Please Report HONCode Violators

quackwatch and Medhunt and www.hon.ch are all heads of the same figurative Medusa. All determined to
order by tell people how they should think and to silence any who disagree. Failing that, they
desire to use force of law and a police state, IMHO.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do so here:

quackwatch.orghonviolators.htmlOpen ↗

It is a voluntary self regulation ethical standard for those who agree to
abide to certain principles of providing information on the web. If some
group doesn't agree, don't participate; if they do and break the agreement
the group is asking to be informed of the wrongful use of the logo on the
page. Snake oil salesmen would dearly love to be able to use the logo,
while breaking every ethical standard set by the group. There is no
governmental/legal enforcement involved, just a pledge saying we follow
the ethical standards for providing medical related information on our
page. It is when such self control fails that we get governemt regulations
set and legally enforced. Read more:

hon.chhon.chOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

quackwatch and Medhunt and www.hon.ch are all heads of the same figurative Medusa. All determined
to order by tell people how they should think and to silence any who disagree. Failing that, they
desire to use force of law and a police state, IMHO.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do so here:

quackwatch.orghonviolators.htmlOpen ↗

Once upon a time, our fellow [email hidden] rambled on about "Re: Please Report HONCode
Violators." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Actually, your article painfully points out just how much of a megalomaniac operation Quackwatch
truly is. 🙁

Their interpretation of these principles is just plain wrong!

Quackwatch even has the nerve to knock, WebMD Health.

I rest my case. 🙂

Quoted message said:

It is a voluntary self regulation ethical standard for those who agree to abide to certain
principles of providing information on the web. If some group doesn't agree, don't participate; if
they do and break the agreement the group is asking to be informed of the wrongful use of the logo
on the page. Snake oil salesmen would dearly love to be able to use the logo, while breaking every
ethical standard set by the group. There is no governmental/legal enforcement involved, just a
pledge saying we follow the ethical standards for providing medical related information on our
page. It is when such self control fails that we get governemt regulations set and legally
enforced. Read more:

hon.chhon.chOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

quackwatch and Medhunt and www.hon.ch are all heads of the same figurative Medusa. All determined
to order by tell people how they should think and to silence any who disagree. Failing that, they
desire to use force of law and a police state, IMHO.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do so here:

quackwatch.orghonviolators.htmlOpen ↗

Actually webmd is said to violate the principles speciffically for:

On the Honco violation page:

* WebMD Health: Contains many articles that promote nonsensical "alternative" methods,
including homeopathic treatment of earaches and cancer. [12/15/03]

Consult this page concerning cancer, consider the Honcode standard that balanced support should be
given for any claims of any substance or treatment:

my.webmd.com1728 58501.htmOpen ↗

A homoepathetic "cure" indeed, just dilute the person enough times and they stop complaining, about
any matter at all. What specifically is the misinterpretation, cite specific url please and the
Honco standard involved.

Quoted message said:

Actually, your article painfully points out just how much of a megalomaniac operation Quackwatch
truly is. 🙁

Their interpretation of these principles is just plain wrong!

Quackwatch even has the nerve to knock, WebMD Health.

I rest my case. 🙂

Quoted message said:

It is a voluntary self regulation ethical standard for those who agree to abide to certain
principles of providing information on the web. If some group doesn't agree, don't participate; if
they do and break the agreement the group is asking to be informed of the wrongful use of the logo
on the page. Snake oil salesmen would dearly love to be able to use the logo, while breaking every
ethical standard set by the group. There is no governmental/legal enforcement involved, just a
pledge saying we follow the ethical standards for providing medical related information on our
page. It is when such self control fails that we get governemt regulations set and legally
enforced. Read more:

hon.chhon.chOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

quackwatch and Medhunt and www.hon.ch are all heads of the same figurative Medusa. All determined
to order by tell people how they should think and to silence any who disagree. Failing that, they
desire to use force of law and a police state, IMHO.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> Do so here:
>
> quackwatch.orghonviolators.htmlOpen ↗

Once upon a time, our fellow [email hidden] rambled on about "Re: Please Report HONCode
Violators." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

Consult this page concerning cancer, consider the Honcode standard that balanced support should be
given for any claims of any substance or treatment:

Oh! So, you are saying at all those medical websites are suppose to provide balanced support by
informing their users that alternative treatments, such as diet, are just as effective as
prescription medication?

So, I need to file about 4,000 complaints?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Bye, ... Bigot!

No, another of the honcode principles is to be able to support with recognized scientific research,
not the twaddle presented on that homeopathic page. If you want to use the honcode logo, you must
abide by the voluntary principles. If you find a medical web site which violates the principles,
report it. This doesn't apply to providing a balance to views which lack scientific support, such as
homeopathic approaches. Oh how do the "you are ok, we are ok, we tell each other we all are ok"
choir boys would like to play with the honcode on their page. About the only consistant statement
found there is "the FDA has not approved ..." that the best of them display. The real snake oil boys
just plain lie and decieve, keep them credit orde4rs coming on down.

Quoted message said:

Oh! So, you are saying at all those medical websites are suppose to provide balanced support by
informing their users that alternative treatments, such as diet, are just as effective as
prescription medication?

So, I need to file about 4,000 complaints?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Bye, ... Bigot!

Once upon a time, our fellow [email hidden] rambled on about "Re: Please Report HONCode
Violators." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

You still are not getting are you?

The HONCode defines "Balanced coverage" differently from the way you are using it. Per your
definition, medical websites would have be balanced by covering alternative treatments which is
clearly not the case.

Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂

Quoted message said:

No, another of the honcode principles is to be able to support with recognized scientific research,
not the twaddle presented on that homeopathic page. If you want to use the honcode logo, you must
abide by the voluntary principles. If you find a medical web site which violates the principles,
report it. This doesn't apply to providing a balance to views which lack scientific support, such
as homeopathic approaches. Oh how do the "you are ok, we are ok, we tell each other we all are ok"
choir boys would like to play with the honcode on their page. About the only consistant statement
found there is "the FDA has not approved ..." that the best of them display. The real snake oil
boys just plain lie and decieve, keep them credit orde4rs coming on down.

Quoted message said:

Oh! So, you are saying at all those medical websites are suppose to provide balanced support by
informing their users that alternative treatments, such as diet, are just as effective as
prescription medication?

So, I need to file about 4,000 complaints?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Bye, ... Bigot!

Once upon a time, our fellow Mark 'the Toad' rambled on about "Re: Please Report HONCode Violators."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.orghonviolators.htmlOpen ↗

"However, its reviews of sites providing unreliable information on "alternative" methods have been
descriptive rather than critical-and thus offer little or no guidance to Web browsers. In addition,
its search engine does not limit its searches to reliable sites."

This direct quote, shows Quackwatch publically disrespecting the activities of the Geneva-based
Health on the Net (HON) Foundation.

"In many cases, they do not reference statements, but even if they did, they would still violate
Principles 4 and 5 because they advocate or promote invalid concepts. Although most of these sites
contain accurate information about science-based methods, their information on "alternative" and
"complementary" methods is overly promotional."

This interpretation is just plain WRONG! 🙂

This article, thus, painfully points out just how much of a megalomaniac operation Quackwatch truly
is. Their interpretation of these principles is incorrect. Just how reliable can the information
provided by Quackwatch be, when they cannot even interpret plainly written English by the Geneva-
based Health on the Net (HON) Foundation; without going into a delusional rant? 🙁

"HON states that if a violation is reported, the Health On the Net Foundation will ask the site
owner to either justify its contents or make appropriate modifications."

Actually, their policy is that if A VALID NON-DILUSIONAL violation is reported, the Health On the
Net Foundation will ask the site owner to either justify its contents or make appropriate
modifications.

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.orghoncode.htmlOpen ↗

"The HON Foundation has been reviewing web sites and posting the results of its reviews. However,
its reviews of sites providing unreliable information on "alternative" methods have been descriptive
rather than critical -- and thus offer little or no guidance to web browsers. Nor does its search
engine limit its searches to reliable sites. HON officials are well aware of these problems and have
indicated some interest in fixing them."

This direct quote, AGAIN, shows Quackwatch publically disrespecting the activities of the Geneva-
based Health on the Net (HON) Foundation.

In my opinion, the Geneva-based Health on the Net (HON) Foundation should kick Quackwatch out for
publically disrespecting their practices, publishing false information about the meaning of their
Principles 4 & 5, and for engaging in their megalomaniacal activities.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

The rhetorical obfuscation, tap dancing, and self serving mumbo jumbo aside; report the site if you
think it violates the principles - which was the original request that anyone spotting same do so.
Honcode of course will be the final judge as it makes that decision about such supposed violations.
You can go to their pages and enter the site's info to see their status and review history, good
luck. You are of course free to submit your site for possible use of the logo, good luck. I find it
just fine some have their knickers in such a twist about quackwatch, it must be doing it's job too
well. The "you are ok and I am ok and we tell each other we are ok so it must be so" choir boys at
bottom line resort to personal attack, lacking any independent support for their claims. Their
"proof" comes down to "I believe it, I really really do, don't you beleve me?", and all the others
in my choir tell me "aman" to put the top on the pot.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.orghonviolators.htmlOpen ↗

"However, its reviews of sites providing unreliable information on "alternative" methods have been
descriptive rather than critical-and thus offer little or no guidance to Web browsers. In addition,
its search engine does not limit its searches to reliable sites."

This direct quote, shows Quackwatch publically disrespecting the activities of the Geneva-based
Health on the Net (HON) Foundation.

"In many cases, they do not reference statements, but even if they did, they would still violate
Principles 4 and 5 because they advocate or promote invalid concepts. Although most of these sites
contain accurate information about science-based methods, their information on "alternative" and
"complementary" methods is overly promotional."

This interpretation is just plain WRONG! 🙂

This article, thus, painfully points out just how much of a megalomaniac operation Quackwatch truly
is. Their interpretation of these principles is incorrect. Just how reliable can the information
provided by Quackwatch be, when they cannot even interpret plainly written English by the Geneva-
based Health on the Net (HON) Foundation; without going into a delusional rant? 🙁

"HON states that if a violation is reported, the Health On the Net Foundation will ask the site
owner to either justify its contents or make appropriate modifications."

Actually, their policy is that if A VALID NON-DILUSIONAL violation is reported, the Health On the
Net Foundation will ask the site owner to either justify its contents or make appropriate
modifications.

Quoted message said:

quackwatch.orghoncode.htmlOpen ↗

"The HON Foundation has been reviewing web sites and posting the results of its reviews. However,
its reviews of sites providing unreliable information on "alternative" methods have been
descriptive rather than critical -- and thus offer little or no guidance to web browsers. Nor does
its search engine limit its searches to reliable sites. HON officials are well aware of these
problems and have indicated some interest in fixing them."

This direct quote, AGAIN, shows Quackwatch publically disrespecting the activities of the Geneva-
based Health on the Net (HON) Foundation.

In my opinion, the Geneva-based Health on the Net (HON) Foundation should kick Quackwatch out for
publically disrespecting their practices, publishing false information about the meaning of their
Principles 4 & 5, and for engaging in their megalomaniacal activities.

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

Is it they are "watching quacks" or they are "quacks that are watching"?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do so here:

quackwatch.orghonviolators.htmlOpen ↗

Once upon a time, our fellow [email hidden] rambled on about "Re: Please Report HONCode
Violators." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

You are of course free to submit your site for possible use of the logo, good luck.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

My site was approved on 09 Jan 2003.

Have you always been this delusional?

Quoted message said:

The "you are ok and I am ok and we tell each other we are ok so it must be so" choir boys at bottom
line resort to personal attack, lacking any independent support for their claims. Their "proof"
comes down to "I believe it, I really really do, don't you beleve me?", and all the others in my
choir tell me "aman" to put the top on the pot.

I really do believe that your ignorance of Vitamin K betrays a fundamental flaw in your personality.

Or, have you always been a little off?

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!

If you were to recall the english lesson of your 4th grade teacher on parts of speech, you can
answer it yourself.

"Is it they are "watching quacks" or they are "quacks that are watching"?"

Congrats on getting the honcode logo, as I recall you do not promote the
homopathetic gospel on your pages; as you have here. I did read all of
your site, a recap of common sense does no harm, as the honcode folk
apparently concluded. Now you and quackwatch.org have something in
common, honcode is a very minimal standard, overt snake oil salesman need
not apply. As for:

"I really do believe that your ignorance of Vitamin K betrays a fundamental flaw in your
personality."

I have no thought as to what you are on about in the above, confusion with another perhaps.

Once upon a time, our fellow [email hidden] rambled on about "Re: Please Report HONCode
Violators." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Quoted message said:

"I really do believe that your ignorance of Vitamin K betrays a fundamental flaw in your
personality."

I have no thought as to what you are on about in the above, confusion with another perhaps.

Oh! It appears you now have a clone to worry about?

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

"M@rk D." <[email hidden][email protected]

It depends on whether they have any english training or not. Not me. If they are American it
wouldn't make much difference. They just change the language to suit their legal case.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you were to recall the english lesson of your 4th grade teacher on parts of speech, you can
answer it yourself.

"Is it they are "watching quacks" or they are "quacks that are watching"?"