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 Edzard on Exeter University offers bogus treatments, but is ‘not in a position to actively condone the effectiveness of such treatments’ Thursday 21 March 2019: 19:03 quantum theories? explain what they have to do with human health, please.
  • Comment by Lenny on This must be the most sickening cancer scam I have seen for a while Thursday 21 March 2019: 19:03 “Sodium bicarbonate would not be a feasible cancer treatment because it is not well-tolerated by humans, but other approaches that lower acidity could be worth exploring” That kiboshes the sodium bicarbonate theory.
  • Comment by Delfina Dancer on Exeter University offers bogus treatments, but is ‘not in a position to actively condone the effectiveness of such treatments’ Thursday 21 March 2019: 18:03 Exactly the responses I expected; expansive or limited minds? Distilled only in history or embrassing development and change. It is not difficult in a reign of opposition to CAM to promote substantiating evidence in line with where you choose to place your observation. Neither is it difficult to apply in the opposite. Check out quantum theories. I would find your constant need to vilify CAM interesting if you were to present research that supports CAM combined with your pleasure to present the evidence against thereby promote interesting debate as to why both do exist.
  • Comment by Al Nederhood on This must be the most sickening cancer scam I have seen for a while Thursday 21 March 2019: 12:03 http://news.mit.edu/2019/how-tumors-behave-acid-0320 Given the new (as of 3/20/2019) info from above link (tumors spread more aggressively in an acidic environment) it would seem that the basic idea behind bicarbonate cancer treatment has some scientific basis. The details and efficacy of the treatment are not fully quantified, but the potential to impact tumor growth seems to have factual support. What am I missing since this new information seems to provide some hope for this scam treatment?
  • Comment by Alan Henness on Jeremy Corbyn and homeopathy Thursday 21 March 2019: 11:03 Goodness knows what that was in response to, Greg. Indeed, Boiron make a lot of money from sugar pills and show that it's big business, not some cottage industry, but they have little to no market presence in the UK. The main manufacturers here are Nelsons, Helios, Ainsworths and Weleda, with Freemans and Sanjivani as less well-known brands. How are they all doing?
  • Comment by Greg on Jeremy Corbyn and homeopathy Thursday 21 March 2019: 09:03 Boiron is doing really well, I guess that upsets some people. But, get the facts: http://www.boironfinance.com/Shareholders-and-investors-area/Financial-information/Regulated-information/Annual-and-half-year-reports
  • Comment by Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Exeter University offers bogus treatments, but is ‘not in a position to actively condone the effectiveness of such treatments’ Thursday 21 March 2019: 09:03 I'm afraid I can't make sense of your post at all. Do you think you could clarify it a bit?
  • Comment by jeanette martinez on Schuessler Salts: “Any expenditure on the purchase of these salts will be money wasted” Thursday 21 March 2019: 02:03 boy boom!
  • Comment by Alan Henness on ‘Most of the supplement market is bogus’, but surely not the world’s 1st super-supplement! Wednesday 20 March 2019: 23:03 I have over-estimated nothing. As you probably know, the ASA is the established means of regulation of advertising and is recognised by the courts. The ASA's codes are based on consumer protection and other legislation. They do try to get advertisers to comply and go out of their way to help but if they don'tt, they can rule against them, publicise their breaches of the codes and impose sanctions. If they are persistent, they can be referred to Trading Standards who then decide whether to prosecute under consumer protection legislation. Many advertisers do want to comply and it's in their interests to comply and most do and change or withdraw their advertising if found to be non compliant. That list is the list of non-compliant advertisers: it is not a list of advertisers referred to TS so why do you say they are ignored by TS and are not breaking any law?
  • Comment by DC on Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice Wednesday 20 March 2019: 22:03 "The teaching of vertebral subluxation complex as a vitalistic construct that claims that it is the cause of disease is unsupported by evidence. Its inclusion in a modern chiropractic curriculum in anything other than an historical context is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary." The International Chiropractic Education Collaboration Clinical and Professional Chiropractic Education: a Position Statement
  • Comment by Edzard on Exeter University offers bogus treatments, but is ‘not in a position to actively condone the effectiveness of such treatments’ Wednesday 20 March 2019: 20:03 thank you for making it so very clear that you have understood precisely NOTHING.
  • Comment by Delfina T Dancer on Exeter University offers bogus treatments, but is ‘not in a position to actively condone the effectiveness of such treatments’ Wednesday 20 March 2019: 20:03 I find it extraordinary that scientific academics have continuously failed to identify that complementary therapies by their nature are somewhat different to bio-medicine and require a different approach. However, even bio-medical research remains stuck in its own past. Surely an open minded scientist would seek to develop trials that verfiy, measure and explore why many Complemetary and Alternative Medicines have been around and sucessful in their use for thousands of years. Likewise produce upgraded trials that develop rather than limit. Whilst scientific research may have its roots in dissection and separation none of us as human beings would function if that was the whole story. Its about time research acknowedged the fact human bodies and their entire fuctioning is done as a whole; we need to move on from separating the human in to parts. Surely a truely objective approach requires reseach to study the whole 'structure'. Perhaps then if applied to pharmaceutical trials for example we would expand from 30% verifiable drugs to understanding the whole outcome and in the process reduce the damage caused by the not understood 70%. This old, same old, debate suggests there is limitation in approach and that scientific approaches need updating. That those who keep a blinkered approach stall innovation and development of that which they serve
  • Comment by Michael Kenny on Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice Wednesday 20 March 2019: 19:03 Google: “Do You Need a Chiropractor? The Top 3 Reasons People Get to the chiropractor. The Joint (chiroquacker franchise, with over 400 locations and growing) What do people go to chiropractors for?” “When neck pain is caused by any sort of MISALIGNMENTS in the spine, chiropractic care may be able to straighten it out and alleviate the pain...”. The Joint Chiropractic › I am still mystified that the chiroquacker commenters on this site are so compelled by their confirmation bias they refuse to see the google written all over the subway walls; chiroquackery IS finding and “fixing” (non-existent) intervertebral misalignment...better known as subluxation. Untrapping Innate-flow is just one extra bit of mucus to ensnare the gullible into thinking health and spinal-alignment are related. As we all know (proper) spinal-alignment (as proselytized by the religion of chiropractic) is unknowable even IF some arcane test says otherwise...and even if it could be deduced with valid tests it has zero bearing on pain or health as has been proven over these last 120 years.
  • Comment by Dendra on ‘Most of the supplement market is bogus’, but surely not the world’s 1st super-supplement! Wednesday 20 March 2019: 19:03 Alan Henness is rather over estimating the power if the ASA. The ASA CAP code is not law. Go to https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/non-compliant-online-advertisers.html to see the long list of non compliant advertisers who are ignored by Trading Standards because they are not breaking any law.
  • Comment by Alan Henness on ‘Most of the supplement market is bogus’, but surely not the world’s 1st super-supplement! Wednesday 20 March 2019: 17:03 LOL. But that was a nice attempt at a diversion, wasn't it Greg?
  • Comment by L on Asanté Academy of Chinese Medicine ‘One of the leading Chinese Medicine clinics and teaching institutes in the UK and Europe’ Wednesday 20 March 2019: 16:03 Has anyone looked at this - seems well qualified https://edzardernst.com/about/
  • Comment by Listener on Gerson therapy: a treatment to avoid at all cost Wednesday 20 March 2019: 14:03 Thank you Dr. J That was an excellent reply. I look forward to hearing more good results from hyperthemia treatments, as a solo treatment without Radiation or Chemo.... FDA permitting.
  • Comment by Greg on ‘Most of the supplement market is bogus’, but surely not the world’s 1st super-supplement! Wednesday 20 March 2019: 13:03 So says Mr Alan 'The Digger' Henness! LOL!
  • Comment by Blue Wode on Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice Wednesday 20 March 2019: 13:03 A reminder to any readers who may not be aware, chiropractic also has links to the Moonie cult, apparently... https://edzardernst.com/2014/01/visceral-manipulation-you-couldnt-make-it-up/#comment-53935
  • Comment by Critical_Chiro on No good evidence for chiropractic, osteopathic or other manual treatments for children suffering from any condition Wednesday 20 March 2019: 12:03 I thought the same as you Sue so I went to the physio Research database PEDro and set the filters on "Stretching, mob, manip, massage" and "pediatrics" then I looked at "guidelines, SR's and clinical trials". Cochrane Review: Chest physiotherapy for pneumonia in children. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30601584 What I found hilarious is that the relevant papers in PEDro on manual therapy for infants and babies had chiro authors. That is a good evidence statement on CMT by APTA. Now scroll down to "interventions levels of evidence". If chiro's touched babies with that level of evidence Friends of Science in Medicine and doctors would be furious. The physio's are flying under the radar. I don't touch babies but I was curious about what the chiro's do. So I checked. Thrust manipulations are not taught like in that video posted by moron Ian Rossborough and are considered an absolute no-no. I have since found out that a complaint to AHPRA was sent be Genevieve Keating who is doing her PhD on chiro treatment for babies and a group of "paed's" chiro's in regards to Rossborough.
  • Comment by Edzard on Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice Wednesday 20 March 2019: 12:03 of course, many chiros ARE scientologists!
  • Comment by Michael Kenny on Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice Wednesday 20 March 2019: 12:03 @cc: I am neither entrenched nor committed to any particular “belief”. I am however a decade long surviver, having been married to a DC and neck-deep in every facet of chiroquackery including operating an office, staff, marketing, attending “educational” seminars and innumerable business-consulting seminars. I know what I speak IS far more true than false. And way more in line with DC practices than the tripe and sanguine rhetoric you robotically recite. Chiropractic was developed as fraud and perpetuates as fraud...it’s a healthcare farce with a tiny, tiny minority who got suckered in and now are trying to redeem themselves by usurping whatever they can to continue their money laundering with a modicum of pride. You are NOT PTs, biomechanists, exercise physiologists or psychologists...yet you somehow think your woeful education allows you facile entrance into all those arenas...and to project expertise in their regard. How many DCs regularly advertise themselves as “spinal experts”? I’d say virtually ALL. Even IF you were to uncover something with your arcane and/or unreliable and invalid tests....why should a patient assume a DC is then qualified to “treat” whatever condition you allegedly find? Most of the commenters and sensible people here are well aware DCs find (make-up) “alignment or fixation” issues and then sell “adjustments”. Pretending it isn’t the case and your constant reiteration of your false-premise leads me to think you are also a Scientologist.
  • Comment by Alan Henness on ‘Most of the supplement market is bogus’, but surely not the world’s 1st super-supplement! Wednesday 20 March 2019: 11:03 LOL! They may have been flaunting their ignorance but they were not displaying any of the ASA's rules, waving them about for all to see: they were flouting them. Keep digging.
  • Comment by Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Gerson therapy: a treatment to avoid at all cost Wednesday 20 March 2019: 09:03 Thank-you. Of course I don't have any details other than what John has provided, and in any case I am not an expert in hyperthermia - my knowledge is no more than that of any oncologist, and I haven't particularly been following the research. The link you provided gives a very detailed summary of the state of the area so far, including what is known about interactions with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, mechanisms of action and possible clinical uses. I was not aware that the FDA had approved the use of hyperthermia. However, a quick search threw up a few interesting links: http://www.ascopost.com/issues/january-15-2014/using-hyperthermia-for-cancer-treatment-proofs-promises-and-uncertainties/ This is from the ASCO Post (American Society of Clinical Oncology) and it seems that the approval is for limited humanitarian use in patients with a rare form of cervical cancer who are unable to have chemotherapy. The article also mentions that hyperthermia can be used and reimbursed for breast cancer recurrence in the chest wall, which is a very difficult problem to treat with conventional approaches and ideal for hyperthermia as the tumour nodules are in the skin. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfhde/hde.cfm?id=H090002 This is from the FDA itself, and confirms the limited indications for certain cervical cancers https://www.hcioncology.com/hyperthermia-therapy/ This is the Web site of a commercial centre offering hyperthermia to cancer patients. It seems to be deliberately vague about exactly what it is offering and which cancers can be treated there. It also seems to have cherry-picked promising areas of research and presented them as though they were referring to established treatment. Nowhere can I find anything about the use of adjuvant hyperthermia in breast cancer (by adjuvant, I mean in addition to the main treatment - surgery in this case - where the intent is to improve the chance of long-term cure). I wouldn't have thought that the FDA approval extends to this indication, and the only proper usage would be in the context of a clinical trial. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4791303/ This paper gives the results of a trial of the clinical use of hyperthermia in breast cancer, specifically looking at local recurrence, and at locally advanced tumours (i.e. difficult to treat otherwise). There are some graphic photographs of the sort of problem that they are investigating, with before and after shots illustrating some of the responses they have achieved. So maybe John's wife was in a clinical trial that her oncologist was participating in. Or maybe she was treated at a commercial centre, possibly outside the FDA-licensed indications and in the absence of clinical data to support such usage, with or without the knowledge of her oncologist. I am speculating here, but if it is the latter then it does have some of the features of alternative medicine.
  • Comment by Greg on ‘Most of the supplement market is bogus’, but surely not the world’s 1st super-supplement! Wednesday 20 March 2019: 08:03 FLAUNT: display (something) ostentatiously, especially in order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance. I think you guys are slow?
  • Comment by Sue on No good evidence for chiropractic, osteopathic or other manual treatments for children suffering from any condition Wednesday 20 March 2019: 08:03 It's true that some physiotherapists in private practice may sometimes provide non-evidence-based care, but this does not negate the excellent treatments provided by properly trained paediatric physiotherapists, who treat kids with cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis and a host of other conditions. There evidence-based statement on the treatment of congenital muscular torticollis is here: https://journals.lww.com/pedpt/Fulltext/2013/25040/Physical_Therapy_Management_of_Congenital_Muscular.2.aspx Chest physiotherapy is not routinely used for pneumonia. It may be applicable for ventilated patients (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00134-002-1342-2) and conditions where there is difficulty coughing up secretions (bronchiectasis, cystic fibrosis, the elderly, asthma etc). Those physios providing so-called cranio-sacral therapy - pure pseudoscience - deserve as much scorn as anyone else providing pseudoscientific 'therapy'. The majority of specialist paediatric physios, however, are highly skilled and science-based.
  • Comment by Critical_Chiro on Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice Wednesday 20 March 2019: 06:03 @MK “out of align” LOL "Arcane test" have to agree with you there. Recent research shows that only about 5% the standard orthopedic tests used by most chiro's, physio's, ortho's have decent sensitivity or are stand alone. So that is why we do a battery of tests followed by a THOROUGH history. One of the most accurate and reliable tests? The practitioners clinical judgement that something is just not right. We are reforming and I have been harping on about it on this blog for years. Pity you are so blinkered and not listening. I am well aware that you and many of the regulars here are deeply entrenched in the belief that all chiropractors live, breath and worship at the high altar of the mighty subluxation and you will not change. You have invested too much of your time in one perspective/belief and are therefore incapable of change. Same with the subbie chiropractors. The only reason I persist is for all the lurkers who read this blog and do not post. Will we ever be rid of them? Probably not. But we are working hard to reduce their numbers to the absolute minimum. Both sides of the argument need to be put into the public record.
  • Comment by Critical_Chiro on Update on spinal manipulation for back pain confirms: it is not the treatment of choice Wednesday 20 March 2019: 05:03 @FO Carpet bombing is defined as "Indiscriminate bombing of an area" Rather apt as you are happy to take out researchers and reformers. "chiropractic is firmly grounded in the discredited concept of the ‘subluxation’ as introduced without evidence by its founder." Do you not find it ironic that you employ the same arguments as the vitalistic subluxation based chiropractors? Now the ICA??? Michael Epstein they are a small group of chiropractors clinging to the past. Recently many of their executives resigned and comments from those leaving indicate that their membership is dwindling, around 200. The organization is a joke.
  • Comment by paul clayton on ‘Most of the supplement market is bogus’, but surely not the world’s 1st super-supplement! Wednesday 20 March 2019: 04:03 While I appreciate your cut 'n paste skills, I think we can safely discard definitions 1 and 4. As for items 2 and 3, I regard them as a form of corruption in that they describe a willingness - at some level - to be displaced from the search for scientific or other truth, for the comfort of the confirmation of one's prejudices. I regard this as an insidious form of corruption indeed, and it is issues like these that keep me awake at night. I had assumed that as an intellectual and one of my generation, you would have understood my meaning, but it is a subtle point and I should perhaps have been more explicit. Mea culpa.
  • Comment by Listener on Gerson therapy: a treatment to avoid at all cost Wednesday 20 March 2019: 04:03 Dr. J Since John has not responded, please allow me to converse with you about the breast cancer. I'm pretty sure from Johns post that the oncologist was also administrating the hyperthermia. "As far as I know, clinical trials of hyperthermia (in combination with other treatments) have investigated the effects in advanced malignancy after other treatments have failed, and have not looked at adjuvant use of hyperthermia (which this is), so apart from side-effects of treatment, we don’t know whether in this situation it might actually increase the risk of recurrence by interfering with other treatment. Did your wife’s oncologist know that she was having hyperthermia, and did they make any dose modifications to take into account possible interactions? " The US FDA has given the green light to hyperthermia treatments in conjunction with Radiation or Chemo. The use of Ultrasound is the means of heating the tissue, and it can go deep, in fact through the bone in my understanding. However, I'm not sure as you stated how much the blood is effected, perhaps it's not the goal. I'm pretty sure they have some evidence that the treatment is beneficial. You are the expert, you tell me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3763397/
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.

Categories