What the heck is Naturopathic Medicine?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Is there evidence that they don't actually work?
The burden of proof is the person making the outlandish claim. Just as if you were claiming Bigfoot were real and I disagreed with your opinion, I am under no impetus to prove you wrong. The lack of evidence to support your claim is sufficient to argue that larger studies are not warranted. We certainly are not going throw many at persons with the apparent inability to properly execute a pilot study without skewing the evidence either intentional or unintentionally.

At least as sensible as high throughput screening of drug candidates in a throw every combination we can think of at the wall at see what sticks mentality that underlies current pharmaceutical development.

You really do not have a clue about how pharmaceutical development works do you?

Members don't see this ad.
 
You really do not have a clue about how pharmaceutical development works do you?

Here's a good review on what I meant by my previous statement. More available on request. My statement was oversimplified but not without merit, and does not apply to all pharmaceutical development, just the majority of new targets. Now we're a little off topic though.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15718163
 
We certainly are not going throw money at persons with the apparent inability to properly execute a pilot study without skewing the evidence either intentional or unintentionally.

Totally agree with you, the majority of advocates of these types of therapies are biased quacks.
This doesn't mean that there is not a single legitimate scientist in the world interested in doing this kind of work. That's why we have grant review processes.

(Man I really don't want to do work right now, do I?)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
There appears to be an assumption that studies of alternative therapies are never funded. I know from experience that is not true. One of my relatives conducted a funded study on complementary and alternative therapies in certain HIV/AIDS subpopulations. Simply funding a study does not mean that it will yield promising results.

Competition for research funds is tight. It makes sense that the limited funding would be more likely to be funneled toward the most promising studies. That's fiscally responsible allocation. In order to obtain funding, a study must first be proposed and justified. One reason for the perceived lack of studies into various CAM therapies may well be that few well justified proposals are submitted, and that few which are approved wind up showing promising results.
 
There appears to be an assumption that studies of alternative therapies are never funded. I know from experience that is not true. One of my relatives conducted a funded study on complementary and alternative therapies in certain HIV/AIDS subpopulations. Simply funding a study does not mean that it will yield promising results.

Competition for research funds is tight. It makes sense that the limited funding would be more likely to be funneled toward the most promising studies. That's fiscally responsible allocation. In order to obtain funding, a study must first be proposed and justified. One reason for the perceived lack of studies into various CAM therapies may well be that few well justified proposals are submitted, and that few which are approved wind up showing promising results.

This seems to me to be the exact type of response I've seen with "my uncle tried acupuncture and it worked for him" posts. Anecdotal evidence that there is sufficient funding based on one study being funded. While your response is the most articulate I've seen so far, I'd be interested in knowing some numbers on this type of funding. Although not interested enough to look it up myself.

As for "fiscally responsible allocation", I've outlined some of the economic reasons why this should be a public funding priority over some other types of studies which can more easily achieve private financing.
I don't fully buy into Law2Doc's theories on the feasibility of private financing because there is no exclusivity in the market guaranteed by such studies, and because people seem to be happy enough buying crap already without knowing if it's good or bad.
 
Heck.. why shouldn't the government fund rigorous testing of whether glueing a watermelon to your windshield improves gas mileage? that could save people TONS of money!
Look, you can bash it all you want, but once I began watermeloning (that's the term we enlightened folk use) my car, I've been saving more money on gas than any of my friends. It's obvious that the oil companies don't want you to know about this, that's why they don't fund any watermeloning studies.
 
Is there evidence that they don't actually work?

If you hope to pursue a career in medicine, you'd better stop thinking this way, it's way way way messed up. This is simply not scientific thinking, and will get you laughed out of every lab and classroom in the Western world. (If your MDApplicant stats are true, you are much smarter than this). You don't have to disprove that something isn't a useful medicine, you have to prove that it is. Which is why it costs the pharmaceutical industry you dislike so much money to bring new drugs to the pipeline. They can't just bring out a new drug and say prove this drug doesn't reduce hypertension, diabetes and cure cancer to boot -- if you disagree, prove us wrong. They have to prove that it does all of those things in the affirmative. So too should be the standard of anything naturopaths hold out as "medicine". And they don't. And that's bad. And causes deaths. Which is the worst consequence in this industry.
 
Look, you can bash it all you want, but once I began watermeloning (that's the term we enlightened folk use) my car, I've been saving more money on gas than any of my friends. It's obvious that the oil companies don't want you to know about this, that's why they don't fund any watermeloning studies.

Well played.:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
If you hope to pursue a career in medicine, you'd better stop thinking this way, it's way way way messed up. This is simply not scientific thinking, and will get you laughed out of every lab and classroom in the Western world. You don't have to disprove that something isn't a useful medicine, you have to prove that it is. Which is why it costs the pharmaceutical industry you dislike so much money to bring new drugs to the pipeline. They can't just bring out a new drug and say prove this drug doesn't reduce hypertension, diabetes and cure cancer to boot -- if you disagree, prove us wrong. They have to prove that it does all of those things in the affirmative. So too should be the standard of anything naturopaths hold out as "medicine". And they don't. And that's bad. And causes deaths. Which is the worst consequence in this industry.

Calm down a little bit.
I'm not advocating that we use unsubstantiated treatments, I was merely pointing out that the watermeloner was making an equally unsubstantiated blanket statement saying they don't work.
I went on to say that as there are plenty of people already taking these unsubstantiated treatments to allow for retrospective study to act as a guideline for things we should maybe better document as potentially useful treatments, and allow us to clearly figure out which ones are harmful.

Your posts are aiming at the point that naturopaths are not scientists. I agree with you on that.
If we can study lower forms of life like bacteria and find that they do useful things that we can encorporate into medicine, why can't we study naturopaths and see if they do anything useful (or harmful)?

I really don't hate pharmaceutical companies. Right now they're paying for my research indirectly, and I like having a paycheck and eating (especially watermelons). I merely think there are some things they do which I don't agree with, and some things they could do better.
 
This seems to me to be the exact type of response I've seen with "my uncle tried acupuncture and it worked for him" posts. Anecdotal evidence that there is sufficient funding based on one study being funded. While your response is the most articulate I've seen so far, I'd be interested in knowing some numbers on this type of funding. Although not interested enough to look it up myself.

As for "fiscally responsible allocation", I've outlined some of the economic reasons why this should be a public funding priority over some other types of studies which can more easily achieve private financing.
I don't fully buy into Law2Doc's theories on the feasibility of private financing because there is no exclusivity in the market guaranteed by such studies, and because people seem to be happy enough buying crap already without knowing if it's good or bad.

I did not say that there is "sufficient funding". In fact, my words, "Competition for research funds is tight," reflect the opposite intention. Perhaps there are some fields of research which the participants feel are well and sufficiently funded. If there are, they don't tend to proclaim it. ;) Public research funding is tight across the board, but as usual, tends to be more generous in whatever areas are popular at the moment. In order to increase research funding in general, we have to elect legislators who a support a strong research environment in this country, and are willing to allocate the funding to make that a reality.

The research I referred to in my earlier post took place in the '90's while HIV/AIDs treatment options were a hot research topic. Public funding priorities continue to remain tied to whatever is fashionable at the moment.

If you want funding data badly enough, you'll have to do your own legwork. :laugh: The amount of funding for CAM treatment studies is not something that is clearly broken down and easily accessible in a single reputable database that I'm aware of.
 
Look, you can bash it all you want, but once I began watermeloning (that's the term we enlightened folk use) my car, I've been saving more money on gas than any of my friends. It's obvious that the oil companies don't want you to know about this, that's why they don't fund any watermeloning studies.

I tried that and it worked very well. No one wanted to be seen in my car, and they didn't want my car seen in their driveways. It not only saves me gas money, it saves my mileage and wear and tear, since I'm no longer asked to be the one who does the driving.

A nasty side effect has been all those yellow jackets that set up home under my hood. I almost swallowed one the other day when the air vent blasted it out straight toward my mouth. Why does there always seem to be a downside to progress?
 
I tried that and it worked very well. No one wanted to be seen in my car, and they didn't want my car seen in their driveways. It not only saves me gas money, it saves my mileage and wear and tear, since I'm no longer asked to be the one who does the driving.

A nasty side effect has been all those yellow jackets that set up home under my hood. I almost swallowed one the other day when the air vent blasted it out straight toward my mouth. Why does there always seem to be a downside to progress?

pft. You watermelloners are all alike, untested mumbo-jumbo. What you need to do is take your gas and dilute it. You see the energy in water has an amazing molecular memory which becomes more powerful the more dilute the substance it contains is.

People have been swearing by this principle for years. I'm telling you, it has to work.
 
Your posts are aiming at the point that naturopaths are not scientists. I agree with you on that.
If we can study lower forms of life like bacteria and find that they do useful things that we can encorporate into medicine, why can't we study naturopaths and see if they do anything useful (or harmful)?

Allopathic medicine can and does study the usefulness of herbs and other remedies. Some of the more useful recent cancer therapies are derived from trees, for example. But the issue isn't whether allopaths should be studying more herbs, and using them once they are proven (in scientific study) effective and safe. The issue is whether your "nonscientists" should be allowed to hold themselves out as doctors and prescribe herbs as alternative "medicines" without ever doing such study. The answer is pretty obviously no. And I don't think you really disagree with this in some of your prior posts. You instead argue that allos aren't doing enough in the area of natural remedies which simply isn't a defense of what naturopaths are doing at all. It's a distraction tactic not an argument.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Allopathic medicine can and does study the usefulness of herbs and other remedies. Some of the more useful recent cancer therapies are derived from trees, for example. But the issue isn't whether allopaths should be studying more herbs, and using them once they are proven (in scientific study) effective and safe. The issue is whether your "nonscientists" should be allowed to hold themselves out as doctors and prescribe herbs as alternative "medicines" without ever doing such study. The answer is pretty obviously no. And I don't think you really disagree with this in some of your prior posts. You instead argue that allos aren't doing enough in the area of natural remedies which simply isn't a defense of what naturopaths are doing at all. It's a distraction tactic not an argument.

I completely agree with you, and I am not claiming anything as a defense of the current practice of "naturopathic medicine", in fact it scares me a lot. Although I think even a skeptic would agree with me that demonstrably proving that certain CAM therapies are harmful will definitely improve public health.

So if you think there are ducks out there that are leading people to harm, it is to societies benefit to prove that they quack.

(As a side benefit, we might actually find out that one or two things they are doing are actually beneficial.)
 
Although I think even a skeptic would agree with me that demonstrably proving that certain CAM therapies are harmful will definitely improve public health.

So if you think there are ducks out there that are leading people to harm, it is to societies benefit to prove that they quack.

Wrong wrong wrong. Again, this is unscientific thinking and you have dangerously backwards presumptions. In medicine you are supposed to prove something is SAFE before using it. Not have to show it is unsafe. It is PRESUMED unsafe until it is demonstrated otherwise. That is a basic tenet of FDA approval. You need to show something is SAFE and EFFECTIVE. To require folks to disprove what others are doing is absurd. Make the naturopaths prove that what they want to administer does what it is supposed to, with no harmful side effects. You put the burden on the person who wants to do the potentially harmful act, not another profession.

(And again, the issue isn't always that it is unsafe, it's that it is ineffective. Meaning the person doesn't get "real" treatment because he thinks he is getting cured eating yogurt. And this neglect of treatment is what kills people, far more often than harmful side effects. So if someone wants to call themselves a doctor and administer medicines, they should have the burden of being able to point to a scientifically conducted study showing that this treatment is effective and safe. that's not asking for much. It's not up to others to disprove that what he's doing works. it's up to HIM. because HE's the guy profiting from this poor patient's state.)
 
:shifty:Naturopathic Medicine is simply just magic
 
Wrong wrong wrong. Again, this is unscientific thinking and you have dangerously backwards presumptions. In medicine you are supposed to prove something is SAFE before using it. Not have to show it is unsafe. It is PRESUMED unsafe until it is demonstrated otherwise. That is a basic tenet of FDA approval. You need to show something is SAFE and EFFECTIVE. To require folks to disprove what others are doing is absurd. Make the naturopaths prove that what they want to administer does what it is supposed to, with no harmful side effects. You put the burden on the person who wants to do the potentially harmful act, not another profession.

(And again, the issue isn't always that it is unsafe, it's that it is ineffective. Meaning the person doesn't get "real" treatment because he thinks he is getting cured eating yogurt. And this neglect of treatment is what kills people, far more often than harmful side effects. So if someone wants to call themselves a doctor and administer medicines, they should have the burden of being able to point to a scientifically conducted study showing that this treatment is effective and safe. that's not asking for much. It's not up to others to disprove that what he's doing works. it's up to HIM. because HE's the guy profiting from this poor patient's state.)

Really really wrong again!

Perhaps you misunderstood, this is why I was advocating studying these things RETROSPECTIVELY first. RETROSPECTIVELY, I'll say it for a fifth time. People have already done the damage they are going to do. You make no presumption in this that it is safe or effective. I'm not saying the onus is on the medical establishment to disprove false practices. I'm simply saying it's a useful thing to do.

CLEARLY the burden has been on the wrongdoers for quite some time. We put the burden on tobacco companies to prove the safety of their products and they did a bang up job, but hey, I'm not the one pushing the product so why should I question their claims. What I'm suggesting is BLATANTLY SCIENTIFIC. You have a hypothesis ( X helps /does nothing/ harms ) and you test it. I appreciate your constant efforts to correct people who are clearly off their tree, but you were way out of line on this one.

The funny thing is, if we had this conversation in person, we probably would agree on most principles. You are simply under the false assumption that I'm passing the buck to the other guy saying "You don't like it, you prove it."

You have me a little bit wrong (that's okay, it's the internet, it happens). You are thinking not like a scientist but a lawyer (no offense, I actually like most of the lawyers I know non-professionally) trying to assign the burden of proof to a specific actor.

If your argument is for strict regulation and legislation on alternative treatments, that's probably a good thing, but expect some backlash given the perception of CAM in society in general. You can't just say "Close up shop and come back when you have some evidence." given that many of these practices are older than western medicine and have a significant following.

If you don't take some time to prove that they are selling snake oil, they certainly won't. If you think it's not a good idea for society to pay to discredit pseudo-science, then I'll have to respectfully disagree with you.

Bottom line, don't call people unscientific for suggesting that we ask a scientific question. Especially when you don't even disagree that the question should be asked, only who should be asking it.

To me there is no bigger insult.
 
It has been discredited over and over again, most notably in numerous NCCAM-sponsored studies.

The problem is the treatment of "Herbal Supplements" by federal law. Many, if not most, of these "therapies" have been proven completely ineffective. But since efficacy is not a pre-requisite to advertise or sell this snake oil, all the research in the world is unimportant.

Then I'm arguing for something that has already happened, and the real problem is regulation. If this is the case, then why is it not more common knowledge? Since clearly even the avid posters who disagreed with me don't seem to be aware of this.
I'd much rather someone quoted me such studies that simply call these treatments absurd or bunk and then claim we shouldn't try to prove they are absurd. This was what I originally took issue with.

Okay, time wasting officially over for the day.
 
I'd much rather someone quoted me such studies that simply call these treatments absurd or bunk and then claim we shouldn't try to prove they are absurd. This was what I originally took issue with.

CAM may work: (space-limited to herbal therapies)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


CAM doesn't really work: (space-limited to herbal therapies)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


Unregulated CAM may kill you

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1312226

Hope this informs the debate somewhat. I tried to find a more balanced number of articles for each side, but there are a surprising number of promising results on the "pro" side on PubMed.
 
CAM may work: (space-limited to herbal therapies)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


CAM doesn't really work: (space-limited to herbal therapies)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


Unregulated CAM may kill you

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1312226

Hope this informs the debate somewhat. I tried to find a more balanced number of articles for each side, but there are a surprising number of promising results on the "pro" side on PubMed.

interesting find.
 
I believe Naturopathy deserved some credit. When I discovered it, it was because it helped someone I know. The patient had debilitating rheumatoid arthritis for which the MD perscribed immunosuppressants. The patient actually saw multiple MDs for this problem and given the same Rx. Of course immunosuppresants have nasty side effects and solve one problem, cause another. The patient went to a holistic doctor who took multiple tests (allergy, hair, skin,etc.. which are not covered by federal health care) to determine the cause of the arthritis. It turned out there was a disbalance in the gut candida and the patient was put on low dose antibiotics and other treatments (ie. diet adjustment) to address the disbalance. The arthritis stopped from this point. This is a perfect example of integrative medicine as the antibiotics still had to be perscribed by an MD but the approach was holistic.

Let's not dismiss that Naturopathic doctors are educated in evidence based medicine. Do they sit around for 4 years and read books on witchcraft or voodoo? NO, they use the exact same textbooks an MD uses in medschool, they read the same research papers the MDs use, they learn the different modalities of alternative medicine AND their interactions with other treatments. Although, I do agree there are some strange modalities such as Reiki that I consider wack myself! But there are treatments that do work. And when they see that a patient can't be helped under their scope of work, they will refer them back to an MD or another professional. They are trained to recognize what they can safely help with, and what they can't. Their care is more about prevention than suppression. It is true that their services are not covered by federal health care, but they don't even want this. Unlike the MD who is forced to squeeze as many patients in their work day, an ND charges by the hour which allows full focus on the patient. We need more primary care like this.
 
Just remember that all those remedies, treatments, and procedures that you all swear by were once considered scams too. Just because something is unproven doesn't mean it doesn't work.
 
Chicken soup for a cold? jk

OP, I wouldn't think that naturopathic doctors would have their place in the ER or anything acute for that matter. They are an alternative to those mild cases or preventative cases such as obesity or something that might aid the patient to an overall well being. I use to take interest in naturopathic alternative medicine, but almost everything can be googled in this field. It does have some merit when it comes to lifestyle changes. But, I wouldn't go as far as to say that naturopathy is a treatment for anything serious or even slightly serious.
 
:shifty:Naturopathic Medicine is simply just magic

And naturopathic doctors have now been given prescription rights in british columbia. I'm sorry, but our canadian health care system is so over burdened that people are now turning towards ND's for care. Times are changing, and I'm glad my MD colleagues are fighting for a more integrative system and not have our tax dollars go to waste over chronic medical problems.
 
Just remember that all those remedies, treatments, and procedures that you all swear by were once considered scams too. Just because something is unproven doesn't mean it doesn't work.

So appendectomies, antibiotics, and mammograms were all once considered scams once? Wow, that's news to me...

That was a ridiculous statement to make behealthy....you FAIL:thumbdown:
 
Just remember that all those remedies, treatments, and procedures that you all swear by were once considered scams too. Just because something is unproven doesn't mean it doesn't work.

Just so you know, the first statement is not only wrong, it doesn't even validate the second statement. No one is saying that "natural remedies" can't possibly work; they're saying that it's irresponsible to recommend them as treatment options when evidence supporting their efficacy is lacking.
 
I should rephrase a bit. Most current treatments at one point were unproven, and untested, but were still used. I'm not recommending any NM ( after spending 10 minutes talking to a few NM counselors, I wanted to gag), but I'm willing to accept that in a few years, some of their practices might turn out to be correct, and some of current allo medicine might be wrong.
 
CAM exists for three reasons:

1) It's cheap for insurance companies
2) It fulfills healthy patients need for a doctor patient relationship that provides either verbal or (in this case) herbal assurance of health, something that can be lacking in a physician's office when he or she has 101 patients to see before lunch.
3) See #1
 
I should rephrase a bit. Most current treatments at one point were unproven, and untested, but were still used. I'm not recommending any NM ( after spending 10 minutes talking to a few NM counselors, I wanted to gag), but I'm willing to accept that in a few years, some of their practices might turn out to be correct, and some of current allo medicine might be wrong.

And who are these NM counselors? Are they licensed ND's? Which schools did they graduate from?
 
I believe Naturopathy deserved some credit. When I discovered it, it was because it helped someone I know. The patient had debilitating rheumatoid arthritis for which the MD perscribed immunosuppressants. The patient actually saw multiple MDs for this problem and given the same Rx. Of course immunosuppresants have nasty side effects and solve one problem, cause another. The patient went to a holistic doctor who took multiple tests (allergy, hair, skin,etc.. which are not covered by federal health care) to determine the cause of the arthritis. It turned out there was a disbalance in the gut candida and the patient was put on low dose antibiotics and other treatments (ie. diet adjustment) to address the disbalance. The arthritis stopped from this point. This is a perfect example of integrative medicine as the antibiotics still had to be perscribed by an MD but the approach was holistic.

Let's also not forget statistics class.
 
I watched a few minutes of that, and did she just seriously say that there's a negligible amount of mass in the universe???
:laugh: biologists...

that would be CORRECT. the universe has a negligible amount of mass. only 5% of the universe consists of ordinary matter (planets, stars, us). the rest is mysterious dark matter and emptiness..
 
It's quite upsetting to know that many of you will be future doctors and you have no tolerance of or curiosity about ways of looking at health and medicine different from those with which you were brough up.
no need to get all self-righteous here. If you show people double-blind, placebo controlled studies that naturopathy works, then we'll take it seriously
 
no need to get all self-righteous here. If you show people double-blind, placebo controlled studies that naturopathy works, then we'll take it seriously

Hold on a sec. The term 'we' doesn't mean the entire MD community. I think you should replace the term 'we' with 'I'.

What made you come the conclusion that there are no double blind, placebo studies on all the modalities of naturopathic medicine? Did you do an exhaustive pubmed search?
 
Just remember that all those remedies, treatments, and procedures that you all swear by were once considered scams too. Just because something is unproven doesn't mean it doesn't work.

What therapy in modern medicine is being used with no corroborating studies?
 
What made you come the conclusion that there are no double blind, placebo studies on all the modalities of naturopathic medicine? Did you do an exhaustive pubmed search?

There aren't many good ones, at the moment. Not to mention, a fair portion are fatally flawed to begin with. Part of the problem with many of the treatment modalities is the lack of biologic plausibility, no?
 
CAM may work: (space-limited to herbal therapies)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


CAM doesn't really work: (space-limited to herbal therapies)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


Unregulated CAM may kill you

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1312226

Hope this informs the debate somewhat. I tried to find a more balanced number of articles for each side, but there are a surprising number of promising results on the "pro" side on PubMed.

The pro-CAM studies you listed were not in humans. 2 were in cell lines, 2 were in rats. There is a reason that things need to be tried in humans before going to the market. Many things that work in 1 cell line or in a different animal have no efficacy in humans (or are dangerous).


I believe Naturopathy deserved some credit. When I discovered it, it was because it helped someone I know. The patient had debilitating rheumatoid arthritis for which the MD perscribed immunosuppressants.

It turned out there was a disbalance in the gut candida and the patient was put on low dose antibiotics and other treatments (ie. diet adjustment) to address the disbalance. The arthritis stopped from this point. This is a perfect example of integrative medicine as the antibiotics still had to be perscribed by an MD but the approach was holistic.
.

It wasn't RA
 
Naturopathic medicine is for crazies.
 
Naturopathic medicine is for crazies.

Highly insulting. I know a number of troops who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and the anti depressant drugs that the VA (veteran affairs) give them make it even worse. A few of them committed suicide.

As a result, some have turned to naturopathic medicine, and with botanicals and acupuncture they have shown improvement from their ptsd.
 
What do you guys feel about Traditional Chinese Medicine? In China, TCM remains a powerful player in medicine. In fact, the TCM practitioners and MDs work side by side in hospitals. Enter the hospital and you see two branches. The TCM branch. The Western Branch.

I hear stories, and they go like this. "If I have a chronic disease, I go see a TCM practitioner. If I'm recovering from surgery/chemotherapy, I see a TCM practitioner If I have an acute problem, you bet your ass I'm seeing a western doctor. The practices complement each other."

Is that how it works in the West? Probably not yet. Would this type of system benefit the West? Chronic diseases such as diabetes, skin diseases, obesity, CVD--these types of diseases are more amenable to lifestyle changes.

And there are many studies to show that TCM works, but most of them do not get translated. Double-blind studies are not as feasible as they are here in the West, as TCM practitioners believe it's unethical to form placebo groups. Cop-out or not....well, I'm not to judge.

Apparently, it's also common for many practitioners to hold dual degrees: TCM and MD. After reading the posts, I get the impression that one cannot reconcile the ideologies of alternative medicine and allopathic medicine. But apparently it's very possible.

With the increasing popularity of alternative medicine in the west, I wonder if its relationship with allopathic medicine will ever be the same as it is in China....:p






Highly insulting. I know a number of troops who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and the anti depressant drugs that the VA (veteran affairs) give them make it even worse. A few of them committed suicide.

As a result, some have turned to naturopathic medicine, and with botanicals and acupuncture they have shown improvement from their ptsd.
 
How anyone can believe in the efficacy of a treatment that has not been studied or shown effective is beyond me. In order for naturopathy to be respected it would have to show more than just anecdotal plausibility. I'm open to any possibility so long as it can be supported by facts. Naturopathy hasn't done that.
 
Highly insulting. I know a number of troops who suffer from post traumatic stress disorder and the anti depressant drugs that the VA (veteran affairs) give them make it even worse. A few of them committed suicide.

As a result, some have turned to naturopathic medicine, and with botanicals and acupuncture they have shown improvement from their ptsd.

This is NOT a double-blind study; hence, no reliable conclusions can be drawn from this anecdote.
 
Let's just hope the ND route doesn't become another way to become a physician. The last thing we need is another degree name for the same work...
 
As a result, some have turned to naturopathic medicine, and with botanicals and acupuncture they have shown improvement from their ptsd.

Thereby demonstrating the power of the placebo effect.

Look, it's pretty pointless to argue back and forth like this. In my experience, those that believe or disbelieve the efficacy of naturopathic "medicine" aren't likely to be convinced otherwise on an interweb forum.

But there are nevertheless a few points worth considering:

  1. Trotting out the canard that the popularity of alternative therapies is increasing is meaningless, for two reasons. One, the popularity of something is not an indication of its validity. Two, the umbrella term "alternative therapies" has come to include people who get massages and take dietary supplements, among others. Unfortunately, silly nonsense like homeopathy, colonics, acupuncture, chelation, color therapy &c. get lumped in, too, and take advantage of the bump in numbers from otherwise fairly rational practices.
  2. The legitimacy of a hypothesis is not unrelated to existing science. For instance, my claim that I can cure cancer with my thoughts doesn't require federal funding to test it, because the preponderance of scientific evidence accumulated thus far indicates that this is not possible. Out of the gate, this claim can be dismissed as poppycock. This is not to say that established science is unchanging, but to ignore the scientific landscape in its entirety is to be foolish. We dismiss the claims of naturopaths because in almost all cases, they are patently absurd. Homeopathy, for instance, requires that we suspend our understanding of pharmacology, chemistry, and physics.
  3. If, on the other hand, a claim is to be tested, then it must conform to certain standards of evidence. Research of alternative therapies is riddled with deficiencies in design, including inadequate blinding, dubious statistical methods, failure of randomization, inadequate controls, &c, &c. There are some that argue that alternative therapies by their nature cannot be expected to conform to the standards of medical research (mutterings of "intent" and such mumbo jumbo). But without an objective means of assessing the veracity of claims of efficacy, there can never be a coming to terms, and such claims cannot be verified.
But at the end of the day, perhaps the most compelling reason for rejecting naturopathy is that, as pre-meds, we're supposed to be grown-ups. Don't know about you, but my belief in magic left hand in hand with my belief in Santa Claus.
 
Wow. I think part of the vast discrepancy between the opinions in this thread has to do with the fact that naturopathy hasn't been codified into the healthcare system very consistently, meaning that what a naturopath actually does and who they do it for is different dependent on where you are.

The naturopaths around here (Portland, Oregon) take all the same BCPM requirements as pre-meds, minus a couple of the top-level courses; they do a 2-year residency including specialty rotations. They make use of the same hospital lab tests that other physicians do, and prescribe conventional medicine alongside supplements and nutritional guidance. And like some folks have said upthread, while I wouldn't go to one for emergency care, they're great at preventative medicine (not least because they ask the annoying useful little questions like what are you eating and not just how much.)

Frankly I hear a lot from people going to them for prescriptions of conventional medicine like estrogen therapy, simply because they want better follow-up care and a doctor who'll check up on how well it's working rather than writing the scrip and shoving them out the door.
 
It's basically a scam that appeals to the ignorant. People who believe in "natural" medicine tend to be the types of people who believe vaccines cause autism and fluoride in drinking water is harmful.
 
Guys, guys, guys... you can't argue with people sold on the idea of alternate medicine. Let me just give an example.

Freashmen year I meet a girl in my Gen Bio class. Stellar student, absolutly superb. Best memory I have ever seen and she would understand concepts before you even finished explaining them. Anyway, she one of those far left wing democrat/hippie types. She was a biochemistry major and around juinior year (after she scored a 39 on the MCAT and kept up her 4.0) she began to get really interested in "alternate treatments". I was a good friend of hers and at first listened to her ideas and beliefs, but it began to get just insane to listen to. Here are two of our conversations...

Her: I'm so glad there is a "Renew" gas station close to the college now
Me: Isn't that the gas station that sells 80% ethanol gas...?
Her: Yea, its awesome. Filled up my car this morning there.
Me: Whoa, don't you drive a ford focus? The engine isn't made for ethanol concentration above 10%.
Her: Pfft, yea thats what the oil companies want you to think
Me: You're damaging your engine and loosing fuel effiency
Her: Nope, ethanol burns hotter and better and gives off more energy than gasoline.
Me: Whats the enthalpy for octane?
Her: About (negative) 5000
Me: And the enthalpy for ethanol?
Her: Around -280.
Me: Ummm... Okay, [HER NAME], you're the smartest chemist I know... what has more energy per gallon when it burns in a car.
Her: Ethanol. It said so online.
Me: :scared:


Another more medical related example. This was in senior year when she really started getting extreme.
Her: All pharmaceutical drugs are bad poisenous toxins that kill us.
Me: Right...
Her:I know I'm right. Name ONE drug that does more good than bad.
Me: You're kidding? Okay... Penicillin.
Her: Kills our gut bacteria as well, which hurts us.
Me: Yea but sepsis would have killed us first... whatever, okay, Quinine (anti malarial)
Her: That's not a drug, its a plant extract.
Me: :confused: A lot of 'drugs' are extracted from nature... but okay, fine, how about Lipator, it saves millions from heart attacks
Her: It has side effects.
Me: Everything has side effects
Her: Exactly, every medical treatment is toxic and bad for us
Me: *sigh*

And thats how she, the smartest person I ever met with unlimited potencial, decided to use her 39 MCAT and 4.0 GPA to apply to and attend a Native American school of Shamanistic healing in northern Wisconsin. I saw some of the material they mailed her, it showed people wearing fox pelts and holding beads.


My point is, you can't use logic and science on a sizable portion of the population. Show them proof dinosaurs excisted and they say God put the proof there to fool them, etc etc. These same people will ignore scientific medicine and choose to believe in some other form of treatment. Berries, teas, rain dances, or (to a lesser extent) chiropracters. A lot of these alternate treatments have some proven health benefits (e.g. chiropracters and acupuncture) but a lot of people will take these minor findings and run wild with them, saying that do 1000x more than they really do.
 
Last edited:
Top