What do you think about natural medicine or non-pharmaceutical remedies? A lot of times, there are remedies just as good, if not better, than reaching for medication for common ailments. For instance, certain skin conditions can be treated with topical Vitamin E, and the best way to do that is to puncture a vitamin E capsule and apply it to your skin. What are your thoughts on the natural side of medicine?

I believe in everything in moderation. Too much medication is debilitating. But too much homeopathy without actually consulting a doctor isn't good either. It's all about taking care of yourself with the resources you have.

It has its place. My issue with it in general is when it's used in place of conventional medicine, instead of in tandem with it.

I believe in integrative medicine, using both conventional and alternative medicine. You have to keep in mind that the FDA does not monitor supplements but treats them as food. Also, just because a treatment is natural does not mean it's automatically safe. It can cause side effects and interact with medication, natural supplements, and vitamins. You really have to do research.

I think it is useful but not for everything. Also you need to be mindful that natural doesn’t always mean safe. I still think it’s important to consult with someone who knows what they are doing, such as an herbalist.

There are a lot of “old wives' tales” for cures that are great. The fear is that it usually is an all-or-nothing approach with natural medicine.

Natural medicine is superior for preventative and light ailments. Bring out the artificial when things ramp up in my opinion. It’s just hard because the natural remedy world is so inconsistently regulated you know?

I prefer natural over medications, but nothing too serious. My family and I haven’t had to be prescribed medications in a long time. Now, pain meds for after surgery is different; however, I have a high pain tolerance and only take as needed.

I strongly prefer evidence based medicine. Once you can demonstrate how it works and why it works, I will more readily accept it. By definition, alternative medicine has either not been shown to work due to lack of any real testing, or it has been explicitly demonstrated not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that has been definitively proven to work? Medicine.

If we can include Ayurvedic medicine in our definition then I'm definitely going to agree. The problem is when we get too many fads and fashions that promote silly solutions. Natural medicine is too often like diets that promote themselves for weight loss/miraculous health improvement etc.

I think there is value in both. I believe in using evidence first, but I am open to safe alternatives where appropriate.

I think highly of natural medicine and as I age and am put on more medications by my doctor, I’m often researching the alternative ‘homeopathic’ version if there’s one to be found. I wish more practices would offer patients a combined treatment plan of the two medical treatment routes (natural and conventional medicine).

I look for a natural remedy before going to OTC or the doctor to find the answer. I made a cyst disappear wearing a castor oil compress for two months constantly. The doctors just wanted to monitor it and get an ultra sound every 6 mo.

Pt 1
I want to start by saying none of this is meant to be taken personally—I’m not trying to be critical or give anyone a hard time. That said, there are a few logical fallacies and reasoning issues worth addressing.
The key distinction shouldn’t be “natural” vs. pharmaceutical. As a pharmacist—or any healthcare professional making recommendations—the more meaningful distinction is evidence-based vs. non–evidence-based.
There’s a common assumption that “natural” automatically means safer or more effective, which reflects the Appeal to Nature fallacy. In reality, safety and effectiveness depend on the specific substance and the quality of evidence supporting it—not its origin. Many harmful substances are completely natural, and many medications are derived from natural compounds but are refined, standardized, and tested to ensure consistent dosing and predictable effects.
As you should recall from your med chem, pharmaceutics, and pharmacology classes, the body does not meaningfully distinguish between “natural” and “synthetic” compounds. Drugs are metabolized/processed based on their chemical structure and properties, not their source. Absorption often occurs in the gastrointestinal tract, metabolism primarily occurs in the liver (e.g., via cytochrome P450 enzymes), and elimination typically occurs through the kidneys and then fit in their corresponding receptors to elicit a particular physiologic response. These systems act on chemical bonds and molecular structures—they do not have a mechanism to recognize whether a compound originated from a plant or a laboratory, whether it is "natural" or "synthetic." In that sense, they are all simply chemicals interacting with biological systems.
That said, not all non-pharmaceutical approaches should be dismissed. Some are well-supported by evidence and are part of standard care—such as dietary fiber for cholesterol reduction, garlic for blood pressure, omega 3 for triglycerides, lifestyle interventions for chronic disease, etc. The issue arises when broad claims are made without strong supporting data, which can lead to the Hasty Generalization fallacy (e.g., “a lot of times natural remedies are just as good, if not better than”...) or reliance on Anecdotal Evidence (Ivermectin cured my Covid...).
For example, topical vitamin E is often recommended for skin conditions, but clinical studies have not consistently shown benefit for scar healing, and some have shown an increased risk of contact dermatitis. So while it’s commonly suggested, it’s not a reliably evidence-based treatment.
Similarly, claims like “St. John’s wort is just as good as Prozac” require nuance. Evidence (including meta-analyses) suggests St. John's wort can be comparable to standard antidepressants for mild to moderate depression, but results are variable, product quality is inconsistent, and it has significant drug interactions.

Pt 2
It is not considered interchangeable with prescription antidepressants in all patients or for severe depression.
Additionally, equating “natural remedies” with pharmaceuticals can create a False Equivalence fallacy. Medications are studied in controlled trials to establish safety, efficacy, and dosing, whereas many supplements and natural remedies are not held to the same standard. This can cause the patient to lose time and waste money on treatments that don't really work even though they "feel better!" Homeopathy is a great example of this. Homeopathy lacks biological plausibility and hasn't demonstrated efficacy beyond placebo in high-quality studies. It doesn't work. Most contain no active ingredient beyond alcohol or sugar. A ridiculous metaphor for the logic behind it is, "If I'm drunk I'll drink more beer until I'm sober." Yet patients take these therapies believing they are "just as good" as evidence based medicine and can lead to delayed treatment, disease progression, and in some cases serious harm or death when/if their condition worsens because it wasn't being properly treated. If you think this is an extreme example, ask Steve Jobs, Kim Tinkham, Jessica Ainscough, Cassandra Callender, etc. etc.
The most reliable approach is to evaluate any therapy—whether “natural” or pharmaceutical—based on the strength and quality of evidence for the specific condition being treated, not its label or origin.
If there’s one takeaway, it’s this: as healthcare professionals, we have a responsibility to base our recommendations on the highest-quality evidence and established treatment guidelines.
When a patient asks about “natural” options, our role is to guide the conversation toward the evidence—clearly explaining what is supported, what isn’t, and why. If a patient chooses a therapy that lacks supporting evidence, it’s our responsibility to make sure they understand both the uncertainty of benefit and the potential risks of forgoing treatments that are proven to work.
History has shown what happens when medicine drifts away from evidence and toward anecdote or assumption—practices like bloodletting, lobotomies, and the use of ineffective or harmful therapies such as certain supplements or stimulants (beta-carotene for cancer, ephedra for weight loss, etc.) were all widely accepted before being rigorously evaluated. This is a place where anecdotes and superstition guided treatment decisions, and makes us no better than faith healers and witch doctors.
The goal isn’t to dismiss patient preferences, but to ensure decisions are grounded in the best available evidence. When we know better, we have a responsibility to do better.

It is a part of my life (seriously, rosemary oil is worth its weight in gold), but anything I use I can defend my choice by pointing out multiple peer reviewed studies on it. I don't trust broscience.

I think you have the option. Make your choice and let others choose their methods no body’s business