Quackwatch

Quackwatch

Quackwatch logo
Formation 1969 (website in 1996)
Type Network of people
Location
  • United States
Official language
English
Chairman
 Stephen Barrett
Website www.quackwatch.org

Quackwatch is a United States-based network of people[1] founded by Stephen Barrett, which aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct" and to focus on "quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere".[2][3] Since 1996 it has operated the alternative medicine watchdog website quackwatch.org, which advises the public on unproven or ineffective alternative medicine remedies.[4] The site contains articles and other information criticizing many forms of alternative medicine.[5][6][7]

Quackwatch cites peer-reviewed journal articles and has received several awards.[8][9] The site has been developed with the assistance of a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors.[10] It has received positive recognition and recommendations from mainstream organizations and sources. It has been recognized in the media, which cite quackwatch.org as a practical source for online consumer information.[11] The success of Quackwatch has generated the creation of additional affiliated websites;[12] as of 2013 there were 21 of them.[13]

History

Barrett founded the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud in 1969, and it was incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania in 1970.[1] In 1996, the corporation began the website quackwatch.org, and the organization itself was renamed Quackwatch, Inc. in 1997. The Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation was dissolved after Barrett moved to North Carolina in 2008,[1][14] but the network's activities continue.[3] Quackwatch is closely affiliated with the National Council Against Health Fraud.[15]

Mission and scope

Quackwatch is overseen by Barrett, its owner, with input from advisors and help from volunteers, including a number of medical professionals.[16] In 2003, 150 scientific and technical advisors: 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 other "scientific and technical advisors" were listed by Quackwatch.[17] Since that time, many more have volunteered, but advisor names are no longer listed.[18] The site has recruited volunteers to report on various topics of questionable health practice.[12] Many credible professionals have agreed to be involved on the site in their fields of expertise.[12]

Quackwatch describes its mission as follows:

... investigating questionable claims, answering inquiries about products and services, advising quackery victims, distributing reliable publications, debunking pseudoscientific claims, reporting illegal marketing, improving the quality of health information on the internet, assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits, and attacking misleading advertising on the internet.[3]

Quackwatch states that there are no salaried employees, and a total cost of operating all of Quackwatch's sites is approximately $7,000 per year. It is funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer, profits from the sale of publications, and self-funding by Barrett. The stated income is also derived from usage of sponsored links.[3]

Site content

The Quackwatch website contains essays and white papers, intended for the non-specialist consumer, written by Barrett and other writers. The articles discuss health-related products, treatments, enterprises, and providers that Quackwatch deems to be misleading, fraudulent, and/or ineffective. Also included are links to article sources and both internal and external resources for further study.

The site is especially critical of products, services, and theories that it considers questionable, dubious, and/or dangerous, including:[19]

The website also criticizes some practices, such as caloric restriction and the Dean Ornish program, because they are considered to be too difficult for many people to follow, not because they are ineffective;[33][34][35] It also argues against resveratrol, which it deems to have inadequate research backing.[36]

The website provides information about specific people who perform, market, and advocate therapies it considers dubious, including in many cases details of convictions for past marketing fraud. It maintains lists of sources, individuals, and groups it considers questionable and non-recommendable.[37][38] Its lists include two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (whose claims about mega-doses of vitamin C are criticized),[39] the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM),[40] and integrative medicine proponent Andrew Weil.[41]

The site is available in German,[42] French,[43] and Portuguese,[44] as well as via several mirrors, including www.quack-watch.org[45] and www.quackwatch.com.[46]

The Quackwatch site is part of a network of related sites,[13] including Homeowatch (on homeopathy),[47] Credential Watch (devoted to exposing degree mills),[48] Chirobase (specifically devoted to chiropractic),[49][50] and MLM Watch (conceived as a skeptic’s guide to multi-level marketing),[12] each devoted to specific topics.[13] Quackwatch.org's articles are reviewed by advisors upon request.[3] The site is developed with the assistance from a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors.[10][51] Many of its articles cite peer-reviewed research[12] and are thoroughly footnoted with several links to references.[52] The site's search engine helps retrieve specific articles.[52] A review in Running & FitNews stated the site "also provides links to hundreds of trusted health sites."[53] The site focuses on combating health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies that is hard to find elsewhere.[54]

Naturowatch is a subsidiary site of Quackwatch[55] which aims to provide information about naturopathy that is "difficult or impossible to find elsewhere",[56] so functioning as a skeptical guide to the topic.[57] The site is operated by Barrett and Kimball C. Atwood IV, an anesthesiologist by profession, who has become a vocal critic of alternative medicine.[57]

Influence

Some sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a useful source for consumer information include website reviews,[6][12][58][59][60] government agencies,[61][62] various journals[63][64][65][66][67] including an article in The Lancet[68] and some libraries.[69][70][71][72][73][74]

Mention in media, reviews, and journals

Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors.[8][9][12][75] It is consistently praised as a top source for screening medical information on the web.[9] In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources."[76] It was also listed as one of three medical sites in U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999.[77] A website review by Forbes magazine stated:

Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, seeks to expose unproven medical treatments and possible unsafe practices through his homegrown but well-organized site. Mostly attacking alternative medicines, homeopathy and chiropractors, the tone here can be rather harsh. However, the lists of sources of health advice to avoid, including books, specific doctors and organizations, are great for the uninformed. Barrett received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. BEST: Frequently updated, but also archives of relevant articles that date back at least four years. WORST: Lists some specific doctors and organizations without explaining the reason for their selection.[58]

Citations by journalists

Quackwatch has also been cited or mentioned by journalists in reports on therapeutic touch, Vitamin O, Almon Glenn Braswell's baldness treatments, dietary supplements, Robert Barefoot's coral calcium claims, William C. Rader's "stem cell" therapy, noni juice, shark cartilage, and infomercials.[78] The site's opinion on a US government report on complementary medicine was mentioned in a news report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.[79] Sources that mention quackwatch.org as a resource for consumer information include the United States Department of Agriculture, the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, The Lancet, the Journal of Marketing Education, the Medical Journal of Australia, the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Skeptic’s Dictionary, and the Diet Channel.[80] Websites of libraries across the United States of America, include links to Quackwatch as a source for consumer information.[81] In addition, several nutrition associations link to Quackwatch.[82] An article in PC World listed it as one of three websites for finding the truth about Internet rumors,[83] and WebMD listed it as one of eight organizations to contact with questions about a product.[84] In a Washington Post review of alternative medicine websites, the introduction rated Quackwatch as offering "better truth-squadding than the Food and Drug Administration or the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine."[85]

American Cancer Society

The American Cancer Society lists Quackwatch as one of ten reputable sources of information about alternative and complementary therapies in their book Cancer Medicine,[86] and includes it in a list of sources for information about alternative and complementary therapies in an article about on-line cancer information and support.[87] In a long series of articles on various alternative medicine methods, it uses Quackwatch as a reference and includes criticisms of the methods.[88]

Health On the Net Foundation (HONcode)

The Health On the Net Foundation, which confers the HONcode "Code of Conduct" certification to reliable sources of health information in cyberspace, directly recommends Quackwatch,[89] and has stated about Quackwatch:

On the positive side, “four web sites stand out” from the rest for the exemplary quality of their information and treatments: quackwatch.org, ebandolier.com, cis.nci.nih.gov and rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu. Three sites, quackwatch.org, rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu/ and cis.nci.nih.gov are HONcode certified by the Health On the Net Foundation.[90]

Their website also uses Quackwatch extensively as a recommended source on various health-related topics.[91] It also advises Internet users to alert Quackwatch:

If you come across a healthcare Web site that you believe is either possibly or blatantly fraudulent and does NOT display the HONcode, please alert Quackwatch. Of course, if such a site DOES display the HONcode, alert us immediately.[92]

Gold standard in 2007 feasibility study

In a 2007 feasibility study on a method for identifying web pages that make unproven claims, the authors wrote:

Our gold standard relied on selected unproven cancer treatments identified by experts at http://www.quackwatch.org. The website is maintained by a 36 year old nonprofit organization whose mission is to “combat health related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct.” The group employs a 152 person scientific and technical advisory board composed of academic and private physicians, dentists, mental health advisors, registered dietitians, podiatrists, veterinarians, and other experts whom review health related claims. By using unproven treatments identified by an oversight organization, we capitalized on an existing high quality review.[93]

Site reviews

The Good Web Guide of the United Kingdom said Quackwatch "is without doubt an important and useful information resource and injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information".[94] Cunningham and Marcason in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association described Quackwatch as "useful",[66] while Wallace and Kimball, in the Medical Journal of Australia, described the site as "objective".[65] The Rough Guide To The Internet writes "don't buy anything until you've looked it up on Quackwatch, a good place to separate the docs from the ducks."[95]

Ned Vankevitch, associate professor of communications at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, Canada,[96] places Barrett in a historical tradition of anti-quackery, embracing such figures as Morris Fishbein and Abraham Flexner, which has been part of American medical culture since the early-twentieth century. Acknowledging that Quackwatch's "exposé of dangerous and fraudulent health products represents an important social and ethical response to deception and exploitation", Vankevitch criticizes Barrett for attempting to limit "medical diversity", employing "denigrating terminology", categorizing all complementary and alternative medicine as a species of medical hucksterism, failing to condemn shortcomings within conventional biomedicine, and for promoting an exclusionary model of medical scientism and health that serves hegemonic interests and does not fully address patient needs.[97]

Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies heavily on negative research in which alternative therapies are shown to not work. Barrett said to Ladd that most positive case studies are unreliable. Ladd wrote that Barrett says that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research: "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture as examples of alternative treatments with no plausible mechanism of action.[98]

Waltraud Ernst, professor of the history of medicine at Oxford Brookes University,[99] commenting on Vankevitch's observations, agrees that attempts to police the "medical cyber-market with a view to preventing fraudulent and potentially harmful practices may well be justified." She commends "Barrett's concern for unsubstantiated promotion and hype," and states that "Barrett's concern for fraudulent and potentially dangerous medical practices is important," but she sees Barrett's use of "an antiquarian term such as 'quack'" as part of a "dichotomising discourse that aims to discredit the "'old-fashioned', 'traditional', 'folksy' and heterodox by contrasting it with the 'modern', 'scientific' and orthodox." Ernst also interprets Barrett's attempt to "reject and label as 'quackery' each and every approach that is not part of science-based medicine" as one which minimizes the patient's role in the healing process and is inimical to medical pluralism.[100]

A review paper in the Annals of Oncology identified Quackwatch as an outstanding complementary medicine information source for cancer patients.[101]

Helen Pilcher writing for Nature News believes "Up to 55% of the Internet's 600 million users gather medical information from it. Patients with life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, often use the web to seek out alternative therapies, but with over half a million sites offering advice, the quality of that information varies greatly." Edzard Ernst says, "Good websites do exist, and the majority of those tested provided useful and reliable information. Two sites, Quackwatch and Bandolier, stood out for the quality of the information they provide.[102]

The Handbook of Nutrition and Food explains "Maintaining adequate nutrition is important for general health of cancer patients, as it is with all patients, and diet plays a role in preventing certain cancers. However, no diet or dietary supplement product has been proven to improve the outcome of an established cancer. Detailed information on today's questionable cancer methods is available on the Quackwatch web site".[103]

Steven L. Brown states "Dr. Stephen Barrett's website www.quackwatch.com provides excellent, detailed, well-researched, and documented information about alternative therapies that have been disproved."[104]

Journalist John MacDonald, writing for the Khaleej Times, called Quackwatch "a voice of reason on everything from the efficacy of alternative medicine to the validity of advice from best-selling diet gurus, and the various forms of medical quackery being perpetrated on gullible consumers".[105]

The 2009 Internet Directory advised that "Have you ever read a health article or had a friend suggest a remedy that sounded too good to be true? Then check it out on Quackwatch before you shell out any money or risk your health to try it. Here you will find a skeptical friend to help you sort out what's true from what is not when it comes to your physical well-being."[106]

The book Chronic Pain For Dummies says "Although many reliable resources are on the Internet, including those we list in this chapter, sadly, far too many sites offer only incorrect and/or outdated information, and many are downright hoaxes designed to sell empty promises. Make sure you gather information only from reliable resources. Two good sites for checking out possible hoaxes are www.quackwatch.org and http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org."[107]

The Arthritis Helpbook articulated that "One good source for information about questionable treatments is Quackwatch.org, a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, and fallacies (www.quackwatch.org). They also have other sites that are accessible from Quackwatch."[108]

Katherine Chauncey writes "The main purpose of Quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org) is to combat fraud, myths, fads, and fallacies in the health field. This is a hard-hitting site developed by Stephen Barrett, MD. Not only is quackery-related information targeted, but quack individuals are named. You'll find information here that you won't find anywhere else. One of the goals of the site is to improve the quality of information on the Internet. Just reviewing this site will show you how to recognize information that may be coming from dubious sources."[109]

Writing in the trade-journal The Consultant Pharmacist, pharmacist Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa characterized Quackwatch as "relevant for both consumers and professionals". Nguyen-Khoa noted two Quackwatch articles to be of interest to consultant pharmacists - "Selling of Dubious Products" about pharmacists stocking and recommending dubious alternative products that they have a poor knowledge of but continued stocking them because of the higher profit margins, and "Misuse of Compounding" about some pharmacies compounding readily available commercial products from bulk instead of available prescriptions because the ingredients may be less expensive. Nguyen-Khoa remarked that the "site makes an effort to cross-reference keywords with other articles and link its citations to the Medline abstract from the National Library of Medicine". The site has received praise from reputable reviewers and rating services. As of 1999, steps were taken to correct the presence of so many articles written by Barrett which left one with a sense of a lack of fair balance in one author's condemnation of many dubious health therapies, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their area of expertise. Nguyen-Khoa stated that the implementation of a peer review process would improve the site's legitimacy, which is a logical transition for a site that uses a lot of accepted medical literature as its foundation. The success of Quackwatch has generated other related sites. According to The Consultant Pharmacist, Barrett often "inserts his strong opinions directly into sections of an article already well supported by the literature. Although entertaining, this direct commentary may be viewed by some as less than professional medical writing and may be better reserved for its own section."[12]

The former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health[61] named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director of the panel's study, later stated, "The government doesn't endorse Web sites." Still, he said, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet."[98]

The organization has often been challenged by supporters and practitioners of the various forms of alternative medicine that are criticized on the website.[98][110]

See also

References

  1. 1 2 3 Barrett, Stephen. "Who Funds Quackwatch?". Quackwatch.
  2. ↑ Barrett, M.D., Stephen. "Biographical Sketch". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Barrett SJ (2012-01-13). "Quackwatch Mission Statement". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2013-09-04.
  4. ↑ Baldwin, Fred D. "If It Quacks Like a Duck ..". MedHunters. Archived from the original on 2008-02-06. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  5. ↑ Barrett SJ. "Quackwatch.org main page". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  6. 1 2 Arabella Dymoke (2004). The Good Web Guide. The Good Web Guide Ltd. p. 35. ISBN 978-1-903282-46-5. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Quackwatch is without doubt an important and useful information resource and injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information. Its aim is to investigate questionable claims made in some sectors of what is now a multi-million pound healthcare industry.
  7. ↑ Politzer, M. Eastern Medicine Goes West. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on September 14, 2007.
  8. 1 2 "Awards Received by Quackwatch". Quackwatch.
  9. 1 2 3 Fick, Michael (September 2001). "Separating the good health advice from the bad". Seasoned Cooking. Carnell Information Systems.
  10. 1 2 "Complementary Therapies — Evaluating CAM Information on the Internet". The Breast Cancer Review. Cached version at Internet Archive, May 9, 2008. Accessed Sept. 4, 2013
  11. ↑ Jaroff, Leon (April 30, 2001). "The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks". Time. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nguyen-Khoa, Bao-Anh (July 1999). "Selected Web Site Reviews — Quackwatch.com". The Consultant Pharmacist. Archived from the original on March 18, 2009. Retrieved 2013-06-24.
  13. 1 2 3 There are 21 other web sites affiliated with Quackwatch. "Together, these have over 4,600 pages and cover thousands of topics."
  14. ↑ Pennsylvania Department of State — Corporations
  15. ↑ "Quackwatch home page". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
  16. ↑ Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998). "Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D". Biography Magazine. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  17. ↑ Barrett SJ. "Scientific and technical advisors". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12. Archived version at Internet Archive. April 16, 2003. Accessed Sept. 4, 2013
  18. ↑ Barrett, Stephen (20 March 2011). "How to Become a Quackwatch Advisor". Quackwatch. Retrieved 17 May 2015.
  19. ↑ Barrett, Stephen. "Quackwatch — listing criticisms of several practices". Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions. Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
  20. ↑ Barrett, S. "Algae: False Claims and Hype" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  21. ↑ Barrett, S. "The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  22. ↑ Barrett, S. "Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  23. ↑ Worrall, Nevyas, Barrett. "Eye-Related Quackery" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  24. ↑ Barrett, S. "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  25. ↑ Barrett, S. "Don't Let Chiropractors Fool You" Retrieved 27 November 2007
  26. ↑ Barrett, S. "Gastrointestinal Quackery: Colonics, Laxatives, and More" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  27. ↑ Barrett, S. ""Dietary Supplements," Herbs, and Hormones" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  28. 1 2 Barrett, S. "The Shady Side of Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  29. ↑ Barrett, S. "Don't Buy Phony "Ergogenic Aids"". Quackwatch. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
  30. ↑ Barrett, S. "The Herbal Minefield" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  31. ↑ Barrett, S. "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  32. ↑ Barrett, S. "A Close Look at Naturopathy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  33. ↑ Olshansky SJ, Hayflick L, Carnes BA (27 August 2004). "Position Statement on Human Aging". Quackwatch. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
  34. ↑ Gorski, TM (10 September 2001). "Rebuttal". Quackwatch. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
  35. ↑ "Should Managed Care Companies Cover "Alternative Medicine"?". Quackwatch. 25 January 2009. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
  36. ↑ Barrett, S (21 September 2009). "Resveratrol: Don't Buy the Hype". Quackwatch. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
  37. ↑ Barrett SJ. "Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  38. ↑ Barrett SJ. "Questionable Organizations: An Overview". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  39. ↑ Barrett SJ. "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  40. ↑ Wallace I. Sampson. "Why the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Should Be Defunded". Quackwatch.
  41. ↑ Relman AS. "A Trip to Stonesville: Some Notes on Andrew Weil". New Republic. Archived from the original on October 10, 2002. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  42. ↑ Quackwatch auf Deutsch (archived)
  43. ↑ Quackwatch en Français
  44. ↑ Quackwatch em Português
  45. ↑ www.quack-watch.org
  46. ↑ www.quackwatch.com
  47. ↑ Homeowatch
  48. ↑ Credential Watch
  49. ↑ Chirobase
  50. ↑ Click of the week: Closing in on chiropractic. The Lancet, Volume 355, Issue 9213, Page 1471, 22 April 2000. "One may not agree with the spirit of the site, but it is still an excellent resource on this controversial discipline."
  51. ↑ "Let's check in with the skeptics! (They're way more fun than the credulous)". Los Angeles Times. 2010-02-05.
  52. 1 2 "Quackwatch". FactCheckED.org.
  53. ↑ "Cutting through the haze of health marketing claims". Thomson Gale. Running & FitNews. September–October 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  54. ↑ Chris Sherman (2005). Google Power: Unleash the Full Potential of Google (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill Osborne Media. p. 268. ISBN 0-07-225787-3.
  55. ↑ Atwood IV, Kimball C. (2004). "Bacteria, ulcers, and ostracism? H. pylori and the making of a myth: medicine's purported ostracism of the discovery of H. pylori has achieved a mythological quality. But it isn't true. After appropriate initial scientific skepticism, the hypothesis was accepted right on schedule". Skeptical Inquirer. 28 (6): 27.
  56. ↑ "NaturowatchSM". Retrieved August 2013. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  57. 1 2 Parascandola, Mark (2008). "Alternative medicine trial suspends recruitment". Research Practitioner. 9 (6): 193.
  58. 1 2 Forbes.com, Best of the Web website reviews: Quackwatch. Archived January 14, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
  59. ↑ "Diet Channel Award Review Of Quackwatch". Retrieved 2007-09-18. Quackwatch is a very informative site which informs you about health fraud and gives you advice on many decisions.
  60. ↑ U.S. News & World Report: The Best of The Web Gets Better Archived January 2, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
  61. 1 2 "Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). July 11, 2002. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  62. ↑ "U.S. Department of Health & Human Services". healthfinder.gov. National Health Information Center. Retrieved 2007-09-12.Quackwatch is available from their database.
  63. ↑ W Steven Pray. Ethical, Scientific, and Educational Concerns With Unproven Medications. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Alexandria: 2006. Vol. 70, Iss. 6; pg. O1, 14 pgs. Quackwatch is named as a reliable source together with Skeptical Inquirer, specifically for pharmacy course on unproven medications and therapies.
  64. ↑ Lawrence B Chonko. If It Walks like a Duck . . . : Concerns about Quackery in Marketing Education. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder: Apr 2004. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; pg. 4, 13 pgs. Chonko states “Many of the thoughts on which this article is based are adapted from materials found on this site.” (referring to Quackwatch)
  65. 1 2 Wallace Sampson, Kimball Atwood IV. Propagation of the Absurd: demarcation of the Absurd revisited. Medical Journal of Australia. Pyrmont: Dec 5-Dec 19, 2005. Vol. 183, Iss. 11/12; pg. 580 - 1. Sampson states that “CAM source information tends to exclude well known critical and objective web pages such as those found on Quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org).”
  66. 1 2 Eleese Cunningham, Wendy Marcason. Internet hoaxes: How to spot them and how to debunk them. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Chicago: Apr 2001. Vol. 101, Iss. 4; pg. 460 - 1. Cunningham and Marcason state that “Two Web sites that can be useful in determining hoaxes are www.quackwatch.com and www.urbanlegends.com.”
  67. ↑ JAMA Patient Page - Click here: How to find reliable online health information and resources, Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1380, 1998.
  68. ↑ Marilynn Larkin. Medical quackery squashers on the web. The Lancet. London: May 16, 1998. Vol. 351, Iss. 9114; pg. 1520 - 2. Names Quackwatch as the premier site for exposing purveyors of health frauds, myths, and fads.
  69. ↑ "Southwest Public Libraries". Archived from the original on 2007-10-31. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  70. ↑ "National Network of Libraries of Medicine". Evaluating Health Web Sites, Consumer Health Manual. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  71. ↑ "VCU Libraries". Complementary and Alternative Medicine Resource Guide — Fraud and Quackery Resources. Virginia Commonwealth University. Archived from the original on May 24, 2008. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  72. ↑ "Rutgers University Libraries". Finding What You Want on the Web: A Guide. Rutgers University Libraries. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  73. ↑ "USC Libraries — Electronic Resources — Quackwatch". University of Southern California. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  74. ↑ "Medical Center Library". University of Kentucky Libraries. Archived from the original on November 3, 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  75. ↑ Sprott's Spots Award Winners
  76. ↑ JAMA Patient Page - Click here: How to find reliable online health information and resources, Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1380, 1998.
  77. ↑ "U.S. News & World Report: The Best of The Web Gets Better". US News. November 7, 1999. Archived from the original on May 24, 2006.
  78. ↑ Journalist mentions of Quackwatch criticisms of:
  79. ↑ Reynolds Tom, White House Report on Alternative Medicine Draws Criticism, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2002 94(9):646-648 doi:10.1093/jnci/94.9.646
  80. ↑ Sources that mention quackwatch.org as a resource for consumer information:
  81. ↑ "Southwest Public Libraries". Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     •"National Network of Libraries of Medicine". Evaluating Health Web Sites, Consumer Health Manual. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     •"VCU Libraries". Complementary and Alternative Medicine Resource Guide — Fraud and Quackery Resources. Virginia Commonwealth University. Archived from the original on May 24, 2008. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     •"Rutgers University Libraries". Finding What You Want on the Web: A Guide. Rutgers University Libraries. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     •"USC Libraries — Electronic Resources — Quackwatch". University of Southern California. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     •"Medical Center Library". University of Kentucky Libraries. Archived from the original on November 3, 2007. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  82. ↑ "Research". Texas Dietetic Association. November 6, 2007. Archived from the original on 2007-12-22. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     •"Nutrition Resources". Illinois Dietetic Association. 2005. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     •"Links". Greater New York Dietetic Association. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     •"Nutrition Links". Maryland Dietetic Association. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     •"Professional Resources — Health Quackery". American Dietetic Association. Diabetes Care and Education. 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  83. ↑ Robert Luhn, "Best Free Stuff on the Web," PC World Jun 30, 2003
  84. ↑ Health Quackery: Spotting Health Scams -- WebMD Public Information from the National Institutes of Health" WebMD
  85. ↑ Leslie Walker. Alternative Medicine Sites. Washington Post, March 26, 1999
  86. ↑ Reputable Sources of Information about Alternative and Complementary Therapies - American Cancer Society
  87. ↑ Cancer Information & Support Available Online Archived February 11, 2009, at the Wayback Machine. - American Cancer Society. Archived version at Internet Archive, Aug. 4, 2008. Accessed Sept. 4, 2013
  88. ↑ A list of articles on many forms of alternative medicine on the American Cancer Society website that use Quackwatch as a source. Oxygen Therapy, Metabolic Therapy, Kirlian Photography, Crystals, Psychic Surgery, Folic Acid, Craniosacral Therapy, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation, Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Questionable Practices In Tijuana, Breathwork, Moxibustion, Faith Healing, Cancer Salves, Qigong, Osteopathy, Imagery, Qigong, Magnetic Therapy.
  89. ↑ Can you give some examples of charlatans and fraud on the health Internet? Health On the Net Foundation
  90. ↑ Poor Quality Websites on CAM dangerous for cancer patients. Health On the Net Foundation
  91. ↑ Search of Health On the Net Foundation website for use of Quackwatch
  92. ↑ How to be a vigilant user. Health On the Net Foundation
  93. ↑ Aphinyanaphongs Y, Aliferis C. Text categorization models for identifying unproven cancer treatments on the web. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 2):968-72. PMID 17911859
  94. ↑ The Good Web Guide. Retrieved on September 14, 2007.
  95. ↑ Peter Buckley; Duncan Clark (2007). "Thing to do online". The Rough Guide To The Internet (13th ed.). Rough Guides. p. 273. ISBN 1-84353-839-3.
  96. ↑ "Ned Vankevitch". Trinity Western University. Retrieved 2013-03-04.
  97. ↑ Vankevitch, Ned (2002). "Limiting Pluralism". In Ernst, Waltraud. Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000. New York: Routledge. pp. 219–244. ISBN 0-415-23122-1.
  98. 1 2 3 Ladd, Donna (June 22, 1999). "Dr. Who? Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion". The Village Voice. Retrieved May 18, 2016.
  99. ↑ "Waltraud Ernst". Oxford Brookes University. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
  100. ↑ Ernst, Waltraud (2002). "Plural medicine, tradition and modernity". In Ernst, Waltraud. Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–18. ISBN 0-415-23122-1.
  101. ↑ Schmidt K, Ernst E (May 2004). "Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer". Ann. Oncol. 15 (5): 733–42. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdh174. PMID 15111340.
  102. ↑ Helen Pilcher. "Unreliable websites put patients at risk - Expert in complementary medicine criticizes bogus cancer advice". BioEd Online. MacMillan Publishers Ltd.
  103. ↑ Carolyn D. Berdanier (2001). "More Ploys That Can Fool You". In Elaine B. Feldman; William P. Flatt; Sachiko T. St. Jeor. Handbook of Nutrition and Food (1st ed.). CRC Press. p. 1506. ISBN 0-8493-2705-9.
  104. ↑ Steven L. Brown (2008). "How Can I Tell If The Evidence Is Any Good?". Navigating the Medical Maze: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.). Brazos Press. p. 191. ISBN 1-58743-207-2.
  105. ↑ "The shame of SHAM". Khaleej Times. February 13, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-01.
  106. ↑ Vince Averello; Mikal E. Belicove; Nancy Conner; Adrienne Crew; Sherry Kinkoph Gunter; Faithe Wempen (2008). The 2009 Internet Directory: Web 2.0 Edition (1st ed.). Que. p. 236. ISBN 0-7897-3816-3.
  107. ↑ "Ten or So Web Sources for People with Chronic Pain". Chronic Pain For Dummies. For Dummies. 2008. p. 327. ISBN 0-471-75140-5.
  108. ↑ Kate Lorig; James Fries (2006). The Arthritis Helpbook. Da Capo Press. p. 335. ISBN 0-7382-1070-6.
  109. ↑ Katherine B. Chauncey (2003). Low-Carb Dieting For Dummies. For Dummies. p. 292. ISBN 0-7645-2566-2.
  110. ↑ Hufford DJ. David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/17/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.