On this blog, we constantly have our fair (and regrettable) share of trolls, i.e. persons who incessantly post untrue, offensive or provocative messages without meaningfully contributing to the debate. I am the first to admit that I am quite ineffective in dealing with such disturbances, distractions or annoyances (I should also mention that I find them often quite funny in their way of making fools of themselves). Apparently, there are ways of dealing with trolls much more successfully. Here are some ideas:
- Ignore trolls: Simply do not respond. If you feel you ought to respond, keep it impersonal. Do not engage with their vitriol. But by far the best practice is simply not to reply at all.
- Block trolls: Once a troll has been identified, delete their comments immediately.
- Explain the rules: The rules for commenting here are, I think, very clear. They certainly do not tolerate trolling.
- Deny trolls their audience: Trolls need an audience to feel a sense of satisfaction or even power. By moderating comments, their words never reach an audience, they get no feedback or attention and soon give up.
As I aleady admitted, I am not really good at any of this. I frequently hope that a person who posts daft or repetetive comments will eventually come up with something interesting that, after all, stimulates the debate. Also, I do like controversy and am in favour of all voices being heard, particularly those who disagree with me. And, of course, I feel that freedom of speech is essential.
In other words, I feel that I must carefully navigate a delicate line; and this can, at times, be difficult.
Having said all that, I will in future keep a closer eye on trolls, be less forgiving, refuse to post comments of trolls or revise those that cross the line. So, please look up the ‘rules’ for publishing comments on my blog, try to adhere to them and don’t be surprised, if I intervene.
And finally, if you are trolling and wonder why I still publish your nonsense:
I just might publish your idiocies for comic relief!
15 Responses to How to deal with trolls effectively
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
The trick is to be dispassionate.
trolling dispassionately?
Yes, both, trolling dispassionately too:
The more one specialises in something, the more one is “invested” (emotionally) and the more one is susceptible to being trolled especially by what one perceives to be a non specialist! What an insult! And one has fallen for the trap, but only if one cares.
The trick is to be dispassionate which is easy for anyone without “investment” in the game – the more the investment, the more the reputation, the more there is to “lose” – and the troll has the advantage with nothing to lose.
Objectively there is nothing to fall for. If Einstein says E == MC^2 and some troll says “No!”, there is nothing more to say. That’s it. Nothing is lost. Nobody cares anyway or they know the score from the posts.
How about dealing with questions you are asked or challenges to your incorrect assertions?
Repeated failure to do that is…interesting.
Unfortunately, in your blog, I have seen what I think can be classified as cyberbullying.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security: “the electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person, often done anonymously.”
“an aggressive, intentional act or behaviour carried out by a group or an individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time, against a recipient who is unable to easily defend him/herself”.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/online-social-networks-and-media
But whatever, it’s your blog.
“it’s your blog”
that might be your 1st correct diagnosis!!!
It could be, but now I have to consider this in my clinical analysis.
https://rapm.bmj.com/content/early/2025/07/02/rapm-2025-106577
(Oops, did I just troll?)
Association is not causation.
Oops did I just cyberbully you?
Nope.
But yet:
https://www.jwatch.org/na45067/2017/09/19/gabapentinoids-are-largely-ineffective-chronic-low-back
So boring that I fell asleep reading it. Although, I treated my boredom with some interesting news from chiro world.
https://www.newschannel10.com/2025/08/20/hereford-police-arrest-chiropractor-accused-invasive-visual-recording/
https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/christian-chiropractor-sentenced-to-work-release-as-part-of-plea-agreement/
https://www.al.com/crime/2025/06/alabama-chiropractor-convicted-of-trying-to-kill-his-wife-with-lead-poisoning.html
It’s never appropriate
“3.4% reported having had sexual (genital-genital, oral-genital, or anal-genital) contact with a patient.”
A national survey of physicians’ behaviors regarding sexual contact with patients
T Bayer et al. South Med J. 1996 Oct.
“Of 761 physicians disciplined, 75% of the incidents involved patients, including sexual intercourse, rape, sexual molestation, and sexual favors in exchange for drugs”
Sexual Victimization of Patients by Physicians
A Factsheet for Survivors & Advocates
Ohio alliance to end sexual violence
Etc
Here are “case studies” for four of your chiro colleagues recently accused/convicted/on trial for doing nefarious things. Does criming ever stop in your chiro world?
https://abc13.com/post/houston-area-chiropractor-arrested-accused-sexual-assault-performing-unlicensed-procedures/17464358/
https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/trial-begins-for-wapato-chiropractor-accused-of-raping-teen/article_91faebcf-7b3d-4cd1-bf90-406706f71966.html
https://1350kman.com/2025/08/trial-begins-for-former-manhattan-chiropractor-charged-with-sex-crimes/
https://www.timesunion.com/hudsonvalley/news/article/john-boyle-kingston-chiropractor-guilty-plea-20379927.php
Chiropractic was founded by the 2 Palmers; both were crooks; so criming comes natural to the profession, I guess.
Talker: It is not being denied that it happens so I fail to see your point.
Prof Ernst. Your comment about criminal activity being inherent in the chiropractic profession is uncalled for and inappropriate.
I would like to remind you about the overuse of opioids and the damage that has done. But possibly one of the most damaging examples is the use of Thalidomide.
I have included a summary of it, and please explain to me that if, in your opinion, the chiropractic profession was developed by two crooks (in your opinion), what conclusion do you have about all the medical professions that prescribed Thalidomide, and the pharmaceutical companies that developed it and marketed it.
Thalidomide, introduced in the late 1950s, was peddled as a miracle drug for insomnia, anxiety, and morning sickness in pregnant women. Chemie Grünenthal, a West German pharmaceutical company, pushed it under names like Contergan and Distaval, touting it as safe and non-addictive.
No rigorous testing, no hard questions— just blind faith in Big Pharma’s promises. The result was catastrophic: thousands of babies born with malformed limbs, missing organs, or dead before they had a chance.
Those children were the test subjects, betrayed by a system that let them be guinea pigs while doctors and regulators shrugged and cashed checks.
In the U.S., thalidomide never got full FDA approval, thanks to Dr. Frances Kelsey, who flagged its shaky safety data. But Chemie Grünenthal’s partner, Richardson-Merrell, still got it into the hands of over 1,200 doctors through loosely regulated “clinical trials” from 1958 to 1962.
Doctors handed out samples to patients, including pregnant women, without proper warnings or consent. Around 20,000 Americans, including expectant mothers, received the drug, leading to an unknown number of birth defects.
The U.S. dodged the worst due to Kelsey’s skepticism, but the unauthorized distribution exposed how easily oversight failed when greed took the wheel.
Globally, the damage was staggering, with thalidomide sold in over 46 countries. In West Germany, where it was born, 7,000-10,000 babies suffered malformations, as the drug was sold over-the-counter and marketed aggressively to pregnant women.
The UK saw around 2,000 cases under the brand Distaval. Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands reported hundreds more, their weak regulations allowing unchecked distribution.
Canada, with about 125 documented cases, kept the drug on shelves until 1962, even as warnings emerged. Australia and New Zealand counted over 100 affected children each, while Japan, where it was sold as Isomin, saw over 1,000 cases, with the drug lingering until 1963.
In Latin America, Brazil and Argentina faced significant but poorly documented cases due to lax oversight. In Africa and Asia, like South Africa and India, limited healthcare infrastructure obscured the full toll, but the drug’s reach was undeniable.
Estimates peg the global impact at 10,000-20,000 babies with severe deformities— phocomelia, organ damage, sensory loss— plus countless miscarriages and stillbirths. The true number is likely higher, especially in developing nations with spotty records.
The tragedy stemmed from systemic failure. Grünenthal ignored early red flags, like animal studies showing toxicity or adult patients reporting nerve damage.
Regulators in many countries greenlit the drug on flimsy data, swayed by pharmaceutical lobbying. Doctors, trusting the “settled science,” prescribed it without hesitation, some even distributing it off-label or through shoddy trials, as in the U.S.
Profits rolled in while families paid the price— lifelong disabilities, grief, and loss. Lawsuits eventually forced settlements in Germany, the UK, and elsewhere, but no amount could undo the harm.
Grünenthal’s half-hearted apology in 2012, over 50 years later, rang hollow to survivors.
This wasn’t a one-off. Vioxx triggered heart attacks and strokes before its 2004 withdrawal. Lobotomies were once a celebrated “cure” for mental illness.
The pattern is clear: arrogance, greed, and weak oversight masquerading as progress. Thalidomide screams a warning: question everything.
Governments, drug companies, and white coats aren’t infallible— they’re human, prone to error or worse. The rush to embrace the next “miracle drug” or “miracle vaccine” without transparent, ironclad testing risks another nightmare.
History’s lesson is brutal, and the stakes— lives, families, futures— are too high for blind trust.