Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sculptasquad t1_jdz744z wrote

"Naturopathy as a whole lacks an adequate scientific basis,[5] and it is rejected by the medical community.[5] Although it includes valid lifestyle advice from mainstream medicine (healthy sleep, balanced diet, regular exercise),[15] it typically adds a range of pseudoscientific beliefs.[22] Some methods rely on immaterial "vital energy fields", the existence of which has not been proven, and there is concern that naturopathy as a field tends towards isolation from general scientific discourse.[22][58][59] Naturopathy is criticized for its reliance on and its association with unproven, disproven, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings.[15][16] Natural substances known as nutraceuticals show little promise in treating diseases, especially cancer, as laboratory experiments have shown limited therapeutic effect on biochemical pathways, while clinical trials demonstrate poor bioavailability.[60] According to the American Cancer Society, "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease".[16] According to Britt Hermes, naturopath student programs are problematic because "As a naturopath [student], you are making justifications to make the rules and to fudge the standards of how to interpret research all along the way. Because if you don't, you're not left with anything, basically".