• Quackwatch

Is this your business?

Claim your listing for free to respond to reviews, update your profile and manage your listing.

Claim Your Business
Is this your business?

Overview

Quackwatch has a rating of 2.07 stars from 59 reviews, indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. Reviewers complaining about Quackwatch most frequently mention big pharma, pharmaceutical industry, and side effects problems. Quackwatch ranks 509th among Health Information sites.

  • Service
    1
  • Value
    1
  • Quality
    1
See all photos

What reviewers want you to know

Positive highlights

No positive highlights yet

Critical highlights

  • Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases
  • One only has to look at the side effects of drugs to wonder, "are people that take these drugs really that clueless?"
How would you rate Quackwatch?
Top Positive Review

“Neckknock”

James P.
1/20/21

Dr. Barrett is right on course regarding chiropractors! The manipulation of the neck poses definite health risk for patients. In addition chiropractors are quite often involved in medical treatment that should be reserved for m. D. s only. The chiropractor simply doesn't have the mandatory training to engage these procedures. Any neurological system I. E. x. Spine in particular requires the utmost in manipulation (if any) care. And chiropractors simply don't have this training. Fatalities can easily result from mistakes.

Top Critical Review

“Barrett is a Psychiatrist-an actual Quack.”

Lance P.
10/13/19

Psychiatryis total BS Medical practice. If it was a real it'd be verifiable and treated with Neurology. Quackwatch gives the message that anything outside of Dice & Drug Medicine is dangerous. - What about all the loss of life from Psychiatric drugs? Suicides, Homicides, mass shootings. - Big Pharmas drugs are the 4th leading cause of preventable death, when taken as prescribled and directed! But look out for non-lethal herbs!

Reviews (59)

Rating

Timeframe

Other

Reviews that mention popular keywords

stephen barrett (7) side effects (5) alternative medicine (5) alternative therapies (3) lyme disease (2) big pharma (13)
Thumbnail of user lancep38
1 review
15 helpful votes
October 13th, 2019

Psychiatryis total BS Medical practice. If it was a real it'd be verifiable and treated with Neurology.
Quackwatch gives the message that anything outside of Dice & Drug Medicine is dangerous.
- What about all the loss of life from Psychiatric drugs? Suicides, Homicides, mass shootings.
- Big Pharmas drugs are the 4th leading cause of preventable death, when taken as prescribled and directed!
But look out for non-lethal herbs!

Thumbnail of user alisham46
1 review
18 helpful votes
July 24th, 2019

Some of the most fantastic, educated and effective naturopaths I know have been discredited on Quackwatch, which is so disappointing. Anyone that offers safe alternatives are discredited, while they they don't attack he big pharma and the crazy expensive toxic medical treatments that destroy our bodies! Quackwatch is definitely a shill for the medical industry.

Thumbnail of user kene70
1 review
7 helpful votes
November 21st, 2019

The authors of this website are all insane. The just take some garbage paper and then feel scientific. Science? Bull $#*!

Thumbnail of user kerryk81
1 review
4 helpful votes
April 6th, 2020

This site wants you to waste your money on pharmaceuticals with terrible side effects and people who like to make you more ill.

Thumbnail of user jamesp2623
1 review
0 helpful votes
January 20th, 2021

Dr. Barrett is right on course regarding chiropractors! The manipulation of the neck poses definite health risk for patients. In addition chiropractors are quite often involved in medical treatment that should be reserved for m. D. s only. The chiropractor simply doesn't have the mandatory training to engage these procedures. Any neurological system I. E. x. Spine in particular requires the utmost in manipulation (if any) care. And chiropractors simply don't have this training. Fatalities can easily result from mistakes.

Thumbnail of user juant50
1 review
45 helpful votes
July 19th, 2018

If I were a psychiatrist, I would not be allowed to practice nutrition just as a dietitian could not practice psychiatry without the corresponding degrees. Dr. Barrett is not qualified to make professional judgments about the nutrition industry short of pointing out research. Even giving his personal view on research data is biased information, which amounts to nothing without a strong nutrition education. Couple that with the lack of dissenting research to his views (of which there are infinite examples), this site is misleading and quackery itself. It's like going to FoxNews for complete unbiased political news or MLB.com for news about all sports.

Tip for consumers:
Do not be deceived by someone posing as a savior to a cause he is not educated to speak on.

Service
Value
Quality
Thumbnail of user michaelc1140
3 reviews
38 helpful votes
August 16th, 2018

When people (Stephen Barrett) start writing articles about areas well outside their specialisation (psychology) they tend to defend the status quo and reject anything new.

The definition of madness is to:

Keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome

Quackwatch is like watching the argument for smoking all over again:

"The established paradigm is safe"
The new <insert topic> has not been proven and thus is bad.

It's hyper skepticism at it's worst... and gives true skeptics a bad name.

Quackwatch do use extensive referencing which is a good habit. If only the referencing was a bit more balanced?

Conflicting data often exists which Quackwatch fails to reference. Disagreements are typically resolved as the weight of data finally erodes an existing paradigm. Quackwatch shows no signs of recognising this duality and stifles valid debate rather than facilitating it.

Quackwatch censors debate, is not transparent, misrepresents dissenting points of view and dismisses anyone who disagrees with them as quacks.

The site would benefit from a comments section. Comment sections bring balance back to a discussion. Publishing reader comments forces websites to address weak points in their arguments. Reader comments give an alternative point of view which is otherwise lacking.:-)

Thumbnail of user neda8
1 review
1 helpful vote
November 29th, 2019

It's so very sad when you see greedy promoters of pseudoscience and duped, placebo-admiring, ripped-off customers both feeling so hurt about hearing the cold truth. Soon enough, there'll be quacks claiming that they can beat death and some will believe in that, too. And when their customers die, the quacks will be blaming them for insufficintly following their crazy recommendations. What an irony, kind of like the Stockholm syndrome.

Thumbnail of user tedf55
1 review
29 helpful votes
November 16th, 2018

The sole purpose of this site is to discredit effective, safe, and affordable treatments in favor of crazy expensive, toxic and dangerous medical interventions.

Thumbnail of user jasmined40
1 review
6 helpful votes
September 20th, 2018

As a medical specialist trying to deal with patients who have been 'treated' by Quacks and who are now reaping the resulting detrimental health consequences, this site is invaluable. I tell my Medical students, Junior Staff and Nursing staff to refer to Quackwatch for well researched information free of opinion, hearsay and magical thinking. It's a fantastic resource. Thankyou.

Thumbnail of user aaronf58
1 review
39 helpful votes
May 11th, 2018

At one point I used to see and think I could trust information from this site. It wasn't until they tried to post about something I myself had personally had my life changed about that I realized how biased it was. It seems hard to be with citing sources, but you realize the sources are all cherry-picked and also from biased sources.

Thumbnail of user sandras610
2 reviews
3 helpful votes
October 13th, 2019

This is a scientifically based website which uses evidence-based medicine to support their articles. No, it is not an arm of "big pharma" which is itself a much overused conspiracy term. The people who write for Quackwatch are respected in their various fields and provide much-needed advice for those who have little background or knowledge of scientific and evidence-based medicine. If the general public had any idea how to evaluate scientific studies or interpretation of data we would not need this site. Unfortunately this is not the case. I would ask anyone who disparages this site to think about what the various snake oil salesmen that they may subscribe to get out of their relationship with them and the rest of the unsuspecting public.

Thumbnail of user rodg32
1 review
33 helpful votes
September 29th, 2018

Cleary this website has an agenda. An agenda that fits in line with the kind of people that make vaccinations and fluoridated water compulsory. You must be a quack if you speak up about the dangers in things like that, eh?

Thumbnail of user michaels471
1 review
29 helpful votes
July 31st, 2016

Mostly, every article is a strenuous exercise in confirmation bias. Though many alternative therapies have favorable studies, quackwatch consistently neglects them. Have you ever seen a section talking about the favorable studies for any therapy? Nope, because they're too busy trying to prove it wrong instead of seeking the truth. Two quick examples, the article on vision therapy fails to mention the CITT trial; the article on Chelation fails to mention the TACT trial. And those are just the recent studies on these topics.

It's good to be critical of *all* science-based anything. That's the whole point of science, but quackwatch is critical only of a few things and never critical of the rest. You can find some good questions raised for any given alternative therapy, but you have to read through a lot of bias.

Tip for consumers:
If you are not accustomed to scientific inquiry or critical review then don't bother with the site. Another mentioned it's for dummies. Nope, it's only useful for those already familiar with critical review. It's a very biased site.

Thumbnail of user mikep98
1 review
14 helpful votes
December 6th, 2014

There are references listed at the bottom of every article that link to papers and studies with hard evidence. It's rare to see the site's detractors backing up their claims with proven facts. Use your best judgement. If one side can support their arguments with science and the other side cannot, who would you believe?

Thumbnail of user kathym419
1 review
29 helpful votes
September 6th, 2018

Misleading, biased, and part of the internet circus of self-proclaimed "experts". Who will call to question these sorts of quacky websites?

Thumbnail of user msn2
8 reviews
35 helpful votes
March 5th, 2020

I read an accusatory letter from a government agency, t o an honorable and effective herbalist i had bought items from in the past, which letter was published on the QW site. But it seems to be a fundamentally flawed accusation, just that the federal agency did not seem to know their own business and what is permitted vs what is not. The site QW did not give any further info, as to the disposition of the case- just an accusatory preliminary letter. Which may have been overruled by a judge in favor of the existing laws that the Fed agent seemed unaware of. Or maybe the Feds and who knows, maybe also QW, just try to bully and harass alternative medical professionals, in order to serve thier apparent long term masters, Big Pharma. Since the major Federal agencies including this one, seem a bit compromised and a bit captured by industries who become government insiders and then wield the agencies as weapons against competitors.
Old medical remedies DO NOT have the same labeling or ad requirements as new ones. A lot of them are "grandfathered in" without the current requirements, based on thier past of successful use by doctors of the past.
It appears that these people on QW are a bit out of date and not very knowledgeable. As are some people in federal agencies. Or else they deliberately and knowingly harass good alt medicine professionals.

Thumbnail of user donnam88
1 review
8 helpful votes
October 30th, 2015

I manage online support groups for a neurological disease and sleep disorders. The theories about what causes these are far reaching and most are ridiculous. He has helped me prove that some of the doctors I suspected are "quacks", definitely ARE. It is good to have the proof right in front of me and saves me valuable time. Cannot thank him enough! It is amazing what some people will fall for or who they will believe. So when I see some article about what I research all of the time, he usually has the answer for me 90% of the time. I had one case of a "doctor" who said the neurological disease was made up and hyped up and made up by pharma companies to sell more drugs. Then, he discovered the court cases where the "doctor" had had her license to practice stripped in Canada and in several states in the US. Stops those online arguments fast when I have the facts in front of me. Court documents do not lie. I trust Dr. Barrett implicitly and have the highest respect for him.

Thumbnail of user stevep47
1 review
12 helpful votes
September 6th, 2013

This site is very informative about some of the underhanded or uninformed practices being performed in medicine both human and veterinary. Of course, this inflames the snake oil salesmen and their ilk so the site posts some of these comments. It also posts positive comments from visitors to the site. I would highly recommend this site to anyone seeking or thinking about seeking treatment in any kind of alternative medicine.

Thumbnail of user thomasl97
1 review
56 helpful votes
July 8th, 2016

I went to quack watch to see what was offered. I have a Ph. D. In Nutrition from a top 5 university and I am deeply disappointed in the quality. I have fought nutrition quackery for over 30 years but I do it by evaluating the evidence as presented by quality studies and experts. There is a paucity of quality analysis on this site and conclusions drawn that are contrary to scientific evidence. As a result, I have to put this site among those that report quackery. Zero stars.

Thumbnail of user ericc28
10 reviews
57 helpful votes
December 5th, 2012

This website does little to watch for genuine quackery. It is also poorly organized and difficult to navigate. Instead of featuring very one-sided articles that "debunk" supposed quackery, it should focus on genuinely dangerous health memes. Just because you have a real doctor posting an article that includes references, does not mean that you have debunked anything.

Thumbnail of user alexandern7
6 reviews
26 helpful votes
November 13th, 2012

Learn to think for yourselves people.
Being a pharmacist that works in the supplement industry I agree with many but not all things found in that site. A psychiatrist-and one not allowed to practice too- is not the best source of information. As for the big-pharma conspiracies I read here- big pharmas laugh laugh and then laugh some more at the tiny % of their profits the whole supplement industry is. If the guy writes an article and is backed with both logical arguments AND scientific studies, then doctor or not, he is probably right

Thumbnail of user debbieb42
2 reviews
53 helpful votes
February 19th, 2015

Barrett never achieved any success in his chosen medical profession. Because of that, he has found frustration. He is rabidly jealous of those that actually accomplish things. As an outlet for that frustration, he hatefully attacks his betters.

De-licensed MD Stephen Barrett, I believe, is one of those people whose ambitions, and opinions of himself, far exceed his abilities.

Thumbnail of user milan2
1 review
23 helpful votes
June 26th, 2011

Don't be fooled. While I know there are plenty of quacks out there, this site is definitely funded, supported, or otherwise controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. I regularly witness the true quackery of "board certified physicians." I work in one of the largest, well-known cancer and heart hospitals in the nation, and have yet to see ANYONE cured by pharmaceutical drugs. It just doesn't happen. The physicians on the site are trained by the industry, therefore, they know little else. They are taught to never think outside the box and would never discredit conventional thinking/practice even if it results in lives saved. The fact is that medicine only makes money if people are sick and ignorant about preventing illness. Natural cures are not profitable to the current medical establishment.

Thumbnail of user slawomirg2
1 review
15 helpful votes
March 9th, 2019

LIERS SPONSORED BY SELFISH BIG PHARMA
DONT TRUST THEM
THEY LIE ABOUT GOOD ALTERNATIVE DOCTORS AND WEBSITES

Sitejabber for Business

Gain trust and grow your business with customer reviews.

About the business

How do I know I can trust these reviews about Quackwatch?

  • Sitejabber’s sole mission is to increase online transparency for buyers and businesses
  • Sitejabber has helped over 200M buyers make better purchasing decisions online
  • Suspicious reviews are flagged by our algorithms, moderators, and community members
Have a question about Quackwatch?

Is this your business?

Claim your listing for free to respond to reviews, update your profile and manage your listing.

Claim Your Business