in this multi-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 015, aka s02e05, retitled from “The JACM 2019 Special Issue on Naturopathy” to “A Qualitative Content Analysis of Curated World Naturopathic Federation Publications and Reports Employing the Online Misinformation Engagement Framework Within a Paradigm of Methodological Naturalism,” I'll be sharing a study I've recently written in an semi-scholarly manner.
---
In this first part of Episode 015 Part C, I'll cover the context of that conversion in terms of the study or project, what I've termed naturopathy's methodological con-fabulation, and naturopathy's vitalistic / supernaturalistic oncology through the institutional structures of healthcare publishing, the law, and academics.
[The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 015c1 [s02e05c1] Script and Annotations post 3 of 4]
[00.56.38]
ND Alschuler, Vitalistic Oncologist #1.
Now, literally, oddly enough, SUHS just announced a new president and CEO, ND Alschuler, who will take over mid-2025.
And the press release at the school states, from sonoran.edu:
“together, we will shape the future of health sciences education rooted in the healing power of nature.”
ND Alschuler tells us, in an interview on a supplement maker’s site titled “Meet the Expertise: Lise Alschuler, N.D., F.A.B.N.O.” at sagebygaia.com concerning naturopathy’s essential vitalism:
“one of the principles of naturopathic medicine is that we encourage the innate healing process within each person. We understand that each of us possesses an inherent ability to bring ourselves to health or to strive towards health […] that healing force […] our vital force […] our vitality […] our life force.”
In contrast, at drlise.net, her own website, she has the page up titled “FAQ #5 What Do Naturopathic Doctors Mean by the Healing Power of Nature?“ -- with the badges of the AANP and the Institute for Natural Medicine atop the article -- which states:
"naturopathic doctors follow six guiding principles that serve as a philosophical platform for everything they do. The principles influence how they think about medicine, how they make clinical decisions, and most importantly, how they treat you as a patient. Each principle plays a role in guiding naturopathic doctors in diagnosis and treatment. The healing power of nature is one of these six core principles. The healing power of nature recognizes the body’s inherent ability to heal itself [...] naturopathic therapies support and enhance the natural healing power of the body [...] self-healing [...] in order to facilitate the natural healing ability in patients [...] naturopathic doctors utilize the therapeutic order, a natural order of therapeutic intervention used to help discover and evaluate multiple obstacles to healing, as a framework for diagnosis and treatment. These guidelines are aimed at supporting the body’s health restoring and maintenance processes [...] in focusing on the healing power of nature [...] healing itself."
Not a lick of life forces, vital forces, healing forces.
Not a lick of transparency, from the top.
Similarly, opaquely, in an April of 2015 short YouTube video by ND Alschuler from the Naturopathic Medicine Journal account titled “Intro to Naturopathic Oncology by Dr Lise Alschuler, ND, FABNO” she states vitalism opaquely as “our own internal healing process” and there’s a strong science claim as “we really employ very sound scientific principles […] we comb the research [...] with sound scientifically based strategies.”
And there are the sentiments:
“to maximize the health and the wellbeing of somebody diagnosed with cancer [...] I myself am a cancer survivor [...] to reinsert wellness into the experience of cancer [...] to meet this fear that cancer incites [...] with an informed sense of hope.”
Highlighted in that video are two books towards the end, a broad naturopathy pamphlet and a cancer-centered book.
In the 2009 pamphlet -- which Amazon.com attributes authorship to ND Alschuler as she does too in the just mentioned video -- I think we get a true glimpse of the ‘not natural but supernatural’ belief core or source at the heart of naturopathy -- what vitalism means -- which is so often obscured.
She writes:
“naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability. Naturopathic doctors NDs teach their patients to use diet, exercise, lifestyle changes and cutting-edge natural therapies to enhance their bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [...] the naturopathic doctor or homeopath perceives symptoms as the body’s attempt to heal itself [...] chapter three principles of naturopathic medicine. Naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles [...#1] let nature heal. Mother Nature knows what she’s doing. That’s why our bodies have such a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing. By finding and removing the barriers to this self-healing - such as poor diet or unhealthy habits - naturopathic physicians can nurture this process [...] Q: Do naturopaths take an oath like MDs do? A: Yes. The fundamental principles adhered to by naturopathic doctors are similar to the Hippocratic Oath. Naturopathic physician’s oath [...] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine [...#2] to cooperate with the healing powers of nature.”
So that’s all the typical naturopathic coded vitalism.
Then we’re told, particular to naturopathy’s homeopathy:
“naturopathic physicians often prescribe homeopathic remedies. A 200-year-old system of medicine, homeopathy follows four basic tenets: the Law of Similars, the Law of Infinitesimals, the Law of Chronic Disease, and the Law of Cures [...] the Law of lnfinitesimals [...] German physician Samuel Christian Hahnemann 1755-1843, the father of homeopathy, taught that every person has a vital source. He believed that the homeopathic remedy must be diluted enough so it doesn’t overwhelm this vital source, or spiritual core.”
Yes, that vital force spirit.
The science claims within the pamphlet include:
“naturopathic medicine is based on scientific evidence as well as common sense [...] returning to the roots of healing does not mean abandoning science […] accredited universities [...that graduate NDs include] National University of Health Sciences."
Ah, to have it all: the scientific science-ejected health science.
The second book, about cancer, is from 2010.
"The Definitive Guide to Cancer, 3rd Edition: An Integrative Approach to Prevention, Treatment, and Healing" ISBN 15876135 is co-authored by ND Alschuler and not-an-ND Karolyn A. Gazella.
The latter is a publisher and author whose portfolio includes or included, according to her Psychology Today bio. page, in addition to co-authoring this 2010 book, the founding of the AANP's official journal "Natural Medicine Journal."
She still hosts the Natural Medicine Journal podcast but has sold the journal, so is no longer its publisher.
At her 2009 Archived web page, karolyngazella.com, she tells us:
“author, publisher, speaker. Karolyn is committed to health education. She has spent her professional career educating others about natural health and holistic healing methods. Karolyn's own personal health story is compelling. In an eight-month period, Karolyn's sister was diagnosed with cancer, her mom died of pancreatic cancer, and Karolyn was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It's not surprising that this experience dramatically changed her life. Since that time, she has been on a mission to ease suffering and empower people to take control of their health. Several years ago, she joined forces with naturopathic oncologist Dr. Lise Alschuler to write The Definitive Guide to Cancer, the culmination of their life's mission to help people heal from this devastating illness. Karolyn continues to devote her professional career to health education."
So that's health education, cancer survivorship, the easing of suffering, empowerment, helpfulness, and healing.
Now, according to my OCR'd version of the book there is lots of talk of naturopathy, homeopathy, science, informed consent or informed decision making, the integrative, and of course cancer.
Regarding naturopathy, offered within the book are two broad accounts.
There is the page 101 statement:
"naturopathic medicine: naturopathic physicians are doctors trained to provide family health care and to emphasize the use of natural therapies to stimulate the innate healing processes of each person […] naturopathic medicine is used by people both as their primary health care and as complementary health care particularly in the case of integrative cancer care. Naturopathic physicians utilize most of the integrative therapies covered in this book. For more information on naturopathic medicine, refer to the sidebar on page 105. To find a naturopathic physician in your area, visit www.naturopathic.org [that's the AANP] and for a board-certified naturopathic oncologist visit […] oncanp.org."
That's coded vitalism as "the innate healing processes of each person" and two of the scariest words I can think of in healthcare, naturopathic oncologist.
It should be noted too that vitalism is not within the book's index while ‘naturop’ occurs at least 103 times throughout.
That page 105 sidebar states, as if getting more specified and informative:
"according to the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' Public Awareness campaign, 'in addition to the basic medical sciences and conventional diagnostics, naturopathic education includes therapeutic nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, natural childbirth, classical Chinese medicine theory, hydrotherapy, naturopathic manipulative therapy, pharmacology and minor office procedures' [...] naturopathic education includes four years of training in clinical nutrition, homeopathic medicine, botanical medicine, psychology and lifestyle counseling, drug-herb and drug-nutrient interactions and pharmacology, and requires supervised clinical training.”
On page 97 there’s also the statement:
“the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) [since renamed the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health…] breaks down […] alternative medical systems into four primary systems of healing […including] homeopathy, naturopathy, [and] traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) […] a wide variety of therapies [...] can be used to complement cancer treatment, offset side effects of cancer treatment, and strengthen the body's natural healing ability."
So, the 'anything goes' integrative cornucopia and coding.
"the power and principles of naturopathic medicine [...] naturopathic philosophy [...] naturopathic medicine embraces the medical oath 'first do no harm' [...] by using protocols that minimize the risk of harm, naturopathic physicians help facilitate the body's inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health […] naturopathic physicians use scientifically based principles to guide their diagnosis and treatment, and provide individual and family health care, emphasizing the use of natural therapies.”
So, I think this is...disgusting.
There is no proper mention of the vitalism that is definitive of naturopathy in a book that argues for naturopathy for cancer with definitive in its title and is supposedly there on page 105 defining naturopathy.
Instead, there’s the fake wrapping of “scientifically based” upon principles, particularly their central one of vitalism, which is anything but.
Boy, sure feels like transparency -- by way of more coded vitalism -- and the idea of 'the love of wisdom' aka philosophy -- by way of maintaining ignorance of actual context which is the opposite of educating -- are being harmed.
First and foremost.
The actual ‘first do’ principle of naturopathy is ‘first do no truth’.
This is health education, and health care?
Of the small bit of vitalism within the book that is mentioned, there is the coded vitalism particularly of pages 13 and 14.
Therein the authors tell us:
"the body's ability to heal [...] the cornerstone of integrative cancer prevention and treatment is supporting the body's natural ability to protect and heal itself [...] the body has an innate cellular system of checks and balances that works to keep us well [quite a euphemism…] conventional oncology severely underestimates the body's potential for self-healing [a hint that something else is being talked about]."
So, no communication of naturopathy's essential vitalism in a transparent manner, again.
Just more patina.
There is explicit vitalism on page 98:
"following is a brief overview of some of the integrative therapies most commonly used by cancer patients. Acupuncture: this is a form of traditional medicine that originated in China more than 5,000 years ago. The premise of acupuncture is that health is determined by the balance of a vital life force energy called qi […] which flows along 12 major pathways in the body, called meridians. Small needles are inserted into one or more of the over 1,000 acupuncture points along the meridians in order to support optimal flow of qi throughout the body and thereby improve health in specific ways. Studies have demonstrated that acupuncture can relieve pain, nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms associated with cancer and cancer treatment.”
And, of course, TCM was listed as within naturopathy.
There is no mention of the scientific refutation of such explicit vitalism and kind, as would be responsible particularly in a book about cancer.
All the while, the page 105 science claims are stark:
"naturopathic physicians are experts in the scientific application of natural healing [...] naturopathic physicians use scientifically based principles to guide their diagnosis and treatment [...] naturopathic medical education consists of the same basic sciences as are taught in conventional medical programs, a scientifically based understanding of health and disease” [a dropped out 'unquote].
And from page 104 we are told:
“we recommend that patients consult a naturopathic physician, and ideally a naturopathic oncologist. These doctors are trained in the scientific use of natural therapies and have extensive training in health and disease as well."
Overall, that’s terming the science-ejected and science-exterior “scientifically based”, which is not a philosophy because it is not wise, it is nonsense.
So, I say, ‘my ass’.
Truly disgusting: ‘principles and powers’ that dare not explicitly reveal themselves, a science that includes as its therapeutic goal the science-ejected using science-ejected techniques or theatrical placebos within an enterprise that seeks to induce the behavior of vulnerable cancer patients.
Regarding homeopathy, that naturopathic bellwether, its essential vitalistic premise is not mentioned in the book and its broad page 100 statement which is:
"homeopathy: This form of medicine uses highly diluted natural substances to bring the body back into balance. Homeopathy uses substances in infinitesimally small doses to help the natural processes of the body regain homeostasis. It is intended to create constitutionally based well-being as well as to relieve symptoms such as nausea, constipation, diarrhea, and peripheral neuropathy, among others.”
And on page 192 we’re told:
“homeopathic remedies are chosen for a person based upon their totality of symptoms, even if the primary objective is to stimulate their immune system responses."
Yet, the glossary states in the book that all this is supposedly:
“integrative oncology. A comprehensive, evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach to cancer care that attempts to fully support all participants by combing scientifically valid treatments from both conventional and complementary and alternative medicine [p. 393].”
Homeopathy is not medicine in any scientifically valid way, it is a placebo – there is no measured response particularly in terms of an immune system or it wouldn’t be termed witchcraft – and it brings nothing beyond placebo but false hope.
That is why naturopathy doesn't do any studies on homeopathy, which would be easy to perform.
They already know homeopathy is not “scientifically valid” IMHO.
After all, for example, the authors state within the book:
“we have based our conclusions on the following: [#1] scientific, credible sources [p. 113…] We evaluate these ‘cures’ based on available scientific literature [p.140…] we have developed a detailed alphabetical rating system to help you evaluate specific cancer treatments. Our unique rating system encompasses the quantity and type of evidence as well as safety contraindications and toxicity risks. The best rating is an A, which means that the supplement has excellent scientific evidence backing up its use and it is safe to use [p. 160].”
There’s also this explanation of reiki, which is termed “energy medicine”:
“reiki: this form of energy therapy gently encourages balance on all levels by reducing stress, pain, and anxiety; restoring a sense of wellbeing; enhancing the body's innate ability to heal; and creating other benefits that are specific to the individual. The touch of a reiki practitioner is light and noninvasive. Reiki is thought to work by means of a cascade of healing pulsations that flow spontaneously through the practitioner according to the need of the person receiving treatment.”
Yeah, miraculous...witchcraft.
Regarding the importance of being informed, we’re told:
"[from the cover] this comprehensive guide delivers informed hope [as if...from within the book, broadly, the] purpose of this book. Our goal is to present information on integrative cancer prevention and treatment in a practical, useful manner so you will be able to make informed decisions [...] throughout this book, we adhere to the following guiding principles [...] scrutinizing the scientific literature and all information carefully and using only the highest-quality references and the most respected sources, being scientific yet compassionate while presenting the most accurate information as succinctly as possible, delivering informed hope not false hope [...] information is power. There can be false comfort in not knowing. Sometimes a potential answer is so frightening that we avoid asking important questions. We need to try to resist the temptation that allows fear to befriend our denial. Getting the answers we need helps us make informed decisions on how to move forward each step of the way."
I think there can also be a ‘falseness benefit’ in not sharing facts succinctly, accurately, a falsely-gained power over others who have cancer to one's benefit with false labels and false positions of expertise because those marks haven't been simply and clearly told what naturopathy is about to then make an informed decision.
So, in terms of an important question to shatter a certain kind of denial and to have something resembling an informed decision status, I’ll ask:
"why should an area like naturopathy that cannot or will not distinguish simple science detail from simple nonscience detail be trusted and not dismissed outright when it decrees its pronouncements concerning cancer and what's of highest-quality scientific status?"
Additionally, regarding science, there are the statements:
"this theory is entirely lacking in scientific merit […] there is no scientific validity to this theory […] no scientific evidence exists supporting the concept […] there is currently no scientific evidence, however, to support these claims […] the American Cancer Society does not endorse the liver flush due to the lack of scientific evidence for this therapy [...] and there is no shortage of such stories of miracle cures and lifesaving treatment regimens based on pseudoscientific explanations […] flawed logic and pseudoscientific reasoning […] linking glucose metabolism within the cells to dietary sugar consumption is an oversimplification that leads to a misinformed conclusion […] you will benefit from incorporating a healthy dose of skepticism […] this work gave me an intense appreciation for the complexity of cancer and for the scientific rigor required when applying natural therapies. […] we take great pride in the scientific detail that has informed the creation of this book […] we hope you're tethered to solid science, sound advice, and a logical and effective evaluation of all the information you receive […] borrowed science. Some manufacturers use what is called ‘borrowed science’ to make their product or information look valid. The problem with borrowed science is that it can be difficult to detect.”
They really write all that.
I'd argue lack of scientific merit and validity, lack of scientific evidence, lackings of many kinds, the pseudo- and the illogical, and traditional oversimplifications and borrowings are much at the heart of the issues concerning naturopathy and epistemic miscategorization, leading to…
Misinformation.
And a pseudo- or quite crippled skepticism:
not solid science, but stealthy erosion.
The pinnacle of such are ND Alschuler's statements within the book such as:
“integrative oncology takes advantage of the body's own capacity for self-healing [p. rn_23…] the medicine I practice respects the wisdom of every individual and supports their inherent healing capacities. I am able to employ the healing powers of nature in a scientifically robust manner [p. rn_27…] she believes that her job as a naturopathic physician and educator is to stimulate and support the innate healing processes within each individual by applying a scientifically based strategy [p. rn_11].”
So much hypocrisy, so much internal contradiction, so much lack of integrity.
Yet, the root 'integr' of integrative occurs in my OCR of the book at least 220 times.
Now, ‘integrity’ is usually defined as being of strong moral principles and honesty, while ‘integrative’ is to blend or combine.
Those distinctions are quite important.
Here, the blending is ‘being indiscriminate shit posing as what’s best’:
that old epistemic conflation posing as an epistemic distinction.
The scientifically discarded as scientifically robust…
Yet, we’re told, broadly:
And the book tells us:
"integrative medicine combines conventional medicine with CAM practices that have been shown to be effective."
[01.22.17]
But what it really is – integrative medicine -- is, in the sense of ‘shown to be’, disgusting in terms of logic, exploitation, and empathy.
Now, oddly enough, there’s a rather cozy 11-minute episode of the Natural Medicine Journal podcast from October of 2022 that features the two co-authors Alschuler and Gazella.
It is titled “A Commitment to Naturopathic Medicine: Natural Medicine Journal’s Promise to Practitioners.”
In the description, we’re told that the ND was at the time and in 2025 is still listed as the “editor [of] abstracts & commentary of the Natural Medicine Journal.”
In the audio, ND Alschuler terms herself a “science nerd” while mentioning “the ideals of the profession” and “the integrity of the journal.”
And we’re told the journal is “peer-reviewed” and that ND Tina Kaczor is the long-standing journal editor-in-chief, a:
“fellow naturopathic oncologist […with] a certain degree of skepticism […but is of] a very evidence-based perspective […as in exemplifying] where is the evidence to support what we […] naturopathic doctors value […she is] a stickler.”
Now, as far as I can tell, ND Kaczor's practice does not mention naturopathy’s principles.
There is a picture, though, on her bio. page which shows her in front of a slide of the naturopathic principles.
For the healing power of nature, the definition provided is “the power of the body as well as the natural substances – immune function / active constituents.”
For doctor as teacher, the definition provided is “understanding /explaining.”
That’s all you get, really.
She is a 2000 NUNM ND graduate.
I presume she oversaw the NMJ article by ND Schor – also and NUNM graduate – titled “Telomere Length and Respiratory Health” wherein he wrote “in our training as naturopathic physicians we often speak of a person’s ‘vital force.’”
Or do they?
I mention NUNM as a common thread there because it is at the heart of North American naturopathy, seeding basically all the other North American schools, and in light of the North American model being ascendant in terms of the World Naturopathic Federation’s agenda.
I don’t think NUNM, or NCNM before the name change, has ever been ‘light’ in terms of the vitalism at the heart of naturopathy and naturopathy’s science status claim.
Presently, NUNM states in “Naturopathic Principles of Healing” at nunm.edu:
“the healing power of nature — vis medicatrix naturae. The body has the inherent ability to establish, maintain, and restore health. The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process […and that this is] objective […and survives] scientific analysis.”
Historically, one can have a present-day look at a conveniently accessible PDF version of the NUNM 1978 school catalog by way of the State of Nevada at leg.state.nv.us.
In "Bulletin 1978-1980" we’re told by school president ND Bastyr himself of desiring students who’d be “a channel for the healing power of nature.”
Naturopathic medicine is described as:
“distinct […] wholistic […of] proven therapeutics which reflect its philosophical principles […with the philosophy being the] why it is done […including that] the human body possesses tremendous power to heal itself through mechanisms of homeostasis […] the healing power of nature […] vital force, the vis medicatrix naturae, is the foundation of naturopathic philosophy and practice […] naturopathic medical science […applies] the latest research in all branches of medical science and technology […and it speaks of] the scientific basis of their practice […] the application of philosophy and science to people […] naturopathic physicians provide health education, the highest form of health care […] naturopathic therapeutics […include] acupuncture […and] homeotherapeutics.”
The two therapies just listed and their courses, acupuncture and homeopathy, are located within the “clinical sciences” section of the catalog.
On the last page is the exterior of the catalog, including the USPS permit number.
ND Boice, Vitalistic Oncologist #2.
Speaking of NUNM, its graduates, oncology, forms of vitalism, and naturopathy’s evasiveness on that matter, I can’t not mention ND Judith Boice.
Her books, including the three here that I’ll excerpt from, show up in the references sections of the WNFM nine times.
A web search with google.com, > Judith Boice naturopathic<, yields the following first-page results.
There’s her practice bio. page of this 2025, at drjudithboice.com, informing that she is a 1994 graduate of NUNM.
There is also her bio. page at oncanp.org which states:
“Dr. Judith Boice is a naturopathic physician, acupuncturist, #1 international best-selling author and award-winning author and teacher […] she has been in practice for 30 years and is a fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology (FABNO) and senior vitalist of the Naturopathic Medical Institute (VNMI) […] Dr. Boice worked for three years at Cancer Treatment Centers of America.”
There’s another short bio. at the AANP’s Natural Medicine Journal where she has published.
So, I’ll take a look these sources.
Incidentally, the first-page of the search results yields a 2022 letter from ND Boice to the Oregon legislature asking that NDs get paid better for their services and that insurers be forced to provide more access to NDs’ services.
Therein she states:
“I have sacrificed years to medical school to become a licensed physician and practice medicine in my local community […] I have worked in interdisciplinary medical teams in one of the nation’s finest cancer care centers, Cancer Treatment Centers of America.”
Medical, physician, medial, medical, cancer.
Another first-page search result is the amazon.com listing for her 1996 book “Pocket Guide to Naturopathic Medicine” ISBN 0895948214 which I own and have OCR’d.
The language, as shared within that book regarding naturopathy’s vitalism, is quite different from what is written at her practice and otherwheres this 2025.
Within the book, we’re told in a mainly coded manner:
“naturopathic medicine works to enhance your body’s innate healing capacity […] the healing power in their own bodies […] this innate healing power or natural intelligence directs the body to regenerate and rebalance […] the healing power innate in the human body […] naturopathic medical philosophy. Vis medicatrix naturae: the healing power of nature [...] an innate wisdom that governs the cycles of birth, growth, maturation, and decay […] each of these medications has a native intelligence that interacts with the body’s healing wisdom to bring about health, balance, and harmony […] the body’s own innate healing ability […] in addition to nutrition and hydrotherapy, many other treatments stimulate the body’s innate healing ability […] homeopathy, which literally means ‘study of similars,’ is a medical science that shares a common healing philosophy with naturopathic medicine. Both aim to stimulate the body’s innate healing capacity to bring about a ‘cure’ […] acupuncture works with the body’s own energy currents, which are measurable as electromagnetic forces. This magnetic force, or ‘river of’ energy,’ follows predictable patterns in the body […] acupuncture helps to direct the energy flow, or qi, through the meridians. Very thin needles inserted into ‘points’ on the body help redirect areas of pooled energy (‘stagnation’) and encourage qi to flow into areas that are deficient or undernourished […] qi gong. This branch of Chinese medicine applies the wisdom of the body’s ‘subtle energies’ in conjunction with the universal life energy. Qi gong masters expand upon the understanding of the meridian system in the body and teach students to strengthen these energy currents through daily movement and meditation practices.”
Qi is not, actually, a measurable electromagnetic force or energy in terms of science.
Nor is homeopathy a science.
Otherwise, I could name a couple Nobel recipients in those areas.
So, there’s HPN-VMN in a coded vitalism sense, and as qi
wrongly dressed up in science terms.
There’s the Boice page "Cancer Support: Combining Natural and Conventional Medicines" (2025) at her practice wherein we’re told:
"Dr. Boice is passionate about teaching qigong. 'Qi' means life force or vitality, and 'gong' means skill or practice, so qigong is the practice of restoring vitality and health.”
So, there some synonyms.
Also on the search results list is her 2018 NMJ article titled “Let’s Talk About Sex: Sexuality During and After Cancer Treatment” wherein she writes:
“naturopathic and other vitalistic medicines […] from a TCM perspective, ejaculation for men and vaginal lubrication for women expend ‘jing,’ the vitality inherited from our ancestors, as well as qi. During late-stage disease, these energy sources ideally are reserved for healing and restoration.”
So, obviously some explicit vitalism as a broad brushstroke in the here and now, but again not a direct equation of HPN-VMN as life force and such.
The same actually occurs in her 2012 book “The Green Medicine Chest: Healthy Treasures for the Whole Family” ISBN 9781614480587.
You have to engage in a series of equations to get the full vitalism picture.
We’re told:
“‘natural’ or what I [...] call ‘classical’ medicine […] classical medicine is aimed at augmenting the body's innate vitality […] something our current medical terminology has no tools to measure, the body's innate healing ability.”
I think the word there should be technology, but, anyway….
What soever could we be metaphysically posturing?
We’re told:
“unifying principles for classical medicine. Although each system of classical medicine has developed different treatment modalities, they all share the same philosophy. The following principles describe classical modalities as diverse as chiropractic treatment and meditation, acupuncture and intravenous chelation therapy. Vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature. All living things have the ability to grow, regenerate and repair […] my own body has a living blueprint that guides the restoration process. Classical medical therapies aim to engage and augment this healing ability […] many other treatments stimulate the body's innate healing ability […] when engaged, this innate healing ability can be fostered and accelerated. Instead of over-riding this wisdom, classical medicine aims to enhance the body's efforts to repair itself.”
So, there, nothing explicit in terms of naturopathy and its vitalism.
Like previously, the explicit vitalism is exposed for TCM:
“‘qi’ […] means ‘life force’ or ‘vitality’ […] energy and vitality […] qi or vitality […] Asian medicine and culture have a long history of cultivating and protecting qi, jing, yin and yang […] this simple method opens acupuncture channels to allow free flow of circulation or qi.”
There is also the statement “from both Chinese and naturopathic perspectives, the body invests its vitality first in the organs that are most important to sustain itself.”
So, the equations go like this:
body’s innate vitality = body’s innate healing ability (x2) = vis medicatrix naturae = the healing power of nature = the ability to grow, regenerate and repair = a living blueprint = this healing ability = this innate healing ability = this wisdom = the body’s efforts to repair itself = qi = life force = vitality = energy.
Torturous!
The root ‘homeop’ is within the book at last 215 times and there’s the general directive:
“contact your naturopathic physician or classical homeopath for instructions about which homeopathic remedy would be best for your child.”
The blurb on the back, from a fellow N.D., speaks of the book’s “scientific rigor” which is of the level of “health care professionals.”
We’re told the referral:
“[for] naturopathic medicine. [See] the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (four-year, medically trained): [At] www.naturopathic.org.”
And then we get to the epistemic goal-post moving, the epistemic con-fabulation aspect, and Janus-faced dualistic ‘have my cake and eat it too’ epistemic blending that denies itself…or not...depending.
We’re told that to understand “energetics” – which is a euphemism usually for vitalism -- one has to step “outside the Western scientific paradigm and rely on [other] ways of knowing.”
Yet, too, we’re told of “the science of homeopathy […that] homeopathy is definitely scientific […] one of the purest sciences […relying on] the very foundations of Western scientific research.”
Again, torturous.
But, there is hope for definiteness.
I guess as time goes by, being straightforward is easier.
Similarly, broadly, ND Boice, has conveniently authored a 2020 dated article at NMI titled “Vitalism: Toward a Working Definition” and this is likely the most full-throated vitalism one can find regarding naturopathy from the top.
She writes:
“the vitalistic paradigm […consists of] the worlds of both science and spirituality […wherein there’s] science, the world of measurable certainty; and spirituality, the world of the ineffable mystery […with the latter being] this innate intelligence […] known by many names including vital force, life force, vitality, animating force, élan vital, soul, spirit, vis vitae and qi […broadly she writes of] the science of vitalism […] all systems of ‘classical’ medicine recognize this vital force and aim to cultivate vitality […] classical medical systems include [… ] classical Chinese medicine […and] naturopathic medicine.”
So, therein.
This article is duplicated at her practice.
In a third Boice book, 1999’s “But My Doctor Never Told Me
That!: Secrets for Creating Lifelong Health” – as if doctors are withholding
information or naturopaths have secret information -- ISBN 0967045312, similarly, we’re told:
“energetic causes of disease. Our bodies respond not only to physical elements
but also to the more subtle energetic realms that provide the ‘juice’ or ‘qi’ that
sustains our lives. Without this enlivening force, our bodies would be nothing
more than sacks of bones and fluids. Many cultures have developed health
practices that cultivate the life force or ‘spirit’ that informs our physical
bodies […] when we accumulate enough vital energy, diseases can no longer take
root in the body. As the cells literally begin to vibrate at a faster
frequency, cancer and other diseases cannot survive at the new energetic level.”
[01.41.05]
No comments:
Post a Comment