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.

Arguing Against Colorado ND Licensure with the Wrong Reasons - Daily Camera's Editorial Board 2011-02-27

here, I cite some seriously disconcerting ignorance regarding the ethical position of professionalism as it relates to naturopathy [see 001., below; my musings are in bold]:

001. the Editorial Board of the Daily Camera [EBDC] states in "The Fight Over Naturopathy" [saved 2011-02-27]:

"on Tuesday, the state legislature's health committee will have a hearing on [...whether] naturopathic doctors [...should be] licensed in Colorado [...]";

Again.  Notice the desire is to be titled "doctor" as in 'diagnosing and treating disease' also known as MEDICINE, one of the classical professions.

"against licensure are some physicians [...] and the other naturopaths [...Daily Camera's editorial board sees ] a turf war [...] this is not a patient safety issue [...]";

I completely disagree.  What do you know, EBDC?  [Not much, it seems]. I am neither a physician nor a practitioner of naturopathy / sCAM.  I criticize naturopathy NOT based on market threat [I have none], but instead based on their claims as they relate to science, reason, and skepticism.  I did go to one of these ND 'residence' schools, so I've some inside knowledge.  A turf war insinuates an equality of claims / status when it comes to what is being argued over COMMERCIALLY, like two citizens of equal status fighting over grazing or farming rights.  Modern medical knowledge compared to naturopathic knowledge is not such an equality.  In fact, naturopathic knowledge is quite bizarre / irrational, from the get-go.  For instance, naturopathy claims that that which is science is the same thing as that which is not science [at an institutional level], and that it is appropriate to engage in commerce under such a false position wherein the science-exterior is falsely claimed as science [see OBNM]. That is scientifically wrong and ethically heinous.  That IS an issue of patient safety, since science is the best way we have of determining safety and efficacy.  Science gets thrown out the window in naturopathyland, but not so much that it isn't still used for marketing purposes.  Like creationism in the high school biology classroom, licensing naturopaths so they can indiscriminately label nonscience science [including their sectarian views which have been science-ejected for more than 100 years, actually, and sometimes dangerous and most-often-times ineffective treatments safe and effective; how can one know, in the naturopathic knowledge muddle?] is an attempt to gain science-legitimacy for that which isn't by political means instead of through the apparatus of modern science publication [via experimentation and peer-review].  Worse below.

"Kelly Parcell [...] vice president of the Colorado Association of Naturopathic Doctors, said the bill is important to protect patients. And we're all for patient safety [...]";

I don't see how consumers are protected when, inevitably, licensing naturopathy leads to licensed falsehood.  E.g., Oregon's '.gov' OBNM link above shows how NDs / NMDs label the hugely science-ejected as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  It's nuts.  As an independent board, complaints about them are referred to them.  When I've complained, they've humbly seen no problems with themselves.  Perhaps a naturopathic treatment like homeopathy -- which is an empty remedy -- isn't a direct harm, but the mere fact that the patient is being misled into the belief that the sugar pill they're getting is active and "science-based" [when it is actually science-ejected, and they're paying for it] is a kind of harm.  The patient has been financially harmed and deceived, and the relationship of trust between professional and client has been degraded to that of an self-interested buyer on a used car lot owned by a self-interested salesman.  More below.

"if people want to seek the services of a naturopathic practitioner, they are free to do so in Colorado [...] it's buyer beware -- it's up to the patients to do their due diligence on the person's practice and education [...] going to a doctor, going to a naturopath, or choosing to self-diagnose some illness on WebMD are consumer choices. All of that is up to patients, now and in the future";

So, I pick my jaw up off the floor.  It IS NOT a matter of buyer beware / commerce, EBDC.   You are COMPLETELY WRONG here.  On a used car lot, it is buyer beware.  The Latin phrase "caveat emptor" entails that.  But, in engaging with someone posing medical diagnostic and treatment knowledge, we are no longer in that 50-50 area of commerce where two self-interested parties try to make a deal.  The used car salesman is trying to get the most they can, the used car buyer is trying to get the most they can, and each does their best toward that end within legal boundaries.  Each is looking out for their-self FIRST.  But, that is ONLY IN commerce.  Professionalism is held to a higher ethical standard, particularly physicianship with its so VULNERABLE clients, which is what NDs claim to embody [I'd argue metaphysicianship!  As in metaphysical nonsense].  With professionalism, the clients' needs are placed FIRST ALWAYS.  The Latin for that is "credat emptor", let the buyer have faith -- not religious faith, but confidence of a FIDUCIARY nature -- that in their vulnerability yet, that professional be it traditionally ministry, law or medicine, would be held to a HIGHER ethical standard than just a used car lot type situation.  So, it is not buyer beware for the professions AT ALL, and it cannot be so for naturopathy.  That would be quite a bit of dangerous charity.  It is also not 'science is anything' AT ALL for naturopathy, though naturopathy embodies such a charity-resultant knowledge position as well.  What EBDC would have us do is lower standards to such an extent that medicine would merely be a relationship of commerce instead of professionalism.  That WON'T happen.  What could happen with Colorado licensure of NDs, in part: NDs would get their own board to police themselves claiming professionalism status [professions are self-policing] and science-based status, complaints would be handled by NDs about NDs' claims and methods, since naturopathy is essentially irrational and so much is science-ejected labeled science anyway, there are no standards of any consequence to uphold and they'd find nothing wrong.  Something is what it isn't in naturopathyland; science is nonscience, professionalism is falsehood [merely commerce too], wrong is right.  Nice MUDDLED arrangement.  It benefits nobody but naturopathy.

"doing it through legislation and regulation is not the way to go";

I agree that naturopathy shouldn't be licensed, but not for EBDC's dense reasons.  I actually believe, knowing what I know, that naturopathy should be prosecuted because they don't even meet the standards of commerce -- never mind the higher standards of professionalism.

I'll bet what I've said above is over EBDC's heads anyway, but to summarize: licensing naturopathy leads to licensed falsehood.  It does great harm to the public's understanding of what is legitimately science [and rational discourse] and it destroys the HUGE difference in relationship between commerce and the higher standard of professionalism / fiduciary duty.

 

Naturopathy would have it both ways: science that isn't really but labeled anyway, professionalism that isn't really but labeled anyway.  That's pseudoscience and pseudoprofessionalism -- wisely marketed.

Shallowly, probably few care until the rubber hits the road.  When cornered, NDs presumably would fall back on 'but they let us be licensed, and we are who we always have been.'

After all, "naturopathy blends."  And mislabels.  And is an interesting study in junk thought.

Naturopathy Down Under - ND Hogan, Science, Supernaturalism and Vitalism

here, I cite from the web pages of Australian ND Hogan [see 001., below]; and then I muse [see 002., below]:

001. Hogan, F. (ND[AU] SSNT?) states:

001.a. in "What is Naturopathy?" (2011-01-24)[vsc 2011-01-31]:

"naturopathy can easily and succinctly be broken down to define the 'natural path' [really?  so much for etymology...] Hippocrates [...] first formulated the concept of the 'healing power of nature' [HPN] linking the body, mind and spirit to inherently be able to heal itself. Naturopathy is the practice of health care that combines both traditional wisdom of natural medicine with modern scientific based evidence. It is the practice of treating the body as a whole and taking the body, mind, spirit and environment into account whilst preventing, assessing and treating conditions [...] the therapies I use may include [...] homeopathy [...] naturopaths are able to treat most ailments."

Note: the credential for an ND in Australia is often "BHSc: ND."  She links to the Southern School of Natural Therapies, so perhaps that is where she went to school.

001.b. in "The Seven Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" (2011-01-31)[vsc 2011-01-31]:

"naturopathic medicine or the practice of natural medicine is based on seven principles [...] 1. the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN]: naturopathic medicine recognizes that all living systems have an innate ability to heal it-self. Our vital force [vitalism] promotes self-cleansing, self-repair, and thus self-healing. The naturopaths role is to facilitate this natural process [...] causes can exist at the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual levels [...] they take into account the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, social, and environmental factors that make up the total state of health [...] naturopaths educate their patients [...] I am a qualified naturopath with a Bachelor of Health Science [BHSc-ND] - I have had a lifelong passion for nutrition and natural medicine -I also continue to invest in ongoing professional education."

Note: oh, so much to talk about here!

002. well:

obviously the label "science" is being placed upon the naturopathy domain, from the language above: science subset health science subset naturopathy.  You get a lot of supernaturalism, and HPN-VMN=vitalism.  And all this is "science" and "natural."  That's strange because science does not contain the nonscientific supernatural and vitalistic.  Also, upon this falseness you get the label "professional".  But, how can a profession be based upon falsehood? You'll notice too that the North American naturopathy principles have migrated to the Australian schools.

When is science nonscience, natural supernatural, professional false, educating misleading?

Naturopathyland.

A Politician, A Reporter, and Massachusetts Naturopathy Licensure - Pacheco, Reading, and MSND-AANP-AANMC

here, I cite from a 2009 Jennifer Reading "Survive and Thrive" horridly shallow naturopathy piece up on her youtube.com [see 001., below]; then, I analyze it [see 002., below]; and expose some MSND, AANP, AANMC naturopathic absurdity [see 003., below]:

001. in "Massachusetts Naturopaths Fight for a License" [vsc 2010-08-28]:

001.a. Massachusetts State Senator Marc Pacheco, author of the naturopathy bill, states:

001.a1. in the video:

"[Pacheco] 'I'm the author of the bill [...] we will have standards created, where the Department of Public Health is involved, where other medical professionals are involved, in developing and putting in place a standard that consumers at least have some degree of trust in' [...and we're told that the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) is unwilling to] evolve [...instead keeping] 'with the status quo [...whereas naturopathy is] cutting-edge, state-of-the-art.'"

001.a2. in the description accompanying the video:

"'when I first filed the bill, I don't think there was a state that had enacted the law,' said Senator Marc Pacheco, who first wrote the bill over a decade ago, 'And now there have been a number of states that have gone by us in terms of being on the cutting edge.'"

001.b. reporter Jennifer Reading states:

001.b1. in the video:

"naturopathic doctors in Massachusetts are not giving up their fight to be licensed [...though] the Massachusetts Medical Society [...has] been a long-time opponent of the legislation and says licensing naturopathic doctors will put the public at risk [...and] questions the role of naturopaths within the medical community in general [...that NDs will be] legitimize[d] with licensing [...] June Riedlinger [ND SCNM] is a practicing naturopath in Summerville. She says that's just not true [...] 'if we have a board of registry, one of their jobs is going to be to look at patient complaints and penalize naturopaths who are practicing outside of their trained scope of practice [...] naturopathic physicians are very consciencious [...and finds criticism of an impartial ND board] insulting [...that such accuses NDs on such a board of lacking ] integrity to be critical [...and finds examples used by critics to be] misrepresentative' [...and she speaks of] what naturopaths are taught in school [...according to the reporter] licensing will ultimately safeguard consumers."

001.b2. in the description accompanying the video:

"some Massachusetts lawmakers are worried that the Commonwealth is falling behind [...] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians defines the practice as 'combining the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science.' Naturopaths treat patients by promoting the body's inherent ability to heal itself [...] 'the basic premises on which their practices are based are not sound,' said William Ryder, state legislative and regulatory affairs counsel for MMS."

002. my commentary on the above highlights, per:

-"standards created": I'd argue LOUDLY that 'standards are being lowered' [see below under the Oregon Absurdity];

-"other medical professionals": NDs do not meet the ethical standards of professionalism [see below under the Oregon Absurdity];

-"a standard that consumers at least have some degree of trust in": using Oregon as an example, a FALSE TRUST has been created by legislation and '.gov' support:

I call this the Oregon Absurdity, wherein the hugely science-ejected is falsely labeled -- in '.gov legislation' -- science and objective fact, and therein naturopathy trades under deceptive labels with government sanction as a "profession" [vsc 2010-08-28; that is what State licensure helps naturopathy with];

-"evolve": as if naturopathy's absurdity -- that I just mentioned above as the 'Oregon Absurdity' -- is a step FORWARD;

-"cutting-edge, state-of-the-art [...] falling behind": nonsense isn't the future, it is retrograde;

-"licensing naturopathic doctors will put the public at risk": I totally agree;

-"Riedlinger [ND SCNM]": this ND's school uses the science label upon the hugely nonscientific, as all of naturopathy does;

 -"penalize naturopaths": judging from the permissiveness of naturopathy nonsense from the get-go, I don't think there's ANY kind of standard to hold an ND to beside very mundane torts.  The professions-level standards aren't possible within naturopathy science it is founded upon falsehood and trains future NDs to act just as false;

-"integrity to be critical [...] conscientious [...] misrepresentative": the entire racket is misrepresentative, and I don't see integrity or conscientiousness because I don't see any thinking / honesty going on;

-"licensing will ultimately safeguard consumers": no it won't.  The education consumer, like myself, will be misled due to false labels, and people will visit NDs clinically with the assumption that their knowledge is not absurdity-based;

-"the rigors of modern science": no, because if this was true, then certain premises wouldn't be within the naturopathic belief system that they call "principles," such as vitalism and supernaturalism;

-"body's inherent ability to heal itself": the great coded vitalism statement that NDs employ because if they told you that they're based upon science-ejected articles of faith which modern medicine has ejected, they'd not generate much traffic to their schools or their clinics;

-"the basic premises on which their practices are based are not sound": I totally agree, unless, of course, the hugely science-ejected is equivalent to the science-supported, and in that sense then, unless something is the same thing as that which it excludes etc.;

003. release the absurdity: the reporter's ND, MSND, and AANP-AANMC:

003.a. ND Riedlinger states on her own web page "About Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-08-28]:

"what is naturopathic medicine?  It is based on the core principles listed below: [#1] the healing power of nature: have trust and faith in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself [coded vitalism...#5] treat the whole person: view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical body, mental, and spiritual dimensions [supernaturalism...] a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a 4-yr graduate-level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. or D.O. [science-expertise claim].  To learn more about naturopathic schools go to the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] web site [...] a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [...] to learn more go to the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC) web site."

Note: what's so fascinating here is the science expertise claim placed upon the coded nonscientific vitalistic and the explicit nonscientific supernatural.  When modern science preponderantly excludes certain ideas for several decades ['life forces'] and a few hundred years ['spirits'], you are not getting the same science.

003.b. MSND states in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-08-28]:

"NDs support the body’s innate ability to heal [coded vitalism] with natural therapeutics and by following the guiding principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] support the healing power of nature. The body’s innate ability to heal [coded vitalism] can be restored by removing obstacles to healing [...] knowledge is power [...and speaks of] modern science."

Note: and that's all you are told.  So, there's the hugely opaque / coded vitalism miscommunicated, there's again a claim of knowledge expertise, and a mention of science.  Actually, licensure is power, and false-labeling is power.  Also, at their homepage [vsc 2010-08-28], we're told by msnd.org:

"our mission is to promote the success of naturopathic doctors and the naturopathic profession in Massachusetts through education, public awareness, advocacy, and community."

This is not a profession because it is not transparent about its false premises and where they sit in terms of science, they are miseducators as their literature indicates, and they manipulate the public instead of increase their awareness about what naturopathy actually is.

 

And on their page "Licensure" [vsc 2010-08-28], MSND.org states:

"licensing would allow ND’s to provide the depth of  health care that they are trained to give, providing you better service and more treatment options. Most importantly, it would protect the health care consumer by preventing untrained people from calling themselves naturopathic doctors [...] a law has to be passed to allow a profession to be licensed. Though we have been trying since 1995 to pass a licensing law we have not yet been successful [...] our main opposition is the Massachusetts Medical Society."

Again, the licensure of NDs protects ND nonsense, because complaints would go to these nonsense-purveyors, it is not a profession ethically speaking, and KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK MMS.

003.c. AANP and AANMC:

you can follow the pattern of deception / falsehood right up the organizational chain to the AANP, who falsely claims science upon the nonscientific [that's an ND who won AANP's vitalism award in 2008], and also AANMC, who falsely claims science upon the nonscientific.

Note: again, so licensure of NDs merely provides a layer of bureaucratic cover and government sanction that then PROTECTS these pseudoprofessional, pseudoscientific, hugely science-illiterate swindlers. Naturopathy starts in rather opaque, coded, brief language until a law is passed, then when licensed -- as the Oregon Absurdity clearly demonstrates, and Oregon is the seat of North American naturopathy historically -- the really really burning stupid is released.

004. "survive and thrive", huh:

how about: 'shallowly report and miss all the good stuff' and 'write a bill that, if passed, will victimize the public in the name of a bunch of sectarian whackaloons.'

AANP Falsehood From 1997, Science-Based Honesty in 2010

here, I cite from a 1997 archived American Association of Naturopathic Physician's [AANP] description of their Textbook of Natural Medicine [see 001., below]; then, from Dr. Atwood's recent letter to the top administrator of the NCCAM [see 002., below]; finally, I muse [see 003., below]:

001. AANP writes in "A Textbook of Natural Medicine" c1997 [vsc 2010-07-25; linked to from the AANP's main site]:

"the most comprehensive and thoroughly-researched reference on natural health sciences [...] scientific documentation of the healing power of nature [HPN...] scientific and practical review [...] scientific indications [...] thoroughly referenced to the scientific literature."

Note: science, science, science as a label placed upon the 'essentially naturopathic,' particularly their HPN. This is nonsense.  The TNM 3rd. ed. states that the HPN is actually the science-ejected premise known as vitalism.  The third chapter of the TNM 3rd. ed., "A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order," states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice. These principles include the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [p.032...] the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [p.034]."

It is irrefutable that vitalism is science-ejected.  It was so even in 1997, which, by the way, as a year before I started at UBCNM [which falsely labels vitalism science, to this day].  So, AANP was basically labeling the hugely science-ejected as 'the science supported' and this still hasn't changed 13 years later.  E.g., TNM co-editor ND Pizzorno still labels naturopathy "science-based natural medicine," yet he is a 1975 NCNM ND grad. and the requisite vitalistic nonsense can still be found at their web page.

002. [actual] Science-Based Medicine's Dr. Atwood writes in "Open Letter to Dr. Josephine Briggs" (2010-07-23) [where do I begin!]:

"let me address the principal reason for this letter: it is disturbing that you will shortly appear at the 25th Anniversary Convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] group [that] is best characterized as a pseudoscientific cult, and nothing since has altered that opinion [...a] pseudomedical pseudoprofessional organization [...] NDs claim to be well trained to practice what most people think of as family medicine or primary care medicine, although their version of training is chock full of pseudoscientific nonsense [...] let me assure you that there are no promising ideas emanating from naturopathy [...] consider homeopathy, a core claim of naturopathic medicine [...] the British Medical Association and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have seen through the ruse of pseudoscience that is homeopathy, the former declaring it 'witchcraft' and latter making this statement: 'the Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible' [...] certainly science must remain neutral in the face of not-yet-seen data from rigorous studies [...but] science and skepticism [...] are not distinct. Good science involves, first and foremost, skepticism [...] Dr. Briggs, please consider the possibility that you no longer must hide your considerable scientific prowess in order to be a good NCCAM Director [...as apposed to] giving undue credibility to unfeasible and dangerous claims."

Note: I haven't found anything Dr. Atwood has ever written about naturopathy to be in disagreement with my own observations.  In fact, at this year's NECSS dinner, I'd said to Dr. A. that my best description of it all is "cultic."

003. another issue that comes to mind:

as a public servant [let's put aside her duty to society in terms of the ethical obligations of her medical oath and membership], Dr. Briggs has a duty to report BLATANT FRAUD to the appropriate Federal authorizes.

So, let me offer two specific examples of naturopathy's fraud:

academically, how about a regionally accredited university falsely labeling the hugely science ejected science, and engaging in commerce under those conditions [I've linked to the University of Bridgeport, but any of the AANMC schools fit this bill];

State-wide government-hosted false labeling of the hugely science-ejected as science [specifically here, Oregon].

Wow, that was so easy to do.

Naturopathic Luminary Claims Professionalism - Dunne, N. (NCNM 1989) at the AANP Blog:

Dunne, N. (ND ) states in "The Lack of Conference Childcare: A Barrier to Professional Development"(2010-04-14)[vsc 2010-04-14]:

"[we're told in the title obviously, and also the sidebar states] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [is naturopathy's...] national professional society [...] kids['...] needs are real, relentless and never mix gracefully with a professional learning environment [...per] the AANP convention [...whose attendees are] young professionals [...] the profession [...] a profession that was rapidly becoming majority female [...] people combining parenting with their professional career [...] accommodating family needs in professional environments [...] professional women with children [...] professional women marry professional men [...] the naturopathic profession."

Note: yeah, that typical 'naturopathy is of the professions ethically' blah blah blah.  Yet, irrational and absurd while claiming "science" as its status.  Within naturopathy, you can have your cake and eat it too. Dunne, by the way, is a past AANP, FNPLA, & MANP president.  She states that she has a "medical degree" from NCNM circa 1989.

Naturopathy [mis]Labeled a "Profession" - ND 'Doc' Gunther in the CT Post, 2009-10-04:

Burgeson, J. (? ?) writes in the Connecticut Post article "'Doc' Gunther: A Lifetime of Service" (2009-10-04):

"George 'Doc' Gunther of Stratford [CT...] holds the record as Connecticut's longest-serving legislator [...] he retired from the legislature in 2006 [...] Gunther gets his 'Doc' nickname from his profession -- he's a naturopathic physician."

Note: I severely disagree with that 'professional ethical status' label. It's as true as the scientific basis of the essentially naturopathic.

Naturopathy is a "Harmful Pseudoscience" - Science-Based Pharmacy (2009-05-19):

Gavura, S. (? ?) states in "Ontario Government Repudiates Advice on Naturopathy" (2009-05-15):

"on May 11, the Ontario government announced sweeping new roles and responsibilities for health professionals in Ontario. But the most satisfying part was what the announcement DIDN’T mention. The government’s own advisers had previously recommended that naturopaths be granted the privilege to prescribe drugs. This advice was resoundingly rejected. Is the Ontario government starting to realize that naturopathy is harmful pseudoscience? Let’s hope so."

Note: the author reminds us "[that naturopathy's] homeopathy is recognized by the scientific community as disproven practice that involves the provision of placebo therapies." Homeopathy [amongst other woo] is why I left N.D. school: it is quite an ethically repugnant thing to claim that the inert is in fact proufoundly effective.

Overall, naturopaths, due to the falseness of their claim that the profoundly science-ejected is scientific, do not meet the ethical structures required of a professional.

Naturopathy is epistemologically repugnant.

PalMD on Naturopathic HTN Tx. Claims - Simply False, Ban Them:

here [hear!], I cite a recent post by PalMD [Peter A. Lipson, M.D. of Science-Based Medicine and White Coat Underground] regarding naturopathy's underpinnings and lack of professional competence [see 001., below]; and I cite my own personal experience in ND school in support [see notes for 001., below]; plus, I 'go to the root of the problem', NDs' inability to distinguish the scientific from the a priori [see 002., below]:

001. Dr. Lipson writes in "Modern Shamanism - Naturopathy For Hypertension":

"the big difference between naturopaths and real primary care physicians (PCPs) is that naturopaths haven't gone to medical school, completed a post-graduate residency program, and taken their specialty boards [...] if a naturopath wants to be a PCP, then they must provide the same services as other PCPs. They do not [...] naturopaths have an incorrect understanding of human biology [see note 02., below] and do not understand how this is applied in a science-based fashion to prevent and treat human disease [...the NDs' AANP site states] 'prominent national studies have shown the DASH diet has been shown to be as effective as drugs at reducing blood pressure' [...Dr. L.:] the last sentence is simply false. DASH is not as effective as medication for many hypertensive patients [...all-in-all] there is no justification for allowing naturopaths to be primary care physicians, and if what they print is accurate, there is no justification for them to treat any patient for any condition. Naturopathy is modern shamanism, and should be banned [hear, hear!]."

Note 01.: speaking of essential naturopathic shamanism, when I was in ND school, they'd diagnose often with applied kinesiology and even pendulums. More specifically, at that school, there's a term they use called 'entheogenic' [even if they can't spell it right!]:

"[the naturopathy foundation course I've taken] Naturopathic Principles and Practice. Principles and Practice 511, Naturopathic History and Philosophy. This course is a survey and introduction to the history and philosophy of naturopathic medicine as a distinct healing art as well as its fundamental roots [its essential NATURE, not to pun]: botanical medicine, nature cure, physical medicine, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, energy medicine and ancient healing systems from around the globe. We will also explore [...] the philosophy of vitalism and mechanism, shamanic and entheogrenic [sp., entheogenic!!!] healing and encourage students to 'live their philosophy' incorporating the precepts of naturopathic medicine into their lifestyles [i.e., drink the cool-aide!!!]."

Wikipedia states, per "entheogen":

"an entheogen ('creates god within,' en- 'in, within,' theo- 'god, divine,' -gen 'creates, generates'), in the strictest sense, is a psychoactive substance used in a religious or shamanic context."

Ah, so what the University of Bridgeport is basically talking about is getting stoned and hallucinating 'the divine' / the essentially naturopathic [see note 02., below].

Note 02.: regarding 'god within' and Dr. L's comment on naturopathy's "incorrect understanding of human biology", it may be summed up in this handout I personally received from Sensenig, the founding dean of the school and first AANP president, in 511 per note 01:

"[life, healing & disease are due to the] vital force, innate, life principle, prana, bioplasmic energy, the god power within you [sectarian figmentations: vitalism, autoentheism, entheogenism & kind]."

002. the shamanistic entheogenic / autoentheistic as the scientific -- an important sign of naturopathy's 'epistemic conflation' / 'knowledge incompetence':

naturopathy does not distinguish between the merely mentalized / ideations that have no supporting empirical evidence, and a posteriori, particularly scientific, knowledge. I have written about this elsewhere.

Bastyr University, an ND-granting school, states it quite well:

"we educate future leaders in the natural health arts and sciences. Respecting the healing power of nature and recognizing that body, mind and spirit are intrinsically inseparable."

Note: the HPN is their vitalism premise, coded, while naturopathy claims itself to be a subset of science. But vitalism is extrascientific [outside of science], and so is supernaturalism. The naturopathic-supernatural [e.g., their beliefs of spiritism, entheogenism, autoentheism & kind] is stated as inseparable from science. So, in naturopathy, evidence and belief are commingled -- the a priori is inseparable from the a posteriori, roughly speaking -- and mislabeled as all science.

And UB and Bastyr are, of course, part of 'the health-robbers consortia' who snookered me with this document in 1997.

BINM Naturopathy's Occult Essential Science-ejected Vitalism, & Nonprofessionalism:

here, I decode naturopathy's latinized principles [in part] from the homepage of the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine [BINM], a recently "accredited" Canadian ND-granting school that, par for naturopathy, does not inform us honestly about the central / essential science-ejected, sectarian premise / foundation of naturopathic medicine -- the vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological article of faith known as "the vis", a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency' -- instead such belief kind is falsely postured, par for naturopathy, as scientific fact & misrendered in naturalistic language:

001. BINM states in 'homepage':

"[as part of a jpg] primum non nocere, vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], tolle causam, tolle totum, docere [...] the naturopathic physician will be a leader in a cultural transformation [...] the physician of the future [...] will be a visionary [...adhering to] the belief in the natural healing power [NHP] of the body, mind and spirit [BMS...and will be] immersed in science."

Note: Latin -- per the listed ND principles -- is so sophisticating! And it is a great opportunity to obscure. NDs do this well. The public is told, quite falsely, that naturopathy's "belief" amalgam -- VMN-NHP & BMS -- is all is within "science." Nowhere on this page is VMN actually, explicitly illuminated.

002. lets decode / unobscure that second phrase particularly, VMN, 'from the inside':

002.a. the Textbook of Naturopathic Medicine states, per [pdf version] "The Textbook of Natural Medicine. Chapter 03. A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order, The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine" (ISBN 0443073007; 2005):

"the uniqueness of naturopathic medicine is the way the naturopath thinks about illness and healing [...this is] based upon the first defining principle: vis medicatrix naturae. It is based on the understanding that disease can be seen as a process, as well as an entity [...] working definition of naturopathic nutrition [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice. These principles include the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [VMN=VF=HPN...] the therapeutic order [...directive #2] stimulate the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): the self-healing processes [...] the underlying recognition of the vis medicatrix naturae, the tendency of the body to be self-healing [...#3] harmonize with your life force [...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] entire physiologic system [includes] (immune, cardiovascular,detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.)."

Note: so, VMN = VF = HPN -- an "entity" labeled with the science terms "force" and "power" is responsible for healing.

002.b. the Federation of Naturopathic Physician Licensing Authorities states in "Philosophy" [the 2002 archived page is here]:

"[these ideas are what licensure requires of an ND IN PRACTICE] naturopathic medicine emphasizes 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 [INHP...] six principles of healing form the foundation for naturopathic medical practice: [#1] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF]. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm. Primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful [teleological] process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process [THP]. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: VF = INHP = HPN = VMN = LF = THP.

002.c. BINM in "Natural Selections" (2008-10; vol. 1, iss. 1):

"[per BINM ND student Long, M. (? ?)] we all have an innate ability to heal [IAH],called the 'vital force'. When this force is weak you are susceptible to disease [...& the sidebar states that the] principles of naturopathic medicine [...include #3] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature."

Note: IAH = VF = VMN = HPN. I think it's safe to assume that Long has been taught this within the last couple years as a student pursuing an ND at BINM. And WOW, calling 'the naturopathic' after the scientific fact of "natural selection" is devious.

003. and lets look at vitalism's nonscientific status via eminent scientist Richard Dawkins in "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" (ISBN 0199216800; 2008):

"what neither Mendel nor anyone else before 1953 knew was that genes themselves are digital, within themselves [...] life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language [DNA!; it's not a force or entity!]. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]."

Note: yet, naturopathy maintains dualism [vitalism, spiritism & kind], per entities that inhabit the physical body -- and claims such articles of faith are "in fact" scientific.

004. the false professional posture of BINM:

004.a. BINM claims, in "BINM Research Department, Research Fellowship, Call for Applicants - February, 2009":

"BINM is committed to educate students in the art and science of naturopathic medicine premised on the ethical foundations of responsibility, integrity, professionalism, respect for persons and benevolence [...] the successful candidate will assist the director of research and work on initiatives aimed to enhance evidence based practice for naturopathic medicine."

Note: me arse! The naturopathic is postured as scientific & caring a frak about evidence & rigor, but the essentially naturopathic is HUGELY actually science-ejected. Naturopathy's incompetence, manipulation, and overall deception therein cannot be claimed to met the ethical standards of the "professional." As the recent paper "How Can Chiropractic Become a Respected Mainstream Profession? The Example of Podiatry":

"one of the problems that we encounter frequently in our interaction with chiropractic educational institutions is the perpetuation of dogma and unfounded claims. Examples include the concept of spinal subluxation as the cause of a variety of internal diseases and the metaphysical, pseudo-religious idea of 'innate intelligence' [a synonym for vital force, in sCAM] flowing through spinal nerves, with spinal subluxations impeding this flow. These concepts are lacking in a scientific foundation and should not be permitted to be taught at our chiropractic institutions as part of the standard curriculum. Much of what is passed off as 'chiropractic philosophy' is simply dogma, or untested (and, in some cases, untestable) theories which have no place in an institution of higher learning [...] the professions, which classically included medicine, law and the ministry, are vocations whose members 'profess' to have knowledge that the laity do not comprehend. Given the asymmetry of knowledge between professionals and the laity, society has granted to the professions a certain degree of autonomous control over themselves [...] this social contract demands that each profession, and each professional, place the well-being of society and the patient, client or parishioner ahead of the profession and professional. Lay persons put their faith in the professional following the dictum credat emptor (let the buyer have faith) rather than caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) [...] when an individual consults a member of any of the medical professions, it is reasonably expected that the advice and treatment that he or she receives is based in science, not metaphysics or pseudoscience [...] patients place their faith in the professional, and trust that they will not be subject to fraud, abuse or quackery. This is the social contract as it applies to chiropractic physicians [as part of 'medical professions'...the naturopathic!!! &] the chiropractic profession[s] has [have] an obligation to actively divorce itself from metaphysical explanations of health and disease as well as to actively regulate itself in refusing to tolerate fraud, abuse and quackery [...] in this way the profession can fulfill its responsibility to the social contract."

Note: ironically, one of the authors is a former University of Bridgeport professor I had, a Connecticut institution which claims that science includes the science-ejected!!!

004.b. yet, BINM states in "2008-2009 Academic Calendar":

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct, primary health care profession [!!!] founded on the time-honored belief in vis medicatrix naturae, 'the healing power of nature' [...] naturopathic physician[s] must [...] be visionaries who know we must return to our roots in nature, to the belief in the natural healing power of the body, mind and spirit [{vitalism, spiritism & kind} p.003...] our mission statement: to provide an outstanding and distinctive education in the art and science of naturopathic medicine [p.004...] our goals: to be faithful [!!!] to the principles of naturopathic medicine and to recognize and validate the contributions of the sciences [...] biomedical science provides a common language for describing the structure and functioning of the human body. The rigor of science has, through inquiry based on the scientific method, produced a valuable representation of occurrences in the body [p.017...] History and Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine. Several models of health and disease are explored, and the unique philosophy of naturopathic medicine is introduced and traced from its historical origins through modern science-based theory and practice. The vis medicatrix naturae is discussed in depth as the basis for naturopathic concepts of health and disease and principles of practice, and as the unifying principle that distinguishes naturopathic practice from other forms of medicine and underlies naturopathic therapeutic modalities [p.019...] it is recommended that students take the NPLEX part I basic sciences licensing examinations prior to clinic entry but it is not required."

Note: the root "scien" shows up 81 times in this document; "medicatrix" twice; "force" never; "Naturopathic Clinical Arts & Sciences" 25 times; "profession" and kind, 59 times.

Caveat emptor, folks.

Getting It Wrong - canada.com's 'Charity of Logic' Regarding Naturopathy's Epistemic Irrationalism, 2009:

here, I cite a canada.com article that describes naturopathy...without blinking ... via an absurd / irrational definition [see 001., below]; and, going to the college guide entry and web page of 2 schools of naturopathy, we find out more UNBRIDLED naturopathic irrationalism / absurdity [see 002., below]:

001. Charke, K. (? ?) states in "Proposal to Alter Regulations for Naturopaths Gets Mixed Reviews" [there's quite an unintentional pun there, as you will see]:

"naturopathic medicine [(a)] is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine, according to the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors [CAND...(b) is a] health profession [...] under the College of Naturopathic Physicians of B.C. [...(c)] when it comes to treatment, their objective is to try get the maximum effect by the gentlest of means with the use of botanical medicines and clinical nutrition [...(d) ] Trevorrow has completed a four-year postgraduate degree in naturopathic medicine at Bastyr University in Washington State."

Note on (a):

CAND tells us that naturopathy is categorically science-based [via youtube]:



How can something CATEGORICALLY in terms of knowledge-type be both a distinction and a blending? Important: the description basically says that naturopathy is both something and nothing; that it is specially something scientific and also that it is specifically NOT that same stuff -- nonscientific. In sum it states that the scientific is also the nonscientific: this is absurd / irrational, hilarious blather -- the blended-distinct, the scientific-nonscientific. This is a kind of language from naturopathy and a kind of journalistic charity towards naturopathy that is grossly unprofessional; using language itself in manners that are truly nonsensical, logically speaking.

002. Bastyr's & the University of Bridgeport's [UB] irrational / absurd epistemics, per the conflation of the supernatural extrascientific [that means 'outside of science', for those not into etymology], science-ejected, and the scientific:

002.a. Bastyr states [the ND in (d) went there; Trevorrow, M. (ND Bastyr 2006)] in their Peterson's College Guide entry "Bastyr University":

"founded as a naturopathic medical college in 1978, Bastyr has since expanded its offerings [...] Bastyr University is the first step on a path leading to a richly rewarding future in the dynamic field of science-based natural health. Bastyr's unparalleled programs are based on a mind-body-spirit approach to wellness, with a challenging curriculum that prepares students to further their goals in scientific, medical, and wellness-related fields [...] in each degree program at Bastyr, students learn to integrate the pursuit of physical health with the mental, spiritual, and environmental factors involved in wellness [...our] a progressive focus on the relationship between health and the body, mind, and spirit [...including] naturopathic medicine [...] the foundation of Bastyr University’s entire curriculum rests on the integration of modern science with traditional healing methods."

Note: epistemic blending / conflation / integration [mixing!!!] reflects directly upon naturopathy's 'knowledge sensitivity / knowledge demarcation': as in, 'we ain't got none', WHILE claiming to be "science-based" is itself a 'knowledge type demarcation'.

But, you have to have a standard of comparison concerning what can truly be labeled science, I understand:

luckily, there's the National Center for Science Education [NCSE] to tell us about these ND schools that supposedly teach actual science. At NCSE, we are told that the supernatural is PROFOUNDLY not within science, through the article "Review: Of Pandas and People":

"selling the supernatural. The book attempts to convince the student (and teacher) that a basically supernatural view can be made scientific through word manipulation and conflation with scientific concepts. Thus, the argument from design is dressed up in information theory and passed off as science. This selling of the supernatural is pertinent to understanding why this book is not science, but pseudoscience."

002.b. UB states:

002.b1. on their web page "UB Spotlight: Health Sciences Programs":

"the University's professionally accredited health sciences programs are housed in the Fones School of Dental Hygiene, the College of Chiropractic, the College of Naturopathic Medicine, the Acupuncture Institute, and the Nutrition Institute."

002.b2. UB states in "Naturopathic Principles and Practice":

"Principles and Practice 521: Introduction to Natural Therapeutics [...] nature acts powerfully through healing mechanisms in the body and mind to maintain and restore health. Students will receive a more in-depth utilization of naturopathic methods and medicinal substances which work in harmony with the human system, thus facilitating long-lasting health and recovery. In addition to employing various natural medicines, students will gain an important perspective of the vital force [for more such 'naturopathic essential vitalism', see here] and its role in the healing process, when used in conjunction with naturopathic principles."

Note on 002.a. & 002.b.: naturopathy is labeled categorically as "science" by UB & Bastyr, and naturopathy's essential vitalism & supernaturalism is therein labeled science by UB & Bastyr, while UB has conveniently edited-out supernaturalistic language in my example [they employ such supernaturalism here].

NCSE states, regarding vitalism, in "National Association of Biology Teachers (1995)":

"nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom."

Note on (c): there is, scientifically speaking, no 'purposeful life spirit' / vital force governing health-disease and physiology. Naturopathy's treatment target, 'the maximum effect upon the vital force' -- when you uncode all this, which doesn't take much leg-work; but, few journalists ever seem to go beyond opening their own mouths and letting naturopathy fill it with its dumb-assed-ness -- is simply a fantasy.

003. Note on '(b), 002.a. & 002.b.' and naturopathic absurdity:

supernaturalism and vitalism are essential to naturopathy, labeled science by naturopathy, and yet are completely science-exterior -- actually. Obviously, canada.com incompletely informed us [lazy?] and naturopathy continually deceives us [per an 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'], while actual medicine is ethically based upon the integrity of science & transparency per 'informed consent', and quality journalism aims for accuracy & truthfulness.

Questions:

i. does anyone do actual journalism anymore? ii. is science just ink? [answer to i. = few; answer to ii. = no it isn't].

Professional? Nope.

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - NCANP 2009:

here, I quote from the North Carolina Association of Naturopathic Physicians [NCANP], an AANP affiliate, regarding NDs' essential vitalistic premise:

001. NCANP states in "Welcome to www.ncanp.com":

"naturopathic medicine is a primary health care profession emphasizing prevention and treatment of disease with the use of natural non-toxic therapies. The naturopathic perspective views each person as a whole and recognizes the healing force within each individual. Natural therapies are used to support and stimulate that vital healing force. A naturopathic doctor addresses the underlying cause or imbalance within a person rather than simply treating one’s problem symptomatically. Naturopathic therapies include clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, physical medicine and lifestyle counseling."

Note: the claim of "profession", and a specific & actual "healing force" aka "vital healing force." Yet, such a vital healing force does not exist, scientifically speaking, and treating disease is medicine, which is obligated to science.

002. naturopathy is quite an absurdity:

claiming as 'professions-level medical science' that which is actually as scientific as the Tooth Fairy.