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.:-)