To help follow discussions, the most recent ten comments on blog posts are shown below with the latest comments first.
Older/newer comments can be viewed by clicking on the links at the bottom.
Clicking on the post title will take you to that blog post page and clicking on the comment author and date will take you straight to that comment.
by Alan Henness - Tuesday 20 November 2018 23:42
Leonard Thomas (MrT) said:The elements of Reiki are ‘Energy/ Frequency/ Vibration’. Please feel free to define your terms.
by Leonard Thomas (MrT) - Tuesday 20 November 2018 22:51
What do people get wrong about Reiki? They use Hypotheticals and Assumptions in attempts to form its reality. They believe that what they tell you about its origins are true and ignore the reality. They tell you that it is Spiritual when the reality is that it only works for the Physical/ Emotional. They confuse people into to Assuming that gifts given to the NeoSpiritual at conception include Reiki when they have no real connection. So what is the reality of Reiki? The elements of Reiki are ‘Energy/ Frequency/ Vibration’. Those elements are created from words or symbols written as sentences creating ‘Affirmations’. Those Affirmations are placed into selected Chakras by means of ‘Attunements’. And at the conclusion of each progression (Level) the Affirmations are retained. Retention of the Affirmations? Affirmations are constructed from elements of Energy/ Frequency/ Vibration and when parts of those elements are used to construct an Affirmation and an Attunement is used to insert them into selected Chakras (Energy Centres) then another Affirmation has to be used at the progressional level to retain the energy. That retention can be tested to ensure that it is retained for the rest of the Physical life. How is any test performed?
by Björn Geir - Monday 19 November 2018 22:17
What is it we do not know about Leonard, and how can you tell that we do not know? Please enlighten us. A quick look at your pages reveals nothing that is unfamiliar. But I see a lot that you do not know or have misunderstood. How do I know? I paid attention in school and I have studied natural sciences, medicine, surgery, physics, chemistry electronics, radio technology, navigation and several more subjects. What is your excuse for not understanding elementary physics for example?
by Alan Henness - Tuesday 20 November 2018 23:38
I can't comment on the NIH funding medicine trials in the past, but they certainly do still fund trials of quackery - they have spent billions on it with virtually nothing to show for it but negative trials. But good luck trying to get the public to pay for trials directly - they already do indirectly, of course, through the prices pharmaceutical companies charge for their products.
by Penny - Tuesday 20 November 2018 23:11
The NIH used to be the source of clinical trials in USA until the Reagan era when the political powers decided those who gain the most from these studies should fund them. Why should those who gain the most provide any unbiased, pure scientific information when much of it could result in their gains being reduced or eliminated. No brainer to me that those with the least to gain should be the source of this information.
by Trent Mozingo - Tuesday 20 November 2018 21:30
I am not sure how to explain it to you. Are you not sure what wholistic means? Or what Medicine means? Or is it the combination of the words that stumped you?
by Bart B. Van Bockstaele - Tuesday 20 November 2018 20:47
Back to google for you, MOJO. I was hoping for an answer, not a mere reply to someone else. I am always eager to find out that chiropractors are not the idiots they so skillfully portray themselves as but – alas – they never fail to disappoint me. Well, at least, I can't accuse them of lack of consistency in that respect.
by Trent Mozingo - Tuesday 20 November 2018 19:27
Back to google for you, MOJO.
by Mojo - Tuesday 20 November 2018 18:59
Does it mean that someone can’t spell “holistic”?
by Bart B. Van Bockstaele - Tuesday 20 November 2018 16:06
I still can not figure out why MDs are so hell bent on discrediting wholistic medicine. This looks like sophisticated chiropractor jargon. Care to explain to this mere mortal what it means?
by Trent Mozingo - Tuesday 20 November 2018 13:38
Solid input. Thank you for taking the time to link WIKI, or even putting words in italics or bold that have no value.
by James - Tuesday 20 November 2018 06:09
Ah, the human "back"... wonderful things come out of it at times! I still can not figure out why MDs are so hell bent on discrediting wholistic medicine. I am aware that hate is taught, so maybe this is the case. Mr. Palm, this is Mr. Forehead. Mr. Forehead, this is Mr. Palm*. *(Editor's note: Read Palm, not Palmer)
by Alan Henness - Tuesday 20 November 2018 20:33
[sigh] Ernst is slagging off homeopathy, yet pharmaceuticals kill 100k a yearI get comments of this nature all the time, sometimes by the dozen per day. As the argument is so very common, let me ONCE AGAIN explain what is wrong with it. Here are 10 very simple points for those who find it hard to understand the issue. 1. My expertise is in alternative medicine and not in pharmacology. I know many pharmacologists who are competent to criticise aspects of pharmacotherapy and do so regularly. I do NOT consider myself competent to comment on pharmacotherapy. 2. The fact that some things are not perfect in one area of health care (e. g. pharmacotherapy) does certainly not mean that one is not allowed to criticise shortcomings in other areas (e. g. homeopathy). 3. As far as I can tell, it is not pharmaceuticals that ‘kill 100k a year’, but the issue is more complex: a sizable proportion of this tragic total is due to medical errors, for instance. 4. The 100k figure seems to refer to the US where the vast majority of the population take pharmaceuticals but only about 2% of the population ever try homeopathy. 5. Nobody seems to dispute that pharmaceuticals have beneficial effects beyond placebo; the general consensus regarding highly diluted homeopathics is that they have no effects beyond placebo. 6. To judge the value of a therapy, it is naïve and dangerously misleading to consider just its risks. If we did that, aromatherapy would be preferable to surgery, reflexology would be better than chemotherapy and OF COURSE homeopathy would be better than pharmacotherapy. And if we then implemented this ‘wisdom’ into routine practice, we would hasten the deaths of millions. 7. Any reasonable judgement of the value of any therapy must account for its documented risks in relation to its documented benefits. In other words, we must always try to weigh the two against each other and do a risk/benefit analysis. 8. If a therapy is associated with finite risks and no benefits, its risk/benefit balance cannot possibly be positive. Where the benefit is non-existent or doubtful, even relatively small risks will inevitably tilt this balance in to the negative. 9. This is precisely the situation that applies to homeopathy: its benefits beyond placebo are doubtful and its risks are fairly well documented. 10. This means that homeopathy cannot be considered to be a therapy that is fit for purpose.
by Larson Creek - Tuesday 20 November 2018 20:13
Why don't you write something on the flu vaccine fallacy? This year it is 12% 'effective', that is far worse than a placebo and all that weasel about matches, the process being wrong etc. are rather remarkable uses of dishonesty.
by Julian - Monday 19 November 2018 15:39
by Mojo - Tuesday 20 November 2018 18:34
The National Rules scheme requires evidence of efficacy... Does it? The “Register a homeopathic medicine or remedy” on the gov.uk says that they “must submit data that demonstrates quality, safety and use within the UK homeopathic tradition”: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/register-a-homeopathic-medicine-or-remedy Actually, would use by “at least two homeopathic doctors” practising in the UK “for about a year” be enough to demonstrate “use within the UK homeopathic tradition?
by Frank Odds - Tuesday 20 November 2018 15:24
Hinckley is part of the constituency held by the famous David Tredinnick, MP. 'Nuff said.
by Richard Rawlins - Tuesday 20 November 2018 15:19
If any GMC registered doctor attempts to treat a patient without getting fully informed consent from the patient (in this case - parent or guardian) they have acted unethically and should be reported to the GMC. Consent should include no only the fact that there is no plausible reproducible evidence that homeopathic remedies have any beneficial effect on any condition, but also that the child/parent would be part of a trial which, having no placebo arm, is useless and also unethical. Given babies with colic invariably recover, the clinical results are already in: "Babies cease to have colic in all but the most pathological of conditions." Where do I collect my fee for providing this result?
by Ron Jette - Tuesday 20 November 2018 15:16
Correct. It is not science. Period. At best, it is anecdotal evidence collected by a person who is already being deceptive by calling himself a doctor. What else is he lying about? I mean, let's face it. These practitioners have a history of self-delusion and seeing what they want to see. This "evidence" will be used for only thing: to further an already seriously flawed argument in favour of woo woo. But except for that, it sounds fantastic!
by UK Homeopathy Regulation - Tuesday 20 November 2018 12:20
Ketomi Distribution 15 Waterfield Way Sketchley Meadows Industrial Estate Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3ER It might be worth asking the MHRA...
by Edzard - Tuesday 20 November 2018 11:57
they might already be in the UK https://www.coliccalm.co.uk/ not sure though
by UK Homeopathy Regulation - Tuesday 20 November 2018 11:53
by UK Homeopathy Regulation - Tuesday 20 November 2018 11:52
First the manufacturer has to set up a presence in the UK so that it can register with the MHRA. This is quite an onerous and expensive process. Given that there isn't a product already on the market, it begs the question as to whether there is enough of a market to justify the expenditure. There is in the UK is gripe water. There is now a mutual agreement between US and EU to mutually recognise GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) inspections (GMP compliance is a requirement to register as a manufacturer in the EU). At the moment, the US only accepts inspections from certain EU member states (curiously not Germany). In theory, this makes it easier for manufacturers based in one market to enter the other. Of course, because of differences in how homeopathic medicines are regulated, some products legally available in the US are prohibited in the EU and vice versa. Labelling requirements, claims permitted etc are different. It is also the case that registration of homeopathic medicines is at Member State level rather than pan-EU. The National Rules scheme requires evidence of efficacy - although the bar is set very low. Provings are acceptable, so are scientific literature searches and "study reports". Presumably, the latter is what the manufacturer is attempting. The US market seems to have a high proportion of combination products. For example, homeopathic cold/flu remedies contain a large number of ingredients that notionally have an effect on one or more symptoms. EU products need to be single remedies only. How member state regulators would react to such products is unknown and would likely vary. Because of the power of the French and German manufacturers, it is not difficult to imagine them lobbying against these foreign products. It's known that some EU member states limit the languages in which dossiers can be submitted. Technical translation is not cheap. The idea of doctors handing out an OTC homeopathic remedy tends to go against individuised prescribing. Most medical homeopaths are either in private practice or homeopathy is a private side line. Are parents really going to pay to take their children to see a private quack for colic?
by Lenny - Tuesday 20 November 2018 11:51
A “new product” for colic. So that’ll be non-individualised, then? So not homeopathy.. And homeopaths don’t treat conditions, do they? They always tell us that they treat the totality of symptoms. Self-contradiction from the homeoquacks? Surely not. I mean, some might be forced to conclude that it’s all aload of ineffectual made-up cobblers.
by Jashak - Tuesday 20 November 2018 11:45
Not sure why the company wants to do a “study” for the MHRA then. Probably just for PR. Would be nice if doctors would be prevented (e.g. by an ethics committee) to take part in such kind of „studies“ that have more in common with medieval rituals that with modern medical trials.
by compandalt - Tuesday 20 November 2018 16:27
I would like to suggest an alternative conclusion: "It is concerning that as many as 16% of the population have used CAM within the last 12 months as most CAM doesn't have evidence of effectiveness for any health condition and there are also risks associated with CAM treatments. Policy makers should consider the following two actions to address this issue: a) better education of members of the public about the lack of evidence and scientific rationale behind most CAM treatments and the potential risks b) gaining a better understanding of the gaps in current NHS services that result in people undertaking CAM, with the longer-term aim of addressing these gaps with science- and evidence-based treatments".
by Michael Kenny - Tuesday 20 November 2018 13:27
“....that only teach Chiropractic medicine”. That statement is typically only used by those with a high “chiropractic-ignorance-quotient” as chiropractic was NEVER medicine, and DCs only use the term when their diffidence and low self-esteem needs to be improved at a dinner party (where there are no real “doctors” present to scoff at them for use of such an arcane and inappropriate moniker). And the phrase “...complete a D.C. level of competence...” is levity at its best! “I’ve just completed my Competence-in-complete-nonsense! I too was married to an incompetent “doctor” but a very competent DC! She could swindle almost anyone out of a buck! And she liked the title “chiropractic physician”. She never stitched a wound, drew blood, delivered a baby, saved-a-life or even lanced a boil. BUT she fancied herself a Physician!! ARROGANCE at its best. Yep a physician of: “the worlds largest non-scientific healthcare delivery system”. You and your wife should be very proud!
by Peter Lambert - Tuesday 20 November 2018 07:59
All the the states in America REQUIRE that all Chiropractors have to pass the state medical licensing boards in or to practice legally in that state. In fact in cases of seminars a Chiropractor who comes to teach in a state that they are not licensed to practice they cannot lay hands on anyone. I know this for a fact since my wife is a Chiropractor graduate of Life West what maintained when she practiced in the USA licencing from the state of NY, NJ and CA. which allowed her to teach and practice in those states. Chiropractors have to take the same boards as allopathic medical practitioners. To be more specific to your comment in the USA I am not aware of any College or University that includes Chiropractic medical training in their courses. If you want to be a Chiropractor in the USA you must attend Colleges that only teach Chiropractic medicine and they require a six year commitment to complete a D.C. level of competence. To iterate even after you graduate you will still have to pass the state medical boards where you which to practice and have to register a required amount of qualified Continuing Education Course need to be attended per year...
by jm - Tuesday 20 November 2018 08:03
"...so your discomfort is not quite unexpected." What discomfort?
by James - Tuesday 20 November 2018 05:45
On the other hand, it’s pretty much the essence of this blog. The posts and comments are full of what constitutes ‘real’ medicine, promotion of universal conformity to a particular model for understanding and organizing natural phenomena, re-defining terms used by other systems, etc. This is a fundamentalist site. Not a criticism, it’s just what it is. Getting rusty with your argumentation, jm? I don't enjoy challenging your fantasies, but on a fundamentalist website, your opinion and posts would never get through moderation. On the other hand, fundamentalists have a tendency to see fundamentalists everywhere, so your discomfort is not quite unexpected. At the risk of repeating myself, do mind that your right to an opinion is respected.
← Older comments