here, I cite from the web pages of two MA NDs who claim naturopathy is science-based [see 001., below]; then, from their alma mater SCNM to decode the science-ejected 'essentially naturopathic' that these NDs don't transparently communicate [see 002., below]:
001.a. Rajcok, P.J. (ND SCNM) states:
001.a1. in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-04-15]:
"naturopathic medicine combines a strong, scientific foundation with time-honored and modern healing systems, to produce a comprehensive and practical approach to primary health care [...] as with conventional medical doctors (MDs), the first two years of naturopathic medical school cover the basic sciences [...] after receiving the doctor of naturopathic medicine (ND) degree, one must pass a national level board exam to become licensed [...] all naturopathic doctors attend a four-year graduate level accredited naturopathic medical school [...] naturopathic medicine draws from a wide variety of natural therapeutics, which include [...] homeopathy."
Note: there's a "scientific" expertise claim, an 'of a science base' claim, a "practical" claim, a 'board exam rigor' claim, and a "graduate level" claim. So, now HOMEOPATHY is of a "strong, scientific foundation" and is "practical"! In fact, that board exam labels homeopathy a clinical science. Right -- is now wrong. My overarching distillation of such education: this is fully accredited nonsense, Title IV and commercial thievery.
001.a2. in "Principles of Naturopathy" [vsc 2011-04-15; my comments are in bold]:
"[include: #1] the healing power of nature: nature acts powerfully through healing mechanisms in the body and mind to maintain and restore health. Naturopathic doctors work to restore and support these inherent healing systems [...]";
and that's all you get. I'll decode this statement in 002., below -- IN THEIR OWN WORDS. It represent the science-ejected sectarian core that DEFINES naturopathy.
"[#5] doctor as teacher: naturopathic doctors focus on education and encourage self-responsibility for health."
I think to teach you should have knowledge that has ACTUAL integrity. But, of course, if an ND's education was nonsense, then their educating is likely nonsense.
001.b. Riedlinger, J. (ND SCNM) states:
001.b1. in "About Naturopathy" [vsc 2011-04-15]:
"a licensed naturopathic physician (N.D.) attends a 4-yr graduate-level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. or D.O. [...] naturopathic medicine [...] is based on the core principles listed below: [#1] the healing power of nature: have trust and faith in the body’s inherent wisdom to heal itself [...#5] treat the whole person: view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical body, mental, and spiritual dimensions [...] a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [...] disease prevention and health promotion is the primary goal in every naturopathic medical practice. The naturopath uses safe and effective treatments."
Note: there's the claim that their basis is science that is the science that is what science is as science -- per "same". We have HPN again, but not transparently communicated. And there's supernaturalism, 'rigorous board examination', a claim of professionalism, a claim of efficacy.
001.b2. in "About Dr. June Riedlinger Shibley" [vsc 2011-04-15]:
"[her] training and credentials [...] doctor of naturopathic medicine: [she] graduated from Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine (SCNM), Tempe, Arizona, one of the country’s four medical schools specializing in science based natural medicine and research [...] treatments include therapies that have a basis in advanced modern scientific research."
Note: yes, that's an overarching label that the naturopathic is "science based" and "natural".
001.b3. hosts "Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works" by Dana Ullman [saved 2011-04-15]:
"[which poses as an intelligible scientific argument employing the root 'scien' 37 times, saying such things as] another source of modern basic science and clinical research on homeopathic medicine is the Samueli Institute."
Note: Ullman has been quite skewered. Orac has a great post specific to this Ullman piece, published 2009-12-15.
001.b4. in "Services" [vsc 2011-04-15]:
"Dr. Riedlinger provides a service that examines a person's health care needs and provides educational information to help patients regain their health [...] your experience with naturopathic care will be a process of self discovery, lifestyle management, and establishment of a healthy physical, mental, and spiritual body/soul [...]";
yes, you will be educated by this miseducated ND. What is a "spiritual body/soul" anyway? Sectarian and supernatural, to say the least. It's a strange kind of "natural" "science", supernatural and science-exterior.
"therapeutic modalities [...include] homeopathy, reiki [...]";
empty remedies and the laying on of hands, very scientific. Nonsense treatment labeled science-based: quite professional.
002. SCNM, the alma mater of these two NDs, states at their homepage in 2003 (which will decode and contextualize that HPN 'thing' they keep talking about):
"first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese Medicine, prana in Ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature, that incorporate dietary and lifestyle improvements, that employ the least invasive, least harmful and most effective therapies, is the art, the heart and the essence of naturopathic medicine."
Note: so, there you go. Science-ejected vitalism is the context of naturopathy, and their MO is to falsely label vitalism and kind [supernaturalism; expressed often in naturalistic language] science-based. What kind of profession is not transparent about what they are all about? What kind of profession is based on falsehood?