ND Rothenberg Says Naturopathy is GOOD, So Why Does It Contain So Much BAD?

here, an ND plying typical ND verbiage:

001. at bostonglobe.com, ND Rothenberg writes in "Naturopathic Medicine is Good for Massachusetts" (2017-01-08):

"[hilariously, the picture for this article shows reflexology, which is quite bogus to portray as actual] Governor Charlie Baker should sign into a law a bill now before him that would license naturopathic doctors and ensure the safe practice of naturopathic medicine in Massachusetts [...] it is time for Massachusetts consumers who seek out complementary therapies to be protected from unscrupulous practitioners, who can now falsely present themselves as naturopathic doctors. Licensure will set standards for training, education, and practice. This legislation has been vetted for 24 years by policymakers in the Legislature and in the executive branch, and by the other stakeholders, including the public. As we move to a system of more integrated health care, state licensure of NDs is a good idea [...]";

the irony is overwhelming.  Well, all that ND licensure accomplishes is the protection of licensed falsehood, wherein naturopaths will self-regulate their false commerce.  ND Rothenberg is an NCNM now NUNM graduate, for instance.  Let's look at one of the ROOTS of naturopathy's falsehood.  At NUNM, we're told in "Naturopathic Principles of Healing" we're told by this supposedly well-vetted '.edu': "the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae: the body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process."  Well, right away, we have the science-ejected idea of vitalism falsely claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  It is this kind of nonsense that DEFINES naturopathy.  So much for: safe, unscrupulous, not false, actual standards, actually vetted, actually good.  And one aspect of safe here is 'safe for commerce that is truthful and not exploitative.'

"[and we're told] Amy Rothenberg, ND, lives in Amherst and is a licensed naturopathic doctor in Enfield, CT [...]"; 

so let's go there.

002. at ND Rothenberg's practice:

002.a. on her bio. page, "Amy Rothenberg ND", wherein she looks about twenty years younger than her recent AANMC Facebook posting, the root "homeop" shows up at least  13 times;

there's nothing more bogus than homeopathy, though many many things within naturopathy are just about as bogus.  But 'homeop' is not in her Boston Globe apologetic though she carries and AANP's DHANP credential.  Again, so much for: safe, unscrupulous, not false, actual standards, actually vetted, actually good.

002.b. on her page "What is Homeopathy?",  she labels homeopathy a "science" which is quite not true as in "homeopathy is a distinct medical art and science which employs tiny doses of natural medicines to stimulate the body's inborn healing capacity [...]";

and there is coded vitalism, because we're being manipulated by a sectarian medicine that does not think we deserve to know the whole truth.

002.c. and of course, there's even more coded vitalism on her supposed definition page for naturopathy.

so much bad.