I anticipate some skepticism about that title, right up front. If you know anything about naturopathic medicine you know there is a lot in the education and the tradition that is not especially evidence based. That’s the part that I refuse to use in my practice. No homeopathy or muscle testing for me, thanks anyway. My goal is to BE the middle ground between the WOOOOO and the equally counterproductive unquestioning belief in conventional medical practices. There is evidence to support both sides, and there are unsubstantiated practices on both sides. It’s a mess and I’m working to sort it out.
My rejection of homeopathy makes me an oddball within my field, and I started getting lonesome. I have started to search out reasonable people who are mentally flexible and no brainwashed by any particular belief system. I have found my intellectual home among members of skeptical organizations like the FFRF and the O4SR (Oregonians for Science and Reason). I am happy to be here and look forward to learning from you.
Sincerely,
Teresa Gryder ND
Fundamental Medicine
Portland, OR
Which Naturopathic methods do you use? None of it seems to be “middle ground”.
Nutrition. Diet and lifestyle. Hot and cold applications. Botanical medicines. Physical medicine (adjustments, stretching, reductions, etc). There are a lot of natural ways to support health that have good support.
Good night!
TG
The problem with the notion of “evidence-based naturopathy” is that anything a naturopath does that is supported by good scientific evidence is indistinguishable from plain “evidence-based medicine.” The devil is in the details, and I don’t know what you really mean by “nutrition” “diet and lifestyle,” etc. But if you are recommending only those practices with good quality evidence at both pre-clinical and clinical trial levels, than so is any good doctor, and there is nothing uniquely “naturopathic” about them. After all, the very word “natural” is a bit of meaningless ideological jargon itself. And there is good quality clinical trial evidence for almost no herbal medicine out there, so the use of those can hardly ever be legitimately called “evidence-based.”
Naturopathy generally distinguishes itself from conventional science-based medicine by vitalism, a belief in a non-physical life-force that is primarily responsible for health and that can be manipulated with various interventions. This is inherently unscientific a premise since this force can only be assumed or intuited, never objectively evaluated. If you use this principle to guide your practice, than by definition that practice is not evidence-based but is more akin philosophically to faith healing or Christian science than to science-based medicine. And if you reject that notion, than what is distinctively “naturopathic” about what you do? What makes you a naturopath?
The same issue comes up with “evidence-based chiropractors.” The only ones I’ve met who stick strictly to practices with good research evidence support have rejected the very theoretical foundations of chiropractic (e.g. the vertebral subluxation complex) and practice manipulative therapies indistinguishable from physical therapy. So what makes them chiropractors instead of physical therapists?
I’m happy to talk about specific diagnoses and interventions and consider the quality of scientific evidence behind them, but you are correct that I am quite skeptical about your claim since it seems inconsistent with the definition of naturopathy, which may employ practices validated scientifically but which identifies and utilizes them according to principles that have nothing to do with contemporary science and which doesn’t see such scientific validation as necessary.
This sort of claim has been discussed on the Science-based Medicine blog a few times, so for those interested here are some of the arguments commonly employed:
Naturopathy and Science]
Naturopathy vs Science]
I agree with Mckenzie. The devil is in the details. We use diet and lifestyle interventions daily in traditional medicine but what we don’t use are the varied and numerous unsupported claims about diet that you can find on the internet and from many alt med practitioners (comments about cancer reducing benefits of antioxidants for example or claims about beneficial effects of vitamins that are not well supported). What dietary or nutritional interventions are you referring to?
On the claim that both naturopathy and traditional medicine use treatments that are not evidence based I will admit there is some truth to that but to imply that they are therefor the same or even similar is a misrepresentation. Naturopathy relies on unscientific theories while traditional medicine is built on well established scientific principals and committed to science based approaches. Some current and past medical treatments do not have randomized placebo controlled trials to support their use, but in most cases their introduction was based on accepted scientific principals available at the time. The difference between traditional medicine and naturopathy though is that traditional medicine is continually reevaluating its methods using standard scientific methods. Most major medical journals routinely publish articles in which we reexamine standard medical treatments, procedures, or protocols to see if their use holds up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. When the evidence shows that it is not effective those approaches are eventually discarded. That sort of self examination and scientific critique is not something that I have seen from naturopathy.
Last I checked, nature or the natural, encompasses the entire cosmos and everything in it. Therefore everything is natural, and nothing un-natural has been shown to exist. A naturopath is a made up title that any person who wants to can assume. It denotes no expertise, advanced study, or achievement.
TG_ND, what qualifies you to discern what is and is not evidence? Ah, but you’ve already shown your hand on that account, haven’t you? Also, exactly what is the middle ground between bullshit, and no bullshit?
I anticipate some skepticism about that title, right up front. If you know anything about naturopathic medicine you know there is a lot in the education and the tradition that is not especially evidence based. That's the part that I refuse to use in my practice. No homeopathy or muscle testing for me, thanks anyway. My goal is to BE the middle ground between the WOOOOO and the equally counterproductive unquestioning belief in conventional medical practices. There is evidence to support both sides, and there are unsubstantiated practices on both sides. It's a mess and I'm working to sort it out. My rejection of homeopathy makes me an oddball within my field, and I started getting lonesome. I have started to search out reasonable people who are mentally flexible and no brainwashed by any particular belief system. I have found my intellectual home among members of skeptical organizations like the FFRF and the O4SR (Oregonians for Science and Reason). I am happy to be here and look forward to learning from you. Sincerely, Teresa Gryder ND Fundamental Medicine Portland, ORTG_ND, I for one, (perhaps the only one) am open to hearing you out. If you'd rather not say more about your perspective, considering the beat down, you are likely to face, I can understand that, also.
TG_ND, I for one, (perhaps the only one) am open to hearing you out. If you'd rather not say more about your perspective, considering the beat down, you are likely to face, I can understand that, also.Mckenzie and I did not beat him down nor imply that we were unwilling to listen. What we said was that he needs to give some specifics. Those treatments which are supported by the science are almost always going to be traditional medicine. I can not think of a science based medical practice that is not within the purview of traditional medicine. It is also difficult to understand how someone can both claim to practice naturopathy which is based on unscientific principals and at the same time claim to use science based practices. I am open to a discussion but the OP has decided not to respond so far.
TG_ND, I for one, (perhaps the only one) am open to hearing you out. If you'd rather not say more about your perspective, considering the beat down, you are likely to face, I can understand that, also.Mckenzie and I did not beat him down nor imply that we were unwilling to listen. What we said was that he needs to give some specifics. Those treatments which are supported by the science are almost always going to be traditional medicine. I can not think of a science based medical practice that is not within the purview of traditional medicine. It is also difficult to understand how someone can both claim to practice naturopathy which is based on unscientific principals and at the same time claim to use science based practices... Shades of things to come. The lady was just doing an intro hello. If I were her, and got confronted right off the bat as she has been in this thread, I would move on.
Shades of things to come. The lady was just doing an intro hello. If I were her, and got confronted right off the bat as she has been in this thread, I would move on.She wrote a lot more than an intro. She started off with some controversial claims. Both Mckenzie and I challenged those claims but I think we both did so in a very civil manner. Neither of us was discourteous or disrespectful. If you are going to come to a skeptic site and make unsupported claims you have to expect to get a little push back otherwise what are we doing here?
Shades of things to come. The lady was just doing an intro hello. If I were her, and got confronted right off the bat as she has been in this thread, I would move on.She wrote a lot more than an intro. She started off with some controversial claims. Both Mckenzie and I challenged those claims but I think we both did so in a very civil manner. Neither of us was discourteous or disrespectful. If you are going to come to a skeptic site and make unsupported claims you have to expect to get a little push back otherwise what are we doing here? Anybody who can't stand the heat should get out of the kitchen--or not enter it in the first place. She made some outlandish claims (especially for an MD) and did not back them up with evidence. That was reason enough for the two Macs to respond the way they did. Lois
Anybody who can't stand the heat should get out of the kitchen--or not enter it in the first place. She made some outlandish claims (especially for an MD) and did not back them up with evidence. That was reason enough for the two Macs to respond the way they did. LoisShe is NOT an MD. Naturopaths do not go to medical school, they go to a college of naturopathy and are a licensed profession in less than half of the states in the U.S.. They mix traditional medicine with theories which are generally regarded as pseudoscience. They do not have the same level of training as medical doctors because they are not required to do an internship or residency before they practice. Medical Doctors have to do at least 1 year of internship after med school followed by at least 2 years of residency for basic primary care and even more training for ObGyn or Surgery and sometimes additional years for subspecialty fellowship such as cardiology, gastro, enodcrine etc. Technically they are doctors but they are not MD's
She lost me at “there is evidence to support both sides”. There are no “sides”. There are facts supported by evidence and there are claims. If you are blindly accepting something without knowing there is evidence to support it, you’re not on a side, you’re choosing a bad epistemology.
Anybody who can't stand the heat should get out of the kitchen--or not enter it in the first place. She made some outlandish claims (especially for an MD) and did not back them up with evidence. That was reason enough for the two Macs to respond the way they did. LoisShe is NOT an MD. Naturopaths do not go to medical school, they go to a college of naturopathy and are a licensed profession in less than half of the states in the U.S.. They mix traditional medicine with theories which are generally regarded as pseudoscience. They do not have the same level of training as medical doctors because they are not required to do an internship or residency before they practice. Medical Doctors have to do at least 1 year of internship after med school followed by at least 2 years of residency for basic primary care and even more training for ObGyn or Surgery and sometimes additional years for subspecialty fellowship such as cardiology, gastro, enodcrine etc. Technically they are doctors but they are not MD's You're right, and I know that they are not MDs. I read the ND as MD. If I had realized it I would have written my response differently. IMO, Naturopaths are quacks. Lois
I know nothing about naturopathy and homeopathy. TG said she rejected the latter. It would have been interesting, possibly, to see what she meant by that. She also mentioned “an unquestioning belief in conventional medical practices”. It might have been interesting to see her take on that.
Maybe you guys are right to drive off potential quacks from the get go. If it is done respectfully, and even vigorously, with objective reasoned-backed statements and questions (as is generally done by the 2 Mac’s) then fine.
I wonder, however, if in our zeal to dispense of dirty bathwater, we may, sometimes, be throwing out something of value.
I don’t think we “drive off” anyone. We give our opinion and ask for evidence. TG seemed well aware of the controversy of her statements. I can’t speak to her motivation if she doesn’t say what it is.
I can’t say I didn’t expect skepticism. =-] I did not however expect the tone to be nasty. Oh well, it is a sign of the times. Nastiness is normal on the internet, and in a world where political divisiveness sets the tone for much other discourse. I find myself put upon on all sides because the woo people think I’m an ass for being skeptic, and the skeptics think I’m an idiot because I sat through a naturopathic education which included a bunch of stuff that I don’t believe and have no intention of practicing. You may label me a potential quack, and you may prove yourselves more than potential dicks.
What binds all naturopaths together is a philosophy, no more and no less. Here I have written some about the six basic tenets of naturopathic philosophy, and you can easily enough see where I land. http://www.fundamentalmed.com/tenets-of-naturopathy.html
You can assume that you know what I believe based on a degree that I hold, but you would be foolish to do so. I do not believe that “life” is a vitalistic, that is to say an immaterial or spiritual thing. To me life is a composite of biochemical and electrical processes, some of which we understand, many of which we have precious little information about. We take a stab at understanding things by way of scientific correlations, and clues as to mechanisms. That does not mean that we fully understand it. Conventional medicine is based on no more that this, and many conventional practices are based on the convenience of the medical provider, and not on firm evidence regarding true efficacy. Medicine and the science of medicine is biased by the money. It is not easy or obvious to discern what is real. It is my life work.
As for exactly which treatments are effective for which conditions in which situations: this is the nitty gritty of medicine, and I am not going to give you an education in everything that I know and study. It is my project to understand what the conventional treatment is and how effective it is, and also to get a grip on alternative options and the evidence surrounding them. Evidence goes both ways, and no one study is proof of anything. Science is a process by which we continually challenge what we think we know and attempt to verify or dismiss theories. You can write me off, or you can consider that there could possibly be a person who is reasonable and educated who seeks the truth and also has the letters ND after her name. That is entirely up to you.
My motivation is simply to put myself and my position out here in hopes of learning something, or perhaps sharing something of value. If all I get is pitched with a bunch of dirty bathwater, well, your loss. And my waste of time.
I am not sure how to answer this. I am sorry you feel that people here have been nasty to you. There has been no name calling, no ad hominem attacks, just a request that you provide specifics and defend your position. We have challenged your ideas and for that I have no apologies. This is a skeptic site. Challenging others to support their ideas and beliefs with evidence is what we do. Mckenzie is a Veterinarian and I am an Internal Medicine physician so we are both very familiar with the topics you bring up and I am more than willing to listen to your ideas but you really have not presented us with anything except vague claims and insinuations that naturopathy offers something that traditional medicine does not. We can’t have a discussion or debate if you don’t give specifics.
I have to add that if anyone here is making assumptions it appears to be you. You have made disparaging comments to the effect that conventional medicine treatments are guided by financial interests and imply that naturopathy magically is not but provide no evidence to support that argument. You are making assumptions about both MD’s and ND’s simply because of the letters they have after their names.
You say “nastiness is normal", but if you think the tone here is nasty, I guess you don’t have much experience. Your “put upon by on all sides" defense is not helping you. The problem is not that these “sides" are wrong, although I’m sure we’d agree on many points, the problem is you have not developed a viable epistemology. I haven’t labeled you anything yet, other than someone who hasn’t explained what they believe in a manner that is convincing. You say you have a philosophy, but it’s all over the map, with stuff like “a person is animal, rational and spiritual". Have you ever tried to define “spiritual"?
Then, you go into silencing techniques. These work great if you are in a position of power, but you’re not. An example is the first sentence in your 3rd paragraph. You tell us what we are assuming and that we are fools for doing it. We can a) take a bunch of time to defend ourselves and unpack that sentence or b) ignore you. After that you string together words using your own special definitions. More to unpack or ignore.
I have a few threads on understanding what science is. “Authority in science" is a recent one in the “Religion" section. You’re right, “no one study is proof of anything", so, what is proof? I would say that is a better place to start than money corrupting medicine or wholistic approaches.
I know nothing about naturopathy and homeopathy. TG said she rejected the latter. It would have been interesting, possibly, to see what she meant by that. She also mentioned "an unquestioning belief in conventional medical practices". It might have been interesting to see her take on that. Maybe you guys are right to drive off potential quacks from the get go. If it is done respectfully, and even vigorously, with objective reasoned-backed statements and questions (as is generally done by the 2 Mac's) then fine. I wonder, however, if in our zeal to dispense of dirty bathwater, we may, sometimes, be throwing out something of value.There's always a remote possibility that anything rejected today has some aspect that might be shown to be true in the future. But we have to go by the information we have now to make today's choices. As of now there isn't one scintilla of evidence that Naturopathy or Homeopathy has any validity. We can't accept claims as true on the off chance they might be shown to have some validity in the future. The chances are incredibly remote. Let's say something does come along that is shown to be true that we reject today. What is lost? We can admit we were wrong using the tools we had to work with and move on. But accepting something as valid today that flies in the face of critical thinking now could be highly damaging to individuals and the environmemt. The vast majority of ideas that are rejected today via critical thinking and logic will never be shown to be valid tomorrow. Lois