Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. My blogging plan was to take a break from my series of naturopathy versus science posts, where I’ve been contrasting the advice from naturopaths against the scientific evidence. From a blogging perspective, naturopathy is a fascinating subject to scrutinize as there is seemingly no end of conditions for which naturopaths offer advice that is at odds with the scientific evidence. From a health care perspective, however, reading the advice of naturopaths is troubling. Naturopaths promote themselves as health professionals capable of providing primary care, just like medical doctors. And they’re increasingly seeking (and obtaining) physician-like privileges from governments. Naturopathy seems to be getting an easy ride from regulators, despite a lack of evidence that shows naturopathy offers anything distinctly useful or incrementally superior to science-based medicine.
Defining the scope of “naturopathic” treatment is difficult. Naturopaths offer an array of disparate health practices like homeopathy, acupuncture and herbalism that are only linked by the (now discarded) belief in vitalism – the idea we have a “life force”. From this philosophy can sometimes emerge reasonable health advice, but that has little to do with the science or the evidence. As long as it’s congruent with the naturopathic belief system, it’s acceptably “naturopathic”. In past posts I’ve looked at the naturopathic perspectives on fake diseases, infertility, prenatal vitamins, vaccinations, allergies and even scientific facts themselves. An advertisement passed to me this week promoted a naturopath who claims to treat pediatric conditions like ADHD and learning disabilities: (more…)