I’ll give you an example, since no cite obviously exists.
Several years ago, that site listed glucosamine sulfate as a treatment for osteoarthritis as a quack remedy, right along with reflexology and colloidal minerals. It flat out claimed that it was bogus, even though millions of people (including myself, messed up knees from playing catcher for 20 years) found it to be incredibly effective. The citations were all from studies with dubious methodology of inconclusive results, even though there were numerous solid studies that found the therapy to be effective. He simply ignored those. Note that he didn’t say that the science was inconclusive or that there appeared to be some benefit, no, he labelled it quackery.
You’d be hard pressed to find a doctor today who’d discourage patients from trying glucosamine. The body of evidence (anecdotal and scientific) is too large.
Today on that site Dr. Barrett still dismisses it, although there is a grudging damning-with-faint-praise quality to the link now.
It is clear that Dr. Barrett has an axe to grind. He hates quacks and charlatans, as do I. Where he fails is when he lumps in all natural products with the obvious snake oils. That is why I am interested in what the new biography of Dr. Atkins will say. Will the recent research supporting his ideas even be mentioned? Will it be a “balanced” report, acknowledging the safety and sucess of his diet? I tend to doubt it, although the fact that it has been pulled and is being rewritten indicates some backpedalling.
You say “no cite obviously exists”. If you can’t find one example of the Quackwatch site assuming that when something is natural it is useless, unsafe, and quackery, why are you making that allegation? Anectodal evidence of something that was supposedly once on that site is not good enough.
Your new claim:
If your going to make a claim like that back it up. Since it is a web-site where you are claiming that this is done, it should be easy for you to prove it with direct quotes.
I’m sorry, but if he changes his content when it is no longer valid, I can’t do anything about that.
Here is a skeptics review of quackwatch.com from a professor from the department of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. He holds a PhD in organic chemistry from MIT.
So your only complaint about the web-site is one article which is no longer there? In that one article is where he lumped all natural products with the obvious snake oils?
Dear God! You mean, when information changes, he changes his web page? Like, so he can give the most accurate information? He doesn’t come to a conclusion, and swear by it forever? Why, it’s almost like science!
They seem to investigate UFOs and dowsing, among other things. They have a magazine that’s at least partially online. Of the seven articles in the current (Spring 2004) issue, three include the word “sasquatch” in their titles. Other choice tidbits, from prior issues: “Poltergeists, Electromagnetism and Consciousness”, “AIDS: Scientific or Viral Catastrophe?” (yeah, they’re HIV skeptics), “Three Cases of the Reincarnation Type in the Netherlands”, and “Testing a Language-Using Parrot for Telepathy”. Along with far more usages of the word “paranormal” than you’d find in an actual journal.
Yeah, I’d be pretty inclined to value their opinion on QuackWatch. Now, excuse me, must go feed the Sasquatch.
You miss the point. It was never “quackery”, as he first described it. I applaud the new information, as qualified as it is. He never should have termed it quackery in the first place. Is every drug that is in the pipeline “quack medicine” until the FDA approves it?
Honestly, if you call your site “quackwatch”, you should be damn sure that the information you put in it is true quack medicine, shouldn’t you?
No, you’re missing the point Lamar. You are the on making the allegations that the Quackwatch site assumes that when something is natural it is useless, unsafe, and quackery. I’ll ask you again, are you saying this based on one article that you say was once there? How about judging the web-site on how we can all read it today?
Yes, please show us how how this isn’t being done today.
Why does a site called “Quackwatch” now have positive reviews of things like Glucosamine Sulfate and Saw Palmetto? If I started a site called “Killer Drugs” and linked to positive reviews of pharmaceutical drugs along with links to drugs withdrawn from the market due to deadly side effects (Thalidomide), would that be just fine by you?
It demonstrates that the people writing it are a group of pseudoscientists. Perhaps you believe in the Sasquatch; most of us don’t. Morons like that give real alternative medicine a bad name. Because a lot of it does stand up to scrutiny - i.e. the stuff that works.
The U. of Cal. Wellness Letter also contained an article concerning other studies and reevaluation of RDA for vitamin C. Its conclusion is that people should ingest 250-500 mg C daily.
Yes, if people promote it with claims unsupported by the research which exists at the time. The thing with “herbal supplements” is, some of them may actually be effective against some problems. That’s the way most medicines were developed. But we don’t know yet which ones are good, and what exactly they’re good for. Until we do the research to find out, it’s a crapshoot. And unfortunately, there’s very little incentive to do the research, when they can be sold as medicine without any research whatsoever.
I take “Greens” which is a powdered composite of various vegetables and plants. It’s kind of like drinking green mud, but I alternate each swallow with grape juice diluted with ice water. In the evening I also blend a slice of purple cabbage, a carrot, and a big hunk of fresh greens in 1.5 cups of V-8 and drink it with 2 slices of whole wheat toast. It’s good, but maybe that’s just me. Whenever you see studies about diet, greens are almost always mentioned as being good for most everything. I do this because I don’t like salads and don’t have time to cook fresh veggies every night.
I also take flax and fish oil; bilberry because I had some eye problems (what can it hurt?), and the glucosamine and chrondroiton sulfate which really do seem to help my knees.
Basically I believe that nature packages nutrients with all the unknown things that are needed for the body to use them to the best benefit If you take “just” vitamin C it can be helpful, but not as helpful as if you eat an orange or lemon. And you can’t really overdose as easily.
Since I’ve been drinking the V-8 cocktail the pain and stiffness in my hands left (it took about 3 months), and my memory seems sharper than it has been in a long time. I also have more energy. Now if I could just lose some weight…
Stirring.