here, I cite from a recent interview of one NCNM ND by another at Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ] regarding evidence based medicine [EBM; see 001., below]; then, I illuminate the 'actual naturopathic' [see 002., below]; and, I muse on the lunacy [see 003., below]:
001. in NMJ's "Clinical Roundtable (audio)" [saved 2010-11-06], Kaczor, T. (ND NCNM 2000) and Barrett, R. (ND NCNM 1986) state:
"ND Kaczor: Dr. Barrett, as you know, there is a general acceptance of the evidence-based model as the paradigm in which all medicine should be practiced [...] in particular randomized-controlled trials [00.00.43...] can you speak to some of the pros and cons of using evidence-based medicine in the application of naturopathic care [00.00.58]?
ND Barrett: [00.01.03] I actually prefer the term evidence-informed medicine [...] I'm definitely leaning towards the pro side [00.01.14...] but, on the other side, I'm very much a naturopathic doctor in philosophy and outlook as well. I think a lot of people say that you kind of have to pick one side: either [the] scientific point of view or have fidelity to naturopathic philosophy. I think that's really a false dichotomy [00.01.56...with the philosophical context including] the Therapeutic Order [TO...and] the Naturopathic Principles [NP, 00.02.17...and then quotes] David Young [...] someone outside the field [...who is not an ND then, obviously, said, defending naturopathy,] 'naturopathic physicians are in the possession of the same set of scientific facts as conventional physicians, but conscienciously differ on how to apply that knowledge.' I think that sums it up pretty well [00.02.44].
ND Barrett: [00.15.00] We always want to use the filter of the philosophy."
Note: so, there is a strong claim of the naturopathic being science, and there's talk of within all that are the NP and TO filters. What is, specifically, within these 'filters'?
002. hmmmm, their filtering -- 'the actual naturopathic' / the 'essentially naturopathic' -- is, indeed, science-ejected woo [these are only two aspects of this sectarian belief system, there are many more!]:
002.a. naturopathy's vitalism, via their TO, is stated in their textbook's chapter, "Chapter 3 - A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order: The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine":
"the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature. This is the first step in the hierarchy of healing and what naturopathic physicians may call the overarching clinical theory of naturopathic medicine: the therapeutic order [p.034]."
Note: vitalism is hugely science-ejected.
002.b. naturopathy's supernaturalism, via their NP, on one of their State board '.gov' web pages, the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine's "Naturopathy", which states:
"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 [...#1] nature heals through the response of the life force [...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher [...] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual [...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors."
Note: any supernaturalism is hugely science-ejected, though the OBNM claims in these principles' contents such is "objective" and "in fact" able to survive scientific scrutiny. Notice that vitalism is in there too, just as falsely claimed to be just as scientific.
003. so, here's the 'naturopathy lunacy':
the hugely not science claimed as science.
Note: so, in the ultimate reversal of values, naturopathy is essentially 'science-ejected based medicine' [SEBM].
I would place scientific rigor on this continuum, starting from least to most scientifically rigorous: SEBM, EBM, SBM [science-based medicine].
SEBM is categorically / by definition, NOT SCIENCE.
You can find this lunacy explicitly stated at the alma mater and employer of these two NDs, NCNM. This is truly the naturopaTHICK.