Thread: Is Naturopathy becoming mainstream ???

Once considered to be a form of "Quackary" Naturopathic Medicine is making a comeback:

YouTube - Naturopathic Physicians - Show #1, Chapter 1: Naturopathic College (1 of 5)#!

Also, good video to review:
http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=383

I'm an open minded Allopathic physician, that witnessed the positive changes (Ethical & evidence based) NDs & DCs make in people lives....Hoping to open a professional collaborative dialogue with fellow NDs as well as DCs out there

Cheers

Personally I haven't found much of a use for naturopathy. Their popularity might be on the rise a bit but I am not sure why. The ones I have met are fairly good at diagnosis and maybe preventative medicine but they often seem to think that their field rivals the abilities of MDs and DOs. Some think that they are equals or better than those trained in western medicine. However, the list of conditions that they can truly treat or cure is very small. It is hardly a broad based or true alternative to western medicine.

Modern naturopathy has been around for over a century and I am still unsure what they have done to advance health care. There is very little in the way of research, very little evidence based medicine, very little organization or oversight, and all the ones i have met (which are many) seem to think that MDs are the problem with our health care system. The last time I checked, naturopaths haven't cured our society of anything like polio, smallpox, or syphilis, yet a lot have a rather cocky attitude. I am sure that there are herbs or botanicals or other natural treatments that are effective for common conditions, but i doubt that NDs or really anyone is sure which ones can do what.

I might respect the field a little more if they took a heaping dose of modesty and would admit that they are very limited in what they can do. If people want to go to them, that is fine and i think they should be able to practice in all 50 states but not as any sort of alternative to allopaths or osteopaths. Now I am not closed minded and think that this field shouldn't exist. However, right now I think naturopathy is still in its infancy and is going to need many years, if not decades, of solid research before they should have a major role in our health care system. Until they can demonstrate the effectiveness of their treatments, i think i will steer clear of NDs and stick with MDs to help me with most health concerns.

OP: How could you possibly be offering a defense for these quacks? Surely you went to medical school. Surely you learned about the scientific processes involved in proving the efficacies of medical treatments. And surely you are a fool based on what you've said! You're definitely open minded, a bit too much I would say. I hope you realize there is next to no research successfully conducted in these 'fields'.

You see, naturopathy and chiropractic are not evidence based. They are money based, and I begin to see where you are coming from now. These fields prey on unsuspecting everyday citizens, who are illiterate in the way of biomedical science. This easily groups the vast majority of the population into the target bullseye. What you've observed as 'evidence based' is merely the facade of a show running behind the scenes. It's your lack of powers of observation that blinds you from realizing this, and given that you are a medical graduate, that takes credence away from you. You've been had by con artists under the aegis of a money making machine, and I would sooner send my patients to naturopath than to an allopathic physician such as yourself.

Molecule of life, i have a question that maybe you can answer. In my time, i have found that the blind, over-the-top hatred of all chiropractors is most prominent in pre-meds, like yourself. Med students are still a bit paranoid but tend to calm down, and by the time you are actually a doctor, like UHSADOC, often you find that the individuals have an open mind towards the field.

Why is it that those among us, with the least amount of experience and training in health care, such as youself, are the ones judging experienced medical doctors for associating with a fellow health care professional? Why not yield to the judgment of those that have the proper education and experience in such matters, like UHSADOC, as opposed to believing that your intention to one day attend medical school makes you an authority on the proper role of other practitioners in our health care system?

Do you think maybe before attempting to lecture an experienced medical doctor in his choices when it comes to the care of his patients, you should, as the kids say "know what the hell you are talking about".

And remember, if one day you do become an MD, calling other doctors, whether they be chiropractors, medical doctors, or naturopaths, "quacks", "fools", "blind", or "con artists" is going to make you a very isolated and despised individual. I have seen a few of your posts and you express interest in attending medical school. Maybe you should ask yourself if you have the proper level of maturity to handle being a med student or if you maybe need to take a few years to learn how to conduct yourself in a professional and a grown up manner?

Originally Posted by Molecule of Life

OP: How could you possibly be offering a defense for these quacks? Surely you went to medical school. Surely you learned about the scientific processes involved in proving the efficacies of medical treatments. And surely you are a fool based on what you've said! You're definitely open minded, a bit too much I would say. I hope you realize there is next to no research successfully conducted in these 'fields'.

You see, naturopathy and chiropractic are not evidence based. They are money based, and I begin to see where you are coming from now. These fields prey on unsuspecting everyday citizens, who are illiterate in the way of biomedical science. This easily groups the vast majority of the population into the target bullseye. What you've observed as 'evidence based' is merely the facade of a show running behind the scenes. It's your lack of powers of observation that blinds you from realizing this, and given that you are a medical graduate, that takes credence away from you. You've been had by con artists under the aegis of a money making machine, and I would sooner send my patients to naturopath than to an allopathic physician such as yourself.

I agree with AgActual, the seven accredited ND schools are quite good, and turn out some good Naturopaths. Chiropractic has many crazy philosophies and plenty of wackjobs; however, evidence based programs are gaining ground and slowly shifting the norm to EB chiropractic.

Molecule of Life, the fact that you have never heard of EB chiropractic shows two things. First, you have never researched the subject, or at least not very well, and second you have regurgitated whatever your medical gurus have told you to believe. Before you judge any health profession, make sure you search out the truth about it. You also discredit your own statement by calling them "quacks" and then you say you would rather send your patients to a naturopath than to another openminded MD. You condemn and insult UHSADOC for recognizing advances in other health fields, then say you would rather support a field by sending them patients while condemning him for doing the same thing. Do some research on EB chiro and Naturopathy(not these 3 month ND online courses, a real accredited ND school. There are 7.) Look up Cheryl Hawk's articles. She is a legend in making advances toward EB chiropractic.
Good luck!

Integrative Medicine: Future of Medicine ??

Dear Sir
Few Qs and A for you:

First, how much of Allopathic medicine is Evidence Based ?
http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102193798.html
In the latter case we can see that only a fraction of what we do as ER docs, is truly supported by RCT Double blind studies.

Second, please watch Dr. Weil: he makes a good argument of risk vs. benefit.....If we can Rx something to patients with low risk margin that has the potential to benefit them as much as "Real Drugs" commonly used in DC/ND practices, then why not ?
Example: Manipulation for acute low back pain vs. NSAIDs etc..
YouTube - Andrew Weil, M.D. - What's Wrong with Conventional Medicine

Third, True Scientific Collaboration: if you are in a medical program, you will soon realize that, it is better to collaborate and be an open minded individual....I've had patients that responded better to Non conventional Rx...and some in conjunction to Allopathic Rx....as a scientist, you should be open minded to what is out there, ask questions, and pursue with research...
YouTube - dukeintegrative's Channel

Fourth, Non Allopathic ND/DC Demand: We see a huge increase in "integrative Medical" centres, part of major medical schools and hospitals.....so ask yourself why ?? Simple: Economics, and Demand....

Cheers

Originally Posted by Molecule of Life

OP: How could you possibly be offering a defense for these quacks? Surely you went to medical school. Surely you learned about the scientific processes involved in proving the efficacies of medical treatments. And surely you are a fool based on what you've said! You're definitely open minded, a bit too much I would say. I hope you realize there is next to no research successfully conducted in these 'fields'.

You see, naturopathy and chiropractic are not evidence based. They are money based, and I begin to see where you are coming from now. These fields prey on unsuspecting everyday citizens, who are illiterate in the way of biomedical science. This easily groups the vast majority of the population into the target bullseye. What you've observed as 'evidence based' is merely the facade of a show running behind the scenes. It's your lack of powers of observation that blinds you from realizing this, and given that you are a medical graduate, that takes credence away from you. You've been had by con artists under the aegis of a money making machine, and I would sooner send my patients to naturopath than to an allopathic physician such as yourself.

as a scientist, you should be open minded to what is out there, ask questions, and pursue with research

Excellent point.

Thank YOU

I know, one of our NP is considering a career move and becoming an ND, that would be a cool designation yet confusing one to have...NP,ND

Regardless,I always commend professionals that pursue higher learning, with the intention of enhancing public health. I think NDs can contribute much to the public health system with their level of knowledge in nutrition, prevention, and lifestyle counseling.

Cheers,

I try to keep an open mind about alternative medicine, especially as patients will probably be asking for my opinion about them on a regular basis, and that trend will probably increase in the future. However, I've yet to hear from anyone about what naturopathic medicine can do for patients which is evidence based, or at least based off our scientific understanding of pathology/physiology etc.

UHSADoc is right; probably the majority of allopathic medicine still has no evidence / RCTs to prove their efficacy. However, they are at least grounded in our understanding of medicine, how the body works, how disease affects the body, and how the available treatments we have work, etc etc. In the case of naturopathic medicine, from what I've seen their treatments are usually supported by giving explanations that are either in complete contradiction to current medical knowledge, or use magical or spiritual proofs such as having 'bad humors' in the body or using the classic explanation of unspecified 'toxins' in our body that are causing badness.

I really do want to keep an open mind about naturopathic med...so if there are any NDs on here, feel free to tell us more about how your field will benefit patients, and feel free to correct me on anything I've said that is wrong.

I think the perception that many people have of naturopathy is outdated. The days of new age crystals, auras, and mystical nonsense are long gone in that field. ND's that are trained these days have a very good knowledge of the basic sciences and are quite good at Dx, nutrition, and preventative medicine. If i had a medical problem, i would trust that an ND could give a very accurate diagnosis. The problem comes with their treatments. The NDs don't have much in their bag of tricks to actually help when something has gone wrong. There are only a few herbs out there that have any demonstrated efficacy for treating a condition, nutritional counseling can only take you so far, and preventative medicine is useless if someone is already sick.

NDs today are competent individuals. I don't worry about that. The problem is that they seem to be MDs without prescription privileges or surgery rights, and in the end, what good are you in health care if you can't fix a problem?

Originally Posted by atropine

I try to keep an open mind about alternative medicine, especially as patients will probably be asking for my opinion about them on a regular basis, and that trend will probably increase in the future. However, I've yet to hear from anyone about what naturopathic medicine can do for patients which is evidence based, or at least based off our scientific understanding of pathology/physiology etc.

UHSADoc is right; probably the majority of allopathic medicine still has no evidence / RCTs to prove their efficacy. However, they are at least grounded in our understanding of medicine, how the body works, how disease affects the body, and how the available treatments we have work, etc etc. In the case of naturopathic medicine, from what I've seen their treatments are usually supported by giving explanations that are either in complete contradiction to current medical knowledge, or use magical or spiritual proofs such as having 'bad humors' in the body or using the classic explanation of unspecified 'toxins' in our body that are causing badness.

I really do want to keep an open mind about naturopathic med...so if there are any NDs on here, feel free to tell us more about how your field will benefit patients, and feel free to correct me on anything I've said that is wrong.