here, I cite from an ND regarding the label "natural" [see 001., below]; then from her practice's explanation of 'the naturopathic', whereby the profoundly science-ejected is claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny [see 002., below]:
001. Aagenes, N. (ND Bastyr) states in "Hormone Replacement" [vsc 2011-03-27]:
"'natural' is so poorly defined in medicine that it is virtually meaningless [hear, hear...e.g.] the term 'bioidentical' refers not to plant hormone in the raw [...but to] those taken from plants [...] and acted on with enzymes until they are indistinguishable from human hormone. The result is a 'natural' hormone, but the process does not occur in nature."
Note: it's somewhat interesting to hear this moment of lucidity, 'in their own words' no less. Naturopathy trades on this idea of the "natural" / 'the naturopathic' as being distinct, and yet here an ND is quite right in stating that naturopathy truly doesn't limit itself to just the 'distinctly natural' [whatever that means]. Of course, she dares not directly utter what she is actually speaking of: the artificial [whatever THAT means].
002. do I now trust ND Aagenes though?
a big NO, pan-naturopathically speaking. On the page "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-03-27] she and her ND partner collectively state:
'"the practice of naturopathy 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. For the naturopathic physician, abiding by these principles forms the basis of all treatment [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."
Note: ah, the overarching nonsense of labeling the science-ejected as able to survive scientific scrutiny -- as a worldview. There ain't no life force, and there's no need for it to explain any phenomena. Such is a medically irrelevant article of faith. I argue that part of naturopathy's principles is such 'institutionalized falsehood' via knowledge mislabeling, a requisite 'epistemic conflation' that drones out any moments of naturopathic lucidity. Naturopathy, at its core, destroys knowledge meaningfulness since, essentially, for naturopathy something-is-what-it-is-not.