Genentech criticised over Avastin I wonder if the debunkers of alternative treatments will put this information on their website. It would be very helpful to the public. Biotech firm Genentech criticised over Avastin 'wonder drug' An American drug company is facing criticism from ophthalmologists for allegedly denying the legitimate use of a cheap and effective treatment for macular degeneration, in favour of a more expensive drug. Check this site out for more details.
http://www.dreamhealer.com/avastin.htm

The Chiropractic Antitrust Suit ~ Wilk, et al vs. the AMA, et al
For those who have forgotten, or for those who never knew, organized medicine spent decades and millions of dollars trying to discredit and destroy chiropractic. Today the vestiges of this surpression are still found on fringe web sites which ignore the body of peer-reviewed research supporting chiropractic care. Explore the depths of medical arrogance in this in-depth review of the Wilk case.

What is Chiropractic
Many debunkers do not want you to know how effective chiropractic services are. Millions of people benefit from this service every day. Doesn't it seem streange that the debunkers would rather you spend your money on drugs which have side effects.
According to The Association of Chiropractic Colleges, "Chiropractic is a health care discipline which emphasizes the inherent recuperative power of the body to heal itself without the use of drugs and surgery. The practice of chiropractic focuses on the relationship between structure (primarily the spine) and function (as coordinated by the nervous system) and how that relationship affects the preservation and restoration of health."

Some debunking is laudable, and I have no problem with anyone who haspunctured some form of charlatanism, but to call skepticism awholesome, philosophically valid position goes too far. Skepticism isthe attitude of doubt, or to dress it up for the dictionary, "themethod of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticismcharacteristic of skeptics." But in my experience skeptics areoverreachers. They equate doubt with logical thinking, so that to beunskeptical makes one irrational. The use of words like pseudoscience,magic, superstition, and ignorance bolsters their central claim thatonly fools and knaves occupy the low ground outside the skepticaltradition. But Keats, Beethoven, and Van Gogh all worked in irrationalfields. And the line between religion and science, which skepticsdefend like armed guards, isn't so definite as they suppose, given thereligious bent of Kepler, Newton, Einstein, and other scientific mindsgreat and small.
Deepak Chopra

Let me speak personally here as a target of skeptical critiques:
1: I have rarely met a skeptic who didn't use ad hominem attacks.
2: Skeptics generally leap to the conclusion that I am naive, self-deluded, or simply unread in the sciences.
3: Skeptics rarely examine the shaky assumptions of their own position.
4: Skeptics believe that doubt is a positive attribute. (Skeptics in person can be appealing, usually in a kind of quirky misanthropic way, although most come off as self-important petty naysayers who try everyone's patience.)
5 : Worst of all, skeptics take pride in defending the status quo and condemn the kind of open-minded inquiry that peers into the unknown.
Deepak Chopra

We live in a society where the worst humiliation, apparently, is to beduped. If Skeptic's table of contents reflects the world, we are buriedup to our necks in charlatans, pseudoscientists, scam artists, and theself-deluded. I cannot otherwise explain why being skeptical, withoutany additional positive contribution, is considered somehow admirable.I dislike skepticism when it sits by the road and shoots down anytraveler trying to take a different way. I oppose skepticism when itturns destructive, using disdainful dismissiveness as its chief tactic.
by Deepak Chopra

It is amazing how fearful some people are:
Some people, particularly the debunker types here and those like them elsewhere, are just afraid to try something new and afraid to think for themselves. It is easier for them to slam others than it is for them to accept something alternative; they risk the possibility that they may have made a mistake. This would be just too much for their egos. There are a jillion other things that they won't ever try. Science starts with little self-discoveries like distant healing. Galileo had nay-sayers around him who refused to lookthrough the telescope. They had all of these wonderful reasons why Galileo was wrong; but look through the telescope, no way! The debunkers always have reason on their side why they should not try something new. Their position always seems reasonable and logical to them, except for one little thing. They neverlook through the telescope.

The skeptics spend a lot of time and energy debunking anything scientifically off-beat or extra-sensory in nature. They work tirelessly, trying to enforce the unenforceable law that says no phenomena can exist beyond the notion of a purely physically based reality. If all scientists in history had that short sighted view on the world, we would still be living in caves.

One has to be weary of the information placed on debunker websites. Many of the debunkers will critisize anyone who defends anything alternative. We all have to be able to make our own decisions and choices. In order to become self-empowered we have to research all avenues of healing. If you choose to only take pills and always opt for surgery that should be your decision. However one should research all available alternatives.

It seems many debunkers claim that if they can reproduce whatever is in question, then it's a fake. But, as Rupert Sheldrake said, "The fact that you can forge a $20 bill doesn't prove that all $20 bills are forgeries."

Debunkers are helpful when they point out true frauds, but a debunker who claims that everything is fake, is either a habitual naysayer or a phony who is just trying to promote his beliefs at the expense of others.