education
The utilization of certain forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is prevalent among adults. While researchers have extensively studied the factors influencing SCAM use in Western countries, significant barriers to its adoption remain. This paper draws attention to the obstacles faced by individuals in their journey to using SCAM.
Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients who had turned to SCAM for managing a chronic illness/condition and had been chosen through a ‘snowball sampling’ strategy. These in-depth, face-to-face interviews occurred in Miami, USA, during 2014-15. The sampling, data collection, and analysis processes of this study adhered to the principles outlined in Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory approach.
From the data, three central barriers to SCAM utilization in the US emerged: 1) Financial barriers: A significant portion of SCAM treatments is not covered by insurance, making them cost-prohibitive for many. 2) Skepticism and discouragement: Both conventional medical practitioners and a segment of the public exhibited a noticeable trend towards discouraging SCAM use. 3) Evaluation challenges: Patients expressed difficulty in assessing the efficacy and benefits of various SCAM treatments compared to their costs.
The author concluded that despite the widespread interest in and use of SCAM in the US, numerous barriers hinder its broader integration into mainstream healthcare. These obstacles not only restrict healthcare choices for the general public but also appear to favor a select demographic, potentially based on income and availability of information.
So, 21 individuals chosen via a snowball sampling strategy located in Miami feel that there were obstacles to using SCAM.
No!
These obstacles existed about 10 myears ago.
No!
The obstacles only existed in the imagination of these 21 guys.
No!
The alleged obstacles are hardly relevant and therefore are not truly obstacles.
The only truly relevant obstacle to SCAM-use is the fact that most SCAMs have either not been shown to work, or shown not to work!
Perhaps surprisingly, the author concedes that their study has certain limitations: “This study had some inherent limitations. The sample, while chosen based on theoretical sampling to achieve theoretical saturation, was both small and self-selected. This limits the broad applicability of the findings. Moreover, individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds were not represented in the sample, which may have overlooked important perspectives on affordable SCAM options. The sample did not offer a detailed exploration of SCAM perceptions across diverse demographic categories, such as social class or ethnicity. It’s also essential to highlight that this research was conducted exclusively in Miami, a city with a significant population of ethnic minorities in the US. This demographic context could have uniquely influenced the feedback from SCAM users.”
If I may, I will another limitation: This study was utter nonsense from its conception to its publication!
You might think that all of this is quite trivial and that I am rather petty. If you look into Medline and realize how many such useless and counter-productive SCAM studies are being published, you might change your mind.
Suzanne Somers, born Suzanne Marie Mahoney on October 16, 1946 in San Bruno, California, was an American actress, author and businesswoman. Somers has published several best-selling self-help books, such as I’m Too Young for This! and The Natural Hormone Solution to Enjoy Menopause. In 2001, it was reported that she had breast cancer and was opting for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to treat it, In particular, she used Iscador, a preparation of mistletoe that we have discissed many times before on this blog, e.g.:
- A systematic analysis of the mistletoe prescriptions used in clinical studies
- Prof Harald Walach reviews mistletoe and arrives at a positive conclusion
- Mistletoe treatment for cancer is useless and should be discouraged
- Mistletoe for cancer: Does it improve patients’ quality of life?
- Mistletoe for cancer: the saga continues
- Mistletoe, a cancer therapy? You must be joking!
In an interview with Larry King in 2001, Somers revealed that she had been receiving treatment for a year. She also explained that she refused to go through with chemotherapy and instead used SCAM. “I decided to find alternative things to do,” she continued. “Because I have done so much work in my books about hormones, and that hormonal balance is why people gain or lose weight, and, it was my belief that a balanced environment of hormones prevents disease. And the first thing they said to me, we are taking of off all hormones. I said no, I’m going to continue taking my hormones, which is the first thing against the common course…”
Recently, it was reported that Somers has died of cancer aged 76. Earlier this year, Somers said they had “used the best alternative and conventional treatments to combat it [her cancer].” But now, a source close to the star shares that many around her didn’t like it. Somers’ friends tried to convince her to ditch SCAM in favor of chemotherapy. “She was advised by several people to consider the more conventional approach, but she did not listen,” a source close to Somers told the Daily Mail. The source continued, “She has always rejected chemo, so it wasn’t even an option. Her friends and loved ones urged her to reconsider so many times during her cancer battles and at the end.” A statement read. “Her family was gathered to celebrate her 77th birthday on October 16th. Instead, they will celebrate her extraordinary life, and want to thank her millions of fans and followers who loved her dearly.”
Perhaps this sad case is an apt occasion for rephrasing the warning that I posted only a few days ago:
be very cautious about using SCAMs for cancer and seek professional advice, preferably NOT from a SCAM provider.
The BBC has a popular program entitled JUST ONE THING presented by Dr, Michael Mosely. In each of these short broadcasts, Mosely presents JUST ONE THING that will make your life more healthy. Whenever I listen to them, I get slightly irritated. Mosely is clearly a very skilled presenter and makes complicated things easy to understand; but for my taste his approach is totally devoid of critical thinking. This is obviously the point of the series and probably one reason for its success. So, maybe it needs to be tolerated – perhaps, but surely not if it seriously misleads the public on important health issues.
The most recent broadcast was entitled EMBRACE THE RAIN and, in my view, it did cross this crucial line. Mosely explained that after it has rained, the air is full of negative ions and these ions are effective against depression. The center piece was his interview with Prof Michael Terman who explained some of his research on the subject, in particular a clinical trial which showed that intensely ionized air was effective against depression. Terman explained that this was more than a placebo effect, that it worked even for serious chronic depressed patients, and that the effect was better than standard treatments.
At no stage was there an even mildly critical question from Mosely. Consequently many depressed patients might now abandon their standard treatments and opt for air ionizers in their homes or walks in the rain which was deemed to be just as effective. In view of the fact that chronic depression, through its suicide risk, can be a life-threatening condition, I find this rather concerning.
My concerns were not exactly alleviated when I did a quick search for the evidence. The most recent review on the subject states that there has been considerable interest in the potential effects of negative air ions (NAIs) on human health and well-being, but the conclusions have been inconsistent and the mechanisms remain unclear. So, why does Terman promote NAIs as though they are the best thing since sliced bread? It took me less than a minute to find a possible answer: he holds a patent for a NEGATIVE ION GENERATOR!
It is laudable of the BBC and Michael Mosely to present aspects of healthcare in a simple, understandable way. Yet, it would be even more laudable, if they did their homework a bit better and, crucially, tried to also educate the public in critical thinking. After all ’embracing the rain’ will not change lives but critical thinking most certainly does!
If you assumed that the best management of a child by chiropractors is not to treat this patient and refer to a proper doctor, think again. This paper was aimed at building upon existing recommendations on best practices for chiropractic management of children by conducting a formal consensus process and best evidence synthesis. Its authors composed a best practice guide based on recommendations from current best available evidence and formal consensus of a panel of experienced practitioners, consumers, and experts for chiropractic management of pediatric patients. They thus syntheized results of a literature search to inform the development of recommendations from a multidisciplinary steering committee, including experts in pediatrics, followed by a formal Delphi panel consensus process.
The consensus process was conducted June to August 2022. All 60 panelists completed the process and reached at least 80% consensus on all recommendations after three Delphi rounds. Recommendations for best practices for chiropractic care for children addressed the following aspects of the clinical encounter:
- patient communication, including informed consent;
- appropriate clinical history, including health habits;
- appropriate physical examination procedures;
- red flags/contraindications to chiropractic care and/or spinal manipulation;
- aspects of chiropractic management of pediatric patients, including infants;
- modifications of spinal manipulation and other manual procedures for pediatric patients;
- appropriate referral and comanagement;
- appropriate health promotion and disease prevention practices.
The authors concluded that this set of recommendations represents a general framework for an evidence-informed and reasonable approach to the management of pediatric patients by chiropractors.
Whenever I read the term ‘evidence-informed’ I need to giggle. Why not evidence-based? Evidence-informed might mean that chiros are informed that their treatments are useless or even dangerous for children … but, on reflection and taking their own need for earning a living, they subsequently ignore these facts. And sure enough, the authors of the present paper do mention that a Cochrane review concluded that spinal manipulation is not recommended for children under 12, for a number of conditions, or for general wellness … only to then go on and ignore the very fact.
In doing so, the authors issue a string of self-evident platitudes which occasionally border on the irresponsible. For instance, under the heading of ‘primary prevention’, vaccinations are mentioned as the very last item with the following words:
If parents ask for advice or information about childhood vaccinations, explain that they have the right to make their own health decisions. They should be adequately informed about the benefits and risks to both their child and the broader community associated with these decisions. Consider referral to a health professional whose scope of practice includes vaccinations to address patient questions or concerns.
What that really means in practice, I fear, might be summarized like this: If parents ask for advice or information about childhood vaccinations, explain that they are dangerous, and that even D. D. Palmer recognized as early as 1894 that vaccination is ‘…the monstrous delusion … fastened on us by the medical profession, enforced by the state boards, and supported by the mass of unthinking people …’
Altogether, the ‘Clinical Practice Guideline for Best Practice Management of Pediatric Patients by Chiropractors’ is a thoroughly disreputable document. It was constructed in the way all charlatans tend to construct their consensus documents:
- convene a few people who are all in favour of a certain motion,
- discuss the motion,
- agree with it,
- write up the process
- publish your paper in a third class journal,
- boast that there is a consensus,
- stress that the motion must thereefore be ethical, correct and valuable.
Do chiropractors know that, using this methodology, the ‘flat earth society’ can easily pass a consensus that the earth is indeed flat?
I am sure they do!
‘The Cult of Chiropractic’ is the title of a video that has just been released. I think it is very good and, if you are interested in the subject at all, I recommend you have a look. You can watch it here:
The Cult of Chiropractic : r/h3h3productions (reddit.com)
The video is not just well-done, it also is fun and informative. I learned a few things from it that I did not yet know. It also brings Simon Singh and myself together after we had not met for several years; and that is always a pleasure!
But back to ‘The Cult of Chiropractic’ and the question whether this assumption is true. Some time ago, I published a post about so-called alternative medicine and cultism. I listed a few questions we should ask ourselves to determine whether chiropractic is a cult. Let me adapt them slightly:
- Is chiropractic based on dogma? The answer is yes – think, for instance, of the assumptions that subluxations exist.
- Does chiropractic demand acceptance of its dogma or doctrine as truth? For straight chiropractors, the answer is yes.
- Is the dogma set forth by a single guru or promulgator? Yes, DD Palmer.
- Is chiropractic supposed to cure all ills? For many chiros, the answer is yes.
- Is belief used by chiropractors as a substitute for evidence? Yes.
- Do chiropractors determine their patients’ lifestyle? Yes.
- Do chiros exploit their patients financially? Yes.
- Does chiropractors impose rigid rules and regulations? Yes.
- Do chiros practice deception? Yes.
- Do chiropractors have their own sources of information/propaganda? Yes.
- Do chiros cultivate their own lingo? Yes.
- Do chiros discourage or inhibit critical thinking? Yes.
- Are questions about the values of chiropractic discouraged or forbidden? Yes.
- Do the proponents of chiropractic reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words? Yes
- Do chiros assume that health problems are the result of not adhering to the dogma? Yes.
- Do chiros instill fear into members who consider leaving? Yes.
- Do chiros depict conventional medicine as ineffective or harmful? Yes.
- Do chiros ask others to recruit new members to their cult? Yes.
Based on these 18 questions, I conclude that chiropractic is indeed a cult. What about you? Even if you disagree, please have a look at the excellent video, ‘THE CULT OF CHIROPRACTIC’.
Conspiracy beliefs (CBs) can have substantial consequences on health behaviours by influencing both conventional and non-conventional medicine uptake. They can target powerful groups (i.e. upward CBs) or powerless groups (i.e. downward CBs). Considering their repercussions in oncology, it appears useful to understand how CBs are related to the intentions to use conventional and so-called alternative medicines (SCAM), defined as “medical products and practices that are not part of standard medical care” including practices
such as mind–body therapies, botanicals, energy healing or naturopathic medicine.
This paper includes two pre-registered online correlational studies on a general French population (Study 1 N = 248, recruited on social media Mage = 40.07, SDage = 14.78; 205 women, 41 men and 2 non-binaries; Study 2 N = 313, recruited on social media and Prolific, Mage = 28.91, SDage = 9.60; 154 women, 149 men and 10 non-binaries). the researchers investigated the links between generic and chemotherapy-related CBs and intentions to use conventional or SCAMs. Study 2 consisted of a conceptual replication of Study 1, considering the orientation of CBs.
Generic CBs and chemotherapy-related CBs appear strongly and positively correlated, negatively correlated with intentions to take conventional medicine and positively with intentions to take SCAM. The link between generic CBs and medication intention is fully mediated by chemotherapy-related CBs. When distinguished, upward CBs are a stronger predictor of chemotherapy-related CBs than downward CBs.
The authors concluded that the findings suggest that intentions to use medicine are strongly associated with CBs. This has several important implications for further research and practice, notably on the presence and effects of CBs on medication behaviours in cancer patients.
Sadly, the influence of CBs is not confined to the field of oncology but applies across all diseases and conditions. We have seen and discussed these issues in several previous posts, e.g.:
- Conspiracy Beliefs Predict Health Behavior and Well-being during the Pandemic
- Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines
- Mistrust + Misinformation —> CONSPIRACY THEORY
- Conspiracy theories and dangerous recommendations via YouTube videos
- Conspiracy theories, assumptions, opinions, evidence and scientific facts
- A conspiracy theory seems to be driving the popularity of alternative medicine
The most impressive evidence, however, is regularly being provided by some of the people who post comments on this blog. Collectively, this evidence has prompted me to postulate that SCAM itself can be seen as a consiracy theory.
It has been reported that a cancer patient died of multiple organ failure after he took a herbalist’s remedy that included mistletoe. Retired electrician Haydn Owen Jones had been receiving a third course of treatment for his multiple myeloma when he turned to a herbalist. Alongside two chemotherapy drugs and a steroid, Jones started using a remedy which included mistletoe, yarrow, lily of the valley, cat’s claw, echinacea, and corn silk. Days later he fell ill with a fever, swelling and a rash. He was treated for sepsis but never recovered as his liver function deteriorated. Coroner concluded that it was probable the mix of cancer drugs and the alternative therapy proved deadly to him.
Mistletoe contains Phoratoxin and Viscotoxin – both of which are poisonous when ingested. While a more severe reaction is caused from eating the berries than the leaves, possible symptoms can include nausea, heart problems and fever.
_____________________
As with all tragic cases of this nature, it is difficult or even impossible to establish what caused the death. Was the herbal remedy involved at all? If so, it could be the toxicity of one or more of its ingredients, interactions between them, interactions with prescribed drugs, or contaminations/adulterations of the remedy. If there is a lesson at all to learn from this case, it is, I think, this: be very cautious about using herbal remedies, particularly when combined with other medicines, and seek professional advice, preferably NOT from a herbalist.
Mistletoe, an anthroposophical medicine, is often recommended as a so-callled alternative medicine (SCAM) for cancer patients. But what type of cancer, what type of mistletoe preparation, what dosage regimen, what form of application?
The aim of this systematic analysis was to assess the concept of mistletoe treatment in published clinical studies with respect to indication, type of mistletoe preparation, treatment schedule, aim of treatment, and assessment of treatment results. The following databases were systematically searched: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL, and “Science Citation Index Expanded” (Web of Science). The researchers assessed all studies for study types, methods, endpoints and mistletoe preparations including their ways of application, host trees and dosage schedules.
The searches revealed 3296 hits. Of these, 102 publications with a total of 19.441 patients were included. The researchers included several study types investigating the application of mistletoe in different groups of participants: cancer patients with any type of cancer were included as well as studies conducted with healthy volunteers and pediatric patients. The most common types of cancer were:
- breast cancer,
- pancreatic cancer,
- colorectal cancer,
- malignant melanoma.
Randomized controlled studies, cohort studies and case reports make up most of the included studies. A huge variety was observed concerning the type and composition of mistletoe extracts (differing pharmaceutical companies and host trees), ways of applications and dosage schedules. Administration varied widely, e. g. between using mistletoe extract as sole treatment and as concomitant therapy to cancer treatment. The researchers found no relationship between the mistletoe preparation used, host tree, dosage, and cancer type.
A variety of different mistletoe preparations was used to treat cancer patients. Due to the heterogeneity of the mistletoe preparations used, no comparability between different studies or within single studies using different types of mistletoe preparations or host trees is possible. Moreover, no relationship between mistletoe preparation and type of cancer can be observed. This results in a severely limited comparability of studies with regard to the different cancer entities and mistletoe therapy in oncology in general. Analyzing the methods sections of all articles, there are no information on how the selection of the respective mistletoe preparation took place. None of the articles provided any argument which type of preparation (homeopathic, anthroposophic, standardized) or which host tree was chosen due to which selection criteria. Considering preparations from different companies, funding may have been the reason of the selection.
Dosage or dosage regimens varied strongly in the studies. Due to the heterogeneity of dosage and dosage regimens within studies and between studies of the endpoints the comparability of the different studies is severely limited. Duration of mistletoe treatment varied strongly in the studies ranging from a single dose given on one day to the application of mistletoe preparations for several years. Moreover, the duration of treatment frequently varied within the studies. Mistletoe preparations were administered by different ways of application. Most frequently, the patients received mistletoe preparations subcutaneously. The second most common way was intravenous administration of mistletoe preparations. According to the respective manufacturers, this type of application is only recommended for Lektinol® and Eurixor®. Other preparations were given as off-label intravenous applications. No dosage recommendations from the respective manufacturers were available. Only in two studies the dose schedules were mentioned: according to the classical phase I 3 + 3 dose escalation schedule or in ratio to the body surface area.
The authors concluded that despite a large number of clinical studies and reports, there is a complete lack of transparently reported, structured procedures considering all fields of mistletoe therapy. This applies to type of mistletoe extract, host tree, preparation, treatment schedules as well as indication with respect of type of cancer and the respective treatment aim. All in all, despite several decades of clinical mistletoe research, no clear concept of usage is discernible and, from an evidence-based point of view, there are serious concerns on the scientific base of this part of anthroposophical treatment.
A long time ago, I worked as a junior doctor in a hospital where we used subcutaneous misteloe injections regularly to treat cancer. I remember being utterly confused: none of my peers was able to explain to me what preparation to use and how to does it. There simply were no rules and the manufacurer’s instructions made little sense. I suspected then that mistletoe therapy was a danerous nonsense. Today, after much research has been published on mistletoe, I do no longer suspect it, I know it.
I would urge every cancer patient to stay well clear of mistletoe and those practitioners who recommend it.
Recently, I had the pleasure to give a lecture about bias in research to medical students at my former medical school in Vienna. This led to interesting discussions with the audience. They prompted me to think more than usual about ‘the biased researcher’, a phenomenon that, in my opinion, seriously plagues the field of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The way I see it, we can differentiate 4 overlapping categories of researchers (male or female; for simplicity, I here use only the masculine form) investigating the effectiveness of various forms of SCAM:
THE TRUE SCIENTIST
The true scientist is adequaately trained in all aspects of his work. Therefore, he knows that he research consists of testing hypotheses. He does his job without emotional or ideological baggage. All he aims at doing is answering the research question at hand in the most rigorous fashion. He is not influenced by outside pressures, does not care about the direction of his results, and merely wants to conduct the best science possible that his particular situation allows. In other words, he does what he can to minimize all sources of bias.
THE SLOPPY RESEARCHER
The sloppy researcher is either less well trained or he is less focussed and somewhat careless. He tends to cut corners, and is thus prone to make mistakes. His miskakes can introduce bias in his research which is unintentional because he has no axe to grind. In other words, the sloppy researcher is not biased but might easily produce biased results. As the sloppyness is unintentional, the resulting bias can go in either direction; the sloppy researcher might therefore generate false-positive and false-negative findings at random.
THE BIASED RESEARCHER
The biased researcher does have an axe to grind. Typically, he has a strong positive opinion about the treatment he is testing. For him, the concept of falsifying his beloved hypothesis is an abomination – he might know that this is how science out to work, but he can simply not bring himself to doing it. His mission is to confirm his prior conviction that the therapy in question is effective. This conviction is so strong that he does not feel that he is doing anything wrong. Obviously, the biased researcher would introduce bias into his research at multible levels. His bias will then compell him to hide the flaws in his research as much as he can. Consequently, his published papers will not easily disclose his bias and will therefore have the power to mislead the public.
THE DISHONEST RESEARCHER
The dishonest researcher is out to cheat. He wants to generate resuts of a certain type, usually showing that the therapy in question is effective. He is usually motivated by money and/or ambition. He may be sufficiently well trained to be able to hide his dishonesty from detection. Like the biased researcher’s papers, his fraudulent publications will not disclose his fabrications and will therefore have the power to mislead the public.
You will, of course, realize that, in my attempt to create these 4 categories, I have exaggerated and created caricatures of the real-life situations. However, I feel the the distinction between the 4 categories might be helpful to understand medical research and its pitfalls. As I pointed out in the introduction, the categories overlap. In reality, most researchers are hybrids of two or more categories. For instance, nobody can entirely be free of bias and everybody makes mistakes occasionally.
The question arises as to which type of category might dominate SCAM. I am not aware of reliable research that would answer it. However, my experience tells me that, in SCAM, we have a regrettable void of true scientists combined with an abundance of biased researchers (see, for instance, the growing list of researchers in my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME). What is worse, the latter category is bringing SCAM research more and more into disrepute which, in turn, demotivates true scientists to consider SCAM as a serious subject.
Here we go, enjoy!
what will I call a billion people who believe in something absurd?
I WOULD CALL THEM SERIOUSLY MISLED AND PERHAPS EVEN STUPID
More than a billion humans know and believe that the cow is “Kamadhenu” or God.
To more than 6 billion people (i.e. rest of the world), cow is NOT god. In fact, a lot of them want to see it served on a plate. If we were to take a vote w.r.t cow’s godliness, it looses sorely.
You are not arrogant, you are plain stupid.
The arrogancy is not mine, it is the Westerners. I was actually supporting the statement that Reiki is not plausible by giving an example from India in which Hindus (there is a billion of them) “know” that the cow is a god. Does it mean that the cow is a god? You folks are very arrogant and no body can save you. Your civilization will definitely be the first one to be doomed. As for the others are concerned, it becomes a blessing that they do not have a civilization
oh, dear!
Even at the time of death healing can help the dying person to ease the transition from this world to the next. Should one not be well versed in spiritual matters it can come as a bit of a shock to realise that one is no longer in a physical body.
…
Death, of the body, is not the end. Life goes on in another dimension. The ´dead´ miss us as much as we miss them. Imagine two big bubbles. You are in one and your loved one is in the other. You cannot touch each other and the bubbles are floating off further and further in different directions. There are a couple of ways in which you can communicate. You can take up telepathy or you can see a medium.— Ralph Maver
[http://www.reikiwithralph.com/more-about-ralph-maver/]
Marvellous!
Only one other dimension? So we become straight lines with ni width or thickness?
Oh, in that dimension, thickness knows no bounds.
So it would appear!
@Ralph William Maver
You are an arrogant person.
Are you certain that you selected the right personal pronoun in this sentence?
I know that Reiki works.
Ah, you must be one of those persons who spent $4000 on a Reiki Level 4 Master Course (or whatever it is called), and are now trying their very best to protect and possibly recoup their investment.
You are one of those people who challenge what they don’t understand.
Sorry to tell you, but you are the one who fails to understand that ‘Reiki’ and all that other bogus ‘energy medicine’ stuff is just a con trick, a way to separate gullible people from their money.
Then again, having taken a look around your Web site, it may well be that you have been the one who was conned first, and are in turn now trying to trick other people – although not very successfully, by the looks of it. I almost feel sorry for you.
My bit of advice: go find another, more honest occupation. This reiki stuff doesn’t work for you. And oh, get a better Web designer.
I don’t have a soul.
Unless we count the Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Curtis Mayfield and all albums…
Next?
I said more than a billion people believe that the cow is god, and instead of reading the rest of the statement, you people, including Edzrad, jumped on me and started calling me names, if only you read the rest of my statement, you would know that I don’t believe in Reiki. But then you revealed your true colours. Truth always goes in hand with compassion, which I guess you do not have. You failed to recognize the racism in your own comment by calling 1 billion people (Hindus) stupid. It is not the stupid people that are destroying the world, but cruelty is spread by the in-compassionate fools. Now go, respond by doing a line-by-line grammar check of my statement. If civilization falls, yours will be the first to fall.
Edzrad, jumped on me and started calling me names”
TEMPTING! BUT I DIDN’T
Now try to spell my name correctly, if you don’t mind.
Your life and existence must be in this thread, so pathetic.
I intentionally misspelt your name expecting to reveal the “ego” component in your statements.
Do you really think a misspelling in your name is so significant? No wonder your country is a philosophical mess, caught in between two ideologies. My concern is that people with your attitude are destroying the rest of the world, like that guy in 1853, American Commodore Matthew Perry who forcefully opened Japan for trade. Not only are you arrogant, but you are also blind. May demise to your civilization come soon.
“Do you really think a misspelling in your name is so significant?”
No, and I did not claim it to be.
I am really not interested in this conversation anymore, yes, it does seem that you are ‘awfully triggered’ and conversing with me. because the replies are almost an instantaneous basis, like the insecure Donald Trump tweeting. “…Now try to spell my name correctly, if you don’t mind.” These are your words, and you now say that you really did not mean it. I am just getting tired as if I am giving directions to a blind and deaf person. I just came to your thread because as a massage therapy student, 8 years ago, I was having an argument with my students and lecturer that non-evidence based therapies should not be promoted aggressively, but with a note and disclaimer because the public are being taken advantage by scamsters providing sham treatment. Now all those things are lost but we are now in a different territory, I was giving the one million Hindu and cow example to demonstrate that sometimes things does not matter, but it has to be handled more in a human way. It seems that you do not have that big heart or genroisty, but instead it seems that you keep this thread live just for fun. And the more time passes, the more small you become in your replies, I am not sure maybe you died and it is your grandson that is maintaining this blog, who knows? Go to hell, do whatever you want. If you want a closure, please block me.
“I am really not interested in this conversation anymore”
By contrast, I never was!
It is you who foisted it on me.
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:15
“I am really not interested in this conversation anymore”
By contrast, I never was!
It is you who foisted it on me.
I understand your need to feel good about your actions. I have a bigger heart than you. Hence, I am sorry.
bye bye
“your country is a philosophical mess”
which country are you referring to?
To be specific, I am an RMT, and I don’t believe in Reiki, but that does not mean that we go around insulting people. Why? Because it is not necessary. Only two types of people do unnecessary things (a) fools, and (b) malicious people. How do we know that you are not some sort of psycho living a pathetic life, and you are taking this opportunity to ‘bash’ people, in the name of reason and objectivity? Do you want us to trust you? You just put one billion people beneath by calling them stupid (and the other commenter who would rather see a cow on a plate, how insensitive that comment is? No wonder people hate America and Americans) Initially I thought you were arrogant. I take it back, because I think you are simply malicious (and maybe half your country)…one billion Hindus are stupid? (I gave that as a metaphor, I was born a Hindu, but I am not an hindu, now)
” I am an RMT”
RMT
[RMT]
ABBREVIATION
(in the UK) National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers.
Yeah, I am a railroad worker, and I am from the UK. These things make you appear so petty.
“we go around insulting people”
When and how did I insult you?
That is why I said you are blind, and that is why I said that you must belong to a particular demographic. As I said, I am not interested in conversing anymore. I am more honest than you and made my intentions clear. You need not block or moderate me, But there is no point in coming back to this thread.
thanks for that!
The English have the power of speech and the tool of articulation. Using this, they conquer all the world without doing all the hard work or shedding blood, but don’t worry, justice may be late, but it will rule one day, what was got by simply using the tongue, will also be lost using the same tongue. In the end, they will be the most pathetic souls among all life forms:
Edzard on Sunday 15 January 2023 at 08:39
what will I call a billion people who believe in something absurd?
I WOULD CALL THEM SERIOUSLY MISLED AND PERHAPS EVEN STUPID
oh, I see: you think I’m English!
“oh, I see: you think I’m English!”
That was supposed to be an insult, I don’t really care who you are. I don’t care even if I am wrong. You should know that I am not making an effort to know you. I can google you in five minutes, but you are not worth my time. All I know is that you are a troublemaker (Like Donald Trump) who lives just for the fun of it. Trump uses certain things to disguise is contempt and selfishness, you are just using the war against alternative medicine to shield your general malice. You are not a good person, that I know. And I am sure that nobody would have told you that — greatest insult.
Troll: a person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
I may be a troll, but you are simply an abuser and maipulator of knowledge, power, and position. At best, I would have annoyed a few people. But you just called one billion people stupid, then guess what your real intentions might be? You have more power to damage the world then me, If I am a troll, you are simply a evil person
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:30
Troll: a person who antagonizes (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
… and I thought the troll had said ‘bye bye’ a while ago…
Really? What are you? an old man aged 70 years or more? Nothing much to do in life anymore?
Can’t let it go without having the last word? Lot’s of peeing match I guess!
Edzard on Tuesday 24 October 2023 at 17:37
… and I thought the troll had said ‘bye bye’ a while ago…
I challenge you to keep all the conversations in between you and me so that people can judge what is going on. If you delete it, it would mean that you do not want people to know, let’s see how honest you are.
I have no intention to delete this comic relief!
Like I said, tongue they use to unleash their malice, by the tongue their souls will die a pathetic death
a characteristic of a troll is that he/she cannot quit easily
That’s right, senile, sadist, probably news does not excite you, so come back and read the comments to feel that you are indeed alive. So pathetic. Bye — If you really think I am a troll, then you probably should not reply, every internet user knows this. But if you are intentionally engaging with a troll, then it means that there is something wrong with you greater than that troll. Like I said, I might be a a troll, but you are even greater than that — an evil person (because you have power, position, influence) — don’t…
It’s not that I think you are a TROLL, you have proven it to us.
If you can call one billion Hindus stupid. I should not mind for you calling me a troll.
And this time, I am deciding to quit. What a bore!
___________________________________________
Re-reading this today, I am still amazed at the mindset of my troll. Perhaps I should by now have got used to it – after all, this sort of thing does happen regularly on this blog. The lesson, I think, is not to let it happen and tell the troll early on to go yonder and multiply.
More than a billion humans know and believe that the cow is “Kamadhenu” or God. One can be called a stupid, and two can be called a moron, but what will call you when a billion people believe in something? How about calling all the Indians that believe in the cow as god “Arrogant”? Will that cut it?
I might be arrogant, and i am ok with it. But you are dishonest and contradictory. I would rather be with an arrogant person than a dishonest, ridiculous, or contradicing person. Because I know the dishonest, ridiculous, and contradicting person will cause me more harm than this so-called “arrogant” person. There, I sent you away. Go home and come back tomorrow with a better argument that sounds morally good!