here, I quote from a naturopath who explicitly states that "life force" (a.k.a. The Vis, in naturopathy lingo) is not scientific and that [apparently] science is 'a convenient mentionable' [see 001., below]; then, I point out '.gov' naturopathy claims that "life force" / vitalism survives scientific scrutiny WHILE ACTUALLY hugely science-ejected [see 002., below]; then, I show that that 'life force concept claimed as science' IS a primary item of the naturopathy oath [see 003., below]; finally, I muse [see 004., below]:
001. Marturano, M. (SCNM NMD), in "Discerning Health Disinformation on the Web" [vsc 2010-11-16], speaks of:
"trying to find solid health information [...with so much out there apparently] very authoritative and credible on the surface [...yet ultimately of] a hidden agenda [...] insufficient evidence
[...and warns of] disinformation tactics [which] work by making the truth appear false and the false appear true [...via statements apparently] based in fact, but twisted [...offering] woo-woo [...from] hucksters and charlatans [...selling] snake oil to the unwitting public [(my irony meter is exploding)...]
[and he speaks of avoiding] the top three disinformation tactics out there [...] to protect yourself from these unscrupulous literary magicians [...with the #1 tactic being] lack of evidence equals evidence of lack [(I'm not kidding here)...and gives three examples concerning] no scientific evidence
[...and offers, as the fourth] let's take on a big one: there is no scientific evidence showing the existence [of] an invisible life force (spirit, qi, chi, prana, etc.) [vitalism, naturopathy's big one!] that supports living beings. The above statement is certainly true
[...and regarding science states] we should put scientific evidence in its rightful place as one of many useful ways to understand the world around us [(as in, 'not a priority')...] it is not necessary for science to support every little statement that a health professional makes [(as in 'not a priority)]."
Note: so, we get the admitted scientific dismissal of vitalism as a scientific theory, essentially. And science, thought the best way to comprehend the world around us, is not much of a priority. In 004., I'll comment on other things from the above.
001.b. 'science as a convenient mentionable':
With science not very prioritized, NMD Marturano yet isn't shy about lauding naturopathy's supposed science basis and science course hours [vsc 2010-11-16].
I sense a little hypocrisy here, as in 'my educational credentials claim a reasonable basis and priority of science, when convenient' [used for marketing legitimacy, ignored for the basis of 'the essentially naturopathic']. And, naturopathy's principles are 'described' without actually much description / transparency:
"principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] healing power of nature [coded vitalism], naturopathic medicine recognizes a self-healing process of the body [coded vitalism] that is ordered and intelligent. We do not purport to be the cause of cure, but simply a catalyst to effect that which would occur naturally, given the right conditions and resources."
002. the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine states in "Naturopathy" [vsc 2010-11-16]:
"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis [...#1] the healing power of nature, vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN a.k.a. 'The Vis'...] nature heals through the response of the life force [(vitalism)...#3] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself."
Note: so, vitalism a.k.a. HPN-VMN is claimed as able to survive scientific scrutiny. But, this is hugely not true.
This is your government facilitating your exploitation: both as an education consumer and as a clinical consumer.
003. the ND / NMD obligation to vitalism / "The Vis":
Here, by way of a British Columbia, Canada BCNA ND homeopathy proponent, is the Naturopathy Oath [psc 2010-11-19]:
"I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of Naturopathic Medicine
I will continually endeavor to improve my abilities.
I will conduct my life and practice of Naturopathic Medicine with integrity and freedom from prejudice
[(my irony meter is again over-the-limit)...]
I will honor the principles of Naturopathic Medicine
to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [(HPN-VMN; coded vitalism)...]
with my whole heart, before these witnesses, as a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath."
Note: so, the HPN-VMN is obviously a naturopath's by-oath obligation [vitalism camouflaged, falsely labeled as science].
So, what can be culled from all this?
Well, I've obviously found an ND/NMD who disavows THE primary REQUIRED naturopathy belief / tenet [a science-ejected / -unsupported sectarian concept (of many such in naturopathy)] that is usually FALSELY stated as scientific fact.
That is quite a find: a huge absurdity [the nonscientific falsely labeled science] piled upon another huge absurdity [a by-oath requirement then disavowed].
"solid health information" - I hope it's now obvious that naturopathy's claims, at their highest echelon, are no way 'solid', e.g. it irrationally labels something what it hugely isn't;
"authoritative and credible on the surface" - yes, camouflaged / coded, as naturopathy poses as legitimate yet when you analyze it, it falls apart;
"a hidden agenda" - can you say naturopathy's M.O., as we see with this NMD and the MANP that he's secretary of, e.g. the vitalism tenet, coded, with a false science label AS AN AGENDA?;
"disinformation tactics" - something naturopathy has obviously mastered;
"the truth appear false and the false appear true" and "based in fact, but twisted" - reminds me of naturopathy's 'reversal of values' M.O.;
"woo-woo" - a skeptical word, misappropriated [?];
"hucksters and charlatans", "[selling] snake oil to the unwitting public", "unscrupulous literary magicians" - sounds like sCAM that scamming scam scam;
"lack of evidence equals evidence of lack" - this is thoroughly illogical and practically straw-man. It is this simple: science relies upon evidence, and to base medical decisions on 'a HUGE nonscience lack' is NUTS;
"no scientific evidence" - ah-hum, can anyone say naturopathy's vitalism and supernaturalism? [amongst other things naturopathic]];
"there is no scientific evidence showing the existence [of] an invisible life force (spirit, qi, chi, prana, etc.) [...] the above statement is certainly true" - yes it is CERTAIN [science-ejected, more specifically], and it's nice to hear this little bit of huge honesty yet naturopaths have a greatly absurd quandary here: claiming science while actually hugely essentially nonscientific, by oath;
science as "one of many useful ways to understand the world around us" "it is not necessary for science to support every little statement that a health professional makes" - since science is the BEST way to know about the world around us, other ways are not as useful for something as serious as medicine, and I would think that it IS NECESSARY for someone in commerce and the professions to properly label what hugely isn't science as not science, instead of what naturopathy is doing, which falsely labeling the nonscientific science and trading upon it.