One of the most contentious and difficult aspects of trying to improve medical care in this country is enforcing a minimal "standard of care." Optimally, this standard of care should be based on science- and evidence-based medicine and act swiftly when a practitioner practices medicine that doesn't meet even a minimal requirement for scientific studies and clinical trials to support it. At the same time, going too far in the other direction risks stifling innovation and the ability to individualize treatments to a patient's unique situation--or even to use treatments that have only scientific plausibility going for them as a last-ditch effort to help a patient. Also, areas of medicine that are still unsettled and controversial could be especially difficult to adjudicate. Unfortunately, with medicine being regulated at the state level, there are 50 state medical boards, each with different laws governing licensure requirements and standards for disciplining wayward physicians, our current system doesn't even do a very good job of protecting the public from physicians who practice obvious quackery. The reasons are myriad. Most medical boards are overburdened and underfunded. Consequently, until complaints are made and there is actual evidence of patient harm, they are often slow to act. Also, in my experience, they tend to prefer to go after physicians who misbehave in particularly egregious ways: alcoholic physicians or physicians suffering from other forms of substance abuse; physicians who sexually abuse patients; or physicians who are "prescription mills" for narcotics. These sorts of cases are often much more clear-cut, but most importantly they don't force boards to make value judgments on the competence and practice of physicians to nearly the extent that prosecuting purveyors of unscientific medicine does.
The reason I've been thinking about this issue again is because last Friday it was announced that one of the most outrageous woo-meisters of which I have ever become aware, Dr. Rashid Buttar of North Carolina, was, after many years of practice, finally disciplined by the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners. In brief, the Board restricted his practice so that he is no longer permitted to treat children or cancer patients (more on why those two particular restrictions were imposed below). Sadly, the Board did not subject Dr. Buttar to the penalty that he so richly deserves, having his medical license stripped from him, cut up in front of his face, and then the fragments ritually burned. Once hailed as a hero by antivaccinationists and even once having testified to the Subcommittee on Wellness & Human Rights on autism issues, in conventional medical circles, Dr. Buttar is now completely disgraced--as he should be.
It was Dr. Buttars activities at his clinic, known as the Center for Advanced Medicine and Clinical Research, that got him into trouble. The website for the clinic features on its front page this quote:
"All truth passes through 3 phases: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed, and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."- Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860.
I can't resist mentioning that any time I see this particular quote, I know that I'm almost certainly dealing with a crank par excellence. The reason? What one must realize about this particular quote, a favorite of woo-meisters, cranks, and pseudoscientists the world over, is that it's talking about truth. Non-"truth," or pseudoscience, never makes it past phase one or phase two--and rightly so, I might add. Right off the bat from this quote alone, we can see that Dr. Buttar has a greatly inflated view of his own importance. We can also see this unpleasant aspect of his charcter from an earlier news story in which Dr. Buttar compared the Board to a "rabid dog," a statement that suggests that perhaps, whatever his other talents in self-promotion, Dr. Buttar lacks a certain diplomacy. It's generally not a good idea to piss off the Board that holds your career in its hands by insulting it, but apparently in his rush to play martyr, he has forgotten that.
I first became aware of Dr. Buttar around three years ago in the context of his "transdermal" chelation therapy for autism. Regular readers may be aware that the whole concept of "chelation" therapy for autism is based on the scientifically discredited notion that mercury in the thimerosal preservative that used to be used in childhood vaccines until the end of 2001 is a major cause of autism. Based on this highly dubious concept, all manner of methods to "detoxify" these children of the mercury (and other heavy metals) that, according to antivaccinationists, are the cause of autism, have been used on autistic children. Chelation therapy involves using chemicals that can bind to the metal ions and allow them to be excreted by the kidneys, and indeed this is standard therapy for certain types of acute heavy metal poisoning. However, when it is used for coronary artery disease or autism, on a strictly stoichiometric and pharmacological basis, as I explained so long ago and many time since, it is extremely implausible. Moreover, it is not without potential complications, including renal damage and cardiac arrhythmias due to sudden drops in calcium levels. Such arrhythmias can and have resulted in "clean kills" of patients. Despite this extreme implausibility, randomized controlled studies showing that chelation is no better than placebo for cardiovascular disease and no evidence at all that it does anything at all for symptoms of autism, a veritable cottage industry of chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease and autism has sprung up. With most regimens costing $100 to $150 a treatment and "requiring" 30 to 40 doses, it's a tidy little profit center for "alternative" physicians with no scientific understanding and even less ethics.
Dr. Buttar made his name in the autism community by coming up with a form of chelation therapy that did not involve intravenous medication, which led him to be lionized by boosters of the "mercury causes autism" such as Generation Rescue and to become a member of the board of directors of the American Association for Health Freedom. He took an accepted chelator used for acute heavy metal poisoinging, including mercury, called DMPS, formulated it as a paste or cream, and dubbed it "transdermal DMPS" or TD-DMPS. (Personally, I prefer the term that some wags have used, "Buttar's butter.") His main claim is that it's safer. Of that there is little doubt, given that there is no evidence that it does anything at all except stink up autistic children (the paste is, by reports, rather pungent). That's because Dr. Buttar has either utterly refused or been unable to provide even the barest modicum of evidence to suggest that the DMPS is absorbed through the skin and into the bloodstream, much less that it chelates anything. That is the most basic question that any science- and evidence-based physician would ask about any transdermal medicine, and Dr. Buttar's reactions to such questions is very telling. For instance, Prometheus quotes him:
In answer to questions of whether he has tested to see if his transdermal DMPS (TD-DMPS) drops are, in fact, absorbed through the skin -
No, we haven't done that. Why would I waste my time proving something that I already know is working innately?
And, in response to being challenged on this point, Dr. Buttar wrote in an e-mail exchange with a supporter of his named Pat Sullivan, Jr.:
My purpose is not to prove that TD-DMPS is getting through the skin Patrick. I don't care if it is a placebo, which obviously it isn't....and our lancet paper
It is a "SAFETY" issue I'm talking about....I don't care to prove a damn thing to those people that you have been dueling it out with.
I wonder if my study section at the NIH would accept such an argument in a grant proposal if I wanted to do a clinical trial on some therapy or other. In a later e-mail, Dr. Buttar wrote:
You see, first, you would have to actually have to have some type of test developed to actually detect the DMPS in it's altered form as it is absorbed. That takes money, effort and time. As my friend says, why do it? Let someone who wants to establish biokenetics and half life do that. It is not necessary to do this from a clinical efficacy standpoint. It would be nice to know how it works, but it is irrelevant. It works based on empirical evidence.
So it's absorption is not an issue for me or for anyone who is a true scientist because the empirical evidence is abundant. Only a pseduo scientist is going to get caught up with levels in serum, which it may not even show, since DMPS is highly neurophillic and may be possibly taken up by the nerves or distributed through the lymphatics...I don't know and I frankly don't care since it has no relevance to the clinical side of the house. But you see how absurd it is to simply assume it has to get into the serum? It most likely does, but it may not. The point is, it gets in and it works....and it works better than anything else out there.
Yes, Dr. Buttar "knows" his treatment works, based on his "clinical experience." He don't need no steekin' science, like bothering to show that his drug actually gets absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream or does anything, despite having promised a study since 2004.) This always struck me as quite odd, given that it would in fact be pretty straightforward to document whether the DMPS is getting into the bloodstream and if it is actually chelating heavy metals. Why on earth would he not want to do it and prove all his critics (like me) wrong? If I were him and that confident of my treatment, I'd be chomping at the bit to get egg on the faces of my critics with a real scientific study. Of course, as we know, the plural of "anecdotes" is not "data," as Steve Novella has pointed out, and, as Prometheus has pointed out, autism is a syndrome of developmental delay, not developmental stasis, which is why randomized studies with a placebo-control group are so critical. Particularly telling is Dr. Buttar's statement that he "doesn't care if it's a placebo." Little more needs to be said about his attitude about science (which appears to border on, if not be, outright contempt for the "pointy-heads" who correctly tell him he doesn't know what he's doing), but that hasn't stopped him from promoting this unproven and dubious therapy for autism for several years now.
More recently, Dr. Buttar developed a new "protocol" for treating autism that involved more than just chelation therapy. It is described here by a parent who saw him for a consultation a couple of years ago:
Every 2 weeks our son will get IV EDTA and ozone (which will be infused in his blood and given via IV) and on the second day he will get minerals. The reason given for ozone is to reduce persistent organics in his system. There is no test being recommended to determine if the child will be a good candidate for ozone. Apparently, some children are seeing good results and Dr Buttar is trying this treatment on older children (greater than 7). Dr Buttar's office has provided some research on ozone done by a MD researcher in NY whom we spoke with. The immediate reaction of this researcher was that there has not been any study with children while ozone therapy is safe and has been used on millions of people in Europe. The researcher was not aware of Dr Buttar or his protocol on children and said that one needs to establish first if ozone therapy is needed.
There is, of course, no biologic plausibility or evidence to support the use of such a regimen, and in general injecting ozone is probably not a good idea. But Dr. Buttar has reportedly gone even beyond this level of dubiousness. As reported by Kevin Leitch, parents on a Yahoo! discussion group about chelation therapy for autism were reporting in 2006 that Dr. Buttar was recommending, well, let Kevin describe it. First, a parent asks:
Have any of your tried, or even heard anything about, doing urine shots to help the immune system? I don't know much about it yet, but I know you use your child's own urine, and filter it with special filters, before injecting it into their hip. I've heard really good things about it from a friend who tried it.
Here are some answers:
- "This was recommended by Dr. Buttar's office for my NT son who has tons of allergies. I believe Dr. Imam in NY does it. It sounded too "out there" for us so we are currently sticking with justchelation for him."
- "My grandson went through this beginning in October. It was a once a week treatment for 10 weeks. Before he began, he had lots of allergy problems that would often advance into sinus infection and ear infections. It's almost April and he has not had one problem since. The only thing that I see is an occasional stuffy nose that lasts only a very short time."
- "I only know this was described to me to be a procedure used by Dr. Buttar about a year ago when my son was his patient, but the nurse said it would require an extended stay near the clinic and we live in Texas. We never tried it and moved on to another doctor."
As Kevin puts it:
Just in case you think you read it wrong, you didn't. Rashid Buttar and others recommend taking some of the childs urine, filtering it and then injecting it back into them. This is apparently good for the immune system. Yummy.
Yummy, indeed. I wonder if Dr. Buttar partakes of his own recommended therapy to boost his own immune system. Inquiring minds want to know!
Even more egregious than his abuse of autistic children with unproven therapies is Dr. Buttar's treatments for cancer patients. Let's see what Dr. Buttar says on his own website about how he treats cancer:
The standard method of treating cancer is comprised of a combination of chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. However, according to the conventional, traditional medical literature, 75 to 95 percent of all cancers are related to some type of toxicity which results in damage to the immune system. Also, 42 percent of all cancer patients die of malnutrition. Yet, how many doctors treating cancer address nutrition or help repair the immune system? Learn the 5 step treatment approach Dr. Buttar uses in repairing the immune system in conditions such as cancer and AIDS. Then reach your own conclusion.
None of Dr. Buttar's treatments have been subjected to science or to randomized clinical trials (or even well-designed case series), as far as I can tell, but that doesn't stop Dr. Buttar from being unbelievably cocky and making totally unrealistic claims to patients with incurable cancer:
Medical board documents don't name the four patients whose cases are cited. But Stephanie Kenny, a Charlotte mother of three, told The Charlotte Observer she is one of those who complained, on behalf of her husband, Jeffrey Kenny.
After learning that his adrenal cell cancer had returned following surgery, Jeffrey Kenny sought help from Buttar in early 2004. "He said it didn't matter what kind of cancer anybody had, he could cure it," Stephanie Kenny said. "He kept reiterating he had a 100 percent success rate."
Jerry Messina, of Los Angeles, told The Charlotte Observer he also complained to the medical board on behalf of his aunt, Lori Kostin. He said she went to Buttar after three rounds of chemotherapy failed to cure ovarian cancer. The medical board said Kostin paid $10,000 of a $30,000 bill for two months of treatment with IV infusions.
Messina, who did not meet Buttar, said his aunt told him the doctor "treated every type of cancer the same" and bragged about his 100 percent success rate. Two weeks before she died, in November 2004 at age 52, "she just flat out told me `I wish I'd never gone to this Dr. Buttar,'" Messina said. "She felt that her cancer got a lot worse."
It should be noted that Dr. Buttar claims that he has patients sign a form that "no claim to cure cancer with these therapies has been made." After hearing multiple former patients testify that he promised them 100% results, this sort of legal CYA seems to reek of the Quack Miranda Warning. Be that as it may, anyone, doctor or not, who claims that he or she has a 100% success rate in curing cancers like the ones described above is either deluded or a liar.
Not even cancers for which there is a good prognosis and for which we have very effective treatments are cured 100% of the time. Moreover, it is incredibly unethical to make such a claim and then accept tens of thousands of dollars for these treatments. Even worse, like the Gonzalez regimen, Dr. Buttar's cancer regimen is very onerous for cancer patients to follow. Indeed, one of Dr. Buttar's patients, a man with prostate cancer who has posted under the pseudonym Cajun Cowboy, summarized his regimen, and the number of supplements and treatments is simply incredible. It turns out that Cajun Cowboy was at first a big fan and happy patient of Dr. Buttar, but now his website says:
All the information about Dr. Buttar is still on this site Â but I no longer am one of his patients and I do not recommend him to any one for any reason. If you go to him for treatment BEWARE,Â BEWARE and read Roger Mason's books first and go to QuackWatch.org first!
His description of Dr. Buttar's billing practices is heartbreaking, and Dr. Buttar has been known to go after patients' estates for uncollected bills. Meanwhile, one of the Board recognized a cardinal sign of questionable medicine:
"Doesn't it strike you as a little strange that every patient that comes through your door has heavy metal toxicity?" Dr. Art McCulloch, a Charlotte anesthesiologist, asked Buttar's nurse practitioner, Jane Garcia.
I assume the question was a rhetorical one, as anyone who has taken the time to study practitioners like Dr. Buttar knows that giving the same diagnosis and suggesting more or less the same treatment to every patient is practically pathognomonic of quackery.
The reason I've gone on so long about Dr. Buttar is not just because I don't like him and his unscientific and deceptive practices (I don't), but rather to show just how outside of the standard of care Dr. Buttar's practice of medicine has been. Kathleen Seidel has documented all of the complaints leveled by the NC Board against him, and I encourage everyone to read them. My second purpose is to point out just how powerless the North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners seems to have been for so long. Yes, it is taking action now and has specifically restricted Dr. Buttar's practice to exclude cancer patients and children (the latter of which should stop his treating autistic children), but Dr. Buttar practiced this way for several years and continued to do so in the years during which the Board's proceedings against him ground slowly along. Moreover, it's by no means clear that the Board's recommendation for a slap on the wrist will even stand. Dr. Buttar has deep pockets and can afford to fight this action all the way to the North Carolina Supreme Court, just as he has promised to do. I have no doubt that he will try to do just that. Even worse, even if Dr. Buttar loses, I must point out that his medical license is not being taken away, as it should be. He will still be able to practice, just not on cancer patients or children. There's nothing in the Board's recommendation that would prevent him from treating patients with cardiovascular disease with TD-DMPS or whatever concoction of chelation therapy and supplements he could dream up.
If Dr. Buttar were just one example of an "alternative" practitioner who manages to get away with practicing non-science-based medicine that does not help patients and arguably harms them, one might dismiss him as nothing more than an anomaly. However, just in the realm of just autism alone, he is not alone. Dr. Roy Kerry, for instance, is an otolaryngologist near Pittsburgh who apparently has given up head and neck surgery and devoted himself to dubious allergy treatments and various "alternative" medical modalities. He also killed an autistic child in 2005 with chelation therapy. Yet, despite this, the CDC got it wrong about why this happened, and it took nearly two and a half years before any substantive action was taken. I will give proper credit to the State of Pennsylvania, though, that Dr. Kerry will not just be subject to the medical board's acting to take his license away. In addition, he will soon stand trial for negligent homicide, although I can't resist pointing out that, despite one of the most inarguable "clean kills" of a patient by a quack I've ever seen, as far as I know Dr. Kerry still has a license to practice medicine and has continued to see patients since 2005. I have no doubt that if the autistic boy under his "care" (Abubakar Tariq Nadama) had not died, Dr. Kerry would still be happily chelating autistic children with no interference from the government or state medical board.
If Dr. Buttar and Dr. Kerry are two practitioners of non-evidence-based medicine who actually are finally being brought to justice for their offenses against medicine, however, many more are like the case of Dr. Mark Geier, who has served as an expert witness in numerous lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, although few are as egregous. He has had, as far as I know, no actions taken against him by the Maryland Board of Physicians or any other governmental body. Describing in detail the number of questionable and unscientific practices that I've written a lot about Dr. Geier, his son David, and their numerous dubious practices before, and cataloging the outrages that Dr. Geier inflicts on autistic children in the name of "curing them" of "vaccine injury" would be the topic for another blog post entirely, but I can summarize them with a short list of links:
- Advocating a combination of chelation therapy and androgen blockade with Lupron (the same drug used for chemical castration) for autistic children (also here)
- Diagnosing most autistic children with "precocious puberty" without proper diagnostic tests (an example bordering on diagnosing all autistic children with the same condition)
- Subjecting children to excessive blood draws for no good reason
- Running a front "institute" that allows them to constitute an IRB packed with cronies and friends to supervise his "clinical trials" (more here). As a clinical researcher, it boggles my mind that anyone can get away with such an unethical arrangement.
Kathleen Seidel has done an excellent in-depth series about Dr. Geier, as well. How the Geiers continue to practice, be called as "expert witnesses" in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, and avoid scrutiny of the state medical board, I'll never know, but then I'll never know how anyone can take seriously their concept that testosterone "sheets" somehow bind to mercury and make it harder to chelate and their implication that shooting up autistic children with Lupron, a drug that shuts down sex hormone synthesis and thus lowers testosterone levels, makes chelation therapy "work better," either.
Advocates for science- and evidence-based medicine cannot help but be appalled at how easily physicians practicing modalities that are clearly so far outside the standard of care that they might as well be in another galaxy can continue to do so with little or no oversight or even interference by state medical boards. In essence, it takes mind-numbingly egregious offenses to motivate a board to act, such it substance abuse by a physician resulting in obvious impairment, non-science-based treatments resulting in the death or severe injury of a patient, or blatantly illegal behavior, such as running a narcotic prescription mill. Part of the problem is that the attitude among doctors seems to be that a medical license is a right, rather than what it really is: an incredible privilege bestowed upon us physicians and surgeons by society that takes an equally incredible commitment and skill to be allowed to continue to keep.
Also, physicians who are on these boards are also often unpaid and reluctant (as they see it) to strip a fellow doctor of the means of his or her livelihood and a cultural tendency among physicians to stick together, circle the wagons, and defend each other, a tendency that the current malpractice climate serves to reinforce. As physicians, we understand the difficulty of making decisions that can have profound consequences in our patients' lives and how much doctors agonize over such decisions. Consequently, we assume that our fellow physicians think as hard about what they're doing as we do, and we tend to want to bend over backwards to give them the benefit of the doubt. Our patients deserve better. The vast majority of physicians are competent and try their best to deliver the best evidence-based care they can to their patients. However, doctors who consistently do not practice according to the standard of care, be it because they are incompetent, dishonest, impaired by substance abuse, or because they have come to believe in blatantly unscientific treatments that do not help and not infrequently harm patients, do not deserve to be physicians. Examples such as Drs. Buttar, Kerry, and Geier show that our system is broken. If we as a profession do not find a way to do better, I fear that legislators will do it for us.
OMFG. This guy bitches about trace amounts of ethyl mercury that are purged from the body within an effing WEEK, and he's injecting gallons of piss into little kids just because he can?!? And with absolutely no evidence that would survive any sort of examination?
Any reports of juvenile gout (which would, I imagine, be highly unusual) among his patients?
No, we haven't done that. Why would I waste my time proving something that I already know is working innately?
Reminiscent of: "it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail".
The failure of medical boards to do their frickin' jobs is just one more weakness in the firewall between us and bullshit. Another weak link is the huge media and online advantage the woomeister have over the sane people. Just the other day, when I was looking up the WHO's July 2006 statement on ethyl mercury in vaccines, the Google search terms I used pulled up a whole page of woo links before I got to the WHO site. And some of the woo pages had a slicky professional look to them, the sort that reassures the average punter who isn't hep to the paucity of content.
If we could regularly link in our posts to certain sane pages -- such as the WHO page I mentioned -- this would go a little way towards combating the huge imbalance that favors woo. In fact, it might be a good idea to post a list of the most useful ammo links so we can disseminate them. Anyone have any suggestions as to what should go on such a list?
Two key signs of a crank or woo-meister :
1: "Galileo was right even though he was howled down in his own time"
2: "All truth passes through 3 phases: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed, and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."- Arthur Schopenhauer, 1788-1860."
The difference between Galileo and quacks such as Buttar is that Galileo had the proof to go with his statement.
Buttar does not. I live in hope for the day I can name him as Mr Buttar instead of Dr. He does not deserve the title.
Just a thought:
I would like to see clearer distinction of obtaining a degree certificate and the professional practice title, be it in medicine, science or what-have-you.
A professional title is over and above the degree. While a educational certificate is "forever", in order to retain professional status, you need to have the appropriate qualificiations and continue to maintain and practice according to those qualifications.
A person who once earned a Ph.D., but has since taken up Creationism (or ID) and no longer practices science as a scientist would know it, can hardly title themselves "scientist".
A person who once earned an M.D. (or equivalent), may subsequently be awarded a title to practice as a doctor. But if they no longer practice medicine as a doctor would know it, they hardly deserve the title "doctor".
While waiting for dinner to finish cooking, I was going through Kathleen Seidel's blog. I stumbled upon her latest posting on Buttar. Some family member of patients must have found it through google, and left some very poignant and maddening comments (maddening for all the money they spent on false hope, and sometimes never seeing the doctor at all):
Add to the list of disgraces to the medical profession people like Jay Gordon and the Sears clan, who encourage their deluded patients to believe vaccines are bad for them.
I'm not a doctor by any means, but wouldn't strengthening the immune system make allergies worse?
"Also, physicians who are on these boards are also often unpaid and reluctant (as they see it) to strip a fellow doctor of the means of his or her livelihood and a cultural tendency among physicians to stick together, circle the wagons, and defend each other, a tendency that the current malpractice climate serves to reinforce."
Add to that that the possibility that the Board members will be sued, individually. It you think that's a remote possibility, check these reports about dubious suits reported today at Overlawyered.com:
"Academic litigation, cont'd: Dartmouth lecturer says she'll sue students
on April 30, 2008 12:05 AM
"Priya Venkatesan (Dartmouth '90, MS in Genetics, PhD in literature) emailed members of her Winter '08 Writing 5 class Saturday night to announce her intention to seek damages from them for their being mean to her." Venkatesan, who is working on a book entitled A Postmodernist in the Laboratory, was the instructor in a class called Science, Technology and Society, evidently an example of the Science Studies genre. "Essentially, I am pursuing litigation to see if I have a legal claim, that is, if the inappropriate and unprofessional behavior I was subjected to as a Research Associate and Lecturer at Dartmouth constitutes discrimination and harrassment [sic] on the basis of ethnicity, race and gender. This includes not just students, but a few faculty members that I worked with." (Gawker, Apr. 29; Dartlog, Apr. 26; IvyGate, Apr. 29; Above the Law, Apr. 29)."
"Law professor sues his students
on April 29, 2008 10:03 PM
Richard Peltz, a specialist in media and First Amendment law at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock, says he feels like a pariah after two students active in the school's Black Law Students Association made "false accusations of racism" about him. Civil libertarian Harvey Silverglate, often quoted on the subject of campus free speech, contends that even if Peltz is correctly characterizing the students' talk about him, a lawsuit is the wrong way to proceed. (Above the Law, Apr. 29; Michelle Hillen, "Experts watch as professor sues students", Arkansas Online, Apr. 27)."
So, who cares about incompetence? Just don't hurt anyone's feelings.
I can never figure out one thing: when legitimate doctors treat patients ethically and make a mistake, they can be taken to the cleaners by lawyers. Why can't lawyers take down quacks? Am I missing something?
sorry I couldn't think of a better place to put this comment, but I came across this:
is this guy (the doc who owns the site, can't remember how to write his name now) considered a woo-meister?
What I saw (I couldn't hear sound on the video, speakers are off and I cannot figure out how to turn them on. I'm at work, so it's a coworker's computer.)
Sounds like plain old fearmongering again.......he's trying to pin autism, adhd, schizophrenia, arthritis, asthma, alzheimers.........to toxins people ingest. I'm not sure what the audio content of the video is.........I'd be interested to read your analysis of the website and the video, which curiously only has this video as content, there are no links to articles or anything else. Is this a sign of quackery, that there's nothing else but a video, and no articles or links to articles supporting the claims of the video, which unfortunately I couldn't hear?
I'm trying to learn how to be more skeptical of claims and learn to identify quackery..........so how'd I do on my first try?
I know I failed in the "brief description" course......hah
There are a couple rules of thumb that can be applied. If they fit these criteria, at the minimum you should be very wary.
* A very broad range of disparate diseases are caused by a single, common item.
* Any mention of de-toxification
* Any mention of chelation
* Use of words like imbalance, energy, and misalignment
* Offering products, *any* products, for sale to the public
* Belief that they are being persecuted by a greedy orthodoxy
"I can never figure out one thing: when legitimate doctors treat patients ethically and make a mistake, they can be taken to the cleaners by lawyers. Why can't lawyers take down quacks? Am I missing something?"
Yes, OMar, you are missing something. About 4% of the physicians account for over 50% of the med mal claims. However, nearly every physician either has malpractice insurance or works for a hospital, company, or a government entity that provides coverage (and either pays the premium or funds its coverage via tax dollars). Insurance "spreads the risk" via the premiums charged. Hence, the other 96% are paying for the 4%. It doesn't take many meritorious med mal claims to drive up the premiums. In the heartland, a dead kid is worth in the $1 to $3 Million range; in small cities like Columbus, OH, or Little Rock, AR, the damages can go into the $10 to $15 Million range; in major cities like Chicago and Miami, the damages can go into the $25 Million range; and in California, the damages can be enough to buy a small nation, get UN membership and obtain foreign aid from the State Department. Although that money comes from some "insurance company", the insurance company gets that money from premiums charged to physicians who haven't made any mistakes, and on income from investing those premiums. When the stock market and real estate markets tank, the investment income won't cover the judgments, so the insurance companies raise premiums.
So, what's a life worth in dollars, to the person, and to the family? And, recognizing that anyone can make a mistake, and in medicine that mistake can be catastrophic in its effects, do you forego insurance and take the chance to be "taken to the cleaners" (and, leave the family whose loved one your malpractice killed without a real remedy)? The issues are a little more complex than your question implies.
In the meantime, since lawyers can't get a physician's medical license revoked, and as long as the state Medical Boards let the 4% continue to practice, don't expect your premiums to go down any time soon.
Did he make that up? We chemists talk about compounds being lipophilic, or hydrophilic, or even now, in the days of environmental PFOS contamination, protein-binding, but dayyum, I just don't think that even makes sense.