TV "health guru" with doctorate from Clayton College of Natural Health

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by oxpecker, Aug 7, 2004.

  1. oxpecker

    oxpecker New Member

  2. Matt R

    Matt R New Member

    Fakes all around us


    An interesting article. Just exaclty what an ethical health promotion expert would avoid. But hey, she may be the world's only expert on examing stool on TV. Kind of puts me in mind of the current self-proclaimed ' fitness celebrity' hawking his videos on TV now. At least he doesn't claim to have any real credentials besides his shirtless bod looking good on the tube.

    It is a shame, but I have seen online Bio's of two people claiming to either be 'PhD candidates' or actually having PhD's who I personally know were not or did not. In the first case, the guy had taken a class or two, but never entered the program. In the second case, the guy had an incomplete EdD, but listed 'PhD' with his name. Even after being told to remove the academic fraud from their website by a university official, they did not do so. I guess some people just feel they 'deserve' a PhD because they are so smart and accomplished. Well, I think I'm pretty smart and that my old Masters thesis would stack up well against most doctoral dissertations, but I still don't go around calling myself doctor.

    That is why I am being diligent in my search for a DL PhD program in Health Science. Until I complete that degree, just call me 'mister', and I'll trade on my Masters degree.

  3. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    I've always assumed that Clayton College, while having licensing issues and no accreditation, taught a real but unorthodox program. Am I right?
  4. nutritionist

    nutritionist member

    That is a correct assumption. Clayton is accredited by the American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board (ANMAB), a private accrediting association not affiliated with any government agency. The coursework is real and the subject matter is decidedly non-traditional (nutrition, naturopathy, wellness, etc.).

    The article in the Herald is erroneous in fact and implication, most particularly this statement: "It provides degree and PhD qualifications – even for those without any background in the field – through the post or online for $9200 (£5000)."

    Clayton does not sell degrees, through "the post" or otherwise. It certainly isn't med school, nor does it pretend to be. Degrees are earned through distance learning in a structured curriculum.
  5. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Here's a list of schools that this ANMAB accredits.

    The fact that the list starts with Idaho's Canyon College isn't reassuring.

    The list includes:

    Global Institute for Alternative Medicine in Santa Cruz Ca. The BPPVE has no record of it.

    International College of Healing Arts in Los Angeles. This one is CA-approved.

    International College of Naturopathy in Westlake Village Ca. The BPPVE list has an approved school by that name located in Santa Barbara. It may or may not be the same place.

    The University of Natural Medicine in San Dimas Ca. The BPPVE has no record of it.

    A Google search for "American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board" produced 45 hits, which largely consisted of the ANMAB's own pages, websites of member schools plus a few alternative medicine sites that happened to mention it.
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2004
  6. Chip

    Chip Administrator

    Originally posted by nutritionist

    That is a correct assumption.

    I would disagree. Clayton has always had a substandard curriculum that bears no resemblence to a legitimate naturopathic program. That's why Clayton has to hire an expensive lobbyist to try to keep states from passing naturopathic licensure laws... because states that pass laws, pretty much without exception, don't permit people with degrees from schools like Clayton to practice legally.

    Clayton is accredited by the American Naturopathic Medical Accreditation Board (ANMAB), a private accrediting association not affiliated with any government agency.

    And completely worthless. The accreditor's membership list looks like a "Who's Who of Fraudulent and Otherwise Substandard Schools" The accreditor operates out of a mail receiving service in Las Vegas that, if memory serves, is at the same location as the equally fraudulent World Association of Schools and Colleges.

    The coursework is real

    I guess that depends on what your definition of "real" is. If you mean rigorous study equivalent to a properly accredited school offering doctoral studies in the healing arts, absolutely not. If you mean providing a handful of popular books on natural health and healing designed for lay people, then yes, the materials are "real."

    and the subject matter is decidedly non-traditional (nutrition, naturopathy, wellness, etc.).

    I'm a strong advocate of holistic and nontraditional medicine, and have no problems with "out there" approaches.

    However, I have a big problem with schools using fake accreditors offering substandard education and turning out "doctors" who, in spite of the school's claim to the contrary, are holding themselves out as qualified to treat individuals with serious illnesses.

    I developed the professional training curriculum for a leading holistic cancer treatment protocol. and was involved in the initial training programs for medical professionals. I could always spot the naturopaths with bogus degrees immediately, because they had little to no clinical knowledge of pathology, hematology, differential diagnosis, or other basic diagnostic skills that any practitioner, mainstream or holistic, needs to have... and it was clear that they had little understanding of any of the major concepts one needs to grasp to be able to effectively treat people.

    By contrast, the naturopaths I worked with who had trained at one of the properly accredited naturopathic schools knew their stuff cold and were able to grasp the material we were presenting and apply it to their practices with no problems.

    Clayton does not sell degrees, through "the post" or otherwise.

    well, it may not sell them outright, but a doctoral degree from Clayton certainly does not remotely qualify someone to treat anybody for anything, Clayton's claims notwithstanding. As such, it sells its students a substandard educational program from which many of them "graduate" (if you can call it that) and then hold themselves out as qualified to diagnose and treat people with serious illness. In most cases, in violation of the state laws of the states in which they "practice."
  7. nutritionist

    nutritionist member

    You obviously don't have the first clue what you are talking about. Did you ever go to a ball park and wonder why there were no field goals, touchdowns, or safeties? It might have been because you were watching a baseball game.

    Likewise, the reason true naturopaths don't perform invasive procedures, prescribe drugs or "diagnose and treat people with serious illness" is that this is not what they do. You have confused them with allopathic naturopaths, or naturopathic physicians. Schools for the latter group formerly were accredited by the now defunct CNME, which recently was replaced by the government approved AANP. These are essentially medical doctors with training in naturopathy.

    As I said, Clayton isn't med school and doesn't pretend to be. You chose to ignore that statement and demonstrate your ignorance instead.

    Guess what? Auto mechanics are no damn good at fixing commercial jetliners. Apples are not the same as oranges. You need to quit sniffing the used coffee grounds at your enema clinic.
  8. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

  9. nutritionist

    nutritionist member

    You are talking apples, I am talking oranges.

    What does the B&P Code say about enema clinics? Wake up and smell the coffee.
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    Nutritionist....please watch the personal attacks.

    Everyone gets a freebie from me, and this is yours. Your cooperation is appreciated.
  11. nutritionist

    nutritionist member

    You're kidding, right?

    "You are talking apples, I am talking oranges" is a personal attack?

    "What does the B&P Code say about enema clinics?" is a personal attack?

    "Wake up and smell the coffee" is a personal attack?

    It looks like two of your chosen ones put their respective feet in their mouths, spouting irrelevant nonsense and demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. All I did was point this out in relatively innocuous terms. I understand they are so intellectually lame that they might feel they need your protection, but why not have the honesty to do it on that basis, rather than this sham "personal attack" crap?
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

    No, I am not kidding.

    Try me, if you think I am kidding.
  13. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    Bye bye nutritionist.
  14. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator Staff Member

  15. Craig Hargis

    Craig Hargis New Member

    Though "nutritionist" got testy as the thread went on, there is no way on earth that his original statement to Bill could be construed as a personal attack. I could name five members of Degreeinfo that have attacked five or more other members not five but FIFTY times more aggressively and nothing was ever said. I don't get it. I don't know nutritionist and I don't care about Clayton but this was really unfair--so much so I feel compelled to say something. Why can't we have one standard around here?
  16. adireynolds

    adireynolds New Member

    So, is the month of August troll month on DegreeInfo? They seem to be out in droves recently.
  17. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    norbert45 seems to be a pretty sharp guy.
  18. Dennis Ruhl

    Dennis Ruhl member

    (deleted by moderator)
  19. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    I guess, as you have previously asserted, that you really don't read before responding.

    The gist of my commentary was that, sooner or later, there are bound to be repercussions, perhaps not for a single line of opinion or even a solitary post, but instead for what the cumulative effect of your discourteous behavior reveals about your purpose here. In other words, Dennis, I’m guessing that you don’t have to blatantly violate the TOS if the sum total of your posts shows that you are only here to disrupt and bring about the demise of civil discourse.

    The TOS of this forum prohibit harassment. In my opinion, continually expressing (here and elsewhere) admiration and support (not to mention the motivating and cheering on) of individuals who engage in vulgar and despicable harassment of the members of this community is tantamount to harassment. You may disagree. If so, continue posting as you have in the past, and time will tell who is right
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2004
  20. Chip

    Chip Administrator

    Well, that's the party line that Clayton's lobbyists put out, but it's absolutely *not* what the Clayton grads hold themselves out as qualified to do. Do a Google search and you'll see that there are a bazillion Clayton grads holding themselves out as qualified to do extensive diagnostic workups, to treat serious diseases such as cancer, and the like.

    Under nearly every state's laws, anyone who advises, suggests, recommends, or otherwise encourages anyone to do or take any supplement, remedy, medication, or otherwise for any condition, disease, or otherwise is practicing medicine, regardless of what the Clayton and other fake naturopathic schools would like to have you believe.

    Additionally, whether or not a "traditional naturopath" (a term which, by the way, is a misnomer) is using herbs or pharmaceuticals, in order to diagnose and reasonably be able to care for someone, s/he needs knowledge, experience, and qualifications that graduates of Clayton (and Westbrook, and all the other unwonderful schools) simply don't have, because the curriculum is a joke.

    No, I'm not confusing the Clayton crowd's arguments with legitimate, properly trained naturopaths at all. I'm well aware of the argument, and, like most everyone else in the legitimate holistic medical field, I realize the claim for what it is -- a smokescreen to justify allowing unqualified lay people to treat others.

    Let me ask you this: How many Clayton grads would have any patients at all if, in all their advertising and marketing, and at their first meeting with a patient, they had to say "I was educated entirely by a distance learning program. I never had any sort of clinical internship. The school I went to admits that I am not qualified nor allowed to diagnose, treat, or otherwise offer any services designed to affect any medical condition you might have, nor am I qualified to interpret any test results."

    I think you know the answer. So does Clayton. But the smokescreen they use is necessary. Otherwise, no one would enroll in their substandard school and old Lloyd Clayton wouldn't be making a killing off of people while his graduates are killing patients.

    Oh... and it's more than obvious that you don't have any extensive, clinical background in holistic medicine, or you'd know what the literature says (both positive and negative) about the clinical use and effectiveness of coffee enemas. Yes, they sound completely wacky, but there's a significant amount of clinical research, on animals as well as humans, documenting the effects of kahweol and cafestol (components of the coffee) on the glutathione-S-transferase system in the liver, when administered rectally. Any good student of holistic medicine, whether it's "traditional" naturopathy or legitimate naturopathy, will know the history, application, indications, and contraindications for the use of coffee enemas, whether or not they choose to use them or recommend them.

Share This Page