Homeopathy - WHO Says No to Such "Dangerous Quackery", UB Naturopathy Says Yes:

here, I look at two positions which are quite at odds regarding homeopathy -- a mandatory ND subject area for the degree, labeled a "clinical science" on their NPLEX licensing exam -- that of a proponent of scientific medicine [see 001., below], and that of an ND degree granting CT institution that falsely labels the profoundly nonscientific as science (specifically naturopathy and its 'essentially naturopathic' contents, such as homeopathy) [see 002., below]:

001. at Neurologica, Dr. Stephen Novella states in "WHO Says No to Homeopathy" (2009-08-21):

"the World Health Organization [WHO], which does not have a good track record when it comes to pseudoscience in medicine (being too much of a political organization), has recently made a number of statements against the use of homeopathy [...] this is good news, as homeopathy is dangerous quackery."

Note: Dr. N. further describes homeopathy as:

a) "a pre-scientific philosophy that it is based entirely on magical thinking and is out of step with the last 200 years of science";

b) "literally nothing but pure magical thinking";

and Dr. N. states:

c) "[homeopaths] want to re-frame the conflict between scientific medicine and homeopathy so that it is not about science (since they have already lost the scientific war) but about culture, politics, and ideology [...] homeopaths are much better at that than scientists who are dedicated to honesty and transparency."

002. but, according to the naturopathy establishment, e.g. the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM] even though homeopathy is a "pre-scientific [...] dangerous quackery [...] based entirely on magical thinking":

002.a. it is required within an ND degree and labeled "medicine";

002.b. and, since within UB's label of naturopathy as science overall, homeopathy is labeled therein science;

Note: so, when is a supposed "medical science" actually not science at all but instead junk falsely labeled science?

Yes, naturopathy.

Explaining Without Explaining: Naturopathy's CODED Central Premise Via Lane, K. (NMD SCNM):

here, I show a typical ND / NMD ruse -- via Kiera Lane NMD -- presenting in naturalistic language [see 001., below] an actually sectarian science-ejected premise [see 002., below]:

001. Kiera Lane, an NMD graduate of Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine [SCNM] states in "Philosophy":

"what are the [essential] principles of naturopathic medicine? 1. Healing power of nature [HPN]: naturopathic physicians utilize the healing power of nature to facilitate the body’s own healing process. Their role is to facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and wellness."

Note: and that's all you are told. Can you make an informed decision based on this? No, and I'll tell you why not [you have to know what they are coding in order to understand that they are masking their sectarian science-ejected central premise].

002. the actual context of HPN, via that "Dr.'s" alma mater, SCNM:

002.a. SCNM states in "Is Alternative Medicine For You?":

"the healing power of nature [...] first described in western medicine by Hippocrates, the vis medicatrix naturae, is also referred to as chi in Chinese medicine, prana in ayurveda, and vital force in homeopathy. When alive, the vis medicatrix naturae enables humans and other living beings to resist entropy and decay, unlike inanimate objects that are subject to these effects. Creating treatment plans that harness the healing power of nature [...] the essence of naturopathic medicine."

Note: this is vitalism, essentially.

002.b. and, vitalism is hugely science-ejected.

003. would you know that from the "Dr.'s" web page? No. And, being that the "Dr." describes herself as a "medical director", isn't medicine ETHICALLY obligated to the INTEGRITY of its scientific knowledge and not misleading its patients?

Note: fascinating. I got thousands more ND sites like this.

Life U.'s Vitalism Woo Per D.C. & Dr. Hall on Science Per S.I.:

here, I quote from a recent Dynamic Chiropractic article by the President of Life University that describes chiropractic's vitalism [see 001., below]; and, then a recent Skeptical Inquirer article by Dr. Harriet Hall that offers some advice regarding skeptics' engagement with such woo [see 002. & 003., below]:

001.a. Life U. President Riekeman states in "Vitalism Key to Contemporary Health Care Policy" (Dynamic Chiropractic; vol. 27, no. 17):

"vitalism [...] the idea of a spirit that animates and operates the body [...a.k.a.] biological vitalism [...a.k.a.] the body as a self-regulating system [...this] inherent self-maintaining, self organizing and self-healing ability of the body [...a.k.a.] vis medicatrix naturae [...is] the new vitalism [...] a truly vitalistic approach to national health care [is needed...per a] chiropractic approach to health [...] 'vitalism is a good paradigm' [...] vitalism provides the right framework through which chiropractic can provide a truly meaningful contribution [...our] vitalistic wellness philosophy [...] our vitalistic philosophy [...] our vitalistic approach to health."

Note: Life U. defines itself as vitalistic. It is also steeped in subluxation theory. Subluxation theory is not scientifically supported. Upon reflection, vitalism is an archaic superstition. Overall, vitalism and subluxation theory are as scientific as the Tooth Fairy, and she ain't a solution for any kind of dental problem in the same way vitalism and subluxation theory aren't gonna solve real-world health care issues.

Particularly in terms of this blog's mission to discuss naturopathy mainly, a spirit running the body -- vitalism -- is an article of faith / supernaturalism / sectarianism, and such implausible suspensions of the laws of nature do not have scientific support. It is a HUGE logical error to claim that such a sectarian belief is the same thing as the ability of the body to heal and regulate itself, because biology-physiology is scientific and naturalistic and vitalism is the opposite. That is simply a fact. The new vitalism is just old sectarian wine relabeled in vagarity.

001.b. the Life Source Octagon think tank states in "Vis Medicatrix Naturae":

"Vis Medicatrix Naturae [...is] a historic set of presentations and discussions on the new vitalism. Representatives of chiropractic, naturopathy [I'm fascinated by naturopathy's essential vitalism], Asian medicine, ayurveda medicine and homeopathy will discuss vitalism [...e.g. per naturopathy] Vitalistic Philosophy - Naturopathy. Joseph Pizzorno, ND. Past President, Bastyr University and author of Textbook of Natural Medicine [TNM]."

Note: the chapter on vitalism in the TNM is most amusing. One of my favorite errors is the very wrong claim that life defies thermodynamic law. Vis medicatrix naturae is, of course, HUGELY naturopathy's vitalistic premise. I guess chiro. is getting tired of Innate.

002. Dr. Hall states in "Playing by the Rules" (Skeptical Inquirer; 2009-05/06):

"[advice] it is useless for skeptics to argue with someone who doesn’t play by the rules of science and reason. If no amount of evidence will change your opponent’s mind, you are wasting your breath [I so much agree...] science has been a very successful self-correcting group endeavor. It wouldn’t be successful if it didn’t follow a strict set of rules designed to avoid errors [...] if proponents of intelligent design or alternative medicine [like naturopathy,chiropractic, homeopathy] want to play the science game, they ought to play by the rules. If they won’t play by the rules, they effectively take themselves out of the scientific arena and into the metaphysical arena. In that case, it is useless for us to talk to them about science."

Note: regarding vitalism, remember that Bechtel and Richardson state that today vitalism "is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine [...and according to Keating in that same article] 'chiropractors are not unique in recognizing a tendency and capacity for self-repair and auto-regulation of human physiology. But we surely stick out like a sore thumb among professions which claim to be scientifically based by our unrelenting commitment to vitalism ['the how that happens' explanation for that self-repair / auto-regulation]. So long as we propound the 'one cause, one cure' rhetoric of Innate, we should expect to be met by ridicule from the wider health science community. Chiropractors can’t have it both ways [nor can NDs!]. Our theories cannot be both dogmatically held vitalistic constructs and be scientific at the same time. The purposiveness, consciousness and rigidity of the Palmers' Innate [naturo. has this as well, as purposeful & intelligent 'vital force'] should be rejected' [hear, hear...and quoting Williams] 'today, vitalism is one of the ideas that form the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems [naturopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy & kind] that claim that illnesses are caused by a disturbance or imbalance of the body's vital force'".

003. what sCAM woomeisters have failed to do according to Dr. Hall, and some advice:

"there’s no point in arguing scientific facts with someone whose worldview is metaphysical [e.g. vitalistic] and nonscientific [e.g. supernaturalistic...] if they won’t play the science game by the rules, we are justified in crying 'foul' and disqualifying them [...] wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a homeopath [or a chiropractor or a naturopath] say, 'I believe homeopathy [or naturopathy or chiropractic] works based on my personal experience and on nonscientific evidence like testimonials, and I categorically reject the results of any scientific trial that fails to support my beliefs' [a.k.a. 'I'm a health sectarian'...] if they'd say that up front, we wouldn't waste any of our valuable time rehashing scientific evidence [or lack thereof] that they will just ignore. They would be out of the game, permanently. And patients would have a better basis for giving truly informed consent."

Note: yup.

AANP's Science Label Upon 'Naturopathy the Nonscience' - Snailmail Booklet 2009, Mail Fraud [USPIS]:

here, I detail the absurd claim by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP] that, overall, naturopathic medicine / naturopathy is science [see 001., below]; I point out that they are coding their essential vitalism in this booklet [see 002., below]; and that such vitalism is actually hugely science-ejected [see 003., below]; and, amidst all this pseudoscience opacity, I wonder about mail fraud and further ramifications [see 004., below]:

001. the AANP states in the paper-based booklet "Naturopathic Medicine: Primary Care for the 21 Century":

"naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles that underlie and determine its practice. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances [...] students of naturopathic medicine learn the medical sciences as a foundation [...] the first two years of ND training concentrate on the basic biomedical sciences [p.007...] the second two years integrate the basic biomedical sciences with the clinical sciences [p.008...] a growing body of scientific research supports the efficacy and safety of various herbs for preventing and treating many health conditions [p.009...] a growing body of scientific literature points to the interrelationship of the mind, body and spirit [...per] a holistic approach [p.009...] naturopathic medicine addresses the need to hold its physicians and organizations accountable to the public for safety and efficacy through a variety of well-accepted mechanisms that are common to all the regulated healthcare professions [...] Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examination (NPLEX) [...] NPLEX prepares a series of sixteen examinations (five basic sciences and eleven clinical sciences) [...] the NPLEX Part 1 - Basic Science Examinations (BSE) are comparible to the basic science examinations in other health care professions [...] the NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Examinations (CSE) [...] the NPLEX Part II - Clinical Science Add-on Examinations [...include] homeopathy [p.011...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [...] the naturopathic medical colleges and professional organizations are committed to scientific evaluation of the medicine [p.013]."

Note: their is an overarching claim to being HUGELY science, scientific, medical science, basic biomedical science, and clinical science -- and of the professions in ethicality.

002. coded science-ejected vitalism. Nowhere in this document are we informed that naturopathy is indeed vitalistic / based on vitalism. NOWHERE [pseudoscience opacity]. Instead, we're told:

"six powerful concepts provide the foundation that defines naturopathic medicine [...#1] the healing power of nature: trust the body's inherent wisdom to heal itself [p.008...] homeopathy [{which shows up in this document at least 16 times}...] stimulates the body's own natural healing forces for recovery [p.009...plus we get some supernaturalism in] treat the whole person: view the body as an integrated whole in all its physical and spiritual dimensions [p.008]."

Note: since when does a supposed profession not disclose its essential context? How is one to have 'informed consent' type rights when the supposed profession is not coming clean with the public?

003. vitalism is hugely science-ejected, and so is supernaturalism.

oo4. regarding mail fraud:

004.a. Wikipedia states in "Mail Fraud":

"mail fraud is an offense under US federal law, which refers to any scheme which attempts to unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offense. Mail fraud is covered by Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 63."

004.b. the United States Postal Inspection Service states in "Mail Fraud Compliant":

"the form below allows you to send a complaint to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service if you suspect you are a victim of mail fraud [...] the Postal Inspection Service [...] can act against a company or individual if there is a pattern of activity suggesting a potential scheme to defraud. Completion of this form is voluntary, but the more information that you enter, the better the Postal Inspection Service may be able to help [...] we may share the information you provide with other agencies when a possible violation concerns their jurisdiction [...] you may also go to the Federal Trade Commission site for more information."

Note: I bought this brochure from AANP for about $18 and it was sent to me by U.S. Mail from Washington, D.C. I got falsehood: a claim of science upon what is not science. Now, imagine if I engaged with naturopathy as an education consumer, and ended up with six-digit student loan debt due to such pseudoscience opacity! [Hey, that's me].

This document states: "the naturopathic profession calls upon state and federal healthcare policymakers and regulators."

PAC-wise, naturopathy has been HUGELY successful.

Look at Oregon.gov's OBNE: complete naturopathic nonsense stated as able to survive scientific scrutiny -- legislated, with a .gov endorsement -- all the while claiming to protect the public.

Hugely professional.

Ardolf & Kruzel - Naturopaths Advocating Pediatric Homeopathic Immunization [I Kid You Not]:

here, I share with you two NDs' ALARMING claim that homeopathy is a viable choice in lieu of conventional vaccination against -- and for treatment of -- infectious diseases in children, and I detail their protocol [see 001., below]; then, I cover some of the basic statements common to ND sites including their claim that homeopathy is effective for pandemics [see 002., below], that naturopathy has a "scientific basis" [see 003., below], that homeopathy treats a wide variety of illnesses and emergency situations [see 004., below], that naturopathy is better than conventional pediatric care [see 005., below], and that naturopathy's essential principles survive scientific scrutiny [see 006., below], and their explicit verbiage concerning the science-ejected vitalism that is essential to naturopathy [see 007., below]:

001. NDs Ardolf, D.A. (SCNM ) and Kruzel, T.A. (NCNM) state:

001.a. in "Natural Remedies":

"homeopathic immunization schedule – as more and more parents are opting out of conventional immunizations because of the increased risk of an adverse reaction and the large number administered, having a viable and effective alternative is better than not immunizing at all. This schedule lists all of the available homeopathic nosodes but not all are administered. Parents wishing homeopathic immunizations [!!!] are given a reading list prior to starting the program so that they can make an informed decision. Immunizations by this method may also be done with children who have already received some conventional vaccines."

Note: since homeopathy does not invoke any scientifically supported immune response, it is quite false to claim that this treatment of NOTHING in an immunization. To be immunized is to be protected. NOTHING is not protective / prophylactic.

001.b. in "Homeopathic Immunization Schedule":

"disease, [homeopathic] immunization [respectively]: diptheria [therefore homeopathic] diptherinum; pertussis [therefore homeopathic] pertussin; polio [therefore homeopathic] Lathyrus sativa rubella [therefore homeopathic] rubeola [etc....but it gets even worse] anthrax [therefore homeopathic] anthrocyanum [...] botulism [therefore homeopathic] botulinum [...] rabies [therefore homeopathic] Lyssin [...] syphilis [therefore homeopathic] Syphilinum [...] protocol: 1. begin at age 6 months [...] 2. administer the remedy 1X per day for 2 days, then wait an additional 5 days before administering the next nosode [...] 3. during the administration of the homeopathic vaccinations, supplement with extra vitamin C and thymus extract. 4. Repeat the series each year at the same time until the child is 12 years old. 5. If the child is exposed to one of the diseases, administer a dose of the corresponding nosode to re-stimulate the immune system. Additional homeopathic medicines may also be utilized following exposure."

Note: this is quite scary stuff, indeed.

002. Kruzel also informs us that homeopathy is effective for swine flu in "Swine Flu: Natural Medicine Approaches to a Possible Pandemic", stating:

"natural medicines have had an excellent track record in the treatment of influenza in general, but also pandemic outbreaks in particular, such as the influenza pandemic of 1918, which was responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people worldwide. The most successful treatments during this outbreak were homeopathic and herbal medicine therapies."

003. in Services, apparently both NDs inform us of:

"the art and scientific basis of natural medicine [...which is a] profession."

004. in "Homeopathy"apparently both NDs inform us that:

"homeopathic medicines can be used to treat a wide variety of illnesses and works well with other therapies to affect healing. Many of our patients have experienced lasting changes from homeopathy, allowing them to discontinue use of prescription medications [...] many of our patients have home remedy kits in order to treat every day routine medical emergencies."

005. in "Pediatric Medicine"apparently both NDs inform us that:

"many naturally derived medicines are available to treat the numerous childhood illnesses encountered, often working faster and better than conventional drug therapy. Naturopathic physicians are trained to recognize childhood illnesses and provide the best natural therapy available."

006. in "Frequently Asked Questions"apparently both NDs state:

"what is naturopathic medicine? [It's] founded upon a holistic philosophy [...] naturopathic medicine is appropriate for the management of a broad range of health conditions affecting all people of all ages [...] 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."

Note: that 'we survive scientific scrutiny' claim.

007. it should be noted that in "Naturopathic Philosophy", naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism is described:

"naturopathic medicine is built upon a number of principles. The first is vis medicatrix naturae which means the healing power of nature or the vital force as the driving impetus behind healing disease. This concept is derived from the vitalist tradition of medicine [...] modern naturopathic medicine has continued the tradition of evaluating therapeutic modalities which aid the vital force and the healing power of nature."

Note: vitalism is completely science-ejected. So, naturopathy is in the completely absurd position of claiming that within science is nonscience.

The Center For Consumer Freedom - On Naturopathy's Science-Rejected Status:

The Center For Consumer Freedom states in "The Naturopathy Movement":

"naturopathy refers to a doctrine of 'natural medicine' that teaches that the body’s 'vital force' is the most important factor in healing and maintaining health. The approach has been criticized as largely pseudo-scientific, relying on dogma rather than data [bravo...] in other words, naturopathy has a lengthy history of being rejected by the scientific community."

Note: visit the whole article for more. It quotes prime skeptical sources. I don't know much about CFCF, but there's a Wikipedia article that may shed some light.

MMS - Naturopathy A "Large Assortment of Erroneous & Potentially Dangerous Claims":

here, I quote from a Boston Herald article regarding a current naturopathic licensing push, and what the Massachusetts Medical Society had to say [see 001., below]; then, I detail naturopathy's typical absurdity [see 002. & 003., below]:

001. the Boston Herald reports in "Doctors Slam Midwife, Naturopath Bills" {2009-08-04; McConville, C. (? ?)}:

"Massachusetts legislators are considering bills that would establish separate boards [...including one for] naturopaths [...] the Massachusetts Medical Society [MMS] is taking aim [...because it isn't] good medicine [...they're] fighting efforts to make naturopaths licensed health-care providers in Massachusetts. Naturopathic medicine is a small, but growing, form of holistic health care [...] naturopaths say bills currently before the House and Senate would require that all naturopathic practitioners in Massachusetts be held to the highest standards of education and training [...] the medical society denounced the move, calling the practice of naturopathy a 'large assortment of erroneous and potentially dangerous claims [hear, hear!] mixed with a sprinkling of non-controversial dietary and lifestyle advice.'"

Note: the fact is that there aren't high standards at the supposedly highest of standards naturopathic colleges [I know, I went to such a school], the AANMC schools of the AANP and FNPLA [see 003., below].

002. naturopathy's definition of "holistic" with their false claim of science upon that, per their central "highest standards" school, NCNM which states in "Principles of Healing":

"these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession [professions claim; the essentially naturopathic follows]: [#1, first and foremost] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [teleology claim]; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism claim...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself [vitalism claim...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [vitalism claim...] these principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [survives scientific scrutiny claim...] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [supernaturalism claim...] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social factors [supernaturalism claim...] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [supernaturalism claim...] homeopathic medicine is based on the principle of 'like cures like.' Clinical observation indicates that it works on a subtle, yet powerful, energetic level, gently acting to promote healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels [supernaturalism claim...this is] a medical model that is more patient-centered and holistic."

Note: the holistic is vitalistic, supernaturocentric, teleological, and falsely claims that the science-unsupported is in fact objective & scientific. Naturopathy is the height of academic and pseudomedical absurdity. Naturopathy is sectarian beliefs falsely postured as legitimate science. Yeah, lets license crappola / junk thought like this, to protect the public. Makes sense [not!].

003. some of 'the grossly erroneous essentially naturopathic' [misrepresenting as scientific fact the actually science-ejected]. Naturopathy's claim that [and I won't, in this post, hypertext-link the following, as this blog has piles of such 'from the inside' linkages already]:

003.a. vitalism survives scientific scrutiny [no, it doesn't];

003.b. supernaturalism survives scientific scrutiny [no, it doesn't];

003.c. teleology survives scientific scrutiny [no, it doesn't].

004. I applaud the MMS. It is their duty to take such a stance.

Randi on Acupuncture II - A "Mythology of Pseudoscientific Mumbo-Jumbo":

James Randi recently stated in "More Evasion":

"so, to the NCI [National Cancer Institute] and the NIH [National Institutes of Health]: here's the answer to my question, which is: 'is there any scientific, double-blind research that shows acupuncture is effective?' No, there is not. Acupuncture is a well-developed mythology of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo that ranks high in the quackery constellation, fails carefully-designed tests, and makes fortunes for the practitioners largely because of the reluctance - no, the refusal - of the NCI and NIH to level with the citizens of the USA. [hear, hear]."

Note: and acupuncture is part of naturopathy, which in my view is quite the "quackery constellation". NCI also has a horrid definition of naturopathy, but it does speak to naturopathy's inclusion of acupuncture:

"a system of disease prevention and treatment that avoids drugs and surgery. Naturopathy is based on the use of natural agents such as air, water, light, heat, and massage to help the body heal itself [coded vitalism]. It also uses herbal products, nutrition, acupuncture, and aromatherapy as forms of treatment."

From this definition, you will not be informed that naturopathy is absurd, since it labels the profoundly science-ejected as scientific, e.g. that naturopathy is based upon vitalism, which is several decades [generously] DECEASED in terms of science. Nor does it speak to the requisite supernaturalism that is bound up with naturopathic vitalism, also labeled absurdly as science. I can only hope that cancer patients stay away, and ignore NCI's quasi-endorsement / misinformation.

CNME's Central Textbook ISBN 1897025254 - Naturopathy's Homeopathic-TCM Vitalism:

here, I quote from THE textbook for CNME-type ND programs in North America which details naturopathy's essential homeopathic-TCM vitalism [see 001, below];

001. Smith, F. (ND CCNM), "Assistant Dean of Naturopathic Medicine at National University of Health Sciences" [as per my blog mission, truly "from the inside"], states in:

001.a. "An Introduction to Principles and Practices of Naturopathic Medicine" (ISBN 1897025254; 2008):

"homeopathy [...its founder] Hahnemann taught that disease was due to the 'untunement' of the vital force, the part of the organism that allowed it to respond and adapt to life. Whether that meant shivering in response to cold or experiencing fear in response to a threat, the vital force was a dynamic aspect of the human being [p.095...] disease began when that dynamic principle became stuck [p.096...{lest we think all this past-tense verbiage means that naturopathy has discarded this science-ejected idea, NOWADAYS}] naturopathic medicine [...] is a primary healthcare system using therapies that support the person's self-healing potential [...it is] 'vitalistic' [...] the vitalistic tradition is based on the premise that the body has an inherent ability to heal, a premise referred to in Latin as vis medicatrix naturae (healing power of nature), and that the human being is a dynamic creation of body, and and spirit [{naturopathy's requisite supernaturalism, which is bound-up with vitalism}...per] the self-healing ability of the whole being [p.018...] the vis is the core focus of the Foundations of Naturopathic Medicine [{see that vitalism there, too}...] the discernment of the necessity of working with the vis medicatrix naturae is what makes naturopathic medicine a distinctive field [p.019...naturopathy's] protocol for treatment can be simplified into three stages [...#2] stimulate the vital force [...with] vitalistic therapies including homeopathy, hydrotherapy, and traditional Chinese medicine [{TCM} p.037...e.g.] promote self-healing processes by using a homeopathic medicine to stimulate the vital force [p.039...] TCM is founded in the principle that energy in the body flows along specific pathways called meridians. This energy is known as qi. Qi enters the body at conception and remains the vital force in the body [p.100...{and lest we forget how dangerous naturopathy is}] homeopathic treatment of children is valuable for both prevention and treatment of many conditions [p.319]."

Note: this textbook is published by CCNM Press. This is 'the essentially naturopathic' / 'their foundation'. It states on its back cover "this is the first textbook published for use in introductory courses in naturopathic medicine [...at] naturopathic colleges affiliated with the Council of Naturopathic [Medical] Education (CNME) [{yes, they forgot a word in that title}...and it] provides a strong foundation for required upper-year courses [...that include] homeopathy [and] traditional Chinese medicine."

002. the vitalism of naturopathy:

poses an "energy", "force" or "power" responsible for health and disease, and life itself. It is not merely acknowledging that a human being can repair / heal, and it is not merely descriptions of the phenotype. Boil it down, and what you get is a belief in a 'purposeful life spirit' animating the human organism. This is a combination of supernaturalism, teleology, and vitalism. And it is pure superstition falsely claimed as within science. All three facets of the naturopathic belief amalgam are exterior to science / what science bases. They are articles of faith claimed as something they are not: scientific fact.

When I was in ND school, I was told that that vital force was also "the god power within you." This is after I was told it was science-based and not a belief system. So, in terms of belief, I've labeled that autoentheism: the belief that god is within oneself.

Their homepage states: "the FNM Project has its academic home at NCNM in Portland." And NCNM is in the ridiculous position of claiming that which is nonscience is science.

Same old naturopaTHICK.

Randi on Acupuncture 'Primative Mystical Idiocy', & Extended To Naturopathy-Homeopathy-Acupuncture "SCIENCE" at UB:

here, I quote something Randi recently wrote about acupuncture [see 001., below]; and I extend it into the realm of UB nonsense [see the rest, below]:

001. James Randi recently wrote in "We Should Be Insulted":

"the 'complimentary and alternative medicine' [sCAM!] business brings in some $34 billion a year in direct out-of-pocket spending from American consumers [...] I recently came into possession of a 62-page full-color booklet produced and distributed by the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health. This comprehensive publication - in its 'Words To Know' glossary, begins with a definition of what is possibly the only form of quackery that outranks homeopathy for idiocy: acupuncture [...] acupuncture is only a notion, a colorful way of looking at the human condition, a mystical and primitive concept of how the human body works and survives. It has no basis in fact or in observation. It is a dangerous myth. For the US National Institutes of Health to support it - though in an uncertain, luke-warm fashion - is farcical. The JREF has consistently offered its million-dollar prize to any and all acupuncturists."

Note: I don't think that that $35 billion includes the amount of money people spend on degrees encompassing CAM idiocies.

002. along the lines of "idiocy" and "mystical and primitive" mythical concepts [and academic malpractice, of a most blatant kind!], I give you naturopathy at the University of Bridgeport, which includes both homeopathy and acupuncture in its curriculum, and labels nonscience science and takes money for such, as a fully sanctioned degree granting entity [farcical to the thousand power]:

002.a. at UB, naturopathy's requisite homeopathy & acupuncture are readily apparent:

"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. [...] the basic medical sciences [...] naturopathic education includes [...] homeopathy [...] the naturopathic physician is required to complete training [...] acupuncture [and] homeopathic medicine";

Note: the claim of science as a basis / umbrella, regular ordinary basic science like at all other colleges and universities in this day and age.

002.b. per acupuncture, UB states in "Acupuncture Institute":

"the Master of Science in Acupuncture degree."

Note: again, the categorical label of science upon...idiocy.

002.c. UB's 'vitalism is health science', overarching all of this:

002.c1. UB naturopathy's essential vitalism is readily apparent. And I've collected a preponderance of naturopathy vitalism ludicrously labeled scientific fact by .gov entities;

002.c2. and UB's label upon all of this, "health science".

003. and that is akin to stating that 'science is the nonscientific' or 'p and not-p', and it is madness:

to quote a particular set of logical rules, "the law of non-contradiction: a conjunctive proposition [...] cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect. Thus the proposition 'p and not-p' cannot be true. For example, the proposition 'it is raining and it is not raining' is a contradiction, and must be false."

004. NYU physicist and UCL mathematician Alan Sokal says it best in "Archaeological Fantasies. How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public" (ISBN 0415305934; 2006):

"for my own part, I have been struck by the fact that nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism [...a.k.a.] 'life energy', elan vital, prana, qi [...] mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time [p.347]."

Perfect. I've a preponderance stating that vitalism is hugely not science.