MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

‘Doctor’ Colleen Huber (DCH) is the US naturopath who is currently suing Britt Hermes. For me, this is enough reason to do a bit of reading and find out who DCH is and what motivates her. Here is what I found out (I added some * to the quotes [all in italics] and comments below).

DCH has an impressive presence on the Internet. One website, for instance, tells us that DCH is a Naturopathic Medical Doctor* in Tempe, Arizona. Her clinic, Nature Works Best Cancer Clinic, has had the most successful results of any clinic in the world reporting its results over the last 9 years **.

Dr. Huber authored the largest and longest study*** in medical history on sugar intake in cancer patients, which was reported in media around the world in 2014. Her other writing includes her book, Choose Your Foods Like Your Life Depends On Them ****, and she has been featured in the books America’s Best Cancer Doctors and Defeat Cancer. Dr. Huber’s academic writing has appeared in The Lancet *****, the International Journal of Cancer Research ***** and Molecular Mechanisms *****,  and other medical journals ******. Her research interests are in the use of therapeutic approaches targeting metabolic aspects of cancer…

*I am puzzled by this title. Is it an official one? I only found this, and it omits the ‘medical’: Currently, 20 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed laws regulating naturopathic doctors. Learn more about licensure from the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges. It seems that Arizona is the only state where the ‘medical’ is allowed. However, don’t take this to mean that DCH went to medical school.

** ‘most successful results of any clinic in the world’? Really? Where are the comparative statistics?

*** the study had all of 317 patients and was published in an obscure, non-Medline listed journal.

**** currently ranked  #1,297,877 in Books on Amazon.

***** no such entries found on Medline.

****** sorry, but my Medline search for ‘huber colleen’ located only 2 citations, both on arthritis research conducted in an US Pfizer lab and therefore probably not from ‘our’ DCH.

Another website on or by DCH informs us that her outfit Nature Works Best is a natural cancer clinic located in Tempe, Arizona, that focuses on natural, holistic, and alternative cancer treatments. Our treatments have proved to be an effective alternative to traditional chemotherapy and radiation, which we do not use in our treatments. Rather, we have developed a natural method of treating cancers based on intravenous vitamin therapy which may include Vitamin-C, Baking Soda, and other tumor fighting agents as well as a simple food plan. *

Our team of naturopathic medical doctors have administered an estimated 31,000 IV nutrient treatments, used for all stages and types of tumors. As of July 2014, 80% of patients who completed our treatments alone went into remission, 85% of patients who completed our treatments and followed our food plan went into remission. **

* Give me a break! Vitamin-C and Baking Soda are claimed to have proved to be an effective alternative to traditional chemotherapy and radiation ? I would like to see the data before I believe this!

** Again, I would like to see the data before I believe this!

Finally, a further website proudly repeats that her academic writing has appeared in The Lancet and Cancer Strategies Journal, and other medical journals. It even presents an abstract of her published work; here it is:

Recent recommendations for the more widespread prescription of statin drugs in the U.S. have generated controversy.  Cholesterol is commonly thought to be the enemy of good health.  On the other hand, previous research has established the necessity of cholesterol in production of Vitamin D and steroid hormones, among other purposes, some of which have been shown to have anti-cancer effect.  We compare total serum cholesterol (TC) in cancer survivors vs cancer fatalities, and we assess the value of deliberately lowering TC among cancer patients.  We also examined diet in the survivors as well as those who then died of cancer.

In this original previously unpublished research, we conducted a double-blind retrospective case series, in which we looked back at data from all 255 cancer patients who came to and were treated by our clinic with either current dietary information, and/or a recent serum TC level, measured by an unaffiliated laboratory or an unaffiliated clinic over the previous seven years, comparing TC in the surviving cancer patients versus those cancer patients who died during that time.

Surviving cancer patients had 24.0 points higher mean total cholesterol than the mean for deceased cancer patients.  A number of dietary differences between cancer survivors and those who then died of cancer were also found to be notable.

Caution is advised before attempting to lower cholesterol in cancer patients with close to normal TC levels.  Those cancer patients with higher TC were more likely to survive their cancer.

I don’t know about you, but I am not impressed. Surviving cancer patients had 24.0 points higher mean total cholesterol than the mean for deceased cancer patients. Has DCH thought of the possibility that moribund patients quite simply eat less? In which case, the observed difference would be a meaningless epiphenomenon.

At this point, I stopped my reading; I now knew more than I needed to know about DCH (if you want to read more, I recommend this or this post).

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, DCH is currently suing Britt Hermes for libel. Apart from being exceedingly stressful, such an action can also be hugely expensive.

Britt is therefore hoping to do some crowd-funding to assist her financially.

I wish my post has motivated you to donate generously.

53 Responses to Colleen Huber vs Britt Hermes

  • I am sure that bloggers here will be thinking how crazy Dr. Huber is for thinking that cancer could possibly be put into remission in a natural way, such as by changing one’s diet and lifestyle. “Önly chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery can cure cancer!”, you will be screaming at her. To those people, I say: “What if her natural approach really was being successful? Would you not be interested in it, if you are very unfortunate to get cancer?Would you really ignore her approach and put yourself completely in the hands of Big Pharma’s chemicals?” I don’t think so.

    Perhaps one does not need to have 10 years of quintuple-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, blah, blah, blah tests funded by the pharmaceutical industry (Ho! Ho! Ho!) to prove that a natural approach could actually work, before one believes that there is a natural way to put one’s cancer into remission.

    I know that the following is really going to anger my fans here, and that they will respond in a vitriolic way, but here goes anyway. In 1900 the eminent physicist, Lord Kelvin, said: “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This worldview statement was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on relativity. The new theories proposed by Einstein challenged the then current view of the true nature of our reality. It is a great example of how things, which once were regarded as truth, have changed.

    “Lord Kelvin’s statement bares with it the Voice of Paradigms Past… We knew that the Earth was flat, we knew that we were the center of the universe, and we knew that a man-made, heavier-than-air piece of machinery could not take flight. Through all stages of human history, intellectual authorities have pronounced their supremacy by ridiculing or suppressing elements of reality that simply didn’t fit within the framework of accepted knowledge. Are we really any different today? Have we really changed our acceptance towards things that won’t fit the frame? Maybe there are concepts of our reality we have yet to understand, and if we open our eyes maybe we will see that something significant has been overlooked.” (TerjeToftenes, The Day Before Disclosure)

    • of course there are concepts etc. to be discovered – but this has nothing to do with this post.

      • Speaking of new concepts. There are fantastic things happening in cancer therapy. New drugs that stimulate (for real) the immune system are more promising than anyone had hoped for. We are seeing some unbelievable results where tumours literally melt away and unresectable disease can be downstaged to be amenable to surgery for example.
        It is of course early in this development but those who get cancer in the future will have much better chances.

        • Björn Geir

          “New drugs that stimulate (for real) the immune system are more promising than anyone had hoped for. We are seeing some unbelievable results where tumours literally melt away and unresectable disease can be down staged to be amenable to surgery for example.”

          If the past record is something to go by, this is one complete LIE or total LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.

          “The linked paper by Davis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.j4530) extends these findings. In their study of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 and 2013, 57% (39/68) had no supporting evidence of better survival or quality of life when they entered the market. After a median of 5.9 years on the market, just six of these 39 (15%) agents had been shown to improve survival or quality of life.”

          “Firstly, when drugs do offer survival advantages, the gains are often marginal. Fojo and colleagues found that the median improvement in survival among patients treated with 71 drugs for solid tumours was just 2.1 months. Davis and colleagues agree. Of the 23 drugs that improved survival, 11 (48%) failed to meet the modest definition of “clinically meaningful benefit” set by the European Society of Medical Oncology.”

          “Secondly, the small benefits of cancer drugs typically occur in trials conducted in unrepresentative patient populations—patients who are younger and with less comorbidity than average clinical populations.5 When a marginal drug advantage is applied to a real world population, a small benefit may vanish entirely because of the fine balance between risks and benefits typical of these agents.

          Finally, many of the surrogate outcomes used for drug approval are poorly correlated with survival.6 For others, the strength of the correlation is untested. This is true for the FDA’s regular approval pathway as well as the accelerated approval route. Notably, regular approvals are not usually coupled to post marketing requirements for further trials to confirm effectiveness and safety. This means that the surrogate outcome, often unvalidated, may be all we ever have.”

          http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4528

          And all this lie because ” Add to this that the average cancer drug costs in excess of $100 000 (£75 000; €85 000) per year of treatment, and the conclusion seems that the regulatory system is broken.”

          • You are not only a fool dear Iqbal, you are an ignorant fool as well.
            Citing an opinion piece by Vinay Prasad as generalised proof that cancer therapy is useless, is just plain stupid.
            Vinay seems to like cherry picking facts and omitting important considerations just to make himself popular with those who have vested interests in deceiving cancer patients, or whatever his intentions are.
            I can also cite Vinay Prasad (see below) where he admits the promise of new immuno-stimulating drugs. What Vinay is prone to conveniently omit in his opportunistic oeuvres is that cancer is not one disease and that even if several new cancer drugs are approved on thin evidence, that is not evidence for a general futility of drug therapy for cancer. What he is attacking is the less honest side of cancer research, development and drug marketing, not cancer therapy in general.

            Cancer is an umbrella term for more than two hundred different diseases with some common characterics. Enormous progress has been made in cancer therapy of many but not all these diseases. People who were doomed just a couple of decades ago are now surviving because of advances in (drumroll) drug use. Take child leukaemia, Hodgkins disease and testicular cancer. Advances in breast cancer treatment have led to dramatic improvement in survival.
            I NEVER claimed immunostimulating therapy was a panacea, and Vinay Prasad knows that but chooses to bathe in the limelight of being “the caller in the dessert”.

            Immunostimulating methods are still largely unproven but very promising. They will most certainly be useful for some diseases, perhaps melanoma and metastatic colon cancer for example. Most certainly it will not be a panacea for cancer, which I never claimed.

            Here is a quote where Vinay says nothing more, nothing less than I did in my comment:

            …Immunotherapy refers to promising new drugs that harness the body’s immune system to fight cancer, and indeed these have generated impressive outcomes for some patients. But with dozens of immunotherapy studies underway, that rocket has already lifted off,…

            We still have to find out where and how these methods work. But they certainly work in many cases, of which I have seen several impressive examples from my oncologist colleagues.

            Please Iqbal!
            You are not competent to take part in this discussion and your playing with scissors and glue is only confirming this.
            As have said before Iqbal, why don’t you go play with your homeopathy set and leave the discussion to the grown-ups.

          • I missed the time limit to add some words to preempt another stupid comment by Iqbal:

            I did take the quote from Vinay out of its context but this is totally irrelevant to the point I am making, that Vinay does fully agree with what I said in my comment.

          • That quote, Iqbal, refers to a paper from five years ago. Five. Years.

            Björn is talking about now. In the world of real medicine, unlike homeopathy, things move on. And sometimes at a quite breathtaking pace. Something of which you are plainly ignorant.

            The haplessness of your attempts at argument speak much for your powers of comprehension and explain much about you.

          • Björn Geir

            The summary of your message is that Vinay Prasad is a wrong guy to quote as he has beliefs. (a la Dr Robert G. Hahn).
            But the information referred by Vinay:
            “In their study of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 and 2013, 57% (39/68) had no supporting evidence of better survival or quality of life when they entered the market. After a median of 5.9 years on the market, just six of these 39 (15%) agents had been shown to improve survival or quality of life.”

            “Firstly, when drugs do offer survival advantages, the gains are often marginal. Fojo and colleagues found that the median improvement in survival among patients treated with 71 drugs for solid tumours was just 2.1 months. Davis and colleagues agree. Of the 23 drugs that improved survival, 11 (48%) failed to meet the modest definition of “clinically meaningful benefit” set by the European Society of Medical Oncology.”

            “Secondly, the small benefits of cancer drugs typically occur in trials conducted in unrepresentative patient populations—patients who are younger and with less comorbidity than average clinical populations.5 When a marginal drug advantage is applied to a real world population, a small benefit may vanish entirely because of the fine balance between risks and benefits typical of these agents.

            Finally, many of the surrogate outcomes used for drug approval are poorly correlated with survival.6 For others, the strength of the correlation is untested. This is true for the FDA’s regular approval pathway as well as the accelerated approval route. Notably, regular approvals are not usually coupled to post marketing requirements for further trials to confirm effectiveness and safety. This means that the surrogate outcome, often unvalidated, may be all we ever have.”

            holds.
            Great summary.

          • Lenny

            “That quote, Iqbal, refers to a paper from five years ago. Five. Years.”

            What changed in these 5 years? The science behind the procedures or the human body?

            “….unlike homeopathy, things move on.”

            That is funny. How long have your ancestors been eating the same rice(vitamin B) or apple (Iron) or lemon (vitamin C) ……….We pay a premium for the local variety, that has been around for hundreds of years against new hybrid variety, and GMO is a strict no-no. I am doubtful if you have any understanding of real medicine. A drug that is withdrawn after a few years, or replaced because of adverse effects is no science victory: it is pure and simple dirty business with no care of the consequences, only money to be earned and distributed.
            “And all this lie because ” Add to this that the average cancer drug costs in excess of $100 000 (£75 000; €85 000) per year of treatment, and the conclusion seems that the regulatory system is broken.”

            ” And sometimes at a quite breathtaking pace. Something of which you are plainly ignorant.”
            Ignorance also comes for people who cannot think for themselves.

            “The haplessness of your attempts at argument speak much for your powers of comprehension and explain much about you.”
            These were not my comments: I simply reproduced an article from BMJ: you are aware of this magazine?

          • Iqbal, your attempt to portray medicine as dangerous and ineffective is absolutely futile as long as you can not demonstrate that homeopathy is superior. Until you are able to do that (which will never happen) you can shove your comments up your ass. They are a pathetic attempt to discredit something without having any real argument.

          • So little Iqbal, now that you have clipped all the small bits that fit your fantasies of conspiracy and convinced yourself you´re so much smarter than the rest of the world with all those evil people with their fancy degrees who don´t know all you know and spend their days killing the poor cancer victims with them poisonous chemicals, even their own families…
            Will you please wash that glue off your fingers before it dries out and go play with your emergency homeopathy set!

          • A fun fact is that apples contain practically zero iron, whether premium variety or not. You learn something new everyday Iqbal, keep visiting us!

          • “……..fantasies of conspiracy and convinced yourself you´re so much smarter than the rest of the world with all those evil people with their fancy degrees who don´t know all you know and spend their days killing the poor cancer victims with them poisonous chemicals, even their own families…”

            Any doubts? Please correct these figures:

            “In their study of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 and 2013, 57%, (39/68) had no supporting evidence of better survival or quality of life when they entered the market.”
            European Medicines Agency cleared drugs without evidence?

            “After a median of 5.9 years on the market, just six of these 39 (15%) agents had been shown to improve survival or quality of life.”
            85% were either useless (killed patients as no benefit was available and with each passing day the problem escalated.) or actually killed patients with aggressive treatment.
            You have a different view: 85% patients killed……………………..Was any action was taken against these drug companies?

            ““Firstly, when drugs do offer survival advantages, the gains are often marginal. Fojo and colleagues found that the median improvement in survival among patients treated with 71 drugs for solid tumours was just 2.1 months. Davis and colleagues agree.”
            The 2.1 month benefit at the cost of: ” average cancer drug costs in excess of $100 000 (£75 000; €85 000) per year of treatment,”

            “Of the 23 drugs that improved survival, 11 (48%) failed to meet the modest definition of “clinically meaningful benefit” set by the European Society of Medical Oncology.”
            You expect action against doctors or drug company?

            “…….patients who are younger and with less comorbidity than average clinical populations.5 When a marginal drug advantage is applied to a real world population, a small benefit may vanish entirely because of the fine balance between risks and benefits typical of these agents.”

            Read slowly for it to sink in: and even then, if you do not understand conspiracy, read: “and the conclusion seems that the regulatory system is broken.”

            You can label it as great business model: “…… the average cancer drug costs in excess of $100 000 (£75 000; €85 000) per year of treatment.”

            “The scale of skepticism is startling. A survey by the British Academy of Medical Sciences last year found only 37% of Britons trusted evidence from medical research. Two-thirds cited friends and family as more reliable.”

            “Many factors account for this mistrust. Most damaging are a series of scandals involving inadequately vetted drugs, poor oversight and attempted cover-ups. ”

            “In a recent survey in Britain, 82% of doctors and 67% of adults agreed that clinical trials funded by drug companies were often biased to produce a positive outcome. ”

            A confirmation from “Ben Goldacre: What doctors don’t know about the drugs they prescribe”

            https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/

            Conspiracy or plain incompetency? Paid for by the patient.

          • I told you to stop playing with scissors and glue, Iqbal. It’s just making your paranoia worse.

          • …and homeopathy clearly is not working against the condition.

    • @Peter McAlpine
      You are of course welcome to your own ideas and beliefs but you are not welcome to think we are all ignorant and stupid not to believe in disproven and delusional “alternative” cancer cures. You seem to think you are having a dialog with nothing but idiots… that is not our problem, that is your problem.
      Go ahead and eat Laetrile, slurp fruit juices and take coffee enemas or whatever takes your fancy when and if you are so unfortunate to suffer from one of the couple of hundred different diseases under the collective term Cancer.
      But spare us your childish mannerisms, your ho ho’s and Blah-blahs or whatever.
      If you wish us to take you seriously and convince us you are not an idiot, then please stop behaving like one.

      Cancer is serious business.
      I seem to recall advising you to read the book “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer” by Siddharta Mukherjee*. If you fail to do so or still carry on with your stupid fantasies of “natural” diet cures after properly perusing this book, then you are not qualified to discuss cancer and cancer therapy.
      Meanwhile we go with what works for us and our beloved who suffer from cancer, even if it is not perfect.
      Get back to us Peter, when you have something new to tell.

      *https://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-Cancer/dp/1439170916

    • “What if her natural approach really was being successful?”

      Then she’d lead with the hard statistics and paper trail to prove it, not a bunch of hollow testimonals from selected marks and shameless YouTube sales pitch. As they say in science, always:

      Show us the Evidence, or GTFO.

      The only evidence the likes of Huber and you ever show is of your own absolute self-deception and/or utter lack of regard for other people’s lives. You choose to kill yourself with cultish quasi-religious self-serving delusions, that’s entirely your business and I don’t imagine anyone will rush to stop you either. But spreading such deadly dangerous delusions to others to feed your voracious egos/wallets? Their blood’s on your hands, you callous contemptible shits.

    • “To those people, I say: “What if her natural approach really was being successful?”
      Ever thought what if this proves wrong?

    • Well Kelvin was obviously wrong. It was a silly thing for a scientist to say. The important point is that when more evidence came along science developed with the evidence. In actual fact neither relativity – special or general – nor quantum mechanics – before you mention that – has changed our everyday practical view of the world. Newtonian physics got us to moon and back and to date I have not turned up elsewhere in the universe. Too bad some might say.

      When convincing evidence is produced for a novel treatment for cancer that is more effective than current offerings such treatment will be used as appropriate.

  • This is a SLAPP. The issue is not ‘naturopathy’ (a trade marked term), nor even ‘medicine’, but freedom of speech and of scientific discourse.
    Any who use SLAPP have demonstrated their lack of integrity, res ispa loquitur .

    See Wikipedia: ‘A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

    The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.’

    Freedom deserves defence, and donations. SLAPP back!

    • I already donated “a fistful of dollars” to her defence fund.
      Britt-Marie is a courageous, intelligent and strong woman who is being railroaded by a belligerent fool.
      She will need all the help possible and the Australian fund raising effort is properly set-up for just that.
      (You can find the fund by clicking the button on her page, which you will find under the professor’s last link in this post)

      • Like many others (apparently, by yesterday evening UK time, AUD 78k of the 80k target had been raised), I have also donated. The idea is that, if there is any surplus (but I wonder if AUD 80k/ EUR 50k is sufficient) is either donated to Sense About Science or is put into a general “Skeptics Legal Defence Fund”. I think the latter is an excellent idea, not least because knowledge of the existence of such a fund might deter some of those who are tempted to issue SLAPP suits or otherwise use the law to stifle scientific criticism. It is something to which I would make regular contributions.

        BTW, the Aussie skeptics have set up a simple-to-remember link to this: http://www.skeptics.com.au/BrittHermes

  • Peter McAlpine
    The answer to most or all of your questions is ‘No, of course bloody not, if there were absolutely no evidence, you dangerous idiot’.
    Another answer might be ‘Baking soda?’ Jeebus.Is that that with or without glacé cherries?’

  • I believe that Thomas Mohr, of this parish, is helping Britt with things. With his formidable intellect and experience on her side, the litigious and unpleasant quack will hopefully be in even deeper trouble with this frivolous and ill considered piece of legal action.

  • Dear Prof. Ernst

    ” ‘most successful results of any clinic in the world’? Really? Where are the comparative statistics?”

    If you look even superficially on the papers, she does not even have *any* statistics, let alone comparative stats. Her data are available, and as it looks her entire data are crap.

  • Apparently her Lancet article was a comment letter signed by multiple authors. I wouldn’t know how to find it, sorry.

  • I’ve donated and wish Britt Hermes the best.

    Who are the lawyers employed by Huber and what is the nature of their practice? Do they have a history of filing SLAPP suits? It’s too bad that law firms agree to take such cases; it’s one reason people have for believing the practice of law is often disreputable.

    Is there any possibility of the FDA taking action for the cancer cure claims made by Huber and her practice? If our regulators were doing their job, people wouldn’t be able to advertise with such lies. Even though the FDA disclaimer (quack Miranda warning) appears in tiny print at the bottom of the website, it seems clear that the practice claims to be able to cure cancer with a high degree of success. How can that be legal?

  • “Will you please wash that glue off your fingers before it dries out and go play with your emergency homeopathy set!” Lol
    Further proof that the “science-based” guys have the best sense of humor!

  • Iqbal Krishna,
    The essential point that you are overlooking is that medical psychopaths do not care about the statistics that you quote.

    Dr Rawlins calls your form of argument tu quoque: just because conventional medicine kills millions of people does not make homeopathy true.

    Do you get it now?

  • Make this easy for ‘Edzard’:
    1.I take a long break from commenting here.

    2. I put a comment for Iqbal Krishna.

    3. Eduard can’t resist jumping in and hitting the caps locks.

    4. Why the knee jerk response? If you don’t understand what a word OR WORDS means: look it up on Google dictionary. Good grief.

    5.Is it any wonder that commenters eventually give up on this site?

  • Edzard, you forgot to put ‘idiotic’ in caps: IDIOTIC!

    ‘Edzard’ was not that interested to ask Dr Rawlins what he MEANT when he stated:
    Dr Rawlins: ‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.
    What evidence is there that they are not?’

    ‘Edzard’ did not ask Dr Rawlins WHO EXACTLY HE WAS REFERRING TO?

    Res ipsa loquitur

  • @Greg: I liked your comment #1.”I take a long break from commenting here”. Excellent approach.

    • @Greg: I liked your comment #1.”I take a long break from commenting here”. Excellent approach.

      Would have been, if only @Greg hadn’t assumed there were some missing letters and taken that approach instead:
      I take a long break from commenting coherently.”

  • Oh, Hi Greg. Welcome back
    I was hoping you had taken up a useful pastime, something you can handle and could keep you from making a fool of yourself.
    Ah, well. Since you’re back we will have to continue to help you correct your muddled misapprehensions and silly ideas.

    You said to Iqbal:

    The essential point that you are overlooking is that medical psychopaths do not care about the statistics that you quote.

    You are very mistaken.
    We DO care about them, very much so. Iqbal is hurting himself and fuelling his paranoid delusions about medicine by all this cutting and pasting outdated, wrong or out of context text-bits that give a very lateralised and erroneous idea of what modern medicine is all about. I hope he will live to a ripe old age and die healthy because if he gets a cancer or similar health problem he is in big trouble… unless of course he decides to accept genuine professional help.
    As a matter of fact I hope the same for you dear Greg.

    Iqbal has thoroughly (like you have) demonstrated that he does not know the first thing about medicine or biology.
    What we care very much about is when ignorant people with mistakenly paranoid views of science and medicine try to frighten other people by propagating misinformation.
    Our mission is to counter this.
    For that purpose we carry on dialogs with promoters of nonsense, like you and Iqbal and others here.
    Professor Ernst keeps this blog wide open and almost never throws comments out. Not because they are so great or useful or well written, but because they are so informative.
    You and Iqbal are living proof of the ignorance and fatuity of homeopaths, their followers and for that matter many other similar faculties of fake health care.
    Unknowingly you denigrate your own delusions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories