MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

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 Alan Henness - Friday 28 April 2017 15:47
    Greg said:Edzard: What is your area of expertise, if you don’t mind me asking?No one knows. It's TOP SECRET...

    by Edzard - Friday 28 April 2017 15:34
    oh, you are funny; this time, you got me in stiches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst

    by Greg - Friday 28 April 2017 15:30
    Edzard: What is your area of expertise, if you don't mind me asking?

    by Edzard - Friday 28 April 2017 15:27
    oh, you are so cruel!!! Greg needs his conspiracy theories for survival!

    by Edzard - Friday 28 April 2017 15:18
    thank you not nearly as much fun though as someone who cannot get a simple point! you want me to say that IT IS A SCANDAL HOW THAT MONEY HAS BEEN WASTED. however, I cannot say that because I don't know the story well enough. if it was wasted, it sure is a scandal, but I did not study the case in detail. why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE! ...and even if it is a scandal, how does that justify wasting some more money on homeopathy? got it?

    by Alan Henness - Friday 28 April 2017 15:16
    Greg said:@ Alan: reading your comments suggests this to me.I'm not sure to what you're referring but perhaps you need to restrict your conclusions to what is actually said? I found your example of Arnica as an example (seeming to infer that it failed its non individualised homeopathy RCT (this is something I would expect to happen.)You failed to say where I mentioned arnica: can you link to it and say why you mentioned it? The £1.2 billion wastage was the point I made and you did not respond to it (silence is golden). What is your response to this wastage?Your comparison - as has been pointed out - is fallacious, and, as has also been pointed out, irrelevant to this blog. Are you paid director fees by Nightingale, or do you do this work free of charge?You don't say why you were so interested or what difference you believe it makes (as far as I'm concerned, any conflicts of interest you have don't affect the arguments you've put forward) but I thought I was clear earlier when I said that no one was paid by the Nightingale Collaboration. However, I'm happy to clear up any lingering doubt you might have: no one - including myself - receives any income from the Nightingale Collaboration. There, I hope that settles the matter.

    by Greg - Friday 28 April 2017 15:10
    Edzard; one of the main points that the anti alt-med commenters make is that it is a waste of money to have alt-med on the NHS and a waste of money to research homeopathy. The general consensus by this team on your site is that there is no further need to research homeopathy: it is 'rubbish', 'pure placebo' etc. So, the point is that conventional medicine wastes a lot more money, and you are not bothered by this. It is known as 'double standards' or 'hypocrisy'. Your statement: 'we are discussing alt med on this blog' is a diversion from a discussion that you don't want to engage in: the progress of conventional medicine and its consumption of £100 billion plus public funds in the UK. Are these funds achieving value for money? As always, you are so much fun.

    by Simon Baker - Friday 28 April 2017 15:04
    The question has now been asked three times and no reply has been given. What exactly do the homeopaths here consider to be an example of the rest of us not understanding homeopathy? In my experience, a number of my sceptical friends seem to understand its rules and principles better than the homeopaths. The existence of those rules, by the way, seems to be used by homeopaths as implying that homeopathy itself works. Their endless evidence-free theological textual disputes over the works of their prophets are hilarious.

    by Edzard - Friday 28 April 2017 13:40
    thank you Eric for making sure we appreciate your level of intelligence.

    by Edzard - Friday 28 April 2017 13:28
    "the 1.2 billion was the point I made and you did not respond – silence is golden" only the dimmest of the dim have not yet realised that we are discussing alt med on this blog!

by Alan Henness - Friday 28 April 2017 10:03
Iqbal Krishna said:The remedies Nux Vom Q, Nux V 6, Nux V 30, 200, i M, 10 M, CM are ALL part of the homeopathic materia medica and used as such.All of which contain strychnine. Or not, as the case may be.

by Iqbal Krishna - Friday 28 April 2017 02:16
Edzard "NaCl is salt when I put it in my soup, and it is a homeopathic remedy when you give it to a patient." That is your knowledge of homeopathy? Even the first year student of homeopathy knows better. The remedies Nux Vom Q, Nux V 6, Nux V 30, 200, i M, 10 M, CM are ALL part of the homeopathic materia medica and used as such.

by Les Rose - Friday 28 April 2017 09:54
https://majikthyse.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/yet-more-on-the-charity-commission/

by Alan Henness - Friday 28 April 2017 09:33
Jeff Bloom said:I’m sorry but I tend to feel the same, this website is very anti complimentary, natural, traditional medicine.I'm sure Prof Ernst welcomes compliments, but I suspect you may not have read or understood much of what he has written. I first hand have seen people give their faith to modern medicine only to get lost to it. Then again I have seen people who refuse to take the toxic drugs and treatments instead preferring a more natural gentle long term approach and make full recoveries.Yup. Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

by Jeff Bloom - Thursday 27 April 2017 22:05
I'm sorry but I tend to feel the same, this website is very anti complimentary, natural, traditional medicine. I first hand have seen people give their faith to modern medicine only to get lost to it. Then again I have seen people who refuse to take the toxic drugs and treatments instead preferring a more natural gentle long term approach and make full recoveries.

by Jeff Bloom - Thursday 27 April 2017 21:58
Hi, I think totellym meant two thirds of the world's population uses traditional medicine to which acupuncture is a part (World Health Organisation), that would be accurate

by Frank Collins - Friday 28 April 2017 01:10
@Critical_Chiro on Thursday 27 April 2017 at 05:59 I'll wait for a response that makes sense and reads as if written by more than a 14 year old. One that doesn't comprise rationalisations, non sequiturs, logical fallacies, self-justification, and an irrational belief that chiro has any substance apart from it has stolen from medical-based professions, such as physiotherapy. I won't hold my breath though.

by Ichthyic - Thursday 27 April 2017 23:55
“Chiropractic is a medical non-starter,” belched Odd Frank. Perhaps Odd Frank would care to comment on off-label prescribing within “modern medicine” as a medical non-starter as well?" sorry to necro this... I'm not Odd Frank, but I'll take a crack at that. The difference between chiropractic and off-label prescribing is... off label prescribing is STILL based on our knowledge of biochemistry and how the human body works. So we know that chemicals with low inherent risks that are prescribed to treat one symptom, could indeed easily treat another that relies on the same, demonstrated, chemical pathways. chiropractic? ain't got none o that. It is based on nothing but wishful thinking, period. it has zero biological basis for action. so then, the moron who posted that "challenge" is both ignorant of human biology, AND ignorant of how medicines work from a biochemical perspective. probably a chiropractor.

by Björn Geir - Thursday 27 April 2017 22:32
The case histories keep accumulating: http://www.kwwl.com/story/35214577/2017/04/Friday/young-mom-in-critical-condition-after-stroke Let's assume the majority, all if you like, cases of VAD occurring immediately or shortly after manipulation of the cervical spine with therapeutic intent all had predisposition for VAD. It is very likely that a number of them had not progressed to VAD had the VA not been stretched unnecessarily. In light of the fact[sic] that manipulation of the type that can stretch the VA has never proven efficacious, this kind of manipulation is not indicated in any situation and therefore the cases of VAD are PREVENTABLE BY NOT PERFORMING CERVICAL MANIPULATION!!! If chiropractors were honest people they had long ago put a moratorium on cervical manipulation. But chiropractors prioritize money before honour. "Chiropractic" is the name of a collection of lucrative parlour tricks an uneducated charlatan called DD Palmer invented over a century ago to replace magnetic healing.

by Edzard - Thursday 27 April 2017 16:45
more info here: http://people.com/bodies/katie-may-dead-playboy-model-late-mother-family/

by Jeff Bloom - Thursday 27 April 2017 22:13
Yes being always right is always the authors right. You always get to have the final say wether ypu are right or wrong. As in other comments when someone puts forth a good debate you simply turn the comments off.

by Alan Henness - Thursday 27 April 2017 21:07
You're just demonstrating your inability to think critically again...

by 1.3%or52.7%?Youare'avingalaugh - Thursday 27 April 2017 20:38
No need to explain yourself Edzard. I don't think that the logic police will take action against you. As you you Alan I don't think it is possible that you could ever produce a logical fallacy. You are therefore of course always correct about everything.

by Alan Henness - Thursday 27 April 2017 16:45
Alan&Edzardnow'avingalaugh! said:Thank you for your advice Edzard on learning some basic logic. Like many I may well benefit from revisiting this. You might too.If you've spotted a fallacy I've committed, please feel free to point it out.

by Edzard - Thursday 27 April 2017 16:42
it was not a comparison but an example deliberately exaggerated for everyone to see the point I wanted to make. I did not need imagination for the 'chat' post - I have had such discussions many, many times in the past and only needed to summarise them.

by Alan&Edzardnow'avingalaugh! - Thursday 27 April 2017 15:42
Thank you for your advice Edzard on learning some basic logic. Like many I may well benefit from revisiting this. You might too. I wonder though if you can see any irony in your illogical chemotherapy comparison with homeopathy where you just invented data? Congratulations though on your recent imaginary and entertaining 'Chat with a Homeopath' Blog Post.

by Alan Henness - Thursday 27 April 2017 15:37
Good grief. Precision and understanding of language and a basic understanding of statistics - or at least simple arithmetic - is essential in science. It seems you have neither.

by Edzard - Thursday 27 April 2017 15:32
well put!

by Moe - Thursday 27 April 2017 18:04
Chiropractic "treatment" should at least require physician physical clearance to avoid exacerbating, complicating, accelerating the evolution or covering up symptoms of an underlying evolving condition.

by Alan Henness - Thursday 27 April 2017 15:33
Don't.

← Older comments
Recent Comments

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


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories