Re: Reflexology

[Vernon at Stringybark]

Title: Re: Reflexology

I think that Quackwatch would be very keen to know what parts of their site are misleading or factually inaccurate.  I am sure if you pointed out their errors, and you were right, they would be keen to alter the information presented.    Skeptics do not deny the efficacy for modalities for the sake of denying things, they do it because the claims for the modality are not evidence-based.  Where treatments are not evidence-based, consumers are often hurt, either physically or via their hip-pocket.

Members of the Skeptics community 'seek the evidence', and where the evidence is lacking are willing to speak out.

I wonder on what basis you make the claim that skeptics are 'clearly biased'?  Is that on the basis that they seek evidence for claims and do not accept hearsay and anecdotal material as proof?  

Just seeking evidence.

----------------------------
David Vernon

From: "Mary-Clare Switz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply-To: "Mary-Clare Switz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:21:27 +1100
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Reflexology

It is indeed sad that an internet site entitled "quackwatch" could be even remotely considered an appropriate reference for modality.  The information contained is misleading, some is factualy inaccurate.  How can a group belonging to the "Skeptic Ring" who are clearly biased be taken seriously??

Mary-Clare Switz

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Ford <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:29 AM
Subject: Reflexology

Information on reflexology and other "complimentary" practices such as applied kinesiology, iris diagnosis, Bach flowers, homeopathy, accupuncture), including the results of clinical trials and the relevance of standards and training promulgated by industry groups such as the PRA can be obtained from www.quackwatch.com <http://www.quackwatch.com>

Bruce Ford