Pizzorno Nonsense: The 'Supernatural Naturalism' of Naturopathy's Nature

here, I compare two quasi-historic book-published descriptions of the underlying principle of naturopathy [aka vis medicatrix naturae / healing power of nature / life force / spirit] from this current 'naturopathy revival' era.  One, naturalistic, comes from the Murray and Pizzorno authored "An Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine" (1991) [ENM; see 001., below]; and the other, supernatural, comes from Pizzorno's [yes, same author as 001.] “Total Wellness” (1996) [TW; see 002., below]; then, I ask a simple question [because absurdly, in naturopaTHICKland, what is naturalistic and scientific, and what is supernatural and nonscientific ARE EQUATED; see 003., below]:

001. in ENM [ISBN 1559580925, 1991][which I own],  Murray [ND Bastyr 1985] and Pizzorno [ND NCNM 1975] write:

001.a. in the dedication:

"[dedication] to the beauty, truth and wisdom [BTW] of naturopathic medicine.  This book is dedicated both to naturopathic medicine [...] and to those physicians and healers who have bestowed the virtues of the 'healing power of nature' [HPN] throughout history and those who will do so in the future."

Note: so, we have HPN, and this claim of BTW.  We will see that naturopathy's illogical actual position is ugly, untrue, and unwise: that that which is science-based is that which is science-ejected.  Many would call that madness, instead of wisdom.

001.b. in the preface:

"this book was written in an effort to update the public's knowledge on the use of ‘natural’ medicines in the maintenance of  health and treatment of disease. It dispels a common myth about the use of natural remedies - that natural medicine is 'unscientific'.  This book contains information based on firm scientific inquiry and represents countless hours of research [...and] is without question the most thoroughly researched and referenced book on the use of  natural medicines ever written for the public [...] it is designed  for use in conjunction with the services provided by physicians practicing natural medicine. Readers are strongly urged to develop a good relationship with a physician knowledgeable in the art and science of natural and preventive medicine, such as a naturopathic physician [...] Michael T. Murray ND [and] Joseph E. Pizzorno, ND."

Note: so, there's a claimed goal of 'public enlightenment' [just as naturopathy has this oath-bound requirement of 'physician as teacher'], a claim of scientific and thorough rigor, a promotion of naturopathy as science, and a use of the label natural upon 'the naturopathic.'  Now, JEP claims to be an expert on naturopathy the "science-based natural medicine", still.

001.c. in the first chapter of the book "What Is Natural Medicine?":

"[after the standard wacky quote by Edison that medicine will not medicate in the future, thus  naturopathy (which loves to dispense medicaments!)] science and medicine now have in their possession the technology and understanding necessary to appreciate the value of  'natural' therapies [...] at the forefront of this revolution is naturopathic medicine [...whose] philosophical roots can be traced back to Hippocrates [p.003...] the naturopathic physician is trained in finding the underlying cause rather than treating or suppressing the symptoms [...] naturopathic medicine [...] traces its philosophical roots to the Hippocratic school of medicine circa 400 BC [...] prehistoric people believed that disease was caused by magic or supernatural forces, such as devils or angry gods. Hippocrates, breaking with this superstitious belief, became the first naturalistic doctor in recorded history [...] Hippocratic practitioners assumed that everything in nature had a rational basis; therefore, the physician’s role was to understand and follow the laws of the intelligible universe. They viewed disease as an effect and looked for its cause in natural phenomena - air, water, food, etc. They used the term vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN], to denote the body’s ability to heal itself [BATHI]. Naturopathy or 'nature cure' [...uses] natural means of preventing and treating human disease [p.004]."

Note: [so, ignoring the fact that NDs love to give out medicine, particularly from their own dispensaries, which is usually seen as quite an ethical conflict in actual healthcare] there is the overall claim that naturopathy is a form of naturalism, and that it survives scientific scrutiny.  The Big H. is appropriated to support this claim.  There is the equation of VMN-HPN-BATHI.  Explicit in this explanation is that naturopathy's VMN is naturalistic, and that such survives scientific scrutiny.

001.d. in that same first chapter, we're told of the essential vitalism of naturopathy [this is why the 1991 edition of ENM is a real keeper -- I've had one since the early 1990s, and relied on its misguidance to plan for graduate school as well as the AANP's misguidance]

"vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature. Fundamental to the practice of naturopathic medicine is a profound belief [truly] in the ability of the body to heal itself [p.006...NDs] trust in the vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [p.012...] naturopathic medicine is 'vitalistic' in its approach, i.e. life is viewed as more than just the sum of biochemical processes [e.g., spirit is therein too], and the body is believed [truly] to have an innate intelligence [vital force] that is always striving for health. Vitalism [p.006…] a wide variety of different types of therapy can be employed by the naturopathic physician in the treatment of an individual, including nutrition, botanical medicines, homeopathy, acupuncture, physiotherapy, counseling and lifestyle modification […] homeopathy is a system of medicine that treats a disease with a dilute, potentised agent, or drug, that will produce the same symptoms as the disease when given to a healthy individual, the fundamental principle being that like cures like. This principle was actually first recognized by Hippocrates […] acupuncture is an ancient Chinese system of medicine involving the stimulation of certain specific points on the body to enhance the flow of vital energy (chi) [ p.007]."

Note: so, at the heart of naturopathy is vitalism.  And vitalism is hugely science-ejected [this is a position paper published by ACTUAL scientists in 1995, a year before the TW book that Pizzorno published in 1996 (see below)].  Homeopathy is hugely bunk, and hugely vitalistic as I was taught when pursuing my ND at UBCNM.  Take away the ancient Chinese medieval beliefs from acupuncture and you basically have a weak parlor trick.  And again, we see naturopathy hijacking the Big H.

001.e. in that same chapter, we're told regarding naturopathic education:

"the first two years concentrate on the standard human biological sciences covering anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, microbiology, etc. The second two years are oriented towards the clinical sciences of diagnosis and treatment […] the therapeutic sciences [p.011]."

Note: science, science, science.  Except, those sciences are not standard at all because permitted within them -- overall, because overarching naturopathy overall, by oath -- is the nonscientific sectarian.

002. JEP writes in TW (ISBN 0761504338, 1996)(also here)[vsc 2010-06-01]:

"some important concepts: the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae. Our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal […] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [p.003…] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life: the immune system, the detoxification system, the inflammatory system, the metabolic system, the regulatory system, the regeneration system, and our life-force or spirit [p.024...] live in harmony with your life-force […] each of us needs to become more aware of the activity of the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) deep within us [p.026...] the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae […] this teleological force, the healer within, that is the essence of each of us [p.333]."

Note: so, now VMN is spirit, which is life force, which is the underlying healing model for naturopathy, and it's purposeful, which means it has a mind of its own.  And, now we're truly into the absurd: wherein, that which was claimed to be scientific and naturalistic is now science-ejected, supernatural and sectarian.  This is naturopathic thinking at its core: an insane 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'.

003. so:

when is something what it is not?  The absurdity known as 'the naturopathic.'  Naturopathy wishes to be both scientifically vetted and trades upon that label, but underneath that holds on to sectarian idealizations / contexts which are profoundly science-ejected -- mainly secretly.

How?  By half-the-time engaging in opaque labelings / falsehoods.  Not professional at all.

Naturopathy's 'Witchcraft & Disgrace': Homeopathy

here, I extend recent comments by UK doctors concerning homeopathy onto North American naturopathy [see 001., below]; which absurdly labels nonscience as science, particularly homeopathy [see 002., below]:

001.a. the Telegraph's Donnelly, L. (? ?) writes in "Homeopathy is Witchcraft, Say Doctors"(2010-05-15):

"hundreds of members of the BMA have passed a motion denouncing the use of the alternative medicine [homeopathy!], saying taxpayers should not foot the bill for remedies with no scientific basis to support them [yes they shouldn't!...] the BMA has previously expressed skepticism about homeopathy [!...] the annual conference of junior doctors has gone further, with a vote overwhelmingly supporting a blanket ban, and an end to all placements for trainee doctors which teach them homeopathic principles. Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA's junior doctors committee in England told the conference: 'homeopathy is witchcraft. It is a disgrace' [...homeopathy's central concepts are] dismissed by scientists [...based on] principles which had no place in science [...] the motion was supported by BMA Chairman Dr Hamish Meldrum [...] the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said there was no possible reason why such treatments [...] could be effective scientifically."

Note: so, homeopathy is regarded preponderantly as 'nonscientific,' "witchcraft," and a "disgrace."

001.b. that British Medical Association meeting, "Junior Doctors Conference 2010: Motion 81," is available here [4:55:30 to 4:58:43].

002. naturopathy's absurd claim that homeopathy is science [really]:

002.a. see Nortman, D. (ND CCNM) who states in "This is Why Homeopaths Emphasize Clinical Results Over Theory":

"classical homeopathy is first and foremost a clinical science."

Benda at AANP's Blog - Naturopathy's Blending / Usage-Reversal Irrationalism:

here, I quote some bizarre word-usage bending [as is typical of naturopathy's category blending] by MD Benda at the AANP's blog [see 001., below]:

001. MD Benda states in "Double Vision" (2010-05-24)[vsc 2010-05-24]:

"visionary [...] a word we’ve all heard countless times as we meander the naturopathic path [...but] visionaries who can discern reality are fewer in number [wow, quite a vote-of-competence for naturopaths in general...who see] the reality of our culture [...] and of our profession [hmmm, realism, how novel for naturopathy...and of] your fellow professionals [...naturopathy] is not always pretty, and definitely not as pretty as our conference and clinic brochures tend to proclaim [...] our organizations avoid dealing with whispered dissent from their membership [...] our internal dysfunctions [...] I believe your profession is at a crossroads [...naturopathy must make] a difficult and objective assessment at what is real in the present."

Note: profession, profession, profession!

I'm always amazed at how SCAM-type people take common usages and turn such on their head.

Now, AHD 4th characterizes "visionary" as: "[01.] characterized by vision or foresight [...02.] having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory [...] imaginary [...03.] characterized by or given to apparitions [...] daydreams [...04.] not practicable or realizable; Utopian [...] unrealistic [...] idealistic."

There's actually nothing in the word's usage that applies to here and now type realism / objectivity!  Yet, Benda seeks to reverse the usage of the word.  Perhaps that what he means by "double vision?" Doubling back on the definition? Wacko!

"Visionaries who can discern reality" is much like stating 'realists whose perceptions are inhibited by figmentations.'  Therein, there is no delineation.  And well, doesn't that go back to naturopathy's central talking point: "naturopathy blends".  A long time ago by blogging standards, MD Barrett at Naturowatch characterized naturopaths as 'muddle-heads.'  Perfect.

002. the AANP blog's sidebar states:

"[NDs are] 'Physicians Who Listen' [...this is] the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism]."

Note: again, profession.  Yes, naturopathy is based on "belief."  But, as usual, AANP hasn't accurately contextualized that belief basis.  Instead, their language is selected to sound naturalistic and science-compatible.

003. a call to realism and transparency [and sanity!] aka the dissolution of naturopathy:

might I suggest naturopathy actually 'objectively assess' naturopathy's essential premises, realize reality, and communicate naturopathy transparently!

What is wrong with naturopathic thinking?  I've termed it "naturopathy's blending / usage-reversal irrationalism."

Wherein figmentations are falsely posed as scientifically-based; and professionalism is posed as the same as manipulation.

Naturopathy not "Medicine Plus" Instead "Everything But" - SMB's Dr. Lipson:

Dr. Peter Lipson writes in Science-Based Medicine's "Naturopathy For Allergies" [2010-05-20]:

"naturopathy is an unusual chimera.  It is basically a collection of old fashioned medical superstitions presented under a veneer of highly speculative, quasi-scientific assertions  [...] it is important, from time to time, to evaluate specific claims made by this particular non-science-based belief system [...including] vitalistic mumbo-jumbo [...] a visit to a national (US) naturopathic association website [the AANP] is a painful lesson in how naturopathic believers view health and disease [...they say] 'very often, simple changes of diet, nutritional supplements, and homeopathic remedies can relieve this extreme reaction and the resulting inflammation that triggers most allergy symptoms' [...] none of these assertions is backed up by evidence.  Most of it isn’t even promising enough to bother with [...AANP says] 'homeopathic remedies involve taking an extremely diluted form of selected allergens in liquid or sugar-pill form sublingually (under the tongue). These minuscule doses serve somewhat like a vaccination, stimulating your immune system to an effective rather than extreme response' [...] vaccination is to homeopathy as horseback riding is to unicorn wrangling [...] naturopaths, it would seem, are not 'medicine plus', but 'everything but.'  Since they do not use proven, effective therapies, the[y] throw unproved, implausible therapies at their patients perhaps hoping that when the allergies relent as a natural course of the disease, they might finally claim credit.  That’s what all the best shamans do."

Note: oh snap!  He called naturopathy a "non-science-based belief system" while AANP states that naturopathy is "science-based" and "not a belief system."

I agree with the former.

Crislip on Naturopathy at PortlandTribune.com: "Pre-scientific, Pseudoscientific, Magical Thinking"

here, I cite from a guest editorial Dr. Mark Crislip did in response to an April article concerning 'naturopaths as primary care providers' at PortlandTribune.com [see 001., below]; then, I provide that April article's link as hosted by NCNM  [see 002., below]; and the OBNM iteration of naturopathy's essential absurdity [see 003., below];

001. Dr. Crislip writes in "Guest Opinion: Naturopathy Providers Water Down Health Care" (2010-05-20) [vsc 2010-05-22]:

"regarding the Tribune story 'Paging Dr. Alternative' (April 1), naturopaths should not be primary care providers or prescribe medications. Their training and experience in biologic sciences and clinical medicine are inadequate [...] in the end it is the underlying paradigm of naturopathic education – pseudoscience and magic – that precludes their functioning as primary care providers [...] fundamental to the naturopathic curriculum is the teaching of magic: Homeopathy. Water therapy. Reiki. Energy Therapy. Craniosacral manipulation. Acupuncture. All are based on a supernatural or pseudoscientific understanding of reality with no basis in known anatomy, physiology, chemistry, biochemistry or physics. They offer nothing beyond a meager placebo effect [...e.g.] homeopathic nostrums are pure water [...] a ritualistic form of magic [...and] a mainstay of naturopathic training [...such] pre-scientific, pseudoscientific, magical thinking that [...] health care in the U.S. has numerous problems for which I have no solutions, but that is not a validation of naturopathy. Naturopathy has to stand or fall on its own principles and practices [...] Mark Crislip, MD, is an editor for the Science Based Medicine blog and the producer of the Quackcast, voted 2009 best Health and Medicine podcast."

Note: hear, hear.  I heartily agree, and I did four years in ND school. I'd add to the phrase "underlying paradigm of naturopathic education, pseudoscience and magic" though: "falsely posed as science."  See, naturopathy is fraud / a racket: no matter how much science they study, there are sectarian science-ejected figmentations that over-arch the entire naturopathic context BY OATH.

002. the 2010-04-01 article is titled "Paging Dr. Alternative: State Pushing Naturopaths to Fill Shortage in Primary Care" [NCNM, likely pleased, hosts that copy though it is not text-searchable] [vsc 2010-05-22].

Note: so, the State of Oregon is promoting naturopathy fraud just like the naturopathy apparatus.

003. the State of Oregon and unrepentant naturopathic sectarian absurdity:

here's the completely insane ".gov" site for 'Oregon naturopathy central,' the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine's "Naturopathy," wherein the profoundly science-ejected [e.g., "methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force"] is falsely labeled as able to survive scientific scrutiny [e.g., "continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis"].  And such legislated fraud is labeled professional.

004. Crislip's bio. states:

"Mark Crislip, MD has been a practicing infectious disease specialist in Portland, Oregon, since 1990."

Note: so Dr. Crislip is at the heart of the naturopathic world, since Portland hosts the AANMC's oldest school.

An ND Refutes Conventional Medical Expertise With a Contrary 'Feeling' at the AANP Blog

Thyr, S. (ND Bastyr) states in "Food Allergies: Fact of Fiction?" (2010-05-20): 

"I recently read an article in the New York Times that said that many people who have been diagnosed with food allergies don’t actually have them. They felt [!!!] that perhaps only 8% of children and less than 5% of adults actually have them. I feel that quite the opposite is true [...] whether you think you have food allergies or just an intolerance, it is wise to see a naturopathic doctor – a specialist in finding and treating the cause." 

Note: notice that the article itself isn't identified!  Sloppy!

Notice the use of the word 'feeling,' as a false equalizer of expertise-status.  Since feelings are equal, roughly, then an ND's take on something is equal to that of a specialist.  An actual specialist.  Not.  Scientific consensus is not 'feeling based,' it is informed from facts.

Now, the NYT article is based upon quite a weight of medical expertise [something an ND lacks galore] (I'll guess it is this article) and it states: "the true incidence of food allergies is only about 8 percent for children and less than 5 percent for adults, said Dr. Marc Riedl, an author of the new paper and an allergist and immunologist." So, I think there is a difference in "feeling" here.  There's 'feeling' from an ND, and then there is actual informed specialist opinion.

Or to say it another way: there's the expert MD specialist summation, and there's the ND quack opinion. 

It is not wise to see the unwise for medical issues.  Whatever they are.  And, since for NDs causes can be figmentations [like a 'vital force' problem] which they then label falsely as scientific fact, I would not count on an ND to distinguish between facts and fictions.  NDs specialize in conflation and obscurantisms: after all, it is Bastyr that states that within science is the nonscientific.  Hilarious.

Thyr is on the AANP board, according to the AANMC.  Here's where she discusses naturopathy without actually transparently discussing naturopathy. She states:

"New Hampshire state law defines naturopathic medicine as 'a system of primary health care practiced by doctors of naturopathic medicine [...] to support and stimulate the individual’s intrinsic self-healing processes [IISHP].”

 

Now that IISHP sounds like a fact, but it is really a vitalistic figmentation, when examined in true naturopathic context.

ARL's Promotion of Absurdity: Hyman's Naturopathy in HuffPo

Allison Rose Levy writes in "Becoming the CEO of Your Own Health" [2010-05-17]:

"by following the basic principles of naturopathy [NM, which is] taking out the 'bad stuff' and putting in the 'good stuff' [etc. (huh?)...] for health insight, science, and action alerts, and radio programs with health experts, please sign up at: www.healthjournalist.com [...] 'we need to change legislative policy to match the new science' Hyman noted [...e.g.] 'functional medicine' [FM and NM!] the systemic approach Hyman practices [...e.g.] mercury [...and] children with autism [...he says] the [causative!] toxins aren't stored in the blood [...]  'they're stored in the tissues, and are best diagnosed with a challenge test' [...] 'this new health care model' [...] 'we don't have evidence based medicine, we have reimbursement based medicine' [...] conventional practice is selective in its willingness to look at the real evidence [...while] conventional medical science shuns empirical clinical evidence while favoring double-blind studies [...] 'we're in the middle of a scientific transformation as great as in Galileo's' [...] 'the way we think about medicine is all wrong.'"

Note: that representation of naturopathy is quite useless.  I offer this representation instead: the basic principle of naturopathy is to employ the label "health science" especially on sectarian junk that isn't and then engage in commerce under such false labels.  ARL claims to be a source for science and journalism, but this 'new science' of Hyman's per 'naturopathy as science' is quite bogus.  So, I'd be careful.  Obviously, FM and NM are being equated, and therein FM is bogus:  heavy metals are hugely not supported as the issue in childhood autism, and the chelation challenge that FM uses is known to be quite an unreliable false positive swindle.  I'm enjoying the wacko statements.  Advice to 'CEOs of own healths': don't run your company into the ground with this nonsense.

Adios Homeopathy via HeraldScotland

HeraldScotland reports in "Doctors Condemn Homeopathy as Witchcraft and Demand [NHS] Ban" [2010-05-17]:

"[per Swarbrick, S. (? ?)] homeopathy, an alternative medicine practice devised in the 18th century by the German physician Samuel Hahnemann, is based on a theory that substances that cause symptoms in a healthy person can, when vastly diluted, cure the same problems in a sick person [...] doctors have denounced homeopathy as witchcraft which should not be supported by the taxpayer and the National Health Service [hear, hear...homeo. has] no scientific basis [...and is based on] principles that had no place in science [...] the BMA has previously expressed skepticism about homeopathy [here's to skepticism...] junior doctors [...] vote[d] last week overwhelmingly supporting a blanket ban and an end to all placements that teach homeopathic principles [...] Dr Tom Dolphin, deputy chairman of the BMA’s junior doctors committee in England, told the conference 'homeopathy is witchcraft' [...] the Commons Science and Technology Committee said the idea behind homeopathy, of treating a patient with highly diluted substances to trigger the body’s natural system of healing, was implausible [...] the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain said there was no possible reason why such treatments [...] could be effective scientifically."

Note: adios, homeopathy.  And hopefully naturopathy along with it.  Remember, naturopathy labels homeopathy a clinical science, just as it does 'the profoundly science-ejected as science-based.'

Use of the Label Profession By The AANP - Their Blog 2010-05-17:

the current AANP President states in "Federal Policy Priorities for the Naturopathic Community: Reflections on the DC FLI" (2010-05-17) [vsc 2010-05-18]: 

"[sidebar] 'Physicians Who Listen' is the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs [...blog post] for a profession as small as ours [...] our profession [...] both the Department of Education and the Carnegie Institute classify the ND degree as a First-Professional Degree on par with MDs and DOs [...] I am impressed by the quality of our candidates and the wealth of experience, knowledge and dedication to the profession [...] the elders in our profession."

Note: hmmm.  Profession, profession, profession.  But, since when is a profession based upon absurdity?

ND Education as "On Par" via Ingram (ND NCNM 2006) - No, I think Not

here, I cite from a recent article by ND Ingram at Citizen-Times.com which states that ND education is comparable to MD/DO and post-graduate doctoral-level science education, and who demands full disclosure from nonAANP ND competitors while himself not transparently communicating naturopathy's true, science-ejected, sectarian nature and context [see 001., below]; I then visit the web pages of the Ingrams and the NCANP [see 002., 003. below]; their alma mater NCNM and their licensing board OBNM [see 004., below]; and then I muse [see 005., below]:

001. Ingram, G. (ND NCNM 2006) [and Ingram, M. (ND NCNM)] state in "Naturopathic Doctors Convene on Capitol Hill" (2010-05-11) [vsc 2010-05-14]:

"local naturopathic doctors Glenn and Marty Ingram joined with 170 other doctors, students and supporters of naturopathic medicine [...] to lobby for the inclusion of naturopathic physicians in federal health care initiatives [their FLI...is an] event organized by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...] naturopathic doctors are licensed as primary care physicians [...] their schools and degree, by Department of Education standards, are on par with those of an MD or DO [...e.g.] doctorate-level education including supervised clinical training [...] graduates of accredited 4-year post-graduate programs who pass national board exams [...] naturopathic physicians [...] bring valuable expertise [...they] facilitate the inherent ability of the human body to maintain and restore optimal health [coded vitalism...it] focuses on correcting the root cause of illness [coded vitalism...] the North Carolina Association of Naturopathic Physicians (NCANP) has been working diligently for licensure over the last decade [...] the public is entitled to full disclosure about the education and training of practitioners to whom they entrust their health [...these NDs] practice at Through the Woods Natural Health in Pisgah Forest (www.throughwoods.com)."

Note: so, we're promised that the ND education is doctoral and typical for physicianship per "on par," that the naturopathic is valuable, and -- here's where my irony meter goes off the dial -- though the vitalistic / actual science-ejected sectarian underpinnings of naturopathy are coded here by these AANP NDs, we're to believe that AANP naturopathy is all about transparency per a demanded "full disclosure."   And, the NDs get to promote themselves through the article without an ounce of criticism / counterpoint.  This article is an advertisement disguised as journalism just as naturopathy is a sectarian belief system disguised as scientific.

002. the Ingrams, at their practice homepage page [vsc 2010-05-14], state:

"the overall mission of Through the Woods Natural Health is to improve the health of individuals, the community, and the world at large [how noble...] we educate people so they can take control of their own healthcare [...] naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of medicine that uses lifestyle changes and natural therapies to stimulate the body’s own healing process [coded vitalism / contextual opacity...per] the underlying cause of your symptoms [...] principles: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process [coded vitalism...#2, we] acknowledge, respect, and work with the individual’s self-healing process [coded vitalism...#4] naturopathic physician encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development [some kind of New-Agey supernaturalism...] naturopathic doctors complete four years of post-graduate education at an accredited naturopathic medical school. Naturopathic doctors are trained in conventional medical sciences, diagnosis, and treatment [science claim] in addition to nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, and physical medicine [...] licensure will help the public differentiate between different practitioners so they may make an informed decision for their health care needs. Both Dr. Glenn and Dr. Marty hold licenses to practice as naturopathic physicians in the state of Oregon [...] the first visit is spent getting to know each other, introducing naturopathic philosophy [...] we use homeopathic remedies [...] homeopathy is just one tool that a naturopathic doctor may use. A specific homeopathic remedy is chosen for you based on your symptoms, personality, and overall patterns of dis-ease.  A homeopathic remedy helps you respond to stress in a more efficient way."

Note: so, a distinct system based upon opacity. Again, my irony meter is in danger of exploding.  If naturopathy cared about the consumer, per "informed decision," I think it would actually transparently communicate its context.  I'll talk about the NCNM philosophy below.  And obviously naturopathy loves homeopathy, homeopathy, homeopathy.

003. the mentioned NCANP's states at its pages:

003.a. 'homepage' [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"naturopathic medicine is a primary health care profession [...] the naturopathic perspective views each person as a whole [coded supernaturalism] and recognizes the healing force within each individual. Natural therapies are used to support and stimulate that vital healing force [coded vitalism...] naturopathic therapies include clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, physical medicine and lifestyle counseling."

Note: so, there's coded vitalism [though "vital healing force" is actually quite an accurate representation of their 'vital force'] and supernaturalism, homeopathic nonsense, and the claim of professionalism.

003.b. "The History of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"the naturopathic profession is committed to on-going scientific research and development. Today's practitioners add to the growing body of research by incorporating modern scientific methods that expand the understanding of the mechanisms of natural healing and therapeutics. Ongoing research in immunology, diagnosis, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, psychology and other clinical sciences contribute to the development of naturopathic medicine."

Note: again, the claim of professionalism and science.  Actually, the truth of the matter is that science has ejected that which is essentially naturopathic.

003.c. "The Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"[#1] the healing power of nature. Naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherit self-healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent [...] this inherent self-healing process [...] acknowledge, respect and work with the individual's self-healing process [all coded vitalism...] doctor as teacher. Naturopathic physicians educate their patients [...] treat the whole person [...] since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development [PSD is naturopathy's supernaturalism, in part]."

Note: so, coded vitalism, PSD sectarian whatever, and this claim of educator / teacher. 

003.d. "How is a Licensible Naturopath Trained?" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"NDs are trained in medical sciences."

Note: yes, those post-graduate doctoral-level science experts known as NDs.

004. meanwhile, in Oregon:

004.a. NCNM, the alma mater of the Ingrams, states in "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"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] stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm, primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

Note: now THERE is the full monty.  And it is INSANE: the hugely for decades science-ejected is claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  That is naturopathy's MO.

004.b. OBNM states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...that are] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...naturopathy's] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...because] illness is a purposeful process of the organism.  The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college with admission requirements comparable to those of conventional medical schools [...] they are educated in conventional medical sciences."

Note: wow, .gov propaganda and pseudoscience galore.  Straight out of 1984, but instead of war being peace, science is now nonscience.

005. so, is naturopathy "on par" with doctoral level medical and science education?

well, lets think: naturopathy codes its actual premises so the public is unable to make an informed decision about engaging with it.  That knocks it out of the box of professionalism.  Naturopathy claims that that which is well outside that-which-is-scientific is indeed scientific fact.  That makes it absurd.  So no.  Not on par at all. 

In fact, it appears that naturopathy has been a recipient of quite a HUGE degree of charity regarding its absurdity posed as professional doctoral-level rigor: engage in commerce clinically and academically under false pretenses, with huge support from academic and licensure regulatory agencies.

Ben Goldacre has an interesting piece up about whistle-blowers.  I'm hoping that the eventual crack-down on naturopathy [which I see as inevitable] is previous to some kind of clinical malpractice harm someone suffers at their hands.  The academic malpractice harm, well, that's ongoing -- obviously.

Naturo.’s Dangerous Nonsense on Stilts as a Total Breakdown of 'Higher Education and Professional Regulation’ - ND Dick in NDNR 2010-05

here, I cite lunacy that's so loony I couldn't ever make such up!  ND Dick wrote a letter to the editor of Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] recently, claiming that naturopathy is a profession, scientific, and overall a reasonable health care choice [see 001., below]; then I cite huge nonsense on stilts from her own web pages [see 002., below]; then I look quickly at naturopathy's essential principles [see 003., below]; and O.G. Carroll whose clinical traditions are lauded by Dick [see 004., below]; and finally I muse [see 005., below]:

001. Dick, L. (ND NCNM 1990) states in "Letter to the Editor" in NDNR [2010-05, p.003]:

001.a. that naturopathy meets the ethical rigors of professionalism:

"[per] our profession [x3...] the profession."

001.b. that naturopathy essentially [here ‘classically or traditionally’ too] is scientific:

 "[per] there is a misconception that the ‘elders’ of the profession, the NDs in clinical practice who use classical naturopathy [CN], are somehow unscientific or practice without science-based, or evidence-based medicine. This is far from true [a strong science claim!…] I am not a radical naturopath and this is not a radical, uneducated, or unscientific approach [quite a promise!]. It has been, and I hope it still is, our standard of care [SOC…quoting Tilden, who presumably she agrees with] 'thousands of doctors have all the scientific data needed, but they have not harnessed their science to common-sense and philosophy [so, embedding science within a belief system, essentially…quoting Hahnemann, who again she presumably agrees with] 'since this natural law of healing [likely ‘like cures like’] is confirmed in all objective experiments and authentic experience in the world, it is established as fact [bullshit]. Scientific explanations of how it works are of little importance, and I see little value in attempting one' [wow, science without science, amazing…] please support this effort to preserve the scientific medicine of our past [quite a strong science claim] for future care of our patients for generations to come. If we must do current research or clinical outcome studies on these protocols, then let us do that [oh, and we’ll do the science part later, seeing as how it’s kind of needed!]."

Note: so, the ‘essentially naturopathic’ is claimed as science and common sense, and THAT is naturopathy’s SOC [label ‘the naturopathic scientific’]. Archaic sources like Tilden and Hahnemann are referenced as gospel.  Both authors obviously have quite an antipathy to science! And then science ex post facto is advised by Dick. Absurd, completely absurd and not common sense at all. Here’s some of what I was taught by my naturopathy elder Sensenig. Yes, that is UB's completely science-ejected sectarian ND figmentations falsely labeled as scientific and nonsectarian facts.  This is "the scientific medicine of our past" we're asked to preserve.

001.c. Dick’s overarching ‘philosophy’ [that to which science is harnessed / embedded within]"

"I utilize a sanipractor [aka ‘naturopathic’] clinical model […a] patient-management model fully supporting naturopathic philosophy, principles, and case management […] classical naturopathy is the philosophy put to common-sense use [...our] classical clinical model [...we must] utilize a clinical model of classical naturopathic medicine in our teaching clinics."

Note: I’ll detail naturopathy’s ‘essential or classical or traditional’ philosophy and principles in 003., below, which is huge nonsense.

002. from Dick's own web pages [for a bio. click here], we find huge nonsense on stilts:

002.a. in "Welcome to Our Clinic!" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:

"the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic is the oldest traditional naturopathic clinic in the United States [...] this application of naturopathy is founded in scientific principles and the laws of nature."

Note: again, a strong science claim. The laws of nature are also a science claim as they come about in modern thought through scientific findings. Yet, of course, in naturopathy what is science and what if figmentation are blended.  Therein, in claiming science: these are the stilts.

002.b. in "Iridology" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:

"iridology, or iris diagnosis, is a way to look at the fibers of the eyes and determine weakness, ulceration, or inflammation of organ tissues […] there are areas of the iris (the colored part of the eye) which correspond to the different parts of the body […] what can be seen is an inflammatory process or irritation in that area in the iris which corresponds to the lung tissue of the body […] for example, by seeing loose or gapping iris fibers in the liver area it is then determined that there is liver irritation or inflammation […per] weak areas of the metabolism […then] a treatment protocol can be developed for each individual person based upon their needs. Both doctors at Windrose Clinic [Dick and Potenza, C. (ND Bastyr 2002)] perform this important diagnostic analysis."

Note: now, iridology is completely bunk. Therein: huge nonsense.

002.c. in "Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-05-12] we’re told:

"homeopathy […] is over 200 years old […it’s] a scientific application [bullshit!] of minute [undetectable!] amounts of a substance (plant, animal, or mineral) to stimulate the metabolism [coded vitalism] to correct its imbalance. This is accomplished via the theory that like cures like [a sectarian figmentation that is not true…] for example, pneumonia with a fever may require Phosphorus 30C, 3 pellets every hour whereas an arthritic knee problem may require rhus tox 30c, 3 pellets given once a week [yes, empty remedies for real diseases]. Homeopathic remedies are curative, not simply palliative [it’s just magic!]. They don't cover up the symptoms, but rather stimulate the body to heal the condition. Homeopathy is frequently utilized at the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic and may be indicated in your healing process."

Note: here, we have the label of science upon the homeopathic. This also is huge nonsense.  Claiming such as science puts it up on stilts. What’s even scarier is the use of nothing to treat something as serious as pneumonia. In the NDNR article, in fact, Dick states: “I want naturopaths to be trained and confident in their ability to treat their pneumonia patients […] without antibiotics and not refer them to allopaths [the reverse sectarian accusation!] for care.”

003. naturopathy’s principles / philosophy:

003.a. NCNM, which is Dick’s alma mater, states in “Principles of Healing”:

“the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: 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. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process.”

Note: so, there’s Dick’s alma mater stating that vitalism, which is hugely science-ejected, survives scientific scrutiny, and that naturopathy is a profession.  More nonsense on stilts.

003.b. Bastyr University, per ND Potenza’s alma mater, states in “Bastyr University”:

“Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [coded vitalism].”

Note: there’s Potenza’s alma mater stating that within science is the supernatural and the vitalistic. More nonsense on stilts.

004. regarding O.G. Carroll and the sanipractioning tradition:

004.a. Dick states at her homepage:

“the Windrose Naturopathic Clinic is the oldest traditional naturopathic clinic in the United States. It continues the 50+ year traditions of Dr. Otis G. Carroll and Dr. Harold Dick under the direction of Dr. Letitia Dick-Kronenberg. This application of naturopathy is founded in scientific principles and the laws of nature.”

Note: so, there’s Carroll and that promise of science again.  The laws, of course, are sectarian figmentations.

004.b. Time Magazine states in “Medicine: Sanipractor” (1958-04-07) :

“Doris Hull […went] to Spokane to see Otis G. Carroll, 79, a practitioner of 43 years' experience […her husband] thought Carroll was an M.D. [but] he is actually a licensed drugless-healer -- a ‘sanipractor’[aka naturopath!…] Carroll took a drop of blood from Doris Hull's ear, put it in his ‘radionic’ device [a quack device], twirled some knobs [and] concluded […] tuberculosis. [But] Carroll did not say anything to the Hulls about TB, though state law requires drugless-healers to report such cases to public health officials. Instead, he prescribed hot and cold compresses to increase her absorption of water […] five months later, Doris Hull died of starvation and tuberculosis […] a Spokane jury last week awarded him [Mr. Hull…damages] because both he and their daughter, 2, contracted TB from her.”

Note: naturopathy is NOT a grand tradition.  This is quite a tragedy.

005. so:

naturopathy overall to me is a huge breakdown of higher education and professional regulation.  It is not a profession since it is loony, DEFINITELY not scientific because its essential context is science-ejected, and overall it is quite an unreasonable health care choice.

Yet, the schools are fully sanctioned and unscrutinized.

The AANP's blog motto is "Physicians Who Listen," but really it should be

"Dangerous Nonsense on Stilts."

AANP's Blog on Their FLI: IHCP's, Coded Vitalism, A Science Claim

here, a short citation from the AANP's blog "Physician's Who Listen:"

AANP Executive Director Karen Howard states in "AANP's DC FLI Sets New Records" [vsc 2010-05-10]:

"this year's annual Federal Legislative Initiative [FLI...] topped all records [...] this year we focused on how Congress can address the critical shortage of primary care physicians by accessing naturopathic medicine. Our specific requests included inclusion in all federal loan repayment programs and defining the term 'integrative health care practitioner' [IHCP...] our objective is to encourage Congress to ensure Americans have access to the best, most qualified providers [...] 'an Integrative Health Care Practitioner [...] addresses personal health needs [...] through lifestyle changes and the use of scientifically based therapies and outcomes based treatments that facilitate the inherent ability of the human body to maintain and restore optimal health [coded vitalism...and] utilizes clearly defined standards' [...from the sidebar] naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism]."

Note: yeah, 'new records.'  Yeah, 'primary care, best, most qualified providers.'  Oh, the slime so drips from this language.  There's the ND claim of 'science' upon the coded science-ejected, 'essentially naturopathic' / sectarian and the the irony of a demand for clarity.

Evil, evil, evil.

Hello SANP's 'Naturopathy is Science' Claim!

here, I welcome the 'naturopathy is science' claim of the Saskatchewan Association of Naturopathic Practitioners [SANP] to the Naturocrit fold:

SANP states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-05-10]:

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] licensed naturopathic physicians have attended four-year professional-level programs at accredited institutions where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic physicians [...] during their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences [...] students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: oh, goody! What a treat.  There's that 'professions-level science foundation' [false] claim upon what is clearly not within science [that is, the essentially naturopathic!].  And there's that great mislabeling of modern medicine as "allopathy," what I call 'the reverse sectarian accusation.' This SANP false-categorization has been added to my extensive Appendix I. / Exhibit A, which is a collection of naturopathy's science claim.

Naturopathy As Coded Cultic Pseudoscientific 'Thought Reform' - BINM 2010 Homepage:

here, I quote from the Boucher Institute of Naturopathic Medicine's [BINM] homepage and its rather peculiar "thought reform" like language:

001. BINM states at their homepage [vsc 2010-05-07]: 

"the naturopathic physician of tomorrow [...] will have a passionate belief in the efficacy of complementary medicine [...and they speak of] ethical ideal [...] to make a difference [...] practicing what we preach [...] a cultural transformation [...] the inherent worth and dignity of our common humanity [...] the natural healing power of the body, mind and spirit [coded vitalism...] to go forward, immersed in science."

Note: let's examine that language.

002. is this the language of "thought reform?"

talk of "tomorrow," "difference" and "cultural transformation" remind me of the language of Scientology and other proselytizing religions.  There is "belief," "preach," "ideal" and "spirit", which further reminds me of the religious / belief systems that PRESSURE. Science is posed as the context.  Now, naturopathy's "healing power" is a coding for their vitalistic science-ejected figment. The supernaturalism is science-exterior as well. So, what I take out of this: some kind of cultic-like / mindframe mission / flavor, a huge lack of transparency concerning the 'essentially naturopathic sectarian,' all falsely posed as science.  Therein, I think this is harmful stuff, though societal concern is equally postured.

SBM on Naturopathy This NMW 2010

here, I cite from a post by Dr. Crislip at Science-Based Medicine in response to the anti-vaxx. rant of a self-described ND:

001. Mark Crislip, M.D. states in "Nine Questions: Nine Answers"(2010-05-07):

"David Mihalovic, ND [...has written] '9 Questions That Stump Every Pro-Vaccine Advocate and Their Claims' [...] the vaccine questions are grounded in misinformation, ignorance or laziness [...] Mr. Mihalovic [hear, hear per 'Mr.'] identifies himself as 'a naturopathic medical doctor who specializes in vaccine research.' However, just where the research is published is uncertain as his name yields no publications on Pubmed.  BTW, I specialize in  beer research.  Same credentials [hear, hear (my credentials sit in front of my rectus abdominis!)...] as long as we are on the topic, since he evidently places great store in science, could Mihalovic please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of naturopathy? [...] could you please provide scientific evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of naturopathy? [...] Milhalovic,  could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to naturopathy? [...] Milhalovic, could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of naturopathic nostrums in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analyzed in any naturopathic nostrum study? [...] could you please provide scientific justification as to how applying naturopathy to a human being is beneficial to human health and prevents disease? [...] I am neither stumped not defeated. I know how to search Pubmed for medical information. My response directed specifically to the questions. My arguments are based on modern studies that a 12 year old can find in less than a minute, none of which have been disproved once, much less over and over. SBM is an open mainstream venue. I do feel like I just had won Jeopardy playing against Prof. R.J. Gumby; where is the honor in that? And people wonder why I question the wisdom of allowing naturopaths to function as primary care providers."

Note: well, I can't place this ND in terms of credentials.  But, I'll keep my eyes open.  The posture is ridiculous, because the science behind vaccination is quite robust. Naturopathy itself is hugely misinforming, ignorant, and lazy can be a great umbrella for their overall lack of rigor.  My basic position is that since the naturopathic is the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural, Dr. Crislip's 'science support' cannot occur.  Whatever naturopathy can generate regarding actual science legitimacy does not concern the 'essentially naturopathic,' it concerns items borrowed from stand-alone areas of inquiry that naturopathy has subsumed and gerrymandered.

CASS Slams Naturopathy in the National Post (2010-05-05):

here, I cite and criticize verbiage from CFI's CASS this NMW:

001. Behzad Elahi and Lauren O'Driscoll write in "Naturopathic Medicine: Nature Isn't Always Good For You" [vsc 2010-05-05):

"Naturopathic Medicine Week is taking place from May 3rd to the 9th and one of its aims is to promote the use of so-called 'natural' medicines [...] are we really getting what we paid for? [not in my view...] according to the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CCNM), naturopathic medicine is a system of primary health care that uses natural, vitalistic [that is 'science-ejected'], and holistic [that is 'science-unsupported'] methods and substances to support and stimulate the body's 'inherent self-healing processes' [yup, coded vitalism...] calling something 'natural' misleads the consumer into believing it is also safe [and effective...] after arguing against the use of these medications in the past, how can naturopaths argue that they should have prescribing rights for the same medications? [see my note 01...] the widespread use of the term 'alternative medicine' gives many people the impression that it is a valid alternative to conventional medicine, but this is very misleading [hear, hear...] only five provinces have legislation governing Naturopaths: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. There are councils set up in these provinces to regulate the profession [see my note 02]."

Note 01: because THERE IS MONEY IN HEALTH CARE FRAUD.

Note 02: naturopathy is not a profession, because it is based on falsehood.

002. I have to say this:

Canadians are SO KIND.

Can Something Survive, Of Our Dignity?

here, I muse:

001. I've copiously illustrated how naturopathy in North America is hugely fraudulent.  Not only are education consumers ripped off, so are clinical customers.  Hilariously, I've stated those two crowds' relationship with naturo. in commerce terms, but, the public actually has more rights than that. The public engages with naturopathy with the assumption that naturopathy fulfills the higher ethical standards of professionalism, as per naturopathy's labels.

002. the next question that comes to mind is "how do we survive this huge injustice, while remaining virtuous?"  The simple answer: I do not know.

003. what would my heroes do?

I know. My heroes win the day.  With force.  Yet, they are right.  I do not know how to do that kind of simultaneous 'goodness': I could be forceful, but that requires violence.

Violence by definition is not virtuous.

Suggestions are welcome.

Canada's Big Puddle of Shit: Naturopathy

so, after viewing The Bourne Identity for the umteenth time, I began thinking about a line in that film:

"You're in a big puddle of shit Pam, and you don't have the shoes for it."

Note: Canadians are usually quite nice. But, are they smart?

NMW and the "Science" and "Nature" of Naturopathy - ND Barlow & NSAND 2010:

here, I explore the language used by ND Barlow this Naturopathic Medicine Week [NMW] in Canada which labels naturopathy "science" and 'natural' [see 001., below]; then, I explore the science claims of naturopathy [see 002., below]; and then, the "nature" of naturopathy via the Nova Scotia Association of Naturopathic Doctors [NSAND] and the University of Bridgeport [UB; see 003., below]:

001. Barlow, B. (ND BINM 2009) states in "Naturopathic Medicine Week" (2010-05-05):

"naturopathic medicine is a holistic approach to medicine rooted in science and nature."

Note: lets analyze that.

002. the science of naturopathy:

002.a. naturopathy claims to be a branch of medical science.  In Canada, here's a premier claim from the Nova Scotia Association of Naturopathic Doctors [NSAND] who state in "What is a Naturopathic Doctor?" [vsc 2010-05-05]:

"naturopathic doctors [...] cooperate with other branches of medical science  [...and speaks of the] science of disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention."

Note: science, science, science.

003. the nature of naturopathy:

003.a. on that same NSAND page, there is mention of the importance of "nature," just as with the Barlow citation:

"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. It is a naturopathic doctors job to guide the patient in removing any obstacles to this healing process and to choose therapies that gently support and stimulate normal function."

Note: you'd think that that alone explains itself.  But, there is a context that is not being communicated / it is coded, and it is important.

003.b. the hidden context of naturopathy, as unexpressed by Barlow and NSAND, is the science-ejected concept of vitalism as expressed by the University of Bridgeport in "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, The Healing Power of Nature, Viz 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. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process, to act to identify and remove obstacles to health and recovery, and to support the creation of a healthy internal and external environment."

Note: such vitalism is hugely sectarian and science-ejected, even though UB claims that the university is overall nonsectarian the naturopathy is a health science.

004. "danger Will Robinson, unethical sectarian pseudoscience!"