Officially Retired
02-14-2012, 09:28 AM
In light of these over-zealous "quack claims" about Diatomaceous Earth, I think it is a good idea to come to an agreement as to what "quackery" really is. Here is the very definition of Quackery (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html). The most relevant parts to the definition of quackery are these:
"Quackery is not a label automatically applied to methods that are labeled "natural," or alternative," or nonstandard. Judgments about individual methods should be based on whether or not there is scientific evidence of effectiveness.
Most people think of quackery as promoted by charlatans who deliberately exploit their victims. Actually, most promoters (of quackery) are unwitting victims who share misinformation and "personal experiences" with others ...
... All things considered, I find it most useful to define quackery as the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale ...
With this said, I think a re-review of the Diatomaceous Earth Thread (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=578) will see the very definition of Quackery playing out before our eyes: namely, people passing-off "personal stories" and "medical claims" without one single scientific fact to back up their claims. While some quackery involves a "profit motive," as relayed above MOST instances of quackery do not. Most quackery consists of well-meaning fanatics repeating "personal stories" back-and-forth, without really verifying any of the scientific facts of their belief systems. Sometimes this can be harmless, but oftentimes it can be harmful.
This post is not meant to slander or discredit anyone, but it *IS* designed as a slap in the face to wake people up. Don't believe everything you read. Don't believe everything you hear. Don't disrespect it; just don't "fall for it" right away. Before making any kind of decision, first ask for some scientific justification for the claims being made. If the person produces them, fine. Read the presented facts carefully, and make sure they're coming from an accredited scientific source, and aren't just a link to another quack website and more unsubstantiated quack claims.
On the other hand, if the person fails to produce any scientific facts for you ... and instead insults you, or has 10 people "give testimonials" to drown you out ... or whatever other BLUFF is designed to cover-up the fact they don't have a factual leg to stand on ... realize that, in the absence of science, "more testimonials" only equals "more quackery" ... it does NOT constitute proof. Real proof = controlled scientific tests, from accredited institutions, with measurable and repeatable end results.
When it comes to medicine for your dogs, only go for what has been medically-substantiated, repeatedly and consistently, do not fall for "layman claims" with zero proof to substantiate them. Some day, even the layman making these claims will thank me for this.
Hey, we've all believed things that ultimately proved to be false, so all of us have been guilty of this kind of thing a time or two. Again, the purpose of this thread is not to discredit anyone, but to shine the light of truth on the difference between actual science and mere quackery.
Jack
"Quackery is not a label automatically applied to methods that are labeled "natural," or alternative," or nonstandard. Judgments about individual methods should be based on whether or not there is scientific evidence of effectiveness.
Most people think of quackery as promoted by charlatans who deliberately exploit their victims. Actually, most promoters (of quackery) are unwitting victims who share misinformation and "personal experiences" with others ...
... All things considered, I find it most useful to define quackery as the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale ...
With this said, I think a re-review of the Diatomaceous Earth Thread (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=578) will see the very definition of Quackery playing out before our eyes: namely, people passing-off "personal stories" and "medical claims" without one single scientific fact to back up their claims. While some quackery involves a "profit motive," as relayed above MOST instances of quackery do not. Most quackery consists of well-meaning fanatics repeating "personal stories" back-and-forth, without really verifying any of the scientific facts of their belief systems. Sometimes this can be harmless, but oftentimes it can be harmful.
This post is not meant to slander or discredit anyone, but it *IS* designed as a slap in the face to wake people up. Don't believe everything you read. Don't believe everything you hear. Don't disrespect it; just don't "fall for it" right away. Before making any kind of decision, first ask for some scientific justification for the claims being made. If the person produces them, fine. Read the presented facts carefully, and make sure they're coming from an accredited scientific source, and aren't just a link to another quack website and more unsubstantiated quack claims.
On the other hand, if the person fails to produce any scientific facts for you ... and instead insults you, or has 10 people "give testimonials" to drown you out ... or whatever other BLUFF is designed to cover-up the fact they don't have a factual leg to stand on ... realize that, in the absence of science, "more testimonials" only equals "more quackery" ... it does NOT constitute proof. Real proof = controlled scientific tests, from accredited institutions, with measurable and repeatable end results.
When it comes to medicine for your dogs, only go for what has been medically-substantiated, repeatedly and consistently, do not fall for "layman claims" with zero proof to substantiate them. Some day, even the layman making these claims will thank me for this.
Hey, we've all believed things that ultimately proved to be false, so all of us have been guilty of this kind of thing a time or two. Again, the purpose of this thread is not to discredit anyone, but to shine the light of truth on the difference between actual science and mere quackery.
Jack