ND Stanclift on Bad Ideas and Skepticism [oh, the irony!]

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post piece by a naturopath which mentions the idea of a "bad idea" and the value of skepticism, ironically [see 001., below]; then, I expand upon the idea of bad ideas and apply skepticism to the VERY ideas of naturopathy and its science-ejected claims [see 002., below]:

001. Stanclift, M. (ND Bastyr 2011) states in "Is It a Bad Idea to Take Supplements and Herbs Without Medical Guidance?" (2012-09-20) [vsc 2012-09-21; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"if you feel a little lost in the vitamin aisle [...and] many of us dabble with vitamins and supplements [...]";

naturopaths, by the way, sell vitamins and such directly from their practices (example).

"how do you tell which one of these products might help you? How do you tell if it's actually working? [...]";

ah, that 'efficacy question'.  Well, the issue may be rephrased like this, too: can you trust a naturopath to tell you what is effective and scientific if even ineffective science-ejected homeopathic sugar pills (example) and acupuncture needlings are termed "powerful" (example) when we know they are NOT?

"a professional recommendation [...] the professional guidance from another licensed health care professional. Naturopathic doctors are specifically trained to give this kind of guidance [...] how much should they trust these recommendations? [...] to answer this, I ask more questions [...and speaks of] sound advice [...] take excellent care of yourself, and seek sound advice [...] appropriate medical guidance [...]";

ah, that 'naturopathy is of the professions' claim.  And SOUND advice, that's appropriate, that can be TRUSTED.  Well, I'm all for questions, to question is at the heart of science and skepticism.  So, the issue may be rephrased like this, too: if at the heart of naturopathy is quite the UNSOUND reasoning, can we get to trustworthy, sound, appropriate, professional advice?  I am highly skeptical.

"conflicting information or evidence [...] it takes a skeptical (and professional) eye to find discrepancies that may explain the findings of medical studies [...]";

yes, it does.  And when you apply high-rigor, scientific skepticism to the supposed evidence-based claims of naturopathy [the distinctly naturopathic, not the stuff they appropriate and label naturopathic though derived from other areas, like diet and exercise, which I will do below]...those claims evaporate.

"the bottom line: supplements and herbs work [...]";

actually, supplementation, except in rare conditions, is not known to work and it seems that whenever an herb HAS an effect that can be markedly observed, it is pulled from the retail market because THEREIN it is a drug and needs regulation.  Science Based Medicine has a large repository on drugs and supplements.

002. the essentially naturopathic / the bad ideas, and the above ND's and his alma mater Bastyr's web pages:

002.a. boiling down naturopathy to its essence:

I refer you to the web page that I cite so often, at the 'trunk' of the naturopathic tree, so to speak, NCNM's explanation of naturopathy, wherein the patently science-ejected or exterior is claimed to survive rigorous scientific scrutiny and be "science-based."  So, overall, in terms of knowledge, the essence of naturopathy is NONSENSICAL and IRRATIONAL reasoning that is SO EASY TO SHOW.  Labeled professional, but not quite, me thinks, skeptically, based upon evidence.  What a racket, and there are so many organizations with the hands in the cookie jar.

002.b. yet, at ND Stanclift's web page "F.A.Q.s.", we are told [vsc 2012-09-22]:

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) practice truly integrated medicine [...]";

how right his descriptor is!  If to integrate, is 'to blend', then the knowledge claims of naturopathy truly are MUDDLED.  But, then, obviously, falsely claimed as a specific 'of science' knowledge type.  Perhaps ND means 'not delineated' and 'not disclosing' that falsehood fact.

"NDs are trained in the same medical sciences as MDs [...] a licensed naturopathic physician (ND) attends a four-year, graduate-level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD [...]";

bullshit.  If science is not nonscience, as it is in ND land, I don't think this 'of that same kind of preponderant science' label is true.

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct and comprehensive system of health care that combines a variety of natural medicines and treatments with conventional medical diagnostics and standards [...]";

ah, a sentence that argues against itself: the distinctly blended.

"naturopathic doctors seek to restore health and promote wellness using the safest, most effective and least invasive therapies available [...]";

yeah, like homeopathy.

"naturopathic doctors (NDs) blend centuries-old knowledge and a philosophy that nature is the most effective healer with current research on health and human systems [...]";

yeah, and somehow it is distinct.

"the therapeutic modalities used in naturopathic medicine (including physical manipulation, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy and hydrotherapy) integrate conventional, scientific and empirical methodology with the ancient laws of nature [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete four years of training [...including] homeopathic medicine [...]";

yeah, same basic science basis.

"the underpinnings of naturopathic medical practice are in six principles [...including] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] a naturopathic doctor’s approach to treatment is called naturopathic medicine, and it involves the six principles [...]";

ah, ye old coded vitalism principle that dare not speak its name.  Very much kept under the table.

 "a naturopathic physician takes rigorous professional board exams [...]";

board exams so rigorous that the patently science-ejected homeopathic is falsely labeled a "clinical science".  What kind of profession is based on falsehood? 

002.c. and at Bastyr, we get the patently science-ejected falsely labeled science, as usual.