Does your doctor sell you supplements?

[Learner1]

Could you provide examples of panned ones with excellent scientific evidence supporting them? I'd honestly like to know if the site is violating its claimed purpose, or if it's pursuing a political or personal agenda.

Oh, it's definitely pursuing a personal and political agenda...

I did high dose vitamin C for cancer with 50% survival odds, and am cancer free, given by a doctor who is well regarded and has done NIH cancer research, but who Barrett has slandered vociferously.

http://www.kumc.edu/news-listing-page/news-archive/intravenous-ascorbate-with-chemotherapy.html

I have chelated lead, mercury, arsenic and platinum. My test results show a great reduction in these metals in my system. There is ample evidence showing how toxic each of these is.

I have used prolotherapy to get rid of ongoing neck and back pain and strengthen my neck from 2 car accidents, so I don't need spinal surgery.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831229/

I also benefited from cranial sacral therapy after these accidents;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4894825/

I have used naturopathic medicine with great success, involving extensive lab testing, nutritional and botanical supplements, hormones, and pharmaceuticals as needed. They have offered me more help than any conventional MD has offered, and it has paid off. There is extensive research on all of these in PubMed.

I've had Myers cocktails and customized nutrient IVs that have measurably improved my mitochondrial functioning. I don't know how you do a double blind placebo study on personalized medicine. Please let me know if you figure it out ..

I've used hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which turns out to be the antidote for Dr. Phair's IDO2 metabolic trap. It's also successful for treating stroke and traumatic brain injuries.

A friend who'd been very ill for years finally went to a holistic dentist who found she had an anaerobic infection from wisdom teeth extraction 40 years ago, and she was at risk of losing her jaw. He dug out all the infected tissue, treated it with ozone, packed it with antibiotics and and antibiotic herbs. It healed and she's felt like a bee person since doctors and regular dentists had been gaslighting her for years.



I might also point out, that due to the propaganda by Barrett, BigPharma, and the AMA, most of these treatments must be paid for by patients out of pocket, as most are not paid for by insurance of medical systems. Personally, I would not be spending this money if I weren't getting results. But, the propaganda creators are happy to sit around with arms folded, acting superior while patients suffer and die.

Now, I won't say that every harebrained treatment idea should be paid for by gullible patients. Absolutely not. But, I have found that keeping an open mind, being curious, asking for evidence, and doing my own research had brought me to several treatments that are not in common use, but have good science behind them that have greatly helped me. I always look at the potential risks and rewards, the scientific evidence, or at least the theory, and see if it seems to fit my problems and what my body needs.

And I don't find Barrett's scathing, biased, uneducated critiques are very useful at all. There are much higher quality sources of info, especially if you avoid using Google as a search engine, as they've been restricting health info for the past 18 months.

 

[Wayne]

And I don't find Barrett's scathing, biased, uneducated critiques are very useful at all.

Great post @Learner1! Couldn't agree with you more about Barrett and his arrogance, narrow mindedness, and stupidity that seem to know no bounds. -- I sort of wish this forum had more options to mark a post, as I'd love to give your entire post a "winner" rating. Well done!

And congratulations on all the remarkable improvements you've been able to accomplish after diligently doing your homework. It goes to show that venturing into areas of health care that are usually panned by mainstream medicine can lead to extraordinary health improvements. Your list of improvements is truly impressive!

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

And the Quack site gave me the clue to dig deeper. And idk about the other medical board websites, but this information is not indexed in Google Search Results, so it's documentation you will not find simply by doing a Google Search.

This is pretty much what I was referring to in my post, that Quakwatch can sometimes be helpful ....

That doesn't in any way modify my comments about the quality of many, if not most, of their posts re Drs, supps, treatment protocols, etc ....

Caveat Emptor.

 

[Wishful]

did high dose vitamin C for cancer with 50% survival odds, and am cancer free,

Well, that's anecdotal evidence, along with several other of your examples, so that doesn't count as excellent scientific evidence. You may have felt an improvement from some treatments, but that doesn't prove that the treatments were actually responsible for the improvements. Maybe they were, and maybe it was placebo effect or maybe it was some other factor and you would have felt better even without the treatment. Even if it did work for you, it doesn't scientifically prove that the treatment is effective for anyone else. There's a reason why proper studies take so long for results: amount of data required for statistical significance, proper controls, etc.

I checked the Quackwatch site for prolotherapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and found that they were simply listed as "questionable", meaning the proper scientific testing hasn't been done yet. For hyperbaric oxygen, it says that it is proven to be useful for some medical conditions, but this doesn't mean that it's valid for everything that marketers claim that it's good for. The article about high dosage VitC and chemotherapy was for a specific type of cancer and chemo, which doesn't mean that VitC is a panacea. Likewise, heavy metal poisoning is a real medical problem for some individuals, but others can remain apparently unaffected by relatively high levels of heavy metals, so chelation isn't a panacea either. The entries didn't fall into what I would call "scathing, biased, uneducated critiques".

I looked at the entry for "ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo", and that entry was quite blunt about it having no scientific basis, and potential health threats (high heavy metal contamination common in the herbs). It may have lots of proponents and believers, but it does lack a proper scientific basis.

I'm still waiting for proper examples of panned ones with excellent scientific evidence supporting them.

 

[Learner1]

Well, that's anecdotal evidence, along with several other of your examples, so that doesn't count as excellent scientific evidence. You may have felt an improvement from some treatments, but that doesn't prove that the treatments were actually responsible for the improvements. Maybe they were, and maybe it was placebo effect or maybe it was some other factor and you would have felt better even without the treatment. Even if it did work for you, it doesn't scientifically prove that the treatment is effective for anyone else. There's a reason why proper studies take so long for results: amount of data required for statistical significance, proper controls, etc.

I checked the Quackwatch site for prolotherapy and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and found that they were simply listed as "questionable", meaning the proper scientific testing hasn't been done yet. For hyperbaric oxygen, it says that it is proven to be useful for some medical conditions, but this doesn't mean that it's valid for everything that marketers claim that it's good for. The article about high dosage VitC and chemotherapy was for a specific type of cancer and chemo, which doesn't mean that VitC is a panacea. Likewise, heavy metal poisoning is a real medical problem for some individuals, but others can remain apparently unaffected by relatively high levels of heavy metals, so chelation isn't a panacea either. The entries didn't fall into what I would call "scathing, biased, uneducated critiques".

I looked at the entry for "ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo", and that entry was quite blunt about it having no scientific basis, and potential health threats (high heavy metal contamination common in the herbs). It may have lots of proponents and believers, but it does lack a proper scientific basis.

I'm still waiting for proper examples of panned ones with excellent scientific evidence supporting them.

I happened to have the cancer that the University of Kansas found vitamin C was successful for.

But, the truth with all these studies is that they are only valid for the mice,rats, worms, or men (mostly) they do the studies on. No one is ever going to test a huge group of patients that have your or my specific set of genes and array of environmental factors and come up with anything useful.

Therefore, I've done a lot of my own n=1 experiments, making decisions of what to try based on the data we've had - lab or tests, making interventions, and then following up with lab or other testing. I don't pretend that everything has been successful. But, the drugs haven't been either - one that's fine for many others almost killed me while 3 others damaged my mitochondria. But, for the most part, my journey into less common treatments has gradually improved my function, with measurable results.

I made no claim for ayurvedic mumbo jumbo, but I do know a doctor from India who has been successful treating patients with ayurvedic medicine. I did not use his services, but it is an alternative to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, which regularly kill and maim people and damage their mitochondria.

Yes, heavy metal poisoning is a valid medical problem. One either lives with it and the cancer and other problems it creates, or one chelates. As a cancer survivor with parents who had cancers and Parkinson's, it seemed prudent to chelate, no matter what Mr. Barrett's opinion is.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

I looked at the entry for "ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo", and that entry was quite blunt about it having no scientific basis, and potential health threats (high heavy metal contamination common in the herbs). It may have lots of proponents and believers, but it does lack a proper scientific basis.

Yeah, no bias there, what with 'mumbo-jumbo' being a solidly neutral scientific descriptor ....

Here's some more stuff to scoff at, oh ye of little faith, you ..... uh, ye ....

Ayurveda: Facts About Ayurvedic Medicine
https://www.livescience.com/42153-ayurveda.html

Bridging Ayurveda with evidence-based scientific approaches in medicine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4230501/

Ayurvedic research and methodology: Present status and future strategies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5041382/

Ayurveda-modern Medicine Interface: A Critical Appraisal of Studies of Ayurvedic Medicines to Treat Osteoarthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21547047/

Development of Ayurveda - Tradition to Trend
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27633405/

Ayurveda's focus is more on maintaining health and rebalancing an out-of-whack system than on fast cures, and it functions best with chronic, systemic illnesses. I don;t know if anyone's had success using Ayurveda to improve their ME status, but after the many sort of sneery putdowns that have been launched at anything alternative, I wonder if they'd have the inclination or courage to post about that.

As for Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett, his scientific approach to debunking what he regards as quack medicine can best be summarized in his own words: '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.', which is essentially the "Badges? We don' need no stinkin' badges ....' approach.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Come on man... you don't know that

Yeah, we do. Read thru some threads here and you'll get the drift pretty quick ....

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

And I don't find Barrett's scathing, biased, uneducated critiques are very useful at all. There are much higher quality sources of info

The Yellow Pages would be a higher quality source of info.

Barrett is a bought-and-paid-for shill for Big Pharma, and a mortmain enemy of anything that proposes treatment protocols that aren't dependent on those companies products.

He has a history of launching huge lawsuits against anyone who dares to contradict him in print, after first threatening them with that, and then demanding $50,000 to 100,000 NOT to sue them.

Sweet.

He claims to be a psychiatrist, but he failed his exams and Board Certification, so I guess that anyone can claim to be a psychiatrist, yes?

No? They can't? Well, he has.

He also hasn't had a medical license since I think the early 90's.

It's been alleged that he apparently runs Quackwatch out of his capacious basement, with help from chemical companies like Dow and Monsanto. He has little money without his corporate support.

Apparently, the lawsuit-threat-extortion business has been slower since he lost his last several rounds, and was sharply excoriated by one judge for his relative ignorance in areas in which he had previously claimed expertise.

So yeah, approach with caution. And a face mask and gloves and full body armor. Maybe a whip and a chair.

 

[Wishful]

.

You were the one who brought up "treatments panned by Quackwatch that have quite a bit of excellent scientific evidence behind them." I was hoping you had some examples handy that would prove that Quackwatch was violating its claimed purpose. None of your examples did that. To me, labelling something as "questionable" means "do your own research and make up your own mind". I seem to recall them labelling other treatments with terms more along the lines of "complete scams".

I don't avidly read Quackwatch. I don't donate to Quackwatch. If someone asks me whether they should buy an expensive "Quantum Resonant Frequency Pulse" device or a Himalayan Salt Crystal Lamp, I'd probably direct them to Quackwatch...unless someone convinces me that they're dishonest about their listings.

I have no problem with people experimenting with practices and products listed on Quackwatch. I do have a problem with people recommending that other people invest their limited resources in expensive treatments that lack any scientific basis or proper evidence. I think it's healthy for sites such as Quackwatch to exist, as long as they remain honest. It may be unethical for Big Pharma to pay for dishonest criticism of unconventional treatments

 

[Learner1]

I do have a problem with people recommending that other people invest their limited resources in expensive treatments that lack any scientific basis or proper evidence.

There are no treatments for ME/CFS. Everything is an unproven claim. Anything anyone recommends here is unproven.

The fact remains that we are each unique genetic creatures with our own cluster of environmental factors. What fixes any one of us is unlikely to be equally successful in someone else.

As an example, I think it's highly unlikely there will ever be studies on ME/CFS patients who are menopausal cancer survivors who have had chemotherapy but not radiation with heavy metal and mycotoxin toxicity, immunodeficiciency, autoimmunity, and adrenal insufficiency, who have Factor 2, hemochromatosis, and a number of other odd genetic mutations.

So, if one had this cluster of genetics and environmental factors, it is ridiculous to think that some random double blind placebo study on any treatment is going to be useful.

We live in an era of personalized medicine, and carefully identifying the multiple factors each of us have that drive our disease, and thoughtfully applying treatments that fit our idiosyncrasies to normalize our function offers a better hope for success.

And nothing Barrett writes about addresses any of this.

 

[Wayne]

I think it's healthy for sites such as Quackwatch to exist, as long as they remain honest.

That's just it, they're not honest, nor the least bit inquisitive. They're all about maintaining the status quo, which if you haven't noticed, often doesn't work very well, despite their so called scientific backing. I don't think conventional thinking regarding the coronavirus has been particularly effective--in fact, I'd say it's been an abject failure.

 

[Wishful]

And nothing Barrett writes about addresses any of this.

I had a look at the Quackwatch site and its mission statement, and it does seem to address that.

“The underlying principle is you have to have the right balance of skepticism and trust,” Stephen said. “If you know how to judge who’s trustworthy, you’ll do fine.”

I haven't done an extensive review of the site, but what I have seen seems reasonable. Its intention seems to be to educate people about how to properly judge claims for treatments. I haven't seen anything along the lines of "Don't even think of using alternative treatments! Buy (big name drug) instead!" Instead it seems to be saying "Don't take impressive claims at face value. Check the claims elsewhere first." It's not even claiming to be the perfect source of truth. It's just saying "these things are questionable, so do your own checking into it. Here are some common techniques that are used to mislead people, so watch for those".

One article caught my eye: "How "provoked" urine tests are used to mislead patients". It explains that provoking raises urine levels to numbers you see in unprovoked tests for people with very definite heavy metal poisoning. That's comparing two things in ways that they shouldn't be compared, without explaining those differences. Explaining the misleading technique allows people to better judge the validity of the claims. It's not saying that heavy metals aren't toxic, or that some people with even normal unprovoked levels of heavy metals couldn't benefit from chelation. It just says that some practitioners of provoked testing are misleading their patients in order to sell unneeded treatments.

Quackwatch's slogan doesn't seem to be "Avoid all alternative medicine". It seems to be "Buyer beware", which seems quite reasonable to me.

 

[JES]

There are no treatments for ME/CFS. Everything is an unproven claim. Anything anyone recommends here is unproven.

Which is worth to keep in mind. What we are all doing is self-experimentation more or less, which I have nothing against. I think your outlook on results from this sorts of experimentation is way too rosy, though. Most of us regular posters here have gone through testing hundreds of different things. If it was just a matter of wanting to be cured, 99% of us would already be. I went through probably more supplements in my life than I have tried different foods. Do I regret it? Not in particular since at a time it was a priority for me to just give everything possible a try, but if I had been short on money, I would definitely regret it now.

In my N=1 five plus years of experimenting, supplements have largely been a failure.There were supplements that produced temporary benefits, but the effect always wore off, sometimes within days, but usually at least within a couple of weeks. From talking to other ME/CFS patients, this phenomenon seems to be very common. Why does the effect reduce over time? Also why do I temporarily feel cured after getting ill with a cold? I don't think science has an answer yet, but a dysregulated immune system, neuroinflammation or something in the brain, a signaling problem, a metabolic trap, could be any of those. In the aftermath it was naive for me to think I could cure something like this by supplements.

If this self-experimentation approach was effective, I'd expect we should see way more people on forums like PR reporting they have recovered from ME/CFS. That nearly never happens. What does occur is people taking a bunch of different treatments and claim they have improved to some degree (usually over a long period of time). The problem with this is, the more time, different treatments and subjectivity you add to the reporting, the more "noise" gets baked in and the harder it gets to demonstrate that a particular treatment was the one behind the positive effect. It's already a problem even if we assume no such thing as placebo existed, but placebo is obviously the biggest problem. Many of the big trials like PACE and also the Rituximab non-blinded phase 1 trial's positive results we now know are at least mostly based on placebo. This is obviously why blinding or using objective measurements, at least one or the other, is important. I'm not saying you go from bedbound to walking marathons with placebo, but the sort of small improvements I usually see reported is a real risk of being placebo.

 

[Wishful]

I also learned that Quackwatch is now a program of the Center for Inquiry. Just based on a quick look, that organization seems a bit scary. It's mission statement sounds okay, but its activities seem to be about banning naturopaths, and blocking some other alternative medicine. I oppose banning things that are merely 'questionable'. I much prefer allowing them to exist, but educating the public about unethical practices (misleading claims) so they are less likely to fall prey, and policing against outright crimes.

 

[Wishful]

What does occur is people taking a bunch of different treatments and claim they have improved to some degree (usually over a long period of time). The problem with this is, the more time, different treatments and subjectivity you add to the reporting, the more "noise" gets baked in and the harder it gets to demonstrate that a particular treatment was the one behind the positive effect.

Many of those people probably don't test to see whether all the treatments are still having an effect. Some might be scared of backsliding if they stop, or just don't want to "mess with what's working". So far, everything that's worked for me for ME has stopped working at some point. I now have no treatments that work. Some worked reliably for several years, and stopped because the problem they were treating stopped (cured?). Without occasionally stopping the treatments, you can't tell whether they're having any effect. None of my treatments caused problems from stopping occasionally, but I can't claim that it's not possible, so it's up to personal judgement.

If you're taking lots of treatments, it's also hard to tell whether there are interactions. Maybe treatment 'y' only works if you're also taking treatment 'z'. Furthermore, maybe treatment 'g' works for you, and so does treatment 'm', but treatment 'm' also inhibits treatment 'g', so adding 'm' means that there's no point in taking 'g' any longer. Complicated!

 

[Wayne]

I much prefer allowing them to exist, but educating the public about unethical practices (misleading claims) so they are less likely to fall prey, and policing against outright crimes.

The thing is, Quackwatch has clearly shown itself to be unethical, dishonest, and misleading when it comes to holding itself up as some kind of independent arbiter. So why would anybody trust their judgment(s) about others' possible misleading claims or unethical practices?

Credibility is everything, and once you've lost it, it's almost impossible to regain, even with monumental efforts to do so. The problem is, Quackwatch doesn't even try to restore any kind of trust in their judgment(s), because they believe they're never wrong. When they essentially advocate for banning naturopaths and other kinds of alternative methods, you know they're sifting through health care modalities with blinders on.

 

[Learner1]

In the aftermath it was naive for me to think I could cure something like this by supplements.

ME/CFS is a complex, chronic illness. Many of us have been ill for years. While it would be nice, it's unlikely that most of us will be 100% cured. However, it is very possible for many of us to return to a normal life with a well-designrd supplement program, as well as immune, infection, and endocrine system treatments.

There were supplements that produced temporary benefits, but the effect always wore off, sometimes within days, but usually at least within a couple of weeks. From talking to other ME/CFS patients, this phenomenon seems to be very common. Why does the effect reduce over time?

Because they are working in pathways which are part of a complex system. One needs all of the co-factors to make a pathway work. If one all of a sudden adds a cofactor that's been missing, things may work well how awhile, up until one runs out of one of more cofactors in the same pathway and then the pathway will stop working. Then, even if that pathway works fine, it may feed one or more other pathways, which also have their co-factors. So, one must thoughtfully get the entire system with multiple pathways working.

If this self-experimentation approach was effective, I'd expect we should see way more people on forums like PR reporting they have recovered from ME/CFS. That nearly never happens. What does occur is people taking a bunch of different treatments and claim they have improved to some degree (usually over a long period of time). The problem with this is, the more time, different treatments and subjectivity you add to the reporting, the more "noise" gets baked in and the harder it gets to demonstrate that a particular treatment was the one behind the positive effect.

Many of those people probably don't test to see whether all the treatments are still having an effect.

Exactly. So many people experiment, without testing, and therefore have no feedback to be able to modify a changing system and correct any issues that develop. Or, they dogmatically follow what another patient is doing and wonder why it doesn't work for them. Each of us have genetics affecting how pathways work, along with environmental factors that affect how genes are expressed and how well pathways work, factors that inhibit or promote their function. Again, knowing one's data helps to address these properly and ultimately, to be more successful.

If you're taking lots of treatments, it's also hard to tell whether there are interactions. Maybe treatment 'y' only works if you're also taking treatment 'z'. Furthermore, maybe treatment 'g' works for you, and so does treatment 'm', but treatment 'm' also inhibits treatment 'g', so adding 'm' means that there's no point in taking 'g' any longer. Complicated!

It is. Again, it speaks to understanding how the system works biochemically, and where treatments y, z, m, slsnd g gut within the system, the co-factors they need and the various pathways using them. B6, for example, is used in over 100 reactions in the body. So, ideally, you need to figure out where it's going when you add it.

One article caught my eye: "How "provoked" urine tests are used to mislead patients". It explains that provoking raises urine levels to numbers you see in unprovoked tests for people with very definite heavy metal poisoning. That's comparing two things in ways that they shouldn't be compared, without explaining those differences. Explaining the misleading technique allows people to better judge the validity of the claims. It's not saying that heavy metals aren't toxic, or that some people with even normal unprovoked levels of heavy metals couldn't benefit from chelation. It just says that some practitioners of provoked testing are misleading their patients in order to sell unneeded treatments.

I have chelated extensively, over 8 years - lead, arsenic, mercury, and platinum, using oral and IV chelation. Provoked urine tests have been quite helpful. One takes a chelating agent, provoking the substances the chelator works on (each chelator chemically works with certain toxins) and then they come out of the body.

Unfortunately, all the metals don't come out at the same time. The body tends to prioritize what will come out, and they come out one after another over time. (I've seen this happen over the years.) Unprovoked, metals sequestered in the body may stay hidden, even though they are there, causing trouble. The provoking agent gives you an idea of what will come out at any point in time.

Here's an example:

Many of the big trials like PACE and also the Rituximab non-blinded phase 1 trial's positive results we now know are at least mostly based on placebo.

My father was in the initial clinical trial for Rituximab. He was the first person to live more than a year with his kind of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. My MCAS has greatly improved with Rituximab - my doctor carefully screened me as a candidate, ensuring I had no active infections, and it has been successful for me, as it has for a few other patients around here.

The key is to understand what a potential intervention is likely to do, how the intervention may interact with the body and its systems, in concert with other potential interventions, how compatible they are, and to thoughtfully prioritize what order to use them in, to ensure systems come "online" in a good order, just as one would boot up a complex computer system. It is not easy, but it is possible to greatly improve function by doing so.

 

[Wishful]

The key is to understand what a potential intervention is likely to do, how the intervention may interact with the body and its systems, in concert with other potential interventions, how compatible they are, and to thoughtfully prioritize what order to use them in, to ensure systems come "online" in a good order, just as one would boot up a complex computer system. It is not easy, but it is possible to greatly improve function by doing so.

Good in theory, and might be practical for simple issues (a clearly defined problem in a well-understood system) but I don't think it's practical for ME, where we don't understand what's going on and what all the interconnections are. For every success story, I expect there would be a large number of stories where the person does lots of testing, comes up with theories of how to fix the abnormalities...and doesn't get any improvement, because there are so many interactions that aren't covered by the theories. It's a matter of personal judgement as to how much effort is worthwhile to put into testing and theorizing. I've had more success with just trying various things, more or less at random, and paying attention to changes in my symptoms.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

unless someone convinces me that they're dishonest about their listings.

The Yellow Pages would be a higher quality source of info.

Barrett is a bought-and-paid-for shill for Big Pharma, and a mortmain enemy of anything that proposes treatment protocols that aren't dependent on those companies products.

He has a history of launching huge lawsuits against anyone who dares to contradict him in print, after first threatening them with that, and then demanding $50,000 to 100,000 NOT to sue them.

Sweet.

He claims to be a psychiatrist, but he failed his exams and Board Certification, so I guess that anyone can claim to be a psychiatrist, yes?

No? They can't? Well, he has.

He also hasn't had a medical license since I think the early 90's.

It's been alleged that he apparently runs Quackwatch out of his capacious basement, with help from chemical companies like Dow and Monsanto. He has little money without his corporate support.

Apparently, the lawsuit-threat-extortion business has been slower since he lost his last several rounds, and was sharply excoriated by one judge for his relative ignorance in areas in which he had previously claimed expertise.

So yeah, approach with caution. And a face mask and gloves and full body armor. Maybe a whip and a chair.

I think it's healthy for sites such as Quackwatch to exist, as long as they remain honest.

That's the whole problem, @Wishful. They really, really, REALLY aren't ..... most of Barrett's money seems to come from corporate 'donors', who oddly enough, are the companies that produce products most likely to be financially dinged by any other kind of even mildly popular treatment modality .....

I was going to recommend that you check out some of their other affiliations, but I see in you recent post above that you already have .... that should tell you something about the reliability of Quackwatch's 'recommendations' .... they also loudly endorse a company that sells bogus certificates, on an annual payment basis of a coupe of hundered dollars to much more, of endorsement of a company's honesty and reliability to co's whose only vetting re that comes from the self-reporting of the companies themselves.

Another sweet deal ....

 

[Wishful]

They really, really, REALLY aren't ..... most of Barrett's money seems to come from corporate 'donors', who oddly enough, are the companies that produce products most likely to be financially dinged by any other kind of even mildly popular treatment modality .....

The source of the money doesn't affect whether something has valid scientific evidence or not. I still haven't seen any cases where Quackwatch is falsely reporting on a lack of evidence, or claiming 'quackery' to anything that doesn't seem to be completely lacking in scientific basis. What I saw was education on spotting misleading techniques for health claims. I don't see how funding sources matters for that. Big Pharma might see funding such sites as providing some return on the investment, but I don't see Quackwatch as shifting billions of dollars from alternative medicine to Big Pharma. Thousands of dollars a year, probably. Tens of thousands? Maybe, maybe not. Especially since a 'questionable' label on Quackwatch doesn't prevent a person from trying some alternative treatments in addition to mainstream treatments. I doubt that Big Pharma is loosing millions of dollars to reiki or magic crystals.

What I notice missing from the list are commercial pharmaceuticals that lack proper clinical evidence for what they claim to do, and which techniques they use to mislead consumers. I'm sure that would cost them any funding from Big Pharma. I wonder if there's a site that provides that sort of education.

I also note that Quackwatch doesn't list supplements that also lack scientific evidence (omega-3 oils for heart health come to mind). If Big Pharma was really controlling Quackwatch and using it to convince people to use prescription drugs instead, surely they'd convince (force) the site to list those supplements as 'questionable' if not 'outright quackery'. Supplements and herbal remedies should be costing Big Pharma a significant amount of potential income. No, if Quackwatch was a site of pure evil, I think it would look a lot different.