Naturopath

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Doctors treat symptoms, usually with drugs, Naturopathic doctors treat the person, usually with lifestyle and dietary changes.

If your doctor is just treating symptoms, then you should look for a new doctor; where the underlying causes are known modern medicine is geared towards treating the causes (e.g. treating a bacterial infection causing a high fever rather than just trying to lower the fever). Many "alternative" medicine practitioners, on the other hand, assume the same magical cause for all conditions and use the same treatment regardless of the problem.

A good doctor will give lifestyle and dietary advice and look at your overall health (mine does). Unfortunately there are some doctors that don't do a good job - especially the ones working in walk-in clinics who invariably seem to prescribe antibiotics for everything.

[kipperiggy]

If ever I feel uncomfortable with a remedy given to me by my N.D., I'll simply run it by my family doctor. However, at least with my N.D., I have confidence that it will be fine. I agree with Hesla's re-wording to say naturopath is an additive, not an alternative. I will always consult and talk with my family doctor. I'm not going to try and convince everyone one way or another about naturopath, but if it's helped others and might help me... well then why not? And like I said, if I'm uncomfortable with a remedy, I'll run it by my doctor. As for the money, it's not really an issue with me as I'm willing to pay for something that might helpfully resolve my issue.

In my opinion, some people (not all) may not be able to see the value behind naturopath until they too have been treated by their doctor but are still suffering from a condition, which is kind of what's happened with me. Just sayin'.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I suspect from my research and talking to a dietitian that my liver/adrenal glands may not be working well.

I'm seeing my doctor tomorrow, he will have my latest blood work results and I'll see what he says.

Doctors treat symptoms, usually with drugs, Naturopathic doctors treat the person, usually with lifestyle and dietary changes.

If you are self diagnosing and getting frustrated that the doctor isn't always backing up what you are hoping to hear, maybe you have a different problem. Doctors are trained to diagnose you, the everyday person isn't.

Also, my doctors don't push drugs on me. I have a lot of issues with that stereotype.

Doctors treat people with real medicine, Naturopathic doctors treat the people who are gullible with ridiculous hokery.

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

If your doctor is just treating symptoms, then you should look for a new doctor; where the underlying causes are known modern medicine is geared towards treating the causes (e.g. treating a bacterial infection causing a high fever rather than just trying to lower the fever). Many "alternative" medicine practitioners, on the other hand, assume the same magical cause for all conditions and use the same treatment regardless of the problem.

A good doctor will give lifestyle and dietary advice and look at your overall health (mine does). Unfortunately there are some doctors that don't do a good job - especially the ones working in walk-in clinics who invariably seem to prescribe antibiotics for everything.

The first bolded part is not the case for my experience. Each person is looked at individually, and my N.D. asks "Well, how are we going to help kipperiggy?" more than "this works for Bob, so let's try it with kipperiggy". But I could see some alternative medicine practitioners making the assumption you stated, I suppose.

The second bolded part is to highlight the fact that both my M.D. and my N.D. do this for me, not just my M.D.

[photon]

Originally Posted by kermitology

So it's pure luck of the draw that she was diagnosed with these allergies?

I don't know, impossible to say without more info, but my point isn't that it was or wasn't the luck of the draw, it's that the question is an open one, that there isn't more info to go on.

That's the difference between evidence based medicine and a lot of the alternative medicines.. if something could be shown to be effective, then it would become evidence based medicine.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Cain

Naturopathic doctors treat the people who are gullible with ridiculous hokery.

I love these statements from those in the know. LoL

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I love these statements from those in the know. LoL

If you didn't notice it was a deliberately similar sentence compared to one you used, just opposite.

And while I am not a doctor myself, I have quite a few family members intimately involved in the field.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Cain

If you didn't notice it was a deliberately similar sentence compared to one you used, just opposite.

And while I am not a doctor myself, I have quite a few family members intimately involved in the field.

Quote my statement, I made no such statement about traditional doctors.

[Regorium]

Just to add to this, a friend of mine has had skin problems for 5-6 years. Every single dermatologist that she saw basically recited from their textbooks and told her that she had severe eczema and prescribed increasing levels of cortizone to treat it. Obviously it didn't go away after probably 10 or 15 different dermatologists (including an ER visit), and frankly, the overuse of cortizone permanently damaged a lot of the skin.

Finally, on a suggestion from a friend, they went to see a naturopath, who suggested an allergy test and found significant allergies to a wide variety of foods and metals. Afterwards, the naturopath found out that there were several vital nutrients missing from the diet. A combination of not eating foods that she was allergic to as well as eating the right supplements (not purchased from the naturopath, but just vitamins from a pharmacy), and her skin has recovered significantly.

Now, is it fluke that the one naturopath was able to make the correct diagnosis and solve the problem, and that 15 trained and licensed dermatologists could not? Possibly. It hasn't sold me completely, but I was impressed that they were able to get it right the first time, fluke or no fluke.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Just to add to this, a friend of mine has had skin problems for 5-6 years. Every single dermatologist that she saw basically recited from their textbooks and told her that she had severe eczema and prescribed increasing levels of cortizone to treat it. Obviously it didn't go away after probably 10 or 15 different dermatologists (including an ER visit), and frankly, the overuse of cortizone permanently damaged a lot of the skin.

Finally, on a suggestion from a friend, they went to see a naturopath, who suggested an allergy test and found significant allergies to a wide variety of foods and metals. Afterwards, the naturopath found out that there were several vital nutrients missing from the diet. A combination of not eating foods that she was allergic to as well as eating the right supplements (not purchased from the naturopath, but just vitamins from a pharmacy), and her skin has recovered significantly.

Now, is it fluke that the one naturopath was able to make the correct diagnosis and solve the problem, and that 15 trained and licensed dermatologists could not? Possibly. It hasn't sold me completely, but I was impressed that they were able to get it right the first time, fluke or no fluke.

HEARSAY YOUR HONOR! HEARSAY!

.... and thats the problem with homeopathy evidence... its all anecdotal.

[hkstylez]

For a second here, I thought this was about the anime "Naruto".

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Rerun

HEARSAY YOUR HONOR! HEARSAY!

.... and thats the problem with homeopathy evidence... its all anecdotal.

Right, but even in this thread, there seems to be a trend where naturopaths are far better at identifying allergy related issues than regular doctors. It's evident that their approach to diagnosis is completely different, and it appears to be more effective at some things than others.

Basically, if you have a mystery illness that doesn't go away after years of regular treatment, going to a naturopath is not a bad idea at all. Go in with a skeptical mind, but you might be surprised as well. In any case, if you've been suffering for years, what's the harm?

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Right, but even in this thread, there seems to be a trend where naturopaths are far better at identifying allergy related issues than regular doctors. It's evident that their approach to diagnosis is completely different, and it appears to be more effective at some things than others.

Basically, if you have a mystery illness that doesn't go away after years of regular treatment, going to a naturopath is not a bad idea at all. Go in with a skeptical mind, but you might be surprised as well. In any case, if you've been suffering for years, what's the harm?

No harm at all... unless you end up spending $$$ on quack medicines and treatments that have no scientifically proven benefit. I also assume that the visit to the naturopathic doctor wasn't free.

I also have a problem with these anecdotal stories about someone who went to dozens of MD's and nobody could solve their medical mystery.... and then they went to a naturopathic doctor and voila... the mystery was solved and they've been cured.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Quote my statement, I made no such statement about traditional doctors.

It was in what I quoted. Doctors treat symptoms, usually with drugs.

Seems like a pretty decent blanket statement. A lot of doctors I know inquire about more than just symptoms, and are able to do more than just look off of a checklist for what you tell them.

I made my statement inflammatory, and probably moreso than yours was, this I recognize.

However, doctors do more than just prescribe drugs for everything, and even when they do resort to drugs, they are hardly evil things to worry about.

I am just having fun with all the anecdotal things being brought up. If you go to all the regular doctors and find no answer, what "harm" is there trying something else? That itself is a pretty wide open field. You might find a great ND and they won't do anything that would harm you, this much is true...but there is always potential harm, especially if they do resort to a treatment that hasn't undergone the same scrutiny that the evil drugs that a regular doctor has.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Right, but even in this thread, there seems to be a trend where naturopaths are far better at identifying allergy related issues than regular doctors. It's evident that their approach to diagnosis is completely different, and it appears to be more effective at some things than others.

Basically, if you have a mystery illness that doesn't go away after years of regular treatment, going to a naturopath is not a bad idea at all. Go in with a skeptical mind, but you might be surprised as well. In any case, if you've been suffering for years, what's the harm?

I can try to balance it out for you. I've have bad hay fever for a long time and the last couple years it got substantially worse. Doctor referred me to an Allergist, he did some tests, prescribed allergen immunotherapy and this summer has been so, so much better. I use to take Claritin, Reactin, and the like daily and it was moderately effective for a couple hours. I have taken only a couple doses of that over this whole summer.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Now, is it fluke that the one naturopath was able to make the correct diagnosis and solve the problem, and that 15 trained and licensed dermatologists could not? Possibly. It hasn't sold me completely, but I was impressed that they were able to get it right the first time, fluke or no fluke.

Of course it wasn't a fluke, you said that they had allergy tests done and there was allergies, nothing unusual there. As to why the other ones didn't have the allergy tests done, I'm not them so I can't say.

Originally Posted by Regorium

Right, but even in this thread, there seems to be a trend where naturopaths are far better at identifying allergy related issues than regular doctors.

Or it could be that with naturopaths allergies are nails and their favorite tool is a hammer. Or it could be the people posting in this thread report positive experiences while those that didn't have one don't post (remembering the hits and forgetting the misses is a well known cognitive bias).

If you want to identify a trend, you need data, not self selecting anecdotes.

I'm not saying there isn't a trend, but to identify it you have to gather the data properly and study it properly and analyze it properly, which is something alternative peddlers typically don't do or even avoid.

Originally Posted by Regorium

It's evident that their approach to diagnosis is completely different, and it appears to be more effective at some things than others.

Based on a few anecdotes? That's like saying the Flames will go undefeated after they win 2 games.

Originally Posted by Regorium

what's the harm?

As long as it's with the knowledge and involvement of a qualified medical professional the risk is probably low (so that the person doesn't die from ineffectual "treatments" for actual serious problems).

Because without a doctor's involvement there is harm.. much of what a naturopath thinks is unscientific, based on nothing more than tradition. Naturopaths have fought proven things like vaccines based on unscientific ideas. They don't self-regulate in the way the medical industry does.

So the harm is people viewing an ND as as equivalent to or an alternative to an actual medical practitioner, or ND's portraying themselves as that. If you walk into an ND are they going to ask you "have you seen your doctor"?

EDIT: http://www.skepticnorth.com/2009/11/...ths-prescribe/

EDIT2: Here's a response to the article, and the comments section is very interesting to read: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b....aspx#comments

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by photon

As long as it's with the knowledge and involvement of a qualified medical professional the risk is probably low (so that the person doesn't die from ineffectual "treatments" for actual serious problems).

Because without a doctor's involvement there is harm.. much of what a naturopath thinks is unscientific, based on nothing more than tradition. Naturopaths have fought proven things like vaccines based on unscientific ideas. They don't self-regulate in the way the medical industry does.

This, exactly. Naturopaths are not medical doctors. Neither are massage therapists, physical therapists, or dietiatians. Any treatment that involves your medical health SHOULD involve your medical doctor. If not, whether it's naturopath or something else, you put yourself at risk.

So in my own case, I'm pursuing naturopath/homeopathy as a therapy for my condition in consultation with my medical doctor. If it works, great! Naturopath will have done something for me that traditional medicines and therapies have failed to do. If it doesn't work, well, no harm done.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by troutman

No, they don't think they know everything. Science is a never-ending self-correcting process. If any CAM therapy can produce reliable evidence that it works beyond a placebo effect, it will be added to "traditional" medicine without hesitation.

If only everything was an ideal as you make it out to be in medicine. Some Doctors may not think they know everything but the problem lies in the fact that they act as if they do.

This is particularly problematic in the case of prescribing mood-altering drugs for psychiatry. Doctors trust studies done by the drug companies and drugs approved by the FDA. However with the billions involved this process has and continues to be corrupted. In fact drugs being marketed at doctors is a huge conflict of interest. Go look and find how many drugs have been heavily prescribed over the past 50 years which later studies found to be very dangerous. Drugs have been banned which a decade earlier would have been widely prescribed to people with certain mental illnesses. I know there's not a lot of love for the mentally ill so this big issue is not very well known as far as I can tell.

Frankly I find it hard to trust a lot of studies in regards to drugs. And Doctors prescribe these things fairly freely, drugs which may someday be thought of as having severe long term debilitations.

A roomate of mine last summer had been on medications for most of his adult life. I'm not convinced he needed any of them, seemed like he just needed some coping skills and some social skills. At any rate, when he switched psychiatrists his new psychiatrist told him that the combination of anti-psychotics and such that last psychiatrist had prescribed had very dangerous interactions. How confidence inspiring.

Here's part of the wiki entry on antipsychotics...

"A number of harmful and undesired (adverse) effects have been observed, including lowered life expectancy, weight gain, enlarged breasts and milk discharge in men and women (hyperprolactinaemia), lowered white blood cell count (agranulocytosis), involuntary repetitive body movements (tardive dyskinesia), diabetes, an inability to sit still or remain motionless (tardive akathisia), sexual dysfunction, a return of psychosis requiring increasing the dosage due to cells producing more neurochemicals to compensate for the drugs (tardive psychosis), and a potential for permanent chemical dependence leading to psychosis much worse than before treatment began, if the drug dosage is ever lowered or stopped (tardive dysphrenia).
Temporary withdrawal symptoms including insomnia, agitation, psychosis, and motor disorders may occur during dosage reduction of antipsychotics, and can be mistaken for a return of the underlying condition.[1][2]"

Turns out we may have been making people with mental illnesses worse in the past 50 years, not better. But yay medicine right?

In fact the WHO published a report that schizophrenics had a higher chance of a good outcome in their life in a 3rd world country than a 1st world country IIRC.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

If only everything was an ideal as you make it out to be in medicine. Some Doctors may not think they know everything but the problem lies in the fact that they act as if they do.

This is particularly problematic in the case of prescribing mood-altering drugs for psychiatry. Doctors trust studies done by the drug companies and drugs approved by the FDA. However with the billions involved this process has and continues to be corrupted. In fact drugs being marketed at doctors is a huge conflict of interest. Go look and find how many drugs have been heavily prescribed over the past 50 years which later studies found to be very dangerous. Drugs have been banned which a decade earlier would have been widely prescribed to people with certain mental illnesses. I know there's not a lot of love for the mentally ill so this big issue is not very well known as far as I can tell.

Frankly I find it hard to trust a lot of studies in regards to drugs. And Doctors prescribe these things fairly freely, drugs which may someday be thought of as having severe long term debilitations.

A roomate of mine last summer had been on medications for most of his adult life. I'm not convinced he needed any of them, seemed like he just needed some coping skills and some social skills. At any rate, when he switched psychiatrists his new psychiatrist told him that the combination of anti-psychotics and such that last psychiatrist had prescribed had very dangerous interactions. How confidence inspiring.

Here's part of the wiki entry on antipsychotics...

"A number of harmful and undesired (adverse) effects have been observed, including lowered life expectancy, weight gain, enlarged breasts and milk discharge in men and women (hyperprolactinaemia), lowered white blood cell count (agranulocytosis), involuntary repetitive body movements (tardive dyskinesia), diabetes, an inability to sit still or remain motionless (tardive akathisia), sexual dysfunction, a return of psychosis requiring increasing the dosage due to cells producing more neurochemicals to compensate for the drugs (tardive psychosis), and a potential for permanent chemical dependence leading to psychosis much worse than before treatment began, if the drug dosage is ever lowered or stopped (tardive dysphrenia).
Temporary withdrawal symptoms including insomnia, agitation, psychosis, and motor disorders may occur during dosage reduction of antipsychotics, and can be mistaken for a return of the underlying condition.[1][2]"

Turns out we may have been making people with mental illnesses worse in the past 50 years, not better. But yay medicine right?

In fact the WHO published a report that schizophrenics had a higher chance of a good outcome in their life in a 3rd world country than a 1st world country IIRC.

You really are just supporting my point.

I'm not talking about individual doctors. Science, in the long run, will make corrections. It may be painfully slow to adapt sometimes, but it will progress.

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. - Carl Sagan

[Azure]

Originally Posted by troutman

Acupuncture - homeopathy - what bunk.

Acupuncture isn't bunk.