It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ANTI-VACCINE interview with Dr. Andrew Moulden

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


He offers diagnosis through his website, which is illegal considering he has no license (he is not an oocupational therapist, so I fail to why you keep bringing that up).


Because he has stated elsewhere he is an OT and sells OT products? *shrugs*



And yes, I am being a bit insulting to you because you are insulting the intelligence of everyone on this website by continually pushing what this charlatan is selling.


Woah, there. What am I doing? What have I pushed, exactly? Did I say that I believed the mini-stroke argument? No, I did not, and if you were not in such a rush to point, counter point you would have observed that.

I've said that you could have taken the time to explain why the hypothesis he touts is invalid, but instead chose to first attack his attempts to "sell" something, then you state why he ought to have published more, etcetera, etcetera.

You are obfuscating. If it is quite clear to you why he is wrong, why vaccines do not cause ministrokes then why not state it clearly? Why attack him?

That has been my entire point. I am now going to put it into bold so that it is emphasized...

It is important that topics of discussion that are of interest to board citizens be debated on their merit and not become ad hominem playgrounds


He is no different than people who push "herbal remedies" for HIV and any other disorder under the sun.


This is also hyperbolic. Using HIV/AIDS an an example is entirely wrong and if you are a medical doctor then you know the difference between a disease, a viral infection, a genetic influence, and a systemic imbalance that can be adjusted with diet, exercise, and nutritional supplements.

Perhaps, I should use hyperbole now? Celiac's is now considered "real" and is treatable with a change of diet. Should I use that methodology in a converse argument to state that others can be cured the same way? No. All conditions should be evaluated and treated differently.


They simply prey on those who are in dire straits and will believe in anything that gives them hope.


I work with public health communications, disease tracking, HIV/AIDS prevention, outreach, and treatment. I can U2U (if interested) our website for verification.

Every day I pass oncologists and research scientists in the hallways. In order to work hospice when I first joined I had to take a class in "dying". The oncologists all spoke of the things we would notice and see along the way, and told us not to be surprised if you saw something "miraculous" and to not get your hopes up for a repeat performance. These are doctors that worked in the Ukraine with the children of Chernobyl. They all said that with some conventional treatment works, with others it doesn't. With some alternative treatments have worked, with others they haven't.

Stating that it works for some and not for others is not getting people's hopes up, it is treating humans like the unique creatures that they are.



And no, I'm not Canadian, I'm American.


Then why did you speak of Canada as though you were intimately connected with it? My mistake.


I've ordered at least 40 MRIs so far this month, and most insurance agencies will cover them when medically relevant (though sometimes you have to wrestle with them a bit). It's called defensive medicine, and it's a blight on the profession right now. Look it up.


Well, I would love to send people to your hospital then because I know of very few people that have had them performed.

But back to the rudeness...

You do not have to be rude. You choose to be. You can state that it is to protect people, but again, you can do that by arguing the assumptions, not attacking the persons.

Johns Hopkins has a Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicines. Johns Hopkins is regarded worldwide as a leader in medicine. Are they charlatans? Are they pushing snake oil?

The only reason I posted anything to you at all is because I am tired of the level of debate that consists of attacking individuals (easy peasy) without refuting the argument (less easy). Think of all of the posts you've wasted attacking me when you could be using these posts (if helping to rescue the idiots out there who need the type of hope he is selling) to iterate why what he is talking about will not work.

No one listens when you act as though you are condescending to speak to them. You might as well just say: blah blah blah blah blah.

There are other posters who could come on here, especially with the medical knowledge that you claim to possess, and refute his points and educate everyone on here. I even provided you with fuel!

I said: but JHU says that ministrokes are hard to detect.

Instead of stating why that is not true, and why they are easy to detect, or talk about a personal experience, etc. you just do the pomp and ridicule routine again.

Lastly, you assume that I am defending him when I have yet to do that. All I have done is attempt to demonstrate why we ought not attack the person in a vague manner. Vague rebuttals can be made. A circular argument that gets the topic nowhere begins and now people aside from us have left this entire thread.

So, let's save this thread. I promise to applaud you tho you have been mean to me if you will but take the time and explain why his hypothesis is untrue.

Why is it not possible that vaccines cause transient ischemic attacks in some children and adults?





[edit on 13-10-2009 by A Fortiori]




posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Because he has stated elsewhere he is an OT and sells OT products? *shrugs*

Neither of which have anything to do with his MASS diagnosis system, a practice that would be illegal if it weren't so laughable.


I've said that you could have taken the time to explain why the hypothesis he touts is invalid, but instead chose to first attack his attempts to "sell" something, then you state why he ought to have published more, etcetera, etcetera.

You are obfuscating. If it is quite clear to you why he is wrong, why vaccines do not cause ministrokes then why not state it clearly? Why attack him?


And I've stated, time and again, that such an ischemic effect on the brain is simply not possible. I've explain that such microtears would be widely apparent in older patients (though less so in children, admittedly), that methylmercury does not stay in the body long enough to accumulate, and that macrophages do not accumulate in these "plaques" that the Moulden describes. I fail to see why any more reasoning is needed to disprove this shark, considering the ample proof to the contrary of his claims.


This is also hyperbolic. Using HIV/AIDS an an example is entirely wrong and if you are a medical doctor then you know the difference between a disease, a viral infection, a genetic influence, and a systemic imbalance that can be adjusted with diet, exercise, and nutritional supplements.


It's not hyperbolic at all. Both HIV and these supposed "plaques" and "microtears" cause cumulative damage across their target of interest, and they are both of a progressive, degenerative nature.


Stating that it works for some and not for others is not getting people's hopes up, it is treating humans like the unique creatures that they are.


Stating that a treatment with no scientific backing, no peer-reviewed support, and no publicly available data is the epitome of irresponsibility, and shame on your for supporting it with such lax criteria, if you truly are a health professional.


Johns Hopkins has a Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicines. Johns Hopkins is regarded worldwide as a leader in medicine. Are they charlatans? Are they pushing snake oil?


Complementary and alternative medicine is peer-reviewed, studied, and published. Comparing that to quacks selling a diagnosis system over the internet without producing any sort of research is light and day.



Lastly, you assume that I am defending him when I have yet to do that. All I have done is attempt to demonstrate why we ought not attack the person in a vague manner. Vague rebuttals can be made. A circular argument that gets the topic nowhere begins and now people aside from us have left this entire thread.


I don't think I've been vague about it at all. My argument against this quack is clear: he has no published research, hasn't submitted his data for peer-review, and only offers a working "donate" link on his website. He is a crook, plain and simple.


Why is it not possible that vaccines cause transient ischemic attacks in some children and adults?


Because there is absolutely no proof of it, and no scientific reason to suspect this could occur.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Explain why microtears or micro strokes are not possible adverse events or serious adverse events associated with vaccines. That is what you are disputing, and by the way they are "possible" side effects of vaccinations according to the Centers for Disease Control, along with heart attacks, nausea, high fever, etc.

I agree that the gentleman appears less than trustworthy, but the point to these posts is to dispute the topic, and the topic is not "him" the topic is the possible mass adverse event.

My problem is that if all of these "theories" are put down immediately and associated with "quacks" then we lose evidence based medicine entirely, and there have been great strides there. If we associate "herbal remedies" with "doesn't work" then we lose great strides there.

I don't mind when people dispute someone's findings, I do mind when there is a global sticker applied.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
I wouldnt suppose that his quackery is any less researched than that of the H1N1 vaccine that they want to sell us for billions of dollars, that has not been tested or proven effective or safe to humans.

Vaccines have consistently been found to cause neurological disorders, such as guilliane barre syndrome, etc. To assume that they are limited to only these obvious severe side effects but are not causing any more cumulative long term problems is a brush off.

Further, to accuse others of quackery when vaccines are so much a part of western medicine, and when the flu vaccine is pushed on everyone as being so important, even though according to the CDC it only provides between 8-16% protection from the flu, is a bit rediculous. We can extrapolate that further to using chemotherapy and radiation with cancer, as naturopathic medicine has an equal cure rate using natural remedies, but without all the horrible side effects of chemo. And lets not get into the fact that there is no greater quackery than the most sold drugs in western medicine, cholesterol meds, that work by impairing the function of the liver, and cause exactly a .2% decrease in overall mortality due to stroke or heart disease, but a .2% increase in overall mortality due to liver failure, leading to a 0% change in mortality, yet costing billions a year to american consumers.

All this "evidence based medicine" and yet we cant have a single serious study of why the amish, a population largely removed from environmental and medical toxins, has reportedly almost no autism, add, etc? We cant even LOOK INTO it??!!



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
good! a flag from me,this doctor seems like a person we needed,i vote him for president



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
I wouldnt suppose that his quackery is any less researched than that of the H1N1 vaccine that they want to sell us for billions of dollars, that has not been tested or proven effective or safe to humans.


The H1N1 vaccine has received ample testing:
www3.niaid.nih.gov...



Vaccines have consistently been found to cause neurological disorders, such as guilliane barre syndrome, etc. To assume that they are limited to only these obvious severe side effects but are not causing any more cumulative long term problems is a brush off.


GBS occurs in 1-2 adults per 100,000 in the United STates. This is neither common nor consistant, as you claim. I also have not been able to find any data suggesting "constant" neurological effects related to vaccines. Can you provide a peer-reviewed, or at least cited, source?


Further, to accuse others of quackery when vaccines are so much a part of western medicine, and when the flu vaccine is pushed on everyone as being so important, even though according to the CDC it only provides between 8-16% protection from the flu, is a bit rediculous.


And how would you measure the percentage of protection? If you have a control group of 200 people, you vaccinate 100 of them, and 50 get the flu that year (25 from each group), would you say the vaccine was just as effective as not being vaccinated, or would you make the more logical conclusion that not everyone is equally susceptible to the flu to begin with, so there is no real way to measure the percent protection in situ?

I would like you to provide the source of your "8-16%" figure, please.


We can extrapolate that further to using chemotherapy and radiation with cancer, as naturopathic medicine has an equal cure rate using natural remedies, but without all the horrible side effects of chemo.


Source? I've seen nothing to support this in practice or in literature.


And lets not get into the fact that there is no greater quackery than the most
sold drugs in western medicine, cholesterol meds, that work by impairing the function of the liver, and cause exactly a .2% decrease in overall mortality due to stroke or heart disease, but a .2% increase in overall mortality due to liver failure, leading to a 0% change in mortality, yet costing billions a year to american consumers.


This just isn't true. The mechanisms of beta- and alpha-blockers have shown no strong correlation to liver failure. Could you provide the literature that validates your claim to the contrary, please?


All this "evidence based medicine" and yet we cant have a single serious study of why the amish, a population largely removed from environmental and medical toxins, has reportedly almost no autism, add, etc? We cant even LOOK INTO it??!!


Here's a study on an Amish girl who has autism. Oddly enough, it's due to a genetic event (as has been supported by dozens of other studies), not vaccines.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I'm very curious where this rumor about the Amish not having autism got started. They're a relatively homogenous genetic population, so of course they'll have varying rates of genetic disorders compared to the more diverse public, but they aren't immune.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Statistically while GB syndrome occurs in 1-2 out of each 100000, vaccines increase that statistic to 1-2 MORE per 100000. My girlfriend is a neurologist, and she was just studying this actually.

The 8-16% was the CDC's statistic, and i didnt go over the statistics they used to get that figure, but im sure it was an approved source....its the CDC after all.

Im sure you are not aware of the studies and statistics having to do with natural treatments for cancer, as most western doctors are completely uneducated in nutritional medicine. Most alternative or natural therapies are constantly disregarded or written off, or pharmaceutical groups do flawed studies with synthetic vitamins or with isolated compounds from herbs rather than the whole herb, and they "prove" that vitamins and herbs are inneffective or even dangerous, and its accepted as "good science".

Meanwhile, the h1n1 vaccine has not been tested on humans. The HPV vaccine was tested only on a small population and only for 5 years, and thats considered good science, and now it has caused many neurological events, and the deaths of 16 girls so far. In 1976 there was a swine flu, and there was a huge fearmongering by the government and the pharma industry. When all was said and done there were less than 10 casualties due to the flu, but there were 4000 injuries and multiple deaths due to the vaccine.

The cholesterol meds i was referring to, sorry should have been more specific, are statins.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Your link did not bring me to a study, it brought me to pub meds front page. And no one said there is no autism in the amish, just that its rare, much more so than the 1 in 91 statistic we are confronted with now.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I do see that trials on 3000 candidates were slated to start in july....and they are already giving the vaccine in october? Is that how testing is normally done? a small 3 month trial, with vaccination of general populace beginning before even that small trial is concluded? hm. If that was the standard of testing across the board, i can guarantee you a lot more herbs and natural treatments would be approved and in use....and a lot more dangerous chemicals as well. That is not the appropriate standard of the FDA which is why many attorneys are grouping in new york to file suit against the FDA for breaking their own rules and allowing this vaccine through that has not been proven safe or effective according to regular standards.



posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
Statistically while GB syndrome occurs in 1-2 out of each 100000, vaccines increase that statistic to 1-2 MORE per 100000. My girlfriend is a neurologist, and she was just studying this actually.


Oh, sure, it can increase it by one or two people. That's part of the risk/benefit of ANY treatment: adverse effects. It's not just the flu vaccine, either. Many vaccines carry the potential for effects, ranging from soreness to GBS (though this is an incredibly small risk). In reality, the chance of contracting GBS is so tiny that it makes HUGE news when anyone does contract it, especially in the medical community. It's what known as a "textbook disease", meaning, you will only ever see it in textbooks, not in a real patient, most likely.


The 8-16% was the CDC's statistic, and i didnt go over the statistics they used to get that figure, but im sure it was an approved source....its the CDC after all.


I asked for the source, not an explanation.


Im sure you are not aware of the studies and statistics having to do with natural treatments for cancer, as most western doctors are completely uneducated in nutritional medicine. Most alternative or natural therapies are constantly disregarded or written off, or pharmaceutical groups do flawed studies with synthetic vitamins or with isolated compounds from herbs rather than the whole herb, and they "prove" that vitamins and herbs are inneffective or even dangerous, and its accepted as "good science".


To the contrary, I'm very aware of this research. My medical school (a large state medical school in the southeast) has a complementary and alternative medical component to our first two years, as well as a C and A rotation during our last two years, both of which are required before earning your degree. In fact, MANY schools have this requirement. Typically, these classes and rotations involve literature review of new C and A methods that are being proven scientifically sound, like acupuncture. I just attended a short clinic on the pros and cons of acupuncture, and it was very enlightening.

Now, saying that an herbal remedy has a better chance of curing cancer than chemotherapy and close medical attention, that's just bunk psuedo-science. Please provide a critically reviewed source that proves otherwise.


Meanwhile, the h1n1 vaccine has not been tested on humans.


Yes, it was. It was even tested in HIV-positive patients (one of mine received it as part of this trial yesterday).

www3.niaid.nih.gov...


The HPV vaccine was tested only on a small population and only for 5 years, and thats considered good science, and now it has caused many neurological events, and the deaths of 16 girls so far.


Source? 5 years is actually quite a long time to test, even when examining potential long term side-effects. How long would you have them test? 20 years? 50? 100?


In 1976 there was a swine flu, and there was a huge fearmongering by the government and the pharma industry. When all was said and done there were less than 10 casualties due to the flu, but there were 4000 injuries and multiple deaths due to the vaccine.


Coincidentally, medical and vaccine technology has advanced in the last 33 years.


The cholesterol meds i was referring to, sorry should have been more specific, are statins.


Most patients don't experience liver damare or even elevated ALT/AST liver enzymes. Those that do would be in the vast minority. This isn't enough to disqualify one of the most useful and dynamic drugs from use, fortunately.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
yes, it may only increase GB to 1-2 people out of 100000....however, statistically the swine flu currently has a mortality rate of .03%....so why take the risk of GB and other neurological disorders or reactions for something with a mortality rate so low? The billions of dollars to effect this small change in mortality are NOT cost effective or efficient, especially if the vaccines ARE the possible culprit in autism, add, etc.

Ok, im having trouble finding the statistic listed now on the CDC's website, but i did see it there quite plainly last year, and have been referencing it regularly. Got me there for sourcing....if I come across it soon i'll post it.

Next...what most western schools consider C and A is just the tip of the iceberg, and only the tiny bit that allows big pharma profits. I moved out west for several years so my fiancee could study at Southwest college of naturopathic medicine, a very expensive school where the students get their ND degrees. They learn pharmacology, so they do get licensed to prescribe meds, but they also learn homeopathy, accupuncture, herbal medicine, adjustments, and some other modalities. I can tell you that most of the students are there because they had some illness that they could not get resolved through western medicine, but finally got fixed when they went to a naturopath. One friend of ours was diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, treated with chemo, and then given a 6 month death sentence by his docs. He went to a naturopath and was simply given a raw diet and toxin free environment order and went into complete remission, and is now healthy and cancer free 6 years later....and a naturopathic doctor now. This story was not an uncommon one at the school as people with all sorts of medical problems were drawn there by the success of their own treatments.

Ive been to naturopaths many times, and they often test for things that western doctors have no clue of. I complained of certain symptoms...lack of sex drive, energy, motivation, etc and they tested my testosterone levels. They were 259...and the ND told me that this is normal for a sickly 70 yo male and put me on testosterone cream to try to get my levels back up and i feel incredibly better. When i went here to a regular MD (no naturopaths available in NO) he drew my levels and said "oh, 320, thats normal".... had no clue that someone my age should be in the 700 range, even though i specifically told him i was there to make sure my testosterone was good. Now im continuing my tx. When complaining of other symptoms at another time, my MD tried to put me on psyche meds for depression, but finally my naturopath checked my food allergies and did some more tests and we determined i have Celiacs disease, and was suffering from malabsorption, and if i had not found out and continued eating gluten, i could have caused irreperable harm to my digestive tract, but my MD never would have found it. I really feel that my ND's have been on the cutting edge, while the MD's i have seen often lag far behind, and would have left me undiagnosed, or worse, MISdiagnosed and on unnecessary chemicals.

I have seen a natural treatment for brown recluse bites that consists of a poultice of dessert lavender under a cover of nopales cactus that completely draws the toxin out, while in a regular hospital the best they can do is cut out massive chunks of tissue leaving ugly scars.

Ive even seen my poor dog take a homeopathic remedy that costs several dollars, and no longer be afraid of lightening and thunder.

Of course, none of this is "approved medicine" with FDA research to back it up. But that does not seem to make much difference to the people who are benefiting from it.


As to the testing of HPV....how can 5 years be adequate when they are testing children, most of which would not have contracted HPV within that 5 years anyhow? So they may be able to say at most that it will give you some protection for 5 years, but they are giving it to 13 year olds....great! they'll be protected maybe until they are 18, when they really start having sex.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


pexx421,


That was a really great testimony to the power of natural medicine, rather than the allopathic kind. Great story.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
yes, it may only increase GB to 1-2 people out of 100000....however, statistically the swine flu currently has a mortality rate of .03%....so why take the risk of GB and other neurological disorders or reactions for something with a mortality rate so low? The billions of dollars to effect this small change in mortality are NOT cost effective or efficient, especially if the vaccines ARE the possible culprit in autism, add, etc.


The 0.03% figure is across the entire population. In at-risk groups (immuno-compromised, elderly, youths up to ~20 for H1N1), it is substantially higher. Obviously, if you aren't in this risk group, your need for the vaccine is much lower. I'm only 25, and I regularly skip the flu vaccine simply because I don't feel like I need it, not because I think it's harmful. However, when I know I'm going to be working in the ICU or wards, I make sure to get an annual flu shot beforehand. Sick people breed more sick people, as a rule.


Ok, im having trouble finding the statistic listed now on the CDC's website, but i did see it there quite plainly last year, and have been referencing it regularly. Got me there for sourcing....if I come across it soon i'll post it.


No worries. I don't particularly disbelieve the figure, I just want to see it. I have a figure it's a "large swath" sort of figure, and that the numbers increase when you look at risk groups, but I could also be wrong.


Next...what most western schools consider C and A is just the tip of the iceberg, and only the tiny bit that allows big pharma profits.


You'd be surprised. After every exam block (6 blocks each year for the first two years) we had a week of learning bedside manner, clinical tests and nutrition. More often than not, the nutritionist they brought in was a naturopath who stressed proper vitamin levels, whole foods and avoidance of corn syrup and processed foods. She even occasionally went into things like acupuncture and relatively common herbal supplements (not replacements, mind you). All of her lectures were well-sourced with scientific data, which she gave us the citations for. This is a great way to present C/A medicine, rather than claiming it "cures cancer" and should replace all modern medicine (I'm not saying you did that, but others here certainly have).


One friend of ours was diagnosed with metastatic melanoma, treated with chemo, and then given a 6 month death sentence by his docs. He went to a naturopath and was simply given a raw diet and toxin free environment order and went into complete remission, and is now healthy and cancer free 6 years later....and a naturopathic doctor now. This story was not an uncommon one at the school as people with all sorts of medical problems were drawn there by the success of their own treatments.


I'm very happy for your friend and all those who recovered from cancer. However, correlation doesn't equal causation. The change in diet may have helped, or the tumor may have had a delayed reaction to chemotherapy. It's been known to happen. It could have been one of a million things going on with that person, both naturpathic and otherwise. We don't know enough about cancer and it's interaction with the body and environment to really rule out anything that seems scientifically sound.


"oh, 320, thats normal".... had no clue that someone my age should be in the 700 range, even though i specifically told him i was there to make sure my testosterone was good. Now im continuing my tx. When complaining of other symptoms at another time, my MD tried to put me on psyche meds for depression, but finally my naturopath checked my food allergies and did some more tests and we determined i have Celiacs disease, and was suffering from malabsorption, and if i had not found out and continued eating gluten, i could have caused irreperable harm to my digestive tract, but my MD never would have found it. I really feel that my ND's have been on the cutting edge, while the MD's i have seen often lag far behind, and would have left me undiagnosed, or worse, MISdiagnosed and on unnecessary chemicals.


Quite honestly, it just sounds like you have a bad primary care doc who refuses to send you to a specialist because he would lose the reimbursements from procedures. It's sad, but it happens, especially since we're currently in a PCP shortage worldwide.



As to the testing of HPV....how can 5 years be adequate when they are testing children, most of which would not have contracted HPV within that 5 years anyhow? So they may be able to say at most that it will give you some protection for 5 years, but they are giving it to 13 year olds....great! they'll be protected maybe until they are 18, when they really start having sex.


A LARGE amount of HPV contraction occurs before the age of 16, especially in urban minority groups. It's sad, but true. The manufacturer's and FDA have also since changed the recommendation age to 15, rather than 12.

[edit on 10/15/2009 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Actually i dont think the testosterone thing is isolated to me. Since then ive looked online and found many cases of people reporting that they went untreated for a long time due to regular MD's not being aware of age average testosterone levels. An interesting article i came across in my research actually pointed out that across our society testosterone levels are actually dropping drastically each generation, with the average test for a 50 yo male in the 1980's being equal to the average test for a 30 yo male today. The article was looking for reasons and was tending towards the greater amount of estrogens in our environment today due to chemicals (estrogen like compounds in our water bottles allowing for soft plastic), our foods (soy and other bio identical estrogen products), etc. Seems high estrogen in males can lead to reduced testosterone....who knew?

At any rate....where are you? I AM actually surprised that you come in contact with naturopaths in your training, though i am also surprised that they are working as nutritionists. In the western states they are licensed as GP's and can make much more money running a practice.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


I'm in a large urban center in the Southeast. In fairness, the nutritionist/naturopaths have duel degrees, so that is most likely why they also work as nutritionists. It's an interesting combination of disciplines, though.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Hm....must be different than the ND degree. The ND degree requires 8 years of school, and costs around 200k post grad, so i dont think most of them dual degree.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pexx421
 


Hm, must be. These nutritionists appear to be mid-thirties, maybe...so I doubt the went through eight years of school for an ND and then another 4 for nutrition. Maybe they just call themselves naturopaths without the actual degree, which is always a possibility



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join