Decoding CNDA & JFP's 'Essential Naturopathic Science-Ejected Vitalism Premise' Via CNDA Officers & JFP Authors:

two naturopathy-advocating sources are not being all that transparent / professionally ethical when it comes to communicating that which is 'the essentially naturopathic': a) the California Naturopathic Doctors Association [CNDA]; b) the Journal of Family Practice [JFP]. Both are coding naturopathy's science-ejected vitalism premise while posturing that naturopathy survives doctoral-level scientific scrutiny and meets professions-level ethical stringency. So, I thought I'd step up to the plate and decode these deceptions:

001. CNDA states their dedication to naturopathy's principles / premises [coded, opaquely-expressed], refers us to the JFP, and states naturopathy's supposed science-status and HPN/VMN core-foundation:

001.a. at their homepage:

"the CNDA is dedicated to advancing the principles of naturopathic medicine [...] read 'Naturopathic Medicine: What Can Patients Expect?' [2005] published in and posted with the permission of the Journal of Family Practice."

001.b. in "Frequently Asked Questions":

"question: what is a naturopathic doctor? [ND] Answer: [...] naturopathic doctors [...] are uniquely trained to provide a comprehensive and integrated approach to assist your body's innate healing processes [BIHP, coded vitalism premise...] training consists of a comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences [...] in their last two years of their intensive clinical training, they[NDs] learn how to integrate the principles of naturopathic medicine into clinical practice."