001.a. promises, on their web homepage (archived here):
001.b1. defines naturopathy in "Naturopathic Medicine" as science:
Note: so, naturopathy with its IATHI-HPN, is claimed to be explicitely science. Notice that naturopathy is labeled "scientific" "science", which is a claim of being very VERY scientific indeed.
001.b.2. defines naturopathy's key principles in "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" including:
003.a. NDs Murray, Pizzorno, & Bradley and PhDs Levin, Bland, & Schmidt graciously clarify naturopathy's HPN context per "The Textbook of Natural Medicine" (ISBN 0443059454, 1999 - 2nd ed.):
003.b. yet [me don't thinks so!], the National Association of Biology Teachers at the National Center For Science Education states in "National Association of Biology Teachers Scientific Integrity Statement" regarding the nonscientific status of vitalism:
Note: hmm, naturopathy's vitalism is essentially science-ejected. INM didn't tell us this actuality, either -- in order for us to make an 'informed choice'. INM said naturopathy is evidence-based and scientific. Ain't -- and our choices regarding naturopathy would be based upon falsehood, therein.