An ND Teaches Us About Science [!] - Macart, T. (ND CCNM) at PQBNEWS.com:

here, I cite from a recent article in the Parksville Qualicum News by ND Macart who there poses as a science-expert. I then show how naturopathy is essentially nonscientific, while, en masse, they keep claiming otherwise:

001. British Columbia CCNM ND Macart tells us in “Making Sense of Science” (2009-11-16):

“jumping to conclusions is a mistake made by many researchers and readers when it comes to interpreting science. Initially, a hypothesis is put forward so it may be evaluated by the scientific method. An experiment is designed to support or disprove the hypothesis and then the discussion section deals with any flaws in the experiment that could confound the decided conclusion. In fact, very little science is truly definitive [...and] science begets science.”

And we are warned, and advised:

“[there may be] mercury contamination in our food supply […and to consider] detoxification via chelation [...which is] worth considering and incorporating into one’s healthcare plan […] Dr. Tara Macart owns OPti-Balance Naturopathic Medicine.”

Note: the irony here is killing me. We have an ND posing as an expert in science, and advising from that position about our health. Macart, coincidentally [!], provides chelation therapy at her practice, where it is touted as a virtual panacea.

002. naturopathy's essential vitalism & science expertise claim:

002.a. Macart states in “Naturopathic Medicine”:

“what is naturopathic medicine? […] our goal is to stimulate the body’s natural healing abilities [coded vitalism!…] an individualized treatment plan is proposed to facilitate the healing process [coded vitalism!…] naturopathic principles. [#1] vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature). Based on a tradition of vitalism [yup, vitalism IN THE FLESH], naturopathic medicine evokes the healing power of nature. We all have an inherent capacity to heal ourselves. Naturopathic doctors help patients tap into this power in order to improve their health […and we are assured] with consent, naturopathic doctors support open lines of communication.”

Note: vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected (see here for my collection).  If communication were truly open, we'd be getting informed by naturopathy of what they really are: an unethical sectarian pseudoscience.  Without that information, consent cannot happen [see below].

002.b. the British Columbia Naturopathic Association states in “General FAQs”:

“homeopathy is a highly systematic, scientific method of therapy that respects the wisdom of the body [coded vitalism]. It is a method based on the implementation of a pharmacological law called similars [which doesn't actually exist]. A German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann first pronounced this law, in 1796 [scientific laws are not decreed, they are a preponderance based upon scientific evidence…] homeopathy stimulates the body's natural healing mechanisms [coded vitalism].”

002.c. the American Association of Naturopathic Medical Schools claims that naturopathy is assuredly scientific.  This claim was made personally to me.

003. overall, I will reiterate my usual warning regarding naturopathy:

“danger, Will Robinson...unethical sectarian pseudoscience.”

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism in NDNR 2009-11 - Misak, D. (ND NCNM 2000):

here, I highlight naturopathy's fundamental sectarian belief as recently stated by an NCNM ND in the publication Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [a.k.a. NDNR (or Naturopathic Doctors Are Not Rational!); see 001., below]; and then, I quote from NCNM's quite irrational web page concerning the essentially naturopathic [see 002., below]:

001. Misak, D. (ND NCNM 2000) states in "Holding on to Our Truths: Let's Keep Our Focus on the Patient" [NDNR 2009-11, p.010]:

"[in] our profession [...] we all [NDs] hold to vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] with the recognition that each person has an individual vital force [VF...and we're also told] iridology [is] a science [...and] as we hold to the natural laws inherent in our principles, I think our profession should use science to prove and validate our theories."

Note: so, there's the "profession" claim, and obviously naturopathy's VMN=VF.  Now, such vitalism is not anything like science's laws of nature, or science's idea of what a theory is.  Vitalism is not in any way evidence-supported, and nor is iridology.

002. if you go online to NCNM [National College of Nonsense Medicine!], Misak's alma mater, you are told in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...which] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [these principles are claimed able to survive scientific scrutiny...#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae [HPN=VMN...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent [purposeful]; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force and the rational use of natural agents."

Note: obviously, naturopathy is centered upon vitalism and claims that such in fact survives scientific scrutiny.  But, that is not so.

Therein, naturopathy is hugely irrational / absurd / false, at its foundation.

Blogger Fun with the AANP - 'Science & Profession, Huh?!' (part 1):

so, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] have a blog titled "Physicians Who Care" [PWC], and I asked a simple question there:

001. in the AANP PWC post "Diversity and the Changing Face of Naturopathic Medicine", Alschuler, L. (ND Bastyr) states:

"it is true that with each passing year, I find myself settling a little further back into the proverbial armchair and surveying the profession [...] for many years, I have been alternatively disappointed and alarmed and [sp., at!] the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the naturopathic profession [...] it only makes sense that the naturopathic profession, as a part of its inexorable emergence, embrace diversity [...] naturopathic medicine, itself, is color blind."

Note: we have naturopathy's 'of the professions status' claim GALORE, and a "color blind" claim. 

By the way, a 2009-11-17 press release "Expert Naturopathic Oncologist and Teacher, Lise Alschuler, ND, FABNO Joins Emerson Ecologics as Vice President, Quality and Education":

"Emerson Ecologics looks to bring quality and education within the industry to a new level with Dr. Alschuler's leadership and experience [...] Emerson Ecologics, LLC announces the addition of Lise Alschuler, ND, FABNO to the newly created role of Vice President, Quality and Education [...] Dr. Alschuler is currently president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. 'Lise is passionate about education and quality,' said Fran Towey, CEO of Emerson Ecologics. 'Combined with her experience, she will confirm Emerson's position as a pioneer in the industry for the advancement of quality and education. We are very fortunate to have such an accomplished and recognized professional join our team.'"

So, we have the label again of 'of the professions', and we have this emphasis on education and quality GALORE.

002. well, I asked simply this, in my comment:

"'per: 'naturopathic medicine [...] is color blind.' Might naturopathy also be blind to the parameters of science?" -r.c. naturocrit."

003 because:

naturopathy is not a profession [when exploitative, manipulative & kind] and is blind to the preponderant parameters of science [truly pseudoscientific, sectarian & kind].   In past posts and complants to governing bodies, I've covered this.  

It's as simple as this: ND granting schools falsely label the nonscientific and science-ejected as science.  They are members of the governing AANP, who sets the epistemological perspective and doctrinal creed overarching naturopathy.  How, therein, is the AANP president an expert in education when AANP education is ABSURD?

"Physicians Who Care?"  I don't think so.  What's the point in going to someone who claims the status of physician and 'science-based', and their science is allowed to be ANYTHING?

Scary.  And I say that as a former UBCNM [an AANP school] ND student.

Perhaps, instead of surveying this supposed 'science-based profession', the AANP president should survey what actual science and professionalism are [oh, snap!].

004. just in case my comment or the entire blogpost disappear, I've screencaptured:

005. by the way:

it is AANP & company  whose false descriptors induced me into studying naturopathy at UB.  Naturopathy was labeled 'science not belief' when in fact it is 'nonscientific and belief-centered'.  And UB, to this day, still falsely labels naturopathy science and nonsectarian, when in fact naturopathy is centered upon the science ejected sectarian.

Facebook Fun with the AANMC's 'We Are Science-Based' Mislabeling, 2009-11:

here, I share some communication between myself and the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges [AANMC] per their Facebook page [see 001., below (I've screen-captured it [sc], in case they decide to expunge)]; and, I share my take on AANMC's 'we are CERTAINLY science-based' false self-labeling, particularly based upon what actual, scientific, academic, national organizations say about the essentially naturopathic [see 002., below]:

001. the AANMC:

001.a. has a Facebook page that states:

“considering a career in health care [?…] AANMC schools: Bastyr U., BINM, CCNM, NCNM, SCNM, UBCNM, NUHS.”

.[sc]

.

Note: this is, essentially, an advertisement.  They are attempting to increase their market with certain claims.  This is a commercial page for a claimed 'of the professions consortia' on a social networking site.

001.b. so, I asked this simple question on that AANMC page:

“I'm wondering, is naturopathy based upon science? I've heard different things, and I'd want my medicine to be science-based.”

.[sc]

.

Note: I asked this question based upon 'naturopathy is science' claims made by AANMC on their web pages, e.g. “Naturopathic Medicine - FAQs”, which states:

“q: which classes or literature would be helpful prior to enrollment in a naturopathic physician program A: for a basic science foundation and overall exposure to help prepare you for naturopathic medical studies, consider the following: read the 'Textbook of Natural Medicine' [TNM] – a very comprehensive and often-used reference among NDs and MDs as well.”

001.c. AANMC answered:

“NDs must actually spend more hours studying the sciences than in some allopathic [yikes!  a sectarian label!] medical schools. So the answer to your question is a resounding 'YES!' - naturopathic medicine definitely has its basis in science.”

.[sc]

.

Note: my jaw dropped when I read this...the confident certainty, the absoluteness!  The specific label, in terms of commerce and supposed 'professionalism'!

001.d. my comment to this [false] claim was:

“naturopathy is based upon vitalism and supernaturalism, essentially. I have the textbooks, that's a fact [e.g., TNM!]. Both concepts are in-fact-science-ejected, and therein not science based. And that's a fact.”

.[sc]

.

Note: simply put, facts. And, to quote that great line that Eugenie Scott recently wrote in the U.S. News and World Report article "Scientist Genie Scott's Last Word to Creationist Ray Comfort: There You Go Again" (2009-11-03):

"[per blogmaster Gilgoff] here's the final post in a God & Country debate between scientist Eugenie Scott, who heads the National Center for Science Education [...per Scott] 'anyone who honestly examines the data supporting evolution [& kind] — even a young-earth creationist [or other such sectarian kind] — concludes that the science is strong. If you reject evolution [& kind], you are doing it for religious reasons [& kind]. You're entitled to your religious opinions—but not to your own scientific facts' [a modification of a line often attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan]."

002. what I think, knowing what I know [this label of “science” upon the essentially naturopathic, by AANMC & kind, is bullshit]:

002.a. let's look at what the TNM & co. says. Naturopathy is based upon vitalism & supernaturalism [the hugely science-ejected]:

a) the TNM site has the chapter up for viewing titled "Chapter 3" [a pdf by NDs Zeff, Snider, and Myers; to be archived here].  It states:

"Dr. Sensenig [my UB instructor in 1998, here are my notes on naturopathy's essential premise, from when I was a UB ND student of his] presented 'Back to the Future: Reintroducing Vitalism as a New Paradigm' [very old vinegar, 'new wine' label -- quite egregious poison! p.004...] vitality (properties beyond physiochemical constituents) [supernatural!!!, p.032...] vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [VMN=VF=HPN; and per Sensenig, VMN = autoentheism = a.k.a. god power within]. This is the first step in the hierarchy of healing and what naturopathic physicians may call the overarching clinical theory of naturopathic medicine [therein, the 'essentially naturopathic!']: the therapeutic order [p.034...] address weakened or damaged systems or organs [...e.g.] the life force [p.035...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] an entire physiologic system (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.) [p.036]".

Note: so, the essentially naturopathic is based upon the vitalistic, and a form of theism [minimally] -- when you boil it down.

b) UBCNM, where Sensenig taught me in 1998 under what I consider completely false labels [UB labels naturopathy science, still / to this day -- a page to be archived here ASP], states

in "Six Guiding Principles [#3]" [archived here]:

"illiness [illness!!!] is a purposeful process [teleological!] of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact [a claimed fact!], an expression of the life force [vitalism!] attempting to heal itself [...] this healing process [...] he [the!] viz [vis!] medicatrix naturae."

c) and the supernatural.  The TNM chapter cited above also states regarding the essentially naturopathic supernatural:

"[the TNM also speaks of] mental/spiritual remedies [p.029...] part of the reason for the failures within modern medical science is the mechanistic basis of it, with its fundamental ignorance of and disrespect for [...] the natural laws of physiology governing health and healing, and especially for all things spiritual [p.032...] psycho-emotional/spiritual state [p.033...] the naturopathic physician evaluates the patient with these areas in mind, looking for aspects of disturbance, first in the spirit [p.034...] spiritual integrity. Humans are spiritual beings. They are spirits that reside within bodies. Though the general purview of the physician is the body, that instrument cannot be separated from the spirit, which animates it. If the spirit is disturbed, the body cannot be fundamentally healthy [...] disturbance in the spirit permeates the body and eventuates in physical manifestation [...] at colleges of naturopathic medicine in Australia and North America, faculty work with naturopathic medicine students to develop their ability to perceive the spiritual nature of an individual [p.035...] as [NDs] Pizzorno and Snider wrote: 'we are natural organisms, our genomes developed and expressed in the natural world. The patterns and processes inherent in nature are inherent in us. We exist as part of complex patterns of matter, energy, and spirit' [p.036...] the patient as a whole being: spiritual, mental/emotional, and physical [p.038]."

Note: so, the essentially naturopathic, per AANMC member school UBCNM, is based upon the teleological and vitalistic.  We also get a glimpse of UB naturopathic supernaturalism in "Six Guiding Principles [#4]", and a requirement for supernaturalism from UB NDs in "Six Guiding Principles [#5]".  Vitalism is hugely science-ejected.  As well as supernaturalism. According to the National Center for Science Education [NCSE] hosted page "Appendices: Science; Transitional Fossils; and Embryos":

"by now it should be clear that vitalistic and supernatural hypotheses that invariably postulate vague and amorphous mechanisms whose workings are beyond human comprehension are untestable and uninformative and hence not scientific. In fact they are not even explanations, but statements of unsolvable mysteries beyond the powers of scientific investigation."

002.b.  Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM 1975), that self-proclaimed "science-based natural medicine" dean of this naturopathy revival, sums up the 'sectarian absurdity amalgam' which is the 'naturopathic belief system mislabeled as science' in his article "A Systems Approach to Wellness" excepted from his book "Total Wellness":

"[to be well, you must] live in harmony with your life-force [...] each of us needs to become more aware of the activity of the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) deep within us [...] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life [...including] our life-force (or spirit). Weakness in any of these seven systems results in susceptibilities that allow most common diseases to develop. Follow the recommendations below, strengthen all of these seven systems, and total wellness is yours."

Note: quite a promise.  That naturopathy is science-based is quite a false promise, and in fact absurd. I summarize this fundamental naturopathic science-ejected premise as 'purposeful life spirit', to encapsulate its teleological, vitalistic, and supernatural-spiritistic sectarian characteristic.  The fact that it is mislabeled as science and often disguised is unforgivable.

003. it has been fun playing with AANMC on Facebook.  I look forward to more exchanges.

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.