Posted by Quintal on March 10, 2007, at 14:30:00
In reply to Peter R. Breggin is well covered on Quackwatch, posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 11:39:09
__________________________________________________
Critical reviews of Quackwatch include an evaluation that was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration — a journal that represents unconventional views. Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D., professor emeritus of Chemistry & Biochemistry,[28] author of Malignant Medical Myths,[29] a critic of mainstream medicine and an outspoken proponent of low-carbohydrate diets,[30][31] evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity."[32]
Elmer M. Cranton, MD, author of Textbook on EDTA Chelation Therapy, rebuked criticism by Quackwatch of the chelation therapy that he supports by accusing the organization of having a "mission of attacking alternative and emerging medical therapies in favor of the existing medical monopoly."[33] Ray Sahelian, MD, an advocate of nutritional medicine, accused Quackwatch of failing to point out "scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry", even while praising Barrett for having done "good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams."[34][35][36] Peter Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, remarked that Barrett "...seems to be putting down trying to be objective."[37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch
__________________________________________________As I said in my introductory post, there will always be some organisation that has criticised an author of such controversial work, and those organisations themselves will receive criticism. That doesn't invalidate the entire body of their work by any means. The most balanced and credible critic of modern psychiatric drug use I've found so far is Prof. Heather Ashton.
>" Psychiatric drugs are poisons. In a chapter titled "Damaging the Brain with SSRI Antidepressants,"
I don't need Quackwatch to tell me this author may be biased.
Q
poster:Quintal
thread:739762
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070308/msgs/739897.html