Quackproofing

Most of us think of ourselves as savvy, informed individuals who approach the world with discerning eyes. But the truth is that we’re often remarkably gullible when it comes to pseudoscience and quackery. That’s the bad news. The good news is that it is surprisingly easy to tell quackery apart from real science.P

This post originally appeared on Dr. Amy Tuteur’s blog.

Quack claims are typically decorated with red flags, if you know what to look for. What follows is a list of some of those red flags—watch out for these types of claims, and you’ll be better suited to spot pseudoscience quackery from a mile away.

more at link

I was quacked by a mob of chiropractors!

got me and my kids and a small fortune

There’s a good list.

I have recently been chatting with a fellow parent while waiting for our children to do their martial arts. Started out quite convincingly with trying to get my eldest to do a week’s trial at the local Steiner school. But it was the wild-eyed preaching soon afterwards which had me quickly change my mind. From why the school doesn’t try to teach children to read before age 7 and not start high school until age 14 (you see, everything happens in 7-year cycles!!! Something to do with milk teeth and adult teeth!!!!…!) and childhood illnesses are there for a good reason, hence no immunisation!!!

This woman seems an otherwise intelligent woman. Why is she so gullible, I wonder.

A friend, whose father died of cancer only this past week and her family are considering suing an alternative cancer curer. Friend went to one of these Steiner schools also, in S Africa, so I assume her family were similar to this other lady. When her father was diagnosed, instead of opting for the chemo which could have saved him, he opted for a new vit C therapy. A year ago she was telling me that he looked better than he had looked for many years (bright skin/eyes etc). The guru said the tumors were shrinking, but they weren’t. This advice/progress summary is what they are suing for.

Not bad.

But there are in fact such things as toxins, of course. Botox, for instance, is a toxin. Someone reading this article would think that the author was implying there is no such thing as toxins.

dv said:

Not bad.

But there are in fact such things as toxins, of course. Botox, for instance, is a toxin. Someone reading this article would think that the author was implying there is no such thing as toxins.

The clue is in the name “Botox” short for Biological Toxin
stupid bloody advertising people!

bob(from black rock) said:

dv said:

Not bad.

But there are in fact such things as toxins, of course. Botox, for instance, is a toxin. Someone reading this article would think that the author was implying there is no such thing as toxins.

The clue is in the name “Botox” short for Biological Toxin
stupid bloody advertising people!

Ah, no. It’s short for BOtulinum TOXin. And as DV will be happy to tell you, all toxins are biological.

PM 2Ring said:

bob(from black rock) said:

dv said:

Not bad.

But there are in fact such things as toxins, of course. Botox, for instance, is a toxin. Someone reading this article would think that the author was implying there is no such thing as toxins.

The clue is in the name “Botox” short for Biological Toxin
stupid bloody advertising people!

Ah, no. It’s short for BOtulinum TOXin. And as DV will be happy to tell you, all toxins are biological.

And all toxins either kill you, or make you wish you were dead!

PM 2Ring said:

bob(from black rock) said:

dv said:

Not bad.

But there are in fact such things as toxins, of course. Botox, for instance, is a toxin. Someone reading this article would think that the author was implying there is no such thing as toxins.

The clue is in the name “Botox” short for Biological Toxin
stupid bloody advertising people!

Ah, no. It’s short for BOtulinum TOXin. And as DV will be happy to tell you, all toxins are biological.

Lead aint, nor is carbon monoxide, what about arsenick?

• Lead aint, nor is carbon monoxide, what about arsenick?

I’m no expert but I think you might be confusing toxic with toxin…

furious said:

• Lead aint, nor is carbon monoxide, what about arsenick?

I’m no expert but I think you might be confusing toxic with toxin…

Could be, so is a toxin toxic or not?

Toxin
Wikipedia said:

A toxin (from Ancient Greek: τοξικόν toxikon) is a poisonous substance produced within living cells or organisms; synthetic toxicants created by artificial processes are thus excluded. The term was first used by organic chemist Ludwig Brieger (1849–1919).

Toxins can be small molecules, peptides, or proteins that are capable of causing disease on contact with or absorption by body tissues interacting with biological macromolecules such as enzymes or cellular receptors. Toxins vary greatly in their severity, ranging from usually minor and acute (as in a bee sting) to almost immediately deadly (as in botulinum toxin).

Everything’s toxic at particular concentrations.

Toxicity
Wikipedia said:

Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism. Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as an animal, bacterium, or plant, as well as the effect on a substructure of the organism, such as a cell (cytotoxicity) or an organ such as the liver (hepatotoxicity). By extension, the word may be metaphorically used to describe toxic effects on larger and more complex groups, such as the family unit or society at large.

A central concept of toxicology is that effects are dose-dependent; even water can lead to water intoxication when taken in too high a dose, whereas for even a very toxic substance such as snake venom there is a dose below which there is no detectable toxic effect. Toxicity is species-specific, making cross-species analysis problematic. Newer paradigms and metrics are evolving to bypass animal testing, while maintaining the concept of toxicity endpoints.

Types of toxicity

There are generally three types of toxic entities; chemical, biological, and physical:

• Chemical toxicants include inorganic substances such as lead, mercury, hydrofluoric acid, and chlorine gas, and organic compounds such as methyl alcohol, most medications, and poisons from living things. Radioactive chemicals are not poisonous because of their chemical nature, but because radiations emitted by nuclei are highly energetic, and destroy cells and tissues, but radioactive toxicity should not be comprehended in chemical toxicity.

• Biological toxicants include bacteria and viruses that can induce disease in living organisms. Biological toxicity can be difficult to measure because the “threshold dose” may be a single organism. Theoretically one virus, bacterium or worm can reproduce to cause a serious infection. However, in a host with an intact immune system the inherent toxicity of the organism is balanced by the host’s ability to fight back; the effective toxicity is then a combination of both parts of the relationship. A similar situation is also present with other types of toxic agents.

• Physical toxicants are substances that, due to their physical nature, interfere with biological processes. Examples include coal dust, asbestos fibers or finely divided silicon dioxide, all of which can ultimately be fatal if inhaled. Corrosive chemicals possess physical toxicity because they destroy tissues, but they’re not directly poisonous unless they interfere directly with biological activity. Water can act as a physical toxicant if taken in extremely high doses because the concentration of vital ions decreases dramatically if there’s too much water in the body. Asphyxiant gases can be considered physical toxicants because they act by displacing oxygen in the environment but they are inert, not toxic gases.

• Could be, so is a toxin toxic or not?

all toxins are toxicants, but not all toxicants are toxins

I miss Semantics.

/* why the school doesn’t try to teach children to read before age 7 and not start high school until age 14 */

Strange, especially given that children seem to finish high school doing only a bunch of stuff they would be able to learn not before, but by the end of, age 7.

Now that you’ve quackproofed yourself, first check that you have, what’s your opinion of ball lightning?

mollwollfumble said:

Now that you’ve quackproofed yourself, first check that you have, what’s your opinion of ball lightning?

Must be male lightning, female lightning doesn’t have balls.