Why was longterm "Psychiatrist" Stephen Barrett NEVER BOARD CERTIFIED??????????

neat. i finally found out what ''ad hominem'' means.

his arguments are(forgive me, the stuff on his site, whether it be
authored by him or not): if it's not mainstream, its wrong, because its
not mainstream. if its not maintsream(its wrong) and the mainstream
(allopathic) alternative is the only acceptable method.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

''pseudoscience'' is a blanket term used here.

''facts''(since when is there in science ''facts''. that sounds very
uneducated to say). reference further down in that very same paragraph:
"Compare this to science textbooks that see a new edition every few years
because of the rapid accumulation of new facts and insights." the author
fails to mention several places where this isnt the case(READ a book like
campbell's latest edition of their biology text, and its inappropriate
references to the miller experiment as the way life could have begun)

We see through the rest of this article that the reader is led to believe
that current scientific thought is universally accepted, universally
true... so on...

on we go...
http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../newsweek.html

the same backwards circular thinking.

"# The notion of "the science of alternative medicine" falsely implies
that a meaningful category of healthcare called "alternative medicine"
exists and is scientifically based. But in common usage, the term
"alternative medicine" is a euphemism used by enthusiasts and profiteers
to give the appearance of legitimacy to methods promoted with
scientifically implausible, invalidated, or nonvalidated claims.
# An introduction to the report includes the false generalization that
"'complementary' and 'alternative' therapies haven't been the subject of
rigorous scientific testing-until now." However, many methods that have
been promoted as being "complementary" and "alternative" have been tested
rigorously and not been shown to add to health outcomes when combined with
proven methods or substitute for proven methods. For example, in rigorous
tests, megavitamin C and laetrile have failed as cancer treatments."

there are no cited studies in the whole article to back this up, save a
very specific cited study on chelation therapy... certainly not enough to
make the blanket statement he makes.


im sure this could go on for days. I'm sure his site has some good stuff,
and certainly things to think about... but... nothing is presented that
way. Everything is presented as factual information, based in scientific
theory.