2011/09/15 by Timothy Caulfield, Christen Rachul · 1 citation
Medicine · Health Professions · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies #Therapeutic Uses of Natural Elements #Occupational and Professional Licensing Regulation
paper · pdf · doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-14
openalex publication_date 2011/09/15 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
BACKGROUND: The increasing popularity of complementary and alternative medicines in Canada has led to regulatory reforms in Ontario and British Columbia. Yet the evidence for efficacy of these therapies is still a source of debate. Those who are supportive of naturopathic medicine often support the field by claiming that the naturopathic treatments are supported by science and scientific research. METHODS: To compare provinces that are regulated and unregulated, we examined the websites of 53 naturopathic clinics in Alberta and British Columbia to gain a sense of the degree to which the services advertised by naturopaths are science based. RESULTS: There were very few differences between the provinces in terms of the types of services offered and conditions treated. Many of the most common treatments--such as homeopathy, chelation and colon cleanses--are viewed by the scientific community to be of questionable value and have no scientific evidence of efficacy beyond placebo. CONCLUSIONS: A review of the therapies advertised on the websites of clinics offering naturopathic treatments does not support the proposition that naturopathic medicine is a science and evidence-based practice.