Posts Tagged Education Petition: “Naturopaths are not physicians: stop legitimizing pseudoscience”

Britt Hermes, a graduate of the naturopathic college at the alternative medicine-focused Bastyr University, renounced her practice as a naturopathic doctor when she could no longer tolerate the pseudoscience and patient harm that characterizes naturopathy. On this blog and her own, Naturopathic Diaries, she has chronicled the insufficient education and training students receive before being allowed to practice as naturopathic doctors, deficiencies which all too readily can result in patient harm.

Her activism is not confined to blog posts. Her advocacy helped prevent an expansion of naturopathic prescribing privileges in North Dakota in 2015. Just this past Friday, she participated, as did I, in a presentation via conference call to the Colorado Department of Regulatory Affairs (DORA), organized by the Colorado Citizens for Science in Medicine. DORA will soon issue a report on the continued registration of naturopaths in that state. In her testimony, Britt told how her own naturopathic education and training made her woefully unprepared to practice.

A number of SBM commenters have wondered how they could do more to combat naturopathic efforts to become licensed as health care providers in all 50 states, as well as participating in Medicare, Medicaid and other publicly-funded programs. Britt just started a petition urging policy makers and legislators to “stop legitimizing pseudoscience.” She also posted some excellent talking points to rebut the misleading information naturopaths give lawmakers when lobbying. You can help by using the talking points in combating legitimization of naturopathy through licensing and inclusion in public insurance programs. You can also help by signing the petition and sending it around to others on your social media accounts.

Posted in: Announcements, Legal, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (0) →

Brain-Based Learning, Myth versus Reality: Testing Learning Styles and Dual Coding 

Ed. Note: Today we present a guest post from Josh Cuevas, a cognitive psychologist and assistant professor in the College of Education at the University of North Georgia. Enjoy!


Breaking the cycle

Since early on in graduate school when I began studying cognition, I’ve followed the learning styles movement because it was such a powerful phenomenon. It took hold rapidly, seemingly overnight, at all levels of education. And, like so many fads in education and science, it created a big-money industry involving conferences, training seminars, paid speakers, how-to manuals, and a variety of other mediums, inevitably linked to a profit in some way. Yet in the peer reviewed studies I was sifting through, evidence for learning styles was nowhere to be found. And more than a decade later I’m still looking for it.

Today when I suggest to students that learning styles are no more than a myth, I can hear their collective jaws drop, regardless of whether they’re undergraduates or graduate students, because learning styles have been preached to them the entire time they’ve been in school. The graduate students concern me the most because they’re supposed to know the research. And I used the term “preached” because these students have been convinced via no more than word of mouth, are asked to accept the information based on faith, and many come to hold a strange religious-like fervor for the concept. That’s not how science works and it shouldn’t be how education works.

It has been no easy task combating this common misconception in college classrooms, particularly when it is reinforced in textbooks, by other professors (who are also supposed to know the research), and in public schools where students do their internships. The research we’re doing at the University of North Georgia on learning styles has two purposes – it allows us to collect data on the effects of learning styles and contrast it to a stronger model, dual coding, but it also lets us demonstrate, in real time, to students who will one day be teachers how what they’ve long believed to be true simply does not work when put to the test. (more…)

Posted in: Neuroscience/Mental Health

Leave a Comment (76) →

Food for Thought

I am excited to tell you about a wonderful new endeavor that is helping to promote critical thinking about science and medicine. It’s a free online course on “Food for Thought” that offers a scientific framework for understanding food and its impact on health and society from past to present.

The “Food for Thought” course is a product of EdX, which offers online college courses from Harvard, MIT, and other prestigious universities. They provide videos with interactive features and access to online student communities. Students can audit a course and get full access to all the materials including tests, assignments, and discussion forums with no commitment, and can choose what and how much they want to do. (more…)

Posted in: Critical Thinking, Nutrition

Leave a Comment (35) →

Is Francis Collins Bringing Sexy Back To Science?


Rudy Tanzi, Joe Perry, Francis Collins

I know. I was just as surprised as you are. Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Project, author of The Language Of God, and new director of the National Institutes of Health performed live in front of a group of Washington locals at the Capitol building today. He actually jammed with Aerosmith’s Joe Perry in an “unplugged” performance of Bob Dylan’s, “The Times They Are A Changin’.” This is not the kind of thing one expects in the hallowed halls of the Capitol building. But maybe it’s time to expect the unexpected?

I’ve spent some time on this blog wondering about the difference between being “right” and being “influential” – and how to combat the Jenny McCarthyism that is misleading Americans about their health. I’ve argued that we need to find a way to rekindle the public’s interest in good science, and learn to speak to folks in a way that is captivating and respectful. I guess that some of our peers are engaged in a rebranding of science.

Posted in: Science and the Media

Leave a Comment (8) →

When Should We Call A Quack A Quack?

It is not uncommon for Science Based Medicine to receive complaints about the tone of our writing. Some people feel that it is indelicate to use the “q” word (for the uninitiated, “q” is for “quack”) when describing practitioners who promote disproven therapies with jubilant fervor. Others believe it unkind to lump “well meaning” alternative medicine experts in with those who are engaged in overtly illegal activities.

We are all affected by the tension between wanting to call a spade a spade and respecting our cultural need to be polite. Perhaps one of the clearest examples of this inner conflict is Orac’s Respectful Insolence blog. As the name implies, Orac is both thoughtful and brutally honest – he expresses our communal reticence to make waves, but follows up with a reasoned hostility that is quite understandable, given the circumstances described in each post. Respectful Insolence is fun to read because it is educational, persuasive, and expressive – and it captures how many of us feel about various forms of hucksterism. However, snake oil salesmen and their sympathizers are unlikely to enjoy the blog.

Here at Science Based Medicine, readers find a wide range of expression with a common commitment to science and reason. Just as physicians have different practice styles (some are more nurturing in temperament, others offer “tough love”) so too do we authors vary in tone. For those readers who favor one style over another – I hope you’ll find the voice that suits you and return regularly for more. Please don’t assume that one particular post is representative of the entire blog, and please don’t be offended by the legitimate exasperation of writers who have suffered through decades of observing swindlers swindle.

Posted in: Cancer, Science and Medicine

Leave a Comment (27) →