Talk:Naturopathy/Archive 1

message: The last two paragraphs are quite obviously biased, and there are no references or evidence to support any of the claims levelled at "western medecine (sic)."
:I agree. I attempted to removed POV statements. Edwardian 00:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement above "Death by conventional medicine (iatrogenic, properly prescribed and taken pharmacotherapy, negligence) is the number one killer in the U.S." is complete and total garbage. The leading cause of death is heart disease. . Your dubious statistics come from Gary Null, a leading proponent of questionable nutrition. He has been marketing royal jelly, chlorophyll tablets, and other nonsense for years. He is hardly an impartial advocate for better medicine. According to actual CDC records, complications of medical treatment came in at 103 in the list of causes of death in 2001. --DocJohnny 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Regarding: "Death by conventional medicine (iatrogenic, properly prescribed and taken pharmacotherapy, negligence) is the number one killer in the U.S." This is alternative medicine folklore. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory disease are routinely reported by the CDC as the leading causes of death in the United States . Edwardian 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This article remains very POV. The "concerns" section is extremely biased for naturopathy.DocJohnny 04:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: It takes 7 years for DO's and MD's to become primary care providers. 4 years of school and 3 years of either family practice or internal medicine residency. I don't know enough of your curriculum to make any statements as to equivalency. While we may learn manual medicine but we also learn about all "conventional" medical treatments. Is the same true for naturopathy? In addition to herbs, do you know how to treat with antibiotics? But the last 2 years of both DO and MD medical school is spent in hospitals doing clinical rotations. DO's can't be "blasted for not being MD's" because we can perform the same treatments including brain surgery. Is naturopathy equivalent? Also, what is your profession's stance on EDTA chelation, homeopathy, iridology, reflexology, astral healing, etcetera? What about immunizations, do you still oppose them? I am somewhat sympathetic but also somewhat dubious. --DocJohnny 02:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Including undergraduate work will up the total for DO and MD schools to 10 years. EDTA chelation is not an accepted practice in conventional medicine despite some MD's and DO's using it. It is unproven, although the NIH is doing a clinical trial. Do N.D.'s get hospital staff privileges? Thanks for the information. --DocJohnny 23:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equivalency 

message: This is a very interesting debate that I may be able to add something of value to. When I was applying to graduate school in exercise physiology I ran across naturopathic medical school and decided to apply to the schools and check it out. I was invited to interview and was accepted to the programs. When I did my campus visits I was VERY interested in checking out the core science curriculum particularly because of the negative things that I had read. So I attended mainly those classes while I was there and a few others. I had graduated from a premiere top research institution so I knew what kinds of things to look for in a science curriculum. My objective opinion was that the science core was community college level. I was very disappointed because as you have pointed out it seems to be nearly identical to any allopathic school curriculum. It is not. Even the harder classes were 3rd year undergrad at best. They were definitely not medical school or even masters level classes. In addition I am not surprised that you do not recognize this. I did not meet even one other person who had graduated from a major research program so I'm not surprised that nobody in the field notices these differences. I am honestly sorry to have to say these things because I know that you guys are all very dedicated and take pride in what you do. It's not an attack on you but there are fundamental differences in the level education and training. As for me it was enough to deter me from the field. I will give you that the training is definitely superior to the certificate programs. One problem is that even if the medical science classes were at the appropriate level there is still a disconnect between the knowledge obtained in those areas and the actual practice of naturopathy. Does it really matter if you understand medical biochem if you are simultaneously prescribing an herb that has never been tested for bioactivity? It's kind of a moot point. Another point is that as long as we are getting into particulars, naturopathic medicine is NOT a medical system. Allopathy, Osteopathy, Chiropractic, even TCM are medical systems. Naturopathy is a mixture of other medical systems but not its own system. For purposes of the law a naturopath should have a separate license or certification for every medical system employed. So for example if allopathic blood tests or pharmaceuticals are used then a license in Allopathic is needed. The license specifies that kind of practitioner for that type of practice. TCM and Chiropractic are licensed in the same way. You could not for example be a registered dietician and just begin offering acupuncture without obtaining a license to practice acupuncture.  Naturopathic doctors seem to be requesting an all-inclusive license to practice any kind of medical system that they want. Naturopaths do specifically have homeopathy as a medical system however homeopathy is nonsense and everybody knows it. You would all do yourselves a HUGE favor if you got rid of that one practice. Don't bother sending over the studies. I've already seen them and if you don't understand what is wrong with those studies then you just proved my point about naturopathic students not coming from serious research programs. Another thing to keep in mind is that we all know that the medical establishment has problems but that doesn't prove that naturopathy is effective. This is a basic logic equation. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The medical establishment doesn't work because of all of the peripheral garbage that keeps practitioners from being effective at what they do and not because the medical system itself is ineffective. Western medicine is highly effective when it is allowed to work unencumbered. Another thought about naturopathy is that you should take some notes from the TCM people. They have always wanted TCM tested by western scientific standards and the result has been that their system of medicine has proven itself effective. In areas where it has been proven ineffective, they are happy to acknowledge it as ineffective. If Naturopathy did the same then homeopathy would certainly be out of the picture almost immediately. The difference is that TCM practitioners know that theirs is founded in a belief system that over time has become an effective medical practice that science can test empirically.  Where belief will no longer suffice, they are happy to scrap it. The result, TCM practitioners are licensed at the masters level nationwide and the final stages of the OMD degree with full licensing nationwide is well underway with support from the medical establishment. In fact they will have this licensing while you guys will still be insisting that homeopathy works. What's worse is that you guys have been in practice for much longer than TCM has even been in the U.S. That's something to think about. You have to answer the problem of not having a unique naturopathic system to test as well. Therein lies the problem of being in a position of requesting an all-encompassing license to practice anything and everything. The practice has to be defined properly to be licensed and must be distinguishable from other practices. It cannot simply be a combination of parts from other licensed practices. One last thing that I'll point out has to do with support for licensing.  Let's not forget that we live in a country where the majority of people think that young earth creationism is equivalent to the theory of evolution and that dinosaurs lived in the garden of eden.  Are we really surprised that they also believe that homeopathy works?  Public support is not a very good arguing point in these kinds of situations because people are easily manipulated and fall victim to all kinds of crap and never even know it.  Yes it is a free country but very often people do not know what is best for them because they do not have the background or education to make a good decision. They are also constantly bombarded with propaganda both corporate and political that can be exceedingly difficult to filter through for the average person.  Those of us who are well informed have a responsibility to say something when we know that the public is being told lies.  Pointing out how much money the public has wasted on alternative therapies simply points out that alternative medicine is one of the biggest offenders and one of the most successful perpetrators of deception.  -Mike the exercise scientist
===Response from Anna===
Dear Mike:  (from Anna, the licensed N.D.) Thanks for your input.  Which specific naturopathic medical schools did you visit?  And when?  Let's look at your experience a little more scientifically.  Have you also sat in on classes in a traditional (M.D.) medical school in order to be able to make that comparison?  I did my undergrad at McGill and postgrad at U of Toronto, also excellent institutions and also felt my naturopathic school curriculum wasn't as specialized and detailed oriented as some of the higher level research courses I had previously taken at other fine universities, however when I converse with my M.D. friends we have medical knowledge that is comparable in that we can communicate effectively in the field of medicine.  May I venture to suspect the M.D. curriculum courses aren't as specialized as the ones we took at the research universities either?  I'd like to hear from anyone out there who has been to both an M.D. medical school and an accredited N.D. school and tell us what the differences were they they experienced.  I personally haven't been to any M.D. medical school courses, so I couldn't compare.  If the naturopathic med school courses been to be improved, I'll be the first one to address it with the naturopathic medical board.  Bare in mind, that if the U.S. Dept of Education has deemed the education level appropriate enough to be eligible for licensure and practice, I think that speaks by itself.  I can accurately say that the hours spent in each discipline is comparable to that of a typical medical school, but as far as quality, I am not experienced enough to say.  I do know that the standards or knowledge expectation for our NPLEX licensing exam is the same as that for the MPLEX.  (It's a four day exam). 
In response to your comment "What's worse is that you guys have been in practice for much longer than TCM has even been in the U.S..."  I wish that were true.  We were deregulated in virtually all of the state in the 1950's when pharmacologic intervention became the treatment of choice, mainly because that is the investment direction the Rockefeller's millions went toward.  (ironically I know one of the Rockefeller's homeopaths who practices in Los Angeles).  Because of this deregulation, the "correspondence school" N.D.s sprung up and it has been a constant battle to re-establish ourselves again in most of the U.S. states because of the opposition and confusion that have created.  I don't see D.O.s and TCM practitioners having to deal with D.O. and TCM correspondence schools.  I WISH the 100s of thousands of dollars we spend each year fighting the correspondence N.D.s who are opposing our licensure, could be spent on scientific research.  I'm not asking for sympathy, but understanding of our plight and patience is in order.   
In response to your comment "Does it really matter if you understand medical biochem if you are simultaneously prescribing an herb that has never been tested for bioactivity?"...we prefer to use botanical medicines that have been standardized and have a known efficacy over one that we know less about.  And we definitely do need the biochem when prescribing pharmaceuticals. 
  
Re:  "Therein lies the problem of being in a position of requesting an all-encompassing license to practice anything and everything. The practice has to be defined properly to be licensed and must be distinguishable from other practices"...'naturopathy' an arsenal of natural treatment modalities.  I believe what you are referring to is scope of practice.  This is constantly being revised as more funding becomes available and each modality is proven or disproven scientifically and I agree the definition of naturopathy and it's scope of practice is a dynamic process and I also agree that is one of our biggest challenges.  (and the mail order N.D. include things in it's definition that we don't which compounds the problem even further).  GPs practice "everything and anything" in that they see all types of patients, but then refer some patients on to specialists as needed.  N.D.s do the same; and we can even see what type of allopathic or integrative modalities would work best for a given patient.  Some patient do best with acupuncture, some with psychotherapy, some with pharmaceuticals.  Who else can offer this service to a patient on a professional level?   We must be able to diagnose and recognize which patients need specialized care, and prefer them on... and not only which allopathic specialty, but which integrative specialty as well.  Regarding homeopathy, I won't even go there, I see no need to defend it.  A patient going to a licensed N.D. has a choice.  Someone like you can request 'no homeopathy' and we won't use it, and we can still treat you successfully with other means that your analytical and scientific thought process will accept as valid.  We have no problem prescribing for you an antibiotic if indicated for a bacterial infection, because one of the many factors in chosing the treatment we recommend has to do what the patient is comfortable with and their belief system, a freedom of choice treatment system if you like, isn't that one of the things the U.S. Constitution stands for? Give the public more credit.  There's not as stupid as you're implying.  We won't force you to take a homeopathic remedy, but by the same token, don't deprive other patients who want to use it.  Again, I'm not going to argue about it's efficacy with you, it's pointless.  If you on the other hand can produce quality studies that show people have been harmed by homeopathy, either in and of itself, or because it prevented a patient from seeking other types of treatment, bring it on.  
RE: Pointing out how much money the public has wasted on alternative therapies simply points out that alternative medicine is one of the biggest offenders and one of the most successful perpetrators of deception... then I see a need for someone is educated and trained in all the basic 'alternative' modalities in order to prevent it's misuse.  NOTE:  Please consider not refering it as 'alternative' as much of it has been around longer than allopathic medicine and statistically herbs are used more around the globe than drugs, so depending on your perspective allopathic medicine could be considered the 'alternative'.  We are tested for competency in the various treatment modalities and they are also represented on our licensing exam.  
So, young earth creationism is the term now used for the Adam and Eve story?  (had to google it).  I believe you mean that people (like me) don't understand the definition of young earth creationism and evolution well enough to know the differences between the two, which is true until I looked it up, however....
Frankly, I do see that there could very well be a mechanism to explain the origin of earth and the species which includes both young earth creationism and evolution and even not in a religious sense, but one which embraces quantum physics and genetic mutation and selection.  Why not?  
We think we're so smart, but I suspect we really don't see the big picture most of the time.  Science and spiritualty could actually be one and same and we're just too  blind to see it.
===Dear Anna (From Mike the exercise scientist)===
I do understand the position that you are in and really do sympathize with the licensing problems that you guys have.  Again I have absolutely no doubt that you and most other Naturopathic physicians whole-heartedly believe what you are saying and are completely dedicated to the field and to the health of your patients.
With regard to scope of practice let me try to clarify.  It isn't Mike's law of "scope of practice." That is the law.  Your field must be completely distinguishable to be licensed by the standard of the law.  Medical doctors are licensed to diagnose, prescribe drugs, and perform surgery.  Their license specifically entitles them to that along with the responsibility for it.  In order for a person to diagnose, prescribe drugs, or perform surgery they must have this license.  This is exclusive to the license with the exception of NPs who can perform two of these functions under the supervision of someone with this license.  An ND would need to have this license to perform these functions.  This license has very specific requirements that NDs do not meet or else they would be licensed to do it just like DOs are.  That includes the undergrad requirements, an MCAT on file with the government, the gatekeeper tests, specific courses taught in a specific way (which is a requirement to become an accredited medical school), specific clinical training, and completion of a certified residency program.  Those are the requirements.  If you do not meet those requirements then you can not be licensed to perform ANY of the functions of a medical doctor.  The same is true for licensed allied health fields and as I mentioned TCM.  There are VERY specific requirements for all licensed fields.  My point about the scope of practice is that it cannot be in flux as you suggested and there is not a lot of crossover.  An MD cannot practice acupuncture unless licensed to do so.  It doesn't matter if the MD took all but one class from a TCM school and for all practical purposes could perform acupuncture.  The licenses are specific.  Here's an even better example.  Pharmacists are experts with medications.  Much more so than the MDs that prescribe the medications.  They are not licensed to prescribe medications.  Interestingly enough they are licensed to give advice on nutritional compounds including botanical medicines, vitamins, supplements, cleansing programs, OTC, or any other bioactive substance.  This is specific to their field.  While I was doing my undergrad I worked as a registered pharmacy tech.  From years of interest I knew more about nutritional supplements than any pharmacist I ever worked with but I was NOT allowed to recommend or give advice under any circumstance.  The point that I am trying to make is that the definition of naturopathy including the naturopathic physician's scope of practice is too broad to be licensed.  NDs would have the broadest licensing of any medical field if what you wanted to happen did.  That isn't going to fly.  There is no way the medical establishment is going to give you a license that entitles you to practice MD,RPh,cert diet,TCM,DC,and clinical psych along with some other completely unregulated fields.  I think that probably your best bet for licensing would be to try and be licensed like NPs are where you are licensed to practice under the supervision of a licensed MD or DO.  That could be the first step.  That situation also probably has the best chance of getting widespread approval.  The other possibility would be to narrow the scope to two or three things that you would be licensed to perform.  The problem with this is the crossover.  The two or three things would have to be unlicensed fields.  Like you could probably make a case for licensing doctors of botanical medicine.  There is a genuine need for this and there is no other licensed field covering this ground.  I'm sure you realize that a well thought out degree in this kind of field would be extremely challenging even with no other modalities in the program.  Even this program would require the training of an MD, RPh, and a PhD level botanist to have a chance.  NDs may be the best possibility to fill this void right now but I don't think that the education is really comprehensive enough to do it completely honestly.  There is simply too much that we don't know about these substances.  That in fact brings up a whole other problem.  What about the possibility of botanical substances being researched and then the FDA reclassifying them as drugs.  I think that this is part of the concern that the unlicensed naturopaths have.  Regulation could lead to further regulation.  Research could also lead to regulation.  This is all very shaky ground for the future. 
Just to clarify I went to Bastyr and SCNM.  I decided not to interview at NCNM.  Bastyr was clearly superior to the other two but still not on par with medical school.  The pace is considerably different.  In real numbers I would say that the medical students are covering the same material at approximately five times the pace.  As for my experience my grad program was very closely tied to the medical school and had shared classes between exercise phys, physical therapy, and the MD students.  Neurophys was one that stood out.  What was covered in a semester at the ND schools was done in a week and a half in the class I had been in with the MD students.  I will also grant you that the PhD classes are more in depth than the MD classes mainly because there is also a vocational component to the MD so they have to cram as much information as possible into a shorter time.  Personally I think that the MD should probably be stretched out into a 6-year program to produce better physicians.  There's simply too much information that needs to be completely understood for 2 years of classroom work with 2 years of clinical.  With all do respect to you, I don't think that there would be NDs at all if the system worked properly.  There wouldn't be a need.
===From Anna===
12/30/05 Dear Mike:  We're already licensed in several states and gaining licensure in more states every year, so the argument about us not meeting the standards for licensure is mute.  We already are licensed to diagnose and prescribe drugs and do (minor) surgery, along with the MDs, DOs and NPs/PAs under supervision.  The state medical boards where we are licensed feel we do meet the standards to perform these functions. Our medical schools are accredited, and we do have undergraduate requirement (i.e. a baaloreate degree).  MCAT isn't a requirement for getting license; foreign medical school graduates come to the U.S. and get licensure and have never taken MCAT.  MCAT is the criteria U.S. medical school use to screen their applicants, not a screening device the states use for licensure. I can't comment on the N.D. residence program in the U.S. because I went to a Canadian school.   
I appreciate your input and strategy advise about gaining licensure in the remaining states, however the standard as a primary care provider has already been set in the states where we do practice.  I see our biggest obstacle is to get our name untangled from the mail order NDs. I truly believe that if they would stop opposing our licensure efforts state by state, we'd have regained licensure in most states by now; scope of practice doesn't seem to be a problem for the state senators and states representatives I've spoken with.  The licensing problems arise when the mail-orders come to the state capitols claiming to be the 'real' naturopaths and they oppose licensure (because they feel threatened that it might mean they could no longer practice using the word naturopath).     
All 6 naturopathic medical school in north American recently underwent major changes wrt standards; the details of which I am not well versed in and I should look into so I can engage in these type of discussions, but it did entail a more rigorous cirriculum and internship/residency, and we do continually strive to meet appropriate educational and training goals.  
Are the DO medical schools as in depth as the MDs?  After all, they also have to learn 'western' medicine in addition to osteopathic manipulation; and they do that in four years and no one questions it.  We're focusing on the MD ed and training as the gold standard, but suppose the DO ed and training isn't as rigorous as the MDs and they still have the same practice rights and privileges?  For eq: I was offered a two year 'credit' for my ND training at a U.S. school of osteopathic medicine and would have just had to complete the last two years.  I know I was the one who brought up the comparison to the MD curriculum in the first place by pointing out the fact that we incorporate the same # of instructional hours as the MD programs, but, that said, perhaps we should also be looking at competency after the education and training has been completed, rather than focusing solely on a comparison wrt the MD.  Most of the comments you make about the ND program suggests, but does not prove that they are not competent practitioners.    
If what you think is true; that the education is not comprehensive enough, then my profession or a government authority needs to evaluate whether that's true or not and adjust the program accordingly.  Just like we don't want under-trained MDs we don't want under-trained NDs either and as a scientist, I am more interested in uncovering the truth rather than defending my profession.  My experience in the naturopathic profession has been experiential for the most part; I see that patients benefit greatly from our services and I haven't encountered the same %s of iatrogenic disease as with the other primary health providers. I'm willing to look at any statistics that contradict my own personal experience and that of my colleagues. 
I believe fine-tuning the current profession of naturopathy, that has already been established since 1902 makes more sense than to abolish it and create an entirely new system to deliver natural health care.  I believe naturopathy has already demonstrated it's efficacy, enough so, to keep it as a viable option for natural health care.   
 
Re: scope of practice; the treatment categories are broad and the categories themselves will stay constant. For example, we will always cover botanical medicine.  Further scientific studies will likely alter which botanical substances we use; but the overall categories of "scope of practice" will not change.  Just like the practitioners whose scope of practice is to prescribe drugs, when drugs for eg: vioxx are taken off the market, this doesn't change their scope of practice.  Yes, I think we have the broadest scope of practice of any health practitioner, which I see as more of an asset. MDs can take a mere 400 hours of acupuncture in order to legally use it (which is much less than we get) and I am not 100% sure, but I believe they can recommend botanical medicines and other nutritional substances without any additional training--at least I know of many that do.  I believe MDs who use natural therapies are usually less trained in them then we are, so I don't think the 'problem' as being exclusively about ND training.  
    
We are against regulation of botanical substances (except for dangerous or toxic ones); and if the 'powers that be' use scientific validation of the efficacy of herbs as an reason to regulate them, that's unfortuneate. However we cannot suspend scientific investigation of these substances in order to prevent this possibility.  (just like some drugs are OTC and others aren't; personally, I believe that's likely the worst scenario if botanicals become regulated). 
Respectfully, Dr Anna M.       
DEFINITION:
I think the article needs to include a specific definition of what naturopathic medicine is.  Here is the definition from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians:
What is Naturopathic Medicine?
Founded upon a holistic philosophy, naturopathic medicine combines safe and effective traditional therapies with the most current advances in modern medicine. Naturopathic medicine is appropriate for the management of a broad range of health conditions affecting all people of all ages.
Naturopathic physicians (N.D.s) are the highest trained practitioners in the broadest scope of naturopathic medical modalities. In addition to the basic medical sciences and conventional diagnostics, naturopathic education includes therapeutic nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, natural childbirth, classical Chinese medicine, hydrotherapy, naturopathic manipulative therapy, pharmacology and minor surgery.
===From Donaldal===
Dr Anna, I am curious about which osteopathic school offered you two years of credit for attending a Canadian naturopathic school? The only program I have ever heard of for foreign-trained physicians is at NYCOM, where even foriegn trained MDs have to take all 4 years to get a DO. (http://iris.nyit.edu/nycom/Admissions_EPP_Program.htm)
You asked about the depth of osteopathic education.  While DO's have separate licensing boards (COMLEX) they are also eligible to take the MD boards (USMLE). Many, if not most, osteopathic students do in fact take both sets of boards.  While the scores are legally equivalent, some MD residency directors are less familiar with interpreting COMLEX scores. So to avoid any misinterpretations, many DO students take both boards.  In 2004, 94% of MD takers passed USMLE step 3 while 93% of DO passed USMLE step 3 (http://www.usmle.org).  This demonstrates that the DO students are getting similar training to the MD students.  The 200 hours of manipulative medicine training is in addition to, and not in place of, the standard medical curriculum.  Moreover, here in Philadelphia the medical schools regularly draw on each other's faculty.  Our faculty (osteopathic) reguglarly guest lecture at the other (allopathic) schools in Philadelphia, while their faculty (allopathic) regularly lecture at our schoool (osteopathic).  So not only do we have similar curricula, but we in fact share faculty. Certainly there is no doubt that there are important differences in allopathic and osteopathic training.  For example, (and I am making gross generalizations here) allopathic training tends to be more research-oriented than osteopathic training. Conversely, (again generalizations) osteopathic schools tend to emphasize primary care.  However, upon graduation, osteopathic students may take either an osteopathic (DO) or allopathic (MD) residency.  Our schools are so similar that our degrees are interchangeable in terms of residency and post-residency scope of practice. As a point of clarification (a preemptive strike against trolls) some allopathic residencies are less osteopathic-freindly than others.  This is not necessarily due to the quality of the program--many of the most prestigious MD programs take DOs; for example, there are DOs in Yale's residency program (http://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/pcimrp/pc_housetaff.html). To summarize, although there are important differences in terms of philosophy and emphasis (not to mention the manual manipulation component), the training in osteopathic and allopathic schools has more similarities than differences.  I hope this helps to clarify the comparison of the two types of training. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donaldal (talk • contribs) .
===From Anna===
In response to the above interogatory:  I am leaving the debate.  It's gotten way off track.  The basic issue is 'naturopathic physicians' are 'traditional naturopaths' are two separate and distinct philosophical groups, with different agendas, different standards of education and training and are opposed to each other politically and antagonist to each other in many other senses and should NOT be mentioned in the same Wikipedia article as if they are two factions of the same group; they are not. This needs to be resolved before further discussion of the training, education and recognition of the naturopathic physician is debated.  If you want to describe an airplane that has somehow been welded together with a tractor, the first step is to distinguish that the two are totally different and have nothing to do with each other; they must first be unwelded and recognized as not belonging together.  Most of the public don't know that 'naturopathic physicians' and 'traditional naturopaths' have basically nothing to do with each other.  Most of the public think they are pretty much one and the same.  My priority is to educate the public about the differences and once that is accomplished; to then debate any education and training issues that arise.         
Dr. Anna M.
::They are both the same in that neither of them are real doctors.
Dear Dr. Anna. In response to above, a naturopathic physician from an accredited school practicing in a licensed state is a primary care provider. Working in hospitals, diagnosing and treating. This is very different than an individual who studied the philosophy of naturopathy from a diploma mill and doesn't have the ability to diagnose, treat etc. They can't even practice or use the ND initials in those licensed states. Please look into it a bit more. Pretty soon, you may need work with one of us... Depending on what kind of doc you are.--Travisthurston 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate

message: In response to the above interogatory:  I am leaving the debate.  It's gotten way off track.  The basic issue is 'naturopathic physicians' are 'traditional naturopaths' are two separate and distinct philosophical groups, with different agendas, different standards of education and training and are opposed to each other politically and antagonist to each other in many other senses and should NOT be mentioned in the same Wikipedia article as if they are two factions of the same group; they are not. This needs to be resolved before further discussion of the training, education and recognition of the naturopathic physician is debated.  If you want to describe an airplane that has somehow been welded together with a tractor, the first step is to distinguish that the two are totally different and have nothing to do with each other; they must first be unwelded and recognized as not belonging together.  Most of the public don't know that 'naturopathic physicians' and 'traditional naturopaths' have basically nothing to do with each other.  Most of the public think they are pretty much one and the same.  My priority is to educate the public about the differences and once that is accomplished; to then debate any education and training issues that arise.         
Dr. Anna M.
::They are both the same in that neither of them are real doctors.
Dear Dr. Anna. In response to above, a naturopathic physician from an accredited school practicing in a licensed state is a primary care provider. Working in hospitals, diagnosing and treating. This is very different than an individual who studied the philosophy of naturopathy from a diploma mill and doesn't have the ability to diagnose, treat etc. They can't even practice or use the ND initials in those licensed states. Please look into it a bit more. Pretty soon, you may need work with one of us... Depending on what kind of doc you are.--Travisthurston 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Anna

message: The definition of "natural" is not discussed in this article, and I suspect an investigation of the term may shed some light on the issue.
We can say that something occurring without human intervention is natural, and the more that humans manipulate it, the less natural it becomes. However, there is no instrument or method to test for this quality. In practice, the layman's usage of "natural" also includes a notion of successful integration with the rest of the world. However, many things which are the product of "nature" might seem "unnatural": a deformed baby, or cancer.
This term, and many others used to define naturopathic, says more about its user: whether something is "simple" or "holistic" depends entirely on how well you understand it and its place in the world. Whether the same substance is an "herbal remedy" or a "drug" will also vary with the point of view. These characteristics are all in the eye of the beholder.
The term "science" also describes a way to approach the world, but its definition relies less on subjectivity: it may simply be described as all the knowledge humans have that fits together, whether or not it is considered "natural." In fact, the science of medicine is a deliberate act of rebellion against natural processes, and the degree of human manipulation involved in a remedy has no correlation with its effectiveness.
Therefore, to describe a medical practice as "naturopathy" doesn't differentiate it in any useful way. Regardless, we're now obliged to use the word to identify the social phenomenon. But let's just call all of these practices either "accepted science" or "not," and make a note of by whom, and why.
Pjrich 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitions of "natural" and "naturopathic"

message: Sorry I don't have the time to contribute more here right now, but this link may contain content that can be used or cited here.  An example:
:Let me clarify the amount of literature available that appraises the interventions used by naturopathic doctors (NDs). There are well over 6500 controlled clinical trials[7] and over 1000 systematic reviews on the various complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) that NDs are taught and regularly use. Empirical evidence indicates that the methodologic quality of controlled CAM trials is similar to conventional medicine trials.[8,10] In fact, there is empirical evidence that many of the interventions taught in naturopathic medical schools are efficacious. 
::References:
::7. University of Maryland Complementary Medicine Program. Link
::8. Moher D, Sampson M, Campbell K, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials in pediatric and complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr. 2002;2:2.
::10. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363-366. Abstract
Hope this helps someone.  Cheers! --Ds13 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential references for controlled trials and evidence 

message: by the medical community and mainstream doctors.  However, the intro to this article only implies some modest dissent.  This smacks of propoganda. Shouldn't it be rewritten with a little dash of NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwen1 (talk • contribs)   04:46, 24 April 2006  
:Feel free to put some links to quality information discrediting naturopathy. I'm interested enough to make POV edits in order to reflect the scientific status of Naturopathy accurately, but I'm not quite interested enough to search out the necessary information. I'll read, condense and edit if you point me to the info, though. Doing NPOV on this kind of thing is quite hard; it's very easy to swing too heavily the other way when you think it's all nonsense. --Myk 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naturopathic medicine is widely discredited... 

message: This statement was buried in the middle of an immense post by Anna (I think) and I just wanted to bring it out and discuss it as an individual point.
You said that homeopathy is studied by Naturopathic physiciasns because it is real. My understanding of homeopathy is that it is based on sympathetic magic. What you are saying is that magic is real. Or is there an actual biological explanation for the workings of homeopathic remedies?
Or how about some rigorous studies that show it actually works? My first-hand experience of homeopathic was a complete failure.--Myk 16:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy is real? 

message: I wonder whether any one reading this knows anything of a naturopath called Dr. J.A. Sage, who wrote a book published by   Allen and Unwin (second edition: 1976) called "Live to be 100  - and  Enjoy It". Since Sage was born in December 1889, he was 96 at the time of the book's publication  - does any one know whether he did live to be 100? ACEO 20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A naturopath called Dr. J.A.Sage