Naturopathy - quackery?

I have just been to a naturopath regarding my problems with edema. Over the last few years I have asked regular MDs about it and their suggestions were; lose weight, exercise, put your feet up etc, so I decided to try a naturopath.
I now feel that it is a mixture of quackery - how the hell can holding a bottle of medicine make my arm weaker or pressing briefly on a tiny area of my arm? and sound knowledge - looking at the iris to understand the body seems okay to me.
But basically, from what I can tell, the naturopath diagnosed me by what I had to say more than anything else!
I will take the prescribed medicine and see what happens.
Anybody have successful experiences with a naturopath?
And what’s with this eating right for your blood-type - I googled but got mostly ads for the original book on the subject and gave up.

Did you do any of the things your doctor suggested?

Yes - they made no difference, that’s why I decided to try a naturopath.
Although keeping your feet up when you teach is rather tricky.

Quack Watch is a good place to start looking…

A search on “naturopathy” turns up:

http://www.ncahf.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?lines=1&ARCHID_2=2&lines=on&query=naturopathy

I’d listen to the real doctors.

And listen to a real nutritionist or dietician before believing you have to eat particular foods depending on your blood type.

I am afraid they are taking you for a ride.

As Azael says - have a look at Quackwatch.

Iridology. Another load of bunk. Check it out while you’re at Quackwatch.

I’m curious, what is the qu–naturopath’s “prescribed medication”?

The gold standard for whether attention should be paid to any therapy, be it allopathic, osteopathic, naturopathic, chiropractic, alternative, etc. is whether or not it meets the standards of evidence based medicine; ie is there concrete, repeatable, peer-reviewed evidence that the approach works? Not testimonials, or wisdom of the ages, but scientific evidence! If so, go with it.

Thus far, the tenets of naturopathy have completely failed to meet the standards of evidence based medicine. Most of chiropracty also fails this test.

quackery says the Skeptics Dictionary:

http://www.skepdic.com/natpathy.html

In response to Regina: the prescribed medicine is as follows:
Pill one:
sodium sulfate anhydrous
Silicon dioxide

Pill two (to stimulate the lymph glands):
Quercetin
Rutin
Ascorbic acid

Pill three:
sodium phosphate
potassium chloride

and there is one more but I don’t have it with me - it is supposed to stimulate the kidneys.

Also - I understand totally about the lack of scientific research etc, but is there anyone out there who has had success with naturopathy?

Now you’re just asking for anecdotal evidence. No doubt their are many people who improved after naturopathic treatment, but how many were treated and didn’t improve? You haven’t asked to hear from them.

I hope you didn’t pay much for this prescription. Sodium sulfate anhydrous is, well, here’s a cite. Among other things,

Silicon dioxide is, um, well, it’s, ah, it’s sand.

Manduck: you are right ofcourse, so who has gone to a naturopath and it didn’t make one bit of difference?
Truth Seeker: Could this ‘sand and filler’ not have benefit if in combination with the other pills? and doesn’t silicon have some benefit to hair and nail growth?

**
:confused:

I’d also point out that some of these naturopathic and herbal “remedies” can potentially cause big trouble. Sometimes these things actually do have active ingredients that are either toxic or that interact badly with some other medicine you’re taking. If you want a truly safe “treatment,” stick with homeopathy!

For example, while I’m certainly not giving you medical advice, I believe that drugs containing sodium are usually contraindicated for edema. Perhaps Qadgop or KarlGaus can address that.

**
I am not aware of any actual evidence for this but what if it does? That’s not what you’re being “treated” for, is it?

FWIW there’s a tiny number (4, IIRC) of schools of Naturopathic Medicine in the USA that are seeking to develop the practice in a more scientific direction, requiring actual study of physiology, nutrition and pharmacology before going on to the herbs and the various other alternative therapies, and trying to research these in a more scientific manner. I wish them well. OTOH there is an avalanche of “Naturopaths” trained in myriad “schools” that are really self-accredited apprenticeships/certificate programs or schools that may not have official recognition of titles in that subject (or be entirely unaccredited) and who very often use “cookbook” remedies lifted chinese-menu-style from multiple other conventional and nonconventional healing disciplines (chiropractic, ayurvedic, homeopathic, osteopathic, allopathic, off-the-top-of-the-Master’s-head-ic, etc.)

Last I heard, dependence on iridology as the definitive naturopathic diagnostic tool is falling out of favor even within the naturopathic community.

Showtime has a new show that airs on Fridays. The name of the show is “Bullshit,” starring the magic team of Penn & Teller. I do believe they will or have addressed this topic at length.

Frankly, that’s like requiring Alchemy students to study physics and chemistry first. With the appropriate scientific background, the discipline itself will vanish, or so transform itself that it no longer resembles the original discipline at all.

For Naturopathy and Homeopathy, this would be a good thing.

What is edema?