Talk:Naturopathic medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naturopathic medicine article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

	Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Archives

*Talk:Naturopathic medicine/Archive 1: Oct 2002 – August 2006

Contents 1 Merge: Biopsy and Nature Cure 2 Protected page status 3 Formatting Help 4 Restoring unexplained link deletion 5 naturopath 6 The healing power of nature 7 POV problems 8 This article has only links to criticisms?! 9 "Certain modalities" 10 Appropiateness of extrenal links 11 Evidence and Naturopathic medicine 12 Pseudoskepticism 13 Naturopathic medicine 'endagering public health' 14 Principles of naturopathic medicine 15 The NCCAM position 16 Scientific studies of naturopathic treatments 17 I do need to see where you get this? 18 Lead 18.1 Great lead: now all we need is a description of naturopathy. 18.2 Poorer training than MDs? 19 Regulation in Australia 20 Time to split the article? 21 It's spelled "education" 22 Reference to Naturopathic Colleges 23 Naturopaths believe that they are supporting the body's innate ability to heal itself 24 Naturopathy is more of an approach than a single model of care 25 Scare quotes on the word "natural" 26 Some suggestions 27 Innate ability to heal 28 Science and Naturopathy 29 Naturopathic Colleges in Australia 30 Minnesota licensure 31 Is naturopathic medicine CAM? 32 American School of Naturopathy as "diploma mill" (HIstory section) 33 AfD notification.

[edit] Merge: Biopsy and Nature Cure

Biopsy and Nature Cure seems a bit out of place for a stand-alone article. It seems that it reflects a particular view of something that was be better suited here. -AED 05:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - the content would be better placed in Natural Hygiene as that is the closest to 'Nature cure' (the redirect should also be fixed to point there). --apers0n 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - This is not taught in the accredited naturopathic programs. How else would you rule out a ddx? Also, how would a pathologist know the stage and grade the tumor if a biopsy wasn't done? Not advising your patient to get a biopsy would be bad medicine, and might get an ND in serious legal trouble. Solution: Nature cure should have it's own page, and the views on biopsy be one aspect of that article.--Travisthurston 06:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: "Nature cure" in Biopsy and Nature Cure redirects here. How about Natural Hygiene? -AED 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It has now been changed to redirect to Natural Hygiene --

apers0n 11:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NouraRaslan (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)NouraRaslan

Delete or merge. 211.30.80.121 13:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected page status

I have added protection to the current state of this page and hereby propose that WE ALL work here, within this discussion page, to work out or ideas and disagreements before changes are made. Is anybody not OK with the protection status? Speak here. If enough people here want to change it back, we'll do that.
One thing we shouldn't have to do is keep checking this page on a daily basis to keep people from adding their biased points of view.
Thanks! --Travisthurston 01:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Declined - This page has not been protected at this time. This edit war is unbelievably lame: it's over a category! Can you guys please not add or remove the category until consensus is reached on this talk page? Or perhaps ask for a third opinion if you really can't make a decision here. But do not add or remove the category until you have consensus or a third opinion! If you keep reverting each others' changes you will be blocked. —Mets501 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK - That's what makes this site so great. The organic and fluid nature of wikipedia. Let’s continue to work on voting as a group before controversial changes are made.
Thanks community! --Travisthurston 18:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting Help

I added an "alternative medicine box" that links to other NCCAM categories. Can someone help me move the existing CAM box to a better location like under the NCCAM box? I can't get the html to look right. We also need to find some sources on the history section... Thanks! --Travisthurston 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it's because I'm using Explorer, but the formatting is still wacked for me. If someone could fix it again, that would be great. :) --Schwael 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring unexplained link deletion

I have restored this link: http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/Naturo2.pdf which was deleted without explanation by Havermayer (Talk - Contribs) as it seemed like a useful link. --apers0n 07:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] naturopath

does anyone know what the theory behind naturopath is or what the belief behind it is?

That would depend on what you mean by "theory behind". The article naturopathic medicine can give you a good starting point in understanding the tenets, scope of practice, etc. A naturopath is not necessarily a medically trained physician, and anyone can live a naturopathic lifestyle. But in order to be a naturopathic physician and truly practice naturopathic medicine with a full scope of practice, you have to graduate from on the the six naturopathic medical schools in North America, pass the board exams, complete a residency or internship and practice in a licensed state. I think the article will be sufficient in helping you understanding beliefs and theories, but for more info, you can go to my schools website (ncnm.edu) or continue a discussion by emailing me using the “Email this user” link on my page here. Thanks for asking. --Travisthurston 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Medical Practice Acts & Naturopathy

Use of the title "physician" is protected in states where naturopaths are not licensed. Where naturopaths claim to "diagnose" or "treat," they are likely to be in violation of that state's Medical Practice Act and should be reported to the state board of medical examiners. HealthConsumerAdvocate 23:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Medical Practice Acts & Naturopathy To be more precise: The use of the title "physician" is protected in each of the United States of America. In states where naturopathic physicians are licensed, the state government has passed legislation which grants naturopathic physicians a certain scope of practice as primary health care providers and thus the protected use of the title "physician". In states where licensure has not yet been granted, naturopathic physicians can neither treat nor diagnose disease. If a consumer is interested in naturopathic health care but resides in an state that does not license naturopathic physicians, the consumer may be able to consult with a naturopathic physician. In doing so, the consumer should be very cautious and confirm that any physician they consult with has graduated from a four-year, acredited, naturopathic college and passed the NPLEX exam. This processes is simplified by consulting the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) at www.naturopathic.org. Stephenmeeneghan 09:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)StephenMeeneghan

naturopathy Okay I made some changes without consulting this page (typical of a doctor?). I have trouble with being excluded from the traditional naturopath category just because I have clinical training. The licensable degree of ND is not differentiated from the mail order degree by belief in medicine, but by degree and scope of training in it. The major distinction as I see it is that we are trained on actual human beings (we must work a certain number of hours with humans to graduate) where they are not. This doesn't mean that they are useless or even untrained with humans (I have met many nurses that have gotten the "other" ND who have as much (although different) clinical training as I do). It simply means that you do not know based on this degree if they have any training or not in diagnosis or practical training in treatment. I also recommend the www.naturopathic.org website- use the find an ND feature to see who is in your area (even if you are in an unlisenced state- these people are at least lisencable). Anna Abele, ND 07:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Anna Abele, ND

[edit] The healing power of nature

Anyone who believes natural medicine to be gentle has never weathered a hurricaine. Herbs can kill as easily as drugs. They can also heal as powerfully and sometimes more powerfully. (This statement does not mean anything. Please define what you mean by "healing more powerfully.)198.11.27.53 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)P.C. 4/18/07 No one thinks that digitalis as an herb is better than the drug (I hope). It is too changeable (strength depends on waterfall and sun exposure and location of the plant) and can build up in the body to create toxic side effects (including death). The therapeutic window (benefit is derived before toxicity is reached) is too narrow and the possibility of serious harm is too great. Digitalis as a drug however (where all of these variables are controlled) is very useful.

Sometimes the herbs indicated for a given condition are more gentle than the available drugs (if there are any). eg. Herbal COX 2 inhibitors do not have the same side effects in the liver and heart as the pharmaceutical ones. (please give a reference for this claim. Which "herbal COX-2 inhibitors"? also provide an actual study which carries out a direct comparison of known COX-2 inhibitors and any herbal variety and specifically addresses the toxicities you refer to)198.11.27.53 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)P.C. 4/18/07. Garlic has far fewer side effects than statin drugs when lower cholesterol is your goal. Sometimes this gentleness translates to decreased efficacy, and sometimes not. (Please offer some quantitative analysis relating "gentleness" and efficacy, including indepth and extensive data defining just how "gentle" and efficacious the preperation is.)198.11.27.53 14:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)P.C. 4/18/07

Let us not make the mistakes of modern medicine and throw out all of the information gleaned before we arrived. Much of scientific western medicine is useful, most of it can be used better than it is currently. It is not always about willing the mosquito away, but using something short of a sledge hammer to kill it. Anna Abele, ND 06:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Anna Abele, ND

"The information gleaned before we arrived"? Just how much information do we have? Throughout history, people have drawn correlations in their own minds between imagined causes and observed outcomes. Look at Greek mythology and how much of the workings of the world were attributed to to the whims of a petulant crew of imagined deities. Simply because a belief has been held for thousands of years, doesn't make it so. Also, just because some herb or other might serve as good treatment for a headache, doesn't mean it doesn't also cause liver failure. Show me the autopsies of all those taking herbal preparations throughout history and we can begin to discuss whether or not they are safe. At the end of the day, the prescribing of herbs is an unregulated practice which does not demand any proof of efficacy or safety. Anecdotal claims of efficacy and safety founded in the tired old argument of "these have been around for thousands of years" are deceptive, negligent, and, in many cases, fraudulent.

For any "herbal COX-2 inhibitor" which is truly a COX-2 inhibitor, I can guarantee you that dose dependant toxicities exist and that they can be reasonably expected to mirror those of Vioxx and others. There simply is no-one demanding that detailed clinical trials be carried out on herbal remedies. If you come across two caves and thoroughly inspect one to find that a lion lives there, is it necessarily safe to walk into the other and bed down? Of course not. You have to conduct an equally thorough search to make sure that there isn't a lion, or a bear, or a rabid mongoose living in the second cave.198.11.27.53 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)P. Cogan; April 18th, 2007.

Still waiting for anyone to address my above requests for substantiation. If you can't offer any real support for your claims, please remove them, for they are fraudulent.206.48.58.110 04:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

Cogan, you want an answer to what question? You're looking for substantiation for what "fraudulent" claim? Is it safe to bed down in a cave? Are there cox-2 inhibiting herbs? Should their doses be monitored and should there be more clinical trials conducted? You may not know that the ND community in the states and India are always conducting clinical trials on these herbal remedies that have been used for centuries. If the information you are looking for is not readily available, maybe I can find it. Please clarify your question. I would be happy to try to answer. --Travisthurston 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Travis, glad to see someone is watching this. Check out the bold print comments in Anna Abele's above statement. She has made lots of claims as to safety and efficacy, but has not offered any support for these claims. I'm simply looking for any evidence to suggest that what she has claimed can be confirmed. Western medicine and naturopathy are playing by two different sets of rules. Whereas western medicine is required to substantiate any claims on safety and efficacy with literally truck loads of data, the purveyors of herbal remedies are under no such obligation and can claim whatever they want without any substatiation. It is a double standard. Also, keep in mind that the FDA requires ANY untoward symptoms that arise during a clinical trial to be reported as a side effect, even if they don't appear with any more frequency than they would in the general public and may have absolutly nothing to do with the drug being tested. Even if various herbs are undergoing clinical type studies, no one is requiring the same stringency in reporting of potential side effects, hence the common claims that herbs are safer than traditional pharmaceuticals. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of addressing claims of alternative medicine, in particular herbalism; its supporters appear to hold that lack of evidence is proof of safety.209.59.88.141 15:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

Anyone care to comment? Travis? Have I lost your interest?204.188.174.99 21:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

[edit] POV problems

We really need to cover the Evidence-based medicine side. We can't just ignore it, and all criticism. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs reworked with WP:RS to explain where science is. Arbustoo 23:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's dangerous to have it in the article without citeing any sources though. I propose removing the criticism unless you can source it.

[edit] This article has only links to criticisms?!

I come from a pro-science background.

I agree with the last comment, to the extent that I understand it. I believe that the primary reason that people look up articles on Wikipedia is to seek information stated on the Wiki page (although some do come for just the external links, and external links+citations are also great).

This article is almost entirely void of any criticism or quality critical editing. An example of this can be seen in the with the ambiguity in the very first sentence: "treat disease chiefly by assisting the body's innate capacity to recover from illness and injury". What is this 'innate capacity'? Is this referring to the immune system, or some non-science backed, possibly spiritual 'innate capacity'? (I do not intend to set up a straw man with innate capacity, but the such ambiguity, I believe that the poor-wordedness justifies my assumption).

As a first step to making the article even resemble one which uses evidence drawn from a critical analysis, I very much advocate a criticism section, because external links alone do not suffice in a Wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

I just looked at this article for the first time, having seen it criticized on another website. I agree with the foregoing comment. The article is a disgrace. Wikipedia's principles mean that the claims of these quacks must be reported fairly, but those claims should not be adopted as fact, and the criticisms made about naturopathy should also be reported fairly. By way of example, the article about Homeopathy states in its second sentence that homeopathy is "widely discredited in scientific circles". JamesMLane t c 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The article needs massive work, but that is a problem of a lack of citations. I removed the huge link farm. Links must comply with WP:EL. We don't need a link to every Naturopath organization in the world. Arbustoo 23:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The "claims of these quacks"? I'm glad your working hard to remain unbiased and objective while trying to help improve the wiki. Please refrain from contributing until you are more prepared to aproach the topic without preconceived ideas. Homeopathy is one of the many schools of naturopathy, and much of naturopathy is scientifically sound. Please don't use umbrella statements when refering to individual aspects. 58.110.136.169 03:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with the previous statement. It becomes impossible to discuss the neutrality of an article when uninformed accusations are being tossed around. Saying "the claims of these quacks must be reported fairly" is borderline vulgar; saying it as an argument for neutrality is downright paradoxical, and consequently offensive to people who actually know what they're talking about. As to the neutrality of this article: I believe this article is written in a neutral style, and that it treats the methods and controversy against naturopathy in an encyclopedic fashion. It's through omission, however, that this article becomes biased. The specifics of naturopathy are discussed, but not in relation to the controversy. There's a vibe of reading a news article about the controversy, then hearing the prosecutor's statements, but finding out that the defendant's statements are mysteriously unavailable. Also, people who discuss this page should be pro-correct above all, and leave polarizing, tunnel-vision-based affiliations such as "pro-science" and "pro-nature" for message boards. Naturopathy isn't anti-science, although some specific fields such as homeopathy are based on many ideas that go against aspects of science. The holistic approach of Naturopathy doesn't go against science any more than psychology and therapy do. Almost all modern naturopaths approach spirituality as a function of the physical being, notably tightening the gap between spirituality and psychology. Spirituality in naturopathy, although once appreciated and practiced on a metaphysical level, is no longer done in this fashion. Naturopathy in the past 100 years has sought to absorb the theories and practices of science and apply them, not deny them. Naturopaths aren't money-making quacks; they're licensed, trained doctors who truly believe in what they do, even in the cases where the practices are shown not to work. Modern medicine should absorb many aspects of naturopathy, notably herbal treatments and holistic analysis. Stress is caused by psychological factors, but has been proven to have physical effects. Many naturopaths spend their lives trying to prove similar concepts. The fact that neurologists are such a significant part of modern medicine proves that the link between psychology, "spirituality", and physical medicine is an ever-progressive discipline that is constantly changing the way modern medicine works. I know this was a lot in discussion of neutrality, but I thought, in response to the harsh and ignorant comments submitted earlier, something more balanced was needed in order to demonstrate reasons why the subject should be listed as controversial, and shouldn't be implied, through omission or suggestion, to be a challenged subject that can't stand its own ground in defense.130.245.253.90 13:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Certain modalities"

Someone changed the Criticisms to say that only "certain modalities" of naturopathy are scorned by scientific skeptics. If no one can present instances of notable skeptics accepting the validity of naturopathy, I think this should be changed. Skeptics pretty much view all of naturopathy as a pseudoscience with no empirical basis in its principles. --Soultaco 17:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

--Sounds like you are having a little difficulty accepting the burden of proof that comes with making a such a wild generalization, Soultaco. To which skeptics do you refer? Modality, by modality, if you please. Naturstud (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SoulTaco for noticing! This skeptic topic always amuses me. No educated, scientifically minded person is going to call all the modalities that we naturopathic physicians employ unscientific or pseudoscientific. For example; analysis of blood labs, gyn exams, the ability to diagnose and treat infectious diseases, psychological counseling, lifestyle counseling and awareness, structural manipulation. Even many of the herbal formulas we use have been successfully supported with scientific analysis.
And anyone who can say that "Skeptics pretty much view all of naturopathy as a pseudoscience with no empirical basis in its principles" has no idea what naturopathic medicine is, what it means to be a "first professional degree" in the eyes of the U.S. Department of Education, and what it means to be a licensed primary care provider along side of MD's, DO's and NP's. In order for people to be truly skeptical of a topic, philosophy or concept, they have a continued duty to fully understand it. Otherwise, they are best left without an opinion at all. I challenge any skeptic to explain that position while having a comprehensive understanding of our medicine. --Travisthurston 19:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

But this is missing the point. First off, this Wikipedia entry is not here to advocate or scorn naturopathy; it is here to accurately describe the field, including criticism of it, and it is a simple fact that the skeptical inquiry community is by and large critical of naturopathy and label it a pseudoscience. One representative example. Another. And another, from James Randi. Whether their criticism is ultimately correct or fair is not necessarily the issue; the point is that there exists a prominent group of people who do advance this general view, and the fact that they do is worthy of note in the entry. There is no reason to qualify that and say that they only scorn "certain modalities" of naturopathy, because that distinction does not appear in criticisms. Thus, I see no reason for that particular edit to stay in the entry. --Soultaco 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide the mailing address for the 'skeptical inquiry community', Soultaco - I'd like to buy a membership so that I can attend the next "By and Large" conference. Do they condemn the individual modalities in break out groups that I have to sign up for ahead of time, or is it all done in a big room at the end? I hear the keynote this year is going to be really cool: "Multivariate, regessional and other analytical trends in the statistical modeling of Scorn". Is James Randi the president this year or is it Steve Barret? I think it is wonderful that I can know the entire consensus of all rational thought everywhere just be reading their newsletters, don't you? They are *so* representative.

72.0.222.219 (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here; there are ideas to be found in the field of naturopathic medicine. To be clear, I am very much a skeptic of many of the claims of naturopathic medicine as outlined in the wikipedia article. I am of the opinion that many of the practices employed by the naturopathic community are embraced simply because they work into a touchy-feely tapestry of entirely imagined magical energies. You can ask me how I know these "magical energies" are imagined, but the onus is yours to show any evidence that they actually exist. People want to believe in magic, they want to believe in the spurious arguments that anything "natural" (whatever that means, and the definition is open to debate) is inherently better or safer than anything devised by the mind of man. Science has (arguably) removed the romance and mystery from the world around us, and too many people just can't handle that. The nature of the moon and the stars and the tides all fit into a simple and all encompassing model of the physical world and those who don't understand it simply want more. Now, this is just my opinion, but I digress. The chemical components of various herbs do have biological activity, so the concept of herbalism is not invalid. The problem comes from the boatloads of unverified claims made about their potency and safety. No one knows all of the biological activities of all of the chemical components of commonly injested herbs. Also, there is a double standard in reporting of efficay and safety, as traditional pharmaceutical agents must satisfy strict rules set down by the FDA, while anyone can make any claim they want about herbs. That's just the way the laws are written right now and they allow for a multitude of useless and dangerous snake oils to be unloaded on a grossly undereducated consumer base.

There are other aspects of naturopathic medicine which offer such obvious approaches to maintaining good health that one must ask themself: "can it really be that only the naturopaths take this into consideration?". For instance, the reading I have done on several naturopathic websites has made it clear that diet and aversion are primary lines of defense in naturopathic medicine. This, like herbalism, has its limits of usefulness and legitimacy. Anyone who tells you that lung cancer, broken bones, or type one diabetes can be cured by a certain diet should have their tongue removed. I'm not suggesting that these claims are made by practicing naturopaths, but I simply offer them as obvious limitations to this therapeutic approach. On the other hand, if you are experiencing frequent headaches and heart palpitations, a naturopath would likely ask the right questions (probably before many physicians would) to find out if you happen to drink four liters of Coke every day. Problem solved. Again, an obvious and simple first line approach which shouldn't be relegated to the field of naturopathy, but should be recognized as simple logic and embraced by western medicine.

One common issue I find with the whole idea of naturopathy is the common misunderstanding of its most fundamental principles amoungst the general public. I have several friends who regularly purge with "natural" laxatives such as aloe vera and cascara segrada. They would never dream of taking something like "Ex-Lax", but eagerly consume these herbs which are not necessarily safe (In the case of cascara, there is good reason to believe it is not safe: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 95 (12): 3634-3637 DEC 2000). What baffles me is this: if you want to take a natural approach to catharsis, why take an herb? Eat less sugar and meat, eat more All-bran, and drink more water. I would hope that this would be the approach of any practicing naturopath, but guess where they got the advice to start taking the cascara? You guessed it, a naturopath.

There is one other major problem that I see in the practice of naturopathic medicine, and it is this. Despite the common sense approach that can be found in the most simple manifestations of naturopathic medicine, the fact that homeopathy is commonly considered as part of the arsenal just screams of a field devoid of critical thought and common sense.198.11.27.83 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

[edit] Appropiateness of extrenal links

“Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Naturopathic medicine. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.” Levine2112

Good. Good.... Not everyone has nefarious intent by the way.

I do find the back and forth here on the validity of natural medicine modalities “interesting.” Someone is of the opinion that this is a poorly written article (and no… I really don’t have the time to go back and figure out who said it) and that somehow reflects on the validity of natural medicine. I am sure that somewhere on the web I could find a crappy article on quantum mechanics. Would that article have any bearing of the validity of quantum mechanics?

P.Cogan is of the opinion that Anna someone makes a lot of unsubstantated claims at bit further up the “talk page” here. How is one to substantate claims other than to cite articles from peer reviewed medical journals? That is primarily what the page in question does, at least the page I pointed to. How close the text of the page that was originally pointed to does or does not come to personal advoacy is another story.

Other than that… I don’t know what to tell you. It should have been down at the bottom under external links under some sort of subheading “lists of research articles” or some such. Dunno… You want references, or you don’t, or they are too specific, or you just want to hang out and argue that there’s no substantion for natural medicine modalities, or somethine else... I guess I really don’t have the time to hang out and bicker back and forth if that’s what you want to do.
70.176.147.196 13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

By all means, please post references for any claims as to the safety and efficacy of any herbs mentioned, particularly for the COX-2 inhibitors I originally asked about. Keep in mind, there is a difference between adding a link to a webpage and citing references. Just add a superscript to anything you have a reference for and then list the actual article citation at the bottom. I think they want to minimize all the external links, but I doubt there is anyone pushing to cut back on the number of primary literature references.

The fact that the article is poorly written does not reflect on the validity of the claims made in support of naturopathic medicine. However, the fact that the claims about naturopthy draw reasonable criticism demands a well written article in response. If this article is the best the proponents can come up with, I'd say all the criticism is very much merited.

By the way, quantum physics, as a field, has stood up over time to those who have said "show me". Naturopathic medicine has not. That's all the critics want. If you make any claim, particularly one which contradicts the established laws of chemistry and physics, people are reasonably going to ask you to prove it. When it comes down to it, most proponents of alternative medicine can't prove their claims.198.11.27.83 04:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

[edit] Evidence and Naturopathic medicine

Modern scientific enquiry is rapidly outgrowing the concept of 'proof', P. Cogan! A quick look at medical education and medical literature reveals that the new watchword is 'evidence' not 'proof'. Furthermore, we are told that such evidence is best aproached qualitatively: "Is the evidence for efficacy weak or strong?" "Is the evidence of risk weak or strong?". Well-trained doctors (yes, even the naturopathic ones) will look at *individual* interventions from this point of view.

->A great point. I should not have asked for proof, but rather evidence. Semantics aside, there is a great void of objectively obtained evidence supporting many claims of naturopathic medicine. What is more disturbing, however, is the comparison of a field which is legally obliged to acknowledge, and adhere to, the reality defined by properly obtained emperical evidence with another field which is defined at the unchecked whim of those who directly benefit from its presentation as truth.209.59.89.57 07:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

-->There are two interesting results here: Since evidence based medicine is a process that does not belong to a particular modality or medico-political faction, all types of practitioners are free to use it. The only thing sadder than an ND who can't describe the evidence supporting the cardioprotective effects of fish oil supplementation is the MD who claims it is useless without having looked at the evidence either. So one interesting thing about evidence-based medicine is that just about anyone can be trained to use it. Naturopathic medicine is not innately incompatible with EBM. -LMontgomery

->Agreed. Saying that this, that, or the other is useless, without evidence for these claims, is an abuse of authority. However, if there is no compelling evidence that a given treatment is authentic or safe, then there is no reason to accept its application. As an example, Anna Abel made several claims about "herbal COX-2" inhibitors above. I'd love to see any evidence to support these claims.209.59.89.57 07:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

-->The second interesting requirement of EBM is that all interventions be aproached individually. There is no meaningful way to describe evidence for 'supplementation' or 'accupuncture' as modalities for example. So more and more we are seing evidence being gathered for *specific* interventions. For sure there are some alternative claims out there that have very little evidence to support them. But there are also many others that have extensive evidence. The statement 'there is no proof that accupunture works' isn't just hyperbole, it is meaningless hyperbole. -Lmontgomery

->That's one way of looking at it. Another way, is to say that the claim "accupuncture 'works'" is meaningless hyperbole. What do you mean by "it works". [Never said this - LM] Define your parameters, and then offer some evidence to support your claim.209.59.89.57 07:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

-->My point is that *all* such claims (for and against) are too general to be meaningful and should be kept out of the article. Could you perhaps benefit from your own advice by defining specific parameters and offering specific evidence to support your (distressingly general) claims?

The article should mention that some natural interventions have strong evidence, some others have weaker evidence and some others still have not been studied in a meaningful way at all! The article should also note the trend towards increasing interest from the EBM research community in natural therapeutics. Any wholesale statements about natural medicine or its modalities 'lacking proof' are spectacular dead-ends, and should be avoided. - L. Montgomery

->OK, how's this for a statement: many naturopathic modalities lack sufficient evidence to suggest that they are in the least bit usefull (as is the case with homeopathy and many herbs). In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that naturopathic medicinal treatments are inherently more safe than the standard alternatives (i.e. claims that the prescription of herbs is a necessaerily safe practice are spurious). Herbs aren't useless, there simply isn't enough evidence to claim that they are inherently safe. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is useless.209.59.89.57 07:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

--> A good article avoids discussing evidence that does not exist and focuses on the evidence that does exist. By the way, I mean 'evidence' to include evidence that supports an intervention as well as evidence that fails to support an intervention. Statements like 'no evidence exists' are meaningless and usually false.

Although it is true that there is 'no evidence' to suggest that naturopathic medicine *as a whole* is safe and effective, there is also no evidence that cardiology *as a whole* is safe and effective. This is because evidence is gathered for specific interventions, not medical disciplines or specialties. There is some good evidence supporting natural interventions as there is some good evidence that demonstrates lack of effectivness. The point should be that more research is needed. Naturopathy is inferior to other disciplines only in as much as it has not recieved the same level of research funding. Blanket statements about naturopathy are unfounded until that research has been performed. It is not reasonable to claim that something has been proven useless while also claiming that no research has been done: this would only serve to give the article a prejudicial tone.

We should also avoid language like 'not the least bit useful' or 'useless' for similar reasons - these are too vague to be helpful. If you want to argue that Vitamin D is 'useless' to lower cancer rates, by all means go to the Vit D page. (Good luck with that by the way! Vit D cancer prophylaxis is another example of good research finally confirming what your ND has been telling you all along.) The truth is that there is a tremendous amount of work going into evaluating natural remedies - just do a pub med search on any supplement in your health food store. I think it would be unfair and misleading to suggest that this research does not exist. - L Montgomery

Several good points. I suspect we see more eye to eye on this than comes out in a call and response type exchange such as this. We're also getting away from the primary concerns of critics such as myself. As I have stated somewhere above (different section), all of naturopathic medicine should not be dismissed. That would be absurd There are a lot of common sense approaches to diagnosis and treatment which are pursued more vigorously in the naturopathic field than in traditional western medicine. Simple dietary changes to address things like constipation, for example. Too many MDs will run all sorts of tests and prescribe all sorts of medicine while an ND (based on my reading) will be more likely to take the approach of "eat less beef jerky and more spinach". Western medicine suffers from all sorts of foibles, but that is not what we are here to discuss. My major concern with naturopathic medicine is as follows:

Many of the modalities employed, herbalism for instance, are practiced without any regulatory body demanding evidence of efficacy, safety, establishment of a therapeutic window, or normalization of dosing. Traditional pharmaceuticals are tightly regulated along these lines and most of the claims as to the supperiority or safety of herbal preparations are founded in the fact that these two approaches (traditional pharmacetical vs herbal) are playing by two different sets of rules. Claims made in the pharmaceutical field are legally restricted to those things for which there is ample evidence, whereas *anyone* can make any claim they wish about herbs and are not legally bound to support it. For instance, several claims have been made on this talk page about the efficacy and safety of herbal COX-2 inhibitors. I have asked repeatedly for supporting citations for these claims and none have been offered. Of course, this doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist, but I have also done some extensive searches on Scifinder and the ISI Web of Science (citation index), both of which are more extensive databases than pubmed, and I have found no evidence to support the claims that have been made. In fact, I have yet to find mention of ANY herbal COX-2 specific inhibitors (still looking). This problem is beyond the scope of the NDs in the field, since there isn't enough money floating around to do the appropriate research, and there isn't much incentive to do the research anyhow. The FDA needs to get involved and start regulating this stuff.

I agree 100% that it is shortsghted and foolish to dismiss all of naturopathic medicine on account of a lack of data. However, if all of the claims made in the field of naturopathic medicine which lack supporting data are stripped away, what is left behind? It's very simple, and this works both ways: offer some evidence to support the claims made pertaining to naturopathic medicine, or stop making the claims. And let's be clear: if a claim is made as to efficacy and safety of a treatment, the onus is not on me to give evidence it is bogus (unless I explicitly say it is bogus), the onus is on the claimant to give evidence to suggest it is valid. I can tell you all I want that I can fly and walk on water, but you'd be a fool to believe me unless I offer some supporting evidence

Yes, there is a good deal of research being pursued in this field, and yes, there is a shortage of funding for the appropriate research. However, the data coming in does not support the broad claims of the inherent safety which are commonly made by proponents of the field.

For the following, L. Montgomery's statements are led with "-->" where mine are led with "**".209.59.94.52 16:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

• • I should start out by saying that I am not an MD, nor do I work for or have any vested interest in the pharmaceutical industry. Western medicine has all sorts of problems and big pharma certainly partakes in less than scrupulous practices in order to maintain their grip on health care. The point of this long rant is to bring to light the problems inherent in making assumptions about the safety of treatments employed by the naturopathic field. Unfortunately, only L.Montgomery and myself are likely to ever read this.

--> Can you be more specific? Which 'broad claims of inherent safety'? Which 'proponents'? How commonly are these statements made? I need to point out that your statement about others making broad claims is itself a broad claim (not to be a jerk, but to flush out what gets put into this article, which right now is running on fumes). A good start would be to find some ND association/practitioner websites or publications that make these broad claims and reference them in the article.

• • My claim here is only as broad as it need be, I see nothing superfluous about it. *ANY* claim that herbs are inherently more safe than traditional pharmaceutical agents is just specious. Feel free to make specific comparisons, but be prepared to offer evidence in support of your claims. As for your question of "which broad claims?". Well let's see.

• • 1. This from the wikipedia article we are discussing:

• • "*It is asserted, yet strongly refuted by critics, that* plants can gently move the body into health without side effects posed by *some* synthetic chemicals in modern pharmaceuticals." Keep in mind that the only reason there is a caveat from the critics (notice the words in asterisks) here is because I personally had to put it in there!

• • 2. Looking at various ND websites around the net:

• • From http://www.drswanson.com/doctor.htm, we get this

"Use safe and non-invasive therapies which cause little or no side effects."

• • From http://www.ncoh.net/services/healthcare/index.php?mid=1

"Unlike regular doctors however, we are particularly interested in using therapies that stimulate a person's natural healing processes, *using non-toxic therapies*; and, to identify and remove causes of a disease."

• • From http://www.drhansen.com/naturopathic/index_naturo.cfm

"Nature cures through the body’s inherent healing mechanisms. When supported it can maintain and restore phenomenal health. Naturopathic physicians seek to support and enhance these natural healing systems by using medicines and techniques that work in harmony with body and are free of harmful side-effects."

• • This last statement is a quote of the "vis medicatrix naturae", and is simply a paraphrasing of the same principle I quoted from the wiki article above. We'll come back to this.

• • It is quite clear that these people are claiming that their methods are "safe", "non-toxic", and "free of side effects". The clear inference being that the herbs they use, being one of their methods, are safe. For the sake of argument, and even though these websites were simply the first hits which appeared in a google search, let's assume these guys are renegades who are making broad claims about safety which a reasonable ND would not. Let's look at the authorities on the matter then. Wikipedia lists six accredited schools of naturopathic medicine. Let's see what they have to say.

• • First off, note that five of the six (didn't see it or look too long at Bridgeport) of these schools, somewhere on their website, cite the "vis medicatrix naturae", which is very often phrased as it is as quoted above, directly claiming that all the methods employed are inherently safe.

• • From NCNM, at http://www.ncnm.edu/academics/naturopathic_school_information.php#principles

Under the description of botanical medicine: "When properly utilized, most botanical medicines can be applied effectively with minimal likelihood of side effects."

• • From SCNM, at http://www.scnm.edu/college/philosophy.php

"The human body possesses the inherent ability to restore health. The physician's role is to facilitate this process with the aid of natural, nontoxic therapies."

• • Claims of inherent safety seem to be a common thread here. It should be noted that most of these websites also stress that naturopathic modalities are not always the best option and that traditional pharmaceuticals or surgery are advocated when appropriate. I say kudos to the NDs. It's obvious that there is a push from within (the existence of accredited schools is testament to this) to establish regulation of the field and to be responsible health care providers. However, we still have the problem of these claims of safety and efficacy in herbalism.

--> hope we can agree on this: broad statements should be avoided. An even-handed article should describe the idea that 'natural interventions are generally more effective and safer' as an *opinion* of some naturopaths. To be fair, the opposite opinion 'natural alternatives are generally not as effective or as safe as pharmaceutical based interventions' should also be be presented as a belief.

• • I didn't say this. I said that the claims of safety and efficacy are largly unsupported by properly designed studies, and this is a fact, not an opinion. There is not enough evidence to claim that all herbs are less usefull than pharmaceutical agents. Some herbs which have been explored, yes, but not all. There is a difference between the critics claiming that herbs are useless and inherently dangerous, which are very weak claims, and critics who simply say "show me evidence that herbs are safe and efficacious".

-->The context for these statements should be that there is an absence of evidence, either way. Let's also be careful when atributing the first statement to all NDs: I happen to know that the training to become an ND requires extensive knowledge of botanical toxicity and herb-drug interactions, with great emphasis placed on when to refer serious conditions to other practitioners for more effective treatments. NDs are not being taught that their modalities are 'always better, always safer'.

• • That's great. So why these claims of "safe", "non-toxic", and "no side effects" on the vast majority of the web pages I have cited above?

-->As for the natural cox-2 inhibitors, there are many in nature (where do you think Pfizer and Merck got their cox-2 inhibitors from? It wasn't *de novo* synthesis from first principles, my friend!)

• • I'm sure there are many COX-2 inhibitors in nature, I'd simply like to see references for any which have actually been identified.

• • As a matter of fact, Vioxx (as well as several other clinically employed COX-2 inhibitors) was developed based on accidental findings at UpJohn, a pharmaceutical company which was involved in a search for anti-estrogenic compounds. The structural elements which give these inhibitors their binding affinity for COX-2 all came about through purely synthetic ventures, and were not directed by any comparison to or origin in natural products (other than the fact that they were trying to mimic estrogen). The actual clinical candidate rofecoxib (Vioxx) came from rational synthetic modifications to some of the lead compounds which came out of Upjohn's original accidental findings. Lednicer, D., Curr. Med. Chem., 2002, (9), 1457.

• • By the way, many drugs are currently on the market or in the pipelines which have been, believe it or not, completely developed by rational design, without any reliance on "natural" products, other than the endogenous ligands or substrates they attempt to mimic. You don't need to start from a plant or bacterial metabolite in order to design a drug. The HIV protease inhibitors are a great example of this.

-->I am floored that curcumin, for example, to this date has no clinical human trials. It is used as an anti-inflammatory left, right and centre (and in the GRAS form of tumeric, for centuries). A great example of a natural product that has a great safety record, has a known mechanism of action (although more recent research is now suggesting it is hitting NF-kappaB as well as cox-2) and is being used extensively.

• • For clarity sake, curcumin is a suppresor of protein expression, it is not a COX-2 inhibitor, these are two entirely different modes of action. Once again, there have been no controlled studies (that I have found) which verify the safety of curcumin. Just because no one has looked for toxicity in a clinical study doesn't mean there is none. We'll get back to this further down the page.

-->Absence of evidence? Perhaps - but at some point we are going to have to decide if hundreds (even thousands) of years of safe and effectve use should be admisable as a form of evidence. Ayruvedic tradition may not be as valuable to you or me as an RCT, but then again, no one has ever died eating tumeric. Sadly, we can not say the same for Vioxx. So you tell me, which was 'better studied', at least in terms of safety? Is 1000 years of uncontrolled anecdotal evidence really inferior to 10 years of highly controlled phase three trials?

• • As far as efficacy goes for these thousand years of experience, we can just look at echinacea. Claims of its ability to mitigate the common cold have been shown in well designed clinical protocols, to be unfounded. Archives of Internal Medicine, 164 (11), 1237. Is it possible that, just because people believe in something for thousands of years, it is not necessarily so? Or is the world still flat?

• • Ah, there it is, Vioxx. You are about to make my point for me, and I do appreciate it. First of all, show me the autopsies of all those people taking these herbs over the last thousand years and we can then begin to talk about what we "know" about safety. Just because an herb ostensibly helped with someone's headache, doesn't mean it also didn't cause liver failure six months down the road. Of, course, there is also no evidence to suggest that something like curcumin had ever caused liver failure, or heart failure for that matter, but here's the rub. The only reason that Vioxx was pulled from the shelves is because Merk was adhering to FDA regulations and were actually *looking for toxicity*. If you put any herbal agent into a clinical trial under FDA guidelines, you are going to find the same general profile of side effects as are found in any synthetic drug. The FDA demands that *anything* perceived as a negative symptom (constipation, change in sex drive, headaches, sour stomach, diarrhea) be recorded as a side effect of the drug being tested, even if these common issues don't occur with any more regularity than they do in the general public. You take 5000 random people over the course of 6 months and one of them is going to be constipated during that stretch. If that person ended up being in a drug trial by chance, their constipation goes down as a side effect. This is good. Caution is very important in these maters. The big problem is that no one is holding the herbs to the same standards. If synthetic drugs were not held to this FDA standard, you'd find that the vast majority would be considered to have no side effects at all, simply because there would be no onus to look for or report side effects. This is the problem with herbalism. Even in the cases where clinical trials are being conducted, they do not have to conform to FDA standards and can therefore ignore all of the events which would be reported as drug side effects if they did indeed follow the FDA regulations.

• • Now for Vioxx. Vioxx was voluntarily pulled from the market by Merk a few years back. I think we'll both agree that this was a move to try to save face and minimize legal action, once they found that they would ultimately be forced to pull the drug anyway. That situation not withstanding, let's look at exactly why Vioxx was pulled. The popular press would have you believe that people were dropping dead left, right, and center from heart attacks attributed to Vioxx. But this is not the case at all. The study which led to the recognition of carditoxicity is described in detail here: Lancet, 364, 2004, p. 2021. Over the course of all clinical trials on Vioxx, up until the time of the withdrawal of the drug, 21,432 patients were studied. Of this entire population, there were 64 myocardial infarctions. That's sixty-four. After correcting for the fact that there were more test subjects in the Vioxx treated groups than in the control groups, we find that there were 2.24 times as many infarctions in the Vioxx group. So for the roughly 14,000 patients treated with Vioxx, 52 infarctions were observed. Based on the control group data, we saw a rate of 23 infarctions per 14,000 patients. That's a difference of 29 events in a population of 28,000 people. The interesting part is that when you compare Vioxx to placebo, the relative risk is 1.05, meaning that there was no difference in the number of infarctions when Vioxx was compared to a sugar pill. Only when Vioxx was compared to naproxen (Aleve) do you see a statistically significant difference. The funny thing is, there is evidence that naproxen may be cardioprotective, meaning that the extra infarctions observed in the Vioxx group were not caused by Vioxx, but were the normal rate to be expected in the general populace, and that Naproxen was simply protecting against infarctions. It should be mentioned that the cardioprotective capacity of naproxen is questionable, as some studies support it (Archives of Internal Medicine, 162 (10), 2002, 1099) and others refute it (Lancet, 359 (9301), 2002, 118).

• • Anyhow, more recent trials and meta-analyses on large populations of COX-2 specific inhibitor treated individuals have found no link between these drugs and myocardial infarctions (American Journal of Cardiology, 89 (4), 2002, 425.; New England Journal of Medicine, 343 (21), 2000, 1520.; Lancet, 364, 2004, 675.; American Journal of Cardiology, 89, 2002, 204.)

• • What does this have to do with the safety of herbs? Well, not much. But my point is still the same and still remains unaddressed. Vioxx, a drug for which there is no conclusive evidence of toxicity (in particular cardiotoxicity), has been vilified in the press and courts, and commonly presented as an example of the toxicities found in synthetic drugs. In particular, on this forum it has been compared to (as of yet unidentified) herbal COX-2 inhibitors in efforts to make claims of the safety of herbal drugs. But here is the problem. No one would have ever in, oh… say a thousand years, picked up on the toxicities attributed to Vioxx if it was never investigated. In other words, you don't notice 29 heart attacks in a population of 28,000 people unless you set up a very regimented experiment and examine the data with some strict statistical analysis. It is only because Merk went looking for the toxicities that they have been identified, and keep in mind that further investigations have brought into question whether these toxicities even exist. No one is doing this sort of detailed analysis on herbs. If they were, the broad claims of the inherent safety of herbs would fall apart (check the quotes above if you've forgotten who is making these broad claims).

• • Naturopathic medicine has a lot to offer, but the field also makes deceptive, and in many cases patently false, claims as to the safety of its methods. I have no doubt that most NDs are not being intentionally deceptive or fraudulent, but that they actually believe these claims themselves. This doesn't surprise me, given the central dogmas of naturopathic medicine. I mean, we haven't even touched on the ideas of "life-forces", "vital energies", "treating the cause", or "treating the whole person", all of which are spurious. There are no parameters to define what "treating the cause" or "treating the whole person" mean. Likewise there is no solid definition of what a "life-force" or "vital energy" are and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that these things, were they even defined, actually exist. The biggest problem is that these claims are directed at a general public which is grossly undereducated in these matters

→I don't need a crossover study comparing tumeric to prednisone for rheumatoid arthritis because we both know that prednisone is going to 'win' in the suppression of inflammation and temporary relief of pain categories. But what about the serious concerns of long term steroid use? Is a food that you can safely eat for the rest of your life really inferior to a drug that will start to depress your immune system as early as the third month? As a single agent anti-inflammatory, curcumin isn't as strong as the drugs (well, at least not until Pfizer comes along and sticks a fluorine on it, which they almost certainly will if they haven't already).

• • Again, show me some evidence to support these claims about curcumin efficacy and safety.

→Then again, naturopathic medicine was never meant to be about 'single-agent interventions'. The article could be improved by stressing this - legitimate NDs are trained not to prescribe a single 'magic pill', but complex protocols that include common sense changes to diet and lifestyle as well as botanicals, accupuncture etc. In isolation, any one of these changes may fail to register as being significant in an RCT. I am *not* claiming that natural medicine deserves to be exempt from rational evidence-based evaluation, just pointing out that by definition, gathering evidence for single variable interventions (drug monotherapy) is going to be a different process from gathering evidence for multiple variable interventions (diet change, a botanical, an exercise plan, meditation etc). There is such a thing as synergy.

→Having said all that, naturopathic medicine has atracted an alarming number of "un-D's" and other well-intentioned folk who, in looking for panaceas have a tendancy to edify specific supplements as magical cure-alls. Unscrupulous suplement companies are selling out and cashing in. This is why it is important that the article distinguish the NABNE registered naturopathic doctors who attended a CNME certified college from the so called 'traditional naturopaths'. The former are more likely to use EBM within a well balanced naturopathic context and less likely to jump on the alternative fad-of-the-day.

74.210.19.176 14:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC) L. Montgomery

• • This is all great and commendable, but even the certified and accredited schools are making claims which are not supported by evidence (see the citations above).

[edit] Pseudoskepticism

The article should probably have a proper 'criticism' section. It was liberally peppered with examples of pseudoskepticism, which I have edited out. There should be a place for the skeptical voice in any article (expressing doubt, noting lack of evidence demonstrating safety/efficacy) but pseudoskepticism (expressing denial, making unsubstantiated general claims of lack of efficacy or danger) is just another POV. This is a key difference - it is one thing to note that there is lack of proof for a claim, but quite another thing to claim that the lack of proof in itself proves that the claim is false. (Science does not work this way! I may fail to prove that the earth is round, but my failure does not proove that it is flat!) The article should hold proponents and critics of naturopathic medicine to the same standard: the 'burden of proof' must be applied equally to those who make claims and those who deny them, especially when the claims are vague ('Most naturopathic interventions are/are not safe and effective').—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.252.66 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 18 July 2007

Ah pseudoskepticism... the final defence of true believers the world over. What you are doing, is removing factual information to push your own POV. Criticism, should be interspersed thoughout the article in appropriate places, not isolated in their own section. Ornis (t) 15:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your insult ('true believer') notwithstanding, could you be more specific? Which 'facts' have been removed? Which POV have I inserted? I'm not married to the idea of a criticism section, just suggesting it. It seems that there is enough valid skepticism to justify such a section. 206.47.252.66 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

How about removing a sourced statement that natropathy is not only largely untested, but not subject to anywhere near the same sort of testing evidence-based medicine is, and inserting. "Naturopathy appears to be a generally safe health care approach." That and the general weasely attempts to soften language, or contrast "alternative" and "conventional" medicine. ornis (t) 16:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Naturopathy appears to be a generally safe health care approach." is a direct quote from the source in question! Your inference that naturopathic treatments are somehow "endagering the health of the public" is a misrepresentation of the same source. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathic_medicine#_note-nccam) You were asking for facts, there they are. BTW, I prefer this discussion to the endless edit war, but the insults ('true believer', 'weasely') need to stop. 206.47.252.66 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement that "Naturopathy appears to be a generally safe health care approach" is quite meaningless and misleading. Appears to whom? [... to NCCAM, the source of the statement 74.210.34.111 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)] There is nothing inherently "safe" about naturopathic practices. If you want this point expounded upon, take a look at the long diatribe immediately above this discussion on pseudoskepticism. The only factual statement which can be made about the safety of naturopathy, and which might make a good lead-in here would be along the lines of "Naturopathic modalities have been used extensively with relatively few reports of cliniclly significant adverse effects. However, there is considerable debate about the inherent safety and efficacy of naturopathic practices, as little research has been carried out to identify the acute clinical, subclinical, or long term cummulative toxicities of naturopathic practices". This implies no predjudice, but simply states a fact.209.59.96.172 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)P.Cogan

A late comment here, but naturopathy has such a wide spread of methods and ideas that are used and taught - from the totally harmless (in and of itself) homeopathy to very dangerous anti-vaccination sentiments - that any general statement about safety is nonsensical and misleading. Each method and idea should be judged on its own merits. Since all the methods and ideas likely have their own articles here, that can be done there, where the judgments about safety will be quite different and more specific, as should be the case. -- Fyslee/talk 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The term isn't even being correctly applied here. I'm reverting the edit until this IP gets some consensus. He/she has yet to identify even a single actual example in of so-called pseudoskepticism. This has got to stop. Silly rabbit 15:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just filed a 3RR notice. This isn't even fun. Orangemarlin 18:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

He's up to 12RR anyway. •Jim62sch• 21:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopathic medicine 'endagering public health'

Did anyone really think that this unreferenced POV was going to fly? I invite others to explore the citation provided for this statement, the context for which is 'Naturopathy appears to be a generally safe health care approach'. I am sure that there are skeptics who have made this assertion - if so, an authentic reference should be found. Even with a halfway decent reference, there is no way that this statement is going to make it in the article head. 206.47.252.66 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, anon, you place a {{fact}} tag if you dispute something, you don't fucking edit war. Seeing you blocked will be a joy. •Jim62sch• 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no patience with these vandals. Orangemarlin 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principles of naturopathic medicine

These should be put back into the article - they are taken from the naturopathic doctors' oath. These are the principles that all NDs are required to uphold in their practice. As such they describe what makes naturopathic medicine different from conventional medicine. Without them, the article is pretty useless, no? I suppose any description of a principle has, by definition, an element of POV, but let's not get too carried away - the primary goal of the article is to describe what Naturopaths believe and do, isn't it? Why should the central tenets of their system of medicine be excluded? You wouldn't remove all references to 'Jesus as the son of God' in an article about christianity would you? 74.210.34.111 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A summary, sure. But several pages of comment and analysis? No. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The NCCAM position

I also see that NCCAM's assesment of naturopathic medicine is being stripped out of the article. There seems to be two sides warring here: one group who would like the article to emphasize risk of danger/lack of efficacy and another group wishing to emphasize the relative safety and efficacy of nat-med. The article needs to be balanced. NCCAM's assesment provides one half of the story with statements like: "Naturopathy appears to be a generally safe health care approach", "Rigorous research on this whole medical system is taking place but is at an early stage." Note to those concerned with representing the other half of the story: rather than deleting these NCCAM refs, a better aproach would be to find notable, verifiable sources that present your concerns and include these alongside the NCCAM position. Please stop deleting well referenced information from noteworthy sources in the name of 'removing POV'. Find a comparable source for your concerns or move on, already. 74.210.34.111 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific studies of naturopathic treatments

Hi everyone, what a great talk page, it's so lively! I placed a "citation needed" tag on the following statement:

With only a few exceptions, most naturopathic treatments have not been tested for safety and efficacy utilizing scientific studies or clinical trials

As a very research oriented student at one of the accredited ND schools, I've seen research published in peer-reviewed journals evaluating therapies in each and every one of the modalities mentioned earlier in the article (manual therapy, hydrotherapy, herbalism, acupuncture, counseling, environmental medicine, aromatherapy, nutritional counseling, homeopathy). Unless a citation for the above statement is found, I propose to replace the it, perhaps with something like "Many naturopathic therapies have yet to be evaluated through research, and many have been shown to be efficacious in the scientific literature." I would be happy to use pubmed references to cite a statement like that, but first I look forward to hearing from critics of naturopathy, and I'd also like to wait until my biochem and pathology finals are over. Lamaybe (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, everybody, for posting before I read the entirety of the preceding talk page. P. Cogan has made some really great points above, and in light of those, it would seem brash to replace what exists with a statement as simple as I had suggested.

Naturopathic doctors, like medical doctors, believe that their treatments can make people healthier. Medical doctors almost exclusively use treatments that have been shown to be efficacious in randomized, placebo controlled trials (RCTs.) Naturopaths also use treatments shown to be efficacious through RCTs, (including pharmaceutical and botanical medicines, homeopathy, hydrotherapy, acupuncture, nutritional counciling, etc.) and they also draw on other traditions other than the RTC to inform their choices. In fact, there are particular treatments in every modality that naturopaths use that have RCTs to support them, and there are other treatments in every modality that have not been tested and that they still use, because they are being informed by another tradition, be it the folk tradition of botanical medicine, or the body of knowledge accumulated by homeopathy, or giving nutritional or hydrotheraputic advice from the naturopathic tradition.

If an RCT shows a treatment not to be effective, what does an ND do? The same thing an MD would—read the study and interpret it for him/herself. For example, the scientific literature used to support the idea that vitamin E is cardioprotective. More recent, and larger studies show no cardioprotective effect. What does a doctor do? Try her/himself to make the best decision. And there are definitely MDs and NDs who would prescribe vitamin E for heart health, and there are those who would not.

Hopefully, NDs and their patients understand that pharmaceutical medicines’ side effects tend to be much more well documented than the side effects of botanical or other kinds of medicines, and they acknowledge that risk. Medicine has been practiced for a long time, however, and RCTs are a relatively recent invention. Some people choose the potential advantages of untested medicines along with the potential risks. And for a lot of people, long folk traditions are all the evidence they need that a medicine is safe and efficacious, and until each one of those remedies has been subjected to the wonderful evaluatory rigours of an RCT, they want the right to seek the council of someone trained in the venerable folk tradition of those medicines. They would then seek out an herbalist, a homeopath, a nutritionist, a massage therapist, an acupunturist, or a naturopath. And if they want someone who has also studied pharmacology, biochemistry, and drug interactions at a graduate level, alongside those other modalities, they would consult an ND who is a graduate of one of the accredited 4 year institutions.

P. Cogan: lung cancer, broken bones, or type one diabetes can’t be cured by diet, but it’s certainly possible that diet could help your chances of living longer and with fewer symptoms after you’ve been diagnosed with lung cancer or type 1 diabetes. What’s more, I challenge your statement that belief in homeopathy “screams of a field devoid of critical thought and common sense” The meta-analyses of homeopathy have been highly controversial, and I like to think of myself as a pretty sensible critical thinker, who’s read a lot of the research, and remains open to the idea that homeopathy is good medicine. If you have a couple of hours, you should check out the responses to Ben Goldacre's article about homeopathy in the Lancet (particularly response #26, which is mine):), at

http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/the-lancet-benefits-and-risks-of-homoeopathy/#more-577

Just seeing this now. Yes, diet can help maintain health, but how doe that extrapolate to validate all the :other practices of naturopathy?

As for your referenced articles in Ben Goldacre's bit, I was only able to access two of them: the Pediatrics :article and the journal of ACM article, both by the same lead authors and dealing with pediatric diarrhea.  :Hardly compelling. These are preceisly the types of articles which are ignored in proper meta analyses. I'm :rather curious as to why the Pediatrics article was even published. The authors themselves claim that a :sample size of 100 patients was needed to determine any statistical relevance of the findings. However, :after all the various reasons for patients dropping out of the study, only seventy or so were available for :final analysis. Not to mention that they are only reporting a "statistically significant" difference between the :treated and placebo group for a single variable on a single day of the study (unless I read that wrong).

The CAM journal article suffers from the same problem of small sample size. The authors even state that :the treatment and placebo group sizes were skewed beyond the expected sampling error and basically say :that "this sometimes happens" . Well sure it does, particularly in small sample sizes, which makes the :assessment that "it sometimes happens" the most reasonable explanation for why they saw any difference :in the treatment and control groups; their sample size was too small.

Both articles suffer from another serious flaw. They are not testing one variable. The investigators were :giving several different homeopathic treatments to the kids in the study, some with a sample size of one :patient! You can't study all of those variables in a single study, particularly one of this size, and then draw :the conclusion that homeopathy works.

Let's not forget that these studies were carried out in the third world. The local drinking water was likely :not too pure. Think about it. The authors used several agents in their preparations, so the only real claim :they can be trying to make is that diluting out ANY solute and then drinking the resulting water improves :prognosis of childhood diarrhea. Over the five days of the study (again, hardly long enough to establish :anything) all of these kids must have drank some water from home. This water had all sorts of low :concentrations of solutes. How can the authors possibly suggest that there was any real difference or :control over everything the treatment and control groups were exposed to over the course of the study?

One last comment. It's probably best not to cite the JACM to make a case for anything. The journal has such :an obvious bias to what it it is willing to publish that it's contents are entirely suspect. I say this based on :several of the articles I have skimmed in the journal, most particularly Lionel Milgrom's dreams on quantum :mechanical effects on homeopathy. The man tries to justify why homeopathy only works when no one is :looking(?) by drawing parallels to quantum mechanics. He himself states that these postulates are not :based on any evidence but just grand delusions of "what if"? It has as much scientific merit as suggesting :"what if Hobbits can't ride unicorns because entropy increases when gas expands?" Hardly the sort of topic :a reputable journal would put to press205.217.248.175 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)P.Cogan

However, this entry should be as objective as possible, and unless anyone has a source to cite about what percentage of naturopaths' treatments have been tested using RCTs, we probably shouldn't use words like "most." I propose a statement like :

"Naturopaths draw on both scientific literature and folk traditions for their therapies. Those remedies which have not been evaluated using the scientific method (and which haven't had side-effects reported with the same strictness that the FDA requires for pharmaceuticals) may have negative side-effects of which the physician is not aware, which is a major criticism leveled by critics. Patients are drawn to these remedies because they may provide benefits that pharmaceuticals cannot."

Please, anyone, help me with my wording, or let me know if there's anything in the preceding statement that you take issue with. Thanks! Lamaybe (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"With only a few exceptions, most naturopathic treatments have not been tested for safety and efficacy utilizing scientific studies or clinical trials" I think this statement will have to be made either more or specific if it is to be referenced. The problem is that, as the article states "Naturopathic practice may include a broad array of different modalities" Now you can find a scientific reference for the lack of efficacy of homeopathy or the questionable efficacy of acupuncture as that is what is directly tested. There are even several references that state that most alternative medicine treatments are untested and thus may or may not be effective but it is going to be very hard to find a source about naturopathy in particular. I'm not even sure everyone classifies naturopathy the same way. Don't different differentions of naturopathy include different treatments. For these reasons I believe I could find a sources for the statement but it would not be directly about naturopathy. It would be about the subdiscipleines that comprise naturopathy. Do people consider this acceptable? Should we make the statement more specific to compensate?

Also RE: Lancet trial criticisms refere to the homeopathy talk page. I would avoid including any such criticism here until they are included on the homeopathy page (and there is strong opposition). JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Naturopaths draw on both scientific literature and folk traditions for their therapies. Those remedies which have not been evaluated using the scientific method (and which haven't had side-effects reported with the same strictness that the FDA requires for pharmaceuticals) may have negative side-effects of which the physician is not aware, which is a major criticism leveled by critics. Patients are drawn to these remedies because they may provide benefits that pharmaceuticals cannot." I am not comfortable with this statement "Naturopaths draw on both scientific literature and folk traditions for their therapies" Do we have a reference to support this idea that naturopaths draw on the scientific literature? Do we mean all naturopaths or just some?

This is a bit weasel-wordy but it is at least on the right track "Those remedies which have not been evaluated using the scientific method (and which haven't had side-effects reported with the same strictness that the FDA requires for pharmaceuticals) may have negative side-effects of which the physician is not aware, which is a major criticism leveled by critics." Which remedies are those remedies? Which critics? Also I would suggest you avoid long brackets in your writing as much as possible as it may be hard to read as you have to remember what was at the start of the sentence while you read the bracket. Of course I am a big offender here, especially on talk pages but I would strive to avoid it in the article.

"Patients are drawn to these remedies because they may provide benefits that pharmaceuticals cannot." This statement makes two seperate claims; naturopathic remedies provide a benefit, pharmaceutical medicine does not provide said benefit. Both of these claims would require a reference and such reference would have to be a scientific source. Also we run into a problem with naturopathy being a broad field and some remedies may be of differing efficacy to others.

Hopefully a reply to some of your other comments will allow you to see my reasoning behind these objections:

"Some people choose the potential advantages of untested medicines along with the potential risks." Another common criticism is that both the risks and the benefits are unknown since no solid evidence exists so it is not really an informed decision.

"And for a lot of people, long folk traditions are all the evidence they need that a medicine is safe and efficacious, and until each one of those remedies has been subjected to the wonderful evaluatory rigours of an RCT, they want the right to seek the council of someone trained in the venerable folk tradition of those medicines. They would then seek out an herbalist, a homeopath, a nutritionist, a massage therapist, an acupunturist, or a naturopath" No doubt this is how some people feel but as far as most scientists are concerned folk traidition is not really evidence at all. At most, it is very weak evidence.

"They would then seek out an herbalist, a homeopath, a nutritionist, a massage therapist, an acupunturist, or a naturopath. And if they want someone who has also studied pharmacology, biochemistry, and drug interactions at a graduate level, alongside those other modalities, they would consult an ND who is a graduate of one of the accredited 4 year institutions." I would argue that all the scientific training in the world is useless if you do not base your opinions on the available evidence.

Also, I would suggest that the meta-anlyses of homeopathy are controversial in the same sense that evolution is controversial. A political controversy, not a scientific one. JamesStewart7 (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to take issue with the statement "Medical doctors almost exclusively use treatments that have been shown to be efficacious in randomized, placebo controlled trials (RCTs.)" From personal experience, most medical doctors I have seen have been quite willing to use pharmaceuticals in ways that have not been studied with RCTs -- so-called "off-label" uses. For example, Cytotec, which was originally developed for acid reflux, is routinely used by Obstetricians to induce labor despite the fact that it is not FDA approved for this and can cause uterine rupture. Femara, a cancer drug, is often used to induce ovulation in women who are not ovulating. Metformin, a diabetes drug, is used similarly. Prozac has been prescribed routinely for women who are pregnant or lactating despite the fact that it has never been tested on pregnant or lactating women. The list goes on. The point is, this is another blanket statement that is not backed up with any citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennired65 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I do need to see where you get this?

I have a problem with the following paragraph:

With only a few exceptions, most naturopathic treatments have not been tested for safety and efficacy utilizing scientific studies or clinical trials.[citation needed] There is a concern in the scientific and medical communities that these treatments are used to replace well-studied and tested medical procedures, thereby endangering the health of the patient.[citation needed]

Please explain to me, after seeing what ND's go thru in school and practice to see this type of misinformation written. ND schools and clinics do practice in the most ethical manner - do no harm to the patient. If what the patient has does not respond, send them to a qualified MD. See what the Bastyr University program details. They do have clinical trials and they do publish the results in the ND journals. That is when you see the MD's pick up on them, i.e. the vit D work ups that are now the rage in the MD realm.

Before you start throwing stones at a profession, do some in depth research please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.182 (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

-- The paragraph in question needs to be referenced, put into context or just deleted. Who specifically in the 'scientific and medical community' is concerned? A large number of interventions used by NDs have been evaluated, but I don't know that there is an oficial score being kept anywhere. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article and introduce terms. The content of this quote is not discussed later. "Naturopathic medicine (also known as naturopathy) is a school of medical philosophy and practice that seeks to improve health and treat disease chiefly by assisting the body's innate capacity to recover from illness and injury.". This was the previous revision which both Mccready and I altered. I agree that Mccready made some point of view edits (mccready see arbcom ruling on quakwatch) but I think altering this sentence is defendable. The sentence makes about 3 unsupported claims. The first claim is that what is stated is actually naturopathy philosophy. I don't doubt this but it should be referenced anyway. The second is that naturopathy actually can effectively assist the body's capacity to recover. Although the notion that naturopathy can improve health is not presented as fact, the idea that it assists the body's capacity to recover is presented as factual. "By assisting" is a statement of fact. The third unreferenced claim is that the body has an innate capacity to recover from illness and injury. I will accept this claim as factual, if and only if, the immune system and tissue repair systems are the only thing being referred to here. If this sentence refers to some "innate system" that is implicated in naturopathy but not conventional medicine then it should be both specified and referenced.

Also, if seems very contradictory to place a CAM template in the article and then call it a medical system with a link directing to the medicine article which is about conventional medicine only. As such the term "complementary and alternative medicine" has been used instead. JamesStewart7 (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

-- James I think you are missing the point of having a wiki aticle about naturopathic medicine! Surely our first goal is to describe what naturopaths believe and do. Example: It is a fact that naturopaths believe in the existence of an innate capacity for self-healing. The 'vital force' may or may not actually exist, but this does not alter the fact that self healing is the central emphasis of naturopathic medicine. The second goal of the article is to provide a context that should include noteworthy critisism and opposing views - but it not an apropriate forum to debate or judge the primary content. In demanding that the beliefs of naturopathic practitioners be 'proven' before being described, you are making for an article that is uninformative, and ironically, short on the facts. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Great lead: now all we need is a description of naturopathy.

The lead section as it now stands is laughable: it contains multiple arguments against naturopathy but almost no description of what naturopathy entails. The criticism has almost completely eclipsed the thing that it is criticizing. If I were a visitor coming to read this article with no knowledge of naturopathic medicine, I would walk away with very little beside the impression that somewhere, out there, there are some people who really don't like it very much.

The bit about naturopaths preferring not to use ‘scientifically tested medicines’ is particularly tragic, and also just a little bit amusing for anyone who is up on the current trends in research. For a quick laugh (or cry, depending on your POV), do a pub med search on genestein, or EGCG, or vitamin D, or lactoferrin (don't tell your oncologist, but the FDA just fast-tracked this one!), or curcumin, or alpha-lipoic acid, or N-acetyl cysteine, or L-arginine,or niacin, or resveratrol, or DHA or EPA, or allicin, or lycopene, or artimesinin, or lutein, or beta-sitosterol, or… well, the list of natural molecules that are enjoying intense interest from the research community goes on and on. You would need a specialized 4-year degree just to keep track of them all! These are all natural molecules that are sold by the bucketful at your local health food store (and in your supermaket if you known where to look!). But do they work? Are they safe? You could ask your GP, but your GP has no idea. [I'm not GP bashing here. I like my GP, but never in a month of sundays could he match the above with their natural sources, never mind know how to safely prescribe them.] Hmmm… if only there were a group of board-certified, medically trained professionals interested in focusing their attention on these natural therapeutics, willing to add hundreds of years of traditional human experiential evidence with the latest evidence-based research…hmmm…geee…i wonder…

The great tragedy of the article isn't the that those who actually know something about the topic have been shut out by the critics - its in the tyrany of saying 'no' to an idea without even allowing it to be expressed in the first place. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There. I have removed all criticism from the article. Since you are so obviously more knowledgeable than I am, perhaps you can bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Thanks, I'm outta here. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poorer training than MDs?

“The level of medical training that naturopaths hold … is generally poorer than that of conventional health professionals”

To quote Pierre Trudeau: “Well, yes, and I suppose if my grandmother had wheels she would be a truck.” Now back up and reverse the situation for a moment: Suppose a patient goes to see an MD for a comprehensive protocol that will require some combination of lifestyle modification, nutritional counseling, acupuncture, a homeopathic remedy or two, hydrotherapy treatments, a spinal manipulation, a review of supplements that the patient may be taking, or a customized herbal tincture containing 6 well balanced herbs. Does the MD have poorer training than the ND to complete the task at hand? Of course, but it is foolish to compare the training of the two very different branches of medicine. Lawyers don’t have 'poorer training' than airplane pilots, they just aren't very good at landing planes is all. Dermatologists don’t have poorer training than neurosurgeons - even though their training is shorter, you would best be advised to have the dermatologist look at that funny spot on your back, not the neurosurgeon. I wouldn't ask either of them to choose between Aveena sativa, Melissa officinalis, and Passiflora incarnata for your insomnia, however. And I sure-as-sugar wouldn't trust either of them with the acupuncture needles.

An MD would make a terrible ND and an ND would make a terible MD, but to say that one has poorer training than the other, you first have to make an extremely generalized judgment call about which is more valuable - naturopathic or conventional medicine, and then proceed to judge one practitioner by the other practitioner's standard.

I guess my question to whoever wrote this is: What, specifically can you tell us about the curriculum in naturopathic colleges? Are there specific topics that you are worried about? Do ND's spend less time than their MD counterparts on anatomy, and too much time on physiology in your opinion? Are they not using the latest textbooks? Are their board exams too easy? I suppose my second question would be: how specifically do you know this - have you ever looked at the curriculum, or sat in a class, or written the NPLEX? 72.0.222.219 (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that real physicians are trained to diagnose and treat real illnesses. Going to a naturopath to find out what sort of tea to drink is fine, but you should still go see a qualified healthcare professional for medical treatment. The way the paragraph was worded before this inclusion made it sound like you can go to a naturopath without seeing a physician. Then if a diagnosis is made, you can get a referral to a real physician. Well, that is a very dangerous attitude for the article to endorse, since naturopaths do not receive nearly as much training in actual medicine as do actual doctors. People have died because they did not seek proper treatment quickly enough. Finally, the threshhold for inclusion in the article is verifiability, not truth. The fact that this objection to naturopathy has been raised, even by notable advocacy groups like the NCCAM, clearly makes it verifiable for inclusion. Silly rabbit (talk) 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well silly rabbit, at least it can't be said that you have a hidden agenda. But your opinions about the inferiority of NDs and their medicine make a pretty poor substitute for factual description of what NDs believe and do. I am going to assume good faith that you were not intending to insult those NDs who are in fact 'real' primary care physicians with a lot more to show for their education than just knowing how to make a good cup of tea. I am also guessing that you have very little knowledge of what a typical day is like for an ND in practice or for a student at a naturopathic college. 72.0.222.217 (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that naturopaths generally have poorer training than conventional health care practitioners as if it were a fact but backs this up with two citations, one of which is an opinion of an MD, the second being the assesment of a committee in a jurisdiction that has not tightly regulated the educational requirements for NDs. The MDs opinion is published and may be notable but must be stated as an opinion belonging to that person so that the reader can decide for themselves wether they want to credit it. The finding of the Australian cttee is relevant to the article but can not be used to describe the education of all naturopaths, in deference to the jurisdictions that have much higher requirements. Another good reason to split the aticle perhaps? (See below). Naturstud (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regulation in Australia

This entry is not comprehensive under current education options available within Australia. Vocational training is accessible under the government accredited Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) and there are many Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) who provide quality outcomes for students, including options to articulate with Universities which offer degree programmes.

We do not yet know if and when registration for naturopaths may be ratified, and how this may affect current arrangements, but this article mispresents the present situation. Advanced Diploma Graduates from many accredited RTOs may obtain PI insurance and gain professional accreditation, by meeting the standards of the relevant professional organisations.

We believe the following entry should be changed from:

It is generally thought that with registration, a minimum four-year degree and 400 hours of supervised clinical practice will be required for practice. Currently only a few institutions fulfil these requirements, including Health Schools Australia the Australian College of Natural Medicine's degree course, Southern Cross University Bachelor degree, and the University of Western Sydney's combined Bachelor of Applied Science (Naturopathic Studies) and Graduate Diploma in Naturopathy.

To:

While professional membership is currently available to Advanced Diploma and degree graduates under the Australian Quality Training Framework and Higher Education standards respectively, it is generally thought that with registration, a minimum four-year degree and 400 hours of supervised clinical practice may be required for practice. Prospective students would be wise to consider this when selecting their college of choice. Many organisations, such as Paramount College of Natural Medicine, are able to fulfill the current and future needs of the student with articulations into Universities, such as Charles Sturt University and the University of New England. Currently only a few institutions offer a degree, including Health Schools Australia the Australian College of Natural Medicine's degree course, Southern Cross University Bachelor degree, and the University of Western Sydney's combined Bachelor of Applied Science (Naturopathic Studies) and Graduate Diploma in Naturopathy. In the meantime, this issue may take some time to unfold, and student options will continue to diversify as this occurs.

````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcnm2007 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 

I'm removing the entire paragraph in question. It violates WP:Crystal, not to mention it is unreferenced JamesStewart7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that it would not violate WP:Crystal if references were added (and it is infact an event in progress) and speculation about the future (uncertain) requirements (and who will fulfil them) is removed. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree that a Bachelor of Naturopathy is considered to be a minimum level of education for Naturopathy practice in Australia. Most Naturopaths in Australia hold a Diploma or Advanced Diploma which is more than adequate. Colleges such as The Australian Institute of Applied Sciences [1] and Australian College of Natural Therapies provide fully accredited training that satisfies the requirements of Australia's regulatory bodies both for standards of training and industry specific groups. Degree courses are a nice revenue raiser for Universities to make money from what they themselves consider to be quackery (they extoll the virtues of Natural Medicine with one hand whilst their Medical faculty calls in charlatanism).

Apologies if I have not followed the correct editing techniques as this is my first ever entry on a wikipedia document. Can i suggest the following, and any discussion around training gets its own area?:

Although there is no licensure for naturopaths in Australia, naturopathic medicine is covered by a range of legislation and regulation.

• Quarantine Act 1908 [2] restricts importation and use of some products.
• Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 [3] (TGA 1989) governs the registration, advertising, and labelling of products. This legislation is enforced by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
• Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 [4] expands upon the (TGA 1989) and details allowed ingredients, dosages, and prohibited items. In Schedule 1 it lists recognised professional associations.
• A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Act 1999 [5] allows GST exemption for practitioners if they are a member of a recognised professional association.
• Commonwealth and state health acts.
• State drugs and poisons legislation (and schedules) which regulates the prescribing rights of medical practitioners.
• State health complaints commissioners.

In 2003 the Therapeutic Goods Administration issued the biggest medical recall in Australian history, and suspended the licence of Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited over manipulation of quality control test data. [6] In response to community and health professionals concern, the Australian government established the Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System [7] to advise the government on necessary amendments to the current regulatory requirements. The committees report contained 49 recommendations including the training, accreditation and regulation of practitioners. [8] In 2005 the Government issued a response and in 2006 established the Complementary Medicines Implementation Reference Group [9] to oversee the implementation of this response. Keeganlom —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the changes but I think the protection of title issue is an important one to keep as it is one of the key points of difference between Australia and other jurisdictions - many of the issues are explained in further detail here [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubbidok (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to split the article?

It seems to me that the article is pretty much stalled. The problem seems to be in striking the balance between a description of naturopathic practice with a reasonable amount of criticism. The root of the problem is that naturopathic medicine leads a double life. Criticism that may be appropriate for traditional naturopaths may not be relevant to the NDs and vice versa. So statements like "naturopaths have poorer education than MDs, practice widely different standards of care, do not use scientific evidence, may endanger their patients by failing to refer where necessary, don't use surgery or drugs" etc can not be applied to both groups.

Another example: As the article makes clear, NDs are primary care providers who are legally entitled to diagnose and treat disease in certain jurisdictions. Traditional naturopaths are complementary (not primary) care providers. This is also clear from the body of the article. And yet the current lead of the articles states that naturopathic medicine is a 'complementary and alternative system of healthcare'. This is confusing and misleading. NDs and traditional naturopaths may be inspired by a similar set of tenets, but the scope of their practice is a world apart. The care offered by a primary care ND who prescribes metformin and insulin for her diabetes patients is being described/criticized in the same way as the care offered by a traditional naturopath who might not even own an ophthalmoscope or have access to a lab for the necessary blood tests to monitor her patient. The former may have paid $100,000 and dedicated 7 years of her life to study before passing her board exams, and is likely to use EBM in evaluating apropriate adjunct care. The latter may have taken a weekend or a correspondence course, (or maybe not even that) and is less likely to use EBM.

It is almost impossible to come to a consensus on a singular criticism of natural medicine. Two very different phenomenon are being described and analyzed.

So how about a main article that describes the tenets of natural medicine with summary/links to an article about NDs and another summary/link to an article about traditional naturopathy? That way, criticism/discussion could be more focused and appropriate to the kind of medicine/practitioner being described. 72.0.222.218 (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I briefly suggest a direction for the proposed split? *Retaining the Naturopathic medicine article and having it cover the North American profession, the 6 schools, the AANP, CNME, NPLEX, challenges and comparisons to other medical professions. *And another article titled Naturopathy discussing the philosophy, history, "traditional" naturopaths connection to nature cure, ayurveda, etc.

There's plenty of information to do this. The question would be who has the time, knowledge and interest in the subject? I'd be willing to minimally contribute, keeping in mind my COI...--travisthurston+ 03:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion Travis. My concern is that the NDs and the traditional naturopaths would start to war over the use of the term Naturopathic medicine. Either group would feel left out if such an article excluded them but included the other. If only the traditional naturopaths would embrace the term 'naturopathy' and the NDs would embrace the term 'naturopathhic medicine'...but sadly this isn't so. Both groups use both terms, which for better or worse are functionally synonymous. The traditional practitioners can make no claim on Naturopathic doctor or Naturopathic physician however, just as the NDs would have very little interest in what would go on in a Traditional naturopath article. Naturstud (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's spelled "education"

It's "education", not "eductaion". I'd fix it myself, but the page is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.55.140 (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Dave6 ^talk 06:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Naturopathic Colleges

It is reasonable for the article to link to the list of CNME accreditied naturopathic colleges. Naturstud (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is the the following being removed from the histroy section:

• "Today there are six accredited naturopathic medical schools in North America."

Without this information, the history section leads the reader to wrongly assume that the last (and only) school is NCNM that opened in 1956. This is misleading. Some editors have been deleting the history from 1956-2008 (ie the formation of six other schools) on the grounds that it is 'POV'. Would one of these editors care to comment on why they think that this is so? 206.47.252.66 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopaths believe that they are supporting the body's innate ability to heal itself

I have introduced this concept into the lead, hopefully in an NPOV. For the longest time this article included the central tenets of naturopathy...someone keeps stripping them out, claiming that they are POV. They should be rewritten as NPOV and put back into the article, which is still falls short of describing what naturopaths believe and do. Naturstud (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopathy is more of an approach than a single model of care

I have also tried to introduce this idea in the lead. 'Naturopathy' is best described as an apporach to healthcare since it takes on so many different forms in so many different jurisdications. A naturopathis physician in Arizona may practice primary care, prescribe prescription meds, order ultrasound etc, whereas a traditional naturopath in Quebec may be limited to the 'complimentary' or 'alternative' role. The article should describe the shared philosophy and note that it can be adapted to different models of care. For example, the lead makes it seem is if all naturopaths are trained on how to order lab tests and refer to MDs... this is not true. Naturstud (talk)

[edit] Scare quotes on the word "natural"

I have removed the scare quotes around the word "natural" in the lead. If the "synthetic" meds in the same sentence can go without the quotes, then so can the "natural" substances with which they are being compared. Naturstud (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to explain.

The word "synthetic" is not challenged here because its definition is accepted by both those who profess the fundamental validity of naturopathic claims and those who question those claims. The word synthetic, in the context of the present argument, refers to therapeutic agents which are designed and manufactured through human insight and efforts. Even though this is a limited definition, within this scope of naturopathy, it is acknowledged as a common ground.

Now here's the rub:

Without looking into the dictionary, define the word "natural" for me.

Now look in the dictionary and note the definition.

Write back with either definition, or both for that matter, and we can delve into the ambiguity of the word and why it necessitates quotations.205.217.233.25 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)P.Cogan

Better yet, why don't you just tell us why you think the quotes are justified, P. Cogan? The word 'natural' has many meanings to be sure, but in the sentence that compares natural therapies to synthetic ones, surely there is very little room for confusion or ambiguity. Are you concerned that readers are going to think we are talking about musical notes that are neither sharp nor flat? I don't get it.

If we can give the reader credit to understand that 'synthetic' refers to 'agents which are designed and (sic) manufactured through human insight and efforts', surely they will have no problem understanding 'natural' to mean agents that have not been designed and manufactured through human insight and effort.

Both words suffer the same ambiguity of scope because they could both refer to the source (manufactured vs harvested) but also the origin (intelligence vs environment) of the agents in question. Vitamin C could be considered natural and synthetic, depending on how it is manufactured - 'synthetic' is every bit as ambiguous as 'natural'.

As long as we are assigning homework to each other, please check out Scare quotes. The content could be rewritten to point out the difference between origin and source if you think it is important, but the scare quotes on 'natural' could very easily be read as POV 'sneer quotes', and should not be put back in.

207.112.94.200 (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I didn't expect to get this argument as a response, but if you feel that there is any ambiguity to the word "synthetic", then by all means put it in quotes as well. I would simply like to see some indication that the claims of 'natural" vs "synthetic" are not necessarily justified. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is used as a source of information by people of all different experiences, the vast majority of whom do not have the background to appreciate how the ideas of "natural" or "synthetic" come to bear on the efficacy and safety of therapeutic options. These words are used as if the concepts are actually in contention with one another. "Synthetic" is not the opposite of "natural", in fact, there is nothing "unnatural" about "synthetic" medication, just as there is nothing inherently more "natural" about the methods of a naturopath. So yes, to answer your question, there is room for confusion. It would appear that the only real use of the word is in marketing, in the deception of the naive into believing that the offerings of the naturopath are inherently beneficial when compared to the offerings of alopathic medicine, an assertion which the ongoing debate here has shown to be unfounded.

I suggest that the quotes are reinserted, around both the word "natural" and the word "synthetic" if need be. Particularly because the word "natural" is the foundation of the entire idea of naturopathic medicine. If spurious claims of the validity of naturopathic medicine are going to be made based on a rather arbitrary and ambiguous definition of the word "natural", then I think we should do those coming here to garner information on the topic the courtesy of a full disclosure.

What is so "natural" about naturopathy?

If the hallmark of a natural process is the lack of involvement of human interference, then how do you survive? How do you eat? Even making a salad requires some synthetic input, a touch of that dreaded human creativity. Surely cooking can not be considered natural, since we mix together all sorts of ingredients and then heat it up, causing all sorts of chemical reactions.

The herbal remedies prescribed are often extracts of plans and cell lysates. How is this a natural process? Ayurvedic preparations are often "detoxified" via a process known as samskaras. This is a methodology by which the preparation is boiled successively in milk and cow's urine. Both of these substances are loaded with chemicals and boiling an herb in such a broth is expected to lead to several reactions common to organic synthesis.

One may suggest that urine and milk are natural substances, so they are O.K. So what about the reagents used in classical chemical synthesis? The bulk of organic material used in synthetic chemistry ultimately comes from one of two sources: metabolites of living organisms or petroleum reserves i.e. the natural carbon cycle. All sorts of synthetic transformations can be carried out on these source materials (like boiling them in cow's urine, for example), but the original carbon pool is all natural sources. So why are the molecules extracted from herbs (the carbon mass of which, by the way, comes from the same carbon cycle that chemists dip into) so much different than those prepared by human hands?

Another argument might rest on the toxicity of many reagents used in laboratory synthesis. Keep in mind that many Ayurvedic, herbal, and homeopathic preparations are based on mercury. arsenic, and a slew of innumerable toxic plants.

I'd suggest that the ultimate issue is one of arbitrarily defining what is natural. Why base the definition on biological sources? Is the sun not natural? Are the oceans not natural? Is the earth itself not natural? A better point of reference might be found by going a little deeper into physics. Anything which satisfies the laws of thermodynamics, the very fundamental laws of the natural world, should really be considered natural, shouldn't it? Anything which does exist obviously can exist and is, to my estimation, very much natural.

So while it might be said that the naturopathic community understands the meaning of the word natural as unambiguous, I think a lot of us on the outside here would say that definition is merely one of convenience and we would very much appreciate a little acknowledgment of that point of view. And all it will cost you is a little set of quotation marks.

205.217.249.200 (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)P.Cogan

But adding the quotation marks to 'synthetic' and 'natural' makes the passage less clear, not more clear. It is a qustion of good writing more than anything else. Scare quoting these terms dosn't introduce any of the (interesting if perhaps misplaced) points that you have raised above P Cogan: it just makes the sentence clumsy and if anything increases ambiguity instead of resolving it. 72.0.222.218 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that. The quotes don't actually express the details of the problem. I simply wanted to make it clear that there is a controversy here. I have no intention of making any change in the article myself, I'll let someone else do the editing if they see fit. I just think the article should reflect the reasonable controversies. What is the best way to ensure that, well... I don't have the time to get into edit wars, so I'll just keep throwing in food for thought from time to time.205.217.249.200 (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)P.Cogan

P Cogan raises an excellent point that the article should adress, namely the ambiguity surrounding what makes a naturopathic intervention 'natural', and the (potentially dangerous) assumption that natural=safe or natural=better. The problem once again is that naturopathy is a general aporach to healthcare, not a rigidly defined set of interventions or protocols practiced by a single group of professionals. The answer to his question 'what is natural?' is therefore elusive. I agree that this should be covered, perhaps in a larger section that deals with controversy or criticism surrounding the term 'natuopathic', which is a problematc term for this and many other reasons. However, the lead is a confusing place to put such a discussion, and the quotes make things worse not better imho. Naturstud (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

Well I'm not a fan of homeopathy per se but the best way to challenge pseudoskepticism in my experience is to take the agnostic view. If someone writes that 'homeopathy does not work' do not write that 'homeopathy does work': both these statements are POV.

Focus first on making the criticism fair (NPOV), not eliminating it.

The best way to start is to rewrite critical phrase like "Homeopathy has no scientific basis" so that they are clearly atributed their source. "According to so-and-so, homeopathy has no scientific basis..." This is fair play. It isn't enough for critics to provide a citation at the end of these judgments: they may describe the fact that a certain notable source does not think homeopathy has a scientific basis. They may not report the opinion of that source as if it were itself a fact, no matter how many footnotes they add to it.

Avoid making the same mistake yourself! Don't write 'Homeopathy has been proven to work' and then provide 14 citations. Instead, report that 'Some published studies have concluded that homeopathy is effective'. No one can argue with the fact that the studies you cite have indeed reported efficacy. Stick to the facts and let the reader judge

Good luck. Naturstud (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• This is the article for naturopathy, not homeopathy - they are different, are they not? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Innate ability to heal

The lede currently says that the body is presumed to have innate healing abilities. Isn't this generally accepted? The body has an immune system and can heal wounds, right? Surely the point of naturopathy is to emphasise these acknowledged innate healing abilities. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree Colonel. It is redundant to write that the '..presumed ability of the body to heal itself, which practitioners claim is innate...' (a presumed ability that is claimed to be innate - Uuhgg...that sentence needs to be taken outside and shot!). However, given the recent near edit-war, I suggest you let it stand for now as a peace offering to those who would no doubt argue that writing about the 'innate ability to self heal' is POV. In truth, either modifier alone would probably maintain NPOV:

• ... the presumed ability of the body to heal itself...

OR

• ... the ability of the body to heal itself, which practitioners assume/claim is innate

207.112.75.95 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since you supported this point I have acted upon it and moved on to further improve the lede. The list of modalities perhaps needs attention as I'd like to see some sourcing for entries such as aromatherapy which are arguably a different form of therapy. I have sorted the list to make further inspection easier. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with the Colonel - 'aromatherapy' isn't taught or used in the six naturopathic colleges for example. This points out the main problem with the article, that 'natural medicine' is not a single kind of medicine with a rigidly defined curriculum. The lead should inform the reader that:

• nat med is an approach to helathcare, not a single form of medicine
• this approach is used by different kinds of practitioners
• nat med is incorporated into different models of care (primary, complementary, alternative).

The opposite of 'natural medicine' therefore is not 'evidence based medicine' as is currently being suggested by the lead. Some natural treatments have good evidence, others do not. The same is true for conventional medicine, although it is true that conventional med interventions considered as a whole are better studied. Some practitioners of naturopathic medicine use evidence every day and others do not use it at all. If the lead has to refer to evidence based medicine, I would initially change this:

• "...may recommend patients use evidence-based medicine alongside their treatments"

to this:

• "...may use or recommend evidence-based medicine alongside their treatments"

but would really like to see this:

• "may use or recommend conventional medical interventions alongside their treatments"

...which is the most acurate. 207.112.75.95 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Innate is a common belief among practitioners. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a common belief for just about everyone and so doesn't need saying.

I don't find anything wrong with a statement suggesting that the human body has an innate ability to heal itself, I think that is irrefutable. The real problem is found in claims of this sort

"naturopathic physicians employ methods which use or aid or bolster or work with the body's innate ability to heal itself."

This is a gross assumption which can not be justified by evidence, or even common sense. Keep in mind (as stated several times above) that the broad claims of efficacy and safety for naturopathic practices are, in most cases, unsubstantiated. Now you expect me to believe that you actually know how all of these unsubstantiated interventions work? And that they all simply boost the body's innate ability to heal itself? And that the same vague claim can't be made for any standard pharmaceutical or surgical intervention? And that the interactions of the cellular components of your body with compounds of botanic origin aren't governed by the same biochemical phenomena as are cellular interactions with synthesized pharmaceuticals?

Sure, you may find experimental evidence that a particular herb or compound augments the activity of the immune system (though these claims are most often found to be spurious, or at best unimpressive, when properly tested). But to suggest that all naturopathic practices somehow boost the body's innate defenses, without suggesting how you could possibly know this to be true, is nonsense. If you guys want to be taken seriously, you have to get rid of these ridiculous, arbitrary, meaningless, and touchy-feely qualifiers of your art. Just because you want to believe that naturopathy works with the body in a way unique from that of standard therapies doesn't make it so. Particularly since there is absolutely no basis for making this claim.

There is a lot of great stuff to be found in nature and a lot of powerful therapeutic potential. The biggest problem I keep coming across with the field of naturopathy is that, despite the recent development of professional societies, accredited academic institutions, the adaptation of evidence based research, and a slew of other forward thinking and real-world approaches to increasing the legitimacy of naturopathy, the field is still plagued by the quick fix, easy answer, nature-knows-best, touchy-feely, new age garbage which does nothing but undercut all of the legitimate attempts to harness the power of nature for therapeutic intervention. Even in these pages the problem is distressing. I first got into this discussion when I read (way up at the top) that "Herbal COX 2 inhibitors do not have the same side effects in the liver and heart as the pharmaceutical ones" (a direct quote from someone claiming to be an ND). With all of the accredited and well educated, thoroughly informed NDs roaming these pages (as evidenced by many posts above), why was it that *I* had to point out the FACT that there are not any known herbal COX-2 inhibitors with established therapeutic windows? You guys can't let this stuff slide. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to call out and challenge the nonsense. Which brings us frighteningly close to a scientific approach... 209.59.114.169 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)P.Cogan

It's great to hear insightful criticism from someone outside the profession, P. Cogan, thanks. I think what people are getting at when they talk about naturopathic practices boosting the body's innate defenses, is that naturopaths aim for improving health through supporting the normal and balanced functions of the individual, as opposed to improving health through attacking a pathogen, or interfering with a metabolic pathway. That basic philosophical difference is a pretty significant difference between the ways that most NDs aspire to practice and the way that most MDs aspire to practice. Now, in a state like Oregon, where I live, NDs can and do prescribe antibiotics. But we're trained employ other methods first, if there are any available, which might allow an individual to successfully heal from their infection without us directly addressing the pathogen. For example, types of hydrotherapy that increase lymphocyte production and circulation to the affected area, or dietary changes that reduce inflammatory tendencies that are inhibiting the recovery process. There's plently of peer-reviewed studies showing that diet can influence inflammation, and hydrotherapy addresses immune function. We aspire to a theraputic order which involves removing obstacles to cure, supporting normal function, and then perhaps interfering with a metabolic pathway or addressing a pathogen or whatnot. Lamaybe (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this before but the innate ability to heal is actually dirctly derived from one of the principles of naturopathic practice, the very thing by which it is defined. That is Vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature. This has nothing to do with using natural COX-2 inhibitors or any natural supplements and everything to do with encouraging the body's natural processes - call it propping up the body's biochemistry if you want. The difference is that naturopathic treatment supports the body to heal itself whereas in conventional medicine it is often the intervention doing the work. Come on guys! Were you not taught the underlying principles of naturopathic treatment in your courses. I've noticed they are conspicuously absent from this article which I find quite honestly gobsmacking. If you need a citation look at Murray and Pizzorno - which for all its faults quite comprehensively lists these[11] or simply look any of the association or college websites for naturopathic principles [12] [13] [14] [15] . This arguing over semantics is moot, the fact is this principle, amongst others, drives naturopathic practice and should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubbidok (talk • contribs) 11:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Science and Naturopathy

There's a poor section at the end with this heading. The heading suggests that it's going to comment on the scientific merits of naturopathy but it doesn't. Instead it just strings some sources together in a suggestive way. This is an improper synthesis - drawing conclusions from sources which they do not suggest. Since an editor has reverted my removal, I shall try a different approach - retitling this section as "Risks" which better summarises the contents of this section. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopathic Colleges in Australia

There seems to be a lack of Australian representation here, which is unusual as Australia has one of the highest rates of employment in Natural Medicine in the world. Training is generally done at an RTO/Vocational Training level at places like The Australian Institute of Applied Sciences [16] , Australian College of Natural Therapies and also at University level for Degree courses (although in practice, Advanced Diploma of Naturopathy or a diploma in a specific field is generally considered adequate training for Naturopaths). The most popular fields are Naturopathy, Nutrition, Acupuncture and Massage (generally also taught by Natural Medicine Colleges).

--Hollowpointr (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hollowpointr - I do think there is a lack of representation here but that may be precisely because of the changes happening in the field in Australia. You've mentioned a few colleges that are deemed insufficient by many associations (which are, admittedly variable in quality and entry requirements) and vocational training has been on the way out for a long time. Even universities are being phased out (the Charles Sturt University and University of New England distance upgrade 'degrees' (also used by UK institutions) are starting to be seen as insufficient to gain accreditation from the associations due to lack of clinical practice and skills aquired. This is why they are "Bachelor of Complementary Therapies" not naturopathic degrees and I'll doubt they'll survive registration should it come along. The University of Western Sydney degree is accepted by professional associations only if they do a Postgraduate Certificate to gain required clinical experience. Some private colleges are actually OHE accredited degree granting institutions with degrees far more rigorous than any of the universities (with the exception of Southern Cross University) such as the Australian College of Natural Medicine and Southern School of Natural Therapies. The smaller institutions are being locked out due to this professionalisation. However, as no section exists on education, and as Wikipedia is not in the habit of advertising courses, I think it would be more appropriate to focus on the regulatory & political issues in Australia and the professionalisation of the industry rather than training alone. I would support the introduction of this content and be happy to helpGrubbidok (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota licensure

I propose that Minnesota be moved to states with full licensure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayersmed (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried a quick google search for the news that Minnesota approved a senate bill allowing ND's full licensure, but nothing came up. Can you provide a credible ref? --travisthurston+ 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found any solid references to back it up, but the Governor Pawlenty apparently signed it into low on Friday, May 23. "Final tally in Minnesota, Senate 60-3, House 111-22. Signed by Gov. Pawlenty 5/23/2008". Once we get a ref from an official site (Mn state preferred) we can add it to the list. --travisthurston+ 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF1724&ssn=0&y=2007
and https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1724.5.html&session=ls85

[edit] Is naturopathic medicine CAM?

I did a little link following today, and here's what I discovered: The CAM entry says that: "Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is an umbrella term for complementary medicine and alternative medicine." The complementary medicine entry says that "The term complementary medicine refers to nonconventional treatments used in addition (complementary) to conventional medicine prescribed by a physician." The alternative medicine entry says that "Alternative medicine includes practices that differ from conventional medicine. " Following the links for "conventional medicine" leads to the wikipedia entry for "medicine", which says that "Medicine is the science and art of maintaining and restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of patients." Since naturopathic physicians are licensed to study, diagnose, and treat patients in 15 US jurisdictions, according to wikipedia they are practicing "medicine", and not "complementary and alternative medicine." I propose moving this article from the "CAM" heading to the "medicine" heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamaybe (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine includes many forms of CAM practices and that's why it is consistently classified as CAM. Take a look at NCCAM's discussion. -- Fyslee / talk 03:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the suggestion from above to split the article. I think we should do it following the lead of the osteopathy/osteopathic medicine articles; the first one covers the global practice of the CAM practice, osteopathy, and the second covers osteopathic physicians who are licensed to diagnose & treat patients. I think we should have an entry on "naturopathy", which is a CAM practice, and "naturopathic medicine", a form of primary care medicine in which practicioners are trained and licensed to use CAM techniques. Lamaybe (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, no. Let's not separate and disorganize the encyclopedia any more. Naturopathic medicine and naturopathy are the same thing, and it is CAM. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Imperfectly; I enumerated above why I think naturopathic medicine belongs in the medicine catagory, and I and others have commented above as to why we should split the article. Specifically, the bulk of comments on this page support the idea that a split would actually organize the encyclopedia more, not disorganize it. If you think it would disorganize it, and if you think naturopathic medicine is CAM and not medicine, it would help a lot if you could give specific reasons why. Thanks! Lamaybe (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's widely considered CAM. It doesn't claim to be able to treat all diseases, whereas the umbrella of regular medicine does. I mean, sure, it is medicine -- everything which treats illnesses is medicine. But it's best to define it precisely, which means that we should consider it CAM. It always will be CAM, at least until naturopaths figure out a way to reliably cure cancer using their methods. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 01:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is widely considered CAM, which is perfectly appropriate, since it uses CAM modalities. But where I live, in Oregon, it's widely considered "regular medicine" too. That is to say, your family practice ND can and does prescribe the same antibiotics and antifungals, and statins and opiates that your family practice MD does. And when either one of them biopsies a lesion and diagnoses cancer, they refer their patient to an oncologist. It's generally the same practice, except the ND is trained and licensed to use modalities that aspire to support an individual's normal, healthy equilibrium, including immune function, drawing on research published in peer-reviewed journals. And at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America, licensed NDs are part of the treatment teams, so yes, their medicine is contributing to whatever rate of reliable cancer curing medicine in general has going on. Lamaybe (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I too am opposed to any effort to qualify naturopathy as anything other than CAM. It seems that you are relying on nothing more than semantics to argue your case, Lamaybe. The wording of Wikipedia's definition of medicine is not grounds enough to include naturopathy and all of its practices under the blanket of mainstream medicine. Anyhow, it seems a most peculiar suggestion coming from you since, as you wrote above:

" I think what people are getting at when they talk about naturopathic practices boosting the body's innate defenses, is that naturopaths aim for improving health through supporting the normal and balanced functions of the individual, as opposed to improving health through attacking a pathogen, or interfering with a metabolic pathway. That basic philosophical difference is a pretty significant difference between the ways that most NDs aspire to practice and the way that most MDs aspire to practice. "

You are arguing with this earlier quote that there is an inherent difference in how naturopaths and MDs approach a disease state. In fact, you have invoked a near perfect definition of "complimentary medicine" to argue that naturopathy is unique from/complimentary to allopathic medicine, yet you are now suggesting that they are the same thing in an apparent effort to lend a sense of credibility to naturopathic practices.

I think we can circumvent the necessarily simplified wikipedia definition of medicine and acknowledge that allopathic/western/mainstream medicine can be defined as common practices subscribed to by the majority of MDs who's credentials would allow them to practice medicine anywhere in the developed world. Or, perhaps, as practices approved and recommended by recognized MD licensing boards in the developed (i.e. Western) world. Reflexology, homeopathy, and several other arts of the ND just don't meet these more practical criteria.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think on this discussion page, we're trying to come to a consensus of what it means to communicate about medicine; the wikipedia entry on "semantics" defines it as "the study of meaning in communication." So yeah, in that sense I'm relying on semantics! I don't think the wikipedia definition of medicine is simplified, I think it's accurate, and I imagine you'd agree with that. However, you wrote something telling above, which I think points out where we disagree. You wrote: "The wording of Wikipedia's definition of medicine is not grounds enough to include naturopathy and all of its practices under the blanket of mainstream medicine." I don't want to include naturopathic medicine under the blanket of mainstream medicine, but under the blanket of medicine, which is also where mainstream medicine falls. Medicine is not the same as allopathic/western/mainstream medicine. Allopathic medicine is akind of medicine--one variety of "the science and art of maintaining and restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of patients." Naturopathic medicine, where naturopaths are licensed, is the same thing. If, suddenly, allopathic medicine were no longer licensed in Florida, would that make allopathic medicine no longer medicine? No, it is still that same science and art. Or, if an MD uses homeopathy in her practice, as many MDs do, does that mean she is no longer practicing medicine? No, she's practicing medicine using pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical medicine. I still maintain that NDs and MDs aspire to approach disease states differently, but they are both practicing medicine. Lamaybe (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but we still run into some problems.

1. From what I've read, naturopathic practices receive regular treatment in the various CAM journals which obviously consider them to be CAM. Also, when naturopathic practices are addressed in the more mainstream literature, they are generally qualified as CAM. On what grounds can a wikipedia article ignore this? 2. If we rely on the Wikipedia definition of medicine as the "science and art of maintaining and restoring human health", we run into the problem of whether or not various naturopathic practices, some of which ignore or directly contradict fundamental scientific principles, actually do anything to maintain or restore health. 3. Simply because an MD might use homeopathy in their practice does not make it part of mainstream medicine (nor does it even qualify it as medicine). I have spoken to doctors about golf while having my ears checked. Just because it happened in a doctor's office doesn't make it medicine. Many naturopathic practices are used in mainstream medicine and several others should be. However, the fact that many naturopathic practices contradict well established principles of pharmacology, toxicology, physiology, anatomy, chemistry, and physics, means that it can not, as a field, be paralleled with allopathic medicine. Yes, naturopathy is a variety of medicine. What variety? Complementary and alternative. Simply referring to it as medicine, without somehow qualifying that it is not subjected to the same regulations and standards as allopathic medicine, only serves to confuse those who don't know the difference. It ends up being deceitful (even though unintentionally) and is unwarranted, in my opinion.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your insights, Puddin'head, you make excellent points. Tell me what you think of this perspective: whether or not pharmaceuticals, or homeopathy, or talking about golf actually help you get better, the MD or DO or ND treating you is trained and licensed to do whatever they're doing to achieve that goal. That's something that MDs, DOs, and NDs in the US have in common. There are times when your MD (or DO or ND) might prescribe an antibiotic for a viral condition, and it won't do anything, but they're still doing their best to practice the art & science of medicine. There are times when your ND might prescribe a homeopathic that does nothing (according to some, that's every time a homeopathic is prescribed :) but again, they're still doing their best to practice the art & science... I don't think the wiki article should ignore that naturopathy is generally treated as CAM. It regularly uses CAM therapies. NDs are trained & licensed to use those therapies. I agree that it would be confusing to simply refer to it as medicine, but I think it is equally misleading to just refer to it as CAM. It should qualify as both--a form of "medicine" and a "complementary and alternative medicine." Lamaybe (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point and, yes, it is a bit of a pickle. Although both practicing elements of CAM, I will agree that a licensed ND is a lot different than someone who just sets up (for example) a reflexology, iridology, or homeopathy clinic with no real credentials. It would even seem that many NDs are, in essence, practicing allopathic medicine, but simply with a minimally invasive, level headed approach. However, the fact that many or even most of the first line approaches employed by the ND to deal with various disease states are considered CAM makes it difficult to go along with any unmitigated description of naturopathy as simply "medicine".

Also, If we look at the curricula for the accredited ND granting schools in North America, topics such as homeopathy are taught along side of the standard basic science courses. At Bridgeport, for example, pharmacology gets a 2 semester treatment while homeopathy gets 3 semesters. The one is based on solid empirical evidence and scientific observation while the other ignores and contradicts these principles. It would appear that a disregard for evidence based medicine is taught at the earliest stages of the ND's development and can, therefore, be considered as part of the very fundament of the field. Again, I can see your point, but it is a hard one to concede.

For the sake of disclosure, I should state that I am of the opinion that homeopathy should not be considered as CAM. In fact, the word "medicine" should not even be uttered in the same breath as "homeopathy". Perhaps it is simply my prejudice to this point that drives my argument here, as I am very wary of a field which embraces the "principles" of homeopathy (as well as some of the other popular CAM theories). These ideas directly contradict the science of medicine (part of the wikipedia definition) and are keeping naturopathy from enjoying the recognition which some of its other practices deserve, IMHO.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd hate to clutter up the naturopathy talk page with chatter about homeopathy, but I'd love to hear what you base your opinion of homeopathy on. I base mine on the available randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, and based on those I'm still on the fence, but leaning towards the idea that homeopathy is efficacious. If you'd like to rap about it off this talk page, email me using the "Email this user" link on my "talk" page. Lamaybe (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CAM is a problematic term indeed! I am comfortable describing 'naturopathy' (the set of guiding principles) as being CAM, but not so comfortable describing 'naturopathic medicine' (as practiced by licensed NDs) as being CAM. After all, NDs will use conventional/mainstream modalities just as MDs will use complimentary/alternative ones from time to time. There has been a huge amount of cross-over hapening, esp in the past few years. The term 'CAM' could be used to describe some of an NDs practice, but not to classify it. The CAM debate makes it clear to me that 'naturopathy' and 'naturopathic medicine' would each be well served served by having their own seperate articles. The former is an (idealized and abstract) way of thinking about disease and wellness, the other is an actual practice informed (but not contained) by that ideal. Oh, as long as we are all ending our posts by discussing homeopathy, I am an ND who thinks homeopathy is complete rubish and should be taken out of the curriculum. And I know I'm not alone. Controversy exists amongst NDs as it does amongst MDs.Naturstud (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, but there are really good sources saying it's CAM:

• The NCCAM says: "Naturopathy is a whole medical system that has its roots in Germany. It was developed further in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the United States, where today it is part of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)"
• [17] and [18] from the Assosciation of Accredited Naturopathic Colleges at the least spend a lot of time connecting Naturopathic medicine to CAM.

Etc.

You can't jsut say it's not a CAM because you don't like it. If people are using it as their primary form of healthcare, then it's alternative, not complementary medicine, that still doesn't make it mainstream medicine. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I am not arguing against describing naturopathy as CAM, but I do have a problem with using the term CAM to classify the modern practice of naturopathic medicine. Can you name another 'CAM' whose practitioners are qualified to offer primary care, order and interpret lab tests, perform minor surgery and prescribe prescription medications? Naturopathic medicine is unique in this regard. The term 'CAM' describes many of the interventions that NDs are likely to use, but it is a problamatic and incomlete description of naturopathic medicine as a whole. The article should reflect this.... and once again, the issue would go away if the 'naturopathy' article were seperate from the 'natruopathic medicine' article. 72.0.222.218 (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have to provide actual sources. I'd particularly say that it is a basic requirement that you show that this power is reasonably wide-spread. The NCCAM says that only 14 states have any regulatory framework regarding naturopathy, and says that of those, "some states allow naturopathic physicians with special training to prescribe drugs, perform minor surgery, practice acupuncture, and/or assist in childbirth."

That "special training" sounds to me like even in those states, not all naturopathic physisicians use these abilities.

This is nothing like Osteopathic medicine, where the entire field is now considered a subset of mainstream medicine. We may not use the presence of special dispensations in some states for (possibly limited) prescription powers to assert that this is true of naturopathic medicine in general. I feel the need to be very clear on this: An extreme minority of naturopathic physicians have these powers, while these may rightly be discussed, and distinguished from the rest, we must be very clear that this is not normal, and cannot use this to whitewash the greater majority, that have no regulations on their practice whatsoever. It is unfortunate that the field includes both unregulated quacks and professionals with sufficient training that (in a few states) they are legally trusted with some proportion of the powers of a mainstream GP. It is particularly unfortunate that such specially-trained professionals choose to use the same name as their unregulated brethren. Nonetheless, such professionals are an extreme minority of practitioners, and to focus on them too much would have the effect of concealing the fact that in most states, naturopaths need have no training whatsoever.

It is unfortunate, and I do appreciate your views - if there was some unambiguous way of naming the trained ones, then I would support doing an article on them. However, we cannot, in good faith, say they are anything but a rare, geographically-isolated exception, and to make an article that treats them as the majority is against various Wikipedia policies. WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience (Forgive the name of that link) and WP:UNDUE both say that we cannot treat a minority situation as a majority one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that you have sidestepped the issue, which is the suitability of the CAM classification. Once again, I submit that this is a problematic term because it lumps a regulated, board licensed 100 year old profession in with individuals or groups who have little or no training. Naturopathic medicine is not conventional 'mainstream' medicine. Neither is psychic iridology. The problem with the term CAM is that all it can do is state (the distressingly obvious) 'this is not conventional mainstream medicine'. Do you really need me to explain why so many of my peers find this offensive? WP:UNDUE does not exist to establish or excuse hegemony. Christianity may be the dominant faith in the world, but it would not be acceptable to classify budhism, or islam (or even a lesser known 'fringe' faith) as a 'complimentary and altenative religion'. 'Mainstream medicine' may be the dominant form of medicine in the world, but if you insist on lumping everything that isn't dominant under one umbrella term like CAM, you loose the ability to distinguish between them. The article as it exists does little to distinguish between the kind of care provided by an ND and a psychic iridologist. The CAM classification without some sort of explanation adds to the confusion.

Don't take my word for it: look at Complementary_and_alternative_medicine and see just how controverisal the term is. I side with Kassirer et al. : there is no such thing as alternative medicine, only "evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine." As long as NDs incorporate as much evidence based medicine as they do, the term 'alternative' is a confusing half-truth. Just because I see weight loss as a superior treatment to metformin and would hate working at a hospital, that doesn't mean that I believe that you can cure diabetes by drinking lepricaun urine, and let's face it, the term 'alternative' by iteslf could suggest either scenario.

I repeat my original question: Can you name any other 'non-conventional/non-mainsteam' medical practice whose practiioners complete a min 7 years post secondary education that includes such anti-CAM offerings as anatomy, physiology, pathology, PCD, immunology, lab studies, diagnostic imaging etc? Can you name another 'CAM' that requires its students to have the same standard pre-med courses (chem, org chem, biochem) before begining their medical training? Is my stethoscope a CAM stethoscope? When I palpate an irregularly shaped prostate gland on DRE and make the apropriate referal, was that a CAM prostate, a CAM referal? Is PSA a CAM diagnostic? There is only one acceptable next step in the treatment of such a patient, and it is the same for NDs and MDs alike.

If I may ask a second question: If you accept that NDs are unique in that they combine CAM modalities with an unusal amount of conventional/mainsteam training, do you think that the aticle does a good job of describing this? I agree with you: it is unfortunate that the 'field' of naturopathy is ill defined and that depending on where you live, the title ND may not be defined to exclude any old quack who comes along. I couldn't really guess what the number of practicing NDs is when you consider the output of all of the schools. Your charactization of the professionally trained ND as a fringe minority within naturopathy is questionable however. If you are unsure, call up your insurance company and ask if they will reimburse you for a visit to see an ND: many will. With thousands of practitioners and what I assume to be millions of patient visits over the last century (the clinic where I trained sees 30,000-35,000 patient visits per year), I think it is safe to say that we are aproaching the end of the 'run-in' period for naturopathic medicine, don't you?

I keep coming back to the same point: the reason why this article has been so controversial and suffered so many edit wars is because it should actually be two different articles. The problem with the CAM tag underscores the need to distinguish between naturopathy and naturopathic medicine as practiced by NDs. As noted above, the precedent exists for osteopathy and osteopathic medicine. Naturstud (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources categorize it as CAM. Therefore, so do we. This talk page is not a forum for general discussion or debate about the topic. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources have also challenged the term CAM as being a meaningless one. Now what? BTW this page is exactly where we should be discussing the difficulty in categorizing both naturopathy and NDs. 206.47.252.66 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me just see if I understand the situation:

In most states and countries, the only requirement for calling yourself an N.D. is that you call yourself an N.D., because there is no licensing and no quality control. In a few, the qualifications required have been increased to such a level that it is similar to Ostepathic medicine, in being primarily mainstream, but with a little more knowledge of herbalism and other such things. Still, the maddest quack in any but the 14 states where Naturopathic medicine is regulated could call himself an N.D. and may well do, and even in the 14 states that regulate it, not all 14 hold N.D.s up to that level of training.

That's the problem, in my eyes: The respectable N.Ds are using the same designation and same name for their style of medicine as unregulated quacks in other states. So focusing on the high-end, where they're regulated and respectable, runs into the problem of that that's the minority situation, and could send people into the arms of unregulated quacks.

You have got the gist of it: the jurisdictions that do not license NDs generally have laws against anyone calling themselves any kind of 'Doctor', and so most traditional (unlicensable) practitioners simply call themselves 'naturopaths', and the professionally trained NDs are reduced to calling themselves the same thing! 206.47.252.66 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what we can do about this other than support efforts to get all naturopaths held to the same standards as the high-end. In this article (provided we have reliable sources that allow us to distinguish the high-end), we'll just have to try and make the distinction, and try and be fair to the highly-qualified without dignifying or lending support to the quacks operating under the same names in the unregulated states. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Naturopathic medicine is CAM, not medicine. That is how our best sources describe it, and concluding otherwise based on another article would be either original research or at the least synthesis. To finish duplicating the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Naturopathic_medicine, there should be no problem detailing the medicine and scientific principles practiced and observed by some NDs. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see nothing in the medicine article that would cause naturopathic medicine to be excluded. Naturopathic medicine is medicine; it may not be the dominant mainstream version of medicine, but it is medicine none the less. It is a mistake to take the broad term 'medicine' to mean only 'conventional medicine', something that the medicine article thankfully avoids.

206.47.252.66 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, great to have your input. You make a good point that it's important to avoid synthesis while editing an article. So, to be properly encyclopedic, we need to find and share with readers the appropriate references to represent the relevant states of knowledge and perspectives on the subject. We should definitely include refs to the sources describing naturopathic medicine as CAM. We should also include references to sources describing naturopathic medicine as medicine. It's a little harder to tease out what those sources are, since you can't just google "naturopathic medicine" and "medicine" to look for references. However, as an experiment I googled "naturopathic medicine". Nine of the ten unsponsored results that came up were references to the licensed profession of naturopathic physicians, who practice medicine. And in order to support the references to licensed primary health care providers as practicing "medicine", we're just turning to the very definition of medicine. I think that's a different thing than synthesis. If there are certain classes of reference that anyone thinks it is important to see to support the idea that licensed naturopathic physicians are practicing medicine, please say so! There are references from federal and state governments, licensing boards, accreditation associations, community groups, etc.

I'm not trying to say that we should remove the "CAM" tag from the "naturopathic medicine" article, just that it desreves a "medicine" tag as well. If it feels more appropriate, we can start a different thread on this discussion page about splitting the article, and applying the "medicine" tag only to the article "naturopathic physicians" (or whatever we call it) that refers to licensed primary health care providers. Lamaybe (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I see frequent references to reliable sources by both "sides" to this discussion, but I can't seem to find any of sufficient reliability in the article... --Relata refero (disp.) 09:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the point of the argument but I agree that really naturopathy/naturopathic medicine should remain in the CAM field. It is certainly a type of medicine and is completely valid but the tag CAM is what the public have by and large chosen to use. Allopathic medicine (incidently a term only used in CAM circles as a method of distinguishing the "other" medicine) is what the public has chosen to term medicine. I actually think to give naturopathy the same title as medicine would devalue its many differences. As a senior lecturer in naturopathic practice I am too frustrated at the focus on being defined by natural products (certainly not the intended meaning of vis medicatrix naturae). CAM practitioners are defined by their underlying philosophies of holism and individualistic practice rather than any specific treatment tools - as opposed to the biochemical reductionist principles and philosohies of medicine. Perhaps this is all an argument over semantics? Would the term naturopathy is a "system of medicine" or "approach to healthcare" suffice as a tag (vis a vis osteopathy article)? I still think the CAM reference should stay as well. Anyone linking to the CAM article will see the controversy surrounding classificationGrubbidok (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American School of Naturopathy as "diploma mill" (HIstory section)

I tried to follow the links and the footnote for the following sentence:

but "according to the New York Department of State, and the Florida Report to Governor Leroy Collins, it appears that this naturopathic school was never anything but a diploma mill". [4].

Neither the links nor the footnote go to any meaningful reference. Unless someone can provide a reference, I move that this sentence gets removed. Anyone second that? Lamaybe (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it up there to inform people that it is a diploma mill. There are probably people around with degrees from it -- and innocent people looking for information on the degree would be aided by its inclusion in the article. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD notification.

A new article, Naturopathic doctor has been created, however, it's serving as a POV fork of this one, as it ignores the main problem that has been discussed over and over here: What is true in a small minority of jurisdictions i s being treated as the standard. I did a websearch, discovered this is not true, indeed, the advice given in that article may be dangerous, as in most jurisdictions, anyone can call themselves an ND, not just the highly-trained professionals that article claims are the only ones. I have thus nominated the article for deletion, therefore: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naturopathic_doctor If you must create a new article, could you at least take care to handle the demarcation problem, making it very clear that there are huge gaping loopholes that mean theree is no legal protection against quacks calling themselves MDs in the vast majority of places? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)