6 ms·

Well I suggest you take up your objections with the American Cancer Society because that's where the quote is from. Here's their contact form. http://www.cance

by analog 14y ago

Well I suggest you take up your objections with the American Cancer Society because that's where the quote is from. Here's their contact form. http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/howwehelpyou/contactus/index http://www.cancer.org/aboutus/howwehelpyou/contactus/index

Nursie 14y ago
I'm not American, so it's not really for me to bother them. Also it's not really false, is it? "Other aspects of naturopathic medicine, like healthy nutrition, have been shown..." Perfectly true information. Just irrelevant because those are aspects of mainstream medicine too. --edit-- but were I american and had medical credentials to my name, yes I absolutely would be writing to them to protest the existence of that page in its entirety. As it stands I'm just a British skeptic.
dalke 14y ago
Just to be clear, your primary reference is The American Cancer Society, which is a non-profit charity. You know it's not a scientific research organization, right? And one which has a rather mediocre rating, as charities go? Why do you pick specifically that reference, which sits very carefully on the fence in order to find something good about naturopathic therapies? ("good diet" and "counseling" are, of course, quite common recommendations of any doctor) Why not reference an actual research organization which also has patient outreach? I'm thinking specifically of The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, of the NIH, at http://nccam.nih.gov/health/cancer/camcancer.htm http://nccam.nih.gov/health/cancer/camcancer.htm . They've gotten into political hot water because it was started and funded to find how if CAM is useful, only to report that no, it nearly isn't useful at all. That site NCCA describes only on the treatments which are specific to CAM, and not shared with standard medical practice.
- analog 14y ago
  I did a quick google search and it was one of the first references that came up. I only have to provide a citation that CAM sometimes works to disprove Nursies assertion that CAM "doesn't work".
  - dalke 14y ago
    Nursie did not assert simply that all of CAM "doesn't work". Nursie pointed out that those aspects of CAM which do work are shared with traditional medicine, and have been part of traditional medicine for a long time. They are not specific to CAM. A naturopath may suggest that you always wear a seatbelt when driving a car. That doesn't make the suggestion part of naturopathy. A naturopath may suggest that you keep the safety on when carrying a firearm. Again, that's a good suggestion, but it's not something specific to naturopathy. The examples you pointed out on the Cancer Society web page are not unique to naturopathy. I interpret them as trying to say something good about naturopathy, probably because of so many complaints about how naturopathy is being 'suppressed by Western thought', or something like that. The NIH site I pointed you to reports on the CAM practices which are specific to CAM. Very few of them "work" in any fashion, and none of them are treatments.
    - analog 14y ago
      No sorry you're wrong, he responded to me saying 'if it works' with "It doesn't.", and also said "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't"
      - dalke 14y ago
        "It" refers to the part of alt.med which isn't part of med. That's the part that makes it "alt." At least, that's how I interpret it. The full context is: analog: "Paleo diet has worked, and also alt medicine", followed by Nursie: "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't!" The immediate context for 'it' is homeopathy, but I think, based on Nursie's other statements, that it should apply to all of alt.med. It doesn't apply to (to coin an abbreviation), "std.med", because it seems that Nursie finds convincing evidence that std.med does work. So the question to you is, what puts the "alt." in "alt.med"? If practice X is part of "alt.med" and is part of "std.med" then is how is X "alt"? It's possible that something started as alt.med and became part of std.med, but the practices listed on the ACS page have been part of std.med since pretty much since the dawn of evidence-based medicine, so it's not like std.med recently took those parts from alt.med. Therefore, you should interpret those quote of Nursie to mean: "[The part of alt.med which is specific to alt.med] doesn't [work]" and "I don't understand how [the alt. part of alt.med] works because [the alt. part of alt.med] doesn't [have any demonstrated effectiveness]".

by analog 14y ago

Nursie 14y ago

I'm not American, so it's not really for me to bother them. Also it's not really false, is it? "Other aspects of naturopathic medicine, like healthy nutrition, have been shown..." Perfectly true information. Just irrelevant because those are aspects of mainstream medicine too. --edit-- but were I american and had medical credentials to my name, yes I absolutely would be writing to them to protest the existence of that page in its entirety. As it stands I'm just a British skeptic.

dalke 14y ago

Just to be clear, your primary reference is The American Cancer Society, which is a non-profit charity. You know it's not a scientific research organization, right? And one which has a rather mediocre rating, as charities go? Why do you pick specifically that reference, which sits very carefully on the fence in order to find something good about naturopathic therapies? ("good diet" and "counseling" are, of course, quite common recommendations of any doctor) Why not reference an actual research organization which also has patient outreach? I'm thinking specifically of The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, of the NIH, at http://nccam.nih.gov/health/cancer/camcancer.htm http://nccam.nih.gov/health/cancer/camcancer.htm . They've gotten into political hot water because it was started and funded to find how if CAM is useful, only to report that no, it nearly isn't useful at all. That site NCCA describes only on the treatments which are specific to CAM, and not shared with standard medical practice.

analog 14y ago
I did a quick google search and it was one of the first references that came up. I only have to provide a citation that CAM sometimes works to disprove Nursies assertion that CAM "doesn't work".
- dalke 14y ago
  Nursie did not assert simply that all of CAM "doesn't work". Nursie pointed out that those aspects of CAM which do work are shared with traditional medicine, and have been part of traditional medicine for a long time. They are not specific to CAM. A naturopath may suggest that you always wear a seatbelt when driving a car. That doesn't make the suggestion part of naturopathy. A naturopath may suggest that you keep the safety on when carrying a firearm. Again, that's a good suggestion, but it's not something specific to naturopathy. The examples you pointed out on the Cancer Society web page are not unique to naturopathy. I interpret them as trying to say something good about naturopathy, probably because of so many complaints about how naturopathy is being 'suppressed by Western thought', or something like that. The NIH site I pointed you to reports on the CAM practices which are specific to CAM. Very few of them "work" in any fashion, and none of them are treatments.
  - analog 14y ago
    No sorry you're wrong, he responded to me saying 'if it works' with "It doesn't.", and also said "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't"
    - dalke 14y ago
      "It" refers to the part of alt.med which isn't part of med. That's the part that makes it "alt." At least, that's how I interpret it. The full context is: analog: "Paleo diet has worked, and also alt medicine", followed by Nursie: "I don't understand how it works because it doesn't!" The immediate context for 'it' is homeopathy, but I think, based on Nursie's other statements, that it should apply to all of alt.med. It doesn't apply to (to coin an abbreviation), "std.med", because it seems that Nursie finds convincing evidence that std.med does work. So the question to you is, what puts the "alt." in "alt.med"? If practice X is part of "alt.med" and is part of "std.med" then is how is X "alt"? It's possible that something started as alt.med and became part of std.med, but the practices listed on the ACS page have been part of std.med since pretty much since the dawn of evidence-based medicine, so it's not like std.med recently took those parts from alt.med. Therefore, you should interpret those quote of Nursie to mean: "[The part of alt.med which is specific to alt.med] doesn't [work]" and "I don't understand how [the alt. part of alt.med] works because [the alt. part of alt.med] doesn't [have any demonstrated effectiveness]".