What is Quackery?



J

John 'the Man'

Guest
http://skepdic.com/quackery.html
"Quackery used to be a pejorative term describing medical
charlatanism. As medical charlatanism became more popular and as using
pejorative terms became politically incorrect except for the formerly
oppressed classes, quackery evolved into alternative medicine and
complementary medicine by those who practice it, and into unproven
therapies and questionable methods by those who are critical of it.
When quackery is mixed with scientific medicine, the latter is called
a mainstream modality and the result is called integrative medicine by
those who practice."

Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.

A classical example would be physical medicine or physical therapy.
Historically, physical medicine clearly developed at the turn of the
twentieth century from Osteopathy and Chiropractic; which were
originally considered forms of Quackery because they offered
alternative methods of treatment that competed with medicine.
Physical therapy developed as a response to this alternative treatment
competition to the point where conventional medicine now falsely
claims to have invented physical medicine directly from science.

Quackery is derived from the word quacksalver, which historically was
an insult used originally against heroic physicians like Paracelsus.
It was historically associated with the use of calomel / mercury in
Europe as medicine. The German form of the word is quacksalber,and is
based on the word quecksilber in German which means quicksilver or
mercury.

Who where the Quacks who originally tropically treat diseases like
syphilis with salves made from Mercury? Why it was the educated and
then politically correct professional physician, of course.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://skepdic.com/quackery.html
> "Quackery used to be a pejorative term describing medical
> charlatanism. As medical charlatanism became more popular and as using
> pejorative terms became politically incorrect except for the formerly
> oppressed classes, quackery evolved into alternative medicine and
> complementary medicine by those who practice it, and into unproven
> therapies and questionable methods by those who are critical of it.
> When quackery is mixed with scientific medicine, the latter is called
> a mainstream modality and the result is called integrative medicine by
> those who practice."

That's correct. Using quackery with scientific medicine is still quackery,
even by another name.

> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.

No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science does
not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
homeopathy.

> A classical example would be physical medicine or physical therapy.
> Historically, physical medicine clearly developed at the turn of the
> twentieth century from Osteopathy and Chiropractic; which were
> originally considered forms of Quackery because they offered
> alternative methods of treatment that competed with medicine.
> Physical therapy developed as a response to this alternative treatment
> competition to the point where conventional medicine now falsely
> claims to have invented physical medicine directly from science.

I don't know where physical therapy developed. However, it differs form
osteopathic manipulation and chiropractic in many ways, including that it
has a scientific basis and different modulaties.

> Quackery is derived from the word quacksalver, which historically was
> an insult used originally against heroic physicians like Paracelsus.
> It was historically associated with the use of calomel / mercury in
> Europe as medicine. The German form of the word is quacksalber,and is
> based on the word quecksilber in German which means quicksilver or
> mercury.
>
> Who where the Quacks who originally tropically treat diseases like
> syphilis with salves made from Mercury? Why it was the educated and
> then politically correct professional physician, of course.

So? The differnce is that medicine no longer uses mercury (it is not even
used in thermometers much any more). Chiropractors, homeopaths and
naturopaths still practice the same way, because they don't have science to
help them improve their treatments.

Jeff

> --
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
>
> Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
> http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
> Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
>Date: 11/9/2003 9:55 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>

> it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
>homeopathy.

It is *called* quackery. It works.

<snip>

>
>So? The differnce is that medicine no longer uses mercury

Wrong.

It is still installed in the mouth.

Could be the reason we have so many *unanswered* health problems.

Everyone is a biding by the mercury reducation act,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,except
dentists, based on the LIES of the AMA and ADA.

It appears they prefer to protect their EGO rather than do the right thing.

http://www.maineenvironment.org/merc_red_act.htm

http://www.mercurypolicy.org

http://www.mercurypolicy.org/exposure/documents/model_state_leg.pdf
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Who where the Quacks who originally topically treated diseases like
>> syphilis with salves made from Mercury? Why it was the educated and
>> then politically correct professional physician, of course.

>So? The differnce is that medicine no longer uses mercury (it is not even
>used in thermometers much any more). Chiropractors, homeopaths and
>naturopaths still practice the same way, because they don't have science to
>help them improve their treatments.

So, it is all a matter of politics after all isn't it?

Anything that medicine says is Quackery is Quackery regardless of the
time period it was said in because Medicine by definition is based on
science, just because science geek name Jeff say that it is. :(

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Hey Jeff, you sound an awful lot like George W. Bush. :(

Just thought that you might want to know. :)

Sorry, but I will call your comments as political as it gets.

By the way, Geek ,Evidence-Based Medicine says that the practice of
medicine has not been and still is not currently based on science.
After all, if medicine was truly based on science then there would be
no need for EBM. It is there because of Quacks like you.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
>> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
>> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.

>No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science does
>not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
>homeopathy.

No, what is called quackery is purely a matter of politics. If the
currently politically correct position of the establishment does
not support it, it is called quackery.

That is the definition of politics, Jeff.

When George Bush, Sr. called Sadam a friend of the U.S. he was a
friend. But, now when he calls Sadam a terrorist he now magically
transformed into a terrorist.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>So? The differnce is that medicine no longer uses mercury ...

It is no coincidence that medicine has a double meaning. Medicine has
one primary method of treatment: Medicine.

Medicine is any substance that has the property of curing or
mitigating disease. The use of medicine is historically Quackery based
upon a myth as old as mankind that medicines possess magical curative
powers.

Ergo, medicine's primary mode of action is magic.

Just thought that you might want to know, Jeff. :)

Gee, Jeff ... I am confused. I thought that science considered magic
quackery and unscientific? :(

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 16:36:10 GMT, John wrote:

>"Quackery used to be a pejorative term describing medical
>charlatanism. As medical charlatanism became more popular and as using
>pejorative terms became politically incorrect except for the formerly
>oppressed classes, quackery evolved into alternative medicine and...."
><http://skepdic.com/quackery.html>

"Quakery" /is/ a pejorative term describing medical charlatanism.
Furthermore, those who perpetrate fraud on others seeking medical care
remain frauds. This has nothing to do with the scheme's popularity.

Indeed, charismatic fraud artists may become wildly popular, which
perpetuates and broadens the reach of the scam. The balance of this
paragraph is an overreaching stretch toward a premature conclusion,
ironic for a "skeptic's" dictionary.

Even accepting the author's presumption that what once was seen as
ignorance may later become ensconced as accepted practice, your brand
of health care advise will remain the unsupported misdirection of one
lout hoping to gain acceptance by showing how much he can talk about
how little he knows. You need have little concern that future
generations will one day regard you as a misunderstood visionary.

You will remain a member of an oppressed class of scholars in the same
way that young children who write books are a group oppressed by the
modern publishing industry. Your comments that are not the simple
reiteration of others' work are unlikely to reach the imagination or
interest of anyone with more than a small child's understanding.
However, what truly distinguishes your work from that of children is
that you are fixed in this position despite the advance of years and
the opportunity for additional education.

@~
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
>
> >> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
> >> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> >> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
>
> >No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science does
> >not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
> >homeopathy.
>
> No, what is called quackery is purely a matter of politics. If the
> currently politically correct position of the establishment does
> not support it, it is called quackery.
>
> That is the definition of politics, Jeff.
>


Main Entry: quack·ery
Pronunciation: 'kwa-k(&-)rE
Function: noun
Date: circa 1711
: the practices or pretensions of a quack

Main Entry: 4quack
Function: noun
Etymology: short for quacksalver
Date: 1638
1 : CHARLATAN 2
2 : a pretender to medical skill

Main Entry: char·la·tan
Pronunciation: 'shär-l&-t&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian ciarlatano, alteration of cerretano, literally, inhabitant of Cerreto, from Cerreto, Italy
Date: 1618
1 : QUACK 2
2 : one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : FRAUD, FAKER

John, you may use the word "quack" in any way you like, of course, but I prefer to preserve the label for those who knowingly defraud the public by selling useless nostrums, devices and treatments with unfounded promises of cures to desperate people. A quack is a quack, whether he is a medical doctor, a naturopath, or an MLM hustler. It all has to do with behavior, not politics.

--Rich
 
Rich Shewmaker wrote

> "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...>
> > >> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's
> complementary
> > >> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
>
> > >> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
> >
> > >No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available
> science does
> > >not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
> > >homeopathy.
> >
> > No, what is called quackery is purely a matter of politics. If the
> > currently politically correct position of the establishment does
> > not support it, it is called quackery.
> >
> > That is the definition of politics, Jeff.
> > Main Entry: quack·ery
> Pronunciation: 'kwa-k(&-)rE
> Function: noun
> Date: circa 1711
> : the practices or pretensions of a quack Main Entry: 4quack
> Function: noun
> Etymology: short for quacksalver
> Date: 1638
> 1 : CHARLATAN 2
> 2 : a pretender to medical skill Main Entry: char·la·tan
> Pronunciation: 'shär-l&-t&n
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Italian ciarlatano, alteration of cerretano, literally,
> inhabitant of Cerreto, from Cerreto, Italy
> Date: 1618
> 1 : QUACK 2
> 2 : one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability :
> FRAUD, FAKER John, you may use the word "quack" in any way you like,
> of course, but I prefer to preserve the label for those who knowingly
> defraud the public by selling useless nostrums, devices and treatments
> with unfounded promises of cures to desperate people. A quack is a
> quack, whether he is a medical doctor, a naturopath, or an MLM
> hustler. It all has to do with behavior, not politics. --Rich
>
> May I ADD a note here: The Allopathic industry as developed had MORE
> QUACKS than a flock of DUCKS. Daddy
> Nelson Rockerfeller was such person..he had NO degree in Medicine (
> Just a NAME) and sold crude oil as a cancer cure. ANYONE today knows
> that crude OIL would have made it worse and indeed HE LOST ALL OF HIS
> PATIENTS
> but out of IGNORANCE they accepted his quackery as KNOWLEDGE based on
> his claims. Those were indeed DANGEROUS YEARS. AND NOW the
> Rockerfellers are the richest family in the USSA not to mention the
> most powwerful. Doesn't tha make ya'll FEEEEL SO GUUUUD??? B-0b1
 
John, aka 'the Man',

I don't know that Jeff said that medicine is, by definition, based on
science. If he did, that's fine, but I would suggest that medicine is better
defined as being that practice of care-giving that is predominantly
distinguished by science, while placing emphasis on the fact that medicine
is a matter of practice and acknowledging the distinguishing role of science
in that practice.

If we emphasize that medicine is practiced, rather than performed or adhered
to, we admit that medicine is based foremost on the actions of
practitioners. Long before the practice of medicine had any significant
connection to scientific method, it was nonetheless known as medicine. Then,
and now, medicine fundamentally consisted of a person practicing behaviors
that were thought to be useful for treating injury and disease. In that
regard, medicine has much in common with other practices, such as those
listed previously in this thread.

A distinguishing trait of medicine, however, is that it unabashedly caters
to scientific method. One may or may not judge this association as one that
lends credibility to medical practitioners. Regardless, the association
remains. Moreover, the strength of the association that modern medicine has
with science appears to be the primary reason for the success practitioners
of medicine have when it comes to helping people. Incredibly intractable
problems are increasingly being met with solutions, and life-threatening
injuries and diseases are frequently resolved with speedy recovery by the
practice of medicine.

Yet there remains credibility in other methods, even if for no other reason
than medicine is a practice that actually moves forward slowly, encumbered
as always by the human intransigence of the practitioners. One case in point
is the extreme reluctance exhibited by the medical community when it was
discovered that stomach ulcers are normally caused not by stressful
emotional dispositions but by pathogens that can readily be destroyed with
available medications.

In truth, the practice of medicine does not march toward perfection with any
great speed, and just because a given practice lacks scientific validation
does not prove it is an ineffective approach. Other practices produce
desired results, and many advancements in medicine were achievements based
on intuitive decisions that gave rise to practices that later proved to have
a scientifically verifiable basis. Providing clean, sanitary, and humane
conditions for surgery patients, for example, was a practice introduced
without the use of conclusions based on scientific data to demonstrate the
efficacy of such an approach. In fact, even in times when it was already
understood that disease could be spread by contagious pathogens, medical
practitioners continued to dismiss the importance of cleanliness. Also, from
what I understand, even when it was understood that lead was poisonous,
medical practitioners continued to feed patients lead to treat illnesses. In
summary, practitioners of medicine can be at once stupid and arrogant.

Given time, however, medical practitioners prove willing to yield to the
findings of science, to a distinguishing degree. Sometimes the change marks
the end of a terrible legacy; sometimes it marks a step forward noticed by
few people, almost always it produces lasting improvements. Long gone are
days when doctors measured their proficiency by the quantity and variety of
blood soaking their surgery uniforms (Civil War). Also long consigned to
history is any reasonable practice of medicine that ignores contemporary
understanding of the importance of combating contagious infection.

For that matter, there are noteworthy, more recent strides against the very
human ignorance necessarily suffered by all people, including practitioners
of medicine. For example, if you as a client of a medical practitioner
suffer with a stomach ulcer, it is unlikely the first medicine practiced
will direct you to consume tranquilizers and relax your bad-ass type-A
personality. Instead, you will more likely be cured by the practice of
medicine. And that would be that, your bad-ass type-A personality
notwithstanding.

We get better.

mcrux
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >> Who where the Quacks who originally topically treated diseases like
> >> syphilis with salves made from Mercury? Why it was the educated and
> >> then politically correct professional physician, of course.
>
> >So? The differnce is that medicine no longer uses mercury (it is not even
> >used in thermometers much any more). Chiropractors, homeopaths and
> >naturopaths still practice the same way, because they don't have science
to
> >help them improve their treatments.
>
> So, it is all a matter of politics after all isn't it?
>
> Anything that medicine says is Quackery is Quackery regardless of the
> time period it was said in because Medicine by definition is based on
> science, just because science geek name Jeff say that it is. :(
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
>
> Hey Jeff, you sound an awful lot like George W. Bush. :(
>
> Just thought that you might want to know. :)
>
> Sorry, but I will call your comments as political as it gets.
>
> By the way, Geek ,Evidence-Based Medicine says that the practice of
> medicine has not been and still is not currently based on science.
> After all, if medicine was truly based on science then there would be
> no need for EBM. It is there because of Quacks like you.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know. :)
> --
> John Gohde,
> Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
>
> Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
> http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
> Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
> > medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> > considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
>
> No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science does
> not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
> homeopathy.

Correct. It never ceases to amuse me when these alties pull the old
"what is quackery is all politics" whine (which they do frequently).
With only a few exceptions, it's just not true. Quackery is unproven,
unsafe, or demonstrably ineffective treatment being pushed as effective
treatment. Although in a few cases the lines blur a bit, for most
"alternative treatments" it can be scientifically determined what is and
is not quackery. Indeed, a key characteristic of quacks is that they
refuse to submit their "remedies" or "treatments" to scientific
scrutiny. Hulda Clark comes to mind as one example of such a quack.

He's also wrong when he says that "quackery was yesterday's alternative
medicine." Actually, he has it backwards. A fair amount of what modern
day quacks push was considered mainstream medicine centuries ago but was
supplanted by other treatments when proven ineffective. Either that, or
it is treatments based on scientific theories of a hundred years ago
that were ultimately shown not to be correct.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
> >> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> >> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
>
> >No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science does
> >not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
> >homeopathy.
>
> No, what is called quackery is purely a matter of politics. If the
> currently politically correct position of the establishment does
> not support it, it is called quackery.

That's ********, plain and simple. What is and is not quackery can be
determined through well-designed clinical trials.


> That is the definition of politics, Jeff.
>
> When George Bush, Sr. called Sadam a friend of the U.S. he was a
> friend. But, now when he calls Sadam a terrorist he now magically
> transformed into a terrorist.

Nonsequitir. None of this has anything to do with what is and is not
considered "quackery."


> Just thought that you might want to know. :)

Just thought you might want to know that you're using more logical
fallacies than I've seen any altie use in a while.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> >
> > >> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
> > >> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> > >> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
> >
> > >No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science does
> > >not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
> > >homeopathy.
> >
> > No, what is called quackery is purely a matter of politics. If the
> > currently politically correct position of the establishment does
> > not support it, it is called quackery.
> >
> > That is the definition of politics, Jeff.
> >
>
>
> Main Entry: quack·ery
> Pronunciation: 'kwa-k(&-)rE
> Function: noun
> Date: circa 1711
> : the practices or pretensions of a quack
>
> Main Entry: 4quack
> Function: noun
> Etymology: short for quacksalver
> Date: 1638
> 1 : CHARLATAN 2
> 2 : a pretender to medical skill
>
> Main Entry: char·la·tan
> Pronunciation: 'shär-l&-t&n
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Italian ciarlatano, alteration of cerretano, literally, inhabitant
> of Cerreto, from Cerreto, Italy
> Date: 1618
> 1 : QUACK 2
> 2 : one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : FRAUD, FAKER
>
> John, you may use the word "quack" in any way you like, of course, but I
> prefer to preserve the label for those who knowingly defraud the public by
> selling useless nostrums, devices and treatments with unfounded promises of
> cures to desperate people. A quack is a quack, whether he is a medical
> doctor, a naturopath, or an MLM hustler. It all has to do with behavior, not
> politics.

Correct, although I do not necessarily reserve the label of "quack" only
for those who knowingly push useless treatments. There is a variety of
quack who is a true believer in his own particular useless treatment.
They are just as dangerous (perhaps more so) than the quack who
intentionally pushes useless treatments.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
>Subject: Re: What is Quackery?

It is what organized medicine once tried to buy, because they KNEW it worked.
When told NO, they then called it *quackery*.

Had they been successful with their dirty tactics, it would be a great money
maker and been scientifically proven and mainstream.

Jan
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Alan Turley
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Furthermore, those who perpetrate fraud on others seeking medical care
>remain frauds. This has nothing to do with the scheme's popularity.

Does that apply to medicine, too?

When a patient goes to a physician to be treated for Mono does the
physician tell the patient that he is only a Quack who can hold their
hands while nature takes its course?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I didn't think so!
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Rich Shewmaker
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Main Entry: 4quack
>Function: noun
>Etymology: short for quacksalver
>Date: 1638
>1 : CHARLATAN 2
>2 : a pretender to medical skill

You can quote all the dictionary definitions that you want to.
So, do I. And, so did I. Personally, I prefer the definition that I
quoted. Ergo, your dictionary is wrong. :)

It only proves that physicians have been very effective in defrauding
the public over the years. :( The root origin of Quackery is still
the physician Quacks who peddled mercury containing salves all over
Europe. The original Quacks were, thus, physicians.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Just thought that you might want to know. :)

>Just thought you might want to know that you're using more logical
>fallacies than I've seen any altie use in a while.

Then you must be asleep?

"... you have my sympathies"
Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
 
I agree it's all about politics - bit like ism's also - leftism rightism -
from which side are you looking from?
It should be A has treatment for B which is not proven. A advocates it B so
is a 'quack.'
C says A's treatment doesn't work - C is a quack.
Anth

"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
> >> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> >> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
>
> >No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science
does
> >not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
> >homeopathy.
>
> No, what is called quackery is purely a matter of politics. If the
> currently politically correct position of the establishment does
> not support it, it is called quackery.
>
> That is the definition of politics, Jeff.
>
> When George Bush, Sr. called Sadam a friend of the U.S. he was a
> friend. But, now when he calls Sadam a terrorist he now magically
> transformed into a terrorist.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
> > > medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> > > considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
> >
> > No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science
does
> > not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
> > homeopathy.
>
> Correct. It never ceases to amuse me when these alties pull the old
> "what is quackery is all politics" whine (which they do frequently).
> With only a few exceptions, it's just not true. Quackery is unproven,
> unsafe, or demonstrably ineffective treatment being pushed as effective
> treatment.


You mean like HRT therapy to improve the mind, lengthen life, lower cancer
risks in general promote good health?
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
> > rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> > Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >
> > >> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's
complementary
> > >> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> > >> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
> >
> > >No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available science
does
> > >not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy and
> > >homeopathy.
> >
> > No, what is called quackery is purely a matter of politics. If the
> > currently politically correct position of the establishment does
> > not support it, it is called quackery.
>
> That's ********, plain and simple. What is and is not quackery can be
> determined through well-designed clinical trials.
>

You mean like all the massive literature which supporte HRT via.
self-selected patients?

And the 100-year inability to get the medical establishment to study
prostate surgery without self-selection? No one wants to do it because of
the politics of REVENUE. Is that established quackery?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back