“if you are writing a science story and your subject has beliefs and practices that are clearly unscientific [i.e. naturo.'s vitalism, & supernaturalism!], or worse, pseudoscientific [claiming such as science!], are you bound ethically as a journalist to discuss that? [me thinks so]”

Molly, and to those interested, there is a “code of ethics” for high-quality journalism, including science and medical subjects

(see http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp ).

I’m not sure where scienceline.org as a publication outlet sits in terms of obligations to such SPJ stringencies.

Even most major newspaper outlets use generalist reporters to report on specialty subject areas they often have little knowledge about — due to budget cuts.

And, as a reminder of naturopathic absurdity:

a) naturopathy claims that its mandatory homeopathy is a “clinical science” (see http://www.nabne.org/images/clbull.pdf ) while,

b) Erst and Singh recently stated in “Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine” (2008; ISBN 0393066614)”:

“with respect to homeopathy, the evidence points towards a bogus industry that offers patients nothing more than a fantasy [p.219].”

That’s quite a contrast.

In my view, the idea of “natural medicine” is a fantasy, e.g.:

“there is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking [JAMA 1998, 280: 1618-1619].”

That observation parallels my experience, and I went to the same school for four years that this profiled ND did, UB — but, I left because I found it ethically repugnant to give patients empty remedies while telling patients that those homeopathy pills were medicinal [placebo-kind effects, like almost all 'essentially naturopathic' CAM therapies], and where I was taught that physiology is run by a ‘purposeful life spirit’ or “god power within” / “life force” and to label naturopathy “health science” and a naturopath “the modern science-based primary care provider.”

I consider naturopathy an ‘unethical sectarian pseudoscience’, when looked at closely.

Caveat emptor.

-r.c.

I’ve been doing a lot of research on this topic on my own recently so I felt like I had to speak up.

This is a very interesting profile, but to write a story like this and not discuss some of these facts strikes me as somewhat irresponsible medical journalism.

1) That most “natural” medical practices have been shown to be completely ineffective compared to placebo.

2) That homeopathy ascribes to a mystical theory of mechanism: that the molecules in water can “remember” a substance dissolved in them after being smacked on a piece of leather a few times. And that the water remembers substances to such a degree that even after being diluted till there would be only one molecule of the substance in a volume of water the size of the universe (or none of it in your sugar pill), the water still has a “memory”.

3) That some people die tragically after seeking natural treatments to an illness that could have been cured by western medicine.

Clearly this is a profile, and the author is correct to focus on the character of the person profiled. But Scienceline is also a science magazine. And I can’t believe that at least item number two in my list, a facet of natural medicine so blatantly pseudo-scientific and down right wrong according to the most basic understanding of physics and chemistry, wasn’t addressed.

-Or, in light of item number 3 on my list, that the author didn’t go into more detail about Hanson’s policies about what he will and won’t treat. Does an arrhythmia merit referral to a hospital or M.D.? Does cancer? What about mental illness? These are the detailed questions I as a Scienceline reader would have wanted to see answered in this piece.

The really interesting thing about natural medicine, is that it truly does seem to make people feel better, even though it can’t prove itself against placebo. A lot of this might be the effect of the more personal attention to the patient, and admonishments to change diet and lifestlye. If so, such details should have a relevance for all medical practitioners. I am not saying that people shouldn’t be able to seek treatment that they experience as beneficial. I actually strongly believe they should.

But in a story, even a profile, in a magazine that has the word “science” in the title. Or really in ANY magazine as far as fairness and balance are concerned, I think you owe it to your readers to at least touch on some of these issues.

I am interested to hear your opinion in response, and that of other readers. If you are writing a science story and your subject has beliefs and practices that are clearly unscientific, or worse- pseudo-scientific, are you bound ethically as a journalist to discuss that?

Shouldn’t someone who believes in homeopathy be treated in science reporting the same as a global warming denier, or am I totally overreacting here?

let me think for a moment:

naturopaths do not distinguish between the scientific, the supernatural, the science-ejected, and the antiscientific…

and in fact they label all that “health science.”

Me thinks this is “junk thought”, while this “science” web page’s “profile’s in science” article lauds naturopathy.

To quote from Susan Jacoby’s “The Age of American Unreason” (ISBN 0375423745; 2008):

“all real scientific research must be and is subjected to rigorous scrutiny by peers. That is what separates science from pseudoscience and junk thought. Without a basic understanding of what constitutes good science neither ordinary citizens nor the politicians who represent them can hope to make thoughtful judgments separating quacks, con men, and practitioners of bad science from thoughtful experts whose advice ought to be taken seriously. Intellectual quackery extends throughout the landscape of academia [p.250].”

-r.c.

I truly feel our Medicare, Medicaid and insurance companies need to support these holistic modalities without a need to be underwritten by MD’s, mostly trained in a different way.

For more on this and other pertinent subjects: http://www.HealingNews.com