Why Doesn't the Slimy NCCAM / Federal Government Transparently Contextualize Naturopathy?

here, I cite from the naturopathy web page of the National Center For Complementary and Alternative Medicine [NCCAM] which does not accurately contextualize the science-ejected basis of naturopathy, still [see 001., below]; then, I provide some clarity [see 002. and 003., below]:

001. NCCAM writes in "Naturopathy: An Introduction" [saved 2011-03-07]:

"naturopathy [...aka] naturopathic medicine [...is] guided by a philosophy that emphasizes the healing power of nature [the coded science-ejected...] a central belief in naturopathy is that nature has a healing power (a principle practitioners call vis medicatrix naturae) [the coded science-ejected...] practitioners view their role as supporting the body’s inherent ability to maintain and restore health [the coded science-ejected...] the practice of naturopathy is based on principles that are similar to and consistent with the principles of primary care medicine as practiced by conventional physicians [bullshit, truly unless for both 'science and non-science are the same thing'...#5 is] healing power of nature [the coded science-ejected]. Seek to identify and remove obstacles to the body’s natural processes for maintaining and restoring health [the coded science-ejected...] some beliefs and approaches of naturopathic practitioners are not consistent with conventional medicine [duh! Ya think?], and their safety may not be supported by scientific evidence [not merely that, their beliefs' EXISTENCE isn't...] the NCCAM-funded Naturopathic Medical Research Agenda [...] brought together representatives from a broad range of scientific and clinical backgrounds to develop priorities for scientific exploration of naturopathic medical practices and principles."

Note: oh how the SLIME oozes from NCCAM across all that they attempt to discuss.  I'd really like to be told THE TRUTH.  I'd like a TRANSPARENT definition of 'the essentially naturopathic'.  Because even the United Stated Federal Government won't provide such, I'll do so in 002., below.  The public deserves transparency.

002. VMN as the science-ejected concept of vitalism, which is at the heart of naturopathy:

read this blog's other posts, I've talked about this simple fact TOO OFTEN.  What essentially happens in the naturopathic mindset is that science is so loosely defined that it has lost any meaningfulness because with naturopathy, science is equated with the profoundly science-ejected.  Science is a false label placed upon the essentially naturopathic and is used for the purpose of their gaining commerce unfairly and positioning their pseudoprofessionalism.

003. overall comment:

yes, Federal agencies spend tax dollars ludicrously scientifically investigating the profoundly science-ejected.  It's akin to money being spent attempting to equate the number two with the number three.  Oh, I'd love to know how NCCAM seeks to scientifically gird the supernatural and the vitalistic, both of which are hugely science-exterior [and the gap is only growing; just as something is not what it is not].  I'd love for NCCAM to inform the public that VMN means "life force" or "vital force" and that such is a sectarian science-ejected belief that has no medical relevance.  I'd love to hear that naturopathy, as it is, is based on falsehood and that NCCAM has partnered with it.

Slime and further slime; the reversal of all values.

A Google News Archival Search For 2009, >vitalism science<:

here, I do a search with news.google.com using the terms >science vitalism< [see 001., below]:

001. for the year 2009 only, current results that occur are only June through December [up to today's date, 2009-12-15, to be exact] and here they are:

001.a. a Salon 2009-09-17 review of "The Age of Wonder" by Holmes, R. (? ?) (ISBN 0375422226, 2009) titled "The Beauty and Terror of Science" by Berger, K. (? ?) which states:

"Holmes limns the darkness with a scintillating chapter on Mary Shelley and 'Frankenstein,' describing how her novel arose out [of] the popular 'vitalism' debates between physicians who argued that human life was animated by some external force like electricity, and those, such as fearless young doctor William Lawrence, who argued there was no such thing, that the 'human body is merely a complex physical organization,' Holmes writes."

Note: of course, this 'debate' is a little archaic.  The idea that the 'what makes lifeliness argument' essentially concerns 'the physical' versus 'the electrical' is nowadays silly, since both are physical.  Electricity at that time was little understood and rather magically imbued. It served to represent the science-ejected idea of a vital principle [there really is no such thing!] that was apart from 'the physical', and yet mystically animated or ensouled the physical. The book is recommended by the reviewer.  I personally highly enjoy Frankenstein in its full historical context.  I also enjoy noticing that science-fiction as a genre has much of its origins, as is often observed, in the literature of a woman writer!

001.b.a 2007 Nature Genetics article titled "Cipher Sleuth" by Goldman, M.A. (? ?) which I don't have free text access to and which apparently has been dated / spidered by Google 2009-06-15.

Note: FFS, it's 2009 and information really needs to be easily available, not locked up in [obscure] publications with hilariously overpriced access fees!

001.c. a 2002 Skeptical Inquirer article by De Robertis, M. (? ?) titled "A [Canadian] University's Struggle With Chiropractic" which states:

"chiropractic has remained on the margins by choice, refusing even today to reject vitalism in all its guises [...] there is considerable doubt that a four-year university program culminating in a D.C. degree is necessary to treat musculoskeletal conditions, something conventional therapists do with comparable effectiveness but without the vitalistic baggage [...] even if some alternative therapies are eventually found to be effective and safe, until colleges adopt contemporary biomedical paradigms instead of millennia-old vitalistic notions - i.e., get rid of the nonsense in their curricula and make an attempt to [actually] educate its practitioners - no university should contemplate an affiliation."

Note: hear, hear. Again, this has been [falsely, sort of] dated by Google's algorithm 2009-06-06, likely because that was the last respidering though published earlier at an older URL.  This is an excellent article, in my view.

001.d. readers' responses to a Sydney Morning Herald 2009-06-15 article by Simon, B. (? ?) that includes this comment by Dunlop, R. (? ?) "Vice-President of Australian Skeptics, Petersham":

"it appears Australia is about to repeat Britain's mistakes about regulation of alternative medicine. It should be self-evident that it makes no sense to set educational standards in a subject without having decided whether that subject is nonsense. If it is, what does 'educational standards' mean? Your article cites naturopathy, which subscribes to a form of pre-19th-century vitalism. I fail to understand what it means to be properly qualified in ideas that the educated world left behind 200 years ago."

Note: yup.

001.e. a New York Times book review that uses the term "literary vitalism".

001.f. a New York Times book review that is similar to the Salon review:

"Holmes devotes a chapter to 'Frankenstein,' placing Mary Shelley’s 'ghost story' in the context of the [then] contemporary debate about vitalism."

001.g. a 2006 Nature Chemical Biology article titled "The Origins of Chemical Biology" which doesn't provide free direct text access.  But, through the magic of a Google web search, I believe it states:

"chemical biology has historical roots that date back to the birth of chemistry and biology as distinct sciences [...] chemical synthesis requires no ‘living’ or ‘vital force’ to make biologically active compounds. Remarkably, some [false!] belief in vitalism still persists within current popular culture."

001.h. a 2000 Skeptical Inquirer article "The Roots of Qi" by Mainfort, D. (? ?)  which states:

"according to ancient Chinese medicine [...] illnesses were viewed as an imbalance of qi, or vital energy, in the body. Qi was believed to exist everywhere in the universe - a life force such as that referred to in pre-scientific Western medicine as élan vital. Vitalism is the belief in an invisible, intangible, unique form of energy that is supposedly responsible for all of the activities of a living organism. The vital force in Chinese traditional medicine is called qi, the concept upon which acupuncture is based [...] the earliest known record of the term qi occurs in the book Liji, prior to the Spring and Autumn period, between three and four thousand years ago. At that time there was no modern physiology or biochemistry, nor was there understanding about nutrition or the healing mechanisms of the body. The existence of cells, blood circulation, neurology and hormones were also unknown."

Note: an yet, this figmentation is what naturopathy claims as able to survive scientific scrutiny.

002. obviously, there is a certain amount of heavy-handed automation happening here, and what I just listed is a snapshot of the abilities [and lack therein, to some extent] of Google's news archive search engine.