Dugald Seely, ND (Not-a-Doctor) is a Canadian naturopathic oncologist who's made quite the.name for himself cosplaying a real clinical researcher. What he really studies, unfortunately, is combining naturopathic quackery with real medicine. Basically, he's cosplaying a real clinical researcher, and crappy clinical trials are his props.
In the days before Orac left the blog in order to rest and recharge his Tarial cell, he got into a little..."discussion"... on Twitter with a naturopath named Paul Theriault. It did not go well...for Not-a-Doctor Theriault. Be careful what you wish for, naturopaths, when you encounter Orac. You might get it.
Just over two years ago, the Society for Integrative Medicine issued clinical guidelines for breast cancer care. Now it's updated them. Unfortunately, mixing cow pie with apple pie for a little longer doesn't make the cow pie any better than it was last time.
"Naturopathic oncology" is a specialty made up by naturopaths in order to justify using their quackery to treat cancer patients. A new survey takes it a step further and looks at using naturopathy to treat children with cancer, including the use of homeopathy, reiki, and restrictive diets.
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?
It’s no secret that I’m not a big fan of naturopathy. It is, as my good bud Kimball Atwood has said, a prescientific system of medicine rooted in vitalism, the idea that there is a “life energy” and a “healing power of nature.” Naturopaths invoke very simplistic concepts to explain the cause of disease, such as “toxins,” widespread food allergies, gluten, imbalances in qi (the life force energy), and many other pseudoscientific principles. To give you an idea of the kind of pseudoscientific quackery naturopathy encompasses, consider this: You can’t have naturopathy without homeopathy, which is a major component of …
Supporters of science-based medicine and keeping pseudoscience out of medicine have a few years to prepare for an onslaught of crappy studies “proving” the value of “integrative” oncology. No doubt at this point you’re wondering just what the heck Orac is talking about. I will tell you. It involves an institution we’ve encountered before and a naturopath we’ve met before, specifically the Ottawa Integrative Cancer Centre and Dugald Seely, ND (translation: Not a Doctor), FABNO (translation: Not an Oncologist). Somehow, Dugald Seely and his brother Andrew have somehow scored some sweet, sweet foundation cash for the purposes of doing…well, whatever …
In 2014, the Society for Integrative Oncology first published clinical guidelines for the care of breast cancer patients. Not surprisingly, SIO advocated “integrating” dubious therapies with oncology. Last week, the most influential oncology society, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), endorsed a 2017 update to the SIO guidelines, thus endorsing the “integration” of quackery with oncology and paving the way for insurance coverage. The advance of quackademic medicine in oncology continues apace.
It’s no secret that I don’t have a high opinion of naturopathy. Just enter the word “naturopathy” into the search box of this blog, and you’ll quickly see what I mean. Indeed, when last I mentioned the topic a couple of weeks ago, I was discussing the revelations of Britt Marie Hermes, a former naturopath who realized what a load of pseudoscientific quackery she had bought into, unfortunately, after having finished naturopathy school with a quarter million dollars of debt and having practiced for a while. Her account confirmed my impression of naturopathy as a veritable cornucopia of quackery so …
Naturopathic oncologists think that they're real cancer doctors, to the point of even studying their specialty as though it were real. They couldn't be more wrong.