From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not real doctors[edit]

I think there should be a section on this article specifically debunking the widely held public view that naturopaths are "real doctors" and that they are in any way, shape, or form a substitute for evidence-based medicine for their children, such as one would find by visiting a pediatrician, or any real doctor. — Unsigned, by: Parogar / talk / contribs 23:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This "real doctor" argument is reminiscent of the "real Scotchman" fallacy. Most of Medicine is still based on authority and traidition rather than evidence-based. Cochrane started the EVM movement in the 90's to try and remedy this sad state of affairs. When you realize this then "real doctors" do not seem that real after all. Do a reality check and in your next doctor visit demand production of the evidence on which your diagnosis/treatment is based. To make mattere worse, today's generation of doctors are no longer free to interpret and decide, instead, micromanaged protocol are cascaded upon them like the Niagara falls by a tiny think tank of "higher priests" that know it all. There's no wiggle room left to think or listen to the patient that is supposed to be served. In this respect nathuropaths get the upper hand because patients want to be listened to rather than get a "one size fits all" protocolarial recommendation and get swiftly done with. Where there's a market it means there's a need. If you don't like nathuropaths then combat tradition and authority in modern Medicine and dare to demand evidence from your GP. (talk)
"Do a reality check and in your next doctor visit demand production of the evidence on which your diagnosis/treatment is based" -- do you do this every time you consult an expert? Tell your mechanic "What evidence do you have that my car's oil needs replacing at this interval?" and then stand there in the garage waiting for him to dig out test reports from your car's manufacturer? Demand studies about efficiency from your electrician and what proof that certain symptoms of your home’s electrical system are truly signs of degradation? “You say that radon may be leaking into my house through our pipes, Mr. Plumber, but can you give me at least three academic papers that say that’s a possibility?”
The point was how to tell the real from the fake experts. Your answer is simply to trust every expert with the exception of Naturopathy experts. I can't think of a criteria worse than trust in order to make important decisions. Fine, you can use it with a plumber replacing a faucet because the potential consequences are trivial, but not with a doctor's life-changing decisions like needing 10 sessions of chemotherapy or the amputation of a body part. However, I still do demand explanations from plumbers and mechanics becasue I don't like to pay for fake repairs, but when it comes to doctors I go all the way and beyond to make sure that the botched repir won't be me. (talk)
There's certainly a need for more empathy in the medical world, yes, but -- to use an analogy -- the fact that modern airlines and flight networks have many problems does NOT lead to the conclusion that flying carpets are real. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Also I do occasionally spot check things that my medical professionals recommend, with the understanding that if I find the literature apparently in disagreement I do lack the expertise to put them into the full context of my diagnosis. Nonetheless, I'm aware that my veterinarian was a bit wrong when she recommended joint supplements to address joint pain in my dog, based on reading meta-analyses of clinical trials for those supplements and dogs with joint pain. (They are, however, still possibly useful in preventing age related degeneration). Being able to go to the clinical evidence is a powerful tool that we all have at our disposal, and the only reason I wouldn't recommend it as a general rule is that most of us have a lot of potential to misunderstand clinical findings due to lack of expertise(or confirmation seeking behaviors). In short, the BoN is full of shit because I do hold medical professionals to the same standard, and generally they do better than fucking quacks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Good post! X2 ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
"generally they do better than fucking quacks"... Have you ever wondered why "quacks" are so unexpectedly successful? because 90% of ailments either heal on their own fail to progress, therefore the prescriptions of "quack" which are equivalent to "doing nothing" have a 90% chance of a positive outcome. In contrast almost every doctor's prescription has side effects often needing additional prescriptions to "combat" those side effects in a snowballing fashion that's. Given the size of the overdiagnosis and overtreatment problem in medical practice, your job is to find out whether your condition is within that 10% that would actually benefit from treatment or within the 90% that will be walk home (or worse) with iatrogenic damage for no benefit at all. (talk)
Pretty much everything you just said is completely and totally wrong for how models of best practice are determined and executed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
That was the point. Models of "best practice" are drafted by 4-5 "wise men" to the tiniest detail as a "one fits all" protocol an blindly executed by the rest. There's no wiggle room for practitioners to do their thinking and cater to a patient's personal needs.2001:985:C551:1:6497:F02E:E4C9:4B31 (talk)
I think there's some confusion by BoN about diagnosis vs. underlying scientific evidence. Diagnosis by necessity involves some degree of non-science such as heuristics: you can't do good science on a sample size of 1 (the patient at hand) after all. The main issue is really whether there is underlying science upon which the diagnostic methods are based. Take a look at the diagnostic practices of naturopathy: it's just batshit. Bongolian (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I misread the title at first.[edit]

I thought it was the pathological insistence that you're a ninja, a ninja, believe it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar~) 20:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

/r/skeptic disappointed[edit] Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

If the stuff mentioned in the reddit thread isn't already included in the page, it probably should be. So; I'm for the "general suggestion" that this page could use more work. Kinda unhelpful, but what's a guy to do. I added the 2nd quote previously, if nothing else. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

From private correspondence:

I think the article serves its purpose as a wiki piece but it doesn’t really meet my needs. I feel like the article was written for other skeptics, and it isn’t something I’d give to a believer who’s mind I’m trying to change. A lot of the explanation of what’s wrong with naturopathy is found in the hyperlinks to other articles. From my perspective, I see “appeal to nature” and I think, “Of course, a tempting logical fallacy that I know a lot about.” My mom will see this and think, “Nature, what’s wrong with nature?” Then she’ll click the link, read that article, click a couple more links, and now she’s deep into some rabit hole reading about David Hume. It’s a good article just wasn’t the concise, “HERES WHAT’S WRONG WITH NATUROPATHY” piece I was looking for.

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

"I feel like the article was written for other skeptics" -> Coincidentally, the intended audience is also something that came up on Talk:How_come_there_are_still_monkeys?#Cover_story_.28sticky.29, which also seems written primarily for sceptics, not the "general public". I think both approaches have value, though. Perhaps a more broader discussion in the Saloon bar is in order? Perhaps there is some way we can do both approaches? Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
It is true that the parts of RW that explain why (as opposed to asserting that) altmed is wrong are spread in many different articles. (Of which naturopathy is not one. I think better articles include anecdotal evidence, bloodletting, appeal to nature, tobacco smoking, Big Placebo, herbal supplements, What's The Harm?, or panacea. Any one of these would be a better introduction than naturopathy.) I see no solution to this other than maybe creating an essay or PDF which merges them all together.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 05:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've written up an essay attempting to fulfill this need. What do you (or do they) think?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 05:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


Would this and devices such as this be worth mentioning here? (#At the time# in part a case of 'fancy new technology - what can we do with it?') Anna Livia (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

They seem unrelated. More like the way miracle cures seem to always pitch at recent science fads. It's not naturopathy but we've gone through time periods where people said "Radiation will cure every disease" "electricity will cure every disease" "x-rays will cure every disease" "chemicals will treat every disease" "magnets will treat every disease" [big gap in my knowledge of what was in pop science] "microbiome will treat every disease" "crispr will treat every disease". Some of these are still with us, some died off. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)