 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / October 2005Quackwatch.org
A friend called the other night wanting to know what I thought about some new miracle solution to diabetes. I gave her the usual warnings about snake oil salesmen and referred her to Quackwatch.org. Unfortunately the miracle cure wasn't listed, but the article referred to below ID's the obvious signs of quackery. Here's the website URL www.quackwatch.org Here's that article titled "Ten Ways to Avoid Being Quacked." http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/avoid.html > A friend called the other night wanting to know what I thought about > some new miracle solution to diabetes. I gave her the usual warnings [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/avoid.html IMO, quackwatch *is* quacklike. Bunch of misanthropic idjits. Susan "IMO, quackwatch *is* quacklike. Bunch of misanthropic idjits." Regardless of how one views the messenger, the defining point is how valid the science they bring to a question. The object of their views,ie. the quacks, seldom or never bother to bring valid confirmation to the question. To be a good or not good person as a messenger doesn't change that most important distinction. > Regardless of how one views the messenger, the defining point is how valid > the science they bring to a question. The object of their views,ie. the > quacks, seldom or never bother to bring valid confirmation to the > question. To be a good or not good person as a messenger doesn't change > that most important distinction. You're being mighty presumptuous. I have evaluated, and even provided science to them that they ignored. They decide what they believe ahead of time, and filter all citations through that prism. They're not at all about science, IME, just about bullying and making noise. Susan Then we will have to agree to disagree. They are very hard nose about being hard core in demanding, and not getting, evidence from the quacks, while providing same that the truth claims of the quacks are not valid. I have no knowledge how they accept or not contributions of potential evidence from the sstreet, so to speak. Again the distinction is evidence, in normal science there is always a range of views and counter valid potential evidence, one hallmark of the quacks is an almost always absence of same. The quacks don't/can't provide that valid potential evidence that stands up to scrutiny. I would be curious as to what your contribution was? "You're being mighty presumptuous. I have evaluated, and even provided science to them that they ignored. They decide what they believe ahead of time, and filter all citations through that prism." > Then we will have to agree to disagree. They are very hard nose about > being hard core in demanding, and not getting, evidence from the quacks, > while providing same that the truth claims of the quacks are not valid. We will just agree to disagree. > I have no knowledge how they accept or not contributions of potential > evidence from the sstreet, so to speak. Again the distinction is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > evidence that stands up to scrutiny. I would be curious as to what your > contribution was? It's clear you have no knowledge about their decision making process. Sadly, I do. Older and wiser, Susan "It's clear you have no knowledge about their decision making process. Sadly, I do." As mentioned, I would be interested in your experience with them. The point remains, they do provide evidence for there claims about quacks and the latter none in support of their dubious truth claims. As long as that distinction remains the feeling one might have about the messenger or reactions to interactions with them is not relevant. If they should disappear the truth claims of the quacks would still be unsupported for the same reasons. That site is not the only source of anti quack information. Medscape had two very good articles along the same lines and the quacks responded and made no headway given their lack of credible evidence, only heart felt feelings about the "good" they were doing was offered as proof that there might be something to their claims. > As mentioned, I would be interested in your experience with them. The > point remains, they do provide evidence for there claims about quacks and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > evidence, only heart felt feelings about the "good" they were doing was > offered as proof that there might be something to their claims. I've decided not to have this OT discussion. BTDT, bought the lousy T shirt years ago. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Susan We have here a scam pushing idiot who believes in the tooth fairy - what type of investment do you have in the scam industry Susan?? >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >We have here a scam pushing idiot who believes in the tooth fairy - what >type of investment do you have in the scam industry Susan?? Susan doesn't like Quackwatch because they don't swallow the bullshit put out by the supplement industry. Sleepy ---------------------------- "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for Texas." -Miriam "Ma" Ferguson , Texas governor (1920s) ---------------------------- > Susan doesn't like Quackwatch because they don't swallow the bullshit > put out by the supplement industry. Boy, that's such a late entry, one can only interprety it to be flame bait. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Susan NO Susan - anything posted by jerks like you deserves flaming >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Susan Haven't read the group in over a month. Consider it as you wish. Sleepy ---------------------------- "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for Texas." -Miriam "Ma" Ferguson , Texas governor (1920s) ---------------------------- >>x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -Miriam "Ma" Ferguson , Texas governor (1920s) > ---------------------------- I have to consider it ignorant flamebait, since you haven't a clue what I think, know about Barrett or what my experience with QW has been. Susan <snip> > I have to consider it ignorant flamebait, since you haven't a clue what > I think, know about Barrett or what my experience with QW has been. > > Susan We have to consider you a dabgerious quackm or shill because of your attack on REAL sources Go back to Tim Bolen, and f.ck OFF here >> A friend called the other night wanting to know what I thought about >> some new miracle solution to diabetes. I gave her the usual warnings [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Susan Well, we now are SURE what type of a flaming idiot Susan is Most of the time I think Quackwatch has valid points, but they also attack others that I don't believe deserve it occasionally--I've seen that myself. Like all free sources of information, you have use your own critical thinking skills and filter all of it for yourself. pc Most of the time I think Quackwatch has valid points, but they occasionally attack others whom I don't believe deserve it--I've seen that myself. Like all free sources of information, you have to use your own critical thinking skills and filter all of it for yourself. pc |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.