NMD Aidun on Acupuncture: Spiritual Energy / Vital Force and Meridians Are Empirically Supported [not]

here, I cite from the web page of NMD Aidun, who states that there is a scientific basis for the actually science-ejected vitalistic / spiritistic:

001. Aidun, S. (NMD SCNM 2003) states in "Acupuncture" [vsc 2011-01-02]:

001.a. vitalism-spiritism:

"central to the discipline of acupuncture is the concept of chi [...] 'qi' or 'ki'[...] chi is that life force or spiritual energy which is part of every living thing that exists. Traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture [...] facilitate the flow of chi as a means of enhancing vitality and/or addressing health issues [...] acupuncture involves the stimulation of specific points on the body along pathways called 'meridians' which are channels acting as highways carrying chi energy to various regions of the body [...] to aid the flow of the body’s vital energy (chi) for the purpose of dealing with specific conditions and diseases [...] alongside blood vessels run meridians which act as highways carrying chi to different parts of the body. We neither see meridians nor the energy flowing inside them [...] disease happens if the flow of chi is disturbed or blocked. By inserting thin acupuncture needles into specific acupuncture points, blockage of energy can be released to resume the flow of the vital force to the target organ ensuring it’s [punct., its] optimal function [...e.g.] the meridians supplying chi to the lungs."

Note: so the equation is chi = qi = ki = life force = spiritual energy = chi energy = vital energy = energy = vital force.  Essentially, this is a form of dualism posing a spirit-force-energy that governs physiology.

001.b. the science claim:

"scientific communities are becoming increasingly fascinated by the effectiveness of Chinese medicine and specifically acupuncture [...there have been] empirical efforts to better understand acupuncture [...and] of the more notable topics of focus for such research have been the meridian pathways and the validity of the notion that they carry chi or life energy throughout the body. A number of studies have used radioactive tracers [...] to trace the meridians [...results were] consistent with the paths and locations along the meridians as defined in the acupuncture meridian chart [...and] biopsies of acupuncture points have shown higher concentrations of nerves and blood vessels as compared to non-acupuncture points."

Note: the studies aren't cited.  Surprise, surprise. It seems highly unlikely / implausible that well-designed research can discover pre-scientific invisible structures carrying a figmentatious 'spirit energy'.  Actually, it would revolutionize science: science would support the supernatural, in sum.  This hasn't happened.  Nobels have not been awarded.  The universe is still comprised of physical substance.  The human imagination, on the other hand, can create whatever conceptions it so pleases.

002. such forays into 'meridian-biology correlates' has recently been encapsulated thusly:

Ben Kavoussi writes at Science-Based Medicine in "The Acupuncture and Fasciae Fallacy (2010-12-30):

"amidst the plethora of flawed, implausible, and wasteful research on acupuncture and Chinese medicine, a 2002 study on the 'Relationship of Acupuncture Points and Meridians to Connective Tissue Planes' stands out as the height of factual neglect [...] not only millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent on seemingly ridiculous research projects, but also the very fact that they are supporting these projects is often used to lend an appearance of legitimacy to treatments and ideas that are not legitimate."

003. vitalism [and supernaturalism] is so -- still SOOO -- 'not science' that it is best described as science-ejected.

SGU 5x5 on Vitalism; HAND's Vitalism; Goldacre on Scrutiny

here, I cite from a 2008 Skeptics' Guide to the Universe 5x5 podcast concerning the science-ejected status of vitalism [see 001., below]; then from the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians [see 002., below]; and finally from Ben Goldacre [see 003., below]:

001. the Skeptics' Guide 5x5 states in "Podcast 45 November 11, 2008 - Chi and Other Forms of Vitalism" [saved 2010-12-08]:

"[the web page] SGU 5x5 - Five Minutes with Five Skeptics. A weekly science podcast discussing news in the world of science and pseudoscience. A companion to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe weekly podcast [...] podcast 45 - November 11, 2008: Chi and Other Forms of Vitalism [...the mp3, Steve] this is the SGU 5x5 and tonight we're talking about chi.  Chi, which is alternatively spelled chi or qi, the English approximation of a Chiense word which means life energy.  It is the core of traditional Chinese medicine philosophy [00.00.42...] this mystical life force or life energy [...Bob] the belief isn't limited to China, either. It's called prana in India.  It's ki in Japan.  In France Anton Mesmer called it animal magnetism [...] Bergson referred to it as elan vital, vital force [...Jay] an acupuncturist thinks that they're unblocking chi [...also] reiki [...and] therapeutic touch [...Steve] these are all forms of vitalism, the notion that there's a life energy that separates living things from nonliving things [...] it is a supernatural or metaphysical thing, a spiritual force [...] but, of course, there isn't a like of evidence for any of this.  These are all prescientific notions, the attempts of primitive societies to understand what they could not understand, the nature of health and illness for example, life and non-life.  Modern science has not verified any of these concepts of life energy or life force.  In fact, this fight was fought within the scientific world about 100 years ago and the vitalists, those who thought that there was some kind of vital force, LOST.  The evidence clearly showed, and the logic clearly led to the conclusion, that vitalism is unnecessary and that nothing like chi or like a life force exists.  It's not necessary to explain any biological process [...] it is simply unnecessary, which is the harshest criticism you could level at any idea in science."

Note: tell that to naturopathy!

002. meanwhile, to illustrate the vitalism that is at the heart of naturopathy [falsely posed as science], here's the Homeopathic Academy of Naturopathic Physicians' article "Vol.XIV #4 - The Centesimal And Lm Potencies, Simillimum - Winter 2001: A Comparison from the 5th and 6th Editions of The Organon By David Little" [vsc 2010-12-08]:

"[per 'life force, quoting Hahnemann] 'the life-force appears to strive to assert its superiority' [...] this action by the life force [...] 'the life force brings forth the exact opposite condition-state counteraction [...] proportionate to the life force's own energy' [...] 'after action of the life force' [...] 'our life force always and everywhere brings to pass' [...] strong medicines in large doses tend to cause opposing counteractions from the life force [...] the lebenskraft (life force) [...] to this subtle medicinal disease the life force needs to use no more secondary effect than necessary [...] 'the life force appears to strive to assert its superiority by extinguishing the alterations' [...] Hahnemann spoke of the essential role of life force in the Preface to the introduction of the 6th Organon in 1842 [...] 'homeopathy is aware that a cure can only succeed through the counteract on of the life force against the correctly chosen medicine. The stronger the life force that still prevails in the patient the more certain and faster the cure that takes place' [...per 'vital force'] so that the vital force never receives the same exact dose twice in succession. In this way, the vital force can receive the single dose or a series of doses in medicinal solution without the aggravations witnessed in the dry or unmodified liquid dose [...] once again we see the importance of the balance of the primary action of the remedy and curative response of the vital force [...] against which the instinctive vital force was compelled to direct an increased amount of energy [...] compelling the vital force to act [...] the aggravation of symptoms compels the vital force to act [...] this medicinal disease alters the vital force [...] will soon be extinguished by the vital force [...] the idea of a crisis-like aggravation compelling the vital force to increase its energy [...] an increase of energy of the vital force [...] the vital force directs its whole energy [...] the vital force heals the pathology in stages [...] the instinctive vital force [...] it may mistune the vital force [...] here the vital force is compelled to produce an antagonistic secondary action [...] in homeopathy the vital force is exposed to a very small dose [...] the curative reaction of the vital force is not disrupted by the repetition of the minimal size [...] the lebenskraft (vital force) [...] the vital force removes no mistuning [...] the vital force is moving toward the cure."

Note: HANP informs us "the practitioner of homeopathy must be well versed in the science of the body in both health and disease [...] an increasing body of scientific research is proving the potent biological action of homeopathic preparations" [vsc 2010-12-08]:.  This is false. A member list can be found here.

003. at The Guardian, Ben Goldacre writes in "Mutual Criticism is Vital in Science. Libel Laws Threaten It" (2010-12-08):

"in science and medicine, criticizing each others' ideas and practices [...is] exactly what you are supposed to do, all of the time [...] medicine is almost unique among all human activities in that it's possible to do enormous harm even when you set out with the absolute best of intentions [...] in medicine, when you make a mistake about whether something works or not, it's possible to cause death and suffering on a genuinely biblical scale.  That's why we have systems to try and stop us making such mistakes, and at the heart of all these lies mutual criticism: criticizing each others ideas and practices. This isn't something that's marginal, or tolerated by the profession. It's something that is welcomed and actively encouraged. More than that, it's institutionalized [...] in a BBC World Service documentary out today – made with the BBC Radio science unit, rather than current affairs – we explain why science is different, and why it is dangerous to have laws that restrict the everyday scrutiny of each others' ideas and practices that scientists and doctors necessarily engage in [...] Discovery: Science and Libel is on the BBC World Service [about 28 minutes...] you can listen again online through the BBC iPlayer."

Note: hear, hear.  It, it.  Again, again.

Jacques Neirynck on Vitalism: Abandoned and Eclipsed (ISBN 3540875220)

Jacques Neirynck writes in "Your Brain and Your Self: What You Need to Know" (2008; ISBN 3540875220):

"the end of vitalism [...] for a long time it was believed that living matter was essentially different from inanimate matter in that is [sp., 'it'] was inhabited by a vital principle [...] but with discoveries about DNA [...] and the more recent elucidation of the human genome, the idea was eclipsed [...] we have abandoned the vitalist theory in the scientific world [...] life [...] has a physical reality [p.105...] the organization of a molecule of DNA alone explains the mysteries of living matter [...] life is an emergent property of matter."

Note: tell that to naturopathy!

PalMD Reposts His 'Death of Vitalism'

here, I cite from Dr. Lipson's "The Death and Rebirth of Vitalism" 2010-09-02 repost at his new blogging location, Scientopia.org.  It is one of my favorites regarding where medicine stands in terms of this archaic and science-ejected philosophy [that just so happens to be the centerpiece of naturopathy's belief system, no matter how slimily they code it]:

PalMD writes:

"[there's] this fallacy [...] that life must be more than matter [...but] biology has become a science in its own right [...and] all biological processes [...are] contrained by the laws of physics and chemistry [...biology's] important step was the rejection of two erroneous principles: vitalism and teleology [...] more offensive to me is the idea of vitalism [...] that the difference between living and non-living things is some sort of non-material vital force [...] some sort of 'elan vital' that animates living matter [...] the death of vitalism, and the discovery of genetics, allowed biology to grow to a mature scientific discipline [...though] we will always be temped to think vitalistically [...and] all alternative medicine is based on the idea [...e.g.] Chiropractic [...has] vital energy [...] 'energy therapies' [...have] qi [...] homeopathy [...has] vital force [...] if something is immeasurable and un-observable, either directly or indirectly, it then it is not medically relevant [...] why make up a silly, non-reality-based explanation [...that] has become irrelevant [...] vitalism [is] an ancient and discredited philosophy."

Note: hear, hear.

NCSE Spanks Dr. Larry Dossey (2010-04-26), and the Pseudoscience of Vitalism (1995):

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post [HP] response by NCSE to a recent HP post concerning science by Dr. Larry Dossey [see 001., below]; then, I do some archeology and quote from a classic NCSE page that strikes at the heart of naturopathy's belief amalgam -- vitalism [see 002., below]:

001. the National Center for Science Education's [NCSE] Steve Newton states in "In Defense of Scientific Methodology" (2010-04-26):

"in a recent piece titled 'The Scientific Method: An Educational Train Wreck?' Dr. Larry Dossey made a number of statements so factually inaccurate, so misrepresentative of the nature of science, that it reads like some ill-conceived parody gone awry [...a] rot [...] Dossey accuses scheming educators of trying 'to inculcate children with the scientific method' [...] I plead guilty. There is great value in [...] teaching [...] students about scientific methodology and nature of science [...] students come to the classroom with a host of misconceptions about the world [...] it is the proper job of science educators to help [...] student[s] see the world as it really is, rather than to reinforce their prejudices [hear, hear]. Biology students should learn that the theory of evolution is correct and that vaccines do not cause autism [...] chemistry students should understand why homeopathic claims about 'water memory' are not true. [hear, hear]. Science education can -- and should -- help students understand reality [...] a scientific understanding of the world brings food to the table [...] science has reduced human suffering and needless deaths, and produced longer and better lives [...] the misconception of scientists as cold, remote individuals comes from movies and television, not reality [...] science fiction is a poor basis for characterizing all scientists [...] there is a place for everyone in science [...] Dossey's essay misrepresents science, scientists, educators, and students. It is Dossey, not science, who has jumped the rails."

Note: now THAT is a spanking [verbally, of course].

Another Steve, Novella, in "Dossey on the Scientific Method" (2010-04-27) also spanks Dossey.  Included is this scathing criticism:

"Dossey is in no position to lecture about the deficiencies of the scientific world-view. He disguises his ideological problems with science in borrowed legitimate observations, and mixes them with howling straw men that no scientist would recognize in themselves. The result is not even 'a cleverly constructed tract of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship,' because no one would confuse this for scholarship."

PZ Meyers in "Another HuffPo Pontification on Science as It is Not Understood" (2010-04-26) states, in summary:

"he's a credulous magic man."

002. NCSE states in "National Association of Biology Teachers (1995): Scientific Integrity" (Board of NABT, 1995-03-15):

"the credibility and utility of science, and therefore biology, depend on maintaining its integrity. NABT has a special obligation, to promote this integrity in life science education. The data, concepts, and theories of science presented to students must meet the accepted standards of the discipline. To this end, NABT will not support efforts to include in the science classroom materials or theories derived outside of the scientific processes. Nonscientific notions such as geocentricism, flat earth, creationism, young earth, astrology, psychic healing and vitalistic theory, therefore, cannot legitimately be taught, promoted, or condoned as science in the classroom."

 Note: seeing NCSE quickly activated in response to the HP Dossey post is quite inspiring.  Seeing that NCSE maintains the NABT 1995 position paper, which trashes naturopathy's supposed scientific position of vitalism, is quite awesome.  What's coolest about the whole thing is that UB established their ND program after that date, and likely didn't even bother to pass their ND contents across the desk of any legitimate science organization for review.  So, from the get-go at UBCNM, naturopathy was falsely labeling the hugely science-ejected [e.g., vitalism, supernaturalism] as "health science."  Here we are, in 2010, and UB still labels vitalism science.  If anything, vitalism is more and more exterior to science.  

So, a higher education institution trades upon false premises, and that is truly morally repugnant.

The "Irrational Superstitious" Central Premise of Naturopathy - UB, Blackford:

here, I compare two claims about vitalism.  The University of Bridgeport claims that within science is the vitalistic [see 001., below].  Philosopher, author, and critic Russell Blackford states otherwise [see 002., below]:

001. the University of Bridgeport states in "Naturopathic Principles and Practice":

"Principles and Practice 511 - Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine II [...] in addition to employing various natural medicines, students will gain an important perspective of the vital force and its role in the healing process, when used in conjunction with naturopathic principles."

Note: you can also get UB vitalism full-force here.  So, vitalism is essential to naturopathy.  I must remind readers that UB claims naturopathy, strictly speaking, is "science" / that a vital force is an objective scientific fact [see p.072, "the principles are continually reexamined in the light of scientific advances"] / survives scientific scrutiny, while vitalism is preponderantly science-ejected! 

002. Blackford, R. (? ?) states in "Bioethics Versus Liberal Society: A Reply to Margaret Somerville" (Quadrant, 2001-09-01 - homepage) [free registration may be required for the full text][for Blackford's Wikipedia entry, click here]:

"Kitcher rejects the presence of any 'vital force' or 'vital substance' in biological processes [...] this is correct. Vitalism is a discredited theory and no principled objection can be made to the ultimate reduction of biological systems and entities to their physical components […] I do reject the position that living things or biological processes contain some kind of non-physical vital substance or force […] vitalist positions are not supported by reason or by any other supposed 'way of knowing' [...] position[s] akin to vitalism might aptly be referred to as 'irrational' or 'superstitious'".

Note: oh, snap.

ISBN 0738710776 - The Nonscientific Status of Vitalism - Forciea 2007:

recently, I added the following citation to my appendix titled "The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism".  The author admits that vitalism thoroughly lacks scientific support [see 001., below], but then promotes an analogous figmentation that to me resembles science-fiction and science-illiteracy [see 002., below].  Then, I quote from Richard Dawkins [see 003., below] and the National Center for Science Education [see 004., below]:

001. the newest appendix addition:

Forciea, B. (DC Parker) states:

.

[in "Unlocking the Healing Code: Discover the 7 Keys to Unlimited Healing Power"(2007)]

.

[Note: a woo-proponent's argument for sCAM]

.

"in the philosophical camp called vitalism, vitalists believed in a vital force, a life force that permeated all living beings.  The vital force is what kept things alive, but no one was ever able to measure this mysterious force [p.013...] believers in vitalism believe [!!!] in a vital force that permeates all life.  Some call it chi, others prana, still others energy.  The presence of the vital force is what separates the living from nonliving.  Alternative systems of healing work to support the vital force [e.g., naturopathy].  Science has a problem with vitalism.  Science has never been able to measure the vital force or even a vital energy […] this energy is not in any form known to science [yet energy, by definition in terms of science, is quantifiable!!!].  Scientists have yet to measure a vital force […] science's view of life is founded on a different philosophy [!!!] than vitalism.  At the core of science and medicine is mechanistic materialism [!!!].  In this view life emerged from matter.  There is no hidden vital force, no living energy.  Life is seen as a self-sustaining process that produces complex structures [p.003]";

.

(ISBN 0738710776)

 Note: I'm highly enjoying the verbiage "believers in vitalism believe".  Vitalism is, after all, nonfactual.  It is also quite a strain to state that 'how science collectively explains its factual collection is merely a philosophy', as if all ideas / ideations / views are of equal epistemic status.

002. the author's leap into science-fiction and -illiteracy:

"science does have an answer to the mystery of the vital force […there's] a ubiquitous field of information […] the zero-point field […] a sea of subatomic particles popping into and out of existence [(i.e. dark matter) p.003...so] the essence of the vital force is [this] information […] information is the link between mechanistic materialism and vitalism [p.004...whereby] living beings actually thwart the immutable law of entropy [p.013].”

Note: so, 'the vital force figmentation' is claimed to be essentially "information" which is comprised of dark matter, and life is claimed as able to defy nature's physical laws.  I've often gotten the impression that nebulousities like vitalism, when not able to claim tangible evidence in direct support of their supposed existence, then veil themselves in another nebulousity / mysticism layer.  Dark matter is that new veil, here.  Also, like creationists who want to supernaturalize biology, vitalists often claim that life defies physical laws and therefore vitalists are minimally indirectly categorizing life as a supernatural event / phenomena.  The vital force is about as mysterious as the Tooth Fairy, or fairies under the garden.

003. regarding vitalism and information in terms of the life science / biology, biologist Richard Dawkins states [coincidentally on that same appendix page I've linked to above]:

[in "The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing"(2008)]

.

"what neither Mendel nor anyone else before 1953 knew was that genes themselves are digital, within themselves [...] life is the execution of programs written using a small digital alphabet in a single, universal machine language. This realization was the hammer blow that knocked the last nail in the coffin of vitalism and, by extension, of dualism. The hammer was wielded, with undisguised youthful relish, by James Watson and Francis Crick [p.030...] for me, the greatest achievement of Watson and Crick was to turn genetics from a branch of wet and squishy physiology into a branch of information technology, in the process slaying, as I suggested above, the ghost of vitalism [p.226]";

.

(ISBN 0199216800)

Note: true information, in the sense of biology and its phenomena, is genetic.  And that is biochemical.

004. and regarding misconceptions surrounding life and thermodynamic law, the National Center for Science Education has this interesting explanation here:

"if the earth were a closed system, then every living organism on earth would be defying entropy on a daily basis. But, the earth is not a closed system; thus, respiration, growth, reproduction, and evolution happen on earth on a daily basis without violating the second law of thermodynamics."

Note: when looked upon as a whole, in terms of our solar system, life does not defy physical law.

AANP Falsely Labels Naturopathy a "Scientific"- and "Common Sense"- Based Profession (ISBN 9781935297185, 2009):

here, I quote from a 2009 paper-based booklet authored by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP]. I find so much of it, frankly, to be duplicitous / false [in other words: typical of the ND realm]. In this booklet, the AANP labels naturopathy: of professional-level in ethical stricture, scientific, rigorous, while bound to the ND principles [see 001.a. through 001.c., below]. I illustrate the AANP's nontransparency / coding of naturopathy's essential premise [after they've told us to trust them, that they meet professional ethical strictures!]; and I compare AANP's language in the booklet to the language of the Oregon Board of Naturopathic Examiners [OBNE] who promise us that vitalism and supernaturalism are science, and that naturopaths are professionals [see 003., below]; and I caution [see 004., below]:

001. the AANP states in "Naturopathic Medicine: Wisdom of Nature, Rigors of Science" (Better Nutrition Magazine's Healthy Living Guide; vol. 19 2009; ISBN 9781935297185) [available through online bookstores]:

001.a. by way of general overview, per the booklet's cover:

"[naturopathy is ] patient-centered health care [...and NDs are] experts [...] providing safe and effective healthcare [...naturopathy has] a strong foundation of steep tradition and scientific validation [...] this booklet provides comprehensive information about naturopathic medicine from a trusted source [...the AANP, which] is a professional society [...whose] vision is to transform the healthcare system [...] to a comprehensive health program incorporating the principles of naturopathic medicine."

Note: fascinating. We have the claims: "patient-centered" a.k.a. 'they're looking out for you!', 'expertise', 'efficacy', 'a strong science foundation', that we are being 'comprehensively informed', that AANP is 'trustworthy', and "professional". Overall, the AANP's agenda is, explicitly, to get their naturopathic "principles" dominating healthcare [for their essential principles, see 002., below].

001.b. specifically, that naturopathy is science:

"[NDs use] the best of modern medical science [...per meeting] the rigors of modern science [p.004...that ND degrees are granted by] National University of Health Sciences in Lombard, IL [(also listed on p.031)...that NDs study] diagnostic sciences [...and] clinical sciences [p.007...] naturopathic medicine is based on scientific evidence as well as common sense [p.012...] a growing amount of scientific research supports much of what we already know [p.015...] naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence [p.023...] returning to the roots of healing does not mean abandoning science [p.024...in the ND oath, the] science of naturopathic medicine [p.029]."

Note: science, science, science.

001.c. naturopathy's claimed professionalism is stated explicitly:

"[AANP is] a professional society [...] CNME is the only professional body [etc. p.008...] the legitimate naturopathic medical profession [...of] professional organizations [p.009...] "[regarding] license[d] naturopathic physicians. Licensure of health care providers helps ensure public safety and a high standard of professionalism. Professional licensure for naturopathic physicians is presently available [...] the AANP and other professional naturopathic organizations [p.027...] naturopathic physicians have the medical training, the professional network [p.028...] specialty organizations, state associations, and professional affiliates [and they list their North American apparatus p.030, including UBCNM p.031]."

Note: professional, professional, professional.

001.d. naturopathy's claimed of rigor:

"[naturopathy meets] rigors of science [cover...] qualified naturopathic physicians undergo rigorous training before they become licensed healthcare practitioners [(and they list their schools, including UBCNM)...] after graduation from a CNME accredited naturopathic medical program, graduates are eligible to take a rigorous national naturopathic physicians licensing examination (NPLEX) [p.007]."

Note: rigor, rigor, rigor.

002. but, in this booklet, naturopathy's essential premise / context is:

002.a. mainly coded:

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [...the] bodies' ability to ward off and combat disease [...NDs are] steeped in [...] principles [p.004...these] principles of naturopathic medicine. [Which] naturopathic physicians base their practice on [...#1] let nature heal [LNH...] a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing [...] this process [p.023..] naturopathic physician's oath [...] the fundamental principles adhered to by naturopathic doctors [...include] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine [...including] to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [HPN, p.029]."

Note: most fascinating is that the words "force", "vitalism", "vitalistic" do not show up in this "comprehensive" and 'trustworthy' document. Instead, we get naturalistic language, and it is not being specific. I will reveal naturopathy's actual context [see 003., below].

002.b. though slightly hinted at contextually:

"homeopathy [...] the father of homeopathy [...] Hahnemann [...] taught that every person has a vital source. He believed that the homeopathic remedy must be diluted enough so that it doesn't overwhelm this vital source [VS], or spiritual core [SC, p.017]."

Note: in sum, LNH/HPN and VS/SC are, upon the preponderance, naturopathy's 'vitalism' [see 003.a., below], which is science-ejected [see 003.b., below]. It should be noted that in this booklet, the AANP is telling us that within the scientific is the supernatural 'vital source'. Science does not contain the supernatural, or support it.

003. naturopathy's essential principle -- vitalism -- via OBNE:

003.a. OBNE states in "About Naturopathy":

"naturopathic medicine is a distinctively natural approach to health and healing that recognizes the integrity of the whole person. Naturopathic Medicine is heir to the vitalistic tradition of medicine in the Western world, emphasizing the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force, respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [...naturopathy's] principles [...] distinguish the profession from other medical approaches: [#1] 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 [...] the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force attempting to heal itself [...] the physician must strive to inspire hope as well as understanding. The physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher [...] naturopathic physicians (N.D.) are primary care practitioners trained as specialist in natural medicine. They are educated in conventional medical sciences [...] the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six underlying principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease, and are continually reexamined in light of scientific analysis."

Note: I've collected examples of naturopathy's essential vitalism. I've collected examples of naturopathy's science claim they place upon the essentially naturopathic.

003.b. in reality, vitalism is hugely science-ejected and so is supernaturalism.

004. the AANP's promises / claims are empty and false:

so, where is the common sense? When you label something [science] equivalent to what it hugely isn't [nonscience], that's absurd. Seems to me, the AANP seeks to transform healthcare into their 'hugely burning stupid'.

where is the science? Their ain't none to support vitalism or supernaturalism: science actually REJECTS both.

where is the truth? Your tax dollars are at work deceiving you, via OBNE .gov;
and AANP is at work deceiving you.

Trust in Nonsense: Naturopathy's 'Science-Based Therapeutic Order' - A Free Chapter Courtesy of Elsevier's naturalmedtext.com:

here, I link to 'the essentially naturopathic', a freely offered chapter out of the Textbook of Natural Medicine [3rd ed., a.k.a. TNM3] as provided by, I'll assume, publisher Elsevier [see 001., below] wherein the nonscientific is ridiculously labeled science; and, I cite the claim that TNM3's principal, ND Pizzorno, can be trusted [see 002.,below]; and I point out that vitalism is hugely science-ejected [see 003., below]; and then I provide a bit of advice [see 004., below]:

001. TNM3's “Chapter 3: A Hierarchy of Healing: The Therapeutic Order, The Unifying Theory of Naturopathic Medicine” by NDs Zeff, Snider, and Myers states (archived here):

001.a. naturopathy's essential vitalism:

“this is the removal of the obstacles to cure, which allows the action of the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN], the vital force, the healing power of nature [HPN p.034...treatment must] harmonize with your life force [p.035...] to stimulate the overall vital force [...] the entire physiologic system [...includes the] life force [ p.036].”

Note: I regard this as the Rosetta Stone for 'decoding naturopathy's coded vitalistic context'. E.g., here's a typical iteration of 'the essentially naturopathic'. NDs Lai [ha! 'NDs lie!!!'] and Sinclair, both graduates of SCNM, state in “What is Naturopathic Medicine?”:

“N.D.s treat disease and restore health by implementing therapies based on the following naturopathic principles […#5] the healing power of nature.” And that's all you get. What's so fascinating is that these ND s do not in any manner that I can find express VMN for what it is, a science-ejected sectarian article of faith / belief. They're not even slightly hinting at the 'belief' actuality that vitalism is. Instead, HPN is mentioned in naturalistic language and never defined contextually, while their frakking web site name is “healingpowerofnature.com”!

001.b. claimed as science:

“[naturopathy is] 'science-based natural medicine' [SBNM p.028...the] definition of naturopathic medicine [...states naturopathy is a] science [...based on] vis medicatrix naturae [p.032].”

Note: so, the 'essentially naturopathic is to claim that within science is VMN. Now, it should be noted that Pizzorno claims to have “coined” this status of SBNM based upon VMN. What's so fascinating about that is that he didn't do any science to establish the scientific basis of naturopathy's contextual premise [VMN]. As near as I can tell, he wrote some words... and voila!!! Pizzorno didn't do any ACTUAL science and then publish that science in science journals and establish the scientific basis of vitalism & kind. It seems it's easier to just use INK! I call this 'science by decree'.

002. naturalmedtext.com's homepage states (archived since 2007):

“[regarding the editor] you can trust Pizzorno [...and that the book is] unsurpassed in its authority and scope […it's] the most thoroughly researched and carefully referenced text on natural medicine […] with Pizzorno: Textbook of Natural Medicine […] e-edition, you'll have a textbook that stays updated throughout the life of the edition, so you always have access to the latest evidence-based information on natural medicine.”

003. now, vitalism is hugely science-ejected. Here's one of my favorite quotes, by Crick:

"when facts come in the door, vitalism flies out of the window". And he wrote that in the mid-1960s.

004. so, don't trust Pizzorno. Or naturopathy. That's my advise. When is a groundless figment a 'theory' and 'science'? Naturopathy. When are you asked to trust in nonsense? Naturopathy:

E.g.: that Lai and Sinclair practice also claims in “Homeopathic Medicine”:

“[homeopathy is] a powerful system of medicine [...that] effectively treat[s] both acute and chronic disease […by] stimulating the body's natural healing response [coded vitalism].”

Homeopathy, of course, is empty sugar pills.

The Absurdity of Naturopathy PPPs - Jones, D. (ND UBCNM):

here, I cite a recent article written by Jones, D. (ND UBCNM) informing us of AANP naturopathy's new self-labeling / coinage per "primary prevention professionals" [see 001., below], what I consider to be another naturopathic false self-definition [see note to 001., below]; and I cite an earlier, similar, false self-definition / coinage [see 002., below] and parse that out with other internal ND sources to reveal the actual context of naturopathy's science-ejected central premise [see note to 002., below]; and yet, AANP's new, revised language regarding the central premises of naturopathy -- their new self-labeling / coinage -- is STILL and FURTHERMORE completely nontransparent / coded / deceptive / false [see 003., below]:

001. Jones, D. (ND UBCNM) states in "Naturopathic Physicians are Primary Prevention Professionals"{2009-05-07}:

"the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP], our national organization, sponsors a [...] DC federal Legislative Initiative [{lobbying campaign}...] during the first weekend of May [...] each year it is wonderful to get the opportunity to educate our law-makers and their staff on [...] naturopathic medicine [...there's] a shortage of general care professionals [...] we are trained to fill those exact positions [as if!]. Not only are naturopathic physicians trained in general care, we are always stressing the importance of prevention through education, lifestyle and behavioral change [...therefore,] we have coined the phrase primary prevention professionals [{PPPs}...] Dr. Dae [...] is a naturopathic physician who completed her training at the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine."

Note: obviously, "professional" is a self-label that naturopaths use frequently. I have previously pointed out that the nontransparency / explicit untruthfulness of naturopathy's self-definitions are antithetical to professionalism's ethical doctrine of 'credat emptor': e.g., "Undermining Professionalism - 'Caveat Emptor' per Naturopathy - Perle et al. & UW, UB & ISBN 1741140544".

002. I have seen such false self-labellings by AANP naturopathy before, wherein naturopathy is falsely categorized to lawmakers and the public [they snookered me]:

002.a. SCNM, Bastyr, NCNM and AANP -- in this 1999 archived example "The Alliance Legislative Workbook" [ALW] {ten years of such fraud in my life, and counting} -- stated per an intention "to educate our law-makers and their staff" and the public:

"we ask for your [legislators'] careful scrutiny. Be demanding with us [...] naturopathic physicians are the modern day science based primary care doctor [...] it is not a belief system."

002.b. but, and I went to ND school so I know, naturopathy is a belief system that is in fact nonscientific:

002.b1. ALW was 1999. Atwood, K.C. (MD) states in "Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal: The Naturopathic Belief System"{2003-12-30}:

"naturopathic beliefs -- including those of 'naturopathic physicians' -- are rooted in vitalism, the pre-20th-century assertion that biological processes do not conform to universal physical and chemical principles. Naturopaths describe [this per] a 'healing power of nature'."

002.b2. and, as NCNM's Meletis, C.D. (ND NCNM? 1992-ish) states in OHSU's "Oregon CAM Course at OHSU"{2004-ish?} [archived by WBM since 2005]:

"[per] '10 Vocabulary Words Used In Naturopathic Medicine As Defined by Chris D. Meletis, N.D.' [{the 2003-2004 AANP ND of the Year, by the way - see ISBN 0275983943}...term] vis medicatrix naturae - simply defined as the healing power of nature. It speaks to the belief that the body has been instilled with the innate ability to heal. It is thus the goal of the physician to support and bolster the vital force [...] vis medicatrix naturae -- 'the healing power of nature' [...] one of the central themes of naturopathic philosophy today [...term] vital force - the inherent ability of the body to heal and regain life sustaining homeostasis. An individual’s ability to heal is dependent upon the quantity of vital force present at the time of onset and during the course of an illness. The greater the vital force the more able the body is to heal with minimal external intervention [...] if a host subject is well nourished and possesses sufficient vital force, they can be exposed to a pathogen and shall not get ill [...and of course we're told] naturopathic physicians are trained at accredited, four-year, post-graduate, residential naturopathic medical programs. [Claim:] the training consists of comprehensive study of the conventional medical sciences."

Note: vitalism, vitalism, vitalism - claimed to be within science.

Meletis, additionally, has been the Dean of Naturopathic Medicine at NCNM and such, as he relates:

"Dr. Meletis' extensive experience as a Dean and Chief Medical Officer for the NCNM, the oldest four-year post baccalaureate school of naturopathic medicine, makes him uniquely qualified to guide the IHA in its mission of empowering and educating individuals on the scientifically and clinically relevant steps essential to the healthy aging process [...per] teaching the science of healthy aging [...] Dr. Meletis also has served as the Chief Medical Officer and Dean of Naturopathic Medicine for the NCNM for seven years and subsequently served as the NCNM's Senior Science Officer."

Specifically, naturopathy claims to be a branch of medical science, but, that's nonsense / absurd -- minimally in light of their vitalistic 'central theme' -- as I have previously pointed out: e.g., "Naturopathy: Science by Mislabel, Vitalism By Oath, Diagnosis by Woo -- Pincott, I. (ND NCNM 1985)". What are we, all to be considered as idiots? Vitalism is profoundly science-ejected.

003. currently, AANP states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [{coded vitalism}...] naturopathic physicians base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence [{science claim}...#1] let nature heal. 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 [coded vitalism]."

Note: hmmm, in 1999 naturopathy was not a belief system, yet in 2009 it is 'belief based'. Obviously, the above current 2009 AANP language is a coding for their vitalistic belief, as directly expressed by Meletis in that 2004-ish OHSU document AS A BELIEF!

004. in sum:

PPP's? Scientific? Educators?

Don't you believe them - caveat emptor.

Singh & Ernst's "Trick or Treatment" - Missing Naturopathy's Essential Premise Entirely:

here, I critique the authors of this very good book for not being explicit regarding naturopathy's vitalistic, science-ejected, sectarian premise:

001. in "Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine" (ISBN 0393066614; 2008) authors Simon Singh (PhD{physics} ?) and Edzard Ernst (MD ?, PhD ?) state:

001.a. regarding naturopathy:

"naturopathy [...attempts to] promote self-healing [...] naturopaths are convinced of nature's own healing power (vis medicatrix naturae), a gift that all living organisms are believed to possess [p.318]."

Note: that's it, in terms of explaining the 'essential premise' of naturopathy, according to the authors! We can do better, and provide explicit "undeniable fact."

001.b. regarding the nonscientific status of vitalism:

"[acupuncture's] life force (ch'i) [p.040...] vital energy or life force [p.043...& homeopathy's] vital force [p.104...] there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of a vital force [p.105...the premise] makes no sense at all from a modern scientific point of view [p.148...such] life forces [like] yin and yang [...] are not a reality but merely the products of an ancient Chinese philosophy [...and in light of modern scientific knowledge, they're] implausible [p.326]."

Note: the authors are in agreement with the preponderance of the scientific community -- it is an "undeniable fact" that vitalism is HUGELY nonscientific. Both acupuncture and homeopathy -- and their requisite vitalism -- are mandatory courses within AANMC ND granting institutions. And though Singh and Ernst's naturopathy definition didn't mention vitalism, vitalism is the 'essential premise' of naturopathy:

002. what's missing from this book -- explicit mention that science-ejected vitalism is naturopathy's central premise:

002.a. naturopathy is essentially vitalistic.

002.b. therein, naturopathy 's coded, vitalistic, essential premise -- often disguised, as in this book, as something like "nature's own healing power (vis medicatrix naturae)" -- is hugely science-ejected.

003. overall note:

I wish this very good book had done better in terms of its naturopathy entry!

"There Is No Life Force" - P.C.W. Davies (ISBN 0618592261; 2007):

Paul Davies (PhD{physics} UCL) writes in "Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe is Just Right for Life"((ISBN 0618592261; 2007):

"two hundred years ago, many scientists were content to treat life as a fundamental phenomenon because they believed that some sort of life force or vital essence was responsible for the remarkable qualities that living organisms display [...] today we know that there is no life force. Living organisms are machines, and they derive their extraordinary qualities from their great complexity. What makes life special is not the stuff of which it is made, but the things it does [p.224]."