Britt’s note: There are many of us out there. We are former naturopathic doctors who left our practices, livelihoods, relationships, and maybe even some of our aspirations behind to create a new, reality-based life for ourselves. This change is hard. Once accomplished, very few choose to look back to write about what attracted them to naturopathy, or more importantly, what compelled them to leave.
When we think about the harm caused by naturopathy, we rightfully tend to think about patients. But as today’s post poignantly demonstrates, naturopathy also harms society and its own practitioners.
I, too, am a former naturopath. Britt invited me to write a guest column, and I want more than anything to support her mission. I am not going to deconstruct specific beliefs and practices here; Britt has done that more than capably in her writing. Instead I am going to share a story that is simply personal–a short account of the toll of my career in naturopathy.
I am a private person. I do not want to reveal much about the details of my life because I do not want to be identified, so I fear that my essay will be too steeped in generalities, but I am not sure that the specifics are necessary to convey my message. I, too, left the profession recently. However, I am not as courageous as Britt. I commend her for being a whistle-blower and exposing this charade for what it is. I, on the other hand, have moved on to a totally unrelated field in a new city. In many ways, I feel like I am in the Witness Protection Program, waking up every day with the relief that I have a new identity.
The other day I was at a mixer, and I managed not to talk about my past in naturopathy. It felt like a personal victory, like I had finally transitioned into my new identity. Since I have left naturopathy, I have been nervous about how to talk about myself and my past. I would find myself unwittingly telling strangers about my dalliance with alternative medicine, and then arguing with these new acquaintances about its worthlessness. I realize how emotionally charged medicine is for people, something to which I never could relate. This is one of the reasons I never could connect to the entire purpose of naturopathy.
Here’s the truth about me. I was never a true believer. So why did I choose naturopathy, a field utterly lacking in prestige, glamour, or money? For absolutely the wrong reasons. Not because I had a priest-like calling to be a physician or a burning desire to help my fellow man. Rather, I desperately wanted a professional identity, but I didn’t believe I had what it takes to make it in conventional medical school. Despite the fact that the “professors” and “physicians” at the naturopathic schools had less impressive academic credentials than I did, in my youthful anti-authoritarian way, I believed naturopathy would be a good fit for me.
Yet, at the same time, I resisted most tenets of the naturopathic faith. Homeopathy seemed absurd, IVs dangerous and “unnatural,” environmental medicine paranoid, nutrition both self-evident and a slippery slope to orthorexia, etc. Unlike Britt, I did not see myself as a dupe. I saw myself as a hypocrite and a coward. So how did I exist then for ten years in this profession?
This is something I have struggled with and talked about in therapy. Without launching into too much psychobabble, I have identified at least one reason: I did not believe in myself, some of it from childhood programming, but much of it from the weakest part of myself, the part of me that truly makes me feel ashamed. The weak self who chose to join and then decided to stay for all those years. You know this weak, pathetic self–the part of you that lets you live a false life for years.
In America people seem allergic to negativity, so when I tell them my story, they always try to spin it into a positive. “But look,” they say, “you would not have found your current profession if you had not taken this detour–look how much you gained!” Or the hideous bromide, the one bandied around so often in the magical-thinking new age community: “Everything happens for a reason.” My parents, especially, had the hardest time accepting that this was a shameful mistake. Sure, I didn’t do drugs or commit a crime, but I failed myself; self-flagellation feels better than putting a Panglossian spin on this episode. The proudest thing I have done in my life is leaving this cult–and it is a cult–and getting out, but my shame in getting involved with it in the first place is crushing.
I always thought naturopathy was a crock, but I didn’t realize the extreme cognitive dissonance until I escaped. I am still assessing the damage to my life from the other side. There’s the financial damage, the damage of lost time, the damage of opportunities missed. But the worst damage is coming to terms with the lies I told myself for ten years.
It’s interesting to me how the rhetoric of alternative medicine has been absorbed by our culture, whereas not so long ago it was only a niche vocabulary. I can hardly get through the day without someone mentioning gluten or “hormones” or organic or toxins or kombucha. I can’t even talk about this stuff in a normal way, it’s so anathema to me. But I look forward to the day when it will all seem amusing, or quaint, or neutral.
But unfortunately, alternative medicine rhetoric is not innocent. “Nature” has emerged as a nostrum, a savior, to the anxiety of living in an increasingly technological, alienating, and complicated world. “Nature” has been used to promote a dangerous anti-science agenda, one that privileges personal neuroses over public health and the common good. Contemporary philosopher Slavoj Žižek calls ecology, this Romantic notion of getting back to nature, the new “opium of the masses.” The analogy to narcotic addiction could not be more apt. But I am now in recovery, facing the unpleasant truth of my past with the integrity of my present-day existence.
Thank you for you story. I appreciate you sharing your path and why you left. Despite staying anonymous, your ability to voice your story is brave and more people like you need to “come out” and tell their stories of naturopathy. Good wishes in your new life and “identity”.
Great post.
I too un-naturopathied myself, before completing the ND at UB but four years into it.
Britt, you, and I [and disgusted others] may face an interesting issue, maybe, in terms of long-term UNAVOIDABLE association with what I term “licensed falsehood” aka naturopathy, and I know of no fix:
academic programs and even jobs REQUIRE that you list all college / university programs you’ve attended, the years, and the program / subject you studied.
Besides omission, which I think in the context of “list all” is itself a deception, I know of no way to expunge the association.
I know of no way to get this academically fraudulent CRAP off my transcript without a ‘lie of omission’ regarding ‘licensed falsehood.’
-r.c.
Hey Rob, I write it down, and then use it as an example of how change is possible with education. I have not (yet) had an experience where admitting I was wrong and changing course reflected poorly on me or worked against me. Sometimes, people feel badly for me. I brush this off. People make mistakes. I am no exception. I understand why people are drawn to naturopathy. And I understand why this belief system is dangerous and definitely not a health solution. One day, all of these experiences will blend into one awesome story. And in the meantime, if I can help students avoid attending naturopathic school and repeating my mistake, that makes this blog totally worth it.
Hey Rob, I write it down, and then use it as an example of how change is
possible with education. I have not (yet) had an experience where
admitting I was wrong and changing course reflected poorly on me or
worked against me. Sometimes, people feel badly for me. I brush this
off. People make mistakes. I am no exception. I understand why people
are drawn to naturopathy. And I understand why this belief system is
dangerous and definitely not a health solution. One day, all of these
experiences will blend into one awesome story. And in the meantime, if I
can help students avoid attending naturopathic school and repeating my
mistake, that makes this blog totally worth it.
Agreed. I’ve been reading the CT statute on naturopathy and how it permits ND “counseling.” And I’m thinking of all the counseling courses on my CT ND-school transcript. Easier to manipulate people, then!
As I say in my 1000th blog post [and he never will stop right justifying!]:
“It’s the 1000th post.
It’s
about science, reason, critical thinking, ethical behavior in terms of
the professions, and consumer rights in terms of commerce.
Still.
It’s about laying bare nonsense disguised as reason- and science-backed, and unfair trade.
Still.
It’s
about the public’s right not be be used as cannon-fodder by educational
institutions which sell pseudoscience as science and fill their coffers
with students’ Federal loan money based on those false labels.
It’s about recording it all for future engagements, providing an arsenal for whomever ends up needing such.
Still.”-r.c.
Could you please give just one example of what you are referring to as no actual founded means for any of the accusations you or the author have made are evident. All that has been said is “this or that is bad…” and nothing to back it up. As I’m sure you are aware of the academic world we live in so some form of references would be good to back up your claims other wise its nothing but hear say, propaganda and subjective “quackery”.
One example is homeopathy, which is regarded by the scientific community to be an unethical deception without any efficacy beyond placebo: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/5/12 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/cam02a_information_paper.pdf
Homeopathy is not naturopathy… its homeopathy. Answering that not only invalidates your point as they are completely different and unrelated it just shows you have no idea what a naturopath actually is or does and further invalidates this whole debarkle of a post. I also completely agree, it has a ‘nice’ sounding philosophy yet lacks any evidence to support it.
So again I’ll ask, please give one example of what your referring to?
Homeopathy is a KEY topic taught to Naturopaths and many of them use it for this reason (despite homeopathy being mutually exclusive to other systems like acupuncture and chiropractic, which naturopaths are also huge fans of).
Another example is IV therapy, like high dose vitamin C or other vitamin or antioxidant infusions, which are dangerous and not supported by evidence: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006295208006680 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894814/
I disagree that my previous point about homeopathy is invalid. Naturopaths commonly use homeopathy in their practice. They learn homeopathy in school and they are examined on homeopathy on their licensing exams. Even the AANP states that homeopathy is a core aspect of naturopathic medicine:
You could for arguments sake say the link between homeopathy and naturopathy is the same as blood letting and allopathy in the sence that historically both education pools did at some point in time use these modalities but since we have moved forward into a scientific based world we have moved on from these pseudosciences. so sorry you are indeed incorrect in your statement and anyone advercating its use and success is wrong until proven otherwise.
As a current student of naturopathy, no where in our curriculum is homeopathy or IV therapy taught as modalities and for good reason, there is no scientific evidence to verify their efficacy. Anyone advercating the use of either of these treatments should have what ever licencing they have revoked, academic or practicing. that does not however mean research should be halted, it should point out the fact for a need to focus on these things so we can see if they are safe or not, not just making assumptions because of what side of the fence we come from…
So with those 2 out of the way and minor surgery and prescription medicine reserved for ND’s and MD’s what else ya got? I’d be very interested to hear it.
Heres a hint… a proper naturopath, not some psudoscience quack with taro cards and good vibes, has 3 core modalities Herbal medicine, nutrition and lifestyle advice. anything else is an addition and not considered naturopathy so are exempt and cannot be put under the name of naturopath
Are you at one of the CNME-accredited schools in North America? Those schools all teach homeopathy and IV therapy. I’ve noticed it is very rare to find a naturopathic website, whether from a professional organization or from a private practice, that does not include homeopathy or IV therapies.
Homeopathy is one of the most common modalities used by NDs in North America. So, you support those NDs being sanctioned by licensing boards?
No I am in a different country. To answer your question, I support no one using unsafe modalities, end of story.
Now back to the point, as i believe i have already stated, a naturopath has 3 core modalities: herbal medicine, nutrition and lifestyle advice. Not homeopathy, not IV treatment, not massage or acupuncture… those 3 things are what is a naturopath everything else is an addition and does not come under the name “naturopath”. Now, what of those 3 modalities can you please enlighten me to is so bad?
This site is mostly aimed at raising awareness at the way naturopathy is practiced in Canada and the US.
Herbal medicine is tricky because there are not standard doses and a limited number of therapeutic options for which there is compelling evidence. I recommend you read Trick or Treatment by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh, who dedicate a whole chapter to analyze the evidence for herbalism. I understand there is a severe problem with expensive drugs and herbs are used by a vast majority of people. Medicines should be more affordable.
Admittedly, western herbal medicine, much the same as pharmacology, are both still in their infancy and much work needs to be done to get them both in up to scratch.
Although, we, my academic institute, are only taught and use standardized dosage of certified herbs from verified manufacturers.
Since that book was published 2008 lots of research and articles have arisen about lots of herbs and slowly but surely all the “weeds” lol are being taken out.
Here are a couple for chamomile, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19593179?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22894890?dopt=Abstract
To compare herbal medicine with pharmacology as you like to call it is preposterous. It seems like the alternative med believers like to close their eyes to the phenomenal strides that have been made with biologicals etc. Your vernacular is off as I have never heard gold standard medicine as being called bio-med —-and you get upset that we do not know the differnce between naturopathy an whatever you purport to study?
I read your first citation above–did you? If so, how did you fail to notice that the chamomile extract wasn’t compared to valid placebo but instead to something that contained citric acid, when acidic foods are known to exacerbate colic? We would predict that even if completely inactive the chamomile extract swould performed better than something which is expected to make the colic worse. No surprises here.
re: the second paper, did you note the authors caution that their study was statistically powered to detect statistically significant differences between treatment conditions for HAM-D outcome measures or between subject subgroups? At best it’s suggestive–and what it doesn’t suggest is that herbal extracts from chamomile are clinically effective at treating depression but instead that chamomile extracts may contain active ingredients (the authors suggests flavonoid molecules) which are anti-depressant.
There’s nothing uniquely naturopathic or alt-med about this finding—it’s classic pharmacognosy.
I’m curious what country you are in. It might not be painfully obvious but this blog mostly covers the NDs in the USA (and Canada is similar) and so if your argument is “NDs don’t do this” while ignoring the context of it being the USA, your argument isn’t valid
Thats another good point actually, there is also a big difference between a naturopath and a naturopathic DR or natural DR. As the saying goes apples and oranges…
The words are not interchangeable otherwise it discredits not only all the bio-medical sciences they spent 7 odd years studying for and also will give future ‘naturopaths’ like myself the ability to call myself a DR and perform higher level medical modalities, which i am not qualified to do nor do i want to associate myself with that title.
So to conclude, your point that homeopathy is an unsafe modality would appear to be correct according to the latest research and so should not be practiced along with other modalities such as IV etc with out the correct credentials and i completely agree. its just dangerous and misleading. Although, you are refering to something completely out of “context” as that is a ND not a naturopath and i find it highly offensive to have my future career criticized by someone who doesn’t even know the difference between the 2 yet is quite happy to spew out completely unfounded, misinformed and ignorant statements.
Homeopathy was shown to be worthless over a hundred years ago. In which country are you studying to be an ND?
Im not studying to be a ND…
“So to conclude, your point that homeopathy is an unsafe modality would appear to be correct according to the latest research and so should not be practiced along with other modalities such as IV etc with out the correct credentials and i completely agree.”
What IV modalities for what indications does naturopathy embrace that evidence based medicine does not, and what evidence demonstrates these IV treatments are safe and effective?
What country are you in? Who or what is your “governing body”? Do they have a website? Do they have any other formal presence?
One guess is India. I found this curriculum from an ND school in Bhopal that does not explicitly list homeopathy; yet, the school does teach acupuncture and hydrotherapy: http://www.shmcnys.in/AcademicProgramme.htm
So are you in Australia where naturopaths are mostly about unproven herbal drugs as opposed to other unproven treatments?
No Im not in Australia. could you please give an example of the ‘unproven herbal drugs or unproven treatments” your are referring to?
Sure- Apologies for guessing wrong- I was having a good discussion with some Australian naturopaths who were very focused on their beliefs in herbalism. We were discussing gingko biloba, in particular about whether it could be useful for treatment of dementia. I found a meta-analysis which concluded (based on the results of 36 studies) “There is no convincing evidence that Ginkgo biloba is efficacious for dementia and cognitive impairment” And yet it is still commonly prescribed by naturopaths. What I have seen over and over is that naturopaths care about what is considered natural as opposed to caring more about safety and efficacy.
http://www.bibliotecacochrane.com/PDF/CD003120.pdf
Yay some actual constructive criticism, good work, the rest of you could probably learn something.
That study looks pretty convincing lol. We were never taught to use it for that and to date hadn’t come across anything that suggested otherwise.
We did it at the beginning of the year so cant be sure off the top of my head, but I believe ginko increases the availability of nitric oxide in the penis, so increases blood flow to the area, so could help with ED.
Heres a random paper from a quick search as all my stuff is at home which i am not but happy put it up when i get there http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ginkgo+biloba+for+erectial+disfunction
Yer i know what you mean about the safety thing but i guess even some practitioners don’t see that just because its natural doesn’t mean its safe or not dangerous. That’s a large part of why I started studying, to help change things from the inside out as i think you’ll agree that most people don’t listen to those on the other side of the fence lol.
Ok guys here’s an idea,
Instead of everyone saying “there is no evidence”…
Tell me what you want.
What would i need to present to you to satisfy the efficacy of any of my 3 modalities?
So to be clear, please dont ask me about anything outside of my scope of practice as I don’t use nor do i advocate the use of anything else. So just Nutrition, herbal med and lifestyle.
Evidence based medicine consists of looking at a body of literature to guide practice, not single studies. So I would like to see a body of literature that supports the use of a specific herb that you prescribe. Ie. Why don’t we look at the common problems such as diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol. Obviously diet and exercise help, which any md would suggest too. What herbs are proven to help with these conditions especially to the point that someone would not need medications.
Or the other one that makes me angry is when my patients are told they have all this inflammation in their body and are sold herbs to rid their body of this inflammation
Furthermore, do you make a profit off selling your herbs because that is also unethical because it leads to uneccessary treatments. For the record, md do not make money off prescribing or selling drugs as many people seem to believe
Well designed double-blind randomized control trials would convince me that a drug (including herbal ones) works-
Lifestyle interventions like nutrition/diet, exercise, destressing, and getting enough sleep are not alternative.
Cool now were getting somewhere. Ok I’ll start with diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol.
Please give me a few days and Ill be back, would be sooner but as I am currently only a few weeks off from finishing the year so I’m sure you can understand that I’m a little busy with assignments at the mo.
As for inflammation, I dont know what you mean by ‘all this inflammation’ as it is usually centralised around a particular site unless you mean markers like prostaglandins, IgE etc are high leading to some kind of autoimmune situation?
Either way, we are taught that inflammation is a symptom and is a actually a good thing (within obvious logical reason of course) as it starts the healing process through the activation of the immune system. So while helping to alleviate the symptom by use of something like cox inhibitors for instance we would also try to enhance the immune system and figure out what caused it in the first place and address and focus on that rather than just suppressing the presenting symptom.
Yes I understand that MDs dont make a cent off prescriptions as they are sold by the pharmasist. Although some of the perks you guys get from using a particular drug instead of others could be considered questionable lol.
As we dont as yet have a separate body to dispense drugs we have to do it ourselves. once im finshed study this is one of the things Im going to change first as yes you are correct it is unethical and I am quite aware of that.
“So while helping to alleviate the symptom by use of something like cox inhibitors for instance we would also try to enhance the immune system and figure out what caused it in the first place and address and focus on that rather than just suppressing the presenting symptom.”
What does ‘enhance the immune system” mean, in plain language? How can the degree of enhancement be measured and quantified? Are there standard tests which can reliably distinguish distinguish between an immune system that has been enhanced and one in need of enhancement?
Not sure what it’s like in your country, but in the US, it’s illegal for physicians to receive any “perks” of significant value from drug companies. Every penny spent on marketing pharmaceuticals has to be carefully accounted for and disclosed.
“What would i need to present to you to satisfy the efficacy of any of my 3 modalities?”
I’m not looking for evidence of the efficacy of these three modalities—as I noted above, they’re integral components of evidence based medicine. What I’d be interested in is evidence, in the form of properly designed, blinded and controlled studies or clinical trials, demonstrating that specific interventions offered by naturopaths but which are not also embraced by standard of care evidence based medicine are safe and effective treatments for non-self limiting illnesses or injuries.
“Now back to the point, as i believe i have already stated, a naturopath has 3 core modalities: herbal medicine, nutrition and lifestyle advice.”
None of these are unique to naturopathy, can. Nutrition and lifestyle advice are integral parts of evidence based medicine, while herbal medicine has been replaced by the use of purified active ingredients from natural sources (there’s a whole field of sicence, pharmacognosy, dedicated to identifying
new drug molecules from natural sources) resulting in better outcomes (there’s a reason why we treat pain adn inflammation with aspirin tablets rather than willowbark tea–knwonw dosage of active ingredients, elimination of inactiave ingredients and contaminants, etc.)
Except that real universities that teach real medicine no longer teach bloodletting.
Besides, if you’re learning all the same thing that real doctors do, as you seem to imply, why not just become a real doctor (who do in fact counsel on nutrition and lifestyle.)
Finally, who are you that you are the authority on what is or is not naturopathy? You’re argument is no different than the “no true christian/Scotsman” logical fallacy.
I find the your use of the word “real” amusing so ill do it to. Real universities also no longer teach homeopathy.
I want to help people and i see obtaining good health in both body and mind as a much more effective method to achieve that than anything offered by the bio-medical community.
Both systems have there place and make up the short falls of the other. Bio-med excels at acute and emergency medicine and naturopathy with chronic illness and preventable diseases.
who am I? im just another guy although, I am and always will state nothing but facts unlike most of the trolls on here like you who is obviously just another misinformed fool. I take my authority from the one who coined the term and first defined what a naturopath is. so… yeah…
“I want to help people and i see obtaining good health in both body and mind as a much more effective method to achieve that than anything offered by the bio-medical community.”
From what evidence have you arrived at this conclusion, cam? I’m aware of none demonstrating naturopathy routinely achieves better health outcomes than does standard of care evidence based medicine.
“Bio-med excels at acute and emergency medicine and naturopathy with chronic illness and preventable diseases.”
What biomed interventions, for what acute or emergent indications, are you referring to here and what evidence demonstrates that theses interventions are as or more effective than standard of care evidence based interventions for those same indications?
I think by bio med he is referring to the type of medicine you practice. And he gets upset that we do not know what the term naturopathy means
Peerhaps–my confusion is because I’ve only seenthe term bio-med used to refer to unproven (or demonstrably ineffective and/or unsafe) alternative medical interventions, such as chelation, hyperbaric oxygen, MMS, etc.,treatments for autism spectrum disorders.
Oh, I should clarify that I don’t practice medicine (I’m not a physician or other health care provider).
Why don’t you enlighten us and tell us the name of this school that only practices evidence based therapies. It is a cop out to pretend we are not worthy of the information. I would happily tell you all the universities I have attended.
Wellpark
College of Natural Therapies in New Zealand
From this school’s website:
Naturopaths aid and support that healing process by incorporating a variety of alternative health methods based solely on the needs of the individual. These methods and treatments rely exclusively on natural remedies, such as sunlight, fresh air, water, a healthy diet, herbs and nutritional supplementation.
Moreover, most Naturopaths have extensive training and schooling in natural therapies, like nutrition, hydrotherapy, herbs, plants/flowers and massage, just to name a few.
becoming a naturopath requires a serious commitment of time and money
Analogy: it takes serious time and commitment to learn Klingon, but Klingon is not Latin and you will not be able to become a classics scholar. You will be able to talk to others who learned Klingon, which was born out of a fiction. Main difference here: Star Trek is sweet, and naturopathy isn’t.
Yeah, Star Trek has done much more good for society than has naturopathy. 😛
If homeopathy and naturopathy are “completely unrelated” then why are naturopathic “universities” teaching homeopathy?
https://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BU-Transcript-private-with-CC-license.compressed.pdf
See semesters FA-08, WI-07 and SP-09.
From the web page of the “New Zealand Society of Naturopaths” at http://www.naturopath.org.nz/naturopathy.html :
“Registered Qualified Naturopaths in New Zealand are the Natural Healing equivalent of General Practitioners, with four to five years training.They deal with a wide variety of complaints, and are qualified to prescribe Herbal Medicines, Homoeopathics, Vitamins and Minerals, Flower Essences, Nutritional advice, perform Massages and other Remedial Body Therapies.”
and
“Some naturopaths specialise in fertility, allergies, pregnancy, iridology, reflexology, childbirth, baby massage, aromatherapy, nutrition and much much more. The list is endless.”
The list is “endless” indeed.
Thats nice but what does that have to do with me?
And then there’s the Naturopath’s “Modalities” page ( http://www.naturopath.org.nz/modalities.html ) that includes:
– Homeopathy
– Iridology
– Facial Kinetics
– Relfexology
– Bowen Technique (which I’ve never heard of but fixes damn near everything, like pretty much every other quack “medicine”
– Holistic Pulsing (huh?)
– Urine Analysis
– Haemaview
and others.
Like quacks the world over, NZ naturopaths will glom on to any crazy idea that comes along.
The subject of this post is the emotional impact of joining and leaving the naturopathic profession. The author makes an explicit caveat (in the second sentence!) that this post will not assess the validity of naturopathic beliefs or practices.
So, “backing it up” would be outside the scope of this article. If you want to see the analysis, check out, for instance, https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/naturopathy-vs-science/
my good sir, i suggest you go further down as we are long past this and another blog is not exactly usually seen as a source of evidence. I suggest you use something along the lines of the graph or the meta analysis it comes from like i have, that shows the complete failure of the ‘scientific community’, to address your point. cheers
My point was that this post is about emotions, not assessing the evidence for/against naturopathic practices, so criticizing it for failing to address the latter issue is inappropriate.
lol ok mr troll. Thank you for your input. If you actually read what i wrote you will see i am addressing a comment and then i include the author in my questioning so your point is umm well off point at best. Also If you actually have something constructive to add please do otherwise troll somewhere else bro. cheers
Well, I understood your comment to be directed at both the OP and Naturocrit, but whatever. If that wasn’t your intent, then I withdraw the objection.
However, criticizing Naturocrit for failing to provide the evidence for his bad opinion of naturopathy is equally inappropriate for all the same reasons. The OP discusses the emotional impact of his career choices. Naturocrit’s comment is very much on topic with that, as he’s discussing the impact of his past involvement with naturopathy on his future career. So my opinion is the opposite of yours: it would’ve been strange if he’d provided citations to the medical literature in a post like that.
On the one hand, you and I agree that one shouldn’t judge naturopathy without considering the evidence, but when the focus of the conversation isn’t that judgment itself but something quite distinct, it’s silly of you to criticize those involved for failing to cite their sources.
I mean, it’s not entirely inappropriate to ask (politely) how Naturocrit came to his opinion, but given the context, condemning him (or the OP) for not citing medical literature is just bizarre.
* * *
So long as you’re soliciting constructive feedback, I’ll recommend that you proofread for grammar/punctuation; phrases like, “one example of what you are referring to as no actual founded means,” can be hard to parse. If you’re not a native English speaker then please ignore this remark.
(Apologies of I got the pronouns wrong, Naturocrit.)
lol shot bro “Apologies of I got” your winning by miles at this point. Please keep up the good work.
Again, if you read what I wrote you would have also come across the latter part containing the use of the word “propaganda”.
Propaganda, prɒpəˈɡandə/ noun. Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
As this was the conclusion of my writing episode, it consolidates all above sentences and phrases into the amalgamated point of what is being portrayed. That being, any work, be it opinion or fact, must be founded on means that can be contrasted in the light of anyone who surveys such work, at which point the same conclusion can be ascertained by said individual. As that was not present in the babel of said post, I was well within the realm of righteous inquisitiveness to put forward my question in order to unveil the yet to be ascertained basis for that which is being prescribed by said persons.
“any work, be it opinion or fact, must be founded on means that can be contrasted in the light of anyone who surveys such work”
This is an absurd position. If I opine that I hate the lack of daylight in winter, am I obliged to provide citations to the scientific literature regarding the axial tilt of the earth?
My obligation to provide evidentiary support for the positions I stake in a written work obviously depends on context.
What part of what i said stated needing the use of citations from scientific literature?
I used he word ‘means’ implying that you could use what ever you want as long as you can justify your position. I’ll make it incredibly simple for you so you don’t get further confused.
It is the ‘who, what, when, where, why and how’ that we all get taught as young children when we first start school or maybe you missed that in your upbringing, what a shame. So it can be of academic, scientific, opinion or other sources. Seeing as that was completely absent, which when making any kind of statement is just irrational at best, kind of makes it a little difficult to see the other persons point of view.
Cam, I have read a few of your posts. One of the first post was about diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol being caused to 100% by nutrition. This is complete bullshit. All three conditions have a genetic component, vz. mendelian forms of hypertension, destruction of Langehanscells by autoimmune processes, genetically caused insuline resistance, etc., etc. With your post you have proven that naturopaths are even worse than NDs, b/c NDs have at least a rudimentary medical knowledge whereas naturopaths have almost none.
What your referring to is not in context to the types of conditions I’m so obviously referring to. Why on earth would anyone try and say that genetic predisposition or autoimmune conditions are categorized amongst the preventable ones that is so blatantly obvious to the point of my above posts that your pointing out?
So yes you couldn’t be more correct when you say “this is complete bullshit”.
In fact I would go as far as saying you are full of shit for trying to even go down that tract.
Cam, again I’ll remind you that we’re still waiting for you to provide evidence demonstrating health care interventions embraced by naturopathy which are not also integral components of standard of care evidence based medicine (e.g., lifestyle changes, nutrition, exercise) are safe and effective treatments for diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol.
No I expect you to apply the appropriate amount
of logic and reason as ‘non-modifiable’ risk factors are not part of the
preventable paradigm as they cannot be prevented, only known of and implemented
in the treatment strategy. Furthermore, I’m afraid I am yet to come across you
guys being able to change or treat these also, so why you choose to make a
point of this and even try go down this track is again, beyond me.
Although due to your complete lack of
understanding and education between the relation of nutrition to the human
diet, the assimilatory pathways and involved enzymatic mechanisms and their relation
to the health of singular and whole systems, and their relation to the
aetiology of diseases, it does equate to enough that it blatantly demonstrates how
far you guys have strayed from the path of ‘health’ care.
All the ‘modifiable’ risk factors are just that, modifiable. The main ‘modifiable’
risk factor for all conditions is diet.
With your very limited training in this fundamental point heavily contributing
to not only being one of the leading causes of these conditions but also the
other risk factors they accumulate to and thus perpetuate, what stance can you
possibly take when because of you guys these risk factors go unchecked and then
on top of that you try and bad mouth us? Shame on you.
It can only be put down to the blinding superiority complex you guys are breed
into that explains your arrogance to overlook what I have said and am saying.
Then you try to dodge it by saying I have said something which doesn’t even come
into the context of what is being said.
As I have already stated above, we help people lose weight, sleep and take a good
shit. Anyone who thinks we do anything else is most certainly
either practicing in the wrong profession or is living in a make believe world.
Let’s look on how Benedict Lust, the father of naturopathy in the US defines the term. Lust defined naturopathy as a broad discipline rather than a particular method, and included such techniques as hydrotherapy, herbal medicine, and homeopathy, as well as eliminating overeating, tea, coffee, and alcohol. I.o.W., you do not know your own field, sir. As for lacking education re diet. You picked the wrong one. I am a food and biotechnologist working in medical sciences, closely together with our close scientific cousins, the nutritional scientists. University degree trumps naturopath courses.
If you claim that cancer is preventable by diet, I will give you an example. Colon carcinoma is the most diet driven cancer. Recent reports show that the wrong diet can enhance colon cancer risk by 20%. Huge ? No. The risk of getting colon cancer is roughly 10%. The wrong diet increases the risk by 2% (10%x20%). I.o.W. your 100% preventable shrinks to a mere 2%. Naturopaths like you are compared to nutritional scientists like NDs compared to MDs.
Cancer? Who said anything about cancer.
I am doing a double degree in health sciences, so yes that does trump naturopath courses and yes he did say those things… 100 years ago.
Stop trying to change the subject as I grow increasingly tired of the childish antics and other crap you guys try to pull its just shameful.
You asked, I have presented.
You have tried to push it off as public health, somehow?, and avoid giving feedback.
Instead you try to put words in my mouth about
genetics and now your talking about cancer and how you’re frickin amazeballs because you also study food in relation to the human condition.
Well Mr fancy pants, you better than anyone should know exactly what I’m talking about?
Let’s put things clear:
You claimed to talk about hypertension, diabetes and high cholesterol, did you not ?
You cited a “paper” about prevention of diabetes and cancer by nutrition, did you not ?
You claimed these conditions to be 100% preventable by nutrition, did you not ?
Did you or did you not ?
Alt-med people usually do not think rationally or have good reading comprehension.
shot bro.
Yes diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol are all preventable through nutrition and no i cited a paper about “potent protection of type 2 diabetes and cancer”.
If you want to assume this includes non-modifiable risk factors then by all means believe that to your hearts content but i should advise you it is only in relation to things that nutrition actually has an effect on, such as modifiable risk factors.
I am yet to receive feedback about said citations so if I introduce more you might get a little overwhelmed and do some more assuming and we’ve already seen how well that’s going for you.
No I don’t got it. If your trying to point out that your a douche, no further evidence is required.
Yes I am a student doing a double degree in health sciences and no you don’t dictate to me where either of us sits in any assembly but if you feel you must sit at the front, be my guest.
Again, stop changing the subject and answer the question.
Don’t try to obfuscate your statements. You stated that diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol are 100% preventable by nutrition, did you not ?
“No I don’t got it.” Of course not. Guess who sits in front of students doing an exam ? The professor asking the questions. If you would write in one of my exams that diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol are 100% preventable by nutrition you get a D. If you would quote the paper this would turn into an F for not being able to correctly read even a simple review.
Sigh…
I believe I have said it twice now yes, the last time was when you asked the same thing.
I don’t believe a meta-analysis over a 10 year period is a “simple review”. You know this one http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1710486 with the pretty graph
So your saying that the modifiable risk factors for these conditions, which dietary risks are the leading cause of, are not 100% preventable?
Once again:: Do you claim that diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol are 100% nutrition preventable or do you not ?
that depends
If I say yes for the 3rd time will you ask me again?
First comes a “that depends” and then “If I say yes for the 3rd time will you ask me again?”. Oh my.
The correct answer is: nutrition is one major factor for the probability to get diabetes, hypertension or high cholesterol levels. Do you hear ? *one major factor*, but NOT the only one. Got it ?
lol
OMG. On which level are you doing your double major ? Bachelor ? Master ?
Dear cam, on more conciliant tone. I just realized the college you are attending. I concede that you really want to help people. If you want to do that, get a real degree in biology, medicine, computational biology, nutritional sciences or something related. A degree from Wellpark will not get you anywhere. This advise comes from a scientist with 20+ years experience in medical research who is listed as author in the Nature Index of top journals.
An addition. I strongly recommend you to study the research records of Wellpark’s faculty. It will be a very short exercise. I also have reviewed the classes. Should you decide to enroll at the University of Life Sciences Vienna nutritional sciences program, *none* of the courses would be accepted due to lack of quality. Think about what you “study”.
Cam. You seem young and naive but your heart to help seems in the right place. However, you are going to learn the hard way that your studies are a waste of money and time. You are studying at a place with zero competition for entrance and taught my teachers with similar useless credentials. Thomas obviously hasn’t recognized where you are doing your double major and I can guarantee his reaction is to roll his eyes and throw his hands in the air when he finds out. Unfortunately that would be the same reaction as any government, funding agency or academic institution. You are “buying” a useless degree except perhaps to fleece unsuspecting patients. http://wellpark.co.nz
Indeed I didn’t notice that but somehow felt it. Facepalm
Please, go on. I want to know EVERYTHING about how you think my friend’s 3-yo developed T1, or how my sister didn’t and I did while we lived in the same house and had the same lifestyle/nutrition.
Please, please, PLEASE come and tell me in how many ways diabetes is my fault and then go research PTPN22.
Or, you know, shut up already.
So your position has somehow morphed from “Naturopathy is more effective at treating diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol” than is standard of care evidence based medicine” to “naturopathy can prevent diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol, except when it can’t”?
(And I’ll point out again that there’s nothing naturopathic about nutrition–it’s an integral part of evidence based medicine.)
Cam, you’re the one who said conditions whose etiology includes genetic predisposition and autoimmunity are preventable when you chose diabetes as one of the first conditions you would address.
Unless you expected us to read your post as “naturopathy is effective at treating X–not THOSE kinds of X, of course, but I’m sure there’s some kind of X it’s good for.”
You claimed to talk about hypertension, diabetes and high cholesterol, did you not ?
You cited a “paper” about prevention of diabetes and cancer by nutrition, did you not ?
You claimed these conditions to be 100% preventable by nutrition, did you not ?
Quote: “Why on earth would anyone try and say that genetic predisposition or autoimmune conditions are categorized amongst the preventable ones ?” That is an easy one: Because this guy has an actual knowledge about the etiology of these diseases. Cam, please do the world a favour and do not treat people.
So citations aren’t the only “means” you’d accept… okay, that’s sensible, but it doesn’t resolve the absurdity. Let me rephrase:
If I opine that I hate the lack of daylight in winter, am I obliged to explain the basis of my beliefs regarding seasonal changes in weather?
If I try to make a case for a certain position, the intellectually responsible thing to do is what you suggest: I should provide “means that can be contrasted in the light of anyone who surveys such work.” This much we agree on. What I’m saying is that neither Naturocrit’s comment nor the article is an argument against the efficacy of naturopathy, so there is no obligation to provide evidence to support that position.
And just to be crystal clear, Naturocrit and the OP should apportion their beliefs according to the evidence just like the rest of us, but they are not obliged to explain the evidence behind their beliefs every time the topic of naturopathy comes up.
Well, I understood your comment to be directed at both the OP and Naturocrit, but whatever. If that wasn’t your intent, then I withdraw the objection.
However, criticizing Naturocrit for failing to provide the evidence for his bad opinion of naturopathy is equally inappropriate for all the same reasons. The OP discusses the emotional impact of his career choices. Naturocrit’s comment is very much on topic with that, as he’s discussing the impact of his past involvement with naturopathy on his future career. So my opinion is the opposite of yours: it would’ve been strange if he’d provided citations to the medical literature in a post like that.
On the one hand, you and I agree that one shouldn’t judge naturopathy without considering the evidence, but when the focus of the conversation isn’t that judgment itself but something quite distinct, it’s silly of you to criticize those involved for failing to cite their sources.
I mean, it’s not entirely inappropriate to ask (politely) how Naturocrit came to his opinion, but given the context, condemning him (or the OP) for not citing medical literature is just bizarre.
* * *
So long as you’re soliciting constructive feedback, I’ll recommend that you proofread for grammar/punctuation; phrases like, “one example of what you are referring to as no actual founded means,” can be hard to parse. If you’re not a native English speaker then please ignore this remark.
(Apologies of I got the pronouns wrong, Naturocrit.)
Beautifully written; a pinnacle of eloquence.
The public and other future and current naturopaths owe the writer a debt of gratitude for sharing this story.
well? come on guys, im waiting for all the accusations made throughout this web page, post and thread to be explained and backed up but all that has happened so far is non of you seem to even know what the difference between a naturopath and a ND is let alone presenting anything even slightly tangable, relevent or even in context for that matter. you’re all so sure of yourselves in what you say when you are speaking to others of a same or similar ignorant and uneducated background but when someone informed who presents actual information is in the room you all seem to go quiet…
Please stop spreading your nonsense about ‘naturopths’. All your claims could indeed be correct if you contextualized them properly but seeing as that is not the case you are by default wrong.
I ask of you to at least from here on to not use naturopath and ND interchangeably as they are completely different professions and if you further wish to discuss this topic i am all ears but please refrain from more of this dribble that has been said thus far as i grow tired of hearing the same thing and repeating myself.
I don’t care what the difference is….you can call it whatever you like. You are still not working with evidence based treatments or the standard of care. You are still relying on MD trained doctors to give you the diagnosis and then you try to treat it. For example …if a patient presents with a painless darkening of their vision …what kind of history taking ability, diagnosic acumen or simple pattern recognition do you have to know what is going on?!?
If you choose not to care what the difference is then you have no grounds to stand on and are nothing but an ignorant fool.
I would firstly start with my general consultation questions such as client history then move onto specific tests such as a confrontation test and neurological exam. Depending what is found here I might refer immediately if symptoms and results require it, if that is not deemed necessary i would then continue with my consult covering every system then move onto diet, nutrition and lifestyle. depending what is found further investigations and referrals may or may not be needed to make a diagnosis.
Im not training to be a DR nor do I want to be a DR or associated myself with that title in anyway so the theme of your above statement is poor at best as you seem to be emplying that im trying to do just that.
So for the last time, Im training to be a naturopath not a ND or a DR of any kind. so no I wont have any diagnostic tools other than what im qualified to use, anything else will be from a MD and thats perfect with me as I dont want to do that line of work nor will i be qualified to do so.
[Note: this is separate from your diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol thing. Note to self: there is nothing a naturopath can do that a doctor can’t. Doctors can prescribe drugs, provide lifestyle, diet, exercise advice and refer you to their network of colleagues(may be filled with dietitians, physical therapists, nurses, occupational therapists-)- assuming they aren’t loners.]
http://patients.about.com/od/conventionaloralternative/fl/Tthe-Difference-Between-a-Naturopath-and-a-Naturopathic-Doctor.htm
http://natural-medicine.ca/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-a-naturopathic-physician-and-a-naturopath/
Since the ex-naturopath has delivered us the quality of ND education, it is fair to say that stands for ND are Not a Doctor(Naturopathic Doctor).
Yes, it is a common misconception. Because you are planning to become a naturopath, I will be focusing on naturopaths(not NDs).
Naturopaths should not be allowed to prescribe drugs as they are not doctors. Naturopaths vary on quality, some may till towards homeopathy, IVs, and black salve for cancer and some towards EBM. However these two groups are BOTH naturopaths, these practices are BOTH considered naturopathic.
http://www.australiannaturaltherapistsassociation.com.au/therapies/naturopathy.php
https://nccih.nih.gov/health/naturopathy
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Naturopathy
See how both of them include: homeopathy? See how the naturopaths recommends homeopathy for swollen lymph glands?
http://www.askanaturopath.com/faqs/swollen-lymph-glands/p/683
You are guilty of a argument from assertion(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion) as you have not provided any sources for your definition of a naturopath being true. Your definition being that “true” naturopathy is only lifestyle, diet, exercise advice and herbal medicine(no true Scotsman fallacy; http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman).
Herbal medicine contains chemically active substances aka substances that alter the body which are DRUGS.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/herbs_are_drugs/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/ocr_gateway/understanding_organisms/drugs_and_yourev1.shtml
Go ahead and look up the definition of: drug.
This is unlawful as drugs with little or sound negative evidence behind them such as eucalyptus oil(https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/700.html) for little evidence for many conditions that naturopaths prescribe them for like the swollen lymph glands above.
Do any of the methods taught to you have any evidence that they boost the immune system? The only science-proven one I can remember off the top of my head is vaccines and that’s not naturopathy.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/boosting-immune-system-sorting-science-myth/
Are there any advantages herbal meds have over conventional drugs? Other than less powerful which results in less side effects.
Example: St John’s wort and antidepressants.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/329.html
IMO, Naturopaths seems about as effective as a nutritionist.
Both have varying levels of woo advice depending on the person you go to.
BTW: when sourcing scientific studies- actually read them and use at least a RCT. (Check here: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-hierarchy-of-scientific-evidence-keys-to-skepticism/)
O please do go on…
Cam, I’ll just remind you that we’re still waiting for you to provide the promised evidence demonstrating interventions embraced by naturopathy that are not also embraced by standard of care evidence based medicine are safe and effective treatments for diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol.
O don’t worry, i’m not going any where.
As i have said i’m a little busy with uni so i haven’t had time to read everything i have found so far and there is allot to go through, believe it or not, plus I have been looking at other stuff and in the end it wont matter what i show you guys anyway so why should i bother to give you guys enough respect to dedicate more time to this than I need to, I mean hell you guys have been nothing but rude and tried to bully me since my first message.
So I will be doing that shortly once i have compiled and looked through them all properly.
So in the mean time I have somethings i was hoping you could clarify for me.
So according to what you guys have said, “Nutrition and lifestyle advice are integral parts of evidence based medicine” I find it rater interesting that you guys lay claim to such a thing when I was under the impression that you guys get the equivalent of a couple of weekend courses in nutrition totaling, generally, 25 hours. Now please tell me how exactly you’re as knowledgeable as we are in even basic nutrition let alone the complex workings of multiple systems? Furthermore, In light of even recent events, what does your food pyramid look like now that red and processed meats are known carcinogens? And let me guess fats bad for you to right?
Heres some eveidence…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3985217/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25593146
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430660/
By the way, if you guys didn’t figure it out, I have by default answered, just one of the ways, how naturopaths would treat those conditions. They are all 100% PREVENTABLE through nutrition alone. In doing so I have also given just one example of how we are a distinct system and also given evidence of things we do that DR’s obviously cant http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23842577
Who else learns the same level of patho, health assessment and pharmacology, minus the clinical application of course, as a DR while also going further into the natural functioning of singular, complex and whole systems and solely applying that to prevention and restoration through provocation of healthy normal functioning.
No we are not DRs and we’re not trying to be DRs and anyone, such as the author of this blog, who thinks that they were training to be some kind of hybrid medical specialist or something, well its your own silly fault for thinking naturopathy is something that its not.
At the end of the day we help people lose weight, sleep and take a good shit not cure aids or anything.
Here’s a pretty graph from the above study
http://origin-qps.onstreammedia.com/origin/multivu_archive/PRNA/ENR/MM88100-Manuscript-A-Deficiency-of-Nutrition-Education.pdf
” A whole foods, plant-based diet, low in refined carbohydrates and animal
products has been proven to REVERSE coronary heart disease 3
, and confer potent
protection against type 2 diabetes,4 and cancer”
“How has this knowledge affected medical education? A recent survey of medical
schools revealed an average of fewer than 20 hours over four years devoted to nutrition
education6
—most of which occurs in the early years when basic science courses are
taught, typically with little apparent connection to human diets or common diseases.”
Cam?!? You cant try to claim this as a naturopath’s domain. This is public health, and in fact I have a masters in public health. No one would argue that the world would be a healthier place if everyone ate a healthy diet and performed regular exercise (and got vaccinated!!!!). If you want to make a difference in this way then you should also do public health and make changes on a population level. In your world, you will see single motivated people who already probably have a healthy diet.
I think Johns Hopkins and Harvard school of public health are much more involved in the above research and implementing interventions policies and change, than naturopaths? As far as I have seen, naturopaths have not contributed anything to this body of research nor made any population based interventions.
Are you implying something with the “(and got vaccinated!!!!)”? no im not anti incase you were wondering.
Im not claiming anything. we study health sciences, meaning we learn about preventative, restorative and maintenance of health. The results speak for them selves with how the medical science community has handled things so far and look how thats going. Furthermore, we are not considered to be part of mainstream medicine, nor are we funded for research by them, so the results of what we do are never included in the mainstream literature so I find no suprise in your being unaware of the ‘research and implementing interventions, policies and change’ that naturopaths have done and are doing.
If your trying to say that because of the scale by which naturopathy is applied is usually focused on only one individual at a time instead of mass population or clusters then sure you would be correct… and that is the key to what we do… Individualised health care.
I dont plan on being a clinician or traditional naturopath as i find it boring, I want to be out in the public at the grass roots so maybe further study into public health would be a good idea. I plan or should i say im already planning and have already set things in motion to change or should I say fix everything (only slightly cliche right? lol) including your guys irrational fear of us and this whole superiority complex thing you have going on aswell as our hippy, psychodelic and quite often unprofessional approach to science based health care.
All thats left to do is work out funding but i cant do that until I finish school in another year so lots of time to figure it out.
A quack by any other name still sells unproven drugs- Regardless of whether you call it naturopath or ND, they are basically this guy with better bedside manner (and they often truly believe that their drugs are effective despite lacking scientific evidence for these beliefs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6MZ8nPm5s4
lol no wonder you guys are so confused
Britt spent 7 years in the cult of alternative medicine- She knows what she’s talking about
Thank you. I declined my seat at SCNM before my first semester began. Hearing Britt talk about my suspicions made the decision to walk away easier, but I still lingered not really knowing why. Now I do. I simply had not believed in myself enough to apply to real medical schools.
As I have already stated Im going to start with diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol so please dont ask for anything else until I have been allowed to to present this, but i will follow up on others when finished.
As i also stated im busy with assignments at the moment so please allow me some time as today was the first chance i have had to dive into this, with lots of results already I might add, but i still need some more time so please allow me to do this.
In the mean time i thought it would be fun to at least post something from one of the conclusions of the just one of the meta analysis i have found so far – ” Previous reports about the lack of evidence or benefit of NM are inaccurate; a compelling
body of research exists…”.
From the meta-analysis abstract:
“We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and AMED from inception to April, 2012 as well as conducted hand searches of EXISTING GREY LITERATURE.” (capitals for emphasis)
See the problem here? What did that grey literature include?
From the article:
“Additionally, conference proceedings of the American Association of
Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) and Canadian Association of
Naturopathic Doctors (CAND) were scanned for relevant abstracts.”
So, if we don’t limit orselves to examiningevidence presented in peer-reviewed articles published in first or second tier scientific journals, but instead also consider claims of efficacy offered by naturopaths at conference proceedings of naturopaths, we suddenly find “Previous reports about the lack of evidence or benefit of NM are inaccurate…”
Just like when we don’t stick to peer-reviewed articles but also include clams made by autism bio-med proponents at their conferences we find that reports addressing the ability of bleach enemas, chelation and/or GcMAF to ‘recover’ autistic children are inaccurate and a compelling body of research exists suggesting efficacy.
What a surprise.