001. Misak, D. (ND NCNM 2000) states in "Holding on to Our Truths: Let's Keep Our Focus on the Patient" [NDNR 2009-11, p.010]:
"[in] our profession [...] we all [NDs] hold to vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] with the recognition that each person has an individual vital force [VF...and we're also told] iridology [is] a science [...and] as we hold to the natural laws inherent in our principles, I think our profession should use science to prove and validate our theories."
Note: so, there's the "profession" claim, and obviously naturopathy's VMN=VF. Now, such vitalism is not anything like science's laws of nature, or science's idea of what a theory is. Vitalism is not in any way evidence-supported, and nor is iridology.
002. if you go online to NCNM [National College of Nonsense Medicine!], Misak's alma mater, you are told in "Principles of Healing":
"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...which] are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [these principles are claimed able to survive scientific scrutiny...#1] the healing power of nature -- vis medicatrix naturae [HPN=VMN...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent [purposeful]; nature heals through the response of the life force [LF...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, expressions of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself [...naturopathy is] the practice of promoting health through stimulation of the vital force and the rational use of natural agents."
Note: obviously, naturopathy is centered upon vitalism and claims that such in fact survives scientific scrutiny. But, that is not so.
Therein, naturopathy is hugely irrational / absurd / false, at its foundation.
