CFI's CASS: Naturopathy Unscientific & Dangerous (2010-04-30), and Here's a PEIAND Example:

here, I cite from a Center for Inquiry [CFI] press release which takes a stand [in title only, maybe] against naturopathy [see 001., below]; then I provide an example of naturopathy's MO via the Prince Edward Island Association of Naturopathic Doctors [PEIAND; see 002., below]:

001. CFI states in "Center for Inquiry: Naturopathy Unscientific & Dangerous, Says Canadian Skeptic Society" (2010-04-30)[vsc 2010-04-30]:

"May 3rd to the 9th marks Naturopathic Medicine Week in Canada. The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) believes that when evidence is evaluated scientifically, we find much promise [really!], but few reasons to believe naturopathic treatments [that's quite generous, actually]. Naturopathic interventions include therapeutics like traditional Chinese medicine [and] acupuncture [...and] homeopathy [...there is] 'weak, if any, evidence,' says CASS spokesman Michael Kruse [...and] 'the biggest problem with naturopathy is the lack of a standard of care' [I disagree...] CASS engages scientific claims made in public discourse, addressing misinformation by promoting evidence-based science. CFI -- which runs CASS -- is an educational charity promoting reason, science, secularism, and free inquiry [which is great]."

Note: I'd argue that when you look at naturopathy scientifically, you don't see "promise" you see obfuscation and figmentation.  'Weak evidence' for figmentations and the science-ejected falsely labeled science? Well, that is being quite generous.  When you know the whole naturopathic picture, you see irrationality, unprofessionalism, and outright fraud [clinically, academically etc.].  I would argue that 'pseudoscience without transparency' IS naturopathy's standard of care / MO.  That is not a problem about a uniform 'standard of care.'  That is a problem with lawful commerce and the higher standards of professionalism -- which naturopathy doesn't meet, cannot inherently meet.

002. here's an example of naturopathy's false scientific position:

002.a. naturopathy claims science, professional ethical status:

002.a1. PEIAND states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-04-25]:

"naturopathic doctors can also complement and enhance health care services provided by other health care professionals. They cooperate with other branches of medical science."

Note: obviously, there is a claim here of professional ethical status ['profess' is used three times on the page] and of science [used four times on the page] by naturopathy [used eleven times on the page].  CAND, the mother organization of PEIAND, published a similar claim (here) falsely labeling 'the essentially naturopathic' "science-based natural health care."

002.b. naturopathy claims to be based upon certain things:

002.b1. PEIAND states in "What Can Naturopathy Do For You?" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"it is the approach, philosophy and training of naturopathic doctors that sets it apart from other forms of health care [...] the naturopathic philosophy is to stimulate the healing power of the body [HPB] and to treat the root cause of disease [RCD]."

Note: so, there's philosophy, HPB, and RCD.

002.b2. PEIAND states in "Guiding Principles" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...that are] emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor's training [...and are] the foundation of this distinct form of health care [...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN=VMN...] the powerful and inherent healing ability of your body, mind and spirit [HPBMS] and to prevent further disease from occurring [...] this ordered and intelligent [teleological] healing ability."

Note: so, this is the 'big page' for defining a central premise of naturopathy, HPB.  Obviously, HPN=VMN=HPBMS.  But, the public is not being informed transparently.  I've spent a lot of words on this blog decoding this premise, which is vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological and science-ejected.  The naturalistic language [except for the spiritism-supernaturalism] is a disguise, and therein, naturopathy really isn't interested in patient rights / informed consent.  This is a ruse.

002.c.1. PEIAND states in "Natural Therapies" [vsc 2010-04-30]:

"the naturopathic therapies are all based on the same principles, they all assist the body's healing response [coded vitalism...] homeopathic medicine [...is a] powerful system of medicine [though the remedies are EMPTY!...] homeopathic remedies  [...] when carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body's 'vital force' and to stimulate the body's innate healing forces [naturopathy's vitalistic context...] traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture.  The key principle that defines and connects all of Chinese medicine is that of chi, or vital energy. The chi of all organs must be in balance, neither too active nor too dormant, for a person to be healthy. The chi of the body's organs and systems are all connected in meridians or channels that lie just under the skin. A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance [naturopathy's vitalistic context]."

Note:  so, there it is, the vitalism at the heart of the naturopathic.

003. dangerous as fraud, and I can think of more:

when science-ejected figmentations [HPB-vitalisms, supernaturalisms and kind] are falsely labeled as within science and acted upon in a medical context, I seriously doubt that medicine is improved or society benefits.  After all, if a figment is a fact, the RCD that's being supposedly treated by naturopathy is quite suspect, and I'm sure the diagnostics and therapeutics within such a structure of 'epistemic conflation' are quite unreliable / unknown / dangerous therein.

Naturopathy is pure absurdity: an article of faith is a scientific fact, the distinct is the blended, the science-based is the science-ejected...