Naturopath Education vs Med School

[WitchyWoman]

Funny, I never said Luchog's parents had it wrong, I said they were fanatical. As in, they were very regimented in their thinking and did not tolerate a deviation. Perhaps you should look up the definition. Who knows, maybe they saved Luchogs life. One can not conclusively say she would be better or worse without the treatments that were administered.

I tried to post a source to my claims but until I've posted 15 mosts or more I can not source a URL. Just do a search on Bill 179 where it is and where its been accepted. Or go to the Government of Canadas websites and check it out. That was my source, unless of course you think the government is lying for me.

 

[WitchyWoman]

FLS, you are so far off base that you aren't even in the same playing field. Denying the origins of medicine is ridiculous.

Quarky, maybe try looking up the abbreviations.

 

[Estellea]

Funny, I never said Luchog's parents had it wrong, I said they were fanatical. As in, they were very regimented in their thinking and did not tolerate a deviation. Perhaps you should look up the definition. Who knows, maybe they saved Luchogs life. One can not conclusively say she would be better or worse without the treatments that were administered.

I see sarcasm eludes you; but in any event, how can you make that claim when Luchog's parents may have been following their naturopath's recommendations? That's the problem with non-standardised practises. So what definition is there to 'look up'? We can certainly derive reasonable conclusions when there are evidenced-based treatments for certain diseases/disorders and being denied said treatments results in a lower quality of life for that person. Just because it can't be proven, doesn't mean that the likelihood of that particular observation isn't valid when several other same observations have been statistically-validated.

I tried to post a source to my claims but until I've posted 15 mosts or more I can not source a URL. Just do a search on Bill 179 where it is and where its been accepted. Or go to the Government of Canadas websites and check it out. That was my source, unless of course you think the government is lying for me.

All you have to do is unparse the URL. OK, I looked it up and that is for Canada and not a done deal as far as I can see. That is not the case in the U.S.

FLS, you are so far off base that you aren't even in the same playing field. Denying the origins of medicine is ridiculous.

Appeal to ridicule isn't a valid argument. Perhaps you would like to try and define what you object to.

 

[WitchyWoman]

Just because it can't be proven, doesn't mean that the likelihood of that particular observation isn't valid

OMG. If the natural health industry tried to use that phrase we'd be laughed out of the forum.

I'm not objecting to anything. If someone wants to lie to themselves to make themselves feel better, sobeit. One can not deny the origins of medicine. Well, they can, but it doesn't make it true.

 

[WitchyWoman]

OK, I looked it up and that is for Canada and not a done deal as far as I can see. That is not the case in the U.S

Well then, why don't you source your info and we'll dissect it. Canada has 2 provinces that have accepted and passed the law. It is now before Ontario and so far no sandbags. As far as I can see Senate bill 327 is almost exactly the same but I could be wrong. Please post sources for clarity.

 

[WitchyWoman]

how can you make that claim when Luchog's parents may have been following their naturopath's recommendations?

Key words, may have.

 

[Estellea]

OMG. If the natural health industry tried to use that phrase we'd be laughed out of the forum.

Well of course we would and do. Now try quoting the entire phrase:

Just because it can't be proven, doesn't mean that the likelihood of that particular observation isn't valid when several other same observations have been statistically-validated.

Emphasis mine. It certainly takes on a whole new meaning doesn't it? For example, untreated strep infections that lead to rheumatic fever can damage heart valves, so it is safe to say, after all other risk factors can be ruled out, in all likelihood, that previous untreated strep infections caused aortic and/or mitral valve damage.

I'm not objecting to anything. If someone wants to lie to themselves to make themselves feel better, sobeit. One can not deny the origins of medicine. Well, they can, but it doesn't make it true.

You see, an appeal to ridicule isn't an argument at all. If you wish to refute FLS's statement, mocking it is hardly an answer.

 

[T.A.M.]

Wow. Well, you guys had better contact the Cancer association and tell them how wrong they are. they are still searching for a cure so I suppose they are all frauds? I can tell you from first hand experience that cancer can be TREATED and some people do respond but not all do no matter how quickly it is caught.

I read the link you posted and it did not say the education were the same. It said the prerequisites were the same and ND's go onto their specialized areas and pre-med students go onto become doctors.

Naturopathy is NOT illegal and they have not stole, killed or raped anyone. Whether it was just an example using it as such is not only ignorant but defamatory.

JJM, funny I was thinking the same thing about your and most posts on the subject.

As far as it not being real medicine is just laughable. Do you not realize where your real medicine got its roots? Most ND's work with herbs and mega vitamin regimes. Many of your modern medicines that you consider REAL medicine was based on this type of folk medicine. Herbalism is long standing and beneficial. Try looking up white willow, deadly nightshade or belladonna, and more importantly rosey periwinkle. all these herbs you say are nonsense and have no scientific evidence are regularly used in your modern medicines today.

you are welcome to be up in arms about the up and coming laws for prescribing ND's so far what I've seen from you folks is opinion based conclusions and for that matter many of your opinions are wrong.

A localized tumor that has not invaded the lymph nodes or metastasized can be CURED through surgery. It can even in some cases be cured through radiation and chemotherapy. By cured, of course, I mean eliminated, and does not return (the common description of "cured").

As for the origins of medicine...well that is nice. Thousands of years ago they prayed to the gods and tried to exorcise the disease out of people. Should we allow Priests prescribing rights?

I know for a fact that there are numerous medicines that either have their origins in herbs, or are directly from them...once again, that is nice. You can get on your soap box all you want, and claim the snake oil is sold by a reputable snake oil salesman, but it is still snake oil.

Until you provide scientific evidence (like metanalysis of DBRCTs) that Naturopathic therapies work beyond a placebo effect, it is still snake oil being sold...EOS.

TAM

 

[WitchyWoman]

I know for a fact that there are numerous medicines that either have their origins in herbs, or are directly from them...once again, that is nice.

Well then, you , yourself just proved that they work beyond a placebo effect. Nicely done.

Thousands of years ago they prayed to the gods and tried to exorcise the disease out of people. Should we allow Priests prescribing rights?

No absolutely not. Well you can, I would pay good money to see that. I've said before there are lots of 'practices' that never evolved and we realize now, did not stand up to the test of time and efficacy. Not long ago we supported the use of lobotomies and electric shock therapy but we know better now.

 

[WitchyWoman]

Just because it can't be proven, doesn't mean that the likelihood of that particular observation isn't valid when several other same observations have been statistically-validated.

Several other same observations? Exactly where do they come from? And who statistically validated them? Because if it was done by your evidence based labs, it would then be proven without a doubt, right??!!

If you wish to refute FLS's statement, mocking it is hardly an answer.

Actually if you re-read the posts you will realize FLS was refuting my statement. Prove I'm wrong then.

 

[Madalch]

I've said before there are lots of 'practices' that never evolved and we realize now, did not stand up to the test of time and efficacy.

Like naturopathy?

Most of us have realized that it hasn't stood the test of time. Others are still a little slow.

 

[WitchyWoman]

Not at all.

For not standing the test of time, the medical establishment and pharma sure do 'adopt' a lot of their practices as scientific breakthroughs.

 

[paximperium]

Several other same observations? Exactly where do they come from? And who statistically validated them?

Why don't you tell us? Each research paper specifically will state who wrote them, the method of research and who sponsored the study. Why? Was that some sort of attempt to slander medical research?

Because if it was done by your evidence based labs, it would then be proven without a doubt, right??!!

No. That's not how science works. Do you even know what you are talking about?

Actually if you re-read the posts you will realize FLS was refuting my statement. Prove I'm wrong then.

Sorry there is no way to prove a negative. Do you understand logic?

 

[paximperium]

Not at all.

For not standing the test of time, the medical establishment and pharma sure do 'adopt' a lot of their practices as scientific breakthroughs.

Yup. It's called science. Many practices have evidence that show an effect. Either something better comes along or other studies come along and refute that original finding. That's called science. Medicine learns and changes.

"Alternative" Medicine does nothing. It learns nothing. It does not change. It putters along and makes stuff up under the veneer of validity. It is unscientific and has the validity of voodoo, homeopathy and any Unevidenced Based "Medicine".

 

[WitchyWoman]

Sorry there is no way to prove a negative. Do you understand logic?

do you have any idea what you're talking about? I never asked anyone to prove a negative.

 

[WitchyWoman]

*laffs* Wind them up and watch them go. Paximperium, I hope you breath in between posts. You are going to give yourself a heart attack, you're getting pretty worked up.

 

[paximperium]

do you have any idea what you're talking about? I never asked anyone to prove a negative.

YOU then made a claim that "Naturopathic" Medicine and modern medicine is the same. YOU base this claim about the origins of medicine as somehow its basis in folk remedies continue to make backward folk remedies still valid.

fls specifically states what modern medicine is nowadays and how it differs from naturopathic medicine. It is based on science and evidence. Its folk based origins are irrelevant to how it is practiced in the modern era. This completely refutes your claim.

Tell me what your response was?

 

[paximperium]

*laffs* Wind them up and watch them go. Paximperium, I hope you breath in between posts. You are going to give yourself a heart attack, you're getting pretty worked up.

I'm sorry but your condescending pop-psych projection is not relevant to this discussion. You will note from my prior posts, that this is my baseline tone. I don't get worked up over nonsense.
I do get worked up over how nonsense harms people and waste resources. If you find this amusing, I suggest you reconsider your own ethics and morality.

 

[WitchyWoman]

I NEVER said the two practices were the same. EVER. I said I think each form of medicine has its place. So I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Perhaps you should re-read the passages. I can't respond to made up posts that only exist in your mind.

 

[paximperium]

I NEVER said the two practices were the same. EVER. I said I think each form of medicine has its place. So I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Perhaps you should re-read the passages. I can't respond to made up posts that only exist in your mind.

"Naturopathy" is not medicine.