Is skepdic.com Safe?

SITO ATTENDIBILE: Sito migliore per un' indagine seria e attendibile su fenomeni e credenze paranormali. Ogni articolo ha una bibliografia abbondante diversamente da altri siti che parlano senza citare fonte alcuna. Molto utile anche la parte riguardo la logica.

Biased criticism by those who never question what is considered fact. This site is written in very biased language that is unprofessional and by people who live in theory rather than practice. People who explain anything that they don't understand as being the results of placebo in weak or foolish individuals. These are the same type of people who centuries ago would be defending that the world is flat. Get out there and live a little on the edge of what is "known" then you may criticise.

Very biased article. I am a patient who was cured of my metastatic Stage IV triple negative invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Not only did Dr. Burzynski order the PET scan that discovered my T-2 spinal metastasis, but he CURED it in 12 weeks, as verified by my follow up PET scan Dec. 22, 2011. The radiologist had the before and after films up and showed me that it was all gone and that "there is no active cancer anywhere". This treatment had no side effects, I did not lose my hair, and my monthly labs remained normal. How many other cancer treatments out there can say this? NONE!!! Every "Sceptic"/ "Quack-watch" kind of site I have seen is exactly the same- very biased and it seems to me, they may well be connected and organized against Dr. Burzynski, as he presents a perceived threat to the "War on Cancer" money machine. I have found these websites the US, the UK and in Australia. I have the EVIDENCE to back up what I claim- my scans, MRI'S and CT guided biopsies to back up my statements. These sites have biased articles, and that is ALL. Dr. Burzynski's EVIDENCE is walking, talking cancer survivors, sadly not everyone can be saved, but way more than the traditional-protocol- following major cancer centers and oncologists do. He does gene targeting therapy, while most traditionalists just do blanket treatments based on the label from the pathologist, while causing horrendous side effects, misery and permanent harm to the patient in the process. Who's the pioneer here?

On perhaps most topics this professional skeptic does fine, but in at least one case his skepticism obstructs his own critical thinking and discrimination. For example, see my review of his treatment of Transcendental Meditation, which he gets completely wrong — at the Skeptics on TM website: ***** When it comes to meditation he's just out of his field. Carrol's rash, knee-jerk assessment of TM is at odds with leading scientists and physicians such as NIH senior researcher Norman Rosenthal (www.normanrosenthal.com ) , Dr. Mehmet Oz, and many medical school faculty and researchers from across the U.S. If you want to know what doctors and scientists say about TM, see ***** ... This may be Carroll's skeptical opinion, but studies in journals such as the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal Medicine, the International Journal of Neuroscience, American Journal of Physiology and literally hundreds of others contradict him. He needs to reassess.