Talk:Naturopathy

Dispute tags!

I must say I find it very heartening to see that somebody finally noticed that the bulk of the original article came straight out of the materials used by the AANP/CNME and their related schools used to lobby legislators in favor of licensing laws.

While admittedly I have used published documents from professional associations, and certification boards to refer to factual information about the profession of naturopathy (as did the Naturopathic Medicine advocates) when correcting historical points of fact, or misleading statements I relied almost entirely upon on public governmental records: Examples include:

The original article claimed the ANA split into six distinct groups. However DC incorporation records affirm that the organization has continuously been incorporated and remains in good standing to this day: American Naturopathic Association Certificate of Incorporation and Standing, Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division.

The original article indicated the CNME was the only organization recognized by the government as representing Naturopathy. Once again I relied on Governmental Records to challenge the claim: National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA Certificate of Incorporation and Standing Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (continuously incorporated and in good standing to this day)

Wendel V. Spencer, U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia (1954) Wendel challenged the DC Licensing office. The courts held that the National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA was a legitimate authority defining educational standards and certifying individuals with respect to DC issuing Registrations. THE ONE non-governmental source used - Standardized Naturopathy, Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO ©1951 - is included as a legal exhibit in this case.

The original article attempted to blame the AMA for the decline of the profession. Sunset reports and reviews conducted by states that licensed the profession challenge this notion and were sourced appropriately: Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986) Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, State of Utah, 1979 Sunset Report on Naturopathic Licensing, Arizona Auditor Generals Office, September 16, 1981

Not included in the article were public records demonstrating that the Three of the schools, the CNME the AANP and the testing organization are in fact the same people (which would seem to go against the Independent Research or Self Generated Sources policy on Wikipedia).

Since this is an affirmative claim it is only fitting and proper I back that claim up!

1 The National College of Naturopathic Medicine was legally incorporated in Portland, but conducted classes in Seattle WA. from it's founding in 1956 to the late 1970’s when it opened it's Portland Campus

Sources: Correspondence from the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to Hon. Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Senate Finance Committee (September 10, 1970)

“Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)

Self Study Report, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland Oregon (1979)

2. When the NCNM opened it's campus, the Seattle campus of the NCNM was renamed and incorporated as the John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine (Bastyr) in honor of a past president of the NCNM. It is also notworthyh that both Portland Campus of NCNM and Bastyr University graduated their first class of students educated exclusively at that campus in the same year (1979)

Sources: School Catalog, John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine, (Volume 4 Spring 1982)

Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, A report to the Legislature, State of Utah, 1979

3 The Southwestern College of Naturopathic Medicine (SCNM). Similar to the relationship between Bastyr and NCNM, SCNM was founded by a 1983 NCNM graduate a Bastyr Graduate and former president of the NCNM.

Sources: State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.

Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Founders list.

Also noteworthy during the period the SCNM ran into financial trouble the President of NCME, the CNME and head of the taskforce created to solve those problems was the same person.

Source: Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Public information notice (December, 1999)

4. The same individual who formed the National College of Naturopathic Medicine also formed the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians (NANP) in order to accredit his own school.

Source: “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)

Those claims I disputed were disputed not based on my personal opinion, or the opinion of some rival organization with an agenda. They were disputed using independent governmental reports and records. Ndma1

ED Gov Page

The Department of Education, by statutory authority of the US Congress is the granting authority and therefore as a matter of law supercedes the CNME's claims otherwise. If the CNME feels that DOE is in error there are channels they can follow, when and if the Department of Education decides it made an error and changes it's grant of authority CNME position will be legally valid. Until then the CNME and state laws notwithstanding (Reference Article VI Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution), the legal designation for Doctor of Naturopathy is represented by the initals (ND), and the legal designation for Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine is represented by the initials (NMD).--Ndma1 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Every graduate from the CNME accredited schools, recognized by the US Department of Education (in the US), graduates with a "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine Degree" and is abbreviated as ND, except for SCNM which uses the same title a but abbreviated with NMD. It's a fact, and for someone who knows the history of Naturopathic Medicine in North America as well as you do and deny it, is blatant ignorance...

What's more, schools like Clayton USED to offer a "Doctor of Naturopathy" degree, also abbreviating the title as ND until they stopped offering the program last year. This ND degree, like its "accrediting body", was never recognized by any government entity. Are you telling me that there's a correspondence school that is currently offering a ND degree with the title "Doctor Naturopathy"? It appears you've searched the web, looking for a page (and it happened to be a ed.gov page with incorrect info) to support your inaccurate POV. I would offer you to look in many directions, like CAND.org, naturopathic.org, NCNM.edu, etc., etc. and you will find that NONE of them offer or accredit a "Doctor of Naturopathy" degree. But of course you already knew this...

Please don't attempt to confuse the reader by perpetuating the idea that the "Doctor of Naturopathy" is the only way to be an ND, and that all practicing, primary care providing, "medicalized" naturopathic physicians are NMD's and only NMD's. In all the licensed states, to have an ND behind your name and practice medicine, you HAVE to have a "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" degree. I'm a Naturopathic Physician, I went to NCNM, and my protected and recognized title is Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. Abbreviated ND. --Travis Thurston+ 09:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have bit my tongue until but I think it is time to but my cars on the table. My issue is the naturopathic medicine advocates attempting to confuse the public that Doctor of Naturopathy and Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine are the same degree. That naturopathic medicine is the same profession and the thousands of non CNME naturopaths are all frauds obtaining their degree from a diploma mill. In the decade or so that I have been aware (and admittedly mildly amused most of the time) at this rift in the profession, not once has the AANP/CNME acknowledged the American School of Naturopathy (Southern "winter campus" operated in Tangerine, FL. until 2002 and now operates in Priest River ID.) or the Yungborn Institute also founded by Dr. Lust in 1896 both federally chartered prior to the formation of the Department of Education and therefore still federally recognized under the grandfather clause in the DOE act. Here are two examples of Naturopathic schools that hold to the 4100 hours of Naturopathic Study, and residential clinical internship called for in Standardized Naturopathy and the Natonal Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA (First Federally recognized in 1956). But the AANP crowd never mentions them or the 5000 graduates practicing in the US. Instead they point to Clayton and then mutter stuff about diploma mills. the CNME makes a big fuss about "Correspondence Schools" but completely ignore the fact that Dr. Benedict Lust created the first Naturopathic Correspondence program in the US. This program was included monthly installments in the ANA's magazine "Herald of Health" as well as a packaged program that could be purchased separately. If one completed the program they would receive a certificate of completion, however to be granted an actual degree, the student must first successfully challenge a comprehensive certification examination and complete a residential internship at a Naturopathic hospital or clinic (yet another first in naturopathy introduced by Dr. Lust).

Here is the whole story about Clayton, Yes they are operating on the legal margins. The State of Alabama (where Clayton is headquartered) has not granted Clayton authority to grant degrees in Alabama so they only grand degrees outside of Alabama, and use a different school (outside of Alabama) to grant degrees to people in Alabama. Clayton has no authority by any state to grant degrees but the seem to fall through a legal loophole. The courts have ruled the State of Alabama has no legal standing to shut them down because Clayton does not issue degrees to citizens of Alabama. Because Clayton does require 'substantial' (FBI's words not mine - certainly not the 4100 hours required by Standardized Naturopathy) they cannot be legally classified as a diploma mill. The "loopholes" in the law allowing this marginally legal practice have since been closed so there will be no more marginally legal operations like this (which is a good thing!). But other than The American School and Yungborn which are federally chartered, there are half a dozen other schools that do have legal authority from the State to grant the Doctor of Natropathy degree, and about 20 that have legal authority from the state to grant certificates and undergraduate degrees in Naturopathy or Natural health representing more than 75% of the conventional naturopaths in the US. SO why is it the only school you folks ever seem to bring up is Clayton? Unless the purpose is to mislead the public about the legitimacy of conventional (or if you prefer Traditional) naturopathy?

I will say the same thing I said to the Minnesota Legislature in 1999. "There are two distinct manifestations of Naturopathy in the US. One that has been recognized by the US congress as a common occupation, which does not undertake to practice medicine and is already a legal profession, we can call these folks "Classical Naturopaths". Then there is a group that wishes to adopt conventional medical practices and therefore may not be legally practiced without a license, the advocates of "Naturopathic Medicine" who back the bill we are discussing today. Different tiers of practitioners is not at all uncommon in healthcare. In Minnesota there are no less than four tiers in nursing, Nurses assistants which are not licensed, Licensed practical Nurses, Registered Nurses and Registered Certified Nurse Anestistists. All fulfilling a legitimate niche in the field of nursing and all peacefully coexisting. This bill before you breaks with that tradition in that instead of peaceful coexistence it disenfranchises Classical Naturopaths. This bill was introduced because one of three "Naturopathic Medicine" practitioners, Dr. Helen Healey, was arrested for practicing medicine without a license. There are currently 3 Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine known to operate in the state of Minnesota, at least one of those three has chosen to ignore the law and violated the Minnesota Medical Practice acts. Yet there are about 45 Classical Naturopaths, none of which has been arrested for violating the law, none of which has harmed the public. Fourty-five honest, hardworking law abiding citizens engaged in the legal practice of Naturopathy and harming nobody who would become criminals overnight should this bill become law. Neither I nor any of the Classical Naturopaths I have had the pleasure to talk to object to Dr. Healey being allowed to practice legally, or the state at her request regulating the profession, but we most certainly and rightfully object that the Classical Naturopathic community specifically, and hundreds of practitioners of various modalities that make up Classical Naturopathy would be disenfranchised in the process."

Within six weeks the Minnesota Coalition for Natural Health - the grass roots organization that got the bill introduced originally, turned against the bill, and ultimately the first Health Care Freedom act was passed in the United States. Today Naturopathic Medicine is regulated in Minnesota (Registration) but Naturopaths are also able to continue to practice under the Health Care Freedom Act. Of the last three states to regulate Naturopathic Medicine, MT, CA, ID, two Idaho, and California included specific exemptions to allow Traditional Naturopaths to continue to engage in the already legal practice of naturopathy. The tide has turned, the AANP's dream of eliminating all other naturopaths is dead. The Dream of teh ANMA and others to destroy Naturopathic Medicine is dead. Despite dissenters on both sides, like it or not Naturopathy is divided into two distinct groups. It is time for both groups put aside their differences, and work together for the benefit of the profession as a whole. Then Naturopathy can reach it's full potential. Those who would seek to destroy the other only hurt their own profession in the long run and are stifling the progress of the profession. --99.93.112.160 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

All well and good. Your reply still doesn't address your incorrect assertion that practicing "medicalized" ND's hold the title "Doctor of Naturopathy" and that "Doctors of Naturopathic Medicine" only use NMD.

Oh, and please answer me this; Can a person acquire a "Doctor of Naturopathy" degree anymore? Thought maybe you would know this. As far as my googling goes, I can't find one school that offers it anymore. --Travis Thurston+ 21:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not even talking about titles, I am talking about academic degrees. NONE of the CNME schools advertises or grants the Doctor of Naturopathy degree, the all advertise and grant Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree. The DOE represents these as two different degrees. Doctor of Naturopathy (ND), Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (NMD) they do NOT present the representation Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (ND OR NMD) as you have asserted. A title is a different issue entirely various states reserve the use of various titles for licensed individuals however that is not legally a grant of any kind (such a grant is prohibited by federal law). --Ndma1 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC

Exactly. None of the CMNE schools grant a naturopathy degree. The ed.gov page in question refers to CNME being an accrediting body that it recognizes. Bottom line is that the accrediting agencies that oversee the "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" degree (ND and NMD) are recognized and are able to receive Federal Student Aid. ANMA is not recognized, therefore the students of "Doctor of Naturopathy" degrees are not eligible. This page does not pertain to anything but the degrees recognized by CNME. --Travis Thurston+ 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

To your second question. The sources I listed identify 4 schools granting the Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) Degree recognized by the ANMA (The University of Natural Medicine, Trinity College of Natural Health, International Institute of Original Medicine, Canyon College). The NBNE has approved two schools that are currently operating, American School of Naturopathy, Yungborn Institute. Thats six. There are also other schools that are affiliated or recognized by smaller groups, more general natural health organzations or foreign organizations. The Kingdom College of Natural Health, Corinthian Naturopathic College. This list should not be considered exhaustive, and it deliberately excludes non-doctorate certificate and undergraduate degree programs, but in answer to your question, yes people can still earn a Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) Degree in the United States. IF that option every goes away there are about a dozen colleges throughout Europe that also offer Doctor of Naturopathy (ND) Degrees. Germany and Eastern European countries have curriculum and practices that most closely follow Traditional Naturopathy while the United Kingdom is divided similar to the US only the Traditional Naturopaths are the only ones on track with the British self regulation program (the British version of Licensure). --Ndma1 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! It's amazing that you can get a doctorate degree from Canyon College after taking 25 distance learning classes with no clinical training. Not to mention a bachelors degree isn't even required before admission to the program and their accrediting body IS NOT recognized by the DoE. "The online ND degree program requires completion of 68 credit hours" and you can substitute credits with "Previous Life Experience".[1] I would imagine this program will soon follow the fate of Clayton's. It seems that the American School of Naturopathy and Yungborn Institute don't even have websites. Based on what I am seeing here, I'm not convinced these degree programs are still in operation. Perhaps I'll put a call into Canyon on Monday to clear it up. --Travis Thurston+ 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are attempting to compare the education for Traditional Naturopaths who do not hold themselves out to be primary care, undertake to diagnose or treat disease, prescribe drugs or perform 'minor' surgery against Naturopathic Medicine who do wish to do these things. So you are comparing apples to oranges again!

Interesting, you apparently counted the courses but did not take the time to actually read it. Here is what you apparently missed:

The link you provided indicated the course DOES require a Bachelors with a minimum 2.5 GPA.

Two required courses (NH 764 and NH 756) are Clinical classes totaling 150 hours.

But there is enough information to provide an apples to apples comparison: If we count only the Naturopathic Portion of the Curriculum at NCNM and omit the Conventional Medicine portions we end up with the following.

National College of Naturopathic Medicine Naturopathic Classes: 24

Total Clinical Hours: 3 Quarter Credits (2 Semester Credits) 72 Contact Hours

Total Didactic Hours: 48.5 Quarter Credits (32.3 Semester Credits)570 Contact Hours

Total Naturopthic Subjects: 51.5 Quarter Credits (34.3 Semester Credits) 642 Contact Hours

Canyon College Classes 25:

Total Clinical Hours: 15 Quarter Credits (10 Semester Credits) 150 Contact Hours

Total Didactic Hours: 79.5 Quarter Credits (58 Semester Credits)870 Contact Hours

Total Naturopathic Subjects: 94.5 Quarter Credits (68 Semester Credits)1020 Contact Hours

Looking only at the naturopathic content, the National College of Naturopathic Medicine provides about half the training of Canyon College, and less than half the clinical time.

Now lets take a more general look at Canyon College verses general norms:

Credit Hours needed to ear a post bachelors professional doctorate: 60 Canyon 68 No problem here

Credit for life experience (Assessment of prior knowledge) has been around the main-stream college and university system for more than 20 years. This would include CLEP exams, Credit for work experience and credit based on examination. No problem here!

In the US accreditation is not required and degree granting authority is granted by the States. The question is has the state given this school authority to grant the degrees it does, if so the degree is completely legal, if not then you should probably file a complaint with the state AGO. --Ndma1 (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Apples to Oranges indeed. Not sure where you got the info for NCNM. A quick glance at my records shows 1548 clinic and 2292 lecture hours during the 5 year program. We covered 25 courses alone half way through the Spring quarter of the first year. See and example of the 5 year track at NCNM. If you'd like, I can send you an official copy. --Travis Thurston+ 10:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

At a quick glance you saw no bachelors degree required as a prerequisite for the program --- which is incorrect. At a quick glance you saw no clinical requirements --- which was incorrect.

Once again Traditional Naturopathy does not practice conventional medicine, they do not diagnose or treat diseases, they do not prescribe drugs or disease/symptom specific remedies, they do not perform invasive surgery, etc. etc. In short they do not practice medicine. Because Traditional Naturopaths do not practice medicine, the portion of the NCNM cirriculum that is medical related rightfully should not be included in the comparison. If we compare only Naturopathy related courses here is what we find:

From the four year program and NCNM the first year there are 30 classes available.

3 - classes in Traditional Naturopathic subjects.

NPH410 Naturopathic Med History & Phil & Ther I 24.00 24.00 2.00 NPH411 Naturopathic Retreat 18.00 18.00 1.50 PHM412 Hydrotherapy w/Lab 24.00 12.00 36.00 2.00

10% of the curriculum in the first year is Naturopathy.

From the four year program and NCNM the second year there are 37 classes available.

8 - classes in Traditional Naturopathic subjects (12% cumulative)

HOM510 Intro Homeopathy 24.00 24.00 2.00 NPH511 Naturopathic Medical Phil & Ther II 12.00 12.00 1.00 BOT520 Botanical Materia Medicia I 36.00 36.00 3.00 CLE530 Clinical Hydro Integration* 24.00 12.00 1.00 HOM520 Homeopathy I 24.00 24.00 2.00 BOT530 Botanical Materia Medica II 24.00 24.00 2.00 HOM530 Homeopathy II 24.00 24.00 2.00 NUT530 Nutrition I 36.00 36.00 3.00

21% of the curriculum in the second year is naturopathy (16% cumulative)

From the four year program and NCNM the third year there are 40 classes available.

7 - classes in Traditional Naturopathic Subjects

BOT610 Botanical Materia Medica III 36.00 36.00 3.00 HOM610 Homeopathy III 36.00 36.00 3.00 NUT611 Nutrition II 36.00 36.00 3.00 HOM620 Homeopathy IV 36.00 36.00 3.00 NUT622 Nutrition III 36.00 36.00 3.00 NPH610 Naturopathic Medical Phil Tutorial 18.00 18.00 1.50 NUT633 Nutrition IV 36.00 36.00 3.00

17% of the curriculum in the third years is naturopathy (16% cumulative)

From the four year program and NCNM the fourth year there are 38 classes available.

0 - Classes in Traditional Naturopathic Subjects

0% of the curriculum in the fourth year is naturopathy (

Throw in the handful of classes that are not specifically naturopathic or medical but have application:

PSY522 Psychological Diagnosis 24.00 24.00 2.00 NPH531 Medical Ethics 12.00 12.00 1.00 CLS632 First Aid & Emergency Medicine 24.00 24.00 2.00 PSY611 Interviewing Techniques I 12.00 12.00 24.00 1.50 PSY712 Interviewing Techniques II 30.00 30.00 2.50 NPH731 Jurisprudence 12.00 12.00 1.00

Thats 24 classes in Naturopathy or general subjects that would be applicable in a Traditional Naturopathic Practice - 18%

The Remainder are either basic sciences (mostly anatomy and physiology) and conventional medicine classes.

Standardized Naturopathy - the standard accepted by the NBNE calls for the following

1500 hours in basic sciences (Chem, A&P, Biology, Microbiology, Physics) which is included in the NCNM program but not in the Canyon College Curriculum.

200 hours in general subjects (Jurisprudence, Administration etc.etc) which is better represented in the NCNM Program than the the Canyon College program.

2400 hours in naturopathic theory and practice (not including residential clincial internship) Canyon College has double that of NCNM in their curriculum, but the fact is neither NCNM nor Canyon College comes close to meeting this standard standard!

NCNM could be said to meet or exceed the standards for Basic Sciences and General Studies portion of the Doctor Of Naturopathy degree requirements established by the NBNE it is more than 1800 hours deficient in Naturopathic theory and practice. Canyon college fairs a little better on the Naturopathic Theory and Practice side only about 1200 hour deficient but neither meets the minimum requirements for NBNE Doctor of Naturopathy Degree. the NBNE does not maintain separate curriculum standard for a Certificate in Naturopathy, however such standards to exist in Britain and Europe. The Curriculum at Canyon College would appear to meet the Certificate in Naturopathy standards in Britain and Europe, but the NCNM curriculum appears to fall short there as well.

My personal analysis, Schools of Naturopathic Medicine and the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine degree amounts to being a conventional medical degree (albeit arguably deficient) with a smattering of naturopathic subjects thrown in. --99.93.112.160 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reflexology revisited:

Effects objectively observed using conventional medical imaging methods

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18938220?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=19 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11340315?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=85

Studies showing effectiveness of Reflexology http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10660924?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=94 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12715585?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=72 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14556770?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=67 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15502439?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=62 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15778569?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=58 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16418548?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=54 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520560?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=50 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520577?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=49 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19994698?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16487421?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=53

Measurable but limited 'diagnostic' applications:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14518162?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=68

There are also a few negative articles like the one cited in the wikipedia article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14518162?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=68

Given these were all from the same source, one has to wonder if a little cherry picking was used when looking at the issue?

In any event, the above studies, the two using imaging to observe the effect of reflexology in real time indicates reflexology may have legitimate benefit. Under wikipedias NPOV standards, this should be reflected in the article.

--Ndma1 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me which sources are about naturopathy or mention naturopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Heide M, Heide MH (2009). "[Reflexology--nothing in common with scientific naturopathic treatments]". Versicherungsmedizin. 61 (3): 129–35. PMID 19860172. In reality, however, reflexology is an unconventional, alternative, paramedical and esoterical "outsider" method that has nothing in common with serious naturopathic treatments

The 2009 study is specifically about naturopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I made this change in accordance with MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it was ironic, Reflexology was dropped by the AANP folks about 12 years ago,and now an increasing number of studies show it may actually have some therapeutic value... I must admit it do find it somewhat amusing, 12 studies indicating reflexology has some merit one study that says it does not - all from the same repository and you post the one that says it does not ROFL ... I guess that answers any POV questions I might have had! --Ndma1 (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

See MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies".

Using primary studies instead of reviews is a violation of MEDRS. The reference used in this article is about naturopathy. General research on reflexology is not specific to naturopathy. I think this answers your questions. QuackGuru (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used but are subject to special guidelines. That notwithstanding the article in question is in German from a German magazine. The only thing in English is an abstract. A Secondary source is one that reviews one or more primary sources or secondary sources. The abstract makes no mention of anything being reviewed and could just as easily be an opinion piece. There simply is not enough information in the abstract to tell! The abstract is correct in stating that Naturopathy is complementary or supplemental to conventional medical care. That is because there is no such thing as "Naturopathic Medicine" in Germany (Or most of Europe and Asia for that matter), it's all Traditional Naturopathy so the water is not muddied. --99.93.112.160 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Using primary sources to argue against reviews is against MEDRS. If no review is available we can use the reliable sources available. The abstract is enough information to write something for this article and is verifiable in accordance with WP:V. Traditional naturopathy is part of naturopathy. So it is relevant information for this article. If a study is from Germany then that could be explained in the article like this. If you want to explain there is a difference between naturopaths in different countries we probably need a source for that. QuackGuru (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but a primary source would be a valid argument against an opinion. But it would not be appropriate in an article because that would fail the NPOV test (at wikipedia we can report on disagreements but not participate in them)- which is why I presented in in talk - to get some discussion on the matter! Germany and Europe are a little more in line with the original nature cure and hydrotherapy movement. A lot of the qwackery that has found it's way into US Naturopathy (Irridology, energy work like therapeutic touch, homeopathy) was never integrated into European naturopathy -A good thing! One of Bendict Lusts weak points was his disdain for conventional medicine was so intense he tended to accept anything that opposed it no matter how outlandish. A less than positive legacy traditional naturopaths in the us bear to this day, which is one of the reasons I (and more than a few others) embrace EBM as a means to weed out the chaff, so to speak. I felt it made more sense to get he main article more NPOV before looking into detail at other countries - but there are only so many hours in a day and I have several production deadlines I have to worry about (naturopathy is just a avocation - I am a software engineer by trade). --Ndma1 (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A primary source could be used against an opinion paper if the primary source mentions naturopathy. Naturopathy studies are better than general alternative medicine studies. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Effectiveness

A systematic review of the efficacy of reflexology found one study showing a statistically significant effect in the treatment of urinary symptoms in multiple sclerosis patients. All other conditions reviewed in this study showed no evidence of any specific effect.

Wang MY, Tsai PS, Lee PH, Chang WY, Yang CM (2008). "The efficacy of reflexology: systematic review". J Adv Nurs. 62 (5): 512–20. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04606.x. PMID 18489444.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

A 2009 systematic review of randomised controlled trials concluded that the latest available evidence does not show convincingly that reflexology is an effective treatment for any medical condition.

Ernst E (2009). "Is reflexology an effective intervention? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials". Med J Aust. 191 (5): 263–6. PMID 19740047.

If we included general information about reflexology we would use reviews in accordance with WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary quotes

This edit also added quotes to the text. Some quotes could be unnecessary. I suggest we remove the quotes from "Naturopathic medicine" and "Naturopathic physicians". QuackGuru (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Quackery

I see that there is a sentence in the introduction which reads, "homeopathy is often characterized as pseudoscience or quackery.", but the references in the article say that 'naturopathy' itself is considered quackery, so can we change it to say that 'naturopathy' itself is considered quackery. If that isn't possible, is it possible to remove the word 'quackery' from this article completely?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There are five references at that spot. Which one(s) are you referring to? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree the term 'quackery' is not very precise could and is generally overused. Depending on which definition used, if one applies the definition evenly the claim quackery could be made against practices from any approach including conventional medicine. For example prescribing antibiotics for a cold - colds are caused by a virus and are completely unaffected by antibiotics - prescribing treatments the practitioner knows will not work is a definition for quackery. Prescribing somebody with a B12 injection as a so the patient feels something was done (I have personally seen this done many times) B12 is indicated for pernecious anemia - prescribing a treatment for somehting the patient does not have, or has not been properly diagnosed - yet another definition for quackery. There is no question some of the approaches that have fallen at one time or another under naturopathy - rigth or wrongly - could be considered quackery using the same definitions, but it does seem to me that advocates for conventional medicine pointing the finger and crying quackery need to take a closer look at their own back yard! Ndma1 (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While my question was for Vittal, and you haven't tried to answer it, I'll share some thoughts. Yes, quackery can and does occur within conventional medicine, and many of the most famous quacks are MDs and dentists. If you study the Quackwatch website, you will note the list(s) of those whom they accuse of engaging in unethical, unscientific practices and quackery (they don't usually call anyone a "quack"...), they are dominated by medical professionals, with few ordinary persons included. As to the off-label use of medicines, in this case you mention the use of antibiotics for conditions caused by viruses, there is a very good reason for doing that. When the body is under attack by viruses, it becomes very susceptible to complications caused by bacteria, so using antibiotics makes good sense. Is this practice overdone in some cases? Probably so, but it's not quackery. It's just carelessness, or if carried to excess is malpractice, which isn't the same as quackery. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is prophylaxis and a growing amount of science suggests it may be one of the primary causes of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria appearing. What is the good reason for causing antibiotic resistant strains of bacterial to emerge? If a person with a cold actually develops an opportunistic bacterial infection then perhaps antibiotic might be warranted, otherwise the potential problems outweigh the likely benefits. OF course over prescribing antibiotics has been an issue recognized by the medical community for well over a decade! Since you objected I reviewed the sources. Yes homeopathy is one approach once used in the early history of naturopathy but later rejected because it introduced toxins into the body and generally is about as affective as a placebo. I am aware homeopathy is still be in use by used by the naturopathic medicine folks, and some of the under/improperly educated correspondence school naturopaths but it really has no place in modern naturopathic practice. (as is also the case for many of the other hodge-podge approaches that have come and gone over the years. Just as the case with conventional medicine many bad ideas have come and gone, unfortunately too many naturopaths from both ends of the spectrum (Naturopathic medicine and "Traditional" naturopathy) seem to have difficultly letting go. The biggest irony is conventional medicine has begun to figure out that lifestly (diet, hygiene, exercise etc.) do play a role in health and healing and contiues to become more naturopathic! Ndma1 (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ndma1, the pdf doc mentions studies which show that homeopathy is effective (only the Shang et al. study is negative). I understand that since that document comes from a homeopath, it may not be acceptable here, but if we quote those studies from other sources (like the BMJ, Lancet etc.) would it be reliable enough to counter the use of the word 'quackery' here?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That would not be considered a medically reliable source as the journal does not appear to be PubMed indexed. In fact, the journal search doesn't even turn it up as a "journal we know about but don't index". It looks like a "trade journal" which basically means "a very sympathetic publication that has a high confirmation bias and tends to publish only uncritical findings". Basically, it would be considered low impact, highly biased, unlikely to ever publish a critical commentary, and certainly not something that can be considered on par with NEJM, JAMA, Science, Nature or other low-tier but more specific journals. Frankly, with a title like "International Journal of High Dilution Research" it is really just a rather transparent homeopathy mouthpiece. When it comes down to a comparison of a homeopathy mouthpiece versus JAMA, BMJ, etc. the lower-quality journal simply loses. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Up to December 2007 the journal was titled Cultura Homeopática. The "studies which show that homeopathy is effective" are not necessarily as positive as that paper suggests. For example the authors of one of them concluded in a later paper, which paid particular attention to study quality, that their earlier paper had "at least overestimated" the effects of homeopathy, and the first and last named authors wrote in a 2005 letter to the Lancet that their "1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven". Brunton (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In which case their comments are redundant to more reliable sources, and the previous incarnation still is not pubmed indexed. The paper in question isn't adequate to substantially alter the homeopathy page's overall thrust of ineffectiveness. Since one of the modalities used or advocated for within naturopathy is homeopathy, homeopathy is considered ineffective quackery, the main page of homeopathy is explicit on this, as is the naturopathy page, all these are substantiated with reliable sources and the proposed source is not adequate to alter that conclusion, I don't see much worth discussing here. Naturopathy and homeopathy are both considered quackery by some parties, this is reliably sourced. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's take some studies mentioned in that pdf doc.:-

Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homeopathy. BMJ. 1991;

302: 316-323

Boissel JP, Cucherat M, Haugh M, Gauthier E. Critical literature review on the

effectiveness of homoeopathy: overview of data from homoeopathic medicine trials. In:

Report to the European Commission. Brussels: Homoeopathic Medicine Research Group; 1996.

195-210.

Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Melchart D, Eitel F, Hedges LV, et al. Are the

clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled

trials. Lancet. 1997; 350(9081): 834-843.

Linde K, Melchart D. Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a

state-of-the art review. J Alter Complement Med. 1998; 4: 371-388.

Cucherat M, Haugh MC, Gooch M, Boissel JP. Evidence of clinical efficacy of

homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000; 56: 27-33.

Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JAC, et al. Are the

clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled

trials of homeopathy and allopathy. Lancet. 2005; 366: 726-732

Aren't any of these studies reliable?

What about the other studies (like Childhood diarrhea and seasonal allergic rhinitis, Allergic rhinitis, post-operative ileus, rheumatoid arthritis, protection against toxic substances etc.) that it mentions?

-Dr.Vittal (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Undent. That's not the point. You're attempting a personal analysis of the document. We only do that in rare cases. The issue is not whether the individual research papers are reliable (that would only be a question if we wanted to cite them in an article, and in those cases we would rely more on journal or publisher than the results - per WP:OR and WP:MEDRS). The point is that this document is not published in a reliable, prestigious, highly-cited journal. It's published in a fringe journal that is not pubmed indexed. The contents do not matter. That it is contradicted by much better, more reliable journal articles is further evidence that placing weight on it would presentundue weight issues. The scientific opinion of homeopathy is that it is unscientific, contravenes many established principles, and behaves pretty much exactly as a placebo would in a similar circumstance. Presenting one review article, of dubious merit, published in a friendly, unthreatening journal, that appears to inappropriately summarize the research (specifically Cucherat and Linde), and is contradicted by many other, better-quality reviews (see for asthma the Cochrane versus Matusiewicz 1997 - which I can't even find; for influenza Cochrane versus Papp; for ADHD Cochrane versus Lamont) is not a good argument to make on wikipedia. I don't want to waste time parsing more sources or claims - Dr. Vittal, you may believe homeopathy is effective and not quackery. That is fine. But as far as wikipedia is concerned, you must cite truly reliable sources that fairly represent the scientific consensus and not use wikipedia for adovcacy or to push for your own interpretations of the research. As for diarrhea, you could look at the following source - [2]. Jacobs did publish some trials with some truly poor outcome data for homeopathy (essentially slightly firmer stools was the only outcome, after lots of data fishing) but it is secondary reviews that are important. This paper is outright contradicted by far better sources, and that's without even having to even parse its contents. Since wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth, that's pretty much the end of it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)