Why Quacks Exist

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAFor as long as there have been people, there have been sources of guidance. Deities, prophets, leaders; all have persisted through time and have been highly influential on our world. We look to them for answers to our problems, for ways to improve our lives, and we try to model our own lives in their image or vision. For thousands of years, humans modelled themselves after a god, or many gods, and these all-powerful beings generally rewarded “good” behaviour and punished “bad” behaviour. Unexplainable phenomena were attributed to these beings’ anger or sadness, and joyous, miraculous events were attributed to their pleasure and exuberance in response to our following of their teachings.

Overall, people trusted in their worshipped deity to maintain a natural order to the world, and for thousands of years it seemed like things were going pretty well. Until modern science, putting your faith in whatever deity you worshipped was the best way to explain the intricate workings of the world around you. So, even though it seems incredibly odd and foolish that the Ancient Egyptians believed that Ra, God of the Sun, traveled across the sky each day in the Mandjet and through the Underworld in the Mesektet, this was the best explanation available at the time, because nothing could disprove the logic upon which this belief was based.

This trend continued for thousands of years, while sporadic,  groundbreaking scientific discoveries were made. Even though displacement, the Heliocentric model of the Solar System, gravity, and other major discoveries occurred, the majority of the world still accepted a supernatural force to explain the majority of the phenomena in their daily lives.

As long as there has been deitical worship, there have been those seeking to unseat those in power, influence a number of people, and gain power and money as a result. The most extreme examples of these types of situations are better known as cults. The word cult carries a very negative connotation in today’s world, largely thanks to a string of violent situations over the years involving cults. The mention of Charles Manson’s name still sends chills down people’s spines due to the gruesome murders he and his fellow cult members conducted. The Order of the Solar Temple, the Church of Bible Understanding, and Scientology are other famous examples of cults, though not all are inherently violent in nature.

Tom Cruise speaking at a scientology event. Still psyched about Katie Holmes.
Tom Cruise speaking at a scientology event. Still psyched about Katie Holmes.

Cults all operate under a similar doctrine of exposing members as victims and targeting their weaknesses using fear and humiliation. They eliminate independent thought and coerce members into adopting the core philosophies and the sacred creed of the cult. The leaders of cults are often psychopathic in nature, and the victims in cults are often weak-minded people who are vulnerable to the misleading teachings of the leader and other elders in the cult.

Improper, but powerful logic is wielded as a weapon to cut into the wounds that fear and abandonment have caused for new cult members, as cult members are often seeking refuge from society because they feel as if they do not have an identity within it. Along with the promise of identity, cults offer security, respect, and friendship. These are all core needs of human beings, and this is why the control a cult has over its members is so powerful.

Fear Mongering

Fear is a powerful tool that is employed by many marketing agencies at the core of their techniques. It can either be used explicitly or implicitly, but if you examine the message that a lot of advertisements are sending, most are in fact rooted in fear. Ads for alcohol are mostly targeted at men, and they often depict men consuming whatever beverage is being sold, and while doing so they are surrounded by attractive women. If you pay close attention to most alcohol ads, the women are much more attractive relative to the guys; you rarely see model quality dudes slamming back Bud Light, but all of a sudden the beer touches their lips and they’re surrounded by a bunch of girls approaching Kate Upton levels of hotness.

How does fear play into this? If you don’t drink our beer, you’ll be a loser like this guy was before and you won’t be surrounded by pretty girls at a party.

This pattern applies to all sorts of other products:

i) Buy this shampoo or else your hair (and you) will be ugly and no one will find you attractive

ii) Buy these clothes or else you won’t happy and attractive like our models are

iii) Buy this cleaning product or else your house will be a mess and no one will want to visit you

iv) Buy this car or else women won’t see you as powerful and successful

And it works. No one is immune to the effect that fear has on you; it just affects certain people to a greater degree.

Historically, cults were created to oppose the dominant source of authority at that time. Many people who felt lost or alienated by this authority for whatever reason were scooped up by cults and turned against the rest of the world. Because organized religion was the dominant explanation for life for thousands of years, most cults throughout our ancient history have been religious in nature. If someone felt lost and fearful in the world dominated by organized religion, joining a cult offered them an apparent safe haven. These organizations never really succeeded in making a difference in the world, but many of their vilified acts still live on in infamy. Cults still live on today, but they have a different form for a number of reasons.

Reason 1) A Changing of the Guard

Enter the world today: science has since supplanted organized religion as the governing body of explanation for our observations and questions. In the past, the behaviour of cults, like all humans, was much more violent in nature.

Steven Pinker
Dr. Steven Pinker

Dr. Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard University. In his book The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, Dr. Pinker goes into great detail about why we, as humans, have become progressively less violent throughout history. The main reasons are commerce, the adoption of feminist ideologies, and cosmopolitanism. Our modern society values intelligence and being cultured over strength and violence. As a result, modern cultist behaviours mirror this change, and we now embrace the logic and reason that science is comprised of to fight our battles. Even the most famous religious cult, Scientology, gives a nod in its very name to the changing of the guard from organized religion to science.

Mike Adams, founder of NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams, founder of NaturalNews.com

While no formal cults (aside from PETA) exist to oppose the scientific community, many individuals or organizations have sprang up in recent years to try and debunk science, with a particular focus on the food and medical industries.



Notable examples include Mike Adams, who operates the website NaturalNews.com; Dr. Mehmet Oz of the Dr. Oz show; and Vani Hari, author of the blog FoodBabe.com. These three are at the forefront of the anti-science movement, and most of their dubious claims have been discredited; nonetheless, they still persist today.

Quacks prey on the public’s distrust of science and preference for “alternative” methods to solving their various health problems. They use fear mongering to lash out against large corporations, big pharma, and factory farms. They use fear-mongering buzzwords like “toxin” and “chemical”, and they generally paint the picture that the scientific community is dooming mankind through their freakish laboratory experiments. The problem is that science operates under a methodology of constant checks and balances; peer review prevents bad science from being propagated, and experiments are constantly being replicated and modified due to the open-minded nature of scientists.


Reason 2) The Prophet (and Profit) Motive

The prophet motive is why many quacks are the way they are.
The prophet motive is why many quacks are the way they are.

Many quacks are not only influenced by profit but by being a prophet to their loyal followers. Similar to cult leaders, many quacks are pathological narcissists. By becoming a prophet of sorts to a group of people, a quack satisfies their desire for attention and an inflated sense of self. Many quacks were also not entirely content with their profession, as it left them feeling bored or unfulfilled in comparison to the demands of their narcissism.

Dr. Oz was supposedly a successful surgeon and instructor at Columbia Medical School before he launched his quack branding and TV show, so clearly his ego was writing cheques that his job couldn’t cash.



Notable quack Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopath, perhaps felt inadequate in the earning potential of his profession, so he launched Mercola.com, along with a line of natural health products sold through his website. Now he lives in a multi-million dollar estate in Illinois. Foodbabe and Mike Adams have both made enormous profits off of their quackery, and all of these factors tie into it. If money was the sole motivator, a potential quack could have easily resorted to a well-paying job that was more behind the scenes. By being at the forefront of their respective causes, quacks can simultaneously feed their egos and fill their bank accounts.

Reason 3) The Naturalist Fallacy

Most quacks today spend their time crusading for organic or natural products and against conventional farming. We surely all bought into the hype that was organic food in the mid 2000’s and it was easy to see why: the cultural attitude at that time demanded change. Unfortunately, organic food is not all it’s cracked up to be. If you take time to browse the literature available on organic food, you’ll find a number of conclusions with regards to comparative studies between organic and conventional food. Organic food is not healthier for you, nor is it more nutritious, and the only reason it tastes better is due to a placebo effect. Every single review study published arrived at this conclusion. In addition, while 75% of conventional food contains traces of residual pesticide, what is more alarming is that 25% of organic food contains the same levels. These levels are FDA approved and deemed to be non-toxic, but the illusion that organic food is pesticide free should be apparent by now.

The common pattern these quacks employ is that they will pick on a certain product, for example, fruit juice. The article will go through all the dangers of fruit juice, the industrial processes and poisons thrown into the mix, and then it will leave you hanging, as if there is no hope, which induces fear. Miraculously, the article will then do a complete 180 and showcase a whole host of healthy juices that won’t poison you and aren’t made by evil corporations. They might cost 400% more, but at least you’re in good hands consuming safe, natural products!

A very misleading sign
A very misleading sign

What constitutes “certified organic” is also very misleading. Organic farms still use pesticides, but the only difference is that these pesticides are organic in contrast to conventional synthetic ones. These pesticides have actually been shown to be more harmful than synthetic ones because of their lack of specificity, i.e.. they kill the pest and a whole host of other organisms.

On top of that, because these pesticides aren’t as target specific or effective, they actually have to be sprayed more to have the same desired effect, which is obviously more harmful than using a synthetic pesticide much less. Because of this revealing data from the scientific community, organic food sales have slowed or begun to decline. This is not some big farm conspiracy; organic food has much higher profit margins than conventional food because consumers are simply willing to pay more for it, so it wouldn’t make sense to doom something that makes you more money.

Reason 4) The Internet

 There is a wealth of information out there, and most of it is not policed whatsoever. Anyone can whip up a website and start spouting off facts without any scientific basis behind them trying to convince you that science is wrong and the government is out to get you. Online petitions, photoshop, and other previously unavailable technologies make recruiting new members to your organization so much easier. Facts can be easily twisted because websites can cite sources that are also false in nature, but appear legitimate given the context. The result is a twisted web of fact and fiction that takes a lot of work to sift through, and many people don’t have the time for that; they’d rather just buy that Brazilian power crystal.

What people need to be aware of is that quacks are out to sell you something just as badly as Wal-Mart is. They use the Naturalist Fallacy to their advantage to gouge people for higher prices and inflated senses of worth, but it’s all the same in the end. Educate yourself and be critical of the information presented to you. These individuals are intelligent people who are great at marketing themselves and their beliefs. The internet has made that incredibly easy and efficient to do, and almost anything can appear legitimate at surface glance.

Looking Ahead

There will always be individuals in a society who exhibit distrust of mainstream tastes, and there’s nothing we can do to change that; it is human nature to question the world we live in. However, there is both good and bad inquisition. All that can be done is respectful education and cautioning of the dangers of quack individuals.

Oh, and stay off the Huffington Post.

15 Comments Add yours

  1. Norman Pilon says:

    RE.: WHY QUACKS EXIST ( https://jordandetmers.com/2014/05/25/463/ )

    Interesting. The article claims to debunk a bit of modern pseudo-scientific quackery by offering up what it purports to be ‘scientifically grounded’ claims. You have, for example, this paragraph:

    “What constitutes “certified organic” is also very misleading. Organic farms still use pesticides, but the only difference is that these pesticides are organic in contrast to conventional synthetic ones. These pesticides have actually been shown to be more harmful than synthetic ones because of their lack of specificity, i.e.. they kill the pest and a whole host of other organisms. On top of that, because these pesticides aren’t as target specific or effective, they actually have to be sprayed more to have the same desired effect, which is obviously more harmful than using a synthetic pesticide much less. Because of this revealing data from the scientific community, organic food sales have slowed or begun to decline. This is not some big farm conspiracy; organic food has much higher profit margins than conventional food because consumers are simply willing to pay more for it, so it wouldn’t make sense to doom something that makes you more money.”

    So, where is ‘this revealing data’ from the scientific community to be found exactly? Wouldn’t a reference be appropriate, here? How many studies are we talking about, here? Who conducted the studies? Were they scientifically impartial or biased? Are these peer-reviewed studies? And in what sense is the spraying of greater quantities of organic pesticides’ very obviously more harmful than the use of ‘less’ synthetic pesticide? Is ‘more’ of one necessarily and very obviously more harmful than ‘less’ of the other? Is being more ‘target specific’ necessarily and very obviously less harmful than being less ‘target specific?’ Harmful in what sense? Nutritionally? Environmentally? Or both?

    And as for the concluding statement of that paragraph implying that the use of synthetic pesticides has nothing at all to do with profit margins, but is all about a highly ethical regard for both the environment and human health, isn’t that a tad rich? Are we really to believe that agribusiness and all of its supporting and affiliated input industries are not really only in the end about the bottom line, and the bigger bottom line at that? Really?

    Oh, and by the way, only one reference for you (because I’m out of time), to get you started on actually doing a bit of your own ‘research,’ the title and link to what I thought was another interesting and equally revealing article (because the ‘truth’ is really all that matters, right?):

    World’s Number 1 Herbicide Discovered in U.S. Mothers’ Breast Milk


    1. Hi Norman,
      Thank you for your comment. When I wrote this article, I wasn’t keen on “overlinking” to various sources, as I thought people would take my words at face value. If you wish, I can provide you with the hundreds of articles referenced in the review papers I read while researching this piece. Most were published in journals with h indices in the top quartile. I also did a great deal of research on organic vs conventional farming for both my undergraduate degree as well as my master’s degree, so a lot of the points I make are essentially common knowledge to me at this point; I overlooked referencing them as a result.

      Your reference is shoddy at best. First, the title of the website already destroys its credibility. The extremist tone of the article also casts much doubt on the bipartisan stance that science is supposed to take. Therefore, I can’t logically accept the conclusions of a poorly written article that doesn’t cite a credible source and only references a poorly designed experiment with a clearly biased political agenda. I appreciate the point you’re trying to make, but if you took 10 seconds to do a search for peer-reviewed literature from respected journals that details the benefits of organic farming over conventional farming, you’d come up empty handed.

  2. Norman Pilon says:

    My reference is shoddy at best? Why? Because the article actually ‘references’ the preliminary test results of Microbe Inotech Labs, St. Louis, Missouri? Because the article reminds the reader that once again the biotech industry, just as it did ‘…in the 20th Century with PCBs, DDT and Agent Orange…,’ is promoting and releasing “… products without long-term independent studies…?” Because the article actually leans on and points to ‘real’ research and results as well as to public records that can be accessed and verified? Whereas your reference leads me to a letter written by ‘students’ to someone who may or may not be a charlatan, a letter as well referenced in its ‘research’ as your own article. I guess that the students, too, did not want to overburden Vani Hari with too many links to too many confusing documents grounded in science and not merely in industry PR. I apologize, therefore, for my shoddiness.

    If I may in an attempt to redeem myself offer a couple of additional links to actual research, links that as it happens I found at the “Sustainable Pulse” website, where the “illogical and extremist” article to which I first linked you can be found. Hopefully the extremist nature of that article does not in itself ‘logically’ impugn or undermine the ‘scientific’ nature of that research, research conducted by more than just a handful of Phd(s):

    a) http://www.gmoevidence.com/location/lab-evidence/
    b) http://www.gmoevidence.com/location/roundup-evidence/
    c) http://www.gmoevidence.com/location/human-evidence/
    d) http://www.gmoevidence.com/location/animal-evidence/

    The point being that businesses have business interests, and these interests tend to trump both environmental and human concerns. Today as yesterday.

    One does well to mistrust the claims of ‘organic food’ pushers; but equally as well to cultivate a healthy skepticism of claims made by multi-billion dollar industries.

    1. You write like a Humanities major, which leads me to believe that you don’t know how science works, nor do you understand the process of proper peer-review. All of those links provided links to studies published in crap journals with more articles that have gone uncited than cited. The GMO evidence group of websites are tied to Dr. Seralini, a laughing stock of the scientific community. Quit being so close-minded; it’s antithetical to the principles of conducting quality science. Just because someone has a Ph.D. does not lend them credibility. It takes hundreds of replicated results and the consensus of the community to lend an idea credibility. Until then, please stop arguing with poor evidence.

      1. Norman Pilon says:

        Ah, so credentials matter but then credentials don’t matter. Credibility is all about the ‘scientific consensus.’ And having a Ph.D. means just about squat, especially if that Ph.D. begs to differ from the ‘consensus,’ because everybody knows that nothing new under the sun was ever learned by going against the consensus or by pointing to actual ‘evidence’ that the consensus or ‘big money’ would rather disregard because careers and profits might conceivably be on the line or impaired. And of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that the companies who brought us PCBs, DDT, and agent orange ever attempted to dominate the peer-reviewed discourse of the ‘scientific consensus’ in favor of the continued industrial scale production and use of those particular poisons. And indeed, it does take hundreds of replicated results to lend credibility to an idea. So why don’t the biotech giants, if they are all about the truth of the matter and not merely about profits, release funds to ‘independent’ teams of researchers to investigate the long term effects of their designer GMOs and herbicides? Could it be that the science might reveal some public health concerns that could undermine the industry dominated ‘scientific consensus’ and all the profits that stand or fall upon that consensus? And why can the public not decide for itself whether it wants to eat a GMO product? Certainly you will agree that there is a bit of resistance to the idea of labeling products by the big players in agribusiness. People, for whatever reasons, might opt for other fare if they had a choice that they could exercise on the basis of information on food labels, but that of course would be bad for business because some people, if not most, would opt for non GMOs. Better to hide what is and what is not a GMO product, therefore, so as to continue to monopolize both a cheaper production cycle and the consequent lion’s share of sales in the markets. And what other danger might ensue from labeling, I wonder? That’s right: studies could then be conducted on the basis of people’s preferred diets, that is, groups that don’t eat GMOs and groups that do, and ‘scientific’ correlations might be established to various incidences of disease if any for either group. That, too, could possibly be bad for business depending upon which correlations turned up. So somehow or other it is that, because we obviously live in a society where everyone is so free to choose, no choice is given either to the individual or public to decide whether one’s diet will or will not be GMO free. No. Of course not. It is GMOs for you and everyone else whether you or everyone else likes it or not. And as for independent scientific investigations that run the risk of discrediting the GMO revolution, “we” can discount it as there simply wont be any real resources or money, public or private, expended in a serious way in that direction, at least not as provided from the biotech alliances and lobbies — although, unfortunately, some industry independent efforts in that direction seem now to be taking off. Maybe something good will come out of the latter in spite of the steep odds constantly being raised against those efforts by the big agri-corps of this world.

        But I sense if only vaguely by the tone of your responses that I have overstayed my welcome at this blog, And I also notice that your method of argumentation is catching. The problem is that I don’t seem to be able to find any authoritative letters written by graduate level students to support or lend credence to anything of what I’m spouting here. Contrarian Ph.d(s) is all that I might come up with, and since they thereby and by definition fall outside the purview of the industry dominated ‘scientific consensus’ — which as ‘consensuses’ go is by no means ideological but at the core rigorously disinterested and objective — they are here, in this august court of the superlatively open-minded, simply dismissed out of hand and disqualified of all hearing.

        Keep blogging. Your thoughts certainly spurred me to something akin to thinking.

  3. Norman Pilon says:

    I wasn’t going to bother because I didn’t want to bother you, really. But then because nothing says “target specific” like ‘synthetic pesticide’ . . . though it’s probably just another wild-eyed, unsubstantiated and extremist claim, albeit one being made in part by Martha Crouch, PhD and reviewed by Dr. Lincoln Bower, a seriously ‘libelous’ claim that could actually land these libelists in a court of law because of the specificity of their accusation (something about ‘Roundup Ready Crops’ and a necessary herbicide):

    Click to access cfs-monarch-report_2-4-15_design_05341.pdf

  4. sparkyplants says:

    So….all that money I spend at Whole Foods, is probably just a big waste?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s