General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Naturopaths and the creep of pseudo-science [View all]MineralMan
(146,262 posts)The FDA refused to approve it, and that saved a lot of American women and their children from its harmful effects. That's a good example of how evidence-based medicine is regulated for the protection of patients. Of course, there are situations where medications ended up being more harmful than beneficial results warranted. In those cases, the regulation was not sufficient. In actual fact, more regulation, not less, is needed.
For "natural" remedies, regulation is almost non-existent, despite the harm done in many cases by people relying on untested or even completely useless "natural" remedies.
The alternative medicine sector resists all regulation, which should be a warning signal to everyone. Despite, for example, the multi-billion dollar pseudo-pharmaceutical industry's resistance to regulation, exactly that kind of regulation is what's needed for the protection of those who may be duped into believing that some alternative treatment is better than normal medical treatment. People's lives have been lost through that belief. Far too many people's lives have been lost by substituting ineffective or worthless treatment for treatment that actually can help them.
If the alternative medical community wants to be respected, it needs to allow itself to be examined. Until then, it is woo, pure and simple. Any practitioner who uses homeopathic remedies, for example, is a fraud. Homeopathy should be prohibited altogether. Yet, many naturopaths use it on a regular basis, thus duping their patients into thinking they are getting some sort of actual treatment, instead of just water. Homeopathy is a fraud.