ND Glidden, Theistic Soul-Force Science, & Naturopathy's Reversal of Values

here, I present a naturopath vitriolically attacking contemporary scientific consensus in a few ways while absurdly claiming that naturopathic / holistic ideas that are abjectly science-exterior are indeed science [see 001., below]; plus, I cite from his 2012 Amazon.com published book [see 002., below]; finally, I reflect upon an observation I've arrived after almost twenty years of study, that naturopathy is truly a 'reversal of values' [see 003., below]:

001. Glidden, P.  (ND Bastyr 1991) states in "The Differences Between MD's and ND's? Is Naturopathy Science Based? [...]" [vsc 2013-05-10; my comments are in unquoted bold]:
.

.

#supplements #scienceclaim #efficacyclaim #theisticsoulforce #vitalism #spiritism #antievolution #professionsclaim  

.

"[from the description] naturopathic medicine is science based and clinically verified. Naturopathic medicine exists to marry the scientific method with non-drug therapeutics [...]";

the typical science-based and clinical efficacy claim, the usual anti-pharma thing all ironically on a video page that promotes an "online marketing" supplement business aka big supplement!

"the philosophy of ND's is that the human body gets sick because of deficiencies but can heal itself [...] we believe that when the human body is given the raw materials needed it knows how and wants to heal itself [...]";

the overstated typical claim that healing is unlimited / dietary.   But, there are so FEW diseases due to deficiency in developed countries!  Unless your are selling supplements, wink-wink.

"[...from the video, ND Glidden directly] naturopathic medicine is science-based and clinically verified [...] everything that we do, well, the majority of the therapeutics that naturopathic doctors recommend for their patients or their clients are science-based and clinically verified.  That's why my profession exists [...] my profession exists in order to marry the scientific method with non-drug therapeutics [...] to say that naturopathic medicine is not science-based is just a lie quite frankly.  It's just a lie [...] everything that we do is science-based and clinically verified and to say anything to the contrary is a bald-faced lie [...]";

directly from the ND: the professional claim, the science claim and then the rather inflammatory accusation that criticism is a lie.  But, its so easy to debunk the science subset naturopathy claim that to state that abject nonscience / 'the essentially naturopathic' is science like here in the video is simply bizarre.  And oh how crazy naturopathy is.

"there is a fundamental point of departure in the philosophy of holistic medicine which naturopathic doctors and chiropractors and homeopaths and acupuncturists and ayurvedic practitioners and traditional Chinese medical practitioners are trained in [...]";

ah, 'the holistic.'  I've never known a specific definition of holistic.  It's kind of like the word widget.  Obviously, what's listed as holistic are sectarian prescientific medical systems.  So, they must have something in common.

"this is a holistic method. And MDs are trained in a reductionistic method. These two philosophies of healing are diametrically opposed from the beginning.  They are 180 degrees opposite each other.  Reductionism argues that if it can't be measured it doesn't exist [...] this whole domain of measurable versus the unmeasurable [...] to the reductionist, to the MD, to the psychiatrist, consciousness is a function of biochemistry [...] your MD is trained to believe that consciousness stops when the body stops, that consciousness is created by biochemicals [...]";

there we go, a supposed difference: measurement versus nonmeasurement.  But, the ND doesn't know much about the terms he's using, apparently.  If it can be measured, it is proper to call that area or phenomenon 'empirically verifiable' or scientifically testable.  Reductionism is something else, actually, and I think he's railing against materialism but unaware of the term [or not using it here, anyway].  Reductionism is a form of analysis wherein investigation of the components of a phenomena end up explaining the phenomena [roughly, as I see it, presently!.  E.g. the human organism is explainable based upon biology subset physiology etc.].  Science itself isn't merely reductionistic anyway.  For instance, the study of global warming geothermodynamics etc. is quite 'complex systems based'.  So, apparently, holistic means immeasurable but claimed to exist, which isn't, for me, a very good basis for something as important as medicine [maybe religion, if you are into that].  And we KNOW that the mind is the brain functioning / a function of all that wet chemistry and neuronal complexity.

"[ND Glidden then claims MDs claim that] the human body is a coincidental amalgamation of biochemicals that happened in some antediluvian primordial swamp stimulated by a bolt of lightening from a cloud passing overhead and then evolution kicked in.  And it's nonsense [...] the MDs think it was just a biochemical coincidence.  Some happenstance of evolution.  Now you are you going to believe? [...]";

so now we have antievolutionism and apparently pro-creationism!  And, properly, an overarching antibiology.  It is quite scientifically correct to say that human beings are the culmination of an evolutionary process spanning a huge amount of time and that that explanation isn't nonsense.  It's actually the explanation that makes biology coherent.  Why the ND paints the MDs as the 'nonholistic evolutionists anticreationists' is rather strange.  He's actually attacking modern thought and scientific consensus based upon what is measurable.  Who am I going to believe?  For medicine, I prefer scientists who argue a good point, and people who actually know what they're talking about because they are experts in the field...which an ND isn't.  This is where I begin to feel PREACHED to by a quite fringe sentiment!  I think the choice of the word "believe" is very important, because without measurement / evidence, we 'believe'.  He wants something to 'believe' in -- the holistic -- not to factually know through science, perhaps.

"whatever it is that organizes all of the millions and trillions of biochemical automatic biochemical processes in the human body every second of every day from our point of view [and he points at himself] this is the vital force.  It's what keeps things running.  Now, can you measure it objectively, no.  Does that mean it doesn't exist, no.  This is the fundamental point of departure.  Holistic physicians are trained to believe that the human body is endowed with a God-given soul-force and it is the soul-force which made your body grow itself, gave your body the intelligence to grow itself all by itself from a single-celled organism into the magnificent manifestation of you [...]";

and there we go, that amalgamation of theism, spiritism, and vitalism aka 'the holistic'.  I've termed this fundamental naturopathic belief "vital force spirit" aka vfs.  All science-ejected in the sense that biology doesn't need any of those things to explain ANYTHING.  Now, we were promised that naturopathy is "science based" earlier.  This puts us in that odd place I call the naturopathillogical: science subset nonscience. 

"what my profession is grounded in, that when you give the body the proper raw materials your blood pressure gets better, your type II diabetes gets better, your arthritis gets better, your pregnancies start to happen [...] we have evidence to all of these points [...] my profession, in the United States, we're licensed and regulated [...] and it's all covered by insurance [...]";

I term naturopathy a licensed falsehood, and what profession is based upon falsehood?  Naturopathy is quite a racket: get a licensure law to practice falsely labeled nonsense and self-regulate your nonsense.  I pick the word racket here deliberately: the creation of a false crisis that a unique solution is provided for by the false crisis creator.  What does naturopathy do, specifically?  In one version, it falsely claims a huge 'malnutrition' epidemic is causing chronic diseases that their supplements will dramatically reverse.

"lets talk about snake-oil [...] gets my blood boiling when I hear MDs accuse my profession of selling snake oil because the only people that are doing that in industrialized nations now have MD after their name [...]";

let me talk about what gets MY blood boiling: naturopathy's racket. I went to naturopathy school, the same kind of school that ND Glidden went to, for four years.  And they are untouchable in terms of getting consumer protective actions rolling against them in spite of the fact that they claim to be something they are not: nonsectarian science when actually containing the science-ejected and requiring a sectarian oath towards claiming it all as legitimate science.  Talk about snake oil.  I really don't care for defending regular medicine: I am not a physician and naturopathy's claims must stand or fall upon their own merit.  I do care for rigorous scientific standards, and that's something naturopathy is the opposite of.

002. ND Glidden writes in "The MD Emperor Has No Clothes: Everybody Is Sick and I Know Why" (2012; ASIN B0099ZYTD6; this text below is part of the sample view):

"I am a licensed naturopathic physician [...] I received [...] a naturopathic medical degree (ND) from Bastyr University of Naturopathic Medicine in 1991 [...] naturopathic physicians are trained in science based, clinically verified, safe, effective and affordable wholistic medical treatments such as clinical nutrition, homeopathy, herbal medicine, bio-identical hormone balancing, acupuncture, and detoxification programs [...] a full-fledged, licensed and regulated primary care medical discipline [...] naturopathic medical treatments [...] stimulate the body's built-in self healing mechanisms [coded vitalism...and] help people completely recover from whatever illness they have been suffering from [...] the conditions listed above were completely eliminated through the application of naturopathic treatments [...] the Down's syndrome case is interesting, don't you think? [...] this is just the tip of the naturopathic iceberg called 'cure' [...] the medical philosophy that MDs are trained in is referred to as 'allopathy' [...] coined by German physician [...] Hahnemann in the 19th century [...which is] atheistic, reductionistic and oppositionally-defiant in its philosophy of treatment [...] it does not believe in the existence of the human soul, or for that matter, anything metaphysical [...] the exclusion of the soul is one of the most startling aspects of allopathic medical thinking [...] the wholistic practitioners are right, the MDs are wrong";

so, essentially, the same argument that science should contain that which isn't science like the theistic and supernatural, and a bullying opinion of what's right without facts to back it up.

003. naturopathy as a reversal of values:

so, I term naturopathy "a reversal of values", wherein:

 

professionalism is a falsehood racket,

science is abjectly science-exterior,

what's a fact is a lie,

snake oil is science,

science contains theistic soul forces,

and it goes on and on.

Changelog 2013-05-10 and ND Video

here, I summarize recent additions to my public naturopathy database.  I also link to an ND's video each changelog, quote from, and tag the video in some detail:

[Mission emphasis: I do this continuous exercise to expose the inherent fraud that naturopathy is logically, academically, commercially, legislatively and clinically.  Hugely misleading category labels such as "science based" and "evidence based" "nonsectarian" are being placed upon what truly is science-exterior and even more so disproven sectarian / quack nonsense!  Then, the largest of betrayals toward the public occurs with highly orchestrated '.gov' endorsements of naturopaths as "licensed" and "professional."  Beware, the naturopathic licensed falsehood racket marches on!]

001. added:

the vitalism [science-ejected] claims of:

ND Abrin;

to Appendix B.05.i.a.01.;

the College of Naturopathic Medicine UK;

to Appendix B.01.c.;

ND Czeranko;

to Appendix B.05.i.bbbb.;

ND Grobbink;

to Appendix B.05.i.c.00.;

ND Hawkinson;

to Appendix B.05.i.c.02.;

NDs Jobanputra, Rutledge;

to Appendix B.05.i.c.04.;

republished 2013-05-01

ND Kargman;

NDs Kassam and Rauscher;

NDs Kimata, Portuondo, Taketa, Semanie;

to Appendix B.05.i.c.05.;

ND Larrow;

ND Lee, J.;

ND Lee, M.;

ND Lester;

to Appendix B.05.i.d.00.;

ND Means;

ND Metz;

ND Mikel;

to Appendix B.05.i.d.03.;

Naturopathic Doctors Ontario;

to Appendix B.03.;

NDNR;

to Appendix B.04.b.;

ND Nickels;

ND Niebryzdowski;

ND Noe;

NDs Nozari, Rahman, Sasson;

ND Nguyen, P.;

ND Nguyen, R.;

ND O'Dell; 

ND Owens;

to Appendix B.05.i.e.;

republished 2013-04-30 

NDs Richmond, Tocher-Richmond, Vojtisek;

to Appendix B.05.i.h.;

ND Szczurko;

to Appendix B.05.i.i.04.;

ND Wyckoff;

to Appendix B.05.i.L.;

the 'science subset naturopathy' category claims of:

NDs Congdon and Standish;

to Appendix I.05.c.;

the Quebec Association of Naturopathic Medicine;

to Appendix I.03.;

NDs Shah and Singleton;

ND Simon;

ND Smith;

ND Szczurko;

to Appendix I.05.o.;

the State of Washington's King County '.gov';

to Appendix I.03.;

 

ND Villazan;

ND Visocchi;

ND Vojtisek;

ND Yoon;

to Appendix I.05.p.;

webmd.com;

to Appendix I.04.02.;

the 'vitalism is science-ejected' claims of:

McGill University Office for Science and Society;

to Appendix C.01.;

odds and ends:

a so poorly designed naturopathy study came out 

in the Canadian Medical Association Journal

that perhaps the journal should rename itself

'the Canadian Medical Association Journal of Naturopathic Propaganda';

Australia is kicking out chiropractic from a university 

for areas that offer more research promise:

"Professor John Dwyer, co-founder of the Friends of Science in Medicine 

which has attacked rogue elements of the chiropractic profession, 

said it was heartening to hear Macquarie wanted to abandon

 'pseudo-scientific teachings' [...] 'we met with the university [...]

 and suggested that a major tertiary institution should not  

offer these courses,' Professor Dwyer said [...] modern chiropractic 

courses are 'polluted' by thinking around correcting energy flows

 [vitalism, spiritism as I call it...] 'we should be teaching students

 that you need credible, scientific evidence and we, 

at the Friends of Science in Medicine, don't believe 

this course does that'".  

Hear hear.   Now if only NA naturopathy, 

TCM, chiro. got a similar spanking!

002. video of the week link [not to pun]:

presenting a '.gov' endorsement of the false claim of 'science subset naturopathy' by former King County, Washington State Councilmember Bob Ferguson in "Councilmember Bob Ferguson's May 2012 e-News Video" [saved 2013-05-08]:

.

.

#.govpseudoscience #endorsementofnaturopathyfalsescienceclaims #bobferguson #kingcountywashington

.

who tells us in the video that he takes the bus to help the world and cares about carbon emissions...how nice.  This video only introduces his e-newsletter without mentioning much, but we can get a sense of him from it  My response: how about elevating consumer protection standards instead of participating in the naturopathy racket?  How about being rigorous?  Now, specific to naturopathy, he tells us in that e-newsletter titled "May 2012" [vsc 2013-05-08]:

 

"I recently had the pleasure of leading the Council in recognizing an important milestone for Bastyr University [...] the 100th anniversary of the birth of its founder and namesake Dr. John B. Bastyr [...] a renowned Seattle-area naturopathic physician and a pioneer in the field of science-based natural medicine."

except, of course, the heart of naturopathy isn't science as a category at all. I know my naturopathy!  And I also observe that politicians like publicity and rarely engage in due diligence.  But, I'll add some right now.

 

Bastyr itself states in "About" [saved 2013-05-08]:

 

"Bastyr University [...] a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...aka] the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [...aka] natural medicine [...] 21st-century medicine."

now, some contextualizing: we have the OVERARCHING science claim upon such things as the supernatural [which is quite epistemically false], and keep in mind that for naturopathy "nature" is 'the healing power of nature' which is the science-ejected notion of life force / qi / prana / spirit.  Again false.  And those are facts: the science category that isn't science categorically, the natural that is supernatural.

 

now, here's the kicker: Bob Ferguson is now the Attorney General of Washington State and he tells us at that page:

 

 "General Ferguson’s ongoing priorities are: [#1] protecting consumers and seniors against fraud by cracking down on powerful interests that don’t play by the rules."

 

oh, the irony. the humanity!

McGill University's Office For Science & Society Critique of Naturopathy

here, since it is Naturopathy Week 2013 in Canada, I cite from and comment upon a 2012 blog post up at McGill University's Office For Science and Society [OSS] regarding naturopathy in Quebec [see 001., below];

001. McGill Blogs' OSS (these fellas) writes in "Naturopathic Debate Follow-Up: Some Answers to Your Questions" [my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"[these are] answers to questions raised after a debate on whether doctors of naturopathic medicine should be recognized as primary care physicians in Quebec [...]";

it's nice to see something happen in public.  This usually doesn't happen in the U.S. with naturopathy.  So, there are many States and Provinces wherein PCP naturopathy is currently permitted.  This is not because naturopathy is scientifically legitimate essentially.  It is a political victory usually accomplished through false labeling and false posturing.  Is / will such happen in Quebec?  I'll bet, it's naturopathy's MO!  Because if you knew what it was really about, you'd pass on the nonsense.  Unless you like nonsense thought for your medicine.

"[the author tells us] I have nothing to gain from being pro or con towards naturopathic or conventional medicine.  I am not a physician so I have no financial stakes here [...] my interest [is] in promoting evidence-based science [...] at the OSS, our only allegiance is to the scientific method [...] proper scientific methodology rather than anecdote, hearsay or magical thinking [...]";

ah, a statement of interests!  How nice to hear detachment, and an ethos for "evidence-based science." Well, as I've often said, my interest in naturopathy -- I'm not a physician either -- is that I studied it for four years in Connecticut and feel that it was fraud -- big-time life rupturing fraud whose entire contents they labeled as belonging within a "Division of Health Sciences" including homeopathy.  And it's still going on there 11 years after I stopped that degree in disgust, and I'm filled with more disgust than ever ["as he got older, he got worse"].  This McGill post feels good to me, because its reasoning is something I'm very much in agreement with.  I do know what 'non-evidence based science' is: things like naturopathy!  For instance, if we are talking about Quebec naturopathy, then there's the claim at the Provincial association that naturopathy is scientific yet it contains the science ejected.  Wait, that's not as mild as 'nonevidence based science', that is fraud!  And regarding science as a method, naturopathy seems to think that science occurs by fiat.

"I am not on any sort of witch hunt against naturopathic practitioners, except when they practice quackery [...]";

naturopathy, at its heart, is a kind of knowledge quackery, wherein science is posed as indiscriminate.

"I fully recognize that there is a role for naturopathic physicians in health care [...] they can provide valuable advice about lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise and stress relief [...] dealing with lifestyle factors is not solely in the domain of naturopathic doctors [...]";

I doubt though it would be argued that there's a role for alchemists in chemistry, or astrologers in astrology.  So, I disagree completely.  There already are ethical health professionals who do what is listed without the mind-numbing cost of science subset nonsense junk thought, so what role is left except for charlatan?

"I do not think their training is adequate for recognition as primary care physicians [...]";

agreed.

"problems arise when some naturopathic doctors counsel against evidence-based conventional treatments.  Suggesting that homeopathy is a viable alternative to antibiotics can have serious consequences [...] naturopathy is an eclectic practice that encompasses treatment modalities ranging from the sensible to the nonsensical and in its present format cannot be relied upon for primary care [...]";

agreed.

"doctors of naturopathy undergo training at a college of naturopathy [...] I am [...] not impressed by some facets of the curriculum at these Colleges.  After having closely scrutinized some lectures and student notes on chemistry, physiology and anatomy as taught in these institutions, my view is that the courses are not up to the rigor we teach in university [...]";

well, let me be explicit: mixing legitimate medical science with science-ejected nonsense and falsely labeling the whole thing science is at the heart of naturopathy and is not, I hope these days, 'university-rigorous'.

"much more worrisome is that homeopathy is taught as a 'science,' and that students in some schools are told that there are connections between the iris and the liver [iridology!  Which NDs love].  Teachings about traditional Chinese medicine, reflexology, acupuncture and herbal medicine are one sided and ignore massive amounts of peer-reviewed research that does not support the naturopathic philosophy [...]";

hear, hear.  I'll add this too: one takes an OATH to presenting naturopathy as a science and that includes homeopathy.  So, what profession has one ever heard of that makes one take an oath to the falsehood 'science subset abject nonscience'?  And I prefer to call the 'one-sided' nature of naturopathy 'sectarian'.

  

"I do not find evidence of consistent diagnostic or therapeutic methods in naturopathic medicine.  One practitioner may offer totally different counsel from another and guidance can range from common sense advice about diet and exercise to an array of totally implausible treatments such as wearing socks soaked in ice water [wet socks!...]";

agreed.  Without objective knowledge aka science, anything goes and there isn't a standard of care besides adhering to their core vitalism, supernaturalism, and therapies aimed at altering those figmentations. 

"the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors describes homeopathic remedies as such: 'when carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body’s ‘vital force’ and to stimulate the body’s innate healing forces on both the physical and emotional levels, with few side effects.'  This is nothing but fantastic conjecture. The belief in some sort of supernatural 'life force' that does not subscribe to the laws of chemistry, physics or biology and yet governs health [...] science long ago confined 'vitalism' to the dustbin, in naturopathic philosophy it lives on, unabated [truly!!!].  That’s because 'life force' is not a matter of science, but a matter of faith [...] arguments on behalf of homeopathy for example, have not changed in two hundred years.  The justification offered by some naturopathic doctors is that 'homeopathy was true then, is true now and will always be true.'  Not exactly scientific thinking [...] double blind randomized trials [...] demonstrate that homeopathy works through the placebo effect [...] implausible speculations about water having 'memory,'  or about anatomically non-existent meridians or 'blocked energy channels'  amount to no more than magical thinking and have no place in evidence-based science [...]";

naturopathy as metaphysicianship!  As in 'the metaphysical'.  Yet, they promised us years ago that 'naturopathy is not a belief system, is it science-based'.   Boy was I lied to: boy to I need an international lawyer.

"naturopaths commonly reference Hippocrates’ doctrine of  'vis medicatrix naturae' (as if ancient 'wisdom' equaled 'evidence') to justify the healing powers of nature.  This is actually a misinterpretation of Hippocrates’ view.  What the 'father of medicine' had in mind was a purging of Greek medicine of its belief that gods were responsible for health and illness.  Natural phenomena, not gods, were to be accountable, he maintained [...]";

ah, their spin on 'the big H' with the argument from antiquity thrown in.

"many doctors of naturopathy [...] sell a variety of items to their clients.  I consider this to be an unethical practice given the obvious motivation to recommend products from which the practitioner profits [...]";

I've heard often that NDs in the US make half their income from their dispensary.

"naturopathic doctors may provide a sympathetic ear but that does not guarantee a discerning brain [...]";

no, it doesn't.  Many years ago Dr. Barrett nailed this, calling naturopaths "muddle-heads."

A Week of Weakness For Canada: Naturopathic Medicine Week 2013

here, it cite from a press release by the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors [CAND] promoting Naturopathic Medicine Week for 2013 [see 001., below]; then, I point out some inherent weaknesses in essential naturopathic thought, contents, and activity [see 002., below]:

001. CAND states in "Promoting Health and Preventing Disease Across Canada" (2013-05-06)[vsc 2013-05-06; my notes are in unquoted bold]:

"[from] Toronto, Ontario [...]";

I will refer specifically to Ontario naturopathic entities below, in 002.

"the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) is offering a great opportunity to discover the many benefits of naturopathic medicine and natural approaches to health promotion and disease prevention [...for] your health [...] preventing disease naturally [...] naturopathic doctors are primary health care practitioners and experts in naturopathic health care. All workshops and lectures are given by qualified naturopathic doctors, health care providers with a minimum of seven years' post-secondary education, including four years of full-time study at an accredited naturopathic institution [...]";

some marketing slogans and claims I will deal with in 003., below after 002., below.

"[and there's this offer:]for more information about naturopathic medicine, to review naturopathic position papers, to find out about the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, please visit www.cand.ca [...] the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors, Stuart Watson, toll-free in Canada 1.800.551.4381 / T 416.496.8633, swatson@cand.ca [...]";

sure enough we will and I invite people to ask them the hard questions.  Thanks for the invitation.

 Note: the picture associated with the press release includes Canadian provincial ND associations, ND schools and CAND.  This list is mirrored at CAND's site "Naturopathic Medicine Week May 6-12".

002. a quick look at naturopathy's so weak nonsense:

[aka let's "discover" / "find out about" naturopathy's "information" together, briefly; excuse the puns but they help me deal with the naturopathillogical]

002.a. via NDO:

002.a1. there's the overarching SCIENCE claim about the naturopathic in "NDO: Naturopathic Doctors Ontario" [saved 2013-05-06] wherein we're told:

"naturopathic training closely parallels medical training: three years of undergraduate pre-medical sciences, and a four year full-time clinical program in naturopathic medicine at a North American accredited college. This training prepares NDs for the challenges of primary care practice [...] science-based, safe and effective patient-centered care is at the heart of naturopathic care [...] naturopathic doctors are highly trained to use and combine these natural therapies [...including] homeopathy, Asian medicine and acupuncture."

002.a2. yet:

homeopathy and acupuncture are inherently science-ejected or science-unsupported in their premises and effect [placebo!] yet NDO lists those therapies [see here, p.029 ] as if, inherently, they are within that science category and actually legitimate AND all the while NDO tells us naturopathy is based upon a science-exterior "spirit/life-force".  Fascinating in its glaring stupid: the science that patently isn't science

Note: if naturopathic science is actual college and university science then science is at that level anything anyone wants science to be...which to me is quite irrational and untrue.  Science is specifically something when compared to what is abjectly not science supported.  Prepared?  No.  Brainwashed, yes.  This world: no.  Bizarro world, yes.

002.b. via CAND:

they tell us in this video it's all "science based."

002.c. via CCNM, "an accredited naturopathic institution":

tells us it's science based in this video.

003. so:
 

a great opportunity by qualified experts?  To trick the public academically, politically, clinically.

natural approaches / the natural / naturopathic health care?  Are / Is not what you think they are:  supernaturally focused and nonsensically labeled science.

and licensed falsehood marches on.