One of the things I like about writing for Quora is that it is mostly a troll-free zone. The most annoying questions directed to me are usually from students hoping I’ll answer their midterm questions for them (e.g., “What nucleotide is found in DNA but not RNA?” or “What is the Lewis dot structure of N2?”). Other questions can be deeply credulous or ignorant, but there is no shame in that – we all have our zones of ignorance and no one asking a question in good faith deserves to be mocked. In fact, quite the opposite is true, they deserve respect and commendation. I don’t think I’ve ever met another human being who didn’t know something interesting that I did not. Ignorance is always relative.
But then there are questions like this: “Why are people still quoting QuackWatch when the courts ruled repeatedly Stephen Barrett is a big pharma hired gun not even qualified to testify in a court?” As phrased, this is a “when did you stop beating your wife?” question, one that is premised on the assumption of wrongdoing. But there was a link to an article attacking Quackwatch, and it is possible that the questioner read it uncritically, accepted its conclusions and wondered how anyone else could trust Quackwatch. Not likely, perhaps, but possible, and it is always best to presume good intentions.
I won’t link to the article and give it more clicks (which could well be the actual purpose of the question), but here is its opening paragraph:
Stephen Barrett, founder of Quackwatch, is a delicensed medical doctor. In addition, he failed the medical board exam required for a psychiatrist. His using the “MD” after his name is misleading and even fraudulent. He has never performed scientific research, nor written a scientific paper, but yet discredits Nobel Prize scientists such as Dr. Otto Warburg and Dr. Linus Pauling. Stephen Barrett is one BIG QUACK who is financed by the pharmaceutical industry that makes quack medicine. He was deemed “unworthy of credibility” in a court of law. Therefore, all his writings are medical quackery. There should be a picture of Stephen Barrett beside the words “nutcase” and “con artist” in the dictionary.
And here is my response:
The real question here is whether your question is sincere but misinformed, or a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.
The website you linked to is full of accusations, but not one of these is validated by a link or citation to a primary source. That should be your first clue that it is not a reliable source of information.
Let’s start with the first sentence – the claim that Barrett has been “delicensed”. Sounds bad. Until you look at his Wikipedia page, see that he was born in 1933, and so, not surprisingly, has retired from the practice of medicine. His medical license retired with him.
On to the second sentence, the claim that using “MD” after his name is misleading and fraudulent. Nope – once you get a medical degree, it is completely legitimate to keep using those initials, even if you never practice medicine.
Sentence three attacks Barrett for never having authored a peer-reviewed publication. Few practicing MDs ever do. However, other scientists thought enough of his opinion and expertise that he was a peer-reviewer for JAMA in 2003.
Sentence four claims he is financed by Big Pharma. Barrett says not true; the only evidence adduced for this support is that he could not possibly pay the bills from all the legal actions taken against him by quacks without help from pharma. That’s no evidence at all.
Sentence five claims he was found “unworthy of credibility” in a court of law. This one is a little harder to unpack, as no link is given. But Respectful Insolence has done the dirty work here. Apparently Barrett and Wally Sampson were involved in a suit, and a judge ruled that because neither of them were practicing homeopaths, they had no standing as experts in the practice of homeopathy. Maybe there is a legal context in which this makes sense, but it would have to be an exceedingly narrow one, and certainly does not address their overall credibility. I call BS on this claim also.
That’s the first paragraph. It’s composed of five sentences. Those sentences make four misleading claims and one unsubstantiated accusation. The rest of the article is no better.
If you find this sort of hack job convincing, then I’m sure there is nothing I can say or do to change your mind. Barrett and Quackwatch have undoubtedly made mistakes along the way – everyone does, sooner or later. But they are operating in good faith. The same cannot be said for their detractors.
I’m sorry Mr Author, you saying no one is perfect in reference to Barrett is ridiculous. Calling Nobel prize winners quacks is putting himself a head of the likes of Wharburgh and the people that awarded him the Nobel Prize. That makes you an idiot for even saying something so stupid.