Jump to content

Quackwatch: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
adding context to David Hufford; removing text about Stephen Barrett because this article is about Quackwatch and not Barrett.
m Reverted good faith edits by QuackGuru; Sorry, the hufford commentary is unneeded, and barret is the sole operator of quackwatch. (TW)
Line 289: Line 289:
|quote=}}</ref>
|quote=}}</ref>


David Hufford, a humanities professor who was solicited to provide a sympathetic view of alternative medicine at a medicine and ethics symposium, suggested that Quackwatch in particular lacked commitment to objective scientific practice and relied too much on personal belief.<ref>Hufford is Professor [[Emeritus]] of Humanities at the [[Penn State]] Department of Humanities, Meet the Faculty, David Hufford Ph.D [http://www.hmc.psu.edu/humanities/faculty/hufford.htm CV]</ref><ref name="Evaluating_CAM">Hufford DJ. , "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198–212. Barrett's statements that scientific neutrality is not required in these cases (see: [http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/faq2.html#balance QuackWatch unbalanced views] has fueled some objections on this last point.</ref>
David Hufford, a professor of humanities, suggested that Quackwatch in particular lacked commitment to objective scientific practice and relied too much on personal belief.<ref>Hufford is Professor [[Emeritus]] of Humanities at the [[Penn State]] Department of Humanities, Meet the Faculty, David Hufford Ph.D [http://www.hmc.psu.edu/humanities/faculty/hufford.htm CV]</ref><ref name="Evaluating_CAM">Hufford DJ. , "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198–212. Barrett's statements that scientific neutrality is not required in these cases (see: [http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/faq2.html#balance QuackWatch unbalanced views] has fueled some objections on this last point.</ref>


Waltraud Ernst, a medical historian interested in how [[Oriental medicine]] can complement modern medicine, disapproved of Quackwatch's dismissal of the role of spiritual forces in the healing process.<ref name="isbn0-415-23122-1">{{cite book |author=Ernst, Waltraud |title=Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |year=2002 |pages=p.234–6 |isbn=0-415-23122-1 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref>
Waltraud Ernst, a medical historian interested in how [[Oriental medicine]] can complement modern medicine, disapproved of Quackwatch's dismissal of the role of spiritual forces in the healing process.<ref name="isbn0-415-23122-1">{{cite book |author=Ernst, Waltraud |title=Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000 |publisher=Routledge |location=New York |year=2002 |pages=p.234–6 |isbn=0-415-23122-1 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref>
Line 297: Line 297:
Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, a pharmacist, reviewed Quackwatch in the ''[[American Society of Consultant Pharmacists|The Consultant Pharmacist]]''. Nguyen-Khoa characterized Quackwatch as "relevant for both [[consumers]] and [[professionals]]", though he felt that the presence of so many single-author articles by Barrett "leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way.<ref name="ascp"/><ref name="advisors"/>
Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, a pharmacist, reviewed Quackwatch in the ''[[American Society of Consultant Pharmacists|The Consultant Pharmacist]]''. Nguyen-Khoa characterized Quackwatch as "relevant for both [[consumers]] and [[professionals]]", though he felt that the presence of so many single-author articles by Barrett "leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way.<ref name="ascp"/><ref name="advisors"/>


The currently inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the [[United States Department of Health and Human Services|U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]], named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999, though it later noted that the government "doesn't endorse web sites".{{unclear}}<ref name="SciPICH">{{cite news
The currently inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the [[United States Department of Health and Human Services|U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]], named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999, though it later noted that the government "doesn't endorse web sites".{{unclear}} The director of the panel, Thomas R. Eng, continues to endorse the website. The former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel, Barry Chowka noted that the site is informative, but suggested that Barrett had ceased trying to be objective.<ref name="Ladd" /><ref name="SciPICH">{{cite news
|first=
|first=
|last=
|last=

Revision as of 22:36, 19 September 2008

Quackwatch, Inc.
Formation1969 (website in 1996)
TypeNon-profit organization
Location
  • USA
Official language
English
LeaderStephen Barrett
Websitequackwatch.org

Quackwatch Inc. is an American non-profit organization founded by Stephen Barrett, that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct" with a primary focus on providing "quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere."[1][2] Since 1996 it has operated a website, Quackwatch.org, which contains articles and other types of information criticizing many forms of alternative medicine.[3][4][5] The site advises the public on unproven or ineffective alternative medicine remedies.[6] Quackwatch has received several awards and has been recognized in the media.[7] Numerous sources cite Quackwatch as a practical source for online consumer information. The site has been criticized by supporters and practitioners of various forms of alternative medicine such as herbalism and homeopathy, as well as other practices that appear on the website.[8][9][10]

History

Founded in 1969 by Stephen Barrett, M.D., the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud was incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania in 1970.[11] In 1996, the corporation began the Quackwatch website, and the organization itself was renamed Quackwatch in 1997 as its website attracted attention.[2] Quackwatch is closely affiliated with the National Council Against Health Fraud.[12] As of 2003, Quackwatch engaged the services of 150+ scientific and technical advisors. 67 medical advisors, 12 dental advisors, 13 mental health advisors, 16 nutrition and food science advisors, 3 podiatry advisors, 8 veterinary advisors, and 33 other "scientific and technical advisors" were listed.[13]

Mission and scope

Quackwatch is overseen by Barrett, its chairman, with input from a board of advisors and help from volunteers, including a number of medical professionals.[14] Quackwatch describes its mission as follows:

"...investigating questionable claims, answering inquiries about products and services, advising quackery victims, distributing reliable publications, debunking pseudoscientific claims, reporting illegal marketing, improving the quality of health information on the internet, assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits, and attacking misleading advertising on the internet."[2]

Quackwatch states that the total cost of operating all of Quackwatch's sites is approximately $7,000 per year with no salaried employees at Quackwatch, Inc. It states that it is funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which they refer, and profits from the sale of publications, and self-funding by Barrett. Stated income also is derived from sponsored links for which they receive a commission on products ordered including Amazon books, ConsumerLab.com, Healthgrades, and Netflix.[2]

Site content

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

Quackwatch is especially critical of those products, services, and theories that it considers questionable, dubious, and/or dangerous, including:[15]

Template:MultiCol

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

| class="col-break " |

Template:EndMultiCol

The website provides information about specific people who perform, market, and advocate therapies it considers dubious, in many cases providing details of convictions for past marketing fraud. It also maintains lists of sources, individuals, and groups it considers questionable and non-recommendable.[28][29] This includes two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling (for his claims about mega-doses of Vitamin C), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, as well as integrative medicine proponent Andrew Weil.[30][31]

The site is part of a network of related sites, such as Homeowatch (on homeopathy), Credential Watch (devoted to exposing degree mills), Chirobase (specifically devoted to chiropractic, cosponsored by the National Council Against Health Fraud and Victims of Chiropractic,) and others, each devoted to specific topics.[32][33][34][35][36] Quackwatch.org's articles are reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request[2] and many of its articles cite peer-reviewed research.[18][21][23] According to a review in Running & FitNews, the site "also provides links to hundreds of trusted health sites."[37]

The site is also available in German, French, and Portuguese, and also available via several mirrors, including www.quack-watch.org and www.quackwatch.com.[38][39][40][41][42]

Public comments

Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors.[7][43] In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources."[44] It was also listed as one of three medical sites of U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999:[45] A web site review by Forbes magazine stated:

"Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, seeks to expose unproven medical treatments and possible unsafe practices through his homegrown but well-organized site. Mostly attacking alternative medicines, homeopathy and chiropractors, the tone here can be rather harsh. However, the lists of sources of health advice to avoid, including books, specific doctors and organizations, are great for the uninformed. Barrett received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. BEST: Frequently updated, but also archives of relevant articles that date back at least four years. WORST: Lists some specific doctors and organizations without explaining the reason for their selection."[46]

Quackwatch has also been cited or mentioned by journalists in reports on therapeutic touch, Vitamin O, Almon Glenn Braswell's baldness treatments, dietary supplements, Robert Barefoot's coral calcium claims, noni juice, shark cartilage, and infomercials.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] The site's opinion on a US government report on complementary medicine was mentioned in a news report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.[57] Sources that mention Quackwatch.org as a resource for consumer information include the United States Department of Agriculture, the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, The Lancet, the Journal of Marketing Education, the Medical Journal of Australia, the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Skeptic’s Dictionary,[58][59][60][61][62][63][64] and the Diet Channel.[65][66][67] Websites of libraries across the United States of America, include links to Quackwatch as a source for consumer information.[68] In addition, several nutrition associations link to Quackwatch.[69]

The American Cancer Society lists Quackwatch as one of ten reputable sources of information about Alternative and Complementary Therapies in their book "Cancer Medicine",[70] and lists it as one of four sources for information about Alternative & Complementary Therapies in an article about on-line cancer information and support.[71] It also uses Quackwatch as a reference in a long series of articles on many forms of alternative medicine.[72]

Reviews

The Good Web Guide of the United Kingdom described Quackwatch as "firmly anti-holistic" and "an important and useful information resource [which] injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information."[4] Cunningham and Marcason in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association described Quackwatch as "useful"[63], while Wallace and Kimball, in the Medical Journal of Australia, described the site as "objective".[62]

A paper in the Annals of Oncology, reviewing a number of websites on complementary medicine accessed by cancer patients identified Quackwatch as one of only two outstanding information sources.[73]

David Hufford, a professor of humanities, suggested that Quackwatch in particular lacked commitment to objective scientific practice and relied too much on personal belief.[74][10]

Waltraud Ernst, a medical historian interested in how Oriental medicine can complement modern medicine, disapproved of Quackwatch's dismissal of the role of spiritual forces in the healing process.[75]

Donna Ladd, a journalist, in an article in the Village Voice, suggested that Quackwatch's notability was driven by the economic competition between the medical industry and alternative sources,[9] while sociologist Joel Best wrote that critiques in Quackwatch and similar sites should be examined critically rather than being accepted at face value.[76]

Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa, a pharmacist, reviewed Quackwatch in the The Consultant Pharmacist. Nguyen-Khoa characterized Quackwatch as "relevant for both consumers and professionals", though he felt that the presence of so many single-author articles by Barrett "leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way.[43][13]

The currently inactive Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health, appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999, though it later noted that the government "doesn't endorse web sites".

The director of the panel, Thomas R. Eng, continues to endorse the website. The former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine panel, Barry Chowka noted that the site is informative, but suggested that Barrett had ceased trying to be objective.[9][77]

See also

References

  1. ^ Barrett, M.D., Stephen. "Biographical Sketch". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2008-07-10.
  2. ^ a b c d e Barrett SJ. "Quackwatch - Mission Statement". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12. Cite error: The named reference "mission" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ Barrett SJ. "Quackwatch.org main page". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  4. ^ a b The Good Web Guide. Retrieved on September 14, 2007.
  5. ^ Politzer, M. Eastern Medicine Goes West. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on September 14, 2007.
  6. ^ Baldwin, Fred D. "If It Quacks Like a Duck ..." MedHunters. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  7. ^ a b Quackwatch: Awards and honors
  8. ^ Jaroff, Leon (April 30, 2001). "The Man Who Loves To Bust Quacks". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2007-08-16.
  9. ^ a b c Dr. Who? Diagnosing Medical Fraud May Require a Second Opinion. by Donna Ladd, The Village Voice, June 23 - 29, 1999. Retrieved July 14, 2008
  10. ^ a b David J Hufford, "Symposium article: Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 198-212. Hufford is Professor Emeritus of Humanities at Pennsylvania State University. Hufford's symposium presentation was the counterpoint for another doctor's presentation, which argued that "alternative medicine" is not medicine at all. See Lawrence J. Schneiderman, "Symposium article: The (Alternative) Medicalization of Life." J Law, Medicine & Ethics, 31 (2003): 191-198. Cite error: The named reference "Evaluating_CAM" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  11. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State — Corporations
  12. ^ "Quackwatch home page". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-11-04.
  13. ^ a b Barrett SJ. "Scientific and technical advisors". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  14. ^ Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998). "Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D." Biography Magazine. Retrieved 2007-02-12.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Barrett, Stephen. "Quackwatch — listing criticisms of several practices". Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions. Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
  16. ^ Barrett, S. "Algae: False Claims and Hype" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  17. ^ Barrett, S. "The "Mercury Toxicity" Scam: How Anti-Amalgamists Swindle People" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  18. ^ a b Barrett, S. "Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  19. ^ Worrall, Nevyas, Barrett. "Eye-Related Quackery" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  20. ^ Barrett, S. "Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  21. ^ a b Barrett, S. "Don't Let Chiropractors Fool You" Retrieved 27 November 2007
  22. ^ Barrett, S. "Gastrointestinal Quackery: Colonics, Laxatives, and More" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  23. ^ a b Barrett, S. ""Dietary Supplements," Herbs, and Hormones" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  24. ^ a b Barrett, S. "The Shady Side of Embryonic Stem Cell Therapy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  25. ^ Barrett, S. "The Herbal Minefield" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  26. ^ Barrett, S. "Homeopathy: The Ultimate Fake" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  27. ^ Barrett, S. "A Close Look at Naturopathy" Retrieved 17 July 2007
  28. ^ Barrett SJ. "Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  29. ^ Barrett SJ. "Questionable Organizations: An Overview". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  30. ^ Barrett SJ. "The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy". Quackwatch. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  31. ^ Relamn AS. "A Trip to Stonesville: Some Notes on Andrew Weil". New Republic. Retrieved 2007-02-12.
  32. ^ Homeowatch
  33. ^ Credential Watch
  34. ^ Chirobase
  35. ^ Victims of Chiropractic
  36. ^ 22 There are web sites affiliated with Quackwatch. "Together, these have over 4,000 pages and cover thousands of topics."
  37. ^ "Cutting through the haze of health marketing claims". Thomson Gale. Running & Fitnews. Sept-October, 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  38. ^ Quackwatch auf Deutsch
  39. ^ Quackwatch en Français
  40. ^ Quackwatch em Português
  41. ^ www.quack-watch.org
  42. ^ www.quackwatch.com
  43. ^ a b Nguyen-Khoa, Bao-Anh (July 1999). "Selected Web Site Reviews — Quackwatch.com". The Consultant Pharmacist. Retrieved 2007-01-25.
  44. ^ JAMA Patient Page - Click here: How to find reliable online health information and resources, Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1380, 1998.
  45. ^ U.S. News & World Report: The Best of The Web Gets Better
  46. ^ Forbes.com, Best of the Web website reviews: Quackwatch.
  47. ^ Kolata, Gina (April 1, 1998). A Child's Paper Poses a Medical Challenge. The New York Times
  48. ^ Siwolop, Sana (January 7, 2001). Back Pain? Arthritis? Step Right Up to the Mouse. The New York Times
  49. ^ Eichenwald, Kurt and Michael Moss (February 6, 2001), Pardon for Subject of Inquiry Worries Prosecutors. The New York Times
  50. ^ Associated Press (September 13, 2004). Man Once Pardoned By Clinton Again Faces Prison.
  51. ^ Another Dubious Pardon - U.S. News & World Report
  52. ^ Fessenden, Ford with Christoper Drew (March 31, 2000). Bottom Line in Mind, Doctors Sell Ephedra. The New York Times
  53. ^ Leon Jaroff, (March 14, 2003), Coral Calcium: A Barefoot Scam, Time magazine
  54. ^ Noni Juice Might Lower Smokers' Cholesterol. Forbes magazine
  55. ^ Leon Jaroff, (Sep. 29, 2004), Medical Sharks, Time magazine
  56. ^ Damon Darlin, (April 8, 2006), Words to Live By in Infomercial World: Caveat Emptor, The New York Times
  57. ^ Reynolds Tom, White House Report on Alternative Medicine Draws Criticism, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2002 94(9):646-648 Error: Bad DOI specified!
  58. ^ Fraud and Nutrition Misinformation: Dietary Guidance. Nutrition Information on the Internet. United States Department of Agriculture
  59. ^ W Steven Pray. Ethical, Scientific, and Educational Concerns With Unproven Medications. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. Alexandria: 2006. Vol. 70, Iss. 6; pg. O1, 14 pgs. Quackwatch is named as a reliable source together with Skeptical Enquirer, specifically for Pharmacy Course on Unproven Medications and Therapies.
  60. ^ Marilynn Larkin. Medical quackery squashers on the web. The Lancet. London: May 16, 1998. Vol. 351, Iss. 9114; pg. 1520 - 2. Names Quackwatch as the premier site for exposing purveyors of health frauds, myths, and fads.
  61. ^ Lawrence B Chonko. If It Walks like a Duck . . . : Concerns about Quackery in Marketing Education. Journal of Marketing Education. Boulder: Apr 2004. Vol. 26, Iss. 1; pg. 4, 13 pgs. Chonko states “Many of the thoughts on which this article is based are adapted from materials found on this site.” (referring to Quackwatch)
  62. ^ a b Wallace Sampson, Kimball Atwood IV. Propagation of the Absurd: demarcation of the Absurd revisited. Medical Journal of Australia. Pyrmont: Dec 5-Dec 19, 2005. Vol. 183, Iss. 11/12; pg. 580 - 1. Sampson states that “CAM source information tends to exclude well known critical and objective web pages such as those found on Quackwatch (www.quackwatch.org).”
  63. ^ a b Eleese Cunningham, Wendy Marcason. Internet hoaxes: How to spot them and how to debunk them. American Dietetic Association. Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Chicago: Apr 2001. Vol. 101, Iss. 4; pp. 460 - 1. Cunningham and Marcason state that “Two Web sites that can be useful in determining hoaxes are www.quackwatch.com and www.urbanlegends.com.”
  64. ^ "U.S. Department of Health & Human Services". healthfinder.gov. National Health Information Center. Retrieved 2007-09-12.Quackwatch is available from their database.
  65. ^ "Diet Channel Award Review Of Quackwatch". Retrieved 2007-09-18. Quackwatch is a very informative site which informs you about health fraud and gives you advice on many decisions.
  66. ^ Health Quackery: Spotting Health Scams - U.S. National Institutes of Health
  67. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd (January 29, 2008). ""alternative" health practice". Skeptic’s Dictionary. Retrieved 2008-02-02.
  68. ^ "Southwest Public Libraries". Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "National Network of Libraries of Medicine". Evaluating Health Web Sites, Consumer Health Manual. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "VCU Libraries". Complementary and Alternative Medicine Resource Guide — Fraud and Quackery Resources. Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "Rutgers University Libraries". Finding What You Want on the Web: A Guide. Rutgers University Libraries. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "USC Libraries — Electronic Resources — Quackwatch". University of Southern California. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
     • "Medical Center Library". University of Kentucky Libraries. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
  69. ^ "Research". Texas Dietetic Association. November 6, 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     • "Nutrition Resources". Illinois Dietetic Association. 2005. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     • "Links". Greater New York Dietetic Association. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     • "Nutrition Links". Maryland Dietetic Association. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
     • "Professional Resources — Health Quackery". American Dietetic Association. Diabetes Care and Education. 2007. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  70. ^ Reputable Sources of Information about Alternative and Complementary Therapies - American Cancer Society
  71. ^ Cancer Information & Support Available Online - American Cancer Society
  72. ^ A Google search lists a long series of articles on many forms of alternative medicine on the American Cancer Society website that use Quackwatch as a source.
  73. ^ Schmidt, K (January 2004). "Assessing websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer". Oxford University Press. Annals of Oncology. Retrieved 2008-02-01.
  74. ^ Hufford is Professor Emeritus of Humanities at the Penn State Department of Humanities, Meet the Faculty, David Hufford Ph.D CV
  75. ^ Ernst, Waltraud (2002). Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000. New York: Routledge. pp. p.234–6. ISBN 0-415-23122-1. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  76. ^ Best, Joel (2004). More damned lies and statistics: how numbers confuse public issues. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. p.179–180. ISBN 0-520-23830-3. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  77. ^ "Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). July 11, 2002. Retrieved 2007-09-12.

Further reading

  • Paranormal Claims: A Critical Analysis, 2007, edited by Bryan Farha, University Press of America, ISBN 978-0-7618-3772-5. Three of the eighteen chapters are reprints of Quackwatch articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&oldid=239669348"