Naturopathy and Platelet Rich Plasma Treatment: Another Dud, Methinks.

here, I compare opinions about Platelet Rich Plasma therapy by the New York Times [NYT; see 001., below], PalMD at Scienceblogs [see 002., below], and an NMD [see 003., below]:

001. Kolata, G. (? ?) reports in the NYT’s “Popular Blood Therapy May Not Work”(2010-01-12):

“platelet-rich plasma, or P.R.P. [...] it is a new procedure, based on an idea that once seemed revolutionary: Inject people with their own blood, concentrated so it is mostly platelets, the tiny colorless bodies that release substances that help repair tissues […] now, though, the first rigorous study asking whether the platelet injections actually work finds they are no more effective than saltwater […it’s] ‘an unproven therapy.’”

Note: I'd argue that PRP is seemingly on its way to being another proven placebo therapy.

002. PalMD writes in “Platelet Rich Plasma”(2010-02-23):

“there is little evidence to support platelet rich plasma for the treatment of anything. And yet it is being hyped and sold everywhere as a miracle cure for musculoskeletal injuries. Perhaps more studies will enlighten the issue further, but at this point, PRP is nothing but expensive snake oil, and those who promote and use it should re-examine the data and their ethics.”

003. meanwhile, in naturopathy-land, Cronin, M.J. (NMD NCNM 1980) states in “Naturopathic Doctor of Scottsdale Treats Golf Injuries with Revolutionary Technology”(2010-04-13):

“platelet rich plasma treatment (PRP) is a non-surgical method that regenerates ligaments and treats chronic pain […] PRP is a major component of the healing process that Dr. Cronin prescribes […] Michael Cronin, NMD […] states ‘naturopathic physicians seek to treat the causes of disease rather than to simply suppress the symptoms […] treating pain effectively and achieving complete recovery is an important part of what we do here. PRP has given hope to those whom only a few years ago had very limited options to recovery [...to] correct those nagging and painful injuries that limit their activities.’”

004. so, there seems, at first glance, to be contesting EXPERT opinions regarding PRP!

I, myself, do not think it works and would not trust an ND/NMD’s opinion of what is actually ‘in-evidence.’ ND/NMDs are, after all, the crowd that labels the hugely science-ejected for decades and hundreds of years as scientific.  That is not expertise, that is madness.

World Homeopathy Awareness Week! Irrationality Awareness Week!

here, I call attention to World Homeopathy Awareness Week [WHAW], and link it up to naturopathy:

001. the World Homeopathy Awareness Organization [WHAO] states:

001.a. at their homepage:

"WHAW starts with the week of April 10-16, 2010 [...] the theme for 2010 is homeopathy and mental well-being."

Note: seems homeopathy is claiming some kind of expertise regarding 'mental wellness.'  But what if the entire homeopathic enterprise, contextually, is irrational [as it is]?

001b. at "World Homeopathy Awareness Week" [WHAW]:

"homeopathy is a science, founded on the basis of rigid experimentation [...] homeopathy is an ever changing ever growing science."

Note: seems homeopathy is claiming some expertise regarding what science is, too.  This is quite similar to the North American naturopathic board exam stating that homeopathy is a clinical science.

 

 Meanwhile, homeopathy has been recently SO scientifically rejected that it is difficult to imagine homeopathy ever recovering whatever charity it was clinging to [much like other rejected and archaic medical ideas, like humorism -- onto the trash-heap you go].  

 

Homeopathy's position is, in my view, quite irrational these days.  Though scientifically trounced, homeopaths demand the science label [can you say 'the essentially naturopathic!'].   They speak of mental well-being, but can't stop clinging to that obsessive position.

 

The North American naturopaths have been quite SILENT about this HUGE 'homeopathy has been blown out of the water' development, and I'll spell out maybe why: a recent UK review finds homeopathy to be bunk, but for naturopathy bunk is science -- in the classroom, on board exams, clinically [if you follow 'the education of a naturopath'].

 

Homeopathy is merely one aspect of naturopathy's bunk is science.

Here's an example of some HUGE OVERARCHING BUNK that is at the heart of naturopathy ['vitalism as science'; essentially, falsely claiming that the science-ejected for decades and hundreds of years is "in fact" current science; sc 2010-04-12]:

 

 

Falsely labeled science [vsc 2010-04-12], for how many decades now?

The Promotion of the Ancient Superstition of Vitalism at NCCAM - Novella, SBM 2010-04-07:

Dr. Novella writes in "Our Visit with NCCAM" at Science-Based Medicine (2010-04-07):

"in the same [NCCAM] newsletter there is [an] article discussing the evidence for acupuncture and pain showing a model of chi and meridians – mystical life force and the lines through which they allegedly flow [...] the pattern of information is consistent – NCCAM staff talk about a strict adherence to evidence-based medicine and science being neutral, but interspersed with this is an uncritical presentation of ancient superstition as if it were science, and endorsement of treatments that are not backed by science, and in fact have been shown not to work [...] all of this confirms our worst fears about NCCAM – that its very existence, and the generally positive and uncritical information it provides to the public, is used to promote and endorse unscientific medical modalities [...] given that the CAM community is actively exploiting the existence of the NCCAM as an imprimatur of legitimacy [can you say 'naturopathy'], the NCCAM needs to take special care to avoid such exploitation."

Note: hear, hear.  Per "an uncritical presentation of ancient superstition as if it were science", that sums up my experience with naturopathy -- lack of due diligence from an area posing as professionally rigorous.

CFI Toronto and Homeopathy: It Cannot & Does Not Work:

the Center For Inquiry states in the press release "Center for Inquiry -- World Homeopathy Awareness Week: A Celebration With No Substance"(2010-04-06):

"starting April 10, homeopaths will celebrate World Homeopathy Awareness Week [WHAW]in honor of their founder, 17th century homeopath Samuel Hahnemann. Sadly, one fact will be missing from their material: homeopathy doesn't work [...] the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) [...] a committee of the Center for Inquiry which responds to scientific, technological and medical claims made in public discourse to promote evidence-based science [...] will be mustering its scientific advisory ranks to answer unsubstantiated claims made by the homeopathic community. The modern scientific method has shown that homeopathy can not and does not work."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy, even in Canada, claims that homeopathy is a clinical science.  Since in naturopathy nonscience and science are equated: therefore, contemplate during WHAW the fact that naturopathy is as scientific as homeopathy!

Naturopathy As An Academic Ponzi Scheme

here, I muse on North American naturopathy's similarity to Ponzi-style, falsehood-based, inevitably-going-to-collapse investment schemes -- particularly as such exists academically:

001. first, some thoughts:

quite a huge amount of money flows through ND programs, while overarching the entire ND enterprise is the huge ND academic absurdity that labels what is profoundly not scientific as indeed academically within the category science / medical science / health science. Like a Ponzi scheme, the situation cannot be maintained: education consumer damages from naturopathy's essential academic falsehood inducement [e.g., come study 'this branch of medical science though essentially based upon the hugely science-ejected for decades', I believe, must monetarily exceed the collective assets of these naturopathy schools' and organizations'.  

Basically: from an ounce of falsehood, you get a resulting pound of harm.

001. per Ponzi scheme:

001.a. Wikipedia defines a Ponzi scheme as:

"a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned [...] the system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors."

001.b. I'll adapt the above to naturopathy:

"naturopathy is a fraudulent academic operation that trades upon a scientific status / label it does not fundamentally occupy.  Monies are accepted from trusting education consumers by North American ND-granting academic institutions with the expectation that the operation's scientific status is not an academic falsehood.  But, naturopathy is fundamentally false [e.g. naturopathy's essential vitalism is not as claimed science but in fact science-ejected].  Since the damages due those hundreds swindled over the past decade likely exceed the assets and tuition income of these ND-granting schools and political organizations, naturopathy has already, as a system, collapsed."

002. but, turns out, you can write in detail to the regulation authorities, and nothing yet happens.

Naturopaths Actually Can Be Disciplined For Unprofessional Conduct?

here, a bizarre case of naturopathic professional misconduct, as reported by the State of Washington Department of Health in "State Disciplines Health Care Providers"(2010-04-02):
 

"in February 2010 the Naturopathy Program [whatever that is] charged Kristi D. Tompkins (NT00001626) with unprofessional conduct. While working as a caregiver, she allegedly left a patient alone for several hours before her shift was set to end and wasn’t available when the patient awoke with extreme pain."

Note: I don't get it.  If some aspect of professional conduct applies to naturopathy, how then is naturopathy able to get away with the complete and utter unprofessional falsehood of context that defines naturopathy?  What a sweetheart arrangement.

 

I am sorry that someone felt pain for a while.  What about those who went down the ND rabbit hole and now will suffer six-digit debt for life -- built upon the falsehood known as naturopathy? 

 

I image the State of Washington saying:

 

"forget the huge naturopathic unprofessionalism that essentially defines naturopathy, its the little things they can nab us on -- after all, we endorsed them."

 

Someone explain to me the regulatory charity that the ND establishment is marinating in!

Naturopathy's New Propaganda Platform - Pais's Facebook via Google:

here, I cite from a google.com web search that displays an ND's Facebook page second in the results and claims that naturopathy is a branch of medical science [see 001.a. & b., below] and that links to the ND's clinical pages that label homeopathy a science [see 001.c., below]; then, I cite from that ND's alma mater, and its huge epistemic absurdity [see 002.a., below]; and, then I cite directly from the ND luminary that is mentioned in 001.b., [see 002.b. below]; finally, I offer a summation [see 002.c., below]:

001. web searching via google.com with the parameters >naturopathic "from the sciences"< results in:

001.a. a Facebook page by Pais, G. (ND NCNM 1992, DHANP AANP 1997) that is ranked second [as of  2010-03-29] titled "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-03-26] which states:

"naturopathic physicians are trained as general practitioners specializing in natural medicine. They have a doctor of naturopathic medicine (N.D.) degree from a four-year graduate medical college with admission requirements comparable to conventional medical schools. The N.D. degree requires graduate level study in medical sciences [...] in addition to the standard medical curriculum, naturopathic students must do extensive coursework in natural therapeutics. This includes therapies from the sciences [...including] homeopathy [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science[...] naturopathic medicine is a system of medicine founded on an honored medical principle: nature heals [coded vitalism]. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health [coded vitalism] and the naturopathic physician’s role is to facilitate and support this process [...] the body’s innate healing process [...] homeopathic medicine acts to strengthen the body’s innate immune response [coded vitalism...] the following principles are the foundation that naturopathic medicine is built on: [#1] the healing power of nature. Nature acts powerfully through healing mechanisms in the body and mind [coded vitalism] to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic physicians work to restore and support these inherent healing systems [coded vitalism] when they have broken down [...this is] a philosophy that works."

Note: so, there's the science claim galore, at supposed doctoral and professional levels of rigor. There's the label of science upon homeopathy [which is resoundingly NOT SCIENCE SUPPORTED].  And there's that typical ND MO: don't overtly reveal / transparently display / honestly relate naturopathy's principle article of faith: that physiology is run by a purposeful life spirit.  Instead, naturopathy obviously disguises such sectarian such and such in naturalistic language.

 

"Works?"  I'm trying to figure out how this philosophy works: equate something with what it is not, e.g. call articles of faith / the science-unsupported scientifically-derived / -supported, hide this absurd position from the public while trading on a false position.  I seriously don't think one gets past college undergraduate courses with such HUGE irrationality [never mind those at the doctoral level!].  And how can one posture the position of 'professional ethical rigor' from such falsehood? Most properly, naturopathy is in my view a mental illness.

 

001.b. a Facebook entry by Pais titled "Why Not Treat the Person Not the Disease" [psc 2010-03-29] states:

 

"Dr. Pizzorno is one of the standout naturopathic physicians of the last several decades. He is one of the world's leading authorities on science-based natural medicine."

 

Note: so, the four words most associated with Bastyr and Pizzorno are, as also reflected above, "science-based natural medicine."

 

001.c. Pais's clinical web pages, "For Optimal Health," state: 

 

001.c1. in "Classical Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-03-29]: 

 

"homeopathy is a scientific system of natural medicine [...] all together [homeopathy is] the best of both worlds — safe because they’re so dilute and powerful because of their energetic action [coded vitalism]."

 

Note: so we have the label of science upon homeopathy, and a supposed / putative 'energy' that is its mechanism that has never been measured -- like homeopathy's claimed affect.

 

001.c2. in "About Gregory Pais"[vsc 2010-03-29]: 

 

"Dr. Pais has been practicing classical homeopathy for fourteen years [...and he's] grounded in the science of wholistic medicine." 

 

Note: the wholistic is usually body,mind, spirit, nature, two of which are exterior to science [supernatualism, vitalism], and for naturopathy includes homeopathy.

 

002. analyzing NCNM, Pizzorno, and therein Pais's claims:

 

002.a. NCNM, Pais's alma mater, states in "Principles of Healing":

 

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...they are] the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force."

 

Note: ok, so in just four sentences, naturopathy visits upon the public EXTREME ABSURDITY.  We have the scientific claim, we have the science claim upon the hugely not scientific.  With science equated with nonscience, I can offer no other advice to anyone who falls under the shadow of such irrationality but RUN.  A profession?  As professional as it is scientific. 

 

002.b. Pizzorno states in "Total Wellness: Improve Your Health By Understanding the Body’s Healing Systems" (1996; ISBN 0761504338):

 

"some important concepts [are fundamental to naturopathy]. The healing power of nature  (vis medicatrix naturae). Our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal [coded vitalism...] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [coded vitalism...] our underlying healing systems [p.003...] the routes to total wellness. 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) [overt vitalism, equated with the supernatural]. 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 [p.024...] live in harmony with your life-force [p.026 ...] live in harmony with the  psychosocial/spiritual/life-force [overt vitalism, equated with supernatural and some kind of 'social mind' whatever... p.317...] in mind/body medicine, the placebo effect is recognized as a marshaling of our self-healing abilities -- the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae [overt vitalism...] it is increased awareness of and access to this teleological force, the healer within [in sum, the life force is a purposeful life spirit], that is the essence of each of us [p.333...] life force. See spiritual system [again, overt vitalism equated with the supernatural, p.410]."

 

Note: so, the leading expert in "science-based natural medicine" -- Pizzorno -- equates what is hugely not within science [vitalism, teleology, supernaturalism] with science.  That is the epistemic conflation of naturopathy -- which is a form of absurdity.  Again, run. 

 

002.c. Pais in relation: 

 

so, overall, naturopathy keeps claiming an overarching category of science-basis, while fundamentally based upon the nonscientific, which is often disguised in naturalistic language -- as Pais above demonstrates, and Pizzorno above begins from.

 

Run, run, run FAR AWAY.

Today, Two Criticisms of Homeopathy [UK, Canada]:

001. The Telegraph's Chiver's, T. (? ?) states in "Why Does Boots Sell Homeopathy Like It's Real Medicine?"(2010-03-26):

"my girlfriend went into Boots [...] and bought some arnica. Except she didn’t. She bought some sugar [...] the word 'arnica' did not immediately flag up for her the associated words 'homeopathy' and 'quackery', as it did for me (see the splendid 10:23 campaign for more information) [...] a homeopathic arnica solution [...] homeopathy [...] is based on [...] like cures like and [...] dilution increases potency [...] to increase the potency of their solution, homeopaths dilute it enormously [...] at 30C, that means there is one part active ingredient in a million billion billion billion billion billion billion parts water. That equals, roughly, one molecule of the active ingredient in a ball of water with the same diameter as the Earth’s orbit around the Sun [...] it is placebo [...] why [does] Boots, a respected high street chemist [...] sell my unsuspecting better half something labelled 'arnica' when it might be more accurately labelled 'no arnica' [...] it does nothing, because it contains nothing [...] if Boots are going to sell it, could they not put it under a sign saying 'make-believe medicine'? Or 'gullibility pills'?"

002. Rabble.ca's Mang, E. (? ?) states in "Homeopathy Preys on the Desperate"(2010-03-26): 

"there was a recent story in the mainstream media about a naturopath who went to Jacmel, Haiti to dispense homeopathic 'remedies'. Ailing Haitians who had lined up thinking they would have access to medicine, left after learning that what was being offered had no medical value [...] I see this as taking advantage of vulnerable people with a concoction that fails every on every scientific front [...] but just because something gives one hope doesn't mean it works [...] there's the problem of post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this') thinking [...] taking an unproven 'remedy' for an ailment and healing after five days. That could very well have been your body healing itself and not the unproven 'remedy' [...] so it goes with homeopathy. In short, homeopathy is water [...] we have made significant scientific advances in the past 200 years. Homeopathy defies the basic premises of physics and chemistry [...] you shouldn't be surprised that not one person has overdosed on a homeopathic remedy [...] if homeopathy is no better than a sugar pill, that it merely fools the body into thinking a curative medication has been consumed, then this defeats the notion that homeopathy is an effective medicine [...] the only way to ensure that homeopathy actually works is to subject it to a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial [...] homeopaths are reticent to do this [...] I think this gives them cover to keep making money off people desperately seeking treatment. Not only does homeopathy fail scientific testing, if it preys on the vulnerable, it is unethical [...] an open mind is a skeptical mind. It's a mind that desires evidence, but it's also a mind that welcomes change when delivered proof. If homeopathy can pass double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trials, I will change my tune. Until then, homeopathy is a sham, it preys on the desperate, and despite all the good intentions of its practitioners, they should mull over the ethics of their actions."

Note: meanwhile, NDs call homeopathy "clinical science."

The Late Greenspan, D. (ND NCNM 1990), and Naturopathy's Similar Double Life

here, I cite from reporting concerning the alleged / apparent illegal-drug-dealing-related violent homicide of Oregon ND Greenspan [see 001., below]; then, I cite from his current web pages [see 002., below]; and, then I show how those web pages don't accurately / transparently represent naturopathy by comparing his alma mater NCNM's naturopathy description to that of the ND's clinic web pages [see 003., below]; and then, I connect [see 004., below]:

001. according to news.google.com:

001.a. The Oregonian's "Washington County Police Arrest Man in SE Portland Naturopathic Doctor's Death" (2010-03-19)[vsc 2012-03-29] states:

"[as reported by Helen Jung] police have arrested a man in the killing of a naturopathic doctor who was discovered dead last Sunday and initially believed to be a suicide. Detectives now think the shooting of David Greenspan, 46, of Southeast Portland was drug-related [...] Greenspan operated the Greenspan GoodHealth Clinic [GGHC] in Tigard. A 1986 graduate of Pennsylvania State University, he received his naturopathic degree from the National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM] in Portland in 1990, according to a release from the college [...] he was a past president of the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...and] served as a board member for the college [NCNM]."

001.b. KPTV reports in "Deputies Rule Doctor's Death Homicide" (2010-03-19):

"investigators initially thought the 46-year-old took his own life, but later determined he'd been killed after leaving to make a drug deal."

001.c. KGW.com states in "Police: Man Killed Naturopathic Doc in Drug Deal" (2010-03-19):

"deputies called what they found 'a troubling picture involving [presumably illegal recreational] drug use and drug sales [of such].'"

001.d. nwcn.com states in "Naturopathic Doctor Killed in Drug Deal Led a Double Life" (2010-03-20):

"a Portland area naturopathic doctor was murdered over a drug deal, his death then was made to look like a suicide, detectives said Friday."

Note: his web page biography in 2005 stated "he has also served as President of the Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians and is currently Vice-President of the Board of Directors at the National College of Naturopathic Medicine." I emphasize this because what I'd like to point out is that things [people, institutions!] aren't always what they seem: I think the community is surprised that a 'doctor' was apparently / allegedly a drug-dealer. Similarly, Greenspan's web pages [see 002., below] do not accurately / transparently portray naturopathy just like his alma mater does too [see 003., below]. In other words, Greenspan's descriptions of / labels upon 'the essentially naturopathic' are incomplete and false just like his alma mater's, where he was TAUGHT.

002. Greenspan's web pages [aka GGHC; while they still are up (I've archived them too); he practiced with Mages, N. (ND NCNM 2001) most recently]:

002.a. the homepage states [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"Natural Medicine For Women and Their Families in Portland, Oregon."

Note: his practice was mainly marketed to women.

002.b. the "About Us" pages states [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"Dr. Greenspan grew up in Princeton, New Jersey and attended Penn State University, where he received a bachelor of sciences degree with honors in molecular and cell biology, in 1986. He graduated from the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1990."

Note: so, he is an NCNM 1990 ND with a bachelors in biology.

002.c. the "A Message From Dr. Greenspan" page states [in language that has roughly been going on since 2003] [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"I found a new set of scientific principles in naturopathic medicine [...] we appreciate the scientific basis in medicine, and we revere the wisdom and natural laws inherent in nature."

Note: so, the label Greenspan placed upon the principles of naturopathy is "scientific." I wonder where that came from? [see 003., below].

002.d. the "Frequently Asked Questions" page states [in language that has roughly been going on since 2003] [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"medical doctors generally operate from a perspective [...that] can produce a relief of symptoms in the short term [but] it does not really work to understand or correct the underlying cause of the problem[*]. Naturopathic physicians operate from a perspective that the body has an inherent ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] this inherent healing ability [coded vitalism...] the body's inherent self-correcting systems [coded vitalism...] this ability of the body [coded vitalism...] 'naturopathic care is not scientific' - that's what they [MDs] say. However, naturopathic medicine and its various methods are scientifically studied and proven in all types of medical research facilities and journals. There are many other aspects of naturopathic care that are better defined and studied using other scientific approaches than the typical one seen in our medical system [loosening of the rigors of science!]. Many of these perspectives are challenging to the average medical doctor [ah, those measly MDs]."

Note: so, there is the HUGE coding of the essential premise of naturopathy, and a claim of science placed upon the naturopathic per "studied and proven". 

*Of course, if you pose a solution to a problem...and you've invented the problem in the first place [like your vital force needs our treatment]...and the problem is essentially FAKE...I think such is termed RACKETEERING [because there isn't such a vital force].  So, saying 'only us NDs can truly solve your problems, regular medicine just puts a band-aid over it' smacks of that to me.

002.e. the "Digestive Health" page states [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"our physical bodies are ultimately composed of the food that we consume. Today, American's are part of a massive, uncontrolled food science experiment [...] at GGHC we understand the science behind these facts and have expertise in identifying the underlying cause of your symptoms."

Note: so, we have a science expertise claim.

002.f. the "Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain" page states [vsc 2010-03-20]:

"naturopathic medicine offers a unique perspective on fibromyalgia and chronic pain. This is because the scientific principles incorporate a study of the function in the body’s tissues and organs."

Note: so, here we are told that the principles of naturopathy are scientific.

002.g. what you don't find, via a google.com search:

mention on any GGHC page of "life force", "medicatrix", "healing power", "spirit" -- concepts which are essential to mention in order to actually be talking about 'the naturopathic'. This is on the pages of a former OAND president and NCNM board member!

Note: fascinating, things aren't always what they SEEM / are presented as.

003. what NCNM reveals about naturopathy, as compared to ND Greenspan's language:

the central NCNM web page that explains / labels naturopathy contextually is "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-03-21]. Both NDs at GGHC's pages were NCNM graduates, and those NDs practiced in Oregon under OBNM. NCNM is in Oregon. At NCNM's page we are informed that:

003.a. naturopathy is scientific and professional:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...which are] the distinguishing marks of the profession [...] These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."

Note: so, there is this overall impression / 'broad marketing claim' that naturopathy's claims are "objective", and survive scientific scrutiny.

003.b. naturopathy is based upon vitalism:

"[in principle #1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health [...which] is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

Note: so, after claiming naturopathy is "science" we're told that the "life force" is "in fact." Yet, vitalism has been science-ejected for several decades, minimally. Remember, none of this medicatrix / vital life force language was up at GGHC in explicit language.  It was up in what I call coded language: it's up at NCNM whereas it wasn't at GGHC, but both falsely label nonscience as scientific.

003.c. naturopathy is based upon supernaturalism / spiritism:

"causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors [...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [...] homeopathic medicine [...] works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels."

Note: spirit, spirit, spirit. Remember, we were told by GGHC that this was natural, natural, natural.  But, here is supernaturalism posed as within science. Yet, supernaturalism has been ejected from science for a few hundred years.  In claiming science subset nonscience and supernatural...we're really afar from what is TRUE.

003.d. naturopathy is professional:

"[our] principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [...] as a distinct American health care profession, naturopathic medicine [...] they called their profession 'naturopathy' [...] NCNM has been at the center of the profession [...] the profession has experienced a resurgence [...] National College of Natural Medicine alumni have also founded professional associations to promote and expand naturopathic medicine. This is an exciting time to join the profession."

Note: profession, profession, profession. I can't name another profession which is so wrongheaded while claiming 'highest ethical standards'.

004. naturopathy leads a double life [there's what it seems to be / appears itself to be...and there's what's really going on; just like a 'doctor' who is also a drug-dealer, allegedly!]:

it presents itself as scientific, but it is essentially science-ejected;

it presents itself as objective fact, when it is in fact a subjective belief system;

it claims professionalism but it can't occupy that level of fiduciary duty if it cannot transparently communicate its essential context as a science-ejected sectarian healing system.

Note: so, am I surprised that a member of a sectarian healing cult which HUGELY, falsely and incompletely postures itself to the community [both clinically and education-wise] was allegedly doing something similar / as doubly?

No.

one might even entertain the idea that NCNM's example TAUGHT that kind of behavior.

NDs are taught [and I think it's a crafty form of abuse, actually] that the scientific and the science-ejected are the same thing, and they are taught not to be transparent / up-front about the whole thing.

THAT is cultic, and manipulative.

now, what's also very appalling is that this naturopathic duplicity mode has been written into Oregon law! [vsc 2010-03-20]

so, I can't say it is illegal in Oregon.

Update 2012-03-29 [I mildly edited the text above, too]:

the Oregonian tells us in "Murder trial set to begin in 2010 death of Tigard physician, shot outside Cornelius" (2012-03-29) [vsc 2012-03-29]:

"[as reported by Emily E. Smith] trial is scheduled to begin next week for the man [Bement] accused of aggravated murder in the shooting death of David Greenspan, a naturopathic physician [...] prosecutors will argue that Bement shot Greenspan three times to rob him of $25,000 in cash and eliminate a debt he owed the doctor [...]  prosecutors said the two men has a business relationship in which Bement arranged drug deals and Greenspan supplied the cash [...] Greenspan died with methamphetamine, heroin and prescription drugs in his system, according to an autopsy report. His drug use and statements he made in the months before his death show he had become 'increasingly paranoid and psychotic,' defense attorneys say."

Update 2012-05-17:

it has been reported that the murderer of ND Greenspan has gotten life without parole for the crime (here).  And I do wonder, as I have since about the year 2001...

how long will naturopathy overall as a crime against reason, science, medicine and fairness continue without correction?

'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?