This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
complementary and alternative medicine, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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)
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)
I have no problem with shortening it to this:
How's that? -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
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:
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:
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)
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 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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, — Paleo Neonate — 19:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Readded with a source. — Paleo Neonate — 19:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. See here. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Rosemann: Two other sources which could potentially better support the recently added/removed material (and these do mention the name):
Since your edits have been reverted, I recommend to first discuss here and reach consensus that it can be added. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 12:50, 28 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.
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)
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)
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)
The same quackery arguments can be made against main stream medicine. -- 105.0.4.176 ( talk) 07:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Perhaps mention:
[11] Jidanni ( talk) 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
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!
only mentioned three time in this current articleis 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.
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)
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)
This article was nominated for deletion on 17 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
complementary and alternative medicine, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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)
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)
I have no problem with shortening it to this:
How's that? -- Brangifer ( talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
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:
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:
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)
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 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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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, — Paleo Neonate — 19:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Readded with a source. — Paleo Neonate — 19:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. See here. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Rosemann: Two other sources which could potentially better support the recently added/removed material (and these do mention the name):
Since your edits have been reverted, I recommend to first discuss here and reach consensus that it can be added. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 12:50, 28 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.
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)
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)
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)
The same quackery arguments can be made against main stream medicine. -- 105.0.4.176 ( talk) 07:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Perhaps mention:
[11] Jidanni ( talk) 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
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!
only mentioned three time in this current articleis 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.
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)
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)