Talk:Naturopathic medicine/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Medical "discussion"
The medical “discussion” that this page contains is unfortunately devoid of any real discussion and represents the opinions of individuals firmly established in their own points of view. No mention is made of integration of Naturopathic Medicine into mainstream medicine, despite widespread public support and trial studies that show Naturopathic Medicine provides effective complementary care with improved patient outcomes (Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2002 Oct;9(5):269-76).
The arguments make the distinction between Naturopathic medicine and “evidence based” medicine. According to the Cochrane database (Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2005 Sep 3;149(36):1983-8), the terminology “evidence based” showed up in conventional medical circles in the early nineties and the concept is meeting sharp resistance. A recent study of evidence based medical use in clinical practice showed that: "the proportion of physicians who reported that they never used the three evidence-based interventions varied considerably (2, 62, and 57%, respectively)" showing that while evidence may exist for a treatment, standard practice varies widely (J Hepatol. 2005 Dec;43(6):984-9. Epub 2005 Jul 12) The same study found that many physicians were continuing to use non-evidence based therapies. Even in the surgical field, “few systematic reviews address surgical procedures and the number of high quality randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are low” (Contemp Clin Trials. 2005 Nov 26). In comparison, many areas of alternative medicine have been exhaustively researched (see Wikipedia article on Homeopathy). After viewing extensive (over a hundred), conflicting research studies, both sides continue to hold fast to respective beliefs. But conventional medicine contains equally steadfast opponents (look at the Women’s Health Initiative on estrogen replacement and the continuing arguments against its validity) leading any observer to conclude that both systems are primarily based on belief rather than evidence.
This discussion page also largely ignores the fact that the train has left the station. It has been a number of years since Eisenberg’s survey showed that patients spent more of their own money on alternative medicine that standard medical care (JAMA. 2001 Nov 28;286(20):2543). The argument that such individuals are merely being duped ignores the demographics of alternative medicine which show that more highly educated patients are more likely to use alternative medicine, while poorly educated patients are more likely to use conventional medicine. (CDC 2004 report on CAM). Those who would argue that this is merely a fad should heed a recent Harvard study: “approximately 3 of every 10 respondents in the pre-baby boom cohort, 5 of 10 in the baby boom cohort, and 7 of 10 in the post-baby boom cohort reported using some type of CAM therapy.” (Ann Intern Med. 2001 Aug 21;135(4):262-8.) Given that the majority of younger patients will be using alternatives, and that the majority of these patients will be doing so without any alternative medical oversight (CDC 2004), those conventional medical centers that integrate Naturopathic doctors have found tremendous success (look at the Cancer Treatment Centers of America model).
Rather than pretending Naturopathic medicine is not the fastest growing medical profession in the country, shouldn’t this discussion page be focused on the obstacles of integration? maloneymedical.com 23:27, 1 Dec 2005
This article is fairly POV. I did my best to NPOV, but it still reads like an ad for Naturopathic Medicine. Anyone else want to take a crack at it? —Frecklefoot 21:09, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Reference to states without any reference to the USA suggests that the original author doesn't know much about this subject throughout the rest of the world. — Joshua Petyt
It does indeed adopt the proponents' POV. A while back I tried to correct errors in this article and my changes were deemed "sabotage." Some of my changes, however, have found their way in. For example, it no longer says NDs are medical doctors. This was not a controversial point- they don't call themselves such. Yet, when I corrected it my edit was removed.
Response: many of the 'mail order naturopaths' I know do go around calling themselves doctors, even more so than the naturopathic physicians who ARE doctors. Naturopathic physicians who graduated from government approved naturopathic medical schools are doctors, not medical doctors, but they are indeed doctors, with the same amount of course work in their educational curriculum as the average U.S. school that issues M.D. degrees. The ones who took some correspondence courses to get an N.D. degree AREN'T doctors. I compared the curriculum of the leading correspondence school and the leading on campus four year program leading to a professional licensable N.D. degree. The correspondence school requires 20 courses to be completed. The on-campus accredited naturopathic college requires 118 courses! There's no comparison, they aren't even remotely in the same league. Let's agree on our definition of naturopathic practitioner, naturopath, N.D. etc. first before we proceed any further. Let's get these correspondence graduates out of the definition of naturopathy once and for all so we're all on the same page.
It is quantitatively wrong to say that naturopaths have clinical training equivalent to doctors. NDs have no hospital training in school, and then are eligible to take a test and practice as if they were primary care physicians immediately after graduation. Medical students train in hospitals and then require at least 3 more years supervised practice (residency) before they are licensed to practice independently. This article even acknowledges that NDs are not trained to diagnose disease. In a recent survey, 6 out of 10 NDs did not realize that a 2-week old baby with a fever of 102F was a medical emergency. A primary care physician can not afford to be so ignorant.
Response: Not true. A person who completes an M.D. degree can then simply write the licensing exam and begin practicing as a general practitioner without doing an internship or hospital training etc. Only if an M.D. wants to specialize in a certain area of medicine is a residency and internship then required. By an 'ND', (referring to the paragraph above) who are you referring to? Quacks who get an ND through a mail order school or professional naturopathic physicians who completed an educational curriculum equivalent to an average U.S. medical school. Mail order "ND"s are fast and furiously destroying the good name of naturopathy and there are of course more of them then REAL naturopathic physicians because taking a few correspondence courses doesn't require nearly the amount of time, money and dedication as going through a four year naturopathic medicial program. I need to know who did that survey and BLAST THEM.
If you look at ND education and practices it is obvious quackery- full of irrational and disproven methods such as iridology. One ND recommends a bath in dilute hydrogen peroxide to treat asthma. She is unaware that the technical term for a person who is trying to absorb oxygen from water is "drowning" and that peroxide is not oxygen and is not readily absorbed through the skin. JM
Excuse me Jim, iris diagnosis ISN'T taught in REAL naturopathic medical schools, just the correspondence schools which unfortuneately ruins the reputation of the profession of naturopathy for those of us who invested $80,000.00 and four years of our life to learn REAL medicine vs spending about $3,900.00 and taking a few courses by correspondence from an unaccredited school to get an "ND" degree.
Despite years of "supervised training" MDs will determine a disease to be in the patient's head, when they can't figure out the cause, or will prescribe drugs for cholesterol, with sometimes worse side effects, instead of prescribing a cholestoral reducing diet, that has no side effects.
It should be noted that most patients turn to naturopaths when MD's, with all their hospital based training, have failed them)
- What I find frustrating is that the genuinely ill inevitably come back to us conventional medicine "failures" when they get sick enough because all the snake oil in the world will not address actual illness. The alternative medicine folks always disappear when the going gets tough. I have seen it over and over. The "holistic meditation healer", the magnet salesmen, the nutrition gurus, when their patients call them with chest pain or coughing up blood, all their miracle cures disappear and they send them back to us conventional medicine "failures". There's a reason that alternative medicine "doctors" are never on call. They are fair weather only. When the chips are down, it all comes down to the real thing.DocJohnny 04:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just because a patient goes to a conventional medical doctor, doesn't mean they're getting the best care, or that they're even aware they're not. Just look at AIDS drugs. Conventional doctors are quick to take credit for anything good that happens, but if something bad happens, it was just inevitable (even if the bad thing was a direct result of conventional medical practice).
Excuse me, but as a naturopathic physician trained in emergency medicine from an accredited four year medical school, I am as well eqipped to handle medical emergencies as any other M.D. who is a general practitioner. If their symptoms sound like threatening, I refer them to the ER, just as any GP M.D. would do, or if no, provide the appropriate treatment myself. Let's get the definitions of "naturopathic physician" and other types of 'alternative healers' very clear. The two categories have nothing to do with each other. This particular Wikipedia article is about naturopathic medicine and shouldn't even be including 'traditional naturopaths' who are not trained to be physicians and definitely shouldn't be including magnet salesmen, etc.
Barnum explained that- there's one born every minute. JM
"It should be noted that most patients turn to naturopaths when MD's, with all their hospital based training, have failed them)", are you implying that this give any kind of credibility to naturopathic medecine ? (many people are doing it therefore it must be working) also just because there are school teaching naturopathic medecine along with conventionnal medecine doesn't mean naturopathic medecine works, just like there are schools teaching chiropractic care and homeopathic medecine, there will be schools teaching in as long as there will be people paying for it, that it is being taught doesn't mean it's true ~~wikipedia at domn dot net~~
Oh How I Wish, we could look at health care the way it could: A person is looking to get better from something that ails them. Naturopathic and conventional medicine are not mutually exclusive! They are elements of treating a person and helping them to heal. User:holisticguy
Posted April 30, 2006: Is there any objection to replace the word pseudoscience with the word philosophy of the definition? Use of "philosophy" seems to articulate more opinion rather than derision or mockery by opponents of naturopathic medicine.
"Good name"? When did ANY sort of naturopathic practitioner have a good name? Sure, acreditted naturopaths are doctors. Similarly, someone with a PhD in Classics is a doctor.
NPOV
The last two paragraphs are quite obviously biased, and there are no references or evidence to support any of the claims levelled at "western medecine (sic)."
- I agree. I attempted to removed POV statements. Edwardian 00:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
FYI, In the state of Arizona, individuals certified by Arizona Naturopathic Board of Medical Examiners' may use the title of Naturopathic Medical Doctor. N.M.D. Another note, Death by conventional medicine (iatrogenic, properly prescribed and taken pharmacotherapy, negligence) is the number one killer in the U.S. Of the three deaths related to Naturopathy that I know of, two were responsible by a traditional naturopath treating disease that they had no training or businesss treating. Both of those deaths would have been prevented by even a first year naturopathic medical school student. The other death associated with naturopathy was with a licensed naturopath in Washington who had a miscommunication with a patient's parents. I believe this one is still under investigation. In any case all medical profession's have patients die by causes that are deemed less desirable.
- The statement above "Death by conventional medicine (iatrogenic, properly prescribed and taken pharmacotherapy, negligence) is the number one killer in the U.S." is complete and total garbage. The leading cause of death is heart disease. [1]. Your dubious statistics come from Gary Null, a leading proponent of questionable nutrition. He has been marketing royal jelly, chlorophyll tablets, and other nonsense for years. He is hardly an impartial advocate for better medicine. According to actual CDC records, complications of medical treatment came in at 103 in the list of causes of death in 2001. --DocJohnny 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Another note, Naturopathic Medical Students have been recently making efforts to become members of AMSA, American Medical Student Association, after their presence was requested by AMSA members themselves. SM
Yes, SM, note these are REAL naturopathic medical students, not the ones taking correspondence courses, they are NOT welcome in the AMSA.
- Regarding: "Death by conventional medicine (iatrogenic, properly prescribed and taken pharmacotherapy, negligence) is the number one killer in the U.S." This is alternative medicine folklore. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory disease are routinely reported by the CDC as the leading causes of death in the United States [2]. Edwardian 17:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
During the 2005 House of Delegates, AMSA voted once again to exclude naturopathic students. They did, however, create a naturopathic special interest group. (see http://www.amsa.org/about/ppp/appendixIII.cfm).
NPOV/Grammar
There, I hope I fixed it well.
NPOV
This article remains very POV. The "concerns" section is extremely biased for naturopathy.DocJohnny 04:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
So what is DocJohnny's take on orthomolecular medicine?
RE: "traditional naturopaths" vs "naturopathic physicians"
I don't think Wikipedia should lump "traditional naturopaths" and "naturopathic physicians" together as if they belong to the same profession. Naturopathic physicians graduate from a U.S. government acredited colleged of naturopathic medicine, completing a four year on campus medical school curriculum that the Council for Naturopathic Medical Schools ensures is at least equal in course content and # hours of basic science and clinical sciences as any medical school giving an M.D. degree. Tuition can be up to $60,000.00. An internship and four day licensure exam (NPLEX) is required for a naturopathic physician to be licensed. We WILL prescribe drugs and don't have a problem with doing so if we deem it is the most appropriate treatment. And we (the real ND's) ARE issued DEA numbers from the federal government who vouches that our education and training in pharmacology is of a standard high enough to be issued a license to prescribe. A "tradition naturopath" on the other hand took at most a correspondence course over a few months for maybe $5,000.00. They are not required to do an internship or a licensing exam. There is NO comparison. It's like comparing an M.D. to a nurse assistant, as far as education, qualification, skills and ability go. It's totally ridiculous. The "American Naturopathic Medicine Association" that "governs" traditional naturopaths is a "hate organization" against naturopathic physicians. Read it for yourself at ANMA.com. They have no data bank for finding traditional naturopaths in each state, like any REAL professional organization like the AMA or AANP does. They WANT people to be confused and think they are "naturopathic physicians" and some I know go around calling themselves doctors. It is so ridiculous. These people need to change their name from 'traditional naturopath' to certified holistic health practioner' or some much other designation and change their degree from N.D. to CHHP or something to that effect. That way we (the AANP) won't have to waste thousands of dollars fighting the traditional naturopaths in the state capitols when they oppose our bills to become licensed. The ANMA is unethical and immoral. They have no desire to clarify the two type of "N.D.s" to the public. They don't have a problem if people 'confuse' them with REAL naturopathic physicians. It isn't right to confuse the public like this. God knows we have enough problems trying to gain recognition in mainstream medicine. We don't need these fakes to contend with on top of everything else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since both naturopathic physicians and traditional naturopaths use the degree designation of N.D. (doctor of naturopathic medicine) there is considerable confusion about the scope of practice, education and training of a naturopathic practitioner. There is great contention between the two factions; naturopathic physicians and traditional naturopaths, as their political agendas are in opposition to each other. Naturopathic physicians, who's national professional organization is the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians, strive to recover licensure in all 50 states, whereas traditional naturopaths, whose professional organization is the American Association of Naturopathic Medicine, oppose licensure and often block licensing attempts. Much negotiation is currenly in progress between naturopathic physicians and traditional naturopaths to come to a resolution to this problem and agree to use different degree titles and designations, but so far this has not been a successful endevour. Therefore, if a member of the public is concerned about the qualifications of his or her naturopath, they should verify whether or not the N.D. degree of the practitioner in question was granted from a medical school accredited by the U.S. government and whether or not they are licensed or eligible for licensure.
Those of you who go to M.D.s: Would you care if some M.D.s went through four years of medical school training, an internship, passed a licensing exam and were then granted a license to practice medicine by a government recognized agency and some M.D.s just took a few courses by correspondence without any government regulatory agency determining whether or not that are actually competent to practice? Scary isn't it? Well, that's exactly what is happening with the N.D.s. Some are professionals and some just took some courses. We need to resolve this problem before we can go on and present ourselves to the mainstream medical community. Since some are inadequately educated and trained and some aren't; licensure is the only way to weed out the less qualified 'traditional naturopaths' who DON'T need the standards required fo licensure and who are consistently ruining the good name and reputation of professional naturopathic physicians. Wikipedia only serves to compound the problem by lumping them all together.
We don't blast DOs because their not MDs, so why criticize NDs (naturopathic physicians who graduated from accredited schools with the same curriculum as an average U.S. medical school issuing an M.D. degree) who are in the same league? I don't get it. Weed out the fake/quack NDs are we'll be left with three types of primary care providers in the U.S; MDs, DOs and NDs, all with comparable training and education.
~How can someone say that they've been trained in science when they do not work according to the scientific method? I know that this complaint applies to some proper medical doctors as well, but it also applies to ALL naturopaths.
Equivalency
It takes 7 years for DO's and MD's to become primary care providers. 4 years of school and 3 years of either family practice or internal medicine residency. I don't know enough of your curriculum to make any statements as to equivalency. While we may learn manual medicine but we also learn about all "conventional" medical treatments. Is the same true for naturopathy? In addition to herbs, do you know how to treat with antibiotics? But the last 2 years of both DO and MD medical school is spent in hospitals doing clinical rotations. DO's can't be "blasted for not being MD's" because we can perform the same treatments including brain surgery. Is naturopathy equivalent? Also, what is your profession's stance on EDTA chelation, homeopathy, iridology, reflexology, astral healing, etcetera? What about immunizations, do you still oppose them? I am somewhat sympathetic but also somewhat dubious. --DocJohnny 02:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear DocJohnny: Thank for giving me an opportunity to educate and present my profession the appropriate light that it deserves. I will try to answer your questions as best I can. A undergraduate degree IS required to gain admission into an accredited college of naturopathic medicine, so it takes at least 7 years to obtain an N.D. degree (3 years for the Bachelor's degree, 4 years for the naturopathic medical program). Realizing we would be under tremendous suspicion and scrutiny, we ensure the offer at least as many hours in the basic and clinical sciences. I am a naturopathic physician with a DEA number, does answer your question about our ablity to treat with antibiotics? Yes, we do rotations and internships for the basic degree and additional years of internship for any specialization. Regarding brain surgery, most MDs and DOs can't do this, neither can NDs. REAL, PROFESSIONAL NDs believe in immmunizations, quack/fake/mail order NDs don't believe in immunizations and frankly we should sue them for ruining our professional reputation. Iridology, reflexology, astral healing, none of these are scientific and taught at our schools. Homeopathic is. Homoepathy needs to be given a bit of a boost in credibility because it does work. EDTA chelation is a standard treatment used by MDs. Let's dialogue. Here's the curriculum from the website of Bastyr University for a 4 year postgraduate course of study. You be the judge....
Sincerely, Dr. Anna
- Including undergraduate work will up the total for DO and MD schools to 10 years. EDTA chelation is not an accepted practice in conventional medicine despite some MD's and DO's using it. It is unproven, although the NIH is doing a clinical trial. Do N.D.'s get hospital staff privileges? Thanks for the information. --DocJohnny 23:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Doc: EDTA chelation in described in my Merck Manual 16th ed. chpt 192, but I know that you're not referring to treatment of lead toxcity, you're referring to removal of arteriosclerotic plaques. Getting back to residency/intership issue for M.D.s; my husband got his M.D. in Argentina and when he checked into being able to get a U.S. as a GP, the state of CA advised him that he could be issued one but he wouldn't have hospital privileges, so we're still in disagreement about the actual need to complete a residency to get a U.S. license. That aside, here is the bill passed in Oregon in 1995 pertaining to hospital privileges for (real) NDs:
ORS 441.064. Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 441.064 is amended to read: 441.064. The rules of any hospital in this state may grant
admitting privileges to naturopathic physicians licensed under ORS 685.020 for purposes of patient care, subject to hospital rules governing admissions and staff privileges. The rules may regulate the admissions and the conduct of naturopathic physicians while using the facilities of the hospital and may prescribe procedures whereby a naturopathic physician's privileges may be suspended or terminated. The hospital may refuse such privileges naturopathic physicians only upon the same basis that privileges are refused to other medical providers.
(correspondence school 'ND' graduates are laughed out of the state in Oregon)
obviously in states where naturopathic physicians aren't regulated, there are no hospital prvileges either.
Four-Year Track: Year I
Quarter Cat. No. Course Title Credits Lec. L/C Total Fall BC5104 Biochemistry 1 4 4 0 44
BC5107 Human Physiology 1 Lec/Lab 5.5 4 3 77 BC5110 Histology1 5 4 2 66 BC5122 Gross Human Anatomy 1 4.5 4 1 55 BC5122L Gross Human Anatomy 1 Lab 2 0 2 22 NM5131 Naturopathic Clinical Theory 1 2 1 2 33 NM5804 Clinic Entry 1 1 0 2 22 Quarterly Total: 23 17 12 319
Winter BC5105 Biochemistry 2 4 4 0 44
BC5108 Human Physiology 2 Lec/Lab 5.5 4 3 77 BC5112 Embryology 3 3 0 33 BC5123 Gross Human Anatomy 2 4.5 4 1 55 BC5123L Gross Human Anatomy 2 Lab 1 0 2 22 BC5141 Research Methods & Design1 2 2 0 22 NM5135 The Determinants of Health 1.5 1.5 0 16.5 OM5120 Fundamental Principles of TCM1 3 3 0 33 PM5300 Massage 1.5 0 3 33 PM5301 Hydrotherapy/ Physiotherapy Lecture 2 2 0 22 Quarterly Total: 28 23.5 9 357.5
Spring AV5100 Fundamentals of Ayurvedic Medicine1 2 2 0 22
BC5106 Biochemistry 3 4 4 0 44 BC5109 Human Physiology 3 3 3 0 33 BC5124 Gross Human Anatomy 3 4.5 4 1 55 BC5124L Gross Human Anatomy 3 Lab 1 0 2 22 BC5129 Neuroscience 5.5 4 3 77 BO5301 Botanical Medicine 1 Lec/Lab 2 1.5 12 26.5 NM5136 The Vis Medicatrix Naturae 1.5 1.5 0 16.5 PM5305 Hydrotherapy/Physiotherapy Lab1 1 0 2 22 PS5103 Physician Heal Thyself1 2 2 0 22 Quarterly Total: 26.5 22 9 340
1AV5100, BC5110, BC5141, OM5120, PM5305 and PS5103: Usually also offered in summer 2Two hours every other week times five weeks
Four-Year Track: Year II
Quarter Cat. No. Course Title Credits Lec. L/C Total Fall BC6200 Human Pathology 1 4 4 0 44
BC6204 Immunology1 4 4 0 44 BO6301 Botanical Medicine 2 2 2 0 22 HO6300 Homeopathy 1 2 2 0 22 NM6210 Clinical Lab Diagnosis 1 3.5 2 3 55 NM6221 Physical/Clinical Diagnosis 1 Lecture 2 2 0 22 NM6221L Physical/Clinical Diagnosis 1 Lab 2 1 2 33 PS6305 Naturopathic Counseling 1 3 3 0 33 TR6310 Foods, Dietary Systems & Assessment 3 2 2 44 Quarterly Total: 25.5 22 7 319
Winter BC6201 Human Pathology 2 4 4 0 44
BC6210 Infectious Diseases2 6.5 5 3 88 BO6302 Botanical Medicine 3 Lec/Lab 2 1.5 1 26.5 HO6301 Homeopathy 2 3 3 0 33 NM6211 Clinical Lab Diagnosis 2 3.5 2 3 55 NM6222 Physical/Clinical Diagnosis 2 Lecture 2 2 0 22 NM6222L Physical/Clinical Diagnosis 2 Lab 2 1 2 33 PS6306 Naturopathic Counseling 2 3 3 0 33 TR6311 Macro & Micronutrients 3 3 0 33 Quarterly Total: 29 24.5 9 367.5
Spring BC6202 Human Pathology 3 4 4 0 44
BC6305 Pharmacology 2 5 5 0 55 BO7303 Botanical Medicine Dispensary Lab1 1 0 2 22 HO6302 Homeopathy 3 3 3 0 33 NM6212 Clinical Lab Diagnosis 3 3.5 2 3 55 NM6223 Physical/Clinical Diagnosis 3 Lecture 2 2 0 22 NM6223L Physical/Clinical Diagnosis 3 Lab 2 1 2 33 NM6804 Clinic Entry 2 1 1 0 11 NM8801 Preceptorship 1 1 0 4 44 PM6300 Naturopathic Manipulation 1 2 2 0 22 Quarterly Total: 24.5 20 11 341
1BC6204 and BO7303: Usually also offered in summer 2 BC6210 and BC6305: Offered in winter and spring quarter Eligible to take NPLEX basic science exams See clinic admission, page 48.
Four-Year Track: Year III
Quarter Cat. No. Course Title Credits Lec. L/C Total Summer NM7325 Naturopathic Case Analysis & Mgmt 1 1.5 0 3 33
NM7341 Cardiology 3 3 0 33 NM7400 Minor Office Procedures1 3 3 0 33 NM7417 Medical Procedures1 3 3 0 33 Quarterly Total: 10.5 9 3 132 1-2 Clinic Shifts2 2-4 0 4-8 44-88
Fall BO7300 Botanical Medicine 4 Lec/Lab 2 1.5 1 26.5
MW7320 Normal Maternity 3 3 0 33 NM7302 Gastroenterology 2 2 0 22 NM7307 EENT 2 2 0 22 PM7301 Naturopathic Manipulation 23 3 3 0 33 PM7305 Orthopedics 2 2 0 22 PS7200 Psychological Assessment 2 2 0 22 TR7411 Diet & Nutrient Therapy 1 3 3 0 33 Quarterly Total: 22 21.5 1 246.5 1-2 Clinic Shifts2 2-4 0 4-8 44-88
Winter NM7101 Environmental Medicine 1.5 1.5 0 16.5
NM7102 Public Health 1.5 1.5 0 16.5 NM7115 Naturopathic Clinical Theory 2 1 1 0 11 NM7304 Dermatology 2 2 0 22 NM7306 Oncology 2 2 0 22 NM7314 Pediatrics 1 2 2 0 22 PM7302 Naturopathic Manipulation 34 3 3 0 33 PM7341 Sports Medicine/Therapeutic Exercise 2 2 0 22 PS7203 Addictions & Disorders 2 2 0 22 TR7412 Diet & Nutrient Therapy 2 3 3 0 33
Spring BO7301 Botanical Medicine 5 Lec/Lab 2 1.5 1 26.5
NM7109 Practice Management 1 1.5 1.5 0 16.5 NM7305 Clinical Ecology 1 1 0 11 NM7311 Neurology 2 2 0 22 NM7315 Pediatrics 2 2 2 0 22 NM7320 Family Medicine 2 2 0 22 NM7330 The Healing Systems 3 3 0 33 PM7303 Naturopathic Manipulation 45 2 2 0 22 PS7315 Naturopathic Counseling 3 2 2 0 22 Quarterly Total: 18 17.5 1 202.5 1-2 Clinic Shifts2 2-4 0 4-8 44-88
1NM7341, NM7416 and NM7417: Usually also offered in spring 2Students are assigned 6 shifts during their first year (4 quarters) in clinic. 3PM7301: One section usually offered in summer 4PM7302: One section usually offered in fall 5PM7303: One section usually offered in winter
Four-Year Track: Year IV
Quarter Cat. No. Course Title Credits Lec. L/C Total Summer NM8206 Radiographic Interpretation 1 Lecture3 3 3 0 33
NM8207 Radiographic Interpretation 1 Lab3 1 0 2 22 Quarterly Subtotal: 4 3 2 55 3-4 Clinic Shifts 6-8 0 12-16 132-176
Fall NM8303 Geriatrics 2 2 0 22
NM8308 Endocrinology2 3 3 0 33 NM8312 Urology 1.5 1.5 0 16.5 NM8325 Nat. Case Analysis & Mgmt 2:
Grand Rounds3 1 0 2 22
NM8413 Adv'd Naturopathic Therapeutics 1 2 2 0 22 Quarterly Total: 9.5 8.5 2 115.5 3-4 Clinic Shifts 6-8 0 12-16 132-176
Winter NM8101 Ethics4 1 1 0 11
NM8213 Diagnostic Imaging5 2 2 0 22 NM8309 Rheumatology 1.5 1.5 0 16.5 NM8414 Adv'd Naturopathic Therapeutics 2 2 2 0 22 NM8802 Preceptorship 2 1 0 4 44 Quarterly Total: 7.5 6.5 4 115.5 3-4 Clinic Shifts 6-8 0 12-16 132-176
Spring NM8102 Jurisprudence 1 1 0 11
NM8109 Practice Management 2 2 2 0 22 NM8212 Radiographic Interpretation 25 3 3 0 33 NM8314 Pulmonary Medicine 1.5 1.5 0 16.5 NM8803 Preceptorship 3 1 0 4 44 NM8844 Interim Patient Care6 2 0 4 44 Quarterly Total: 8.5 7.5 4 126.5 3-4 Clinic Shifts 6-8 0 12-16 132-176
1NM8206 and NM8207: Both offered summer and fall 2NM8308: Offered fall and spring 3NM8325: Offered in fall, winter and spring 4NM8101: Offered fall and winter 5NM8212 and NM8213: Both offered winter and spring 6NM8844: Students are required to complete a total of 44 interim clinic hours. (Usually students staff the shifts they are assigned to in the quarter just ended.) Students register for and pay for this shift in their last quarter of attendance.
Summary of Clinic Requirements: Naturopathic Medicine Program Quarter1 Cat. No. Course Title Credits Lec. L/C Total variable NM7820-29 Patient Care 1-10 20 0 40 440 variable NM8801-3 Preceptorship 1-3 3 0 12 132 variable NM8830-36 Patient Care 11-17 14 0 28 308 variable NM8844 Interim Patient Care2 2 0 4 44 variable PM7801-2 Physical Medicine 1-2 4 0 8 88 variable PM8801-2 Physical Medicine 3-4 4 0 8 88
Clinic Totals: 47 0 100 1100
1Quarterly shift assignments are based on availability.
Elective Requirements: Naturopathic Medicine Program Quarter Cat. No. Course Title Credits Lec. L/C Total variable variable Elective and Special Topics 15 15 0 165
Elective Totals: 15 15 0 165
THIS IS THE CURRICULUM OF THE LEADING UNACCREDITED 'SCHOOL' THAT OFFER A 'DOCTOR' OF NATUROPATHY DEGREE (N.D) BY CORRESPONDENCE:
Doctor of Naturopathy
NH 627 History of Naturopathy NH 628 Foundations of Naturopathy NU 303 Dietary Influences on Disease NH 509 Detoxification and Healing NH 512 Iridology: An Introduction NH 503 Body Awareness and Physical Movement NH 506 Alternative Approaches to Arthritis NH 507 Manual Therapies: Massage, Reflexology and Acupressure NH 725 Building and Maintaining a Consulting Practice NH 726 The Client-Practitioner Relationship Three Electives Consulting Practicum
DO YOU PERHAPS SEE A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN THE CURRICULUM OF THE ACCREDITED SCHOOL AND THE NON-ACCREDITED SCHOOL
Debate
This is a very interesting debate that I may be able to add something of value to. When I was applying to graduate school in exercise physiology I ran across naturopathic medical school and decided to apply to the schools and check it out. I was invited to interview and was accepted to the programs. When I did my campus visits I was VERY interested in checking out the core science curriculum particularly because of the negative things that I had read. So I attended mainly those classes while I was there and a few others. I had graduated from a premiere top research institution so I knew what kinds of things to look for in a science curriculum. My objective opinion was that the science core was community college level. I was very disappointed because as you have pointed out it seems to be nearly identical to any allopathic school curriculum. It is not. Even the harder classes were 3rd year undergrad at best. They were definitely not medical school or even masters level classes. In addition I am not surprised that you do not recognize this. I did not meet even one other person who had graduated from a major research program so I'm not surprised that nobody in the field notices these differences. I am honestly sorry to have to say these things because I know that you guys are all very dedicated and take pride in what you do. It's not an attack on you but there are fundamental differences in the level education and training. As for me it was enough to deter me from the field. I will give you that the training is definitely superior to the certificate programs. One problem is that even if the medical science classes were at the appropriate level there is still a disconnect between the knowledge obtained in those areas and the actual practice of naturopathy. Does it really matter if you understand medical biochem if you are simultaneously prescribing an herb that has never been tested for bioactivity? It's kind of a moot point. Another point is that as long as we are getting into particulars, naturopathic medicine is NOT a medical system. Allopathy, Osteopathy, Chiropractic, even TCM are medical systems. Naturopathy is a mixture of other medical systems but not its own system. For purposes of the law a naturopath should have a separate license or certification for every medical system employed. So for example if allopathic blood tests or pharmaceuticals are used then a license in Allopathic is needed. The license specifies that kind of practitioner for that type of practice. TCM and Chiropractic are licensed in the same way. You could not for example be a registered dietician and just begin offering acupuncture without obtaining a license to practice acupuncture. Naturopathic doctors seem to be requesting an all-inclusive license to practice any kind of medical system that they want. Naturopaths do specifically have homeopathy as a medical system however homeopathy is nonsense and everybody knows it. You would all do yourselves a HUGE favor if you got rid of that one practice. Don't bother sending over the studies. I've already seen them and if you don't understand what is wrong with those studies then you just proved my point about naturopathic students not coming from serious research programs. Another thing to keep in mind is that we all know that the medical establishment has problems but that doesn't prove that naturopathy is effective. This is a basic logic equation. Those two things are mutually exclusive. The medical establishment doesn't work because of all of the peripheral garbage that keeps practitioners from being effective at what they do and not because the medical system itself is ineffective. Western medicine is highly effective when it is allowed to work unencumbered. Another thought about naturopathy is that you should take some notes from the TCM people. They have always wanted TCM tested by western scientific standards and the result has been that their system of medicine has proven itself effective. In areas where it has been proven ineffective, they are happy to acknowledge it as ineffective. If Naturopathy did the same then homeopathy would certainly be out of the picture almost immediately. The difference is that TCM practitioners know that theirs is founded in a belief system that over time has become an effective medical practice that science can test empirically. Where belief will no longer suffice, they are happy to scrap it. The result, TCM practitioners are licensed at the masters level nationwide and the final stages of the OMD degree with full licensing nationwide is well underway with support from the medical establishment. In fact they will have this licensing while you guys will still be insisting that homeopathy works. What's worse is that you guys have been in practice for much longer than TCM has even been in the U.S. That's something to think about. You have to answer the problem of not having a unique naturopathic system to test as well. Therein lies the problem of being in a position of requesting an all-encompassing license to practice anything and everything. The practice has to be defined properly to be licensed and must be distinguishable from other practices. It cannot simply be a combination of parts from other licensed practices. One last thing that I'll point out has to do with support for licensing. Let's not forget that we live in a country where the majority of people think that young earth creationism is equivalent to the theory of evolution and that dinosaurs lived in the garden of eden. Are we really surprised that they also believe that homeopathy works? Public support is not a very good arguing point in these kinds of situations because people are easily manipulated and fall victim to all kinds of crap and never even know it. Yes it is a free country but very often people do not know what is best for them because they do not have the background or education to make a good decision. They are also constantly bombarded with propaganda both corporate and political that can be exceedingly difficult to filter through for the average person. Those of us who are well informed have a responsibility to say something when we know that the public is being told lies. Pointing out how much money the public has wasted on alternative therapies simply points out that alternative medicine is one of the biggest offenders and one of the most successful perpetrators of deception. -Mike the exercise scientist
Response from Anna
Dear Mike: (from Anna, the licensed N.D.) Thanks for your input. Which specific naturopathic medical schools did you visit? And when? Let's look at your experience a little more scientifically. Have you also sat in on classes in a traditional (M.D.) medical school in order to be able to make that comparison? I did my undergrad at McGill and postgrad at U of Toronto, also excellent institutions and also felt my naturopathic school curriculum wasn't as specialized and detailed oriented as some of the higher level research courses I had previously taken at other fine universities, however when I converse with my M.D. friends we have medical knowledge that is comparable in that we can communicate effectively in the field of medicine. May I venture to suspect the M.D. curriculum courses aren't as specialized as the ones we took at the research universities either? I'd like to hear from anyone out there who has been to both an M.D. medical school and an accredited N.D. school and tell us what the differences were they they experienced. I personally haven't been to any M.D. medical school courses, so I couldn't compare. If the naturopathic med school courses been to be improved, I'll be the first one to address it with the naturopathic medical board. Bare in mind, that if the U.S. Dept of Education has deemed the education level appropriate enough to be eligible for licensure and practice, I think that speaks by itself. I can accurately say that the hours spent in each discipline is comparable to that of a typical medical school, but as far as quality, I am not experienced enough to say. I do know that the standards or knowledge expectation for our NPLEX licensing exam is the same as that for the MPLEX. (It's a four day exam).
In response to your comment "What's worse is that you guys have been in practice for much longer than TCM has even been in the U.S..." I wish that were true. We were deregulated in virtually all of the state in the 1950's when pharmacologic intervention became the treatment of choice, mainly because that is the investment direction the Rockefeller's millions went toward. (ironically I know one of the Rockefeller's homeopaths who practices in Los Angeles). Because of this deregulation, the "correspondence school" N.D.s sprung up and it has been a constant battle to re-establish ourselves again in most of the U.S. states because of the opposition and confusion that have created. I don't see D.O.s and TCM practitioners having to deal with D.O. and TCM correspondence schools. I WISH the 100s of thousands of dollars we spend each year fighting the correspondence N.D.s who are opposing our licensure, could be spent on scientific research. I'm not asking for sympathy, but understanding of our plight and patience is in order.
In response to your comment "Does it really matter if you understand medical biochem if you are simultaneously prescribing an herb that has never been tested for bioactivity?"...we prefer to use botanical medicines that have been standardized and have a known efficacy over one that we know less about. And we definitely do need the biochem when prescribing pharmaceuticals.
Re: "Therein lies the problem of being in a position of requesting an all-encompassing license to practice anything and everything. The practice has to be defined properly to be licensed and must be distinguishable from other practices"...'naturopathy' an arsenal of natural treatment modalities. I believe what you are referring to is scope of practice. This is constantly being revised as more funding becomes available and each modality is proven or disproven scientifically and I agree the definition of naturopathy and it's scope of practice is a dynamic process and I also agree that is one of our biggest challenges. (and the mail order N.D. include things in it's definition that we don't which compounds the problem even further). GPs practice "everything and anything" in that they see all types of patients, but then refer some patients on to specialists as needed. N.D.s do the same; and we can even see what type of allopathic or integrative modalities would work best for a given patient. Some patient do best with acupuncture, some with psychotherapy, some with pharmaceuticals. Who else can offer this service to a patient on a professional level? We must be able to diagnose and recognize which patients need specialized care, and prefer them on... and not only which allopathic specialty, but which integrative specialty as well. Regarding homeopathy, I won't even go there, I see no need to defend it. A patient going to a licensed N.D. has a choice. Someone like you can request 'no homeopathy' and we won't use it, and we can still treat you successfully with other means that your analytical and scientific thought process will accept as valid. We have no problem prescribing for you an antibiotic if indicated for a bacterial infection, because one of the many factors in chosing the treatment we recommend has to do what the patient is comfortable with and their belief system, a freedom of choice treatment system if you like, isn't that one of the things the U.S. Constitution stands for? Give the public more credit. There's not as stupid as you're implying. We won't force you to take a homeopathic remedy, but by the same token, don't deprive other patients who want to use it. Again, I'm not going to argue about it's efficacy with you, it's pointless. If you on the other hand can produce quality studies that show people have been harmed by homeopathy, either in and of itself, or because it prevented a patient from seeking other types of treatment, bring it on.
RE: Pointing out how much money the public has wasted on alternative therapies simply points out that alternative medicine is one of the biggest offenders and one of the most successful perpetrators of deception... then I see a need for someone is educated and trained in all the basic 'alternative' modalities in order to prevent it's misuse. NOTE: Please consider not refering it as 'alternative' as much of it has been around longer than allopathic medicine and statistically herbs are used more around the globe than drugs, so depending on your perspective allopathic medicine could be considered the 'alternative'. We are tested for competency in the various treatment modalities and they are also represented on our licensing exam.
So, young earth creationism is the term now used for the Adam and Eve story? (had to google it). I believe you mean that people (like me) don't understand the definition of young earth creationism and evolution well enough to know the differences between the two, which is true until I looked it up, however....
Frankly, I do see that there could very well be a mechanism to explain the origin of earth and the species which includes both young earth creationism and evolution and even not in a religious sense, but one which embraces quantum physics and genetic mutation and selection. Why not?
We think we're so smart, but I suspect we really don't see the big picture most of the time. Science and spiritualty could actually be one and same and we're just too blind to see it.
Dear Anna (From Mike the exercise scientist)
I do understand the position that you are in and really do sympathize with the licensing problems that you guys have. Again I have absolutely no doubt that you and most other Naturopathic physicians whole-heartedly believe what you are saying and are completely dedicated to the field and to the health of your patients.
With regard to scope of practice let me try to clarify. It isn't Mike's law of "scope of practice." That is the law. Your field must be completely distinguishable to be licensed by the standard of the law. Medical doctors are licensed to diagnose, prescribe drugs, and perform surgery. Their license specifically entitles them to that along with the responsibility for it. In order for a person to diagnose, prescribe drugs, or perform surgery they must have this license. This is exclusive to the license with the exception of NPs who can perform two of these functions under the supervision of someone with this license. An ND would need to have this license to perform these functions. This license has very specific requirements that NDs do not meet or else they would be licensed to do it just like DOs are. That includes the undergrad requirements, an MCAT on file with the government, the gatekeeper tests, specific courses taught in a specific way (which is a requirement to become an accredited medical school), specific clinical training, and completion of a certified residency program. Those are the requirements. If you do not meet those requirements then you can not be licensed to perform ANY of the functions of a medical doctor. The same is true for licensed allied health fields and as I mentioned TCM. There are VERY specific requirements for all licensed fields. My point about the scope of practice is that it cannot be in flux as you suggested and there is not a lot of crossover. An MD cannot practice acupuncture unless licensed to do so. It doesn't matter if the MD took all but one class from a TCM school and for all practical purposes could perform acupuncture. The licenses are specific. Here's an even better example. Pharmacists are experts with medications. Much more so than the MDs that prescribe the medications. They are not licensed to prescribe medications. Interestingly enough they are licensed to give advice on nutritional compounds including botanical medicines, vitamins, supplements, cleansing programs, OTC, or any other bioactive substance. This is specific to their field. While I was doing my undergrad I worked as a registered pharmacy tech. From years of interest I knew more about nutritional supplements than any pharmacist I ever worked with but I was NOT allowed to recommend or give advice under any circumstance. The point that I am trying to make is that the definition of naturopathy including the naturopathic physician's scope of practice is too broad to be licensed. NDs would have the broadest licensing of any medical field if what you wanted to happen did. That isn't going to fly. There is no way the medical establishment is going to give you a license that entitles you to practice MD,RPh,cert diet,TCM,DC,and clinical psych along with some other completely unregulated fields. I think that probably your best bet for licensing would be to try and be licensed like NPs are where you are licensed to practice under the supervision of a licensed MD or DO. That could be the first step. That situation also probably has the best chance of getting widespread approval. The other possibility would be to narrow the scope to two or three things that you would be licensed to perform. The problem with this is the crossover. The two or three things would have to be unlicensed fields. Like you could probably make a case for licensing doctors of botanical medicine. There is a genuine need for this and there is no other licensed field covering this ground. I'm sure you realize that a well thought out degree in this kind of field would be extremely challenging even with no other modalities in the program. Even this program would require the training of an MD, RPh, and a PhD level botanist to have a chance. NDs may be the best possibility to fill this void right now but I don't think that the education is really comprehensive enough to do it completely honestly. There is simply too much that we don't know about these substances. That in fact brings up a whole other problem. What about the possibility of botanical substances being researched and then the FDA reclassifying them as drugs. I think that this is part of the concern that the unlicensed naturopaths have. Regulation could lead to further regulation. Research could also lead to regulation. This is all very shaky ground for the future.
Just to clarify I went to Bastyr and SCNM. I decided not to interview at NCNM. Bastyr was clearly superior to the other two but still not on par with medical school. The pace is considerably different. In real numbers I would say that the medical students are covering the same material at approximately five times the pace. As for my experience my grad program was very closely tied to the medical school and had shared classes between exercise phys, physical therapy, and the MD students. Neurophys was one that stood out. What was covered in a semester at the ND schools was done in a week and a half in the class I had been in with the MD students. I will also grant you that the PhD classes are more in depth than the MD classes mainly because there is also a vocational component to the MD so they have to cram as much information as possible into a shorter time. Personally I think that the MD should probably be stretched out into a 6-year program to produce better physicians. There's simply too much information that needs to be completely understood for 2 years of classroom work with 2 years of clinical. With all do respect to you, I don't think that there would be NDs at all if the system worked properly. There wouldn't be a need.
From Anna
12/30/05 Dear Mike: We're already licensed in several states and gaining licensure in more states every year, so the argument about us not meeting the standards for licensure is mute. We already are licensed to diagnose and prescribe drugs and do (minor) surgery, along with the MDs, DOs and NPs/PAs under supervision. The state medical boards where we are licensed feel we do meet the standards to perform these functions. Our medical schools are accredited, and we do have undergraduate requirement (i.e. a baaloreate degree). MCAT isn't a requirement for getting license; foreign medical school graduates come to the U.S. and get licensure and have never taken MCAT. MCAT is the criteria U.S. medical school use to screen their applicants, not a screening device the states use for licensure. I can't comment on the N.D. residence program in the U.S. because I went to a Canadian school.
I appreciate your input and strategy advise about gaining licensure in the remaining states, however the standard as a primary care provider has already been set in the states where we do practice. I see our biggest obstacle is to get our name untangled from the mail order NDs. I truly believe that if they would stop opposing our licensure efforts state by state, we'd have regained licensure in most states by now; scope of practice doesn't seem to be a problem for the state senators and states representatives I've spoken with. The licensing problems arise when the mail-orders come to the state capitols claiming to be the 'real' naturopaths and they oppose licensure (because they feel threatened that it might mean they could no longer practice using the word naturopath).
All 6 naturopathic medical school in north American recently underwent major changes wrt standards; the details of which I am not well versed in and I should look into so I can engage in these type of discussions, but it did entail a more rigorous cirriculum and internship/residency, and we do continually strive to meet appropriate educational and training goals.
Are the DO medical schools as in depth as the MDs? After all, they also have to learn 'western' medicine in addition to osteopathic manipulation; and they do that in four years and no one questions it. We're focusing on the MD ed and training as the gold standard, but suppose the DO ed and training isn't as rigorous as the MDs and they still have the same practice rights and privileges? For eq: I was offered a two year 'credit' for my ND training at a U.S. school of osteopathic medicine and would have just had to complete the last two years. I know I was the one who brought up the comparison to the MD curriculum in the first place by pointing out the fact that we incorporate the same # of instructional hours as the MD programs, but, that said, perhaps we should also be looking at competency after the education and training has been completed, rather than focusing solely on a comparison wrt the MD. Most of the comments you make about the ND program suggests, but does not prove that they are not competent practitioners.
If what you think is true; that the education is not comprehensive enough, then my profession or a government authority needs to evaluate whether that's true or not and adjust the program accordingly. Just like we don't want under-trained MDs we don't want under-trained NDs either and as a scientist, I am more interested in uncovering the truth rather than defending my profession. My experience in the naturopathic profession has been experiential for the most part; I see that patients benefit greatly from our services and I haven't encountered the same %s of iatrogenic disease as with the other primary health providers. I'm willing to look at any statistics that contradict my own personal experience and that of my colleagues.
I believe fine-tuning the current profession of naturopathy, that has already been established since 1902 makes more sense than to abolish it and create an entirely new system to deliver natural health care. I believe naturopathy has already demonstrated it's efficacy, enough so, to keep it as a viable option for natural health care.
Re: scope of practice; the treatment categories are broad and the categories themselves will stay constant. For example, we will always cover botanical medicine. Further scientific studies will likely alter which botanical substances we use; but the overall categories of "scope of practice" will not change. Just like the practitioners whose scope of practice is to prescribe drugs, when drugs for eg: vioxx are taken off the market, this doesn't change their scope of practice. Yes, I think we have the broadest scope of practice of any health practitioner, which I see as more of an asset. MDs can take a mere 400 hours of acupuncture in order to legally use it (which is much less than we get) and I am not 100% sure, but I believe they can recommend botanical medicines and other nutritional substances without any additional training--at least I know of many that do. I believe MDs who use natural therapies are usually less trained in them then we are, so I don't think the 'problem' as being exclusively about ND training.
We are against regulation of botanical substances (except for dangerous or toxic ones); and if the 'powers that be' use scientific validation of the efficacy of herbs as an reason to regulate them, that's unfortuneate. However we cannot suspend scientific investigation of these substances in order to prevent this possibility. (just like some drugs are OTC and others aren't; personally, I believe that's likely the worst scenario if botanicals become regulated).
Respectfully, Dr Anna M.
DEFINITION:
I think the article needs to include a specific definition of what naturopathic medicine is. Here is the definition from the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians:
What is Naturopathic Medicine? Founded upon a holistic philosophy, naturopathic medicine combines safe and effective traditional therapies with the most current advances in modern medicine. Naturopathic medicine is appropriate for the management of a broad range of health conditions affecting all people of all ages.
Naturopathic physicians (N.D.s) are the highest trained practitioners in the broadest scope of naturopathic medical modalities. In addition to the basic medical sciences and conventional diagnostics, naturopathic education includes therapeutic nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, natural childbirth, classical Chinese medicine, hydrotherapy, naturopathic manipulative therapy, pharmacology and minor surgery.
From Donaldal
Dr Anna, I am curious about which osteopathic school offered you two years of credit for attending a Canadian naturopathic school? The only program I have ever heard of for foreign-trained physicians is at NYCOM, where even foriegn trained MDs have to take all 4 years to get a DO. (http://iris.nyit.edu/nycom/Admissions_EPP_Program.htm)
You asked about the depth of osteopathic education. While DO's have separate licensing boards (COMLEX) they are also eligible to take the MD boards (USMLE). Many, if not most, osteopathic students do in fact take both sets of boards. While the scores are legally equivalent, some MD residency directors are less familiar with interpreting COMLEX scores. So to avoid any misinterpretations, many DO students take both boards. In 2004, 94% of MD takers passed USMLE step 3 while 93% of DO passed USMLE step 3 (http://www.usmle.org). This demonstrates that the DO students are getting similar training to the MD students. The 200 hours of manipulative medicine training is in addition to, and not in place of, the standard medical curriculum. Moreover, here in Philadelphia the medical schools regularly draw on each other's faculty. Our faculty (osteopathic) reguglarly guest lecture at the other (allopathic) schools in Philadelphia, while their faculty (allopathic) regularly lecture at our schoool (osteopathic). So not only do we have similar curricula, but we in fact share faculty. Certainly there is no doubt that there are important differences in allopathic and osteopathic training. For example, (and I am making gross generalizations here) allopathic training tends to be more research-oriented than osteopathic training. Conversely, (again generalizations) osteopathic schools tend to emphasize primary care. However, upon graduation, osteopathic students may take either an osteopathic (DO) or allopathic (MD) residency. Our schools are so similar that our degrees are interchangeable in terms of residency and post-residency scope of practice. As a point of clarification (a preemptive strike against trolls) some allopathic residencies are less osteopathic-freindly than others. This is not necessarily due to the quality of the program--many of the most prestigious MD programs take DOs; for example, there are DOs in Yale's residency program (http://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/pcimrp/pc_housetaff.html). To summarize, although there are important differences in terms of philosophy and emphasis (not to mention the manual manipulation component), the training in osteopathic and allopathic schools has more similarities than differences. I hope this helps to clarify the comparison of the two types of training. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donaldal (talk • contribs) .
From Anna
In response to the above interogatory: I am leaving the debate. It's gotten way off track. The basic issue is 'naturopathic physicians' are 'traditional naturopaths' are two separate and distinct philosophical groups, with different agendas, different standards of education and training and are opposed to each other politically and antagonist to each other in many other senses and should NOT be mentioned in the same Wikipedia article as if they are two factions of the same group; they are not. This needs to be resolved before further discussion of the training, education and recognition of the naturopathic physician is debated. If you want to describe an airplane that has somehow been welded together with a tractor, the first step is to distinguish that the two are totally different and have nothing to do with each other; they must first be unwelded and recognized as not belonging together. Most of the public don't know that 'naturopathic physicians' and 'traditional naturopaths' have basically nothing to do with each other. Most of the public think they are pretty much one and the same. My priority is to educate the public about the differences and once that is accomplished; to then debate any education and training issues that arise.
Dr. Anna M.
-
- They are both the same in that neither of them are real doctors.
Dear Dr. Anna. In response to above, a naturopathic physician from an accredited school practicing in a licensed state is a primary care provider. Working in hospitals, diagnosing and treating. This is very different than an individual who studied the philosophy of naturopathy from a diploma mill and doesn't have the ability to diagnose, treat etc. They can't even practice or use the ND initials in those licensed states. Please look into it a bit more. Pretty soon, you may need work with one of us... Depending on what kind of doc you are.--Travisthurston 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
alopathic vs naturopathic Wiki-bias
I wanna know why info on alopathic medicine never gets flagged while info on any form of natural medicine seems to always be flagged. Seems like the unbiased is biased! - Vegan Stephen
- Well, on the one hand we have evidence based medicine, and on the other we have a variety of unproven claims with little to no evidence to support it but a lot of testimonials. To answer your own question, if you get chest pain, start bleeding, get shot, stabbed, injured, do you see a herbalist?DocJohnny 06:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- No, and I wouldn't get to an M.D. general practitioner either.
--I find it troubling that there is a 'war' between allopathic and naturopathic medicine - surely it is in everyone's very best interests to integrate the two? Eg. if you are shot you go directly to the hospital,and following emergency treatment are guided by a naturopath regardomg which foods,herbs, etc. would help to support the healing process and keep your immune system strong? Why must this debate by so extreme and competitive,if doctors, both conventional and alternative,both have patients' best interests at heart,then why so much aggression about who's right or wrong?
Response: Even worse, there's a war between the two factions of naturopathy, naturopathic physicians who are competent and want licensure and mail-order naturopaths who take a few course and don't know the first thing about medicine and DON'T want to learn about allopathic treatments or be licensed.
- The conflict exists because proponents of "alternative" medicine make exaggerated and unproven claims. There is no evidence that any of their treatments "keep your immune system strong" or "support the healing process". And their wholehearted support of completely discredited treatments such as homeopathy does not encourage trust in the medical profession. This is a "war" only because quackery hurts and kills people. DocJohnny 13:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, just like conventional doctors' continued wholehearted support of completely discredited AIDS and cancer "treatments" which continue to kill people does not encourage one to trust conventional doctors much, who by and large just accept whatever they're told.
-
- Keep in mind Doc, that whilst naturopathic medicine may not always be proven in large studies, it nonetheless works for some people, so it shouldn't be discarded out of hand. The problem is the lack of regulation and standards, that's where it gets dangerous. --Brendanfox 07:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- A more accurate way to put it is that naturopathic medicine has never been proven in any rigorous scientific study (double blind, placebo controlled). It a broad scope of so called medicine that encompasses a variety of quackery including iridology, yeast "allergies", chelation, nutritional fads, homeopathy, reflexology, and a completely irresponsible stance on immunizations. It "works" for some people in the same way chelation "works", magnets "work", witchcraft "works", and the same way John Edward talks to the dead. If it weren't placebo effect or coincidence, it would work in a double blind study. And considering that it is a multimillion dollar industry, they have plenty of money to prove their claims, if any of it were true. Just because some people believe it does not make it true. DocJohnny 08:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, DocJohnny, have you had a look at medline? Maybe you should take a few minutes. Here is just one abstract to counter your amazing assertion that no research has been done. Please consider before slandering an entire profession. The following study was done in a hospital setting where patients received naturopathic care in addition to conventional care with improved results for the patients. Isn't that where we need to focus our attention: on the patients? -maloneymedical.com
"The results show a stabilization of the patients within the follow-up, which proves the long-lasting effect of naturopathic treatment." from Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2002 Oct;9(5):269-76.
- The article you referenced was not double-blinded not even single-blinded or placebo controlled. But I will clarify my statement above and admit my error as originally stated. --DocJohnny 02:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear DocJohnny, please don't make it so easy to prove you wrong. Here is an herb, butterbur, used regularly by N.D.s, that meets your criteria above. Before you modify your above response to "one RCT" you might want to write me for some of the hundreds of abstracts I have collected in the last few years. The data exist, you simply haven't taken the time to read the studies. Nor should you, because alternative medicine isn't your field of expertise. But you feel able to pass judgment and other readers will give weight to your opinion, however uninformed. --maloneymedical.com
“Prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group comparison study of Butterbur extract…Butterbur Ze 339 and Fexofenadine are comparably efficacious relative to placebo. Despite being a herbal drug, Butterbur Ze 339 has now been subject to a series of well controlled trials and should be considered as an alternative treatment for IAR” Phytother Res. 2005 Jun;19(6):530-7.
- The suggestion that a trial of an herbal remedy by a medical doctor somehow translates into wholesale vindication of a field which as mentioned above includes iridology, reflexology, homeopathy, EDTA chelation, HIV treatment with garlic, stroke treatment with cold compresses, asthma treatment with hydrogen peroxide baths, antivaccination, the treatment of a variety of conditions with wet towels or enemas, and the usage of a variety of herbal remedies which have not been studied rigorously, is disingenuous. First of all, this is not a personal matter, trying to "prove me wrong" accomplishes nothing. This is about the vast difference between naturopathic medicine as a field and conventional medicine. All conventional medical treatments are vetted rigorously by repeated studies before treatments are accepted. This is not true of alternative medical practices, including naturopathic practices. Every single drug, every single treatment in the conventional medical armamentarium has been subject to intense scrutiny in the form of rigorous scientific study. This is blatantly and obviously not the case for alternative medicine, which is a field rife with anecdote and sparse with scientific study. --DocJohnny 23:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Doc Johnny,
The emperor has no clothes. Modern medicine does not do placebo controlled, randomized trials for everything or even for most things. Many surgeries do not have studies behind them for obvious reasons. Drug studies are suspect, because of recent withdrawals like Vioxx. And when evidence based studies exist, doctors in practice often ignore them.
I am attaching three reviews that call into question the validity of the entire class of drugs used as antidepressants. Not a single drug, but the entire class. I am also attaching a study that shows that doctors in practice vary widely in their use of evidence based medicine.
When I say prove you wrong, I am referring to your direct challenge to provide a single RCT that would require you to alter your statement about alternative medicine. I did so, so please alter your statement. I am now attaching the evidence to request that you alter your statement regarding conventional medicine and the evidence available. The issue is your blanket statements about alternative vs. conventional medicine. I hedge things I say about a treatment, because I understand the world is gray, not strictly black or white. I don’t believe I have the necessity of defending all of alternative medicine, as it has at least as many silly practices as conventional medicine. But let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater, because right now looking to drug research and technology for answers is incredibly expensive compared to doing trials on existing herbs and currently "alternative" treatments.
I really wish that you would explore for yourself about alternative medicine before we continue any dialogue. Medline is a wonderful resource, and I would be glad to help you research different alternative therapies. A current search of complementary medicine gives me one hundred thousand citations, and a search on plants gives me three hundred and fifty thousand citations. Iridology produces thirty citations (many negative studies, you will be glad to find), reflexology almost four thousand, homeopathy three thousand (although there is a separate homeopathic research base with at least five thousand cites), EDTA chelation has 814 studies, HIV and garlic 27 studies (showing some drug interactions), stroke and cold compresses ten studies (the correct term is hydrotherapy), asthma and hydrogen peroxide 96 studies, vaccine side effects ten thousand studies, enemas eight thousand studies, and one thousand, eight hundred studies mentioning hydrotherapy, otherwise known as "wet towels." I believe I already mentioned that herbs are almost as common a research topic as drugs. Data exists on everything you mentioned. I don't necessarily agree with any of the treatments, but I disagree with your statement that there is a distinct difference between alternative and conventional medicine based on a lack of alternative medical research. That statement might have been correct thirty years ago, but now that funding is available research is being done.
"Despite quality guidelines, the average quality of published MAs of antidepressants is barely acceptable (50.2%). A need exists for adherence to standardized reporting and quality guidelines." Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Apr;20(4):477-84
"The more conservative estimates from the present analysis found that differences between antidepressants and active placebos were small." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD003012
"We suggest that current methodology has been unsuccessful in achieving unbiased double-blind conditions not influenced by extra-trial factors, including time" Ann Pharmacother. 2003 Dec;37(12):1891-9
"The proportion of physicians who reported that they never used the three evidence-based interventions varied considerably (2, 62, and 57%, respectively). The perceived intervention effect, duration of clinical experience, employment as head of department, and university hospital employment were significant predictors of more frequent use of evidence-based interventions. Physicians also reported that they used the interventions that were not evidence-based more often if they were employed at a university hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable disagreements between reported use and research evidence were identified. Additional research on methods to introduce evidence-based medicine in practice seems warranted." J Hepatol. 2005 Dec;43(6):984-9 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.105.244.249 (talk • contribs) .
- Treatments that have proven utility have not been subject to double blind trials because ethical considerations preclude denying efficacious treatments to patients for the purpose of research. Vioxx was withdrawn because of study outcomes, a self-correcting measure that alternative practices lack. One single RCT would not invalidate my statement. Only a systemwide change in practice would do so. You seem completely unfamiliar with medline. I think that before you start citing it, it would behoove you to actually peruse the articles. Of your supposed 10 articles about stroke and hydrotherapy 3 refer to heat stroke not cerebrovascular accident, 3 refer to heart failure, 1 to emphysema,9 refer to hydrotherapy in medicine which is immersion in water not cold compresses, and 1 is a reference to hippotherapy (horses). In fact only one actually directly refers to strokes and has to do with spa bathing and fibrinolysis. Of the 27 articles referring to garlic and HIV, not one demonstrates effectiveness, in fact most are about garlics effects on protease inhibitors. Regarding the 96 articles regarding hydrogen peroxide and asthma, there wasn't a single article regarding treatment of asthma with hydrogen peroxide baths. In fact, several are about the production of H2O2 by asthmatics. These are just examples, I don't have enough time to go over the rest. This is a prevailing problem in alternative practices, you argue as if X number of articles on medline somehow substantiates your practice. Never mind that most of the articles are not about what you think they are, and the rest don't justify your assertions. It is this kind of illogic that brands alternative medicine as pseudoscience. Those last articles you quote are interesting, and may serve as examples of how conventional medicine attempts to correct itself, a feature not shared by alternative medicine. --DocJohnny 06:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I will add one more thing. I am all for more research on herbal remedies. Some may indeed prove useful, but the idea that a treatment is somehow "safer" or "better" because it is "natural" is nonsense. And it is interesting that you chose to mention that last article since you completely mischaracterized it above. You stated only 2% of doctors in that study used acetylcysteine to treat tylenol overdose, in fact that study says only 2% NEVER use acetylcysteine. --DocJohnny 06:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear DocJohnny,
While it is possible to pick apart the citations I brought up, I never made any claims as to the effectiveness of the therapies themselves. My point was that the whole idea that no evidence exists about complementary medical practice is not true, and the idea that everything in conventional medicine has gold standard evidence behind it is also not true. Of course I did not go through any of the citations, that wasn't my point. Understandably, you did not go through one hundred thousand complementary medicine citations or three hundred and fifty thousand plant citations. Many of these will be negative studies, reflecting exactly the kind of self-correcting evidence-based medical practice expected from both naturopathic and conventional doctors.
I never said natural was somehow safer than conventional. Nor did I make any claim about the number of conventional doctors who did not use acetylcysteine (I believe the study quote says, 2%, 62%, and 57% never used the evidence-based treatment).
My only point is that research exists. The term "pseudoscience" is disrespectful of the fact that hundreds of clinicians are submitting both positive and negative findings to peer reviewed journals and getting those results published as scientifically valid. I am glad you are looking at the medline citations finally, but you will still stand by your statement that: "naturopathic medicine has never been proven in any rigorous scientific study?" What standard has naturopathic medicine not met that conventional medicine has? Not the individual treatments you rattled off, which quite frankly are not a major part of any naturopathic treatment protocols, but the field as a whole?
Diet, which was laughed at twenty years ago, is now taking its place as a major factor in chronic disease. Folic acid, which the naturopaths have been recommending for twenty years, is now standard for pregnant mothers. And vitamin A, which was very popular in the 1970's, is now on the teratogenic list and used only with extreme caution. We make mistakes and we correct them.
Throughout our discussion, I have been defending not every treatment, but the idea that a tiny profession is trying valiantly to enter into the healthcare of the world. This is important precisely because much of the current conventional treatment options are unsustainable for much of the world's population. No, garlic doesn't cure HIV, but we need something other than an expensive drug cocktail for millions who are dying. Hepatitis and malaria are endemic and mutate faster than we can produce drugs to counter them. Herbs can be grown in bulk by indigenous populations, and offer a far more feasible solution than even the most generous drug subsidies.
But research dollars are distributed by individuals such as yourself who have been trained toward a drug solution. Only by altering the mindset that herbs are pseudoscience can we come up with solutions that will actually work worldwide. If you visit my website (www.maloneymedical.com), you will find dozens of studies supporting different alternative therapies. Feel free to tear them apart, laugh at them, but recognize that they are science. The perfect study does not exist, and has never been done. But these are efforts by clinicians to quantify and qualify their contribution to individual health.
My goal is to avoid conflict with conventional doctors and to support my patients in the best, evidence-based protocol for their health. But I find that goal compromised by dismissive attitudes that disregard my clinical experience. Although I recently correctly diagnosed appendicitis, a local ER held a patient overnight for observation because: "the N.D. doesn't know what he's talking about." When they operated, the patient lost two inches of her bowel to infection as well as her appendix. She also spent a night in unnecessary agony. I should point out that she hated conventional doctors before the surgery, and that it took all my persuasive ability to get her to go to the ER in the first place. In return, the E.R. handed me a furious patient, and I had to talk her out of filing a lawsuit.
The vast majority of patients are undertaking CAM without any doctor's supervision, and conventional doctors continually underestimate their patients' CAM use. I was shocked by the recent CDC survey that only 1-2% of CAM users will ever see an N.D. By dismissing us as a profession, conventional medical doctors are depriving themselves of a valuable ally against network marketing supplement salespeople and internet pseudoscience. And "just say no" is not working for patients, because they spend more out of pocket on alternative medicine than they do on seeing their doctors.--maloneymedical.com
- You actually did state "A recent study of evidence based medical use in clinical practice showed that only 2% of conventional physicians were using evidence based “n-acetylcysteine for paracetamol overdose”, showing that while evidence may exist for a treatment, standard practice varies widely (J Hepatol. 2005 Dec;43(6):984-9. Epub 2005 Jul 12)" here. But, let's address the core of the matter. Research merely existing does not justifies practice. Research that supports the practice is necessary. Alternative medicine consumes a substantial chunk of the healthcare dollar, so "individuals such as myself" are not restricting research in your field. It is more likely that the same individuals in your profession who oppose licensure oppose the harsh glare of research on their practices. Alternative medicine does not show this "self-correction" because despite all the negative studies, iridology, homeopathy, and other unjustified practices abound. There is strong opposition to efforts to regulate the herb industry, and the herbal texts are still based more on tradition than research. So while herbal medicines can be efficacious, the practice of herbal medicine is pseudoscientific, even if the herbs themselves may not be. Whatever your assumptions, I am not "finally" looking at medline citations, given the prevalence of alternative practices, most of us have had to become familiar with their methods so as to better educate patients. Your goal being evidence based practice, we have no bone of contention. Perhaps we could focus on improving the article. --JohnDO|Speak your mind
05:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Your last change to 62% is still incorrect, as the 62% did not refer to the use of acetylcysteine but to the use of terlipressin (triglycyl lysine vasopressin) for bleeding esophageal varices, a treatment which is much less well known and which has several well known evidence based alternatives such as somatostatin, sandostatin, and endoscopic banding.[3] The 62% did not reflect that 62% did not use ANY evidence based treatment but rather 62% did not use THAT evidence based treatment. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 22:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear John, Thanks for noticing the change. I have settled on a direct quote from the abstract. I am not an expert gastroenterologist, and I don't use these drugs. But I do trust the authors of a published, peer reviewed article on evidence-based drug prescriptions to know which drugs are more evidence-based and should be prescribed first for a given situation. My point is that this is often not done, for the exact reason you describe: evidence exists for other drugs. But the experts define evidence-based very narrowly for drug prescriptions because a set therapy gives the best outcome. Other therapies may be helpful, but may give unacceptably high side effect pictures in comparison to the preferred drug. While alternative research does not generally make these distinctions between therapies because the focus is generally on simply proving efficacy, a rising group of research shows stunning complementary effects between certain herbs and certain drugs.
-maloneymedical.com
- The point I was making was that that particular analysis was not really indicative of evidence based treatments not being used, but rather that a particular evidence based treatment was not popular. To quote the study that found terlipressin to be evidence based The reviewers did not have sufficient data to decide whether terlipressin was better or worse than other available treatments such as other drugs (somatostatin, octreotide) or endoscopic treatment. Acetylcysteine, on the other hand is pretty much the only recognized treatment for tylenol overdose and had a 98% use rate (and I am curious what the 2% used). Medicine is very conservative and will always select older treatments over newer unless the newer shows definitive benefit.--JohnDO|Speak your mind 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Definitions of "natural" and "naturopathic"
The definition of "natural" is not discussed in this article, and I suspect an investigation of the term may shed some light on the issue.
We can say that something occurring without human intervention is natural, and the more that humans manipulate it, the less natural it becomes. However, there is no instrument or method to test for this quality. In practice, the layman's usage of "natural" also includes a notion of successful integration with the rest of the world. However, many things which are the product of "nature" might seem "unnatural": a deformed baby, or cancer.
This term, and many others used to define naturopathic, says more about its user: whether something is "simple" or "holistic" depends entirely on how well you understand it and its place in the world. Whether the same substance is an "herbal remedy" or a "drug" will also vary with the point of view. These characteristics are all in the eye of the beholder.
The term "science" also describes a way to approach the world, but its definition relies less on subjectivity: it may simply be described as all the knowledge humans have that fits together, whether or not it is considered "natural." In fact, the science of medicine is a deliberate act of rebellion against natural processes, and the degree of human manipulation involved in a remedy has no correlation with its effectiveness.
Therefore, to describe a medical practice as "naturopathy" doesn't differentiate it in any useful way. Regardless, we're now obliged to use the word to identify the social phenomenon. But let's just call all of these practices either "accepted science" or "not," and make a note of by whom, and why. Pjrich 02:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you all for your enlightening comments concerning the state of Naturopathic medicine in the USA. I have to say that, as in the nature of opinion itself, I can agree with something (and probably find research to prove it) or disagree with (and find research to back me up)at least one point of every entry here. I am a graduate of Bastyr University in Seattle and am very interested in the public perception of our practice. The second princlple of our paradigm is "docere"...to teach in Latin. Translation: Doctor as teacher. It is our responsibility as the medical system here in the USA to debate all these ideas with the purpose of bringing the best possible medical care to all. There are a few comments I would like to make. Yes, our ND education moves at a slower pace. We take 4 to 5 years to learn all of our -ologys covering in a longer time the same amount of material along with many other subjects. We do not have the pressure of an internship after only two years of school so we can afford more time to fully integrate and understand the workings of a whole person, not only their physiology. One example of this would be our extensive nutrition education (see curriculum above), another would be herbal medicine. While we can and will debate efficacy we cannot debate the fact that it is being used (by the billions of dollars). Someone has to know how to use it if not effectively than at least safely. Personally, I chose to take a year off to travel, exploring the origins of indigenous medicines and truly integrated practices that exist around the world. This is where my real learning occurred. I worked with MDs, Shaman, NDs, Physical Therapists,the doctor of the Dalai Lama, and (yes) even an iridologist. Truly curious minds care to experience these things and, for the record, I thought she was a quack. This was my "residency". We do not have a true residency program (although any of us would die for one, and many compete for the few that do exist)and realize the importance of establishing one. I hope the next decade will bring this necessary component to all who practice medical care. The one underlying theme throughout all these medical systems was the ability of the human being to first survive and second to heal. Whatever the means, people tend toward whatever helps them live the life they want to live. Some expectant mothers prefer the safety of a hospital while others prefer the comfort of home. A good physician would list the pros and cons of each (if this is even possible, without bias). A lot of people are making a lot of money making false claims...this is no different from 100 scams you could easily find on the internet...can you say flat abs in 45 seconds per day. One function we as NDs serve in the medical community is to bridge the gap between "eclectic medicine" and "allopathy". There are useful, tried and true, research based natural therapies out there and products that are complete crap, and now some with the wisdom to know the difference. To say all or none in this situation does every patient an injustice and, for those who do, they themselves would be missing out on something that may someday help them live a little more comfortably or perhaps save their life. I would advise anyone who really wants to know to check out the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine by Joe Pizzorno. Here you will find everything you ever wanted to know about generally accepted Naturopathic treatments for specific conditions in a well referenced, easy to understand format that includes many, many Physiological and Biochemical explanations, contraindications, drug interactions, and much more (no iridology though). I use mine regularly to print patients an actual explanation for why they are taking what they take and what side effects, if any, to watch out for. There are also many studies that take place abroad, but few of which get any press (literally) here, if they are ever translated at all. This is another issue that will hopefully be addressed in the next decade. One small example would be the term Balneotherapy (Bath therapy)commonly used in the EU but virtually unheard of here. Using this term you might find better information concerning various water therapies. Standardization of such terms would go a long way to making the scope of Naturopathic medicine more understandable to all.
cdel360, ND
Potential references for controlled trials and evidence
Sorry I don't have the time to contribute more here right now, but this link may contain content that can be used or cited here. An example:
- Let me clarify the amount of literature available that appraises the interventions used by naturopathic doctors (NDs). There are well over 6500 controlled clinical trials[7] and over 1000 systematic reviews on the various complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) that NDs are taught and regularly use. Empirical evidence indicates that the methodologic quality of controlled CAM trials is similar to conventional medicine trials.[8,10] In fact, there is empirical evidence that many of the interventions taught in naturopathic medical schools are efficacious.
- References:
- 7. University of Maryland Complementary Medicine Program. Link
- 8. Moher D, Sampson M, Campbell K, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized trials in pediatric and complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr. 2002;2:2.
- 10. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363-366. Abstract
Hope this helps someone. Cheers! --Ds13 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggested Merge
The differences between Natural Hygiene and Naturopathy are very few, and it seems natural hygeine would be better covered within this article, as it is not different enough to warrant an article of its own.--DCAnderson 17:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- They seem different enough to me: quoted from Natural Hygiene
Naturopathy, however, is a lot more eclectic than natural hygiene is. Natural hygiene prohibits all use of drugs including herbal and homeopathic medicines. Natural hygiene's primary treatment method is fasting, and does not use any manipulative therapy. Naturopathy on the other hand as an eclectic art uses both herbal and homeopathic medicines as well as the manipulative therapies of body work or massage therapy, osteopathy, and chiropractic.
- It may not be easy maintaining a clear difference between the two in one article under the heading of Naturopathic medicine (Naturopathy redirects here) - I vote to keep them separate. apers0n 18:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC). :P.S. It may also make the article too long, see Wikipedia:Article size
Well the main focus of the article could be Natural Medecine, and then there would be a section talking about Natural Hygiene.--DCAnderson 23:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Granted they have simularities but they are different, Natural Hygiene is a movement in its own right and merits its own article. Natural Hygiene is more based around a pure diet, fasting and self-healing, than natural medical/herbal cures. nirvana2013 11:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think trying to consolidate Natural Hygiene into this article would overburden and confuse an already lengthy article, damaging all the subject treatments. I see a need for separate articles and oppose such a merge.--69.178.41.55 06:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Naturopathic medicine is widely discredited...
by the medical community and mainstream doctors. However, the intro to this article only implies some modest dissent. This smacks of propoganda. Shouldn't it be rewritten with a little dash of NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwen1 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 24 April 2006
- Feel free to put some links to quality information discrediting naturopathy. I'm interested enough to make POV edits in order to reflect the scientific status of Naturopathy accurately, but I'm not quite interested enough to search out the necessary information. I'll read, condense and edit if you point me to the info, though. Doing NPOV on this kind of thing is quite hard; it's very easy to swing too heavily the other way when you think it's all nonsense. --Myk 16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
(new contributor; uncertain into which category to add this info):
here is a link to a 122 page report done by UCSF entitled "Profile of a Profession: Naturopathic Practice". Unfortunately I could not cut and paste portions of it; but it describes and defines the defintion of naturopathy; safety and efficacy; viability of the profession and I feel it is a valuable resource for this discussion... http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/pdf_files/Naturo2.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.5.30 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 May 2006
Homeopathy is real?
This statement was buried in the middle of an immense post by Anna (I think) and I just wanted to bring it out and discuss it as an individual point.
You said that homeopathy is studied by Naturopathic physiciasns because it is real. My understanding of homeopathy is that it is based on sympathetic magic. What you are saying is that magic is real. Or is there an actual biological explanation for the workings of homeopathic remedies?
Or how about some rigorous studies that show it actually works? My first-hand experience of homeopathic was a complete failure.--Myk 16:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
A naturopath called Dr. J.A.Sage
I wonder whether any one reading this knows anything of a naturopath called Dr. J.A. Sage, who wrote a book published by Allen and Unwin (second edition: 1976) called "Live to be 100 - and Enjoy It". Since Sage was born in December 1889, he was 96 at the time of the book's publication - does any one know whether he did live to be 100? ACEO 20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
