Benda at AANP's Blog - 'Lofty Nontransparency':

here, I muse on a recent post by ND sympathizer and promoter MD Benda at the AANP's blog page, that had some rather lofty language related to naturopathy's / natural medicine's intentions / plans for Haiti [see 001., below];  then, I cite from an article Benda participated in along with many of the luminaries of AANP naturopathy that did not properly characterize / admit naturopathy's vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological essential sectarian woo [see 002., below]; and, last, I decode that essential naturopathic wacko premise using an ND co-author of Benda's specific language [see 003., below]:

001. Benda, B. (MD ?) in "Haitian Rhapsody" mentions:

"our naturopathic duties to the people of Haiti [...] our role in Haiti will be to restore health and comfort and to teach sustainability after the first wave of emergency care has completed its mission [...] Natural Doctors International, born in 2003 with the goal of bringing naturopathic healthcare to under-served populations while creating socially responsible opportunities for naturopathic physicians, is preparing a humanitarian response to the Haitian crisis [...] the AANP, CAND, all North American medical colleges, NABNE, and NMSA have joined us this effort, and should you choose, you can as well [...] the truth is that the vis medicatrix naturae is not just about the human body; it is about the human soul [true, Pizzorno states that VMN is actually spirit]."

Note: "duty", "sustainability", "socially responsible", "humanitarian", "the truth"?  Let me think.  How can a dishonest and deceptive area like naturopathy posture "duty"?  How can an egregiously illogical and irrational area like naturopathy posture "sustainability"?  How can a false position sold to North American students as true, leading to a magnificent amount of collective expense, posture "social responsibility"?  And "humanitarian"?  Lets see: naturopathy claims that a scientific fact is the same thing as an article of faith, therefore throwing under the bus any possibility of respect for 'freedom of conscience' / 'belief'.  "The truth"?  How can Benda posture "the truth"? I don't think such happened in a certain article he co-authored with the AANP group, where I don't' see any sensitivity for accuracy, completeness, and transparency [see 002., below].
 

002. I recall Benda's contribution to the promotional piece AANP and kind published in the Journal of Family Practice [JFP], wherein we're not at all truthfully / transparently / adequately informed about naturopathy's essential vitalistic, science-ejected premise, titled of all absurdities, "applied evidence".  Six AANP ND luminaries and his MD self state, regarding that core naturopathic principle:

"naturopathic medical practice is based upon the premise that it is intrinsic to the nature of living organisms to heal [...and is centered upon] the inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes [...] naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature".

Note: and that's all we're told there.  One of the co-authors is Pamela Snider, ND who co-chaired naturopathy's 'ND sectarian creed'.   I'm fascinated by the choice of language in that JFP article.  It is quite selective, and it is quite absurd, just like that '.gov' junk thought, 'naturopathic falsehood preponderance' OBNE hosts.  Hmmm, what underlies what's known?  How can you even know it exists, then, if it is beneath the known?  Naturopathy in fact equates scientific fact [the known] with such "inherent" figmentation [the unknown], and the irrationality fascinates me.

003. Luckily, if you read enough of naturopathy's stuff, like co-author ND Snider in:

003.a. the TLDP article "Naturopathic Physician on Her Career Choice: 'No Regrets'" [Benda isn't a contributor or mentioned], you start to see the real naturopathic context:

"naturopathic medicine relies on the vital life force within human beings."

Note: yes, IMAGINARY forces ejected from biology for several decades are supposedly underlying what's known.  Of course, there's no way to actually know this.  This is the 'epistemic conflation' of naturopathy: stating as known what is not known / equating knowledge types / labeling something it is not.

003.b. the TNM Chapter 3:, which Snider also co-authored [Benda isn't a contributor or mentioned], you're told:

"the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] an entire physiologic system [is comprised of] (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.)".

Note: again, naturopathy's science-ejected / science-unsupported IMAGINARY forces are claimed to be responsible for healing, supposedly governing actual physiology -- of course, all falsely labeled as science [physiology!].  

Sorry, but that blog post's lofty language does not impress me: yet, naturopathy's irrationality fascinates me.  It would be a shame if this sCAM got involved with the Haitian people, who are already hugely suffering. 

Imaginary Prophylaxis: Homeopathy Instead of Vaccination - ND Cage, President CNDA:

here, I cite from the website of the President of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association [CNDA] regarding vaccination [see 001., below]; then, from a recent editorial in the San Fransisco Chronicle [see 002., below]; and again, from this ND who promotes homeopathy-as-a-vaccine-replacement [see 003., below]:

001. Cage, A. (ND SCNM 2002) states in "Vaccinations, Natural Immunity and Patient Rights":

"the vaccination process [...] bypasses all the body's outer defenses [and is therefore bad...vaccination] injects pathogenic organisms directly into the bloodstream [bullshit]. To make matters worse, most modern vaccinations are multi-valent [...] consist[ing] of multiple pathogenic organisms, which arrive in the body's bloodstream, at full strength [bullshit...] these pathogens have the full run of the body until the immune system can respond [...and] most of these vaccines contain various preservatives and other contaminants, such as the poison mercury, which can cause their own health problems."

Note: this sounds very false, as well as very antivax.  His facts are simply WRONG.  Vaccines are attenuated, which means that they are not full strength at all.  Therefore, vaccines are not pathogenic, because they are made to import immunity without pathosis. This sounds like typical ND science-illiteracy bullshit posturing as expertise.  The CDC has a web page "Vaccine Safety", if you want some legitimate expertise.

002. the San Fransisco Chronicle has an editorial today, "A Reality Check on Autism and Vaccines", which states:

"many worried and angry parents of an autistic child believe that vaccines may cause the disease. But it's pure myth - disproved by numerous studies and now a final slap from a British journal disowning a report that started the dangerous nonsense.  Will these parents accept reality - and allow their children to receive shots against a dozen or more illnesses? And will fringe groups [naturopathy, anyone?] that play to fears of autism give up their indefensible claims? [naturopathy, anyone?...] the Wakefield study provided an easy and dramatic message: shots [supposedly] cause autism. Avoid vaccines and save your child from the troubling condition. It's [supposedly] a scientific fact confirmed by a doctor. His findings expanded on other, equally ungrounded fears about other contaminants in vaccines [!!!]. But it was pure quackery [...it was] a flawed theory [...and all about] a disregard for science [naturopathy, anyone?]."

003. ND Cage tells us on the same page as 001.:

"treat prophylactically with homeopathy [that is, inert 'remedies'] during known outbreaks of infectious diseases [so you can falsely believe you are protected!!!...] homeopathy has been used as a preventive measure during known epidemics and has been shown to reduce both the incidence of diseases and the severity in people who do catch the illness [so why does Boots Pharmacy state otherwise?].  Treat prophylactically with homeopathy according to a schedule [so, endanger children!!!]. This in essence is similar to the vaccination process, but without the side effects of the vaccinations [and without any immunity imparted!!!]."

Note: we are told at ND Cage's biography page:

"he is currently a contributing author to the Foundations Project, a collaborative, international effort to produce a new textbook on naturopathic philosophy [which I am eager to read!!! I'll add it to my collection of ND absurdities], which is a synthesis of the traditions of naturopathic medicine [sectarian articles of faith and sCAM] and the advances of modern science [junk thought, like the above!!!]. Dr. Cage's chapter is on the Physics of the Vital Force." 

Yes, naturopathy's vitalism will be interpreted through physics.  That is, the science-ejected placed into science as if -- by a nonphysicist.  If forces belong in physics, and there is no such thing as a life force, hmmm.  Doesn't seem that vitalism-within-science can happen.  I'm thinking that the scientific basis for the science-ejected / science-unsupported is INSANE.

That's naturopathy.  INSANE.

UK BHA Homeopaths 'Misrepresented Science':

here, I cite from an article recently published in The Guardian concerning homeopathy and its homeopatheticness:

Ian Sample (? ?) reports in "Homeopathic Society 'Misled' MPs in Inquiry" (2010-02-05):

"the British Homeopathic Association has been accused of misrepresenting scientific evidence on alternative medicine in documents it gave to a parliamentary inquiry [...] 'it is extremely disappointing to be fed misrepresentations of science, whether it's deliberate or incompetence,' said Evan Harris MP, science spokesman for the Lib Dems and a member of the parliamentary committee [...] Edzard Ernst, a scientist who investigates complementary medicine [...] said the BHA's interpretation of his study was 'grossly misleading' because they failed to mention important caveats published in the study [...] homeopathic treatments are usually made by diluting a substance so much there are no molecules of the original ingredient left. In November the chief pharmacist at Boots, Paul Bennett, told the inquiry he had no evidence that homeopathy works."

Note: "nothing", of course, doesn't work.

Naturopathy Defends Their Required Homeopathy and Attacks Scientific Skepticism:

here, it cite from a post at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] blog defending homeopathy and attacking scientific skepticism [see 001., below]; I then define scientific skepticism [see 002., below]; and analyze that AANP post author's own web pages and those of his AANP state association, where he/they state 'naturopathy's essential sectarian premises are scientific' and make the typical 'naturopath as science expert' false claim [see 003., below]:

001. the AANP's blog hosts the post "Getting Over It" (2010-02-01)[vsc] by Johnson, C. (ND SCNM) which states:

"[the picture is a statue of homeopathy's founder, Hahnemann, which is in Washington, DC I believe and which, actually, I may or may not have pissed on] a group of so-called 'skeptics' [!!!] recently staged public relations events at various cities in Great Britain designed to discredit the science [!!!] of homeopathy [...] these hooligans [ah, sounds a lot like Scientology talking about their critics!!!...] purport to stand up for scientific principles, while in fact their zealous dogmatism [!!!] and denial of evidence [!!!] would make Galileo’s persecutors proud [ah, the 'reverse sectarian accusation'...] they['ve] named their campaign '10:23' [...and now for some huge absurdity!!!] homeopathy [...can improve] any of a vast range of diseases [bullshit!...] this is just another tantrum by the clueless wing of the scientific/medical community [so clueless, in fact, that they are demanding evidence and rationality to support the absurd claim that homeopathy does anything beyond a typical nonspecific placebo effect!...quoting Fisher] 'it is effective' [...and the sidebar of the blog states that NDs are] 'Physicians Who Listen' [...this is] the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional [ah, the 'of the professions' claim] society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs [I know what that's like!]. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [hugely based on a belief, actually] that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism...aka the] bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [of course, this essential premise is not transparently communicated here in its full science-ejected and sectarian vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological context]."

Note: so, according to the above AANP labeling, homeopathy is a "science" -- though there's NOTHING in the remedies and IT CAN'T WORK.  As Dr. Novella recently stated at his Neurologica blog in the post "6.022137 × 10^23"(2010-02-02):

"Samuel Hahnemann invented the principles of homeopathy [...] in the 1790s [...] he 'discovered' nothing [literally, Hahnemann created a serial dilution procedure which makes something into nothing...] he died in 1843, long after the scientific community knew that his 'law of infinitesimals' was rubbish [...] 6.022137 × 10^23 [...is] Avogadro’s number [...which is] the number of atoms or molecules of a substance in a number of grams of that substance equal to its atomic mass [...] Hahnemann claimed that the more a substance is diluted the more potent a medicine it becomes in violation of the chemical law of mass action which dictated that chemical reactions proceed more quickly the more substrate there is [...] Hahnemann missed Avogadro’s boat and spent the second half of his life denying the advances in science that rendered his fantasies nothing but nonsense [...] more amazing is that homeopaths continue in [maintain!!!] Hahnemann’s delusion today, more than a century after Avogadro was honored for his insights [...this is] the absurdity of homeopathy [and obviously, naturopathy]."

Yet, the AANP's licensing exam falsely labels homeopathy a science, as do AANP NDs.  For naturopathy -- keep in mind -- science is what is [absurdly] nonscience, and therein, 'an ND's expertise in science is indeed basic science illiteracy'.  As for the reverse accusation of "dogmatism" and 'denialism', here is naturopathy's essential cultic dogma, per naturopathy's "Principles of Healing" [what I call the 'ND sectarian creed'] wherein the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural are falsely labeled science.  I call naturopathy cultic because SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE: what is not in evidence scientifically, and as I've called it figmentatious, is yet labeled science-based objective fact.  This is exceptionally irrational and yet...maintained.  That is cultic.

"Getting over it" is really an apologetic from a sectarian / cultic belief system that poses as something rational and 'in-evidence'.  If NDs were "physicians who listen", they'd acknowledge the scientific consensus regarding the scientific rejection of naturopathy's essential belief set. And they'd acknowledge the fact that articles of faith [e.g.: a vital force / purposeful life spirit figmentation -- which is what 'the essentially naturopathic' truly is] that have no evidence to support them [by definition] cannot be labeled scientific actuality.  And you are not a profession if your foundation is false, nonsense, fantastical, and absurd and your interface with the public is opaque.

 002. scientific skepticism, according to the Wikipedia entry "Scientific Skepticism"(2010-02-03), is:

"scientific skepticism [SS] or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence [...] from a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.  By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise [...] scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism [pyrrhonism], which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it [...SS] uses critical thinking and inductive reasoning while attempting to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis [...] scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science [...] scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity [...e.g.] psychics, parapsychology, dowsing, astrology, creationism, homeopathy, tarot reading, alien abductions, and ESP, which are either pseudosciences or unsupported by existing evidence [...] many skeptics are atheists or agnostics, and have a naturalistic world-view, however some committed skeptics of pseudoscience including Martin Gardner express belief in a god."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy requires homeopathy and science-ejected / science-unsupported concepts falsely labeled scientific.  So, when an ND claims "so-called skeptics", they are really distracting from the fact that their science is indeed so-called / pseudo.

003. Johnson and VAANP:

003.a. ND Johnson, VP of the Virginia Association of Naturopathic Physicians [VAANP], states:

003.a1. in "Dr. Johnson"[vsc]:

"Dr. Johnson favors two areas of therapeutics which he believes to be the most effective to address illness of all types [including] homeopathy."

003.a2. in "Homeopathy"[vsc]:

"[quoting Ghandi] 'homeopathy [...] is beyond doubt [dogma alert!!!...] the most complete medical science' [...Dr. J. says] it is extremely safe and gentle and yet can produce dramatic results [...] homeopathic remedies can work wonders with nearly any type of condition."

Note: also at that page Johnson provides some celebrity and scientist name-droppings / anecdotes, and some select references / cherry-pickings.  Reference to authorities / celebrities are irrelevant when considering homeopathy's evidence basis, and obviously we are not being provided ALL THE EVIDENCE.  NDs claim to be holistic / comprehensive, but truly NDs have a narrow view.

003.b. at the VAANP we are told: 

003.b1. in 'homepage'[vsc]:

"the Virginia Association of Naturopathic Physicians (VAANP) [is] an affiliate of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] professional trade association [...and they seek] to promote naturopathic medicine as well as support and strengthen the standards of naturopathic practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia."

Note: so, VAANP is an arm of AANP.  We have the 'of the professions' claim, and a claim of 'standards'.  I do not deny that naturopathy has standards / habits.  The most remarkable naturopathic standard is the claim that something [science] is what it is not [nonscience]. Overarching that is the wacko example naturopathy sets, as I interpret from its behavior: that professionalism and absurdity is the same thing.

003.b2. in "Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"naturopathic medicine is an art, science, philosophy and practice [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...which are] based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles [...] naturopathic medicine is a scientifically proven and tested system of (successful) healthcare [...] naturopathic doctors (N.D.'s) [...have studied] the basic medical sciences [...and] homeopathy."

Note: so we have the HUGE science claim upon the principles of naturopathy.

003.b3.  in "History of Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"naturopathic medicine [...is] a distinct health care profession [...based on] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [VNM-HPN / coded vitalism...which] remains one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy to this day [...] naturopathy continues to grow and evolve as a body of knowledge. Naturopathic medicine as an organized profession is committed to research and development. It incorporates many elements of scientific modern medicine."

Note: again, the 'of the professions' claim.  We have the admission that VMN-HPN is their central concept, and claim that science-based medicine is something they acknowledge [obviously selectively!].  But, growing?  Evolving?  How about IGNORING huge aspects of scientific advancement, like the fact that science does not contain what is not within science!!!

003.b4. in "Naturopathic Doctor"[vsc]:

 "naturopathic doctors hold a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from one of five accredited four-year, graduate-level, regionally accredited naturopathic medical schools [...] The doctorate degree prepares naturopathic doctors to be primary care general practitioners [really]."

Note: so we have doctoral level irrationalism and absurdity, fully regionally accredited.  And a GP scope of practice / status.

003.b5. in "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [VMN-HPN].  [#1] naturopathic medicine recognizes the body's inherent self-healing ability, which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery and facilitate and augment this healing ability [coded vitalism...#5] total health includes spiritual health [supernaturalism!!!], naturopathic doctors encourage individuals to pursue their own spiritual paths [supernaturalism!!!]".

Note: again, coded vitalism.  And the supernatural.  All within a domain claiming professionalism and scientific expertise.

  
003.b6. in "Naturopathic Modalities"[vsc]:

"homeopathic medicine: this powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old and is widely accepted in many countries. Homeopathy is based on the principle that Like cures Like. Homeopathic medicines are very small doses of natural substances that can stimulate the body's self-healing response [coded vitalism]. Homeopathic medicines, when properly prescribed, affect the body's 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal".

Note: wow, empty remedies are "powerful" because they affect a "vital force" figmentation. At least, here, we see that the to "heal" in naturopathy is admitted to be based upon a force that doesn't scientifically exist at all.  That is naturopathy's VMN-HPN.

003.b7. in "Education"[vsc]:

"a 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. or D.O. [...] the training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...] the training is based on the principles of naturopathic medicine [...] in addition to a standard medical curriculum, the naturopathic doctor is required to complete four years of training [...including] homeopathic medicine [...] naturopathic doctors take a national board exam, Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Exam (NPLEX)."

Note: so, again the science claim couched in the science-ejected / -unsupported.

003.b8.  in "Licensure"[vsc]:

"NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic doctors in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams (anatomy, physiology, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology and immunology) which are taken after the first two years of medical school. The clinical science examinations are taken following graduation after the fourth year of school. They include: clinical and physical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging, botanical medicine, pharmacology, nutrition, physical medicine, homeopathy, minor surgery, psychology and lifestyle counseling, and emergency medicine."

Note: so, licensure supposedly requires a basis of science and from that scientific application clinically.  Including homeopathy, within that science.  This is why I titled my repository of naturopathy's science claims "the science that ain't science".

004. as I often like to warn:

"danger Will Robinson...unethical sectarian pseudoscience."

Rebecca Watson on Carpool - Great Skeptical Edutainment, But Let's Get Naturopathy Right:

here, I'm being picky because I think naturopathy was let off easy by Rebbecca Watson when she was recently on Robert Llewellyn's Carpool talking [at one point] about homeopathy nonsense: 

001. Phil Plait has embedded the episode at Discover Magazine's Bad Astronomy in the post "Rebecca Teaches a Low Mass Star About Skepticism" and Rebecca Watson [R.W.] similarly at Skepchick in the post "I'm on Carpool With Robert Llewellyn":

"[R.W.] I remember actually taking homeopathic remedies because in Seattle it was just taken for granted [09.46...] nobody knew what homeopathy was [10.00...] a lot a people still today assume that homeopathy is just naturopathy.  Using natural ingredients to heal yourself.  That's not what it is [10.16]."

Note: well, I'd add that there is nothing "natural" about the 'nature' of naturopathy, not in the post-Enlightenment sense, so to speak.  Since naturopathy includes the supernatural / figmentatious as natural [and actually as scientific as well], naturopathy is as absurd and sectarian and as irrational as homeopathy.  It has often been commented that alternative medicine has hugely won the language battle.  I recommend the principles webpage at National College of Natural Medicine, once called National College of Naturopathic Medicine, for direct verbiage which places the hugely science-ejected and sectarian vitalistic and supernaturalistic falsely within science.  When you get "inside" naturopathy, it is the worst kind of junk thought posing as science and medicine. E.g.: at NCNM's page we are falsely told that a "life force" or "vital force" [and such figmentations as "spirit"] are objective scientific fact when in fact they are hugely outside of science.  And yes, there you can read about the essential homeopathy of naturopathy, which naturopathy claim's on their NPLEX board exam is a "science".  Additionally, at that NCNM page, they claim that homeopathy is "powerful".

002. R.W. will always be famous in my head for getting married live in front of myself and everyone else attending that TAM.  And for being on Carpool.  Cheers R.W.

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism Irrationality – ND Kellerstein in NDNR 2010-01:

In “Why Waste Time?” (Naturopathic Doctor News and Review 2010-01, p.019), Kellerstein, J. (DC CMCC 1980, ND CCNM 1984), “the first Chairman of the Department of Homeopathy with the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine", states:

“[regarding] today's homeopathic education […student question] Hahnemann continues to expound that the vital force [blah blah blah...Kellerstein] the vital force can only be sustained [blah blah blah...Kellerstein directly quoting Hahnemann] aphorism 9: in the healthy human state, the spirit-like life force (autocracy) that enlivens the material organism [blah blah blah...Kellerstein] the mind (in-dwelling rational spirit) and the vital force are very different [...] Hahnemann's idea of the vital force was not spiritual but spirit-like. This means immaterial or invisible […] the footnote to the first aphorism is testimony to the view of Hahnemann. He wanted a practice of medicine founded only on the fully observable with no speculative filters in the way of pure observation.”

Note: such vitalistic-spiritism, as I call it, is profoundly science-ejected.  Science has rejected vitalism for several decades, and supernaturalism for a few hundred years.  The larger issue here, though, is the lack of sanity within naturopathy's calculus.   NDs apparently do not think cogently:

a) since when is the immaterial and invisible [immeasurable figmentation] also fully and purely observable [actual]?

b) but, then again, the school I went to in Connecticut is no less irrational / absurd [cultic], wherein the vitalistic and supernatural are falsely labeled science.

Futuyma's "Evolution" - No Supernaturalism or Teleology in Science - ISBN 9780878932238:

here, I point out the simple fact that supernaturalism and teleology (both cosmic and physiological) are exterior to science [see 001., below]; meanwhile, naturopathy claims that its supernaturalism and physiological teleology [see 002., below] are indeed scientific [see 003, below]:

001. Futuyma, D.J. (PhD{zoology} UM) states in "Evolution" (2009, 2nd ed.):

"'Darwin’s dangerous idea' as the philosopher Daniel Dennett (1995) has called it [...] explains the apparent design of the living world without recourse to a supernatural, omnipotent designer [p.279...] supernatural processes cannot be the subject of science [...] Darwin offered a purely natural, materialistic alternative to the argument from design, he [...] brought every aspect of the study of life into the realm of science [...per] the completely mindless process of natural selection [...] this process cannot have a goal [that is, it is not teleological...] for the future cannot cause material events in the present [...] the concepts of goals or purposes have no place in biology (or in any other of the natural sciences), except in studies of human behavior [p.282...] evolution does not have goals [p.299]".

Note: obviously, legitimate life science excludes supernaturalism and cosmic teleology.  For this textbook's homepage, click here,  This chapter is available courtesy of NCSE and Sinauer. Click here for their blogpost, and here for the chapter as pdf.

002. meanwhile, naturopathy is based upon supernaturalism and 'physiological teleology'.  Naturopathy's essential belief is an amalgam of vitalism, spiritism, and teleology. As Gerstmar, T.J. (ND Bastyr 2008) states in:  

002.a. "FAQ":

"vitalism is the philosophy that guides naturopathic care. In this philosophy, spirit (intelligence) is the basis of life. We are spirit that gives rise to atoms and molecules [!!!]. The body possesses an innate intelligence [and is therefore physiologically intelligent, and therefore purposeful / goal capable] and ability to heal itself [the goal...] imbalances on any level (physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual) can lead to disease [...] as natural healers we follow a vitalist philosophy that says that your body has the power and intelligence to heal itself [a purposefulness / goal-directedness towards healing]. We use natural therapies that remove blockages to that healing power and stimulate the body to heal itself. We avoid methods which suppress or distort that healing power."

Note: so we have vitalism conflated with spiritism and physiological teleology.

002.b. "Introduction":

"we believe that people are composed of body, mind, and spirit and that problems arising in one area affect the other areas [...] our philosophy and approach allows our patients to live to their fullest capacity: mentally, emotionally, spiritually, socially, and physically."

Note: again, supernaturalism.

002.c. "Why See Us?":

"because we practice holistic medicine, medicine that is oriented to the physical, the emotional, the mental, the energetic, and the spiritual."

Note: again, supernaturalism.  I'd also argue that the "energetic" is a code for naturopathy's vitalistic and physiological teleology aspects.

003. and of course, naturopathy ridiculously places the label "science" upon all this science-exterior sectarianism.

Homeopathy As "Unscientific, Absurd" - The Daily Mail 2010-01-22

the UK's Daily Mail reports in "Skeptics Plan 'Mass Overdose' in Protest Against Homeopathic Medicine" (2010-01-22):

"hundreds of homeopathy skeptics are planning a 'mass overdose' of [these] pills in protest at the continued marketing of these 'useless' medicines by high street chemist Boots [...] to prove that the medicines are ineffective [...] 10.23 has accused Boots of profiting from what is an 'unscientific and absurd pseudoscience' [...] the remedies have literally nothing in them [...] in October [...] Boots' professional standards director Paul Bennett told a committee of MPs [...of the] House of Commons Science and Technology Committee [...] that there was no medical evidence that homeopathic pills and potions work [...per] 'I have no evidence to suggest that they are efficacious'".

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy claims that this "unscientific" junk and "absurd pseudoscience" is a clinical science.

New 2010 CSI Fellows Announced!

here, I briefly quote from an email I received from the Committee For Skeptical Inquiry regarding induction of new Fellows [and Fellas]:

In "Sixteen Notable Figures in Science and Skepticism Elected CSI Fellows", CSI writes:

"the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), publisher of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine, announced today the election of 16 new Fellows, chosen for 'distinguished achievement in science and skepticism' [...per] Kimball Atwood IV, physician, author, Newton, Massachusetts; Robert T. Carroll, emeritus professor of philosophy, Sacramento City College, writer; K.C. Cole, science writer, author, professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism; Christopher C. French, professor, department of psychology, and head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths College, University of London; Luigi Garlaschelli, chemist, Università di Pavia (Italy), and research fellow of CICAP, the Italian skeptics’ group; Maryanne Garry, professor, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; Harriet Hall, retired family physician, writer, Puyallup, Washington; Stuart D. Jordan, NASA astrophysicist emeritus, science advisor to Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.; Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology, Brown University; Jan Willem Nienhuys, mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands; Steven Novella, assistant professor of neurology, Yale University School of Medicine; Jay M. Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and director of the Hopkins Observatory, Williams College; Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy, City University of New York-Lehman College; Philip Plait, astronomer, lecturer, and writer; James 'The Amazing' Randi, magician, CSICOP founding member, founder, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF); Seth Shostak, senior astronomer, SETI Institute, Mountain View, Calif."

Note: hmmm, no naturopaths...go figure!  Oh, you actually have to be for rationality and science integrity!  Seems the 'big skeptic schism' has truly ended, with JREF and CSI cross-pollinating one anothers' upper membership quite abundantly.