Is Naturopathic Education Title IV and 'Commerce Health Fraud' Akin to GlaxoSmithKline's?

here, I cite from a recent skeptic's post regarding GlaxoSmithKline's health fraud regulatory schwack (see 001., below); then, I extend that onto North American naturopathic education and naturopathy commerce in general (within my comments to 001., below):

Note:  oh, how many different ways can I iterate this obvious fact, that naturopathy is a licensed falsehood from its textbooks to its educational contents to its clinical operations, essentially?  I've been quite intimate with the racket since the mid 1990s, having been induced by false labels into attending a U.S. school from 1998-2002 using, since I am a simple person of simple means, primarily Title IV student loan monies which I will now owe to the grave.  This blog will continue, in spite of complete complicity in this racket by educational institutions, accreditors, and State and Federal education and commerce regulatory agencies.  To paraphrase Sartre, 'we each get the war we deserve.' 

001. at Neurologica, in "GSK Pays $3 Billion Fine" (2012-07-03), physician Steve Novella writes [my comments are in unquoted bold; the article has also been posted at Science-Based Medicine (2012-07-04)]:

"the pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline, has agreed to pay three billion dollars in fines to settle three charges of fraud brought by the FDA. This is the largest health fraud settlement in US history [...]";

so, fraud.  I'm actually quite surprise at the justice that has been doled out.  It buoys me, somewhat.  By the way, regarding naturopathy, in "Consumer Health: Making Informed Decisions" (ISBN 9781449646455; 2012) naturopathy is described as "a pseudoscientific approach [...] it fails to meet the standards most people would require of the practice of medicine [...including being] based on scientific principles."  But, I won't gloat.

"GSK broke the law [...and] GSK held back data and made unsupported claims [...] according to the settlement GSK violated those rules, not to mention basic ethical behavior [...]";

hmmmm.  I've wondered, being that naturopathy is based on the science-ejected [yes, that is the government of Oregon promoting nonscience as science per 'the essentially naturopathic', and that is what all States licensing naturopathy are an accessory to], is it ILLEGAL for them to engage in commerce both educationally (archived here) and clinically that is marketed as "science-based"?

"the GSK settlement, in my opinion, is just the most recent evidence that industry cannot be left to their own devices without proper monitoring and regulation [...] the public largely expects that with health care issues the government will play some role in protecting the public from fraud, misinformation, unsafe and ineffective products and services. The stakes are just too high to make every consumer fend for themselves in a completely unregulated wild west of health care [...]";

has it become obvious that the naturopathic industry IS UNREGULATED and doing quite horrid things in terms of commerce?  And the government isn't protecting, it is promoting the racket / fraud / misinformation and such.  Homeopathy, by the way, is enmeshed with naturopathy, and it falls well-within the parameters of "ineffective."  I've often described the sweet situation what naturopathy is within as 'Tombstone City', meaning quite unregulated / unenforced and LAWLESS.  If I could, I'd sue them all, from the Federal education apparatus right down to the individual naturopathy practitioner.

"I hasten to add that everything I said above is also true of other private segments of the health care industry, including [...] the alternative medicine industry [...] supplements and CAM are big business. They routinely misrepresent scientific information, make unsupported claims for their treatments [and] ignore data about lack of safety or effectiveness [...] treatments that are scientifically dubious or even disproved [...] they have been remarkably successful in eliminating regulations designed to protect the public from their own fraud [...]";

oh, and sCAM is quite rightly an area of commerce / trade including its educational wing which is indirectly and directly Federally accredited and therein gets the sCAMsters rights to Federal loan monies.  Naturopathy does this by licensing their fraud, and therein they are a licensed falsehood that no enforcement branch wants to tangle with.

"I think we need fair and consistent science-based regulation across the board. No double standards, no false dichotomies. I agree that GSK should be heavily fined for making unsupported claims for its products. And so should every company selling herbs, supplements, fanciful treatment, and dubious products with unsupported claims. Instead they are shielded by industry friendly and anti-consumer laws crafted by the industry itself [...]";

brother, you said it.

002. overall note: 

by the way, according the University of Bridgeport, my alma mater that I left voluntarily due to the absurdity of being ethically bound to the unethical [the essentially naturopathic], as of 2012-07, UB states that the average amount of indebtedness for their 4-year naturopathic degree via STUDENT LOANS is $162,000 [vsc 2012-07-03].

that page also notes that one can carry as much as a quarter of a million dollars in aggregate debt, which I assume would be their ND program and loans previous to that.

and that falsehood indebtedness is not something that one can later slough-off with something like a bankruptcy filing.  It simply becomes part of your DNA.  Who are the parties involved?

I'd include: the AANP, the CAND, the CNME, NABNE, all the State and Provincial organizations and their members, all the regionally accredited schools and their accreditors, and the Federal educational system both in terms of irregulation and financial backing.

sounds like a RICO thing to me, with a racket being "engaged in the sale of a solution to a problem that the institution itself creates or perpetuates, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage."

one such false problem that naturopathy postures is the claim that they, and not regular medicine, "treat the cause" with regular medicine mainly "suppressing symptoms."  In other words, what naturopathy mainly claims is that they are helpful and effective, while regular medicine is exploitative and milking the public for financial gain.

truly, naturopathy is the ultimate reversal of values.