An Invitation From an Academic Mislabeling Racket: AANMC's NUHS-Centered Webinar, 2009-11-12:

I recently received an email from the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] inviting me to a webinar, wherein naturopathy is labeled as science and professional [see 001., below]; I then look at what AANMC says about naturopathy, and what NUHS's ND lead, who is part of that webinar, says in his 2008 naturopathy textbook [see 002., below]; and, then I THINK about this falsehood in terms of academic loans [see 003., below]:

001. AANMC states:

001.a. in "November 12 Naturopathic Medicine Informational Webinar":

"for this event, the AANMC is proud to introduce Rachel Marynowski, a fourth-year student at National University of Health Sciences (NUHS) [...] our webinar will also include presentations by naturopathic medicine professionals [...] including 'An Introduction to Naturopathic Medicine' presented by Dr. Fraser Smith, assistant dean of the NUHS naturopathic medicine program."

Note: so, we have the label of science and professional upon the naturopathic.  And, we have Smith. The webinar agenda can currently be accessed here, where AANMC tells us: "this event is sponsored jointly by the seven accredited colleges of naturopathic medicine comprising the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC)."

001.b. in "Student Profile: Rachel Marynowski, Naturopathic Medical Student, Class of 2010":

"prior to entering naturopathic medical school, Rachel attended the University of Georgia, where she received a bachelor of science degree in public health [...] Rachel plans on returning to Georgia, where she was born and raised, to practice traditional naturopathy in an integrative setting."

Note: again, AANMC explicitly links naturopathy to SCIENCE, and I'd argue 'typical academic science' at that.  Also, this person will be a 'typical ND' per "traditional naturopathy."

002. what does AANMC & Smith say about naturopathy [and is it honest & true]?

002.a. AANMC states on their web site:

002.a1. that they are comprised of, per their homepage: "Bastyr University, Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine, The Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, National College of Natural Medicine, Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, University of Bridgeport [UB, where I did most of an ND], National University of Health Sciences."  True enough.

002.a2. that naturopathy is science-based.

Note: AANMC states that this is typical science.  This isn't true, or honest.  Now, because they claim professions-level ethical status, they must be held to the highest of ethical strictures.  It is not at all difficult to research the scientific status of what is the naturopathic, and to find that such is indeed hugely not science.  This false 'due diligence' of 'scientific professionalism', therein, I consider a deliberate ruse.

002.a3. that naturopathy is based on the "healing power of nature [HPN]".

Note: now, HPN is not being honestly contextualized here.  You are not being informed.  You are being, in my view, manipulated and deceived. The language is falsely naturalistic and is quite incomplete. HPN is mentioned three times on the page, yet AANMC never here shares the in fact sectarian belief that HPN is: vitalism, which I usually encapsulate as a belief in a 'purposeful life spirit' running the body.  Also, at UB, I was taught not only that HPN is a "life force", but also that it is a concept which I have termed 'autoentheism', that that HPN / life force is, as they call it there, "god power within".  This AANMC page disgusts me with its huge level of deceit, since naturopathy's HPN ['the vis'] is hugely science-ejected, and they don't reveal that at their upper-most echelon academic consortium's supposed definition webpage.

002.b. Smith's 2008 naturopathy text:

002.b1. so, Smith of this supposed SCIENCE university that contains presumably the SCIENCE degree known as naturopathy has written the naturopathic textbook "An Introduction to Principles and Practices of Naturopathic Medicine" (ISBN 9781897025253; 2008).  Smith states, regarding 'the vis', in the chapter "Naturopathic Philosophy and History":

"naturopathic medicine [...uses] therapies that support the person’s self-healing potential. Naturopathic medicine is the embodiment of a tradition in medicine that could rightfully be called 'vitalistic' [...] the vitalistic tradition is based on the premise that the body has an inherent ability to heal, a premise referred to in Latin as vis medicatrix naturae, healing power of nature [HPN], and that the human being is a dynamic creation of body, mind, and spirit, more than the sum of its parts [p.018...] vis medicatrix naturae. Co-operate with the healing power of nature. The concept of a healing power of nature [...] a healing power inherent in the organism [...] this power [...] this healing power [...] the vis [...] the flexibility and open-ended nature of this concept is a good thing. The bounded rationality of any particular individual or group cannot capture the entire meaning [...] the vis is the core focus of the Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine, the most elaborate guide to the profession available. The discernment of the necessity of working with the vis medicatrix naturae is what makes naturopathic medicine a distinctive field. In practical terms, the principle of vis medicatrix naturae means that we work with the self-healing systems of the body [...] the self healing drive [...] a dynamic, intelligent, and adaptable system to restore function, integration, and dynamism. This healing force is not a separate entity from us that 'inhabits' our body and 'heals' us; rather, we are talking about the very nature of the human being. The vis is the inborn power of the individual to adapt and to heal [...] this power [...] our power to adapt and heal [...] all physicians rely on the vis [...]  the vis medicatrix naturae [...] the vis medicatrix nature - the healing power of nature [p.019...] supporting, stimulating, or unchaining the vis [p.022]."

Note: so, the vitalistic HPN is the essentially naturopathic.  Included in the concept is a form of supernaturalism, per "spirit".  "Intelligence" implies purpose which implies goal-directedness, a.k.a. teleology.  Therein, 'purposeful life spirit'. Again, AANMC has said that naturopathy is science-based and HPN based at the same time.

002.b2. and Smith also states, regarding naturopathy as 'of the professions' level scientific':

"[per NUHS's president Winterstein] the [naturopathic] profession needed this textbook of fundamentals to help standardize naturopathic curriculum in health science colleges [preface...and per Smith, the] science [...] of naturopathic medicine [...] may we all better understand the art of medicine, the science of the human organism [p.008...] this book is also designed for patients with a basic health-science education [p.010]."

Note: so we have the professions claim, and the science label.

003. so, overall:

naturopathy claims that within science is the vitalistic and the supernatural, while both are outside of science.  The absurdity is obvious: naturopathy claims that something is what it is not.  I consider this an 'academic mislabeling racket', minimally.  I can only imagine the huge amount of money going into these seven North American ND granting schools under false pretenses / labels.  I believed naturopathy's mislabelings way back, and those education loans are going to be with me for the rest of my life.  So, I can't imagine there being a statute of limitations for anyone carrying loans from pursuit of an ND, as it is oftenmost Federal debt that cannot be dismissed.  Yet, I anticipate a day of reckoning.

An ND's 'Science Expertise Claim' & Homeopathic Vaccination - Fullerton, K. (ND CCNM):

here, I cite from an article about [aboot!] Canadian ND Fullerton written by Lawson in the Barrie Advance of Ontario, Canada which labels naturopathy professional, of a science pedigree, and offers guidance [ha!] regarding 'homeopathic vaccination' which apparently is as efficacious as actual vaccination [see 001., below]; then, I show from her own web page that she codes naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise [see 002., below] and also on another page expressly states naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise [see 003., below]:

001. reporter Lawson, M. (? ?) states, regarding Fullerton, K. (ND CCNM), in "Vaccine Not Solution For All: Naturopath" (2009-11-04):

"proponents of alternative medicine may be surprised to know local naturopathic doctor (ND) Kerri Fullerton doesn’t encourage everyone to turn their back on flu clinics [!!!...as an ND she is a] regulated and licensed professional [...] with at least seven years of post-secondary education in medical sciences [...] Fullerton explains her general opposition to vaccinations of any kind (pharmaceutical or homeopathic [!!!]) is their one-solution-fits-all approach to health care. 'It’s not the way I was taught homeopathy' [...and then says regarding whatever treatment, GENERALIZING!] 'that most people can benefit from them' [...] she stresses the importance of keeping the germs from taking hold  [...] 'the more you disrupt their terrain, the less likely they are to take hold'".

Note:

Loving the supposed 'professional' and 'science expertise' claims.  

So, in terms of her "general opposition to vaccinations", does she merely encourage MOSTLY EVERYONE then to avoid them?  How can herd immunity occur if that is the case? We know that vaccines work and are safe.  Opposing them?  For what?  Mostly everyone NEEDS TO GET THEM!

Ha, the illogic of staying 'generalizations are not what I do' and then stating, 'this is what I'd generally do'!

And regarding 'homeopathic vaccination', what are the ethics of treating someone with NOTHING a.k.a. homeopathy, and then telling them that they are protected from future infection?  All the while claiming professionalism and a science pedigree!  And what is "terrain"?  I can only assume it is the human body, because that's what's mentioned as the place to stop the germs from taking hold.  Is that what hand-washing is...disrupting terrain?  I thought it is about washing germs off the skin.  Merely disrupting hand terrain wouldn't do that; clapping your hands together would do that. 

In terms of an ND education, in fact, on Fullerton's own biography page, she writes "Kerri Fullerton, BSc, ND".  So, that BSc with her ND amounts to about 8 years of 'science'.  Science, science, science. 

And on her "Frequently Asked Questions" page, we're informed that "naturopathic doctors have a minimum of seven years post-secondary education. An undergraduate degree with a focus on human sciences is a pre-requisite to acceptance at a naturopathic school. Naturopathic doctors receive extensive training in basic medical sciences [...] naturopathic doctors speak the same language as your MD [...] any medical condition is something that an ND could treat."

 And in "Naturopathic Medicine", she tells us:

"naturopathic doctors (ND) [...are] integrating scientific research with the healing powers of nature [coded vitalism...] ND’s have a variety of treatment options that are designed to work with the body’s inherent ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] by looking at the whole person [...per] physical, mental and spiritual aspects [supernaturalism...] training for naturopathic doctors includes several different treatment modalities [...including] botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, lifestyle counseling, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture [TCM]."

It is not strange that NDs don't honestly reveal their vitalistic context [to me], nor that of homeopathy or TCM: pretending science is naturopathy's m.o.

002. following up on naturopathy's essential homeopathy, she states in "Homeopathic Medicine":

"homeopathy [...] these remedies stimulate the body’s inherent ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] no two people experience an illness in the same way."

Note: the coded vitalism is typical of naturopathy.  The idea that illnesses are so absolutely unique flies in the face of the science, and homeopathy.  How is any knowledge possible if illnesses are so idiosyncratic?  And anyway, homeopathy generalizes remedy types from COMMONLY SHARED symptoms.  Hilarious.

003. following up on naturopathy's essential vitalism, she expressly states on her page "Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture":

"traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) [...] this system of medicine recognizes that blocked energy (chi) leads to pain, disease and impaired organ function. The role of acupuncture in TCM is to remove blocked energy by inserting needles at specific points along energy meridians. This allows the chi to move through channels with ease."

Note: energy, a scientific concept, is being used here to represent "chi", a vitalistic superstition.  Chi simply doesn't exist, just as its pathways don't exist. So do you wonder: why is a supposed science expert unable to tell the difference between what's 'in evidence' and an archaic figmentation?

Vitalistic Oncology - CTCA's Naturopathic Medicine:

here, I quote from Cancer Treatment Centers Of America's Naturopathic "Bone Cancer" web page [see 001., below]:

001. CTCA states in "Bone Cancer Treatments - Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine centers on using the least invasive, most physiologically supportive methods possible to treat illness and diseases such as bone cancer [...] to assist in maintaining your physical well-being, building strength, and reducing the side effects of conventional bone cancer treatments [...] the naturopathic scope of practice [...is based on] the[se] six naturopathic principles of healing [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine is based on the following principles: [#1] the healing power of nature.  Your body is designed to inherently establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The role of the naturopathic practitioner is to facilitate and augment this process [...] naturopathic practitioners respect and work with the healing power of nature in bone cancer diagnosis, treatment and counseling [...] naturopathic therapies seek to leverage the inherent ability of the body to achieve wellness [...] the practitioner must strive to inspire hope as well as understanding."

002. what's so interesting about all this is that this "life force" premise is hugely science-ejected, a huge fiction & superstition.  Yes, the human body can heal -- but, that's not how.  The same page tells us that homeopathy is powerful.  Enough said.

Popularizing Pseudoscience & Opacity -- David Suzuki and the Ontario Naturopaths:

here, I reflect on the upcoming opening address that hyperscientist-biologist David Suzuki [see 001., below] will give at the Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors [OAND] annual conference [see 002., below].  It doesn't get more absurd: 

001. Suzuki's 'hyperscience' credentials:

001.a. according to Wikipedia:

"Suzuki received his B.A. from Amherst College of Massachusetts in 1958, and his Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Chicago in 1961 [(so he is a biologist)...] for his work popularizing science and environmental issues, he has been presented with 22 honorary [science] degrees."

Note: the most common honorary science degree of those 22 that Suzuki has been awarded is the D.Sc.. According to Wikipedia:

"[a] Doctor of Science [...] usually abbreviated Sc.D., D.Sc., S.D. or Dr.Sc., is an academic research degree [...] Sc.D. (or D.Sc.) is recognized by both the United States Department of Education and the National Science Foundation to be equivalent to the more commonly awarded Ph.D."  So, to a large extent, Suzuki is a scientist of the 23rd doctoral degree!  A hyperscientist.

001.b. now, on Suzuki's own web site, apparently or supposedly, "Science Matters".

001.c. and apparently, Suzuki is held in high regard by large science-advocacy academic professional organizations, like the California Science Teachers Association,  who recommend him.

002. OAND's pseudoscience credentials & opacity, and DTS as their keynote:

002.a. the blatant pseudoscience that is naturopathy [once you peel away the facade]:

002.a1. naturopathy is obligated to science-ejected or 'exterior-to-science' ideas / premises which cannot truthfully be labeled science or scientific.  But, naturopathy does that anyway -- academically & clinically.  I have collected examples of naturopathy's essential vitalism premise usually stated as "healing power of nature" [HPN], and vitalism's not-science nature.  HPN is, overall, a supernatural premise being disguised in naturalistic & scientific language. I have collected examples of naturopathy's explicit supernaturalism.  And, I've collected naturopathy's self-labeling as science.

002.b. here's an example from a newspaper-published naturopath, Johnson, L. (ND ?) in the Alamogordo Daily News, who's article "What Is a Naturopath?" (2009-10-29) states:

"naturopathy draws from many modalities that promote the body's natural healing process [coded vitalism...] this health science has been recognized since the late 1800s [...] the following are fundamental principles that set naturopaths apart from conventional medicine. We believe in the healing power of nature [coded vitalism....I] will take you through knowledge of sciences that have been used for more than 5,000 years [...and her diagnostics and therapies include such gems as] iridology, live cell analysis, oxygen/ozone therapy, lymphatic decongestion, biological terrain analysis."

Note:  I'm exceptionally fascinated when an ND doesn't fully disclose the fundamental principle of naturopathy in easily understood language and then labels the whole nonscientific muddle science.  Iridology (and kind) is nonsense as a diagnostic tool, much like labeling the profoundly science-ejected as science is absurd.  Now, Johnson is apparently an ANMA type ND, not an AANP-CAND type.  But it doesn't matter: they all label the nonscientific science, from their academic institutions to the exam room to their political entities.

002.c. at OAND's web site, we are told in:

002.d. "About Us", four times that naturopathy is a profession, that OAND advocates for science, and seeks "to develop guidelines and standards of practice for excellence in patient-centred care".

Note: not sure how professionalism, science, and excellence can happen from a basis of absurdity and false-labeling.

002.e. "Frequently Asked Questions":

"naturopathic medicine is regulated and licensed in Ontario [...] naturopathic doctors are the only regulated health professionals in the field of natural medicine in Ontario [...] the Naturopathy Act will move the regulation of Naturopathic Doctors under the Regulated Health Professions Act, joining all other regulated health professions  [...] naturopathic doctors are highly educated  [...having] training in basic medical science courses [and] clinical sciences [...] NDs obtain comprehensive and rigorous training in an educational structure similar to that of medical doctors [...] following the completion of their program, NDs must successfully complete the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX) in order to qualify for licensing in Ontario. NPLEX is the standard examination used by all regulated provinces and states across North America [...] as outlined in the educational requirements above, becoming a Naturopathic Doctor requires intensive and rigorous training comparable to that of medical doctors."

Note: the NPLEX is so good that it labels homeopathy a "clinical science".  What is happening is that just as science is being turned upside down by naturopathy, professionalism is as well.  And the government of Ontario is party to this labeling of the absurd as science, professional, intensive and rigorous.

002.f. "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine":

"support the healing power of the body [coded vitalism]. The practice of naturopathic medicine recognizes an ordered and intelligent self-healing process that is inherent to every individual [coded vitalism]. NDs work to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery and to facilitate this natural self-healing process [coded vitalism...] acknowledge, respect and work with the individual self-healing process [coded vitalism]."

Note: that's all you get.  And that's not enough - because naturopathy's actual vitalistic nature isn't transparently revealed.

002.g. "Modalities of Naturopathic Medicine":

"homeopathy. Based on the principle of 'like cures like', homeopathic medicine uses minute amounts of natural substances to stimulate the self-healing abilities of the body [coded vitalism...] Asian medicine & acupuncture.  Based on balancing the flow of chi (energy) [vitalism] through the meridian pathways, Asian medicine includes the use of acupuncture and Oriental herbs."

Note: homeopathy is a joke, period -- presented to the patient as medicine when EMPTY essentially.  Chi, of course, is not energy in any scientific sense.  It doesn't exist.

002.h. "Dr. David Suzuki Event":

"this [electronic] presentation by Dr. David Suzuki will mark the opening of the [2009] OAND annual convention."

Note: well, overall, I find anyone's participation with these science charlatans ethically unacceptable.  Naturopaths are, after all, essentially out to destroy the domain of science, to increase their commerce by means of false science labels, and to disseminate in a very opaque manner their science-ejected belief system.  In that sense, in participating with them and therein promoting their agenda with his science status, Suzuki is implying that science doesn't matter -- that science can be anything, which is nonsense, and that the public doesn't deserve the truth from supposed professionals.  What's most absurd is that you have an eminent biologist lending support to vitalists and supernatualists who falsely label such overall as science, while biology and science ejected those ideas decades and hundreds of years ago, respectively.

University of Bridgeport's "Health Science" Advertising 01 - LAMAR 2009-10:

Wow.  Was driving today along I-95 in Stratford.  The University of Bridgeport [UB] has a LAMAR billboard [or something like that -- see this follow-up post http://naturocrit.blogspot.com/2009/12/university-of-bridgeport-health-science.html ] up that invites the public driving by towards their "Health Science" academic programs:

001. those "health science" programs include naturopathy, chiropractic and acupuncture.

Note: woo galore.

002. now, naturopathy per UB is based upon the vitalistic, which is science-ejected.

Note: this is a fact.

003. again, wow.  Such predatory falseness still, to this day, drops my jaw.
 

PZ Meyers on University of Minnesota's Support of Naturopathy: 'I Despise Such Quacks at U.M.' (2009-10):

here, I cite some words between myself and PZ Meyers from his Pharyngula blog which is hosted by scienceblogs.com.  He was not pleased with the University of Minnesota's [UM] response to a recent incident, which reminded me of 'UM's big support for naturopathy without a single disclaimer' on the page.  I thought a scientist's opinion would be interesting.  It was: 

001.a. PZ Meyers recently wrote in "Shame on the University of Minnesota!":

"during some football game, our mascot, Goldy the Gopher, [supposedly] mocked a player on the opposing team who thought it was appropriate to ostentatiously kneel down and publicly pray [...] the real disgrace is our [U.M.'s] craven PR flacks [...] I think it ought to be a Minnesota tradition to point and laugh loudly at any player who thinks he gets holy credit with a deity for catching a ball."

Note: UM is where PZ Meyers teaches.

001.b. I'd commented:

"[#125] posted by: daijiyobu | October 23, 2009 11:08 AM.  Speaking of disgraceful acts at the University of Minnesota... PZ, what's your opinion of UM's support for the sCAM called naturopathic medicine (see http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/explore-healing-practices/naturopathy ) where, disgracefully, we're told: 'naturopathic medicine is a science-based tradition [...whose principles are] continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances [...and we] cooperate with all other branches of medical science.' Yet the actually naturopathic [vitalism, supernaturalism & kind] is hugely science-ejected, AND UM and AANP etc. label homeopathy 'science'. This web-page based absurdity is apparently authored by ND Ratte (see http://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/our-experts/paul-ratte-nd ). -r.c."

Note: a sCAM is a "so-called complementary and alternative medicine". UM's article makes some severely strong science-claims concerning the naturopathic.  It states the naturopathic is indeed science.  Ratte is an ND graduate of NCNM, 1997.  You can go to that school and similarly see the profoundly science-ejected labeled science [here].

001.c. PZ's response:

"posted by: PZ Myers Author Profile Page | October 23, 2009 11:14 AM. Don't get me started. I despise the quacks infesting the UM's medical and nursing schools. The Center for Spirituality and Healing [CFSH] recently invited Deepak Chopra to speak on campus. I'd go, except I know I'd be unable to resist rising up in the middle of his talk and shouting 'YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT!' [FOS]."

Note: so, what I found disgraceful, PZ found despicable.  It's all good.

002. naturopathy's as FOS:

my basic formulation is that naturopathy falsely postures the profoundly science-ejected [their vitalism, supernaturalism & kind] as able to survive scientific scrutiny [here] and falsely postures a 'professional ethical' status [here].  

003. naturopathy's central premise -- 'the essentially naturopathic' -- is truly FOS [absurd & insane!]:

disgraceful: yes.

despicable: yes.

A Search Sample of Naturopathic Contextual Coding and Mislabeling via 'accessmylibary.com', 2009:

here, I do an experiment of sorts and search the Gale database 'accessmylibrary.com' with the search parameter >naturopathic medicatrix<. I got 11 hits, 9 of which were useful. What I am most interested in here is whether the actual vitalistic premise [a.k.a. VMN] of naturopathy is communicated clearly to the reader, i.e. whether that premise is honestly explained as a hugely nonscientific sectarian belief, or instead, naturopathy miscommunicates and misleads [take a guess, most of the time, what happens!]:

001. so, this is them:

001.a. "Epistemology of Naturopathic Medicine [...]", from the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients [TLDP] 2005, by then NCNM student Krebs, R.M. (ND NCNM 2005) which states:

"[naturopathy's] six philosophical tenets [were] developed with the 1985 formation of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians: 1. vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] (the healing power of nature)."

Note: there is no clear communication of naturopathy's essential vitalism.  There is no clear communication of vitalism's science-ejected status.

001.b. "Naturopathic Medicine: What Can Patients Expect? [...]", from the Journal of Family Practice 2005, by NDs Dunne (ND NCNM 1989), Kim (ND ?), Mittman (ND NCNM 1985), Barrett (ND NCNM 1986), Snider (ND Bastyr 1982), and Pizzorno (ND NCNM 1975), which states:

"[there are supposedly!!!] inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes [...] naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature [...] the goal of naturopathic medical education is to prepare clinicians for the challenges of general practice with a foundation in current medical science."

Note: again, VMN's context is not transparently communicated, while science, particularly medical science, is claimed as a foundation of the naturopathic.

001.c. "Naturopathic Medicine", from American Fitness 2004, by ND Wotton, B. (ND Bastyr 1995), which states:

"treatment plans recommended by NDs are based on the six guiding principles of naturopathic philosophy: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). NDs support the inherent healing wisdom of the body to promote, maintain or restore normal function [...] naturopathic doctors complete a four-year, graduate-level, accredited naturopathic medicine program to receive a doctorate of naturopathy (N.D.) [...] this program is similar to conventional medical education, with the first two years concentrating on medical sciences."

Note: again, VMN is not contextually explained and medical science expertise is claimed.

001.d. "Naturopathic Medicine, Integrative Medicine and Women's Health", from TLDP 2001, by ND Hudson, T. (ND NCNM 1984), which states:

"[there are] seven principles are the foundation for Naturopathic medicine: 1. the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae).  The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain and restore health [...] natural medicine has also matured, particularly in the areas of scientific research, educational institutions, virtual numbers of licensed practitioners, and professionalism, and is now poised to serve those who seek its gentle ways [...it is a] vitalistic holistic healing art [...based on] our vitalistic philosophy."

Note: now, we get some transparency, but I completely disagree with the label "profession" and "science" upon the essentially naturopathic.

001.e. "Healing Communities", from Alternatives Journal 2005, by ND Meyer, M. (ND ?), which states:

"naturopathic medicine bases itself on the principle vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [...and later mentions] the vital force [VF]."

Note: but, there is no mention of where VMN/VF stands in relation to science.

001.f. "Naturopathy: Prevention Before Cure [...]", from Natural Life 1997, by Gervais, R. (ND Bastyr 1993), which states:

"vis medicatrix naturae -- the healing power of nature. Fundamental to the practice of naturopathic medicine is a profound belief in the ability of the body to heal itself, given the proper opportunity [...] vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature, to denote the body's ability to heal itself  [...] the first two years concentrate on the standard human biological sciences [...] the second two years are oriented towards the clinical sciences [...] the therapeutic sciences."

Note: again, no explanation of VMN as being essentially science-ejected.

001.g. "William (Bill) Mitchell, Jr. ND [ND NCNM] (in memoriam)", from TLDP 2007, by ND Reichenberg-Ullman, J. (ND Bastyr 1983), which states:

"Bill had an unfailing belief and confidence in the power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature)."

Note: ditto.

001.h. "Botanical Solutions [...]", from TLDP 2002, by Walker, M. (? ?), which states:

"the human body holds a restorative capacity, the vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: ditto.

001.i. "Whole Foods [...]", from TLDP 2003, by NDs Meletis (ND ?) and Barker (ND SCNM), which states:

"our understanding of vis medicatrix naturae [...] Dr. Meletis [...] sits on scientific advisory boards."

Note: ditto.

002. I'm not surprised.  Generally, science is claimed by naturopathy and their nonscientific vitalistic premise isn't transparently communicated -- lets call this misinformed consent.  And lets call all this SLIMY.

Note: a lot of the NDs listed above are NCNM or Bastyr grads.  You can go to NCNM's web page where they explicitly state the essential vitalism [and supernaturalism] of naturopathy and tell us all that such survives scientific scrutiny, which is false.  You can go to Bastyr's page where they state that naturopathy is "science based natural medicine", which, again, is false.

Jerry Kopel - You Are Wrong (Colorado Statesman, 2009-10-16):

001. in "Kopel: Will Sun Rise on Naturopathic Medicine?  Medical Society Spurns Naturopath Regulation" Jerry Kopel (? ?) writes:

"the NP [ND!] practice can be summarized as 'helping the body heal itself in the least invasive, most fundamental curative manner possible' [...] NPs function under regulation, they have successfully attended accredited four-year graduate level naturopathic medical schools [...] practitioners who don’t meet the high standards set out for NPs [etc.]."

002. actually, 'the ND practice' is based upon the concept of vitalism falsely labeled science and usually, as above, relayed in coded language. To state otherwise is to mislead, or be ignorant.  You'd hope somebody writing in a newpaper would do some research first:

there are no such high standards for NDs, particularly via the AANP schools mentioned. E.g., where else but naturopathy do you find a sectarian belief set, claimed as nonsectarian, and science when actually science-ejected?

AANP Falsely Labels Naturopathy a "Scientific"- and "Common Sense"- Based Profession (ISBN 9781935297185, 2009):

here, I quote from a 2009 paper-based booklet authored by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP]. I find so much of it, frankly, to be duplicitous / false [in other words: typical of the ND realm]. In this booklet, the AANP labels naturopathy: of professional-level in ethical stricture, scientific, rigorous, while bound to the ND principles [see 001.a. through 001.c., below]. I illustrate the AANP's nontransparency / coding of naturopathy's essential premise [after they've told us to trust them, that they meet professional ethical strictures!]; and I compare AANP's language in the booklet to the language of the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners [OBNE] who promise us that vitalism and supernaturalism are science, and that naturopaths are professionals [see 003., below]; and I caution [see 004., below]:

001. the AANP states in "Naturopathic Medicine: Wisdom of Nature, Rigors of Science" (Better Nutrition Magazine's Healthy Living Guide; vol. 19 2009; ISBN 9781935297185) [available through online bookstores]:

001.a. by way of general overview, per the booklet's cover:

"[naturopathy is ] patient-centered health care [...and NDs are] experts [...] providing safe and effective healthcare [...naturopathy has] a strong foundation of steep tradition and scientific validation [...] this booklet provides comprehensive information about naturopathic medicine from a trusted source [...the AANP, which] is a professional society [...whose] vision is to transform the healthcare system [...] to a comprehensive health program incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine."

Note: fascinating. We have the claims: "patient-centered" a.k.a. 'they're looking out for you!', 'expertise', 'efficacy', 'a strong science foundation', that we are being 'comprehensively informed', that AANP is 'trustworthy', and "professional". Overall, the AANP's agenda is, explicitly, to get their naturopathic "principles" dominating healthcare [for their essential principles, see 002., below].

001.b. specifically, that naturopathy is science:

"[NDs use] the best of modern medical science [...per meeting] the rigors of modern science [p.004...that ND degrees are granted by] National University of Health Sciences in Lombard, IL [(also listed on p.031)...that NDs study] diagnostic sciences [...and] clinical sciences [p.007...] naturopathic medicine is based on scientific evidence as well as common sense [p.012...] a growing amount of scientific research supports much of what we already know [p.015...] naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence [p.023...] returning to the roots of healing does not mean abandoning science [p.024...in the ND oath, the] science of naturopathic medicine [p.029]."

Note: science, science, science.

001.c. naturopathy's claimed professionalism is stated explicitly:

"[AANP is] a professional society [...] CNME is the only professional body [etc. p.008...] the legitimate naturopathic medical profession [...of] professional organizations [p.009...] "[regarding] license[d] naturopathic physicians. Licensure of health care providers helps ensure public safety and a high standard of professionalism. Professional licensure for naturopathic physicians is presently available [...] the AANP and other professional naturopathic organizations [p.027...] naturopathic physicians have the medical training, the professional network [p.028...] specialty organizations, state associations, and professional affiliates [and they list their North American apparatus p.030, including UBCNM p.031]."

Note: professional, professional, professional.

001.d. naturopathy's claimed of rigor:

"[naturopathy meets] rigors of science [cover...] qualified naturopathic physicians undergo rigorous training before they become licensed healthcare practitioners [(and they list their schools, including UBCNM)...] after graduation from a CNME accredited naturopathic medical program, graduates are eligible to take a rigorous national naturopathic physicians licensing examination (NPLEX) [p.007]."

Note: rigor, rigor, rigor.

002. but, in this booklet, naturopathy's essential premise / context is:

002.a. mainly coded:

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [...the] bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [...NDs are] steeped in [...] principles [p.004...these] principles of naturopathic medicine. [Which] naturopathic physicians base their practice on [...#1] let nature heal [LNH...] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...] this process [p.023..] naturopathic physician's oath [...] the fundamental principles adhered to by naturopathic doctors [...include] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine [...including] to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [HPN, p.029]."

Note: most fascinating is that the words "force", "vitalism", "vitalistic" do not show up in this "comprehensive" and 'trustworthy' document. Instead, we get naturalistic language, and it is not being specific. I will reveal naturopathy's actual context [see 003., below].

002.b. though slightly hinted at contextually:

"homeopathy [...] the father of homeopathy [...] Hahnemann [...] taught that every person has a vital source. He believed that the homeopathic remedy must be diluted enough so that it doesn't overwhelm this vital source [VS], or spiritual core [SC, p.017]."

Note: in sum, LNH/HPN and VS/SC are, upon the preponderance, naturopathy's 'vitalism' [see 003.a., below], which is science-ejected [see 003.b., below]. It should be noted that in this booklet, the AANP is telling us that within the scientific is the supernatural 'vital source'. Science does not contain the supernatural, or support it.

003. naturopathy's essential principle -- vitalism -- via OBNE:

003.a. OBNE states in "About Naturopathy":

"naturopathic medicine is a distinctively natural approach to health and healing that recognizes the integrity of the whole person. Naturopathic Medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing 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 [...naturopathy's] principles [...] distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#1] 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 attempting to heal itself [...] the physician must strive to inspire hope as well as understanding. The physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher [...] naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners trained as specialist in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."

Note: I've collected examples of naturopathy's essential vitalism. I've collected examples of naturopathy's science claim they place upon the essentially naturopathic.

003.b. in reality, vitalism is hugely science-ejected and so is supernaturalism.

004. the AANP's promises / claims are empty and false:

so, where is the common sense? When you label something [science] equivalent to what it hugely isn't [nonscience], that's absurd. Seems to me, the AANP seeks to transform healthcare into their 'hugely burning stupid'.

where is the science? Their ain't none to support vitalism or supernaturalism: science actually REJECTS both.

where is the truth? Your tax dollars are at work deceiving you, via OBNE .gov;
and AANP is at work deceiving you.