Misplaced Pages

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Sorry, but are we sure we are going in a healthy direction? This article has some fairly obvious mistakes, by, for example, saying this:

"Naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis, and it is rejected by the medical community. Some methods rely on immaterial "vital energy fields", the existence of which has not been proven, and there is concern that naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse. Naturopathy is criticized for its reliance on and its association with unproven, disproven, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings. Natural substances known as nutraceuticals show little promise in treating diseases, especially cancer, as laboratory experiments have shown limited therapeutic effect on biochemical pathways, while clinical trials demonstrate poor bioavailability. According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease."

However, naturopathy is a group of medical practices according to the article:

"The particular modalities used by a naturopath vary with training and scope of practice. These may include herbalism, homeopathy, acupuncture, nature cures, physical medicine, applied kinesiology, colonic enemas, chelation therapy, color therapy, cranial osteopathy, hair analysis, iridology, live blood analysis, ozone therapy, psychotherapy, public health measures and hygiene, reflexology, rolfing, massage therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine. Nature cures include a range of therapies based on exposure to natural elements such as sunshine, fresh air, or heat or cold, as well as nutrition advice such as following a vegetarian and whole food diet, fasting, or abstention from alcohol and sugar. Physical medicine includes naturopathic, osseous, or soft tissue manipulative therapy, sports medicine, exercise, and hydrotherapy. Psychological counseling includes meditation, relaxation, and other methods of stress management."

So, are all of them entirely ineffective? Not all of them. Hydrotherapy is a great example. I once read a naturopathy book, and IIRC, it mentions that hot water helps blood flow, while cold water helps soreness. The aforementioned hydrotherapy article mentions the same benefits. (The swallow-a-liter-a-day part is not too good for you though.) I don't remember the title though. I will post the title and author if I find it. NotAStoppedClock (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Following my previous message, I would like to point out that I am not asking for a complete rewrite, unlike many other people here. I am just asking that the POV lends a tiny bit of credence to some aspects of naturopathy. I know, a complete rewrite would be better than nothing by some people's standards, but this is Misplaced Pages, where there is a large amount of arguing about random topics, ranging from this talk page (a giant wall of text at times itself due to the flood of users who have had some positive experience with naturopathy and want a complete rewrite,) to the article about Dolly the sheep. I do not want this to become a case of undue balance, but it needs to have some minor adjustments to the parts that have generalization problems. The section I first quoted clearly needs to say "Most of naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis" instead of just "Naturopathy lacks an adequate scientific basis." Neither statement is outright pro-naturopathy, but lessens the problems the article is criticized for. Now, I am not trying to wikilawyer, but a neutral point of view is usually the standard, and this article, despite falling under "fringe theories," clearly went off the deep end in terms of criticism. I do agree that acupuncture needs to be regulated so that the needles get cleaned after use, among other regulations to prevent "buyer beware" conditions, but not all of naturopathy is pseudoscience. In fact, a good chunk of naturopathic medicine has some evidence backing it up. For example, going on a ketogenic diet is great for those with seizures, and certified organic foods are banned from having pesticides put on it (including Roundup.) Simply put, the article needs minor adjustments to improve the neutrality of the article and to encourage people to not assume that something is unsafe/ineffective just because naturopaths use it to cure illness. --NotAStoppedClock (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That naturopathy occasionally incorporates techniques that might work doesn't change the fact that naturopathy as a general practice isn't supported by the evidence. And the use of a ketogenic diet for epilepsy does nothing to support naturopathy in general, and as far as I know, there's no evidence supporting health benefits from "organic" food. --tronvillain (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not referring to avoiding GMOs, but instead referring to avoiding pesticides. A lot of pesticides are commonly put on GMO crops, and the FDA bans pesticides from being put on organic food. One of the pesticides marketed to farmers growing GMOs, glyphosate, is known to be at least less-than-optimal for your health (hint: It's carcinogenic) in a few ways. Note that I, unlike "Mr. naturpathy devine allh yhwe bhow the way," and unlike quite a few here on this prestigious talk page, do not want a rewrite, but instead a minor edit so that it doesn't imply that everything a naturopathic doctor touches has zero evidence just because he is a naturopath. --NotAStoppedClock (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there an actual edit proposed here? Using the Talk page for meandering essays is disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is an actual edit proposed here, Alexbrn. I am really sorry for being disruptive, and I seriously apologize for your frustration. Apparently the " Talk:Naturopathy" train is coming as some could put it. We shall truce here so that train doesn't flood the page. Just please encourage others to look up the methods of naturopathy instead of naturopathy itself through the article. I also made a point in those "meandering essays" that this is going to not be a massive rewrite. Truce? --NotAStoppedClock (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

In Cleveland, Ohio, both the world reknowned Cleveland Clinic and University Hospitals provide Integrative Health Care.

University Hospitals includes Naturopathic Wellness Consultation, Integrative Psychiatry, Accupuncture, and Myofacial Release Therapy, among other services. <ref> http://www.uhconnorintegrativehealth.org/services The Cleveland Clinic offers Integrative Consults in general Medicine and Pain Management (which include approaches such as Accupuncture, Herbal Therapy and Holistic Psychotherapy), as well as many other alternative medical treatments. Of particular note is that most insurance covers these appointments. </ref>https://my.clevelandclinic.org/departments/wellness/integrative

Abigail Smasome (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Abigail Smas