Naturopathic “doctors” in Massachusetts

40 Replies to “Naturopathic “doctors” in Massachusetts”

1. Brit, actually ozone therapy might work in some settings, but not as advertized. Basically the UV and O3 treatment kills a lot of blood cells also thus triggering an immune response, but definitely not against UV sensitive bacteria. Bacteria are a LOT more UV resistant than blood cells. A close relative of ozone therapy (extracorporeal photoapheresis) is the standard therapy for subcutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In this therapy patients bloot is drawn, mixed with a photosensitizing agent (e.g. methotrexate), irradiated and reinfused.

   The whole thing with the alternative cancer treatments is incredible. Alternative suggests that they offer a working cancer treatment. Heck, people die !!!!

   1. might work in some settings

      That is all naturopaths need in order to justify any treatment they use for any disease.

      1. If I look at homeopathy, I doubt they even need this justification.

   2. Extracorporeal photoapheresis! Real medicine is awesome. I would bet that the NDs performing these blood irradiation treatments never had formal training in this practice. I was not taught how to do this in school. I can’t imagine allowing an ND to extract my blood, run it through their machines, and put it back into my body. Common sense tells me this is a very bad idea…. those poor patients.

2. Brit, actually ozone therapy might work in some settings, but not as advertized. Basically the UV and O3 treatment kills a lot of blood cells also thus triggering an immune response, but definitely not against UV sensitive bacteria. Bacteria are a LOT more UV resistant than blood cells. A close relative of ozone therapy (extracorporeal photoapheresis) is the standard therapy for subcutaneous T-cell lymphoma. In this therapy patients bloot is drawn, mixed with a photosensitizing agent (e.g. methotrexate), irradiated and reinfused.

   The whole thing with the alternative cancer treatments is incredible. Alternative suggests that they offer a working cancer treatment. Heck, people die !!!!

3. On rereading again, the thingie with the water with extra electrons is absolutely hilarious. 1 Mol of water contains exactly 10 Mols of electrons, none more and none less. Anyway, maybe I should collect and revitalize my used gasoline (a.k.a. CO2 and H2O). 10.000 times stored energy seems like a good bargain to save gas.

   1. I was thinking a similar thing. If you can just with a bit of shaking (or whatever) multiply the potential energy of whatever 10,000x then it will obviously become very useful in terms of an energy source

      1. Useful? I think you mean dangerous–just a few minutes shaking would multiply the potential energy to the point where when released we’d expect massive explosions.
         “I’ll have a vodka martini, shaken not stirred” KA-BOOM!

4. You may be wondering why these NDs are able to practice NOW, without a license!

   ND Belanger was one of my instructors when I was in ND school in Connecticut.

   And he once mentioned that supposedly if you register yourself in Massachusetts as a “cosmopath”, then you are immune from accusations of practicing medicine without a license.

   As Jann at SBM pointed out

   https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/physicians-and-cam/ :

   “Massachusetts exempts the following from the commonwealth’s medical practice act: clairvoyants or persons practicing hypnotism, magnetic healing, mind cure, massage, Christian Science or cosmopathic method of healing.”

   Naturopathic, homeopathic, cosmopathic, psychopathic…

   ND / NMD licensure laws license falsehood, IMHO.

   And legislators love to get laws passed.

   It’s like giving an six year old a hammer.

   Things then will surely be hammered.

   Or as they say in Mass., ‘hammeed’ [Kim Atwood!]

   -r.c.

   1. “As Jann at SBM pointed outhttps://www.sciencebasedmedici…”, various State laws have put the proverbial horse before the cart. Treatments are not innocent until proven ineffective or unsafe, and anyone administering them should be held to that account. By allowing the opposite practice, the States are putting the health of the public at unacceptable risk, which brings us back to the challenge posted by JGC. Essentially, naturopaths are experimenting with people in uncontrolled trials.

      1. That last point needs to be highlighted: they’re experimenting with people BADLY–without appropriate controls, without blinding, without randomizing subjects on entry into treatment or control arms, without addressing known confounders, without performing any meaningful statistical analysis, etc. Often without even maintaining records.
         Even if anything they did actually did work they wouldn’t be able to tell.

         1. Yes, I know this only too well. Over the years, I have asked a number of naturopaths if they do follow up. Not one of them did and some just laughed. The treatment of their patients is based on anything they happen to want to experiment with, which can be anything from archaic beliefs and concepts of primitive peoples to untested theories and hypotheses. They also prescribe botanical medicines, which in some conditions could work. However, there are no end of false, illegal, and misleading claims for botanicals, as there are for sundry other substances. In an effort to stem the proverbial tide of illegal claims, the FDA has a form you can fill out to report offenders. I encourage as many readers as possible to submit reports. A reading of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education act will help in determining illegal from illegal claims. Here’s the address for reports:

            http://www.fda.gov/Safety/ReportaProblem/ucm059315.htm

      2. That last point needs to be highlighted: they’re experimenting with people BADLY–without appropriate controls, without blinding, without randomizing subjects on entry into treatment or control arms, without addressing known confounders, without performing any meaningful statistical analysis, etc. Often without even maintaining records.
         Even if anything they did actually did work they wouldn’t be able to tell.

5. Taylor, you should also note probably this gem from the alternative cancer treatment guy:

   First office
   visits and telephone consults with Dr. Belanger cost $230. If the visit runs over one hour, $57.50 will be added for each additional 15 minutes. For telephone consults, an additional 15 minutes may be added to account for time spent typing and e-mailing the treatment plan.

   Second visits and additional visits cost $115 If these visit(s) run over 30 minutes, $57.50 will be added for each additional 15 minutes.

   Then this one:

   Costs
   are hard to predict and can vary from month to month and person to
   person. If there are multiple laboratory test abnormalities one may
   need more supplements than someone with a few imbalances. Nutritional
   supplements can range between $50.00 to $1000.00 a month.
   […]
   Blood work performed at RGCC laboratory are not covered by insurance and can range in cost from $500 to $3000.

   1. Stunning! Thank you.

   2. Wow. I just…

      Screw this asshole who is fleecing desperately ill people. Screw him for taking their money and their precious time.

   3. I gaped when I read that and chocked on my wine when I read that he charges for sending an email!

6. Taylor, you should also note probably this gem from the alternative cancer treatment guy:

   First office
   visits and telephone consults with Dr. Belanger cost $230. If the visit runs over one hour, $57.50 will be added for each additional 15 minutes. For telephone consults, an additional 15 minutes may be added to account for time spent typing and e-mailing the treatment plan.

   Second visits and additional visits cost $115 If these visit(s) run over 30 minutes, $57.50 will be added for each additional 15 minutes.

   Then this one:

   Costs
   are hard to predict and can vary from month to month and person to
   person. If there are multiple laboratory test abnormalities one may
   need more supplements than someone with a few imbalances. Nutritional
   supplements can range between $50.00 to $1000.00 a month.
   […]
   Blood work performed at RGCC laboratory are not covered by insurance and can range in cost from $500 to $3000.

7. I’ve come to notice that many of the disease treatments seem to be derived from things associated with a preventive substance or practice. While this may be true in terms of deficiency diseases (scurvy, beri-beri, etc), all the cruciferous vegetables or stress-reducing techniques in the world won’t make rogue cancer cell dna stop its uncontrolled reproduction once it has started, any more than putting Kevlar in front of a bullet hole will aid healing.

   1. The problem with naturopaths is that they do not realize the nature of cancer. Basically cancer is the reversal of somatic cells to single cell organisms with an extremely unstable genome. wanting to survive at any costs. This in turn leads to a HUGE cauldron of evolution where a lot becomes possible and I really mean a lot. For instance multidrug resistant cell lines tolerate doses of cytostatics you would never even dream of giving a patient. As a consqeuence naturopathic drugs having by nature a very weak effect just make cancer cells laugh a lot.

8. Thanks for this notice. I have written to our legislators, quoting from your piece. But I also added this tidbit:

   I would like to add a personal footnote, though. In my own family I have seen the poor outcomes of unconventional treatment in the guise of “alternative health”. My siblings have been taken by charlatans, and I only found out after the fact that they were getting bad advice and treatment. The appeal of someone who listens to your problems is certainly clear. But people who misdirect vulnerable patients are dangerous and not worthy of endorsement by our state.

   Thank you for your investigation into this matter.

   1. Hello, fellow Somervillian! I lived there for 10 years (until a few months ago) and I miss it like crazy. And, wow, it’s really unfortunate how many people there are completely on board with “alternative medicine.” I see some of the facebook posts from some of my friends there and just cringe.

9. A question I’d want to ask if I were a member of the hearing board:
   If a large pharmaceutical company like Merck or Novartis sought approval for a new drug for high blood pressure but could only offer as evidence of safety and efficacy the same type of evidence you’re willing to accept as demonstrating naturopathic modalities are safe and efficacious–no clinical trials, etc., but only personal testimonials, anecdotal accounts, appeals to tradition and ‘different ways of knowing’, etc.–do you believe the FDA should approve the drug for sale?

   1. The naturopaths could reply that they get 4 years of training at schools accredited by the US Department of Education. They would say they take the same classes as medical students and have a national licensing exam to ensure standardized quality. They would also say they have 1200 clinical hours of training under supervision, where they learn safe and affordable medical to be become primary care physicians and experts in natural health. They might even pull out a statistic from a bogus survey about Americans wanting “natural” health care options.

      Most lawmakers hear those points and think they sound great. Naturopathic arguments sound nice, superficially, that is, if one is not critical of the details. I am curious to see what the 11th time around will look like when the vote eventually happens.

      1. They could, but I’d have to point out that while that was all
         very interesting and we’d certainly return to the subject of that national
         licensing exam and why it requires applicants demonstrate a mastery of magicwater—excuse me, homeopathy—it wasn’t an answer to the question I asked: did they believe the FDA should approve new drugs developed by major pharmaceutical companies who can’t offer any clinical evidence as demonstrating their safety and efficacy?
         If not, by what rational argument should we naturopathic treatments to a much lower standard of proof of safety and efficacy?

         1. To quote wikipedia: “The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) of 1938 recognized homeopathic preparations as drugs, but with significant exceptions. A principal sponsor of the Act was New York Senator and homeopathic physician Royal Copeland, who ensured that homeopathy’s own Homœopathic Pharmacopœia of the United States (HPUS) be included, as it expressed the “self-professed quality standards” of the homeopathic profession. The finished Act thus created loopholes for the regulation of homeopathic drugs, and they are thus exempted from many of the rules regulating other drugs. The inclusion of HPUS in the Act has since been questioned by “lawyers, doctors, homeopaths, historians, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official”. Compare that to the “lobbying” of big Pharma.

            In Europe homeopathic drugs can be registered as drugs if you prove the safety (no problem with water or 20% ethanol) but you may not state a specific treatment.

            1. Which does open the door to the legal dispensing of homeopathic preparations by naturopaths , agreed.

               But my question isn’t about what naturopaths can or can’t legally dispense but whether they’d accept the same type and degree of evidence they accept as demonstrating the safety and efficacy of modalities like acupuncture, essential
               oils, aromatherapy, ‘detox’ regimens, intravenous vitamin C or intravenous hydrogen peroxide if it were offered not by an ‘alt med’ provider but by a large pharmaceutical company as evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of their newest SRI or chemotherapy drug.

               Somehow I think they’d demand a far different standard of
               evidence from Merck or Glaxo than they’re willing accept themselves.

         2. I doubt they would answer the question you asked, which is why I just applied typical debate protocol and talked about something else.

            1. And I’d keep redirecting them to the question asked until everyone at the hearing recognized their repeated evasion for what it was.

         3. Because….they’re NATURAL. You just don’t get it do you?

   2. Of course not.

      1. Be nice to force them to state this on record, though, wouldn’t it?

10. I think it would be best to do a larger sample, then shove the evidence down the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Health’s faces.

11. http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/article/2015/03/13/homeopaths-totally-baffled-cordial

12. Curious all the homeopathy bashing with naturopaths while the entire board of directors from the American Institute of Homeopathy are MDs…

    http://homeopathyusa.org/specialty-board/board-certified-physicians.html

    1. No one is claiming that there are not MDs who are quacks. There are plenty…but they go off that deep end on their own. Our training doesn’t include and integrate quackery into the curriculum.

       1. strange though… no NDs on the board, only MDs

    2. Having an MD does not prevent you from exercising pseudoscience.

13. so what happened with this hearing? Did the naturopaths get licensure in mass?

14. I’m going into lack of new article withdrawal. How could you do this Hermes!?

Comments are closed.