> ... Dr. Auer augmented his initial plans to attend medical school and pursued a doctor of chiropractic degree instead...
This sounds like hiring a psychic to do my taxes. Thanks, guys, but no thanks.
Full disclosure: I'm an MD, and I practice science-based medicine. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-science-based-medi...
EDIT: etc, as in et cetera
science: from all we know, we assume that cutting off his leg is bad, so we don't do it. => data and models
If you eat a sugar pill with an "imprint of camomile" and it makes you feel different, it's neither the sugar nor the imprint, but your own belief that does that. However the "evidence based medicine" may conclude it was the spirit of camomile or the lovely sperical shape that made all the difference. Evidence must be supplanted by the reliable reproduction of the results with all variable factors accounted for. Otherwise it's just guessing.
One quack in the crowd doesn't mean that they are all quacks.
PS If you actually believe you practice science-based medicine, you may be part of the problem. Medicine is mostly a guessing game, and will stay that way until we have genome-specific-personalized-medicine with real-time biofeedback mechanisms from sensors in the body.
There's a difference between "we don't know everything" and "we have good reason to believe homeopathy is useful". Sure, maybe eating raw duck poop will cure asthma, but I'm not going to try it just in case it works.
> Medicine is mostly a guessing game
Can you be more specific with that sweeping generalization?
> and will stay that way until we have genome-specific-personalized-medicine with real-time biofeedback mechanisms from sensors in the body.
And why do you think that? Again, by what study, authority, knowledge or reasoning?
> you may be part of the problem.
Actually no, it's the other way around. You are part of the problem. I'm so tired of people who have zero training or background in medicine or science half-haphazardly proselytizing without any data or evidence to them up.
Please stop pretending like you know the answer to something this important if you aren't in the position to do so.
Seeing a comment like this, on HN, in 2015, just boggles my mind.
I'm glad that very good "guesses" from people that have been studying medicine all their life, benefits from centuries of accumulated scientific knowledge on the subject, and used cutting edge diagnosing equipment were able to completely heal my crucial ligament when it broke, or were able to save my mother's life when diagnosed with breast cancer.
For whatever flaws may exist with naturopathy, at least it's a real thing with legitimate practitioners.
edit: Also, your assertion that Dr. Auer advertises himself as a homeopathic practitioner isn't even accurate. His actual bio states, "Dr. Auer is continuously furthering his education and understanding of the body through post-doctorate courses and various seminars ranging from functional medicine, functional endocrinology, natural hormone balancing, holistic nutrition, homeopathy, herbology, chiropractic neurology, and various chiropractic and soft tissue techniques."
In other words, he is saying that he has studied homeopathy to some extent. Which if you haven't done, you're probably not a very good doctor.
Wouldn't that make SBM not scientific by definition?
The problem is that it's not clear whose gets the decide what the existing scientific beliefs are, how the evidence should be weighted, whether this results in better patient outcomes than treating patients using evidence based medicine, etc.
Since you don't actually support your argument with any data, citations, or rational points, what would you say all these things are based on?
> For whatever flaws may exist with naturopathy, at least it's a real thing with legitimate practitioners.
Can you please define "it's a real thing" and "legitimate" and "practitioners" in that statement?
>Studied homeopathy to some extent. Which if you haven't done, you're probably not a very good doctor.
Tell me again how you are able to judge what makes a good doctor? By what authority, knowledge or reasoning?