Clayton College of Natural Health

DCROSS,

Medical errors and other forms of malpractice cause numerous deaths and disabilities yearly in the U.S. However, when one considers that many millions of other indiividuals, who would die yearly from catastrophic illnesses as well as from injuries and post-secondary infections, are saved from early demise by the medical establishment , that is'nt too bad a track record! Perfect. it is'nt, but without it we would be in a heap of big trouble!

Quite frankly, anecdotal accounts of terrible experiences with this doctor or this medical experience is unconvincing. I have my own "war' stories with certain physicians. However, overall, many more people are dramatically helped by the medical profession than not.

I am concerned by any individual who claims that natural methods can cure major diseases or injuries. Many of these claims are unsubtantiated and, in fact, result in the delay of others receiving appropriate treatment, thereby exacerbating their medical problems. I love when certain nutritional oriented "experts'" relate to the public that this vitamin or food substance cures cancer or heart disease but than discover that their research primarily emanates from studies with mice or rats!

As an adjunctive method to complement established medical practice, naturopathy and nutritional approaches do have a place in the medical care hierarchy. There is value to these disciplines if appropriately applied. However, they definitely do not replace the necessity of receiving an appropriate diagnosis and sound clinical interventions by a qualified physician.

 

My question would be "What is a qualified physician?"

When you look at the education tracks of MDs, DOs, DCs, and NDs, they are all based in the same basic sciences, but the treatment modalities are different. Of course there are biases.... this will always be true in a society of diverse people with diverse backgrounds. Don't get me wrong, I undertstand that Allopathic physicians are necessary to the state of public health, and do alot to save lives. As far as keeping us healthy...I think that is a different story. How many times do we have to change our paradigms about the rules of thumb that relate to issues that promote health. The right way to live has never changed...only our understanding of it has changed. I just say that MDs don't (shouldn't ) get to be the supreme rulers of the promotion of good health; based on their track record in that regard.

The AMA has set out to destroy everything that even appears to jeopardize its tenets.

Chiropractic- The AMA sought to "put them all out of business", and were sued successfully for making false claims.

Osteopathic- The AMA threatened to destroy them if they didn't choose to fall under the umbrella of traditional medicine...this is why DOs are now considered "full" physicians.

Renegades- MDs who speak out against what has become known as traditional medicine are made out to be wackos (Dr. Atkins, Dr. Weil, Dr. Sarno, Dr. Mendelshon)

Does the AMA have to bless each bit of new science that relates to the treatment of disease and promotion of good health.


I say NO!

 

rhema1: Will the fact that Chadwick and AICS are
"moving up" help the reputation of those who graduate from the School of Natural Health?

John: I am not aware that Chadwick is "moving up." The fact that they applied for, and did not get, DETC accreditation a couple of years ago, suggests that they might, if anything, be "moving down."

I get the sense that both Chadwick and what used to be AICS have generally downplayed their place in the "Clayton group." Indeed, I don't recall seeing Doctor Clayton's name in either of their catalogues lately.

It would, of course, be interesting to learn which two "prestigious organizations" accepted this anonymous poster, and whether they require an MBA for membership.

 

Dr. Bear,
The two organizations do not require applicants to have MBA degrees. However, they require the colleges/universities to submit official transcripts of all undergraduate and graduate work from where the applicants attended. As a result, the 2 organizations could have rejected my membership applications if they did not approve of the schools I attended.
( I have 5 undergraduate degrees from RA colleges though. I am applying to 7 RA universities in order to begin studies for a Masters degree in Finance.)
Thank you.

 

Thank you for partially clarifying, Rhema1.

Some produce buyers will reject an entire barrel of apples if there is one rotten apple in it. Others will ignore the rotten apple, and buy the barrel because all the rest are good.

John Bear, who would (and did) hire a
mass murderer with 25 years of exemplary
hehavior (in prison) to write a chapter
on degrees for prisoners, but probably
not (assuming parole) to take care of my grandchildren.

 

DCROSS,

Your points are well taken. However, there are a number of problems with the chiropractic and naturopathic professions that cannot be ignored.

It is important to note, that many Chiropractors make claims for being able to treat a number of diseases/disorders which are beyond their scope of expertise and practice. Migraines, cancer and a host of other conditions are some examples. In terms of allopathic physicians and medical errors, the same holds true with certain Chiropractors. There are a number of cases of injuries caused by their physical manipulations, including, as an example, death from manipulation of the neck (the carotoid artery).

We have to keep in mind that although chiropractic education includes some of the physical and diagnostic sciences as is found in medical school, it is not nearly on the same sophisticated level. Many schools of chiropractic sciences will admit students into their programs with a C average, which says a great deal about the standards of this profession.

Obviously, there are Chiropractors who are very competent within their scope of expertise who provide a valuable service to individuals, especially with back related problems.

In addition, regionally accredited schools of naturopathy offer students a well rounded science curriculum, but once again, not on the same level as found in medical school. State boards of professions in the eleven states that license and regulate this profession clearly specify the limits and scope of practice of practitioners to minor diagnostic conditions and several minor surgical procedures.

It is not meant, on any level to replace allopathic medicine but to complement it. Any legitimate Naturopathic Physician who claims that they offer the same level of expertise and services as a medical doctor would be in a big heap of trouble.

 

A friend of mine has a degree from Clayton in Herbology. She has an RA MA in Massage Therapy. The one from Clayton was purely for personal reasons and enrichment.

 

FYI -- A person who is Board Certified Holistic Health Counselor appeared on a popular morning television program and gave a lecture and a demonstration . This person's degree is accredited by the American Association of Drugless Practitioners. Her advertisement was in a semi-large newspaper in June 2002. This newspaper is published in NYC. Does any of this give any credibility to holistic health counselors? Thank you.

 

This is unfortunate. The AADP is a joke, and the "Board Certification" is worthless, because it comes from a joke organization. What people don't recognize is that the entire thing is a house of cards. While the person in question might have some knowledge, her training and credentials are meaningless... there are a bazillion people with *no* fraudulent degrees who are probably more qualified... but they generally don't get the high-profile gigs, in part because the media is often equally gullible in falling for these bogus credentials.

And, of course, if I had the bucks, I could run an ad in the NY times claiming that I've got the exclusive cure for cancer. It certainly doesn't make it true, nor does it mean anything about my credibility, only that I had the credit necessary to pay for the ad.

 

Wow,

I can't believe I didn't respomd to this before.

First, How is the education of an allopathic physician mor sophisticated. If you look at the various educational paths, I think you will find that the sciences part of all are about the same. Actually, I was astonished to find that the Chiropractic College in my area requires more gross anatomy hours than do the three medical schools in the area. The difference is treatment modality. Where MDs look for the proper medicine, DCs look for the proper adjustment.

Secondly, the number of deaths in the medical industry is widely known. Bill Clinton commented on how we needed to get this problem undercontrol. Sure there deaths in ecery industry, But I don't think the percentage of deaths in the chiropractic industry gets anywhere close to that in the medical industry.

Thirdly, if any chiropractor gets close to harming the carotoid artery is doing something wrong. the vertebral artery is the one that is most often in jeopardy. Thank God for trained professionals.

Fourthly, Does it seem so ridiculous that when the nerves have no interferneces that thay will work better to help the body heal itself? Don't all nerves go to the spine? Do we always need medicine? Does it always work? Is the problem usually that our bodies aren't making enough medicine, or does it seem logical that our habits in the way we eat, drink exercise, breath, rest, and most importanlt THINK have a lot to do with it.

Fifthly, Don't MDs also make claims that they can cure things, to find out that they were not as successful as they thought they would be?


I have a problem with one establishment having the monopoly in health in this country.


Of course allopathic medicine has a place, but I don't think it is the biggest place. I realize that there are scopes of practices. I just have a problem with those who define these scopes. when the walls come down, and people start opening to the pure potentiality of this unverse, I think the state of modern medicine will be much better.

 

I totally agree with Darren's points here. Chiropractic has a lot to offer, and where studies have been done, it's been shown to be a cost-effective treatment with a pretty high degree of customer satisfaction.

Ditto for many other forms of alternative medicine, including naturopathy... but only when the naturopathic practitioner is actually trained and qualified to diagnose and treat.

Since Clayton, Westbrook, AIHT, and the other "less-than-wonderfuls" loudly proclaim that their "doctors" don't diagnose, treat, or provide any sort of medical care, it's because they obviously aren't qualified to do so... I had a very frightening conversation with the AG's office in Arkansas, who is in the process of gathering evidence on a school there that does a THREE WEEK naturopathy doctorate (with no prior training) and "trains" its "doctors" to administer intravenous fluids (chelation and such).

This kind of stuff is really, really scary, as is the Westbrook grad holding himself out as qualified to treat cancer. And *that* is where licensure and quality assurance for physicians - chiropractic, naturopathic, medical doctor, whatever - is so important.

Chiropractic definitely has a checkered past. But they've come a long way and are a pretty respected profession by most people these days.

If the idiots at the bogus naturopathic schools don't ruin it for everyone, there's a good possibility that naturopathy will develop the same (and probably even better) credibility over time.

 

Studies have demonstrated that chiropractic interventions are very helpful for individuals with back related muscular skeletal problems. They may also be helpful in treating other muscular skeletal injuries of the body. So within their scope of practice and expertise they can be helpful.

However, they are not trained or licensed to perform the diagnostic and treatment functions of a medical doctor.

In the eleven states that license Naturopaths, these individuals are able to perform diagnostic and treatment functions within their scope of practice using natural interventions. Some states allow them to perform minor medical functions and surgical procedures.

Although the training to become a licensed Naturopath is significantly more extensive than that of a Chiropractor, once again they are not qualified to perfom the intricate diagnosis and treatment of a vast array of medical conditions. The natural interventions that are utilized can be helpful in certain situations but not in many others. In addition, some of the natural treatments employed, including vitamin and herbal modalities have not been validated in scientific studies with human subjects.

These complementary medical fields definitely have value and individuals should have a choice of whether they wish to pursue more natural means of treatment. However, these disciplines are not meant to replace allopathic medical care and if directly asked, licensed and legitimate practitioners in these fields would be the first to agree with this statement.

 

I hate to bring economics into another thread but going by economic and political, as well as practical experience, DCross is more correct than most. Any type of licensure is a form of unionization. Now unionization is fine if it is not gov't backed then it becomess a coercive monopoly and it has been proven over and over again that these types of unions do nothing for the consumer but greatly benefit those in the union.

Now speaking from on-going experience...my wife is a physician from S. America and is going through the 5 USMLE tests to be able to practice medicine in the US. After she has passed 5 very expensive tests that says to the AMA and US gov't that she knows medicine then the AMA and US Gov't are nice enough to only recognize 4 of the 8 years she spent at the university (not to mention the 10 years doing ER, plastic surgery, OB/GYN, general surgery, teaching, etc and then require her to do 4 more years of residency. Now if someone tells me that that is for the patient's safety then I have some swamp land to sell you. For an interesting read look up the history of medical licensure in the US it came about through gov't coercion and political favoritism (i.e. bribe money). It is very enlightening to know that gov't cannot do anything except mess things up.

Further, and more along the lines of DCorss, being a weightlifter I have had a bad shoulder for 8 years and have had 3 different US doctors look at it and tell me only "stop lifting" and "take aspirin" which destroyed my stomach. My wife looked at it, followed the muscles to the source of the problem and corrected it in 3 message sessions. Also look at the history of aspirin that the current medical establishment take credit. It was originally a natural way to relieve pain. People would chew on a branch of a particular tree to relieve minor pains. It was found to contrain acetylsalicylic acid. Also reference the cure to the black plague...it was discovered by a "witch" who cut out the black infected areas of those who had died from the plague, ground it up and snorted it. Now neither my shoulder's cure by message, aspirin, or the cure to the plague were AMA or US Gov't approved but that sure did not mean that they did not work. there are hundreds of other examples like this. So though all alternative medicine might not work the same can most definately be said about current medical beliefs and practices.

 

Although the training to become a licensed Naturopath is significantly more extensive than that of a Chiropractor, once again they are not qualified to perfom the intricate diagnosis and treatment of a vast array of medical conditions

It's funny you say that, as the governments of the 11 states that allow the practice of Naturopathic medicine seem to disagree. In these states Naturopaths are primary care givers. And as I recollect, primary care givers DIAGNOSE as part of their process of providing primary care.

Perhaps, then, there is no significant difference in the ability of Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Allopaths to provide primary care. All primary care givers only treat the illnesses they can. In cases where primary care givers reach the end of their ability to provide care, they then refer the patient to a specialist of some sort. Sometimes, however, a specialist may not be available in some rural, impoverished area--an area where there is perhaps one doctor for the entire town.

 

The Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners was established in 1935 to regulate naturopathic physicians through licensure. 1935 was before the establishment of CNME in 1978. CNME was approved in 1987 as an accrediting agency for naturopathic programs. So, naturopathic physicians who are licensed in those 11 States before 1987 have an un-accredited degree. They probably have a knowledge equivalent to a Clayton-student? Does anyone know of graduates from 4 years naturopathy schools that have knowledge equivalent to a Clayton-student and are licensed in those 11 States (probably in Arizona)? I know of a couple of Trinity and Clayton graduates use books authored from graduates of 4 years school in their practice.