MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

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 Michael Moses on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 19:07 Dr. Fauci told the US that they do not need to wear masks because they don’t work. Yet, later he told us they work and that by wearing masks we could save lives. So how many hundreds of thousands of lives did Fauci risk by telling us masks don’t work in the beginning? Everyone wants to blame Trump and the GOP and granted they defintelty deserve share of the blame, but suggesting it’s al their fault is unfair. According to the chart Dem and Rep vacciantion rates were similar in April but has grown apart more since. Is this because of Trump or the Biden admin trying to force mandates on everyone? Not sure about other people, but I know if I feel like some one is forcing something on me, then I begin to question the quality of that something and start to have cocnerns and questions. I tried to come here for some of those answers and unfortunately I have basically been told I am not smart enough to understand that my concerns aren’t real and I should just take some experts word for it. And this is what I feel is being pushed with Biden’s shut down misinformation campaign. Honest people with honest concerns get scared when people say you aren’t allowed to ask those types of questions, just take our word for it. This causes distrust with each question that does not get properly answered. https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-red-blue-divide-in-covid-19-vaccination-rates-is-growing/
  • Comment by Michael Moses on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 18:07 Alfred, It is fascinating how many eductated people can’t understand that they can’t always be right. Statistically speaking it just can’t happen. Likewise in life it just doesn’t happen as evident from the many examples over the past year or so. Yet in many discussions, it is I am always wrong and they are always right. You phrased it well, there is a Dogma to science that too many ignore. They can’t accept that scientest are just like most people and want to be accepted, so this could bias a lot of scientist to publish (I cited a source earlier which mentioned this) articles to support those accepted truths with little to no real significance. For example, mask…tons of studies out there to tell us mask MAY work WITH other counter measures. Then from that we are told the do work. If you read most my posts I usually stipulate that I could be wrong and most of my claims are more about I don’t know and we need better information…but appearantly that is still wrong.
  • Comment by Michael Moses on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 18:07 Sorry Listener…Spoiler Alert…. Trump and the republicans have used misinformation. I think it is safe to say that most politicians, or anybody of power, uses misinformation. Which is why many people have become so skeptical in trusting authority, including those with science backgrounds. I think we have pointed out some examples of how those authorities, inlcuding scientits have put out misinformation. Granted we didn’t agree on every point as some were questionable, but some of it is undeniable, yet people still deny it.
  • Comment by Michael Moses on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 18:07 Jack,  If there is no reason to rehash old posts then why bring them up? Unless your goal is merely to continue your demostration of irony, then well done.  Otherwise I do not understand the point of your posts or how I should percieve them. You repeat what others have already claimed without adding any new content, so am I supposed to learn something by you doing this?  The one post you actually had content made some really good points in which I agreed with. From that I thought we could have meaningful discussion and offered two opposing views on ivermectin to discuss. You took that as a rant and ignored the fact that I agreed with your points. Curious, does me saying you made good points fall under more BS or is it only BS if you disagree with it? Or does it not even count since you didn’t even acknowledge it? Again, it seems like we have different definitions of words if you think I cired about anything. But you have the right to perceive things your way, I respect your right to do that and wish you a nice life as well. 
  • Comment by Michael Moses on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 17:07 Dr. Money – Kyrle I agree that they are not directly comparable, I have admitted this several times. You ask me to establish that they are measuring the same thing and I conceded that they could be measuring things differently and that could explain the discrepancies. I don’t know how they are measured so I can’t say they are the same or different. Though I think it is fair to assume they are different, but is there evidence to suggest that difference is significant.   I then asked you to establish that they are measuring things differently, similar to what you asked me, and your response is the question is meaningless. So we go back to the dogma of science that Alfred refered to, that I am just supposed to assume because you are mored educated than I am, the differences you claimed were significant enough (without evidence) to cause the discrepancies.  It sounds like your saying I can’t come up with a hyptothesis on effectiveness without disproving all your reasons first. And if I can’t compare effectivenss this way, the I go back to the question I have asked multiple times, how best to measure effectiviness to fairly compare risks?   As for the age issue, I thought I had already conceded that point, but if not let me say I was wrong and have been corrected. See, it’s not that hard to admit we make mistakes and get things wrong sometimes. 🙂  Thank you for the link, I am vaguely familir with The Lancet and have even referenced some of their articles. I have looked here to answer some of my questions, but so far found nothing yet which addresses my question above.
  • Comment by Richard Rasker on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 17:07 @Alfred Farmer … without acknowledging how many of the scientists from covid-fame have completely screwed the pooch wrt public trust. I can’t think of a single scientist who betrayed the public trust (apart from seriously deranged fools such as Walach). Can you name even one? I DO know several politicians who seriously screwed over the public time and again with regard to Covid-19. One of the biggest offenders was this pathological liar and narcissistic psychopath, one Donald T.(*), who kept telling the public that there was no problem at all, that this whole ‘China virus’ would be gone by Easter, or by the start of summer for sure, or by the end of August on the outside – and that any measures to prevent the spread were leftist propaganda to ruin his Great Economic Boom and turn America into a commie gulag yada yada yada. This man’s utter unwillingness and incompetence to deal with the pandemic may have cost upwards of a hundred thousand American lives, completely unnecessary. And it would have been far worse if Anthony Fauci hadn’t managed to maintain at least some sanity in all this – without getting fired and replaced with a sycophant like all other competent public servants, which is a medal-worthy feat in and of itself. And unfortunately, those same GOP politicians are still at it, trying to frustrate the Democrat administration’s attempts to increase the vaccination rate – although there are signs that they are realizing that they’re cutting their own throat, because now it is almost exclusively their voters who are getting sick and dying in droves, exactly because of their toxic rhetoric (some of which appears to trickle in even here ..). *: To be fair, he can be credited tot a certain extent for one thing: Operation Warp Speed. But for all the rest, the man has caused untold harm with his endless BS, lies, and refusal to support general health measures against Covid-19.
  • Comment by Jack on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 15:07 @Alfred Farmer You certainly assumed a lot of things!! That happens to people who live in fantasy land! Forgive me for making a “scientific” observation. Cannot help it. After all I am a scientist according to you.
  • Comment by Jack on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 15:07 @Listener “I get tired of replying to every post… many times I just don’t have the time or energy to respond…. as is probable the case for many. ” Then maybe you should not post that much and there wont be a chance for people to respond to your posts and you wont have to respond to theirs. Problem solved! “That said, I know disinformation when I see it. ” That is certainly true that your mind is the the greatest mis-information-dar there is out there!! Care to detect if there is misinformation in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zicGxU5MfwE
  • Comment by Edzard on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 15:07 Did I claim you stated that anyone said it was?
  • Comment by DC on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 14:07 did I state that anyone said it was?
  • Comment by DavidB on The ‘OBERON’: revolutionary invention or dangerous con? Friday 23 July 2021: 14:07 But it doesn’t work better than placebo. If I have a medical condition needing treatment, I want a treatment that works better than placebo.
  • Comment by Edzard on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 13:07 did anyone claim that it is the ‘be-all answer’?
  • Comment by DC on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 13:07 “Mandatory Adverse Events Reporting System.” 1. Doesn’t estabilsh causation 2. Difficult to enforce 3. Requires communication with all parties 4. It’s purpose is for possible associations indicating additional research Within the current medical system: “Although postmarketing pharmacovigilance databases serve an important role, FAERS has several limitations, including no definitive proof of the causal relationship between exposure to the product and the reported event, significant heterogeneity in the reports that depend on the individual reporting, potential for bias based on physician preference of one drug over others, a patient’s negative experience with a certain product; or a lawyer’s perceptions when defending a client prescribed that product. Finally, because FAERS is a voluntary reporting system, it is likely that not every ADR is reported, and because the denominator (number of patients prescribed the product) is unknown, it is impossible to calculate the incidence of ADR using FAERS. Overall, these limitations may lead to inflation of risk attributable to a medication based on the FAERS pharmacovigilance.” https://www.cghjournal.org/article/S1542-3565(17)31362-9/fulltext I support such a system but it’s not the be-all answer.
  • Comment by Blue Wode on Another indirect risk of chiropractic Friday 23 July 2021: 12:07 There’s a good blog post on that very issue here: http://sciencedigestive.blogspot.com/2010/06/email-to-university-of-glamorgan.html
  • Comment by Edzard on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 12:07 good point!
  • Comment by Dave on The ‘OBERON’: revolutionary invention or dangerous con? Friday 23 July 2021: 11:07 Everyone has been brainwashed to repeat the word “peer-reviewed research” or “the scientific method”. IT DIDN’T EXIST BEFORE! It didnt exist such a term in 99,999% of human history. Yes it’s a useful method nowdays but 99% of all things you do, think or use in your life has not been approved by any “peer-reviewed research” or “scientific reserach”. They dont have monopoly of what works and not works. It’s a “top-down” thinking, while the world and all humans works in a “bottom up way” – we try our ways forward. To “prove” that your product works (why should you prove that if you know it works already??) you need so much money that you cannot afford it, but what works and not works is not dependant on “money”. It’s dependant on practical experience. If it works it works.
  • Comment by DavidB on Another indirect risk of chiropractic Friday 23 July 2021: 11:07 Difficult to update perceptions if, As Kevin Smith reports, institutions offering Chiropractic qualifications won’t provide information on course content.
  • Comment by Ken McLeod on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 11:07 Rather than ‘post marketing surveillance’ the chiropractic industry needs a Mandatory Adverse Events Reporting System.
  • Comment by DavidB on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 11:07 Poor fellow. I hope he makes a complete recovery. And perhaps he will focus his journalistic endeavours, at least for a time, on SCAM.
  • Comment by Ken McLeod on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 11:07 Also an interview on ABC Radio at. https://www.dropbox.com/s/uxoin6ssiv80boc/ABC_WA_%20Afternoons_%2020Jul_%202021_With_Christine%20Layton_Chiro.mp3?dl=0
  • Comment by Edzard on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 09:07 the patient tweeted this: Eammon Atkinson @EammonAtkinson · Jul 20 Just to clarify, the first stroke was caused by a chiropractic adjustment after I had neck pain from covid. I got the J&J vaccine in March and there’s no suggestion that the vaccine is linked to the stroke. It’s the artery dissection – v important
  • Comment by guy almog on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 09:07 i don’t know about “chiropractors” i myself never made such complaints.
  • Comment by Edzard on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 08:07 I suggest that chiropractors finally get their act together and create adequate post-marketing surveillance. Until they have done so, they have no moral right to complain that cases like the one above are not adequately documented.
  • Comment by guy almog on One chiropractic treatment followed by two strokes Friday 23 July 2021: 08:07 “Definitely the latter” ??? I would say there is high probability the chiropractic treatment dislodged a thrombus from a pre-existing dissection
  • Comment by Alfred Farmer on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 03:07 @Jack I assume you are a scientist. I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. Honestly. Making the point that the media, the politicians, and in some cases self-proclaimed scientists keep changing the narrative…which is fine as long as they admit that hey folks…we are trying to figure things out…we aren’t really sure what’s happening next or how things will go…but it isn’t that response. It’s do what we say which seems to keep changing with no admission that they changed the story. Listener attempted to make this point but it was completely blown over. Maybe you understand this point? Not sure…the “scientists” on this post keep saying how stupid everyone else is without acknowledging how many of the scientists from covid-fame have completely screwed the pooch wrt public trust.
  • Comment by Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 02:07 Michael Moses, This may be semantics, but I understood the word projected as being put into the air with only an initial force, which from what I understand a rocket has ongoing force. But either way, can’t science prove if the rocket will come down or not? Either way, I will admit that do not understand science the way you do. I assume by projected you are thinking of something fired from a catapult, a gun or something similar which is released after being given an initial impetus, after which point the main forces acting upon it are gravity and friction and the object becomes ballistic (i.e. not self-propelled). This is actually how a rocket works, too, as the burn time is only a few minutes. According to Newtonian mechanics, what determines whether an object will return to earth under gravity is the maximum velocity that it is able to achieve. If it exceeds the escape velocity (which is about 25,000 miles per hour) then it will be able to leave the gravitational pull of the earth altogether and continue moving through space indefinitely. In practice anything travelling close to 25,000 miles per hour near the earth’s surface will heat up so much as a result of friction from the air that it will burn up completely (and will neither reach space nor return to earth), so the job of the first stage of a rocket it to lift it mostly clear of the atmosphere before it can be accelerated to its final velocity. Also very few projectiles would withstand the acceleration necessary to reach escape velocity in only a fraction of a second without completely disintegrating. Newtonian mechanics enables us to make the necessary calculations, but that is not science. Science is the process by which Newtonian mechanics was derived in the first place on the basis of observation and experiment. It was good enough to get Neil Armstrong to the Moon, but it is not actually correct. Einstein proposed a completely different model of mechanics (special relativity) and gravity (general relativity). Calculations based on relativity give almost the same results as Newtonian mechanics in most situations that ordinary people are familiar with, but for fast-moving objects (close to the speed of light, which is about 670,000,000 miles per hour) or in strong gravitational fields they start to diverge from each other. Experiments in these situations have shown that Newton gives the wrong answers and Einstein’s model is a closer approximation to reality. This has practical applications, such as in the global positioning satellites used for navigation. The timing signals have to be corrected to take account of the fact that time runs more slowly at the earth’s surface than it does at the altitude of the satellites, where gravity is less strong. Although it is only a tiny correction, without it the SatNav in our cars would be out by several miles. It is an interesting thought that driving into town can require more advanced physics than sending a rocket to the moon. We know that relativity is only an approximation to reality, though a very good one. For instance it breaks down completely in some situations related to black holes. It is also fundamentally incompatible with quantum mechanics, though mostly they address different situations. When it comes to biology and biomedical sciences the approach has to be different from physics as the interactions between different components are so many and so complex that there is no possibility of deriving anything from fundamental rules and everything is subject to what are effectively random influences. In order to understand them it is necessary to understand the behaviour of random numbers. However, this is an area where our intuitions are completely wrong to the point of being wildly misleading. Fortunately there are areas of mathematics including probability theory and statistics which have provided the necessary tools to make sense of what is going on. Essentially these enable you to detect true effects among randomness. I hope this gives you some idea of how I understand science.
  • Comment by Listener on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 01:07 @Jack I get tired of replying to every post… many times I just don’t have the time or energy to respond…. as is probable the case for many. I suppose most of us pick and choose when and where to post. That said, I know disinformation when I see it. Joe Biden seems to get a pass on dis-information…. we’ll see how this one plays out…. lol Peoples….I give you the leader of the free world… you can’t make this up. At the town hall, CNN presenter Don Lemon asked the president whether he believes COVID is in retreat. “The president said there is a pandemic for those who are not vaccinated against COVID. He went on to claim: “If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in an ICU unit, and you are not going to die.” Biden also said: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/fact-check-did-joe-biden-spread-misinformation-on-covid-vaccines/ar-AAMrsDw
  • Comment by Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 01:07 Michael Moses, You make a good point about drawing conclusions from data without understanding what it represents, and I agree with this 100%. you listed a lot of possible reasons but no actual evidence to suggest any of them are a bigger factor in the discrepancies than effectiveness. I listed a number of reasons why data from different countries are not directly comparable, and yet you are still trying to compare them. How can you talk about discrepancies between measurements when you haven’t established that they are measuring the same thing? Can’t you see that your question is meaningless? My point about the age factor was that as we get older we also get more underlying health factors. So when comparing all people 70 to all people 20 based on just age, did they ignore that most people 70 are going to have a lot more underlying health factors than people 20. I have yet to see any analysis of healthy 70 vs unhealthy 70 with covid. Age and co-morbidity (the medical term for pre-existing health conditions) are INDEPENDENT risk factors for serious disease and death from covid, and of the two, age is by far the bigger one. You yourself posted a link to a paper from the CDC a couple of days ago addressing the question of how co-morbidity affects risk. They were looking at people in the same age groups, though they also reported that it was a more important factor in younger people. Didn’t you read it first? I’m afraid I don’t know who you are, where you live, how old you are, what is your occupation or what level of education you have attained. You seem to be consistently unable to grasp the fundamentals of most of what people have been saying here, and perhaps it would be easier to formulate answers in terms of something that you could understand if we knew something about you. This is a link to the covid resource centre provided openly and free of charge by The Lancet, which is a prestigious non-specialist international medical journal, roughly on the same level as the New England Journal of Medicine. There are many specialist journals for epidemiologists, virologists, infectious disease physicians and others whose day-to-day job is dealing with diseases like covid, and I for one would be hard-pressed to understand them as I do not have that sort of specialist knowledge and experience. However, The Lancet is aimed at doctors of all kinds from psychiatrists to surgeons and I would hope that much of what they publish would make at least some sense to the intelligent and educated layman. Possibly you will find some better anwers there: https://www.thelancet.com/coronavirus
  • Comment by Jack on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Friday 23 July 2021: 00:07 @Michael Moses There is no reason for me to rehash the contents of your posts, others have already addressed much of the nonsense you posted and pointed out to you why you are wrong, and you just respond back with more BS and that goes on back and forth. Unfortunately, you chose to perceive my posts as hostile and cry about it. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. By the way, irony in my posts is intentional. Have a nice life!
  • Comment by Michael Moses on Is Prof Harald Walach incompetent or dishonest? Thursday 22 July 2021: 22:07 Jack,  Perhaps we just have different definitions of rant if you think what I have been posting have been rants while your posts are not. Apparently you don’t see the irony in your posts.  As for the scenario you proposed, I already conceded that you had valid points. Yet you still want me to create a scenario that can be dismantled with points I already agree are possible? 
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories