Ernst on Homeopathy Awareness Week: Its Last Stand?

Edzard Ernst, "professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter," writes in "Homeopathy Awareness Week: Is This the Homeopaths' Last Stand?" (2010-06-14):

"[this week] British homeopaths are celebrating Homeopathy Awareness Week [...] earlier this year, a report from the Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded that the principles of homeopathy are implausible and that the evidence fails to show that it works better than placebo. The MPs also criticized homeopaths for trying to mislead the public by providing inaccurate information [...] last month, the British Medical Association described homeopathy as 'witchcraft' [...] homeopathy's fortunes have been crumbling for quite some time [...] in 2005, The Lancet even pronounced 'the end of homeopathy' [...] even as homeopaths celebrate their 'awareness week,' bloggers and skeptics – enthused by their success on the chiropractic front – might already be considering action against any unsubstantiated claims made by UK homeopaths. This could truly be the end of homeopathy [act II!]."

Note: speaking of inaccurate information, North American naturopathy, immune from developments in medical science and reason -- after all, they do still falsely label their essential vitalism "science" when truly discarded for more than several decades by science -- even now labels homeopathy science.

E.g., Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Frequently Asked Questions":

"Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine’s curriculum is science based and comprehensive. It offers a solid foundation in the basic sciences [...] the main healing modalities for an ND include [...] homeopathy."

So, with naturopathy, what is witchcraft, implausible, and doesn't work is a main method of treatment.

ND Birdsall at the AANP Blog: "Dethrone" the RDBPCT!

here, I cite from a recent AANP blog post by ND Birdsall [see 001., below]; then, from his employer Cancer Treatment Centers of America [CTCA] and its naturopathic absurdity [see 002., below]:

001. Birdsall, T. (ND Bastyr 1985), the AANP ND of the Year 2009, states in "The Problem with Research" (2010-06-10) [vsc 2010-06-13]:

"I began to ponder the question, 'what’s wrong with research?' A part of me becomes enraged at the reductionistic, allopathic [!!!], biomedical model [really!], which breaks things down into components so small that all synergism, all interdependence is stripped away [bullshit!], and then declares those components to be ineffective [ah, the 'closed-minded' accusation...] for naturopathic medicine to survive and thrive in the 21st century climate of evidence-based medicine [...] we should be willing to judge ourselves critically and objectively, and subject our therapies (and ourselves) to scientific scrutiny [great idea, you were SUPPOSEDLY DOING THIS ALREADY!...] in the end, we must create and validate the tools to dethrone the randomized controlled trial [RDBPCT] as the gold standard, and construct new ways [read: easier ways!] to validate clinical approaches to health issues. Much as the homeopaths of 2+ centuries ago [!!!] created the proving as a way to better understand and utilize their remedies, we must refuse to be limited by the way conventional medicine views health and disease [in other words, lets lower the bar and not demand quality evidence!...] only then will we be able to use the tools of research [weakened!] to promote and defend naturopathic medicine [because naturopathy has no quality evidence when standards are high!...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. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [I'll say!] 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: well, sounds to me like naturopathy wants to greatly lower the bar by getting rid of rigorous inquiry. Once homeopathy is offered as a shining example, well...we've then hugely entered absurdity. It seems that what is preferred is vagarity over 'quality of inquiry.'  Yes, critical, objective, scientific scrutiny of naturopathy is needed.  It has actually happened. It doesn't seem like such has been done from within naturopathy.  Yet, naturopathy is claiming such a 'has been done already status' when it labels itself "professional" and "science-based." When critical, objective, scientific scrutiny occurs -- from without because they don't do it themselves within -- naturopathy whines and claims alternate standards.  The problem isn't what's wrong with research, the problem is a certain unethical sectarian pseudoscience amalgam.

002. CTCA, where Birdsall works as "Vice President of Integrative Medicine" states:

002.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-13]:

"naturopathic medicine [...] makes use of time-tested, scientifically grounded, natural methods to strengthen the body’s ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] this plan will include personalized natural therapies -- backed by scientific research -- to fortify you before, during and after your cancer treatment."

Note: so the claim is that naturopathy is science.

002.b. in "Kidney Cancer Treatments – Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-13]:

"the following principles are the foundation for the practice of naturopathic medicine:[#1] the healing power of nature: your 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: ah, ye ol' science-ejected life force.  Not science, really.

So when is what's science actually absurdly what is science-ejected?  Naturopathy.

AMA and State of Alaska on Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism and "E-3.01 Nonscientific Practitioners"

here, I quote from the "AMA Scope of Practice Data Series: Naturopaths" (2009-09) document as hosted by the State of Alaska:

"[r.e. the] principles of naturopathy […] students in naturopathy schools world-wide are taught to abide by these principles: [#1] first do no harm […] illness is a purposeful process of the organism.  The process of healing includes the generations of symptoms that are, in fact, an expression of the life force […] the vis mediatrix [sp., medicatrix] naturae, the healing power of nature […#2] the healing power of nature (vis mediatrix [sp., medicatrix] naturae) [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The naturopathic physician’s role is to facilitate this process [p.007...] therapies involving these putative energy fields are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy.  This vital energy or life force in known by different names in different cultures, such as qi […] the vital energy or life force [p.012...] many naturopathic treatment modalities are not scientifically supported; yet practitioners of naturopathy continue to offer patients such treatments. Such behavior would not be tolerated in the practice of medicine. Care that is not premised on scientific evidence, and for which the patient is not informed of its experimental nature, would be considered unethical by the standards of the medical profession. Specifically, AMA Ethical Opinion E-3.01 states: 'it is unethical to engage in or to aid and abet in treatment which has no scientific basis and is dangerous, is calculated to deceive the patient by giving false hope, or which may cause the patient to delay in seeking proper care' [p.006...] the Massachusetts minority report also notes that the medical code of ethics precludes physicians from collaborating with unscientific practitioners, such as naturopaths [p.018].'"

Note: hear, hear. Processes in the body are essentially based upon cause and effect, not purpose and not intelligence.  This is teleology / goal-orientedness, and it often accompanies vitalism.  Both are science-ejected.  Ah, the old 'in fact life force' aka vis medicatrix naturae 'purposeful life spirit' science-ejected sectarian premise. AMA has spelled medicatrix wrong, as mediatrix [but hey].  And of course, unethics!  I have often labeled naturopathy "an unethical sectarian pseudoscience."  It's great to see some skeptics being referenced, including Atwood and DeAngelis.

I actually thing AMA is being rather kind: when in fact naturopathy's premises are science-ejected, and naturopathy is still engaging with the public under the false label of science, there's a whole-lot-o'-thievery going on.

I'm going to hazard that there is quite a collision forthcoming, and hopefully no more states will grand ND/NMD licensure to these whack-a-loons.

Perhaps some justice may happen for all those education consumers whom naturopathy had deceived.

The Alaska Association of Naturopathic Physicians' homepage is here.

CFI Schwacks Acupuncture [Yes!]

the Center For Inquiry states, in "Acupuncture: A Science-Based Assessment":

001. per the synopsis:

"in recent decades, public interest in acupuncture has grown dramatically. Proponents of acupuncture repeatedly make the unjustified claim that acupuncture is an efficacious and cost effective complement to conventional medicine. These claims rely on dubious and discredited research data [ouch!...] acupuncture has no intrinsic clinical value [ouch!...there is] mounting empirical evidence against it [...] acupuncture has become increasingly embedded within the American healthcare system, in part through government funding of integrative medical clinics. The Center for Inquiry's paper on acupuncture, written by Robert Slack, Jr., offers compelling evidence that the uncritical adoption of acupuncture adds significant costs to the United States' already overburdened healthcare system, lowers standards of medical training and treatment, and lends dangerous and undue authority to pseudoscience, ultimately degrading respect for science in the public realm."

Note: hear, hear.  The same could be said for naturopathy overall, which, at least when I was in school, taught a required course in acupuncture.  I can't count how many NDs also are LAcs!

002. the main paper is available here.  Highly recommended.

A Massachusetts NaturopaTHICK Absurdity – MSND, ND Maiella and Mutually Exclusive Labels

here, I compare two quite incompatible labels employed by naturopathy: one states that naturopathy is science-based, at the Massachusetts Society of Naturopathic Doctors [MSND; see 001., below]; and, the second states that naturopathy is essentially science-ejected, at MSND member Maiella [see 002., below]: 

001. MSND states in “What Is Naturopathic Medicine?” [vsc 2010-06-11]:

“naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care […a] science [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances […] a licensed naturopathic doctor (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. […] they integrate scientific research with the healing powers of nature [HPN / coded vitalism…] as professional leaders and pioneers in science-based natural medicine, naturopathic doctors [etc.]."

Note: science, science, science.  I always particularly like the claim that the essential principles of naturopathy survive scientific scrutiny [not!] and that naturopathy is “science-based” [not!].

002. Maiella, E.C. (ND Bastyr 2006) states in “Naturopathic Therapeutic Order” [vsc 2010-06-10]:

“[#1] stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae [HPN] (other names for 'vis' include 'qi', 'prana', 'life force'). This is the force that moves us towards health; it is the essence that invigorates us. Some modalities that we utilize to stimulate the 'vis' include hydrotherapy, exercise, yoga, mediation, craniosacral therapy, energy medicine and homeopathy.”

Note: this vis is the science-ejected / sectarian central principle of naturopathy.  The large State-wide organization doesn't specifically reveal it transparently as the essential principle, but member Maiella does though neither communicate the fact that vis is science-ejected.

003. Distinct?  Distinguished? Objective? Continually scientifically reexamined? Same science?  Professional?  Absurd.

NMD Marcantel on Naturopathic / Integrative "Knowledge": Empowerment! E.g., Homeopathy the "Pharmaceutical Science"

here, I cite from a Youtube video by NMD Marcantel which speaks of 'empowering you with naturopathic knowledge' [see 001, below]; then, I visit her practice web pages where we're told that NMDs' science is 'typical' and they'll again empower you [see 002.a., below]; and, we're told that homeopathy is a science [see 002.b. and 002.d.]; and get a glimpse of naturopathy's underlying science-ejected vitalism [see 002.c. and 002.d.]:

001. Marcantel, T. (NMD SCNM 2003) states in "Meet Dr. Tina Marcantel, Naturopathic Physician" [vsc 2010-06-09]:

"'I practice integrative medicine [...] or naturopathic medicine [...] I believe passionately in integrative healthcare [...]  I've been a healthcare professional for over twenty years [...I'm] a licensed naturopathic physician [...] I'd like to take a few moments to share with you my philosophy about the practice of medicine [...] there are four guiding principles I like to use when working with patients [...#3] I will empower you with knowledge [no mention of naturopathy's essential vitalistic underpinning...] let's talk about these key points [...] it is necessary that we establish a relationship based on trust between the Dr. and patient [...] I'll empower you with knowledge [...subtitle] empowerment through knowledge [...] another of the underlying principles of naturopathic medicine is the Dr. as teacher [...] I want to teach you how your body operates [...] DrMarcantel.com.'"

Note: naturopathy's actually premise is not mentioned ['the Vis'] WHILE we are promised empowering knowledge.  That seems like a little cruel.  How can we make a truly informed decision?  Trust?  Professional?  Ah, the sectarian underpinnings that dare not speak their name.

002. at DrMarcantel.com, we're told:

002.a. in "What is a Naturopathic Physician?"[vsc 2010-06-09]:

"naturopathic physicians (NMD’s) are primary care physicians clinically trained in conventional medical sciences with an emphasis on preventative care [...] in natural medicine the doctor seeks to teach and empower each person [...] in Arizona, naturopathic doctors are licensed and regulated by the State of Arizona Naturopathic Board of Medical Examiners. Physicians must have graduated from an accredited four-year, graduate-level naturopathic medical school and pass national board examinations [NPLEX]. The scope of practice in Arizona includes [...] homeopathy, acupuncture [...] and other modalities."

Note: ah, the promise that 'this is still regular science' and 'teaching and empowering' again.  NPLEX itself labels homeopathy "clinical science."

002.b. in "F.A.Q."[vsc 2010-06-09]:

"what is a naturopathic physician? Naturopathic physicians (NMD’s) are primary care physicians clinically trained in conventional medical sciences with an emphasis on preventative care [...] What is 'homeopathy'? Homeopathic medicine is a natural pharmaceutical science."

Note: again, science.

002.c. in "Acupuncture" [vsc 2010-06-09]:

"acupuncture is a health science used to treat pain and other dysfunctions in the body. This science began in China and has been used as a medical treatment for over 2,500 years [...] how does acupuncture work? The human body’s energy (call the 'chi' in Chinese medicine) flows through meridians or channels that are normally balanced. The meridians can be likened to the flow of blood through the meridian blood vessels. If a disruption of energy flow exists, it can affect the entire body system, producing pain or symptoms throughout different areas of the body. Correction of this delicate balance corrects the body’s dysfunction or problem."

Note: there's some underlying science-unsupported science-ejected vitalism [remember when we were told that we'd be empowered with knowledge, and NMD's study regular science?  Well, science has excluded such vitalistic figmentation for several decades, charitably speaking] falsely labeled science.  This reminds me of the University of Bridgeport claim that within a division of health science is both naturopathy and acupuncture.

002.d. in "Homeopathy" [vsc 2010-06-09]:

"Homeopathy: A Little Dose Goes a Long Way [...] homeopathic medicine is a natural pharmaceutical science [...] the remedies stimulate the person’s immune system [bull...] immunization is also based on the principle of similars [bull...] the remedies used in homeopathy are very diluted. Paradoxically, the more dilute the remedies are, the more effectively they work. Although homeopathic medicines may be so dilute as not to have any molecules of the original substance, an energy or essence of the substance remains."

Note: so, a science label placed upon the energetic vitalistic science-ejected.  Typical for naturopathy.  Also typical is the warping of immunization into something that supports homeopathic figmentation -- when it doesn't actually. Gimpy has posted about the lack of EVERYTHING concerning homeopathy.

003. empowering?  

No.  Knowledge that is not factually correct is not empowering.  Engaging in commerce in such a manner, well...we know what that is.

Here's to the Late Martin Gardner And His Criticism of the Cult of Naturopathy c1957

here, I go back to THE scientific skepticism wellhead -- my 1957 copy of Martin Gardner's “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” (ISBN 0486203948) which Wikipedia describes as “a classic in the literature of entertaining scientific skepticism [...and] perhaps the first modern book of scientific skepticism of pseudoscience" -- and partly quote from what it says about naturopathy:

“Chapter 16 – Medical Cults. In no other field have pseudoscientists flourished as prominently as in the field of medicine. It is not hard to understand why. In the first place, a medical quack – if he presents an impressive facade - can usually make a great deal of money. In the second place, if he is sincere, or partly sincere, the healing successes he is almost sure to achieve will greatly bolster his delusions. In some cases, of course, the doctor is an out-and-out charlatan [..] there are two great secrets of the quack’s success. One is the fact that many human ills, including some of the severest, will run their course and vanish without treatment of any sort [p.186...] the other [...is] due to the fact that many of life’s ills are wholly or in part psychosomatic […] in this chapter we shall glance at four outstanding medical cults, all of them founded by pseudoscientists, which have won many millions of disciples in the United States […] the first medical cult of any importance in America -- homeopathy -- had its origin in the mind of a German doctor, Samuel Christian Hahnemann. He published his great opus, The Organon, in 1810 [p.187...] Hahnemann believed that as the drug became less 'material' it gained 'spiritual' curative powers [p.188...] the homeopathic error was to take both these limited truths, exaggerate them to the point of absurdity, and apply them universally to all medicines […] 'allopathy' [is] a homeopathic term, now obsolete, for orthodox medicine […] the cult spread rapidly over Europe in the 1820’s, reached England and America in the 1840’s, and came to its pinnacle of success about 1880 in the United States [p.189...] naturopathy, like homeopathy, is a world-wide medical cult which had its origin in Europe. Unlike homeopathy, however, it has no single founder […] in essence, it is a complete reliance on 'nature' for healing […] hundreds of strange methods of therapy clustered about the movement, so it is not easy to say exactly what the tenets of naturopathy are [p.191...] hundreds of schools calling themselves naturopathic sprang up here and there in the early years of the century. They were as frowsy as could be imagined […] there was little unity of beliefs behind these schools [p.192...it includes] iridiagnosis is the diagnosis of ills from the appearance of the iris of the eye […] anyone who thinks no medical movement could be more insane than iridiagnosis, is much mistaken [p.193...] shrewder schools of naturopathy have abandoned indiagnosis [p.195]."

Note: one big thing that has change regarding naturopathy is that naturopathy codified their tenets and belief-set in the late 1980s.  That set of nonsense, insanity, and absurdity can be best found as sponsored by the State of Oregon.

002. for Gardner's Wikipedia page, click here.

Schweitzer on Vitalism in HuffPo: "We Now Know That No Life Force Exists"

 Jeff Schweitzer states in "Redefining Life: God Need Not Apply" (2010-06-02): 

"the fact that scientists have discovered no simple quality that defines life, after endless years of effort, is an important hint that life is not something materially different from non-life but instead represents a natural place in a continuum from simple to complex. History has failed to give us a good definition precisely because life was viewed not on this continuum from inanimate to animate, but as a huge leap from one to the other. To be alive meant having a special essence, something beyond the normal mechanisms that governed inorganic chemistry and physics. The tendency to invoke 'vital forces' to explain life endures today in much of the general public [...such] vitalism, the principle of endowing the living with a life force, is tautological and explains nothing. If something is alive, it must have a life force; if it is dead, a life force must be absent. That is not helpful. We now know that no life force exists. The laws of physics and chemistry are indifferent to our struggle to define life, and operate identically on the same principles whether we deem something to be living or dead. The carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and other atoms that come together to form our bodies are just atoms; they are the same elements that are found in the iron skillet in our kitchens and the nitrogen in the soil fertilizing our gardens. The atoms in our bodies are not special or endowed with any properties different from the atoms in every object around us. Iron is iron is iron, whether attached to hemoglobin in our blood or flaking off the hull of a rusting ship."

Note: right down my alley.  Naturopathy, of course, instead claims that a life force is a scientific fact.

NYANP's False Label of Allopathy, Coded Vitalism, and the ND Superscience Claim:

at their blog page Naturopathy in New York, the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians hosts the essay "Preventing Chronic Diseases through State Licensure of Naturopathic Medicine" by [apparent nonND and undergraduate student] Goldstein, S. (? ?) who states: 

"allopathic and osteopathic doctors [...] a naturopathic doctor who is trained in both allopathic and homeopathic medicine [...] naturopathic doctors, who will most likely see fewer patients in the same period of time when compared to allopathic and osteopathic doctors [...] after the four years, just like allopathic and osteopathic students, naturopathic students have a cumulative exam to license them as naturopathic doctors [...] naturopathic, allopathic, osteopathic [...] allopathic-MD, naturopathic-ND [...] pharmaceutical companies persuade allopathic and osteopathic doctors (M.D.’s and D.O.’s) [...] allopathic and osteopathic general practitioners [...] alternative (defined as other than allopathic) treatments [...] organized medicine (allopathic) [...] allopathic doctors [...] the allopathic health care field [...] allopathic and naturopathic [...]  licensed allopathic and other physicians [...] allopathic physicians tend to practice within the structured framework of their medical doctor license [...] there is a considerable difference between how allopathic and naturopathic doctors are taught to treat their patients [...] allopathic drugs [...] teachers at the naturopathic medical schools, just like the allopathic medical schools [...] an allopathic medical student [...] allopathic medical students [...] allopathic medical community [...] allopathic medical community [...] allopathic and osteopathic doctors [...]  allopathic and osteopathic doctors [...] 

# of hours of basic & clinical sciences [...] conventional medical schools [...] ≈1524 [...] 4-year naturopathic medical schools [...] ≈1535 [...] 

curriculum at one of the four, 4-year federally accredited naturopathic medical schools [...] spring & summer courses [...] The Vis Medicatrix Naturae [VMN...] credits [...] 1.5 [...] future naturopathic doctors in medical school are taught the six guiding principles of naturopathic medicine, such as 1) healing power of nature (trusting in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself) [coded vitalism...] the six principles of naturopathic medicine [are used] as the guiding reason for selecting specific treatment modalities."

Note: allopathy, allopathy, allopathy.  It is as accurate to label modern medicine allopathy as it is to label modern astronomy astrology.  So, I regard the categorical labelings of this long essay as unsound.  I have labeled the mislabeling of modern medicine by naturopathy "the reverse sectarian accusation." 

Also, it is not true that having a greater numbers of science classes in an ND degree than an MD degree makes naturopathy scientifically legitimate. I call this "the ND superscience claim."

When all is said and done, VMN overarches naturopathy's context, which is HPN, which is the science-ejected vitalistic context of naturopathy [coded here, because that is the naturopathic MO].  I call this "the thing itself."

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.