The 30 most recent comments from all posts are listed below. Click on the post title to go to the comment on the post’s page.
- Comment by Edzard on No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 13:03 btw: the title is not mine.
- Comment by No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 13:03 so glad that you accept all the rest of my post.on
- Comment by No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 11:03 Let me correct your title No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a medical doctor. You’re welcomeon
- Comment by No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 10:03 DavidB wrote: “The family of the late John Lawler made a similar point, didn’t they? That when you see “Doctor” in a ‘clinical’ setting, you tend to assume the person displaying it is medically qualified.” Yes, the submissions made to the coroner by the barrister representing the family of Mr Lawler showed that the (still practicing) UK-registered chiropractor, Arleen Scholten, held herself out as a provider of (quasi) medical treatment and styled herself as ‘doctor’ when she was not entitled to do so. Reference and lots more reading here: https://edzardernst.com/2021/09/chiropractor-found-not-guilty-by-gcc-even-though-john-lawlwe-died-after-neck-manipulation/on
- Comment by No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 10:03 yes, of course, thankson
- Comment by No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 10:03 The family of the late John Lawler made a similar point, didn’t they? That when you see “Doctor” in a ‘clinical’ setting, you tend to assume the person displaying it is medically qualified.on
- Comment by No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 10:03 Great post. One small point re the second bullet: “in the UK, the GMC seems to protect the chiros rather than the public” Shouldn’t that be the GCC (General Chiropractic Council)?on
- Comment by No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 09:03 nobody is talking about the doctor title here, Dr Almog!on
- Comment by No one should see a chiropractor thinking they are seeing a doctor Tuesday 19 March 2024: 09:03 no one should see a vet or a dentist thinking they are seeing a “doctor” either? what about psychologists? i do agree that is our duty to make sure it states in every written format that Dr. *** is a doctor of chiropractic. i know its hard to believe but the medical profession does not have ownership on the title “doctor”… such is life…on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Tuesday 19 March 2024: 08:03 Pete Attkins on Monday 18 March 2024 at 21:10 said: “…I’d be most interested in your analysis of the following paper… A monoclonal antibody against staphylococcal enterotoxin B superantigen inhibits SARS-CoV-2 entry in vitro…. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8082696/ “ Nice try, a deflection? 🙂 I prefer to stay with the CGG doublets in the PRRA inserts that give the game away. I don’t think there is anything difficult to understand here, even for a tyro like me: Each amino acid (e.g. the ‘R’ (arginine)) is coded by a codon (CGG is one of several different codons that give the same amino acid, arginine in this case, I think there are six for arginine IIRC and CGG is the rarest, hence that is the one chosen for lab work so that it stands out as man-made to be easier to trace its passage through thousands of animal-passages. That is the first, blindingly-obvious-clue. The second is that mutations tend to happen (if they survive at all), one nucleotide at a time (e.g. the ‘C’ or the ‘G’ of CGG), not twelve-at-a-time, and not twelve-that-are-consecutive (that survive) in one mighty-multiple-mutation (unless there is a “sideways” block-transference (lateral gene transfer) from an already existing, successful “species” of RNA from another virus that has already adapted, long ago, from the need to be cleaved by furin, to survive) That should be enough to convince anyone. If that is not enough, then there are the patents that have been filed for this one, particular furin-cleavage-site insert, after millions of dollars research of gain-of-function, years before the lab-escape (if it was released deliberately, the host country would surely have developed and tested the vaccine first!)(also lab-escapes are common, starting with smallpox way back). If that is not enough, we have the email exchange between Fauci and Co. to produce a paper denying a lab-leak and expressly saying that the virus was natural, without evidence. How do they know? They don’t. Even the CIA admitted it was likely a lab leak over a year ago (to avoid the egg-on-the-face problem). If that was not enough, suppose sideways-block-transfer is responsible i.e. some mammalian species (I am guessing) has furin sites (only humans do?) and a suitable virus adapted long enough to gain some survival advantage from them with a furin-cleavage-site of its own, then there would be a history of widespread ancestral variations each with a reason-to-be, but none have been found. This thing just appeared out of thin air. Ready made, as an immaculate conception!!!on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 21:03 Talker on Monday 18 March 2024 at 17:32 said: “…For you typing something into your browser goes for a response. Whether that is comprehensible or not to other people is an afterthought for you it seems.” Well said. It’s not possible to be “…comprehensible or not to other people…” unless one is some sort of omniscient being who knows the minds of the “other people” – so I try, but I don’t lose sleep over it.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 21:03 Thanks for that URL, Old Bob. I’d be most interested in your analysis of the following paper, which is relevant, fascinating and detailed: Cheng MH, Porritt RA, Rivas MN, Krieger JM, Ozdemir AB, Garcia G Jr, Arumugaswami V, Fries BC, Arditi M, Bahar I. A monoclonal antibody against staphylococcal enterotoxin B superantigen inhibits SARS-CoV-2 entry in vitro. Structure. 2021 Sep 2;29(9):951-962.e3. doi:10.1016/j.str.2021.04.005. Epub 2021 Apr 29. PMID: 33930306; PMCID: PMC8082696. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8082696/on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 20:03 Talker on Monday 18 March 2024 at 17:27 said: “…OB… said: Your own words expose yourself. LOL!” This is always true of all words by anyone. The tone, how opinionated (or not), everything tells more about the speaker than the content… What! There is only precise, objective, accuracy? That too is just as telling.on
- Comment by Józef Kowalski (1911-1942) Monday 18 March 2024: 19:03 I think the topic has a lot to do with the goal of the blog. There is nothing to excuse, Dr. Ernst. It is true that pseudoscience scandalizes by distorting science; It is also true that anti-science scandalizes by denying science. SCAM is to scientific medicine what Holocaust denialism is to history (another science). Paying tribute to the victims of Nazism is laudable and pertinent in these times of widespread disinformation.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 17:03 You failed to read the answers/and/or to understand them. For you typing something into your browser goes for a response. Whether that is comprehensible or not to other people is an afterthought for you it seems.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 17:03 OB lectures about keeping things impersonal: That is why it’s best to avoid opining i.e. try to keep it impersonal, to avoid diluting one’s message-content with irrelevant personal stuff. Earlier, OB referring to Richard’s post said: Your own words expose yourself. LOL!on
- Comment by Dr Michael Dixon seems to support homeopathy as a treatment for cancer Monday 18 March 2024: 16:03 it seems certaain to me that Dixon would have assembled the leading specialists of the UK. SCAM would be only administered as a supportive treatment.on
- Comment by Dr Michael Dixon seems to support homeopathy as a treatment for cancer Monday 18 March 2024: 16:03 I wish King Charles well. However I would dearly like to know how he is advised regarding his cancer treatment! Especially advice from Michael Dixonon
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 14:03 Talker on Monday 18 March 2024 at 12:55 said: “You failed to answer the question. What exactly is being patented? How does it relate to the current topic? In your own words please.” You failed to read the answers/and/or to understand them.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 14:03 Talker on Monday 18 March 2024 at 13:46 said: “Saying something nonsensical always works when one loses an argument and/or doesn’t have anything else to contribute to the discussion.” It’s simple: what we say, can says more about us than the literal-message-itself. That is why it’s best to avoid opining i.e. try to keep it impersonal, to avoid diluting one’s message-content with irrelevant personal stuff.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 13:03 @JK I have been vaccinated five times and I have experienced zero side effects. Therefore I consider vaccines to be zero risk. It is that simple.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 13:03 Saying something nonsensical always works when one loses an argument and/or doesn’t have anything else to contribute to the discussion.on
- Comment by Ayurvedic manufacturer is taking (not just) India for a ride Monday 18 March 2024: 13:03 if you say so.on
- Comment by Ayurvedic manufacturer is taking (not just) India for a ride Monday 18 March 2024: 13:03 Ernst, dear chap, “at the expense of modern medicine” Says it all.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Monday 18 March 2024: 12:03 @Old Bob You failed to answer the question. What exactly is being patented? How does it relate to the current topic? In your own words please.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Sunday 17 March 2024: 14:03 @”John” Blah blah blah … all long-debunked ‘arguments’ and nonsense from antivaxxers. YOU are among those most responsible for the needlessly high death toll because YOU kept telling people the very same lies that you keep on repeating here. So if you are looking for reasons why many people died needlessly – also young and perfectly healthy people, up to and including children – don’t go blaming doctors and scientists. Just find a mirror.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Sunday 17 March 2024: 14:03 Your own words expose yourself.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Sunday 17 March 2024: 14:03 @Richard Rasker Sir, if the official statistic is one percent death rate, that rate was heavily influenced by the elderly with co-morbidities. I find the number inflated due to attributing every form of death under the sun to the virus. However, since we know the elderly were more at risk. When or where have we ever denied ill patients care (entry to hospitals) until they were on their death bed and beyond the point of first line treatment. The SYSTEM killed many more than needed. They continued intubating patients even without success. Much of the blame for the deaths of the pandemic should be laid at the feet of those who governed the response. Not those that refused the jabs. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronavirus/9000-covid-patients-were-sent-from-ny-hospitals-into-nursing-homes-records-show/2884682/on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Sunday 17 March 2024: 11:03 @Old Bob You really have no idea what you’re saying, now do you? Also see below.on
- Comment by The origin of coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): a laboratory accident? Sunday 17 March 2024: 10:03 @Old Bob Then why do you keep doing it? Don’t get me wrong, it is somewhat amusing to see you parroting things that you very obviously don’t understand at all yourself, but after a while it becomes rather tedious and even embarrassing – it’s a bit like a grown-up producing childish stick figure drawings and then expecting praise and recognition for their ‘art’ from actual, accomplished artists.on