Acupuncture: SBM's Novella vs. CT's ND Kontomerkos!

here, I compare two positions on acupuncture.  First, there's the proponent ND Kontomerkos replete with panacea-like promises regarding the efficacy of acupuncture and big statements about her 'science foundation qualifications' [see 001., below]; then, a word from skeptic Novella at Science-Based Medicine [see 002., below]:

001. Kontomerkos, C. (ND UBCNM) tells us:

001.a. in "Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine" [vsc 2010-12-15]:

"acupuncture originated over 2000 years ago [it's older than dirt...and] involves the insertion of hair-thin, sterile, disposable needles into strategic points on the body that are specific for particular complaints or conditions [really!!!...and] has been clinically shown and medically accepted as an effective tool [really!!!...] acupuncture has also been linked to increased levels of specific hormones that improve the body's immune function and its response to stress [...] how does acupuncture work? Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and acupuncture are based on a concept of balanced qi [Q, aka vitalism, the archaic belief in an imaginary force or energy governing one's physiology...] or vital energy [VE, a qi alias] that flows throughout the body. Qi regulates all aspects of the body, influencing spiritual [supernaturalism], emotional, mental, and physical balance. Disease occurs when the flow of qi is disrupted and yin (negative energy [E]) and yang (positive energy) [both vitalistic, overall] become imbalanced [...] scientists have found ways that fit their scientific model of how and why acupuncture works [and that's quite a science-claim]."

Note: so, we're told acupuncture has meaningful efficacy, and that acupuncture passes scientific muster. Its premise -- vitalism = Q = VE = E -- is communicated, but the status of vitalism as science-ejected isn't.  You'll see below why such an admission cannot occur within naturopathy.  The "points" are claimed to be specific, and of course you get naturopathy's requisite supernaturalism along with its vitalism.

So, the claim: science subset acupuncture subset vitalism and supernaturalism.  This implies: science subset naturopathy, since this is a naturopathic clinical practice.  It could be very inconvenient to admit the truth: science excludes the essentially naturopathic [vitalism, supernaturalism and kind], being that the ND's alma mater engages in commerce under a science label [that isn't true, which constitutes false advertising, roughly speaking].

Now, a word on the website's address, "let nature heal" [LNH].  This itself is a coding for naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalistic context.  For example, the ND's alma mater UBCNM states in "Six Guiding Principles. Guiding Principle #1" (archived here)[vsc 2010-12-15]:

"the healing power of nature. Viz [sp., vis] medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [purposeful; goal-directed aka teleological]; nature heals [as in 'let nature heal'] through the response of the life force [LF]. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process [TP]."

So, ND Kontomerkos's web site address is indicative of  naturopathy's overall vitalistic context: LNH = HPN-VMN  = LF = TP.

You just have to decode it, "from the inside"!

001.b. in "Facial Rejuvenation Acupuncture" [vsc 2010-12-15]:

"Dr. Kontomerkos is certified in facial rejuvenation acupuncture
[...and it is claimed to do all these things:]

increased blood flow,

increased collagen production,

improvement of facial muscle tone,

reduction of puffiness around the eyes,

elimination of fine lines and wrinkles,

improvement in facial color,

increase in skin hydration,

reduction of sagging jowls and drooping eye lids,

increased blood and lymph circulation, tightening of pores,

reduction in acne, improvement of TMJ,

sinus decongestion,

improved digestion and metabolism,

stress reduction,

more restful sleep,

improved hormone balance,

improvement of self-esteem."

Note: quack panacea alert!

001.c. in "Services" [vsc 2010-12-15]:

"acupuncture [..is a] gentle, ancient healing technique [that] treats various health conditions, stimulates the body's healing response [coded vitalism], and promotes physical and emotional well-being [...] reiki therapy – reiki is an energetic therapy  [that is, vitalistic...] reiki can decrease pain, improve health [really!!!...] it can benefit emotional health as well as physical health [...] homeopathy is a distinct system of medicine that treats illnesses with extremely diluted agents [...] homeopathic remedies [...] each remedy is chosen after Dr. Kontomerkos conducts an interview focusing on the physical and emotional characteristics of each person, which lead her to the prescription of an individualized remedy [...] Dr. Kontomerkos also performs facial rejuvenation acupuncture."

Note: whenever someone clinical claims homeopathy has efficacy...run.  And acupuncture.

001.d. in "Meet the Doctor" [vsc 2010-12-15]:

"Dr. Kontomerkos was trained in the scientific model as her foundation [bullshit!] in medicine  [...] she went on to earn a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] Dr. Kontomerkos offers natural medical solutions [...] the aim is to heal the underlying cause of illness [coded vitalism...and speaks of] other health care professionals [...] for Dr. Kontomerkos, the goal is to provide excellence in health care and wellness by merging cutting-edge, evidence-based research with ancient healing traditions [epistemic conflation]."

Note: so, there's the big science model / context falsehood.  The science-exterior [the essentially naturopathic] cannot be science, by definition.

001.e. in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-12-15]:

"naturopathic medical schools require the same basic sciences as a medical doctor [...] naturopathic medicine is a method of healing that blends centuries-old holistic medicines with modern medical science [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training [...including] acupuncture, homeopathic medicine [etc....]  naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams."

Note: so, again, a science expertise / basis claim / promise, acu. and homeo., and a claim of 'professional rigor.'  Notice that the science-ejected vitalism essential to naturopathy overall is not communicated in this page which claims to contextualize naturopathy.

We ARE told, cryptically, "the premise behind naturopathic medicine is to find the root cause of illness [RCI]", and that is, overall, vitalism coded.

Therefore: vitalism = RCI, also.

001.f. in "Christine Kontomerkos, ND, MS" [vsc 2010-12-15]:

"Dr. Kontomerkos was trained in the scientific model as her foundation in medicine and has a great respect for the ever-advancing field of medicine [a HUGE science promise...she has] a Doctorate in Naturopathic Medicine from University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] Dr. Kontomerkos offers natural medical solutions [...] her services involve the use of  [...] homeopathy [...and] acupuncture [etc....] by merging cutting-edge, evidence-based research with ancient healing traditions [...] Dr. Kontomerkos enhances her knowledge of the profession [...] or more information, please visit http://www.letnatureheal.com/."

Note: wow, there's a HUGE science model / context promise again, UBCNM as an alma mater, homeo. and acu., and an 'of the professions' claim.

AND who pays for this?  In "Insurance and Location" [vsc 2010-12-15] we're told:

"our office accepts the following insurance plans: Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, ConnectiCare, Cigna, HealthNet, Aetna [...] for any plans not listed here, most insurance companies will reimburse 'out-of-network' for services that are rendered."

Ka-ching, ka-ching.

002. Dr. Novella writes at Science-Based Medicine in "Acupuncture and the Hazard of Nonsense" (2010-12-15):

"a recent study published in the Archives of Opthalmology [sp., ophthalmology!] compare patching of one eye vs acupuncture in the treatment of amblyopia in older children, and finds positive results from acupuncture [...one of sCAM's] highly implausible modalities [...] changes to clinical practice are not warranted based upon an unblinded pilot study such as this. The history of acupuncture specifically is one in which unblinded pilot studies tend to be positive, but then follow up well-controlled blinded acupuncture studies have tended to be negative. If history is any judge, these results will not hold up under further study, and therefore changes to clinical practice are premature. This episode is just one example of the hazard of studying was is essentially a nonsensical system – the notion that acupuncture needles placed in specific (and non-existent) acupoints can cause specific physiological effects [oh snap!...] there is no evidence for such wild speculation about possible mechanisms of acupuncture, and speculating about mechanisms is premature when the best acupuncture studies all find no effect [...] what we get from acupuncture, at best, are very non-specific effects from the therapeutic ritual that surrounds acupuncture [...] non-specific effects do not justify specific claims or mechanisms [...] the ultimate problem is that the underlying notions of acupuncture itself – that there are specific acupuncture points on the body, and that there are mysterious energies that can be manipulated by sticking needles in these points that then have specific physiological effects – are highly implausible. They are, in fact, nothing but pre-scientific superstition. The energy and acupuncture points of acupuncture, according to decades of research and multiple independent lines of evidence, simply do not exist. Acupuncture is ultimately a shell game of preliminary unreliable results and misinterpreted non-specific/placebo effects."

Note: yes, that is, again:

"acupuncture is ultimately a shell game of preliminary unreliable results and misinterpreted non-specific/placebo effects."


And it is business-as-usual for NDs / NMDs and their schools.

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

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

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

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

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

-"ignorance": 

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

-"protected by the government of Ontario":

the protection of absurdity and falsehood only protects the offenders;

-"like ALL medical colleges":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-"on the edge of quackery":

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

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

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

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

see 002., below; 

-"no solid logic or research";

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

-"too lazy regardless to site anything here";

how about cite?;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Skeptic's Dictionary Adds "Science-Based Medicine"

Bob Carroll writes in "Science-Based Medicine" [as of 2010-10-06]:

"science-based medicine (SBM) evaluates health claims, practices, and products by the best scientific evidence available [aka ALL the evidence]. Central to the idea of science-based [...] is the notion that science exists as an interdependent network of theories, knowledge, and laws [(how, ironically, HOLISTIC!)...while] evidence-based medicine (EBM) [narrowly / merely] considers as scientific evidence any results from a clinical trial [...] regardless of whether that clinical trial was grounded in scientific plausibility [(which isn't ALL the evidence, scientifically speaking)...] some claims are so implausible that clinical trials tend to confuse, rather than clarify the issue [...] when RCTs are performed on ineffective treatments with low prior probabilities, they tend not to yield merely ‘negative’ findings [...] they tend [...] to yield equivocal findings [(favoring the 'not-evident'!)...] it is illogical to give more weight to a set of questionable clinical trials that indicate some minimal level of support for a treatment than to a body of scientific knowledge that indicates the treatment lacks any scientific plausibility. EBM doesn't consider scientific plausibility as significant [...while] SBM considers scientific plausibility a necessary, though not a sufficient, condition [...] SBM holds that Bayesian probability is a superior measure of the data from a clinical trial than is the p-value of 'frequentist statistics' [...and we're reminded with a quote from Bausell] 'it's become politically correct to investigate nonsense' [aka NCCAM!]."

Note: as a moderately frequent commenter to the sciencebasedmedicine.org web page, I think this is a fine addition to the Skeptic's Dictionary.

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.

SBM on Naturopathy This NMW 2010

here, I cite from a post by Dr. Crislip at Science-Based Medicine in response to the anti-vaxx. rant of a self-described ND:

001. Mark Crislip, M.D. states in "Nine Questions: Nine Answers"(2010-05-07):

"David Mihalovic, ND [...has written] '9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims' [...] the vaccine questions are grounded in misinformation, ignorance or laziness [...] Mr. Mihalovic [hear, hear per 'Mr.'] identifies himself as 'a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research.' However, just where the research is published is uncertain as his name yields no publications on Pubmed.  BTW, I specialize in  beer research.  Same credentials [hear, hear (my credentials sit in front of my rectus abdominis!)...] as long as we are on the topic, since he evidently places great store in science, could Mihalovic please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of naturopathy? [...] could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of naturopathy? [...] Milhalovic,  could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to naturopathy? [...] Milhalovic, could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of naturopathic nostrums in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any naturopathic nostrum study? [...] could you please provide scientific justification as to how applying naturopathy to a human being is beneficial to human health and prevents disease? [...] I am neither stumped not defeated. I know how to search Pubmed for medical information. My response directed specifically to the questions. My arguments are based on modern studies that a 12 year old can find in less than a minute, none of which have been disproved once, much less over and over. SBM is an open mainstream venue. I do feel like I just had won Jeopardy playing against Prof. R.J. Gumby; where is the honor in that? And people wonder why I question the wisdom of allowing naturopaths to function as primary care providers."

Note: well, I can't place this ND in terms of credentials.  But, I'll keep my eyes open.  The posture is ridiculous, because the science behind vaccination is quite robust. Naturopathy itself is hugely misinforming, ignorant, and lazy can be a great umbrella for their overall lack of rigor.  My basic position is that since the naturopathic is the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural, Dr. Crislip's 'science support' cannot occur.  Whatever naturopathy can generate regarding actual science legitimacy does not concern the 'essentially naturopathic,' it concerns items borrowed from stand-alone areas of inquiry that naturopathy has subsumed and gerrymandered.

The Promotion of the Ancient Superstition of Vitalism at NCCAM - Novella, SBM 2010-04-07:

Dr. Novella writes in "Our Visit with NCCAM" at Science-Based Medicine (2010-04-07):

"in the same [NCCAM] newsletter there is [an] article discussing the evidence for acupuncture and pain showing a model of chi and meridians – mystical life force and the lines through which they allegedly flow [...] the pattern of information is consistent – NCCAM staff talk about a strict adherence to evidence-based medicine and science being neutral, but interspersed with this is an uncritical presentation of ancient superstition as if it were science, and endorsement of treatments that are not backed by science, and in fact have been shown not to work [...] all of this confirms our worst fears about NCCAM – that its very existence, and the generally positive and uncritical information it provides to the public, is used to promote and endorse unscientific medical modalities [...] given that the CAM community is actively exploiting the existence of the NCCAM as an imprimatur of legitimacy [can you say 'naturopathy'], the NCCAM needs to take special care to avoid such exploitation."

Note: hear, hear.  Per "an uncritical presentation of ancient superstition as if it were science", that sums up my experience with naturopathy -- lack of due diligence from an area posing as professionally rigorous.

Science-Based Medicine vs. Science-Based Natural Medicine [Rationality, UTTER Nonsense - Respectively]:

here, I compare two schools of thought or movements [see 004., below regarding these loose expressions], Science-Based Medicine [SBM; see 001., below] and supposed Science-Based Natural Medicine [SBNM; see 002., below] in terms of their mutual claims of being scientific, and then I expose the one that is UTTER NONSENSE [see 003., below]:

001. according Dr. Stephen Novella in "Announcing the Science-Based Medicine Blog" at the blog "Science-Based Medicine", SBM:

"[promotes] the highest standards and traditions of science in medicine and health care. The mission of this blog is to scientifically examine medical and health topics of interest to the public [...] it is in everyone’s best interest for health care to be systematically evaluated by the best science available [...] science is nothing more than a systematic and careful use of evidence and logic to evaluate factual claims [...] good science possesses certain virtues that are not unique to science but generic to all intellectual endeavors: fairly accounting for all available evidence, using valid and internally consistent logic, using unambiguous concepts and language, proper use of statistics, being quantitatively precise and accurate, and above all being honest [{intellectual integrity}...] collectively, science builds one cumulative model of the natural world. This means we can make rational judgments about what is likely to be true based upon what is already well established. This does not necessarily equate to rejecting new ideas out-of-hand, but rather to adjusting the threshold of evidence required to establish a new claim based upon the prior scientific plausibility of the new claim [...] this is why the authors of this blog strongly advocate for science based medicine – the use of the best scientific evidence available, in the light of our cumulative scientific knowledge from all relevant disciplines, in evaluating health claims, practices, and products."

Note: SBM aims for "the highest of standards", per "the best science", intellectual integrity, AND cumulative & rational investigation of the natural world based upon prior plausibility [in other words, 'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence']. This sounds to me like a very good thing.

002. regarding SBNM:

002.a. according to the leading proponent of SBNM, J.E. Pizzorno, ND (NCNM 1975):

"Joseph E. Pizzorno, Jr., N.D. [JEP...] is one of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine [per his credentials as] a naturopathic physician [...] he travels worldwide, consulting, lecturing and promoting science-based natural medicine [...he has been honored for his] 'decades of work establishing the scientific and educational foundation of natural medicine' [...] Dr. Pizzorno is the author of Total Wellness [TW] and co-author of the internationally acclaimed Textbook of Natural Medicine [TNM]."

Note: the claim is that being a naturopath is equivalent to being an expert practitioner of the "science-based" because naturopathy supposedly is "science-based natural medicine". This position is also found at the ND granting school Pizzorno founded, Bastyr University, which claims:

a) at their web page "About Us [concerning Bastyr's programs]":

"Bastyr.edu is a science-based natural medicine university [...] Bastyr University is a non-profit, private university offering both graduate and undergraduate degrees, with a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...] Bastyr’s international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature."

b) in their Peterson's.com advertisement:

"Bastyr University School of Naturopathic Medicine [...] Bastyr's fully accredited four- to five-year Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) program is internationally renowned for its rigorous, science-based curriculum. Combining a distinct multidisciplinary, science-based approach to teaching with an emphasis on understanding the mind, body, spirit, and nature [...] students receive a thorough foundation in the basic medical sciences [...naturopathy is within] the field of natural health sciences [...we create] scientifically trained naturopathic physicians."

Obviously, [Pizzorno's] Bastyr claims that the naturopathic is scientific; and by definition, Bastyr claims that SBNM is science. Also, notice that Bastyr claims that the supernatural is science, as well as what they term "nature" [see 002.c2. below, where I expose what "nature" is within naturopathy].

Obviously, Dr. Pizzorno claims to excel at "science", and Bastyr claims the same. It should be noted that Pizzorno does not apparently possess science credentials in any significantly meaningful sense per 'high echelon academia' [I'll call it], and anyone or any institution who/that establishes the scientific basis of what is 'the essentially naturopathic' [vitalism, spiritism-supernaturalism, cosmic teleology & other science-ejected kind] would upend several hundred years of scientific advancement to such an extent that I'd at least think by now Nobel Prizes would have been awarded. After all, the NDs have been formally claiming that vitalism and their other beliefs [spiritism, cosmic teleology] survive scientific scrutiny since at least 1989 with the unanimous ratification of their creed at Rippling River! But, no such because instead of actually producing scientific verification of their claims through the channels that science requires, NDs merely write words and posture their claims as science without producing the actual EXTRAORDINARY evidence needed to establish the hugely/profoundly nonscientific as indeed scientific -- and this racket/farce of SBNM has been feeding the ND luminaries $$$ for at least a couple decades].

002.b. I'll reiterate these facts, before I go on:

JEP is a graduate of National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM], 1975. NCNM is the oldest North American ND school, and the trunk of the ND tree so to speak. JEP is the author of the primary North American ND textbook, the TNM.

002.c. naturopathy claimed as science while based upon vitalism [a vitalism, spiritism, teleology amalgam] / a.k.a. the science-ejected -- what TW, TNM, and NCNM tell us:

002.c1. naturopathy claimed as science:

002.c1.a. in TW, JEP states on its dust jacket (ISBN 0761504338; 1996):

"Joseph Pizzorno, N.D., co-author of A Textbook of Natural Medicine and Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine, is one of the world’s leading authorities on science-based natural medicine [...this book is] grounded in scientific research [...and speaks of] the body's potent, innate healing systems [{in the book, one of those systems is the 'life force'; see 002.c2.a., below} p. xi]."

Note: and in the preface, JEP writes: "I have used and taught the concepts in this book for 25 years [...and] I reviewed the scientific literature for the latest research." In chapter one, we're told by JEP: "all the information in this book is fully referenced to the scientific research literature [p.006]."

002.c1.b. in TNM, co-author JEP states in "Preface" and "Chapter 3" (ISBN ISBN0443059454; 1999):

"[along my ND Murray] the scientific support for the philosophical and therapeutic foundation of natural medicine has evolved remarkably over the past 25 years [p.xxviii...along with ND homeopath Bradley] while modern vitalism is inherently holistic in its view and has an emphasis on circularity as its causality (i.e. feedback loops), there is no conflict with the findings of biomedical science [p.044...] the point is only that vitalism is a medical philosophy based on observable scientific phenomena [p.045...] conventional medicine, as the dominant health care system and a representative of mechanism, has claimed for itself the title of 'scientific medicine'. However, it is inherently no more or less scientific than vitalistic medicine [...] the criteria of the scientific method can be met by vitalistic medicine, but only when the researchers recognize that it cannot be studied as though it is reductionistic or based on a simplistic model of linear causality. When the experimental model acknowledges the complexity of a living system in a social context (i.e. holism and circularity), vitalistic medicine proves to be both verifiable and reproducible, and thus scientific [p.046]."

Note: so, vitalism is science [only when the strictures of science are annulled!].

002.c1.c. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"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 [...and later they state that the essentially naturopathic is] in fact."

002.c2. naturopathy's essential vitalism [the context of its "nature" or its "innate healing systems"]:

002.c2.a. per TW, JEP states:

"[remember these] important concepts. The healing power of nature [HPN]. Vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]. Our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal [...] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [p.003...you need to] live in harmony with your life-force [LF...such is a] belief [...a] spiritual value [...] each of us needs to become more aware of the activity of the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) [p.026...] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life: the immune system, the detoxification system, the inflammatory system, the metabolic system, the regulatory system, the regeneration system, and our life-force or spirit [S]. Weakness in any of these seven systems results in susceptibilities that allow most common diseases to develop [p.024...] live in harmony with the psychosocial [PS]/spiritual/ life-force [p.317...] the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae [...it is] this teleological force [TF], the healer within [THW], that is the essence of each of us [p.333]."

Note: so, HPN = VMN = LF = S = PS = TF = THW. This is naturopathy's essential vitalism [vitalism, spiritism, teleology], and such is [falsely] claimed to be science. Why a "life force" or "spirit" equals the "psychosocial" is beyond me.

002.c2.b. TNM states in "Chapter 06 - Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine":

"[a chapter ascribed primarily to ND homeopath Bradley] this chapter examines the philosophical foundation of naturopathic medicine [...] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [...] the philosophy of vitalism is based on the concept that life is too well organized to be explained simply as a complex assemblage of chemical and physical reactions [...he claims] vitalism is a medical philosophy based on observable scientific phenomena."

Note: again, the essentially naturopathic is vitalism, which is claimed to be scientific.

002.c2.c. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: 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 [teleological]; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] first do no harm -- primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

Note: so, at JEP's alma mater, HPN = VMN = LF = VF. AND, NCNM claims on this page that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny - such is an obligation of an NCNM ND and particularly an ND practicing in Oregon by .gov decree! Along the same lines, a Bastyr ND is obligated to a similar absurdity merely in different language. Notice also the claim of meeting the ethical strictures of professionalism.

003. ohhhh, the OBVIOUS nonsense that is SBNM [because vitalism is hugely not science, along with supernaturalism & teleology - 'something is not equal to that which it is hugely different from, and excludes']:

there actually is no science basis for what is essentially 'the naturopathic'.

Though claimed as science, naturopathy at its core is actual science-ejected: vitalism is hugely science-ejected, and so is supernaturalism [teleology as well].

004. on 'school of thought' and 'movement':

004.a. school of thought:

Wikipedia states in "School of Thought":

"a school of thought is a collection or group of people who share common characteristics of opinion or outlook of a philosophy, discipline, belief, social movement, cultural movement, or art movement."

Note: I would say that SBM fits the loose definition of a school of thought. But, SBNM isn't much into thinking at all, when you consider its falseness and nonsense -- to be elevated to the status of 'academically soundness'. I'd rather term SBNM as school of idiocy, incompetence and dishonesty.

004.b. movement:

Wikipedia states in "Movement":

"philosophical movement, is either the appearance or increased popularity of a specific school of philosophy, or a fairly broad but identifiable sea-change in philosophical thought on a particular subject."

Note: I would argue that SBM is mainstream and quite mundane scientific movement, while SBNM is a cultic / sectarian philosophical/intellectual RUSE that is quite nonsensical, incompetent & dishonest.

To the extent that SBM is 'philosophical', it promotes the priority of a posteriori empirical knowledge [which includes science]; while SBNM / naturopathy is a pile of a priori beliefs falsely labeled science [pseudoscience; and quite an abuse of the institutions of education, physicianship, and professionalism overall -- to such an extent that I regard it as a human rights violation to the extreme].