NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/22844

Text File | 1993-01-25 | 13.5 KB | 307 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs.uiuc.edu!mcgrath
From: [e-mail] (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: Healthy skepticism
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:11:38 GMT
Lines: 294

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kevin Sven Berg) writes in part:
|> Let's take a look at what was said (I'll see what I can do in
|> limited time)...
|>
|>     But like homeopathy, naturopathy's roots also lie in the
|>     reaction by some physicians of 19th Century reaction against  the
|>     bleedings and purgings of prescientific medicine.  In  this
|>
|> Incorrect: Western naturopathic roots extend at least to Hippocrates.
|> BTW: The hippocratic oath is Pythagorean, I believe; and has nothing
|> to do with Hippocrates, who studied body processes and nature.
|> Dr. Kavorkian (yes, Dr. Death) has made some interesting lectures
|> in this area. M.D. Gorski does indicate the early twentieth century
|> was the formation of the ANA.

This amounts to historical nit-picking and what you mean by "naturalpathy".
You trace the roots farther back than Gorski.  So what.  You are both
right.

|>     But today, with ...[] ... a lack of  understanding and
|>     suspicion of science, naturopathy has found fertile ground for a
|>     comeback.
|>
|> This is an allegation that Naturopathy/Naturopathic thinking is not
|> grounded in scientific principle. (Is there something inherently
|> inconsistent with applying logical analysis, double blind studies,
|> etc. with a desire to pursue holistic approaches -- a kind of
|> systems theory, if you will).

The claim that there is a large suspicion of and lack of understanding
of science is hardly controversial.  I suspect the claim that naturalpathy
is on a comeback is likely true.  The connection is unproveable
but arguable.

I don't follow the rhetorical question at all.  Either Naturapathy
is grounded in scientific principle, or it is not.  Your question
is irrelevant, begs the question, makes assumptions not in evidence,
and generally muddies the water.  Just say it straight out:
  What is the "scientific" evidence to support the claims of Naturalpathy?

|>
|>    An N.D. (Doctor of Naturopathy) degree can be had today as a
|>    mail-order item.  But there also exist two 4-year  Naturopathic
|>    Schools.  In an effort to earn some  respectability, these
|>    institutions try to emulate to some  extent the course of studies
|>    offered at reputable medical  schools.
|>
|> This text misleads the reader into thinking Naturopathic degrees
|> are an exception. Only toward the end of this same paragraph does he
|> state that "little more than half in Washington and Oregon". The
|> reader is not told about N.D. regulations in those states, which
|> (I believe, last time I checked) require 4-year degree minimum.
[...]

I don't see much misleading about this.  The fact that ANY N.D. degrees
are granted without "proper" training is the problem.  The consumer
better beware that that piece of paper could mean something or it
could mean nothing.

|>     ...Because of their emphasis on "natural"  healing
|>         methods, for example, they may oppose such public  health
|>         measures as water supply fluoridation and the  vaccination of
|>         children.
|>
|> I believe this is an case of specific instance being applied
|> to the aggregate of N.D.'s. Perhaps M.D. Gorski can provide
|> the incriminating evidence (?). I would also like to see (any)
|> reports on the effects of floride in the body.

Granted.  There is bound to be variability in the medical opinions of
N.D., since some have post high school training and others may not.

|>     ...Their knowledge of nutrition is,  more often than not,
|>         nutrition pseudoscience, according to  William Jarvis, Ph.D., a
|>         professor of health education at  Loma Linda University and the
|>         President of the National  Council Against Health Fraud.
|>
|> Again, to whom is he referring? The studies I have seen appear to
|> be well-researched; here I'm referring to interdisciplinary research
|> into digestive enzymes or immunology, for example. Is Ph.D. Jarvis is
|> suggesting we've been defrauded by our university systems?

Write to the NCAHF and ask.  You may have misinterpreted what you read,
"interdiscplinary" or not.

|>        [Naturopathic treatment of strep] ...Such  claims and practices are
|>        simply false, and can be  exceedingly dangerous ...
|>
|> Here M.D. Gorski does a good job of describing specifics, and a lousy
|> job at follow-through. If such claims are false, he has pitted one
|> study against nothing (i.e. why are these claims false).

Hmm.  You've lost me.  I don't see any studies cited at all.  Are
you claiming these claims are actually true and you can provide evidence?
If so, just say so.

|>       Naturopaths claim that herbal products are better because
|>       they're found in nature, whereas synthetic materials are
|>       "chemicals the body's never been exposed to before," and so  are
|>       more dangerous according to Pizzorno.  This assumes that  every
|>       plant product on the planet was in the immediate  environment of
|>       our African primate ancestors, of course.  It's also a bit like
|>       saying that we should be restricting  our building materials to
|>       grass, mud, and rocks since steel,  glass and concrete weren't
|>       present during the course of  human evolution.
|>
|> The ending analogy is totally unfounded. What has happened here is
|> that much has been taken out of context, perhaps to suit the presentation.
|> I believe Pizzorno is referring to "trace elements", or residues that
|> are present as a result of manufacturing process [...]
Well you certainly have a completely different interpretation of
this that G. (and G.'s certainly looks like what I have seen.)
Are you trying to tell us that herbal products (which have uncontrolled
and unmeasured and unknown trace elements) are somehow better than
synthetic compounds with known trace elements (however potentially
harmful)?

|>      Naturopaths claim that purifying a drug from  a plant material
|>      makes it more toxic, which is why they  prefer to use the whole
|>      herb in their treatments.  [M.D. William] Bennett  says:
|>      "That's a piece of 19th Century romantic philosophy."
|>
|> The quote from M.D. Bennett focuses on a the removal of a specific
|> material (like digoxin), not the process in which trace elements can
|> be introduced. But we've already covered that...

No you haven't.  You have simply contradicted the claim by introducing
your own 'spin'.

|>      ...Naturopath Pizzorno also claims that
|>      "many of  the herbs have synergistic agents that work together to
|>      produce the effect you're looking for."  But the fact is  that no
|>      one has identified such "synergistic agents."
|>
|> I do not know about the situation of processed herbs, but it is
|> certainly true that modern science has identified natural enzymes
|> which indeed, have been shown to have "synergistic" effects in
|> the body. These enzymes are effectively destroyed above 140 degrees F,
|> which rules out their presence in most processed materials.

Fine.  Don't cook your enzymes too hot.  You still haven't identified
any such enzymes in the herbs.

|>      Despite their antipathy to drugs, naturopaths have fought  for
|>      and won the right to prescribe in the states of  Washington and
|>      Oregon.  Some also practice obstetrics and  perform minor
|>      surgery.  And while they claim to be an  "alternative" to
|>      high-priced conventional medicine, they  have also actively
|>      pursued the right to bill insurance  companies and other
|>      third-party payers for their services.
|>
|> This is probably another topic entirely, which is extremely
|> emotional right now: the right of people to choose the type
|> and care of their own bodies. In particular, review the recent
|> "Death with Dignity" movements, or the Hemlock society.

Actually, it has nothing to do with the right to choose, it has
to do with whether or not the services rendered are equivalent.
You can choose to refuse treatment altogether, but should the
insurance company then pay you the money they would have spent on
the treatment?

|>      [mention of "alternative" approaches...]
|>      ... and colonic  irrigation (enema therapy)
|>
|> What percentage of colons appear to be abnormal in the
|> american population? I believe I saw AMA studies of up to 98%!
|> Gee, our society also has an extremely high rate of colon
|> problems including cancer, and hemorrhoids. Note that there
|> are other cultures (Soviet) who have done extensive study
|> and application of colon treatments.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  Are you saying
that colonic irrigation is useful for the cited problems?  Or does
it CAUSE the cited problems?  Or what?

|>
|>      ... massage therapy
|>
|> I'll take this any day :-) a great way to relieve stress.

...but is promoted as curing lots of other things.

|>
|>      ... acupuncture
|>
|> This could be another subject entirely. Suffice to say that most
|> research in this area has not been done in the U.S. I find the
|> use of accupuncture for painless child-birth extremely intreaguing.
|> Quackery? All of those mothers didn't appear to need morphine!

I haven't heard of any mother who needed or got morphine.  And again,
acupuncture has been promoted as fixing practically everything, not
just as an anasthetic.

|>
|>      ... iridology
|>
|> I understand the results are "inconclusive" in this area, not
|> that it has no benefit. In particular, Dr. Jensen seems to have
|> done nice work for these studies. The premise (theory) is that
|> certain body parts (namely the iris) reflect the state of other
|> parts of the body. This isn't far fetched, in fact it happens to
|> be current study in immunology (neuropeptides, I believe).

Rubbish.  Iridology is total bunk.

|>      ... homeopathy
|>
|> Personally I think we'll see more light on this in the future,
|> especially as it relates to immune processes. Interestingly
|> enough, Dr. Gorski earlier mentions penicillin, which is fits
|> the homeopathic model.

Rubbish.  The "homeopathic" model is complete nonsense, the methodology
is pure magic, and the claims are patently false.

|>      ...If the
|>      4-year colleges teach  any science, it doesn't seem to have an
|>      effect. Many  naturopaths are little more than jacks of all
|>      quackeries.
|>
|> After only listing terms, some less respected than others,
|> Dr. Gorski goes on to lambast N.D.'s psuedo-science (without
|> explaining how they are unscientific). This is then used to
|> bolster his position that they are "jacks of all quackeries".
|> He hasn't told us much.

You may be right.  He didn't explain every pseudo-science and
explain why it is bogus.  It would have filled up 10 articles.
If you were to examine these, you would find Gorski to be quite
justified in his estimate.  "Jacks of all quackeries" is not
a very nice phrase, but it may be justified.  Also, in case you
don't realize it, that remark is not an independent claim intended
to "bolster his position", it is a one-liner intended to restate
his basic claim.

|>
|>      In defense of naturopathy, proponents point to their
|>      frequent "success" in handling minor illnesses, infections  that
|>      are less than life-threatening, and chronic medical  problems for
|>      which medical science can offer no cures  either.
|>
|> Actually, there are a number of studies which indicate just
|> the opposite:

The "opposite"?  Your counter examples support the claim above:
naturopathy might sometimes do some good.

|> I recall one study of influenza patients where diet related
|> treatment beat traditional medicinal treatment by significant
|> statistically measures.

One whole study.  Pretty impressive.  And just what does "diet related
treatment" vs. "traditional" mean?

|>
|>      ...Undoubtedly,
|>      lavishing attention and "natural  healing" therapies of some kind
|>      on people suffering from  disorders with a psychosomatic
|>      component is likely to  benefit some of them.
|>
|> There's an interesting study quoted by Talbot about psychosomatic
|> components in AMA surgery and pharmaceuticals. Again, caught w/o references,
|> but I can look it up if you so desire. My point is that Dr. Gorski certainly
|> should be or make himself familiar with these facts before presenting a paper
|> seeking to expose the fraud of others.

Irrelevant.  Yes there are psychosomatic components in ALL therapies.
The question always is, is there anything ELSE.  Your comments
simply avoid the issue.

|> Finally, I'd like to point out that the AMA has been
|> extremely slow to embrace preventative medicine or studies.

Hmm.  Suddenly there is a new actor on the stage.  The AMA.  Totally
irrelvant.

Look, all my life health care providers ("conventional" and otherwise)
have been advising and promoting what we now call "a healthy life-style".
It's not clear what you mean by embrace, but it has clearly been
standard medical practice for a LONG time.

|> It should be noted that those studies that have been undertaken
|> show the body does possess 'amazing' abilities to heal itself
|> given the opportunity (with or without Mr N.D. :-).

Precisely.  Without.  You have to show that Mr. N.D. is better than
nothing.

--
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  [e-mail]