Interview with Colleen Huber, NMD:
Opposition to Naturopathic Medicine
JS: Hi, Dr. Huber. Thanks for taking time to interview. I’d like to ask you about opposition to naturopathic medicine. It seems these days there are two ways to ruin a holiday meal in a big family. Either discuss left vs. right politics. Or discuss conventional vs. natural medicine.
CH: So true! That kind of dispute can heat up quickly. Opinions are very fixed for a lot of people.
JS: Are you worried about the so-called “Skeptics” and “Science-based medicine” and what they say about natural or naturopathic medicine? I mean, including you! You’ve been attacked too online. How do you feel about that?
CH: Pharma is understandably worried about its only major competitor: natural medicine and oral supplements sold in health food stores. I mean, look how big Whole Foods is, compared to a decade or two ago. Five decades ago, the whole health food and organic movement just wasn’t there at all. But now it’s large and growing fast. So naturally, the FDA, which gets users’ fees from their client Pharma, rants about natural supplements. The corruption is so obvious though, they wouldn’t dare try to dismantle the supplement industry at this point.
But here’s the main reason why I’m not worried. The general public does not need me to tell them which way of living is preferable. Walk into a health food store, and look around. Then walk into a drug store or a run-of-the-mill supermarket, and look around. Who looks healthier and happier? Which group of people do we all want to look and feel like?
JS: I see what you mean. No contest.
CH: Exactly, no contest. So the so-called skeptics can attack me or attack other individuals. They have really gone after Dr. Oz in a venomous way – and speaking of venomous, there were very strange murders of holistic doctors over the last two years, 2015 mostly.
JS: What was that all about?
CH: At first, it looked like Florida holistic doctors. So I thought maybe it was some pain med disputes. But that turned out to be unlikely. Then it looked like doctors who were critical of vaccines. Then that didn’t look right, and it looked like doctors who had taken an interest in GcMAF, which is a Vitamin D-related protein, which some allege to have some effect against cancer. But anyway, if that was the case, and if somebody wanted to eliminate doctors who were working with GcMAF, it backfired, because the murders gave that substance a cachet far beyond what I think it deserves, frankly, and the public took an interest in it, and they’re finding it for themselves, for better or worse.
Anyway, where I was going with that was, Pharma can rant till its hoarse – and these keyboard warriors sure do rant! – about natural medicine, supplements, organic food. But at the end of the day, consumers do not want to live a pharmaceutical lifestyle, because it’s depressing, fatiguing, painful, just all around debilitating. People want to clean up their diet, if only to feel better. They reach for supplements when they know the diet has not been quite as good as it should be. Probably the keyboard warriors sneak them also. And that is exactly what Pharma’s big problem is: The American public has not yet been drugged into delirium en masse, probably won’t ever be, and still use their minds to question the drug-every-symptom paradigm.
So if naturopathic physicians get attacked over that, we can just shrug and go on. Here’s why. The fact is, at least as of 2014, there were NO medical malpractice claims against naturopathic physicians ever in the United States. Ever! Meanwhile, “properly prescribed” drugs kill 128,000 per year. That’s more than all the Americans who died in World War I. And that’s every year in this country.
So that is the problem for Pharma. They don’t have any substantive criticism of us, just angry sniping bloggers. Where is Pharma losing its market share? To the cemetery more than anywhere. Losing over 100,000 of your loyal customers every year is kinda bad for business, guys. Why not make those drugs less toxic?
There’s a website that summarizes these stats: www.bmdiaries.com.
JS: So you don’t mind that you’ve been criticized by the “science-based medicine” crowd.
CH: Well, I have not at all spearheaded the changing zeitgeist the way some others have done. I mean, I report our clinic’s results, so the Pharma side is probably thinking: cheeky devil, how dare she. However, none of the accusations I’ve seen against me are true, and I have a squeaky clean record, no Board complaints, my medical license in good standing the whole decade I’ve practiced. My clinic has an A+ rating with the Better Business Bureau. So that criticism is really not a factor in my work.
Besides, there’s nothing science-based about cherry-picking the data one chooses to look at, ignoring all the opposing data, then stooping to angry insults to make arguments. That’s the opposite of the scientific method. Intelligent people see past that and realize that those keyboard warriors are just pro-pharma ideologues and hacks. Nothing to worry about in the whole scheme of things.
JS: Thanks, Dr. Huber, mostly for not jumping into the mudslinging pit with them!
CH: That would get ugly! And thank you! I’ll get those references to you.
* * *
Dr. Huber referred to the following articles in this interview: