In early November 1957, the Brisbane Criminal Investigation Bureau announced that it was preparing to launch a 'blitz' attack on 'phony experts' in the city, including herbalists, naturopaths, dieticians, trichologists, psychologists, fortune-tellers and others who claimed the ability 'to soothe sick or lonely individuals'. Police Inspector Bischof was vocal in his condemnation of such individuals as quacks, unhesitatingly deriding them as 'heartless and ruthless' charlatans.1 As medical historian Roy Porter points out, however, quackery has long been a problematic term. 2 Historically, it has been applied indiscriminately to anything at odds with orthodox medicine, something that is itself subject to shifting definitions and limits. 3 The quack could range from the doctor who advocated experimental treatments through to the practitioner of alternative therapies. Or, as Bischof suggested, the quack could be nothing more than a simple confidence-­trickster.