Stephen Barrett, M.D. is the author of A Close Look at Naturopathy. Dr. Barrett has written more than two-thousand articles, delivered more than three-hundred talks, and has written fifty-two books. Dr. Stephen Barrett is a retired psychiatrist. He has expertise in medical communications, operates twenty-five web sites, and is a peer-reviewed panelist for top medical journals. He is qualified to write about all of the topics on the website including naturopathy because of his extensive personal resource library and his degree. The author does not appear to have a particular set of world views. Dr. Barrett advocated for all consumers and their health, not to a specific gender, sex, race, etc. The information provided on the website Dr. Barrett
…show more content…
The author presents some general information about naturopathy and then begins to claim that it is “riddled with quackery” in the first paragraph. Thus, leading the reader into a bias opinion about any possible treatment with this particular CAM treatment. The information does try to persuade the audience but with an ample amount of information for both sides of the potential argument. This is important because the reader is educated on both sides in order for them to make their own decision about using CAM therapies. The reader can only do this because the information is reliable and the author does not appear to be affiliated with the sources he uses. The charts and statistical information shown in some of the articles disclose proper references from the original sources. Thus, the accuracy of the site seems to be legit. Overall, the text follows basic grammar, spelling, and composition rules as well as an extensive reference list following each …show more content…
First of all, the website I chose is called Quackwatch. This CAM website does not include scholarly published articles. The authors of the articles and website overseer are well recognized, but there is no specification of the publisher on the site or articles. Therefore, I would assume that the articles on the site are not formally peer-reviewed by a panel, but rather self published by the website operator Dr. Stephen Barrett. The articles are only published and revised in English online making it easy for the information to be updated and commented on in the discussion board. Due to this statement I believe that the intended audience is the newer generations and the intention is to inform the public about therapies but also plant the idea of health fraud and quackery. Hopefully, the intention of Dr. Barrett is to help his readers make informed decisions versus steering them away from all CAM therapies. Regarding the particular article, I chose; the original publication date was not posted but the article was revised on November, 26, 2013. To my knowledge there are no other editions in this particular article and the field of study has not changed much since the revised date. However, there is a reader protest in which the student was furious about how the articles were written and what they proclaimed in the
The author presents some general information about naturopathy and then begins to claim that it is “riddled with quackery” in the first paragraph. Thus, leading the reader into a bias opinion about any possible treatment with this particular CAM treatment. The information does try to persuade the audience but with an ample amount of information for both sides of the potential argument. This is important because the reader is educated on both sides in order for them to make their own decision about using CAM therapies. The reader can only do this because the information is reliable and the author does not appear to be affiliated with the sources he uses. The charts and statistical information shown in some of the articles disclose proper references from the original sources. Thus, the accuracy of the site seems to be legit. Overall, the text follows basic grammar, spelling, and composition rules as well as an extensive reference list following each …show more content…
First of all, the website I chose is called Quackwatch. This CAM website does not include scholarly published articles. The authors of the articles and website overseer are well recognized, but there is no specification of the publisher on the site or articles. Therefore, I would assume that the articles on the site are not formally peer-reviewed by a panel, but rather self published by the website operator Dr. Stephen Barrett. The articles are only published and revised in English online making it easy for the information to be updated and commented on in the discussion board. Due to this statement I believe that the intended audience is the newer generations and the intention is to inform the public about therapies but also plant the idea of health fraud and quackery. Hopefully, the intention of Dr. Barrett is to help his readers make informed decisions versus steering them away from all CAM therapies. Regarding the particular article, I chose; the original publication date was not posted but the article was revised on November, 26, 2013. To my knowledge there are no other editions in this particular article and the field of study has not changed much since the revised date. However, there is a reader protest in which the student was furious about how the articles were written and what they proclaimed in the