001.a. the BCNA has stated, regarding naturopathy, [archived since 2006 for posterity], in "About Naturopathic Medicine: The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" by Cassie, G. (? ?):
So, in the absurd land of naturopathy, lies of omission and obscurity are ethically fine, and the science-ejected is the same thing as the science-based. I find it ethically repugnant.
Additionally, BCNA has emphasized (here) :
001.b. the BCMA has stated, regarding its goals, in "The BCMA Submission to Minister George Abbott on Proposed Amendments to the Naturopathic Physicians Regulation" (2009-02-19) :
002.a. the NDNR article "British Columbia Association: Scope of Practice Update" (NDNR 2009-09, Vol. 5, Iss. 9) written by BCNA President Kind, C. (ND NCNM) states:
Note: so, we have the claim that the naturopathic is science-based, meets the ethical strictures of professionalism, and overall that naturopathy's 'ways' are a benefit to the public. I say 'more bullshit' - this severely harms the positions of professionalism and science. It's HUGELY absurd that the 'false ones a.k.a. naturopathy' can claim -- with impunity, while they hold a false position with impunity a.k.a an education racket -- that they have the higher ground regarding 'the scientific' and 'medical'.
It is an interesting question as to whether BCNA has libeled BCMA.
002.b. that same NDNR issue states naturopathy's essential science-ejected sectarian vitalism per publisher and SCNM ND Tallman, and kind.
003. what naturopathy has to offer, overall - falsehood, exploitation and the degradation of standards [the hugely science-ejected falsely labeled scientific, traded to a trusting public both clinically and educationally].