Jump to content

Quackwatch: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Donna Ladd, a journalist with ''The Village Voice'', says Barrett relies mostly.. <-- that is about Barrett and not Quackwatch
Line 283: Line 283:


David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.<ref name="Hufford DJ">Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.</ref> In regard to the [[Water fluoridation controversy|debate]] over [[water fluoridation]], an anti-fluoridation article in the ''[[National Review]]'' quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,<ref name=fluoridation>[http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html "Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!"] Article adapted from ''The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America'', Bob Sprague, Mary Bernhardt, Stephen Barrett, M.D.</ref> but criticizes its reference style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."<ref> {{cite journal|title=Water Fights: Believe It or Not, the Fluoridation War Still Rages -- with a Twist You May Like|journal=[[National Review]]|date=2003-06-30|first=Nordlinger|last=Jay|coauthors=|volume=|issue=|pages=|id= |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_12_55/ai_103135852/pg_3|format=|accessdate=2007-10-30 }}</ref>
David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.<ref name="Hufford DJ">Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.</ref> In regard to the [[Water fluoridation controversy|debate]] over [[water fluoridation]], an anti-fluoridation article in the ''[[National Review]]'' quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,<ref name=fluoridation>[http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html "Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!"] Article adapted from ''The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America'', Bob Sprague, Mary Bernhardt, Stephen Barrett, M.D.</ref> but criticizes its reference style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."<ref> {{cite journal|title=Water Fights: Believe It or Not, the Fluoridation War Still Rages -- with a Twist You May Like|journal=[[National Review]]|date=2003-06-30|first=Nordlinger|last=Jay|coauthors=|volume=|issue=|pages=|id= |url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_12_55/ai_103135852/pg_3|format=|accessdate=2007-10-30 }}</ref>

[[Donna Ladd]], a journalist with ''[[The Village Voice]]'', says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture, among a myriad of other things.<ref name="Ladd"/>


The currently inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the [[United States Department of Health and Human Services|U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]], named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director of the panel's study, later stated, "The government doesn't endorse Web sites." Still, he said, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel stated that "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative" but "feels it is okay for HHS to mention Quackwatch.com as one of many sources.<ref name="Ladd"/><ref name="SciPICH">{{cite news
The currently inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the [[United States Department of Health and Human Services|U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]], named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director of the panel's study, later stated, "The government doesn't endorse Web sites." Still, he said, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel stated that "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative" but "feels it is okay for HHS to mention Quackwatch.com as one of many sources.<ref name="Ladd"/><ref name="SciPICH">{{cite news

Revision as of 19:07, 7 February 2008

Quackwatch Inc. is an American non-profit organization that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct" with a primary focus on providing "quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere."[1] Since 1996, it has operated a website, Quackwatch.org, which contains articles and other types of information criticizing many forms of alternative medicine.[2][3][4] The site advises the public of unproven or ineffective alternative medicine remedies.[5] Quackwatch has received several awards and has been recognized in the media.[6] Numerous sources cite Quackwatch as a practical source for online consumer information. The site has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine supporters.[7]

History

Founded in 1969 by Stephen Barrett, M.D., the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud was incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania in 1970.[8] In 1996, the corporation began the Quackwatch website,[1] and the organization itself was renamed Quackwatch in 1997 as its website attracted attention. Quackwatch is closely affiliated with the National Council Against Health Fraud.[9] Quackwatch now engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed.[10]

Mission and scope

Quackwatch is overseen by Barrett, its chairman, with input from a board of advisors and help from volunteers, including a number of medical professionals.[11] Quackwatch describes its mission as follows:

...investigating questionable claims, answering inquiries about products and services, advising quackery victims, distributing reliable publications, debunking pseudoscientific claims, reporting illegal marketing, improving the quality of health information on the internet, assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits, and attacking misleading advertising on the internet.[1]

Quackwatch states that the total cost of operating all of Quackwatch's sites is approximately $7,000 per year with no salaried employees at Quackwatch, Inc. It states that it is funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer, and profits from the sale of publications, and self-funding by Barrett. Stated income also is derived from sponsored links for which they receive a commission on products ordered including Amazon books, ConsumerLab.com, Healthgrades, and Netflix.[1]

About the site

The Quackwatch website contains many essays and researched viewpoints written for the non-specialist consumer by Barrett, other writers, and a board of advisors. The articles discuss health-related products, treatments, enterprises and providers which Quackwatch deems to be misleading, fraudulent or ineffective and include references and links to sources used, as well as to sources for further study.

Quackwatch is especially critical of those therapies that it considers dubious or dangerous, including:

Template:MultiCol

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

Template:EndMultiCol

The website provides information about specific people who perform, market, and advocate therapies it considers dubious, in many cases providing details of convictions for past marketing fraud. It also maintains lists of sources, individuals, and groups it considers questionable and non-recommendable.[25][26] This includes two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (for his claims about mega-doses of Vitamin C[27]), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, as well as integrative medicine proponent Andrew Weil.[28]

The site is part of a network of related sites, such as Homeowatch (on homeopathy),[29] Credential Watch (devoted to exposing degree mills),[30] Chirobase (specifically devoted to chiropractic, cosponsored by the National Council Against Health Fraud and Victims of Chiropractic,[31][32]) and others, each devoted to specific topics.[33] Quackwatch.org's articles are reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request[1] and many of its articles cite peer-reviewed research.[15][17][19] The site also provides an abundance of links to reliable websites.[34]

The site is also available in German,[35] French,[36] and Portuguese.[37] and also available via several mirrors, including www.quack-watch.org[38] and www.quackwatch.com.[39]

Recognition

Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors.[6][40] In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources."[41] It was also listed as one of three medical sites of U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999:[42] A web site review by Forbes magazine states:

Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, seeks to expose unproven medical treatments and possible unsafe practices through his homegrown but well-organized site. Mostly attacking alternative medicines, homeopathy and chiropractors, the tone here can be rather harsh. However, the lists of sources of health advice to avoid, including books, specific doctors and organizations, are great for the uninformed. Barrett received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. BEST: Frequently updated, but also archives of relevant articles that date back at least four years. WORST: Lists some specific doctors and organizations without explaining the reason for their selection.[43]

Quackwatch has also been cited or mentioned by journalists in reports on therapeutic touch,[44] Vitamin O,[45] Almon Glenn Braswell's baldness treatments,[46][47][48] dietary supplements,[49] Robert Barefoot's coral calcium claims,[50] noni juice,[51] shark cartilage,[52] and infomercials.[53] It has also been referenced in scholarly journals,[54][55] including the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, in a news report on the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy.[54]

Usefulness as a source

Sources that mention Quackwatch.org (formerly .com) as a resource for consumer information include the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,[56] The Lancet,[57] the Journal of Marketing Education,[58] the Medical Journal of Australia,[59] the Journal of the American Dietetic Association,[60] the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services healthfinder.gov,[61] the Diet Channel,[62] and the Skeptic’s Dictionary.[63] Websites of libraries across the Unites States of America, include links to Quackwatch as a source for consumer information.[64] In addition, nutrition associations link to Quackwatch.[65]

A review of the Quackwatch website by The Good Web Guide states "Quackwatch is without doubt an important and useful information resource and injects a healthy dose of skepticism into reviewing popular health information. Its aim is to investigate questionable claims made in some sectors of what is now a multi-million pound healthcare industry."[3] Cunningham and Marcason in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association state that “Two Web sites that can be useful in determining hoaxes are www.quackwatch.com and www.urbanlegends.com.”[60] Wallace and Kimball, in the Medical Journal of Australia, states that “CAM source information tends to exclude well known critical and objective web pages such as those found on Quackwatch.”[59]

Critics

Quackwatch has been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners.[7] A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[66][67][68]

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, in a review published in the The Consultant Pharmacist, gave Quackwatch a positive review for two articles on the site that discussed "natural remedies" available at pharmacies. Quackwatch reported that while pharmacists were unaware of the efficacy of such "dubious" alternative medicines, they continued stocking them because the profit margins for such remedies were larger than conventional drugs. Of one of the criticisms, Nguyen-Khoa writes, "It appears that Quackwatch.com uses the emotional reaction of its critics to substantiate its position."[40]

David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper in which he asserts that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[69] In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,[70] but criticizes its reference style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."[71]

The currently inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director of the panel's study, later stated, "The government doesn't endorse Web sites." Still, he said, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel stated that "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative" but "feels it is okay for HHS to mention Quackwatch.com as one of many sources.[66][72]

See also

List of skepticism related topics
Alternative medicine
Acupuncture | Acupuncture point | Applied kinesiology | Ayurveda | Chelation therapy | Chiropractic | Craniosacral therapy | Crystal power | Faith healing | Folk medicine | Hair analysis (alternative medicine) | Herbalism | Homeopathy | Classical homeopathy | Clinical homeopathy | Complex homeopathy | Innate intelligence | Iridology | Isopathy | Joint manipulation | Magnet therapy | Medical intuitive | Natural hygiene | Naturopathic medicine | Orthomolecular medicine | Osteopathy | Prayer healing | Radionics | Reflexology | Reiki | Spinal adjustment | Traditional Chinese medicine | Vertebral subluxation | Vision therapy
Concepts and methods
Amygdalin | Aspartame controversy | Aura (paranormal) | Azeztulite | Bigfoot | Chakra | Colloidal silver | Conspiracy theory | Coral calcium | Creation-evolution controversy | Crop circles | Cryonics | Dental amalgam controversy | Dermo-optical perception | DHEA | Dietary supplements | Ear candling | Energy (spirituality) | Feng Shui | Food faddism | Global warming controversy | Grapefruit seed extract | HGH controversies | Ionized bracelet | Low-carbohydrate diet | Lunaception | Megavitamin therapy | New Age | Parapsychology | Phrenology | Radioactive quackery | Snake oil (cryptography) | Subtle body | Superstition | Trans fat | Trepanation | UFO conspiracy theory | Urban legends | Vaccine controversy | Vitalism | Vitamin O | Water fluoridation controversy | Yin and yang
Phraseology
Ad hominem | Anecdotal evidence | Anti-intellectualism | Antiscience | Charlatan | Confirmation bias | Consciousness causes collapse | Controversial science | Crank (person) | Folk science | Fraud | Fringe science | Intellectual dishonesty | Junk science | Pejorative | Plagiarism | Pseudoscience | Quackery | Scientific misconduct | Self-deception | Self-serving bias | Skepticism | Straw man | True-believer syndrome | Wishful thinking
Organizations and resources
American Council on Science and Health | Australian Skeptics | Better Business Bureau | Center for Inquiry | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | Committee for Skeptical Inquiry | Consumer Product Safety Commission | Environmental Protection Agency | Federal Trade Commission | Food and Drug Administration | Food and Water Watch | International Association for New Science | Journal of Scientific Exploration | Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency | National Consumers League | National Council Against Health Fraud | Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine‎ | Quackwatch | Skeptical Inquirer | Skeptic’s Dictionary | U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine | The Weston A. Price Foundation

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Barrett SJ. "Quackwatch - Mission Statement". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12. Cite error: The named reference "mission" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Barrett SJ. "Quackwatch.org main page". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  3. ^ a b The Good Web Guide. Retrieved on September 14, 2007.
  4. ^ Politzer, M. Eastern Medicine Goes West. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on September 14, 2007.
  5. ^ Baldwin, Fred D. "If It Quacks Like a Duck ..." MedHunters. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  6. ^ a b Quackwatch: Awards and honors
  7. ^ a b Jaroff, Leon (April 30, 2001). "The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  8. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State — Corporations
  9. ^ "Quackwatch home page". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
  10. ^ Barrett SJ. "Scientific and technical advisors". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  11. ^ Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998). "Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D." Biography Magazine. Retrieved 2007-02-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Barrett, Stephen. "Quackwatch — listing criticisms of several practices". Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions. Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
  13. ^ Barrett, S. "Algae: False Claims and Hype" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  14. ^ Barrett, S. "The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  15. ^ a b Barrett, S. "Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  16. ^ Barrett, S. "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  17. ^ a b Barrett, S. "Don't Let Chiropractors Fool You" Retrieved 27 November 2007
  18. ^ Barrett, S. "Gastrointestinal Quackery: Colonics, Laxatives, and More" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  19. ^ a b Barrett, S. ""Dietary Supplements," Herbs, and Hormones" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  20. ^ a b Barrett, S. "The Shady Side of Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  21. ^ Barrett, S. "The Herbal Minefield" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  22. ^ Barrett, S. "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  23. ^ Eye-Related Quackery
  24. ^ Barrett, S. "A Close Look at Naturopathy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  25. ^ Barrett SJ. "Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  26. ^ Barrett SJ. "Questionable Organizations: An Overview". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  27. ^ Barrett SJ. "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  28. ^ Relamn AS. "A Trip to Stonesville: Some Notes on Andrew Weil". New Republic. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  29. ^ Barrett SJ. "Homeowatch". Homeowatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  30. ^ Credential Watch available online
  31. ^ Chirobase available online
  32. ^ Victims of Chiropractic available online
  33. ^ There are 22 web sites affiliated with Quackwatch.
  34. ^ "Cutting through the haze of health marketing claims". Thomson Gale. Running & Fitnews. Sept-Oct, 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  35. ^ Quackwatch auf Deutsch
  36. ^ Quackwatch en Français
  37. ^ Quackwatch em Português
  38. ^ www.quack-watch.org
  39. ^ www.quackwatch.com
  40. ^ a b Nguyen-Khoa, Bao-Anh (July 1999). "Selected Web Site Reviews — Quackwatch.com". The Consultant Pharmacist. Retrieved 2007-01-25.
  41. ^ JAMA Patient Page - Click here: How to find reliable online health information and resources, Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1380, 1998.
  42. ^ U.S. News & World Report: The Best of The Web Gets Better
  43. ^ Forbes.com, Best of the Web website reviews: Quackwatch.
  44. ^ Kolata, Gina (April 1, 1998). A Child's Paper Poses a Medical Challenge. The New York Times
  45. ^ Siwolop, Sana (January 7, 2001). Back Pain? Arthritis? Step Right Up to the Mouse. The New York Times
  46. ^ Eichenwald, Kurt and Michael Moss (February 6, 2001), Pardon for Subject of Inquiry Worries Prosecutors. The New York Times
  47. ^ Associated Press (September 13, 2004). Man Once Pardoned By Clinton Again Faces Prison.
  48. ^ Another Dubious Pardon - U.S. News & World Report
  49. ^ Fessenden, Ford with Christoper Drew (March 31, 2000). Bottom Line in Mind, Doctors Sell Ephedra. The New York Times
  50. ^ Leon Jaroff, (March 14, 2003), Coral Calcium: A Barefoot Scam, Time magazine
  51. ^ Noni Juice Might Lower Smokers' Cholesterol. Forbes magazine
  52. ^ Leon Jaroff, (Sep. 29, 2004), Medical Sharks, Time magazine
  53. ^ Damon Darlin, (April 8, 2006), Words to Live By in Infomercial World: Caveat Emptor, The New York Times
  54. ^ a b Reynolds Tom, White House Report on Alternative Medicine Draws Criticism, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2002 94(9):646-648 Error: Bad DOI specified!
  55. ^ Schmidt, K (January 2004). "Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer". Oxford University Press. Annals of Oncology. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  56. ^ W Steven Pray. Ethical, Scientific, and Educational Concerns With Unproven Medications. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Alexandria: 2006. Vol. 70, Iss. 6; pg. O1, 14 pgs. Quackwatch is named as a reliable source together with Skeptical Enquirer, specifically for Pharmacy Course on Unproven Medications and Therapies.
  57. ^ Marilynn Larkin. Medical quackery squashers on the web. The Lancet. London: May 16, 1998. Vol. 351, Iss. 9114; pg. 1520 - 2. Names Quackwatch as the premier site for exposing purveyors of health frauds, myths, and fads.
  58. ^ Lawrence B Chonko. If It Walks like a Duck . . . : Concerns about Quackery in Marketing Education. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder: Apr 2004. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; pg. 4, 13 pgs. Chonko states “Many of the thoughts on which this article is based are adapted from materials found on this site.” (referring to Quackwatch)
  59. ^ a b Wallace Sampson, Kimball Atwood IV. Propagation of the Absurd: demarcation of the Absurd revisited. Medical Journal of Australia. Pyrmont: Dec 5-Dec 19, 2005. Vol. 183, Iss. 11/12; pg. 580 - 1. Sampson states that “CAM source information tends to exclude well known critical and objective web pages such as those found on Quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org).”
  60. ^ a b Eleese Cunningham, Wendy Marcason. Internet hoaxes: How to spot them and how to debunk them. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Chicago: Apr 2001. Vol. 101, Iss. 4; pg. 460 - 1. Cunningham and Marcason state that “Two Web sites that can be useful in determining hoaxes are www.quackwatch.com and www.urbanlegends.com.”
  61. ^ "U.S. Department of Health & Human Services". healthfinder.gov. National Health Information Center. Retrieved 2007-09-12.Quackwatch is available from their database.
  62. ^ "Diet Channel Award Review Of Quackwatch". Retrieved 2007-09-18. Quackwatch is a very informative site which informs you about health fraud and gives you advice on many decisions.
  63. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd (January 29, 2008). ""alternative" health practice". Skeptic’s Dictionary. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  64. ^ "Southwest Public Libraries". Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "National Network of Libraries of Medicine". Evaluating Health Web Sites, Consumer Health Manual. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "VCU Libraries". Complementary and Alternative Medicine Resource Guide — Fraud and Quackery Resources. Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "Rutgers University Libraries". Finding What You Want on the Web: A Guide. Rutgers University Libraries. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "USC Libraries — Electronic Resources — Quackwatch". University of Southern California. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "Medical Center Library". University of Kentucky Libraries. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  65. ^ "Research". Texas Dietetic Association. November 6, 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     • "Nutrition Resources". Illinois Dietetic Association. 2005. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     • "Links". Greater New York Dietetic Association. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     • "Nutrition Links". Maryland Dietetic Association. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     • "Professional Resources — Heatlh Quackery". American Dietetic Association. Diabetes Care and Education. 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  66. ^ a b Dr. Who? Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion. by Donna Ladd, The Village Voice, June 23 - 29, 1999. Retrieved September 2, 2006
  67. ^ Colgan, Michael (October 1992, p. 126). "The Vitamin Pushers". Townsend Letter for Doctors. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  68. ^ Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.
  69. ^ Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.
  70. ^ "Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!" Article adapted from The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America, Bob Sprague, Mary Bernhardt, Stephen Barrett, M.D.
  71. ^ Jay, Nordlinger (2003-06-30). "Water Fights: Believe It or Not, the Fluoridation War Still Rages -- with a Twist You May Like". National Review. Retrieved 2007-10-30. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  72. ^ "Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). July 11, 2002. Retrieved 2007-09-12.

Further reading

  • Paranormal Claims: A Critical Analysis, 2007, edited by Bryan Farha, University Press of America, ISBN 978-0-7618-3772-5. Three of the eighteen chapters are reprints of Quackwatch articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&oldid=189783820"