[freshhawk]

How does someone use the word 'Quack' in their title and then focus entirely on anecdote and pointing out that fringe wackjobs like Scientologists are spewing nonsense (no shit). Using the rhetorical style of quacks against them?

Here's an idea, focus on the actual evidence. It seems it's because the evidence is murkier than the stance the author wanted to take, which makes for a garbage article and yet more nonsense spewed into a debate that affects a lot of people.