Read about it here:

http://www.***.com/

Why in the world would I read anything at the discredited, delirious
organization's website?

They're completely unreliable.

                George M. Carter

"Why in the world would I read anything at the discredited, delirious
organization's website?

They're completely unreliable."

How so?  Which part of the article, with the many references, shows
discredit?

Quackwatch has a long history of shady dealings. Pretty sad state of
affairs that those who appoint themselves as protectors of the truth
are those whose truthfulness is the most questionable.

TC

You shouldn't.  You're mind is already made up.

The web site backs up it's statements with
references.  It cites evidence.  You hate that.

If you were to even look at the web site,
you'd find your beliefs being challenged
successfully right and left.  You couldn't
handle that.

No, you definitely should not visit
http://www.quackwatch.org

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The "quackwatchers" have little to no credibility.

TC

"Sorry, but you are wrong.

The "quackwatchers" have little to no credibility."

With regard to the issue of the subjectline, how is that?  Which part of

Just because you pronounce it so?

That's not a very strong argument, but I guess
it's the strongest one you can make.

If quackwatch were to make such an assertion
about you, you can be sure that assertion
would be backed up by quotations from you
and references to reliable sources of information
proving you wrong, along with links to primary
sources.

But that's because quackwatch adheres to
a high standard of evidence.  Nobody expects
you to meet that standard.

LOL..that presumes I'd waste my time reading any more of the {*filter*}on
quackwatch than I already have. I spent too much of my life looking at
their hysterical screeching and ranting.

They are as vile and worthless to me as either the multi-level
marketing scammer pushing noni at some overpriced rate or the vile
stinking pigs of pharma trying to shove {*filter*} down people's throats
who don't need them at an even more {*filter*} price.

                George M. Carter

You bet. Based on long experience and wasting too much time of my life
on their hysterical ravings.

                George M. Carter

You can't fault me for failing to provide evidence against quackwatch
because I used just about the same level of evidence that quackwatch
routinely uses against non-mainstream non-AMA approved practitioners.

TC

"You can't fault me for failing to provide evidence against quackwatch
because I used just about the same level of evidence that quackwatch
routinely uses against non-mainstream non-AMA approved practitioners."

What evidence have you presented about quackwatch?  Look at the original
article to see the routine level of evidence with references and
timeline about the topic.  What fault do you find in it to illustrate
your assertions?

Is any of it "hysterical screeching and ranting"?  Let's
look at the first four paragraphs of the article.

Quoting from:
http://www.***.com/

Royal S. Lee (1895-1967), a nonpracticing dentist,
founded and operated the Vitamin Products Company,
which sold cooking.net">food supplements, and the Lee Foundation
for Nutritional Research, which distributed literature
on nutrition and health. The company, still family
owned and operated, is now called Standard Process,
Inc. and located in Palmyra, Wisconsin. Dun and
Bradstreet's Million Dollar Directory (2007 edition),
estimates the company's income to be $9.9 million,
but Standard & Poor's directory estimates $17 million.

The biographical sketch on the Standard Process Web
site describes Lee as a prolific inventor who
registered more than 70 patents on equipment,
processes, internal combustion engines, and cooking.net">food
products [1]. He founded Standard Process in 1929
and his foundation in 1941.

Lee's first product was Catalyn, a patent medicine
composed of milk sugar, wheat starch, wheat bran,
and other plant material. During the early 1930s,
a shipment of Catalyn was seized by the FDA and
destroyed by court order because it had been
marketed with false claims of effectiveness against
goiter, hardening of the arteries, heart trouble,
high {*filter*} pressure, insomnia, prostate trouble,
and other serious ailments.

In 1945, the FTC ordered Lee and the Vitamin
Products Company to discontinue illegal claims
for Catalyn and other products. In 1956, the Post
Office Department charged Lee's foundation with
fraudulent promotion of a book called Diet Prevents
Polio. The foundation agreed to discontinue the
challenged claims.

Does that sound like "hysterical screeching and
ranting"?  And what about the references?  Does
this article cite its sources of information?
Here's the bibliography for that article:

1. Our founderThe life of Dr. Lee. Standard
Process Web site, accessed April 20, 2006.
2. Barrett S. The shady activities of Kurt
Donsbach. Quackwatch, Feb 13, 2006.
3. FDA Notices of Judgment under the cooking.net">food Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, 1962, pp 138-140.
4. Smith RL. The amazing facts about a "crusade"
that can hurt your health. Today's Health,
Oct 1966, pp 31-36.
5. Milstead KL. Quackery in the medical device
field. Presentation at the Second National
Conference on Quackery, Chicago, Oct 25, 1963.
6. Wolfe SL. Testimony to the Subcommittee on
Health of the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare, U.S. House of Representatives. Hearing
on cooking.net">food Supplement Regulation, Aug 22, 1974,
pp 894.
7. Barrett S, Herbert V. The Vitamin Pushers:
How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling
America a Bill of Goods. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1994, pp 292-293.
8. Barrett S. Contact reflex analysis.
Chirobase, April 16, 1998.
9. Nutritional program report for Patient
Xxx Xxx. Generated March 27, 2007.
10. The history of the Acoustic CardioGraph.
Acoustic CardioGraph Web site, accessed
March 27, 2007.
11. ACG - Nutritional cardiograph. drkaslow.com
Web site, accessed March 26, 2007.
12. ACG home page, accessed March 28, 2007.

I think any "hysterical screeching and ranting"
must be your own.

Go for it. People can read it at their leisure. As a source of
opinion, not any original research, I won't waste my time reading
their shit.

Thank you just the same.

                George M. Carter

"Go for it. People can read it at their leisure. As a source of opinion,
not any original research, I won't waste my time reading their shit."

I don't recall quack watch saying they do original research.  They
provide documented information provided by others and/or reviews of
scientific literature bearing on a given topic.

I have yet to see critics provide opposite of same, which would be the
only credible basis by which to evaluate either quack watch or the
critics.  That is what would distinguish it from "opinion".

In the current example statements were made and a time line provided
about the practices and products of a company based on documentation.
If there are errors and/or equally documented information to the
contrary the critics can provide, let them do so.