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 Björn Geir - Sunday 19 February 2017 21:52
Is this you Greg?: Not that it matters, but if so then we are obliged to feel pity with your predicament in having to support your subsistence selling such a mixture of medical imitations. Dodging the dissonance with reality must be demanding. No wonder you are bitter and exasperated at those who pound your precious products.

by jm - Sunday 19 February 2017 19:07
"are you able to think at all?" Careful. Chastising an insult with an insult could get you banned from commenting:

by Greg - Sunday 19 February 2017 09:59
'Two other equally punchable mouths - I speak here as a sometimes hot-tempered but not physically violent type of a man=' Barry Lee Thorpe, 13 August 2015 at 00:39 'DISLIKES Tights, Tories, Homeopathy, U2, Daily Mail,sensitive singer songwriters, Feminazis' Is this you Barry?

by Björn Geir - Saturday 18 February 2017 16:45
Yes, dear Iqbal. Your memory is not altogether broken. I did argue that Dr. (real one actually - and a bona fide authority on genuine, important scientific matters) Hahn is afflicted with religious zealotry just as you seem to be. The difference between him and you seems to be that he is extremely gifted and can make practical use of his intelligence despite the adherence to religious fantasies, which unfortunately spill over into a paradoxical fancy for the possibility of shaken water having mystical effects. If you continue addressing me in such a derogatory manner and accusing me of untruthfulness, I will have to stop showing you the respect of responding personally to your remarks and consider you one of the impertinent trolls not worthy of attention or respectful dialog.

by Edzard - Saturday 18 February 2017 16:09
are you able to think at all? if so, do you know that calling someone a liar is insulting and ad hominem?

by Pete Attkins - Saturday 18 February 2017 16:06
Greg, Yes, well of course that's just the sort of blinkered, philistine, pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage. [Quote from John Cleese, a founding member of Monty Python]

by Iqbal Krishna - Saturday 18 February 2017 15:17
Björn Geir “Out of curiosity I had a look at many of the arguments and citations and found all of them already refuted before here in this blog as fallacious, erroneous and/or irrelevant.” Changed to: "No my dear Iqbal, the onus is on you to stop dragging in tired old arguments all over again." Exactly the response, I expected. As I wrote earlier for you, once a liar, always a liar. Forget the circus part. The spectators will see through the fake clown act. The right opening suited for you is to participate in the future episodes of "The Moment of Truth", if it comes on air. The part will be right up your street and beating a lie detector with your experience here should be a cake walk. The money coming in is unbelievable. Answer to 21 questions give you US$ 500,000. "...your religious blindness." If I remember correctly, you used a similar term for Dr. R Hahn when he questioned Edzard's ideology influencing the outcome. "Researchers claiming the opposite rely on extensive invalidation of studies, adoption of virtual data, or on inappropriate statistical methods. The reader of this literature must be aware that ideology plays a part in these meta-analyses. For example, Ernst makes conclusions based on assumed data when the true data are at hand . Ernst invalidates a study by Jonas et al. that shows an odds ratio of 2.19 (1.55–3.11) in favor of homeopathy for rheumatic conditions, using the notion that there are not sufficient data for the treatment of any specific condition". Not enough imagination either.

by Barrie Lee 'Wellness' Thorpe - Saturday 18 February 2017 14:29
EE-Good lad!

by Steve Tonkin - Saturday 18 February 2017 13:55
Indeed, Björn, you explained it far better than I. Thank you.

by Edzard - Saturday 18 February 2017 13:50
at present I have no desire to lose either Greg or Iqbal - they are so amusing and often make my day!

by Björn Geir - Sunday 19 February 2017 21:24
Cassidy 2008 and other similar attempts at estimating away the risk of CAD after SMT has been reevaluated in later work and the mistakes analysed. Here is an excerpt from "Case Misclassification in Studies of Spinal Manipulation and Arterial Dissection" Xuemei Cai, MD, Ali Razmara, MD, PhD, Jessica K. Paulus, ScD, Karen Switkowski, MS, MPH, Pari J. Fariborz, Sergey D. Goryachev, MS, Leonard D'Avolio, MS, PhD, Edward Feldmann, MD, David E. Thaler, MD, PhD DOI: The earlier studies omitted the dissection-specific codes (443.xx) in their case definition because they were not in use in Ontario at the time (personal communication, Navin Goocool, April 30, 2013). The population in our study did have these codes available, and therefore, to avoid an overestimation of case misclassification, we included the 3 additional dissection codes in our initial EMR query (‘‘modified Rothwell/Cassidy strategy’’). ... Cassidy et al [2008] suggested that the association between cases and PCP/SMT exposure was because of patients with preexisting dissections seeking care for neck pain (reverse causation). However, if the ICD-9 code positive predictive value measured in the VA database is generalizable to the Ontario health system data, then the Cassidy study actually found an association between PCP visits and patients with conventional strokes due to atherosclerotic and cardioembolic mechanisms. This association is well known and has been described before. It is because of the frequent clinical visits needed to manage established vascular risk factors.10 Our sensitivity analysis suggests that the ORs for the association between SMT and CAD would be very large with accurately identified cases. Lastly, the misclassi- fication may disproportionately affect ORs for those less than 45 years of age—a group of patients with a lower prevalence of atherosclerosis-related infarcts and a higher prevalence of strokes due to dissections.16 Given the small numbers of true cases, ORs within age strata could not be calculated, but our sensitivity analysis suggests the association between SMT and CAD in younger patients is markedly stronger after adjusting for case misclassification And what do they mean by "large" ? Among the subgroup of the population less than 45 years of age and applying the above assumptions, those with a chiropractor visit within 30 days of their stroke would have nearly 7 times the odds of CAD (OR 5 6.91, 95% CI 2.59-13.74). That means that the risk is most likely about seven fold and there is 95% chance that the true odds ratio is about between 2,6 to 13.7. That is nothing less than horrendous if correct. Now, why don't you go play doctor or something? But don't touch the necks, you might tear something.

by Leigh Jackson - Sunday 19 February 2017 20:33
Then it appears that new Cassidy study has not taken us forwards. We stand where we stood in 2008. Which means there is need to worry. I refer you to Xuemei Cai et al. 2014.

by Logos-Bios - Sunday 19 February 2017 18:40
Regarding actions which can result in serious harm, I submit the following for everone's enjoyment: A woman stops by, unannounced, at her son’s house. She knocks on the door then immediately walks in. She is shocked to see her daughter-in-law lying on the couch, totally naked. Soft music is playing, candles are lit, and the aroma of perfume fills the room. “What are you doing?!” she asks. “I’m waiting for Jeff to come home from work,” the daughter-in- law explains. “But you’re naked!” the mother-in-law exclaims. “This is my love dress,” the daughter-in-law answers. “Love dress? But you’re naked!” “Jeff loves me and wants me to wear this dress. It excites him to no end. Every time he sees me in this dress, he instantly becomes romantic and can’t get enough of me!” The mother-in-law leaves, inspired by what she has learned. When the mother-in-law gets home, she undresses, showers, puts on her best perfume, dims the lights, puts on a romantic CD, and lays on the couch, expectantly awaiting her husband. Finally, her husband comes home. He walks in and sees her lying there provocatively. “What are you doing?” he asks. “This is my love dress,” she whispers sensually. “Needs ironing,” he says. “What’s for dinner? He never heard the gunshot.

by Logos-Bios - Sunday 19 February 2017 18:15
@Blue Why do you think Dr. Cassidy's answer was illogical? An alleged (by you) conflict of interest on the part of the researcher does not make your case that his answer was illogical. What do the statements of "other chiropractors" have to do with whether Dr. Cassidy's answer was illogical?

by Logos-Bios - Sunday 19 February 2017 17:21
Geir stated, "This latest study by chiropractor Cassidy and co. EXCLUDED ALL STROKES FROM THE VERTEBRAL ARTERY!!!" Not to worry, Geir, Dr. Cassidy's 2008 study on VBS stroke vis a vis chiropractic care can easily be downloaded. I quote from that paper: "We included all incident vertebrobasilar occlusion and stenosis strokes (ICD-9433.0 and 433.2) resulting in an acute care hospital admission from April 1, 1993 to March 31, 2002. Codes were chosen in consultation with stroke experts and an epidemiologist who participated in a similar past study (SB).

by Björn Geir - Sunday 19 February 2017 16:18
@Lisa This link does not refer to reliable scientific information. The information about "Gua Sha" provided in this website is largely anecdotal and some of the propositions constitute dangerous pseudoscientific fantasy. Arya Nielsen is not a doctor but an acupuncturist and as far as I have been able to find, her Phd research in Germany "discovered" increased perfusion in injured skin, a phenomenon which any second year medical student could have told her would happen. The nonsense about Gua Sha being useful for Hepatitis B is dangerous, unsubstantiated fantasy, seemingly based on an anecdote. Please do not think injuring the skin is any good for anything.

by Lisa - Sunday 19 February 2017 11:35

by Mike Sutton - Saturday 18 February 2017 09:30
A Call To All Scientists Following his election in 2016, the USA inaugurated President Donald Trump in January 2017. As a norm, the conventions of science seek to separate the world of scientific conceptions and discoveries from popular news and politics. However, in 2016 and 2017 the world took a twist towards populist politics, facilitated by voter decision making based upon favouring leaders who disseminate fake facts. For example, Trump has declared by way of publication on social media that he believes vaccinations cause autism and that the scientific concept of global warming is a Chinese conspiracy. Such unscientific politicization of science must not be allowed to pass unchallenged by the scientific community, including social scientists. However, to have the voice of objective reason in debates of evidence-led veracity versus beliefs in unevidenced claptrap, science should ensure its own house is order, else face the embarrassment of defeat in debate with purveyors of seriously harmful nonsense. For that reason, dysology promoted by scientists, supported and facilitated by the institutions of science, must be detected and corrected as a matter of moral and scientific urgency. Dr Mike Sutton Feb 1st 2017

by Mike Sutton - Saturday 18 February 2017 09:25
Edzard Ernst - you are right. These observations are confirmatory evidence for the Dysology Hypothesis and its anti-veracity spiral of decline

by Logos-Bios - Saturday 18 February 2017 00:34
@Blue Chiros who sell bogus pseudo-medicines and dispense anto-vax rhetoric should be shunned; ditto bariatric surgeons who market weight-loss "miracles" to otherwise healthy people who are psychologically compromised because they don't look like Beyonce or Brad Pitt. The latter of these doctors is much more dangerous due to the previously reported high fatality rates associated with their procedures.

by Blue Wode - Friday 17 February 2017 11:53
Meanwhile... QUOTE "...the danger of sending patients to chiropractor: the wide range of useless pseudo-medicines that are often incorporated into the chiropractic practice along with a propensity for anti-vaccine rhetoric...chiropractic manipulation has no foundation in basic science, its placebo effects are minimal and transient at best, it is dangerous, costly and time consuming for the patient" Ref: _______________________________________________________________________ “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.” Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

by Critical_Chiro - Friday 17 February 2017 01:33

by Logos-Bios - Thursday 16 February 2017 22:20
It should be readily apparent to readers that alleged "valuing of income above public health" can be applied to doctors of varying discliplines. Why would Geir think that anyone would have animosity toward him? He's a wonderful, fair-minded fellow, albeit a bit overly defensive about some of the practices within, and risks of, his chosen specialty. Curious........

by Björn Geir - Thursday 16 February 2017 09:56
One cannot but wonder where this misguided, incessant obsession with bashing bariatric surgery comes from. Cannot be solely personal animosity towards me, can it? Or perhaps I've stepped on a couple of sore toes?? Some of us even pointed out evidence from many parts of the world refuting the erroneous „high fatality risk“ mantra, but doesn't seem to want to hear or understand. Keeps on echoing the same nonsense. Strange...

by Avogadro - Friday 17 February 2017 07:22
'Yet despite the tendency toward poor quality acupuncture in studies with higher methodological standards' Sad that good scientists routinely can't recruit proper sCAM practitioners. Same with homeopaths, they always get the incompetent ones. Why!!!

by admin - Thursday 16 February 2017 19:57
Hi Sarah Do you have any conflicts of interest that might be relevant to this discussion we should be aware of? Thanks.

by Alan Henness - Thursday 16 February 2017 19:55
@Sarah I don't know whether you intend your link to support the use of mistletoe or not, but from your link, this is germane:A large number of human studies using mistletoe to treat cancer have been done since the early 1960s, but major weaknesses in many of these have raised doubts about their findings ... The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved mistletoe as a treatment for cancer or any other medical condition. The FDA does not allow injectable mistletoe to be imported, sold, or used except for clinical researchAnything you want to add to that?

by Frank Odds - Thursday 16 February 2017 18:43
@Sarah If all you post is a link, readers are left totally clueless as to what you intend to be its significance in context. Taken at face value, you seem to have linked to a site the reinforces the title and sentiment of the original post. Sample quotes... "Mistletoe extract has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory and to affect the immune system. However, there is limited evidence that mistletoe's effects on the immune system help the body fight cancer." "A large number of human studies using mistletoe to treat cancer have been done since the early 1960s, but major weaknesses in many of these have raised doubts about their findings." "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved mistletoe as a treatment for cancer or any other medical condition." "The FDA does not allow injectable mistletoe to be imported, sold, or used except for clinical research."

by Sarah - Thursday 16 February 2017 17:38

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.