New 2010 CSI Fellows Announced!

here, I briefly quote from an email I received from the Committee For Skeptical Inquiry regarding induction of new Fellows [and Fellas]:

In "Sixteen Notable Figures in Science and Skepticism Elected CSI Fellows", CSI writes:

"the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), publisher of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine, announced today the election of 16 new Fellows, chosen for 'distinguished achievement in science and skepticism' [...per] Kimball Atwood IV, physician, author, Newton, Massachusetts; Robert T. Carroll, emeritus professor of philosophy, Sacramento City College, writer; K.C. Cole, science writer, author, professor at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Journalism; Christopher C. French, professor, department of psychology, and head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths College, University of London; Luigi Garlaschelli, chemist, Università di Pavia (Italy), and research fellow of CICAP, the Italian skeptics’ group; Maryanne Garry, professor, School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand; Harriet Hall, retired family physician, writer, Puyallup, Washington; Stuart D. Jordan, NASA astrophysicist emeritus, science advisor to Center for Inquiry Office of Public Policy, Washington, D.C.; Kenneth R. Miller, professor of biology, Brown University; Jan Willem Nienhuys, mathematician, Waalre, The Netherlands; Steven Novella, assistant professor of neurology, Yale University School of Medicine; Jay M. Pasachoff, Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and director of the Hopkins Observatory, Williams College; Massimo Pigliucci, professor of philosophy, City University of New York-Lehman College; Philip Plait, astronomer, lecturer, and writer; James 'The Amazing' Randi, magician, CSICOP founding member, founder, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF); Seth Shostak, senior astronomer, SETI Institute, Mountain View, Calif."

Note: hmmm, no naturopaths...go figure!  Oh, you actually have to be for rationality and science integrity!  Seems the 'big skeptic schism' has truly ended, with JREF and CSI cross-pollinating one anothers' upper membership quite abundantly.

Coyne on Naturopathy: "Anti-science", "Pre-scientific" - Mcleans 2010-01-07:

here, I briefly cite from a Mcleans.ca article written by Andrew Coyne that touched on naturopathy:

Coyne, A. (? ?) states in Mcleans.ca's "Coyne on Climategate: The Truth is Out There Somewhere" (2010-01-07):

"science has pushed the boundaries of human knowledge to limits never before imagined.  Yet all sorts of anti-scientific, indeed pre-scientific beliefs are flourishing at the same time, from the enduring appeal of naturopathy and other folk cures to the hysterias over childhood vaccines and genetically modified foods, all the way to the dreadful pseudoscience of 'intelligent design'."

Note: wow!

Naturopathy as 'the Future of Healthcare': Irrationalism and Absurdity Posed as Professionalism, Integrity and Physicianship - the AANP's Howard 2010

here, I quote from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' [AANP] 2010 "Natural Medicine Journal" article recently authored by AANP's executive director Karen Howard celebrating naturopathy's new Department of Labor [DOL] definition [see 001.a., below]; then, I decode the quite coded essential premise of naturopathy within that DOL definition using naturopathy's own ".gov" and ".edu" primary sources [see 001.b., below]; and finally, I muse upon these "metaphysicians" [see 002., below]:

001.a. in "The Future of Naturopathic Medicine: A Message from Karen E. Howard, Executive Director of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians", she writes:

"the AANP’s vision is to transform the healthcare system from disease management to health promotion by incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine. The mission of the AANP is to serve our members by advancing the profession of naturopathic medicine and preserving its integrity [...] this fall, the US Department of Labor released a new definition of 'naturopathic physician' [...per] 'a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals [NHCI...] sample job titles include naturopathic physician, naturopathic doctor, physician, and doctor of naturopathic medicine' [...] this is a monumental success for the naturopathic profession."

Note: so, we have the claim of "profession", galore, [7 instances] in the article. Howard's NHCI -- naturopathy's coded vitalism m.o. -- will be fleshed out below.

001.b. regarding "the principles of naturopathic medicine" and "a system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals":

001.b1. the foremost sources, in my mind, for iteration of naturopathy's "principles" are ".gov" and a ".edu" web site.  Both are based in Oregon, because that region is the 'trunk of the naturopathic tree', so to speak.  Oregon has the oldest AANP ND-granting school, and that State's ND apparatus has codified naturopathy's principles on the State of Oregon's website.

001.b1.a. per the ".gov", the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners [...] they are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] a naturopathic physician has a doctorate of naturopathic medicine degree from a four-year graduate level naturopathic medical college [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [(this is naturopathy's kooky claim that the science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny)...principle #1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN=VMN...] nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...principle #3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...overall] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence [!!!] of the natural healing process [INHP...] naturopathic medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition [VT] of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person [IHCP...a.k.a.] the body’s healing and immune response [BIIR...] the body’s innate healing response [BIHR]."

Note: obviously, vitalism is the cardinal premise of naturopathy, per HPN=VMN= LF=VF=INHP=VT=IHCP=BIIR=BIHR. Howard's NHCI is synonymous but, NHCI is 'vitalism coded' and therefore not honest / transparent in the way it should be in order to be 'of professional ethical status' [IMO]. OBNE and the State of Oregon has just told us that a "life force" is "in fact" an objective scientific fact.  Hilarious: claiming that vitalism survives scientific scrutiny is INSANE. Vitalism is profoundly science-ejected. Science that hugely isn't science is not-at-all conventional.

001.b1.b. per the ".edu", the National College of Natural Medicine states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent [!!!]; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...#3] first do no harm -- primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force [VF]."

Note: so, again the VERY WRONG continuous commercial activity of labeling as 'scientific fact' the 'in fact science-ejected vitalistic' [minimally].  This is what "natural medicine" is in AANP-land -- trading upon what is false, and known to be false 'by the preponderance of science' for several decades. Also, there's the quite wrong claim of professionalism [7 times on that page], because you cannot be hugely insanely premised and still be of credat emptor status.  What's also fascinating about the "new" AANP DOL definition of naturopathy is that naturopathy is still 'cultically coding' their essential premise.  Naturopathy is not being transparent: its supernatural, vitalistic and teleological premise / 'the science-ejected sectarian' is being falsely presented as naturalistic, science-supported, objective fact when in fact such is science-ejected / science-unsupported.  In fact, such misleading and opaque activity by naturopathy is not new; it is naturopathy's same old deceptive m.o.  Notice that they are grabbing for more generalistic titles, like "physician".  This sets up a Federal precedent that further allows AANP to achieve more State licensure laws for itself by saying "we're already Federally recognized" as _________.  I would argue that naturopathy is still quite incompletely, opaquely and falsely Federally described.  But,  why be surprised!  Naturopathy already has ".gov" support per Oregon to posture and trade upon the quite false-absurd: the idea that the scientific is what is not scientific.  I have termed this "epistemic conflation" [EC], the blending of knowledge type. EC illogically claims that something is equal to that which it is different from.  Yet, after thoroughly muddling knowledge type, naturopathy then superabsurdly-falsely represents that mingled heap as an 'epistemic delineation', per [supposedly] truly "science".  That is INSANE; and instead of this being 'a doctoral-level, scientific, professional physician context', I've termed the whole thing a fraudulent racket.  I will be blogging next post about naturopathy's goals towards expansion of all this insanity and absurdity.

002. regarding "physician", "the future of healthcare", "integrity" and "profession":

integrity's usage is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary 4th ed.: "steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code [...] the state of being unimpaired; soundness [...] the quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness."  Now, the claim of "profession" is similarly a claim of trustworthyness, thoroughness, soundness.  Naturopathy claims professionalism and integrity while being completely unsound and opaque in its basic premise.

In fact, as I've said, I think naturopathic 'thinking' is INSANE: claiming that what's inside of the scientific is the same as what's outside of the scientific, that figmentations are the same as what is in-evidence / rigorously scientifically vetted.  At its core, naturopathy is simply nonsense in the 'sense' that naturopathy claims that 'something is the same as something it is profoundly different from'.  It other words, naturopathy claims that that which survives scientific scrutiny is that which has actually been ejected from science.  What is "conventional" about this kind of science?  What is even rational about it?  The fact is that such 'kind' of science, if I can be allowed such an absurd statement, is "pseudo" -- as in fake.  And such kind of 'thinking' is junk thought.

To believe in figmentation / what lacks evidence as a central premise, and to set it up as 'the truth about nature's workings' rings of metaphysics and sectic ideology.  So, I regard the 'epistemic position' of an ND not as that of a physician but that of a metaphysician, per 'the metaphysical merged with physicianship'.

The other appropriate term is sectarian medicine, as opposed to scientific medicine / modern-enlightened thought.

Naturopathy is as much "the future of healthcare" as the hugely science-ejected is the future of science.  Naturopathy is as much the future of healthcare as flat-earth theory is the future of geography.

The Florida Connection - A Really Old and New Naturopathy Science Claim - St. Petersburg Independent 1910-10-22, NUHS 2009-12-29:

here, I cite from the St. Petersburg [Florida] Independent concerning naturopathy as "science" [see 001, below].  And then, I cite from the National University of Health Sciences recent press release [see 002., below].  Then, I make 'the Florida connection' [see 003., below]:

001. in their local news, per "A Modern Method of Practice Without the Use of Medicine", we are told in the St. Petersburg Independent:

"among our late arrivals is Dr. J.H. McGilvary, naturopathic physician, a graduate of the Texas College of Science [...] naturopathy is not a faith cure, nor a suggestion cure, nor a hypnotic cure.  It is a practical and scientific treatment of all curable diseases [...] although the Dr. has lost his eyesight, it does not handicap him in the least, but rather adds to his senses of touch and hearing, and makes them more acute, which enables him to diagnose more correctly [!]."

Note: this is accessible through books.google.com.  What interests me most is the claim of "science" placed over the naturopathic at both the subject-matter and institutional levels.

002. chiroeco.com tells us in "NUHS Awards First ND Diplomas Since 1952" [2009-12-29]:

"in historic commencement ceremonies on Dec. 17, National University of Health Sciences awarded three graduates the institution’s first doctor of naturopathic medicine degree (ND) since 1952 [...] National’s current ND program opened its doors for the first class of students in the Fall of 2006 [...] NUHS is the only naturopathic medical school in the Midwest and one of only two universities in the country to offer degrees in naturopathic medicine, chiropractic medicine, acupuncture, and oriental medicine on the same campus [UB is the other...] source: National University of Health Sciences, www.nuhs.edu."

Note: again, what interests me is the label "science" placed over the naturopathic.  The institution claims to be a "science" institution.

003. the Florida connection:

003.a. at NUHS's web site, "DC in St. Petersburg, Florida", we are told:

"National is now part of the University Partnership Center of St. Petersburg College (SPC). This [...] allows NUHS to offer its doctor of chiropractic (DC) degree on site at the St. Petersburg college campus. When you earn your DC degree from National University of Health Sciences St. Petersburg Campus [etc....this is] primary care chiropractic medicine. We prepare you to become a first contact physician with a strong foundation in basic sciences [...] National University of Health Sciences (NUHS) offers a doctor of chiropractic degree program in Lombard, Illinois, which has been accredited by the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) since 1971 and by its predecessor, the American Chiropractic Association Committee on Accreditation since 1966. [...] on April 20, 2009, National University of Health Sciences (NUHS), Lombard, Illinois, received approval from the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools to offer the Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine degree at the University Partnership Center at St. Petersburg College in Florida. The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools may be contacted at 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 2400, Chicago, Illinois, 60602-2504, or 1-800-621-7440."

Note: science, science, science.  Coincidentally, 001. and 003. above are all about St. Petersburg, Florida.  And what happened the last time a DC program was attempted in Florida, you may ask?  Nice skeptical activism: a public university wouldn't do it, due to the backlash.

NCSE's Newton on 'Science Denial', Colquhoun on Naturopathy 'Make Believe' - Philadelphia Inquirer, UPI (2009-12-24)

here, I cite from two identically dated news articles regarding science. The National Center for Science Education's [NCSE] Steven Newton [US] writes about 'science denial' in the Philadelphia Inquirer [see 001., below], while University College London's [UCL] David Colquhoun [UK] is sourced by United Press International [UPI] concerning naturopathy 'as make believe' [see 002., below]:

001. the NCSE's Newton writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer's "Science Denial is on the Rise":

"from evolution to global warming to vaccines, science is under assault from denialists - those who dismiss well-tested scientific knowledge as merely one of many competing ideologies. [Such] science denial goes beyond skeptical questioning [...and] attack[s] the legitimacy of science itself […] despite such misleading hyperbole, science is meritocratic […] research is judged by the data and methodology […] as the great physicist Richard Feynman noted, 'science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.' Science requires conclusions about how nature works to be rooted in evidence-based testing […] science denialism works differently. [E.g.] creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence […] cloak[ing] themselves in the mantle of science without being restricted by its requirements [...] they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in [publication] arenas not subject to expert scrutiny […] understanding science has never been more important than it is today."

Note: this 'cloaking' is an m.o. I continually observe naturopathy doing. When naturopathy claims that within science is nonscience, naturopathy offers no scientific findings or scientific methodologies to support that.  Naturopathy writes it -- only -- as if then magically such irrationality is then made true and rational.  I've said this many times: it's as though science for naturopathy is a letterhead on a piece of paper, and they magically believe that whatever they then write underneath that 'science' letterhead is then science.  Naturopathy is quite fantastical, and quite absurd.

002. UCL's David Colquhoun is sourced by the UPI in “Britain Urged to Crack Down on Remedies”:

“the British government and doctors should do more to crack down on those who promote [pseudo!] remedies such as curing AIDS with vitamins [...] says David Colquhoun of the University College London [...per] an editorial in the Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal [...he wrote] colleges 'avoid the hard questions by setting up committees' while the government's department of health refers the hard questions to the Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Health, which was asked to draft 'national occupational standards' for make believe subjects like 'naturopathy' [oh snap!...] Colquhoun cites two recent examples [...] the recent homeopathy 'evidence check' conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee [...admitted] 'that there was no good evidence that homeopathy worked [at all, because it's a pseudoremedy labeled, by the way, by naturopathy 'clinical science'...and] Colquhoun criticizes the head of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for suggesting that homeopathy cannot be tested by proper randomized controlled trials [his original editorial submission to the BMJ is here].”

Note: I would argue that naturopathy is similarly a form of such 'science denial', except in naturopathy's case they deny:

a) basic biological science concerning physiology [e.g. by posing vitalistic and supernatural / immaterial forces as being fundamentally in control of physiology!];

b) basic pharmacological science, particularly as concerns homeopathy. 

SGU on Naturopathy - 2009-12-02, Thoms & Novella:

recently, the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast dated 2009-12-02 discussed skeptical activism in Canada by Skeptic North aimed at exposing naturopathy.  For the full podcast, click here.  Here are some excerpts: 

[SN is SGU host Steve Novella; ST is SGU guest and editor of SkepticNorth.com Steve Thoms]

"SN: Steve is the editor and chief of Skeptic North which is a skeptical group, pan-Canadian blog. And we are here to talk to you about one issue that you guys have been tackling and that is the attempt that's being made by naturopaths in Canada to gain the right to prescribe medications [1].

[...]

ST: The problem is that naturopaths do not have the medical training to prescribe medical drugs. And that's kind of the bottom line here. The counter-argument that we've faced a lot is that naturopaths have eight years of education, but that's taking into account four years of university training in the undergrad. which they're not affiliated with.  Like no naturopathic college in Canada is associated with a Canadian university. So that's kind of taking credit for the Canadian university system. And also, eight years -- I mean -- I can study unicorn breeding for eight years and that doesn't mean that unicorns exist. Quality of education also matters here [2].

SN: Right, of course I agree with you. Again, for our listeners who may not be aware, naturopaths are really like a cult-like medical pseudoprofession. They believe in a hodge-podge of just about any unscientific modality that's out there. [E.g.] they prescribe homeopathy and acupuncture. And they believe in a lot of unsubstantiated notions [...] my colleague Harriet Hall calls it Tooth Fairy science, which I think is perfect. You could do all kinds of scientific studies about the Tooth Fairy and how the size of the tooth relates to the amount of money that gets left behind, whatever, it doesn't make the Tooth Fairy real. The underlying premises are pseudoscientific and so the entire endeavor is false. And this also gets to the notion that this is naturopaths trying to expand the scope of their practice, which usually happens once they get licensure and also trying to function as primary care healthcare providers being the first person that somebody sees when they're sick which is scary because they don't have the training and they don't have the dedication to science. This a very unfortunate thing [3]."

Notes:

[1]: it is not uncommon in the US for NDs to have gained legal access to prescribe certain 'medical drugs', but it varies from state to state.  In Connecticut, NDs have no such script rights, as far as I know.  In places like Oregon, the ND 'formulary' is large.  Overall, it is rather strange that NDs have rights to such compounds, since they do not abide by modern scientific premises, particularly the scientific premises of pharmacology.  This is evident in naturopathy's huge obligation to the pseudomedicinal system known as homeopathy, whose pills are claimed as medicinal / active when actually 'just water' / inert.

[2]: well, I went to ND school for four years and I can say that it truly is as absurd as 'unicorn breeding'.  When the label science us placed upon sectarian principles that are hugely science-ejected, such irrationalism / academic negligence is ethically revolting. 

[3]: yes, cult-like and a pseudoprofession.  In a deposition at 2002 about, I labeled naturopathy "cultic mystical weirdness".  It's 'mental circuit-blowing stupid' hasn't gotten any less. As scientific as the Tooth Fairy, as in completely false to this day in terms of its claim that that which is scientific is also that which is science-ejected / not-science-supported / nonscientific.  Science is a label naturopathy uses to promote what is actually hugely science-ejected.

I would argue, though, that naturopathy is categorically different than actual academic science.  It's not an issue of quality then, it is an issue of false posturing and unfair trade.  It is not what it says it is clinically or academically as a whole: so, commerce occurs and the initial conditions are untrue.

That's my take, from the inside: for naturopathy, science is a false label camouflaging their sectarian absurdity.

That ND Vitalism Belief - Yang ND, Vancouver:

here, I cite from a recent article written by a Vancouver, Canada ND claiming that Traditional Chinese Medicine is much better than modern scientific medicine [see 001., below]; and then I muse:

001. naturopath Yang, J. (ND CCNM) informs us in Canada's South Asian Post article "Is Chinese Medicine Better For Every Day Health?" (2009-12-2x):

"traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is based on philosophical principles [a.k.a. archaic beliefs / articles of faith / superstitions] such as the yin and yang theory and five elements theory [...] the belief [truly] is that any presenting symptoms are a manifestation of illness. Illness, in turn, occurs only when there is an imbalance in a person’s energy (qi) flow [a.k.a. vitalism...] TCM practitioners determine the cause of illness, better yet, investigate what is causing the disturbance in qi flow [vitalism] throughout the body [...] the practice of traditional Chinese Medicine has been documented for well over 2000 years and has successfully withstood the trials of time [bullshit...] in contrast, Western medicine is rooted in scientific knowledge and evidence [true...] it takes a more superficial look at the body [false...] the main concern is that steps have been taken only to mask the illness [false...] both types of medicine have their own validity within the medical field [bullshit]."

Note: one would think, from this article, that modern medicine is quite second-rate compared to TCM.  Yet, that would be false in this sense at least: at least modern medicine is based upon science, not sectarian belief / figmentation / superstition posing as sense / falsely claiming to understand how the world works

'Theory' in science has a very specific context, and here, theory is being used in that 'it's just a theory' kind of vernacular sense [whereby I mean 'outside of science' sense].  'Energy' is also a scientific word being co-opted here to represent an immaterial, nonphysical animating force inhabiting matter.  There simply is no such qi.  There is no such vitalistic energy: biological entities are chemically-based. 

So, how can it be said that TCM has truly "withstood the trials of time"?  And, I highly enjoy the 'in contrast': as if to say, 'in contrast, this other stuff is merely based upon the most accurate modeling of reality humankind has ever invented'.  I guess if favored Tooth Fairy premises are ignored and facts are instead valued more, NDs call such an approach 'superficial'. Yet, modern medicine is obligated to scientific knowledge, and therein to claim that prescientific ideas have validity within a domain that has ejected such - is absurd.

002. this article is a prime example of naturopathy's m.o:

a) claim medical and scientific expertise, and professions-level status [while employing an argument that is quite irrational];

b) combine what is legitimate medical science and what HUGELY isn't, and call the latter equal and yet BETTER. But, something is not the same as something it is different from, and it is nonsensical to combine ideas that are diametrically opposed / HUGELY in conflict and then deny the internal  inconsistency.

Note: archaic, prescientific 'medical' belief systems are often called philosophical, time-tested, and claim to 'treat the one true cause'.  But, who would trust thinking -- if you want to call it that -- that claims that hugely science-ejected concepts such as vitalism are a legitimate basis for medical care?

We are told at the start of the article: "experienced and professional experts answer questions relating to all round health in Canada."  When epistemic conflation is the m.o. -- that is, when all knowledge is muddle and given equal status -- I would beware as opposed to trust. And if I can't trust you because you are based on crank ideas, you're not an expert and you are not professional. To quote Francis Crick:

“and so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”

But, with naturopathy, yesterday, today and tomorrow are indiscernible -- because, within naturopathy, it is considered reasonable to label that which it is not.

2010 UK Anti-Homeopathy Campaign:

Consumer Health Digest [2009-12-24 (#09-52)] has announced / relays this message:

"skeptics in the United Kingdom have announced their intention to raise public awareness that homeopathy is quackery. The campaign will launch early in 2010. People who wish to join or monitor the campaign can register on http://www.1023.org.uk/ ."

Note: homeopathy is, of course, part of naturopathy's absurdity (e.g.: here, here).

002. at that link, we're told:

"homeopathy is a pre-scientific and absurd pseudoscience. Yet it persists today as an accepted complementary medicine, largely because people don't know what it is. The 10:23 Campaign aims to show the public what homeopathy is and explain how we know it doesn't work. It will launch in early 2010.

Note: the campaign,  '10 to the 23rd', has the motto "Homeopathy: There's Nothing In It".  The name of the campaign seems to be an abbreviation for 'Avogadro's Number' which is often quantified as 6.022 x

10²³. 

The "Irrational Superstitious" Central Premise of Naturopathy - UB, Blackford:

here, I compare two claims about vitalism.  The University of Bridgeport claims that within science is the vitalistic [see 001., below].  Philosopher, author, and critic Russell Blackford states otherwise [see 002., below]:

001. the University of Bridgeport states in "Naturopathic Principles and Practice":

"Principles and Practice 511 - Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine II [...] in addition to employing various natural medicines, students will gain an important perspective of the vital force and its role in the healing process, when used in conjunction with naturopathic principles."

Note: you can also get UB vitalism full-force here.  So, vitalism is essential to naturopathy.  I must remind readers that UB claims naturopathy, strictly speaking, is "science" / that a vital force is an objective scientific fact [see p.072, "the principles are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances"] / survives scientific scrutiny, while vitalism is preponderantly science-ejected! 

002. Blackford, R. (? ?) states in "Bioethics Versus Liberal Society: A Reply to Margaret Somerville" (Quadrant, 2001-09-01 - homepage) [free registration may be required for the full text][for Blackford's Wikipedia entry, click here]:

"Kitcher rejects the presence of any 'vital force' or 'vital substance' in biological processes [...] this is correct. Vitalism is a discredited theory and no principled objection can be made to the ultimate reduction of biological systems and entities to their physical components […] I do reject the position that living things or biological processes contain some kind of non-physical vital substance or force […] vitalist positions are not supported by reason or by any other supposed 'way of knowing' [...] position[s] akin to vitalism might aptly be referred to as 'irrational' or 'superstitious'".

Note: oh, snap.

"Cancer Was Cured in 1934" - West, S. (ND INHS) & Pseudomedicine:

hey, bet you didn't know this: according naturopath West, cancer is curable with a Rife machine [see 001., below]. But, be skeptical, as  Wikipedia has some interesting things to say about Rife's contraption [see 002., below]: 

001. West. S. (ND INHS) states in "Natural health: A Look at a Controversial Cancer Treatment" (2009-12-18):

"as a naturopath and health researcher [...] once in a while I find an herb, nutrient or device that is truly remarkable [...such as] the Rife Frequency Generator [...made by] Royal Raymond Rife [...which is one of] Rife’s great scientific works [...I've observed] Rife Generators and ionic foot bathes [at an Arcata clinic...it's] a miraculous tool for defeating cancer and a host of other diseases [...] I never seriously investigated the claim until early in 2009 [...] my good friend Scott lent me his unit for my practice [...] in any case the generator is programmed to deliver micro current technology to destroy virtually all known pathogenic bacteria, virus and fungi. This is so because all life forms have a micro electric signature that maintains their life force [(vitalism!)...it] destroy[s] these organisms without harming the host [...] in 1934 [Rife treated] 16 stage four terminal cancer patients [...in] a 70-day trial [...] by the end of the trial [...] 14 of the 16 terminal patients were cancer free while the remaining two took another 60 days to be cured [...so,] cancer was cured in 1934."

Note: a Rife organization still claims that cancer was cured by Rife with his device.  "Life force" is a fundamental tenet of naturopathy's doctrine, and it simply doesn't exist.

002. Wikipedia states in "Royal Rife":

"Royal Raymond Rife (May 16, 1888 – August 5, 1971) was an American inventor known for his belief that he could observe and render inert a number of viruses which he thought were causal factors in several diseases, most notably cancer. The observations were made though a specially designed optical microscope [...] Rife's claims could not be independently replicated, and active scientific interest in the devices had dissipated by the 1950s [...] an analysis by Electronics Australia found that [...a] Rife device consisted of a nine-volt battery, wiring, a switch, a timer and two short lengths of copper tubing, which delivered an 'almost undetectable' current unlikely to penetrate the skin. Several marketers of such devices have been convicted for health fraud, and in some cases the Rife devices have led to the deaths of cancer patients who used them instead of medical therapy. Rife devices are a subset of radionics devices, which have been classified as pseudomedicine."

Note: a casual Google search resulted in this Ontario ND's practice, Pragnell, N.R. (ND OCNM 1981), who states: "radionics is a healing technique directed at a patient's subtle energy fields."  Again, imaginary vital forces and what likely would also be termed pseudomedicine.

A Google News Archival Search For 2009, >vitalism science<:

here, I do a search with news.google.com using the terms >science vitalism< [see 001., below]:

001. for the year 2009 only, current results that occur are only June through December [up to today's date, 2009-12-15, to be exact] and here they are:

001.a. a Salon 2009-09-17 review of "The Age of Wonder" by Holmes, R. (? ?) (ISBN 0375422226, 2009) titled "The Beauty and Terror of Science" by Berger, K. (? ?) which states:

"Holmes limns the darkness with a scintillating chapter on Mary Shelley and 'Frankenstein,' describing how her novel arose out [of] the popular 'vitalism' debates between physicians who argued that human life was animated by some external force like electricity, and those, such as fearless young doctor William Lawrence, who argued there was no such thing, that the 'human body is merely a complex physical organization,' Holmes writes."

Note: of course, this 'debate' is a little archaic.  The idea that the 'what makes lifeliness argument' essentially concerns 'the physical' versus 'the electrical' is nowadays silly, since both are physical.  Electricity at that time was little understood and rather magically imbued. It served to represent the science-ejected idea of a vital principle [there really is no such thing!] that was apart from 'the physical', and yet mystically animated or ensouled the physical. The book is recommended by the reviewer.  I personally highly enjoy Frankenstein in its full historical context.  I also enjoy noticing that science-fiction as a genre has much of its origins, as is often observed, in the literature of a woman writer!

001.b.a 2007 Nature Genetics article titled "Cipher Sleuth" by Goldman, M.A. (? ?) which I don't have free text access to and which apparently has been dated / spidered by Google 2009-06-15.

Note: FFS, it's 2009 and information really needs to be easily available, not locked up in [obscure] publications with hilariously overpriced access fees!

001.c. a 2002 Skeptical Inquirer article by De Robertis, M. (? ?) titled "A [Canadian] University's Struggle With Chiropractic" which states:

"chiropractic has remained on the margins by choice, refusing even today to reject vitalism in all its guises [...] there is considerable doubt that a four-year university program culminating in a D.C. degree is necessary to treat musculoskeletal conditions, something conventional therapists do with comparable effectiveness but without the vitalistic baggage [...] even if some alternative therapies are eventually found to be effective and safe, until colleges adopt contemporary biomedical paradigms instead of millennia-old vitalistic notions - i.e., get rid of the nonsense in their curricula and make an attempt to [actually] educate its practitioners - no university should contemplate an affiliation."

Note: hear, hear. Again, this has been [falsely, sort of] dated by Google's algorithm 2009-06-06, likely because that was the last respidering though published earlier at an older URL.  This is an excellent article, in my view.

001.d. readers' responses to a Sydney Morning Herald 2009-06-15 article by Simon, B. (? ?) that includes this comment by Dunlop, R. (? ?) "Vice-President of Australian Skeptics, Petersham":

"it appears Australia is about to repeat Britain's mistakes about regulation of alternative medicine. It should be self-evident that it makes no sense to set educational standards in a subject without having decided whether that subject is nonsense. If it is, what does 'educational standards' mean? Your article cites naturopathy, which subscribes to a form of pre-19th-century vitalism. I fail to understand what it means to be properly qualified in ideas that the educated world left behind 200 years ago."

Note: yup.

001.e. a New York Times book review that uses the term "literary vitalism".

001.f. a New York Times book review that is similar to the Salon review:

"Holmes devotes a chapter to 'Frankenstein,' placing Mary Shelley’s 'ghost story' in the context of the [then] contemporary debate about vitalism."

001.g. a 2006 Nature Chemical Biology article titled "The Origins of Chemical Biology" which doesn't provide free direct text access.  But, through the magic of a Google web search, I believe it states:

"chemical biology has historical roots that date back to the birth of chemistry and biology as distinct sciences [...] chemical synthesis requires no ‘living’ or ‘vital force’ to make biologically active compounds. Remarkably, some [false!] belief in vitalism still persists within current popular culture."

001.h. a 2000 Skeptical Inquirer article "The Roots of Qi" by Mainfort, D. (? ?)  which states:

"according to ancient Chinese medicine [...] illnesses were viewed as an imbalance of qi, or vital energy, in the body. Qi was believed to exist everywhere in the universe - a life force such as that referred to in pre-scientific Western medicine as élan vital. Vitalism is the belief in an invisible, intangible, unique form of energy that is supposedly responsible for all of the activities of a living organism. The vital force in Chinese traditional medicine is called qi, the concept upon which acupuncture is based [...] the earliest known record of the term qi occurs in the book Liji, prior to the Spring and Autumn period, between three and four thousand years ago. At that time there was no modern physiology or biochemistry, nor was there understanding about nutrition or the healing mechanisms of the body. The existence of cells, blood circulation, neurology and hormones were also unknown."

Note: an yet, this figmentation is what naturopathy claims as able to survive scientific scrutiny.

002. obviously, there is a certain amount of heavy-handed automation happening here, and what I just listed is a snapshot of the abilities [and lack therein, to some extent] of Google's news archive search engine.