Talk:Naturopathy/Archive 6

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

Since this discussion is essentially about homeopathy and not naturopathy, it should be continued (if necessary) on talk:homeopathy; redirected per WP:PARENT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

<span id="Since this discussion is essentially about homeopathy and not naturopathy, it should be continued (if necessary) on talk:homeopathy; redirected per WP:PARENT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)"> 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)

OK, let's look at the studies you have cited above. Kleijnen (1991) concluded "At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias"; hardly an unqualified positive result. Cucherat (2000) is apparently (according to Evidence submitted by Professor Edzard Ernst to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) a republication of Boissel (1996), and concluded "There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials."; Somewhat similar to Kleijnen, and (to quote Ernst) "not unambiguously positive". It also noted that "sensitivity analysis showed that the P value tended towards a non-significant value (P = 0.08) as trials were excluded in a stepwise manner based on their level of quality." Linde (1997) concluded that its results were "not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo"; however, the data used by Linde (1997) was reanalysed by substantially the same authors in Linde et al. (1999): Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy, with the result that they concluded that, because of the evidence of bias they found and the results of more recent research, the 1997 paper "at least overestimated" the effects of homeopathy, and as already noted, two of the authors of Linde (1997) have subsequently stated that it does not prove that homeopathy works. Linde (1998) found a positive effect when all trials included were considered, but this vanished when only the best quality trials were considered (something of a running theme here, and once more suggesting that bias leads to inflated positive results). These studies are not as positive as is being suggested. Brunton (talk) 21:49, 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 sources - [1], and some blog stuff [2], [3]. 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)

If I insert the references from the Eur J Clin Pharmacol., BMJ and Lancet, without mentioning that pdf doc., would it be reliable?-Dr.Vittal (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that is cherry picking for one thing, which in wikipedia's terms means it is placing undue weight on one limited interpretation of the literature that is not reflected when considering the whole breadth of it (and in this case, blatantly ignores contradictory opinions). In addition, it would be placing a lot of weight on studies that are quite old (as much as 14 years - the literature and research has advanced considerably since then, with numerous well-designed studies indicating homeopathy is no more effective than a comparable placebo). It would misrepresent several of them since none are unequivocally positive (Shang in particular for instance, concludes with the statement "When account was taken for these biases in the analysis, there was weak evidence for a specific effect of homoeopathic remedies, but strong evidence for specific effects of conventional interventions. This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects." How can that honestly be taken as an endorsement of homeopathy? How on earth can Wassenhoven state "The conclusion of them all was that homeopathy has a positive and specific effect greater than placebo"? It's "summaries" like this that are the reason scholars are so critical and dismissive of articles published in sympathetic journals - Wassenhoven is quite litterally interpreting Shang's evidence to the utter opposite conclusion and no-one appears to have called him on it, nor did the peer reviewers, if there were any, do so much as check the Shang abstract). It would also horribly misrepresent later conclusions drawn by the same authors (I'm thinking of Linde specifically, who have essentially withdrawn their support for their earlier meta-analyses). It is the steady accumulation of evidence, over many years, converging on a single conclusion, combined with an utter lack of realistic, critical self-appraisal from homeopaths that they are not taken seriously within science and medicine. Science is inherently critical and demands replicable, convergent evidence that stands the test of vigorous criticism. Homeopathy hides from criticism through the use of ghetto journals, special pleading, cherry-picking and shoddy methodology but still promotes itself as an effective intervention for a vast array of conditions, including some very serious ones. Again, this is the mainstream scholarly opinion which is reflected quite strongly in the UK document. It is simply not possible to say unequivocally positive things about homeopathy without seriously distorting or selectively ignoring the evidence (particularly the best evidence, which is even more damning and unequivocal). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Vittal, above you repeatedly try using various sources in the hope that they "would it be reliable enough to counter the use of the word 'quackery' here?" Sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. The question of effectiveness really has nothing to do with whether we should or should not use reliable sources that make charges of quackery. They make the statements, so they are included, regardless of the other content. This has been discussed to death over the years and you're not going to get this changed. It would take a radical change of several of our most important policies to do that, and that's not going to happen. It would be the death of Wikipedia. The encyclopedia would lose its credibility. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please review the discussion, but any issues not resolved (and I don't think there are any) should be brought up on the homeopathy talk page, per WP:PARENT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like a biased quackwatch portal. Perhaps someone can rework it so it is something balanced between quackwatch and advertisement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.228.13 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, see the FAQ. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Who is this user, and why are they rambling on? They are correct in that the article needs to clarify the relationships between the AANP, ANA, and ANMA. I was attempting to resolve this issue through revision but am now on a ten day pause. Mcmarturano (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable negative tone in the article

This article needs to be completely rewritten. It's obviously been co-opted by critics of naturopathy, who describe it in overtly biased terms. The entire article is infused with the notion that standard medical practice is right and everything else is wrong. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to create pages that are objects of scorn and derision, but which rather offer a sympathetic and neutral description. For instance, the following sentence in the article is merely an opinion which is stated as established fact: "With greater scientific knowledge of naturopathy, better therapeutic approaches could be achieved, resulting in improved therapy models and an economic benefit for the health care system". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlovscat567 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, please review NPOV and offer some comments based on those guidelines. Mcmarturano (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy info is confusing

I can't tell if you are saying that naturopaths do or don't believe in homeopathy. It seemed like, when I was reading the top of the article, that it was at least highly contentious amongst naturopaths, but was considered quackery by most. But, when you get to the criticisms section, the same thing is said about the critics, as if the naturopaths believe the opposite.

If the idea is that the critics are criticizing naturopaths for what they don't actually believe, then you need to make that explicit. Otherwise, you need to clarify. I would, but I have no sources on the subject. — trlkly 10:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, homeopathy is one of the core modalities of naturopathy. I will see if I can do something about the convoluted sentence structure in the lead without it growing overlong. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy is a core modality of naturopathy. However not all practitioners use homeopathy or consider it to be effective. Most everybody agrees that homeopathy is safe. There was just an article on a study showing that the benefits associated with homeopathy may be due to the interview style, rather than the actual remedy. I will look that one up. I made adjustments to the entry reflecting these comments.Mcmarturano (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The same "Homeopathy is psuedoscience and quackery" line is in the article twice. I would recommend eliminating the second one or at least delinking the wikilinks. There's no debate over whether or not homeopathy is psuedoscience as it clearly meets the definition. But per NPOV it doesn't need to be repeated in two sections with wikilinks. --Travis Thurston+ 21:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That repetition is just because we use summary-style ledes, per wp:LEDE. Please keep in mind that while individual practioners may eschew homeopathy, the accrediting bodies endorse it. After all, as you say, it is "a core modality of naturopathy". LeadSongDog come howl! 08:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern is only that as the entry now stands, a user would easily conclude that every naturopath practices homeopathy. This can be generalized to any other naturopathic modality. The common denominator is philosophy, not practice. The entry needs to be more clear.

Also, as it stands there is reference to homeopathy as pseudoscience or quackery clearly in the lead section. It does not need to be repeated multiple times throughout the entry. I didn't see anything in wp:LEDE that justifies repeating this every time there is mention of homeopathy. If a user wants to learn more about homeopathy, I'm sure that those criticisms are adequately dealt with in homeopathyMcmarturano (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary style lede is just that, a summary of important content detailled later in the article. In a well written summary lede everything in that lede is repeated (in more detail) elsewhere in the article. This is not a special case.LeadSongDog come howl! 08:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi LeadSongDog, this issue has been resolved. Originally there was a sentence referring to homeopathy as quackery in several of he subsections. Now it is in the lede and in its own section per we:LEDE. 68.43.150.47 (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Vitalism, Systems Biology, Emergentism, Holism

I propose that material of vitalism as a core naturopathic philosophy be modified to include some reference to Vitalism:Relation to emergentism and Systems Biology. Any suggestions on how to approach this? Mcmarturano (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Omit it. Connecting emergent phenomena to vitalism is either a vast misunderstanding of the math or an attempt to justify a pre-existing idea by connection to not-widely-understood science (c.f. Quantum mysticism). Not to be confused with an emergent condition in medicine. All that "emergent" in this context means is that the phenomenon is not present in individual elements of a system but emerges from their interactions. Polaritons or electron holes, for instance, make for a useful abstraction layer, but there is no "polaritonness" inherent in the huddled masses of electrons, yearning to breath free. Similarly, while it is a fruitful line of inquiry to study the interactions and feedbacks among the different subunits of the human body, applying the buzzword emergent does not add anything to the study.

More importantly, the proposed modification would require solid sourcing both for explaining the idea and for establishing encyclopedic relevance to this article. Early practitioners for obvious reasons did not make any such connection, so the connection to various segments of the movement would also need to be established and explained. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see

"Emergent Properties" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. online at Stanford University for explicit discussion; briefly, some philosophers see emergentism as midway between traditional spiritual vitalism and mechanistic reductionism; others argue that, structurally, emergentism is equivalent to vitalism. See also Emmeche C (2001) Does a robot have an Umwelt? Semiotica 134: 653-693 [4]

I still think there is something of value to be added here. A brief sentence, nothing more. Mcmarturano (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right in that this may be premature. The issue is relevant to how modern naturopathy has responded to continued criticisms of its vitalistic roots. Certainly the early practitioners had no scientific framework to explain their beliefs. The issue also highlights a source of contention between the "two types" of naturopaths discussed in this entry. One branch is taking more steps toward integration with the conventional medical system, while the other is more traditionalist and anti-establishment. Both branches now offer some level of instruction in nutrigenomics and epigenetics, which are of course emerging fields. Clearly all of this would need to be sourced, as you said. However I am willing to hunt down those sources if other users thing this would add value to the entry. Mcmarturano (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mcmarturano, please do not post in the middle of my comment. It confuses the discussion by occluding post authorship. I have moved your comments together after mine. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I see several questions raised here about NPOV. Please provide recommendations for how to improve this article from an NPOV standpoint.Mcmarturano (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The primary issue I see is that this article encompasses at least three distinct areas that fall under the heading of Naturopathy. 1. Naturopathic doctors who receive medical training and are licensable in one of the United States or its territories. 2. Naturopathic doctors who do not receive medical training and are not licensable within the United States. 3. Naturopathic doctors in countries other than the U.S. Each of these groups should have unique information regarding scope of practice and reception by the scientific community and health care system(s).Mcmarturano (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That emphasis is backwards. Wikipedia articles should have a wp:WORLDWIDE perspective first. If there is sufficient special material on Naturopathy in the United States that could then see a wp:Content fork.LeadSongDog come howl! 08:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the outline be reworked to reflect this? I actually think that would be great. You are right there is a wp:weight issue that should be addressed. Mcmarturano (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The question has been raised about how to treat pseudoscientific modalities in this article. As the core modalities of naturopathy include both scientific and pseudoscientific methods, it is important to not treat the entire entry as if it were on a pseudoscientific method. Also bear in mind that a nonscientific method which does not purport itself to be scientific is not pseudoscientific, it is simply nonscientific. Mcmarturano (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental basis, according to the very start of the article, is Vitalism, which is definitely pseudoscience. I don't think the "posits that a special energy" bit makes it clear enough that no such energy field has ever been detected or measured in any way. Myk (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I would propose that information originating from Kimball Atwood of naturowatch.org or Stephen Barrett of quackwatch.org be given their own subsection under Reception. These criticisms come from a very vocal minority who have their own credibility issues, and do not accurately represent consensus of the scientific community. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources like Quackwatch don't represent the consensus of the scientific community? Really? I'd like to see a good source for that before marginalising them in a criticism section. Much of what they say about alt-med and pseudoscience doesn't originate from them at all - they often pass on what other scientists have found.

This statement does not require a good source. The evidence is the lack of sources to the contrary. I do not observe that any credible medical organizations (such as the AMA, Mayo Clinic, Harvard Medicine, NIH, etc.) defer to naturowatch.org or quackwatch.org as a reliable source for information on pseudoscientific practices.

Stephen Barrett was found by a California Appeals Court to be "biased and unworthy of credibility." I hardly think that he represents the consensus view and I don't believe that any public office has delegated that authority to him.Mcmarturano (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a reliable source for wikipedia, and his info is all based on good science. Courts aren't very good sources for scientific opinion :) --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No, courts aren't very good sources for scientific opinion. Quackwatch may be reliable, but it doesn't represent academic consensus. To be neutral, this entry should have more counterpoints specifying examples where naturopathic doctors have worked side-by-side with medical doctors in clinics and hospital settings. Otherwise we have undue weight for Quackwatch. Mcmarturano (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Academic consensus is not relevant when we are discussing topics which haven't been subject to normal academic scrutiny. See WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy has certainly been subject to normal academic scrutiny. See the existing sources as well as this Talk section on Proposed Sources. Please let's not waste space debating facts. Studies on naturopathy have been published in peer-reviewed medical journals, and naturopathy has been discussed in reports by WHO, NIH, and the National Academies. This entry is not fringe Mcmarturano (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, I think. Quackwatch is a good source when there exist claims which have not received the scrutiny we usually say are required (see WP:REDFLAG). That's the sense in which Quackwatch is being used. If you have specific peer-reviewed articles which explicitly dispute what Quackwatch is claiming, I haven't seen them in the list you provided. The existence of peer-reviewed studies does not negate the sources which seem, by WP:PARITY to offer fair critique of a practice which has not weathered the same level of scrutiny as other comparable medical claims. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, Per WP:REDFLAG what exceptional claims are you referring to? This is an information piece on naturopathy. There are currently no efficacy claims in the entry on any of the modalities, they are simply listed as they are. As for WP:PARITY all I am saying is that the entry is not WP:FRINGE in its entirety, it only touches upon certain fringe theories. Per Levels of acceptance

[...] Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.

I am not sure if you are reading my comments thoroughly enough. I don't think Quackwatch should be removed or disputed- only that comments from Quackwatch are referred to in the lede, and then in the appropriate section. Actually I am fine with where the information is presented in the current version. Mcmarturano (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You want multiple high-level backing for sources such as quackwatch, but you take Tim Bolen at face value? That sets a very uneven playing field, to say the least.

Never said anything about Tim Bolen. I did not add a reference to him. Mcmarturano (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I fear you may also have misunderstood some basic concepts about medical authorities. It's not really their job to delegate authority on all subjects to independent third party websites. Nonetheless, some authorities and journals do seem pretty keen on Quackwatch - it took me a few minutes to find favourable mentions from the Lancet, the BMJ, WHO, the AMA, the NHS, &c. Even papers in journals such as Am J Public Health treat Quackwatch as a reliable source - so does the unfortunately-abbreviated "Health Care Anal." bobrayner (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quackwatch is reliable and should stay in the entry. I am more concerned about undue weight to Quackwatch. There are hundreds of examples of medical doctors who have more favorable views of naturopathic doctors than Quackwatch. Quackwatch does not represent academic consensus. There are documented examples of naturopathic doctors working in hospital settings. These can be provided. Mcmarturano (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that naturopaths work in hospitals is definitely true and deserves mentioning, but it's not a validating fact. There are all sorts of people working in hospitals that are not necessarily on the up-and-up when it comes to providing the best medical care. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with acceptance by the larger medical community. If the views of Quackwatch represented academic consensus, no naturopath would be allowed anywhere near a hospital setting. Mcmarturano (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that can possibly be true. Hospitals are not beholden to academic consensus. The academic consensus is, generally, that people who are part of the ex-gay movement, for example, are misguided. Nevertheless, a large number of hospitals employ chaplains who are connected with such ideologies. Hospital employment is not magic protection, in other words. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right in that hospital employment is not magic protection, however a hospital does have a duty to uphold a safe environment. Quackwatch takes the tone that naturopathy is dangerous. Mcmarturano (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think hospital utilizations and dangerous practices are necessarily mutually exclusive. Do you have sources which indicate as much? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No they are not, and no I don't have these sources. I am not making this claim. We are getting into an endless bifurcation here because you are arguing the details. I am looking at the big picture. All I am saying is that the fact that naturopathy HAS been accepted (to whatever degree) by mainstream medical institutions should be noted as it bears weight on the acceptance by the scientific community issue. That's all. Again, as the entry was previously written it looked as if mainstream medicine has completely rejected naturopathy and all of its tenent when the fact of the matter is that mainstream has only SELECTIVELY rejected certain components. Others are totally compatible. Mcmarturano (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

In their respective ledes, ANMA claim to be "Founded in 1981, ANMA is a nonprofit, scientific, educational, organization" whilst trumpeting their members "strong commitment to the philosophy, art and science, of natural therapeutics"; whilst the AANP say that naturopaths "base their practice on six timeless principles founded on medical tradition and scientific evidence". Therefore I am not sympathetic to the exemption from the "pseudoscience" label argued above. bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your lack of sympathy. The claims of the ANMA and the AANP that you referenced both indicate that naturopathy is informed by science and respects scientific evidence. Neither of these claims indicate the belief that everything a naturopathic doctor does is based in science. This is what I have requested help in differentiating. There are naturopathic doctors who do not engage in pseudoscientific practices. The primary issue with this entry (as I see it) is that naturopathic doctors are being characterized in a way which is not fully representative of the group as a whole.

There is certainly a place for criticism, even from Barrett and Atwood. If they are to be marginalized it is only due to the lack of criticism of their own profession. This has resulted in attacks on their neutrality. There are plenty of MDs who engage in fraud and pseudoscience. A better reference would be a source which speaks of fraud and pseudoscience in medicine from a perspective that is inclusive of both conventional and alternative medicine. I do not know if any exists. Mcmarturano (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. This is an article about naturopathy and reflects the (known) problems with that approach. There is no reason to discuss (known) problems with conventional medicine here. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Again this has to do with using Barrett and Atwood as representative of the consensus view. These authors can only be given weight to the degree that their characterization of pseudoscience and quackery in naturopathy is proportional to the medical community at large. I guess we are not on the same page here. What information can I provide to clarify my position here for you? Mcmarturano (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess information I would like to see would be sources from mainstream medical community which impeach Barrett and Atwood. What I've found when researching these sources were extremely positive reviews from the mainstream medical community. I can point to a lot of criticism coming from alternative medicine providers, but that's not exactly surprising considering the main contentions of Atwood and Barrett. WP:FRINGE#Independent sources seems to me to indicate that since those who don't have any irons in the fire consider Barrett and Atwood to be good sources of information on these subjects, we use them as reliable sources on these subjects. One might argue that their evaluators aren't truly "independent", but I don't think that this argument is reasonable (it's rather somewhat akin to the argument made by certain conspiracy theorists that people who deny the conspiracy must be "disinformation agents" in on the conspiracy). Instead, I think that the situation is something like as follows: 1)Alternative medicine is, by definition, medicine which has not been rigorously confirmed and often relies on suppositions that lack empirical or scientific basis. 2)Alternative medicine is utilized by a wide range of individuals. 3)There is a lack of rigorous independent sources which have dealt with alternative medicine, and most of the ones dedicated to it tend to accept even plainly incorrect statements associated with alternative medicine without caveats. In such situations, we tend to rely heavily on the work being done by evaluators who can, independent of the self-reinforcing communities, provide commentary and rational critique of the major points of contention that aren't dealt with in the trade sources. In this way, I find Atwood and Barrett to be more than adequate. Is it just that you think that naturopathy is more accepted in mainstream medicine than Barrett and Atwood are suggesting? If this is so, can you point to sources which indicate this explicitly? (I mean, sources that actually address this particular issue, not just sources which are peer-reviewed studies of certain naturopathic practices.) ScienceApologist (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My question to you then is: Who would impeach Barrett and Atwood? And what could they do to impeach themselves? Otherwise, I agree that Barrett and Atwood are more than adequate and yes I do think that naturopathy is more accepted in mainstream medicine than Barrett and Atwood are suggesting. As to sources, do you mean literature on the subject? Or simply examples? Anyhow, I am not proposing to remove anything from Atwood or Barrett, or any other critical reference. I am simply suggesting to add more content from other sources. Mcmarturano (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see any alternative sources which speak to the same thing that Barrett and Atwood do. Can you point to some? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You failed to specify the criteria or reply to my questions. You need to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In other words, I am not going to go on a wild goose chase for evidence if nothing will be acceptable to you. Please give me an example of the kind of evidence that you are looking for here. Who trumps Barrett and Atwood? Mcmarturano (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I may assist your search for sources; I found a source which criticises fraud among both alt-med and conventional-med MDs at length. As it meets those criteria, would that be acceptable to you? It's here. I only ask that you read the contents before rejecting it out of hand. bobrayner (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The link goes to the main page. Please provide a link to a specific article. Mcmarturano (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That is because the main page has various links to examples that may meet your criteria. It is a simple concept. If you reject a good source out of hand after mischaracterising it, and then set conditions which the source already fulfils, then fail to read the front page of the source... that will erode other wikipedians' ability to assume good faith. Nonetheless, let me offer a couple of suggestions - it took me a few seconds to find these links [5] [6] on the front page of Quackwatch, and both tackle abuses by real doctors rather than simple quacks.

bobrayner (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

These are good sources to specifically include. A better POV would provide some data as to what percentage of naturopathic doctors commit insurance fraud or perpetuate misconceptions as compared to traditional practitioners. I don't know if this information exists. If not, the entry should at least indicate that the information is unknown. Mcmarturano (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a curious contention. This isn't an article about "traditional practitioners". This is an article about naturopathic doctors. Inasmuch as NDs have been criticized for accommodating certain approaches which run counter to scientific understanding, we address those issues in our article. Comparing to another population seems very artificial to me. I understand it is the typical domain of the naturopath to level critique against "mainstream medicine", but our article on the subject of naturopathy does not need to conform to this sort of outlook, and, in fact, should not per WP:MAINSTREAM. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If naturopathy is going to be criticized for fraud and perpetuation of misconceptions by "mainstream medicine", then a comparison is entirely appropriate. Otherwise, any critique by mainstream medicine does not have a place in this article and should be removed completely. You can't have it both ways. Mcmarturano (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

[M]isconceptions by "mainstream medicine"? I am not sure what you mean here, but the best way to challenge any statement is by presenting a contrary source so that the text may be weighted according to the reliability of each. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused here still. Earlier you were arguing that Barrett and Atwood weren't somehow representative of academic consensus. Maybe you see this different as mainstream medicine? Fine, I can accept that. Maybe there hasn't been enough independent academic studies done of naturopathy for us to say that the academy has even deigned to pay attention to the subject. But you also contended that because there are naturopaths in hospitals that this shows that naturopaths are integrated into the medical community. But then, how can we separate critiques of naturopathy from mainstream medicine if this is the case? I contend that naturopaths are independent of mainstream medicine. Critiques of naturopaths are done not in the context of "mainstream medicine" but standing on their own. When naturopathy is criticized for lacking evidence basis, for example, that's a critique organic to naturopathy. It might also be leveled against other practices and some of these other practices might very well be considered "mainstream medicine" by some. I acknowledge that completely. But I just don't see the relevance. Critiques are not the domain of communities: they are properly done by those who are independent. That's sort of the essence of WP:NPOV, in my mind. The fact that there is a notable community of naturopaths means that Wikipedia has articles on naturopathy. But to be neutral in our presentation of the subject, because the naturopathic community is not part of the wider mainstream communities, we must look for independent sources which have evaluated the subject. Unfortunately, most of the independent sources I've seen which have looked carefully at the subject contend that there are inherent contradictions and unsupported claims that are part-and-parcel to the subject of this article. That information, to my knowledge, is not really contradicted by any of the sources you're listing or any other source I've seen. Simply saying that similar critiques can be leveled against mainstream medicine doesn't seem relevant as I see it. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with your assessment. All I have said, repeatedly, is that we should use as many diverse sources as possible and not give WP:UNDUE to Barrett and Atwood. If it is contentious whether or not they represent scientific consensus then the claim should be substantiated. Are Kimball and Atwood considered by the evidence-based medicine community to be representatives or spokespeople? If so, this should be referenced. Otherwise they are just two people who leverage some valid criticism, and deserve to be in the discussion. The entry previously looked like Atwood and Kimball had come by and graffiti tagged the place. If there haven't been enough academic studies done, then the entry should say so. Again, as it stands now, the entry references them in the lede, and then comes back in greater detail under the criticism heading. This is just fine with me. Mcmarturano (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding integration with mainstream medicine, I think this needs to be more fully flushed out in the entry. Within the U.S. there are currently both movements within the naturopathic community. Some practitioners are pushing for more integration with mainstream medicine, and some are aligning themselves more with the "health freedom" movement. The entry needs to clarify this issue. Mcmarturano (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I think you got lost! This is referring to the previous comment:

In addition, I would propose that information originating from Kimball Atwood of naturowatch.org or Stephen Barrett of quackwatch.org be given their own subsection under Reception. These criticisms come from a very vocal minority who have their own credibility issues, and do not accurately represent consensus of the scientific community. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue I am raising here is that the opinions of Atwood and Barrett, while reliable for wikipedia, do not represent a consensus. Not within the United States, and certainly not globally. WHO, NIH, and the IOM have all weighed in on naturopathic medicine in the last 5 years and their views are absent from this entry. A secondary issue is that the entry is framed in a false dichotomy of naturopathy vs evidence-based medicine. They are not entirely at odds. Mcmarturano (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there are issues with how this is presented. WHO routinely convenes echo-chamber panels to evaluate alternative medicine (Ernst has loudly criticized this), and the NIH usually only comments on alternative medicine through their NCCAM arm which is essentially designed to be aligned with Tom Harkin's vision for uncritical acceptance of CAM. The only aspect of the IOM I've seen that may be at odds with the Atwood and Barrett approach was the recent appointment of a ND to a committee. Certainly, their 2005 call for evidence-based approaches to CAM does not seem to contradict what Atwood and Barrett are saying. Perhaps you can be more clear with how you think the evaluations are different by these bodies. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

At this point I think it is simply a matter of inclusion so as to increase the diversity of source material. This can only help to make the entry more neutral. To respond more directly to your request, I think the evaluations are different by these bodies because WHO, NIH, IOM, CDC do not make sweeping generalizations which are not justified by the evidence. Atwood and Barrett do a good job of backing up their claims with examples of naturopathic leaders publicly espousing pseudoscientific methods or perpetuating of misconceptions. However it is a leap to take these examples and make a characterization of naturopathy as a whole entity. There should be more in this entry about which aspects of naturopathy are akin to mainstream medicine and how naturopathic practitioners are alike. Mcmarturano (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus Atwood and Barrett have little credibility for naturopathy outside the United States. Why should naturopaths in India, the UK, Australia, or New Zealand be made to meet their standards? Mcmarturano (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Atwood and Barrett are not global in outlook, but neither are most of the other sources on naturopathy that I've found. It's pretty clear that there are equally qualified critics we can refer to the point out similar flaws with naturopathy in the venues you name. Diversifying source material is a laudable goal we can all agree upon. One query though, is there a global naturopathic organizing body? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly referred to "other sources" that you have found. What other sources? Would you mind listing them and discuss why they are not in this entry? Why do Barrett and Atwood make the cut, but your "other sources" do not? Mcmarturano (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that there is a global naturopathic organizing body. Mcmarturano (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Katz DL. Acting in Defense of the Medical Literature MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 38. PMC 1140742 David L Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP David L Katz, Associate Clinical Professor of Public Health & Medicine, Director of Medical Studies in Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine; Director, Yale Prevention Research Center; Director, Integrative Medicine Center; Derby, Connecticut says Atwood is "misleading, objectionable, and flagrantly biased". Mcmarturano (talk) 05:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Evidence Basis

This section opens as follows:

"Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been advocated as an appropriate methodology for investigating natural medicine such as naturopathy, which has been characterized as lacking an adequate scientific basis."

More substantiation of these claims are needed. "Has been advocated" by whom? "Has been characterized" by whom? The one published article referenced here is not substantial enough to present this as a consensus view. EBM proponents do not get to elect themselves arbiters of what does and does not have an adequate scientific basis. Nobody put them "in charge".

As commented above, there are aspects of naturopathic philosophy and practice that are scientific, nonscientific, and pseudoscientific. This section should explicitly address only claims made by naturopathy which are falsifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmarturano (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are naturopaths that practice evidence-based medicine. The introduction to this article sets the tone of naturopaths vs. evidence-based medicine. This is inappropriate. The two are not wholly at odds. EBM has valid criticisms of certain aspects of naturopathy, and naturopathy has valid criticisms of EBM. There are areas where they overlap and areas where they conflict. EBM is not "above" naturopathy on a hierarchy of authority. Mcmarturano (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There are naturopaths who embrace positive results of obscure studies that confirm their beliefs about their practices, no doubt. However, that's not typical of "evidence-based medicine". I'm also curious as to which claims of naturopaths are not falsifiable. Can you point out some? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Your assertion is true, but not representative as the group as a whole. There are also naturopaths who are informed by mainstream research and some who even contribute to research in peer-reviewed medical journals. At least two naturopathic medical schools have research institutes associated with them and there are naturopaths that work in research facilities. The the three areas where naturopaths are most likely to be informed by scientific research are dietary supplements, herbs, and acupuncture. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Any assertion of vitalism is not falsifiable, at least at this time. That would be the primary one that needs to be addressed. There are also numerous modalities listed that are either not falsifiable, or have no supporting research. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Essentially all the historical assertions of "vitalism" have been falsified as far as I'm aware. I agree with you that there are modalities that have no supporting research, but that doesn't make them not falsifiable. As contrary to physicalism, I think vitalism is essentially falsified inasmuch as biological processes have all been reduced to biochemical and biophysical mechanisms. Certainly assertions that illnesses are caused by vitalistic imbalances and not, for example, germs is a falsifiable notion (and has, incidentally, been falsified). ScienceApologist (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nanoatzin (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Information posted by critics has the potential to harm people with autoimmune diseases. Naturopathy concepts developed over a span of thousands of years, and this form of medicine seems to work where conventional medicine fails. The request to demonstrate performance of naturopathy using evidence is inappropriate considering that there is proof that at least 38 prescription drugs and 2 other medical therapies cause harm. Drug-induced_lupus_erythematosus is proof of concept. Placebo effect statistical elimination cannot be used to investigate performance of medicine involving Neuroendocrinology and Neuroimmunology so a new medical research paradigm is required to eliminate emotional content and opinion from the references used in this discussion.

If you do not accept evidence as a basis for assessing the effectiveness of medical treatments, how are you so sure that naturopathy works? bobrayner (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a great source for all the PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC information on herbs and other natural supplements. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/<ref></ref> This is professional site and very extensive. I think it should be included in this article as well as the known and proven positive things about Naturopathy. Also I think the known and proven negative things about pharmaceutical medications and conventional medicine should be included as well. This article is too one-sided. If you really check into the authors of Stephen Barrett of quackwatch.org and Kimball Atwood of naturowatch.org you will see that they are NOT reliable sources and why they are not. Thank you Itanya46 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy and Practice

These two sections are not delineated clearly enough. The "practice" section opens with a statement about philosophy. There needs to be a clear distinction here between philosophical tenents of naturopathy, and the various modalities (core or otherwise) that are employed by naturopathic practitioners. Mcmarturano (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the redundancy issue. Ordinarily I would suggest boldly fixing it, but I think that at this point prior discussion would be better.

Proposed: change The focus of Naturopathy is on its philosophy of natural self-healing rather than specific methods, and practitioners use a wide variety of treatment modalities., currently the first sentence at Naturopathy#Practice to Naturopaths use a wide variety of treatment modalities consistent with the fundamental philosophy of natural self-healing. This refocuses the sentence on the topic of that section while retaining the bit the unifies otherwise disparate practices. It is also more concise without, I think, losing information or clarity. Comments/improvements? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I went for bold. :) Mcmarturano (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy#Practice What is the purpose of having "synthetic" drugs? Simply saying drugs is sufficient. This looks weasely to me. Also having the "healing power of nature" in quotes marginalizes a valid philosophical position. The quotes should be removed and a link to vis medicatrix naturae inserted here. Mcmarturano (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Synthetic" is specified and in quotes because some naturopaths make a distinction based on the origin of a molecule. I do not know offhand if this particular example is relevant to naturopathy, but Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy concerns this issue. Unless #Principles is expanded to deal with the philosophical difference between a "natural" concoction and a "synthetic" drug, I would be okay with removing the word.

"Healing power of nature" is in quotes because the phrase is being used as a term of art. If they were removed, a simple reading would conclude that Wikipedia is saying that nature has mystical healing powers. Per WP:VALID, we cannot do that. The phrase itself is important to keep as the most common English rendition of vis medicatrix naturae, a fundamental tenet of naturopathy. It also appears at the relevant bullet later in that section, so simply rewording that sentence could be a valid compromise.

Proposed: change Naturopathic ideology focuses on naturally-occurring and minimally-invasive methods, trusting to the "healing power of nature.", currently the first sentence at Naturopathy#Principles to Naturopathic ideology focuses on naturally-occurring substances, minimally-invasive methods, and encouragement of natural healing. This can be cited to the same reference supporting the current text, [7]. Comments/improvements? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue between natural and synthetic might need its own subsection. There are a couple of ideas that intersect here. One has to do with a racemic mixture of chemicals produced in a chemical reaction as compared to the one-sidedness of most biological reactions. In a dietary supplement, a naturopath might distinguish between d-alpha-tocopherol and dl-alpha-tocopherol. The other has to do more directly with your comment- the belief that because a molecule originated from a living organism it is inherently superior. "What is natural?" is clearly beyond the scope of this entry but I think it needs some kind of attention. Mcmarturano (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Naturopathy#Principles I think your proposed edit better than it is now. Mcmarturano (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy#Practice

All forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science, and do not necessarily prepare a practitioner to make appropriate diagnosis or referrals.[42][44][45]

This sentence needs revision and detail. All forms...do not necessarily does not make sense. Which is it? All or some? Also, what is the standard of "incompatibility". The "Voice of Reason" article does not support this assertion as the article itself is loaded with weasel words and unsupported attributions. Why is science incompatible with anything but a reductionist worldview? Holism is not in conflict with science (Holism_in_science). Mcmarturano (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing necessarily. This follows directly from the first half of the sentence as well as the comparison with MD education later in the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean "All forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science, and do not prepare a practitioner to make appropriate diagnosis or referrals."?? That would not work because there are forms of naturopathic education that do prepare a practitioner to make an appropriate diagnosis or referral. Mcmarturano (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to an example of a naturopath that adheres to strict referral and diagnostic regimens that are compatible with the protocol of mainstream medicine? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I will look for this. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Vaccinations

There is no official or consensus view of vaccinations by practitioners of naturopathy. Taken as a group, it is most certain that there is a higher prevalence of anti-vaccination sentiment. However, there are certainly naturopaths who support vaccination. Naturopaths have administered vaccinations. Naturopathic doctors have differing views on which vaccinations are appropriate and necessary. Just recently there was a webinar given by a naturopath on vaccination schedules. Mcmarturano (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you point to a naturopath who unequivocally agrees with all the protocols recommended by public health professionals and explicated by such organizations as the CDC or NCBI? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on I will look for this. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Julie Jacobson, MD Working Toward More Patient-Centered Integrative Care MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 40. PMC 1140740 Julie Jacobson of the Children's Vaccine Program, PATH, Seattle, Washington finds Atwood "slanted and inflammatory". This bears weight. Mcmarturano (talk) 05:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Profuse pov-tags

Why such frequent use of POV-statement? What exactly is POV about them? The tagged sentences generally seem to be well-sourced and neutral to me. bobrayner (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Each reason has its own section here in the Talk page. The guidelines say that the issue should be addressed before the tag is removed. Mcmarturano (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Entry Reversion

This entry has been reverted to a previous state with no explanation as to why. Mcmarturano (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Please address each revision individually instead of reverting to previous versions. Please also address your disagreement with the NPOV issues in the Talk section. Be respectful of the time others have put in here to improve this entry. Mcmarturano (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You might feel that my edit summary and talkpage comments were wrong, but that doesn't mean they're nonexistent. An explanation was given.

Seriously, I'd love to see some better explanations for why large swathes of reliably sourced text have suddenly got POV tags. Can you justify these tags? Do you have some alternative sources, perhaps?

bobrayner (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, hold on. I will provide reasons for each or remove those that can't be justified. Mcmarturano (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:2over0 I will pause editing to discuss per request by 2over0. The most recent edits were organizing the references to make sure that the lead had equal weight given to secondary sources offering criticism. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&oldid=397615705 Mcmarturano (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. As my edit summary states, that was a partial revert. The discussed changes and the ones I liked were retained (if I missed any or anyone disagrees with my judgment here, please fix or revert and discuss, respectively). There is a lot that can be done to make this article more coherent, concise, and informative; you make several reasonable points, but they do bear discussion. I would hate to discourage your efforts, but this is a historically contentious article and the last thing anyone wants is to start an edit war. There is no deadline, and proper discussion here should lead us to a consensus on the best edits to make. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will stop and wait for input from more experienced users. I would request that discussion be made about the proposed sources noted below. I am confident that integrating these sources will lead to better consensus and NPOV. I would only state that this entry is convoluted, and doesn't accurately represent the actual state of affairs. If a more experienced user has some good ideas about what to do with this entry, please have at it. I will refrain from editing this entry for ten days from now. Mcmarturano (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Sources

Here are some alternative sources which would help to improve neutrality of this entry:NIH: Naturopathy, University of Michigan Career Center: Naturopaths, American Cancer Society: Naturopathic Medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmarturano (talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The link above labeled NIH is to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, one of the centers of the NIH of the DHHS; it is currently Ref. 1, and is cited four times. The UMich link is to the student career center website, which I believe fails as a reliable source of medical information. The ACS reference is accessible and pretty good for what it is; in whatever version of the article is live right now it is Ref. 6, and is cited 13 times. New sources are welcome, but they should be at least as high quality as the ones already used and be integrated so as to give due weight to all salient points. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Complementary and alternative medicine: What is it? Mayo clinic classifies naturopathy as one of three whole medical systems, as classified by NCCAM. However, naturopathic practitioners may also be informed by the other two whole health systems (ancient healing systems TCM, ayurveda and homeopathy) as well as each of the other four NCCAM categories (Mind-body medicine, Biologically based practices, Spinal Manipulation and body-based practices, and Energy medicine). Mcmarturano (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems in line with much of what I understand about naturopathy, though the precise wording is a bit overly-specific to the discipline, IMHO. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure of Natural Product Use to Primary Care Physicians: A Cross-sectional Survey of Naturopathic Clinic Attendees What information from this source should be included? Mcmarturano (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This source seems to indicate that it's a problem when patients do not tell their doctors that they are using naturopathic products because of drug interactions and side-effects. Patients conceal their use of naturopathic medicine due to fear of stigmatization and a tacit understanding that naturopathy is not looked upon favorably by most medical doctors. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly! It is a problem, and this very entry could be part of that problem. This entry needs to reflect the truth, which is simply that (A) There are valid criticisms of naturopathy, (B) Naturopaths are not all the same, and do not receive the same level of training, (C) There are medical doctors who work with naturopaths, often times in the very same setting. You may not know this, but naturopathic physicians (NOT traditional naturopaths) are trained in conventional diagnosis and treatment, as well as when to refer. This entry should not be tacit with regard to the issue. Mcmarturano (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Traditional Medicine – Growing Needs and Potential 2002 WHO comparison of naturopathy to other traditional medicine practices is in here. Mcmarturano (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine has some things to say about naturopathy. Mcmarturano (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Preventive Medicine, Integrative Medicine & the Health of the Public by the Institute of Medicine is co-authored by a naturopath. Mcmarturano (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Health Professions Education and Integrative Health Care Institute of Medicine (2009) refers to naturopathy three times. Mcmarturano (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States Institute of Medicine (2005) Four chapters refer to naturopathy. Mcmarturano (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Integrative Medicine and Patient-Centered Care Institute of Medicine (2009) "Integrative medicine has emerged as a potential solution to the American health care crisis." Mcmarturano (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Integrative medicine looks to me like a way to get more people adequate care while cutting costs. Alternative medicine should be much lower in cost than mainstream medicine because it relies on the placebo effect. This is obliquely referred to, but will be a hard point to dig out since any acknowledgment of the placebo effect necessarily weakens it. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this might be hard to dig out. Certainly naturopathy relies much heavier on the patient/practitioner relationship. Does this fall under the placebo effect? Or is it treated separately? Naturopaths also use dietary supplements which do have varying levels of scientific research to back them. Obviously it is way beyond the scope of this entry to debate what is and isn't acceptable research. The main point of this suggestion is getting back to the idea that some elements of naturopathy have drawn nearer to mainstream medicine in recent years. Mcmarturano (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Health and Medical Economics: Applications to Integrative Medicine Institute of Medicine (2009) bears much relevance to how naturopathy has fared economically in the U.S. Mcmarturano (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Useful for the above point. People who receive palliative naturopathic care often shoulder their own expenses for low-level medical treatments. The problem comes when they eschew medical treatment until it is too late and then expensive triage care is required. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. So a user landing on this entry that may be deciding whether to receive naturopathic care (which may or may not be covered by insurance) should be able to discern which naturopathic practitioners are more or less likely to enjoin them in the eschewing of medical treatment. Naturopathic physicans receive training in emergency medicine, and are required to pass an examination in emergency medicine before receiving a license to practice medicine. It is a mischaracterization to represent that ALL naturopathic practitoners shun medical treatment. 68.43.150.47 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

New Health Care O*NET-SOCs 29-1069.04 Naturopathic Physicians 2009 Mcmarturano (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A naturopath, Rick Marinelli, was appointed to the recently formed IOM Project: Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education. Mcmarturano (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2008 and 2009 CDC National Health Statistics Reports refer to naturopathy several times. Mcmarturano (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2007 CDC National Health Interview Survey lists naturopathy as one of the CAM modalities that 38% of adults utilize. Mcmarturano (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is the AANP position paper on vaccinations. Note this applies ONLY to naturopathic physicians int he U.S. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Boggs ND, Mittman P. Naturopathic Medicine Is an Emerging Field in One of Medicine's Most Dynamic Eras MedGenMed. 2004 Mar 24;6(1):35. PMC 1140739 This looks like it was published in the same journal as Atwood's article. Mcmarturano (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Shepherd TC. Professional Agendas and Mechanisms for Standardized Licensure Exams Do Exist in Teaching Naturopathic Medicine MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 36. PMC 1140737 Mcmarturano (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gross MP The ND: Treating the Whole Person MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 37. PMC 1140741 Mcmarturano (talk) 05:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Young S. CAM Is Gaining Strength Around the World MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 39. PMC 1140743 Mcmarturano (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Julie Jacobson, MD Working Toward More Patient-Centered Integrative Care MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 40. PMC 1140740 Julie Jacobson of the Children's Vaccine Program, PATH, Seattle, Washington finds Atwood "slanted and inflammatory".Mcmarturano (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Bongiorno PB, LoGiudice P. Naturopathic Medicine Is Indeed Legitimate, Effective, and Wanted MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 41. PMC 1140738 Mcmarturano (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Zeitlin KF We Are All Doctors MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 42. PMC 1140736 Mcmarturano (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gagnier JJ. A Clarification of Critical Appraisal, Evidence, and Education MedGenMed. 2004; 6(2): 36. PMC 1395787 Mcmarturano (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Dawson DA. No one perspective on health and healing has an exclusive claim on truth. MedGenMed. 2004 Mar 24;6(1):34 PMC 1140749 Mcmarturano (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sprung DJ. Alternative medicine outside the ivory towers. MedGenMed. 2004 May 14;6(2):35. PMC 1395761 Says alternative medicine "chicanery" is going on in family practice care, chiropractic centers, osteopath offices, and even in the specialties of cardiology, dermatology, and nutrition. Mcmarturano (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Katz DL. Acting in Defense of the Medical Literature MedGenMed. 2004; 6(1): 38. PMC 1140742 David L Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP David L Katz, Associate Clinical Professor of Public Health & Medicine, Director of Medical Studies in Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine; Director, Yale Prevention Research Center; Director, Integrative Medicine Center; Derby, Connecticut says Atwood is "misleading, objectionable, and flagrantly biased. Mcmarturano (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

National Institutes of Health. Alternative Medicine: Expanding Medical Horizons: A Report to the National Institutes of Health on Alternative Medical Systems and Practices in the United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1994. NIH publication 94-066. Mcmarturano (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Riley RW. Decision of the secretary in the matter of the council on naturopathic medical education, US Department of Education, Washington DC, 2001. Accessed at www.ed-oha.org/secretarycases/2000-06-O.pdf. Mcmarturano (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarrell EM, Cohen HA, Kahan E. Naturopathic treatment for ear pain in children. J Fam Pract. 2003;52:673-676. Mcmarturano (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Spencer JW, Jacobs JJ. Complementary/Alternative Medicine: An Evidence-Based Approach. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1999. Mcmarturano (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Whole medical systems: an overview. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Web site. Accessed at http://nccam.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/wholemed.htm on June 20, 2008. Mcmarturano (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a great source for all the PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC information on herbs and other natural supplements. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/<ref></ref> This is professional site and very extensive. I think it should be included in this article as well as the known and proven positive things about Naturopathy. Also I think the known and proven negative things about pharmaceutical medications and conventional medicine should be included as well. This article is too one-sided. If you really check into the authors of Stephen Barrett of quackwatch.org and Kimball Atwood of naturowatch.org you will see that they are NOT reliable sources and why they are not. Thank you Itanya46 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi, I'm venturing here from the notice on the Neutrality noticeboard. One issue that catches the eye in this article is that the lead doesn't completely characterize the topic. In the "Modalities" section, we learn that naturopathy is partially -and only partially- endorsed by mainstream medicine, and that's IMO something that should be mentioned prominently in the lead so that a reader can at once get a basic grip on the topic. --Dailycare (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I added two sentences to the lead to address this. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Restatement of concerns

I think I have a better grasp of policy now and can perhaps reframe my concerns with this entry. I am new and learning as I go along, so please bear with me!

Two academic disciplines inform this entry

Per WP:SCICON critiques of naturopathic practice as pseudoscience or quackery fall under the purview of health science. However, the defining characteristics of naturopathy are its philosophy, and not its practice. Only one of the six principles, vitalism, is in conflict with EBM and this discussion needs to be informed by Vitalism#Relationship to emergentism as indicated above.

Multiple sets of practitioners

There are at least three (3) distinct sets of practitioners discussed in this entry: (A) Naturopaths globally, (B) Traditional naturopaths in the U.S., and (C) Naturopathic physicians in the U.S. Criticisms of naturopathic practice should specify which of these three (3) groups they are levied against.

I agree that they should, but the fact is that they don't. This is a major failing of quackwatch and other critics of natural medicine. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not the place to address this shortcoming, unless it has been raised as an issue by a notable source.67.69.99.154 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Entry is not current

Attention needs to be given to this entry as to the incorporation of more recent notable content. Some suggested sources are offered above and at least one other user has stated to know of sources which may not currently be incorporated.

Mcmarturano (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a great source for all the PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC information on herbs and other natural supplements. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/ This is professional site and very extensive. I think it should be included in this article as well as the known and proven positive things about Naturopathy. Also I think the known and proven negative things about pharmaceutical medications and conventional medicine should be included as well. This article is too one-sided. If you really check into the authors of Stephen Barrett of quackwatch.org and Kimball Atwood of naturowatch.org you will see that they are NOT reliable sources and why they are not. Thank you Itanya46 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Header tags

I just removed some of the header tags - {{Unbalanced}} and {{POV-check}} serve much the same purpose, and I have removed the former. If there are no objections, I would like also to remove the latter, as broadly speaking this article seems to do a pretty decent job at explaining the several perspectives on the topic.

I have also removed {{Refimprove}}, as that tag is mostly for articles needing either more inline sources or containing a large number of unverified material. I am guessing that it was placed in relation to #Proposed Sources, above. While it looks like there are some good suggestions there, I am not sure that this tag is the best way to go about getting the sources into the article. I plan to root through that discussion a bit more thoroughly over the next few days anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Vitalism and the innate healing mechanisms

There is evidence of vitalism in certain Naturopathic modalities (TCM and acupuncture for example). The 'innate ability of the body to heal' is not necessarily or exclusively a vitalistic concept however. The "inborn ability to heal" could just as easily refer to a biochemical pathway such as blood clotting as to a non-scientific magical force such as 'Qi'. Let's keep these concepts separate. 173.206.145.48 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is somewhat related: The first sentence hints that "innate vitalistic" ability of the body to maintain and heal itself is an established, documented process which it certainly is not. Sure, wounds heal, infections can go away, and muscle pain subsides--these are indeed innate. However, it is not clear to me that they are vitalistic. I would hate to use words such as "purported" or "alleged", but somehow we have to make it clear in the lead paragraph that the concept of "innate vitalistic" abilities of the body are not well established. How about something like: Naturopathy or naturopathic medicine is a vitalistic medical system that focuses on the body's innate ability to heal and maintain itself?Desoto10 (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be a difference of nomenclature rather than substance. If vitalism is simply the observation that self-repair and other functions of the body shut down when we die, I don't think there's much room for debate, even though there are variations in how quickly the shutdown happens. Linking vitalism suggests however that the term is used as a code word to imply a form of medical mysticism that is clearly unscientific, even unphysical. To the unsuspecting reader, however, the term is something of an Easter Egg - "vitality" is commonly used as a synonym for "excellent health". This does present a problem that should be addressed, but we need to consider how it could be worded without getting into edit warring. We should work it up here on the talkpage first. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging by the linked vitalism Wikipedia article, there is no question that we are referring to a non-physical entity.Desoto10 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How about:

Naturopathy or Naturopathic Medicine is a form of alternative medicine based on the fundemental belief in vitalism, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation.

Sarris, J., and Wardle, J. 2010. Clinical naturopathy: an evidence-based guide to practice. Elsevier Australia. Chatswood, NSW. Desoto10 (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty accepting that a book by that title presents Naturopathic medicine as being *based* in vitalism. Perhaps *influenced* by, or 'incorporating vitalism'? Must avoid the implication that vitalism is central to modern naturopathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.69.7.178 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's on page 3 of the book. Yobol (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are having difficulty accepting it, then find a reliable source that says that vitalism is not central to naturopathy.Desoto10 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I also have issues with the American Cancer Society being used as a source for what naturopathy is. Certainly the ACS has a valid opinion as to whether or not NP is effective, but it is not clear why that one particular source is used so many times in this article. The thrust of the ACS piece is that there is no evidence for naturopathy curing anything, including cancer.Desoto10 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What is "innate ability to heal"? I find this phrase in virtually every naturopathic medicine description, but it is rarely defined. It cannot refer to normally accepted healing processes since the phrase is used to differentiate naturopathic practices from conventional practices.69.38.215.251 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Forgot to loginDesoto10 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This entry misrepresents the philosophy of naturopathic medicine. Describing this medicine as nonscientific portrays the profession as a contrast to mainstream or conventional medicine. In reality the naturopathic profession holds itself to high scientific standards and is designed to be practiced in conjunction with conventional medicine. Naturopathic medicine treats every patient as an individual in order to treat the person rather than the disease. While its true this principle may not lend certain aspects of the profession to evidenced based medicine, by no means does that mean it is unscientific. The genome of every human being has many genetic polymorphisms. Based on this it is reasonable to theorize disease will manifest differently in every patient and one treatment may not work or even may be harmful for another patient. Naturopathic physicians study the same books, attend lectures and labs from the same educators as any other medical school to know the limits of their medicine and when referral to an MD is necessary. Also the statement that there is no research into naturopathic medicine is quite ludicrous as there are databases full of research including pubmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.171.95 (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

hahahahahahahahahahahaa. Wow, that made me laugh harder than anything I've read in weeks. Thanks dude. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Very professional response from a typical narrow allopathic POV to a potentially new user who has every right to express his opinion. If this is the funniest thing you've read in weeks I'd suggest new reading material. --Travis Thurston+ 19:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

That's your best response? Well, instead of using rhetoric, how about some evidence? I'll go take a big fat dump while waiting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Travis. To OrangeMarlin: Comments like this are why the neutrality of this Wikipedia entry is in question. When you're done taking your "dump" you can enter naturopathic medicine into the search box at pubmed.gov. 927 results will be displayed of relevant medical research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza naturae (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I got 301 hits for astrology... This means very little, unless we figure we ought to have an article about astrology and medicine. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The article mearly reports what the American Cancer Society has to say about the state of research into naturopathy. ACS is relevant and credible. Find a similar quality source that says otherwise and you are good to go. Try and find a secondary or tertiatry source if possible. Desoto10 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

While I can't be sure, I suspect that the thing OrangeMarlin found so funny was the implicit contradiction between "high scientific standards" and "treats every patient as an individual", or perhaps that the IP didn't recognize that contradiction.LeadSongDog come howl! 03:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it needs to be said that just because a treatment is scientific does not necessarily mean it is good medicine.

"A copy number variant is exactly what it sounds like: a different number of copies of a given gene. For example you might have one copy of a gene that metabolizes a drug while your neighbor might have 10 copies". (Shanks, Greek 2009)

Science can determine the probability of a drug's safety in a percentage of a population, but not in the individual patient. This is a reason Naturopathic doctors treat the patient rather than the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza naturae (talk • contribs) 03:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the placebo effect than drug reactions. What it boils down to is that naturopaths mainly rely on the placebo effect to treat their patients, and real doctors and scientists (and educated patients) think that is just wrong. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Is anybody suggesting a change to the article? If so, please either suggest or go ahead and make the changes so that we can move on.Desoto10 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Generally hard to read

The article is not well organized, repeats itself in a number of places, and many of the paragraphs are unclear as they jump from topic to topic with no clear transition statement. For example, under "Evidence basis", the article starts to talk about general safety, efficacy, and cost, but then jumps to talk about reflexology without any transition. It appears to be an attempt to provide an example, but the necessary supporting statements and transitions are not there. Many other similar problems exist throughout the article.Srdone (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)srdone

I absolutely agree and would add that this is also the case for very many of WP's alt. med.-related articles. Vitaminman (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

missing reference

" Naturopathic medical license in most areas of North America requires graduation from one of the schools accredited by Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges, which performs quality control governing student preparation involving best current medical practices. " Surely a reference is required for this claim in addition to some explication of what the term "quality control" might mean.

Is the expression "current best medical practice" rather than "best current medical practice"? The use of the latter is for rhetorical effect, if I am not mistaken. It is more subtle than the more obvious issues with the article. G. Robert Shiplett 08:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that a reference is needed for that statement, and it also sounds a little POV. I would drop the whole "which performs quality control governing student preparation involving best current medical practices" part of the sentence and them attempt to reference the first part. Btw, would you mind changing your signature to not unlink your user and talk pages? It's not required by any means, but it makes it more convenient for other editors to get in touch with you if they ever need to. N^oformation ^Talk 08:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a great source for all the PEER REVIEW SCIENTIFIC information on herbs and other natural supplements. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/ This is professional site and very extensive. I think it should be included in this article as well as the known and proven positive things about Naturopathy. Also I think the known and proven negative things about pharmaceutical medications and conventional medicine should be included as well. This article is too one-sided. If you really check into the authors of Stephen Barrett of quackwatch.org and Kimball Atwood of naturowatch.org you will see that they are NOT reliable sources and why they are not. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itanya46 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been accepted on WP as a reliable source for years, presumably in that time someone has been to the site and not come to the same conclusion you have. As far as greenmed, it's pretty much a pubmed search engine, but the problem is that it links mostly to WP:PRIMARY sources, which are not given much weight compared to secondary sources. As far as critiques of actual medicine: no, not in this article. This article is about naturopathy, not modern medicine. N^oformation ^Talk 18:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

EBM

I just made an edit to an out of place comment about EBM and it's role in Naturopathy. It is misleading and a blanket statement to say that Naturopathy eludes EMB. Some practices in Naturopathy are not attributable to EBM such as homeopathy, and some are such as lab testing, diagnosing, and prescribing both herbs and pharmaceuticals. I welcome an edit where someone makes clear that some practices are not acknowledged in EMB, but to say Naturopathy as a whole rejects science and evidence-based medicine is wrong and misleading.

05:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC) kitton14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitton14 (talk • contribs)

What you removed initially was edit warred in just a couple days ago and somehow no one caught it. I've reverted to the last version before the edit warring. N^oformation ^Talk 06:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

ACS Quote

I would like to remove the American Cancer Society quote, as it is irrelevant to the topic (perhaps it would fit better under an "alternative cancer therapies" topic), and diagnosing cancer isn't within and ND's scope of practice, anyway. Furthermore, I have never heard of an ND claiming to "cure" cancer or even be happily willing to be a cancer patient's sole care provider.TPinkleton (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)TPinkleton

It's not irrelevant, it is summarizing the evidence basis section of the article per WP:LEDE. Furthermore, it's a statements sourced to the ACS and if they've seen fit to make the statement then it's not our job to question it, just to report it. N^oformation ^Talk 04:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote is not a summary of the EB section, it is an addition to it. The first sentence of the EB section, however, would be a good replacement. The EB section does not, as a whole, talk about naturopathic medicine as it relates to cancer. It talks about naturopathic medicine as it relates to EBM. Thus, the summarizing sentence in the lead section shouldn't be specific to the ACS's view of naturopathy. I'm not opposed to having the quote somewhere on the page, just not in the lead section.TPinkleton (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)TPinkleton

I would say it doesn't do a great job summarizing the literal aspects of the section but that it's a great summary of the scientific view of naturopathy. I wouldn't be adverse to a rewrite of the lede in general as it's atrociously wrong, but starting by removing a statement sourced to such a reliable source is probably not the best way to go about it. Obviously they felt it was relevant to comment on the issue, and their opinion trumps ours. Lastly, the sentence doesn't just talk about cancer, it says cancer or other things, so it's broader than you're implying. I won't have time to respond again tonight but I recommend you don't revert again as edit warring can lead to a block. 04:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, anonymous person. I didn't mean to step on any toes by editing the page like that. This is my first time trying to do something like this on Wikipeida, and I was unsure as to how to go about it. I figured it out (thankfully) and am now trying the more appropriate way.TPinkleton (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)TPinkleton

Hey there, I'm still unable to get into the issue tonight but just wanted to say that you didn't step on any toes or anything. We don't have much of a hierarchy here, just more and less experienced editors (but that doesn't imply any sort of power). You're starting your career off here just fine and I'm glad to have you. One thing about WP is that there are a lot of policies and guidelines and it can be a bit of a learning curve getting up to par but I'm sure you'll do just fine. Make sure to go over the stuff that I left on your talk page and we'll dig into this tomorrow (or saturday at the latest). Again, welcome to WP! N^oformation ^Talk 07:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No original research policy

Please notice at the top of this page it states, and a general rule for WP, "No original research". In light of that, I have removed the second paragraph in section "Vaccination" that paraphrases and uses a reference to a primary research report. Since this has been reverted without discussion on a talk page, here, mine or yours, I will remove it again. Please refer to WP policies regarding this no-no before edit warring on this. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research applies to WP editors and unpublished works, not to citing research done by others when it is published in reliable sources. SÆdon^talk 20:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Additions to "Evidence Base"

Hello. New user here. I think I ran into the same problems mentioned below about listing primary randomized controlled trials. It seems surprising that you can't quote randomized controlled evidence but an opinion piece by Atwood gets a paragraph??? Anyway after reading the policy Leaddog posted it seems it is ok to quote secondary sources discussing primary sources. odd but ok. Anyway I have reposted using an ongoing systematic review with preliminay results published in a conference abstract and the study registered with the National Health Service. A bit of a learning curve but hopefully i'm getting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.64.134 (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Folks! Natstude645 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added some material to this section. any comments? Natstude645 (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That was quick!! Someone deleted my 800 words on the actual evidence basis for naturopthy in just 2 hours! Somebody does not want the truth to get out on Wikipedia!! Natstude645 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's more a matter of following policies. They are complicated, and it's not easy for newbies! We've all been there, so be patient. Feel free to ask for help. When I started here I had whole articles deleted. Even the truth isn't allowed here without proper sourcing, and especially if original research is involved. We only parrot what certain types of secondary sources say, with minimal use of primary sources in medical articles like this. Otherwise we like content to be true, or at least accurately cited. You will need to study and understand WP:MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s policy of “anyone can edit” means that its articles on Alternative Medicine and Naturopathy are systematically targeted by derogation and defamation, and therefore quite unsuited to any genuine contribution from natural medicine. I will advise my colleagues accordingly.Natstude645 (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

These articles are systematically targeted by promoters, believers, and quacks in their attempts to turn them into one-sided, promotional, sales brochures. Our rules require that content be sourced to reliable sources and must cover all sides of the subject, including controversies. They tell the good and the bad. The editing style requires the ability to civilly seek to create a consensus version with editors who may hold opposing POV. No single editor is ever allowed to determine content. Other editors also have their input, and the actual creation of content often occurs on the discussion pages. Editors who can't work together with others don't last long. It takes a very professional demeanor to survive. Editors come from all walks of life, often including professors, authors, practitioners, and other interested parties, many of whom are very knowledgeable about the subject matter. Even editors who know nothing about the subject still have important roles to play by simply enforcing policies and style guidelines. One must refrain from personal attacks and always assume good faith. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

start again). This page needs improving. It does not describe naturopathy as practiced in Australia. Its section entitled “evidence base” is actually innuendo and derogation, culminating in defamation, and actually does not describe the evidence base at all.

I could provide the necessary info, with some work, but I cannot until the following requirement is met. This page needs a policy of no defamation and only constructive criticism. This is especially important for subjects that involve cultivation of healing or the inspirational arts.

Others with real knowledge on naturopathy probably feel the same. This probably explains the lack of reliable info on this page. Is Wikipedia supposed to be a soapbox of negative attitudes, or supposed to be for the provision of useful info, in this case, how to get well from chronic illness using natural medicine??

Since this page is likely to be the first contact point for new people seeking healing, it is quite unsuitable for introducing the Wiki sister project on Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine .

Can you do something about this matter please?

For the sake of healing , ...Natstude645 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm 100% with you on this, Natstude645. As regards your question as to whether Wikipedia is supposed to be a soapbox of negative attitudes, whilst the answer may be "no", so far as Alt. Med. goes this is pretty much what it seems to have become. Vitaminman (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the content that was improperly deleted. Please don't mess with other people's comments again. I have preserved the newer comments, and only deleted the extra sig at the beginning of Natstude645's comment (the sig belongs ONLY at the end of your comment). -- Brangifer (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soapbox for anything, including promotion. It's an encyclopedia, not a personal website where you can make an article look the way you want it to. Articles are created according to certain conventions, policies and guidelines. You need to learn them, and the quickest way is to start by learning from other editors. Listen to them and assume they know more than you about how things work around here. There is a steep learning curve ahead of you. If you approach any form of resistance from others as if they were enemies, you'll end up engaging in battleground behavior and get blocked rather quickly. We don't want that to happen to you.

Being a newbie here isn't easy, so treat others as friends. They are more willing to help you IF you are polite and friendly. Rather than accuse others, try asking for help. You have to assume good faith. The best articles are created through the collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing POV, since the NPOV policy requires that articles contain such content (all significant POV, positive and negative). We use this discussion ("talk") page to work on content. We are supposed to discuss content, not other editors. You will note that I have added a few wikilinks to certain policies here in my comment. Always read and learn what is written at those wikilinks. Then start using that knowledge in future interactions with others and in your editing.

Now can you simplify your concerns and request help? Too complicated a request will likely get ignored, but a simple request is something we might be able to help with. We make small changes here, not large ones. We tweak existing content. We don't do total rewrites, except in rare cases on small articles. Anytime an edit of yours has been (temporarily) rejected, don't restore it. Per our BOLD, revert, discuss guideline, you must then discuss the matter and reach a consensus before restoring that content. Wikipedia is an amazing place where you can learn an awful lot. Some of it will hopefully expand your knowledgebase, and sometimes that can only happen if you're willing to change your mind. We're willing to work with you. Let's all shake hands and start over. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Liquhe54 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)That was quick!! I put on info on the evidence base of herbal medicine fully 2 hours ago, and it’s been deleted already. I see that the self appointed police of natural medicine are not asleep today!!Liquhe54 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The information you added was not constructive. Saying that something is found somewhere else is not actually contributing to the information database of Wikipedia, and could also be considered spam. Oxfordwang (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I smell a sock. Liquhe54, are you the same person as Natstude645? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Kitton here. I change members of the scientific community disagree with Naturopathy to "some members" because acceptance varies across the country. There are many integrative medical practices where MDs and NDs collaborate in patient care. There are also some hospitals with NDs on staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.128.217 (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This is particularly frustrating. According to the wiki reliable sources site a systematic review is considered reliable evidence. Yet my additions quoting it keep getting deleted. Is there an arbitrator here? I am assuming this is what people are referring to with editing wars. Very off-putting for a new user. 68.166.55.114 (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop editing when you're not logged in and stick to your registered account. Those are the rules here, especially if you wish to be taken seriously. Right now you're also using this other IP: 75.165.64.134. All of your edits, including those made by IPs, are considered as being made by separate accounts and that's not normally allowed. All your edits should be collected in ONE contribution history. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I am new here and would like to be a useful member. I have now created a user name. I still do not understand why the following continues to be deleted:

There is a growing body of evidence supporting the use of naturopathic medicine for a range of conditions. Researchers presenting preliminary results from a systematic review of whole system naturopathic medicine at the 2012 International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health in Portland OR have identified 15 trials investigating naturopathic medicine including 6 randomized controlled trials for anxiety, low back pain, TMJ syndrome, rotator cuff tendinitis, multiple sclerosis, and cardiovascular disease risk. Two of the identified studies were cost effectiveness analyses indicating overall cost savings.

It is supported by a systematic review and I have also provided the Prospero registration for the systematic review which is standard operating procedures. Is there something I am missing? I don't mean to be rude if I am naive to wiki culture please grant me the benefit of the doubt. Is a reliable citation for a topic heading "evidence basis" that is an explicit study of the evidence basis really not an appropriate addition? SunTeaSummer (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The basic problem is that preliminary results reported at a conference are very far from what would be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia; see WP:MEDRS. The PROSPERO record is merely a statement that the review is under way, and cannot be used as a reliable source for the results of the review. In short, we won't be able to use this until it is published in a reputable journal. Looie496 (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll resubmit when it's been published. Thanks for clarifying.SunTeaSummer (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask why my attempts to edit evidence basis are continually being deleted? I've stated my conflict of interest in my usertalk page, changed my username to reflect that I am an individual within an organization, and only use third party scientific studies for my sources. I clearly state that naturopathy is often viewed as lacking evidence basis and also clearly state that there are a lot of areas that need further or even initial inquiry. Stating that there is absolutely no evidence basis is ridiculous and clearly the viewpoint of a very biased individual. Sites like "quackery.com" are hardly unbiased sources for scientific evidence. People look to wikipedia for a balanced viewpoint, because it is edited by the public. Not allowing anyone to change such a drastically out of touch and biased statement, to one that includes actual third party scientific studies seems inappropriate. There are studies coming out daily on naturopathic medicine. Those studies that promote or discredit omega-3 fatty acid supplements, those are studies on naturopathic medicine, and they should be represented. They're on the omega-3 Wikipedia page, so why aren't they on this one? This isn't a naturopathic versus allopathic debate. Allopathic doctors routinely use naturopathic treatments every time they suggest diet and lifestyle changes or the use of nutritional supplements. Integrative practices that have both MD and ND physicians are common, especially in unlicensed states where NDs don't have access to many diagnostic and treatment techniques. Treating naturopathy as anti-traditional medicine is woefully inaccurate. As is portraying it as anti-evidence based. The NIH does research on alternative medicine, as do countless universities and other research groups. There is even the Naturopathic Physicians Research Institute (NPRI). A group of NDs dedicated to researching naturopathic treatments and finding scientific basis, or lack thereof, for these treatments. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong to get my attempts at updating this section automatically deleted. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. I don't understand how I have a conflict of interest when I use sources completely unrelated to the AANP, but quackery.com is a viable, unbiased source. This section needs to be updated immediately and I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get some balanced information up there. 17:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Stephanieaanp (talk) stephanieaanp

Hi Stephanie. I think you refer to this edit. It's rather a large change all at once, with numerous problems that make it tough to discuss cogently as a single edit. In general, though, we avoid deletion of content that is well supported by wp:MEDRS sources unless better, more recent MEDRS supercede them. We avoid inserting unsupported assertions into articles, particularly when they are glaringly wrong, editorial comments such as "Since naturopathic treatment modalities include diet, supplements, herbs, homeopathy, acupuncture, lifestyle changes, and physical manipulation; any studies pertaining to the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of these treatments is a contribution to naturopathy’s legitimacy as an evidence based medicine."

We don't need any further studies to know that homeopathy doesn't have a measurable effect beyond placebo. If naturopathic practice was evidence based, then naturopathic doctrine would not include homeopathy. The situations for acupuncture and for energy manipulation are similar. On the other hand, diet, exercise, and even herbs are all reasonable theraputic avenues amenable to study, but they have long suffered from lack of scientific rigour. This is partly because of the difficulty of devising and conducting placebo controlled double blind trials and partly because it is more difficult to fund a study that does not evaluate a patentable product, but it is still possible.

In any case, we are anonymous (or pseudonymous) on "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and so we cannot act as reputable scientists here, but must rather act as encyclopedic editors. We rely on the published, peer reviewed, secondary literature to support assertions. This means not cherry-picking literature to support our preconceptions, nor stacking up a long list of primary studies to imply legitimacy.

I would suggest that you try small edits for a while so you can get more useful feedback. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × LSD may already have discussed some of this, but I'll leave my reply unchanged.)

Unless one is an experienced wikipedian, it's usually not a good idea to completely rewrite a section in one go without discussing it on the talk page first, but that wasn't the main problem with your edit. What you added is original research.

Right in the beginning, you claim that ″Many MDs unknowingly incorporate naturopathy in their practices by suggesting dietary changes, nutritional supplements, and lifestyle changes such as exercise and HEPA air filters.″ You cite no source and I doubt you'll find one because most of that is just what every physician learns to do (see if the patient has any deficiencies, discuss diet and - if necessary - supplementation, advocate moderate exercise).

Next you claim that since naturopathy includes many CAM modalities, every study that finds any of it working is evidence that naturopathy is a form of evidence based medicine. That's not true (and again, not sourced).

You then say that studies have been done on omega-3 fatty acids - they have, but that would be relevant for the omega-3 article, not here.

After that, you provide a source for how many Americans suffer from diabetes, but not for the claim that diabetes is best managed with a "team of physicians incorporating both allopathic (traditional) and naturopathic doctors.″

That IM is popular doesn't make it either evidence based or right.

I could go on (and if you want to, I will), but I think you get the idea. Whenever you make a claim, you have to provide a source that makes this very claim (e.g. if you want to say that MDs unknowingly practice naturopathy, you'll have to find a source that says just that; if you claim that diabetes is best treated with ″integrative medicine″, you need to cite a source saying that, ...). --Six words (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I will work on smaller edits and getting more sources for studies where treatment modalities were disproved. That is a very fair point. I would like to point out that quackwatch.com and http://skepdic.com/ and the vancouver sun don't seem to qualify as source. Yet they are cited 5 times in the article. That's 22.7% of the citations in the section. Almost a quarter of this section of the article is based on non MEDRS sources. If you take out the newspaper article it's 4/22 or 18% that are clearly biased individuals. How did you let that get published? How is that ok? Of the remaining citations, only 1 is from within the past 5 years (Wahlberg A (2007)) which is also frowned upon in "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)". Additionally, if the use of supplements such as omega-3s are used by naturopathic physicians, and they are, research on their efficacy is relevant to the evidence basis of naturopathic medicine. Saying it's not is equivalent to saying drug trials are irrelevant to traditional medicine. The article on diabetes management by a team of physicians is foudn here:. I believe that was included in my most recent attempt to edit the article. Can I cite you as a source for MDs using the same treatment modalities as NDs? You just claimed they were taught to use them. So apparently they do, but i'm not allowed to publish that information. Not to worry I'll take out unknowingly in my next edit and find sources for MDs who use diet and supplements in their practice. I do not understand how studies of naturopathic treatment methods don't contribute to evidence basis. Additionally, I assume i can use any newspaper article promoting naturopathy since the vancouver sun is apparently a reliable source for naturopathy's evidence basis. Maybe I'll just add a sentence, "but it is often heralded as a legitimate means of maintaining one's health, even by MDs" and include an article or two to support that. I'm willing to admit that my wording and lack of sources is not perfect. But quite frankly I'm disappointed in the clear bias against Naturopathic Medicine shown in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanieaanp (talk • contribs)

Sources are cited to support specific assertions in articles. If there is an assertion that you think is incorrect and not backed by a suitably reliable source, please identify that assertion. The Vancouver Sun article was used to support two statements. The first is amply supported by other sources. The second, "Naturopathy is criticized for its reliance on and its association with unproven, disproven, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings" is not a medical assertion, but rather a simple assertion that these criticisms exist. For such a statement any wp:RS is sufficient, it doesn't need a wp:MEDRS. Still, if you really wish, you are welcome go through the exercise of challenging it. I doubt, though, that you are really blind to the existence of these criticisms. With regard to the use of Quackwatch, there has been much debate over the years, some of which is linked from the notice box at the top of talk:Quackwatch. It has repeatedly been challenged and sustained as a reliable source on these matters, but like any reliable source, its use is assessed on a case by case basis. The Lancet isn't very useful for assertions on astrophysics. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I just performed a minor edit. I felt that the lack of qualifications given for the tradition-sensitive naturopaths in the Jagtenberg (2006) article should be mentioned. I also pointed out that it was performed in Australia and that there was no mention of its applicability in the US. I also added information about NPRI which is a research institute established to stimulate practice-based research in naturopathic medicine. I hope this is ok, though I won't be surprised if NPRI isn't a valid source through quackwatch is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanieaanp (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That edit was not bad, actually. It would be better, for future edits, to seperate edits which make content changes from those which simply reorder content.

As far as the NPRI goes, it does seem to be useful, though I have qualms about how willing they seem to be to cite themselves: Calabrese, Herman, and Coulter are all involved in governance of the NPRI. Accordingly, statements such as you added based on them should by clearly attributed in the text, per wp:PSTS. So rather than "They are..." I would say "They describe themselves..." instead. More problematic though is your direct copypaste of "The NPRI was established to stimulate practice-based research and facilitate the participation of doctors, specialty societies, professional associations and colleges to provide more data for evidence-informed health care policy." This seriously violates wp:COPYVIO even though you cited the source. If you intend a Fair use quotation, it must be shown as in quotation marks. Template:quotation can be useful for this purpose, but wp:MOSQUOTE gives more general advice. Better though, is to rephrase the statement into your own words, but without drawing any new inferences, so you have original text, but not wp:original research. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Ammended. Thank you for your constructive criticisms. I have other work to get to before the day is over, but I cannot wait to do this all over again on Monday. Stephanieaanp (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)stephanieaanp

Just added some citations for cost effectiveness studies. Please let me know if there are any problems with them or their citations. 98.204.70.212 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)stephanieaanp

This does not appear to be a WP:MEDRS and the statement sourced to this is misleading with respect to the source. a13ean (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The 2005 article is not my addition, that is part of the original article. I simply added a more recent study to topic. How was the statement misleading? It is a systematic review, of the 56 comparisons made in the higher-quality studies, 16 (29%) show a health improvement with cost savings for the CIM therapy versus usual care, and of those 16, is the one study that focuses on naturoapthy. One of the key messages of the study was "The higher-quality studies indicate potential cost-effectiveness, and even cost savings across a number of CIM therapies and populations." Should I only include that one study, the chronic back pain study? Please explain what's wrong with that source. The primary researcher is a Research Scientist at Health Outcomes and PharmacoEconomics Center, College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona.98.204.70.212 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)stephaneiaanp

I've just made a second attempt on an addition to the cost effectiveness portion of this section. it is separate from the 2005 article so hopefully you won't get confused and think I added that again. I believe I made everything abundantly clear this time considering it's twice as long as yesterday's attempt. If you find it misleading in any way can you please point out what exactly is misleading so I can amend it? It is not my intention to mislead anyone. 98.204.70.212 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)stephanieaanp

I would like to add the statement "though other studies included popular naturopathic treatments such as acupuncture and nutritional supplementation" to the sentence "This review only included 1 study specifically on naturopathy." to explain why the 2012 review is mentioned at all. But I will wait for your feedback on my current additions before I make any more. `98.204.70.212 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)stephanieaanp

I see that my 9/28 edits were removed for "non neutral language" I can maybe see how my criticisms of a previously cited article could be seen as non-neutral. The weaknesses of that study should be made clear otherwise it is misleading. Additionally, I'd appreciate a reason as to why stating that there is a naturopathic research institute isn't neutral language. Stating that they exist and their reason for existing is hardly inflammatory language and should not result in it's complete omission from the evidence basis section of the naturopathy article. Stephanieaanp (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that when a review author is also an author of a paper being reviewed, they can not be presumed to be impartial, and the review (at least the portion in regards their own primary work) is still effectively a primary work. We need an objective reviewer to assess the primary work as being significant. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean in regards to using the review? should I omit it entirely or is simply stating that she's involved in both enough? Should I add "so she cannot be presumed to be impartial" to the statement? I certainly am not trying to hide it or anything like that. I know it's relevant to the quality of the review or I wouldn't have said anything about it in my addition. Thanks Stephanieaanp (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It means, it's only a review in regards the work of other authors. For the discussion of those other authors' work, it is usable: simply state what it says about the others' work and cite it. However, for what it says about their own work, treat it as a primary source: it doesn't establish that primary work as being significant and should not be used to contradict any secondary source. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok I made some edits to it which I hope clear it up a bit better. ;) (maybe not though so just let me know if I screwed it up) Stephanieaanp (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This section does not merit inclusion in the article. While it is technically a secondary source, the fact that it mentions only a single study relevant to the article makes it of limited use, and the fact that the review author also write the original study is also problematic. The whole point of using secondary sources is to avoid writing articles based on n=1 primary studies, which this section does.

I don't particularly care about how the number of countries bit is presented, but the number is "several", "a few" or less favorably, "at least 13" rather than many (which I accidentally restored at one point).

The whole evidence base section is a mess, and unfortunately the edit history is so convoluted at this point that we'll probably just need to look at how it stands now. A few things: "Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd" is not a WP:MEDRS. The article from "J Altern Complement Med" is only a RS as far as it presents the beliefs and practices of the community, but it's currently being used to present a rebuttal. Similarly, the statement in the Journal of Family Medicine about growing collaborations between the two communities (according to NPs) is too vague to offer anything to the article. a13ean (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you for explaining why the articles you left IN the evidence basis section are not reliable sources but in no way addressed why you deleted the entire paragraph on NPRI! How many times and ways do I have to ask you? Did you actually have a reason or are you trying to avoid the fact that you deleted it for no reason?Stephanieaanp (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI I'm taking your advice to heart and took out the entire review since it's of limited use. I kept the chronic back pain study in because it does pertain directly to naturopathic medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanieaanp (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; I forgot to mention it above. Please remember to assume good faith -- this is a long rather complex section and I didn't understand exactly what you were getting at. I don't see any reason that a two-year old nonprofit that as far as I can tell is not discussed in secondary sources is notable here. All I see are a few non-WP:MEDRS papers on which an author or two is affiliated with it. Furthermore, even if it was notable, it wouldn't make sense only to say that the research institute exists rather than anything about actual evidence. a13ean (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I believed it made sense for inclusion to provide contrary evidence to the "naturopaths don't believe in or don't understand evidence based medicine" comment. all naturopaths cannot be summed up in one statement considering the wide ranges of education and regulation among states and countries. I've since revised that section to better reflect that so I'm fine with it's not being included at the moment. I just needed to know why it was deleted. I think we can agree that "non neutral language' wasn't the reason even though it was the only one given. I assumed good faith in that I asked you a number of times and specifically mentioned NPRI in all of my requests for clarification. I'm sorry you didn't understand me, but I don't believe I was unclear. Stephanieaanp (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I try to list the reasons for making edits in the summary, going down the list until I run out of characters. In the edit in question, my primary reason for revering these changes was actually the addition of non-neutral language -- namely the "often accused of lacking an adequate scientific basis" bit per WP:WEASEL. a13ean (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I got that. That's why I already said "I can maybe see how my criticisms of a previously cited article could be seen as non-neutral." I never asked why you changed it back in the first place. All I asked was about the NPRI article. You gave no reason except "non-neutral language" so I had to assume that was the reason NPRI was deleted as well. Had you provided any more information, I might not have inquired at all. But you didn't. I just needed further clarification since you deleted an entire other paragraph.

WP:Discussion Part of following normal protocol is "If an edit is too complex to explain in the edit summary, or if the change is potentially contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page." You yourself stated this edit was too complex for the edit summary, and you had to know it could be contentious considering I had just added it days prior. You neglected to explain your rational on the talk page when you made the edit so I requested clarification. Multiple times. Specifically about NPRI each time.

Also, the first sentence of the article I changed to "accused" is "Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been advocated as a new paradigm in orthodox medicine and as a methodology for natural medicines, which are often ACCUSED of lacking an adequate scientific basis." My use of the word accused is more in touch with that article than your edit. I've deleted that entire statement because I don't believe the article supports the statement at all, whatever word you use. Stephanieaanp (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I just made some minor edits, but also included a statement that LICENSED NDs aren't taught rolfing or iridology in their universities. I've found some evidence of traditional naturopaths workign with rolfing people. But have yet to find any evidence of a licensed ND providing rolfing or iridology in their practice. I also have not seen it included in any Accredited Nat. Medical school's curriculum. The only evidence i can find of either of these therapies in reference to NDs in is reviews that don't make an effort to Naturoapthic Doctors (graduates of accredited NMSchools) and traditional naturopaths. I believe a distinction should be made.Stephanieaanp (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "LICENSED NDs"? Is that specific to one licensing body in one country? There are plenty of examples to the contrary. For example, the "college of natural medicine UK" offers courses in iridology which are recognised by "the Guild of Naturopathic Iridologists"; they also offer courses in various other discredited stuff, such as homeopathy. Of course, in Germany it's all about the Heilpraktiker - and there's no shortage of them offering other discredited modalities (rolfing included). In the UK, the General Naturopathic Council includes National College of Arse-Hosing and an assortment of other non-evidence-based practitioners such as back-cracking quacks. On the other side of the world, ANTA-accredited naturopaths learn all that and more; if it sounds a bit like it might be medical, but nobody's found actual evidence that it works, then they'll teach it - from shiatsu to acupuncture. So, I think that attempts to set up some kind of real naturopath strawman, at arms length from those other forms of snake-oil, would be fallacious. bobrayner (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There are currently 16 states (plus dc, puerto rico, and the virgin islands) that LICENSE naturopthic doctors in the US. 5 Provinces in Canada do as well under the same guidelines. You can see them here. In all licensed states/provinces NDs must have graduated from one of the accredited naturopathic medical colleges, viewable here and pass a comprehensive examination. They must also keep up with continuing education requirements to keep their licenses. This is also outlined in this article Practitioners so i don't understand why you're not familiar with it. Should I change the wording to "In the US and Canada, Licensed NDs" or something like that? I'm not privy to licensure or regulation of NDs outside of the US/Canada so I don't know if there are any governmental licensing bodies in other countries.Stephanieaanp (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty small subset of naturopaths. If it's actually true that those naturopaths steer clear of certain other forms of snake oil, good for them, but we shouldn't use that as special pleading against the broader problems already documented in the article. bobrayner (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Right ok screw them. Screw their education. Screw their commitment to EBM. Lets only deal with the one crazy group and completely mislead anyone who's interested in seeing one of the licensed NDs. There only licensed in scarcely populated areas like California, Washington, New England. And the unlicensed states, they don't care. None of the NDs in those states are advocating for licensure. Right? Are you seriously saying lets completely ignore the face that an entire group of people actually practice within the paradigms of conventional medicine? I'm sure this group of NDs will grow and definately overtake the crazies if we completely ignore them and tell potentially interested people that they're ALL nuts. That'll give them lots of confidence. MAYBE one of the reasons there are so few is because whenever they try to make their voices heard, and gain some amount respect within the community, all anyone knows about them is the crap they read online about the OTHER section of NDs. One of the main reasons Colorado doesn't license NDs is because the "traditional naturopaths" are against it. And Legislators can't figure out why some naturoapths want to be licensed and some don't. And then there are the "quackery" people who swoop in and bring all this evidence against them, but they're not discriminating between ND and traditional naturopath. So you're right, a highly public and accessible resource such as Wikipedia should definitely ignore minorities and focus on completely attacking the rest of them. That way "those" naturopaths can be completely discredited alongside their kooky peers, because that will solve everything. Did you ever think that better, explained information might lead to more of "those" NDS because the public (ie. consumers, policy makers, patients) might actually be able to understand the difference? That maybe it would lead to more safety since traditional naturopaths wouldn't be able to call themselves doctors anymore. People would know that not all naturopaths are the same so they don't automatically discredit anti-naturopathic talk assuming it's just "non believers" or "old fashioned docs stuck in their ways". Naturopathic medicine is getting more popular, and unless a distinction is made, more and more people are going to go to these "snake venom peddlers" and put themselves at risk. Not just by going to the other naturopaths, but by going to them and not sharing it with their MD. The statement on naturopathic medicine interactions is very true, and if people are afraid to tell their docs about what they're taking, a lot of harm can come of it.

Maybe I could link the words "licensed naturopathic doctors" to the section outlining what that means? I'm not quite sure how to do that yet, so if you know how I'd appreciate you teaching me. On an unrelated, but interesting, note, I'd like to offer this as an amusing reference to snake venom peddlers. Stephanieaanp (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry it just really terrifies me that those people are out there treating people with absolutely NO medical education. And I really think that better information would lead to their decrease in popularity.Stephanieaanp (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"Naturopathy is practiced in many countries"

Please source this statement. I highly doubt it. The exact concept described in this article ("a type of alternative medicine based on a belief in vitalism, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation.") is practically unknown in most German speaking countries and (as far as I know) in most of continental Europe. Considering that there are more than 185 countries the few countries listed in the article are clearly not "many". Please proof the statement or delete it. 87.164.114.245 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

At this year's International Congress on Naturopathic Medicine there are supporting organizations from 12 countries(http://www.icnmcongress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=22&Itemid=26). Does that not qualify as many? Should I amend that sentence to include "as evidenced by the professional associations in these 12 countries:.."? Would that make it an applicable statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanieaanp (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Twelve out of 190-206 (depending on how you count) does not sound like "many". Why not just say "has supporting organizations in twelve countries", cite it, and leave it at that?LeadSongDog come howl! 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there may or may not be practicing naturopathic doctors in other countries like Germany doesn't matter? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457898 Just because you don't know of something doesn't make it non-existent. I'll amend my statement to "at least 13" and cite both sources. I'll probably be citing that article again in evidence basis too, there are a lot of studies on naturopathy though so it might not make the cut. I'll update the number if I find any more studies from previously unrepresented countries.Stephanieaanp (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)stephanieaanp

I figured out how to link, but let me know if you still think it would be better to specify US&Canada. Stephanieaanp (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Iridology

The article states that there is no evidence that licensed naturopaths use iridology. Does this suggest that naturopathic iridologists are all unlicensed (www.gin-international.org)? This statement probably should be modified or deleted. --PedEye1 (talk) 05:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately there seems to have been a confusion between licensed naturopaths in general, versus the structure of one particular licensing scheme. (See the thread above) bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem right now is that the article is trying to prove a negative: "There is no evidence that rolfing or iridology are used by Licensed Naturopathic Doctors." is sourced only to the fact that iridology is not explicitly mentioned in an overview of their curriculum online. Unless they explicitly say they don't do iridology I see no reason to include this. a13ean (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In the definition of naturopathic medicine used by licensed NDs iridology and rolfing are not mentioned anywhere http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?pl=16&sl=59&contentid=59. Nor is it included in any of the curriculum in any of the accredited schools which licensed NDs attend. http://www.aanmc.org/education/academic-curriculum.php Nor have I found any evidence of it being practiced by licensed NDs in my own online research. Please rephrase it if you don't like the wording, but don't omit it completely and imply that licensed NDs utilize either of those in their practices unless you can prove that they in fact do. By the same standard one could criticize any MD for using iridology simply because they hadn't previously stated that they don't use it.Stephanieaanp (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, this article is neither Licensed naturopathic medicine nor Evidence based naturopathy, and it must talk about the whole scope, not just the subfield as practiced by a licensed small fraction of the whole. That said, it might be helpful to have a section which discusses any limitations which regulation places on those licensed North American practioners to eschew specific non-evidence-based methods, if such limitations can be reliably sourced. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

These general claims about "licensed NDs" avoiding other forms of snake-oil are impossible to reconcile with the links I provided in an earlier thread. bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

How many NDs?

I think that it would be very useful to know what the relative numbers of NDs to whatever the other practitioners are called. The bit on the AANP claims that that organization has 2000 members, but it is not clear what percentage of those are actually NPs as it includes students, corporate sponsors and others. I get the feeling that the number is tiny relative to the others.

I a little uneasy about AANP claims about what normal medical schools teach. I removed "clinical nutrition" as that is taught in most med schools.Desoto10 (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

We should also be wary of USA-centrism. There are people working as naturopaths in other countries but the text about NDs is very USA-centric; we shouldn't compound that by presenting American stats as though they're a complete count of naturopaths everywhere. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The article states that naturopathy is a US and Canada thing and reference this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457898 Interestingly, the article is about German naturopathic treatment. I don't have access to the full article so I can't comment on that. There seem to be naturopathic associations in the UK and Ireland (that, incidentally, offer courses in iridology). It would be very interesting to see a chart of naturopaths in different countries. Desoto10 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

new idea for "evidence based" section

rename as critique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.25.6 (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to be 97-99% neutral. I question, however, the repeated use of the word "pseudoscientific"--it doesn't seem very neutral. Jamiesfangirl (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See wp:FRINGE and wp:Pseudoscience. There's no point in us pretending that homeopathy, iridology, and reiki are anything other than pseudoscience. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality means we give due weight to what is expressed in the majority of the most reliable sources. The most reliable sources regard Naturopathy as pseudoscience, so therefore we do also. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And to follow up I restored the Pseudoscience category as it wandered off at some point. a13ean (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

most of the non-quackwatch/website-type studies cited in this article relate to exclusively non-negative characterisations of naturopathy, even when referenced for sentences with main points being negative characterisation. Therefore, I have altered the sentences related to these sources. The articles are, by and large, available through online academic databases. If someone were so inclined, a visit to the local university would confirm my claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.223.207.28 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 13 August 2013‎ (UTC)

I have reverted the changes that appear to have been made by the unsigned editor above. They have not been discussed here at all. Roxy the dog (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Naturopathy has some elements that are pseudo-scientific. There's nothing wrong calling that out, as long as you are specific. Perhaps a broad categorization of all naturopathy is too much. Scanning the article, it appears that the more cautious language is used. I see no reason to change. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Naturopath associations

Do we really need a list of Canadian Naturopathy associations. Is there anything special about this list? Desoto10 (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What on Earth? Edit war and no talk?

Why not? This isn't the way to do it. Roxy the dog (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

142.xx.xx.xx has been warned on his/her talk page about edit warring, and about content removal. No luck so far. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words?

Somebody tagged the article and this sentence with "weasel words":

Naturopathy favors a holistic approach with non-invasive treatment and, similar to conventional medicine,[weasel words] encourages minimal use of surgery and drugs.

I am not sure what this means. I suspect that this editor objects to the fact that conventional medicine encourages minimal use of surgery and drugs, for some reason. A tenet of modern medicine is to use the smallest effective dose of a drug and the least invasive surgery that is effective. 66.120.181.218 (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Desoto10 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I too am confused by it, hopefully the tagger can explain it, the edit summary is not that clear. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Here are a couple of refs for conventional medicine encouraging the lowest effective dose of a drug:

Patrono C. Aspirin: new cardiovascular uses for an old drug. Am J Med. 2001 Jan 8;110(1A):62S-65S.

“physicians are encouraged to use the lowest dose…” of aspirin, in this case

Drug prescribing for older adults Author Paula A Rochon, MD, MPH, FRCPC Section Editor Kenneth E Schmader, MD Deputy Editor Fenny H Lin, MD All topics are updated as new evidence becomes available and our peer review process is complete. Literature review current through: Jul 2013. |This topic last updated: May 24, 2013. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/drug-prescribing-for-older-adults#H7

“Many adverse drug events are dose-related. When prescribing drug therapies it is important to use the minimal dose required to obtain clinical benefit”

Desoto10 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the tagger used the wrong tag. Anyway I've just removed that bit as it is never mentioned in the article. I think the whole point of that ideology section and the refs in it is that naturopathy emphasizes minimizing surgery and drugs OVER AND ABOVE conventional surgery. By adding the unreferenced 'similar to conventional medicine' someone was trying to make the sentence mean something that wasn't intended by the references, i.e. WP:OR. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, that wording is misleading. "Naturopathy relies on minimal surgery and drugs" implies that mainstream medicine does not. This is a common talking point within naturopathy; "how awful is mainstream medicine because of its insistence on using unnecessary surgery and drugs to solve every problem?" That's just not the case, and we should be careful to avoid supporting it in the article. In reality, our sources seem to suggest that naturopathy uses no drugs and surgery at all, only sometimes referring patients outside of their field to mainstream medicine when their condition is too severe. The ACS source details this further. I've updated the wording to reflect that, citing the ACS source. If there are other instances in the article with the same issue, we should update those as well. We should also readily contrast naturopathy's approach to surgery and drugs with mainstream medicine, and I think there are a few instances in the article where we don't do that early enough.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Good work; thanks! bobrayner (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

new section

Perhaps there should be a section devoted specifically for a list of "peer-reviewed" therapies developed from this area of research. Trixie05 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 13:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Change in section title

Mimicoctopus has changed the title to the section "Evidence basis" to "Criticism". I agree with this change. The section reflects criticism only it does not discuss the evidence basis for Naturopathy (although scant or tenuous, there is some). - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree; it's focussing on the evidence base, or lack thereof. It's also disappointing that readers have to make their way through lengthy discussion of naturopathy before getting right to the bottom of the article where they're told that naturopathy isn't real. I'll move the section higher up in the article. bobrayner (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

An Ugly Box Thing

Has appeared in the article, entitled "Naturopathy" that doesn't appear to be useful at all! I would be interested to know the purpose it serves, and the justification for it being there? It sits just above the other box thing on the page entitled "Alternative Medical Systems" which doesn't do much either. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have excised the wart. bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

References: Verify, RS, not current, MEDRS, DUE, NPOV

I have uniformly (to the best of my abilities) formatted the references for this article and in doing so I discovered quite a few problems.

• First and foremost many of the facts are not in the references cited. I edited several of them and tagged a few of them but more than a few remain. Most of the material seems accurate and much of it is present in other sources already cited.

• Second many sources are self published, primary sources that have a clear interest in promoting naturopathy. A few of the primary sources have credibility such as the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) as it is an accrediting organization recognized by the US Dept. of Education. Others are organizations without a reference supporting their recognition or credibility. If credibility can be established for some of the others they may be acceptable.

• Third some of the references are out of date (the webpages cited have been updated since the access date). I have provided archive links as close as possible to the access dates for these pages but the material need to be updated using the most current information.

• Fourth as this is an article dealing with medical claims the standard for references is quite a bit higher than for general articles. An editor with access to the Cochrane database could probably provide some serious improvement. Analyses and meta-analyses may be available in journals.

Despite these problems I think there is the foundation for a good article here. This subject certainly deserves a properly encyclopedic NPOV article. The representation of the support for naturopathy needs to be more clear, concise and verified but certainly should be in the article in proportion to significance and in relation the scientific and medical consensus.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines that apply: WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:MEDRS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE

Discussion of sources:

Sarris & Wardle 2010: Probably a good source, could be used for sourcing much of the article, web access limited, a review in a journal to show acceptance or criticism would probably be appropriate.

American Cancer Society 2008: Has been updated, good source, could be used to support poorly sourced facts.

Langley "History of Naturopathy": Written by a Naturopath, cited as coming from a book that shows no evidence of having been published, webpage hosted on College of Naturopathic Medicine (CNM) evidence for credibility needed.

"What is Naturopathy": Again CNM needs credibility

"How it all began": Website for product, no supporting citations not RS.

"Certificate of Incorporation": Needs verification.

"Licensed States & Licensing Authorities": No longer at original url, needs credibility for authoring/hosting organization.

"House of Delegates Position Paper: Naturopathic Physicians Oath": Needs credibility, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP) may be a recognized organization with some authority in licensing states this needs to be supported with some reference to establish credibility.

Canadian Naturopathic Assoc. 2003: Quite possibly a credible source, needs evidence, Board of Directors of Drugless Therapy likewise.

"The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association...": Needs verification, needs evidence of publication.

"About Us: Naturopathic Physicians: Natural Medicine. Real Solutions": As above credibility needed for AANP.

Bastyr University, National College of Natural Medicine, Southwest College of Natural Medicine, University of Bridgeport: All primary sources, facts may be supported in other sources, issues with the Southwest College of Natural Medicine resulted in the CNME temporarily losing it's status as an accrediting agency a good reason to find RS for this information.

"Naturopathic Medicine": No author, no date, no evidence of endorsement by hosting site, no longer on website, self published, this source is among several I am considering removing with accompanying facts.

"American Naturopathic Medical Association": Needs evidence for credibility, official sounding but what source supports this organization as a recognized and having what capacity?

Wendel 1951: Self published book, is there an article or review in a journal that lends it credibility? Not RS, needs verification.

"The Healing Arts Practice Act...": Could use verification, ammended multiple times over many years.

"Lawton v Steele": No apparent relevance to fact. Is a case about destroying fishing nets. If cited in case/legislative hearing/Attorney General position about licensing for naturopaths that needs to be cited not this case.

"Questions: Education and Regulation": Needs support for credibility of source (Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors).

"Welcome": Needs support for source. The Association des Naturothérapeutes du Québec (ANQ) is an organization for the promotion of it's members, by whom and in what capacity is it recognized?

"Naturopathie - Présentation": Needs support for credibility of source (PasseportSanté.net).

"Admission Criteria": As above credibility of source.

"Description of Represented Therapies": Another organization that is promotional Alliance Québécoise des Thérapeutes Naturels (AQTN) needs evidence of credibility.

"Régime D’assurance Maladie et Hospitalisation et Santé D’hydro-Québec": Not sure how the insurance information for an employer rates as RS.

"BNYS (list of colleges with university affiliation / government recognition)": Needs some sort of support. It may be supported by the site it is hosted on.

AYUSH and National Institute of Naturopathy: These may both be reliable sources but some evidence to support them other than their own websites is needed or some evidence that they are gov't organizations.

"Naturopathic medicine: What can patients expect?": Clear bias of authors, needs support that meets MEDRS, is journal peer reviewed?

Suggested sources:

The American Cancer Society; National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine; American Medical Assoc.; Iowa Board of Medicine; Center for the Health Professions; Minnesota Department of Health; Massachusetts: The Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medical Practitioners; Pew Health Professions Commission; and Office of Policy, Research and Regulatory Reform, Department of Regulatory Agencies, State of Colorado are all high quality sources that provide good overview and detail. They are already cited in this article.

These sites can provide current regulatory information: Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine; Office of Professional Regulation, Vermont, Washington State Dept. of Health, Hawaii Professional and Vocational Licensing. Journal article JAMA Pediatrics Homeopathy and Naturopathy Practice Characteristics and Pediatric Care. International info from WHO [8].

- - MrBill3 (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• As most of these issues have not been addressed I will proceed with editing to remove poorly sourced material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The poorly sourced and unsourced material has been partially removed. If material is to be added back please find sources that support it. Consultation of WP:MEDRS and WP:Verifiablity is highly suggested. Extensive explanations were provided above and considerable time for comment allowed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)