DO/MD/ND

[StudentSurvival]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello all! Glad to be here, and look forward to all of the learning and discussion.

I'm a non-traditional student, and just re-enrolled into a university as a Junior, and am speaking with a pre-med advisor within the week to develop my course of action, along with my Chemistry degree.

What initially interested me in medicine was actually sparked by my herb garden, go figure. I found relief from a nasty cyst I had surface around two years ago from the application of a garlic and turmeric mixture I had read about. That being said, the painfully deep thing surfaced and popped within an hour, went to the MD. Interestingly enough, the doctor had known about this remedy during work he had done in Eastern Europe. I asked him how it worked, and he said he wasn't sure.

So naturally, I began pondering: Why did it work? The rest is history. Long story short, chemistry it is.

This being said, I'm having difficulty figuring out which way to go. I stumbled upon this board right after I had learned about the Doctor of Naturopathy degree yesterday, but some of the comments seemed so arrogant and mocking that I'm making this post with a bit of reluctancy, so forgive me.

It seems that there is a bickering between these three paths- and that just adds to more confusion. The ultimate result in becoming a physician is to be a healer, correct? To heal and treat the sick- and that includes not making others sick by the way we are treating them, even if we disagree.

This is where I am at a loss for direction, because MD's and DO's are the status quo and include autonomy, but the ND's seem to be an under dog in the best of ways- advancement in a field that is starting to grow but includes the least amount of practitioners, and is underfunded. This seems to be the field where historical advancements can take place in a modern age on account of having minimal research conducted. After having spent the past day and a half researching this route I can't help but wonder if science hasn't advanced enough to detect it's claims- if they are true.

So this is where I'm at. Do you go the tried and true standard of medicine, or do you humble yourself before society, take a risk, and just go full blown new frontier in Naturopathy? Do you say show me the science? Or do you rather say: I'm going to find the science!

This is probably the least of my concerns having a rigorous year and a half ahead of me as a pre-med Chem student. But I can't help but think really deeply about this decision in medicine, because it is very time consuming, and so it is best for myself to make the best decision for my future.

Anyhow, I look forward to your responses, Thank you!

 

[Jbirdski]

Risky Post. From a neutral point of view I would tell you to do what you feel you are more passionate about personally. Can't say I'm any kind of expert on NDs but you should probably shadow one or two and see what kind of life they live in the medical world.

 

[Deranged Medic]

You will find very little ND love on SDN.

 

[Mad Jack]

ND=Not a Doctor

If you want to be a physician that actually can prescribe things like, you know, antibiotics, birth control, insulin, and other critical medication, the physician path is the way to go. NDs can call themselves whatever the hell they want, but they're not real physicians with a full scope of practice or the ability to treat a wide range of medical and surgical pathology.

If you want to make a quick buck selling herbs and tinctures with little evidence of efficacy to the public, go ND. Snake oil has always been a booming business.

If anything legitimate comes out of the ND field it will soon be adopted by MDs/DOs because we're scientists- if you demonstrate that it works and how it works, we believe in it. NDs use everything regardless of the evidence, even in cases where more effective and affordable treatment options already exist or a treatment has been shown to be ineffective by the research. I mean, read about homeopathy FFS. If you walk away from an article about homeopathy thinking "seems legit" then please don't go MD/DO, as you'll just end up a pharma or vendor drone due to your gullibility.

 

[CardMD]

Is it possible to go the MD/DO route, take the USMLE, match into a primary care field (FM, IM) and then do a naturopathic fellowship/residency (if one exists)? This would give you the benefit of both worlds. I would speak with as many NDs as you possibly can about the field. I worked with a ND in preventative medicine for a little while and she shared with me how she wished she had gone the MD/DO route first followed by naturopathy since it would have given her more options in her career. Just a thought!

 

[chooks]

What do you call alternative medicine that is proven to work? Medicine. It sounds like you are interested in the discovery of new frontiers of treating people. Until there is a Nobel prize for Naturopathy, the best place to do this is with a background in medicine (MD/DO and for best results, MD/Phd).

I can appreciate what appears to be a desire for more holistic/"natural" remedies. I myself recognize the power of willow bark extract (aspirin), decayed clover (coumadin), belladonna (atropine), leech extract (rudins), ATRA (Vitamin A), opium seed extracts (morphine), and of course, yeast fermentation of grains (everyone's favorite ethanol) . What do all of these natural remedies have in common? See my first sentence.

People with MD/DOs do get involved in CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) and in med school we had guest lecturers that were board certified FM who worked in holistic treatment centers that involved massage therapists, yoga instructors, herbalists, etc... So it can be a little of what you make of it.

- chooks

 

[NonTrad16]

After having spent the past day and a half researching this route I can't help but wonder if science hasn't advanced enough to detect it's claims- if they are true.

So this is where I'm at. Do you go the tried and true standard of medicine, or do you humble yourself before society, take a risk, and just go full blown new frontier in Naturopathy? Do you say show me the science? Or do you rather say: I'm going to find the science!

If you want to develop or evaluate new therapies ("I'm going to find the science"), become a MD/DO or PhD. The respect and authority of the 'underdog' field isn't there, and truthfully I doubt many of the 'establishment' folk would believe what you had to say if you don't have established medical or research training.

You can approach treatment with CAM modalities as a general practitioner (or other)... Just be sure to actually work towards validating efficacy rather than jumping on an Oz bandwagon.

 

[StudentSurvival]

Chooks, great post, had all the ingredients to capture my imagination. Thank you.

CardMD, and NonTrad, thanks for broadening my perspective. I think you guys are both right about taking the tried and true path first, as it would bare credential towards any other practice I would take on there after. That seems to be not only a practical, but wise approach.

Gonnif, I only live 45 minutes from Georgetown, and I'm browsing that website now. Now that I know there is a program nearby I'm going to schedule time to meet with someone at the school. Thanks a lot!

I always get a little bit ambitious when much adversary towards anything, I begin to look into it, wondering if it is misunderstood. Especially when a majority of people seem to be against it, as in the case of Naturopathy. I get that fire to prove people wrong- even though I'm incapable. Maybe I'll go the MD route until I'm a bit more capable ;D

 

[Goro]

NDs are the underdog because, frankly, they're quacks, using unproven or disproven nostrums as therapeutics.

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

What does your heart tell you as to what career path you want to do????

This is where I am at a loss for direction, because MD's and DO's are the status quo and include autonomy, but the ND's seem to be an under dog in the best of ways- advancement in a field that is starting to grow but includes the least amount of practitioners, and is underfunded. This seems to be the field where historical advancements can take place in a modern age on account of having minimal research conducted. After having spent the past day and a half researching this route I can't help but wonder if science hasn't advanced enough to detect it's claims- if they are true.

So this is where I'm at. Do you go the tried and true standard of medicine, or do you humble yourself before society, take a risk, and just go full blown new frontier in Naturopathy? Do you say show me the science? Or do you rather say: I'm going to find the science!

This is probably the least of my concerns having a rigorous year and a half ahead of me as a pre-med Chem student. But I can't help but think really deeply about this decision in medicine, because it is very time consuming, and so it is best for myself to make the best decision for my future.

Anyhow, I look forward to your responses, Thank you![/QUOTE]

 

[pageantry]

You might also look around at fellowships now available in "integrative medicine." I interned for an MD who held that post at an HIV clinic, and it was really beautiful to watch how people flocked to her for alternative medicine, yet very often left with a renewed commitment to both a good diet and their Truvada regimen.

I'm with you, this is stuff people really want, now more than ever. People seem to run toward alt medicine in direct reaction to the level of cold impersonalness they perceive in conventional medicine.

An MD who can give an informed and compassionate perspective on naturopathic techniques has a unique opportunity to help bridge the gap. If you're open-minded enough to just LISTEN to these ideas, you'll probably be a great physician (just an opinion.) I also think if you have a strong chemistry background, you'll find ND/CAM programs very frustrating.

Oh, and you might also check out Harvard's program in Placebo Studies, which was started by a licensed acupuncturist. Very interesting stuff coming out of there.

 

[Law2Doc]

I have a lot of trouble with describing people who practice not evidence based practice as an underdog. If anything they are taking advantage of a situation ( and patients) in a way very inappropriate, and often actionable. If something is proven to work, medical doctors use it. If it has never been proven to work, or maybe never studied, frankly it shouldn't be administered to humans yet. A lot of physicians have treated patients made sick by their so-called herbal remedies -- they aren't safe or benign. These aren't underdogs, they are predators, preying on poor patients who don't understand the difference. Let's not start labeling them equivalent fields. "Alternative medicine" is a loaded term because it isn't medicine. Medicine implies an evidence based practice. If you do research and prove something, it gets moved to the medicine pile. Prior to the proof you should run far away.

 

[StudentSurvival]

Mad Jack: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1026931/?page=1 - Might want to reconsider your position on snake oil, lol.

Goro: Thank you for the link. I completely agree with the fact that much is unproven- in the western world, using our methods. This happens to be one of the key reasons why I find a lot of interest in the field. We embrace the Greek system of reasoning and logic in the west, but I'm not too sure that it discredits everything else developed philosophically throughout the history of the world. I do agree that many of these philosophies are mere folklore meant to describe things less understood- and therefore bare no merit. Using the word "quack," I feel (with no disrespect to yourself,) is a bit outdated in our day and age- or at least for my use of the word. We are very quick to dismiss something as quackery merely on account of not understanding it- I don't get it, I don't see proof of it, it must be crazy- so let's insult it. That being said, don't worry, I'm going to go the MD route, although the Georgetown University CAM program has caught my attention.

Pageantry: Thank you for the response. Part of the fascination with chemistry and naturopathy is research oriented, and the excitement that comes with the lack thereof.

 

[StudentSurvival]

Law2doc: I completely agree. I would suggest, however, that the accredited Naturopathic institutions that exist seem to be more based in science (aside from the under-researched/unproven methods taught,) than not. They appear to be more eastern in origin, and therefore less familiarized in the west. I don't want to elaborate too much on this, however, before I visit Georgetown University to speak with faculty from their CAM program, allowing me more insight.

For the record, I'm not discussing a Naturopathy studied in ones basement- accompanied by google, a book on Chakras, herbs, the I-Ching, and a scalpel. I'm talking about clinical Naturopathy, which is studied in a medical environment and provides licensing. I think there are two sides to this word Naturopathy. On one hand it is associated with an almost shamanistic and hippie dippie type "alternative" medicine, yet on the other, it is also the study of traditional medicine, but with obscure techniques which may or may not be of any use- but have been used traditionally for centuries. Hence my interest in research.

 

[Law2Doc]

Mad Jack: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1026931/?page=1 - Might want to reconsider your position on snake oil, lol.

Goro: Thank you for the link. I completely agree with the fact that much is unproven- in the western world, using our methods. This happens to be one of the key reasons why I find a lot of interest in the field. We embrace the Greek system of reasoning and logic in the west, but I'm not too sure that it discredits everything else developed philosophically throughout the history of the world. I do agree that many of these philosophies are mere folklore meant to describe things less understood- and therefore bare no merit. Using the word "quack," I feel (with no disrespect to yourself,) is a bit outdated in our day and age- or at least for my use of the word. We are very quick to dismiss something as quackery merely on account of not understanding it- I don't get it, I don't see proof of it, it must be crazy- so let's insult it. That being said, don't worry, I'm going to go the MD route, although the Georgetown University CAM program has caught my attention.

Pageantry: Thank you for the response. Part of the fascination with chemistry and naturopathy is research oriented, and the excitement that comes with the lack thereof.

I think you are missing the point. Naturopaths don't do research for the most part -- it undermines their role because once something is evidence based it moves over to the traditional medicine pile and they lose their monopoly on it. So it's a field that can only exist thanks to liberal laws that let you prescribe herbs without much evidence. Research takes away their product. If you are excited by research you are better off in medicine trying to cherry pick the rare few potentially legitimate arrows in the naturopaths quiver. But they won't be happy when you prove that eg shark fin cures cancer and they lose it to the traditional doctors.

 

[StudentSurvival]

This is where I guess I am confused with the semantics. Wouldn't MD's using shark fin (in your example) simply be Naturopathy?

 

[deleted480308]

If a hypothetical situation existed in which every real doctor died the day before my grandmother became ill, I would send her to a PA, a NP, and even an RN before sending her to a naturopath. Your question is the equivalent of asking if I should join the navy seals, join air force pararescue or buy halo for xbox360

 

[kraskadva]

This is where I guess I am confused with the semantics. Wouldn't MD's using shark fin (in your example) simply be Naturopathy?

No.
Because once science can isolate the active ingredient, it can be manufactured in a laboratory with quality controls rather than taking the whole plant or animal product for a treatment. i.e. the aspirin you get in a bottle is manufactured salicylic acid, not extracted from willow bark, though that was the original discovered source.
Doing this a) prevents interference (positive or negative) from other potentially active compounds in the whole plant/animal product, b) allows for accurate titration of the dosage, and c) prevents wholesale destruction of the plant or animal in nature. If all our aspirin was grown on trees, we would have made willows extinct a long time ago.

 

[Goro]

Also, when something is shown to be of no value, it disrupts their belief system that herbs and botanicals are somehow magic and therefore superior to tested medicines.

I think you are missing the point. Naturopaths don't do research for the most part -- it undermines their role because once something is evidence based it moves over to the traditional medicine pile and they lose their monopoly on it. So it's a field that can only exist thanks to liberal laws that let you prescribe herbs without much evidence. Research takes away their product. If you are excited by research you are better off in medicine trying to cherry pick the rare few potentially legitimate arrows in the naturopaths quiver. But they won't be happy when you prove that eg shark fin cures cancer and they lose it to the traditional doctors.

Look, something either works, or it doesn't. If it's the former, it's Medicine. If it's the latter, it's B.S.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and just as in the Law, in Science, the burden of proof is on the presenter. Otherwise, it's quackery, pure and simple.

Goro: Thank you for the link. I completely agree with the fact that much is unproven- in the western world, using our methods. This happens to be one of the key reasons why I find a lot of interest in the field. We embrace the Greek system of reasoning and logic in the west, but I'm not too sure that it discredits everything else developed philosophically throughout the history of the world. I do agree that many of these philosophies are mere folklore meant to describe things less understood- and therefore bare no merit. Using the word "quack," I feel (with no disrespect to yourself,) is a bit outdated in our day and age- or at least for my use of the word. We are very quick to dismiss something as quackery merely on account of not understanding it- I don't get it, I don't see proof of it, it must be crazy- so let's insult it. That being said, don't worry, I'm going to go the MD route, although the Georgetown University CAM program has caught my attention.

 

[Law2Doc]

This is where I guess I am confused with the semantics. Wouldn't MD's using shark fin (in your example) simply be Naturopathy?

Again no. Agree with the prior poster but the issue doesn't turn on synthesis. Once it's evidence based it becomes something's doctors will prescribe. The naturopath can't compete head to head so nobody who needs this product will seek them out. Why go to a naturopath if your regular doctor will give you the same thing cheaper and safer. So naturopaths lose their monopoly, lose the product. Many/most traditional medicines out there stem from nature. But they aren't tools of the naturopath unless traditional medicine doesn't buy in. So it's really a field of arcane and unproven remedies. Which is why it's not really medicine at all.

 

[jamcat]

It sounds like you might be more interested in researching the medicinal potential of plants, which can be a legitimate science, rather than naturopathic medicine, which is not. ND should be off the table, but PhD might be more of what you're looking for than MD/DO. Just a thought.

As an aside, the best case scenario is that naturopathic practitioners are useless but benign. The worst case scenario is approximately what happened last year when a group of naturopathic doctors decided they had found a new snake oil cure for Ebola that "western" doctors were too "close-minded" to accept and they "volunteered" their services in West Africa, no doubt contributing to many deaths.

 

[StudentSurvival]

Yes, the medicinal potential of plants. Would that fall into pharmacology- which, among other things I am clueless about? Does anyone have any insights into this field or how it fits into healthcare?

 

[deleted480308]

Yes, the medicinal potential of plants. Would that fall into pharmacology- which, among other things I am clueless about? Does anyone have any insights into this field or how it fits into healthcare?

if you've gone full hippie you won't like the answer, nothing gets to be advertised as having medicinal purposes without FDA approval and the only ones that can afford that process is the super evil big pharma 😉

 

[Goro]

I think Hogwarts calls it "Herbology".

Yes, the medicinal potential of plants. Would that fall into pharmacology- which, among other things I am clueless about? Does anyone have any insights into this field or how it fits into healthcare?

 

[StudentSurvival]

Alright guys, you're starting to muddy this up with silliness. If a mod wants to close this thread, be my guest. I did get some good insight from others. Thank you.

 

[jamcat]

Silliness? Silliness is calling naturopathic medicine "medicine."

Good luck in your future endeavors.

 

[StudentSurvival]

Jamcat, you were the person that I was trying to ask the question to about pharmacology before the gibbering about hogwarts etc. You guys need to understand that i've been under the impression that naturopathy was the study of medicinal plants and more eastern approaches to medicine that have been less than exposed to the western world- in that, I found the idea fascinating, just like anyone would (I assumed.)

Silliness is asking if pharmacology would be more up my alley, and if it involved the medicinal study of plants as I am not familiar with the field, and being told to check out herbology at hogwarts. That's a put off to this board.

 

[deleted480308]

Alright guys, you're starting to muddy this up with silliness. If a mod wants to close this thread, be my guest. I did get some good insight from others. Thank you.

I did read somewhere that 1oz of dandelion greens mixed with flax seed oil will close threads but the medical industrial complex is trying to keep that knowledge from the people because it makes more money with chemicals that close threads than it would by sharing knowledge so everyone could close their own threads in a natural and holistic way

 

[xffan624]

Jamcat, you were the person that I was trying to ask the question to about pharmacology before the gibbering about hogwarts etc. You guys need to understand that i've been under the impression that naturopathy was the study of medicinal plants and more eastern approaches to medicine that have been less than exposed to the western world- in that, I found the idea fascinating, just like anyone would (I assumed.)

Silliness is asking if pharmacology would be more up my alley, and if it involved the medicinal study of plants as I am not familiar with the field, and being told to check out herbology at hogwarts. That's a put off to this board.

Your emphasis on plants is what makes your post a bit silly. A simple trip to wikipedia would tell you what pharmacology is.
Pharmacology (from Greek φάρμακον, pharmakon, "poison" in classic Greek; "drug" in modern Greek; and -λογία, -logia "study of", "knowledge of") is the branch of medicine and biology concerned with the study of drug action,[1] where a drug can be broadly defined as any man-made, natural, or endogenous (within the body) molecule which exerts a biochemical and/or physiological effect on the cell, tissue, organ, or organism. More specifically, it is the study of the interactions that occur between a living organism and chemicals that affect normal or abnormal biochemical function. If substances have medicinal properties, they are considered pharmaceuticals.

Like the posters in this thread have stated, medicine does not care about the source of the drugs they use. It can be naturally derived (from a plant, fungi, bacteria, etc), synthetic, etc. We don't care where it comes from. If it works, then it is a pharmaceutical and we use it in medicine. If it doesn't, then it's just a useless chemical, whether natural or not.

 

[BDUS]

Yes, the medicinal potential of plants. Would that fall into pharmacology- which, among other things I am clueless about? Does anyone have any insights into this field or how it fits into healthcare?

I did my undergraduate degree in pharmacology learned about all the different classes of drugs (where you can learn about all the natural sources these drugs originate, how the active ingredient is isolated) and pharmacodynamics (which receptors in the body the drugs work on), pharmacokinetics (about absorption, elimination) and drug-drug interactions. Some of my colleagues went on to PhD in pharmacology.. I think this would be a great degree for you

 

[jamcat]

Sorry for the snark there, StudentSurvival. I actually don't know much about PharmDs if that's what you're asking about. I do know that anybody who is interested in science won't be happy with naturopathy, but I'm not familiar with the science of drug development. It's neat you've found something you're interested in, and I hope you find a productive way to combine that with your interest in the science of chemistry.

 

[StudentSurvival]

You guys rock, you opened up an idea I had never explored- I'm just asking a lot of questions because I have to get it right this time, and not withdraw from the wrong area of study, and so I re-enrolled this semester before Fall classes start, and am digging deep, and doing some soul searching. I'm a counselor and educator at an environmental science camp, and they offer tuition reimbursement by 75% before classes start- in ANY field of study 😀 Taking them up on it.

 

[BDUS]

Sorry for the snark there, StudentSurvival. I actually don't know much about PharmDs if that's what you're asking about. I do know that anybody who is interested in science won't be happy with naturopathy, but I'm not familiar with the science of drug development. It's neat you've found something you're interested in, and I hope you find a productive way to combine that with your interest in the science of chemistry.

pharmD is a pharmacy doctor (went to pharmacy school).. It is different from doing a phd in pharmacology. Just to clarify for anyone out there

 

[kraskadva]

Something else that might strike your fancy @StudentSurvival is a PhD in Ethanobotany - go find out what those plants are that witch doctors/old herb women/chinese medicine use and take them back to the lab to figure out what the active chemical actually is.
This is more on the exploratory end of the spectrum, whereas a pharmacology PhD could take promising compounds from this sort of study (or other sources) and do more research classifying effects and mechanisms to move towards a possible pharmaceutical application.

 

[URMD]

I had this conversation with someone - the dichotomy between the large amount of time and money it takes to prove the efficacy of some treatments that NDs use between NDs who forgo that research to treat their patients in the here and now. So for some of the "legitamate arrows in their quiver" they are helping people that MD/DOs cannot help because as studentsurvival said "science has not yet caught up". This is what NDs really do in my opinion. They provide an avenue for patients who want to take the risk on scientifically unproven treatments based solely on experience and not experimental evidence.
Problem is that most patients don't see it as a risk per se (whole other can of worms).

However the long time + money it takes to prove something is necessary in order to determine if the product is safe or not to use in medicine (basic science, animal trials, clinical trials). Society as a whole tends to place more pressure on systems that cut corners to get things done faster then reap the backlash of any pitfalls after than systems that take their time to get things done right the first time, meaning those patients in the here and now cannot be helped (think obamacare website rollout).

@StudentSurvival if you want to be a part of the system that helps bring "natural" products to be used by medicine, there are many research avenues you can pursue as others have suggested. But i'd also like you to realize that even doing that, by the time everything is said and done that "natural" product will be in the form of a titrated extract or synthetic that many enthusiasts consider "not natural" and will actually go to their ND to get the natural version of said synthetic product (reverse products from chooks post). This is the other service that NDs provide to their patients.

I say all this with "lol" because really patients are not properly informed about this whole dichotomy. So much to learn.....

anyway thats my 2c

 

[Law2Doc]

I had this conversation with someone - the dichotomy between the large amount of time and money it takes to prove the efficacy of some treatments that NDs use between NDs who forgo that research to treat their patients in the here and now. So for some of the "legitamate arrows in their quiver" they are helping people that MD/DOs cannot help because as studentsurvival said "science has not yet caught up". This is what NDs really do in my opinion. They provide an avenue for patients who want to take the risk on scientifically unproven treatments based solely on experience and not experimental evidence.
Problem is that most patients don't see it as a risk per se (whole other can of worms).

However the long time + money it takes to prove something is necessary in order to determine if the product is safe or not to use in medicine (basic science, animal trials, clinical trials). Society as a whole tends to place more pressure on systems that cut corners to get things done faster then reap the backlash of any pitfalls after than systems that take their time to get things done right the first time, meaning those patients in the here and now cannot be helped (think obamacare website rollout).
...

Drugs are slow to get to the market because they have to prove some level of safety and efficacy. But we as responsible beings actually want that. We don't want people to take medications which are unsafe, on a whim. We don't want people to spend money on snake oils that don't work ( and in most cases can't possibly do the things claimed). But the public is not medically educated. If a naturopathic "doctor" wearing a white coat tells them that this alternative "medicine" might help them, they won't know any better. So it's at best a rip off, at worst really dangerous. Lots of people do end up in the hospital because these herbs are not totally benign and do have serious interactions with other medicines a patient might be on, even if they don't do what they purport. The naturopath does not know -- he hasn't done the study. While you can argue that the couple of things that ultimately prove to be legitimate are helping people earlier than the FDA would otherwise allow, I would argue that for every legitimate arrow in their quivver, there are at least as many that are outright dangerous for patients and another bunch that have no efficacy whatsoever. So if you take the bad with the good this nets out bad -- there is no real justification.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

@StudentSurvival if you want to be a part of the system that helps bring "natural" products to be used by medicine, there are many research avenues you can pursue as others have suggested. But i'd also like you to realize that even doing that, by the time everything is said and done that "natural" product will be in the form of a titrated extract or synthetic that many enthusiasts consider "not natural" and will actually go to their ND to get the natural version of said synthetic product (reverse products from chooks post). This is the other service that NDs provide to their patients.

I say all this with "lol" because really patients are not properly informed about this whole dichotomy. So much to learn.....

anyway thats my 2c

You know, cocaine is all natural. That doesn't mean its good for you.

Look at how doing a naturopathic type of treatment helped Steve Jobs...

 

[premedbrah]

Overheard someone at a local coffee shop I study at telling a guy she's a "Medical Student"... saw the logo for the school on a binder. Googled it. Turns out its a local ND school in a business park nearby lol.

 

[pageantry]

Fwiw, I'm totally in agreement about NDs doing no one any favors by passing themselves off as MD/DO equivalent. BUT, naturopathy tends to go hand in hand with poverty, medically underserved populations, and religion. Sure there's a growing segment of rich white people who use naturopaths, but this stuff began with populations that have largely had to care for themselves.

I'm just a little uncomfortable with some of the really harsh language people use about naturopaths and others who use herbalism and CAM principles. Sure, prescribing homeopathy over chemo might just count as murder. But I think our vitriol serves to alienate some people who could use real medical help.

Naturopaths do a few good things, and a lot of them are actually very sincere, but they can't do what actual doctors can do, so I don't know that it's worth getting upset. It's like calling a shaman or a faith healer a quack. For a lot of people, the shaman's all they have. Not so cool.

 

[URMD]

Fwiw, I'm totally in agreement about NDs doing no one any favors by passing themselves off as MD/DO equivalent. BUT, naturopathy tends to go hand in hand with poverty, medically underserved populations, and religion. Sure there's a growing segment of rich white people who use naturopaths, but this stuff began with populations that have largely had to care for themselves.

I'm just a little uncomfortable with some of the really harsh language people use about naturopaths and others who use herbalism and CAM principles. Sure, prescribing homeopathy over chemo might just count as murder. But I think our vitriol serves to alienate some people who could use real medical help.

Naturopaths do a few good things, and a lot of them are actually very sincere, but they can't do what actual doctors can do, so I don't know that it's worth getting upset. It's like calling a shaman or a faith healer a quack. For a lot of people, the shaman's all they have. Not so cool.

isnt Naturopathy a cash business? I dont see any insurance covering ND treatments. in my experience it is the well-off people seeing naturopaths

 

[pageantry]

isnt Naturopathy a cash business? I dont see any insurance covering ND treatments. in my experience it is the well-off people seeing naturopaths

Where I'm from a lot of them do sliding scale. (Or they get umbrella'd into a practice that can accept insurance.)

 

[Law2Doc]

isnt Naturopathy a cash business? I dont see any insurance covering ND treatments. in my experience it is the well-off people seeing naturopaths

Actually it's not so much catering to the poor but to the uneducated (although with the cost of education there's a definite direct correlation). People who don't know better and dont have the requisite schooling or that family member/friend whose in healthcare and who can debunk this garbage. Let's not pretend this is helping poor people. But yes some rich people go down the road of "fad" treatments and especially diets too. I worry about them less because they inevitably know doctors who can step in if the cures get too hokey.

 

[pageantry]

Actually it's not so much catering to the poor but to the uneducated (although with the cost of education there's a definite direct correlation). People who don't know better and dont have the requisite schooling or that family member/friend whose in healthcare and who can debunk this garbage. Let's not pretend this is helping poor people. But yes some rich people go down the road of "fad" treatments and especially diets too. I worry about them less because they inevitably know doctors who can step in if the cures get too hokey.

I agree with what you're saying. I guess my caveat is that it might be better to think of ND and related practices as a kind of religion. It's not primarily a bunch of big $$$ Dr. Oz's (an MD) or Weil's (an MD) or whatsisname Mercola's (a DO), (okay I actually can't name any truly big bucks NDs off the top of my head), just like religion is not mostly Jim Bakers. It's mostly just very small-potatoes folks doing their level best, from a position of sincere credulity.

The mere fact that so many otherwise sane, intelligent people race off to explore naturopathic "cures" when confronted with cancer is worth noting. Not because it suggests there's valid medicine in naturopathy, but because of what it suggests is unfortunately often lacking in medicine, e.g. compassion, humility, listening, patient empowerment.

We wouldn't crap all over someone for joining the clergy or for praying for a cure (I hope), even if we're atheists, right? They'd never come back in the room.

 

[deleted480308]

I agree with what you're saying. I guess my caveat is that it might be better to think of ND and related practices as a kind of religion. It's not primarily a bunch of big $$$ Dr. Oz's (an MD) or Weil's (an MD) or whatsisname Mercola's (a DO), (okay I actually can't name any truly big bucks NDs off the top of my head), just like religion is not mostly Jim Bakers. It's mostly just very small-potatoes folks doing their level best, from a position of sincere credulity.

The mere fact that so many otherwise sane, intelligent people race off to explore naturopathic "cures" when confronted with cancer is worth noting. Not because it suggests there's valid medicine in naturopathy, but because of what it suggests is unfortunately often lacking in medicine, e.g. compassion, humility, listening, patient empowerment.

We wouldn't crap all over someone for joining the clergy or for praying for a cure (I hope), even if we're atheists, right? They'd never come back in the room.

I was a preacher for years, I would absolutely crap all over anyone who wanted to just pray instead of giving their family a cancer treatment

 

[Mad Jack]

Obligatory.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

I agree with what you're saying. I guess my caveat is that it might be better to think of ND and related practices as a kind of religion. It's not primarily a bunch of big $$$ Dr. Oz's (an MD) or Weil's (an MD) or whatsisname Mercola's (a DO), (okay I actually can't name any truly big bucks NDs off the top of my head), just like religion is not mostly Jim Bakers. It's mostly just very small-potatoes folks doing their level best, from a position of sincere credulity.

The mere fact that so many otherwise sane, intelligent people race off to explore naturopathic "cures" when confronted with cancer is worth noting. Not because it suggests there's valid medicine in naturopathy, but because of what it suggests is unfortunately often lacking in medicine, e.g. compassion, humility, listening, patient empowerment.

We wouldn't crap all over someone for joining the clergy or for praying for a cure (I hope), even if we're atheists, right? They'd never come back in the room.

Mercola is a quack. Oz is a tool. Weil is probably a tool and a hippie. I wouldn't trust any of them for medical advice. Sadly, many people do.

 

[pageantry]

Mercola is a quack. Oz is a tool. Weil is probably a tool and a hippie. I wouldn't trust any of them for medical advice. Sadly, many people do.

It's just plain upsetting that Oz is on faculty at Columbia.

 

[ThoracicGuy]

It's just plain upsetting that Oz is on faculty at Columbia.

 

[Law2Doc]

I agree with what you're saying. I guess my caveat is that it might be better to think of ND and related practices as a kind of religion. It's not primarily a bunch of big $$$ Dr. Oz's (an MD) or Weil's (an MD) or whatsisname Mercola's (a DO), (okay I actually can't name any truly big bucks NDs off the top of my head), just like religion is not mostly Jim Bakers. It's mostly just very small-potatoes folks doing their level best, from a position of sincere credulity.

The mere fact that so many otherwise sane, intelligent people race off to explore naturopathic "cures" when confronted with cancer is worth noting. Not because it suggests there's valid medicine in naturopathy, but because of what it suggests is unfortunately often lacking in medicine, e.g. compassion, humility, listening, patient empowerment.

We wouldn't crap all over someone for joining the clergy or for praying for a cure (I hope), even if we're atheists, right? They'd never come back in the room.

I don't think the lack of compassion and humility is what's driving cancer patients to naturopaths. It's that there gets to be a point where medicine says "there's nothing else we can do", let's talk hospice. Naturopaths because they don't have the limitations of science to bind them, are happy to keep taking a patients money well beyond this point. There's never a time to give up because there are infinite mixtures of herbs that haven't been studied and disproven yet. Let's not spin that as a positive -- it's being a predator on the sick and desperate. The fact that ones treatments are not tied to science allows one to exploit right up to the bitter end.

 

[pageantry]

I don't think the lack of compassion and humility is what's driving cancer patients to naturopaths. It's that there gets to be a point where medicine says "there's nothing else we can do", let's talk hospice. Naturopaths because they don't have the limitations of science to bind them, are happy to keep taking a patients money well beyond this point. There's never a time to give up because there are infinite mixtures of herbs that haven't been studied and disproven yet. Let's not spin that as a positive -- it's being a predator on the sick and desperate. The fact that ones treatments are not tied to science allows one to exploit right up to the bitter end.

My experience is that--especially with terminal or chronic cases--there [edit: can be] a long stretch of time and need before palliative care that doesn't get enough attention in the medical world. Naturopathy presents options in terms that patients (and practitioners) feel they understand, which makes them feel more powerful. So yeah, that can be predatory or--I'm going to maintain--it can be sincere.

I also know a guy who's an MD who got kicked out of TWO residencies (drugs and sexual harassment) and basically his whole (thriving) doc-in-a-box practice is based off of being great at making patients feel smart and special. A guy I know had cancer, flew five hours and paid a thousand bucks to get evaluated (and rejected after a fifteen minute interview) for an "experimental treatment" being offered by a cash-only MD.

Hell, we all know about these kinds of MDs. To me, in that light, it makes sense why some sincere people would decide to practice and pursue naturopathy.

I'm not saying all this stuff to be yay-naturopathy, by the way. I just respect that there's something my family members and friends have needed that made them turn (at times) to alternative forms of care, and I'd like to be the doctor that removes the reason to look for help from blatant con artists. It's my biggest reason for wanting to be a doctor and frankly I'm at a loss for how to convey that in my application, so talking it over here (and maybe annoying some people :/ ) helps...

 

[Law2Doc]

While I respect that you want to bring more compassion to your practice, and I'm all for that, there's a disconnect here -- you lose me when you suggest that this is really what naturopaths offer. It isn't -- That's bogus. They offer unproven remedies. Period. They aren't giving them away for free, they are charging money from people. And there's a point after which there's no evidenced based cure that they basically are preying on desperate people. People at their most vulnerable. The most compassionate thing in that situation is really just to tell someone the truth, not sell them false hope in an attempt to pry a last few shekels from them. IMHO, pretend compassion while putting their hand in some sick persons wallet is quite reprehensible, not something you should be lauding.