The history of medicine is a noble one, with an ultimate goal of extending human life and easing human suffering. Unfortunately, medicine also has its share of charlatans, con-men, and incompetents whose greatest evil is to cast doubt on the benefits of any medicine in the minds of laymen. Merriam-Webster defines a “quack” as “a pretender to medical skill”. Presented here are some self-proclaimed, as well as licensed, “pretenders” who may have had the best of intentions, but certainly achieved the worst of results.
The purported inventor of the “Anodyne Necklace”, Chamberlen claimed that the necklace would help “children’s teethe as well as woman’s labour”. It is no shock that children during the eighteenth century often died as infants, and as many times during infancy the baby is teething, it may have seemed natural that the teething itself was the source of illness and death. The Anodyne Necklace was invented to simply place around a baby’s neck to prevent infant death during teething. Chamberlen deserves the last place on this list for preying and capitalizing on the grief and terror of parents who were more often than not during this period resigned to the fact that their children would be more likely to die in infancy than to make it to adulthood. Unbelievably, such necklaces are still being sold today, despite an utter lack of evidence of their efficacy. See for yourself.
Invented the Dynamizer, which he claimed could diagnose any ailment simply by feeding into it a slip of paper upon which had been blotted a drop of the patient’s blood. If a drop of blood was unavailable or the patient didn’t want to give it, a handwriting sample would suffice! One made the Dynamizer work by connecting it with an electrode to the forehead of an assistant, who was stripped bare to the waist. Then the assistant was turned to face West under dim light and his abdomen struck repeatedly with a mallet. The vibrations coming off the assistant’s abdomen would indicate to the doctor the nature of the disease. The medical community, ever the distrustful skeptics, sent an Abrams practitioner a drop of rooster blood to be analyzed with the Dynamizer. The “patient” was diagnosed with malaria, syphilis, diabetes, and cancer.
Famous American chiropractor and iridologist who asserts that all of the body’s underlying dysfunctions and toxins can be identified through the iris (colored part) of the eye, despite the fact that the iris does not undergo major changes during a person’s life. Nevertheless, Jensen insisted that darker areas of the iris, or areas that changed from lighter to darker, would be read as indications that there were problems or diseases in the corresponding part of the body. Different areas of the iris would represent different limbs and organs, and the left and right eye would be read differently. For instance, if the bottom of your right eye’s iris had a dark fleck, your right kidney would be in grave danger. You can view one of Jensen’s iridology charts here.
Invented the Spectro-Chrome, which he claimed could cure ailments by changing the color of the light to which the patient was exposed. His theory was that different colors corresponded to different elements (blue = oxygen, red = hydrogen, etc.), and the lack of those elements in the body was what caused disease. Hence, if the body was exposed to that color for a prolonged period, the deficiency would be remedied, and the disease cured. Any disease except broken bones could be cured in this manner; furthermore, the patient did not necessarily have to be exposed directly to the colored lights: he or she could also drink liquids out of an appropriately colored bottle in order to achieve the same effects.
Father of modern chiropractic, Palmer’s scientific method, leading to his theory that misalignment of the spine is the most common cause of all illness in the human body, boiled down to two incidents: 1) he whacked a deaf janitor with a book during some witty banter, and a few days later the man claimed he could hear better, and 2) he manipulated an undisclosed patient’s spine and “cured” her vague “heart trouble”. On these two incidents alone, Palmer postulated that there was a fluid called “Innate Intelligence” flowing through the body that could heal any ailment and that could be made to flow more easily by unblocking pathways through the manipulation of the spine. As chiropractic is a very common practice today, this will most likely be the most controversial of the entries on this list.
President of “Radium Company” of New York and a self-proclaimed doctor who never received his medical degree, he prescribed to his patients “Radithor”, essentially a solution of radium in regular water, which he asserted would help invigorate tired patients. His most notable patient was Eben Byers, a wealthy industrialist, who drank 1400 bottles of Radithor before having his jaw fall off and subsequently dying from radiation poisoning. Upon Byers’ death, it was discovered that the radium had eaten massive holes in his brain and skull. Bailey also marketed a radioactive belt-clip (for portable “energy”) and a radioactive paperweight (presumably to perk up lethargic businessmen).
Immortalized in T. Coraghessan Boyle’s book “The Road to Wellville”, which was later made into a move starring Anthony Hopkins as Kellogg, and the brother of cereal magnate Will Kellogg, J.H. Kellogg, one of the few licensed medical doctors on this list, is well-known as an eccentric and monomaniacal leader of the “health movement”. His sanitarium in Battle Creek drew large numbers of “patients” who apparently volunteered for such masochistic treatments as: complete abstinence from any sexual activity, since it was the source of most illness; yogurt enemas to cleanse the body; marching while eating meals to help digestion; carbolic acid applications to the clitoris to prevent female masturbation; and immersion in freezing water laced with radium. Apparently, he, not Will, was the original Frosted Flake.
The “goat gland” doctor, Brinkley performed hundreds of surgeries on men who feared that their most virile days were behind them by opening up their scrotal sacs and nestling goat’s testicles alongside the men’s. There was no arterial conjoining, no grafting, no fusion – the goat gland and human testicle merely occupied the same sac, but Brinkley claimed that the extra flow of testosterone would revitalize a male patient’s sex life. Legend has it that his hypothesis turned into implementation while working for a meatpacking company, Brinkley was astounded by the sexual voracity of the goats, thus prompting him to half-jokingly suggest to his undersexed patient that he should try goat glands; to this suggestion his desperate patient responded, “So doc, put ‘em in. Transplant ‘em!” Brinkley went on to perform over 16,000 goat gland transplants. He also arguably established the first radio advice talk show in order to advertise himself and his services to as many potential patients as possible. The book “Charlatan: America’s Most Dangerous Huckster”, by Pope Brock, is an excellent starting point to learn more about this irrepressible lunatic.
A prominent neurologist and psychiatrist, he popularized the lobotomy by making it easy and convenient: “perfecting” the transorbital lobotomy, where a sharp implement (the first was an icepick from his own kitchen) was inserted through the inside corner of the eye, tapped with a small hammer until it broke through the skull bone and entered the frontal lobe of the patient’s brain, then wiggled around like a stir-stick to cut neural connections. These “surgeries” were performed outside of the operating room, without anesthetic, and after the patient was incapacitated by electroshock therapy. Freeman eventually developed his own instrument for performing the lobotomies called the “leucotome”. He decided to refine his instrument further when one broke off inside a patient’s orbital socket. Even after his medical license was revoked for killing a patient with his technique, he would travel the country in his “Lobotomobile” to service the needy and the isolated. He performed 3,439 lobotomies during his career, though the psychological and physical damage caused by his practice of psychiatry is unquantifiable. For an amazing and heartbreaking first-person account of an 11-year-old victim’s lobotomy by Freeman, “My Lobotomy” by Howard Dully is a must-read.
No list about quacks would be complete without mentioning this undisputed king of cruel and inhuman “research experiments”. The “Angel of Death” at Auschwitz, Mengele’s crimes against humanity during World War II at the concentration camp are well-documented and well-known. Some of the more notable and horrendous “experiments” he carried out were: injecting dyes into children’s eyes to see if eye color could be changed; attempting to measure how much force would be needed to break a human being’s skull (while living, of course); putting Jewish prisoners in a gigantic oven and testing how long it would take for human flesh to sustain first-, second-, and third-degree burns; sewing twins together to see if he could create conjoined twins; and rubbed ground glass into injuries to see what the effect would be. The damage Mengele did to an entire race of people, to the human spirit, and to our perception of the depravity the human mind can invent is still unsurpassed.






























@GTT (116): sorry, dont know how to link
Just copy the URL from your browser address bar and paste it into your comment.
Or, you can get all fancy schmancy and embed the URL into some regular text in your comment. Read item #4 in the FAQ:
http://listverse.com/comment-faq/
Remember though, if you post more than one link in a comment, the comment usually goes into moderation before showing up.
Not only were they quacks, some were really demented too.
Do all the people who are almost defending Mengele actually think that treatment for hypothermia would never have been discovered without him? Come on…. Science was advancing quite quickly in that era, so I am sure doctors elsewhere in the world could have found a more humane way of learning this knowledge.
What did Freeman think he was helping with the lobotomies, and why did people go to him?
@oouchan (110): 20 minutes to showtime!
Holocaust deniers, anyone?
Nothing about the guy who claimed vaccines caused autism?
I was just doing some further reading on Walter Freeman (ok ok ok on wikipedia, if you really want to know).
His father and grandfather were both doctors (his gf had been president of the AMA). He trained at Yale and the University of Pennsylvania Medical School. He was at times president of the American Association of Neuropathologists and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. This is not the usual background for a quack. On the other hand, it is no guarantee of being right.
On the negative side (if we needed any more) he would show off by icepicking both of a patient’s eyesockets at one time – one with each hand. One biographer wrote that Freeman operated “with a recklessness bordering on lunacy, touring the country like a travelling evangelist.”
And it has been conclusively established that he didn’t operate on Frances Farmer.
How about Dr Harold Shipman?
Only one person has mentioned Freud, although some of his hare-brained ideas remain central to common conceptions of the mind…
@Kabbi (18): So saith Kabbi “When people suffer, and their ill has no medicine, they will go to any person who promises that he will cure them. Its basic human nature.”
This is only true when the sufferer is uneducated and poor. Those in third world countries, or followers of every nutty “New Age” healer who comes along.
I can speak with some authority, having been struck twelve years ago with an extremely rare, and hideously painful disease which strikes only 1 in 1,700,000 world-wide. I may be the only patient in the US.
I immediately, and continue to, study my condition, for which (in the area in which I was attacked) no surgical intervention. I see my Pain Control doctor once a month, my Neurologist 4 times a year.
I am following the protocol, and doing the best that can be expected.
Those who fell for the charlatans above (and countless others), were duped into believing they could something impossible. Cures for the incurable. Cures for the curable which did not work, and, if anything, made the condition worse.
Mengele is an evil in his own right.If evil lives, it is , or was, personified in him. He seemed to enjoy his studies, his tests, his inhumane treatment of his subjects. If there is a Hell, I know he is a featured guest.
Freeman managed to convince the Kennedy family. They hardly classify as “uneducated and poor. Those in third world countries, or followers of every nutty ‘New Age’ healer”.
By my calculations, 1 in 1,700,000 multiplied by the population of the USA makes approx 200 sufferers, so I’d be very surprised if you’re the only one (unless the rate in the USA is far less that the rate overall).
Aye… how sad.
boy . . . that Dr. Doolittle . . . What a quack(er)
@Porkido (130): “Only one person has mentioned Freud, although some of his hare-brained ideas remain central to common conceptions of the mind…”
Freud was an acute observer, if we shall say so, of the human condition. His ideas remain widely debated and resourced to in many conceptions of the mind – besides of the psycho*****ytical, of course – precisely because they are anything but “hare-brained”, no matter if we agree with them or not. Agreeing with Kant doesn’t make Hume “hare-brained”, for instance.
You’d be in for a good surprise if you were to do some serious work on Freud’s papers, essays and books. Work serious enough to upgrade any criticism you might have to somethig far more sofisticated than “hare-brained”.
somethig = something
Where’s Samuel Hahnemann? He’s the first person I thought of when I saw the title of the list, and his ridiculous quackery (homeopathy) is unfortunely still extremely popular.
Very informative list otherwise!
@Maggot (82):
I actually hadn’t heard of AquaDetox before! I would’ve thought I’d know about all the crazy gimmicks. Hmm…Electricity and water… Sounds like a party!!
@GTT (101): No matter that I´ve been deiting and training for over an hour a day…
Dieting for an hour a day and you’ve accomplished THAT much?! Why doesn’t Kinoki work that well for me?!?!!?!
…lol…I know what you meant. Still can’t help teasing you
@astraya (132): You’re right about Freeman and the Kennedys. Unfortunately, at that time, lobotomies were considered high-tech remedies. I was speaking of today, not 60 years ago. I thought we’d learned a lot, scientifically and medically, in the time between Freeman and today. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe we are all still living under the same illusions as they were 100 years ago.
As to your math, and 1 in 1,700,000 coming out to 200 sufferers in US. You have it pretty much on the nose, but think of the size of the country and the widespread population. Any one sufferer is the only one in his or her population. I have yet to come across a doctor who has ever faced a case before. When they have to start looking up your disease while examining you doesn’t make for a calming situation.
Make fun if you want, astraya, but I have to take enough narcotic pain meds to kill a man three times a day, just to function as close to normally as I can.
@gabi319 (54): They’re not quite the same. The detox pads, though a really dumb idea, are pretty much harmless. Chelation therapy is anything but. Chelating agents were actually invented to combat the effects of a few chemical weapons in WWI and are now used to combat lead and mercury poisoning. The problem arises because the kids with autism don’t actually have toxic metal poisoning. So far there have been a few deaths (almost all children) and lots of really really sick people from the practice.
I used to work for a holocaust survivor who, under Mengele’s direct supervision, had a gun put to his head and was told that he would be killed if he screamed…as his testicles were removed without anesthetic.
Sounds unbelieveable, but it’s the absolute truth, I worked for him for years. He was a serious pain in the ass, but I guess it was justified. I can’t impagine living through something like that. He was the only survivor from his entire family.
The evil men do is truly shocking.
I don’t understand how a complete abstinence from any *****ual activity is masochistic? Somebody?
Although #1 is truly evil, Jewish people are not a “race”.
This has probably already been mentioned but while Mengele was a horrible person and in no way am I defending him a huge amount of modern medicine especially with stuff concerning cold weather injuries is actually based on his “research”. Again not defending him just thought i’d share that as i’ve always found that interesting
segue: I’m sorry if you thought I was making fun. I wasn’t. I highly respect you and your condition and your suffering. I was talking purely mathematically.
As for odds, in childhood my sister had (a completely fixable and completely fixed) condition which was so rare that the average doctor might encounter one case in his/her lifetime. Yet we knew a mother and son with the condition.
Ooh a cure for hypothermia genius, wonder who thought up runnin cold water over a burn..
I am truly amazed that some people on this list think that being told to abstain from *****ual activity for health reasons is NOT masochistic!
***** is a natural biological urge that humans have – yes we can show mental disipline and choose to abstain from it (if we want to), but to be told that we must abstain for bogus reasons is just cruel!
I’m guessing the people who dont think this is cruel are either pre-puberty, too old to care about it anymore, or just plain prudish.
@astraya (145): You’re forgiven. I should have known you weren’t making fun anyway. I’ve just been in a tense mood the past few days, so reacted out of proportion to the situation.
@Mary (147): Mary, at what age are people too old to care about *****? I want to make sure I’m dead before I get there.
@Kanza(135):
Freud had an incredible mind, but he practiced pseudo-science. I could list the wacky ideas he came up with, but you are no doubt familiar with them.
If you’d like to quibble with the term “hare-brained”, ok…as a quack, then, many of his ideas were “duck-brained”…
The iris does change – and dramatically throughout life. Have you never watched someone grow sickly, or old. There are minute changes, i’ve noticed them from year to year on myself.
It’s also particularily ironic regarding Bernard Jensen (number 8) that his practices (which he would have used on himself of course) enabled him to live to nearly 100. Laugh out loud.
@Eyspire (150): The iris does change – and dramatically throughout life. Have you never watched someone grow sickly, or old. There are minute changes
Maybe so, but that doesn’t mean you can trace those “minute changes” to specific body-part ailments as the quack Jensen claims.
segues @148,
LOL, point taken! Scrap “too old to care about it anymore” from my previous comment.
@ (40) General-Jake & (73) Nia, fair enough you disagree with other users comments, but saying they should “burn in ovens” and “get needles injected into their eyes” for their opinions makes you sound like the Nazis you decry and completely undermines your statement.
no 1 is just horrible!
@gabi319 (138):
You want to know the really funny part? Dieting for one hour a day might actually be the case… I´ve broken and rebroken my diet so many times it´s a wonder I´ve not gained weight!
the problem with this list is that these are not quacks-simply people who where theorizing in the past, when there was not necessarily any contravening scientific knowledge. mainstream 19th century medicine was no better, and often even more dangerous, for example there was a great reliance on mercury as a cureall.
Also, for the last time gaddamit, Walter Freeman was NOT a psychiatrist. For a wonderful book about early somatic treatments of mental illness read “Great and Desparate Cures” by (I think) John Valentine.
@Oni (143):
Perhaps “race” is not the right word, but it is one commonly used and commonly accepted by Jewish people. Jews are an ethnic group and a civilization besides just being a religion.
To someone who said that Walter Freeman wasn’t a quack because he was credentialed, the thing that makes one a quack in my eyes is not necessarily practicing medicine when you shouldn’t be, but claiming to be able to cure many conditions with a miracle procedure that really does nothing, or even has negative effects.
Regarding “My Lobotomy” by Howard Dully, I read it and recommend it. I didn’t find it a particularly engaging book, but the subject matter itself is definitely interesting enough to keep you reading.
@widdersyns (157):…Regarding “My Lobotomy” by Howard Dully…Is it only me, or does the name Howard Dully just scream pseudonym for a book called “My Lobotomy”?
I had a feeling that Freeman and Mengele would be in the top two spots.
@Porkido (149):
As you’re clearly not interested in debating this point, I will save both your time and mine and won’t carry this discussion on.
@Kanza(160): Is it clear?
I called Freud a pseudo-scientist, but decided not to list examples, as you, obviously familiar with the doctor’s life and thought, must already be aware of them. Perhaps you are not.
Are you suggesting that psycho*****ysis is a science?
@porkido (161): @Kanza(160): Is it clear?
Immediate image? Scientologists on Hollywood Blvd.
It all makes sense now…Freud was a Scientologist…
(on the Ringstrasse)
I said it was clear because you didn’t offer arguments to back up your view – you said that Freud was a quack, and to back it up you said he practiced pseudo-science. That’s circular logic, if not an outright pleonasm or tautology. Sorry if I sounded too harsh.
You said Freud had wacky ideas. I’m more than familiar, I’d say, with his works and ideas, which doesn’t mean I know which of his ideas are the wacky ones. You must tell me which one are the wacky, as you are the one making the claim.
I’m not suggesting psycho*****ysis is a science. But all the work of Freud is oriented towards science, and he takes science as an ideal. Freud is a man who, through science, discovered something that is related to science, but covers another field – that being psycho*****ysis. If you read Freud’s works, you’ll notice that he never claims scientifical status to validates any of his assertions, but only his own clinical experience. Psycho*****ysis stands (or should stand) on its own feet, and not on the shoulder of science.
It’s important to note that the criticisms to psycho*****ysis contemporaneous to Freud never adressed the scientificity of psycho*****ysis, but rather were of moral – concerning the question of child *****uality – and philosophical content – concerning the problem of the discompleteness of the consciousness. Freud was recognized as a scientist by his peers. It was quite the contrary in the case of Mesmer, for instance – who was accused of charlatanism. Why was that? One of the reasons – if not the main one – is that Mesmer, very much like other charlatans that appear in this list, introduced a mystical element – in his case, animal magnetism – in the positive, materialistic view that dominated XIX century science. Freud doesn’t introduce such an element, he was a radical materialist. Another reason is that Freud did not diverge from pre-popperian epistemology, which was inductivist. You can only call psycho*****ysis a pseudo-science from a popperian point of view, which is based on deduction and refutation. But the first main work by Popper was published in 1934, five years before Freud’s death and more than forty years after the beginning of his research.
But I repeat – psycho*****ysis is not a science. It constitutes a different field. That, though, doesn’t make it a pseudo-science.
And please forgive the typos that probably abound!
@Segues (162):
I might not have understood, Segues, but you are comparing psycho*****ysis to Scientology?
@Kanza(164): There is no circularity at all. I was making a statement, and rephrasing it for clarity. There had been no debate at all.
You’re tiptoeing around the issue…it’s not a ‘science’, but Freud is ‘oriented’ towards science, discovered something ‘related’ to science, takes science as an ‘ideal’…I have no idea what any of this means…though the prefix ‘pseudo’ certainly jumps to mind…
And going ‘all Popper’ on the issue…what’s wrong with refutation as a yardstick?
The bottom line is that psycho*****ysis is supposed to treat ailing patients, right? If we have no way to judge how or whether it does, then it’s just faith and magic.
And there’s nothing wrong with faith and magic, but we’ve pretty much concluded that they are more entertainments than treatments…
Now off to brunch…will hopefully get back with some examples of ‘Freudian wack’ later…
@Kanza(165): segues is playing on the word ‘clear’…if you’re curious, you can look it up in a reference book on pseudoscience…right next to the article on Freud…
@Kanza (165): porkido got it in one.
How is Harold Shipman not on this list?
Lets face it..they still do things like it today.
Trishna and Krishna rescued
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26355230-421,00.html
You can not tell me that is not done for experiment and notoriety. I can’t get a tooth out without having to pay for it. Let alone Bangladeshi orphans that are state owned.
@Dantheman (169): My guess, as a very long time reader of LV, is that there were ten spots, and dozens of contenders. Simptimatik had to chose, and choose well.
As the saying goes around here, if you think you can do better, make your own list!
@ Porkido (167) & Segues (168):
Thanks for the clarification. I know very little about scientology, had to look it up alright.
@ Porkido (166):
Sorry for the delay in responding, but lots of work popped up this week. I will write briefly now, and may continue later if necessary.
Before adressing the points you’ve raised, I think some clarification is needed. My previous post ended up being somewhat confusing, as you pointed out, because I was addressing two different issues without clearly distinguishing them:
1) That Freud was not a quack – even if by today standards psycho*****ysis cannot be considered a science – because he didn’t practice, at his time, anything that couldn’t be deemed a pseudo-science. That’s the reason why I pointed out that Freud didn’t diverge from the epistemological criteria of his time, and that he was never accused by his contemporaries of being a charlatan (there´s no problem with taking refutation as a paremeter, and I never said there was. But it’s validity as such has a birth date, so to say). In fact, when Eitigon was accused of charlatanism, it was because he practiced psycho*****ysis without being a doctor – not because he practiced psycho*****ysis. The issue, then, was that only a qualified professional – a cientist – should practice psycho*****ysis. Freud, though, opposed such position – to which refers his paper “The question of lay *****ysis”. In my opinion, it would be at least an anachronism to call Freud a quack.
2) That the fact that psycho*****ysys is not a science doesn’t make it automaticaly a pseudo-science. That’s the issue I tried to address in the paragraph you foun most confusing. And it wasn’t clear, in fact. I’ll try to explain it a little better (it’s tough without writing something almost as long as a paper!):
19th/early 20th century epistemology is mainly marked by two criteria: materialism/empiricism (they’re not exactly the same, but let’s not haggle over this) and inductivism. Freud, through his works and reserch, tries to push forward this materialistic world view, in the sense that he banishes form the study of human mind any trace of Chance, Randomness, Fate or metaphysics (you’ll see you I wrote some of these names with the initial in capital letters).
Take for instance his questions in “The psychopatology of everyday life”. He asks a simple question, not exactly but alike to: if someone asks me to randomly pick a number between minus infinite and infinite, why do I choose precisely one number and not any other? If it’s really “random”, like 178346, the probable answer would be “I don’t know; by chance”. But it could not be so random: I could pick 56 because it’s my birth year (Freud’s, not mine!). But then, again, why did I pick the number that correspond to the year of my birth, and not to the month? Again, one could answer “By chance”, or maybe “Because I wanted to; it was an act of will”.
But answering by any of these ways means introducing (in the scenario of 19th/early 20th century science) either “mystical” categories – Chance, Fate, Randomness – that would govern something that we can’t explain, or a metaphysical category – the will. Freud hypothesis of the unconscious – where, he says, there is no chance – is, as strabnge as it may seem, a way of applying the materialistic world view to the mind.
That is why I said Freud is oriented towards science, and that he discovered something that is related to science (unfortunately, to properly argue this very last point would take much, much longer). Because the discovery of the unconscious was made possible by the scientific world view – you can even say that Freud is indebted to science.
Still, the rigour of his research program did not lead him to discovering another field of science – but a whole different field. And this field has nothing to do with the mysticisms that underlie almost all of the pseudo-sciences described in this list – what Freud set at the core of this field was responsibility and choice.
Some points you’ve raised were left unanswered, but I’ll have to come back to them later.
@Kanza (173): I am guessing that English is not your native language. Reading your post was extremely difficult because of all the misspellings and grammar mistakes. It’s understandable when one is writing is a language not one’s own, but there are software programs which will translate from one language to another.
You seem to be fairly intelligent, so it would be highly interesting to be able to have conversations with you unencumbered by faulty spelling (faulty to the point at which I can not always guess exactly what word you meant).
Do not take this as a criticism, it’s not, just a suggestion as to how you might improve your English postings.
@Segues (174);
You’re correct; English is not my native language. Rest assured that even if I took your post as a criticism, which I did, I took it as a constructive one.
The main issue, I guess, is the haste in which I usually have to write. That shows mainly in the spelling mistakes – because there are more typing errors – and in punctuation – when writing in a hurry, the punctuation of my native tongue tends to creep in. To top it all, great hurry equals… no revising.
I’ll rewrite the previous post to make it more understandable. Not now, unfortunately.
oh, the leucotome
I am a physician. I can attest that nothing of any use derived from Mengele’s crimes.
Came for the lists- stayed for the comments.You guys are great!
I bet if we offer to repeat Mengele’s experiments on them – all in the name of science of course- on those who feel what he did had merit or was worth it in some small way, they would decline.
Have to say I am not convinced that vaccines haven’t played a part causing autism in some children. But hey- the government says it isn’t so and we all know that they would never falsify information, fake or alter studies or lie to the American public in order to get us to do things they want us to do. And I did not have *****ual intercouse with… well never mind.
That said I did have my kids vaccinated, despite feeling there were risks, because of the benefits to everyone and acknowledge that overall vaccinations save many lives and are crucial. I just feel there is more to the side effects than are being admitted. I am hoping it is not so but I know a family who had the experience of a perfectly ‘normal’ child (developmentally on target, social, happy) change completely after getting vaccinations. The child had a fever, started screaming on and off for days and within the space of a couple of days became severely autistic and like a different child. Until I saw this happen I didn’t believe the claims but I believe if you had witnessed what I did you would question the claims that the vaccine did not play a part in what happened, too. Just my opinion.
Where’s Freud? That’s the one person missing from this list.
@segues (131): sorrry fr such a late reply…
I am proud of you. But this topic covers the global scenario, not u personally. Study any paper on medical anthropology and then tell me how many ppl go to the big big hospitals… After my masters in medical anthropology, i know of highly educated and rich ppl who went to quacks. I was talkig of basic human nature, not the basic ‘segues’ nature. U r an educated and an intelligent person, and u know the reality of medical problems and solutions, but ppl are not generally as smart and stable as you. They want to be cured and for that they can go to anyone. And yes, there is a difference in the number of uneducated going to the quacks compared to the educated people, but it is very small. And i am not talking only about the people of ‘third world countries’.