quackery

None of this subjective shit you get from quackery.

I downvoted your first comment for outright quackery with no supporting links.

So that is the key question: is the goal to allow rapid technological progress or is the goal to prevent quackery?

Journalists like to present two sides of the story as equal rivals for "balance", even when one side is science and the other is paranoid quackery.

One person's 23andMe genetic test is another person's quackery - see some of the nonsense offered as medical advice by the quacks on other websites.

Oh noes!The entire thrust of our medical regulatory system, from the Flexner Report to today, is the belief that it's better for 1000 patients to die of neglect, than 1 from quackery.

Andrew Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine due to his quackery, so you should probably use a different 'authority' for your argument from authority.

For that matter if he's a quack in his latest book for suggesting that the science of endocrinology should be taken seriously on the topic of how fat works, then the entire science of endocrinology is quackery.

I am amazed at the shallow thinking of many in this thread who dismiss the story as "quackery".I'd encourage anyone who speaks of a "pseudosciencey approach" to do some careful thinking and propose an approach that would let us measure the effects our minds have on our bodies.

"I forgot my wife's birthday" suddenly implies "I don't care about other people's emotions because I'm a psycho" instead of the explanation that is probably more sensible, namely "I can be forgetful sometimes".Maybe he should revisit his initial hypothesis that brain scans are quackery...