Naturopath Education vs Med School

[WitchyWoman]

Eos, I'll wait for you to catch up.

 

[T.A.M.]

*chuckling* I guess you missed the sarcasm. I was being facetious.

You stated that you 'knew for a fact' and then in the same breath asked me to prove more then anecdotal.

I guess I am missing the humor and/or sarcasm. It is scientific fact that some of the medicines we use today have their origins in plants, fungi, etc...

This, nor my stating that I "knew for a fact" are anecdotal.

I am still waiting for you to provide a list of techniques and or therapies utilized in common practice by Naturopaths that are backed up by solid (metanalysis of DBRCTs) scientific evidence.

TAM

 

[WitchyWoman]

I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Estellea]

I am still waiting for you to provide a list of techniques and or therapies utilized in common practice by Naturopaths that are backed up by solid (metanalysis of DBRCTs) scientific evidence.

TAM

Don't hold your breath; I asked for the same quite a few posts ago.

ETA: Cross-posted. And why is that WW? If naturopaths practise evidence-based medicine, there should be numerous citations you could point to.

 

[T.A.M.]

I wouldn't hold my breath.

No, I suppose if i asked any Naturopath to provide real scientific evidence, and held my breath for it...well I'd be quite blue in the face.

Sorry I asked too much of you.

TAM

 

[Eos of the Eons]

No, I suppose if i asked any Naturopath to provide real scientific evidence, and held my breath for it...well I'd be quite blue in the face.

Sorry I asked too much of you.

TAM

Science? What is that. Indeed, if she were holding her breath, she would be dead by now. They have to go to actual Med school to use science based medicine. Naturopath school is their ticket to NOT use evidence or learn what it is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly why is this relevant?

Because it sounds like you are implying you had expertise in medicine and still found naturapathic medicine valid.

While I was in school I was a Nurses Aide Worker .....

Not to belittle the contribution nurse's aides make in the care of patients, but this hardly puts you in a position of expertise in which to make a decision about the credibility of either medicine or naturopathy.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Nurse's education in this province includes "natural therapies". They lack the training to evaluate it compared to a real doctor's education or a pharmacist's training in science either.

 

[WitchyWoman]

Not to belittle the contribution nurse's aides make in the care of patients, but this hardly puts you in a position of expertise in which to make a decision about the credibility of either medicine or naturopathy./QUOTE]

I know many nurses who would disagree with that statement. Exactly what is your profession?? I did not realize being a doctor was a prerequisite to post here.

 

[paximperium]

I know many nurses who would disagree with that statement.

You never were a Nurse. So what is your point?

Exactly what is your profession??

She's a Nurse.

I did not realize being a doctor was a prerequisite to post here.

No. Being honest is probably the only real prerequisite.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Not to belittle the contribution nurse's aides make in the care of patients, but this hardly puts you in a position of expertise in which to make a decision about the credibility of either medicine or naturopathy./QUOTE]

I know many nurses who would disagree with that statement. Exactly what is your profession?? I did not realize being a doctor was a prerequisite to post here.

YOU made the claim that you come from a medically relevant background. It is not a prerequisite to post.

And, you also don't know the difference between an antigen, microbe, the toxin made by a microbe, and a "vaccine ingredient". For example, HPV is carcinogenic in its wild form, but in the vaccine the antigen derived from HPV is NOT carcinogenic. You won't get cancer from the HPV vaccine the way you would from HPV! Yet you claim a vaccine is carcinogenic if the "vaccine list" contains the antigen when it is clearly only carcinogenic if infected by the actual microbe.
Yep, you claim the tetanus shot is carcinogenic... NOT. Your claim is ridiculous for various reasons, but you still blabber on.
Incredible!

I'd love to see your stats on cancer caused by DTap! I won't hold my breath again though.

You should at least know what you're talking about when you chastise others about "vaccine ingredients".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nurse's education in this province includes "natural therapies". They lack the training to evaluate it compared to a real doctor's education or a pharmacist's training in science either.

Fine, but do give me credit for having a nurse practitioner's education. That is a master's level degree and in my case an additional 25 year's experience.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not to belittle the contribution nurse's aides make in the care of patients, but this hardly puts you in a position of expertise in which to make a decision about the credibility of either medicine or naturopathy.

I know many nurses who would disagree with that statement. Exactly what is your profession?? I did not realize being a doctor was a prerequisite to post here.

I graduated from nursing school in 1976, (ADN), got a BSN in nursing in 1982, a master's in 1985 and have been in private practice as an ARNP since 1990. I've worked in public health, family practice, small hospitals, large hospitals, in pediatrics, ICU, occupational health and now occupational infectious disease.

I know from all that experience that the variety of work settings, and the mix of university education has given me a lot to draw on in terms of understanding the world.

I understand what evidence based medicine is about. And I don't think you do.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Fine, but do give me credit for having a nurse practitioner's education. That is a master's level degree and in my case an additional 25 year's experience.

Yes, I do respect the ones that go on past the RN (4 year) stage. And the ones, like you, who actually learn something about the scientific method. You know far far more than I ever will, and are much more educated than I ever will be.

 

[luchog]

Luchog, sounds to me like your parents were fanatical. I

Poisoning the well. If you can't dispute the point, insult and dismiss it. This is an intellectually dishonest debate technique, and simply underscores the weakness of your own beliefs.

They were no more or less fanatical than any one of a hundred sCAM supporters I've spoken to here or in person. Considerably less so. In fact, they sounded a whole lot like you. I've heard your quote below uttered numerous times from both of them. The problem is how one defines when and to what extent "conventional medicine" is needed.

So what do you see as the "place" for alternative medicine?

I have never ever said that natural health should replace conventional. I've always maintained that both practices have a place. Conventional medicine is a much needed practice for surgeries, and as you stated chronic ailments.

Yes, they do each have their place. Evidence-based medicine has its place in the diagnosis and treatment of health problems. "Alternative" medicine has its place in fantasyland along with elves and dragons and alien lizard invaders. And maybe as a placebo for hypochondriacs.

Here's something for you to keep in mind. If "alternative" medicine worked, it would no longer be "alternative", it would be mainstream. That's how the medical industry has always worked.

I'd be interested in chatting about your 'many chronic ailments', just saying it does not make it true but it does make for a compelling story to win arguments.

Again, flat dismissals and personal attacks are intellectually dishonest; and indicate that you're not interested in reasoned debate.

And unless you actually have a valid medical degree, preferably in immunoloy and/or endocrinology, I'm not particularly interested in chatting about my problems with you. I've been through the whole naturopath route, and know just how worthless it is.

Also, many MD's have hacked people to bits killed many and prescribed conflicting meds which ended in their demise, does this make ALL MD's bad? Certainly not.

Nope, but you're certainly going out of your way to paint that picture using emotionally loaded language.

The fact is that scientific medicine has a far, far better track record than alternative medicine. The fact that under these "ancient traditions" the average human lifespan was 40 years, infant mortality rate was orders of magnitude higher, and people routinely died of diseases that are considered rare or non-existent now.

Compare the improvements to lifespan, quality of life and survivability to the number of errors and failures; and modern medicine wins by many many miles over traditional.

Actually Luchog, I never claimed there was one cure all pill for cancer or a CURE at all, that was you that claimed that.

More garbage. I never made any such claims. You were the one referring to "cancer" as a monolithic ailment.
I quote:

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.

This is patently nonsense. Some cancers can be cured very easily. Most cannot be cured, but can be treated effectively. Some do not have a cure or an effective treatment yet. You are not differentiating between them, and therefore your comment is profoundly ignorant, or profoundly disingenuous, i haven't decided which.

You just made my point for me. the only fact we know conclusively is, cancer killed her.

No, that's not all we know conclusively. As was stated quite clearly, this is a form of cancer that has a high probability of being completely cured if caught early enough. That's well established by many years of case histories. We know conclusively that she would have had an orders-of-magnitude better chance of living a long and healthy life had she gone to a real doctor right away, instead of stringing along with the naturopathic nonsense until it was too late.

 

[luchog]

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.

Neither did the naturopathic treatments you advocate. If they had, they'd be part of mainstream medicine. "Traditional" medicine is, by definition, based on practices that did not evolve.

Not long ago we supported the use of lobotomies and electric shock therapy but we know better now.

What do you mean by "know better"?

But your comment is a pretty good argument against naturopathic medicine.

ECT is still used. Not as commonly, but it there are circumstances where it is sitll considered a valid and useful theraputic tool, generally when other options have been exhausted.

In both cases, they are examples of treatments that had some usefulness at the time, but further investigation found better treatments with less harmful side effects. The practice of lobotomy was dropped because our knowledge of the brain increased through scientific research, and we found more effective and less damaging ways of treating the problems they were being used to remedy. At the time, however, it was the only effective treatment known. The use of ECT was reduced, since we learned a lot more about neurochemistry and developed new drugs that do the job better. It is still used in extreme cases when drugs do not work; because it has been proven scientifically to be effective.

Traditional medical adherents, however, do not evolve in this way. All traditional medicine is based predominantly on religious principles, magical thinking, and folklore. Conventional medicine has investigated traditional practices, adopted and improved those that worked, and discarded those that didn't.

If same principles and philosophies used by Naturopaths were applied to ECT and lobotomy, both of them would still be commonplace, and drug therapy would never have been developed. We'd still be cutting and zapping brains instead of prescribing anti-depressants and anti-psychotics.

 

[jon]

There are some M.D./N.D.s, but I don't see how Naturopaths should differ from Nutritionists in qualifications. There are also many M.D.s/D.O.s and pharmacists who often play naturopath(Mike Mercola and Dave Ou). These people have strong educational backgrounds, but might not always use them.

Worth remembering that 'nutritionist' can mean a range of things. A lot of them are academic researchers, work in public health/food manufacture, etc - doing perfectly sound science, but not working as healthcare practitioners.

 

[luchog]

Y
No. Being honest is probably the only real prerequisite.

No, there is ample proof all over this forum that that's not the case.

The only prerequisite is sufficient intelligence to use a computer without shorting out the keyboard by drooling all over it; and a modicum of common courtesy.

 

[WitchyWoman]

flat dismissals and personal attacks are intellectually dishonest

Well then, this makes you an expert on the subject.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Responding to various posts by the witch, keep in mind I'm a layperson here:

You can not blame this on Naturopaths. for all you know your aunt would have perished with or without conventional meds or any other treatment for that matter. My step mother had 3 rounds of chemo and died anyways so saying she would have been fine if she had gotten immediate intervention from MD's is a false statement.

As others have observed, this is the problem with alternative medicine - it's so full of "this worked for me", "that person tried something else and is dead", "how do you know she wouldn't have died anyhow", and other vague non-answers.

For the other laypersons here (which seems to include WitchyWoman), let's look at how science, by contrast, likes to do its stuff:

Scientific Method - How Double Blind Clinical Trials Are Done:

​

No anecdotes, no attacks on alternative medicine, no "how do you know"s. Just hard evidence.

and what is the biggest argument here? So you don't like ND's?? So don't go to them, isn't it that simple?

I could very well turn this around - WitchyWoman, do you not like conventional medicine? Then don't make use of them, that simple.

Not that such rhetoric advances the debate much.

As far as it not being real medicine is just laughable. Do you not realize where your real medicine got its roots?

The F-22 Raptor has its origins in the Wright Flyer and uses many of the same principles, so I suppose you think those two are equals, too.

Most ND's work with herbs and mega vitamin regimes.

I'm glad you're aware of this. Lots of alternative medicine supporters have this strange idea that every conventional medicine is "synthetic".

Many of your modern medicines that you consider REAL medicine was based on this type of folk medicine.

Based on. Doesn't mean they are equals. Let's say I show you to a hangar with two F-22 Raptors and two Spitfires and challenge you to a dogfight. I pick the first F-22. Do you pick one of the Spitfires or the remaining Raptor?