001. USC states in "Naturopathic Doctors Seek to Prove their Worth" [vsc 2012-12-27; my comments are in unquoted bold]:
"[as reported by Paige Brettingen] naturopathic medicine has its roots in the same basic sciences as traditional medicine [..] naturopathic doctors reject the idea that their treatments are divorced from science [...] 'our methods are based in scientific research' said Derek Wing, Bastyr's assistant director of public relations [...]";
science, science, science. Hugely on the record. It is hugely historically illiterate to claim that naturopathy derives from basic science. It is hugely scientifically illiterate to think that huge swaths of naturopathy aren't science-ejected / -unsupported.
"NDs in the state now are permitted to diagnose patients, prescribe hormones, order lab tests and administer IVs in addition to treating patients with diet, herbs, vitamins and other homeopathic therapies [...] to earn the ND title, naturopaths take four years of clinical training that covers areas such as diagnosis, nutrition, gross human anatomy, physiology, homeopathy and pharmacology [...]";
pseudoscience, pseudoscience, pseudoscience. Well, to be specific here what can be said is that 'that which is science' in naturopathy is SO BROAD A LABEL that it is MEANINGLESS and HUGELY FALSE because within what are supposedly HIGH DOCTOR-LEVEL STANDARDS OF CLAIMED SCIENCE is abject NONSENSE like homeopathy. I've often labeled this 'epistemic conflation', the blending of knowledge type which are truly discrete, and then marketed falsely as one type of knowledge...scientifically based.
"part of the struggle we’re having is just educating' said Dr. Lisa Fillis, a naturopathic doctor in L.A. and Long Beach [...]";
I'd first want that educator to actually have a high-quality education. Not one wherein science equals nonscience.
"there are currently 549 licensed NDs in California [...] about 65 new NDs are licensed each year, according to Francine Davies, interim executive officer of the California Naturopathic Medicine Committee [...]";
and licensed falsehood marches on.
Note: well, it's sad to see that journalists in training are about as crappy in their science reporting and naturopathy credulity as those out there in the trade.