001. For what the American naturopathy 'profession' terms "the medicine of the future" with with all its science-ejected ideas, paradoxically or pathetically depending on your mood, things aren't looking too promising as a share of "interest". That is good news: there is no upward momentum, that I can see, in this kind of data. There is just little incremental misrepresentations to local lawmakers that slowly advance this crooked racket's licensing. And since so frustrated, I predict naturopathy will again attempt a relabeling as soon as such an opportunity arises. So, naturopathy in terms of interest is slithering in the grass, and not soaring upon high:
This is "worldwide":
So, my term was "naturopathic" and my eye, broadly, sees slight DECLINE in what the tool calls "interest" by region, and this is all regions. Certainly there isn't increased growth of the naturopathic product as compared proportionally to other products of interest it competes with. Actually, there's about three times as much interest in Canada, according to the tool, but don't let all that blue fool you. I break down Canada below.
Below is restricted to "United States", and I'm hugely surprised that California is not showing great interest, and so little of the Northeast too:.
And this is interest within "Canada", stagnant:
And finally, here's the filter U.S./naturopathic/last eight years/health/news search. What I'm interested in is a bulge in interest due to something newsworthy that then creates a quantum step, but I don't see it. What I see is sputter, stall, sputter, stall. And, of course, the news cycles represented could also include popular criticism.
002. For an area that claims certain FALSE facts about the world are indeed science, like a purposeful life spirit running physiology, and homeopathy as a "medicinal science", well, one of two possibilities come to mind:
a) naturopathy has nothing and the world knows it [and naturopathy knows the world knows it] and ignores them, broadly; or
b) they have the science but they are withholding it!
Now, which one is more likely!
What hugely intrigues me is how schools like "National University of Health Sciences" which have naturopathy programs and science in their name as a categorical assurance don't understand one simple methodological fact:
if you are using that science label upon naturopathy you actually have to have science to back up your claims about the essentially naturopathic, like iron-clad findings establishing that purposeful life spirit and homeopathy's efficacy.
BUT, you don't even find FAILED experimentation from these nonprofiteers.
They don't even know enough about science to even TRY.
So, I'll say that Americans are not interested in naturopathy all that much, and that's continuous.
I'll also argue that science isn't all that interesting to the naturopathy profession either, beyond employment for false marketing labelings.