‘Doctor’ Colleen Huber (DCH) is the US naturopath who is currently suing Britt Hermes. For me, this is enough reason to do a bit of reading and find out who DCH is and what motivates her. Here is what I found out (I added some * to the quotes [all in italics] and comments below).
DCH has an impressive presence on the Internet. One website, for instance, tells us that DCH is a Naturopathic Medical Doctor* in Tempe, Arizona. Her clinic, Nature Works Best Cancer Clinic, has had the most successful results of any clinic in the world reporting its results over the last 9 years **.
Dr. Huber authored the largest and longest study*** in medical history on sugar intake in cancer patients, which was reported in media around the world in 2014. Her other writing includes her book, Choose Your Foods Like Your Life Depends On Them ****, and she has been featured in the books America’s Best Cancer Doctors and Defeat Cancer. Dr. Huber’s academic writing has appeared in The Lancet *****, the International Journal of Cancer Research ***** and Molecular Mechanisms *****, and other medical journals ******. Her research interests are in the use of therapeutic approaches targeting metabolic aspects of cancer…
*I am puzzled by this title. Is it an official one? I only found this, and it omits the ‘medical’: Currently, 20 states, five Canadian provinces, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have passed laws regulating naturopathic doctors. Learn more about licensure from the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges. It seems that Arizona is the only state where the ‘medical’ is allowed. However, don’t take this to mean that DCH went to medical school.
** ‘most successful results of any clinic in the world’? Really? Where are the comparative statistics?
*** the study had all of 317 patients and was published in an obscure, non-Medline listed journal.
**** currently ranked #1,297,877 in Books on Amazon.
***** no such entries found on Medline.
****** sorry, but my Medline search for ‘huber colleen’ located only 2 citations, both on arthritis research conducted in an US Pfizer lab and therefore probably not from ‘our’ DCH.
Another website on or by DCH informs us that her outfit Nature Works Best is a natural cancer clinic located in Tempe, Arizona, that focuses on natural, holistic, and alternative cancer treatments. Our treatments have proved to be an effective alternative to traditional chemotherapy and radiation, which we do not use in our treatments. Rather, we have developed a natural method of treating cancers based on intravenous vitamin therapy which may include Vitamin-C, Baking Soda, and other tumor fighting agents as well as a simple food plan. *
Our team of naturopathic medical doctors have administered an estimated 31,000 IV nutrient treatments, used for all stages and types of tumors. As of July 2014, 80% of patients who completed our treatments alone went into remission, 85% of patients who completed our treatments and followed our food plan went into remission. **
* Give me a break! Vitamin-C and Baking Soda are claimed to have proved to be an effective alternative to traditional chemotherapy and radiation ? I would like to see the data before I believe this!
** Again, I would like to see the data before I believe this!
Finally, a further website proudly repeats that her academic writing has appeared in The Lancet and Cancer Strategies Journal, and other medical journals. It even presents an abstract of her published work; here it is:
Recent recommendations for the more widespread prescription of statin drugs in the U.S. have generated controversy. Cholesterol is commonly thought to be the enemy of good health. On the other hand, previous research has established the necessity of cholesterol in production of Vitamin D and steroid hormones, among other purposes, some of which have been shown to have anti-cancer effect. We compare total serum cholesterol (TC) in cancer survivors vs cancer fatalities, and we assess the value of deliberately lowering TC among cancer patients. We also examined diet in the survivors as well as those who then died of cancer.
In this original previously unpublished research, we conducted a double-blind retrospective case series, in which we looked back at data from all 255 cancer patients who came to and were treated by our clinic with either current dietary information, and/or a recent serum TC level, measured by an unaffiliated laboratory or an unaffiliated clinic over the previous seven years, comparing TC in the surviving cancer patients versus those cancer patients who died during that time.
Surviving cancer patients had 24.0 points higher mean total cholesterol than the mean for deceased cancer patients. A number of dietary differences between cancer survivors and those who then died of cancer were also found to be notable.
Caution is advised before attempting to lower cholesterol in cancer patients with close to normal TC levels. Those cancer patients with higher TC were more likely to survive their cancer.
I don’t know about you, but I am not impressed. Surviving cancer patients had 24.0 points higher mean total cholesterol than the mean for deceased cancer patients. Has DCH thought of the possibility that moribund patients quite simply eat less? In which case, the observed difference would be a meaningless epiphenomenon.
At this point, I stopped my reading; I now knew more than I needed to know about DCH (if you want to read more, I recommend this or this post).
As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, DCH is currently suing Britt Hermes for libel. Apart from being exceedingly stressful, such an action can also be hugely expensive.
Britt is therefore hoping to do some crowd-funding to assist her financially.
I wish my post has motivated you to donate generously.
131 Responses to Colleen Huber vs Britt Hermes
Leave a Reply to Jashak Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I am sure that bloggers here will be thinking how crazy Dr. Huber is for thinking that cancer could possibly be put into remission in a natural way, such as by changing one’s diet and lifestyle. “Önly chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery can cure cancer!”, you will be screaming at her. To those people, I say: “What if her natural approach really was being successful? Would you not be interested in it, if you are very unfortunate to get cancer?Would you really ignore her approach and put yourself completely in the hands of Big Pharma’s chemicals?” I don’t think so.
Perhaps one does not need to have 10 years of quintuple-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, blah, blah, blah tests funded by the pharmaceutical industry (Ho! Ho! Ho!) to prove that a natural approach could actually work, before one believes that there is a natural way to put one’s cancer into remission.
I know that the following is really going to anger my fans here, and that they will respond in a vitriolic way, but here goes anyway. In 1900 the eminent physicist, Lord Kelvin, said: “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” This worldview statement was shattered only five years later when Einstein published his paper on relativity. The new theories proposed by Einstein challenged the then current view of the true nature of our reality. It is a great example of how things, which once were regarded as truth, have changed.
“Lord Kelvin’s statement bares with it the Voice of Paradigms Past… We knew that the Earth was flat, we knew that we were the center of the universe, and we knew that a man-made, heavier-than-air piece of machinery could not take flight. Through all stages of human history, intellectual authorities have pronounced their supremacy by ridiculing or suppressing elements of reality that simply didn’t fit within the framework of accepted knowledge. Are we really any different today? Have we really changed our acceptance towards things that won’t fit the frame? Maybe there are concepts of our reality we have yet to understand, and if we open our eyes maybe we will see that something significant has been overlooked.” (TerjeToftenes, The Day Before Disclosure)
of course there are concepts etc. to be discovered – but this has nothing to do with this post.
Speaking of new concepts. There are fantastic things happening in cancer therapy. New drugs that stimulate (for real) the immune system are more promising than anyone had hoped for. We are seeing some unbelievable results where tumours literally melt away and unresectable disease can be downstaged to be amenable to surgery for example.
It is of course early in this development but those who get cancer in the future will have much better chances.
Björn Geir
“New drugs that stimulate (for real) the immune system are more promising than anyone had hoped for. We are seeing some unbelievable results where tumours literally melt away and unresectable disease can be down staged to be amenable to surgery for example.”
If the past record is something to go by, this is one complete LIE or total LACK OF KNOWLEDGE.
“The linked paper by Davis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.j4530) extends these findings. In their study of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 and 2013, 57% (39/68) had no supporting evidence of better survival or quality of life when they entered the market. After a median of 5.9 years on the market, just six of these 39 (15%) agents had been shown to improve survival or quality of life.”
“Firstly, when drugs do offer survival advantages, the gains are often marginal. Fojo and colleagues found that the median improvement in survival among patients treated with 71 drugs for solid tumours was just 2.1 months. Davis and colleagues agree. Of the 23 drugs that improved survival, 11 (48%) failed to meet the modest definition of “clinically meaningful benefit” set by the European Society of Medical Oncology.”
“Secondly, the small benefits of cancer drugs typically occur in trials conducted in unrepresentative patient populations—patients who are younger and with less comorbidity than average clinical populations.5 When a marginal drug advantage is applied to a real world population, a small benefit may vanish entirely because of the fine balance between risks and benefits typical of these agents.
Finally, many of the surrogate outcomes used for drug approval are poorly correlated with survival.6 For others, the strength of the correlation is untested. This is true for the FDA’s regular approval pathway as well as the accelerated approval route. Notably, regular approvals are not usually coupled to post marketing requirements for further trials to confirm effectiveness and safety. This means that the surrogate outcome, often unvalidated, may be all we ever have.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4528
And all this lie because ” Add to this that the average cancer drug costs in excess of $100 000 (£75 000; €85 000) per year of treatment, and the conclusion seems that the regulatory system is broken.”
You are not only a fool dear Iqbal, you are an ignorant fool as well.
Citing an opinion piece by Vinay Prasad as generalised proof that cancer therapy is useless, is just plain stupid.
Vinay seems to like cherry picking facts and omitting important considerations just to make himself popular with those who have vested interests in deceiving cancer patients, or whatever his intentions are.
I can also cite Vinay Prasad (see below) where he admits the promise of new immuno-stimulating drugs. What Vinay is prone to conveniently omit in his opportunistic oeuvres is that cancer is not one disease and that even if several new cancer drugs are approved on thin evidence, that is not evidence for a general futility of drug therapy for cancer. What he is attacking is the less honest side of cancer research, development and drug marketing, not cancer therapy in general.
Cancer is an umbrella term for more than two hundred different diseases with some common characterics. Enormous progress has been made in cancer therapy of many but not all these diseases. People who were doomed just a couple of decades ago are now surviving because of advances in (drumroll) drug use. Take child leukaemia, Hodgkins disease and testicular cancer. Advances in breast cancer treatment have led to dramatic improvement in survival.
I NEVER claimed immunostimulating therapy was a panacea, and Vinay Prasad knows that but chooses to bathe in the limelight of being “the caller in the dessert”.
Immunostimulating methods are still largely unproven but very promising. They will most certainly be useful for some diseases, perhaps melanoma and metastatic colon cancer for example. Most certainly it will not be a panacea for cancer, which I never claimed.
Here is a quote where Vinay says nothing more, nothing less than I did in my comment:
We still have to find out where and how these methods work. But they certainly work in many cases, of which I have seen several impressive examples from my oncologist colleagues.
Please Iqbal!
You are not competent to take part in this discussion and your playing with scissors and glue is only confirming this.
As have said before Iqbal, why don’t you go play with your homeopathy set and leave the discussion to the grown-ups.
I missed the time limit to add some words to preempt another stupid comment by Iqbal:
I did take the quote from Vinay out of its context but this is totally irrelevant to the point I am making, that Vinay does fully agree with what I said in my comment.
That quote, Iqbal, refers to a paper from five years ago. Five. Years.
Björn is talking about now. In the world of real medicine, unlike homeopathy, things move on. And sometimes at a quite breathtaking pace. Something of which you are plainly ignorant.
The haplessness of your attempts at argument speak much for your powers of comprehension and explain much about you.
Björn Geir
The summary of your message is that Vinay Prasad is a wrong guy to quote as he has beliefs. (a la Dr Robert G. Hahn).
But the information referred by Vinay:
“In their study of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 and 2013, 57% (39/68) had no supporting evidence of better survival or quality of life when they entered the market. After a median of 5.9 years on the market, just six of these 39 (15%) agents had been shown to improve survival or quality of life.”
“Firstly, when drugs do offer survival advantages, the gains are often marginal. Fojo and colleagues found that the median improvement in survival among patients treated with 71 drugs for solid tumours was just 2.1 months. Davis and colleagues agree. Of the 23 drugs that improved survival, 11 (48%) failed to meet the modest definition of “clinically meaningful benefit” set by the European Society of Medical Oncology.”
“Secondly, the small benefits of cancer drugs typically occur in trials conducted in unrepresentative patient populations—patients who are younger and with less comorbidity than average clinical populations.5 When a marginal drug advantage is applied to a real world population, a small benefit may vanish entirely because of the fine balance between risks and benefits typical of these agents.
Finally, many of the surrogate outcomes used for drug approval are poorly correlated with survival.6 For others, the strength of the correlation is untested. This is true for the FDA’s regular approval pathway as well as the accelerated approval route. Notably, regular approvals are not usually coupled to post marketing requirements for further trials to confirm effectiveness and safety. This means that the surrogate outcome, often unvalidated, may be all we ever have.”
holds.
Great summary.
Lenny
“That quote, Iqbal, refers to a paper from five years ago. Five. Years.”
What changed in these 5 years? The science behind the procedures or the human body?
“….unlike homeopathy, things move on.”
That is funny. How long have your ancestors been eating the same rice(vitamin B) or apple (Iron) or lemon (vitamin C) ……….We pay a premium for the local variety, that has been around for hundreds of years against new hybrid variety, and GMO is a strict no-no. I am doubtful if you have any understanding of real medicine. A drug that is withdrawn after a few years, or replaced because of adverse effects is no science victory: it is pure and simple dirty business with no care of the consequences, only money to be earned and distributed.
“And all this lie because ” Add to this that the average cancer drug costs in excess of $100 000 (£75 000; €85 000) per year of treatment, and the conclusion seems that the regulatory system is broken.”
” And sometimes at a quite breathtaking pace. Something of which you are plainly ignorant.”
Ignorance also comes for people who cannot think for themselves.
“The haplessness of your attempts at argument speak much for your powers of comprehension and explain much about you.”
These were not my comments: I simply reproduced an article from BMJ: you are aware of this magazine?
Iqbal, your attempt to portray medicine as dangerous and ineffective is absolutely futile as long as you can not demonstrate that homeopathy is superior. Until you are able to do that (which will never happen) you can shove your comments up your ass. They are a pathetic attempt to discredit something without having any real argument.
So little Iqbal, now that you have clipped all the small bits that fit your fantasies of conspiracy and convinced yourself you´re so much smarter than the rest of the world with all those evil people with their fancy degrees who don´t know all you know and spend their days killing the poor cancer victims with them poisonous chemicals, even their own families…
Will you please wash that glue off your fingers before it dries out and go play with your emergency homeopathy set!
A fun fact is that apples contain practically zero iron, whether premium variety or not. You learn something new everyday Iqbal, keep visiting us!
“……..fantasies of conspiracy and convinced yourself you´re so much smarter than the rest of the world with all those evil people with their fancy degrees who don´t know all you know and spend their days killing the poor cancer victims with them poisonous chemicals, even their own families…”
Any doubts? Please correct these figures:
“In their study of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2009 and 2013, 57%, (39/68) had no supporting evidence of better survival or quality of life when they entered the market.”
European Medicines Agency cleared drugs without evidence?
“After a median of 5.9 years on the market, just six of these 39 (15%) agents had been shown to improve survival or quality of life.”
85% were either useless (killed patients as no benefit was available and with each passing day the problem escalated.) or actually killed patients with aggressive treatment.
You have a different view: 85% patients killed……………………..Was any action was taken against these drug companies?
““Firstly, when drugs do offer survival advantages, the gains are often marginal. Fojo and colleagues found that the median improvement in survival among patients treated with 71 drugs for solid tumours was just 2.1 months. Davis and colleagues agree.”
The 2.1 month benefit at the cost of: ” average cancer drug costs in excess of $100 000 (£75 000; €85 000) per year of treatment,”
“Of the 23 drugs that improved survival, 11 (48%) failed to meet the modest definition of “clinically meaningful benefit” set by the European Society of Medical Oncology.”
You expect action against doctors or drug company?
“…….patients who are younger and with less comorbidity than average clinical populations.5 When a marginal drug advantage is applied to a real world population, a small benefit may vanish entirely because of the fine balance between risks and benefits typical of these agents.”
Read slowly for it to sink in: and even then, if you do not understand conspiracy, read: “and the conclusion seems that the regulatory system is broken.”
You can label it as great business model: “…… the average cancer drug costs in excess of $100 000 (£75 000; €85 000) per year of treatment.”
“The scale of skepticism is startling. A survey by the British Academy of Medical Sciences last year found only 37% of Britons trusted evidence from medical research. Two-thirds cited friends and family as more reliable.”
“Many factors account for this mistrust. Most damaging are a series of scandals involving inadequately vetted drugs, poor oversight and attempted cover-ups. ”
“In a recent survey in Britain, 82% of doctors and 67% of adults agreed that clinical trials funded by drug companies were often biased to produce a positive outcome. ”
A confirmation from “Ben Goldacre: What doctors don’t know about the drugs they prescribe”
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/
Conspiracy or plain incompetency? Paid for by the patient.
I told you to stop playing with scissors and glue, Iqbal. It’s just making your paranoia worse.
…and homeopathy clearly is not working against the condition.
@Peter McAlpine
You are of course welcome to your own ideas and beliefs but you are not welcome to think we are all ignorant and stupid not to believe in disproven and delusional “alternative” cancer cures. You seem to think you are having a dialog with nothing but idiots… that is not our problem, that is your problem.
Go ahead and eat Laetrile, slurp fruit juices and take coffee enemas or whatever takes your fancy when and if you are so unfortunate to suffer from one of the couple of hundred different diseases under the collective term Cancer.
But spare us your childish mannerisms, your ho ho’s and Blah-blahs or whatever.
If you wish us to take you seriously and convince us you are not an idiot, then please stop behaving like one.
Cancer is serious business.
I seem to recall advising you to read the book “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer” by Siddharta Mukherjee*. If you fail to do so or still carry on with your stupid fantasies of “natural” diet cures after properly perusing this book, then you are not qualified to discuss cancer and cancer therapy.
Meanwhile we go with what works for us and our beloved who suffer from cancer, even if it is not perfect.
Get back to us Peter, when you have something new to tell.
*https://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Maladies-Biography-Cancer/dp/1439170916
Just a simple question, but as we now approach the third Decade of the 21st century, and trillions of dollars spent on medical research over the last several decades, how come there has been no cure for a long list of diseases?
Heart disease, Osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, just to name a few.
@Peter Harris
Dara O’Briain answers this question here, at exactly 39 seconds into the clip. I recommend listening to the whole thing from the beginning, it is very enlightening.
Björn, did you actually read what I posted?
I don’t think so.
Read again…
Just a simple question, but as we now approach the third Decade of the 21st century, and trillions of dollars spent on medical research over the last several decades, how come there has been no cure for a long list of diseases? Heart disease, Osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, just to name a few.
@Björn Geir,
Peter Harris is a naturopath from queensland, Australia who amongst other things:
tries to persuade cancer patients to forgo state-of-the art treatment in order to have his treatment, which is most likely not working. He does that despite knowing the various studies on naturopathy in cancer (e.g. Skyler et al.)
thinks that a study on omega 3 fatty acids in farmed fish with 3000 samples is a false positive.
has no idea what an LD50 is and that his supplements have one.
treats conditions such as glaucoma and cataract with fish oil …… the list is endless.
His tactics is to show how “horrible” medicine is, however when challenged to provide data for naturopathy being at least equal, he disappears.
In other words, with regard to cancer he is the Australian Colleen Huber.
Discussions with him are pointless.
I would just like to point out that Thomas Mohr is a XXXX.
He is a raging XXXX.
He is a complete XXXX, and instead of talking about medical / biological issues, he prefers to quote exceps from the protocols of the elders of Zion.
He thinks that Roundup and Teflon is healthier than water and Vitamin C.
He has no understanding of medical issues, such as Epigenetics and the history of traditional Chinese medicine.
To put it simply, he’s a complete XXXX.
[XXXX = PERSONAL INSULT REMOVED BY THE EDITOR]
Of course, gross hypocrisy at this website. Mohr can say any insult he wishes, but my facts get deleted.
Yes Thomas. I have seen you whipping his behind on Mrs. Hermes’ blog.
A loud-mouthed, belligerent troll that may safely be shunned.
My reply to him wasn’t really called for (one shouldn’t feed trolls) but I had just read that Dara O’Briain is coming to my home city soon and I came to think how Dara’s hilarious take-down of homeopathy and related nonsense was a fitting response to Mr. Harris’ inane question.
What worries me is that an pugnacious character (see his extremely rude conduct on Mrs. Hermes’ blog) like this is playing doctor and putting gullible people at risk. Someone in Queensland should alert the authorities to keep an eye on the bloke.
Did you notice how he likes to talk about ad hominem and non sequiturs constantly? Because he’s covering up his lack of understanding all things biological and medical.
@ Peter Harris,
Thank you for pointing out that it was my own mistake that I got cancer three years ago, which necessitated surgery. But now, I feel kind of bad, since it´s now obvious to me that I can only blame myself for getting sick!
🙁
And these shameless surgeons, who did not hesitate to profit from my misery! Damn these guys!
But you know, I´m not really sure what exactly I did wrong. Rather healthy food… not overweight… regular sports… nonsmoker. Ok, I like a drink every now and then, so was this the cause?!
Please, would you be so kind to tell me what I did wrong?! You seem to be such a wise and considerate guy!
Your emotional hubris is wasted on me, because you are completely misunderstanding my point of view.
I am blaming the medical profession, and the medical professional alone, for arrogantly and ignorantly saying they are the only people that should treat everyone’s health problems, when people are still dying from common diseases.
In other words, after trillions of dollars spent, and decades of research, the medical profession are still no closer to curing cancer.
This is nothing less than hilarious.
PH’s responses remind me of ELISA, an early computer program which was, as it is described on Wikipedia: “created to demonstrate the superficiality of communication between humans and machines, Eliza simulated conversation by using a ‘pattern matching’ and substitution methodology that gave users an illusion of understanding on the part of the program, but had no built in framework for contextualizing events”
He replies with phrases that are largely dissociated from context or medical fact, attempting to sound smart but revealing a profound ignorance.
His performance is certainly reinforcing the image that we have been given of the nature of naturopathy and the bungling amateurs who practice this genre of make-believe medicine.
As I said before, I am worried for the customers of his naturopathy services.
I think you are right: he is a computer!
Irrelevant claptrap.
when you realise that we are all laughing tears about you, Eliza, will you freeze?
It seems like Thomas Mohr has infected others here, with intellectual dishonesty, and a complete failure to answer simple questions.
foremost Eliza is unable to answer questions; no brain, you know.
Heart disease can be cured surgically. Bypasses and stents do this. Osteoporosis is managed with calcium and vitamin D supplements and bisphosphonate therapy. There are also immunotherapy treatments. Osteoarthritis of knees and hips can be cured surgically. Rheumatoid arthritis is managed with increasing success with immunotherapy. Alzheimer’s is poorly understood which is why research continues. Medicine is rarely curative but surgery often is.
Surgery is no cure / elimination.
Can you offer any alternative, that doesn’t involve toxic drugs with debilitating side effects, or the pain of surgery.
you should try surgery with an anaesthetic – it’s much nicer!
Just the kind of response I would expect from a “doctor.”
@Peter Harris:
This will come as (fake) news to my right shoulder (put back together 35 years ago after having been “deconstructed” in a car accident, now functioning as near as dammit normally) and right knee (now pain-free following an arthroscopy five years ago, allowing me to progress from having to walk with a stick to running a few km).
Silly and infantile response.
Let me be clear, I am not talking about acute care needed after accidents, I am talking about chronic disease, that can be prevented BEFORE surgery is needed.
@Peter Harris, you asserted, to me: “you cannot answer questions in your own sphere of Science”. Your exact words. I have offered to address a question in “my own sphere of Science” if you ask it. You did not do so. Instead, your response was to quote Chomsky and pretend that I am trying to “avoid the truth”.
Your question about common diseases has been addressed by others who are better qualified than I to answer them. Even I could understand their responses. I believe that you don’t like what you were told and so are merely pretending that your rather naive question was not addressed. Shame on you.
No, just more mindless blather.
Get back to me when you can answer the question.
The subject is about medical science, and your failures in understanding it.
@Peter Harris: you wrote:
I know that, but if you did as well, why the hell did you challenge me to answer questions in my “own sphere of Science”??? Are you a deliberate time-waster, or should I be applying Hanlon’s Razor?
“Are you a deliberate time-waster…”
Clearly, you need to ask yourself this question.
You’re doing a great job of wasting your own time.
“Surgery is no cure”
Oh aye? That’ll come as news to my 77 y/o mother who has recently had her arthritic hip replaced surgically and is able to walk for miles and play league badminton again. Presumably, though, the surgery has only suppressed her symptoms and a true cure would’ve been evinced with some sugar pills, a vitamin C infusion and her eating some more kale.
It’ll also come as news to my wife who has had surgery to cure her epilepsy, cure her breast cancer and cure her choleocystitis. No doubt naturopaths would have been able to elicit similar cures.
Oh. No. They wouldn’t, would they.
Her epilepsy, you will be disappointed to hear, was caused by encephalitis triggered by measles at age 2. No, she wasn’t vaccinated.
Presumably this makes me a XXXX as well as Thomas.
You are missing the point, how do you avoid getting arthritis in the first place?
And therefore, avoiding surgery?
how do you avoid getting arthritis in the first place?
PLEASE TELL ME!!!
So you answer my question by throwing it back at me?
Why is that?
No intellectual acuity on your part?
If I ask a cosmologist, about the origins of the Universe, he can give me a clear definitive answer.
If I ask an anthropologist, about the nature of the human race, and the history of man, he can give me a clear definitive answer.
If I ask an atomic physicist, about the nature of Quantum Theory, he can give me a very definitive answer.
Ask somebody in the medical profession, and they behave like petulant children with infantile midirections and off-topic nonsense.
@Peter Harris, you wrote:
If he does, he’s bullshitting. (Clue #1: If we had a “clear definitive answer”, there wouldn’t be continued research and several competing hypotheses about this.)
And as for your silly comment about atomic physicists and QT, you might look less foolish if you apprised yourself of Feynman’s comment about people who claim to be able to explain even as much as Young’s double slit experiment. (GIYF) (Clue #2 : If we had a “clear definitive answer”, there wouldn’t still be at least five distinct interpretations of the double slit experiment.)
Speaking of b*******, have you no courage or intellectual robustness to answer my question?
I mentioned the medical profession indulging in juvenile and silly talking points, and you’ve just proven point.
And you have proven one other stark fact, and that is, you cannot answer questions in your own sphere of Science.
@Peter Harris:
But you haven’t actually posed any questions “in my own sphere of Science” (high energy astrophysics), have you? You have merely made at least two demonstrably silly assertions about the nature of answers in two related disciplines (cosmology & QT).
If you have an HEA question, please go ahead (if @Edzard doesn’t object to such off-topicness here).
People like you, remind me of an old Noam Chomsky quote… “It takes great dedication and discipline to avoid the truth.”
Ok, one more time, for the recalcitrant fools such as yourself…
As we approach the third Decade of the 21st century, how come so many common diseases still exist?
More glaring, when you consider, trillions of dollars spent on research, over many decades.
recalcitrant fool = a person who calls others recalcitrant fools
You either display cowardice, or a complete intellectual inability to answer the question, most likely both.
tell me, Peter: how do you prevent arthritis?
……
You either display cowardice, or a complete intellectual inability to answer the question, most likely both!
What, you can’t answer the question?
You need me to answer it for you?
You were just reinforcing my previous statement.
I’ll give you my answer once I see yours.
@Peter Harris,
You pretended that “surgery is no cure”. Those are your exact words. You are wrong. You have been demonstrated to be wrong. Which is probably why you are disingenuously trying to shift the goalposts. People of integrity do not do that sort of thing.
Our new friend Mr P Harris is kindly providing rock solid evidence that Britt-Marie Hermes is absolutely right. 😀
I wonder if he might be a relative of our absent
friend John Benneth?
@Björn, Peter’s posts are only the beginning of the real fun. Wait till he tries to show you using Ioannidis paper “Why most of published findings are false” that a study with 3000 samples is a false positive. My personal favourites, however are the posts when he thinks PubMed published the papers they reference, resp. SciHub is the source for a top journal in surgery. Another of my favourites was when he tried to discredit Skyler et al in the Journal of the NCI using a legal disclaimer.
He is destroying naturopathy practically singlehandedly.
And many of the so-called doctors here, are destroying the medical profession, with their inability to articulate a reasonable response, to a simple question.
All you have left are childish ad hominem and non-sequiturs, while I try and talk about medical issues.
Let’s hope all here are actuality fake doctors, because God help your patients, if you are real doctors.
brilliant Eliza – you almost had me fooled into believing you have a brain!
As witnessed before, by his own hand, Thomas Mohr is an intellectual XXXX and a nefarious XXXX, who distorts, twists and confuses everything that he is told.
[XXXX= faults in Eliza’s computer programme corrected by the editor]
This naive question has a very simple answer: By choosing different parents
The medical profession never fail to offer stupid and ridiculous answers, this is just a great example.
Try again, and give me a medical response.
@Peter Harris
According to available information you are a renowned naturopath. Why don’t you tell us how you propose to avoid getting rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis, the two types of arthritis that Lenny mentioned and you seem to know more about than medical science does? We are honestly curious.
Björn, Peter Harris will not answer how he treats diseases. He never does. With regard to arthritis, and other chronical diseases I asked exactly this question and stated clearly that any yaddayadda will be entered as “I don’t know”. Guess what ? We got yaddayadda.
Anyways, as for the “prevention”: Without proper biomarkers to identify people at risk, “prevention” is a clever business model to broaden the market. Assuming a prevalence of a disease of 20%, and a prevention rate of 100%, 75% of the people who are being sold preventative measures will never need them.
“You are missing the point, how do you avoid getting arthritis in the first place?
And therefore, avoiding surgery?”
If you can point out where in your original question you mention prevention, Peter.
“Just a simple question, but as we now approach the third Decade of the 21st century, and trillions of dollars spent on medical research over the last several decades, how come there has been no cure for a long list of diseases?”
Oh. Look. You don’t.
So having had your question answered and answered well, defeating your point, you promptly shift the goalposts. But you do so whilst seemingly being ignorant that the term “arthritis” covers a myriad of diseases, each with a subtly different aetiology and thus displaying, to my eye, a fair degree of the medical ignorance which you seem so ready to accuse others of possessing in a cloud of sputtering indignance.
Your name deserves to be mentioned alongside those of John Benneth and Dana Ullman.
Yep, I mentioned wilful ignorance and a deliberate avoidance of a simple question, and look, some on this thread do not disappoint.
Peter
Let’s make this simple for you. “How do you prevent arthritis?” is a meaningless question. Arthritis is a sign of many different disease processes. Osteoarthritis. Gout. Ankylosing spondylitis. Trauma. SLE. DLE. Rheumatic fever. Rheumatoid arthritis. Fibromyalgia. Polymyalgia rheumatica and many more. Each with different causes, each with different preventitive possibilities. And I’m sure you know this. So why are you asking the question? So. Let’s assume you’re ignorant enough to think that osteoarthritis is the only form of arthritis.
Osteoarthritis risk may be reduced by managing chronic joint trauma, regular low-impact exercise, rest, maintenance of healthy weight and control of blood sugar but a genetic predisposition to osteoarthritis does exist. There is little evidence that dietary supplements are of use.
You will note that I say risk may be reduced. I do not say PREVENTED because some individuals, because of genetic susceptibility will suffer from osteoarthritis whatever they do. It is also part of the ageing process and a degree of wear and tear on joints is to be expected.
So. Will you now dance around waving and trumpeting that “we” can’t prevent arthritis therefore all medicine is a sham? Will you say that I have failed to answer the question because I haven’t detailed the risk-reduction measures for all forms of arthritis? Will you shift the goalposts again? Will you ignore my explanation and continue to say that we haven’t answered your question about preventing arthritis?
One thing I know you won’t do is tell us how you would “prevent arthritis”. Because you can’t. You’re a flanneling, ignorant and inconsequential BS artist, Peter. Same as Dana, same as Benneth.
not simple enough, I’m afraid.
My word, there are some infantile and quite stupid responses, to what is a simple answer.
Yours, and many others on this thread.
Let’s hope, you are all fake doctors, and you’re not actually practicing on a real patients.
“You’re a flanneling, ignorant and inconsequential BS artist, Peter. Same as Dana, same as Benneth.”
It seems that you are far from being considered a doctor, and quite obviously, you are an expert in hypocrisy.
Simple question, requires a simple answer.
Not your mindless prolix and disingenuous claptrap.
“Simple question, requires a simple answer.
Not your mindless prolix and disingenuous claptrap.”
Oh dear, Peter. My careful explanation was obviously too complex for you. Please point out the difficult words and we’ll help you with them. What you say is a simple question is, for reasons I have explained, a complex one. That you cannot grasp reality and that I have answered your question fully is your problem, not mine.
I’ve given you my answer, Peter. How about YOU provide us with yours? How do YOU prevent “arthritis”?
But you won’t, will you. Because, as I’ve said previously, you’re an inconsequential and ignorant BS artist. And hence you have no answer. Bye bye, Peter. Run along now. Go back to playing with your friends. The big boys and girls don’t want to know you.
“Bye bye, Peter. Run along now. Go back to playing with your friends. The big boys and girls don’t want to know you.”
Yep, another fake doctor capitulates.
Much easier to throw out juvenile ad hominems, than to answer a simple question. So what does it say about the people on this thread?
“Much easier to throw out juvenile ad hominems, than to answer a simple question. So what does it say about the people on this thread?”
YES, PETER HARRIS! THIS IS A GOOD DESCRIPTION OF WHAT YOU’VE BEEN DOING.
YOU HAVE NOT ANSWERED A SINGLE QUESTION ANYONE ASKED YOU.
Because I ignore juvenile and ignorant responses.
I asked people here a question, and instead of answering it, they think they’re smart by turning it around on me.
Pathetic response.
The question still stands, if you are brave enough, and have the intellectual rigour to answer it.
you first!
Hi. What do you think about this study (https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/htm) and this study (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.50.1.473) and these documents (https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/federal-court/; https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/state-court/; https://usrtk.org/monsanto-papers/reporting-and-analysis/)?
Also what is your take on (http://vaccinesafetycommission.org/pdfs/Wang%20Yao%202018%20Cytokine%20IL-4%20Hep%20B%20Hippocampus.pdf)? And are you brave enough to comment on this one (https://www.ageofautism.com/2014/08/statement-from-william-thompson-re-pediatrics-mmr-african-american-males-data.html)? What about this one (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1401875)? And (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199405193302015; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340084/)
What do we think of those studies? Well.. Let’s have a look at the first one, shall we?
“Note added by the Publisher: The editors of the journal have been alerted to concerns over potential bias in opinions and bias in the choice of citation sources used in this article. We note that the authors stand by the content as published. Since the nature of the claims against the paper concern speculation and opinion, and not fraud or academic misconduct, the editors would like to issue an Expression of Concern to make readers aware that the approach to collating literature citations for this article was likely not systematic and may not reflect the spectrum of opinions on the issues covered by the article. Please refer to our policy regarding possibly controversial articles.”
A polite way of saying it’s a load of completely biased cobblers and best ignored. Did you miss that bit, Sofia?
Not worth bothering with the others, really.
“What if her natural approach really was being successful?”
Then she’d lead with the hard statistics and paper trail to prove it, not a bunch of hollow testimonals from selected marks and shameless YouTube sales pitch. As they say in science, always:
Show us the Evidence, or GTFO.
The only evidence the likes of Huber and you ever show is of your own absolute self-deception and/or utter lack of regard for other people’s lives. You choose to kill yourself with cultish quasi-religious self-serving delusions, that’s entirely your business and I don’t imagine anyone will rush to stop you either. But spreading such deadly dangerous delusions to others to feed your voracious egos/wallets? Their blood’s on your hands, you callous contemptible shits.
“To those people, I say: “What if her natural approach really was being successful?”
Ever thought what if this proves wrong?
Well Kelvin was obviously wrong. It was a silly thing for a scientist to say. The important point is that when more evidence came along science developed with the evidence. In actual fact neither relativity – special or general – nor quantum mechanics – before you mention that – has changed our everyday practical view of the world. Newtonian physics got us to moon and back and to date I have not turned up elsewhere in the universe. Too bad some might say.
When convincing evidence is produced for a novel treatment for cancer that is more effective than current offerings such treatment will be used as appropriate.
BRAVO!
This is a SLAPP. The issue is not ‘naturopathy’ (a trade marked term), nor even ‘medicine’, but freedom of speech and of scientific discourse.
Any who use SLAPP have demonstrated their lack of integrity, res ispa loquitur .
See Wikipedia: ‘A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.
The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat.’
Freedom deserves defence, and donations. SLAPP back!
I already donated “a fistful of dollars” to her defence fund.
Britt-Marie is a courageous, intelligent and strong woman who is being railroaded by a belligerent fool.
She will need all the help possible and the Australian fund raising effort is properly set-up for just that.
(You can find the fund by clicking the button on her page, which you will find under the professor’s last link in this post)
Like many others (apparently, by yesterday evening UK time, AUD 78k of the 80k target had been raised), I have also donated. The idea is that, if there is any surplus (but I wonder if AUD 80k/ EUR 50k is sufficient) is either donated to Sense About Science or is put into a general “Skeptics Legal Defence Fund”. I think the latter is an excellent idea, not least because knowledge of the existence of such a fund might deter some of those who are tempted to issue SLAPP suits or otherwise use the law to stifle scientific criticism. It is something to which I would make regular contributions.
BTW, the Aussie skeptics have set up a simple-to-remember link to this: http://www.skeptics.com.au/BrittHermes
Peter McAlpine
The answer to most or all of your questions is ‘No, of course bloody not, if there were absolutely no evidence, you dangerous idiot’.
Another answer might be ‘Baking soda?’ Jeebus.Is that that with or without glacé cherries?’
I believe that Thomas Mohr, of this parish, is helping Britt with things. With his formidable intellect and experience on her side, the litigious and unpleasant quack will hopefully be in even deeper trouble with this frivolous and ill considered piece of legal action.
Dear Prof. Ernst
” ‘most successful results of any clinic in the world’? Really? Where are the comparative statistics?”
If you look even superficially on the papers, she does not even have *any* statistics, let alone comparative stats. Her data are available, and as it looks her entire data are crap.
here is an update:
https://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/legal-defense-fund-update/
Good to see the strong support for Britt from round the world.
more info on this subject
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180116/09011139006/quack-doctor-treating-cancer-with-baking-soda-sues-skeptic-questioning-her-cancer-treatment-methods.shtml
Apparently her Lancet article was a comment letter signed by multiple authors. I wouldn’t know how to find it, sorry.
even that should normally show up in a Medline search – but it didn’t!
It is this:
Colleen Schmidt, Migraine and cerebral blood flow during centrifugation, The Lancet, Volume 350, Issue 9085, 1997, Page 1145, ISSN 0140-6736, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)63793-2.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673605637932)
her name is Huber, not Scmidt
She used to be Colleen Schmidt. https://www.naturopathicdiaries.com/dubious-cancer-doctor-colleen-huber-cybersquatting/
Maiden name I suspect. That’s from 20 years ago.
No, it was just a letter, and it had multiple authors. That appears to be a real study.
It’s also possible that what I read was just wrong, and Huber is lying about the Lancet. As for Colleen Schmidt, I found a couple of other publications of research in neurology, so it’s probably not the same person.
What CS/CH found: “The common freestylists’ experience of having fluid forced from the nose during a fast spin indicates that simple fluid dynamics govern the distribution of bodily fluids”
Ehhmm, what did she expect? Fluid dynamics not to be valid just because the fluid happens to be contained in a human body?
I’ve donated and wish Britt Hermes the best.
Who are the lawyers employed by Huber and what is the nature of their practice? Do they have a history of filing SLAPP suits? It’s too bad that law firms agree to take such cases; it’s one reason people have for believing the practice of law is often disreputable.
Is there any possibility of the FDA taking action for the cancer cure claims made by Huber and her practice? If our regulators were doing their job, people wouldn’t be able to advertise with such lies. Even though the FDA disclaimer (quack Miranda warning) appears in tiny print at the bottom of the website, it seems clear that the practice claims to be able to cure cancer with a high degree of success. How can that be legal?
probably best to ask Britt via her blog
great news:
https://www.skeptics.com.au/2018/01/22/fundraising-campaign-for-britt-hermes/
“Will you please wash that glue off your fingers before it dries out and go play with your emergency homeopathy set!” Lol
Further proof that the “science-based” guys have the best sense of humor!
Iqbal Krishna,
The essential point that you are overlooking is that medical psychopaths do not care about the statistics that you quote.
Dr Rawlins calls your form of argument tu quoque: just because conventional medicine kills millions of people does not make homeopathy true.
Do you get it now?
…medical psychopaths???
Who do you mean?
What do you mean ‘what do you mean’?
having difficulties reading?
I commented: WHO DO YOU MEAN?
I think it is you that has difficulty reading, you seemed to understand your post:
http://edzardernst.com/2018/01/this-is-the-shortest-post-i-have-ever-written/
I’m afraid you lost me.
Let me ask you directly: WHO DO YOU CALL A ‘MEDICAL PSYCHOPATH’?
Make this easy for ‘Edzard’:
1.I take a long break from commenting here.
2. I put a comment for Iqbal Krishna.
3. Eduard can’t resist jumping in and hitting the caps locks.
4. Why the knee jerk response? If you don’t understand what a word OR WORDS means: look it up on Google dictionary. Good grief.
5.Is it any wonder that commenters eventually give up on this site?
as idiotic as your previous comment
Edzard, you forgot to put ‘idiotic’ in caps: IDIOTIC!
‘Edzard’ was not that interested to ask Dr Rawlins what he MEANT when he stated:
Dr Rawlins: ‘Homeopaths are ignorant, corrupt, charlatans, frauds, quacks, criminals.
What evidence is there that they are not?’
‘Edzard’ did not ask Dr Rawlins WHO EXACTLY HE WAS REFERRING TO?
Res ipsa loquitur
@Greg: I liked your comment #1.”I take a long break from commenting here”. Excellent approach.
Would have been, if only @Greg hadn’t assumed there were some missing letters and taken that approach instead:
“I take a long break from commenting
coherently.”Oh, Hi Greg. Welcome back
I was hoping you had taken up a useful pastime, something you can handle and could keep you from making a fool of yourself.
Ah, well. Since you’re back we will have to continue to help you correct your muddled misapprehensions and silly ideas.
You said to Iqbal:
You are very mistaken.
We DO care about them, very much so. Iqbal is hurting himself and fuelling his paranoid delusions about medicine by all this cutting and pasting outdated, wrong or out of context text-bits that give a very lateralised and erroneous idea of what modern medicine is all about. I hope he will live to a ripe old age and die healthy because if he gets a cancer or similar health problem he is in big trouble… unless of course he decides to accept genuine professional help.
As a matter of fact I hope the same for you dear Greg.
Iqbal has thoroughly (like you have) demonstrated that he does not know the first thing about medicine or biology.
What we care very much about is when ignorant people with mistakenly paranoid views of science and medicine try to frighten other people by propagating misinformation.
Our mission is to counter this.
For that purpose we carry on dialogs with promoters of nonsense, like you and Iqbal and others here.
Professor Ernst keeps this blog wide open and almost never throws comments out. Not because they are so great or useful or well written, but because they are so informative.
You and Iqbal are living proof of the ignorance and fatuity of homeopaths, their followers and for that matter many other similar faculties of fake health care.
Unknowingly you denigrate your own delusions.
@peter Harris: it’s the 21st century and “they” have been unable to produce a plane that fies 5000 miles an hour…after trillions spent.
Yep, great question. I suggest you ask for a refund from any critical thinking course you may have taken.
And stupid and absurd strawman response. Have you heard about the laws of physics?
@ Peter Harris,
So your question is why not all diseases can be cured today, after a lot of money has been spent in the last decades for research, correct?
What a foolish question, you do not seem to be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree…
but wait: Having lived in Queensland for some time myself, I know that it´s quite sunny there… head protection is advisable… mmmh… do you always wear protective headgear outside?!
Anyway, I will keep the answer short and simple for you:
Nature is complicated, the scientific method was developed only recently (compared to human evolution) and progress in scientific research takes time and effort (in contrast to belief systems like SCAM).
I am certain that this answer will have fully convinced you.
Cya later… and remember: don´t forget to always wear a hat outside!
🙂
NOT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR HIM, I’M AFRAID
I’m now remembering why I blocked this twerp on Disqus…
Yes, I remember you too, from your strange Avatar.
And I remember the truly weird and horrendous stuff that you used to post.
You and Jashak are only destroying what reputation conventional medicine has left.
With your silly and infantile nonsense, it’s just illustrates how extraordinarily ignorant who you are.
thank you for confirming that you are not interested in anything but disruption.
I herewith stop considering you are anything else but a troll.
“thank you for confirming that you are not interested in anything but disruption.
I herewith stop considering you are anything else but a troll.”
Back at ya…
At least I addressed your question. Can’t help you any further, mate, just one last stylistic advice regarding that hat: tin foil might just be the right material! And make sure you wear it!
🙂
You’ve addressed my question??
Really!
You are deluded, as evidenced by your nonsense and incoherent rants.
“What a foolish question, you do not seem to be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree…”
And the unhinged rants continue…
@Peter Harris on Thursday 16 August 2018 at 12:24
“Back at ya…”
Says it all about you.
Ha ha…
Hypocritical fool.
This is a fascinating blog and I am a neophyte on these issues, albeit a scientifically minded one.
The lack of scientific evidence for many medical practices is very compelling, as demonstrated particularly in the Atlantic article cited here.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/02/when-evidence-says-no-but-doctors-say-yes/517368/
“…medicine is quick to adopt practices based on shaky evidence but slow to drop them once they’ve been blown up by solid proof.”
It’s unfortunate that so many of the comments are tainted with juvenile insults.