Another child has been severely harmed by a naturopath. This time in the UK.
A four-year-old boy with autism received naturopathic treatments that landed him in the emergency room. The boy had severe dehydration and dangerously elevated calcium levels. A naturopath had prescribed a regimen of vitamin D, calcium, cod liver oil, zinc and a long list of other substances that included silver, enzymes, salts and trace minerals.
As a former naturopath, this case is all too familiar. I had given children with autism these same treatments. Vitamin D and cod liver oil were two of my staples, not just for autistic patients, but for virtually everyone. For kids with autism, I frequently prescribed very expensive supplements, which allegedly had been specially formulated for autism. Some of these made vague but profound-sounding health claims, which exemplifies the definition of gobbledygook. For example:
[Detox Package 2] ensures the mucosal barrier is immunologically protected by sufficient levels of Secretory IgA, free from bad bacteria, fungi and a bio film which together hold onto toxins and heavy metals.
Toxins? Heavy metals? Bad bacteria? None of these things are known to be related to autism. Yet, naturopaths try to eliminate them because they believe that they know better than medical experts.
There is no cure for autism. Still, naturopaths recommend probiotics, herbal products, vitamins, homeopathy and special diets to treat this complicated neurodevelopmental disorder. I am fortunate no one, that I know of at least, was severely harmed by my care, but I did waste a lot of my patients’ money by recommending useless therapies.
This new case reminds us that natural treatments can cause real harm. It reminds me of Ezekiel Stephan dying of meningitis after getting echinacea from a naturopath in Canada. [inlinetweet prefix=”” tweeter=”” suffix=”By @NaturoDiaries”]Outcomes like these reinforce the need to ban all naturopaths from treating children.[/inlinetweet]
What licensed naturopaths do for autism
Licensing and self-regulation are no obstacles to quackery being practiced by naturopaths. In North America, licensed naturopaths can legally use the same treatments given by the British naturopath that endangered the life of the young boy.
In San Diego, Calif., a licensed naturopath, Nicola McFadzean Ducharme of RestorMedicine, claims that she can heal autism. She advertises on her practice website a variety of therapies including hyperbaric oxygen chambers, chelation treatments, vitamin injections and special diets for treating autism. Imagine another case report of an adverse event with an autistic child being put in a pressurized oxygen chamber.
To clarify her stance on using unproven therapies for autism, Nicola writes:
It is not easy to venture outside the conventional medical system, but their common belief that ‘nothing can be done for these kids’ and that ‘complementary and alternative treatments have no value in the treatment of autistic-spectrum disorders’ are absolutely false and misleading.
But Nicola is the one misleading her patients:
Once your child’s system has been cleared of toxins to the best of their ability they can begin the process of neurological healing and recovery. We use the word recovery because for many children this potential is achievable.
She is not the only licensed naturopath claiming to cure autism.
In Ontario, Canada, licensed naturopath Sonya Doherty has a practice named Treat Autism and ADHD. Sonya claims that she can help children recover from autism by addressing oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, environmental toxicity and methylation impairment. These are made-up causes of autism that can fool parents.
A testimonial posted on Doherty’s Treat Autism and ADHD website shows the toll naturopathic treatment can have on a family. In the video, the parents of Magnus, a young boy with autism, describe how therapies like vitamin B12 shots, a paleo diet, supplements and hyperbaric oxygen treatment helped their son “recover” from brain damage caused by medications and surgeries needed to fix a birth defect. We see images of Magnus watching movies inside a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, eating carrots, getting an injection and taking supplements in the kitchen. The parents summarize their experience with naturopathic treatment for their son’s autism as it’s about “how much do you want to put in for the goal you are looking for.”
Doherty has convinced these parents into believing that they alone are responsible for their son’s “recovery” from autism. It is a matter of parental financial and emotional investment that naturopaths exploit and benefit from.
The parents of children with autism that I saw had a difficult time with conventional treatments. They worried about side effects. They wanted a solution. They wanted a regimen.
Conclusion
The prevalence of using alternative approaches to treat autism coincides with naturopaths trying to go mainstream as medical professionals. Yet, naturopaths are bringing to the table pseudoscientific practices that are dangerous and have no good evidence to support their use. Naturopaths themselves even admit that naturopathy is an ideology, not a scientific enterprise.
In my class notes from Bastyr University where I graduated with a degree in naturopathic medicine, I quoted one of my instructors, Brad Lichtenstein, saying in a lecture:
We need to show [medical doctors] that naturopathy goes beyond the tools or modalities used in naturopathic care; our philosophy includes our therapeutic intention, rapport, and the experience of naturopathy, which goes beyond what research defines as medicine.
Patients must be careful not to confuse good intentions for good medical training. [inlinetweet prefix=”” tweeter=”” suffix=”By @NaturoDiaries”]Naturopaths superficially speak the words of medicine, but they don’t understand the language.[/inlinetweet]
It is pretty frightening, what naturopaths claim they can do.
I think this is a more appropriate way to phrase it.
She wasn’t a grifter because she was sincere. She actually believed she was helping. She was wrong and she knows it now and she owns the harm she caused.
Oh, so all I have to do is be sincere and it becomes not grifting? Well, I have no proof but I believe my great-grandmothers apple kuchen will cure depression because it makes me feel better when I bake it and eat it. So, I can start selling it to people as a cure for depression because I believe it works and it wouldn’t be grifting?
Um, if you actually believed that then, no, it wouldn’t be. “Grifting” involves knowing deception. Sorry, but words have meanings. I could go to the “naturals” store in my area and talk to several tragically earnest earth-mother types who are on fire for “natural health” and actually believe in the things they are selling. They believe ridiculous things and thus encourage people to waste their money but they are not grifters.
Um, if you actually believed that then, no, it wouldn’t be. “Grifting” involves knowing deception. Sorry, but words have meanings. I could go to the “naturals” store in my area and talk to several tragically earnest earth-mother types who are on fire for “natural health” and actually believe in the things they are selling. They believe ridiculous things and thus encourage people to waste their money but they are not grifters.
You can sell whatever you want as long as you don’t advertise it as a “cure”. You can advertise it as making people feel better when they’re down however.
Micheal please ignore Perricoat Philosopher. He thinks that any criminal, no matter the crime, is trustworthy, simply because they no longer commit the crime. BTW PP, I know of some rapests who would love to move into the same neighbor hood as your family. Care to give them an endorsement? No need to worry about any children in the area, after all they no long rape, so ya’ll should be good.
A) I’m a she, not a he.
B) Don’t even freaking talk to me about rape.
C) You started off creepy but your comments are starting to sound increasingly threatening and abusive. Are full-on rape threats coming next?
You make quite a lot of assumptions about me. I would never make threats like that. You think that just because someone doesn’t commit a crime anymore, they are 100% trustworthy. So why wouldn’t you want a rapist to move next door? After all they no longer rape, so you should be fine.
You make quite a lot of assumptions about me. I would never make threats like that. You think that just because someone doesn’t commit a crime anymore, they are 100% trustworthy. So why wouldn’t you want a rapist to move next door? After all they no longer rape, so you should be fine.
Oh, so all I have to do is be sincere and it becomes not grifting? Well, I have no proof but I believe my great-grandmothers apple kuchen will cure depression because it makes me feel better when I bake it and eat it. So, I can start selling it to people as a cure for depression because I believe it works and it wouldn’t be grifting?
BOOK RECOMMENDATION: The Way I See It, by Temple Grandin. This very readable book gives an overview of the variation in perception and behavior of autistic people, with suggestions for adapting teaching and training techniques for each class of difference.
It’ll change the way you think about the ways people think.
People become desperate and are willing to embrace any remedy to their situation. I did it once and learned my lesson. I found the Naturopath I saw to be unprofessional and left not trusting her. She was greedy and gave me remedies that lined her pockets. My husband was the patient and was unmotivated to return. She ordered $14,000 worth of tests without building any trust.
I’m sorry Miss Hermes, but I have a hard time accepting you talking about morality in medicine. Seeing as you yourself once prescribed these same “treatments,” that have been destroying people like me (those on the autism spectrum) for years. Oh and don’t give me the standard “I’ve seen the error of my ways” garbage. You could have killed someone! There is no room for forgiveness for quacks, and you were absolutely a quack. I rightly don’t care if you’re trying to atone for your mistakes, taking advantage of those with autism and their parents is unforgivable. I don’t care if you had good intentions, after all the road to hell is paved with those. People like you truly disgust me. You are a liar, a fraud, and a raging hypocrite. You deserve nothing but scorn.
Brian, with all respect, what should Britt do ? Stay silent ? If you look around, NDs trying to “treat” autism pop up a lot. NDs are inching forward to recognition as primary care providers. It has become fashion. Britt clearly states what is going on here and that is a very laudably undertaking. She is risking a law-suit with potentially very expensive consequences. Aside that, an ND studying in the biomedical field at a renowned German University may have been a quack, but is not anymore.
If it was up to me, she and her kind would be in prison, never to see the light of day again, let alone a keyboard.
I’d much rather reformed naturopaths like Ms. Hermes shine the light of day on these practices than to stay silently ashamed. I can understand how you feel but she is doing more by herself to reveal the quackery and danger of naturopathy than a dozen medical doctors ever could.
But not all naturopathy is a scam. Different supplements have been proven to help different things such as high MAO levels or low dopamine levels. It’s just that parents don’t do independent testing to see whether or not their children actually have these issues. For example, if you don’t actually have heavy metals poisoning, chelation is harmful. You have to independently check if you actually have something before you treat it.
There is nothing offered by naturopathy that is evidenced-based that physicians don’t recommend. You are correct that chelation in the absence of metals toxicity is harmful yet naturopaths routinely prescribe it without testing or with dubious testing. So yes, naturopathy is a scam.
Most evidence based physicians don’t even consider things like mitochondrial disease issues without you asking. Many psychiatrists are also quick to put patients on drugs with dangerous side effects without looking at their levels of things like dopamine or serotonin or even going into natural supplements. Many people become obese or even develop diabetes from the modern psychiatric drugs. Yet nobody seems to question that either.
Modern medicine doesn’t go for natural solutions as often and the modern psychiatric industry doesn’t even examine the physical causes behind the patient’s symptoms. They just look at the symptoms, check the DSM, and prescribe dangerous antipsychotics. They don’t blood test or do any of that. They don’t check to see if the patient is physically ill. Nobody seems to actually care about that.
Since the whole system is corrupted, it’s better to get independent testing from an evidence based physician or from sources like an independent DNA test, then research the specific mutations. However you have to ask for it. Then research scientific study after scientific study to see which solutions are bullshit and which are not. If modern medicine holds all the answers, why are there so many people with conditions without answers at all? It’s better to keep searching for answers than to simply cope with a bad situation. Some therapies are recommended by some doctors that are considered naturopathic but aren’t covered by insurance at all despite various evidence that it actually works.
I don’t think you know what’s involved with mito diagnosis. Of course a physician isn’t going to test unless there’s a reason. What are the naturopaths’ tests and from what sources? I would like to see some citations that “natural supplements” are effective for managing depression. Even the extensive testing of St. John’s Wort revealed only a slight efficacy for mild depression. Your suggestion that parents research and design their own treatment course is bullshit. Nearly all parents aren’t equipped to read actual studies. When they take that course, they sound just like you.
You don’t go for the naturopath for the test because they will obviously want your money and might make something up. That’s why I emphasized independent testing. However, I don’t trust a lot of the dangerous drugs people get with modern medicine.
Because depression is a group of symptoms. It’s not going behind the physical causes. You have to know if it’s from low serotonin, low dopamine, or whatever physical causes that could be behind it. In some cases it’s psychological and not physical. If it’s just psychological, you need to get to the root causes. You don’t blindly prescribe. You have to know your values and specific DNA mutations. If modern medicine doesn’t have the answers, why wait all your life for something that might not come until you die? Why not do your own research?
You don’t trust a naturopath to test for a rare disease but fine with them treating it.
Excuse me but what is the DNA panel for your so-called “values” and “specific DNA mutations”? Cost? Number needed to test? Overall value? What makes you think a layperson can “do their own research” and become more knowledgeable than specialists in the field? I’m all for patient information and partnership but not what you’re suggesting.
You can take a 23andme test and then enter your data in
https://nutrahacker.com/
or https://promethease.com/
for cheaper solutions.
This is the best company I’ve seen for testing for mitochondrial issues
http://www.medomics.com/
You have got to be kidding me. Those are not approved for anything you are suggesting and why even when standardised approved tests are available through specialists. What you are suggesting is dangerous and foolish.
How is using medomics testing dangerous? You can use it along with standardized tests you get with a physician. I believe in people using source at their disposal and then comparing all the similarities.
It is not a standardised test that should ever be used in the manner you are suggesting and the fact that you would is ignorant. You go see a specialist, not self-diagnose with wonky tests.
Or you do both so that you can double or even triple confirm.
Or you do both so that you can double or even triple confirm.
Or you can see two mainstream specialists, take some these tests, and then compare all the similarities. You can double, triple, or even quadruple your confirmations. I believe in using as many sources as you can to compare more.
You seriously don’t know what you are talking about and I hope no one will ever take you seriously and follow your advice. Which you shouldn’t be giving anyway since you aren’t remotely qualified to do so.
You seriously don’t know what you are talking about and I hope no one will ever take you seriously and follow your advice. Which you shouldn’t be giving anyway since you aren’t remotely qualified to do so.
Or you can see two mainstream specialists, take some these tests, and then compare all the similarities. You can double, triple, or even quadruple your confirmations. I believe in using as many sources as you can to compare more.
I believe in using multiple sources because some people may diagnose you with a disease you don’t have just to make money from you. You can even cut out the middle man in naturopathy and buy the supplements and treatments yourself. For things you need a doctor for, you obviously go to a doctor and the best you can find.
I believe in using multiple sources because some people may diagnose you with a disease you don’t have just to make money from you. You can even cut out the middle man in naturopathy and buy the supplements and treatments yourself. For things you need a doctor for, you obviously go to a doctor and the best you can find.
Have you actually considered that it’s more profitable for the drug companies to sell treatments than to sell cures? Many of the drugs sold are no better than the placebo effect and some of them are very dangerous.
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/09/24/the_dark_side_of_antipsychotics_106686.html
You’re ignoring the fact that some of these drugs are prescribed like candy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/business/28psych.html?_r=0
http://natashatracy.com/medicationtype/antipsychotics-cause-diabetes/
But of course you trust them because they are official.
Whether it’s mainstream medicine or non-mainstream, I do my own research before choosing a treatment or surgery for anything. I trust my own judgement because almost everyone has a profit motive in the end whether mainstream or naturopath.
Strawman. Please stick to what I actually say.
Why bother even using said greedy practitioners if you “do your own research” and are more knowledgeable than they are?
Because you need them to actually administer a lot of the treatments? You obviously can’t perform surgery on yourself for instance. It’s just better to go in well researched.
And what? Instruct your surgeon how to do their job?
No, spend time researching the most effective surgery methods and reading reviews on the most effective surgeons.
Because modern medicine doesn’t hold all the answers and I know of nobody who claims that it does. No doctor is saying that we have discovered All The Medicine. Yes, sometimes there are no answers and that is hard to deal with. Maybe there will be in the future–but from real medicine, not naturopathy. That is the way forward.
Is it really? It’s better to keep putting oneself (or one’s kids) through the frequently emotionally devastating cycle of raised-and-then-dashed hopes over and over, rather than accepting that there isn’t a magic fix for everything and learning how to have the best quality of life possible–to cope–with the aid of whatever existing science-based interventions there might be? I can’t say I agree. Sometimes coping is all we have. But, depending on the condition and the severity, coping can be okay. It is a hardship but people with hardships can still lead fulfilling lives. Much more so than if they are constantly subjecting themselves to the disappointment of failure after failure of bogus or unproven treatments.
But what if different treatments are proven by various scientific studies and the person has thoroughly researched the issue? There’s many scientific studies promoting treatments that people don’t typically use in modern medicine.
Why do you think the answers have to be from modern medicine? So far it makes more profit to treat things and then treat the side effects from those other meds than to actually form a more effective treatment. If you think big pharma is less in it for the money than naturopathy, you’re delusional. Everyone wants your money whether modern medicine or naturopathy so you have to trust yourself more than anyone.
“Coping” is bullshit because it results in unemployment, homelessness, and other issues society isn’t willing to address. By the time society actually addresses that, many people will be old or almost dead. You have to find solutions now instead of waiting for society to magically do this.
For people with true ASD and no underlying health conditions, their best bet would be to promote far more online and internet jobs and to ban workplace personality tests. It would make more sense than to expect society to actually accept someone who’s off and not bully them or fire them for their visible differences. By the time that happens, most of them will be almost dead.
What a bunch of ableist bullshit and apologetics for the failures of society and people like you who fear and loathe differences.
I don’t fear and loathe differences. I just understand reality. Until there is a massive movement and people actually do get accepted, the best solution is to promote online jobs and positions and a more computerized society. On a more computerized society, people won’t be able to tell how off someone is, especially if everything’s done through text. I have a very cynical view about human nature and know I’ll be old and retired by the time anything happens. You have to survive the now.
You’re still part of the problem and your suggestion is loathsome. Relegating a sub population to isolation where they may not want to be just so neurotypicals can maintain their comfort is an abelist and hateful suggestion.
It’s a better solution than leaving the unemployment rate at as high as 85%. I know eventually there will have to be acceptance but what will you do in the mean time? How will you make sure you benefit from things instead of just the next generation? I mean if you’re almost dead by the time any improvements happen or even close to retirement, they won’t help you. If the system doesn’t work, I believe in being pragmatic. A more computerized society is pragmatic and going in the direction society is already going in. You can work on neurodiversity in the mean time.
So we should have just said ‘suck it up’ to all those physicially-disabled people too who couldn’t access buildings or attend schools? Great plan.
No but until things change you have to actually have something in the mean time. Society will change in time but we have to figure out something now or else we’ll have a generation with no opportunities at all with only the next generations benefitting. Self driving cars can be good for blind people for instance. Technology can solve a lot of problems.
I think you can advocate for acceptance and neurodiversity in the mean time but we have to find a solution that works NOW. Otherwise a lot of lives will be ruined. It’s a lot more realistic than either waiting for society to be accepting of people’s internal differences, especially with the groupthink the society is going towards… or waiting for something that can rewire the entire brain structure, which currently doesn’t exist and probably won’t for 200 years.
I think government incentives to hire people on the spectrum will also work like specialized tax breaks. You can do accounting, secretarial work, software engineering, teaching, and many positons online as we move into a high tech future.
Tell me your solution for now that won’t just benefit the generation after you. Something that will solve at least part of the problem so people aren’t waiting in agony. Tell a solution that can be employed within the next 10 years or less, not within 30-40 years plus so only the next generation can benefit where countless lives are wasted not living in the financial standard of living they deserve.
So we should have just said ‘suck it up’ to all those physicially-disabled people too who couldn’t access buildings or attend schools? Great plan.
It’s a better solution than leaving the unemployment rate at as high as 85%. I know eventually there will have to be acceptance but what will you do in the mean time? How will you make sure you benefit from things instead of just the next generation? I mean if you’re almost dead by the time any improvements happen or even close to retirement, they won’t help you. If the system doesn’t work, I believe in being pragmatic. A more computerized society is pragmatic and going in the direction society is already going in. You can work on neurodiversity in the mean time.
You’re still part of the problem and your suggestion is loathsome. Relegating a sub population to isolation where they may not want to be just so neurotypicals can maintain their comfort is an abelist and hateful suggestion.
So you don’t think she should be using that keyboard to expose the quackery that harmed you and will no doubt continue to harm kids if attention is not drawn to it and criticism leveraged at it? Naturopaths manage to do a lot of shady stuff with almost no scrutiny. Britt is doing something that, as far as I know, nobody else is–using her “insider” experience to apply the scrutiny that this BS deserves. No more secrecy. That’s why so many naturopaths seem to practically have a price on her head.
No, because naturopathy should be illegal, and all of them should be in prison forever. Then everyone who has been harmed by them should be allowed to sue them so hard, that they won’t be able to afford anything from the prison store. Let them be as miserable as the people they’ve harmed. As I said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t personally believe there is a hell, but should one exist, Miss Hermes will have a lava pit with her name on it.
But she’s not practicing naturopathy.
And, I am sorry you have suffered, but maybe you should talk to someone about these violent revenge fantasies. They’re disturbing.
Wishing someone spend their life in prison when they so richly deserve it, isn’t violence. I’ll give you that the hell comment was a bit much though. I rightly don’t care if she isn’t practicing. That doesn’t absolve her of guilt. Also for transparencies sake, I was never seen by a naturopath, however I know those who were, and the harm it’s caused them. One good deed doesn’t absolve someone of guilt. It means they have a shard of dignity left, however that doesn’t absolve them of guilt.
Wishing someone spend their life in prison when they so richly deserve it, isn’t violence. I’ll give you that the hell comment was a bit much though. I rightly don’t care if she isn’t practicing. That doesn’t absolve her of guilt. Also for transparencies sake, I was never seen by a naturopath, however I know those who were, and the harm it’s caused them. One good deed doesn’t absolve someone of guilt. It means they have a shard of dignity left, however that doesn’t absolve them of guilt.
If you think wishing to lock someone up in prison forever isn’t violent, you don’t know much about prison.
Genuine question: what would someone like Britt have to do? I agree that bad deeds, and the harm they cause, can’t be undone and I think Britt is keenly aware of that herself. But what exactly is the point of imposing disgrace on someone for life, even when they have dedicated considerable effort to making amends and doing good? (Unless the life-long disgrace is being imposed upon someone who did something truly vile, like war crimes or something…) What would be point of imprisoning them for life? Who would it help? (And I think Britt is helping people by doing what she’s doing now.) Is it just that retribution feels good? Should we sacrifice the contributions that people like Britt can make because retribution feels good? I don’t think that’s much of a principle to base laws about punishment off of. “Lock ’em up and throw away the key” is rarely a solution and we are starting to see that more and more in our hugely carceral society.
What do you call someone who takes advantage of others? A criminal. Where do criminals belong? Prison. It really couldn’t be more cut and dry then that. What would I have someone like her do? Disappear from society, that’s what. There is no room for someone like her in civilized society. Also, how is taking advantage of the sick not something truly vile? What if her quackery had killed someone? Who’s to say it hasn’t and we just haven’t heard of it? The fact that anyone would defend a person like this is disturbing. We don’t forgive murderers because they don’t murder anymore. We don’t forgive rapists because they don’t rape anymore. Why should we forgive quacks, just because they don’t practice quackery anymore? Stop defending the indefensible.
Brian, maybe you should direct your anger at people like upandrunning in comments above, who is promoting unproven treatments for autism—based on extrapolating from small mostly lab studies. He/she has a very poor understanding of the complexity of gene expression and his/her simplistic way of thinking reflects how many naturopaths think and treat.
Britt has done a lot of good by exposing how little naturopaths actually train and how little of what they do is science based. I think she has more than atoned for any of her past transgressions.
Maybe you should stop defending a criminal, ever think of that? This is honestly disgusting, you are giving the finger to everyone harmed by people like this. There is no room for forgiveness for people like her, or people like you, people who defend people like her.
Um…in some circumstances, yes. In others, you might just call them a jerk. And there are plenty of crimes that do not involve taking advantage of others. But precision of thought doesn’t seem to be your forte. And at any rate, all of this is moot because Britt didn’t take advantage. That implies conscious deceit. Britt believed she was really helping people. She was not dishonest or evil, she was wrong. When she no longer believed in what she was doing and could thus no longer do it honestly and in line with her conscience, she left the field. It was a brave thing to do. Talking about it–and she has never made excuses for herself and has even given the mic to former patients of hers–is also brave.
Yeah, I don’t know if you’re American, but throwing everyone in prison is really working out just great for our society.
Okay, got it. You are thirsty to make others suffer. Between you and Britt, I know who I’d rather be alone in a room with, just sayin.’
No you didn’t defend naturopathy. You defended a naturopath, that is in itself indefensible. My comparison was more than fair. We don’t forgive those who commit horrible crimes. What she did was a horrible crime. No I don’t want people to suffer. I want criminals to be punished, big difference. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Of course incarcerating everyone wouldn’t work. I’m not calling for that. I’m calling for those that are worthy of going to prison, to be incarcerated. She and her kind belong in prison. Again it couldn’t be more cut and dry then that. In your little fantasy world, we should automatically accept someone who commits a crime, just because they don’t commit the crime anymore. Have fun getting killed, because you are so trusting of the dregs of society.
Please work on your reading comprehension and please get therapy. Have a nice day.
Bye! Hope you don’t get killed by the dregs you allow to run around free in society. It’s funny, because I wouldn’t need therapy if less people like you and her existed. People like you make it so much harder for people like me. Please do not breed.
Brian, do you know how Ms. Hermes discovered she was on the wrong side of medicine? Her boss was doing some very dodgy things and she dropped a dime on him and left the profession. Putting her on par with murderers and rapists is beyond the pale and doesn’t do a thing for your argument.
I never said she was on par with murderers and rapists. I was merely asking, that if we don’t forgive those heinous crimes, why forgive her heinous crime? I really honestly don’t care how she left homopathy. Nothing you apologists can say (or project onto me) is going to change the fact, that what she did should be considered criminal, and that she and her kind belongs in prison, for the rest of their pathetic existence. They prey on the week and innocent. That crime cannot be absolved, and is 100% unforgivable.
Which is putting her on par with murders and rapists yet again. As much as I loathe naturopathy and would like to see it abolished, as it stands what she did is not even remotely criminal so you’re just being histrionic.
Sadly it isn’t criminal right now, it should be but it isn’t. I really don’t understand why my comment is putting her on par with murderers and rapists, I’m simply using those heinous crimes as an example of something that cannot be forgiven. You really like to project don’t you? Are you a college of this criminal? I can’t think of another reason why anyone would defend such a person. Unless you yourself are a homopath. In which case, you can take the cell next to Miss Hermes.
I have an MSc and a PhD in epidemiology and molecular epidemiology respectively, have been active battling pseudo-science, particularly anti-vaxxers for the better part of a decade and am an autistic rights advocate. You are simply over-the-top.
You say you fight against pysdeuoscience but yet you defend a quack. Seems a little hypocritical if you ask me.
I am defending a former quack who is doing a better job as an insider exposing the pseudo-science that is naturopathy better than I or many others like me ever could. I would suggest reading through some of her posts before going medieval on her. It’s not easy to turn your back on hard-held ideals in the face of evidence to the contrary as she did; I suggest you give it a try.
I suggest you stop defending quacks. There is no such thing as a former quack. Once a quack always a quack. I’m done with you now. You and hermes should get married. You seem quite smitten with her. She is a quack, you should loose your degrees for defending a quack, and she belongs in prison forever. Good bye.
Sorry to dash your girl on girl fantasy Brian but we are both married to other people. Suggesting I “lose my degrees” for defending Ms. Hermes further shows how unreasonable you are.
And furthermore, what’s the point of battling pseudo-science if you fail to change anyone’s mind? Isn’t it better to reform than punish where you can?
Not if you’re obsessed with revenge over change that could help or even save people. Brian seems more interested in making sure that anyone who was ever involved with pseudoscience, including those like Britt who have become powerful advocates and unique voices against it, suffer. Not so much in actually challenging pseudoscience in a ways that could stop its insidious spread. If you’re actually interested in change, rather than venting your spleen, you work with allies.
This dude is totally unhinged. He basically just shouts a lot about “Lock them up! Never let them see the light of day!” in response to anything you say (including any questions raised about the social purpose served by imprisonment even if we did grant that all naturopaths are criminals worthy of punishment on par with those granted to murderers). And then proceeds to the ad hominem attacks. He also seems to have a hard time with basic logic. I wouldn’t even try.
If you think wishing to lock someone up in prison forever isn’t violent, you don’t know much about prison.
Genuine question: what would someone like Britt have to do? I agree that bad deeds, and the harm they cause, can’t be undone and I think Britt is keenly aware of that herself. But what exactly is the point of imposing disgrace on someone for life, even when they have dedicated considerable effort to making amends and doing good? (Unless the life-long disgrace is being imposed upon someone who did something truly vile, like war crimes or something…) What would be point of imprisoning them for life? Who would it help? (And I think Britt is helping people by doing what she’s doing now.) Is it just that retribution feels good? Should we sacrifice the contributions that people like Britt can make because retribution feels good? I don’t think that’s much of a principle to base laws about punishment off of. “Lock ’em up and throw away the key” is rarely a solution and we are starting to see that more and more in our hugely carceral society.
People have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. Whether it’s taking naturopathic medicine, getting transgender surgery, plastic surgery… they have a right.
True, but homeopathy should be banned as an option, because it’s not real, scientifically proven medicine.
It’s other people’s bodies and other people’s money. People should be able to make their own decisions. I think cocaine can kill people but I’m still for legalized drug use. If the market demands it, the market demands it. If someone commits crime on coke or create birth defects, you obviously lock them up and put them behind bars.
but these people are making false claims, so the public needs to be protected
Then don’t allow them to make “cure” claims without proving it. But other than that, there’s nothing you can do.
How naive. Just because laws exist to prevent specific claims, doesn’t mean quacks follow them. All you have to do is look at the FDA or the MHRA to see the notifications sent and actions against for false claims.
Nope you’re wrong there. If a consenting adult chooses to subject themselves to quackery, they should have every right to be that stupid. The line needs to be drawn for children and those unable to provide informed consent. See the OP. Do you support that?
Do you support the right of parents to give their children dangerous antipsychotics just because you support “official” medicine and hate the idea of natural treatments? Do you support raising their risk for obesity and diabetes?
I support science-based medicine and yes I believe that anti-psychotic/SSRI drugs are over-prescribed. That doesn’t mean that your so-called “natural treatments” work or should be used. There is no evidence of their efficacy nor safety. If there was, we’d be using them.
Do you know how expensive it is to patent a drug and how many regulations are in the way? If nobody used them, you wouldn’t be so fiercely going up against what you see as “pseudo science”. You’d see it as a petty trend. Try patenting something natural like glutathione.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutathione
Also these treatments tend to be very specialized based on the patient’s DNA.
“Natural” modalities are routinely patented. Some of the best cancer drugs are derived from plants. Yours is just an excuse for using a back door to sell crap. You don’t even need patents, where are all the clinical studies on the efficacy of “natural” remedies?
“Natural” modalities are routinely patented. Some of the best cancer drugs are derived from plants. Yours is just an excuse for using a back door to sell crap. You don’t even need patents, where are all the clinical studies on the efficacy of “natural” remedies?
First of all, you can’t patent a drug, only a treatment. In fact, glutathione *is* patented (viz. US 20100069309 A1). Such a patent is not even very expensive and actually easy to obtain. The expensive part in drug development is the registration as drug, because for this you have to do extensive toxicologic, efficiency and efficacy studies. For exactly this reason most drugs used in naturopathy are registered as medical food or nutritional supplement.
Why isn’t prescribing children dangerous anti psychotics illegal? These drugs lead to obesity and diabetes but nobody seems to care. It’s parents who just wanna pacify their kids to the detriment of their own health.
There will be side effects to any medication. That’s actually a sign that they do something. I have an autism spectrum disorder, adhd, and bi polar. Without my meds I would be in Jail, a mental hospital, or dead. My medications are proven to work, naturopathy hasn’t been proven to work.
Nobody knew about vitamin C in the 1500s but they still used lemon juice, orange juice, and lime juice to prevent scurvy. Should they have been prevented just because they didn’t know all the inner processes?
Also there are studies that demonstrate some naturopathy works such as prescribing L Dopa for dopamine deficiencies or even ADHD.
There are no such studies/they’ve all been debunked. What’s more likely: That there is a global conspiracy by every single government health organization, to destroy any natural cures, to poison the populace or that you’re full of shit?
There are such studies. It’s just that people refuse to see the evidence in front of their face. Funny that I’m held to a much higher standard than you are in a debate. Where are your studies showing all natural treatments are scams?
Also if you had it your way, people wouldn’t use orange juice or lemon juice to prevent scurvy back then because people didn’t know the full mechanism behind it. Your skepticism would’ve killed.
Look no further than your own citations.
You don’t seem to understand the underlying principle between cause and effect. Consuming citrus fruits produced a clear result that was replicated. By your logic we should reject anesthesia.
No, by my logic I’d combine all approaches that worked, whether from modern medicine or naturopathic medicine. I don’t see things as mutually exclusive. I combine things and do tons of research. Like if you need a brain tumor removed, you go get surgery to get it removed AND look into natural too.
Some results can’t be replicated in 100 percent. If it helps some people get past an illness, it’s not totally useless. It’s just that some people have been using medicine for things without any evidence they have the disorder in question.
Evidence please. What is a “natural” whatever for a brain tumour? I’ve seen your “research”; you’re screwed.
Evidence please. What is a “natural” whatever for a brain tumour? I’ve seen your “research”; you’re screwed.
It does work but not by itself and not for ALL people. It works when combined with the precursor to serotonin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035600/
It also works on people with a confirmed dopamine deficiency.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice this is the same study you posted last night to “prove” L-Dopa was an effective ADHD treatment? And you still haven’t listed the glaring problems with it that took me a couple of minutes to spot.
Did you think I wouldn’t notice this is the same study you posted last night to “prove” L-Dopa was an effective ADHD treatment? And you still haven’t listed the glaring problems with it that took me a couple of minutes to spot.
It does work but not by itself and not for ALL people. It works when combined with the precursor to serotonin.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035600/
It also works on people with a confirmed dopamine deficiency.
You keep using this as your ridiculous example. Vitamin C prevented scurvy a 100 percent of the time!!
Please show me such compelling evidence that L dopa has such exemplary cure rates? perhaps even one randomized double blind control trial would be a starting point.
How about i start…here is the only such RCT I could find, and it showed it had no significant effect
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21463967
Because it wasn’t combined with serotonin. You combine that for ADHD. However it does raise dopamine levels for people with dopamine deficiency.
I never said it “cured” anything. If something is cured, it obviously doesn’t need any more treatments. Everyone’s body is different so people might need a different treatment. From the study I posted, 67% had improved. This was more than some ADHD drugs.
67% improved??? there was no control! The only thing one can conclude from such a study is that one should do more research on this subject. To translate such a study into clinical practice which such a low level of evidence is irresponsible and dangerous.
upandrunning, once more. The use of fresh fruit to prevent scurvy was based on solid data obtained from humans. The treatments you propose are based on theoretical constructs and some in vitro and in vivo studies. That is a HUGE difference.
upandrunning, once more. The use of fresh fruit to prevent scurvy was based on solid data obtained from humans. The treatments you propose are based on theoretical constructs and some in vitro and in vivo studies. That is a HUGE difference.
In some studies, they shove people with similar symptoms under the same group when things have to be individualized. For some naturopathic treatments, they have been proven, like using L dopa for ADHD or low dopamine levels in general.
Maybe some parents don’t want their children to go through dangerous side effects. The only reason people think naturopathy is dangerous is because parents assume their children have things like heavy metals poisoning without getting tested at a place independent of the naturopath.
Citations please re: L dopa.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035600/
For all of your “research” you can’t even spot the glaring problems with this study? I’ll give you some time to figure them out on your own.
For someone who’s a supposed science mom I don’t see you posting any studies or sources to prove your claims.
You are making the claim that L-Dopa is a valid ADHD treatment; the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Your source is not good at all and if you knew how to “research” then you’d know why. So why don’t you tell me why I am rejecting your source as woefully inadequate.
You are making the claim that L-Dopa is a valid ADHD treatment; the onus is on you to provide the evidence. Your source is not good at all and if you knew how to “research” then you’d know why. So why don’t you tell me why I am rejecting your source as woefully inadequate.
You really can’t let it go can you? Until you can provide me with a peer reviewed scientific study, I’ll continue to think you’re a dangerous idiot. Much like the author of this article.
No. we think naturopaths are dangerous because they do not have the intelligence, the training, the experience nor the evidence to do any of the things they say they can do.
Or if they do have the intelligence, it’s grossly and tragically misdirected towards bogus “science.”
Or if they do have the intelligence, it’s grossly and tragically misdirected towards bogus “science.”
Some naturopathic treatments have been proven? Like what? There is no proven effective treatment that is unique to naturopaths
Quote: “We need to show [medical doctors] that naturopathy goes beyond the tools
or modalities used in naturopathic care; our philosophy includes our
therapeutic intention, rapport, and the experience of naturopathy, which
goes beyond what research defines as medicine.”
Hilarious. Per definition medicine is defined as the sum of treatments that are known to cure disorders. That is based on therapeutic intention and includes that experience of naturopathic treatments that have been demonstrated to work. The church has a saying that goes extra ecclesiam nulla salus, i.o.W. there is no salvation outside the church. If we take the definition of medicine, i.e. the sum of treatments known to work in disorders one could say extra medicinem nulla curatio, i.o.W. there is no therapy outside medicine.
Some people have physical health issues that result in mental health issues or at least exacerbate them to an extreme degree. Quit acting like issues like Methylation are completely imaginary when some people have had actual genetic testing done to screen for different mutations. Genetic testing independent of any naturopath….
I agree with you that DNA methylaition and even more a mutation may cause health and mental issues. This is well known. However a few things:
DNA methylation =/= mutation. These are two fundamentally different mechanisms.
DNA methylation serves as reversible, but long term shut down for genes when they are not needed anymore. It can be compared to mothballing equipment, i.e. a reverse is neither easy nor fast. It is also a very controlled process since different methylation patterns can have very different effects. This process can definitely NOT be treated by means of naturopathy, i.e. detox, diet, whatever.
Mutation is the exchange, deletion or addition of DNA chunks. This can only be healed by gene therapy, which is very much in it’s infancy. Diet can be beneficial (example: porphyria which is a purine metabolism affecting mutation) but only if it is specifically aimed at normalizing the effected metabolism and definitely not in the form that Naturopaths do.
With their methylation and mutation hype NDs take results from the cell culture and apply this to humans. That is not the way how medicine works.
No but it can be treated using supplements that address the mutations related to methylation. It’s not diet that solves the problem but specific supplements tailored to specific mutations. However it can’t be found without genetics testing.
Also HBOT has worked on some people with brain injuries, hypoxia, or different types of physical damage. Some people with ASD symptoms have this but not all or even most. There are sometimes other signs like such as frontal release signs that also signify neurological damage. However, it doesn’t work on people without neurological damage or when it’s not administered correctly.
Which supplements would that be ?
HBOT is a working standard therapy in diving sickness, serious infections and non-healing wounds. But brain injuries ? It would be interesting to see the evidence for your supplements and HBOT in non-oxygen depletion related diseases.
Aside that, mutation and methylations are to completely different mechanisms. There is no methylation related mutation, only mutations that my alter the methylation pattern.
Mucuna pruriens can be supplemented for people with low dopamine. This is a topic aside from methylation but there’s evidence that it works
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18973898
Low dopamine is also often present in ADHD and can be alleviated with L dopa, one of main components of mucuna pruriens.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035600/
There’s scientific evidence that different supplements can work to different purposes. For example, in the study above, In total, 67% of participants achieved significant improvement with only amino acid precursors of serotonin and dopamine. This is more effective than some mainstream ADHD drugs without all of the dangerous side effects.
I know there’s mutations that alter the methylation pattern. In some of those cases, supplements are necessary, especially if there’s a homozygous mutation.
cmon buddy. A retrospective pilot study? That is your level of evidence?
Where is your evidence that all naturopathic medicine is false? Why don’t you post big studies and evidence for that?
There is not a single practice or treatment that is unique to naturopathy that has been proven to work. That is incredibly pathetic since they propose thousands of bogus treatments.
I can list off literally thousands of studies in mainstream medicine showing effectiveness…probably in the millions now.
Curcumin: read it and weep
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3740077/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/29/can-vitamin-d3-in-combination-with-this-spice-reverse-alzheimers-disease-progression.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527619/
???? These are not clinical studies that show curcumin can be used to improve anything? These are proposed mechanisms with no proof that it works to treat any clinical condition. Nice try.
It truly is laughable and telling that in the whole body of naturopathic literature you can’t even give me one study that shows efficacy in a clinical context.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23832433
Read it and weep
At least you are trying….but again it showed a nonsignficant difference? How is this clinical evidence that one should use it?
Isn’t it telling to you that this is so hard?
Do you want me to start listing studies in medical literature so you can see the difference? one can pick any disease and i can start showing you study after study with highly significant results.
…yet you can’t seem to produce a single study with significance?
It showed curcumin as more effective than Prozac, a regularly prescribed psych drug that’s regarded as effective. Unless you want to say Prozac isn’t effective your case isn’t holding any water.
are you sure about that? maybe you should look again. There was no significant difference between any of the three groups. Please prove me wrong.
are you sure about that? maybe you should look again. There was no significant difference between any of the three groups. Please prove me wrong.
did you look at the study again? you ready to admit you were wrong?
“it showed churchmen as more effective than Prozac” ….did it really?
You sure you have the ability to read studies? you sure you should be self treating based on your “research”
It’s more effective in the sense that curcumin has almost the same rate of effectively treating depression WITHOUT all the side effects. The side effects would make something less effective because they’d be adding more symptoms. I should have worded it differently. Some articles have worded it the same way I have so what I said was justified. It all depends on how you define everything.
http://naturalsociety.com/turmeric-more-effective-prozac-treating-depression/
It’s more effective in the sense that curcumin has almost the same rate of effectively treating depression WITHOUT all the side effects. The side effects would make something less effective because they’d be adding more symptoms. I should have worded it differently. Some articles have worded it the same way I have so what I said was justified. It all depends on how you define everything.
http://naturalsociety.com/turmeric-more-effective-prozac-treating-depression/
Once again you’re only reading an abstract. What was the source of curcumin? How was purity and potency obtained? What was the description of the subjects? How were they grouped? Was there double-blinding?
Some gotcha.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23832433
Read it and weep
As for HBOT, there are numerous studies, even animal studies showing the effectiveness in brain damage from stroke and other means.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4406166/
Hypoxia of the brain relates to oxygen depletion. It’s often called cerebral anoxia…
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/strokeaha/39/3/1000.full.pdf
There is evidence it can produce angiogenesis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26484702
However, it won’t work on ASD children without brain injuries or hypoxia as it doesn’t completely rewire the brain. It would be a waste of money for the parents of ASD children without evidence of brain injuries like FMRIs or even testing for things like frontal release signs. There has to be actual testing from sources other than places trying to make money from treatments….. instead of people simply assuming their children have one thing or another. Many people take the word of the naturopath instead of doing independent testing.
A short reply re supplements addressing methylation. You can’t just demethylate the entire DNA. This happens *only* in germ cells. For the rest of the body total demethylation of the DNA would have disastrous consequences.
Therefore, to address supposed methylation related diseases one has to specifically demethylate promoter regions of very specific genes. In order to do so, the supplement has to have the ability to
(a) recognize the cell type it is targeted for (different cell types have different methylation patterns !)
(b) recognize the DNA pattern it is tailored for and
(c) demethylate it without damaging the DNA.
No supplement does that. One can’t just pour a mixture of salts, ions and herbs into a body and expect a demethylation to occur at exactly the right point. This is bullshit.
The same goes for methylation. You can not just methylate the DNA. It would silence genes you need.
For RSID rs651852 and Gene BHMT08, it deals with the functioning of methylating homocysteine to methionine. If someone has a genetic mutation that interferes with that, Phosphatidylserine help. It wouldn’t damage the DNA. It doesn’t need to recognize the DNA it’s tailored for. You only need to know which specific genes are involved and what would facilitate the process more.
This probably demonstrates very well how Naturopaths tick. rs651852 is a Single Nucletide Polymorphism (SNP) in in the BHMT gene (NOT BHMT-08) The process in which this gene plays a role is a highly redundant process since it is represented in the body with at least 2 seperate Isoenzymes (BHMT and BHMT-2) and several other pathways. The role of BHMT and it’s link to diseases, however is far from being clear, yet homeopaths promise treatments and sell them.
We’re studying the genome more and more and people are developing more and more knowledge of the human body.
People advocated drinking lemon juice and orange juice to prevent scurvy before people fully understood the process. However, it still worked. Vitamin C wasn’t discovered until the 1930s. If you were back then, you would probably go on and on about how there’s no evidence that lemon juice and orange juice prevented scurvy and would prefer them to die instead of actually take action to prevent it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy#Early_modern_era
Actually, for me the phrase *I* am studying the genome would be true. You are dealing here with real scientists working in the field. I am a computational biologist with a very strong background in laboratory work and studying genomics as well as transcriptomics. The problem with your comparison is that there were tons of evidence about lemon juice working. Because the Royal Navy knew it worked they eventually adopted the practice. The things you write are that of a typical ND. Theoretical, in-vitro and in vivo based speculation sold as “therapy” to the patient. That is not how medicine works.
Actually, for me the phrase *I* am studying the genome would be true. You are dealing here with real scientists working in the field. I am a computational biologist with a very strong background in laboratory work and studying genomics as well as transcriptomics. The problem with your comparison is that there were tons of evidence about lemon juice working. Because the Royal Navy knew it worked they eventually adopted the practice. The things you write are that of a typical ND. Theoretical, in-vitro and in vivo based speculation sold as “therapy” to the patient. That is not how medicine works.
Britt, did you ever come across the GAPS diet for autism in your naturopath days? That has to be one of the weirder “cures” I’ve ever heard of–basically feed the kid a steady diet of heroic amounts of homemade meat broth and animal fat to heal their “leaky gut” and they will be cured! And also cod liver oil. That seems to be somewhat consistent across quackeries. Maybe because it’s old-fashioned?
Also, I’ve been wondering for a while, and maybe you have some insight, how many of these kids are truly autistic? I can certainly believe that parents of truly autistic children might be overrepresented among the ranks of naturopathy devotees, because they are struggling and have been duped into hoping that maybe “alternative” methods can “fix” their child. (I’ll leave aside, for now, how problematic the idea of “fixing” neurodiversity is.) But all of these moms claiming that they “cured” their children of autistic symptoms through their various bogus interventions? I honestly suspect that many of these people are simply parents of neurotypical children who are obsessed with being able to perfectly control their children’s behavior and just can’t handle, say, a kid just going through a phase where they are more difficult or have tantrums a lot, as kids tend to.
This seems particularly likely among natural-everything-obsessed stay-at-home-moms who I suspect are often just overwhelmed with all of the things they are supposed to be doing–cooking everything from scratch from specially sourced ingredients, constantly managing the “toxins” in their children’s environments (which I can only imagine is hugely anxiety-inducing since it seems like you can never do enough, always more toxins lurking somewhere!), sometimes homeschooling or homesteading etc.–combined with stress of the constant crunchy moms one-upmanship wars, social isolation etc. They just can’t handle a kid who’s going through a trying but normal rough patch developmentally, so they pathologize it and then try to cure it. And there seems to be a creepy line of thought within alternative health communities that is very much about creating and raising the “perfect” children through natural and alternative everything–kids who are smarter than the kids of all those other basic peasants who eat refined sugar ad non-organic food, kids who never cry or have tantrums, never misbehave or melt down from being overtired, never are picky about their food etc.–basically kids who are always convenient for their parents.
So the kids go through a self-limiting phase and, meanwhile, mom is experimenting on the kid with all sorts of wackadoo alternative autism cures that are potentially really disruptive, uncomfortable, unpleasant, or dangerous for the kid, and when the kid naturally grows out of the phase, this is seen as proof that those cures work. Voila! A child who is the perfect child that mom feels like she deserves after being so pure and righteous and natural and eating that special pregnancy diet and breastfeeding for years etc.–perfect for a little while, at least, until a new fake ailment rears its head.
This is pure speculation on my part of course, but the attitudes I see among a lot of the crunchy mom set really does seem to suggest this dynamic–pathologizing and then trying to cure kids being kids. I feel sorry for the kids–so much pressure to be the perfect vindication of their parents’ bizarre lifestyle choices.
Some children have mitochondrial disease or genetic mutations or even forms of brain damage that have neurological symptoms. Severe celiac can also produce similar symptoms. Some people do have physical issues that result in mental issues. I don’t see why this is so hard for people to understand. The issue is people are blindly prescribing treatments without thorough medical testing and research. That’s why it doesn’t work on a lot of children. It doesn’t work on children with mental issues without the physical health issues. This is why different supplements can work.
Yeah, I get that brain damage, disease, and neurodiversity actually exist. I just have to wonder if, a lot of the time, what is actually going on is parents diagnosing their own children with whatever disease or disorder that seems to fit (real or made-up) because they are just struggling to deal with kid behavior that might be stressful or obnoxious or high-maintenance but is still within the normal range of kids being kids. Kids sometimes go through stages where they are just hard to deal with for a little while. Then once they’ve diagnosed their own kid, they look for an alt-health type to confirm it and to prescribe bogus “treatments” for it and, surprise! They end up working because kids grow up and change, usually pretty quickly.
I particularly wonder because of all these moms who claim to have actually cured their children’s autism. If the kid actually had autism, they couldn’t actually cure it and they sure as hell wouldn’t do it with cod liver oil and hyperbaric oxygen chambers.
HBOT is good for people with actual brain damage or actual hypoxia of the brain. It promotes angiogenesis. If someone has ASD without brain damage or brain hypoxia (vast majority of cases) it won’t work at all…..
but if someone has some ASD symptoms from brain damage or has damage in addition to ASD, then it will work in promoting functionality. It’s possible to have some ASD symptoms without having ASD.
People don’t understand that typically many people don’t check for physical illnesses or damage or even bloodflow in the brain during psychiatric exams. They don’t check for potential allergies or mitochondrial disorders. They simply look at the symptoms and try to prescribe medications for it. Nobody checks the underlying causes of anything when two very different causes can produce similar symptoms. The problem is people just diagnose their own children instead of getting actual testing done from independent sources. Independent sources because those sources won’t be trying to sell you different treatments….
People who have seen incompetent doctor after incompetent doctor are tired of waiting for things to change and take things in their own hands. They just often do it in the wrong way and aren’t detail oriented enough to get specific enough as in focusing on specific genetic mutations or focusing on specific types of damage.
Your claims are remarkably citation-free.
I put lots of citations in my other posts but you choose to ignore them. You don’t have any citations for asserting naturopathy is all a scam. Where are yours?
Here are my citations about HBOT being effective against brain damage and causing angiogenesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26484702
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/strokeaha/39/3/1000.full.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4406166/
As I said, you have to actually make sure you HAVE brain damage or hypoxia before you do something like this and you have to see if your physiological results as well as tested skill sets are different to see if it’s effective.
And you’re a mouse. Animal studies are fine for preliminary work but you can’t use them to generalise to the human population let alone for autism which is what naturopaths and sleazy physicians do.
Not all of them used mice. Human patients were used on most of what I posted. Animal testing is also more accurate in some cases because they don’t have a placebo effect.
You posted animal studies and if studies aren’t properly conducted, placebo effects can happen.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26484702
Not all of them. This used patients and not mice and had actual physical testing. This was used on actual post TBI patients.
You don’t even know the study design, other methods nor results. You’re just abstract-mining. Great research skillz there.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26484702
Not all of them. This used patients and not mice and had actual physical testing. This was used on actual post TBI patients.
I never said it works for autism. It works for people with brain damage that might mimic ASD (where they don’t have autism and that’s where the “cure” stories might come from, like when someone with a severe cerebral allergy gets “cured” by a diet) or people with brain damage on top of ASD. For the latter, the brain damage can be alleviated but the underlying autistic brain structure is still there. They’d become far higher functioning however. Also people with damage with no ASD type symptoms at all. Many people with hypoxia don’t have these symptoms but have other symptoms that make life difficult. People with damage might have it from a stroke or blow to the head or from severe malnutrition or from being in a coma or near death experience. There is no way to “fix” an underlying brain structure. There is a way to have angiogenesis and more blood flow to different parts of the brain as well as neuron repair. But the brain structure itself and underlying neurology is always here to stay.
It doesn’t actually change the brain structure. Something that radically changes the entire brain structure probably not be around for the next 200 years. You can fix underlying health problems that exacerbate issues like unintegrated reflexes, vision issues like convergence insufficiency, and so forth but you can’t radically change the brain structure just yet. It would involve an extreme amount of technology and financial resources.
That’s why I propose a high tech society. It’s more realistic than changing an underlying brain structure and more realistic than expecting today’s society, which is becoming more and more intolerant to individual differences, to actually tolerate people who are off. In the days of personality testing and forcing people to be a certain personality, it’s the only option until the culture radically changes. The high tech society will also be good for extreme introverts, people with social anxiety, and people who have schizotypal or schizoid personality. Many people are disenfranchised from today’s work culture and I’m not holding my breath for people to actually tolerate others the way people think today. Yes I am that cynical about human nature. Maybe people will change 30-40 years down the line but people don’t have time for that. They have to survive now.
convergence insufficency? we are much more advanced than that?? you don’t seem to be keeping up with technology?
what about deep brain stimulation for parkinsons?
brain implants to restore vision in the blind?
Do you actually know what angiogenesis is and how it works ? Angiogenesis is the formation of new blood vessels in hypoxic tissue. If tissue becomes hypoxic, HIF1A (hypoxia inducible factor 1 alpha) is induced which tips the angiogenesis balance towards angiogenesis, mostly via induction of VEGF. This is clearly demonstrated in your second publication. If you apply HBOT, oxygen levels rise, consequently HIF1A and VEGF (and hence the angiogenic stimulus) drops.
The first publication, having measured blood flood and volume, concludes that HBOT increases angiogenesis. This conclusion is wrong. If I apply campher to a skin, it gets red and hot, i.o.W. blood flow and volume increase in the area. Angiogenesis, however does NOT happen.
Do you actually know what angiogenesis is and how it works ? Angiogenesis is the formation of new blood vessels in hypoxic tissue. If tissue becomes hypoxic, HIF1A (hypoxia inducible factor 1 alpha) is induced which tips the angiogenesis balance towards angiogenesis, mostly via induction of VEGF. This is clearly demonstrated in your second publication. If you apply HBOT, oxygen levels rise, consequently HIF1A and VEGF (and hence the angiogenic stimulus) drops.
The first publication, having measured blood flood and volume, concludes that HBOT increases angiogenesis. This conclusion is wrong. If I apply campher to a skin, it gets red and hot, i.o.W. blood flow and volume increase in the area. Angiogenesis, however does NOT happen.
You have obviously received your education at “google university”. Mitochondrial disease is extremely rare. We are nowhere near personalized medicine based on DNA except in very rare cases. Especially not trying to treat diseases like autism which have significant heterogeneity.
and because it’s rare, it shouldn’t be searched for even if it may be a problem or an issue…. right… DNA testing is getting more and more complex. People will be able to see more of their genetic mutations and how to treat them.
As for autism, most people diagnosed with it have the underlying brain structure. Others, however have symptoms from physical health issues. I don’t understand why people should think it’s “normal” for someone to be screaming and having diarrhea every day. Even if they did have the underlying brain structure, they’d still be more functional addressing the physical causes that can make them lower functioning. You can’t change the brain structure whether the underlying brain structure is autistic or neurotypical. You can make the physical health better.
Unless your answer is to leave them in agony each day. Because people think gluten free is this big fad, people are ignoring things like Celiac disease and letting people suffer from illnesses because they want to combat “pseudo science”.
Some children are very sick and improve under naturopathy. Are they supposed to lie to you and say they never got better even if they became physically and mentally healthier? Are they supposed to lie and say they “coped” with the disabilities if they no longer face the same difficulties?
If you can’t see the dangers of allowing naturopaths to treat based on anecdotal evidence…then you are beyond hope.
There were many parents that swore that the bleach enemas the naturopaths gave their child helped with their autism. Can you see why studies might be important?
Maybe in all the research you say you do….you should take a course in epidemiology and statistics.
Bleach enemas weren’t based on any evidence. I can sift through traditional and non traditional medicine and pick and choose. I read study after study. So far all you’ve done was criticize mine without posting any studies of your own.
You don’t get tested by a naturopath, you get tested by independent sources and THEN try to administer types of healing. You can even cut out the middle man and buy supplements yourself. The point is right now there don’t seem to be a lot of answers. Do you propose people simply just “wait”? Not everyone has time to wait. What you don’t understand is I don’t fully trust either form of medicine. That’s why I carefully pick and choose.
actually…. i did supply the study that showed that L dopa did not help in children with ADHD. It wast the only RCT study i could find on pubmed on the subject. I am still waiting for you to supply your RCT showing evidence to the contrary.
Just because something was found in a petri dish or an animal model, does not mean that it is translatable to clinical practice. In fact only 1/10 drug/substance that was found to be effective in animal models…was found to be effective clinically.
Oh and you asked for clinical studies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23832433
What about this one?
Like for example, i am currently reading a study for treatment of glaucoma with latanoprost. The p value for significance was .00003
Do you understand what that means? Can you see the difference between how effective real medicine is versus anecdotal crappy naturopathic studies.
Here is a summary of the paper:
http://www.2minutemedicine.com/ukgts-trial-latanoprost-helps-preserve-visual-field-open-angle-glaucoma/
First, small clinical studies might have a probability of being false positives of 30% and as high as 80%. Second, curcumin is a drug, therefore this is not Naturopathy. Also, in response to your other botanical medicine study, nobody denies that plants are valuable sources for drugs. However, development is identify the active agent -> modify it to enhance effect and/or tolerability -> test in cell culture/animals/humans -> market the drug. This is the reason why you swallow an Asprin and not willow bark tea if you have pain.
But animal studies can be used additional to human studies. When they are effective, they show if it’s effective independent of any placebo effect.
But animal studies can be used additional to human studies. When they are effective, they show if it’s effective independent of any placebo effect.
Seemingly you do not understand the idea behind the design of targeted drug development. The chain in vitro study -> in vivo study -> Phase I, II, III is used to weed out duds. As David correctly points out, roughly 1/10th of what is effective in animal models makes it to the market. A prime example are antiangiogenic drugs in cancer. In the 90ties I have seen Judah Folkman himself presenting data in mice. In three or four cancer models the mice could be cured in the sense they had a normal life span – and that worked with antiangiogenic therapy alone. The results where so impressive that Watson (yes, the DNA Watson) said that Folkman will cure cancer within two years. Nothing like that happened.Although angiogenesis inhibitors are now part of the treatment in several cancer, by far they do not have the effect seen in mice, simply because mice are very different to humans. Therefore animal studies are NEVER used additional to humans, but as a preliminary.
In rodents administered crude extracts and purified extractives of various edible fungi, transplanted human tumors can be inhibited by up to 90%. In large clinical trials, nothing like that rate has been seen in cancer patients, even when active, derivative constituents are injected i.v. At best, some of the active extractives (not “extracts” as some leading naturopaths in the U.S. are known to call them) in the form of polysaccharide drugs (e.g., lentinan and Polysaccharide Kureha, or PSK) were reported to produce a minor prolongation of life in patients with certain types of cancers (e.g., gastric) who were treated with surgery and chemotherapy, while some of the trials with either polysaccharide found no benefits.
You don’t use animal studies alone because alone they would be flawed without any human studies. You use them in conjunction with other studies. I like doubling or tripling down on things. I don’t believe in mutual exclusivity.
upandrunning, in vivo studies serve mainly two things:
(a) test whether proceeding to Phase I is justified and
(b) elucidation of the mode of action in scenarios where that can not be done in humans.
In a therapeutic setting they never ever, and I repeat never ever serve as a sort of backup to or in conjunction with studies in humans. Never ever. They also do NOT show the effect of a drug without placebo effect. The reason is that humans are no mice, rodents, apes or dogs or any other animal.
In rodents administered crude extracts and purified extractives of various edible fungi, transplanted human tumors can be inhibited by up to 90%. In large clinical trials, nothing like that rate has been seen in cancer patients, even when active, derivative constituents are injected i.v. At best, some of the active extractives (not “extracts” as some leading naturopaths in the U.S. are known to call them) in the form of polysaccharide drugs (e.g., lentinan and Polysaccharide Kureha, or PSK) were reported to produce a minor prolongation of life in patients with certain types of cancers (e.g., gastric) who were treated with surgery and chemotherapy, while some of the trials with either polysaccharide found no benefits.
upandrunning, with all respect, you may have read study after study, but there is more behind just reading p-values. You have to understand what is measured and what that means. Additionally you have to be aware what prior probability is and what a false discovery rate is.
Take for instance your HBOT increases angiogenesis in the brain study. They measured volume and blood flow and based their claim on these measurements. Unfortunately blood flow and volume do depend on several other factors, therefore the conclusion is invalid. Side by side you cite a second study that demonstrated by actually *measuring* main angiogenesis markers that oxygen *reduces* angiogenesis. Given prior knowledge (and the derived prior probability) the hypothesis presented in study I (HBOT leads to angiogenesis) is wrong, whereas the hypothesis in study II (HBOT *decreases* angiogenesis) is correct.
Or take for instance your botanical medicine studies. Curcumin is a drug under investigation like anything else. The fertility study involves a herb. The way to drug development would be identification of the active ingredient, investigate derivates to find the one with the best combination between efficacy and tolerability, test it and market it. That was how Aspirin was developed. Naturopaths, however think the p-value of below 0.05 justifies the use of the plant itself and that herbs are superior drugs because they are natural. In most cases they are not.
Another problem with naturopaths is their interpretation of cutting edge therapy which is take any theoretical construct (e.g. a particular SNP on an important gene impairs the function and has to be “healed”) or any p-value below 0.05 (even if derived from animal or in vitro studies) and throw the corresponding therapies onto the patient. That is not how science based therapy works.
upandrunning, with all respect, you may have read study after study, but there is more behind just reading p-values. You have to understand what is measured and what that means. Additionally you have to be aware what prior probability is and what a false discovery rate is.
Take for instance your HBOT increases angiogenesis in the brain study. They measured volume and blood flow and based their claim on these measurements. Unfortunately blood flow and volume do depend on several other factors, therefore the conclusion is invalid. Side by side you cite a second study that demonstrated by actually *measuring* main angiogenesis markers that oxygen *reduces* angiogenesis. Given prior knowledge (and the derived prior probability) the hypothesis presented in study I (HBOT leads to angiogenesis) is wrong, whereas the hypothesis in study II (HBOT *decreases* angiogenesis) is correct.
Or take for instance your botanical medicine studies. Curcumin is a drug under investigation like anything else. The fertility study involves a herb. The way to drug development would be identification of the active ingredient, investigate derivates to find the one with the best combination between efficacy and tolerability, test it and market it. That was how Aspirin was developed. Naturopaths, however think the p-value of below 0.05 justifies the use of the plant itself and that herbs are superior drugs because they are natural. In most cases they are not.
Another problem with naturopaths is their interpretation of cutting edge therapy which is take any theoretical construct (e.g. a particular SNP on an important gene impairs the function and has to be “healed”) or any p-value below 0.05 (even if derived from animal or in vitro studies) and throw the corresponding therapies onto the patient. That is not how science based therapy works.
and by the way…in what world are MD allowing people to suffer with celiac disease?
I’m saying there’s harm in saying gluten free is this fad. It makes doctors more reluctant to test for things like Celiac because of it and makes parents less likely to consider it.
I was recently tested for it. The doctor had no problem testing, although celiac disease was not all that high on the differential list, it was a slight possibility. I also had a colonoscopy.
Then again, the doctor was basing testing on my presentation, and not an issue of fads or anything.
If you had pancreatic cancer, would you simply “wait” for modern medicine to supply a cure or would you try to combine whatever you could research to get better? Whether modern or naturopath? People don’t have the time to sit around and wait to get better. By the time you wait for a pancreatic cancer cure, you’re already dead. It’s called pragmatism and actually trying to fix things.
I understand what you are saying…but the problem is that these naturopaths are profiting off unproven treatments. There are so many practitioners out there ready to steal people’s money.
That is why Britt is doing such good work by highlighting to the govenerment that naturopaths do not have medical training and therefore should not be allowed to portray themselves as such.
There are so many cancer patients who decide to go the “natural route” with very curable cancers…and they could have been cured by mainstream medicine.
I know a patient with breast cancer that would have had a 90 percent cure rate with surgery/chemo/radiation based on statistics but decided to pay a naturopath 15 k a month to take care of her naturally. She was dead in 6 months.
I’d combine mainstream medicine AND naturopathy because I like filling in all the gaps and doubling or tripling up on measures. I don’t see things as mutually exclusive like others do. I like to combine things to get the maximum effectiveness possible. If she paid one 15k a month, it’s problematic but she could’ve bought herself supplements and done her own research at a fraction of the cost. There’s also no one saying you can’t combine mainstream medicine with naturopathic medicine.
For some diseases, there are no mainstream medical treatments so you need to find something in the mean time so your life’s not wasted. I agree lots of naturopaths are in it for the money but the same things’ true about a lot of big pharma. As for medical training, if naturopaths have to go to medical school, I think it would give it more legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
How many naturopaths actually have the qualifications to get into medical school?
Most people do not have the ability to do research themselves. Look at yourself, the evidence you use to make decisions would not be accepted as evidence by anyone with a real scientific background. You are not able to supply a single study that had a significant result? Yet you seem to think you have the knowledge to self treat and probably are even giving advice to others?
You’re not using any studies to back your claims. Where are your studies?
I use sources that a lot of doctors use, even mainstream doctors.
In fact I did cite the only RCT I could find on l dopa and ADHD that showed it did not work. I am still waiting for you to cite an RCT to the contrary. I also cited the study which I was reading last night for you that had a .00003 p value. Please tell me what else you would like me to reference for you.
If you actually read the articles that you cite…they unaminously say that this is a pilot study for which further research is necessary. However you somehow take a pilot study as proof
In fact I did cite the only RCT I could find on l dopa and ADHD that showed it did not work. I am still waiting for you to cite an RCT to the contrary. I also cited the study which I was reading last night for you that had a .00003 p value. Please tell me what else you would like me to reference for you.
If you actually read the articles that you cite…they unaminously say that this is a pilot study for which further research is necessary. However you somehow take a pilot study as proof
How many naturopaths actually have the qualifications to get into medical school?
Most people do not have the ability to do research themselves. Look at yourself, the evidence you use to make decisions would not be accepted as evidence by anyone with a real scientific background. You are not able to supply a single study that had a significant result? Yet you seem to think you have the knowledge to self treat and probably are even giving advice to others?
“There’s also no one saying you can’t combine mainstream medicine with naturopathic medicine.” That depends on what you mean by naturopathic medicine. If you mean St. John’s wort, for example, then there are definitely mainstream medicines that one wouldn’t want to take a chance on combining. Evidence suggests that the popular South African herb sutherlandia (Sutherlandia frutescens) could also be problematic, and for more than one mainstream medical drug. It follows that other plants could also put a patient at risk when combined with mainstream medicines and treatments. Until those are established, the risks will persist.
When it comes to cancers of the pancreas, what sort web sites do you suppose would present the most and least accurate information? If you guessed that sites promoting “alternative” therapies provide the least accurate information, you would be correct. To take advantage of the desperate with unproven remedies, disseminating misinformation can be very profitable. However, I agree that for those who are practically destined to die from a disease no matter the treatment available, there may be nothing to lose by trying something completely experimental. In those cases, the best and most ethical medical practice would be to publish the case in its entirety, regardless of the outcome. That way, the failure or success of a treatment would at least have a chance of becoming known. But how often do naturopaths publish their failures when using experimental rather than verifiably effective treatments?
If you had pancreatic cancer, would you simply “wait” for modern medicine to supply a cure or would you try to combine whatever you could research to get better? Whether modern or naturopath? People don’t have the time to sit around and wait to get better. By the time you wait for a pancreatic cancer cure, you’re already dead. It’s called pragmatism and actually trying to fix things.
I’m all up for knocking on naturopathy because it’s still gaining a foothold in the academic field, but can some of you allopathic fan boys at least be a bit fair about the discussion? Disclosure, I went to a top tier research school in Boston, studied neuroscience, and plan to pursue graduate studies in naturopathy. And sorry to burst your bubble, but naturopathy is not going to recede into the shadows because of a few angry blog posts and bitter defectors who failed to maneuver their way around the field and find what worked for their patients. Until as late as the beginning of the 20th century, allopathic medicine was still utilizing some archaic and murderous practices. It was only revolutionized by its induction into the modern academic system which provided immense funding opportunities and infrastructure, a stage that naturopathic medicine has only recently entered.
First off, let’s just point out that it’s been shown the 3rd leading cause of death in the US is medical care, and that information was polled from traditional hospital centers, so the blame is on allopathic medicine. Before you knock on naturopathic medicine for being so dangerous, take a step back and address the medical landscape as a whole.
Secondly, the first leading cause of death is heart disease, something that allopathic medicine has absolutely failed to take care of and even exacerbated. To start, the nutritional guidelines put out by the CDC decades ago, with the help of cardiologists and other physicians, have wreaked havoc on public health. And somehow MD curriculums still barely cover nutrition and these recommendations are being repealed at a snail’s pace (corruption? Conflict of interest?). Drug therapy never actually gets to the heart of the problem and the current model of allopathic medicine has led to MDs forfeiting their central role as teachers (especially in metropolitan areas where big hospital networks are obsessed with efficiency more than patient outcome). Patients sense that they’ve become somewhat of an afterthought in the system and have become distrustful, for good reason.
Naturopathic medicine has grown enormously in the past couple decades and it’s not because of some crazy media campaign led by Wholefoods.. it has evolved out of the failures of allopathic medicine. People want to talk to their provider, people need lifestyle coaching, they want to start with the least invasive treatment as possible. (I didn’t cite anything because everything I mentioned is easily accessible).
The central role of an MD is not to be a teacher. It is to be a physician. Working closely with individual patients on their nutrition is what dietitians do. Patient education is also what nurses wish they could do more of, when they’re not swamped and overworked.
Brian, I am a scientist (computational biology, by trade food and biotechnoligist) with 25 years of practice in medical sciences.
First, medicine is by definition the sum of treatments that work. Therefore there is no naturopathic vs allopathic medicine controversy.
In addressing your points: First, this is a tu quoque logical fallacy. However, if we look f.i. into cancer research, there are a few studies on quality of life in patients receiving additional naturopathic therapy. The differences are marginal. There is even a study comparing naturopathic medicine to medicine, the results are abysmal. The probability to survive 5 years is 80% for medicine, less than 40% for naturopathic medicine. The danger in naturopathic medicine is to miss the treatment window. It would be very interesting to study that. This has not been done yet. However, given the weak results in naturopathic studies, the results would not be pretty.
Second: For nutrition you have even an own profession which are called nutritionists. If you ask a nutritionist many will say that the advice of naturoptaths is either self evident or bonkers (e.g. the entire detox story which is a HUGE hype right now).
Third, drug therapy not solving to the actual problem. This is nonsense. Drug development goes a far way to uncover modes of action to develop drugs that do address exactly that.
In Naturopathy this is completely different. Take homeopathy: A pure symptomatic approach which can mean the difference between life and death (e.g. adenomas vs carcinomas of the colon which cause exactly the same symptoms). Additionally a very large Australian metsatudy has shown that homeopathy does not work. I.o.W. 100% of what naturopaths learn is wasted time.
Botanical medicine: There is a study which has tested 1000 plants, some 200 have been found to have been investigated, roughly 20% showed some effect. Some are even poisonous and some interfere negatively with known working therapies. I.o.W. 80% of what NDs learn is wasted time. In botanical medicine, almost no mode of action is known. It is almost pure tradition fraught with observational bias.
TCM: Almost 90% of traditional chinese medicine is bonkers. I.o.W. when learning this, you waste time.
To give you an example how naturopathy works: In the licensing exam there is a case of a woman showing fatigue, excessive thirst, etc. i.o.W. the clear symptoms of a beginning metabolic disorder, possibly diabetes, An MD would do a checkup and prescribe something that corrects this. What is the diagnosis and therapy in naturopathy ? A weak liver qui and liver qui strengthenng concotions. A homeopathic naturopath would match the symptoms to some homeopathc remedy and give that. In botanical medicine the symptoms would be matched to some concotion and this would be applied. The probability that a patient gets a non-working treatment is very high. Now which approach is closer to addressing the underlying cause ? In the Textbook of Natural Medicine, written by Pizzrno et al. the chapter on diabetes says very little about the use of insulin, nothing about oral hypoglycemic drugs, and nothing about the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of diabetic acidosis– except to warn that it is a medical emergency that will require hospitalization. The entire book is fraught with such blunders. Now ask yourself, which approach is better for the patient ?
The problem with naturopaths is that they take unproven findings, often only theories mix them with nature and tradition and throw them onto patients. Also, they often commit the fallacy of appeal to tradition.
As for your last point, people want to start with the least invasive treatment possible. In diseases necessitating invasive treatments, starting with the least invasive treatment often is a severe mistake. In most cases it makes matters worse. “Try one not so effective treatment, see if it works and change the regime if it does not” is commonly found amongst naturopaths, but this is treating by trial and error. Medicine aims at providing the best treatment and treating by trial and error is usually a no-go.
Finally, before you waste money on a graduate degree in naturopathy, take a look at the publication list of Bastyr university (the Harvard of Naturopathy). For 2016 this is 13 papers, The workgroup I cooperate with alone has published 25. My own list is 6 papers this year so far (two others are in preparation). A comparably small university (The Danube University Krems, Austria) has an almost tenfold academic output. In other words, the academic performance – which is central for a university – is abysmal. Further, take a look at the academic record of the top tier personnel. Most of the professors there have an academic record that would disqualify them for the post of assistant professor at the university I work at.
PS: Re observational bias. Do some research re use of Belladonna to treat scarlet fever, resp. read this: http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/19th-century-controlled-trials-to-test-whether-belladonna-prevents-scarlet-fever/
PPS: If you think naturopathy has only recently entered the stage of scientfic testing, you are wrong. In fact the first known randomized placebo controlled trial tested a naturopathy practice, namely homeopathy as early as 1835.
This is the party line that naturopaths like to tell you but it is false
For example i have familial hypercholesterolemia I was just sent to the lipid clinic in my city for a 2 hour appointment 45 min was spent with a nutritionist 30 min with a lifestyle counsellor. 45 min with a lipid specialist so far i have not been prescribed any medications, nor have i been sold any products. This was all free. No alternative quacks in site
Naturopaths and their ilk like to pretend such encounters do not occur in the MD world
I am tempted to pay to see a naturopath just so i can report back all the crap I’m told to buy and unproven theories expoused . Just as an experiment
citation on medical care being third leading cause of death, please. Numbers I’m finding show heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respitory disease as 1, 2 and 3. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
As far as the U.S. is concerned, Brian is correct.
Using data derived from 4 studies spanning the years 2008 to 2010, an evidence-based estimate published in 2013 determined that preventable deaths associated with adverse events in US hospitals number at least 210,000 per year. An accurate figure was precluded by limitations of the primary tool used to gather the data and the incompleteness of the available records.
Source: James JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient
harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf. 2013;9:122–8.
An ideal treatment or medicine is one that has the greatest benefit and produces the least harm. But the notion that because a substance is natural it has less toxicity and greater effectiveness than a man-made substance is a myth. With practically any medical treatment, there are risks. In the case of a treatment lacking evidence of safety and effectiveness, the risk to one’s health is unacceptable.
I too was a practicing naturopathic doctor and I too am disgusted with what’s going on in the field. I also do not support licensing naturopaths so I do all I can to stop that nonsense. I loved your article on clinical education in naturopathic medical schools. It was not a nurturing and a pleasant learning environment, but modern day slave labor and filled with bitter naturopathic supervisors, pretending like naturopathic treatments are in comparison to allopathic medicine and it wasn’t. A lot of them, did not care about patients or practiced the naturopathic principles. All hypocrisy and misery in the clinic. The COE shift with Dr. D’Adamo was a joke. As high as 99.9% of students were disenchanted with the profession and got out of naturopathic medicine completely or went back to school to study something else. Thank you for this article.
“. . . naturopathic supervisors pretending like naturopathic treatments are in comparison to allopathic medicine and it wasn’t.” As disenchanting as it was, you had entered a world of make-believe. If people can be lulled into beliefs, they can be sold virtually anything, including the bull naturopaths believe. When even the term allopathic is a contrivance of naturopaths, you and your fellow students effectively became ‘Alices in Wonderland’; not students of medicine taught to discern what constitutes evidence of effectiveness and what does not.
What? Can you read? I am defending Hermes. This has to be the most dumbest comment yet! Allopathic, osteopathic, naturopathic, etc are all terms in the dictionary that describes these fields. Not coined by naturopaths you sound foolish.
Amy, first , the terms “allopathic”, “naturopathic”, “osteopathic” in fact were coined by naturopaths in order to distinguish themselves from medicine. The term allopathic medicine was actually coined by Samuel Hahnemann in a derogatory sense. No MD would refer to himself as a practicioner of allopathic medicine. For an MD there are treatments that work and treatments that do not. The sum of treatments that do work is simply called medicine. Second, Britt did not leave the profession because the environment was not nurturing or pleasant. I work at a medical university and can assure you, the axes there fly sometimes very low too. The reason why Britt left is because of the fact that roughly 80% of naturopathy is nonsense and a large part of naturopathic philosophy is the wrong approach.
*Yawn* that is not true. Your first sentence, please give me real EVIDENCE and not from Dr. Wikipedia, lol! Also, I have worked at a Cancer University with my Master’s in Biochemistry too so I am familiar with the conventional world. So what? Go back to the basement troll monster. Who cares! I have read your post in the past. Do you have something better to do? A life? A job? I have those things and I don’t have time to go back and forth to entertain your boring and miserable life. See ya!
As far as your evidence:
AT Hill, The Philosophy and Mechanical Principles of Ostheopathy, Kansas City 1902. Although having an MD, Hill explicitely states that he founded osteopathy as an alternative to the then common medical practice.
The terms “allopathy” and “homeopathy” were coined by Hahnemann, see Hahnemann, S, “Organon der Heilkunst”, first edition 1810. Hahnemann also was an MD and founded homeopathy as an alternative to the then common medical practice.
As for your ad hominems (e.g. “jobless scientist”). I am responsible for the computational biology of an institute with six major workgroups and a nice publication list, partly in journals listed in the Nature Index of top journals. Our partners include the ETH Zürich (world university ranking #8), the UCLA and several others. I also run a consultant company with several employees that is involved in several major (7 digit) projects. Where are your credentials ?
*Slap, slap!* nice useless information hahaha. You can go back to your mom’s basement now. 🙂
I.o.W. no real credentials. Dismissed !
As for osteopathy is not part of naturopathy, in Europe it widely is, see for instance the position of the British College of Osteopathc Medicine which clearly states tat an osteopathic degree confers the right to register as naturopath. Naturopathy in the stricter sense, homeopathy and osteopathy share the same philosophy, that is stimulating some self healing force of the body. Therefore naturopathy in the wider sense can and is indeed be seen as the umbrella term for both osteopathy and homeopathy, see for instance European legistlation regulating the practice of osteopathy.
As usual, no sources. No wonder no one takes you seriously.
The BCOM is no source ? Yeah. Dream on you snotty little technician.
I don’t know much about the subject but I’ve gathered that osteopaths in Europe are quite different from osteopaths in the United States. My impression of osteopathy in the states is that it’s basically been absorbed into conventional scientific medicine and that DOs practice pretty much like MDs (which leaves the question of why they’re even necessary at all, I suppose.)
Osteopathy in Europe may be practiced by socalled “Heilpraktiker” which are poeple who learned naturopathy in trade school. DOs somehow managed to get a recognition by the government which is in my eyes completely superfluous. In medicine one normally studies general medicine and specializes to a field after graduation. Ostheopaths should be MDs with osteopathic specialization. Therefore I think you are correct with your assumption the degree is superfluous.
I’ve only seen one Troll resorting to name calling without any actual information or content or even point to be made. You came here angry about something, but you haven’t told us, so I don’t know what it is. Take a homeopathic chill pill and try to explain your point without all the drama.
Thanks for all the attention sucker! 😉
You can go back to the basement too troll. 🙂
Maybe you need some glasses or new eyeballs because my first post was giving probs to Hermes, not dissing her. Not my fault a lot of you are ignored, uneducated, jobless loons, who can’t read/comprehend, with nothing to look forward to in life but to live a fantasy life online because you can’t handle the real world.
Let me explain something to you, Amy. You gave up Naturopathy because it was an unpleasant learning environment. Frankly, in my group you would have a very unpleasant learning environment too, given your snottyness. Britt gave up naturopathy because she thought it was bonkers. That is a HUGE difference.
I’m really sorry that you lead such a sad miserable life that you get joy out of being angry and nasty to people. Go back to your cartoons they are more willing to entertain your nonsense.
Yep, no job, no life, and still responding. Getting bored! Later.
Buh-BYYYYYEEEEE!
Seriously Amy, what is wrong with you ? Marcel made a remark on naturopathy in general and you went off like an exploding grenade. I pointed out to you the correct origins of homeopathy, allopathy and osteopathy – the response was an ad hominem. As for your allusion of being uneducated. I can and have read Hahnemann in the original, I speak three languages (German, English and Spanish) – I doubt you speak even one foreign language fluently. I understand rudimentarily two further (French and Italian), I have founded a company in a highly innovative field and publish in peer reviewed scientific top journals. Your credentials so far is a master in biochemistry and work at a “Cancer University” – Which I really would like to know what that is. I think you need professional help.
I need help? Marcel and you attacked me for no reason! You two, do nothing but find something in someone’s post to argue about, even if the post is positive towards the author. Are you that senile? Also, are you done in general? I don’t care what you have to say. Go back to the basement dude or get a job, get laid, find some friends or something. Get a life already! All your post in Disqus have been nothing but negative. Please go seek professional help because you are obviously angry, miserable, and bitter. Or are you those weird creepy old-guys that have a digital wife and lives a fantasy life online?? LOL! Your opinions don’t matter to me or anyone for that matter. Here you are, wasting your life away along with Marcel and Barion, arguing with total strangers and arguing about naturopathic doctors, who don’t give a fling about you guys. Heck, they are off living their lives and making a living while you sit your old and sad behinds arguing online without a job. Not contributing to the world or nothing but leeching off of it. Heck, the homeless man is richer at this point because at least he is doing something, like begging for money. You guys are first-class fools going back and forth with someone you will never meet or convince other wise. You are all CRAZY and wasting your time and I am not going to keep going back and forth because it is boring. My first post was giving props to Hermes, but the no life having and miserable people you three guys are, found whatever reason to pick a fight. I don’t even know what we are arguing about. One word? Because I said allopathic? CRAZY! You can’t say NOTHING positive about the author without being attack with grown adults who have a high school mentality. Go seek counseling.
So you are pissed because of the lack of applause ? Let me put something straight:
Marcel did not attack you, he merely mentioned that with begining to study naturopathy you entered LaLa world and suffered the consequences.
I noted that the terms you mentioned were indeed coined by people who can be seen as naturopaths in the wider sense since the philosophy behind their treatments is largely congruent with naturopathic philosophy. I also questioned your motives b/c the first you said was the unpleasant environment (Which I think was a personal issue, concluded from your behaviour here) whereas Britt clearly says her motives where the bogus sold by naturopaths
The correct approach for you would have been to
(a) restate your motives precisely.
(b) defend your claims with rational arguments.
This, Amy, is how a scientific discussion works. Had you used this approach nothing would have happened. Instead you almost immediately flew into an fit throwing around ad hominems like a 5 year old. Marcel and I have good careers in science. You on the other hand seem to watch way too many cartoons.
Frankly, I understand why your working environment was unpleasant. Somebody who can not stand criticism and longs for applause is not a teamplayer which results in an unpleasant environment in *any* workgroup.
As Marcel said, you are likely a pompous lab worker. At least I have a real scientific career.
I’m really confused as to what your position is. You seem to be supporting Britt here but you also seem to be defending naturopathy. Am I mistaken? Because I don’t get how those two things are compatible.
What’s a “Cancer University”?
Cancer Center I mean. You have the internet, look it up since you have nothing else better to do with your life but fool around in internet land. Oh wait, you are incompetent.
Yep, no job, no life, and still responding. Getting bored! Later.
Ohhh. So, you’re a pompous biochemist who has a job as lab wonk at a cancer center. How nice. It so happens that I began my career in science from a personal interest in the field of cancer and the development of anticancer drugs during the 1980s.
The man who coined the word “Osteopathic” was AT Still, an MD because he started that field so get your facts straight. NOT a naturopath! Also, before you judge (and you don’t even know me) I have MD and DO physicians in my family and my sister is one so I know the deal. Just because you worked in a medical university, still does not make you a doctor but a jobless scientist.
BTW Amy. I said I *work* and not I *worked*. Do you comprehend the difference between past and present tense ?
Aside that do you know who is called if doctors are at the end of interpreting e.g. mass throughput data and putting their research into biologic context ? The computational biologist. Sometimes it is like an authopsy, determine how a thousands of dollars experiment died because the doctors did not have a clue how to properly design and conduct it. In your place I would be very careful with derogatory remarks on scientists.
Still, it is kind of interesting to me to hear that the environment wasn’t nurturing because naturopaths are always trying to claim superior nurturance as an advantage of naturopathy over real medicine. And my general impression of naturopaths is that, for all the crazy, dangerous crap they believe and impose on vulnerable, misinformed patients, they do seem to mostly be genuinely earnest, caring people who actually believe that they are challenging some kind of evil system for the greater good. They don’t seem to be in the shameless-scumbags-exploiting-the-sick-for-profit category. They are deceived themselves. I would expect them, at the very least, to be able to create a touchy-feely, “pleasant” learning environment since pleasantness is all they’ve really got.
Frankly I do not believe the claim that the environment was not nurturing. If you look at the extreme reaction when facing the slightest criticism (i.e. ad hominems instead of clarification of the standpoint, quote of sources to underpin the own point of view) I think she would be kicked out of for instance my workgroup within 6 months. I think the environment in my workgroups *is* nurturing, sometimes my students whatsapp me on Sundays 8PM if they have a problem with their work – and they get a reply, if I have time even a call back.
Nothing in my reply and comments suggested you were not defending Britt. As for who coined what, naturopathic school failed to teach you the true origins. Thomas Mohr’s comments are enlightening.
*Yawn*. I am ending this, you are boring me. Bye!
“There is no cure for autism. Still, naturopaths recommend probiotics,
herbal products, vitamins, homeopathy and special diets to treat this
complicated neurodevelopmental disorder.” In the absence of well controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and effectiveness of any of these substances in patients accurately diagnosed with autism, these treatments are unethical. Anyone prescribing ineffective treatments should have their license to practice pulled. Why is this being allowed in of all places, the United States? Since States allowing these practices are effectively culpable, legal actions to protect the public may be the best way to go.
Maybe because there are just enough quacks with real MDs out there that naturopaths can point to for proof that their treatments are effective? Google Natasha Campbell-McBride–I seriously don’t know understand how anybody can have had a real medical education and still believe the wackadoo things she does (unless she’s just trying sell books and supplements, which she seems to do quite successfully.)
MDs giving naturopaths a ‘good name’. I must assume that there’s more than a few promoting wackadoo who are not into it for profit, as suggested by the widespread acceptance of so-called “integrative medicine”. I see that she operates out of England, has a medical degree from Russia, and promotes a dietary regimen based on suppositions. Apparently, she also has some sort of certificate that allows her to hang out a shingle as a sort of nutritionist. For me, the term nutritionist always sets off alarm bells.
You would be astonished about how crazy scientists can get. In Vienna we have a university professor (MD, PhD) who recently published about guardian angels and relates them to photons. The newest research results on kharma and astrology. My brother had a professor of chemistry who used to take baths with a golden ball.