Note: UM is where PZ Meyers teaches.
001.b. I'd commented:
here, I link to 'the essentially naturopathic', a freely offered chapter out of the Textbook of Natural Medicine [3rd ed., a.k.a. TNM3] as provided by, I'll assume, publisher Elsevier [see 001., below] wherein the nonscientific is ridiculously labeled science; and, I cite the claim that TNM3's principal, ND Pizzorno, can be trusted [see 002.,below]; and I point out that vitalism is hugely science-ejected [see 003., below]; and then I provide a bit of advice [see 004., below]:
001. TNM3's “Chapter 3: A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order, The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine” by NDs Zeff, Snider, and Myers states (archived here):
001.a. naturopathy's essential vitalism:
“this is the removal of the obstacles to cure, which allows the action of the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], the vital force, the healing power of nature [HPN p.034...treatment must] harmonize with your life force [p.035...] to stimulate the overall vital force [...] the entire physiologic system [...includes the] life force [ p.036].”
Note: I regard this as the Rosetta Stone for 'decoding naturopathy's coded vitalistic context'. E.g., here's a typical iteration of 'the essentially naturopathic'. NDs Lai [ha! 'NDs lie!!!'] and Sinclair, both graduates of SCNM, state in “What is Naturopathic Medicine?”:
“N.D.s treat disease and restore health by implementing therapies based on the following naturopathic principles […#5] the healing power of nature.” And that's all you get. What's so fascinating is that these ND s do not in any manner that I can find express VMN for what it is, a science-ejected sectarian article of faith / belief. They're not even slightly hinting at the 'belief' actuality that vitalism is. Instead, HPN is mentioned in naturalistic language and never defined contextually, while their frakking web site name is “healingpowerofnature.com”!
001.b. claimed as science:
“[naturopathy is] 'science-based natural medicine' [SBNM p.028...the] definition of naturopathic medicine [...states naturopathy is a] science [...based on] vis medicatrix naturae [p.032].”
Note: so, the 'essentially naturopathic is to claim that within science is VMN. Now, it should be noted that Pizzorno claims to have “coined” this status of SBNM based upon VMN. What's so fascinating about that is that he didn't do any science to establish the scientific basis of naturopathy's contextual premise [VMN]. As near as I can tell, he wrote some words... and voila!!! Pizzorno didn't do any ACTUAL science and then publish that science in science journals and establish the scientific basis of vitalism & kind. It seems it's easier to just use INK! I call this 'science by decree'.
“[regarding the editor] you can trust Pizzorno [...and that the book is] unsurpassed in its authority and scope […it's] the most thoroughly researched and carefully referenced text on natural medicine […] with Pizzorno: Textbook of Natural Medicine […] e-edition, you'll have a textbook that stays updated throughout the life of the edition, so you always have access to the latest evidence-based information on natural medicine.”
003. now, vitalism is hugely science-ejected. Here's one of my favorite quotes, by Crick:
"when facts come in the door, vitalism flies out of the window". And he wrote that in the mid-1960s.
004. so, don't trust Pizzorno. Or naturopathy. That's my advise. When is a groundless figment a 'theory' and 'science'? Naturopathy. When are you asked to trust in nonsense? Naturopathy:
E.g.: that Lai and Sinclair practice also claims in “Homeopathic Medicine”:
“[homeopathy is] a powerful system of medicine [...that] effectively treat[s] both acute and chronic disease […by] stimulating the body's natural healing response [coded vitalism].”
Homeopathy, of course, is empty sugar pills.