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 Pete Attkins - Monday 27 March 2017 18:45
    Jm, Circa 5 million is not a large number in the domains of cosmology and the SI units of science, but it is a very large number in terms of your, or anyone else's, ability to accurately perceive, let alone accurately count. As Alan said: "Good grief. Please try to get your head around absolute and relative values."

    by jm - Monday 27 March 2017 16:47
    Good grief indeed - I'd love to hear how you figure less than 7% is a large number of the population in the UK. But first, do you have evidence that blogs are having any effect? Prove the benefit.

    by Alan Henness - Monday 27 March 2017 11:22
    jm said:A few comments up: You don’t consider fewer than 7% to be small?Good grief. Please try to get your head around absolute and relative values.

    by jm - Monday 27 March 2017 07:44
    A few comments up: You don't consider fewer than 7% to be small?

    by Björn Geir - Monday 27 March 2017 00:35
    ... no real evidence of risk has been shown. Even if this was right, there still remains the small issue of evidence for efficacy? We're still waiting...

by Barrie Lee 'Wellness' Thorpe - Monday 27 March 2017 17:48
Woo Fighter- Snopes I' m familiar with. There's so many layers upon layers now to some of these comments that it sometimes stumps a Bear of Very Little Brain. Especially given some of the lunacy that some people on here actually do believe.

by Woo Fighter - Monday 27 March 2017 17:07
"Are they being prevented from talking now?" Don't you know? The FDA and AMA and Big Pharma are having them killed! 🙂 Barrie, Steve T. is debunking the whistleblower myth. He's linking to

by Edzard - Monday 27 March 2017 16:44
and I answered the one outlined in my last comment. or do you pretend to know better than I do which question I wanted to answer?

by Greg - Monday 27 March 2017 16:39
I asked you two questions, not one: Do you have an opinion on WHY this is so? Why is modern medicine not containing the increase in numbers? Never mind it is passed now; just get your keyboard checked for caps lock malfunction.

by Brooks Butler MD - Monday 27 March 2017 14:07
i agree that old age is the greatest risk factor for nearly all disease (I turned 78 yrs. yesterday). The real question is how to extend longevity and quality of life. From my study the last several years, I have concluded that minimizing carbohydrates and maximizing resistance strenth training (See Dr. Doug McGuff) seems the best answer.

by Edzard - Monday 27 March 2017 13:21
MY ANSWER WAS TO YOUR QUESTION: "Why is modern medicine not containing the increase in numbers?"

by Greg - Monday 27 March 2017 13:12
That is a fine comment from Doctor Geir with only moments of condescension arising in the text, and that can be tolerated. Cancer nResearch UK say that 60% of cancers are related to age, so as people live longer, expectancy for cancer increases. Quote: Thanks to research, the UK’s cancer survival has doubled over the last 40 years and around half of patients now survive the disease for more than 10 years. But, as more people benefit from improved healthcare and longer life expectancy, the number of cancer cases is expected to rise. This new research estimating lifetime risk finds that, from now on*, 1 in 2 people will be diagnosed with the disease. This new estimate replaces the previous figure, calculated using a different method, which predicted that more than 1 in 3 people would develop cancer at some point in their lives. Age is the biggest risk factor for most cancers, and the increase in lifetime risk is primarily because more people are surviving into old age, when cancer is more common. Study author Professor Peter Sasieni, based at Queen Mary University of London, said: “Cancer is primarily a disease of old age, with more than 60 per cent of all cases diagnosed in people aged over 65. If people live long enough then most will get cancer at some point. But there’s a lot we can do to make it less likely – like giving up smoking, being more active, drinking less alcohol and maintaining a healthy weight. End quote If the answer is as straightforward as you put it to me then why did Edzard reply to me: 'because the problem is exceedingly' complex?

by Björn Geir - Monday 27 March 2017 12:07
Team of geniuses you are! Yes, thank you. Many of us have academic education and training in (real) health care. Do you have an opinion on WHY this is so? Epidemiology, which is the type of scientific work behind this paper, is not about opinion. We do not use opinion in science, we use facts and figures and rational logic. Where full information is wanting, we use available facts to make estimates. Opinion tends to lead to erroneous conclusions. It looks as though you are not understanding the messages in this article dear Greg. Did you read all of it? If you try to read it carefully again (and try to set your disgruntlement with medicine aside this time) you will learn that they are not talking about the risk of cancers developing, they are talking about the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with cancer, which is another thing altogether. They say so in the very beginning of the article: "What is the probability of developing cancer for someone born in a given year? The lifetime risk of developing cancer is the probability that a person will be diagnosed with cancer over the course of his or her lifetime." Unfortunately (and surprisingly for a journal of this calibre ?!) the title is misleading. There are, from my perspective, other inaccuracies and debatable assertions and assumptions in this article but let's not go into that. If I had reviewed it I would have suggested several amendments. If you read the discussion section, you will learn that only a smaller part of the increase in cancer cases is likely to be due to an actual increase in the risk of cancer developing. Some cancer types have decreased, others increased, diagnostic methods have evolved and much more cancers are being found, than before, cancers that before went undiagnosed. They give examples and explain this very clearly. They explain in simple terms that even you should be able to comprehend, that the biggest factor behind an increasing caseload of cancers is increasing life expectancy, which is of course partly due to progress in health care. So in a way, better sanitation, better healthcare, better diagnostics and better lifestyle is paradoxically causing an increase in cancer diagnoses not the true risk of developing cancer at any given time. If you live long enough, you have a very high lifetime risk of getting a cancer diagnosis. There is very probably a true increase in risks due to smoking,obesity and life style related factors as well as some environmental factors such as popularity of sunbathing. Other environmental factors have decreased such as coal-smoke, use of toxic dyes etc. There is an infinitely complex interplay here between a multitude of factors working both ways, as Professor Ernst already pointed out. Why is modern medicine not containing the increase in numbers? Containing?? If by "containing" you mean doing something about it, we are certainly working on it. Health care authorities in most of the "developed" world are tackling cancer risks in various ways. They address environmental and lifestyle factors in your interest. You only have to look around and read the media (with an open mind of course 😉 ). We are also getting increasingly better at treating the cancers that occur. Vaccines have for example been developed and improved against known infectious carcinogenic factors etc. etc... Public health measures and education is actually abundant but few pay heed. Instead, idiots like David Wolfe and Joe Mercola are getting more attention with their contemptible commercialistic quackery. And homeopaths? What are they doing to help? Nothing. On the contrary they are putting people at risk by abject atrocities such as advising against proper vaccinations and pretending to cure cancers with shaken water and sugar pills.

by Pete Attkins - Monday 27 March 2017 16:04
Edzard, The use of a pendant as part of the original bioresonance protocol is, I think, irrelevant because bioresonance is based in many things, including radionics, in which dowsing using a pendulum or a pendant was their predecessor — hence proponents of bioresonance espouse the use of only sine waves in both the analysis and the cure of a plethora of health problems. I'm extremely grateful for your article, and your replies to the readers, because you have enabled me to figure out the answer to a profound mystery that has been both puzzling me and worrying me for a few decades. In my comment on Sunday 04 September 2016 at 18:35, I stated: I am deeply ashamed to reveal that one of the several branches of alt-med in which I had acquired a high level of proficiency was applied kinesiology[1][2]. When I became aware of what was wrong with it, I had to choose between: trying to reform it; abandoning it; or using it for the purpose of clearly demonstrating to the general public the abject quackery of the alt-med empire. I chose the latter option, and applied kinesiology quickly became by far the most popular component of my Pink Unicorn Therapy (which I designed specifically for the sole purpose of teaching critical thinking skills to the gullible and the vulnerable members of the public). At last, I am able to fully understand the 'secret trick' that underpins applied kinesiology. But, I think it best to refrain from divulging it to the general public; I shall instead continue to use this trick for the purposes of entertainment and education 🙂

by Edzard - Monday 27 March 2017 14:11
the pendant and the pills are not part of the original bioresonance protocol. they seem to be Castle Treatments way of maximising cash flow.

by L. Barton - Monday 27 March 2017 14:00
Heard the broadcast - a brief item but quite enough to make any reasonable person understand that this is yet another nutty so called cure. It involves a pendant which the sufferer has to wear next to the skin. A BBC engineer broke it open (with a hammer) and found it to be solid plastic, and not capable of emitting any kind of 'resonance'. Salford University acoustic engineers (some of the best in the world) could not get it to emit anything, even in a chamber designed to pick up the smallest discharge of energy. And the prices charged for the 'therapy' are astronomical. and yes, I loved Edzard's description of it all - b*** s***.

by Barrie Leeb'Wellness' Thorpe - Monday 27 March 2017 12:47
The quoted prices are indeed extraordinary. But, since some chiropractors believe that heavy jewellery can cause back problems, maybe this outfit is working on the same evidence- free belief that a full wallet places additional strain on people, and they're doing their best to provide relief by emptying as many as they can.

by Barrie Leeb'Wellness' Thorpe - Monday 27 March 2017 10:34
Yes it's 'You and yours' 12.15 UK time Radio 4.

by Barrie Lee 'Wellness' Thorpe - Monday 27 March 2017 10:12
I've just caught upon a few John Benneth posts which I'd missed. I'm intrigued by his delusion that he ever leaves a gap between his fifths of drink. I don't really think he bothers with the intervals. If he'd whipped in a few decades earlier, he'd have been celebrated by some as an equivalent of Ginsberg or Burroughs. The hatred of homosexuals might have been a tad awkward, so a bit of an outsider, but I expect homeopathy will soon announce a cure for that. Whether he'll agree to take it, or even remember where he put it, we'll have to see.

by Edzard - Monday 27 March 2017 09:53
yes please!

by Edzard - Monday 27 March 2017 07:31
we need a randomised, controlled trial; can I volunteer?

by Logos-Bios - Monday 27 March 2017 00:41
Two thumbs up!

by Cornelis van Gils - Monday 27 March 2017 00:31
Yes it does seen from the right angle. Never saw a mention of the postion people had sex. Usually upside down with the woman in control is the best trick

by Björn Geir - Monday 27 March 2017 01:09
Oh, please don't get us started on this childish old rubbish all over again. It originated in a speculative opinion piece full of faulty definitions and baseless conjecture. Sure, the quacks go all orgasmic every time they repeat it, which they do ad nauseam, but it only demonstrates ignorance and prejudice

by Greg - Sunday 26 March 2017 20:22
Prosecutor to Edzard: When did you stop beating your wife? Edzard: That is a logical fallacy: a loaded question. (The correct answer is: I do not beat my wife) When will Edzard start answering the questions that he is asked?

by Greg - Sunday 26 March 2017 19:44
'Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).' Wikipedia Ok Edzard, so 'tu quoque' has been looked into. Is the third cause of death in America doctor's errors? Question of fact: yes or no? John, Iqbal, Mr D.Ullman, Doctor Logos-Bios: from now on, on this blog, we speak the language of Zard: yes, no.

by Alan Henness - Sunday 26 March 2017 22:25
I'm looking forward to Tredinnick's Westminster Hall debate this coming Wednesday at 11.00 am - 11.30 am: Homeopathy and the NHS.

by Ann - Sunday 26 March 2017 21:31
I live in his constituency and he certainly isn't a good constituency MP. He visits the area every couple of weeks as he lives over 100miles away despite previous statements that he would move to the area. He takes little interest in local issues except during voting season. We have a local hospital up for closure and he does nothing. He spends a huge amount of time on his hobby horse of homeopathy etc and, almost never mentions his own constituency either in questions to the house or time on issues. He spends tax payers money on things like relationship courses and software for astrology and that's before you even start on the cash for questions scandal. So no we do not have a "very good constituency MP" we have an MP that is a joke and has only remained as such due to the colour of his rosette and the fact that the local tory party keep re-selecting him.

by Tom Kennedy - Sunday 26 March 2017 22:00
@Frank And I dare say what you know about Chinese Medicine wouldn't take up the head of a fine-gauge acupuncture needle. Thanks for your thought-provoking and intelligent critique of my work - I will take it deeply to heart.

by Pete Attkins - Sunday 26 March 2017 20:26
John Benneth, Thank you very much for demonstrating that, say, a 200C remedy contains the same, or a similar, number of ions as a 30C remedy. In other words, the claimed increasing potency with increasing dilutions is abject bullshit. Thank you for also for demonstrating that all of the homeopathic remedies that are insoluble in water are utterly useless homeopathic remedies (because they do not produce ions in water and/or ethanol diluted with water). I think that you have also more than adequately demonstrated that 12C, and beyond, homeopathic remedies, that are supplied in the form of pillules, are utterly useless / abject bullshit.

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.