The only thing I would add to CM is information about my degree as a naturopathic doctor (ND).
The current heterodoxy in medicine may appear foreign to someone who is used to relating to all things medicinal in terms of medical doctors (MD). Perhaps it is easier to visualize the place of ND's if one considers the case of osteopathic doctors (DO) or chiropractic doctors (DC). Basically all are recognized healing arts within the framework of primary health care. By this I mean that these degrees convey the responsibility to diagnose and treat disease, which is different from all others. They each are licensed separately and have different schooling. Naturopaths typically emphasize dietary and herbal treatments of predominantly non-toxic nature, the emphasis being to stimulate the patient's own recuperative mechanisms. The profession is experiencing a period of sustained growth and increasing public and institutional acceptance.
Unlike DO's and MD's, ND's are only licensed in eleven or twelve states. The unregulated states can feature a variety of individuals who bill themselves as ND's but could never qualify for licensure. This is a result of the long archaic period the profession experienced between the years 1910-1970.
In 1982 I graduated from Bastyr College (now University) a regionally and nationally accredited education of higher learning. I have sat for the boards in British Columbia, Washington, Arizona, Connecticut and Ontario and have licenses in each. I practice in Connecticut, where we are required to carry conventional malpractice insurance, take continuing education, etc.
Acceptance or rejection of the blood type hypothesis seems to fall across otherwise seemingly inviolate boundaries. For example, it has opponents in the naturopathic community and adherents in the conventional ranks. This is probably due to the sheer breadth of the book's concept.