Categories
Cancer Naturopathy Pseudoscience Quackery

OncANP writes a “statement of principles” for naturopathic oncology quackery

The Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP) writes a “sttaement of principles” guideline for naturopathic oncology. How can you write a statement of principles for quackery? More importantly, why would a real oncology journal publish it?

I’m not a fan of naturopathy, which will come as no surprise to any regular reader of this blog. Nor will it come as a surprise that I’m even less of a fan of the “specialty” known as naturopathic oncology. I first noticed that naturopaths were forming this subspecialty back in 2010, when I encountered naturopathic oncology in the context of the “integrative oncology” quackery being offered by the for-profit Cancer Treatment Centers of America, a for-profit hospital chain of dubious repute that was behind pushing the patient-hostile “right-to-try” legislation. I even learned that naturopathic oncologists have their own society, the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OncANP) and their own board certification. Those who have this certification can be identified by the letters after their name, FABNO, which stands for “Fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology”. (Personally, I’ve always said that I think it should really stand for “FAB? NO!”) Of course, given the panoply of dubious therapies, some of them contradictory to each other, that naturopaths use, I really wonder what the certifying test is like. When, for instance, do you choose megadoses of vitamin C over acupuncture or vice-versa? (But I digress.) In any event, naturopathic oncology is, just like all of naturopathy, a medical system based on vitalism, worship of all things “natural” (whether they really are natural or not), and mystical thinking. What naturopaths consider good scientific evidence is not the same as what scientists consider good evidence.

Unfortunately, under the cloak of “integrative oncology” (or, as I like to call it, “integrating” quackery into oncology), despite the mystical magical nature of their specialty, naturopathic oncologists are insinuating themselves more and more into real academic oncology. It’s not just OncANP, which really isn’t a recognized professional society among real doctors. The Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO), for instance, admits naturopathic oncologists as members and has even had two of them as president over the few years. (Oddly enough, even SIO doesn’t seem to know what its specialty entails.) More recently, SIO guidelines for breast cancer care were co-authored by two naturopaths, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) even endorsed these guidelines. So what’s next for naturopathic oncology? Sadly, it’s more legitimization. This time, it comes in the form of the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians: Principles of Care Guidelines.

An article describing these OncANP guidelines was published in Current Oncology. To be honest, I was very disappointed in Current Oncology deciding to publish what is, in essence, a statement of principles by OncANP quacks, but that this journal would publish this paper tells me a lot. Even worse, Current Oncology also published a commentary on these guidelines by a naturopath, Dugald Seely, and Shailendra Verma, a retired physician who used to work at the hospital where Seely works. We’ve met Seely before a number of times and not just in the context of OncANP. He’s the one who helped write the SIO breast cancer guidelines, and he’s also received large grants to study naturopathic oncology from mysterious sources, and cosplays being a real physician-scientist. Not surprisingly, Seely and Verma are very happy about the publication of these new guidelines. Reading their commentary, I couldn’t help but be drawn to this statement:

Naturopathic doctors are trained to understand and endorse the goals and evidence-based outcomes of conventional biomedicine. These professionals are also regulated in many of the provinces and states across North America and have federally recognized and accredited postgraduate training in complementary medicine. The Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (ONCANP) is an organization dedicated to education and research in naturopathic oncology, which advocates for collaboration with conventional providers and is dedicated to advancing the science and application of naturopathic medicine alongside standard cancer care and treatment. The American Board of Naturopathic Oncology (the certification branch of OncANP) supports advanced training in oncology for naturopathic doctors (NDs). Board-certified members are conferred with the status of Fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology.

Naturopaths are trained to “understand and endorse the goals and evidence-based outcomes of conventional biomedicine”? I laughed out loud at this claim, because it’s hard to imagine a statement about naturopathy that is more disconnected from reality, given that naturopathy embraces homeopathy to that point where it is core topic taught in naturopathy schools and is even part of the naturopathic licensing examination, the NPLEX.

Seely and Verma continue:

The OncANP’s Principles of Care Guidelines delineate a sound ethical and evidence-based approach for NDs who focus on the care of patients diagnosed with cancer. Perhaps most importantly, it provides reassuring insights for other health care practitioners and takes a step in the direction of improving interdisciplinary dialogue. Here is an opportunity to support oncologists, surgeons, NDs, and all health care practitioners to work together to positively transform the care that patients receive in the treatment of their cancer. What is common to all providers is the goal of delivering the best care for patients in a manner that is multidisciplinary, honours patient choice, is scientifically sound, supports the whole person, and achieves the best quality of life for patients.

The problem, of course, is that naturopathy is neither evidence- nor science-based, no matter how much naturopaths try to convince the public and physicians otherwise.. Quite the opposite. It is also not ethical to use quackery, but that’s what naturopathic oncologists—even members of OncANP—are, quacks, something confirmed by a naturopathic apostate, who is being sued by naturopathic oncologists for saying that naturopathy is quackery.

Let’s get back to the guidelines. As is the case with nearly all such “guidelines”, it starts out with an appeal to popularity. In other words, because naturopathy is so popular right now (although it’s arguable whether it really is that popular), naturopaths will provide guidelines to give the people what they want:

The Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians (ONCANP) was formed in 2004 to advance the practice of naturopathic oncology, with the goal of improving survival and quality of life for patients with cancer. The profession of naturopathic oncology has grown: approximately 400 ONCANP members are practicing in North America, 115 of whom are board-certified Fellows of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology. That growth has been fueled by patient demand for integrative cancer treatment options and by an increase in published research documenting the safety and efficacy of natural and supportive therapies. Several studies and meta-analyses investigating the frequency of use of integrative therapies in cancer patients have shown that the prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use in cancer patients ranges from 22% to 91%.

Naturopathic doctor oncology providers (ND ONCs) play an important role in cancer care, seeking to educate, to help manage side effects of cancer treatment, to improve overall response, to help prevent recurrence, and to optimize health. To achieve positive patient outcomes, ND ONCs use a wide range of natural therapeutics and supportive strategies based on clinical trials, long-standing traditional use, and patient preference. It is essential that patients receive guidance in the use of integrative therapeutic options from high-quality care providers.

Of course, it all depends upon how you define “integrative”. If you include yoga, exercise, and vitamins as “integrative”, of course lots of people can be said to be using “integrative medicine”. If you include prayer and spiritual practices as “integrative”, you can easily come up with a number that’s over 50% of people using “integrative” medicine. Note, also, how the authors conflate integrative medicine with naturopathy, when naturopathy is actually a small part of the phenomenon of integrative medicine. It’s also one of the most pseudoscientific and mystical, as I’ve documented here time and time again.

The authors continue:

The present Principles of Care document is not meant to be prescriptive nor to give providers instructive advice about therapeutic options. Instead, the intention is to ensure safe and effective care by giving clear guidance for the naturopathic management of oncology patients. The document summarizes the key elements that should be present in respect to

  • patient assessment,
  • an integrative oncology plan,
  • naturopathic oncology treatments,
  • care coordination, and
  • continuing care management.

The Principles of Care Guidelines can also serve as a means for other health care professionals and organizations to understand the naturopathic approach to patient care within the setting of a collaborative health care team.

I find it odd that the authors would state that this document is “not meant to be prescriptive” or to “give providers instructive advice about therapeutic options”. What is it good for, then? It’s basically about as simple—or should I say simplistic?—a set of guidelines as you can imagine. It all seems quite reasonable if you don’t know what naturopathy is. For instance, the part about the patient assessment is downright pedestrian. It lists the constituents of patient assessment, including the medical history and its elements, physical examination, laboratory and diagnostic workup, symptom assessment, psychosocial assessment, and sexual health assessment. There is, however, a hint of the quackery behind naturopathy. You won’t really see it if you don’t know how pseudoscientific naturopathy is, but I’d be willing to bet that SBM readers will see it:

  • Conventional laboratory testing should be ordered (or recommended) in addition to any laboratory testing ordered by the patient’s oncologist and should be used to inform diagnosis, response to treatment, and tolerability of treatment.
  • Nonstandard laboratory testing (tests that are considered experimental or not part of routine conventional oncology care and assessment) might also be used by the ND ONC in the development of a whole-patient assessment. Such tests are not to be used alone to establish a diagnosis, determine prognosis, or decide on treatment.

Notice the part about “nonstandard laboratory testing”. If there’s one thing that naturopaths like, it’s “nonstandard testing”. They’ll run all manner of unnecessary blood tests, particularly the naturopaths who are into “functional medicine”, which is quite a few of them. Indeed, I once wrote about a case report published by naturopaths about the use of functional medicine to treat an 80-year-old woman with breast cancer undergoing chemotherapy. The number of useless laboratory tests these quacks ran on this poor woman was truly horrifying. Of course, naturopaths not being real doctors and apparently not knowing an adage taught to me beginning early in medical school (treat the patient, not the lab values), these naturopaths tried to correct many of the abnormal values they found.

Indeed, I like to refer to this case report whenever naturopathic oncologists try to convince me that they are practicing science-based medicine, because these naturopathic oncologists practicing “functional medicine” were doing anything but. Indeed, the only things that they did for this patient that might have benefited her included an exercise program, a part time caregiver, individual counseling and group support, and a sleep log. None of these, of course, is in any way unique to naturopathy. Basically, as I like to say, functional medicine is massive overtesting and overtreatment for the worried well that produce reams of useless tests in one hand and a huge invoice in the other.

Of course, as you can tell reading this article enumerating naturopathic oncology guidelines, naturopaths love to represent themselves as “holistic” healers:

Throughout the evaluation process, the ND ONC comes to a full understanding of the health needs of the oncology patient. When referral of the patient for other services or evaluation is indicated, the ND ONC initiates and coordinates the referral and acts to facilitate communication between all practitioners associated with the patient’s care.

Then, later in the paper:

The ND ONC plays an integral role in the multidisciplinary care of a cancer patient. The ND ONC performs a detailed assessment and develops deep contextual knowledge about the patient and their overall health that allows the ND ONC to take a key role in ensuring effective continuity of care in a collaborative team of providers. Continuity of care is rooted in a long-term patient–physician partnership in which the physician knows the patient’s history from experience and can integrate new information and decisions from a whole-person perspective efficiently without extensive investigation or record review. The ND ONC, together with the rest of the patient’s health care team, should have the shared goal of providing the highest-quality cost-effective medical care. The ND ONC should cultivate positive health care team relationships by identifying shared treatment goals and developing interprofessional trust through effective, clear communication.

And, in the conclusion:

Because of their training as primary care providers delivering whole-person care, in concert with expertise in integrative oncology treatment approaches, ND ONCs can play an important role in the care of cancer patients. Guiding principles of care are needed if ND ONCs are to be effective players in the larger care team for cancer patients.

That’s right. The authors appear to view the naturopath as the primary care “physician”, who coordinates the care of all the specialties involved in treating the patient’s cancer. That’s a frightening thought. It should be the oncologist, in concert with the patient’s primary care doctor, who plays that role for the cancer patient, not a naturopath. For the authors of this set of guidelines to presume to assert that naturopaths should be the ones coordinating the care of cancer patients is arrogance taken to the nth power.

I must admit that the next passage almost made me laugh out loud:

A primary role of the ND ONC is to assure that the patient makes fully informed decisions about treatment. That assurance includes providing full information about conventional oncology treatment and the inclusion of naturopathic care. Although no individual ND ONC can reasonably know all relevant information about all treatment options, it is critical that the ND ONC provide comprehensive information about the potential risks and benefits of the various strategies they are recommending and, where relevant, reasonable alternatives. In addition, ND ONCs also enhance the patient’s understanding of the risks and benefits of conventional therapies. To solidify that education, the ND ONC should refer the patient to an oncologist for a complete review of their conventional treatment options if the patient has not already received an oncology consultation. When necessary and possible, the ND ONC will refer to other practitioners who can contribute productively to the patient’s comprehensive education and health care.

There’s so much to unpack there. The “ND ONC” has a primary role of assuring that the patient makes fully informed decisions about treatment? That is, of course, impossible for any naturopath to do. The reason is simple. Naturopaths believe that homeopathy works. They believe in a wide variety of quackery ranging from functional medicine to traditional Chinese medicine to various other pseudosciences. Telling a patient that, for instance, homeopathy is a useful treatment to relieve the effects of chemotherapy is nonsense. The only informed consent anyone could provide for homeopathy is to tell the patient that it is water, that it doesn’t work. That’s not what naturopaths tell patients, though. Most naturopaths use homeopathy. Certainly, all of them are trained in it.

Actually, it rather amazes me how much of this guidelines document is taken up with discussions of informed consent. Again, other than the parts of naturopathy that have been co-opted from conventional medicine, such as exercise, dietary changes, and the like, the concept of “informed consent” in naturopathy is one that I find hard to take seriously. For consent to be truly “informed”, it is necessary that accurate, scientifically supported assessments of the efficacy of the treatments proposed be presented to the patient, along with accurate, scientifically supported assessments of the risks of the treatments. Again, for the vast majority of naturopathic treatments, a science-based assessment of efficacy would conclude either that they are ineffective or that their efficacy is unknown. Is that what naturopaths tell cancer patients? Somehow, I doubt it.

Unfortunately, these guidelines documenting naturopathic principles of care is, like all of naturopathy, a sham. It gives this vitalistic system of magical thinking the appearance of legitimacy, the appearance of being real medicine. Unfortunately, as much as naturopaths try to give the appearance that theirs is a legitimate medical specialty, they can’t overcome the fact that naturopathy embraces far more quackery than anything resembling science-based medicine. Cancer patients deserve better. They deserve science-based medicine. They don’t deserve naturopathy. Don’t believe me? Check this video by Heather Wright, the president of OncANP:

That’s right. The president of the organization that came up with these “principles of care” guidelines uses homeopathy every day to treat cancer patients. Any organization that elects a president who uses homeopathy every day in her practice cannot said to be science-based, and any guidelines it produces can safely be ignored. Shame on Current Oncology for publishing this nonsense.

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]

49 replies on “OncANP writes a “statement of principles” for naturopathic oncology quackery”

yes mr orac.another good take down of another part of the quack cancer industry …yes… but may i ask u could u please tell me in your mind & work field what u would do if u had a serious cancer that was found @ say stage 2 for example ??? what protocol would u adopt to save your life ???hhmmmmm may be hard for u too under take a answer cheers ,,happy bob from oz

I can’t answer for Orac, but I would go for science based medicine, without additional quackery.

@ happy bob from oz.

The rewards of medicine encompass a biological effect and psychological effect. A combination of conventional medicine and integrative medicine may have a therapeutic synergistic-effect on well-being. Consider using conventional medicine for its long-term biological effect and integrative medicine for its short-term psychological effect.

…for its short-term psychological effect.

No, just no. If there are problems, such as managing side effects, this is part and parcel of medical treatment. If there are problems at home, there are social workers to recomend and arrange home care/help. There are many options even in an imperfect system to address the needs of cancer patients w/o fake “help” from the fake helpers. Most any church will send a priest or pastor to hold the hand and pray– and won’t even bill you.

You are trying to weasel an acceptable comment here, and B for effort, but there is no excuse for the attempt to legitimize the quackery of naturopathy. Problems in the airline industry do not justify the “alternative” of magic carpets. (rounghly paraphrased from Ben Goldacre).

This has been asked of me by apologists for the alternative med crowd, too. Wait until you are faced with it, they say, you too might go there to be saved! I can’t imagine that years, decades even, of knowledge and training and understanding would be tossed out in favour of magic water and other imaginary nostrums. Why would being ill suddenly make you stupid?

Why would being ill suddenly make you stupid?

Being told you’re about to die can make you desperate. Being desperate can trump being smart. The smartest person can make some flat out stupid choices in the right situation. People do things for very complicated reasons that are not always first and foremost the “smart” choice.

@ foolish physicist

Yes, but others (I would like to have some numbrers on this) who accept the diagnosis and get on with settling their affairs and making hospice arrangements. I personally have known some of each type. Not sure what determines one’s response to a terminal diagnosis–just personality in general or is there more, such as life experience and such?

“The smartest person can make some flat out stupid choices in the right situation.”

That’s entirely true. There are so many of humanity’s intellectual heroes who made flat out misjudgments about medical matters. One of my intellectual heroes, Jean-Pierre Serre, has been a flat out HIV/AIDS denialist.

People indeed do things for very complicated reasons. I, myself, have never fallen for woo, but that did not stop me from having a very bad opinion of medicine and having been brought to a situation where I do not see in any way how I could remotely hope of having good care. I am making bad decisions, and I know it. This has nothing to do with being stupid. People know that smoking causes cancer. Smart people do not deny the link. Yet a substantial portion of them do smoke.

These real life situations are far more numerous than people may imagine at first glance. And they get more and more acute as life draws near its end: Dying free of delusions is an uncommon feat. That’s one of the reasons some religions do make some special place to certain forms of death rite. You can go for the placebo feel-good version of it, absolution in catholicism, or for the more hard core versions of “holy” death such as in Jainism (Sallekhana), where being free of delusions at death results or should result from eventually decades of commitment.

Not that I endorse any of these. But dying and illness, as well as indirect exposure to these, does induce some form of madness and delusional thinking in people, to which medical professionals are not immune. I, for one, would be very interested in the testimony of people who strived to die free of delusions. Just to know what they think.

I’d go to an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center, such as my own, and use the best science-based treatment available. Next question…

Orac writes,

Next question….

MJD responds,

Q. Why is there a significant difference in average annual-salary comparing an Integrative Medicine Physician and Oncologist.

As of Mar 24, 2019, the average annual pay for an Integrative Medicine Physician in the United States is $162,700 a year.

https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Integrative-Medicine-Physician-Salary

The average pay for a Physician / Doctor, Oncologist is $250,581 per year.

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Physician_%2F_Doctor%2C_Oncologist/Salary

yes orac…but the question is but how what will u do ??to save your life once u get there explain procedures please ?? will it work??

“Q. Why is there a significant difference in average annual-salary comparing an Integrative Medicine Physician and Oncologist”.
A. The oncologist treats cancer, and that deserves a good income. The “integrative medicine physician” is running a scam, so the amount they receive is what is commonly known as “a good haul.”
Keep on distimming the doshes. One day it will pay off, and probably better than your remaindered-before-they-are-even-published litter-ery output

I had a stage two cancer (really kind of more like stage one and a half} ten years ago this June. I had the it surgically removed. It has not recurred since, and given the skill and efforts of the surgeon, I doubt it ever will.
If it does, then there’s radiation.

Certainly it’s hard for Orac to undertake to answer such an overly broad and meaningless question, you trollic twit.

There are many different types of cancer, and the treatment options and prognosis vary considerably. There’s a world of difference between stage 2 pancreatic cancer, and stage 2 cervical cancer, for example.

But then again, I can’t expect anyone who doesn’t understand basic sentence structure, grammar, or punctuation to understand the nuances. of oncology.

These guidelines, combined with other efforts to integrate CAM, seem to be following a direction of trying to put naturopaths nearer the top of the heap. Pretty soon they will be demanding that conventional SBM treatments not interfere with theirs, which have such a great record of success.

Well Mr Walton..Adding to Renate’s good but brief response. A stage two cancer has different a different prognosis depending on the type. Many types would have chances for cure, longer life or better life if conventional treatment involving surgery followed by some kind of chemotherapy or radiation were done. So i would consult my doctor to ask about options odds and side effects, get a second opinion and decide what to do.
I would not get the following specific treatments offered by various naturopaths.
1..IV Vitamin C.
A friend with stage 4 metastatic breast cancer ignored my advice and spent months of the following…
get a ride 35 miles- IV needle in arm with like a liter of ice cold vitamin C solution infused over the course of 4 hours. She was frail and could not tolerate it faster. Then the ride home.
This was done twice a week. with traffic like 9 hours a week wasted + all the cash.
2. I would not get energy healing in any form. Emily Rosa showed practitioners are unable to sense a biofeild let alone modify it. Google “Emily Rosa and John Stossel” and it is obvious that when someone holds their hand up points it at you and feels something it is only because when you think about the sensation from your hands there alway is one. Whether someone is there or not. your hands are full of nerve endings…We can detect the radio signal of the Mars Rover but not the field from the “Chakras”
3. Homeopathy. Well it won’t make you an addict or cause toxic side effects. But it won’t do any more than a placebo. And if the time comes when the medical culture is sufficiently corrupted that we all know our doctors telling us sugar pill are useful for specific diseases the waste of money and erosion of trust would be serious.
4.Pressing or poking to make some form of energy that no scientific instrument can detect flow through my body Accupunture or is it acupressure or is it auricular acupuncture or is it Shin Jin juytsu foot reflexology…
the points are all different in these and no believer has bothered to see which one is best.

Sorry to any on the list if I am feeding the trolls.

Despite the fact that she should know better, my daughter is studying acupuncture. I am appalled, secretly of course, since so many people believe in it, and I’d rather have her know that I love her and respect her choices, than have a fight and bad feelings over it.
I respect her choice even to the point that if she wants to stick me with needles, I will let her, but if she slips up, our blood relationship won’t ward off a malpractice suit.

“I’d rather have her know that I love her and respect her choices, than have a fight and bad feelings over it.”

Why not love her and respect her choices without hiding your feelings? No need of a fight to have an open discussion. Let her know that you support her first and foremost.

@ Old Rockin’ Dave:

I probably agree with you about 90% of the time but here I differ:
I was in a similar situation with an SO and I didn’t argue but I explained why I believed as I did ( and even had 3 treatments).
— like Orac, at one point I imagined that acupuncture might work- either like endogenous opiate or as an irritant, maybe something like TENS.
— as I read more and more, especially about the infamous toothpick study, I felt it was less and less likely to be real. Also about the poor quality of positive trials.
— I explained all of this to him and showed him material by Orac as well as the earlier stuff I had read years ago in class that made me possibly think it might work ( opiate or TENS-like)
— I went for 3 treatments which I’ve described in lurid detail at RI. I converted him.

You are so articulate and entertaining, I’m sure you could at least do as well as I did. I would let her stick her needles into you ( but avoid cupping- it’s horrible) and report how you feel.

@ Old Rockin’ Dave,

I probably disagree with you about 10% of the time but when you bring love into the pseudoscience equation were in total agreement. Thanks for sharing your wonderful acupuncture story.

Denice, I appreciate what you did (and your kind words), but it wouldn’t work here. It’s no accident that our dog is a Cairn terrier – a stubborn dog for a stubborn hardheaded family, and I put myself first and foremost in that description. When I tried to explain what I know and how I know it, it almost ended in a bitter row. Just to make it even more lopsided, the rest of the family was on her side. My world-renowned (Not being sarcastic here-he really is) psychologist brother wouldn’t give any credence to the placebo effect at work. Even the well-known Anzio battlefield experiment cut no ice. “I had it and it helped me” was the standard rejoinder, meaning “I’m too smart to ever fall for a placebo.”. My brother argued from authority. He had participated in scientific studies. So had I. I had also given placebos in clinical practice, and seen firsthand their power. Nothing I said moved anyone a millimeter. I gave up, and eventually I was conciliatory, a step my autistic self would never have thought of taking even a few years ago. We get along much better now.
The fact that I really like her new boyfriend doesn’t hurt things either (even if he works for the Evil Empire of Google).

I see the dochniak still distimms the doshes just as avidly as ever.
And no, MJD, you will never win my love, You’re just not my type.

These guidelines don’t really say anything. Read them and try to write a job description for a naturopathic oncologist. I come up with a nurse case manager.

Exactly! Every time I went to the hospital with my elderly neighbor toward the end of her life, she was seen by a social worker, who arranged for a range of services such as physical therapy in the home, visiting nurses, and ongoing contact with family for additional referrals to readily available community services. This is perhaps not as comprehensive for the under Medicare agers, but that’s a problem that can be addressed without naturopaths.

Those who have this certification can be identified by the letters after their name, FABNO, which stands for “Fellow of the American Board of Naturopathic Oncology”.

Always with the extra letters. More letters clearly means more respect.

Off topic, but this reminds me of something An old school nurse explained to me about nursing badges when I first started. You should only wear 1 badge on your uniform (despite however many you may actually be entitled to wear). There is, however, one circumstance where you can wear two badges. One may wear a second badge – but only if it was pinned not oneself by the queen. Beat that FABNO.

Hardly anyone wears their school pin anymore because of infection control issues. I quit wearing mine about 15 years ago because I was afraid of losing it; I came close a couple of times when it came off my uniform when I changed bedsheets.

I used to attach my certification pins to my ID badge: CEN, ACLS, PALS, TNCC. Lots of people did. But again, it became an infection control issue so I don’t see it as much anymore. Ditto for wearing a cap (which I always hated and never wore).

Now we just attach the alphabet soup to our resumes and our email signatures LOL

You can never have too many letters after your name.

For instance, Kelly Brogan M.D. has a B.S. from M.I.T.*, is an ABIHM (American Board of Integrative Holistic Medicine), ABPN (Am. Bd. of Psychiatry and Neurology), CLP (Consultation-Liason Psychiatry, formerly Psychosomatic Medicine sub-certification) and KRI (Kundalini Yoga certification).

Beat that skepti-docs!

*in the days when the New Yorker used to reprint odd news/misspellings from various media (with snarky commentary), they reproduced a headline “SOCIALITE WEDS MIT GRADUATE” with the comment “Dod’s nize”. 🙂

I was in Austria a few years ago, and I found MIT mentioned everywhere! It must be a very popular school in Vienna.

I also saw a bunch of signs pointing to Einbahn, but I never found it. The directions were really confusing, since it was in different directions on different streets.

I once went to Germany with a guy who commented on how big this town called Ausfaht must be.

I saw photos of a roadside sigh in Austria that read, and I quote, Fûcking (It’s in German, gotta have that umlaut)
It must be some kind of hazard warning sign, like “Deer Crossing” or “Low Flying Planes”.

I saw photos of a roadside sigh in Austria that read, and I quote, Fûcking (It’s in German, gotta have that umlaut)

Life is a cabaret, old chum.

Narad, two questions:
First off, why is “umlaut” spelled without an umlaut? It’s a glaring linguistic asymmetry that offends my autistic sense of order.
Second, what does fishbait have to do with cabarets? Wouldn’t the smell keep the customers away?

I can’t speak for Orac, but when I got the biopsy report – 10/12 positive, Gleason Score 7(4+3) – on my prostate, I asked how soon we could schedule surgery. (FYI, “radiation first” makes organs such as the bladder and sphincter muscles very brittle, precluding later surgery if the radiation isn’t successful.)

6 more months and I’m counted as cured.

fusilier

James 21:24

That was my story – I had 7/12 positive cores from all 4 quadrants therefore T2 since it crossed the midline, also a Gleason score of 7, but no local, nodal, regional, or distant spread – T2N0M0. I opted for surgery for the same reason. Since the damage to regional tissue comes in 20-30 years, and I was only 56, I had a reasonable chance of living that long, and I did not care to have senior citizenship with that sword hanging over my head.

If only we could get the quacks to say it backwards, maybe they’d go back to the 5th dimension where they belong.

Actually, they’re more like the Bizzaro world, a cube-shaped planet of dimwits where everything is the exact opposite of Earth..

I certainly don’t think naturopathy has “all the answers”. Neither does mainstream medicine, MSM. Here I see a sampling of the conventional wisdom and wit, that part of the world’s patients are passing by.

Naturopathy’s growth is a reflection of MSM’s continued failures.
One reason that naturopathy is “stealing” so many patients, is that for many patients, for all naturopathy’s short comings, it spells some kind of RELIEF after reaching the end with MSM. Or to even stay on treatment with MSM, like chemo, for a few extra years instead of burning out.

Cold IV vitamin C ?!? of course not, it’s supposed to be warm enough to avoid chills.
Slow infusion ? Let me count the ways someone might not be doing it right.
35 miles each way?!? Gad, around the corner or at home.
Solo therapy ?!? for an acute viruse, not major league cancer.
For major league cancer, IV vitamin C is an adjuvant that clearly increases the cancer cell inhibition of some chemos AND keeps the side effects down.

IV C saves us lots of years, comforts, and dollars. Silly superstitious MSM, so early 20th century.
What echo chambers do you people live in?

Naturopathy has no answers at all, while ‘mainstream medicine’ still is working on getting more and better answers. No it doesn’t have all the answers but at least it is contuous working on getting them.

Actually, I try to get out of my echo chamber every once in a while and look for interesting new information. Which published study of they use of Vitamin C as an adjuvant treatment for cancer has shown the best results in trials on human patients?

Have you and your friendly doctor made any plans to publish an actual case report on one of those miraculous cures you keep telling us about so the rest of the world can benefit from your superior expertise?

What’s “natural” about shooting concentrated artificial ascorbic acid solutions into your veins?

And shouldn’t there be decent evidence of real anticancer effects before undergoing it?

Comments are closed.