Wikipedia on Science, Vitalism and Naturopathy - 2009-05-30:

here, I parse the current Wikipedia naturopathy entry in terms of science [see 001.a., below] and vitalism [see 001.b., below];

001. Wikipedia's current naturopathy entry states, regarding:

001.a. science & naturopathy:

"naturopathy (also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine) [...its] training differs from that undertaken by MDs in that it includes scientifically disproven modalities, such as homeopathy, often called [a] pseudoscience and quackery [...its] homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience [...] naturopathic medical school [...] includes the study of basic medical sciences [...] naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse [...] all forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science [...] naturopathic treatments such as homeopathy and iridology are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery [...quoting Atwood] 'an examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices' [hear, hear]."

Note: not science.

001.b. vitalism & naturopathy:

001.b1. within the Wikipedia naturopathy entry:

"naturopathy (also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine) [...] focuses on natural remedies and the body's vital ability to heal and maintain itself [{'vital' then links to the article parsed in 001.b2.}...] Lust [...] the 'father of U.S. naturopathy' [...] described the body in spiritual and vitalistic terms [...this] naturopathic ideology [...per] trusting to the 'healing power of nature' [...includes] rejection of biomedicine in favor of an intuitive and vitalistic conception of the body and nature [...per 'ND sectarian creed' tenet #2] recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae, a form of vitalism) [...naturopathy's] many methods rely on immaterial 'vital energy fields' [...naturopathy contains] concepts irreconcilable with modern medicine, such as vitalism [...] naturopathy is viewed with [scientific] skepticism for its reliance on or association with unproven, disproven, and controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings."

Note: vitalism is 'essential to the naturopathic'.

001.b2. within the linked Wikipedia vitalism entry:

"Bechtel and Richardson [of the 1998 Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy] state that today vitalism 'is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine' [...and quoting Sokal] 'nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism' and [he] added that 'mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time' [{hear, hear}...and quoting Williams] 'today, vitalism is one of the ideas that form the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems [e.g., naturopathy] that claim that illnesses are caused by a disturbance or imbalance of the body's vital force'."

002. note: I am not involved in any way with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's naturopathy entry has improved. It was not long ago that Wikipedia defined the underpinning vitalism of naturopathy as an unqualified "natural life force", as if such a sectarian figmentation / premise / article of faith was prima facie fact. Yet, Wikipedia's naturopathic medical school article makes no mention of the unethical sectarian pseudoscience basis of naturopathy, and codes the vitalism.

Decoding Naturopathy's Essential Science-Ejected Vitalism -- ISBN 184593413X, 2009:

here, I quote from a 2009 book describing naturopathy in not very transparent terms [see 001., below]; and, I peel away that opacity to reveal 'the essentially naturopathic' [see 002., below]; and, as usual, I issue a warning [see 003., below]:

001. Preedy, V.R. (? ?) and Watson, R.R. (? ?) state in "Botanical Medicine in Clinical Practice" (ISBN 184593413X, 2009):

"naturopathic principles are based on vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN], where treatment is used to support the innate healing potential of the individual [IHPI, p.582]."

Note: and that's all you're given. This is what such specifically means to naturopaths:

002. when you look at the naturopathic primary sources regarding VMN-HPN-IHPI, you will find that it represents the science-ejected concept known as vitalism. For the sake of clarity, I will use:

002.a. SCNM's 2003 archived homepage page to represent naturopathy's essential vitalism:

"the healing power of nature [...] 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 is] the essence of naturopathic medicine".

002.b. Richard Dawkins's recent editorial comments on vitalism from "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing" (ISBN 0199216800, 2008) to represent the scientific and particularly modern biological view regarding vitalism:

"what neither Mendel nor anyone else before 1953 knew was that genes themselves are digital, within themselves [...] life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]."

003. so, again, a warning regarding descriptions of naturopathy...

there is a sectarian ABSURD underneath that is rarely honestly, competently and accurately expressed.

University of Bridgeport's Science Absurdity, via Brady: AKA,'UB is Not Academically Fraudulent and Abusive Like Them Guys' [While Actually F & A]:

here, I detail a recent Dynamic Chiropractic article by University of Bridgeport Health Science Vice Provost Brady criticizing 'them bogus guys', AKA competitors in the realm of 'woo education' [see 001., below]; and, I point out his hypocrisy, per UB's complete bogosity [see 002., below]:

001. David M. Brady

[DC TCC, ND UBCNM; a DC whom I had as an instructor at UB {1998-2002}, and a fellow ND student while he was doing his ND there {I ceased on ethical grounds, he graduated}]

"Vice Provost of the Division of Health Sciences [etc. {which includes naturopathy ISYN and chiropractic} ...] at the University of Bridgeport [UB]",

states in "Academic and Credential Fraud and Abuse Must Stop" [Dynamic Chiropractic; 2009-06-17 -- vol. 27, iss. 13]:

"dubious and quasi-degrees [...] bogus, nonaccredited, internet-only, graduate and terminal credentials or degrees [...] nonaccredited, substandard degrees [...] fraudulent credentials [...per] various web-based diploma mills and nonaccredited correspondence institutions [...are] a very alarming and destructive trend [...per] an attempt to gain more credibility and attract new patients [...per] 'quasi' credentials [...misleading] the public into believing they are following the advice of a legitimately trained individual [...] these institutions are propagating academic fraud at the expense of their unenlightened students and public safety [...this] demands our immediate attention [...] the curriculum and infrastructure of these institutions simply do not meet acceptable criteria to grant such degrees legitimately [...per the] rigid standards of self and independent review [...of] regionally and specialty-accredited institutions [...] program[s...] licensed by the Department of Higher Education of the home state of the institution and [...] regional accreditation by a federally recognized organization [and Brady lists the Big 6...and mentions, appositely] Council on Naturopathic Medicine (CNME)-accredited naturopathic medicine program graduates are eligible [...for] state registration, certification or licensure."

Note on 001.:

this is like Bernie Madoff being called in to advise on GM's bankruptcy restructuring. See 002. below for UB's "academic and credential fraud" absurdity, in their own words and as analyzed through National Center for Science Education & National Association of Biology Teachers [NCSE-NABT], American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], and Popular Science Monthly [PSM].

Some of the critical words Brady uses: dubious, quasi-, bogus, substandard, fraudulent, alarming, destructive, misleads, [il]legitimate, academic fraud, [un]acceptable.

My irony meter has exploded: for he has described his own school, UB -- which is merely 'academic fraud in a tuxedo'.

002. UB naturopathy's nonsense position of 'it is what it isn't':

002.a. UB naturopathy's claim of being nonsectarian and scientific:

002.a1. nonsectarian:

I've a collection here.

002.a2. scientific:

I've a collection here. This is part of naturopathy's overarching science claim.

002.b. UB naturopathy's vitalism sectarianism:

I've a collection here.

Note: vitalism is HUGELY science-ejected.

002.c. UB naturopathy's supernaturalism sectarianism:

I've a collection here.

002.d. what NCSE, AAAS, and PSM specifically say about the scientific status of the above 'essentially naturopathic' [it ain't science]:

002.d1: NCSE on vitalism via NABT per "Scientific Integrity":

"science [...has] internally-consistent methods and principles that are well described [...] proposed causes and explanations must be naturalistic [...] the data concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline [...] NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific process. Any attempt to mix or contrast supernatural beliefs and naturalistic theories within science misrepresents the scientific enterprise and debases other, non-scientific ways of knowing [...] science does not, in fact cannot, study, explain, or judge non-scientific issues or supernatural belief systems [{like naturopathy!}...] nonscientific notions such as [...] vitalistic theory ['the essentially naturopathic'], therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom [...] materials, methods, and explanations that fail to meet these ongoing tests of science are not legitimate components of the discipline and must not be part of a science curriculum [...] the principles and theories of science have been established through repeated experimentation and observation and have been refereed through peer review before general acceptance by the scientific community."

002.d2. AAAS on supernaturalism, per "A Study Guide For The Evolution Dialogues":

"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]."

002.d3: PSM on the sectarian, per "A Minority But Not a Sect":

"science is never sectarian; philosophy is never sectarian. Sectarian teaching begins when you ask a man or a child to assume what can not be proved [naturopathy's vitalism & supernaturalism], for the sake of keeping within the dogmatic lines that fence round some particular creed ['the essentially naturopathic']."

Note on 002.:

UB's "health science" and naturopathy are the most egregious of "academic and credential fraud" I've ever seen, as personally experienced, with the HUGELY science-ejected and nonscientific labeled science, and the HUGELY sectarian labeled nonsectarian -- all wrapped up in a NEASC ND from UB.

Warning to all: UB naturopathy, with their PROFOUNDLY absurd 'something is what it HUGELY isn't', is THE MOST RETARDED OF RETARDATIONS.

UB naturopathy is one OBVIOUSLY 'bogus, accredited, in-residence, graduate and terminal credential and degree'.

UB naturopathy is dubious, quasi-, bogus, substandard, fraudulent, alarming, destructive, misleading, illegitimate, academically fraudulent and unacceptable.

AND, regional accreditation, state- & federal- sanction are, through UB's naturopathy example, merely alternates these days for 'accessories to fraud'.

003. overall note:

I look forward to Dr. Hall's analysis of chiropractic at this year's "Science-Based Medicine" conference, "A Scientific Critique of Chiropractic".

Note on 003.:

and, I will continue to inform the CTAGO and the USDE about UB & FNPLA naturopathy's disgusting academic predation. But, realistically, I'm alerting State and Federal authorities about a fraud they are accessories to.

AANP's Legislative Action Center - Advocating Through Deception:

here, I point out recent language by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] on their web page [see 001., below] regarding their annual PAC activity; and I reiterate / expose their central science-ejected article of faith, which that language fails to mention or codes [see 002., below]; and since that article of faith is truly 'faithyness' [see 003., below]; I ask the obvious question [see 004., below]:

001. the AANP states in "Advocacy: Legislative Action Center":

"[a request] be a naturopathic advocate [...{an order?!?!}] NDs, ask your legislators to support health care reform that includes patient-centered health and wellness services [PCHWS]."

Note: so, the claim is that naturopathy is PCHWS. This is rather opaque: something lies underneath it all, which, as usual, they are not revealing on this web page.

002. but, lets look at naturopathy's other descriptors, and where they stand 'upon the preponderance':

naturopathic.org currently states that naturo. is a "science"; and specifically is founded upon "scientific evidence [...supporting] the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [...per] let nature heal [...per] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...per] self-healing".

Now, rationally speaking, the body does have healing mechanisms and THIS IS NOT A BELIEF, it is a fact. But, naturopathy uses this fact to then code their article of faith / belief nonparsimony [subtextually]: that healing isn't biological, but instead is -- as a scientific fact / after scientific scrutiny -- due to a 'purposeful life spirit' [PLS] entity / "life force" / "vis medicatrix naturae" [VMN] occupying the material body.

Claiming belief=fact and fact=belief -- epistemic conflation, overall -- is the hallmark of naturopathic 'knowledge-type' absurdity.

In no sense is their "let nature heal" coding of their PLS-VMN belief scientifically supported: look analytically, and you will see that this is their vitalism belief, claimed as science fact, when in fact science-ejected.

So, it appears that PCHWS is now a stand-in to legislators for all of this naturo. NONSENSE.

003. naturopathy's PLS-VMN belief as 'truly faithyness':

the Vancouver Sun's McKnight, P. (? ?) states in

"Naturopathy's Main Article of Faith Cannot Be Validated : Reliance on Vital Forces Leaves Its Practices Based on Beliefs Without Scientific Backing" {2009-03-07}:

"[quoting Snider, P. (ND Bastyr 1982) who OVERSAW the canonization of naturopathy's beliefs per 'Rippling River'] 'we believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible . . . our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith ' -- American Association of Naturopathic Physicians Convention; Townsend Letter for Doctors [...] the faith of naturopaths [...] belief in the life force [...] reliance on weird metaphysical forces [...] that very philosophy effectively destroys naturopathy's pretensions of being scientific [...] the anti-scientific philosophy of naturopathy [...] a philosophy known as vitalism, which posits the existence of 'vital forces,' mysterious and mystical forces possessed by all living organisms [...] no scientific methodologies will be forthcoming because the life force is not a scientific concept. It's an article of faith, and one that appeals to many people precisely because it speaks to the existence of something greater than that which science can investigate. And that means that naturopathy can never become scientific, unless it abandons the very belief that makes it so popular [...] scientific developments [...] spelled the end of vitalism [...] science consigned vitalism to the dustbin [...] naturopathy is not science".

Note: OH SNAP! I'm so JEALOUS I didn't write that article!

004. "be a naturopathic advocate?" No thanks.

How is such deception [per note for 001., above] remotely centered around a patient's health and wellness?

How is this reform? It's not progressive: it's regressive and ethically unacceptable.

Naturopathy is a self-serving, sectarian ideology- / belief-system- centered, 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience' that is constantly recoding its fundamental science-ejected / science-unsupported premises.

That coding habit -- instead of transparency -- is their essential deception.

The Absurdity of Naturopathy PPPs - Jones, D. (ND UBCNM):

here, I cite a recent article written by Jones, D. (ND UBCNM) informing us of AANP naturopathy's new self-labeling / coinage per "primary prevention professionals" [see 001., below], what I consider to be another naturopathic false self-definition [see note to 001., below]; and I cite an earlier, similar, false self-definition / coinage [see 002., below] and parse that out with other internal ND sources to reveal the actual context of naturopathy's science-ejected central premise [see note to 002., below]; and yet, AANP's new, revised language regarding the central premises of naturopathy -- their new self-labeling / coinage -- is STILL and FURTHERMORE completely nontransparent / coded / deceptive / false [see 003., below]:

001. Jones, D. (ND UBCNM) states in "Naturopathic Physicians are Primary Prevention Professionals"{2009-05-07}:

"the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP], our national organization, sponsors a [...] DC federal Legislative Initiative [{lobbying campaign}...] during the first weekend of May [...] each year it is wonderful to get the opportunity to educate our law-makers and their staff on [...] naturopathic medicine [...there's] a shortage of general care professionals [...] we are trained to fill those exact positions [as if!]. Not only are naturopathic physicians trained in general care, we are always stressing the importance of prevention through education, lifestyle and behavioral change [...therefore,] we have coined the phrase primary prevention professionals [{PPPs}...] Dr. Dae [...] is a naturopathic physician who completed her training at the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine."

Note: obviously, "professional" is a self-label that naturopaths use frequently. I have previously pointed out that the nontransparency / explicit untruthfulness of naturopathy's self-definitions are antithetical to professionalism's ethical doctrine of 'credat emptor': e.g., "Undermining Professionalism - 'Caveat Emptor' per Naturopathy - Perle et al. & UW, UB & ISBN 1741140544".

002. I have seen such false self-labellings by AANP naturopathy before, wherein naturopathy is falsely categorized to lawmakers and the public [they snookered me]:

002.a. SCNM, Bastyr, NCNM and AANP -- in this 1999 archived example "The Alliance Legislative Workbook" [ALW] {ten years of such fraud in my life, and counting} -- stated per an intention "to educate our law-makers and their staff" and the public:

"we ask for your [legislators'] careful scrutiny. Be demanding with us [...] naturopathic physicians are the modern day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."

002.b. but, and I went to ND school so I know, naturopathy is a belief system that is in fact nonscientific:

002.b1. ALW was 1999. Atwood, K.C. (MD) states in "Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal: The Naturopathic Belief System"{2003-12-30}:

"naturopathic beliefs -- including those of 'naturopathic physicians' -- are rooted in vitalism, the pre-20th-century assertion that biological processes do not conform to universal physical and chemical principles. Naturopaths describe [this per] a 'healing power of nature'."

002.b2. and, as NCNM's Meletis, C.D. (ND NCNM? 1992-ish) states in OHSU's "Oregon CAM Course at OHSU"{2004-ish?} [archived by WBM since 2005]:

"[per] '10 Vocabulary Words Used In Naturopathic Medicine As Defined by Chris D. Meletis, N.D.' [{the 2003-2004 AANP ND of the Year, by the way - see ISBN 0275983943}...term] vis medicatrix naturae - simply defined as the healing power of nature. It speaks to the belief that the body has been instilled with the innate ability to heal. It is thus the goal of the physician to support and bolster the vital force [...] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [...] one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy today [...term] vital force - the inherent ability of the body to heal and regain life sustaining homeostasis. An individual’s ability to heal is dependent upon the quantity of vital force present at the time of onset and during the course of an illness. The greater the vital force the more able the body is to heal with minimal external intervention [...] if a host subject is well nourished and possesses sufficient vital force, they can be exposed to a pathogen and shall not get ill [...and of course we're told] naturopathic physicians are trained at accredited, four-year, post-graduate, residential naturopathic medical programs. [Claim:] the training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences."

Note: vitalism, vitalism, vitalism - claimed to be within science.

Meletis, additionally, has been the Dean of Naturopathic Medicine at NCNM and such, as he relates:

"Dr. Meletis' extensive experience as a Dean and Chief Medical Officer for the NCNM, the oldest four-year post baccalaureate school of naturopathic medicine, makes him uniquely qualified to guide the IHA in its mission of empowering and educating individuals on the scientifically and clinically relevant steps essential to the healthy aging process [...per] teaching the science of healthy aging [...] Dr. Meletis also has served as the Chief Medical Officer and Dean of Naturopathic Medicine for the NCNM for seven years and subsequently served as the NCNM's Senior Science Officer."

Specifically, naturopathy claims to be a branch of medical science, but, that's nonsense / absurd -- minimally in light of their vitalistic 'central theme' -- as I have previously pointed out: e.g., "Naturopathy: Science by Mislabel, Vitalism By Oath, Diagnosis by Woo -- Pincott, I. (ND NCNM 1985)". What are we, all to be considered as idiots? Vitalism is profoundly science-ejected.

003. currently, AANP states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [{coded vitalism}...] naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence [{science claim}...#1] let nature heal. Our bodies have such a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing. By finding and removing the barriers to this self-healing -- such as poor diet or unhealthy habits -- naturopathic physicians can nurture this process [coded vitalism]."

Note: hmmm, in 1999 naturopathy was not a belief system, yet in 2009 it is 'belief based'. Obviously, the above current 2009 AANP language is a coding for their vitalistic belief, as directly expressed by Meletis in that 2004-ish OHSU document AS A BELIEF!

004. in sum:

PPP's? Scientific? Educators?

Don't you believe them - caveat emptor.

ND D'Adamo's New Supplement Store - For Premises That Are Not Scientifically Supported:

here, I quote from a recent press release from D'Adamo incorporated, who has opened a retail store based upon his 'theories' [see 001., below]; and, I quote from reputable sources regarding the nonscientific status of those 'diet blood-type / diet genotype' premises and therapeutics [see 002., below]:

001. a press release by D’Adamo Personalized Nutrition states in "D'Adamo Personalized Nutrition Store To Open in Wilton":

"the D’Adamo Personalized Nutrition Store guides the shopper in understanding why blood type matters for health and weight loss [...] Dr. Peter D’Adamo, a second-generation naturopathic physician and international author, whose books have been translated into over 65 languages has written the New York Times best seller, 'Eat Right for Your Type' and the Blood Type Diet [ERFYBT / BTD] series of books. He is also the author of 'The GenoType Diet' [TGTD], the first book that examines the possibilities of epigenetics and the use of diet and nutrition to profoundly alter gene function."

002. what reputable sources say about the ERFYBT / BTD and TGTD:

002.a. the Mayo Clinic states in "Is There Any Merit to the Blood Type Diet?" by Zeratsky, K. (RD ?, LD ?):

"there's no scientific evidence to support the so-called 'blood type diet,' in which different diets are recommended based on a person's blood type. At this time, eating or avoiding certain foods according to your blood type isn't thought to have any favorable influence on weight or overall health. In fact, a 'blood type diet' may not meet your nutritional needs."

002.b. Time Magazine states in "The Genotype Diet":

"naturopathic physician and researcher D'Amamo [sp., D'Adamo] has identified six 'genotypes': the Hunter, the Gatherer, the Teacher, the Explorer, the Warrior, and the Nomad. [Quoting D'Adamo:] 'yes, your genotype is the product of the genes you inherited from your family, but it's also the result of your prenatal experience.' In analyses that sound a bit like horoscopes ('explorers who maintain a detoxifying diet that also nourishes the blood and bone marrow will have few health problems and usually will have very little trouble attaining a healthy weight'), the author gives food dos and don'ts for each genotype. If there's anything scientifically sound about any of this, we haven't seen the signs."

003. caveat emptor!

On Acupuncture - Novella vs. Wiesner 2009-05:

here, I cite three recent web pages regarding acupuncture representing two positions hugely at odds: Yale academic neurologist Novella, S. (MD) and "natural medicine" practitioner Wiesner, A. (ND). The former states that the science indicates acupuncture doesn't work [see 001., below], the latter, that it's amazing [see 002., below] and that the completely science-ejected is in fact scientific [see 003., below]:

001. Novella, S. (MD GUSM) states in "More on Acupuncture" :

"what the evidence tells us so far is that is does not matter if or where you stick acupuncture needles. These are the two variables specific to acupuncture. Therefore, acupuncture does not work. The ritual surrounding the use of acupuncture likely has some non-specific effects, and there are the usual biases and artifacts that constitute placebo effects. But acupuncture itself appears to be worthless. There is no other rational interpretation of existing evidence, despite all the misdirections of proponents who are trying to turn scientific logic on its head [...] scientific conclusion - it does not matter where or even if you stick the needles, i.e. acupuncture does not work [...in sum,] it doesn’t work. Give it up. Move on."

Note: this is hugely at-odds with what follows.

002. Wiesner, A. (ND UBCNM, LAc UBCNM):

002.a. is written about and quoted in "Naturopathic Physician Employs Acupuncture in Her Practice", as reported by Czaplinski, K. (? ?):

"naturopathic, or natural, medicine acknowledges that the body has an innate ability to heal itself with the right direction [{IATHI; more on this coding in my n01., below}...] Dr. Wiesner, who has a doctorate in naturopathic medicine and is a licensed acupuncturist [...and is] a faculty physician at the University of Bridgeport Naturopathic Medical Clinic [...has] studied the human body in a modern medical way [{see n02., below}...] Dr. Wiesner’s practice offers an array of techniques, including herbal medicine, homeopathy, nutritional supplements, and color therapy [{!!!}...acupuncture is an] ancient practice [that] stems from a belief [!!!; quite] that illness is caused when vital pathways through the body are interrupted or are off balance. Acupuncture rebuilds those connections and clears pathways [{again, see n01., below}...] acupuncture can improve muscle tone and dermal contraction, increase collagen production and improve metabolism to counteract the look of lines, wrinkles and under-eye circles, Dr. Wiesner said. It can also lift droopy eyelids and minimize double chins while addressing imbalance[s] in the body that could accelerate aging [really!...] 'I think my patients are lucky. [Natural medicine] is an amazing tool to have in your belt' [see 004., below]."

Note: as is the case so often, this premise isn't fully fleshed out. See notes for 002.b., below.

002.b. and Wiesner states in "About Natural Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine [...is] founded upon a holistic philosophy [{this is code for 'this is a sectarian system / a belief system'...NDs are] educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. [{see n.02., below}...] naturopathic medicine is appropriate for the management of a broad range of health conditions affecting all people of all ages [{yikes!}...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training [...including] acupuncture [and] homeopathic medicine [...] a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [see n02., below] so that he or she may be licensed by a state or jurisdiction as a primary care general practice physician [{yikes!}...] traditional Chinese medicine [...per a] Master of Science in Acupuncture [{see n02., below}...] acupuncture utilizes hair-thin needles on specific points on the body to move energy (qi) and balance the meridians [see n01., below}]."

Notes:

n01. regarding IATHI / qi / energy / vital pathways, if we go to the alma mater of this ND, the University of Bridgeport [I sat there in classes with Wiesner, by the way, when we were both students], we can get the whole context of that which naturopathy / "natural medicine" bases itself upon:

UB states in "Six Guiding Principles. Guiding Principle #1":

"guiding principle # 1: the healing power of nature, viz 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."

This is of course the science-ejected concept of vitalism.

n02. yet, UB quite falsely labels naturopathy [and acupuncture / TCM] science!

003. so, when is what's "amazing" and "rigorous" and 'science-based' and "a modern medical way"

that which is

completely imaginary / of 'article of faith belief status' [vitalistic entities / 'purposeful life spirits' that magically run the body!] and simply placebo and specifically 'don't work' in a quite "worthless" kind of manner...

naturopathy / natural medicine!

Wherein, belief sets / sectarian constellations are falsely labeled scientific, aka where what isn't science [profoundly] is mislabeled science.