被認定是偽科學的主題列表：修订间差异

维基百科，自由的百科全书
交互式浏览历史
←上一版本下一版本→
删除的内容 添加的内容
可视化wikitext
无编辑摘要
无编辑摘要
第165行： 第165行：
|work=[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]
|work=[[The Skeptic's Dictionary]]
}}</ref><ref name=NCAHF_herb>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncahf.org/pp/herbal.html |title=NCAHF Position Paper on Over the Counter Herbal Remedies (1995) |accessdate=2009-04-17 |year=1995 |publisher=[[National Council Against Health Fraud]] }}</ref>。
}}</ref><ref name=NCAHF_herb>{{cite web|url=http://www.ncahf.org/pp/herbal.html |title=NCAHF Position Paper on Over the Counter Herbal Remedies (1995) |accessdate=2009-04-17 |year=1995 |publisher=[[National Council Against Health Fraud]] }}</ref>。
* '''{{le|骨科手法醫學|Osteopathic manipulative medicine}}'''或'''整骨手法醫學'''－[[整骨療法|整骨醫學]]的核心技術，基於[[安德魯·泰勒·史迪爾]]構想的理念，認為身體擁有的自我調節機制可能可以通過控制或移動骨骼、肌腱和肌肉得到充分利用。它被提議治療許多人類疾病，包括[[帕金森氏病]]、胰腺炎和肺炎，但只發現對下背痛有效<ref name=coch>{{cite journal |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub3 |title=Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |year=2013 |last1=Yang |first1=M |last2=Yuping |first2=Y |last3=Yin |first3=X |last4=Wang |first4=BY |last5=Wu |first5=T |last6=Liu |first6=GJ |last7=Dong |first7=BR|pmid=23450568 |issue=2 |pages=CD006338 |editor1-last=Dong |editor1-first=Bi Rong |volume=2}}</ref><ref name=ernst-sr>{{cite journal|doi=10.1542/peds.2012-3959|title=Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment for Pediatric Conditions: A Systematic Review|year=2013|last1=Posadzki|first1=P.|last2=Lee|first2=M. S.|last3=Ernst|first3=E.|journal=Pediatrics|volume=132|pages=140–52|pmid=23776117|issue=1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001002.pub2 |title=Manual therapy for asthma |journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews |year=2005 |last1=Hondras |first1=Maria A |last2=Linde |first2=Klaus |last3=Jones |first3=Arthur P |editor1-last=Hondras |editor1-first=Maria A |pmid=15846609 |issue=2 |pages=CD001002}}</ref>。長期以來，人們一直認為它是基於「偽科學教條」<ref name=ident>{{cite journal|pmid=10179479|year=1998|last1=Guglielmo|first1=WJ|title=Are D.O.s losing their unique identity?|volume=75|issue=8|pages=200–2, 207–10, 213–4|journal=Medical economics}}</ref>。美國計算生物學家和電腦科學家{{le|史蒂芬·扎尔茨贝格|Steven Salzberg}}提到整骨醫學院校教授的整骨手法醫學為“偽科學中的實踐訓練”<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/sciencebiz/2010/10/27/osteopaths-versus-doctors/|title=Osteopathic Physicians Versus Doctors|last=Salzberg|first=Steven|date=27 October 2010|publisher=[[Forbes]]|accessdate=15 September 2013}}</ref>
* '''{{le|骨科手法醫學|Osteopathic manipulative medicine}}'''或'''整骨手法醫學'''－[[整骨療法|整骨醫學]]的核心技術，基於[[安德魯·泰勒·史迪爾]]構想的理念，認為身體擁有的自我調節機制可能可以通過控制或移動骨骼、肌腱和肌肉得到充分利用。它被提議治療許多人類疾病，包括[[帕金森氏病]]、胰腺炎和肺炎
* '''{{le|魯爾夫治療法|Rolfing}}'''－由{{le|愛達·魯爾夫|Ida Rolf}}(1896–1979) 所創，從業者聲稱能夠擺脫人體肌肉層的創傷記憶<ref name=pop>{{cite book |author=Cordón, LA |work=Popular Psychology: An Encyclopedia |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Uy1gmwcAgg4C&pg=PA218 |date=January 2005 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=978-0-313-32457-4 |pages=217–218 |title=Rolfing }}</ref>，沒有任何證據表明魯爾夫治療法對任何疾病有效<ref name=aus17>{{cite web |url=http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/0E9129B3574FCA53CA257BF0001ACD11/$File/Natural%20Therapies%20Overview%20Report%20Final%20with%20copyright%2011%20March.pdf |publisher=Australian Government &ndash; Department of Health |format=PDF |author=Baggoley C |title=Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance |year=2015 |laysummary=https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/australian-review-finds-no-benefit-to-17-natural-therapies |lay-source=Gavura, S. Australian review finds no benefit to 17 natural therapies. Science-Based Medicine. |lay-date=19 November 2015}}</ref>。
* '''{{le|觸摸治療|Therapeutic touch}}'''－[[活力論]]的一種，醫師或護士<ref name=saf /><ref name="TT_CSI">{{cite web|url=http://www.csicop.org/articles/therapeutic-touch/ |title="Therapeutic Touch" Fails a Rare Scientific Test |accessdate=5 December 2007 |last=Wallace |first=Sampson |first2=Lewis |last2=Vaughn |date=24 March 1998 |work=CSICOP News |publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20071013191002/http://www.csicop.org/articles/therapeutic-touch/ |archivedate = 13 October 2007|ref=harv|quote=Despite this lack of evidence, TT is now supported by major nursing organizations such as the National League of Nurses and the American Nurses Association.}}</ref>將他或她的手放在患者上和圍繞以“重新調整”或“平衡”假想的能量場<ref name="scientificamerican" />。Cochrane評價的結論是「沒有證據表明[觸摸治療]促進急性傷口癒合<ref name="TT_Cochrane">{{Cite journal|title=Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds|journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews|editor1-first=Dónal P|date=2003{{ndash}}2006|editor1-last=O'Mathúna|first=DP| last=O'Mathuna|first2=RL |last2=Ashford|volume=2003|issue=4|pages=CD002766|doi= 10.1002/14651858.CD002766| url=http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002766.html|accessdate=27 January 2008|ref=harv }}</ref>。」並沒有人發現能量場的生物物理基礎<ref name="TT_QW_RN">{{cite web|url=http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/tt2.html |title=Further Notes on Therapeutic Touch |accessdate=5 December 2007 |last=Courcey |first=Kevin |publisher=Quackwatch |ref=harv|quote= What's missing from all of this, of course, is any statement by Krieger and her disciples about how the existence of their energy field can be demonstrated by scientifically accepted methods.}}</ref><ref name="TT_NCCIH">{{cite web|url=http://nccih.nih.gov/health/backgrounds/energymed.htm |title=Energy Medicine: An Overview |accessdate=5 December 2007 |date=24 October 2007 |publisher=National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health |ref=harv|quote= neither the external energy fields nor their therapeutic effects have been demonstrated convincingly by any biophysical means.}}</ref>。
* '''[[锡箔帽]]'''－錫箔帽是從一片或多片鋁箔製成的帽子或普通的內含箔頭飾，相信戴上它可以保護大腦，免受電磁場、精神控制和讀心術的威脅。目前沒有發現無線電頻與防止隨後健康狀況不佳的錫箔帽間有任何关係。
== 註腳 ==
== 註腳 ==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

2016年8月7日 (日) 13:34的版本

這是一個主題列表，在其歷史上(至現在也沒改變)被學者和研究人員定性為偽科學。目的是教導公眾應懷疑有關主題，提醒公眾其宣稱和實踐帶有潛在的欺詐性或危險性－努力確定科學的本質，或差勁的科學推理的幽默蠢事。一般科學界或懷疑論組織会對偽科學作出批評，包括批評其邏輯、方法論，或基於討論主題的修辞[1]。雖然有些列出的主題不斷地進行科學研究，另一些僅遵從過去的科學研究，雖則今时被人反駁，但仍在偽科學的潮流中復活。這裡介紹的主題是完全非科學的，但已用各种方式侵犯科學領域或科學實踐。許多擁護者或以下列出的主題的从業者会爭辯它們是否應定性為偽科學，故每節總結了为何該主題被定為偽科學。

物理科學

天文學與空間科學

  • 2012年預言 －在2012年會發生災變和世界末日事件的一種信念，該猜想是從長紀曆衍生。與公历比對，計算出該年为世界重生的時刻，末日的機制預測是由「太陽風暴」、「銀河對齊」、「極移」、「小行星、彗星或行星大規模碰撞(如尼比鲁)」的方式發生[2][3][4]。
  • 古代外星人－由艾利希·馮·丹尼肯於1968年提出[5]，指在古時候，外星人令人類文明興起或提供了各種古代文化的技術援助[6][7]。

地球科學

  • 幾何圖形巨石（英语：Pseudoscientific metrology）－假定一個地球上的幾何的存在能追溯至少公元前3500年和這樣的系統可能仍然在現代被共济会使用。據亞歷山大湯姆以及後來的阿蘭·巴特勒和克里斯托弗·奈特認為，在英國和布列塔尼巨石文明推進了幾何、數學、地球大小的知識。巴特勒認為托姆的巨石码把地球圓周極坐標分為366度[25][26]。
  • 百慕達三角－百慕大、波多黎各和佛羅里達州（在其最流行的版本）之間的大西洋區域，在此領域頻繁的船舶和飛機的災害和失踪事件被認為是超自然現象導致，及與此相关的故事广泛流傳，如超自然遭遇、與外星人交流[6]。
  • 否定氣候變化－與否定全球變暖有关的政治爭議已被確定為偽科學[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]。
  • 地球空洞说－地球是完全空心的或地殼之下中空的的主張，某些民間傳說和陰謀論持有這樣的想法，並認為地下生命是存在的。
  • 李森科主义-特罗菲姆·邓尼索维奇·李森科提出來的生物遺傳原理，基礎是獲得性遺傳[35]。李森科主義是否定了孟德爾的生物遺傳理論，后來被李森科命名為米丘林主義。李森科的學說在20世紀40年代末至50年代初在蘇聯的地位突出。基因在斯大林的集體化運動所引起的飢荒之後被宣稱為「資產階級的科學」。在李森科承諾的作物產量未能兌現後，蘇聯悄然放棄了李森科的農業實踐，改为現代農業的做法。到了50年代中期，他的影響力大大下降。現今李森科的農業實驗和研究在很大程度上被視為欺詐[36][37]。
  • 地平說－一種理論認為地球是平的，而非球狀。一些邊緣團體仍然支持這個理論[38]。

能量

  • 水变油事件－1983年在中國發生的偽科學事件，一位發明家聲稱，他可僅僅通過加入自己的「可燃炔」製劑數滴就能把水變成可用燃料。中國政府和中國共產黨對於像這樣的偽科學發展感到震驚，並發表聯合公告譴責最近對大眾的科学教育有所衰落[39]。
  • 分數氫（英语：Brilliant Light Power）－氫原子的假設狀態，據支持者蘭德爾·米爾斯(Randell Mills)所言，其較基態時能量低，因此是自由能的一個來源[40][41][42]。
  • 永动机－違反熱力學定律的機器。自18世紀後期永動機已被確認為科學以外，但至今人們仍提議嘗試做出這樣的機器和申請專利.[13][17][43]。
  • 奧剛（英语：Orgone）－是偽科學的一个理念，其被形容為一種深奧的能量或假想宇宙生命的力量，最初由威廉·賴希於20世紀30年代提出[48][49][50]。

建築學

  • 風水－中國的建築學體系，往往被視為具迷信元素的偽科學[51][52][53]。
  • 毘羅經典（英语：Vastu shastra）－是古印度的建築學體系，其中規定了一系列與建房氛圍有關的規則。科學家，像賈揚特·納里卡（英语：Jayant Narlikar）寫到其與環境沒有「邏輯聯繫」，並指出有時已經建成的建築会拆除並重建，以適應規定[54][55]另一個例子是一位部長下令拆遷貧民窟而改變他的辦公室門口，按毘羅的从業者所言，把入口改为大門朝東會解決他的政治問題[56][57]。

物理學

生命科學

農業科學

  • 生物動力農業－有機農業的一種方式，把農場的生物個體統一和單一化，生物動力使用已被定為占星用途的日曆。生物動力學家所使用的物質和堆肥已被人形容为非常規和順勢。例如，驅逐田鼠的方法是當金星在天蠍座上时，準備由田鼠皮膚製成的骨灰[60][61][62][63]。

應用科學

健康與醫學

屬偽科學的醫療行為通常被稱為庸醫。

  • 替代医学，一個已被形容為偽科學的類別，国家科学基金会已進行了關於「科幻和偽科學」的「公眾態度和公眾理解」的調查，包括研究替代醫學的受歡迎程度。它認為相信替代醫學是一項令人關注的問題，其把替代醫學定義為「所有治療方法还沒有通過現代科學方法證明」。其引述懷疑論者調查委員會（英语：Committee for Skeptical Inquiry）替代醫學的列表後，認為其中許多为偽科學，以及提到科學工作者、組織和科學決策團體成員所關注的問題，它評論說「儘管如此，替代醫學[在公眾]的受歡迎程度似乎在增加[64]。」「美國醫學院校中至少有60％課堂時間投入在替代療法的教學中，這在科學界產生爭議[64]。」相反，有報告指，大學正在「越來越傾向於順勢療法和補充醫學，其为科學界所反對的「偽科學」學位[65] 。」替代醫學的學位被描述為「偽科學學位[64][65][66]」、「反科學」和「有害的」[67]。
  • 人智医学（英语：Anthroposophic medicine）－補充和替代醫學的一种[68]，由魯道夫·斯坦納和伊達·韋格曼（英语：Ita Wegman）根據人智學的精神理念在20世紀20年代創立，強調整全觀和有益原则的方法對待健康，而不強調隨機對照試驗[69][70]，人智医学会配製與症狀的「關鍵動力力量」(key dynamic forces)匹配的藥物[71]，並且会準備各種稀釋液來外用、口服以及非口服來達至整體上順勢的效果[72] 。從業人員一般不建議或建議推遲疫苗接種以及抗生素和退熱藥的使用[73][74][75]。懷疑論者如羅伯特·卡羅爾（英语：Robert Todd Carroll），把人智医学的原則比喻為交感巫術，即治療性植物可通過它們形態或生理的扭曲或異常被識別[76]卡羅爾和其他人表示該體系不是基於科學[76][77][78]。埃得·扎德（英语：Edzard Ernst）認為，人智醫學的功效沒有進行獨立於它的哲學理念的全面科學分析，而且沒有基於證據的結論可以得出該體系的整體效用[79]。
  • 應用肌肉動力學（英语：Applied kinesiology）－一种診斷方法，利用人手为肌肉強度測試去作醫療診斷和處方治療，支持者相信從業者可以通過外部的物理性質確定健康問題或缺乏哪種營養，如肌肉反應、姿勢或動作分析。各種療法的基礎是測試肌肉的無力度或動作的平滑性，肌肉和器官之間與內臟軀體有關的一種猜想。例如從業者會給病人一手握住載有內含物的罐子，然後測試另一隻手的肌肉力量；如果有很小的抵抗力，從業者可以斷定患者是對該物質過敏，其使用的診斷或治療任何過敏[80]或疾病[81]的方法和應用肌肉動力學的國際學院要求同時在標準診斷技術中使用的不被科學支持[82]。脊骨神經醫學的从業者往往使用應用肌肉動力學，但也可能被自然療法从業者、醫生、牙醫、營養師、物理治療師、按摩治療師、護士使用[81][83]。應用肌肉動力學不應與運動機能學（英语：Kinesiology）相混淆，運動機能學是人體運動的科學研究。
  • 商布德利帕德敏感症消除技术（英语：Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Techniques）－聲稱是過敏和相關病症的一個替代診治。現有證據的综述得出結論：商布德利帕德敏感症消除技术，主要是應用運動學的一种形式，使用的過敏診斷技術是無效的[84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91]和一些醫學協會建議不要以這種方式利用應用肌肉動力學[90][92][93][94][95][96]。一些探討商布德利帕德敏感症消除技术的文獻综述，直接說明它缺乏任何證據而且其主張是毫無根據的[91][97]。商布德利帕德敏感症消除技术的理論基礎已被批評為缺乏科學依據[95][98]。澳亚临床免疫与过敏协会（英语：Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy）建議不要使用商布德利帕德敏感症消除技术[95]。
  • 貝茨方法（英语：Bates method）－眼科醫生威廉·貝茨開發的一個教育方法，旨在「自然地」提高視力，它據稱可以消除眼外肌緊繃以省去眼鏡的需求.[99]。1929年，貝茨被聯邦貿易委員會列舉了他編寫的書《摘掉眼鏡完美視力》的虛假或誤導性廣告[100]，但相关投訴後來被駁回[101]。雖然有些人聲稱遵循了他的原則，以改善視力，但貝茨關於視覺和調節的想法已經在主流眼科和視光學中被人反對[102][103][104][105][106]。
  • 生理节律－假設人的生理和行為受分別為23、28、33天為一循環的體力、情緒和智力週期所控制。如該體系假定，当智力週期曲線越過基線位置或附近時(個體出生時)，該人判斷事物出錯的机会会增加。並沒有人發現任何與行動有关的生物物理機制，生物節律的預測能力並不比碰運气佳[6][107][108][109]。對於像晝夜節律一樣的生物循環科學研究，參見時間生物學。
  • 細胞記憶－假設身體本身能夠儲存記憶，而不是只有大腦能儲存記憶。它用於解釋並未有用來儲存某種記憶的特定條件，而透過釋放記憶的方式來重新恢復，並且有時恢復壓抑的記憶的催化劑[110]。這些回憶的特徵通常是身體一個或多個部分幻肢痛－身體出現記憶過去的創傷，細胞記憶的想法經常是與壓抑的記憶聯繫起來，其中細胞記憶会保留亂倫或性虐待的記憶，並通過身體感知重新喚醒[110][111]。
  • 健腦操（英语：Brain Gym）－一項商業培訓計劃，聲稱只要尋找合適的動作，任何學習的困難都可以透過建立大腦中的新迴路克服。他們聲稱，重複26套健腦操動作能「激活大腦，優化其儲存和提取信息的能力[112]。」，並專为了達至「身與心的融匯」以提高「集中力、記憶力、閱讀能力、寫作能力、組織能力、聽力、身體協調性以及更多」而設[113]。其理論基礎已被科學界駁斥，並把它形容為偽科學[114][115][116][117]。同行評審关於健腦操的科學研究後，發現一般情況下學術技能無顯著改善。它所聲稱的結果並没有考慮其他因素如安慰劑效應、休息和運動的好處。其創始人保羅·丹尼森也承認，許多健腦操的聲稱並不是基於好科學(good science)，但基於他的「直覺」[118]。
  • 脊骨神經醫學是一種替代医学實踐，側重於尋找脊髓的半脱位（英语：Vertebral subluxation）(一套屬於脊骨神經醫學的脊柱的症狀和體徵)和以調整脊髓的方式治療。許多現代脊骨神經醫學从業者僅僅針對機械性功能障礙，並提供健康和生活方式輔導[119][120]。然而，許多从業者根據丹尼爾·大衛·帕爾馬（英语：Daniel David Palmer）和巴特利特·約書亞·帕爾默（英语：B. J. Palmer）的活力論作出實踐，堅持認為所有或許多的器質性疾病都假定為脊髓功能障礙的結果，如脊椎半脫位或先天的知能（英语：Innate intelligence）(一种猜想中的能量)的流動受到損害[121][122] 。這些觀點並不是基於科學，以及沒有很強的研究基礎化解脊骨神經醫學和主流醫學之間的歷史矛盾[123][124][125][126]。最近的系統綜述顯示脊骨神經醫學可能適度有效於非特異性下背痛的管理[127][128][129]。脊骨神經醫學的有效性尚未根據循證醫學的任何原則證實[130]。參考報告中，符合較輕微定義的副作用事件，如脊柱推拿後可能出現的神經系統受損，尤其是上脊柱推拿，其發生頻率为33％－61％之間，大多數副作用事件是輕微的，如輕度酸痛、頭暈，頭昏、淺頭暈、頭痛、麻木感或上肢酸麻；很少觀察到但亦有發生的嚴重併發症包括蛛網膜下腔出血、椎動脈夾層（英语：Vertebral artery dissection）或是脊髓病變[131][132][133][134][135]。
    • 先天的知能（英语：Innate intelligence）－一种假想能量，一些脊骨神經醫學从業者認為它的責任是流動以維持患者的健康。花大部分时間研究脊骨神經醫學的臨床心理學家約瑟夫·基廷（英语：Joseph C. Keating Jr.）表示：「一直以來，我們的『一種原因，一種治療』这种說辭，我們應該預料到被更廣泛的健康科學界嘲笑。脊骨神經醫學不能兩者兼得。我們的理論不能同時教條式地構建生機論及科學化，帕爾默的知能的目的性、自覺性和剛性應予駁回[136]。」
    • 椎骨半脫位（英语：Vertebral subluxation）－脊骨神經醫學的用語描述先天的知能所流動的部位病變或推測由脊椎病變引起的神經肌肉骨胳病變和內臟功能失調，科學共識並不支持脊骨神經醫學的椎骨半脫位存在[137]。
  • 結腸清洗療法（英语：Colon cleansing）－幾種替代醫學，旨在從結腸和腸道除去糞便和不明毒素。從業者相信，腐爛糞便積聚於大腸壁，並且它們窩藏寄生蟲或致病腸道菌群，造成非特異性症狀和健康欠佳。這種「自體中毒」的假設是基於古埃及人和希臘人的醫療信念，而在20世紀初名聲掃地[138][139]。
  • 顱骶療法（英语：Craniosacral therapy）－治療師把他們的手放在病人的頭骨上，使得他們能夠調節腦脊液的節奏[140]。顱骶療法的治療師聲稱顱骶療法可以治療精神緊張、頸部和背部疼痛、偏頭痛、顳下頜關節功能紊亂（英语：Temporomandibular joint dysfunction）以及慢性疼痛(如纖維肌痛（英语：Fibromyalgia）)[141][142][143]。在1999年進行的系統回顧「找不到有效的科學證據表明，顱骶療法提供予患者任何好處。」並指出，「現有的低等證據是从实驗設計差的健康結果研究中衍生」和「已有報告指出患者在療法後損傷頭部的事件[144]。」顱骶療法已被很多不同的研究人員定性為偽科學或在研究人員中的名聲較差[145][146][147][148][149][150]。
  • 水晶療法（英语：Crystal healing）－相信水晶有治療作用。一度在前科學(pre-scientific)和土著人之間流行，它的知名度因20世紀70年代的新紀元運動復興[151][152]。
  • 排毒（英语：Detoxification (alternative medicine)）－排毒是替代醫學範圍內的一种实践，聲稱可以去除身體內的「毒素」－在身體積累的有害物質，據稱在短期或長期內對個人健康有不良影響。許多主流媒體網站提供关於这种实践的文章，但是缺乏科學依據證明存在毒素及其危害或去除技術的功效。
  • 耳燭－一種替代醫學实践，聲稱使用空心蠟燭將一端插入外耳道，另一端點燃，可以改善整體健康和幸福感。醫學研究表明，這種实践是無效的，並有可能令人受傷，虽然可能性較低。一項調查訪問了122名耳鼻喉科醫師，發現在其職業生涯中，共有21例病例耳朵因此而受傷[153]。此過程不會幫助清除耳垢或毒性物質[154]。
  • 接地气療法（英语：Earthing therapy）－一種療法，聲稱通過直接與地面或與連接到電氣接地的裝置物理接觸可以緩解疼痛、令睡眠質素更佳並幫助緩解疾病的發炎症狀[155]。據稱，地球擁有過剩的電子，但由於絕緣鞋和地面覆蓋物的關係令人們缺少，與大地接觸能把其過量的電子提供予身體，然後充当抗氧化劑[156]。
  • 電磁波過敏症－「患者」報告對暴露水平低於規定安全標準的電場和磁場或不同頻率的電磁輻射敏感。症狀並不一致，但可以包括頭痛、疲勞、睡眠困難和類似的非特異性症状[157]。研究發現，患者的不適與隱藏的輻射來源無關[158][159]和「無科學依據證明暴露於電磁場及電磁波過敏症之間目前存在的任何聯繫[160]。」
  • 信仰療法－通過諸如祈禱和手禮（英语：Laying on of hands）等行為治愈疾病。據觀察所得信仰療法沒有帶來超過安慰劑預期的肉體上的得益[6][161][162]。
  • 健康手鍊及各種療法飾品－聲稱改善健康、癒合或提高穿用者的「氣」，如離子手鍊（英语：Ionized jewelry）、全息手鍊（英语：Hologram bracelet）以及磁性飾品。製造商所聲稱的任何效果没有被獨立來源證實[163][164]。
  • 顺势疗法－相信某物質能在健康的人身上，引起病人患某病時的病症，此物質就能治療該病症。這些準備工作通常是就以上一点稀釋製劑，任何治療方法可能也是差不多[165]。順勢療法的研究在很大程度上是負面的或不確定的[166][167][168][169] 。順勢療法的原則沒有已證實的科學依據[170][171][172][173][174][175][176]。
  • 虹膜學（英语：Iridology）－醫療診斷手段，其支持者相信能夠通過仔細檢查虹膜的標記和圖案來識別和診斷健康問題。從業人員劃分虹膜為80-90个區域，其中每一個分別連繫到特定的身體區域或器官。此連繫尚未經過科學驗證，疾病檢測既不是講究也不是具體的[177][178][179]。由於虹膜紋理是一個表型

特徵，懷孕期間的在母體內發展並且出生後保持不變(這使得虹膜生物識別有用處)，虹膜學幾乎是不可能成功的。

  • 腸漏綜合症（英语：Leaky gut syndrome）－一個在替代醫學中擬議的狀態，有害物質从腸道壁外面進入的通道，被提出作為許多狀態的原因，包括多发性硬化症和自閉症。腸漏綜合症是一項已被稱為偽科學的宣稱[180]。據英國國家健康服務（英语：National Health Service (England)）所指出，这个理論是模糊且未經證實的[181]。一些懷疑論者和科學家說，治療腸漏綜合症的市場是被誤導或故意欺詐的一個實例[181]。
  • 闪电般的过程（英语：The Lightning Process）－自稱是从整骨療法衍生的系統－神經語言規劃及生活輔導[182]。支持者聲稱，該过程可以對一系列的疾病和病症產生積極影響，包括肌痛性腦炎，但是療效沒有科學證據證明[183]。闪电般的过程的設計者菲爾·帕克(Phill Parker)表明，慢性疲勞症候群是中樞神經系統和自主神經系統失調的結果，闪电般的过程旨在解決这些神经系统的失調，幫助打破「腎上腺素循環」，讓系統的應激反應維持在一个高的水平[183]。
  • 磁療－使用磁場來正面地影響健康的實踐。雖然磁鐵和磁場有合法的醫療用途，但在磁療使用的磁場強度太低，不足以實現任何生理變化，使用的方法亦沒有科學有效性[6][184][185]。
  • 阿育吠陀－傳統阿育吠陀是紮根於古印度5000年歷史的另類醫療實踐，基於心靈－身體的一套信念[186][187]。人的意識不平衡或壓力被認為是疾病的原因[186]。患者按着體質類型劃分(三種doshas(能量元素)被認為是控制身心和諧，以其衡量個人的體質)和治療的目的是恢復心靈－身體系統的平衡[186][187] 。長期以來，它一直是印度醫療保健的主要傳統體系[187]。它已在印度的學院和學校被制度化，但無證從業者依然普遍[188]。像其他傳統知識一樣，很多有關阿育吠陀的知識已失傳；在西方，目前與阿育吠陀有关的實踐是瑪赫西·馬赫什·瑜珈部分基於阿育吠陀的啓發[189] ，把其與傳統的超覺靜坐（英语：Transcendental Meditation）混合。在美國，阿育吠陀最引人注目的倡導者是狄巴克·喬布拉，他聲稱阿育吠陀是基於量子神秘主義[189]。
  • 自然療法－或稱自然醫學，基於相信活力論的一種替代醫學，其假定一種被稱为生命能量或生命力的特殊能量的存在，其会引導身體的活動如新陳代謝、繁殖、生長和適應[190]。自然療法已被定性為偽科學[191][192]。它尤其因沒被證明、被證偽或危險的治療方法而被人批評[193][194][195][196]。自然的方法以及不是人造或合成的化學品不一定更安全或更有效；任何有效果的治療也可能有有害的副作用[139][192][197][198]。
  • 骨科手法醫學（英语：Osteopathic manipulative medicine）或整骨手法醫學－整骨醫學的核心技術，基於安德魯·泰勒·史迪爾構想的理念，認為身體擁有的自我調節機制可能可以通過控制或移動骨骼、肌腱和肌肉得到充分利用。它被提議治療許多人類疾病，包括帕金森氏病、胰腺炎和肺炎，但只發現對下背痛有效[199][200][201]。長期以來，人們一直認為它是基於「偽科學教條」[202]。美國計算生物學家和電腦科學家史蒂芬·扎尔茨贝格（英语：Steven Salzberg）提到整骨醫學院校教授的整骨手法醫學為“偽科學中的實踐訓練”[203]
  • 魯爾夫治療法（英语：Rolfing）－由愛達·魯爾夫（英语：Ida Rolf）(1896–1979) 所創，從業者聲稱能夠擺脫人體肌肉層的創傷記憶[204]，沒有任何證據表明魯爾夫治療法對任何疾病有效[205]。
  • 觸摸治療（英语：Therapeutic touch）－活力論的一種，醫師或護士[45][206]將他或她的手放在患者上和圍繞以“重新調整”或“平衡”假想的能量場[43]。Cochrane評價的結論是「沒有證據表明[觸摸治療]促進急性傷口癒合[207]。」並沒有人發現能量場的生物物理基礎[208][209]。
  • 锡箔帽－錫箔帽是從一片或多片鋁箔製成的帽子或普通的內含箔頭飾，相信戴上它可以保護大腦，免受電磁場、精神控制和讀心術的威脅。目前沒有發現無線電頻與防止隨後健康狀況不佳的錫箔帽間有任何关係。

註腳

  1. ^ Pollak 2002, "Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread... More than 25 percent of the public believes in astrology, that is, that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives.
  2. ^ O'Neill 2008.
  3. ^ Rosenbaum 2009
  4. ^ Hummels 2009.
  5. ^ Fraknoi, Andrew. Ancient Astronauts and Erich Von Daniken. Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List. Astronomical Society of the Pacific. October 2009 [2 November 2011]. 
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 entry in Shermer, Michael (编). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (PDF). ABC–CLIO, Inc. 2002 [16 December 2013]. ISBN 1-57607-653-9. 
  7. ^ Trefil, James. Who Were the Ancient Engineers of Egypt?. Skeptical Inquirer (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). March 2007, 17.1 [1 December 2007]. The pyramids, as impressive as they are, give no evidence at all for the presence of advanced technology at work in ancient Egypt. 
  8. ^ Kilgannon, Corey. Origin of the Species, From an Alien View. New York Times (The New York Times Company). 8 January 2010 [29 October 2010]. Mr. Sitchin has been called silly before – by scientists, historians and archaeologists who dismiss his theories as pseudoscience and fault their underpinnings: his translations of ancient texts and his understanding of physics. 
  9. ^ Carroll, Robert T. The Skeptic's Dictionary. Zecharia Sitchin and The Earth Chronicles. John Wiley & Sons. 1994–2009 [29 October 2010]. 
  10. ^ 10.0 10.1 Fraknoi, Andrew. The Dogon Tribe and Sirius B. Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List. Astronomical Society of the Pacific. October 2009 [2 November 2011]. 
  11. ^ The Universe At Your Fingertips Activity: Activities With Astrology. Astronomical Society of the Pacific. [3 December 2007]. These activities help students to understand the difference between science and pseudoscience by investigating some of astrology's claims. 
  12. ^ Statement of the position of the Iowa Academy of Science on Pseudoscience (PDF). Iowa Academy of Science. July 1986. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于26 June 2007）. 
  13. ^ 13.0 13.1 statement from the Russian Academy of Sciences.[1] Broken Link!
  14. ^ Pollak 2002, "Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread... More than 25 percent of the public believes in astrology, that is, that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives.
  15. ^ Fraknoi, Andrew. Dealing with Astrology, UFOs, and Faces on Other Worlds: A Guide to Addressing Astronomical Pseudoscience in the Classroom. Astronomy Education Review. 1 January 2003, 2 (2): 150–160. doi:10.3847/AER2003022. 
  16. ^ Fraknoi, Andrew. The Full Moon and Lunacy. Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List. Astronomical Society of the Pacific. October 2009 [2 November 2011]. 
  17. ^ 17.0 17.1 17.2 Fraknoi, Andrew. The "Great Moon Hoax": Did Astronauts Land on the Moon?. Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List. Astronomical Society of the Pacific. October 2009 [2 November 2011]. 
  18. ^ Knier, Gil; Bray, Becky. The Moon Landing Hoax. NASA. 30 March 2001. （原始内容存档于22 November 2007）. Did we actually send humans to the Moon in the 1960s? Of course we did! 
  19. ^ Schilling, Govert. The Hunt For Planet X: New Worlds and the Fate of Pluto. Copernicus Books. 2009: 111. ISBN 0-387-77804-7. 
  20. ^ Morrison, David. Armageddon from Planet Nibiru in 2012? Not so fast (blog). discovery.com. 2008 [2 April 2009]. 
  21. ^ Plait, Phil. The Planet X Saga: Science (blog). badastronomy.com. 2003 [2 April 2009]. 
  22. ^ Myles Standish. Planet X – No dynamical evidence in the optical observations. Astronomical Journal. 16 July 1992, 105 (5): 2000–2006. Bibcode:1993AJ....105.2000S. doi:10.1086/116575. 
  23. ^ IISC Paper (PDF). 
  24. ^ Indian Express Article
  25. ^ Nettleton, Paul. Peer Review: Who Built the Moon? by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler. The Guardian (London). 1 September 2005 [5 November 2011]. 
  26. ^ Angell, Ian O. Megalithic mathematics, ancient almanacs or neolithic nonsense. Bull. Inst. Math. Appl. 1978, 14 (10): 253–258. 
  27. ^ NCSE Tackles Climate Change Denial, National Center for Science Education, January 13th, 2012
  28. ^ Shermer, Michael. What Is Pseudoscience?, Scientific American, September 15, 2011
  29. ^ Morrison, David. The Parameters of Pseudoscience, Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 37.2, March/April 2013. Book review of The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe, by Michael D. Gordin.
  30. ^ Brown, Michael. Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience, ‘’Phys.org’’, Sep 26, 2013
  31. ^ Plait, Phil.Debunking the Denial: "16 Years of No Global Warming", ‘’Slate.com’’, Jan. 14, 2013
  32. ^ Kennedy, D. An Unfortunate U-turn on Carbon. Science. 30 March 2001, 291 (5513): 5513. doi:10.1126/science.1060922.  Subscription needed
  33. ^ Brown, R. G. E., Jr. Environmental science under siege: Fringe science and the 104th Congress, U. S. House of Representatives. (PDF). Report, Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science (Washington, D. C.: U. S. House of Representatives). 23 October 1996. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于2007-09-26）. 
  34. ^ Lahsen, Myanna. Technocracy, Democracy, and the U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations. Science, Technology, & Human Values. Winter 2005, 30: 137–169. doi:10.1177/0162243904270710. 
  35. ^ Lysenkoism. Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 
  36. ^ Sterling, Bruce. Suicide by Pseudoscience 12 (6). Wired Magazine. June 2004 [19 November 2011]. 
  37. ^ Walker, Bruce. The Ghost of Lysenko. American Thinker. 30 November 2009. 
  38. ^ Russell, Jeffrey B. The Myth of the Flat Earth. American Scientific Affiliation. [March 14, 2007]. 
  39. ^ Sagan, Carl. Does truth matter? (PDF). : 8–9. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于26 June 2008）. [text of proclamation] activities of superstition and ignorance have been growing, and antiscience and pseudoscience cases have become frequent. Therefore, effective measures must be applied as soon as possible to strengthen public education in science. 
  40. ^ Guizzo, Erico. Loser: Hot or Not?. IEEE Spectrum. January 2009, 46: 36–38. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2009.4734311. Why it’s a loser: Most experts don’t believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don’t present convincing evidence. 
  41. ^ Ross, Philip E. Winners & Losers VI. IEEE Spectrum. January 2009, 46: 31–32. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2009.4734309. 
  42. ^ Morrison, Chris. Blacklight Power bolsters its impossible claims of a new renewable energy source. New York Times. 21 October 2008. 
  43. ^ 43.0 43.1 43.2 Scientific American. （原始内容存档于9 October 2009）. 
  44. ^ Gardner, M. Zero Point Energy and Harold Puthoff. Skeptical Inquirer. May–June 1998: 13. On the misuse of some physics ideas and cosmology. 
  45. ^ 45.0 45.1 "Beyond Science", on season 8, episode 2. 美国科学前沿（英语：Scientific American Frontiers）. 公共广播电视公司. Chedd-Angier Production Company. 1997–1998. （原始内容存档于2006）. 
  46. ^ Ball, Philip. Burning water and other myths. Nature News. 14 September 2007 [19 August 2008]. 
  47. ^ Olsen, Brad. Future Esoteric: The Unseen Realms. CCC Publishing. : 326. 
  48. ^ Roeckelein 2006, pp. 517–518. Jon E. Roeckelein (psychologist), 2006: "The current consensus of scientific opinion is that Reich's orgone theory is basically a psychoanalytic system gone awry, and is an approach that represents something most ludicrous and totally dismissible."
  49. ^ Jon E. Roeckelein. Elsevier's dictionary of psychological theories. Elsevier. 2006: 493, 517–518. ISBN 978-0-444-51750-0. 
  50. ^ Arthur Wrobel. Pseudo-science and society in nineteenth-century America illustrated. University Press of Kentucky. 1987: 229. ISBN 978-0-8131-1632-7. 
  51. ^ Evelyn Lip. Feng Shui for Harmony in the Home. : 11. 
  52. ^ Banister Fletcher; James C. Palmes. Sir Banister Fletcher's A history of architecture. : 149. 
  53. ^ Timothy Richard's Vision. The Lutterworth Press. : 16. 
  54. ^ Narlikar, Jayant V. Astronomy, pseudoscience and rational thinking. Percy, John; Pasachoff, Jay (编). Teaching and Learning Astronomy: Effective Strategies for Educators Worldwide. Cambridge University Press. 2009: 165. 
  55. ^ Quack, Johannes. Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India. Oxford University Press. 2012: 170 [15 August 2015]. 
  56. ^ Sokal, Alan. Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture. Oxford University Press. 2008: 306–307. 
  57. ^ Nanda, Meera. The Science Wars in India. DISSENT. 1997, 44 (1). 
  58. ^ 't Hooft, Gerard. Editorial note. Foundations of Physics. 2008, 38 (1): 1–2. Bibcode:2008FoPh...38....1T. doi:10.1007/s10701-007-9187-8. 
  59. ^ Preiss, Byron. The Planets. Bantam Books. 1985: 27. ISBN 0-553-05109-1. 
  60. ^ Goode, Jamie. The science of wine: from vine to glass. University of California Press. 1 March 2006. ISBN 978-0-520-24800-7. [页码请求]
  61. ^ Chalker-Scott, Linda. The Myth of Biodynamic Agriculture (PDF). Master Gardener Magazine. 2004.  参数|magazine=与模板{{cite journal}}不匹配（建议改用{{cite magazine}}或|journal=） (帮助)
  62. ^ Smith, D. On Fertile Ground? Objections to Biodynamics. The World of Fine Wine (archived at Skeptical Inquirer) (. 2006, (12): 108–113 [29 November 2013]. 
  63. ^ Kirchmann, Holger. Biological dynamic farming – an occult form of alternative agriculture?. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 1994, 7 (2): 173–187. doi:10.1007/BF02349036. 
  64. ^ 64.0 64.1 64.2 Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding. Science Fiction and Pseudoscience. National Science Foundation. 
  65. ^ 65.0 65.1 Frean, Alexandra. Universities drop degree courses in alternative medicine.需要付费订阅. The Times. 30 January 2009 [5 November 2012]. Universities are increasingly turning their backs on homoeopathy and complementary medicine amid opposition from the scientific community to 'pseudo-science' degrees. 
  66. ^ Corbyn., Zoë. Experts criticise 'pseudo-scientific' complementary medicine degrees.. Times Higher Education. 24 April 2008 [29 May 2015]. 
  67. ^ Highfield, Roger. Alternative medicine degrees 'anti-scientific'. The Daily Telegraph (London). 22 March 2007 [11 May 2012]. 
  68. ^ von Rohra, E.; Pampallonab, S.; van Wegberga, B.; Hürnyc, Ch.; Bernhardd, J.; Heussere, P.; Cernyf, Th. Experiences in the realisation of a research project on anthroposophical medicine in patients with advanced cancer (PDF). Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 2000, 130 (34): 1173–84. PMID 11013920. 
  69. ^ Klotter, Jule. Anthroposophical Medicine. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. 2006, 24 (1): 274. 
  70. ^ Kiene, Helmut. Complementary Methodology in Clinical Research – Cognition-based Medicine. Heidelberg, New York: Springer Publishers. 2001. ISBN 3-540-41022-8. 
  71. ^ anonymous. Miscellaneous Holistic Remedies. Holistic Online. [9 February 2008]. 
  72. ^ Anonymous. The Position of Anthroposophic Medicine. Internationale Vereinigung Anthroposophischer Ärztegesellschaften (International Federation of Anthroposophic Medical Associations). 13 November 2004 [9 February 2008]. （原始内容存档于22 February 2008）. Some medicines are similar to herbal medicinal products, some are prepared according to the guidelines of homeopathic pharmacopoeias. 
  73. ^ Alm, JS; Swartz, J; Lilja, G; Scheynius, A; Pershagen, G. Atopy in children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle (PDF). Lancet. May 1999, 353 (9163): 1485–8. PMID 10232315. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(98)09344-1. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于12 December 2005）. 
  74. ^ Flöistrup, Helen; Swartz, Jackie; Bergström, Anna; Alm, Johan S.; Scheynius, Annika; van Hage, Marianne; Waser, Marco; Braunfahrlander, C; et al. Allergic disease and sensitization in Steiner school children. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. January 2006, 117 (1): 59–66 [3 March 2008]. PMID 16387585. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.09.039. 
  75. ^ Klotter, Jule. Anthroposophic lifestyle & allergies in children.(Shorts). Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. May 2006, 24 (2): 274. 
  76. ^ 76.0 76.1 Carroll, Robert. anthroposophic medicine. Skeptic's Dictionary. [9 February 2008]. 
  77. ^ Hansson, Sven Ove. Is Anthroposophy Science?. Conceptus. 1991, XXV (64): 37–49. The claims that anthroposophy is a science are not justified. 
  78. ^ Ernst, Edzard. Mistletoe as a treatment for cancer. BMJ. 2006, 333 (7582): 1282–3. PMC 1761165 可免费查阅. PMID 17185706. doi:10.1136/bmj.39055.493958.80. Anthroposophic drugs are based on ancient alchemistic and homeopathic notions, far removed from the concepts of pharmacology. 
  79. ^ Ernst, Edzard, "Anthroposophical Medicine: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials." Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift, ISSN 0043-5325, 2004, vol. 116, no4, pp. 128–130
  80. ^ Report of the Special Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medical Practitioners, In Opposition to the Licensure of Naturopaths (PDF). Massachusetts Medical Society. [27 January 2008]. Many of the means by which naturopaths diagnose these toxins and allergies are outright quackery: electrodiagnostic devices (banned by the FDA as worthless), hair analysis, applied kinesiology, iridology, and more. 
  81. ^ 81.0 81.1 Applied Kinesiology. American Cancer Society. 23 May 2007 [27 January 2008]. Available scientific evidence does not support the claim that applied kinesiology can diagnose or treat cancer or other illness. 
  82. ^ Applied Kinesiology Status Statement. International College of Applied Kinesiology. 16 June 1992 [27 January 2008]. （原始内容存档于22 March 2008）. 
  83. ^ Such as the existence of the geologic column; see Morton, Glenn. The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood. TalkOrigins Archive. 
  84. ^ Niggemann, B.; Gruber, C. Unproven diagnostic procedures in IgE-mediated allergic diseases. Allergy. August 2004, 59 (8): 806–808. PMID 15230811. doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2004.00495.x. 
  85. ^ Gerez, IF; Shek, LP; Chng, HH; Lee, BW. Diagnostic tests for food allergy (PDF). Singapore Medical Journal. January 2010, 51 (1): 4–9. PMID 20200768. 
  86. ^ Waserman, Susan; Watson, Wade. Food allergy (PDF). Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology. January 2011, 7 (Suppl 1): S7. PMC 3245440 可免费查阅. PMID 22166142. doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-S1-S7. 
  87. ^ Wüthrich, B. Unproven techniques in allergy diagnosis (PDF). Journal of Investigational Allergology & Clinical Immunology. 2005, 15 (2): 86–90. PMID 16047707. 
  88. ^ Beyer, K; Teuber, SS. Food allergy diagnostics: scientific and unproven procedures. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology. June 2005, 5 (3): 261–6. PMID 15864086. doi:10.1097/01.all.0000168792.27948.f9. 
  89. ^ Sicherer, S. H.; Wood, R. A. Allergy Testing in Childhood: Using Allergen-Specific IgE Tests (PDF). Pediatrics. December 2011, 129 (1): 193–197. PMID 22201146. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2382. 
  90. ^ 90.0 90.1 Bernstein, IL; Li, JT; Bernstein, DI; Hamilton, R; Spector, SL; Tan, R; Sicherer, S; Golden, DB; et al. Allergy diagnostic testing: an updated practice parameter (PDF). Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. March 2008, 100 (3, Supplement 3): S1–148. PMID 18431959. doi:10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60305-5. 
  91. ^ 91.0 91.1 Teuber, Suzanne S.; Porch-Curren, Cristina. Unproved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to food allergy and intolerance. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology. June 2003, 3 (3): 217–221. PMID 12840706. doi:10.1097/00130832-200306000-00011. 
  92. ^ Ortolani C, C; Bruijnzeel-Koomen C; Bengtsson U; et al. Controversial aspects of adverse reactions to food. European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Reactions to Food Subcommittee. Allergy. January 1999, 54 (1): 27–45. PMID 10195356. doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.1999.00913.x. 
  93. ^ Boyce, JA; Assa'ad A; Burks AW; et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel (PDF). The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. December 2010, 126 (6 Suppl.): S1–S58. PMID 21134576. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.10.007. 
  94. ^ Sackeyfio, A.; Senthinathan, A.; Kandaswamy, P.; Barry, P. W.; Shaw, B.; Baker, M. Diagnosis and assessment of food allergy in children and young people: summary of NICE guidance. British Medical Journal. February 2011, 342: d747. PMID 21345912. doi:10.1136/bmj.d747. 
  95. ^ 95.0 95.1 95.2 Unorthodox techniques for the diagnosis and treatment of allergy, asthma and immune disorders. Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy. November 2007 [7 February 2012]. （原始内容存档于28 December 2011）. 
  96. ^ Motala, C; Hawarden, D. Guideline: Diagnostic testing in allergy (PDF). South African Medical Journal. July 2009, 99 (7): 531–535. 
  97. ^ Morris, A. Complementary and Alternative Allergy Tests. Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology. March 2006, 19 (1): 26–28. 
  98. ^ Peter Barrett (2004), Science and Theology Since Copernicus: The Search for Understanding, p. 18, Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN 0-567-08969-X.
  99. ^ Quackenbush, Thomas R. Better Eyesight The complete magazines of William H. Bates. North Atlantic Books. 2000: 643. ISBN 1-55643-351-4. 
  100. ^ Worrall, Russell S.; Nevyas, Jacob; Barrett, Stephen. Eye-Related Quackery. 12 September 2007 [17 November 2007]. The claims Bates made in advertising his book were so dubious that in 1929 the Federal Trade Commission issued a complaint against him for advertising "falsely or misleadingly" 
  101. ^ Pollack, P. Chapter 3: Fallacies of the Bates System. The Truth about Eye Exercises. Philadelphia: Chilton Co. 1956. 
  102. ^ Skarnulis, Leanna. Natural Vision Correction: Does It Work?. WebMD. 5 February 2007. No evidence was found that visual training had any effect on the progression of nearsightedness, or that it improved visual function for patients with farsightedness or astigmatism, or that it improved vision lost to diseases, including age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, or diabetic retinopathy. 
  103. ^ Gardner, Martin. Chapter 19: Throw Away Your Glasses. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Courier Dover. 1957: 230–241. ISBN 0-486-20394-8. Actually, Bates' theory of accommodation (so necessary to explain the value of his exercises) is so patently absurd that even most of his present-day followers have discarded it. 
  104. ^ Bradley, Robyn E. Advocates See Only Benefits From Eye Exercises (PDF). The Boston Globe (MA). 23 September 2003. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于31 October 2012）. 
  105. ^ Marg, E. "Flashes" of clear vision and negative accommodation with reference to the Bates Method of visual training (PDF). Am J Opt Arch Am Ac Opt. 1952, 29 (4): 167–84. doi:10.1097/00006324-195204000-00001. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于29 May 2008）. 
  106. ^ Randi, James. Swift: the weekly newsletter of the JREF. 11 November 2006 [17 November 2007]. This is pure old quackery, it’s wishful thinking, and it’s profitable. [失效連結]
  107. ^ Biological Rhythms: Implications for the Worker. OTA-BA-463 Box 2-A pg. 30. Office of Technology Assessment. September 1991 [21 February 2008]. "No evidence exists to support the concept of biorhythms; in fact, scientific data refute their existence. 
  108. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd. Biorhythms. Skeptic's Dictionary. [21 February 2008]. The theory of biorhythms is a pseudoscientific theory that claims our daily lives are significantly affected by rhythmic cycles overlooked by scientists who study biological rhythms. 
  109. ^ Hines, Terence. Comprehensive Review of Biorhythm Theory (pdf (summary)). Psychological Reports. 1998, 83 (1): 19–64 [20 February 2008]. PMID 9775660. doi:10.2466/PR0.83.5.19-64. The conclusion is that biorhythm theory is not valid. 
  110. ^ 110.0 110.1 Smith, SE. Body Memories: And Other Pseudo-Scientific Notions of "Survivor Psychology". Issues in Child Abuse Accusations. 1993, 5 (4). 
  111. ^ Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Lynn, SJ; Lohr, JM (编). Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. The Guilford Press. 2002. ISBN 1-57230-828-1. 
  112. ^ Brain Gym – FAQ. The Official Brain Gym Web Site. [11 August 2008]. BRAIN GYM works by facilitating optimal achievement of mental potential through specific movement experiences. All acts of speech, hearing, vision, and coordination are learned through a complex repertoire of movements. BRAIN GYM promotes efficient communication among the many nerve cells and functional centers located throughout the brain and sensory motor system. 
  113. ^ About Brain Gym. 
  114. ^ Neuroscience and Education: Issues and Opportunities (PDF). the ESRC's Teaching and Learning Research Programme. [3 August 2007]. The pseudo-scientific terms that are used to explain how this works, let alone the concepts they express, are unrecognisable within the domain of neuroscience. 
  115. ^ Goswami, Usha. Neuroscience and education: from research to practice?. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. May 2006, 7 (5): 406–413 [11 August 2008]. PMID 16607400. doi:10.1038/nrn1907. Cognitive neuroscience is making rapid strides in areas highly relevant to education. However, there is a gulf between current science and direct classroom applications. Most scientists would argue that filling the gulf is premature. Nevertheless, at present, teachers are at the receiving end of numerous 'brain-based learning' packages. Some of these contain alarming amounts of misinformation, yet such packages are being used in many schools. 需付费查阅
  116. ^ Sense About Science – Brain Gym. Sense About Science. [11 April 2008]. These exercises are being taught with pseudoscientific explanations that undermine science teaching and mislead children about how their bodies work. ... There have been a few peer reviewed scientific studies into the methods of Brain Gym, but none of them found a significant improvement in general academic skills. 
  117. ^ Hyatt, Keith J. Brain Gym – Building Stronger Brains or Wishful Thinking?. Remedial and Special Education (SAGE Publications). April 2007, 28 (2): 117–124 [12 September 2008]. ISSN 0741-9325. doi:10.1177/07419325070280020201. a review of the theoretical foundations of Brain Gym and the associated peer-reviewed research studies failed to support the contentions of the promoters of Brain Gym. Educators are encouraged to become informed consumers of research and to avoid implementing programming for which there is neither a credible theoretical nor a sound research basis. 需付费查阅
  118. ^ Gray, Sadie. News in brief. London: The Times. 5 April 2008 [1 September 2008]. Paul Dennison, a Californian educator who created the programme, admitted that many claims in his teacher’s guide were based on his 'hunches' and were not proper science. 
  119. ^ An Introduction to Chiropractic. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. November 2007 [6 January 2009]. 
  120. ^ Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic programs and requirements for institutional status (PDF). The Council on Chiropractic Education. 2007 [14 February 2008]. [失效連結]
  121. ^ Nelson, CF; Lawrence, DJ; Triano, JJ; Bronfort, Gert; Perle, Stephen M; Metz, R Douglas; Hegetschweiler, Kurt; Labrot, Thomas. Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession. Chiropractic & Osteopathy. July 2005, 13 (1): 9. PMC 1185558 可免费查阅. PMID 16000175. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-13-9. 
  122. ^ Grod, JP; Sikorski, D; Keating, JC. Unsubstantiated claims in patient brochures from the largest state, provincial, and national chiropractic associations and research agencies. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. October 2001, 24 (8): 514–9. PMID 11677551. doi:10.1067/mmt.2001.118205. 
  123. ^ Keating, JC Jr; Cleveland, CS III; Menke, M. Chiropractic history: a primer (PDF). Association for the History of Chiropractic. 2005 [16 June 2008]. [失效連結]
  124. ^ Keating, JC Jr. Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side. Skept Inq. 1997, 21 (4): 37–43. 
  125. ^ Johnson, T. Angry scientists fight university's attempt to affiliate with chiropractic college. Canadian Medical Association Journal. December 1999, 160: 99–100. 
  126. ^ First public chiropractic school causes stir. MSNBC. 17 January 2005 [7 November 2010]. 
  127. ^ Ernst, E; Canter, PH. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. J R Soc Med. April 2006, 99 (4): 192–6. PMC 1420782 可免费查阅. PMID 16574972. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.4.192. 
  128. ^ Bronfort, G; Haas, M; Evans, R; Kawchuk, G; Dagenais, S. Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization. The Spine Journal. 2008, 8 (1): 213–25. PMID 18164469. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023. 
  129. ^ Assendelft, WJ; Morton, SC; Yu, EI; Suttorp, MJ; Shekelle, PG. Assendelft, Willem JJ , 编. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2004, (1): CD000447. PMID 14973958. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000447.pub2. 
  130. ^ Ernst, E. Chiropractic: a critical evaluation. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management. May 2008, 35 (5): 544–62. PMID 18280103. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. 
  131. ^ Thiel, HW; Bolton, JE; Docherty, S; Portlock, JC. Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey. Spine. October 2007, 32 (21): 2375–8; discussion 2379. PMID 17906581. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181557bb1. 
  132. ^ Ernst E. Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. July 2007, 100 (7): 330–8. PMC 1905885 可免费查阅. PMID 17606755. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330. 
  133. ^ Vohra, S; Johnston, BC; Cramer, K; Humphreys, K. Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: a systematic review. Pediatrics. January 2007, 119 (1): e275–83. PMID 17178922. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1392. 
  134. ^ Barrett, Stephen. Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes. Quackwatch. 31 July 2008 [6 January 2009]. 
  135. ^ Gouveia, LO; Castanho, P; Ferreira, JJ. Safety of chiropractic interventions: a systematic review. Spine. May 2009, 34 (11): E405–13. PMID 19444054. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a16d63. 
  136. ^ Keating, Joseph C. The Meanings of Innate. Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association. March 2002, 46 (1): 4–10. PMC 2505097 可免费查阅. 
  137. ^ Chiropractic: A Profession Seeking Identity. CSICOP. [7 January 2009]. （原始内容存档于4 October 2009）. 
  138. ^ Barrett, S. Gastrointestinal Quackery: Colonics, Laxatives, and More. Quackwatch. 9 March 2008 [2 September 2008]. 
  139. ^ 139.0 139.1 ACS: Colon Therapy. [7 December 2008]. 
  140. ^ The Craniosacral Therapy Association of the UK. 
  141. ^ Craniosacral Therapy. The Upledger Institute. 2001 [27 March 2004]. （原始内容存档于12 February 2004）. 
  142. ^ Ferrett, Mij. What Is Craniosacral Therapy?. 1998 [27 March 2004]. 
  143. ^ General information on Cranial Osteopathy. The Sutherland Society. [24 January 2006]. （原始内容存档于5 January 2006）. 
  144. ^ Green, C; Martin, CW; Bassett, K; Kazanjian, A. A systematic review of craniosacral therapy: biological plausibility, assessment reliability and clinical effectiveness. Complement Ther Med. 1999, 7 (4): 201–7. PMID 10709302. doi:10.1016/S0965-2299(99)80002-8.  An earlier version of the paper is available without a subscription: Green, C; Martin, CW; Bassett, K; Kazanjian, A. A systematic review and critical appraisal of the scientific evidence on craniosacral therapy (PDF). BCOHTA 99:1J. British Columbia Office of Health Technology Assessment. 1999 [8 October 2007]. [失效連結]
  145. ^ Norcross, John C.; Koocher, Gerald P.; Garofalo, Ariele. Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 2006, 37 (5): 515–522. ISSN 1939-1323. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515. 
  146. ^ Wheeler, Thomas J. A Scientific Look at Alternative Medicine (PDF). 21 February 2006 [12 January 2012]. 
  147. ^ Bledsoe, Bryan E. The Elephant in the Room: Does OMT Have Proved Benefit?. JAOA: Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 1 October 2004, 104 (10): 405–406 [12 January 2012]. PMID 15537794. （原始内容存档于5 March 2016）. 
  148. ^ Hartman, Steve E. Cranial osteopathy: its fate seems clear. Chiropractic & Osteopathy. 8 June 2006, 14: 10. ISSN 1746-1340. PMC 1564028 可免费查阅. PMID 16762070. doi:10.1186/1746-1340-14-10. 
  149. ^ Cranial Manipulative Therapy. [12 January 2012]. 
  150. ^ Atwood, Kimball C. Naturopathy, Pseudoscience, and Medicine: Myths and Fallacies vs Truth. Medscape General Medicine. 26 March 2004, 6 (1): 33. ISSN 1531-0132. 
  151. ^ Campion 1993，第282–3頁
  152. ^ Carroll, Robert Todd. crystal power. The Skeptic's Dictionary. [28 July 2007]. 
  153. ^ Seely, D.R., Quigley, S.M., Langman, A.W. Ear candles: Efficacy and safety. Laryngoscope. 1996, 106 (10): 1226–9. PMID 8849790. doi:10.1097/00005537-199610000-00010. 
  154. ^ Beatty M.D., Charles W. Ear Candling: Is it Safe?. MayoClinic.org. Mayo Clinic. [7 June 2014]. 
  155. ^ Chevalier, Gaetan; Sinatra, Stephan; Oschman, James; Sokal, Karol; Sokal, Pawel. Earthing: Health Implications of Reconnecting the Human Body to the Earth's Surface Electrons. Journal of Environmental Public Health. 2012, 2012 (291541): 1–8. PMC 3265077 可免费查阅. PMID 22291721. doi:10.1155/2012/291541. 
  156. ^ Oschman, James. Can Electrons Act as Antioxidants? A Review and Commentary. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. November 9, 2007, 13 (9): 955–967. PMID 18047442. doi:10.1089/acm.2007.7048. 
  157. ^ Röösli, M; Moser, M; Baldinini, Y; Meier, M; Braun-Fahrländer, C. Symptoms of ill health ascribed to electromagnetic field exposure – a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health. February 2004, 207 (2): 141–50. PMID 15031956. doi:10.1078/1438-4639-00269. 
  158. ^ Rubin, G James; Das Munshi, Jayati; Wessely, Simon. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2005, 67 (2): 224–232. PMID 15784787. doi:10.1097/01.psy.0000155664.13300.64. 
  159. ^ Goldacre, Ben. Electrosensitives: the new cash cow of the woo industry. BadScience/The Guardian. [17 November 2007]. 
  160. ^ Electromagnetic fields and public health. [17 November 2007]. （原始内容存档于16 November 2007）. 
  161. ^ National Science Foundation. Science and Engineering Indicators – 2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. 2002: ch. 7. ISBN 978-0-16-066579-0.  "Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread... Polls also show that one quarter to more than half of the public believes in ... faith healing."
  162. ^ Frazier, Kendrick. In the Land of Galileo, Fifth World Skeptics Congress Solves Mysteries, Champions Scientific Outlook. Skeptical Inquirer. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. January 2005 [18 December 2007]. （原始内容存档于17 October 2007）. The majority of rigorous trials show no effect beyond placebo. (Edzard Ernst) 
  163. ^ Copper and Magnetic Bracelets Do Not Work for Rheumatoid Arthritis; randi.org
  164. ^ Quackwear: Big Pseudoscience Wants to Sell You Wearable Metal to Improve Your Health; Alternet; January 10, 2015.
  165. ^ Kayne, SB; Caldwell, IM. Homeopathic pharmacy: theory and practice 2nd. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2006: 52. ISBN 978-0-443-10160-1. 
  166. ^ Goldacre, Ben. Benefits and Risks of Homoeopathy. The Lancet. 17 November 2007, 370 (9600): 1672–1673. PMID 18022024. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61706-1. Five large meta-analyses of homoeopathy trials have been done. All have had the same result: after excluding methodologically inadequate trials and accounting for publication bias, homoeopathy produced no statistically significant benefit over placebo. 
  167. ^ Homoeopathy's benefit questioned. BBC News. 25 August 2005 [30 January 2008]. Professor Egger said: "We acknowledge to prove a negative is impossible. But good large studies of homeopathy do not show a difference between the placebo and the homoeopathic remedy, whereas in the case of conventional medicines you still see an effect." 
  168. ^ Homeopathy: systematic review of systematic reviews. Bandolier. [30 January 2008]. None of these systematic reviews provided any convincing evidence that homeopathy was effective for any condition. The lesson was often that the best designed trials had the most negative result 
  169. ^ Questions and Answers About Homeopathy. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. April 2003 [30 January 2008]. In sum, systematic reviews have not found homeopathy to be a definitively proven treatment for any medical condition. 
  170. ^ Beyerstein, BL. Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience (PDF). 1997 [14 July 2007]. （原始内容 (PDF)存档于11 July 2007）. 
  171. ^ CSICOP, cited in National Science Foundation Subcommittee on Science & Engineering Indicators. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding: Science Fiction and Pseudoscience. National Science Foundation. 2000 [13 July 2007]. 
  172. ^ NCAHF Position Paper on Homeopathy. National Council Against Health Fraud. 1994 [14 July 2007]. 
  173. ^ Tyler, Chris. Sense About Homeopathy (PDF). Sense About Science. September 2006 [29 January 2008]. The scientific evidence shows that homeopathy acts only as a placebo and there is no scientific explanation of how it could work any other way. 
  174. ^ Questions and Answers About Homeopathy. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. April 2003 [30 January 2008]. a number of its key concepts do not follow the laws of science (particularly chemistry and physics) 
  175. ^ What is Homeopathy. American Cancer Society. 5 January 2000 [30 January 2008]. （原始内容存档于20 January 2008）. Most scientists say homeopathic remedies are basically water and can act only as placebos. 
  176. ^ Scientists attack homeopathy move.. BBC News. 25 October 2006 [2 February 2008]. In a statement, the Royal College of Pathologists said they were "deeply alarmed" that the regulation of medicine had "moved away from science and clear information for the public" 
  177. ^ Iridology. Natural Standard. 7 July 2005 [1 February 2008]. （原始内容存档于24 August 2010）. Research suggests that iridology is not an effective method to diagnose or help treat any specific medical condition. 
  178. ^ Ernst, E. Iridology: not useful and potentially harmful. Archives of ophthalmology. January 2000, 118 (1): 120–1. PMID 10636425. doi:10.1001/archopht.118.1.120. 
  179. ^ H-175.998 Evaluation of Iridology (PDF). American Medical Association. [30 July 2009]. Our AMA believes that iridology, the study of the iris of the human eye, has not yet been established as having any merit as a diagnostic technique. 
  180. ^ Kalichman, Seth C. Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy. Springer. 16 January 2009: 167. ISBN 978-0-387-79476-1. 
  181. ^ 181.0 181.1 Leaky gut syndrome. NHS Choices. 9 April 2013 [24 October 2013]. 
  182. ^ Cormier, Zoe. 'Talk Therapy' Takes On Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Coming Soon To Canada. The Globe and Mail (Toronto). 2008-03-08 [2011-05-25]. 
  183. ^ 183.0 183.1 Felstein, Roma. Could ME be caused by too much adrenaline?. The Daily Mail (London). 2007-01-09. 
  184. ^ Park, Robert L. The Virtual Astronaut. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 2000: 61. ISBN 0-19-513515-6. Not only are magnetic fields of no value in healing, you might characterize these as "homeopathic" magnetic fields. 
  185. ^ National Science Foundation. 7. Science and Engineering Indicators – 2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. 2002. ISBN 978-0-16-066579-0. Among all who had heard of [magnet therapy], 14 percent said it was very scientific and another 54 percent said it was sort of scientific. Only 25 percent of those surveyed answered correctly, that is, that it is not at all scientific. 
  186. ^ 186.0 186.1 186.2 Report 12 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (A-97). American Medical Association. 1997. [失效連結]
  187. ^ 187.0 187.1 187.2 Ayurvedic medicine. Quackwatch. [16 August 2008]. 
  188. ^ Sharp, Lesley A. Review of Fluent bodies: Ayourvedic Remedies for Postcolonial Imbalance. Medical Anthropology Quarterly. December 2003, 17 (4): 511–512 [16 August 2008]. doi:10.1525/maq.2003.17.4.512. 
  189. ^ 189.0 189.1 Carroll, Robert Todd. The Skeptic's Dictionary. John Wiley and Sons. 2003: 45–4?. ISBN 0-471-27242-6. 
  190. ^ Sarris, J., and Wardle, J. 2010. Clinical naturopathy: an evidence-based guide to practice. Elsevier Australia. Chatswood, NSW.
  191. ^ Atwood KC. Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: myths and fallacies vs truth. Medscape Gen Med. March 26, 2004, 6 (1): 33. PMC 1140750 可免费查阅. PMID 15208545. 
  192. ^ 192.0 192.1 Barrett S. A close look at naturopathy. www.quackwatch.org. 23 December 2003 [20 November 2012]. 
  193. ^ McKnight, P. Naturopathy's main article of faith cannot be validated: Reliance on vital forces leaves its practises based on beliefs without scientific backing. Vancouver Sun. 2009-03-07 [2009-03-21]. [失效連結]
  194. ^ National Science Board. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding – Science Fiction and Pseudoscience. Science and engineering indicators. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. April 2002. 
  195. ^ Wahlberg A. A quackery with a difference – new medical pluralism and the problem of 'dangerous practitioners' in the United Kingdom. Social Science & Medicine. 2007, 65 (11): 2307–2316. PMID 17719708. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.07.024. 
  196. ^ Iridology is nonsense. , a web page with further references
  197. ^ Carroll, Robert. Natural. The Skeptic's Dictionary. [2009-03-21]. 
  198. ^ NCAHF Position Paper on Over the Counter Herbal Remedies (1995). National Council Against Health Fraud. 1995 [2009-04-17]. 
  199. ^ Yang, M; Yuping, Y; Yin, X; Wang, BY; Wu, T; Liu, GJ; Dong, BR. Dong, Bi Rong , 编. Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013, 2 (2): CD006338. PMID 23450568. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006338.pub3. 
  200. ^ Posadzki, P.; Lee, M. S.; Ernst, E. Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment for Pediatric Conditions: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics. 2013, 132 (1): 140–52. PMID 23776117. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3959. 
  201. ^ Hondras, Maria A; Linde, Klaus; Jones, Arthur P. Hondras, Maria A , 编. Manual therapy for asthma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005, (2): CD001002. PMID 15846609. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001002.pub2. 
  202. ^ Guglielmo, WJ. Are D.O.s losing their unique identity?. Medical economics. 1998, 75 (8): 200–2, 207–10, 213–4. PMID 10179479. 
  203. ^ Salzberg, Steven. Osteopathic Physicians Versus Doctors. Forbes. 27 October 2010 [15 September 2013]. 
  204. ^ Cordón, LA. Rolfing. Popular Psychology: An Encyclopedia (Greenwood Publishing Group). January 2005: 217–218. ISBN 978-0-313-32457-4. 
  205. ^ Baggoley C. Review of the Australian Government Rebate on Natural Therapies for Private Health Insurance (PDF). Australian Government – Department of Health. 2015. 简明摘要 – Gavura, S. Australian review finds no benefit to 17 natural therapies. Science-Based Medicine. (19 November 2015). 
  206. ^ Wallace, Sampson; Vaughn, Lewis. "Therapeutic Touch" Fails a Rare Scientific Test. CSICOP News. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. 24 March 1998 [5 December 2007]. （原始内容存档于13 October 2007）. Despite this lack of evidence, TT is now supported by major nursing organizations such as the National League of Nurses and the American Nurses Association. 
  207. ^ O'Mathuna, DP; Ashford, RL. O'Mathúna, Dónal P , 编. Therapeutic touch for healing acute wounds. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003–2006, 2003 (4): CD002766 [27 January 2008]. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002766. 
  208. ^ Courcey, Kevin. Further Notes on Therapeutic Touch. Quackwatch. [5 December 2007]. What's missing from all of this, of course, is any statement by Krieger and her disciples about how the existence of their energy field can be demonstrated by scientifically accepted methods. 
  209. ^ Energy Medicine: An Overview. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. 24 October 2007 [5 December 2007]. neither the external energy fields nor their therapeutic effects have been demonstrated convincingly by any biophysical means. 

參考資料

外部連結

取自“https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=被認定是偽科學的主題列表&oldid=41057387”