Quackwatch is a biased web page.

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Cecil - At the end of your column on accupuncture, you made reference to the
web page www.quackwatch.com I think you are not aware of just how biased that
web page is. I was not aware myself until I was doing research on one of his
topics, and found his web page to by hopelessly one sided, and left out many
issues. I’m not alone in this opinion, as I’ve recently read messages on the
sci.med news group which share my opinion. Quackwatch’s web page’s don’t do
any real critical analysis, and they don’t include any links to web pages on the
internet that show the opposing viewpoints. I believe a lot of people are
deluded by the name of the web page, as if it is written by someone who is an
expert on the topics being written. I’ve spent a lot of time on the internet
fighting against quacks myself, but I found Quackwatch to be just as biased as
the quacks themselves.

The topic that I happened to research concerned mercury fillings. The
quackwatch web page basically spends most of the time ridiculing a Dr.
Huggins, a vocal fanatic, who claimed many years ago that health problems
could be solved by removal of the fillings. Any decent anti-amalgam doctor
knows that mercury becomes stored in tissues, mainly the brain, so that removal
of fillings is only a very small part of the solution, and that chelation
medicine is needed to remove that mercury. This issue is totally ignored on
that web page. Quackwatch simply spends most of their web page talking about
Huggins without talking about more recent claims that mercury could be
adversely affecting people with low antioxidant levels, such as people with
chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. My own research on other people’s
web pages and studies on mercury gave me a far greater view of the topic, and
it is far more complex than what quackwatch reports. I’ve read enough on
mercury to scare me enough to avoid eating tuna or any fish with a high
mercury content. It is the most toxic element to the human body, short of
radioactive elements, that is. In any event, that web page should not be taken
as an authoratative view point, and I would hope that you don’t continue to
refer people to it, but instead to have them do their own research by looking
at all the web pages out there.

Mark London

2

Cecil used many other sources besides Quackwatch - articles from medical journals as well as journals specifically devoted to acupuncture and alternative medicine - to research this column (not to mention his own innate wisdom). I think this column will be online in a week or two, so stay tuned.
Jill

3

I guess I better get started.

rocks

4

I think thast mlondon’s point is that Cecil’s prestige grants an air of authority to anything which he references, even if that reference is only on of many.

5

Quackwatch is biased only against quackery. The reason that Dr. Barrett didn’t mention that chelation therapy can remove mercury is that chelation therapy is itself quackery.

I’ve found Quackwatch to be very open on questions which have some merit, but the reason someone might think it’s biased is that there’s so much quackery out there to debunk.

Here’s Quackwatch’s chelation article.

6

The referenced article does NOT say that chelation is quackery in general, it assumes that chelation WORKS to remove heavy metals from the blood stream (“After EDTA was found effective in chelating and removing toxic metals from the blood…”). It also warns about the risks of removing metals such as zinc from the blood stream.

The article DOES say that using chelation therapy to cure arteriosclerosis is quackery, and comments that it is often misused to remove NONEXISTENT (misdiagnosed) mercury or lead poisoning or other “alleged toxic states”.

7

Let’s not lose track of the OP, which was “X’s website is biased.”

I think all websites are by their very nature biased. The Goatkeeper’s Web Ring is biased against sheep and cows, Jennifer’s Web Page is biased against Ashley, Brittany, and Chelsea, and the nice folks over at the Encyclopedia Britannica aren’t going to go out of their way to tell you what entries Encarta has that they don’t. The astrology websites don’t give equal time to the astrology debunkers.

I would expect a website called “Quackwatch” to be biased against, well, “quacks”, and I wouldn’t expect it to give equal time to those “quacks”.

If ya’ll are going to go on talking about chelation and stuff like that, I think you ought to move this discussion over to the homeopathy thread.

8

Since when does a website have to present every opposing viewpoint? The whole notion of advocacy is that you present YOUR viewpoint. The reader can then do research to discover others.

I don’t expect every article on evolution to have a mandatory disclaimer that some people believe in creation. I don’t expect an article debunking the Loch Ness Monster to have a bibliography of opposing viewpoints.

9

You’re right, I was wrong.

Thanks for letting me shift back to the OP. The Quackwatch site IMHO is not advocating anything, except being fully knowledgeable. When they find things that seem to have merit, they advise accordingly. This is the kind of advice you want to get from your doctor, where he openly tells you everything you need to know about a topic. Since the subject is quackery, you’d expect to find mostly articles about things they really consider to be quackery. But there are articles explaining the good and the bad, for example glucosamine and St. John’s Wort.

10

Quackwatch, Chirobase.org, etc. are websites that are consumer protection oriented. They don’t pretend to cover all the bases. And they don’t try to hide their bias.

I think “Notthemama’s” suggestion is appropriate: “If ya’ll are going to go on talking about chelation and stuff like that, I think you ought to move this discussion over to the homeopathy thread.” Quackwatch gets discussed there quite a bit.
Here’s something about being biased, and why it’s necessary (from the introduction to a 40+ page essay I’m writing on chiropractic):

“As a collection of my thoughts on the subject, this essay is not intended to be exhaustive or balanced, and is biased, for good reason. I write from my viewpoint, and feel no burden to defend the “other side of the coin”. That’s the job of those who hold that opinion. Their viewpoints are clearly the easiest to find. I just hope to even things up a little. By daring to openly express the truth as I see it, this essay is politically incorrect. That is, in fact, justification enough for writing it. Democratic principles demand it. Falsehood will ultimately triumph, if unpopular truths are swept under the carpet of political correctness.”
And more from the introduction to my own little website:

"If you’re seeking a comprehensive, well-balanced presentation of all sides of an issue, you’ll possibly be disappointed. The believers, quacks, salesmen and the sincerely deceived are already out there with their message. Their side of the story is easy to find. Here you’ll get the other side of the coin, the skeptical viewpoint. You’ll get exposed to, what for many are, the unknown and hidden issues and arguments. I hope that, after reading some of the contents of these pages, you’ll feel enlightened, enriched and more capable of understanding what Carl Sagan meant, when he said: “Science is a way of thinking, much more than it is a body of facts.”

"Being skeptical is a fundamental requirement for scientific thinking. It is a duty for all who seek truth. “Test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21), because “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” (‘Reebok’ advertisement). The difference between truth and falsehood should not be allowed, by carelessness or design, to be become unclear. The discrepancy that often exists between fact and fiction, reason and faith, knowledge and belief, scientific evidence and alternative assertion, needs to be understood and pointed out. The idea that there are no absolute truths that apply to all people, or that truth is completely relative (“my idea of truth is just as valid as yours”, “…the truth for me…”), or even worse, that truth is irrelevant or non-existent, leads to indifference and chaos.

"Mankind’s capacity for deception and self-deception knows no limits: “Mundus vul decipi” (The world wants to be deceived). Without the existence of skeptics the general population would be vulnerable to charlatans, naivety and ignorance. There would be no fixed “point of reference” in the terrain. People would lose their way without knowing it, and, worse yet, without the possibility of finding their way “home”. They would lose touch with reality. You can bet that there are a lot of people, companies and organisations that make their living by exploiting such a situation.

"The skeptic’s task is to question the believer’s beliefs, demand evidence, warn the public and unmask deceivers. It’s a job often consisting of denial, negation and resistance. That’s why Quackbusters are neither popular nor appreciated. Both the deceiver and the victim would rather shoot the messenger, than heed his warning. Both sides of an issue need to be examined. It is often only the skeptic that can or will expose the side which the deceiver/salesman tries to hide.

“Ignorance is not so much a question of intelligence, as it is of information. The deception of unwitting people, often suffering and poor, is something that really irritates me. They need information. Hence my interest in combating quackery.”

End quote.

While I can’t speak for Dr. Barrett, I have a feeling that we think a lot alike about the role of Quackwatch, and other similar sites, dedicated to consumer protection.

Sincerely,

Paul Lee, PT
Denmark

E-mail: healthbase@post.tele.dk
HF List Intro: http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/messages/197.shtml
The Quack-Files: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase

11

Ta-daah!

Does acupuncture really work? (24-Mar-2000)

12

I looked at the mercury amalgam page on Quackwatch. It seems well documented and includes a couple of links to opposing views (hugnet and Consumers for Dental Choice). What’s the problem? Oh, wait, it depends on whose ox is being gored when we make judgements about “bias”. Has it occurred to Mark London that maybe there is no scientific rationale behind mercury amalgam poisoning and therefore no reason to give the scaremongers an air of legitimacy?

I have a feeling that the reason that quackwatch doesn’t address the “treatment” of “amalgam poisoning” is because the article very clearly points out that there is no reason to treat and no reason to even be concerned about the few mg’s of Hg in fillings.

I found the claim about a lack of “real critical analysis” to be kind of silly. What do you want, a message directly from God proclaiming that we don’t have to worry about small doses of mercury? I thought that the article did a fine job of showing how the hoax was started, the major players and why they were probably wrong. Of course the issue is probably a bit more complex, but the underlying theory of mercury amalgam poisoning addressed at quackwatch is just as shaky regardless of any new health claims. It would be nice if we could get a few examples of “unbiased” sources on the web from Mark London.

Your statement above gives the impression that you may be suffering from the “bias” of anti-amalgam crusaders-especially the statement about mercury being the “most toxic element”. I have my doubts about that claim and it strikes me as the type of hyperbole that is so common on all the poison du-jour sites that litter the web. Unfortunately these types of sites, all too often, constitute the lions share of “research” that many folks claim to engage in. Maybe I am being too cynical here, but I have a feeling that anyone attempting to defuse this scare would be guilty of bias in the eyes of Mark London.

Another thought…Is “bias” necessarily a bad thing? If you have fact to back up your assertions and then offend someone’s sensibilities because your assertions challenge some beliefs, is that bias? I wonder if it would be considered “bias” if, say, Ernest Rutherford published a website in the early 1900’s to show why his model of the atom was superior to J.J. Thomson’s model?

Sorry about the length.

Jon

13

Well said Jon. There is a difference between “bias” and “prejudice”. Bias is impossible to avoid. While it’s positive to try to be objective, it’s also positive to have a well-formulated bias. Someone without a bias has no standpoint or opinion worth listening to. Someone with a prejudice is offensive. It’s important to be aware of one’s own biases and prejudices, but not always that easy…:wink:

If having a bias is principally wrong, then it must follow that there is no point in trying to find out if there exists a difference between truth and falsehood, and that it makes no difference what one believes. So much for the search for truth and all scientific endeavors to sift the chaff (placebo effect) from the wheat (what “really” works biologically). Since science is the process of creating usable knowledge out of observations and phenomena, it is an organized form of using logic. It implies that one comes up with conclusions regarding truth and error, IOW, you end up with a bias that hopefully represents the truth, in contrast to error.

FWIW,

Paul Lee, PT
Denmark

E-mail: healthbase@post.tele.dk
HF List Intro: http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/messages/197.shtml
The Quack-Files: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase

14

I minor correction to the suggestion: if you must diverge from the topic (acupuncture) into the whole alt-med field, don’t take it to the homeopathy thread (another thread being dragged off topic), take it to Great Debates and start a thread there.

Alt Medicine - the saving grace or evil incarnate?

See, I even supplied a title.

Who wants to start it?

15

Oops, the topic is quackwatch, not acupuncture. Sorry.

16

You all ought to participate in the discussion on homeopathy on The Straight Dope Message Board. There’s also one criticizing Quackwatch. The article and comments on Salon.com are also interesting.
The Straight Dope Message Board:

Homeopathy http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000518-5.html

Quackwatch is a biased web page http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000587.html

Salon.com

Homeopathy, by Debra Ollivier http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/16/homeopathy/

Letters to the Editor http://www.salon.com/letters/2000/03/21/homeopathy/index.html

Paul Lee, PT
Denmark

E-mail: healthbase@post.tele.dk
HF List Intro: http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/messages/197.shtml
The Quack-Files: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase

To unsubscribe, e-mail: healthfraud-unsubscribe@ssr.com
For additional commands, e-mail: healthfraud-help@ssr.com

17

Any reason for the apparent copyright infringement above?

Jon

18

BIAS is primarily a concern when someone stands to benefit (or not!) from the actions that are likely to follow from whatever conclusion(s) they are arguing for or against. This applies in spades to most of the proponents of acupuncture, homeopathy, herbs, megavitamins, chiropractic and all the rest of what goes by the name of “alternative medicine.” Quackwatch, by contrast, doesn’t make any money from people deciding not to go to a Tijuana cancer clinic or from people not following the advice of the quack diet book authors. Even more than that, all the material that I have seen on Quackwatch has merely shown why the wondrous claims made for magnets, etc are either nonsense or unsupported by evidence. Quackwatch is probably less biased than your friends, neighbors and family, in fact, because Dr. Barrett isn’t trying to curry favor with anyone. He just wants the truth to be out there for those who are smart enough to know it when they see it.

19

I’m wondering too! Brian W. Zaleski is a chiropractor in northern California, who also maintains the California Chiropractic Associations’s website.

He got this off the Healthfraud Discussion List, where he occasionally participates. I sent it in to the HF list, and it promptly appeared above!

Here’s some of what I could dig up on him from the Internet:
http://members.aol.com/zaleskidc/
Homepage
http://www.calchiroassn.org/leginfo.htm
California Chiropractic Association website created and maintained by Brian W. Zaleski
http://www.he.net/~dvk/imms/immnet.htm
IMMNET-L Subscriber List (non-concealed)
Brian Zaleski ZaleskiDC@AOL.COM
Brian W. Zaleski, D.C. zymurgy@COMMUNITY.NET
http://www.bannon.com/~race/kap/comple.htm
This page lists KAP complementary healers. These include chiropractors, acupuncturists, massage therapist, hypnotherapists, NLA practitioners, naprapaths, spiritual counselors, and the like.
Brian W. Zaleski, DC, Chiropractor, 3000 Alamo Drive, Suite 108, Vacaville, CA 95687, Phone: 707-446-2225, Fax: 707-448-0841, Email: ZaleskiDC@crfamchiro.com, Web: http://www.crfamchiro.com. I wear short and polo shirts to work every day. Most insurance accepted.

http://www.chiro.org/chiro-list/newsfile/spscreen.txt
“…Want to educate public that chiro isn’t just for backaches…”
So Brian, What’s up?
Paul Lee, PT
E-mail: healthbase@post.tele.dk
HF List Intro: http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/messages/197.shtml
The Quack-Files: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase

20

This is getting confusing. If you quote somebody else’s post - even to another board - please credit that person clearly and tell where you got it. Thanks. -Jill