here, I cite from the Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy - Naturopathy [BDDT-N] which claims the science-ejected survives scientific scrutiny [see 001., below]; then, I decode that science-ejected idea [see 002., below]; and mention that it is not science [see 003., below]; then I muse [see 004., below]:
001. the BDDT-N hosts the document "Submission to: Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council"(2008-11-12) [vsc 2011-02-18] which states [I'm not sure this document is permanently archived by the provincial government, but that is likely]:
"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 [...including principle #2] recognition and support of the inherent self-healing ability of the individual (the healing power of nature) [SHAI-HPN...] stimulate the self-healing mechanisms (vis medicatrix naturae) [SHM-VMN...or as #1] the healing power of nature: naturopathic medicine recognizes an inherent healing process [IHP] in the person that is ordered and intelligent. The body is capable of healing itself. The role of the naturopathic doctor is to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery and to facilitate and augment this inherent natural tendency of the body [...] stimulate the healing power of nature with therapies like homeopathy and hydrotherapy."
Note: what's fascinating is what isn't mentioned. Nowhere in this document do I find the terms "vital", "force", or "spirit". But, SHAI-SHM-HNP-VMN-IHP is claimed to survive scientific scrutiny, be objective fact, and obviously is essential to 'the naturopathic'. The document states this is a "joint submission by CCNM, BDDT-N, OAND, CAND" and in fact has the signatures of the principals of those arms of Canadanian naturopathy within it.
There are further science claims upon 'the naturopathic', including:
"NDs have training in the clinical sciences [...] the first year curriculum stresses the basic sciences [...] in second year, clinical science is stressed [...] NPLEX Part II - Core Clinical Science Competencies [...] basic science related to IV therapy [...] basic science (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology, pathology) [...] their scientific binomial name [...] program requirements for its degree or diploma of a minimum of 4,100 total hours in basic and clinical sciences [etc....] Part I of the NPLEX, the Basic Science Examinations [...] students are encouraged to take this portion of the examination as soon as they finish their basic science coursework [...] Part II, the Core Clinical Science Examination [...] beginning with the August 2007 NPLEX Exam administration, the Part II - Core Clinical Science Series will be integrated into a single examination that will include homeopathy [...] naturopathic medicine is a [...] science [...] naturopathic physicians are primary health care practitioners, whose diverse techniques include modern and traditional, scientific and empirical methods [...] Michael Traub, ND [...] he remains a member of the AANP’s Scientific Affairs Committee."
So, science science science. Yes, that is the claim that homeopathy specifically is a "clinical science". Let's decode SHAI-SHM-HNP-VMN-IHP via CAND's own 2009 publication, and see what it essentially is and what science says about it.
002. CAND and Lloyd, I. (ND CCNM 2002) write in "The History of Naturopathic Medicine: A Canadian Perspective" (ISBN 9781552787786, 2009)[available at Amazon.com for $40 about]:
"vitalism and holism represents the philosophy of naturopathic medicine [p.029...#2] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...] the aim of naturopathic physicians is to treat the patient, not the disease, by directing the vital force and encouraging it with naturopathic therapeutics to stimulate the body’s own defenses [p.031]."
Note: so, there's the vitalism / vital force / HPN-VMN that is essential to naturopathy. Truly, when they say "treat the cause" they are talking about a vitalistic context. Truly, whatever language they choose -- and so often they choose to disguise their context in a crafty manner -- they are in the end vitalistically of context.
003. what science says about vitalism:
science says it is not science.
004. so, regarding this Canadian Gang of Naturopathic Four:
this is truly a feat of mislabeling on a grand scale [national!]. It is typical of the naturopathic. How a hugely science-ejected sectarian claim supposedly survives scientific scrutiny as objective fact is truly a feat of cultic proportions. Such is 'the science-ejected vitalism that dare not speak its name'.
