MD/DO vs ND

[genessis42]

I don't intend to start a flame war or anything like that..

I know that MD and DO are both pretty much interchangeable, and that people can become good doctors by doing either...

What about NDs? Would any of you consider doing naturopathic medicine? I just heard of ND like right now, but I'm exactly sure what they are

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Didierdrogba]

this should sum it up for you

[YOUTUBE]HMGIbOGu8q0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Mr Kenobi]

If that video doesn't clear it up (nice btw Didierdrogba) try this link:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Doctor+of+Naturopathic+Medicine














P.s. this is the pre-osteo forum, I wouldn't expect many folks here to know much about it. Also, subtle troll is subtle.

 

[koan]

love M&W...

if you want to practice medicine, esp in a hospital, go to MD/DO school. NDs do not have mandatory residency, do not have an even remotely similar clinical training, and aren't even licensed to practice medicine in most states.

don't look for an easy way out, especially one that will cost $150k++ in loans and may leave you working at Super Supplements for $10/hour.

 

[Temperature101]

this should sum it up for you

[YOUTUBE]HMGIbOGu8q0[/YOUTUBE]

Lol...

 

[coolingglasses]

this should sum it up for you

[YOUTUBE]HMGIbOGu8q0[/YOUTUBE]

love those dudes

 

[touchpause13]

In in in in in

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

 

[Mehd School]

I always love telling the story how a local ND couldn't get a job around here and eventually opened up her own Organic food store. She did research in what she called "medical school" on bluegrass and its therapeutic effects on pancreatic cancer.

My favorite is the warm towel therapies. Stuff is bat-**** crazy.

 

[Ost3oclast]

Hah!

 

[SpecterGT260]

I have no opinion on the subject

 

[Ost3oclast]

I have no opinion on the subject

Hahaha right dude.....

 

[SpecterGT260]

On a related note, my gf has a sorority sister who went to an ND school in canadia.... she has been posting to facebook basically non-stop about the "monsanto protection act", better known as the "stop targeting companies who do largely good and beneficial work for a bill that includes well more than that single brand and is also apparently well beyond your understanding of basic sciences, you ignorant f***sickle"... act..... I'm pretty sure that is the name they use in congress anyways.

It led to this, which is probably a better tangent to go on rather than the inevitable flame war:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/media/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

But in a nutshell (pun intended?) this girl has been ranting about how genetically modified foods will not be marked as such and spinning it as if the people working for monsanto are either evil, or will all die early tragic deaths as a result of some side effect of their work... I'm not sure exactly what her angle is other than "misinformed", but IMO it speaks volumes about the quality of the education these people receive.

They cite similar difficulties in their didactic training in terms of material covered. Keep in mind, memorizing the entire Tolkien mythology would also be very time consuming and quite difficult. That doesn't make you a physician either. So a series of people who were not competitive enough to go to US medical schools who are taxing their half-functional brains to their own respective maxes over a bulk of misinformation and dogmatic regurgitation which pander to unsubstantiated fears and presuppositions of the medically ignorant is not a resonable definition for "healthcare provider".

 

[Skeeks]

As far as I know NDs can only practice in Washington right? My brother-in-law practices in Canada and he says he has a number of patients who go to NDs after going to him for a second opinion.

I'm thinking "what the........"

I also find it interesting that Canada recognizes NDs but DOs still have to fulfill special requirements in certain provinces to practice.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Hahaha right dude.....

 

[hallowmann]

I actually know someone who is going into ND. Obviously the video is an exaggeration, but homeopathy and naturopathy are two completely different forms of alternative medicine both created around the same time as osteopathy. That being said, unlike osteopathy, the other two refused the use of medicine and traditional medical treatment after it was demonstrated that its advancements were beneficial for patients. All of them state they are holistic approaches to treating the patient.

Homeopathy believes essentially in a bunch of weird stuff, like dynamism and the law of infinitesimals, which are basically the idea that a strip of leather placed in a solution can "charge" the medicinal molecules and that further dilution of medicine with water ends up make it exponentially stronger, respectively. So yeah...

Naturopathy actually is centered around some scientific studies, and essentially restricts treatment to herbal and other natural techniques, as opposed to medication. These treatments include herbalism, acupuncture, acupressure, counseling, Ayurvedic medicine, exercise, and specialized diets, some of which is shown to be beneficial. Some naturopaths even believe that there is some benefit in traditional medical treatment (i.e. they won't heal broken bones with chakras), but they generally believe that synthetic medicine is bad for the human system. They will pretty much only find jobs in the commercial market, i.e. opening up their own clinics/shops to offer those treatments and herbal remedies.

People who go into MD/DO are going into medicine. They are working in a completely different setting, and their treatments for the most part actually work well. While I'm sure a change in diet might benefit a patient with irritable bowel syndrome and a host of other syndromes and diseases, it on its own without traditional medical treatment will not be particularly effective. NDs don't generally believe in treatment with synthetic/lab created medicine.

 

[dntke1518]

On a related note, my gf has a sorority sister who went to an ND school in canadia.... she has been posting to facebook basically non-stop about the "monsanto protection act", better known as the "stop targeting companies who do largely good and beneficial work for a bill that includes well more than that single brand and is also apparently well beyond your understanding of basic sciences, you ignorant f***sickle"... act..... I'm pretty sure that is the name they use in congress anyways.

Thank you.

People watch Food Inc and instantly become experts, drives me nuts. I worked for monsanto, but I'm sure they are well educated in what they are arguing about.

 

[SpecterGT260]

As far as I know NDs can only practice in Washington right? My brother-in-law practices in Canada and he says he has a number of patients who go to NDs after going to him for a second opinion.

I'm thinking "what the........"

I find it interesting that Canada recognizes NDs but DOs still have to fulfill special requirements in certain provinces to practice.

From what I understand there are 11 states that will "license" them. However, this term is variable. Having a license does not define scope. I wouldnt be surprised if Washington or Oregon had the broadest definitions of scope for them. However, they just simply do not (with potential rare exceptions) work in hospitals or actually manage healthcare. The vast majority of them run glorified vitamin shacks and push sham alternative treatments on people that either aren't really sick to begin with or aren't sick enough to obviously warrant real medical attention.

From what I understand, they are fairly well versed in nutrition, probably much better than your average physician is. That said, nutrition as a treatment modality is one of strikingly minimal returns. Sound medical nutrition advice is really limited to "stop stuffing your fat face with double half-pounder McArterycloggers fried in bacon grease and maybe, JUST MAYBE stop using the damn scooter to get yourself around in your weekly walmart visit". We start getting beyond that in people without food intolerances and we aren't really making much headway. You wanna eat lots of bell peppers because Dr. Oz told you it do something and stuff? Sure... whatever dude. Knock yourself out.

But these sham practitioners act like something magical is happening. When the gross ease of a normal baseline diet of non-gluttony is fractions of a statistically non-discernible % from some arbitrary "ideal" based on what cavemen used to eat before dying at 35 from other environmental factors (but hey, they didnt have IBS! ) I'm gunna say that those theoretical 4 minutes of my life I'm adding on are probably not worth the trouble

 

[SpecterGT260]

Thank you.

People watch Food Inc and instantly become experts, drives me nuts. I worked for monsanto, but I'm sure they are well educated in what they are arguing about.

My GFs dad used to work for them before going to Pfizer and she did an internship there working on their corn projects.

The thing that really pisses me off is the level of ignorance that these people have on the subject.

1) In food crops, "genetically modified" means, in the vast majority of cases, that the breeding was directed in a manner not unlike the way we came about the humble Chihuahua. Bad example.... because those furry little bastards are dangerous....

2) Even if food crops were being gene-spliced in large scale (p.s. the gene splicing is usually done in lab specimens only to illuminate different processes and are not put into the final products on the shelves) I wouldnt really worry. You can straight drink GFP as long as it isnt conjugated to anything toxic. You can drink snake venom! Proteins, with very rare exceptions, are broken down in your GI system and become largely indistinguishable from anything else you eat.

3) And this is a biggie... Organic farming is NOT sustainable in terms of our population. If we went to a total organic farming system across the globe we would be condemning millions to death by starvation. Just like "genetic" "manipulation" gave us the chihuahua, it also gave us crops with higher yields per acre and higher resistance to yield-trashing diseases. And since I have yet to see a paper linking small dogs of mexican lineage to rectal cancer, I'm gunna say these GM foods are 'aight.

This is ignoring the facts that most organic produce sold are actually originally farmed and distributed by corporations as big as any doing moder agricultural technices, and the fact that "organic farming" is often using the same chemicals as their modern counterparts but very often in less safe ways (there's a thing about cow feces making a normal fertilizer ok for "organic".... ) As you can tell.... I get quite irritated with the whole thing. I don't mind ignorance all that much. But paired with arrogance and then used in a way that it will hurt someone else... I start to get a little annoyed

 

[Skeeks]

From what I understand there are 11 states that will "license" them. However, this term is variable. Having a license does not define scope. I wouldnt be surprised if Washington or Oregon had the broadest definitions of scope for them. However, they just simply do not (with potential rare exceptions) work in hospitals or actually manage healthcare. The vast majority of them run glorified vitamin shacks and push sham alternative treatments on people that either aren't really sick to begin with or aren't sick enough to obviously warrant real medical attention.

From what I understand, they are fairly well versed in nutrition, probably much better than your average physician is. That said, nutrition as a treatment modality is one of strikingly minimal returns. Sound medical nutrition advice is really limited to "stop stuffing your fat face with double half-pounder McArterycloggers fried in bacon grease and maybe, JUST MAYBE stop using the damn scooter to get yourself around in your weekly walmart visit". We start getting beyond that in people without food intolerances and we aren't really making much headway. You wanna eat lots of bell peppers because Dr. Oz told you it do something and stuff? Sure... whatever dude. Knock yourself out.

But these sham practitioners act like something magical is happening. When the gross ease of a normal baseline diet of non-gluttony is fractions of a statistically non-discernible % from some arbitrary "ideal" based on what cavemen used to eat before dying at 35 from other environmental factors (but hey, they didnt have IBS! ) I'm gunna say that those theoretical 4 minutes of my life I'm adding on are probably not worth the trouble

haha, thanks for the laugh. That was fun to read AND educational

My GFs dad used to work for them before going to Pfizer and she did an internship there working on their corn projects.

The thing that really pisses me off is the level of ignorance that these people have on the subject.
1) In food crops, "genetically modified" means, in the vast majority of cases, that the breeding was directed in a manner not unlike the way we came about the humble Chihuahua. Bad example.... because those furry little bastards are dangerous....

2) Even if food crops were being gene-spliced in large scale (p.s. the gene splicing is usually done in lab specimens only to illuminate different processes and are not put into the final products on the shelves) I wouldnt really worry. You can straight drink GFP as long as it isnt conjugated to anything toxic. You can drink snake venom! Proteins, with very rare exceptions, are broken down in your GI system and become largely indistinguishable from anything else you eat.

3) And this is a biggie... Organic farming is NOT sustainable in terms of our population. If we went to a total organic farming system across the globe we would be condemning millions to death by starvation. Just like "genetic" "manipulation" gave us the chihuahua, it also gave us crops with higher yields per acre and higher resistance to yield-trashing diseases. And since I have yet to see a paper linking small dogs of mexican lineage to rectal cancer, I'm gunna say these GM foods are 'aight.

This is ignoring the facts that most organic produce sold are actually originally farmed and distributed by corporations as big as any doing moder agricultural technices, and the fact that "organic farming" is often using the same chemicals as their modern counterparts but very often in less safe ways (there's a thing about cow feces making a normal fertilizer ok for "organic".... ) As you can tell.... I get quite irritated with the whole thing. I don't mind ignorance all that much. But paired with arrogance and then used in a way that it will hurt someone else... I start to get a little annoyed

Ok if we are getting into people talking like they know something when they really dont let me bring up my biggest pet peev.... at home births/midwives vs doctors.

 

[hallowmann]

My GFs dad used to work for them before going to Pfizer and she did an internship there working on their corn projects.

The thing that really pisses me off is the level of ignorance that these people have on the subject.

1) In food crops, "genetically modified" means, in the vast majority of cases, that the breeding was directed in a manner not unlike the way we came about the humble Chihuahua. Bad example.... because those furry little bastards are dangerous....

2) Even if food crops were being gene-spliced in large scale (p.s. the gene splicing is usually done in lab specimens only to illuminate different processes and are not put into the final products on the shelves) I wouldnt really worry. You can straight drink GFP as long as it isnt conjugated to anything toxic. You can drink snake venom! Proteins, with very rare exceptions, are broken down in your GI system and become largely indistinguishable from anything else you eat.

3) And this is a biggie... Organic farming is NOT sustainable in terms of our population. If we went to a total organic farming system across the globe we would be condemning millions to death by starvation. Just like "genetic" "manipulation" gave us the chihuahua, it also gave us crops with higher yields per acre and higher resistance to yield-trashing diseases. And since I have yet to see a paper linking small dogs of mexican lineage to rectal cancer, I'm gunna say these GM foods are 'aight.

This is ignoring the facts that most organic produce sold are actually originally farmed and distributed by corporations as big as any doing moder agricultural technices, and the fact that "organic farming" is often using the same chemicals as their modern counterparts but very often in less safe ways (there's a thing about cow feces making a normal fertilizer ok for "organic".... ) As you can tell.... I get quite irritated with the whole thing. I don't mind ignorance all that much. But paired with arrogance and then used in a way that it will hurt someone else... I start to get a little annoyed

Some misinformation in this:

1) Genetically modified foods are NOT selective breeding crops. You don't refer to crops that have been selectively bred as genetically modified. Genetic modification involves the introduction of genes into the genome of the crop. That's what it is.

2) Something like 70% of the corn in this country is a direct product of genetically modified (spliced) crops. They aren't "only used in the lab". The crops that most of the country grows are genetically modified. GFP isn't being put into crops outside of the lab, its more like Roundup and other genes that produce pesticide proteins. I'm not saying there is any scientific evidence that its bad for you, but please stick to the facts here.

3) This is generally true.

As far as Monsanto goes, they are a pretty evil corporation. Its not because they genetically modify crops, but its because they patent those crops, charge outrageous prices for them, and ultimately hurt most developing countries. Why do you think India invested so much money to produce their own GM crops? Its because Monsanto has been bleeding farmers dry with their lawsuits, conditions, and outrageous prices, and India could not afford the annual payments for a GM crop to be used to feed their population (Monsanto requires that instead of replanting the seeds from your crop, you destroy those seeds and buy a whole new set from them each year). They have also developed a decent sized monopoly over GM crops, and sue anyone that attempts to compete with them. They even successful sued a farmer in the US that happened to have some GM crops, because a small portion of his own crops bred with ones on a nearby farm (you know as a result of techniques like the wind), and put them out of business.

Again though, the GM foods issue is really inconclusive. It may be harmful, it may be beneficial, it may have no effect. Its not really clear.

 

[SpecterGT260]

haha, thanks for the laugh. That was fun to read AND educational


Ok if we are getting into people talking like they know something when they really dont let me bring up my biggest pet peev.... at home births/midwives vs doctors.

I'll just leave this here and hope this doesn't constitute the kind of derailment that the mods have been cracking down on recently

 

[touchpause13]

Ok if we are getting into people talking like they know something when they really dont let me bring up my biggest pet peev.... at home births/midwives vs doctors.

this one actually doesn't bother me at all. my understanding is that a normal birth doesn't necessarily need doctor intervention (but obviously im a pre-med so my knowledge base is EXTREMELY minimal)

 

[Skeeks]

this one actually doesn't bother me at all. my understanding is that a normal birth doesn't necessarily need doctor intervention (but obviously im a pre-med so my knowledge base is EXTREMELY minimal)

I appreciate your honesty. Look it up sometime, its pretty eye opening. Since Specter is not going into details I'll let this end here. I didnt mean to offend. I just dont understand I guess. I dont want mod attention either.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Some misinformation in this:

1) Genetically modified foods are NOT selective breeding crops. You don't refer to crops that have been selectively bred as genetically modified. Genetic modification involves the introduction of genes into the genome of the crop. That's what it is.

It was my impression that these people are getting bent over all manner of modification. But GMO does not only refer to spliced organisms. A quick lookup shows that the major method is being subbjected to genetic stressors (such as radiation) to promote genetic change and hasten the process.

2) Something like 70% of the corn in this country is a direct product of genetically modified (spliced) crops. They aren't "only used in the lab". The crops that most of the country grows are genetically modified. GFP isn't being put into crops outside of the lab, its more like Roundup and other genes that produce pesticide proteins. I'm not saying there is any scientific evidence that its bad for you, but please stick to the facts here.

Cite your source, please. From what I have heard and understand the bulk of commercial crops are resultant from selective breeding and not direct genetic manipulation.

3) This is generally true.

As far as Monsanto goes, they are pretty a evil corporation. Its not because they genetically modify crops, but its because they patent those crops, charge outrageous prices for them, and ultimately hurt most developing countries. Why do you think India invested so much money to produce their own GM crops? Its because Monsanto has been bleeding farmers dry with their lawsuits, conditions, and outrageous prices, and India could not afford the annual payments for a GM crop to be used to feed their population (Monsanto requires that instead of replanting the seeds from your crop, you destroy those seeds and buy a whole new set from them each year). They have also developed a decent sized monopoly over GM crops, and sue anyone that attempts to compete with them. They even successful sued a farmer in the US that happened to have some GM crops, because a small portion of his own crops bred with ones on a nearby farm (you know as a result of techniques like the wind), and put them out of business.

I have to disagree with your entire premise here. If I make something that would change someone's life for the better, and then make it cost prohibitive for that person, I have left that person at their original baseline. Monsanto is not "hurting" developing countries with this. They just aren't helping as much as they could. It is a VERY important distinction to make and understand. In this country, those farmers who can afford high yield crops net a return on their investment from, not surprisingly, the higher yield. If they didn't, the crops would not be commercially viable. The argument fails on 2 fronts.

Also... you generally can't re-plant the seeds from last years crops (or don't want to). I am not comfortable enough in the area of botony and agriculture. My only real source of information on the subject is my grandfather who worked for Pioneer for most of his later life after he retired from farming. According to him you don't quite get the same product in planting the seeds of last years crops. Someone else may have more input on this, however. also, myth 4

Again though, the GM foods issues is really inconclusive. It may be harmful, it may be beneficial, it may have no effect. Its not really clear.

This part I agree with. The issue is the baseless alarmism of some groups. We also have no definitive evidence showing that not putting your tube socks on the proper foot (left and right) is not linked to scoliosis. Such a statement of fact is no reason to put alarmist banners on all sets of tube socks simply because someone with scant understanding of the process is uncomfortable with it.

 

[BuddyTheElf]

I know a few people who are going the ND route laugh
You don't even need to take the MCAT (or any other test) to get into ND school http://www.aanmc.org/naturopathic-medicine/naturopathic-medicine-faq.php#admissions
I find this hilarious. When these people were applying I was asking them about the application process and if they took the MCAT and they said "No, we don't need to take any test like that, just submit an application and a transcript. They look more for people who are creative, have curiosity, and believe in naturopathic medicine." What?! All you do is submit an app?!
You couldn't pay me enough to go to ND school.

 

[hallowmann]

this one actually doesn't bother me at all. my understanding is that a normal birth doesn't necessarily need doctor intervention (but obviously im a pre-med so my knowledge base is EXTREMELY minimal)

Obviously people have been having children without doctors and outside of hospitals for a long time, and as you said normal birth doesn't need that sort of intervention.

The real problem is how do you know whether or not it'll be a normal birth? I know that if my wife has a baby, she'll be in a hospital, where at least if something goes wrong, there will be people there to help right away.

That article kind of surprised me. I'm surprised Hopkins wasn't able to argue that the ichemia could have been a result of the delay at home and trip to the hospital as opposed to the "wait for the CT scan". Maybe there's some detail missing?

 

[SpecterGT260]

this one actually doesn't bother me at all. my understanding is that a normal birth doesn't necessarily need doctor intervention (but obviously im a pre-med so my knowledge base is EXTREMELY minimal)

Fun fact that I learned in my M1 anatomy class: There are apparently only 2 animals on earth that require assistance in childbirth. Humans, and spider monkeys (humans because of the giant brain thingey and spider monkeys because of their arms). Apparently spider monkeys don't help each other which accounts for some low survival rates among the species.

Before the intervention of modern medicine, human birth was also associated with alarmingly high rates of death for both mother and child. Obviously we had a positive net result or we wouldnt be here but still....

Personally.... I can't say I have an issue with home births itself. You are correct in saying that a "normal" birth should happen without the need for medical intervention. However, the complication rate (as well as the rate of inadequate pre-natal care and screening which is higher among the group) is higher than that of many diseases we go well out of our way to avoid. My problem is with the people who try to romanticize the whole thing. I've been told "it's better for the baby! They arent brought into this world with bright lights and beeping machines, they are transitioned into a warm pool (in the case of water births) which eases the process and blah blah blah". That's all bullcrap . Its for the psyche of the mother and nothing more

 

[hallowmann]

It was my impression that these people are getting bent over all manner of modification. But GMO does not only refer to spliced organisms. A quick lookup shows that the major method is being subbjected to genetic stressors (such as radiation) to promote genetic change and hasten the process.

Actually, radiation is not actually considered genetic modification, which is more stable. I know its only wikipedia, but there is a source there: "GMOs have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise[1] than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change."

Cite your source, please. From what I have heard and understand the bulk of commercial crops are resultant from selective breeding and not direct genetic manipulation.

It'll take me a second for this. I'll have to look through my genetics lab manual for the citation. EDIT: Couldn't find my lab manual, but a 30 second google search found this: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produc...-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.UVR9hBzU9PY It looks like 88% of the corn crops in the US are genetically engineered. 52% are from stacked gene varieties, 21% are herbicide-resistent only, and 15% are insect-resistent only.

I have to disagree with your entire premise here. If I make something that would change someone's life for the better, and then make it cost prohibitive for that person, I have left that person at their original baseline. Monsanto is not "hurting" developing countries with this. They just aren't helping as much as they could. It is a VERY important distinction to make and understand. In this country, those farmers who can afford high yield crops net a return on their investment from, not surprisingly, the higher yield. If they didn't, the crops would not be commercially viable. The argument fails on 2 fronts.

I don't disagree that those who use it gain better yield that covers the cost, for at least the farmers in the country, but its more the monopolizing techniques and broad patents that Monsanto uses to bully people out of the business that causes the most harm. For example, how exactly did it make sense to ruin the farmer who unknowingly had a few GM crops? Also, Monsanto itself uses a lot of lobbying and legal maneuvering to block out anyone else from getting into the business, ultimately hurting not only the free market, but also all of us as whole, because now instead of a variety of GM crops many of us subsist on crops with very little genetic variability. God help us if something ends up wiping out that line of crops that supplies most of our corn and soy.

As far as leaving other countries alone goes, it kind of addresses your 3rd point. If you make a product in order to feed the population of the world, then essentially say, oh you people who actually need it, we aren't going to give you any breaks, and instead we are selling it to people in the first world that have to do things like put corn in rubber just to find uses for the excess crop yields, they aren't really addressing the point of an expanding population. If they stopped there though, it would be understandable, because they are a business and its about the bottom line. But they don't, they go after any company or country that even attempts to produce independent genetically modified crops.

I guess its more of a philosophy issue. I don't respect a company that subsides essentially on lawsuits and monopolizing techniques as opposed to the production of an actually superior product. But, that's me.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I appreciate your honesty. Look it up sometime, its pretty eye opening. Since Specter is not going into details I'll let this end here. I didnt mean to offend. I just dont understand I guess. I dont want mod attention either.

My comment was a little tongue in cheek. I think we are still generally on topic-ish. And I would bet that the staff is ok with decent discussion as opposed to the giant flame war that goes on in these threads often.

What is it you don't understand? Your post here seems to indicate we are on the same page.

 

[touchpause13]

Fun fact that I learned in my M1 anatomy class: There are apparently only 2 animals on earth that require assistance in childbirth. Humans, and spider monkeys (humans because of the giant brain thingey and spider monkeys because of their arms). Apparently spider monkeys don't help each other which accounts for some low survival rates among the species.

Before the intervention of modern medicine, human birth was also associated with alarmingly high rates of death for both mother and child. Obviously we had a positive net result or we wouldnt be here but still....

Personally.... I can't say I have an issue with home births itself. You are correct in saying that a "normal" birth should happen without the need for medical intervention. However, the complication rate (as well as the rate of inadequate pre-natal care and screening which is higher among the group) is higher than that of many diseases we go well out of our way to avoid. My problem is with the people who try to romanticize the whole thing. I've been told "it's better for the baby! They arent brought into this world with bright lights and beeping machines, they are transitioned into a warm pool (in the case of water births) which eases the process and blah blah blah". That's all bullcrap . Its for the psyche of the mother and nothing more

Fyi directly after what you could call the advent of modern medicine there was also extremely high rates of maternal and infant mortality (the whole dissecting dead bodies then sticking your hands into someones vagina thing ended up not being the greatest idea in the world)

Oh I don't buy the idea that homebirth is intrisically better for the baby at all. I just think its more of a personally choice based on your own medical history and what you would feel more comfortable with. Id venture that most moms in their 20s with no family history of birth complications cud probably give birth using a certified midwife with little to no issues. I have a feeling my crazy ass will end up having an orgasmic birth with a doula or something.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

 

[SpecterGT260]

Actually, radiation is not actually considered genetic modification, which is more stable. I know its only wikipedia, but there is a source there: "GMOs have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise[1] than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change."



It'll take me a second for this. I'll have to look through my genetics lab manual for the citation.



I don't disagree that those who use it gain better yield that covers the cost, for at least the farmers in the country, but its more the monopolizing techniques and broad patents that Monsanto uses to bully people out of the business that causes the most harm. For example, how exactly did it make sense to ruin the farmer who unknowingly had a few GM crops? Also, Monsanto itself uses a lot of lobbying and legal maneuvering to block out anyone else from getting into the business, ultimately hurting not only the free market, but also all of us as whole, because now instead of a variety of GM crops many of us subsist on crops with very little genetic variability. God help us if something ends up wiping out that line of crops that supplies most of our corn and soy.

As far as leaving other countries alone goes, it kind of addresses your 3rd point. If you make a product in order to feed the population of the world, then essentially say, oh you people who actually need it, we aren't going to give you any breaks, and instead we are selling it to people in the first world that have to do things like put corn in rubber just to find uses for the excess crop yields, they aren't really addressing the point of an expanding population. If they stopped there though, it would be understandable, because they are business and its about the bottom line. But they don't, they go after any company or country that even attempts to produce independent genetically modified crops.

I guess its more of a philosophy issue. I don't respect a company that subsides essentially on lawsuits and monopolizing techniques as opposed to the production of an actually superior product.

We can agree to disagree I suppose. But a couple quick notes (assuming you trust NPR), the thing about ruining the farmer who had a few of those crops is a myth. And, patents have been a part of american commerce for basically ever. It works pretty much the same way in the pharmaceutical business and people get (sometimes irrationally) bent over that as well. Incentive to create these products comes from making money off of such products. If people were allowed to leech your idea and siphon your profits (needed to offset the development costs) for anything you make simply because it is "needed", those with the ability would not be in the business of creating such products in the first place. Patents are limited in scope and duration and serve to not only protect inventors but also protect the incentive to invent.
myth 5 in that thing I posted is also pertinent to our disagreement.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Fyi directly after what you could call the advent of modern medicine there was also extremely high rates of maternal and infant mortality (the whole dissecting dead bodies then sticking your hands into someones vagina thing ended up not being the greatest idea in the world)

Oh I don't buy the idea that homebirth is intrisically better for the baby at all. I just think its more of a personally choice based on your own medical history and what you would feel more comfortable with. Id venture that most moms in their 20s with no family history of birth complications cud probably give birth using a certified midwife with little to no issues. I have a feeling my crazy ass will end up having an orgasmic birth with a doula or something.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

"Modern" medicine definitely had a learning curve associated with it in its infancy
Thank god for the advent of the microscope

And yes, I would agree that it boils down to a personal choice. I just believe that personal choices come with personal responsibility for consequences. If a mother wants to have her birth anywhere in the spectrum from full on hospital admission for the last term of pregnancy all the way to vest-suspended bungee jumping with "dad" holding a trampoline down below (or over water for a double-whammy), I say go for it so long as you take full responsibility for the choice (cost in the former, the imminent and probable death of the infant in the latter).

 

[Didierdrogba]

I actually know someone who is going into ND. Obviously the video is an exaggeration, but homeopathy and naturopathy are two completely different forms of alternative medicine both created around the same time as osteopathy. That being said, unlike osteopathy, the other two refused the use of medicine and traditional medical treatment after it was demonstrated that its advancements were beneficial for patients. All of them state they are holistic approaches to treating the patient.

Homeopathy believes essentially in a bunch of weird stuff, like dynamism and the law of infinitesimals, which are basically the idea that a strip of leather placed in a solution can "charge" the medicinal molecules and that further dilution of medicine with water ends up make it exponentially stronger, respectively. So yeah...

Naturopathy actually is centered around some scientific studies, and essentially restricts treatment to herbal and other natural techniques, as opposed to medication. These treatments include herbalism, acupuncture, acupressure, counseling, Ayurvedic medicine, exercise, and specialized diets, some of which is shown to be beneficial. Some naturopaths even believe that there is some benefit in traditional medical treatment (i.e. they won't heal broken bones with chakras), but they generally believe that synthetic medicine is bad for the human system. They will pretty much only find jobs in the commercial market, i.e. opening up their own clinics/shops to offer those treatments and herbal remedies.

People who go into MD/DO are going into medicine. They are working in a completely different setting, and their treatments for the most part actually work well. While I'm sure a change in diet might benefit a patient with irritable bowel syndrome and a host of other syndromes and diseases, it on its own without traditional medical treatment will not be particularly effective. NDs don't generally believe in treatment with synthetic/lab created medicine.

you do realize ND's have homeopathy in their curriculum right?

 

[hallowmann]

We can agree to disagree I suppose. But a couple quick notes (assuming you trust NPR), the thing about ruining the farmer who had a few of those crops is a myth. And, patents have been a part of american commerce for basically ever. It works pretty much the same way in the pharmaceutical business and people get (sometimes irrationally) bent over that as well. Incentive to create these products comes from making money off of such products. If people were allowed to leech your idea and siphon your profits (needed to offset the development costs) for anything you make simply because it is "needed", those with the ability would not be in the business of creating such products in the first place. Patents are limited in scope and duration and serve to not only protect inventors but also protect the incentive to invent.
myth 5 in that thing I posted is also pertinent to our disagreement.

As far as patents go, there's a difference between strictly patents of your product, and say patents of broad genetic engineering techniques or the use of a certain gene. I wouldn't agree with individuals making identical crop lines, but I wouldn't prevent those individuals from using the shotgun technique or even isolating the same genes used in GM crops from their original source (a naturally occurring resistant crop). Like I said its all about level. For example, I think its ridiculous that Apple could successfully sue Samsung for a smartphone concept like tapping a phone number to call that number. It might have the same effect/function, but its not like Samsung used the same code (although I believe for other things they did use the same code, that Apple actually had stolen from another company...). Again though, this is more a viewpoint/opinion than some objective "truth".

As far as the myth goes, I'll look more into it, but I'm sure there are many cases like it, so maybe we aren't talking about the same one.

Also, I updated the post above with a source for the percent of corn crops in the US that are genetically modified.

 

[touchpause13]

"Modern" medicine definitely had a learning curve associated with it in its infancy
Thank god for the advent of the microscope

And yes, I would agree that it boils down to a personal choice. I just believe that personal choices come with personal responsibility for consequences. If a mother wants to have her birth anywhere in the spectrum from full on hospital admission for the last term of pregnancy all the way to vest-suspended bungee jumping with "dad" holding a trampoline down below (or over water for a double-whammy), I say go for it so long as you take full responsibility for the choice (cost in the former, the imminent and probable death of the infant in the latter).

I agree completely.

i've noticed we have been agreeing on a lot lately here... odd...

 

[hallowmann]

you do realize ND's have homeopathy in their curriculum right?

Homeopathy is a broad term. Just because NDs have a single course called homeopathy doesn't mean it practices or even utilizes all of the irrational principles included in it (like the two I mentioned). Homeopathy itself also utilizes "natural" medicine, so obviously there is some overlap.

I'm sure this also varies by school/program. Osteopathy is taught at every DO school, but not every DO school necessarily teaches that all illnesses can be healed by only OMM, like osteopathic schools in other countries teach.

 

[SpecterGT260]

As far as patents go, there's a difference between strictly patents of your product, and say patents of broad genetic engineering techniques or the use of a certain gene. I wouldn't agree with individuals making identical crop lines, but I wouldn't prevent those individuals from using the shotgun technique or even isolating the same genes used in GM crops from their original source (a naturally occurring resistant crop). Like I said its all about level. For example, I think its ridiculous that Apple could successfully sue Samsung for a smartphone concept like tapping a phone number to call that number. It might have the same effect/function, but its not like Samsung used the same code (although I believe for other things they did use the same code, that Apple actually had stolen from another company...). Again though, this is more a viewpoint/opinion than some objective "truth".

As far as the myth goes, I'll look more into it, but I'm sure there are many cases like it, so maybe we aren't talking about the same one.

Also, I updated the post above with a source for the percent of corn crops in the US that are genetically modified.

The myth was actually noted in that same NPR article I linked earlier. It was #3 I believe of the top 5 myths about GMOs.

And again, it is a matter of opinion, but often it is the technique that costs the most in development of something and not the end product itself. For example, it requires the use of a crane to make a building (or at least to make them efficiently). Your product is the building, but if you are the guy who invented the crane so that you could streamline your production and get a competitive edge, you'd probably be pissed when the next guy copies your design and starts making money that you should have.

Genetic techniques are every bit as much "products" as the things they produce. I didn't realize this until I worked for a few years in biotech and saw how hard people had to work to overcome patents. The TaqMan assay is the first one to come to mind. It is a truly innovative probe system using a fluorofluor and a quencher to decrease background in pcr reactions. The problem is, there are nearly endless combinations of fluoros and quenchers to use so ABI has a patent on the cleavage step itself. Without this there would be no money in advancements and no drive to get there. The genetic engineering techniques take quite a bit of time and resources to perfect and if someone can just swipe your "materials and methods" section and do it with a near cousin of the plant you did it with.... you are kinda boned.

I agree completely.

i've noticed we have been agreeing on a lot lately here... odd...

Did we ever disagree that much? I don't remember you being among those I routinely butt heads with
I think a better description is that we are often in "violent agreement" on topics, with a little different POV.

 

[Didierdrogba]

I actually know someone who is going into ND. Obviously the video is an exaggeration, but homeopathy and naturopathy are two completely different forms of alternative medicine both created around the same time as osteopathy. That being said, unlike osteopathy, the other two refused the use of medicine and traditional medical treatment after it was demonstrated that its advancements were beneficial for patients. All of them state they are holistic approaches to treating the patient.

That's why I think osteopathy should avoid using the word holistic. It is becoming a toxic term that makes us look like a bunch of quacks.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Homeopathy is a broad term. Just because NDs have a single course called homeopathy doesn't mean it practices or even utilizes all of the irrational principles included in it (like the two I mentioned). Homeopathy itself also utilizes "natural" medicine, so obviously there is some overlap.

I'm sure this also varies by school/program. Osteopathy is taught at every DO school, but not every DO school necessarily teaches that all illnesses can be healed by only OMM, like osteopathic schools in other countries teach.

I am aware of it being advertised out of naturopathic shops. But just like most things in medical and alternative medical therapy, just because it is taught doesn't mean that it is practiced by all graduates. We can at least say it is practiced by some (the dispensing of homeopathic dilutions, to be specific), and it is endorsed by naturopathic governing community.

 

[SpecterGT260]

That's why I think osteopathy should avoid using the word holistic. It is becoming a toxic term that makes us look like a bunch of quacks.

My opinion is that medicine (real medicine, that is) in general takes the term back.
"Holistic" is implied to mean "I care more about you, ALL of you, than that other guy does. ", but in practice it becomes "I know so little about the human body that I am going to spin my wheels in a number of unrelated places and charge you more than I need to". Or it is just used as synonymous with "alternative" which is also incorrect. The former is the definition I use with NDs, DNPs who claim nursing to be "more holistic", and well... anyone who thinks that MD training is not holistic. It absolutely is. When someone goes to see their GP, that guy will be considering everything going on with the person during assessment. Being rushed or not having time to sit and chat may reflect on the patient's perception of this, but it certainly doesn't impact the reality of it. One issue is that specialists are doing primary care jobs in that they are running their own initial consults and screens. So your oncologist thought it was cancer and you spent a ton of money ruling that out? Shocker! If patients would stick to the proper routes of referral and would stop using the ER as primary care (another major source of the idea that doctors don't have time for you...because in the ED they really DONT!) the whole argument of who is or is not "holistic" would become invalid pretty quickly.

 

[touchpause13]

Did we ever disagree that much? I don't remember you being among those I routinely butt heads with
I think a better description is that we are often in "violent agreement" on topics, with a little different POV.

I seem to remember you thinking I get a little to butthurt about GLBTQA issues.

That probably wasn't the best choice of words was it haha

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

 

[hallowmann]

I am aware of it being advertised out of naturopathic shops. But just like most things in medical and alternative medical therapy, just because it is taught doesn't mean that it is practiced by all graduates. We can at least say it is practiced by some (the dispensing of homeopathic dilutions, to be specific), and it is endorsed by naturopathic governing community.

Exactly. I'm sure some of them practice it, but its not the major aspect of their curriculum, its more or less one of many "treatments" used.

My opinion is that medicine (real medicine, that is) in general takes the term back.
"Holistic" is implied to mean "I care more about you, ALL of you, than that other guy does. ", but in practice it becomes "I know so little about the human body that I am going to spin my wheels in a number of unrelated places and charge you more than I need to". Or it is just used as synonymous with "alternative" which is also incorrect. The former is the definition I use with NDs, DNPs who claim nursing to be "more holistic", and well... anyone who thinks that MD training is not holistic. It absolutely is. When someone goes to see their GP, that guy will be considering everything going on with the person during assessment. Being rushed or not having time to sit and chat may reflect on the patient's perception of this, but it certainly doesn't impact the reality of it. One issue is that specialists are doing primary care jobs in that they are running their own initial consults and screens. So your oncologist thought it was cancer and you spent a ton of money ruling that out? Shocker! If patients would stick to the proper routes of referral and would stop using the ER as primary care (another major source of the idea that doctors don't have time for you...because in the ED they really DONT!) the whole argument of who is or is not "holistic" would become invalid pretty quickly.

Yeah, I was about to reply with a similar definition. And I'm hoping that bold part will change. I don't know if its an issue of education or insurance, but the problem most people I know have is that they don't know what is or isn't an emergency.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I seem to remember you thinking I get a little to butthurt about GLBTQA issues.

That probably wasn't the best choice of words was it haha

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

pun?

I thought you had somewhat of a hair trigger. Not unlike mine in reference to the midlevel threads

 

[dntke1518]

Actually, radiation is not actually considered genetic modification, which is more stable. I know its only wikipedia, but there is a source there: "GMOs have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. These techniques are much more precise[1] than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change."



It'll take me a second for this. I'll have to look through my genetics lab manual for the citation. EDIT: Couldn't find my lab manual, but a 30 second google search found this: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-produc...-engineered-crops-in-the-us.aspx#.UVR9hBzU9PY It looks like 88% of the corn crops in the US are genetically engineered. 52% are from stacked gene varieties, 21% are herbicide-resistent only, and 15% are insect-resistent only.



I don't disagree that those who use it gain better yield that covers the cost, for at least the farmers in the country, but its more the monopolizing techniques and broad patents that Monsanto uses to bully people out of the business that causes the most harm. For example, how exactly did it make sense to ruin the farmer who unknowingly had a few GM crops? Also, Monsanto itself uses a lot of lobbying and legal maneuvering to block out anyone else from getting into the business, ultimately hurting not only the free market, but also all of us as whole, because now instead of a variety of GM crops many of us subsist on crops with very little genetic variability. God help us if something ends up wiping out that line of crops that supplies most of our corn and soy.

As far as leaving other countries alone goes, it kind of addresses your 3rd point. If you make a product in order to feed the population of the world, then essentially say, oh you people who actually need it, we aren't going to give you any breaks, and instead we are selling it to people in the first world that have to do things like put corn in rubber just to find uses for the excess crop yields, they aren't really addressing the point of an expanding population. If they stopped there though, it would be understandable, because they are a business and its about the bottom line. But they don't, they go after any company or country that even attempts to produce independent genetically modified crops.

I guess its more of a philosophy issue. I don't respect a company that subsides essentially on lawsuits and monopolizing techniques as opposed to the production of an actually superior product. But, that's me.

Quick response because neuro isn't going to be kind if I don't pay more attention:

Farmers who are "ruined" by Monsanto don't just have a few plants that "we're carried by the wind" into their fields. Some of them clean seed, or don't follow their seed contract, ect...

Most products of Monsanto/pioneer are bred, farmers have the choice to buy roundup resistant seeds.

I hate to be harsh, but if you are basing your claims/knowledge off of your undergrad genetics lab you lose a lot of credibility in my book. Once again, another person who has NO idea how the industry works is trying to give facts on what they don't understand.

Monsanto is a corporation who protects what they work hard for with patents, just like any other corporation, just like you would do if you came up with something beneficial.

But, you're right, we should take down the evil giant that is Monsanto/GMOs... I hate having affordable food/living. The impact of efficient row crops on our economy goes much farther than just farmers.

Continue on...

 

[hallowmann]

...I hate to be harsh, but if you are basing your claims/knowledge off of your undergrad genetics lab you loose a lot of credibility in my book. Once again, another person who has NO idea how the industry works is trying to give facts on what they don't understand.

Monsanto is a corporation who protects what they work hard for with patents, just like any other corporation, just like you would do if you came up with something beneficial.

But, you're right, we should take down the evil giant that is Monsanto/GMOs... I hate having affordable food/living. The impact of efficient row crops on our economy goes much farther than just farmers.

Continue on...

Wow, way to take a lot of what I said to an extreme. I'm not promoting destroying Monsanto or GMOs, or I guess as much as I'm promoting destroying Apple. I just don't particularly like that company's tactics. In fact, I explicitly stated that I agreed that GMOs are the only way to feed our current global population.

As far as getting my info from my undergrad bio lab, actually I was just referencing a course I had taken years ago that explicitly cited government data on a current issue. I'm not getting all my info from that course. I didn't say that. But, I'm also not going to disregard a cited and credible source when I decide what information to take into consideration about an issue. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

By the way, I believe I cited a US government source that actually shows the percent to be higher than my initial statement (88% vs 70% - it was ~70% when I was in that lab). Also, its 93% for cotton and 94% for soybeans, two more huge crops in the US.

 

[Mr Kenobi]

Someone say holistic?

 

[NontradCA]

So Specter kinda hinted on nutrition as more of an afterthought to illness- mainly because our healthcare system treats illness and using preventative measures to cure it is stupid. The healthcare system is a business and doctors are money makers, I understand this. What exactly do preventative med docs do? Will ACA help at all with making doctors in the business of health rather than treaters of illness? This has nothing to do with ND - they're quacks, I just want to have a discussion about medicine.

 

[touchpause13]

Someone say holistic?

You found my cat!!

Sent from my SCH-I405 using SDN Mobile

 

[DrZed]

I grew up near farms that had issues with Monsanto. People around those parts hate them because they will sue you and extend the lawsuit until you run out of money for litigation. In some places, it becomes either buy our seeds or we'll put you out of business.

My worries with Monsanto is the possibility that if they take over too much of the crop market, one mutation that kills their crop would wipe out a huge amount of food since the seeds are all clones of each other.

 

[hallowmann]

Someone say holistic?

So Specter kinda hinted on nutrition as more of an afterthought to illness- mainly because our healthcare system treats illness and using preventative measures to cure it is stupid. The healthcare system is a business and doctors are money makers, I understand this. What exactly do preventative med docs do? Will ACA help at all with making doctors in the business of health rather than treaters of illness? This has nothing to do with ND - they're quacks, I just want to have a discussion about medicine.

I love the last line man.