Did M.D. Lieberman Incorrectly Represent Naturopathy's Standards in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner?

here, musing on a naturopathy proponent's language:

001. at newsminer.com, "Jon F. Lieberman, M.D. General surgeon Fairbanks" writes in "Expand Naturopathy" (2019-05-03):

"to the editor: I have had the pleasure to work with and collaborate with many of the naturopathic physicians in Fairbanks over the past 25 years. Naturopathic physicians are professionally trained and bound to the same high standard that MDs and DOs are bound [...]";

now, that's simply not true.  For instance, standard medicine by way of MDs and DOs have rigorous ethical codes that they abide by that naturopaths don't.  Standard medical providers have a standard of care that naturopaths don't have to abide by.  Naturopaths claim anything, like homeopathy, is "science."  That doesn't happen in standard medicine.  So: bullshit.

"allowing naturopathic physicians to practice to the level of their training would be a benefit to the residents of Alaska [...]";

again, no.  For instance, one Alaska naturopath is ND Simko, a Bastyr ND graduate.  Now, BU is famous for claiming naturopathy is "science-based natural medicine" yet all over their naturopathy section you find such within that label as: homeopathy, vitalism, supernaturalism and kind.  Not science-based.  Unless the Nobels are late in the mail.  Yet, ND Simko states in "Naturopathy 101" that she's "educated in all of the same basic sciences as a medical doctor (MD), a naturopathic doctor uses the Western medical sciences as a foundation for diagnosis and treatment."  But still we have her stating on the same page "the therapeutic modalities used in naturopathic medicine are: physical manipulation medicine, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, counseling and others.  These tools integrate conventional, scientific and empirical methodology with the ancient laws of nature [...] in addition to a standard medical curriculum, NDs are trained in clinical nutrition, homeopathic medicine, botanical medicine, psychology, physical medicine and counseling."  So, basically ANYTHING goes, particularly the requirement that one misrepresents which actually is science-based and science supported aka of a scientific foundation.  So no, M.D. Lieberman.

"the argument that naturopathic physicians would be endangering the general public if they were to have prescription capabilities or the ability to perform procedures is misleading [...]";

supporting naturopaths as though they are of high standards is actually what is misleading.  With science as anything, yes, NDs certainly don't know.

"professional ethics should mandate the scope of an individual’s practice or application of health care skills and knowledge [...]";

surely, and if the good doctor took the time to actually understand why a naturopath is a bad doctor...