'Quackwatch.com' is a website I find myself referring to constantly. It is a well researched database of the pseudosciences and the history behind them. Much of the website is devoted to answering any question one may have regarding the science and research that do or do not support the the many types of quackery we are exposed to daily.
To be informed is to be protected from being swindled by the peddlers who try to sell their snake oil around every corner. In this spirit, quack watch has published a list of '25 ways to spot quacks', which I will republish below. There is a full description for each of these points that can be read here.
1. When Talking about Nutrients, They Tell Only Part of the Story.2. They Claim That Most Americans Are Poorly Nourished.3. They Recommend "Nutrition Insurance" for Everyone.4. They Say That Most Diseases Are Due to Faulty Diet and Can Be Treated with "Nutritional" Methods.5. They Allege That Modern Processing Methods and Storage Remove all Nutritive Value from Our Food.6. They Claim That Diet Is a Major Factor in Behaviour.7. They Claim That Fluoridation Is Dangerous.8. They Claim That Soil Depletion and the Use of Pesticides and "Chemical" Fertilizers Result in Food That Is Less Safe and Less Nourishing.9. They Claim You Are in Danger of Being "Poisoned" by Ordinary Food Additives and Preservatives.10. They Charge That the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) Have Been Set Too Low.11. They Claim That under Everyday Stress, and in Certain Diseases, Your Need for Nutrients Is Increased.12. They Recommend "Supplements" and "Health Foods" for Everyone.13. They Claim That "Natural" Vitamins are Better than "Synthetic" Ones.14. They Suggest That a Questionnaire Can Be Used to Indicate Whether You Need Dietary Supplements.15. They Say It Is Easy to Lose Weight.16. They Promise Quick, Dramatic, Miraculous Results.17. They Routinely Sell Vitamins and Other "Dietary Supplements" as Part of Their Practice.18. They Use Disclaimers Couched in Pseudomedical Jargon.19. They Use Anecdotes and Testimonials to Support Their Claims.20. They Claim That Sugar Is a Deadly Poison.21. They Display Credentials Not Recognized by Responsible Scientists or Educators.22. They Offer to Determine Your Body's Nutritional State with a Laboratory Test or a Questionnaire.23. They Claim They Are Being Persecuted by Orthodox Medicine and That Their Work Is Being Suppressed Because It's Controversial.24. They Warn You Not to Trust Your Doctor.25. They Encourage Patients to Lend Political Support to Their Treatment Methods
These may seem commonsense in many cases, but if that were really true, the pseudosciences wouldn't be a 33.9 billion dollar industry in the United States alone, right?
Posts
7 comments:
But there is a noticeable difference in taste and quality from a tomatoes you grow in your own backyard and one you buy in the store. Modern storage and long-haul transportation compels the grower to pick them green and mature in a truck.
Just from personal experience, I think it is obvious that a home grown tomato, grown with no pesticides (organic) and picked from the vine is more nourishing (not to say personal satisfying) than a pesticide laden, truck ripened one.
Why is your condemnation of everything that is not part of the modern scientific, medical, and capitalist establishment tooted as quackery? Why this rigid, uncompromising dichotomy?
Why was this post removed? Did you remove it?
Did it contain information that challenged your assumptions? Unless it was vulgar, I don't see why you would feel inclined to silence any opposition.
Please respond to a dedicated follower of your blog.
You ask the same question repeatedly of me. Again, I wil restate, the only time I will remove a post is when it is a spam message, which the one above was. The anti-fluoridation movement is as much based on evidence as the anti-vaccination movement. I'd rather not give the copy-and-paste master above the ability to advertise his campaign on my blog. He found me through searching 'medicine' on search.blogspot.com and pasted the same message on my site that he has on about 50 others. Don't be so quick to condemn. You've asked this question before of me, you'll get the same response each time.
Thanks for the quick response, but I was unaware of this anti-fluoridation movement spam campaign that targets blogs. I just though it would have been more interesting to witness you, as a critical thinker, to engage the spam message with evidence countering his claims, rather than simply deleting it. Educate your audience!
There must be a reason why there is this debate. Is it possible that the anti-fluoride movement, although possibly being a bit extreme, may have some valid points...at least one??? Or do you just simply write them off as quacks, preferring not to waste your time on anti-establishment rantings?
There is, in fact, a draft post about fluoridation, dedicated follower. To respond in a comment to someone who will never return to read the rebuttal is akin to talking to a wall, wouldn't you agree?
I love the fact that you use the 'anti-establishment' term. How telling.
I'll take the time, but it'll be on my own schedule.
Of course I use the term "anti-establishment". It is a direct contrast to your use of the terms "pseudoscience" and "quacks"; how telling is that!
Wish me luck tomorrow, my friend, tomorrow I defend my thesis!
I'll try to make your next "Drinking "skeptically"" meeting.
You owe me a beer!
Post a Comment