To help follow discussions, the most recent ten comments on blog posts are shown below with the latest comments first.
Older/newer comments can be viewed by clicking on the links at the bottom.
Clicking on the post title will take you to that blog post page and clicking on the comment author and date will take you straight to that comment.
by Edzard - Saturday 26 May 2018 12:27
sorry, but I don't think that the 2 conclusions are the same, not even similar.
by Leigh Jackson - Saturday 26 May 2018 12:18
13 years after their first systematic review the authors reach the same conclusion: No clear evidence of benefit and better quality trials are required. 13 wasted years.
by Edzard - Saturday 26 May 2018 11:51
I have no idea what you are trying to say
by Howard Wu L.Ac - Saturday 26 May 2018 11:17
LOL, their conclusion was sample was too small to statically differentiate. And findings were subjective. Come back again.
by Leigh Jackson - Friday 25 May 2018 21:33
Yet again doubts are raised regarding the validity of sham acupuncture. Such a doubt means the study is self-defeating. There is no doubt about the status of a sugar pill. A sugar pill is a sham treatment. Drugs are measured against sham treatments. Acupuncture is measured against...? Science can't say it works but can't exactly say is doesn't. Acupuncture is popular and serious adverse effects very rare. So what's the real harm? Acupuncture has no scientific underpinning but has spawned an industry of fake research. That's a harm.
by Stephen Hicks - Friday 25 May 2018 17:56
And once again an A+B vs B trial is the only cited instance in reported improvement.
by Edzard - Friday 25 May 2018 17:15
in this case, a boxing match instead of a handshake would be much preferable
by jrkrideau - Friday 25 May 2018 16:53
imagine what an enormous acupuncture stimulus a simple handshake would be. But counteracted by all those germs transferred. Still, it might explain why handshaking cultures have survived as well as they have.
by Edzard - Friday 25 May 2018 16:14
it has been properly validated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12512790 it causes the same sensation as acupuncture it is indistiguishable for patients it is physiologically inert.
by Christine Rose - Friday 25 May 2018 16:11
As sham acupuncture doesn't cause bruising, bleeding, or pain, I would expect a fair number of subjects to be unblinded. The statistics are beyond me, but I'd guess that an increased confidence interval would be corrective.
by Edzard - Friday 25 May 2018 15:44
it was not the Steinberger needle but our device, I think. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12512790 fairly sure but if it did, imagime what an enormous acupuncture stimulus a simple handshake would be.
by Hal Huff - Friday 25 May 2018 15:30
Hi Edzard. Are you certain that Sham acupuncture (e.g. the Streitberger needle) does not itself modulate pain?
by Björn Geir - Saturday 26 May 2018 09:08
The link in my last comment is faulty. Here is the hopefully working one: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00316/full And a small keyboard error: The computer scientist turned anti-Monsanto amateur is Stephanie Seneff, not Semeff
by Björn Geir - Saturday 26 May 2018 08:50
“I know all the answers...” That’s where the hubris burns through your gown of grandiose delusions. :/ As it happens, all but one of the items of knowledge you list are taught in medical school. The one that is not taught of course, is the rubbish from Samsel and Semeff on glyphosate being substituded for glycine by the ribosomes, one of many made up theories from this looney pair of paranoid amateurs that have been videly refuted.
by Pete Attkins - Friday 25 May 2018 20:51
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutritionist Enjoy the link to That Mitchell and Webb Look: Lifestyle Nutritionists
by Michael Kenny - Friday 25 May 2018 15:43
Wow the messiah has returned! All of our questions will be answered by Linda- “God among us” Czernikova !! All hail! Do you have a Facebook page where I can donate?
by Jashak - Friday 25 May 2018 10:36
Linda, Do you know how to create smoke screens by throwing around technical terms? Definitely yes. Do your rhetorical questions prove efficacy of any "alternative" treatment? No. Do you know what evidence based medicine is? No.
by Richard Rawlins - Saturday 26 May 2018 07:54
jm: ExU claim it is offering 'therapies'. That word means 'the healing of disorders' (not merely nice massage). One of the 'therapists' (claiming to heal disorders) promoted on the ExU website as quoted by EE above is Sonia Rashid. She states: "The techniques used may involve: Massage; Acupressure points;..." 'Acus' - Greek, 'a needle'. 'Acupressure points': 'pressure on a point from a needle'. How can we be sure there is no puncture of the epidermis? What would be the point of using the term 'acu-' if a needle is not used and needling is not meant? Is Miss Rashid trying to fool not only her patients, but her fellow camists too? (And the ExU authorities?) The Latin for the Greek 'acus' is 'belone'. I suggest 'belonetherapy' is the term which EU should employ. Why does ExU endorse nonsense?
by Edzard - Friday 25 May 2018 17:16
by Brenda Hill - Friday 25 May 2018 16:40
"...an even more positive mood..." Well done for demonstrating the kind of foolishness that drove me away from so-called alternative medicine and happily into the world of sensible, ethical people like Prof Ernst.
by jm - Friday 25 May 2018 15:35
Richard, Post the link that you're looking at. I went to the one in Edzard's post. No mention of ‘healing of disorders’. No mention of acupuncture, either. They're offering discounted massage.
by Iqbal Krishna - Friday 25 May 2018 19:49
Edzard "One would therefore expect that the editorial board of the leading journal of homeopathy (Impact Factor = 1.16) has a few members who are critical of homeopathy and its assumptions." Is that because you say so or Is that a rule? What does BMJ offer as equivalent?
by Frank van der Kooy - Friday 25 May 2018 14:16
It is a very well written review. One technique that I tend to use when I believe something is fishy is to look at peoples reactions when I question them. The reaction of CAM practitioners is usually quite aggressive and tend to become ad hominem when you state the facts. And that tells me that most of them know damn well that they are misleading the public. But there is another field in science where I think things are almost worse than in CAM. They also have their deity and a great many prophets and as soon as you raise questions people will block you, call you names etc. Nothing to do with CAM so I won't name it here, but I believe as a scientist one should be consistent and speak up, using appropriate platforms, when science is being abused to serve vested interests.
by Edzard - Friday 25 May 2018 13:03
alternatively, one could argue that religion, homeopathy and show-wrestling are all expressions of our need for entertainment.
by Björn Geir - Friday 25 May 2018 12:19
Good point Frank and it may apply best to the many in the passive "audience" of homeopathy who are at best only occasional users or peddlers. In general I tend to see homeopathy as any other religion with its deity in Hahnemann, its scriptures in the Organon and Materia Medica etc. Its prophets and Cardinals e.g. Fisher, Withoulkas, Ullmann... etc. The religious "scholars" are there such as Mathie, Ennis, Chaplin etc. trying their best to explain the inexplicable. When interacting with the more involved proponents and practitioners of homeopathy, their behaviour and reactions to critique are very much in line with those of deeply religious people. I find homeopathy indistinguishable from religious cults and congregations. Homeopaths are completely rigid in their belief and inert to the elements of scientific criticism. I tend to avoid interacting critically with them in public, except of course for the occasional amusing dialog with their loudmouthed rep's here on this blog. 🙂 I recently wrote a critical review on Amazon, on a book by Icelandic homeopaths. The scathing wrath and fury it evoked was expressed in the form of a wordy monologue on an Icelandic homeopathic Facebook site. It was to the effect that we, the skeptics, were mean and wrathful and unfair to the honest and benevolent healers with a long academic education in a noble art of healing that is persecuted and misunderstood by science, which according to the religious scholars just short of understanding how homeopathy works. Such sympathy soliciting defensive responses are typical and one of the reasons why so few have the energy and guts to maintain a publicly critical attitude towards homeopathy.
by Norbert Aust - Friday 25 May 2018 11:37
Problem with homeopathy is that not all the people share the same understanding.
by Jashak - Friday 25 May 2018 11:17
Amen! (pun intended)
by Edzard - Friday 25 May 2018 10:40
by Frank van der Kooy - Friday 25 May 2018 10:37
Sometimes I think homeopathy is a little bit like 'world wide wrestling' or whatever it's being called. Everyone in those packed arenas knows that everything is staged, it is not real, and yet they are quite happy to pay quite a lot to be fooled. It's as if some people wants to be fooled.
by Norbert Aust - Friday 25 May 2018 10:16
... which makes it very hard to convince the layman out there that homeopathy is bogus.
← Older comments