Truth about Quackwatch

[maxinatlanta]

I discuss natural remedies with different people and at times I get something like " Check the quackwatch - this Doctor is being debunked there. It's a scam". etc.

So, once and forever, I would like to clear this subject.

Please write what you think Quackwatch : is it genuine or on the Big Pharma Payroll. Here is a court case that I thought is somewhat interesting.

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases

During the course of his examination, Barrett ( the head of Quackwatch) also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

Barrett operates the web site Quackwatch , Chirobase: Your Skeptical Guide to Chiropractic History, Theories, and Practices and 20 other web sites and has been a long time critic of chiropractic calling much of it"quackery".

At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.

This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases.

Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training.

So I think that billions of dollars in revenue is good for Big Pharma so investments in people like the Head of Quackwatch is essential to keep public brainwashed and misinformed by " science " on quackery.

[kat]

What do you think about Quackwatch's Dr Stephen Barrett? - Yahoo! Answers is worth reading.

I think Quackwatch is a highly valuable website. It's not infallible, but it does a good job of exposing a lot of people who are profiting from quackery. I'd point to Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons" and The Rise and Fall of Laetrile as a good example of this. How many times are we going to see people selling overpriced supplements while claiming they have the cure for cancer, and then watch people who believe them die at rates equal to or greater than those receiving no treatment of any kind?

Edit: that summary of Barrett's credentials is highly slanted. He was born in 1933, so unsurprisingly enough, he's retired, and he became a psychiatrist before the certification exams were mandatory. He still has his license, and there are no disciplinary actions against him. See http://www.licensepa.state.pa.us/Det...se_id=1969651&

He's apparently said this about the certifcation exams: ": I took the certifying exam in 1964 when about 1/3 of psychiatrists were board-certified. The exam had two halves, psychiatry and neurology. I passed the psychiatric part but failed neurology because it included topics unrelated to either my training or my interests. Unlike most residencies, my psychiatric training program had no neurologic component. Since there was no reason to believe that certifcation was necessary, I decided not to re-take the exam." On the other side, there have been people who have been quite willing to lie about him: A Response to Tim Bolen is worth reading (and yes, it's by Dr. Barrett).

Edit: also, what kind of conspiracy theory goes "big pharma spends a bunch of money on people that it doesn't even bother to make sure have necessary certifications"? C'mon... Pick one or the other if you want to believe either.

[maxinatlanta]

"I'd point to Stanislaw Burzynski and "Antineoplastons" and The Rise and Fall of Laetrile as a good example of this".

You are somewhat misinformed .
Here is excerpt from congressional subcommittee hearing ... (2 min) . on Burzynski and his antineoplastons.

You did not watch Burzinsky Movie. Did you ?

Burzynski Movie : " cancer is Serious Business "...


Edit: also, what kind of conspiracy theory goes "big pharma spends a bunch of money on people...

May be I did not make myself clear. What I meant is that Big Pharma is making a killing - billions, so they can afford to keep people on the payroll to spread the "so needed and convenient" knowledge of natural quackery
( nature can not be patented as of now ) and keep the public indoctrinated - disseminating information that pharmaceuticals are great Do you understand ?

[kat]

Let me state my biases up front: I'm in favour of what works, and against harming people with what doesn't. In general, I prefer 'conventional' medicine, but not in all cases, and I prefer hard, statistically-significant evidence, whether or not a treatment is widespread and regardless of who does it. For things like most headaches, mild chronic pain, and symptom relief for most colds and flus, I think some 'natural'/'alternative' methods can be helpful (and others are nonsense), while 'conventional' medicine is usually more harmful than helpful. For a broken arm, I'd go to a 'conventional' doctor in a heartbeat. I also freely recognize that some common treatments are counterproductive, like many bypass surgeries for heart patients. Chemotherapy is in the dark ages; it saves lives, but it also kills people. And plenty of misdiagnosis and incorrect prognoses occur.

Do I think big pharma has a rather mixed history, including some serious abuses? Yes. Do they pay tons of money to promote pharmaceuticals, some of which are used way too widely? Sure. Do I think 'conventional' medicine has sometimes taken decades too long to recognize really good, effective ideas which work? Absolutely - see the history of Ignaz Semmelweis and of having doctors/nurses disinfect and wash their hands. Do I think there is a conspiracy to suppress a working cancer treatment? Nope. I ever think that 'conventional' medicine is a big net advantage for humanity, despite its many warts.

I've heard of the Burzynski film; I haven't watched it. What I've read about the treatment makes me wary; studies which aren't run by Burzynski, like Phase II study of antineoplastons A10 (NSC 64... [Mayo Clin Proc. 1999] - PubMed - NCBI , seem to never find the treatment useful. The controversy his educational credentials and his lack of a background in oncology don't make me feel warm and fuzzy, either.

And on the anecdotal side, there are things like this: "Stanislaw R. Burzynski, M.D., who operates a clinic in Houston, Texas, claims his "antineoplastons" can "normalize" cancer cells and have helped many people with cancer get well. In 1988, talk-show hostess Sally Jesse Raphael featured four "miracles" -- patients of Burzynski, who she said were cancer-free. All four stated stated that Burzynski had cured them when conventional methods had failed. Four years later "Inside Edition" investigated and reported that two of the four patients had died and a third was having a recurrence of her cancer. (The fourth patient had bladder cancer, which has a good prognosis.) The widow of one of Raphael's guests stated that her husband and five others from the same city had sought treatment after learning about Burzynski from a television broadcast-and that all had died of their disease." (from CLL Topics: Questionable Therapies )

Back to the original topic: even if I'm wrong and Burzynski isn't a quack (I suspect he is), quackwatch catalogues plenty of quackery. See Misleading Infomercials , Questionable Cancer Therapies , etc. To pick one example, almost at random, The Bizarre Claims of Hulda Clark has gems like:

The civil case was filed by Esther and Jose Figueroa of New York City against Clark, the Dr. Clark Research Association, Century Nutrition, and several associated individuals. Mrs. Figueroa, who had been medically diagnosed with breast cancer, sought treatment in September 1998. The court papers state that she was told:

Dust from her apartment was responsible for her breast cancer.
Returning to her apartment would place her at special risk to develop leukemia because of her blood type.
She had asbestos, lead, and a lot of copper in her system.
The Syncrometer detected a parasite called "rabbit fluke" inside her breast.
She also had E. coli, asbestos, and salmonella due to improper food sterilization.
Several teeth should be removed and "cavitations" in her lower jaw should be scraped out.

The suit also charged that:

Clark subsequently arranged for all of Mrs. Figueroa's front and molar teeth to be removed, prescribed more than 30 dietary and herbal supplements to be taken during a 12-week period, and badly burned her breast while administering treatment with a "Zapper" device.
During the 3-month period of treatment, the tumor increased from 1.5 cm to 14 cm.
Despite this fact, Mrs. Figueroa was falsely told that she was getting better, that tests for "cancer markers" were negative, and that pain she was experiencing did not reflect persistence of her cancer.

I think it's important for there to be a repository of information about these things, and that Quackwatch does a good (not perfect, but good) job of that.

And as for the question of Quackwatch being on the 'big pharma payroll', if you have any reason to believe Who Funds Quackwatch is false, feel free to share it.

[kat]

How Quackery Harms Cancer Patients is also worth reading.

False hope can be bitter. I remember Daan Buckinx/Dukie; we used to chat. I remember him passionately saying "this is the book that will save my life!" about an anti-cancer book. The results? RIP Daan Buckinx. I miss him.

[stanmrak]

QuackWatch is like any other skeptic website I've come across. They are all extremely ego-centric and already have their minds made up. They pretend that they're there to protect the ignorant and gullible consumer, but they're really only interested in promoting their own viewpoints and in being right. They collect evidence to back up their beliefs, and refute anything that doesn't. They've decided that if you don't have scientific "proof" for something, it must be a scam. They are not true scientists in the strict sense of the word. In reality, they represent the "blinded by science" crowd. The world just isn't as black-and-white as they think it is.

If you believe Quackwatch, ALL alternative health treatment is quackery, even if people have gotten results with it for thousands of years. ALL alternative health practitioners are trying to scam you. Only drugs can cure disease. That alone should make one suspicious.

[kat]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

QuackWatch is like any other skeptic website I've come across. They are all extremely ego-centric and already have their minds made up. They pretend that they're there to protect the ignorant and gullible consumer, but they're really only interested in promoting their own viewpoints and in being right. They collect evidence to back up their beliefs, and refute anything that doesn't. They've decided that if you don't have scientific "proof" for something, it must be a scam. They are not true scientists in the strict sense of the word. In reality, they represent the "blinded by science" crowd. The world just isn't as black-and-white as they think it is.

If you believe Quackwatch, ALL alternative health treatment is quackery, even if people have gotten results with it for thousands of years. ALL alternative health practitioners are trying to scam you. Only drugs can cure disease. That alone should make one suspicious.

Would you point to a specific article where they're wrong, and say why you think so? I fully expect there are some: it's a gigantic website, with a lot of contributors. Not all of the contributors have exactly the same mindset, background, or expertise. I'd still like to see such an article, though.

Most of what I've seen on Quackwatch has been exposure of pretty blatant fraud, though. They frequently document actual significant harm. They're also quite clear about when there's an absence of evidence, and when there's evidence of harm.

I haven't ever seen them claim that all alternative health practitioners are running scams. Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods is worth reading. I agree with this quote from it:
Former National Council Against Health Fraud president William T. Jarvis, Ph.D., has noted:
Some techniques referred to as "alternative" may be appropriately used as part of the art of patient care. Relaxation techniques and massage are examples. But procedures linked to belief systems that reject science itself have no place in responsible medicine. Useless procedures don't add to the outcome, just to the overhead.

Hopefully we can both agree that some 'alternative' treatments (such as massage for several conditions) are very valuable, and that there are genuine quacks who harm people greatly. We probably disagree greatly about the percentage of each, but at least that's some common ground...

[stanmrak]

Here you go... I would say that Quackwatch is dead wrong on about 22 out of these 25 assertions — and maybe just plain wrong on the other 3! Seriously, I'll give them 3 passable answers out of 25. Their arguments are horribly skewed and terribly outdated. They clearly demonstrate a paranoid suspicion of alternative medicine and complete disregard for preventive nutrition.

I'd like to get other opinions on these 25 assertions - how many do you agree with?
Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers

It would take me too long to itemize everything. And this is all just on one page! Trust these guys at your own peril.

If they care so much about the public's wellbeing, why don't these guys expend some energy on preventing some of those 100,000 deaths that occur every year from properly prescribed prescription drugs?

[kat]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Here you go... I would say that Quackwatch is dead wrong on about 22 out of these 25 assertions — and maybe just plain wrong on the other 3! Their arguments are horribly skewed and clearly demonstrate their hatred of alternative medicine and disregard for preventive nutrition.

I invite everyone to vote on these 25 assertions - how many do you agree with?

Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers

It would take me too long to itemize everything. This is all just on one page! Trust these guys at your own peril.

Good example, though my opinion is somewhat milder than yours. Some of the things they mention are legitimate warning signs (hyperbole like "Modern Processing Methods and Storage Remove all Nutritive Value from Our Food" would be a pretty big red flag) - but that's pretty niche. I've seen plenty of promotions for vitamins, and I've never seen anyone claim that.

And statements like

'It is falsely alleged that Americans are so addicted to "junk" foods that an adequate diet is exceptional rather than usual. While it is true that some snack foods are mainly "naked calories" (sugars and/or fats without other nutrients), it is not necessary for every morsel of food we eat to be loaded with nutrients. In fact, no normal person following the Dietary Guidelines for Americans is in any danger of vitamin deficiency.'

are just stupid, given that many Americans don't follow those guidelines - and that's without going into the well-publicized shortcomings of the guidelines themselves.

"But they conveniently neglect to tell you that a balanced diet provides the nutrients most people need and that government guidelines makes balancing your diet simple"

is slightly cringeworthy - they're correct that it's possible to get enough vitamins without supplements, but that's about where it ends.

They're right about some things - megadoses of some vitamins can be rather unhealthy, for instance.

Articles on Quackwatch shouldn't be taken as infallible, and you've found one that's really lousy, but I still maintain it also has a lot of valuable content. It's not perfect, and I'd recommend cross-checking some claims on it with other sources, but on the whole, I think it's better than nothing.

[brainfan]

Quackwatch is useless. Sure, you're going to find SOME factual information; all such sites need to post obviously correct information to establish some degree of credibility so people will believe them when the real purpose of the site is employed, which is to discredit anything that is outside the medical mainstream. If the site posts blatantly bogus information, then any of the information is worthy of suspicion, which negates its usefulness.

First to address his qualifications. It's ironic to note that someone who positions himself as a champion of medical science picked the least scientific of the medical field to specialize in: psychiatry. And while certification was not required at the time he tested for it, the fact that he took the test and failed is relevant as it reflects on his competency. Neurology was outside the interest of a person who is specializing in what makes us tick? Give me a break. That neurology wasn't part of his residency? Please. Or maybe his medical training was from the same college where he received the legal training he's claimed: he signed up for correspondence course in law and finished about six weeks of it. As one of the judges that presided over a case that Barrett submitted, Barrett deserved to be "accorded little, if any, credibility."

Yes, he was born in 1933 and would more than likely be retired by now, but that isn't the way it took place. He was never able to hold down a full time job as a physician, which is pretty amazing because I've never heard of a physician having trouble getting a job. And this takes us to the real reason why he retired: rather than “retire,” he gave up his license because he could no longer afford the malpractice insurance, which is a pretty pathetic end to a medical “career”. And that is the complete and full extent of his medical expertise: an unsuccessful career in psychiatry.

Quackwatch is biased against things like “overpriced supplements,” and other “unproven” modalities. The irony is, he unquestioningly supports one of the most overpriced industries on the planet. He uses a double standard when it comes to proof, demanding rigorous proofs for alternative treatments and giving a pass to mainstream medicine treatments.

Some people will reflexively assume that mainstream medical treatments ARE proven, but just how true is this? People at the British Medical Journal wondered that, so they embarked on an exhaustive, long-term project to determine how much we really know about the efficacy of mainstream medical treatments. Of the 3,000 reviewed so far, 51% of them have unknown efficacy, while only 11% are known to be beneficial. You can look at the summary here: Clinical Evidence: The international source of the best available evidence for effective health care

Barrett routinely ignores data that doesn't fulfill his objectives. Even better is what he'll say when he can't ignore it. Acupuncture is one of the treatments Barrett says doesn't work. When presented with a study that showed that acupuncture worked on animals to relieve pain, his response was to suggest that maybe animals respond to the placebo effect.

When he targets people who profit from “quackery,” he really means people who compete with the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association. It doesn't matter if the treatment may be effective. It doesn't matter if suffering people are finding desperately needed treatment. It doesn't matter if mainstream medicine doesn't have anything to offer, thus leaving the patient no choice but to seek alternative treatment. It doesn't matter if a practitioner has had no complaints. Barrett will file one to shut the practice down while he ties it up with an FDA investigation. Even if the victim escapes without charges, he'll be lucky if he's survived the financial devastation and loss of interim business. Dr. William Rea from the Environmental Health Center of Dallas is an example of this. The FDA had no complaints about him, but Barrett filed one anyway. Unlike Barrett, Rea has decades of experience in medicine treating patients and authoring peer-reviewed research papers and texts on thoracic and cardiovascular surgery and environmental medicine, receiving numerous awards over the years and holding numerous professorial positions as well. Dr. Rea offers treatment to people with multiple chemical sensitivity, a condition that is understood more and more, but it has limited treatment options. And what has Stephen Barrett done for those with MCS? He co-authored a book that denies the existence of the disease using a red herring, using flawed, outdated studies and ignoring more recent and relevant studies. You can look up a condensed version of it and see what an ill-conceived, unprofessional piece of work it is.

It's worth mentioning the book's co-author, one Ronald Gots. Ronald Gots was president of a company called Medical Claims Review Services, which has the distinction of being the subject of a Dateline NBC report. If you're thinking isn't a good thing, you'd be right! One judge issued a "scathing opinion" in which he called the paper review company, MCRS, a “completely bogus operation,” which prepared “cookie cutter reports.” The reports in question were reports that recommended to State Farm Insurance that they deny injured people compensation for their injuries. Many of their cases were not even reviewed by a physician, but were actually filled out by office staff. Dateline had access to 79 cases, all of which denied insurance claims.

It gets better. Both Gots and Barrett were invited to participate in a debate about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity with Albert Donnay and Grace Ziem, from Johns Hopkins Medical School. Neither Gots nor Barrett have ever treated anyone with MCS, while Ziem and Donnay are experts. Here is a viewer's explanation of how the debate started:

“The debate focused on whether chemical sensitivity is a psychological or a biological condition. In front of an audience of several hundred people, and aware that the entire debate was being video- and audio-taped, Gots stated that prestigious university-affiliated authors of a (named) mainstream peer-reviewed journal had recently provided incontrovertible proof, on the basis of rigorous scientific study and experiment, that chemical sensitivity was a psychological condition.

“Gots was followed by Johns Hopkins' speaker Albert Donnay who informed the audience that this prestigious study was fictitious. The authors were fictitious, too. Even the journal was fiction. A gasp went through the audience. Amazingly, Gots made no attempt to answer. Even more astounding was the body language of both Gots and Barrett. While the audience was audibly shocked and murmurs were going through the crowd, those two Quackbusters leaned back in their chairs, fiddled with their pens in the bored and relaxed manner of total self-assurance awaiting the next item on the agenda.”

That is Stephen Barrett.

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by brainfan

Quackwatch is useless. Sure, you're going to find SOME factual information; all such sites need to post obviously correct information to establish some degree of credibility so people will believe them when the real purpose of the site is employed, which is to discredit anything that is outside the medical mainstream. If the site posts blatantly bogus information, then any of the information is worthy of suspicion, which negates its usefulness.

... As one of the judges that presided over a case that Barrett submitted, Barrett deserved to be "accorded little, if any, credibility."

... Quackwatch is biased against things like “overpriced supplements,” and other “unproven” modalities. The irony is, he unquestioningly supports one of the most overpriced industries on the planet. He uses a double standard when it comes to proof, demanding rigorous proofs for alternative treatments and giving a pass to mainstream medicine treatments.

... Barrett routinely ignores data that doesn't fulfill his objectives...

When he targets people who profit from “quackery,” he really means people who compete with the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association. It doesn't matter if the treatment may be effective. It doesn't matter if suffering people are finding desperately needed treatment. It doesn't matter if mainstream medicine doesn't have anything to offer, thus leaving the patient no choice but to seek alternative treatment. It doesn't matter if a practitioner has had no complaints. Barrett will file one to shut the practice down while he ties it up with an FDA investigation. Even if the victim escapes without charges, he'll be lucky if he's survived the financial devastation and loss of interim business. Dr. William Rea from the Environmental Health Center of Dallas is an example of this. The FDA had no complaints about him, but Barrett filed one anyway. Unlike Barrett, Rea has decades of experience in medicine treating patients and authoring peer-reviewed research papers and texts on thoracic and cardiovascular surgery and environmental medicine, receiving numerous awards over the years and holding numerous professorial positions as well....

... It's worth mentioning the book's co-author, one Ronald Gots. Ronald Gots was president of a company called Medical Claims Review Services, which has the distinction of being the subject of a Dateline NBC report. If you're thinking isn't a good thing, you'd be right! One judge issued a "scathing opinion" in which he called the paper review company, MCRS, a “completely bogus operation,” which prepared “cookie cutter reports.” The reports in question were reports that recommended to State Farm Insurance that they deny injured people compensation for their injuries. Many of their cases were not even reviewed by a physician, but were actually filled out by office staff. Dateline had access to 79 cases, all of which denied insurance claims.

... “Gots was followed by Johns Hopkins' speaker Albert Donnay who informed the audience that this prestigious study was fictitious. The authors were fictitious, too. Even the journal was fiction. A gasp went through the audience. Amazingly, Gots made no attempt to answer. Even more astounding was the body language of both Gots and Barrett. While the audience was audibly shocked and murmurs were going through the crowd, those two Quackbusters leaned back in their chairs, fiddled with their pens in the bored and relaxed manner of total self-assurance awaiting the next item on the agenda.”

That is Stephen Barrett.

This post is a masterpiece .

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by maxinatlanta

Here is excerpt from congressional subcommittee hearing ... (2 min) . on Burzynski and his antineoplastons.

... Burzinsky Movie...

Burzynski Movie : " cancer is Serious Business "...

To Kat, you seem a reasonable and open minded individual. You have read Stephen Barrett's perspective, now i would highly encourage you to watch this Burzynski movie before drawing your conclusions about this doctor and his treatment for cancer. The short congressional hearing clip above is actually contained within the movie and though "congressional hearing" may sound boring, this clip isn't.

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers

Wow if amazing crocks of sh t could win awards, this article would definately have my vote. If we can't know that Stephen Barrett has a wildly obvious pro-pharmaceutical industry bias and agenda then what on this planet can we possibly know?

[kat]

There are now two almost-separate issues here. One is Burzynski, and the other is Quackwatch.

I've read the transcript of the movie. On the whole, I found it deeply unconvincing.

And given that no one has been able to reproduce his results, in well over 30 years, and critical pieces like The 21st Floor Blog Archive Doctor Burzynski’s miracle cure? and What is antineoplaston therapy? : Cancer Research UK : CancerHelp UK, I'll continue considering him a likely quack for the time being. If some independent clinical trials find the treatment useful, I'll gladly admit I was wrong. In the meanwhile, I remain extremely dubious about him. If he's not a quack, he does an amazing job of making himself look like one, which would be really quite sad if he were also correct.


The other issue is Quackwatch. Both I and at least one other person on this thread have posted saying that it contains some real information, and some nonsense. Personally, I find it useful. It often does a good job of chronicling the claims of various people, and when there's a particularly red-flag-worthy bit of information, it's usually simple to confirm it with other sources, often including the writing of the person in question him/herself. Does it contain errors and biases, and are some articles written by people who have no idea what they're talking about? Yes - and this is true of most of the Internet. With a nice jar of NaCl beside me, I'm glad it exists. Without the salt, I'd be less happy.

Brainfan: do you have a link to the debate that you mentioned?

[stanmrak]

Sometimes (really, not too often) I feel sorry for skeptics.... always running around looking for that piece of irrefutable evidence that will prove something to be the "truth"... living in suspicion that people are out to swindle them or make them look gullible... missing opportunities because they didn't have sufficient or valid enough evidence. I see it all the time.

There's really very few things that can be proven without a doubt, especially when it comes to health and nutrition. For every study that "proves" something, another one refutes it. To make any nutritional study valid in the eyes of science, you'd have to eliminate every single variable in the equation; this cannot be done. But, at least the studies give the skeptics something to do.

[kat]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Sometimes (really, not too often) I feel sorry for skeptics.... always running around looking for that piece of irrefutable evidence that will prove something right, beyond a shadow of a doubt, so they can say, "Aha!"... living in suspicion that people are out to swindle them or make them look like fools... missing opportunities because they didn't have sufficient or valid enough evidence. I see it all the time.

That is indeed an unfortunate world-view.

It also bears very little resemblance to mine, although I embrace the term 'skeptic'. If you're curious, feel free to read Sharpening your objective lens.

Originally Posted by stanmrak

There's really very few things that can be proven without a doubt, especially when it comes to health and nutrition. For every study that "proves" something, another one refutes it. To make any nutritional study valid in the eyes of science, you'd have to eliminate every single variable in the equation; this cannot be done. But, at least the studies give the skeptics something to do.

In the absence of proof beyond any doubt, what's interesting is what you choose to do or not do, and perhaps why.

And yes, nutrition studies are a mess. Your description of what it takes to have a 'valid'(?) nutritional study bears little resemblance to the field, and I'd rather not sidetrack into a discussion of philosophy of science, beyond saying that it's not in accord with my view of that, either.

[brainfan]

"This post is a masterpiece ."

LOL. Thanks!

"If we can't know that Stephen Barrett has a wildly obvious pro-pharmaceutical industry bias and agenda then what on this planet can we possibly know?"

Indeed!

kat: "Without the salt, I'd be less happy."

It's possible that I could be taking this wrong, but it seems like you're saying that you'd be less happy without the bias or without the questionable stories, or what some people may euphemistically refer to as disagreements. Whether or not this is the case, I'd like to comment on what his passive aggressive bias does to his unfortunate targets. I apologize in advance for my lengthy posts, but . . . well, I guess I don't really have an excuse but the fact that I prefer to be thorough :^).

I touched on the fact that numerous physicians and other practitioners have lost vast sums of money due to Barrett's malicious actions. These are people with families and homes who have lost their livelihoods, regardless of the outcomes of Barrett's FDA complaints/investigations. These are people whose life's work was to help the downtrodden, people who had nowhere else to turn for help. We're not just talking about quacks and other types of snake oil salesmen, but people who simply dare to operate outside of the mainstream.

I'll return to the subject of multiple chemical sensitivity, as some of his targets have been people who treat the illness as well as people who have the illness. Think about it this way: early in the 20th century, people with allergies, asthma, multiple sclerosis, and many other illnesses were told that their symptoms were all in their heads. Can you imagine what it's like to suffer devastating symptoms only to be told that it's in your head? I can.

I've been at the point where I've had migraines every day; I've blacked out and nearly collapsed onto surgical tables, in hallways, or any number of public places; I've come close to causing I don't know how many accidents in my car, and that's just the tip of the iceberg of the consequences of my disease. I worked through 15 years of hell until it got to the point where I could no longer function on the job without being a threat to public safety. Yet there is a coordinated campaign to make sure that MCS and its related illnesses like Gulf War Syndrome are not recognized, studied, or treated, in no small measure due to the likes of Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch. Oftentimes it's a brutal existence, and one of the primary causes of death for people with MCS is suicide because people can't take the denials and anger directed at us any longer, with the utter lack of compassion, empathy, or help for our suffering, even at hospitals and doctors' offices.

People all over the world read the writings of Barrett and his minions. Links from blogs, references from news articles, comments in letters to the editor, referrals from forum and facebook posts; the repetitions of his disinformation are endless. As a result, there are self-appointed “skeptics” all over the world who literally ridicule me for my illness.

It would be one thing if it were a simple matter of conflicting data, but it's not. He has deliberately misrepresented the evidence, quoting known flawed “studies” and ignoring reams of confirmatory data. So even when I present scientific evidence to prove my illness is physiological and not just in my head, I am patronized at best and insulted at worst. My own knowledge and experience are not good enough; I'm automatically dismissed as unreliable because I am not a double-blind study, even though I have years of direct experience, through my illness and my study of it, while my opponents have minutes that they've spent reading on the internet.

The problem is that people attach themselves to this lofty notion of “skeptic,” as though they are thinkers among men. The truth is, at best they are the modern version of the Greek sophists, that is, when they are actually intelligent enough and clever enough to embrace the facts and argue from an informed position, they do so with the intent to skew the argument with a disingenuous end. However, the vast majority of these people are knaves. They don't have the intellectual capacity to fill the roles they pretend to fill, yet they come on the internet and heartlessly attack us. They demand “scientific” evidence and the more scientific evidence I give them, the shorter and more insulting their comments become. This is because Barrett has only provided them with a smarter-than-thou esthetic and they don't possess the intellectual depth to back it up. What's worse is that they're too damn dumb to realize it. The 'debate' inevitably descends into the equivalent of them putting their fingers in their ears and singing “la-la-la-la” so they don't have to listen to facts.

“Brainfan: do you have a link to the debate that you mentioned?”

Before I offer a link to that debate, I want to provide a link to an essay that discusses the war on this disease, starting from the chemical industry, to Barrett's partner Dr. Gots, and the rest of the nefarious thugs who ensure that suffering people will continue to suffer. It's written by a physician who also acquired MCS:
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege Ann McCampbell, MD Chair, Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Task Force of New Mexico 30jan01

Here is a link to an article about the debate:
The Quackbusters, by Helke Ferrie

Here is a link that has the video for purchase:
http://www.mcsrr.org/resources/books.html
(it did not come up when I just went there, but it's been reachable for years so it's probably temporary)

[maxinatlanta]

Brainfan. Thank you very much for your lengthy posts. They are VERY informative and I applaud you for taking your time to shine some light on the Quackwatch business.

Now, Kat. Thank you very much for your input in this thread, however, I would disagree with you that money is all that is in the alternative treatment practitioners interest.

For instance, Dr. Tullio Simoncini is on your favourite Quackwatch website listed as dubious treatment ( Sodium bicarbonate injections (Dr. T. Simoncini) ). There is no article yet about this doctor on Quackwatch, so I am not sure how you will take this ( probably Barret is very busy messing with the life of other poor human being who is trying to help others).

I know for a fact that Dr. Tullio Simoncini supplies his Protocol treatments for cancer patients free of charge online (Healing Protocol)

Do you know what is funny, Kat? His website ( which was in Italian originally) was translated to more then 10 languages by VOLUNTEERS that got cured from cancer by his "questionable and dubious therapy ".

Watch Video Testimonials : Patients Treated Cancer With Sodium Bicarbonate of a lady from Australia who never paid a dime to Dr. Simoncini. Bladder cancer is gone thanks to the Sodium Bicarbonate therapy that she conducted herself. She have never met him in person, never paid him anything. But she did it under his guidance.

Now, let me ask you a question, would you dare to do something like this ? Free of charge, fearing that your "dubious therapy assistance to other human being free of charge" might cause some people to sue you....think about it...

So, Dr. Simoncini is being ridiculed by establishment in Italy for using sodium bicarbonate to heal people. So, perhaps the next video will explain
Dr. Simoncini : Scam and Fraud or Real Hero ? why they are chasing him and debunking his therapy on the Italian medical show ( he is gaining popularity among common folks because the treatment is inexpensive ).

So, as you can see in my example Dr. Simoncini on Quackwatch dubious therapy list is helping people worldwide ( hundreds for free thanks to the newly cured people spreading the word using their time translating his messages into other languages). So, it's not all about the money. If you are familiar with his work ( he used to work in children oncology and he was miserable witnessing chemotherapy conducted on kids ), then you can understand what is the driving force of this man.

And there are countless other examples...

[maxinatlanta]

Funny you said that. Lately I find myself checking the Quackwatch for a particular Doctor and if there is something negative about him on Quackwatch , I just confirm to myself that this Doctor probably is knowledgeable since they decided to write the article to debunk him.

Then I go to further investigate the Doctor knowing that he must be somewhat credible if Quackwatch is screaming about his "dubious alternative therapy " and Quackwatch is ""right" most of the time in the sense that I need to pay close attention to this Doctor and his remedies. The independent research that I conduct on a particular "dubious therapy" is yeailding great results and I am happy that the place like Quackwatch exist.

I learned about a lot of "alternative dubious therapies" thanks to this website.

So in a sense, for people like me who can see though the prism of lies and deception, I am immune from Quackwatch disinformation and I use this site a lot just to discover some alternative therapies for further investigations. Thank you Quackwatch for your hard work in combining a lot of alternative sources under one website. You have taught me a lot. At least, Big Pharma money is not wasted completely

[kat]

Brainfan: by "without the salt, I'd be less happy", I mean I would like Quackwatch a lot less if I couldn't read it critically, not that I'd like it less if it didn't have the bias it has!

I haven't paid much attention to Barrett himself, and he's not the author of many of the articles on Quackwatch. If even half of what's been said about him is true, that's deeply disturbing.

I'm about equally annoyed by 'skeptics' who refuse to look at evidence that is not in accordance with their biases, and by people who hold another set of biases equally extremely. Whether it's "nutrition has no impact on health!" or "conventional medicine is entirely evil and everyone alternative is full of peace and light and goodness!" (or its cousin, "everything alternative is good and anyone who says otherwise is paid by big pharma, duh!"), it's stupidity, and a dangerous form of self-imposed stupidity at that. I'm willing to look at information from sources in both categories; if they make a good point, I try to confirm/reject it from other sources, and if it's full of what looks to me to be clear nonsense, I tend to reject it.

I don't know anything about MCS, so I literally have almost no opinion about it (I find that that's the best way to keep my mind open). I'm sorry to hear about your suffering and the ridicule you've endured.

I've suffered symptoms which have severely interfered with my life before (and which have included migraines as a minor component - they're really not fun). They've led to minor surgeries of questionable value, and to being dragged to dozens of alternative medicine practitioners, none/one of whom helped, and several of whom caused me harm (I was a minor at the time). Being forced to take iron supplements I didn't need (my iron levels were fine, and the supplements made me nearly throw up, and it got worse every time I took them), and enduring acupuncture done very wrong (it hurt, a lot, and the guy doing it refused to believe that), and being 'diagnosed' in rooms full of skulls by old guys waving colored sheets of plastic around made an impression on me. What actually did help, in the end, was going vegan - which I'll admit one of the practitioners did recommend. Nothing else she did helped, and some things she did were counterproductive.

Unrelatedly, one of my arms is functional due to conventional surgery after a nasty accident; without it, only my unharmed arm would be very usable. I've benefited profoundly from 'conventional' medicine, and I know others who have benefited a lot more than I have.

Conventional medicine started off pretty dismally. Too little of it is evidence-based, even now. But, on the whole, it's on a decent trajectory, and often useful. 'Alternative medicine' is a term I dislike, for several reasons (note that I'm saying I dislike the term, not everything that fits under that umbrella; it's an important distinction). It's hard to define, and it lumps together everything from herbs with a medicinal history of thousands of years, massage, and people selling useless or harmful gadgets. Worse, as many people see it, it's a combination of the unproven and the false, because something isn't "alternative" once it's accepted into conventional medicine (and that's without getting into long debates about things which are being studied and have some proven results, like meditation...) Given this, I usually try to avoid the term as much as possible, and to talk about fields within it that I think are useful (like massage), and fields within it that aren't.

All that said, I think some 'alternative medicine' practitioners provide a valuable service. Nothing starts in the mainstream - look at the time it took for Dr. Ornish to gain any institutional acceptance for his ideas. Conventional medicine was often worse than no treatment even a century ago (and occasionally is even today, though it's improved a lot), and it had some pretty hefty and incorrect biases a few generations ago, which are decreasing but not entirely gone. I saw a website of a contemporary nutritionist a few years ago, who basically argued that what one eats has no effect on health whatsoever, due to homoeostasis - I can't make up this level of foolishness. In some cases, even doing nothing effective and acting as a placebo can be of benefit to a patient, and it's hard to find a skeptic who doesn't admit alternative medicine can do at least this.

And I think some 'alternative medicine' practitioners are actively dangerous. It's not the 15th century: if you're offering a treatment for cancer that doesn't actually help it, and then lying or deluding yourself and fooling your patients that it's causing their tumors to shrink or have gone away, frankly you should have the book thrown at you. The same goes for people who're lying about what they are selling, or recommend treatments that cause significant harm for no plausible benefit (like pulling all of someone's teeth to 'cure' unrelated conditions). History is quite full of charlatans who had loving, adoring fan bases, and even more full of well-meaning people who simply don't know what they're doing and fool themselves. History is also full of a combination of really good and bad ideas; while the ancient Romans ate lead to get a paler complexion, it's a bad idea, no matter how old or alternative it is.

If there's something humanity still has no way to fix, and it's causing problems, someone will usually step in and claim they can do something - and most of the time, they'll be wrong. When it's ineffective and they keep it up for years, I see it as taking advantage of the desperate, and I despise it.

I don't think destroying the business of someone doing something fraudulent or counterproductive, even if they're well-meaning, is necessarily a bad thing. I do think that destroying the business of someone who is actually being of help just because you have inaccurate preconceptions about what they're doing is horrible, though.

----------------
maxinatlanta: I don't believe that money is all that 'alternative treatment' practitioners are interested in. Some have effective treatments, some are well-meaning individuals who simply aren't doing something effective, and a small percent are greedy scammers. People with what Steve would call 'lightworker syndrome' are a lot more common in the field than people who are primarily interested in money - but that doesn't mean that they're actually helping people, or that they're not unintentionally causing harm.

What therapy are you experiencing great results with?

[Andrew Gubb]

Well, well, no big suprises there.

I bet if we look closer we'll find more things like that in different places. Brainwashing is tricky, by it's very nature you never think it's there...

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by maxinatlanta

Funny you said that. Lately I find myself checking the Quackwatch for a particular Doctor and if there is something negative about him on Quackwatch , I just confirm to myself that this Doctor probably is knowledgeable since they decided to write the article to debunk him.
So in a sense, for people like me who can see though the prism of lies and deception, I am immune from Quackwatch disinformation and I use this site a lot just to discover some alternative therapies for further investigations. Thank you Quackwatch for your hard work in combining a lot of alternative sources under one website. You have taught me a lot. At least, Big Pharma money is not wasted completely

That's a great use for an otherwise useless site! Dr. Barrett is like all the other skeptics out there... blinded by science. They worship at the altar of science, and if hasn't been proven by scientific means, it must be a hoax. No exceptions. They also go on the assumption that there is no bad science, except for that which goes against their beliefs.

[kat]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

That's a great use for an otherwise useless site! Dr. Barrett is like all the other skeptics out there... blinded by science. They worship at the altar of science, and if hasn't been proven by scientific means, it must be a hoax. No exceptions. They also go on the assumption that there is no bad science, except for that which goes against their beliefs.

Are you claiming I'm not a skeptic, despite labelling myself such? Or are you saying that all of that applies to me - in which case, why are you ignoring several posts where I outline what I believe?

I don't "worship at the alter of science" (what does that even mean?). I have very explicitly said that I do not believe that everything not proven by scientific means is a hoax. There is plenty of bad science, and I've pointed to some examples; some of it supports things I believe, some doesn't - things are true or false regardless of badly done science (or random blog and forum posts) that say the opposite.

Edit: in general, why make up false generalizations about groups of people?

[maxinatlanta]

Kat. I think that you took it somewhat close.

What stamrak was saying is that there are some sceptics that worship on the altar of science, but think that his post is not directed at you personally. I know excatly what he is talking about. The website like this one has people that no matter what is presented they will yawn etc, and say that it was already debunked at Quackwatch. I think that is what he is referring to.

Kat, you are an open minded individual, since you are considering the possibility to change the views based on your own investigation and not blindly believing in something.

[stanmrak]

I was referring to people who are so proud of being skeptics that they advertise it like it's an accomplishment. That guy Ben Goldacre (or something) and Penn Gillette... nothing but egotists. I noticed that Mr. Quackwatch displays all the hate mail he gets on its own page, like it's a badge of honor or something. If you take a little time to get to know these guys, you'd realize they've got personal issues.

[kat]

Originally Posted by maxinatlanta

Kat. I think that you took it somewhat close.

What stamrak was saying is that there are some sceptics that worship on the altar of science, but think that his post is not directed at you personally. I know excatly what he is talking about. The website like this one has people that no matter what is presented they will yawn etc, and say that it was already debunked at Quackwatch. I think that is what he is referring to.

Kat, you are an open minded individual, since you are considering the possibility to change the views based on your own investigation and not blindly believing in something.

I didn't take it personally, but I'm trying to make a point. Being a skeptic does not require being close-minded (I could even argue that it requires being open-minded).

It's one thing to make reasonable points about the downsides of some kinds of skepticism. It gets a bit tiresome to see 'skeptic' being used as a dirty word again and again. Are there people who call themselves skeptics who are idiots? Absolutely - but try finding any label used by more than a few people where that doesn't apply.

I'm not familiar with the forum you mention, and a quick glance didn't show me any posts of the type you mentioned; rather, there were threads about Steve Jobs, Richard Feynman, and various threads on a wide variety of topics. According to google, the site only references Quackwatch on 27 pages, which isn't much for a site with a fairly active forum.

A skeptic *has* to be willing to change his/her mind if strong enough evidence turns up. I can't call someone a skeptic who wouldn't change an opinion about, say, the effects of eating natto on bone density after a dozen well-designed, well-conducted peer-reviewed and reproduced studies.

Similarly, it's legitimate for a skeptic to think that the odds of, say, being able to predict whether a coin tossed in another room come up heads or tails with over 95% accuracy over the course of 100 flips, repeatedly, is vanishingly close to zero: but there has to be *some* sufficient standard of evidence that will convince him/her otherwise if it's met. Otherwise s/he's being stubborn, or contrarian, or something... but not a skeptic any longer.

Originally Posted by stanmrak

I was referring to people who are so proud of being skeptics that they advertise it like it's an accomplishment. That guy Ben Goldacre (or something) and Penn Gillette... nothing but egotists. I noticed that Mr. Quackwatch displays all the hate mail he gets on its own page, like it's a badge of honor or something. If you take a little time to get to know these guys, you'd realize they've got personal issues.

I'm perfectly happy to advertise using a skeptical lens at times.

I've read fairly little by Ben Goldacre, but articles like Ben Goldacre: A quick fix would stop drug firms bending the truth | Comment is free | The Guardian look perfectly reasonable.

On the other hand, I consider Penn & Teller's "♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥!" badly thought out and sourced to the point of being unwatchable, judging by the small handful of episodes a friend who likes the show decided to show me.

[JSB]

I believe there is healthy skepticism of the "show me the evidence and let me decide based on that" variety, and there is pathological skepticism of the "I'll see it when I believe it" variety.

http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

[kat]

Originally Posted by JSB

I believe there is healthy skepticism of the "show me the evidence and let me decide based on that" variety, and there is pathological skepticism of the "I'll see it when I believe it" variety.

http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt

Yes. Excellent link. I agree with about 95% of it.

My only quibble is that sometimes it makes sense to act like a pathological skeptic in a few ways. If something sounds closely related to something else which is often discussed and has a particularly unpromising history, it may well not be worth your time to look into - which doesn't mean you should stop other people from looking into it, or to keep your mind closed in the face of actual strong evidence. I also think it's perfectly legitimate to say "I think this is false, and here's why". Also, given weak evidence (say, a 5 year old claiming to have measured photons going at twice the speed of light, using only peanut butter) that would have major theoretical implications, it can make a lot of sense to be more dubious about the observation until there's more and stronger supporting evidence.

I do 'healthy skepticism' in a slightly different way than simply deciding: show me the evidence, and I'll have a degree of belief/disbelief in something, and an associated amount of uncertainty, which I'll update on new evidence. I wrote about that here: Sharpening your objective lens.

[JSB]

Yes, of course we have a limited amount of time and attention that we can use to investigate new claims, so we must decide was is most likely worth personal investigation based on what we already know to be true. That means that it will be more difficult to get extraordinary claims investigated in the first place, let alone accepted as proven. This is understandable, as it's just human nature.

I think skepticism becomes pathological when the so-called "skeptic" has a personal emotional interest in dismissing or debunking claims that don't fit their own worldview. It becomes and exercise in boosting one's own self-important ego, rather than a genuine search for truth.

A healthy skepticism is healthy! Pseudo-skepticism is just another neurosis.

Relevant link:

Commentaries: On Pseudo-Skepticism

Originally Posted by kat

Yes. Excellent link. I agree with about 95% of it.

My only quibble is that sometimes it makes sense to act like a pathological skeptic in a few ways. If something sounds closely related to something else which is often discussed and has a particularly unpromising history, it may well not be worth your time to look into - which doesn't mean you should stop other people from looking into it, or to keep your mind closed in the face of actual strong evidence. I also think it's perfectly legitimate to say "I think this is false, and here's why". Also, given weak evidence (say, a 5 year old claiming to have measured photons going at twice the speed of light, using only peanut butter) that would have major theoretical implications, it can make a lot of sense to be more dubious about the observation until there's more and stronger supporting evidence.

I do 'healthy skepticism' in a slightly different way than simply deciding: show me the evidence, and I'll have a degree of belief/disbelief in something, and an associated amount of uncertainty, which I'll update on new evidence. I wrote about that here: Sharpening your objective lens.

[brainfan]

Unfortunately, I've had a bad week and I haven't been able to do much reading and writing (as it happens, I'm in the process of writing some debunking of my own regarding some snake-oil salesmen, which will also keep me from responding here much).

JSB: I saved that article quite a while ago and return to it occasionally. It's extremely illuminating!

Kat: it sounds like you truly do not realize the extent of the Quackwatch method. I appreciate your openness and concern. Hoping not to patronize you, I would caution you about the phenomenon of “skepticism,” as JSB's link describes. Even though Barrett does not write everything his site, there are large numbers of physicians and others who have no problem with participating in the deceptions. And as I said: they must use legitimate information mixed in with the deceptions in order to establish credibility (and very often their bios include necessary deception). Given that, there are any number of sources out there for relevant information without giving aid to those who willingly perpetuate and exacerbate the harm of others; of people like me, along with our spouses, children, and other family members, who are in ruin or thereabouts. I can no longer work and support my family. I literally have no idea if the disability insurance policy that I paid into for over 30 years will give me a dime, because industry clogs the legal system with paid-for “expert” witnesses. Will I lose my home and will my family be torn apart due to the loss and stress?

How wonderful it would be to be able to put on the lofty airs of The Thinker, dispassionately wondering yea-or-nay about the reality of the physiological suffering of others. The problem is this: we're not talking about alien abductions, paranormal activity, the Mayan calendar or any other barely relevant nonsense: we're talking about the traumatic suffering of others that is made all the worse by the attacks of those whose only reward is the self-satisfaction of believing that they are oh-such thoughtful persons. They join the ranks of those who ridiculed Ignaz Semmelweiss who knew that doctors were killing women in childbirth, but he did not yet have germ theory to support his case. They join the ranks of those who denied the physiological natures of asthma, allergies, multiple sclerosis, and so many other illnesses. They join the ranks of those who ensured that people with those illnesses were further harmed by being told that they were imagining their conditions, so they could then be ostracized by family, friends, and strangers. They join the ranks of those who, until just a few years ago, insisted that ulcers were psychological.

I've been through this more times than I care to consider. The self-appointed skeptic, “informed” by Stephen Barrett and his minions, proclaims that I am imagining my illness. They use the fabricated caricatures that Barrett and others invent, in combination with select, outdated, poorly designed studies, most of which did not even use people with the illness they were purportedly refuting, and then ask me to show them the science that I tell them is there. Then no matter how much detailed science they are presented with, they hold onto the “research” of psychologists who clearly had no idea what they were doing at best. Reams and reams; literally thousands of related studies are ignored. They ignore the genetic markers; they ignore the diagnostic tests; they ignore that animals under research have been given the disease. They even ignore the fact they are ignoring the stipulations required to support their own bogus diagnoses of “somatization disorder,” as if the confident diagnosis of people over the internet isn't an absurd enough idea to begin with.

Perhaps the worst irony of all in Barrett's case is that his own website includes support for fibromyalgia, which is suspected of being within the same group of illnesses as multiple chemical sensitivity and has also been the target of skeptic denial – oops: I guess I should have said skeptic “doubt”. Is it just a coincidence that the illness that he “believes in” is one that his own daughter has? And is it just a coincidence that the other illness has the chemical industry paying “experts” to rebut? The skeptical among might say, “hmmm, I just don't know.” The realists among us say, “bullshit: Stephen Barrett is a lying shill who has no problem perpetuating the suffering of others as long as we are not related and as long as he can receive a paycheck for it.”

His followers are precisely the types of people who are muddying the discussion and the simple reason is what a tobacco industry representative described when putting off the inevitable admission that smoking harms people: “doubt is our product.” As long as there is doubt, the tobacco companies did not have to publicly acknowledge the harmfulness of their product and hence, they did not have to lose some of their profits to liability claims and bad press. Decades of profits were protected; decades of diseases were suffered. The big difference here is that at least smokers had a choice. Today it's the chemical industry, which by its own admission and actions is doing the same thing. People like Stephen Barrett and organizations like the American Council on Science and Health are so flagrantly shilling for industry at our expense, yet they still have their smug, self-satisfied hangers-on who follow along, spreading the product of doubt and ensuring that untold numbers of us will continue to suffer and untold numbers will join our ranks.

[brainfan]

“Brainfan. Thank you very much for your lengthy posts. They are VERY informative and I applaud you for taking your time to shine some light on the Quackwatch business.”

Thanks for that and you're very welcome! I'm glad someone else out there finds it useful. It's very useful for me to put thoughts into words to document them for my own use (I've got progressing cognitive/memory issues) and to help exercise my brain. :^)

stanmrak: “I noticed that Mr. Quackwatch displays all the hate mail he gets on its own page, like it's a badge of honor or something.”

Totally! I actually exchanged some emails with him many years ago. I think when it became obvious that I was only going to respond to him in a respectful yet informed manner, he replied with a note that finished with, “I'm not going to respond to any more of your emails.”

If you want to see just how bad these types of people can get (and the mention of Ben Goldacre was spot-on), look no further than Michael Fumento, medical/political writer extraordinaire whose background is in law. Check out his volumes of “hatemail,” and more to the point, his responses:
Michael Fumento: Hate Mail, Volume 20.

And for a little humor, check out his buff pic lol:
http://www.bigfatblog.com/images/fumento.jpg