Holistic Treatments

[steph]

Hey Everyone, hope all is well. I was wondering if anyone has been treated by a naturopathic physician and if it has helped? I am taking remicade and it works beautifully...while it is in my system. But it only lasts 2 months and then I am in pain from neck to toe.
Remicade is so new that they do not know the long term effects of it beyond 10 years - and I am looking for something that will be more of a long term treatment (longer then 2 months). I am only 27 and have many years to go. Would prefer to not completely destroy my body if at all possible:yrolleyes:
Also, has anyone had Swedish Bitters and benefitted from it? People that I work w/ praise it saying it is a cureall - but they are "healthy".

Thanks and stay strong.

 

[D Bergy]

I would also be interested in a Naturopaths suggestions for Crohn's. The problem is finding one in the first place, and then finding one that is really talented and/or has experience with Crohn's disease.

I have found from experience that most doctors are just like people in any any other profession. Most are average and not particularly talented at what they do. They are good enough for everyday type things, but not good enough for really tough problems or diseases. Some are lousy and should not even be doctors. A few are really talented and can figure out problems and solutions for conditions that others could not.

I do not think it matters if it is a regular MD, Naturopath or whatever, the same thing applies. Finding a really good doctor of any kind is difficult.

This problem is only worse when looking for a Naturopath due to the small numbers of them. That is pretty much what has been keeping me from seeing any doctor about treatments. I already know what the Gastro guy has to offer and it is going to be more or less the same as any other conventional doctor. I am more likely to find a alien spaceship than a talented Naturopath in my region.

If you find a good one that gets results I would be interested in hearing about your experience.

Sorry, I know nothing about Swedish Bitters. It is the first time I have heard of this. Almost seems like an old patent medicine.

D Bergy

 

[steph]

Thanks for your reply D Bergy. In my short experience with crohn's - I have learned you have to take your health in your own hands. To think dr's are anything like the character House is an illusion and you will be let down.
I personally find knowing myself, listening to what my body needs and what my instincts are telling me is my guide to know what is best for me.
I take what my dr's say lightly and research it to death.
I will let you know what I learn from this natropath - I see him in a week.
Anyways, hope everyone is well.

Take care of yourselves.

 

[D Bergy]

I take most anything concerning disease treatments lightly unless they actually result in a cure.

It is not too difficult to suppress symptoms in many cases without having to take a prescription. I think this is where a Naturopath may help the most since they are familiar with many of the methods used. It certainly would be a more appealing way to treat symptoms as long as it works well.

I hope it all works out. It should be interesting either way.

D Bergy

 

[Kev]

"Natural" remedies can and do work. naturopathic physicians can be as much of a help as a typical physician. however, there are risks, and many natural cures or treatments CAN be deadly in the wrong hands, dosages, whatever. Same goes for traditional drug therapy. The difference? The level of checks/balances built into traditional drug sources... and into the practice of traditional doctors. I would speculate, that... all things being equal, the results obtained from a traditional doctor using traditional methods SHOULD be better than a naturopathic approach. Now, you might experience just the opposite... i.e. a bad trad. doctor with bad methods, treatment, results, etc. but the odds aren't in favor of it. Should traditional methods have failed, you really haven't a lot to lose... I have been blessed with the best doctors that could be found. Yet they weren't able to cure me, even diagnose me right. If I were faced with no viable treatment in sight via my traditional doctors, then I'd try alternative treatment.. naturopath or otherwise. But, I'd be careful to not confuse alleviation of symptoms as synomymous with proper treatment of my disease. What do I mean? As a crude analogy, suppose I had abcessed tooth? And I was given a natural pain reliever. My abcessed (sp?) tooth feel better, but would it mean the underlying infection was being eliminated? No! I could continue to feel less and less pain from the infection while it increased, up to the point where it might even jeopardize my life. Is my point taken? to be pain free, even symptom free, does not equate to being disease free, OK?

 

[D Bergy]

JAMA published an article citing 225,000 deaths a year attributed to the traditional medical practice in the U.S. This equates to the third leading cause of death in the U.S. 106,000 attributed to non error, negative effects of drugs.

I do not think the naturopathic doctors have had that number of deaths in the last fifty years. They just do not deal with products that have the potential to cause such bad side effects. They may not always work, but neither does anything else.

I wish there was one around here. I am really curious as to what there solution would be. But then again, I usually avoid doctors anyway.

D Bergy

 

[Kev]

I've heard that the 4th leading cause of death in the 'western' world is medical errors or post hospitilization illness. However, does that mean that a naturopath is 'safer'? not in my book. Why? The numbers show that the checks/balances I referred to before are at least 'accounting' for doctor error, secondary patient infections, etc., etc.. Out of the general population, how many seek naturopath therapy? 1%, 10%, ??? Who knows? Who cares? Who is 'accountable'? That's the risk I refer to. Are there competent dr's? Yes. Are there incompetent drs'? Ditto. Same would apply to naturopaths. Personally, I go to see a chiropractor (sp?), and that therapy has helped me far beyond the therapy (had a bad back since I was a teen) any doctor ever provided for me.. period!. Having said that, I KNOW that chiropractic therapy
carries GREAT risk. Numbness, paralysis, even death. I also know that many 'simple' things, that sometimes people take for granted, carry a real high risk.
Simple, OTC vitamins can kill... if taken in conjunction with other medicines, or in high enuff dosages, etc., etc.. A gal I know almost died from taking plain old iron pills... they caused ulcers that bled so bad, she ended up in the ER!
So, my point? We can find out the numbers, the percentages, of patients who have come out of 'traditional' medical treatment worse off than when they went in... and there are plenty of regulating boards, agencies AND/OR lawyers we/they can turn to for recourse. But who you going to call if your 'naturopath' screws up? Naturopath busters? And who will fix their mistake?

 

[D Bergy]

If you see a naturopathic physician they are trained just as any other physician and additionally they are trained in the naturopathic field. You would have the same recourse as any other physician if the need arises.

My mistake was stating that a naturopath may help with the suppression of symptoms. This is basically what any of the drugs for Crohn's do with the possible exception of antibiotics. Apparently a naturopath goes after the cause of the problem, which is a good thing in my book. However, I do not know how they would go about that with Crohn's since the cause is unknown.

The principles seem to make sense. But, I have never had any experience with any so I do not know how it works in practice. I am skeptical of anything I have no experience with.


Naturopathic Principles

Naturopathic Physicians are taught to identify themselves based on philosophical principles rather than on available methods of natural medicine practice. These principles were adopted by the AANP in 1982.[7]

* The Healing Power of Nature (Vis Medicatrix Naturae)-- The healing power of nature is the inherent self-organizing and healing process of living systems which establishes, maintains and restores health. Naturopathic medicine recognizes this healing process to be ordered and intelligent. It is the naturopathic physician\'s role to support, facilitate and augment this process by identifying and removing obstacles to health and recovery, and by supporting the creation of a healthy internal and external environment.

* Identify and Treat the Causes (Tolle Causam)-- Illness does not occur without cause. Causes may originate in many areas. Underlying causes of illness and disease must be identified and removed before complete recovery can occur. Symptoms can be expressions of the body's attempt to defend itself, to adapt and recover, to heal itself, or may be results of the causes of disease. The naturopathic physician seeks to treat the causes of disease, rather than to merely eliminate or suppress symptoms.

* First Do No Harm (Primum Non Nocere)--Naturopathic physicians follow three precepts to avoid harming the patient: 1) Naturopathic physicians utilize methods and medicinal substances which minimize the risk of harmful effects, and apply the least possible force or intervention necessary to diagnose illness and restore health. 2) Whenever possible the suppression of symptoms is avoided as suppression generally interferes with the healing process. 3) Naturopathic physicians respect and work with the vis medicatrix naturae in diagnosis, treatment and counseling, for if this self-healing process is not respected the patient may be harmed.

* Doctor As Teacher (Docere)--The original meaning of the word "doctor" is teacher. A principal objective of naturopathic medicine is to educate the patient and emphasize self-responsibility for health. Naturopathic physicians also recognize and employ the therapeutic potential of the doctor-patient relationship.

* Treat the Whole Person (Tolle Totum)--Health and disease result from a complex of physical, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, social and other factors. Since total health also includes spiritual health, naturopathic physicians encourage individuals to pursue their personal spiritual development. Naturopathic medicine recognizes the harmonious functioning of all aspects of the individual as being essential to health. The multifactorial nature of health and disease requires a personalized and comprehensive approach to diagnosis and treatment. Naturopathic physicians treat the whole person taking all of these factors into account.

* Prevention (Praevenio)--Naturopathic medical colleges emphasize the study of health as well as disease. The prevention of disease and the attainment of optimal health in patients are primary objectives of naturopathic medicine. In practice, these objectives are accomplished through education and the promotion of healthy ways of living. Naturopathic physicians assess risk factors, heredity and susceptibility to disease, and make appropriate interventions in partnership with their patients to prevent illness. Naturopathic medicine asserts that one cannot be healthy in an unhealthy environment and is committed to the creation of a world in which humanity may thrive.


All I know for sure is that the most expensive health care systems we have in the U.S. should produce an equally higher standard of health which it does not. Non of the checks and balances have produced stellar results generally but they have made it more expensive. We should have the highest life expectancy of anyone. But we do not. We are tenth for age adjusted life expectancy. Nine countries do it cheaper and better in this respect.

The most expensive health care system should not produce the third leading cause of death. You have no recourse for death. Not that matters to the dead person anyway.

Certainly you can die taking virtually any substance. You can drown in enough water. Taking the correct amount is important but a physician of any kind should know dosages and possible interactions.

As you can tell, I am not to impressed with much of the general state of health care in the U.S. I do think we have some of the best diagnosticians, surgeons and physical therapists. We certainly have the capability to do far better for the money. We obviously do surgery too often when measured by most other countries. What drugs and whether drugs should be used at all is the biggest downfall of the system in my opinion. I won't get going on that or I will be here all day.

Best Regards

D Bergy

 

[Cara Fusinato]

Back to the concept of the thread . . . My GI doctor allows a combination of traditional and holistic approaches to maintain one's health. I do use a natural remedy which has worked well from me. Since I am so blasted tired of hearing people on the board make responses such as the above -- feel free to private message me and I will talk to you about it . . .

 

[D Bergy]

They are just opinions. You know what they say about opinions.

I just like to argue. I argue points I do not even believe myself. It drives my wife nuts also. I will take an opposite position on virtually anything and see if I can make a case for it. Then she will point out that I just argued the opposite at some point in the past. If I laugh about it, which I usually do, then she really gets hot. She puts up with a lot. She is probably the only woman who would put up with me. I shoulda been on a debate team.

I think it is healthy to hash it all over. You get many points of view and maybe learn something in the process. I don't get upset about it, and I know Kev can hold his own no matter what I say. He's a bona fide writer and can stomp me on that point alone. It makes everyone think and that can't hurt.

I agree with you in concept. Use what ever works for you. Some get good results using prescriptions others can do without or a combination of traditional and some other branch of treatment. I have allergies and would prefer a natural solution but there is none that works for me. So I use a pharmaceutical product because it works and I only have to use it about three or four times a year. I am glad I have it.

Don't let us get you upset, because I may argue the complete opposite in few months. However, I do know people can get caught up in this sort of thing, so I will try to restrain myself.

I would be interested in your experience just because I am curious about most anything I know little about. I do not want to waste your time with my idle curiosity. But I will PM you if you are willing to share what you have learned. I always appreciate information.

Thank you.

Dan Bergman

 

[Kev]

I come from a long line of argumentative people (hey, I heard my dad tell folks my mom could argue Christ off the cross)... and, like Dan (nice to know you Dan) I will often argue points I don't particularly believe in... sometimes even by taking both sides. not being wishy/washy, just that few things in real life are ever totally black or white. and the great thing about it is the exchange of info.
for example (if Dan has done the legwork/homework, and I've no reason to doubt it) then naturopath physicians have all the same training as traditional physicians... that was something I wasn't aware of before. I won't delve into the licensing... that can be radically different from state to state, let alone country to country. I ASSumed (and u know what they say about that) that naturopathic practictioners were somewhere in the range of other similar professions as far as training/accreditdation goes... say chiropracters.
But there's this whole ego thing going on with the traditional doctors... if you use the title 'doctor' in front of them when talking about a chiropractor, just watch them get their panties in a knot. But it takes 2 years more to become a doctor of veteniary medicine... A lot of doc's are pretty sensitive lil S.O.Bs'

But I digress, and ramble too. Point of fact, I don't become embroiled in my own thoughts, posts or threads. I have never taken offense at anything any of the 'regulars' on here have had to say in rebuttal to anything I've posted, in fact, just the opposite. It helps to have someone take the other side, it keeps me centred, level headed. From drifting too far to either left or right.
And, I hope and pray that if I become stuck in an ongoing argument/debate, and it makes ANYONE on here feel like they want to shy away, then PLEASE, ask me to shut up... or take a break.. (or whatever). I'm open to suggestion.
Look, I take few things REALLY seriously. Most of us here are adults. One of the few things I do take seriously is the knowledge that some on this site are not adults, may be far too influenced by something posted here, and suffer as a result. I see it sort of my un-officio duty to try to be the ying to a yang, or to present the other side of the coin, even if I'm not totally convinced of it, as just an extension of my 'foster parental' responsibilities to kids surfin here.
As for us adults, hey, we're old and stupid enuff to make our own decisions.

 

[old hat]

If you see a naturopathic physician they are trained just as any other physician and additionally they are trained in the naturopathic field. You would have the same recourse as any other physician if the need arises.
D Bergy

Oh no. No, they are not.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/relman3.html
1. The safe practice of primary health care requires much more clinical education and experience than NDs have received when they begin independent practice. Naturopathic students who successfully complete four years of education in an approved college of naturopathy, and pass examinations after their second and fourth years of schooling, are deemed by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians to be ready for independent practice as primary care physicians. However, the total time assigned to the clinical teaching of standard (or "allopathic") medicine in the last two years of naturopathy school is less than two-thirds of that provided in medical schools. (The remainder of the clinical instruction in the naturopathic curriculum is concerned with the special philosophy and therapeutic methods of naturopathy.) Furthermore, all clinical teaching in naturopathy schools is in the outpatient clinics and private offices associated with those schools. No teaching is in hospitals, and therefore naturopathic students are not likely to become familiar with the clinical manifestations of diseases serious enough to require hospital care. Lacking hospital experience, naturopathic students are inadequately prepared to recognize and treat the early manifestations of the serious illnesses that will occasionally occur among the ambulatory patients they see in their practice. They are also inadequately educated to deal with the acute problems sometimes unexpectedly encountered in the practice of primary care medicine.

In contrast, medical students receive both outpatient and inpatient training in teaching hospitals during their four years of medical school. In addition, before they can be certified as fully trained primary care physicians they are required to have at least three more years of intensive clinical experience in an approved teaching hospital residency program, where they observe and learn to treat a wide variety of ambulatory and hospitalized patients with acute and chronic, mild and severe illnesses. Medical educators are universally agreed that students newly graduated from medical school would not be qualified to practice medicine independently. Yet naturopathy educators apparently believe the opposite about their graduates, because they ask states to license them straight out of naturopathy school. In Massachusetts, medical graduates can apply for a license after they have completed only one year of approved hospital training and have passed an approved licensing examination, but they would not be certified or given hospital privileges as a primary care physician unless they had completed a total of three years of postgraduate training in family practice, general internal medicine or general pediatrics. Currently, almost all MDs who practice primary care in this state have taken at least 3 years of residency training, and this additional clinical education makes them far better qualified professionally than naturopathic physicians.

The competent care of patients who consult primary care practitioners requires physicians who can recognize illnesses in their early as well as late stages. Such physicians must have the judgment to know when a seemingly mild complaint is really the sign of a serious underlying illness that may need intensive medical treatment. It is not enough for naturopaths simply to say they will refer all serious problems to hospitals or to appropriate medical specialists. They need to be adequately trained to know when a patient ought to be referred, and that requires much more medical knowledge and clinical experience than naturopathic graduates have when they complete their required education and enter practice. They also need to know how to deal with the medical emergencies that can occur unexpectedly even in outpatient practice. Naturopathic physicians claim they can do these things, but their limited training raises serious doubts about whether the public can rely on that assurance.

Of course, no physician is infallible, no matter how well trained. Mistakes in clinical judgment are inevitable and occur among all health professionals. But everything else being equal, better trained practitioners are less likely to make major mistakes. There is no current shortage of fully-trained primary care MDs in Massachusetts. Why, then, should we give independent responsibility for primary care to NDs, who have had much less clinical training than the MDs who are already licensed and certified as primary care specialists? In effect, we are being asked to lower the educational standards for the independent practice of ambulatory medicine, at a time when the need is for more, rather than less, training in this important area of health care.

 

[Cara Fusinato]

I should respond to the above . . . but I DON'T come from a line of argumentative people, sarcastic yes, argumentative no. When I posted long, long ago, I was initially asking what so many threads now are asking . . . Has anyone tried this approach? Mostly to find out if I was going to be OK doing what I was doing, during my wait-and-see phase with my approach. When absolutely blasted, called irresponsible and even unethical for mentioning such, then I don't mention such anymore. Now, everyone openly talks about what nautral items they take with or without traditional treatments. I just still prefer to speak about my experiences in private because I would prefer to not have my post immediately and negatively impacted. It's one thing to point out what one misses in a statement, like a disclaimer, but it's another to get rather personal about it. I have told so many people including doctors about the value of this board informationally, but I think sometimes it gets too heated and I have been a part of other clubs or boards which got like that and ruined the experience. By all means, share your collective experiences and wisdom and research, but tactfully.

 

[D Bergy]

The article you site is pertaining to the requirements of a Naturopath as a primary care physician. I think it is unlikely that anyone here is using a naturopath as a primary care physician. This thread was about using one in a complimentary role as we are diagnosed already.

If there is any confusion about the issue, below are the requirements for a Naturopathic Physician.

Naturopathic Doctors (N.D.) receive undergraduate training in standard premedical courses, followed by four years of graduate level medical studies at a United States Department of Education accredited Naturopathic University. The education consists of comparable, standard medical curricula as found in conventional medical schools. The first two years focus on the basic medical sciences (i.e., anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, pharmacology, etc.) followed by two years of clinical sciences, diagnosis, treatment and a clinical out-patient care apprenticeship. Training includes therapeutic nutrition, vitamin/mineral therapies, herbal medicine, exercise therapy, hydrotherapy, homeopathy, physical medicine, minor surgery and lifestyle counseling. Naturopathic Doctors must then pass state licensing board exams in order to obtain a license in those states that offer licensure.

I would not expect a Naturopath physician to train in a hospital setting since they do not normally work in that capacity, although some do. It would seem more productive to work with other Naturopaths since that is the focus of their specialty. Just as conventional physicians do not normally train with Naturopathic physician offices for the same reason. The core curricullam is comparable. The training after that varies just as it does for some other specialties. Whether that qualifies them to work as a primary care physician is another arguement for the powers that be to hash out.

So technically you are correct that the total educational experience is not exactly the same. But, if you go to your average doctor he is lacking in the nutritional, herbal, and the other aspects Naturopaths specialize in. So you can argue it either way depending on what position you care to take on it.

Best Regards

Dan Bergman

 

[Kev]

Hey Cara... OK, now you've lost me.. Did I miss a post here or something? Are you referring to this thread, or another? If I said anything you took offence to, then I apologize. And, if any of my posts in this thread came across as 'heated', that was definitely not my intent.. I certainly did not feel 'heated' in any of the posts I wrote, or in any of the posts that I have read.

When absolutely blasted, called irresponsible and even unethical for mentioning such, then I don't mention such anymore. Now, everyone openly talks about what nautral items they take with or without traditional treatments. I just still prefer to speak about my experiences in private because I would prefer to not have my post immediately and negatively impacted. It's one thing to point out what one misses in a statement, like a disclaimer, but it's another to get rather personal about it. I have told so many people including doctors about the value of this board informationally, but I think sometimes it gets too heated and I have been a part of other clubs or boards which got like that and ruined the experience. By all means, share your collective experiences and wisdom and research, but tactfully.

 

[old hat]

So technically you are correct that the total educational experience is not exactly the same. But, if you go to your average doctor he is lacking in the nutritional, herbal, and the other aspects Naturopaths specialize in. So you can argue it either way depending on what position you care to take on it.

Best Regards

Dan Bergman

You said that they are trained as any other physician and that they have training in this naturopathy business as well. That is simply not the case. They are not as trained as MDs. Not even close. They bill themselves as primary physicians but they are not qualified for that role.

There is also the issue that much of the other stuff they are taught is nothing but useless or even dangerous hogwash.

 

[old hat]

JAMA published an article citing 225,000 deaths a year attributed to the traditional medical practice in the U.S. This equates to the third leading cause of death in the U.S. 106,000 attributed to non error, negative effects of drugs.

I do not think the naturopathic doctors have had that number of deaths in the last fifty years. They just do not deal with products that have the potential to cause such bad side effects. They may not always work, but neither does anything else.

I wish there was one around here. I am really curious as to what there solution would be. But then again, I usually avoid doctors anyway.

D Bergy

Those figures have taken on almost urban legend status but they are bogus. The most pessimistic study (which was based on shaky extrapolation) was 98,000 per year for all medical errors. That figure is alarming enough and exagerrated.
http://www.secondmoment.org/lies-column/forgive.php
These reports, put together by MDs, have lead to a massive years long effort to improve safety, prevent error and reduce drug interactions which is still going on and which has paid large dividends. No such effort has been mounted by naturopaths or agencies like the AANP nor have dangerous practices or pseudoscientific beliefs been repudiated. They have been perpetuated.

Naturopaths certainly do deal with products that can cause very bad or even fatal side effects. Colonic irrigation for non-existent autointoxication and bogus chelation therapy for heart disease are both common and potentially fatal as well as useless and unneccessary. Some herbal remedies in common use (like Pokeroot) are toxic. Treatments they use are not safe becuase they are labelled natural.

There is also the negative risk associated with things like serious conditions being missed by underqualified naturopaths or going untreated because useless therapies are used in place of proven ones. Using cold compresses in an attempts to abort strokes is commonly advocated though it does nothing. If such methods are used the delay may be such that the stroke can no longer be aborted by effective means and the damage become irreversible. It doesn't take long. There is also widespread use of Goldenseal for strep throat even though it is useless as an antibiotic when given to patients. Some of these people will develop rheumatic fever down the line and suffer heart damage or die because their strep throat was not adaquetely treated. Worthless homeopathic potions are commonly prescribed even for serious and even potentially life threatening conditions. The Textbook of Natural Medicine which is the main (and pretty much only) textbook for the field is full of dangerous nonsense like this. Treapies and treatments common in naturopathic practice and endorsed by central organizations like the AANP are (imo) nothing more or less than negligent malpractice.

 

[Kev]

The whole numbers game can become a real quagmire. Like the urban legend of the statistician who was phobic about flying because he'd calculated the odds of someone sneaking a bomb onboard an airplane. Then he calculated the odds of two bombs being aboard an airplane as astronomical, so to alleviate his fear he smuggled one on every flight he took.

As to whose numbers are closer to the 'real' incidence, I don't know. I recall seeing the potential issue being tackled first hand in a news journal report. A new medical chief, noting how many patients became seriously ill after their hospital stay, some even dying, decided that something had to be done. He imposed new rules, essentially re-trained all staff in his department on small but essential issues.. hand washing for example... and the number of cases dropped significantly. It wasn't rocket science, or even 'brain' surgery, but it worked. at first, the staff, ranging from doctors, nurses, cleaning staff, etc., met him with resistance. They didn't need a 'newbie' telling them how to do their jobs. But he held firm, and the staff saw the results for themselves. Its hard to argue when your patients don't get secondary infections or post-op complications... They had grown slowly accustomed to losing patients every year to the above, I believe the last year before the new chief they lost 7..
Under his regime, they didn't lose any the first year, nor the second. Not to say they didn't lose patients, but for reasons directly tied to the patients disease/trauma/illness.. Anyway, I don't know what happened in year 3 and beyond.. the news report was done at the anniversary of the 2 year of the chiefs taking over and starting it.

Anyway, this all strays away from the original point of this thread. Holistic treatment. I believe it can be beneficial, but that it (like traditional methods) carries risks. for example, if you live in an area where naturopathic physicians are licensed to practice, AND that practitioner did something to cause you to become worse, COULD you go to your local hospital and confer with someone in their 'Naturopath' department for a 2nd opinion, or to put you right? Most likely not.. But that's sort of a 'worst' case scenario. Put simply, the route of natural or holistic treatment can be beneficial, but like all other methods, it carries a degree of risk, and because it is not as widespread and accepted as other, traditional forms of treatment, your options, recourses, alternatives are more limited. There are fewer practitioners, you won't be as able to shop for a physician, you'll have similar fewer options if you want 2nd opinions or if you are suffering from malpractice, and I 'assume' (you know what they say about that) that if you suffered malpractice at the hands of a naturopath, that it's going to be a bit more of a challenge to a: find a lawyer to take your case b: get a settlement that reflects that (WHY? you'd need to get either a judge or a jury who truly believed that naturopathic treatment was fully equal to a traditional treatment - and as such carries the same level of responsibility).. That is essentially all I'm saying about this..

I've haven't gone to see a naturopath, but I do frequent a chiropractor. (sort of a similar vein). I know that in going I am taking a risk. My chiropractors have always informed me of those prior to treatment. I understand the risks, yet continue to go because I derive benefit from treatments.

Case closed.

 

[D Bergy]

I have already posted the educational requirements for a Naturopath.
If the requirements are not deemed acceptable to someone they are free to form their own opinion. In my opinion they are substantially the same with the exception of where they practice, which suits their specialty.

They may not be suitable as a primary care provider, but I was not suggesting that they be used in that capacity. It never entered my mind that you would use one as a primary care provider.

I have never said I agree with all of the methods used by any type of health care provider. I investigate anything I am going to consider to the best of my ability. I am skeptical of any treatment that does not have a long history of use or especially if it has potential serious negative side effects. Personally, I would not use Chelation in the example you provided because it has never been proven to work, and it is not without risk. Even including Chelation which is probably one of the riskiest procedures they perform is considered safe when performed correctly. The American Heart Association is doing the first large scale study to determine is Chelation has any benefit for heart disease.

I also do not take statin drugs for the same reason. And these are regularly prescribed for high cholesterol. You can find arguments on both side of the question but it far from proven that high cholesterol is the culprit at all. There are studies that show the oldest living groups of people have high cholesterol. Until this conflicting information is reconciled I am going to assume my body knows what it is doing rather than risk side effects that are known. I would assume the medical community would do the same, but that is not the case.

I also do not believe that Colonics are useful for most people, but if I am ever so constipated that I have to have one I think the relief would be worth the embarrassing procedure and the minimal risk. They are very few fatalities associated with this as well.

I also do not believe that antibiotics should be used to treat the flu. I thought this practice was long abandoned since the flu is known to be caused by a virus in which antibiotics have no effect. Yet my father in law was treated in this way just recently.

I guess the point is there are several questionable treatments in the medicine in general. A naturopath certainly is not any exception to the rule. They may have more bogus treatments than any other segment. But to discount a whole specialty as useless is certainly not a reasonable assumption. This would require everyone in the specialty to be totally stupid and incompetent or dishonest and the whole field a complete fabrication. To put your total trust in any type of medicine is a mistake in my opinion.

The JAMA article I was referring to was Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5 You need a subscription to access it.

You seem to be under the impression that I am some kind of advocate for these people. I have never seen a naturopath and do not prefer one type of medicine over the other. But, I do not confuse what is proven by studies to work with what actually works. They are not always the same thing. Studies are very useful, but they are only one form of evidence. And they are only available for the subjects that are funded. Nothing I take is Crohn's specific, and probably has very few if any studies behind most of them relating to Crohn's. But I am symptom free with the exception of the last bit of Psoriasis. And it required very little risk and no prescriptions. Maybe I would have went into remission regardless. There is no way of knowing, but you could say that about any treatment.

I am just interested in helping my own condition with anything that works with the lowest risk. If that is of any help to others all the better.

Best Regards

Dan Bergman

 

[old hat]

They are not even close to substantially the same in any way. NDs are substantially less qualified to provide medical care than Nurse Practioners and Physician's Assistants let alone MDs. I hdan't participated in this discussion before despite my deep skepticism regarding Naturopathy but the statement that Naturopaths are 'trained just as any other physician' was just too much. They are not and never have been despite the AANP's posturing on the subject.

They are trying to position themselves as primary care physicians. That is where the term Naturopathic 'physician' came from in the first place. The AANP has been portraying them that way for years. When you say that they are trained like any other physician and that their training is substantially the same, that implies (at least to me) that you are saying they are equivalent to GPs. If they are equivalent to GPs then they would be qualified to provide primary care but they aren't and aren't. You can't logically say that their training is 'substantially the same' without also saying that they can perform the same tasks. Either they are equivalent or they are not.

I haven't even scratched the surface of the boggling array of sheer nonsense that is common in Naturopathic practice. Those are some of the most dangerous but there is a lot more. Naturopathy is, at its heart, a pseudoscientific or even antiscientific system. The foundation of the field is mystic nonsense. I am sure that the great majority on Naturopaths are caring people who sincerely believe they are helping. In some ways, such as advocating healthy diet and lifestlye, they are but that is fairly generic advice tat would the same from an RD, an RN or an MD. Unfortunately, their education and training are less that what is considered adaquete in the medical profession and much of what they are taught is nonsense.

I don't believe that there are different types of medicines any more than I beleieve there are 'other ways of knowing'. It either works or it doesn't. Something can't be false in the normal sense but true in some alternative sense. It is either true or it isn't.

I am curious as to how exactly you know what 'actually works'? What other forms of evidence are you referring to?

I suspect that you and I have quite different views on what constitutes valid evidence and how one determines what 'actually works'.

The host of fallacies and errors arising from using personal experience to determine what works and what does not has caused a host of incorrect ideas to be perpetuated for decades and often centuries. Biases present in the thought processes of even the smartest people can easily decieve us. They can make even the most useless treatment seem effective. The four humour model of disease had widespread support for a long time even though it is and was utter rubbish and dangerous rubbish at that. This is one of the main reasons why careful record keeping regarding patients and patient outcomes and carefully designed studies are so important.
----
Oh, btw the doctor who prescribed antibiotics for the flu is violating accepted standards. The naturopath who uses a bogus Vegatest device and equally bogus hair analysis to diagnose non-existent 'heavy metal poisoning' which he then treats unnecccessarily and innapropriately is following what accepted standards there are for naturopathy. That kind if thing is the accepted standard of care.

 

[old hat]

iatrogenic deaths in the US. lies, damn lies and (shaky) statistics
http://www.acahf.org.au/articles/ksofdeaths.htm
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html

 

[D Bergy]

In the interest of time, I would like to take one thing at a time. I am going to be very busy for the next month or two due to the demands of life. I am not going to have time to respond to many issues at once.

You asked me "how exactly I know what works". I am going to use a hypothetical experience just because it does not matter for this purpose and it will save time.

It really is not to exciting or complicated it is the same method used in every day life by many people.

Lets say I am old have arthritis and high blood pressure. Pretty much describes my grandmother. Now every day I go for a walk because the doctor says the exercise will do me good. I walk one mile everyday and go to
one of three different destinations. One is the old homestead house which is now just a foundation. I like that walk the best because it brings back old memories of youth and the path is smooth and easy for me.

The second destination is the store. I do not mind this destination because I can pick up some smokes, "I am not any smarter when I am old" and meet some people I know.

The third destination is my long time friends house. He is always glad to see me and I help him out a little since he is not in very good shape. I love going here but the path I have to take is rough and uneven and I am worried I may fall and get hurt.

I always take one of these paths in no particular order. I always like the walks but they make me hurt and I quite often have to take a pain reliever when I get back. It also raises my blood pressure sometimes also, as I keep a close watch on it and check it after my walk, since it is a problem for me.

Now this week I have to go to my friends house three days in a row because he is unable to walk out to the mailbox due to a sprained ankle. His son will be back in town after the three days to help him.

I notice that after these particular walks I am not in enough pain that I have to take my pain medication. My blood pressure is lower than normal also. Being still curious even when I am old, I wonder what is causing this three day pain relief and low blood pressure. In order to figure out what is making the difference, I first have to eliminate what is not causing it. I am taking the same medications at the same times, except the pain medications I skip when I do not need it. I did eat differently but nothing out of the ordinary except for the bowl of Cherries on the first day. I reason that since I know that Cherries are anti inflammatory that is likely what caused the difference.
I still do not understand the blood pressure drop, but maybe the Cherries did something for that also, but I am skeptical.

Today I do not have to go to my friends house so I go to the store because I am almost out of smokes, and I have no intention of quiting at my age.
I come home and have to take my pain reliever again and my blood pressure is high again. Now I am dumbfounded. I ate a bowl of Cherries that morning and yet here I am in pain again with my freakin high blood pressure again.
I conclude that the Cherries had nothing to do with the three day effect.
But, just to make sure I follow exactly the same routine without exception. I even go to the store even though I have plenty of smokes.

No difference in results. Same pain same blood pressure. Now I am really scratching my head. I start all over with my curiosity. Now I will try duplicate the conditions which caused the difference in the first place with out the Cherries. I walk to my friends house and damn near break my neck on that rough uneven path, I dropped my smokes somewhere, and almost got sprayed by a skunk. I get to my friends and his ankle is much better and is in good spirits, so he has his son go pick me up some smokes.

I get home and I now have less pain than normal and my blood pressure is low again. No Cherries nothing else different, and I feel and am better like the last three times I walked to my friends house. I figure that what works to kill some of my pain and lower my blood pressure is walking to my friends house.

This is now my treatment for my high blood pressure and my pain. My doctor says my blood pressure is so good I can eliminate the medication and only take a milder pain reliever if I overdo it occasionally.

That is my answer to your question of how I determine what works. You will not find a study on walking to your friends house for pain and blood pressure anywhere. You may find one on walking a mile in general, but not to a particular place.

Do you think this is a valid conclusion since it works almost every time and I have eliminated most every other variable? And remember I have a lifetime of experience in figuring these things out, in my old age.

Any one else is free to comment as well.

You do have to admit, I have a very vivid imagination.

Best Regards

Dan Bergman

 

[steph]

Anyways, your debate was very interesting and I was not offended - as this is your opinions and I have mine. I appreciate Cara stepping in every now and then - it is true that some ppl would be upset by this.

I have seen the natropath, he has put my on a diet which is to clean out my blood to start. I am open to what he has to tell me and will try his plan. He also happens to have a good repuation in town - although I havn't heard of any crohn's patients being treated.

I must say, although I am okay with following his plan - I cannot stand the pain in my inflammed joints, piercings are getting infected and inflammed - it seems like my body is rejecting everything. My mother in-law is the one that wanted me to see him (she has asked me too for over a year). Sometimes I feel like she is preaching god to me ( I am not religous). She wants me to stay away from remicade - I have been in pain for over a month, limping around is causing other muscular, joint problems from not being able to walk properly. Sometimes I think life is too short to live like this, when I know there is something that can help me live again. To look forward to going for a walk or even just getting up for that matter and not having to take pain killers. Such simple things that only ppl with chronic pain understand.

Once again, I appreciate all the different opinions and information. I will keep you posted.

 

[old hat]

That is my answer to your question of how I determine what works. You will not find a study on walking to your friends house for pain and blood pressure anywhere. You may find one on walking a mile in general, but not to a particular place.

Do you think this is a valid conclusion since it works almost every time and I have eliminated most every other variable? And remember I have a lifetime of experience in figuring these things out, in my old age.

Any one else is free to comment as well.

You do have to admit, I have a very vivid imagination.

Best Regards

Dan Bergman

It is debateable whether or not such a hypothetical scenario has any meaning at all especially when the ending is tied in a neat bow and many possible confounding variable are left out but you state that every possible variable is accounted for.

There are always many, many other thing going on than you have mentioned or described here. The world is full of confounding variable and unknowns.

This sort of method proves nothing at all. Is the conclusion a valid one? Therer is no way to know for certain. The human mind is very good at seeing patterns and often sees them when none exist. It is also very good at seeing what it wants to see. It is very good at fooling itself.

Is the trip causing the change or something else? Is it that route as this imaginary person has concluded? Quite unlikely. That is classic magical thinking. There is no way to tell for certain without a sample larger than one and some effort to control for unknowns.

Careful records of several patients that show a pattern like the one above would be cause for interest and investigation. For any of this to be reccommended to people with high blood pressure generally as a treatment requires careful study and properly structured studies. They have actually been done.

The selected outcome is interesting. Of course everything is rosy and she can stop taking her evil drugs and such. She doesn't have a stroke later because of untreated hypertension does she? The difference she observed wasn't because of diurnal changes in blood pressure amongst elderly hypertensives that are very commonly observed? There can be quite a lot of blood pressure variation without any external factor. Hypertension is a multifactorial condition and quite complicated really. Heck, differences in posture between the different reading can have a significant effect on readings. How was blood pressure measured? Was it the same each time? Does she have hypertension or pseudohypertension? The world is a complicated and messy place and opportunities to fool ourselves, especially about cause and effect, abound.

 

[D Bergy]

I agree with you on most of your points in principle. The world is a messy place and you can never eliminate all variables. But you also cannot eliminate all variables in a study either. A controlled study just eliminates more of them. And even then, they are quite easily skewed if a predetermined result is desired. Even the same study is interpreted in different ways by different interested groups. Certainly you have seen many conflicting studies, as I have, and if they were all definitive and fool proof this would not happen.

When you start looking at the history of the study and who is motivated to do the study, you will find a tendency of most studies done or quoted by group A, getting more favorable results which helps group A in one way or another. Group B has there own studies that tend to give different results than group A. Group A and B both dispute each others findings if there is any thing to be gained or lost. For group C, the study does not always favor their methods so they just go by some other measurement which works for them. It does not matter who is claiming what, if they have turf they are protecting and a financial interest in the outcome they will present the evidence, what ever it is, in their own best interest. It is human nature across the board. The tobacco industry did this for decades and people tend to forget about that.

I took the naturopaths study and quoted that because it favored my position at that point in time. I could have picked any study showing different results.
I am sure that study would have been attacked by organizations no matter how bullet proof it was if it did not favor their position. Either that or another study would have been done by group A showing different results favoring their position. If it was within their power, group A would prevent any more such studies being done since they are fairly sure the outcome would not be favorable.

Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that my observations and results have an advantage over the studies that I think is important. I have no motivation to lie about it. If anything, presenting such a foolish sounding treatment will only be attacked as stupid and my self interest does not want that to happen. So my evidence may be only the evidence of one, and I may have missed one of the many variables that could explain my result, but you do know that I have no obvious reason to believe a lie, since it can not really help my interests any. I have no stake in the outcome other than better health. Personal experience like this has that strength and all of the weaknesses you have mentioned. You are correct that a person can fool himself quite easily, especially if he is emotionally invested in one particular treatment modality.

To be truly objective, all you have to know is if it works, and if it is repeatable again and again. You do not have to know how it works. In my story it is repeatable by me and until proven otherwise it should be investigated further to try eliminate some of the problems with personal experience you and I both know exists.

Do you agree with that last paragraph?

If you were my neighbor having the same medical issues and I told you about my experience, would you try it? I suspect you would not. If I am correct in my assumption, this is the part I have trouble with because you have already passed judgment on it, even though I have nothing to gain. Your reaction also assumes that all such experiences are invalid. But I think your actual stated position is that it is unreliable, which does not mean invalid.

My scenario of eliminating the blood pressure medication probably is optimistic also, but it is a fake story. But, I did have my doctor confirm my low blood pressure in my story so I am just fine in that department.

I am just tying to find out where we part company on the treatment thing.

I would not bother, if I did not think you may be harming your chances of getting better. I am not trying to impose a belief system on you. I have tried hard to eliminate my own preconceived belief system. I am not totally there yet, but working on it.

Besides I always learn something because you do think quite hard about this stuff.

I will say the same thing to Cara, Do not let your relative impose a belief system on you. Either your Naturopath's diet will help or it will not. It is as simple as that. If you need to move on then do it. I agree with Old Hat that Naturopaths do not make use of some of the better evidence out there. It makes no sense to stick with something that does not get results. I hope it does work for you.

Best Regards

Dan Bergman

 

[Kev]

Variables? Some variables are particularly hard to discern, even harder to account for. For example, today's local weather is nearly identical to yesterdays... but when I awoke this morning, I knew that bad weather was on its way. How? My joints ache in a particularly nasty fashion preceeding really bad weather. An old wives tale? Some would say so, but I may be old, but i'm not a wife. I have a crushed right ankle, a broken left knee, and a damaged right shoulder that are better weather prognosticators than any of the meterlogical reporters I've seen. sure enuff, when I switch on the noon forecast, they are advising of severe rainfall for tomorrow... OK, so maybe its the difference in the humidity, or the barometric pressure, or whatever. How my body is attuned to these I don't know, I just KNOW from my own personal experience that my body is attuned, and reacts to subtle differences that my mind isn't cognizent of. So, my point? If I'd taken that theorectical walk on the day prior, and repeated it today, then I'd have assumed it wasn't it that caused my improvement/deterioration, because I hadn't allowed for the subtle changes/variables that my body 'feels' but that my rational mind doesn't, OK?

Anyway, gentlemen, this back and forth seesaw exchange of information and ideas doesn't seem to be gaining anyone anything. may I suggest that all call it a draw, and move any further to private messaging? The original point of the thread seems to have been drowned out in the exchange, and I'm sure that none of us intended that. Can we all agree to disagree in harmony, and move on? I believe that in every aspect of life, there has to be extremes at either end, and that the 'reality' is most often found somewhere in the midst, in the commonground. I'll stop at this point, and hope that Steph is not of a mind to think/feel that they are sorry for raising the question in the 1st place

 

[D Bergy]

I agree, that we should not be using her thread for this. I will leave it at that and discuss it no further. Thanks for the reality check Kev.

I will concede that I should have re-worded my statement comparing Naturopaths and MD's to be more precise. I see why it brought up the question to begin with.

Old Hat was right to bring it up because it could have led people to the wrong conclusion. I still do not quite know how to do it right. Chiropractors, Osteopaths and other specialties are trained differently and yet to my way of thinking as long as they are trained by an accredited school, I consider it in the same manner. I was attempting to separate Naturopathic Physicians from the numerous uncredrentialed alternative people out there going by various similar names. I think they are often all lumped together rightly or wrongly.

Anyway I apologize for over taking the thread. It is easy to lose the forest for the trees.

Let us know how you progress Steph. For better or for worse. We are pulling for you.

Dan Bergman

 

[steph]

Your respect is much appreciated gentlemen. I am amazed that my question generated such a debate - it was interesting anyways.

 

[Kev]

Well said Steph.. And as for D Bergy, no need to thank me for the reality check. My reason for offerring it is that I 'tend' to fall prey to 'assumptions' on a grand scale. And have learned, painfully, over the years that many things are often not what they appear to be.. taken at face values. There is an author I admired (past tense).. I won't mention name, gender, or anything else that may reveal this persons identity as I don't need litigation to deal with on my plate at the moment. Let's just say that this author published a number of books, became a 'self help' guru of sorts, a national best selling author, a respected guest on a number of national & international talk shows, even hosted their own for a while, and still is widely respected as a lecturer and columnist. I bought, and bought into, a lot of the material presented in these books, accepted the writings as being science (since the author has the title dr). Came to learn that the 'Dr' title was actually PH.D, and that it was sourced from one of those clearing house schools... legally a school, but one where you pays your money, and to get your sheepskin, no questions asked. When I first heard that, I couldn't believe it. Thought it was just the work of the authors detractors. I couldn't imagine that someone that the media had made a darling out of could have become so widely accepted and popular without someone, somewhere, checking their bona fide credentials. I did some research, heard similar accusations from other, respected sources, and found in the authors bio the schools attended, etc, etc.. Check of same revealed that the PH.D in question really wasn't worth the paper it had been printed on. you can't imagine the chagrin, the indigation that I felt over it. I tried to rationalize it.. OK, maybe, for reasons unknown, this author needed to fast-track, or more correctly, shortcut their educational references, and took this route. Pure speculation on my part. and giving them the benefit of the doubt. In any case, there was ample opportunity since to obtain a legitimate degree from a sound institution, but that apparently has not happened (yet).
I had totally been taken in, I have a number of their works sitting on shelves in my home office. I took the 'psuedo science' spouted there as 'fact'. And I feel appalled that I did. so tempting to toss it all in the rubbish bin. Problem is that, if you weed thru it, the author makes some damned good points. Do I toss out everything? Do I retain what I like, what I agree with? My dilemma? I know that it's human nature to accept the info we like to hear, and to also reject the stuff we don't. Does that separation equate to making some of it science/fact? No. So let's toss it all. That would be the 'scientifically' right thing to do. Problem is, that despite the 'questionable' source, some of this stuff actually works, actually holds up to testing, is 'reproducable' (if there is such a word)... So, I dunno if the author is a fallible genius who took an E Z route to getting their PH.D (possible, we all are fallible), or a quack who stole some of their better ideas from others, and in the long run, do I need to care?
If I keep what works, based not on the fact that 'I' like it, or agree with it.. but simply because it does work.. am I not 'better' for having done so VERSUS ignoring it all, walking away, simply because it (thanks to those shortcuts) is psuedo science... or at least as questionable as the originating source. That is the $64 question. since I have to marshall my funds, I know 'my' answer.

 

[steph]

i decided to f$%* the naturopath and shot me up with Remicade - I feel like a million bucks now and have my life back!!! I was seriously thinking about how good it would be to amputate my legs because the pain was unbearable. Perhaps the naturopath would have helped if I just had bowel trouble...which I don't...it's everything else that gets inflammed. oh well, life goes on.
Cheers, take care everyone;-)

 

[D Bergy]

What kind of leg pain do you have? This seems kind of extreme even for Crohn's. Possibly you have another thing going on besides Crohn's?

Sorry the naturopath did not work out. Just out of curiosity, what was the naturopath advice?

Dan Bergman

 

[Kev]

Hey Steph... I read in another thread you posted that you are also on 6 MP, a slightly different form of Imuran/azathioprine. Just for clarification, are you still on it while getting the Remicade infusions? The reason I ask is that I developed extremely painful leg cramps from Imuran/Azathioprine. wondering if this could be the cause of your leg pains. I know mine were so intense I ended up in ER.. Literally, I could barely move.. sound at all familiar to you?

 

[Crohn2357]

I've heard from a man who had severe ulcerative pancolitis that he rescued himself from surgery with Swedish bitter.

Just mentioning here.