Christopher Maloney is a quack

I know Christopher Maloney is a quack because this is how quacks act. PZ Myers wrote a blog post way back when pointing out that Maloney is a quack, a naturopathic "doctor" in Maine. He urged parents to skip vaccinating their kids, and to have them drink berry juice and take garlic pills instead. That isn't how the real world works, alas. The flu vaccine really does stop the flu, while black elderberry has nothing like the clinical evidence required for this sort of recommendation.

Rather than taking that criticism to heart, Maloney had his wife, a lawyer, send nastygrams to the hosts of blogs that criticized her hubby. That behavior, while certainly loyal, didn't diminish anyone's sense that Christopher Maloney is a quack.

Now she's stirred the hornet's nest by sending a cease and desist letter to PZ Myers. And she insists that charges of quackery are unjustified because "Dr. Maloney has impeccable educational credentials, receiving a pre-medical degree from Harvard University and a medical degree from the National College of Natural Medicine."

There're a few problems with that sentence. A pre-med degree doesn't mean diddly for a physician's competence or qualifications. It isn't even required for admission to medical school. And attending medical school is no guarantee against being or becoming a quack. Nor is NCNM an institution so prestigious as to dissuade criticism. As Mrs. Maloney acknowledges, one is entitled to believe that naturopathy is quackery, and so it can hardly be "libel per se" to express that belief about the practice in general and in particular. And if naturopathy is really quackery, then truth is an absolute defense.

So, the OED defines quack as: "A person who dishonestly claims to have medical or surgical skill, or who advertises false or fake remedies; a medical impostor." The lowest-hanging fruit here is "false or fake remedies." This need not imply any intent to deceive on the part of Maloney, only that his medicine lacks any merit.

That conclusion is easy to justify. A letter from the Massachusetts Medical Society observes:

Naturopathy is both potentially and actually injurious when practiced according to the accepted standards of the profession. This injury is likely to be due to the failure of the naturopathic practitioner to recommend appropriate medical treatment.
Unscientific naturopathic beliefs pose irrational challenges to proven public health measures, most notably childhood immunizations.
Irrational, unscientific beliefs and practices abound in naturopathy, likening it more to a cult than to a valid form of health care. These beliefs and practices are not merely at the fringes but are the standards of the field. They are advocated by the leaders themselves.â¦
Naturopathy involves many nonsensical diagnostic practices that mainstream medicine considers quackery but naturopaths consider standard.â¦
The duration and setting of naturopathic clinical training, even overlooking its content, is inadequate for producing competent primary care physicians. This is clear from a comparison of the training of medical doctors to that of naturopaths. Just as a newly graduated medical doctor, no matter how well-intentioned, would not be allowed to assume the role of a primary care physician, neither should this be allowed for a naturopath whose training is clearly inferior.

The American Cancer Society writes: "Available scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine is effective for most health problems. Most of the claims of effectiveness are based on individual cases, medical records, and summaries of practitionersâ clinical experiences." The NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine notes: "Some beliefs and approaches of naturopathic practitioners are not consistent with conventional medicine, and their safety may not be supported by scientific evidence. For example, some practitioners may not recommend childhood vaccinations that are standard practice in conventional medicine." That rather tends to support the conclusion that, by the dictionary definition and like all naturopaths, Christopher Maloney is a quack.

Categories

More like this

Naturopathy is 80% quackery, 19% science-based modalities like diet, exercise, and lifestyle changes rebranded and infused with woo, and maybe 1% valid medicine. Yes, I know I'm probably being generous given that naturopathy is based on a vitalistic, prescientific worldview and originated in the…
About a month and a half ago, I became aware of the case of Ezekiel Stephan, a 19-month-old Canadian toddler living in Alberta who in 2012 developed bacterial meningitis. Unfortunately for Ezekiel, his parents, David and Collet Stephan, were believers in alternative medicine. They didn’t take…
Medical therapies should be based upon science. That is a recurrent theme, indeed, the major theme, of this blog. Based on that simple thesis, I've spent the last decade examining "unconventional" treatments and evaluating the scientific basis (or, much more usually, the lack of a scientific basis…
Naturopathy is at least 99% woo. That has to be said at the outset. Naturopaths might brag about all the science they take in naturopathy school, claiming that it's as much as MDs take. Even if that were true, the question is not how many hours of basic science naturopaths take, but rather what's…

What a Quack!

I wonder if Barbara Streisand's house is for sale?

By NoAstronomer (not verified) on 08 Dec 2010 #permalink

Naturopathy is an alternative form of medicine which acts in support of allopathic medicine which the whole world follows. Naturopathy cannot insist on skipping vaccines and make people take garlic instead.
Not just this doctor but also his wife is a quack! for both of them are together propagandizing false information and this lawyer turned loyal wife is supporting her husband in his quaky mission!

Awful article, obviously you guys think that conventional medicine is THE ONLY way to treat sickness and disease. THAT is a quack!

By Smoke Ban (not verified) on 13 Dec 2010 #permalink