Finding a Naturopathic Physician - Lorreta

June 11, 2007

Hi Lorreta,

I appreciate your passion and your love of " natural " medicine.

Beyond that we can agree to disagree, however I'd like to try and clarify

some of your claims.

Obviously there are good and bad in every kind profession. Graduating

from one of the 6 Naturopathic medical schools in the US and Canada does

not ensure that you can do no wrong. What does " graduating "

from a diploma mill or some " naturopathic " correspondence

school ensure? Certainly one thing, it ensues that the person holding

this title has not been trained as a doctor.

As I've said, there are lay practitioners of all persuasions that

practice in the healing arts. I've never suggested they are bad or good.

I appreciate people like Tony and his passion. I very much appreciate

that he's made Dr. Ozel's recipe available. Something that I dreamed

about for years. I was much the same before medical school, and certainly

not as accomplished. I also appreciate that he doesn't try to pass

himself off as a doctor. He could easily purchase a degree as well. But

why doesn't he? I'll let Tony answer that one, if he chooses. My only

issue is over the misappropriation of the term doctor and the title of

Naturopathic doctor.

Regardless of your selective dictionary interpretations, the word doctor

has a meaning and implication. Here is one dictionary definition: " a

person who has earned one of the highest academic degrees (as a PhD)

conferred by a university. " This is certainly what most people

understand the word doctor to mean.

More so, when discussing a doctor of medicine, a doctor of healing if you

will, I believe the following dictionary definition is what is commonly

understood by almost everyone: " a person skilled or specializing in

healing arts; especially : one (as a physician, dentist, or

veterinarian) who holds an advanced degree and is licensed to

practice. "

Do you think a graduate from Clayton or some diploma mill has earned

" one of the highest academic degrees " or even " hold an

advanced degree " ? If not, why do you call yourself a

doctor?

You asked me, " Why are you so protective of this " title " ?

I'll tell you why. The title means something. I have done the work to

earn the title. I think that's obvious. But what I can't understand is

why are you so protective of a title you have clearly not earned.

You state, " So many docs that have all these letters behind their

names (letters that they PAY to get and do not require even one more hour

of education!) and they are no more teachers than anything. " The

only people I'm aware of that pay to get letters behind their names

without requiring a proper education are the diploma mill

" naturopaths " .

It seems that your familiarity with the history of my profession -

Naturopathic medicine - is somewhat lacking. I hope this helps put things

in perspective for you.

First of all Bastyr is not the only Naturopathic medical school - there

are 4 in the US. It is also not the first Naturopathic medical school in

the last 30 years. Naturopathic medicine has a distinct and clear history

in this country. Benedict Lust originated the term and created the

profession at the turn of the last century. Lust tirelessly lobbied for

licensure laws. These laws required a 4-year residential medical

education. There were as many as 20 Naturopathic medical schools in the

early 1900's. You can read the original laws in the library at the

National College of Naturopathic Medicine (NCNM) which was founded in the

1950's before Bastyr University which began in 1978.

More senior doctors than I, some of whom were my teachers, were all

taught by Naturopathic doctors - like Dr. Bastyr - who graduated from

these original 4-year medical schools at the turn of the last century.

Even in the 1970's there was no such thing as naturopathic correspondence

schools or terms like " traditional naturopath " . If you want to

read about the history of Natuopathic medicine " Nature Doctors "

is one of the best resources.

With all due respect to you, regardless of the name on your

correspondence school diploma, you are not part of this history. You've

had no teachers that were taught by the original Naturopathic doctors in

this country. You are certainly not a doctor with respect to the way the

word is understood by everyone. You are certainly not a Naturopathic

doctor with regard to the history of this profession. I don't say this as

an insult, but rather because it's true.

Again this doesn't mean you are not knowledgeable, that you are incapable

of helping sick people, that you don't have some form of education.

You're just not a Naturopathic doctor. The state of Texas does not

condone your profession. It is illegal for you to diagnose any medical

condition, to preform physical examinations or to treat any medical

condition. As long as you don't do that Texas is fine with you. That

doesn't sound like a doctor to me.

You've also suggested that Naturopathic doctors are somehow allopathic

because of our education. Clearly you don't know anything about our

education. With regard to training in natural therapies, you're entire

education at Clayton requires less hours of study than we receive in just

one modality, like homeopathy.

We are physicians. This means we are trained in detail to diagnose with

modern laboratory and imaging techniques and to perform physical

examinations. That we are thoroughly educated in the basic sciences, like

anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and pathology. This has nothing to do

with using drugs to treat disease. This education doesn't make one

allopathic. Undoubtedly, my education has significantly helped me to

better help my patients. You state this is nothing but worthless

regurgitation of information. Even worse, you imply that this make me

less of a Naturopath. This sort of anti-intellectual, complete rejection

of science and education is difficult to comprehend. I let your point of

view speak for itself.

I was much like yourself before medical school. I knew a lot about

nutrition and alternative medicine. I read lot's of lay health books -

much like the curriculum at the Clayton. I've seen it both ways and I can

assure there's a huge difference.

While I have received extensive training in pharmacology, it doesn't mean

that's how I treat my patients. Since many patients are already taking

medications, don't you think it would be helpful to have some background

in this area? Isn't it appropriate that I have a good understanding of

how to discontinue a medication safely? Should I have to be beholden to

an MD's to help me treat my patients? If a patient comes to me for an

upper respiratory infection which does not respond to natural therapies,

should I have to tell them to go to their MD and get treated with

antibiotics? Isn't better that I have the skill to determine when natural

therapies are not working and prescribe medications when they are needed?

Isn't it better, since I am knowledgeable about the natural substances

that can significantly enhance the effectiveness of antibiotics and

protect them from the side effects of these medications?

I'm not so arrogant as to completely reject allopathic medicine. Should I

have let my HIV patients drop dead because of some zealot beliefs? They

died like flies before the new medications. Natural treatments alone

didn't cut it. Anyone working working with alternative therapies for AIDS

will tell you the same. That doesn't mean alt therapies don't have great

benefits for HIV/AIDS and in combination with medications. I use the

safest most effective treatments and sometimes this is a medication. For

me this is about helping patients that are sick, not a religious

conviction. You're welcome to your point of view, but the complete

rejection of education, science and all conventional medicine dose not

make one a Naturopathic Doctor. It does make some people like Hulda Clark

- one of your colleagues - a criminal in my oppinion. You can read my

previous post on my experience with HIV.

You are what you are, I wish you would come up with an appropriate name

for it. I think I've made a very clear argument as to why the words

" doctor " and " Naturopath " have nothing to do with the

kind of training you've had.

What exactly is the reason you refer to yourself as a Naturopathic

doctor? I have to assume your intention is to mislead the public.

Granted, I understand that you were unaware of our history and therefore

you didn't know any better. But still, to use the word doctor, I see no

excuse for that. Your community of lay healers and diploma mill frauds

are taking the term Naturopathic doctor and bastardizing it. You're

lowering the standards and dignity of the profession. Even the word

doctor no longer suggests someone that has earned the highest academic

degree. Now any old certificate can make someone a doctor. Do what ever

it is you think is right to do to heal people, but why do you insist on

calling yourself a naturopathic doctor?

Legitimate Naturopathic doctors have made monumental achievements in

elevating the perception and awareness of natural therapies. While our

standards of education don't automatically make us great healers, it's to

our credit, not our detriment as you suggest. Our standards provide the

public with some assurance. We can speak to the mainstream medical

community on the same level. They are more likely to listen to what we

have to say and respect the therapies we use because of that. We are

involved in the research that provides evidence for the benefit and

success of natural therapies. We are working effectively to increase

public awareness, respect and scientific support for natural

therapies.

People like yourself don't fight us because we are allopaths - we are

not. That's a conveinent excuse and a lie. You fight us because you're

making money with a title that means something. You want to use our

reputation to your own advantage and you don't deserve the reputation or

the title. This is fraud. At the same time you dirty the good names we've

built with your lack of training and standards. I never said fake ND's

are rich. It's you professional organizations that have far more money

than ours. If it wasn't for Steve Bing's support in California's

licensing efforts were certainly would have lost to the fake ND's, NOT

the MD's. There are only 2,000 or so legitimate Naturopathic doctors in

the US. There are tens of thousands mail order

" naturopaths " .

You're also wrong about Burzynski. You see his treatment doesn't work

MOST of the time. I know this from experience with patients. He has

always recommended conventional therapies when indicated. He not a

religious fanatic. He's a doctor and knows what to do when his treatment

isn't enough. I've explained in detail how much better things are today

for alternative therapies. It sounds like you would prefer we went back

to the 70's rather than see the positive changes and progress we've made.

With your attacks on legitimate Naturopathic doctors you're certainly

doing your best to bring us back to those times. Though, I know this is

out of ignorance rather than intention.

I've said more than enough, but since you're not familiar with Benedict

Lust I'll give him the last word. I sincerely wish you the best.

Michael Uzick, ND

In a word, Naturopathy stands for the reconciling,

harmonizing and unifying of nature, humanity and God. Fundamentally

therapeutic because men need healing; elementally educational because men

need teaching; ultimately inspirational because men need empowering, it

encompasses the realm of human progress and destiny.

- Benedict Lust -

It was Lust who tirelessly lobbied for the first

licensure laws. At this time there was no " traditional

naturopath " vs. " naturopathic physician " . These licensure

laws (you can read the original laws in the NCNM library) called for

4-year residential medical education. There were as many as 20 4-years

schools. You can read about many of them in the NCNM library. Lust

established at least one. Lindlahr established one. My older teachers all

graduated from one of these 4-years schools. When I started NCNM, in

1975, there were no correspondence schools, and there was no one who

claimed that there were " traditional naturopaths " trained in

some fashion other than 4-year schools. At the beginning of the 1900's,

when Lust was first beginning to create a national profession, he

provided a kind of correspondence education for MD's who wanted to become

naturopathic practitioners. This process rapidly ceased as licensure laws

came into effect.

What does doctor really mean? It

should mean “teacher”. In fact at dictionary.net the first definition is:

1. A teacher; one skilled in a profession, or branch of knowledge

learned

man.

Why are you so protective of this “title”? It has been the last couple of

generations that have made doctors equal to God. So many docs that

have all these letters behind their names (letters that they PAY to get

and do not require even one more hour of education!) and they are no more

teachers than anything. They want you to believe everything they

say, not ask too many questions and be impressed with all they

know. They say things like “well, according to scientific evidence”

or “I don’t see any clinical trials to indicate any effectiveness.”

This allopathic “science” is one of many reasons as to why we have

so many sick people today. There is a huge fraud rate with clinical

trials. And just because a doc (natural or allopathic) hasn’t

actually seen something work, doesn’t mean that it will or it will

not. Everyone is

different.

At 01:47 PM 6/10/2007, you wrote:

I would like to give some other thoughts to

Dr. U’s comments. There are almost always two sides to every story and I

hope to be effective in giving out the other side. If I come across

as being very passionateI am. I am a seven year stage III colon

cancer survivor using natural medicine (other than surgery to get the

tumor out and 1 month of “preventative chemo”whatever that meansthey

wanted me to do 6 months but I knew I wouldn’t make it if I followed

their recommendations.). Just as many of you are, I am passionate

about true natural medicine because I saw, first hand, what the

allopathic community had to offer when it comes to degenerative disease

and truthfully, their track-record stinks. The path God has me on

has been nothing short of amazing. I am now a non-licensed

naturopath (Texas does not require licensing) whose desire is to help

people to get healthy and stay healthy using natural means. I did

my internship under one of the best alternative-medicine (self-taught and

not afraid to think-out-of-the-box) oncologists in America…he is also a

chiropractor and un-licensed ND. Believe me when I say a lot of

eyebrows were raised when friends/family found out who my “treating

doctor” was. <smile> Had I stayed the path of conventional

medicine with my oncologist who had ties to MD Anderson, I would probably

not be here today. I have been taught “how” to research and “how”

to recognize modalities that can work---even when others may say “no

way”. What we must realize is that everyone is different and there

are no magic bullets in natural medicine OR conventional medicine.

However, the body has great healing capabilities when supported correctly

and that is what I want to teach people. I want people to know that

they can get well and be healthy without the use of drugs, surgery and

radiation. We are fortunate to have blood and lab testing; however,

no one should allow a piece of paper to be the end-all in their

life. Labs are not consistent and are often wrong. The body

does not get sick from a lack of synthetic chemicals. Yes, our

trauma care medicine is the best in the world and I am thankful for it.

Once in a blue moon there is a need for pharmaceuticalsbut this is

usually very short-lived. So, again, yes I am passionate because I

know what it is like to be sick and to come fact-to-face with death at

the age of 45. Not many health care professionals really know what it is

like to be very sick. But even better, I KNOW what it is like to

regain your health. We must teach truthful preventative natural

medicine and we must educate. Education empowers people and fear

controls people. I, like Dr. Lorraine Day, can say that cancer

doesn’t scare me any more. There have always been cures for every

degenerative disease, but our allopathic community would have us believe

otherwise---no cures, just managing care. Why would naturopaths

even “want” to be associated with this type of philosophy? I want

to help take the “fear” out of words like cancer and to help people

realize that there is ALWAYS hope and ALWAYS an answer. Does

everyone get well who uses natural medicine? No. Just as most don’t get

well using conventional medicine. The difference? Natural medicine

does not harm the body; but builds it up. Conventional medicine

harms the body and only treats symptoms.

This is one reason I joined this

group, to learn more about Oleander and it viability as an alternative

treatment for disease. It is part of my research and part of what I

love to do.

Dr. UI do not say anything to

purposefully cause offense, but only to offer another side of the

story. You have been passionate and so will I. I realize that

you will not agree and that’s ok. I respect your right to your

opinions, but disagree completely, just as you will most likely disagree

with me. I am not saying in any shape or form that you are not authentic

or not effective at what you do and this is not an attack on you or your

philosophy. It is beneficial for the list to get another

perspective and then people can do their own research and come to their

own conclusion as to what is best for their situation.

Dr. U’s comments in black and mine

in purple.

I never suggested or implied that the organizations representing these

diploma mills have more lobbying influence than pharmaceutic companies. I

said that the fake ND's et al. have largely put forth the money and

effort to stop state licensing of formally trained Naturopathic

physicians.

It is a known fact that Bastyr has

tried very hard to become the ONLY college to seemingly graduate

“accepted” naturopaths---whatever that means. They have lobbied to

get everything on “their terms” so they can set the rules and they have

been un-tiring in this effort. This is nothing more than

conventional medicine tactics. Natural medicine needs to be left

alone and Bastyr has no idea what true/traditional naturopathy really

consists of Just how many unlicensed natural medicine docs have

hurt people to the extinct that allopathic and even some integrative docs

have?? How about drugs vs supplementation?

Conventional medicine wants us to

believe that when it comes to our own health, we are nothing but dumb

sheep incapable of helping ourselves. They want to be “god” in this

area of our lives, continually experimenting on us, hoping at some point

to actually get it right. Conventional oncology is a prime example

of this experimentation. Once they decide that your time is

limited, they offer clinical trials to you so that they can continue to

experiment on you. They know that when someone realizes they are

dying, the person will do absolutely anything.

By the way, it has been the “fake

ND’s” that through the years have truly helped people to get well.

Bastyr hasn’t been on the scene that long (28 years) and how convenient

to want to be the only school acceptable and have all the students come

their way. There have now been others that are “accredited” but

Bastyr still wants people to think they are turning out the best.

Make no mistake about it---this is very political.

It's a very specific issue that mostly the people involved in working on

state licensure or those working against it are aware of. The following

is an article on the recent licensing in California. I think the article

confirms many of my contentions - i.e. that the major opposition comes

from mail order ND's. While MD's not thrilled they don't mount much of an

effort against us.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/05/MN214713.DTL

Below is what the article you site

says. I guess because some of the naturopaths are not licensed you

are calling them quacks? Just because someone can pass a test and

get a license does NOT mean they will be good at what they do.

There are a lot of lousy MD’s that are licensed and are not good docs or

even good professionals.

Although it appears

headed for fast approval and the governor's signature, the bill's primary

opposition comes from within the naturopathic community itself, because

most practitioners don't meet the proposed license requirements, which

include graduating from one of a handful of accredited four-year

naturopathic colleges. It's not known how many naturopathic practitioners

are working in California, but one trade group says they number in the

thousands.

Opponents of the

bill say it is on the fast track because of generous donations to

Democratic causes by Stephen Bing, a wealthy Hollywood figure and

supporter of alternative medical approaches. He has given $1 million to

Bastyr University in Seattle, one of just five schools worldwide whose

graduates would be eligible for licensure under the proposed bill.

Although many CMA

members quibble with naturopathic practice, Docherty said the group had

sent several members to visit Bastyr University, and they came back

impressed with its program.

Of course the California Medical

Association would be impressed with an institution that is basically like

allopathic medicine. Not much difference, so they approve.

That is not an endorsement that natural medicine should be proud of.

Possibly a better article to read is

found at:

http://naturalhealthline.com/newsletter/15oct03/licensing.htm

(Be sure to read the whole article)

You said that all of the opposing

ND’s were rich. Looks like Bastyr was out soliciting for some

pretty high bucks alsoeven in Hollywoodand were very successful.

I had to grin about your comment about the rich ND’s as this is just so

not true for most. Possibly they may “seem” to be rich because they use

their money wisely. You also commented about Dr. Andrew Weil. While

he may have helped blaze some trails for natural medicine through the

media, he is very far from being “natural”. Talking about herbs and

a seemingly healthy diet, does not make you knowledgeable in natural

medicine. He is very allopathically minded. What I do commend

him for is that he realizes the importance of mind, body and soul.

Not sure if you were

around during the 70s. More importantly if you were involved in the

alternative health movement at the time. I was kid, but because of my

parent's influence, quite aware of alternative medicine and the attacks

against

it.

Things are dramatically

different today. They were sending doctors to jail and suspending

licences for using vitamins! Today there are dozens of integrative

medicine departments in hospitals around the country. There are 14 states

that recognize and license formally trained Naturopathic as primary care

physicians. The climate is drastically different today.

Integrative does not equal “true”

natural medicine. If the state is willing to license a “trained”

Naturopath then it most likely means they look at them as being trained

allopathically and absolutely no threat to allopathic medicine.

Don’t think for one minute that the state or federal government is going

to say yes to true natural healthcare. It goes against the powerful

lobby of Big Pharma, Big Med and Big Insurance which are just not going

to allow it to happen without a HUGE fight.

Are things perfect? Of course not. Are there still Quack busters and

opponents of alternative medicine, sure. But it's been a long time now

since Jonathan Wright, MD had his clinic surrounded by machine gun

toting, flack jacketed, ATF officers pointing guns in patient's faces.

That kind of stuff isn't happening anymore.

There are just as many “quacks” in

allopathic medicine, if not more, except they get to hide behind the AMA

and their degree certificate. But just let one of them try to

perform modalities that are considered advanced natural medicine or “out

of the box” (treatments that would never harm the patient) and the AMA

will be down on them in a New York minute. Most MD’s will not even

research about health modalities that might would save their patients

lives or even get them well. They get all their continuing

education from the drug reps and assume that anything else is

quackery. Now we have naturopaths that are following in their

footsteps.

Dr. U this “kind of stuff” IS

still happening today. You are way out of touch with the happenings

in natural medicine if you think otherwise. It’s just happening

with the smaller guys now---the ones they can come in and put out of

business, trash all their files and computers and ruin their

reputation. The ones that don’t have the money to fight the FDA

lawyers. The FDA is coming down on good supplement companies (I’m not

talking about those that have pharmaceutical ties.) left and right and it

all has to do with the impending threat of CODEX. They allow Big

Pharma to advertise their wares on TV but yet shut companies down that

even suggest that a vitamin might help with certain disease. They

are doing this so that the pharmaceutical companies can eventually

control all vitamins and supplements. We all need to wake up and

realize that it is a real possibility that one day, soon, we may have to

have a prescription to get Vitamin C and then it will not even be near

therapeutic dosages. And don’t think you will get enough from your

food, because if they continue, our food will be so adulterated that

there will be absolutely no nutritional content at allit’s almost there

now. Conventional medicine is just too big of a business to support

true natural healing. The way they get around iteasyjust call

them “quacks without proper education.” Which is kind-of what you

have done, Dr. U.

The government tried to imprison Drs. Burzynski and Gonzales for their

alternative treatment against cancer. Not only are they permitted to

practice freely today. The Government is funding studies of their

treatments! Things are way different today.

Do you know the particulars of “why”

Dr. Burzynski is now being allowed to practice? Do you understand

that the only way they allowed these trials was that he had to agree to

use Chemo and radiation? They have been no friend to Burzynski but

he is trying to play their game in order for his protocol to be given a

chance. Cancer patients, looking for natural help, that have been

to his clinic says that it is allopathic to the hilt. By the way, the

initial visit with him for 30-45 minutes is around $850. That’s

what it was in 2001 so it’s probably more now. He is playing a game

that will most likely end up biting him. The FDA will not allow

children who have brain cancer to use his protocol UNTIL they have

perused ALL conventional means. In other words, the children must

be chemo’d and radiated to an inch of their life and THEN they may try

Burzynski’s treatment. So you REALLY think he is permitted to

practice freely? He is totally being set up for failure so it can

be said “see, Burzynski’s treatment doesn’t work after all.”

There's no rub. Lay " healers " are just that. If different kinds

of " healers " or " health counselors " want state

licensing or government or private accreditation of some kind, I wish

them all the best. Trying to pawn themselves off as doctors is an issue

of fraud.

What does doctor really mean?

It should mean “teacher”. In fact at dictionary.net the first definition

is: 1. A teacher; one skilled in a profession, or branch of knowledge