here, I compare two quite incompatible labels employed by naturopathy: one states that naturopathy is science-based, at the Massachusetts Society of Naturopathic Doctors [MSND; see 001., below]; and, the second states that naturopathy is essentially science-ejected, at MSND member Maiella [see 002., below]:
001. MSND states in “What Is Naturopathic Medicine?” [vsc 2010-06-11]:
“naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care […a] science [...] 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 […] a licensed naturopathic doctor (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. […] they integrate scientific research with the healing powers of nature [HPN / coded vitalism…] as professional leaders and pioneers in science-based natural medicine, naturopathic doctors [etc.]."
Note: science, science, science. I always particularly like the claim that the essential principles of naturopathy survive scientific scrutiny [not!] and that naturopathy is “science-based” [not!].
002. Maiella, E.C. (ND Bastyr 2006) states in “Naturopathic Therapeutic Order” [vsc 2010-06-10]:
“[#1] stimulate the vis medicatrix naturae [HPN] (other names for 'vis' include 'qi', 'prana', 'life force'). This is the force that moves us towards health; it is the essence that invigorates us. Some modalities that we utilize to stimulate the 'vis' include hydrotherapy, exercise, yoga, mediation, craniosacral therapy, energy medicine and homeopathy.”
Note: this vis is the science-ejected / sectarian central principle of naturopathy. The large State-wide organization doesn't specifically reveal it transparently as the essential principle, but member Maiella does though neither communicate the fact that vis is science-ejected.
003. Distinct? Distinguished? Objective? Continually scientifically reexamined? Same science? Professional? Absurd.