This is another post in the naturopathy versus science series, where a naturopath’s advice is assessed against the scientific literature.
It’s Naturopathic Medicine Week in the United States, so it’s time for another look at the alternative medicine practice that blogger Orac likes to call the One Quackery to Rule them All. Naturopathy is an oddity among alternative medicine, because it’s a hodgepodge of other practices linked by an underlying belief in vitalism: the pre-scientific notion that living things have a “life force”. Vitalism disappeared from medicine when Wöhler synthesized urea in 1828, yet the belief in vitalism is a central tenet of naturopathic philosophy. Naturopaths liken themselves to be primary care providers akin to family physicians (general practitioners) but their practices are quite different: rather than make decisions based on scientific evidence, naturopaths pick and choose based on what they feel is congruent with their vitalistic philosophy, sometimes despite good scientific evidence that shows they are wrong. For example, homeopathy is an alternative medicine practice that is very popular with naturopaths. It is an elaborate placebo system where “remedies” contain no medicinal ingredients: they are literally sugar pills. There is no demonstrable medical effect from homeopathy, and so it isn’t part of science-based medicine. Yet homeopathy is a “core clinical science” for naturopaths, and the practice of homeopathy is part of their licensing exam.
From the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology:
The Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI) is very concerned about the increased marketing of food-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) testing towards the general public over the past few years, supposedly as a simple means by which to identify “food sensitivity”, food intolerance or food allergies. In the past, this unvalidated form of testing was usually offered by alternative or complementary health providers, but has now become more widely available with direct-to-consumer marketing through a nationwide chain of pharmacies. Continue reading
Imagine your pharmacy features a blood pressure measurement device. It has never worked correctly. Sometimes it give incorrect high results, suggesting hypertension. In other patients it misses hypertension completely. You’ve been advised by hypertension experts that this particular model isn’t accurate and shouldn’t be offered to consumers. Despite this, you continue to promote it to your patients, and you use the test results to recommend supplements to treat conditions that may or may not not exist.
Does this meet the professional standards expected for pharmacists? From an ethical perspective, does it respect patient autonomy? My sense is that consumers, ethicists, regulators, and other health professionals would say “no”. Pharmacists have an ethical and professional responsibility to base advice on the best scientific evidence – in this case, to ensure that a service being offered is reliable, accurate, and relevant for making health decisions.
That’s why I’m surprised to see Canadian and American pharmacies are now selling IgG food intolerance tests. Because if you agree that knowingly offering faulty blood pressure measurement tests is unacceptable, you should have just as much concern about food intolerance blood tests. These tests have been available for some time in the United Kingdom. Now they’re in North America. Rexall, the Canadian pharmacy chain, recently started selling the “Hemocode” test which is purported to test for 250 food intolerances: Continue reading