Agreed Roger, Quackwatch is a valuable, if biased, information resource.
However it is just as well to know that his magazine is supported to the tune of some millions of dollars in advertising fees by the drug companies. Ivan. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> > > Rob: I wouldn't be so quick to write off "QuackWatch" posters, just as I > wouldn't be so willing to believe everyone who posts here. I saw some > interesting QuackWatch discussion of microwave radiation and mercury > amalgams, for example. It's much better to hear both sides of a debate, > however imperfect the discussion, before making up your own mind even if you > have to rely on interpreted or even distorted information. Otherwise, you're > faced with digging out all the relevant, and sometimes highly esoteric and > technical information yourself, interpreting what you found so that you can > reach an independent conclusion. Few of us have such a knowledge base, and/or > training to do that beyond our own specialty. In fact, many posters here are > simply not specialized in ANY particular area. It is much easier to let the > so called experts make their case, and then decide who has the best > supporting evidence and logic on his/her side. Tuning in to Quackwatch is > helpful in this regard. What are the alternatives? Even using gut feel or > intuition should be combined with as much factual information as possible. > IMHO, relying solely on your "inner voice" may simply be a rational for > intellectual laziness. Roger -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: [email protected] -or- [email protected] with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
