001. CNPA president Ann Aresco (ND SCNM) requests in a letter to the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health [dated 2012-08-15; vsc 2012-12-28]:
001.a. for scope and title changes:
"on behalf of the naturopathic physicians practicing in the state [...] the Connecticut Naturopathic Physicians Association (CNPA) is requesting a scope change for 2013 [...including] prescription rights for all schedule I through V pharmaceuticals [...] all methods of delivery including injection and IV [...] change designation of ND to NMD for naturopathic medical doctor (NMD) [...] added CE’s required for pharmaceutical prescriptive rights [...]";
other states do use the NMD title, and eventually grant greater scope. You see, naturopaths are 'natural and drugless', to get traction...until they are not, once the foot is in the door. Therein, natural medicine means not regular medicine but something different until it is, simply, quite the same [until you delve].
0001.b. there is the root 'scien' in this document 13 times and we are told by CNPA such things as:
"naturopathic physicians are trained in the art and science of natural health care [...] in order to be licensed to practice in any state naturopathic doctors need to have graduated from an accredited naturopathic medical school, have successfully completed both the basic sciences (part I) and clinical sciences examination (PART II) [...]";
yes, science science science. I believe the claim here is science subset naturopathy. HOW EASY THIS IS TO DISPROVE CATEGORICALLY.
"the NPLEX Part I - Biomedical Science Examination is an integrated, case-based examination that covers the topics of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry & genetics, microbiology & immunology, and pathology [science, science, science]. The NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Examination is an integrated, case-based examination that covers the topics of diagnosis (using physical & clinical methods and lab tests & imaging studies), materia medica (botanical medicine and homeopathy), other treatment modalities (nutrition, physical medicine, health psychology, and research), and medical interventions (emergency medicine, medical procedures, public health, and pharmacology) [...] every jurisdiction that licenses/registers naturopathic physicians requires that you pass the NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Examination [science, science, science]";
so, herein, I believe the claim is science subset 'the naturopathic and naturopathy things like homeopathy'. That is such a bogus claim: that science contains that which is truly / abjectly nonscience. But, it is naturopathy's marketing way: to absurdly state that that which is not science is indeed science-supported and engage in trade both educationally and clinically.
"naturopathic medical schools in the US and Canada [...include] National University of Health Sciences [...]";
again, that science subset naturopathy claim.
"basic and clinical sciences (see comparison for description) naturopathic physicians - 1500 hours, conventional physicians - 1500 hours [...]";
oh, so it's all the same. Except of course, it isn't. Science itself is quite not science when it comes to naturopathy, though, as you'll see below and that makes them frauds.
001.c. and the word effective is in there 20 times including:
"safe, effective and cost-effective natural health care [...] safe, effective natural therapies [...] effective therapies [...] the profession of naturopathy along with those of acupuncture, homeopathy, botanical medicine, etc. [...] they are all very effective and cost effective [...] the profession of naturopathic medicine has continued to use and treat with the effective modalities that have come down through time because they are effective [...]";
effective, effective, effective. But, then why is homeopathy and acupuncture therein -- elaborate placebos, basically? And if nonscience is science, and placebo is marked effect, how the hell can you tell what either isn't or is effective anyway? Ah, how low the standards are! And, there's that 'of the professions' claim: but what profession is based on falsehood and absurdity and junk thought?
002. what ND Aresco's school and web pages reveal:
002.a1. SCNM, her alma mater [where two of ND Aresco's pages directs us, here and here], states:
we are todl here that naturopathy is science-based, and here is the science-ejected homeopathy that is contained with that science-based false label, and here is the life force premise at the heart of their beleifs that is science-ejected;
Note: THIS IS TOO EASY! But, it should be easy to point out sheer idiocy.
002.a2. ND Aresco is a typical ND:
marketing herself as "holistic" and big into "homeopathy" [see "Naturopathic Medicine";vsc 2012-12-29];
setting up to sell nutritional supplements online [vsc 2013-01-01];
advocating for archaic ideas that are quite science-exterior while claiming "science first" [vsc 2013-01-01];
Note: it really doesn't get any better for a 'science subset vital force' farce at a particular practice site.
002.b. my miseducation at a naturopathy school in Connecticut:
so, to stake my interest here clearly, I went to an ND program in CT from 1998-2002 and I can say that that experience was the most falsely labeled product I can think of that I have ever paid for [and borrowed Federal Title IV monies for]:
you have the science claim, upon ideas patently science-ejected, and methods hugely science-ejected;
003. and as I am fond of observing:
licensed falsehood marches on!