Quote
kath
Your criticisms are aimed at things Randi has said or done on a professional level. That someone is 'wrong' in your opinion doesn't make them destructive. Destructive gurus' destructiveness isn't judged by that.

Kath it is not just my opinion, my original post included many links to sources which point out many unprofessional aspects of how Randi operates on his 'professional' level. It is by no means an exhaustive listing either.

I am well aware of how cults work, I was in one myself. I did not alledge that Randi was a guru, but in the sense that a guru is a teacher who imparts on people what they should believe then he does fit that categorisation.

It is plain hypocritical to sell someone a book that is your own opinions whilst passing them off as fact at the same time as denouncing those that provide services and information which you consider to be unproven as charlatans which is precisely what Randi does.

Acid Reindeer has already responded very well to the issues that you raised.

If Randi is pressed for time a five minute Google would turn up more accuarate information than what he has presented in the above example. It is not good enough to simply say that he does not have enough time. If one wants to take the responsibility upon themselves to make claims that guide other people's beliefs and attempt to offset dangerous groups or practices in any meaningful way then they should know what they are talking about.

Comandeering science to present 'facts' which are falsified, incomplete or erroneous is indeed a destructive practice. The cult that I was in was called 'Science of Identity' it claims a scientific basis just as Krishna philosophy and various similar cults do. It can be quite persuasive - it is what initially sucked me in, and while I do realise now that there was much more 'scientific' factors than I was aware of then, which are obviously flawed, in addition to other negative aspects of the cult which you have described above, there is also a shortage of information to conteract these.

Putting out wrongful information, which will be cited by others and form a useless point of reference does nothing to offset this. It infact provides ammunition for those whose own interests (such as cult leaders) are vested in painting their critics as those who simply do not understand and have their own agendas, and I consider that to be destructive enough to be subject to sincere examination and questioning.

Quote
drivingthecar
Stephen Barrett, on the other hand, actively goes out and tries to destroy individual lives by filing lawsuits and having alternative healthcare practitioners arrested.

[www.quackpotwatch.org]

How he would see it is he is exposing frauds and charlatans. Stopping people being taken in financially or even killed by these therapies if they were to follow them and refuse conventional medical treatment.

Quote
kath
How he would see it is he is exposing frauds and charlatans. Stopping people being taken in financially or even killed by these therapies if they were to follow them and refuse conventional medical treatment.

It's my right as an American to seek out an alternative health practitioner if I so choose. No-one was killed by the people he went after, and he lost his cases.

If he wants to "educate" people that's one thing. But when he's going after individual alternative health practitioners who have happy clients and haven't hurt anyone...that's harassment.

I regularly see an acupuncturist. Yes, I have heard the rare case (I think one in China in the past few years) where someone gets hurt by acupuncture. (In that case, an elderly woman had her lung punctured by a needle.) Knowing full well that everything you do has risks, I choose to see an acupuncturist. It has made a huge different in my health.

You could just as easily die from medication, or during surgery. All medicine has risks.

I have issues with Randi as he lumps all alternative therapies into one basket and throws all of them out stating that there is no scientific evidence to support them. I havn't read him in a while so he might have changed his tune. Despite suffering iatrogenic trauma with the therapies of my alternative physician, I would say that it was this particular quack that was the reason this happened and would not paint all alternative medical practitioners with the same brush. There actually is a great deal of scientific research - double-blinded, randomized, what have you, on many therapies, and some stuff just hasn't been studied yet. The support group I went to for a short period was run by two therapists, cult experts, who were big fans of Randi and it was really difficult getting past their opinions on alternative medicine, based on what Randi had to say about them, and get to the other issues involving coercive persuasion, covert manipulation and all the other junk.

Stephen Barrett is a very sick man, but cleverly

Quote
drivingthecar
But when he's going after individual alternative health practitioners who have happy clients and haven't hurt anyone...

I hink he would say that it's still fraud and he's exposing it. He particularly goes after Hilde Clarke who believes all cancer is caused by an intestinal worm that doesn't even have any poulation at all in the West :D

How people are hurt most often by alternative therapies isn't the flukey mistakes, it's people who have diseases such as cancer and refuse conventional treatment, then they spend thousands of their last money on therapies that do nothing.

I personally still practice some therapies on myself, but I think it's that people like Barrett are around. They counter the worse excesses of alternative medicine. They make people think before they part with large sums of money or chose to have no mainstream treatments at all- often increasing their chances of death or relapse.

Kath,

Drivingthecar wrote

Quote

If he wants to "educate" people that's one thing. But when he's going after individual alternative health practitioners [b:a262139f9d]who have happy clients and haven't hurt anyone[/b:a262139f9d]...that's harassment.

Your responses are exactly what I was referring to when I sugguested that there is a 'skeptic religion' with people investing their faith in what these guys tell them to believe and defending them to the extent that a disciple will defend their guru.

I have presented many facts here about Randi, and the other people that have posted have made points which they have explained and backed up. All I can see is you trying to justify what the skeptics do without backing it up. Do you really have knowledge of how much time Randi has or what Barrett thinks? It seems to me that you are running solely on faith of what you want to believe.

Further on the point as to whether someone believing they are doing the right thing should justify them going ahead and doing it irrespective of having any proof to support their theory or actions..

My ex cult leader goes after homosexuals. He believes that he is saving people in doing this. It is his belief that gay men are the sole proprieters of HIV/AIDS and that this disease can be caught by casual social contact and food that positive people have touched. While I would hope that there would be no one who has such a mindset this side of 1984 I will say that these ideas have absolutely no scientific merit.

He further believes that all gay people have an agenda against God and are on a mission to eradicate all references from God and abillity to practice religion. Therefore he thinks that he is saving people from being imposed on or duped into not accepting God as their own choice.

Giving belief and intentions based on belief precedence over fact is a very dangerous and destructive concept.

Quote
drivingthecar
There are allegations that the "Quackbusters" are really part of a conspiracy by certain people in the medical profession to discredit their competition in the alternative health fields.

Big Pharma conspiracy- classic :D

Obviously I only know what Barrett etc think inasmuch as I have read their websites, and use logic myself. All of us have only limited time. To say that Randi should read religious texts of the Hare Krishnas is a little like when people come on this site and say we should all try the Landmark Forum, before we can comment on it. Randi has a career, he's not a full-time researcher, and the Krishnas are not the only group he focuses on.

I don't think I'm a sceptical cult zombie, I have mentioned some criticisms and ways in which I differ from Randi

these were:-

1) He is dismissive of alt med etc across the board in a somewhat sweeping way.

2) I will still use some therapies, which if I was a sceptical lackey I would never dream of doing.

3) Your point of drawbacks there might be in how Randi conducts the Psychic Challenge is a good one. If the records of attempts really aren't open to the public, that's not very good

4) It does seem like some sceptics disregard, or when they write, attempt to hide the existence of studies that might have provided some evidence of alt med. I can see this a bit in the Skeptic's dictionary, however that's more for propounding one school of thought than it is to diiscuss all the evidence.

As to propounding the opposite point of view to yours and those of others in this thread- well yes I'm attempting to present the other point of view. :D But you have sort of made me think about points (3) and (4) above.

To me scepticism balances out any tendency I might have to give in to the danger of extreme flakiness at the far end of alternative medicine and spirituality. Such as some people I know who believe the Egyptians built crystal caves (a small bump by the side of the road) at a priory in Britain (a country Egyptians never visited.)
---
P.S. I meant 'Hulda Clark' in my last post. There was no edit button for some reason

Quote

Big Pharma conspiracy- classic :D

This is not at all far fetched or deserving of being dismissed as idle conspiracy theory.

[www.usdoj.gov]

Quote

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A former executive of the Swiss pharmaceutical giant F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. today agreed to plead guilty, serve a five-month jail sentence, and pay a $150,000 fine for his role in an international conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the vitamin industry, the Department of Justice announced.

References for Fraud in the Pharmaceutical Industry, including much detail of 'the vitamin scandal expose 1999' : [www.uow.edu.au]

Quote

The vitamin cartel was the "most pervasive and harmful criminal antitrust conspiracy ever uncovered," said Assistant Attorney General Joel I. Klein

[www.mnwelldir.org]

The article by Dr Matthias Rath's from his book Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attacks . . . But People Do! reprinted by permission on this page is worth reading.

As I live in Australia this is of particular interest to me, although it has alreaday happened in Europe and has the potential to happen elsewhere. It looks like an attempt to control and suppress natural medicine to me.

[cliterallyspeaking.blogspot.com]

Quote

Because if the government (and pharmaceutical companies) get their way, the Codex Legislation being implemented in Europe will be passed and you may need to visit your doctor for a prescription to get any of the natural health supplements that are now available from your health store, naturopath or distributor. These prescribed supplements will not only contain minimum levels of the current supplements, but many will be synthetic (molecules changed for patent purposes). These European laws could be transposed upon Australia via Free Trade Agreements and WTO obligations.

James Randi is highly respected and once won a MacArthur Foundation "genius award" for his accomplishements.

See [www.macfound.org]

The award included $500,00.

This was some years ago in 1986 and Randi might have chosen to simply retire and live a comfortable life.

He didn't.

Instead he chose to spend much of the money defending himself against frivolous litigation filed against him by a "psychic" named Uri Geller.

In the end Geller lost, but it was an expensive process for Randi.

See [www.randi.org]

This is the James Randi Foundation Web site.

Randi has exposed quite a few frauds during his long career as a debunker and many people dislike him. Most often he is disliked because of loyalty to someone he has exposed and/or an area of study and practice he has criticized.

However, in the free marketplace of ideas and in a country that has something called the First Amendment, critics like Randi have the right to speak out and be heard.

The same would apply to QuackWatch, which is run by a medical doctor.

See [www.quackwatch.org]

QuackWatch is run by Stephen Barrett, M.D. a respected physician.

Barrett like Randi has his enemies.

Barrett seeks to expose quacks, frauds and cons, much like Randi, but in the field of health services.

See [www.quackwatch.org]

Both Randi and Barrett can be seen as providing a public service, which has often helped to protect the public against fraud and deceipt.

Those critical of these gentleman have the right to speak out, but Randi and Barret likewise have the right to express their ideas.