Talk:Quackery/Archive 1

message: Going down the list, some of the entries have (at a minimum) a few solid mainstream studies showing that *some* of their claims are correct to *some* extent.  Mind you, I'm not talking about their theoretical explanation of how they're supposed to work, just the practical effects.  I would put Chiropractic, EMDR, Magnet therapy and Reflexology in this category.  I'm not sure that they should be entirely removed from the list since they are definitely controversial, but I don't think it's fair to simply describe them as quackery either.  Perhaps a subdivision to the list as "other controversial"?  Any thoughts?  I'd be happy to dig up some references if there is interest.  ObsidianOrder 4 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
:I don't think the incorporating some mainstream ideas entitles the quackery label to be removed for most of the examples, however, I understand the point you are trying to make.  The list is currently entitled "See also", but it could be changed to "Other controversial topics" or "Questionable methods" or something similar so that the reader can decide whether or not something is quackery after reading more about it.  I did change "Eye related quackery" to "Eye related". Edwardian 4 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)
Chiropractic and the others definitely deserve listing.  In fact, a lot more could be added with reference to wiki articles: acupuncture, applied kinesiology, and naturopathy to name a few.  JM
::I strongly disagree that Chiropractic should be included in this Quackery category. Chiropractic is backed by proven science. Levine2112 03:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on what you consider "proven science," because I don't believe that it's backed by any science other than pseudoscience. --CDN99 14:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of scientific articles referenced in this discussion. They are experiments conducted following the scientific method. Control groups, placebos, random sampling and what-not. This is science. Not magic. Not a religion. Not pseudoscience. Science. Levine2112 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on what kind of chiropractor. The reformist chiropractors who acknowledge chiropractic to only address musculoskeletal issues do practice evidence based chiropractic. They disavoy the claims of their brethren.--DocJohnny 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. YOu are still ignoring the research that demonstrates chiropractic's effectiveness in promoting general health. Check the links on this page. Levine2112 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I respect the reform movement in chiropractic, as all medical practitioners should. I think they practice effective evidence based treatments. If you actually have any studies that prove chiropractic is "effective in promoting general health" other than in improving musculoskeletal function, please share. I am sure the reformist chiropractors would love to hear it. Which links should I look at? I don't see any research revealing this effectiveness. And you have? If you have, point them out in pubmed. Regardless, the fact remains that some chiropractors have been and still are involved in well known quackery as I mentioned above.--DocJohnny 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's some research that a quick Google search uncovered: Chiropractic manipulation affects the difference between arterial systolic blood pressures on the left and right in normotensive subjects.. Oh and here's something else: Surrogate Indication of DNA Repair in Serum After Long Term Chiropractic Intervention – A Retrospective Study Do you want more? Oh, and I read this. You said: "A little perspective on pseudoscience and origins. For what it's worth, keep in mind that at the time of the founding of osteopathy, scientific medicine had not quite developed yet. There were no vaccines, no antibiotics. Phlebotomy was still practiced by MD's therapeutically. So it was pseudoscience vs. pseudoscience." Isn't it fair to consider that if MD were practicing what you call "pseudoscience" then and now they are not, then the same could hold true for chiropractors? Oh, and yes some chiropractors may practice what you deem quackery, but the same can be said about MDs. You know, I was sick last year and because of insurance reasons I had to go to an internist. First, he determined that I didn't have a bacterial infection but then prescribed antibiotics nonetheless. Quack! Then he told me that my electrolytes were low and that I should be drinking Coke. Quack! Quack! I told the doctor about SmartWater, a water that can be bought in most grocery stores that has salts added for electrolytes. He said that if he told his patients to drink that, they wouldn't follow his advice. Come on! What a quack! Oh, an incidentally, after the required visit to the MD, I went to my chiropractor and what do you know? I was better the next day. Hmm. Funny how that always seems to work for me. Levine2112 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of your articles come close to proving chiropractic improves general health. And as for your quote of my post on someone else's talk page? Of course some chiropractors are no longer practicing pseudoscience. We call them reformists. They even have an [association. As for MD's practicing quackery, we know some do. Attacking MD's is not a defense of chiropractic.  --DocJohnny 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is, there is scientific research supports the claim that chiropractic promotes general health. I have presented only a fraction of it. Please check Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research for more and more peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC research. Science, not fantasy. Not magic. Not religion. And certainly not quackery. Levine2112 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And your examples were of 1) affecting blood pressure for an unspecified time period, which does not necessarily correlate with health and 2) an unproven blood test. There are good evidence based chiropractors out there. That doesn't change the proveable fact that a lot of them are engaged in quackery. --DocJohnny 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we can reach a reasonable understanding. I think the article just needs to be made NPOV, even if there is some sort of official source that considers something a quakcery we should say "Acording to [insert official source here] [insert name of quackery] is considered to be a quackery." Or something else to that effect. My main concern is according to *who*?  Virtually every source will be opionated, that is my problem with this article. --Ariadoss 09:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I have stated earlier, if anyone is arguing for removing the "See also" section entirely as POV, perhaps that should be discussed. --DocJohnny 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Remove the "See Also" section. And remove any reference to an existing profession from the body of the article as well. As "Quackery" is an aspersion, anything associated with it will consider the association an attack... will consider it unfair... will consider biased. This would be like creating an article called "Idiot" and putting "George W. Bush" and "Dan Quayle" in there. This is all just opinion and conjecture. I would even got so far as saying that the "Quackery" article is inherently a bad article because it leads to juvenile finger-pointing and name-calling. But if it must remain, it should only provide a definition of the word and the history behind it, making no reference to opinions of what some people think is quackery. I think everything there is could be and probably is considered quackery by at least one person in the world. All religions, all political parties, all diets, and yes all healthcare. Show me a belief and I'm sure we can find people who hold that belief to be nonsense. Associating professions with quackery, or making quackery a category with professional subcategories beneath it will only lead to an endless cycle of NPOV disputes (as demonstrated here in this discussion about chiropractic). I propose that we strip down this article to the bare minimum. Define the word. Give it some background. Then move on. Clearly, this article was only created to promote hatred (and that it is doing). The same goes for "Pseudoscience". The term is inherently an attack. It's a biased, opinionate label that is just plain slanderous. It is calling something "fake science". Again, it's like having a category called "Bad" and putting all the things that you think are bad in there. It's all opinion and conjecture and there's no way of controlling NPOV. Levine2112 20:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the article should be written more like a definition to maintain objectivity. Some of these things labelled as Quakery are not researched thuroughly enough, for example now Chiropractors are considered legal Doctors when before they were not.  Also, anyone can argue the placebo effect (another article with POV issues) even for conventional medicine.--Ariadoss 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  do some entries belong? 

message: I just want to get some discussion about the definition, which I don't think is really well covered in the article.  Perhaps armed with that we can better determine what belongs or doesn't.  From several dictionary definitions, it seems to me that there are two components to something being quackery: (1) it is not effective as a medical treatment and (2) it is falsely represented as effective.  Specifically, the definitions I'm working from are:
* "Deliberate misrepresentation of the ability of a substance or device for the prevention or treatment of disease" CancerWeb
* "a pretender to medical skill; of, relating to, or characteristic of a quack; especially : pretending to cure diseases" Merriam-Webster
* "An untrained person who pretends to be a physician and dispenses medical advice and treatment.;  A charlatan; a mountebank." American Heritage
None of the definitions in any way depend on the theory behind a treatment (e.g. whether it is correct, scientific or supported by evidence), or whether the practitioner believes the treatment to be effective (except the first one which says "deliberate");  they only depend on the treatment's actual effectiveness.
Moreover, it is not reasonable to expect that any treatment be effective 100% of the time; therefore to be a "misrepresentation of effectiveness" a supposed quackery practice has to either be very close in effectiveness to placebo, and/or its claimed effectiveness has to be very different from its actual effectiveness, and/or it has to be represented as an equally effective alternative to a treatment which is in fact substantially more effective.
Does that sound like a reasonable definition?
ObsidianOrder 01:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JM - "chiropractic has not been demonstrated effective" and "claims of efficacy for acupuncture are shaky" - you are simply wrong.  Please read up on this (PubMed links: chiropractic - 3300 articles, acupuncture - 9700 articles) before making such claims.  They are not effective for everything that is claimed, and perhaps not as effective in general as some people claim, but they are very effective for some conditions based on considerable peer-reviewed research (which you can find in PubMed, for example).   ObsidianOrder 23:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: JM - yes, I have indeed read a number of these articles.  You're right that it is not the article numbers alone.  You may not like studies published in "Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi" but I wonder what your objection would be to ones in "Pain" (e.g.   ) . "Anaesthesia" (), "Anesthesiology" (), all highly reputable journals?  (There are lots more, I'm just picking a few to illustrate here).  I don't know what you have examined, because you haven't cited anything specific, you're just throwing around wild accusations.  How do you know who the peer reviewers are anyway?  (That is generally kept secret by journals.) Also, the opposite of quackery is not "mainstream", it is "effective".  Whether something is widely used and accepted has no bearing on whether it is quackery or not.  ObsidianOrder 23:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "are you able to evaluate them?" - yes, as it happens I can.  "I can judge the quality of the reviewers who approve the articles" - only if you've read them, which I don't think you have.  "How many of those have been adequately established as effective?" - 20-100 depending on your definition of "adequately". However that is for modern studies only; the people who originally discovered these points were (naive) empiricists who kept extensive records, going back a thousand years or so.  Traditionally there are only ~400 points, by the way.  "sophistry of the "research."" - sophistry of your continued wild accusations, perhaps.  You still have to cite a single specific study.  Let me help you out there:  Acupuncture. NIH Consensus Statement 1997 Nov 3-5; 15(5):1-34 (see the bibliography); and  Acupuncture: Review And Analysis Of Reports On Controlled Clinical Trials, World Health Organization, 2002.   ObsidianOrder 11:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "widely castigated by real health professionals" - apparently the definition of a quack is "anyone that JM disagrees with".  "I cannot prove the negative" - you can start by offering a detailed critique of one of the studies i cited, for example.  "You have been challenged to show the positive" - and I have produced a very large body of evidence that shows that.  "make the same claims as acupuncturists" - irrelevant to acupuncture itself.  "Is there anything imaginable that does not work" - since how acupuncture works is not well understood, there is no a priori reason to assume anything else will not work.  any such claims can be tested (and sometimes they have been), and discussed on their own merits.  "200 years ago all healthcare was quackery" - riiight.  which is why now we look for new drugs isolated from traditional herbal remedies.  you may note that there is excellent correlation between what herbs were traditionally thought to be good for and what we think they are good for based on their chemical composition today (in cases where we know what the components are and what they do).  you may remember what the traditional remedy for headache was (hint: you probably have some in your medicine cabinet).  "expected lifespan (35 years)" - that is a misleading average produced by very high infant and early childhood mortality.  the upper quartile was not that different from today's, for example.   "Acupuncture and homeopathy" - apples and oranges.  one is supported by tons of evidence, the other by next to none.  "all of AM should be labeled quackery" - if mainstream medicine were actually willing to use techniques from AM that work, there would be no need for AM.  however often they are not, regardless of the evidence, and so we have the current situation.  AM is medicine that works but mainstream medicine stubbornly refuses to acknowledge, plus a number of frauds.  ObsidianOrder 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: JM - i have produced hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in reputable publications; you have yet to cite a single specific piece of evidence.  obviously you believe what you believe for reasons that don't have anything to do with the facts.  further conversation on this basis is pointless.  ObsidianOrder 01:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: It is very intereting to see what is labeled as a quackery. Some mainstream providers use their power of being mainstream to label with "Quackery" many treatments that are far more efficient. For all of those that label acupuncture, homeopathy, herbalisam and many other great therapies as quackery, I would love to chellenge them to provide a nice label for the fact that  "Orthodox therapies now kill over 250,000 hospital patients a year, ranking 3rd as a leading cause of death in the U.S." What is a quackery nowdays? 
Here is some interesting reading for those that are quackery labelers
http://drtong.com/problem.html
www.mercola.com/2004/jul/7/healthcare_death.htm  
Enjoy your reading
Karen Lee
*Actually, the claim that "orthodox therapies now kill over 250,000 hospital patients a year" is not a fact. That smug claim has spread like a virus from one alternative medicine website to another (as demonstrated above), but its origins are merely a context-dropping distortion of figures cited in Dr. Barabara Starfield's commentary in JAMA, "Is US Health Really the Best in the World" in which she estimates that there are "225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes". Although that terrible figure indicates much needs to be done to improve healthcare in the United States, those who toss it around without full understanding should realize that "orthodox therapies" and "iatrogenic causes" are not one and the same. Edwardian 20:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  that was 780,000 allopathic iatrogenic deaths by that article, and 120,000 is the lowest I have come across. You only have to ask how many would be killed by Naturopathic herbalism, or Orthomolecular medicine (a proven replacement for drug medicine)---a handful or none from a proper qualified doctor of those therapies.  And when you know cancer chemo is only effective for 5% of patients but given to 50%, you don't have to be a genius to do the maths.  john 19:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edwardian - I understand your point that iatrogenic causes is not literally the same as "orthodox therapies", but I'm not sure why the distinction is significant.  Perhaps you can elaborate?  One of the key elements of the definition of quackery is misrepresentation. Do "orthodox therapies" misrepresent their risks?  Arguably, in light of that number, yes.  ObsidianOrder 23:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding: "I understand your point that iatrogenic causes is not literally the same as 'orthodox therapies', but I'm not sure why the distinction is significant.  Perhaps you can elaborate?" The distinction is very significant because of this: "Orthodox therapies now kill over 250,000 hospital patients a year" implies that the deaths are primarily due to the proper adminstration of those therapies, whereas "225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes" implies that the deaths are primarily due to other factors including errors or the improper administration of those therapies. Regarding: "One of the key elements of the definition of quackery is misrepresentation. Do 'orthodox therapies' misrepresent their risks?  Arguably, in light of that number, yes." Are you able to offer specific evidence to support that claim because I don't interpret those numbers the same way? Risk need not be misrepresented for an iatrogenic injury or death to occur. If patients are being lied to about the efficacy or risks of a specific therapy, perhaps it should be listed in this article. Edwardian 05:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply, I see what you mean.  I guess it depends on how much of that total comes from proper administration and how much from improper, doesn't it?  I would also argue that even if most of this comes from improper treatment, a certain level of human error (and treatment that can be seen as improper only in hindsight) is inevitable, but how serious the results of such errors are depends to some extent on whether that treatment is inherently risky or prone to risky mistakes.  "specific evidence" - I'll dig for that when I have some free time.  I do remember a study that correlated several statistics with negative iatrogenic results and also with overall outcomes - the conclusion was that there is an optimum level of treatment (i.e. length of hospital stay, volume of drug prescriptions) that maximizes positive effects but minimizes iatrogenic negative effects, and that level is considerably lower than the typical level in most areas in the US.  I'll see if I can find that study.  ObsidianOrder 07:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Give the naturopath some credit first. Allow the profession the respect it deserves. Accredidate universities that teach it. Allow it to be recognized federally, licensed and sanctioned. Allow insurance companies to pay for homeopathic treatments. Call it medicine, not quackery. After that, you can put it on the same legal ballpark as an MD. Levine2112 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iatrogenic deaths

message: The introductory sentence is illogical:
:Quackery, is the practice of producing medicine which may lack any commonly respected evidence of their effectiveness.
If that's the true definition, then "Homeopathy is quackery" is true and NPOV! Using the definition above, "Homeopathy is quackery" translates to "Homeopathy may lack any commonly respected evidence of their effectiveness", which is true and NPOV. QED.
But this is backwards. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Does not the "maybe" or the "scientists think" part belong in the connection between treatments and quackery, instead of the quackery definition? Like this:
:Quackery, is the practice of producing medicine which lacks any evidence of effectiveness.
:Homeopathy is held to be quackery by most scientists.
This article is about quackery! It's about something that does not have an effect beyond placebo! There is no question of whether quackery works. The question is whether the label "quackery" is applicable to something.
I'll change the sentence. --Hob Gadling 09:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition?

message: Followers of this kind of topic might like to check put Max Gerson and Gerson therapy. I don't know enough about the topic to edit them, but I can see at least that they're blatantly POV, being primarily written by a proponent of the therapy. Tearlach 13:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least he knows what he is talking about, Gerson was curing 50% of terminal cancers according to the research available.  To call Gerson a quack is to buy into the Medical Industry propaganda.  john 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A naturopath did a followup study on people who received this miracle 50% cure. At 5 years, out of 21 patients, only 1 was alive and the survivor still had cancer. Austin S, Dale EB, DeKadt S. Long-term follow-up of cancer patients using Contreras, Hoxsey and Gerson therapies. Journal of Naturopathic Medicine 5(1):74-76, 1994.--DocJohnny 20:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gerson

message: Is there any use in adding the example of laetrile (sp?)?  That immediately comes to mind when I think of quackery.  jgwlaw 03:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed. In fact, the whole Mexican quack clinics thing could also be dealt with. -- Fyslee 04:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not very knowledgeable about this.  Perhaps you, or someone more familiar with all this, could help add this?  I only know generally about the bogus cancer 'treatment' laetrile and how people flocked to it out of desperation, risking their lives.  I really don't know any more than that, about the Mexican quack clinics etc.  jawesq 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an article on laetrile at Quackwatch.org that looks interesting. I also found a page from National Cancer Institute on it.  I added an external link to the NCI page, since Quackwatch is already referenced.  The NCI article is interesting.  It appears that very little study was done on this drug, and what clinical studies were done did not have a control group!  This is bizarre.  One would think that a proper study would have been done on this - I assumed it had, and found laetrile ineffective.  Of course, it was never shown to be effective, either.jawesq 02:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo! You've pointed out the key issue - the burden of proof is on the claimant. Skeptics and scientists are under no burden to prove Laetrile (or any other method or claim) ineffective. Its proponents just have to prove it works and it'll get accepted. It's a matter of risk/benefit ratio. -- Fyslee 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly true in a court.  And, it is true with the FDA, as well - for approval, the drug/product/device must be proven safe and effective, not the converse.  The problem with this, then, gets into funding and who is willing to fund research.  Generally, it is manufacturers who stand to make a profit (patent) such products.  Recent articles in the New York Times have discussed various conflicts of interest that government scientists have had, as well.  And that is a problem.  But that is another discussion.jawesq 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: "Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe the unethical practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis"; Definition on top of page, this is what the header proves. I'll continue to put it there because is seems the attributers on this page take the right
to criticize every alternative health subject, but seem intolerant of critics when "science" is criticized.  Again unless there is some acknowleddgement of this FACT, I'll put it there without discussion.  --Homy 07:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the section "When mainstream medicines becomes quackery" as frank disinformation. DMP is not relevant to quackery, this doesn't refer to any medicine or treatment but to the efficiency of a delivery system. The section on antidepressants starts with a wholly false (and potentially dangerously irresponsible) assertion that "In general antidepressants fail to give meaningful advantages." supported by a non-peer reviewed non RS source. Disputes about the relative efficacy of some medicines do not make these quack remedies; medicines are regularly replaced as more effective specific treatments are introduced; their introduction is carefully regulated and they are evaluated on the basis of controlled trials. Gleng 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that Homy misunderstands the subject at hand. Scientific disputes and uncertainties, the failings of physicians, malpractice, substandard practice, etc.., are not themselves quackery, although they may lend themselves to it and often are involved in it. They are important concerns, just as iatrogenesis is a legitimate concern. They can be described in detail in appropriate articles, but they aren't quackery. -- Fyslee 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main stream medicines is quackery

message: The definitions provided by online dictionaries are actually very good and have the advantage of being independant sources. More NPOV. NATTO 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of quackery and quack 

message: I placed the factual accuracy on this article because as I look through other sources for this information, I do seem to get the impression that we may be going over the top relying on Barrett as the expert on quackery for a term that has been around since at least the 18th century.  Maybe we should get some other sources for some of this information to get a more objective view of this concept. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some changes mostly to format and structure to make this flow better (I hope).  The sections starting a Quackery Today are probably going to need some extensive rewrite and I see a lot of  notations.  I will look through them and see what I can find, but if it is something that you really want in, maybe a source would be nice to have real soon.  Otherwise, I'm going to try and do a major overhaul to clean it up after lunch (for me:) -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, went through Quackery today section.  Lots of POV stuff was here (both ways), but I think I got the jist of it.  I have ignored specific claims against specific products, groups, etc., mostly because I don't think they added any real value for the reader and only seemed to be one sided arguments that were obvious and covered in the more general statements. Let me know what you think.  Work on the next section later, unless someone wants me to stop. -- Dēmatt (chat) 18:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I basically cleaned all of the Quackery defintion section out less one sentence, which was mostly because it was all apparently added piecemeal without references.  I was concerned about verifiability of the info, being POVish and all. Hope ya like it! I will remove the tag now. -- Dēmatt (chat) 19:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work. I think the last part would be cleaning up the external links section to only list highly reliable and quackery relevant resources. I'm sure that will be a discussion first though. Levine2112 19:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy tag placed 

message: "White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy" was the Commission extended in 2002 or allowed to lapse.  In either case, what was the result(s) of the Commission relating to Quackery?  Shot info 05:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm struggling with this one, too.  I think the commission continues.  I'm pretty sure there is controversy surrounding it, too.  But don't know any real details.  Is this the one that Dr Kats Dr. Katz was made a part of? Nope, he's not on any of the lists. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this though. I'll see if it says anything we can use. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the executive summary.  It is pretty long and talks about all the aspects of safety, need for research, need to define each CAM according to safety and effectiveness (quit using blanket CAM for all methods), need for education, need to include in insurance programs, etc.  Pretty comprehensive. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read what you wrote here, something inside said Bingo ... I believe you've hit the nail on the head. What insurers pay for ... and do not, is a multi-billion dollar a year business. They have a lot to lose by accepting many of the treatments (mis)labeled quackery. I know, for example, many people who feel their lives have been enriched and lengthened by chelation ... one of the targets of the Barrett's various operations. His teams (mis) label CAM "SCAM" and have filled various internet medium with this campaign. Thanks for edifying what the Commission wrote. Ilena 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edit

message: I notice that in the "Reasons quackery persists" heading, both "Placebo" and "Placebo Effect" are included. Perhaps I don't understand the difference between the two, but it seems rather redundant.Siroo 22:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repititiously redundant. lol. Good catch. Thank you. Ilena 22:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that I reinserted it.  The anon who deleted it seemed to be vandalising, but I see I was wrong.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Placebo" and "Placebo Effect"

message: Hello all. I havn't added or restored it, but I think the link to Bob McCoy's quackery museum increases the interest level of the article. It does show quite a few concrete examples of quackery in an interesting way and I believe anyone interested in knowing more about quackery would probably like to visit the museum. Its also worth knowing that there are such museums of quackery.  I believe the museum or exhibition is of a standard acceptable to an encyclopedia. In fact judging by the exhibits, it seems the expertise level is high and the exhibits and information are of encyclopedic standards. Here are the links for your perusal. It may even be worth describing it briefly within the article rather than just having a link, together with any other museums of quackery that may exist. . Docleaf 02:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Museum of quackery link

message: In a historical section the UK quack Samuel Solomon with his 
"balm of gilead" should be added. This is one ref:  maybe there are other refs that are better. MaxPont 21:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add historical quacks 

message: Adding a discipline or group of disciplines to the See Also list seems to implicate the discipline or group as "Quackery". We are dealing with a major perjorative here. We should exercise some restraint here. Let's handle this one with white-gloves and try our best to avoid an NPOV situation. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree (and I don't know why this edit didn't show up on my watch list).  It seems to me that we can say that alternative medicine attracts quacks without implying that all (or even most) alternative medicine practitioners are quacks.  Perhaps that should lie in the body of the article rather than as a "see also", though.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can say that Alternative Medicine attacts more quacks than Mainstream Medicine. Don't forget, quackery just means a pretender of medical skill. People can pretend skills in all sorts of medicines - traditional, mainstream, folk, alternative, et cetera. ARe we to list all of these here as well? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm.  Could we say (if we could find a source) that fields of medicine without recognized standards attract quacks?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable and verifiable source, you can say just about anything. Right? But it still doesn't get us out of the NPOV issue created by inserting "Alternative Medicine" blanketly into the "see also" section. This seems to equate the two. Make sense? -- Levine2112 discuss 00:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps so.  But evidence-based medicine can include quackery if the evidence or studies are fudged; the implication in the See Also section is that that is less likely to contain quackery, isn't it?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't thought about that, but I see your point. A quack is a pretender of medical skill. Quackery when applied to awhole field who thus be a discipline which pretends to have medical skill. So if the "evididence" in an EBM was fudged, then certainly there is room for quackery. I guess I was thinking of EBM not as a displine but rather a description. My mind is reeling. What are your thoughts? -- Levine2112 discuss 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While I don't agree with your definition of "Alternative Medicine" (and won't get into that here), I do think the edit you've given is probably the most NPOV way of handling things. It seems obvious that someone reading through this article would benefit on links simply to medecine, and this covers all the bases. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I'm not sure why this should be here. As far as I can guess, Scientology claims that psychiatrists are quacks. I would expect to see some reliably sourced statements about this Scientology vs psychiatry dispute in the main body of the text before including Scientology in the See Also section. The reason medicine/alternative medicine/evidence-based medicine are there is because they are discussed in the main text. 62.31.67.29 13:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the purpose of the See Also section is to link to subjects which are related but weren't mentioned in the main text. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you would agree that the entries in See Also have to bear some relation to the current topic. As can be seen in the section above about Medicine/Alternative Medicine/EBM, see-also entries which aren't obviously and self-evidently related to the topic need a little clarification or explanation, and I think this is best placed in the main text. 62.31.67.29 13:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology in the See Also section 

message: It has been argued that David Colquhoun's blog is okay for an external link per WP:EL because David Colquhoun is a professor of high reputation. However, per WP:EL, it says that this "blog" exception is made for recognized authorities in related field. Colquhoun was a professor at UCL's now defunct school of pharmacology. How do we know that he is a recognized authority in the subject at hand though: Quackery? -- Levine2112 discuss 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to remove the external link until someone can help establish that Colquhoun is a recognized quackery authority. However, I do look forward to discussing this further if someone can provide such information. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The evidence is all over the source. Good references, very well versed science view, Royal Society member etc.Spoctacle 07:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Colquhoun external link 

message: I have removed a reference to a source that is unreliable for a number of reasons:
a. The author is pseudonymous ("Anthony di Fabio" is the pen name of a science fiction writer). Thus it fails WP:V.
b. The author openly states in his writings that "I have not verified most of the materials referenced." Thus he fails as a WP:RS.
The author is known to write without regard for whether what he writes is true or not, often repeating lies and libelous assertions about individuals in his conspiracy theories. This attitude and carelessness with fact checking (lack of!) renders him a very bad source to use. We aren't in the business of simply repeating attacks here. This is not tabloid journalism. Fortunately there is still a source left to back up the statement in the article. -- Fyslee / talk 20:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source removed 

message: Quackery was derived from the German word quecksalber.  It came about in reference to the common medieval practice of using mercury (quecksilber) in topical healing unguents (salbe), particularly as a treatment for the widespread difficulties related to syphilis.  It was a popular and fairly simple remedy that could be easily applied by practitioners of little or no medical skill, which explains the connection to those with a lack of formal medical education.  
This has been documented in medical literature from as far back as the 1860's.
For instance: 
Untersuchungen über den constitutionellen Mercurialismus und sein Verhältniss zur constitutionellen Syphilis
Dr. Adolf Kussmaul, 1861
And a more recent example can be found in: 
SYPHILIS:Is it a Mischievous Myth or a Malignant Monster? 
Dr. H.M. Shelton, 1962
So, what I wanna know is whether or not the author(s) of this article have a reference that pre-dates 1861?  Let alone a reference prior to 1861 that was written in the language of origin?  And, if there is no reference prior to 1861, shouldn't the article be seriously revised?
pixiequix (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Different Perspective  

message: Whatever you may think of homeopathy he was a physician that did no harm to his patients unlike the people who called him a quack in his day. I think his inclusion here should be reconsidered. —Whig (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Homeopathy and Reiki are usually considered the most evidence-free and improbable of the major types of alternate medicine.  As such, it would be strange not to discuss at least homeopathy here. (Reiki has a very short history in the west) Adam Cuerden talk 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you would like to add some modern practitioner of homeopathy you consider a quack. However, that does not mean Samuel Hahnemann was a quack. Reiki is not relevant to this. —Whig (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to point out again that even if Hahnemann was wrong that does not make him a quack. His contemporaries were much more quackish, using calomel and bloodletting to cure disease. —Whig (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've done as you asked and checked out the entry on Samuel Hahnemann.  I still don't see the POV being pushed.  The fact that some of his accusers were "much more quackish" then him is a non issue.  Also this article does not exist to list people in order of who is more "quackish".  Think of it this way, if a serial rapist calls a bank robber a criminal, the fact that the serial rapist is "more of a criminal" then the bank robber doesn't mean the serial rapist's description of the bank robber is inaccurate.  They're both still criminals.  Do you see the error in your logic?  I also noticed you made a suggestion to add some modern practitioner of homeopathy I consider a quack.  Firsty, Hahnemann is not on the list because we consider him a quack, he's on the list because he is an example of someone that has been accused of quackery and there are reliable sources to back that up.  Also, the fact that some of the accusations were made 200 years ago is also irrelevant.  This opinion of him is still held by modern practitioners of medicine as well.  His entry notes "Hahnemann believed that all diseases were caused by psora (itch), and that illnesses could be treated by substances that in a healthy person produced similar symptoms to the illness, in extremely low concentrations, with the therapeutic effect increasing with dilution."  This belief is just as flawed now as it was 200 years ago.  Secondly, adding a modern practitioner would run into problems with WP:BLP.  The entire article exists to define quackery.  Quackery does exist and is notable.  The list in this article serves to give some examples to further help the reader understand what is meant by the definition and descriptions in the article using historically notable figures.  IMO you are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the polices on NPOV and neutrality. Elhector (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel Hahnemann 

message: Mesmer might fit better in the new section, though he wasn't entirely right, of course. Adam Cuerden talk 13:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the qualification for not being called a quack to be entirely right? Because nobody writing a hundred years or more ago about medicine or any scientific subject was entirely right from today's perspective, and nobody writing today is entirely right from the perspective of a hundred years from now. Accusations of quackery should be based on fraudulent medicine. —Whig (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesmer 

message: I think this might be appropriate for AfD. —Whig (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to completely disagree with you on this but If you feel that way you should nominate it.  Can I ask why you believe this article should be deleted? Elhector (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please list your complaints with the article.  Coming here and saying you think the article is appropriate for AfD and then placing a cleanup tag at the top of the article doesn't really help anything if don't actually let everyone know what exactly you believe is wrong with the article. How do we work to fix something when we don't know where it's broke? Elhector (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)I'd rather discuss before nominating. Perhaps I am unfamiliar with the reasons it should be kept and there is no reason to go seeking outside opinions. Your suggestion to strip out the list of historical "quacks" may resolve much of the problem but it seems inherently POV to say who is or who is not a quack at any time past or present, and moreover what is or is not quackery. It's just a term of derision, like having an article called Hucksters. —Whig (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to take a look at some of the other discussions on this talk page.  The term "Quack" has a very clear cut definition and is used regularly in the medical field and also the legal field.  Also, the section you're talking about is called "Notable people accused of quackery".  The article isn't calling anyone quacks, just showing people who have been accussed of it and why in the past.  I will agree with you that the section is too long.  Should be 3-4 examples tops.  But otherwise the article is well written, NPOV, and well sourced IMO.  I don't know that we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because one section is a little bigger than it needs to be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhector (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't agree, Elhector. But rather than arguing with you I'd like to get more opinions. Perhaps I will nominate it for AfD. —Whig (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't really looking to argue.  I was actually trying to explain to you why nominating it for AfD was a bad idea.  I think you're aware of that now though. Elhector (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable, POV article 

message: A request has been made at the Reliable Sources noticeboard seeking editors' opinions. —Whig (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of the sources originally raised in this notice have now been removed and replaced with new sources. One of those sources is substantially the same (and is precisely the same relevant text) as one of the sources that was removed. Another is completely new and will have to be evaluated in depth, but as long as the inaccurate description of homeopathy is removed (and readers can see the homeopathy article if they wish), it may be satisfactory. —Whig (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The inaccurate statement of homeopathy has been restored. Nobody claims that potency increases with dilution without succussion. A fuller description of the method of potentization would be necessary to correct this statement. —Whig (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you have to be joking. So you deleted an entire description over pedanticism? Adam Cuerden talk 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inaccuracy, Adam. Without succussion homeopathic dynamization does not occur. Whether it occurs at all is another question and I know that you doubt it, but that is not relevant to this article. —Whig (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is also inadequate to say that he believed all diseases were caused by psora (itch). To explain his theory of miasms would be complex here, and it would be more clear to paraphrase as "inflammation" instead of "psora (itch)". However that is hard to do with primary sources, as you know. It is the language that modern writers use however. —Whig (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's reasonable to correct it, but you didn't have to delete the whole sentence when you could have easily fixed it. Adam Cuerden talk 22:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to WP:SYNTH. Anyhow, I'm glad we're working constructively together now. —Whig (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, you've definitely got the priorities reversed. Homeopathy is first and foremost the treatment with the substance causing similar symptoms. —Whig (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reordered them. I believe the second sentence can simply come out unless it is substantially reworded to not confuse readers with strange terms and concepts they can't be expected to understand. —Whig (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit was reverted by Orangemarlin. I have given my reasoning above. I ask Orangemarlin to justify here why he/she thinks my edit was a violation of NPOV. —Whig (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RSN 

message: This section seems to be original research and has been tagged previously as requiring sources.   I removed the entire section as it also seems whiny, tendentious and weakly argued.  For example, it omits the obvious primary reason for quackery to persist - economic interest, i.e. money.
Another editor reverted my cleanup and asks that we discuss the matter here.  So here we are.
Colonel Warden (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit shouldn't have been reverted. Unsourced material is supposed to be removed from articles. Rray (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted this material again, as it remains unsourced. It should not be re-added to the article unless it includes references to reliable sources. (Although I would support its reinclusion if sources were added.) Rray (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't have a problem with it except it's not sourced, wouldn't it make more sense to tag it, find sources, and add it instead of just removing the whole section? Elhector (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I'm not interested in it enough to find sources for it. It's the responsibility of the person adding the material to the article to provide sourcing anyway. Unsourced material isn't supposed to be added in the first place, and deleting unsourced material is entirely appropriate. Re-adding it is appropriate too, if you add sources when you re-add it. Rray (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons quackery persists 

message: This is a quick poll to see who believes this tag should remain on the article.  I don't want to remove the tag without consensus first.  Please vote by signing below.
I believe this article is not neutral and the tag should stay:
* —Whig (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made a recent edit to the article that may address your concerns. Elhector (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I would like to give it a day and see if it sticks. Generally though, I like your boldness! -- Levine2112 discuss 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you be specific and help me understand where you are coming from? -- Levine2112 discuss 03:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article seems to suffer from being a battleground between proponents of alternative medicine and activist sceptics - it is tagged by a project for each.  The latter seem to push the examples of quackery further than seems wise.  The long list of examples at the end seems quite tendentious.  This includes items which seem quite irrelevant such as bigfoot and other topics such as cryonics which seem to be just unorthodox rather than quackery.  My impression is that the sceptics are overdoing it and this is giving the article an unnecessary POV tone.  Since the article is not trying to be a comprehensive list of every type of quackery, it would be better to stick to the most egregious examples which, would, I hope, not be contested.  If the article does continue to go after all types of unorthodox medicine then the article should be more even-handed by saying more about controversial aspects of orthodox medicine which some might characterise as quackery too - Psychiatry, Statins, HRT, MRSA etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I see your point and would have to agree that the list at the bottom should be removed or pruned in order to satisfy NPOV. I am going to reinstate the tag which I believe was prematurely removed. This is a straw poll not a vote. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have addressed my objections with some edits, as discussed below.  The current version seems adequately NPOV now so the tag can go AFAIC.  Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you mind doing something similar to what Levine2112 did and move you're vote to the other section?  I think that would be easier for the purposes of keeping track of where everyone stands on this issue :-) Elhector (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that my NPOV concerns are still not addressed and may take time for resolution since we are waiting on comments at RS/N. I don't think this tag should be removed until there is a consensus to do so. —Whig (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand.  I'm not suggesting we remove the tag yet, I'm simply asking Colonel Warden if he would like to refactor his vote since he has stated his concerns have been addressed.  You're vote is still duly noted above :-) Elhector (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see nothing inherently wrong with having a list of related concepts in an article. If specific related concepts aren't really related, then that should be addressed, but just having a list of related concepts doesn't make the article not NPOV. Naming specific people, professions, and/or organizations is perfectly appropriate as long as they're being named accurately. Rray (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I hadn't really looked at that thing, I rarely pay attention to those footer templates.  You guys are right though, that's not even really any sort of template.  And there is a lot of non-related things on there.  Magnetism theory, that's a prime example.  It's ok if we cite sources calling it quackery, but for a template to give that impression is a really bad idea.  That's kind of like Wikipedia itself declaring it quackery which is just bound to start POV arguments.  And then there's things like crop circles, big foot, and feng shui in there. How are those in any way related to quackery? Yes they're probably all crap too, but I fail to see how they're related.  That thing at the bottom doesn't really do the article any good in my opinion. Elhector (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad you agree.  I wasn't too sure what all that stuff was technically but now we've established that it's just a rambling list in a deceptive format, I have removed it and put the relevant blue links into See also and Anti-Quackery organizations, which were already duplicating some of the entries.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's cut all the non-medical things, then try to source the rest. Adam Cuerden talk 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be a good start! -- Levine2112 discuss 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed tag straw poll 

message: Per Colonel Warden's grievance above, the section at the bottom of this article entitled "List of quackery related concepts" may prevent this article from being NPOV (and thus hinders us from removing the NPOV banner at the top). This section at the bottom seems like it is a project or category template by the appearance of it; however, it is not. It exists (as near as I can tell) only on this page. To keep this article neutral, we should not use it as a platform to name or associate specific people, professions or organizations with the topic of Quackery. Remove this section at the bottom of the article, and you have my vote to remove the NPOV banner at the top. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing inherently wrong with having a list of related concepts in an article. If specific related concepts aren't really related, then that should be addressed, but just having a list of related concepts doesn't make the article not NPOV. Naming specific people, professions, and/or organizations is perfectly appropriate as long as they're being named accurately. Rray (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I hadn't really looked at that thing, I rarely pay attention to those footer templates.  You guys are right though, that's not even really any sort of template.  And there is a lot of non-related things on there.  Magnetism theory, that's a prime example.  It's ok if we cite sources calling it quackery, but for a template to give that impression is a really bad idea.  That's kind of like Wikipedia itself declaring it quackery which is just bound to start POV arguments.  And then there's things like crop circles, big foot, and feng shui in there. How are those in any way related to quackery? Yes they're probably all crap too, but I fail to see how they're related.  That thing at the bottom doesn't really do the article any good in my opinion. Elhector (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Glad you agree.  I wasn't too sure what all that stuff was technically but now we've established that it's just a rambling list in a deceptive format, I have removed it and put the relevant blue links into See also and Anti-Quackery organizations, which were already duplicating some of the entries.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's cut all the non-medical things, then try to source the rest. Adam Cuerden talk 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That would be a good start! -- Levine2112 discuss 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of quackery related concepts 

message: I've put on a  template - I think it's probably obvious why, given that thi s article only has a "History in the United states" section. Because, you know, Quackery only started in 1776, and nothing that happened elsewhere was notable... Adam Cuerden talk 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise template 

message: I think we need a category for this, and we need to mark any articles that fit the category.  I created the category but someone immediately removed it.  This article is a good lead article to the category. Mike0001 (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category needed 

message: I will add a cool template to the bottom of this article. If there is a better article for it we can try another article too. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow WP:NAV and create a real template rather than a pseudo one. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:NAV: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. QuackGuru (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The advantages of having a real template are so great. Consider pasting yours into Template:Skepticism. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone doesn't know the history here, see the discussions of this pseudotemplate at Talk:Quackwatch. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cool template 

message: This article is avaliable in fulltext at PubMed from a respectable peer reviewed journal: "Health for sale: quackery in England, 1660–1850"  Matthew Ramsey
Medical History 1992 January; 36(1): 91–96.  
MaxPont (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference for the history of Quackery