http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/04/what-is-quackery.html

How can you spot Quack? - they nearly always do the following:-

Flaunted qualifications and credentials - this is just an 'appeal to
authority'. Quacks often award themselves impressive qualifications or
buy them from non-accredited 'colleges' usually in he USA.

- Is that not what the allopaths have been doing from day one?

Exagerated and inflated claims - diets, cures or remedies appear to
solve a whole host of illnesses and problems, not just one problem -
they are non-specific. Foods are not just foods, but 'superfoods' etc.

- Sounds like modern allopathy to me. Soy is the super food, isn't it?
And hydrogenated oils were better than butter right?

More often seen on TV, newspapers, magazines with their 'latest
findings' than in scientific journals, conferences, text books.

- Just read any lifestyle magazine to find out the latest pharma magic
bullet drug and the latest medical breakthroughs.

Works alone - a sole genius in a world that won't listen.

- Only allopaths know how to heal...... right? Heaven forbid you see a
chiropractor for a sore back, eh?

Use of out-of-context language, e.g. energy, frequencies, vibrations,
biomagnetic, quantum, detoxification, organic, holistic... These words
are often stolen from other disciplines (usually physics) with the
quack having no idea what they mean. Their use in health matters is
pseudoscience and meant to sound impressive and to bamboozle the
gullible.

- Allopathy is full of high-fallooting sounding techno speak that is
supposed to impress us. Like blaming diabetes on glucostoxicity or
lipotoxicity.

Lots of impressive testimonials - little or no independent
peer-reviewed research, no ballance in reviews of research, i.e. no
mention of negative results, untracable privately published 'research',
lots of 'happy customers'. Testimonials count for nothing - anyone can
get them for anything. People fool themselves over the effectiveness of
treatments.

- Interesting. "little or no *independent* peer-reviewd research".
Sounds like the modern state of the science to me. No mention of
negative results. They say that surgeons bury their mistakes. They use
industry funded studies in lieu of testimonials, and they are worth
just about the same.

Claims to be standing up for ordinary people against the conspiracy of
'big pharma', doctors, scientist, the government, multinationals and
other great evils (who might disagree with them).

- Of course. The FDA is there to protect the little guy right? The NIHs
are there to give us independent research, right? To protect us from
the evil quack alternative health promoters, right?

Say there is always a need for a personalised questionaire,
consultation, membership (with them, not your GP) - just a way to flog
more rubbish.

- Does this not also apply to your GP? And any other medical allopath
out there? You have to have an appointment to get your drugs and
approved treatments, do you not?

TC