23.054
Bearbeitungen
Änderungen
Zur Navigation springen
Zur Suche springen
Zeile 13:
Zeile 13: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Diskussion:Zehn Indizien für Quacksalberei (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 21. Dezember 2009, 11:42 Uhr
, 11:42, 21. Dez. 2009keine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung
Ich habe Hemmungen, anderen in die harte Arbeit reinzupfuschen. Geht bei einem Wiki aber wohl nich anders. Mache ich das nächste Mal. Gruß[[Benutzer:Cohen|Cohen]] 21:51, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
Ich habe Hemmungen, anderen in die harte Arbeit reinzupfuschen. Geht bei einem Wiki aber wohl nich anders. Mache ich das nächste Mal. Gruß[[Benutzer:Cohen|Cohen]] 21:51, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
::eine Verbesserung oder Ergänzung ist kein Pfusch, sondern konstruktive Mitarbeit. Ich stecke regelmässig meine Pfoten auch in Artikel die ich nicht angefangen habe. So long ! [[Benutzer:Deceptor|Deceptor]] 22:01, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
::eine Verbesserung oder Ergänzung ist kein Pfusch, sondern konstruktive Mitarbeit. Ich stecke regelmässig meine Pfoten auch in Artikel die ich nicht angefangen habe. So long ! [[Benutzer:Deceptor|Deceptor]] 22:01, 27. Jul. 2008 (CEST)
==Renckens Scoring System==
Criteria and Scoring Used by Dr. Renckens (Slightly Modified)
A. Level of education
* uneducated: 1 point
* low or intermediate level of education: 2 points
* medically trained (= doctor or pharmacist): 3 points
B. Character of the therapy
* pseudo-medical (e.g. phytotherapy): 1 point
* paranormal: 2 points
* supernatural/absurd: 3 points
C. Inflicted damage
* only financial: 1 point
* physical harm: 2 points
* mortal victims: 3 points
D. Aggression against regular medicine
* absent: 1 point
* moderate: 2 points
* strong: 3 points
E. Duration of career
* less than 5 years: 1 point
* 5-10 years: 2 points
* 10-20 years: 3 points
* more than 20 years: 4 points
F. Material gains
* could live from the practice: 1 point
* earned well: 2 points
* became rich: 3 points
G. Condemnations
* Doctors:
**no disciplinary measures: 1 point
**disciplinary measures taken: 2 points
**suspensions and/or punished
**by criminal law-authorities: 3 points
* Non-doctors
**some: 1 point
**frequent: 2 points
**imprisonment: 3 points
H. Indications for swindling
* none: 1 point
* perhaps: 2 points
* certainly: 3 points
I. Publications
* none: 1 point
* few: 2 points
* many: 3 points
J. Followers
* none: 1 point
* few (e.g. only relatives): 2 points
* many: 3 points
K. Support from politicians
* no: 1 point
* maybe: 2 points
* certainly: 3 points
L. Degree of impudence of the claims
* cure of innocent problems (e.g. baldness): 1 point
* cure of serious disease (e.g. atherosclerosis): 2 points
* cure of fatal diseases (e.g. cancer): 3 points
Comments by Dr. Renckens
Some of the second thoughts others and I had were as follows.
*Regarding criterion E: this is advantageous for retired quacks, who completed their career. Still-active quacks having started only recently can never score the 4 points. It is also advantageous for quacks that have become old and continued for a long time.
* Regarding criterion G: It is not always publicly known when a doctor has had a disciplinary punishment by the GMC, which until recently acted behind closed doors. The nondoctors, condemned by the judge of the criminal law, have always been more in the spotlight and here have an 'advantage' over the doctors.
* Regarding criterion H: we have actually always tried to keep the intention of practitioners out of our definition of quackery as it is hardly possible to make sure if they have been honest in their propaganda. It might be better to delete this criterion.
Quelle: [http://www.ncahf.org/nl/2000/11-12.html NCAHF 2000]