Naturopathy's Essential Superstitious Teleological Vitalism - Sensenig 2007 in UE:

here, I quote from a 2007 Unified Energetics [UE] article that reveals the teleological vitalism that is essential to naturopathy [see 001., below]; while naturopathy labels itself science [see 002., below]; while teleology and vitalism are PROFOUNDLY science-ejected [see 003, below]:



001. the Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine Project [I consider this 'of the preponderant naturopathic'] states in "The Heart of Naturopathic Medicine":

"[per ND Sensenig] there are words or phrases that we have borrowed from our predecessors that we use interchangeably: vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], vitality [V], simple substance [SS...] dynamis [D...] qi [Q...] energy [E...] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN...] vis is this tendency in nature towards organization, order and purpose [P...] towards the ideal [I] or perfection [P...a.k.a.] homeostasis [H...] the direction of order [DO...] this vis [VS...] the organizational tendency in nature [OT...] vitalism [VT]."

Note: so, we have -- at the heart of naturopathic medicine, a.k.a. 'the essentially naturopathic' BY THEIR OWN DEFINING -- VMN = V = SS = D = Q = E = VMN = VS = VT in terms of vitalism, and P = I = P = H = DO = OT in terms of teleology [with the two intertwined {inseparable in naturo.}; for science's position on these two DEFUNCT ideas, see 003. below]. Here's an important note on ND luminary Sensenig: he was my instructor at UB in 1998 and spewed similar 'cultic mystical weirdness' [a label I'd applied to my UB naturopathy experience in a sworn deposition], and here is a handout from that course. Sensenig is second from right in this Foundation's group picture.

002. for naturopathy's self-labeling of "science", click here.

003. and here's my favorite science quote regarding teleology and vitalism:

"[per biologist Ernst Mayr in "What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline"(2004; ISBN 0521841143)] I did not want to fall into a trap like vitalism or become a teleologist [...] the biology for which I wanted to find a philosophy had to qualify as a genuine, bona fide science [p.002...] occult forces (vitalism and teleology) [...] vitalism was an invalid approach [p.017...] the refutation of certain erroneous basic assumptions [...] certain basic ontological principles that later were shown to be erroneous [...] certain basic explanatory principles not supported by the laws of physical sciences and eventually found to be invalid. The two major principles here involved are vitalism and a belief in cosmic teleology [...] an invisible force, lebenskraft or vis vitalis. Those who believed in such a force were called vitalists. Vitalism was popular from the early seventeenth century to the early twentieth century [p.022...] generations of vitalists labored in vain to find a scientific explanation for the lebenskraft until it finally became quite clear that such a force simply does not exist. That was the end of vitalism [p.023...] biologists [...by 1866] now rejected vitalism and cosmic teleology [p.025...] after vitalism had become obsolete [p.069...] genetic programs occur only in living organisms [...] naturalists [...] have been aware of this fundamental difference for thousands of years, but their explanation for it was invalid. They tried to attribute life to the occult force of vitalism, as vis vitalis, but eventually is was determined that such a force does not exist [...] this was finally made possible in the twentieth century by the discoveries in cytology, genetics, and molecular biology. The sciences finally provided us with a naturalistic explanation of life [p.090...] glossary [...] vitalism: the now thoroughly refuted belief in the existence of an occult invisible force in living organisms responsible for the manifestations of life in any living organism [p.225]."

004. so, when is the HUGELY science-ejected [teleological vitalism] falsely labeled science?

Naturopathy. There ain't nothing so CONTINUALLY stupid and false.

E.g: at UB, where I believe Sensenig still teaches, they still label their naturopathy science, while vitalistic and teleological.

I think the Federal Trade Commission has a word for this.

More Naturopathic Misinformation?: The 1st AANMC Informational Webinar 2009-07-16:

here, I point out the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges' [AANMC] claim / promise that they will, next week via web conference, provided reliable [I'm reasonably presuming that's what people will assume] information regarding AANMC naturopathic education so that the public will be able to [I'm reasonably presuming] make an informed decision regarding attending naturopathy school [see 001., below]; meanwhile, naturopathy falsely labels the profoundly science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural as scientific, without a single disclaimer [see 002., below]; so, I say instead of "for you", naturopathy exists "for themselves" [see 003., below]:

001. the AANMC states in “AANMC 2-Minute E-News […] Attend the 1st AANMC Informational Webinar!” (2009-07):

“[per Deger, C . (? ?) - AANMC managing editor] the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges is very excited to debut a new way to learn about naturopathic medical education without leaving home […] we will bring you an interactive, online experience that will help you in the process of selecting and applying to naturopathic medical school [...via our] experts in naturopathic medical education […our] leading professionals in the field of naturopathic medicine [...] this event is sponsored jointly by the seven accredited colleges of naturopathic medicine comprising the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC) [including the University of Bridgeport].”

Note: notice the claim that they will be “informational”, that the public will “learn”, that they have educational / academic expertise, and that naturopathy meets the ethical strictures of a profession. Can AANMC actually help you? Is AANMC actually looking out for YOU? [No, not in my book. I relate to this 'not for you' reality below (see 003.)].

002. [how naturopathy's recent past speaks volumes] debunking naturopathy's educational / academic / professional science expertise claim, a.k.a. 'how they label as science that which is PROFOUNDLY not science and therein do not fulfill a professions-level ethical role':

002.a. AANMC claims that naturopathy is science in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?":

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science".

Note: for a larger collection of 'naturopathy's science self-labeling', see here.

002.b. naturopathy's essential vitalism can be found from one of the AANMC's member schools, the University of Bridgeport, per “Six Guiding Principles. Guiding Principle #1”:

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

Note: for a larger collection of 'naturopathy's essential vitalism', see here. Yet, vitalism is completely science-ejected.

Overall note for 002: notice that there is no disclaimer / no warning regarding AANMC's actually very FALSE, very actually ABSURD position that that which is fundamentally nonscientific is being improperly labeled as scientific. Instead, AANMC mainly codes their 'sectarian underneath' in naturalistic language, per “The Six Principles”:

“naturopathic medicine celebrates the healing power of nature [HPN]. Naturopathic medicine is dedicated to the study and celebration of nature’s healing powers […] a dynamic philosophy as well as a profession [...] naturopathic medicine is defined by principles rather than by methods or modalities. Above all, it honors the body’s innate wisdom to heal […] naturopathic physicians practice the six fundamental principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature: trust in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself […#6] treat the whole person: view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical and spiritual dimensions.”

Note: this is the vitalism context that dare not speak its name. Instead, a naturalistic facade / veneer is presented. That's misinformation of a most sophisticated type. Also, notice that after labeling naturopathy “science”, supernaturalism is of primary concern to them. Yet, supernaturalism itself is science ejected. That's misinformation of a most crude type.

003. overall, AANMC is first and foremost FOR THEMSELVES, not for you:

a.k.a., not by a long shot of the highly stringent ethical condition credat emptor [let the buyer have faith -- of the professions in ethical caliber]

but instead,

not even able to pass the less ethically stringent condition of caveat emptor [let the buyer beware; falseness, 'bait and switch', deceit -- which is even of lower ethical caliber than legitimate commerce].

Looking For Naturopathy's HIDDEN Essential Vitalism - naturopathic.org 2009-07:

here, I share some search results from naturopathic.org [see 002., below], the website of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP], in terms of their dishonest communication of the essential vitalism that underlies naturopathy [see 001., below]:

01. the central premise of naturopathy is of course vitalism, particularly as evidenced by their central textbooks.

Note: this is, overall, a science-ejected figmentation.

002. at naturopathic.org, an internal search for "life force" and "vital force" and "vitalism" reveals...NOTHING. There are no hits! Wow, do they not wish for us to be informed, in order to make informed decisions? But, a synonym does produce 2 hits, "medicatrix":

002.a. in "AANP Awards":

"the Vis Award honors and celebrates the life and work of Dr. William A. Mitchell, N.D. (1947-2007). Dr. Mitchell embodied the Vis with his passion for life, for naturopathic medicine, for teaching, and for the loving care of his patients. The Vis Award acknowledges persons who represent the Vis, the healing power of nature, as demonstrated through their work, life, and community service. The Vis Award recipients are naturopathic students, faculty members, or clinicians who exemplify the vis medicatrix naturae by their understanding and application of the healing power of nature."

Note: this is their vitalistic premise, coded.

002.b. in "Speakers":

"[etc.] stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae leading to the patient healing."

003. so, are they purposely concealing their central concept at this site? Me thinks. Their motto is "physicians who listen", but, do they honestly inform? On their web page "What is Naturopathic Medicine?", which should hit the nail on the head in terms of honest description, we are told:

"naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence: [#1] let nature heal. Our bodies have such a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing. By finding and removing the barriers to this self-healing—such as poor diet or unhealthy habits—naturopathic physicians can nurture this process."

Note: there is not 1 incidence of "force" on this page. And notice that we are told INSTEAD that this is SCIENCE.

004. yet, when you go to the BIG consortia statement regarding naturopathy, there's the vitalism overarching all of the supposed profession. Well, actually, you can't go there right now. They've taken that site down. Perhaps it was too honest. But, you can get to it on archive.org:

"heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, naturopathic medicine emphasizes the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...aka] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force."

Note: do you sense quite a nonexistent honesty? It is nice to see though that AANP's Pizzorno wrote the foreword for the 2008 Chaitow naturopathy text book I right now hold in my hands (ISBN 0443103909) which states in "Physical Medicine in a Naturopathic Context" co-written with AANP NDs Zeff and Snider [and remember, naturopathic.org is AANP's website!!!]:

"the key principle in naturopathic medicine is a major distinguishing element. That first principle is vis medicatrix naturae, 'the healing power of nature', which establishes naturopathic medicine as a vitalistic medicine, a modern inheritor of the vitalistic tradition."

At least paper can't be so easily expunged.

Decoding Naturopathy's Essential Science-Mislabeled Vitalism - Godby, D. (NMD NCNM):

here, I parse ND Godby's claim -- as recently stated in Rocklin & Roseville Today and on his own web pages -- that naturopathy is "science based" [see 001.a. and 001.b., below]; while, a little web research and third-grade-level thinking reveals that naturopathy is actually obligated to and centered around the science-ejected falsely labeled as able to survive scientific scrutiny [see 002., where I decode this ND's occult vitalism]:

001. Godby, D. (NMD NCNM) writes in

001.a. "California Threatens Naturopathic Care" [also hosted on his own web page] (2009-06-30):

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [!!!] that the human body has an innate healing ability [IHA...we use] cutting edge natural therapies to enhance their [patients'] bodies’ ability to combat disease [BATCD...] naturopathic doctors craft comprehensive treatment plans that blend the best of modern medical science and traditional natural medical approaches to treat disease and restore health [...] a licensed naturopathic doctor (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate-level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...] a naturopathic doctor takes rigorous professional board exams [...] naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence: let nature heal [LNH] by removing the obstacles to cure, identify and treat causes, first do no harm, educate patients, treat the whole person, prevent illness."

001.b. in "Naturopathy":

"as professional leaders and pioneers in science-based natural medicine, naturopathic physicians [...] integrate scientific research with the healing powers of nature [HPN]."

Note: NDs claim that HPN is science-based.

001.c. in 'homepage':

"Sacramento naturopathic doctor, Dennis Godby, has helped hundreds of patients from Redding to Fresno, Placerville to the Bay Area to heal complex, chronic diseases that most medicine can’t touch [{quite a promise!!!}...service at] Sacramento Naturopathic Medical Center [...] is always done in light of the powerful principles of naturopathic medicine: 1) first do no harm, use the most natural least invasive and least toxic therapies first, 2) identify and treat the underlying causes of illness and remove the obstacles to cure rather than merely treating symptoms, 3) use the healing power of nature [HPN], 4) treat the whole person, 5) prevent when possible."

002. overall note:

naturopathy is belief-based. IHA-BATCD-LNH-HPN are codings for naturopathy's 'purposeful life spirit bioagency' sectarian article of faith aka vitalism, which is not cutting edge, not scientific, and is supernatural archaic superstitious figmentation. Blending science with 'the traditional' is another way of saying that overarching any scientific content that naturopathy may resemble is a sectarian belief-based context. Yet, NDs absurdly claim 'we are of the same kind of science, rigor, and professionalism' as other healthcare science doctorates! Vitalism [and supernaturalism] is in no way based upon scientific evidence. In fact, vitalism is science-ejected. To actually be science-based means to reject what science does not support and honestly call it nonscientific. Is this rigorous? Is this professional? No. In naturopathy, science has been unlimited to allow any old ideation, and professionalism has been unlimited to allow deceit and misinformation.

From the inside, the vitalistic obligations of naturopathy -- falsely stated as able to survive scientific scrutiny -- are ONLY obvious [Godby does not tell you in the above!] when you look at his alma mater, NCNM, which states in "Principles of Healing":

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...and true to form for naturopathy, they claim falsely] these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."

Also, the supernatural obligations of naturopathy are evident on that principles page per:

"causes may occur on many levels, including [...the] spiritual [...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism [...including the] spiritual [...] the physician must also make a commitment to [...] spiritual development."

Naturopathy indeed blends, but then falsely labels the whole thing one kind of thing, scientific.

Bastyr U.'s Naturopathy "Science Based" Claim - Natural Healers, BCNH, AANMC, Peterson's, GPIS (2009-06-29):

here are the results of a recent google.com web search per >bastyr science based naturopathic<:

001. Bastyr University writes:

001.a. on the naturalhealers.com page "Bastyr University - Naturopathic Medicine Program":

"Bastyr University's School of Naturopathic Medicine [...of a] a distinct multidisciplinary, science-based approach to teaching with an emphasis on understanding the mind, body, spirit and nature [...quoting Whorton] 'Bastyr University [...] bringing scientific legitimacy to natural medicine' [...] a rigorous, science-based education [...of the] the natural health sciences."

Note: how did supernaturalism get science-based [and naturopathy's requisite vitalism {the science-ejected}], and the Nobel committee missed giving Bastyr an award for such a PROFOUNDLY revolutionary breakthrough? [It's not true].

001.b. on the bastyr.edu page "Clinical Resources for Naturopathic Medicine":

"the science-based naturopathic medicine of today [...the] Textbook of Natural Medicine, 3rd ed. Edited by Joseph E. Pizzorno and Michael T. Murray. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 2005. This two-volume set has long been the standard reference for science-based natural medicine [...] Kent, J. T. Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy [...] it includes information on how to take a case history and determine the proper remedy, and how to scientifically understand what constitutes a cure [...] Lindlahr, Henry. Philosophy of Natural Therapeutics. Maidstone, Kent ; Saffron Walden, Essex, England: Maidstone Osteopathic Clinic; C.W. Daniel, 1916. (Reprinted in 1985.) Henry Lindlahr, M.D. (1862-1924), a proponent of scientific naturopathy."

Note: "scientific naturopathy" is as logical as scientific nonscience.

001.c. on the bastyr.edu page "Interviews and Profiles: Gannady Raskin, MD, ND Enhances Bastyr's Naturopathic Education Position as Dean":

"our science-based approach to natural medicine continues to garner worldwide respect."

Note: how does absurdity get respect?

002. Bastyr Center For Natural Health states:

002.a. on the bastyrcenter.org page "Naturopathic Medicine: Overview":

"while firmly science-based, modern naturopathic medicine [etc.]."

002.b. on the dexknows.com page "Bastyr Center For Natural Health [...] Science Based Natural Health Progs, Graduate/Undergraduate":

"respected internationally for its science-based natural health programs."

003. Bastyr University President Church states on the AANMC page "Bastyr University - Message from the President":

"Bastyr University continues to champion science-based natural medicine."

004. Bastyr states on the Peterson's College Guide page "Bastyr University - School of Naturopathic Medicine":

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

005. Bastyr states on the Graduate Programs In Science [GPIS] page "Bastyr University: Naturopathic Medicine":

"the School of Naturopathic Medicine at Bastyr University is internationally renowned for its rigorous science-based curriculum [...] modern medical science [...] a strong preparation in the sciences [...] the natural health sciences."

Note: since when is 'nonscience as a basis' [the essentially naturopathic] the same as 'science-based' [what science actually supports, which sure as scat doesn't include supernaturalism and vitalism - minimally], academically speaking?

DC's Improbable Science on U.W. Naturopathy 'Make-Believe Nonsense' - Next For the Chop?:

DC's Improbable Science [UK] -- David Colquhoun -- writes in "More Make-Believe From the University of Westminster: This Time It’s Naturopathy":

"[at] the University of Westminster [...recently] luckily for science, they have a new dean who knows bullshit when she sees it [...e.g. their naturopathy degree] Health Sciences: Naturopathy [...which is] as delusional as homeopathy [...] rumor has it that naturopathy may be next for the chop [...here's some of] what the hapless students get taught. Remember that according to Westminster this is a bachelor of science degree [...e.g.] emotrance [...] pure vitalistic psycho-babble [...] preposterous made-up gobbledygook [...] the idea that stuff of this sort is appropriate for a bachelor of science degree is simply ludicrous. I have no doubt that Westminster's new dean can see that as well as anyone else. She has the delicate job of extirpating the nonsense."

Note: similarly, I know of a Connecticut University [USA] posing vitalistic nonsense [amonst other nonsense] as health science, by way of a doctoral health science label.

Homeopathy as 'Natural, Life-Force Based, Effective, Rational, Evidence-Based, Remarkable, Scientific Method' - Dodds, C. (ND Bastyr):

001. Dodds, C. (ND Bastyr 1993) states in "Homeopathy: A Time-tested Medicine For Today":

"homeopathy is a system of natural medicine [...wherein] health is a state of equilibrium maintained by a life force or essence [{LF, E}...when] the life force becomes disturbed [...it] expresses its imbalance in the form of symptoms [...which are] the outer expression of this inner state of [its] disturbance or disease [...] the role of homeopathy is to stimulate the life force [...] as the life force is restored to balance, the symptoms recede and the individual returns to a state of health [...] in 1810 Dr. Hahnemann [homeo.'s founder] published the 1st edition of the [homeo. bible] 'Organon of Medicine' [...] in it he outlined the principles of the art and science of healing [...homeo. is] an evidence-based system [...] and a reliable method of assessment and treatment [...its] a rational philosophy of healing and a scientific method of treatment."

Note: so, LF=E. We are promised by ND Dodds:

a. on his homepage:

"Dr. Cam Dodds is a licensed naturopathic physician with a focus in classical homeopathy. Homeopathy is a remarkable method of natural medicine effective in stimulating healing and restoring health."

b. and in "About Homeopathy":

"homeopathy is a safe, gentle, and effective method of treatment for both acute and chronic illness."

002. meanwhile, overall:

there is NO SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT for either a life force, or homeopathy's efficacy.

NDs Coward & Lewis Absurdly Defend Homeopathy as "Medicinal Science" - Citizen-Times, 2009-06-25:

here, I detail the absurd claim of two Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine [SCNM] ND graduates that homeopathy is a "medicinal science" [see 001., below]; while, overall, homeopathy is "utter rubbish" and "a classic pseudoscience" [see 002., below]:

001. Coward, S. (ND SCNM) and Lewis, K. (ND SCNM) state in the Citizen-Times article "Misconceptions Aside, Homeopathy Has Stood Test of Time" {2009-06-25}:

"homeopathy is a 200-year-old medicinal science [...unlike] Zicam [...which is] an impostor [...because] typical homeopathic remedies are much, much more dilute, often so dilute there are no molecules of the original substance left [{yikes !!!}...yet] the assertion that homeopathy is not supported by quality research is false [{oh really}...] studies of true homeopathy [...] show both safety and effectiveness [{oh really}...overall,] homeopathy has stood the test of time."

Note 01: AANP NDs take a national board exam that labels homeopathy "clinical science". SCNM -- the alma mater of these NDs -- labels naturopathy overall, including its requisite homeopathy , science in its web article "The Naturopathic Physician":

"naturopathic doctors['] practice is based on the same basic biomedical science foundation that allopathic [!!!] practice is [...we use] natural modalities such as [...] homeopathy [...] a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a four-year professional level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...and they take] rigorous professional board exams [...] the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine requires four years of professional level study in the medical sciences."

Note 02: by the way, the President of CEO of SCNM, who is simultaneously the President of the AANMC -- Mittman, P. (ND NCNM 1985, DHANP AANP), 2007 AANP Physician of the Year -- is a homeopath.

Note 03.a.: Coward also tells us at his practice's web page, per "Homeopathy":

"homeopathy is a scientific method of treatment."

Note 03.b.1..: Lewis tells us at her practice's homepage shared with ND E. Lewis:

"we are experts in both the science of medicine."

Note 03.b.2. and Lewis tells us in "What is Classical Homeopathy?":

"homeopathy is a science."

002. homeopathy, is -- of course, as these NDs has stated above -- 'nothing but water'. E.g., Novella, S. (MD GUSM) recently wrote in "Homeopathy Awareness Week":

"I would like people to be aware of the fact that homeopathy is a pre-scientific philosophy that it is based entirely on magical thinking and is out of step with the last 200 years of science [!!!]. People should know that typical homeopathic remedies are diluted to the point that no active ingredient remains, and that homeopaths invoke mysterious vibrations or implausible and highly fanciful water chemistry. I would further like people to know that clinical research with homeopathic remedies, when taken as a whole, show no effect for any such remedy [...] I am all in favor of homeopathic awareness. The scientific community should use this week to make the public acutely aware of the fact that homeopathy is, put simply, utter rubbish. It is a classic pseudoscience and has no place in a 21st century science-based health care system."

Note: in other words, labeling homeopathy a "medicinal science" is absurd -- misconceptions aside!

003. warning, NDs are not the 'competent science-qualified physicians' that they claim to be.

Naturopathy's Electrodermal Screening [Pseudo]"Science" - Hopkins, C. (ND FNUN)

here, I cite the "science" label -- by an ND of the non-AANP variety -- placed upon quite 'scientifically-decided nonsense' [see 001., below]; and I briefly analyze the 2009 article from the Oklahoman that got this up on my radar, which calls sCAM's BUNK "cutting edge" [see 002.,below]: 

 

001. Hopkins, C. (ND FNUN) states in "Services: Electro-Dermal Screening":

"electro-dermal screening is actually utilizing pathometry [measurement of disease] or the measurement of disturbed electron flow in the body. The measurements are obtained at the acupuncture site mainly on the hands and the feet [...] it is a 'data acquisition process' used to determine the areas of electrical imbalances in the body. It allows the practitioner to conduct an 'interview' with the body’s organs and tissues, showing much about the basic function of those areas [...] the system has been designed to send an electrical current through electrical pathways or meridians recognized by scientists throughout most of the world. Many pathways (meridians) have been verified by thousands of years of use within the science [of?] acupuncture while others have been recently discovered by modern science. Each pathway corresponds to organs or systems within the body itself [...] we would then team together and use nutritionals and homeopathics for a time to neutralize the allergen and detoxify the body."

Note: note the science-y language, particularly the word "science" [;)]. When, actually -- meridians don't exist per science and the EDS diagnostic method is BUNK, and so are the therapeutics [per homeopathy, and per detox]. The diagnosis and treatment of disease is, by the way, what most consider to be practicing medicine.

002. the Oklahoman states in "Oklahoma Naturopaths Offer Natural Therapies To Aid In Healing" (2009-06-21) [vsc 2012-02-21]:

"[as reported by Jennifer Palmer] cutting-edge natural therapies [...] at Healthy Solutions [...per] Hopkins and two other practitioners use reflexology, bio-energetic screening [EDS]and other methods, whereas Taylor specializes in iridology, the study of the iris of the eye."

Note: the AANP and affiliates are cited twice in this article, though the ND in this article is not of that affiliation. This is not clearly stated. We have this promise of "cutting-edge", which most people believe is 'of best current scientific support.' That is not true, it is a mislabel.

Reflexology is BUNK, and iridology is BUNK.

This is journalism?

[this post was mildly revised and reformatted 2012-02-21]:

Addendum: I've tried to find, three years later, naturopath Hopkins on the web.  No luck.  Here's a naturopath who recently made similar claims in 2012: 

"NMD" Griffith had this 2012-01-31 press release [vsc 2012-02-21] which states:

"Barbara Griffin, NMD, CNC, clinical director, Vital Health, Inc. [...says] iridology [is] the scientific interpretation of the iris [...] iridology is the science of interpreting the structure of the iris as it relates to the organs of the body [...] a powerful window to the genetic make-up of the body and means of assessing conditions and levels of health [...] a powerful tool in assessing what is going on inside the body through a painless examination of the eye's iris [...] Dr. Griffin's specialties include traditional naturopathy [...and] EAV Meridian Stress Assessment [...and] iridology, SKASYS, live blood cell analysis [...and] BioCleanse foot detox."

She additionally writes in "About Us" [vsc 2012-02-21]:

"Barbara has a naturopathic degree [her NMD I assume!] from Arkansas College of Natural Health [(something dealing with this school is here)...and is a] certified iridologist."

Naturopathy is a "Harmful Pseudoscience" - Science-Based Pharmacy (2009-05-19):

Gavura, S. (? ?) states in "Ontario Government Repudiates Advice on Naturopathy" (2009-05-15):

"on May 11, the Ontario government announced sweeping new roles and responsibilities for health professionals in Ontario. But the most satisfying part was what the announcement DIDN’T mention. The government’s own advisers had previously recommended that naturopaths be granted the privilege to prescribe drugs. This advice was resoundingly rejected. Is the Ontario government starting to realize that naturopathy is harmful pseudoscience? Let’s hope so."

Note: the author reminds us "[that naturopathy's] homeopathy is recognized by the scientific community as disproven practice that involves the provision of placebo therapies." Homeopathy [amongst other woo] is why I left N.D. school: it is quite an ethically repugnant thing to claim that the inert is in fact proufoundly effective.

Overall, naturopaths, due to the falseness of their claim that the profoundly science-ejected is scientific, do not meet the ethical structures required of a professional.

Naturopathy is epistemologically repugnant.