Jump to content

Talk:Naturopathy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SliverWind (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 2 April 2017 (→‎Discussion on Naturopathy.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Facts left out?

Very biased article, not to mention all relevant facts are left out. One fact being that standard medicine is often based off naturopathic medicine, examples are ibuprofen is based off wintergreen, and aspirin is based off willow bark. Companies find the active ingredient in natural medicine, then synthetically produce it bringing side effects. This article needs to be revised today as it bears false witness. Also it does not include the the successful treatments of diseases like yellow root (goldenseal) and tuberculosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.57.88 (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a revisionist view at odds with the documented facts. Naturopathy as documented here is a modern-day cult. There is no single strand of historical practice, but if there were, then naturopathy and medicine would at best have a common ancestor, medicine is not descended from or informed by naturopathy in any meaningful way. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your exacting response, Guy (Help!). Delta13C (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bias on this page and related pages (e.g. alternative medicine) is so clear and troubling that it's impossible to know where to begin. So I'll start with my credentials: I'm a board-certified practitioner of internal medicine in the US. That is to say, by credentials I'm about as mainstream as one can get. I find it interesting that I'm finding it most appropriate to learn a lot of hardcore biochemistry from what the detractors believe is the lunatic fringe. Thanks for guarding us all against homeopathy and astral projection and chakra balancing and whatnot, but maybe it's time to recognize that the world of "alternative medicine" is bigger than just what your biases allow you to perceive. For starters, a great deal of the material that falls under the category of naturopathy is rooted first and foremost in nutritional science - an area that too many of us mainstream doctors know woefully little of until something forces us to confront our biases and start fact checking. I've met too many clueless certified nutritionists who don't know the first thing about diabetes and who only know how to make the problem worse--despite the fact that Type 2 diabetes can largely be managed with diet ALONE. I've met far too many doctors who can't think beyond whatever new medicine is being promoted by a pharmaceutical company. Conversely, it was a naturopath who turned me onto the virtues of alpha-lipoic acid for diabetic peripheral neuropathy... ...and diabetes in general... and a few minutes worth of research shows... well... what? Why don't you self-proclaimed skeptics go find out about what actually works in the real world and then come back? Because in the meantime, you're not helping. Slowgenius (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the argument from authority will get you nowhere here. If you have sources, that meet WP:MEDRS by all means bring them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information

The sources I chose were accurate, independent, and reliable. Thanks for locking the thread to prevent trolling, but you may want to use "allopathy" in those articles instead of "modern science." Why? Because the term "modern science" 1) not normally used in relation to allopathy, but instead "modern medicine" is used instead, and 2) "allopathy" is a far more accurate term. Note that allopathy has dangerous side effects with its medications, which is common knowledge among practically everyone. Thanks to you, I had to start a new discussion, and I will point out the problems within this page and the pages closely related to it. Apparently, Guy locked my thread. This infuriates me. I truly feel offended by the outrageous censorship campaign trolls are doing to the naturopathy article, which includes people who keep bullying naturopaths on wikipedia. That is not NPOV at all when people bully others to keep an article biased. GetResearchFunction (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:NPOV, it doesn't say we do 'fair and balanced'. We use the scientific consensus. You should also read the archives here. Finally, if you think there is some sort of massive conspiracy or coverup or censorship or whatever you should mention that at WP:ANI, that's where editor conduct problems are taken care of , not on talk pages. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read www.naturopathic.org at least. --GetResearchFunction (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a source that meets WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's quack central. Look at this BS for example.[1]. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that locking a discussion meant just start a new one to keep complaining that science is biased. Natureium (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-industry PR sources don't meet WP:MEDRS. GetResearchFunction (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.. but we aren't using any non MEDRS sources. Roxy the dog. bark 14:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GetResearchFunction, here's how this works. If you identify a statement in the article which is incorrect, or you think a new statement is needed, then suggest it here. Do this in the form "paragraph X, please change to Y based on Z source". The sources must meet WP:RS and especially WP:MEDRS. If you want to rail against the scientific community's unfairness towards unsubstantiated claims, or make philosophical points about the need to accept much lower standards of evidence for products that can't meet the normal scientific standards, this is not the place. You can do that on your user page. Policy is what it is, and this is the place to discuss improving the article within policy, not how to change, bend or subvert policy to make the article conform more closely to your belief system. There are lots of experienced editors here who can answer any specific questions you might have about the reliability of individual sources, the applicability of policy to specific claims and so on. Guy (Help!) 15:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read lower comment. GetResearchFunction (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read upper comment. GetResearchFunction (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling errors/typos

There are several spelling errors/typos through the article, but since it's not up for edit, we can't correct them. Who can?

The page is currently semi-protected which means unregistered editors and newly registered users can't edit, but established editors can make changes to the article. You can just suggest edits just by typing here or by using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Deli nk (talk) 12:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

natropaths -> naturopaths 78.99.133.75 (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alexbrn (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathy

I find it quite unfortunate that Wiki and it's users adhere to the slanderous propaganda of "mainstream medicine" when it comes to Naturopathy. I would like to see the article changed, at the very least, to something neutral regarding natural medicine. Naturopathic medicinal practices have been utilized by healers as longs as healing has been around. Hippocrates is widely considered the father of Naturopathic medicine and was a great healer of his time. His philosophy was that the body has the ability to heal itself as long as we treat it the way it was designed. That being said, if we eat natural unprocessed foods, it is widely known that this will (in most cases) present with better overall health. In contrast, if we toxify our bodies with chemical laden foods and other toxins (ingestible, inhalable, injectible, absorbable chemicals), then we are prone to poor health. Naturopathic Physicians combine the benefits different modalities of medicine, from ancient healing arts, such as Ayurveda, Acupuncture, and Herbal medicine (and more) to Modern "Conventional" medicine such as laboratory analysis, medical imaging, chiropractic manipulation, oncology, biology (and more). Just as in "Conventional" Medicine, there are many practitioners of Naturopathic Medicine. Also as in Western medicine, some practitioners are quite skilled in healing, others less so. Licensed Naturopathic Physicians are trained in multiple modalities of both Western and Eastern Medicine. A large difference, however, is that Western Medicine physicians are trained to treat symptomatically (mostly with prescription drugs or surgery), while Naturopathic Physicians are trained to find the root cause of the symptoms and fix the problem causing the symptoms. Their training is very much diet/nutrition based because improper nutrition is, most times, the initial cause of illness. With all of the faith that is put in Western Medicine, how much does it actually benefit? In the United States, "medical errors" is now considered the 3rd leading cause of death (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/?utm_term=.b34300ceb2fc) The point of this is not to say that Naturopathic Medicine is a cure all or a magic fix. My point is only to show that it is, in fact, a legitimate science and medicinal modality, and should be reflected as such, especially when described by such a widely used information source, such as Wikipedia. Here are some articles that speak to the legitimacy of Naturopathic Medicine, for what it's worth: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-weeks/integrative-medicine_b_1584998.html http://optimalintegration.org/project-perl/achieving-competency-in-evidence-informed-practice-a-resource_guide/ep4-analyze-the-research-base.php http://www.naturopathy-union.eu/en/naturopathy/ https://nccih.nih.gov/health/naturopathy https://www.anme-ngo.eu/en/364-swiss-recognize-homeopathy-legitimate-medicine.html http://www.thenddc.com/know-naturopathic-doctors/ Vpsdudley (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive suggestions are welcome, but for an article such as this one that has been through many hard-fought discussions, you need to make concrete and specific suggestions based on sources that meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 05:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Naturopathy.

I made a constructive edit that NeilN has reverted in seconds. Sorry for being harsh, but I am very offended by this behavior, and I do not tolerate it.

Back to disscussion, I am pretty sure that NVIC is WP:MEDRS already, so I added some minor details to fix WP:GEVAL issues. Does that fix anything? --SliverWind (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naturopathy&oldid=773501552"