controversy over quackwatch

[Guest guest]

Recently we had a couple of posts that questioned whether we should rely on the " website " quackwatch for unbiased info about " quacks " . The following was a post to another list I belong to.

For folks inclined to turn to Quackwatch for reliable information on homeopathy, please keep in mind that this site is highly controversial and often criticized for its ideological, systematically biased, and, in many cases, scientifically contradicted opposition to complementary and alternative medicine. For more information on Quackwatch, you may want to take a look at the following articles:

Hufford, D. J. 2003. Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Medicine: The Limits of Science and Scientists. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 31:198-212.

Kauffman, J. M. 2002. Alternative Medicine: Watching the Watchdogs at Quackwatch. Journal of Scientific Exploration 16:312-337.

For a more reliable review of scientific findings re homeopathy (and the controversy surrounding it), I recommend the summary provided by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) at the National Institutes of Health (http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy/#a1).