AANP Entails Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism: Their ISBN 0785319840, 1997

here, I cite from an American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' [AANP] endorsed book wherein naturopathy's science-ejected central premise known as vitalism is clearly-ish stated [see 001, below]:

001. in "A Guide to Alternative Medicine: Ancient and Modern Therapies to Expand Your Medical Horizons" (ISBN 0785319840, 1997), the AANP states [my comments are in bold]:

"this publication was reviewed by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians  [...specifically] Kathi Head, N.D., Rita Bettenburg, N.D., Tim Birdsall, N.D., and Lori Kimatan, N.D. [...] all members of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] the AANP's mission [...is] to transform the health care system [...] by incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine [imprint...]";

so, the principles are that-which-they-seek-to-superimpose, and the book seems to represent a preponderance of 'AANP naturopath approval';

"Eric S. Jones, N.D., Dean, Naturopathic Medical Program, Bastyr University [...says] the information [...here on] natural-health [...] is presented from an objective perspective [...] if your goal is to be an informed, educated consumer [recommendations page...]";

the irony is killing me, that great "objective" claim upon this hugely subjective / beliefy stuff that they claim to accurately represent and actually educate about;

 "the principles on which it's based and the methods it employs are much older, many dating to ancient times [...they're] time-tested [...] naturopathy operates on the basis of six principles of healing [...#1] the healing power of nature [HPN...] healing mechanisms in the body and mind [HMBM...] inherent healing systems [IHS...] the body's way to heal itself [BWHI...] the natural healing process [NHP...] the body's healing power [BHP...] naturopathic medicine is natural medicine [...using] a variety of treatments that are intended to work with the body's natural healing mechanisms [BNHM...p.294...]";

old / ancient doesn't mean correct, at all, and time-tested just means persistent, not scientific. So, there's HPN-HMBM-IHS-BWHI-NHP-BHP-BNHM, naturopathy's euphemisms for...

"[#5] naturopathic physicians share information with their patients [...] therapies used in naturopathy [p.295...include] homeopathy -- the science of homeopathy [...it] dovetails well with the naturopathic philosophy of the healing power of nature [see 260-264...] naturopathic medicine is, by no means, frozen in time [...] practitioners follow advances in science [...] as long as they are in keeping with the philosophy of naturopathy [p.297...] first two years  of training are in basic medical science [p.299...]";

I wish they'd share the scientific fact that homeopathy is not a science!  If science has ejected HPN and naturopathy is still there, then they ARE frozen in time.  Science is helpful, apparently, provided it doesn't get in the way of science-ejected principles.  I think it is obvious that science is subservient to their beliefs; 

"oriental medicine: naturopathy has a great deal in common with oriental healing philosophies [...] the oriental concept of life force, or qi, and the naturopathic concept of the healing power of nature are similar in theory if not language [..] traditional Chinese medicine places primary emphasis on the balance of qi [...] or vital energy [...] this vital energy comprises two parts: yin and yang [p.346...] diagnosis aims to detect patterns of disharmony or imbalance in vital energy [...] treatment seeks to help individuals re-balance this vital energy [p.347...] vital energy, or qi, flows through certain pathways in the body called meridians [p.169...] the Chinese believe qi [...] or vital energy, is responsible for health, and that imbalances of qi results in illness.  Acupuncture is used to correct the flow of qi [p.173...]"; 

and there it is, the science-ejected vitalistic that is the basis of the naturopathic.

002. so:

this book is a great 'Rosetta Stone' to get at that-which-naturopathy-so-often-codes.  This was published a year before I went to naturopathy school.  Naturopathy at this time was stating that it is "science-based" and "not a belief system."

The Vis at the AANP's Blog 2011-03-07 - Decoded.

here, I briefly cite from the AANP's blog [see 001., below]; then I decode their jargon [see 002., below]:

001. ND Alschuler writes in "Humility" on 2011-03-07 [saved 2011-03-07]:

"true humility - with each other, our patients and, yes, with disease, too – affords us the best opportunity to support the Vis and allow healing in."

Note: so, we're told nothing particular about "the Vis" in that post.  Therefore, I'll elucidate.

002. the Vis is:

according to the same blog, the science-ejected belief known as vitalism, e.g. "are we not supposed to be naturopaths and is not our goal supposed to be to stimulate the vital force or the vis medicatrix naturae?" [saved 2011-03-08].

The AANP President Whining About Science Bloggers' Criticisms (2011-02-16)

Hangee-Bauer, C. (ND Bastyr 1984) states in "President's Message: Science and Naturopathic Medicine" (2011-02-16) [and my musings]:

"I am no stranger to science. I still find it fascinating and appreciate the many ways it helps us understand the workings of nature and the world, helping us separate what appears to be the truth of things from reality [...] in school, I was a science geek and took every course in biology, chemistry, physics, etc., I could. When I went to college at Florida State University, my major was biology, with dual minors in chemistry and physics [...and he speaks of] the natural world around me [...and] natural settings."

So, we got science admittedly leading to knowledge about the natural, real world.

"Our medicine, as well as all other systems of medicine, are really a combination of science and art. When we work with our patients, we draw from both in order to stimulate the vis [!!!] and provide well-rounded care to our patients."

Ut-oh.  So, the vis appears.  This is naturopathy's science-ejected vitalistic premise.  It couches all that is naturopathic.  And it truly is science-exterior, like naturopathy's supernaturalism.  Interesting that Hangee-Bauer's web page supposedly explaining naturopathy codes this concept. I, personally, think that's not enough information for the public to gauge naturopathy upon.  Vis should be clearly stated as the science-ejected medically irrelevant belief centered upon a figmentatious 'purposeful life spirit' which is believed to be responsible for physiology.  Then, informed consent could better happen.

"It has become an increasing concern to me when I read articles and blogs on the Internet [probably not my blog, perhaps Orac's] blasting naturopathic medicine for being 'unscientific' [...they're] biased misrepresentations of the truth. They often lambast our profession and philosophy as unscientific."

But, YOU just invoked vitalism as the centerpiece of the naturopathic, and your naturopathic philosophy that falsely places the label of science upon that which is not within science or supportable by science.  Please, stop whining.  The nonscientific status of the nonscientific is not bias, it's logical fact.

"As a student at Bastyr University, I remember Dr. Joe Pizzorno saying that if our profession is to be taken seriously by the larger world of medicine, we must speak in a language that everyone can understand and appreciate. That language is the language of science, and few have done more over the past 25 years than Dr. Pizzorno to increase the credibility of the naturopathic profession using this approach [...] when evaluating the efficacy of our therapies and approaches to practicing medicine, advancing the research and science agenda remains an important step for our profession to move forward, especially with the continued interest in evidence-based approaches to health care."

Ah, that great thinker ND Pizzorno who calls the science-ejected science [see his book Total Wellness].  In fact, Bastyr's whole 'science-based body mind spirit nature' nonsense is the hugest institutional irrationalism I've ever seen.

"On August 16, 2011, the Tuesday before the start of the 2011 AANP Convention, the AANP will be sponsoring a scientific summit."

Great.  Suggestion: invite the crew from the Science Based Medicine blog.  Have them objectively evaluate your current contents.  Gut what isn't medically scientific and is in fact science-ejected.  Look at what is left.  It won't be 'the naturopathic'.  It will be the areas of health care that stand alone anyway, and are scientifically supported.

AANP's "Transforming Healthcare" Goal – AHJ Show 06, Chapter 05 – Current UnderLYING Ontological Conflation, Historic NaturopaTHICK Legislator Deception

here, I cite from part of the AANP sponsored American Health Journal series "Discoveries in Alternative Medicine: Naturopathic Physicians" up at the AANP's site, Show 06, Chapter 05 [see 001., below]; and then from a quite deceptive / erroneous 1997 AANP document [see 002. below]:

001. the AANP states in "Naturopathic Physicians - Show #6, Chapter 5: Transforming Healthcare" [vsc 2010-10-09]:

"[narrator] we took our cameras to Washington, D.C. to talk with Karen Howard [(who is not an ND, by the way)...] the executive director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...Howard] 'our vision, at the AANP, is to transform today's healthcare [...] if we're going to reform our healthcare system [...we must] transform how we view a person [...] your head isn't separate from your body, and your spirit isn't separate from your body either.  It really is a complete and holistic way of looking at healthcare [...] with this transformation of healthcare, with what we work at at the state and federal level, we're educating policy makers  [...] we urge you to go to our web site, at www.naturopathic.org [...] what naturopathic doctors do is enable a patient'."

Note: fascinating, the claim that the body and spirit [whatever that is] aren't separate.  But, in terms of modern thought, they are quite different in 'being' [ontology] and I think once we start to describe and locate the supernatural and such, we're BELIEVING.

AANP's transformation essentially involves a belief system that blends / conflates ontological types: the not supernatural and the supernatural.

Regarding AANP's educating and enabling, now, when you go to their naturopathic.org site, you find that they claim that naturopathy is science: "founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence."

Yet, the highest scientific authority in the land points out that supernatural stuff is science-exterior:

"[e.g.] the risk, if intelligent design is incorporated into school curricula, is to undermine scientific credibility and the ability of young people to distinguish science from non-science [...] in Kansas, advocates of 'intelligent design' are attempting to redefine what is and is not science, in direct conflict with the science standards recommended by both the National Academy of Sciences and AAAS [...] to reject a definition that limits science to natural explanations [...] so that science will include supernatural explanations."

Naturopathy / the holistic is nonsense at its finest.  AANP's transformation essentially involves a belief system that blends / conflates ontological and epistemic types: which is neither transformative or reformative -- it is regressive.

002. the AANP wrote, in 1997's "The Alliance Legislative Workbook", directly to legislators:

"naturopathic physician's are the modern day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."

Note: so, the science not belief label though really, they don't make that distinction on the inside.

Naturopathy's Medicatrix - News.Google.Com's 2005 Current Five Results

here, I do an archival search at news.google.com with the parameters >naturopathic medicatrix< and I summarize the current contents for Jan-Dec, 2005 [vsc 2010-10-06]:

001. news.google.com lists these hits for the above parameters:

001.a the Journal of Family Practice article "Naturopathic Medicine: What Can Patients Expect?" (excerpted)[vsc 2010-10-06] which states:

"Western medicine rarely takes into consideration the inherent organizing forces underlying [ah, the occult!] known physiologic processes such as metabolism or tissue repair. Naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], or the healing power of nature [HPN]."

001.b. the AANP press release "Naturopathic Physicians Convene for 20th Annual Convention" [vsc 2010-10-06] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is not new. Hipocrates [sp., 'Hippocrates'], a physician who lived some 2400 years ago, is considered the earliest predecessor of naturopathic care. His teachings emphasized nature is healer of all diseases from which he created the concept vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of  nature. This concept has been at the core of  medicine in many cultures and is a central theme of naturopathic physician care in the United States."

001.c. the naturalnews.com article "How the Care of Naturopathic Physicians Differs From that of Conventional Doctors: an Interview with Dr. Joseph Pizzorno" [2010-10-06] which states:

"Mike: It sounds like it's an approach that has a lot of faith in nature and faith in the human body to heal itself. Dr. Pizzorno: Very much so. We in naturopathic medicine have this theme called vis medicatrix naturae which is 'the healing power of nature.'"

001.d. an article from Alternatives Journal by Meyer, M. (ND CCNM) titled "Healing Communities.(Letter from Ottawa)(Benefits of Naturopathic Medicine)" [vsc 2010-10-06]:

"naturopathic medicine bases itself on the principle vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature. It never ceases to amaze me how effectively my patients can regain health after serious, acute or long-term chronic and degenerative illness."

001.e. another version of the AANP press release for their 20th Annual Convention [see 001.b.][vsc 2010-10-06].

002. what all these items have in common:

they do not explain what VMN-HPN is, specifically.

AANP's Natural Medicine Journal: Naturopathic / Holistic "Spiritual Science" Epistemic Conflation Nonsense

here, I offer an example of 'the essentially naturopathic nonsensical', such oxymoronic labelings as "spiritual science" in the AANP's Natural Medicine Journal [NMJ; see 001., below]:

001. NMJ's Freedenberg, R. (ND NECNM[IL]) states in "Naturopathic / Holistic Treatment of Mild to Moderate Depression" (2009-10)[vsc 2010-10-05]:

"[the] following are a number of evidence-based, effective alternative / naturopathic treatments [...e.g.] anthroposophic medicine [...which] is a spiritual science [...which] use[s] medicines based on homeopathic principles [(lovely)...and] uses the anthroposophic view of the human being as a blend of three interdependent aspects: the physical body; the life force [vitalism], understood as the source of growth and regeneration and sometimes called the soul [supernaturalism]; and the 'astral body,' which mediates between the body and the soul, also called the 'ego' or 'consciousness' [more supernaturalism in the sort of panpsychic / dualistic yet tripartite sense]."

Note: the equation of the holistic and alternative with the naturopathic, and the subset within that of anthroposophic "spiritual science."  That is a nonsense term, like a 'square circle.'  I've termed this error of knowledge blending "epistemic conflation."  It is a hallmark of naturopathy to inappropriately place nonscience and science-ejected matters together, such as supernaturalism and vitalism, and then falsely claim it all is within science.  Notice the immaterial / other-than-physical "life force" / "soul" equation as well.  We have stepped well outside of science and the science-based when we enter the evidenceless faithy-beliefy area of such sectarian models.  Of course, this is all one huge issue of knowledge-type incompetence / callousness.

002. now, NMJ claims, in "Statement of Purpose" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"the Natural Medicine Journal provides scientifically-valid, patient-centered health care information [...] readers of the journal and visitors to the site will find scientifically-valid, clinically-relevant information."

Note: and here's a link to their editorial board members.

003. but, of course, the science-ejected and science-unsupported is not in any way scientifically valid / within science [that's irrational]:

Basically, what's happening is that types of knowledge are being blended, then mislabeled as one type of knowledge.

You can get a sense of that from naturopathy's own definition, wherein they state, and I use Canada's NSAND site as an example per "What is a Naturopathic Doctor?" [vsc 2010-10-05]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends [...and] cooperate[s] with other branches of medical science."

Legitimate science, though, is not also nonscience just as a square and a circle are not the same.

But, naturopathy is NUTS LIKE THAT!  Something is defined as equal to what it isn't: the utmost reversal of values.

CTCA's ND Kellman and the 'Coded Naturopathic Science-Ejected' - AANP Youtube Style

here, I cite from an American Association of Naturopathic Physician's [AANP] Youtube channel that opaquely explains naturopathy's essential premise [see 001., below]; then, I decode that so-often coded science-ejected premise through AANP and Cancer Treatment Centers of America web pages [see 002., below]:

001. the AANP's Executive Director Karen Howard has up on Youtube the video "Daniel Kellman, ND, FABNO, on 'Good Morning Texas' - Cancer Treatment (September 15, 2010)" [vsc 2010-09-28]:

"[interviewer Rob McCollum] when someone gets a cancer diagnosis, they want to do whatever they can to fight it.  Now that includes taking advantage of traditional treatments and naturopathic medicine.  Daniel Kellman is a naturopathic clinician at Cancer Treatment Centers of America.  Good to see you sir, welcome. [the ND] Nice to see you Rob. [McCollum] Thank you for driving in from Tulsa this morning.  So, tell me a little bit about what exactly naturopathic medicine is and how that can help reduce some of the side effects that come along with cancer treatments. [the ND] Well, naturopathic medicine uses what is called the healing power or nature or the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] to restore and maintain health. [McCollum] Wait, say that again. [the ND] Vis medicatrix naturae, which is Latin for the healing power of nature.  And so we utilize that in cancer treatment to protect healthy tissues while patients are undergoing some of the chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery  treatments [then some supplements are shown and talked about...and] acupuncture [...and] homeopathic medicines [mentioned...plus some slides for] Cancer Treatment Centers of America [are shown...McCollum] what kind of training to you have to have to become a naturopathic clinician? [...the ND] four years of undergraduate, four years of medical school [...] we have the training to keep people safe."

Note: notice that VMN was never really detailed.  In the interview, the interviewer then later referred to it as 'the body's systems.'  Well, that's the game NDs play, which I will detail in 002.  For ND Kellman's bio. at CTCA, click here [vsc 2010-09-30].

002. decoding what should have been transparently communicated to facilitate informed consent and accuracy in commercial advertising:

002.a. AANP:

002.a1. naturopathy's essential vitalism "vis" belief:

you can get a glimpse of the underlying vitalism [as in, usually, 'file under lying' -- as in 'lie of omission'] from the AANP's blog, such as ND Schor's "Letting Nature Heal"(2009-08-11)[vsc 2010-05-10] wherein he states:

"are we not supposed to be naturopaths and is not our goal supposed to be to stimulate the vital force or the vis medicatrix naturae [...] let me quote a respected medical writer on nature’s healing properties [...Hahnemann!] 'what the vital force does in these so-called crises and how it does it remains a mystery to us like all the internal operations of the organic vital economy.'"

Now, Schor is an NCNM graduate, and here's the essential vitalism of his alma mater.  Now, Schor received AANP's "Vis Award"[vsc 2010-09-30] in 2008, and he explains:

"at the 2008 annual convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Dr. Jacob Schor was both surprised and honored by his colleagues as the first recipient of the Vis Award [...] this award was created to honor those naturopathic doctors who have exhibited similar characteristics of service to their patients and commitment to living and practicing naturopathic medicine in accordance to what is called the 'vis medicatrix naturae' or healing force of nature.  The vis medicatrix naturae, or vis, is one of the fundamental principles that guides and distinguishes the practice of naturopathic medicine. The vis is the belief [yes, belief!] that every living being contains a 'life force'. When this force is given proper building blocks and freed from obstacles, each being will come to a state of ideal health and balance."

So, vitalism vitalism vitalism.  A belief.

002.a2. naturopathy's science claim [upon the vis, particularly]:

here's an archived AANP definition of naturopathy, circa 2006 [vsc 2010-09-30], which states, in terms of science, that their principles, including that all-important "vis", are based upon "objective observation" and are "continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances."

Note: that's quite a promise.  And you'll notice that even on that AANP page, there's no explicit / transparent explanation of 'the vis.'

002.a3. the science-ejected status of vitalism:

well, that's quite easy to show.

002.a4. 'we are irrational':

so, you have the hugely science-ejected falsely labeled 'able to survive scientific scrutiny', which is hugely irrational.  AANP's label could be, if it were to be honest about its essential 'nature', "we are irrational."

002.b. CTCA:

002.b1. details naturopathy's essential vitalism:

in this archived page [vsc 2010-09-30] circa 2004.

002.b2. while falsely labeling it science:

as in "scientifically grounded" [vsc 2010-09-30].

002.b3. in terms of irrationalism, ditto, and cancer is a very serious affliction which I'd hope would be approached from rationality instead of naturopathy.  Ironically, Kellman's bio. page at CTCA states:

"he is a good listener, has an investigative and scientific mind, and is compassionate." 

It didn't take me too long just here to scientifically investigate naturopathy's essential premises for the sake of the public good [compassion!].

Interesting that the elephant in the room is so easily missed by NDs, and so well-camouflaged by them in their 'explanations.'

AANP Falsehood From 1997, Science-Based Honesty in 2010

here, I cite from a 1997 archived American Association of Naturopathic Physician's [AANP] description of their Textbook of Natural Medicine [see 001., below]; then, from Dr. Atwood's recent letter to the top administrator of the NCCAM [see 002., below]; finally, I muse [see 003., below]:

001. AANP writes in "A Textbook of Natural Medicine" c1997 [vsc 2010-07-25; linked to from the AANP's main site]:

"the most comprehensive and thoroughly-researched reference on natural health sciences [...] scientific documentation of the healing power of nature [HPN...] scientific and practical review [...] scientific indications [...] thoroughly referenced to the scientific literature."

Note: science, science, science as a label placed upon the 'essentially naturopathic,' particularly their HPN. This is nonsense.  The TNM 3rd. ed. states that the HPN is actually the science-ejected premise known as vitalism.  The third chapter of the TNM 3rd. ed., "A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order," states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice. These principles include the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [p.032...] the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [p.034]."

It is irrefutable that vitalism is science-ejected.  It was so even in 1997, which, by the way, as a year before I started at UBCNM [which falsely labels vitalism science, to this day].  So, AANP was basically labeling the hugely science-ejected as 'the science supported' and this still hasn't changed 13 years later.  E.g., TNM co-editor ND Pizzorno still labels naturopathy "science-based natural medicine," yet he is a 1975 NCNM ND grad. and the requisite vitalistic nonsense can still be found at their web page.

002. [actual] Science-Based Medicine's Dr. Atwood writes in "Open Letter to Dr. Josephine Briggs" (2010-07-23) [where do I begin!]:

"let me address the principal reason for this letter: it is disturbing that you will shortly appear at the 25th Anniversary Convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] group [that] is best characterized as a pseudoscientific cult, and nothing since has altered that opinion [...a] pseudomedical pseudoprofessional organization [...] NDs claim to be well trained to practice what most people think of as family medicine or primary care medicine, although their version of training is chock full of pseudoscientific nonsense [...] let me assure you that there are no promising ideas emanating from naturopathy [...] consider homeopathy, a core claim of naturopathic medicine [...] the British Medical Association and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have seen through the ruse of pseudoscience that is homeopathy, the former declaring it 'witchcraft' and latter making this statement: 'the Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible' [...] certainly science must remain neutral in the face of not-yet-seen data from rigorous studies [...but] science and skepticism [...] are not distinct. Good science involves, first and foremost, skepticism [...] Dr. Briggs, please consider the possibility that you no longer must hide your considerable scientific prowess in order to be a good NCCAM Director [...as apposed to] giving undue credibility to unfeasible and dangerous claims."

Note: I haven't found anything Dr. Atwood has ever written about naturopathy to be in disagreement with my own observations.  In fact, at this year's NECSS dinner, I'd said to Dr. A. that my best description of it all is "cultic."

003. another issue that comes to mind:

as a public servant [let's put aside her duty to society in terms of the ethical obligations of her medical oath and membership], Dr. Briggs has a duty to report BLATANT FRAUD to the appropriate Federal authorizes.

So, let me offer two specific examples of naturopathy's fraud:

academically, how about a regionally accredited university falsely labeling the hugely science ejected science, and engaging in commerce under those conditions [I've linked to the University of Bridgeport, but any of the AANMC schools fit this bill];

State-wide government-hosted false labeling of the hugely science-ejected as science [specifically here, Oregon].

Wow, that was so easy to do.

ND Birdsall at the AANP Blog: "Dethrone" the RDBPCT!

here, I cite from a recent AANP blog post by ND Birdsall [see 001., below]; then, from his employer Cancer Treatment Centers of America [CTCA] and its naturopathic absurdity [see 002., below]:

001. Birdsall, T. (ND Bastyr 1985), the AANP ND of the Year 2009, states in "The Problem with Research" (2010-06-10) [vsc 2010-06-13]:

"I began to ponder the question, 'what’s wrong with research?' A part of me becomes enraged at the reductionistic, allopathic [!!!], biomedical model [really!], which breaks things down into components so small that all synergism, all interdependence is stripped away [bullshit!], and then declares those components to be ineffective [ah, the 'closed-minded' accusation...] for naturopathic medicine to survive and thrive in the 21st century climate of evidence-based medicine [...] we should be willing to judge ourselves critically and objectively, and subject our therapies (and ourselves) to scientific scrutiny [great idea, you were SUPPOSEDLY DOING THIS ALREADY!...] in the end, we must create and validate the tools to dethrone the randomized controlled trial [RDBPCT] as the gold standard, and construct new ways [read: easier ways!] to validate clinical approaches to health issues. Much as the homeopaths of 2+ centuries ago [!!!] created the proving as a way to better understand and utilize their remedies, we must refuse to be limited by the way conventional medicine views health and disease [in other words, lets lower the bar and not demand quality evidence!...] only then will we be able to use the tools of research [weakened!] to promote and defend naturopathic medicine [because naturopathy has no quality evidence when standards are high!...sidebar] 'Physicians Who Listen' is the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [I'll say!] that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism]."

Note: well, sounds to me like naturopathy wants to greatly lower the bar by getting rid of rigorous inquiry. Once homeopathy is offered as a shining example, well...we've then hugely entered absurdity. It seems that what is preferred is vagarity over 'quality of inquiry.'  Yes, critical, objective, scientific scrutiny of naturopathy is needed.  It has actually happened. It doesn't seem like such has been done from within naturopathy.  Yet, naturopathy is claiming such a 'has been done already status' when it labels itself "professional" and "science-based." When critical, objective, scientific scrutiny occurs -- from without because they don't do it themselves within -- naturopathy whines and claims alternate standards.  The problem isn't what's wrong with research, the problem is a certain unethical sectarian pseudoscience amalgam.

002. CTCA, where Birdsall works as "Vice President of Integrative Medicine" states:

002.a. in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-13]:

"naturopathic medicine [...] makes use of time-tested, scientifically grounded, natural methods to strengthen the body’s ability to heal itself [coded vitalism...] this plan will include personalized natural therapies -- backed by scientific research -- to fortify you before, during and after your cancer treatment."

Note: so the claim is that naturopathy is science.

002.b. in "Kidney Cancer Treatments – Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-13]:

"the following principles are the foundation for the practice of naturopathic medicine:[#1] the healing power of nature: your 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."

Note: ah, ye ol' science-ejected life force.  Not science, really.

So when is what's science actually absurdly what is science-ejected?  Naturopathy.

Benda at AANP's Blog - Naturopathy's Blending / Usage-Reversal Irrationalism:

here, I quote some bizarre word-usage bending [as is typical of naturopathy's category blending] by MD Benda at the AANP's blog [see 001., below]:

001. MD Benda states in "Double Vision" (2010-05-24)[vsc 2010-05-24]:

"visionary [...] a word we’ve all heard countless times as we meander the naturopathic path [...but] visionaries who can discern reality are fewer in number [wow, quite a vote-of-competence for naturopaths in general...who see] the reality of our culture [...] and of our profession [hmmm, realism, how novel for naturopathy...and of] your fellow professionals [...naturopathy] is not always pretty, and definitely not as pretty as our conference and clinic brochures tend to proclaim [...] our organizations avoid dealing with whispered dissent from their membership [...] our internal dysfunctions [...] I believe your profession is at a crossroads [...naturopathy must make] a difficult and objective assessment at what is real in the present."

Note: profession, profession, profession!

I'm always amazed at how SCAM-type people take common usages and turn such on their head.

Now, AHD 4th characterizes "visionary" as: "[01.] characterized by vision or foresight [...02.] having the nature of fantasies or dreams; illusory [...] imaginary [...03.] characterized by or given to apparitions [...] daydreams [...04.] not practicable or realizable; Utopian [...] unrealistic [...] idealistic."

There's actually nothing in the word's usage that applies to here and now type realism / objectivity!  Yet, Benda seeks to reverse the usage of the word.  Perhaps that what he means by "double vision?" Doubling back on the definition? Wacko!

"Visionaries who can discern reality" is much like stating 'realists whose perceptions are inhibited by figmentations.'  Therein, there is no delineation.  And well, doesn't that go back to naturopathy's central talking point: "naturopathy blends".  A long time ago by blogging standards, MD Barrett at Naturowatch characterized naturopaths as 'muddle-heads.'  Perfect.

002. the AANP blog's sidebar states:

"[NDs are] 'Physicians Who Listen' [...this is] the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism]."

Note: again, profession.  Yes, naturopathy is based on "belief."  But, as usual, AANP hasn't accurately contextualized that belief basis.  Instead, their language is selected to sound naturalistic and science-compatible.

003. a call to realism and transparency [and sanity!] aka the dissolution of naturopathy:

might I suggest naturopathy actually 'objectively assess' naturopathy's essential premises, realize reality, and communicate naturopathy transparently!

What is wrong with naturopathic thinking?  I've termed it "naturopathy's blending / usage-reversal irrationalism."

Wherein figmentations are falsely posed as scientifically-based; and professionalism is posed as the same as manipulation.

Naturopathy not "Medicine Plus" Instead "Everything But" - SMB's Dr. Lipson:

Dr. Peter Lipson writes in Science-Based Medicine's "Naturopathy For Allergies" [2010-05-20]:

"naturopathy is an unusual chimera.  It is basically a collection of old fashioned medical superstitions presented under a veneer of highly speculative, quasi-scientific assertions  [...] it is important, from time to time, to evaluate specific claims made by this particular non-science-based belief system [...including] vitalistic mumbo-jumbo [...] a visit to a national (US) naturopathic association website [the AANP] is a painful lesson in how naturopathic believers view health and disease [...they say] 'very often, simple changes of diet, nutritional supplements, and homeopathic remedies can relieve this extreme reaction and the resulting inflammation that triggers most allergy symptoms' [...] none of these assertions is backed up by evidence.  Most of it isn’t even promising enough to bother with [...AANP says] 'homeopathic remedies involve taking an extremely diluted form of selected allergens in liquid or sugar-pill form sublingually (under the tongue). These minuscule doses serve somewhat like a vaccination, stimulating your immune system to an effective rather than extreme response' [...] vaccination is to homeopathy as horseback riding is to unicorn wrangling [...] naturopaths, it would seem, are not 'medicine plus', but 'everything but.'  Since they do not use proven, effective therapies, the[y] throw unproved, implausible therapies at their patients perhaps hoping that when the allergies relent as a natural course of the disease, they might finally claim credit.  That’s what all the best shamans do."

Note: oh snap!  He called naturopathy a "non-science-based belief system" while AANP states that naturopathy is "science-based" and "not a belief system."

I agree with the former.

AANP's Blog on Their FLI: IHCP's, Coded Vitalism, A Science Claim

here, a short citation from the AANP's blog "Physician's Who Listen:"

AANP Executive Director Karen Howard states in "AANP's DC FLI Sets New Records" [vsc 2010-05-10]:

"this year's annual Federal Legislative Initiative [FLI...] topped all records [...] this year we focused on how Congress can address the critical shortage of primary care physicians by accessing naturopathic medicine. Our specific requests included inclusion in all federal loan repayment programs and defining the term 'integrative health care practitioner' [IHCP...] our objective is to encourage Congress to ensure Americans have access to the best, most qualified providers [...] 'an Integrative Health Care Practitioner [...] addresses personal health needs [...] through lifestyle changes and the use of scientifically based therapies and outcomes based treatments that facilitate the inherent ability of the human body to maintain and restore optimal health [coded vitalism...and] utilizes clearly defined standards' [...from the sidebar] naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism]. Naturopathic doctors teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and natural therapies to enhance their bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism]."

Note: yeah, 'new records.'  Yeah, 'primary care, best, most qualified providers.'  Oh, the slime so drips from this language.  There's the ND claim of 'science' upon the coded science-ejected, 'essentially naturopathic' / sectarian and the the irony of a demand for clarity.

Evil, evil, evil.

'Naturopathic Oncology' Absurdity - Cancer Specialists Who Admit They're Not Qualified:

here, I cite from web documents at Naturopathic Specialists [NS] of Scottsdale, AZ wherein: NS tells us that naturopaths can get a board certification in oncology and that they are 'world leading cancer experts' looking out for a patient's best interests [see 001., below]; yet, we are also told by NS that naturopaths are NOT primary care physicians and are NOT best-qualified to handle oncology [see 002., below]; then, I highlight two NS 'at odds' labels which are also naturopathy-wide, that the naturopathic is essentially vitalistic [and supernatural!] while essentially scientific [see 003., below]; I then list the NS NDs [see 004., below]; and, finally, then I show Bastyr's and SCNM's 'vitalistic scientific absurdity' since they are the two alma maters of these oncological NDs [see 005., below].

 

*This post was re-proofread and the links were augmented with current Archive.org curations 2026-05-09:

001. NS states in "Board Certification in Naturopathic Oncology" [2010 archived here]:

"Board Certification in Naturopathic Oncology. Both Drs. Rubin and Alschuler are Fellows of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology (FABNO).  This Board Certification represents the highest expertise in the area of naturopathic oncology by being recognized as such by our national association, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...which] is rigorous [...] naturopathic oncologists are experts in the application of naturopathic medicine in an oncology setting and are not trained or certified to offer conventional oncology care such as that offered by medical or radiation oncologists [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler are experts and world leaders in naturopathic oncology [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler believe that good communication is essential to proper treatment [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler believe that the highest precept of medical care is to educate people with cancer about their disease. Once people truly better understand what is happening in their body, they often become more empowered. In this sense, education becomes a healing modality [...] empowering people: the goal at Naturopathic Specialists is to make you truly 'in-charge' of your well-being to help motivate, encourage, enable and empower you [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler help you navigate the maze of available treatment options and those which may be better suited to you as an individual [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler can provide the keys to the myriad of opportunities for treatment that exist in the world of integrative medicine [...] Drs. Rubin and Alschuler are not only skilled in the aspects of your oncological and immunological problems, but are your advocates in all aspects of your treatment."

Note: so, NDs Rubin and Alschuler are marketing themselves as "rigorous"ly qualified, "expert" "world leaders" in a kind of oncology. I disagree with SO MUCH. Ah, the rigor of the AANP: yet, AANP grossly labels the profoundly science-ejected as science. Ah, the rigors of good naturopathic communication: yet, NDs do not transparently communicate their fundamental science-ejected premise. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic education / educating: wherein, absurd sectarian figmentations are labeled scientific and nonsectarian at AANMC schools. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic empowerment: wherein, you are fleeced as their pockets are lined commercially. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic guidance: wherein you are given sugar pills like homeopathy and told that they have a profound or powerful effect on health. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic treatment expertise: wherein wacko therapies like reiki and craniosacral therapy are mislabeled as hugely efficacious. Ah, the rigors of naturopathic advocacy: wherein, naturopathy poses a fiduciary duty / 'professional ethical status' that naturopathy cannot possibly live up to [because it is couched in absurdity (see 003., below)].

002. NS states in "Consent to Consultation" [vsc 2010-03-06, 2012-01-13; 2012 archived here]:

"consent to consultation [...] Naturopathic Specialists [...] provide[s] services to people [...] who have been diagnosed with cancer [...] the patient understands that Naturopathic Specialist’s Physicians [...] are not primary care physicians [PCPs], board certified medical oncologists or immunologists. Dr. Rubin is board certified in naturopathic oncology. None of the physicians are trained nor qualified to manage the overall care of a person with cancer [...] the patient understands that the physicians may not be able to manage the overall care of a person with cancer [...] the patient understands that the treatment suggestions provided by the Physicians are not all accepted by the United States FDA and therefore should not be taken as such [...] I have read and understood the above criteria and give my full consent to a consultation and / or treatment from Naturopathic Specialists."

Note: I find the disconnect HUGE.  NDs usually hugely claim to be PCPs [2015 archived here], yet here we get the admission that they don't think they are.  After claiming a huge ability to coordinate a patient's cancer regimen as 'oncologist', they then state that they are not qualified to be 'physicians'.  Plus, as a patient you get to be a part of experimental, unapproved protocols in all this illogic / absurdity.  Who would consent?  Sadly, likely, the desperate or unaware cancer patient.

003. naturopathy's essential absurdity -- the vitalistic science-ejected posed as science [a subset of naturopathy's 'anything is science' posture!]:

003.a. Rubin, D. (ND SCNM) of NS states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Naturopathic Medicine: Ways, Means, and Practicality" [vsc 2010-03-06; 2009 archived here]:

"precepts. Vis medicatrix naturae [slide 010...] vis medicatrix naturae. Vis = energy, strength or force [...] the body possesses the inherent ability to restore health. The physician's role is to facilitate this process with the aid of natural nontoxic therapies [slide 11...] the vital force. This describes the energy essential for life, the innate life principle, or the inherent power within every living organism. Naturopathic doctors seek to support the vital force."

Note: ye old science-ejected vitalistic nonsense.

003.b. Alschuler, L.N. (ND Bastyr 1994) of NS states naturopathy's supposed science basis in "Meet Our Physicians" [2008 archived here]:

"she believes that her job as a naturopathic physician and educator is to stimulate and support the innate healing processes within each individual by applying a scientifically based strategy that utilizes the most natural and least harmful approaches possible."

 Note: so, naturopathy therein is the science-based nonscientific being that 'naturopathy supports the science-ejected vital force scientifically', in sum.

004. currently, NS lists their NDs as:

Rubin, D. (ND SCNM 1997, FABNO AANP), 

Alschuler, L.N. (ND Bastyr 1994, FABNO AANP), 

Coats, M. (ND SCNM 2008), 

Turner, L. (ND SCNM 2007).

Note: so, we might assume that these NDs learned 'naturopathy's essential absurdity M.O.' from their alma maters Bastyr and SCNM!

005. therefore, turning to Bastyr and SCNM [naturopathic institutional absurdity alert!]:

005.a. Bastyr states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Alternative Medicine: Homeopathy and Children” (Seattle P.I.; 2007-08-01) [2007 archived here] via Mercer, N.J. (ND Bastyr 1987) [2007 archived here]:

“[she's a] naturopathic physician specializing in homeopathy and an adjunct faculty member, Bastyr U. [...] how does it work? Homeopathy turns on the 'self heal' switch. Chinese medicine calls it the 'chi.' Naturopathic medicine calls it the 'vis.' Homeopathy calls it the 'vital force.' They all describe the energy inhabiting the human body that when stimulated moves the human system toward greater health" while claiming the naturopathic is essentially scientific [a link-out to http://sothisisscience.blogspot.com/ which I have as of 2026 pulled from public view].

 

005.b. SCNM states naturopathy's essential vitalism in "Is Alternative Medicine For You?" [link is the 2003 curated page]:

"the healing power of nature [...] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...] the essence of naturopathic medicine" while claiming such is essentially scientific [a link-out to http://sothisisscience.blogspot.com/ which I have as of 2026 pulled from public view].

Note: all the while, such vitalism is hugely science-ejected [a link-out to a trove of position statements on the matter that I've collected over the years]. [This post was lightly updated 2012-01-13].

The AANP's Definition of Naturopathy -- Coded Vitalism Claimed as Scientific:

here, I quote from the 'great naturopathy mother-ship', the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP]: 

001. the AANP states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?":

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism!...the] bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism!...per] the best of modern medical science [...naturopathy's] six timeless principles [are] found[ed] on medical tradition and scientific evidence [...#1] let nature heal [...per] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...#3] use low-risk procedures and healing compounds [...including] homeopathy [...#5] we each have a unique [...] spiritual makeup."

Note: I'll flesh out the coded vitalism in 002., below.  Obviously, 'naturopathy is claiming that the essentially naturopathic' is scientific [more here].  This includes vitalism, homeopathy, and supernaturalism -- none of which have supporting scientific evidence, overall.  AANP's overall MO, as exemplified to their minions from this supposed definition, is to opaquely represent naturopathy's essential vitalistic premise and falsely label what lacks scientific support as having scientific support.

002. as a 'master decoder', I recommend my compilation detailing naturopathy's essential vitalism belief.

003. regarding the lack of scientific support for homeopathy -- which naturopathy falsely labels a "clinical science" on their licensure exam -- this is now quite decided.

Benda at AANP's Blog - 'Lofty Nontransparency':

here, I muse on a recent post by ND sympathizer and promoter MD Benda at the AANP's blog page, that had some rather lofty language related to naturopathy's / natural medicine's intentions / plans for Haiti [see 001., below];  then, I cite from an article Benda participated in along with many of the luminaries of AANP naturopathy that did not properly characterize / admit naturopathy's vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological essential sectarian woo [see 002., below]; and, last, I decode that essential naturopathic wacko premise using an ND co-author of Benda's specific language [see 003., below]:

001. Benda, B. (MD ?) in "Haitian Rhapsody" mentions:

"our naturopathic duties to the people of Haiti [...] our role in Haiti will be to restore health and comfort and to teach sustainability after the first wave of emergency care has completed its mission [...] Natural Doctors International, born in 2003 with the goal of bringing naturopathic healthcare to under-served populations while creating socially responsible opportunities for naturopathic physicians, is preparing a humanitarian response to the Haitian crisis [...] the AANP, CAND, all North American medical colleges, NABNE, and NMSA have joined us this effort, and should you choose, you can as well [...] the truth is that the vis medicatrix naturae is not just about the human body; it is about the human soul [true, Pizzorno states that VMN is actually spirit]."

Note: "duty", "sustainability", "socially responsible", "humanitarian", "the truth"?  Let me think.  How can a dishonest and deceptive area like naturopathy posture "duty"?  How can an egregiously illogical and irrational area like naturopathy posture "sustainability"?  How can a false position sold to North American students as true, leading to a magnificent amount of collective expense, posture "social responsibility"?  And "humanitarian"?  Lets see: naturopathy claims that a scientific fact is the same thing as an article of faith, therefore throwing under the bus any possibility of respect for 'freedom of conscience' / 'belief'.  "The truth"?  How can Benda posture "the truth"? I don't think such happened in a certain article he co-authored with the AANP group, where I don't' see any sensitivity for accuracy, completeness, and transparency [see 002., below].
 

002. I recall Benda's contribution to the promotional piece AANP and kind published in the Journal of Family Practice [JFP], wherein we're not at all truthfully / transparently / adequately informed about naturopathy's essential vitalistic, science-ejected premise, titled of all absurdities, "applied evidence".  Six AANP ND luminaries and his MD self state, regarding that core naturopathic principle:

"naturopathic medical practice is based upon the premise that it is intrinsic to the nature of living organisms to heal [...and is centered upon] the inherent organizing forces underlying known physiologic processes [...] naturopathic medicine calls this primary principle the vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature".

Note: and that's all we're told there.  One of the co-authors is Pamela Snider, ND who co-chaired naturopathy's 'ND sectarian creed'.   I'm fascinated by the choice of language in that JFP article.  It is quite selective, and it is quite absurd, just like that '.gov' junk thought, 'naturopathic falsehood preponderance' OBNE hosts.  Hmmm, what underlies what's known?  How can you even know it exists, then, if it is beneath the known?  Naturopathy in fact equates scientific fact [the known] with such "inherent" figmentation [the unknown], and the irrationality fascinates me.

003. Luckily, if you read enough of naturopathy's stuff, like co-author ND Snider in:

003.a. the TLDP article "Naturopathic Physician on Her Career Choice: 'No Regrets'" [Benda isn't a contributor or mentioned], you start to see the real naturopathic context:

"naturopathic medicine relies on the vital life force within human beings."

Note: yes, IMAGINARY forces ejected from biology for several decades are supposedly underlying what's known.  Of course, there's no way to actually know this.  This is the 'epistemic conflation' of naturopathy: stating as known what is not known / equating knowledge types / labeling something it is not.

003.b. the TNM Chapter 3:, which Snider also co-authored [Benda isn't a contributor or mentioned], you're told:

"the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [...] an entire physiologic system [is comprised of] (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.)".

Note: again, naturopathy's science-ejected / science-unsupported IMAGINARY forces are claimed to be responsible for healing, supposedly governing actual physiology -- of course, all falsely labeled as science [physiology!].  

Sorry, but that blog post's lofty language does not impress me: yet, naturopathy's irrationality fascinates me.  It would be a shame if this sCAM got involved with the Haitian people, who are already hugely suffering. 

Naturopathy Defends Their Required Homeopathy and Attacks Scientific Skepticism:

here, it cite from a post at the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] blog defending homeopathy and attacking scientific skepticism [see 001., below]; I then define scientific skepticism [see 002., below]; and analyze that AANP post author's own web pages and those of his AANP state association, where he/they state 'naturopathy's essential sectarian premises are scientific' and make the typical 'naturopath as science expert' false claim [see 003., below]:

001. the AANP's blog hosts the post "Getting Over It" (2010-02-01)[vsc] by Johnson, C. (ND SCNM) which states:

"[the picture is a statue of homeopathy's founder, Hahnemann, which is in Washington, DC I believe and which, actually, I may or may not have pissed on] a group of so-called 'skeptics' [!!!] recently staged public relations events at various cities in Great Britain designed to discredit the science [!!!] of homeopathy [...] these hooligans [ah, sounds a lot like Scientology talking about their critics!!!...] purport to stand up for scientific principles, while in fact their zealous dogmatism [!!!] and denial of evidence [!!!] would make Galileo’s persecutors proud [ah, the 'reverse sectarian accusation'...] they['ve] named their campaign '10:23' [...and now for some huge absurdity!!!] homeopathy [...can improve] any of a vast range of diseases [bullshit!...] this is just another tantrum by the clueless wing of the scientific/medical community [so clueless, in fact, that they are demanding evidence and rationality to support the absurd claim that homeopathy does anything beyond a typical nonspecific placebo effect!...quoting Fisher] 'it is effective' [...and the sidebar of the blog states that NDs are] 'Physicians Who Listen' [...this is] the blog of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, the national professional [ah, the 'of the professions' claim] society representing licensed or licensable naturopathic physicians who are graduates of four-year, residential graduate programs [I know what that's like!]. Naturopathic medicine is based on the belief [hugely based on a belief, actually] that the human body has an innate healing ability [coded vitalism...aka the] bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [of course, this essential premise is not transparently communicated here in its full science-ejected and sectarian vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological context]."

Note: so, according to the above AANP labeling, homeopathy is a "science" -- though there's NOTHING in the remedies and IT CAN'T WORK.  As Dr. Novella recently stated at his Neurologica blog in the post "6.022137 × 10^23"(2010-02-02):

"Samuel Hahnemann invented the principles of homeopathy [...] in the 1790s [...] he 'discovered' nothing [literally, Hahnemann created a serial dilution procedure which makes something into nothing...] he died in 1843, long after the scientific community knew that his 'law of infinitesimals' was rubbish [...] 6.022137 × 10^23 [...is] Avogadro’s number [...which is] the number of atoms or molecules of a substance in a number of grams of that substance equal to its atomic mass [...] Hahnemann claimed that the more a substance is diluted the more potent a medicine it becomes in violation of the chemical law of mass action which dictated that chemical reactions proceed more quickly the more substrate there is [...] Hahnemann missed Avogadro’s boat and spent the second half of his life denying the advances in science that rendered his fantasies nothing but nonsense [...] more amazing is that homeopaths continue in [maintain!!!] Hahnemann’s delusion today, more than a century after Avogadro was honored for his insights [...this is] the absurdity of homeopathy [and obviously, naturopathy]."

Yet, the AANP's licensing exam falsely labels homeopathy a science, as do AANP NDs.  For naturopathy -- keep in mind -- science is what is [absurdly] nonscience, and therein, 'an ND's expertise in science is indeed basic science illiteracy'.  As for the reverse accusation of "dogmatism" and 'denialism', here is naturopathy's essential cultic dogma, per naturopathy's "Principles of Healing" [what I call the 'ND sectarian creed'] wherein the science-ejected vitalistic and supernatural are falsely labeled science.  I call naturopathy cultic because SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE: what is not in evidence scientifically, and as I've called it figmentatious, is yet labeled science-based objective fact.  This is exceptionally irrational and yet...maintained.  That is cultic.

"Getting over it" is really an apologetic from a sectarian / cultic belief system that poses as something rational and 'in-evidence'.  If NDs were "physicians who listen", they'd acknowledge the scientific consensus regarding the scientific rejection of naturopathy's essential belief set. And they'd acknowledge the fact that articles of faith [e.g.: a vital force / purposeful life spirit figmentation -- which is what 'the essentially naturopathic' truly is] that have no evidence to support them [by definition] cannot be labeled scientific actuality.  And you are not a profession if your foundation is false, nonsense, fantastical, and absurd and your interface with the public is opaque.

 002. scientific skepticism, according to the Wikipedia entry "Scientific Skepticism"(2010-02-03), is:

"scientific skepticism [SS] or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence [...] from a scientific point of view, theories are judged on many criteria, such as falsifiability, Occam's Razor, and explanatory power, as well as the degree to which their predictions match experimental results. Skepticism is part of the scientific method; for instance an experimental result is not regarded as established until it can be shown to be repeatable independently.  By the principles of skepticism, the ideal case is that every individual could make his own mind up on the basis of the evidence rather than appealing to some authority, skeptical or otherwise [...] scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism [pyrrhonism], which questions our ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it [...SS] uses critical thinking and inductive reasoning while attempting to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis [...] scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science [...] scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that such claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity [...e.g.] psychics, parapsychology, dowsing, astrology, creationism, homeopathy, tarot reading, alien abductions, and ESP, which are either pseudosciences or unsupported by existing evidence [...] many skeptics are atheists or agnostics, and have a naturalistic world-view, however some committed skeptics of pseudoscience including Martin Gardner express belief in a god."

Note: meanwhile, naturopathy requires homeopathy and science-ejected / science-unsupported concepts falsely labeled scientific.  So, when an ND claims "so-called skeptics", they are really distracting from the fact that their science is indeed so-called / pseudo.

003. Johnson and VAANP:

003.a. ND Johnson, VP of the Virginia Association of Naturopathic Physicians [VAANP], states:

003.a1. in "Dr. Johnson"[vsc]:

"Dr. Johnson favors two areas of therapeutics which he believes to be the most effective to address illness of all types [including] homeopathy."

003.a2. in "Homeopathy"[vsc]:

"[quoting Ghandi] 'homeopathy [...] is beyond doubt [dogma alert!!!...] the most complete medical science' [...Dr. J. says] it is extremely safe and gentle and yet can produce dramatic results [...] homeopathic remedies can work wonders with nearly any type of condition."

Note: also at that page Johnson provides some celebrity and scientist name-droppings / anecdotes, and some select references / cherry-pickings.  Reference to authorities / celebrities are irrelevant when considering homeopathy's evidence basis, and obviously we are not being provided ALL THE EVIDENCE.  NDs claim to be holistic / comprehensive, but truly NDs have a narrow view.

003.b. at the VAANP we are told: 

003.b1. in 'homepage'[vsc]:

"the Virginia Association of Naturopathic Physicians (VAANP) [is] an affiliate of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...a] professional trade association [...and they seek] to promote naturopathic medicine as well as support and strengthen the standards of naturopathic practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia."

Note: so, VAANP is an arm of AANP.  We have the 'of the professions' claim, and a claim of 'standards'.  I do not deny that naturopathy has standards / habits.  The most remarkable naturopathic standard is the claim that something [science] is what it is not [nonscience]. Overarching that is the wacko example naturopathy sets, as I interpret from its behavior: that professionalism and absurdity is the same thing.

003.b2. in "Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"naturopathic medicine is an art, science, philosophy and practice [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice [...which are] based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles [...] naturopathic medicine is a scientifically proven and tested system of (successful) healthcare [...] naturopathic doctors (N.D.'s) [...have studied] the basic medical sciences [...and] homeopathy."

Note: so we have the HUGE science claim upon the principles of naturopathy.

003.b3.  in "History of Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"naturopathic medicine [...is] a distinct health care profession [...based on] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [VNM-HPN / coded vitalism...which] remains one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy to this day [...] naturopathy continues to grow and evolve as a body of knowledge. Naturopathic medicine as an organized profession is committed to research and development. It incorporates many elements of scientific modern medicine."

Note: again, the 'of the professions' claim.  We have the admission that VMN-HPN is their central concept, and claim that science-based medicine is something they acknowledge [obviously selectively!].  But, growing?  Evolving?  How about IGNORING huge aspects of scientific advancement, like the fact that science does not contain what is not within science!!!

003.b4. in "Naturopathic Doctor"[vsc]:

 "naturopathic doctors hold a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from one of five accredited four-year, graduate-level, regionally accredited naturopathic medical schools [...] The doctorate degree prepares naturopathic doctors to be primary care general practitioners [really]."

Note: so we have doctoral level irrationalism and absurdity, fully regionally accredited.  And a GP scope of practice / status.

003.b5. in "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine"[vsc]:

"the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [VMN-HPN].  [#1] naturopathic medicine recognizes the body's inherent self-healing ability, which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery and facilitate and augment this healing ability [coded vitalism...#5] total health includes spiritual health [supernaturalism!!!], naturopathic doctors encourage individuals to pursue their own spiritual paths [supernaturalism!!!]".

Note: again, coded vitalism.  And the supernatural.  All within a domain claiming professionalism and scientific expertise.

  
003.b6. in "Naturopathic Modalities"[vsc]:

"homeopathic medicine: this powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old and is widely accepted in many countries. Homeopathy is based on the principle that Like cures Like. Homeopathic medicines are very small doses of natural substances that can stimulate the body's self-healing response [coded vitalism]. Homeopathic medicines, when properly prescribed, affect the body's 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal".

Note: wow, empty remedies are "powerful" because they affect a "vital force" figmentation. At least, here, we see that the to "heal" in naturopathy is admitted to be based upon a force that doesn't scientifically exist at all.  That is naturopathy's VMN-HPN.

003.b7. in "Education"[vsc]:

"a naturopathic doctor (N.D.) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an M.D. or D.O. [...] the training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...] the training is based on the principles of naturopathic medicine [...] in addition to a standard medical curriculum, the naturopathic doctor is required to complete four years of training [...including] homeopathic medicine [...] naturopathic doctors take a national board exam, Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Exam (NPLEX)."

Note: so, again the science claim couched in the science-ejected / -unsupported.

003.b8.  in "Licensure"[vsc]:

"NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic doctors in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams (anatomy, physiology, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology and immunology) which are taken after the first two years of medical school. The clinical science examinations are taken following graduation after the fourth year of school. They include: clinical and physical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging, botanical medicine, pharmacology, nutrition, physical medicine, homeopathy, minor surgery, psychology and lifestyle counseling, and emergency medicine."

Note: so, licensure supposedly requires a basis of science and from that scientific application clinically.  Including homeopathy, within that science.  This is why I titled my repository of naturopathy's science claims "the science that ain't science".

004. as I often like to warn:

"danger Will Robinson...unethical sectarian pseudoscience."