Separating fact from fiction in naturopathy
Between the folks who think COVID-19 is a “scamdemic,” the anti-maskers and an uptick in people looking to buy 5G shields, it’s clear that we have a serious medical disinformation problem. And a big piece of the “infodemic” puzzle has to do with the fact that an increasing number of people seem to have trouble telling the difference between anonymous online sources and credible credentialed experts.
That confusion — over whom we can and should trust — is the central focus of this year’s Trottier Public Science Symposium, an annual event hosted at McGill University by the Office for Science and Society. And, as the keynote speaker, Britt Hermes, a former naturopathic “doctor,” explains in her lecture, “Fake doctor. Real harm: Confessions of a former naturopathic ‘doctor,’ ” the problem isn’t entirely new.
Hermes went from practising naturopathy to turning in her credentials back in 2014, when she was working at a clinic in Arizona and discovered that one of the medicines being sold by her colleagues probably didn’t fit in with the “do no harm” ethos that most medical practitioners put above all other considerations.
“We’d been receiving shipments of this cancer treatment/prevention drug called Ukrain, from Austria, for a long time,” Hermes recalled when I interviewed her by phone at her home in Germany last week. “One time, when the package didn’t show up and patients started showing concern, I started to ask questions, which led me to googling and then to the realization this medication was not FDAapproved to treat cancer or to treat anything else. And it could actually be very dangerous.”
Hermes learned that Ukrain was associated with bonemarrow toxicity, liver failure and other negative outcomes. She resigned and reported the incident to the authorities.
Within some naturopathic circles, Hermes is the villain here and she’s been on the receiving end of significant hate mail and abuse, accusing her, among other things, of being a “whistleblower.” (Why is that an epithet these days? Surely blowing the whistle on people distributing possibly toxic meds is a good thing, right?)
To Hermes, though, it was about more than just one incident or a few bad apples. It provoked a life crisis that forced her to re-evaluate the entire naturopathic industry. Her conclusion was that it wasn’t the same as practising medicine. What was it then?
“It’s an ideology. It’s a way of looking at the world that incorporates lifestyle choices and behaviours,” explained Hermes.
“Some of these things are no big deal and some other things can be harmful, but I think it’s important to understand that all of these wellness, feel-good things are tangential to medicine. It’s not the practice of medicine.”
That’s her key message, that it can be easy for the public to be confused between people who have gone to actual medical school and naturopaths, since many jurisdictions allow naturopaths to use the title of “doctor.” And even graduates from schools of naturopathic medicine often fail to acknowledge any difference.
“When I was in school, all of my mentors were telling us this was just like medical school, so I graduated from that system really feeling like I deserved to be called a physician,” she recalled. “And that could easily set naturopaths up to get themselves in over their heads.”
An incident earlier this year in British Columbia illustrates her concern. In connection with COVID-19 treatment, a naturopath started offering immune supportive vitamin boosts along with ozone and/or ultraviolet light blood therapy. This involved collecting blood in an IV bag, exposing it to ultraviolet light or injecting it with ozone, then transfusing it back into the patient.
It’s worth noting that the B.C. College of Naturopathic Physicians swiftly opened an investigation and issued a statement that naturopathic doctors could not offer treatments for the prevention and/or treatment of COVID-19. The College of Naturopaths of Ontario has issued a similar statement.
None of this is to say that there’s no value whatsoever in naturopathy. Once I wanted a non-medical solution to a minor stomach problem and a long consultation with a naturopath in which we discussed my diet, et cetera, in minute detail. She helped me realize my problem was likely too much aspirin in combination with a taste for acidic food and drink. Cutting a few things out worked perfectly for me.
Even though my problem was solved, though, she still wanted to keep seeing me. Acupuncture was on her agenda. I explained I wasn’t the kind of person who went to the doctor when there was nothing wrong with me — I didn’t want to get too well, after all.
In a nut, that’s always been my worry about alternative medicine and wellness culture. They seem to want us to always be thinking about our health. I’m not convinced that’s entirely healthy.
A lot of people would disagree with me on that. And, if they can afford the time and money, that’s their call. So long, Hermes would stress, as they know it’s not medical treatment.
“The bottom line is that it’s really easy for lawmakers and for the public to become sort of confused about what a naturopath is,” she said. “And the way the system is set up right now, the onus is on the consumer to vet the medical credentials of the health-care provider.”
Hermes summed it up: “My goal is for patients to be able to make informed decisions about their care whatever that decision may be. I just want them to understand how naturopaths are trained and how that’s different from medicine.”
And that’s an important distinction to start with if we ever hope to find a way out of our current “infodemic.”