Institute for Natural Medicine: Its Occultic, Science-Ejected Vitalism Foundation 2009:

here, a little parsing of the Institute for Natural Medicine's [INM] web pages that claim that they [naturopaths] have 'reliable, trustworthy, credible, authoritative evidence-based information' [see 001.a., below]; while, when INM explains naturopathy as scientific and HPN-based [see 001.b., below]; INM is ACTUALLY being absurd since it is not transparently and accurately contextualizing naturopathy's PROFOUNDLY science-ejected vitalistic premise [see 003., below]:

001. INM:

001.a. promises, on their web homepage (archived here):

"[per president Yirku, S. (? NCNM VP for College Relations)] naturemed.org [is] your guide to patient driven medicine [...] we at INM believe that you deserve the opportunity to make informed choices about your healthcare. The goal of this website is to provide reliable information for patients and the public about natural healthcare options [...] our guiding philosophy is our firm belief that it is vitally important for people to have access to trustworthy information about the natural treatment options that are available through naturopathic medicine [...] make informed choices [...] I urge you to be cautious, and do everything you can to make sure the information you gather is credible [...] the mission of the Institute for Natural Medicine (INM) is to assist in the dissemination of credible information about naturopathic philosophy and natural medicine [{good luck!!!}...] the Institute for Natural Medicine is uniquely positioned and qualified to provide unbiased, evidence-based, and authoritative information concerning natural and preventive approaches to health [aka naturopathy et al.]."

Note: so, according to INM, we'll be "informed" with "reliable information" and "trustworthy information" per what's "credible information" and "evidence-based" per a source that is "unbiased" and "authoritative". Therefore, we can make an informed choice.

001.b1. defines naturopathy in "Naturopathic Medicine" as science:

"[naturo. is] an approach to medicine based on the human body's innate ability to heal itself, [aka] the healing power of nature [IATHI-HPN...that is] guided by modern scientific medical diagnostic science and standards of care [...] naturopathic physicians cooperate with all other branches of medical science [this 'naturopathy is a medical science branch' claim is also stated by INM here]."

Note: so, naturopathy with its IATHI-HPN, is claimed to be explicitely science. Notice that naturopathy is labeled "scientific" "science", which is a claim of being very VERY scientific indeed.

001.b.2. defines naturopathy's key principles in "Principles of Naturopathic Medicine" including:

"the healing power of nature [...] it is the naturopathic physician's role to support, facilitate and augment this process."

Note: and that's all you get at INM regarding HPN, a key premise of naturopathy.

003. presenting the 'scientific science-ejected' / the naturopathic absurd aka the 'scientific vitalistic':

003.a. NDs Murray, Pizzorno, & Bradley and PhDs Levin, Bland, & Schmidt graciously clarify naturopathy's HPN context per "The Textbook of Natural Medicine" (ISBN 0443059454, 1999 - 2nd ed.):

"[per Levin, Bland, and Schmidt] naturopathic medicine has consistently aligned itself with the vitalistic side of [...the] argument [{as if there is one}...] between 'vitalistic' and 'mechanistic' approaches to life and health [...] naturopathy recognizes a vital force – vis medicatrix naturae, or healing power of nature – that is present in all living things, including the human body. For naturopaths, it is this vital force which is ultimately responsible for healing [...] this recognition of vital force in naturopathy [...] the spirit of vitalism [{literally!} p.004...and per Bradley, R.S. (ND NCNM 1981-ish) naturopathy] has always identified the Latin expression vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature) as its philosophical linchpin [...] the expression vis medicatrix naturae, by itself, does not provide a clear picture of naturopathic medical philosophy [p.041...] the foundations of naturopathic medical philosophy are found in vitalism [...] the principles of naturopathic medicine: [#1] the healing power of nature: vis medicatrix naturae [p.047...] the practice of naturopathic medicine is grounded in vis medicatrix naturae [p.047...] a thorough grounding in vis medicatrix naturae [p.048]."

Note: vitalism, galore. Murray and Pizzorno are the editors of this central ND textbook. So, naturopathy is essentially vitalistic, and this was not told to us on the INM page though they promised quite a lot of guidance for us! Instead, INM [falsely] used naturalistic language and [falsely] promised us 'naturopathy is science'; that they were trustworthy, and that the public would be reliably informed.

003.b. yet [me don't thinks so!], the National Association of Biology Teachers at the National Center For Science Education states in "National Association of Biology Teachers Scientific Integrity Statement" regarding the nonscientific status of vitalism:

"nonscientific notions such as geocentrism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot be legitimately taught, promoted or condoned as science in the classroom. "

Note: hmm, naturopathy's vitalism is essentially science-ejected. INM didn't tell us this actuality, either -- in order for us to make an 'informed choice'. INM said naturopathy is evidence-based and scientific. Ain't -- and our choices regarding naturopathy would be based upon falsehood, therein.

004. obviously, naturopathy drips with absurdity, wherein the profoundly nonscientific is labeled scientific and all the while naturopathic premises are often occultly portrayed to the public as naturalistic and scientific [coded]. Many would call this strategy a 'bait and switch', and a 'confidence game'.

Decoding ILANP's Falsely Postured Vitalistic Central Premise 2008:

I always find it fascinating that naturopathic medicine does not transparently communicate its essential premises: e.g., a science-ejected, sectic belief set centered around the idea that the human body is run by a 'purposeful life spirit' bioagency. Instead, from practitioners upward and from major institutions downward, naturopathy often chooses to employ a very misleading, opaque, coded description [see 001. below] that does not reveal its actual context [see 002. below], in direct violation of professions-level ethical standards [see 004. below]:

001. the Illinois Association of Naturopathic Physicians states [coded]:

001.a. in "Principles" (archived here):

"[our foremost, #1 - HPN] the healing power of nature. NDs act to identify and remove obstacles to healing and recovery. Their goal is to facilitate and augment the inherent self-healing process in each individual [...#2, NDs] acknowledge, respect and work in conjunction with the individual’s self-healing process."

Note: naturopathy's HPN is expressed as "inherent self-healing process [...and] the individual's self-healing process."

001.b. in "Frequently Asked Questions" (archived here):

"naturopathic physicians seek to restore and maintain optimum health in their patients by emphasizing nature's inherent self-healing process, the vis medicatrix naturae [...] licensure will allow NDs to practice as trained, namely to diagnose and treat disease using naturopathic principles. By establishing licensure for naturopathic physicians, the public can be assured of the physician-level naturopathic medical training of these healthcare professionals."

Note: the "inherent self-healing process, the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN]" is naturopathy's "healing power of nature," by their direct equation. These guiding "naturopathic principles" are stated as the context within which NDs operate. Also stated is the label "professionals."

002. HPN-VMN decoded:

when you actually delve below the veneer of the misleading naturalistic language NDs employ, you see the actual context that ISN'T being communicated: you find that naturopathy's central premise is a vitalistic, spiritistic, teleological sectarian article of faith that has no scientific support and essentially is science-ejected.

003. yet, naturopathy maintains a false science label:

ILANP states in "Frequently Asked Questions" (archived here):

"naturopathic doctors are doctors who specialize in science-based natural medicine."

Note: the label of "science" is falsely being placed upon the essentially naturopathic [e.g. 002. above], and this is what I call nowadays a "confidence game."

004. naturopathy's false professionalism label:

the big inanity: how is informed consent and fiduciary duty possible when a supposed 'science-based medical profession' is essentially based upon modes of deception and falsehood ?!?!?!?!