Naturopaths Recognized in Alberta

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Another issue with naturopaths is the worry that people will postpone real treatment in favour of placebos. Naturopaths are not qualified to diagnose.

That's ok, this will select for the "prefers empirical evidence" gene. They really are bettering society in the long term, just not in the way they think.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

There are plenty of similar examples. That is completely beside that point and in no way validates that point that if what alternative medicine prescribes works there would be a drug based on it available.

Here was your point:

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Nobody ever tests what the Naturopaths/Homeopaths/Chinese Medicine practitioners prescribe in double blind laboratory tests because the cost of testing is too high and you can't patent it if it works. .

You are claiming that there isn't enough money in it to get drug companies to test these remedies, and they can't patent it if they do find out why a particular one is effective. Yet - they do do so. I'm not sure how that is "beside the point". It *is* actually the point - the oft-repeated claim that the drug companies don't look into these remedies to see if they are effective is completely wrong, and your repeating it is also completely wrong.

[Daradon]

Pharmaceutical companies are amongst the biggest and most profitable companies on the planet. If a remedy could be synthesized from say lemon juice they would have done that already. Because they are a company, and I would argue, even greedy. Pharmaceutical companies are already guilty of giving us things that are harmful, you have to assume they've tested all the simple solutions already.

(This is not to disparage the good things they have done, just to say, especially in out pill culture, there are some problems)

So I agree with those saying that. Being sick myself I always come across many MANY people who say, do this it'll help, do that, you'll be cured.

When your as sick as I am, you look for help. But most of it is grade A bull plop. I haven't fallen for any of that, but always have my ear to the ground and am always asking my cardiologist and family doctor.

However, to the other side I do have to wonder what all the fuss is about. So you don't like them, that's fine. You don't have to go to them. Is it going to affect your care? No, probably not. In fact, it may help it. If people go elsewhere, you line is lessened.

And the people that are getting certified aren't doing anything huge or radical. They can't prescribe drugs. They can't do real surgery. They are basically removing warts and helping with diet. Both things that hey, anyone with a brain in their head can help with. We're not setting up people for big problems or lawsuits here that are going to severely affect the system.

It's interesting news, but I don't think it's important news. This won't be a problem or a slippery slope.

Same thing happened with chiropractors over the last 20 years.

[CarlW]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

That's not really true. Nobody ever tests what the Naturopaths/Homeopaths/Chinese Medicine practitioners prescribe in double blind laboratory tests because the cost of testing is too high and you can't patent it if it works. Basically, there is no money in these remedies, so it doesn't get tested, so traditional medicine doesn't every incorporate it because it isn't proven.

Two Chinese scientist/doctors win a cancer research prize by combining chinese medicine with western medicine

Toad Venom In Cancer Treatment: Traditional Chinese Medicine Is Well-Tolerated, Study Shows

Lots of study into Ginseng it seems

Looks like sometimes they do look into it?

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by jammies

Here was your point:



You are claiming that there isn't enough money in it to get drug companies to test these remedies, and they can't patent it if they do find out why a particular one is effective. Yet - they do do so. I'm not sure how that is "beside the point". It *is* actually the point - the oft-repeated claim that the drug companies don't look into these remedies to see if they are effective is completely wrong, and your repeating it is also completely wrong.

Provide me with an example of a drug company that has done statistically significant and valid double blinds tests on a remedy as traditionally prescribed and not the acting agent in the remedy they think actually does the work. Yes it's exaggerated a bit and saying they rarely do so is more accurate. I never said the drug companies didn't look into them. Your putting those words in my mouth. I said they didn't do double blind tests on most of these remedies and as such its likely that there are some legitimate remedies that have not been tested and therefore the statement that any good alternative medicine is already a drug is incorrect. Looking into a remedy and proving statistically that it works are two different things. There's a reason it's mostly independent groups that perform studies on alternative medicines, and those are, or so it seems, mostly to determine the validity of the latest natural fads.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Provide me with an example of a drug company that has done statistically significant and valid double blinds tests on a remedy as traditionally prescribed and not the acting agent in the remedy they think actually does the work. Yes it's exaggerated a bit and saying they rarely do so is more accurate. I never said the drug companies didn't look into them. Your putting those words in my mouth. I said they didn't do double blind tests on most of these remedies and as such its likely that there are some legitimate remedies that have not been tested and therefore the statement that any good alternative medicine is already a drug is incorrect. Looking into a remedy and proving statistically that it works are two different things. There's a reason it's mostly independent groups that perform studies on alternative medicines, and those are, or so it seems, mostly to determine the validity of the latest natural fads.

Part of any study for any natural product is the isolation and standardization of the active alkaloid. You would not have a very good study if you did not have standardized doses.

When we find a product that shows promise (red yeast rice gave us statins, foxglove gave us digoxin, white willow bark gave us aspirin, Etc,), you have to find out what the active alkaloid is, or how would you test it? Two plants of the exact same species are not likely to produce the same amount of each alkaloid, therefore you have to standardize to have reasonable results our each dose would be different.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Part of any study for any natural product is the isolation and standardization of the active alkaloid. You would not have a very good study if you did not have standardized doses.

When we find a product that shows promise (red yeast rice gave us statins, foxglove gave us digoxin, white willow bark gave us aspirin, Etc,), you have to find out what the active alkaloid is, or how would you test it? Two plants of the exact same species are not likely to produce the same amount of each alkaloid, therefore you have to standardize to have reasonable results our each dose would be different.

A lot of it is done on lab rats, just like any other drugs. If it works on rats, then the feasibility study of extracting the acting agent or synthesizing it is done. Once that is complete, you start testing on humans. Initially to determine if there see any unwanted side effects and then later to determine how effective it is.

You are correct that each plant has a different amount of the compound. This can be standardised to be relatively close if necessary. But really, why would a company spend money on human trials before determining if they could actually synthesize it cost effectively? Humans will sue. Lab rats don't. I often wonder how many products never make it to market due to adverse side effects that prevent the product from being sold. Some don't even make it to the human testing stage because of adverse side effects in animals already.

The animal testing part is what I would call looking into a plant. The process of ensuring its safe for humans, testing its effectiveness, etc is the part that doesn't happen on an alternative medicine remedy, but on a component of it.

[jammies]

[QUOTE=sworkhard;3805626]Provide me with an example of a drug company that has done statistically significant and valid double blinds tests on a remedy as traditionally prescribed and not the acting agent in the remedy they think actually does the work. Yes it's exaggerated a bit and saying they rarely do so is more accurate. I never said the drug companies didn't look into them. /QUOTE]

Yah, you pretty well did. You're trying to backtrack now, but the clear implication was that pharmaceutical companies don't look into these remedies, so there *might* be something to them. Your assumption that "traditionally prescribed" has anything to do with the efficacy of a drug is telling.

[sworkhard]

[QUOTE=jammies;3805708]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Provide me with an example of a drug company that has done statistically significant and valid double blinds tests on a remedy as traditionally prescribed and not the acting agent in the remedy they think actually does the work. Yes it's exaggerated a bit and saying they rarely do so is more accurate. I never said the drug companies didn't look into them. /QUOTE]

Yah, you pretty well did. You're trying to backtrack now, but the clear implication was that pharmaceutical companies don't look into these remedies, so there *might* be something to them. Your assumption that "traditionally prescribed" has anything to do with the efficacy of a drug is telling.

I apologise if that how the comment came across, but that not what I was implying or attempting to imply. I know many people that do say exactly what you think I was implying, but I'm not one of them. Traditionally prescribed has little to do with the efficacy of a drug/compound, but it has a lot to do with if you can say a traditional prescription works. Even of the drug does work, it doesn't mean the traditional medicine does, it just means it might. On the flip side, just because a drug is not released doesn't mean the traditional remedy isn't somewhat effective, it just means that one or more of it being too difficult to synthesize, having too many side effects, research is still on going, or it actually doesn’t work is true.

[handgroen]

Where in god's name is troutman? cp's resident skeptic, i opened this thread looking forward to some stark reality.

paging troutman!

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by handgroen

Where in god's name is troutman? cp's resident skeptic, i opened this thread looking forward to some stark reality.

paging troutman!

Just google "naturopathy skeptic" and post the links along with some excerpts. Voila! Troutman!

[MoneyGuy]

What's with these people being able to call themselves doctors; same with chiropractors? I use a chiropractor (but would never use a naturopath) and feel chiros are beneficial, but doctors (??) - I don't think so. These must be designations they give themselves as an association, no? I call my chiropractor by his first name or Mr.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I did not know this.

People fear big pharma, I'm telling ya Big placebo is no joke either

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...k-disease.html

[Thor]

Wanted to add to this as well the power of not only the placebo effect, but of sitting down and talking to a naturopath for 30 mins to an hour unlike your doctor which your lucky if he has time to talk for more than 5-10 mins.

Studies show that just having someone talk about your health and spend that 30 mins to an hour with you and more frequent follow ups has a real positive effect on your health.

So there is something to people getting something out of these naturopaths and yes even homeopaths as they typically spend a fair bit of time with you as well.

Just don't classify them as medical.

[West Karma]

nm

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Provide me with an example of a drug company that has done statistically significant and valid double blinds tests on a remedy as traditionally prescribed and not the acting agent in the remedy they think actually does the work.

You know what I hate about the internet? It leads people to believe that all information about everything is available.

Why would drug companies be freely publishing their research for all to peruse? You ask for a ridiculous proof.

[Knut]

^^ you mean the route of longer life expectancy, the elimination of many diseases and breakthroughs in cancer and Aids treatment. What a dark dark path that is.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

What's with these people being able to call themselves doctors; same with chiropractors? I use a chiropractor (but would never use a naturopath) and feel chiros are beneficial, but doctors (??) - I don't think so. These must be designations they give themselves as an association, no? I call my chiropractor by his first name or Mr.

Chiropractors are probably the most common naturopaths around. Some of them are even crazy enough to suggest that if you get regular alignments, you can't get sick. Others prescribe natural remedies on the side. If you using a chiro for more than just loosening the odd muscle, then your much better off finding a physiotherapist that will take a much more holistic approach to actually fixing the problem. Of course, there are some good chiropractors that essentially work as physiotherapists, but they are quite uncommon.

[Knut]

An interesting positive to this move is that it could help better regulate the profession and weed out the real crackpots.

The Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons was among other professional groups consulted about the change, and supports it. “Regulating naturopathy will help protect the public and ensure consistent standards and quality – and that’s positive for the profession and for patients,” spokesperson Kelly Eby said in an e-mail.

This means that they are now a self-regulating profession and such in better control of what their members do. The downside obviously is that this could go the other way and you could be having homeopathy more prevalent in primary care.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by West Karma

MY thoughts are simple - anything is better than the route mankind is currently taking....I watched this (below) recently - what if this is even half right?

People should have choices at all times - and forcing someone to take pharmacuticals should not be allowed either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDlH9sV0lHU

I agree, which is why my organization mandates natural occuring cyanide being introduced to all baby milk at the age of 6 months.

Anything is better than introducing those man-made synthetic drugs into such a small child.