Skepticism is only useful (socially positive) when the skeptic has enough knowledge and wisdom to understand the reply.
Counterknowledge is presented to audiences who lack the understanding to see the glaring logical or technical fallacies.
If the Counterknowledge idea is then integrated into their psyches, then it is that much harder to educate people about how things really work. That is because the proven laws of nature violate the Counterknowledge which they have internalized.
Therefore, the laws of nature are wrong, however testable and proven they may be.

Being skeptical of man-made “laws” which in practice cause much harm, {for example our economic “laws” that are currently coming to fruition}, is a healthy practice. Usury and theft have consequences even if everyone believes in them.

Almost all the claims of miraculous results were by people selling secretin. There was no way to know if the product was actually secretin.

In the cases where the treatment was administered in a clinical setting with secretin from a known trusted source, a few showed slight temporary improvement in symptoms, most were unaffected and a larger number than those that showed improvement, had serious and sometimes life threatening reactions, often resulting in worsening symptoms.

The few that benefitted all received a brand of secretin manufactured by a Japanese pharma company that used cysteine (a known immuno-suppressant) as a stabilizing agent.

Using publicly available information, I identified and contacted the family of one of the patients of a Mexican clinic claiming fantastic results, and talked to the boy’s father on the phone. He told me he had not seen any improvement.

Using this info, I decided that I would not, could not subject my son to this treatment.

There is a flip side.

The fact that an immunosuppressant caused an improvement should be a reason to investigate the auto-immune theories of autism. Research done at the Max Planck institute and at the Pastuer Institute have suggested this connection, but such research is actively discourage by the Pharma companies who sponsor much of this research, as there is a chance that is might implicate vaccines as a mediating factor.

Don’t assume that believers are not skeptical. It is important to test the spirits, because there are many false prophets gone out into the world. I see much truth in Sheldrake’s view:

“Skepticism has even deeper roots in religion than in science. The Old Testament prophets were withering in their scorn for the rival religions of the Holy Land. Psalm 115 mocks those who make idols of silver and gold: “They have mouths, and speak not: eyes have they, and see not.” At the Reformation, the Protestants deployed the full force of biblical scholarship and critical thinking against the veneration of relics, cults of saints and other “superstitions” of the Catholic Church. Atheists take religious skepticism to its ultimate limits; but they are defending another faith, a faith in science.

In practice, the goal of skepticism is not the discovery of truth, but the exposure of other people’s errors. It plays a useful role in science, religion, scholarship, and common sense. But we need to remember that it is a weapon serving belief or self-interest; we need to be skeptical of skeptics. The more militant the skeptic, the stronger the belief.”

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_11.html

Now the cost to publish is essentially null.
Knowledge can be spread more easily,
But Counterknowledge can be spread orders of magnitude more readily.

IMHO, the amount of information and of misinformation probably remains at the same proportions, we just have access to more of both.

I agree whole-heartedly that the cure for this non-stop torrent of misinformation is a rigorous early education that teaches children that knowledge is not a treasure hunt. Finding one old book of questionable authorship and supernatural claims is not valid or reliable knowledge. Education is a task that never stops and it often requires Herculean discipline. Most important, we need to teach our young that skepticism is our friend and that many people who claim to be our friends are enemies of skepticism. Sometimes, then, we have to give up a “friend” to follow the truth, a point underlying my post here. http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=2028

BTW, It is my gut instinct that people who are more “social” are more likely to fall prey to the charlatans who preach unsubstantiated and oftentimes dangerous myths.

It is my gut feeling that those who are scientifically inclined tend to be more isolated from social pressures and thus more likely to let objectively-testable facts overrule those who make false facts a condition for the sort of “friendships” they offer. Beware the friendly psuedo-scientists, politicians and preachers, then. Develop a strong sense of discipline and skepticism, choose your friends wisely and only then venture out into the Internet! If you fail to do this, the Internet, for you, will become a barren desert where you might wander for the rest of your life.