Connecticut's ND Gruber Claims Homeopathy as Biologically Active / Effective

here, I cite from a recent newspaper article whereby a New Canaan, Connecticut naturopath states that homeopathy is an effective allergy treatment [see 001., below]; and then from the web page of that ND whereby homeopathy is labeled effective [see 002., below]:

001. Melvin Mason reports in "New Canaan Physician Pushes Natural Allergy Cures" (2011-05-15)[saved 2011-05-15]:

"Dr. Gary Gruber [...] who also teaches naturopathic medicine at the University of Bridgeport [(his alma mater, actually)...] recommends [...] for people with longstanding allergy problems [...] homeopathic drops to desensitize the eyes."

Note: me thinks homeo. is being posed as specifically medicinal.

002. ND Gruber states in "Services" [vsc 2011-05-15]:

"I have effective therapies [...e.g.] homeopathic medicines are very small doses of natural substances that can stimulate the body's self-healing response without side effects. This gentle, effective system of medicine is based on the principle that 'like cures like'. Homeopathy supports healing and does not interfere with conventional or pharmaceutical treatments."

Note: so, there is a claim of biological activity and efficacy / medicinality.  But, we know homeopathy in fact is so inert that its recommendation is considered unethical [deceptive] and further research is unwarranted [it's implausible].  Yet, at the University of Bridgeport, naturopathy is STILL labeled a "health science" [vsc 2011-05-15] and within it is homeopathy [vsc 2011-05-15].

naturopathy -- truly the reversal of all values / a strange land of [false] educational and clinical commerce.

perhaps the article should be titled "New Canaan Metaphysician Pushes Magic Beans and Unicorn Tears as Allergy Cures."

'You Need to Detox with Homeopathic Drops' Because 'Thoughts and Emotions Generate Biochemical Toxins' - Gill, B. (ND NCNM)

here, I cite from a recent article [advertisement!] by ND Gill in the Nelson Daily that sounds like nonsense to me [see 001., below]:

001. Gill, B. (ND NCNM) of Nelson,  British Columbia, Canada states in "It’s Cleansing Time: A Column by Dr. Brenda Gill" [vsc 2011-05-13]:

"after three years of pre-medicine and four years of naturopathic medical school [...] Nelson naturopathic doctor Brenda Gill [...] graduated from NCNM [...and] is licensed by the ANPBC and is a member of the B.C. and Canadian Naturopathic Association in British Columbia [...and uses] nutrition, herbs, supplements, exercise therapy, homeopathy and physical medicine [...] it’s time to start thinking of a rejuvenating cleanse [...] to eliminate the accumulation of toxins that have gathered over the year. External toxicity can be acquired by breathing, eating or having physical contact [(really!)...with] chemicals in the air and water, electromagnetic radiation, on our food, using pharmaceutical drugs and other medications, eating refined, packaged, processed foods, as well as using stimulants and sedatives [(really!)...there's also] internal toxins  [...from] normal everyday functions of our cells [...and] microbes such as intestinal bacteria [...and] our thoughts and emotions also generate biochemical toxins [(oh really!!!)...] cleansing helps to prevent build-up of toxicity and degeneration [...] we detoxify through the respiratory, gastrointestinal, urinary, skin, lymph, thought and spiritual systems [(oh really!!!)...] to clear toxins from our body [...including using] homeopathic detoxification drops [...] for those wishing to try a specific cleanse tailored to you, consider an appointment with Dr. Brenda Gill at 352-3150 [...] drbgill@netidea.com."

Note: hmmm.  Some thoughts: a) weird -- a whole list of scientifically actual systems, in terms of physiology, are listed and then tacked onto that list is the supernatural figmentatious, nonchalantly; we know homeopathic drops don't do anything; these ubiquitous toxins are a 'sectarian medical bogey-man' used to get clients in the door; NCNM's knowledge basis is wacko; this is an advertisement; BCNA and CAND are famous for labeling naturopathy "science-based" yet look at this nonsense like the homeopathy within naturopathy that contradicts that "science-based" label, as does this toxin phobia / paranoia / delusion.

Smashing! Abertay University's Dr. Kevin Smith in The Courier -- Homeopathy is "Ethically Unacceptable", Not "Genuine Medicine" and Based on "False Beliefs"

The Courier reports in "Abertay Lecturer Dr Kevin Smith Calls Homeopathy 'Ethically Unacceptable'" (2011-05-09):

"Dr. Kevin Smith [...] a senior lecturer specialising in genetics and bioethics [...at] Abertay University [which is in Dundee, Scotland...] has branded homeopathy 'ethically unacceptable' and called for it to be rejected by healthcare professionals [hear, hear...] writing in the journal Bioethics [here's the abstract...regarding] the positive and negative features of homeopathy from an ethical perspective [...] he wrote 'homeopathic preparations are so diluted that they contain no significant amounts of active ingredients, and thus can have no effect on the patient's body. Those who believe it works either do not understand the science or are simply deluded. Homeopathy is not ethically neutral — it is wasteful and potentially dangerous' [...] the potential benefits included its non-invasiveness, cost-effectiveness and the placebo effect — in which a patient's condition improves even though they have been given no genuine medicine. The negative effects were patients' failure to seek effective healthcare, wastage of resources, promulgation of false beliefs and a weakening of commitment to scientific medicine [...] in his biography on Abertay's website, Dr Smith describes himself as 'committed to the principles of science-based medicine, and strongly opposed to pseudoscience and quackery' [hear, hear]."

Note: AU also has the article up, here.  Meanwhile, North American naturopathy labels homeopathy a "clinical science".

my relatives, who are from Scotland and in Scotland, might say: "smashing!"

we'll have to forgive The Courier and Dr. Smith for spelling pseudo wrong in both the newspaper article and on his bio. page, respectively -- I misspell all the time.

and just in case my label on this post of "sectarian" as in "unethical sectarian pseudoscience" causes confusion in Scotland particularly, I'm not using that label in terms of Scotland's / North Ireland's religious bigotries / strifes [and other places in the world].

I'm referring to a usage I've gleaned from a very old edition of Popular Science Monthly from 1889:

"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian.  Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved, for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed."

in this case, homeopathy is a form of sectarian medicine: dogma / creed based, not only not proved but scientifically rejected.

New Zealand Society of Naturopaths Defends Homeopathy With Bullshit, 2011-04

here, I cite from a recent press release of the New Zealand Society of Naturopaths [NZSN] defending homeopathy [see 001., below]; then I quote from quite-the-scientific-dismissal of that absurd treatment system [see 002., below]:

001. the NZSN states in "Homeopathy a Credible and Effective Health Treatment" (2011-04-27)[saved 2011-04-29; my comments are in bold]:

"the recent press release entitled [gram., the correct word is 'titled'] 'call for doctors not to use homeopathy or refer to homeopaths [...] has provoked a response from the New Zealand Society of Naturopaths [...] Professor Shaun Holt [...] states that 'practicing homeopathy or endorsing it by referring patients is not consistent with the ethical or regulatory requirements of practicing medicine and these authors call for doctors to do neither' [...]";

hear, hear.

"the NZSN points out that homeopathy has had worldwide credibility and acceptance for over a century [...and] the New Zealand Homeopathic Society estimate that more than 500 million people worldwide use homeopathic medicines as their sole, or main, therapeutic agents [...]";

that number is actually very disturbing, 'empty remedies the world over'.  But just because it is popular and such doesn't mean that it works.

"classical homeopathy calls for an in-depth consultation with the individual resulting in a carefully selected homeopathic remedy to suit the person. Therefore it is difficult to test homeopathic remedies using the blanket 'one-remedy-suits-all' approach of allopathic medicine. This is the reasoning behind the lack of conclusive scientific research to prove the effectiveness of a remedy. Homeopathy is simply not suited to testing in this manner [...]";

I call BULLSHIT. Homeopathy is IN FACT very testable. 'Fairies under the garden who disappear whenever you look for them', well, that's untestable.  Ben Goldacre suggested a very effective, cheap, and simple way to test homeopathy: have the homeopath work their woo consultation, and select their remedy for the patient, but then have the patient pick up the remedy at a pharmacy and on that side of the study, do a placebo controlled cross-over that records the result of actual homeopathy sugar pills and fake homeopathy sugar pills [yes, absurdity piled upon absurdity].  So, in fact, homeopathy is not AT ALL impervious to scientific investigation.  Stating homeopathy is not analyzable is an EXCUSE and is an indication of HUGE scientific ignorance.

"the New Zealand Medical Journal (NZMJ) reported that 1-19 deaths per 1000 people admitted to hospital occur due to hospital mistreatment [etc....]";

this has NOTHING do do with whether or not homeopathy works.  This is like saying 'my magic carpet is SOOOO much safer than your jet plane'.

"the New Zealand Society of Naturopaths stand by their promotion of homeopathy as a valuable tool for New Zealanders to promote their health and wellbeing."

of course you do, it is FUSED into naturopathy worldwide, including that in New Zealand -- and so is its deception and absurdity.

002. of course, homeopathy was thoroughly dismissed in the UK's 2009's "House of Commons Science and TechnologyCommittee Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy" which states (see ):

"it is unacceptable for the MHRA to license placebo products — in this case sugar pills — conferring upon them some of the status of medicines. Even if medical claims on labels are prohibited, the MHRA’s licensing itself lends direct credibility to a product. Licensing paves the way for retail in pharmacies and consequently the patient’s view of the credibility of homeopathy may be further enhanced. We conclude that it is time to break this chain and, as the licensing regimes operated by the MHRA fail the Evidence Check, the MHRA should withdraw its discrete licensing schemes for homeopathic products [...] we conclude that placebos should not be routinely prescribed on the NHS. The funding of homeopathic hospitals -- hospitals that specialize in the administration of placebos -- should not continue, and NHS doctors should not refer patients to homeopaths."

Note: here's a link to a Youtube video that refers to the above findings -- including the homeopath's invocation of homeopathy's underlying vitalism, the claim that homeopathy is IMPERMEABLE to rigorous scientific study, and quite-a-heap-of-cherry-picking of evidence that it's effective beyond placebo -- and includes the great Ben Goldacre:

UM's Salzberg at Forbes on UMM Center Integrative Medicine / Pseudoscience / Magical Thinking

here, I cite from a recent article by Steven Salzberg at his Forbes blog regarding CAM/AM/IM at the University of Maryland [see 001., below]:

001. Steven Salzberg writes at Forbes in "Why Medical Schools Should Not Teach Integrative Medicine (2011-04-21)[my comments are in bold]:

"pseudoscience is insinuating itself into our medical schools across the nation, going by the name 'integrative medicine'. Integrative medicine is just the latest buzzword for a collection of superstitions, myths, and pseudoscience that has gone by various names over the years [...aka] holistic medicine [...] alternative medicine [...] complementary and alternative medicine [...] and lately integrative medicine [...]";

naturopathy has paralleled this lineage.  A Google.com web search of: "naturopathic alternative" brings me to this CT ND's site, and "naturopathic complementary" brings me to this Ontario ND's site, and "naturopathic integrative" gets me to this Arizona ND's site.

"CAM is moving into the medical curriculum at respectable medical schools, including the University of Maryland [..] I’m a professor at U. Maryland College Park, part of the same system as U. Maryland Medicine [...] how unfortunate that this pseudoscience has infiltrated its way into the medical curriculum, and that the UMM Center is, in essence, mis-training medical students [...] UM Medicine is undermining its own scientific and educational mission [...] someone ought to tell him that integrative medicine has no place in a 21st century medical curriculum [...]";

as someone who went through a similar mis-training, I concur.

"perhaps the best way to reverse this trend is to call attention to it [...] what’s going on at Maryland’s medical school? [...] its clinical services include acupuncture, homeopathy, reflexology, reiki, qi gong [...] the practices lumped together are bad medicine [...] all of them are, well, nonsense [...] pseudoscientific practices";

hear, hear.

"homeopathic treatments are just water [...] the other treatments offered by the UMM Center are no better. Their qi gong brochure explains that 'sickness, pain or physical disorders are the result of qi blockage, or unbalanced qi in the body. Qi gong practice helps to balance the qi system in the body and break the qi blockage(s) to recover health.'  There’s no scientific basis for qi – it is simply magical thinking. The brochure, though, claims that qigong will give you 'an increased resistance to illness through a stronger immune system.' None of these claims have any good science to back them up."

hear, hear.

Homeopathy Taking a Big Hit in New Zealand! Meanwhile, North American Naturopathy-Homeopathy Witchcraft...

here, I cite from a synopsis of a letter in the New Zealand Medical Journal regarding homeopathy [see 001., below]; and then muse [see 002., below]:

001. Professor Shaun Holt writes in "Un-Doctored: Call For Doctors Not to Practice Homeopathy or Refer" [2011-04-18]:

"in a letter published in the current New Zealand Medical Journal [...] medical researcher Professor Shaun Holt [...] and other senior researchers [in full: Shaun Holt, Andrew Gilbey, David Colquhoun, Michael Baum, Edzard Ernst] from New Zealand and UK state that 'practicing homeopathy or endorsing it by referring patients is not consistent with the ethical or regulatory requirements of practicing medicine' [...] the letter was triggered by the recently released Medical Council of New Zealand Statement on Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which informs doctors of the standards of practice that are expected of them. It says that doctors must inform patients on the nature of alternative treatments they offer, the extent to which they are consistent with conventional theories of medicine, whether they have the support of the majority of doctors, and their likely effectiveness according to peer-reviewed medical publications, notwithstanding individual beliefs [...] 'there is no grey area with respect to homeopathy, a practice which involves diluting substances to such a degree that not a single molecule remains [...] homeopathy is completely inconsistent with our understanding of medicine. The British Medical Association has described it as witchcraft, yet a surprising number of doctors will tell their patients to see a homeopath' [...] said Professor Holt."

Note: hear, hear.  I don't have access to that Journal, and the original is password protected.

002. meanwhile, naturopathy-homeopathy in North America:

absurdly promotes homeopathy "witchcraft" as "clinical science" and has further supposedly gained another licensed state, North Dakota.

therein: licensed falsehood and truly a reversal of all values.

ND Hangee-Bauer's Pediatric Homeopathy Parental Advising Versus Australian Scientific Skepticism!

here, I cite from a recently posted American Health Journal video clip on AANP naturopathy by CBS affiliate winknews.com that promotes adult and particularly pediatric homeopathy nonsense [see 001., below]; then, a video about homeopathy from Australia [see 002., below]:

001. in "Naturopathic Family Medicine - Air Date 4/17/11" [vsc 2011-04-18; my comments are in bold]:

"[description] Dr. Carl Hangee-Bauer [ND Bastyr 1984] advises that naturopathic doctors give patients tools for improving their overall health and prevent disease [...] these doctors spend more time educating patients about their health and how to prevent their diseases or overcome diseases without a doctor in the room [...]";

ND H-B is the 2010-2011 AANP President, according to his own bio. So, we're told about "tools" and "educating", in the context of medicine [diagnosis, treatment] in the video's description.  On his bio. page, ND H-B informs us: "in my practice I adhere to these principles [...#6] to trust in the healing power of nature [HPN...#3] teach people ways to improve and maintain good health [...he uses] the principles and tools of natural medicine [...he's] a founder of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association [he has the second CA ND license that was granted], I have played an active role in successfully gaining licensure for NDs in California [...] I believe that naturopathic medicine is common-sense medicine."  So, on his own web page he barely mentions naturopathy's principle of HPN, and it is not explained.  And, of course, you hear this "teach" / educating ethos again.  All, of course, "common sense".  Even the President of the AANP does not transparently communicate the science-ejected vitalistic premise that is HPN! 

"[ND H-B]  naturopathic doctors are [...] a general practice field.  We're trained to help people learn about their health, improve their health, prevent disease and treat any disease that they may have [...] we spend a great deal more time with our patients helping educate them and helping them recognize how they can improve their health without a doctor in the room [...] it's about helping give them tools so you can get them started in a direction and let them follow through in ways that they can improve their health on a daily basis [...]";

so, there's the claim of NDs practicing general medicine, and mention of teaching / educating, and providing tools.  Regarding how much time is spent with patients: no amount of EXTRA time is useful if what is being taught is nonsense.  But have no worry, we're been told my ND H-B that naturopathy is common-sense medicine.

[00.01.05 ND H-B's patient Gabrielle Chernis] the great thing about starting to get care from a naturopathic doctor is that it has allowed me to educate myself. And as a mother [...] when your child becomes ill [pediatrics folks!...] it's pretty critical that we have some really good strategies right at hand [...] taking care of my own health has really empowered me to have a variety of things that I can do when my daughter gets a fever.  What should I do?  What kind of food should I give her?  What's the homeopathic remedy?  My daughter coughs at twelve midnight, I know what to do.  I hadn't really heard about homeopathy until I saw Dr. Hangee-Bauer [...]"; 

obviously, homeopathy is considered useful for treating ill children by this patient who was 'educated / empowered' by ND H-B.  Homeopathy is claim to be a 'really good strategy'.  Regarding what homeopathic remedy to take: sorry lady, it doesn't matter, they're just water and not even the homeopath can discriminate between the remedies if you unlabel them.  In this instance, naturopathic care is the doorway to homeopathic pediatric therapeutic nonsense. 

"now I have a book that's kind of just a handbook for moms ['Homeopathic Medicine for Children and Infants' is shown], that if a child gets a cough or a runny nose or a pinched finger, I have a hand book and a little homeopathic first aid kit in my house that I would use.  And without having been educated about this through my own care I don't know if I would be as effective caring for my children [...]";

it's rather all very cruel sounding, actually: her ND used homeopathy on her after he miseducated her about it, and now the children have to suffer it too.

"[ND H-B] it's a fundamental tenet of naturopathic medicine is to teach [...] we want people to be active participants in their health.  And to do that they need to be pointed in the right direction.  They need to know what kind of insights will help them improve their health, help them manage a chronic condition [...] it's about helping them navigate [...]";

again, it's all rather cruel sounding.  I'm all for patient's improving their lifestyle and such, but how is homeopathic nonsense helping someone?  I'd argue that having been miseducated in ND school [after all, ND H-B's alma mater does teach that within science is nonscience] it now happens clinically.  Homeopathy "the right direction", for ANY KIND OF DISEASE: no.   Have you been helped when you have been mind-fucked?  I don't think so.

Note: so THIS is family medicine!  Homeopathy / empty remedies for sick children!  This is a trimmed down version of the American Health Journal series that AANP naturopathy has up on its Youtube channel.  That source clip labels naturopathy "the art and science of natural medicine [...and calls it] a natural, vital part of the health care system [...and it does feature Murray and Pizzorno's 3rd edition] 'A Textbook on Natural Medicine.'"  The winknews.com section I've transcribed above begins 00.02.08 and ends 00.06.45.

002. and now for some scientific clarity regarding homeopathy, by way of mainly the Australian Skeptics.  Today Tonight reports in "Homeopathy is NOT Medicine" [vsc 2011-04-18]:

"[host] homeopathy generates billions of dollars in global sales [...these] so-called natural medicines [...are] used for all kinds of aliments in both adults and children.  But what's really in them? And do they actually work?  Or are they nothing more than expensive placebos? [...Richard Saunders] 'no herbs, no ingredients, it's more like witchcraft than science [...] there are laws in this country about the false labeling of medicines and homeopathy, which claims to be medicine, should be subject to those same laws' [...Simon Singh] after 200 years, and after 200 clinical trials, there is still no good evidence at all for any condition that homeopathy works [...the section reporter labels homeopathy an] absurdity [I LIKE that language!...] 'you're getting a dose of nothing'."

Note: even Phil Plait at Discover's Bad Astronomy has gotten in on it!  At TAM, a couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting Richard Saunders as he showed off his Pigasus origami creation.  These Australian connections bring back a lot of great memories I have of studying Australian film and literature at CUNY-Lehman with Gary Schwartz.  There is, by the way, quite a lot to blog about in Australia regarding naturopathy.  It is labeled "science" in its degrees, and goes even further into nonsense in some diagnostics and therapeutics [e.g., iridology, EAV and biomesotherapy] than North American naturopathy.

well, ND H-B promised "common-sense" by way of naturopathy.  Yet to meet it.

Institutionalized Falsehoods: NUHS's Naturopathy Chair Smith and Oregon.gov Claim Homeopathy is Scientifically Supported

here, I cite from the web pages of NUHS Chair ND Smith who claims homeopathy is "clinical science" [see 001., below]; then, I go to the trunk of the naturopathy tree, NCNM, and show the 'knowledge conflation inanity' that is at the core of naturopathy [see 002., below]:

001. Smith, F. (ND CCNM 1997) states:

001.a. in "Naturopathic Doctors" [vsc 2011-04-13]:

"modern, properly trained naturopathic doctors are graduates of naturopathic programs that are affiliated with [...] the CNME is the specialty accreditation agency that the U.S. Department of Education recognizes at the accreditor of naturopathic medical programs. There are 7 such programs in North America [...including] National University of Health Sciences (Lombard, Illinois) [...] these schools produce a graduate who is well versed in the natural healing arts, and who has been trained to assess the health status of the patient. Rigorous study of biomedical sciences, diagnosis and supervised internship help shape the competent naturopathic graduate [...] Part I of NPLEX [licensure exam] evaluates basic science knowledge (Anatomy, Biochemistry, Pathology, Microbiology, Physiology). Part II NPLEX evaluates the clinical science knowledge such as diagnosis and treatment."

Note: so, there you go, a claim that the ND boards are "science".  In the land of naturopaTHICKness: a 'university of science' teaches naturopathy, and this is "proper" and "competent"; "science" that is "rigorous" includes, as we shall see, what science has totally DISPATCHED.  Naturopathy is truly a reversal of basic values.  And who are the accomplices?  The federal and state departments of education and kind.

001.a1. for some background, ND Smith also states in "About Fraser Smith, N.D" [vsc 2011-04-13]:

"in 2005, Fraser Smith was recruited by National University of Health Sciences in Chicago, Illinois, to develop their naturopathic medicine program. The doctor of naturopathic medicine (ND) degree program."

Again, science is an overall category that's used to describe naturopathy.

001.a.2. but, what isn't specifically mentioned by ND Smith:

is that within  Part II the "Core Clinical Science Examination" is homeopathy, according to the exam's site.

Note: this boils down to naturopathy equating science and nonscience -- the absurdity of claiming that something is what it is not.  In my view, that is what integrative, holistic, alternative, natural medicine does: it refuses to analyze, and instead conflates.  But, that's insane.

001.b. in "Modalities of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-04-13]:

"the mechanisms of homeopathy are not fully understood [it doesn't work, and we know the mechanism is placebo!], and some aspects of it defy explanation [or sanity!], but in terms of application, there is a great deal of clinical history [leeches had the same pedigree!]. Naturopathic physicians tend to use homeopathy [I'll say!] for both chronic and acute conditions [like Nuremberg!], because of its non toxic nature (homeopathic preparations are extremely dilute)[I'll say!] and because homeopathic medicines can be matched to the patient in a very specific way (individualization) [an efficacy claim!]. This link at the National Institutes of Health describes homeopathy in greater detail and offers other resources and links which can be helpful [legitimacy by association!]."

Note: so, there you go.  A whole bunch of science-ejected or -unsupported archaic bunkum claimed as hugely efficacious. Notice the strategy of evoking the '.gov' authority of NIH as if this now makes bunkum scientific.

001.b1. also on that same page is homage to the core principle of TCM, "qi" / vitalism.  ND Smith tells us: 

"the fundamental basis of TCM [and naturopathy, I don't have to argue], is that the body's energy flows along certain pathways called meridians. This energy is known as qi;  it enters the body at conception and is the vital principle in the human body throughout life. Health is when the flow of qi is harmonious and uninhibited, and, its fundamental aspects - that of yin and yang, are in balance.  When qi is blocked, or yin and yang are not in harmony - disease results [really!]. TCM is a medical system unto it’s self: there is also a system of understanding of the bodies physiology [really!] which involves organs.  Each organ represents a broader concept than that of the organ in western medicine, including some energetic or mental/spiritual aspects."

Note: so there you go again: overarching all this nonsense is the label "science" because in naturopaTHICKland, science is only a letterhead and the page is filled up with whatever sectarian and archaic crap they want. Somehow, naturopathic institutions and practitioners, and the government entities that 'accomplice' / facilitate this whole thing, don't have a problem engaging in such falsely labeled commerce.  Along the lines of conflation, notice too that that which is mental is equated with that which is supernatural and energetic.  "Energy" is not being used here in any kind of scientific sense, it is a figmentation.

001.b2. furthermore, on the same page, we're told:

"naturopathic medicine [NM] is truly the embodiment of a tradition in medicine which could rightfully be called 'vitalistic' [V...] the vitalistic tradition is based on the premise that the body has an inherent ability to heal itself [IAHI]. The role of the physician is to support that self healing ability [SHA]. The vis medicatrix naturae or 'healing power of nature' [VMN-HPN] is the foundation of naturopathic medicine."

Note: so, to formulate the above sentence,  NM = V = IAHI = SHA = VMN-HPN.  Yet, it is nonsense to call vitalism 'within science'.

001.c. in "Naturopathic Chronicles: "Science and Belief" [vsc 2011-04-13]:

"naturopathic medicine [...has] a practice framework guided by principles [...] this weekend I was reviewing my notes for a class today on the concept of 'vitalism' [because this is the basis of naturopathy!...] science is an activity that accumulates knowledge, constantly evolves, and leads to ever more powerful models for understanding, explaining and predicting phenomena. The assertions of sciences are at least in principle testable, that is, they can be proven false through an experiment. If they stand the test of experimentation, they remain part of current knowledge [...] the doctor must be able to reconcile science and belief [...] Fraser Smith, ND."

Note: so, we get lectured on science while the truly science-ejected is mentioned.  The cognitive dissonance is amazing.

002. lets go to the source for the Full Monty, Oregon:

002.a. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"National College of Natural Medicine, the oldest accredited naturopathic medical school in North America, celebrated its 50-year anniversary in 2006 [...] 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 [...]";

a 'survives scientific scrutiny' claim.

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix natura [...] nature heals through the response of the life force [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [...] homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of 'like cures like.' Clinical observation indicates that it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels";

what science has dispatched is claimed to be within science.  And the supernatural is claimed to be within the scientific.

002.b. Oregon.gov's Board of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Naturopathy":

the same nonsense.  Specifically regarding homeopathy, we're told by the State of Oregon:

"homeopathic medicine: this powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old.  Homeopathic medicines act to strengthen the body’s innate healing response [coded vitalism]."

003. what they have done:

is legislate FRAUD, in a pseudomedical, pseudoprofessional, pseudoscientific manner at an institutional level and particularly political level.  This is truly a total reversal of all values and virtues.  Once that happens, HOW exactly do you hold hucksters accountable for ACTS of nonsense when the law they're governed under is NONSENSE INCARNATE?

anyone harmed by naturopathy -- and I include, as in my case, anyone miseducated [mindfucked, truly] and therein abused and derailed from other NOT FRAUDULENT educational DOCTORAL options that have integrity -- can count these contributors as responsible: 

the ND / NMD practitioner, their alma mater, their AANP state org., the State they're practicing in, the federal educational apparatus, regional accreditors, the national and international naturopathy apparatus.

Cheerleading Treatment of Advanced Cancers with Homeopathy's Psorinum - AANP's Naturopathic Medicine Journal, 2011-04

here, I cite from the official journal [NMJ] of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] which shockingly presents as plausible and acceptable the hugely implausible and likely publicly harmful treatment of serious disease (cancer) with magic beans / unicorn tears (homeopathy) [see 002., below]; then, I visit the web pages of the ND who summarized the study, where he further promotes / cheer-leads, and his AANP affiliate which hugely mislabels / manipulates [see 003., below]:

001. first, about the homeopathic 'remedy' psorinum, which is the 'substance' that the AANP article says is used to treat cancer:

001.a. the International Academy of Classical Homeopathy states in "Psorinum" [saved 2011-4-07]:

"psorinum has been proved sufficiently to enable us to use it successfully in the treatment of disease."

Note: really! Nothing homeopathic has ever been shown to treat disease, in sum.  This is a homeopathic scabies remedy: made from somebody's scabies related ooze. It's what they call a nosode, but details are quite sparse.  Manufacturers state that the remedy's contents are itself, usually.  HOW can any future replication of a supposed therapeutic material / substance be done when it is completely undefined / unquantified / unstandarized?

001.b.  homeopath Morrell states in "Psorinum" [saved 2011-4-07]:

"a case begins to unravel under the influence of our remedies. It unravels in the general direction of the original cause [miasm], be it sycosis, syphilis or psora [homeopathy's imaginary 'causes'...] psorinum is the single most powerful remedy in the whole of medicine [...] the itch or scabies [psora] does produce a deep-seated and 'congenital' miasm [...] I have also noticed that single doses of Psorinum 200, 1M and IOM [in my opinion] used 3-4 times a year with infants and young children act as an excellent prophylactic against nearly all childhood illnesses [ah, homeopathic vaccination!...] do not give Psorinum in high potency first, over 200c. Appalling aggravations can occur, including the most ugly and inveterate skin eruptions, often all over the face and head and lasting for many, many weeks."

Note: really!  THIS is the remedy that skeptics SHOULD overdose with!  It would be PROOF homeopathy works, though you'd have a hard time publicly.  But, I dare anyone to find a case where someone ends up in the ER in such a state and the cause was this remedy.  This idea of preventing disease in children with something KNOWN TO BE INERT is sickening in-itself.

002. Johnson, C. (ND SCNM) states in NMJ's "Primary Homeopathic Treatment of Cancers of the Pancreas, Stomach, Gallbladder and Liver: Psorinum Therapy Shows Promise in Treatment of Advanced Disease" [vsc 2011-04-07; a study I can't get access to in its original form, that I can't find indexed on Medline either; my comments are in bold below]:

"about the author [summarizing the study]: Christopher Johnson, ND, is a naturopathic doctor in private practice in Alexandria, Va., specializing in homeopathy. He received a BA in religious studies from the University of Virginia and a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences. He is vice president and legislative chair of the Virginia Association of Naturopathic Physicians [VANP]. Johnson writes, speaks, and teaches widely about homeopathy. His articles have appeared in Homeopathy Today and the Sharing Wellness Newsletter. His website is www.ThriveNaturopathic.com and his blog is http://WorldofHomeopathy.wordpress.com [...]";

homeopathy, homeopathy, homeopathy. By the way, SCNM claims that naturopathy and its contents like homeopathy are medical science: "the degree of doctor of naturopathic medicine requires four years of graduate level study in the medical sciences [...including] homeopathy."

"reference: Chatterjee A, Biswas J, Chatterjee AK, Bhattacharya S, Mukhopadhyay B, and Mandal S. Psorinum therapy in treating stomach, gall bladder, pancreatic, and liver cancers: a prospective clinical study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:724743 [...]";

a sCAM journal, apparently not publicly accessible.

"design: non-randomized, observational, single-arm trial considering psorinum therapy in treatment of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, gallbladder adenocarcinoma, and hepatocellular carcinoma [...]";

a very very weak study design.

"participants: 158 total subjects (44 with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, 42 with gastric adenocarcinoma, 40 with gallbladder adenocarcinoma, and 32 with hepatocellular carcinoma); 25% were diagnosed with stage III and 71% with stage IV disease [...]";

so, the subjects' pathologies, though all advanced cancers, were quite unfocused / diverse;

"inclusion criteria: histopathology / cytopathologic confirmation of malignancy, inoperable tumors, and no prior chemotherapy or radiation treatment [...]";

huh?  158? So many people were found in MODERN society so late in EVER getting typical treatment and then decided to forgo conventional treatments for magic beans instead?  Where are such patients?  Was this study in the third world? [India, actually, as ND Johnson revealed at his own web page 'analysis' below].

"treatment: psorinum 6X was administered, up to 0.02 ml/Kg body weight orally (as liquid drops under the tongue) [aka further dilution of the absurdly dilute] once daily for all participants [...]";

in other words, the absurdly diluted homeopathic remedy was even further diluted proportional to body weight.

"conventional [...] and homeopathic [...] supportive measures were also administered [so much for controls...like] Lycopodium 200C and Baryta carbonicum 200C [...] the primary limiting factor of this study is the lack of a control for the effects of the[se] supportive homeopathic measures [...] it is quite possible the outcomes were due in part (or in chief) to their influence [if they could work in this universe, that is...] caution should be taken, however, in interpreting these findings. Promising phase II trials [such as this] are notorious for disappointing in the phase III setting. Independent verification in a controlled context is needed before an unqualified recommendation can be made [such studies as these are ethically repugnant, so I don't think anyone will waste resources and victimize people in this way again, besides maybe, in India...]";

and there are the confounds / the uncontrolled befuddling factors that foul this study entirely even if we had plausibility of the primary therapy. 

"key findings: complete tumor response occurred in 33.33% of those diagnosed with stage III disease and 10.71% of those with stage IV. Partial response occurred in 41.03% and 33.93% respectively. Five-year survival rates were 38.64% (pancreatic), 38.1% (gastric), 37.5% (gallbladder), and 43.75% (liver) [...]";

we can't know that their treatment actually did this, and what 'remedy' [if] obviously.  There is no nontreated control arm [which isn't any different from a homeopathy treatment arm, in my opinion].  The natural course of these cancers may parallel these findings; the subjects may have particularities not accounted for.  Here's a guess at a major confound: exceptionally poor, mainly terminal cancer patients usually without access to medical care and adequate nutrition suddenly got hospitalized, or a lot of attention / support at least on an out-patient basis.  So, they got to eat better and be in less stressful circumstances, and / or got social supports that then aided their health.  With better health due to these improved circumstances, there was measurable effect on their tumors that wouldn't be seen in industrialized countries since such say 'Western' patients wouldn't be benefiting from beginning SO IMPOVERISHED and such.  Yet, homeopathy takes the credit -- when results could really be from improvement of life-quality circumstances such as malnutrition and psychological stresses. 

"no adverse effects of Psorinum were observed, though a few participants had mild oral irritation and skin itching [...]";

these are adverse effects, if even "mild."  Find me someone who praises such and then we'll talk about how such isn't adverse.

"results of this study, which demonstrate a 19-38-fold improvement compared to conventional treatment in five-year survival of non-resectable pancreatic cancer are, to put it mildly, intriguing [...]";

the authors' impression is that, specifically, for pancreatic cancer, this WORKS WONDERFULLY, in my opinion.  But why aren't, instead, alarm bells ringing in the head of the ND reporting this?  HOW, just exactly HOW, can empty remedies do this?  HOW can this study be trusted also based on its design?  Oh, I forgot, he's a homeopath and this all must be, to put it mildly, orgasmic for him.  While it is, truly, absurd.

"similar improvements in survival rates with Psorinum therapy were demonstrated in the other cancer types studied [...]";

details?

"considering the very poor response of these cancers to conventional treatment and the apparent lack of toxicity and potential benefit of psorinum therapy, it seems reasonable that clinicians with oncologic experience might offer this therapy to their patients on an individual basis [...]";

reasonable?  Empty remedies have potential benefit?  Are therapeutic?  To paraphrase Dr. Atwood from along time ago, 'just because commercial airplanes carry some risk [or can't do the things we'd like them to do], it doesn't justify magic carpets'.  But I'm sure the new Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians is pleased.

"the author is currently working [...on] the guidelines of the supportive homeopathic measures [...and the] execution of this protocol is therefore likely to be feasible for practitioners in the near future [...and] a phase III trial [...] is currently underway."

and observers thought that the Gonzalez regime and trial was heinous.  A phase III trial of empty remedies?  Meanwhile, in Konzentrationslager Dachau...  How is this permitted, after all that we now know about homeopathy? 

003. ND Johnson and VANP:

003.a. ND Johnson states:

003.a1. at Thrive Naturopathic:

003.a1.i. in "Homeopathy" [vsc 2011-04-08]:

"'homeopathy cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and the most complete medical science' -- Mahatma Ghandi".

Note: well, I guess that makes it science then.  No it doesn't, but India loves it still.

003.a1.ii. in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2011-04-08]:

"naturopathic doctors (ND's) are trained in all of the conventional medical sciences, and take additional hours in nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, and physical medicine [...] the following 6 precepts represent the official philosophy of our profession [...] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature: this is what distinguishes naturopathic medicine most significantly from conventional medicine. The emphasis here is on the healing potential of the human body [coded vitalism...] ND's must pass both basic science and clinical board exams."

Note: how conventional is their science if it contains the science-ejected falsely labeled science?  Have you ever seen a profession that doesn't transparently explain its science-ejected premises and contents and instead falsely labels the whole context science?

003.a2. at his World of Homeopathy:

003.a2.i. in "2 New Studies Demonstrate Significant Effectiveness of Homeopathy in Treatment and Palliation of Cancer" [vsc 2011-04-08; my comments are in bold](2011-02-26):

"two important studies have recently been published concerning the use of homeopathy in cancer – one demonstrating greater effectiveness in certain types of cancers than any treatment yet assessed by modern research methods [...]";

 really.  A bullshit detector should be going off!  But not for this ND-homeopath.

"the first study looked at primary homeopathic treatment of cancer – meaning, treatment with the intent to cure without the use of conventional oncologic treatment. The second study looked at the effect of homeopathy on the quality of life in cancer patients receiving concomitant conventional care. Both studies had very impressive results [...showing homeopathy's] extraordinary degree of effectiveness [...]"; 

yes, people ONLY got homeopathy for their very serious cancers in the first study.  And of course, homeopathy was wonderful in both [same lead author, by the way; the Nobel committee I'm sure will be a-knocking!].

"the results of the first study are far and away the most robust of any therapy (conventional or holistic) yet assessed in treatment of pancreatic, gallbladder, liver, and stomach cancers [...it was] conducted at the Critical Cancer Management Research Centre and Clinic located in Kolkata, India [...]";

yes, sadly, India loves homeopathy and therein may be the source of a huge amount of confounding bias.

"the results were astonishing, with survival rates many times greater than that achieved with conventional treatment or any other type of rigorously assessed cancer care [...and] 'the therapy was effective in reducing their cancer-related pain, cough, dyspnea, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, constipation and improving appetite and weakness [...] no adverse side effects were observed from the drug Psorinum' [...]";

yes, TOO ASTONISHING for an empty remedy to do, an empty remedy falsely termed a drug -- actually VERY UNRIGOROUSLY tested.

"at the 2010 ASCO Annual Conference, Chatterjee and Biswas presented results of another similar trial – use of the same Psorinum protocol (and supportive homeopathic and conventional care) with 95 patients having inoperable lung cancer (non-small cell cancer of the lung – the most common type).  Outcomes in this trial were similar with a 5 year survival rate of 44%. This is compared to 16% with conventional treatment [...]"; 

some seriously fishiness alarms should be going off internationally.  Aren't their international accords prohibiting such patient ABUSE?

"taken together, data from these two trials demonstrate a very high level of effectiveness of Psorinum therapy along with supportive conventional and homeopathic care in some of the most difficult-to-treat common malignancies [...] though the trials were not randomized or controlled."

so, these very NOT RIGOROUS trials are still to be taken as accurate?  Empty remedies can have therapeutic effect?  No.

003.b. VANP states:

003.b1. in "Naturopathic Physicians Licensing" [vsc 2011-04-08]:

"NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic doctors in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams [...] the clinical science examinations are taken following graduation after the fourth year of school. They include [...] homeopathy."

Note: yes, that is a claim that naturopathy is science-based and homeopathy is science.  Fascinating.  False. 

003.b2. in "Naturopathic Health, Medicine and Doctors" [vsc 2011-04-08]:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...] naturopathic medicine is a scientifically proven and tested system of (successful) healthcare [...] the naturopathic approach to diet and nutrition has been validated in many scientifically based professional journals [...] homeopathic medicine [...is a] powerful system of medicine [...] homeopathic medicines, when properly prescribed, affect the body's 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal."

Note: yes, they claim that their ideas survive scientific scrutiny.  Except homeopathy is so bunk further investigation of it is considered worthless, and a vital force is a figmentation that has long been science-ejected.  But, in naturopaTHICKland, such is "proven".  I'll hazard that they think their NMJ is scientifically based.

Naturopathy: the complete reversal of all values.

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]?

NMD Stengler's ISBN 0735204446 2010 - Coded Vitalism, Huge Homeopathic Proponentry, the Erosion of Scientific Integrity

here, I cite from a recently updated book by California's NMD Stengler which opaquely states naturopathy's principles, and lauds homeopathy and its scientific basis [see 001., below]; then, I decode those principles using the NMD's alma mater and the State of Oregon [see 002., below]; and bust those homeopathic claims [see 003., below]:

001. Stengler, M. (NMD NCNM) states in "The Natural Physician's Healing Therapies" (ISBN 0735204446 and 9780735204447, 2010):

"I believe there are six principles of holistic health [these are naturopathy's principles...] they are [...#2] tap into the healing power of nature [coded vitalism...]  I want you to know that the natural remedies and therapies in this book are proven [efficacy claim...he's a] homeopathic doctor [...] the practice of homeopathy is based on the science of 'like cures like' [...] many scientists have been baffled by the healing effects of homeopathy [...] the power of homeopathy [...] homeopathy has produced results that seem to defy expectation [...] homeopathy is one of the most fascinating and effective healing therapies [...] the amount of scientific evidence for natural remedies is more than ample to convince the skeptical person of potential benefits [not me, once you know what has happened to science in the naturopathic worldview / ideology]."

Note: the fact that Stengler is an NCNM grad. comes in handy [see 002., below].  The book is available at books.google.com for limited preview, and I own it through Kindle.  It's basically a supplement-ailment index.  There's nothing of substance / transparent said about 'the naturopathic' in terms of its principles.  That is the typical opacity I find, though another naturopathic principle Stengler lists is, ironically, "your doctor is your teacher."

So, there's Stengler's equation of naturopathy with "holistic health", his coded vitalism, a claim of overall efficacy, homeopathy proponentry, and a science claim upon homeopathy and the like.

002. naturopathy according to NCNM and the State of Oregon:

 

002.a. NCNM, NMD Stengler's alma mater, states in "Principles of Healing":

 

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...] the distinguishing marks of the profession [...] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...#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 [science-ejected vitalism]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [science-ejected vitalism] attempting to heal itself [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [some kind of institutionalized supernaturalism]."

 

Note: so much for scientific integrity, rationality, human rights, and logic unless, of course, science and what is science-exterior is the same thing, unless of course a sectarian article of faith that science has ejected is the same thing as that which is indeed scientific.

 

002.b. OBNM, which oversees NCNM and Oregon NDs, states in "Naturopathy":

 

"naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition 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. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...] these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis. It is these principles that distinguish 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 [...#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."

Note: ditto. That "you should be CAREFUL" is an understatement.  What has happened to science!  Naturopathy, obviously, claims that that which is science-exterior -- the vitalistic, the supernatural and kind -- is in fact scientific.  That's nonsense; that's false.  Therein, a profession cannot be based on falsehood.  Naturopathy is the complete destruction of scientific and professional integrity.

 

003. the truth about homeopathy, specifically:

 

it's bunk.

Note: of course, NMD Stengler and his ND wife state "naturopathic medical education taught Dr. Stengler the same basic sciences studied by MD candidates".  But, I don't see how naturopathy's idea of science is what preponderantly is known as science unless, of course, now science and nonscience are the same thing.