Categories
Homeopathy Naturopathy Politics Quackery

Here we go again. A naturopathic licensure bill stealthily passes the Michigan Senate

Naturopathic licensure is like The Terminator. It never, ever gives up. This time around, it’s back in Michigan. Worse, a bill licensing naturopaths has just passed the Michigan Senate and is moving on to the House of Representatives. Can it be stopped?

In a way, I have to hand it to naturopaths. Grudgingly, I have to give them respect. No, I don’t mean I respect them for their medicine. That is, always has been, and always will be quackery. Rather, I have to admire their persistence. They have a goal, which is to have laws licensing naturopaths in all 50 states by 2025, up from the current 20 states plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands today. Yes, it’s an ambitious goal, to achieve licensure in 30 more states in only seven years. What worries me is that they might very well come close to achieving this goal. Why? Relentlessness.

If there’s one thing that naturopaths possess, at least organized naturopathy like the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), it’s utter relentlessness and single-mindedness. That’s what why it’s hard not to grant a grudging respect to them. No matter how many times they fail to achieve naturopathic licensure in any given state, they always come back and try again. Always. In that way, they are like The Terminator. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. Oh, wait. Until science-based medicine is dead in all 50 states.

Let me use my own state as an example. The first time I took note of the efforts of naturopaths to be licensed in Michigan, led by the AANP and the Michigan Association of Naturopathic Physicians (MANP) was in 2013. Then, a bill to license naturopaths was introduced. Fortunately, it failed. Then, in 2016, naturopaths tried again, bolstered with funding from the supplement industry. That effort failed, too, fortunately.

Then, yesterday, I learned that there is another effort underway. It’s been very stealthy in that I’ve heard very little about it. I had heard that there was yet another bill to license naturopaths being considered, but it seemed just like any other of the many bills that had come and gone before. There was nothing special about it. Fortunately, I’m on the MANP mailing list, and I learned this from it:

The Michigan Association of Naturopathic Physicians is thrilled to announce that our bill, Senate Bill 826, was heard on the Senate floor on Thursday, May 17th and passed with a majority vote of 24 to 10 and 1 absention!

Next step is on to the House of Representatives! Our association is still waiting to hear on a bill number and to which committee the bill will be heard in. We will be sure to pass on that information as soon as we know and will once again ask for your help in contacting your local House Representatives in support of our bill!

This is a HUGE step in our efforts to gain licensure for Naturopathic Physicians in Michigan and we are incredibly grateful for all of the continued support!

Please pass on the wonderful news. We are also continuing to ask for donations to continue our important relationship with our lobbyist. Details on how you can help are below.

Wait, what? How did this happen without my having been more aware of it? After all, Naturocrit noted that this bill was a stealth naturopathic licensure bill, and he noted it over a month ago. This bill had been reported a month and a half ago. This bill was introduced by Senator Rick Jones. He’s a Republican from Eaton County, which is a county in central Michigan that encompasses some of Lansing’s western suburbs. Oddly enough, what I could find out about Sen. Jones was not a lot, and it didn’t include any mentions of alternative medicine other than his sponsoring of this bill. Oddly enough, he doesn’t seem to be a fan of medical marijuana, touting his experience as Sheriff of Eaton County.

Basically, Sen. Jones’ bill would amend the public health code, specifically sections 16265 and 17708 (MCL 333.16265 and 333.17708), section 17708 as amended by 2016 PA 499, and by adding section 16348a and part 186, to add a section allowing the licensure of naturopaths:

THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ANNUALLY ESTABLISH A SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LICENSED OR SEEKING A LICENSE AS A NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN UNDER PART 186 TO OFFSET THE DEPARTMENT’S ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER THAT PART.

So what is S.B. 826? Basically, it gives naturopaths everything they want, but stealthily. Here’s what the bill says:

SEC. 18615. A NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN MAY DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, CONSISTENT WITH HIS OR HER NATUROPATHIC EDUCATION AND TRAINING:

(A) ORDER AND PERFORM PHYSICAL AND LABORATORY EXAMINATIONS FOR DIAGNOSTIC PURPOSES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PHLEBOTOMY, CLINICAL LABORATORY TESTS, ORIFICIAL EXAMINATIONS, OR PHYSIOLOGICAL FUNCTION TESTS.

(B) ORDER DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING STUDIES.

(C) SUBJECT TO SECTION 18617, DISPENSE, ADMINISTER, ORDER, OR PRESCRIBE OR PERFORM ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(i) FOOD, EXTRACTS OF FOOD, NUTRACEUTICALS, VITAMINS, AMINO ACIDS, MINERALS, ENZYMES, BOTANICALS AND THEIR EXTRACTS, BOTANICAL MEDICINES, HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES, ALL DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS, OR NONPRESCRIPTION DRUGS AS DEFINED BY THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT, 21 USC 301 TO 399H.

(ii) PRESCRIPTION OR NONPRESCRIPTION DRUGS AS DESIGNATED BY THE BOARD.

(iii) HOT OR COLD HYDROTHERAPY, NATUROPATHIC PHYSICAL MEDICINE, ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY, OR THERAPEUTIC EXERCISE.

(iv) DEVICES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THERAPEUTIC DEVICES, BARRIER CONTRACEPTION, OR DURABLE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT.

(v) HEALTH EDUCATION OR HEALTH COUNSELING.

(vi) REPAIR AND CARE INCIDENTAL TO SUPERFICIAL LACERATIONS OR ABRASIONS.

(vii) NATUROPATHIC MUSCULOSKELETAL MOBILIZATION.

(D) UTILIZE ROUTES OF ADMINISTRATION THAT INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, ORAL, NASAL, AURICULAR, OCULAR, RECTAL, VAGINAL, TRANSDERMAL, INTRADERMAL, SUBCUTANEOUS, INTRAVENOUS, OR INTRAMUSCULAR CONSISTENT WITH HIS OR HER NATUROPATHIC EDUCATION AND TRAINING.

(E) OTHER NATUROPATHIC THERAPIES AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

So let’s unpack this. First, I can’t believe that the Michigan legislature would even consider granting naturopaths practice authority. Note in the text above how the bill would specifically grant naturopaths the power to prescribe “homeopathic medicines” (i.e., The One Quackery To Rule Them All). This is because, as I have said so many times before, you can’t have naturopathy without homeopathy. Homeopathy is an integral part of naturopathy.

This law, if actually passed, would allow naturopathic quacks (but I repeat myself) to do physical exams and order whatever laboratory tests that a naturopath would consider appropriate. It would even allow naturopaths to repair lacerations, presumably with stitches. It would also allow naturopaths to order whatever “food extracts” that they view as appropriate. Of course, if naturopaths view a treatment as appropriate, you can bet that it’s highly likely that that treatment is quackery based on pseudoscience. In fairness, there are some limitations:

SEC. 18617. A NATUROPATHIC PHYSICIAN SHALL NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) PRESCRIBE, DISPENSE, OR ADMINISTER ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OR DEVICE IDENTIFIED IN THE FEDERAL CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, 21 USC 801 TO 971.

(B) PRESCRIBE, DISPENSE, OR ADMINISTER A PRESCRIPTION DRUG OR DEVICE UNLESS THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG OR DEVICE IS INCLUDED IN THE NATUROPATHIC FORMULARY ESTABLISHED UNDER SECTION 18623.

(C) PERFORM NATUROPATHIC MUSCULOSKELETAL MOBILIZATION INVOLVING HIGH-VELOCITY, LOW-AMPLITUDE MOBILIZATION AT OR BEYOND THE END RANGE OF NORMAL JOINT MOTION, UNLESS HE OR SHE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS TO PERFORM HIGH-VELOCITY, LOW-AMPLITUDE MOBILIZATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THE BOARD BY RULE.

(D) PERFORM SURGICAL PROCEDURES EXCEPT, SUBJECT TO SECTION 18623(F), MINOR OFFICE PROCEDURES.

(E) ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF OR CLAIM TO ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF ANY OTHER HEALTH PROFESSION, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PERFORMING CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENTS, UNLESS HE OR SHE IS LICENSED TO ENGAGE IN THAT HEALTH PROFESSION UNDER THIS ARTICLE.

(F) USE GENERAL OR SPINAL ANESTHETICS.

(G) ADMINISTER IONIZING RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES FOR THERAPEUTIC PURPOSES.

(H) PERFORM SURGICAL PROCEDURES USING A LASER DEVICE.

(I) PERFORM SURGICAL PROCEDURES INVOLVING THE EYE, EAR, TENDONS, NERVES, VEINS, OR ARTERIES.

Imagine my relief that, at least, this bill won’t let naturopaths use a laser or radioactive substances or prescribe controlled substances. I was curious about the part about “naturopathic musculoskeletal manipulation.” That struck me as a bit of turf protection for chiropractors, although naturopaths do have a history of using manipulation similar to that used by chiropractors. Indeed, the AANP published a position paper on manipulative therapy in which “naturopathic manipulation” is described as a “traditional, integral and essential part of naturopathic medical practice, is a distinct and unique manipulative technique.”

But how is naturopathy defined? What are the requirements to be licensed? The bill defines “naturopathic medicine” as a “system of practice that is based on the natural healing capacity of individuals for the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases.” In other words, it’s the usual meaningless description. After all, conventional medicine relies on the “natural healing capacity of individuals” as well. For instance, each and every time I as a surgeon make an incision or remove a cancer, I rely on the natural healing capacity of the body to heal that incision.

But what about naturopathic “education”? How is it defined? What sort of school is considered acceptable? The bill states:

SEC. 18603. (1) “APPROVED NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL PROGRAM” MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) A NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM THAT IS LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT PROVIDES THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF NATUROPATHY OR DOCTOR OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE, AND THAT MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:

(i) OFFERS GRADUATE-LEVEL FULL-TIME DIDACTIC AND SUPERVISED CLINICAL TRAINING.

(ii) IS ACCREDITED OR HAS ACHIEVED CANDIDACY STATUS FOR ACCREDITATION BY A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED ACCREDITING BODY FOR NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL PROGRAMS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

(iii) IS AN INSTITUTION OR PART OF AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT IS ACCREDITED OR IS A CANDIDATE FOR ACCREDITATION BY A REGIONAL OR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITING AGENCY RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF EDUCATION.

(B) A NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM OFFERED BY A DEGREE-GRANTING COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:

(i) OFFERED A FULL-TIME STRUCTURED CURRICULUM IN BASIC SCIENCES AND SUPERVISED PATIENT CARE COMPRISING A DOCTORAL NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION.

(ii) WAS AT LEAST 132 WEEKS IN DURATION AND REQUIRED COMPLETION OF THE PROGRAM WITHIN A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 35 MONTHS AS A PREREQUISITE TO GRADUATION.

(iii) WAS OFFERED BY A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT WAS REPUTABLE AND IN GOOD STANDING IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD.

(iv) IF THE PROGRAM IS STILL OFFERED, IT IS ACCREDITED BY A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED ACCREDITING BODY FOR NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL PROGRAMS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

(C) A NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM OFFERED BY A DIPLOMA-GRANTING, DEGREE-EQUIVALENT COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY LOCATED IN CANADA THAT MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:

(i) WAS OFFERED BY A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT HAD PROVINCIAL APPROVAL FOR PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT-FUNDED STUDENT AID PROGRAMS.

(ii) OFFERED A FULL-TIME STRUCTURED CURRICULUM IN BASIC SCIENCES AND SUPERVISED PATIENT CARE COMPRISING A DOCTORAL NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION.

(iii) WAS AT LEAST 132 WEEKS IN DURATION AND REQUIRED COMPLETION OF THE PROGRAM WITHIN A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 35 MONTHS AS A PREREQUISITE TO GRADUATION.

(iv) WAS OFFERED BY A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT WAS REPUTABLE AND IN GOOD STANDING IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOARD.

(v) IF THE PROGRAM IS STILL OFFERED, IT IS ACCREDITED BY A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED ACCREDITING BODY FOR NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL PROGRAMS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

(vi) IF THE PROGRAM IS STILL OFFERED, THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY HAS PROVINCIAL APPROVAL FOR PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT- FUNDED STUDENT AID PROGRAMS.

(D) A NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAM OFFERED BY A DIPLOMA-GRANTING, DEGREE-EQUIVALENT COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY LOCATED IN CANADA THAT PROVIDES THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF NATUROPATHY OR DOCTOR OF NATUROPATHIC MEDICINE AND THAT MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:

(i) OFFERS GRADUATE-LEVEL FULL-TIME DIDACTIC AND SUPERVISED CLINICAL TRAINING.

(ii) IS ACCREDITED OR HAS ACHIEVED CANDIDACY STATUS FOR ACCREDITATION BY A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED ACCREDITING BODY FOR NATUROPATHIC MEDICAL PROGRAMS APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

(iii) IS OFFERED BY A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY THAT HAS PROVINCIAL APPROVAL FOR PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT-FUNDED STUDENT AID PROGRAMS.

I realize that this text was rather repetitive, but basically this provision provides a fairly wide range of naturopathy schools whose degrees will be acceptable in Michigan, specifically schools in the US, Canada, or elsewhere that meet the above requirements. Of course, the bill also includes a provision requiring that naturopaths pass a “competency-based national naturopathic physicians licensing examination administered by an agency that is nationally recognized to administer a naturopathic physicians licensing examination that represents federal standards of education and training that is approved by the board.”

Of course, that brings us to this new board that the bill would create to regulate the practice of naturopathy in Michigan. The bill requires that the board have eleven members, including six naturopaths, one physician, one pharmacist, one chiropractor, and two public members. I’m guessing that the inclusion of one physician was a sop to those who question the scientific basis of naturopathy, but I ask myself: What sort of physician would agree to serve on this new board—or would even be asked to serve. Surely no one would be likely to invite me to be on this board. No, most likely any physician acceptable to the board would be at least woo-friendly, if not an “integrative medicine” doctor himself embracing much of the pseudoscience and quackery in naturopathy.

Fortunately, at least one medical group opposes S.B. 826. The Michigan Academy of Family Physicians released a statement opposing naturopathic licensure, noting:

  • There is a lack of scientific evidence that naturopathy is effective.
  • Naturopathic teaching claims that natural herbal remedies are generally superior to pharmaceuticals in the treatment of most diseases, yet the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forbids manufacturers of herbal preparations and dietary supplements from making therapeutic claims.
  • The bill allows naturopaths to perform “minor office procedures.” Naturopaths should not be engaging in such procedures, however minor they may be. Naturopaths have no training in the care of hospitalized patients and are not familiar with the clinical manifestations of diseases serious enough to require hospital care.
  • Compared to medical school and residency training, a naturopathic education consists of relatively few hours of study on pharmacological treatment of disease and provides virtually no clinical reinforcement of pharmaceutical intervention on patients during clinical rotations or optional post-graduate training.
  • Naturopathic practitioners might fail to diagnose in a timely fashion or delay referring patients for appropriate medical treatment, endangering the health and safety of patients with serious diseases who are relying solely on care from naturopathic practitioners.
  • Naturopathic treatments may divert patients away from proven evidence-based medical therapies.
  • An injection of any kind, even something as seemingly benign as vitamin B-12, comes with risks. Crohn’s disease, pancreatic insufficiency, autoimmune atrophic gastritis, and certain prescription medications—as well as other treatable diseases that cause persistent pernicious anemia—can only be treated by non-naturopaths.
  • Even some naturopathic associations are divided over the administration of injectable medications. The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians and the American Naturopathic Medical Association, two naturopathic organizations, are divided over this and other issues of naturopathic medicine.
  • Naturopathic services are not covered by Medicare or most insurance policies.

Yes, all of this is true, and the new naturopathic board, if formed, would be free to include on the new naturopathic formulary basically any “injectable” that naturopaths routinely use, such as high dose vitamin C. The MAFP is basically urging its members to call their Representatives, noting that ” that SB 826 is a threat to patient safety and should be voted down when it comes up for a vote in committee and on the House floor.” I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, I can’t see the MAFP’s talking points because I’m not a family physician, and to see them requires a log in. This is a mistake on the MAFP’s part. It should let any physician (or, indeed, anyone who wants to call his or her Representative to oppose SB 826) to see those talking points. Heck, I’d even go so far as to offer my services to MAFP regarding its opposition to naturopathy, as I would be willing to bet that I know more about naturopathy and its dangers than pretty much anyone in the MAFP (and if I don’t, I want to meet the person in the MAFP whose knowledge surpasses mine).

Unfortunately, S.B. 826 represents more progress in Michigan than naturopaths have ever made before. They’ve never gotten a naturopathic licensing bill voted on by the full Senate or House before, much less passed in a chamber. I fear that my state is perilously close to joining the other 20 states that license naturopaths and thus legitimize quackery as a state-sanctioned, state-regulated medical “specialty.” Make no mistake, naturopathy is a cornucopia of quackery, and the last thing I want to see in medicine in my state is the licensing of quacks. We already license chiropractors, and that’s bad enough.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

108 replies on “Here we go again. A naturopathic licensure bill stealthily passes the Michigan Senate”

I admire the persistence of Naturopaths as much as I admire the persistence of a fly bashing it’s head against my window. It gives the insect something to do until I get around to swatting it. Now if only people would get around to swatting the quacks.

Based on how piss-poor the Texas medical board is at reining in Burquacksski, I ‘m guessing a Naturopath board would be even less useful at keeping the quacks from causing too much harm. Hopefully someone in the representatives will get enough allies to squash this stupidity. Good luck.

Arizona’s is pretty useless. I can’t remember if I heard about this here or somewhere else, but there have been instances of Arizona naturopaths prescribing narcotics inappropriately; one was actually prefilling prescriptions. All they got was a Letter of Concern.

They only voted to restrict the practice of a naturopath who was giving hormone injections without actually having checked hormone levels, and giving very high doses at that. The patient later had to have a hysterectomy; she had cancer of some kind. He continued the injections even though she complained of bleeding and cramping, and had refused a Pap smear from a regular physician.

https://nd.az.gov/sites/default/files/January%2011%2C%202018%20Minutes%20draft.pdf

I admire the persistence of a fly bashing it’s head against my window. It gives the insect something to do until I get around to swatting it.

I started to say something about this, thought better and decided not to, then reconsidered. I know it’s alliteration, but I think this mode of thinking is dangerous. Likening them to a fly butting against a window suggests that the solution to the problem is no more complicated than a rolled up newspaper. If all scientists and physicians thought of these people as such a minor annoyance, “until somebody gets around to swatting it,” it gives everyone a good excuse to simply allow the problem to fester. And, it might demonstrate a way in which the problem is continuously underestimated. Do you take a person with a baseball bat in your living room more seriously than a fly bouncing off the window in your living room? What problem are you more motivated to solve or more threatened by?

Let’s try not to kid ourselves: these are people equipped with all the same tools and level of intellect that we ourselves possess. If we thought of them at our own eye level, would it mobilize advocates of science and reason more effectively to counter their pseudoscience?

My preferred analogy would be them in a dark room with a moving target. They make constant blind shots, but people keep giving them ammo, and my fear would be that eventually, they hit the target.

Likening them to a fly butting against a window suggests that the solution to the problem is no more complicated than a rolled up newspaper.

Heh. I got up one morning at my college girlfriend’s mom’s house to find the kitchen swarming with flies. Seriously, Amityville Horror level. Her younger brother and I spent the morning with these. Don’t even get me started about the wasps that attacked my pistachio sausages.

I do admit that wasps scare me: we had an incident where they kept showing up in the shower. Never a good feeling coming face to face with a yellow jacket first thing in the morning, buck naked.

Likening them to a fly butting against a window suggests that the solution to the problem is no more complicated than a rolled up newspaper.

While a mild correction with a rolled up newspaper to punish undesired behavior may be part of the solution, it is important to also use treats and praise to reward desired behavior.

I’m going to have to watch the situation in Ohio very carefully, since a similar bill is supposedly in the works.

Yes. Watch very, very carefully. I don’t remember how the Ohio legislature is (I lived in Cleveland for eight years, but haven’t lived there since 1996), but the Michigan legislature is sneaky. They snuck “right-to-try” through before I even managed to hear that it was up for a vote. Now, the Senate snuck this naturopathic licensure bill through. I only learned of its existence in late March, and by that time it had already gone through one committee.

Republican politicians here in Ohio have been trying to outdo one another to be the “truest conservative.” I saw this in the primary recently. To get elected, these guys are signing onto policy positions no one would have touched 10 years ago.

There are some real whackadoodles in the Legislature right now. Fortunately, some of them are also still sane. I don’t know which way it will go.

Right now nothing is on the agenda for naturopathy. I checked. I’ll keep an eye on it, but I have to thank Britt Hermes for bringing it to my attention in the first place.

There is absolutely nothing redeeming about naturopathy. How are people convinced it works? The definition of it is so vague to begin with and practitioners have a wild spectrum, it seems like everything goes kind of mentality. You might call it “not-medicine”. From this, it’s already difficult to legislate standards for naturopaths and probably unfeasible aside from “let them do it”. Licensing naturopathy doesn’t make sense from a lawmaking standpoint or a public health standpoint.

I haven’t looked lately, but I wonder if the ANH/ ANH US is backstage assisting in this effort: they facilitate lawyers and legislators in order to make the world ( they had “regions”- Europe/ North America/ etc) safer for woo-meisters.

After 20 MDs failed in helping my child with a serious mental illness, a naturopathic doctor ordered testing which identified celiac disease, multiple food allergies and severe nutrient deficiencies, as well as a treatment plan that resulted in a complete cure.

After chemotherapy left me cancer free (for now) I had over a dozen MDs yell at me, fire me as a patient, and refuse to help me, an. try to send me to psychotherapy when I complained of severe fatigue and cognitive dysfunction.

My naturopathic doctor patiently ordered lab testing, identifying Hashimotos, adrenal insufficiency, hereditary hemochromatosis, hypogammaglobulinea, Epstein Barr, atypical pneumonia, mycotoxin toxicity, and mitochondrial disease, and has prescribed hormones, immunomodulators, antibiotics, and “mito cocktails” and referred me to MD specialists who agreed with his findings and prescribed IVIG, antivirals, phlebotomies, and mito cocktails. I have improved greatly with comprehensive care led by my ND, and am glad I looked beyond the narrow walls of conventional medicine.

Many patients like me fall through the cracks where arrogant, ignorant doctors can’t deal with complex patients and won’t think outside the box. There is a need for more practioners of functionsl medicine, like NDs, looking as patients as a system of interrelated systems and use evidence based research to inform their treatments.

I am very thankful naturopathic medicine is legal and well accepted in Washington state, where I live… you should be glad that patients in Michigan will have expanded healthcare opportunities. Who knows, one day naturopathic care might help you?

I am glad that you and your family got better.

Did you report the physicians who gave you substandard care? How else will they change, or their regulatory body discipline them if you don’t report them?

My friend went to a naturopath for a year trying to figure out her nasty GI problems. He put her on an elimination diet until she was eating almost nothing but almonds. Turns out that she can’t digest almonds at all and it made her much, much sicker, so she went to a new MD who diagnosed her Chron’s.

Given all the amazing, life saving science-based medicine that has come out of Washington State, the existence of Bastyr and the licensing of nathuropths is an embarrassment.

How does know when a mental illness gets better? It can go in remission just by placebo, and then blow up without warning. Please do not ask how my family knows.

Things seem to be fine, and then we are blindsided. I have many bitter words for the bastards from Bastyr.

The obligatory naturopathic apologist appears with their obligatory anecdote. As with JustaTech, I’m glad that you and your family got better, but frankly, that seems to be in spite of rather than because of your reliance on naturopathy. I’ve got an anecdote of my own to share too. My mother is dead and my father is now an invalid thanks to their reliance upon such quackery. My dad was really big on the TCM schtick that is a good part of naturopathy, and it did nothing to help his hypertension, until eventually he had a stroke that left half his body paralysed and his mind is basically gone, though he’s getting some of it back. Now that he’s in a hospice I’m paying for, he’s getting science-based medicine whether he likes it or not. Sadly, a similar reliance upon quackery until it was too late was what killed my mother. She had breast cancer and despite all my best efforts to get her to see an honest to goodness oncologist after tumour resection as the surgeon who did it urged her, she instead found some naturopath who gave her some sort of juice cleanse stuff. A couple of years passed, until she could no longer deny that the cancer was still there and spreading rapidly, and by then there was nothing much science-based medicine could still do. Had she consulted an oncologist right after surgery as I urged her to, perhaps she might still be around today, to see her grandchildren grow.

After one has shopped through 32 MDs, I’m thinking that therapy was a pretty sound recommendation.

“After 20 MDs failed in helping my child with a serious mental illness, a naturopathic doctor ordered testing which identified celiac disease, multiple food allergies and severe nutrient deficiencies, as well as a treatment plan that resulted in a complete cure.”

Why should we believe you?

We had a relative that a naturopath diagnosed a bunch of things. One of the big things he prescribed were homeopaths. Also he told this person with chronic pain to note every bit of pain from an inch to a twinge, which is actually counterproductive in pain management.

In the end he was very wrong, and she did not survive.

Also, why only go to MDs for mental illness? Why not a PhD? They aren’t allowed to prescribe any drugs, so you know they’re not “pill pushers”.

I really liked my last psychologist. She helped me through a bad patch, taught me some better tools and then sent me on my way. (So no, you don’t have to go to therapy “forever” either. It depends on you and your illness.)

“It depends on you and your illness.”

Definitely. Though it would not work on someone I know with bipolar disorder, but it takes time to get the right med and dosage. Her hubby was delighted when they found what worked. Especially after she took an axe to a keyboard… twice.

Of course it helps that family uses a healthy sense of humor as a coping technique.

It’s desperation, in some cases. When modern medicine fails you, and you have a disease that is either terminal or takes so much away from your quality of life you would do ANYTHING to be free of it.

I’ve been there. I suffer from debilitating migraines. Every medication under the sun was becoming refractive to the pain (this was before migraine rebound became a thing in the literature). Nothing worked, and the headaches would last non-stop for weeks on end. I had to stop taking a prophylactic (Depakote) because it softened my teeth: I ended up with four crowns because of it.

A friend asked if I’d ever tried feverfew. I’d never heard of it so I looked it up. I really didn’t know anything about naturopathy or homeopathy at the time. I tried every “natural” remedy I could find. None of them worked, but it cost me a pretty penny.

Detoxing from everything got rid of the rebound, and eventually I was able to get the headaches under control. Somewhat. I’ve learned to avoid triggers, and developed other strategies but sometimes I just have to suck it up and deal.

I remember when I was still able to take triptans for them. I was on Imitrex subq. I ran out. My sister drove me to a 24 hour pharmacy for a refill, but I had misplaced my auto injector. You have to have a prescription for that (which is really dumb, the needle is in the prefill with the med), and the pharmacist would not sell me one.

I took the med, used a pen for a plunger and administered it to myself that way. I had to get away from the pain; I was not going to let the lack of an autoinjector get in my way. My sister still remembers my state of mind from that night.

Desperation. That’s why some people get into woo. They see no other way out because modern medicine can’t (through no fault of its own) provide them with what they need.

There was a time when I thought some of these ideas might have merit. But the more I read about it, the more I realized it is a cruel sham and a scam.

Never again. But I have sympathy for the desperation of some. That’s why we need the FDA; caveat emptor should not be the rule when it comes to our health.

Perhaps Michigan legistature should check https://www.homeopathycenter.org
About aurum metallicum:
Gold affects profoundly the entire organism, exercising solvent action on the tissues, producing ulcerations and the disappereance of new growths.
Hence it is one of best antidotes to mercurial poisoning and especially in the case of syphilis.
You will notice alchemical thinking there: gold is king of metals and cures everything.
Angina pectoris is indeed one of long list of clinicals. On the comical side, there are pining for boys and offensive smell.

Why are you so threatened by naturopathic medicine? You don’t have to use it if you don’t like it. Conventional medicine causes thousands and thousands of deaths annually and thank goodness there is an alternative to the pill pushing MDS. Stop being so childish .

I am not personally threatened by naturopathy, but I dislike seeing people I know and care about waste money and die anyway pursuing alleged treatments that don’t work.

We don’t know what naturopathy really is because there is no standard of care on how to diagnose and treat different illnesses and conditions.

So why should we license people to do whatever they think might work in the absence of any evidence or official guidance?

Or add the government’s stamp of approval to let them hawk their various salves and potions?

Stop being so childish .

The irony, it burns. It’s trite, but let’s back up:

Why are you so threatened by naturopathic medicine?

Please define “medicine.”

If my mother hadn’t been misled by naturopathic quackery, she might still be alive today. She wasted tens of thousands of dollars and (worse yet) two years of her life which she might have spent getting actual science-based treatments which might have had some chance of actually doing something to save her. Instead, she wasted all that time and treasure on quackery. By the time it became clear even to her that her quackery of choice wasn’t actually doing anything to help and she finally consented to getting science-based medical treatment, she’d gotten to Stage 4, and by then there wasn’t much more that could be done to save her. I’m only thankful that no one had tried to palm off black salve on her!

When governments out there give their stamp of approval to naturopathic medicine by granting licensing, they are basically ensuring that stories like my mother’s will be repeated over and over. Yes, conventional medicine causes thousands and thousands of deaths annually (many of these deaths might have happened whether they were treated or not), but I imagine that were naturopathy used on the same scale, the death toll would be even higher, because almost all of it plain does not work.

Naturopathic “medicine” isn’t medicine at all.

There are serious downsides to it: it’s expensive and thus a massive waste of money. It can delay people from seeking therapies that actually work.

All medications have risks. There are no guarantees in life, and some medications have toxicity. That doesn’t mean we should substitute water for real medicine.

Stop being so disingenuous.

I wish Word Press had an edit comment feature.

I forgot to mention that some naturopathic “remedies” can cause real harm to no benefit such as the profound electrolyte disturbances that coffee enemas can have (Gerson protocol) or the severe tissue injuries that black salve can produce. Not all naturopathic remedies are diluted water, and some of them are damn dangerous.

Because choosing pretend medicine is dangerous and often prevents people from seeking actual medicine when they’re in desperate need of it. It also sometimes encourages people to stop taking medication that is critical to their general or mental health. It has hurt people I care about, and a couple of people who are no longer with us because they stopped taking medication that was keeping them stable and capable of engaging in non-pharmaceutical therapies.

I spent most of my life with untreated bipolar disorder. That I’m actually alive today, is a testament to my remarkable metabolism as a young person, rather than the herbal concoctions I tried and supplemented with a host of recreational drugs. My life isn’t perfect and the medications I take have side effects that I don’t care for. But I am far more stable than I have ever been in my life and I am sober, things my two sons, who I am raising alone quite appreciate.

People use therapies they are reasonably sure could potentially help them. For the most part, we depend on our government to ensure the therapies we try are actually likely to have a positive effect, while minimizing the not so positive effects. When the government licenses a practice, it is a de facto endorsement of that thing. I am not okay with my state government offering any sort of endorsement of quackery in the guise of health care.

Whatever shortcomings the NDs have, they get a lot of their traffic because of the failings of mainstream medicine and some kind of successful batting average. Perhaps as much as blind hope, like doctors that often benefit from their patients’ blind hopes.

Do I think that NDs could and should do better ? Hell yes.

Do they have strange teachings that I don’t agree with? Yes, so do MDs. e.g. like the severe misunderstandings MDs have exhibited and projected on the vitamin C and D subjects for generations now, ever so proudly. Ignorant arrogance or worse.

Militant MDs and their guilds often exert an authoritarian streak based on false authority that is slowly being rejected, in part or in whole. For this, they can blame themselves no matter how humble the beginnings of their competition.

Thanks. Orac says the “Like” feature is a resource hungry feature.

What gets me is that the folks that like naturopaths are often the “worried well”, sometimes with a bit of hypochondria. Unfortunately they get hurt worse when they have a real medical issue. Orac has written about many of those cases.

In the midst of my oldest child’s several medical conditions, including being a frequent flyer at the local Children’s Hospital I had to roll my eyes at the other mother’s wee bit of worrying. When I got asked about an opinion of some odd thing or another I would would reply that I had other more pressing things to worry about. Things like getting the kid tired enough to sleep through a “sleep EKG” to check for Landau-Kleffner Syndrome.

That was “fun.”

So was the nurse at the high school who asked me what else he had going on. This was after she helped reattach Holter monitor pads that kind of fell off of him when he was fifteen years old.

Of his four trips by ambulance none were to a naturopath.

I sense a lecture about genetics, irreversible structural changes, superior gadgetry and tx methodology coming on…

However, I did see papers with single nutrient tx associated with measured structural improvements and a surprisingly long list of papers’ nutrient associations even with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy that an one might work with.

No you are not going to get that. What you will be mocked for your over reaching statements that have nothing to do with real medical issues, all presented without any kind of evidence.

I do not need to be lectured by the worried well.

Your JAMA paper is based around old, trashy multivitamin-mineral formulas, way distant for discussions of naturopathic types and amounts of vitamin C and D supplement.

These old formulas would have contained 200-400 iu of D2 (best for other species) or D3 – too low to do much good, excess vitamin A to interfere, inadequate Mg and vitamin K to support D’s metabolism for occasional skin produced boons of D3.

Also likely, excess copper and iron for many people; crummy old folic acid with buildup and minor problems for about half the population.

Vitamin C, probably 45-90 mg once a day, vs, 200-1000 mg tablets or content several times a day for healthy people, and much larger amounts when sick.

Vitamin C and D are not inert and the effects scale with dose or blood levels, crucial for many kinds of sick people. You seem to have no idea of the subject.

“You seem to have no idea of the subject.”

Hilarious. Even mega dosing on special snow flake naturopathic C and D vitamins still just produces expensive pee.

Stick to eating a healthy diet with plenty of veggies.

“crummy old folic acid” Yeah, who needs new red blood cells anyway. Or an intact spinal column.

I love how you accuse physicians of not understanding Vitamin C or D but can provide no proof supporting whatever it is you think they should understand.

Hilarious. Even mega dosing on special snow flake naturopathic C and D vitamins still just produces expensive pee.
You apparently don’t place much value on life itself. Both megavitamin C and D have relatively recent papers on sepis and pneumonia.

I won’t repeat myself on the last few years discussing vitamin C here.
Some of megavitamin D’s beneficial effects have been known since the 1930s and 40s according to U Wisconsin papers.

“crummy old folic acid” Yeah, who needs new red blood cells anyway. Or an intact spinal column.
Uh, Panacea this why reactionary RN can be so dangerous. One of the first hard lessons I had to learn about 5FU is how folic acid can destroy red blood cell levels, whereas a natural source of folate boosted them. L5MTHF is the natural type of folate. Folic acid also has some nasty cancer stats in countries switching to folic acid fortified foods. Natural folate is what is missing.

Interesting. Essentially you’re claiming that natural folate (the kind we get in our diets) has no role in cancer prevention, RBC synthesis, or the prevention of neural tube defects . . . which is patently false. And somehow you manage to claim that folic acid supplementation of food causes cancer, though you don’t explain how. And that L5MTHR is somehow more natural that actual folic acid.

You’re really stretching here. Come back when you have actual proof instead of extraordinary claims.

Some of megavitamin D’s beneficial effects have been known since the 1930s and 40s according to U Wisconsin papers.

You mean these guys?

So, prn, who discovered the sources of scurvy, beri beri, pellagra and rickets? Was it actual medical scientists or naturopaths.

Whatever shortcomings the NDs have, they get a lot of their traffic because of the failings of mainstream medicine and some kind of successful batting average.

Successful batting average? Now there’s something you can actually quantify. Have you got some kind of proper peer-reviewed and well-designed scientific study which compares the objective success of naturopathy vs. mainstream medicine for a particular health outcome? Or do they just have the appearance of a successful batting average, which vanishes when it is clearly studied, just like the effectiveness of most of their techniques?

And whatever else you might say about mainstream medicine, yes, they get things wrong at times, but being based on science, they tend to behave more as scientists do, for the most part. As Carl Sagan famously observed: “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day.” No doctor prescribes cocaine or heroin in general medical practice these days, not after they were found dangerously addictive, nor is lobotomy or electroconvulsive therapy still done routinely for mental illness. I’m pretty sure the doctors out there can mention many more examples of medical treatments that have been rendered obsolete within the timeline of their careers thanks to new scientific discoveries.

I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in naturopathy. Have they ever discarded or changed any of their therapies, for whatever reason? They still stubbornly cling to homeopathy, despite it being recognised as the purest bollocks since the days of Oliver Wendell Holmes. Many of their other practices are similarly unproven or even found to be outright harmful as Orac has chronicled right here time and again.

Or rather, we take what we learn from therapies that do work, and we work to make them better.

For example, AC mentions electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) or “electroshocks.” We stopped using that in the 70’s for schizophrenia or severe depression because the seizures it induces caused serious injuries and was excruciatingly painful.

But it did work, at least long enough for medication and therapy to make a big difference. I had an aunt who went through this; it stabalized her suicidal ideas long enough for medication to work and she did very well on meds for decades after that.

But it was abandoned because the downsides outweighed the benefits. But it’s back now: in revised form. Lower voltages are used, only one pole is used, and patients are sedated before the procedure. Now the benefits are greater than the downsides, and patients don’t fear it the way they used to.

Because what naturopaths do isn’t science, “treatments” aren’t researched, and when treatments fail it is never the fault of the treatment but always the fault of the patient. So there is no real growth and development in the field; a treatment that doesn’t work is seldom if ever abandoned, and if modified only as a form of marketing.

Now we’re so sophisticated, we have fentanyl etc and the opioid crisis.
That’s Progress…

The funny thing about “science” is that the NDs are typically copying MDs’ research from before their time, MDs legitimately trying to advance clinical or medical science. The NDs might be several degrees of association away from original sources, but have some direct observations too.

On the super RDA region, reactionary RN and MDs are often off the wall counterfactual – totally removed from the realities of experimental medicine a few generations old that is reproducible by individuals on a first try basis. Whereas the reactionaries often rely on 15th hand rumors, malice, slander, false authority and incompetent execution for their source material, n=0 or the worst case of .

Let’s get real. Drug addiction is nothing new, and its big money. That’s been true for a couple of hundred years.

Granted: the pharma companies have explaining to do. The distribution companies (who are really at fault here) have explaining to do. Our lawmakers who enabled it by neutering the DEA have explaining to do.

That doesn’t justify anything quacks do. Not one bit of it.

The problem with your claims about naturopaths copying work earlier MDs did is that the work in question is OLD. It’s been supplanted by more recent knowledge and understanding. Sometimes good work, and yes work that is reproducible, doesn’t actually prove to be useful. Vitamin C was regarded as having promising potential about 40 years ago . . . until it didn’t. Because the research done by people who knew what they were doing found no benefit.

Yet naturopaths continue to give people high dose Vit C with NO proof of efficacy at all. That’s why nurses and physicians who continue to urge patients to eat a healthy diet are hardly reactionary. They’re being sensible.

You can polish your turd all you want, prn but it’s still a turd.

Your “newness is better” argument totally misreads science. A lot of nutraceutical adversaries profoundly miss dosages and treatment conditions, which automatically deprecates their results, despite all your name calling.

I roll my eyes on your folic acid comments.

@prn Lack of C vitamin is called scurvy. You can have it, if you have really miserable diet. Old time sailors were cured by glass of lime juice.
C vitamin is required for synthesis of collagen ( it is not general spring of wellness). So what is complaint you want cure ? Is it related to collagen synthesis ?
Lack of D vitamin is, in childhood, called rickets. In generally, it is important in calcium metabolism. Are sickness you want to cure related to this ? Overdose is in this case dangerous, as Gary Null himself showed us. Happily, dose was really gigantic, provided by ah so reliable supplement industry contractors.
You claim that higher dose have entirely new effects. This is not same thing that effect scales up with dose.
How did you determine your dose ?
Why healthy people should take vitamins ?
Btw, you admitted that old supplements are scrappy, Have you evidence that new ones are better ?

Lack of C vitamin is called scurvy.
The vitamin C story is much more complex than that, and is still incomplete.
This guy, a PhD MD PhD, has some vetted works on vitamin C:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/

Lack of D vitamin is, in childhood, called rickets. In generally, it is important in calcium metabolism. Are sickness you want to cure related to this ?
This such an obsolete view. You should read vitaminDwiki.

Overdose is in this case dangerous, as Gary Null himself showed us. Happily, dose was really gigantic, provided by ah so reliable supplement industry contractors.
I’m not too sure of Null’s precise details and pitfalls, but it is possible to carefully consume 50,000 iu – 100,000 iu per day safely, with good medical instructions, for years on end. Even larger amounts were used with surprising benefit and lack of malignant consequences in the 1930s, albeit not to today’s standards.

You claim that higher dose have entirely new effects. This is not same thing that effect scales up with dose.
In many cases with vitamin D it is.

How did you determine your dose ?
Consulted with an endocrinologist from UCSF with decades of research and some years of its clinical experience with diabetic and terminal patients.

Why healthy people should take vitamins ?
Because often their diets are scrappy, and/or they have subclinical problems that rob them of essential nutrient levels in their bodies.

…old supplements are scrappy, Have you evidence that new ones are better ?
Usually the “new” ones are a favorable human form or closer to a human form.
The “new” one have various studies, patent claims data, and even IND studies.
For some components I have actual measurements of results.
And some results were not considered obtainable by current clinical medicine.

The vitamin C story is much more complex than that

Perhaps you could provide a comparison to a work of literature.

Panacea: A wiki? Really?
Yes, really. It cites hundreds of MD/PhD medical papers on vitamin D related issues like levels, treatments, and results.

Chris, although you may feel that way, the vitaminDwiki site is an enthusiast’s curated set of references and summaries for education and research. It is better info, better organized than what you will get from pretty much any MD practice.

I’m not out to “prove” my point anymore, that’s largely a waste of my time for people who want to be thick, I’m simply out to solve some problems with sources that are often diffuse, and I’m comfortable with that. If my view helps someone decode some mystery of natural medicine, great. I’m not surprised if committed “skeptics” read so many papers that conflict so much with their preconceived ideas with pain. “skeptic hell” if you will.

Often the skeptic sources that are simple singe bullet-paper affairs are highly biased with what appear to be predrawn conclusions for GIGO experimental data.

prn, choose a non-self limiting condition that your magical vitamin D actually cures, and then post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers to support that claim. Because if you make a claim, you need to provide the actual evidence to support that claim.

It is not because we are “thick”, it is just that your claims are vague, over reaching and without actual evidence. Just like most of the worried well who have never had to deal with real medical issues.

“This guy, a PhD MD PhD, has some vetted works on vitamin C”.”

Them’s a lot of degrees. Surprising that he needed vetting in the first place.

@prn Old views my be right, you know ? Have you new data about biochemistry of C and D ? I certainly do not read D vitamin wikis. You should cite papers here,
Null get thousand times overdose, because he did not supervise his suppliers properly. Are other supplement industry players as sloppy ?
You just say (this is becoming boring) that high doses of D has new effects. You do not even name the effect.
If one’s diet is scrappy, one should fix it. Can you name one of subclinical problems you mention ?
I wonder what you said to that enterologist. Did you mention subclinical effects or did you just ask safe dose ?
And about new supplements. Do you notice that you just make claims. Are your claims right just because you make them ? Nope. You must supply proof.

…what you said to that enterologist. Did you mention subclinical effects or did you just ask safe dose ?
Endocrinologist, drs that deal with hormones. Now sometimes aggressively including vitamin D in their turf. We talked about a somewhat pressing situation where if on the first dx day you went to a regional center, MSK or MDA, the oncologist may say something like “for $50,000+ per month we can probably buy several months but 99% are under in under 24 months”. Of the three places mentioned, I got two onc’s estimates, 24 the upper.

The endo’s discussion was about correct, safe, comfortable, indefinite mega D3 use with side benefits, and how to avoid catastrophic mistakes. At D3 intakes not for the faint hearted patient, or overly formalized MDs.

Are your claims right just because you make them ? Nope. You must supply proof.
The proof is left to the reader. However, I think malign shades of Darwin await idiocrats from both ends of the medical – political spectrum. On one end are willy nillies who would depopulate if passing mid year HS chemistry were a requisite for breeding. Here I see the other end…

“The proof is left to the reader.”

Wrong, wrong, wrongety wrong.

If you make a claim you must provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers to support that claim. Doing otherwise is just being a dim troll.

You know, Chris, the biggest problem here is that you folks don’t even get the questions and assumptions right about your targets. That is part of what I try to point out.

On that basis, this place could be rated as a troll site.

Your deficiencies in knowledge are so great, Yes, read the f’g site like vitaminDwiki, which are published papers with lots of specifics on the subject. You’re like some kid flunking algebra who says they’re going to a great engineer…

On that basis, this place could be rated as a troll site.

What the fuck is “troll site” even supposed to mean?

Narad May 27, 2018 at 3:45 pm:

[Prn:] Some of megavitamin D’s beneficial effects have been known since the 1930s and 40s according to U Wisconsin papers.

You mean these guys? [recent WARF paper on modified calcitriols]
Thanks, but no. I mean several vitamin D papers from the 1930s or early 40s that seem difficult to link now, that used 100,000 – 300,000 iu per day for several years in patients with several conditions that had no medical treatments available.

As an aside, cancer treatments with patentable, modified calcitriol(s) at high levels, are attempts to avoid excess calcium uptake from the bones.

The “natural way” is to accept the performance characteristics of the cholecalciferol-calcitriol axis with megaD3 and to redirect and redeposit calcium back into the bones with adequate magnesium and menatetrenone. Menatetrenone is a vitamin K2 molecule with its own human transport protein. Treatment per the endocrinologist from UCSF.

“Thanks, but no. I mean several vitamin D papers from the 1930s or early 40s that seem difficult to link now”

So you have nothing.

Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Rawhide!
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’
Though the threads are swollen
Keep them comments trollin’,
Rawhide!

Cherry pick!
(Head em’ up!)
Move goalposts!
(Move ’em on!)
More insults!
(Head em’ up!)
Rawhide!
Make stuff up!
(Paste ’em in!)
Change topics!
(Cut em’ out!)
Whine some more!
Paste ’em in,
Rawhide!
Keep trollin’, trollin’, trollin’
Though they’re disaprovin’
Keep them comments trollin”,
Rawhide!
Don’t try to understand ’em
Just rope, laugh, and ignore ’em
Soon we’ll be discussin’ right without ’em

You’re quite a heckler Chris, I would prefer to have heard from Narad first.

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19361405597
Dreyer, Reed Arch. Phys. Therap 1935
is one of the early prePMID papers. Amazing vitamin D quantities without any controls on phosphorus, (excess) calcium levels or intake, (adequate) magnesium, (adequate) menatetrenone.

I couldn’t find free text.

The link goes to this blog and returns a “page not found”

And I believe that there has been more recent research on biochemistry over the last eighty years.

Also, I am not the one that called others “thick.”

The link goes to this blog and returns a “page not found”

Here’s the abstract (my institutional access apparently doesn’t include this item):

“In the course of treating hay fever patients with vitamin D (viosterol) it was noticed that two of them, who also suffered from arthritis, were enjoying marked alleviation of this condition. The observation was therefore extended to include nearly 300 cases, and an interim report is presented dealing with 67 of these treated in an arthritis clinic. The series included 34 ‘atrophic’ and 18 ‘hypertrophic cases, ‘ and a miscellaneous group. Initial treatment was with 200, 000 U.S.P. units of vitamin D daily as viosterol or calciferol for a month; if no improvement occurred the daily dose was increased each week by 50, 000 units until there was improvement or symptoms of overdosage appeared. The maximum dose was 1, 000, 000 units daily for a few days; the usual dose was 300, 000 to 500, 000 units daily. The earliest symptom of toxicity was nausea, and administration of yeast tended to combat it. Of the 67 cases, definite improvement took place in 44; 13 showed no improvement, and with 10 the upshot was still uncertain. Improvement might begin after one week or not till after 6 months and might continue for 2 years, with relapses on cessation of treatment. General health and gastro-intestinal function also improved, and no tendency to hypertension was observed.”

It’s underwhelming, to say the least.

It also didn’t reproduce well, if one follows the citations coughed up by G—le Scholar.

From here,

From the results observed in this series of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with large doses of vitamin D it is impossible to conclude that such therapy materially influences the course of the disease. Certainly the results are too disappointing to allow one to entertain the thought that one might be dealing with a specific therapeutic agent.

Chris:
It is only a title, but it does show that iit is not favorable outcome.
The Ertron title suggests that it might be your “black thumb” variety RDs who could probably kill you with water.

Narad:
I wouldn’t worry too much about huge results from early single component trials – that’s not how these things work – some trials are going to miss some diagnostic factor or other crucial components or miss incremental improvements.

What is amazing there is the tolerability, when we were raised to fear over 2000 iu of vitamin D.

The good result vs indifferent results can be approached two ways:
1. pfffffft (typical)
2. needs more work (e.g. better dx stratification or broader/improved formula) and attention to detail of differences e.g. cofactor deficiencies .or interferences or contraindications

Hilarious. Dear prn when you say something as silly as “The proof is left to the reader.” you will find sometimes we do actual searches.

So what did I find? Well the paper titled “Vitamin D (ertron) therapy in arthritis; treatment followed by massive, metastatic calcification, renal damage and death.”

Just a FYI: death is not a good outcome.

Chris: Of course death is not a good outcome. What we differ on is the fatal factor. My suspicion is on the two RDs. Nevermind Orac’s diatribes with low wattage NDs, it takes special “black thumb” talent to kill someone with even megaD2. My own limited, experience with a Nut BS RD, and some other RDs’ printed statements that I’ve read, make some of them sound (to me) armed and dangerous with a P-38.

Steps to kill someone with vitamin D2.
1. Std diet (deficient in magnesium and K2)
2. Strictly no magnesium and menatetrenone supplements
3. change “D” iu to mg
4. save precious water esp if loose stools
5. skip the serum calcium and creatinine tests
6. throw in 500-1000 mg of daily calcium, everybody’s bones need calcium
7. maybe throw in the occasional primary parathyroid case.

I wonder how many steps they used in your reference. It really does take that special negative talent to kill someone. Remember Null didn’t manage to nullify himself at 2 million iu per day… or the early MDs in 1935.
Poor sod’s kidneys probably had a better chance with a concrete crew from Hoover Dam.

Hilarious. Dear prn when you say something as silly as “The proof is left to the reader.” you will find sometimes we do actual searches.
Well if it’s a jr high school debate squad where anything flies, I suppose it’s a fair reference.
In school, “proofs for the reader” are to solve problems, not make them.
If it’s Survival 101 or advanced nutrition, you flunk since you didn’t identify multiple survival steps/errors.

Answer this is either a yes or no:

Are mega doses of Vitamin D the standard of care for arthritis in the 21st century?

Narad:
I wouldn’t worry too much about huge results from early single component trials

I provided you with a review that included the very “early single component trial” that you yourself trotted out.

What this suddenly reminds me of is the antivax treating-pertussis-with-vitamin-C paper (Otani in translation?) that wound up being a dead end when it was followed up by contemporaries.

prn does not seem to understand that science progresses to newer things. He gets stuck on an idea and just stays there. Without realizing better and safer treatments have been discovered.

I sense that it’s more a matter of failed ideas simply needing to be made more complicated. Vitamin D epicycles, or something.

Chris June 1, 2018
…Are mega doses of Vitamin D the standard of care for arthritis in the 21st century?
It appears “mega doses” of Vitamin D are already on the way to be the standard for everything in the 21st century.

The math is simple, late 20th century RDA – 200 iu (including D2). IOM’s fubar 600-800 iu is corrupt placeholder, likely on the way to higher values.
Many endocrinologists are already onboard for 1500-2000 iu, with 2-3x more likely needed for “normal health” obese people.

As for the arthritis question, there are many factors at play. There are definitely claims for RA. And D deficiency is pretty well known for arthritis like joint pains

Narad June 1, 2018 a
What this suddenly reminds me of is the antivax treating-pertussis-with-vitamin-C paper (Otani in translation?) that wound up being a dead end when it was followed up by contemporaries.
The 1935 Otani paper I looked at seemed more like kids with results for borderline scurvy complicated by (mild?) pertussis. “Modern” IV C dosages would probably be much higher and combine other nutraceuticals.

Chris June 2, 2018 at 12:30 am
prn does not seem to understand that science progresses to newer things.
Science progresses toward newer, more expensive, funded things. FTFY

He gets stuck on an idea and just stays there. Without realizing better and safer treatments have been discovered.
Mmmm, a lot of the formulas have their advantages, where you are clueless about some better and safer treatments. Your claim of “safer” has many contradictions in real life.

“It appears “mega doses” of Vitamin D are already on the way to be the standard for everything in the 21st century.”

So you answered “yes.” Prove it.

Just post the less than ten year old PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that Vitamin D is the standard of care for arthritis.

Or anything else. How about obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or type 1 diabetes?

As for the1935 Otani paper I looked at seemed more like kids with results for borderline scurvy

Do go on. Your attempts at playing diagnostician seem to be characterized by rather severe vagueness.

Chris June 2, 2018 at 1:45 pm
Prn: “It appears “mega doses” of Vitamin D are already on the way to be the standard for everything in the 21st century.”
Chris: So you answered “yes.” Prove it.
Just post the less than ten year old PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that Vitamin D is the standard of care for arthritis.

We’re already deep in vitamin politics here. In the northern marketplaces I’ve been to, 2000 iu and 5000 iu D3 pills already dominate the shelf instead of the old 400iu and 1000 iu pills. So I don’t care that much there. I think the struggles will be with treatments and pills between 10,000 and 60,000 iu.

How many grants are written to fight out the nomenclature for blood levels and recommendations between 15 and 50 ng/ml, I don’t know. It could be that the blood test itself gets revamped because of metabolites, there have been assay issues for decades. Also obesity and vitamin D receptor variants are issues.

Or anything else. How about obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or type 1 diabetes?
Sounds abusive to everybody’s time and patience. We’re done.

Narad June 2, 2018 at 3:14 pm:
prn As for the1935 Otani paper I looked at seemed more like kids with results for borderline scurvy
Narad:
Do go on. Your attempts at playing diagnostician seem to be characterized by rather severe vagueness.
Narad, in the ND or integrative MD world today, those were pretty low doses of vitamin C to achieve anything besides borderline scurvy states and maybe partly reload depleted leukocytes’ vitamin C.

As a parent with DPT’d kids, I would probably be shopping for another doctor if I got less than a script and recommendations for lots more oral vitamin C, other nutraceuticals and support items, with an antibiotic. The big decisions would be if and when to plunk down for injectable C, and what’s an appropriate (milder) antibiotic with various vitamin C regimes.

“In the northern marketplaces I’ve been to, 2000 iu and 5000 iu D3 pills already dominate the shelf instead of the old 400iu and 1000 iu pills.”

What you see in stores is not actual evidence that they are the standard of care for everything.

You made a claim that they were the standard of care for arthritis. I told you to prove that claim with less than ten year old PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers to support that claim.

The fact that the stuff is sold in stores does not answer my question. It, in fact, shows that you are completely clueless.

You misquote, misunderstand, and/or misrepresent what I said.

I said vitamin D deficiency was pretty well known for arthritis like joint pains, and that there were also claims for RA.

Shifts in vitamin D RDA affect the standard of everything, more below. You misread what that means.

Chris:I told you to prove that claim with less than ten year old PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers to support that claim.

I am not your minion. You have a biased, over formalized view of things, where such overformalized processes have long been corrupted. At some point most people probably lose interest in such bossy discussions and are happy that they have the freedom to go to a naturopath…

I did not misread that you provided absolutely no PubMed indexed studies to support you claimrs. They are simply not there, as anyone can see.

You are not my minion…you are just a random Vitamin D rube pushing supplements without actual evidence.

You are a just vitamin shill. Posting without any evidence. You made several claims, but cannot support them with any actual evidence. Therefore you are a shill. Or a fool.

Choose one.

What the 2000 iu and 5000 iu D3 pill market mention addresses is that most people can make up their own minds and walk away from a negative sum, mental abuse game, set up by medical/nutritional rent seekers. Where many have already done so.

In many cases, the difference in wellbeing is so profound, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were significant backlash if encroached now.

Or anything else. How about obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy or type 1 diabetes?
Sounds abusive to everybody’s time and patience. We’re done.”

You did say everything. Here is a direct quote: “It appears “mega doses” of Vitamin D are already on the way to be the standard for everything in the 21st century.”

So if that is true you could present some actual scientific evidence from the actual medical literature. But you can’t. Either you lied, or are just ignorant on how this science stuff works. I vote the latter.

Again, the standard shift in RDA toward megaD shifts everything, not that it the sole treatment for everything.

The vitamin D RDA in less than a 20 year period has already been 200-400-600-800 iu for adults, sometimes in more narrow groups likely the elderly with much remaining vitamin D deficient morbidity.

Were the boneheads at IOM wrong before, now, or always so far? The informed betting, like the endocrinologists with northern exposure, is on “always”. Some of the 2010 IOM members have substantial conflicts of interest with respect to small or cheap D3. For 2010 there was no formal recognition of other disease processes or nutrient factors, and tests weren’t authorized above 2000 iu because of UL. For many, these things have removed any credibility of IOM on D3.

Again, that vitaminDwiki is one of the more complete, easy to access collections of up to date PubMed medical literature for vitamin D online. Read it or continue to be a vitamin D illiterate. I just don’t care to argue it point by point here, when we won’t agree, you have no experimental insight or operational basis at all, and you are stuck with your slanted formalism.

“I just don’t care to argue it point by point here, when we won’t agree, you have no experimental insight or operational basis at all, and you are stuck with your slanted formalism.”

Then put your money where your mouth is and provide references in peer reviewed sources to support your claims on Vitamin D.

You made the claims. Not Chris. Back them up with evidence or STFU. You have a lot of nerve calling the IOM “boneheads” when you can’t even cite any research to back your claims up.

Read it or continue to be a vitamin D illiterate.

Wiith you as an exemplar, I’ll take the latter option.

“I just don’t care to argue it point by point here, when we won’t agree, you have no experimental insight or operational basis at all, and you are stuck with your slanted formalism.”

Then don’t bring up claims that you cannot support with real evidence. We have no reason to believe you.

If you wish to “educate” us on Vitamin D then you will need to provide a certain level of evidence. Telling us that is being sold is stores is not evidence. Here we require at least a PubMed indexed study by reputable qualified researchers, hopefully published in the 21st century.

If you don’t like that we will not believe you without verifiable evidence, then don’t make random claims and call us names because we do not believe you.

Panacea June 3, 2018 at 10:01 am
Then put your money where your mouth is and provide references in peer reviewed sources to support your claims on Vitamin D.
My level of granularity this time is still the vitaminDwiki, especially since there are so many whole categories missed by pharm fed bone metabolism stooges, that look dangerous in their own field of conflict.

You made the claims. Not Chris. Back them up with evidence or STFU. You have a lot of nerve calling the IOM “boneheads” when you can’t even cite any research to back your claims up.
Medical personnel have a lot of nerve charging for bad advice. Whether you set deficiency at 20ng/ml or 30 ng/ml, when people have to take millions of iu to get to 20 or 30, “discovered” elsewhere, your belief system of treatment is a trainwreck.

Narad June 3, 2018 at 11:26 am
Read it or continue to be a vitamin D illiterate.
Wiith you as an exemplar, I’ll take the latter option.

Et tu. Although I think you can do better.

While you folks think you’re circling the wagons, you’re actually circling the toilet bowl. I’m sure the NDs will gladly take the easy extra market market share….

What a sad sad person you are, prn. Apparently we are supposed to believe your random claims and insults.

If you don’t like it here, then just leave.

How about not lumping all ND’s into one basket any more than you would do with MD’s. Every profession has it’s bad eggs and we are not all in that category. I am currently taking a route to be able to practice “integrative medicine” in unlicensed states close to my residence by going through nursing school to become an FNP. Guess what I’m learning…everything I learned in my graduate program at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine – minus only a few things like homeopathy (which I don’t utilize as a practitioner), musculoskeletal manipulations and acupuncture.

I have seen things that were called “quackery” when we as naturopaths were using them turned into money making mainstream procedures. Examples are joint injections using hyaluronic acid derivatives that was termed “prolotherapy”, but is now simply joint injections. These are very broadly used in practice by mainstream medicine as I have witnessed in my clinical rotations through the NP program at a very high ranking college in Texas – the UT Tyler FNP program. Another example is “cold laser”, which was introduced years ago when I was in naturopathic school and was only believed to benefit large animals with joint problems (such as horses). I have now seen it also being widely used in the medical community that consists of mainstream physicians. Why is it ‘quackery’ until it is adopted by mainstream medicine, but the original introducers are still considered quacks for some other reason? Why is it only acceptable after mainstream medicine decides it may be of financial interest to them to adopt the practice, but we as naturopaths are still the only ones considered quacks for utilizing it? Seems double sided to me…

I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the DO profession actually started out much the same way the naturopathic practitioner practices now. They did manipulations and prescribed vitamins and herbs, did homeopathy (this is how I was introduced to it 35 years ago), and look at them now – fully accepted by the medical community and even taking the same board exam as the MD’s. Unfortunately, they have lost their main mission to practice differently than mainstream and have simply become a MD with different initials. I was told this when I spoke with the DO college in Ft. Worth, TX – that they are exactly the same as MD’s, have the exact same training and education, aside from what initially made them different (hence the title Osteopath), which is manipulations. I was told they no longer consider this part of their field and that the modality is simply and “elective” offered to student – which turned me in the direction of Naturopathy.

We are taught to refer when a condition is beyond our level of expertise, the same as I am being taught in FNP school. Nurses are a very integral part of the medical community and the nursing philosophy is the same as that of a naturopath – treat the person as whole that works synergistically and not as an individual body system or part; and attempt to locate the cause of a problem rather than treating the symptom with a medication that ends up causing side-effects that in turn are treated with yet another medication. Are you going to stick chewing gum on your oil leak (treat the symptom) or go get a new gasket (treat the problem causing the symptom)? I’d like to have the opportunity to treat the symptom while fixing the problem… How about you? Unfortunately with the insurance companies having control over how physicians practice in order to get payment, they do not have the luxury to take their time and fix the problem, naturopaths are not insurance driven (yet) and can give you a bit more time and attention.

I am very ‘integrative’ in the way I practice, and will continue to be as an FNP in about 4 months, utilizing ALL of the tools in my toolbox whether it be a vitamin, herb, IV nutrition, joint injections, or a prescription medication (which are absolutely what is needed at times). After all, are you going to put a nail in your wall using a screwdriver?

Open your mind a bit and see the profession as evolving out of hard core naturopaths who think nothing works but woo-woo medicine. We don’t all practice the same way, and we absolutely have to complete continuing education hours yearly that must be obtained from scientific journals that contain peer reviewed articles. And guess, what… most of us pay attention to that scientific evidence, at least that is what we are ‘taught’ to do in the “accredited medical college programs’ that those of us who are licensed attended.

You told the other person who disputed you to stay away from this site if they didn’t like what you had to say, well that’s somewhat closed minded on your part and may account for why you only seem to be familiar with the whole picture.

Your state will be very lucky to have options that my home state and those surrounding it don’t – unless the patient decides to come see me as an FNP, which many out there are chomping at the bit to have happen. (Don’t call them names just because they want options…play nice!)

PS. Please don’t send me a virus because I pissed in your post toasties…(this requires an email address to post…scary!)

Comments are closed.