here, I cite from a chapter by NDs Standish, Grosshans, Lush and Robeson that opaquely explains naturopathy's basis while hugely invoking science [see 001., below]; then, I shed light on that actually science-ejected basis from an update of naturopathy's Textbook of Natural Medicine that that chapter cites [see 002.,below]:
001. lead author ND Standish (Bastyr 1991), of a collection that has "the world's foremost authorities [...] a 'dream team' of breast cancer experts" claimed on its cover, writes:
001a. of the vitalism that dare not speak its name:
"the eight principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] use the healing power of nature [HPN, coded vitalism], identify and treat the cause, first do no harm, see the doctor as teacher, treat the whole person-mind body and spirit [supernaturalism], focus on prevention, promote wellness, use the least force to obtain each therapeutic goal. All eight principles apply in treating breast cancer naturopathically [...] the healing power of nature is central [p.249]."
Note: and that's all you get. Yes, supernaturalism but also coded vitalism as HPN, which is claimed as central, but not central enough to transparently explain. Yet, we're somehow to believe the doctor is teaching. I feel manipulated, yet the cover states things within have been "explained in clear, nontechnical language".
001.b. 25 instances of the word root "scien":
"Leanna J. Standish, N.D., Ph.D., L.Ac. is [...] Bastyr University Senior Scientist. She is a licensed naturopathic physician with a twenty-five-year career as a research scientist in experimental neuroscience who has spearheaded research on the efficacy of naturopathic medicine to treat breast cancer [...] I had always been afraid of cancer, especially breast cancer -- particularly because current scientific under standing is actually quite limited [...] I wanted to know as much as I could about this disease, not just from professional training, textbooks, and cutting-edge science [p.245...] in this chapter, I bring to bear what I’ve learned about the most promising science-based natural medicine approaches [...] I also make it my business to investigate available CAM treatments so I can help my patients sort out useful, science-based therapies from treatments that may be based more on self-delusion, wishful thinking, or marketing hype than on fact [...] now we’re building a solid base of scientific studies and systematic clinical observation to validate the best approaches [p.246...] to make sure there’s a human face to all the science I’m discussing [p.247...] later in this chapter we will walk you through each of these goals, providing you with the best known strategies for reaching each one, with specific treatments and state-of-the-art scientific knowledge about each [p.249...] art and science [...] naturopathic medicine is not just an art but also a science [...] when scientists do turn their attention to natural [p.250] medicines, they often skip right over the test tube and animal testing in favor of clinical studies although even naturopathic physicians recommend natural medicines about which we have only incomplete scientific evidence, we often have more to go on than you might think. My colleagues and I have systematically searched the scientific literature to evaluate which CAM therapies have the strongest evidence backing up their use [...] in the rest of this chapter, I’m going to take you through each of the ten naturopathic goals for breast cancer, with the best naturopathic treatments of choice for each, and a look at the science backing them up [p.251...] some scientists believe that low levels of melatonin put women at risk for breast cancer [p.260...] scientists are looking at specific immune recognition approaches to breast cancer alone and in conjunction with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy [p.263...] controversial scientific evidence links organochlorine pesticides e.g., DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs) [etc. p.264...] the science does not yet exist [p.268...] I firmly believe in using what has been scientifically validated [...] but even for me, all the literature on CAM is confusing enough to be crazy-making-and that’s after [p.272] you sort out the marketing hype from the science [p.273...] the bulk of the scientific data, however, suggests [p.275...] scientific evidence indicates it would be safe [p.276...] Dr. Cheryl Grosshans, a recent graduate ofthe naturopathic medical program at Bastyr University who began working with me in has helped me collect, read, and review hundreds of scientific papers on natural medicines for breast cancer [p.282]."
Note: oh how they love to invoke "scien". A principle ethos of science is transparency. So, I find it odd that the chapter so opaquely describes naturopathy's HPN central premise and yet claims science, science, science. Now, the endnotes for the chapter cites: "Pizzorno J, Murray M. Textbook of Natural Medicine. Kenmore, Wash.: Churchill Livingston Press, vol. II, 2000." That was the earlier edition.
002. what the TNM 3rd edition (2005; ISBN 1455705276) says about HPN:
"[in a chapter authored by ND Bradley] naturopathic medicine has always identified the Latin expression vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) as its philosophical linchpin [p.079...] the Principles of Naturopathic Medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [...] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [p.080...] vitalism is a medical philosophy based on observable scientific phenomena [bullshit...] 'vital force,' defense mechanism, or simply 'nature') [p.082...which is] vitalism [p.085...] naturopathic physicians integrate vitalistic therapies [p.086...in a chapter authored by NDs Zeff, Snider and Myers] Dr. Sensenig presented 'Back to the Future: Reintroducing Vitalism as a New Paradigm' [p.030...] the vis medicatrix naturae, the vital force, the healing power of nature [p.034...] many naturopathic modalities can be used to stimulate the overall vital force [p.034...] an entire physiologic system (immune, cardiovascular, detoxification, life force, endocrine, etc.) [p.036]."
Note: so, there you go, some transparency. HPN is the science-ejected archaicism known as vitalism, a kind of purposeful life-spirit dualistic sectarian belief that is totally scientifically unnecessary to explain ANYTHING but claimed as science by naturopathy. If so simple a thing cannot be understood, honestly communicated and even properly labeled by NDs, I don't think naturopathic oncology is for me: equating the hugely science-ejected and the actually scientific doesn't sound like a sound basis for someone claiming cancer treatment specialization.