Montana's ND Aagenes Admits "Natural" is Meaningless, and Labels Vitalism Science

here, I cite from an ND regarding the label "natural" [see 001., below]; then from her practice's explanation of 'the naturopathic', whereby the profoundly science-ejected is claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny [see 002., below]:

001. Aagenes, N. (ND Bastyr) states in "Hormone Replacement" [vsc 2011-03-27]:

"'natural' is so poorly defined in medicine that it is virtually meaningless [hear, hear...e.g.] the term 'bioidentical' refers not to plant hormone in the raw [...but to] those taken from plants [...] and acted on with enzymes until they are indistinguishable from human hormone.  The result is a 'natural' hormone, but the process does not occur in nature."

Note: it's somewhat interesting to hear this moment of lucidity, 'in their own words' no less.  Naturopathy trades on this idea of the "natural" / 'the naturopathic' as being distinct, and yet here an ND is quite right in stating that naturopathy truly doesn't limit itself to just the 'distinctly natural' [whatever that means].  Of course, she dares not directly utter what she is actually speaking of: the artificial [whatever THAT means].

002. do I now trust ND Aagenes though?

a big NO, pan-naturopathically speaking.  On the page "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-03-27] she and her ND partner collectively state:

'"the practice of naturopathy emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis. For the naturopathic physician, abiding by these principles forms the basis of all treatment [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process."

Note: ah, the overarching nonsense of labeling the science-ejected as able to survive scientific scrutiny -- as a worldview.  There ain't no life force, and there's no need for it to explain any phenomena.  Such is a medically irrelevant article of faith.  I argue that part of naturopathy's principles is such 'institutionalized falsehood' via knowledge mislabeling, a requisite 'epistemic conflation' that drones out any moments of naturopathic lucidity.  Naturopathy, at its core, destroys knowledge meaningfulness since, essentially, for naturopathy something-is-what-it-is-not.

ND Roush on Homeopathy - "Science Based" [not!]

here, I cite from a recent article gushing over naturopathy [see 001., below]; that then led me to the web site of the ND in that article [see 002., below]; whose claim that homeopathy is science-based -- as well as vitalism -- is bunk [see 003., below]:

001. Montana's Independent Record states in "Naturopaths Look Beyond the Symptoms" (2011-01-19) [vsc 2011-01-19]::

"[written by Sara Groves] over the course of the last several months, I’ve learned a lot about taking care of myself [...] to see for myself what naturopathic medicine is all about, I visited Dr. Jeff Roush [ND Bastyr] with Natural Medicine Plus here in Helena [...] an N.D. [...] a naturopathic doctor receives education that is, in many ways, similar to what a conventional M.D. receives. In fact, the first two years of a naturopath's education are nearly identical to the coursework that an aspiring M.D. takes, such as anatomy, physiology, microbiology, histology, biochemistry and immunology [as in science!...] 'naturopathic physicians should be every person's front line defense to guard their health,' said Roush. And I agree."

Note: wow, gushing endorsement.

002. Roush, J. (ND Bastyr) states:

002.a. along with Aagenes, N. (ND Bastyr) -- a former AANP President and Physician of the Year -- in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-19]:

"the practice of Naturopathy emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...]  based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] these principles forms the basis of all treatment. They are [#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."

Note: wow, that's vitalism claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  Not true.

002.b. in "Family Medicine for Every Body" [vsc 2011-01-19]:

"Dr. Roush offers healthcare for the whole family.   As a primary care physician, he evaluates, treats, and manages a variety of acute and chronic conditions using the least toxic therapy and science based naturopathic medicines.  Some of the therapies Dr. Roush may use include: clinical nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, and pharmacology."

Note: ah, so homeo. is science-based?

003. I don't think so:

if that's science, all is suspect in naturopathyland!  I disagree with the above endorsement of naturopathy.  The first line of defense of one's health shouldn't be pseudoscience.