What's The Harm? is a website providing a catalog of stories where people have been injured, killed, or otherwise disadvantaged (sometimes financially) by believing in misinformation, especially but not limited to accounts of harm caused by pseudoscientific organizations or claims. The creator of the site, Tim Farley, states that in launching the site on January 22, 2008, he aimed to increase the use of critical thinking. Content The site defines its purpose as to "make a point about the danger of not thinking critically." According to the creator, the site presents examples of problems caused when people are misled about pseudoscientific practices. In the majority of cases, conventional medicine is forgone in favor of unconventional treatment. The site has identified over 300,000 people it claims have been killed and another 300,000 people injured, as well as 2 to 3 billion dollars worth of economic damages, based on what it considers to be dangerous practices ranging from acupuncture to vitamin megadoses. The site also includes what ABC News calls "seemingly benign things" such as GPS, home birth, and vegetarianism. Reception The site has gotten praise from the skeptic community. James Randi called the site "an important site" in a post to his SWIFT newsletter. James Randi Educational Foundation President Phil Plait posted in his Discover magazine blog, "Now when someone asks 'What's the harm?' you can send them right to What's The Harm.... It's a very interesting place to click around." Skeptics Society Executive Director Michael Shermer has said of the site, "I think it's excellent. 'What's the harm?' is the question that all of us skeptics get asked whenever we do interviews on T.V. or debate people about irrational beliefs. And often, they are quite harmful." Penn Jillette called it "an amazingly great website" in his video blog Penn Says. "It's terrific, it's a great site. When someone says to you 'what's the harm' in a certain thing, go to What's The Harm and check it out." Further, an article by Matt Crowley in Skeptical Inquirer suggested that the harms involved in pursuing pseudoscience can be subtle and nuanced. Crowley's review of the What's the Harm? website proposed that if one does not employ critical thinking in this area, then that person will waste time on ideas that lack credibility and intellectual rigour. This could lead such a person into "... the byzantine complexity and disorienting incoherence of many fringe