Originally Posted by hissy
I understand that you wish to help, but what you have listed is known as a scam for the most part. You can read about it here, and all it appears to do is separate good trusting people from their hard-earned money.http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/electro.html
I have used holistic means on my horse, and also on my animals. I do this when conventional medicine has failed to treat them, plus I have an excellent advisor/guru of natural health who guides me down the right path.
I do not believe in all aspects of alternative medicine, but some does indeed work. My horse is living proof of that, especially yesterday when he full on galloped for the first time after foundering in November of last year.
I strongly believe that if you have someone you trust that can help you or your animal by other means besides conventional meds, then it is your choice whether or not to follow their advice. But be careful and bookmark Quackwatch- to check for scams from time to time-
Ok, while waiting for our vet to get back to us, I did a bit of my own research regarding CEDS (electro-dermal screening) and the Quackwatch site. After doing as much due diligence through the Internet as I could, here's what I can say...
- Current research indicates CEDS is a reliable indicator of allergies, i.e., CEDS is not a "scam".
- Stephen Barrett, creator of the Quackwatch site, is a de-licensed retired psychiatrist...and a very strange, dubious, mean-spirited character.
- Holistic/alternative/complementary medicine is just that: complementary. It is not meant to replace or supercede conventional medicine, especially where conventional medicine excels (such as in relieving trauma). But holistic medicine can work in conjunction or serve as an option to conventional medicine.
- Just as there are dubious practitioners in conventional medicine, so too there exist some in the holistic field. The problem is that it seems some bad apples in a holistic field become a blanket statement for the entire profession. When looking for any professional, whether holistic or conventional, it's best to seek referrals from those who currently use such specialists, and as well, check their credentials and references.
- Based on my current and past experience, and on the research that I've done, I can safely say that I currently trust my human health practitioners -- both holistic and conventional -- and my vet
(who has a long, distinguished, and reputable veterinary practice using both conventional and holistic treatments where applicable), far more than I would trust deceitful folk like Stephen Barrett.
Electrodermal Testing Found Effective for Diagnosing Allergies
Researchers at the University Department of Medicine of the Southampton General Hospital, England, conducted a randomized double-blind experiment to examine the effectiveness of electrodermal testing for differentiating between allergic and nonallergic substances.
In the first part of the experiment, 17 allergic patients were tested with electrodermal testing to differentiate between allergens, dust mites and histamine and nonallergens saline and water. The testing procedure was correct 82% of the time. In the section part of the experiment, 24 allergic patients had electrodermal testing performed to discriminate between allergic and nonallergic substances. The testing was accurate 96% of the time.
The researchers conclude that Electrodermal Testing is a "testing is a reliable method of differentiating between allergic and nonallergic substances in the context of our study." The study was published in J Altern Complement Med, 1997 Fall; 3 (3): 241-8.
**Holistic/alternative/complementary medicine and conventional medicine:
...The problem with any medicine is simply that you cannot depend on someone else. You have to do your own homework regardless of conventional or alternative approaches to a given disease. The only thing going for conventional medicine is that it can deal with such things as broken bones, some emergencies and accidents admirably and here it can excel. However, when it comes to more complex issues it simply is no better, and frequently much worse, than less/non invasive alternate approaches. Conventional medicine has its place in straightforward situations, but in my opinion, it's the biggest con job (quackery) this side of the moon. Where else can you sell a cure for any cost and not be held responsible for the results that may even cause further injury? If I buy something, should I not get a guarantee in return? Have we been had or what?
...Medicine from time eternal has been exploitive and those who don't, won't or can't get involved in their own sickness will always be at higher risk. The strange thing is that most of us will ignore massive side effects and deaths from conventional medicine but will not tolerate the slightest problem with alternative approaches!
...Wrongfully named? Yes. So-called "alternative medicine" is actually the health choice of planet earth. It is a combination of every good health idea invented by mankind, in every country and culture on this planet. There is nothing "alternative" about it. Labeling planet earth's health choice as "alternative" is, and was, a propaganda device.
...North Americans have overwhelmingly (by their purchases) made "Alternative Medicine" the "health choice of the people" - for the best of reasons: it works better than allopathic, it "removes the cause" rather than "treating the symptoms," it is cost effective, it makes people feel better and think clearer, and it doesn't have all those horrible effects, and side effects, of invasive surgery or prescription drugs.
**Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett:
...Barrettâ€™s website, called 'Quackwatch', attacks all aspects of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), including acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy and electrodermal testing...
..."Barrett and Renner, both of whom are on the Board of the National Council Against Health Fraud, played an active role in this case. Under the guise of consumer protection, this organization favors limiting peopleâ€™s freedom of choice in healthcare using various means against physicians who provide CAM care. Furthermore, it recommends that physicians not be allowed to practice homeopathy."...
...For years, Stephen Barrett, self-appointed "quack buster," has directed many of his most venomous attacks at chiropractic. He has used print and broadcast media -- as well as the Internet -- in an attempt to do what the American Medical Association failed to do during their anti-chiropractic campaign: destroy and contain chiropractic...
...When faced with criticism of his own closed- mindedness or vindictiveness, Barrett has had a reputation for threatening lawsuits to silence his detractors.
...Barrett, a former psychiatrist who holds no current medical license, is one of the most vocal opponents of non-medical health care and his "Quackwatch" website, launched in 1996, is frequently cited in anti-chiropractic media reports...
...The suit asserts that, "Without any basis or clinical research of their own, Dr. Barrett (a de-licensed psychiatrist) and Dr. Polevoy (an acne care physician), and each of the Cross-Defendants, have focused their unqualified attack on the scientific findings of Dr. Clark. Applying their obviously limited scientific understanding of microbiology and parasitology, they minimize the significance of Dr. Clark's work by addressing only one form of parasite that they believe is the entirety of her findings. It is almost as if they picked up one of Dr. Clark's books and read the middle page and nothing else, then decided they are experts in the field of parasitology."...
...Dr. Clark's attorney's also noted, in the legal action, that Barrett and his cohorts "have used the Internet as their national pulpit by which they preach the exclusive validity of allopathic medicine to their cult-like followers. Their dogmatic medical mantras are laced with character assassinations and demagoguery to advance their own personal agenda and those of other executioners for traditional medicine."
...But in today's divided health climate, a quack is in the eyes of the beholder. A touch therapist treating your third eye? Or a conventional doc who sprinkles around free pharmaceutical samples? ...
...Barrett, a former psychiatrist in Allentown, Pennsylvania, doesn't sugarcoat his bitter pills. His site is a virtual hit list of therapies he finds too illogical to be tested for their validity. Chiropractic, acupuncture, homeopathy, vitamins and herbs, relaxation techniques, and preventive nutrition plans, as well as specific practitioners ...
...I've been following the activities of the "Quackbusters" for about five years, ever since the name Stephen Barrett (www.quackwatch.com
) came up, as a player, against a client of mine in California. I asked the question "why would this group be using a doctor from Pennsylvania, as their witness, when there are 300,000 health professionals in this State?" ...
...The "Quackbuster Conspiracy" was started shortly after the American Medical Association (AMA) lost the court battle to the Chiropractors in a case begun in Federal court in 1976. The Federal judge ordered the AMA's covert operation shut down - and leave the Chiropractors alone. The AMA files, library, etc., ended up in Stephen Barrett's 1,800 square foot basement in Allentown, PA. Barrett, and his minions, had the common sense to stay away from criticizing Chiropractors for quite some time. Barrett has since abandoned that common sense...
...But, if you peruse Stephen Barrett's (don't call him doctor, he's not licensed) website, you get the impression that "allopaths" are to be classified somewhere next to archangels - and "alternatives" are snake-oil salesmen, akin to the devil's minions. Barrett clearly defines, in smirky arrogance, health fraud as "alternative medicine."
...RECENTLY, I set myself the exercise of trying to understand what motivates a self*proclaimed "quackbuster" to write a book debunking an entire field of medicine. A "quackbuster," as we've come to know over the years, is someone who is dedicated to casting aspersions on alternative medicine, regardless of whether there is any factual basis. As alternative medicine continues to grow more popular â€“ an estimated 42% of Americans now use it â€“ the "quackbusters" are growing more clamorous in their denunciations of our field. They have to be â€“ they're almost a minority view.
...Highly visible among these self*appointed "quackbusters" is Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, author of numerous books, and spokesman for the "Quackwatch" community...
...In most cases and for most of the illnesses commonly associated with chemical sensitivity, Barrett says the mass of mistaken patients would be better off seeking "mental help" from a psychiatrist or other "mental health practitioner." Alternative medicine physicians and especially "clinical ecologists" (the old name for practitioners of environmental medicine, which links exposures to toxic substances with health conditions) should be chastised, investigated, put on notice, and if possible, put out of business, says Barrett...
...Most of what Barrett claims can be refuted, easily and decisively. That's not my intention here. I'm more interested in looking at the bigger picture â€“ what is Barrett really saying amidst his quackbusting bluster, and why? Barrett appears to be saying that the typical American patient is stupid, hysterical or paranoid, easily duped, and generally incapable of making a rational, correct medical decision on their own. The patient is mistaken and wrong in thinking their multiple symptoms have any connection to the foods they eat or the environmental chemicals to which they are exposed. The media is irresponsible and not to be trusted as an information source about medicine, especially about alternatives. Doctors who practice alternative medicine are unscientific, opportunistic frauds or quacks, peddling flawed or junk science...
...So who can you turn to â€“ who is not on Barrett's hit list? Conventional doctors. Barrett doesn't say this outright, but it's the only logical conclusion. His message is the old and familiar one from the 1950s: the (conventional) doctor knows best...
...Conventional medicine has no cure or treatment for these illnesses. In fact, as Barrett repeatedly points out, for the most part, conventional medicine does not even validate the existence of these illness categories and regards a diagnosis of such illnesses as bogus medicine. Of course, Barrett does offer patients "mental help."...
...Clearly the patients do not benefit at all from this scenario, so who does? The makers of drugs, petrochemicals, cosmetics, synthetic food additives, pesticides, prepared foods â€“ in short, the massive food and chemical industry of North America benefits. They are no longer held accountable as causal factors in multiple symptom illnesses. They are let off the hook. They can proceed with business as usual. There are no poisons in their products. ...
...In the paradox of "quackbusting," the quackbusters say they're protecting public health, but in fact, they're abandoning the public to their own suffering to protect the financial interests of conventional medicine, which has no interest in or ability to produce benefits for these conditions. The "quackbusters" say they're serving the public, but the truth is they're grossly disserving patients. Thanks to Barrett's remarkable chemical insensitivity, a great many patients will be left to suffer on their own without any diagnosis or treatment, except perhaps another round of Prozac on the house....
...In his long article on homeopathy, Barrett's accounting of the clinical research is compromised by omissions that would be unthinkable for any impartial scholar or journalist. In recent years, two major meta-analyses of homeopathic clinical trials have dominated the English medical literature on the subject. Both - one in 1991 in the British Medical Journal, the other in 1997 in The Lancet - have independently documented a highly significant trend for homeopathic remedies to be superior to placebos or no worse than standard medical treatments in roughly 100 controlled clinical trials. Barrett ignores both of these studies. Instead, he cites comparatively obscure, negative (as Barrett presents them, even when they're really equivocal) critiques and reviews and just one fundamentally supportive review (commissioned by the European Union), but then again only to selectively present the negative, "glass half empty" side of its findings...
...Recently, when I read Dr. Barrett's self-righteous letter to Salon.com, I rechecked his "accurate" website for my reader comment on St. John's wort. It still wasn't there, though Barrett had on March 1 revised his article to incorporate new evidence to further deter people from using the herb. For its part, the tryptophan FAQ was also unchanged. I e-mailed reminders both to Barrett and the FAQ's author. Barrett haughtily brushed off my concerns saying he had many more important things to do. The FAQ's author said he had vainly asked the webmaster to change 1973 to 1993 but would ask again. I replied on March 24 that this change would still, as far as any of us knew, be an error and that it would lead to a gross misrepresentation of the potential toxicity of tryptophan (which is still available by prescription and on the grey market and is still used safely and successfully in clinical trials). He has yet to reply. Perhaps he will eventually make the correction. But Barrett is steadfast in his denial. "Whether your particular points are valid or not would not change the conclusions about the current significance of SJW or tryptophan," he wrote to me on March 25, dismissing me as probably just another "nitpicking pest" and that "this will be my last response to you on these matters." Nor did he express any intention to publish my "insignificant points" so that Quackwatch.com readers could decide for themselves. I can't help but think of the yellow journalist's creed never to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
...Perhaps if I had attacked Barrett in a boorish, illiterate rant, he would have published that. Judging by the preponderance of such "jeers" on his website, this is the only critical feedback he welcomes.
...The world needs a Quackwatch.com. It's a pity it has the one it's got.