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 Iqbal Krishna - Monday 24 April 2017 03:18
    Edzard "too daft to notice that this is not my post?" Confirms he is a poor writer who does not check his facts. What does it make you for allowing him to post a poorly written article on your blog? Or putting an article on your blog does not requires your concurrence of facts?

    by Edzard - Sunday 23 April 2017 08:23
    too daft to notice that this is not my post?

    by Iqbal Krishna - Sunday 23 April 2017 08:15
    Edzard "But let’s step into the mind of a homeopath, and try and explain the logic behind the Gunpowder 30C." All your evidence is based upon assumptions when facts are available. (Dr. R Hahn) "Gunpowder is used to fire a bullet which will, depending on the entry location,, cause serious harm or death." OK "Using the homeopathic principle of ‘like-cures-like’, it therefore ‘stands to reason’ that when you dilute gunpowder, by a factor of 1060, it will localise and prevent the infection from spreading any further. Because the underlined words look alike, it is irrefutable scientific evidence that Gunpowder 30C is a remarkably effective remedy." Did gunpowder enter the body or the metal in the bullet did? "I am however only guessing here, but it is clear that the amount of science involved is truly mindboggling (any homeopath reading this, please correct me if I am wrong)." I am not a homeopath but it is easy to see your warped thinking. You are wrong.

    by Björn Geir - Saturday 22 April 2017 17:14
    I am sorry. The description of the "name on paper" method starts on page 20. But the whole section on remedy making is very informative. I believe that section can be read in its entirety under the link I gave. I guess the whole book can be recommended. Reading from it to normal people can evoke both awe and mirth. Not the least if you inform them that the author did manage to finish a BsC in physics before his cognitive compass broke.

    by Björn Geir - Saturday 22 April 2017 16:54
    Grinding gunpowder with sugar in a mortar is not a good idea. How do I know...? Mother was not at all happy with the burn holes in my table and draperies. Me and my friend were experimenting with making smoke and stink bombs. It was a while before we were allowed to play together again 🙂 But you don't have to risk anything when making Gunpowder 30C... Homeopaths sometimes make remedies "by meditation". When they do not have the stuff at hand they simply think hard about the material. Here is one of my favourite examples of hard homeopathic thinking (or rather lack of it?): Source: (emphasis is mine) I made a Hekla 1M by "meditation" which I've dropped off to my patient (whose tooth pain from dubious dental work that had been troubling him for two months healed over a few days and has stayed away - 12/9/00). I felt incredibly clear and energised whilst making it; it felt very windy and desolate as I sort of blew the essence in. When making the remedy I felt: Wind, cold wind rushes through the land, a settling of fine dust permeates and disturbs. It blocks the fine vessels, and sets hard. It is immovable, without violent eruption. After making the remedy, I had definite doubts about anything actually being in there, much the same as when I made up the Venus remedy - well it IS pretty weird! Weird is the right word. Another convenient way to make homeopathic remedies without access or risk of the starting material involves writing its name on a piece of paper. The intricate details of this method are described on page 19 in Kjetill Oftedal's book Family homeopathy and survival guide Immediately following on the next page is a description of how the Apache medicine men made remedies by meditation. Homopathy is indeed weird. 😀

    by Acleron - Saturday 22 April 2017 10:37
    As the first step before throwing it away is to finely grind the starting material with sugar, this may be the answer to homeopathy.

by Critical_Chiro - Monday 24 April 2017 02:56
@EE "isn’t it a bit daft to cite Cassidy in a post that casts doubt about Cassidy? besides I wrote “we should deal with them as responsible healthcare professionals deal with any other suspected therapeutic risks” would you say that there is not even a suspicion of risk?" Due to the extremely rare incidence Canada with its nationalized health is ideally positioned to do these studies mining their databases. The more recent Cassidy paper looks at the relative risk and the conclusion is applicable. "The final word is clearly not yet pronounced on this issue" I agree with Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde on this. Until conclusively proven otherwise there is a suspicion of risk and it is part of my written informed consent. Additionally, I have over the years there have been many times I have refused to manipulate of mobilize or adjust a patients neck due to red flags in the history. I explain why and the patient is appreciative. I also verbally go through the consent 4 -5 times prior to treating the neck on every patient, during the examination, written consent and just prior to treating. I also repeat it on regular reviews and on discharge. @BG "In my mind there is no excuse ever to manipulate someone’s neck in such a way that the VA’s might be stretched." Agreed and I am diligent to not rotate the spine. Everything is P to A and I employ "other means" as standard in a multi-modal approach. "Do you have evidence for the claim that “the majority” of chiropractors do not stretch the vertebral arteries" For research into this topic see Walter Herzog: @Frank Odds Quibbling over spelling yet again. "Of course it is almost always difficult to reconstruct exactly the pre-morbid situation."

by darwinslapdog - Monday 24 April 2017 00:33
@ Julie Tasker: At least we know how Jesus died--and of course he had the advantage of not staying dead--for believers anyway. @EE Thank you for the reply. I am always curious about cause of death and find that even the almighty internet falls short on this one. If the initial obit doesn’t give it, then you can scour the interwebs for hours and still not find out. In the case of celebrities, it will come out later after the autopsy, but the ordinary dead seem pretty good at maintaining their privacy in the internet age sometimes. 🙂

by Julie Tasker - Saturday 22 April 2017 22:22
What are your definitions? Take a breath & be respectful.

by Pete Attkins - Saturday 22 April 2017 21:42
"I find word of mouth is the best recommendation – obviously not from people such as you." In other words: Obviously, Julie Tasker rejects feedback from everyone who has not been helped by Julie Tasker. In promotion and of advertising, a testimonial or show consists of a person's written or spoken statement extolling the virtue of a product. The term "testimonial" most commonly applies to the sales-pitches attributed to ordinary citizens, whereas the word "endorsement" usually applies to pitches by celebrities. Testimonials can be part of communal marketing. Thank you, Julie, for revealing your true colours.

by Julie Tasker - Saturday 22 April 2017 21:26
Why do you need to question what George died of? Jesus died, at only 38 years old, on the cross having been betrayed etc. Jesus still is celebrated for his life & death throughout the world by many even now. George obviously had a lot of empathy as a genuine & authentic person, & through that empathy has fulfilled his life & death destiny, having touched many lives in positive ways ... if only each person, including Dr Ernst & yourself, could be suggested by others as bringing that fortitude to at least one life...

by Julie Tasker - Saturday 22 April 2017 21:17
Rigorous testing needs everyday life complexities which do not happen with clinical trials & I'm not allowed to give Roman numerals response but have to give numbers ...

by Julie Tasker - Saturday 22 April 2017 21:15
Please explain 'scientific'. Dr. Ernst appears to lack an openness to allow people to decide for themselves without being made to feel inferior - even this blog requires a certain ability of mathematics including roman numerals to enable posts... what of others who could actually offer their thoughts & experiences?

by Julie Tasker - Saturday 22 April 2017 21:09
Your over all tone isn't actually discussion but merely attempting to discredit, & having to resort to words such as crap & bullshit merely shows your lack of listening & perhaps trying to understand that each person deserves to be allowed genuine choice rather than to be belittled for their choices. If they didn't feel benefit they wouldn't continue t access acupuncture & other complementary therapies.

by Julie Tasker - Saturday 22 April 2017 21:04
Perhaps just considering your past comments & judgements ... Do you consider yourself to be totally objective? If so: how come? ... as inevitably emotion & feelings bring some subjectivity in ... unless you are the robot that your computer check offsets ... ah we as audience aren't allowed to check it really is you that responds... Also your responding audience so far as needed an amount of competence in maths ... what about others who perhaps aren't competent sufficiently in maths & yet are 'real' people....

by Julie Tasker - Saturday 22 April 2017 20:59
We need to accept death as a part of life whilst also allowing people choice in their healthcare. Edzard: Why do you seem to be so angry about allowing people choice in healthcare? You have your life journey & past experiences but why do you seek to have to appear so cross about other people making healthcare choices that differ from yours?

by Julie Tasker - Saturday 22 April 2017 19:59
Well if you met me we could talk about it & I could share face to face my experiences ... George Lewith's death: We need to accept death as a part of life whilst also allowing people choice in their healthcare. Edzard: Why do you seem to be so angry about allowing people choice in healthcare? You have your life journey & past experiences but why do you seek to have to appear so cross about other people making healthcare choices that differ from yours?

by Björn Geir - Sunday 23 April 2017 15:37
Stupid and stupidity are relative terms. Relative to his brilliant achievements in chemistry and activism for peace, Linus Pauling's late-life obsession with Vitamin C being a panacea constituted stupidity and one is not altogether wrong to call him stupid in that context. Many eminent "alternativists" started out as academics.

by Leigh Jackson - Sunday 23 April 2017 11:44
It's a disgraceful scam perpetrated by the shameless.

by Björn Geir - Sunday 23 April 2017 15:19
Hi Tom It is nice for a change to chat with someone who presents himself with full name and portrait and does not throw mud pies at you when it thinks you are attacking it. You said, in essence, that modern medicine is good for acute things but missess out in "chronic, complex conditions" and that CAM is good for chronic things. Why do you think this is so? What is the nature behind this dichotomy. Why is there no CAM that can save a diabetic from hypoglycemic coma... Hmmm... let's strike that. A couple of glasses of homeopathic sugar pills (any variety) will usually save the day there. Let's try to find other examples... Why is there no one who has been able to reproduce the famed anesthesia by acupuncture solely in major operations said to have been demonstrated in the seventies in China? Why is there no CAM remedy that irrefutably saves in cardiac arrest. I know the penetration of REN-1 right in front of the anal orifice, is said to be useful for reviving the drowning but do we really believe that? Why do I have to administer heavy, expensive antibiotics in sepsis? It is impossible that a life saving CAM-remedy or CAM-technique would not have managed to escape from the oppressive conspiracy of Big-bad-Pharma? Why are there no heroic, fantastic CAM-things for desperate emergencies?? Why are all CAM services that we know off only (seemingly) effective in chronic, usually mild conditions that are known to most often improve spontaneously or at least vax and vane periodically like my arthritis? Have you ever considered the thought that you CAM-providers are missing some central factor here? Such as the possibility you are fooling yourself thinking that all your successes are not the effect of regression towards the mean?

by Björn Geir - Sunday 23 April 2017 14:55
Regarding Crystal's long-winded response it aes nothing to what we already have learned in hear (I presume it is a lady) previous writings. But the irony in one exclamation caught my eye and made me smile at this otherwise sad reading: I am in Europe 6 months out of the year. Have you ever been to Europe? There is no way in hell you can drive a scooter in any European city. Impossible! This is, as has been so elegantly put, not even wrong. I presume that by "scooter", Crystal is alluding to any type of electric wheelchair or propelled seat that handicapped and debilitated people use for transport. I happen to live in Europe and my work takes me to many different cities in different countries. I see electric mobility vehicles of this sort everywhere, especially in northern Europe. The city in Sweden where I spend most of my time adn I am at this moment leaving on the train, is practically awash with them because in addition to the usual contingency of elderly, obese and variously crippled who enjoy the freedom of moving about on one of those things, there is a special school in town for youngsters with handicaps, so wheelchairs are everywhere, many of them electrically propelled 🙂 I hope Crystal will be ale to maintain acceptable health despite ignorance of and a misguided attitude towards modern medicine.

by Crystal - Sunday 23 April 2017 10:40
Do you not see the repeated assumptions you have made about situations you have no details about? And you clearly didnt grasp the severity of the choices I have had to make so I put it very bluntly to make you understand. My mother is one of those "people of Walmart" btw. Im well aware there are many factors to that equation. You cant assume all of them made bad diet and lifestyle choices just like I cant (and did not) assume all of them made correct diet and lifestyle choices. You seem to be pretty wound up. Im just trying to calmly help you understand the mind set of someone who has actually had to make tough health choices for themselves and decided to go a non-conventional route. I am in Europe 6 months out of the year. Have you ever been to Europe? There is no way in hell you can drive a scooter in any European city. Impossible! I realized you are concerned with charlatans taking advantage of uninformed people but it would seem you have assumed people are uninformed and not capable of making their own decisions just because they didnt pick what you would have wanted for them. At one point you or someone else wrote "I cant just fill in the gaps of modern medicine with what ever I want." Actually I can, and it is my right to do so. If I wanted to do nothing and only pray about it as a Christian Scientist would, that too would be my right. In essence what all people of your mind set are telling people like me is that even if medicine has nothing to offer, or what they do have to will make you worse in the long run, you should just suffer. With very little consideration for the unique difficulties that person faces in their own life. Perhaps for some people that is acceptable to just suffer or get new diseases from their treatments but for me it is not. Id rather give something else a try, even if it lacks sufficient evidence and that is my right to do so. I never asked you to dispel or evaluate what I was doing. Just to listen and try to understand why I decided on the path I took.

by Edzard - Sunday 23 April 2017 09:45
"people of your mind set seem to have no problem with" you get more and more despicable! " your medicine has done to them" what exactly do you think my medicine is?

by Björn Geir - Sunday 23 April 2017 09:34
"Crystal" This will be the last time I address you in first person as a respectable human being. The kind of people you shame with your incredibly naive words, don't you think it is more likely they are in such precarious state of health due to improper lifestyle and diet rather than the effects of modern health care interventions? All medicines that work have side effects. If someone claims to have an efficacious medicine you can be certain he is lying or the potion has no positive effect either. With your ugly, belligerent uttering you have demonstrated not only profound ignorance but also selfish bigotry and annihilated your respectability as far as I am concerned. Further discussion is obviously futile.

by Crystal - Sunday 23 April 2017 08:52
I certainly dont tell them or insinuate they are stupid to their face for their choices like people of your mind set seem to have no problem with. Where is your empathy for what your medicine has done to them? And why dont you realized insulting people is never going to win them over to your way of thinking.

by Edzard - Sunday 23 April 2017 08:32
"fat ass scooter driving cripples who need dialysis" I am impressed by the empathy, sympathy and kindness you show to fellow patients!!!

by Crystal - Sunday 23 April 2017 08:29
My main priority is avoiding the well documented troubles caused by the medications most commonly prescribed for all my conditions. I would actually rather die than become one of those fat ass scooter driving cripples who need dialysis. Google "people of walmart" and look at those pictures. That is what would be in store for me if I was to medicate every damn thing that the doctor found wrong with me when I finally got them to take me seriously. For you maybe that is still a life worth living but for me it is not.

by Iqbal Krishna - Sunday 23 April 2017 07:09
Edzard "quite disgusting." The dog that was killed or the Lion that walked away?

by Edzard - Friday 21 April 2017 14:46
what a pathetic indulgence in wishful thinking! quite disgusting.

by Richard Rawlins - Saturday 22 April 2017 07:00
In UK we have a 'Freedom of Information' Act: "The Freedom of Information Act creates a statutory right for access to information in relation to bodies that exercise functions of a public nature, three different kinds of bodies are covered under the act. Public Authorities, publicly owned companies and designated bodies performing public functions. In principle, the freedom of information act applies to all "public authorities" within the United Kingdom - the Houses of Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, the armed forces, local government bodies, National Health Service bodies, schools, colleges and universities, police authorities and Chief Officers of Police are included within this list. A few government departments are expressly excluded from the scope of the act, principally Intelligence services." (Wikipedia). In Canada, the Access to Information Act allows citizens to demand records from federal bodies. I cannot see on what grounds this information is being witheld. Those who want it should get it!

Newer comments → ← 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.