Comment: Quackwatch is a mixed bag, I admit

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: LOL @ QuackWatch (see in situ)

Quackwatch is a mixed bag, I admit

Stephen Barrett is a big-government loving liberal. He is flat-out wrong about water fluoridation. He isn't wrong about the scientific evidence per se, but he doesn't seem to understand that mass medication is unethical. I ignore and scuff at his politics.

He also roots for the FDA to shut down people like Burzynski. I fully support Burzynski's right to practice medicine as he sees fit, but from the evidence that I have seen his antineoplastins do not work. I agree with Barrett about the lack of scientific evidence of the efficacy of antineoplastons, but I disagree vehemently with government interference. However I have to emphasize that GETTING TARGETED BY THE FDA IS NOT PROOF OF A MEDICAL MIRACLE.

However Quackwatch is still a good site for debunking pseudoscience.

David Gorski at Science-Based Medicine is an excellent defender of the scientific method and the evidence-based principles of medicine as well. He too tends to be overly statist, but again one can be a fantastic scientist and in the dark about politics. Also, just because a scientist goes rogue and breaks with the mainstream and supports libertarian politics does not make him a good scientist, either. People are complex.