QuackwatchReviews 59

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Seeing is believing. I'll take natural alternatives over chemical synthetics, any day. This site is designed to discourage alternative treatments by instilling fear, so that big pharma can continue to lie with their bed partners who are mainstream, narrow minded Doctors. Natural Doctors treat the whole person, they don't just specialize in specific areas of the body so as to divide it in sections. When's the last time you went to a mainstream Doctor who was able to diagnose AND treat the thyroid, BP, liver, heart and digestive system all in one visit?

This site is terrifying. It presents itself as a non profit consumer protection site when in reality its only goal is to promote the pharmaceutical industry. It tries to discredit legitimate, state-licensed, legal health care practitioners. It bashes every government agency that endorses or promotes alternative medicine. It discounts the critical importance of nutrition in health. If there are 30 positive studies and 10 negative ones on a certain treatment, guess which ones get listed and which don't? Reader beware!

This website and its contributors are no different than those believe that nothing good exists... and Elvis is still alive. Unfortunately for Dr. Barrett, he has been marketed to just as much as those he complains about... and global warming was promoted as quackery for years and look what's happening. He is just as much a product of promotion as everyone else. I suggest to people to do their own research on both sides of the fence because I have, as many people I know, experienced help in areas that he promotes as quackery.

In reading through a Quackwatch article on Lyme disease, I was appalled by the lack of quality references. As a person who spent many years doing research to attain my PhD, I find the information in the article misleading, and based on poor or inefficient reference work. Such practice is commonly suspected as slanted within the "true" research community.

Based on reading this article, I would caution anyone to do their due diligence and look for higher quality research and reference sections. It is out there. Look for peer reviewed research by people with qualified backgrounds. DO NOT waste your time at Quackwatch! I certainly will not.

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 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.:-)