Field of Science

Christopher Maloney is a quack

Category: Skepticism

Maloney is a naturopath in the state of Maine, where quacks like him get to call themselves "doctors". These so-called "doctors" get to make recommendations like this, in which he disparages standard flu vaccines and suggests these useless prescriptions:
Parents waiting for vaccinations can provide their children with black elderberry, which blocks the H1N1 virus. A single garlic capsule daily cuts in half the incidence and the severity of a flu episode for children.
There's another way you can tell he's a quack. When a student, Michael Hawkins, dared to criticize him, pointing out that "Naturopathic medicine is pure bull" and stating that naturopaths are underqualified and do not deserve the title of "doctor," Maloney took action to silence him. After all, we can't have people questioning quacks — that just makes them look even more ridiculous, which could lead to a loss of business.

So Maloney complained to Wordpress, where Hawkins blog was located, and got them to shut it down. This does not speak well of craven Wordpress; if you're using Wordpress hosting, you might want to reconsider it and move elsewhere. You know, to someplace that respects reality.

Now not only is Maloney a quack, but he's a stupid quack. Shutting down blogs that criticize him? That never, ever works. In fact, it tends to backfire rather severely — because now a much bigger blog is going to spread the word that Christopher Maloney is a quack. I'm also going to ask all of you out there who reads this to echo the message: Christopher Maloney is a quack. Won't that be fun? Poke the net, and the net pushes back.

Share the message. Let the whole world know that Christopher Maloney is a cowardly quack.

He's also tasteless. This is possibly the ugliest youtube video ever.

Posted by PZ Myers at 9:14 PM • 41 Comments0 TrackBacks


  1. Dear “Reverend” PZ Meyers,
    How fitting that, three hundred years later, the witch trials continue. If you recall, it was the herbalists that were burned then as well. Your flock has spoken to me, Reverend Meyers, with the shrieking common to all fundamentalist cults. I believe if you check you will find that fundamentalism involves a closed mind while doing science requires an open mind. It also involves a thing they call research.
    Do you do basic research into a person’s claims before posting? Did you perhaps go to medline and type the words “elderberry” and “H1N1”? Did you even bother to read my original editorial that cites Cochrane database and CDC raw data? If you had done basic research or contacted me directly you would perhaps not have posted lies in your blog.
    You can call me an idiot and a quack, but when you repeat the "fact" that I am not a doctor and not qualified, that is a written lie or libel. I am a doctor under Maine state law and meet the qualifications of that title.
    In terms of poor maligned elderberry, the medline citation is “The H1N1 inhibition activities of the elderberry flavonoids compare favorably to the known anti-influenza activities of Oseltamivir (Tamiflu; 0.32 microM) and Amantadine (27 microM). (Phytochemistry. 2009 Jul;70(10):1255-61) While this is a test tube study only, please keep in mind that we had no vaccine and were at the peak of the pandemic here in Maine. I never suggested elderberry as a vaccination but as a possible home treatment for sick children.
    Michael Hawkins is an undergraduate at UMA who replied to my editorial. His rambling editorial was not based on science or research, but his need to publicize himself. After failing to get an editorial published against God he decided I was, flatteringly, next on the list. All of the research and medline citations for my editorial are available under swine flu on my website, and were there for Mr. Hawkins to simply see. But, despite the reality that I practice evidence-based medicine, neither you nor Mr. Hawkins have ever bothered to read my site.
    Mr. Hawkins managed to get his own website suspended by arguing with his server about what constitutes libel and blames me. I have never directly contacted Wordpress about him and I have never replied to either his hate posts or his email attacks on me personally. In doing my own research, I found that another individual is in the process of filing a lawsuit against Mr. Hawkins and requested that the individual write to Mr. Hawkins directly. It was this other individual in South Carolina, and not me, that helped Mr. Hawkins get himself kicked off. Since Mr. Hawkins has received that email today, I believe that your case against me as an enemy of free speech should be re-examined.
    It terms of his accusations against me that you have posted on your blog, I have taken the time to answer them at length and with scientific citations on my website: I am also in the process of creating a more tolerable Youtube video for your flock.
    Thank you, Reverend Myers, for burning me without trial. It’s nice to know some things never change.
    Christopher Maloney, N.D.

  2. Ooh, exciting! I see another controversy is ensuing.

  3. So, let's see, the purpose of this blog is to parrot PZ Myers, but badly. Myers recinded his original comments, yet you continue to accuse the wrong man of something he didn't do. Boy, I'd sure trust your experiments, because you're thorough? and reliable?

  4. Anon, are you assuming I am stupid, or are you just stupid yourself?

    So, let's see, the purpose of this blog is to parrot PZ Myers, but badly.

    Have you read anything else on my blog? See any other "parroting"?

    If I, as I did, in fact copy PZ's whole post, how exactly is that "bad" parroting?

    Myers recinded his original comments, yet you continue to accuse the wrong man of something he didn't do.

    No, PZ did not rescind his original comments. He admitted that Maloney might not be the one who got Hawkins' blog shut down, but that's it. Did PZ take back his words that Maloney is a quack? He did not.

    I continue to accuse Maloney? By not deleting my post? I think not. I reposted PZ's post in full because I thought that was funny, and because I hate quacks. I regret nothing, because it's still funny, and Maloney is still a quack. When Maloney is found out to be legit, I will edit the post. Do let me know.

    Boy, I'd sure trust your experiments, because you're thorough? and reliable?

    Assuming that's your pathetic attempt at sarcasm, what on Earth does my repost of PZ's post have to do with my experiments? What do you even know about my experiments? If you have something to accuse me of, then do speak up. If all you have are ad hominems, go the fuck somewhere else and display your festering stupidity.


Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="">FoS</a> = FoS