I have a friend whose sister (and husband) are naturopaths, and knowing fairly little about it, my 'read' wasn't too charitable of the field.

I was interested in learning more about what it is - and having looked it up on wikipedia, I'm still left kind of confused as to where it stands and what place it has in the world of modern thought. A lot of the entries on wikipedia are pretty harsh, and though I'm sure there's some kernel of truth to what they wrote, they all seem to have an agenda so I dont entirely trust the source.


There seems to be a lot of controversy over the validity of the education they go through and that, while they on paper study all of the fields relevant to medical science, they do it on a completely superficial level.


I'm also unsure whether the field of naturopathy solely relies on "eastern traditions" or if they study the effects rigorously (subject to the standards of modern science).



As I understand it, homeopathy is a sub division of naturopathy that is completely discredited but (proponents of naturopathy) would argue that those elements of skepticism shouldnt apply throughout the rest of the field. So basically what I'm asking is - does the modern medical world (or scientific community at large) recognize the designation of ND (naturpathic doctor)?

Placebo effect?

Technically, it works.

to quote Tim Minchin, "Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine"

Exactly. Either the medicine can pass a double blind test or it cannot. If it cannot then it's not medicine. There is no "alternative".

I've personally got plenty of anecdotal evidence in favour of naturopathy.

I also think it's worth noting that there's often a certain arrogance instilled in mainstream med students which blinkers them later in life to anything that naturopathy may have to offer. Any discussion I've had with medicine-studying friends of mine about naturopathy, chinese medicine or even osteopathy (all of which I, and friends of mine, have benefitted from at some point, usually where western medicine failed) results in a condescending smirk and a vague mention of placebos.

Not good enough.

Are there some efficacious alternative medicines out there? I suppose based on probability alone there will be. Cue "Throw spaghetti against wall some noodles will stick" analogy. This doesn't change the fact that naturopathy is "riddled with quackery". And most importantly, it doesn't change the fact that if an alternative medicine does pass a double blind test then it is no longer an alternative medicine. It is simply medicine.

So when one thinks in terms of medicine vs alternative medicine" they are not just constructing a false dichotomy, they are committing a category error because alternative medicine has nothing to do with medicine. A substance either passes the double blind test or it doesn't. If it does it's medicine. If it doesn't it's not. That's it.

You don't have to believe in western medicine, only cause and effect, to know that a huge percentage of naturopathy/osteopathy is complete nonsense, that homeopathy is beyond complete nonsense, and that a large percentage of what works does so for a reason other than the one claimed. In the full realm of naturopathy, I'm sure some random substance somewhere actually does have antibiotic or other useful properties (and hasn't been subjected to a double-blind test yet), but the signal to noise ratio is really low, and there is a ton of complete nonsense.

Although I would always want to endorse a healthy dose of skepticism. I think you're taking it too far here. When it comes to anything science related Wikipedia is pretty iron clad. Now when it comes to inherently controversial topics like politics, then I would be extremely skeptical. So the fact that the Wikipeida entry on naturopathy is pretty harsh does not just indicate a "kernal of truth". It's a deathblow to naturopathy.

Everything it ascribes to naturopathy seems to make it seem awful. But the problem I have with the entry is that it doesnt define it very well.

Is there a single power that controls what naturopathic schools teach their students, and do they have a formal list of 'alternative treatments' for them to perform when they start taking patients?

If there is, who decides what makes it in and what doesnt?

it sounds like folk medicine. every practitioner thinks they are following a very specific ritual that is tried and tested but if you looked at any two at the same time or how the traditions were passed down in time i'd wager they vary quite a bit.

ILOVEPOKER929 has said all that needs to be said. I'll add that a good rule of thumb is to never trust a "naturopath" or any other kind of alternative medicine practitioner that doesn't recommend that you see a regular doctor first.

Atleast those won't damage anything but your wallet.

As should be frighteningly obvious, anecdotes are useless as evidence in medicine unless it is in the form of case studies that can be used as a base for further research.

Damn, it would be good if more of the world realised this. Maybe we should 'teach the controversy' between medicine and 'alternative' medicine?
Astounding that people give these things equal attention, and sometimes even insist that distilling a single molecule of something in water will somehow help you MORE than medicine

There are many reasons why anecdotal evidence is worthless. The placebo effect is one (and is quite powerful, and not as simplistic as some believe - treatment A may not have a significant placebo effect for you, but treatment B may). A simple return to normal is another - almost all health problems take care of themselves eventually. The human body heals itself better than any external source. People typically try alternative treatments when they are feeling low, and credit them as being effective when they get better (which usually takes weeks, sometimes months, and sometimes years - in the latter case, people often try alternative medicine because "nothing seems to work," and whichever they end up on x years later when they finally get better is the one they consider magic, even though wholly untreated people get better, too).

The only way to determine the efficacy of a treatment is a double blind trial. That's it. If it is effective, then it will show that effectiveness under double blind conditions. If it can't show effectiveness under double blind conditions, then it is simply not effective.

FYP. No person can ever tell whether they have benefited from a treatment (except in extreme cases like a bone fracture). The fact that you say "I benefited from x" already shows me that you aren't being rational here. I can never say that - all I can say is that "I tried x, and then my condition improved, so x seemed to help."

Anyhow, Chinese medicine works (kind of, in some cases), and osteopathy works (kind of, in some cases). However, the theory behind Chinese medicine is bunk, and the theory behind osteopathy hasn't been tested well (it had better be, before DO schools can claim the kind of status MD schools have).

Try teaching the controversy. Tell me how you feel after getting responses like "oh, that's just math, I don't care about the math."

I suspect that would bring be back to the facepalm emoticon

Usually I am all against alternative medicine but I suffered a very serious leg break and spent two years with an obvious limp and could not even dream of playing sports. 1 year of osteopathy and my condition improve immeasurably such that I didn't have a limp. After about 18 months I could begin to play sports again. For me it was 100 times better than the physio I undertook to no avail.

I will say one thing and one thing only in support of alternative medicine. According to US Federal Law, herbs are not regulated by the FDA. Because of that, there are a ton of herbs out there with very real effects that doctors don't give out to patients. That may or may not be for the good, but it does mean that there is in principle a niche that some herbalists could be filling.
That said, I doubt the next guy I talk to about my health will have a fu man chu or a cryptic doctoral sounding suffix to his name.

I wouldn't bet on it; if they found useful compounds in the herbs, someone somewhere would probably find a way to synthesize it. A good example is aspirin, which was originally synthesized from willow bark. While many medicines have organic sources, in a lot of cases they aren't concentrated enough in their unrefined state to do much good.

I will say that chewing coca leaves is nuts.

Is there a group that tests specific claims made by naturopaths?

Is it taboo amongst the academic world? They seem to be making pretty specific and testable claims that would be easy to prove/disprove, so I cant see any good reason for why the major "treatments" havent been tested.


In the wikipedia article it loosely mentions that procedures have been tested/disproven, but I couldnt find anything that was properly referenced. Google isnt helping either.

The common way to go about it is to test your own claims, because research is expensive and funding is limited.

Actually strike that. The common method is to RESEARCH and THEN make claims, thus the responsibility of getting funding and doing a proper research falls on the wannabe claimant.

If it came down to US naturopaths making the claims on their own intuition, then it would be enough to say that.

But from what I can tell, they arent making up the treatments on their own. It looks like they just take claims from 'respected' non-western practitioners whose research (if you can call it that) wouldnt hold up to our modern standards.


Then it comes down to what sources theyre pulling it from.

Obviously some are more valid than others. I mean, if theyre going to adopt every crackpot theory some guy has come up with, it invalidates the entire field. But if it's part of some well established chinese/eastern tradition where it has been thoroughly studied by academics of other eras (just not adequately documented), then it's possible to not be some cult-like freak show.
There seem to be the subfields that are completely disregarded within the category of 'naturopathy'. Things like homeopathy, and some other ones that involve things obviously bogus.

Are all of those taught in naturopathic schools? If they are, then it's obviously a crock of ****. But if the schools and practitioners actively avoid those kinds of things in favor of ones whose sources are more ... 'reputable', they dont necessarily have to be completely ******ed.


So that's why i want to know...
where do they get their 'treatments' from?
who chooses what the official corriculum is, and what the standards of procedure are?
if there is an organization that handles that, do they actively discourage the use of synthetic drugs? if so, why?

Why the rant? As per Wiki Naturopaths practice some form of the following:
The particular modalities utilized by an individual naturopath varies with training and scope of practice. The demonstrated efficacy and scientific rationale also varies. These include:

* Acupuncture
* Applied kinesiology[37]
* Botanical medicine
* Chelation therapy for atherosclerosis[38]
* colonic enemas[13]
* Color therapy[37]
* Cranial osteopathy[35]
* Hair analysis[35]
* Homeopathy
* Iridology[37]
* Live blood analysis
* Nature cure - a range of therapies based upon exposure to natural elements such as sunshine, fresh air, heat, or cold
* Nutrition (examples include vegetarian and wholefood diet, fasting, and abstention from alcohol and sugar)[39]
* Ozone therapy[17]
* Physical medicine (includes naturopathic, osseous, and soft tissue manipulative therapy, sports medicine, exercise and hydrotherapy)
* Psychological counseling (examples include meditation, relaxation and other methods of stress management[39])
* Public health measures and hygiene[22]
* Reflexology[37]
* Rolfing[16]
* Traditional Chinese medicine

Just about every one of the therapies are also practiced by Medical, Osteopathic and other licensed physicians in the states. this is not to say that each doctor( Naturopaths also) practices all of them but apparently whoever wrote the piece decided to include all non conventional therapies that he could think of. I doubt that the practicing Naturopath has a good understanding and utilizes more than 2 or 3 of the above. If the above were taught in Naturopathic schools then they were probably taught superficially with the understanding that further education is necessary( I really don't know here exactly but my understanding of the above in certain instances tells me so).

Specifically the therapeutic modalities did not originate in Naturopathy but are consequential to other medical considerations. It appears that according to the article on Wiki they use natural remedies and do not prescribe prescription drugs. Fleetingly , while reading the article, it appears that in some states they do prescribe prescription medicines.

Now, if you want to throw rocks consider that you are demanding total and rigid structure to the world of medicine which in your mind is conventional internal medicine and probably relates only to pharmaceuticals produced by the major drug companies. Good for you. I do have a working knowledge of some of the listed medical approaches and I can tell you that it would blow your mind. Cats sleeping with dogs, 30 foot long Twinkies and even worse people actually getting better, suffering resolved.

Picking one of the approaches (Homeopathy) it appears that Richard Dawkins , after noting that an element homeopathically potentized beyond the so called point of materiality had an effect and could be analytically objectified reasoned correctly that: "if this is true then all of science as we know it is debunked". These are my words paraphrased from memory so whatever. I'm pretty sure that this was presented on this forum.

Just another thought. Don't believe that herbal medicines (Chinese or otherwise) are not potent and are not toxic. Many and quite often the best of our prescription medicines are herbal extractions which are brought forth from the plant and mineral kingdom. Penicillin: accidentally discovered via a fungus; belladonna: a precursor to gastrointestinal anti spasmodics and any other place on the body where this effect is needed and that old, old medication which is still considered for heart failure called digitalis.

Break the chains.

Carlo: If they produce results, they should produce double blind studies.

Its not that simple. Double blind studies are best suited with a measuring stick as for example blood pressure, rise or fall, after so many doses of a medicine. It becomes vague and nebulous when the questions asked are "did you feel better?" or "patient was happy" or "patient is no longer angry". When one leaves a true measuring stick as in the case of blood pressure it becomes suspect. I am really here talking of conventional therapeutics which includes cardiac catherizations/repairs and all that goes with that particular therapeutic rational.

the other problem is that the studies can only perforce go beyond a 6 month predicative capability. I am here speaking of toxic and therapeutic effects which are impossible to study for say 8 years just due to the logistics of the situation. I become fatigued when i consider what should be brought forth in consideration of studies and double blind studies specifically but there many conventional scientists who see the same and similar difficulties.

Back to the unconventionals. A great many of the therapies are not based upon materialistic considerations. Homeopathy and acupuncture are two of them. Also in these specific two "one treatment does not cure all". In the conventional mind set one drug is used for everybody in a specific diagnostic platform. this doesn't deny different drugs for a diagnosis but it assumes that we are all alike. In Homeopathy and acupuncture, having a cough does not mandate that everyone gets the same treatment, all things being equal of course. One can piqure a persons toe for a migraine headache and another will have needles in the arm and another will have needles in the area of the headache. All can be effective and dependent not only upon the patient but also the practitioner.

It's hubris to assume that all unconventional therapies should "prove" their existence to a therapeutic insight which is also suspect. It is simply not possible because of the vagaries involved. In the states witness the ads by lawyers seeking disgruntled patients or the stats people who say that millions die from bad conventional medicine each year. I do not believe this for a second but it does go to show that when the stats boys show up anything is possible.

OK, the real question is how do I as an individual relate to unconventional therapies. How do I know this is good for me? The answer is that in the final analysis it's up to the individual. to take way his ability to judge in these and other matters and place this ability in the hands of a narrowed medicinal approach can't be good. It doesn't mean that there is no information about a therapy for people are quite able to find what they need in these matters. Referral from a friend, research and understanding, etc...all of these are methods people use to find what they want. People do get better and toxicities of many/most of these approaches are far below the conventional approach.

To "throw out all the rest" is a political statement which lacks any insight into the nature of the human being. to "prove" 3000 years of acupuncture therapy or at least 3000 years of natural/herbal approach in Europe is disingenuous. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE ALL GOING TO FALL INTO THE 7TH LEVEL OF HELL BECAUSE MERCK DOES NOT GIVE AN IMPRIMATUR FOR OUR APPROACH.

I'm going wild here. I can't fault the double blind guys in toto but I don't see them as the "great test". In consideration of Merck and institutions who by economic fiat pursue this course I can honestly say that "Western Medicine is the Best That Money Can Buy".