What is your view of naturopathic doctors?

[superdoc2.0]

I wanted to get peoples views on naturopathic medicine. My cousin is a naturopathic doctor and she seems to be a pretty sharp lady. From what I understand she underwent some pretty rigorous training. I imagine the naturopathic school you are trained at might have a big impact upon your competence. My cousin attended Bastyr Univiersity.

Do you think naturopathic medicine has positive contributions to make to medicine?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Make Or Break]

 

[RadsonRads]

Ha

 

[Mad Jack]

Rigorously learned quackery is still quackery.

 

[Mad Jack]

View attachment 190425

In all fairness, modern medicine has yet to find a way to cope with tikoloshe.

 

[sazerac]

My allopathic curriculum has been mysteriously silent on the subject of chasing away Tokoloshe. Maybe I can pick it up in fellowship or CME training?

 

[DocVapor]

What about those pesky gorillas that end up in people's lungs? Surely naturopathic docs have something for that.

I can even prove they exist:

 

[superdoc2.0]

View attachment 190425

They all seem to be legitimate claims to me

I was cracking up on some of the things they paired together in the same line.

 

[Low Flow]

I wanted to get peoples views on naturopathic medicine. My cousin is a naturopathic doctor and she seems to be a pretty sharp lady. From what I understand she underwent some pretty rigorous training. I imagine the naturopathic school you are trained at might have a big impact upon your competence. My cousin attended Bastyr Univiersity.

Do you think naturopathic medicine has positive contributions to make to medicine?

Supertroll2.0 strikes again

 

[PL198]

I wanted to get peoples views on naturopathic medicine. My cousin is a naturopathic doctor and she seems to be a pretty sharp lady. From what I understand she underwent some pretty rigorous training. I imagine the naturopathic school you are trained at might have a big impact upon your competence. My cousin attended Bastyr Univiersity.

Do you think naturopathic medicine has positive contributions to make to medicine?

Alternative medicine just means there's no actual proof that it works. If there was, it would just be called medicine.

 

[superdoc2.0]

Ok. I understand I was asking for all the jokes.

But, I was looking for more thoughtful responses, especially from people who have interacted with naturopathic doctors. Or know what they teach.

 

[PL198]

what do you want us to tell you?

here's how allopathic medicine works: researcher digs up tree root -> determines it possibly has clinical effects -> clinical trials -> it actually works or not -> if it does companies that can consistently produce this product then distribute it -> people's health benefits

here's how naturopathic medicine works: researcher digs up tree root -> determines it possibly has clinical effects -> companies that cannot consistently produce this product then distribute it -> it has whatever effects it might happen

 

[ERK123]

what do you want us to tell you?

here's how allopathic medicine works: researcher digs up tree root -> determines it possibly has clinical effects -> clinical trials -> it actually works or not -> if it does companies that can consistently produce this product then distribute it -> people's health benefits

here's how naturopathic medicine works: researcher digs up tree root -> determines it possibly has clinical effects -> companies that cannot consistently produce this product then distribute it -> it has whatever effects it might happen

I would say this is how allopathic/osteopathic medicine should work, but there is a tremendous amount of traditional medicine that has never been subjected to controlled trials. Somd stardards are just based on the "expert" observational experience of "leaders" in the field. I am not supporting the snake oil salesman, but am merely suggesting that some of these non evidence based practices are hiding in plane sight within the allopathic/osteopathic field.

 

[1lifeleft28]

what do you want us to tell you?

here's how allopathic medicine works: researcher digs up tree root -> determines it possibly has clinical effects -> clinical trials -> it actually works or not -> if it does companies that can consistently produce this product then distribute it -> people's health benefits

here's how naturopathic medicine works: researcher digs up tree root -> determines it possibly has clinical effects -> companies that cannot consistently produce this product then distribute it -> it has whatever effects it might happen

I wee bit idealistic on on first paragraph but I'll agree for the most part. I think the drug companies make it out and distort the research to make thier product look much more effective and safe than it actually is with some extremely few exceptions.

 

[superdoc2.0]

what do you want us to tell you?

here's how allopathic medicine works: researcher digs up tree root -> determines it possibly has clinical effects -> clinical trials -> it actually works or not -> if it does companies that can consistently produce this product then distribute it -> people's health benefits

here's how naturopathic medicine works: researcher digs up tree root -> determines it possibly has clinical effects -> companies that cannot consistently produce this product then distribute it -> it has whatever effects it might happen

This was a more thoughtful response than "it is quackery".

 

[Pacna]

This was a more thoughtful response than "it is quackery".

Just a longer way to say the same thing.

 

[superdoc2.0]

It is easy to make fun of naturopathic medicine. But has anyone actually looked into what they teach? How they conduct research? Patient outcomes?

I am not here to defend naturopathic medicine. I think that most alternative medicine is bogus, but I have never critically evaluated it.

 

[superdoc2.0]

Just a longer way to say the same thing.

Fantastic observation.

 

[Mad Jack]

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html

 

[fancymylotus]

It is easy to make fun of naturopathic medicine. But has anyone actually looked into what they teach? How they conduct research? Patient outcomes?

I am not here to defend naturopathic medicine. I think that most alternative medicine is bogus, but I have never critically evaluated it.

Every encounter I've had with a naturopathic doctor reinforces my belief that most of them are looney tunes.

Take my experiences with a grain of salt though, I'm extremely judgey at the outset and form opinions pretty fast that I refuse to give up. And I get angry very easily.

 

[Mad Jack]

Every encounter I've had with a naturopathic doctor reinforces my belief that most of them are looney tunes.

Take my experiences with a grain of salt though, I'm extremely judgey at the outset and form opinions pretty fast that I refuse to give up. And I get angry very easily.

You? Angry? Never.

 

[superdoc2.0]

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html

Thanks for the article link.

I was looking at Bastyrs website and they say they conduct research. I wonder what their research looks like?

 

[SuckySurgeon7]

The problem with these pseudoscientific methods is that they will delay or prevent access to scientifically proven, statistically effective methodologies that can help or cure. The study I posted below deals with homeopathy rather than naturopathy, but the problems are the same: you don't sow doubt in peoples minds or give them false hope, and by the time they realize their mistake their disease has very likely progressed. Naturopathic methods are rarely proven to be harmful, but they are very rarely proven directly effective.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...reating-any-condition-australian-report-finds

Criminal charges are rarely handed out, but the truth is that the thin grey line between ignorance and willful exploitation usually finds many of these guys squarely in the black.

 

[superdoc2.0]

To be clear I am playing a bit of Devil's advocate. I would like to have sound arguments when discussing naturopathy with my patients.

Here is a link to a website where Bastyr discusses a reasearch project they are conducting in partnership with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and it is funded by the NIH. If they are all quacks why would the Fred Hutch Center and the NIH work with them?

http://www.bastyr.edu/research/clinical-research-center/integrative-oncology

 

[Mad Jack]

To be clear I am playing a bit of Devil's advocate. I would like to have sound arguments when discussing naturopathy with my patients.

Here is a link to a website where Bastyr discusses a reasearch project they are conducting in partnership with the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and it is funded by the NIH. If they are all quacks why would the Fred Hutch Center and the NIH work with them?

http://www.bastyr.edu/research/clinical-research-center/integrative-oncology

Because, as scientists, it is our duty to investigate things and prove that they either do or do not work. Research does not equal truth, research means we're looking into it. If the claim turns out to be true, then it's legitimate, and will be incorporated into actual medical science, rather than the pseudoscience that is naturopathic medicine. They might very well have some treatments that work, but much like broken clocks, being right a couple times a day doesn't mean that they are good at what they do.

 

[jqueb29]

US M.D. > D.O. > Caribbean M.D. > most hobos > naturopathic "doctor"

 

[SuckySurgeon7]

If they are all quacks why would the Fred Hutch Center and the NIH work with them?

Like @Mad Jack said, a properly conducted study that comes to a negative conclusion is just as important in guiding people to correct medicine as are the one-in-a-thousand studies that come up with a novel approach. Data is data. The trick is making sure that negative results are published and made known to the masses, so that people aren't told that their naturopathic remedies will cure cancer, which is unlikely.

Also, it's difficult to prove something is ineffective through a research study when that study will, by its own hypothesis, willfully expose the participants to harm. I could tell you that parachutes have never been proven to be effective, but that's only because no one would do a study where half the participants were thrown out at 10,000 feet with only a placebo backpack.

These guys prey on ignorance, and there will always be some of them out there because running a study costs money, takes time, and requires human participants. Therefore, we cannot prove that the tusks of an elephant do not cure cancer, but can you understand why we are skeptical of someone who makes money off something where there is no scientific data and also a desperate clientele?

 

[superdoc2.0]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/naturopathy-and-science/

Here is another pretty good link about naturopathy if anybody is trying to learn more like me.

Thanks for the helpful responses. I kind of always thought of naturopathic medicine as just using herbs and stuff cause some people don't want to use nasty "chemicals" to treat themselves. I really didn't realize how much crazy thinking there is out there.

 

[superdoc2.0]

How about moving the discussion of the thread to Chiropractors now?

Are chiropractors just as dubious as naturopathic doctors?

 

[CaffeineAddict30]

How about moving the discussion of the thread to Chiropractors now?

Are chiropractors just as dubious as naturopathic doctors?

IMO yea, almost

 

[Smurfette]

You may want to try the "topics in healthcare forum", which already has these threads:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/chiropractic.258984/
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/current-views-of-chiropractic-what-do-you-see.885376/
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/should-chiropractic-and-naturopathy-be-banned.1103046/

 

[notbobtrustme]

naturopaths -> here rub these power crystals on your ballsack 3 times a day, drink this tea made from **** I found in my backyard, that should fix your bloody urine. that'll be 500 dollars, thanks.

 

[Pacna]

Let's just broaden it up, shall we? If you're not using evidence-based medicine, you're not doing medicine as we know it. If you don't claim to be doing medicine, fine. If you do, you're a quack.

 

[Mad Jack]

How about moving the discussion of the thread to Chiropractors now?

Are chiropractors just as dubious as naturopathic doctors?

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiro.html

 

[Mad Jack]

Let's just broaden it up, shall we? If you're not using evidence-based medicine, you're not doing medicine as we know it. If you don't claim to be doing medicine, fine. If you do, you're a quack.

There's a reason they call it chiropractic and not "medicine."

 

[Pacna]

There's a reason they call it chiropractic and not "medicine."

Calling themselves "chiropractic doctors" blurs that line for me.

 

[Promethean]

Alternative medicine that works is called... medicine.

"Naturopathic" "medicine" is an attempt to cut corners on pesky things like evidence and research, to use rumor and myth as therapy.

 

[deleted480308]

naturopaths aren't doctors

 

[Baller MD]

naturopaths aren't doctors

This.

 

[MedWonk]

Why should I give them ground willow tree bark shavings in boiled water, or red rice yeast, when I could I could them 325mg of Bayer or a prescription for simvastatin? They both contain what I want to give them, but the latter has been manufactured for purity and accuracy of content. Also, knowing that it takes more than just a handful of small studies with poor design to turn an association into causation, like the "studies" that linked bras to breast cancer, and that it's a cover up by the ACS and Susan G Komen to profit off suffering, or something (this was really posted by someone I know who is a naturopath).

 

[W19]

D.O. > US M.D. > Caribbean M.D. > most hobos > naturopathic "doctor"

Corrected...

I would put D.O. in front of US M.D. because they are both Physician and Chiropractor i.e. killing 2 birds with one stone.

 

[s5260205]

Quack quack quack (there is no duck emoticon, had to use the next best thing)

 

[CaffeineAddict30]

Corrected...

I would put D.O. in front of US M.D. because they are both Physician and Chiropractor i.e. killing 2 birds with one stone.

Eh. Not so much. Lol

 

[W19]

naturopaths aren't doctors

They are physicians according to this: http://www.naturopathic.org

 

[deleted480308]

They are physicians according to this: http://www.naturopathic.org

and NPs think they are as good as actual doctors too, lots of people lack self-awareness

 

[jqueb29]

They are physicians according to this: http://www.naturopathic.org

According to a study cited here http://www.naturopathic.org/article_content.asp?edition=105&section=169&article=991#_edn2 one of the most exciting developments in screening for colorectal cancer is a study that found the "ability of trained dogs to sniff out volatile organic compounds emitted in breath and stool samples in those with colorectal cancer". That way they can avoid those horrible, unnecessary invasive scoping procedures! You'll have to excuse me if I make fun of every single thing about a profession that would not only believe but also enthusiastically cite this study.

 

[atj]

I would suggest checking out http://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/. It's the blog of a naturopathic "doctor" who left the profession and is now exposing the quackery, lack of training, etc. Also, she's a Bastyr grad.

 

[compstomper]

That they're not doctors.

 

[superdoc2.0]

This was a particularly reviewing post on the dubious training received by naturopathic doctors. Written by a former naturopathic physician.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nd-confession-part-1-clinical-training-inside-and-out/

 

[TwinsFan]

They're not doctors.... End thread/