QuackWatch, The Skeptics Movement & Info Wars: What Do You Think of This Article?

Question

http://www.thenhf.com/newsflash_02.htm

Answer 1

Their agenda is to discredit ALL alternative protocols. You will find proof of that here: Dated December 22, 1999, the Harvard affiliated Massachusetts General Hospital's Neurology Web Forum published on the Internet an article under the title :"PAC" Money for "quackwatch". It reveals that "the FDA and the Pharmaceutical Advertising Counsel ("PAC"), which represents some 35 major drug companies, have formed and co-founded a corporation under a joint letterhead, calling itself the National Council Against Health Fraud ("NCAHF")." Stephen Barrett, MD, who publishes "Quackwatch" on line, William Jarvis, MD, and others, are paid by PAC " to publicly discredit as unscientific or unknown any of all viable herbs, vitamins, homeopathic remedies or non-allopathic therapies, particularly those that are proven to have the most promise and present the greatest threat to the PAC members"........... To read the entire article go to http://www.altcpualumni.org/wholisticed/... more here:......... http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

Answer 2

Well, hmmm . . .

I have no love for Stephen Barrett et.al., but I find this notion of a grand conspiracy a bit hard to swallow.  There are also some things about this particular article which set off my BS alarms.  For instance:

1) Mr. Bolen subtitles all of his articles "opinion" rather that "investigative journalism"-- a clear CYA move if I ever saw one.  Trying to avoid a slander lawsuit?  Could that be because the "facts" are a little weak?

2)  While there are many claims of links between these "quackbusters", there's no citation of any evidence that this is so.

3)  Statements like "I know where the list is, and how its being used today, and who's doing it" followed by "But, I don't have enough information to, yet, prove it in Court. What I need is a related Federal Court case with subpoena power available. If someone has that, I can provide the information on who, what, where, and why, certain things need to be subpoenaed" ring very hollow.  So, Mr. Bolen needs some Federal official to issue a subpoena to acquire information he claims he already knows?  Why not report this to the authorities?  Why the "cloak and dagger" non-committal language?  Since this is an "opinion" article, why not just state what you claim you know?  C'mon, give us the dirt!  Or can you not?

There's more, of course, but I don't have all day.

I'm as much an advocate of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine as anyone--I'm a massage therapist AND a student of Traditional Chinese Medicine.  But I think this sort of lowbrow ad hominem hyperbole does nothing to help us.

Answer 3

Interesting.  I have a great deal of respect for the NHF, and obviously Stephen Barrett is a tool.  However, referring to Quackwatch as "a public relations 'black-ops'," is a tad heavy on the delusions of persecution for my tastes.