Welcome Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicians - To the False Science Claims Fold:

here, I cite from the rather recent Pennsylvania Association of Naturopathic Physicans [PANP] web pages regarding naturopathy's supposed science credentials [see 001., below]; and then I show how coded their essential vitalism is [see 002., below]:

001. PANP writes in:

001.a. "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

"naturopathic medicine is 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 [...] naturopathic doctors [...] diverse techniques include [...] scientific and empirical methods."

Note: science, science, science.  Explicitly, PANP states that when current modern scientific rigors are visited upon naturopathy's ideas, the ideas survive legitimate scientific scrutiny.

001.b. "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

"naturopathic medicine is a form of health care that blends old, proven remedies with new scientific knowledge and advancements [...] scientific research has shown that many medical conditions can be treated as effectively with food and nutritional supplements [...] a resurgence of scientific research in Europe and Asia is demonstrating that some plant substances are superior to synthetic drugs in clinical conditions."

Note: science, science, science.  Of course, there's huge illogic in stating that naturopathy survives rigorous scientific scrutiny and then stating that naturopathy is a blend of science and ________.  The 'old and proven' could very well not be scientifically supported and instead by scientifically refuted: take naturopathy's homeopathy for instance.  It is old, and it came about through 'provings.'  And it is bunk.

001.c. "Naturopathic Education" [vsc 2010-07-25]:

"NDs are trained in medical sciences [...] the seven naturopathic medical schools are as follows [...#7] National University of Health Sciences."

Note: when your science does not discriminate between what is science and what is not science, I don't think you were trained in all that much of any science.  Now, NUHS claims obviously by its name that its contents are science: so why is naturopathy within it?

002. of course, I can't find a transparent / honest description of naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalistic context on the site at all:

002.a. instead, we get coding / opacity in PANP's "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-07-26]:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...] 1) the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). The healing power of nature is the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic doctor's role to support, facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external environment [...] 3) first do no harm (primum non nocere) [...] naturopathic doctors respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed."

Note: no "life force" or "vital force" on this page.  Just the staunch claim that these ideas survive scientific scrutiny.  Supernatural spiritism is on there twice, though.  Well, coded or not, vitalism and supernaturalism do not survive scientific scrutiny.  To get the full monty, you have to go to a more established AANP State organization, like, say, Oregon.  There, you will get the transparent vitalism of naturopathy, plus the PANP-like false claim that such survives scientific scrutiny.

002.b. due to what's missing / opaque at PANP, I'll provide some balance:

naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise, falsely labeled science and coded usually -- as is the case with PANP --  is truly science-ejected and sectarian / cultic. Being that naturopathy does not distinguish a science-supported fact from a figmentatious article of faith, you may place yourself at considerable risk in visiting an ND as naturopathic mindsets and methods are quite -- absurd.

The Science-Ejected Vitalism of "Clinical Naturopathy" (ISBN 9780729539265, 2010)

here, I detail a new naturopathy book that reiterates naturopathy's essential science-ejected premise: vis medicatrix naturae / vitality / vital force [see 001., below]:

001. Sarris, J.

who's publisher-provided credentials are, I kid you not:

PhD (UQ), MHSc HMed (UNE), BHSc WHMed (ACNM), Adv Dip Nat (ACNM), Adv Dip Acu (ACNM), MNHAA, NHMRC Clinical Research Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, and Brain Sciences Institute, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, Australia Formerly School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia 

and Wardle, J.

who's publisher-provided credentials are [same page], I kid you not:

BHSc Naturopathy (ACNM), MPH (UQ), NHMRC, Public Health Scholar, School of Population Health, The University of Queensland, Director, Research Capacity Stream, NORPHCAM; Trans-Pacific Fellow, School of Medicine, University of Washington, USA

write in "Clinical Naturopathy: An Evidence-Based Guide to Practice" (ISBN 9780729539265, 2010) [and who both seem to suffer from inflammation of the credentials]:

"[in chapter 01 'Naturopathic Case Taking' with authorship attributed to ND Connolly] naturopathic philosophy and principles [...two] essential philosophical concepts intertwined with the historical development of naturopathy [are] vitalism and holism [p.002...] vitalism.  A fundamental belief of naturopathy is that ill health begins with a loss of vitality.  Health is positive vitality [...] health is restored by raising the vitality of the patient, initiating the the regenerative capacity for self-healing.  The vital force [...] vitalism is the belief that living things depend on the action of a special energy or force that guides the processes of metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation and interaction.  This vital force [...] the vital force necessary for life to exist.  The vital force is non-material and occurs only in living things.  It is the guiding force [...] the vital force is seen to be different from all other forces recognized by physics and chemistry [...] vitalists [...] naturopaths use a 'moderate' form of vitalism: vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature.  Vis medicatrix naturae defines health as good vitality where the vital force flows energetically [...] whereas ill health is a disturbance of vital energy [...] naturopathic philosophy further believes that a person's vital force determines their susceptibility to illness [...] those with poor vitality will succumb [p.003...] vis medicatrix naturae sees the role of the practitioner as finding the cause (tolle causum) of the disturbance of the vital force.  The practitioner must [...] restore the vital force [...] vitalistic theory merges with naturopathy in the understanding of how disease progresses [...] when the vital force is strong [ good things etc....when] the vital force is weakened [bad things etc. p.004]."

Note: I came across these promotional free chapters at http://www.slideshare.net/ . This is apparently being offered by Elsevier Australia, here specifically. 

Some word counts:

"life force" is a term not present in these sample chapters; "vitality", which is obviously a stand-in for 'vitalism', occurs 31 times;  "vital force" itself happens 13 times [yes, though immaterial and immeasurable, Adobe Reader was able to quantify it!]; "vitalism" 10 times; "medicatrix" 3 times; and overall 'vital*'occurs 65 times.

002. there isn't, of course, a vital force in any scientific sense of 'force' or 'energy.'  It is simply a holdover from medieval superstition and ignorance.

AANP Falsehood From 1997, Science-Based Honesty in 2010

here, I cite from a 1997 archived American Association of Naturopathic Physician's [AANP] description of their Textbook of Natural Medicine [see 001., below]; then, from Dr. Atwood's recent letter to the top administrator of the NCCAM [see 002., below]; finally, I muse [see 003., below]:

001. AANP writes in "A Textbook of Natural Medicine" c1997 [vsc 2010-07-25; linked to from the AANP's main site]:

"the most comprehensive and thoroughly-researched reference on natural health sciences [...] scientific documentation of the healing power of nature [HPN...] scientific and practical review [...] scientific indications [...] thoroughly referenced to the scientific literature."

Note: science, science, science as a label placed upon the 'essentially naturopathic,' particularly their HPN. This is nonsense.  The TNM 3rd. ed. states that the HPN is actually the science-ejected premise known as vitalism.  The third chapter of the TNM 3rd. ed., "A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order," states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice. These principles include the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [p.032...] the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [p.034]."

It is irrefutable that vitalism is science-ejected.  It was so even in 1997, which, by the way, as a year before I started at UBCNM [which falsely labels vitalism science, to this day].  So, AANP was basically labeling the hugely science-ejected as 'the science supported' and this still hasn't changed 13 years later.  E.g., TNM co-editor ND Pizzorno still labels naturopathy "science-based natural medicine," yet he is a 1975 NCNM ND grad. and the requisite vitalistic nonsense can still be found at their web page.

002. [actual] Science-Based Medicine's Dr. Atwood writes in "Open Letter to Dr. Josephine Briggs" (2010-07-23) [where do I begin!]:

"let me address the principal reason for this letter: it is disturbing that you will shortly appear at the 25th Anniversary Convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] group [that] is best characterized as a pseudoscientific cult, and nothing since has altered that opinion [...a] pseudomedical pseudoprofessional organization [...] NDs claim to be well trained to practice what most people think of as family medicine or primary care medicine, although their version of training is chock full of pseudoscientific nonsense [...] let me assure you that there are no promising ideas emanating from naturopathy [...] consider homeopathy, a core claim of naturopathic medicine [...] the British Medical Association and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have seen through the ruse of pseudoscience that is homeopathy, the former declaring it 'witchcraft' and latter making this statement: 'the Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible' [...] certainly science must remain neutral in the face of not-yet-seen data from rigorous studies [...but] science and skepticism [...] are not distinct. Good science involves, first and foremost, skepticism [...] Dr. Briggs, please consider the possibility that you no longer must hide your considerable scientific prowess in order to be a good NCCAM Director [...as apposed to] giving undue credibility to unfeasible and dangerous claims."

Note: I haven't found anything Dr. Atwood has ever written about naturopathy to be in disagreement with my own observations.  In fact, at this year's NECSS dinner, I'd said to Dr. A. that my best description of it all is "cultic."

003. another issue that comes to mind:

as a public servant [let's put aside her duty to society in terms of the ethical obligations of her medical oath and membership], Dr. Briggs has a duty to report BLATANT FRAUD to the appropriate Federal authorizes.

So, let me offer two specific examples of naturopathy's fraud:

academically, how about a regionally accredited university falsely labeling the hugely science ejected science, and engaging in commerce under those conditions [I've linked to the University of Bridgeport, but any of the AANMC schools fit this bill];

State-wide government-hosted false labeling of the hugely science-ejected as science [specifically here, Oregon].

Wow, that was so easy to do.

ND Maloney, Homeopathy, and Coded Vitalism - The Baloney He Doesn't Transparently Reveal

here, I survey the web pages of ND Maloney.  First, there are his claims that homeopathy-naturopathy are scientific, along with NABNE-NPLEX's [see 001., below]; then, his coded vitalism as well as use of NCNM to decode it [see 002., below]; then, the irresistible [see 003., below]:

001. homeopathy is thoroughly enmeshed / melded with naturopathy [thus homeopathy-naturopathy here] and claimed to be science:

001.a. Maloney writes in "Homeopathy":

"homeopathy should be considered both scientific and validated."

Note: here [vsc 2010-07-23] it is live. It is archived c2004 here [vsc 2010-07-23].

001.b.  here [vsc 2010-07-23] is Maloney describing the ND-requisite and elective homeopathy he studied at NCNM [8 courses total]; here [vsc 2010-07-23] is the NPLEX ND board exam similarly labeling homeopathy "science" many times.

001.c. "Who Am I?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I am a doctor [...] my education [miseducation!...] four year medical degree [false, he has a naturopathic degree] from National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland, Oregon; national science boards and clinical medicine boards [false, the national science standards do not include the science-ejected]."

 

Note: science, science, science supposedly.

001.d. and to be scientifically clear about homeopathy, to quote a recent post by Dr. Novella at Science-Based Medicine (see here):

"homeopathy is having a bad year. From a scientific point of view, it has had a couple of bad centuries. The progress of our scientific understanding of biology, chemistry, and physics has failed to confirm any of the core beliefs of homeopathy. Like does not cure like (this is a form of superstition known as sympathetic magic, with no basis in science). Diluting substances does not make them stronger – a notion that violates the chemical law of mass action and the laws of thermodynamics. And countless clinical studies have shown that homeopathic preparations are nothing more than placebos. That homeopathy cannot work and does not work is settled science, as much as it is possible for science to be settled."

Note: not science, preponderantly.  I'm sure naturopathy will ignore this fact, and continue to live in their own private Idaho, wherein the science-ejected and -unsupported is falsely labeled science and fraudulently traded upon.

002. the coded vitalism of ND Maloney and vitalism in its full ugliness at his alma mater, NCNM:

002.a. several Maloney pages describe naturopathy without actually transparently describing naturopathy's essential, science-ejected, vitalistic 'healing' context:

002.a1. "Who Am I?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I believe the body can heal itself [coded vitalism] if given the proper support."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.a2. "What Will I Do?" [vsc 2010-07-23]:

"I acknowledge and work with the body's ability to heal [coded vitalism...] naturopathic treatment philosophy [...#6] the body, supported, heals itself [coded vitalism]."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.a3. his ND Sectarian Creed, along with its coded vitalism, also occurs in the archived page, "Services" wherein we're ONLY told, again:

"naturopathic philosophy of practice [...#6] the body, supported, heals itself."

Note: and that's all you are told.

002.b. but here's the Rosetta Stone, so to speak, of all this opacity / coding. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force."

Note: but, there simply isn't a life force aka 'purposeful life spirit' even though NCNM on the same page states it survives scientific scrutiny per "these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."  

Q: when is a sectarian figment 'objectively observed' and a scientific fact?  

A: in naturoland, the pseudoscience, the pseudoprofession.

003. lets call this whole thing [as it is irresistible, I must admit]:

Maloney Baloney.

Enshrining 'The-Big-Stupid-Absurdity': The State of Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners @library.state.or.us

here, I reiterate the fundamental explanation of 'what naturopathy is' as provided by the State of Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners [SOBNE; see 001., below]; then, I illustrate the 'big stupid absurdity' that Oregon shows naturopathy to be [see 002., below]:

001. SOBNE states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-07-19]:

001.a. first SOBNE's overarching science claim:

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners trained as specialist in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] a growing body of scientific knowledge validates the naturopathic approach [...] scientific research in Europe and Asia is demonstrating [etc.]."

Note: science, science, science.

001.b. and now for what's within that 'science' label, 'the naturopathic':

"naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic [vitalism!] tradition of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person [coded vitalism]. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [vitalism!], respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [coded vitalism and teleology!...] it is these principles that distinguish the profession [!!!] from other medical approaches: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [coded vitalism!]: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health [coded vitalism!]. The healing process [coded vitalism!] is ordered and intelligent [teleology!]; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism!]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [coded vitalism!...] first, do no harm, primum no nocere: illness is a purposeful process [teleology!] of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [vitalism!] attempting to heal itself [coded teleology!]. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process [coded vitalism and teleology!]. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae [coded vitalism!]. Therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes [coded vitalism and teleology!] are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized [...#2] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual [supernaturalism!...#4] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [supernaturalism!], mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual [supernaturalism!] development in order to be a good teacher."

Note: so, lets be clear here.  We are being told, in sum by the State of Oregon, that these three discrete ideas survive scientific scrutiny and therein are science-supported: vitalism, supernaturalism-spiritism, and teleology.  Now, SOBNE has been replaced by the State of Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine [SOBNM], which hosts the same web page and labeling [vsc 2010-07-19].  So, these labelings go on.

002. well, vitalism is science-EJECTED, supernaturalisms of all kind are science-EJECTED, and vitalism's companion teleology is also science-EJECTED.  These ideas are neither science-supported or within science.  So, in sum, SOBNE is telling us -- without any warning of any kind regarding this absurdity and in fact uses instead a label of 'professionalism-trustworthiness' -- that something is what it hugely isn't.  Specifically, through SOBNE and SOBNM, we're being falsely informed that the science-exterior is equal to the science-interior.  That is absurd, that is stupid, and at this scale, that is big.

Note: I propose that there be set up, with the liability distributed amongst the entire North American naturopathy apparatus, a "Naturopathy Career Damage Fund" [NCDF].  Minimally, it would cover victims of 'naturopathic academic fraud.'  If Oregon wishes to engage in fraud like this, I think those sucked down 'the rabbit-hole of naturopathic dumb-assedness' / 'victimized by false naturopathic labels to pursue this absurd naturopathy thing', should get restitution the way victims of many other kinds of frauds do.

I will detail that NCDF in my next post [actually, I held this off until post #300 here].

The reason I've used the term 'enshrined' is because Oregon seems to now be archiving its retired web pages -- even the absurd, falsehood promoting ones -- at library.state.or.us.

Overall, I call naturopathy's science claim "exhibit A", naturopathy's vitalism "exhibit B", and the preponderant scientific rejection of vitalism "exhibit C".

Germany Too! 'Homeopathy is Pseudoscience' - dw-world.de, 2010-07-013

dw-world.de's Cyrus Farivar writes in "Homeopathy Draws Ire of German Government Officials" [vsc 2010-07-16]:

"[homeopathy] the 200-year-old dubious [more like implausible] medical treatment may soon be dropped from German medical insurance providers as a cost-saving measure. The United Kingdom may also do the same […] its detractors, including nearly all medical doctors and scientists, say that it is no more powerful than a placebo […] Dr. Karl Lauterbach, the chair of the parliamentary health committee […and] a medical doctor and an adjunct professor of health policy at Harvard University in the United States […] recently called for public health insurers to stop funding the practice […] health insurers are dignifying homeopaths through their actions […] the public should not be forced to fund a dubious medical treatment […] there is no scientific evidence to suggest that homeopathy actually causes any meaningful and healing bio-chemical reactions in patients […] in 200 years, the pseudo-science has not taken any steps forward."

 

Note: true.

 

'Us NDs Aren't Quacks, Those NDs Are' - ND Lange at HuffPo 2010-07-12

here, I quote from a recent HuffPo article by ND Lange that uses the 'Q' word toward CCNH NDs [see 001., below]; then, I selectively respond to language Lange uses about their-kind-of-ND versus his-kind-of-ND degree [see 002., below]; finally, I cite from Lange's own book and the Textbook of Natural Medicine homeopathy chapter to fully illustrate his own 'HUGE Q' [see 003., below]:

001. Lange, A. (ND Bastyr 1984) writes in "The Biggest Quack School in Natural Medicine Closes" (2010-07-12) [vsc 2010-07-12]:

"Clayton College of Natural Health [CCNH…] is preparing to cease operations [...it is] a classic diploma mill operation, offering doctorates and other degrees to students of natural health care, without providing clinical training or educational standards of any kind. They have unceasingly been opponents of accredited schools of naturopathic medicine and licensing for naturopathic physicians who attend four year graduate schools of naturopathic medicine [like Lange's alma mater Bastyr!...] Clayton graduates have represented themselves as naturopathic doctors and have mislead consumers […it has been] misrepresentation […] the graduates of the Clayton school and other unaccredited programs have been represented and supported by the American Naturopathic Medicine Association [...while] accredited programs of naturopathic medicine are represented by the American Association Of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP). A licensed naturopathic physician (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. [...] the [AANP-type] naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training in clinical nutrition, acupuncture, homeopathic medicine [!!!...] a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [...] additional information on naturopathic schools can be found through the American Association of Naturopathic Medical Colleges at www.aanmc.org or the AANP at www.naturopathic.org [....AANP naturopathy is] based on standards of education that reflect the need for competent health care. Medicine is not the exclusive domain of any one profession and health education is the prerogative of any individual. Its misrepresentation however is not. The growth of good health care is dependent on honesty and integrity as well as adequate training."

Note: the HuffPo page lists [promotes!] Lange's homeopathy book “Getting At the Root” (ISBN 1556433956, 2002) which I will talk about specifically in 003.a.

002. here are my selective responses to language used in this article:

002.a. "diploma mill," "without providing," and "standards of any kind" insinuate that a degree was paid for but the process wasn't the kind of 'in-residence' or 'classroom-setting' experience typical of higher education.  It insinuates that the process was a figmentation, that shortcuts were taken as compared to the typical process, and that standards are LOW.  What's offered in comparison are accreditation and licensure at the graduate, actually doctorate, level:

  My response:

even fully accredited, licensure-track ND programs ARE NONSENSE! I went through one, so I know this firsthand. Naturopathy is centered upon a figmentation [search "vital life force"]! THERE ARE  NO LOWER ACADEMIC STANDARDS THAN AANMC NATUROPATHY, which labels a sectarian figmentation scientific fact!  ND licensure and accreditation has simply led to government subsidized FRAUD [see below];

002.b. regarding "mislead", "misrepresentation"x2, "honesty", and "integrity":

My response:

what would naturopathy know about the truth?  All naturopathy is based upon misleading and misrepresenting.  For example, notice how NMD Godbey doesn't transparently communicate the actual science-ejected, vitalistic, sectarian context that is naturopathy. Instead, he poses [or is posed] as a journalist [the article's address is 'news'] and poses the 'healing context' of naturopathy as something other [science] than what it actually is [science-ejected];

002.c. regarding "graduate-level" and "same basic sciences":

My response:

simply put, the science that naturopathy practices includes, absurdly, the hugely science-ejected.  This is not the same science, and certainly not even freshman undergraduate level science, as preponderant mainstream legitimate science.  E.g., Bastyr states that within the scientific is the supernatural and vitalistic;

002.d. regarding "homeopathic medicine" and "rigorous professional board exams":

My Response:

homeopathy is bunk, period.  So, if naturopathy's NPLEX board exams are so professional and rigorous, why is homeopathy falsely labeled "clinical science" on them?;

002.e. regarding "AANP naturopathy is based on standards of education that reflect the need for competent health care" and "adequate training";

My Response:

I don't think so. The entire context of naturopathy is absurd: that the science-based contains the science-ejected [for starters].  The goalposts have been moved so far that science is now meaningless in the naturopathic context.

003. Lange's:

003.a. homeopathy book “Getting At the Root: Treating the Deepest Source of Disease” (ISBN 1556433956, 2002) states:

"this book [...] engages a vitalistic philosophy [p.001...] vitalism recognizes a capacity for the organism to self-regulate, to maintain or reestablish homeostasis [...] vitalism represents a philosophy of a life force [...his] vitalistic medicine is therefore a method that draws upon the body's innate ability to heal itself [p.004...] an attempt to engage the life force or soul in the treatment of disease [...while admittedly] the recognition of the spiritual as an influence on mankind has been untenable in a scientific model [p.005...] homeopathy is utilized in this book as a primary model of vitalistic medicine [p.007...per] the vitalistic perspective of the homeopathic approach [p.043...] the essence of homeopathic diagnosis [comes] from its vitalistic perspective [etc. p.048...] the concept of the vital force in medicine as a self-regulating mechanism is represented in many ways by the functions of our immune system [p.102...] vitalism is the recognition of the life force as the organizing substratum of material form [...per] purpose and direction [which is teleology p.115...] the ideas of a life force or spirit. The spiritual or metaphysical [...] the idea of a vitalistic science [...] vitalism was dismissed as a science [!!!p.116...] vis medicatrix naturae: the healing power of nature [p.117...] the life force [...] the archeus or life force of Paracelsus [...] the concept of anima [...per] Stahl [...] as the basis for vitalistic theory in the eighteenth century [p.123...] in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century, the leading representatives of vitalistic medicine were Hahnemann and Anton Mesmer [p.124...] it was assumed that the triumph of chemical and mechanistic demonstrations of nerve impulses in physiology eradicated the remaining postulations of vitalism [p.126...] vitalism [...] may come from our wills or imaginations [...] a participatory science [!...and] arises not out of superstition or holding onto some dogma of an obsolete science [!p.131]."

Note: so, here you have heaps of science-ejected vitalism-spiritism-teleology claiming, if we're to believe Lange's HuffPo condescension towards 'them-other-NDs',  to be the basis for a non-quackery science context. Deep? I don't think so: irrational, yes.

003.b. Chapter 39 in the "Textbook of Natural Medicine" on Homeopathy is hosted at his own web site and in it Lange states:

"vitalism. Disease, in the homeopathic model, is thought to arise from inherent or developed weaknesses in the patient’s defense mechanisms [...] this viewpoint is considered 'vitalistic' [p.389...] vitalists stress the teleologic behavior of organisms (i.e., the goal directedness and design in biologic phenomena) [p.390...] the vitalistic and holistic perspective of the homeopathic approach [...] homeopathy holds that the disease first affects the vital force [p.391],"

Note: vitalism, vitalism, vitalism 'big Q' nonsense.  Taking Lange's language 'in sum,' I often label naturopathy's underlying premise that is vitalistic, spiritistic, and teleological as a belief in a 'purposeful life spirit' figmentation in charge of physiology.  You can get to that same summation through the language of ND Pizzorno, a founder of Lange's alma mater Bastyr.

004. in sum, an ND calling another ND a quack, especially in this case, is quite absurd.  It's like a psychic calling an astrologer a fraud.

Coding Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - NMD Godbey in Rocklin and Roseville Today, 2010-07-12

Godbey, D. (NMD NCNM 2004) states in "Letting Nature Heal, and Curing the Whole Planet" (2010-07-012) [vsc 2010-07-13]:

"this article is part two of a three-part series discussing the principles of naturopathic medicine.  These six principles are founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence and used by naturopathic doctors to diagnose and treat patients [...] the third principle of naturopathic medicine is to let nature heal.  Our bodies have such a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing.  Its instinct is to heal itself [...] our body’s innate wisdom [...] the process of self-healing."

Note: being, apparently, an NCNM NMD, you'd think that Godbey would tell us something transparent about naturopathy's 'third' principle.  Well, go to his alma mater, and see it [#1] in its full ACTUALLY science-ejected absurd glory.

'The Fish Oil For Memory Pseudoscience Soap Opera' - Goldacre in The Guardian, 2010-07-10

Ben Goldacre writes in "Fish Oil Salesmen Find EU in the Way" (2010-07-10):

"[regarding the European Food and Safety Authority's page Nutrition and Health Claims] the first thing I typed in was fish oil [...which is] a long-running pseudoscience soap opera [...and fish oil is] the bestselling food supplement in the UK, in a global $55bn (£37bn) market [...anyhoo] pharmaceuticals company Vifor Pharma wants to claim that Eye Q fish oil capsules improve working memory in children, and so sent in references to six studies [...well] two of the six studies were conducted in children with developmental co-ordination disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [so don't count...and] three of the six studies did not look at working memory [so don't count etc....] this does not feel like compelling evidence [...and] I don't think this is a regulator being unfair. What is unfair is taking these [manufacturer] claims at face value [...] many of us enjoy pretending to ourselves that pills have proven medical effects, even though we kind of know the claims aren't for real [...] you'll never stop companies making these claims. You'll never stop people enjoying their claims. This game is at least 200 years old. The best solution I can see is an EU-mandated bullshit box, where people can say what they want about their product, consumers can join in, but the game is clearly labelled."

Note: reminds me of the spurious referencing that NDs do academically.  NDs simply ignore findings that refute their claims.  E.g., NDs ignore the fact that their essential vitalism and supernaturalism are hugely science-ejected for several decades and a few centuries [respectively, minimally].

Dana Ullman on Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - HuffPo 2010-07-07

homeopath Dana Ullman writes in "Energy Medicine: Futuristic Healing With Ancient Roots" (2010-07-07) at the Huffington Post:

"this invisible yet ubiquitous self-healing/self-regulating system or field within the organism has been given various names at different times in history and in different cultures. Hippocrates called it 'physis' (from which the word 'physician' was derived); Paracelsus called it 'archeus'; the modern-day scientist and discoverer of vitamin C, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, called it 'syntropy' (which he defines as 'the drive in matter to perfect itself'); the Chinese have referred to it as 'ch'i'; the yogis as 'prana'; homeopathic physicians -- 'vital force'; and naturopathic physicians -- 'vis medicatrix naturae' (translated as 'the healing power of nature') [...] like acupuncture and other energy systems of medicines, the heightened power and effect of those homeopathic medicines that have undergone greater potentizations (the process of serial dilution with vigorous shaking in-between dilutions) may be the result of what the homeopaths call the 'vital force' becoming sensitive to and resonant with the medicinal agent."

Note: ah, so many synonyms, and NO EVIDENCE.  An actual energy, field, or force is quite in evidence in science!

Q and A with the AANMC Regarding 'The Science of Naturopathy' on Facebook 2010-06

here, I recount an exchange I had at the AANMC page on Facebook.  I'd asked AANMC directly about naturopathy's science-basis, and AANMC indirectly answered [see 001.a.]. I then present a summary of AANMC's 'homeopathy and naturopathy are scientific' absurd claim, as if from their own perspective [see 001.b. etc., below]:

001.a. the recent exchange [vsc 2010-07-04]:

Q: "I've noticed that on your web site you state naturopaths' 'diagnoses and therapeutics are science based.' I was wondering if AANMC has a preferred definition of 'science'?"

A: "Rob, naturopathic medical schools require their students to study anatomy, biochemistry, human physiology, histology, human pathology, immunology, macro and microbiology, neuroscience and pharmacology in the first two years [science!]. Naturopathic physicians use science and their knowledge of holistic therapies to diagnose and treat patients. You can read more about the academic curriculum for naturopathic students by following the link below. Thank you for your question and interest in naturopathic medicine."

Note: my question wasn't directly answered, yet the impression of the AANMC answer is that naturopathy's science is 'the preponderant science.'  The AANMC linked to the AANMC page "Academic Curriculum", which makes these claims:

"naturopathic medicine students [...] are educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic physicians [...] during their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences and diagnostics [...] some member schools in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic medical schools [and AANMC links to ALL of their member schools]. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

So, science, science, science -- as a foundation / base!  A word on AANMC's label "allopathic": it is a bogus label applied bogusly to modern medicine.  It is as proper to call modern medicine allopathy as it is to call modern astronomy astrology.  Wow, naturopathy is so [not] into being ACCURATE!  Now, one naturopathic statement that hugely contradicts all this "science" background / expertise / content is the absurd label that AANMC puts on naturopathy's homeopathy -- the sugar-pill treatment! -- in "AANMC Brochure" [vsc 2010-04-07]:

"the final two years [of ND school] offer comprehensive clinical training in the holistic and nontoxic approaches to disease treatment and prevention that distinguish naturopathic medicine. In their supervised, hands-on experiences with patients, students learn to scientifically apply [...] homeopathic medicine." 

Yet, homeopathy is bunk.  So bunk, in fact, that in the UK it is considered akin to witchcraft.

   

001.b. also at Facebook, AANMC claims in "Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC)'s Photos - Naturopathic vs. Allopathic Science Hours" [vsc 2010-07-04], through one gallery diagram in particular, "An ND's Basic Science Education" [vsc 2010-07-04]:

"[first number is 'allopathic MD', second is 'naturopathic ND'] anatomy & embryology: 13, 19; histology: 6, 5; physiology: 5, 14; biochemistry: 8, 12; pathology: 10, 12; microbiology / immunology: 11, 10.5."

Note: I'd boil this down to a claim by naturopathy that naturopathy students, overall, study more basic science than regular medicine, and therein naturopathy is claiming equal in science if not more science expertise than regular medicine.  Yet, HOW does homeopathy, hugely science-implausible and without merit, get labeled "science" -- even on naturopathy's board exams?  This goes back to my question to AANMC.

So, I believe naturopathy's definition of science could be posed like this: science is like a letterhead on a blank piece of paper to us, which we then fill up with any kind of nonsense we please.

002. so, how absurd is the claim by naturopathy that 'the naturopathic survives scientific scrutiny'?  

to sum it up, this is how absurd naturopathy could be posed as: 'even when science hugely ejects profoundly nonscientific things [by definition!], we here at 'naturopathy central' still falsely label such science.  Take our homeopathy, for instance!  It's science -- to us.'

AANMC has stated quite overtly that naturopathic therapeutics and diagnostics are science based.

But, naturopathy's homeopathy hugely contradicts this claim.

6 Current Examples of the Coded Vitalism of Naturopathy's Code of Ethics [ISYN]!

here, I search Google.com with the language >"code of ethics" medicatrix<.  I chose 6 examples from the first two pages of hits.  Have you ever seen a [supposed] code of ethics [COE] that is so opaque that the language used codes [not to pun!] for 'that which we dare not overtly speak about [our science-ejected vitalism]?'  Naturopathy's COE is explicit proof that, from the get-go, naturopathy is 'NOT what it usually presents itself as' [aka, look closer and you'll find ABSURDITY]:

001. the American Naturopathic Medical Association's "Code of Ethics" [vsc 2010-07-02] which states, different from AANP types / competitors:

"I will [...] practice the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: and that's all you're told there.

Naturopathy's decoding of HPN-VMN occurs:

a) in their central textbook, wherein we're told by NDs Zeff, Snider and Myers:

"the vis medicatrix naturae,[is] the vital force, [which is] the healing power of nature [p.034]."

b) at the College of Naturopathic Medicine of the University of Bridgeport, which states on this page [vsc 2010-06-29]:

"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."  This is also in the overarching Connecticut ND oath, by way of the Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association page [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"according to my best ability and judgment, I will use methods of treatment that follow the principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] vis medicatrix naturae - to act in cooperation with the healing power of nature."  Oh, how they hate to be explicit!  Coded codes of ethics, galore.

002. Fasig, A. (ND Bastyr 2003) in "Naturopathic Medicine Code of Ethics" [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health by providing individualized care, according to his/her ability and judgment, following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: such essential naturopathic vitalism is also coded here in "Naturopathic Principles" and in "Naturopathic Oath."

003. Wing, L.H. (ND NCNM 1984), Morrison, M. (ND NCNM 1995), Lenger, B. (ND Bastyr 2001), Grove, A. (ND Bastyr 2002) in "AANP Position Paper: Naturopathic Code of Ethics":

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health by providing individualized care, according to his/her ability and judgment, following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: the NCNM NDs particularly should know that they are coding vitalism, because that school explicitly states it here.

004. the Quebec Association of Naturopathic Medicine [QANM]states it in "Guide to the Ethical Conduct of Naturopathic Doctors" [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"the naturopathic doctor will practice the art, science and spirit of the profession to the best of his/her ability and judgment following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic doctor shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: additionally, we're told in that COE, after being [falsely] told that this is a profession and science, that the "[ND] will recognize a responsibility to give the generally held opinions of the profession when interpreting knowledge of a scientific nature to the public."  So, if the 'profession' deems science to include the nonscientific -- as it does -- you are bound by naturopathy's 'ethics' to also do the same.

QANM does not transparently communicate naturopathy's essential vitalism in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" instead stating:

"naturopathic medicine is a comprehensive primary health care profession distinctive by its unique philosophy and practice.  It seeks to promote health through education and the scientific use of natural therapeutics [...] the philosophical foundation of naturopathic medicine is based on the following five basic principles [...#4] vix [sp., vis] medicatrix naturae: only nature heals."  Yes, they misspelled "vis" "vix"!  Yes, instead of revealing the science-ejected nature of their nature, they instead claim that their HPN-VMN survives the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

005. Queensland, Australia ND Noakes, J. (ND ?) (bio page here) in "Naturopathic Code of Ethics" [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health by providing individualized care, according to his/her ability and judgment, by following these 6 principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: North American naturopathy language has been spreading globally.

006. the Minnesota Association of Naturopathic Physicians page "About MNANP" [vsc 2010-07-02]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health by providing individualized care, according to his/her ability and judgment, following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: again, coded vitalism is a supposed code of ethics.

NYANP - Naturopathy's Vitalism-UnExplicit Code of UnEthics

here, I analyze the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians [NYANP] page "Code of Ethics" [see 001., below]; and then I illustrate how naturopathy is fundamentally unethical, even on this AANP chapter's ethics page [see 002., below]:

001. NYANP states in "Code of Ethics [COE]" [vsc 2010-07-01]:

"the naturopathic physician acts to restore, maintain and optimize health [...] following these principles of naturopathic medicine [...#1] first, do no harm [...] primum non nocere [...#2] the naturopathic physician shall recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae) [...#4] the naturopathic physician shall educate [...] doctor as teacher [...] the naturopathic physician shall acknowledge the worth and dignity of every person [...] the naturopathic physician shall act judiciously to protect the patient and the public when health care quality and safety are adversely affected by the incompetent or unethical practice by any person [...] the naturopathic physician shall [...] strive for professional excellence through assessment of personal strengths, limitations and effectiveness and by advancement of professional knowledge [...] the naturopathic physician shall conduct her/his practice and professional activities with honesty, integrity and responsibility for individual judgment and actions [...] the naturopathic physician shall strive to participate in professional activities to advance the standards of care, body of knowledge and public awareness of naturopathic medicine [...] the naturopathic physician shall respect all ethical, qualified health care practitioners and cooperate with other health professions to promote health for the individual, the public and the global community [...] the naturopathic physician shall strive to exemplify personal well-being, ethical character and trust worthiness as a health care professional."

Note: I will respond to what's in red in 002.  Note: NYANP lists their Board of Directors as:

"Donielle Wilson, ND [Bastyr] - President [...] Peter B. Bongiorno ND [Bastyr], LAc - Vice President [...] Sharon Stills, ND [SCNM] - Treasurer [...] Ed Murach, ND [Bastyr 2003] LAc - Secretary [...] Robert Woodbine, ND [NCNM...] James Prego, ND [Bastyr 2004...] Paul Mittman, ND [NCNM 1985...] Sean Heerey, ND [NCNM]."

002. analysis of 001.'s COE highlights:

002.a. regarding "self-healing power of nature [...] vis medicatrix naturae [SHPN-VMN]":

this is naturopathy's vitalistic context, coded.  Wow, this COE gets off to a really bad, unethical / opaque start!  How are patient's to be adequately informed if EVEN the COE of naturopathy doesn't transparently disclose naturopathy's essential sectarian science-ejected context and instead engages in coding?  This doesn't meet the disclosure requirements of commerce, never mind the higher transparency requirements of professionalism!  In order to be informed fully, NDs would need to tell you explicitly what SHPN-VMN means and that it is indeed science-ejected.  Here's some help, by way of the alma mater of four of the NYANP BOD members (Stills, Woodbine, Mittman and Heerey), NCNM, who hosts the page "Principles of Healing" which states:

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process."  Ah, that science-ejected premise of vitalism, transparently stated at the source of North American naturopathy.  But, I wouldn't be too relieved: NCNM, on the same page, states "these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis."  Yes, NCNM then states the falsehood that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny.  In fact, on that page, NCNM states that vitalism is "in fact."

 
002.b. regarding "first do no harm":
 

the context of this rather naturalistic- and reasonable- sounding principle is actually vitalistic.  Again, via NCNM and that same page, we're told clearly:

 

"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. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae; therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized."

 

Note: so, again, vitalism is at the CORE of naturopathy BY THEIR OWN DEFINITION.  But, you may ask, why won't NYANP tell the public that directly / themselves?  Something as simple-sounding as nonmalefeasance [!!!] / do no harm codes a sectarian, figment-centered article of faith context.

 

002.c. regarding "the naturopathic physician shall educate":

 

well, seeing as science has hugely ejected vitalism from itself for hugely mundane reasons, I wouldn't count on anything but miseducation from, as Barrett has said, 'these muddle-heads'!

 

002.d. regarding "naturopathic physician shall acknowledge the worth and dignity of every person";

 

when the alma mater / trunk of all this is so FALSEHOOD based, hmmm.  How is incompetence, science-illiteracy, and plain old irrationality going to lead to such a noble goal?  In embracing this nonsense, I don't even think NDs are acknowledging their own worth and dignity!

 

002.e. regarding "when health care quality and safety are adversely affected by the incompetent or unethical practice by any person":

 

my irony meter is off the scale!  Naturopathy is both incompetent and unethical!  It's very premise, that the science-ejected is the scientific hugely degrades health care quality and safety, because it's INSANE!

 

002.f. regarding "professional excellence [...] professional knowledge":

 

they love the professional label.  But, insanity is not excellent.  And when all kinds of knowledge are blended and mislabeled as science, then no knowledge actually exists.

 

002.g. regarding "honesty, integrity and responsibility":

 

well, this COE page is dishonest, in my view.  So, so much for that.  All of the NDs listed as NYANP BOD members do not, even on their own web practice pages, clearly communicate the science-ejected vitalistic core that is naturopathy.  There is no integrity.  None of this nontransparency fulfills the responsibilities of professionalism.

 

002.h. regarding "to advance the standards of care":

 

NDs label homeopathy a "clinical science" on their NPLEX board exam. That's like dentistry including the Tooth Fairy in their SOC.

 

002.i. regarding "knowledge and public awareness of naturopathic medicine":

 

again, the irony meter is almost busted!  NDs don't abide by the preponderant / consensus definition of what actually is within science: and that excludes vitalism, supernaturalism, and teleology.  And they don't transparently communicate 'the essentially naturopathic.'

 

002.j. regarding "ethical, qualified":

 

not.

002.k.regarding "cooperate with other health professions":

not health professionals.

002.l. regarding "ethical character and trust worthiness as a health care professional":

ha, ha, ha, ha.

ISYN

you cannot make this stuff up:

Fairfield, CT.

Naturopathy's Superscience Claim - a Google.com Search 2010-06-30

here, I use Google.com and the term >"more hours of basic and clinical science"<.  Guess what pseudoprofession it entails?  Here are the first-page hits, excluding my own appendices and some indirect junk:

001. the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges pages [vsc 2010-06-30]:

001.a. "Academic Curriculum" which states:

"naturopathic medicine students learn to treat all aspects of family health and wellness, from pediatrics to geriatrics. They attend four-year graduate-level programs at accredited institutions, where they are educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!] physicians. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences and diagnostics [...] some member schools [the link then lists ALL AANMC schools, where we're told "these superior colleges are accredited and meet both federal and academic standards"] in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: so there's naturopathy's 'science as a basis and foundation', and naturopathy's 'superscience' claim of studying more science than MD programs which they mistakenly label allopathic [calling modern medicine allopathic is akin to calling modern astronomy astrology].  Yet, naturopathy falsely labels what is well outside of science as science. This is, of course in their view, "superior."

001.b. "Naturopathic Medicine FAQ" which states:

"for a basic science foundation and overall exposure to help prepare you for naturopathic medical studies, consider the following: read the 'Textbook of Natural Medicine' – a very comprehensive and often-used reference among NDs and MDs as well [ISYN...] earn a bachelor’s degree, preferably with a pre-medical or other science major [...] students are educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD or DO as well as the latest advances in science [...] ND students are educated in the same basic sciences [...] as allopathic [!] medical students. Some AANMC-member schools require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools [...] prior to admission into a naturopathic medicine programs, the typical entering ND student has completed three years of pre-medical training and earned a bachelor of science degree."

Note: regarding the TNM, all I have to say is WOW!  So this is of "a basic science foundation", the TNM's explanation of naturopathy's science-ejected essential premise.  Wow.  When searched, you'll learn such science-ejected and science-exterior essentially naturopathic contexts as:

"the removal of the obstacles to cure, which allows the action of the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [...] is the first step in the hierarchy of healing and what naturopathic physicians may call the overarching clinical theory of naturopathic medicine: the therapeutic order [p.034]."

  "Danger Will Robinson, science and nonscience are the same thing -- in naturopathy." 

Such cruelty!!!

001.c. "Naturopathic Physicians Are Rigorously Trained" which states:

"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. Some member schools in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools.  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 [...] today’s naturopathic physicians artfully blend modern, cutting-edge diagnostic and therapeutic procedures with ancient and traditional methods. They offer the world a healing paradigm founded on a rational balance of tradition, science and respect for nature."

Note: now, that last sentence is really stating that naturopaths label as science ALL kinds of knowledge.  "Nature", of course, is their science-discarded vitalistic, supernatural, teleological context.

002. Naturopathic Doctors International's -- which includes NDs Parker, T. (ND NCNM),Neubauer, T. (ND ), and MD Benda, B. (ND ) --  "FAQ's" which states:

"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. Some naturopathic schools may even require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools.  The first two years of study focuses on basic and clinical sciences [...] naturopathic physicians use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: science, science, science.

003. ExploreHealthCareers.org's "Naturopathic Doctor" which states:

"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 [!] and osteopathic physicians.  For admission into most naturopathic medicine programs, students must have a bachelor of science degree, including three years of pre-medical studies.  The ND curriculum is comparable to that of any major allopathic [!] or osteopathic medical school. In fact, some naturopathic medical schools require more hours of basic and clinical science than do top allopathic [!] or osteopathic medical schools."

Note: science, science, science.

004. Innovations Wellness Center's -- Wilson, K. (NMD SCNM) -- "Naturopathic Medicine"  which states:

"naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] licensed naturopathic physicians have attended a four-year undergraduate program plus a four-year professional-level programs at accredited institutions, where they have been educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!] physicians. These programs actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic [!] medical schools. 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: science, science, science.

005. Association of Washington Businesses's "Member Profile: Bastyr University: Moving Health Care Forward Naturally" which states:

"the Seattle area has long been known as a center for biomedical research and education. Not so well known is that, tucked away on a wooded 51-acre campus east of Seattle is one of the world's leading academic centers for the natural health arts and sciences -- Bastyr University [...] students who go to Bastyr to earn their undergraduate, graduate or doctoral degrees know they are not only choosing 'the road less taken' academically and vocationally — they are also enrolling in a school that requires more hours of basic and clinical science than many of the nation's top medical schools [...] once [conventional] practitioners started talking to our clinicians and scientists, they quickly realized that they are rigorously trained in science-based natural medicine' said Callahan [(PhD{education} UW)...] vice president for research and collaboration [see http://www.bastyr.edu/academic/profiles/people/tcallahan.asp) which states "Callahan is overseeing the curriculum, assuring that there is consistency across programs, and that the basic sciences in every program are rigorous and at the 'science-major' level]."

Note: science, science, science.

006. Tacoma Clinic's -- who are NDs Lamson, D.W. (ND Bastyr), Hinchcliffe, C. (ND Bastyr), Ellis, W. (ND NCNM), Franks, O. (ND Bastyr), Russel, L. (ND Bastyr), Tompkins, K. (ND Bastyr), Sherman, J. (ND NCNM), Zeoli, D. (ND ) and MDs Wright, J.V. (MD ) and Janes, M. (MD NCNM) -- in "Naturopathic Physicians":

"naturopathic physicians combine the wisdom of nature with the rigors of modern science [...] a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) has attended a college or university, both completing required 'pre-requisites' such as undergraduate chemistry and biology, and earning a four-year B.A. degree. He or she then has attended a four or five year graduate-level accredited naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [...] naturopathic medicine students learn to treat all aspects of family health and wellness, from pediatrics to geriatrics. They attend four-year graduate-level programs at accredited institutions, where they are educated in the same basic sciences as allopathic [!] physicians. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences [...] some schools in the American Association of Naturopathic Medical Colleges actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic (MD) [!] medical schools. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation."

Note: science, science, science.