Another FTC Submission

here, I cite from part of a complaint I've recently filed with the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] regarding misrepresentations of naturopathy within their USPS-mailed admissions material:

001. after receiving an admissions packet from Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences last month, I submitted this to the FTC:

"I'd like to bring your attention to a categorical misrepresentation that I've discovered as a consumer who is knowledgeable about what is & isn’t categorically science.

Recently, I requested & received admissions materials from Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences, a doctoral program that costs approximately $164,000 to complete, according to their figures.

The USPS-mailed paper-based admissions packet states:

'[SCNM is] a school of medicine and health sciences grounded in naturopathic principles […] the principles of naturopathic medicine are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually re-examined in light of scientific advances [...including] vis medicatrix naturae [VMN, that’s Latin for their quite science-ejected idea of vitalism...] the curriculum at SCNM, as in most medical programs, includes a strong foundation in biomedical sciences […] a licensed naturopathic doctor attends a four-year professional level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD.'

I’ve been studying naturopathy for 15 years, and I consider these labels of science upon the naturopathic nonscientific to be, as they obviously must be if we are not to evaporate into absurdity, FALSE.

I’m concerned that education consumers are being exploited.  Citizens engage with schools like SCNM in good faith & such education consumers will be miseducated along the lines of what naturopathy falsely and irrationally claims:  that science supports what is truly science-ejected, that what is science-based is the same thing as what is science-exterior.  I’m also concerned that graduates will, by way of the example of their own alma mater, then feel that it is ethically and commercially acceptable to engage with the public using such false science labels.

Also, being quite familiar with the naturopathy scene, I know that SCNM has been making this false “science” claim [along with their mother organization and fellow schools] for quite some time (see http://web.archive.org/web/19990221212454/http://www.teleport.com/~aanp/alliance/main.html ).

Disclosure:

I’m bothered by this situation because I’ve personally gone through a similar situation – 4 years in attendance from 1998-2002 at a different naturopathy doctoral program in Connecticut -- that categorically labels itself science (see http://www.bridgeport.edu/admissions/healthSciences/ ) yet is essentially based upon the truly science-exterior (see http://web.archive.org/web/20040405090645/http://www.bridgeport.edu/ub/nm/Six_Prihtm.htm )."

Note: but, this is nothing special.  I've done it before, and I'll do it again.

AANP's Science Label Upon 'Naturopathy the Nonscience' - Snailmail Booklet 2009, Mail Fraud [USPIS]:

here, I detail the absurd claim by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] that, overall, naturopathic medicine / naturopathy is science [see 001., below]; I point out that they are coding their essential vitalism in this booklet [see 002., below]; and that such vitalism is actually hugely science-ejected [see 003., below]; and, amidst all this pseudoscience opacity, I wonder about mail fraud and further ramifications [see 004., below]:

[2026-09-27: post reformatted & links were checked / updated; scans added for original documents;

booklet is cited in Fleming, S. A., & Gutknecht, N. C. (2010). Naturopathy and the primary care practice. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 37(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pop.2009.09.002 as LaMont S, Quinn S, Donovan P, et al. Naturopathic medicine: Primary care for the 21st century. :1–32

booklet is cited in Dunne, N., Benda, W., Kim, L., Mittman, P., Barrett, R., Snider, P., & Pizzorno, J. (2005). Naturopathic medicine: What can patients expect? The Journal of Family Practice, 54(12), 1067–1072. as Quinn S, et al. Naturopathic Medicine: Primary Care for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: AANP; 2003:12] 

001. the AANP states in the paper-based booklet "Naturopathic Medicine: Primary Care for the 21st Century":

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...] students of naturopathic medicine learn the medical sciences as a foundation [...] the first two years of ND training concentrate on the basic biomedical sciences [p.007...] the second two years integrate the basic biomedical sciences with the clinical sciences [p.008...] a growing body of scientific research supports the efficacy and safety of various herbs for preventing and treating many health conditions [p.009...] a growing body of scientific literature points to the interrelationship of the mind, body and spirit [...per] a holistic approach [p.009...] naturopathic medicine addresses the need to hold its physicians and organizations accountable to the public for safety and efficacy through a variety of well-accepted mechanisms that are common to all the regulated healthcare professions [...] Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination (NPLEX) [...] NPLEX prepares a series of sixteen examinations (five basic sciences and eleven clinical sciences) [...] the NPLEX Part 1 - Basic Science Examinations (BSE) are comparible to the basic science examinations in other health care professions [...] the NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Examinations (CSE) [...] the NPLEX Part II - Clinical Science Add-on Examinations [...include] homeopathy [p.011...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] the naturopathic medical colleges and professional organizations are committed to scientific evaluation of the medicine [p.013]."

Note: their is an overarching claim to being HUGELY science, scientific, medical science, basic biomedical science, and clinical science -- and of the professions in ethicality.

002. coded science-ejected vitalism. Nowhere in this document are we informed that naturopathy is indeed vitalistic / based on vitalism. NOWHERE [pseudoscience opacity]. Instead, we're told:

"six powerful concepts provide the foundation that defines naturopathic medicine [...#1] the healing power of nature: trust the body's inherent wisdom to heal itself [p.008...] homeopathy [{which shows up in this document at least 16 times}...] stimulates the body's own natural healing forces for recovery [p.009...plus we get some supernaturalism in] treat the whole person: view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical and spiritual dimensions [p.008]."

Note: since when does a supposed profession not disclose its essential context? How is one to have 'informed consent' type rights when the supposed profession is not coming clean with the public?

003. vitalism is hugely science-ejected, and so is supernaturalism.

004. regarding mail fraud:

004.a. Wikipedia states in "Mail Fraud":

"mail fraud is an offense under US federal law, which refers to any scheme which attempts to unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offense. Mail fraud is covered by Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 63."

004.b. the United States Postal Inspection Service states in "Mail Fraud Compliant":

"the form below allows you to send a complaint to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service if you suspect you are a victim of mail fraud [...] the Postal Inspection Service [...] can act against a company or individual if there is a pattern of activity suggesting a potential scheme to defraud. Completion of this form is voluntary, but the more information that you enter, the better the Postal Inspection Service may be able to help [...] we may share the information you provide with other agencies when a possible violation concerns their jurisdiction [...] you may also go to the Federal Trade Commission site for more information."

Note: I bought this brochure from AANP for about $18 and it was sent to me by U.S. Mail from Washington, D.C.

 

[2026-09-27: here's the postmark

 

which IDs the stamps.com registered machine the AANP was using; envelop and booklet still in my possession.] 

 

 I got falsehood: a claim of science upon what is not science. Now, imagine if I engaged with naturopathy as an education consumer, and ended up with six-digit student loan debt due to such pseudoscience opacity! [Hey, that's me].

This document states: "the naturopathic profession calls upon state and federal healthcare policymakers and regulators."

PAC-wise, naturopathy has been HUGELY successful.

Look at Oregon.gov's OBNE: complete naturopathic nonsense stated as able to survive scientific scrutiny [2026-09-27 - defunct; archived here] -- legislated, with a .gov endorsement -- all the while claiming to protect the public.

Hugely professional.