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 - Friday 24 March 2017 13:23
by Greg - Friday 24 March 2017 13:20
Iqbal, you can be proud of the fact that India is ahead of the UK on the enlightenment curve with TM (Extract from your source WHO): In India, all six traditional systems of medicine with official recognition (Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani Medicine, Siddha and Homeopathy) have institutionalised education systems. India has 508 colleges with an annual admission capacity of 25 586 undergraduate students, 117 of these colleges also admitting 2493 Postgraduate students. Colleges can only be established with the permission of central government and the prior approval of their infrastructure, syllabi and course curricula. Annual and surprise inspections ensure that ducational and infrastructural standards are met. Central Government has the power to recognize or rescind any qualification and college.
by Edzard - Friday 24 March 2017 13:19
you should sometime try to do something other than ad hominems - you are not very good at them, you know.
by Greg - Friday 24 March 2017 13:09
Iqbal, BG has a unique skill: he looks at something for a minute or two and can determine if it is 'rubbish' or 'not rubbish'. A couple of days ago, he quickly scanned a Master's dissertation on a NMR study of 'Natrum Muriaticum' that I referred him to, and he concluded: it is rubbish. Given this well honed skill, I am sure that he can see through stuff like PUBMED articles with aplomb.
by Alan Henness - Friday 24 March 2017 10:25
@iqbal One third of their way through the period their strategy covers, what money have they spent on their strategies, what projects started and what progress have WHO made in achieving their aims?
by Edzard - Friday 24 March 2017 09:32
why then do 'BIG PHARMA' pay me these vast amounts of money for doing this blog, publishing books, writing articles, giving lectures etc.? [just kidding, as I am sure you are]
by Greg - Friday 24 March 2017 09:23
Iqbal, Edzard USED to have some influence within the ruling establishment of the UK that led to adverse impacts on CAM within the national healthcare framework. The situation now is that he has 'revealed' that his position against CAM arises in connection with a vindictive mission. Science must be neutral, and Edzard's song has ended. Nevertheless, the poison needs to be neutralised and those that were led to the 'dark side' of animosity towards natural medicine can be helped back to normality and equanimity in medical science perspectives.
by Iqbal Krishna - Friday 24 March 2017 08:28
Greg You think Edzard's writings are important for those who matter in the medical world? Think again. Check WHO: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/92455/1/9789241506090_eng.pdf
by Greg - Friday 24 March 2017 05:39
Ensirem: Also, many in the classroom were already using homeopathy and such, explaining their use with the usual “it worked for me”. Edzard: thank you; very interesting! Does 'very interesting' mean that Edzard is about to flip again? No, that is impossible. But, this is the thing: A quote from Karl Popper: 'our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.' I know that this applies to all of us but it seems to fit Edzard like a glove. Commenters on this site seem to believe that human life began in the 17th century or thereabouts in a 'state of nature' where people were dropping dead from infections etc and then, lo and behold, modern medicine was discovered. The duty of the 'scientists' that comment on this blog is to extinguish completely the superstitious unscientific beliefs that existed hitherto. In my view, there is some good and some not good in this show. The not good is that the 'pseudosciences' predated Hippocrates and the great civilizations of antiquity. I asked the question before: how did humanity survive for thousands of years before modern medicine came along? Edzard (deflect) and others (snicker snicker). Why don't you people grow up and accept the diversity of existential paradigms? There appears to be an element of solipsism and narcissism in one dimensional consciousness . What is your response this this?
by Iqbal Krishna - Friday 24 March 2017 04:38
Björn Geir "But doctors are the one’s who see to it that nurses can do anything real for them. Try staffing a hospital with nurses only." You never learn.There is no need to be so self important. When the hospitals are staffed with only nurses, mortality comes down. When doctors come back on job, death rates increase, especially with surgeons. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18849101 This is the trend for past 40 years and there is NO change. "... throw in some chiropractors,homeopaths and needle pushers for flavour." You really want to become jobless!!! "Try advertising your establishment as a “physician and surgeon free hospital” and find out how many want to be treated there." There is no requirement for advertising. Please visit Delhi and I will expose you to hospitals with no surgeon or physician (modern medicine) who do not even have to advertise for patients. The patients seeing zero benefits and most times adverse effects from modern scientific hospitals reach here based upon experiences of their colleagues and friends.They in turn send more patients. "Your comment reveals your seemingly total ignorance of how medicine and health care works. What made you so despondent and resentful towards modern knowledge, science and medicine?" I have 4 class mates who joined modern medicine. 3 married doctors. They cover a range of medicine area: Surgery, gynecology, orthopedics, pediatrics: for their children and many times for themselves they use alternative medicine. After 30+ years of practice, they understand the difference between cure and quick fix with a drug and its repeated requirement that creates more problems than curing the initial problem. "Is it because deep in your deluded heart, you know that your own make-believe medicine doesn’t do zilch?" I don't think with my heart. My discussions with these doctors, their need for alternative medicines for their children and themselves is great knowledge to absorb as none of them is paid for sharing such information with me.
by Barrie Lee 'Wellness' Thorpe - Friday 24 March 2017 11:50
This Fox 'News' organisation that's recently been adduced as evidence- Would this be the same outfit that accused GCHQ of bugging the Fake President, knowing that since the US has seen fit to elect a cross between an idiot and a petulant teenager, he and the people who crowbarred him into power will believe anything, no matter how daft? I'd double check the football results from them before I believed they were correct. Ben Goldacre and others have shown clearly the dangers of leaving scientific and medical matters to be reported by the clueless and the malicious. Credit to Trump thoupgh- he has broached the interesting subject of the middle ground in relation to the ad hominem/not ad hominem argument. My own view is that while Fox 'News' and Trump may occasionally stumble across a genuine fact, the evidence so far is that anything they have said is not necessarily to be trusted, and therefore it's wise for them to be treated with scepticism orin Trump's case absolute disbelief.This seems to me to be the response that his constant lying deserves. Some call this 'ad hominem'. I call it 'Don't let the same dog bite you twice'. As Asimov said,' 'I cannot prove that God does not exist, but so greatly do I suspect he doesn't that I live my life accordingly'.
by Jane maher - Friday 24 March 2017 11:22
For all the disagreements over many years, George remained a provocative debater who retained his sense of humour and his interest in people and in illness . The field will be less stimulating without him.
by Frank Collins - Thursday 23 March 2017 22:08
"a three-month British Council-sponsored acupuncture course that the two authors attended at the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Nanking in 1977" A three month course and a definitive book as a result? It suggests much about the paucity of thought about and rigour of the subject.
by Dr Aust - Thursday 23 March 2017 19:54
I've got a copy of an even earlier Lewith book, from 1980: 'Modern Chinese Acupuncture' By GT Lewith and NR Lewith. Thorsons Publishers Ltd. Wellingborough, Northants ISBN 0-7225-0662-7. It explains that it is inspired by, and derived from, a three-month British Council-sponsored acupuncture course that the two authors attended at the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Nanking in 1977. The dedication is 'To our Chinese friends and teachers'.
by Lenny - Thursday 23 March 2017 11:44
He died at only 67? Acupuncture didn't do much for him, then..
by Greg - Thursday 23 March 2017 11:14
Good George Lewith, may he rest in peace.
by Richard Rawlins - Thursday 23 March 2017 10:06
How ironic that George Lewith's seminal letter to the BMJ was followed by one from Mr (later, Sir) Reginald Murley on the subject of collaborative clinical and medical audit. If only George had followed the principles of modern clinical audit he might well have earned a prominent place in the pantheon of practitioners. I am sure the 'College of Medicine', to whom he was a midwife, will provide a thoughtful eulogy.
by Les Rose - Thursday 23 March 2017 09:20
A remarkably gracious obituary, all things considered!
by Logos-Bios - Thursday 23 March 2017 21:01
Geir, the pretend theologian, stated, " It(homeopathy) is by now 200 years old and has never proven itself to be capable of anything but support itself as a religion. Millions are mislead by it, in the same way as millions are led to believe there is a person (or persons) sitting in the sky or somewhere, governing our lives and benevolently bestowing misery, pain and sorrow upon mankind just because it cannot find solace in reality." There are problems with Geir's comments: 1. The word should be "MISLED," Geir, not mislead, when one uses the word in the context you did. 2. Homeopathy is not a religion(neither is chiropractic); the profession does not have worshippers. 3. "a person sitting in the sky governing our lives and 'benevolently bestowing misery'"? Could Geir actually be serious in implying such a farcical attribute to all religions, or is he simply proffering another dullard's comment into his rant? "Benevolently bestowing misery" is a paradoxical phrase which evinces Geir's ignorance of both grammatical construction and of the world's most adhered-to religion, Christianity. Please, Geir, quit posting nonsense on subject matter about which you know little, likely nothing.
by Thomas Mohr - Thursday 23 March 2017 11:41
Well, John, I *am* aware of the greater body of literature. Like the publication that found silica particles in water kept in glass. I am also aware of the conventional ionic theory for infinite dilution. Apparently you are not. As Björn Geir pointed out, you can behave like Rumpelstiltskin as long as you want, you still have no idea about real science. Have you ever learned statistics ? No ? I have and I do it every day, John.
by Greg - Thursday 23 March 2017 09:18
Oh my Bjorn, that is quite a mouthful of the usual dross. Are you feeling well today?
by Björn Geir - Wednesday 22 March 2017 23:08
Oh my. Greg, you should do something about this hole you are in. It would be better for your mental health and wellbeing to get out of there instead of digging still deeper. Of course I said this thesis is rubbish. It may be gold for homeopaths, who can pretend it proves something. But It is rubbish if you measure it against reality by scientific standards. It is sad for the poor author who is misled into thinking her work is remarkable science. Her tutors may be "highly qualified people" as you say, but that does not mean that their qualifications are in genuine science. They seem to be homeopaths and that, as we all know is perhaps the purest of pseudosciences, the "mother of make-believe medicine" if you will. Their qualifications are, like any priest or religious leader, in make-believe. I appreciate your woes dear Greg, but there is no escaping the fact that homeopathy is a dead horse. It is by now 200 years old and has never proven itself to be capable of anything but support itself as a religion. Millions are mislead by it, in the same way as millions are led to believe there is a person (or persons) sitting in the sky or somewhere, governing our lives and benevolently bestowing misery, pain and sorrow upon mankind just because it cannot find solace in reality. Well, experience tells me it will not happen, but one can always hope you will some day find your way out of your anguishing hole, walled by cognitive dissonance and realise you have been putting all of your money and pride on a lame horse.
by Edzard - Wednesday 22 March 2017 21:20
are you sure you understand what an 'ad hominem' is?
by Greg - Wednesday 22 March 2017 21:07
Frank, Edzard's website is a continuous ad hominem against millions of people (the most atrocious recent blog was 'pharmacists are chalatans'. Apart from the general ad hominem character of the blogs, almost every blog carries derisory comments by Edzard. Some of Edzard's recent comments: Poorly designed trials “Let us stay focused on CAM.” HE SAID AFTER WIPING OFF THE EGG ON HIS FACE Promoting alternative medicine yes, he is excellent at missing points. Cure for lesbianism I am beginning to doubt that he can actually read. do you have any valid [not ad hominem] arguments? are you all demented? I agree: there are people who cross the line and one simply has to call a spade a spade. What about adding to this list: I agree: one simply has to call a hypocrite a hypocrite.
by Greg - Wednesday 22 March 2017 20:15
Brilliant Frank, how many days have gone by until this was noted? 19 - 22 March. The only thing is that if you read the whole thread it would make more sense. Ibuprofen was discussed on Fox News. My statement to Edzard is that there are commonly used drugs whose mechanism of action is not completely known. I selected Paracetamol as an example (not Ibuprofen). Edzard posted Paracetamol PUBMED and did not respond by pointing out as you have done that the Fox News story was Ibuprofen and not Paracetamol (through apathy or not carefully reading comments?). Here are extracts from Poorly Designed Trials: 19 March, Greg 'Many pharmaceutical medicines have unknown mechanism of action.' Edzard don’t you think you discredit yourself by citing Fox News as evidence? “Many pharmaceutical medicines have unknown mechanism of action.” do you care to name the ones you have in mind? Greg Tell me, Edzard, how does the example I cited (paracetamol) actually work and why does it increase cardiovascular risk? Edzard Enters PUBMED Paracetamol Greg Thus, the apparent selectivity of paracetamol may be due this hypothesis is consistent has been suggested to be the site of action of paracetamol The action of paracetamol at a molecular level is unclear the mode of action of paracetamol has been uncertain Medical pharmacology is a brilliant science and this paper is extraordinary in its complexity. Yet it is precise in its honesty that there are things known and things unknown about the actions of medicines, and as I said earlier: this is the case for many drugs. It may well be that the mechanism of action of ibuprofen is better understood but then it should be easier to explain why cardiovascular risk is increased through its use.
by Lenny - Wednesday 22 March 2017 19:16
Try looking up "straw man fallacy" and then go back and show me the knock-down evidence.
by Greg - Wednesday 22 March 2017 17:45
Ps, you guys are so much fun!
by Logos-Bios - Thursday 23 March 2017 15:16
No complaints from Richard on this profitable (very!) medical program which exists despite a lack of evidence for its use. No surprise here!
by Critical_Chiro - Thursday 23 March 2017 02:22
@Edzard “The Canadian Chiropractic Association has clear guidelines” wouldn’t it be nice if chiros followed them? Hmmm. To be accurate "Wouldn't it be nice if ALL chiro's follow them" Guideline adherence is a major issue. For MSK it is around 75%. The average for all medical procedures is 55-60%. Have a look in PubMed it is very interesting. @BW In regards to chiropractic it will be the regulators, associations, insurers and third party payers who enforce guideline compliance. This is happening now in Australia with chiro's being audited by the health funds if they treat excessively. Barcelona has me scratching my head Blue. I believe they are like NZCC who tick all the evidence and core curricular boxes to satisfy accreditation then add the BS on top. Very annoying. There are a couple of key players here who need to be dethroned. They talk about "unity with diversity" yet obstruct reform quietly in the background.
by Logos-Bios - Wednesday 22 March 2017 23:13
@ Richard By your (and other camedics on this site) comments implying the necessity of reproducible evidence for procudures, drugs, or programs of care to not be considered "harmful to rational science-based methods," I suggest you complain to the many hospital-based IMATCH medical organizers around the US. It seems as if they are generating gobs of money via their use of procedures and interventions which, as you would say, "are harmful to rational science-based methods." Chronic headaches are a major problem for many people and Edzard(and now Richard) has opined in various threads that good evidence/positive-outcome research is necessary to warrant a treatment’s or a durg’s use; sans such provenance, the treatment should be viewed(per Edzard) as quackery). The IMATCH program is generating up to $30K for a 3-week program for “modern medicine” clinics and hospitals across the USA. “Elizabeth Loder, MD, chief, Division of Headache and Pain, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said the approach to treatment offered by the IMATCH program “has promise(despite limited evidence).” “Comprehensive multimodality treatment is likely (weasel word, according to Edzard in past threads) to be the best approach for severely disabled headache patients, but evidence to support that assumption is LIMITED,” said Dr Loder. “The improvements in outcome for patients who completed this study are encouraging (yet evidence is still limited).” She pointed out, however, that “a substantial amount of information about outcomes is missing and that could affect the findings.” Also, she said, without a control group, “it’s not possible to know how much of the improvement is due to the intervention itself or other factors such as natural improvement over time or expectation or belief.”(These words are similar to those Edzard has written myriad times relative to paramedical research). Dr Loder agreed that, as with all studies that evaluate complex interventions, it is not possible to study the contribution of individual treatment components.” Yet “modern medicine” has continued to utilize IMATCH protocol despite a lack of evidence for its use….and is profiting handsomely. Go figure! Surely Richard would complain, as he has about paramedical disciplines, about such interventions by "modern medicine" as being scientifically unfounded (dare I say it?) quackery.
← Older comments