Talk:Naturopathy

Regulation in Australia

This entry is not comprehensive under current education options available within Australia. Vocational training is accessible under the government accredited Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) and there are many Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) who provide quality outcomes for students, including options to articulate with Universities which offer degree programmes.

We do not yet know if and when registration for naturopaths may be ratified, and how this may affect current arrangements, but this article mispresents the present situation. Advanced Diploma Graduates from many accredited RTOs may obtain PI insurance and gain professional accreditation, by meeting the standards of the relevant professional organisations.

We believe the following entry should be changed from:

It is generally thought that with registration, a minimum four-year degree and 400 hours of supervised clinical practice will be required for practice. Currently only a few institutions fulfil these requirements, including Health Schools Australia the Australian College of Natural Medicine's degree course, Southern Cross University Bachelor degree, and the University of Western Sydney's combined Bachelor of Applied Science (Naturopathic Studies) and Graduate Diploma in Naturopathy.

To:

While professional membership is currently available to Advanced Diploma and degree graduates under the Australian Quality Training Framework and Higher Education standards respectively, it is generally thought that with registration, a minimum four-year degree and 400 hours of supervised clinical practice may be required for practice. Prospective students would be wise to consider this when selecting their college of choice. Many organisations, such as Paramount College of Natural Medicine, are able to fulfill the current and future needs of the student with articulations into Universities, such as Charles Sturt University and the University of New England. Currently only a few institutions offer a degree, including Health Schools Australia the Australian College of Natural Medicine's degree course, Southern Cross University Bachelor degree, and the University of Western Sydney's combined Bachelor of Applied Science (Naturopathic Studies) and Graduate Diploma in Naturopathy. In the meantime, this issue may take some time to unfold, and student options will continue to diversify as this occurs.

````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcnm2007 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 

I'm removing the entire paragraph in question. It violates WP:Crystal, not to mention it is unreferenced JamesStewart7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that it would not violate WP:Crystal if references were added (and it is infact an event in progress) and speculation about the future (uncertain) requirements (and who will fulfil them) is removed. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree that a Bachelor of Naturopathy is considered to be a minimum level of education for Naturopathy practice in Australia. Most Naturopaths in Australia hold a Diploma or Advanced Diploma which is more than adequate. Colleges such as The Australian Institute of Applied Sciences [1] and Australian College of Natural Therapies provide fully accredited training that satisfies the requirements of Australia's regulatory bodies both for standards of training and industry specific groups. Degree courses are a nice revenue raiser for Universities to make money from what they themselves consider to be quackery (they extoll the virtues of Natural Medicine with one hand whilst their Medical faculty calls in charlatanism).

Apologies if I have not followed the correct editing techniques as this is my first ever entry on a wikipedia document. Can i suggest the following, and any discussion around training gets its own area?:

Although there is no licensure for naturopaths in Australia, naturopathic medicine is covered by a range of legislation and regulation.

• Quarantine Act 1908 [2] restricts importation and use of some products.
• Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 [3] (TGA 1989) governs the registration, advertising, and labelling of products. This legislation is enforced by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
• Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 [4] expands upon the (TGA 1989) and details allowed ingredients, dosages, and prohibited items. In Schedule 1 it lists recognised professional associations.
• A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Act 1999 [5] allows GST exemption for practitioners if they are a member of a recognised professional association.
• Commonwealth and state health acts.
• State drugs and poisons legislation (and schedules) which regulates the prescribing rights of medical practitioners.
• State health complaints commissioners.

In 2003 the Therapeutic Goods Administration issued the biggest medical recall in Australian history, and suspended the licence of Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited over manipulation of quality control test data. [6] In response to community and health professionals concern, the Australian government established the Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System [7] to advise the government on necessary amendments to the current regulatory requirements. The committees report contained 49 recommendations including the training, accreditation and regulation of practitioners. [8] In 2005 the Government issued a response and in 2006 established the Complementary Medicines Implementation Reference Group [9] to oversee the implementation of this response. Keeganlom —Preceding comment was added at 01:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for the changes but I think the protection of title issue is an important one to keep as it is one of the key points of difference between Australia and other jurisdictions - many of the issues are explained in further detail here [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubbidok (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you able to place in a line that articulates that point? I'd feel more comfortable if someone else has added to this. What is the process after that to get it on to the main page? Please forgive my ignorance. Keeganlom —Preceding comment was added at 11:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Innate ability to heal

The lede currently says that the body is presumed to have innate healing abilities. Isn't this generally accepted? The body has an immune system and can heal wounds, right? Surely the point of naturopathy is to emphasise these acknowledged innate healing abilities. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree Colonel. It is redundant to write that the '..presumed ability of the body to heal itself, which practitioners claim is innate...' (a presumed ability that is claimed to be innate - Uuhgg...that sentence needs to be taken outside and shot!). However, given the recent near edit-war, I suggest you let it stand for now as a peace offering to those who would no doubt argue that writing about the 'innate ability to self heal' is POV. In truth, either modifier alone would probably maintain NPOV:

• ... the presumed ability of the body to heal itself...

OR

• ... the ability of the body to heal itself, which practitioners assume/claim is innate

207.112.75.95 (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Since you supported this point I have acted upon it and moved on to further improve the lede. The list of modalities perhaps needs attention as I'd like to see some sourcing for entries such as aromatherapy which are arguably a different form of therapy. I have sorted the list to make further inspection easier. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree with the Colonel - 'aromatherapy' isn't taught or used in the six naturopathic colleges for example. This points out the main problem with the article, that 'natural medicine' is not a single kind of medicine with a rigidly defined curriculum. The lead should inform the reader that:

• nat med is an approach to helathcare, not a single form of medicine
• this approach is used by different kinds of practitioners
• nat med is incorporated into different models of care (primary, complementary, alternative).

The opposite of 'natural medicine' therefore is not 'evidence based medicine' as is currently being suggested by the lead. Some natural treatments have good evidence, others do not. The same is true for conventional medicine, although it is true that conventional med interventions considered as a whole are better studied. Some practitioners of naturopathic medicine use evidence every day and others do not use it at all. If the lead has to refer to evidence based medicine, I would initially change this:

• "...may recommend patients use evidence-based medicine alongside their treatments"

to this:

• "...may use or recommend evidence-based medicine alongside their treatments"

but would really like to see this:

• "may use or recommend conventional medical interventions alongside their treatments"

...which is the most acurate. 207.112.75.95 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Innate is a common belief among practitioners. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a common belief for just about everyone and so doesn't need saying.

I don't find anything wrong with a statement suggesting that the human body has an innate ability to heal itself, I think that is irrefutable. The real problem is found in claims of this sort

"naturopathic physicians employ methods which use or aid or bolster or work with the body's innate ability to heal itself."

This is a gross assumption which can not be justified by evidence, or even common sense. Keep in mind (as stated several times above) that the broad claims of efficacy and safety for naturopathic practices are, in most cases, unsubstantiated. Now you expect me to believe that you actually know how all of these unsubstantiated interventions work? And that they all simply boost the body's innate ability to heal itself? And that the same vague claim can't be made for any standard pharmaceutical or surgical intervention? And that the interactions of the cellular components of your body with compounds of botanic origin aren't governed by the same biochemical phenomena as are cellular interactions with synthesized pharmaceuticals?

Sure, you may find experimental evidence that a particular herb or compound augments the activity of the immune system (though these claims are most often found to be spurious, or at best unimpressive, when properly tested). But to suggest that all naturopathic practices somehow boost the body's innate defenses, without suggesting how you could possibly know this to be true, is nonsense. If you guys want to be taken seriously, you have to get rid of these ridiculous, arbitrary, meaningless, and touchy-feely qualifiers of your art. Just because you want to believe that naturopathy works with the body in a way unique from that of standard therapies doesn't make it so. Particularly since there is absolutely no basis for making this claim.

There is a lot of great stuff to be found in nature and a lot of powerful therapeutic potential. The biggest problem I keep coming across with the field of naturopathy is that, despite the recent development of professional societies, accredited academic institutions, the adaptation of evidence based research, and a slew of other forward thinking and real-world approaches to increasing the legitimacy of naturopathy, the field is still plagued by the quick fix, easy answer, nature-knows-best, touchy-feely, new age garbage which does nothing but undercut all of the legitimate attempts to harness the power of nature for therapeutic intervention. Even in these pages the problem is distressing. I first got into this discussion when I read (way up at the top) that "Herbal COX 2 inhibitors do not have the same side effects in the liver and heart as the pharmaceutical ones" (a direct quote from someone claiming to be an ND). With all of the accredited and well educated, thoroughly informed NDs roaming these pages (as evidenced by many posts above), why was it that *I* had to point out the FACT that there are not any known herbal COX-2 inhibitors with established therapeutic windows? You guys can't let this stuff slide. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to call out and challenge the nonsense. Which brings us frighteningly close to a scientific approach... 209.59.114.169 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)P.Cogan

It's great to hear insightful criticism from someone outside the profession, P. Cogan, thanks. I think what people are getting at when they talk about naturopathic practices boosting the body's innate defenses, is that naturopaths aim for improving health through supporting the normal and balanced functions of the individual, as opposed to improving health through attacking a pathogen, or interfering with a metabolic pathway. That basic philosophical difference is a pretty significant difference between the ways that most NDs aspire to practice and the way that most MDs aspire to practice. Now, in a state like Oregon, where I live, NDs can and do prescribe antibiotics. But we're trained employ other methods first, if there are any available, which might allow an individual to successfully heal from their infection without us directly addressing the pathogen. For example, types of hydrotherapy that increase lymphocyte production and circulation to the affected area, or dietary changes that reduce inflammatory tendencies that are inhibiting the recovery process. There's plently of peer-reviewed studies showing that diet can influence inflammation, and hydrotherapy addresses immune function. We aspire to a theraputic order which involves removing obstacles to cure, supporting normal function, and then perhaps interfering with a metabolic pathway or addressing a pathogen or whatnot. Lamaybe (talk) 07:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this before but the innate ability to heal is actually dirctly derived from one of the principles of naturopathic practice, the very thing by which it is defined. That is Vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature. This has nothing to do with using natural COX-2 inhibitors or any natural supplements and everything to do with encouraging the body's natural processes - call it propping up the body's biochemistry if you want. The difference is that naturopathic treatment supports the body to heal itself whereas in conventional medicine it is often the intervention doing the work. Come on guys! Were you not taught the underlying principles of naturopathic treatment in your courses. I've noticed they are conspicuously absent from this article which I find quite honestly gobsmacking. If you need a citation look at Murray and Pizzorno - which for all its faults quite comprehensively lists these[11] or simply look any of the association or college websites for naturopathic principles [12] [13] [14] [15] . This arguing over semantics is moot, the fact is this principle, amongst others, drives naturopathic practice and should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubbidok (talk • contribs) 11:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathic Colleges in Australia

There seems to be a lack of Australian representation here, which is unusual as Australia has one of the highest rates of employment in Natural Medicine in the world. Training is generally done at an RTO/Vocational Training level at places like The Australian Institute of Applied Sciences [16] , Australian College of Natural Therapies and also at University level for Degree courses (although in practice, Advanced Diploma of Naturopathy or a diploma in a specific field is generally considered adequate training for Naturopaths). The most popular fields are Naturopathy, Nutrition, Acupuncture and Massage (generally also taught by Natural Medicine Colleges).

--Hollowpointr (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hollowpointr - I do think there is a lack of representation here but that may be precisely because of the changes happening in the field in Australia. You've mentioned a few colleges that are deemed insufficient by many associations (which are, admittedly variable in quality and entry requirements) and vocational training has been on the way out for a long time. Even universities are being phased out (the Charles Sturt University and University of New England distance upgrade 'degrees' (also used by UK institutions) are starting to be seen as insufficient to gain accreditation from the associations due to lack of clinical practice and skills aquired. This is why they are "Bachelor of Complementary Therapies" not naturopathic degrees and I'll doubt they'll survive registration should it come along. The University of Western Sydney degree is accepted by professional associations only if they do a Postgraduate Certificate to gain required clinical experience. Some private colleges are actually OHE accredited degree granting institutions with degrees far more rigorous than any of the universities (with the exception of Southern Cross University) such as the Australian College of Natural Medicine and Southern School of Natural Therapies. The smaller institutions are being locked out due to this professionalisation. However, as no section exists on education, and as Wikipedia is not in the habit of advertising courses, I think it would be more appropriate to focus on the regulatory & political issues in Australia and the professionalisation of the industry rather than training alone. I would support the introduction of this content and be happy to helpGrubbidok (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota licensure

I propose that Minnesota be moved to states with full licensure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayersmed (talk • contribs) 01:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried a quick google search for the news that Minnesota approved a senate bill allowing ND's full licensure, but nothing came up. Can you provide a credible ref? --travisthurston+ 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found any solid references to back it up, but the Governor Pawlenty apparently signed it into low on Friday, May 23. "Final tally in Minnesota, Senate 60-3, House 111-22. Signed by Gov. Pawlenty 5/23/2008". Once we get a ref from an official site (Mn state preferred) we can add it to the list. --travisthurston+ 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF1724&ssn=0&y=2007
and https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1724.5.html&session=ls85

The new Minnesota law regulating naturopathic doctors, Statute 147E, is technically a registration, not licensure. In Minnesota, the difference between registration and licensure is semantic, the scope of registration can be just as broad as that of licensure. The powers to be felt that 'registration' was a more neutral term than licensure, where licensure connotes state approval. I browsed through the Kansas legislation for registration, the Minnesota law looks much more comprehensive, more like a licensure law in Alaska, at first glance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.131.130 (talk) 03:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

American School of Naturopathy as "diploma mill" (HIstory section)

I tried to follow the links and the footnote for the following sentence:

but "according to the New York Department of State, and the Florida Report to Governor Leroy Collins, it appears that this naturopathic school was never anything but a diploma mill". [4].

Neither the links nor the footnote go to any meaningful reference. Unless someone can provide a reference, I move that this sentence gets removed. Anyone second that? Lamaybe (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it up there to inform people that it is a diploma mill. There are probably people around with degrees from it -- and innocent people looking for information on the degree would be aided by its inclusion in the article. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can't find any references indicating that is was a diploma mill, so unless there is some available reference indicating that it was, I propose we remove the statement. Also, I think the school closed in the 1930s, so there probably aren't people around with the degree anymore :). Lamaybe (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week with no new comments on this topic, so I'm going to remove the "diploma mill" reference. 208.75.45.130 (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Good riddance. The ANMA reference was no more than a smear attack by a competing organization and could have been classified as wp:or or wp:syn with no more credibility than a blog entry. --travisthurston+ 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD notification.

A new article, Naturopathic doctor has been created, however, it's serving as a POV fork of this one, as it ignores the main problem that has been discussed over and over here: What is true in a small minority of jurisdictions i s being treated as the standard. I did a websearch, discovered this is not true, indeed, the advice given in that article may be dangerous, as in most jurisdictions, anyone can call themselves an ND, not just the highly-trained professionals that article claims are the only ones. I have thus nominated the article for deletion, therefore: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Naturopathic_doctor If you must create a new article, could you at least take care to handle the demarcation problem, making it very clear that there are huge gaping loopholes that mean theree is no legal protection against quacks calling themselves MDs in the vast majority of places? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Naturopathic modalities

The article was focussing too much on 'who a naturopath is' and not enough on 'what a naturopath does', so I added the 'Core naturopathic modalites' section to get the ball rolling. The lack of universal regulation for the profession will no doubt make this a challenge, with NDs in different jurisdictions having access to very different modalities. For now, I have just pasted the 'core' as defined by the CNME, but this could be improved by acknowledging the variety amongst different regions/types of practitioner. I feel that - with out dwelling on the point or creating an edit war - that the article should inform the reader that even amongst licensed NDs, there is a great deal of variation and debate.

For example, some NDs refuse to use homeopathy (I am one of them). Some NDs provide 'spiritual counselling'. Some treat cancer with IV therapy under an EBM 'best practices' model. Out there somewhere, I have no doubt that there are NDs who use iridology as a diagnostic tool. Some NDs consider themselves PCPs, others promote themselves as complimentary, etc...

Looking forward to input on how best to describe the practice of a profession that is in such a state of flux. Naturstud (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps this information would be better placed in the Naturopathic doctor article? Is the goal still to turn this page into a general description of naturopathic history and philosophy and move specific discussion of professional acreditation and regulation to the ND article?206.47.252.66 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think this information should be moved to the ND article unless, for example, naturopathic emergency medicine in some way differs from conventional emergency medicine--and if it does the article should explain that difference. - Headwes (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words and verify source

“ According to a 1998 taskforce report, many conventionally trained physicians are choosing to add naturopathic modalities to their practice... ”

I wanted to improve this sentence by replacing the weasel word "many" with something more meaningful, but I couldn't find anything in the given source to support the claim. I tagged the citation as needing a quote--anyone want to point me to the right page? - Headwes (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

NDs are trained to use imaging, laboratory and other diagnostic tests

This fact was recently deleted from the article. I have put it back in. Is it really in dispute, or is there a POV issue that i am missing here? Is a citation needed for this? Lab and imaging courses are standard in all CNME acredited schools - is anyone out there arguing that they are not? They also teach anatomy, physiology and microbiology. The students sit in chairs in the lecture theatres, read information from text books and write tests and exams each year. Does any of this need to be 'sourced'? 206.47.252.66 (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be sourced. Things will run a lot smoother with references. QuackGuru 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally I think this is overkill, but happy to oblige...What would be an apropriate source? Curricula from the schools websites describing their courses, or perhaps the CNME document that describes the requirements of all acredited programs?([[17]])206.47.252.66206.47.252.66 (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor Surgery

Doesn't prescribing pharmaceutical medication and performing surgery go against the entire ethos of complementary and alternative medical systems? Doesn't it go against everything that "Naturopathy" stands for? Why on earth would a Naturopath be doing surgery? This sounds like nothing but a money grab from the profession pushing to be PCPs so that they can pick up more of the Family Practice (MD/DO) buck that is out there in the United States just like Nurse Practitioners.

"In a sworn deposition on August 2nd, 1995, the (then) president of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), when asked about minor surgery, declared vasectomies preformed by naturopathic doctors to be a minor surgical procedure. He stated, that vasectomies fall within the scope of naturopathic practice. When asked if this procedure is taught at National College, he said, I don't know. When this naturopath was asked about other surgeries he admitted doing hemorrhoid operations, "sewing" of laceration, skin biopsies varicotomies and electrocautery of warts. He declared breast implants to be a relatively simple procedure."[18] Jwri7474 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You may not approve of NDs prescribing drugs and performing minor surgery. As a matter of fact, I know some NDs who would agree with you (and others who wouldn't). But it is a fact that in some jurisdictions NDs do provide these services, and it is reasonable for the article to inform readers of this fact. Naturstud (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The only ones who would not agree are the ones who wish to move outside of the scope of providing natural therapies and move into the realm of practicing medicine and surgery. It may be a fact that a few states have recently allowed this. However, it should be noted that prescribing pharmaceutical medications and performing surgery has nothing to do with promoting and providing natural therapies which is the practice of Naturopathy. It can no longer be classified as "CAM" i.e. alternative to MD (med/surg) practice if you are offering the same services.Jwri7474 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We probably have a different understanding of the word 'naturopathic' (and probably 'natural'). To me, surgery (and even drugs) are not the opposite of naturopathy. Naturopathy is an aproach to healthcare that emphasizes (to quote the article) "the innate ability of the body to heal itself". Just because the focus is on prevention, lifestyle modification and natural health products doesn't mean that X-rays, ampiciliin and skin biopsies must not be used. There is nothing in naturopathic philosophy or practice that would prohibit these useful tools.206.47.252.66 (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So correct me if I’m wrong, but you believe that there is nothing contradictory about a "Naturopathic Plastic/Cosmetic surgeon”, or a “Naturopathic Ophthalmologist”, etc.

NDs do not specialize, so no - you won't be seing a "Naturopathic Opthamologist" anytime soon. As an ND I am comfortable performing an eye exam before making a diagnosis and establishing a treatment/managment plan which may include pharmacotherapy, recomendations for surgical consult etc. I am not opposed to using technology (my opthalmascope) on the grounds that it uses electrcity or is 'unnatural' in some way.206.47.252.66 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Lifestyle modification and prevention. Hmm.. my MD family doctor already emphasis healthy diets, exercise, smoking cessation, as well as a mirad of other lifestyle modification and preventative strategies with his patients. So, again.. I ask. How would you’re view of a Naturopath be any different than an MD.

Your definition of Naturopathy practice is not complementary to or alternative to mainstream medical practice. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. I don't see the naturopathic aproach as being the opposite of the conventional one. Medicine is medicine. The emphasis of nat-med isn't nearly as radical or bizarre as meany people imagine. It is not fundamentally incompatible with mainstream med. Your MD has some knowledge of how to use lifestlye mod to help you, and more knowledge/expertise about how to use drugs to help you. Your ND has some knowledge about how to use the drugs and more knowledge about the lifestyle mod. It comes down to a question of emphasis.206.47.252.66 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a very minority view of the practice of Naturopathy. Only a handful of US states allow such practice. Worldwide and even within the US in most states. This (med/surg) is not the practice of mainstream naturopathy. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nine out of fifteen states permit minor surgery. That is a "majority" - even if a slim one. The article states that minor surgery is avail in 'some' states. If you are concerned you could replace 'some' with 'nine', or 'nine out of the fifteen'. I think it is enough that the article inform the reader that scopes vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and refer them to a local source if they would like to know more about their own region. Naturstud (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to out of all of the US states. Only a small few allow this. If you are referring to all of the 15 states that license naturopaths.. then yeah, a slim majority of those allow this. Jwri7474 (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well you are correct, then. A minority of jurisdications in North America permit minor surgery by naturopathic doctors. However, only a minority of jurisdictions have formally recognized/regulated naturopathic practice to begin with! If the article doesn't make it clear that a minority of jurisdictions have actually regulated nat-med, then that needs to be cleared up. In regions with adequate legislation, minor surgery is a significant part of naturopathic medicine. Naturstud (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy violation: pasted infro from quackwatch

Someone is pasting a large copyrighted work from quackwatch.com (http://www.naturowatch.org/licensure/laws.shtml) into the regulation section. Never mind that the info out of date and espousing a quackwatch POV - but wiki policy forbids the pasting of copyrighted material. 206.47.252.66 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That information is not copyrighted. Also, the information presented on the regulation in the US was published in 2005 (not out of date) by an independant review.[19]Jwri7474 (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The sunrise report has been recently updated (2008). [[20]] It is one of the most concise and complete state-by-state descriptions of naturopathic scope of practice. The article should refer American readers who would like to know more about the scope of practice in their state this document. Copying the complete play by play into the regulation section seems excessive however. Naturstud (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Licensure controversy

Naturstud, what do you mean by balanced account. I included information from many states. It was not just Mass. What is wrong with having this information in the article? There is information about licensure in general.. so I think the issues regarding licensure are of relavance.Jwri7474 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry If I wasn't clear. You were making two edits. The edit that included the 2005 exerpt of the sunshine report adds important information (although the 2008 version is better). I just don't think that it is a good idea to paste a play by play of each state directly from the report. A summary is better. I have made an initial attempt to do that.

The second edit you made was about a testimonial made by an MD to the Massachusetts ctte that was looking into - and eventually recomended - the regulation of NDs. Your acount of the 'controversy' included a large quote of the MD who was opposed to regulation but you did not report that the ctte issued a recomendation in favour on regulation. If you think that the debate is more notable than the results then you should at least present a balanced acount of it. There were many submission to the ctte - presumably many arguing in against K. Atwoods position. Again, since the ctte concluded that regulation was needed, I don't really see the relevance. A description of opposition to naturopathic medicine belongs in the article. I for one would not mind seeing a 'criticism' section. If you want to fold the criticism into the main text, however, it will need a more neutral POV. Naturstud (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nature Cure

I clarified the usage Nature cure here to indicate that it is an equivalent term for naturopathy. I provided a source but another editor disputes this. Here are relevant definitions from the OED.

• nature cure n. the curing of disease by natural agencies, without the use of drugs (cf. NATUROPATHY n.)

• naturopathy, n. A theory of disease and system of therapy based on the supposition that diseases can be cured by natural agencies, without the use of drugs.

I still reckon that these are the same topic because neither of them is so exactly defined as to exclude the other. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, but the OED has got it wrong? You can read about the 'Nature cure' in Lindlahr's book [21]. It was part of a 'back to nature' movement almost 100 years ago. This was a historical antecedant to modern day naturopathy, but is not it's modern day equivalent. Naturopathy as described by modern ND's is not 'drugless medicine' and none would not accept the OED's definition of 'naturopathy' which is itself hopelessly out of date. (See the discussion above: NDs in 12/15 states prescribe drugs and in 9/12 states allow them to perform minor surgery). Still Lindhlar's book is a fun read and the best of his ideas have informed modern naturopathy extensively. Naturstud (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Our article is not concerned exclusively with modern naturopathy. We take a historical perspective to topics, just as the OED does. Also if a modern naturopath prescribes conventional drugs then I consider that he is not practising naturopathy when he does so, just as a surgeon is not practising surgery if he should prescribe drugs too. Moreover, when it comes to the meaning of words, the OED is a highly reliable source. Your personal opinion that it is wrong is not a reliable source. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The OED's description is an historical one and does not describe naturopathic medicine as it is professed and practiced by NDs, ND schools, ND associations etc. It would be foolish to allow an out of date, one sentence definition overrule the reality. 207.112.52.135 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put 'nature cure' back in the list of naturopathic modalities. This is directly from pdf page 51 the reference being quoted (http://www.cnme.org/resources/2007_hoa.pdf). The CNME's usage of the term is consistent with modern day usage: nature cure is the use of sunlight, water and other natural elements as a modality within naturopathic medicine. 207.112.52.135 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

:It would be advisable to find a list of naturopathic modalities that are from peer-reviewed journals. Colonel Warden is right in his assessment here. Soyuz113 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC) ^{(Edits of indef blocked user stricken.)}

Soyuz113 has "been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, edit warring, disruption and block evasion." I have stricken his remarks, as striking or removal is customary in such situations. -- Fyslee / talk 06:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact the good folks at the OED can not tell the difference between naturopathic medicine and nature cure doesn't mean that we should make the same mistake. The cnme reference quoted above supports the use of the term 'nature cure' as a set of modalities within naturopathic medicine. Since the CNME sets the standards for training of all NDs in north america, we should probably use the term as they do. The accredited schools do not offer degrees in 'nature cure'. The term is hardly used anymore, but where it is used, it designates either the historical roots of naturopathic medicine (therapy involving sun/water/air) or the use of these modalities within modern day naturopathic practice. 64.235.217.157 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have trawled various sources and find that nature cure seems to be used as a synonym for naturopathy rather than being a specific therapy within it. Whorton uses in a very general sense in his book Nature Cures which states, The phrase "nature cure" has long been used by naturopaths to identify their system as one that relies upon the body's own natural healing mechanism to restore the sick to health. So, as we still lack a source which tells us what nature cure might mean in a more narrow sense, I shall remove this narrow usage again. Therapies involving the sun, air or water, would be more clearly described by terms such as sungazing, hydrotherapy or feng shui. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put the nature cure ref back in, reverting Colonel Warden's good faith edit. It is a fact that the CNME lists nature cure as a naturopathic modality that is taught in every naturopathic medical school. The article cites the CNME's list (http://www.cnme.org/resources/2007_hoa.pdf). It is not OK to remove an item from this well referenced list just because you do not think that it belongs there. 72.0.222.218 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• We should not use ill-defined jargon because this is bad style and might confuse our readership. I myself am still somewhat confused by this usage. In search of an explanation, I found a chapter on the topic in recent book Complementary Medicine for Dummies. This seems to distinguish the term nature cure from naturopathy and says that it is also known as Natural Hygiene or Natural Therapeutics. It describes it mainly in historical terms as the assorted methods of various doctors of the late 19th century and early 20th century. As such, it is a general term like naturopathy, and seems to comprise numerous modalities including: heliotherapy, hydrotherapy, vegetarian diet, massage, fasting, meditation, abstention, etc. It would be better if we were to list and link to these specific therapies rather than to a vague term which goes nowhere and I shall edit accordingly. My aim is that this section should describe the modalities of naturopathy clearly and this goal will not be well-served by simply parroting the CNME source as it uses the term without explaining it. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

repetative sections

There is no need to have 4 sections in this article reciting the same information. I've simply attempted to condence and simplify the article. Jwri7474 (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Also, this article is about Naturopathic medicine in general. There is no need to go on and on about the American education system in every section of this article. Keep it within the subsection of "regulation in the United States". Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks! Verbal chat 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the section you deleted about the different types of naturopathic practitioners. This is key information, and it is very important that the article distinguish between training of naturopaths and the regulation of naturopaths. I agree that these are confusing topics, but the solution is not to eliminate the discussion of types of naturopathic practitioners.72.0.222.219 (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I added a "see also: Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" under the "Naturopathic Doctors" section of this article. I agree that the detailed info about the naturopathic medical degree and the (confusing) use of professional titles belong in the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine article, but I also see the need for this main article to breifly sumaraize the difference between an ND and a traditional naturopath. Ideally it would be great to have one comprehensive article, but separating things out is a good idea for the time being, as the words 'naturopath' 'naturopathic doctor', 'naturaopthic medicine' mean many different things depending who and where you are. Naturstud (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Difference between traditional naturopaths and NDs

I removed the sentence in the subsection on traditional naturopaths because it was misleading. It made it sound as though CNME ND grads are not classified as complementary and alternative medical providers, which they are. We have agreed that an ND may use the title "primary care provider" however, they are not a "primary care physician". Just because some states an ND is classified as such this does not negate the fact that naturopathic medicine is still classified as "complementary and alternative medicine". The graduates of CNME naturopathic medical schools are still "complementary and alternative practitioners", they do not "practice medicine" they practice "naturopathic medicine". The terms "complementary and alternative practitioner" and "primary care provider" are not mutually exclusive terms. Even US CNME ND grad are classified as both a "primary care provider" AND a "CAM practitioner". They are not however classified as "primary care physicians". Jwri7474 (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NDs are trained in primary care. Traditional naturopaths are not. This is an important distinction. Personaly, I do not see being primary care as being incompatible with CAM, but I know from your previous edits that you have a difficulty accepting that one practitioner could be doing both. Still, I accept that you are editing in good faith and can understand how you might read the article as implying (incorectly) that NDs are not CAM. If you think that the article is implying this, then why not edit for clarity rather than deleting key info?

How about this -

"Traditional naturopaths are guided by the same naturopathic philosophies and principles as board-licensed naturopathic doctors and often prescribe similar treatments as alternative or complementary practitioners, but are not primary care providers."

Or this -

"Traditional naturopaths are guided by the same naturopathic philosophies and principles as board-licensed naturopathic doctors and often prescribe similar treatments striclty as alternative or complementary practitioners rather than as primary care providers."

Or even this -

"Traditional naturopaths are guided by the same naturopathic philosophies and principles as board-licensed naturopathic doctors and often prescribe similar treatments as alternative or complementary practitioners without providing primary care."

Really, the possibilities are endless. Naturstud (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those versions state that even CNME grads practice "alternative medicine"... the entire article is slanted such that an uneducated reader "joe public" would think after reading it that a CNME ND graduate is equal to an MD/DO and this is not true. I know you think I'm being pedantic.. and I apologies. But I think it is an important issue to make clear. Traditional or not CNME accredited or not... all practice of naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is still classified in every US state and Canadian province as complementary and alternative medicine. CNME grads may be primary care providers but they do so in the construct of naturopathic alternative medicine only. They do not "practice medicine". Again, I just feel that it should be written in such a way that the public understands the issue. Thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The last edit looks good to me. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working on a 'consensus of two' tonight Jwiri. We will have to disagree - I really don't see anything in the article that suggests to 'joe public' than an MD is equal to an ND. As for being pedantic, may I point out that no jurisdiction has 'classified' NDs as CAM. I have not read every act of legislation, but I have read many, and CAM just doesn't come up as a legal term anywhere. By the same token, I have not found the concept of 'primary care' to exist in any state or provincial legislation. There is no one 'in charge' of the terms 'primary care' or 'CAM' it seems.

The CNME, the schools that it accredits and the graduates that they produce all use the term 'primary care' to describe what they do. I am sure you can find some opinions out there suggesting that NDs should not be described with this term. Likewise, 'CAM' is a term used by a lot of organizations and people to describe naturopathy. I am equally sure that you can find some opinions out there suggesting that NDs should not be described with this term either.

The 'practice of medicine'

As for your statement that as an ND I do not 'practice medicine', I must tell you that I find that assertion offensive, but in light of our recent collaboration, am going to assume an ignorant good faith on your part. My anatamy text book was not a 'naturopathic' anatomy textbook. When I order I CBC for a pateint, it is not a naturopathic version. I do not diagnose 'naturopathic' anemia, or auscultate lung fields with a 'naturopathic' stethoscope. Traditional naturopaths (where this started tonight) may be trained without an anatomy textbook, can not order a CBC and so are unlikely to be able to tell you what kind of anemia you have, and are not required to own a stethoscope. Even worse, since they have no license to lose, traditional naturopaths are much less likely to arrange for a referal to an MD when such a referal could very well save your life. (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to "offend you". I don't want to argue with you, because you should be aware that it is not "my opinion" that I am stating.. but the opinion of every US state medical board. I can find plenty of sources for you (and would be more than happy to) if you have not already read the definition of "practicing medicine" on such sites. Every state board of medicine in the US holds such a definition. You may define yourself as a health care provider, however the term "practicing medicine" is equally a protected title in the United States. It is illegal to "practice medicine" in every US state without a licensed medical degree (MD, MBBS, MBChB, or DO). I understand and appreciate the fact that CNME has "accredited" naturopathy schools and raised the standards of the profession in line with orthodox medicine. It was these unorthodox practices that had most of the schools shut down in the first place. However, even though you study anatomy, physiology, and body systems etc.. that does not make what you do "practicing medicine". If you believe that.. then I would argue that Physical therapists, nurses, audiologists, chiropractors, occupational therapists, ad nausum equally "practice medicine" because they incorporate medical sciences into their curriculum. Physical therapy programs on average even have many many hours of gross anatomy.

Your claims are wild and innacurate Jwri. Do you actually expect us to beleive that you have specific knowledge of the rules of each and every US state medical board, and their "opinion" as well? Your hair splitting is becoming nauseating. Naturstud (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Every US state board states something to the effect: If you were to advertise yourself as "practicing medicine" to any potential patients either in printed form, verbal, or on the internet. Or if you use the term "physician", etc without preceding it with the identifying title of "naturopathic"; then you may be prosecuted, fined, and or imprisioned. Jwri7474 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole and legal hair splitting again, Jwiri. Is "practicing naturopathic medicine" a semantic subtype of "practicing medicine". Is a naturopath who clearly states that he is an ND but also states that he practices medicine actually guilty of violating a law somewhere? I don't know, and I don't have an opinion, and I am not interested in yours unless it is notable and verifiable. Naturstud (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the point. As long as you ARE clearly stating that you are an ND and that you are practicing “naturopathic medicine” then you should be fine. Yes, there is a law “somewhere” it’s a law that is held by every US state medical board. It is notable and verifiable in the bylaws of every state board of medicine. Jwri7474 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you were to sit in on some lectures at a naturopathic medical school or follow an ND around for the day or write the NPLEX you might find that the basic medical training and ability of the ND is fundamentally the same as an MD. I can only hope that the article will get better at describing who NDs are and what they do. Naturstud (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to assert this because it would help your career. However, wikipedia is not the place for asserting such an unsourced POV (point of view). Jwri7474 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Now you are bordering on pickin' a fight. This discussion page is the perfect place to state my uncensored POV. Are you accusing me of something here? Do you imagine that I am loading up the wiki article to increase my profits somehow? I stand by my edits as being as NPOV as edits can get. The fact that I am an ND means that I know more about NDs than you do, but I have never sought to contribute anything but verifiable notable facts to this article.Naturstud (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I’m not trying to “pick a fight”. This is not a personal issue… it is a professional issue. I’m sorry you are taking this personally. It is not meant to be a personal attack. However, asserting that you are something that you are not is professional fraud and against the law. You are not allowed to assert yourself as a medical physician. These titles are restricted and regulated. Jwri7474 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

NDs are licensed to provide "primary (medical) care" in some states, including prescribing prescription drugs, but they "do not practice medicine"? Riiight. Certainly the fact that NDs are only licensed in a certain number of states should be emphasized, and the the fact that "traditional naturopaths" may have no real credentials needs to be emphasized. I'm not sure how we can alleviate Jwri7474's concerns, as I don't quite understand what she is saying. II | (t - c) 05:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nurses are equally trying to twist the legal language to assert the same that they are "practicing medicine" by completing a "doctor of nursing practice" DNP degree.. and that the DNP degree is equal to the MD degree because they sit similar exams, etc. However, this is not the case. The same thing happened to physical therapists. Just because you hold a Doctor of Physical Therapy and study gross anatomy and the like.. does not mean that you practice medicine. A physical therapist with a 'Bachelors degree' BSPT degree holds the exact same license and scope of practice as a DNP graduate. The same will be said for Nurse practitioners who hold the DNP degree and those that hold the Masters or Certificate. You can have your course "accredited" (and I'm glad you do) I do agree with you that naturopathy needed "some form" of standards set for the profession. However, that does not negate the fact that even CNME ND graduates are still practicing (naturopathic medicine/naturopathy) which is under the umbrella of "complementary and alternative medicine" i.e. complementary and alternative to orthodox medicine.. and no ND degree is considered "equivalent" to an MD degree. eqJwri7474 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Provide some good sources and you might be able to edit something like this into the article. I don't know about the legal language, but from a linguistic and rational perspective practicing medicine is providing medical care. Holding an MD or a DO is not a not a necessary condition. II | (t - c) 06:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well... it is a necessary condition according to every US state medical board - the governing body that regulates the "practice of medicine" within the United States.

Here are examples: [22],[23],[24], [25] ,[26], [27]

What you imagine the state medical board regulations in Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Alabama and Virginia have to do with this conversation escapes me completely! These are all documents that govern physicians in states that do not regulate naturopathic medicine.Naturstud (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well… I was just giving general examples of the regulation of the “practice of medicine”. I will cite other examples from the US states that also regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine. (trust me, they won’t be any different… but if you insist) Jwri7474 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"A naturopathic doctor may not: D. Practice or claim to practice medicine .. surgery, osteopathy, dentistry, podiatry, optometry, chiropractic, physical therapy or any other system or method of treatment not authorized in this chapter.[28] Is that enough? (I can try and get more if need be) Jwri7474 (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hell no it is not enough. I mean - congrats on finding a relevant document (Maine actualy regulates NDs), and double congrats on finding someone whose understanding of the word medicine is almost as narrow as your own, but your assertion that the way they do it in Maine is representative of the way that they do it everywhere is a non-starter. Naturstud (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article is already overloaded with legal details of this kind. Since these are complex legal issues which relate to numerous specific jurisdictions, each with their own changing legal codes and professions, all this detail should be spun off into a separate article so that this article can focus upon the content of this form of medicine. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues with that decision.. as long as the article is not written in a way as to mislead readers that naturopathic doctors (CNME accredited or not) are equal to medical doctors or that they "practice medicine" or that they "perform surgery" and the like. If the legal information is taken out but these statments are left in... then it would appear that this is the normal practice of a naturopathic doctor and this is not the case. Thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jwri, I still do not see anything in the article that states that "NDs and MDs are equvalent". NDs do practice medicine - naturopathic medicine to be more precise, and once again, I can not see anything in the article that might confuse the reader. Your opinion that naturopathic medicine is not a legitimate form of medicine is now perfectly clear. I can appreciate how someone holding such an opinion would want the word 'medicine' to be reserved for those with conventional, orthodox allopathic training. Hoping for a thing, sadly, does not make it so. I can also understand how you would want to take every opportunity to point out that naturopathic medicine and NDs are not the same as allopathic medicine and MDs. For the rest of us, the first sentence of the article makes it perfectly clear:

"Naturopathic medicine (also known as naturopathy, or natural medicine) is a complementary and alternative medicine"

...and taking every opportunity in the article to point out that NDs are not MDs is as distracting as it is unnecesary. Further, it could be argued that mentioning that NDs are not MDs ad nauseum is a shrewd way of pushing the POV that NDs are inferior to MDs.

I didn’t say they were inferior. I simply said they weren’t the same thing. I’m sorry that you can’t understand that if you wear a white coat and tell your patients that you are their “doctor” and that you are a “physician” who went to “medical school” and “practice medicine” without prefacing these words with the identifier “naturopathic”… that yes.. they might in fact be under the impression that you are an MD or DO. It is also may I remind you for the 100th time that it is not my opinion I am asserting, but the state law. Jwri7474 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well. if there was any doubt about your tendancy to exagerate (your knowledge of the laws of 'all states' for example) you have cleared it up: 100th time indeed! You are stating an opinion, and not one that seems to be relevant to the article as far as I can tell. Please present an example in the article that is confusing, or find a notable verifiable source suggesting that there is a serious problem out there with NDs impersonating MDs, and by all means put it in the article. Naturstud (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand your use of the word 'equal', by the way. Is an endocrinologist equal to a dermatologist? Is a banker equal to an accountant? Who has better qualifications, a lawyer or an airline pilot? A dermatologist or a cardiologist? It seems to me you are using the term 'equal' to mean 'as good as' or 'as valuable as'. I suggest that the article avoid such judgments. May I make myself clear: it is not the job of the article to judge NDs as holding the same value, more value or worse value than MDs. Once again, if you have a specific concern please point to where you think the article is implying such a judgment, and we can deal with it. Naturstud (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I use the terms equal in regards they are not equal to allow for the “practice of medicine” as defined by the state board of medicine. An MD, MBBS, MBChB, DO, etc are all considered equivalent degrees in medicine and as such are allowed to apply for a license to “practice medicine” in each US state. You as an ND are not. In this regard they are not equal. Not inferior. Different. Simple as that. Jwri7474 (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you have a problem with an MD who went around telling his patients he was a "naturopathic physician" in one of the 15-16 states that regulate your profession? I'm sure you would. Equally, in every US state... you cannot go around advertising yourself as a "physician" or as someone who "practice medicine" without preceding these terms with the identifier "naturopathic". Equally these are protected titles which you may not use. Jwri7474 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats again, this time on finding a hair so small to split, I'm not even sure that it is there. Naturopathic doctors are not eligible to apply to an allopathic state board for an MD license, is that really your point? No surprise there, and no great loss there either. By the way, MDs are not eligible to apply to a state naturopathic board for an ND license either. Your entire argument seems to hinge on the MD license having more value than the ND license. That, and the facile semantic argument that NDs are legally required to use the term 'naturopathic' before the word 'medicine' ergo ND's do not 'practice medicine'. Of course, it is the ethical duty (and almost always the law) for an ND to use the word 'naturopathic' when they advertise their medical services. Such a legal obligation apllies equally to all healthcare practioners: you must always display your credentials to the public. The legal obligation to use the 'naturopathic' descriptor is *not* a legal basis to restrict the use of the word 'medicine' however. State medical boards are not the word police. As long as it is clear that we are talking about naturopaths, it is perfectly fine to discuss the medicine that they practice. This is an article about naturopathic medicine, after all. I'm still scratching my head here: What, specifically is your concern with the article? Naturstud (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one who is using words like "inferior", and "higher value". I simply stated that the degrees were "different" and that they were not equal for the purpose of “practicing medicine”. Please stop taking this so personally. Yes, the medical board is the "word police" if you are using the title in the wrong context professionally. That is the law and they have the right to prosecute you if they wish to enforce it. Equally, if as an MD I was telling everyone I was a "naturopathic physician" the board of naturopathic medicine would have the right (in regions where the title is protected) to enforce the law. Jwri7474 (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't expect to make a bold, inflamatory and ignorant statement like "naturopathic doctors do not practice medicine" without expecting to attract some anger from the profession that you are insulting. Protesting the 'personal' nature of my response does not make your argument any more apealing. Neither does your distorted understanding of the way that the law works: state boards of (naturopathic or alopathic) medicine are not the police, period. They do not "enforce the law" and they do not "prosecute" anyone. They govern their individual memberships (naturopathic or alopathic), not medicine itself. NDs most certainly "practice medicine". What on earth do you imagine that they are doing when they diagnose and treat disease? Seriously, what else would you call it? This truth is not altered by the fact that some jurisdictions do not recognize naturopathy, or prohibit it, or require NDs to distinguish between themselves and other healthcare providers. Your argument makes no sense. It also requires us to accept a strange and unusualy narrow definition of the word 'medicine'. Naturstud (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that parochial legal expressions are not appropriate here - we are writing for an international readership in lay English. Technical issues of licensing, qualification and professional status would be best discussed at Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine and we only need a general summary of the issue here. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

'Second tier' modalities

Thanks to Colonel Warden for finding some references on other modalites practiced by naturopaths. I think it would be a good idea to structure the Modalities section in some way to highlight the fact that the CNME modalities are made of standard 'core' for NDs and that also there are 'optional add-ons' (minor surgery, prescription drugs, accupuncture, child birth, IV therapy) that may or may not be availible due to practitioner preference and or local regulations. The add-ons often require require additional training.

Also, there is considerable overlap - abstention, fasting and the whole food diet are examples of a nutrition, stress managemnt fits into psycological counselling, exercise fits into physical medicine, fresh air fits under nature cure etc. Is there some way to restructure this section to present these as examples of modalities, not modalities per se?

Iridology is the odd man out. It is very controversial, not allowed in the CNME curriculum. I would like to see a good ref stating that this is a common modality used by Naturopathic Doctors, otherwise, I think it counts as 'fringe'. Naturstud (talk)

• Our article on Iridology mentions naturopaths and the cited sources also associates the two too. I'm not trying to smear the subject - just trying to be comprehensive. My concern is that the CNME, worthy as it may be, should not be allowed to constrain our coverage of the topic to the exclusion of modalities used in the past or in other countries. If there are notable heresies for particular factions then we can say so. Orthodox medicine has plenty of skeletons in its cupboard and naturopathy can stand comparison in this respect, I fancy. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of being comprehensive, I have no problem with mentioning Iridology or other questionable practices that mainstream NDs avoid - but can we find away in the modalities section to indicate the diference between the more orthodox CNME core and the relative fringe activties practiced in unregulated jurisdictions?

Also - perhaps the reference that goes with iridology has gotten messed up, but as it stands it points to an ad for a book about CAM - the ad does not claim anywhere that iridology is in fact a naturopathic modality. Likewise the Iridology article does not have a reference for this claim either. Your other reference - the Encyclopedia of Cmplementary Health Practice - does not mention Iridology at all. Could you either provide a reference or a cite tag if this is something you know for a fact to be true. If you aren't sure, I vote for removing it all together. Naturstud (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have added another source for iridology along with more modalities. The source, Profile of a Profession: Naturopathic Practice, seems to be a good survey of the subject in the US context. It may be downloaded in its entirety and contains many statistics and other material which we might use. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a much better ref that the 'Dummies Guide'. I have made an attempt to integrate the info somewhat and create a division between the standard core taught to all NDs and the additional modalities that may be practiced. Naturstud (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:The list of modalities is quite long and extensive, why not shorten it up somewhat and start a subarticle that lists the 'treatment methods' of naturopaths? Also, is there some kind of source what demonstrates what percentage of patients receive each modality? That would be helpful as well! Soyuz113 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC) ^{(Edits of indef blocked user stricken.)}

Soyuz113 has "been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, edit warring, disruption and block evasion." I have stricken his remarks, as striking or removal is customary in such situations. -- Fyslee / talk 06:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A resonable suggestion by Soyuz113. The difficulty is the same problem that always haunts this article. "Naturopathy/Naturopathic medicine" signifies both a regulated health profession with more or less clear set of modalities and an unregulated free-for-all with unlimited possible modalities. Since in some regions, anyone and everyone can say that they are a naturopath, it can be claimed that pretty much anything is a naturopathic modality. This is the problem that I had with adding iridology to the list of naturopathic modalities - I suspect that this is widely rejected by most NDs, but since there is a reference that someone out there uses it, it makes the list. I forsee this becoming a problem - why not psychic iridology, or urine therapy, or intercessory prayer... Unfortunately, outside of the CNME guidlines there are very few references enumerating how much each modality is actually being used. Estabilshing relevance, verifiability and notability is going to be difficult. Avoiding fringe and giving undue weight is going to be an absolute mess.

1. One possible solution is to fork out the article into the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine article (which already exists) and a Traditional naturopath article (which does not). Under such a scheme, the present article Naturopathy could simply state the shared principles and shared history of naturopathy with links to the the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine and Traditional Naturopathy for separate discussions of scope of practice, training, regulations and modalities used.
2. A second option is to create an internal fork within the present article, organized by content first and practitioner type second. A section on Regulation could contain subsections on NDs and TNs. A section on Modalities could contain subsections on NDs and TNs. A section on Training could conatin subsections on NDs and TNs etc.
3. A third option is to create an internal fork within the present article, organized by practitioner type first and content second. One major section for NDs describing regulation, modalities, training and scope. A second section describing TNs regulation (or lack thereof), education, scope and modalities.

All of the above three options have their pros and cons. Unfortunately, what we have right now is a hybrid of the three aproaches which makes for a pretty messy set of articles and promotes a lot of edit waring, especially where criticism or praise for one type of practitioner is misapplied towards the other. Looking forward to discussion on this. Naturstud (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Here's a source which discusses the problem in general terms: The Spectrum of Therapeutic Influences and Integrative Health Care: Classifying Health Care Practices by Mode of Therapeutic Action. Anyway, I took a look at the therapies offered by various NDs in AZ. One offered bee-sting therapy. Several offered prolotherapy. The former is arguable naturopathic in that it involves a substance from nature. The latter seems more debatable and to me it seems about as natural as dentistry, i.e. not much. But we shouldn't get hung up on such considerations. Naturopathy is open-ended, like orthodox medicine, and so will use any technique which seems to work and which may be considered natural. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for the reply, Naturstud. I hear what you are saying regarding separating wheat from the chaff; the first thing would be to specifically identify what regions are providing doctoral level education (looks like NA so far) and then breaking down what modalities are regulated and which one's aren't. Sentences like 'uneven regulation' or 'varies by state' are appropriate qualifiers. Regarding your comment between modality and profession, I see your point. A good idea would be to look at some of major health agencies like the NIH, NHS and other national players and use those as a reliable source.

It's very, very important to separate what is considered to be acceptable to the public (i.e. mainstream) elements of naturopathy and those that would be considered fringe (irodology). Perusing other articles like Traditional Chinese Medicine and Chiropractic might be a good start to find sources that could be used in Naturopathic Medicine in this regard. For example, the effectiveness of acupuncture for knee pain should be the same regardless if its done by a TCM doctor, medical doctor or a naturopathic doctor.

I would recommend that the Osteopathic Medicine might be a good template for the article as well.

Colonel Warden, I agree that naturopathy might be open ended but we should still present the best available evidence to support or refute the various modalities used by NDs. This article has much potential to avoid the disaster truck that is currently occurring at chiropracty. Editors there (at least a few of them!) don't seem so interested in clearly distinguishing 'mainstream' practices from fringe one's and violating WP:WEIGHT by playing up pseudoscience chiro at the expense of legitimate chiro. A lot of CAM articles here in fact do that and I want to help provide a fair review of the facts! Soyuz113 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC) ^{(Edits of indef blocked user stricken.)}

Soyuz113 has "been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, edit warring, disruption and block evasion." I have stricken his remarks, as striking or removal is customary in such situations. -- Fyslee / talk 06:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• We don't need to go into the effectiveness of therapies such as acupuncture and iridology since they are well-covered in their own articles. The only therapies that we need cover in more detail are those which are peculiar to naturopathy and which are not covered elsewhere like air bathing, perhaps. If we discuss effectiveness here then it should focus upon naturopathic medicine as a whole, since that is our topic. Do we have any good sources for this which compare outcomes with those obtained from regular MDs, chiropractors and the rest? Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have a concern that this article will very quicly become a clearinghouse of every single CAM out there from apitherapy to zootherapy. OK, I made that last one up, but it highlights my concern: If anyone can call themselves a naturopath and anyone can invent a new 'therapy', then where and how do we draw the line? We won't even be able to list them all. I agree with the Colonel that any discussion of effectiveness should be deferred to each therapy's individual article. So the question becomes which sources do we trust as describing 'mainstream' modalities, and how do we deal with the multitude of 'other' modalities that are out there in the absence of a good reference that describes what traditional naturopaths actually do? I think the article needs to inform the reader that some modalities are 'more orthodox' than others - let's face it there is some freaky sh*t going on out their calling itself 'naturopathy'. Naturstud (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• We should follow the sources as I have done. Please remember that our presentation should be NPOV, not promotional per our conflict of interest guidelines. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree we should follow good sources as I have done. Good sources are going to be hard to find for the 'traditional naturopaths' since as you point out, most sources for the unregulated branch of naturopathy tend to be promotional in their nature. There is a risk here that the regulated branch (NDs like myself) will get undue weight simply because there are much more credible, notable verifiable sources describing our specific profession. Presenting good information about the other kind of naturopathy will be difficult, but is esential. On the other hand, how do we prevent giving undue weight to the 'traditional naturopaths' since they aren't even counted? I am glad to see that there are other editors out there who take NPOV as seriously as I do. I still think that restructuring the naturopathy related articles on wiki would be a good idea, along the lines of one of the three options I have proposed above. Naturstud (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note that zootherapy exists in various forms. There's traditional healing with medicines derived from animal and use of pets for the improvement of mental health. The latter is a fairly orthodox prescription in my experience. Then there's helminthic therapy which is addressing the modern plague of allergic complaints. I trust that naturopaths are keeping up with these interesting developments. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

==Differentiate between scientific naturopathy and traditional naturopathy==

• An easy way to differentiate between modalities is to separate them into conventional and complementary. For example, there is enough evidence accruing now that both acupuncture and manual medicine are mainstream for select conditions whereas iridology is not.
• There needs to be a section that clearly outlines the professional boundaries of naturopathic medicine. Do's and don'ts. For example, what can regulated NDs prescribe or diagnose? What can't they do? It seems very open ended and we should delineate
• There needs to be better coverage of the historical timeline between the foundations of NM and where it is today. Are they in the public system (i.e. universities/colleges)? These are important points for the reader to consider. Naturstud, I don't mind if you propose drafts and I can help make sure it's NPOV and conforms to WP:WEIGHT.
• Any controversies, disputes, criticisms, barriers, etc should be addressed in its own section. Otherwise the article will be littered with WP:POINT violations like what is occurring at Chiropractic
• One cannot ascertain the effectiveness of entire medical systems, but information on specific modalities can be summarized and placed here. Make sure that it's not a WP:SYN violation though. Sources that specifically mention 'naturopathy' or 'NM' are preferred, try to avoid getting lumped in with all of CAM. Not all of CAM is quackery, but some is and we need to present the best scientific evidence to the table
• Perhaps we can get an outline of all the relevant subsections we want to have here (Lead, SOP, Reg, Hx->present, ND/patient demographics, contributions/criticisms, END. Soyuz113 (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC) ^{(Edits of indef blocked user stricken.)}

Soyuz113 has "been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for sockpuppetry, edit warring, disruption and block evasion." I have stricken his remarks, as striking or removal is customary in such situations. -- Fyslee / talk 06:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to deliniating the "Do's and don'ts" within regulated naturopathic practice, I recommend leaving a skeleton on this page that describes the CNME core modalities list and the optional add ons (minor surgery, childbirth, drugs). This page should also note that even amongst naturopathic doctors, there is a lot of variation to methodology, and this should be expanded on the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine page. The variance in scope afforded to NDs in different jursidictions is substantial and could easily overwhelm the main article which is about naturopathy in general. For example, the drug prescription right runs the gamut from complete (including narcotics, if I'm not mistaken in Oregon) to partial rights, to no rights.

I also agree that a criticism section is much needed, and again the structure of the article is key so that criticism can be apropriatly directed. One may critisize the philosphical assumptions of nat-med, the training of NDs, the training of TNs, the lack of regulation, the practices of NDs, the practices of TNs and so on. Historically, the edit wars on this site have evolved when a critisism of one of these aspects has gone astray, or when a claim about one of these aspects has been to broad.

I think the next step is to start a Traditional naturopath page. Then we would have three options when adding information:

1. This page which could hold a LEAD, HISTORY, PHILOSPHY, TYPES OF PRACTITIONERS and CRITICISM. The 'types of practitioners' section could hold two summaries, one for the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine article and one for the Traditional Naturopath article. The criticism section could focus on some of the fundamental assumptions of naturopathy. (natural fallacy discussion anyone?)
2. The Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine article which could get into the TRAINING, PRACTICE (modalities), LEGAL STATUS/REGULATION etc of NDs...and of course CRITICISM.
3. The Traditional Naturopath article which could describe the TRAINING, PRACTICE, LEGAL STATUS, CRITICISM etc of the do-it-yourself set.

I have to admit that I actually prefer whole articles on wiki rather than split articles. In this case however I suspect that the best way to continue development is with separate pages, perhaps with the possibility of sewing them back together in the future. Naturstud (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Natural hygiene

Natural hygiene/Nature Cure links here, yet its something else than naturopathy; it was created by Vincent Priessnitz and focused on cold water baths. An offspring of this was the Hygienic movement.

Please update links, info, redirects, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.189.32 (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Iowa

I added Iowa to the list of states that do not allow the practice of Naturopathy.

"9. Is it okay for a naturopath to practice in Iowa? No. It is unlawful to practice medicine in Iowa without a license, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 147.74, 148.1, and 150A.1. It is also unlawful for an unlicensed individual, i.e., naturopath, to hold him- or herself out as a “doctor” or “physician.” Naturopathy is the practice of medicine because it involves the diagnosis and treatment of human conditions. Diagnosis can mean diagnosis of disease or conditions that may include symptoms of disease or ill health. Treatment can mean providing a remedy, cure or recommending care of some nature, e.g., diet, prescription and non-prescription medications or herbs."[29] Jwri7474 (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of no law in Iowa prohibiting naturopathic medicine. Please provide a proper reference that supports your assertion. The opinion of the allopathic state medical board in Iowa is a policy statement and not a law in itself: "This policy statement is not a legally binding opinion of the Board, but is only intended to provide guidance to the public." [[30]]. You could write that the state allopathic board has suggested that naturopathy is illegal in Iowa if you think that this is notable, but you can not write that naturpathy is illegal without a reference to a law that states that it is:

• "It shall be unlawful for any person whether heretofore licensed or not under the laws of this or any other State to practice naturopathy in this State." (South Carolina [[31]])
• "It is unlawful for any person to practice naturopathy in this state." (Tennessee Code 63-6-205.) [[32]]

Naturstud (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation is that in any of the 47 states in which naturopathy is not accepted, it would be illegal to practice as a doctor and prescribe medications, as naturopaths can do in the 13 states where they are licensed. Iowa happens to be one of these states. The current wording in the article is misleading. II | (t - c) 00:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Please do not remove this. Per WP:NPOV we are required to include all notable views, not just ones we agree with. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone look over the criticism section, clean up the references and find a more credible source than an article on iridology and a POV Barrett article? --Travis Thurston+ 19:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Barret and Quackwatch have been found to be a reliable source. Could you please make your signature more legible, and a bit smaller? Thanks, Verbal chat 19:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Verbal, could you cite where it is that Barret and Quackwatch have been found to be a reliable source? I wasn't able to find anything on Wikipedia:RS or Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Thanks! Lamaybe (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

oh, yup, thanks sciencewatcher, that looks good. Lamaybe (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote that's up there strikes me as inappropriate. It's totally fine to quote Dr. Barret, but referring to an entire sector of licensed physicians as "muddleheads" is not meaningful criticism, it's just badmouthing, and it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. Any takers to find some more civilly worded criticism? Lamaybe (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it does seem to go too far. I've just removed that part of the quote and left the first sentence which seems more reasonable. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

The term "many", in the phrase "many conventionally trained physicians", is identified as a "weasel word" in this article. The identical term "many", in the phrase "many scientists and medical practitioners" (from the intro) should be similarly identified. Or neither should be identified as such. Otherwise it gives the appearance of POV-pushing. Hgilbert (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the intro: while I believe it is an accurate statement, it's difficult to track down any references for studies looking into people's perceptions of naturopathy. Feel free to change it to "critics", like it says in the criticism section.

Regarding the "many conventionally trained physicians": I read the reference and it doesn't seem to say anything like this. I think "some" would be more accurate. I found another ref from the UK (PMID 7932459) which said 12% of hospital doctors and 20% of GPs use alternative medicine in their practice - I wouldn't call that "many". This ref is from 1994, but I didn't find any more recent. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the compromise wording developed. I still wonder about the word "widely"; what evidence do we have that this is so? Three critics do not a majority make. hgilbert (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unproven Treatments

I am new to Wikipedia. This is actually my first post, so please forgive me if I don't follow all the rules perfectly. I am not thrilled with this article, but I'll start with one comment. It is stated twice in the article (once in the introductory section, and once in the criticism section) that "..naturopathy...relies on unproven treatments." I think that this is the uninformed opinion of one individual. It is a blanket, black and white statement about a wide variety of modalities. Actually, many naturopathic therapies have a significant amount of substantiation in the scientific and medical literature. Please note that much of the health advice coming from the conventional medical community these days(about nutrition, exercise, cholesterol, stress, and so forth) is exactly what naturopathic doctors have been telling their patienst for a long time. I propose that this section be revised to offer a more complete and balanced view of the validity of naturopathic treatments. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I added some of that info, so let me respond. You are right in saying that not everything in naturopathy is unproven. However certain treatments which are part of naturopathy, e.g. iridology and homeopathy, are not only unproven but are regarded as quackery by the majority of scientists. I think the criticisms are based on the fact that naturopathy is a mixture of treatments, some of which work and some which don't. Similar to complementary medicine. If you want to reword it to make this more clear, go ahead. Or make suggestions here if you prefer. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sciencewatcher, I think we are skirting around the edges of a huge issue here. As a newcomer to Wiki I started looking up subjects in which I have a great interest, and was shocked to find that the basic stance of these Wiki articles is far from neutral. On the contrary, any idea or practice that doesn’t fall into some kind of starched, conventional scientific or academic orthodoxy is roundly condemned and dismissed as quackery or pseudoscience, without any consideration for another point of view. Some of the “references” used to substantiate these witch hunts are laughable — notoriously closed minded individuals who are not able to think outside the box about anything, and have made an art of ridiculing and belittling that which they don’t have the capacity to understand.

So I would ask you, Sciencewatcher, how is it decided what is scientific, what is "proven" or “unproven,” and what is quackery? Also who decides these things? My understanding is that the scientific method is a relatively recent way of substantiating knowledge, and I think that even the most hard core scientist would agree that there are definite limits to what can be "proven" by scientific methods. In addition, the process of interpreting the results of a single study or a body of research is frequently very controversial. The experts in that field may disagree about what conclusions can be drawn from an experiment or a clinical trial. Sometime it appears that politics, religion and/or money may play a role in this supposedly objective scientific process. And then there is the issue of the quality of the research that has been conducted. I have read plenty of research studies that weren’t worth the paper they were printed on.

Think about it. Not everything in the Universe lends itself to substantiation by scientific studies. Specifically, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (the gold standard for testing drugs and medical treatments), is a method that lends itself to obtaining only certain types of knowledge. This model is inherently reductionist, i.e. it breaks knowledge down into smaller and smaller bits of information. This approach doesn't work so well for more holistic or expansive modalities. For example, when investigating herbal medicine, scientists tend to study the effects of one herb, or even one constituent of one herb. Yet most traditional systems of herbal medicine utilize herbal formulas in treatment plans, combining herbs for their synergistic effects. Scientists don’t like to study complex formulas. They like to look for the one “active constituent.” Well what if there isn’t one “active” constituent (i.e. “drug”). What if herbal medicine operates under a different paradigm?

Let’s take the example of depression — such a common condition. The causes of depression are multifactorial and could include nutritional deficiencies, food allergies, blood sugar imbalances. toxicity, fatigue, addictions, loneliness, financial stress, relationship problems, and much more. In most cases several of these factors are operating concurrently. No naturopathic doctor or holistic practitioner worth their salt would treat depression with one herb. Yet there are many, many studies on the use of St. John’s wort for the treatment of depression, and an ongoing debate about which constituent is the “active” ingredient. Is it hypericin or hyperforin?

Is it surprising that the results of studies on St. John’s wort and depression are contradictory. Nevertheless, Wikipedia can have an article about how herbal medicine is “unproven” or quackery. Meanwhile, naturopathic doctors and herbalists are busy curing people, based on traditional botanical knowledge that has been passed on for millennia.

There are practices and modalities that don’t lend themselves to “blind” trials at all. Any modality that involves the patient making an effort in their own behalf, such as practicing yoga, or mediation, or going to bed early, can’t be studied “blindly.” And then there is homeopathy, another boogie man of Wilipedia, which is based on a really different paradigm. With homeopathy you don’t do what western medicine does, i.e. try to put the patient into a category (diagnosis) with other patients based on common symptomatology. On the contrary, you look for what is unique and different about that individual. You also don’t use the same medicine for everyone with arthritis or bronchitis. You use the medicine that fits that particular individual. Obviously, the conventional trial design doesn’t fit well in this scenario. Does that mean that homeopathy is automatically quackery?

Actually, in spite of the challenges, there is a growing body of research to substantiate the validity of homeopathy. Who are all the scientists you mention that consider homeopathy to be quackery? I doubt if you will find many quantum physicists among them, because I am told that homeopathy makes perfect sense on the quantum level. And I promise you, if you saw or experienced one homeopathic cure, you would become a believer, regardless of the amount of scientific research. Here is a quote from a doctor at Harvard:

“Several Harvard-affiliated physicians have told me in private conversation that homeopathy has helped their family members or friends, but they would not want to say so publicly due to fear of ridicule. Hopefully, this book will help open-minded doctors and scientists to realize they are not alone and to have the courage to call for more research on this most interesting and paradoxical form of treatment.” —David Anick, PhD, MD, research associate at McLean Hospital, Harvard Medical School

Scientific knowledge is not something absolute that is passed down to us from God. It is just some stuff that a bunch of people have agreed is the truth based on their current level of knowledge at the time. Guess what? Sometimes they are wrong. And often they are attached to their ideas of what is true and don’t recognize a more truthful (scientific?) idea when it arises. In fact, sometimes they are downright nasty to those cutting edge thinkers. Remember Copernicus and Galileo? Remember the doctor who first suggested that it might be a good idea if doctors washed their hands before performing surgery? He got hounded and ridiculed and driven out of town. Many new ideas that we now accept as scientific truth were ridiculed when they were first introduced. Twenty or twenty five years ago, those lab forms that report blood test results listed a “reference range” of 150-300 for “normal” cholesterol. Back then the naturopathic “quacks” were saying that 300 may have been “normal” but it sure wasn’t healthy. Now everybody agrees that 200 is the top number that is acceptable. So who are the scientists and who are the quacks?

“Causes of iatrogenesis include medical error, negligence, and the adverse effects or interactions of prescription drugs. In the United States, 225,000 deaths per year may be iatrogenic, making it the third leading cause of death.”

One hundred and six thousand of these deaths are from “non-error, negative effects of drugs.” And that doesn’t include all the cases that resulted in “disability and discomfort” rather than death. Let’s see…should I mention the fact that the studies documenting the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs are conducted by the very companies that stand to profit from those drugs. Should I mention that doctors frequently use drugs for “off-label” indications for which there is no scientific substantiation?

In conclusion, Sciencewatcher, I would remind you to look around and realize that we live in a vast, complex and mysterious universe. I am not saying we should throw science out the window. You might be surprised to hear that among lots of my New Age friends I am viewed as the scientist. To me it seems like they are out there on the “lunatic fringe,” and they will believe anything anyone says about anything. Let’s not go there. We need science. It is a useful way of learning and expanding our knowledge, just not the only way. And don’t turn science into a fundamentalist religion, based on a few limited beliefs, and simplistic answers to complex questions, with no room for imagination or capacity for change.

I feel better for having gotten that off my chest. I’ll come up with some ideas on how to improve this naturopathic article as soon as I can.

--Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Science isn't a religion, or belief, as you correctly point out. In fact it is the opposite: it is simply using critical thinking and experiment to try to figure out answers to questions such as "does homeopathy work". Take homeopathy as an example: it involves giving the patient something diluted so much that is doesn't have a single molecule of anything else, i.e. it is just water, with some "magic" in it. Does that sound likely to work? Research shows that it doesn't. So you have a wacky theory and evidence showing that it doesn't work, so why do people persist in believing it? People used to believe that female hysteria was caused by the uterus moving around the body due to lack of sexual intercourse, and that health ailments were caused by an imbalance of "humours" in the body. We now recognise that these are ridiculous, but at the time virtually everyone believed them. Now we can use science to help differentiate between fact and fiction. Are you a naturopath? --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you seem to fall into the trap of believing that just because a patient recovers after a treatment, then the treatment must have done it. Not true! The patient might have recovered with no treatment, or it might have been the placebo effect. Bear in mind that 90% of lower back pain clears up with no treatment whatsoever (if I remember correctly - I can provide refs if you want). Also, many of the conditions treated by naturopathy have a large psychiatric component, so the placebo effect can make a big difference. Your comment that "if you saw or experienced one homeopathic cure, you would become a believer" basically shows that you will not consider any alternatives. You may be interested to know that I have, in fact, seen remarkable recoveries due to homeopathy and other treatments. But it hasn't made me believe in homeopathy, but in the placebo effect. If you haven't done so (and it looks like you haven't), I would definitely recommend you look into it. And we're getting well off the topic of this article, so if you want to discuss this further I would recommend doing it by email or on my talk page. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unproven treatments (redux)

The "unproven treatments" section has long sparked something of a debate, so why don't we hash this out here. I really don't think it's a stretch to say naturopaths "can rely" on scientifically unproven techniques. I originally argued for removal of this section, but I have compromised repeatedly because the section has been backed up with good sources. That said, I do think it's important to remember that naturopathy isn't all quackery - and I definitely agree that some of it is, by the way. But naturopaths regularly counsel nutritional adjustments which would be backed up and agreed upon by conventional doctors - consume less cholesterol if you have high blood pressure, for example. By recommending nutritional supplements or adjustments, naturopaths are relying upon scientific treatment. (If you disagree with this, then by the same logic conventional doctors and dieticians are offering "scientifically unproven" advice daily in every hospital in the country). So, in conclusion, I think it's entirely accurate to say "can rely" rather than "relies" upon which implies naturopathy ALWAYS relies on unproven treatments, which is simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintersdoor (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There are aspects of naturopathy which happen to agree with conventional medicine, but this is not because of any basis on scientifically proven techniques. Naturopathy is based and relies on unproven theories and techniques, and this is backed by WP:RS. I'm sure others will be able to express this better than I as I'm in a hurry. Verbal chat 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that rationale and will let the matter as long as there seems to be a consensus in favor of the current revision Wintersdoor (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see it mostly relies on unproven techniques. The only proven one is counselling. All the rest seem to be pseudoscience. Bear in mind that naturopathy does not use the same nutrition treatment that you would find in a hospital or GP surgery. Naturopaths tell you that your fibromyalgia is caused by an intolerance to red meat and similar ridiculous, unproven diagnoses. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is evidence based medicine and there is...well...useless, waste-of-money, dangerous treatments. Naturopathic medicine is the latter. Furthermore, it is a well-known and utilized tactic of fringe medicine to use some amount of real medicine (nutritional counseling), so that they appear to be legitimate. The fact is, there is research supporting this "medicine." Hell, I'd push to remove "medicine" from the article title, and just call it naturopathy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I remembered a discussion over naming a while back, but the closest that jumps out at me in the archives is last year's discussion of whether we should classify Naturopathy as CAM like our sources do. Proposing rename below. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to connotate naturopathy with "useless" "dangerous" treatments. Every medical system produces those, including conventional medicine. (How often have drugs been recalled, for example, because they turned out to be dangerous or utterly ineffective?) Obviously, there are some quacks practicing naturopathic medicine, but that doesn't make all of them quacks, nor does it make all their advice dangerous or useless. Like I said, I have no problem with some reference to some quackery, but I don't think it's fair to write off the whole system for an encylopedia entry. I would propose writing "often relies upon" or "mostly relies upon" even, just so long as there's a small indication that the whole field isn't quackery. That said, I'm in the minority here and am tired of fighting this battle alone. So I'll let it go as it stands if my suggestion isn't agreed upon by my detractors.Wintersdoor (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Without going into every one of your incorrect statements, we're not talking about dangerous or useless, we're talking about science vs. pseudoscience. Cancer treatments are deadly, but they are based on science, that is, the biochemistry of tumor cells, and how to attack them. Naturopaths don't use science, and are inherently dangerous by recommending treatments to cure whatever and it doesn't work, because it cannot work. How often are drugs recalled? So rare, as to be a statistical anomaly rather than a trend. How often to naturopathic remedies work? So rare as to be a statistical anomaly. The whole field is quackery, unless you can provide some reliable sources that say otherwise, your opinion notwithstanding. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename Naturopathic medicine to Naturopathy

WHO (PDF), NCCAM and Google indicate that this topic is more commonly referred to as simply Naturopathy than as Naturopathic medicine Per WP:NAME I propose moving this article accordingly. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Geez, I was just joking. I didn't know I was actually on to something. I have rarely heard it referred to as naturopathic medicine, unless a real MD employs some of the diagnostic principles (except really looking for real scientific basis of certain disease states). I always refer to them as naturopaths. We should use standard terminology, because the one used herein is highly POV, implying that Naturopaths practice medicine. They don't, by any standard of medicine. I can't remember where else we've had this type of discussion, but I recall removing medicine there too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Orange Marlin, perhaps this is a good place to remind you that the term "medicine" is not a trademark of the AMA... :) --ThujaSol∆ 21:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my vote to this. Unless anyone can come up with a convincing argument against, I agree we should change the name to naturopathy. --sciencewatcher (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's true that Naturopathic medicine, (the medical profession), and Naturopathy (the philosophy) are separate entities. The term naturopathic medicine is strictly reserved for those ND's in licensed states, have a scope of practice that may or may not include pharmaceuticals and minor surgery, and those individuals who attended accredited schools. Nowhere in the ND curriculum will you find color therapy, iridology, applied kinesiology, reflexology or any other pseudoscience except homeopathy (and some argue it's for historical reasons, and that it's harmless). For this reason alone, a distinction should be made. I support the renaming, but I don't think it should be carried out by allopaths with an agenda or "quack busting" Barrett followers (per WP:NPOV and WP:COI of course). Perhaps we get some neutral parties in here and we strip the "professional" portions out and apply them to the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine page. BTW, if you look closely you'll find accurate definitions on some state laws and regs. An example is the California state professions code; "Naturopathic medicine" means a distinct and comprehensive system of primary health care practiced by a naturopathic doctor for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of human health conditions, injuries, and disease. "Naturopathy" means a noninvasive system of health practice that employs natural health modalities, substances, and education to promote health. (SECTION 3610-3615) [33] --ThujaSol∆ 04:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

These distinctions can be made in the article itself. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support name change. We should use the common terminology. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support name change too. In case it wasn't clear above. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support with a request it is carried out responsibly. --ThujaSol∆ 04:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support name change. Verbal chat 07:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Even if we accept ThujaSol's point, this article does not just cover those few isolated places. The broader term is better and less misleading. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support name change. JamesStewart7 (talk) 11:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Concern Although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, it seems that at least the state of California views naturopathic medicine and naturopathy as different things, so it might make more sense to have separate articles which refer to one-another. As per the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine discussion page, a Doctor of Naturopathic medicine is eligible to be licensed as a primary care provider in about 1/3 of North American jurisdictions, while a Doctor of Naturopathy (a correspondance degree) cannot be licensed to diagnose and treat patients anywhere. Lamaybe (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If it's only a single state, or even only a few, then there shouldn't be more than a brief secion on such division. One major problem we have with Naturopathy is being very, very clear about the geographic area things apply to, and I'm not really convinced we aren't over-emphasising the exceptions as it is. Splitting things based on a single American state's treatment of it is just... a horrible idea likely to confuse people, and would lead to no plausible name for an article covering the worldwide state of naturopathy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Again many of us here are not familiar with the subject matter to be making such divisive edits. Instead looking for information that supports YOUR preconceived point of view, how about obtaining a greater understanding? As Lamaybe stated, this description applies to roughly 1/3 of North America. I used California as an example of the other states that have similar definitions. Again, if you enter this discussion with and non-neutral pov, or have a conflict of interest, please refrain. To blankedly state that naturopathic medicine is without science, or to think that only one state has a clear, legal definition (describing the difference between naturopathy and naturopathic medicine) is a position or ignorance. --ThujaSol∆ 21:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the attack seems out of line: Lamaybe said that the Naturopathy/Naturopahic medicine distinction applied to California, and that Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine vs Doctor of Naturopathy to 1/3rd of jurisdictions. These are not the same thing, and I live in the UK anyway, so none of it applies to me in the slightest. Why should everything on Wikipedia about Naturopathy be decided based on whatever tiny part of the world you personally prefer the definitions of? Wikipedia is accessible worldwide, we should write the articles from a worldwide perspective, not adjust it so that it's very hard for those of us in, say, the UK, or Australia to find relevant information, or outright misleading the reader by strictly enforcing definitions that aren't at all enforced everywhere but a handful of places.

I'm not going to block consensus on this; I can support the name change. And Shoemaker, I respect that you feel like this doesn't apply to you in the UK, where 58 million people and the world's 5th largest economy don't have laws differentiating naturopathy from naturopathic medicine. But the 38 million Californians who have the world's 8th largest economy are not exactly a "tiny part of the world," and their laws do distinguish between the two. A worldwide perspective means including information relevant to everyone, not excluding information which isn't relevant to everyone. Let's try to cooperatively build an article that does that! Lamaybe (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not enough to justify slanting two entire articles (which is what the proposed split based on the California situation would do) around the legal difference in California that does not apply elsewhere. In such a split, in which article would the UK situation be described, for instance? And, since such a major act as splitting the article was done, most people, even non Californians, would presume that this distinction is one that was highly important and directly applicable to them. Instead, we should describe the California situation in a short section of the main article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There. That needed to be said, but, it having been said, I trust we can now move on, and work to make the article useful to everyone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

And as Fyslee said above, we can cover these differences in the article. Here is Canada there is a Naturopathic Doctor (ND) qualification. It looks like most of this is already mentioned in the article anyway. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher, if you look at the Candian schools' websites, the degree that allows its holders to practice as primary care providers in 5 provinces is actually the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. Lamaybe (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have a "doctor of naturopathic medicine" wikipedia page. So why not change this page to naturopathy and keep the existing DNM page? --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

They teach medicine in Canada? I thought it was only Hockey Medicine.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's called chiropractic here. There's a naturopath and a chiropractor on every street in Canada. But we do have a few proper doctors too. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you concerned at all that insulting the subject of the article will cause other editors to reflect upon your ability to make reasonable edits? Naturstud (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Naturopathic medicine in North America

I think it's fine to have one article called Naturopathy, and NDs in the UK would be described in it. Like in the articles osteopathy and osteopathic medicine in the United States, the unlicensed folk practice of naturopathy and the licensed primary care physicians from naturopathic medical schools in the US and Canada are separate and distinct beasts. In fact, I think the model of the osteopathy/osteopathic medicine in the US is a good one to follow, except the articles should be naturopathy and naturopathic medicine, since there are graduates of the 4 year naturopathic medical schools (which are in the US and Canada) who are currently practicing as licensed physicians in the US, Canada, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, and Mexico. I can dig up references for all those, of course. Lamaybe (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Osteopathy's distinction is far more important: A doctor of Osteopathy in the U.S. receives pretty much exactly identical training to an M.D., whereas in other parts of the world an osteopath is completely and totally different. Naturopaths have not reached that level, nor has what level they have reached become particularly widespread, nor are they generally accepted by the mainstream medical profession. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A D.O. is a physician. They do receive almost the same type of graduate level education, and to practice medicine, at least in the US, they need to undergo the same level of clinical training (such as internships, residencies and fellowships). To compare a DO to a naturopath, who may have no education in clinical medicine, is insulting to highly trained medical practitioners. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a decent comparison. I think Lamaybe might have a good idea on how to move forward. It seems we already have it structured this way, with one article covering the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine and one covering the philosophy known as Naturopathy. It is correct that the ND degree isn't as "global" as the DO degree is in the US. But it does appear to distinct enough to follow a similar format. DO's may have more clinical training, but if they do it may be only a few more hours or maybe a fellowship, if they do one. From what I know, Naturopathic physicians complete a 4 year doctorate program at first professional status, have intern rotations, have a required amount of clinical hours, and also have residency programs. Not sure how they compare when you line the numbers up... Anyone know the status of ND's in Canada compared to Osteopaths? and the UK? --ThujaSol∆ 19:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with OM and SH - DOs and MDs are both fully trained medical doctors. There is no actual similarity, only a similarity of terms intended to imply similarity. Verbal chat 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am so excited by this meeting of different perspectives.

Shoemaker--you point out that osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are different articles because the training and practice of osteopaths and doctors of osteopathic medicine are totally different. I submit, and I imagine you know, that the training and practices of naturopaths are totally different from that of the doctors of naturopathic medicine practicing as licensed physicians in 16 United states and 6 Canadian provinces, which together comprise a much larger population than the UK in total. Look at the article Naturopathic medical school in North America. That's the training people review which then makes them licensed and qualified to order and interpret labs and imaging, make diagnoses, develop treatment plans, prescribe opiates for goodness sake. That's totally different than what naturopaths worldwide are doing, in exactly the same way that osteopaths and doctors of osteopathic medicine are different.

Orangemarlin-- you make the statement that "To compare a DO to a naturopath, who may have no education in clinical medicine, is insulting to highly trained medical practitioners." You seem to be confusing the very point of this section of the discussion page--that there is a big different between naturopaths and Doctors of Naturopathic medicine. Would you feel satisfied if I present as references laws from multiple states and provinces and districts and territories which require that Doctors of Naturopathic medicine must receive education in clinical medicine, and demonstrate their proficiency by passing internationally standardized examinations before they are then licensed to practice medicine--to diagnose and treat patients.

Verbal--when you say that there is no similarity between NDs and DOs/MDs, I imagine that is not actually what you mean. Of course there are similarities--they are all trained and licensed to take histories, do physical exams, order and interpret labs and imaging, and then suggest treatment plans to their patients. They are all able to be reimbursed by health insurance plans. They can all be sued for malpractice, and as such, carry malpractice insurance. They all learn to use stethoscopes, for example, and take classes in pharmacology, which then qualifies them to prescribe pharmaceuticals. So when you say there are no similarities, I imagine you actually mean that there are some particular things they do not have in common that make you think that NDs are not physicians in the same way that DOs and MDs are. I'd love to know what those things are.

Lamaybe (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Atwood's opinion

Atwood and Barrets's opinions are represented in the criticism section, where they have been correctly described as just that - notable opinions. Repeating these opinions in the article as though they were facts is not on. I have removed, for example, statements under the Naturopathic Doctor section that claim that an NDs training in basic medical sciences are inferior to the training of MDs. Such a POV is fine if it is atributed to Atwood, which it already is, in the criticism section. It is a fact that Atwood has written that he believes ND's training to be inferior to his own. It is not a fact that he is correct (or incorrect for that matter). 72.0.222.219 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Atwood's comments were published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. That makes them pretty reliable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

'Reliable' in what sense? Opinions (in the form of essays, letters and critical reviews) are published in peer reviewed journals all the time. This does not mean that they represent the opinion of anyone other than the author. Atwood himself admits that his opinion is a minority one in the very reference being cited: "I received more than 60 emails myself, running about 4:1 opposed to what I wrote". 72.0.222.219 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to revert Atwood-inspired POV edits asserting that ND training is inferior to MDs. Would it not be enough to note that ND training is shorter (4 years) compared with the average for a GP MD (I believe it is six or seven)? This is a fact that can be verified. The vague cliaim that overall, NDs recieve less training in basic medical sciences has not been supported with facts. How many hours do NDs/MDs study biochem, anatomy, physiology for example? In the absence of these verifiable facts, we have only Atwoods opinion. Let it be reported as such. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is from a RS and is correct. It isn't necessarily inferior, just different, and the version you are removing makes it clear how. Your version appears to be an attempt to spin the coverage given to be non-neutral. Please do not promise to edit war, it does not encourage sensible debate. Verbal chat 15:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Any statement that NDs recieve less training in basic medical sciences than MDs will need verification. Atwood's opinion is not an acceptable replacement. How many hours do NDs spend in anatomy class? How many hours do MDs spend in anatomy class? Facts please. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am siding with 72.0.222.219 here. How many pubmed searches do you need to make to support your POV? And how many times does this opinion by one person need to be repeated in the article? Your POV is well established, as well as Shoemaker's and Orange Marlin's. One mention in the critics section is enough. Nothing in his opinion piece supports this passage. --ThujaSol∆๏̯͡๏ 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a reliable source. Please provide reliable sources for the changes you would like and discuss them here. Please note WP:NPA. Verbal chat 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You have a reliable opinion. The only thing that this reference verifies is that there is a Dr Atwood who holds such an opinion. No reference has been provided supporting the claim that NDs recieve less training than MDs in basic medical sciences. 72.0.222.218 (talk)

How can you call that an attack? :) It's pretty apparent that you are pushing your opinion here. Just repeating that the atwood article is a RS does not address the issue at hand. I'm sure that you and shoemaker (and eventually orangemarlin once he chimes in) know that... --ThujaSol∆๏̯͡๏ 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to whitewash the thing: NDs training is shorter than a comparable GP's. But let us get the facts right. The amount of time spent training an ND and an MD in basic medical sciences are equivalent, right? (about 3000-3500 hours). The difference is in the clinical training, isn't it? (NDs=1500, GPs>=4000) ? I admit to pulling these numbers out of the air... any editor who thinks that it is important to compare the training of a naturopathic doctor with a medical doctor could easily look them up, and report them in a NPOV. Until then, I will continue to do the sensible thing and revert any edit that claims that NDs have less training in basic medical sciences. 64.235.217.157 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

So in the absence of providing facts to support your POV, and in the absense of responding to even one of the points I have raised, you have had the page 'protected', verbal? Nothing like a little law and order to replace honest debate. A POV-inspired protection if ever their was one. Shameless. See you on March 25th. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

While we are discussing Atwood's well-researched and supported comments on Naturopathy, is there a particular reason why we do not cite his actual report to the Massachusetts committee debating licensure of Naturopathy (convenience link)? It is labeled as "Kimball C. Atwood, M.D. Representing the Massachusetts Medical Society", which ought to make it plenty reliable. Or Naturopathy: a monograph (RTF file, convenience link), labeled "Prepared by Kimball C. Atwood, M.D., Representative of the Massachusetts Medical Society, for the Massachusetts Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medical Practitioners"? - Eldereft (cont.) 17:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As long as it is represented as his opinion, I don't see a problem with this serving as an example of criticism. Not particularily effective criticism, but notable. Just please do not insert Atwood's concerns as though they were facts. To do so is to essentially allow Atwood (a notable opponent of nat-med) to write the article in his own voice. I would compare this to allowing Hahneman to write the article on homeopathy. The fact that a notable opinion happens to coincide with your own is not an excuse to write the article from that POV. Notability and reliability are not free passes to insert POV, especially in the absence of verifiable facts. BTW, Atwoods opinions were neither well-researched nor supported in this case, when you consider that the ctte in Masachucets decided to recomend licensure. Any reference to his submission to that ctte should include the fact that his opinions and arguments were rejected. 64.235.217.157 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we may be using different definitions of the term opinion piece. Here is Atwood writing an opinion piece. The report, conveniently linked in my previous comment, is a reliable source. My plans for this article were to expand the History section to more accurately reflect the worldwide situation and reduce reliance on a single source. Maybe fulfill that citation request for Kneipp or discuss regulation and spread in the post-1980 period in more detail; certainly we should add the 1968 HEW Report (convenience link) and the 1977 Australian report on naturopathy (convenience link), which might arguably have some little relevance to the historical development of the practice. What this article most desperately needs is a decent survey of how much naturopathic practice "on the ground" is coffee enemas and chelation therapy, and how much is science-based nutrition, and some usage statistics (I think the CDC collects these for the US) ... but since you asked so nicely, below are some sources independent of the topic which the article currently omits. This should be rectified; listed in roughly decreasing order of reliability and applicability:

• Massachusetts Medical Society Testifies in Opposition to Licensing of Naturopaths
• No scientific evidence was presented supporting naturopathic claims, but ample evidence was presented to show that these claims are implausible and dangerous. No evidence was presented to justify distinguishing the small group of naturopaths represented on the Commission from other, “less educated” naturopaths.
• Naturopathic doctors take some basic science courses and courses on disease prevention, wellness, clinical nutrition, acupuncture, homeopathic medicine, botanical medicine, psychology, and counseling. Naturopathic doctors do not receive residency training.
• The American Medical Association, an organization for doctors and publisher of JAMA, opposes licensure for naturopaths: [34], with follow-up descriptions in [35].
• A report to the Missouri Senate (2006) recommends against licensure of naturopaths in part due to uncertainty in the definition of "naturopath" and lack of faith in the CNME as a credible accrediting body.
• Many health authorities oppose licensing naturopaths because, they say, it will lower educational and professional standards and put the public's health at risk. They point to the unscientific, often anti-scientific attitudes of naturopaths and warn of the danger of further lowering safeguards and standards that were established to protect the public from the care of unqualified healers.
• Naturopathy has no standing in the scientific community.
• Serious omissions in a naturopathic textbook Arnold S. Relman (2001); naturopathic education is inadequate.
• Opinion piece describing naturopathic education as apparently good on paper, but full of scientific failings in practice.
• Naturopathy at the Skeptic's Dictionary - a notable critic. This is the sort of thing that belongs in the Criticism section.
• "Naturopathic doctors" face oversight news piece documenting arguments for and agin' regulation. Actually, a number of articles deal with this issue, and it should probably be treated under Naturopathy#Regulation#United States (there might be enough for the UK, India, and Australia as well, but Naturopathy is more widespread in the US).
• ISBN 0393066614 Trick or Treatment explains why I cannot find any good reviews of the whole system of naturopathy.

If we can take an independent source-centric approach to this article, with treatment strictly governed by reliability, I think we can make a better article than the POV-centric model will produce. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I apreciate your evidence based apporach, and I do not oppose introducing any notable, reliable opinions or arguments, as long as they are correctly identified and as long as the article does not assume their voice. The AMA's position is reliable and notable. So is the AANP's. The Massachusetts Medical Society Testifies in Opposition to Licensing of Naturopaths? So what? Presumably the The Massachusetts Naturopathic Medical society testified in favour, right? And we all know whoose testimony held more sway, right? The article can report these reliable notables without agreeing or disagreeing with them. In fact, wiki standards require this. As it stands, the article still reports Atwoods allegations (reliable, notable, but still his opinion) that NDs receive less basic medical training than MDs and DOs as though it were a fact. Not acceptable.

Or perhaps you would you care to verify his assertion for him, since he offers no data to support it himself? Surely the number of classroom hours spent in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry etc are published for both naturopathic and allopathic schools? Any evidence out there to support Atwood's opinion? 72.0.222.219 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not purely one of hours - some outside observers also question the factual basis of what training they do receive. This is why we cannot simply parrot AANP, but require independent sourcing for encyclopedic statements.

We might create a section on this particular political struggle over licensure, but I suspect that that would necessarily lead to undue depth of treatment. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - we need to report the views of the AMA, AANP and other notable interested parties like Atwood without 'parroting' them. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the current version of the article is doing - paroting Atwoods allegation as though it were an independantly veriified fact, which it is not. In the absence of verifiable, independent encyclopedic facts showing that NDs train less than MDs in basic med science, for example, the statement under the 'Naturopathic Doctors' section needs to go. I am fine with the Atwood quote in the criticism section, where it is clearly identified as his opinion. 206.47.252.66 (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed article. That means it's been independently reviewed by multiple people. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You have already stated this above. And sorry to be so blunt, but I wonder how much time you have spent reading peer-reviewed journals if you confuse the opinions published in them with the content of an encyclopedia. Minority views are published all of the time. My response to you (the last time you wrote this) noted that Atwood himself admits that his 'peer-reviewed' opinion is a minority one in the very reference being cited: "I received more than 60 emails myself, running about 4:1 opposed to what I wrote". Any thoughts, or do you honestly beleieve that all statements published in a peer-review journal may be inserted into a wiki article as though they were facts? 72.0.222.219 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Started expansion; I have tried in each instance to hew closely to the wording and intent of the most relevant sources, but please correct the article wherever I have erred. Expanding Regulation to include some history should probably come next (including two sides each to the unscientific and consumer protection arguments), followed closely by expanding Criticism to note that some critics mention that they draw no distinction between the branches of naturopathy. Still needs a survey of how important various modalities are to actual practice (there are doctors in ACAM, too). - Eldereft (cont.) 10:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see some new work started on the article, but the main problem still exists: The article states as a fact the opinion of a man whoose notoriety stems exclusively from his opposition to the main topic being considered! Absolutely unacceptable by wiki standards. Anyone feel like fixing the problem? 72.0.222.217 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the unsubtatiated claim and also taken out the bit about NDs being "experts" in natural therapeutics, which strikes me as being equally POV. I have left in Atwoods criticism in the criticism section. Naturstud (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This change works for me. stricken - see below I would want a nice independent source for stating that ND basic medical training is equivalent to MD, but I think the key point for this section is to differentiate Naturopathic doctors from Traditional naturopaths and Other health care professionals. The amount of training required for licensure belongs in the Regulation section, and details of training belong at {{main}}. I changed the wording to say "receive training" rather than "are trained", as that flows better; hopefully this is non-controversial. I am not sure about the wording primary care provider, but that can be discussed in a new section here if necessary. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that - sorry. If we are stating primary care provider, a comparison to the most common group carrying that designation is appropriate. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and let the comparison be acurate and supported by evidence. The article must not use Atwood's opinion as though it were a fact. 72.0.222.217 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Critical comments about homeopathy in the lead

OK, I'm removing the "pseudoscientific quackery" description of homeopathy from the lead. Note that I am not removing the same description from the criticism section, where it belongs. Lamaybe (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing well-sourced content is a rather dubious action. Keep in mind the WP:LEAD means that significant content in the body of the article will be mentioned in the LEAD. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee, it isn't the content I object to--note that I left the content in the criticism section. Significant content about naturopathy includes referencing core modalities that involve non-scientifically proven methods. Going into more depth about homeopathy in the lead is out of place. Lamaybe (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing a whole section with only one sentence is pretty concise and proper. This is common practice here. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Summarize pertinant information about naturopathy, not homeopathy. As only one of the modalities that some naturopaths use, it deserves mention in the criticism section, but again, I maintain it doesn't belong in the lead. Naturopaths in India, for example, don't even use homeopathy--they leave that to the homeopaths. Lamaybe (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - the facts (in descending order of importance) are these: All NDs are trained in homeopathy; Many scientists have dismissed homeopathy; Some' naturopaths use homeopathy; and a few critics have been arrogant and aggressive enough to use inflammatory language like 'pseudoscientific quackery' to describe homeopathy. It is enough to mention the first two items. The homeopathy page is a more appropriate forum to explore the depths and fringes of criticism about homeopathy. It is not appropriate here. 206.47.252.66 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We already discuss earlier in the lead a few of the other things naturopaths do. What if we were to simplify the current first paragraph to state philosophical underpinnings, examples and acceptance, and role in the health care systems:

Naturopathy (also known as naturopathic or natural medicine) is an alternative medical system that focuses on natural remedies and the body's vital ability to heal and maintain itself. Naturopathic philosophy favors a holistic approach and minimal use of surgery and drugs. Naturopathy comprises many different treatment modalities of varying degrees of acceptance by the medical community; diet and lifestyle advice may be substantially similar to that offered by non-naturopaths; some herbal remedies are effective; and homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience. Practitioners sometimes recommend that patients seek the advice and care of a medical doctor.

Nutrition might not be the best example, there, as there is plenty of bad advice built around food. Suitable references from the body to be included, of course. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eldereft, is that your revision above? I like it. One issue though: Naturopathy is not otherwise known as natural medicine. It is a kind of natural medicine. And it isn't called 'naturopathic' by itself, it's called 'naturopathic medicine', the former title of this article. Lamaybe (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes - indented now to make that clear. I think that that parenthetical is meant to be read as shorthand for also known as naturopathic medicine or natural medicine. Anyway, that I grabbed that straight from the current first sentence, so we can go ahead and change it for the sake of clarity if you like. I am less certain about calling it just a subset of natural medicine since that redirects here, the sources do not always make a clear distinction, and the National College of Natural Medicine just changed their name from Naturopathic. Still, a statement from CNME or something like that would for me be perfectly sufficient to make some sort of change. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I like your proposed text Eldereft. The only change I would suggest:

• "Practitioners sometimes recommend that patients seek the advice and care of a medical doctor" ('sometimes'= hard to verify or quantify; also lumps NDs in with the 'traditional folk' under the vague term 'practitioners')

be replaced with:

• "Naturopathic doctors are trained to refer patients to other health care providers..." (more specific, and verifiable)

I also like that the article is evolving into a general discussion of 'naturopathy', a term that means many different things in many different places. The debates over what is reasonable criticism in this article have usually stemmed from vagueness and ambiguity of the criticism bein offered. This article is a good place to mention the 'natural fallacy' argument for example, because it applies to the common principles of naturopathic medicine. The article on Naturopathic Doctors is a better home for criticism specific to NDs IMHO. Naturstud (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that is also in the old lead. I implemented the proposed text, but anyone should feel free to revert and continue discussion. I omitted to change natural medicine, though I remain open if consensus develops. I also left the vague some, in the interests of moving part of the article forward while we iron out wording for the rest. I favor more precise wording, but restricting the comment to naturopathic doctors may be too specific for the end of the first paragraph of the lead, and that information is not currently conveyed in the relevant subsection of the body of the article.

My edit summary for the above change indicated that I would be fixing some references whose main text had been included in the lead by copying to the first use of each reference in the body. As it turns out, they were either not being used in the body (please do not do that - the lead is the place to summarize the body, not introduce new information), repeated entire (named references ...), or not really needed (ok, that one is my fault). - Eldereft (cont.) 21:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Even better, the complementary vs. alternative issue was mentioned twice in the lead, so I just tossed that one. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

typically considered a form of pseudoscientific quackery

ok, now that we're on the subject, the wording of this strikes me as inappropriate. Homeopathy is controversial, for sure, but "typically" in this context implies that that is the general consensus in the scientific community. The perspectives of the sociologist and the authorless essay from a non-peer reviewed source which are cited as references in this case are completely valid. But the fact that conventional journals like the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal and BMJ are publishing RCTs showing effectiveness of homeopathy for various conditions (diarrhea, PMID: 12634583 and rhinitis, PMID: 10948025), there is clearly some portion of the scientific community which doesn't consider it to be pseudoscientific quackery. In order to be encyclopedic, instead of using a vague word like "typically", let's cite the organizations and individuals that we can reference who believe homeopathy is pseudoscientific quackery, and lord knows there are plenty to be found. Lamaybe (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the wording to be more inline with the content in the section, so "typically" isn't used anymore. The sources used in the section back up the inclusion in the LEAD. As far as the pseudoscientificness of homeopathy, that is a matter to deal with at the homeopathy article. There are indeed a very few scientists who continue research into homeopathy, but that doesn't make the practice any less quacky. It only shows that they are flakey and not well-grounded. Homeopathy can be scientifically tested, but it has overwhelmingly flunked on many points. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Great--"widely" strikes me as totally accurate.

• I agree with you that this page is not the right space to deal with the validity of homeopathy, which is also why inflammatory language like "pseudoscientific quackery" should be left off the page.
• In addition, I'd like to suggest that it's impolite and inappropriate to call doctors who publish in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals "flakey and not well-grounded" because their randomized controlled trials found efficacy for something you don't believe in.
• None of your references suggest that iridology is a core modality of the naturopathic training--would you mind removing that?

Lamaybe (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lamaybe above - homeopathy is mentioned in the references that describe the core modalities, but iridology is not. The only source I know of that suggests that iridology is a core modality in naturopathic medicine is this article! Highly creative, but also highly inaccurate. I welcome criticism of nat-med in this article, but it should not be necessary to invent it. 206.47.252.66 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Iridology is not a requirement of the CNME and is not taught in any CNME acreddited school to my knowledge. Are we confusing NDs who have a fairly standardized program with the 'traditional naturopath', who by nature may use an unlimitted number of approaches? Can this section be made to reflect the difference between the standardized group and the non-standardized one? Naturstud (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I edited the lead as indicated in the preceding section so that now all example modalities are in one place. Iridology is still listed and sourced as a modality sometimes used, and as a source of criticism. Hopefully stating that naturopaths use a variety of techniques with varying degrees of evidentiary justification solves this issue to the satisfaction (or dissatisfaction, whatever) of all. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the phrase 'Practitioners commonly use...' is justified before the list of non-standard modaliaties that include applied kinesiology, iridology etc. Do any of the references state that their use is 'common' amongst NDs or traditional naturopaths? These are all modalities that are not part of the CNME core and are not taught (to my knowledge) at any of the acredited ND schools. 'Some practitioners also use...' seems more accurate, unless anyone has a reference showing how prevalent these modalities actually are. Naturstud (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

residency

The criticism section had stated that NDs do not complete a residency. That's incorrect. There are over 40 accredited residencies for NDs, http://www.naturopathicresidency.org/residency.html and in fact the state of Utah requires that NDs have completed a residency before practicing there http://www.dopl.utah.gov/licensing/forms/applications/072_naturopathic_phys.pdf so I changed the phrase to say that a residency is not required. Lamaybe (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good improvement. -- Fyslee (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

But I think to be fair, only a handful of NDs complete residencies. Critics are correct when they compare a GP to an ND and say that the ND typically recieves 4 years without residency whereas the GP typically revieves 4 years plus a 2-3 year residency. I understand that residencies are increasing for NDs but does anyone have any numbers for this? Not that the point of the article is to compare ND with GP, but it is interesting. Perhaps this should be fleshed out in the Naturopathic Doctor article? Naturstud (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting this here, somewhat arbitrarily: We have no source saying any ND training program reaches the same level as MDs. We have a very good source saying it does not. Until we have a good-quality source contradicting Atwood, I've reversed the deletion of highly relevant information. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Atwood's opinion is relevant as an opinion. It has been included in the criticism section. This is discussed above. Naturstud (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

ND training not equivalent to MD

Is the ND training of equal value to that of an MD? Is the MD training of equal value to that of an MD? This is vague judgment statement that without context seems to imply that one training standard is superior (of greater value) than the other. No references are provided to back up the statement, outside of the opinion of Atwood, an MD who's opinion is only notable because of his opposition to all things naturopathic. This POV is fine in the criticism section but should not be stated as fact in the description about NDs. If somebody wants to cite the differences in hours of training between the two programs, or any other relevant facts I am fine with that, btw. Facts please. 72.0.222.217 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The way to balance POV isn't to delete it, it's to show the other side by citing verifiable reliable sources. There may be valid reasons why ND programs don't need internships and residencies. Just show the sources.LeadSongDog come howl 03:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another tried-and-true way to balance a POV is to make sure that it is clearly atributed to it's author. And yet another way to balance a POV is to avoid giving it undue weight by restating it three times in one article. And yes, another way to maintain NPOV is to delete POV opinions (no matter how well sourced) that are too vague to be meaningful. We have choices on how to deal with the Atwood ref. Some POVs are best left out of an article. Finding an equally vague but opposing POV isn't always the best way to go. 72.0.222.218 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like eventually to integrate the Criticism section into the rest of the article - would this address your concerns? - Eldereft (cont.) 15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article would do better to have very specific criticism 'in-line' rather than at the end. The reason for this is because 'naturopathy' as a concept is so vague that it can simultaneously describe practices and beliefs that are irrational and dangerous or that are highly effective, well researched and generally regarded as safe. A 'naturopath' could be a regulated professional with a BSc followed by 3 years basic medical sciences, 1 year clinical training and 3 million in malpractice insurance. On the other hand, a 'naturopath' could signify somone who took a weekend course, has no clinical training or insurance and is subject to no regulatory standard of practice. The problem with the criticism in this article has historically been that it has been too vague. The trick is to find quality criticism and apply it appropriately. Atwood and Barret, though popular, easy to find, and fun to agree with if you share their POV, seldom get the job done, because they do not use an evidence based model to support their claims. They also have a tendancy to insult NDs and call them names. Great stuff on quackwatch, but not likely to make for a stable wiki page. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Vitalism

I just reverted a few new changes. The comparison between the education of an ND and an MD is sourced (both for accuracy and relevance), and discussed at length above. So far as I can tell, there is a pretty solid consensus that the comparison should be made. If anyone would like to propose additional sources or alternate wording, please do so in a new section below.

This change also restored the word vitalism to the first sentence of the lead. The connection is well-sourced (in my humble opinion, of course), considered highly relevant by independent sources, and not contradicted by any source that I have seen discussing the underlying philosophy. Is there a better way that we could be presenting this information? - Eldereft (cont.) 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to report the comparison made by Atwood. Please see discussion above as to why Atwood's sourced opinion can not be stated as fact. The sourced opinion does belong in the criticism section where it is correctly identified as such. I have no problem with the wording that appears in the criticism section. The wording in the ND section however is pure POV (Atwood's). BTW, is it really necessary to repeat the opinion of Atwood - that ND training is not as valuable as MD training - three times in the article? I smell a little 'undue weight' here. Why is this prominent critic of Naturopathy being quoted three times? Why is the article paroting his opinion as though it were a fact in two out of those three times? 64.235.217.157(talk) 04:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem with 'vitalism' references - but they need context/explanation. How is naturopathic philosophy like vitalism? I am not arguing against the comparison, just scratching my head. As someone who thinks he understands the Vis medicatrix and vitalism, I don't really understand how they are being compared. Perhaps some more sources explaining the comparison will make this clearer. Otherwise, the comparison is 'deadwood', unlikely to add anything for the reader. I suspect it has been added here because for some people, 'vitalism' is code for 'quacky', 'mystical' or 'irrational'. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The sources say that the underlying philosophy is a form of vitalism, as stated under Naturopathy#Principles. From the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine (current reference 1): The philosophy that underlies naturopathic medicine is called vitalism. Vitalism is the belief that life cannot be reduced to a collection of physical and chemical data, and that the human body has an innate wisdom or inner drive toward vitality and health. Encarta lists naturopathy as an example of Vitalistic medicine (we used this as a source briefly, but I removed it as the point did not seem contentious and the degree of detail offered by the source is minimal). Bridgeport states The healing process is ordered and intelligent; nature heals through the response of the life force., which sounds like a fair description of vitalism to me; clearly, the tendency to heal being referred to by at least some accredited NDs is not merely platelets and antibodies. Probably each of those bullets in Principles could be expanded into a paragraph - would that be good?

Also, writing as the person who added vitalism adhering as closely as I could to our sources, I can assure you that there was no ulterior motive to improving our coverage of this topic. Also also, I think that holistic serves as the same sort of signifier to some people, but it is also sourced. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think expanding the meaning of the principles is an excellent idea. This was done before but wound up being deleted because some editors claimed it was reading like an ad for the nat med colleges. A modern interpretation of the 'life force' to many in the profession describes the sum total of the physiological pathways that have evolved to protect and heal us. Finding good references for this non-magical Vis 2.0 may be difficult, but I will give it a go. 72.0.222.218 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Towards a strategy for criticism in this article

Sorry if this is out of place in the discussion, but the reason I have replaced 'Atwood assessed...' with 'Atwood claims...' is because it is unusual to describe a criticism offered by a single author writing sui generis as an 'assesment'. 'Assessment' implies an judicious review of facts by a qualified authority, often with some sort of binding authority. Atwood has, all on his own, made a controverisal claim that is binding on no-one. (He himself admits an overwhelming number of letters in opposition to what he has written.) He does not seem to have reviewed, studied or 'assessed' anything other than his own feelings in coming to his conclusion. No need to dress this up so that is carries more weight than it actually does. Atwood 'claimed'. The Massachusetts Association of Naturopathic Doctors 'claimed'. It was Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Massachusetts who 'assessed'.72.0.222.219 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the above, is Atwood's opinion really worthy of the lead? I will not remove it for now, and appreciate the more NPOV language that has been adopted. In the long term, I would like to see criticism in the body of the article and a general summary (not a repetition) of criticism in the lead:

• 'Criticism of naturopathy adresses/questions the philosophical beliefs of naturopaths, the safety and effictiveness of specific naturopathic treatments, the quality of training that naturopaths recieve, the lack of consistent regulation amongst jurisdictions and....' (etc).

With a general overview of criticism in the lead, specific criticisms could be placed where they are most apropriate. For example, alongside the discussion of the 'healing power of nature' the article should mention that there also exists a killing power in nature! Mentioning one particular criticism (Atwood's) in the lead is borederline undue weight, since there is nothing particularly special about his particualr criticism. Perhaps when more criticisms are applied in the main body of the article, we can replace the lonely Atwood reference in the lead with a summary statement like the one above? 72.0.222.219 (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First Paragraph

I understand that there is significant debate about the verifiability and scientific rigor of naturopathic medicine. However, it does not seem neutral to include criticism of naturopathic medicine in the first paragraph of its description. When terms such as "quackery" are used in the introduction to a topic, it shows the bias of the author and may dissuade some readers from continuing on.Fecund1 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that 'quackery' is not appropriate. Firstly, the term is being aplied here to homeopathy - but the article is supposed to be about naturopathy. Secondly, although many scientists have concluded that homeopathy is not supported by evidence, only one or two have been angry/rude enough to use such insulting language. Why are we giving such an inflammatory, fringe characterization about homeopathy such weight? And why are we doing it in an article about naturopathy? If a notable critic has used such unfortunate language, I have no problem with reporting this criticism, but there is no need to promote this fringe view in the lead. 72.0.222.219 (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)