What is Quackery?



In article <[email protected]>,
"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > and
> > > > the drugging of our children because our teachers are too useless
> > > > (Or tied up with red-tape)
> > > > to teach them properly.
> > >
> > > No, I do not advocate for that either. I advocate for proper treatment

> for a
> > > real medical disorder ath interferes with a child's ability to learn,
> > > regardless of what the teacher does.

> >
> > Now, now, don't confuse him with reasonable positions regarding
> > Ritalin...
> >

> Are there any?


Indeed there are. Sadly, yours doesn't appear to be one of them.
--
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]>,
"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > "Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > > > > Ahh but as long as the studies are done on adults.....
> > > > > > it PROVES it's safe for kids to use.........
> > > > > > Great Science eh !!
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you claiming that it has *never* been studied on kids? Since you

> do
> > > have
> > > > > a problem answering a direct question. let me help you:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ ] Yes, I am claiming that it has never been tested on children.
> > > > > [ ] No, I am not claiming that it has never been tested on children.
> > > >
> > > > Sadly, it's useless to expect a straight answer from this guy. He

> hasn't
> > > > given one yet that I've seen.
> > >
> > > It has not been approved for use on children.

> >
> > See what I mean? He didn't answer the question.
> >

> And you can't read then.


I can read perfectly well. You didn't answer the question. You dodged
it. The two are separate questions.
--
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]>,
"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > "Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > > > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Assholes who want forced medication aren't worth a ****....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tsk, tsk. I love it when you resort to ad hominems. It means you
> > > can't
> > > > > > > deal with me on a rational basis and therefore resort to

> insults.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Nah, just boredom.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean that rationality bores you?
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that things he can't understand bore him.
> > >
> > > Guess away.

> >
> > I just did, and you continue to support my guess.
> >

> No, just your right to choose to guess.


Nope, you continue to support my guess.

[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
Dave
Been to the library yet?
Anth

"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 Orac
> > rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> > Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >
> > >> I am just imitating you. :)

> >
> > >Now you've really degenerated, falling into the "I know you are but

what
> > >am I?" variety of retorts.

> >
> > I know what I am. :)

>
> Sadly, I too know what you are.
>
>
> > I know what natural health is, as well as what alternative medicine
> > is. :)

>
> That is debatable, at best.
>
>
> > Homeopathic writings have wrongfully given the concept of vital force
> > a very bad reputation in the modern scientific community.Homeopathy
> > is probably why most scientists wrongfully associate all forms of
> > alternative medicine with quackery, magic and mysticism.

>
> At least you seem to admit that homeopathy is bunk. Sadly, it's not just
> homeopathic writings, but many alternative medicine writings that use
> mysticism and the "vital force." Particularly egregious are the ones
> that use the immune system as a thinly-veiled surrogate for the "vital
> force." It's easy to recognize them. The writers never actually point
> out exactly what cells of the immune system are "strengthened" by the
> alternative treatment or how. They never give descriptions of how these
> treatments work that demonstrate the least understanding of how the
> immune system does actually work. They just claim that disease is due to
> a "weakened" immune system (ignoring, of course, the observation that
> many diseases are due to an excessive response of the immune system to
> various stimuli) and that their remedy "strengthens it." Glowlife Dave
> is an excellent example.
>
>
> > You are simply WRONG. :)

>
> If I am wrong, unless you show yourself able to step beyond sloganeering
> and up to the discussion of actual scientific data, it's become clear
> that you're not the one who will be able to convince me of it. In the
> meantime, you've just shown a rather astounding ignorance of what your
> own allies, alt-med proponents, actually write on their websites.
>
>
> > And, it is about time that you figured it out.

>
> Show me if you can.
>
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
> | inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...

> >
> > > and
> > > > the drugging of our children because our teachers are too useless
> > > > (Or tied up with red-tape)
> > > > to teach them properly.
> > >
> > > No, I do not advocate for that either. I advocate for proper treatment

> for a
> > > real medical disorder ath interferes with a child's ability to learn,
> > > regardless of what the teacher does.

> >
> > Now, now, don't confuse him with reasonable positions regarding
> > Ritalin...
> >

> Are there any?


Thank you for asking. Yours is certainly not reasdonable, as it deines
proper treatment for a condition which can be life destroying if not
properly treated.

Mine, however, is, a priori, reasonable, as it provides for proper
diagnosis, and proper treatment.
 
What's a good microscope these days?
I was looking at the Olympus BH-2 Research Microscope - how do you rate
this?
Is it a nice bit of kit?
Anth

"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 Orac
> > rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> > Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >
> > >but many alternative medicine writings that use
> > >mysticism and the "vital force."

> >
> > I write about the "vital force." :)

>
> Exactly what I was saying about others outside of homeopathy writing
> about the "vital force" and invoking mysticism.
>
>
> > And, it is not bunk.

>
> Really? I'll judge that for myself.
>
>
> > Just thought that you might want to know. :)
> >
> > Here, is another one for you, Orac.
> >
> > I am a published author.

>
> That's nice. Am I supposed to be impressed?
>
>
> > I have published my seven principles of natural health.

>
> Where?
>
>
> > I have a published health and longevity program.

>
> Where?
>
>
> > I have two diet programs, both of which have been published.

>
> Where?
>
>
> > I have defined both 'natural health' and 'natural therapies.'

>
> That's nice.
>
>
> > I am working on the definitions of a number of other health terms.
> > All of *my* definitions will soon be published. Many, already have
> > been.

>
> I did a Medline search on your name and turned up no hits; so presumably
> none of your publications were in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I
> also did a search of Amazon.com with your name and turned up no books
> written by you in or out of print. Perhaps you can tell me the names and
> publishers of a few of your books, because I can't find them. They
> wouldn't happen to have been self-published, now, would they? ;-)
>
>
> > My slanted history of Western Healing Practices is approximately 25
> > printed pages long.
> >
> > What have you ever done, Orac, besides complain?

>
> Heh, heh. I love it when they try to pull this one on me! You have no
> idea what how funny that is, but I'll try to tell you anyway. Let's see.
> Treated thousands of patients over my training and career. Published
> around 18 scientific articles thus far (with two more in press and two
> others being written right now). Published a chapter in a scientific
> treatise on gene therapy. Identified and characterized a new gene. Ah,
> but why waste my time? You almost certainly won't believe me anyway.
> But, if you e-mail me with a real nice, sincere request (if you dare), I
> might actually show you. No doubt, then you'll just castigate me as a
> representative of the eeevvvillll conventional medicine that you
> apparently detest. ;-)
>
> --
> 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]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Been to the library yet?


Nope. I haven't had to go. All the articles I've needed over the last
three or four weeks have been available online.
--
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]>,
"Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I would hope that s/h/it would stick to fact based information over the past
> few years, where the mechanism of function of the medication has been
> studied.


You would hope in vain, I suspect.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"