001. ND Kasdorf, a 1998 SCNM graduate, hosts "113TH Congress 1ST Session S. Res. 135" (2015 archived), which states:
"whereas naturopathic medicine provides noninvasive, holistic treatments that support the inherent self-healing capacity of the human body";
WHAT could that SHCHB mean? What if it means SOMETHING BEYOND what is being expressed. Something RADICAL? Isn't the language rather NOT TRANSPARENT and uninformative if such were true?
002. the ND writes in "How to Proceed in a Friendly Universe" (2014 archived):
"naturopathic medicine has its philosophic base in the self-organizing, intelligent, healing force in a benign universe. It is know as the 'vis medicatrix naturae,' the healing power of nature, or the vital force [...]";
and there you go, science-ejected vitalism at the heart of naturopathy. Naturopathy's RADICAL position is that a science-ejected figmentation is responsible for health and disease, and ABSURDLY science-based [as the ND's alma mater decrees]. But it gets better.
"what we perceive as illness is what the vital force within is producing in an effort to balance and regain health. When there are disturbing factors, the vital force kicks in and has the ability to react, and is so doing, creates a discharge which restores health [...] the 'vis' acts to restore health [...] although the usual domain of the physician is the physical body, we must recognize that our spirit animates the body and they only separate on death. Therefore, if the spirit is disturbed, the body cannot be healthy [...]";
so, there is that science-exterior sectarian supernaturalism also at the heart of naturopathy.
003. so I must ask some rather obvious questions:
why CAN'T naturopathy tell us the PLAIN TRUTH most of the time, so we can then make informed decisions?
should the Federal Government be PROMOTING opaque sectarianisms?