terms of her zapper contraption]."

002. searching Google, per "Hulda Clark Dies" reveals some interestingly trivial rankings [these are the top three as of 2009-09-12]:

002.a. a memorial page for Dr. Clark, "to honor the legacy of healing Hulda Clark left us with";

002.b. a link to Respectful Insolence [not to say this blog is insignificant];

002.c. a link to the Cancer Treatment Watch article "How Hulda Clark Victimized My Parents" by Patricia Chavez;

Note: on the bright side, these are not major media outlets in the sense of television or cable, or large newspapers communicating a 'significant cultural loss'. And in that sense, Clark's passing has not been noticed. Wikipedia, by the way, has an entry for her that seems very N.D. sympathetic, whereby again Pizzorno is cited for his expert opinion regarding physiology [ha!] and the article states Clark "held a naturopathy degree from the Clayton College of Natural Health, a school that lacks accreditation from any accreditation agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education."

Danger! The USDE, whom I've written to many times, has done nothing about the 'naturopathy education racket': as I have often written, there are MANY fully-accredited naturopathy schools that are completely bogus in their claims of what actually is scientific and science-based [Pizzorno's Bastyr, my alma mater U.B. -- for starters, check out 'The Education Robbers'].

003. I should also mention that today's North East Conference on Science and Skepticism had a small mention of Clark's harmfulness and passing during the live Skeptics' Guide to the Universe taping. My impression was that the audience was aghast at her activities and that her activities had gone on for so long in supposedly civilized and lawful North America.

SGU's Novella: "A Naturopath [BCNA's Swetlikoff] On Water," and UBCNM:

some 'right on the money' excerpted comments regarding naturopathy by Dr. Novella from the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast blogpage, "The Rogues Gallery" [see 01. below]. Being quite familiar with the University of Bridgeport's naturopathy pseudoscience [I am one of the snookered!], I've provided an immediate example of UB naturopathic nonsensical 'scientific nonscience' [see 02. below], and some related -- rather coded -- material from Dr. Swetlikoff's own site [see 03. below], and the BCNA site [see 04. below]:

01. Novella, S. (MD ?) states in "A Naturopath On Water"{08-10-2008}:

"[truly] it is a menace to the public when governments license nonsense. It is a betrayal of the public trust, it diminishes all professionalism, and it generally propagates confusion in an area where licensure is meant to provide clarity. One egregious example is naturopathy [...] naturopaths are health care pseudoscientists [...] essentially, they are what happens when medicine is completely disconnected from science, evidence, and even common sense [...you get] pure pseudoscience - complete with superficial medical jargon but delightfully devoid of any evidence or scientific rationale [...e.g. Canada's] Lorne Swetlikoff [ND Bastyr 1988] is the current president of the College of Naturopathic Physicians of British Columbia [BCNA]. To a non-critical thinker the pseudoscience spewed by Swetlikoff and other naturopaths may sound compelling and 'sciencey.' But on close examination it is pure pseudoscience."

Note: one of the best definitions of pseudoscience I've ever come across is at Wikipedia:

"pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status."

02. UBCNM's irrationality / 'epistemic fraud:'

02.a. UB states that naturopathy is science;

visit this compilation.

02.b. UB states naturopathy's essential vitalism;

visit this compilation.

02.c. vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected;

visit this compilation.

Note: obviously, UB's label upon naturopathy as scientific is completely misleading.

03. what Dr. Swetlikoff says:

03.a. in "About Dr. Swetlikoff" we're told:

"naturopathic medicine [...is] science-based holistic health care."

03.b. in "About Naturopathic Medicine" we're told:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct healing science and philosophy [...] the art and science of supporting the natural healing processes of the patient [...] the naturopathic physician will practice the art, science and spirit of the profession to the best of his/her ability and judgment following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#1, the primary principle] vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature). The naturopathic physician shall [must!] recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being [vitalism; for more such essential, mandatory naturopathic vitalism {so often, as here, coded}, click here]."

Note: the great irrationality of naturopathy can bee seen in these Swetlikoff examples -- placing the label science upon that which is preponderantly HUGELY nonscience [vitalism, supernaturalism & kind].

04. the British Columbia Naturopathic Association states in "The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine":

"[per Cassie, G. (MA ?), BCNA Executive Director] naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine. The third major difference is the philosophy of naturopathic treatment [..with #1, the primary principle] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: the body has the inherent capacity to heal [...] embracing these tenets [like VMN], on a science-based platform, is at the heart of naturopathic medical care [...NDs have studied] all the basic sciences any general practitioner receives [...NDs have] 'a comprehensive foundation in the biological and biomedical sciences' [...and] 'the commission believes that the division between alternative and orthodox medicine is not of a scientific nature' [huh?!?!]."

Note: the coding, the coding!!! The vitalism that dare not speak its name. Visit the Federation of Naturopathic Physician Licensing Authorities to see that the expression VMN is truly, contextually, a representation of naturopathy's overarching vitalism figmentation.