Here's another interesting article I found on www.quackwatch.com:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html
Carolyn
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html
Carolyn
25 ways to spot nutritional quacks....
- Thread starter pixie9
- Start date
hiitdogs
Cathlete
Interesting! I agree with him that vitamins/supplements are not necessary if eating a healthy diet. Additionally, I don't think we can eat a lousy diet, pop some vitamin pills and expect those pills make up for any deficiencies in your diet.
That being said, I totally disagree with most of his other points. He says most diseases have little or nothing to do with nutrition? Huh???? Where does he get that from? Diabetes is on the rise, cancer is on the rise, obesity is overtaking smoking as the major cause of illness.......... Wow!
According to him if we feel achey, tired and have no energy that is due to emotional stress??? That's quite a stretch, I would say.
"Quacks distort and oversimplify. When they say that milling removes B-vitamins, they don't bother to tell you that enrichment puts them back." Wow, why don't we just eat styrofoam fortified with vitamins? It's ok, if the manufacturer removes vitamins by processing and puts vitamins back in, but it is nonsense to add vitamins to your diet?? I think he totally contradicts himself here!
I have an issue with most of his claims to some extent, however, the above is what bothers me most.
I read about a few other things on the guy's website a few months ago especially about homeopathic and naturopathic medicine and did some research on him.
The guy who runs the website, Stephen Barrett, is a former psychiatrist who never held a job (other than a part-time job for a few hours a week) because he failed the test for board-certification. In 93 he turned in his medical license and proceeded to be an "expert witness" at court trials. In his own words he wants to "discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available."
This guy doesn't have much credibility for me!
Carola
That being said, I totally disagree with most of his other points. He says most diseases have little or nothing to do with nutrition? Huh???? Where does he get that from? Diabetes is on the rise, cancer is on the rise, obesity is overtaking smoking as the major cause of illness.......... Wow!
According to him if we feel achey, tired and have no energy that is due to emotional stress??? That's quite a stretch, I would say.
"Quacks distort and oversimplify. When they say that milling removes B-vitamins, they don't bother to tell you that enrichment puts them back." Wow, why don't we just eat styrofoam fortified with vitamins? It's ok, if the manufacturer removes vitamins by processing and puts vitamins back in, but it is nonsense to add vitamins to your diet?? I think he totally contradicts himself here!
I have an issue with most of his claims to some extent, however, the above is what bothers me most.
I read about a few other things on the guy's website a few months ago especially about homeopathic and naturopathic medicine and did some research on him.
The guy who runs the website, Stephen Barrett, is a former psychiatrist who never held a job (other than a part-time job for a few hours a week) because he failed the test for board-certification. In 93 he turned in his medical license and proceeded to be an "expert witness" at court trials. In his own words he wants to "discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available."
This guy doesn't have much credibility for me!
Carola
nancy324
Cathlete
Interesting, though I disagree that sugar isn't the poison of the breakfast table. I also think the American diet DOES have too many empty calories. I do agree, though, that we don't need tons of supplements. Our food should contain most of the nutrients we need.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
I agree Nancy. I was mostly looking at the supplement part of the article. I do think that diet does play a huge role in overall health and disease prevention though. I also don't think that processed foods are all terrible and evil but eating a whole food diet is definitely preferable IMO.
Carolyn
Carolyn
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/
I found this website very informative when trying to evaluate quackwatch's motives and ideas.
Jen
I found this website very informative when trying to evaluate quackwatch's motives and ideas.
Jen
>http://www.quackpotwatch.org/
>
>I found this website very informative when trying to evaluate
>quackwatch's motives and ideas.
>
>Jen
>
I'm sorry but WHY would you find this website helpful? It is clearly not unbiased and promotes what would be considered 'alternative medicine'. Of course they would not believe anything quackwatch has to say, he's talking about THEM! I'm willing to believe that Barrett's site may be biased as well, but so is this one! PLEASE!
Carolyn
>
>I found this website very informative when trying to evaluate
>quackwatch's motives and ideas.
>
>Jen
>
I'm sorry but WHY would you find this website helpful? It is clearly not unbiased and promotes what would be considered 'alternative medicine'. Of course they would not believe anything quackwatch has to say, he's talking about THEM! I'm willing to believe that Barrett's site may be biased as well, but so is this one! PLEASE!
Carolyn
hiitdogs
Cathlete
Quite frankly, I find both sites www.quackwatch.org AND www.quackpotwatch.org less than credible! The language in quackpotwatch really turns me off, and quackwatch is so biased that I have a hard time believing anything he says.
Barrett strikes me as one of those overzealous, self-proclaimed "consumer advocates". He has a few valid points but in general he just goes after everyone who is not into allopathic medicine.
Diet has nothing to do with any disease? Sugar-loaded food is just fine?? Organic food is hogwash? Fertilizers and pesticides have little to no effect on humans?? Processed food is just fine because they enrich it later on?? And the list goes on ............. Oh PLEASE!!
It is kind of interesting though that nowhere on his website you find anything about the useless allopathic cough and cold medicines in drugstores, or the problems with medications like Vioxx. Wonder why!!??
Carola
Barrett strikes me as one of those overzealous, self-proclaimed "consumer advocates". He has a few valid points but in general he just goes after everyone who is not into allopathic medicine.
Diet has nothing to do with any disease? Sugar-loaded food is just fine?? Organic food is hogwash? Fertilizers and pesticides have little to no effect on humans?? Processed food is just fine because they enrich it later on?? And the list goes on ............. Oh PLEASE!!
It is kind of interesting though that nowhere on his website you find anything about the useless allopathic cough and cold medicines in drugstores, or the problems with medications like Vioxx. Wonder why!!??
Carola
kathryn
Cathlete
>"Quacks distort and oversimplify. When they say that milling
>removes B-vitamins, they don't bother to tell you that
>enrichment puts them back."
Yeah, it takes out many of them, and replaces a few of them with synthetic versions.
It does seem like this "quack busters" site is against any kind of alternative medicine, even that which has been use in other cultures for thousands of years.
>removes B-vitamins, they don't bother to tell you that
>enrichment puts them back."
Yeah, it takes out many of them, and replaces a few of them with synthetic versions.
It does seem like this "quack busters" site is against any kind of alternative medicine, even that which has been use in other cultures for thousands of years.
Hello.
I'm Jason, Caroyn's DH.
I'm a DPT and I understand the frustration with "traditional" medicine. I also will second people's criticisms of the pharmaceutical industries and the medical device manufacturers.
However, that criticism does not mean we should ignore good science and critical thinking in evaluating claims being made by those in the "alternative" crowd.
Hi Carola. You said:
>
>The guy who runs the website, Stephen Barrett, is a former
>psychiatrist who never held a job (other than a part-time job
>for a few hours a week) because he failed the test for
>board-certification. In 93 he turned in his medical license
>and proceeded to be an "expert witness" at court trials. In
>his own words he wants to "discredit and cause damage and harm
>to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative
>health therapies or products available."
>
>This guy doesn't have much credibility for me!
None of this is true. I can see how you were fooled, as this was a story circulated by Ted Koren DC, a chiropractor who produced false and misleading "patient education" brochures. Barrett took Koren to court over the false claims and Barrett won. Koren was of course upset and started the above story about Dr Barrett. Dr Barrett then sued Koren for libel and won.
Other people have since repeated these libels against Dr Barrett, and the courts have consistently awarded him damages every time. Follow the link below to read about these suits and the Koren case in particular.
Of course, people promoting craziness always attempt to attack the messenger rather than address the specific issues brought up by the skeptics.
This is such a childish, playground technique. Why not just refute the arguments?
Because they can't.
Here's some examples of the libel that Quackwatch has faced - notice they have always won in the courts when people have a chance to see the full story.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html
Quackwatch adheres to the the HONcode - a very strict standard for accuracy on the internet. Dr Barrett is also on the editorial board of scientific magazines and his research and work is well respected.
About the HONcode:
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/honcode.html
http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/
I hope this helps add some truth to advance the discussion.
Jason
I'm Jason, Caroyn's DH.
I'm a DPT and I understand the frustration with "traditional" medicine. I also will second people's criticisms of the pharmaceutical industries and the medical device manufacturers.
However, that criticism does not mean we should ignore good science and critical thinking in evaluating claims being made by those in the "alternative" crowd.
Hi Carola. You said:
>
>The guy who runs the website, Stephen Barrett, is a former
>psychiatrist who never held a job (other than a part-time job
>for a few hours a week) because he failed the test for
>board-certification. In 93 he turned in his medical license
>and proceeded to be an "expert witness" at court trials. In
>his own words he wants to "discredit and cause damage and harm
>to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative
>health therapies or products available."
>
>This guy doesn't have much credibility for me!
None of this is true. I can see how you were fooled, as this was a story circulated by Ted Koren DC, a chiropractor who produced false and misleading "patient education" brochures. Barrett took Koren to court over the false claims and Barrett won. Koren was of course upset and started the above story about Dr Barrett. Dr Barrett then sued Koren for libel and won.
Other people have since repeated these libels against Dr Barrett, and the courts have consistently awarded him damages every time. Follow the link below to read about these suits and the Koren case in particular.
Of course, people promoting craziness always attempt to attack the messenger rather than address the specific issues brought up by the skeptics.
This is such a childish, playground technique. Why not just refute the arguments?
Because they can't.
Here's some examples of the libel that Quackwatch has faced - notice they have always won in the courts when people have a chance to see the full story.
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html
Quackwatch adheres to the the HONcode - a very strict standard for accuracy on the internet. Dr Barrett is also on the editorial board of scientific magazines and his research and work is well respected.
About the HONcode:
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/honcode.html
http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/
I hope this helps add some truth to advance the discussion.
Jason
hiitdogs
Cathlete
>None of this is true. I can see how you were fooled, as this
>was a story circulated by Ted Koren DC, a chiropractor who
>produced false and misleading "patient education" brochures.
>Barrett took Koren to court over the false claims and Barrett
>won. Koren was of course upset and started the above story
>about Dr Barrett. Dr Barrett then sued Koren for libel and
>won.
Hi Jason,
my understanding is, that the lawsuit of Barrett against Koren was thrown out by the judge. I have to say though, I don't follow it closely.
With all due respect though, the links you are giving are to quackwatch.com and are at best one-sided reports based on the view of that organisation. I understand there are always two sides of every story.
I do understand and I agree that some alternative methods are questionable at best. And some of them make me roll my eyes as well. However, looking at Barrett's website, all I see, is attacks on anything and everything that has to do with alternative medicine, nutrition, etc.
What I see are unsubstantiated remarks that make the hair in my neck stand up. I.e. diseases don't have anything to do with diet, highly processed foods are just fine since vitamins that are taken out, are later added (synthetic vitamins, I might add), organic food is hogwash, fertilizers and pesticides have little or no effect on humans.............
He blasts ALL homeopathic and naturopathic physicians and practicioners as a whole profession and says "data is inconclusive" or "it has not been proven to work". I am sure glad the data was conclusive when it came to Vioxx, because we all saw where this was leading. Interesting that he never blasts anyone in the conventional medicine field.
As I said before, Barrett may have some valid points, in general his whole quackwatch website is not credible in my view. I have to admit though, it is amusing to read
Have a great day!
Carola
>was a story circulated by Ted Koren DC, a chiropractor who
>produced false and misleading "patient education" brochures.
>Barrett took Koren to court over the false claims and Barrett
>won. Koren was of course upset and started the above story
>about Dr Barrett. Dr Barrett then sued Koren for libel and
>won.
Hi Jason,
my understanding is, that the lawsuit of Barrett against Koren was thrown out by the judge. I have to say though, I don't follow it closely.
With all due respect though, the links you are giving are to quackwatch.com and are at best one-sided reports based on the view of that organisation. I understand there are always two sides of every story.
I do understand and I agree that some alternative methods are questionable at best. And some of them make me roll my eyes as well. However, looking at Barrett's website, all I see, is attacks on anything and everything that has to do with alternative medicine, nutrition, etc.
What I see are unsubstantiated remarks that make the hair in my neck stand up. I.e. diseases don't have anything to do with diet, highly processed foods are just fine since vitamins that are taken out, are later added (synthetic vitamins, I might add), organic food is hogwash, fertilizers and pesticides have little or no effect on humans.............
He blasts ALL homeopathic and naturopathic physicians and practicioners as a whole profession and says "data is inconclusive" or "it has not been proven to work". I am sure glad the data was conclusive when it came to Vioxx, because we all saw where this was leading. Interesting that he never blasts anyone in the conventional medicine field.
As I said before, Barrett may have some valid points, in general his whole quackwatch website is not credible in my view. I have to admit though, it is amusing to read
Have a great day!
Carola
Hello Carola.
>my understanding is, that the lawsuit of Barrett against Koren
>was thrown out by the judge. I have to say though, I don't
>follow it closely.
You actually don't have to follow it closely. The webpage I listed before has links to the actual transcript of the trial that shows the damages awarded. These facts are not in question in any way.
>With all due respect though, the links you are giving are to
>quackwatch.com and are at best one-sided reports based on the
>view of that organisation. I understand there are always two
>sides of every story.
Yes, but that doesn't mean both sides have equal validity. One side has logic, reason, and science behind it, and another has just opinions not based on evidence. One side has facts, the other opinions.
>I do understand and I agree that some alternative methods are
>questionable at best. And some of them make me roll my eyes as
>well. However, looking at Barrett's website, all I see, is
>attacks on anything and everything that has to do with
>alternative medicine, nutrition, etc.
Well, we can certainly agree about many alternative methods being questionable. Barrett attacks the bad parts of alternative medicine - but that doesn't make him wrong. In fact, the people libeling him have no actual data or evidence that anything he's said is incorrect. That's why he always wins the court cases.
>He blasts ALL homeopathic and naturopathic physicians and
>practicioners as a whole profession and says "data is
>inconclusive" or "it has not been proven to work". I am sure
>glad the data was conclusive when it came to Vioxx, because we
>all saw where this was leading. Interesting that he never
>blasts anyone in the conventional medicine field.
I agree that there is much in conventional medicine that needs "blasting" - and the over-promotion of Vioxx is a great example. That says nothing about the validity of the claims of the alternative practitioners, however. Many things that Naturopaths or Homeopathic people believe in have been proven false. For example the latest review article on homeopathy says that there is no evidence that the treatments work:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=17227742&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum
Note that the trials are of poor scientific quality, and no certain conclusions can be drawn. This is the same story for years now. There has been plenty of time to establish the efficacy of this "treatment" - and no results.
The fact that there are problems with conventional medicine, does not mean that everyone who practices other things is correct. However, there are people inside the conventional medical system trying to steer people away from drugs and surgery and toward movement and health. Look them up here:
http://www.aaompt.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=6
>As I said before, Barrett may have some valid points, in
>general his whole quackwatch website is not credible in my
>view.
Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. But the Quackwatch site is scientifically sound. Whether we agree or disagree with science is I suppose another issue.
I'm not trying to stir up a fight, just trying to provide the best current information. It's always good to be skeptical of any claim on either side, investigate it yourself, and come to your own conclusion. On a side note, we LOVE living in Germany, and I hear you're a German as well, so guten nacht! Jetzt gehen wir zum Bett!
(did I get that right??)
Jason.
>my understanding is, that the lawsuit of Barrett against Koren
>was thrown out by the judge. I have to say though, I don't
>follow it closely.
You actually don't have to follow it closely. The webpage I listed before has links to the actual transcript of the trial that shows the damages awarded. These facts are not in question in any way.
>With all due respect though, the links you are giving are to
>quackwatch.com and are at best one-sided reports based on the
>view of that organisation. I understand there are always two
>sides of every story.
Yes, but that doesn't mean both sides have equal validity. One side has logic, reason, and science behind it, and another has just opinions not based on evidence. One side has facts, the other opinions.
>I do understand and I agree that some alternative methods are
>questionable at best. And some of them make me roll my eyes as
>well. However, looking at Barrett's website, all I see, is
>attacks on anything and everything that has to do with
>alternative medicine, nutrition, etc.
Well, we can certainly agree about many alternative methods being questionable. Barrett attacks the bad parts of alternative medicine - but that doesn't make him wrong. In fact, the people libeling him have no actual data or evidence that anything he's said is incorrect. That's why he always wins the court cases.
>He blasts ALL homeopathic and naturopathic physicians and
>practicioners as a whole profession and says "data is
>inconclusive" or "it has not been proven to work". I am sure
>glad the data was conclusive when it came to Vioxx, because we
>all saw where this was leading. Interesting that he never
>blasts anyone in the conventional medicine field.
I agree that there is much in conventional medicine that needs "blasting" - and the over-promotion of Vioxx is a great example. That says nothing about the validity of the claims of the alternative practitioners, however. Many things that Naturopaths or Homeopathic people believe in have been proven false. For example the latest review article on homeopathy says that there is no evidence that the treatments work:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=17227742&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum
Note that the trials are of poor scientific quality, and no certain conclusions can be drawn. This is the same story for years now. There has been plenty of time to establish the efficacy of this "treatment" - and no results.
The fact that there are problems with conventional medicine, does not mean that everyone who practices other things is correct. However, there are people inside the conventional medical system trying to steer people away from drugs and surgery and toward movement and health. Look them up here:
http://www.aaompt.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=6
>As I said before, Barrett may have some valid points, in
>general his whole quackwatch website is not credible in my
>view.
Well, we're all entitled to our opinions. But the Quackwatch site is scientifically sound. Whether we agree or disagree with science is I suppose another issue.
I'm not trying to stir up a fight, just trying to provide the best current information. It's always good to be skeptical of any claim on either side, investigate it yourself, and come to your own conclusion. On a side note, we LOVE living in Germany, and I hear you're a German as well, so guten nacht! Jetzt gehen wir zum Bett!
(did I get that right??)
Jason.
hiitdogs
Cathlete
You did good, Jason, German is a really difficult language to learn. I don't envy you
The Barrett vs. Koren lawsuit was thrown out by the judge and I got this directly from Barrett's website www.chirowatch.org, and I quote
"In August 2004, an arbitration panel composed of three attorneys awarded me $6,500 in general damages, $10,000 in punitive damages, reimbursement for certain costs, and publication of a retraction. Koren appealed, however, and after 3 days of trial, the judge ruled that I had failed to present sufficient evidence that Koren had acted with "reckless disregard of the truth." I am appealing this decision."
I don't see that Mr. Barrett has any scientifically sound evidence to his claims. In a review published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, eight Quackwatch articles were analyzed, including five written by Stephen Barrett, and found to be "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo."
I am just looking at his claims that diseases are not caused by diet, that fertilizers and pesticides have little or no effect on humans, or that organic food has no benefit compared to conventionally grown food, his claims that chemical sensitivities are bogus, and are probably part of a mental illness and that those people effected are likely hypochondriacs. That's enough for me to conclude that this guy has no credibility, at least in my opinion.
You say that Barrett attacks the bad parts of alternative medicine, with all due respect, he attacks everything and anything in alternative medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, organic food, etc. etc. it just makes my head spin.
He not only attacks two time Nobel-prize winner Linus Pauling but also Dr. Andrew Weil, and others. Those are well-respected members of the medical community and certainly no "quacks"!!
You claim that "many things that Naturopaths or Homeopathic people believe in have been proven false. For example the latest review article on homeopathy says that there is no evidence that the treatments work:"
You are absolutely wrong about that, there is more than sufficient effidence and research done that homeopathic medicine in fact does work. The only thing that they don't know, is, why it works.
I can attest to the fact that homeopathic medicine does work from my own experience. Many years ago in my early twenties I experienced what people would now probably categorize as panic attacks. racing pulse, cold sweats, shortness of breath, limbs go numb for a period, nausea, dizziness ..... I thought I am going to die. Over the next two years I went to a total of 15 "conventional" physicians, getting prescribed everything from magnesium to beta-blockers (which did a number on me, because I have notoriously low blood pressure, the beta blockers made me pass out frequently) and the number of attacks actually increased.
Eventually, a friend of mine recommended her physician who was also practising homeopathic medicine (in Germany you have to have a "regular" (allopathic) doctor's degree and then you can go on and study homeopathy). When my friend told me about homeopathy, I thought she was totally out of her mind and that this was nothing but snake oil science. I would consider myself a realist with a healthy dose of skeptisicm.
I eventually went to see that physician, and my initial reaction was very skeptical, to say the least. To make a long story short, after the initial 2 hour consultation I started the recommended homeopathic treatment and within less than two weeks my problems had subsided.
I think I just subscribe more to the homeopathic/naturopathic principle "first, cause no harm" and I rather eat the right food and exercise than popping pills which don't do anything else than covering the symptoms. And I rather eat organic food, even though Mr. Barrett claims the only difference between organic food and conventionally grown food is price.
When it comes to allopathic/conventional medicine we keep hearing about suchandsuch new pill being the best and greatest ever, and all over sudden, a couple of years into it, come to find out, oopsies, the wonderful pill has killed a whole bunch of people and has serious side effects (not to worry though we have another pill to take care of the side effects}( ) I guess the double-blind tests/trials are not that scientifically sound after all!
I really am not sure what you what you base it on that Mr. Barrett's website is scientifically sound, I respectfully disagree. And guess we just have to leave it at that, we agree to disagree. Great and informative discussion though, thanks, Jason.
Have a good night!
The Barrett vs. Koren lawsuit was thrown out by the judge and I got this directly from Barrett's website www.chirowatch.org, and I quote
"In August 2004, an arbitration panel composed of three attorneys awarded me $6,500 in general damages, $10,000 in punitive damages, reimbursement for certain costs, and publication of a retraction. Koren appealed, however, and after 3 days of trial, the judge ruled that I had failed to present sufficient evidence that Koren had acted with "reckless disregard of the truth." I am appealing this decision."
I don't see that Mr. Barrett has any scientifically sound evidence to his claims. In a review published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, eight Quackwatch articles were analyzed, including five written by Stephen Barrett, and found to be "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo."
I am just looking at his claims that diseases are not caused by diet, that fertilizers and pesticides have little or no effect on humans, or that organic food has no benefit compared to conventionally grown food, his claims that chemical sensitivities are bogus, and are probably part of a mental illness and that those people effected are likely hypochondriacs. That's enough for me to conclude that this guy has no credibility, at least in my opinion.
You say that Barrett attacks the bad parts of alternative medicine, with all due respect, he attacks everything and anything in alternative medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, organic food, etc. etc. it just makes my head spin.
He not only attacks two time Nobel-prize winner Linus Pauling but also Dr. Andrew Weil, and others. Those are well-respected members of the medical community and certainly no "quacks"!!
You claim that "many things that Naturopaths or Homeopathic people believe in have been proven false. For example the latest review article on homeopathy says that there is no evidence that the treatments work:"
You are absolutely wrong about that, there is more than sufficient effidence and research done that homeopathic medicine in fact does work. The only thing that they don't know, is, why it works.
I can attest to the fact that homeopathic medicine does work from my own experience. Many years ago in my early twenties I experienced what people would now probably categorize as panic attacks. racing pulse, cold sweats, shortness of breath, limbs go numb for a period, nausea, dizziness ..... I thought I am going to die. Over the next two years I went to a total of 15 "conventional" physicians, getting prescribed everything from magnesium to beta-blockers (which did a number on me, because I have notoriously low blood pressure, the beta blockers made me pass out frequently) and the number of attacks actually increased.
Eventually, a friend of mine recommended her physician who was also practising homeopathic medicine (in Germany you have to have a "regular" (allopathic) doctor's degree and then you can go on and study homeopathy). When my friend told me about homeopathy, I thought she was totally out of her mind and that this was nothing but snake oil science. I would consider myself a realist with a healthy dose of skeptisicm.
I eventually went to see that physician, and my initial reaction was very skeptical, to say the least. To make a long story short, after the initial 2 hour consultation I started the recommended homeopathic treatment and within less than two weeks my problems had subsided.
I think I just subscribe more to the homeopathic/naturopathic principle "first, cause no harm" and I rather eat the right food and exercise than popping pills which don't do anything else than covering the symptoms. And I rather eat organic food, even though Mr. Barrett claims the only difference between organic food and conventionally grown food is price.
When it comes to allopathic/conventional medicine we keep hearing about suchandsuch new pill being the best and greatest ever, and all over sudden, a couple of years into it, come to find out, oopsies, the wonderful pill has killed a whole bunch of people and has serious side effects (not to worry though we have another pill to take care of the side effects}( ) I guess the double-blind tests/trials are not that scientifically sound after all!
I really am not sure what you what you base it on that Mr. Barrett's website is scientifically sound, I respectfully disagree. And guess we just have to leave it at that, we agree to disagree. Great and informative discussion though, thanks, Jason.
Have a good night!
<Interesting, though I disagree with several of the points.>
I agree. Dr. Barrett makes valid points on some topics, but I completely disagree with him on others. Thursday evening I attended a dinner lecture on the "relationship between diet & disease". The speaker, a Radiation Oncologist, shared information and sceintific evidence that disagrees with Dr. Barrett on several points. Isn't the interpretation of evidence fascinating?
I agree. Dr. Barrett makes valid points on some topics, but I completely disagree with him on others. Thursday evening I attended a dinner lecture on the "relationship between diet & disease". The speaker, a Radiation Oncologist, shared information and sceintific evidence that disagrees with Dr. Barrett on several points. Isn't the interpretation of evidence fascinating?
>You did good, Jason, German is a really difficult language to
>learn. I don't envy you
Yeah, I'm surprised at how difficult it is. I guess I thought it had more in common with english than it actually does. So it's kicking my butt!
>The Barrett vs. Koren lawsuit was thrown out by the judge
I'm afraid you have your lawsuits confused.The one that I mentioned about libel was decided in favor of Dr Barrett, not Koren. The lawsuit that is still pending has to do with Dr Barrett's suit that Koren produced misleading material in his chiropractic brochures.
While this latest version of the suit is still pending, did you read the deposition? Koren admitted that "he neither knew nor cared whether what he said was true."
The libel suits against Dr. Barrett have always been in his favor.Did you read the results of the exact same claim by another person in Pennsylvania? Same result, Dr Barrett was awarded $50,000 in damages. The only suit pending here is the one about Koren's false advertising, NOT the libel suits that I was referencing.
>I don't see that Mr. Barrett has any scientifically sound
>evidence to his claims.
On the contrary, his articles are extensively referenced in the peer-reviewed medical literature. We may choose to disbelieve such evidence, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
In a review published in the Journal
>of Scientific Exploration, eight Quackwatch articles were
>analyzed, including five written by Stephen Barrett, and found
>to be "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data,
>technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo."
The "journal of scientific exploration" is not a peer-reviewed journal. This is the standard for true scientific work.
>I am just looking at his claims that diseases are not caused
>by diet, that fertilizers and pesticides have little or no
>effect on humans, or that organic food has no benefit compared
>to conventionally grown food, his claims that chemical
>sensitivities are bogus, and are probably part of a mental
>illness and that those people effected are likely
>hypochondriacs. That's enough for me to conclude that this guy
>has no credibility, at least in my opinion.
I'm glad you're admitting that it's opinion. I think right now we don't have the data that shows the benefit of organic food and a clear illness and diet connection. I'm a vegan and eat very healthy, and I believe that lifestyle factors are a much larger portion of health than we realize right now. I'm sure Dr Barrett doesn't agree with everything I think in this area (neither I with him), but that doesn't mean that his statements are not true. It may be we just need more research and larger studies to find some of these effects - but when Barrett states there's no evidence for that currently, he's right.
>You say that Barrett attacks the bad parts of alternative
>medicine, with all due respect, he attacks everything and
>anything in alternative medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathic
>medicine, naturopathic medicine, organic food, etc. etc. it
>just makes my head spin.
Yes, but there's so much bad information and quackery out there, he has a lot of material. That's hardly his fault.
>He not only attacks two time Nobel-prize winner Linus Pauling
>but also Dr. Andrew Weil, and others. Those are well-respected
>members of the medical community and certainly no "quacks"!!
Linus Pauling is a Nobel winner, but his statements about Vitamin C have been proven false. Nobody gets everything right. A true scientist admits when they are wrong, and had Dr Pauling lived to see the evidence come out, I'm sure he would have changed his mind. That's the thing with scientists, we change our mind to conform to the evidence, we don't reject the evidence because it doesn't fit with our worldview. As for Dr Weil, he also makes some questionable claims that Barrett specifically mentions. I'm sure there are many positive things about Dr Weil's books also, but that doesn't change the other parts of those books.
There is a big difference in science between criticizing someone's ideas and criticizing the person. In science, it isn't an insult to attack someone's ideas. That's all that Dr Barrett has done.
>You claim that "many things that Naturopaths or Homeopathic
>people believe in have been proven false. For example the
>latest review article on homeopathy says that there is no
>evidence that the treatments work:"
>You are absolutely wrong about that, there is more than
>sufficient effidence and research done that homeopathic
>medicine in fact does work. The only thing that they don't
>know, is, why it works.
I would dearly love to see real evidence from a scientifically peer-reviewed journal that shows that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect. There's no evidence that it does. It isn't so because the purveyors of the homeopathy "medicines" say so - they have to back up their statements with quality evidence, and they have not done so.
>I can attest to the fact that homeopathic medicine does work
>from my own experience.
There are many explanations for why you might have improved that have nothing to do with the treatment itself. In just one case, who's to say what happened?
>I would consider myself a realist with a healthy dose of skeptisicm.
I'm glad to hear that, though you certainly seem to leave your skepticism out when it comes to alternative medicine.
>I think I just subscribe more to the homeopathic/naturopathic
>principle "first, cause no harm"
This is funny. This is not a homeopathic principle, this is in the Hippocratic Oath, which medical doctors take after graduation. This principle is about as "allopathic" as you can get.
>I [would] rather eat the right food and exercise than popping pills
>which don't do anything else than covering the symptoms.
I would agree with this 100%. I agree that the conventional medical system has major issues with pharmaceuticals and with medical devices and their over-promotion. There are many issues and problems in standard and alternative medicine. At least standard medicine is based on real science that self-corrects when exposed to enough data. Those in the alternative crowd don't do good research or even attempt to make a scientific case one way or the other.
>And I rather eat organic food, even though Mr. Barrett claims the only
>difference between organic food and conventionally grown food is
>price.
Well, there are some ethical and economic differences also. I eat organic, too. I know that right now we don't have any published scientific evidence that there's a difference - but we may in the future. I won't reject what Dr Barrett says about this just because it doesn't fit my personal worldview. Scientifically, he's right.
>When it comes to allopathic/conventional medicine we keep
>hearing about suchandsuch new pill being the best and greatest
>ever, and all over sudden, a couple of years into it, come to
>find out, oopsies, the wonderful pill has killed a whole bunch
>of people and has serious side effects (not to worry though we
>have another pill to take care of the side effects}( ) I guess
>the double-blind tests/trials are not that scientifically
>sound after all!
I will agree that the pharma industry is out of control and the conventional medicine is too pill-heavy. The Vioxx situation is a result of over-prescribing and over promotion of the drug, not the fault of the trials that studied it.
>I really am not sure what you what you base it on that Mr.
>Barrett's website is scientifically sound, I respectfully
>disagree. And guess we just have to leave it at that, we agree
>to disagree.
It's "Dr" Barrett - and his site is scientifically sound. We all have the option to reject scientific evidence if it doesn't fit our worldview. As a trained scientist and healthcare professional, I don't have that luxury - I have to stick with facts not opinions.
Whether people accept those facts is of course another issue.
Thanks for the discussion, Carola!
Have a great day!
Jason
>learn. I don't envy you
Yeah, I'm surprised at how difficult it is. I guess I thought it had more in common with english than it actually does. So it's kicking my butt!
>The Barrett vs. Koren lawsuit was thrown out by the judge
I'm afraid you have your lawsuits confused.The one that I mentioned about libel was decided in favor of Dr Barrett, not Koren. The lawsuit that is still pending has to do with Dr Barrett's suit that Koren produced misleading material in his chiropractic brochures.
While this latest version of the suit is still pending, did you read the deposition? Koren admitted that "he neither knew nor cared whether what he said was true."
The libel suits against Dr. Barrett have always been in his favor.Did you read the results of the exact same claim by another person in Pennsylvania? Same result, Dr Barrett was awarded $50,000 in damages. The only suit pending here is the one about Koren's false advertising, NOT the libel suits that I was referencing.
>I don't see that Mr. Barrett has any scientifically sound
>evidence to his claims.
On the contrary, his articles are extensively referenced in the peer-reviewed medical literature. We may choose to disbelieve such evidence, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
In a review published in the Journal
>of Scientific Exploration, eight Quackwatch articles were
>analyzed, including five written by Stephen Barrett, and found
>to be "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data,
>technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo."
The "journal of scientific exploration" is not a peer-reviewed journal. This is the standard for true scientific work.
>I am just looking at his claims that diseases are not caused
>by diet, that fertilizers and pesticides have little or no
>effect on humans, or that organic food has no benefit compared
>to conventionally grown food, his claims that chemical
>sensitivities are bogus, and are probably part of a mental
>illness and that those people effected are likely
>hypochondriacs. That's enough for me to conclude that this guy
>has no credibility, at least in my opinion.
I'm glad you're admitting that it's opinion. I think right now we don't have the data that shows the benefit of organic food and a clear illness and diet connection. I'm a vegan and eat very healthy, and I believe that lifestyle factors are a much larger portion of health than we realize right now. I'm sure Dr Barrett doesn't agree with everything I think in this area (neither I with him), but that doesn't mean that his statements are not true. It may be we just need more research and larger studies to find some of these effects - but when Barrett states there's no evidence for that currently, he's right.
>You say that Barrett attacks the bad parts of alternative
>medicine, with all due respect, he attacks everything and
>anything in alternative medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathic
>medicine, naturopathic medicine, organic food, etc. etc. it
>just makes my head spin.
Yes, but there's so much bad information and quackery out there, he has a lot of material. That's hardly his fault.
>He not only attacks two time Nobel-prize winner Linus Pauling
>but also Dr. Andrew Weil, and others. Those are well-respected
>members of the medical community and certainly no "quacks"!!
Linus Pauling is a Nobel winner, but his statements about Vitamin C have been proven false. Nobody gets everything right. A true scientist admits when they are wrong, and had Dr Pauling lived to see the evidence come out, I'm sure he would have changed his mind. That's the thing with scientists, we change our mind to conform to the evidence, we don't reject the evidence because it doesn't fit with our worldview. As for Dr Weil, he also makes some questionable claims that Barrett specifically mentions. I'm sure there are many positive things about Dr Weil's books also, but that doesn't change the other parts of those books.
There is a big difference in science between criticizing someone's ideas and criticizing the person. In science, it isn't an insult to attack someone's ideas. That's all that Dr Barrett has done.
>You claim that "many things that Naturopaths or Homeopathic
>people believe in have been proven false. For example the
>latest review article on homeopathy says that there is no
>evidence that the treatments work:"
>You are absolutely wrong about that, there is more than
>sufficient effidence and research done that homeopathic
>medicine in fact does work. The only thing that they don't
>know, is, why it works.
I would dearly love to see real evidence from a scientifically peer-reviewed journal that shows that homeopathy works beyond the placebo effect. There's no evidence that it does. It isn't so because the purveyors of the homeopathy "medicines" say so - they have to back up their statements with quality evidence, and they have not done so.
>I can attest to the fact that homeopathic medicine does work
>from my own experience.
There are many explanations for why you might have improved that have nothing to do with the treatment itself. In just one case, who's to say what happened?
>I would consider myself a realist with a healthy dose of skeptisicm.
I'm glad to hear that, though you certainly seem to leave your skepticism out when it comes to alternative medicine.
>I think I just subscribe more to the homeopathic/naturopathic
>principle "first, cause no harm"
This is funny. This is not a homeopathic principle, this is in the Hippocratic Oath, which medical doctors take after graduation. This principle is about as "allopathic" as you can get.
>I [would] rather eat the right food and exercise than popping pills
>which don't do anything else than covering the symptoms.
I would agree with this 100%. I agree that the conventional medical system has major issues with pharmaceuticals and with medical devices and their over-promotion. There are many issues and problems in standard and alternative medicine. At least standard medicine is based on real science that self-corrects when exposed to enough data. Those in the alternative crowd don't do good research or even attempt to make a scientific case one way or the other.
>And I rather eat organic food, even though Mr. Barrett claims the only
>difference between organic food and conventionally grown food is
>price.
Well, there are some ethical and economic differences also. I eat organic, too. I know that right now we don't have any published scientific evidence that there's a difference - but we may in the future. I won't reject what Dr Barrett says about this just because it doesn't fit my personal worldview. Scientifically, he's right.
>When it comes to allopathic/conventional medicine we keep
>hearing about suchandsuch new pill being the best and greatest
>ever, and all over sudden, a couple of years into it, come to
>find out, oopsies, the wonderful pill has killed a whole bunch
>of people and has serious side effects (not to worry though we
>have another pill to take care of the side effects}( ) I guess
>the double-blind tests/trials are not that scientifically
>sound after all!
I will agree that the pharma industry is out of control and the conventional medicine is too pill-heavy. The Vioxx situation is a result of over-prescribing and over promotion of the drug, not the fault of the trials that studied it.
>I really am not sure what you what you base it on that Mr.
>Barrett's website is scientifically sound, I respectfully
>disagree. And guess we just have to leave it at that, we agree
>to disagree.
It's "Dr" Barrett - and his site is scientifically sound. We all have the option to reject scientific evidence if it doesn't fit our worldview. As a trained scientist and healthcare professional, I don't have that luxury - I have to stick with facts not opinions.
Whether people accept those facts is of course another issue.
Thanks for the discussion, Carola!
Have a great day!
Jason
hiitdogs
Cathlete
You know, Jason, there are so many lawsuits by Barrett that it is hard to keep track of them.
Quite frankly, it's kind of funny, Barrett goes around attacking people and when they fight back, he sues them for libel. But contrary to what you say, he doesn't win all of them (Barret vs. Rosenthal - dismissed as unfounded, Barrett vs. Fonorow - dismissed, Barrett vs. Sherrell - dismissed .... ).
You know, there are a lot of things we don't have any specific data on, we just know it works and what you call scientifically proven results have turned out not to be reliable either. So I would submit that the "scientifically proven" results are not fool-proof and just as unreliable. "Scientifically proven" results have turned out to be faulty and proved wrong by other scientifically proven methods, meaning what is substantial evidence to one scientist may be complete garbage for another. Or it has been found out that the trials/tests were set up faulty or under the wrong assumptions.
So the blind believe in scientific evidence is not any better than the blind belief in alternative methods. I for my part prefer common sense.
I guess I had a case of miracle healing then! After two years of treatment through FIFTEEN allopathic doctors, NONE of them was able to diagnose me correctly and give me the right treatment. If you are talking about placebo effect, then the other medications should have worked too!!?? But it goes away after get the homeopathic treatment?? Hmmmhh, too much of a coincidence for me.
But oh, I forgot, I am probably just a case of mental illness or hypochondriac like the people with chemical sensitivities that according to Barrett don't exist. So I guess I wasn't really sick after all.
I really don't care what the reason is that homeopathic medicine works, the fact is, it does work, I have seen it on numerous people, including my own family.
You know, Jason, you have no idea who I am and to accuse me that I leave my skepticism out when it comes to alternative medicine is pretty much out of line. You have no idea what my beliefs are and what my background is. Just because Barrett can't do no wrong in your eyes doesn't mean that the people who doubt his judgement and question his motives are idiots or less educated than you are.
Have a great day
Carola
Quite frankly, it's kind of funny, Barrett goes around attacking people and when they fight back, he sues them for libel. But contrary to what you say, he doesn't win all of them (Barret vs. Rosenthal - dismissed as unfounded, Barrett vs. Fonorow - dismissed, Barrett vs. Sherrell - dismissed .... ).
You know, there are a lot of things we don't have any specific data on, we just know it works and what you call scientifically proven results have turned out not to be reliable either. So I would submit that the "scientifically proven" results are not fool-proof and just as unreliable. "Scientifically proven" results have turned out to be faulty and proved wrong by other scientifically proven methods, meaning what is substantial evidence to one scientist may be complete garbage for another. Or it has been found out that the trials/tests were set up faulty or under the wrong assumptions.
So the blind believe in scientific evidence is not any better than the blind belief in alternative methods. I for my part prefer common sense.
I guess I had a case of miracle healing then! After two years of treatment through FIFTEEN allopathic doctors, NONE of them was able to diagnose me correctly and give me the right treatment. If you are talking about placebo effect, then the other medications should have worked too!!?? But it goes away after get the homeopathic treatment?? Hmmmhh, too much of a coincidence for me.
But oh, I forgot, I am probably just a case of mental illness or hypochondriac like the people with chemical sensitivities that according to Barrett don't exist. So I guess I wasn't really sick after all.
I really don't care what the reason is that homeopathic medicine works, the fact is, it does work, I have seen it on numerous people, including my own family.
You know, Jason, you have no idea who I am and to accuse me that I leave my skepticism out when it comes to alternative medicine is pretty much out of line. You have no idea what my beliefs are and what my background is. Just because Barrett can't do no wrong in your eyes doesn't mean that the people who doubt his judgement and question his motives are idiots or less educated than you are.
Have a great day
Carola
hiitdogs
Cathlete
>Because it points out how biased Barrett's site is.
>
>
No, I agree Barrett is biased and most of his statements are more than questionable (I think I have laid out clearly above what I think about Stephen Barrett )
I just don't like the tone in the other website. It is one thing to refute accusations but it doesn't have to be vicious.
Carola
>
>
No, I agree Barrett is biased and most of his statements are more than questionable (I think I have laid out clearly above what I think about Stephen Barrett
)I just don't like the tone in the other website. It is one thing to refute accusations but it doesn't have to be vicious.
Carola
Hi Carola.
>Quite frankly, it's kind of funny, Barrett goes around
>attacking people and when they fight back, he sues them for
>libel. But contrary to what you say, he doesn't win all of
>them (Barret vs. Rosenthal - dismissed as unfounded, Barrett
>vs. Fonorow - dismissed, Barrett vs. Sherrell - dismissed ....
>).
None of the libel suits Barrett has won have been dismissed. Fighting bad information and health advice in the courts is hard work given all the disinformation out there.
>You know, there are a lot of things we don't have any specific
>data on, we just know it works and what you call
>scientifically proven results have turned out not to be
>reliable either. So I would submit that the "scientifically
>proven" results are not fool-proof and just as unreliable.
This is an inaccurate comparison. Some things we don't have data on so we can't say one way or another. Other things we do have data on and they've been proven false. I admit that there is much that has not been studied - but in cases where we do have good data, we ought to be honest about it. The alternative folks are clearly being dishonest in many of their claims. This is a verifiable fact.
>"Scientifically proven" results have turned out to be faulty
>and proved wrong by other scientifically proven methods,
>meaning what is substantial evidence to one scientist may be
>complete garbage for another. Or it has been found out that
>the trials/tests were set up faulty or under the wrong
>assumptions.
Research isn't perfect, but it is self-correcting over time and it does improve with further study. Your statement about evidence being different between scientists is not accurate - although in cases where there is incomplete data, there can be different conclusions drawn. My examples were items that have been settled and are not in doubt. There are many other areas where the data is not so strong.
>So the blind believe in scientific evidence is not any better
>than the blind belief in alternative methods. I for my part
>prefer common sense.
There's nothing remotely "common sense" about equating opinion to scientific research. The scientific process is by no means "blind". Neither is it perfect, but no one (least of all me) claims that it is. Such claims are primarily made by people in the alternative community.
>I guess I had a case of miracle healing then! After two years
>of treatment through FIFTEEN allopathic doctors, NONE of them
>was able to diagnose me correctly and give me the right
>treatment. If you are talking about placebo effect, then the
>other medications should have worked too!!?? But it goes away
>after get the homeopathic treatment?? Hmmmhh, too much of a
>coincidence for me.
The placebo effect depends on expectancy, your statement that the other medications should have worked as well is not an accurate understanding of the placebo effect or of how it works. And there are many other explanations besides placebo for any one case of success with any one treatment of any kind. This is why trials are designed with many subjects under controlled conditions.
>But oh, I forgot, I am probably just a case of mental illness
>or hypochondriac like the people with chemical sensitivities
>that according to Barrett don't exist. So I guess I wasn't
>really sick after all.
I didn't say any of these things. Why did you? The fact that many of these supposed chemical allergies or sensitivities haven't been proven is true. That doesn't mean they don't exist, we may just lack the methodology or the measurement tools to find them so far. I know there is ongoing research in this area for many problems, with migraine headache triggers being one example of that in the area of "chemical sensitivity".
>I really don't care what the reason is that homeopathic
>medicine works, the fact is, it does work, I have seen it on
>numerous people, including my own family.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, Carola. Whether that opinion is consistent with the established data is, as I said before, another issue.
>You know, Jason, you have no idea who I am and to accuse me
>that I leave my skepticism out when it comes to alternative
>medicine is pretty much out of line. You have no idea what my
>beliefs are and what my background is.
Your statements in support of alternative medicine in the face of evidence to the contrary is proof of the truth of my statement. I make no judgment of you personally, just about what you've said here. How is it "out of line" to point this out? Please don't confuse criticism of someone's statements or of their arguments as criticism of the person. In science, we have all sorts of tough debates - but no one mistakes what is said for a personal attack. I fear that's what you've done here - and that of course wasn't what the discussion was about. I've made no attempt to criticize you personally - as you said, I don't know you - but only discuss the issues at hand.
>Just because Barrett can't do no wrong [sic] in your eyes doesn't mean
>that the people who doubt his judgment and question his motives are
>idiots or less educated than you are.
I didn't say any of these things. Why did you? I in fact went out of my way to say that I didn't agree with everything Dr Barrett had to say, and that I supported a healthy diet and lifestyle with the hope that further research will validate some of the correlations with diet, lifestyle, and disease. Too many questions remain to be answered. Some, however, have been settled. It would be unethical of me to pretend otherwise.
Scientific research is hard work - but not as hard as it is for me to learn German!
Have a great day!
Jason
>Quite frankly, it's kind of funny, Barrett goes around
>attacking people and when they fight back, he sues them for
>libel. But contrary to what you say, he doesn't win all of
>them (Barret vs. Rosenthal - dismissed as unfounded, Barrett
>vs. Fonorow - dismissed, Barrett vs. Sherrell - dismissed ....
>).
None of the libel suits Barrett has won have been dismissed. Fighting bad information and health advice in the courts is hard work given all the disinformation out there.
>You know, there are a lot of things we don't have any specific
>data on, we just know it works and what you call
>scientifically proven results have turned out not to be
>reliable either. So I would submit that the "scientifically
>proven" results are not fool-proof and just as unreliable.
This is an inaccurate comparison. Some things we don't have data on so we can't say one way or another. Other things we do have data on and they've been proven false. I admit that there is much that has not been studied - but in cases where we do have good data, we ought to be honest about it. The alternative folks are clearly being dishonest in many of their claims. This is a verifiable fact.
>"Scientifically proven" results have turned out to be faulty
>and proved wrong by other scientifically proven methods,
>meaning what is substantial evidence to one scientist may be
>complete garbage for another. Or it has been found out that
>the trials/tests were set up faulty or under the wrong
>assumptions.
Research isn't perfect, but it is self-correcting over time and it does improve with further study. Your statement about evidence being different between scientists is not accurate - although in cases where there is incomplete data, there can be different conclusions drawn. My examples were items that have been settled and are not in doubt. There are many other areas where the data is not so strong.
>So the blind believe in scientific evidence is not any better
>than the blind belief in alternative methods. I for my part
>prefer common sense.
There's nothing remotely "common sense" about equating opinion to scientific research. The scientific process is by no means "blind". Neither is it perfect, but no one (least of all me) claims that it is. Such claims are primarily made by people in the alternative community.
>I guess I had a case of miracle healing then! After two years
>of treatment through FIFTEEN allopathic doctors, NONE of them
>was able to diagnose me correctly and give me the right
>treatment. If you are talking about placebo effect, then the
>other medications should have worked too!!?? But it goes away
>after get the homeopathic treatment?? Hmmmhh, too much of a
>coincidence for me.
The placebo effect depends on expectancy, your statement that the other medications should have worked as well is not an accurate understanding of the placebo effect or of how it works. And there are many other explanations besides placebo for any one case of success with any one treatment of any kind. This is why trials are designed with many subjects under controlled conditions.
>But oh, I forgot, I am probably just a case of mental illness
>or hypochondriac like the people with chemical sensitivities
>that according to Barrett don't exist. So I guess I wasn't
>really sick after all.
I didn't say any of these things. Why did you? The fact that many of these supposed chemical allergies or sensitivities haven't been proven is true. That doesn't mean they don't exist, we may just lack the methodology or the measurement tools to find them so far. I know there is ongoing research in this area for many problems, with migraine headache triggers being one example of that in the area of "chemical sensitivity".
>I really don't care what the reason is that homeopathic
>medicine works, the fact is, it does work, I have seen it on
>numerous people, including my own family.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, Carola. Whether that opinion is consistent with the established data is, as I said before, another issue.
>You know, Jason, you have no idea who I am and to accuse me
>that I leave my skepticism out when it comes to alternative
>medicine is pretty much out of line. You have no idea what my
>beliefs are and what my background is.
Your statements in support of alternative medicine in the face of evidence to the contrary is proof of the truth of my statement. I make no judgment of you personally, just about what you've said here. How is it "out of line" to point this out? Please don't confuse criticism of someone's statements or of their arguments as criticism of the person. In science, we have all sorts of tough debates - but no one mistakes what is said for a personal attack. I fear that's what you've done here - and that of course wasn't what the discussion was about. I've made no attempt to criticize you personally - as you said, I don't know you - but only discuss the issues at hand.
>Just because Barrett can't do no wrong [sic] in your eyes doesn't mean
>that the people who doubt his judgment and question his motives are
>idiots or less educated than you are.
I didn't say any of these things. Why did you? I in fact went out of my way to say that I didn't agree with everything Dr Barrett had to say, and that I supported a healthy diet and lifestyle with the hope that further research will validate some of the correlations with diet, lifestyle, and disease. Too many questions remain to be answered. Some, however, have been settled. It would be unethical of me to pretend otherwise.
Scientific research is hard work - but not as hard as it is for me to learn German!
Have a great day!
Jason
hiitdogs
Cathlete
>None of the libel suits Barrett has won have been dismissed.
>Fighting bad information and health advice in the courts is
>hard work given all the disinformation out there.
>
Huh? of course not, the libel suits that Barrett won weren't dismissed - how can it be dismissed if he won. But there is a whole bunch of them that were dismissed. So if you say that fighting bad information and health advice is hard work, yes, it is just as hard work for his opponents to prove otherwise!
>This is an inaccurate comparison. Some things we don't have
>data on so we can't say one way or another.
Well, then don't say it one way or another. Barrett keeps accusing people and methods, but also says the data is inclusive, lacking or not proven to work. So at best, he does accuse people without sufficient data!!!
There is plenty of data and research on Naturopathic and Homeopathic Medicine, additionally, almost all health insurance carriers in Europe will cover/pay for homeopathic and naturopathic treatment at 100 % and base that on the data they have which they find reliable. Just because Barrett deem it unreliable doesn't mean it is.
> My examples were items that have been settled and are not in doubt.
Must have missed that one, as far as I recall you were only talking about naturopathic and homeopathic medicine in general and there is nothing settled.
>There's nothing remotely "common sense" about equating opinion
>to scientific research. The scientific process is by no means
>"blind". Neither is it perfect, but no one (least of all me)
>claims that it is. Such claims are primarily made by people in
>the alternative community.
Really???? How about all the medications that come on the market with big fanfare, scientifically proven and everything, and then oopsie, oopsie kills people, doesn't do what it is supposed to do and we have to take it off the market. But hey, at least it was scientifically proven. I would say it has more to do with money than anything else. Just like statistics, science data can be manipulated to achieve the outcome they want.
>The placebo effect depends on expectancy, your statement that
>the other medications should have worked as well is not an
>accurate understanding of the placebo effect or of how it
>works. And there are many other explanations besides placebo
>for any one case of success with any one treatment of any
>kind. This is why trials are designed with many subjects under
>controlled conditions.
Yes, I am totally aware of the placebo effect, as a matter of fact, the way I grew up was a strong belief in allopathic medicine, I had no clue about homeopathic medicine, to me it sounded like snake oil science. I FULLY expected that the allopathic medications would work, and thought the homeopathic treatment was a waste of time. However, it turned out to be the complete opposite. I am just curious to hear your explanation.
>I didn't say any of these things. Why did you? The fact that
>many of these supposed chemical allergies or sensitivities
>haven't been proven is true. That doesn't mean they don't
>exist, we may just lack the methodology or the measurement
>tools to find them so far. I know there is ongoing research in
>this area for many problems, with migraine headache triggers
>being one example of that in the area of "chemical
>sensitivity".
That is exactly right, we are missing the data and no you didn't say it, but Barrett did! Barrett claims that all those chemical sensitivity claims are a case of mental illness. How is that for inaccurate data??
>Your statements in support of alternative medicine in the face
>of evidence to the contrary is proof of the truth of my
>statement.
Just like Barrett you make generalizations which distort the whole picture. I have said that many of the recommendations that are done under the mantle of "alternative medicine" make me cringe, and I don't blindly accept anything just because it is alternative, however, that there is validity to many of the alternative methods, like acupuncture, homeopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, nutrition, exercise, etc. Just because it is a different approach doesn't make it wrong and doesn't make it unreliable. As a matter of fact it has already entered mainstream medicine, so are you saying that all those doctors who incorporate that their practice with great success are quacks??
This being said, there are many good aspects to allopathic medicine and many doctors on both sides now find it beneficial to incorporate the best of both worlds. However, there seem to be fanatics on both sides who find it more important (for what ever reason) to discredit or attack the other side. I think we all would benefit from a more inclusive approach and the willingness to learn from each other.
In all reality there are less than genuine people on both sides and I resent your notion that all alternative folks are dishonest.
There is more to humans than a mere number of organs, bones and tissues. It's not like a car where you just change the parts and then it drives. Although science often makes it sound like that.
>I in fact went out of my way to say that I didn't agree with >everything Dr Barrett had to say, and that I supported a healthy >diet and lifestyle with the hope that further research will >validate some of the correlations with diet, lifestyle, and disease.
That's great Jason, but you do the same thing that I do, you pick and chose what fits your picture of the world, your experience and your lifestyle. So, it is ok that you do that but if I do it, it's wrong??
Fact is, Barrett blasts ALL methods of alternative medicine, including well established procedures and only says in a side note that there is not enough data or the data is unreliable. According to who??? He generalizes and clearly misleads people about alternative medicine as a whole. There is NOTHING on his 20 websites that would refer to anyone in the allopathic field. There are just as many quacks and dishonest people in the allopathic field as there are in the alternative.
Carola
>Fighting bad information and health advice in the courts is
>hard work given all the disinformation out there.
>
Huh? of course not, the libel suits that Barrett won weren't dismissed - how can it be dismissed if he won. But there is a whole bunch of them that were dismissed. So if you say that fighting bad information and health advice is hard work, yes, it is just as hard work for his opponents to prove otherwise!
>This is an inaccurate comparison. Some things we don't have
>data on so we can't say one way or another.
Well, then don't say it one way or another. Barrett keeps accusing people and methods, but also says the data is inclusive, lacking or not proven to work. So at best, he does accuse people without sufficient data!!!
There is plenty of data and research on Naturopathic and Homeopathic Medicine, additionally, almost all health insurance carriers in Europe will cover/pay for homeopathic and naturopathic treatment at 100 % and base that on the data they have which they find reliable. Just because Barrett deem it unreliable doesn't mean it is.
> My examples were items that have been settled and are not in doubt.
Must have missed that one, as far as I recall you were only talking about naturopathic and homeopathic medicine in general and there is nothing settled.
>There's nothing remotely "common sense" about equating opinion
>to scientific research. The scientific process is by no means
>"blind". Neither is it perfect, but no one (least of all me)
>claims that it is. Such claims are primarily made by people in
>the alternative community.
Really???? How about all the medications that come on the market with big fanfare, scientifically proven and everything, and then oopsie, oopsie kills people, doesn't do what it is supposed to do and we have to take it off the market. But hey, at least it was scientifically proven. I would say it has more to do with money than anything else. Just like statistics, science data can be manipulated to achieve the outcome they want.
>The placebo effect depends on expectancy, your statement that
>the other medications should have worked as well is not an
>accurate understanding of the placebo effect or of how it
>works. And there are many other explanations besides placebo
>for any one case of success with any one treatment of any
>kind. This is why trials are designed with many subjects under
>controlled conditions.
Yes, I am totally aware of the placebo effect, as a matter of fact, the way I grew up was a strong belief in allopathic medicine, I had no clue about homeopathic medicine, to me it sounded like snake oil science. I FULLY expected that the allopathic medications would work, and thought the homeopathic treatment was a waste of time. However, it turned out to be the complete opposite. I am just curious to hear your explanation.
>I didn't say any of these things. Why did you? The fact that
>many of these supposed chemical allergies or sensitivities
>haven't been proven is true. That doesn't mean they don't
>exist, we may just lack the methodology or the measurement
>tools to find them so far. I know there is ongoing research in
>this area for many problems, with migraine headache triggers
>being one example of that in the area of "chemical
>sensitivity".
That is exactly right, we are missing the data and no you didn't say it, but Barrett did! Barrett claims that all those chemical sensitivity claims are a case of mental illness. How is that for inaccurate data??
>Your statements in support of alternative medicine in the face
>of evidence to the contrary is proof of the truth of my
>statement.
Just like Barrett you make generalizations which distort the whole picture. I have said that many of the recommendations that are done under the mantle of "alternative medicine" make me cringe, and I don't blindly accept anything just because it is alternative, however, that there is validity to many of the alternative methods, like acupuncture, homeopathic medicine, naturopathic medicine, nutrition, exercise, etc. Just because it is a different approach doesn't make it wrong and doesn't make it unreliable. As a matter of fact it has already entered mainstream medicine, so are you saying that all those doctors who incorporate that their practice with great success are quacks??
This being said, there are many good aspects to allopathic medicine and many doctors on both sides now find it beneficial to incorporate the best of both worlds. However, there seem to be fanatics on both sides who find it more important (for what ever reason) to discredit or attack the other side. I think we all would benefit from a more inclusive approach and the willingness to learn from each other.
In all reality there are less than genuine people on both sides and I resent your notion that all alternative folks are dishonest.
There is more to humans than a mere number of organs, bones and tissues. It's not like a car where you just change the parts and then it drives. Although science often makes it sound like that.
>I in fact went out of my way to say that I didn't agree with >everything Dr Barrett had to say, and that I supported a healthy >diet and lifestyle with the hope that further research will >validate some of the correlations with diet, lifestyle, and disease.
That's great Jason, but you do the same thing that I do, you pick and chose what fits your picture of the world, your experience and your lifestyle. So, it is ok that you do that but if I do it, it's wrong??
Fact is, Barrett blasts ALL methods of alternative medicine, including well established procedures and only says in a side note that there is not enough data or the data is unreliable. According to who??? He generalizes and clearly misleads people about alternative medicine as a whole. There is NOTHING on his 20 websites that would refer to anyone in the allopathic field. There are just as many quacks and dishonest people in the allopathic field as there are in the alternative.
Carola