Hi Everyone. I was recently reading when I came across the following research newspaper summary.

I was fascinated by it. This was criticism, from a non Naturopathic source, which articulated a Naturopathic criticism of the allopathic system of disease that has existed for at least a century, and which was held by our forbears for centuries prior to the formation of Naturopathic Medicine.

To remind ourselves the principles of Naturopathic medicine are

1. The body is a self regulating whole.
2. Disease as an attempt of the vitality to restore balance within it’s whole self.
3. Successful treatment of disease involves the stimulation of the bodies own self regulatory ability.

Allopathic medicine holds to different principles:

1. The body is a complex machine
2. Disease is a malfunction of the machine
3. Successful treatment of disease is the return of the body to statistically normal function

These basics, while simple, lead to some profound differences in practice and all other aspects of Medicine, diagnosis perhaps most of all.

Allopathic medicine’s ideas about health and illness tend to also produce the concept of the diagnosis, the idea that there are entities, which we term diseases, that afflict people. Naturopathic medicine, in contrast recognizes common physiological processes which can become disordered in individuals, but places much less emphasis on entities. In allopathic medicine diagnosis leads to a treatment to treat diseases and return it’s functioning to normal. Naturopathic diagnoses tend to focus on physiological functions that have been disrupted, and, using homeopathy, the curative therapy. Naturopath’s diagnose a phosphorus pneumonia, a rumex cough, a calc carb diarrhea, and so forth.

The above article that I mentioned pointed out the futility of the allopathic system of diagnosis and treatment in the area of psychiatry. Diagnoses are overlapping and arbitrary, and bear no relationship to therapy. Diagnoses also conceal a number of common processes, such as developmental trauma, and I would also argue, developmental plateau and nutrient deficiency, common processes which contribute to many pathologies.

Allopathic therapies, based on drugs, electroshock therapy, and some psychotherapy, do not address these processes, by and large. Some noble and notable MDs have indeed spoken about about this, such as Gabor Mate, and Megan Rodway, have spoken on this, but the vast majority of practicing psychiatrists have not absorbed these insights. At the moment, only those rare MDs, and Naturopathic Doctors, are thier best option.

Hi Everyone. I have a new book releasing!

This is the 6th paperback volume of my Table of Animals Project, detailing the Hemichordates, Echinoderms ( starfish), Lampreys, Sharks, and Bony Fish. It is a lovely work, and I hope you all enjoy it.

You can purchase the physical book here, and the ebook here.

It was also most lovely to travel accross Canada this week to begin presenting some of my ideas. I was in Saskatoon to present on ideas of immunity and vitality, and in Montreal to present briefly on the relationship of the butterflies and plants and Michal Yakir’s teaching. This was particularly wonderful, and Michal inspired my own work with animals. We got along wonderfully, had a lovely trituration after the seminar, and then agreed to do some collaborative work. HEre is a phot of us holding each other’s books!

Anyway, I hope you Enjoy the books! Please do read them, and tell me what you think!

Take care of yourselves!

I hope you all had an excellent Naturopathic Medicine week in 2019!

As always, I will conclude the week with a blog post detailing the research into Naturopathic Medicine. Each year seems to bring new advances, which I am immensely grateful for. To begin with, we should discuss Naturopathic regulation globally, something that the World Naturopathic Federation has done wonderfully in the following paper. One of my own teachers, Dr. Mike Prytula, ND, has also made a lovely introductory video on Naturopathic Medicine.

To begin with, two reviews of all clinical trials on Naturopathic medicine have been conducted. The first was done in 2015, and found clinical trials on 13 conditions, finding statistically significant results in 10 of them. A second review conducted in 2019 found 33 trials, with Naturopathic medicine being found effective in pain, cardiovascular illness, type 2 diabetes, PCOS, depression and anxiety.

A newer review was also performed, specifically in regard to side effects of Naturopathic medicine and surgical practice. The reviewers found a number of potential benefits naturopathic treatment could have in relation to surgery that demand further study, and no reports of serious side effects present.

Naturopathic care in Cardiovascular disease was recently examined in a clinical trial. 246 postal workers received Naturopathic care (207 completed the study) in addition to normal family medicine from their MD. Lab chemistry was taken before and after Naturopathic care,and their risk of a major cardiovascular even was computed using the Framingham Risk Score method of computing the likelihood of a Cardiovascular event,  and the Adult Risk Panel III to compute the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. One group in the study received Naturopathic care plus normal medical care, and another received only normal medical care. In this study a highly significantly reduced risk of a major cardiovascular event (risk reduction in control group of 10.81, risk in Naturopathic group of 7.74% for a reduction of 3.07%) and a reduction of metabolic syndrome (48.48% control group, 31.58% Naturopathic group for a reduction 16.9%).Naturopathic care in Cardiovascular disease was recently examined in a clinical trial. 246 postal workers received Naturopathic care (207 completed the study) in addition to normal family medicine from their MD. Lab chemistry was taken before and after Naturopathic care,and their risk of a major cardiovascular even was computed using the Framingham Risk Score method of computing the likelihood of a Cardiovascular event,  and the Adult Risk Panel III to compute the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. One group in the study received Naturopathic care plus normal medical care, and another received only normal medical care. In this study a highly significantly reduced risk of a major cardiovascular event (risk reduction in control group of 10.81, risk in Naturopathic group of 7.74% for a reduction of 3.07%) and a reduction of metabolic syndrome (48.48% control group, 31.58% Naturopathic group for a reduction 16.9%).

This data was further analyzed in another paper for the economic impact of Naturopathic treatment. The above trial resulted in (corresponding to a 3.3% decreased risk of a Cardiovascular event) in a savings of $1138 in costs to society and $1187 in employer costs per year of Naturopathic treatment. The cost savings of livelong Naturopathic care that could be speculated on based on this remain staggering.

In response to this trial, this MD in CMAJ endorsed the idea of delegating some aspects of Cardiovascular care from Medical to Naturopathic Doctors. Many MDs would oppose this, but a significant minority of our Allopathic cousins would gladly cooperate with us in patient management.

Another Clinical trial on the Naturopathic treatment of rotator cuff tendonitis was recently published. In it, a group of postal workers with diagnosed rotator cuff tendontis received either a standard set of physiotherapy exercises to do on their own (an approach not unlike that which many MDs in family practice will use before a physiotherapy referral) as well as a matched placebo. Pain was measured using Shoulder pain and disability index scores, visual analogue pain score, Short form 36, and MYMOP. 87% of participants completed 8 weeks of treatment, SPADI scores decreased by 54.5% (p<0.0001) in the Naturopathic care group and 18% (p<0.0241) in the Exercise group. All measures showed significant differences in favor of Naturopathic care, with SPADI showing a difference probability of <0.0001 and no major adverse outcomes reported.

In a similar trial 75 postal employees with back pain greater than 6 weeks duration were given either Naturopathic medicine or standardized exercises ( again similar to what they might recieve at an MD practice) for 12 weeks. Progress was measured using the Oswestry disability questionaire, as well as the SF-36, lower back range of motion, weight loss and BMI. 92% completed at least 8 weeks of treatment. Back pain reduced significantly in the Naturopathic group (-6.92 on Oswestry, p<0.0001) and all other measure improved significantly as well.

The above trial was analyzed for economic impact. In the analysis, employees experienced 9.4 more perfect health days and reduced societal ( read employer) costs of $1212 per participant over the course of the study. The intervention cost $154 per day, compared with lost productivity costs of $178 per day, representing a return on investment of7.9%. Individuals participating saved $1096 each. Again this was from a single course of treatment. Imagine the cost savings applied society wide, particularly in countries like Canada with socialized medicine.

Another small Indian study showed significant improvements in PEFR, VC, FVC, FEV1, FEV/FEC%, MVV< ESR and Absolute Eosinophil count in Asthma patients undergoing a Naturopathic and Yogic treatment regimen.

In another study, patient outcomes from Naturopathic and Allopathic medical practices were compared in the treatment of menopausal symptoms. Consistent with other research, Naturopathic patients reported higher income, lower rates of smoking, higher rates of exercise, but interestingly, greater rates of fatigue, insomnia and hot flashes. Both patient groups resulted in improvements in anxiety, hot flashes, vaginal dryness and menstrual changes. Significantly better results were found in insomnia and fatigue.

One study was done on patients with Autism, 67 patients ranging from 3-58 years were given supplementation, with additional naturopathic treatments, such as enzymes, carnitine, epsom salts baths and a diet free of gluten, casein and soy. Lab results show a significant improvement of blood nutrient levels, and nonverbal IQ and autism symptoms also significantly improved.

Another study examines Polycystic ovarian syndrome patients who had undergone a Naturopathic and Yogic regimen for 12 weeks. 25 patients were given the intervention, while 25 others were placed on a wait list. Significant changes were observed in ovarian morphology and body measurements.

Recent Indian research has focused on a number of areas of integration of Naturopathic medicine and conventional care. This paper reviews the multiple ways many Naturopathic agents can aid in modulating cell signalling pathways in cancer. Another paper shows a similar conclusion, with Natural compounds showing great promise in decreasing resistance to one method of cell self destruction in cancers.

Much recent research has focused on the types of patients Naturopathic Doctors see. In one recent study a survey of 300483 visits to a Naturopathic teaching clinic was examined. It was found that Naturopathic clinics saw a similar range of problems to other primary care practices, that patients paid out of pocket more (unsurprisingly) and that Naturopathic clinics offered discounted care far more often.

Another recent study discussed characteristics of Pediatric patients coming to CCNM, a Naturopathic college in Toronto. Furthermore, a cross section of Naturopathic patients as a whole at CCNM was done, showing the incredibly wide variety of issues people come to Naturopathic Doctors with.

Another fascinating direction of research has emerged in the applications of Public health models of research to Naturopathic care, rather than more allopathic models a potential research enterprise with much potential. Another study measured the characteristics of rural Naturopathic practice in Australia, showing the important role played by naturopaths in the provision of underserved rural populations. Another study showed a high level of patient and staff satisfaction resulting from integration of Naturopathic medicine into an acute care hospital.

Perhaps most intriguingly in our survey of research is this paper, published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. India is in the slow process of constructing a healthcare system of Universal coverage (often jokingly termed Modicare after the Indian Prime Minister Narendera Modi). Unlike in Countries such as Canada which have  long traditions of public medicine that were built during the low point of Holistic medicine, in the 1960s, India likely will be including all systems of medicine in it’s public scheme, along with allopathic care. AYUSH is the term in India used for such systems, including Ayurveda, Therapeutic Yoga, Unani, Sidda, Homeopathy and Naturopathy. The above mentioned paper examined the AYUSH systems in light of a report on the Principles of Universal Care produced by the Planning Commission of India. In that paper, the authors conclude that not only does AYUSH meet the standards the India government wishes to see in it’s Universal system, they would actually further it’s goals more effectively in many cases than Allopathic care alone would be able to.

Finally, there is a free documentary showing Naturopathic medicine being practiced in India, to fully scope, in in-patient facilities. I encourage you to watch it. It is my hope that the example of India in medical equality and non discrimination will be followed by Canada and other Western countries, giving all citizens the potential for access to the benefits of Naturopathic Treatment.

Happy Naturopathic Medicine Week Everyone!

Hi Everyone. Apologies for not writing earlier. I am quite occupied by the writing of a new book on Blockages to healing, and a few other things.

But I did find time to write another article on the evidence behind Homeopathy is response to a particularly horrendous one published recently. It’s on my Publications page, and you can also find a link here.

Hope you all are doing well. I will again be doing my annual compilation of Naturopathic Research for Naturopathic Medicine week, which starts May 13th!

Hi Everyone.

So, in cooperation with the students of my alma mater, the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, and the filmmaker Ananda More of the film Magic Pills, as well as researcher and Homeopath David Brulé, I appeared on a film panel following a screening of Magic Pills during Vitalism Week at CCNM. This panel was recorded, and is available below. I would love to hear what you think about it.

Apparently I was funny.

You can access the panel video here.

Hi Everyone. I am just wishing you all a Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and a lovely New Year.

This song always filled me with Joy, and I hope you all get a bit out of it as well!

Hi Everyone. So a great deal of disscussion has been conducted online about the scientific evaluation of Homeopathy. Given the recent emphasis on Evidence based Medicine, and it’s methods of evaluation, much of the recent discussion has focused on Randomised Controlled Clinical Trials which have generally been accepted as the best methods to evaluate clinicl interventions (although I would refer readers to Harris Coulter’s publication on the subject for a more full view).

In short, a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial is an examination of the results of an intervention, performed on different, but theoretically identical, populations. The intervention should be indistinguishable, and the evaluation of the patients should be done in such a way that any human element, or analysis, is conducted without knowledge of which group of patients have received which intervention.

This type of study is designed very well for allopathic style interventions. It presumes that the intervention is singular, static, and does not require feedback after administered, ie., as many prescription drugs. Homeopathy is not well suited to this style of trial, without some significant adjustments, for a number of reasons.

1. Finding the remedy is difficult. The process of remedy selection is a challenging process, involving the consideration of multiple factors, etiology, the mental emotional state, and of course, the eventual success of administration. The only way to determine whether a remedy was Homeopathic to a case is the patient responding to the remedy, that is, feedback. Feedback and dose adjustment
2. Sensitivity to Homeopathic Remedies varies. Some individuals will aggravate from the lowest potencies of a remedy, others need higher potencies than normal. Many individuals fall somewhere in the middle of susceptibility to remedies. Finding a proper Homeopathic prescription involves finding not only the right remedy, but the right potency.
3. Potency changes as patient’s course unfolds. Almost universally, when a successful remedy and potency is found, over time the patient will respond progressively less to repeated doses of that potency, eventually failing to respond whatsoever. At this point, a higher, more potentised preparation of the same remedy is required.
4. Occasionally intercurrent remedies, or remedies addressing a specific issue or obstacle to cure, will become apparent. When this occurs, the case must be retaken, a new remedy or other intervention performed, and the older remedy stopped. Often the older remedy can be restarted after the particular inercurrent remedy has completed it’s work
5. Remedies change, oftentimes a person will completely resolve their symptom complex with a given remedy, and then will no longer requiring it, either needing no remedy, or another suited to whatever picture emerges.

These traits of Homeopathic care each require detailed feedback and adjustments to therapy. This kind of adjustment is impossible in a placebo controlled setting.

Despite these problems, a number of methodological refinements have been made to the process of clinical trials which do make this method of examination more suited to the examination of Homeopathy.

1. The first refinement is to have the Homeopathic practitioner select the remedy and do whatever process of feedback needed to settle on an effective remedy, then blind the patient as to whether or not they are receiving the remedy or placebo, and measure their condition under both placebo and verum. The best example of this style of trial is Heiner Frei’s excellent trial of ADHD. You can read this trial here. While this does not address remedies changing, intercurrents, or the need for increased potency, it is certainly an improvement.
2. The second refinement is to pre select for patients who will respond to a particular remedy. The premier example of this type of trial is Peter Fisher’s older trial where patients who would match the symptoms of Rhus Tox were screened from a population, and administered the remedy. You can read this trial here. While this method also does not account for individual sensitivity to remedies, need for increased potencies, intercurrent remedies or remedies changing, it still is a good method.
3. A third method is to use prescribers with high levels of accuracy, and have a big enough sample size that it becomes possible to demonstrate smaller improvements, which are the likely outcome with all of the methodological issues described above. Numerous example of these trials exist, but one can be found here.

Despite these issues, as Mathie has demonstrated in his famous 2014 paper, the overall picture of Clinical trial research into individualized Homeopathy as a whole is positive. Due to a lack of trials in Homeopathy, it is difficult to assess individual conditions with any great accuracy. However, a metanalysis has recently been performed with respect to Homeopathic treatment of depression. In it, the researchers found 18 studies, including two placebo controlled trials, both positive, and one with a low risk of bias. Overall the researchers concluded that while the evidence was promising, but that more high quality studies were needed, but that the safety profile was potentially excellent ( as compared with the Standard of care of antidepressants with thier numerous side effects and increased risk of suicide). As Homeopathy research increases in quantity and quality, these suggestions will be met, and numerous other conditions will be studied.

The common line of discussion against Homeopathy is that it lacks evidence. This is fundamentally untrue, and those who repeat it are either ignorant or being actively deceptive. As Mathie demonstrated, the overall trend of Individualized clinical trial data is positive, even if it requires higher quality studies to be absolutely definitive. Taking these methodological issues into consideration when designing clinical trials will result in trials more accurately reflecting Homeopathic practice, and will assist in us producing the good evidence which will likely not silence our critics, but will end any legitimate scientific debate about Homeopathy.

Hi Everyone!

So as many of you know, I have a very lively ( and occasionally snarky) twitter account, which can be found under the name @DrPaulND. As in any human endeavor on twitter, there is quite a bit of trolling and unpleasant discourse that occurs. However, being on twitter does give me a great deal of insight into current trends in the discourses of those ideologically opposed to Homeopathy and Naturopathic medicine.

As I detailed in a previous blog post, the most recent and most heavily propagandized systematic review on Homeopathy was the NHMRC review. Using Fake News Tactics, a number of groups promoted this report, despite it’s terrible methodology and numerous problems. Most tellingly, no skeptical organization has, to my knowledge, explored or even acknowledged these problems.

Rachel Roberts of the Homeopathy research institute describes the faults in the study in the following video.

These irregularities are summarized as follows (Taken from my previous blog on Homeopathy research)

• NHMRC did the review twice
• The first review, and even it’s existence, was not disclosed to the public
• the NHMRC, upon questioning, responded that the first review was low quality despite being conducted by the individual responsible for developing NHMRC’s guidelines on how to conduct evidence reviews
• FOI requests confirm that a member of NHMRC, Fred Mandelsohn, confirmed the first review to be high quality stating ““I am impressed by the rigor, thoroughness and systematic approach given to this evaluation [….] Overall, a lot of excellent work has gone into this review and the results are presented in a systematic, unbiased and convincing manner.” 
• NHMRC stated their results were based on over 1800 studies, when in fact they were based on only 176
• NHMRC has used a method which has never been used in any other review, declaring that only trials of over 150 participants would be accepted, excluding the vast majority of high quality homeopathic trials, which due to lack of funding tend to be smaller, and despite the fact the NHMRC routinely conducts studies of less than 150 participants
• The above rules resulted in exclusion of 171 of 176 studies, leaving only 5 to be used as the basis of the study
• The chair of the second review, Peter Brooks, signed a conflict of interest form declaring himself “free from any association with any organization whose interests are either aligned or opposed to Homeopathy” when he was a member of the anti homeopathy lobby group “friends of science in medicine”
• The NHMRC review included no homeopaths or experts in Homeopathy research, despite the NHMRC guidelines requiring such an inclusion

As a result of these irregularities, Rachel made a complaint to the ombudsman of Australia on this report, which being a government agency, is accountable to the public. The Australian Ombudsman, who reviewed the complaint, found it of sufficient merit as to investigate it directly. They have proceeded to investigate this complaint since then, and according to Roberts, this investigation will soon reach a conclusion, as she discusses in this video.

This investigation has recently been maligned by a number of coordinated online campaigns. The skeptical community appears to have been spreading the rumour that this investigation has not, in fact occurred due to the large length of time since the making of the complaint. This is a complete lie. The ombudsman of Australia has very clear privacy policies, listed here. As is the case in most countries with protection of privacy legislation, information on ongoing investigations is held confidential until reports are issued.

The length of the investigation is indeed lengthy. However indeed, some investigations, particularily complex ones, often take months, as is mentioned in this FAQ on the Ombudsman’s website. Lengthy investigations are indeed not unprecedented, particularly in complex matters, as an investigation of a lengthy report in a contentious field would undoubtedly would be.

Secondly the complaints process is generally only communicated to the people in question who have started the complaint. Rachel Roberts, again, being that person, is the only person privy to that information, and her testimony on that subject is, as we have seen above, quite clear. The people spreading these rumours are not privy to the complaint process, and are spreading heresay in an attempt to discredit the fact that the Ombudsman found the complaint made by HRI to be of sufficient merit to warrant the Australian government investing it’s own resources in a very lengthy investigation into wrongdoing by NHMRC in this matter.

Furthermore, to add some extra spice to this already interesting set of circumstances, The Australian Senate recently questioned the NHMRC. One senator, Sterling Griff, questioned the department of health on the NHMRC review of Homeopathy. The answers were provided in writing and are available online see questions 214, 215, 261, 264, 268, 269, 270, 273, 274, and 275 ( And thank you so much to the website yourhealthyourchoice.com for this blog post which went into detail on this subject, who’s work I am largely repeating). While these answers will be discussed in future blogs, I encourage you to read them on your own.

The blog post by yourhealthyourchoice.com was quite succinct in detailing the inconsistencies in the NHMRC’s response to the Senator’s question 268 on the arbitrary limit of 150 per study. Both Question and answer are reproduced below:

Question:
The Homeopathy Review created a rule that trials with less than 150 participants were not ‘reliable’, meaning their results did not “warrant further consideration of their findings” (Information Paper, Appendix C). Does the NHMRC apply this rule to other trials it funds and/or reviews? If so, where else has this rule been applied and what internationally accepted scientific standards were used to authenticate it?

Answer:
Studies with less than 150 participants were not excluded from consideration in the evidence assessment. The Homeopathy Working Committee (HWC) deemed that, for the purposes of drafting evidence statements, the outcomes of studies with less than 150 participants were not sufficiently powered to reliably inform conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy to treat a particular clinical condition. NHMRC establishes expert working committees, such as the HWC, under section 39 of the NHMRC Act, to advise NHMRC on the methodology and parameters of evidence evaluation when developing health advice and guidelines. This is in line with international best practice for formulating evidence-based health advice. The HWC has expertise in evidence-based medicine, clinical trials and complementary medicine. There is no ruling as to the number of participants that is appropriate for a trial that applies for funding by NHMRC. Applications are selected for funding through a competitive peer review process. The grant review panel assesses the application against published criteria. Issues such as trial sample size, experimental design and the power are usually assessed under “scientific quality”. If, in the judgement of the expert assessors, the scientific quality is compromised by inadequate trial size, this will be reflected in the score for that assessment criterion.”
This answer is remarkable in it’s deceptiveness. As shown by the Your Health blog, the question was never actually answered. NHMRC, yet again, did not specify why the cutoff of 150 was chosen, and failed to justify it. This is particularily ironic in that NHMRC itself regularily funds and conducts trials of less than 150, as YourHealthYourChoice demonstrated.

Secondly, The answer incorrectly states that the sample size of 150 was not used to exclude trials. However, the NHMRC information paper on page 34-35 and Optum overview report appendices on page 275 both do confirm this. In effect NHMRC specifically crafted it’s protocol to exclude unreliable studies, and then defined, without justification, anything less than 150 as unreliable, reducing massively the pool of studies that they could draw upon to make their conclusion.

Furthermore, their answers to the Senator Griff concealed this from the government, either deliberately, or through ignorance on part of the answering person.

This act of deception, more than anything else, likely explains the length of this investigation. It cannot be expected that a body that went to such length to pervert science to create a given outcome will be particularly with a government investigation of their practices and, dare I say it, motivations for doing so.

I encourage everyone to read the following blog post going into great detail

NHMRC under scrutiny in the Senate – Full and accurate answers not provided