Arizona's NMD Berkner Defines Naturopathy in the Typical Manner

here, I cite from an article written by NMD Berkner in the San Tan Valley Today describing naturopathy [see 001., below]; then, from her web pages detailing naturopathy's science-ejected homeopathy and vitalism [see 002., below]:

001. Berkner, K. (NMD SCNM 2009) states in "Naturopathic Medicine Defined" [vsc 2011-05-04]:

"naturopathic physicians [...] blend the best of modern medical science and traditional natural medical approaches [...they] base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence [...] naturopathic medicine is based on the belief that the human body has an innate healing ability [...] their bodies’ ability to ward off and combat disease [coded vitalism...#1] let nature heal. Our bodies have a powerful, innate instinct for self-healing. By finding and removing, the barriers to this self-healing [...] naturopathic physicians can nurture this process [...] the body’s efforts to self-heal [coded vitalism...] they use [...amongst other things] homeopathy [...] naturopathic medicine believes that doctors must be educators [...] if you are ready to make a change for the best, call Dr. Berkner at 480-296-6173."

Note: oh the science claim, the vitalism that dare not speak its name, the posed 'educator' ethos.  That's the typical manner.

002. NMD Berkner states in:

002.a. "Modalities" [vsc 2011-05-04]:

"homeopathy is a form of therapy intended to stimulate an individual's internal healing process [coded vitalism] with the help of specially prepared and highly diluted substances from plants, minerals, and animals. Remedies match the physical, mental and emotional state of the patient.  We utilize homeopathics to treat acute (sudden) illnesses and longer standing chronic physical and mental illnesses [...] acupuncture is based on the belief that health is determined by the balanced flow of vital energy (qi) through the meridians of the body. By restoring proper flow of qi, we can restore balance to the system.  By utilizing small acupuncture needles or the use of our laser we can stimulate certain points on the body to optimize and support the flow."

Note: oh how they love homeopathy, acupuncture and vitalism -- magic beans and unicorn tears.

002.b. "Services" [vsc 2011-05-04]:

"my goal is to provide patients of all ages with unsurpassed naturopathic care through the use of nontoxic, natural and effective treatments without harmful side effects [...] I excel in treating: weight loss, back pain, headache, influenza/colds, allergies, digestive Problems, diabetes, post hospital burn recovery, infection, ear, nose, and throat ailments, hypertension/ hgh blood pressure, moking cessation, asthma, anemia."

Note: that's quite a claim of efficacy and what can be effected.  How magic beans and unicorn tears get you there, I've no clue.

UK-Skeptics Qi Chi Ch'i Definition - Six Years and Counting!

here, I reach back into my archives and post a 2005 annotated scan of the UK-Skeptics' qi definition:

001. UK-Skeptics :

001.a. state currently in "Qi, Chi, Ch'i":

"qi is a metaphysical belief [...in] universal life force or energy [...that] permeates all matter [...and is] the source of life [...with] roots in vitalism [...a] belief that life, the soul, or the spirit is separate from the physical form [a form of dualism, actually...] qi has never been measured or shown to exist."

Note: this is the same language as in 2005.  I've often labeled naturopathy's 'qi'-like premise 'purposeful life spirit', as it encompasses teleology, spiritism-dualism, and vitalism.

001.b. wrote in 2005, which I printed, highlighted, and scribbled-up:

Note: such vitalism is a core premise of naturopathy, which is still falsely labeling itself all across North America as "science-based".  When is evidence not necessary to make a scientific claim?  Naturopathy.  So when is nonscience and science the same thing?  Naturopathy.  When is a physician also a metaphysician and a belief system wrongly termed "objective"?  You got it:

 

in naturopaTHICKland.

Vitalism as Spiritual Healing: Nonparsimony in the Chicago Tribune 2010-10-15

here, I quote from a Chicago Tribune article [see 001., below]; then, link it to naturopathy, freedom of conscience, and pseudoscience [see 002., below]:

001. Amanda Marrazzo writes in "For Many, Prayer Part of Healing Process" (2010-10-15):

"minister [...] Greg Barrette said he has witnessed the benefits of prayer in the healing process. 'All healing is spiritual, even healing that appears to be to coming from medicine or surgical procedure,' said Barrette, who recently led a class on spiritual healing [...] 'it's the life force within that is facilitated by medical treatment and the life force is of god' [...] the relationship between prayer and physical healing has long been the subject of conflicting studies. Some indicate prayer can help, but at least one study concluded that in some cases it can be harmful [...e.g.] in fact, researchers at Harvard Medical School and five other U.S. medical centers found that coronary bypass patients who were told strangers were praying for them did worse than those who got no prayers [...] the Rev. Neris Diaz-Cabello, a chaplain at Sherman Hospital, said [...] 'there is power in believing. There is power in knowing someone else is out there remembering them in prayer.'"

Note: here, I'll term the belief that 'all is spiritual' panspiritism / animatism.  But, to me, it's rational to distinguish between a discrete, physical, natural universe that works due to cause and effect in a very tangible / evident manner, and the lenses of projected supernaturalistic vagarities that are like a train that never shows up at the station you're waiting at. I actually think it is completely false to claim, for instance, that the process of healing is something other than the mechanisms of human biology in action, which, all in all, ends up originating from our genotype [physical, chemical, biological].

Notice the equation of "life force" / vitalism with spiritism / supernaturalism / theism -- what I've often called animatistic autoentheism.  The belief: if there's a life force within you, equated with god, then you believe that god is within you -- auto[self], en[within], theism [god belief] -- as an impersonal 'life force spirit' [animatism].  In terms of parsimony / 'what is in evidence', this belief is not needed to understand how the body works and what it is comprised of.  That is why it has been ejected from science.  Yes, there is good and bad regarding prayer rituals.  I'm all for the hope and strength that may come from prayer / praying rituals of whatever type, but I think such can be done without creating delusions / irrationalities.  Delusions, I think it is fair to say, don't create power.

002. naturopathy's animatistic autoentheistic primary  delusion / irrationality!  You'll see, when you look at the essentially naturopathic, that it is a belief system that falsely poses animatistic autoentheism as an objective scientific fact:

002.a. here are my notes from ND school that describes their "life force" aka "vis medicatrix naturae" as "god power within".

002.b. here is that program [to this day] claiming to be "science".

Note: I'm all for people believing whatever they so choose as a matter of "freedom of conscience."  It's an inalienable civil liberty.  But, academically and commercially, labeling something what it isn't is irrational and illegal. What troubles me about naturopathy, specifically, is its blithe disregard for honest categorical labels as regards belief and scientific fact.

I'll pose my historical situation [wherein this is relevant] in terms of my naturopathic education:

I read the literature of the naturopathic mother organization that [incorrectly] tells the world that naturopathy is, essentially, "science" and 'not a belief system';

I plan my life toward naturopathy based upon this label / naturopathy's claims;

I attend ND college only to find out that essentially, naturopathy is a belief system well outside what can legitimately be called science [their categorical labels were, when you dig down to the 'actual naturopathic', false];

then, Naturocrit is born [as a matter of duty].

And, you should be careful still, obviously: they don't accurately disclose their science-ejected nature.

Science Rejects Supernaturalism and Vitalism - Hall's 2010 ISBN 0763760390

here, I cite from an undergraduate science survey text centered on evolutionary science.  Note how, even within the undergraduate, nonscience major context, concepts such as supernaturalism and vitalism are overtly stated as nonscientific [see 001., below]; then I point out the anomaly of naturopathy, which at the doctoral level makes the absurd claim that those two concepts are indeed within science [see 002., below]:

001. Hall, B.K. (PhD{zoology} UNE, DSc{biological sciences} UNE) writes in "Evolution: Principles and Processes" (0763760390;2010) [the book is viewable at Amazon.com, in part]: 

"[this book is] written for students without a scientific background taking a one-term course [...and it] begins with a introduction to the nature of science [{on back cover}...regarding] vital force [or] vitalism [...] gaining freedom from such [religious-like, vacuous!] constraints was more difficult for biology (especially for evolution) than it was for physics or chemistry [p.433...] vitalism: the concept that the activities of living organisms cannot be explained by any underlying physical or chemical principles but arise from unknowable internal or supernatural causes [p.g21...] Darwin's works made clear that society no longer needed to believe that only the actions of a supernatural creator could explain biological relationships [p.435...] despite the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution as a natural process, some religous groups adhering to creation[ism] have developed intelligent design as a purported scientific alternative to evolution.  'Intelligent design' is latter-day creationism [...but] Kitzmiller v. Dover [..ruled it] a form of religion and not science [...] because intelligent design relies on supernatural explanations rather than natural causes, it is not science [...] religious arguments [...] are not scientific explanations and should not be confused with, or regarded as, scientific explanations [p.440]."

Note: science does not, obviously, include supernaturalism and vitalism.  Dr. Hall has both a doctorate in zoology, and in biological sciences.  This is a mainstream undergraduate biology textbook that, I think, speaks well for the preponderance of science regarding these two issues.  Vitalism, historically, impeded research, thus the language of "gaining freedom from such constraints."  It was regarded as a place-filler that diverted scientists from the gaining of actual knowledge, much as the "god did it" supernatural place-filler explained nothing -- essentially.

.
002. now, for the naturopathic.  Two versions come to mind that disqualify the naturopathic context or worldview as scientific.  There is the 'simple' Bastyr statement [see 002.a., below] and the 'more fractured' University of Bridgeport statement collection [see 002.b., below]:

002.a. Bastyr University, which has a naturopathic program that claims a "robust basic sciences curriculum" states, in their U.S. News and World Report [false] advertisement "Bastyr University" [vsc 2010-06-29]:

"Bastyr's international faculty teaches the natural health sciences with an emphasis on integrating mind, body, spirit and nature."

Note: the "nature" of course is naturopathy's central vitalistic context, the healing power of nature.  So, there you go, the supernatural and vitalistic falsely claimed to be within science.  Facts speak otherwise.  Integrating of course means to blend.  I have called such knowledge-type blending "epistemic conflation" [EC].  Science, truly, is not a conflation of knowledge types, but an "epistemic delineation."

002.b. the University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine does the same type of EC, except it is spread across more than one web page:

002.b1. UB states vitalism and supernaturalism in 5 of their 6 defining naturopathic principles / strictures [vsc 2010-06-29]:

"Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #1, the Healing Power of Nature, Viz Medicatrix Naturae [...] the healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism]. The physician's role is to facilitate and augment this process ['the vitalistic context!'...] Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #2, Identify and Treat the Cause, Viz Tolle Causam" [...] causes may occur on many levels including physical, mental, emotional and spiritual [supernaturalism...] in "Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #3, First Do No Harm, Viz Primum no Nocere" [...] illiness [sp., illness!] is a purposeful [that is, teleological, which is also science-ejected] process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [vitalism, claimed as fact!] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complimentary to and synergistic with this healing process ['this vitalistic context']. The physician's actions can support or antagonize the actions of he [sp., 'the!'] viz medicatrix naturae [...] Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #4, Treat the Whole Person, The Multifactorial Nature of Health and Disease" [I guess they couldn't swing the Latin on that one, and considering the likelihood that their 'viz' is supposed to be 'vis', we're grateful] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism,a whole involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social, and other factors. The physician must treat the whole person by taking all of these factors into account [...]  Six Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #4,The Physician as Teacher, Viz Docere [...] the physician must also make a commitment to his/her personal and spiritual development in order to be a good teacher."

Note: so, they can't spell or proofread well and their Latin sucks.  So, five out of the six UB naturopathic strictures involve vitalism or supernaturalism [or teleology!].  Then, it is all labeled "science" [vsc 2010-06-29].  Again, EC.

003. fascinating.  Commerce, here in the academic area and then into the clinical area, occurring under OBVIOUSLY false labels. 

Note: now, an ND is obligated to this false position, by OATH.  Here is that oath [vsc 2010-06-29] by a Canadian CAND-AANP-AANMC type ND:

"I dedicate myself to the service of humanity as a practitioner of the art and science of naturopathic medicine [...] I will honor the principles of naturopathic medicine: first, to do no harm; to cooperate with the healing powers of nature [vitalism!]; to address the fundamental causes of disease; to heal the whole person [supernaturalism!] through individualised treatment; to teach the principles of healthy living and preventive medicine. With my whole heart, before these witnesses, as a doctor of naturopathic medicine, I pledge to remain true to this oath."

Note: the label of "science" upon principles, which, when looked at in detail, are science-ejected.

The big INTERNATIONAL logical inconsistency and ethical absurdity, of course is:

I pledge to remain true to this falsehood, for the benefit of society!  In actuality, society is being deceived, and science, modern doctoral education, and plain old common sense are being defecated upon.

the Economist on Vitalism's Death [Ah, Dead Again]:

the Economist states [via Carr, G. (? ?] in "Biology 2.0":

"the science of biology is being transformed [...] post-genomic biology -- biology 2.0, if you like -- has finally killed the idea of vitalism, the persistent belief that to explain how living things work, something more is needed than just an understanding of their physics and chemistry [...] no biologist has really believed in vitalism for more than a century [...] the promise of genomics, that the parts list of a cell and, by extension, of a living organism, is finite and cataloguable, leaves no room for ghosts in the machine [...] viewed another way, though, biology 2.0 is actually neo-vitalistic [huh?]."

Note: what a muddle, really.  If the properties of a living organism are essentially due to the organization of their material [read physical and chemical] components [e.g., DNA all the way upwards], then we are not being vitalistic.  AND, emergent properties which occur at higher levels of bioorganization that are not seen at lower levels of bioorganization do not support the idea of vitalism.  That immaterial 'something more' is now, as it has been for several decades, a figmentation.  Yes, but the author's language is a muddle.  Neo-vitalism?  That's like stating that a new astronomy discovery is neo-astrology.  So, another final nail in the coffin of vitalism yet the author apparently still wishes to play with the 'ghost in the machine' figmentation.  Something more is indeed needed beyond knowledge of JUST basic components [the micro].  We also need to know the larger say ecological picture when dealing with living things [the macro].  But, just because we're appreciating the micro and and macro conceptually, ghosts and figmentations should not be embraced if we wish to maintain science's epistemic and ontologic integrity.

Schweitzer on Vitalism in HuffPo: "We Now Know That No Life Force Exists"

 Jeff Schweitzer states in "Redefining Life: God Need Not Apply" (2010-06-02): 

"the fact that scientists have discovered no simple quality that defines life, after endless years of effort, is an important hint that life is not something materially different from non-life but instead represents a natural place in a continuum from simple to complex. History has failed to give us a good definition precisely because life was viewed not on this continuum from inanimate to animate, but as a huge leap from one to the other. To be alive meant having a special essence, something beyond the normal mechanisms that governed inorganic chemistry and physics. The tendency to invoke 'vital forces' to explain life endures today in much of the general public [...such] vitalism, the principle of endowing the living with a life force, is tautological and explains nothing. If something is alive, it must have a life force; if it is dead, a life force must be absent. That is not helpful. We now know that no life force exists. The laws of physics and chemistry are indifferent to our struggle to define life, and operate identically on the same principles whether we deem something to be living or dead. The carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and other atoms that come together to form our bodies are just atoms; they are the same elements that are found in the iron skillet in our kitchens and the nitrogen in the soil fertilizing our gardens. The atoms in our bodies are not special or endowed with any properties different from the atoms in every object around us. Iron is iron is iron, whether attached to hemoglobin in our blood or flaking off the hull of a rusting ship."

Note: right down my alley.  Naturopathy, of course, instead claims that a life force is a scientific fact.

Biologist Wolpert on the Antiscience Nature of Vitalism & Holisticism (ISBN 0674929810)

Wolpert, L. (PhD KCL) states in "The Unnatural Nature of Science" (1994; ISBN 0674929810):

"vitalism is an idea which assigns to human life, particularly consciousness, a special quality which must forever remain outside conventional science [...per] an anti-reductionist stance [...] that life cannot be reduced to mere physics and chemistry and that a more holistic approach is required [...] any philosophy that is at its core holistic must tend to be anti-science, because it precludes studying parts of a system separately -- of isolating some parts and examining their behavior without reference to everything else. If every process were dependent on its part in the whole then science could not have succeeded [p.138]."

Note: naturopathy, by the way, claims to be science while vitalistic and holistic.  In other words, that 'science is nonscience.'  In that sense, naturopathy embodies 'the absurd.'

The Promotion of the Ancient Superstition of Vitalism at NCCAM - Novella, SBM 2010-04-07:

Dr. Novella writes in "Our Visit with NCCAM" at Science-Based Medicine (2010-04-07):

"in the same [NCCAM] newsletter there is [an] article discussing the evidence for acupuncture and pain showing a model of chi and meridians – mystical life force and the lines through which they allegedly flow [...] the pattern of information is consistent – NCCAM staff talk about a strict adherence to evidence-based medicine and science being neutral, but interspersed with this is an uncritical presentation of ancient superstition as if it were science, and endorsement of treatments that are not backed by science, and in fact have been shown not to work [...] all of this confirms our worst fears about NCCAM – that its very existence, and the generally positive and uncritical information it provides to the public, is used to promote and endorse unscientific medical modalities [...] given that the CAM community is actively exploiting the existence of the NCCAM as an imprimatur of legitimacy [can you say 'naturopathy'], the NCCAM needs to take special care to avoid such exploitation."

Note: hear, hear.  Per "an uncritical presentation of ancient superstition as if it were science", that sums up my experience with naturopathy -- lack of due diligence from an area posing as professionally rigorous.

As A Follow-Up -- 12 Fraudulent Years On:

here, I reiterate the fundamental falsehood that is University of Bridgeport Naturopathic Medicine -- wherein, a label of science [see 001., below] is put upon the profoundly science-ejected [see 002., below]:

001. UB labels naturopathy and kind science:

obviously.

Note: simultaneously, UB states naturopathy's essential vitalism (and here) [and teleology, and supernaturalism].

002. the scientific status of the vitalistic [teleological and supernatural]:

vitalism and such is science-ejected.

003. note:

I call this "12 Fraudulent Years on" because around 1997 is when I was lured into UB's naturopathy program -- a new program, labeled science, based upon the for several decades and for a few centuries science-ejected.

The exploitation by this stinking pile of horseshit continues.

Life U.'s Vitalism Woo Per D.C. & Dr. Hall on Science Per S.I.:

here, I quote from a recent Dynamic Chiropractic article by the President of Life University that describes chiropractic's vitalism [see 001., below]; and, then a recent Skeptical Inquirer article by Dr. Harriet Hall that offers some advice regarding skeptics' engagement with such woo [see 002. & 003., below]:

001.a. Life U. President Riekeman states in "Vitalism Key to Contemporary Health Care Policy" (Dynamic Chiropractic; vol. 27, no. 17):

"vitalism [...] the idea of a spirit that animates and operates the body [...a.k.a.] biological vitalism [...a.k.a.] the body as a self-regulating system [...this] inherent self-maintaining, self organizing and self-healing ability of the body [...a.k.a.] vis medicatrix naturae [...is] the new vitalism [...] a truly vitalistic approach to national health care [is needed...per a] chiropractic approach to health [...] 'vitalism is a good paradigm' [...] vitalism provides the right framework through which chiropractic can provide a truly meaningful contribution [...our] vitalistic wellness philosophy [...] our vitalistic philosophy [...] our vitalistic approach to health."

Note: Life U. defines itself as vitalistic. It is also steeped in subluxation theory. Subluxation theory is not scientifically supported. Upon reflection, vitalism is an archaic superstition. Overall, vitalism and subluxation theory are as scientific as the Tooth Fairy, and she ain't a solution for any kind of dental problem in the same way vitalism and subluxation theory aren't gonna solve real-world health care issues.

Particularly in terms of this blog's mission to discuss naturopathy mainly, a spirit running the body -- vitalism -- is an article of faith / supernaturalism / sectarianism, and such implausible suspensions of the laws of nature do not have scientific support. It is a HUGE logical error to claim that such a sectarian belief is the same thing as the ability of the body to heal and regulate itself, because biology-physiology is scientific and naturalistic and vitalism is the opposite. That is simply a fact. The new vitalism is just old sectarian wine relabeled in vagarity.

001.b. the Life Source Octagon think tank states in "Vis Medicatrix Naturae":

"Vis Medicatrix Naturae [...is] a historic set of presentations and discussions on the new vitalism. Representatives of chiropractic, naturopathy [I'm fascinated by naturopathy's essential vitalism], Asian medicine, ayurveda medicine and homeopathy will discuss vitalism [...e.g. per naturopathy] Vitalistic Philosophy - Naturopathy. Joseph Pizzorno, ND. Past President, Bastyr University and author of Textbook of Natural Medicine [TNM]."

Note: the chapter on vitalism in the TNM is most amusing. One of my favorite errors is the very wrong claim that life defies thermodynamic law. Vis medicatrix naturae is, of course, HUGELY naturopathy's vitalistic premise. I guess chiro. is getting tired of Innate.

002. Dr. Hall states in "Playing by the Rules" (Skeptical Inquirer; 2009-05/06):

"[advice] it is useless for skeptics to argue with someone who doesn’t play by the rules of science and reason. If no amount of evidence will change your opponent’s mind, you are wasting your breath [I so much agree...] science has been a very successful self-correcting group endeavor. It wouldn’t be successful if it didn’t follow a strict set of rules designed to avoid errors [...] if proponents of intelligent design or alternative medicine [like naturopathy,chiropractic, homeopathy] want to play the science game, they ought to play by the rules. If they won’t play by the rules, they effectively take themselves out of the scientific arena and into the metaphysical arena. In that case, it is useless for us to talk to them about science."

Note: regarding vitalism, remember that Bechtel and Richardson state that today vitalism "is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine [...and according to Keating in that same article] 'chiropractors are not unique in recognizing a tendency and capacity for self-repair and auto-regulation of human physiology. But we surely stick out like a sore thumb among professions which claim to be scientifically based by our unrelenting commitment to vitalism ['the how that happens' explanation for that self-repair / auto-regulation]. So long as we propound the 'one cause, one cure' rhetoric of Innate, we should expect to be met by ridicule from the wider health science community. Chiropractors can’t have it both ways [nor can NDs!]. Our theories cannot be both dogmatically held vitalistic constructs and be scientific at the same time. The purposiveness, consciousness and rigidity of the Palmers' Innate [naturo. has this as well, as purposeful & intelligent 'vital force'] should be rejected' [hear, hear...and quoting Williams] 'today, vitalism is one of the ideas that form the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems [naturopathy, chiropractic, homeopathy & kind] that claim that illnesses are caused by a disturbance or imbalance of the body's vital force'".

003. what sCAM woomeisters have failed to do according to Dr. Hall, and some advice:

"there’s no point in arguing scientific facts with someone whose worldview is metaphysical [e.g. vitalistic] and nonscientific [e.g. supernaturalistic...] if they won’t play the science game by the rules, we are justified in crying 'foul' and disqualifying them [...] wouldn’t it be refreshing to hear a homeopath [or a chiropractor or a naturopath] say, 'I believe homeopathy [or naturopathy or chiropractic] works based on my personal experience and on nonscientific evidence like testimonials, and I categorically reject the results of any scientific trial that fails to support my beliefs' [a.k.a. 'I'm a health sectarian'...] if they'd say that up front, we wouldn't waste any of our valuable time rehashing scientific evidence [or lack thereof] that they will just ignore. They would be out of the game, permanently. And patients would have a better basis for giving truly informed consent."

Note: yup.

The Center For Consumer Freedom - On Naturopathy's Science-Rejected Status:

The Center For Consumer Freedom states in "The Naturopathy Movement":

"naturopathy refers to a doctrine of 'natural medicine' that teaches that the body’s 'vital force' is the most important factor in healing and maintaining health. The approach has been criticized as largely pseudo-scientific, relying on dogma rather than data [bravo...] in other words, naturopathy has a lengthy history of being rejected by the scientific community."

Note: visit the whole article for more. It quotes prime skeptical sources. I don't know much about CFCF, but there's a Wikipedia article that may shed some light.

Naturopathy's "Firmly Science-Based" Bullshit: Roxas, M. (ND NCNM) 2009:

here, I cite the words of an ND who claims that naturopathy is firmly scientific [see 001., below]; while naturopathy, as defined by that ND's own alma mater, is clearly based upon vitalism, teleology, and supernaturalism [see 002., below]; which ALL are PROFOUNDLY NOT SCIENCE [see 003., below]; and I give the Irish salute to all these rogues [see 004., below]:

001. Roxas, M. (ND NCNM) states in "What is Naturopathic Medicine?":

"while firmly science-based, modern naturopathic medicine [etc.]."

Note: the claim is that 'the naturopathic' is quite science-established.

002. National College of Natural Medicine [NCNM] states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [{science claim}...] these principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [professions claim; #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 [{teleology claim}]; nature heals through the response of the life force [{vitalism}]. The physician’s role is to facilitate and augment this process [...#3] first do no harm -- primum no nocere. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact [fact claim], expressions of the life force [vitalism claim] attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process. The physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of vis medicatrix naturae [vitalism...#2] causes may occur on many levels, including physical, mental-emotional, and spiritual [supernatural claim...#4] health and disease are conditions of the whole organism, involving a complex interaction of physical, spiritual [supernatural claim...#5] the physician must also make a commitment to her/his personal and spiritual development [supernatural claim...] homeopathic medicine [...] promote[s] healing on the physical, mental, and spiritual levels [supernatural claim]."

Note: NDs claim that within 'objective scientific fact' is the teleological, vitalistic, and supernatural - obviously!

003. what science says:

003.a. teleology is HUGELY science-ejected, and so is vitalism [see 003., here].

003.b. supernaturalism is HUGELY science-ejected.

004. when is a 'firmly scientific fact' simultaneously HUGELY science-ejected...

naturopathy. Beware. They are the education robbers. When is a profession completely absurd...

naturopathy [therefore not a profession at all].

I want to thank all those involved for visiting this upon me as a consumer and citizen of the modern era:

the AANMC ND colleges and universities, the State oversight apparati [particularly CT], the Federal Dept.s of Education and of Trade.

As this whole consortia demand $ from me I answer:

pogue mahone.

"Competition Science Vision" on the Science-Ejected: Vitalism, c. 1828:

"Competition Science Vision" [India?], "a specialized magazine for medical [school] entrance", states in "Chemistry" (2008-01):

"q: what was vital force theory [...a:] organic chemistry is defined as the chemistry of carbon compounds [...] Berzelius indicated [in 1815] that the organic compounds can only be synthesized in nature by living organisms under the influence of a mysterious force known as vital force, i.e., life force [...aka] vital force theory [...but] Wohler synthesized the first organic compound [in 1828...it was] a serious blow to the vital force theory [in hindsight, not the the death blow!] and this theory was subsequently discarded [ decades ago!; p.1529]."

Note: historically speaking, the next two nails in the coffin for vitalism were thermodynamics and genetics. But, this science-ejected concept has refused to peacefully rest. E.g.: naturopathy claims the that such 'profoundly science-discarded' woo heartily survives scientific scrutiny...today. They are 'the education robbers'.

Wikipedia on Science, Vitalism and Naturopathy - 2009-05-30:

here, I parse the current Wikipedia naturopathy entry in terms of science [see 001.a., below] and vitalism [see 001.b., below];

001. Wikipedia's current naturopathy entry states, regarding:

001.a. science & naturopathy:

"naturopathy (also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine) [...its] training differs from that undertaken by MDs in that it includes scientifically disproven modalities, such as homeopathy, often called [a] pseudoscience and quackery [...its] homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience [...] naturopathic medical school [...] includes the study of basic medical sciences [...] naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse [...] all forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science [...] naturopathic treatments such as homeopathy and iridology are widely considered pseudoscience or quackery [...quoting Atwood] 'an examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices' [hear, hear]."

Note: not science.

001.b. vitalism & naturopathy:

001.b1. within the Wikipedia naturopathy entry:

"naturopathy (also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine) [...] focuses on natural remedies and the body's vital ability to heal and maintain itself [{'vital' then links to the article parsed in 001.b2.}...] Lust [...] the 'father of U.S. naturopathy' [...] described the body in spiritual and vitalistic terms [...this] naturopathic ideology [...per] trusting to the 'healing power of nature' [...includes] rejection of biomedicine in favor of an intuitive and vitalistic conception of the body and nature [...per 'ND sectarian creed' tenet #2] recognize, respect and promote the self-healing power of nature inherent in each individual human being (vis medicatrix naturae, a form of vitalism) [...naturopathy's] many methods rely on immaterial 'vital energy fields' [...naturopathy contains] concepts irreconcilable with modern medicine, such as vitalism [...] naturopathy is viewed with [scientific] skepticism for its reliance on or association with unproven, disproven, and controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings."

Note: vitalism is 'essential to the naturopathic'.

001.b2. within the linked Wikipedia vitalism entry:

"Bechtel and Richardson [of the 1998 Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy] state that today vitalism 'is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine' [...and quoting Sokal] 'nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism' and [he] added that 'mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time' [{hear, hear}...and quoting Williams] 'today, vitalism is one of the ideas that form the basis for many pseudoscientific health systems [e.g., naturopathy] that claim that illnesses are caused by a disturbance or imbalance of the body's vital force'."

002. note: I am not involved in any way with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's naturopathy entry has improved. It was not long ago that Wikipedia defined the underpinning vitalism of naturopathy as an unqualified "natural life force", as if such a sectarian figmentation / premise / article of faith was prima facie fact. Yet, Wikipedia's naturopathic medical school article makes no mention of the unethical sectarian pseudoscience basis of naturopathy, and codes the vitalism.

'Treating the Source': Upcoming Vitalism Pow-Wow - Life University, 2009:

here, I quote from the "Vitalism Conference" press release by Life University's 'The Life Source Octagon: A Center For Infinite Thinking' [whatever that means] going to be held 2009-04-17&18 [see 001., below], which will include various CAM vitalists -- including one from naturopathy:

001. LU states:

"vis medicatrix naturae: stewardship of the source of healing [...per] vitalistic philosophy [...] for clinical practice, policy-making, education and beyond [...speakers include] Kaeufer [...] Greco [...speaking about] The New Vitalism [...and its relation to] health, healing, and beyond [...] Russell [...per this] fundamental cosmology and philosophy [...] Fisher [...who] will share insights about how vitalistic philosophy serves to explain or 'hold' the art and science [!!!] of homeopathy [...] Joseph Pizzorno, ND, past president of Bastyr University and author of [the] Textbook of Natural Medicine [who] will share his insights about vitalism and naturopathic philosophy [...] Koch [...who] will share how the new vitalism and chiropractic are inextricably woven together [...] Morris [...who] will talk about the alignment of Asian medicine and vitalism [...] Guha [...who] will share how ayurvedic medicine sees the principles and application of vitalism [...] Roberts [...who] will help us understand how physicians are dissatisfied with reductionistic and mechanistic models [that is, science!; and] are seeking to build new bridges with naturalistic [!!!; huh???] health professions [!!!...] Coulter [...who'll discuss] the potential power of a collective movement around vitalism [...it's] day and a half-long conference [...] to help us use the philosophy of vitalism."

002. note 01:

vitalism is profoundly science-ejected! Notice with this conference that, apparently, NO NEW SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS justifying vitalism are at all mentioned -- because there aren't any!!! Vitalists don't even try ACTUAL SCIENCE. Instead, they verbalize!

003. note 02:

it is common, by the way, in much the same way this press release does per its 'treating the source of healing / cause of disease' language at its beginning, for NDs to MERELY state their vitalistic intent in a coded / opaque manner, never transparently stating their essential vitalism to the public in any kind of honest way:

e.g., per Korsunsky, S. (ND CCNM 2006) in "Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic doctors [...] support the body’s healing processes [...] NDs try to find and remove the underlying physical, emotional, and spiritual causes of disease and distress [...] naturopathic medicine recognizes the connectivity of body, mind and spirit [...] support the healing power of nature. The inherent healing powers of nature and the body are honored and every effort is make to facilitate these [...] naturopathic medicine treats the cause of disease."

Nowhere on this ND's cited page is naturopathy's essential vitalism expressed in any form of transparent language! There is, of course, PILES OF SUPERNATURALISM per spirit.

But, perhaps this is helpful: coincidentally, Pizzorno, 'who authored that ND textbook' [filled with vitalism and supernaturalism] and the ND-vitalist mentioned in this press release, states in his own book "Total Wellness" (1997; ISBN 076151094X) that the vitalism of naturopathy is aka "spirit".

Hmmm, very naturalistic!!! Very scientific!!!

The underlying cause of disease in naturopathy is spiritual.

ND vitalism can be summed up as a sectarian belief in 'an underlying intelligent life spirit bioagency' aka 'god power within' -- in my view.

Naturopathy et al. as Antiscience & Unfair Trading [UK] - Bodmer, Colquhoun, Ogilvie, & Rothwell in The Times 2009-01-30:

here, I excerpt from two 2009 letters in The Times [UK; see 001. & 003.b, below] and a 2007 article in Nature [see 003.a., below], per alternative medicine as 'unfair trading and antiscience' -- and I make 'the Connecticut Connection' [US] per the University of Bridgeport's College of Naturopathic Medicine [UBCNM] and Acupucture Institute's [UBAI] "Health Sciences Programs" false labeling [see 004., below]:

001. a recent letter to the editors of The Times, titled "The Question About Alternative Medicine: The Government Needs to Make Unified Decisions on Alternative Medicine" (2009-01-30) states:

"we would like to congratulate the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Salford, Professor Michael Harloe, for his principled decision to drop all the university’s programmes associated with complementary medicine within the School of Community, Health Sciences & Social Care. This includes its 'homeopathy in practice' degree [...] although universities are now taking sensible actions, government policy in the area of regulation of alternative medicine is in urgent need of revision [...] one of the 31 commercial practices that are in all circumstances considered unfair is 'falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations'. One part of government seeks to endorse unproven and disproved treatments, at the same time as another part makes them illegal [...and it is signed:]

Sir Walter Bodmer -- FRCPath, FRS, FMedSci, FRCP (hon), FRCS(hon), Cancer & Immunogenetics, Laboratory Weatherall, Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford.

Professor David Colquhoun --FRS, Research Professor of Pharmacology, University College, London.

Dame Bridget Ogilvie -- AC, DBE, FRS, FAA, Visiting Professor at UCL, past Director of the Wellcome Trust.

Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell -- FRS, FMedSci, FRCP (hon), MRC Research Professor, University of Manchester

[I have included their entire credentials as provided by Colquhoun's post]."

Note: FRS is "Fellow of the Royal Society", "the national academy of the sciences in the United Kingdom." Excellent!

002. Colquhoun additionally writes, in "A Letter to the Times, and Progress at Westminster" (2009-01-30):

"you can’t hope to regulate alternative treatments in any sensible way while continuing to push under the carpet the crucial question of which ones work and which don’t [...] we are talking about 'bachelor of science' degrees in things like homeopathy and naturotherapy [!!!; essentially, both are 'the naturopathic'!]. These are things that are not science at all. In fact they are antiscience to their core [this links to the Nature article {see 003.a., below}...] in the same [Times] issue, there was a related article by the Times' education editor, Alexandra Frean: 'Universities Drop Degree Courses in Alternative Medicine' [see 003.b., below]."

003. Colquhoun in Nature 2007, and The Times' Frean 2009:

003.a. Colquhoun writes in "Science Degrees Without the Science" (2007-03-22) :

"the least that one can expect of a bachelor of science (BSc) honours degree is that the subject of the degree is science [...] most complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is not science because the vast majority of it is not based on empirical evidence [...e.g.] homeopathy [...] is much more like religion than science [...] many of the doctrines of CAM, and quite a lot of its practitioners, are openly anti-science [...] gobbledygook is being taught in some UK universities as though it were science [...] homeopathy is the most obvious delusion because the 'medicine' contains no medicine [...] other CAM courses are in aromatherapy, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, reflexology, osteopathy, therapeutic bodywork, naturopathy, ayurveda, shiatsu and qigong. None of these is, by any stretch of the imagination, science, yet they form part of BSc degrees [p.373]."

Note 01: for some context regarding this journal, Wikipedia describes Nature as:

" a prominent scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. Although most scientific journals are now highly specialized, Nature is one of the few journals, along with other weekly journals such as Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that still publishes original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields."

Note 02: the HUGE IRONY that has not been lost on Dr. Bob Ironic [who is not a Dr. of any kind!] is that NATURE-opathy which markets itself as NATURE-al, has nothing to do with the modern scientific context of Nature!

003.b. the Times' Frean, A. (? ?) writes in "Universities Drop Degree Courses in Alternative Medicine" (2009-01-30):

"Universities are increasingly turning their backs on homeopathy and complementary medicine amid opposition from the scientific community to 'pseudo-science' degrees [...] the decisions by Salford and Westminster open a new chapter in the fierce debate about the place of awarding of Bachelor of Science degrees in subjects that are not science."

004. 'the Connecticut Connection' - a nonscientific mascarade, by extension:

004.a. the Univeristy of Bridgeport labels naturopathy and acupuncture "health science" [falsely; I'll specify also that all of naturopathy claims itself overall as scientific; note that both programs are run by AANP NDs!];

004.b. while:

004.b1. 'the entire naturopathic' is based upon a sectarian idea [vitalism, for starters {acupuncture is essentially vitalistic as well}; supernatural-spiritism, teleology and etc.] that is severely science-ejected [HUGELY!!!] while the University labels itself nonsectarian [how is a mandatory, dogmatic, supernatural, autoentheistic figmentation -- a 'purposeful life spirit bioagency equated with god / the divine' (UBCNM); or animism / animatism (UBAI) -- NOT sectarian?];

004.b2. while UBCNM's ND contains mandatory courses in:

homeopathy [which the NPLEx national board exam that UBCNM has designed their curriculum towards calls homeopathy a "clinical science"!], and ayurveda [which UB labels a "natural science"!];

004.b3. while UB has an "Acupuncture Institute" that grants an M.S. [yet, acupuncture is based on prescientific premises and is essentially an eleborate placebo mascarading as a potent disease-treating system!];

004.b4. and both programs practice out of a supposed "Health Science Center" as part of a "Division of Health Sciences".

Decoding Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - Hudson, T. (ND NCNM 1984) in Prevention 2007, ISBN 0879837888 1999:

here, I perform a typical service for the public / 'those interested' who may believe that naturopaths are 'above-board'. Well, they're not. Here's how NDs disguise their 'sectarian essential principle' [see 001., below] -- 'the science-ejected concept of vitalism' [see 002. & 003., below] -- through 'incomplete journalism' [001.a.] and 'incomplete descriptions' that NDs write in their books & web pages [001.b. & 001.c.]. Beware citizens:

001. Dr. Tori Hudson [not MD but ND], on the main ND principle:

001.a. Hudson is paraphrased in Prevention Magazine's article "World's Best Natural Cures" (2007-11):

"[per article author Wallace, H. (? ?)] one of the main principles of naturopathic medicine is the vis medicatrix naturae [VMN] -- usually interpreted as the ability of botanicals (herbs, food, etc.) to heal [p.185]."

Note: that's all that is provided regarding this MAIN ND principle!

001.b. Hudson writes in "Women's Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine" (ISBN 0879837888; 1999):

"the following seven principles are the foundation for naturopathic medicine [...#1] the healing power of nature (vis medicatrix naturae) [HPN-VMN]. The body has the ability to establish, maintain and restore health."

Note: that's essentially all that is provided regarding this FOUNDATION ND principle. Are you starting to notice a pattern? Nowhere in the index of this book are the terms: life force, vital force, vitalism, vitalistic or aliases like qi / chi, prana, spirit etc.

001.c. finally, at Hudson's Oregon ND practice -- where she practices with fellow NDs MacDonald, Kaplan, Lewis, Vannoy, Speirs, & Skinner -- naturopathy's PRIMARY / MAIN principle is MERELY described as:

"naturopathic medicine is founded on six principles which distinguish it from all other medical approaches. [#1] The healing power of nature."

Note: and, you guessed it, that's ALL that is said about HPN there.

002. also at that practice, Hudson's biography states her affiliations:

"Dr. Hudson graduated from the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in 1984 where she has since served in many capacities: Professor, Medical Director, Associate Academic Dean, and Academic Dean. In 1990, she was awarded the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' President's Award, and in 1999, Naturopathic Physician of the Year, and in 2003 the NCNM Pioneer award [...] she is author of the book, 'Women's Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine'."

Note: she practices in Oregon [OBNE oversight], she graduated from NCNM. She is quite the ND luminary, having taught at the oldest FNPLA / CNME school, and having been awarded more than once by the AANP - including ND of the year. I will now decode 'naturopathy's essential science-ejected vitalism premise' using these overarching ND organizations' own definitions of naturopathy!

003. the science-ejected sectarian vitalism that dare not speak its name, spoken otherwheres within naturopathy and falsely claimed by naturopathy as able to survive scientific scrutiny:

003.a. Oregon's OBNE states in "Naturopathy":

"naturopathic physicians (N.D.) [...] are educated in conventional medical sciences [!!!...] 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 [...] 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 [...this is] in fact."

Note: this is the .gov regulatory body that SUPPOSEDLY oversees Oregon NDs such as those listed above -- including Dr. Hudson & co. -- to SUPPOSEDLY protect the public.

003.b. the National College of Natural Medicine states in "Principles of Healing":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing. These principles are based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis [!!!...#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 [...this is] in fact."

Note: vitalism is again claimed by naturopathy's core North American school, just as it was by the State of Oregon in 003.a., as "in fact" & able to survive scientific scrutiny. This is Dr. Hudson's ND alma mater.

003.c. the Federation of Naturopathic Licensing Authorities states in "Philosophy of Naturopathic Medicine":

"naturopathic medicine emphasizes the treatment of disease through the stimulation, enhancement, and support of the inherent healing capacity of the person [IHCP]. Methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient's vital force [VF], respecting the intelligence of the natural healing process [INHP...#1] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [HPN-VMN]. 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 [LF...#3] first do no harm. Primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [LF] attempting to heal itself."

Note: IHCP = VF = INHP = HPN-VMN = LF. This is North American naturopathy's 'umbrella consortia' which includes NCNM, OBNE, AANP and CNME etc. stating naturopathy's collectively agreed upon central premise -- vitalism.

003.d. keep in mind this ACTUAL context, when you consider naturopathy [government entities' fraud-enabling endorsements included!]:

falsely claimed as 'in fact scientific', naturopathy's essential vitalism is PROFOUNDLY science-ejected, while actual medicine ethically obligates an actual physician to scientific integrity and honesty.

Pinker in the NYT, & ISBN 3540768165: Life's Basis is Genomic (2008, 2009):

here, I quote from psychologist Stephen Pinker & ISBN 3540768165, concerning the genomic basis for life [see 001., below] and I contrast this with vitalism, an essentialism that has been science-ejected [see 002, below]:

001. Steven Pinker writes in "My Genome, My Self" in the New York Times (2009-01-07):

"the human mind is prone to essentialism — the intuition that living things house some hidden substance that gives them their form and determines their powers. Over the past century, this essence has become increasingly concrete [...] the essence became identified with the abstractions discovered by Gregor Mendel called genes, and then with the iconic double helix of DNA [...] today, for the price of a flat-screen TV, people can read their essence as a printout detailing their very own A’s, C’s, T’s and G’s [...] there are risks of misunderstandings, but there are also risks in much of the flimflam we tolerate in alternative medicine, and in the hunches and folklore that many doctors prefer to evidence-based medicine [...] Steven Pinker is Harvard College professor of psychology at Harvard University and the author of 'The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature'."

Note: the chemical basis for life is well-grounded in science, as Schulze-Makuch and Irwin state in "Life in the Universe" (2008, 2nd ed.; ISBN 3540768165):

"[scientifically] life increasingly became recognized as a state or process [...not a substance, per] the abandonment of vitalism in the 19th century [...and subsequent] advances in genetics [...and] biochemistry [...] and molecular biology [...which] elucidated the chemical basis of information storage and transfer in living system, the extremely high information content in macromolecules, and the role they play in perpetuating the form and function of specific living species [p.013...] if a mechanistic view of life which precludes the invocation of vitalism is accepted, it follows that life arises from elements of the non-living world which are simply packaged and processed in a special way. Accordingly, it isn't surprising that many characteristics attributed to the living state can be found among entities that clearly are not alive [p.018]."

002. vitalism & its scientific status:

002.a. vitalism as supernaturalism:

a great example of naturopathy's vitalism, wherein the "life force" or "healing power of nature" which is naturopathy's central premise, is exposed for the nonscientific supernaturalism that it inherently is [spiritism, autoentheism etc.], are my notes from naturopathy school circa 1998.

Note: supernaturalisms, be they theisms or spiritisms, are nonparsimonious figmentations well-outside of science.

002.b. vitalism is PROFOUNDLY science-ejected. As Denis Noble states in "The Music of Life" (2008; ISBN 0199228361):

"systems biology is not 'vitalism' in disguise [...] biological science had to struggle to emerge from the days of vitalism, when people thought that something non-physical had to be added to matter for there to be life [...] nor is it [systems biology] reductionism in disguise [p.065...] a superstition of the order of vitalism [p.078]."

Caveat emptor.

AANP's Annual "Vis Award" - Honoring Naturopathy's Science-Ejected Basis, 2008:

here, ISYN, I highlight the first annual recipient of "The Vis Award" -- 'Vis' [Latin, 'power / force'] being an abbreviation for naturopathy's essential sectic belief in 'a purposeful life spirit' bioagency, per vitalism, teleology, & spiritism/animism [see 001., below], which naturopathy RIDICULOUSLY claims is scientific [see 002., below], while this belief-cluster is in fact SEVERELY science-ejected [see 003., below]:

oo1. we are informed by naturopath Schor, J. (ND NCNM 1991[?], FABNO ABNO[!]):

001.a. in "About the Doctors":

"in the summer of 2008, Dr. Schor became the first recipient of the Vis Award presented to him by Lise Alschuler, president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians [AANP...&] Dr. Schor is serving his second term on the Board of Directors of the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians [OANP...& naturopathy is] the perfect profession."

001.b. in "The Vis Award":

"this August, at the 2008 annual convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Dr. Jacob Schor was both surprised and honored by his colleagues as the first recipient of the Vis Award [...for] living and practicing naturopathic medicine in accordance to what is called the 'vis medicatrix naturae', or healing force of nature. The vis medicatrix naturae, or vis, is one of the fundamental principles that guides and distinguishes the practice of naturopathic medicine. The vis is the belief [!!!] that every living being contains a 'life force' [...] Dr. Schor [...has] a private practice focused on cancer treatment [yikes!!!...& is] a Fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncologists [FABNO; e.g.]."

001.c. in "Ask the Doctor":

"naturopathy is a licensed medical profession [...&] homeopathy fits the philosophical tenets of naturopathy. The medicines work by stimulating the what homeopaths call the vital force or in naturopathic terms the vis medicatrix naturae, the healing power of nature."

Overall 001. note:

so, naturopathy is a BELIEF SYSTEM centered around vitalism, and claims professions-level ethical status.

002. we are informed by Schor's alma mater, NCNM -- right now, 2008-12-14 -- that vitalism [supposedly] survives scientific scrutiny, in "Naturopathic School Information":

"the practice of naturopathic medicine emerges from six principles of healing [...that are] based on the objective observation of the nature of health and disease and are examined continually in light of scientific analysis. These principles stand as the distinguishing marks of the profession: [#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 [...#3] first do no harm -- primum no nocere: the process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact [!!!], expressions of the life force attempting to heal itself. Therapeutic actions should be complementary to and synergistic with this healing process [...per] vis medicatrix naturae."

Note: NCNM is the trunk of the North American naturopathic tree. Vitalism is claimed as "in fact", and currenlty able to continually [!!!] survive scientific scrutiny. Naturopathy is claimed to meet the ethical standards of a "profession."

003. well, vitalism is -- in fact -- SEVERELY science-ejected.

004. so:

004.a. q: when is 'sectarian pseudoscience' 'medically professional'?

004.b. q: when is science-illiteracy and actual-expertise the same thing?

004.c. a: naturopathy.

Overall note:

and yikes, what does it mean -- ethically -- to claim cancer-expertise / science-expertise / professions-status when one cannot distinguish between an obvious article of faith / a belief [the superstition of vitalism & kind]...

and what is in fact scientific?

[As the knights say in Stronghold Crusader,

"this is too easy!"].