Pretty sure this is the right one. | |
Now, Erlich is, in fact, a board-certified pediatrician, but that does, of course, not mean that the advice and treatment regimes she offers at Healing the Whole Child are reality-based. Now, according to herself, she “takes a practical and individualized approach to pediatric care that focuses on the principles of health, wellness, and the safe resolution of illness”, which, of course, all pediatricians do, but for Erlich, that’s not really what ‘holistic’ approach means (even though it’s what she claims it means):‘holistic’ means that she integrates what she calls ‘natural methods’, which is code for woo, into what she offers. And Erlich promotes a wide range of woo, including homeopathy; her website also features a section called ‘Health Tips’, which requires registering and which features a Quack Miranda Warning. Moreover, Erlich is co-author of Super Nutrition for Babies, which is, among other things, a pseudoscientific guide to ‘toxins’ and which has been endorsed by e.g. Natasha Campbell-McBride and the Weston Price Foundation, which really should tell you everything you need to know.
Diagnosis: Yes, she endorses it all, as long as it can be marketed with a ‘wellness’ or ‘natural’ tag (so: anything) – unless, of course, it is something that is actually beneficial to your health, like vaccines. Erlich doesn’t endorse that. Stay away from this one, and even more importantly: keep your kids away.
I know our host is not the only one who uses it, but I feel like the reality-based community needs to abandon the phrase "Quack Miranda warning." Why? Miranda, more or less, requires notification of a defendant's rights.
ReplyDeleteThe shit quacks pull is more like a non-binding disavowal of any responsibility for their activity, which, I admit, is not nearly as pithy.
Perhaps a more literary person than I can come up with a better alternative.
While it's certainly not the most apropos tag possible, I think most people understand what is meant. The use of 'quack' (vs. quack's) denotes the non-valid aspect (whereas 'quack's would simply signify the origin, leaving the reader to take the next logical step that the origin would signify the uselessness of this statement).
DeleteOn any case Tex, I think you're looking for a solution to a problem that does not exist. Quack miranda is concise, somewhat catchy, and easily remembered. And as I said earlier, most people are smart enough to discern the difference between the function of a Miranda warning versus what is being denoted by quack Miranda.