Talk:Quackery

Peer review of related article

A request has been made for peer review of List of ineffective cancer treatments which has some cross-over with the content here. All and any feedback most welcome. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett promotional bulk

This statement just adds bulk to the article and is really not necessary to promote Stephen Barrett's qualifications here. Links to his namesake article as well as his enterprise company should be enough.

Stephen Barrett, who runs the alternative medicine watchdog website, Quackwatch, a consumer information organization with several websites dedicated to exposing quackery, defines the practice this way:

I have attempted to edit it into a reasonable statement, removing wording "alternative medicine" not found in the referenced website and further promotional phrases unrelated to this article. My attempts at guideline adherence have been reverted twice by other editors without satisfactory reason.

Stephen Barrett, who runs the health-related frauds website, Quackwatch, defines the practice this way

"health related" is wording copied from the actual website mission statement and removes WP:OR and some WP:Puffery.This would be similar to the credit given to Paul Offit in a similar cite in the article and with possibly more notability. 72.138.186.80 (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What we have seems like a fair summary of what's in our Quackwatch article. No need for a change here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a fair summary of what is in our Quackwatch article. It's off-topic here and wreaks of over-promotion. 72.138.186.80 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually we do. The editors over at Quackwatch have achieved a consensus on how it should be described in summary and put that in the opening sentences of the article there. We need to follow suit here, to avoid creating a mini content fork whereby QW is characterized differently in different places on Wikipedia. If you want to change the way QW is characterized, get consensus on the Quackwatch article - and then we can synchronize with the new text here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Content fork"? Nonsense! Let's get a consensus on this article. It would seem we need to get 3O on this or more after that one. You are using arguments that are not WP guideline or policies. Each article needs to stand on it's own merit and this article is NOT about Quackwatch or Stephen Barrett. His statements are important not his history. WP articles are not suitable references and this article needs to use proper references. Nowhere in the mission statement of Quackwatch does it use the term "alternative medicine" and that term is just OR, and needs to match a reliable reference. The second issue is the unwanted puffery. Surely you don't think we should we add a paragraph of notability to all the other notable person's statements like Paul Offit to perpetuate this style? Why just the puffery on Stephen Barrett? 72.138.186.80 (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with shortening it to this:

• Stephen Barrett defines the practice this way:

How's that? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine - it's ... like ... hypertext :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I thought a compact summary of notability origin (Quackwatch.org) would have been in order but it matches the other quotation style and the link is there for diggers. Thanks all. 72.138.186.80 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Stating that specific professions are examples of quackery in the lede

Recent additions to the lede are in violation of WP:NPOV. The edit is in violation of NPOV because it uses wikipedia's voice to make a controversial and one-sided statement that relies on specific cherry-picked sources, without giving the opposing perspective.

You are trying to state in wikipedia's voice that acupuncture is an example of quackery, yet you are not mentioning any of the reliable sources that suggest otherwise:

• Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine says that "the emerging acceptance of acupuncture results in part from its widespread availability and use in the United States today, even within the walls of major medical centers where it is used as an ancillary approach to pain management" Chapter e2, Page 5, McGraw-Hill, 2011, ISBN 9780071748902
• Britain's National Health Service says that acupuncture is used in the majority of pain clinics and hospices in the UK and it is "based on scientific evidence that shows the treatment can stimulate nerves under the skin and in muscle tissue".[1]
• The American Heart Association's consensus statement says that acupuncture's mechanism of effect appears to be through sensory mechanoreceptor and nociceptor stimulation induced by "connective tissues being wound around the needle".[2]

You are trying to state in wikipedia's voice that chiropractic is an example of quackery, yet there is a different perspective that is detailed in reliable sources that you are leaving out:

• Kaptchuk and Eisenberg state: "Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream. Facts such as the following attest to its status and success: Chiropractic is licensed in all 50 states. An estimated 1 of 3 persons with lower back pain is treated by chiropractors. Since 1972, Medicare has reimbursed patients for chiropractic treatments, and these treatments are covered as well by most major insurance companies. In 1994, the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research removed much of the onus of marginality from chiropractic by declaring that spinal manipulation can alleviate low back pain."

If you want to discuss specific professions in the article then it would have to be in the body first, and consistent with WP:NPOV, would have to gives both perspectives. Then, this discussion could be summarized in the lede. The current mention of specific professions in the body is restricted to a quote from a specific individual 'William T. Jarvis' and thus your addition of the list of professions to the lede is not a summary, but rather a new and controversial idea being made in wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.201.237 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree—not because I have any desire to push dubious cures, but because there is an important and real dividing line that WP:NPOV requires must be acknowledged. Quackery is fraud or dangerous delusion. The edit made an overly broad assertion that nearly all complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), traditional medicine, and chiropractic are quackery, which is false. There are plenty of elements of herbal medicine, for example, that are accepted as complementary to medical science, even if, quite frankly, their only efficacy comes from placebo effect. There is plenty of CAM that has safety (for example, herbals made with USP good manufacturing practice) and at least weak evidence of marginal efficacy and is considered by both the physician and the patient to be desirable and meeting primum non nocere. Even for physicians who don't put much stock in it, they know the clinical utility of, for example, letting a patient with longstanding recalcitrant pain take some herbs if it makes them feel like they've done something efficacious and they get some peace of mind from it. Whatever delusion may be involved is not dangerous. This topic (locating the dividing line between CAM and quackery) is analogous to the classifications of religious movements in the following way: an angry atheist can say that all religions are cults, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia states that all religions, even large and mild ones like Grandma's weekly Unitarian supper, are cults. It's not in line with NPOV. It's its own form of POV. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the placebo effect in certain cases can be helpful, but quackery does not have to be dangerous. As this article states:

* Even where no fraud was intended, quack remedies often contained no effective ingredients whatsoever. Some remedies contained substances such as opium, alcohol and honey, which would have given symptomatic relief but had no curative properties. The few effective remedies sold by quacks included emetics, laxatives and diuretics. Some ingredients did have medicinal effects: mercury, silver and arsenic compounds may have helped some infections and infestations; willow bark contained salicylic acid, chemically closely related to aspirin; and the quinine contained in Jesuit's bark was an effective treatment for malaria and other fevers. However, knowledge of appropriate uses and dosages was limited.

However, as defined by the dictionary, quackery also involves the promotion of fruadulant and ignorant medical practices. This is the main point I'm trying to make. Not that they are dangerous, but traditional medicine in it's modern form and chiropractic do not do what they often claim to do. They are based on ignorance of modern medicine and science. In this sense, they are indeed cases of quackery. Smk65536 (talk) 07:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above and supported with sources, the main issue is that these professions are NOT simply clear examples of quackery that can be labelled as such in wikipedia's voice in the lede of the article. WP:NPOV policy demands that both perspectives be discussed when they exist, and here there is clearly two sides to the coin. If you want to discuss specific professions in this article it must be done int he body first, using sources that provide both perspectives. One completed and achieved consensus, this discussion of professions that represent quackery could be summarized in the lede. I suspect that this has not been done because it is a huge can of worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.201.237 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Even though I totally get, and sympathize with, what Smk65536 is saying, what 108.181.201.237 subsequently said is an inevitable truth that sets the threshold of effort that would have to be poured in to support the lede change. And there's a reason it's as hugely laborious as it is—the sentence "I suspect that this has not been done because it is a huge can of worms" sums it up exactly. For example, there's a gigantic decades-long history in the U.S. of people calling chiropractic quackery and of legions of chiropractors and, more importantly, legions of their deeply satisfied and loyal customers (many of whom feel positively sure that it saved them from pain and dysfunction) coming out in force to refute the idea, to the point that there have been libel lawsuits over it. It's a huge can of worms. So how does Wikipedia cover that? Well, it's fine to have an entire article on the history of chiropractic with multiple sections and 57 references that explores the whole "it's quackery / no it's not / yes it is" saga. We can make it clear to the reader that its standing remains dubious in many minds, although its standing is high enough that national health services in various countries don't refuse to pay for it. But putting a sentence in the lede of the quackery article that simply says "chiropractic is quackery" is inadequate to meet NPOV. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Quackademic medicine

BullRangifer I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but I respectfully disagree with your reversion. This is not about parity it's about reliable sources and whether there is enough evidence that the neologism in question enjoys sufficient use to justify inclusion in an article. Since the sources generally fail WP:RS and there is as far as I am aware, no evidence that this term has been employed outside of a handful of blogs, I don't think it passes muster. As always I remain open to reconsideration if some argument or evidence hitherto not considered is presented. Likewise I bow to consensus if a body of editors tells me I am wrong. But right now I am not impressed by the sourcing and the usage of the term appears far too limited (trivial might be a better term) to warrant inclusion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ad Orientum, the main problem is that only 2 sources seem to exist that use the phrase "quackademic medicine" and both sources are blogs. Moreover, the blog where the phrase was coined, source 8, does not seem notable. The only other source that uses the phrase, source 6, is at least from a notable blog (“Science Based Medicine”), but I do not think this is enough to warrant an entire section here, including examples of how mainstream medical journals like the "New England Journal of Medicine" are falling prey to this apparent phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.201.237 (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. This is a section. Notability is not an argument for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability is not an issue here. And while some blogs might be notable, they are almost never reliable sources. See WP:UGC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is about controversy and deals with fringe subjects, so WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY apply, and www.sciencebasedmedicine.org is considered a RS for those subjects in many articles here, and rightly so. This has been discussed many times. The experts assembled there provide expert opinion on medical, fringe science, and alternative medicine subjects.

For me the only question is whether it warrants a whole section. That may be too much. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I should note that after some reorganization and consolidation, they now seem to use a different website: Society for Science-Based Medicine. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Brangifer, the source is clearly not a blog, and represents expert opinion on this subject. I do think though that this phenomena warrants an entire section. It is often discussed and debated in the media. 108.181.201.237 not everything is a blog. Smk65536 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? Where has this term been extensively discussed in the media? I was unable to find much of anything beyond the two cited sources, of which only one is alleged to be RS. But I'm not infallible and might have missed something. Some links would be appreciated. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It does look odd to title a section with this term. How about something that describes what this really is, which is critique of the attention given to CAM by mainstream institutions? Within the section you can say "so and so characterize this as 'quackademic medicine'". Herbxue (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with BullRangifer, some mention is due - probably not a whole section (certainly not a whole article as he had before). But since SBM is one of our best sources on woo/quacks/quackery, and they are big on this idea, its appropriate for mention here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Deceased only?

@BullRangifer:, why limit the list of quacks only to deceased persons? I don't see any good reason to do this. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy:, your question is reasonable, and that concern has been addressed a long time ago. Here is the hidden editorial note you may not have seen:

"NOTE: This section is not intended as a complete list, but instead as a sampling so the reader may have some examples of notable persons who have been called quacks. Entries in this list should be limited to clear examples, and the sources documenting them being called quacks should be well-referenced.

"To avoid WP:BLP concerns (and endless edit wars!) this list should be limited to deceased people. Please arrange names alphabetically after last name. Descriptions may be taken from the lead section of their articles here, if such articles exist, and are not used to demonstrate why they were called quacks. Let readers do their own investigating. It may be a good idea to discuss any additions to the list on the article's talk page."

I hope that explains it well enough for you. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the requirement that sources actually use the word "quack", I suppose, but don't think it's truly necessary. The two (Andrew Wakefield and Mehmet Oz) clearly meet the definition of quack even if a lot of sources don't actually use the word. And I strongly feel that excluding living people just for being living is a gross misunderstanding of biography of living persons. It doesn't mean to exclude people from lists to avoid hurting feelings, if someone belongs in a list, they should be there. Finally, the nature of quackery has changed since 100 years ago, and Wakefield and Oz are a great demonstration of its current nature. BTW, was there a discussion about this exclusion previously? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we discussed it, but it's a long time ago. I agree about Wakefield, Oz, and others, and, strictly speaking, you are right that Wikipedia's BLP rule does not prevent the mention of living persons, as long as the sourcing is good and the content framed properly. You can look at our List of topics characterized as pseudoscience for how this could be done in a list. We just have to be very careful. It should be done in each biography first. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wakefield's article describes his research as "elaborate fraud", "utterly false", and that he behaved "dishonestly and irresponsibly", and that's just in the lead section. For Oz, he won the "The Pigasus Award for Refusal to Face Reality" for "quack medical practices, paranormal belief, and pseudoscience", and that 15% of the products he promoted in direct contradiction to medical evidence. I think we are completely sound in naming these two in our list. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to start a new subsection for "Living persons accused of quackery"? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it makes sense to put them all in the same heading, instead of having an arbitrary distinction. After all, what if we put them in a separate section and one dies - this creates article maintenance we don't need. Change the heading back to what it was and add Oz and Wakefield to the list. Then put in a big fat warning that any living persons need to be well cited. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It should be under the "same" heading with a "different" subsection name. See Quackery#Living. QuackGuru (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Oiyarbepsy; we should include living quacks, if properly sourced. Caution around BLP is very sensible, but if we could only report positive things about people and not negative, we'd have a terribly unbalanced encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Monkey glands

Was implanting testicular extracts from animals (or maybe whole testicles, I don't know) in men in the early twentieth century, prior to the isolation of testosterone, an example of quakery, or was this legitimate medicine? I'd really like to know. deisenbe (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Deisenbe, sorry to ping you on a comment you left nine years ago, but I have somewhat of an answer for you.

Your question cuts to the center of the discussion on what is quackery. The experiments of the likes of Leo Stanley and his contemporaries would be considered quackery if practiced now, but at the time, were at least somewhat backed by theory and evidence. Given that many of the studies and treatments followed the accepted standards of the time, it would be hard to paint them as entirely quackerous.

I think it's an important thing to consider when writing about historical quackery, and perhaps I should be writing this as an essay instead, that the quackerous nature of a treatment is predicated on it's disadherence to accepted standards of the time. Therefore, a higher standard should exist to declare something quackery the further back one looks. Certainly, bloodletting is considered quackery today, and was during the last several decades it was practiced, but it wasn't always, and when discussing the period of time it was accepted as a possibly efficacious treatment, it would be wrong to define it as quackery. Failing to adhere to this standard essentially sets us up for our own medical practices to be defined as quackery in the future; more or less, quackery must be known to be quackery, or the ignorance of the same so willing that it is audacious before it can be quackery.

Foxtrot620 (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Robert Gorter

He may not be notable (at least in the English Wikipedia), but there is a Dutch court case which specifies that calling him a "quack" is not libelous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Willem Betz (March–April 2015). "The Case of Gorter v. SKEPP". Skeptical Inquirer. 39 (2): 19–21.

Nope, it is libelous, and it is also libelous in the US under certain circumstances. It is better to stay away from the contentious labels and pejorative terminology. Keep the statements encyclopedic. The case in Holland was about physician Sickesz being called a quack by Renckens. In December 2003 an attorney for Sickest directed Renckens to stop calling her a quack. She filed suit on August 4, 2005, and the lower court ruled against her. "The court accepted the explanation of the VtdK of the term 'kwakzalver' or curer, namely that it didn't imply the intent to deceive." Sickesz appealed on May 31, 2007, and won the appeal. The use of the term is libelous in Holland. [3] [4] The case you're talking about is a different case in Belgium. It was Gorter vs Skepp & Betz. Gorter lost in the lower court, appealed and won most of his argument but not all. The court ruled that use of the terms quack and quackery were libelous. Gorter is protected by the law, not because he appeals to (generally accepted Western) science but because it relies heavily on alternative 'medicine' (anthroposophy, acupuncture, homeopathy and Ayurvedic medicine) and his "experience" as a cancer patient. Because he himself believes in him is no 'ill will' or cunning to charge. They used the Sickesz ruling as caselaw. They can say his treatments don't work, are not supported by science, etc. which is basically what we've been arguing for 3 months to modify in Griffin. There is no need to use contentious material because it reflects badly on our professionalism and lowers the quality of information we provide to readers. [5] For example, scientifically unsupported, and not FDA approved is factual, dispassionate, and accurately described, and it sounds so much better than quackery. [6] Atsme☯^Consult 07:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Antiquackery classics posted

The Quackwatch website has posted the complete texts of two volumes of Nostrums and Quackery: Articles on the Nostrum Evil, Quackery and Allied Matters Affecting the Public Health; Reprinted, With or Without Modifications, from The Journal of the American Medical Association. Volume I was published in 1912. Volume II was published in 1921. The books, which total more than 1,500 pages, are no longer copyrighted. (From an announcement by Barrett.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Historically interesting but don't think it is useable for an article on current quackery. "Quack" in general seems to generally mean outside the norms of medicine, but the norms move over time and the irritant focus of early 20th century is not what a 'quack' is today. In early 20th century (see the poster in article) it is against advertising and asking for money up front -- things which are now the norm. I've read that ancient German usage meant 'quack' more in the sense of poaching of business as that would upset folks and the payment to government for monopoly in a region -- you could only practice in the approved form and approved town and not infringe what the midwife or barber or cowherd had as their paid-for privileges. Markbassett (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Head On: apply directly to the article.

Is HeadOn a modern example of this? I thought about adding it to the contemporary section, but figured I'd bring it up here, first.--Varkman (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Article is not neutral

This article takes a stance against quackery, rather than discussing it objectively. As such, it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Did Quackwatch write it? Definitely needs a rewrite for neutral tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.142.128 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Would it be a neutral article to be in favor of fake medicine? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is fairly neutral, but does have a few instances of tone that could be a bit more encyclopedic. I'll trim a couple of those examples (like "quacks quack!") without changing the meaning/substance of the text.Herbxue (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

quackery is murder - should wikipedia be "neutral" on the matter of murder? 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A5EB:993:B067:B930 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It has been published that Quack originates from Quicksilver, the term once used for Murcury. Murcury was used as medicine in early alopathic medicime. Hence, alopathice doctors should be the Quacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.133.172 (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) == Is the lead image appropriate? ==

The lead image states that respectable physicians do not demand prior payment or advertise. Might this be misleading for today's medics? <span style="font-family:Se<goe print; color:red; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not if they can read since the caption is "WPA poster, 1936–38". It's a great image! Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that makes it more suited to the "History..." section. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I would say that...This article takes a stance against alternative health care practices and traditions, which it terms "quackery," rather than discussing these objectively. As it reflects strong prejudice, it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Definitely needs a rewrite for an objective/neutral tone. Better yet would probably be a complete deletion of this piece.DrTCH (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Then propose an edit or you can edit the article directly. QuackGuru (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The article appears neutral to me. If by "medicine" we understand evidence-based medicine, and these other practices by their nature are "alternative" to evidence-based medicine, isn't the alleged bias in the subject matter itself, rather than the article, which must, by its nature, appeal to sources and evidence? Must Wikipedia automatically call both sides of the coin heads? I haven't looked, but I don't expect the articles on Flat Earth and Alchemy and Astrology take neutral and equal stances on the shape of the planet, the transmutation of metals, and the influence on one's life by where the sun was at one's birth relative to the apparent positions of arbitrary groupings of stars. Count Robert of Paris (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree with DrTCH. Unfortunately, a bias against alternative medicine appears to be baked (founders and onward) into wikipedia and adopted by the most active editors on alternative medicine articles. I mean no disrespect to these editors, who are generally generous and honest in presenting their perspective and reasoning. The problem is deeper than any bad apple, it is the underlying, unstated, philosophy that underlies many editors' approach toward traditional and modern alternative medicine: that continuing to use practices which have not been extensively validated by modern western scientific biomedical practice is fraudulent. This is an absolutely ridiculous perspective and comes from a traditionally racist place, structurally if not also personally.

In particular, it feels clear that traditional medical practice should be presented neutrally - people are NOT generally insane, and medical practices with deep histories of use by living medical traditions with thousands of years of practice (see ayurveda, TCM, western herbalism, etc.) should not be presented as essentially false. Editors clearly have a bone to pick with alternative medicine and it's really upsetting and absolutely doing real damage to uninformed people who are being convinced by wikipedia's authority that traditional medicine is in general unproven, dangerous or placebo. This is not actually the case. I have no hope in making more than piecemeal progress here, but we are in the midst of a rennaisance of traditional medicine and it will only get harder for the anti-quack cult to hold back people more fanatical than me who are willing to try and really fix this problem. Kevingweinberg (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Bring sources that support your point of view, and the problem will be easily fixed. You are welcome -Roxy, the dog. wooF 04:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree. Solid research is rejected solely because some 'expert' says it is bogus.... Or it is published in a journal that traditional medicine considers not valid. The quality of the study does not matter as long as the journal is wrong.... KFvdL (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

KFvdL A study published in an unreliable journal is unreliable. The solution is simple, the authors should submit it to a reliable journal. If the study was good quality, the reliable journal will happily publish it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quackery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214172021/http://www.ascp.com/publications/tcp/1999/jul/access.shtml to http://www.ascp.com/publications/tcp/1999/jul/access.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090615040740/http://www.nzma.org.nz:80/journal/121-1278/3158/ to http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/121-1278/3158/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100110071902/http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org:80/unitarians/pauling.html to http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/pauling.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom Mower

I'd like to add Tom Mower, founder of Sisel International, to the list of living people accused of quackery. Sisel marketing materials also make frequent references to "toxins" found in everyday products but not in Sisel products. Any help in finding sources for the notes in this post, especially the one about Japan, would be much appreciated! (I had read about that one somewhere else before but can't recall now).

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,138895,668266#msg-668266

Also, why aren't there separate articles about Tom Mower and Sisel International? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.200.100 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There are two big problems:

1. Wikipedia has strict standards for how it treats living people: (WP:BLP). Suggesting that someone might be a quack requires very, very good sources. Forums are not reliable sources. We cannot use original research (WP:OR) by interpreting Mower's own words or questionable actions. We must be able to cite a reliable source as saying that he is a quack. We need to explain who, exactly has called him a quack. Wikipedia editors do not get to call him quack in the article. The Deseret News source says he was sent to prison for fraud and tax evasion, but it doesn't say he was a quack. Without a good source saying that, Wikipedia can't either. Again, read WP:BLP for more on this.
2. Notice that every single person on that list already has an article? There have been countless people accused of being quacks, but we cannot list them all. This is a list of examples, but people without articles make poor examples. He doesn't have an article because nobody has written one, and he should not be on this list unless that happens. He may not be notable, I don't know. See WP:WTAF for more on this.

Please don't restore the content again without addressing these issues, or it will be seen as edit warring. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I found this about Tom Mower Jr. It does not mention quackery. I also found this. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

John St. John Long

My addition of John St. John Long was reverted with the comment “unsourced”. We have an extensively-sourced article about Long that can be consulted to verify the brief claims I made here. Wikipedia policy is that not every claim needs to be sourced at the point it is made, except in certain special cases, none of which apply here.

Long was a famous and notorious quack, and should be included in this list. If a source is wanted in this article, there are plenty to choose from in the article about him. —Mark Dominus (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it. it is not hard to edit Wikipedia properly; each article must be able to stand on its own, in printed or electronic form. Refs are not optional. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I see a merge proposal has been made. I Oppose this merger on the grounds that there's far too much content for one article. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Cyclical ailments and confirmation bias

This is a revert (which another editor previously also reverted when another editor had inserted it: [7]). The information may not be necessarily wrong, but it needs to be a summary of what a reliable source says. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 19:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Readded with a source. — PaleoNeonate — 19:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You think the source verifies the claim? QuackGuru (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to remove or change it if you think that it doesn't, I have only reformatted the citation. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 23:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A better idea is to find a reference on the topic and replace the paragraph with sourced content. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course (time allowing). BTW, I fail to see how full protection can help at all, especially a mere 3 days and that a conversation was finally started about the topic here (it certainly does not encourage improvements and may even seem disruptive, even you cannot edit the article meanwhile). But oh well, it also seems that noone who was adding the content participated yet... — PaleoNeonate — 02:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

See: Lack of understanding that health conditions change with no treatment and attributing changes to ailments to a therapy.

The above text is sourced. We can start over and replace the entire paragraph with the sourced content. I am focused on building sourced article content. The other content in the paragraph could all be unsourced. Protection is only 3 days. When you formatted the source others may think you checked to verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. See here. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That is short and precise (other than sourced). Well done, and thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 18:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quackery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420191809/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Gerson_Therapy.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3x_Gerson_therapy.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Miracle mineral supplement

@Rosemann: Two other sources which could potentially better support the recently added/removed material (and these do mention the name):

• Smithers, Rebecca (4 Jul 2012). "Bleach-based cure-all online remedies could kill, warns government". The Guardian.
• Robbins, Martin (15 Sep 2010). "The man who encourages the sick and dying to drink industrial bleach". The Guardian..

Since your edits have been reverted, I recommend to first discuss here and reach consensus that it can be added. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: Thanks a lot for collecting further sources. The second Guardian article I had already included as reference when I wrote the paragraph on Jim Humble. But it was removed, together with the FDA warning and the DoJ judgment by User:Escape Orbit. I find it a weired habbit by User:Escape Orbit to remove all my text within seconds, but not responding to further evidence and not participating in the talk here. User talk:Rosemann 22:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That there's quackery involved here seems pretty clear. But to reiterate what I've written here [8], if the person doesn't meet our notability requirements, he doesn't belong in the article. Rosemann has stated that "I also completely agree that he does not deserve a personal WP article" [9], which isn't the last word on the subject, but undercuts the strong desire to include mention of him here. I'm concerned that this is motivated by well-meaning advocacy. WP:WTAF--no article, no mention. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, NeilN explained that the removal of the content was appropriate [10], so it would behoove Rosemann to drop the stick against Escape Orbit. There's no conspiracy to protect Mr. Humble, but I question the push to add him here. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63:There is a certain degree of inconsistency here (on the chapter on LIVING): Andrew Wakefield was in fact (please go through his personal WP article or read the relevant articles inthe British Medical Journal) never accused or classified as an example of quackery. What he did was very "simply" scientific misconduct or fraud. He claimed to have evidence (which he did not had) of risk of MMR vaccination. There might have also been some financial conflict of interest involved. That's all serious enough to deprive him of all his medical certifications. But it is not quackery, in a strict sense. He did not proposed a "novel", non rational therapy, without scientific evidence. But this is exactly what Jim Humble is doing. He is advocating the oral consumption of an industrial bleach (as one finds in a hardware store) to cure all sorts of unrelated diseases. And it is not simply that he is still alive just as Wakefield, but in contrast to the latter there are still thousands of people following Humbles recommendations (or his pseudo-religious dogma). His webpages (http://genesis2church.is/our-church and http://jimhumble.is/) are simply Quackery prototypes. And this is what the Attorney General Lisa Madigan said, describing a case of pseudo-medical MMS prescription by saying, "You have a situation where there are people, complete quacks, that are out there promoting a very dangerous chemical being given to young children... Ingesting what amounts to a toxic chemical - bleach - is not going to cure your child." If you read the WP page on Miracle Mineral Supplement, if you read the Guardian and Independent articles about MMS (see above),and if you read Humbles websites, there is no doubt that he is the mastermind behind MMS. So why anyone should have doubts here that his name is worth to mention as present day quackery I dont understand. User talk:Rosemann 19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

89.219.119.81 (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

adding another example on "Pulvermacher's chain" can be useful, as it is an interesting case.

Particular radio hawker of questionable medical treatments missing

I noticed that a particular "doctor" who used to have a program on one leftist radio station is missing from here, a "doctor" who received his degree from an institute that since came under heavy scrutiny from the Ohio Board of Regents for lack of rigor.Dogru144 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that your quack doctor will never be listed unless somebody provides a reliable source. we need a name, please help! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of American quacks category

How is it that the category for Quacks or American Quacks has been removed? Scientifically sound criticism has been exercised in accessing the profound lack of validity of certain proponents of disreputable approaches; and the useful categories have been removed. This reflected a lack of judgment and was a partial caving under to proponents of bogus "medicine."Dogru144 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Description of Daniel David Palmer?

I think that something should be done about this sentence:

His hypothesis was disregarded by medical professionals at the time and despite a considerable following has yet to be scientifically proven.

This has two tags; 'verification needed' and 'not specific enough to verify'. Which appears to be contradictory to me, because if something is not specific enough to verify then you can't give the nessecary verification. Anyways, I do think that this description is problematic. 'Yet to be scientifically proven' creates the implication that his hypothesis of a cure-all has some merit, which it does not. Clovermoss (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Alternative medicine"

The same quackery arguments can be made against main stream medicine. --105.0.4.176 (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose so, but one would look really really hilariously funny making such an argument. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 07:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Should Stella Immanuel be added to the list of living people accused of quackery?

This past summer, Stella Immanuel famously touted hydroxychloroquine as a miracle cure for covid-19, despite having no evidence. She has been widely mocked for believing in bizarre conspiracy theories about demon sperm and alien DNA.

I'd add her myself, but I don't know how to properly format sources.

Here are two opinion articles from reputable newspapers that directly call her a quack:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/29/donald-trump-jr-demon-sperm-twitter

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article244639732.html

71.213.99.218 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Citation for statement that US courts consider accusations of quackery ≠ accusations of medical fraud

The current version of the article states the following under § Definition:

United States courts have ruled in defamation cases that accusing someone of quackery or calling a practitioner a quack is not equivalent to accusing that person of committing medical fraud. To be both quackery and fraud, the quack must know they are misrepresenting the benefits and risks of the medical services offered (instead of, for example, promoting an ineffective product they honestly believe is effective).

The claim lacks a citation to relevant case law or literature. I tried to do a search of case law from the US federal court system via LexisNexis using the search string (defame* OR libel*) AND quack* AND fraud but it didn't appear to find anything relevant to the claim. Does anyone have any authorities supporting this statement, or should it be removed? Note that the original contributor cannot explain their basis for the claim as they are currently subject to editing restrictions in this topic area.

I will notify WikiProject Law about this discussion. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 13:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@InsaneHacker: You may find this case helpful. It is not exactly on point here but similar. But it's also the only one I could find, so as to whether "courts" (plural) have said this, I don't know. Not familiar enough with standards for legal sources to add it myself, so leaving it here. Urve (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I stumbled upon that one as well, but like you said it doesn't really fit the statement. If no sources can be found I think the statement ought to be removed. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 08:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The Extraction of the Stone of Madness by Jan Sanders van Hemessen, c. 1550

The image titled "The Extraction of the Stone of Madness by Jan Sanders van Hemessen, c. 1550" may be misattributed, as the title is that of a similar work painted by Hieronymus Bosch - Cutting the Stone, which is possibly being confused with The Surgeon (painting). MrEarlGray (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

How to guard against a quack

Perhaps mention:

• Quacks often offer treatments and cures that are too good to be true
• They may say they have a secret discovery no one else knows about but others want to suppress
• They also often offer personal testimonials from happy patients, instead of hard data

[11] Jidanni (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Those criteria are pretty good. I am not sure how to add them to the article. "Distinctive marks"? "Typical properties"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Given the international epidemic of homeopathy outlined in its own article, it seems an almost intentional omission not to include this grand international movement of quackery in the article. The word homeopathy is only mentioned three time in this current article: in a list of alternative "medicines" within a quote pertaining specifically to the US; under "people accused of quackery" (without any special reference to the long legacy of homeopathy as a particularly unique survivor of the suggestions of the time i.e. why did homeopathic water-cures survive over the associated miasma hypothesis of illness?); and finally within the references.

Given that even by Wikipedia's own account homeopathy is an globally widespread phenomenon, it is an illustrative and internationally pertinent example of quakery today. It is quite possibly the prototypical example of quackery in the modern world, and it is therefore bizarre to omit it. I personally hope that the reason for the omission is simply an oversight and not an attempt to yield truth to politics or misplaced offence, since Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and a place of knowledge.

Let me know where you think this prime example fits best in the article, and let's make this notion of quackery less abstract to the reader and relate it more concretely to the phenomenon itself and to the places in which the average English speaker is likely to have encountered it!

You contradict yourself: only mentioned three time in this current article is not to omit it. Given the huge number of types of quackery out there and the fact that none of them gets its own paragraph, that should be enough.

What I find weird is that there are heaps of deceased people "accused of quackery" and exactly one living one. Is Gittleman less litigous than other living quacks? Then she should not be punished for it by singling her out as the only living person to be accused of quackery. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Medical Fraud

There has to be a medical fraud section for all the doctors who have been convicted of a crime with their patients. Dr. scott charmoli is the latest famous case that can not be listed in Wikipedia because there is no "Medical Fraud" section. Obviously only convicted doctors should be listed in this future page.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Rename article

I propose renaming the article 'Healthcare/Health Fraud' - Quackery seems a little juvenile and unintuitive for people first encountering the concept. There's likely still a place for quackery as it existed in the historical sense, although times have changed since then. What say ye?

Edit: Mainstream issues such as the Theranos scandal would be within the scope of Quackery but it would be absurd to label it as anything other than fraud.

AtFirstLight (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

"Quackery seems a little juvenile and unintuitive for people first encountering the concept" this may reflect your own first encounter with the term. Educated adults speaking English as a first language call quackery quackery.

Weasel wording plays into the hands of the quacks. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:A5EB:993:B067:B930 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)