“As I said long ago Naturopathy may be defined as an incoherent aggregation of disrelated, antagonistic and mutually exclusive theories, hypotheses, principles, methods, systems, practices, machines, apparatuses and drugs. In short, it is a strange mixture of all non-allopathic methods of treating the sick; without a single coordinating principle running throughout. It does not differ in its principles of application from the allopathic system but is a treatment of symptoms by many methods, many systems, a case of where one fails try another.“
— Herbert M. Shelton
Naturopathy: A Case of Where One Fails, Try Another?
In his stark critique of naturopathy, Herbert M. Shelton — the pioneering voice behind Natural Hygiene — once wrote that “Naturopathy may be defined as an incoherent aggregation of disrelated, antagonistic and mutually exclusive theories…” This powerful observation challenges not only the structure of naturopathy but also its guiding philosophy — or rather, the lack of one.
A Patchwork of Conflicting Systems
Naturopathy, in its modern form, often appears as a buffet of health modalities — homeopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, hydrotherapy, supplements, detox machines, and more. While each method may claim legitimacy on its own, Shelton pointed out that lumping them together without a unifying principle creates confusion rather than clarity. The field, he said, is a “strange mixture of all non-allopathic methods of treating the sick; without a single coordinating principle running throughout.”
This means that although naturopathy positions itself as an alternative to conventional medicine, it mirrors its core flaw: symptom treatment over root cause understanding.
A Reactionary Approach
Much like allopathy (mainstream medicine), naturopathy tends to focus on treating what goes wrong, rather than asking why it went wrong in the first place. Whether it’s prescribing an herb for anxiety, a machine for detox, or a supplement for fatigue, the principle remains the same: find a remedy and apply it to the symptom. Shelton described it succinctly as “a case of where one fails, try another.”
This trial-and-error approach often keeps individuals hopping from one therapy to the next, chasing relief rather than achieving true health.
What’s Missing: A Coordinating Principle
Shelton and other advocates of Natural Hygiene offered something different — a system grounded in biological laws, simplicity, and self-healing. Rather than reaching for external aids, Natural Hygiene focuses on the body’s innate intelligence and its power to restore itself when given the right conditions: clean air, pure water, appropriate food, sunlight, rest, emotional poise, and meaningful connection.
Where naturopathy may dabble in various techniques, Natural Hygiene stands on one foundational truth: health is the natural state of the body, and disease is a result of violating natural law.
The Danger of Mixing Philosophies
By incorporating bits of science, folklore, commercial supplements, and modern gadgets, naturopathy can easily lose coherence. The danger lies not just in confusion but in leading people further away from understanding how health truly works. A method may seem “natural” in contrast to pharmaceuticals, but that doesn’t mean it supports the body’s inherent design.
Herbert Shelton’s critique isn’t just a dismissal — it’s a call for deeper clarity. For health seekers and practitioners alike, his words urge us to move beyond eclectic symptom-chasing and instead align with a rational, unified understanding of life and healing.
Shelton’s reflection remains highly relevant today. As the wellness industry grows increasingly crowded with conflicting advice and miracle cures, the need for a grounded, principle-based approach is more vital than ever. True healing isn’t about finding the right therapy; it’s about removing the cause and allowing the body to do what it was always designed to do — heal.