Why I Dropped Out of Naturopathy School.

2006-07-28T22:08:00.000-07:00

[my UBCNM-provided business card & IDs; my UBCNM clinic materials, including the mandatory UBCNM clinic requirements; my secular humanism].

[I. concerning 'naturopathy & I' -- at UBCNM]

I.a. I eventually posted 'humanism' on the box because I found myself, at UBCNM, surrounded by and embedded within and stuck professionally and academically obligated towards so much that was UNETHICAL in this sense:

I.a.01. so much professional SECTARIAN supernatural flapdoodle:

(UBCNM's requisite naturopathic doctrines {naturopathy's essential vitalism, spiritism, teleology & kind} are archived at:

{principle 01 - 'viz medicatrix naturae,'

http://web.archive.org/web/20041022021514/www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm}

{principle 02 - 'treat the cause,'

http://web.archive.org/web/20041022102837/www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Pritwo.htm}

{principle 03 - 'first do no harm,'

http://web.archive.org/web/20041023022641/http:/www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prithree.htm}

{principle 04 - 'treat the whole person,'

http://web.archive.org/web/20041023144632/http:/www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_PriFour.htm}

{principle 05 - 'physician as teacher,'

http://web.archive.org/web/20041102035514/http:/www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_PriFive.htm})

(for a 'flapdoodle' definition click here, http://www.bartleby.com/61/67/F0166700.html)

I.a.02. all calling itself academic scientific medicine!

(UBCNM's simultaneous overarching science claim is archived here, http://web.archive.org/web/20041022020914/www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Today's_Nat.htm).

I.b. While ANY KNOWLEDGE IS DEEMED SCIENTIFIC to naturopaths academically at UBCNM and profession-wide. E.g.: I have termed this UBCNM Dean's "epistemic conflation claimed as specific epistemic type" an "epistemic stupidity:"

(there be GREAT naturopathic flapdoodle at
http://web.archive.org/web/20010701211403/http://www.bridgeport.edu/naturopathy/desc/dean.htm).

[II. Concerning secularism and humanism]

“Secularism is the view that church and state (religion and national government) should be kept separate […] A secular dispensation keeps the public domain neutral with respect to all interest groups within it […] Humanism in the modern sense of the term is the view that whatever your ethical system, it derives from your best understanding of human nature and the human condition in the real world. This means that it [humanism] does not, in its thinking about the good and about our responsibilities to ourselves and one another, premise putative data from astrology, fairy tales, supernaturalistic beliefs, animism, polytheism, or any other inheritances from the ages of humankind's remote and more ignorant past. It is possible for religious people to be humanists too: though not without inconsistency or at least oddity, for there is no role to be played in humanistic ethics by their (definingly religious) belief in the existence of supernatural agencies […] People who do not believe in supernatural entities do not have a ‘faith’ in ‘the non-existence of X’ (where X is ‘fairies’ or ‘goblins’ or ‘gods’); what they have is a reliance on reason and observation, and a concomitant preparedness to accept the judgment of both on the principles and theories that premise their actions […and he notes] faith at its quickly-reached limit is the negation of thought.”

-- Grayling, A.C. (? ?), in “Gotta Have Faith?”

(click here, http://web.archive.org/web/20070219100236/http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2006/11/post_604.html).

[III. Concerning science, & vitalism - spiritism supernaturalism]

[III.a.]

"Naturopathy is a fraudulent approach to medical causation, depending on the hypothetical 'life force' [the 'vis] that supposedly guides healing. No life force has ever been detected, nor has any other supernatural force or being."

-- Center For Inquiry, Florida.

(click here, http://ga1.org/center_for_inquiry/alert-description.tcl?alert_id=2129064; click here for a CFI description, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_inquiry).

[III.b.]

"The supernatural […] refers to entities, forces or phenomena which are not subject to natural laws, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. Though supernatural refers chiefly to the cause of phenomena (an interpretation), if a phenomenon can be scientifically demonstrated, it is typically no longer considered to be supernatural. Because phenomena must be subject to verifiable measurement and peer review to contribute to scientific theories, science cannot approach the supernatural; see scientific method."

-- Wikipedia {01-28-2007}.

(click here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural; a rather pedestrian resource...BUT, that's what makes this naturopathic 'science-based supernatural-metaphysical-idealistic-teleological-unmeasurable & kind' fallacy SO ABSURD.)

[IV. Also...]

(I have various 'skepticism of naturopathy'-type material at http://youtube.com/daijiyobu).

[Specifically, take the "Naturopathy Blasphemy Challenge"]

Wherein, I disavow the central 'article of faith' of naturopathy, their 'purposeful life spirit' (aka 'the vis').

(click here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MudHStxAMyM)

2006-07-27T12:50:00.000-07:00

[click here to return to the main document, http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com/<]

[if you don't see a picture above this, click here]

[for a partial review of the Textbook of Naturopathic Medicine 3rd. ed., click here http://textnaturopathicmed3rd.blogspot.com/{text},or click here http://www.mp3.com/robert-j.-cullen/artists/21730396/songs.html{audio}]

by Robert J. Cullen (the University of Bridgeport, 1998-2002).

Introduction:

I went to the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathy / Naturopathic Medicine [UB; UBCNM] during the years 1998-2002.

[I live, currently, just off campus and I still use the UB library -- as they have the best naturopathic collection on the East Coast, as far as I know].

Extensive pre-requisites were required, as well as relocating to Connecticut and taking out extensive loans.

[I had considered other routes, but the naturopathic 'offer' seemed viable, seemed honest, seemed rational / reasonable, and seemed to be legitimate {I didn't think I'd be lied to at an institutional level; so, I thought that the naturopathic claim of 'supernatural science' -- holistic / spiritistic / vitalistic (not-science-supportable, turns out) -- claimed as science-based, science, and scientific was TRUE}. In the end, their effect on my life has been DIVERSION and ruin -- I was diverted away from preparation and application towards programs actually nonsectarian, ethical, and scientific -- particularly, an MD and its earnings. I was diverted by UB and naturo's false and manipulative descriptions, inaccurate, incomplete, and just plain WRONG labels and information -- INTO naturopathy. And in terms of personal resources, all has been used up. In place of continuing something hugely unethical and exceptionally nauseating to me -- naturopathy -- I have ceased and must live what is left, which is just outside of destitution. This situation is very well known to the institutions involved and their agents, and the State of Connecticut and their agents. The three terms I often use in this experience is: cannon fodder {I've discovered I am chattel -- human property, without rights -- existing for naturopathic institutional exploitation -- in the eyes of naturopathy, UB, the State of CT and the CT Judiciary}; Tombstone City {there is an exceptional lawlessness about all this; social nets don't exist where they should; the sheriff only comes around when there's a body on the ground -- 'oh, this is about IDEAS...SO WHAT,' to depict CT as accurately as I can}; and cultic mystical weirdness {a term I used in a deposition for a legal complaint against UB that got nowhere; what I mean by this is that my experience with naturopathy is that it was -- cultic: per forms of thought control / indoctrination; per an 'us / them' 'change the world' mission centered around self-designated authority figures or sources (dogmas and doctrinaires: vitalism, spiritism, Hahnemann, homeopathy, the vedas of ayurveda, Pizzorno, Fine, Sensenig, applied kinesiology, Martin minimally come to mind) whose mission is a radical redefinition of accepted domain parameters {the scientific must include the metaphysical / idealistic / supernatural and kind}; mystical: the replacement of reason with irrational mental practices and thought habits and models (illogic; an unknowable, intelligent, vital force spirit running physiology from beyond the material world yet claimed as within the body operating through teleology-finalism, & spiritism, comes to mind); weirdness: an example, stating by decree that science contains the supernatural, the scientifically discarded, and the scientifically unsupported (the essentially naturopathic) is WACKO].

I dropped out of that "non-sectarian" Connecticut naturopathy school, and this is an account of the bigger reasons as to why:

[here's a UB video where they state nonsectarian,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-70146535525469378&q=naturopathic&hl=en]

A) due to their supernatural beliefs [naturopathy is essentially a form of 'sectarian medicine'; based upon the history of the development of medicine in the United States, and that which is specifically 'naturopathy' / 'the naturopathic'] and their knowledge-type 'labeling fraud':

[e.g.: 'the unscientific posed as scientific, the supernatural posed as scientific, the scientifically-discarded and -refuted posed as scientific, the unscienceable posed as scientific'; 'the unlimitation of science to the point of absurdity'; 'central tenets posed as scientific when actually articles of faith' (a specific system of belief, thus sectarian); in essence, I could not manage the naturopathic position of being unethical and fraudulent as regards SCIENCE and MEDICAL SCIENCE and the 'SUPERNATURAL, METAPHYSICAL, and IDEALISTIC' [some call such a position pseudoscience, and quackery]; I couldn't manage the position of embodying specific supernatural 'of the religious'-type / ideological / metaphysical beliefs and views and label it publically and personally as 'scientific, science-based' and nonsectarian].

[naturopathy and 'the destruction of science' {epistemic conflation}; naturopathy and 'community abuse' {lying, manipulating, exploiting, predation}].

B) due to an impossibility of meeting graduation requirements, in my particular case.

[and without advisement available, in a take-it-or-leave-it type RADICAL / DOCTRINAIRE environment, I left to protect my sanity -- after a 'sit-down' with the Dean of UBCNM {the author of this delightful sectarian document, >http://web.archive.org/web/20010701211403/http://www.bridgeport.edu/naturopathy/desc/dean.htm<}, which only resulted in a 'take it or leave it' lecture {I wasn't even informed by UBCNM Dean Peter Martin (ND[UK] DO[UK] DC[US]) of any rights I had towards complaint WITHIN UBCNM -- as in 'hey, University...this program is mislabeled and you lied to me!!!! You claim to be nonsectarian as a University, yet your naturopathic program by definition (and chiro. and acupuncture) are by definition SECTARIAN' & 'you claim that the supernatural is scientific' etc.}].

[naturopathy and the abuse of academic duty; the malpractice{professional negligence} of academic administration].

Details of A): Vitalism and spiritism [and kind] claimed as within a science category they're outside of and not legitimately supported by:

[For definitions of vitalism, click here, >http://thevitalismofnaturopathy.blogspot.com/<; as for spiritism, this is the term I use to demarcate: 1) belief in immaterial-transcendent inhabiting entities of either the inanimate or the living; 2) belief in an ultimate immaterial-ethereal- otherworldly 'spirit reality' that dictates the behavior of / subordinates / controls the physical world; {the encarta world dictionary has a few definitions, click here, >http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861712034<}].

This is the most obvious fraud I can think of as regards naturopathy.

Naturopathy schools' and the naturopathy profession's overall claim that they are science-based, scientific, grounded in basic medical science, and a branch of scientific medicine [naturalistic, pragmatic, and methodological in operations and explanations] is absurd when one recognizes that they simultaneously claim to be essentially vitalism and spiritism centered and obligated [supernatural, idealistic, metaphysical positions / explanations / claims].

They are claiming that within the scientific [the science-based], particularly, is the supernatural, the science-discarded, the science-refuted, and the unscienceable [vitalism, spiritism & kind]:

[e.g., an AANP practitioner Faust, P. (ND Bastyr) whose statements are rather 'typical' {found through google.com}:

(first quote, at

http://web.archive.org/web/20060109073100/http://mysite.verizon.net/naturedoctor/index.htm)

(second quote, at

http://web.archive.org/web/20050319164437/http://mysite.verizon.net/naturedoctor/dr_faust.htm)

.[specifically per UBCNM:

(first quote click here,

http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Today's_Nat.htm)

(first quote archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Today's_Nat.htm)

(second quote click here,

http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm)

(second quote archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm)

(third quote click here,

http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Dean.htm)

(third quote archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Dean.htm)

.[overall,

I did not begin at UB nor am I now an expert in science or religions or supernatural systems of belief -- but I think I can tell the general difference, be it only after a long amount of thought and reflection.

And, to illustrate just how blatant the general differences are as concerns what is and isn't scientific, much of the support I've mustered in this longstanding argument that vitalism and supernaturalism are not within science and if labeled so are mislabeled -- over the years -- comes from elementary all the way up to undergraduate science texts.

I did not begin UBCNM as a vitalist -- vitalism being the belief that 'life' and health are 'animated' and controlled by an essential vital spirit force [VFS] underlying or beyond or underneath or upholding physical reality and physiological activity.

I did not begin UBCNM as a spiritist -- spiritism being a belief in the existence of spirit.

Nor did I begin UB as a medical vitalist -- the belief that supposed manipulation of that supposed VFS entity could improve health and treat disease.

Nor did I begin UB as a medical spiritist -- the belief in and acknowledgement of supposed spirit(s) and that such is essential medically speaking through the assessment, adjustment, and development of supposed spirit(s).

[Nor did I begin UB as a teleology-finalist. I didn't and to this day don't employ the idea that 'things happen because the VFS wanted it to.' 'Inevitable' and 'meant to be' finalisms guided by entelechies, the vitalistic 'cosmic teleology' idea or entelechy-driven 'teleology-finalism,' are a type of retroverse {backwards turning} paranormal pseudoexplanation. This is opposed to the causative idea that science works upon: that things happen because conditions that led up to them caused them; that what will happen, following the arrow of time, is based upon probabilistic extrapolation from current conditions. There are no teleological entelechies in science because there is no need for them; per NOT ASCRIBED BY THE EVIDENCE.].

Vitalism and spiritism [and teleology] are essential to be naturopathic, represented in the naturopathic principles, oath, and licensure standards of practice under the umbrella terms "the healing power of nature" [a teleological 'vital spirit force' (VFS)] and "treat the whole person" ['spirit body mind' (SBM or BMS{not basic medical science})] and "physician as teacher" [UB's requisite 'personal spiritual development' (PSD)] and often as a summary label "founded upon a holistic philosophy" [an amalgam of VFS, SBM, PSD {minimally}] while naturopathy simultaneously claims to be scientific, science-based, nonsectarian, and a branch of medical science.

[citations: (PSD as a 'MUST commit' per NCNM catalog 2006-2008 {p.027, 1st column bottom}, click here >http://www.ncnm.edu/admissions/2006-2007_catalog_ld.pdf<; PSD as a 'MUST encourage' 'MUST include spiritual to be healthy,' per UBCNM catalog 2001-2002 {p.064 middle column half-way from bottom}, click here >http://www.bridgeport.edu/academics/UBCat0102-Programs.pdf<; and "founded upon a holistic philosophy" per the Naturopathic Public Awareness Campaign, click here, >http://www.globalnpac.org/nat_med.htm<)].

In my mind foremost -- and to this day I recall vividly, when I got interested in UBCNM and decided to go -- was the fact that UB naturopathy labeled itself [and the required naturopathic supernatural and nonscientific premises{vitalism, spiritism, teleology and kind}] as scientific [all AANP schools still do, through their AANMC]:

[e.g.: specifically UBCNM, then the AANP-AANMC, then the AANP-Alliance PAC-type group:

(for the first jpg, UBCNM's 2006-2008 catalog will suffice {p.71, column 1, 2nd paragraph},

http://www.bridgeport.edu/include/pdf/academics/UBCat0608_Schools.pdf)

(for the second jpg, archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.aanmc.org/nat_med/index.php)

(for the third jpg, archived here {see 1998 & 1999 pages),

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.teleport.com/~aanp/alliance/main.html)

“[additionally, per the first jpg, via UBCNM] the first two (academic) years of training is devoted to the basic sciences such as anatomy, physiology, pathology and clinical and physical diagnosis [...] the second two years consist largely of the clinical sciences [...including] the modalities of naturopathic medicine [...per the second jpg, AANMC is comprised of ] Bastyr University, Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, the University of Bridgeport [...per the third jpg, the AANP's PAC group] the Alliance, which sponsors this site, is a cooperative effort among the AANP, Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences.”

It is this overall scientific label that attracted me to the school, a label the profession also employed [notice the emphasis that the contents of naturopathy are NOT beliefs -- as in not articles of faith, not sectarian -- but scientifically-supported, scientific, scientifically-based, 'objectively observed' knowledge -- which is SO particularly misrepresentative.].

[BUT, as K. Atwood III, MD notes: "naturopathic beliefs -- including those of 'naturopathic physicians' -- are rooted in vitalism, the pre-20th-century assertion that biological processes do not conform to universal physical and chemical principles"; (click here, >http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/465994_3<)].

I assumed that the whole thing would be actual: vitalism and spiritism as scientific -- as labeled, as promised.

It was a face-value label I trusted -- after all, they're a [traditional!] university.

I look back now and realize that their proposition is absurd: vitalism and spiritism do not pass the muster of the scientific community to even be hypotheses, never mind actual theories [a theory needs huge amounts of confirming evidence].

Science dismissed vitalism and supernaturalism, vitalistic and supernaturalistic explanations, untestable premises and not directly observed / inferred phenomena from its domain a long time ago.

I didn't know what vitalism was until that belief -- which I will here term 'an article of faith' along with spiritism, since they have no support in terms of rigorous science, and since both are supernatural -- was lectured to me and required of me in a UB classroom by a luminary of the naturopathy profession.

Vitalism is, I would learn over the course of many years, the fundamental linchpin naturopathic 'supernatural belief' or article of faith or therapeutic premise.

This VFS entity must be manipulated and invoked to practice naturopathy.

Spiritism is also essentially required in addition to vitalism, and is practically indiscernible from vitalism.

With spiritism, naturopathy requires a specific spiritist belief in a 'spiritbodymind' 'body mind and spirit' as a unity-trinity whatever with the spirit, as far as I can tell, that overarching VFS [see Pizzorno, J. (ND) "Total Wellness"(1997) (ISBN 076151094X); also includes statements regarding teleology-finalism, as does the Textbook of Natural Medicine 3rd ed.].

This VFS entity must exist within a living organism to be alive, according to naturopathic belief, and also exists within inanimate objects according to most naturopathic therapies.

The fact that it's not there at death obviously indicates that it is some kind of soul or spirit entity.

[You may notice a huge irrationality here within their beliefs: a VFS is responsible for 'life' and when it's gone you're dead, WHILE it's present in 'not living' objects {it is manipulated in homeopathy from 'crude materials' like rocks and venoms, poisons and whatnot 'NOT alive'}. But I don't consider that lack of coherency as irrational as decreeing that 'the scientific' supports the supernatural / metaphysical / idealistic -- what I call nonparsimonious nonempirical modeling claimed to be what science is, parsimonious & empirical.].

Naturopathic vitalism may also use the terms life force, energy, chi, prana, innate, vis medicatrix naturae or just vis, healing power of nature, mana, orgone, animal magnetism, biofield etc.

[When I attended naturopathy school at UBCNM in 1998, VMN was directly equated with "god power within" by Dr. Sensenig, the founding dean of the school and the founding president of the AANP. For such naturopathic autoentheism, visit this slideshow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnWCb8Y0pVY . The future textbook similarly equates life force with god (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcCXBlvOgSc ) ].

For emphasis, I will again state what I just stated: I did not begin naturopathy school with any supernatural beliefs such as vitalism and spiritism [or any form of theism like their autoentheism].

These ideas weren't required to begin the program, and no one asked about them -- either whether I possessed such beliefs, or could begin to observe such beliefs, and particularly, if I could state these beliefs as science-based and scientific even if they are not so.

For emphasis, I will state again, the overall scientific position label / banner of naturopathy is what attracted me to the area [e.g. click here, >http://web.archive.org/web/20010701211403/http://www.bridgeport.edu/naturopathy/desc/dean.htm and I assumed -- and I don't think this was unreasonable because UB labels itself as a "traditional university" [e.g. click here, >http://web.archive.org/web/20041022021557/www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Adm.htm<], and I trusted that they'd be truthful as opposed to deceptive and deluded or radical -- that as I went to school I'd learn and see their scientific evidence and therein become convinced that the contents of naturopathy were in fact science-based.

This never happened.

As I got to know the basic medical sciences [and the basis of science], and how science operates and what science can support, I realized that vitalism and spiritism [per supernatural- metaphysical- idealogical and kind 'ideas'] were beyond the pale [boundary] of science, and that naturopathy requires, absurdly: a commitment to those two ideas [minimally; teleology-finalism is in the mix too] and a commitment to stating that they are science-based [state that which is outside the scientific as within the scientific; when particularly vitalism and spiritism are not of such a location, if you actually understand the basics and basis of science {particularly as METHOD, which leads to its epistemic type}].

[as a decent synonym to 'epistemic conflation, as regards claiming that that which is without evidence is that which is in evidence; per a blending of epistemic type, per 'the vitalistic spiritistic teleology-finalistic scientific' of naturopathy}, the term phantasmagoric comes to mind, meaning:
.
"the quality of blurring real and imaginary elements as in a dream."
.
(per Wiktionary, click here, >http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/phantasmagoric<)].

[To encapsulate this fusion / melding / conflation of the scientific and the supernatural, of the scientific / science-based / scientifically rigorous AND the 'outside of science' -- stated en masse as science {this epistemic conflation}, which is absurd {which AHD 4th states as "ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable. See synonyms at foolish" (click here, >http://www.answers.com/absurd<)} -- I here will use Bastyr University's School of Naturopathic Medicine as the example. Make no mistake about it, naturopathy is a pseudoscience -- particularly AANP-CNME-FNPLA-NEASC-NWCCU-HLCNCACS etc. naturo. {Meanwhile, the major national science org.s DO NOT place the supernatural WITHIN SCIENCE, NOR DO THEY PLACE WHAT'S NONSCIENTIFIC WITHIN SCIENCE...nor does science support or base the supernatural and the scientifically discarded.}:

[per "NaturalHealers.com":

a) "Bastyr University's scientifically rigorous naturopathic medicine program [...] Bastyr University's ND program: international reputation for science-based natural medicine; outstanding faculty in basic sciences [...] Bastyr University mission: Bastyr educates future leaders in natural health sciences that integrate mind, body, spirit and nature [...] vision: Bastyr University will be the world's leading academic center for advancing knowledge in the natural health sciences [...] the school of naturopathic medicine at Bastyr educates future physicians in the tradition of medical science and the art of natural healing [...] we do this by providing a comprehensive understanding of the basic medical sciences [...] vision of Bastyr's School of Naturopathic Medicine: Bastyr's School of Naturopathic Medicine will be a leading academic center for inspired and scholarly learning in the cultivation of naturopathic doctors. It will accomplish this through education, research, professional leadership, community and clinical services that bridge the worlds of science, nature and spirit."

[note: regarding the cultural location of this 'epistemic conflation' / bridging / integrating / blending stated as an epistemic delineation mislabeling and naturopathy -- Bastyr's motto is "at the heart of natural medicine," (click here, >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastyr_University<)

(click here,

http://www.naturalhealers.com/schools/bastyr/)]

[per U.S. News & World Report; seems to be a yellow pages for any such "epistemic conflation" {as I call it} blah blah blah, a College (Mis)Guide:

b) "Bastyr University [...] data appear as originally submitted by this school [...] our mission: we educate future leaders in natural health sciences that integrate mind, body, spirit and nature."

(click here,

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drmiss_22425_brief.php)

(for a short slide show of what I think about this nonsense naturopathic claim 'that the supernatural is science,'

click here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=GL50PLy0oIA {youtube.com})

bb) similarly, in terms of NCNM, Peterson's states a similar 'pseudoscience / epistemic conflation' blah blah blah:

"naturopathic medicine is a science-based, vitalistic* philosophy";

[*which is essentially the 'science-based' melded with the 'science-discarded,' 'science-unsupported,' 'science-refuted' etc.; I can't think of a more fundamental sign of what I'll call "science illiteracy;" or a more nonsensical statement -- in essence it amounts to unlimiting the delimitation of science, in three words, to the very absurd extent that no longer is 'the scientific' premised upon empirical evidence and naturalistic explanation]

(click here,

http://oracle-web.petersons.com/ccc92/display_pdf?p_instance_id=145966.pdf)

(or click here,

http://www.petersons.com/gradchannel/code/IDD.asp?orderLineNum=695677-1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;inunId=34879&typeVC=ProgramVC&sponsor=)

(for a short slide show of what I think of this naturopathic 'scientific vitalism' claim,'

click here, http://youtube.com/watch?v=i3GZpmcDqU4 {youtube.com})

[historically; not much different from the 'natural theology' era of bygone philosophy preEnlightenment -- no acknowledgment of delineations of knowledge type:

(click here from some discussion of 'blending knowledge type,'

http://epistemicconflation.blogspot.com/)

c) as illustrated through the words of the 'founder' of naturopathy, Lust {pronounced 'LOOST'}, as recounted in CNA naturopath S. Shah's (ND CCNM) health blog:

“as Sir Lust puts it: ‘Naturopathy stands for the reconciling, harmonizing, and unifying [!] of nature, humanity, and god[!]";

(click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060503043759/http://naturesintentionsnaturopathy.com/flash/naturopathicMedicine.swf);

[per "epistemic conflation;" wherein, knowledge types are blended / fused / integrated / in unification; and gee, I wonder where I've heard this 'unification thing' before?! {not that I have experienced the UC at UB first hand!, though I've seen its flag flying on campus}]

{the UC, per the BBC program on the UC 'unification thing,' "Moon: Emperor of the Universe," which I point out as a reference because I think it's interesting that the controlling interest of UB is also a 'unification thing commitment' like the UB naturopathy program's 'unification thing commitment'; similar to the coincidence that the Pacific Northwest is such a place of "epistemic conflation" per the seat of naturopathy historically {NCNM}, and the Discovery Institute {Intelligent Design Creationism} -- both naturopathy and creation science claim that the supernatural is WITHIN the scientific -- also you get to meet UB's president Mr. Solonen in this video:

(click here,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2215097044216099155&hl=en)]

There is a reasonable difference between the supernatural and the scientific, the scientific and the nonscientific, and particularly [reasonably!] vitalism and supernaturalism [and teleology] are explanations not within the explanatory mannerisms of science.

Neither idea -- vitalism or spiritism -- is supported in terms of scientific evidence, and furthermore, neither idea is regarded generally as scientifically testable etc. -- per the requirements to even be considered a scientific hypothesis, per the standards of actual science.

[e.g. for Appendix C. 'the scientific rejection of vitalism,' click here, >http://novfsinscience.blogspot.com/<; e.g. Appendix K., 'science and pseudoscience,' click here, >http://thereisareasonabledifference.blogspot.com/<].

[a gradient concerning these matters:

I wasn't informed enough when I began UBCNM; I believed the naturopathic claim that such ideas are scientific and scientifically based.

As I said, I wasn't an expert in science, though science courses were required to begin the program; but not coursework in the supernatural.

I was naive and unaware of what I was getting into: AND, nobody had the sensitivity to ask if I had any supernatural beliefs in conflict with the naturopathic supernatural beliefs, or if I had no supernatural beliefs [as was the case] and if I could become supernatural-believing or not, or if I could engage in the mandatory and essential naturopathic misrepresentation -- that vitalism, spiritism, and teleology-finalism are science, scientific, science-based; that the not-scientific is scientific; that the not scientifically supported is scientifically based.

From a scientific point of view, then, I had expected naturopathy to support and justify scientifically their contents -- including vitalism and spiritism -- and other views that could occur along the way as I'd study at UB.

Since naturopathy presented itself to me as a modern scientific body of knowledge (e.g., the jpg immediately below, from (>http://web.archive.org/web/19981206034442/http://www.teleport.com/%7Eaanp/alliance/main.html<), and particularly at UB as a discipline within a 'health sciences center' (e.g. >http://web.archive.org/web/20041031083609/http://www.bridgeport.edu/pages/3240.asp< ), and 'health sciences division' (e.g. >http://web.archive.org/web/20031004121105/http://www.bridgeport.edu/admissions/healthsciences/openhouse.htm<>http://web.archive.org/web/20000511172101/www.bridgeport.edu/academics/index.html<), and while I was going there and even now states itself as "scientific medicine" (e.g. >http://web.archive.org/web/20040603183134/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Today's_Nat.htm<), I was content to begin study of the area within that context and let it all fall into place based on those labels:

[E.g.: this is part of a document I printed off of the internet in 1997, directly from the AANP and its schools. I think it's reasonable to read this and take away the message intended: that naturopathy is science-based {an msn.com search of >Pizzorno "science-based"<, >http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Pizzorno+%22science-based%22&FORM=MSNH<} en masse (that is, in terms of 'the naturopathic'). This is an AANP 'PAC' type group {towards licensure for AANP ND types}. I claim the statement is false (i.e. vitalism and spiritism -- the supernatural -- aren't science-based), which means legislatures and legislators were being misled and misinformed, and people like me -- citizens. UBCNM was starting up at this time. I was motivated to go there particularly due to this 'naturopathy is science-based claim.' {A web search per google.com of the e-mail address, though spelled wrong on the saved page immediately below, >74602.3715@compuserve.com< >http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=74602.3715%40Compuserve.com&spell=1<.]

[E.g., the AANP and its science claim of 'the naturopathic' here >http://web.archive.org/web/20000818074807/www.naturopathic.org/Basics/h.naturo.philo.html<: "naturopathic medicine[...as a] science [...based on] the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...which are] scientific and empirical [...] based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances."

But how is the supernatural and articles of faith {minimally: naturopathic vitalism, spiritism, and teleology-finalism} of science, scientific and objective?]

[E.g., the UBCNM admission's pitch requires a "strong concentration in the sciences (pre-med track) is needed as part of the pre-requisite requirement for entrance with a minimum of 2.5 g.p.a. attained in the sciences [...while] the only college of naturopathic medicine in the United States which is part of a university setting" (>http://web.archive.org/web/20000303065653/www.bridgeport.edu/naturopathy/index.html<)].

I figured they had the goods, and could deliver those goods as promised.

THIS NEVER HAPPENED: there is no actual scientific basis for vitalism, spiritism, bodymindspirit whatever and holistic supernatural such and such [nor teleology-finalism; the establishment of such would be so revolutionary that the Nobel Prize committee would have surely taken notice by now!].

Nobody explained to me before deciding to go to UB and before beginning classes at UB and while at UB that modern science has nothing to do with the supernatural or vitalistic or what is formally called the idealistic and metaphysical -- essentially by definition [nor teleology-finalism].

I had to discover and acknowledge this 'knowledge kind' difference on my own, as I went through UB -- as I started to feel 'bothered.'

There grew within me a certain kind of conflict -- I was noticing the contradictions and absurdities around me in naturopathy school as relates to the naturopathic and the scientific -- notions and interpretations were claiming a scientific status they couldn't actually meet.

Essentially, in learning what science is, and what naturopathy is, I began experiencing what may be called 'cognitive dissonance,' which goes like this: that which is scientifically-discarded [supernaturalism and kind] and scientifically-unsupported was claiming to be scientific and scientifically supported [science-based, objective, rigorously empirical etc.].

Different things were claiming to be the same thing -- and caught, I found myself facing a choice between personal and professional honesty and a position of what I will term 'bad faith' [lying and pretending it's truth, within oneself].

(I have also termed this UBCNM-AANP-FNPLA abuse "institutional violence" due to the aspect of 'disproportionate power' that occurs between UBCNM and myself, with UB an institution immune from accountability and the deceived / manipulated education customer being myself. For a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-hAxAlwses).

In a very obvious sense these days, I realize, I did not begin naturopathy school with any kind of informed idea of what 'natural medicine / naturopathy / naturopathic medicine' was centrally: vitalism, spiritism and other supernaturalisms [and teleology-finalism] posing as a 'science status' they are not, as such ideas are well outside of scientific standards.

I also found I couldn't lie about it all.

So, directly related to the distinction modern thought makes concerning the scientific and what is not scientific in terms of supernaturalisms, spiritisms and vitalisms, and the scientifically-refuted and -discarded, I was not adequately informed about what naturopathy school was going to demand of me ethically -- either by UB or the profession, or their agents.

Nobody mentioned the required vitalism, spiritism, and teleology-finalism to me before I began at UB as hypothetical yet required naturopathic supernatural [sectarian] articles of faith [figments] as opposed to scientifically supported theories [hugely factually based; I don't mean theory in the sense the layman uses, 'the hypothetical,' I mean it in the manner science uses it]-- and that I'd be required to pose both supernaturalisms as science per the naturopathic mannerism.

Yes, I'll say that again: naturopathy labels what is scientifically-refuted and -discarded -- the supernatural, spiritual, vitalistic, metaphysical, teleological, idealistic and that which is outside of science -- as scientific and science-based.

They have decreed that these ideas are scientific without direct scientific evidence indicating the necessity of these explanations and ideas [I call this their 'autoendorsement'].

In a couple of years at UB I realized I was in a position not much different than this, as relates to knowledge discarded from science: an astronomer in the year 2000 is required to state that the sun circles the earth, or a modern geographer is required to state that the world is flat, or a modern scientist is required to state that the world and the universe and living entities therein are spiritually enchanted -- and that all such nonscientific ideas and scientifically-refuted and -discarded ideas and scientifically-unsupported ideas are modern scientific knowledge.

Stating them as beliefs is one thing, I think we can all agree, but naturopathy states such similarly archaic 'belief knowledge' or 'nonscientific knowledge' or 'imaginary things knowledge' [sectarian medical tenets] as particularly scientific and science-based and actual and medically necessary.

Nobody asked me during my UBCNM interview if I would be able to do this: pose the supernatural and that which is outside of science and even scientifically discarded, as currently scientific and science-based, and believe and practice such, and profit off of the community through such a misleading position.

Nobody asked me about whether I could 'do' the naturopathic articles of faith known as vitalism and spiritism supernaturalisms ['purposeful life spirit'], or if I was willing to accept the articles of faith essential to naturopathy and accept the explanations and findings of science, and present these two different things as the same thing -- all as science-based and as science knowledge.

I naively began naturopathic school after studying premedical sciences during and after attaining my bachelor's degree and reading UBCNM's and the naturopathic profession's literature concerning particularly their expressed science & 'not a belief system' context label.

(for a youtube.com slideshow of this 199x AANP-Alliance et al. "science-based" "not a belief system" label, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVJb48UF4LU).

At that time, as I've said, I was a person who did not personally acknowledge or personally practice any kind of supernaturalism, spiritism, or religion, or hold any such views or care for any such views.

I'd studied a lot of existential philosophy during my undergraduate coursework, and I was atheistic, agnostic, pragmatic, skeptical, secular and without need for belief in a supernatural or occult ideal beyond or underlying or overarching or behind this world.

[And to quote someone I admire: "Make of me always a man who questions!" (Frantz Fanon, "Black Skin, White Masks"{ISBN 0802150845; 1967}].

I also did not, as a rule, do this: intentionally blend or misrepresent knowledge types.

Here's an example, for emphasis: I did not begin naturopathic school believing that the supernatural and the scientific were the same thing, and specifically could be labeled the same type of knowledge and then profited from -- as I learned naturopathy requires one to state and do as I went through naturopathy school as a student and as a practitioner.

It has taken years of study to begin to be somewhat educated about the difference in knowledge types -- but my year 2002 decision to leave was the proper gut reaction: hugely supernatural kinds of knowledge [articles of faith] hugely no longer within the area that science deals with or can deal with, or can justify, being posed as that which is rigorously scientifically supported [science-based] is a misrepresentation.

And I can add this, when I decided to go to naturopathy school, I had no desire to be so radicalized: in that blended kind of fraudulent manner I learned naturopathy's [fanatical] 'knowledge' is all about.

So, I left naturopathy due to its nonsense position.

I left naturopathy because of its position of being 'pseudoscience' and unethical and in my view illegal -- of fraudulently stating what exceptionally isn't scientific or science-based as being such [I'm obviously not arguing about the 'demarcation issues' that navel-gazing philosophers linger upon, I'm talking about the difference between noon and midnight -- per 'hugely'].

The problem for me was and is their 'articles of faith' / supernatural beliefs [vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism etc.] which are required by the profession to be portrayed as within the pale [boundary] of the scientific.

Formally:

I will state all of the above I just mentioned as follows, using some specific terminology to make my writing less wordy and more particular: I did not start, am not now, and nor was I convinced at UBCNM by the naturopathic crowd into converting into believing in the naturopathic articles of faith (a & b) and mannerisms (c & d) which I term:

a) vitalism supernaturalism (VFS):

[which I'll term vital-force-spirit and abbreviate as VFS, to most accurately and tidily label their keystone concept, as general supernaturalism per a general spirit-kind -- the best support I have for this "vital force" as "spirit" is:

a) Pizzorno, J. (ND) himself in his own words {the professor emeritus and co-founder of Bastyr University's Naturopathic School; who explicitly states naturopathy is "scientifically based"; who simultaneously states in terms of their required vitalism explicitly "life force (or spirit)" in the text "Total Wellness: Improve Your Health by Understanding the Body's Healing Systems" (ISBN 0761504338) and web excerpt at www.healthy.net titled "A Systems Approach to Wellness."

(click here, http://web.archive.org/web/20030519230933/http://www.healthy.net/scr/Article.asp?Id=1235);

b) AND: the Hawaii Society of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) who state: “How does naturopathic medicine differ from conventional medicine? The profession of naturopathic medicine is unique because [of] it’s [punct.] philosophy. We differ from conventional medical doctors in that our practice us [sp., is] guided by the following principles: use the healing power of nature. The body has the ability to maintain and restore health. Healing occurs as a result of the revival of our ‘vital force’ - qi, prana, spirit.”

{click here, http://www.hawaiind.org/ndmedicine.htm)
(archived here, http://web.archive.org/web/20070402123057/http://www.hawaiind.org/ndmedicine.htm}].

[This is a specific spirit 'kind' since it has specific means of influencing it, specific names (but not every spirit name), and specific characteristics, and is specifically different from certain religion's spirit conceptions and thus apologetically criticized {e.g. click here, >http://catholicinsight.com/online/bioethics/article_262.shtml<} and often 'interfacing with' is explicitly barred! I.e. it is not Christianity's Holy Spirit wherein manipulating pervasive 'spirits' by the laity is barred! {I do not have a religion or supernatural beliefs, as I've stated above, so I am not a Christian of any kind (nor am I a tabula rasa, a blank slate to be written upon with supernatural sectarian graffiti as if I am merely chattel{human property}; nor am I ideological cannon fodder, to be taken, programmed, and converted by sectarian institutions into their articles of faith {proselytized} -- because I am sentient, and I have a GOOD {an existence; I am FREE} OF MY OWN CHOOSING}) but since naturopathy claims both science and spirit, I would be negligent in ignoring what other spirituality systems say and only focus on the scientific side of the criticism of naturopathy, particularly in a nation that is predominantly Christian -- that would be a form of charity I do not wish to condone as it gets particularly UBCNM naturopathy halfway off the hook they've placed themselves upon in stating that naturopathy (which is a sectarian medicine) is at UBCNM nonsectarian (since UB states its entire university is nonsectarian)}. Naturopathy chose to put me in shackles, through deception, to serve the goals and growth of their ideology, putting me in their ideological gulag...and I resist, I AM DELIBERATELY A DISSIDENT -- and I will not go quietly].

b) spiritism supernaturalism (SBM):

[foremost, a unity and simultaneous trinity of bodymindspirit or "body, mind and spirit" {they sometimes throw in a fourth facet, per 'emotion'}, which I will abbreviate SBM to accurately indicate the emphasis of their "spirit-like dynamis" VFS (a) required in naturo. school; this trinity is another keystone of naturopathy, as general supernaturalism per 'the spiritual is necessary' and 'you are required to personally spiritually develop' and specifically as a manipulable spirit per 'we treat, in specific ways, this manipulable VFS since it is what causes and alleviates diseases'].

c) epistemic conflation (the blending of knowledge types, EC):

[I know this is a tough term, which I will abbreviate as EC, which I coined for its usefulness {though I have found a couple instances of the words coupled together earlier than my coining}, and it literally means 'the blending of kinds of knowledge,' as naturopathy combines most obviously the scientific and the supernatural -- an explicit knowledge-type blending of what science contains and supports, and what is reasonably outside those boundaries.].

d) misrepresentation of knowledge types by use of wrong labels:

[that which is scientific is combined with the supernatural and then presented as scientific as their greatest explicit misrepresentation; in other words, a blended supernatural-containing knowledge type is labeled non-blended per 'scientific and science-based' {a non-blended non-supernatural type}, which is not true and illogical; and that which is particularly NOT in any manner 'of science' is presented so, as science-based and kind {an obvious misrepresentation}.].

And I'll add a fifth naturopathic characteristic:

(e) the naturopathic 'thought-stopping reflex' that's trained into one when studying natural medicine, as I found out:

[I will represent this with the phrase "if we decree it 'natural,' it's safe, effective, scientific, better, and good -- previous to evidence and evaluation, and in spite of modern definitions and understandings of 'the scientific' and what is 'an article of faith'"; a mannerism I could call "bad-naturalism," or dysnaturalism or archaic naturalism, to distinguish it from the very rigorous and necessary modern view known as "naturalism" or the "naturalistic" or 'the methodological natural' which is a requirement to do modern science -- to pragmatically explain that which is scientifically investigated from within the strictures of the laws of nature and methods and information that modern science is built upon without invoking that which is supernatural or not ascribed or required directly by the evidence].

[Note: Almost nothing has been said when someone says "it's natural."

I truly do not believe that "natural" means much of anything until the person using the term is asked and does actually explain what they mean by the label -- it does not automatically indicate 'benign' or harmless or effective.

AND, I've never have been able to overcome the discomfort I feel when I realize that "natural medicine" is first and foremost supernatural.].

I can tell you what natural medicine isn't, since being naturalistic in the modern science sense means excluding or ignoring the supernatural and using what science can muster in terms of evidence: naturopathy isn't naturalistic (methodological naturalism, etc.).

[Note well: The marketing slogan, apparently invented at Bastyr because it's all over the web in relation particularly to that school, of "natural health science," is a nonsense label -- in my view. Since the domain of 'natural medicine / natural health / naturopathy' contains the supernatural / metaphysical / idealistic and kind claimed as science, since it is epistemically conflated and therein science is meaningless within the area since so unlimited / nonrigorous, it is as accurate to state "natural health sciences" as actual science as it is to state something like "Christian Science" as actual science. Or, astrology as science. Or other pseudosciences as actual science. This is not a demarcation issue, unless you have a problem differentiating noon from midnight. Search the web, per "natural health sciences that integrate mind, body, spirit and nature"{that's what they minimally blend / conflate / integrate; epistemic conflation, undiluted; while science is diluted into meaninglessness} -- per google.com, here. I believe the spirit part is vitalism, spiritism, teleology-finalism and kind, and I do not believe there is any actual legitimate scientific support for the supernatural / metaphysical / idealistic and kind. It's oxymoronic; it's false.].

Conclusion of A:

Again, I did not begin convinced, was not convinced, and still am not convinced and do not believe that vitalism and supernaturalism [and teleology] and ideas without a basis in scientific evidence or not resulting from scientific methodology have a place in the practice of scientific and science-based labeled medicine or in bodies of knowledge labeled science (I).

[coincidentally, the high caliber UK science journal Nature appears to agree,

per "Special Report: Degrees in Homeopathy Slated as Nonscientific" {volume 446, number 7134, pp347-468} {03-22-2007},
(click here >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7134/pdf/446352a.pdf< >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7134/full/446352a.html<):

a) (the Telegraph)

as reported by the Telegraph (click here >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/22/nhealth22.xml<) {03-22-2007}:

"'science degrees without science' [...per] 45 BSc degrees in complementary pseudoscience [...e.g.] homoeopathy [...] acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, reflexology, osteopathy [...] naturopathy, ayurveda [...] 'none of these is, by any stretch of the imagination, science' [...] 'gobbledygook [nonsense] is being taught in some UK universities as though it were science' [...] 'not science at all, but are positively antiscience.''";

b) (the BBC)

also reported by the BBC (click here, >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6476289.stm<) {03-22-2007}:

"'it would be better if courses in aromatherapy, acupuncture, herbal medicine, reflexology, naturopathy and traditional Chinese medicine were taught as part of a cultural history or sociological course.'";

c) (the Guardian)

also reported by the Guardian (click here, >http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2040108,00.html<) {03-22-2007}:

"British universities are damaging their reputations by offering science degrees in homeopathy, reflexology and other alternative medicines, scientists warn today. The recent surge in bachelor of science degrees in complementary therapies is described as a 'disaster for reason and education' that is being driven by universities desperately trying to attract students to their campuses [...] 'the equivalent of teaching witchdoctory' [...] 'you can teach about homeopathy and spiritual healing and crystal therapy in a scientific way [which would be critical], which is dramatically different from teaching students how to do crystal therapy, homeopathy or spiritual healing [indoctrination]. These courses are hands-on and the students come out with a bachelor of science in a subject which essentially is not science' [...] 'if the term 'BSc' is to retain its credibility then it can not be used to give legitimacy to nonscientific subjects far less pseudoscience or antiscience, including homeopathy. I will be asking the education secretary what steps he can take to ensure that non-science is not being dressed as science in our universities.'"].

d) (Channel 4)

as reported by Channel 4 (click here, >http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/health/alternative+medicine+not+science/326667<) {03-22-2007}:

"he said - of aromatherapy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, reflexology, osteopathy, therapeutic bodywork, naturopathy, Ayurveda, shiatsu and qigong - that: 'none of these is, by any stretch of the imagination, science, yet they form part of BSc degrees' [...because] 'the vast majority of it is not based on empirical evidence.'";

e) (the Herald)

as reported by the Herald (click here, >http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1276826.0.0.php<) {03-24-2007}:

"universities should scrap the BSc title, according to Professor David Colquhoun, a pharmacologist at University College London, who describes homeopathy as 'science without science' [...] 'these subjects are by no stretch of the imagination science.'";

f) (CHE)

as reported by the Chronicle of Higher education, titled "Homeopathic Degree in Britain Puts Scientific Gloss on Nonscientific Dross, Critics Say" (click here, > http://chronicle.com/news/article/1841/homeopathic-degree-in-britain-puts-scientific-gloss-on-nonscientific-dross-critics-say >) {03-21-2007}.].

Just as I had -- upon maturing, and upon becoming educated -- spurned and released myself from the supernatural obligations, beliefs, and figments I'd been reared on and other 'articles of faith'-based systems that others had attempted to initiate me into, I to this day do not believe in any spirit or article of supernatural faith of any kind.

In fact, the more science I've studied and the more educated I've become, the less and less supernatural explanations seem tenable or palatable to me, and ideas without support from science are simply that [and not 'science-based'].

And, I never was convinced by naturopathy that there isn't an inherent difference between knowledge types, or that it is right to lie to people that the supernatural, the science-discarded and the unscienceable are scientific (II), and profit from that misrepresentation.

I realize these two statements (I & II) are rather obvious and reasonable, but VFS, spiritism / SBM & PSD, and EC all misrepresented as the scientific and the science-based and natural, worthy of 'doctoral level university degree' status labeled 'scientific medicine' and 'health science' and 'science-based natural medicine' -- without thoughtful reflection, flying in the face of the history of the development of the scientific; done as reflex, flying in the face of modern academic subject standards -- is the heart of the natural medicine / naturopathy worldview that I experienced at UBCNM and see even now profession-wide in my research.

[Would naturo. get snagged by the "Lemon Test" if it were occuring within the curriculum of a publically funded school? (click here, >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#The_.22Lemon_test.22<)].

To this day, UBCNM states that naturopaths practice "scientific medicine" as a category label, while requiring VFS, spiritism / SBM, and EC [minimally].

And to this day the scientific and the science-based excludes VFS, spiritism / SBM & PSD, and EC [minimally].

And to this day, as far as I know, there is no such thing as 'scientific supernaturalism' and a 'non-scientifically based scientific basis' or 'science-based supernatural medicine' [see my "What is a sCAM?" (here, >http://regardingscams.blogspot.com/<)].

This is a fact, and those are my sticking points ultimately as to why I left UBCNM.

Knowing the actual contents of naturopathy and its outwards, misleading, manipulative labels used to lure, I can only hope somebody will bring these people to justice one day.

The cost has been way too high for me to learn all this -- including, even now, daily nausea -- after all, I live the effects in many ways [ah, the debt debt debt, the suffering and anguish, and I could have gone towards an MD career and its earnings].

Obviously, as I went through naturopathic school, I realized I could not become a party to such radical views, articles of faith, and misrepresentation.

These 'articles of faith ideas' and 'misrepresentation mannerisms' are why I dropped out in the spring of 2002.

I just couldn't live it and work towards becoming it anymore.

Details of B): Making no progress clinically:

And, as I went through naturopathy school, I was barely trained once it became obvious I wasn't of these beliefs and practices, as I had dropped courses that had these ideas as central to the material of the course [I was ostracized].

Yes, I feel I was blackballed [some of the weirdest moments of my life occurred with my homeopath clinic supervisor whose class I dropped ignoring me every Friday morning as I stood next to him in a tiny hallway waiting for UB security to open the clinic conference room!].

.

I simply wasn't seeing patients at the necessary pace to get ahead: I would have never met the number of patient contacts needed to graduate in likely an additional ten semesters there.

What I witnessed at its best is an exceptionally paltry amount of clinical training required of NDs, with usually exceptionally inert therapies.

I particularly couldn't abide homeopathy, acupuncture and applied kinesiology.

I think homeopathy is a great example of 'the naturopathic:' empty remedies claimed as containing VFS, flying in the face of scientific understanding, well-explained as placebo and other effects not related to the actually empty contents of their 'medicine' [see Shelton, J.W. -- "Homeopathy: How It Really Works"(2004)(ISBN 159102109X)].

[Homeopathy or homoeopathy is WED to the naturopathic, particularly in terms of naturo. schools' curricula. As the AANP states, click here, http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/aanphomeo.html: "homeopathy has been an integral part of naturopathic medicine since its inception"].

It is actually the hugely required 'homeopathy woo-woo' [as I currently call it] in UBCNM naturopathy that was the immediate barrier to my schooling, as well as their applied kinesiology [a mixture of vitalistic therapeutics including chiropractics, TCM, homeo., etc. woo-woo].

I dropped "Homeopathy II" twice, though it was a required course, and had homeopathy clinic requirements I was sure I could never meet: I was not going to study a system of imaginary medicines, and treat people with remedies so diluted that nothing was in them.

A highlighted version of my UBCNM transcript, per 2006 -- a record that over the years, though I'm no longer attending classes, KEEPS CHANGING! -- showing in yellow the Homeopathy I'd dropped while it was a mandatory course, twice. I didn't register for two Homeopathy II courses in that semester on the left and drop two homeopathy II courses, though the transcript represents such. The school's registrar has signed the document, stating that what it represents is accurate...hmmm. Another misrepresentation...].

[The day of the Homeopathy II midterm, I woke up and made an ethical decision. I went to Dr. Fine, ND's exam in Dana Hall at UBCNM, stapled a short letter I'd typed up that morning to the exam {I didn't do the exam}, and I walked out. I later heard he began cursing and such upon reading it while the other students tested -- I guess we can call that a fit -- though I was already out of the building and didn't hear him myself. That was my last minute in a UBCNM classroom, in a naturopathy classroom -- at a supposed "nonsectarian" regionally accredited "traditional" University that teaches one to practice "scientific medicine" to become a "modern day science based primary care provider" supposedly grounded in the "basic medical sciences." That event is also likely the highest my heart rate ever went my whole life without actually exercising! I had revolted against a block of required homeopathic coursework and even described to instructor Fine that I thought he was a doctrinaire {a practitioner of the impractical}. I then was visited at my job place by assistant UBCNM dean and homeopathy instructor Herschberger ND who managed to say one of the most disturbingly irrational things I've ever experienced, while asking me to return to the school: that I didn't have to practice homeopathy as a naturopath after my UBCNM graduation -- as if a total aversion to 'homeopathy and kind' {the essentially naturopathic} could be put off any longer, as if mandatory courses and clinic requirements in homeopathy could be either ignored as requirements though required or at all tolerated my me when intolerable. When I met with the dean of UBCNM Peter Martin ND{UK} as a 'solutions' sit down, he had nothing to say and no procedures to offer concerning facing or acknowledging these issues. So I shook his hand and said goodbye. And I began trying to understand all this flapdoodle. All this is nowadays what I called UBCNM's 'breach of academic duty' {all the UBCNM naturopathic epistemic mislabelings; UBCNM en masse} and UBCNM 'academic administrative malpractice' {professional negligence; these NDs' -- whom I call naturocrats -- total lack of fiduciary duty to the student, society and instead: what I call mindf*cking. After all, the UBCNM essential claim is that inside of the scientific is the supernatural and nonscientific -- which is nonsense, while calling themselves 'science this and science that' 'that's not a belief system' but instead 'objective' and 'evidence based.' Bullshit}.].

I also avoided the second 'manipulation' course because its contents were focused around applied kinesiology.

This was quite well-known by my naturopath clinic director, one of the school's homeopathy teachers -- and the person most immediately responsible for my (lack of) clinical education and progress through the clinical requirements [additionally, the attending NDs on the clinic shifts over the years are also responsible, in my view].

Conclusion of B:

.

Since to be treated naturopathically essentially involves vitalism and spiritism, beliefs I did not then and do not now hold, my conscience is actually quite clear concerning what I did to people during this time at UBCNM because I didn't do much with patients at all, as I was usually watching people in clinic, except on a few occasions.

[I suspect their goal was to get me to transfer to another naturopathy school.].

I ended up going to school 'part time,' while teaching medical science at a local career school, and hanging around clinic reading [often Being & Nothingness by Sartre, actually].

Overall conclusion:

I wouldn't have done naturopathy school at all if back then [I believe I was interviewed by their CNM in 1998] I had been reasonably and adequately informed by the University of Bridgeport about how their CNM would operate, what UB naturopathy is actually all about in terms of knowledge type, the articles of faith UB and the profession requires, and where UB and the profession sits ethically.

I particularly mean this in terms of UBCNM naturopathy's required misrepresentation as science of: supernatural and sectarian articles of faith [the unscienceable], the science-discarded, and the science-unsupported.

I was not told how such sits in comparison to what is acknowledged as current science and what has been discarded by science / is historically outside of science.

I was not told that I would be required to engage and commit to a specific set of 'of the religious' type sectarian beliefs preponderantly NOT science, scientific, or science-based.

I'll state my sticking points again, concerning why I left naturopathic school: I found I could not embrace the supernatural therapeutically and as a worldview, and that I could not state that the supernatural and that which is without evidence in the scientific sense is scientific and science-based and profit from it, and I found that the UBCNM position that 'the supernatural [and the metaphysical, idealistic, vitalistic and teleological] is the scientific' was a lie and that I'd have to as a naturopath similarly lie to people.

[I refused to foist an unethical yoke upon myself and become unethical in position by being 'a naturopath.' Naturopathy is a domain posing scientific primary care fiduciary duty obligations toward the public WHILE centered / founded upon a glaring and harmful profoundly unprofessional falsehood -- that the vitalistic, teleological, supernatural spiritistic autoentheistic and kind are scientific, and not a sectarian belief set!].

So, I was exploited by this institution [UBCNM], and it continues to operate so, and train practitioners to exploit the public -- I feel.

Stopping naturopathic school was essentially a question of logic and ethics: something is not something that is different from it [scientific knowledge is different from other kinds of knowledge; you cannot properly or reasonably call that which is not within the scientific 'the scientific'], and lying is wrong [it is wrong: to lure educational customers with false labels, as the AANP-Alliance, AANMC and UBCNM et al. do now and did to me then; to mislead the community with false labels; to profit off of lies; to prey on peoples' ignorance and good faith].

I also believe that lying that leads to financial gain is fraud [which I've heard is illegal].

So, I found that I would not only have to be illogical and unethical, I would also be doing something illegal.

I cannot recommend naturopathy as a form of modern medical healthcare, or their education as an experience that prepares one to become a modern medical physician practicing responsible and ethical science-based medicine.

Though: if you are looking for a system of supernatural therapeutics, beliefs and figments that are essentially based upon the articles of faith and mannerisms that they subscribe to and 'discarded once scientific knowledge' [this is known historically as sectarian medicine], and you don't mind your poorly trained and poorly educated practitioner or the school s/he or you attended being unable or unwilling to differentiate between reliable scientific information and supernatural beliefs and unreasonable methods and figments arising from an inferior and inadequate and unethical and radicalizing education, perhaps naturopathy is for you.

Thankfully, overall, I did not take that naturopathic oath to those naturopathic principles and mannerisms.

Thankfully, I am not an ND [or NMD].

As I said, I don't care for or do the supernatural in any manner: I am not a believer.

.[you could say, "

"].

And I believe that vitalism [naturopathy's 'purposeful life spirit that runs physiology' premise] -- the central naturopathic article of supernatural faith -- is a Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, 'the sun is a golden chariot pulled by winged horses across the sky' type explanation: a mythical figment [an imaginary entity or attribution, as spirits of whatever type generally are in religious systems].

[A study published in the British Journal of Psychology in 2007 clearly indicates that vitalistic explanation, along with other 'category misconceptions' and 'preschool mentality misconceptions,' is an 'unscientific superstition.' For a youtube slideshow overview of this study, click here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhSDq41m0mM].

It is not possible for me to believe that I contain a purposeful and intelligent VFS directing my physiology; I actually don't even believe I possess spirit of any kind or that any spirits possess me.

I think science provides much better, different, awesome, and unblendable-with-the- nonscientific explanations [to remain science; particularly not blendable with what isn't in evidence] -- what can be measured, tested and is in evidence is not vitalisms or supernaturalisms or spiritualisms, or idealisms or metaphysicalisms, or other such woo-woo, and what's evident is more interesting and more intellectually challenging.

Overall, I cannot believe in the supernatural, and I definitely do not have the ability to pose the not-scientific as scientific, and that's principally why I dropped out of naturopathy school.

[You come to a point -- for me it was 2002 -- when you cannot any longer be a part of an exploitative mindset that is too stupid and pig-headed to realize that the profoundly nonscientific is not the science-based. If you are ethical, you simply cannot ethically do it, so you stop: because being is doing.]

Such a blending position [epistemic conflation] claimed as unblended [scientific] is absurd and insane -- I feel -- and for me, has been permanently harmful [six digit student loans etc.].

But I do continue to observe naturopathy, as one might study a harmful microbe.

.[digg]