I can't say I didn't expect skepticism. =-] I did not however expect the tone to be nasty. Oh well, it is a sign of the times. Nastiness is normal on the internet, and in a world where political divisiveness sets the tone for much other discourse. I find myself put upon on all sides because the woo people think I'm an ass for being skeptic, and the skeptics think I'm an idiot because I sat through a naturopathic education which included a bunch of stuff that I don't believe and have no intention of practicing. You may label me a potential quack, and you may prove yourselves more than potential dicks.
What binds all naturopaths together is a philosophy, no more and no less. Here I have written some about the six basic tenets of naturopathic philosophy, and you can easily enough see where I land. http://www.fundamentalmed.com/tenets-of-naturopathy.html
You can assume that you know what I believe based on a degree that I hold, but you would be foolish to do so. I do not believe that "life" is a vitalistic, that is to say an immaterial or spiritual thing. To me life is a composite of biochemical and electrical processes, some of which we understand, many of which we have precious little information about. We take a stab at understanding things by way of scientific correlations, and clues as to mechanisms. That does not mean that we fully understand it. Conventional medicine is based on no more that this, and many conventional practices are based on the convenience of the medical provider, and not on firm evidence regarding true efficacy. Medicine and the science of medicine is biased by the money. It is not easy or obvious to discern what is real. It is my life work.
As for exactly which treatments are effective for which conditions in which situations: this is the nitty gritty of medicine, and I am not going to give you an education in everything that I know and study. It is my project to understand what the conventional treatment is and how effective it is, and also to get a grip on alternative options and the evidence surrounding them. Evidence goes both ways, and no one study is proof of anything. Science is a process by which we continually challenge what we think we know and attempt to verify or dismiss theories. You can write me off, or you can consider that there could possibly be a person who is reasonable and educated who seeks the truth and also has the letters ND after her name. That is entirely up to you.
My motivation is simply to put myself and my position out here in hopes of learning something, or perhaps sharing something of value. If all I get is pitched with a bunch of dirty bathwater, well, your loss. And my waste of time.
Then you should leave the group. We operate on critical thinking and objective evidence. If that appears nasty to you, "Here's your hat, the exit is staight ahead."