# The skeptical website Quackwatch is biased and unreliable! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-skeptical-website-quackwatch-is-biased-and-unreliable/105590 "2002-04-25T18:21:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kamandi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5daacb/32.png) [@Kamandi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamandi)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-skeptical-website-quackwatch-is-biased-and-unreliable/105590/41 "2002-04-28T16:55:45Z")
What a fine mess this turned into. And on my birthday, too. For the record, **GaWd** , I think this bears repeating: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by bnorton_ > \*\*QuackWatch is pretty hard on chiropractors only when they overstate their abilities, which, alas, seems to be fairly common. QuackWatch acknowledges that chiropractic can have benefits for certain ailments and that these benefits are well documented. \*\* I believe that earlier I gave the impression that I (and Quackwatch) was claiming that _all_ Chiropractic was nonsense. This is obviously untrue, as **bnorton** pointed out. I apologise for any misrepresentation. Since **Lamar Mundane** came back but decided not to respond to any of my comments on his last post, I’ll take that to mean he has given up on the debate which started this thread. Too bad. ---
**Author:** ![tsarina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f4b2a3/32.png) [@tsarina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsarina)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2002, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-skeptical-website-quackwatch-is-biased-and-unreliable/105590/42 "2002-04-29T02:13:51Z")
Happy birthday, **Kamandi**! I for one would LOVE to get into a big ugly debate about vaccination and chiropractic care (and I’ve got stories), but this is not the week for it. In the meantime, deep breaths, GaWd, man. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2002, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-skeptical-website-quackwatch-is-biased-and-unreliable/105590/43 "2002-04-29T03:02:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tsarina \* > \*\*Happy birthday, **Kamandi**! > > I for one would LOVE to get into a big ugly debate about vaccination and chiropractic care (and I’ve got stories), but this is not the week for it. > > In the meantime, deep breaths, GaWd, man. \*\* Unfortunately, it’s TOO big, and TOO ugly, no matter when, and no matter where. I just don’t have the time, or the energy to engage in such nonsense these days. Ugliness doesn’t suit me well. Sam ---
**Author:** ![tsarina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f4b2a3/32.png) [@tsarina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tsarina)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2002, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-skeptical-website-quackwatch-is-biased-and-unreliable/105590/44 "2002-04-29T13:45:52Z")
Good thing, GaWd, because as a student of microbiology and a future something-or-other-of-public-health, I’d be ripping you a new one pretty quick. (I read the “biostatistical train wreck” mentioned above. Hoo-boy.) However, I am plodding my way through finals week right now. Curses! ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2002, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-skeptical-website-quackwatch-is-biased-and-unreliable/105590/45 "2002-04-29T19:55:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lamar Mundane \* > \*\*The original question was whether the site is unbiased and reliable. How would you skeptics feel about a site that posted all the studies implicating the negatives of pharmaceuticals (Fen-Phen, Rezulin, liver damage from aspirin and other NSAIDs) and labelled them with titles like “freaky physicians” or “dubious doctors”? > \*\* Actually, a large number of “alternative medicine” webpages already do that. Often using less truthful examples than the ones you mentioned above. Such sites litter the internet already, so your “how would you skeptics feel” pretty much falls on bent ears. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I am contrasting these titles with examples from the Quackwatch site like “Ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo” and “How chiropractors oversell themselves” for two examples. He also rails against organic foods, C-sections and Hysterectomies. \*\* These two titles do not seem extreme in the least, and they are very well argued. The other arguements have a large amount of merit to them as well. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It is obvious that this guy has an agenda and an axe to grind. He is hardly unbiased. The point is, quit relying on this site as a source of contrary information. Cite JAMA or Lancet oe NE Journal of Med. if you like, but this guy gives you no credibility. \*\* Sorry, but blanket dismissals like this do not give you any credibility. The titles and articles you listed have sound reasoning, and when there is merit to an “alternaitve treatment” he says so. Unfortunately, such proven effectiveness is rare. By contrast, the alternative medice market vastly oversells itself. Things that could be reasonable ideas quickly evolve into solutions for every disease known to man. Without a site like Quackwatch, such rampant overselling would go unchecked. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-skeptical-website-quackwatch-is-biased-and-unreliable/105590.md?page=2)