Refutation of Naturopathy's 'Fever Suppression is Harmful' Myth -- AAP 2011 vs. ND Speidel 1996 & Currently:

here, I cite from a recent American Academy of Pediatrics report about childhood fevers [see 001., below]; and then from an old-standby of naturopathic thought [ah-ha-ha-ha] regarding fevers, still up on-line to this day [see 002., below]; then, I wonder if naturopathy will update its contents to reflect this new scientific knowledge, as it doesn't at its core [see 003., below]:

001. the AP reports in "Doctors: Parents Shouldn't Fret Over Kids' Fevers" [saved 2011-02-28, day of release][my comments are in bold]:

"fever phobia is rampant among parents of young children, according to a myth-busting American Academy of Pediatrics report [AAP...] released online Monday in the journal Pediatrics [...] that advises against treatment every time a kid's temperature inches up [...] kids' fevers are [usually] caused by viruses and they will go away without medicine and without causing any damage [usually...]";

Which is a good thing as there are so few specific antivirals!  Now, NDs have advised for decades not to interfere with a fever, for ideological reasons.  They've claimed such interference is harmful, specifically "suppressive" in the vitalistic sense, but...

"there is no hard proof that untreated fevers lead to seizures or brain damage; there's also no evidence that lowering fevers reduces illness, according to the report which focused on children older than 3 months [...]";

I also read this to mean that there's no evidence that lowering fevers kept children sicker longer or got them better quicker, or got them sicker more often. If they were comparing illness and treatment and duration, something like that would have hopefully been noticed [I'll likely read the study later this week, and append this post as necessary].  Ironically, I've had a flu all weekend.

"there's no harm in treating a true fever with over-the-counter acetaminophen or ibuprofen. And it makes sense to do so when the child is obviously feeling ill. But the No. 1 reason to use fever-reducing medicine is to make a sick child feel more comfortable [palliation...]";

Again, no talk of a trade-off of palliation vs. harm.

"[the report] emphasizes that a fever is not an illness but rather a mechanism that helps fight infection. Fevers can slow the growth of viruses and bacteria, and enhance production of important immune-system cells [...]";

Naturopaths like to say that fevers are symptoms [that's CCNM's ND Gonen] that should not be suppressed.  But, they miss the point: a symptom is subjective, a fever is measurable and therefore a sign / physiological alteration.  The link speaks of putting wet socks on children while they sleep, for their fevers.  How pointlessly unpleasant! And again, I see no warning from the AAP here that pharmacologically lowering fever PROLONGS an illness or increases occurrence.  In terms of immunity, I would think that once the immune system deals with the infection, which may be in terms of time somewhat sped up with some elevated temperature as many metabolic processes are, in a healthy individual it doesn't matter if fever was reduced pharmacologically or not.

"parents should pay attention to other symptoms of illness, such as whether the child is unusually cranky, lethargic, or not drinking liquids and avoiding food [are these signs or symptoms?  They sound like signs]. Those are often better measures of how sick a child is and whether medical attention should be sought, the authors said [...] Dr. Margaret Scotellaro, a pediatrician at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said the report 'is right on [...] some [parents] feel that an illness changes from being something insignificant to something serious as soon as the temperature rises, which is  really not true' [...] the report will help her  relay that message";

Ah, truly educating the patient and parent about what's true.

"[but this general knowledge comes with some caveats] children with special medical needs [...] should be seen by a doctor when their temperatures are mildly elevated [...and] children with heat stroke [...and] infants younger than 3 months."

Nothing is SIMPLE in reality, unlike ideologies / cultic views that screen the world previous to evidence. 

002. Morton and Morton write in "Five Steps to Selecting the Best Alternative Medicine" (ISBN 1880032945; 1996) [neither are NDs / NMDs, by the way]:

"Dr. Stephen Speidel, an N.D. [Bastyr 1983, still in practice in Washington State, possibly...] says 'a good example of how we in naturopathic medicine use the healing force in the body [coded vitalism] is what we do or don't do when a child has a fever.  Often times a fever is a way that the body rids itself of a bacteria that only grows in certain temperatures [...] if you take the [...] aspirin or Tylenol [...] it's like taking a sledge hammer to your child's immune system [coded vitalism...] your child will stay sick longer' [p.202...]";

So, there are problems here.  There's that coded vitalism -- naturopathy's mythic premise that-dare-not-speak-its-name.  The actual pediatricians point out that most childhood fevers are viral infections, not the gooey, puss-creating bacterial type of infection that antibiotics may be used to treat. Bacteria's often have a WIDE growth temperature, not such a narrow one ranging from normal body temperature to fever-level temperature.  And there's the 'big scare' of immediate immune harm and an increase duration of illness.

Now, I admit, this is old stuff but, it is also currently up on the web.  I've doubts it will be updated!  It's canon for naturopathy.

The immune system, I'd argue, is also coding for that science-ejected vitalistic concept at the core of naturopathy.  As the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Naturopathy":

"homeopathic medicine [...] works on a subtle yet powerful electromagnetic level [never scientifically supported, by the way; coded vitalism], gently acting to strengthen the body’s healing and immune response [coded vitalism...and naturopathy's] methods of  treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [overall]."

Ah, so simple once you go to the '.gov' Rosetta Stone aka OBNM! Of course, an immune system is measurable by hematology and serology, and homeopathy doesn't alter those parameters!  Of course, electromagnetism is hugely measurable and no such changes are found via homeopathy.  While a vital force is a figment / myth, and therein...I think what we know what they're really getting at.

I can imagine the spin.  Naturopaths saying "we were right all along" and therefore you mustn't injure your vital force with fever suppression.  In other words: a little bit of scientific truth, then ramped up to falsely support a sectarian overblown / unsupported claim.

Morton and Morton also write, on that same paper page [which is also still online]:

"N.D.'s and M.D.'s [grammatically incorrect, no apostrophes needed] have some areas of common ground, namely their education.  M.D.'s are schooled in basic sciences and clinical sciences to prepare them for the various illnesses and emergencies they will face during their practice.  N.D.'s are also well trained in all these sciences in their education."

Ah, but as I've said over and over again: some science then with a sectarian ideology / belief system placed upon it all, creating a kind of knowledge muddle that, as OBNM illustrates, falsely labels as science the actually science-ejected.  Perhaps the new ICD-10 needs a code for the disorder "thinking naturopathic-style".  Even in 1996, naturopathy's true core was the vitalistic science-ejected and the supernatural science-exterior -- falsely labeled science.

003. shall there be an update to all this from naturopathyland?

I'd bet NOTHING on that.  After all, their primary vitalistic premise has been science-ejected for more than 100 years, and claims of supernaturalism is science for a few hundred years.  If anything, I'll bet science and the public will continue to be abused.

***Addendum: 

the full report is here.

'Naturopathy is Best Medical Science and Common Sense' - ND Yates on KXTV ABC 10 San Francisco - 2011-01-05

here, I stretch the limits of your absurdity meter by quoting from a recent AANP video [see 001., below]:

001. Yates, B. (ND NCNM 1994) states in the Youtube video "Beverly Yates, ND, on 'Sacramento & Co.' - Weight Loss Alternatives (January 5, 2011)" [vsc 2011-01-25]:

"[host] naturopathic doctor Beverly Yates shares how we can shed pounds and maintain a healthy weight the natural way [...] tell our audience what naturopathic medicine is [...Yates] naturopathic medicine is what I would consider to be best practices from medical science and the healing arts. It includes [...] food as your medicine [...] homeopathy [...] and the ever popular common sense."

Note: so, we're told "science" and "sense".  And "homeopathy".

002. now, lets test those science and sense claims by going to a) the State of Oregon's '.gov' description of naturopathy [which the NDs wrote], which paralles b) the description naturopathy at Yates's alma mater NCNM [the seat of the ND revival]:

002.a. OBNM states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic Medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine  [...] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [NHP...] naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease [...that] are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms,which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself."

002.b. NCNM states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...] principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...they are] the distinguishing marks of the [supposed] profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VNM...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF]. The  physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself."

002.c. what's in common, 'the essentially naturopathic', and what is NOT ABLE to pass scientific muster and is nonsensical to call science IN FACT:

002.c1. naturopathy's essential vitalism -- the VF, NHP, HPN-VMN, LF, VF junk -- is indeed HUGELY science-ejected:

explaining life processes vitalistically is like explaining fire phlogistically or the earth's shape planarly -- scientifically illiterate.

002.c2. homeopathy is indeed science-ejected.

003. when:

is the science-ejected falsely labeled a scientific fact;

the absurd common science;

medicine based upon fairy dust;

commerce couched in false labels: 

naturopathy -- and its 'reversal of all values'.

So beware.  By the way, ND Yates is the "2010 National Media Spokesperson for American Association of Naturopathic Physicians" [saved 2011-01-27].

ND K____ is Penalized by OBNM For False Advertising & Chelation [Hypocrisy Alert!]

here, I cite from a recent article regarding an Oregon ND who has had his license suspended [see 001., below]; then, I point out the falseness that is at the heart of Oregon naturopathy overall [see 002., below]:

001. the Mail Tribune's Sam Wheeler reports in "State Levels Penalties on Medford Naturopath" (2010-12-18) [also, see Casewatch's page:

"Dr. Alan K____, the head naturopathic physician at Center of Health, 2612 E. Barnett Road, violated Oregon law by falsely advertising his practice and himself in 15 different instances, and preparing to administer a method of medicine that he was not certified to use [...] the board's investigation determined that from 2006 through 2009, K____ had made 'untrue, improper, misleading, or deceptive statements in advertising by representing that he is a medical specialist or practices a medical specialty' [...K____ has been] ordered to pay $15,000 in civil penalties and will have his license revoked for one year, the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine concluded last week [...] the practice will remain open under the direction of naturopathic physician Dr. Zack Allen [...] in addition to the false advertising, K____ was also disciplined for preparing to administer chelation therapy to one of his patients."

Note: so, false claims in commerce are penalized by OBNM.  Interesting, considering how false and irrational naturopathy is overall.

NMD Marturano - "Certainly True" There's No Scientific Evidence For Life Force / Vis [which defines naturopathy!]

here, I quote from a naturopath who explicitly states that "life force" (a.k.a. The Vis, in naturopathy lingo) is not scientific and that [apparently] science is 'a convenient mentionable' [see 001., below]; then, I point out '.gov' naturopathy claims that "life force" / vitalism survives scientific scrutiny WHILE ACTUALLY hugely science-ejected [see 002., below]; then, I show that that 'life force concept claimed as science' IS a primary item of the naturopathy oath [see 003., below]; finally, I muse [see 004., below]:

001. Marturano, M. (SCNM NMD), in "Discerning Health Disinformation on the Web" [vsc 2010-11-16], speaks of:

"trying to find solid health information [...with so much out there apparently] very authoritative and credible on the surface [...yet ultimately of] a hidden agenda [...] insufficient evidence

[...and warns of] disinformation tactics [which] work by making the truth appear false and the false appear true [...via statements apparently]  based in fact, but twisted [...offering] woo-woo [...from] hucksters and charlatans [...selling] snake oil to the unwitting public [(my irony meter is exploding)...]

[and he speaks of avoiding] the top three disinformation tactics out there [...] to protect yourself from these unscrupulous literary magicians [...with the #1 tactic being] lack of evidence equals evidence of lack [(I'm not kidding here)...and gives three examples concerning] no scientific evidence

[...and offers, as the fourth] let's take on a big one: there is no scientific evidence showing the existence [of] an invisible life force (spirit, qi, chi, prana, etc.) [vitalism, naturopathy's big one!] that supports living beings. The above statement is certainly true

[...and regarding science states] we should put scientific evidence in its rightful place as one of many useful ways to understand the world around us [(as in, 'not a priority')...] it is not necessary for science to support every little statement that a health professional makes [(as in 'not a priority)]."

Note: so, we get the admitted scientific dismissal of vitalism as a scientific theory, essentially.  And science, thought the best way to comprehend the world around us, is not much of a priority.  In 004., I'll comment on other things from the above.

001.b. 'science as a convenient mentionable':

With science not very prioritized, NMD Marturano yet isn't shy about lauding naturopathy's supposed science basis and science course hours [vsc 2010-11-16].

I sense a little hypocrisy here, as in 'my educational credentials claim a reasonable basis and priority of science, when convenient' [used for marketing legitimacy, ignored for the basis of 'the essentially naturopathic'].  And, naturopathy's principles are 'described' without actually much description / transparency:

"principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] healing power of nature [coded vitalism], naturopathic medicine recognizes a self-healing process of the body [coded vitalism] that is ordered and intelligent. We do not purport to be the cause of cure, but simply a catalyst to effect that which would occur naturally, given the right conditions and resources."

002. the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-11-16]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine 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 [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN a.k.a. 'The Vis'...] nature heals through the response of the life force [(vitalism)...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself."

Note: so, vitalism a.k.a. HPN-VMN is claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  But, this is hugely not true.

This is your government facilitating your exploitation: both as an education consumer and as a clinical consumer.

003. the ND / NMD obligation to vitalism / "The Vis":

Here, by way of a British Columbia, Canada BCNA ND homeopathy proponent, is the Naturopathy Oath [psc 2010-11-19]:

"I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of Naturopathic Medicine

[...]

I will continually endeavor to improve my abilities.

I will conduct my life and practice of Naturopathic Medicine with integrity and freedom from prejudice

[(my irony meter is again over-the-limit)...]

I will honor the principles of Naturopathic Medicine

[...]

to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [(HPN-VMN; coded vitalism)...]

with my whole heart, before these witnesses, as a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath."

Note: so, the HPN-VMN is obviously a naturopath's by-oath obligation [vitalism camouflaged, falsely labeled as science].

004. musing:

So, what can be culled from all this?

Well, I've obviously found an ND/NMD who disavows THE primary REQUIRED naturopathy belief / tenet [a science-ejected / -unsupported sectarian concept (of many such in naturopathy)] that is usually FALSELY stated as scientific fact.

That is quite a find: a huge absurdity [the nonscientific falsely labeled science] piled upon another huge absurdity [a by-oath requirement then disavowed].

Regarding:

"solid health information" - I hope it's now obvious that naturopathy's claims, at their highest echelon, are no way 'solid', e.g. it irrationally labels something what it hugely isn't;

"authoritative and credible on the surface" - yes, camouflaged / coded, as naturopathy poses as legitimate yet when you analyze it, it falls apart;

"a hidden agenda" - can you say naturopathy's M.O., as we see with this NMD and the MANP that he's secretary of, e.g. the vitalism tenet, coded, with a false science label AS AN AGENDA?;

"disinformation tactics" - something naturopathy has obviously mastered;

"the truth appear false and the false appear true" and "based in fact, but twisted" - reminds me of naturopathy's 'reversal of values' M.O.;

"woo-woo" - a skeptical word, misappropriated [?];

"hucksters and charlatans", "[selling] snake oil to the unwitting public", "unscrupulous literary magicians" - sounds like sCAM that scamming scam scam;

"lack of evidence equals evidence of lack" - this is thoroughly illogical and practically straw-man.  It is this simple: science relies upon evidence, and to base medical decisions on 'a HUGE nonscience lack' is NUTS;

"no scientific evidence" - ah-hum, can anyone say naturopathy's vitalism and supernaturalism? [amongst other things naturopathic]];

"there is no scientific evidence showing the existence [of] an invisible life force (spirit, qi, chi, prana, etc.) [...] the above statement is certainly true" - yes it is CERTAIN [science-ejected, more specifically], and it's nice to hear this little bit of huge honesty yet naturopaths have a greatly absurd quandary here: claiming science while actually hugely essentially nonscientific, by oath;

science as "one of many useful ways to understand the world around us" "it is not necessary for science to support every little statement that a health professional makes" - since science is the BEST way to know about the world around us, other ways are not as useful for something as serious as medicine, and I would think that it IS NECESSARY for someone in commerce and the professions to properly label what hugely isn't science as not science, instead of what naturopathy is doing, which falsely labeling the nonscientific science and trading upon it.

Naturopathy's "Objective Observation" of 'Subjective Figmentations' - A Google.com Search Round-Up

here, I use the Google.com web search engine and the parameters >"objective observation" naturopathic< and list all the first-page results [as of 2010-10-01; see 002., below]; then I muse on their false-labeling / knowledge-type muddle [see 002., below]:

001. results:

001.a. the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine web page "What Is a Naturopathic Physician?" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are based upon objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances."

Note: so, the overall promise is that naturopathy's tenets are 'scientifically in-fact.'  You will see this promise made from naturopathy's highest echelon national consortia all the way down to the individual NMD practitioner.

001.b. the practice page of Dye, J. (NMD Bastyr), Groves, A. (NMD SCNM), and Terlisner, A. (NMD Bastyr) titled "What is Naturopathy?" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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."

001.c. a Skeptic North comment of mine along the same lines as this current post.

001.d. the grand illusion, the Oregon.gov web page "About Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine 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. It is these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches."

001.e. the National College of Natural Medicine page "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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."

001.f. the practice page of Smith, G. (NMD SCNM) titled "Doctor as Teacher: Naturopathic Medicine of Southern Arizona" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles 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."

001.g. the practice page of Stephens, J. (NMD SCNM) titled "Naturopathic Philosophy" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are based upon objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances. Methods used are consistent with these principles."

001.h. the practice page of Steriti, R. (ND SCNM) titled "The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians Definition of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles 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."

001.i. the web page of Providence Health and Services and Aschtgen, C.D. (ND Bastyr) titled "Naturopathic Oncology" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are based on objective observation of the nature of health and disease."

001.j. the practice page of Bubis, E. (ND NCNM) titled "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine 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. It is these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches."

001.k. the practice page of Cox, S.E. (ND NCNM) titled "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine 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. The following tenants [sp., 'tenets'], reaching far back to the time of Hippocrates, distinguish the profession from other medical approaches."

001.L. the practice page of Keaton, D. (NMD NCNM) titled "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles 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."

001.m. the practice page of Awad, R. (ND Bastyr) titled "AANP Definition of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles 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."

001.n. the practice page of von der Heydt, L. (ND NCNM) titled "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"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."

001.o. the practice page of Engard, K. (NMD NCNM) titled "What is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles 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."

001.p. Chaitow's naturopathic textbook, via books.google.com, titled "Naturopathic Physicial Medicine: Theory and Practice for Manual Therapists and Naturopaths" (2008, ISBN 0443103909) which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice.  The principles are based upon the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances.  Methods used are consistent with these principles [p.002]."

001.q. the practice page of Patterson, J. (ND UBCNM) titled "About Jaquel Patterson" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles which underlie and determine its practice. These principles 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."

001.r. the practice page of Holk, L.E. (ND NCNM) and White, D.J. (ND NCNM) titled "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underline and determine its practice. These principles 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."

001.s. the practice page of Sakonyi, J. (ND Bastyr) titled "The Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are part of what distinguishes the naturopathic approach to health care from the conventional approach and are based on objective observation of the nature of health and disease.  The following principles are the foundation of naturopathic medical practice."

001.t. the practice page of Rios-Young, M. (ND Bastyr) titled "Naturopathic Principles" [vsc 2010-10-01] which states:

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine it’s [sp., its] practice. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease."

002. the false label of "objective observation" placed upon 'subjective figmentations':

well, for starters, a defining principle of naturopathy is that the body is run by an immaterial 'vital force' which I'll condense as a 'purposeful life spirit.'  This force doesn't exist.  It is a figmentation.  It is a belief in the sense of a without-evidenced-article-of-faith.  Vitalism has been ejected from science for OH SO MANY YEARS.  It is a subjective figmentation, and not an objectively observed phenomenon. 

This muddle of 'kinds of knowledge' essentially defines naturopathy [epistemic conflation].  Perhaps what also defines naturopathy is a lack of intellectual rigor in terms of being able to make the distinction.

Notice that I've not even touched upon the science-exterior supernaturalism which is also built into the naturopathic belief-amalgam.

Note science, not transparent, not a profession.

Peterson's Entry for NCNM: Ye Old “Science-Based Vitalistic” Naturopathic Nonsense

here, I cite from Peterson's “Graduate Programs in Business, Education, Health, Information Studies, Law and Social Work 2004” (ISBN 076891146x, 2003) regarding National College of Natural Medicine's [NCNM] claim that the vitalistic is within the science-based [see 001., below]: then I cite from the State of Oregon's Board of Naturopathic Medicine [OBNM] and similar nonsense [see 002., below]:

001. the 'professional science-based vitalistic' at NCNM:

001.a. Peterson's NCNM entry states:

“naturopathic medicine is a science-based, vitalistic philosophy and practice rooted in the principle of vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature […] students pursue a vitalistically grounded and rigorous academic clinical program [p.2113].”

Note: so, naturopathy is essentially vitalistic. The 'back-stage' context of naturopathy is vitalism, even when naturopathy cleverly codes the premise so as not to allow for informed, transparent communication of that essential 'nature.' NCNM is the oldest of the AANMC schools, and this vitalistic context is canonical. Now, science has ejected the vitalistic, hugely. Yup. And to be grounded vitalistically is about as sensible as if dentistry centered itself around the figment known as the Tooth Fairy.  Rigor?  Thoughtless is more like it.  Cultic.

001.b. regarding science, the entry states:

“the first two years of study are focused on the standard medical sciences […] naturopathic medicine integrates natural healing methods from around the world with solid foundations in Western sciences.”

Note: I'm not sure how science can be standard and solid when what is science and not science is regarded as equal within the naturopathic realm. That is about as standard as stating that sense and nonsense are the same thing. So, a solid foundation in science is when science is ANYTHING you wish it to be?

001.c. and of course, we're told this is ethically rigorous / professional per:

“founded in 1956, National College of Naturopathic Medicine is the oldest accredited naturopathic medical college in North America. As such, it has been the heart of the profession.”

Note: what kind of profession is so FLAWED at its very core that it appears irrational, insane, scientifically-illiterate, and opaque?

002. OBNE states in “Naturopathy”[vsc 2010-06-19]:

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners trained as specialist in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine 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. It is these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#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."

Note: so, more nonsense.

003. beware:

naturopathy is quite false at its core. You have States, their Departments of Education, the Federal DOE, regionally accredited colleges and universities, and college / university career guides spewing quite dunderheaded sectarian dogma posing as legitimate “science.”

ND Education as "On Par" via Ingram (ND NCNM 2006) - No, I think Not

here, I cite from a recent article by ND Ingram at Citizen-Times.com which states that ND education is comparable to MD/DO and post-graduate doctoral-level science education, and who demands full disclosure from nonAANP ND competitors while himself not transparently communicating naturopathy's true, science-ejected, sectarian nature and context [see 001., below]; I then visit the web pages of the Ingrams and the NCANP [see 002., 003. below]; their alma mater NCNM and their licensing board OBNM [see 004., below]; and then I muse [see 005., below]:

001. Ingram, G. (ND NCNM 2006) [and Ingram, M. (ND NCNM)] state in "Naturopathic Doctors Convene on Capitol Hill" (2010-05-11) [vsc 2010-05-14]:

"local naturopathic doctors Glenn and Marty Ingram joined with 170 other doctors, students and supporters of naturopathic medicine [...] to lobby for the inclusion of naturopathic physicians in federal health care initiatives [their FLI...is an] event organized by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) [...] naturopathic doctors are licensed as primary care physicians [...] their schools and degree, by Department of Education standards, are on par with those of an MD or DO [...e.g.] doctorate-level education including supervised clinical training [...] graduates of accredited 4-year post-graduate programs who pass national board exams [...] naturopathic physicians [...] bring valuable expertise [...they] facilitate the inherent ability of the human body to maintain and restore optimal health [coded vitalism...it] focuses on correcting the root cause of illness [coded vitalism...] the North Carolina Association of Naturopathic Physicians (NCANP) has been working diligently for licensure over the last decade [...] the public is entitled to full disclosure about the education and training of practitioners to whom they entrust their health [...these NDs] practice at Through the Woods Natural Health in Pisgah Forest (www.throughwoods.com)."

Note: so, we're promised that the ND education is doctoral and typical for physicianship per "on par," that the naturopathic is valuable, and -- here's where my irony meter goes off the dial -- though the vitalistic / actual science-ejected sectarian underpinnings of naturopathy are coded here by these AANP NDs, we're to believe that AANP naturopathy is all about transparency per a demanded "full disclosure."   And, the NDs get to promote themselves through the article without an ounce of criticism / counterpoint.  This article is an advertisement disguised as journalism just as naturopathy is a sectarian belief system disguised as scientific.

002. the Ingrams, at their practice homepage page [vsc 2010-05-14], state:

"the overall mission of Through the Woods Natural Health is to improve the health of individuals, the community, and the world at large [how noble...] we educate people so they can take control of their own healthcare [...] naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of medicine that uses lifestyle changes and natural therapies to stimulate the body’s own healing process [coded vitalism / contextual opacity...per] the underlying cause of your symptoms [...] principles: [#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent self-healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery, and to facilitate and augment this inherent self-healing process [coded vitalism...#2, we] acknowledge, respect, and work with the individual’s self-healing process [coded vitalism...#4] naturopathic physician encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development [some kind of New-Agey supernaturalism...] naturopathic doctors complete four years of post-graduate education at an accredited naturopathic medical school. Naturopathic doctors are trained in conventional medical sciences, diagnosis, and treatment [science claim] in addition to nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, and physical medicine [...] licensure will help the public differentiate between different practitioners so they may make an informed decision for their health care needs. Both Dr. Glenn and Dr. Marty hold licenses to practice as naturopathic physicians in the state of Oregon [...] the first visit is spent getting to know each other, introducing naturopathic philosophy [...] we use homeopathic remedies [...] homeopathy is just one tool that a naturopathic doctor may use. A specific homeopathic remedy is chosen for you based on your symptoms, personality, and overall patterns of dis-ease.  A homeopathic remedy helps you respond to stress in a more efficient way."

Note: so, a distinct system based upon opacity. Again, my irony meter is in danger of exploding.  If naturopathy cared about the consumer, per "informed decision," I think it would actually transparently communicate its context.  I'll talk about the NCNM philosophy below.  And obviously naturopathy loves homeopathy, homeopathy, homeopathy.

003. the mentioned NCANP's states at its pages:

003.a. 'homepage' [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"naturopathic medicine is a primary health care profession [...] the naturopathic perspective views each person as a whole [coded supernaturalism] and recognizes the healing force within each individual. Natural therapies are used to support and stimulate that vital healing force [coded vitalism...] naturopathic therapies include clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, physical medicine and lifestyle counseling."

Note: so, there's coded vitalism [though "vital healing force" is actually quite an accurate representation of their 'vital force'] and supernaturalism, homeopathic nonsense, and the claim of professionalism.

003.b. "The History of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"the naturopathic profession is committed to on-going scientific research and development. Today's practitioners add to the growing body of research by incorporating modern scientific methods that expand the understanding of the mechanisms of natural healing and therapeutics. Ongoing research in immunology, diagnosis, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, psychology and other clinical sciences contribute to the development of naturopathic medicine."

Note: again, the claim of professionalism and science.  Actually, the truth of the matter is that science has ejected that which is essentially naturopathic.

003.c. "The Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"[#1] the healing power of nature. Naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherit self-healing process in the person which is ordered and intelligent [...] this inherent self-healing process [...] acknowledge, respect and work with the individual's self-healing process [all coded vitalism...] doctor as teacher. Naturopathic physicians educate their patients [...] treat the whole person [...] since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development [PSD is naturopathy's supernaturalism, in part]."

Note: so, coded vitalism, PSD sectarian whatever, and this claim of educator / teacher. 

003.d. "How is a Licensible Naturopath Trained?" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"NDs are trained in medical sciences."

Note: yes, those post-graduate doctoral-level science experts known as NDs.

004. meanwhile, in Oregon:

004.a. NCNM, the alma mater of the Ingrams, states in "Principles of Healing" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [...they] stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] 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 [...#3] first do no harm, primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force."

Note: now THERE is the full monty.  And it is INSANE: the hugely for decades science-ejected is claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  That is naturopathy's MO.

004.b. OBNM states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-05-16]:

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing [...that are] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...] these principles that distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] 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 [...naturopathy's] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...because] illness is a purposeful process of the organism.  The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college with admission requirements comparable to those of conventional medical schools [...] they are educated in conventional medical sciences."

Note: wow, .gov propaganda and pseudoscience galore.  Straight out of 1984, but instead of war being peace, science is now nonscience.

005. so, is naturopathy "on par" with doctoral level medical and science education?

well, lets think: naturopathy codes its actual premises so the public is unable to make an informed decision about engaging with it.  That knocks it out of the box of professionalism.  Naturopathy claims that that which is well outside that-which-is-scientific is indeed scientific fact.  That makes it absurd.  So no.  Not on par at all. 

In fact, it appears that naturopathy has been a recipient of quite a HUGE degree of charity regarding its absurdity posed as professional doctoral-level rigor: engage in commerce clinically and academically under false pretenses, with huge support from academic and licensure regulatory agencies.

Ben Goldacre has an interesting piece up about whistle-blowers.  I'm hoping that the eventual crack-down on naturopathy [which I see as inevitable] is previous to some kind of clinical malpractice harm someone suffers at their hands.  The academic malpractice harm, well, that's ongoing -- obviously.