Malaria is caused by a protozoan, not a bacteria - it is not susceptible to antibiotics.

There are a lot of assertions here without any proof. Can he elaborate, for example, how naturopathy can cure diabetes? How does it work, and where is the proof that it works? (By proof I mean a controlled experiment - a clinical trial.) If you're making medical claims in a story then I'd expect to see proof. I'm not going to take it on faith that it just works.

To call medicine poison is misleading (to put it kindly). Any medicine can have side effects. If the benefits of the medicine - i.e. their curative action - outweighs those side effects, then there's no problem. Naturopathy doesn't have side effects since (from what I can tell from this article) it involves nothing apart from behavioral changes in lifestyle and diet.

One last point I'd like to make - there is no such thing as "allopathic" medicine. Allopathy was just a word coined by the inventor of homeopathy, in order to differentiate his invention from the medicine of that day. In reality, there are just two types of medicine - medicine that is scientifically sound and has been proven to work in properly conducted trials, and medicine which is not. Based on the information (or lack thereof) in this article, I put naturopathy in the second category.

Regards,
Sunil

Dear Mr D'Monte- isn't it a bit unreasonable to expect 'proof' in a short article of 1000 words? I am sure there are innumerable people who have benefited by naturopathy, and will gladly stand testimony to the same. Unlike 'allopathy', (and we shall use the term irrespective of who coined it and why), not all forms of healing can be clinically tested in a lab- they work on a much more subtle and holistic level. I am sure the good doctor can elaborate on how naturopathy can cure diabetes- sure it requires behavioural and dietary changes- and if that can liberate a diabetic from being dependent on a chemical like insulin for his entire lifetime, I'd give naturopathy the thumbs up.

The author of the article could have investigated -- and linked to -- supporting documentation, instead of credulously repeating whatever the doctor said. It's a reasonable expectation from any form of medical journalism. I know this is just a blog, but still - it's the responsible thing to do.

I disagree with you; all forms of healing can and should be tested. It's important to establish a causative relationship between the treatment and the improvement in symptoms. Otherwise it's impossible to say whether the treatment was responsible or not - it could be a case of 'regression to the mean', or it could be due to some other concomitant treatment - there's no way of knowing. The only way of being sure is to test it. If you're inclined, take a look at the site http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ - it has a good explanation.

PS Words like "subtle" and "holistic" are vague, they don't hold any useful meaning when it comes to medicine. The effects of a medical treatment must be specific and measurable. To continue with the example of diabetes - it's a metabolic disorder involving glucose, insulin etc. Any cure or treatment should be explainable in those terms.

Well Mr. Monte, your point is taken, but continuing with the example of diabetes I’m sure you are aware that there are two types of this disease, and that research has proven that it is a combination of genetic and environmental causes that brings about this disorder. In fact the first steps in the ‘allopathic’ treatment for diabetes is immediate changes in lifestyle and dietary habits to reverse the detrimental environmental effects (especially in type2).

There is definitely a problem with side effects even if the medicines have curative effects. What are side effects anyway? They are unintended responses of the body to a foreign agent which is introduced to cure a specific anomaly. If these drugs have gone through the trials and tribulations of the scientific method before being introduced into the market, why are there still side effects? Is it because the researchers don’t understand how the body functions and cannot device cures/drugs that do only the intended action? Is it then a question of losing the kingdom for the want of a shoe?

We can also disagree on the all forms of healing can be tested hypothesis, a mere mention of the ‘placebo’ effect even in ‘allopathy’ should put that to rest

Reductionism is the way science is headed especially in therapeutic research but hey holistic is not vague either, look into chaos theory for that.

Lastly, the proof of the pudding is in eating it. Enumeration of the beneficiaries of “Naturopathy”, which if you read the article carefully is nothing but an exhortation to lead a healthy lifestyle, and collation of their experiences will give us enough data to draw inferences (definitely not in the purview of an opinion/interview article)

Thank you for the discussion. I accept the points about being more detailed and backed by proof but please notice:
a) This is an interview not a piece on what 'I think about systems of medicine'.
b) I am not sitting in judgment of what the interviewee is speaking. I am reporting.
c) My choices are reflected in the fact that I have chosen this field and this doctor to interview. That shows that I prefer naturopathy to allopathy.
d) Yes, scientific fact and propositions should be backed up with evidence, but in this case those are not within the purview of this story.

Secondly, all medication is regulated poison. At least, definitely so in allopathy. The body has ways of correcting itself and sometimes we aid the body with chemicals to overcome any defect that sets in. That naturopathy is advocating good lifestyle and behavorial changes is quite akin to your heart surgeopn asking you to go for an hour long walk every day...

Do we really care what systems of medicine are saying, or do we care about our good health and take suggestions from where (ever) they come?

Since it does look like this thread of comments is closing, I'd like to add a tailpiece.

The way I look at it, interviews on Citizen Matters essentially showcase people who have gone that one step forward in being useful to "society" if I can use the word.

Quite simply it's a spotlight on people, where the writer asks a series of questions to achieve a completeness in the storyline.

It is difficult to get into technical detail or project analytical viewpoints, simply because the writer reflects the professional's thoughts, experiences and responses as the interview rolls along. Some of this may contradict a reader's own thinking on the subject, which I guess calls for an entirely different platform.

There is always a tendency to oppose anything without closely examining the facts

(Thanks to Gurudev - http://www.hitxp.com/in/15042007.htm.
http://www.hitxp.com/sci/12112007.htm)

If Allopathic/ English stream is really 'scientific' we would have expected the so called 'drugs' (it is never called a medicine) which once scientifically proven to stay same for ever and all the diseases cured long back.(New diseases found recently are mostly the side affects of 'life savers'...Also thanks to the 'Disease Designers' in every Multinational drug companies who project every year more than a double digit growth in the 'unhealthy' population & subsequently a corresponding sales & market shares!!!

It is ironic that USA, the highest prescription drug consuming country where the modern health care system is supposed to be the best is only one of the worst in 'Health'
(http://books.google.com/books?id=-AXCCj5PiakC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=world+prescription+drug+consumption&source=web&ots=Lazcag683b&sig=0wtd_ApscwP4ZxNcGPfpwbzv28A&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPP1,M1)