Editing Naturopathy (section)

=== Evidence basis ===
{{See also|Evidence-based medicine}}
[[File:Soapsuds Enemas.jpg|right|thumb|upright|Equipment for administering large [[enema]]s: a bag and a bucket, each holding a gallon. Enemas and [[Colon cleansing|colonic irrigation]] are commonly used by naturopaths for a wide range of medical conditions,<ref name="Caulfield2011" /> for which there are no known health benefits.<ref name="Ernst1997">{{cite journal |last1=Ernst |first1=E. |title=Colonic Irrigation and the Theory of Autointoxication: A Triumph of Ignorance over Science |journal=Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology |date=June 1997 |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=196–198 |doi=10.1097/00004836-199706000-00002 |pmid=9252839 |doi-access=free }}</ref>]]
[[File:Rectal bulb syringe.jpg|right|thumb|upright|A rectal bulb syringe for injecting a small enema]]
[[File:Ozone IV Therapy AMA Skincare.jpg|alt=Patient undergoing Ozone IV Therapy|thumb|upright|Person undergoing ozone IV therapy with ultraviolet irradiation. According to the [[FDA]], "Ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy."<ref name="FDAozone">{{cite web|title=Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Sec. 801.415 Maximum acceptable level of ozone|url=http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRsearch.cfm?fr=801.415|website=U.S. Food and Drug Administration|access-date=18 May 2016|date=1 April 2015|archive-date=March 4, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304035650/http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=801.415|url-status=live}}</ref>]]

Naturopathy as a whole lacks an adequate scientific basis,<ref name="Jagtenberg2006">{{cite journal | vauthors = Jagtenberg T, Evans S, Grant A, Howden I, Lewis M, Singer J | title = Evidence-based medicine and naturopathy | journal = Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine | volume = 12 | issue = 3 | pages = 323–328 | date = April 2006 | pmid = 16646733 | doi = 10.1089/acm.2006.12.323}}</ref> and it is rejected by the medical community.<ref name="Jagtenberg2006" /> Although it includes valid lifestyle advice from mainstream medicine (healthy sleep, balanced diet, regular exercise),<ref name="tot" /> it typically adds a range of pseudoscientific beliefs.<ref name="NCAHF_np" /> 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.<ref name="NCAHF_np" /><ref name="Herbert1994">{{cite book | vauthors = Herbert V, Barrett S |title= The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry is Selling America a Bill of Goods |publisher= Prometheus Books |location= Buffalo, NY |year= 1994 |isbn= 978-0-87975-909-4 |url= https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780879759094 }}</ref><ref name="isbn0-87975-761-2">{{cite book | vauthors = Barrett S, Raso J |title=Mystical Diets: Paranormal, Spiritual, and Occult Nutrition Practices |publisher=Prometheus Books |location=Buffalo, New York |year=1993 |isbn=978-0-87975-761-8 |url=https://archive.org/details/mysticaldietspar0000raso }}</ref> Naturopathy is criticized for its reliance on and its association with unproven, disproven, and other controversial alternative medical treatments, and for its vitalistic underpinnings.<ref name="tot" /><ref name="ACS-2009" /> Natural substances known as [[nutraceutical]]s show little promise in treating diseases, especially cancer, as laboratory experiments have shown limited therapeutic effect on [[biochemical pathway]]s, while clinical trials demonstrate poor [[bioavailability]].<ref name="neut">{{cite journal | vauthors = Ahmad A, Ginnebaugh KR, Li Y, Padhye SB, Sarkar FH | title = Molecular targets of naturopathy in cancer research: bridge to modern medicine | journal = Nutrients | volume = 7 | issue = 1 | pages = 321–334 | date = January 2015 | pmid = 25569626 | pmc = 4303842 | doi = 10.3390/nu7010321 | type = Review | doi-access = free }}</ref> According to the [[American Cancer Society]], "scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure [[cancer]] or any other disease".<ref name="ACS-2009" /> 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".<ref name="ESP50">{{cite web |title=Episode #050, feat. Britt Hermes |url=http://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/episode_050_britt_hermes.html |website=The European Skeptics Podcast |date=November 29, 2016 |access-date=15 September 2018 |archive-date=September 9, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180909000353/http://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/episode_050_britt_hermes.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2015, the [[Department of Health (Australia)|Australian Government's Department of Health]] published the results of a review of alternative therapies that sought to determine if any were suitable for being covered by [[health insurance]]; Naturopathy was one of 17 therapies evaluated for which no clear evidence of effectiveness was found.<ref name="aus17">{{cite web |url=http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/0E9129B3574FCA53CA257BF0001ACD11/$File/Natural%20Therapies%20Overview%20Report%20Final%20with%20copyright%2011%20March.pdf |publisher=Australian Government – Department of Health |author=Baggoley C |title=Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance |year=2015 |access-date=December 12, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160626024750/http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/0E9129B3574FCA53CA257BF0001ACD11/$File/Natural%20Therapies%20Overview%20Report%20Final%20with%20copyright%2011%20March.pdf |archive-date=June 26, 2016}}
*{{lay source |template=cite web |author=Gavura, S. |date=19 November 2015 |title=Australian review finds no benefit to 17 natural therapies |url=https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/australian-review-finds-no-benefit-to-17-natural-therapies |website=Science-Based Medicine}}</ref>

[[Kimball C. Atwood IV]] writes, in the journal ''Medscape General Medicine'',<ref name="atwood2003" />{{blockquote|Naturopathic physicians now claim to be primary care physicians proficient in the practice of both "conventional" and "natural" medicine. Their training, however, amounts to a small fraction of that of medical doctors who practice primary care. An examination of their literature, moreover, reveals that it is replete with pseudoscientific, ineffective, unethical, and potentially dangerous practices.|author=|title=|source=}} In another article, Atwood writes that "Physicians who consider naturopaths to be their colleagues thus find themselves in opposition to one of the fundamental ethical precepts of modern medicine. If naturopaths are not to be judged "nonscientific practitioners", the term has no useful meaning".<ref name="atwood2004" />

A former licensed naturopathic doctor, Britt Marie Hermes, states that "any product that is sold by a naturopath almost guarantees that there is no reliable scientific data to support whatever health claims are made,<ref name="Haglage">{{cite news|vauthors=Haglage A, Mak T|title=Trump Vitamins Were Fortified With B.S.|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/25/inside-donald-trump-s-vitamin-scam.html|access-date=24 June 2016|work=The Daily Beast|date=25 May 2016|archive-date=January 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210114003653/https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-vitamins-were-fortified-with-bs|url-status=live}}</ref> and that while some naturopaths claim to only practice evidence based medicine, "the problem is, all naturopaths in an accredited naturopathic program are required to extensively study homeopathy, herbal medicine, energy healing, chiropractic techniques, water therapy" and other pseudoscientific practices.<ref name="ESP50" /> Hermes further notes that, while some naturopaths claim that their method can be effective treatments for psychological disorders, "no naturopathic treatment has been clinically proven to be safe and effective for bipolar disorder or any other condition."<ref name="DubiousclaimsHermesSI">{{cite journal | vauthors = Hermes B |title=Dubious claims in psychotherapy for youth |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |date=April 2020 |volume=44 |issue=2 |page=50 |url=https://skepticalinquirer.org/2020/01/dubious-claims-in-psychotherapy-for-youth/ }}</ref>

According to [[Arnold S. Relman]], the ''Textbook of Natural Medicine'' is inadequate as a teaching tool, as it omits to mention or treat in detail many common ailments, improperly emphasizes treatments "not likely to be effective" over those that are, and promotes unproven herbal remedies at the expense of pharmaceuticals. He concludes that "the risks to many sick patients seeking care from the average naturopathic practitioner would far outweigh any possible benefits".<ref name="Relman_text">{{cite web |url= http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/relman1.html |title= Textbook of Natural Medicine |access-date= 2009-04-17 |vauthors= Relman AS |author-link= Arnold S. Relman |orig-date= January 9, 2001 |date= April 10, 2002 |publisher= QuackWatch |archive-date= May 11, 2011 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110511175643/http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/relman1.html |url-status= live }}</ref>

The Massachusetts Medical Society states, "Naturopathic practices are unchanged by research and remain a large assortment of erroneous and potentially dangerous claims mixed with a sprinkling of non-controversial dietary and lifestyle advice."<ref name="MMStestimony2015" />