Inspired by Scienceblogs.com - RI on Naturo. and Homeo., and My Expansion of the Matter

here, I cite from Scienceblogs.com's Respectful Insolence blog concerning the relationship between naturopathy and homeopathy [see 001., below]; then, I list 13 random AANP-type naturopaths who label their mandatory homeopathy "science", from my archives [see 002., below]; finally, I expand upon the naturopathic pseudostructuring of knowledge types as a type of 'epistemic pathology' [see 003., below]:

001. Orac writes in "You Can't Have Naturopathy Without Homeopathy" (2011-01-28):

"the bottom line is that, for how badly its practitioners want to represent naturopathy as science-based and rational, in reality naturopathy is anything but [hear, hear! it is truly the reversal of all values]. It embraces virtually any form of CAM therapy [sCAMs!], no matter how irrational, and its practitioners simply choose what subset of woo they want to use in their practice. If you want to know just how credulous and pseudoscientific naturopathy is, just remember that not only is homeopathy embraced by naturopaths, but knowledge of homeopathic practice is mandatory. It's taught by naturopathy schools, and naturopaths have to know enough about it to pass the NPLEX, which includes homeopathy on it. Homeopathy and naturopathy: two crappy woos that taste crappy together [damn, I thought 'like cures like', and the woos would sum to zero!  So much for that 'law']."

Note: yes, you cannot graduate from North American ND / NMD schools without taking their homeopathy series of courses and treating a certain amount of patients in their clinics homeopathically [this was certainly true when I was in ND school, and it is homeopathy that principly disgusted me most about that experience at the University of Bridgeport to the point that I stopped my schooling in the forth year].  But, NPLEX not only requires homeopathy, it falsely labels homeopathy a "clinical science".  Homeopathy is as much as science as the reading of tea leaves, astrology, the laying on of hands, and Mesmerism.  Yes, that is falsehood on a supposed professional licensure exam!  Irrationality marches on!

But, homeopathy is not the principle issue regarding the 'pathology of the natural' / naturopathy.  Removing homeopathy from naturopathy would merely be removal of a diseased branch of a diseased tree, and then incorrectly stating that the tree is well.  As I go through this post, we'll approach the trunk of that tree, the nexus of the disease afflicting the whole tree: what I see as naturopathy's principle 'knowledge type disease'.  I choose the tree metaphor because naturopathy does too.  It labels itself from the very top [here too] and from the very bottom one of the "branches of medical science".  But, that wouldn't be science from this world; it might be science in Bizarro World.

002. 'homeopathy is science' according to:

002.a. Palka, K. (ND SCNM) who states in "About Naturopathic Doctors" [vsc 2011-01-16]:

"curricula at the seven accredited naturopathic medical schools are comparable in basic medical sciences, such as anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, to traditional medical school.  In addition, naturopathic science courses include nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, hydrotherapy, mind/body medicine and other therapeutics."

002.b. Pratt, S. (ND NCNM 2004) who states in "Education and Licensing" [vsc 2010-06-11]:

"a licensed naturopathic physician (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. [...] to enter into the clinical training of the third year, students must pass all basic sciences and diagnostic courses [...] NPLEX is the standard examination used by all licensing jurisdictions for naturopathic physicians in North America. It includes 5 basic science exams (anatomy, physiology, pathology, biochemistry, microbiology and immunology) taken after the first 2 years of medical school. The clinical science examinations are taken following graduation after the 4th 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."

002.c. Kanevski, J. (ND Bastyr 2006) who states in "Our Services" [vsc 2009-02-10]:

"the medical science of homeopathy was founded by a German physician, Samuel Hahnemann about 200 years ago. It is being used extensively in Europe, Israel, and India. It is gaining popularity in the United States. Health professionals that practice homeopathy include naturopathic physicians, osteopathic doctors, medical doctors, chiropractors, veterinarians, and trained professional homeopaths."

002.d.  Kargman, S. (NMD SCNM) who states in "About Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-08]:

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.s or N.M.D.s) are general practitioners trained as specialists in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences as well as complementary modalities. Naturopathic physicians treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling, Oriental medicine and acupuncture, natural childbirth, and hydrotherapy [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science."

002.e. Coe, C. (BINM), Gallant, J. (ND BINM), Vandekerkhove, A. (ND BINM) who state in "What Is Naturopathic Medicine?" [vsc 2011-01-29]:

"naturopathic physicians are trained in the conventional medical sciences and pathology to diagnose in a manner similar to medical doctors (MDs) […] they use therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, clinical psychology, acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine […] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medicine."

002.f.  Cohen, H. (ND CCNM 1990) who states in "Dictionary" [vsc 2011-01-29]:

"homeopathy is a holistic medical science […] homeopathy practiced by naturopathic physicians, WHEREAS homeopathy has been an integral part of naturopathic medicine since its inception and is a recognized specialty for which the naturopathic profession has created a distinct specialty organization, the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians, WHEREAS homeopathy has been recognized, through rigorous testing and experimentation, as having significant scientific evidence supporting its efficacy and safety […] naturopathic medicine, sometimes called 'naturopathy,' is as old as healing itself and as new as the latest discoveries in biochemical sciences […] the naturopathic medical profession's infrastructure includes accredited educational institutions, professional licensing by a growing number of states, national standards of practice and care, peer review, and an ongoing commitment to state-of-the-art scientific research [...] naturopathic medicine […is a] science […] 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 […] a licensed naturopathic physician (ND) attends a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical school and is educated in all of the same basic sciences as an MD."

002.g.  Coward, S. (ND SCNM), Lewis, K. (ND SCNM) who state in "Misconceptions Aside, Homeopathy Has Stood the Test of Time" (2009-06-25):

"homeopathy is a 200-year-old medicinal science."

002.h. Cronin, B. (ND Bastyr 2002) who states in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-23]:

"in addition to the basic medical sciences and conventional diagnostics, the naturopathic doctor is required to complete additional training in therapeutic nutrition, homeopathy, botanical medicine, physical medicine and counseling. A naturopathic doctor takes rigorous professional basic science and clinical board examinations so that he or she may be licensed by a state or jurisdiction [...] naturopathic diagnostic and therapies are supported by scientific research drawn from peer-reviewed journals from many disciplines, including naturopathic medicine, conventional medicine, complementary medicine, clinical nutrition, etc.."

002.i. Bailetti, K. (ND CCNM) who states in "About Katia Bailetti ND" [vsc 201-01-23]:

"licensed naturopathic doctors in Ontario have achieved the following training [...] successful completion of North American licensing exams including basic sciences, (anatomy, biochmistry [sp., biochemistry], microbiology, immunology, physiology and pathology), as well as clinical sciences (physical and clinical diagnosis, laboratory diagnosis and diagnostic imaging, pharmacology, emergency medicine, clinical nutrition, physical medicine, botanical medicine, psychology, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture and homeopathy)".

002.j. Beaty, J.K. (ND Bastyr 1988) who states in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-06-20]:

"naturopathic medicine is as much a philosophy of life as it is a science [...] naturopathic doctors [...] are educated in the conventional medical sciences, diagnostic techniques and methods, but prefer to treat disease and restore health using therapies from the sciences of clinical nutrition, herbal medicine, homeopathy, physical medicine, exercise therapy, counseling and hydrotherapy [...] we cooperate with all other branches of the medical sciences."

Overall note: I think it is clear that preponderantly -- and the naturopaths above are from the schools in the U.S. and Canada -- naturopathy claims homeopathy is science, and homeopathy is inseparable from naturopathy as it is "required" and "integral".  The Cohen link is useful because the AANP has buried its position papers.  This happened particularly after the Atwood pieces were published several years ago in MedGenMed.  Homeowatch has a 1993 version up, so its still publicly accessible.

003. naturopathy's 'epistemic pathology' by way of the  the "Textbook of Natural Medicine" (ISBN 0443073007, 2005, 3rd. ed.) sample chapter, freely available:

"many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [vitalism, a science-ejected concept...] homeopathy and acupuncture are primary methods of such stimulation [so, now the scientific is premised on the science-ejected, science=nonscience...] humans are spiritual beings. They are spirits that reside within bodies [so, now the scientific contains the science-exterior supernatural, science subset supernaturalism]. Though the general purview of the physician is the body, that instrument cannot be separated from the spirit, which animates it.  If the spirit is disturbed, the body cannot be fundamentally healthy [so, now we have a conflation of knowledge-kind and ontological kind: the supernatural and the physical are one, the physician is metaphysician, the naturalistic and supernaturalistic are indistinguishable, articles of sectarian faith and scientific objective fact cannot be delineated]. Hahnemann, the brilliant founder of homeopathy [oh, they so love their homeopathy], instructs physicians thus. Disturbance in the spirit [he said lebenskraft or dynamis, which is vitalism aka life force] permeates the body and eventuates in physical manifestation [if that's not a sectarian belief system, I don't know what is]. Physicians are responsible for perceiving such disturbances and addressing them. At colleges of naturopathic medicine in Australia and North America, faculty work with naturopathic medicine students to develop their ability to perceive the spiritual nature of an individual."

Note: now, the book's principle editor calls naturopathy "science-based".  Yes, that is a 'knowledge type pathology' of a grand scale.  I think it approaches a 'cultic insanity' type level.  What naturopathy does is CONFLATE in order to achieve its goal: to disguise and falsely posture sectarian faithy-beliefy crap that has either been science-ejected or is simply unscienceable and therefore science-exterior, as scientific fact in order to further its market.

My expansion is simply this: even if naturopathy divorced itself from homeopathy -- if it cut off that branch, so to speak, from the tree -- it would still be naturopathy IN PRINCIPLE, literally.  It would still mislabel what is not science but instead items and methods of faith / belief / quasi-religion / sectarian medicine.

That is the trunk of the rotten epistemic tree known as naturopathy; that is the root cause, with their nutty homeopathy only a symptom of a deeper irrationalism.

ND ______ - 'We're Science, I Mean Nonscience, I Mean Science...These Different Things Are the Same Things'

here, I employ a few North American ND / NMD sources' claims about the context of naturopathy to illustrate the 'epistemic and ontological conflation' of the whole nonsensical muddle:

001. a few ND sources:

Canadian alternating with American -- who claim "science" as the overarching category or methodology of naturopathy [the '#a' parts] and simultaneously claim nonscience / the preponderantly science-ejected as the category or mechanism of naturopathy [the '#b' parts]:

001.a. Canada nationally: the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors states:

001.a1. in "May 4-11, 2008 - Naturopathic Medicine Week" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care system that blends modern scientific knowledge with traditional and natural forms of medicine. Naturopathic doctors diagnose, treat, and prevent disease using natural therapies including botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, naturopathic manipulation, traditional Chinese medicine / acupuncture, and lifestyle counseling. Naturopathic doctors are primary health care providers with 7 years post-secondary education that practice safe, effective, science-based natural health care."

Note: so science [a distinct kind of knowledge], it is claimed, and: while distinct blended yet distinct...and natural [with within that the supernatural; more on that with Pizzorno towards the end].  Loving it.

001.a2. in "Natural Therapies" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

"naturopathic therapies are all based on the same principles [...] assist[ing] the body's healing response [coded vitalism...e.g.] homeopathic remedies [...] when carefully matched to the patient [...] affect the body's 'vital force' [science-ejected vitalism...stimulating] the body's innate healing forces [coded vitalism...e.g.] the key principle that defines and connects all of Chinese medicine is that of chi or vital energy [science-ejected vitalism...] the chi of the body's organs and systems are all connected in [imaginary!!!] meridians or channels that lie just under the skin. A naturopathic doctor will use Eastern herbs and acupuncture to assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance."

Note: so the science-ejected concept of vitalism, explicitly stated and in a couple of guises.  Yes, this is the NATIONAL Canadian naturopathy organization stating that science is nonscience, basically.  And, no disclaimer that their 'philosophy' / logic is nonsensical at its core.  But, they do like to label their irrational and absurd domain "professional" [vsc 2011-01-21].

Though I'll highlight naturopathy vitalism in the '#b' sections of this post, do keep in mind that under the overarching science label that naturopathy uses is also explicit supernaturalism and coded vitalism.

E.g., CAND states in "Guiding Principles" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

"naturopathic doctors are guided by six principles [...] emphasized throughout a naturopathic doctor's training [making it ESSENTIAL...which] forms the foundation of this distinct form of health care [...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [coded vitalism, how distinct]: your naturopathic doctor works to restore and support the powerful and inherent healing ability [coded vitalism] of your body, mind and spirit [supernaturalism...] naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery, facilitating and augmenting this ordered and intelligent healing ability [coded vitalism...#4] in treating the cause of any condition your naturopathic doctor takes into account not only your physical symptoms, but also mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, spiritual [supernaturalism] and other factors."

So, therein, naturopathy 'thinks' within this essential mode: the distinct is the coded / opaque, the natural is the supernatural, and taken along with the science claims, the scientific contains the science-exterior.  Fascinating, bizarre.  Where ever else have you seen supposed / self-claimed professionals, on a national level, being so irrational, absurd, and employing an explanatory approach to the public that is SO OPAQUE?

001.b. US nationally: the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians states:

001.b1. in "Naturopathic Principles and Philosophy" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

"naturopathic medicine is [...a] science [...] 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."

Note: so, science and able to survive scientific scrutiny and objective.  But, since when is the sectarian-figmentatious vitalistic [and supernatural!] such?  And "philosophy"?  Philosophy means the love of wisdom.  Irrationalism and absurdity and downright manipulative falseness are not wise.  And you shouldn't love such, or abide it! IMHO.

001.b2. in "Letting Nature Heal" (2009-08-11) [vsc 2010-05-10], the AANP's blog:

"[per ND Schor] is not our goal supposed to be to stimulate the vital force or the vis medicatrix naturae [there's that all-important equation that CAND didn't offer...aka] stimulating the vis [...] the vis medicatrix naturae [...] the healing power of nature [...] 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' [yeah, that's admirable]."

Note: Schor was the AANP's first recipient of their Vis Award [yes, they have a vitalism award].

He tells us at his own web page "The Vis Award" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

"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 [...a] commitment to living and practicing naturopathic medicine in accordance to what is called the 'vis medicatrix naturae' or healing force of nature [VMN-HFN]. The vis medicatrix naturae, or vis, is one of the fundamental principles that guides and distinguishes the practice of naturopathic medicine [it's essential!!!]. The Vis is the belief [yes, this is a belief system though they deny this to legislators] 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, the science-ejected sectarian vitalism belief is essential to naturopathy galore.  VMN-HFN is the distinguishing principle of naturopathy that they so often refuse to be distinct about!  They'd rather use a false label.  It's better for commerce / trade.

Being opaque about that principle is actually coded into their ethical code.  And when I say coded, I really mean it [per the Quebec Association of Naturopathic Medicine; their vitalism just stated as "the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being". No "life force", "vital force" or "qi / chi" etc. Along with a bunch of supposed ethical requirements that naturopathy can't fulfill -- as even that web page illustrates -- like "will recognize a responsibility to give the generally held opinions of the profession when interpreting knowledge of a scientific nature to the public"; QANM can't even transparently communicate that vitalism in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?"  yet we're told on the same page "naturopathic medicine [...] seeks to promote health through education and the scientific use of natural therapeutics" (vsc 2011-01-21)]. Amazing.

001.c. Canada provincially: the British Columbia Naturopathic Association states:

 

001.c1. in "About Naturopathic Medicine -- The Nature of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2010-12-22]:

 

"naturopathic medicine is science based natural medicine [...built upon upon] a science-based platform [...that there's an abundance of evidence concerning] the scientific basis and validity of naturopathic protocols [...and speaks of] naturopathic scientific journals."

 

Note: science.

 

001.c2. in "Sharon Gurm, ND" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"Dr. Gurm believes strongly in the body’s innate ability to heal itself. By working with the vital force of the individual using a holistic approach, true healing and optimal health can be achieved."

 

Note: vitalism.

 

001.d. US state-wise: the New York Association of Naturopathic Physicians states:

 

001.d1. in "Links - Schools" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"fully accredited naturopathic medical colleges & universities [...include] Bastyr University: Natural Health Sciences."

 

Note: science.  NYANP links up to the AANMC [which covers all North American AANP-type schools]], which states in "Academic Curriculum" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"naturopathic medicine students [...] attend four-year graduate-level programs at accredited institutions, where they are educated in the same biomedical sciences as allopathic physicians [a false sectarian label!; and they don't mention that this 'sames science includes the science-exterior]. During their first two years of study, the curriculum focuses on basic and clinical sciences and diagnostics [...] some member schools in the AANMC actually require more hours of basic and clinical science than many top allopathic medical schools [the super-science claim!]. Students of naturopathic medicine use the Western medical sciences as a foundation [so they 'found' the science-exterior with science]."  What a trip.

 

001.d2. in "Naturopathy" [at archive.org, vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"naturopathic medicine encourages the self-healing process, the vis medicatrix naturae [coded vitalism...] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [coded vitalism] naturopathic medicine recognizes in the body an inherent ability, which is ordered and intelligent. Naturopathic doctors identify and remove obstacles to recovery and facilitate and augment this healing ability [coded vitalism...] homeopathic medicine. This powerful system of medicine is more than 200 years old and is widely accepted in many countries. Homeopathic medicines, when properly prescribed, affect the body’s 'vital force' and strengthen its innate ability to heal."

Note: vitalism.  The NYANP explicit vitalism that NYANP has now apparently expunged -- furthering NYANP's licensure cause by hiding what naturopathy essentially is?

 

001.e. Canada ND-wise: Ontario's Shahram Ayoubzadeh, N.D. states:

 

001.e1. in "Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"naturopathic medicine [...] is an art and science of disease diagnosis, therapy, and prevention [...] to be registered as an N.D., one must have successfully completely a four-year program at an accredited college of naturopathic medicine. Before that, one must first complete three years of premedical sciences at the university undergraduate level. Chiropractors and medical doctors must also complete these three years of premedical sciences before they are eligible to apply to their respective programs [...] the first two years of the four-year program focus on basic medical sciences and diagnosis."

 

Note: science.

 

001.e.2. in "Frequently Asked Questions" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"the very nature of homeopathic remedies is integrated, working harmoniously and directly on the vital force instead of merely on the physiological body [...] conventional medicine has its place in health therapy when there is irreversible structural damage or when the manifestation of the disease has compromised an individual's health to the extent that the vital force is no longer capable of stimulating a viable curative response."

 

Note: vitalism.

 

001.f. US ND-wise: the practice of NDs Phillips, Stretch, Celmer, Oberg, Karp, Risley, Deichert, Aschtgen states:

 

001.f1. in "About Our Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"the principles of naturopathic medicine are based on objective observation of the nature of health and disease [...] the naturopathic medical education consists of 2 years of basic science classes."

 

Note: objectivity, science.

 

001.f2. in "About Our Medicine" [vsc 2011-01-21]:

 

"homeopathy stimulates the body's vitality [...] homeopathy is a system that is encourages the body to heal itself, stimulating the body's vitality to initiate healing [...] treatment with NMT produces a physical 'release' which can encourage metabolic function, stimulate vital energies [...] TCM is based on the Chinese concept of 'qi' (pronounced 'chee' and usually translated as 'vital energy') and the theory of 'yin and yang' (the harmony of all the opposite elements and forces that make  up existence). Qi flows through the body in channels, called meridians."

 

Note: yes, that is the same web page that claimed objectivity and science claiming sectarian vitalistic-figmentation.  The ultimate of equations.

 

001.g. Canada school-wise: the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine states:

 

001.g1. in "Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine" [vsc 2009-12-15 from Google.com's cache]:

 

"naturopathic medicine is science-based, holistic philosophy and practice rooted in the principle of vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [coded vitalism...] the first two years of study, include the foundation medical sciences [...] for those applicants whose academic background does not include the sciences, CCNM offers a naturopathic college preparatory program."

 

Note: science.

 

001.g2. in "Healing Arthritis" [vsc 2011-01-21 from archive.org]:

 

"the Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic located at the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine [...] NDs address the underlying cause(s) of [...] rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [...and] osteoarthritis (OA) [...via] traditional Chinese medicine: TCM is used by NDs to help balance qi (energy flow) to reduce illness and promote health. Interventions include acupuncture, acupressure and Asian herbs and foods. Homeopathic medicine: NDs use diluted doses of natural substances (plants, animals and minerals) to stimulate the body’s vital force and promote self-healing."

 

Note: vitalism.

 

001.h. US school-wise: the National University of Health Sciences states:

 

001.h1. it's name says it all.

 

Note: science.

 

001.h2. in "Bulletin 2009-2010" [2009-2010 Bulletin] [vsc 2010-08-28]:

 

"NT5110N Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine I [...] this course forms the basis of the clinical theory stream of courses in the ND program, which serves as a framework for practice. The course begins with an overview and the vision and ultimate goals of the ND program. The naturopathic principles are discussed at length. Major concepts such as health, holism, and vitalism [...] spirituality and its importance to life and healing, and the need for the physicians to be whole themselves, form the concluding portion of the course."

Note: vitalism, supernaturalism.

002. on 'epistemic and ontological conflation':

 

'epistemic conflation' is a term I invented some-what, I'll admit.  Perhaps it's the word 'pseudoscience' in a tuxedo.  I think it's pretty accurate.  Epistemology is the study of knowledge-type, roughly.  There is all knowledge and subsets of that group.  Within that entirety are the subsets science and nonscience, and a whole bunch of other kinds of knowledge.

 

also within knowledge is the science-ejected.  It is exceptionally absurd for naturopathy to categorically claim a context of science upon the HUGELY science-ejected.  Naturopathy is claiming two locations for the same thing, when they are mutually exclusive / different locations.  

 

in doing so, overall about the 'essentially naturopathic', naturopathyland is claiming that distinctions in knowledge-type are not possible for distinctions already PROFOUNDLY preponderant.

 

not only is science and nonscience blended / conflated i.e. 'epistemic conflation', they are then labeled the nonblended knowledge type known as science.  And that is quite irrational and absurd.  Because money changes hands, it is also a matter of false trade.

 

perhaps their horseshit words say it best: naturopathy blends yet is distinct, NDs are generalists who specialize, the profoundly / essentially science-ejected is able to survive scientific scrutiny.

ontological conflation comes into play once things are so indistinct / equated / simultaneous / irrational.

 

 with ontology the study of 'being', the 'being' / boundaries so to speak or properties of things, built from a position of epistemic conflation, then hugely blur.

i'll use ND Pizzorno as an example of the outcome of this blending / conflating / integrating mode.

in his book "Total Wellness", he tells us that one of the important systems in the body is the "life force" akin to "spirit" and overall that naturopathy is "science-based" and "natural".

how much more conflated and illogical can you be [once you know them from the inside, that is]?

vitalism and supernaturalism are science-exterior and the science-exterior is different from the science-interior, the natural and the supernatural are different, body's and spirits are usually considered different.

 

something is not equal to something it is different from.

Dr. Oz, an Honorary Bastyr Doctorate, and Their Misrepresentation of Naturopathy's 'HPN Primary Principle' - Mission Accomplished.

here, I cite from a recent print edition of Naturopathic Doctor News and Review [NDNR] regarding Dr. Mehmet Oz's apparent ignorance of naturopathy's "healing power of nature" [HPN] primary principle [see 001., below; I've added a note at the end of this post as 2011-10-09 appendage, below]; and then, I provide some transparency and non-bullshit per HPN, naturopathy, and where it sits in terms of actual science [see 002., below]:

001.a. NDNR writes in "NDNR Interview: Dr. Mehmet Oz Comments on Naturopathic Medicine and His Recent Honorary Doctorate" [NDNR, 2010-08]:

001.a1. "Dr. Mehmet Oz [MD UPSM 1986] vice chair and professor of surgery at Columbia University [and his wife...] recently received honorary doctorate degrees from Bastyr University [BU...which he calls] 'a wonderful validation [...] gratifying [...] an affirmation [...from] the minds that I admire most in alternative and progressive medicine' [...making him now] part of the professional natural medical community."

001.a2. "[NDNR] you seem to embrace the six principles of naturopathic medicine [...Oz] to understand and embrace these principles [...] like the healing power of nature [...] you don't need a huge lecture [...or honest information apparently] I tell them to simple visit a park [...] or buy a bird feeder or go for a mountain bike ride or sit in silence in a field [...] when they say they feel better, mission accomplished [yeah, that's what that premise is -- not!]."

Note: I actually can't recall recently hearing such a blatantly opaque misrepresentation. Notice how NDNR, along with Oz, does not accurately contextualize HPN, either. The actual premise of HPN will be accurately contextualized in 002. WITH BASTYR'S OWN WORDS.

001.a3. "[Dr. Oz] the first thing I want to do is thank all the naturopathic doctors for their contribution to Western medicine. The West has a long way to go [really!...] institutions like Bastyr are spectacular in presenting knowledge and research in a way that traditional medicine understands [really!...] to promote understanding [...later Oz says] what I know about natural medicine I learned from Lisa [his wife].'"

001.a4. "[Bastyr's President Church (the irony is glorious!), this] person's profession[al] or personal life exemplifies the values and supports the mission of the university [...] honoring them also honors Bastyr University [...and Oz] believed that Bastyr University [...] had done more to elevate and make credible the practice of naturopathic medicine [...] than any other single entity has he was aware of."

Note: by the way, Bastyr hosts an announcement about the awarding here. And here is Church FALSELY stating that naturopathy is science-based, in "Bastyr University - Message from the President" [vsc 2010-08-13]: 

"Bastyr University continues to champion science-based natural medicine."

001.a5. "[Oz and Bastyr seek to] bring together Western and Eastern, allopathic and naturopathic."

001.b. This is some amazing and absurd bullshit. Modern medicine is falsely labeled allopathy and Western a few times.   

Here are some of my thoughts regarding the above excerpts:

per 001.a1. Columbia University is a rather august institution; Bastyr, less so.  Obviously, Oz is happy with this honor and quite supportive of BU and what they do and Bastyr is similarly happy with this arrangement.  The question: is this progressive or regressive?  My expertise informs me that it is the latter: when thinking occurs that results in something being equated with what it is not, we're back in a kind of thinking that is earlier than juvenile.   And professional?  I don't think DECEPTION is professional [more below].

per 001.a2. Ah, those six principles [that's NCNM's non-edited version!].  Well, I'll discuss what HPN really is below.  Needless to say, what Oz describes here as HPN is completely NOT what HPN actually is.  He offers nature-appreciation / aesthetics as HPN's context, but that is is so incomplete that it is hugely wrong.

per 001.a3. I don't think modern medicine is Western or allopathic.  It's simply scientifically-centered and -minded, as opposed to prescientific superstition-centered Eastern and sectarian pseudomedical belief systems.  Our supposed West, in reverting to such archaic junk, couldn't benefit: e.g., how would chemistry benefit by reverting to concepts from alchemy, astronomy benefit from reverting to such from astrology, geography benefit from reverting to a flat-earth theory, biology benefit from reverting to Lamarkism or vitalism, and most important here, how would science benefit from reverting to a way of thinking [I'm being generous here] that doesn't care for the presence or quality of evidence when judging a claim?

Let's make it a little more personal for Dr. Oz, to emphasize his hypocrisy: how would Dr. Oz's cardiothoracic practice benefit by reverting to surgical techniques from 1880?

So, does Bastyr promote knowledge?  They don't even clearly or honestly contextualize their own principle's page HPN premise.  That's manipulative propaganda: it's as cultic as the Scientologists getting you in their church [ah-ha-ha-ha, my irony muscle is strong today] by labeling their religious practices 'a personality test'. 

And honestly, if all Dr. Oz knows about this area is from his wife, does he know much at all? Is that something to brag about?  All I know about naturopathy is from studying it for 15 years and having gone to UB's CNM for four years.  Has he read the Textbook of Natural Medicine?  You can read about naturopathy's hugely science-ejected HPN vitalistic premise there, quite easily.

per 001.a4. The essentially naturopathic is not credible, unless non-disclosure is now ethically equivalent to professions-endorsed informed-decision-making, and science and nonscience are now the same thing.  This seems to be quite a dunderheaded, mutual admiration circle-jerk.

per 001.a5.  The blending of prescientific knowledge / beliefs and modern, scientifically-derived knowledge and then it all being falsely labeled science is naturopathy's MO.  After all, it is Bastyr especially that trades on this insane expression [from their home page]:

"a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...] Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [vitalism]."

But, the science-based excludes supernaturalism and vitalism [and physiological teleology, that 'intelligent' aspect of HPN]. That's a basic fact. So, in blending science and nonscience and calling the whole thing science -- yes, for Oz and Bastyr, mission accomplished.  This phenomenon is what I've labeled "epistemic conflation" [EC]-- it's analogous to the label pseudoscience.  But whereas pseudoscience is a question of 'science or not', epistemic conflation looks at the entire spectrum of knowledge-type [e.g., from the a priori to the a posteriori].  Here's how illegitimate this EC is: it would be hugely ground-breaking in terms of modern thought if it was progressive, applicable, useful, rational, productive, world-changing; the Nobel Committee would have awarded their prizes already for this huge sea-change in epistemology.  Instead: silence from Stockholm.  And judgments of irrationality, ignorance, and insanity from many observing from the wings.

001.c. Bastyr has video up of the ceremony:

him, her [vsc 2010-08-13].

002. what HPN actually is FOR NATUROPATHY [not what Dr. O. said, at all]:

002.a. how Bastyr represents HPN, and then digging a little deeper for full-disclosure / transparency / honesty [pseudoscience!]:

002.a1. Bastyr misrepresents HPN as:

""the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae): naturopathic medicine recognizes the body's inherent ability, which is ordered and intelligent, to heal itself. Naturopathic physicians act to identify and remove obstacles to recovery, and to facilitate and augment this healing ability."

Note: and that's all you get there.

002.a2. now, here's a 2001 internal Bastyr document that clearly states that HPN is a "vital force,"  and this figmentation is QUITE different from what Oz and Bastyr [from directly above] describe HPN as:

"NM5136 - The Vis Medicatrix Naturae [...] naturopathic medicine’s core clinical principle, the vis medicatrix naturae, is shared by traditional systems of medicine throughout the world. This course explores clinical research, writings and techniques from various systems of medicine which incorporate nature’s influence on healing, the nature of the healing processes, and the vital or life force."

002.b. NDNR, at times, has been transparent [but not in this Oz article] about that central naturopathic HPN premise.  Here's ND Cage vitalizing in “Tolle Causam - Abnormal Cell Growth in Light of Naturopathic Philosophy” [Cage, A. (ND SCNM); NDNR - Feb. 2006, vol. 02 issue 02]:

“this concept of the energetic anatomical structures and the energy conducted by them is entirely harmonious with a third naturopathic principle – the vis medicatrix naturae – the healing power of nature, often referred to as the vital force […] vitalism […] the term vital force appears to be the European translation of qi or prana […] qi, prana, and the vital force […] qi  / energy [p.007].”

002.c. what science says about HPN [vitalism]:

it's not science-based, it is science-ejected.

002.d. What Bastyr falsely labels naturopathy / vitalism, still, to this day:

science-based.

003. So, overall, huge absurdity -- still. 

Is it honorable and professional to promote the absurd, and in the process annul national medical, academic and particularly science standards [and sanity] with sectarian nonsense and sectarian irrationality?  No, because it is a misrepresentation.

Thankfully that mission is unaccomplished.  But, these knowledge conflationists seem to be working really hard toward that mission [vsc 2010-08-13] and engaging in commerce under HUGELY FALSE labels [unfair business practice].

------------------------------------------------------------

2011-10-09 appendage [too good to contain!]:

So, I'd mentioned "Dr. Mehmet Oz's apparent ignorance of naturopathy's 'healing power of nature' [HPN] primary principle" above, but isn't this interesting...

Though what I've shared above doesn't seem to indicate that Dr. Oz understands HPN-VMN in any significant manner [a falsely labeled as science actually science-ejected archaic sectarian article of faith that is physiological nonsense], while he claims "to understand and embrace these principles", there is a source I recommend for a transparent explanation of naturopathy's basic context which overarches ALL THEIR PRINCIPLES [the one ring to rule them all!]:

[my scan of the book's cover]

This is Blackwell's Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Fast Facts for Medical Practice [editors Herring, M.A. (BSN IWU, MSN UH), Roberts, M.M. (MD UA)](2002; ISBN 0632045833 978-0632045839; strangely-quite-wrongly published under the "Blackwell Science" imprint) [I own this book, ocr'd 2011-10].

The book's cover states "experts in their respective fields provide current and objective information" so the physician -- yes, this is written for physicians -- "can educate yourself and your patients [...and] be ready [...] to address patient questions."

Specific to naturopathy, in his ch. 14, then Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and Health Sciences faculty member Ehrlich, S.D. (NMD SCNM) writes:

"naturopathy is a distinct system of medicine that is based on an understanding that the human organism contains a powerful healing intelligence called the 'vital force.' Naturopathic physicians, as licensed practitioners are referred to in most states, support the vital force by following the six principles of naturopathic medicine:  1. support the healing power of nature [etc....] naturopathy is unique in that it is defined by its principles rather than its modalities. A variety of interventions are used to help mobilize the vital force in patients to bring about cure [...including] nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, mind-body medicine, physical medicine, and lifestyle counseling [...and] the Eastern modalities of acupuncture and ayurveda [...] as these schools of medicine complement the vitalistic medical philosophy of naturopathy [p.091...] the symptom is merely an expression of imbalance by the vital force, which hints of underlying patterns of disharmony [...] by treating the cause, symptoms are alleviated naturally and permanently, the vital force no longer needing to express a condition of imbalance [p.092...] naturopathy has continued to evolve and integrate more conventional Western medical science with its vitalistic teachings to become the modern system of naturopathic medicine that exists today [...] fast facts for medical practice: naturopaths treat the whole person, using the healing power of nature to enliven a patient's own 'vital force' or innate healing ability [p.095]."

So, everything about naturopathy is couched in vitalism -- that hugely science-ejected archaism [Southwest too loves to claim such survives scientific scrutiny!].  But, that's not what's most interesting about this book.  Get this:

Dr. Oz wrote its Foreword!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  He seems to have forgotten its contents with respect to naturopathy.  Oz writes [my comments are in bold]:

"the information gap between patients and the modern medical practitioner continues to grow [...] we have a communication gap [...]";

Well, Dr. Oz really hasn't helped us understand naturopathy via NDNR, TRANSPARENTLY, so he's in my opinion on the wrong side as regards being informative!

"this book helps to provide a substantive foundation that physicians can bring to their discussions with patients to reestablish the precious covenant that they expect [...by way of] aggressive pursuit of the newest knowledge [...] I am optimistic that this book will facilitate this process [...]";

The irony is killing me: COULDN'T Dr. Oz have turned to ch. 14 and then explained during the NDNR interview ACTUAL NATUROPATHY and not employed 'a naturopathy as nature appreciation' ruse?  Furthermore, what are the ethics of all this?  Bastyr who-gave-him-the-degree falsely labels the naturopathic endeavor "science-based"; Dr. Oz should know better but I guess this doesn't bother him.

It's signed: "Mehmet Oz, M.D. Director of Cardiovascular Institute Associate Professor of Surgery Department of Surgery College of Physicians and Surgeons Columbia University New York, New York."

And, shamefully -- and obviously with Dr. Oz's participation, merely in the book's first chapter alone -- the misconstruction / false-labeling of modern medicine as "allopathy" or "allopathic" occurs...wait for it...

26 times. Yes, the homeopathic term "allopathy" is falsely placed upon modern medicine twenty-six times in the first chapter alone.

Also [interesting for me in that homeopathy is as committed to vitalism as naturopathy is, and naturopathy is quite committed to homeopathy, even to the extent that homeopathy is falsely labeled "science" on the North American ND / NMD licensure exam and is REQUIRED for the degree and licensure], the homeopathy chapter states:

"in homeopathic theory, symptoms are produced when the vital force, the energy maintaining life in the individual, is out of balance [p.062]."

Pizzorno Nonsense: The 'Supernatural Naturalism' of Naturopathy's Nature

here, I compare two quasi-historic book-published descriptions of the underlying principle of naturopathy [aka vis medicatrix naturae / healing power of nature / life force / spirit] from this current 'naturopathy revival' era.  One, naturalistic, comes from the Murray and Pizzorno authored "An Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine" (1991) [ENM; see 001., below]; and the other, supernatural, comes from Pizzorno's [yes, same author as 001.] “Total Wellness” (1996) [TW; see 002., below]; then, I ask a simple question [because absurdly, in naturopaTHICKland, what is naturalistic and scientific, and what is supernatural and nonscientific ARE EQUATED; see 003., below]:

001. in ENM [ISBN 1559580925, 1991][which I own],  Murray [ND Bastyr 1985] and Pizzorno [ND NCNM 1975] write:

001.a. in the dedication:

"[dedication] to the beauty, truth and wisdom [BTW] of naturopathic medicine.  This book is dedicated both to naturopathic medicine [...] and to those physicians and healers who have bestowed the virtues of the 'healing power of nature' [HPN] throughout history and those who will do so in the future."

Note: so, we have HPN, and this claim of BTW.  We will see that naturopathy's illogical actual position is ugly, untrue, and unwise: that that which is science-based is that which is science-ejected.  Many would call that madness, instead of wisdom.

001.b. in the preface:

"this book was written in an effort to update the public's knowledge on the use of ‘natural’ medicines in the maintenance of  health and treatment of disease. It dispels a common myth about the use of natural remedies - that natural medicine is 'unscientific'.  This book contains information based on firm scientific inquiry and represents countless hours of research [...and] is without question the most thoroughly researched and referenced book on the use of  natural medicines ever written for the public [...] it is designed  for use in conjunction with the services provided by physicians practicing natural medicine. Readers are strongly urged to develop a good relationship with a physician knowledgeable in the art and science of natural and preventive medicine, such as a naturopathic physician [...] Michael T. Murray ND [and] Joseph E. Pizzorno, ND."

Note: so, there's a claimed goal of 'public enlightenment' [just as naturopathy has this oath-bound requirement of 'physician as teacher'], a claim of scientific and thorough rigor, a promotion of naturopathy as science, and a use of the label natural upon 'the naturopathic.'  Now, JEP claims to be an expert on naturopathy the "science-based natural medicine", still.

001.c. in the first chapter of the book "What Is Natural Medicine?":

"[after the standard wacky quote by Edison that medicine will not medicate in the future, thus  naturopathy (which loves to dispense medicaments!)] science and medicine now have in their possession the technology and understanding necessary to appreciate the value of  'natural' therapies [...] at the forefront of this revolution is naturopathic medicine [...whose] philosophical roots can be traced back to Hippocrates [p.003...] the naturopathic physician is trained in finding the underlying cause rather than treating or suppressing the symptoms [...] naturopathic medicine [...] traces its philosophical roots to the Hippocratic school of medicine circa 400 BC [...] prehistoric people believed that disease was caused by magic or supernatural forces, such as devils or angry gods. Hippocrates, breaking with this superstitious belief, became the first naturalistic doctor in recorded history [...] Hippocratic practitioners assumed that everything in nature had a rational basis; therefore, the physician’s role was to understand and follow the laws of the intelligible universe. They viewed disease as an effect and looked for its cause in natural phenomena - air, water, food, etc. They used the term vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [VMN-HPN], to denote the body’s ability to heal itself [BATHI]. Naturopathy or 'nature cure' [...uses] natural means of preventing and treating human disease [p.004]."

Note: [so, ignoring the fact that NDs love to give out medicine, particularly from their own dispensaries, which is usually seen as quite an ethical conflict in actual healthcare] there is the overall claim that naturopathy is a form of naturalism, and that it survives scientific scrutiny.  The Big H. is appropriated to support this claim.  There is the equation of VMN-HPN-BATHI.  Explicit in this explanation is that naturopathy's VMN is naturalistic, and that such survives scientific scrutiny.

001.d. in that same first chapter, we're told of the essential vitalism of naturopathy [this is why the 1991 edition of ENM is a real keeper -- I've had one since the early 1990s, and relied on its misguidance to plan for graduate school as well as the AANP's misguidance]

"vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature. Fundamental to the practice of naturopathic medicine is a profound belief [truly] in the ability of the body to heal itself [p.006...NDs] trust in the vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature [p.012...] naturopathic medicine is 'vitalistic' in its approach, i.e. life is viewed as more than just the sum of biochemical processes [e.g., spirit is therein too], and the body is believed [truly] to have an innate intelligence [vital force] that is always striving for health. Vitalism [p.006…] a wide variety of different types of therapy can be employed by the naturopathic physician in the treatment of an individual, including nutrition, botanical medicines, homeopathy, acupuncture, physiotherapy, counseling and lifestyle modification […] homeopathy is a system of medicine that treats a disease with a dilute, potentised agent, or drug, that will produce the same symptoms as the disease when given to a healthy individual, the fundamental principle being that like cures like. This principle was actually first recognized by Hippocrates […] acupuncture is an ancient Chinese system of medicine involving the stimulation of certain specific points on the body to enhance the flow of vital energy (chi) [ p.007]."

Note: so, at the heart of naturopathy is vitalism.  And vitalism is hugely science-ejected [this is a position paper published by ACTUAL scientists in 1995, a year before the TW book that Pizzorno published in 1996 (see below)].  Homeopathy is hugely bunk, and hugely vitalistic as I was taught when pursuing my ND at UBCNM.  Take away the ancient Chinese medieval beliefs from acupuncture and you basically have a weak parlor trick.  And again, we see naturopathy hijacking the Big H.

001.e. in that same chapter, we're told regarding naturopathic education:

"the first two years concentrate on the standard human biological sciences covering anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, microbiology, etc. The second two years are oriented towards the clinical sciences of diagnosis and treatment […] the therapeutic sciences [p.011]."

Note: science, science, science.  Except, those sciences are not standard at all because permitted within them -- overall, because overarching naturopathy overall, by oath -- is the nonscientific sectarian.

002. JEP writes in TW (ISBN 0761504338, 1996)(also here)[vsc 2010-06-01]:

"some important concepts: the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae. Our bodies have a tremendous ability to heal […] natural healers refer to this inherent drive as 'the healing power of nature' or the vis medicatrix naturae [p.003…] seven underlying, health-sustaining systems of our body must function effectively to ensure our well-being, prevent disease, and allow a full life: the immune system, the detoxification system, the inflammatory system, the metabolic system, the regulatory system, the regeneration system, and our life-force or spirit [p.024...] live in harmony with your life-force […] each of us needs to become more aware of the activity of the vis medicatrix naturae (life-force) deep within us [p.026...] the life-force within each of us, which naturopathic physicians call the vis medicatrix naturae […] this teleological force, the healer within, that is the essence of each of us [p.333]."

Note: so, now VMN is spirit, which is life force, which is the underlying healing model for naturopathy, and it's purposeful, which means it has a mind of its own.  And, now we're truly into the absurd: wherein, that which was claimed to be scientific and naturalistic is now science-ejected, supernatural and sectarian.  This is naturopathic thinking at its core: an insane 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience'.

003. so:

when is something what it is not?  The absurdity known as 'the naturopathic.'  Naturopathy wishes to be both scientifically vetted and trades upon that label, but underneath that holds on to sectarian idealizations / contexts which are profoundly science-ejected -- mainly secretly.

How?  By half-the-time engaging in opaque labelings / falsehoods.  Not professional at all.

CAND NDs Falsely Claim the Ethical High Ground: BCNA Accuses BCMA of Deception 2009:

here, I cite an accusation by the British Columbia Naturopathic Association [BCNA] that the British Columbia Medical Association [BCMA] is being deceptive when describing naturopathy's scientific basis [see 001. & 002., below]; yet, if you look at what is 'essentially naturopathic' -- their vitalism, supernaturalism, autoentheism & kind -- you find that such 'articles of faith' are well-without scientific support [see 003.a.-003.c., below]; also, I offer a diagnosis of naturopathy's 'knowledge typification retardedness' -- what I've termed 'epistemic conflation' [see 003.d., below]; and, regarding the actual ethical high ground, I take a look at a statement concerning why it is improper to label naturopathy a "profession" [see 004., below]:

001. the BCNA's homepage states {2009-03-09}:

"the BC Medical Association: misinformed [i.], and spreading deceptive [ii.] and disingenuous [iii.] comment not in the interest of patient care."

Note: some definitions [courtesy of the AHD 4th ed.]: i. "to provide with incorrect information"; ii. "the use of deceit [falseness]"; iii. "not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating." So, BCNA says that BCMA is basically being misleading, false, and acting in bad-faith.

002. BCNA then links to this pdf which states:

"[in spite of the BCMA's contention] there is no 'ND biology' or science education that is any different than the science education MDs receive [...& quoting Pelletier, NDs have] 'solid grounding in biomedical sciences' [...naturopathy is a] profession [also, BCNA's Cassie states naturopathy & its principles are "science based" here {yes, they've spelled naturopathy wrong in that web address}]."

Note: specifically, BCNA is accusing BCMA of lying about naturopathy's scientific foundation. BCNA is stating that naturopathy is scientific, and that their science is in fact mainstream science. Also, BCNA is stating that they live up the ethical strictures of the professions. I beg to hugely differ: it is naturopathy that is in fact not scientific, essentially [they have unlimited the boundaries of science to include, absurdly: the science-ejected, the science-unsupported, and the unscienceable!!!], and it is in fact naturopathy that is engaging in deceit, incorrect information, and bad-faith [see 003., below].

003. naturopathy's nonscientific essential principles:

003.a. vitalism:

naturopathy is essentially vitalistic.

Note: vitalism is in fact hugely nonscientific.

003.b. supernaturalism:

here are some examples.

Note: supernaturalism is in fact hugely unscienceable.

003.c. autoentheism [the belief that the "life force" within oneself is god; self-divinity & kind]:

see my notes from ND school.

Note: as a supernaturalism / theism of a particular stripe, this sectarian premise is also hugely unscienceable.

003.d. overall, naturopathy's 'epistemic pathology' is this retardation [science has progressed, they developmentally haven't!]:

***the conflation of the scientific and the nonscientific then all labeled scientific aka epistemic conflation.

Note 01: now, BCNA lists naturopathy's principles on the Cassie page I cited above, stating after them "embracing these tenets [003.a. particularly], on a science-based platform." The primary principle, "vis medicatrix naturae" [003.a.] isn't even honestly described on this page as being the actual 'purposeful life spirit / god power within you' woo that it actually is! So, therein, it is BCNA that can be best described as misleading, false, and acting in bad-faith. Naturopathy does not accurately describe themselves, they falsely label themselves, and then they have the nerve to posture from an supposedly ethically righteous position.

Note 02: as a result, naturopathy's self-labeling of "science" is really meaningless, because for naturopathy, science is no longer science at all. This seems like thought from 1000 years ago, when any kind of knowledge could have been labeled science [the Latin 'to know' -- the NDs don't seem to acknowledge that science isn't just a stick-on label that can be applied to any kind of knowledge]. But, truly, an article of faith isn't even processable through science, and naturopathy's ultimate claim that an article of faith is the same thing as the science-based is hugely science-illiterate.

004. the strictures of the professions. Ironically, the university that ripped me off -- I was a UB ND student 1998-2002 -- has a current faculty member who recently coauthored a very useful paper concerning the professions and sectarian medicine:

"the professions, which classically included medicine, law and the ministry, are vocations whose members 'profess' to have knowledge that the laity do not comprehend. Given the asymmetry of knowledge between professionals and the laity, society has granted to the professions a certain degree of autonomous control over themselves. However, this social contract demands that each profession, and each professional, place the well-being of society and the patient, client or parishioner ahead of the profession and professional [fiduciary duty]. Lay persons put their faith in the professional following the dictum credat emptor (let the buyer have faith) rather than caveat emptor (let the buyer beware). This social contract imparts great freedom on all professions, but with this freedom comes great responsibility. When an individual consults a member of any of the medical professions, it is reasonably expected that the advice and treatment that he or she receives is based in science, not metaphysics or pseudoscience. In addition, it is reasonably expected that the services he or she receives are being provided for the primary purpose of benefiting the patient, and not for any other reason. The financial benefit to the professional is secondary, and results from the degree of clinical benefit received by the patient. Patients place their faith in the professional, and trust that they will not be subject to fraud, abuse or quackery."

Note: self-labeled science but essentially HUGELY not science, naturopathy doesn't even meet the legal standards of regular commerce per 'caveat emptor' -- you do not get what they claim they are selling [as a patient, as a person going to one of their schools etc.]. Therein, it is absurd to call this fraudulent area 'professional'.

Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism Premise - Gabriel, N. (ND Bastyr 2000) et al. (ISBN 0977655245; 2008):

this 2008 "integrative medicine" career [mis]guide informs us of 'the essential vitalistic spiritistic belief premise" of 'modern' AANP-CAND-FNPLA naturopathy [a sectarian medical system; see 001., below] -- a premise which is profoundly science-ejected [see 002., below] WHILE naturopathy labels itself 'firmly scientific' [see 003., below] and 'not a belief system' [see 004., below] {welcome to the naturopathic ABSURD!!!}:

001. Gabriel, N. (ND Bastyr 2000), Wengell, D. (MBA Emory) state in "Educational Opportunities in Integrative Medicine: The A-to-Z Healing Arts Guide and Professional Resource Directory" (ISBN 0977655245; 2008):

"Chapter 8: Naturopathic Medicine (ND) [...sidebar] naturopathic medicine is an integrative and vitalistic medical system [...main entry] naturopathic medicine is defined as much by its holistic principles as by its techniques. There are seven principles of modern naturopathy [...#2] respect the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae). There is an innate healing force within all life that is always attempting to prevent and / or heal every possible illness [...] so long as this 'life force' flows in a balanced, unimpeded way. Naturopaths help their patients to optimize this innate force [...] most medical systems in place before the rise of modern western medicine [...] were 'vitalistic' in nature, meaning that a spiritual 'vital force' or 'life force' was believed to be both the source of existence and the essential healing force for every person. Ayurveda's 'prana,' Chinese medicine's 'chi,' and Hippocrates' 'humours' are all versions of the vital force [p.120...] naturopathic medicine is an integrative and vitalistic medical system [p.122...per a belief in] life force [p.124]."

Note: the book's title suggests its contents are 'of the professions'! And we are told by the authors, overall, as concerns this particular concept of bioagency -- naturopathy's supernaturalization of healing, aka vitalism:

"belief in this spiritual healing power is termed 'vitalism' [p.016...a putative power which is] unquantifiable in a scientific paradigm [p.175...e.g.: naturopathy's requisite homeopathy is] vitalistic, energetic, invisible, panacea-like, instantaneous, life force manipulating, and inexpensive [p.197]."

So, naturopathy is, make no mistake about it, a belief-centered spirit-manipulating system [shamanistic etc.; or as I'd said when deposed, a "cultic mystical weirdness"].

Also note: the homeopathy that is described above is considered a clinical science by FNPLA naturopathy.

002. keep in mind, as regards vitalism, it is profoundly science-ejected.

003. while, as regards naturopathic self-labeling, these health sectarians insist that they are science-based and this book states, as regards Bastyr University -- THE AUTHOR'S ALMA MATER -- who has already stated in the book that naturopathy is based upon vitalism & supernaturalism beliefs:

"Bastyr University was founded with the intent that science would be a cornerstone of naturopathy not merely a supporting figure [p.121...that Bastyr's context is ] science-based [p.048]."

004. for an AANP et al. 1997 document that absurdly simultaneously states that they are scientific and not a belief system [while essentially of the 'nonscientific science-ejected'], see this per:

"naturopathic physicians are the modern day science-based primary care doctors [...this] is not a belief system."

Note: for similar educational career misguidance from Bastyr directly, wherein they state that they are simultaneously scientific, supernatural and vitalistic [a logical impossibility] see this per:

"Bastyr at a glance [...] Bastyr University [...has] a multidisciplinary curriculum in science-based natural medicine [...per] the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature [shorthand for their vitalism context and 'science-nullifying' 'knowledge-type nullifying' epistemic conflation!...aka, this is] natural medicine."

005. judgment:

"danger, Will Robinson, 'unethical sectarian pseudoscience!!!'"