[lbo-talk] Doug Henwood's Critique of Gary Null

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Thu Mar 18 08:37:29 PST 2004


Mitch:
> Although I am critical of Gary Null in a number of areas, Barrett's
> statement is devious and, in fact, it exemplifies all that is wrong
with
> the medical establishment that Gary critiques.
> http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

Medicine may not have answers for every ailment, and its practitioners often unduly profit from their practice, but at least it is based on empirical science. Therefore, medical treatment, while certainly not a panacea, at least has some tentative empirical justification.

That is what separates medicine from quackery. Quacks tell you that they have special powers to heal - but they cannot claim any evidence that stands scrutiny to support that claim. They also claim that because they have that special power they are persecuted by the medical establishment.

What does not ad up in that story is that if the medical practice did not have empirical support and the medical profession were in it only for the buck -as the quacks claim - why do not they use the quacks' healing powers that supposedly work wonders? It would be much easier for the doctors to adopt the supposed "healing powers" claimed by quacks to their own practice and get even more money than trying to fight the quacks to preserve the supposed monopoly, no?

One of the oldest and most ruthless tricks performed by all kind of quacks and charlatans is to prey on the layman poor understand of the nature of human knowledge. That knowledge is always probabilistic and approximate to some degree - never certain. However, most people - conditioned for centuries by religious mumbo jumbo - look for certainty. Quacks of various persuasions exploit that and claim that the lack of certainty in science equals lack of proof and the lack of proof of their adversaries equals truth of their own position. Every part of that equation is blatantly false and deceptive, pure and simple. But it, and telling people what they want to hear sells - and that keeps quack in business.

As far as you other claims about fluoridation and immunization is concerned - can you direct me to a REPUTABLE source, such as WHO, accredited medical institutions, or government regulatory agencies that cite evidence of such claims? Crackpot groups supporting their views by citing research nobody heard of are NOT reputable sources.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list