It was Alan Henness who persuaded me and helped me to start this blog. He probably feared that, after my retirement from my Exeter post, I might stop being a nuisance to Prince Charles and other quacks. The blog certainly prevented this possibility!
The very first post on my blog went live on 14 October 2012 – and exactly 5 years later we received the ‘Ockham Editor’s Choice Award’! I say ‘we’, because without Alan the blog would not exist, without the many comments by fans and critics it would not be such fun, and without the guest bloggers it would not be as good. And it is largely for this blog that I got the award, I guess.
In case you did not know about the Ockham Awards, here is what the website tells us:
The Skeptic Magazine’s Ockham Awards were founded because we wanted to draw attention to those people who work so hard to get a great message out there. The Ockhams recognise the effort and time that have gone into the community’s favourite skeptical blogs, skeptical podcasts, skeptical campaigns and outstanding contributors to the skeptical cause.
We have been very fortunate to have had a network of support from the very beginning, a network which includes QEDcon who hosts the ceremony and Professor Richard Wiseman who has always MC’d.
One of the most important elements of the awards are that the shortlists are selected by you – the public. The awards are always judged on a number of criteria:
1. Quality.
2. Success of outreach, both in terms of absolute numbers (how many people did they reach?) and how ‘intrepid’ that outreach was (are they preaching to the choir or getting new people interested in skepticism?)
3. Relevance to the UK ‘scene’ and, therefore, the bulk of their readership. This doesn’t mean that the candidate has to necessarily be UK-based – last year’s winners included overseas and international short-listers – just that they should cover content that is relevant and known in the UK.
END OF QUOTE
In my initial post of 14/10/12, I stated:
“My blog is not going to provide just another critique of alternative medicine; it is going to be different, I hope. The reasons for this are fairly obvious: I have researched alternative medicine for two decades. My team and I have conducted about 40 clinical trials and published more than 100 systematic reviews of alternative medicine… For 14 years, we hosted an annual international conference for researchers in this field. I know many of the leading investigators personally, and I understand their way of thinking.”
Five years and more than 1 000 posts later, I am happy to report that:
- writing this blog has been much more fun than I originally expected,
- it also has been a steep and endless learning curve,
- I received more insults and personal attacks than ever before (and contrary to some detractors, not a farthing in payment from anyone),
- luckily, I also made many new friends.
I feel deeply honoured to have received the Award. It is a generous appreciation of our small efforts in decreasing the ignorance and stupidity that seems to be all around us today – sadly not just in the realm of alternative medicine (but that would be the subject of another blog).
I thank everyone who contributed to our blog’s success and hope you keep the comments coming.
60 Responses to Guess what – we just received an ‘Ockham Award’ !
Leave a Reply to Greg Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Warm congratulations for a well deserved accolade. This blog is always a haven of well reasoned posts.
Very many congratulations on a much deserved award.
Every best wish – to both of you!
Congratulations. I am certainly glad you do enjoy doing the blog. Just your review of papers helps me to be a better judge of what I read in general.
Congratulations from Germany hoping you will keep up your good and important work for at least another 1000 posts.
Congratulations indeed. Up with this sort of thing!
This award is Edzard Ernst’s, but it’s nice to get a mention! It’s been a pleasure setting up and running his blog for him and teaching him how to use WordPress.
There was no way that retirement could be allowed to stop Edzard and I’m glad I was able to persuade him to continue his work in providing a much-needed critical scientific voice to pseudo science. His wife, Danielle, is, I think, also pleased he has found what must be a full-time hobby!
The abuse he gets for daring to speak the truth and criticise pseudo science is quite spectacular at times, but he seems to find it amusing – it’s confirmation that he’s making an impact that can’t be countered. I look forward to the next 1,000 posts…
This is the third Ockham Award I’ve been involved in: one to Maria and I for the Nightingale Collaboration, one for the Stop the Saatchi Bill campaign team and now a very small part of Edzard’s. The fact that these awards are given by skeptics make them even more special.
Well deserved! Your efforts are much appreciated. I have learnt much from this blog.
Well deserved professor! My warmest congratulations and thank you both for being a driving force in the campaign against a growing epidemic of foolishness and fraud – and for providing us lesser skeptics with information and abundant learning opportunities!
Congratulations, Prof, well deserved indeed!
Niall
What more can I add? Edzard – your output is astonishing and always incisive. A very richly deserved award.
Many warm congratulations, Edzard!
Well-Deserved, Dr. Ernst! Along the same lines, Dr Virgil Van Dusen and I are preparing a paper for FACT regarding the 2014 actors against essential oils and the results as they stand here in 2017. You may recall we published in regard to homeopathy. I have lost all of my e-mail contact information due to computer issues and am hoping to be able to hear from you. Steve Pray (email redacted by admin – but Edzard has it).
Many congratulations for your award and sharing this here. This has provided a valuable sociological link to sceptics world:Sceptics World Advisory Board
James Alcock
Professor of Psychology, York University, Toronto
Julian Baggini
Writer, broadcaster, philosopher, Editor of The Philosopher’s Magazine
Susan Blackmore
Writer, broadcaster, Visiting Professor of Psychology, University of Plymouth
Jason Braithwaite
Psychologist and neuroscientist, University of Birmingham
Derren Brown
Psychological illusionist, writer and artist
Scott Campbell
Associate Professor and Reader in Philosophy, University of Nottingham
David Clarke
Journalist, author, broadcaster, Senior Lecturer in Journalism, Sheffield Hallam University
David Colquhoun, FRS
Professor of Pharmacology, Honorary Fellow, University College London
Brian Cox
Professor of Particle Physics, University of Manchester
Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL
Evolutionary biologist, writer, broadcaster
Sergio Della Sala
Professor of Human Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh
Edzard Ernst
Chair in Complementary medicine, University of Exeter
Philip Escoffey
Writer, TV presenter and performer combining interests in the psychology of belief and mentalism
Richard J. Evans
Regius Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge
Chris French
Professor of Psychology, Goldsmiths, London. Founder of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths
Stephen Fry
Actor, writer, comedian, author, television presenter
Wendy M. Grossman
Writer, founder of The Skeptic
Dr Evan Harris (former MP for Oxford West & Abingdon)
Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman
Simon Hoggart
Journalist, broadcaster
Bruce Hood
Professor of Psychology, University of Bristol
Ray Hyman
Psychologist, Professor Emeritus, University of Oregon
Robin Ince
Comedian, actor, author
Paul Kurtz
Philosopher, Professor Emeritus, State University of New York, Chairman of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
Stephen Law
Philosopher, Editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal, Think
Andy Lewis
Blog writer, http://www.quackometer.net
Scott Lilienfeld
Professor of Psychology, Emory University
Elizabeth Loftus
Professor of Psychology, Criminology, and Law, University of California, Irvine
Richard McNally
Professor of Psychology, Harvard University
Tim Minchin
Musician, actor, comedian, writer
P Z Myers
Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota, Morris
Mark Newbrook
Linguistics lecturer, researcher and consultant
Charles Paxton
Ecologist, University of St Andrews
Phil Plait
Astronomer, President of the James Randi Educational Foundation
Massimo Polidoro
Co-founder of CICAP, writer, journalist, broadcaster
Benjamin Radford
Writer, investigator, Managing Editor of Skeptical Inquirer
James Randi
Conjuror, author, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Ian Rowland
Writer, lecturer and psychological illusionist
Karl Sabbagh
Writer, TV producer
Simon Singh
Writer, broadcaster
Karen Stollznow
Linguist, writer, researcher and investigator
Richard Wiseman
Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, magician, writer
Is James Alcock, the James that posts here?
I think it is: his profile fits the picture. Hello Professor Alcock, have you tried other things like fishing to fill your retirement years?
I see your copy and paste skills are in tip-top condition.
Dear Edzard, I have to tell you that your Ockham post is a breakthrough: it is interesting to see the list of members on the advisory board: astronomers, atheists, psychologists, journalists, writers and you: a medical doctor.
All these people involved in sceptics world investigation alternative medicine makes me wonder how they communicate to each other given their diverse perspectives. For example, Professor Dawkins, the famous atheist believes that everything comes down to matter and evolution, and that God/ a creative force in the Universe is a delusion. Well, how funny it would be for Professor Alcock and him to have a discussion regarding the psychoses of matter: the bipolar and personality disorders of matter: particles with ego splits and delusions of consciousness. This is the major flaw of materialists: they have no explanation for the existence of consciousness and this is where all of you are revealed as the ignorant people that you are.
Greg:
Ignorant of a formal complete understanding of ‘consciousness’ indeed.
But we’re working on it, rationally, as sceptics do (and even skeptics).
And your point is?
Dr Rawlins, ignorance is bliss but at least you walk in the darkness of your freemasonry, cold comfort if you ask me.
the thing is, Greg, nobody does ask you for your twisted opinions and insults; you might as well keep them to yourself.
Edzard, you just scored a superlative own goal: did the homeopathic community ask you for your twisted opinion on homeopathy that includes personally insulting comments against spokespersons for homeopathy?
Whereas all “non-materialists” (*) have a comprehensive explanation of not only consciousness, but everything else in existence, and have a plethora of things that were once explained by “materialist” (*) scientists but have since been superseded by supernatural explanations.
Oh. Wait. They haven’t.
* Whatever that means.
Greg,
In order for your comments to appear on this website, you have to type the text of your comment in the “Comment box/field”, your name in the “Name box/field”, your e-mail address in the “Email box/field”, click/tap the “I’m not a robot” checkbox and complete the task, then click/tap the “Post Comment button”.
None of those boxes/fields, checkboxes, the button, not even the text of your comment, are physically material objects. In fact, none of the objects in the whole of the graphical user interface (GUI) on your computing device is a physically material object — either inside the computing device or on its display screen! A GUI is a scientifically created illusion that is founded in nothing other than an in-depth understanding of human consciousness. Some of the many relevant branches of science include: human factors and ergonomics; cognitive ergonomics; and user interface modelling.
Consciousness is not a physically material object: it is a process. Likewise, your comments on this blog are not physically material objects, they are part of a process.
There is nothing within the methods of modern logic, mathematics, and science — often referred to as the scientific method — which restricts them to physical materialism. The opposite is the case: many branches of mathematics and science deal with abstractions and abstracted mathematical modelling of both physical and non-physical, objects and processes.
The following simple example is not intended to insult anyone’s intelligence, I’ve written it because most people never think about what it is that they are actually doing…
Boiling an egg for breakfast
1. The raw egg: a physical material object.
2. The desire to eat a boiled egg for breakfast: the result of stochastic processes occurring within the physical brain.
3. The knowledge required to boil an egg: the result of a learning process.
4. Boiling the egg in a pan on a cooker: a physical process.
5. The cooked egg: a physical material object which is in a different physical state from the raw egg and there is no process which can convert it back to its original state.
6. The enjoyment of eating the egg: the result of stochastic processes occurring within the physical brain due to inputs from our physiological sensors (taste buds, etc.).
7. Washing the pan, plate, and utensils isn’t as enjoyable as eating the boiled egg: for the same reason as 2., 3., and 6. — hence the science-based creation of cooking pots and pans, cooking stoves, crockery and cutlery, and dishwashing machines.
Claiming that modern science and/or scientific skepticism is materialistic is the logical fallacy known as attacking a straw man:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Hearty congratulations on your richly deserved Ockham.
In an e-world full of crap there are havens of good sense and good information.
This place is one of those havens.
Well done Alan for prompting Edzard and well done Edzard for your richly deserved award.
Thank you Dr. Ernst. Keep on keeping on. We need you on that wall!!!
Did anyone come second?
I honestly don’t know
Dear Edzard,
we want to congratulate our most famous member on his new and well earned price and thank you for your highly appreciated support. We hope for your ongoing power to analyse CAM and to post your criticism on your blog and wish you all the hardiness required to withstand the insults, attacks and mockery of the quacks.
And thanks to Alan for having had this idea five years ago
On behalf of all the German critics of homeopathy organised in the Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie (INH)
Natalie Grams
Norbert Aust
tausend dank!
…and guess what?
Gwyneth Paltrow got an Ockham too!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4984790/Gwyneth-Paltrow-s-Goop-wins-worst-pseudoscience-award.html
I am in good company.
Ernst
Great effort for receiving the award.
I believe you received it for your relentless work to improve medicine by writing about the wrongs perpetuated on mankind by bad medical practices over time. You pick up important topics that have to be brought to the attention of the medical board in UK (or is it anywhere in the world ?) that helps make policy changes and improvements for future.
Also to be included into this praise is Alan would could not have managed to achieve such changes with out for support.
I missed reading “Severe liver injury due to naturopaths’ prescription of Epsom salt” earlier. Went back to read it as I saw a similar message else where.
You spent a fair amount of time and space on a happening that happened in India and you found another similar outcome reported 12 years earlier. 2 cases in 12 years makes it important for you to spend time and paper on it. Great effort being one to be such stickler for detail.
But, when I look at your own back yard, you seem to miss severe fatalities and gross errors.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-16147731
“Around 70-75,000 diabetic patients die every year. The study estimated that a third of them were dying from causes that could be avoided if their condition were better managed.” This report states that during this 12 year period, appox 288,000 diabetic British patients died because of poor medical support.
Did you write anything about it? I looked hard but found nothing. Did you communicate with NHS to help them improve this terrible situation? Or NHS know the real Ernst and are least bothered?
It is not that Alan and you missed this message. It was pointed out to you and you wrote:
“it seems to me that you are barking from the tree of logical fallacy.” Is that your advise to NHS also?
Alan response was similar “I see your arguments here in long form are no less fallacious than they are on Twitter.”
http://edzardernst.com/2016/03/is-the-society-for-integrative-oncology-guilty-of-fraud-or-scientific-misconduct/
66 of your countrymen dying every day, and you are wasting time on one death in India, that, with no change in system or policy, will probably take place after 12 years in some part of the world.. And if I take an equivalent reference for the world, over 10,000 diabetics dying everyday, because of medical errors from a scientific system that you promise everyone is the only way forward.
Either your priorities are totally misplaced, or there is one big motivation for writing such useless reports. With Alan being part of the team, motivation seems to be a good assumption.
This award has no meaning and therefore Gwyneth Paltrow with the “worst ockham is better placed. I am extremely doubtful she would like to say “I am in good company.”
my days would be so dull without your comments!
please don’t give up making a fool of yourself.
Ernst
Such messages make it amply clear the rationale of your Scientific medicine and where the money is spent from the promotional account of pharmaceutical companies.
Little pieces of jigsaw puzzle fall into the right places.
I am all for it. People who have faith in you deserve the life they end up getting from the scientific medicine.
yes, yes, yes – whatever…
if you want me to take you seriously, try to make some sense, please.
“if you want me to take you seriously, try to make some sense, please.”
Which of above is not serious?
1. BBC report about 24000 diabetic patients dying every year because of errors of scientific medical system is not serious matter? You wrote something about it? Remember Alan has worked hard to ensure NHS uses only scientific medicines.
2. The Epsom salt issue happened 2 times in 12 years. This is more serious issue that the appox. 288,000 British patients dying during this period because of scientific medical errors making you spend time and space over the subject or just because you found “naturopath” and charged in like a bull seeing a red flag?
3. Your homeopathic training that you do not remember, fudging data to prove homeopathy does not work as stated by R Hahn, your being the Chair of complementary medicine and using your “credentials” to run it down and the biased approach to medical out come as above. What is the inference from the thought trail that you leave behind with these actions?
You don’t find all this serious matter to be addressed by you?
Fellow Iqbal, when are you going to understand? Alternative medicine does not cure anything. If alternative medicine was the only available system, the numbers you cite all the time would be a LOT higher.
Homeopathy cannot cure anything, too. Non self-limiting diseases are especially dangerous when treated with homeopathy or most other alternative (
theatricals) treatments.And, finally, your “2 times in 12 years” statistic has a very clear explanation. It is called under-reporting. GRAVE under-reporting. Most unfortunate people that don’t get well (or even get worse) are not reported anywhere.
And, of course, you cannot compare treating self-limiting diseases with (
figments of imagination) homeopathy or other alternative techniques, to treating serious, non self-limiting, diseases with proven medicine. Lifting heavy weights (cf. medicine) comes with a greater risk of dropping them and a greater noise when they do crash. Lifting colorful baloons (cf. most alternative treatments…) on the other hand, makes no noise (unless someone pops it, in a,usually futile, attempt to make you understand). It carries no risks, but it offers nothing! Now, stop comparing medicine to colorful-baloon peddlers.
Save me the trouble and respond to THAT stuff for once, and stop administering excessive dosages of excrementum vaccinium on this blog for a moment there. And, by the way, spare the quotations and links. Let me know, at least for once, what you think, not the people you quote from.
James
“If alternative medicine was the only available system, the numbers you cite all the time would be a LOT higher.”
This is an assumption, that has no rationale. Let us agree, that in the name of “scientific medicine” doctors are out killing poor patients from time immemorial. George Washington was killed by blood letting doctors. Every one agrees today, that the President was Killed. What happened to the doctors who killed him:NOTHING. Only because they were the recognized scientific doctors of that time (fore fathers of Ernst). Exactly the same as today.
With 43 million patients being killed or maimed by “scientific doctors” EVERY YEAR, how many doctors are penalized every year? You have some under stated or over stated data? No one bothers. Same as earlier. Paid shills writing as doctors try to prove data wrong:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/
Simultaneously the US government sets up senate hearing for such large failures. (251,000 estimated dead: how many doctors held responsible?). License to kill poor patients who are already sick and have to pay upfront for getting killed.
“…. your “2 times in 12 years” statistic has a very clear explanation. It is called under-reporting. GRAVE under-reporting. Most unfortunate people that don’t get well (or even get worse) are not reported anywhere.”
Another assumption. Which science is this? And would these GRAVELY under reported deaths from Epsom salt be 24000 every year in UK alone?
And remember, 24000 deaths is only from diabetes alone. Add cancer and cardiac, you start running into hundreds of thousands. Which issue is more important to spend time and paper upon? However show money and the shill will write exactly what is required. A poor dog killed by a car, the driver was under influence of alternative medicine. Makes great story for one and for many others to comment.
“Lifting heavy weights (cf. medicine) comes with a greater risk of dropping them and a greater noise when they do crash.”
An extremely weak excuse for killing millions of poor ill patients, including children. Who asked you to lift weights if you cannot handle it? There are better possibilities on offer: like cleaning floor in a homeopathic hospital. Ask Ernst. He claims to be trained in homeopathy, though he remembers nothing.
“Let me know, at least for once, what you think, not the people you quote from.”
When I quote some one, it is because I totally agree with him. I quote because the references come from trained allopath doctors and has no bias from alternative medicine. Not only that, most times the person has much higher credibility level in the medical world than all those writing here, including you. And these references are not assumed, these are based upon facts.
So you agree, Ernst spending time and space on recorded 2 deaths over 12 years around the world from epsom salt is important, when compared to not wasting time on NHS medical errors leading to 288,000 avoidable deaths. This is acceptable medical reporting. I thought Ernst acted selectively blind. Your case is that he is deaf, did not hear heavy weights fall?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/alternative-medicines-toll-on-cancer-patients-death-rate-up-to-5x-higher/
Edzard, can I tell Iqbal why his tu quoque comments addressed to you are so funny? It is because he does not know that, in your view, conventional medicine is also in terrible shape which is why you went over to investigate alternative medicine many years ago. Then, you discovered that alt.med. did not live up to what it purported to be: the natural art of magical healing.
If you don’t publish this comment, that will be fine too.
I did not publish some of your previous stuff because I felt it was crossing the line between critical and insulting.
this one is neither but it is a wild extrapolation of my motives.
I have two questions:
1. In regard to my wild extrapolation:
Edzard on Friday 28 April 2017 at 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!
http://edzardernst.com/2017/04/a-chat-with-a-homeopath/
Why did you train as a medical doctor and then go into alternative medicine instead of pursuing your chosen vocation?
2. In regard to your editorial management decision-matrix: Dr Robert Mathie commented:
Björn: Of course I understand scepticism about homeopathy: as a scientist and a researcher, I am approaching the clinical review work in isolation and with an open mind, fully aware that mechanism of action is of equally key importance. Your suggestion that I am being ‘secretive’ about my CV etc. is derogatory, and so inappropriate that it does not merit any courteous answer other than to say it is no secret and that there is no suitable website available for its inclusion, even I wanted to post it online. I shall not be responding further to you, and I hope that Edzard will effectively moderate any more of your remarks on the matter. In fact, as a result of your persistent comments, I am not sure if shall contribute further to this blog.
Robert Mathie on Friday 09 January 2015 at 17:13
Those were the final words of Dr Mathie on this site. Do you think that you have evenhandedly moderated comments on your blogs over the past 5 years?
You really are thick dear Greg.
Your ardent research and tabulation of this blog-site should have made you aware that we have been through this all before and dealt with RT Mathie’s qualifications and merits. The man is an expert… in tooth fairy science. He has produced shelves full of scientific like writings about the purported medical effects of shaken water, a research field that only warrants a good chuckle before you carry on with whatever you are doing.
The man is a homeopath and the biggest praise you can give a homeopath is to say he is a fool.
I call him (and any homeopath) a fool because that is the nicest, most concise and descriptive word available for the stupidity of spending your life on an historical grand mistake and play doctor with make believe medicine consisting of water and other inert substances.
The fool in question has spent years on producing scores of seemingly scientific articles about imaginary medicine, that does not make him a scientist, that only makes him more foolish.
I did ask this gentleman for information regarding his educational background. Instead of proudly presenting it he drew himself up haughtily and pretended to be insulted but did not forward the requested information. That is the typical response of someone who does not want to or who cannot reply.
Now you are most likely thinking that I am throwing rocks from a glass house 😀
As to your pompous allegations regarding my credibility, let me release you from the misery of your disoriented doubts.
Anyone can easily find my professional profile and CV. Most readers of this blog have. You have however consistently failed to find this information even if I have repeatedly given you clear instructions on how to. I decided to tease you on by not giving the direct link, but you failed, miserably, over and over, so I let you carry on wondering 🙂
I still cannot understand why you failed to find my details on LinkedIn.com? I even told you in so many words to click on my picture which would have brought you to my LinkedIn page. Incredible!
Well, now that you know where to find the details of my life, you can go ahead and ask professor Ernst why he doesn’t throw out my comments because I call a homeopath a fool, repeatedly.
And by the way, did you hear the news from Australia? They decided at last to throw homeopathy out of their insurance subsidy along with a handful of other alternative foolery. I guess they did not find mister Mathie’s research worth much, if anything.
Holy Mother of Jesus… Did this never happen? Or this? And the whole discussion there… Can it be that I am having false memories?
Does Greg operate on a periodical basis? Same hokum every couple of months (or maybe weeks)…?
By the way, Björn, in all this flood of comments of the last few days, it may be possible that you have missed my (somewhat late) response? So, do you wish to take joint action for that (piece of a) paper?
Professor Alcock, your advice to Iqbal to start thinking for himself/herself is good but on this point of Dr Ernst’s blog on Epsom Salts: this substance has been used for hundreds of years, therefore number of users in excess of millions. Finding 1,2, or 100 adverse cases would merit establishing the cause of these incidents to minimise future adverse incidents.
Even water can kill you Professor Alcock, but you need to drink a lot of it quickly enough: similarly, improper use of Epsom Salts can produce adverse results.
Here is some advice for Epsom Salts from drugs.com
https://www.drugs.com/mtm/epsom-salt.html
I know you are slow, so let me point it out to you: the problem was not so much the Epsom salt but the practitioner. got it?
Right, and tu quoque: there are literally thousands of medical doctors out there killing patients at this very moment. Got it? Is it due to the drugs/treatment provided or the practitioner: hard to know at this point.
at least you seem to have understood my point. CONGRATULATIONS!
Your conclusion to your article stated:
Naturopaths have advocated Epsom salt for gall-bladder problems since centuries, yet there is no good evidence that it works. It is time that alternative practitioners abide by the rules of evidence-based medicine.
It seems to me that the emphasis is on the Epsom Salts and not the practitioner.
See: http://edzardernst.com/2017/10/severe-liver-injury-due-to-naturopaths-prescription-of-epsom-salt/
“Epsom salt has the reputation of being very safe. But unfortunately, even something as seemingly harmless as Epsom salt can become dangerous in the hand of people who have little understanding of physiology and medicine.”
why don’t you learn to read properly?
[my post had no ‘CONCLUSION’]
This is pure gold: Edzard: there is no good evidence that it (Epsom Salts) works.
Now, I know exactly your thinking about homeopathy as you also think there is no good evidence that it works.
Let me tell you: Epsom Salts works. See: https://www.drugs.com/mtm/epsom-salt.html
you lost me
‘Dr’ Leifsson: Dr Ernst does not throw your comments out because he is unabashedly BIASED against anyone associated with homeopathy (and I think he feels sorry for you).
In terms of being a fool, no one can be better at this than you. I though Professor Odds was surpassing you but I was wrong.
Tell us, ‘Dr’ Leifsson, at which hospitals have you performed bariatric surgery? In which country are you registered as a medical practitioner?
Greg, have you considered looking at Björn’s LinkedIn page as he suggested? This information is there.
Lol
@Greg on Friday 20 October 2017 at 10:46
Your profound ignorance is matched only by your belligerence.
A simple Google search will find Dr Leifsson. A simple Google search will also find your activity to be pure quackery.
@James
I have exhausted my tolerance for homeopath fools such as Greg, RT Mathie Phd, Dana Ullman etc.
I do not despise them as persons, I sympathise with them. They are victims of delusional beliefs just as much as the victims of their playing doctor and pretending to do science.
Anyway, I recently started a new rather busy and job so I have been attending the professor’s blog with less frequency and enthusiasm. I have to admit that the lack of enthusiasm on my part is mostly due to the current delegation of trolls getting stale and boring. You can only enjoy heckling ignorant fools for so long. As you have noted James, soon it becomes repetitive.
Regarding the puerile paper we discussed, I am not sure it is worthwhile spending much time on that but someone has to do something against this kind of abuse. My idea was simply writing a brief note to the journal referring the comments you and I made here on the blog 🙂
If you are interested in joining forces, send the professor a note and ask him to send us a joint email.
‘Holy Mother of Jesus’ rant may have saved you from drinking the water James? Why do you think it appropriate to bring this rant in the discussion? I apologise to Professor Alcock for getting him mixed up with you James, can’t be the same person.
It’s called a figure of speech. The word “shit” is a bit overrated these days…
here is a comment on this year’s ‘Ockhams’
http://www.skeptical-science.com/bloggers/qedcon-2017-ockham-awards/?fb_action_ids=10214280377554228&fb_action_types=news.publishes
Are you sure that it isn’t the Jokeham award?
you are too kind!