University of Bridgeport's "Health Science" [False-]Advertising 03 [pictoral] - 2010-12:

here, I post a roadside picture I took today along I-95 in the West Haven, CT area wherein the University of Bridgeport [UB] advertises its "Health Science" programs [see 001., below]; then I list what's included in that "division" [see 002.a.]; and what is essential to naturopathy [see 002.b.]; and the fact that that makes naturopathy not science, and therein falsely advertised [see 002.c.]; then, I muse [see 003., below]:

001. this is a picture taken today with a cell phone, so its resolution is not so hot:

.

.

.

The advertisement says:

"UB. UBelong Here.  www.bridgeport.edu.  Our degrees in Health Science make everyone feel better.  University of Bridgeport [and I can't read the rest]."

But, if it's anything like the 2009-12 one I'd posted [hey, this is a holiday-season ritual for me], and I think it is the exact same poster,  it says in its tiniest print "Opening doors.  Building futures."

002. now for some analysis:

002.a. at UB, we're told that within its "health sciences division" is naturopathic medicine.  Their web page "Health Science Students" [vsc 2010-12-06] states:

"why study at UB?  State-of-the-art programs [the best!].  The University’s professionally accredited health sciences programs [...include] the College of Naturopathic Medicine [...offering a degree in] Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) [...a] state-of-the-art curricula and significant clinical experiences. The members of the faculty include skilled instructors with backgrounds in the biomedical and clinical sciences."

Note: science, science, science!  And supposedly 'the best' science, too! And 'of the professions' ethically, possessing "significant clinical experiences."  Promises, promises, promises.

002.b. now, it doesn't take much effort to discover 'the essentially naturopathic' and how UB embodies naturopathy's 'reversal of values':

002.b1. UB tells us in "Naturopathic Medicine (N.D.) - Program Details" [vsc 2010-12-06]:

"are you interested in a career in a field of medicine that works to support the natural healing power of the body, mind, and spirit? In naturopathic medicine we call this vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) [VMN-HPN], and it is our guiding philosophy [...] the College conducts research to advance the understanding and knowledge of the natural health sciences."

Note: so, supernaturalism is [absurdly] considered / labeled natural and within science, obviously.  Yet, we're not really informed here, though we're promised "details", concerning the true context of naturopathy's VMN-HPN, which is also labeled science.

002.b2. and naturopathy's primary textbook, "The Textbook of Natural Medicine", tells us that that HPN is the context known as vitalism.  In "Chapter 3 - A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order: The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-12-06] we're told:

"the therapeutic order, or hierarchy of healing, is now incorporated into ND college curricula throughout the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand [p.031...] the therapeutic order [...consists of #2] stimulate the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): the self-healing processes [...#3] address weakened or damaged systems or organs [...including] harmonize with your life force [p.035...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] these strategies are used to restore optimal function to an entire physiologic system (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.) [p.036...] the vis medicatrix naturae [occurs 9x in chapter], [is] the vital force, [is] the healing power of nature [p.034]."

Note: so, this is the essentially naturopathic: HPN=VMN=SHP=LF=VF.  We're told, at the TNM homepage, "you can trust Pizzorno.  Unsurpassed in its authority and scope."  And ND Pizzorno is the one who equates HPN directly with "spirit" [vsc 2010-12-06].

002.c. how do I know that vitalism and supernaturalism are indeed science-ejected?  Because national science organizations have stated so:

002.c1. regarding the science-ejected nature of vitalism, this is one of my favorite finds:

the Marine Biological Laboratory of Wood's Hole states in "Biological Lectures Delivered at the Marine Biological Laboratory of Wood's Hole In the Summer Session of 1894" (1896; publ. Ginn and Co):

"there is no warrant for the assertion that life is something different from, and independent of, matter an energy. That is the mistake of vitalism."

Yes, that's 1896.

002.c2. regarding the science-ejected nature of the supernatural:

the American Association For the Advancement of Science [AAAS] states in "A Study Guide For The Evolution Dialogues" (2007):

"what science is and is not. The scientific method uses observation and logic to develop testable hypotheses. Scientific theories encompass many tested hypotheses and are continually refined as new data is discovered. [But,] no aspect of science can address supernatural questions [p.020...e.g.] creationism and 'intelligent design' deal with supernatural questions that [truly] cannot be addressed through the scientific method. Science and religion ask and answer different questions [p.031...] supernatural entities by definition operate outside of natural laws and so [truly] cannot be investigated using methods of experimentation [...] one reason that modern science has flourished since the seventeenth century is that it has limited itself to natural explanations alone [p.032]."

Note: yes, that is the HUGE scientific preponderance known as the AAAS.  Of course, natural medicine is based upon the supernatural yet labeling itself science -- conflating the natural and supernatural.  But there is a reasonable distinction, and maintaining that distinction protects the integrity of science and the integrity of freedom of belief.

003. musing:

we were / are promised state-of-the-art science, and professionalism.  But, values have been reversed, in terms of naturopathy: you get, instead, the archaic pseudoscientific, and not that high standard of credat emptor that professionalism embodies, not even the lower general commerce standard of caveat emptor.  

What you get instead is complete bass-ackward dain-bramagedness.

Oregon ND Law: Their AG's Enforcement of the Patently Irrational and False

here, I cite from a 2010 Oregon Attorney General enforcement of the Oregon ND practice law [see 001., below]; then, I detail the inherently false and irrational composition of the '.gov' State of Oregon naturopathy definition itself [see 002., below]:

001. Keith Loria reports in "Oregon AG Shuts Down Unlicensed Naturopath" for Legalnewsline.com [2010-11-19][saved 2010-12-05]:

"Oregon Attorney General John Kroger announced on Thursday that [...formerly licensed ND] Paul Shandor Weiss [...was caught practicing] naturopathic medicine in the state without a license [...Weiss] allegedly misrepresented his [naturopathic] licensing status in violation of state law [...] 'Oregonians must be able to rely on the credibility of health care providers,' Kroger said. 'We will not permit unlicensed practitioners to put our personal safety at risk by misrepresenting their qualifications' [...] the Oregon Department of Justice learned of his actions from the state Board of Naturopathic Medicine, which is responsible for licensing and regulating naturopathic physicians in Oregon [...] 'I want to thank the Board of Naturopathic Medicine for their assistance on this case,' Kroger said."

Note: the irony is killing me.  Overall, how do you enforce the inherently false and irrational [see 002., below]?

002. that State of Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-11-16]:

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners trained as specialist[s] in natural medicine [(a.k.a naturopathy / naturopathic medicine)..NDs are] educated in conventional medical sciences [(a science claim)...with] a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college [(a claim of some kind of intellectuality)...naturopathy is] a unique and distinct system of health care [(I think not)...] naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world [(vitalism: the science-ejected)], 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)]. The practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation [(as opposed to sectarian figmentation -- which is what this crap really is)] of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [(so, we're being told that the science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny -- me arse)...] these principles [...] distinguish the profession [(a claim of credat emptor etc.)] from other medical approaches: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [(coded vitalism)...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent [(physiological teleology: the science-ejected)]; nature heals through the response of the life force [(vitalism: the science-ejected)]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [(coded vitalism)...#2] identify and treat the cause, tolle causam [...] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual [(sectarian supernaturalism: the science-ejected)]. The physician must evaluate fundamental underlying causes on all levels [...#3] first do no harm, primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful [(teleological)] 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 science-ejected sectarian figmentation falsely labeled 'scientific fact')]. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process [(naturopathy's coded, science-ejected, vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological context)].  The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae [(coded vitalism)...#4] treat the whole person [...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [(sectarian supernaturalism)], mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. The physician must treat the whole person [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development [(a certain kind of sectarian supernaturalism)] in order to be a good teacher [...this] naturopathic philosophy serves as the basis for naturopathic practice [(like the 'must's from above, this is obligatory -- by law and ND must pose the science-ejected as scientific etc.!)...] the current scope of naturopathic practice includes [...] homeopathic medicine [(a therapy known to be inert and implausible)] is based on the principle of 'like cures like.'  It works on a subtle yet powerful electromagnetic level, gently acting to strengthen the body’s healing and immune response [(coded vitalism)]."

Note: so, here's the deal:

OBNM falsely labels the science-ejected -- the vitalistic, the supernatural, the teleological -- as able to survive scientific scrutiny, and then mandates this position onto its ND / NMD members.

This HUGE falsehood is fully sanctioned by the State of Oregon, a full-fledged accomplice to this naturopathic racket -- they position it, they legitimize.

Yet, somehow, in all of this, it is possible to violate the irrational and deceptive pseudostandards of Oregon naturopathy.

Enforcing a misrepresentation of a credential that is inherently a misrepresentation / 'that which lacks credibility' [the essentially naturopathic] defies reason.

That is patently crazy.

ND Jacobs @ PCTV - 'The Body Responds to Homeopathy Well'

here, a Utah naturopath on Youtube promotes homeopathy's efficacy, while in the land of scientific fact, homeopathy is preponderantly considered an implausible therapy:

001. Jacobs, T. (ND NCNM) states in "Dr. Thad Jacobs - Summit Integrative Medicine on PCTV's MMS" [vsc 2010-12-03]:

"[00. 02.22] we're biological beings, we respond to a biological stimulation [...00.02.42] homeopathy, acupuncture, these types of things are what the body responds to well because they are natural stimuli for the body [...and speaks of] chelation therapy [...and] 'I'm happy to be a resource [and we're given his web and telephone contact]."

Note: ah, that naturopathic fantasy known as homeopathy, wherein empty pills and liquids are delusionally posed as 'profoundly effective'.

We're also intelligent beings, and we won't be fooled.

ND Lawrence - Naturopathy's "Core Value", Supernatural-Vitalism

here, I cite from the web pages of a Kansas ND who specifically equates naturopathy's "healing power of nature" with the supernatural and vitalistic [see 001., below]; then, I reiterate the AANP's false labels upon naturopathy that got me involved with this racket so many years ago [see 002., below]; finally, I reiterate your basic human right to believe in that which you so choose, in terms of matters of 'freedom of conscience' [see 003., below]:

001. Lawrence, V. (ND CCNH) states:

001.a. in "What is a Naturopath?" [vsc 2010-12-01]:

"the practice of naturopathy is based on the premise that the body is self-healing [BISH]. There is a belief in a spirit, vital energy or life force [S=VE=LF] beyond the physical realm, although modern medicine has not found a way to measure this energy [TE]. When there is an illness or disease, the life force has become blocked in its ability to self-heal. The task of the naturopath is to discover what may be the obstacles to healing. The obstacles are of a physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual nature [...] the foundation of naturopathy follows these core values: [#1] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]: nature possesses the power to heal illness [...] the body has an inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [teleological!], nature heals through the response of the life force. The naturopath’s role is to facilitate this process [TP...#2] primum non nocere, first do no harm [...] 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. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [THP]. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis mediatrix [sp., 'medicatrix'] naturae, the healing power of nature [VMN=HPN]."

Note: so, for naturopathy, there's this obvious equation:

BISH = S=VE=LF = TE = VMN = TP = VMN=HPN.

Naturopathy's core values encompass: a belief amalgam that is all-at-once supernatural, vitalistic, and teleological.

001.b. in "Why Naturopathy?" [vsc 2010-12-01]:

"the foundation of naturopathy follows these core values: [#1] vis medicatrix naturae, nature possesses the power to heal illness [VMN-NPTPTHI...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent [teleological!], nature heals through the response of the life force [LF]. The naturopath’s role is to facilitate this process [TP...#2] primum non nocere, first do no harm [...] 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 [LF] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [THP]. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis mediatrix [sp., 'medicatrix'] naturae -- the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN]."

Note: so, the vitalistic equation / naturopathy's "core value" context is expressed as:

VMN-NPTPTHI = LF = TP = THP = VMN=HPN.

002. the AANP-Alliance false promise / label:

A long time ago I was bamboozled into naturopathy -- in part -- by that pseudoprofession's at-large false self-labeling.

The consortia, known as the AANP-Alliance, then comprised of the "AANP, Bastyr University, National College of Naturopathic Medicine and the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences", stated in "The Alliance Legislative Workbook" (1997) (I've uploaded my original copy to scribd.com) (archived here):

"naturopathic physician's are the modern day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."

Note:  when, actually [!!!], the discretely naturopathic is HUGELY science-ejected and 'of belief', as ND Lawrence has demonstrated.

Thanks, AANP Alliance and your component schools.  As a person of integrity, I shall "Never Forget" this racket.

003. basic human rights:

What does it mean to be falsely induced in terms of commerce?  To be a victim of unfair trade and kind?  With the State a huge accomplice in the matter!  This particularly relates to naturopathy's and States', such as Oregon's, wrongful mislabeling of naturopathy in term of science.

But, there is an even more profound issue, apart from science.  It has to do with what one can choose or not choose to hold as a belief / matter of conscience.  What naturopathy is doing is disguising such voluntary matters falsely as objective fact.  But, things which are 'faithy' are not such.  So, you are being denied a basic human right, if you accept the world as naturopathy would like you to [their way]: a specific kind of voluntary supernaturalism is being superimposed as involuntary fact.

ND Swanz - A Favorite Example of the Science-Ejected Naturopathic

here, I cite from the web pages of ND Swanz, who not only describes naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism context but he has also named his practice after it [see 001., below];

001. Swanz, P.V. (ND SCNM) states:

001.a. in "Homeopathy" [psc 2010-11-29]: 

"homeopathy utilizes dilute plant, animal, or mineral remedies to stimulate the vital force [VF...] the inherent self healing ability [ISHA] that acts to restore balance in the body [...] Dr. Peter Swanz is an expert in homeopathy [...] he is a fellow of the Homeopathic Association of Naturopathic Physicians."

Note: so, VF=ISHA.  Homeopathy, of course, is so diluted that its pills or liquids are inert.

001.b. in "Naturopathy" [psc 2010-11-29]:

"naturopathic medicine answers how we can live, become, and maintain health [...it has] two foundations, a science base and a philosophical base [...] there are six underlying premises on which the philosophy is based [...#2] support the healing power of nature, 'the vital force' - vis medicatrix naturae [HPN, VF, VMN respectively...] naturopathic principles apply across both acute and chronic illness, for young and old, male and female alike."

Note: so, HPN=VF=VMN.  So, there are many aliases for the vitalistic context that defines naturopathy.  Their base is Janus-faced / contradictory: of science and of 'philosophy' [the science-ejected, actually].

You can find this 'essential naturopathic contradictory irrationality' at ND Swanz's alma mater, SCNM, as it describes naturopathy in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-11-29]:

"naturopathic doctors  [...] philosophy is derived in part from [...] vis mediatrix [sp., medicatrix] naturae - nature is the healer of all diseases [NHAD...] the six principles that guide the therapeutic methods and modalities of naturopathic medicine include [...#2] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae. The human body possesses the inherent ability to restore health [IARH]. The physician’s role is to facilitate this process [TP...] naturopathic doctors cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] their practice is based on the same basic bio-medical science foundation that allopathic [!] practice is."

Yes, SCNM can't spell medicatrix [happens a lot].  Anyway, now, in terms of naturopathy's vitalism, here we see VMN=NHAD=HPN=IARH=TP.  And overarching all of this is the claim that such is "science" and of a "science foundation" [not!].  I would think that if you are 'of a science base yet defined by the science-ejected', you've go problems -- especially if you don't see a problem therein.

001.c. in 'homepage' [psc 2010-11-29]:

"Vital Force Naturopathy is a holistic healing practice [...] Dr. Swanz  [...] has advance training in homeopathy."

Note: so, vitalism is so important to ND Swanz that he named the practice "vital force."  And regarding "holistic", well if I've learned anything over time it is that "holistic" and "bone-headed" are quite synonymous.  After all, homeopathy is touted here galore and it is considered, in these here times, an unethical placebo therapy.

001.d. in "SCENAR Therapy at VFN" [psc 2010-11-29]:

"SCENAR is an abbreviation for the Self Controlled Energy Neuro Adaptive Regulator [...] the EMF impulses from the SCENAR device are a dynamic energy directed to help guide the body in its own healing process [BIIOHP...] supporting our body’s own healing ability [BOHA...] it is a signal that the body recognizes as its own [...] the impulse is constantly changing supporting an activation of the body’s adaptive mechanisms [BAM...] the SCENAR device does not heal the body.  It supports and helps to reactivate the body’s own healing mechanisms [BOHM...and is used for] shock, trauma, intoxication, pain [...problems of the] digestive system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, muscular-skeletal system, urinary system, reproductive system, nervous system, circulatory system, immune system, endocrine system [...] ear, nose, and throat complaints; eye complaints; skin complaints; and dental complaints [...] burns, fractures, insect bites and stings, allergic reactions, stress and accompanying complaints."

Note: wow, panacea alert!!! It is not a stretch to assume this being done, as all naturopathy is, within a vitalistic context, so we can further extend the aliases of that to BIIOHP, BOHA, BAM, and BOHM.

Lets say "I'm skeptical."

On Facebook, the page "Scenar Therapy" states: "scenar therapy is one of the most advanced forms of  'energy medicine' in the world today."

Oh, that explains it - a pseudodiagnostic-pseudotherapeutic, like Vega and Reich machines. See Quackwatch's "Signs of a Quack Device" and "Index of Questionable Devices".  At the latter, we're informed:

"the devices listed on this page are either inherently bogus or are approved for one use but improperly used for other purposes [...] for example, some bogus devices have been approved as 'biofeedback' instruments even though their actual intended use is to diagnose and/or treat disease [...and includes the] SCENAR."

002. of vitalism and 'energy medicine' overall:

002.a. vitalism [in all its naturopathic guises] is science ejected:

I've been collecting citations for years about this indisputable fact.  To base a medical system on such and usually falsely label the whole thing as science -- as is naturopathy's M.O. -- is nuts.

002.b. 'energy medicine' is without scientific support. Wikipedia states in "Energy Medicine":

"a 2007 investigation by the Seattle Times found that thousands of devices claiming to utilize energy medicine -- many of them illegal or dangerous -- were used in hundreds of venues across the United States. The newspaper described energy medicine as modern-day snake oil, pointing to a lack of regulation and the widespread use of false or unproven marketing claims."

Note: oh snap!

Homeopathy Has "No Scientific Basis": Ernst at NewStatesman.com, 2010-11-11

Edzard Ernst writes in "A Better Pill to Swallow" (2010-11-11):

"[editor] homeopathic medicine has no scientific basis, and poses a grave risk to patients, argues Edzard Ernst [...Ernst] the 11 October issue of the New Statesman [...had] an advertisement in the accompanying supplement [...] referring to me and my work [...] by a lobby group called Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century (H:MC21). It contained unjustified attacks on myself and colleagues, including statements that gave a dangerously false impression of homeopathy's therapeutic value [...it was] inaccurate and borderline libellous [...] a critical mind would notice that the two basic principles of homeopathy fly in the face of science, logic and common sense [...] 'like cures like' [...and] that diluting remedies homeopathically makes them not less but more potent [...] these theories are not based on anything that remotely resembles fact [...and overall] the totality of the most reliable evidence fails to show that homeopathic remedies work better than placebos [...and] homeopaths, knowingly or unknowingly, deprive patients of informed consent.[...and such is] unethical [...] there is no good evidence that homeopathy does more good than harm [...] homeopathy can have no place in evidence-based medicine. It is an insult to our intelligence."

Note: hear, hear.  There's more in the article about fake vaccinations by way of homeopathy. Meanwhile, as my previous post indicates, naturopathy claims homeopathy is a "clinical science" [a living example: Dox, D.L.D. (ND SCNM) in New Jersey].

Kansas Naturopathic Medicine - KSBHA Falsely Poses What's Science-Ejected As Science

here, I cite from the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts [KSBHA] which absurdly labels naturopathy's homeopathy "clinical science" [see 001., below]; then, I muse on 'what such pseudoscience-by-legislation accomplishes' [see 002., below]:

001. the KSBHA states in "Kansas Statutes Annotated and Kansas Administrative Regulations Relating to the Practice of Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-11-26]:

"the board shall issue a registration as a naturopathic doctor to an individual who prior to the effective date of this act (1) graduated from a school of naturopathy that required four years of attendance and was at the time of such individual’s graduation accredited or a candidate for accreditation by the board approved accrediting body, (2) passed an examination approved by the board covering appropriate naturopathic subjects including basic and clinical sciences [...] K.A.R .100-72-5. Examinations: (a) Each applicant for registration by examination as a naturopathic doctor shall submit proof of having passed a nationally administered, standardized examination [the NPLEX, essentially] that is approved by the board and consists of written questions and practical questions assessing knowledge and proficiency on subject matter from the following content areas: (1) Basic sciences, including the following: (A) Anatomy; (B) biochemistry; (C) microbiology; (D) pathology; and (E) physiology; and (2) clinical sciences, including the following: (A) Emergency medicine and public health; (B) laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging; (C) botanical medicine; (D) clinical nutrition; (E) physical and clinical diagnosis; (F) physical medicine; (G) psychology; (H) counseling; (I) ethics; and (J) homeopathy."

Note: so, an accredited school requiring basic and clinical sciences.  Wow, knowing what I know about 'the essentially naturopathic'.  Yes, that's right, homeopathy is claimed as SCIENCE.  And ethics too.  We know, and have know for quite some time, that homeopathy is IMPLAUSIBLE.

Edzard Ernst recently said it best in "Homeopathy, Non-Specific Effects and Good Medicine" (2010-11-13):

"in this issue, Brien et al. report the findings of a five-armed randomized controlled trial, which was aimed at differentiating between the effects of homeopathic remedies and patient consultations. The authors demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are placebos and show that 'the benefits of homeopathy are attributable to the consultation' [...] homeopathic remedies [...] are biologically implausible, and the 150 published trials collectively fail to indicate clinical effectiveness [...yes,] patients benefit from a long and empathic encounter with a homeopath but not from the remedy [...yes,] the effective element is not specifically homeopathy but the therapeutic relationship in general [...so, overall] homeopathic remedies are ineffective and empathetic therapeutic encounters are helpful [...] we should discard the ineffective and adopt the helpful. If we do this, we must tell our patients that homeopathic remedies are both implausible and ineffective. Thus, they cannot be recommended."

That's right, what KSBHA states is a clinical science hasn't ever been shown to be effective, and is considered implausible.  That amounts to being science-ejected.  The label upon naturopathy's homeopathy by KSBHA is false.

002. pseudoscience-by-legislation: what does naturopathy's false-labeling of what's science-ejected as "science" accomplish?

I've fashioned the term "epistemic conflation" [akin to pseudoscience, but encompassing more so the Franken-build of legitimate science and nonscience knowledge amalgamation so typical of naturopathy] to put an handle on naturopathy's M.O.   What naturopathy does is study some science content [e.g., 'basic medical science' and 'regular clinical medicine'], some nonscience content [the essentially naturopathic, sCAM woo-things] and combines the two areas under the umbrella term "science."  But, this is logically false.  Scientific knowledge is a specific kind of knowledge, and the other stuff is not scientific knowledge.  To blend knowledge kinds and falsely label it unblended is madness.

  Naturopathy's 'back-end' in all this misrepresentation is simply this: it's great marketing.  I see it also as unfair trade, and a violation of the professional ethos of informed consent.

It's also efficient: instead of doing actual science, or merely keeping up with the scientific literature and gutting from naturopathy 'that-which-is-archaic-junk', a little pdf document and a few lines of legislation are all that's needed to get on the commerce gravy train.

Now, lets be as expansive as possible: this epistemic conflation and false labeling of homeopathy as science happens across all of North America [NA; I'll exclude Mexico], not just in Kansas.  NPLEX, the licensure exam for NA naturopathy, clearly claims homeopathy as "science."

And this is why Naturocrit exists: to at least be a small voice countering this madness.  The naturopathic racket continues, even after all these years of continually publicly alerting State, Federal, and Provincial authorities.

Maine Naturopathic Medicine: How to Decode Naturopathy's 'Essential Science-Ejected Vitalism Belief'

here, I cite naturopathy's curt description written into State of Maine law [see 001., below]; and, since that description is SOOOOOO incomplete [to the point of misleading], I then flesh out exactly what it represents FROM WITHIN naturopathy. So, I therefore cite from the clinical practice pages of the chair of the naturopathy board in Maine, who similarly provides an incomplete definition, to further show 'how they do it in Maine' [ see 002.a., below]; but, then her alma mater and the trunk of the naturopathy tree, NCNM, provides a authoritative source for getting to the core premise of naturopathy [see 002.b.] along with sister ND school Bastyr's emeritus president Pizzorno's book "Total Wellness", which is quite an indication of just how supernatural naturopathy's central premise is [see 002.c.]; then, I muse [see 003., below]:

001. the State of Maine states in "Maine Revised Statutes" [vsc 2010-11-22]:

"'naturopathic medicine' means a system of health care for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of human health conditions, injuries and diseases that uses education, natural medicines and therapies to support and stimulate the individual's intrinsic self-healing processes [IISHP]."

Note: and that's all you get [coded vitalism].  If taken on face value, this sounds rather mundane.  You would think that this is what it says it is, supporting the physiological processes of the human organism so we can recover from illness or injury.  Wrong -- not for naturopathy, it is not as simple as that.  IISHP is actually a code for a specific sectarian belief, a supernatural belief in an imaginary and science-ejected 'vital force', passed off to the public in quite curt / misleading naturalistic language.

002. Ackerly, S.T. (ND NCNM 1993), chair of the Maine naturopathy board [therefore, a Maine-practicing ND], graduated from NCNM, the trunk of North American naturopathy tree and Rosetta Stone, so to speak, of naturopathy's contents. What does she say?  And comparatively, what does NCNM say?

002.a. well, at her practice home pages, you get coded vitalism:

002.a1. at the homepage [vsc 2010-11-22]:

"Northern Sun Family Health Care provides high-quality, comprehensive naturopathic care and midwifery services to midcoast and southern Maine [...use] complementary therapies that aid the body’s natural ability to heal [BNAH...and this is] nature-based health services."

Note: and that's all you get.  Natural, natural, natural.

002.a2. at her 'definition of naturopathy' page [vsc 2010-11-22], and at her 'why naturopathy' page [vsc 2010-11-22] you get the language:

"the body’s natural healing properties [BNHP]."

Note: and that's all you.....get.  Naturally.

002.b. so, what does NCNM say about IISHP / BNAH / BNHP?  Ah, you get the full monty!  In "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-11-06] NCNM states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis.  These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#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 [...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself."

Note: NCNM sets the 'quality of knowledge' tone for naturopathy here, in absurdly declaring that that which is truly science-ejected somehow [!!!] survives scientific scrutiny.

002.c. ND Pizzorno, the preeminent spokesperson for naturopathy, writes in the book "Total Wellness: Improve Your Health By Understanding the Body’s Healing Systems" (ISBN 0761504338, 1996):

"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 [...] our underlying healing systems [p.003...] the routes to total wellness. Seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life [...including] our life-force (or spirit) [thus VFS]. Weakness in any of these seven systems results in susceptibilities that allow most common diseases to develop. Follow the recommendations below, strengthen all of these seven systems, and total wellness is yours [p.024...] live in harmony with your life-force [p.026 ...] live in harmony with the psychosocial/spiritual/life-force [p.317...] prayer's effect on the one who prays are not as mysterious, sharing common ground with the placebo effect. Both give the body's self-healing mechanisms permission to turn on [p.332...] in mind/body medicine, the placebo effect is recognized as a marshaling of our self-healing abilities -- the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae [...] it is increased awareness of and access to this teleological force, the healer within, that is the essence of each of us [p.333...] life force. See spiritual system [p.410]."

Note: I think here I've show how naturopaths use naturalistic language to camouflage a supernaturalistic belief.  This is what I mean by exposure of naturopathy "from the inside".  What is in Maine law curtly IISHP, and Maine clinical practice BHAH or BNHP, at the mother ship, is vitalism in full regalia.  Why don't they tell us this, in law and on their commercial pages? [I muse on this below, at 004.]

003. musing:

Why doesn't naturopathy tell us HPN's actual context transparently? 

Why is naturopathy's 'essential science-ejected vitalism belief' hidden: 

a) by the Maine legislative language;

b) by the naturopathy syndicate overall, usually?

Regarding a), well because people are lazy, I'll muse, and therein easily manipulated, including legislators.

Regarding b), well, trading on false naturalistic pretenses is naturopathy's M.O.

Naturopathy Invades Veterinary with HPN: The American Council of Animal Naturopathy

here, I cite from a recent press release by the American Council of Animal Naturopathy [ACAN]:

001. ACAN states in the press release "The First Animal Naturopathy Council Launched in the USA" [saved 2010-11-21]:

"two American animal naturopaths have seen a need to have a standard set for their profession and have launched an organization to provide certification and continuing education [...] Dr. Kim Bloomer and Dr. Jeannie Thomason, have instituted [...] the American Council of Animal Naturopathy [...] the two decided to fill the need in order to make available continuing education and to set a standard for their profession through a board certifying examination [...] the organization, American Council of Animal Naturopathy offers a board certifying examination for animal naturopaths to uphold the standard of the principles of naturopathy and for other natural animal health practitioners desiring to be certified in animal naturopathy [...] to learn more visit the website at http://www.AnimalNaturopathyCouncil.org."

002. the HPN based ACAN code of ethics:

002.a. ACAN states in "Code of Ethics" [saved 2010-11-21]:

"[#2] I will practice the healing power of nature [HPN...last] I will not use misleading, deceptive, irresponsible or fraudulent statements or advertising."

Note: being that HPN, perponderantly per naturopathy, is the science-ejected figment known as a 'life force', and being that that is not clearly communicated on this page in the sense of informed discourse, is ACAN's #2 principle already violating ACAN's last principle?

ND Maloney vs. MD Atwood - The Medline Piece and ND Deflective Nastiness:

here, I cite from a 2010-07 blog post by ND Maloney regarding the 2003 MedGenMed piece by Atwood:

001. Maloney, C. (ND NCNM 2002) states in "Christopher Maloney, Naturopathic Doctor, Responds to Medline Quack Attack on N.D.s" (2010-07-30) [vsc 2010-11-21]:

"'where there are idiots, there is idiocy' [hmmm, I wonder who he's talking about?]. The most definitive negative information about naturopathic medicine on Medline was published back in 2003 by Dr. Atwood [there as a 2004 follow-up, too...supposedly] this is not an objective piece of writing [...] in looking through the study [it's actually a review / analysis / commentary, and the original unfortunately isn't up anymore at MedGenMed, but its follow-up is here] that Dr. Atwood did to become the established expert [...] on naturopathic medicine [strawman?], I found that Dr. Atwood had read a book [I have the original paper, and no, it's not informed by 'a book', it has 53 bibliographical endnotes...] the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine [wrong book, it's the Textbook of Natural Medicine that's referenced, which makes up 8 of those 53 endnotes...which is] a compilation of articles for the lay public [...] we must assume that Dr. Atwood is only as well informed as the lay public about naturopathic medicine [really?...and basically opines that Atwood lacks] the proper humility common to all good clinicians [oh snap!...] I do not need to clarify this contrast with what Dr. Atwood did.  His expertise is in internal medicine, but by claiming expertise based on a single book reading I begin to doubt his level of knowledge within his own area.  Anyone who feels comfortable expressing such definitive opinions with such little information seems unlikely to be exploring his own area with a great deal of diligence [seeing as how Maloney didn't actually read the actual study he is taking umbrage with, apparently, I think this is quite an ironic insult...] Dr. Atwood is unpublished in his own field [...and] seems unable to meet the standards necessary for peer review publication of a contribution within internal medicine [...] if Dr. Atwood were serious about studying naturopathic medicine [etc.]."

Note: so, it appears that ND Maloney only read the article's abstract and assumed its source.  Maloney's defense / rebuttal of the contents of the Medline pieces is, therein, uninformed character assassination / ad hominem.  He has not addressed anything substantive.  How can he, without having read the actual article!  He has accomplished nothing here but to spotlight the very thing about himself that he accuses another of: intellectual laziness.

This type of uninformed condescension / deflective nastiness makes sense, though, if you were part of a cultic group that has trained you to defensively prevent yourself from exposure to criticism of your group's contents.

Two 2010-11 Accounts of Homeopathy: WSOCTV.com [uncritical endorsement], The Telegraph [uncritical dismissal]

here, I cite from two media sources regarding homeopathy.  One endorses homeopathy uncritically, by -- yes, you guess it -- citing an AANP naturopath [see 001., below]; and the other cites a study that dismisses homeopathy, a study that uncritically tries to salvage specific-to-homeopathy benefits [see 002., below]; then, I remind that the naturopathy crowd claims, quite falsely, that homeopathy is science [see 003., below]:

001. Charlotte, N.C.'s WSOCTV.com states in "Homeopathy Insight" (2010-11-18)[vsc 2010-11-19]:

"homeopathy is a form of complementary and alternative medicine based on a premise called the 'principle of similars' or 'like cures like.' According to homeopathic theory, any substance (plant, animal or mineral) that causes illness in a healthy person will cure a person who is sick with that same illness when given in extremely dilute doses [...] common reasons for use include: allergies, flu, asthma and childhood diarrhea [...] Judy Fulop, N.D. [(NCNM)...] naturopathic physician with Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago. IL, says [...] it takes many years of study to learn about the various remedies [...and] homeopathic remedies can be used to relieve some of the side effects of illness or treatment [really?]."

Note: ND Fulup's work bio. states [vsc 2010-11-19]:

"Judy's philosophy is built on the principles of naturopathic medicine: support the healing power of nature [HPN]."

Being that she is an NCNM graduate, you can decode HPN here, which is the science-ejected sectarian concept central to naturopathy: life force falsely claimed as science.  Oh how they love to not be transparent, and to falsely label.

At AANMC, we're told [vsc 2010-11-19]:

"Dr. Fulop is currently the vice president of the Illinois Naturopathic Medical Association and chairperson of the Legislative and Legal committee working on ND licensure in Illinois. She introduced House Bill #1591 and Senate Bill #1758 in the Illinois legislative process. She is a board member of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, chair of the Scientific Affairs Committee, and member of the Public Affairs committee."

002. the Telegraph's Laura Donnelly writes in "Homeopathy Works - But It is Talking, Not Tinctures that Helps Patients" (2010-11-14)[vsc 2010-11-19]:

"homeopathy can reduce the symptoms of disease, but it is the consultations not the remedies which are responsible, a new study has found [...] it made no difference whether the solution they received was a genuine homeopathic tincture prescribed to treat rheumatism, or a placebo [...] those who had a series of five consultations with a homeopathic doctor experienced 'significant clinical benefits,' - whether the tincture they received was a specially prepared 'homeopathic' remedy used to treat rheumatism, or a placebo. Patients given exactly the same remedies without the consultations did not gain the improvements [...] Dr Sarah Brien, the study’s lead author, said that while previous research had suggested homeopathy could help patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the study provided the first scientific evidence to show such benefits were 'specifically due to its unique consultation process.'"

Note: so, the reporter repeated the spin of the study's author, that there's something UNIQUE to the homeopathic encounter though the pill is inert.  But, Edzard Ernst says it best, in the same journal issue that that homeopathy study was published within, in "Homeopathy, Non-Specific Effects and Good Medicine" (2010-11-13):

"in this issue, Brien et al. report the findings of a five-armed randomized controlled trial, which was aimed at differentiating between the effects of homeopathic remedies and patient consultations. The authors demonstrate that homeopathic remedies are placebos and show that 'the benefits of homeopathy are attributable to the consultation' [...] homeopathic remedies  [...] are biologically implausible, and the 150 published trials collectively fail to indicate clinical effectiveness [...yes,] patients benefit from a long and empathic encounter with a homeopath but not from the remedy [...yes,] the effective element is not specifically homeopathy but the therapeutic relationship in general [...so, overall] homeopathic remedies are ineffective and empathetic therapeutic encounters are helpful [...] we should discard the ineffective and adopt the helpful. If we do this, we must tell our patients that homeopathic remedies are both implausible and ineffective. Thus, they cannot be recommended."

Yes, there's NOTHING UNIQUE to the homeopathic encounter and the pills are inert.

003. meanwhile, naturopathy labels homeopathy a science, e.g. the Division of Health Sciences at the University of  Bridgeport has a naturopathy degree that requires homeopathy [vsc 2010-11-20].  Here's my take on this massive mislabeling:

science  -------------- naturopathy  ---------------  homeopathy

subset                                              subset              

Note: homeopathy is truly science-ejected, at that tertiary level of the above.  Naturopathy, at that secondary level, is itself science-ejected essentially due to 'that which is essentially naturopathic.'   It is sad to think about all the people, both students and patients, that naturopathy is mindfucking with their cultic homeopathy penchant.

NMD Marturano - "Certainly True" There's No Scientific Evidence For Life Force / Vis [which defines naturopathy!]

here, I quote from a naturopath who explicitly states that "life force" (a.k.a. The Vis, in naturopathy lingo) is not scientific and that [apparently] science is 'a convenient mentionable' [see 001., below]; then, I point out '.gov' naturopathy claims that "life force" / vitalism survives scientific scrutiny WHILE ACTUALLY hugely science-ejected [see 002., below]; then, I show that that 'life force concept claimed as science' IS a primary item of the naturopathy oath [see 003., below]; finally, I muse [see 004., below]:

001. Marturano, M. (SCNM NMD), in "Discerning Health Disinformation on the Web" [vsc 2010-11-16], speaks of:

"trying to find solid health information [...with so much out there apparently] very authoritative and credible on the surface [...yet ultimately of] a hidden agenda [...] insufficient evidence

[...and warns of] disinformation tactics [which] work by making the truth appear false and the false appear true [...via statements apparently]  based in fact, but twisted [...offering] woo-woo [...from] hucksters and charlatans [...selling] snake oil to the unwitting public [(my irony meter is exploding)...]

[and he speaks of avoiding] the top three disinformation tactics out there [...] to protect yourself from these unscrupulous literary magicians [...with the #1 tactic being] lack of evidence equals evidence of lack [(I'm not kidding here)...and gives three examples concerning] no scientific evidence

[...and offers, as the fourth] let's take on a big one: there is no scientific evidence showing the existence [of] an invisible life force (spirit, qi, chi, prana, etc.) [vitalism, naturopathy's big one!] that supports living beings. The above statement is certainly true

[...and regarding science states] we should put scientific evidence in its rightful place as one of many useful ways to understand the world around us [(as in, 'not a priority')...] it is not necessary for science to support every little statement that a health professional makes [(as in 'not a priority)]."

Note: so, we get the admitted scientific dismissal of vitalism as a scientific theory, essentially.  And science, thought the best way to comprehend the world around us, is not much of a priority.  In 004., I'll comment on other things from the above.

001.b. 'science as a convenient mentionable':

With science not very prioritized, NMD Marturano yet isn't shy about lauding naturopathy's supposed science basis and science course hours [vsc 2010-11-16].

I sense a little hypocrisy here, as in 'my educational credentials claim a reasonable basis and priority of science, when convenient' [used for marketing legitimacy, ignored for the basis of 'the essentially naturopathic'].  And, naturopathy's principles are 'described' without actually much description / transparency:

"principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] healing power of nature [coded vitalism], naturopathic medicine recognizes a self-healing process of the body [coded vitalism] that is ordered and intelligent. We do not purport to be the cause of cure, but simply a catalyst to effect that which would occur naturally, given the right conditions and resources."

002. the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-11-16]:

"the practice of 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 [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN a.k.a. 'The Vis'...] nature heals through the response of the life force [(vitalism)...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself."

Note: so, vitalism a.k.a. HPN-VMN is claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  But, this is hugely not true.

This is your government facilitating your exploitation: both as an education consumer and as a clinical consumer.

003. the ND / NMD obligation to vitalism / "The Vis":

Here, by way of a British Columbia, Canada BCNA ND homeopathy proponent, is the Naturopathy Oath [psc 2010-11-19]:

"I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of Naturopathic Medicine

[...]

I will continually endeavor to improve my abilities.

I will conduct my life and practice of Naturopathic Medicine with integrity and freedom from prejudice

[(my irony meter is again over-the-limit)...]

I will honor the principles of Naturopathic Medicine

[...]

to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [(HPN-VMN; coded vitalism)...]

with my whole heart, before these witnesses, as a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath."

Note: so, the HPN-VMN is obviously a naturopath's by-oath obligation [vitalism camouflaged, falsely labeled as science].

004. musing:

So, what can be culled from all this?

Well, I've obviously found an ND/NMD who disavows THE primary REQUIRED naturopathy belief / tenet [a science-ejected / -unsupported sectarian concept (of many such in naturopathy)] that is usually FALSELY stated as scientific fact.

That is quite a find: a huge absurdity [the nonscientific falsely labeled science] piled upon another huge absurdity [a by-oath requirement then disavowed].

Regarding:

"solid health information" - I hope it's now obvious that naturopathy's claims, at their highest echelon, are no way 'solid', e.g. it irrationally labels something what it hugely isn't;

"authoritative and credible on the surface" - yes, camouflaged / coded, as naturopathy poses as legitimate yet when you analyze it, it falls apart;

"a hidden agenda" - can you say naturopathy's M.O., as we see with this NMD and the MANP that he's secretary of, e.g. the vitalism tenet, coded, with a false science label AS AN AGENDA?;

"disinformation tactics" - something naturopathy has obviously mastered;

"the truth appear false and the false appear true" and "based in fact, but twisted" - reminds me of naturopathy's 'reversal of values' M.O.;

"woo-woo" - a skeptical word, misappropriated [?];

"hucksters and charlatans", "[selling] snake oil to the unwitting public", "unscrupulous literary magicians" - sounds like sCAM that scamming scam scam;

"lack of evidence equals evidence of lack" - this is thoroughly illogical and practically straw-man.  It is this simple: science relies upon evidence, and to base medical decisions on 'a HUGE nonscience lack' is NUTS;

"no scientific evidence" - ah-hum, can anyone say naturopathy's vitalism and supernaturalism? [amongst other things naturopathic]];

"there is no scientific evidence showing the existence [of] an invisible life force (spirit, qi, chi, prana, etc.) [...] the above statement is certainly true" - yes it is CERTAIN [science-ejected, more specifically], and it's nice to hear this little bit of huge honesty yet naturopaths have a greatly absurd quandary here: claiming science while actually hugely essentially nonscientific, by oath;

science as "one of many useful ways to understand the world around us" "it is not necessary for science to support every little statement that a health professional makes" - since science is the BEST way to know about the world around us, other ways are not as useful for something as serious as medicine, and I would think that it IS NECESSARY for someone in commerce and the professions to properly label what hugely isn't science as not science, instead of what naturopathy is doing, which falsely labeling the nonscientific science and trading upon it.

Skeptical Letter Writer To ASA About CNM, 2010-11

here, I cite from the blog "Skeptical Letter Writer" [SLW; see 001., below]:

001. SLW writes in "The College of Naturopathic Medicine (again)" (2010-11-13)[vsc 2010-11-15]:

"here's another installment in my continuing series of complaints against the College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] can the college substantiate any of their claims [...about] reflexology [...and] applied kinesiology [...e.g., the former] 'helps to restore natural balance of the body resulting in an improved sense of health and well being [sic]. Energy, mood, circulation and immunity can also be enhanced. This relaxing treatment benefits many health conditions such as: stress, anxiety, insomnia, muscular pain, headaches, migraines, digestive disorders, hormonal imbalances e.g. PMS, menopause, and more' [...and the latter] 'uses muscles testing to identify imbalances within the body, so removes the need for guess-work in treating a client, friends and family [...] kinesiology [...] produces results quickly' [...] I suspect that the booklet may be in breach of the British Code of Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing (CAP Code) [...for both,] under Section 12.1, I challenge whether the advertisers can substantiate their claims."

002. well, it can't hurt to complain about part of the weird diagnostics and treatments that are within 'the hugely weird naturopathic'.

Naturopathy, EBM, and SEBM - ND Barrett at Natural Medicine Journal, 2010-11

here, I cite from a recent interview of one NCNM ND by another at Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ] regarding evidence based medicine [EBM; see 001., below]; then, I illuminate the 'actual naturopathic' [see 002., below]; and, I muse on the lunacy [see 003., below]:

001. in NMJ's "Clinical Roundtable (audio)" [saved 2010-11-06], Kaczor, T. (ND NCNM 2000) and Barrett, R. (ND NCNM 1986) state:

"ND Kaczor: Dr. Barrett, as you know, there is a general acceptance of the evidence-based model as the paradigm in which all medicine should be practiced [...] in particular randomized-controlled trials [00.00.43...] can you speak to some of the pros and cons of using evidence-based medicine in the application of naturopathic care [00.00.58]?

ND Barrett: [00.01.03] I actually prefer the term evidence-informed medicine [...] I'm definitely leaning towards the pro side [00.01.14...] but, on the other side, I'm very much a naturopathic doctor in philosophy and outlook as well.  I think a lot of people say that you kind of have to pick one side: either [the] scientific point of view or have fidelity to naturopathic philosophy.  I think that's really a false dichotomy [00.01.56...with the philosophical context including] the Therapeutic Order [TO...and] the Naturopathic Principles [NP, 00.02.17...and then quotes] David Young [...] someone outside the field [...who is not an ND then, obviously, said, defending naturopathy,] 'naturopathic physicians are in the possession of the same set of scientific facts as conventional physicians, but conscienciously differ on how to apply that knowledge.'   I think that sums it up pretty well [00.02.44].

ND Barrett: [00.15.00] We always want to use the filter of the philosophy."

Note: so, there is a strong claim of the naturopathic being science, and there's talk of within all that are the NP and TO filters.  What is, specifically, within these 'filters'?

002. hmmmm, their filtering -- 'the actual naturopathic' / the 'essentially naturopathic' -- is, indeed, science-ejected woo [these are only two aspects of this sectarian belief system, there are many more!]:

002.a. naturopathy's vitalism, via their TO, is stated in their textbook's chapter, "Chapter 3 - A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order: The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine":

"the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature. This 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]."

Note: vitalism is hugely science-ejected.

002.b. naturopathy's supernaturalism, via their NP, on one of their State board '.gov' web pages, the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine's "Naturopathy", which states:

"the practice of 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 [...#1] nature heals through the response of the life force [...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher [...] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual [...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors."

Note: any supernaturalism is hugely science-ejected, though the OBNM claims in these principles' contents such is "objective" and "in fact" able to survive scientific scrutiny.  Notice that vitalism is in there too, just as falsely claimed to be just as scientific.

003. so, here's the 'naturopathy lunacy':

the hugely not science claimed as science.

Note: so, in the ultimate reversal of values, naturopathy is essentially 'science-ejected based medicine' [SEBM]. 

I would place scientific rigor on this continuum, starting from least to most scientifically rigorous: SEBM, EBM, SBM [science-based medicine].  

SEBM is categorically / by definition, NOT SCIENCE. 

You can find this lunacy explicitly stated at the alma mater and employer of these two NDs, NCNM.  This is truly the naturopaTHICK.