Opaque Research: 6 NDs' 2018 'Study' Describing but Not Describing Naturopathy

here, the opacity, 'ah the opacity':

001. in the journal Integrative Medicine Research,

Day, A. (ND Bastyr), Bradley, R. (ND Bastyr), Cooley, K. (ND CCNM), Goldenberg, J.Z. (ND  Bastyr), Steel, A. (ND ACNM), Yap, C. (ND Bastyr)

write in

Goldenberg, J. Z., Steel, A., Day, A., Yap, C., Bradley, R., & Cooley, K. (2018). Naturopathic approaches to irritable bowel syndrome: protocol for a prospective observational study in academic teaching clinics. Integrative Medicine Research, 7(3), 279–286. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2018.06.001

[spaced for readability]:

"naturopathic medicine is a distinct CAM system of healthcare that uses a whole systems-based approach individualized to the patient and their presentation of symptoms [...]"; 

so, there's that claim of distinction.  I think with distinction should come details, up-front and tranparent and all that.  And I've never been able to understand why naturopathy patients only have symptoms.  Surely SIGNS are also important? 

"naturopathy is a 'system of healthcare with a deep history of traditional philosophies and practice' [WNF 2015...] through which practitioners integrate medical knowledge with natural treatment options [WNF 2015...] as a profession, naturopathy is defined by core philosophies, theories and principles [WNF 2015...] while naturopathy originated in Germany, the profession is now practiced in every region of the world [WNF 2016...] these elements manifest in a clinical practice approach to treatment that is holistic and naturopathy is best characterized by this holistic clinical approach more so than specific treatments prescribed [Sarris 2014]"; 

so, we'll look at these references for further detail below in 002. because no details are provided, specific to naturopathy beside such meaningless / nebulous marketing tropes as "whole systems [...] traditional philosophies [...] core philosophies [...and] holistic."

and I think that's a strategic and manipulative choice on the part of the authors. I must also note the following from the article:

"naturopathic [...] academic teaching clinics [...include] National University of Health Sciences [...and the Sarris reference is] Sarris J., Wardle J. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. Clinical naturopathy: an evidence-based guide to practice";

that's a science categorical claim upon naturopathy.  So, 'science subset these philosophies, theories and treatments' supposedly.

002. now we'll look at their references which reveal 'the essentially naturopathic' that the above authors don't mention in their study:

002.a. first, there's "World Naturopathic Federation. 2015. About naturopathy. Accessed June 20, 2017" which:

doesn't transparently mention vitalism but does state, coded, "the naturopathic principles taught in most countries include [...#2] healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [...]";

so distinct!

002.b. then there's "World Naturopathic Federation. World Naturopathic Federation; Canada: 2016. 2016 naturopathic numbers report" which states:

nothing about naturopathy's essential beliefs.

002.c. but, if you search >site:worldnaturopathicfederation.org vitalism<, you get abundant hits:

.

.

including "Defining the Global Naturopathic Profession" which states:

"the philosophies of 'vitalism' and 'holism' are core to naturopathic practice globally [...]"; 

so, there you are.  Distinctly not cited transparently.  Opacity was chosen instead. 

002.c. and finally there's "Sarris J., Wardle J. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. Clinical naturopathy: an evidence-based guide to practice" which I own and have OCR'd to search and it states:

"vitalism. A fundamental belief of naturopathy is that ill health begins with a loss of vitality [...] the vital force is diminished by a range of physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and environmental factors. Vitalism is the belief that living things depend on the action of a special energy or force that guides the processes of metabolism, growth, reproduction, adaptation and interaction. This vital force is capable of interactions with material matter, such as a person's biochemistry, and these interactions of the vital force are necessary for life to exist. The vital force is non-material and occurs only in living things. It is the guiding force that accounts not only for the maintenance of life, but for the development and activities of living organisms such as the progression from seed to plant, or the development of an embryo to a living being. The vital force is seen to be different from all the other forces recognised by physics and chemistry. And, most importantly, living organisms are more than just the effects of physics and chemistry. Vitalists agree with the value of biochemistry and physics in physiology but claim that such sciences will never fully comprehend the nature of life. Conversely, vitalism is not the same as a traditional religious view of life. Vitalists do not necessarily attribute the vital force to a creator, a god or a supernatural being, although vitalism can be compatible with such views. This is considered a 'strong' interpretation of vitalism. Naturopaths use a 'moderate' form of vitalism: vis medicatrix naturae, or the healing power of nature.' Vis medicatrix naturae defines health as good vitality where the vital force flows energetically through a person's being, sustaining and replenishing us, whereas ill health is a disturbance of vital energy. While naturopaths agree with modern pathology about the concepts of disease (cellular dysfunction, genetics, accidents, toxins and microbes), naturopathic philosophy further believes that a person's vital force determines their susceptibility to illness, the amount of treatment necessary, the vigour of treatment and the speed of recovery. Those with poor vitality will succumb more quickly, require more treatment, need gentler treatments and take longer to recover [...]"; 

so, mentioned there: vitalism = vitality = vital force = a special energy or force = guiding force = the nature of life = vis medicatrix naturae = vital energy. So, the cited study at the top of this post does not speak of this vitalism.  It keeps it tucked away, buried opaquely.  And of course, the oddest thing about the charity that naturopathy receives is this science-exterior based area is within what Elsevier calls "health science."