Talk:Naturopathy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Subsection on Germany added lacking references

A subsection on Germany of the Regulation section has been added. A single reference (a webpage) was given and none of the information presented appears on this webpage. The formatting also has issues. I am moving the material here. I think there are facts that may be verifiable and warrant inclusion. With proper references and encyclopedic formatting it can go back in the article.

Material Removed:

Germany

National laws regulating naturopathic medicine as a distinct therapeutic system

• In 1998 the Code of Social Law recognised naturopathic medicine as a distinct therapeutic

system.

Regulation of the profession of naturopathic doctors by the medical association/council/chamber

• There is a specific naturopathic curriculum for medical doctors in Germany recognised by

the Medical Chamber leading to an official additional medical qualification.

Diplomas of naturopathic doctors

• Various associations provide postgraduate training courses in the diverse therapeutic

elements of naturopathic medicine and have developed quality standards.

Naturopathic medicine at universities

• There are two professorial chairs of naturopathic medicine in Germany (Rostock,

Duisburg/Essen).

Naturopathic medicine in hospitals

• Naturopathic medicine is provided in several hospitals in Germany.

Herbal medicines

• Scientifically supported drug monographs have been compiled by the Interdisciplinary

Expert Commission of the Federal Health Department in Berlin (Commission E). On the basis of the 330 drug monographs published by Commission E, the European Scientific Cooperative for Phytotherapy (ESCOP) now proposes European monographs, making acceptance of phytotherapy by European legislation much more probable.

End Removed Material. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism / Evidence Basis section?

A large amount of text was removed, apparently without comment: (cur | prev) 23:14, 23 October 2013‎ 124.170.11.108 (talk)‎ . . (60,980 bytes) (-9,569)‎ . . (undo) This was the old "Evidence based research" section. Was there consensus to remove all of this? Desoto10 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If nobody objects, then there is consensus. If an editor restores any content the WP:ONUS is on them to show it's worthy. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out on this talk page, Desoto10. I think there was wholesale removal of well sourced material including references that appropriately addressed the subject of the article. Here is the Diff. I think a section on Evidence is appropriate. Suggestions for an appropriate section header would be appreciated. I intend to restore some or much of the deleted material after verification of sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

How about "Efficacy" or "Effectiveness"? I prefer "Clinical Efficacy" because that would limit the section to actual clinical research as opposed to preclinical studies which are orders of magnitude less informative about how a treatment works for people. I suggest that pretty much all articles with subjects relating to medical treatments also have such a section.Desoto10 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

My concern with a section titled, "Efficacy" or "Effectiveness" is the implication created. How about "Research" or "Clinical studies"? I remain open but feel regardless of heading this material should be added back into the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"Research" is a nice neutral title. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that a section titled "Efficacy" implies anything other than that the section will consider whether or not there is any demonstrated clinical efficacy for a particular treatment. The issue that I have with the more generic "Research" title is that they tend to get filled with basic research papers that describe effects on rodents or tissue cultured cells. While this sort of preclinical research is massively important to discovery, and warrants some mention, it really has very little to do with whether or not a treatment works. Only a tiny fraction of animal and/or tissue culture studies lead to validity as a human therapy. Any traction for calling it "Clinical Research" and limit the section to human studies with perhaps a brief mention of any basic research underway? Desoto10 (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't include animal studies: that's primary research and needs some secondary coverage to make it worth including. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that most animal studies have no place in most of these articles relating to CAM (or mainstream medicine, for that matter); they belong in the basic science articles, even if they are covered in reviews and other secondary sources. To emphasize that, I still like "Clinical Research", but wouldn't object strongly to just "Research".Desoto10 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think "Clinical research" is a very good section header. It avoids the implication I still find in "Efficacy" and is appropriately precise for what should appear in the article. I propose creation of this section and the restoration the removed material (by Desoto10 if willing/interested), (with editing if appropriate). - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to do the edit, but I can't say when I would get around to this so if anyone else wants to tackle it, feel free. Desoto10 (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Lead

There have been several attempts to rewrite the lead without discussion on this talk page. Diff this change was reverted with notification to take it to talk. It was then redone Diff and Diff without discussion. I have returned the lead as it was before these edits. Feel free to discuss here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an accurate description of Naturopathic medicine by an accredited University in the U.S.. The current one has many incorrect statements as well as claims that have been deceptively translated.

Naturopathic medicine (sometimes called "naturopathy") is a distinct system of primary health care that emphasizes prevention and the self-healing process through the use of natural therapies . Naturopathic doctors (NDs) blend centuries-old knowledge and a philosophy that nature is the most effective healer with current research on health and human systems.

Naturopathic diagnosis is focused on identifying the underlying causes of disease, while naturopathic therapies are supported by research drawn from peer-reviewed journals from many disciplines, including naturopathic medicine, conventional medicine, European complementary medicine, clinical nutrition, phytotherapy, pharmacognosy, homeopathy, psychology and spirituality

The therapeutic modalities used in naturopathic medicine (including physical manipulation, clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy and hydrotherapy) integrate conventional, scientific and empirical methodology with the ancient laws of nature. The underpinnings of naturopathic medical practice are in six principles

First Do No Harm - primum non nocere

The Healing Power of Nature - vis medicatrix naturae

Discover and Treat the Cause, Not Just the Effect - tolle causam

Treat the Whole Person - tolle totum

The Physician is a Teacher - docere

Prevention is the best "cure" - praevenire

Naturopathic doctors (NDs) are primary care physicians who have attended a four-year naturopathic medical school, are clinically trained, and work in all aspects of family health — from pediatric to geriatric care Most NDs provide primary care through office-based private practice. Many receive additional training in areas such as midwifery and acupuncture and Oriental medicine. Because NDs view natural remedies as complementary as well as primary, they cooperate with other medical professionals, referring patients to (and receiving patients from) conventional medical doctors, surgeons and other specialists when appropriate

Educated in all of the same basic sciences as a medical doctor (MD), a naturopathic doctor uses the Western medical sciences as a foundation for diagnosis and treatment Just like MDs, naturopathic physicians must pass rigorous professional board exams before they can be licensed by a state or jurisdiction. And, for at least the final two years of the medical program, naturopathic medical students intern in clinical settings under the close supervision of licensed professionals

NDs, however, also study holistic approaches to therapy with a strong emphasis on disease prevention and optimizing wellness. In addition to a standard medical curriculum, NDs are trained in clinical nutrition, homeopathic medicine, botanical medicine, psychology, physical medicine and counseling. Another distinguishing feature is the treatment philosophy: Naturopathic doctors see the physician as someone who facilitates healing by identifying and removing barriers to health

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.189.87 (talk • contribs)

Hi 65.129. Please see WP:WEIGHT. The current lead is well sourced, and we cannot exclude all our scientific sources in favor of exclusively naturopathic literature.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

This is a biased and one sided review of what "naturopathic medicine is". this is misinformation and does not great on a wikipedia page. Please review the sources, and replace them with more reliable sources.

Introduction should start with:

Naturopathy—also called naturopathic medicine—is a medical system that has evolved from a combination of traditional practices and health care approaches popular in Europe during the 19th century. Guided by a philosophy that emphasizes the healing power of nature, naturopathic practitioners now use a variety of traditional and modern therapies.

source -National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)(March, 2012) http://nccam.nih.gov/health/naturopathy/naturopathyintro.htm

JawadMajeed (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The current lead is sourced to a number of high quality secondary sources. Even the NIH source you listed goes into detail about naturopathy's rejection within the scientific community, risks, conflict with modern medicine, and so on. We cannot represent just positive aspects of the topic without covering its reception in the relevant academic community (science and medicine). You'd need to establish consensus on this talk page before such a change was made, and to do that you would need to find a number of new sources lacking in the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014

Webster's dictionary defines Naturopathy as the following: the treatment of illness by using diet, herbs, exercises, etc., without using standard drugs or surgery). This is an unbiased accurate definition from an objective source and should replace the biased lead parahraph that argues naturopathy is pseudoscience and that inaccurately argues that most naturopaths reject biomedicine and modern science. People are welcome to their opinions but this does not belong in a lead paragraph of an objective source like wikipedia. I propose moving a discussion around opinions related to clinical research in natural medicine to further in the article and using webster's definition as the lead sentence. Tandresen (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Again, see the above section, the current lead is extensively sourced and backed up by previous discussion and consensus. If you'd like to change it, you should begin a section with a list of sources not included in this article and attempt to generate new consensus.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2014

Naturopathy practiced by naturopathic doctors is not based on pseudoscience. It builds from the basic sciences that all doctors are familiar with including chemistry, biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, and nutrition. Many naturopathic treatments are based on scientific evidence. Most treatment plans for patients include dietary recommendations, supplement recommendations, exercise prescriptions, stress management techniques and even pharmaceutical medications when appropriate, which all have plenty of scientific use supporting their use. Homeopathy is a very small part of naturopathic medicine which is used by some practitioners. If one looks at the curriculum at any accredited naturopathic college he or she would see that the majority of classes are science based classes. Hopefully this misconception of naturopathy practiced by naturopathic doctors can be resolved. 12.146.149.50 (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please establish consensus for your change on this talk page before requesting an edit. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Book of Tobit (Dead Sea Scrolls Version) vs. Hippocrates Dating

The Archangel Raphael allegedly taught Tobit naturopathic medicine practices around the same time as Hippocrates (Wiki paragraph 4). Although Hippocrates came earlier (need exact dates of Tobit in Dead Sea Scrolls), where can a biblical narrative or where should the biblical narrative exist on this page until the research is complete? Twillisjr (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Twillisjr. I would suggest developing this outside the article until it's ready to be included. Many editors like creating workspaces (like User:Mann_jess/Workspace) where they can develop content they're not ready to use. Try creating this page, and let us know when it's done. For us to include this content, we would need 1) sources documenting this claim, and 2) sources tying the claim notably to naturopathy, explicitly. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mann_jess. The best source I can provide is here: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Tobit+6&version=GNT and there is a method of integrating scripture from various places of that website into sources, see articles such as "David" for syntax. Also, for dead sea scrolls, from the Leon Levy Digital Library's collection, a reference to the Book of Tobit being in the archive is available here: http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/scrolls-content?locale=en_US Twillisjr (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

7 The angel (Archangel Raphael) answered, The heart and liver can be burned and used to chase away a demon or an evil spirit that is tormenting someone. The attacks will stop immediately, and the person will never be troubled again. 8 You can use the gall bladder to treat someone whose eyes are covered with a white film. Just rub it on his eyes and blow on the film, and he will be able to see again.

Hi Twillisjr. Thanks for that. Those are what's called primary sources. What we would need are secondary sources (sources which discuss the primary ones), specifically with mention of naturopathy. So, for example, we would need a source that said "Some Christians believe that the Archangel Raphael taught naturopathic medicine in the Bible." Does that make sense?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We wouldn't want to just assert that this is naturopathic medicine. That would be taking a modern concept and projecting it far backwards in time. What's being made in the Tobit narrative is simply medicine, not naturopathic medicine. Some people might try to connect the two, yes, but this connection is not obvious, so we'd have to attribute it to a specific source. To do otherwise would be treading much too close to inventing our own synthesis. Friday (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Friday and Mann_jess there must be a substantial scholarly reliable source that connects naturopathy and ancient manuscripts. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2014

MP260 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Naturopathy is not a pseudoscience - I request that that phrase be removed from the wikipedia page

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I am contacting Bastyr University to write up a rebuttal of the claims on the main page.

Et0hman (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Et0hman

[1] [2] [3]

Et0hman (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Et0hman

All three of those are primary sources, and none mention the word "pseudoscience". Please see WP:RS and WP:FRINGE.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No citations for the entire first section

There are no citations. I would help edit this if it weren't for the partial block as I don't make edits from an account.

This needs to be addressed to maintain credibility, meet WP standards, and to ensure a NPOV.

--76.115.128.195 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The lede usually does not have references. If you see anything in the lede that is not referenced below, let us know. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the same person with the IP address 76.115.128.195.

I'll go sentence by sentence. First sentence:

Naturopathy, or naturopathic medicine, is a pseudoscientific form 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.

While there are pseudoscientific practices within naturopathy, naturopathy by itself does not fit definition pseudoscientific. A licensed Naturopath is educated in drugs and minor surgery as well as botanicals, vitamins, herbs, homeopathy, and so on - as the article mentions. However, not all Naturopathic physicians engage in practices such as homeopathy. Some naturopaths use a lot of pseudoscience, and others focus more on evidence-based approaches (including evidence based supplements and herbs).

Naturopathic.org defines it as:

Naturopathic medicine is a distinct primary health care profession, emphasizing prevention, treatment, and optimal health through the use of therapeutic methods and substances that encourage individuals’ inherent self-healing process. The practice of naturopathic medicine includes modern and traditional, scientific, and empirical methods.

http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?pl=16&sl=59&contentid=59

While this definition is not perfect, it makes more sense than the Wikipedia one in my opinion.

Also there is this sentence:

Among naturopaths, complete rejection of biomedicine and modern science is common.

Is there a study cited in this article that clearly demonstrates this is true?

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Some naturopaths do things other than naturopathy, like integrating some modern medical techniques. Some of the non-naturopathy stuff they do is not pseudoscience. Naturopathy is still pseudoscience, even if it's occasionally combined with non-pseudoscience, just like apples keep being apples even if you put them in a bowl with some pears. Your source, naturopathic.org, doesn't trump the other independent, reliable secondary sources we have on the topic. See WP:PRIMARY.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Jess, I think OP actually has a fair point in this instance. It's a bit misleading the way we phrase it right now because it's like saying that our bowl of apples and pears is just a bowl of pears. So perhaps our phrasing would be more accurate if we said something like "naturopathy is a form of alternative medicine based on both scientific and pseudoscientific elements." I'll admit this isn't the most eloquent phrasing, but I haven't gotten a good nights sleep in a week :). Anyway, I'm not sure the scientific aspect is as occasional as you say it is. My understanding (admittedly based on little research, some of it anecdotal) is that naturopathy as a whole uses legitimate research and treatment options, but phrases and theorizes in pseudoscientific terms. I know that doctors of naturopathy are legally able to diagnose diseases, as well as prescribe certain drugs—I can't imagine they would be allowed to do so in the US unless there were certain scientific standards in place to assure patient safety. Again, I'm no expert in the subject so perhaps I'm totally off here, but this is what I've garnered about the profession. With that said, I agree with you on the source, of course. N^oformation ^Talk 21:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree, but I'm sure we've both just gotten our info from different sources. Some of my understanding is anecdotal as well; my sister was a naturopath for some time. I don't have a ton of time tonight, but I'll make an effort to look through the sources we're using more extensively when I can and check my assumptions. My understanding is that naturopathy, as a whole profession, is based on vitalism, and very commonly speaks poorly of "allopathic medicine" and science, usually rejecting modern medicine outright. However, accreditation of NDs often includes some basic level of medical training, which technically qualifies them to dispense a certain level of medical advise, and sometimes administer drugs. Modern naturopaths sometimes use this license to integrate basic medical techniques into their practice, so long as those techniques don't conflict too strongly with their focus on vitalism and natural healing. If my understanding is correct, then we should represent naturopathy as a pseudoscience, and say naturopaths sometimes integrate non-pseudoscience into their practice. I haven't seen any sources indicating that naturopathy is, even in part, science. I'll investigate more and see if I can track anything down. Let me know if you're aware of any good sources in the meantime. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that we have such differing anecdotes about it (but that's why they're anecdotes, right?). If your assessment is correct then I agree with your approach to the article. I'll check some of my old bio textbooks as well and see if I can't find something mentioned, although I cannot for the life of me remember it ever being covered (perhaps for good reason). N^oformation ^Talk 02:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is strong support for naturopathy being called pseudoscience in the content of the article. The sentence, "Among naturopaths, complete rejection of biomedicine and modern science is common." is not as strongly supported and has been highly contentious. I would like to see some more specific support. I believe it is a factual statement but on WP verifiability trumps facts. If an editor feels some specific content already in the article supports the statement an explanation here would be most helpful (in particular to refer to when it is removed as has happened repeatedly). If such support is not in the article then it needs to be extracted from a reliable source. It is possibly a contentious enough statement that it should have a reference citation (even in the lead it is sometimes needed for contentious facts). If this has already been discussed adequately a pointer to that discussion would be appreciated. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement is such a generality that it must be wrong. While it likely is correct that a substantial fraction of naturopaths reject some parts of evidence based medicine, most obviously vaccinations, and many use such nonsense as homeopathy, it is undeniable that many of them use telephones, computers, the internet, and many other technologies arising from modern science. The statement needs rephrasing. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think that statement overreaches; we should have something more nuanced. bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jess I had no luck. Not a single mention of naturopathy in any one of half a dozen bio/med textbooks. Anything on your end? N^oformation ^Talk 01:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; I've only been gnomishly editing the past few days. I'm still looking through some online literature, but after a cursory look, I agree with the others above about the "common rejection" sentence. If anyone has ideas on how to reword that sentence to be more nuanced, and in line with our sources, that would undoubtedly be an improvement. I'll post a couple sources we can use about that and the pseudoscience bit once I get a chance!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the complete rejection sentence should be removed instead of changed or improved as there doesn't seem to be refs to back up such a statement. I think trying to reword it and then cherrypicking for supporting refs is not good practice and can (intentionally or unintentionally) lead to a biased POV.

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bias

This post demonstrates significant bias in opposition to naturopathy. It states that it operates in opposition to orthodox medicine and is not an evidence based practice. This is not the case. It would be more appropriate if this page were written by a practitioner of naturopathic medicine than one of its opponents. I see the work has been heavily referenced. An opponent of biomedicine could reference their work equally well. Natural medicine should not be listed with astrology as a pseudoscience. Practitioners in Australia must complete a four year university level bachelor of science degree in order to register as a naturopath. They are not quacks. Amanda Benson Student of Naturopathy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.74.74 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What post? Please sign your posts with four tildes. If you have changes you wish to propose with references you may certainly do so here. I suggest you take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies particularly those regarding due weight and conflict of interest. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This definition of Naturopathy is not by any "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias"conflict of interest,the true meaning, principle and science developed over thousands of years and verified cross culturally and scientifically. I fully agree with Amanda as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.167.79 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC) ```` Look naturopathy for me as an African is medicine before the whiteman came. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nabi (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2014

Misquote identified under section labeled "practice" as follows; "Naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis, and it is rejected by the medical community.[28]" - original article states that "naturopathy has been accused of lacking an adequate scientific basis". Please change this quotation to accurately reflect the original, and thus remove the broad generalization and bias against the evidence that Naturopathy is increasingly being validated by scientific review. Thankyou 110.142.71.108 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: There are a plethora of other sources cited within this article that support the statement in question. I don't have access to the source cited for this particular statement, but from the abstract, it seems that the paper is about how naturopaths don't think their practice should be tested under an evidence-based model. I am tempted to remove the source altogether, the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine seems a bit WP:FRINGEy has an impact factor of 1.4. Cannolis (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Deactivating template closed as not done by Cannolis. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2014

Failure to amend misquote (as per previous request) demonstrates that Wikipedia is prepared to allow actual misquotes of articles to support evident bias of author(s), thus relegating Wikipedia to little more than an opinionated platform lacking fact for foundation. 118.208.116.179 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Edit requests are done in the form 'please change x to y' not in the form 'there is a conspiracy'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to lead and content reverted

Quackwatch22 has made changes to the article repeatedly without discussion here and is edit warring by repeatedly making the changes after being reverted, directed to bring it here and notified. I am opening discussion here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that Quackwatch22's most recent edit removed a neutral statement which was supported by a reference, and added some promotional text. Thank you, MrBill3, for reverting it. Maproom (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And I now see that he has been indeffed. Maproom (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of sourced content

Repeated wholesale removal of stable sourced content by an editor with a conflict of interest is unacceptable. There has been no effort to discuss this here. A good look at the core policies WP:NPOV and WP:V is suggested. See also WP:MEDRS, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Creating of Criticism section and lots of content rearrangement

Added a Criticism section and rearranged a lot of content. Otherwise, no content deleted. To avoid clutter of showing major changes to talk page, I went ahead and made a bold major change. If reverted, discuss here.

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why was the sections moved out of Criticism. This seemed most organized to me and more consistent with how Wikipedia structures articles. Opinions?

--76.115.128.195 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The section should not be titled Criticism. QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Having a "Criticism" title is not the main problem. The problem is really with a criticism section, where critical content is collected together in one place. It is better to rework the article so that criticism isn't concentrated in one place, although having a criticism section is better than having no critical content at all. The choice of word in the heading is secondary. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem was that the critical content (or whatever you may call it) was more or less dispersed randomly. It read as a very disorganized article with content here and there that didn't belong. I personally think the changes made by QuackGuru was best and most organized/simplified. --76.105.248.111 (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Usually the section names should be neutral. I'm not sure how to organise the article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014

There seems to be consensus that this sentence is unsupported and references can't be found.

Among naturopaths, complete rejection of biomedicine and modern science is common.

My request is to delete the unsupported sentence.

-76.105.248.111 (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: we don't usually put references in the lede. The statement is referenced in the body of the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the large discussion above about this topic and as well as well as the comment from LeadSongDog. There seems to be a consensus that it is not supported in the article, and there are no sources to support this sentence. Thanks.

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see a consensus on how to word it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had a stab at an improvement here, I hope it meets with approval. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hm. In my opinion, using "frequent" might actually be worse than "common". How about:

Practitioners of naturopathy often prefer methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine, and in doing so, reject the tenets of biomedicine and modern science.

This would limit the rejecting of science to the act of performing naturopathic treatments and leave out naturopaths who might be using modern science in their practice as is hinted at elsewhere in the article. Cannolis (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good to me. Can we build some consensus to support this and achieve a reasonable resolution to an issue that has been contentious? If editors object please post specific objections and lets work this out. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it sounds good as long as it's supported in the article. I don't have time to look right now.

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Naturopathic Physicians, who are trained through an accredited Naturopathic Medical School, are taught classic western biomedical sciences and use them in diagnosis and treatments of patients., . Evidence based decision making is used in daily practice. Naturopaths who are not graduates of an accredited school or who are not licensed or regulated in any way may not be using western science or evidence based medicine.Jacobawolf (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Older and ... well older (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Absurd assertions of Naturopathy being "Pseudoscientific"

Ignorant authors have made unsubstantiated assertions of Naturopathy being "Pseudoscientific" and of its being equivalent to archaic theories of "Viatlism". Modern liscenture of "ND" and "NMD", as for example in California, is based on the essentials of a medical "MD" education, plus a thorough education in (scientific) nutrition and herbal remedies. Traditional naturopathy, as developed in Europe primarily, is rarely and only insignificantly of a "Vitalistic" persuasion, and is generally in correspondance with the definition provied in the California Business and Professions Code: which reads, in part: “3610. This chapter may be cited as the Naturopathic Doctors Act. […] 3643 […] (b)This chapter may not be construed to limit an activity that does not require licensure or is otherwise allowed by law, including the practice of naturopathy, when performed consistent with Sections 2053.5 and 2053.6. […] 3685. […]. 75.144.245.185 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) 75.144.245.185 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC) I'm going to concur. The anti-naturopathic bias that's evident here is overwhelming. Here's my take (and I speak as a board-certified internist with a real M.D. who happens to have an interest in supplements and naturopathy): There are a whole lot of quacks out there who embrace all sorts of things - including Reiki, homeopathy, Chakra manipulation, snake oil, you name it. A lot of these people also like herbs (not just smoking them) and think they like all things natural. They learn a little about naturopathy (or something that somebody has told them is naturopathy), and say "oh, wow, dude... that's sooo coooool...." And yeah, a lot of these self-described naturopaths are into vitalism. On the other end of the spectrum, there's 'real' naturopathy - the practice of evidence-based medicine based on a natural pharmacopeia, herbalism, supplements, and some other stuff (I don't know the details; I'm not a naturopath.) I can tell you that naturopathy has been around for a long time - and back in the day it was a legitimate competitor with the other major branches/schools of medicine - allopathy, homeopathy, and osteopathy. In the early 20th century the allopathic school - MDs - finally got themselves onto firm scientific ground following the publication of the Flexner report. The scientific failings of many (most?) medical schools of the day were documented and a rigorous science-based curriculum was instituted and embraced by the surviving schools. Osteopathy gradually followed suit; these days DOs are full-fledged medical professionals that are virtually indistinguishable from MDs. Naturopathy was not vanquished, but it did lose a lot of ground. Eventually (finally?) it, too, re-emerged on a solid scientific basis with the establishment of a handful of very high quality naturopathic medical schools. These schools award the 'ND' (doctor of naturopathy) degree. Their training is rigorous, scientific and for the most part heavily weighted towards being evidence-based (some exposure to some of the other 'alternative' modalities notwithstanding.) Unfortunately, there are still a lot of wannabe hangers-on out there (especially chiropractors) who insist on describing themselves as naturopaths and pretending that what they do is actual naturopathic medicine. Regardless of their bogus claims, if you want to know something about REAL naturopathic medicine, it might behoove you to do some actual research and stop pretending you know what you're talking about until you do. I'd recommend that you start by looking into the curriculum of the 7 accredited naturopathic schools - the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges.Slowgenius (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC) By the way, if you want to judge a medical movement, you can start by looking at their texts. For naturopathy, these would include (in addition to the 'traditional' medical texts that cover biochemistry and anatomy and such) things like Gaby's "Nutritional Medicine" and Pizzorno's "Textbook of Natural Medicine, 4e". They're not lightweight volumes in any sense of the word.Slowgenius (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NPA. Constrain posts to constructive, policy based attempts to improve articles. Address specific content existing or suggested and appropriate sourcing. It seems to me much of this has already been discussed (see the talk page archives). The contention that Naturopathy is pseudoscience is well supported with sourced content in the article. Issues with naturopathic education are discussed in Barrett 2003 your contentions about the quality of such education don't seem to be supported. Quality WP:MEDRS sources that provide information on the content of the article can be used to improve the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

There is centralized policy from naturopaths seeking to establish standards of naturopathic medicine stating "[s]tandard of Care treatments as defined by the AANP [Association of Naturopathic Physicians] shall not be construed as synonymous with evidence based treatments. Rather naturopathic physicians shall have the broadest latitude for treatment options as it is recognized that advances in medicine come from ideas and observations by the astute physician and are then validated by the scientific method." It is crucial to recognize that this premise places traditional practice above evolving healthcare along scientific inquiry. Such a medical philosophy is damaging and seems to promote egotistical delusions. As if, an ND can conjure his or her own treatment protocol and then use their own flavor of "science" to validate that approach, rather than falsify like a real scientist. --Trhermes (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Broad brush editing

The notion that all of modern naturopathy can be condemned because some naturopathy is bad is contrary to the very principles that Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. In my opinion, this article is a dishonest and incomplete treatment of the subject. CBHA (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article bias

This entire subject sounds like it is coming from an incredibly biased point of view. Most of the sections should be reduced and put into a criticism heading and the whole subject should be rewritten from a non-biased perspective.Mdm1102 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We follow WP:MEDRS sources view on this subject. If you have a specific edit please propose it here and we can check it out. But, remember, we don't do fair and balanced here, we have policies. You should check out WP:UNDUE as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014

The following passage is BIASED and was written 11 years ago. There are innumerable studies and dissertations since then that are more objective! "Practitioners of naturopathy often prefer methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine, and in doing so, reject the tenets of biomedicine and modern science. Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices." 66.227.200.223 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You've placed an edit request template, and yet you haven't made an edit request. No edit requested. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014

The following passage is BIASED and was written 11 years ago. There are innumerable studies and dissertations since then that are more objective! "Practitioners of naturopathy often prefer methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine, and in doing so, reject the tenets of biomedicine and modern science. Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices."

PLEASE CHANGE IT TO, "Universities such as Bastyr are at the cutting edge of research into Naturopathic Medicine and are continually producing peer reviewed work. However, historically, there have been numerous criticisms made of naturopathic medicine by the mainstream medical community, which is often supported by grants from drug companies. The following passage underscores this criticism.

Practitioners of naturopathy often prefer methods of treatment that are not compatible with evidence-based medicine, and in doing so, reject the tenets of biomedicine and modern science. Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices.

Rational voices have recently emerged calling for more funding for the testing of integrative and naturopathic practices. This is difficult to achieve at a scale that matches the financial engine of the pharmaceutical industry supporting allopathic medical research.

However, universities and foundations are beginning to supply the needed funds for unbiased and peer reviewed testing into what works and what does not work, under what conditions. Since Glutathione is the human immune system's post powerful intrinsic biochemical agent, a stabilized form of it capable of withstanding stomach acid, such as S Acetyl Glutathione (Stabilized Glutathione), being taken by mouth in pill form WILL boost the immune system. This stabilized form of Glutathione is considered a NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT, and NOT a drug. This fact single handedly turns the tables on this debate, giving Naturopathic Medicine the Evidential & Ethical High Ground For Best Practices. Period. END OF STORY."

66.227.200.223 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable independant sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article.
Furthermore, on a contentious article like this, any such change would need to achieve consensus, on this talk page, before it could be added to the article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't like the way this article is presented, please do what LeadSongDog says here—Khabboos (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Khabboos - I appreciate that you are trying to help but your link to the section in Talk:Homeopathy throws the reader into the middle of a long and involved discussion about changing "high level" policy. I'm willing to believe this reference is relevant but since the discussion currently ends with MelanieN suggesting that the arbcom ruling, which is a chief topic of discussion, is out of date, it is hard to believe that it is useful. CBHA (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, maybe you can suggest what new users who dislike the way this article (or other comp. and alt.med. articles) is presented should do.—Khabboos (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

That's easy. They should endeavour to understand wiki policy and guidelines, then read the sources, because ultimately it is reliable sources that dictate what goes into a wiki page. Then understand and accept that we write the wiki from a mainstream point of view, which enables us to give our reader a reliable and accepted view of the subject. We call a spade a spade, and when people have a world view away from mainstream they might not like it when we do this. What we do is to tinker around the edges of those sources to try and make it fit. This happens by consensus, as you must have been told many times. Though sometimes nebulous, consensus works well. If after actually doing all that you are still unhappy, it is probably because the way the wiki is written contradicts your beliefs in "the law of similars" or "distance healing" or something, and you will never ever be happy. In your case, you appear to be trolling here, probably because you've been banned from other topic areas. Carry on like this and it'll probably happen here too. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this sentence belongs - bias

Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices.

While Properly sourced, I think this statement generally gives a very negative and a very biased view of naturopathic medicine.

For example, I can say the same thing about modern medicine in a slightly different way and find plenty of sources to support it. I could also say modern medicine is much more dangerous than naturopathic medicine and have properly sourced statistics (yes, they exist, but not going to look for the moment).

Modern medicine is replete with bad science, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices.

This of course could be supported with drugs that were found to be ineffective post-marketing, drugs that were removed because of dangerous side effects, and other things such as dangerous and medically unnecessary surgeries that are performed routinely. But I wouldn't do this (or put it in the lede) because the sentence would only serve the purpose to paint a negative picture of modern medicine.

I know NPOV does not equal No Point of View, but I think most can agree this would be a very heavy point of view that only serves to portray naturopathy in a very negative way - whether you agree with the philosophy or not.

For these reasons, I don't think the sentence should belong.

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 23:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Many of those descriptors are not actually passing value judgment. What I might contest however, is that whether or not Naturopathy is 'unethical' depends on a myriad of ethical circumstances. But regardless, natural medicine is replete with ineffective, pseudoscientific, and possibly dangerous practices. It has nothing to do with authorial bias or 'painting a negative picture'. It's just representing the best resources available.[ Levels of evidence ] Karzelek (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe like the Medicine article, this kind of stuff belongs in in a criticism section instead of the lede. I don't think it's nonsense at all.

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article so it definitely belongs there. --McSly (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, perhaps you guys are right. But something bothers me about the article. It feels like it repeats this statement in different ways over and over and makes it feel biased. I am constructing a criticism section. It's all the same information, but I think it presents better and makes the article an easier read this way. I won't change the lede.

--76.105.248.111 (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There are parts of the world where calling oneself a naturopath and practicing traditional naturopathy will NOT result in trouble with the law. There are places (the subcontinent springs to mind) still teaching homeopathy, ayurveda, energy medicine and similar nonsense as if it was credible. If western NDs want to avoid association with these, a clearer change of name and explicit disavowal might be the appropriate way to start doing so. In the meantime, Wikipedia is wp:Worldwide. Have a look at the lede for Osteopathy for a comparable case. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead Song Dog, It seems your statement (and the edit war seen on this page) is calling for the creation of two separate pages, one of "Naturopathic Medicine in the United States & Canada" and another page that deals with the subject of naturopathy more broadly. Needless to say, you all think you are being so "by the book", but you are, IN FACT, biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.200.223 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Apparently, multiple attempts to improve article have been reverted, sometimes with non-neutral comments such as “God. No” [[4]], and it appears article needs work. The lead itself seems problematic. I wouldn’t be surprised if “vitalism” came out of a reliable source, but seems cherry-picked and used out of context. Naturopathy is based on philosophy of working with the body’s ability to heal itself. Declaring it non-evidence based seems problematic. ND’s are trained in a model similar to MD’s with coursework in scientific disciplines including: anatomy, physiology, epidemiology, and biochemistry.

http://www.bridgeport.edu/academics/graduate/naturopathic-medicine-nd/curriculum-and-program-requirements/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883816/ --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to make a concrete proposal about specifics on what is non-neutral and what you would do to address them (How is the use of "vitalism" "out of context"?) I am not a fan of the NPOV tag, which is almost always used as a badge of shame, and would support its removal. Yobol (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Without clear examples of what is purportedly not neutral and an actual proposal of what you think would improve the article the tag doesn't belong. This article has been extensively discussed and edited consensus has been established for the current version. Apply the NPOV tag when edits are challenged is not appropriate. Vitalism is a fundamental aspect of naturopathy. The sources listed are 1. primary the second touts homeopathy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for the tag. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I - It needs to be better justified than this. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I probably added "vitalism" at some point. I assure you, the reliable sources treat the concept as central to the practice. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the entire article does not warrant a neutrality tag, but I also have to agree with the tagger that the prominence of the term "vitalism" in the lead is questionable. It is perhaps telling that the Wikipedia article Vitalism does not include the words Naturopath or Naturopathy. I've added a citation needed to the vitalism mention in the article body. Meters (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, per consensus here. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 16:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@BMC - I tried tweaking the lead, is this the sort of thing you were trying to get at? Also, note that the revert you quote there was copyvio. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Clearly a biased point of view inconsistent with Wikipedia policy

This article is clearly biased and the response to comments requesting changes in this forum have been addressed in a biased manor. The author obviously has an non-neutral point of view. This is posted wikipedia and not a personal blog, which is what this post reads like. This article needs significant revision by a different author not blocked by the original author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amkammerer (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Contentious statement

I have reservations about the last sentence in the first paragraph of this wiki article. i.e.., "Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices." It quotes an article by a renowned skeptic and clinical professor. But the quote belongs to an individual and the said statement bears a personal judgement rather than a general truth.

I think Wikipedia doesn't encourage prejudices and personal opinions in its articles. Just as the author of the article stands against Naturopathy plenty of renowned doctors support Naturopathy.

Either this sentence should be removed or should be suitably modified to reflect that this statement is a personal opinion of someone, something like that.

What should I do? Can I go and straight away edit it? Or is there a policy to edit such articles? Expecting a direction.

Guckoo (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Guckoo: Get consensus to remove it (which probably will be difficult). Also, please see WP:FRINGE. We don't really care if "plenty of renowned doctors support Naturopathy". We care what is the general opinion of the scientific medical community as published in systematic reviews in medical journals (WP:MEDRS). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Textbook of Natural Medicine not a valid guideline

as I mentioned in my edit on the Naturopathic Medicine page under Treatments and Practices, which was subsequently reverted, the Textbook of Natural Medicine is not a valid yardstick by which to measure doctors' training in naturopathic medical schools, as it is not one of the primary texts used, and in fact it would be impossible to summarize all of four to five years of medical training into one textbook. Therefore, I would like the relevant text - i.e. the entire paragraph attributed to Arnold Relman - omitted, as it is implying and coming to new, inappropriate conclusions based on inappropriate assumptions. Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Under Practice: Why state "often rejecting the methods of evidence based medicine."?

Where in the two references cited under Practice, does it substantiate the statement that naturopathic doctors often reject the methods of evidence based medicine? Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Jagtenberg paper it says that among naturopaths "there is a strong consensus that EBM is antithetical to holistic and vitalistic philosophies of health." Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe this should be included in the page. This is the operational modality for Naturopathy as quoted from the National Institutes for Health website

The practice of naturopathy is based on principles that are similar to and consistent with the principles of primary care medicine as practiced by conventional physicians. These include:

   First do no harm. Try to minimize harmful side effects and avoid suppression of symptoms.
   Physician as teacher. Educate patients and encourage them to take responsibility for their own health.
   Treat the whole person. Consider all factors (e.g., physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, genetic, environmental, social) when tailoring treatment to each patient.
   Prevention. Assess risk factors and, in partnership with patients, make appropriate interventions to prevent illness.
   Healing power of nature. Seek to identify and remove obstacles to the body’s natural processes for maintaining and restoring health.
   Treat the cause. Focus on the causes of a disease or condition, rather than its symptoms.

Please include. Bill Clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clark9788 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This may belong somewhere in the body. It doesn't belong in the lead. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced at all. Without checking (is that a mistake?) I bet we don't include "the principles of primary care medicine as practiced by conventional physicians" in our "conventional physicians" article. runs off to find out -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I second that recommendation to include this text. Roxy, I think the point is that the principles of naturopathic medicine are different from the main stream, and thus not understood or well-known, thus the reason to explain the position and explanation from the National Institutes of Health would seem a valid addition. Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jeremyfischer76: Please provide the text in your source that backs up, "However, conventional medicine too, makes substantial use of treatments that are not evidenced-based, since off-label prescribing - i.e. prescribing based on clinical experience, despite the lack of rigorous evidence for treatment which is used as a standard against which naturopathic doctors are judged by their detractors..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: From the pubmed abstract, in the results section, it says: "In 2001, there were an estimated 150 million (95% confidence interval, 127-173 million) off-label mentions (21% of overall use) among the sampled medications. Off-label use was most common among cardiac medications (46%, excluding antihyperlipidemic and antihypertensive agents) and anticonvulsants (46%), whereas gabapentin (83%) and amitriptyline hydrochloride (81%) had the greatest proportion of off-label use among specific medications. Most off-label drug mentions (73%; 95% confidence interval, 61%-84%) had little or no scientific support. Although several functional classes were associated with increased off-label use (P<.05), few other drug characteristics predicted off-label prescription."

From the above it seems that potentially problematic usage is 73% of 21% which equals 15.33%. Hardly "substantial use" . Also, the study does not mention naturopathic medicine so WP:SYNTH comes into play. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

References

@NeilN: Neil, I'm not sure if the phrase'subtantial use' has a predetermined percentage cutoff point. I would call 21% substantial, as would I call 15% substantial. Furthermore, although the majority of these prescriptions had "little or no scientific support", the full 21% didn't have enough scientific support verified such that it would allow for an official FDA-approved treatment indication. But I am not stuck on the word substantial, nor am I stuck on the difference between 15 and 21%. If you would like to compromise, we can say 'significant use of. . .' instead of 'substantial use of . . . ' What do you say? Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jeremyfischer76: No, as I mentioned, the study is not comparing conventional medicine to naturopathy so what you're attempting is synthesis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case Neil, would you support adding the info regarding the off-label use of drugs to the page on MD's? @NeilN: 128.177.161.140 (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Which article exactly? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably under the page entitled 'Physician', under the Biomedicine section. Also, on that page, they neglect to note that ND's are considered physicians (at least in some states), only citing MD's and DO's for that category, which is obviously not correct. ND's are physicians in AZ, WA, OR, HI. Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You can propose adding the off-label text on that article's talk page but I doubt you'll get very far as it seems too detailed for a three paragraph section. I suspect you'll have the same issue with ND's if only four states recognize naturopaths as physicians. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Direct quotes, copyright issues

I see numerous examples of quotes taken directly from source material on the naturopathic page, properly cited as was mine from the AANP, listing the principles that define the current practice of licensed naturopathic doctors according to the AANP. Can you please explain why you consider this quote to be a copyright violation whereas the other quotes on the page from various websites and printed materials are not? I asked McSly who removed my edit, and so far have not heard from him (though much time hasn't yet passed, to be fair), and also wanted to address the community in general as well. I have by the way, procured written approval from the AANP to directly quote this entire passage on wikipedia, so if it is necessary, I can do so. So far, from what I have read though, it would appear that properly sourcing the quote should be enough, no?

Thanks, Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you a naturopath, Jeremy? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Roxy, thank you for your curiosity. I would appreciate limiting the responses on my post to those directly relevant to the discussion at hand, simply because it is a sidetrack from the intentions of the talk page. Did you see my response to your previous statement on the talk page? I would appreciate your response to that, as well as a response to the question I posted in this topic section you posted to. Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeremyfischer76, do you have a conflict of interest in regards to the subject of this article? - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a naturopathic doctor. I just read the conflict of interest page. I assume I can still posit edit requests on the talk page, which can be judged on their own merits, rather than being prejudged simply on the basis of my being an ND, right?

128.177.161.140 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly, in fact the very best way for anybody with a COI to behave. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Echo what Roxy the dog said. I suggest concrete proposals with concise argument and quality reliable sources. Edit requests and suggestions/objections and sources are all welcome here on the talk page. I will endeavor to check in and respond as I am sure will others. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 and Roxy, what is your input regarding the quote I mentioned at the top of this topic?

Jeremyfischer76 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy, please learn to use colons to indent your posts properly. Regarding your question, I believe I have already answered. I shall not respond further until you have answered my and MrBill's questions regarding your COI. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I replied above - it looks like I wasn't signed in so my reply didn't list my name. I'm still learning how to use wikipedia. So again, I'm a naturopathic doctor. So, what is your response regarding the principles of naturopathy? Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mine was the second response above. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Primary, involved source making a promotional statement. What would be appropriate is a secondary, third party high quality (MEDRS) source. An encyclopedia doesn't present the claims of a subject but the scholarly evaluation of the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Imposition of negative bias on this page?

I attempted to post this: ""Naturopathic physicians are experts in the scientific application of natural healing. They graduate from 4-year naturopathic medical programs recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.Naturopathic physicians use scientifically based principles to guide their diagnosis and treatment, and provide individual and family health care, emphasizing the use of natural therapies. By using protocols that minimize the risk of harm, naturopathic physicians help facilitate the body's inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health.""

I was met with its removal, and the comments, "unduly self-serving" and "poorly sourced". How is it considered fair and unbiased to on the one hand allow statements either direct or paraphrased from quackwatch (among other sources scattered within this article), which contains factually inaccurate statements, and with negative bias, and yet on the other hand not allow statements by proponents of naturopathic medicine? Why would my source be poorly sourced and unduly self-serving, whereas statements by Arnold Relman - which are ignorant of the methods of naturopathic education and entirely misleading by assuming the named Textbook is an exclusive or even primary source of education for naturopathic doctors - are protected regardless of their misleading and inaccurate portrayal?

Why are only anti-naturopathy quotes allowed, and quotes that support naturopathy are taken down, regardless of whether they are quotes from approved types of medical studies/reviews, or whether they are quotes from non-medical papers? Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

We need to reflect the mainstream scientific/medical consensus about naturopathy, and Quackwatch is a pretty good source for that. We also need to avoid the fallacy of "balancing" pro and anti views. To improve the article we should seek good sources on naturopathy, which should be WP:MEDRS for any biomedical content.

Add: And, Jeremyfischer76 for good sources we need better than this, ideally material in respectable journals or books. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Quackwatch info is contributed by those who do not have substantial information about the details of the education of naturopathic doctors. As such, they cannot assume to know about said textbook's role in naturopathic education. Regardless of whether you take quackwatch to represent the mainstream scientific consensus about efficacy regarding naturopathy, this has no bearing on the matter I have mentioned regarding education and said textbook. Again, this type of information is not biomedical content of the sort to be upheld by research, and thus should not be judged as such. Rather, it is a question of what ND schools are or aren't including as part of their curricula. Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Quackwatch has been discussed many times at WP:RS/N and repeatedly found to be a usable source, at the very least for reporting its view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn how do you determine what a 'respectable' medical journal or book is, as opposed to a non-respectable one? Have you made sure that all references currently listed on the Naturopathy page have been vetted as 'respectable'? Can you give me a very specific set of guidelines by which to judge any source as respectable or not? Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines are at WP:RS, and are very rich. There are many factors which affect whether a source is respectable or not - for example something published by a vanity press would be automatically suspect. A 13-year-old report that wasn't published (by a publisher) is not a great source, particularly for sweeping statements about how natural substances are not subject to evidence-based testing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn Again, it seems there is a different set of standards held to the vetting of sources that reflect positively on naturopathy than those that do not. 1. I ask again, have all the sources that are currently on the site been determined to be respectable by you? Or someone else? 2. I see the importance of distinguishing the criteria wikipedia uses to determine respectable sources, based on whether the information cited is being used to determine biomedical efficacy or otherwise. The source I listed, http://www.futurehealth.ucsf.edu/Content/29/2001-09_Profile_of_a_Profession_Naturopathic_Practice.pdf, is decidedly not being used for biomedical efficacy, but rather for its input on philosophical and practical matters related to financial constraints for research into naturopathic treatments, and the types of evidence naturopathic doctors make use of. Wikipedia makes a clear distinction about the type of resources required for these two types of information. What is the problem that you see with this specific resource, if used for non-biomedical assertions? Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

To repeat: "A 13-year-old report that wasn't published (by a publisher) is not a great source, particularly for sweeping statements about how natural substances are not subject to evidence-based testing". If the subject of "financial constraints for research into naturopathic treatments" is of interest to the world at large, there will be a reasonable secondary source that mentions it. Is there? To me it sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"research into naturopathic treatments, and the types of evidence naturopathic doctors make use of" clearly bears upon biomedical information. As discussed and on my talk page the source you are pointing to self describes as ""The following case study is an effort to test a model" making it a highly primary source, it is not peer reviewed this would be expected for academic validation of a model, it is published as the opinions of the authors only and the "model" being tested is the work of the two lead authors again making it primary. It is not published under the auspices of a publisher. I think you will find most of the sources currently in the article have been discussed in terms of WP:RS (which I strongly suggest you read carefully). Your assertions of bias seem to reflect a need on your part to read WP:NPOV also with care and attention. This article reflects with due weight the published material on the subject. See also WP:FRINGE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex, nowhere in the explanation I gave nor in the article I cited is there any reference to a statement that "natural substances are not subject to evidence-based testing." Rather, the article specifically says that the evidence base for naturopathic treatments are taken from various sources, not sources labeled as 'naturopathic' per se, since naturopathic doctors use modalities/treatments from various fields, including the medicines used by conventional medicine. I will review more fully the links you referred to. However, I already did review it, and there seems to be some ambiguity as to what resources are to be deemed reliable sources. FUrthermore, if a minority opinion differs from the majority

Tell me this: How is it that testimony by an MD who is a member of the Massachusetts Medical Society against licensure of ND's is to be considered an acceptable source, yet testimony by a Naturopathic Doctor who is a member of the American Association of Naturopathic Doctors is considered an unacceptable source? 104.32.116.252 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You added text to the article saying "natural substances cannot be profitably sold as-is by pharmaceutical companies, which therefore do not have the financial incentive to fund extensive clinical trials to determine their efficacy" which implied that natural substances were (at least) neglected for reasons of profit. For your testimonny question, I'm not sure what text you are referring to precisely, but suspect the answer may hinge on the factor that extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, commonplace claims can get by with weak sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex, yes that's true that pharmaceutical companies don't put much time or money into testing natural substances, and for obvious reasons - they are in the pharmaceutical business, not the herbal medicine business. However, the blanket assertion that natural substances are not at all subject to testing is obviously an exaggeration, and incorrect. There are other sources of funding for natural substances, albeit smaller funding, as the income potential is just much smaller for something that cannot be patented. This is not conspiracy theory, it is simple market economics and common sense.

As for the testimony I mentioned, the one that currently remains in the article is: "All forms of naturopathic education include concepts incompatible with basic science, and do not necessarily prepare a practitioner to make appropriate diagnosis or referrals.", fromy "Massachusetts Medical Society Testifies in Opposition to Licensing Naturopaths". Massachusetts Medical Society. May 11, 2005. Archived from the original on 2011-07-16. Retrieved 2009-04-17. The source I attempted to past from another testimony is: "Naturopathic physicians are experts in the scientific application of natural healing. They graduate from 4-year naturopathic medical programs recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.Naturopathic physicians use scientifically based principles to guide their diagnosis and treatment, and provide individual and family health care, emphasizing the use of natural therapies. By using protocols that minimize the risk of harm, naturopathic physicians help facilitate the body's inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health."

These are both testimonies that were used before a governmental board regarding naturopathic medicine. It would seem relevant that naturopathic doctors' own voice should be heard, on a website about naturopathic medicine, as opposed to the voice of their detractors, exclusively.

As for other resources cited, to give just a few of many examples, is quackwatch peer-reviewed? Is LiveScience peer-reviewed? The Skeptic's Dictionary? Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

References

As you say "there are other sources of funding for natural substances"; omitting to mention this is what made the proposed inclusion suspect. There are other factors, such as the number of things-to-be studied from "nature" remaining fairly static, so needing less funding than the growing pool of synthetic substances - but I am wandering off topic. If there is some good source (not an old unpublished report) discussing this all wrt naturopathy, it'd be fine to include it in a neutral way. Is there such a source?

An assertion that "Naturopathic physicians are experts in the scientific application of natural healing" is a bold self-serving claim (and an irrational one). If some noteworthy source analyzed it made it maybe we could report that view. But dredging it out of some court testimony is probably undue. It's how AANP likes to promote itself and its members. Their assertions about naturopathy being "scientifically based" are at odds with what we know from reliable sources, and the reference to "the body's inherent ability to restore and maintain optimal health" is fringe stuff. I'm not seeing how this adds to our article other than confirming a "they would say that wouldn't they" moment from the AANP.

As to your queries about other sources, sources are evaluated in respect of the content they support. Is there some specific content you think is poorly sourced to the sources you mention? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex, again if you judge one court testimony to be an unreliable source, then how how you judge another one to be unreliable? You cannot assume the various medical associations, which represent and defend the rights of MD's, and are in fact financially supported by those MD's, to be neutral unbiased sources of info. And yet you have kept their testimony in this article.

Please explain how, specifically, sources are evaluated in respect to the content they support. I thought the source was evaluated in respect to what type and quality of source it is. Please explain what you mean. Also, no - one is responding to my request to enter the defining principles of naturopathic medicine on the page, as defined by the AANP. Perhaps you can address this. I got permission from the AANP to directly paste a body of text as a quote.However, I see multiple quotes already on the page. Is it even necessary to get permission if the quote is properly cited? Can we enter that info? 128.177.161.140 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The assumption is that major medical bodies are good sources for current medical knowledge; why would one doubt that? Let me answer your context question wih a picture:

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.

I have already commented on the AANTP text in my previous comment; strictly, the problem with it is not so much reliability as neutrality. Including it would be to give undue prominence to fringe notions. Do any good secondary sources comment on this "testimony"? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 00:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex, how does neutrality come into play when stating the defining principles of naturopathic medicine? What is 'unneutral' about this? This is a page about naturopathy, after all. I understand you believe much of naturopathic medicine to be fringe notions. However, to describe the principles of the medicine itself, on a page about naturopathy, how is that giving undue prominence to fringe notions? We are talking about the principles of the profession adopted by the profession itself, and listed as such by the organization representing said profession. This is how the profession defines itself, and their 'code', as it were, by which they operate. It shouldn't be necessary to provide another secondary source, however the NIH does corroborate the same principles here: http://nccam.nih.gov/health/naturopathy/naturopathyintro.htm Jeremyfischer76 (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

A statement such as "Naturopathic physicians are experts in the scientific application of natural healing" is not an articulation of a principle, it's self-promotion (and misleading too from what independent sources say); going with this "in-universe" blinkered view would not be neutral. NCCAM is slightly better but as an altmed advocacy body lacks the independence that WP:FRIND guides us to use. Much better still is something like the ACS, say. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

One (potential) solution to overcome the issue of coming across that way is to specifically state who is responsible for the definition (e.g., According to the AANP,...etc etc) that way the reader knows that the organization (which obviously will have its own POV) is responsible for the definition as written. If this organization's definition is not to be used, do you have a better source in mind for defining naturopathic practices and/or philosophies? As for the AANP's definition of naturopathic medicine and naturopathic doctors, I see nothing on the following two AANP pages stating that naturopathic physicians are experts in the scientific application of natural healing. Where did that quote come from exactly? Perhaps I missed something when I skimmed. Here are the two links I mentioned two sentences ago: (http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=60 and http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=59). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, never mind about where the quote came from, I see now. I do agree that using the president's testimony is not an ideal source (though I still maintain that if you qualify that the quote is coming from the AANP president who is a naturopathic doctor that this circumvents the POV problem (at least to some extent)), but that does not really seem like a complete definition of naturopathic medicine anyway. Perhaps this would be a better reference for a definition (http://www.bastyr.edu/academics/areas-study/study-naturopathic-medicine/about-naturopathic-medicine)? I admit my knowledge about naturopathic medicine is not extensive at this point and I'm offering this page only as a suggestion as I'm doing a bit of preliminary research on the topic to see if I can lend a hand. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

What would be good is a third party scholarly source in a reliable publication that meets MEDRS, short of that we are left with WP:PARITY per WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2014

Just came across the correct URL for the dead link at footnote 41. I believe it should go to: http://aanmc.org/careers/licensure/ Thanks Tommyher82 (talk) 05:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Done thanks for finding that Cannolis (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources for opposition to naturopathic medicine

American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/mindbodyandspirit/naturopathic-medicine

American Academy of Family Physicians http://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/naturopathic.html http://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/advocacy/workforce/gme/ES-FPvsNaturopaths-110810.pdf <----comparing education and training between NDs and MDs specializing in family practice

NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine http://nccam.nih.gov/health/naturopathy/naturopathyintro.htm#hed5

Medscape article published by Kimball C. Atwood, IV, MD http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/471156

Perhaps there are more?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.212.2.109 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

85.212.2.109 Why do you need to propose sources for opposition to naturopathy? Let's review your sources.

1. American Cancer Society is not opposing to naturopathy. It is declaring that naturopathy cannot cure cancer. Can you quote a main body of knowledge for naturopathy pretending to cure cancer? This source is not relevant for opposing to naturopathy from a scientific point of view and from WP:RS.
2. American Academy of Family Physicians is not opposing to naturopathy. It is opposing to licensure of naturopaths. This source is not relevant for opposing to naturopathy from a scientific point of view and from WP:RS.
3. American Academy of Family Physicians is not opposing to naturopathy, but comparing the number of training hours between MD and ND. Knowing that a ND is not a MD, the comparison is useless without also comparing the scope of practice. This source is not relevant for opposing to naturopathy from a scientific point of view and from WP:RS.
4. Kimball Atwood is opposing to naturopathy with at least a strong Anglo-American bias and without any scientific demonstration. Piling-up examples is an illustration, not a demonstration from a scientific point of view.

(Paulmartin357 (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC))

Naturopathy and cancer

In order to reflect the latest (Jan 2015) development of the research in oncology regarding the use of naturopathy for cancer, I am proposing to amend the end of last paragraph of the first section as follow:

(...) According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease, since virtually no studies on naturopathy as a whole have been published." However, the relevance of naturopathy in human cancer is beginning to be appreciated, as documented by renewed interest in nutraceutical research, the natural anticancer agents of dietary origin. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

References

That would be a misrepresentation of the source. The article as a whole is focused on neutraceuticals and money quote is "... nutraceuticals have shown great promise in in vitro studies, but have fallen short in translational studies. The bioavailability of nutraceuticals remains a major concern." So the source actually agrees with the ACS. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, if this sentence would really misrepresent the article, why would this sentence be the first one on the abstract published on PubMed? Even if so far only in vitro is promising, it does not turn down the fact that the relevance of naturopathy in human cancer is beginning to be appreciated. This is a valid sentence from a valid source. It is an interesting and up-to-date addition to the statement made by ACS. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

Best not unduly to pick bits of of (especially) abstracts, but to take the whole article and properly reflect its overall content. This article is excusively about neutraceuticals (rather than naturopathy at large as defined here on WP) and the "relevance" to human health is clearly made. This "beginning to be appreciated" stuff is just special pleading like "more research is needed" and we generally omit that kind of thing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, who better than the authors of the article themselves can duly pick bits of their own article for writing a conclusion or an abstract? The authors themselves are naming naturopathy, not me. Naturopathy is a set of tools and techniques, nutrition being one of them. The relevance of this naturopathic tool in the field of cancer is beginning to be appreciated. Which WP principle is supporting the fact that we generally omit to mention promising fields of scientific research where scientific evidence is still missing? In the context of naturopathy, where scientific evidence is still missing, it is worth mentioning that science is making progress while a number of novel nutraceuticals are under investigation (...) which clearly support naturopathy as a tool for modern medicine. Ignoring this source would be obscurantism. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is why we wait for solid WP:MEDRS-compliant reviews of multiple good research studies with concrete results. Anything less allows for OR in the form of cherry picked data. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Concur with BR. When studies have been published and reviewed then there is encyclopedic content. The list of treatments that have been "under investigation" is endless and not particularly selective. When MEDRS quality sources discuss a subject paraphrased content can be developed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-American focus

I am proposing to review the first section of the article in regard to WP:WORLDVIEW

1. Reference is missing for Today, naturopathy is primarily practiced in the United States and Canada..
2. Details specific to North America, such as Naturopathic practitioners in the United States can be divided into three categories (...), shall be moved to chapter 4.1 North America.
3. Atwood Kimball reference is based exclusively on Anglo-American sources

(Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC))

You're talking about the lead, which duplicates (mentions, paraphrases, etc.) sourced content in the body. For example, search for "divided" and you'll see that your concern is unnecessary. It's found in the body, with references. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, thanks for helping the newbie. Let's address these issues one by one. I confirm that reference is missing for the statement Today, naturopathy is primarily practiced in the United States and Canada.. The source #24 (Romeyke 2011) does not support this statement. Please check this source. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

I see what you mean. That one ref would support "rare in Germany", which isn't the same as primarily USA..., although that is still true. We just need a better source, since the content is true. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, please read the source again. With all respect, you are wrong. The content is wrong. You are misunderstanding the article and making a syllogism. Let me explain why I disagree with you, with the source and with the statement, and why it should be removed.

1. Let me paraphrase Alexbrn: Best not unduly to pick bits of of (especially) abstracts, but to take the whole article and properly reflect its overall content. This article is exclusively about cost of stay of inpatient naturopathy in Germany (rather than statistics about worldwide distribution of naturopathy). The sentence you are quoting is the first one of the abstract, in the background section. It does not reflect at all the content of the source. This source cannot be used for supporting the questioned sentence.
2. The questioned source does not say that naturopathy is rare in Germany. It says that inpatient naturopathy is rare in Germany. This is absolutely not the same meaning. It also makes a lot of sense if you understand what naturopathy is in German culture. This source does not reveal any valid information about the prevalence of naturopathy, as such, in Germany, let alone United States and Canada.
3. Even if naturopathy, as such, would be rare in Germany, you could not validly conclude that it is primarily practiced in the United States and Canada, without making a syllogism or an Anglo-American bias. How would you know that none of about 200 other countries on the Earth have a lower rate of naturopathy? This is simply not the fact.
4. As a conclusion, this sentence is more than questioned. It is simply wrong. It shall at least be removed from the lead and preferably from the entire article.

(Paulmartin357 (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC))

I accept your reasoning and will not oppose your removal of the sentence ("Today, naturopathy is practiced primarily ...") and the ref in both places where the sentence is used. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, thanks for your coaching and thanks for your agreement. For your information, the prevalence of naturopathy in the US is 0.3%, while it is about 3-4% in German culture countries, according to national statistic sources. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

Lets address the second point. 25% of the lead is dedicated to details concerning only the USA, while the USA population is less then 5% of world population, while USA is only one out of 20 countries where English is a national language. I see it as a clear USA bias. The content of the paragraph is not key for understanding what naturopathy is about from a global point of view. This paragraph shall not be included in the lead, but remain in the chapter 4.1 about North America. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

The lead must be based on the content of the article, not on any realities "out there" in the world. To fix any USA bias, add more material and sourcing for other countries and cultures. That's how we build the encyclopedia. Also please add those statistics you mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, I do not contest the fact that the lead must be based on the content. I am wondering what makes this paragraph intrinsically so interesting that it deserves to pop up in the lead. What are the WP criteria for being in the lead ? This paragraph is an insignificant detail about administrative issues concerning a tiny percentage of the world population. From an international reader point of view, this is a very strong Anglo-American bias. There is enough space in Chapter 4.1 for it. What about the other 200 countries on this planet ? Do they also deserve a space in the lead for their national particularism ? How large could be the lead ? (Paulmartin357 (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC))

I don't have any particular burden for keeping that (3rd) paragraph in the lead. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, do you have any particular burden if I remove it ? In order to understand your point of view, may I ask if you are an Anglo-American citizen ? I am not (that must have been obvious so far). (Paulmartin357 (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm okay with you removing it. I'm an American, but have spent most of my adult life in Europe and most of my young childhood in Asia. The content in question was not added by myself. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV: Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices

I am questioning the neutrality WP:NPOV of the sentence: "Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices".. My edits have been rejected by Alexbrn.
The questioned sentence is a quotation from the abstract of an article written in 2003 by Kimball Atwood. Let's review how well it does align to Wikipedia principles.

Due and undue weight

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."
The author, Kimball Atwood, is writing in the last paragraph of his article: "This is the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of "naturopathic medicine." and that "...if the only articles on CAM that most physicians read are uncritical". This is clear confirmation by the author himself of the minority of his opinion. This undue weight shall be removed by at least quoting its minority.
Or, this undue weight could simply be removed due to his "tiny minority", because it is the first article on this topic published in a reliable source. Other articles usually used as reference for supporting this one do not cover exactly the same topic.
Or, this undue weight could be balanced by a quotation of the opposing opinion, from the same published reliable source, for example “Naturopathic medicine is indeed legitimate, effective, and wanted”..

Article structure

WP:STRUCTURE: "The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight."
Quoting a minority opinion in the first paragraph is a structural issue. This quotation would be better located in the section dedicated to Evidence basis.

Opinions as facts

WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts.(...) opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources"
The author, Kimball Atwood, is a member of an American NGO, The Skeptics Society, devoted to promoting scientific skepticism. As such, he can be seen as at least a promoter or as an advocate of a cause, but not as a neutral observer of the situation. He is having a conflict of interest WP:COI. My opinion is supported by the following statement from a published reliable source: “Atwood is misleading, objectionable, and flagrantly biased". It illustrates the fact that Atwood’s sentence is a controversial assertion.

Nonjudgmental language

WP:YESPOV: "prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject".
The word "replete" (plenty of something) is a judgmental language, while a neutral wording would be "contains".

Anglo-American focus

WP:WORLDVIEW: "should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them".
The author, Kimball Atwood, is writing that his article is "a summary of the current state of naturopathic medicine", based only on documents published by Anglo-American sources. It does not reflect the current state of naturopathic medicine worldwide. It is neglecting the fact that naturopathy is largely used, recognized and integrated in the national health system in German culture countries, such as Germany, Holland and Switzerland. This cultural bias shall be removed.

Proposal

I am proposing to address the above problems by replacing the questioned sentence by:
"In the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of naturopathic medicine" Kimball C. Atwood, an American Skeptic, concludes about naturopathy in the Anglo-American world that "naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices"
I am welcoming factual and documented comments and seeking help for improving this article in a more neutral way.

References

References

(Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC))

Discussion

The statement is sourced and accurate as is, I have no problem with it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, I full agree with you: the statement is sourced and accurately quoted. This is not the problem. I am raising the WP:NPOV issue. Please comment on the factual issues I have raised regarding WP:UNDUE, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:YESPOV, WP:WORLDVIEW. It cannot simply be ignored because the statement is properly sourced and accurately quoted.(Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

---

Agree, it's well sourced and uncontentious. According to WP:PSCI policy we need to make sure this mainstream take on naturopathy is prominent here, to be neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I am not pretending that the statement is right or wrong, but it is factually contentious. This is not my opinion, but a documented fact, according to a published and reliable source and according to a reliable recognized scientist: David L. Katz, associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine. Please comment and respond in more details on the issues that I have raised.(Paulmartin357 (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

References

• That text by Katz is a comment on an article, right? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Alexbrn, right, this is a comment. Does it undermine the validity of the opinion expressed? Being a direct critical comment by a well known and reputable scientist confirms the contentious aspect of Atwood's opinion. This comment being published by a reputable source confirms its quality, but not the validity of one against the other. MedGenMed would not publish a dummy or doubtful comment from an unknown and unverified source. My intention is not to enter into never-ending arguments about naturopathy. My personal opinion is that what some people call naturopathy contains some pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices. This is not the question. This is not my debate. My opinion does not count here. I am simply aiming to bring objectivity and neutrality WP:NPOV to the naturopathy article. Thank you for taking the time to answer each one of the various issues raised: WP:UNDUE, WP:STRUCTURE, WP:YESPOV, WP:WORLDVIEW.(Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

• Not WP:RS, not usable. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alex, I think it'll put an end to the conversation faster if you explain why it is not a WP:RS source and therefore not usable. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better for editors go get familiar with the WP:PAGs rather than I provide a potted version (which then invites the opportunity to take issue with how I've potted it). It is however also common sense that we don't use weak sources (comments) to undermine stronger ones. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but suit yourself. It's your time. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I am keen to get familiar and I am doing so. How would you think that individual members of the scientific community would respond in a reliable manner to Atwood article, if not by writing a comment in the same publication. This comment is not to be used for writing an article about naturopathy. This comment is not to be used for undermine a source used for writing an article about naturopathy, but simply to illustrate its contentious aspect. According to WP:RS, the creator of the work, David L. Katz, associate professor of public health practice at the Yale University School of Medicine, is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. It is not questionable. Even if you would not agree with my point of view on this matter, it does not prevent you to answer the other issues that I have raised, independently from this comment. (Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

What I think and what you think is immaterial (even if you base your opinion on interpreting comments, which is WP:OR). Wikipedia shall reflect reliable published sources, and for a WP:FRINGE topic like naturopathy the the bar is lower from normal when finding sources that identify the fringe view. Without new reliable sources, this discussion is pointless. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn, then let's use the only recognized source, Atwood himself, when he is writing that " This is the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of naturopathic medicine. " and that " if the only articles on CAM that most physicians read are uncritical ". Isn't it a reliable source confirming the minority and the contentious aspect of his opinion?(Paulmartin357 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

User: erik.o.nelson, I was just wondering what y'all would think about this article which is also from PubMed and a credible journal (from Primary Care) and is not as biased and outdated (2010) of a review as the one being discussed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883816 — Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Failure to understand "neutral" in NPOV

Paulmartin357, as a newbie here, we're cutting you a lot of slack because we know it's not easy to understand all these policies and guidelines (PAG). You make a common mistake, by expecting our content and sources to be "neutral". You write in your edit summary:

• "According to the author of this sentence (Atwood), .... As such, his personnal opinion is not majority nor neutral."

Personal opinions are allowed, non-neutral comments are allowed, and we are required to document controversies, and even minority opinions, especially if they are published in RS. In this case Atwood represents the scientific majority, but since mainstream scientists tend to ignore fringe matters, scientific skeptics like Atwood express their opinions. Those skeptics are often experts in their subject areas. They are scientists, researchers, authors, etc..

There is never any indication in our PAG that sources or content must be neutral. It is editors who must remain neutral in their editing. That's the key to understanding NPOV. Editors are not allowed to misuse sources, or fail to replicate the exact spirit, bias, prejudice, or tone of a source. Censorship is not allowed. If the source is critical, the content will sound critical. If it's biased, so be it. We must remain neutral and reproduce that bias, even when it conflicts with our personal POV.

If we only used "neutral" sources here, no article would contain any opinions, we could not deal with controversies and disagreements, in fact we would have very little content at all! Our job is to document the sum total of human knowledge, as it is documented in reliable sources. That "sum total" includes opinions and very non-neutral sources and content.

It is editors who must remain neutral and not take sides by adding their own commentary. We all have our opinions, and they become obvious on talk pages. That's okay, but when we edit, we must edit neutrally. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thanks for your useful explanation and for your support to a newbie. I fully understand that editors must be neutral and that sources must not be neutral. I fully understand that WP content must be written from a neutral point of view. I fully understand that fringe articles are under high scrutiny. I am not questioning Atwood's quote itself, but the way it is included in WP article. I understand and agree that I should not have written that Atwood's opinion is not neutral. It is my mistake. Sorry for that.

So far, despite valuable efforts by Alexbrn, I have not seen factual arguments for demonstrating that I am 100% wrong with all the issues that I have raised. I agree that one of my source (Katz) could be seen as weak, even if WP:RS does not define explicitly weak sources and comments.

How can you factually support that " Atwood represents the scientific majority, but since mainstream scientists tend to ignore fringe matters "? This statement does not sound like a scientific fact or a scientific observation. With all respect, a minority of loud activists does not make a majority of opinions.

Other issues that I have raised have not yet been answered, e.g. WP:WORLDVIEW.

Let's turn it the other way around. What is objectionable in my proposal, which is mainly quoting (in bold) Atwood himself: " In the first article in a mainstream medical journal that critically summarizes the field of naturopathic medicine, Kimball C. Atwood, an American Skeptic, concludes about naturopathy in the Anglo-American world that naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices "? It does not undermine Atwood's opinion. It is disclosing the exact and factual context in which Atwood is expressing his opinion, which is a scientific way of presenting things.(Paulmartin357 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

"Naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices." - I don't know much about naturopathy, but this sentence is hilariously non-neutral, and reads like someone speaking with an axe to grind. The idea that editors should be neutral but articles should not is also ridonkulous, when the opposite is true by any standard of journalistic integrity. That said, this sentence would easily fixed by saying "According to the scientific community" or "According to such-and-such". It's a strong opinion, and the fact that it's an opinion held by many scientists is interesting and noteworthy but largely irrelevant. A similar statement could be inserted, for example, into the Wikipedia description of religion. ("Religion is replete with unprovable assertions and has often led to unethical and even deadly choices."). A widely-held view by a particular group in a particular profession is fascinating, but it doesn't really have anything to do with WHAT THIS IS, and, as such, strikes as discordant in the first paragraph that would traditionally (and conventionally) be a summary / description of what something is, not what a particular group thinks about it (which would belong in something like a controversy section). Please approach contributions with a little more maturity. 70.68.80.235 (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Scientists are experts in the field of medicine and as such their evaluation on the effectiveness of Naturopathy and pseudoscience in general are relevant and therefore valid to include in this encyclopedia. That's more than an opnion scientists offer, that opinion is based on the complete lack of evidence for the effectiveness of Naturopathy. Please don't launch ad hominem attacks on fellow editor by insinuating they are immature, be WP:CIVIL. AadaamS (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medicine Training

Dear health care colleagues contributing to this page,

I am a student at Bastyr University, completing my third year of my naturopathic medical training. After reviewing this article, I feel that certain assertions regarding naturopathic medicine do not clearly portray the reality for readers. At an accredited school like Bastyr, students undergo rigorous training in all of the biomedical sciences required for medical students. In fact, Bastyr students take equal or more hours of the biomedical sciences as medical students at the University of Washington School of Medicine. My anatomy teacher, Dr. Catrin Pittack previously taught anatomy, embryology, neuroanatomy, histology, and living anatomy at the University of Washington School of Medicine before coming to Bastyr. At National College of Medicine in Portland, immunology and research is taught by Dr. Heather Zwickey, who formerly taught these subjects at Yale Medical School. The faculty for biomedical sciences and clinical coursework at these two leading schools is high quality.

Our training in the sciences is highly challenging in the first year, requiring countless hours of study to move successfully through the program. In the second year we study all the pathology, immunology, and microbiology content required for traditional medical students, along with all of the physical exams, laboratory skills, pharmacology training, and diagnostic coursework required of medical students. Along with this coursework, students receive training in botanical medicine, nutrition, hydrotherapy, physical medicine, pharmacology, counseling, and, yes, homeopathy.

I understand the concerns around homeopathy, but this is only a small part of our training, and is not a modality every student graduating from naturopathic medical student will use. Other naturopathic treatments have a solidly growing evidence base, such as nutrition, botanical medicine, lifestyle management, physical medicine, and mind-body medicine (including counseling and guided relaxation). The research body is building, let's collaborate as a health care community to design great research projects that look at CAM treatments. As a community, many naturopathic doctors hope to expand our evidence base, and both Bastyr and NCNM are actively conducting quality research projects. I understand that the vaccine topic is controversial, but it is incorrect to state that Naturopathic doctor's oppose vaccination. In fact, the opposite is true today. Most ND's recommend most or all of the CDC required vaccinations, and in my class on family medicine the instructor said, "Vaccines are naturopathic," because they are preventative. Further, the Bastyr Center for Natural Health does not recommend against flu vaccination for healthy individuals as stated in the article. For this topic, this article is out of date.

As many patients continue to seek out NDs let's build the growing evidence base by conducting solid research that investigates the botanical medicines, nutritional and lifestyle therapies, physical medicine, and mind-body modalities most commonly used by NDs. As a community, we encourage evidence based medicine and support well designed studies of CAM therapies. Just a quick search on Google Scholar for any of these modalities shows how much peer-reviewed research already exists. As ND's, we are trained as complementary practitioners to work with medical doctors and other health-care professionals. There are places where we shine, and places where medical doctors shine. As family practice doctors continue to decline in most areas, NDs are situated to fill this much needed gap in medicine. Let's work together! I encourage you to take a closer look at the current state of our training and the evidence base. It is true that we are not required to undergo a residency, though during our training we complete at least 120 hours of preceptorship with practicing doctors. Many students do apply for residency after graduation, but the reality is that there are not enough residency opportunities. This is a situation that can and should be changed; if family practice doctors and other health care facilities were willing to offer residencies to NDs this is one way to increase opportunities.

Lastly, please understand that the philosophy of vitalism need not be so controversial. This philosophy simple asserts that all living things are animated by a life force and that when our life force is disturbed, the body tends to move towards health. A simple example is when we get a cut. Over time, the body heals the injury. This is all that is meant by vitalism. In biomedical language, we can understand vitalism as immunology. As NDs, we are mainly working to support the body's immune system, following the science of immunology and research for different therapies. In this way, naturopathic medicine does differ from allopathic medicine, but this difference does not need to divide us, it can serve as the foundation for a positive collaborative relationship.

Thank you for considering these statements. My hope is that NDs and other CAM practitioners and can work with other medical professionals to better serve patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.12.246 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This page is to help us improve the article by discussion. Do you have any suggestions for us? Your wall of text above doesn't really help. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Education of Naturopathic Doctors at Accredited College of Naturopathic Medicine

Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine Education

There are five accredited schools of naturopathic medicine in the United States: Bastyr University, National College of Natural Medicine (NCNM), Southwest College of Natural Medicine (SCNM), National University of Health Sciences, and University of Bridgeport College of Naturopathic Medicine. At an accredited school, students undergo rigorous training in the same four year format of medical schools, completing all of the biomedical sciences required for any medical student (CNME, 2014, p. 44-45). The anatomy component includes a gross anatomy lab (CNME, 2014, p. 44). Bastyr University is named by the Princeton Review as one of the 168 best medical schools in the country (Princeton Review, 2005). At Bastyr University, students complete equivalent hours of biomedical sciences as medical students at the University of Washington School of Medicine (AANMC, 2015; Bastyr University, 2015; University of Washington, 2015). On the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians website, there is a summary chart comparing the curriculum of Bastyr University and University of Washington School of Medicine, found here: http://aanmc.org/schools/comparing_nd_md_curricula/

In the second year, naturopathic medicine students study all the pathology, immunology, and microbiology content required for traditional medical students, along with all of the physical exams, laboratory skills, pharmacology training, and diagnostic coursework (CNME, 2014). Along with this coursework, students receive additional training in nutrition, botanical medicine, hydrotherapy, environmental medicine, physical medicine, pharmacology, homeopathy, and counseling (CNME, 2014). Although homeopathy may be considered pseudoscientific, all of the other complementary modalities taught to naturopathic medical students have a solidly growing evidence base, and many allopathic medical schools are now designing alternative programs that teach these same modalities (University of Arizona, 2015; Duke Integrative Medicine, 2015).

Clinical training at the accredited colleges of naturopathic medicine begins in year three. The majority of clinical shifts focus on general medicine, along with specialized shifts in physical medicine, nutrition, lifestyle counseling, environmental medicine, immune wellness, minor office procedures, homeopathy, integrative pain management, diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CNME, 2014). Over the course of clinical training in years 3 and 4, students average 600 patient contacts made during a minimum of 1,200 clinical training hours (CNME, 2014, p. 46). Although there is no residency requirement, accredited naturopathic colleges have implemented a preceptorship program. To meet graduation requirements, students must complete an additional 132 hours of preceptorship by shadowing health care professionals in their practice (CNME, 2014, p. 46-47). Many students do apply for residency after graduation, but the reality is that there are not enough residency opportunities for NDs. This is a situation that can and should be changed; if family practice doctors and other health care facilities were willing to offer residencies to NDs this is one way to increase opportunities.

Citations

American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. 2015. http://www.naturopathic.org/education

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC), 2015. Comparing ND and MD Curricula. http://aanmc.org/schools/comparing_nd_md_curricula/

Bastyr University. 2015. Curriculum for Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. http://www.bastyr.edu/academics/areas-study/study-naturopathic-medicine/naturopathic-doctor-degree-program#Curriculum

Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME), 2014. Handbook of Accreditation for Naturopathic Medical Programs.

Duke Integrate Medicine, 2015. http://www.dukeintegrativemedicine.org/professional-training/professional-training-and-certificate-programs

University of Arizona, 2015. Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine. http://integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/education/fellowship/

University of Washington Medicine. 2015. Basic Science Curriculum. http://www.uwmedicine.org/education/md-program/current-students/curriculum/basic-sciences

Are there secondary sources covering this? We'd need mainstream ones. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not an ideal source, but it is a secondary source and does verify significant aspects of what is said above: http://www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/About/Committees/ND_AB.aspx TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream Secondary Sources for Prior Post

Dear Alebrn,

Finding secondary mainstream sources on the specifics is a challenge, because secondary sources do not go into the level of detail as the accredited schools for the curricula. So far, this is what I have:

Council on Naturopathic Medical Education. 2014. Handbook of Accreditation for Naturopathic Medical Programs. This is the primary source. CNME is an independent non-profit accreditation oversight group that sets the requirements for naturopathic medical program accreditation. My submission is a brief summary of some of the main requirements for accreditation. For more detail and as a reference for the information I submitted, please refer to CNME's handbook here, which covers all the requirements of basic sciences training as well as clinical training: http://www.cnme.org/resources/2014_cnme_handbook_of_accreditation.pdf. I will update the original submission with specific page references to this document.

CNME is the accreditation information used by states to assess schools. Here is the State of Oregon's link to the CNME website: http://www.oregon.gov/obnm/pages/fiveshools.aspx

Other sources:

Princeton Review, 2005. Best 162 Medical Schools. Random House Information Group. See section on Bastyr University (sorry no online version)

On the University of Washington's youth outreach web page, they link to AANMC (same source I used) to provide information to undergraduates about becoming a naturopathic physician. This link can be found here: http://www.uwmedicine.org/education/md-program/admissions/explore-healthcare.

The University of Washington School of Medicine also has links to Bastyr University on this page, and maintains a respectful perspective towards both naturopathic medicine and acupuncture. UW medicine provides direct links from their website to the information I cited for my article, because the school finds the information credible and accurate. I will obtain a letter from the University of Washington School of Medicine stating this to help this process.

Here is a link to Oregon Health Sciences University's page on integrative medicine: http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/about/news_events/news/2005/03-08-ohsu-integrative-medicin.cfm. OHSU hires NDs as part of their staff. Although they do not go into the details of the program in a way I can cite, they validate the training I described in the article. I will also write OHSU for a letter that validates the information in the article I submitted.

Here is a link to Seattle Cancer Care Alliance's page on the Naturopathic Doctors they hire: http://www.seattlecancerwellness.com/naturopathic_oncologists.html I am writing Seattle Cancer Care Alliance for validation of the facts in the article I submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy in Australia

This page was just brought to my attention by a fellow student, and wow, what a lack of proper research methods by those who purport to be upholding the scientific method.

I'm in Australia studying the second year of a Bachelor of Health Science (Naturopathy). The level of education is in some cases above what is required for practice and contains a large practical component. The 1977 review is grossly outdated, I will endeavour to find more recent ones. It is true that anyone can still call themselves a naturopath, something which occurs in some other natural health professions, although it is likely that the more stringent regulatory requirements recently placed on chinese medicine will soon be applied to other fields. Health insurance companies only recognise accredited naturopaths who have completed a majority of their coursework on campus.

Basically this means that aside from the first sentence, the whole Australian section will need be replaced (I'm also planning to throw my weight behind a few of the other debates going on in this page). Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gudzwabofer (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

welcome to WP. Before you start "throwing your weight" around, please make sure you understand WIkipedia's policies and guidelines - there are "rules" here for content and for behavior. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and if violate WP's policies and guidelines, you will lose your editing privileges (in other words, you will get topic banned or site banned). Passion can be a good thing, but learn to walk before you "enter into battle". Please ask plenty of questions and really listen to the answers. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that does seem like it could mean like a giant troll who hurls boulders. I mean my intellectual weight. There's a lot of sources out there, many of them peer reviewed in widely respected journals, which should hopefully bring more balance to the article. While Lust coined the name, many of his methods are questioned or dismissed by present day naturopaths, but this disagreement isn't something that's foreign to other healthcare fields. Gudzwabofer (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Page Structure

Ok looking at the possibility of expanding this page, I think there's structural things which may need to happen:

International Focus;

Most sections describing naturopathy, and even many of the criticisms, are based on north american naturopathic practice. As education, practice, and regulation can vary quite considerably from country to country, I'm recommending that at the very least the "Practitioners" section, which could include education and professional bodies, be laid out in a similar manner to the regulation section. As for methods, there are some things I know Naturopaths in Australia either can't do legally, such as Acupuncture or Chinese medicine, which are now both regulated, or aren't generally trained to do. I think the only greatly controversial thing in BHsc(Nat) is iridology, which just takes up one unit. The other thing I've noticed on some pages is the "reception" listed by country, and I'm also wondering where private health rebates fit in. Is that a regulation issue?

Criticisms and Controversies

I think this could well be made into a section on its own, the criticisms particular to north american naturopathic practice already have enough to fill one subheading, as does cancer, vaccines, safety of treatments, the claims of lack of scientific basis, the issues surrounding unlicensed or unqualified practitioners (a big one in Australia). I don't think much of this belongs in other sections which should be a neutral description of the history and modality, especially when many of the criticisms don't apply to all naturopaths. Most of these issues should also have links to more in depth pages surrounding those issues. I've added a link for vaccines, and I know there are well written pages for others. 'Alternative Cancer Treatments' and 'List of herbs with known adverse effects', are two pages which seem quite comprehensive, with a fair degree of scientific rigour.

Diagnosis

I'm wondering if this should have a section of it's own or whether it should be regionalised. It could come partly under criticisms and controversies, and it could also come under a larger heading of the relationships between naturopaths and other medical professionals. In my course we are actively discouraged from making diagnoses, knowing when to refer to a gp or specialist can be a matter of life and death at times, and can require insistence, especially as many natural health clients are somewhat cautious of their local gp. This is also the other side the correlation surrounding low vaccination rates in natural health clients, and other untreated illnesses, although I'm not sure where it should fit in.

Reception

I've noticed this on other natural health pages, and I'm wondering if this should have a separate section, in terms of reception and utilisation by the public, and acceptance, or lack thereof, by governments and medical authorities. This is another thing which makes me wonder whether it would be better to split most of the article into countries and contain "education", "practitioners", "methods", "regulation", and "reception" under each of those. Leaving the "introduction", "history", "criticisms/controversies" as the only standalone sections.

Anyway, some of these points sort of spilled into each other, so I hope it's easy enough to see what I'm getting at. I'm already collecting a considerable amount of solid references for Australian Naturopathy, and a few for Europe. I'm wondering do I post links here in talk so they can be discussed before use in the main page?Gudzwabofer (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gudzwabofer. Generally, we discourage separating out criticism into a separate section (see WP:CSECTION), and instead encourage incorporating it into its own article. In this case, your recommendation to remove criticism, scientific basis, efficacy, etc, from most of the article and place it all within individual sections is contrary to that practice. Instead of encouraging a "neutral description" of the topic, it would encourage a description of the topic that is biased towards naturopathic claims.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the Ozzie course outlines at Endeavour, it would seem to indicate that such miracles as homeopathy, flower essence therapy and acupuncture therapy are still being treated as serious subjects of study there. From their FAQ, naturopaths "... stimulate the body’s innate self-healing ability through therapies such as homeopathy and hydrotherapy, or through physical or creative activities that stimulate the vital force." (my link) It seems clear that they are trying to apply the same gloss of professional credentialling as their North American counterparts. One would hope that a student who can afford A$72,000 for a bac might wish to get something of real value in exchange.

• The "Diagnosis" bit comes down to this: what extent of scientific education qualifies someone to be trustworthy as a primary care diagnostician? If it takes doctorate-level education in an M.D. program, why would a bac be enough in a naturopathy program? Is it not still necessary to understand what's going on in the body?

LeadSongDog come howl! 17:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick note - strategy

not discussing article content Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In general it is a bad idea to post big laundry lists of Things That Need Changing, as anything more than a heads up of the direction in which you would like to move the article. Every time (literally, every time) I have seen such discussions, they end up being completely unproductive, with lots of Big Sweeping Statements made and posturing Shots Fired Over the Bow, etc blah blah. Best thing to do is start making bite-sized changes to the body of the article (NPOV and well-sourced), taking time to let each one sink in, and being ready to discuss each one per WP:BRD. yep. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I'm advocating a neutral position. At present the article is biased against naturopathy. If you need references that restore the balance I can find plenty. I'm quite willing to have multiple sides of every single sentence in this article. My suggestions are more about better organising the article, especially with the much needed expansion. Homeopathy is a separate profession in Australia, as is Accupuncture, which is now government regulated and can only be practiced by acupuncturists. There is also evidence for efficacy of acupuncture in some conditions, particularly those involving the nervous system, it's hardly a miracle. I'd suggest taking your issues with those to the relevant wikipedia pages. Bach flower remedies are also one unit thing, and I don't pretend to know much about them. You'll find that most of the course is composed of anatomy and physiology, nutrition, and herbal medicine, all things which have a strong scientific basis. But this seems to be given little weight in the wikipedia page. As to the issue of diagnosis. You're asking a rhetorical question I already agreed with. I was saying it's such an important issue that it probably deserves its own section. As to the laundry list, well what can I do. Following the previous debate on NPOV it looks like the sceptics have already made up their minds, hardly very sceptical.Gudzwabofer (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC) you can write what you want, but i will just say this one more time. In my view, Big Sweeping Statements are a Big Fucking Waste of Time. They just become opportunities for posturing and personal attacks. And you could also say that they violate the WP:TPG - no one gives a flying fuck about anybody's opinions about Wikipedia or naturopathy. This page is for discussing article content and is WP:NOTFORUM. I recommend you propose or make bite size, concrete changes to the article, and be ready to discuss each of them, in a calm way, based on PAG. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

further reading

offtopic discussion about a "further reading" entry Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
wow, i can't believe i have to do this, but then i guess it's wikipedia not academia "naturopathy is a hodge-podge of mostly unscientific treatment modalities" naturopathy, at least in australia (maybe another reason for splitting the whole page into countries) is mostly composed of nutrition and herbal medicine, that's if you take mostly to mean at least 80%. need references, i'll get them "Naturopaths also really, really don’t like it when they encounter criticism that their “discipline” is not science-based" I'm fine with it, because i can show you the science for quite a lot of it, just show me where i can stick it (in the page) on the allergy thing - look at some recent scientific journal articles on the relationship between intestinal flora and allergies, especially the 80% success rate in treating peanut allergies using a combination of a probiotic and small amounts of nut protein, also on chronic hayfever, garlic and vitamin c worked a hell of a lot better for me than antihistamines, not really in direct contradiction to what he said, but naturopathy has been on about bowel health for a long time, and now we have increasingly more science to back it up most of the rest of it is homeopathy, which is easy points, as it one of the natural therapies which are least supported by scientific evidence. and the main problem is that faulting a small part of naturopathy isn't the same as faulting most of it. little mention of nutrition or herbal medicine. why? because for the most part they workGudzwabofer (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) TLBR, and even with all those words, i have no idea what content you are talking about. What are you talking about? Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC) the further reading link, I deleted it, Mann jess reinstated it and told me to further justify my reasons in talk, i've got a feeling it's going to take me a week to get rid of every single biased reference in this pageGudzwabofer (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC) oh i see. so what you wrote, is a bunch of your personal opinions about why the content of that source is not good. I see. But that is not how we analyze sources and is not valid discussion within WP. It was a complete waste of your time to write, and mine to read and try to understand. (Like I said, learn to walk before you start doing battle.) Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC) look, the main thing i'm advicating is fair representation, both regionally and in general. the general course guidelines for natural therapy course recognition in australia, as set by one of the major professional associations: http://www.australiannaturaltherapistsassociation.com.au/courses/assessment_guidelines.php Course Module/Category Guidelines: Biomedical Sciences 25 – 35% of course Including anatomy & physiology, pathology, pharmacology, toxicology, microbiology chemistry, biology biochemistry, phytochemistry, symptomatology and diagnosis Modality specific 30 – 45% of course Including philosophy, relevant modality including diagnostic framework Clinical Practicum 25% - 35% of course Specific to the modality(s) covered, can include, but is not limited to observation, case taking, tutorials, practice management, referral procedures, clinical record keeping, etc – evidence would need to be collected such as policy of student clinic and clinic handbook Counselling/Interpersonal skills, Ethics, Research, Professional issues 5 – 10% of course Includes Ethics and jurisprudence, research assessment/methodology, integration of the modality into the Australian healthcare system, current global climate of health care, critical thinking and clinical judgement, communication with other healthcare professionals, professional requirements, financial record keeping, adverse event reporting, notifiable and transmittable diseases. for naturopathy the majority of that modality is nutrition and herbal medicine based, just check the endeavour link above. as for efficacy of herbal remedies, try natural standard: https://naturalmedicines.therapeuticresearch.com/ all i need to do is get above 50% of scientifically supported to prove that naturopathy is not mostly unscientific, also i already showed that the article that forms most of the introduction of the page is self contradictory, but i've had no response. if there's no internal logic how can it be a good reference.Gudzwabofer (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Ok, are you proposing a specific change to the article? and if so, please present it in the form of "I'd like to change X to Y" with a list of supporting sources. Thanks. --McSly (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of Jagtenberg source

I also have an issue with this:

Naturopaths aim to prevent illness through stress reduction and changes to diet and lifestyle, often rejecting the methods of evidence based medicine.

References

I checked both sources. The one which list concerns with EBM is a small focus group, which seems to be assembled for that specific purpose, the other source actually discusses how present day naturopathy is science based.Gudzwabofer (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you are objecting to the sources? Please confirm. If so, upon what policy or guideline is your objection based? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Note. I amended the quotation to above to include the sources, to make discussion easier. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm tired, so I'll have to get back to you after I have a chance to pore over the lingo tomorrow. All I know for now is that if I handed in that sentence with those references at any reputable tertiary institution I'd get an F.Gudzwabofer (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, here goes. So the statement "naturopaths...often rejecting the methods of evidence based medicine."

The Jagtenberg reference, for which there's a free link here - http://epubs.scu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=hahs_pubs is a small focus group discussion about the concerns the members had with EBM. The main issue raised seems to be the weight given to the RCT, which is itself only part of EBM, rather than a complete rejection of the idea of EBM, anyway, leaving aside from the further broader debate my last sentence may give rise to, the second reference, Pizzorno, mentions EBM and medical science in the context of their acceptance by naturopaths, and their place in naturopathic education. I'm having trouble finding the policy related to misrepresentation of sources, although there is WP:CHERRYPICKING, discussion of a well known no no in the academic world, but I believe it at least violates WP:NPOV, specifically WP:BALASPS WP:UNDUE WP:SUBSTANTIATE WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV being that of the available sources, the contributor has only given weight to the idea that naturopaths often reject the methods of EBM, when the references describe a lot of acceptance of EBM and a few misgivings about certain aspects.Gudzwabofer (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Traditional naturopathic practitioners surveyed in Australia perceive evidence based medicine to be an ideologic assault on their beliefs in vitalistic and holistic principles.[27]

This is a similar sweeping statement based on limited sample size from the small Jagtenberg focus group, for, which I might add participants were selected who were "tradition-sensitive naturopathic practitioners" comprised of "The contributing authors of this paper and other colleagues constituted themselves as a small focus group." In other words, it's more resembles a few close friends having a chat than a statistically significant scientific study, which the authors advise it isn't. If there is a broader survey contained in this paper, then I apologise in advance for missing it.Gudzwabofer (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments on recent extensive edits

I just reverted a few changes out of concern that they misrepresented our sourcing (at least with respect to due weight). Of most concern is this bit: Among its findings was that "A review of 77 systematic reviews published between 2001 and 2003 suggested that there is now evidence of the benefits of naturopathy and WHM [western herbal medicine] for almost every body system and all major illnesses.... This is directly contrary to a slew of sources we're using in the article, which are largely reflective of the scientific consensus. We can't place that much weight on the claims of naturopathy when they so strongly conflict with the scientific consensus.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

that is scientific consensus, it's a large systematic review commissioned by a government body, the reason it's in contradiction with the rest of the article is that the rest of the article has numerous violations of NPOV. if anything the 1977 reference should be reviewed as it's outdated. I'm considering referring this whole page to a higher power for review.Gudzwabofer (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The only justification for removal you can have is that they misrepresent their own sources, or that the sources themselves are flawed. On this can I just delete everything I believe is guilty of the same thing? Submitting this whole page for review.Gudzwabofer (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What you cited is not a systematic review, no. It references "a review" which it doesn't cite, supposedly covering 2001-2003. We have newer sources than that which actually pass WP:MEDRS. There's absolutely no way we can say there's scientific evidence naturopathy has those kind of sweeping benefits without extremely strong sourcing, and this isn't it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, please indent your posts. You're welcome to see WP:RSN to discuss the reliability of that source, if you'd like. There are no "higher powers" here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm emailing the volunteer response team. You didn't even read the paper, systematic reviews were among its methods. It's another example of the persistent militant bias on this page. I'm not allowed to remove one terrible source or ill referenced statement, but you can remove something that's balanced and well attributed? It's a joke. Take a moment to consider what pseudoscience really is.Gudzwabofer (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I've also posted it where you suggested, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Naturopathy. All good so far.Gudzwabofer (talk) 09:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to expand on my revert of this removal... the initial justification was that it was to be replaced by another source which had been reverted. If so, we should wait for the new source to be discussed and added, not remove well sourced content in the meantime. The more recent justification was that "It doesn't reflect current regulation". However, it is properly contextualized as "In 1977", so it need not reflect current regulation. It is also the only source we currently have on the topic, AFAIK, so we would need another one to add additional details (like what is current practice). In any case, Gudzwabofer, I have followed the conversation taking place on your talk page, and it really seems like you should be concentrating on other endeavors at the moment. I'm not opposed to discussing this; why don't we come back and resume the conversation when you have your other responsibilities in order. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV problem fixed

I am trying to fix a problem with the Naturopathy article because of people just reverting edits that were meant for fixing a NPOV problem.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finally coming here and Talking. NPOV doesn't mean what you think it means. Please actually read WP:NPOV, and in particular the section WP:PSCI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:PSCI DOES NOT APPLY to naturopathy because all the claims behind naturopathy are mostly scientific facts.-- 67.80.218.118 (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you are asserting that. However, the article presents many reliable sources (as defined in WP:MEDRS) that contradict your assertion. WP content is based on reliable sources (which for health content, are defined in MEDRS), not on assertions of editors. If you don't understand that please read WP:OR and WP:VERIFY, which are WP policy. That is how we do things in Wikipedia. (and btw, making your assertion bold, all-caps, and red-colored doesn't add validity to it.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have links to peer-reviewed papers that identify and study our "special vital energy" and its healing properties? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

NeilN and Jytdog, this special vital energy you are talking about is basically your immune system. Now, it's my turn to fix the WP:NPOV problem on this exact article.

Please heed what NeilN and Jytdog are saying, they are correct. Do you have any peer reviewed articles that support your position at all? Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And you can tell the state of a person's immune system by looking in their eyes. Very scientific. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's Energy (esotericism) which is yet another pseudoscientific concept. AadaamS (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by "vital energy fields" is immune systems, with immune cells INCLUDED. -- 207.241.247.150 (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

i'll take it you are the same person that was editing under the other IP address. see my 2nd message to you above, which you are still not dealing with (including the pointlessness of making your words red or bold). This will be my last response to you, unless you start dealing with the policy and sourcing issues I discussed there, and that others here have also mentioned to you. I will just ignore posts with further unsupported assertions, and recommend that others here do the same.Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This NPOV problem is too serious to ignore, so I have decided to fix the problems with this article about millions of treatments that have been proven to be very effective. I will cite naturopathic.org after the semi-protection goes away because that will make it possible for a neutral point of view. Also, naturopathy is NOT pseudoscience. So revert your edit that reverted my edit, and remove this article from the Pseudoscience template and the Pseudoscience category on this wiki so misleading claims made by drug companies won't affect Wikipedia. --207.241.247.150 (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop changing the colours of your posts, it is hard to read. Oh and a source, an actual WP:MEDRS source, got one? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be the website I JUST POSTED!!!!! --207.241.247.150 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I encourage the IP editor to also read WP:CONSENSUS. The statements we have about pseudoscience, for example, are well sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

These guys are not letting us reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not, "Do what I say, I don't need proper sources". Have you read WP:MEDRS yet? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is reached, through reasoned discussion that is based on policies and guidelines. We have told you what the relevant policies and guidelines are, and you are not dealing with them. Again please come back when you have read them and have arguments based on them. This place is not a wild west. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have read these and your arguments are not credible towards anybody who has read these rules. --67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

'These guys are not letting us' so these two IPs are different people? OK..... Actually IP editor(s?) have you ever considered the off chance that maybe when everyone else who is an experienced editor is telling you something, perhaps, just maybe, you are wrong? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

IP, consensus is not a vote. Logging in from your school to pretend to be another person is not going to help change this article's content. Recruiting your friends won't help either. I know our policies are long and complicated, and no one is expecting you to read every word of them at once, but you need to listen to the experienced editors here who are trying to explain our policies to you. Some of us have been editing wikipedia for many years. There is only one thing that will cause the article to change: sources from respected medical journals. If you can find those, then by all means, present them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy works.--67.80.218.118 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please, also read WP:NOTAFORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I now have an account. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk to me here) 23:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

^{• ↑2 indents added above 220 of Borg 03:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)}

Our new friend is back with a username. YN01, welcome, again. Same things we have said above, apply. Please read WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:MEDRS and support future claims with reliable sources per MEDRS. I will ignore posts that do not, and suggest others do the same. Thanks all. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

^{• ↑3 indents added above 220 of Borg 03:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)}

@Young Naturopath 01:Welcome to the 'club' kid Editor. (Sorry, NPOV!) . (Note added indents as stated above!) 220 of ^Borg 03:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Try reading the section below.

Love,

Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a major issue here with NPOV. The article used for almost the entire introduction set out specifically to list the problems with naturopathy, which should rightly belong in a criticism section, although the criticism section seems to be a lot of the page. There is no mention in the introduction that naturopathy is also replete with scientific, effective, ethical, and safe practices. There seems to be a lot of cherry picking going on here. I can provide a large number of references of solid scientific evidence for naturopathic practice,and all you have to do is click one of the modality links to find one, but I see none of them being used here so far, why? Because you couldn't find them?, or because you didn't look? Another thing I take issue with in some of these articles is the moving of the goalposts. Once something previously classed as "alternative medicine" by mainstream medicine is found to have sufficient scientific proof, it is quickly classed as mainstream medicine, meaning that alternative medicine, by their definition cannot include science. Never mind the fact that thousands of years of reliable practice is its own science. Repeatable results and all that. And nevermind that most GP's know very little about even scientifically accepted herbal remedies. Anyway, I digress. The same article has a quote from webmd, it's own publisher. "A licensed naturopathic physician (ND) attends a 4-year, graduate-level naturopathic medical school and is educated in the same basic sciences as a medical doctor (MD)." and then follows it up by saying "The WebMD treatise also advises, "Naturopathy should not replace conventional methods of treatment for certain conditions,"[49] but how is the patient to know? The assumption is that naturopaths will act responsibly, but they have neither the medical training nor the requisite scientific skepticism to do so." This is from page 7. Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here. And I'm only on the first reference so far. I shudder to think what I'll find in the other 87. Sure a lot of them might be peer reviewed, but anything can potentially be guilty of cherry picking or misattribution when you view it with some scientific scepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gudzwabofer (talk • contribs) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Good job, Gudzwabofer! You really proved the MD-promotion users wrong! --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Phew! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Young Naturopath 01 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

sources

Let's talk sources, shall we?

I just reviewed the sources used in the article and here is what I found. I went ahead and took out a couple that were blatantly bad already that are not listed here...

used and OK per MEDRS

• "Naturopathic Medicine". American Cancer Society. January 16, 2013. Retrieved March 21, 2015.

used and not OK for health content per MEDRS, in my view

• Barrett, Stephen; Raso, Jack (1993). Mystical Diets: Paranormal, Spiritual, and Occult Nutrition Practices. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879757612. - WAY too old per WP:MEDDATE
• Herbert, Victor; Barrett, Stephen (1994). The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry is Selling America a Bill of Goods. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 9780879759094. - WAY too old per WP:MEDDATE
• Pizzorno, Joseph E. (1999). "Naturopathy: Practice Issues". In Clark, Carolyn C.; Gordon, Rena J. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Complementary Health Practice. Springer Publishing. pp. 57–59. ISBN 9780826117229. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) - WAY too old per WP:MEDDATE
• Jarvis, William T. (January 30, 2001) [copyright 1997]. "NCAHF Fact Sheet on Naturopathy". National Council Against Health Fraud. Retrieved 2009-04-17. - WAY too old per WP:MEDDATE
• Atwood, Kimball C., IV (2003). "Naturopathy: A critical appraisal". Medscape General Medicine. 5 (4): 39. PMID 14745386.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) -- too old per WP:MEDDATE
• Atwood IV, Kimball. C. (March 26, 2004). "Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: Myths and fallacies vs truth". Medscape General Medicine. 6 (1): 33. PMC 1140750. PMID 15208545. -- too old per WP:MEDDATE
• Boughton, Barbara; Frey, Rebecca J. (2005). "Naturopathic Medicine". Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine (Online ed.). Gale. -- too old per WP:MEDDATE
• Jagtenberg, Tom; Evans, Sue; Grant, Airdre; Howden, Ian; et al. (April 2006). "Evidence-based medicine and naturopathy". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 12 (3): 323–328. doi:10.1089/acm.2006.12.323. PMID 16646733. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) -- too old per WP:MEDDATE

hm...

• Barrett, Stephen (November 26, 2013). "A close look at naturopathy". QuackWatch. Retrieved 2015-03-21.
• Beyerstein, Barry L.; Downie, Susan (May 12, 2004). "Naturopathy: A Critical Analysis". NaturoWatch. QuackWatch. Retrieved 2009-03-21.
• Carroll, Robert T. (March 7 2015). "Naturopathy". The Skeptic's Dictionary. Retrieved 2015-03-21. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

and hmmm, with respect to WP:INDY

• "Handbook of Accreditation for Naturopathic Medicine Programs" (PDF). Council on Naturopathic Medical Education. 2007. Retrieved 2010-11-20.
• Sarris, Jerome; Wardle, Jon (2010). Clinical Naturopathy: An evidence-based guide to practice. Sydney: Churchill Livingstone / Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 32–36. ISBN 9780729579261. Retrieved 2013-09-01.

I think that Gudzwabofer had a point, about the sourcing being pretty shitty in this article.

I did a bit of searching and found the following that are not used...

not used

• Fleming SA, Gutknecht NC. Naturopathy and the primary care practice. Prim Care. 2010 Mar;37(1):119-36. doi: 10.1016/j.pop.2009.09.002. Review. PMID 20189002 PMC 2883816
• Snyder J, Brown P. Complementary and alternative medicine in children: an analysis of the recent literature. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2012 Aug;24(4):539-46. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e328355a214. Review. PMID 22732637
• Esposito S, Principi N, Cornaglia G; ESCMID Vaccine Study Group (EVASG). * Barriers to the vaccination of children and adolescents and possible solutions. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 May;20 Suppl 5:25-31. doi: 10.1111/1469-0691.12447. Epub 2014 Jan 24. Review. PMID 24354949 (note: doesn't talk about naturopathy per se, but says "Some parents believe that the immunity evoked by vaccines is less effective than that due to natural disease, and they prefer to face the risks of illness rather than those of immunization. This was clearly shown by Prislin et al, who found that, together with safety concerns, beliefs in natural immunity were the main contributors to parents' negative attitudes to vaccinations"

I think the article needs some updating... I hope folks won't oppose updating things. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the article certainly needs updating, primarily with respect to sourcing. I've been doing that every now and then, but my time for source hunting is fairly limited. Have at it. If anyone has a complaint, I'm sure they'll let you know :p Thanks for the summary above!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. I'll see what I can dig up in the next couple of weeks and I'll post a reading lost of sources for consideration. Particularly I'll have a new Australian Government Report which comes out on April 1, and I'll see what I can find on region specific practice and regulation. I'll also see if any decent systematic reviews exist, naturopathy as a whole could be difficult, but I should be able to find something on each of the different methods. Some might exist on linked pages as well. Gudzwabofer (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

is acupuncture naturopathy?

real question. doesn't seem like it is to me, based on sources i see. doesn't fit with the ideology of naturopathy as i understand it, as sticking needles in people isn't "natural". there may be an overlap in people who like, use, or do both, but I don't think they are the same. if nobody has a source saying that acupuncture is within naturopathy, i intend to remove that... Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain that acupuncture falls within the scope of naturopathy (at least for some practitioners). However, I don't have a source on hand. If I get some time to track one down, I'll let you know. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks! i may remove it in the meantime. none of the sources i have checked today say that, so far. we can always restore it, if a source is found. Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Depends on jurastiction I think. In Australia acupuncture is regulated to qualified acupuncturists. Same with TCM. There's a new fed gov report coming out on the 1st of April I think related specifically to private health rebates but it should provide a decent up to date overview. Europe I noticed has different regs for each country.Gudzwabofer (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In the US, "Their scope of practice is defined by law in the state in which they practice (for example, depending on the state, naturopathic physicians may or may not be allowed to prescribe drugs, perform minor surgery, practice acupuncture, and/or assist in childbirth)." Per the NCCIH. LeadSongDog come howl! 01:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

interesting. Thanks! that looks like some more digging is required. if it is just a few states i don't know that it makes sense to include acupuncture in the first sentence of the lead. if it is a bunch of them, then yes. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say a bunch of countries, not just a bunch of us states, otherwise it belongs in a usa specific section. Gudzwabofer (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

According to http://mx.nccaom.org/StateLicensing.aspx which has links to all the relevant state government pages except a few where it's banned, 22 states require its certification (which there is a link to educational requirement of on the page) to practice acupuncture, 6 states ban acupuncture entirely, leaving 23 states where one may or may not be able to practice acupuncture without being technically an acupuncturist or TCM practitioner in addition to whatever other qualifications they may hold. Different regulatory requirements may exist for the remaining 23 states, so the links for state departments for those need to be looked into. There's also a wikipedia page specifically on global Regulation of acupuncture but it's hardly comprehensive. And could well be expanded by the state government pages linked by the nccaom. Gudzwabofer (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick read through of the others, they all require state acupuncturist licences, and mention either one or more of the following: state exam, accreditation by the nccaom or acaom, degrees in tcm or acupuncture, often with specified required anounts of science and practical education. I can't find anything to suggest that someone who only holds qualifications in naturopathy can practice acupuncture. This is also an important distinction which should be made in the naturopathy wiki page, because if you are in the US and you see someone who is practising acupuncture without a state acupuncturist license, they are breaking the law and probably don't have adequate education to be safely sticking needles into people or ensuring proper hygiene while doing so. Gudzwabofer (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathic Medicine Week

The United States Senate designates the week of October 7th through October 13th "Naturopathic Medicine Week" in recognition of the "value of naturopathic medicine in providing safe, effective, and affordable health care"

The federal government honors the holistic, patient-centered approach of NDs, which supports "the self healing capacity of the human body and promotes responsibility in health care." The federal government recognizes that NDs are well prepared as primary care physicians, having attended 4 year graduate level programs approved by the Department of Education. By designating the week of October 7th through October 13th "Naturopathic Medicine Week," the United States Senate, "encourages the people of the United States to learn the role that naturopathic physicians play in preventing chronic and debilitating illnesses and conditions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs)

References

WP:UNDUE and senators are not WP:RS let alone WP:MEDRS for medical claims. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that this week of October 7th through October 13th is is Naturopathic Medicine Week by law. Recognizing a system of medicine as legitimate is not a medical claim. As a compromise I am have excluded the language on the particular diseases, even though it is in the senate bill. Everything else should be no problem by your standards. Please include this information on the page or I will start an appeals process with Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs)

No, the rest of the world doesn't care about a meaningless declaration from the U.S. Senate. And please starting signing your posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Umm, "Recognizing a system of medicine as legitimate" is absolutely a medical claim. It is the definition of a medical claim.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

So does the rest of the world not care about federal health care policy? This is such an arrogant statement. This content is now going into an appeals process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs)

It's not policy. It's a meaningless declaration which has the same weight as a bag of air. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

oh a meaningless declaration like the declaration of independenceSolomonmorris (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)solomonmorris

No, about the same effect on policy as a "resolution commending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln women's volleyball team for winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Volleyball Championship". [5] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

NeiN, this declaration demonstrates the governments perspective on CAM, and is incredibly relevant. Your minimization is demeaning and inaccurate. Please be clear on the bias you bring to this Wikipedia page. Because Jess has also written on this topic I accept that it cannot be used to cite in Wikipedia, but there is no need to degrade the content. You have neither the authority nor expertise to define this declaration as "meaningless," please refrain from disparaging remarks outside your knowledge base in the future. Hawthorneberry (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Hawthorneberry

(edit conflict)Solomon, medical claims (like the efficacy of a certain medical intervention or system) are required to be backed up by medical sources. While the link to congress is interesting, and thanks for providing it, it is not a medical source, and is not reflective of the medical community or the state of scientific research today. It does not meet WP:MEDRS, which is a policy on wikipedia. That's why it cannot be included in the way you're suggesting.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What is Naturopathic Medicine? (info to update the intro section)

Naturopathic Medicine is based on the belief that the body is able to heal itself utilizing the immune system. Doctors of Naturopathic medicine work with their patients to improve health and treat illness with nutrition, lifestyle management, and complementary medicine such as botanical medicine. Naturopathic Doctors are able to treat most common medical problems, and they focus on the cause of the condition rather than only treating symptoms. To gain a license, Naturopathic Doctors attend 4 year graduate level naturopathic schools and study the same basic sciences as a medical doctor (MD). In addition to this curriculum, NDs learn alternative and complementary therapies, such as herbal medicine, bodywork, and nutrition. ND graduates work alongside other health professionals in patient care, referring to other practitioners for diagnosis and treatment when appropriate. Hawthorneberry (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Hawthorneberry

References

This is U.S. based and obviously "Naturopathic Doctors are able to treat most common medical problems" is nowhere close to being acceptably sourced. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with US based sourcing? I'm talking about NDs trained in the US who practice in the US. Hawthorneberry (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Because this isn't the "U.S. Wikipedia" or the "Naturopathy in the U.S." article. The lead cannot take a U.S.-only focus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal is that we throw out the intro, along with sources, and replace it with a single source that doesn't meet WP:MEDRS, and in no way reflects any portion of the large body of literature we currently use. No, we can't do that. Here's a MEDRS compliant source. We can't just ignore it when writing the intro.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

My proposal is to add some of this information sourced from WebMD to the existing intro. I have found a number of MEDRS compatible sources I will compile new sections. For example see here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11795088 Hawthorneberry (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Hawthorneberry

Please only use one account. This one or Solomonmorris. [6] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

From now on I will 'Hawthorneberry'I prefer to keep my personal info more anonymous since every posting has to be signed. 66.194.68.2 (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Hawthorneberry

It's less anonymous posting from an ip, actually. If you sign in, you don't have to type your name at the end of each post. Just: ~~~~.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jess, I am signed in not sure how to sign without my IP... oh well I don't really have anything to hide anyways :)Hawthorneberry (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I am confused. What editors are the same person here? Are Hawthorneberry and Solomonmorris and the IP all one person? Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Education still not updated

Despite my article that is well sited and completely accurate describing ND education, none of the information has been included in the main page after over a month. The bias on this page is ridiculous and gives the impression that the authors are acting from their subjective self-interest. If information from the article I compiled on Naturopathic Doctor's medical training is not included on the main page I will begin a dispute resolution process and also involve hundreds of students who have formed a wikipedia action coalition with support from our state senators in a petition to Wikipedia to change this article and have a separate page created for "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine." I will allow the space of one week, and if there has been no update with the prior post I submitted prepare for an onslaught of opinion from literally hundreds of people and a long dispute process from myself and hundreds of other students and practitioners who are being completely misrepresented and humiliated by the ignorance of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs)

@Solomonmorris: See WP:MEAT. You'll find that Wikipedia editors won't react well to threats like this, to put it mildly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes... such behavior would quickly result in you being blocked, along with all your students. Please don't do that; it's no good for anyone, you most of all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Solomonmorris: Could you please provide a link to your article that you claim accurately describes ND education? Trhermes (talk) 11:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If the bullying and cherry picking that takes place on this page does not change and allow for an unbiased approach there will be a mass movement towards change. Hundreds of credible posts will not get blocked, nor a reasonable appeals process against the cyber bullying rampant on this page. We think wikipedia editors will be very interested in this, time will tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs)

Solomonmorris you are new here and are being way too combative. Please take your time - there is WP:NODEADLINE here. More importantly, it appears that you just threated to start WP:CANVASSING and are perhaps proposing sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry - all of those are against Wikipedia. You have written what you have written, but don't go there - it will get you site banned. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Then what can be done to make this page more fair and open and allow well cited sections through. I'm proposing that many more people are going to get involved in posting and in appealing the cherry-picking because as a community we are frustrated. I prefer to work with people but I just keep getting ignored when I write sections that are truthful and well-cited. What is that if not active cherry picking and cyber-bullying? I want more students and NDs to raise appeals to wikipedia editors and write well cited sections so this gets addressed. Why would that be blocked? Until I get some inclusion I'm not sure what to do other than that. This may seem like an over-reaction but as someone who has dedicated my life to naturopathic medicine I can tell you that this page really hurts us personally and professionally, and most of all because much of the content is simply not true. What are your suggestions for constructive action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs)

Solomonmorris, start by pointing out what content is not true and why (not just, "because I say it isn't true"). And please start signing your posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Solomon I'll put some advice on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

New inside source on naturopathic medicine in North America

This website: www.naturopathicdiaries.com gives an inside perspective on ND training and practice. She voluntarily left the profession and now writes to raise awareness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.210.128.198 (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A self-published primary, so far from ideal even considering WP:PARITY when we have stronger sources. I believe this content has been picked up elsewhere (Science-Based Medicine) and this might be more worthy of consideration for WP:FRINGE purposes, if there are gaps in knowledge not addressed by our stronger sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree. Perhaps the Science-Based Medicine article written by Hermes could be placed in the 'Further Reading' section, under Gorski's link. The SBM post has accounting of actual hours of study and how clinical training worked at one of the naturopathic schools. Trhermes (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No blogs or personal sites of any kind. That goes for sciencebasedmedicine and naturopathicdiaries --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

SBM is not really a blog but in any case per WP:PARITY it's a fine source for fringe topics (as Naturopathy is) where nothing better's on hand. Alexbrn (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate source it is not a mainstream source as is required. Thinking of including a blog is actively cherry picking to subjectively create an article to fit a bias. Are there no professional standards here? ...only when it's convenient for your point of view? And naturopathy is not a fringe topic. The federal government includes NDs in the scope of primary care, as do many state health care systems. Before you make ignorant statements take some time to educate yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonmorris (talk • contribs)

While the Naturopathic Diaries blog is opinionated even though it provides rare insight into an otherwise closed profession, it is biased and it not eligible for citation. There is though one post on www.naturopathicdiaries.com which has data on the reading assignments in basic sciences courses at Bastyr University: ND Bastyr Reading Info. Perhaps there is a way to draw upon this reference in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's rules? There is a list of texts and a table of reading pages assigned which is claimed to be drawn from course syllabi. 92.210.42.11 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not require our sources to be unbiased. The only problem with Naturopathic Diaries is that it's a blog, and therefore a self published source. We try to avoid those when we can, but they can be useful for some claims, sometimes.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose the information about Bastyr's "basic medical sciences" courses and the CNME schools's claims writ large along similar lines could be countered with information in that particular post. Perhaps a sentence could be added under the section Practitioners - Licensure, which could say something like, "At Bastyr University, several basic and clinical sciences courses require textbooks written by naturopaths or homeopaths, and the reading load per class ranges from 10 to 100 pages per week." There is an Wired article recently published by Alan Levinovitz that cites the Naturopathic Diaries post about Bastyr's assigned readings. 92.210.42.11 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV review needed?

I was told to slow down on the debate surrounding NPOV and the quality and use of sources on this page. However every time I place the disputed neutrality tag on the page it is removed. If the tag is to be removed sooner there are only three ways I can see it happening.

1.The NPOV debate should be brought to its conclusion, with answers to the questions hanging over all current sources and their use being resolved, as well as the assessment for inclusion of sources which have been previously proposed, including some which have been removed with limited justification after attempted inclusion. -or- 2.All disputed sources and the content derived from them should be immediately removed. Pending their justification. -or- 3.The whole page should be submitted for a neutrality review. For which a summary of issues can be provided from previous posts, edit history, and the current page and reference list.

If you need additional reasons and discussion of references and their use in addition to what is already present on the talk page and revert history, then they can be provided in a timely manner, but again, I was told to slow down because there hasn't been long enough for people to consider what is there already.

Gudzwabofer (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Given you are a student of naturopathy, you don't seem to accept the mainstream view that it is a pseudoscience and are thus editing with a clear COI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that elements of naturopathy have scientific support, the percentage of naturopathy which is scientifically grounded is largely dependent on education and practice, something which can vary from region to region. These points and more are things which are even shown in some of the references used on this page, however, as they have been cherry picked, and attempts to use more compete information from the sources has been blocked, only one side of the story has been shown. A declaration of interest doesn't preclude me of being critical of this page, as it shouldn't for those who are avowed sceptics with or without a background in medical science. It's about whether the page provides a complete picture of the facts, which at present, it does not. It's largely a presentation of the negative aspects of United States naturopathy. Gudzwabofer (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You must be observing the naturopathic mainstream view, not the mainstream mainstream view. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

One small example: The cancer society reference has this quote:

Available scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine is effective for most health problems. Most of the claims of effectiveness are based on individual cases, medical records, and summaries of practitioners’ clinical experiences.

One clinical study that looked at treatment of ear pain in children tested the effectiveness of naturopathic ear drops, anesthetic ear drops, and oral antibiotics. The pain improved over 3 days in all groups, and the naturopathic drops were slightly more effective than the anesthetic drops. Antibiotics were not helpful and may have slowed recovery, as explained by other studies and the guidelines of most conventional medical groups, which do not recommend antibiotics for uncomplicated ear pain.

A Canadian study looked at anxiety in adults and found that a 12-week course of psychotherapy helped reduce anxiety, but did not help as much as a multi-pronged naturopathic approach. Of note, the psychotherapy was given by a person whose training and methods were not outlined in the study report and, like the ear pain study, may not have met the usual standards of mainstream care for the comparison group. The groups were not followed beyond 12 weeks to see if the effects lasted.

Naturopathic medicine includes many methods, which have been shown to vary in effectiveness. Available scientific evidence looking at methods such as homeopathy and colonic irrigation has not shown them to be helpful for cancer or any other disease. Other aspects of naturopathic medicine, like healthy nutrition, have been shown to lower the risk of illnesses such as heart disease and cancer. Some aspects of naturopathic medicine may be useful when used along with conventional medical treatment.

Which was clipped to this:

scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease, since virtually no studies on naturopathy as a whole have been published.

Gudzwabofer (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The overview on naturopathy the cancer society gives is thus:

Available scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease, since virtually no studies on naturopathy as a whole have been published. The individual methods used by naturopathic medicine vary in their effectiveness. Homeopathy, for instance, has been shown in studies to be of little value. Other naturopathic methods have been shown to help in prevention and symptom management. Examples include diet for lowering the risk of severe illnesses such as heart disease and cancer and counseling, relaxation, and herbs to help reduce anxiety.

NOT:

scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease, since virtually no studies on naturopathy as a whole have been published. Gudzwabofer (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If I were to summarize that cancer society statement, it would be "On the evidence, naturopathic medicine cures nothing. While some methods have no value at all, others help symptoms but not causes." Would that suit you any better? I suspect that the source has overstated the case, but we use the sources we have. (Some naturopathic methods (particularly herbals) do have some curative value beyond placebo, just not as much curative value as gold-standard medicine, otherwise they would be gold-standard medicine. Nutritional support is the obvious example.) LeadSongDog come howl! 14:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the night, but I'll say a couple of final things (and I maybe won't be able to say anything tomorrow). There is a big difference between the terms "unproven effectiveness" and "proven ineffectiveness." Also, if you want to have a larger debate about herbal medicine and its effectiveness in whole, extract, and isolated compound form in mainstream medicine, that probably belongs on the herbal medicine page. Gudzwabofer (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)adding to what LeadSongDog wrote... I've been reading some mainstream sources on naturopathy (e.g ernst's description of naturopathy in Trick or Treatment). the heart of it is common sense mainstream medicine today - eat right, exercise, etc, and the body will (mostly) take care of itself. (i don't know if any of you or people close to you have had serious surgery, or work with surgeons, but it is remarkable how blunt surgeons are that they can only do so much, and the body has to heal itself. (with of course appropriate medication for pain and for whatever underlying condition may be going on, once the surgery is done) -- see Ileus#Intestinal_atony_or_paralysis for an example of something pretty common, where we have no options other than to wait for the body to kick in.) where naturopathy goes wrong from the mainstream perspective, is trying to treat serious conditions without medicine, or avoiding vaccines. in that sense it is as FRINGEy as Christian Science. our article is pretty heavily WEIGHTed on the latter, and maybe not enough WEIGHT on the former - on the real heart of the thing. i think that is where some of POV complaining might have some justification Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear... our goal is not to find ways to make naturopathy seem reasonable; our goal is to represent the claims of naturopathy accurately. You may find it reasonable to consider the advice of naturopaths in conjunction with mainstream med, and that is your prerogative, but that opinion is not a basis for deciding due weight. At its heart, naturopathy is not just "eat right and exercise"; at its heart are a slew of non-evidence-based claims about what constitutes common sense healthy living. I know a naturopath: he explained to me last week that if you have lung cancer, it can be cured by eating lungs. Exercise is a part of mainstream med too (don't believe the trope that doctors only prescribe medications and ignore lifestyle changes - the ACS strongly recommends diet and exercise, for example); where naturopathy shines through and differentiates itself from EBM is its non-EBM claims.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

just to be clear, look at my contribs. I know what NPOV is and I spent about 90% of my editing keeping FRINGE and quackery out of Wikipedia. i said "common sense mainstream medicine today - eat right, exercise, etc," and when I say i have been reading mainstream sources I mean sources like Ernst. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Open question for editors which might help: According to sources, are naturopathic practices today largely based on evidence-based medicine with some pseudoscientific techniques added on or are they largely pseudoscientific techniques hand-wavingly extrapolated from evidence-based medicine? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

there you go, man. that is very close to the key question. per ernst most of what goes on with naturopath doctors is much like what regular doctors do with mostly healthy and even mildly sick people. where naturopathy departs from MSM is a) preventative medicine (vaccines) and b) what happens if you are really sick, where you will not get treatments that could treat you and both of those things are very clearly pseudoscience. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Neil, the sources we're using in the lead are fairly clear on that point. Naturopathy, a critical appraisal discusses it in some depth, with references to naturopathic literature. His commentary on it here is worth a read. Naturopathy is diverse, and it is common among naturopaths to make broad claims about how real naturopathy doesn't include some-practice or how it incorporates EBM. In that last link, Artwood writes: "I provided ample, current evidence that NDs still do not practice science-based medicine... If these practices truly don't reflect what NDs do, why are they so abundant in naturopathic literature? ... If they are merely involved in straightforward, dietary and lifestyle counseling, what do they offer that's special, and why should we consider them “doctors”?" I think we should be careful not to fall victim to the claim that naturopathy only includes the PR friendly stuff, when even the naturopathic literature describes its very foundation as much more.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

yes atwood's claims (and ax) are very clear and per my list above, both atwood sources are old (12 and 11 years old) and should be replaced by more recent reviews. NeilN's question is a good one; i don't know the answer. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary to insist on MEDRS quality sources to simply encapsulate the topic. These sources are still high quality, just outside of the recommended 5 year window. We need MEDRS for the pseudoscience label and discussion of efficacy, but whether or not naturopathy includes some-topic or another can be settled by otherwise high quality sources (like Artwood and Quackwatch), who are both very explicit. If we had newer sources meeting WP:MEDDATE which disagreed with Artwood, Quackwatch, etc, then I would be more skeptical, but my reading of Ernst doesn't reveal any conflict. If I missed something in his writing, let me know.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some good discussion above. A quick request: when referencing Ernst, please take care to indicate which Ernst. There are at least three "Ernst E" who pop up on Pubmed. Erika is not Erik is not Edzard. Even then, because Edzard has been so prolific in publishing, it is necessary to single out the paper. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Right on Gudzwabofer, please continue to point out the bias on this page. Neinl, Jess, and Leaddog please state your bias. Neinl, you seem to have no problem calling out other editors on theirs. Please refrain from thinly veiled cyber bullying. It is not up to editors to make broad statements on the value of the profession, please stick to a discussion of facts and a broad inclusion of all qualified sources. We are the messengers, please try to be objective or at least be clear on your bias---the standards of any professional setting. Hawthorneberry (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I can speak for LeadSongDog, Jess, and the rest of the experienced editors participating here when I say our bias is towards adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:GEVAL. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. My bias is toward representing the reliable sources, particularly the scientific community's viewpoint. As it turns out, that's wikipedia's bias too. It's not cyber bullying to say "please provide a reliable source compliant with our policies."   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a fair representation. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: It seems that this article does not adhere to WP:WORLDVIEW. Kimball Atwood is writing that his article isa summary of the current state of naturopathic medicin, based only on documents published by Anglo-American sources. It does not reflect the current state of naturopathic medicine worldwide. This cultural bias shall be removed by explicitely mentionning his bias or focus : Kimball C. Atwood concludes about naturopathy in the Anglo-American world that "naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices". This is a fact and an objective comment. Paulmartin357 (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Paulmartin357: Can you please point out where it is stated that Kimball was only looking at Anglo-American sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for your quick answer. Atwood himself, in his text and in his 53 references, is only taking as examples, quoting and refering anglo-saxon sources. Feel free to read his 10 pages article and to check by yourself, or do you prefer that I list here the anglo-saxon origin of all his examples, all his quotes and all his references ? Paulmartin357 (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOR seems to relevant here. If there is criticism of Atwood's scope, it should appear in reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:, thanks for your answer. I understand what you mean, even if I am not criticizing Atwood's scope. I simply point out a factual evidence that any reader of his article can verify by himself: Atwood is only taking Anglo-American examples and sourcing Anglo-American references. It's simply a fact. At least, read Atwood Introduction:

What follows is a summary of the current state of "naturopathic medicine." Much of it comes from the position papers and other articles on the Web site of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP); from the Textbook of Natural Medicine, the only general textbook of the field, coedited and largely coauthored by one of the Medicare appointees; and from the most visible naturopathic school, Bastyr University in Kenmore, Washington (...)

The chapters of his article are:

Brief History and Current Status

1st paragraph about origins in Germany in 19th Century

2nd paragraph about AANP and Oregon

3rd paragraph about United States and Canada

4th paragraph about 13 US states

Naturopathic belief

no mention of geography, but only Anglo-American sources

Naturopathic treatments

AANP, Massachusetts and only Anglo-American examples

Implications for Medicare

USA topic

White House Commission

USA topic

As everyone can see, this article, is very obviously addressing Anglo-American, and even mainly USA centric topics (2 chapters), according to Atwood himself. There is not one single geographic word outside of USA and Canada, except the German historical reference in 19th Century. However, due to WP:NOR, because it is nowhere written black on white that this article is only addressing Anglo-American naturopathy, eventhough it is so obvious, let me rephrase my proposal:

Based on Anglo-American examples and references, Kimball C. Atwood concludes that "naturopathic medicine is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and possibly dangerous practices"

Is this an acceptable statement ? If not, can you make a counter proposal that will highlight this fact/focus/bias for the average reader of Wikipedia.Paulmartin357 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we start with removing "" from nature? I don't see how that is necessary, and it clearly sets the tone for a grossly bias read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jereme Ford (talk • contribs) 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jereme Ford: Remove what? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to remove the quotation marks from "natural" in the lede? They are used to denote a term of art, where the usual English meaning differs from that used in the specific context. Clearly sticking acupuncture needles in people is not natural in the normal meaning of the word. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

REPLETE IS A VALUE JUDGMENT WORD. should not be used, especially not in the passive tense. should be classified by [certain people], not just spoken of as POV "psuedoscience" even if most wikipedians agree it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luxxaeterna (talk • contribs) 00:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)