Homeopathic nutritionist?

MABMomma
MABMomma Posts: 36 Member
edited November 13 in Health and Weight Loss
My family has recently made some major dietary changes & wanted to consult a nutritionist to ensure that our choices were suitable for our 4 year old son. We are new to the area that we live in & found what we believed was a nutritionist online.

The appointment was today & it was very interesting to say the least.

I knew something was off while I was filling out the new patient paperwork. One of the questions was "are you missing the last 1/3 of your eyebrow?" Huh?? Although this was strange I've never been to a nutritionist & didn't want to make any assumptions.

My son & I are taken into a tiny room where a woman rolls a scanner up & down his spine. She says that the machine is taking pictures of his spine to see if one side of his body is more "stressed" than the other. Pictures, what?

Then we meet the "nutritionist". She tells me that she doesn't agree with the changes that we've made. She wanted to make sure that we wouldn't be difficult patients because of her stance on things. I told her that I never wanted to be the type of mom to go doctor hopping because I didn't hear what I was expecting.

So now that she's gotten it down that I'm in her office for health & not whatever else she assumed, she pulls out this strange machine. My son holds what looks like a gold pen wrapped in a paper towel while she holds what seems to be a pen without a tip. She then rubs the pen up & down my kids big toe 250 times or so.

Once she's done she gets really close to me & tells me that my son is:
Gluten intolerant
Has issues with:
Amino acids
Brain chemistry
Prostate
Testes
Pancreas
Pineal gland
Calcium deficiency
& these are the most important on a list about the size of my torso.

The machine she used is called an EAV & only after I asked about the machine did she say that she was a homeopathic doctor. I was clearly confused & asked if she was a nutritionist also & she replies "I only prescribe herbs."

WHAT?!

I continue to ask her questions like "how accurate is this machine?" "How do these results compare to a scratch or blood tests?" "Why haven't you asked us anything about our diet?" "How can you make any conclusions when you don't even know my son's height or weight?"

I'm going to make an appointment with another nutritionist however, homeopathy? What're your thoughts? Can I trust this lady & her magical machine?

She also claimed that my son has irregularities in his reproductive organs because of all of the soy that he eats. The kid has never touched soy in his life, won't go near the stuff. This conclusion left me even more puzzled.
«1345

Replies

  • Return2Fit
    Return2Fit Posts: 226 Member
    Sounds like you're a scammers dream come true... :p
    Seriously, just try to eat more whole, nutritious foods and stop worrying about making something simple seem complicated.
  • Orphanogenesis
    Orphanogenesis Posts: 523 Member
    MABMomma wrote: »
    Listen. Google tricked me! I'm new to my area & I've never been to a dietitian or a nutritionist or a total wack job.

    I also wasn't aware of what I had gotten myself into until the weird toe scan started. I'm just a concerned parent that got steered in the wrong direction.

    I'm not judging, live and learn as they say.

    Nutritionists tend to have their own set of rules and have arbitrary guidelines they can (and often) make up on the spot.

    As mentioned find a reputable dietician.
  • KateTii
    KateTii Posts: 886 Member
    Reminds me of Linda Hazzard...

    The problem is with these quacks, is that they don't rely on making every patient a good "customer". They rely on the small percent of people who will get sucked into the blab, and by the time they have realized it's a scam, they have bought $$$$ worth of "magical products/herbs"

    Keep looking, but your son should be fine. If he isn't losing weight and is still active, happy and healthy, it shouldn't be an issue. If the changes to your diet are increasing intake of vegetables, and fruit and making generally "more healthy" choices, there shouldn't be much to worry about.
  • ronjsteele1
    ronjsteele1 Posts: 1,064 Member
    edited November 2016
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    Brand new rules just put in place by the Federal Trade Commission:

    "Over the counter homeopathic remedies sold in the US will now have to come with a warning that they are based on outdated theories ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the product works’."

    https://scientificamerican.com/article/homeopathic-medicine-labels-now-must-state-products-do-not-work/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_HLTH_NEWS

    This does not sound accurate. The label changes made recently pertain only to how remedy vials are sealed. I am forwarding the article to someone I know that operates in that arena for their verification. There are a number of things that are very inaccurate coming out of Australia of late that many are taking to apply to the US. I'll see what I can find out about this.

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Ugh.

    I will say this much... the eyebrow thing? I can happen to people with thyroid issues. I've lost a lot of mine thanks to them.

    Other than that? Sorry you had to go through all that. Just run.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,097 Member
    ronjsteele1 wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    Brand new rules just put in place by the Federal Trade Commission:

    "Over the counter homeopathic remedies sold in the US will now have to come with a warning that they are based on outdated theories ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the product works’."

    https://scientificamerican.com/article/homeopathic-medicine-labels-now-must-state-products-do-not-work/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_HLTH_NEWS

    This does not sound accurate. The label changes made recently pertain only to how remedy vials are sealed. I am forwarding the article to someone I know that operates in that arena for their verification. There are a number of things that are very inaccurate coming out of Australia of late that many are taking to apply to the US. I'll see what I can find out about this.

    Yes, the quote from the article seems to be a bit of an exaggeration, especially taken out of the context of the sentence that follows: "Failure to do so will mean the makers of homeopathic remedies will risk running afoul of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC)." That is, there is no mandate to put the warning on the label (the FTC tends to work through case-by-case enforcement, not through prescriptive rules), but a lawyer reading the enforcement guidance might well advise a client marketing homeopathic products to include the warning to reduce enforcement risk.

    The FTC recently put out an enforcement advisory that although in the past it "has rarely challenged misleading claims for products that were homeopathic or purportedly homeopathic," there is no basis under its authorizing statute to treat claims made for homeopathic drugs differently than claims made for other health products, and that it will "carefully scrutinize the net impression of OTC homeopathic advertising or other marketing employing disclosures to ensure that it adequately conveys the extremely limited nature of the health claim being asserted."

    As for the efficacy of homeopathic drugs, the FTC says, "For the vast majority of OTC homeopathic drugs, the case for efficacy is based solely on traditional homeopathic theories and there are no valid studies using current scientific methods showing the product’s efficacy. Accordingly, marketing claims that such homeopathic products have a therapeutic effect lack a reasonable basis and are likely misleading in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act," which prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or business practices, such as deceptive advertising or labeling of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, and false advertising for foods, drugs, medical devices, health services, or cosmetics.

    However, it also says that "the promotion of an OTC homeopathic product for an indication that is not substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence may not be deceptive if that promotion effectively communicates to consumers that: (1) there is no scientific evidence that the product works and (2) the product’s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts."

    https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/996984/p114505_otc_homeopathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdf
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    MABMomma wrote: »
    she pulls out this strange machine. My son holds what looks like a gold pen wrapped in a paper towel while she holds what seems to be a pen without a tip. She then rubs the pen up & down my kids big toe 250 times or so.

    Once she's done she gets really close to me & tells me that my son is:
    Gluten intolerant
    Has issues with:
    Amino acids
    Brain chemistry
    Prostate
    Testes
    Pancreas
    Pineal gland
    Calcium deficiency
    & these are the most important on a list about the size of my torso.
    Yeah.......no.

    What a con artist.
  • ronjsteele1
    ronjsteele1 Posts: 1,064 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    ronjsteele1 wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    Brand new rules just put in place by the Federal Trade Commission:

    "Over the counter homeopathic remedies sold in the US will now have to come with a warning that they are based on outdated theories ‘not accepted by most modern medical experts’ and that ‘there is no scientific evidence the product works’."

    https://scientificamerican.com/article/homeopathic-medicine-labels-now-must-state-products-do-not-work/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_HLTH_NEWS

    This does not sound accurate. The label changes made recently pertain only to how remedy vials are sealed. I am forwarding the article to someone I know that operates in that arena for their verification. There are a number of things that are very inaccurate coming out of Australia of late that many are taking to apply to the US. I'll see what I can find out about this.

    I've read multiple news reports that report essentially the same thing as this Scientific American article. Do you have any reason to doubt these multiple reports, based on this 24-page FTC report (https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-homeopathic-medicine-advertising-workshop/p114505_otc_homeopathic_medicine_and_advertising_workshop_report.pdf), aside from your feeling that it doesn't "sound accurate"?

    I believe my post said it sounded inaccurate but I would verify. I doubt most stuff coming out of mags like SA. As someone that practices in this realm, I had not heard this yet and was surprised by it. But I've also been very busy and not reading a lot of what comes my way right now in terms of articles. This has not filtered down past hpaths yet - it is just starting to.

    I went through both of these carefully and had the article reviewed by my friend in this business. The way the article is written they make it sound mandatory. It is not (viewed deep within the working group report). The FTC group did not say hpathy is placebo effect. Their contention was if they are going to be consistent with other supplements and claims that they make requiring the statement that the FDA has not verified supplement statements, then they have to be consistent with hpathy remedies. It had nothing to do with whether or not they endorse or believe in hpathy. I'm sure they don't. But that was not the basis for this decision. I also don't think they believe in using supplements for treating anything either but they still require labeling for them. So people can read into this what they want, but it does not say what this article says it does (does not surprise me).

    What the article is stating HAS to be on the remedies was only an example given by the FTC that basically the companies could say what they wanted so long as they essentially communicate the same standard that is communicated with other supplements that are not FDA endorsed. They might certainly believe what they wrote as an example, but SA did not write the article such that they said this was an example given by the FTC. They wrote it as fact. SA slanted much?

    I do find it interesting that someone would post an article negative to hpathy and everyone finds it acceptable but post an article positive about hpathy and it's not considered scientific evidence. The OP of the magazine article would have been less hypocritical to post the working group and FTC pages. But then again, hypocrisy mostly reigns here.

    It will be interesting to watch what a couple of the main companies do with this. It has no effect on hpathy pharmacies selling to practitioners. It will only affect what is sold OTC. Most certainly the 2% of the country that uses hpathy for health care will eventually all be watching this with interest. I find it curious that with so little people in the US using hpathy, and FDA and FTC not "endorsing" it, that anyone would even worry about labeling - unless of course they are concerned that too much money is being lost to the medical world by the people using hpathy. What would be the point? If they think people are wasting their money, what do they care? This is a free country. People waste their money on lots of things. They already stated in the FTC report that adverse effects were almost never reported from its use so that can't be their motivation. Always follow the money...... I wonder what these people in these agencies do with doctors that are both MD's and practice hpathy with their patients? Must put them in a real conundrum.

    https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2016/11/otc-homeopathic-drugs-established-ftc-proof-standards-apply

    https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-homeopathic-medicine-advertising-workshop/p114505_otc_homeopathic_medicine_and_advertising_workshop_report.pdf

  • ronjsteele1
    ronjsteele1 Posts: 1,064 Member
    edited November 2016
    lynn_glenmont wrote: »

    Actually, the FTC's job includes making sure that companies don't deceive consumers when marketing products to them.

    For one second, their job is not about making sure consumers aren't "deceived." Their job is to protect standard medical practice (and the AMA which buys and owns the FDA, FTC, etc.) from being encroached on with other things that work for diseases. When the government feels the need to protect people from their own decisions, then they don't believe much in freedom. And that's what the FTC's labeling decision is 100% about. If it causes companies to go out of business or people to not have access OTC to medicines they wish to use, then they are limiting the choice of medical freedom. People should have not only the freedom to choose what form of medicine they use, but to accept the consequences of their choices as well. When you remove those things, then you remove half the brain of the electorate. You can remove the word "medicine" and put just about any one thing in it's place and this still applies.

    The bottom line here is no one is shoving alternative medical practices down anyone's throat. People do have the right to have access to learning and using whatever they want for medicine. Informed consent doesn't mean the right to be informed only about what the government thinks "works" just because they don't understand it. It means the right to know and learn about whatever they desire to for medical care and then make their decision based on what they've learned. If the FTC can require their statement of inefficacy, then remedy manufacturers have the right to make their statement for efficacy. Let the person decide who they want to believe.

    Do you realize that a large portion of the medicines used to treat cancers, etc. they don't actually know "how" they work? They only know when they tried them they worked. A lot of people may not know or understand how hpathy works, but enough people use it and it works, that they want to continue using it (going to call millions of people worldwide liars? Because that would be pretty bold). And they continue to study the "whys." If a chemo worked for millions of people worldwide, you think the FDA and FTC would fight its use? Not on your life. It's all about the money and always will be........

    Nonetheless, this decision was made and those of us that support and use it will continue to.

    OP, I hope you are able to get this straightened out to your satisfaction.
  • soda80
    soda80 Posts: 26 Member
    This is a great read: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2

    Sigh. Ben Goldacre: my hero
  • Shadowmf023
    Shadowmf023 Posts: 812 Member
    Well - I've never been to a homeopath. Although I've used homeopathic remedies. Which worked for me. **shrugs**
This discussion has been closed.

Categories