'Dear Patient, This is Science' - ND Diana:

Diana, L.M. (ND CCNM) states in "New Patient Welcome"[vsc 2010-03-19]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine. Naturopathic medicine is the art and science of disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention [...] naturopathic doctors [...] cooperate with other branches of medical science [...] the education encompasses basic medical sciences [...] nutritional microscopy [huh???] is the science of qualitative blood analysis [...] homeopathic doctors combine the art and science of healing."

Note: that lovely lunacy of the blended-distinct, and the label galore of SCIENCE upon the naturopathic enterprise.  And upon such absurdities such has homeopathy, and invented areas such as nutritional microscopy.

Simply Not True Labels: Naturopathy As "Grounded In Science", Respectful via ND Becker at StarTribune.com

here, I quote from a recent article at StarTribune.com that quotes an ND who labels naturopathy 'respectful' and 'science-grounded' [see 001., below]; but, when we THINK, knowing naturopathy's 'sectarian hidden underneath' and what actual science is, that doesn't add up [see 002., below]; and then, I quote directly from that ND's web page[s] which particularly falsely labels naturopathy's homeopathy "science" [see 003., below]: 

001. Giguere, N. (? ?) reports in "Taking The Natural Path" (2010-03-15)[vsc 2010-03-16]:

"[according to] Kristin Becker [ND Bastyr 2004...] naturopathic doctor [...naturopathy is] 'an approach to medicine that's grounded in science and based on respect for both nature and the individual,' she says." 

Note: so, that's the science label used typically by naturopathy [ho-hum], and particularly Bastyr.  Bastyr, of course, is quite absurd in that their label of science is placed up on the supernatural which is science-ejected for a few hundred years, and the vitalistic, which is also science-ejected for several decades [at least].  And we are each promised "respect" [in such an absurd context!].

002. in sum, aka here I decode by THINKING, and I THINK about respect:

002.a. is the science-grounded equal to the science-ejected / -unsupported?  No, they are mutually exclusive;

002.b. what is the nature of the "nature" that naturopathy bases itself upon:

a falsely labeled, often opaquely expressed sectarian science-ejected article of faith;

002.c. and that is the absurdity of naturopathy, labeling something it hugely isn't and trading upon that falsehood. 

003. Becker states, furthermore, at her own web page:

003.a. in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?"[vsc 2010-03-19]:

"based in scientific research [...] the following principles are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice: the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN]. Naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in the body that is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to recovery as well as to facilitate and augment this healing ability."

Note: so, there is the "scientific" claim over HPN-VMN.  But, naturopathy's vitalistic context which is what HPN-VMN is, is in fact profoundly science-ejected.

003.b. in "The Education of a Naturopathic Doctor"[vsc 2010-03-19]:

"a licensed naturopathic doctor [...is] educated in all of the same basic sciences and conventional diagnostics as an M.D." 

Note: if naturopathy's science is the same, then why is what is hugely not science [the vitalistic, the supernatural] falsely labeled science?

003.c. in "Treatment Options and Services"[vsc 2010-03-19]:

"homeopathy is a scientific method of cure [...] the therapeutic use of homeopathic medicines is based on scientific experimentation."

Note: now, homeopathy HUGELY isn't science, and that's quite preponderant.

004. these were some of naturopathy's 'simply not true' labels:

therein, are you being respected when you are being misled by the extremely WRONG and absurd [the naturopathic/nonscience claimed as science]?

No.

Adam Dreamhealer's 'Naturopathy is Science' Claim and Coded Vitalism:

here, I quote from energy healer and apparent naturopathy fan Adam Dreamhealer [see 001., below]; then, from Skeptic North [see 002., below]:

001. Adam Dreamhealer states in "What is a Naturopathic Doctor"(2010-03-14):

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with [etc....] naturopathic medicine is the art and science of disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention [...] naturopathic doctors [...] enhance health care services provided by other health care professionals [...and] cooperate with other branches of medical science [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine is based on 6 principles: [#1] the healing power of nature: the body is a self-regulating and self-healing organism [...NDs] choose therapies that gently support and stimulate normal function [...] this healing process."

Note: I enjoy the CAND / AANP-like language wherein one states that that which is distinct is a blend / integration [quite naturopathic in their 'something is what it isn't' style]; since science blended with an overarching nonscience isn't science, stating that naturopathy is a branch of medical science isn't logical -- particularly after stating that naturopathy is 'some science mixed with lots of nonscience' [but, after the distinct-blend precedent, we're already being steered into a land of huge illogic]; we have the claim of professionalism placed over naturopathy, yet why is it that we are not told [as is typical of the ND MO] that that #1 principle is in fact the science-ejected premise of vitalism?  Such coded vitalism / opacity emphasizes to me how indistinct, nonscientific, and nonprofessional naturopathy actually is. AD appears to be working towards an ND.

002. Skeptic North states in "Adam Dreamhealer - Are His Intentions Valid?"(2009-11-24):

"[per Polevey] Adam has been exposed in articles the Skeptical Inquirer, James Randi Foundation, Skeptic Magazine [...] several skeptical web sites have exposed Dreamhealer's powers as bogus, including LiveScience.com and ScienceBlogs.com [...] he claims to be enrolled in a naturopathic college, but the two most logical ones in Seattle and in the Vancouver area deny that he is a student there [...] Adam seems to have grown fond of Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, where he holds regular workshops at the naturopathic college's main auditoriums."

Note: so, there are mixed messages about AD's ND future.  I personally don't believe such powers exist.  If so, why hasn't AD won Randi's million?

Naturopathy's #2 Principle at CAND.ca -- The Vitalism CAND Dare Not Transparently Communicate:

here, I quote from the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors' [CAND] opaque description of the #2 essential principle of naturopathy, HPN-VMN [see 001., below]; and then I provide a little transparency [see 002., below]:

001. CAND states in "Guiding Principles" [vsc 2010-03-08]:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...] emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor's training [...that form] the foundation of this distinct form of health care [...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN...] the powerful and inherent healing ability of your body, mind and spirit [...an] ordered and intelligent healing ability." 

 

Note: and that's all you get.  There is NO MENTION -- in any straightforward kind of manner -- of the actual context of this #2 principle, which is that human physiology is run by a 'purposeful life spirit' aka 'vital force'.

002. upon the preponderance:

when the beast is cornered and light is shone upon it [when HPN-VMN is decoded], #2 is a sectarian vitalistic context that is thoroughly science-discarded.

Note: what kind of supposed 'profession' opaquely communicates its essential premise?

 

Not much different from Scientology getting their foot in the door with a personality test!

NDs as Primary Care Physicians - Ontario's Udell, Rudy, Rose and 'Nonscience Science' Nonsense:

here, I quote from a recent [apparent] press release labeling naturopaths PCPs [see 001., below; this label contradicts language in my last post at Naturocrit from "naturopathic oncologist" Rubin et al.!]; I then visit the current web page of that ND Udell and her partner ND Rudy [see 002., below]; and then I point out the huge absurdity of naturopathy through their oversight entities [see 003. and 004., below]:

 

001. the Packet and Times reports in "Udell Opens New Clinic: Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic doctors are primary-care physicians [PCP] that treat all types of health concerns ranging from prevention of disease, to acute conditions, to treatment of chronic illnesses [...ND] Alison Udell would like to announce her new clinic location at the Murlyn Health Center, located at 19 Albert St. N. in Orillia. Udell obtained her honors bachelor of science degree from the University of Guelph before attending the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine in Toronto, where she graduated as a naturopathic doctor (ND) [in 2009]."

Note: so, we have the claim of PCP, that all things medical / health are treated. We also have the mention of a science background, which as a bachelors isn't that impressive, but it means something.  You might think that a person with a B.S.[?] would at least know what ISN'T science [like vitalism], or at least know how to find out such from national and international science organizations and sources.  In other words, you'd at least think there'd be a modicum of due diligence.

002. at Midhurst Natural Health Clinic, NDs Udell, A. (ND CCNM 2009) and Rudy, A. (ND CCNM) state:

002.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-03-07]:

"the following are the general principles that provide the basic framework of which naturopathic medicine is built on: first, to do no harm; to treat the causes of disease; to teach the principles of healthy living and preventative medicine; to heal the whole person through individualized treatment; to emphasize prevention; to support the healing power of the body [aka HPN, therein coded vitalism...] naturopathic doctors must have a minimum of 3 years of university education including the required pre-medical sciences [...] in order to gain a license to practice naturopathic medicine in Ontario they must successfully complete the North American board exams and the provincial board exams [...] the naturopathic medical program is a four year full time program with much of the same curriculum that is covered in conventional medical schools [BULLSHIT!!!]. NDs are therefore trained in the medical sciences, pathology of disease, lab and blood work, pharmacology, and physical exams in addition to the unique naturopathic ways of diagnosing and treating disease [...] ND’s often use the ancient art of Chinese medicine to diagnose and treat disease [TCM] in addition to using [...] homeopathy [...] naturopathic medicine can be effective to help prevent and treat many chronic and acute diseases [PCPing!]."

Note: the principles that naturopathy is couched within, on this page, are presented in simplistic [deceptive!], naturalistic language [when essentially NOT such].  I decode the sixth principle HPN in 003. below because it is not explained contextually at all.  Science is claimed as a prerequisite, indicating a posture of 'scientific mindedness' as a requirement for naturopathy, then naturopathy is posed as a 'typical medical school science education'.  And there is emphasis of board examinations as icing on all of this. Homeopathy and TCM's essential premises I'll discuss in 003., because such is intimately linked to HPN.  Homeopathy, of course, is sheer bunk -- falsely labeled clinical science on that NPLEX board exam!  And TCM is a form of Oriental prescientific thinking. And of course there's a PCP claim.

002.b. in "Our Team":

002.b1. Rudy states:

"Andrea Rudy is regulated by the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy - Naturopathy (BDDT-N) and is a member of the following professional associations: Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors (OAND) and the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors (CAND)."

Note: these ND affiliations and their requisite beliefs get fleshed out in 003., since it is an overarching ND preponderance that exposes the sectarian underpinnings of naturopathy.

002.b2. Udell states:

"Alison Udell [is a] naturopathic doctor. Alison Udell obtained her honors bachelor of science [...] from the University of Guelph [...] she attended the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM) where she graduated in 2009 as a naturopathic doctor (ND) [...] at CCNM she completed an internship at the Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic [...including] a specialty shift in pediatrics [...and] treat[ed] adults with varying health issues [a PCP claim...] Alison believes that disease results from an imbalance between the mind, body and spirit [whatever that means!...] her treatment goal is to address where the imbalance lies [...the] naturopathic modalities Alison focuses on [...include] homeopathy [and] traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture [...] NDs are primary care physicians [a PCP claim...and are] health care professionals."

Note: there is again a science association.  Now, this ND belief is body-mind-spirit is itself a representation, in my view, of what I will flesh out in 003., below. We also get the 'naturopathy PCP claim',  and an 'of the professions' claim.

003. some decoding through OAND and CAND of naturopathy's "healing power of the body" / HPN principle / framework / context:

003.a. at OAND, we are told in “Homeopathy: An ND’s Perspective” (Natural Path, Winter 2002) [vsc 2010-03-07]:

"[per Rose, Z. (ND CCNM), who also hosts this article here] the [homeopathic] remedy then stimulates the body to heal itself. It does this by supporting the 'vital force' of the person. Hahnemann described this vital force as the energy that animates all living things [p.006…] when an imbalance occurs (Hahnemann refers to this as a disturbance in the person’s vital force), symptoms, signs or susceptibilities appear [p.007].”

Note: we are also told by OAND that the label overarching all of this is "science" in that same OAND article per "Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician and chemist, discovered and developed homeopathy into a science [...] has homeopathy been scientifically proven? The short answer is yes."  OAND also states, in a 2009 item, that "science-based, safe and effective, patient-centered care are at the heart of all ND care" [vsc 2010-03-08].

At Rose's own web page, we are told naturopathy is professional and scientific per "About Zorana Rose ND" that "Zorana Rose ND provides a truly integrative form of health care to complement and enhance services provided by other health care professionals. She cooperates with other branches of medical science."  She also postures PCPing, via her "Professional Development".

003.b. at CAND, we are told in "Questions: All Questions" [vsc 2010-03-07]:

"naturopathic doctors use a variety of non-toxic, non-pharmaceutical treatments. All naturopathic doctors in Canada are trained and licensed in the following natural therapies [...] homeopathic remedies are minute dilutions of plant, animal and mineral substances designed to stimulate the body's 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal. Traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture [is] based on balancing the flow of chi (energy) through meridian pathways under the skin, Oriental medicine includes the use of Oriental herbs and acupuncture to regulate and release chi in order to bring the body into balance."

Note: we are also told, on the same page, that the label overarching all of this science-ejected vitalism is science per "naturopathic diagnosis and therapeutics [and principles!] are supported by scientific research."  And CAND, in a 2007 press release [vsc 2010-03-08], stated "naturopathic doctors are primary health care providers with 7 years post-secondary education that practice safe, effective, science-based natural health care."

004. naturopathy's basic / fundamental / defining vitalistic premise is IN FACT science-ejected:

so, what other supposed 'profession' does this: bases itself on a HUGE absurdity / irrationality [e.g., that the scientific is the completely science-ejected], and hides its actual context? 

And what kind of regulatory entity incompetence or possible legal gaps allow such deception to continue, both in terms of education and practice?

'Naturopathic Oncology' Absurdity - Cancer Specialists Who Admit They're Not Qualified:

here, I cite from web documents at Naturopathic Specialists [NS] of Scottsdale, AZ wherein: NS tells us that naturopaths can get a board certification in oncology and that they are 'world leading cancer experts' looking out for a patient's best interests [ see 001, below]; yet, we are also told by NS that naturopaths are NOT primary care physicians and are NOT best-qualified to handle oncology [see 002., below]; then, I highlight two NS 'at odds' labels which are also naturopathy-wide, that the naturopathic is essentially vitalistic [and supernatural!] while essentially scientific [see 003., below]; I then list the NS NDs [see 004., below]; and, finally, then I show Bastyr's and SCNM's 'vitalistic scientific absurdity' since they are the two alma maters of these oncological NDs [see 005., below]:

001. NS states in "Board Certification in Naturopathic Oncology":

"Board Certification in Naturopathic Oncology. Both Drs. Rubin and Alschuler are Fellows of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology (FABNO).  This Board Certification represents the highest expertise in the area of naturopathic oncology by being recognized as such by our national association, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...which] is rigorous [...] naturopathic oncologists are experts in the application of naturopathic medicine in an oncology setting and are not trained or certified to offer conventional oncology care such as that offered by medical or radiation oncologists [...] Drs. Rubin and Alshuler are experts and world leaders in naturopathic oncology [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler believe that good communication is essential to proper treatment [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler believe that the highest precept of medical care is to educate people with cancer about their disease. Once people truly better understand what is happening in their body, they often become more empowered. In this sense, education becomes a healing modality [...] empowering people: the goal at Naturopathic Specialists is to make you truly 'in-charge' of your well-being to help motivate, encourage, enable and empower you [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler help you navigate the maze of available treatment options and those which may be better suited to you as an individual [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler can provide the keys to the myriad of opportunities for treatment that exist in the world of integrative medicine [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler are not only skilled in the aspects of your oncological and immunological problems, but are your advocates in all aspects of your treatment."

Note: so, NDs Rubin and Alschuler are marketing themselves as "rigorous"ly qualified, "expert" "world leaders" in a kind of oncology. I disagree with SO MUCH. Ah, the rigor of the AANP: yet, AANP grossly labels the profoundly science-ejected as science. Ah, the rigors of good naturopathic communication: yet, NDs do not transparently communicate their fundamental science-ejected premise. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic education / educating: wherein, absurd sectarian figmentations are labeled scientific and nonsectarian at AANMC schools. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic empowerment: wherein, you are fleeced as their pockets are lined commercially. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic guidance: wherein you are given sugar pills like homeopathy and told that they have a profound or powerful effect on health. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic treatment expertise: wherein wacko therapies like reiki and craniosacral therapy are mislabeled as hugely efficacious. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic advocacy: wherein, naturopathy poses a fiduciary duty / 'professional ethical status' that naturopathy cannot possibly live up to [because it is couched in absurdity (see 003., below)].

002. NS states in "Consent to Consultation" [vsc 2010-03-06, 2012-01-13]:

"consent to consultation [...] Naturopathic Specialists [...] provide[s] services to people [...] who have been diagnosed with cancer [...] the patient understands that Naturopathic Specialist’s Physicians [...] are not primary care physicians [PCPs], board certified medical oncologists or immunologists. Dr. Rubin is board certified in naturopathic oncology. None of the physicians are trained nor qualified to manage the overall care of a person with cancer [...] the patient understands that the physicians may not be able to manage the overall care of a person with cancer [...] the patient understands that the treatment suggestions provided by the Physicians are not all accepted by the United States FDA and therefore should not be taken as such [...] I have read and understood the above criteria and give my full consent to a consultation and / or treatment from Naturopathic Specialists."

Note: I find the disconnect HUGE.  NDs usually hugely claim to be PCPs, yet here we get the admission that they don't think they are.  After claiming a huge ability to coordinate a patient's cancer regimen as 'oncologist', they then state that they are not qualified to be 'physicians'.  Plus, as a patient you get to be a part of experimental, unapproved protocols in all this illogic / absurdity.  Who would consent?  Sadly, likely, the desperate or unaware cancer patient.

003. naturopathy's essential absurdity -- the vitalistic science-ejected posed as science [a subset of naturopathy's 'anything is science' posture!]:

003.a. Rubin, D. (ND SCNM) of NS states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Naturopathic Medicine: Ways, Means, and Practicality" [vsc 2010-03-06]:

"precepts. Vis medicatrix naturae [slide 010...] vis medicatrix naturae. Vis = energy, strength or force [...] the body possesses the inherent ability to restore health. The physician's role is to facilitate this process with the aid of natural nontoxic therapies [slide 11...] the vital force. This describes the energy essential for life, the innate life principle, or the inherent power within every living organism. Naturopathic doctors seek to support the vital force."

Note: ye old science-ejected vitalistic nonsense.

003.b. Alschuler, L.N. (ND Bastyr 1994) of NS states naturopathy's supposed science basis in "Meet Our Physicians":

"she believes that her job as a naturopathic physician and educator is to stimulate and support the innate healing processes within each individual by applying a scientifically based strategy that utilizes the most natural and least harmful approaches possible."

 Note: so, naturopathy therein is the science-based nonscientific being that 'naturopathy supports the science-ejected vital force scientifically', in sum.

004. currently, NS lists their NDs as:

Rubin, D. (ND SCNM 1997, FABNO AANP), 

Alschuler, L.N. (ND Bastyr 1994, FABNO AANP), 

Coats, M. (ND SCNM 2008), 

Turner, L. (ND SCNM 2007).

Note: so, we might assume that these NDs learned 'naturopathy's essential absurdity M.O.' from their alma maters Bastyr and SCNM!

005. therefore, turning to Bastyr and SCNM [naturopathic institutional absurdity alert!]:

005.a. Bastyr states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Alternative Medicine: Homeopathy and Children” (Seattle P.I.; 2007-08-01) via Mercer, N.J. (ND Bastyr 1987):

“[she's a] naturopathic physician specializing in homeopathy and an adjunct faculty member, Bastyr U. [...] how does it work? Homeopathy turns on the 'self heal' switch. Chinese medicine calls it the 'chi.' Naturopathic medicine calls it the 'vis.' Homeopathy calls it the 'vital force.' They all describe the energy inhabiting the human body that when stimulated moves the human system toward greater health" while claiming the naturopathic is essentially scientific.

005.b. SCNM states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Is Alternative Medicine For You?" (2003):

"the healing power of nature [...] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...] the essence of naturopathic medicine" while claiming such is essentially scientific.

Note: all the while, such vitalism is hugely science-ejected.

Note: this post was lightly updated 2012-01-13.

Iowa ND / NMD Legislation Dead!

The Des Moines Register reports in "Legislative Funnel: What's Dead" (2010-02-05):

"Naturopathic Doctors: Would have allowed for the licensing of naturopathic physicians. SF 2262."

Note: apparently, this was the proposal, in part:

"a naturopathic physician licensed under chapter 154G may use the words 'naturopathic physician'  or the initials 'N.D.' or 'N.M.D.' after the person's name [...] 'naturopathic medicine' means a system of primary health care for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human health conditions, injury, and disease; the promotion or restoration of health; and the support and stimulation of a patient's inherent self-healing processes [coded vitalism!!!]  through patient education and the use of naturopathic therapies and therapeutic substances."

Fascinating, the bill itself wasn't even transparently communicating naturopathy's actual science-ejected sectarian premise of vitalism.  Yet, it labeled naturopathy 'of professional ethical status'.  Absurd.

Fabricating "Science-Based Natural Medicine"

here, I do a simple Google search and report the first-page results [see 001., below]; and then add some commentary [see 002., below]:

001. a Google web search per >"science-based natural medicine"< results in such first-page hits as [2010-03-04]:

001.a. two web pages by Pizzorno, J.E. (ND NCNM 1975) who labels himself "one of the world¹s leading authorities on science-based natural medicine" (here, here);

001.b. a web page promoting Kuzniar, L. (ND CCNM) that states "naturopathic doctor practicing science-based natural medicine";

001.c. a Bastyr University page that states "Drs. Les Griffith, William A. Mitchell, Jr., and Joseph E. Pizzorno, Jr. [...built] the school on a science-based foundation [...] 'we had already decided on the basic foundation — science-based and accredited' [...] Dr. Bastyr was an early champion of science-based natural medicine";

001.d. an Amazon.com page titled "No Hype, Science-Based Natural Medicine" apparently by ND Appleton, J. (ND NCNM);

001.e. a web page at naturalhealthcare.org titled "Naturopathic Medicine/ Science-Based Natural Healthcare";

001.f. two web pages from the Science-Based Medicine blog that critique naturopathy either in their post body or the comments (here, here);

001.g. the Wellpath Clinic of Nobrega-Porter, K. (ND CCNM) that states "using current science-based natural medicine we provide safe and effective therapies to help achieve excellence in whole patient sustainable wellness";

001.h. the Natural Medicine Journal  which states "leading our scientific advisory team are two of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine -- Joe Pizzorno ND, educator, researcher, expert spokesperson, and founding president of Bastyr University";

002. well, the jokes on everyone who believes that 'the naturopathic' is "science-based":

002.a. naturopathy is committed to the concept of a purposeful life spirit running physiology;

002.b. such is hugely science-ejected;

002.c. therein, naturopathy is a huge, irrational fabrication.

CCNM's "Healing Power of Nature" Within Science Claim - An Internal Search:

here, I do an internal text search of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine [CCNM] per  >healing power of nature<:

001. these are the four results [2010-02-27]:

001.a. in "Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic (Teaching Clinic)"[vsc 2010-02-27]:

"the Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic (RSNC) [...] the teaching clinic of CCNM [...] naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care that addresses the root cause of illness or disease. Promoting wellness and prevention, naturopathic medicine harnesses science to unleash nature’s healing power."

001.b. in "Prospective Students"[vsc 2010-02-27]:

"CCNM brings new thinking, new research and new approaches to health care, harnessing science to unleash the healing power of nature."

Note: so, there's that typical science label upon HPN. 

001.c. in "Areas of Study"[vsc 2010-02-27]:

"naturopathic medicine is founded on the principle of healing through the cooperative power of nature [...] the principles underlying the practice of naturopathic medicine include [...#2] recognition and support of the inherent self-healing ability of the individual (the healing power of nature) [...] students will develop the skills to practice in a manner that exemplifies professionalism, strong ethics and a commitment to the principles of naturopathic medicine."

001.d. in "CCNM Celebrates 27th Convocation"[vsc 2010-02-27]:

"'the 94 graduates represent a critical addition to Canada’s healthcare resource,' says President CEO Bob Bernhardt. 'They are skilled in harnessing science to unleash the healing power of nature.  Each graduate has a minimum of seven years of post-secondary education culminating with an intensive and challenging four-year program of basic and clinical sciences and practice.'"

002. what CCNM doesn't reveal is that HPN is indeed science-ejected.

Note: naturopathy, 'harnessing absurdity.'

The "Naturopathic Physician Sect Leader" - 1980:

001. New Hampshire's Nashua Telegraph states in "Sect Leader Convinced Doomsday at Hand" (1980-05-01) [see news.google.com]:

"Missoula, Mont. [...] Leland Jensen [...] the 65-year old leader of a religious sect [...] the sect, an offshoot of the Bahai'i faith [...] he served four years in the Montana state prison at Deer Lodge after being convicted of sexually molesting a child in 1969.  Warden Roger Crist said Jensen started a chapter of his sect at the prison [...he's a] 'naturopathic physician' [...] Jensen [...] describes himself as the U.S. leader of the 'Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant' [p.008]."

002. boy, naturopathy is interesting.

003. Wikipedia has an entry on Jensen here.

Note: fascinating.

Naturopathy, Its Homeopathy, and Bad Scholarship - Goldacre via BMJ Group:

here, I first show how homeopathy is essential to naturopathy [see 001., below]; then I cite from a recent Guardian article from the British Medical Journal Group [BMJG] which quotes Ben Goldacre's testimony [see 002., below]; and finally I provide examples of naturopathy's scholastic negligence / absurdity:

001. naturopathy's essential homeopathy: 

001.a. the NCCAM states in "Homeopathy: An Introduction":

"homeopathy is a controversial area of CAM because a number of its key concepts are not consistent with established laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics) [...] critics argue that continuing the scientific study of homeopathy is not worthwhile [hear, hear...] homeopathy is also part of the medical [huh?] education for naturopathy [...] national certification may be obtained through organizations such as [...] the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians [HANP]." 

001.b. the current president of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges is "a diplomate of the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians (DHANP)".

001.c. AANMC states in "Naturopathic Medicine FAQs":

"naturopathic medicine combines many methodologies [...including] homeopathy [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training [...including in] homeopathic medicine."

002. the Guardian's "MPs Criticized Homeopathy This Week. What's Their Evidence?" states:

"the theory that homeopathic remedies become more powerful the more they're diluted isn't supported by scientific evidence [...] Dr. Ben Goldacre said: 'if you look at all of the trials in the whole, collectively, what you see when you look at the best-quality trials is that homeopathy pills work no better than placebo pills. You can select individual trials and say: we have got this individual trial, or even ten individual trials, which show that it works, but if you cherry-pick your literature and pick out only the positive results and ignore the unfavorable results, you can make any treatment work, including ones that are known to be ineffective or even dangerous. That is just bad scholarship.'"

003. the bad scholarship / scholastic negligence of naturopathy: 

I cannot emphasize HOW BAD naturopathy is, academically speaking.  Now, here are two examples from my personal experience in a naturopathy school: 

003.a. the labeling of the profoundly science-ejected as science: 

e.g., here's my alma mater, the University of Bridgeport, which states clearly that naturopathy is both essentially vitalistic and essentially supernatural, and simultaneously essentially scientific.  Wow. 

003.b. the labeling of the profoundly sectarian as nonsectarian: 

e.g. here's that same school stating that it is nonsectarian while adhering to profoundly sectarian science-ejected dogma.

Note: and what's really fascinating about naturopathy, from the AANMC down, is that they do not most of the time clearly indicate what they essentially are all about.  For instance, that AANMC page I've cited in 001.c. does not transparently communicate naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism, though it does state naturopathy's essential supernaturalism.

This is not much different from a homeopath giving you an empty pill and not telling you so.

That, by the way, is something I had had to do in school at UB.  I found it so ethically revolting that I stopped pursuit of that ND absurdity, and as an extension of my academic duty, began exposing their gross falsehood / scholastic negligence.

Colquhoun on Homeopathy & Trees, and an ND's Tree Iridology:

here, I quote from eminent UK pharmacologist Colquhoun about homeopathy's ridiculousness [see 001., below]; and then I quote from a Canadian ND who uses tree essences and iridology at what is labeled a "Health Science" school [see 002., below]:

001. David Colquhoun, "Research Professor of Pharmacology, UCL" states in answer to the question "Should the NHS Fund Homeopathy?" (2010-02-26):

"no [...] the Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee’s report restores one’s faith in reason [...per finding] that there was no reason to believe that homeopathic pills had more effect than a placebo, therefore they should not be paid for by the NHS and neither was more research justified [...] most of the medicines contain no medicine whatsoever. Zero, zilch, nothing. That’s why they are placebos [...and] homeopathy also involves the preposterous idea that the more you dilute a remedy, the stronger it gets [...] homeopaths misrepresent the evidence [...it is] a dishonest placebo [...] homeopathy is on a par with talking to trees. No decent health service should pay for it."

 Note: the connection with  trees piqued my curiosity, so I did a search of 'naturopathic and trees'.

002. here's an ND that uses "tree essences", and she writes:

002.a. in "Dr. Carol Magda Naturopath, Author and Tree Essence Practitioner":

"Dr. Magda practices integrated naturopathic medicine and teaches the full spectrum of such an approach in all subjects she teaches at the International Academy of Health Sciences, where she is the Director of Iridology and Nutritional Studies. In particular she teaches the use of Canadian Forest Tree essences within the parameters of an iridology practitioner in her emotional iridology programs."

Note: hmmmmm.

002.b. in "About Us":

"'trees speak' [...] trees collect energy [...] in China one name for this energy is 'chi' and in Indian yoga it is called 'prana' [...] life energy [...] prana [...] 'factor x' [...]  an unbeknown energy factor [...] essences are a way of recording the energy impressions or memory of trees. They are vibrational in nature [...] each tree has its unique song. As when you are with a tree, feeling connected, nourished in its presence, so when you ingest an essence you are in effect listening to the music of a tree."

Note: so, iridology, vitalism, and tree talking = naturopathy!

Homeopathy - ND Cates vs Richard Dawkins:

here, I compare two competing positions regarding homeopathy: an ND who graduated from NCNM who claims that homeopathy mightily works [see 001., below]; an eminent scientist who clearly disagrees, but [generously!] proposes an experimental design which would appropriately test homeopathy [see 002., below]:

001. Cates, T.H. (ND NCNM 2000) states in "Homeopathy Basics" (2010-02-24):

"below are some common questions a curious consumer may ask a retailer regarding the most effective ways to take advantage of homeopathy’s healing properties [...Q] do scientific studies support the use of homeopathic prescriptions? [A] Because of the unique method in which homeopathic remedies are selected, standard scientific studies do not often adequately portray the true efficacy of homeopathy ['excuse' alert!]. Despite this fact, studies have shown ['cake and eat it too' alert!] long-term treatment with homeopathy can reduce disease severity and improve quality of life in patients with a variety of acute and chronic diseases [...] homeopathy is a gentle and effective way to enhance a person’s immune system [while NO SUCH  EFFECT has ever actually been reliably measured!] and treat acute illnesses such as the flu ['delay appropriate care' alert!...] homeopathy can provide great immune support and relief from various health concerns ['panacea' alert!...] homeopathy can help individuals enhance wellness and overcome illnesses."

Note: so, we have the 'you can't science it' and a simultaneous 'but science supports it' irrationality.  We have the promises of 'broad efficacy', that homeopathy treats / cures.  ND Cates is a member of HANP.

002. Richard Dawkins writes in "The Trouble With Homeopathy" (2010-02-24):

"if homeopathy really worked, it should be easy and cheap to demonstrate it [...] I am personally convinced that homeopathy doesn't work. The best way to test any proposed therapy is the double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial (DBCRT) [...] homeopathy is eminently eligible for, indeed vulnerable to, double blind testing [so excuses about it not being science-able are complete bullshit...] here's my experimental design [which I won't detail here...overall] if experiments as carefully controlled as this one reliably and repeatably showed that the extremely diluted homeopathic substances were effective, what should we conclude? [...IMAGINE!] it would mean that a hitherto unknown principle of physics had been discovered [...] the homeopath [or naturopath!] who made such a stunning discovery should receive the Nobel Prize for Physics, as well as the Nobel Prize for Medicine. With such a holy grail in view, shouldn’t homeopaths [and naturopaths!...] be beavering away, night and day, in the laboratory to demonstrate the effect? And are they? No. They are much more interested in taking money off patients who believe in the treatment because – like any placebo – it sometimes seems to work [...] until homeopathy is demonstrated to work (which it almost certainly will never be) it should not be supported by the NHS [hear, hear]."

Note: Richard Dawkins is an actual scientist.

003. as far as I know, no AANP or CAND school is directly scientifically investigating naturopathy's absurd claims, such as:

003.a. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that there is a vital force;

Note: while vitalism is science-ejected.

003.b. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that there is spirit;

Note: while supernaturalism is outside the boundaries of science.

003.c. scientifically supporting naturopathy's claim that homeopathy actually works.

Note: while naturopathy labels homeopathy a clinical science / health science, upon the preponderance, homeopathy is truly "useless and unethical".

004. overall note:

Naturopathy has taken millions of dollars from people in tuition [e.g., I have six-figure debt due to their ruse], and from the NCCAM to selectively study its methods [what a WASTE!].  Dawkins proposes a very simple and rigorous experimental design.  And yet, North American naturopathy is not actually doing the ESSENTIAL SCIENCE which is necessary to establish the actuality of the 'essentially naturopathic'.  All the while, naturopathy is not afraid to label their claims science, hugely. 

This is why my collection of [false] claims / labels by naturopathy that they are science [when they are not] is called "the science that ain't science". 

The AANP's Definition of Naturopathy -- Coded Vitalism Claimed as Scientific:

here, I quote from the 'great naturopathy mother-ship', the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP]: 

001. the AANP states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?":

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism!...the] bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism!...per] the best of modern medical science [...naturopathy's] six timeless principles [are] found[ed] on medical tradition and scientific evidence [...#1] let nature heal [...per] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...#3] use low-risk procedures and healing compounds [...including] homeopathy [...#5] we each have a unique [...] spiritual makeup."

Note: I'll flesh out the coded vitalism in 002., below.  Obviously, 'naturopathy is claiming that the essentially naturopathic' is scientific [more here].  This includes vitalism, homeopathy, and supernaturalism -- none of which have supporting scientific evidence, overall.  AANP's overall MO, as exemplified to their minions from this supposed definition, is to opaquely represent naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise and falsely label what lacks scientific support as having scientific support.

002. as a 'master decoder', I recommend my compilation detailing naturopathy's essential vitalism belief.

003. regarding the lack of scientific support for homeopathy -- which naturopathy falsely labels a "clinical science" on their licensure exam -- this is now quite decided.

Homeopathy per HCSTC 2010 - "Placebo" and "Implausible":

DC's Improbable Science blogs in "MPs Urge Government to Stop NHS Funding and MHRA Licensing of Homeopathy"(2010-02-22):

"the [House of Commons] Science and Technology Committee concludes that the NHS should cease funding homeopathy [...] as they are not medicines, homeopathic products should no longer be licensed by the MHRA [...] the Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible."

Note: yes, yes, yes.  Meanwhile, North American naturopathy labels homeopathy a "clinical science".  For course, naturopathy is famous for its irrationality / absurdity.