Guest guest Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 I googled this guy a bit too after reading a post somewhere (here?) that indicated CDC was sending links to articles by him to school district epidemiology offices. Whether that information was correct or not, I read the articles supposedly being sent: http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/novella.html http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/judelsohn.html http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/radford.html then decided to google Novella. Here is one link I found that suggests he is part of the Quackwatch ring that testifys against alternative doctors, etc. http://www.hni-online.com/BI_Concussion/_BI_concdisc/00000031.htm I thought it might be worth looking up the court ruling this website refers to to see whether it exists and what exactly it says. Maybe an investigative reporter would want to look into this? I also found this article wherein Novella is critical of neurotherapy: http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/mindcontrol.html quote from article: As with most alternative medicine practices, the mainstream medical profession has been skeptical. So while people have used neurofeedback to treat everything from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to traumatic brain injury, coma patients and cocaine addiction, many physicians and psychologists question the efficacy of the treatment. How can one thing be used to treat so many different conditions? Where's the scientific proof to show that this works and explain why it works? " I think that it's being marketed more directly to the public, rather than going through the more rigorous, scientific exploration. That's one of the hallmarks of quackery, " says Novella, assistant professor of neurology at Yale University who, as president of the New England Skeptics Society, is dedicated to debunking spurious medical claims made by alternative medicine. " I don't think it progresses the health of science or medicine. I'm always open to new evidence, if they can show it works. I think the burden on any practitioner is to show it's safe and effective before it's used. " end quote I don't know how it could be done, but somehow these quack experts (aka expert quacks) need to be revealed to all for what they are--the advisors who hired, and paid, the tailors to make the emperor's new clothes. Sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 ok, novella, so where's that safety data on thimerosal, or that safety data for vaccines used in combination with each other, or that safety data on vaccines for infants? > > I googled this guy a bit too after reading a post somewhere > (here?) that indicated CDC was sending links to articles by him to > school district epidemiology offices. Whether that > information was correct or not, I read the articles supposedly > being sent: > > http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/novella.html > http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/judelsohn.html > http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/radford.html > > then decided to google Novella. > > Here is one link I found that suggests he is part of the > Quackwatch ring that testifys against alternative > doctors, etc. > > http://www.hni-online.com/BI_Concussion/_BI_concdisc/00000031.htm > > I thought it might be worth looking up the court > ruling this website refers to to see whether it > exists and what exactly it says. Maybe an > investigative reporter would want to look into > this? > > I also found this article wherein Novella is critical of neurotherapy: > > http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/mindcontrol.html > > quote from article: > > As with most alternative medicine practices, the mainstream medical > profession has been skeptical. So while people have used neurofeedback to > treat everything from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to > traumatic brain injury, coma patients and cocaine addiction, many physicians > and psychologists question the efficacy of the treatment. How can one thing > be used to treat so many different conditions? Where's the scientific proof > to show that this works and explain why it works? > > " I think that it's being marketed more directly to the public, rather than > going through the more rigorous, scientific exploration. That's one of the > hallmarks of quackery, " says Novella, assistant professor of > neurology at Yale University who, as president of the New England Skeptics > Society, is dedicated to debunking spurious medical claims made by > alternative medicine. " I don't think it progresses the health of science or > medicine. I'm always open to new evidence, if they can show it works. I > think the burden on any practitioner is to show it's safe and effective > before it's used. " > > end quote > > I don't know how it could be done, but somehow these quack experts > (aka expert quacks) need to be revealed to all for what they are--the > advisors who hired, and paid, the tailors to make the emperor's > new clothes. > > Sue > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2008 Report Share Posted March 12, 2008 I've alwaays wondered if it was in their contracts to use the terms " quackery " and " junk science and " skeptics " , etc. It's pretty much a dead giveaway when they use these precise terms, and rarely use synonyms. Unless they graduated at the bottom of their classes, one would think that they would have larger vocabularies than the average Joe on the street. > > I googled this guy a bit too after reading a post somewhere > (here?) that indicated CDC was sending links to articles by him to > school district epidemiology offices. Whether that > information was correct or not, I read the articles supposedly > being sent: > > http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/novella.html > http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/judelsohn.html > http://csicop.org/si/2007-06/radford.html > > then decided to google Novella. > > Here is one link I found that suggests he is part of the > Quackwatch ring that testifys against alternative > doctors, etc. > > http://www.hni-online.com/BI_Concussion/_BI_concdisc/00000031.htm > > I thought it might be worth looking up the court > ruling this website refers to to see whether it > exists and what exactly it says. Maybe an > investigative reporter would want to look into > this? > > I also found this article wherein Novella is critical of neurotherapy: > > http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/mindcontrol.html > > quote from article: > > As with most alternative medicine practices, the mainstream medical > profession has been skeptical. So while people have used neurofeedback to > treat everything from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to > traumatic brain injury, coma patients and cocaine addiction, many physicians > and psychologists question the efficacy of the treatment. How can one thing > be used to treat so many different conditions? Where's the scientific proof > to show that this works and explain why it works? > > " I think that it's being marketed more directly to the public, rather than > going through the more rigorous, scientific exploration. That's one of the > hallmarks of quackery, " says Novella, assistant professor of > neurology at Yale University who, as president of the New England Skeptics > Society, is dedicated to debunking spurious medical claims made by > alternative medicine. " I don't think it progresses the health of science or > medicine. I'm always open to new evidence, if they can show it works. I > think the burden on any practitioner is to show it's safe and effective > before it's used. " > > end quote > > I don't know how it could be done, but somehow these quack experts > (aka expert quacks) need to be revealed to all for what they are-- the > advisors who hired, and paid, the tailors to make the emperor's > new clothes. > > Sue > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.