here, I summarize recent additions to my public naturopathy database. I also link to an ND's video each changelog, quote from, and tag the video in some detail:
[Mission emphasis: I do this continuous exercise to expose the inherent fraud that naturopathy is logically, academically, commercially, legislatively / politically and clinically. Hugely misleading category labels such as "science based" and "evidence based" "nonsectarian" are being placed upon what truly is science-exterior and even more so disproven sectarian / quack nonsense! Then, the largest of betrayals toward the public occurs with highly orchestrated '.gov' endorsements of naturopaths as "licensed" and "professional." Beware, the naturopathic licensed falsehood racket marches on!]
the vitalism [science-ejected subset naturopathy] claims of:
NDs Walline & Willi;
"The Naturocrit Podcast and Blog:
Great insight. I also left naturopathy and though
I regret starting the whole thing and being tricked,
I don't regret listening to the voice inside me which
screamed: there's no integrity here. At some point,
it will be scooped up by some savvy journalist, e.g.:
you have National University of Health Sciences with
a naturopathy program which contains mandatory
homeopathy which is claimed to be on the board
exam a "clinical science", and that is categorically
false. Pulitzer material considering how much
money flows through these schools! It's just
unfortunate that as print newspapers die off,
so does science journalism,
so does health science journalism,
so do people who understand the
stringencies of the scientific enterprise. -r.c.";
002. video link and commentary:
002.a. Richardson, K. (ND Bastyr 2014) states in the 'audio-only' YouTube video "Naturopathic Medicine vs. Conventional Medicine" (2016-08-16)[vsc 2016-09-02]:
[tags: #NDRichardson #primarycareclaim #equation #codedvitalism].
"[host] I want to talk about the difference between naturopathic medicine and general medicine [...this] holistic approach [...the ND] a lot of people don't realize is that naturopathic doctors can be primary care doctors in the State of Washington and that really is how I function. I am a primary care doctor [...] patients have the option to see me for their primary care [...] that really doesn't look that much different than a conventional doctor [...] I saw a four-day-old yesterday [...] and I take insurance [...] the differences really lie in the amount of time that patient get to spend with me, that's a really big one [...] one of the biggest differences [...] patients really got to create a relationship with me [...] my training is very similar to a conventional doctor's training [...] it's a four-year medical program [...with] the basic sciences [...and then] the alternative side of things [...and then the host asks the difference between a] naturopathic approach and homeopathy [...and the ND rather shakily answers] they're actually very different things [...] naturopathic medicine is actually very similar to conventional medicine [...while] homeopathic medicine is an entire different philosophy that some naturopathic doctors use. It's not something that I particularly use in my treatment plans [...and she tells us] the alternative side [...includes] nutrition [...] counseling [...and she speaks of] letting nature heal you [...]";
so, PCP. Equated. But why doesn't the ND speak of the "really" big difference: that naturopathy permits pseudoscience? Fascinating. That's not talked about. Sounds like a really shallow, manipulative relationship! Like what about Bastyr's commitment to "natural health sciences that integrate body, mind, spirit and nature?" Where is talk of the BELIEF system wherein science ridiculously is posed to contain the supernatural and archaic vitalistic? It's bad for business to talk about that. "Holistic", which can't talk about itself whole-ly. Quite ironic. And of course, pseudoscience is not an alternative for science, because alternatives must be reasonable in their benefits, outcomes, risks and such. Notice that she IMHO lies about homeopathy because it is WITHIN naturopathy, so how can it be "very different"? We're not told that naturopathy claims homeopathy is science when it is not. In admitting that "some" naturopathic doctors use it, and not herself, she is artificially distancing herself from something quite naturopathic. It also is an admission that NDs are quite fine with their colleagues practicing pseudoscience. Ah, and the coded vitalism.
002.b. at her 6-ND practice, we find:
002.b1. acupuncture and claims of its efficacy as "an incredibly versatile treatment", and how it "looks at the body, mind and spirit to identify and correct imbalances in the flow of energy" by ND Maximo;
but acupuncture is not wonderful, and there's supernaturalism, and coded vitalism.
002.b2. and in their explanation of naturopathic medicine, we're told:
"modalities used in naturopathic medicine [...include] homeopathy: a 200–year-old system of medicine based on the idea that like cures like. It is well designed to treat a person on the physical, mental and emotional levels [...and we're told] naturopathic medicine is modern medicine at it’s finest [...as] the diagnostic skills of a primary care medical doctor with a philosophy and treatment based on the healing power of nature [...] the best, highest-quality, and innovative care in the Seattle area [...] we are eager to help Seattle families lead healthy, pain-free, and fulfilling lives through the best possible blend of medical sciences [...]";
so, there's an efficacy claim upon homeopathy, coded vitalism, a categorical science label, and a label of it all being "best". Naturopathy: where epistemic falsehood and opacity is "best" and "highest-quality". What a reversal of values.