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

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 Candy Champion - Thursday 20 September 2018 16:25
    Attack me all you want, I'm not being aggressive just stating facts that you asked for. Now, let's go back to facts. The facts are that chemo effects damages to the body now let's say I had chemo and a year later had a heart attack and die. That death is counted not as cancer death but as heart attack (which was damaged by chemo) . We'll take the number you used 8% increase in 10 years. Now recalculate to include those who had traditional treatment but died as a result of that treatment. You can't because it's not counted anywhere. So let's get to my point, if someone wants to have traditional protocol treatments then go for it. If someone wants to have alternative treatments they should go for it as well and should be allowed to get that here and no have to go to Mexico to get it. Doctors shouldn't be giving false information either for or against any treatment. I feel like I deserve to know the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and base my decision on that. Please continue on with your bashing game. But for the record how can you say that alternative treatments killed Rachel when she had at least 2 surgeries, chemo and radiation then doctors said they did all they could, she goes then for alternative treatments on a body that was already destroyed. When people get a cancer diagnosis they are scared and dont know what to do. We are taught to trust our doctors and listen to what they tell us. When I said to my doctor, let me think about it, he said no you can't you have to have surgery this week before it spreads. Funny that almost 3 years later it hasn't spread according to my last mri. Maybe someday people will see it's all about the money and wake up. Come judgement day I feel for all of you who have to face the lives you held in your hands and traded for your pockets filled. Yes I do believe in God and I trust him with my life. Please dont bother to respond with negative comments especially about my belief.

    by Frank Odds - Thursday 20 September 2018 10:53
    @Bjorn Geir I regret I had overlooked Candy Champion's earlier comment. When someone posts a comment such as this one, full of aggression and accusations of lying, I tend to respond with a similar level of aggression when I find that the comment is based on a total misreading of tabulated data. FWIW: earlier this year I too was diagnosed with a colorectal adenocarcinoma. I'm currently undergoing medical and surgical treatment and am cautiously optimistic that, as a result, I'll be declared cancer-free by the end of the year. The treatments, particularly chemotherapy, are not pleasant, but I'm impressed by the many measures that have been developed to prevent or reduce the severity of the side-effects. I am prepared to suffer a little for the longer-term good. I find it easy to understand why some people elect not to undergo orthodox medical treatments; it's entirely their own business. But when that choice is apparently taken on the basis of serious misinformation or failure to comprehend statistics, and the person concerned feels abusive towards medical orthodoxy, then something, somewhere, has gone seriously amiss. I'd recommend anyone newly diagnosed with cancer and thinking of refusing orthodox medical treatments to read the many empathetic, erudite comments on this blog from the oncologist Julian Money-Kyrie. Good examples are this one and this one. Dr Money-Kyrie has also addressed the issue of Googling as 'research' in the hands of people with no background education in biology or medicine (here).

    by Stephen Cox - Wednesday 19 September 2018 22:59
    Thank you for the excellent comments based on your personal vast experience and expertise Dr. Money-Kyrle. It is astonishing and frustrating that so many non physicians and non scientists become convinced in Voodoo magic perpetrated by con artists. It reminds me of the book by Dr. Paul offit,"Do You Believe in Magic?" All patients should read this, since it conveys and compares reality and truth to nonsense with fact based discussions and references.

    by Björn Geir - Wednesday 19 September 2018 19:59
    It seems that Ms. Champion's reading of cancer statistics like the devil reads the bible has an extremely sad background. If I read this post from her@ 14:14 today correctly, she is desperately trying to justify her ill advised decision not to accept proper treatment for her own adenocarcinoma disease.

    by Candy Champion - Wednesday 19 September 2018 19:37
    That is cancer statistics for 66 years from SEERcancer.gov it's a table but didn't transfer over as one. You can copy it into a table or simply go to their site and see it.

    by Dr Julian Money-Kyrle - Wednesday 19 September 2018 19:23
    Candy, I have had a look at your tables, but it is not very clear what they mean. Are they referring to death rates per cancer diagnosis, or deaths from cancer per 100,000 people per year (which is usually how such rates are expressed) or something else entirely. If it is death rates from cancer, then this does not only depend on whether treatment is more successful, but also very much on whether the incidence of cancer is changing, and indeed on whether the accuracy of reporting on death certificates has changed. Certainly I would expect more cancers to be picked up these days simply because we have much better ways of diagnosing them, and that is going to affect the numbers on death certificates and cancer registries. Indeed, we know that more people are dying of cancer now because they are not dying young from infectious diseases, and that doesn't tell us anything about the success of cancer treatment, either. So for many reasons we might expect the reported death rates from cancer to increase even if treatment has greatly improved over the period in question. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell from the tables cited, the death rate from cancer in all age groups except the very elderly is falling, not rising or staying the same, though the total is rather skewed by the 85+ group as it is the largest group (unsurprisingly, since cancer is predominantly a disease of old age), which makes the improvement seem less than it is. So, Candy, it would be helpful if you could give your source, and also explain what the table is showing, rather than simply listing a series of numbers which, on the face of it, appear to show the opposite of what you are claiming.

    by Frank Odds - Wednesday 19 September 2018 17:53
    @Candy ROFL! You're not shy to demonstrate your ignorance, are you? By Googling "66-Year Trends in U.S. Cancer Death Rates" I found your source (which, if you were a serious debater you'd have cited in the first place). It's the excellent NIH National Cancer Institute statistics review of cancer mortality trends for 1975–2015 (Table 1.3). I make the comment about your ignorance on solid grounds, because the data show the precise opposite of your claim that the "survival rate has not improved for the last ten years". You clearly don't have a frickin' clue how to read the table! For a start the table presents annual percent changes for two periods — 1950–1982 and 1982–2015, neither of which is a 10-year period. (To save you having to work it out, both periods are 32 years long, not 10.) And 'annual' means 'per year', so when, for example, the figure for ages 0–4 from 1950–1982 is given as –3.3, that's a much greater overall mortality reduction for the period. The many asterisks you have copied and pasted indicate a statistically significant mortality change. The most relevant numbers to any discussion in the effects of real medicine on cancer mortality come from the right-hand column — total percentage change in mortality (for all forms of cancer) from 1950 to 2015. Over that 65-year time-span, all-cancer mortality has been reduced by 81.6% for ages 0–4, by 68.4% for ages 5–14, by 61.4% for ages 15–24, and so on. (Click my link to the table above and take another look). The overall cancer mortality has decreased less for the older age groups and has indeed increased by 12.2% between 1950 and 2015 for people aged more than 85 years. But I'd suggest that a mortality decrease of 28%, 14% and 6% is not bad for the age groups 55–64, 65–74 and 75–84. We're all suffering from a sexually transmitted, terminal disease called 'life'. We have to die of something, sometime!! Thank you, Candy Champion, for so clearly demonstrating your total absence of education in very simple things like reading data tables. That your limitations don't stop you imagining you're some kind of crusader against skeptics (who you probably imagine are all on the 'Big Pharma' payroll). We try to do sick consumers a good turn by pointing out that, in the real world, their favourite brand of pseudo-medicine is complete nonsense. But you simply Google something and, from the deepest bowels of your cognitive bias, wrongly imagine you're seeing something that supports your case.

    by Edzard - Wednesday 19 September 2018 16:39
    I do not know what these figures mean, nor where they come from.

    by Candy Champion - Wednesday 19 September 2018 16:11
    Age Group 1950 1982 2015 1950-1982 1982-2015 1950-2015 Ages 0-4 11.1 4.4 2.0 -3.3* -2.1* -81.6 Ages 5-14 6.7 4.2 2.1 -1.9* -1.7* -68.4 Ages 15-24 8.6 5.8 3.3 -1.4* -1.4* -61.4 Ages 25-34 20.4 13.5 8.6 -1.4* -1.7* -58.0 Ages 35-44 63.6 48.2 27.0 -0.9* -2.0* -57.5 Ages 45-54 174.2 171.4 96.5 0.0 -1.8* -44.6 Ages 55-64 391.3 435.5 282.0 0.4* -1.8* -27.9 Ages 65-74 710.0 832.7 609.0 0.6* -1.3* -14.2 Ages 75-84 1,167.2 1,249.3 1,095.6 0.3* -0.6* -6.1 Ages 85+ 1,450.7 1,598.7 1,628.3 0.5* -0.2* 12.2 All Ages 195.4 208.3 158.7 0.2* -1.1* -18.8 Total Annual Percent Percent Change Change Age Group 1950 1982 2015 1950-1982 1982-2015 1950-2015 Ages 0-4 - - - - - - Ages 5-14 - - - - - - Ages 15-24 0.2 0.1 0.1 -2.8* -0.3 -60.7 Ages 25-34 0.8 0.7 0.3 -1.0* -2.9* -61.6 Ages 35-44 4.6 8.9 2.5 1.5* -3.3* -44.8 Ages 45-54 20.2 52.1 19.5 2.7* -2.9* -3.5 Ages 55-64 48.9 143.4 76.3 3.0* -2.7* 56.2 Ages 65-74 59.4 246.3 186.5 3.8* -1.3* 213.8 Ages 75-84 55.4 255.0 306.4 4.5* 0.1 453.2 Ages 85+ 42.3 187.4 316.9 4.7* 1.2* 649.3 All Ages 14.9 51.7 40.7 3.5* -1.1* 172.5 Table 1.3 66-Year Trends in U.S. Cancer Death Ratesa All Races, Males and Females All Primary Cancer Sites Combined

    by Edzard - Wednesday 19 September 2018 15:37
    "survival rate has not improved over the last ten years" ANY EVIDENCE FOR THAT?

by Edzard - Thursday 20 September 2018 15:46
I FULLY AGREE! It is a waste of time to discuss acupuncture with some irrational extremists ... like you seem to be. please provide the links to the 2 dozen cochrane reviews. here is my link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18789644 and here is the conclusion: "Cochrane reviews of acupuncture do not suggest that this treatment is effective for a wide range of conditions."

by Charles Shang - Thursday 20 September 2018 15:39
It is a waste of time to discuss acupuncture with some irrational extremists who ignore the increasing positive Cochrane Reviews supporting acupuncture (2 dozen by now) as well as basic research which have met the gold standards of science.

by Björn Geir - Thursday 20 September 2018 10:01
@Caca No it did not help. Most fetuses in breech position (bottom first instead of head first) spontaneously turn into cephalic position (head first) before labour starts. Breech position is common in early pregnancy. About 90% of fetuses are in the correct position already at 32 weeks and 25% of fetuses in breech positions at 36 weeks have turned spontaneously at birth. Spontaneous version may occur at any time before labour starts, even after 40 weeks. Only 3-5% of babies are born (vaginally or by cesarean section) in breech position. What makes you think that it was your mother burning herbs on your pinky-toe that did something that nature almost always takes care of?

by caca - Thursday 20 September 2018 08:27
it did worked for me. i had a breech presentation on my 4th pregnancy. actually, it was all my own fault. i did experimenting puncturing hegu and sanyinjiao to stimulate birth, and that night something happened, my baby change her presentation. when i did the check up to OG, USG reeal that she was in diagonal breech presentation. my OG doc suggest me to undergo a C section. but i said let's wait a few more days who know she will turn back to the normal presentation. i was so desperate and ask my mom to help me doing moxibation on BL67 for about 30 minutes each side. i also try the knee chest position (knee chest position only rarely succeed for i was already in 40th week of pregnancy). walhamdulillah, in the morning, i went to the OG n ultrasount reveal she was back to normal position. i proceed to the normal labour. happy ending.

by Edzard - Thursday 20 September 2018 15:19
Dana, let's be generous and assume that your nano-theory is correct. Could you be equally generous and answer the following question, please?: 1) How does a nano-particle of coffee, for instance, affect the sleep centre in the brain to make the patient sleep? Or how does a nano-particle of the Berlin Wall or a duck liver affect anything at all in the human body? 2) Most homeopathic remedies are consumed not as liquids but as ‘globuli’, i. e. tiny little pills made of lactose. They are prepared by dropping the liquid remedy on to them. The liquid subsequently evaporates. How is it that the information retained in the liquid does not evaporate with the diluent? 3) The diluent usually is a water-alcohol mixture which inevitably contains impurities. In fact, a liquid C12 remedy most certainly contains dimensions more impurities than stock. These impurities have, of course, also been vigorously shaken, i. e. potentised. How can we explain that their ‘potency’ has not been beefed up at each dilution step? Would this not necessitate a process where only some molecules in the diluent are agitated, while all the rest remain absolutely still? How can we explain this fantastic concept? 4) Some stock used in homeopathy is insoluble (for instance Berlin Wall). Such stock is not diluted but its concentration in the remedy is initially lowered by a process called ‘trituration’, a process which consists in grinding the source material in another solid material, usually lactose. I have granted you that potentisation works in the way you think. But how is information transferred from one solid material to another? 5) Everything we drink is based on water containing molecules that have been inadvertently potentised in nature a million times and therefore should have hugely powerful effects on our bodies. How is it that we experience none of these effects each time we drink? I look forward to your reply. Many thanks.

by Lenny - Thursday 20 September 2018 07:38
Not me, Dana. I'm just commenting on what all the chemists and scientists who have recognised the paper for the nonsense it is and have hence ignored its findings have said. Keep yelling your rubbish into the evidencial and factual void, Dana. Your foolish yabbering continues to amuse.

by Dana Ullman - Wednesday 19 September 2018 15:44
Yeah...those photos of nanoparticles of the 6 different metals can be considered "noise" OR they can be consider nanoparticles of the original 6 metals. Your denial of facts is a classic in showing non-acceptance of reality. And further, I'm impressed that YOU are somehow more informed than the reviewers at LANGMUIR which is published by the American Chemistry Society. You must be very very smart or simply complete full of bowel particles...we know which.

by Stephen - Thursday 20 September 2018 11:46
I am happy to do some investigation on this topic. Be pleased to take your advice.

by Richard Rawlins - Thursday 20 September 2018 11:15
How can integrity, honesty and reportage of scientific facts be 'biased'. What would any such bias be biased against? Diminishing the taking advantage of gullible and vulnerable people? Oh dear.

by Edzard - Thursday 20 September 2018 10:53
"Brian Deer – well known for his stance against Andrew Wakefield..." ARE YOU FOR REAL? he is the investigative journalist who uncovered the fraud committed by the ex-doctor Wakefield!

by Angela - Thursday 20 September 2018 10:23
Richard Rawlins - ‘last night Newsnight covered anti-vax - critically’. Really? I saw it too and it was biased (but to be expected from Mainstream media) I thought it was desperate : Brian Deer - well known for his stance against Andrew Wakefield (I won’t elaborate more on him) and three other participants talking about conspiracy etc etc. In fairness a nurse did say we need all the information on vaccines to deliver to parents - I hope that becomes a reality.

by Richard Rawlins - Thursday 20 September 2018 06:31
Last night Newsnight covered Anti-Vax. - critically. Press on, we won’t ‘win’ because the faith centre is so deep in the hypothalamus - but we might stem the tide and must continue to press for folks to have all relevant information, and to think critically.

by Simon Cummings - Thursday 20 September 2018 07:41
OK, GibleyGibley it is. I don't need to justify exercise as a treatment for lbp because, at no stage, did I state that exercise is an effective treatment for lbp! You left this out of my response to your previous comment: "I didn’t discuss the tx of lbp, acute or otherwise."

by GibleyGibley - Wednesday 19 September 2018 20:52
Simon, you wrote......"Hi Mike, It’s Accredited Exercise Physiologist and, in the main, we stick to exercise as a treatment modality." I asked you why do you use a form of care, "exercise", that has been proven to be ineffective? I am not picking a fight, I am asking you to justify your rationale for treatment. Anonymity because I, like many other people on this post prefer it. e.g. D.C., Blue Wode and the "Franks"

by Edzard - Thursday 20 September 2018 06:49
I doubt it

by Dc - Wednesday 19 September 2018 23:42
Change the question to get the answer you want. Got it.

by Edzard - Wednesday 19 September 2018 13:19
no, the usefulness of a method depends on the question you want to answer. if your question is 'does this therapy have a specific effect?', the design is useless. if my question is 'how useless is the addition of A to B?', it can generate a useful answer. [I say 'my question', because it was not the one the authors had in mind; they aimed at the 1st question and had chosen a useless study design to answer it. but, as things turned out, not all was lost]

by Leigh Jackson - Wednesday 19 September 2018 21:59
Given the proclamation by China's leader that TCM is a national treasure to be given equal status with western medicine I believe that the default position of reputable publishers outside China should be that papers originating from within China have a serious risk of bias in favour of TCM. Accordingly reviewers should be alert to and capable of bringing all such biases to light. When acupuncture is claimed to be more effective than drugs for chronic constipation, red lights and alarm bells should be flashing and ringing in any scientifically minded brain.

by Les Rose - Wednesday 19 September 2018 17:28
Respected people such as Tricia Greenhalgh are asking for open peer review. There was a total failure of peer review here, as the errors are many and obvious. The usual formula was applied - quack papers are reviewed by other quacks. Frankly though the errors were so glaring that the editors should not even have invited reviewers. Maybe we should move beyond peer review and try something different, such as: 1. Screen submissions for obvious flaws, but this will cost money for editorial staff. 2. Publish in draft and invite critique. 3. Authors to rework paper in response to critiques. 4. Each paper goes through a version control system until all points of criticism are addressed. Any draft can be cited but is prominently flagged as draft and may have errors. 5. Final version published after a set number of versions. Some online journals are doing something like this. There are problems with it, such as malicious rivals deliberately delaying finalisation of a paper they don't like. Right now we often have flawed papers that have been reworked, but other authors commonly cite the earlier flawed version because it suits their beliefs. The only solution to this is retraction - but retracted papers still get cited and reviewers often miss this! Whatever the solution, traditional peer review is not fit for purpose.

by Frank Odds - Wednesday 19 September 2018 16:10
"yes homeopathy is a very old medical invention like Ayurveda" Ayurveda: developed more than 3000 years ago in India. Homeopathy: a theory developed by S. Hahnemann in the 1790s. Yep, equally old (for the arithmetically challenged).

← Older comments
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories