Sandwalk Schwacks Naturopathy

here, I cite from a recent blog post by scientist Larry Moran on his Sandwalk blog here on blogspot:

001. in "What Is Naturopathy?" [2010-09-23], Larry Moran writes:

"I really don't know much at all about the differences between 'naturopathic medicine' and quackery [...until I] look[ed] at an authoritative source, the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine right here in Toronto [...from their definition] now I know the difference between naturopathy and other forms of non-evidence based medicine (i.e. alternative medicine, quackery). There isn't any."

Note: yes!  I must credit the Richard Dawkins Foundation web page for this lead.

Wikipedia on Naturopathy's Pseudoscience & Quackery (2009-09-18):

here, I cite Wikipedia's entry for naturopathy that is currently up:

"[naturopathy's] homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience or quackery [...] homeopathy is highly disputed, and is often cited as 'quackery' or 'pseudoscience' [...] certain naturopathic treatments, such as homeopathy and iridology, are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery [...] K. C. Atwood writes, in the journal Medscape General Medicine, 'naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both conventional and natural medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices'."

Note: oh, snap! Yet, they still maintain that the essentially naturopathic, like homeopathy, is science-based.

Randi on Acupuncture II - A "Mythology of Pseudoscientific Mumbo-Jumbo":

James Randi recently stated in "More Evasion":

"so, to the NCI [National Cancer Institute] and the NIH [National Institutes of Health]: here's the answer to my question, which is: 'is there any scientific, double-blind research that shows acupuncture is effective?' No, there is not. Acupuncture is a well-developed mythology of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo that ranks high in the quackery constellation, fails carefully-designed tests, and makes fortunes for the practitioners largely because of the reluctance - no, the refusal - of the NCI and NIH to level with the citizens of the USA. [hear, hear]."

Note: and acupuncture is part of naturopathy, which in my view is quite the "quackery constellation". NCI also has a horrid definition of naturopathy, but it does speak to naturopathy's inclusion of acupuncture:

"a system of disease prevention and treatment that avoids drugs and surgery. Naturopathy is based on the use of natural agents such as air, water, light, heat, and massage to help the body heal itself [coded vitalism]. It also uses herbal products, nutrition, acupuncture, and aromatherapy as forms of treatment."

From this definition, you will not be informed that naturopathy is absurd, since it labels the profoundly science-ejected as scientific, e.g. that naturopathy is based upon vitalism, which is several decades [generously] DECEASED in terms of science. Nor does it speak to the requisite supernaturalism that is bound up with naturopathic vitalism, also labeled absurdly as science. I can only hope that cancer patients stay away, and ignore NCI's quasi-endorsement / misinformation.

Orac Chosen 'The Best Health Policies / Ethics Weblog' of 2008:

The 2008 Medical Weblog Awards have been announced, per:

"Orac of Respectful Insolence has been chosen as the Best Health Policies / Ethics Weblog of 2008. As one of the members of Science Blogs, Orac attempts to bring sanity to the world full of medical quackery. His efforts at exposing the dangers of alternative medicine, pseudoscience, and evolution deniers have made Orac one of the most recognized online activists against medical fraud and pseudoscience."

Here, here.

Susan Jacoby on Pseudoscience - ISBN 0375423745, 2008:

Susan Jacoby writes in "The Age of American Unreason" (ISBN 0375423745; 2008):

"all real scientific research must be and is subjected to rigorous scrutiny by peers. That is what separates science from pseudoscience and junk thought. Without a basic understanding of what constitutes good science neither ordinary citizens nor the politicians who represent them can hope to make thoughtful judgments separating quacks, con men, and practitioners of bad science from thoughtful experts whose advice ought to be taken seriously. Intellectual quackery extends throughout the landscape of academia [p.250]."

Note: for an example of "intellectual quackery" in 'regionally-accredited, .gov-sanctioned, mainstream academia', naturopathy -- with its scientific labeling of the profoundly nonscientific -- does nicely.