2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

TommyK - you are being extremely dogmatic, and probably can't even recognize it in yourself.  No matter how many statistics you have before starting treatment, medicine is practiced one patient anecdote at a time.  There is no statistically average patient.  The multivariate equation that defines that person sitting in front of you defies being resolved to a single variable.  If a patient is having an adverse drug reaction it is purely anecdotal data happening right in front of you, but you had best deal with that n=1 sensibly and promptly.

Higher quality information is of course always better.  But double blind clinical studies are not the only way of knowing.  It is your statement of faith that only this kind of knowledge has value and that everything else is worthless. Pure dogma.

You best give up eating food to be consistent with your dogma -- there is no double blind clinical study proving artichokes or most other foods are safe to eat. All we have is lots and lots of anecdotal trial and error human experience handed down to us by generations that have gone before.

Jeff Clark, ND

posted 4 years ago
view in context

The best alternative medicine is to require no medicine at all.  A condition fondly referred to as health.  The real divide between hard line conventional and naturopathic medicine is one of paradigms.  I believe that the body has an amazing ability to heal and that my job as a physician is to assist that happening as much as possible.  I don't believe that permanently medicating for symptoms is an acceptable alternative to true health, it should be a last resort.  The new ND formulary law will allow me to assist my patients without one hand tied behind my back by pharmaceutical prescriptions I'm not allowed to modify nor provide.  While I appreciate that my MD/DO colleagues have many more hours of apprenticeship and indoctrination than my profession can manage at this time -- the arguement that we are therefore a public safety menace is beyond unreasonable.  NDs are indoctrinated to liberally refer to conventional medicine and we do.  There is a place for all of us.  Conventional medicine without question keeps critically ill people alive.  My mission is to then help them regain health.

Jeff Clark, ND
True Health Medicine, PC, Tualatin, OR

posted 4 years ago
view in context