Quackwatch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quackwatch Logo
Quackwatch Logo

Quackwatch Inc. is an American non-profit organization founded and operated by Stephen Barrett, a retired psychiatrist,[1] that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct" with a primary focus on providing "quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere."[2][3] Since 1996, it has operated a website, Quackwatch.org, which contains articles and other types of information criticizing many forms of alternative medicine.[4][5] Quackwatch has received several awards and has been widely reported in the media.[6] Numerous sources cite Quackwatch as a practical source for online consumer information. The site has also been regularly criticized by the groups it investigates, such as nutritionists, herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine supporters.

Contents

[edit] History

Founded in 1969 by Stephen Barrett, M.D., the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud was incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania in 1970.[7] In 1996, the corporation began the Quackwatch website,[2] and the organization itself was renamed Quackwatch in 1997 as its website attracted attention. Quackwatch is closely affiliated with the National Council Against Health Fraud.[8] Quackwatch now engages the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. As of 2003, 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 "other scientific and technical advisors" were listed.[9]

A landmark event in QuackWatch's history came in 1999 when the (then active) Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information. This act proved controversial, and the director of the panel's study, Dr. Thomas R. Eng, later retracted the statement on the grounds that the government does not endorse Web sites. Still, he stated that "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel stated that "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative" but "feels it is okay for HHS to mention Quackwatch.com as one of many sources.[10][11]

[edit] Mission and activities

Quackwatch is overseen by Barrett, its chairman, with input from a board of advisors and help from volunteers, including a number of medical professionals.[12] There are no paid employees in the corporation. Quackwatch describes its purpose as "combat[ing] health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere", and their activities as, investigating questionable claims, answering inquiries about products and services, advising quackery, debunking pseudoscientific claims, reporting illegal marketing, assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits, improving the quality of health information on the Internet, and attacking misleading advertising on the Internet. The site's motto is "Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions."[2]

[edit] Site content

The Quackwatch website contains many essays and researched viewpoints written for the non-specialist consumer by Barrett, other writers, and a board of advisors. The articles discuss health-related products, treatments, enterprises and providers which Quackwatch deems to be misleading, fraudulent or ineffective. They also include references and links to sources used, as well as to sources for further study.

Quackwatch is especially critical of those therapies that it considers dubious or dangerous, including:

The website provides information about specific people who perform, market, and advocate therapies it considers dubious, in many cases providing details of convictions for past marketing fraud. It also maintains lists of sources, individuals, and groups it considers questionable and non-recommendable.[26][27] This includes two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (for his claims about mega-doses of Vitamin C[28]), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, as well as integrative medicine proponent Andrew Weil.[29]

The site is part of a network of related sites, such as Homeowatch (on homeopathy),[30] Credential Watch (devoted to exposing degree mills),[31] Chirobase (specifically devoted to chiropractic, cosponsored by the National Council Against Health Fraud and Victims of Chiropractic,[32][33]) and others, each devoted to specific topics.[34] Quackwatch.org's articles are reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request[2] and many of its articles cite peer-reviewed research.[16][18][20] The site also provides an abundance of links to reliable websites.[35]

The site is also available in German,[36] French,[37] and Portuguese.[38] and also available via several mirrors, including www.quack-watch.org[39] and www.quackwatch.com.[40]

[edit] Reception

Quackwatch has been described as a good resource for exposing fraudulent therapies and devices, although sometimes taking a negative view of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).[41] Quackwatch has also been criticized by a number of supporters of alternative medicine, such as nutritionists, herbalists, homeopaths and other alternative medicine practitioners, as well as some journalistic and academic sources.

Sources that have mentioned Quackwatch.org (formerly .com) as a resource for consumer information include the United States Department of Agriculture,[42] the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,[43] The Lancet,[44] the Journal of Marketing Education,[45] the Medical Journal of Australia,[46] the Journal of the American Dietetic Association,[47] the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services,[48] the Diet Channel,[49] and the Skeptic’s Dictionary.[50] Websites of libraries across the Unites States of America, include links to Quackwatch as a source for consumer information.[51] In addition, nutrition associations link to Quackwatch.[52]

Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors.[6][53] In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources."[54] It was also listed as one of three medical sites of U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999:[55] A web site review by Forbes magazine describes the site as a homegrown but well-organized site, that seeks to expose unproven medical treatments and unsafe practices, mainly attacking alternative medicine, homeopathy and chiropractors in a rather harsh tone.[56]

Quackwatch has also been cited or mentioned by journalists in reports on therapeutic touch,[57] Vitamin O,[58] Almon Glenn Braswell's baldness treatments,[59][60][61] dietary supplements,[62] Robert Barefoot's coral calcium claims,[63] noni juice,[64] shark cartilage,[65] and infomercials.[66] It has also been referenced in scholarly journals,[67][68] including the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, in a news report on the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy.[67] Cunningham and Marcason in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association state that “two websites that can be useful in determining hoaxes are www.quackwatch.com and www.urbanlegends.com.”[47] Wallace and Kimball, in the Medical Journal of Australia, states that “CAM source information tends to exclude well known critical and objective web pages such as those found on Quackwatch.”[46]

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, PharmD, reviewed Quackwatch in an article published in the The Consultant Pharmacist.[53] In it he discussed two Quackwatch articles focused upon natural remedies available at pharmacies. Quackwatch reported that while pharmacists were doubtful of the efficacy of many alternative medicines, they continued stocking them because the profit margins for such remedies were larger than conventional drugs.Nguyen-Khoa found that most articles "do not contain large amounts of scientific detail" and that the site was poorly organized from a technical perspective. He felt that "the presence of so many articles from one author (Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies". Nguyen-Khoa suggested that a formal peer review could greatly increase the quality of Quackwatch.

David Hufford, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, wrote an opinion paper questioning Quackwatch's commitment to objective scientific practice, and asserting that Quackwatch would be more effective if it relied more on research and less on personal beliefs.[69] Donna Ladd expressed concern that Quackwatch's notability is driven by the economic competition between the medical industry and alternative sources,[10] In regard to the debate over water fluoridation, an anti-fluoridation article in the National Review quotes a "generally informative and persuasive" Quackwatch article,[70] but criticizes its rhetorical style as "perhaps not the best way to win an argument, especially with serious-minded people."[71] Joel Best, asserts that sites such a quackwatch.com and junkscience.com vary on their underlying ideologies, and their critiques should be examined critically rather than being accepted a face value.[72]

Waltraud Ernst stated that Barret's Quackwatch generate a number of problems that merit further investigation, such as the dismissal of the mental and cognitive elements, as well as the complex role psycho-cultural and spiritual forces that play a role in the healing process.[73]

Chemistry professor Dr. Joel M. Kauffman reviewed Quackwatch in the controversial Journal of Scientific Exploration, pointing out what he believed to be mistakes, as well as incomplete citations.[74] Nutritionist Dr. Colgan criticized Barrett in a review of his book The Vitamin Pushers, which is sold on the website. He claimed that Barrett's book hardly discusses supplements but is rather "filled with derisive statements about individuals and organizations in the health care and natural foods industry" and lumps scientists with obvious charlatans indiscriminately.[75]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Quackwatch. Stephen Barrett, M.D., Biographical Sketch
  2. ^ a b c d Barrett SJ. Quackwatch - Mission Statement. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  3. ^ Baldwin, Fred D. "If It Quacks Like a Duck ...", MedHunters. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
  4. ^ Barrett SJ. Quackwatch.org main page. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  5. ^ Politzer, M. Eastern Medicine Goes West. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on September 14, 2007.
  6. ^ a b Quackwatch: Awards and honors
  7. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State — Corporations
  8. ^ Quackwatch home page. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-11-04.
  9. ^ Barrett SJ. Scientific and technical advisors. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  10. ^ a b Dr. Who? Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion. by Donna Ladd, The Village Voice, June 23 - 29, 1999. Retrieved September 2, 2006
  11. ^ "Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health", U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), July 11, 2002. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  12. ^ Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998). Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D.. Biography Magazine. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Barrett, Stephen. "Quackwatch — listing criticisms of several practices", Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions, Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-07-17. 
  14. ^ Barrett, S. "Algae: False Claims and Hype" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  15. ^ Barrett, S. "The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  16. ^ a b Barrett, S. "Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  17. ^ Barrett, S. "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  18. ^ a b Barrett, S. "Don't Let Chiropractors Fool You" Retrieved 27 November 2007
  19. ^ Barrett, S. "Gastrointestinal Quackery: Colonics, Laxatives, and More" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  20. ^ a b Barrett, S. ""Dietary Supplements," Herbs, and Hormones" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  21. ^ a b Barrett, S. "The Shady Side of Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  22. ^ Barrett, S. "The Herbal Minefield" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  23. ^ Barrett, S. "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  24. ^ Eye-Related Quackery
  25. ^ Barrett, S. "A Close Look at Naturopathy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  26. ^ Barrett SJ. Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  27. ^ Barrett SJ. Questionable Organizations: An Overview. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  28. ^ Barrett SJ. The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy. Quackwatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  29. ^ Relamn AS. A Trip to Stonesville: Some Notes on Andrew Weil. New Republic. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  30. ^ Barrett SJ. Homeowatch. Homeowatch. Retrieved on 2007-02-12.
  31. ^ Credential Watch available online
  32. ^ Chirobase available online
  33. ^ Victims of Chiropractic available online
  34. ^ There are 22 web sites affiliated with Quackwatch.
  35. ^ "Cutting through the haze of health marketing claims", Thomson Gale, Running & Fitnews, Sept-Oct, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
  36. ^ Quackwatch auf Deutsch
  37. ^ Quackwatch en Français
  38. ^ Quackwatch em Português
  39. ^ www.quack-watch.org
  40. ^ www.quackwatch.com
  41. ^ Brazin, Lillian R. (2004). The guide to complementary and alternative medicine on the Internet. New York: Haworth Information Press, p.6. ISBN 0-7890-1571-4. 
  42. ^ Fraud and Nutrition Misinformation : Dietary Guidance : Food and Nutrition Information Center. Retrieved on 2008-06-01. United States Department of Agriculture
  43. ^ W Steven Pray. Ethical, Scientific, and Educational Concerns With Unproven Medications. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Alexandria: 2006. Vol. 70, Iss. 6; pg. O1, 14 pgs. Quackwatch is named as a reliable source together with Skeptical Enquirer, specifically for Pharmacy Course on Unproven Medications and Therapies.
  44. ^ Marilynn Larkin. Medical quackery squashers on the web. The Lancet. London: May 16, 1998. Vol. 351, Iss. 9114; pg. 1520 - 2. Names Quackwatch as the premier site for exposing purveyors of health frauds, myths, and fads.
  45. ^ Lawrence B Chonko. If It Walks like a Duck . . . : Concerns about Quackery in Marketing Education. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder: Apr 2004. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; pg. 4, 13 pgs. Chonko states “Many of the thoughts on which this article is based are adapted from materials found on this site.” (referring to Quackwatch)
  46. ^ a b Wallace Sampson, Kimball Atwood IV. Propagation of the Absurd: demarcation of the Absurd revisited. Medical Journal of Australia. Pyrmont: Dec 5-Dec 19, 2005. Vol. 183, Iss. 11/12; pg. 580 - 1. Sampson states that “CAM source information tends to exclude well known critical and objective web pages such as those found on Quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org).”
  47. ^ a b Eleese Cunningham, Wendy Marcason. Internet hoaxes: How to spot them and how to debunk them. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Chicago: Apr 2001. Vol. 101, Iss. 4; pp. 460 - 1. Cunningham and Marcason state that “Two Web sites that can be useful in determining hoaxes are www.quackwatch.com and www.urbanlegends.com.”
  48. ^ "U.S. Department of Health & Human Services", healthfinder.gov, National Health Information Center. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. Quackwatch is available from their database.
  49. ^ "Diet Channel Award Review Of Quackwatch". Retrieved on 2007-09-18. "Quackwatch is a very informative site which informs you about health fraud and gives you advice on many decisions." 
  50. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd. ""alternative" health practice", Skeptic’s Dictionary, January 29, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-02-02. 
  51. ^ "Southwest Public Libraries". Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
     • "National Network of Libraries of Medicine", Evaluating Health Web Sites, Consumer Health Manual, National Library of Medicine. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
     • "VCU Libraries", Complementary and Alternative Medicine Resource Guide — Fraud and Quackery Resources, Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
     • "Rutgers University Libraries", Finding What You Want on the Web: A Guide, Rutgers University Libraries. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
     • "USC Libraries — Electronic Resources — Quackwatch", University of Southern California. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
     • "Medical Center Library", University of Kentucky Libraries. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  52. ^ "Research", Texas Dietetic Association, November 6, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
     • "Nutrition Resources", Illinois Dietetic Association, 2005. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
     • "Links", Greater New York Dietetic Association. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
     • "Nutrition Links", Maryland Dietetic Association. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
     • "Professional Resources — Health Quackery", American Dietetic Association, Diabetes Care and Education, 2007. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
  53. ^ a b Nguyen-Khoa, Bao-Anh. "Selected Web Site Reviews — Quackwatch.com", The Consultant Pharmacist, July 1999. Retrieved on 2007-01-25. 
  54. ^ JAMA Patient Page - Click here: How to find reliable online health information and resources, Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1380, 1998.
  55. ^ U.S. News & World Report: The Best of The Web Gets Better
  56. ^ Forbes.com Best of the Web. Retrieved on 2008-06-01.
  57. ^ Kolata, Gina (April 1, 1998). A Child's Paper Poses a Medical Challenge. The New York Times
  58. ^ Siwolop, Sana (January 7, 2001). Back Pain? Arthritis? Step Right Up to the Mouse. The New York Times
  59. ^ Eichenwald, Kurt and Michael Moss (February 6, 2001), Pardon for Subject of Inquiry Worries Prosecutors. The New York Times
  60. ^ Associated Press (September 13, 2004). Man Once Pardoned By Clinton Again Faces Prison.
  61. ^ Another Dubious Pardon - U.S. News & World Report
  62. ^ Fessenden, Ford with Christoper Drew (March 31, 2000). Bottom Line in Mind, Doctors Sell Ephedra. The New York Times
  63. ^ Leon Jaroff, (March 14, 2003), Coral Calcium: A Barefoot Scam, Time magazine
  64. ^ Noni Juice Might Lower Smokers' Cholesterol. Forbes magazine
  65. ^ Leon Jaroff, (Sep. 29, 2004), Medical Sharks, Time magazine
  66. ^ Damon Darlin, (April 8, 2006), Words to Live By in Infomercial World: Caveat Emptor, The New York Times
  67. ^ a b Reynolds Tom, White House Report on Alternative Medicine Draws Criticism, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2002 94(9):646-648 doi:10.1093/jnci/94.9.646
  68. ^ Schmidt, K. "Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer", Oxford University Press, Annals of Oncology, January 2004. Retrieved on 2008-02-01. 
  69. ^ Hufford DJ. , "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Barrett's statements that scientific neutrality is not required in these cases (see: QuackWatch unbalanced views has fueled some objections on this last point
  70. ^ "Fluoridation: Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!" Article adapted from The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America, Bob Sprague, Mary Bernhardt, Stephen Barrett, M.D.
  71. ^ Jay, Nordlinger (2003-06-30). "Water Fights: Believe It or Not, the Fluoridation War Still Rages -- with a Twist You May Like". National Review. 
  72. ^ Best, Joel (2004). More damned lies and statistics: how numbers confuse public issues. Berkeley: University of California Press, p.179-180. ISBN 0-520-23830-3. 
  73. ^ Ernst, Waltraud (2002). Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000. New York: Routledge, p.234-6. ISBN 0-415-23122-1. 
  74. ^ Kaufmann, JM. Website Review: QuackWatch. Journal of Scientific Exploration
  75. ^ Colgan, M. Review of The Vitamin Pushers, Townsend Letters. October 1992, p. 126

[edit] Further reading

[edit] External links

Languages