Help “Quackwatch” Defend Themselves from Litigious Quacks

As fully outlined here on Derek Lowe’s blog “In the Pipeline”, Quackwatch is getting sued by some quacks because he highlighted their use of a misleading diagnostic and how it could be used to push unnecessary and potentially dangerous treatments on clients.

Quackwatch have a Paypal donation system, so if you feel like committing a fiver to their defense fund, I’m sure it’d be much appreciated. After all, I’m guessing there’s more money in quackery than in exposing quackery!

Posted via email from Cathal Garvey

  1. Rod Williams’s avatar

    You really should look at who quackwatch are before you wholeheartedly support them.

    The quackwatch people aren’t scientists and their funding is dubious.

  2. Cathal’s avatar

    Actually, I’d be on their side even if I knew they were up to no good: it’s more a question of protecting free speech and inquiry than about attacking quacks. This mirrors exactly the suits brought against someone in England by AHPs after he had criticised their practises, which thankfully lost as far as I can recall. It was either Chiropracters or Homeopaths in that case.

    Everyone should have the right to question the practises of others, whether officially “qualified” to do so or not. To allow the questioned to sue the questioner paves the way for a totally unbalanced society where anyone can offer “therapies” that could be incredibly harmful without fear of skeptics or even past victims warning people away.

    Besides, along the same lines I don’t care much if they aren’t “Scientists”. I’m a scientist and I know how little that means. If someone’s approach is methodical and holistic when they assess something, I would consider their opinion trustworthy when compared to someone who adheres rigidly to principles as-taught. That isn’t a criticism of university-qualified scientists, that’s an endorsement of citizen scientists.

  3. Rod Williams’s avatar

    I agree that questioning the effectiveness of medical treatments, both alternative and mainstream, is an important activity. And there are a lot of exciting developments which will streamline this in the future and distance the assessment from vested interests: the growth of online patient self help groups, patient funded research and cheap/widespread sensor technology.

    Unfortunately assessing treatment effectiveness doesn’t appear to be the approach adopted by Quackwatch, who only mount extended campaigns against well known alternative health practitioners. Personally I doubt the utility of some of the alternative health approaches but the involvement of Quackwatch isn’t helping to clarify the situation, rather they create a polarised environment where the effectiveness of a treatment is less important that whether the practitioner is part of alternative medicine establishment. When I see an organisation doing this repeatedly it makes me question their motivation and financial backing.

  4. Not amazing at all Randi’s avatar

    Don’t waste your money with this guy. I have done research and I can’t find a single case he has won. He was beaten in his own hometown of Allentown P.A. by a chiropractor! Can you imagine beaten by a chiro quack!! I talked to another skeptic, and he said Barrett cried for hours, and then shouted out I will leave this dubious state! He then packed up his bags and headed to North Carolina to try and avoid paying the judgement according to my friend of the skeptic society.

    If you want to donate go ahead. The greedy attorneys will eat it up, and then he will lose like he has all the time as far as I have researched. Give money to the skeptics society. We need the money to keep evolution taught in the schools, and to stick up for atheism. Also we need it to go against the holocaust deniers and real quacks like Yuri Geller. As far as I can tell and I was very skeptical in the beginning Doctors Data has done nothing wrong, and is just providing a service. It is up to the doctor to decide what to do with the results. I went on the CDC website, and they have said there is no safe level of lead for children. So basically any lead in a child’s body should not be there!!!!
    A skeptic above politics of medicine.