Naturopathy's Oxymoronic 'Scientific Vitalism & Supernaturalism' - Lisanti, F. (ND NCNM):

this is one of my favorite, completely illogical / oxymoronic claims: North American naturopaths who label that which is profoundly science-ejected [see 01.a1., 01.a2. below], and absolutely without scientific support -- scientific [see 01.b. below]. Welcome to the land of 'an in fact scientific fact that is, in fact, science-ejected" aka naturopathy:

01. Lisanti, F. (ND NCNM) states:

01.a. in "Naturopathic Doctors":

01.a1. naturopathy's essential vitalism:

"in short, naturopathic doctors or NDs design treatments that work with your vital force [...] there are six principles of naturopathic medicine. [The primary one, our vitalism premise, is also called] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae)."

Note: click here for a compilation of such 'essential naturopathic vitalism.'

01.a2. naturopathy's essential supernaturalism:

"a naturopathic doctor will direct treatment toward the root cause of illness be it physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual [...we evaluate] our patients' mental, physical, and spiritual wellnesses."

Note: click here for a compilation of such 'essential naturopathic supernaturalism.'

o1.b. naturopathy's overarching science labeling in "Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine is a [...] science [...] naturopathic medicine is distinguished by the principles upon which its practice is based. These principles [e.g.: our essential vitalism & supernaturalism] are continually re-examined in the light of scientific advances [...NDs are] comprehensively trained in the science of natural
health care."

Note: click here more examples of such 'naturopathy is science' self-labeling.

02. here's where it gets VERY interesting, and naturopathy's 'epistemic fraud' becomes quite clear:

02.a. vitalism is profoundly science-ejected.

02.b. supernaturalism is profoundly nonscientific / not supported by science.

03. so, do you trust the 'science expertise claims of naturopaths,' who place the label 'able to survive scientific scrutiny' upon what truly -- PROFOUNDLY -- cannot?