Vitalism is regarded as a defining feature of most Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) modalities, and Contemporary Western Herbal Medicine (CWHM) is no exception. This article examines several CWHM authors regarding their conception of vitalism, showing that while some openly subscribe to a 'realist' position on vitalism, others avoid an ontological commitment. Seen from within a historical context (outlined in part 1), it is clear that CWHM's vitalism cannot claim heuristic vitalism as its origin, and seems to have most in common with the early twentieth century neo-vitalism of spiritualist theories. Some authors attempt to solve the problematic status of biological vitalism by the use of ambiguous terminology or by appealing to philosophy or science for justification. Such attempts appear unconvincing, and while a belief in vitalism has not been shown to offer any clinical or environmental benefits, it presents a serious obstacle to genuine inquiry and hinders research within CWHM. The author concludes that vitalism represents a burden rather than asset to CWHM.