As a Naturopathic Doctor I often have people come in with their partner, children or parents. This brings up the question of how should someone support a loved one who is sick?
Certainly it's not good to just sit by while practitioners have their way. Perhaps the practitioner is wrong, or wants to do something dangerous. There may be a time to speak up and intervene. But also, if you do not know as much as the practitioner, how are you going to be sure?
Of course, from a practitioner point of view it's best for the patient and everyone in his/her life to be totally supportive of the work you're doing.
I don't think there are absolute answers, but here are some thoughts.
1) It's not about you, it's about them.
I've seen instances where a spouse come in with their own ideas of how their partner should be treated. Either they go online and come up with a plan, or just think they know what's best.
It's great to do your own research, be informed and ask questions.
However, from the perspective a Naturopathic doctor, if you're going to do that and self treat (or then treat someone else), then just do that. Don't come in to see me and argue that you have a better plan, or that the kinesiology I do in office doesn't work, or homeopathic doesn't work, or the "functional lab tests," which you ordered yourself has to have the answers.
These are all scenarios which I have gone through. Ironically in these situations the interfering partner has previously sat by and did nothing (or encouraged) the use of psychiatric medications, abuse of antibiotics, and steroid medications with no objections.
Yet this same person now objects when treatments which are far safer by any measure are suggested.
If you're objection is against natural health, then maybe it's best to not come in with your loved one as they see a Naturopathic doctor.
The worst part of this, is at times supposed partners seem more interested in pursing their own agenda (that they know it all and have the answers) then getting help for someone they love.
Also, if you're married to an adult - they should be able to make their own choices. If you're there dictating to them, then maybe there is something else wrong.
2) Parents with children who have "Psychiatric" problems.
I have seen instances of parents doing everything they can do to railroad their adult children into psychiatric treatment. And I don't means taking 1 psych drug and seeing a psychiatrist. I mean into a state of permanent psychiatric diagnosis, treatment and disability.
In these instance I personally blame the parents for their mistakes in fucking up their children. For abusing them as children. For bullying them into taking psychiatric drugs. For not admitting their mistakes.
No, not everyone with so called "mental illness." This isn't everyone. Just the people I've seen with parents obsessed with seeing their child as immersed in psychiatry as possible.
Unfortunately what happens is psychiatric drugs being what they are (powerful nervous system toxins) can have serous effects.
When an adult is not able to work due to illness and has a psychiatric label, they may be stuck at home with parents who have a psychiatric agenda. In such situations the patient may simply not have the financial, or emotional means to pursue health.
Someone who may take a psychiatric drug for depression or anxiety and have a bad reaction can wind up essentially being psychiatrically disabled. What this person needs is unconditional love and support from loved ones, and help to get needed help. Unfortunately parents may be either blind believers in psychiatry, or have a strong personal motive to believe their child has a "mental illness" and this means leveraging financial support towards only psychiatry (or just emotionally abusing someone towards it).
3) If a practitioner is doing something dangerous, say something. If a practitioner is doing something you don't understand but your loved one believes in it - support them. Giving your loved one the support they need as they seek out proper care is your job.
4) If you love someone - make their health a priority.
This could be your money, your time, or your attention. Give it to them.
An example of this. One of the sickest people I've ever seen, do to her problem I couldn't do kinesiology testing on her for more than 5 minutes due to excruciating pain. When I told her to come back a specific day so that I can see her with a surrogate muscle testing, her husband objected that they had a wedding to go to. So someone's wife is is extreme pain every day for over 1 years (plus more problems then I care to list) and you don't object to my plan, but prioritize a wedding?
Often the best cases of recovery from illness are in people who have some sort of support system. In these cases the work I have done would have been impossible without them.
But then I have had cases where the supposed support system works to sabotage the health of spouse or children.
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Monday, April 13, 2015
What they do not teach in Naturopathic School
Today's natural health care practitioner (most likely ND, DC, Lac or nutritionist) is likely being blind-sided by the modern patient.
Who is the modern patient?
Someone who is chronically ill, and dose not respond to typical treatment.
What is typical treatment?
Something like an allergy elimination diet, with basic supplements (probiotics, fish oil, vitamin D, glutamine, etc...).
Simply cleaning up someone's diet and basic supplements is not enough.
The modern chronically ill patient is not only deeply toxic, but often will suffer from what I simply call "immune system confusion." The bombardment of vaccinations, toxic chemicals, EMF, poor gut health and emotional stress have caused an epidemic of autoimmune disease, hypersensitivities and other illnesses caused by a deregulated immune system.
To put it simply, the immune system can no longer recognize self from non-self, or properly identify how to detoxify substances even if recognized as non-self. We did not evolve to recognize and detoxify BPA - but we are stuck with it and thousands of other chemicals in our bodies nonetheless.
What they do not teach in Naturoapthic school (at least when I attended University of Bridgeport 2005-09) is that this problem is going on, but less how to address it.
For the most part I think the field prefers to just talk about the good it can do, and ignore what is not well understood. But I'll be honest, there are untold numbers of these chronically sick modern patients gong not from MD to MD, but from ND to ND looking for answers. They know the MD's have no answers, and keep on chasing simple solutions offered in the world of natural health. Often they become natural health experts themselves - but can not put the pieces together because they have no formal training in natural health philosophy (so can not escape reductionism and understand self as holistic unit - even if they think they are). Therefore they will chase one supposed miracle cure - with all the science to back it up - one after another.
Ways the modern patient is being treated:
1) Don't treat the problem, just act like you do
If you go to a ND for hypothyroidism and are in a state where ND's have prescriptive rights you may be given Armour or other natural desiccated thyroid hormone. This may be better than synthroid. It is however, doing virtually NOTHING to treat the cause of autoimmune hypothyroidism.
2) Don't eat anything
Gluten free diet, FOMAPS diet, salicylates diet, Candida diet - fuck it - just tell people to eat nothing. Since people are supposed "allergic" or "sensitive" everything - just tell them to starve.
I'm not against these diets - and many people are simply forced onto them - but why can't people just eat a whole food diet? Why do people develop celiac disease.
Most of the people who come into see me are already on terribly restrictive diet. I do encourage sugar free, dairy free, gluten free, GMO free, only real foods - but they really are already doing that.
If eating an apple sets off your Candida symptoms, chances are you need to do more than eliminating apples.
3) Functional tests
I AM NOT AGAINST FUNCTIONAL LAB TESTS
I am against people being promised the final answer by some next functional lab tests. I am against people spending not just hundreds, but literally thousands out of pocket on functional lab tests that detail the effects of their chronic illness, but not their cause. I am against practitioners who blindly have patients pay all sorts of money on the newest / greatest test but have no skills whatsoever in diagnosis without a lab test.
I am against supposed "expert" telling a roomful of natural health practitioners that he would never treat Candida if not on a lab test.
It's bad enough MD's are now deskilled b/c well - just order MRI.
Do we need to be deskilled as well.
The more we depend on functional lab tests then not only the less people can afford us (not that practitioners make money off of this - profit goes all to the lab) but also the less skills we develop using other assessment.
I run functional lab tests sparingly.
I hate it when people come in with their big stack of labs and just refuse to hear that
1) the answer is not in the labs
2) the answer is not in the new lab test they want
I hate the 20 minute discussions where I have to gradually lead someone to the conclusion that their functional labs fucking suck (maybe I should just come out and say that?)
Every now and then someone walks in who I simply can not work with b/c they are obsessed with functional lab tests. Despite going through thousands on lab tests and "functional medicine doctors" they need more. They argue with any assessment given if not on lab tests. They have fantasies about some new lab measure being "the answer." They complain about having no money - but always have a few hundred for the next functional lab test.
4) Blame the patient
When everything you do doesn't work - it's just a bad patient - call then non compliant - call them "crazy" - just call them something to hide from your ignorance
5) Allergy elimination techniques
There are things like NAET - just work on desensitization
I'll say this about various "desensitization" - are you being treated or is the practitioner simply shutting down your body's attempts at detoxification.
From what I've been told by a handful of people in my field I truly respect - it is not the former but the later.
6) Work on palliating symptoms
Just keep on doing the same old - but never truly break the case
Instead of simply attacking conventional medicine (we all know that sucks) the natural health field needs to look at itself and realize the same old rules do not apply! We have to many fake "experts" in natural health who should just shut the fuck up. Not the Dr. Weil types, I mean the types who get paid to lecture other practitioners - seriously - I can't imagine any other field that has so many ignorant "experts." I don't know where the fuck these people come from.
The typical natural health care practitioner is a kind hearted, well meaning and I think humble person. We deserve more than fake experts and their promises of some secret knowledge.
There is no "expert" in my field who I have found to be fully honest. NONE. Even the ones I respect, the ones who really taught me what I need to know. I have found all to be to some degree dishonest, manipulative, not aware of own short-comings, or at least to over-hype certain therapies.
(edit: the one truly honest - say it as it is lecturer I've seen is Dr. Sesenig - who taught naturopathic philosophy at my school - I loved listening to him. The only person I've seen who wasn't afraid to say it as it is.)
Virtually all practitioner education in the natural health field is promoted by supplement or lab companies. Any such training is to a degree - misleading and fraudulent. This doesn't make the training wrong or not valuable (it may be quite the opposite) but the education is compromised.
Just as it's compromised when a pharmaceutical company teaches the doctors, it's compromised when a supplement company does the same.
The field needs to get rid of dogma.
I have found homeopathy to be invaluable to treating the modern patient.
I prescribe homeopathics based off of kinesiology muscle tests - not accordingly to classical homeopathic dogma. I also use nosodes also quite a lot.
The homeopathic field - stuck in it's own 19th century dogma is an example of what the natural health field needs to avoid.
You're not going to learn how to treat the new modern patient by holding onto old dogma.
Yet part of the answer is the old. I have found more validity in the philosophies and techniques handed down by generations of practitioners who came before me, than the latest health fad or "expert."
The tried and true works, but the homeopaths, eclectics, NDs of 100 years ago did not face the same sort of patients as today.
I do not believe it is valid to transpose the exact same sort of treatment from one time/place to another, yet the old truths must be held onto as a foundation.
Within the Naturopathic field there is a rift between those who want a more traditional practice (what did ND's do decades ago), and those who wish to be more "scientific." The longer I'm in this - the more I move towards the more traditional side, but in a way where the tried and true is build on and using newer systems such as kinesiology or biotherapeautic drainage, to adapt to the sort of people who come into my office.
Who is the modern patient?
Someone who is chronically ill, and dose not respond to typical treatment.
What is typical treatment?
Something like an allergy elimination diet, with basic supplements (probiotics, fish oil, vitamin D, glutamine, etc...).
Simply cleaning up someone's diet and basic supplements is not enough.
The modern chronically ill patient is not only deeply toxic, but often will suffer from what I simply call "immune system confusion." The bombardment of vaccinations, toxic chemicals, EMF, poor gut health and emotional stress have caused an epidemic of autoimmune disease, hypersensitivities and other illnesses caused by a deregulated immune system.
To put it simply, the immune system can no longer recognize self from non-self, or properly identify how to detoxify substances even if recognized as non-self. We did not evolve to recognize and detoxify BPA - but we are stuck with it and thousands of other chemicals in our bodies nonetheless.
What they do not teach in Naturoapthic school (at least when I attended University of Bridgeport 2005-09) is that this problem is going on, but less how to address it.
For the most part I think the field prefers to just talk about the good it can do, and ignore what is not well understood. But I'll be honest, there are untold numbers of these chronically sick modern patients gong not from MD to MD, but from ND to ND looking for answers. They know the MD's have no answers, and keep on chasing simple solutions offered in the world of natural health. Often they become natural health experts themselves - but can not put the pieces together because they have no formal training in natural health philosophy (so can not escape reductionism and understand self as holistic unit - even if they think they are). Therefore they will chase one supposed miracle cure - with all the science to back it up - one after another.
Ways the modern patient is being treated:
1) Don't treat the problem, just act like you do
If you go to a ND for hypothyroidism and are in a state where ND's have prescriptive rights you may be given Armour or other natural desiccated thyroid hormone. This may be better than synthroid. It is however, doing virtually NOTHING to treat the cause of autoimmune hypothyroidism.
2) Don't eat anything
Gluten free diet, FOMAPS diet, salicylates diet, Candida diet - fuck it - just tell people to eat nothing. Since people are supposed "allergic" or "sensitive" everything - just tell them to starve.
I'm not against these diets - and many people are simply forced onto them - but why can't people just eat a whole food diet? Why do people develop celiac disease.
Most of the people who come into see me are already on terribly restrictive diet. I do encourage sugar free, dairy free, gluten free, GMO free, only real foods - but they really are already doing that.
If eating an apple sets off your Candida symptoms, chances are you need to do more than eliminating apples.
3) Functional tests
I AM NOT AGAINST FUNCTIONAL LAB TESTS
I am against people being promised the final answer by some next functional lab tests. I am against people spending not just hundreds, but literally thousands out of pocket on functional lab tests that detail the effects of their chronic illness, but not their cause. I am against practitioners who blindly have patients pay all sorts of money on the newest / greatest test but have no skills whatsoever in diagnosis without a lab test.
I am against supposed "expert" telling a roomful of natural health practitioners that he would never treat Candida if not on a lab test.
It's bad enough MD's are now deskilled b/c well - just order MRI.
Do we need to be deskilled as well.
The more we depend on functional lab tests then not only the less people can afford us (not that practitioners make money off of this - profit goes all to the lab) but also the less skills we develop using other assessment.
I run functional lab tests sparingly.
I hate it when people come in with their big stack of labs and just refuse to hear that
1) the answer is not in the labs
2) the answer is not in the new lab test they want
I hate the 20 minute discussions where I have to gradually lead someone to the conclusion that their functional labs fucking suck (maybe I should just come out and say that?)
Every now and then someone walks in who I simply can not work with b/c they are obsessed with functional lab tests. Despite going through thousands on lab tests and "functional medicine doctors" they need more. They argue with any assessment given if not on lab tests. They have fantasies about some new lab measure being "the answer." They complain about having no money - but always have a few hundred for the next functional lab test.
4) Blame the patient
When everything you do doesn't work - it's just a bad patient - call then non compliant - call them "crazy" - just call them something to hide from your ignorance
5) Allergy elimination techniques
There are things like NAET - just work on desensitization
I'll say this about various "desensitization" - are you being treated or is the practitioner simply shutting down your body's attempts at detoxification.
From what I've been told by a handful of people in my field I truly respect - it is not the former but the later.
6) Work on palliating symptoms
Just keep on doing the same old - but never truly break the case
Instead of simply attacking conventional medicine (we all know that sucks) the natural health field needs to look at itself and realize the same old rules do not apply! We have to many fake "experts" in natural health who should just shut the fuck up. Not the Dr. Weil types, I mean the types who get paid to lecture other practitioners - seriously - I can't imagine any other field that has so many ignorant "experts." I don't know where the fuck these people come from.
The typical natural health care practitioner is a kind hearted, well meaning and I think humble person. We deserve more than fake experts and their promises of some secret knowledge.
There is no "expert" in my field who I have found to be fully honest. NONE. Even the ones I respect, the ones who really taught me what I need to know. I have found all to be to some degree dishonest, manipulative, not aware of own short-comings, or at least to over-hype certain therapies.
(edit: the one truly honest - say it as it is lecturer I've seen is Dr. Sesenig - who taught naturopathic philosophy at my school - I loved listening to him. The only person I've seen who wasn't afraid to say it as it is.)
Virtually all practitioner education in the natural health field is promoted by supplement or lab companies. Any such training is to a degree - misleading and fraudulent. This doesn't make the training wrong or not valuable (it may be quite the opposite) but the education is compromised.
Just as it's compromised when a pharmaceutical company teaches the doctors, it's compromised when a supplement company does the same.
The field needs to get rid of dogma.
I have found homeopathy to be invaluable to treating the modern patient.
I prescribe homeopathics based off of kinesiology muscle tests - not accordingly to classical homeopathic dogma. I also use nosodes also quite a lot.
The homeopathic field - stuck in it's own 19th century dogma is an example of what the natural health field needs to avoid.
You're not going to learn how to treat the new modern patient by holding onto old dogma.
Yet part of the answer is the old. I have found more validity in the philosophies and techniques handed down by generations of practitioners who came before me, than the latest health fad or "expert."
The tried and true works, but the homeopaths, eclectics, NDs of 100 years ago did not face the same sort of patients as today.
I do not believe it is valid to transpose the exact same sort of treatment from one time/place to another, yet the old truths must be held onto as a foundation.
Within the Naturopathic field there is a rift between those who want a more traditional practice (what did ND's do decades ago), and those who wish to be more "scientific." The longer I'm in this - the more I move towards the more traditional side, but in a way where the tried and true is build on and using newer systems such as kinesiology or biotherapeautic drainage, to adapt to the sort of people who come into my office.
What does it mean when you do not show up for your appointment
Recently I had someone leave frantic calls on voice mail. This is not a client of mine. A prospective client.
I called her back - I'm ok talking to prospective clients. This one used up over an hour of my time talking about mostly irrelevant things. I tried to be nice - she has many health problems, isn't doing well, etc...
Immediately after getting off the phone, she calls back and leaves another voice mail - she just needs 2 more minutes with me.
I call her back 2 days later on Monday (previous conversation was late Saturday), spend more than 30 minutes on phone with her again.
During all this she does set up an appointment.
3 days before her appointment I call her to confirm. This is not normal procedure I hate such phone calls. I consider them harassment. If someone is serous about their health and working with me, they don't need that phone call.
But with her, I did it, because someone else wanted an apt. her time.
And she tells me she doesn't intend to come in.
So, this is what she does...
Leaves multiple voice mails - demanding my immediate attention.
Harasses me repeatedly to treat her over the phone - and I tried to gently explain to her - I can not treat someone for medical emergency over phone - it is outside my scope as ND in NYS and besides I never even saw her!
Then after over 90 minutes of phone time, her intention is to simply no show for her appointment.
This is what happens when you no show:
1) I can not see someone who wanted to come in that same time
2) At times - that other person has a busy schedule and now their health is compromised because or your missed apt
3) I loose money - because instead of doing something productive I had to blank out that time for you.
Things do happen in life. At times it happens to all of us, but I can't count the number of times someone schedule an initial and then doesn't show up.
This is not someone not wanting to return and see me again. This is someone calling up to make an appointment and then just never appears.
A few times people have scheduled initial visits for the next day and didn't show!
Sometimes people call up and say something like "I want to schedule and appointment for Tuesday, but I will call Monday to tell you if I can make it." What is that - do you want to come in or not. What if someone else wants that time. It's been a process to learn how to not play games with such people. They are never good clients to work with, if they even ever show up to begin with.
I called her back - I'm ok talking to prospective clients. This one used up over an hour of my time talking about mostly irrelevant things. I tried to be nice - she has many health problems, isn't doing well, etc...
Immediately after getting off the phone, she calls back and leaves another voice mail - she just needs 2 more minutes with me.
I call her back 2 days later on Monday (previous conversation was late Saturday), spend more than 30 minutes on phone with her again.
During all this she does set up an appointment.
3 days before her appointment I call her to confirm. This is not normal procedure I hate such phone calls. I consider them harassment. If someone is serous about their health and working with me, they don't need that phone call.
But with her, I did it, because someone else wanted an apt. her time.
And she tells me she doesn't intend to come in.
So, this is what she does...
Leaves multiple voice mails - demanding my immediate attention.
Harasses me repeatedly to treat her over the phone - and I tried to gently explain to her - I can not treat someone for medical emergency over phone - it is outside my scope as ND in NYS and besides I never even saw her!
Then after over 90 minutes of phone time, her intention is to simply no show for her appointment.
This is what happens when you no show:
1) I can not see someone who wanted to come in that same time
2) At times - that other person has a busy schedule and now their health is compromised because or your missed apt
3) I loose money - because instead of doing something productive I had to blank out that time for you.
Things do happen in life. At times it happens to all of us, but I can't count the number of times someone schedule an initial and then doesn't show up.
This is not someone not wanting to return and see me again. This is someone calling up to make an appointment and then just never appears.
A few times people have scheduled initial visits for the next day and didn't show!
Sometimes people call up and say something like "I want to schedule and appointment for Tuesday, but I will call Monday to tell you if I can make it." What is that - do you want to come in or not. What if someone else wants that time. It's been a process to learn how to not play games with such people. They are never good clients to work with, if they even ever show up to begin with.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Problems with the natural health industry...
The biggest problem with the natural health industry is that it is an industry.
It's all about selling some product.
Today in one of my email lists, was a post about getting people help to write their book. Why should be write a book? Because they have something unique to say? Because they have valuable information?
Hell no - they should write a book in order to promote them-self as an "expert."
That's the other problem in Natural Health - everyone is a fucking expert. Coming up with their own fucking brand.
I've been a practicing naturopathic doctor for 4 years now. Plus 4 years in ND school and the previous 3 years doing a ton of self leaning about natural health (along with going to Institute for Integrative Nutrition). And how much of this field is nothing but "experts" with their "brands." Thyroid experts, testosterone experts and on and on and on.
And then all the sales pitches for some special supplement.
For instance, recently I was reading about how acute colds was never the traditional use for Echinacea. Additionally Echinacea is not effective for such head colds as it's marketed. It's marketed well, selling over $100,000,000 worth of product a year for something it's doesn't treat.
What's the rational for this. Well some "scientists" theorized that boosts immune system function. Then comes all the hype and sales.
Ironically, it is a very effective and important herb, but not for the use its' marketed for. Of course, educating people on traditional and holistic use of herbal medicine is not profitable. What is, is hyping up just a few and selling them as miracle elixirs.
But getting back to to Echinacea - while the traditional use is ignored, some bogus use is supposedly supported by "science."
In the world of health (both Natural and Conventional) all it takes to make something "scientific" is to tell someone a biochemical theory. "Echinacea boosts WBC production" "Goldenseal is a 'natural antibiotic'," Red Clover for menopause b/c its has phytoestrogens, or SSRI's block reuptake of serotonin into nerons.
The amount of supplements and drugs sold based upon untrue or partially true theory must be mind blowing, if only we could know. To at least set the record straight:
The other overused word is "holistic."
All this bad science (in Conventional and Natural health) creates a lot of confusion and noise. People can't find the right information b/c they go online and read nothing by hype.
The greater problem is really the social structure this happens in. A world were everyone (in ALL FIELDS) is running around trying to sell stuff to each other.
Maybe I should write a series on Structural Violence and health. If our social structures create disease how are we to enjoy wellness?
It's all about selling some product.
Today in one of my email lists, was a post about getting people help to write their book. Why should be write a book? Because they have something unique to say? Because they have valuable information?
Hell no - they should write a book in order to promote them-self as an "expert."
That's the other problem in Natural Health - everyone is a fucking expert. Coming up with their own fucking brand.
I've been a practicing naturopathic doctor for 4 years now. Plus 4 years in ND school and the previous 3 years doing a ton of self leaning about natural health (along with going to Institute for Integrative Nutrition). And how much of this field is nothing but "experts" with their "brands." Thyroid experts, testosterone experts and on and on and on.
And then all the sales pitches for some special supplement.
For instance, recently I was reading about how acute colds was never the traditional use for Echinacea. Additionally Echinacea is not effective for such head colds as it's marketed. It's marketed well, selling over $100,000,000 worth of product a year for something it's doesn't treat.
What's the rational for this. Well some "scientists" theorized that boosts immune system function. Then comes all the hype and sales.
Ironically, it is a very effective and important herb, but not for the use its' marketed for. Of course, educating people on traditional and holistic use of herbal medicine is not profitable. What is, is hyping up just a few and selling them as miracle elixirs.
But getting back to to Echinacea - while the traditional use is ignored, some bogus use is supposedly supported by "science."
In the world of health (both Natural and Conventional) all it takes to make something "scientific" is to tell someone a biochemical theory. "Echinacea boosts WBC production" "Goldenseal is a 'natural antibiotic'," Red Clover for menopause b/c its has phytoestrogens, or SSRI's block reuptake of serotonin into nerons.
The amount of supplements and drugs sold based upon untrue or partially true theory must be mind blowing, if only we could know. To at least set the record straight:
- They do not know how SSRIs "work." The Serotonin reuptake thing is unproven. Additionally the idea the the feeling depression is mechanistically caused by an inherit serotonin brain defenct is beyond stupid and unproven - well I have a long page on my website about psychiatry.
- While Goldenseal does have antibiotic properties, traditionally it is used in low doses to stimulate digestion and other self regulatory systems of the body. That is it's traditional and holistic use. While one could use megadoses as an antibiotic, that's more of a modern use created by people who feel natural health must chase after and be like conventional medicine.
- Echinacea (like all herbs) doesn't have 1 active ingredient, but has many which work synergistically together. When we follow the traditional use of herbs, we follow the wisdom of people who observed the use and results of the herbs on real people. When we follow unproven biochemical theory, we are following an abstraction - not real world observation.
- Red Clover has history been used as an alternative and has a strong effect on the lymphatic system. It seems to me that this traditional model is a much better way to understand it's actions, then biochemical theory. You can not reduce Red Clover down to some phytoestrogens.
- I can write a similiar critique for numerous supplements and medications.
The other overused word is "holistic."
All this bad science (in Conventional and Natural health) creates a lot of confusion and noise. People can't find the right information b/c they go online and read nothing by hype.
The greater problem is really the social structure this happens in. A world were everyone (in ALL FIELDS) is running around trying to sell stuff to each other.
Maybe I should write a series on Structural Violence and health. If our social structures create disease how are we to enjoy wellness?
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Too much nonsense in the world of natural health
This post is something of a rant - grammar may not be perfect.
There is too much nonsense going on in the world of natural health. There is said it. You go online and in countless website and chat rooms people are talking about natural treatments for anything and everything. Some of this information is good. Some of it is not. Mostly it is a total mess.
Lets go over some problems
1 - Everyone is an expert. All it takes is a website for someone to become an expert. I've gotten such feedback myself, some person thousands of miles away sees my website and decides that I am somehow the expert on a given topic. Why? Because they like my website.
While I am a naturopathic doctor, and hope I have some degree of competency in what I do, I still acknowledge the fact that having a nice webpage on something doesn't make anyone "the expert."
I'm a naturopathic doctor, with additional training in areas such as homotoxicology, some applied kineseology, neuro-emotional technique. I hate sales games and sales tactics. So I try to make my website more about giving information rather than using psychological games to bring people in.
There is nothing on my website that is original and comes from me. I learned it all in naturopathic school, from colleagues, from seminars, from books. From actually being in the field as a student and practitioner for 9 years now.
So I hope I have some expertise and it means a lot to me when that allows me to help people. But I'm not "THE EXPERT."
But all over the Internet or self proclaimed "experts" with some special knowledge.
To be honest, many people in my field find "experts" such as Dr. Weil, or Dr. Oz annoying. While we certainly do recognize that they do help the field of natural health by bringing people into it, they also present a lot of very simple, watered down information. People in natural health can be saying something for decades, if not centuries, but suddenly it becomes valid because Dr. Oz says so.
One problem with such experts for the masses is, they dumb things down so far health philosophy gets thrown out the window. The art of treating the patient is replaced by some cure for a condition. There are too many supplements sold as amazing cure all products. I think this undermines what can truly be done in holistic medicine by throwing out the art and philosophy and replacing it with fad products.
Or we'll see something like GAPS - Gut and Psychology Syndrome. Someone discovered that there is relationship between digestive system health and mental symptoms, gave it a brand and is now an expert. I have nothing against this if it helps people, except for one problem - something was just branded as if it was a personal discovery, when it's been known in various healing traditions for thousands of years.
But this is just one example of the branding of redundant information in order to create an expert.
Fake experts don't just sell to the lay public. As a naturopathic doctor all the time I get sent invitations to seminars, webinars, personal training, to learn form some "expert." Some of whom truly have special information to share, and many don't. Generally speaking, I think the most expert practitioners are the ones working with patients, who learn how to observe, and employ gentle therapies at the individual.
In this field there are many "experts" who try to sell systems to practitioners. Instead of the natural health care practitioners being an experts into patient observation and targeted treatment, the practitioners is now an expert in Standard Process supplements, nor Metagenics supplements, or Designs for Health supplements, or [... fill in blank ... ] some other companies supplements. It's not that these are bad companies or have bad products (myself, I've used a lot of Designs for Health), but it's the whole model of selling a system to some practitioners so they can jump right in and treat people as the nutrition expert.
In conventional medicine pharmaceutical companies don't just sell to doctors, they have corrupted the philosophy of how practitioners think. I suspect the same is true in natural health. There is an art to selecting the correct treatment for the person, instead of selling them the kitchen-sink digestive system product.
2 - Cure all products
From 9 years experience in natural health, as far as I can tell, miracle cure all products do not exist. Everyone is different.
There is no miracle supplement that will make everyone who uses it loose weight, of be happy, or not be anxious, or given them energy (do I need to get started or miracle cure adrenal products).
3 - Allopathy
Allopathy is the idea that instead of treating the person, you fling all manner of agents at the symptoms in order to suppress them. It is the philosophy of conventional medicine, but also of our culture. All over the world of natural health you'll see people selling the "holistic" product for various diseases.
To use one simple example, if someone has a "holistic" treatment for Candida, it's not holistic. It's may be good general health advice (no sugar, no industrial waste garbage that is sold as "milk, etc...), or it may be a even a good supplement, but the moment you treat the disease instead of the person, it's not holistic.
Yes, good information is put out there, but I want attention to be on the individual, not the disease. Many treatments for Candida only go so far, then you either look deeper and work on the real problems, but that is just one example.
I could go on, but I think this rant should be enough for now
There is too much nonsense going on in the world of natural health. There is said it. You go online and in countless website and chat rooms people are talking about natural treatments for anything and everything. Some of this information is good. Some of it is not. Mostly it is a total mess.
Lets go over some problems
1 - Everyone is an expert. All it takes is a website for someone to become an expert. I've gotten such feedback myself, some person thousands of miles away sees my website and decides that I am somehow the expert on a given topic. Why? Because they like my website.
While I am a naturopathic doctor, and hope I have some degree of competency in what I do, I still acknowledge the fact that having a nice webpage on something doesn't make anyone "the expert."
I'm a naturopathic doctor, with additional training in areas such as homotoxicology, some applied kineseology, neuro-emotional technique. I hate sales games and sales tactics. So I try to make my website more about giving information rather than using psychological games to bring people in.
There is nothing on my website that is original and comes from me. I learned it all in naturopathic school, from colleagues, from seminars, from books. From actually being in the field as a student and practitioner for 9 years now.
So I hope I have some expertise and it means a lot to me when that allows me to help people. But I'm not "THE EXPERT."
But all over the Internet or self proclaimed "experts" with some special knowledge.
To be honest, many people in my field find "experts" such as Dr. Weil, or Dr. Oz annoying. While we certainly do recognize that they do help the field of natural health by bringing people into it, they also present a lot of very simple, watered down information. People in natural health can be saying something for decades, if not centuries, but suddenly it becomes valid because Dr. Oz says so.
One problem with such experts for the masses is, they dumb things down so far health philosophy gets thrown out the window. The art of treating the patient is replaced by some cure for a condition. There are too many supplements sold as amazing cure all products. I think this undermines what can truly be done in holistic medicine by throwing out the art and philosophy and replacing it with fad products.
Or we'll see something like GAPS - Gut and Psychology Syndrome. Someone discovered that there is relationship between digestive system health and mental symptoms, gave it a brand and is now an expert. I have nothing against this if it helps people, except for one problem - something was just branded as if it was a personal discovery, when it's been known in various healing traditions for thousands of years.
But this is just one example of the branding of redundant information in order to create an expert.
Fake experts don't just sell to the lay public. As a naturopathic doctor all the time I get sent invitations to seminars, webinars, personal training, to learn form some "expert." Some of whom truly have special information to share, and many don't. Generally speaking, I think the most expert practitioners are the ones working with patients, who learn how to observe, and employ gentle therapies at the individual.
In this field there are many "experts" who try to sell systems to practitioners. Instead of the natural health care practitioners being an experts into patient observation and targeted treatment, the practitioners is now an expert in Standard Process supplements, nor Metagenics supplements, or Designs for Health supplements, or [... fill in blank ... ] some other companies supplements. It's not that these are bad companies or have bad products (myself, I've used a lot of Designs for Health), but it's the whole model of selling a system to some practitioners so they can jump right in and treat people as the nutrition expert.
In conventional medicine pharmaceutical companies don't just sell to doctors, they have corrupted the philosophy of how practitioners think. I suspect the same is true in natural health. There is an art to selecting the correct treatment for the person, instead of selling them the kitchen-sink digestive system product.
2 - Cure all products
From 9 years experience in natural health, as far as I can tell, miracle cure all products do not exist. Everyone is different.
There is no miracle supplement that will make everyone who uses it loose weight, of be happy, or not be anxious, or given them energy (do I need to get started or miracle cure adrenal products).
3 - Allopathy
Allopathy is the idea that instead of treating the person, you fling all manner of agents at the symptoms in order to suppress them. It is the philosophy of conventional medicine, but also of our culture. All over the world of natural health you'll see people selling the "holistic" product for various diseases.
To use one simple example, if someone has a "holistic" treatment for Candida, it's not holistic. It's may be good general health advice (no sugar, no industrial waste garbage that is sold as "milk, etc...), or it may be a even a good supplement, but the moment you treat the disease instead of the person, it's not holistic.
Yes, good information is put out there, but I want attention to be on the individual, not the disease. Many treatments for Candida only go so far, then you either look deeper and work on the real problems, but that is just one example.
I could go on, but I think this rant should be enough for now
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Testing for serotonin receptor activity
"the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) which has variants that have been shown to influence the clinical response of patients of European ancestry when they are treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Genotyping of some of the serotonin receptor genes is also available to guide clinical practice [ ... ] Given the increasingly clear cost-effectiveness of genotyping, it has recently been predicted that pharmacogenomic testing will routinely be ordered to guide the selection and dosing of psychotropic medications.
As I'm working to revise most of my web site's material on mental illness, one of my colleague's calls me up to tell me about serotonin testing. Apparently there are tests coming to test sensitivity of serotonin receptor sensitivity.
Doing some quick research, seems people want to run genetic tests to predict how well patients will response to psychiatric drugs. Well, if this helps to prevent some of the worse reactions to psych drugs it's not all bad, HOWEVER...
This has little to do with what "depression" and "mental illness" is. It is also guiding people in a direction that is leading them further away from the real problems.
Depression is not a disease. It is a feeling. Feelings are not pathologies. Feelings are not supposed to be treated. The whole train of thought makes no sense.
Feeling depressed all the time is a problem. Feeling suicidal is a problem. But the thing to treat is the patient, not the feeling itself.
What can cause depression? Well, what causes disease in general?
Do people have genetically faulty serotonin receptors?
Perhaps there are some people who do. There are some uncommon genetic diseases. However, most illnesses with a genetic component will only be expressed in the right environment. So the real question is not if people have faulty serotonin receptors. It's better to ask if some people are more genetically predisposed to feeling depressed, given a set of environmental stresses.
That may be so. But I wouldn't call that having a defective brain that needs to be treated with psych drugs. We all have genetic predispositions. Also, often these supposed weak genes that make us susceptible to certain disease serve important other functions as well (the most well known examples is perhaps sickle cell anemia as protection against malaria).
What should be treated is the cause of illness. Nutrition, toxicity, emotional trauma and physical structure. I doubt that many people would feel depressed if those needs could be taken care of. Personally, I wish as a ND I could do more, I can work with nutrition, detoxification and help the body deal with emotional stress, but I can not remove my clients from bad jobs, bad relationships, bad parents, etc... I wish I could, as sometimes it's clear that is most what they need, not some supplement or drug.
We are not born with defective brains, defective genes, or defective serotonin receptors. If we simply give our body's what they need, we will feel fine. Depression is the body's feedback mechanism that something is wrong.
The above article I link to mentions "serotonin receptor genes." They can give a gene whatever arbitrary name or label they wish. However the very idea that there is a point to point relationship between genes and one specific function has been dis-proven. Since researchers know the body is far more complex, I wish they would use language that better reflected the way they body worked, instead of deceptive names.
As I'm working to revise most of my web site's material on mental illness, one of my colleague's calls me up to tell me about serotonin testing. Apparently there are tests coming to test sensitivity of serotonin receptor sensitivity.
Doing some quick research, seems people want to run genetic tests to predict how well patients will response to psychiatric drugs. Well, if this helps to prevent some of the worse reactions to psych drugs it's not all bad, HOWEVER...
This has little to do with what "depression" and "mental illness" is. It is also guiding people in a direction that is leading them further away from the real problems.
Depression is not a disease. It is a feeling. Feelings are not pathologies. Feelings are not supposed to be treated. The whole train of thought makes no sense.
Feeling depressed all the time is a problem. Feeling suicidal is a problem. But the thing to treat is the patient, not the feeling itself.
What can cause depression? Well, what causes disease in general?
- Nutritional deficiency
- Toxicity
- Structural issues (ie. car accident, joint sublexation, etc...)
- Emotional trauma/stress
Do people have genetically faulty serotonin receptors?
Perhaps there are some people who do. There are some uncommon genetic diseases. However, most illnesses with a genetic component will only be expressed in the right environment. So the real question is not if people have faulty serotonin receptors. It's better to ask if some people are more genetically predisposed to feeling depressed, given a set of environmental stresses.
That may be so. But I wouldn't call that having a defective brain that needs to be treated with psych drugs. We all have genetic predispositions. Also, often these supposed weak genes that make us susceptible to certain disease serve important other functions as well (the most well known examples is perhaps sickle cell anemia as protection against malaria).
What should be treated is the cause of illness. Nutrition, toxicity, emotional trauma and physical structure. I doubt that many people would feel depressed if those needs could be taken care of. Personally, I wish as a ND I could do more, I can work with nutrition, detoxification and help the body deal with emotional stress, but I can not remove my clients from bad jobs, bad relationships, bad parents, etc... I wish I could, as sometimes it's clear that is most what they need, not some supplement or drug.
We are not born with defective brains, defective genes, or defective serotonin receptors. If we simply give our body's what they need, we will feel fine. Depression is the body's feedback mechanism that something is wrong.
The above article I link to mentions "serotonin receptor genes." They can give a gene whatever arbitrary name or label they wish. However the very idea that there is a point to point relationship between genes and one specific function has been dis-proven. Since researchers know the body is far more complex, I wish they would use language that better reflected the way they body worked, instead of deceptive names.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
linoleic acid and psychiatric medications
Was doing some research after noticing someone having a very remarkable reaction to conjugated linoleic acid (which is often used as a weight loss supplement).
In terms of people on psychiatric medications, this study says:
"Regarding LA levels, antipsychotic-treated patients showed significantly reduced levels compared with controls, whereas antipsychotic-naïve patients showed no such reductions"
While the role of fish oil and particularly DHA is often cited for "mental illness" perhaps this is indicated CLA should be a consideration for those on anti-psychotic medication?
Of course everyone is different, and one must treat the person, and not the disease, but looks like CLA may be a consideration when working with people who are coming in on anti-psychotic medication.
In terms of people on psychiatric medications, this study says:
"Regarding LA levels, antipsychotic-treated patients showed significantly reduced levels compared with controls, whereas antipsychotic-naïve patients showed no such reductions"
While the role of fish oil and particularly DHA is often cited for "mental illness" perhaps this is indicated CLA should be a consideration for those on anti-psychotic medication?
Of course everyone is different, and one must treat the person, and not the disease, but looks like CLA may be a consideration when working with people who are coming in on anti-psychotic medication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)