Eight slogans that quacks love to use: if you hear these, find a proper doctor

In the first of this two-part article, I discussed six popular tricks of the quackery trade. Some readers pointed out that these ploys are not exclusively used in alternative medicine. I agree. Quacks are everywhere, and unfortunately conventional medicine has its fair share of charlatans as well. Yet I would nevertheless suggest that the ploys mentioned in part one and the eight discussed below are more often used in alternative than in mainstream medicine.

Treating the root cause of the disease
Quacks regularly claim that scientifically orientated clinicians only treat the symptoms of their patients, whereas they treat the root causes of the illness. I have often wondered where this assumption and the fierce conviction with which it is so often expressed come from. I came to conclude that the explanations are quite simple.

— This notion is the mantra that is being taught over and over again in quack-colleges. It even constitutes a central message of most ‘textbooks’ for the aspiring alternative practitioner.

— More importantly in the context of this article, the notion is a clever sales trick. It sounds profound and logical to many consumers who lean towards alternative medicine.

— Crucially, it kills two flies with one stroke: it denigrates conventional healthcare and, at the same time, elevates quackery as reaching deeper than real medicine.

The idea that alternative practitioners treat the root causes is based on the practitioners’ understanding of aetiology. Traditional acupuncturists, for instance, are convinced that all disease is caused by an imbalance of life forces, and that needling acupuncture points will re-balance these forces and thus restore health. Therefore, they must automatically assume that they are treating the root causes of any condition.

If chiropractors believe that all diseases are due to ‘subluxations’ of the spine, it would seem logical to them that spinal ‘adjustment’ is synonymous with treating the root cause of whatever condition their patients are suffering from.

These are concepts that are deeply ingrained in the minds of alternative practitioners. And they have one embarrassing feature in common: they are false! Some practitioners surely must know that; yet I have so far not met one who therefore would have stopped using it. The reason must be that, as a trick of the trade for increasing their cash flow, it is invaluable.

My advice is to put your critical thinking hat on, explain to the practitioner who tells you he is able to treat the root causes of your condition that he is promoting a myth, and look for a proper physician.

Natural is good
Everyone working in advertising can confirm that the ‘natural’ label is a great asset for boosting sales of all sorts of things. Quacks have long appreciated this fact and exploit it to the best of their abilities. They stress the ‘naturalness’ of their treatments ad nauseam and, more often than not, they use the term misleadingly.

For instance, there is nothing natural in thrusting a patient’s spine beyond the physiological range of motion (chiropractic); there is nothing natural in endlessly diluting and shaking remedies which may or may not have their origin in a natural substance (homeopathy); there is nothing natural in sticking needles into the skin of patients (acupuncture).

Moreover, the notion of a benign ‘mother nature’ is naïvely misleading. Ask anyone who has been at sea during a storm, or who has been struck by lightning.

My advice is to see through such fairly transparent marketing slogans and to tell anyone who goes on about the ‘naturalness’ of his therapy to quack off.

Energy
When one attends a gathering of alternative practitioners, the term ‘energy’ is mentioned more often than at a board meeting of EDF. The difference is that quacks do not mean really energy when they speak of energy; they mean ‘vital force’, or one of the many related terms from other traditions.

Practitioners do prefer to use ‘energy’ because this sounds modern and impressive to many consumers. Crucially, it avoids disclosing how deeply steeped the therapists are in the obsolete ideas of vitalism. Whereas rational thinkers have discarded such concepts more than a century ago, quacks find it impossible to do the same.

My advice is to avoid all ‘vitalists’ and similar backwards thinkers, because adhering to long obsolete concepts is never going to deliver the treatment that is best for you.

Stimulating the immune system
‘Your immune system needs stimulating!’ – how often have we heard that from practitioners of alternative medicine? By contrast, conventional clinicians are usually cautious about such a therapeutic aim; they might try to stimulate the immune system in certain, rare circumstances. Quite often they even need to achieve the opposite effect and use powerful drugs to suppress the immune system. And in the rare instances where they do want to stimulate the immune system of a patient, they never use any of the treatments quacks swear by. There are several reasons for this:

— The alternative ‘immune stimulants’ do not really stimulate the immune system.
— Stimulating the immune system is rarely a desirable therapeutic aim.
— Stimulating a normal immune system is hardly possible.
— For many of us, stimulating the immune system might even be a very risky business (if it were at all achievable).

My advice is to ask your practitioner precisely why he wants to stimulate your immune system. Then ask him to try stimulating his own immune system first and to show you the proof that his therapy can do the trick.

Critics don’t understand
Sooner or later, someone will object to quackery. If that happens, the quack has several options to save his bacon (and income). One of the easiest and most popular solution is to claim: ‘Of course you disagree with me, because you do not understand!’

Subsequently, the quack would deploy all his charisma and explain that, in order to achieve the level of expertise he has acquired, one has to do much more than to know a bit about science. In fact, one has to understand the treatment in question on a much deeper level. One has to immerse oneself into it, open one’s mind completely and become a different human being altogether. This cannot be achieved by study alone; the process requires years of meditative work. And not everyone has the ability to succeed on this difficult path. It takes a lot of talent, energy, insight and vision to become a true healer.

Critics who disagree with quacks are really to be pitied. They fail to exist on quite the same level as those who are ‘in the know’. Therefore, one must not get annoyed with those who disagree — they cannot understand because they have not seen the light.

My advice is to read up about the no true Scotsman fallacy; this might help people to look beyond the charisma of these gurus and expose their charlatanry for what it truly is.

Research is being suppressed
Some critics seem immune to charisma and stubbornly insist on evidence for the therapeutic claims made by quacks. That attitude can be awkward for the charlatan — because usually there is no good evidence.

Cornered in this way, quacks often come up with a simple but effective conspiracy theory: the research has been done and it has produced fabulous results, but it has been supressed by… well, by whoever comes to mind. Usually Big Pharma or ‘the scientific establishment’ have to be dragged into the frame.

According to this theory, the pharmaceutical industry (or whoever else comes in handy) was so shaken by the findings of the research that they decided to make it disappear. They had no choice, really; the alternative therapy in question was so very effective that it would have put Big Pharma straight out of business. As we all know Big Pharma to be evil to the core, they had no ethical or moral qualms about committing such a crime to humanity. Profits must come before charity!

My advice is to explain to quacks that such conspiracy theories do, in fact, merely prove that his quackery is not an effective therapy against his prosecution complex.

Critics are bought and corrupt
If, despite all these protective ploys, critics become threatening to the quackery trade, an easy and much-used method is to discredit them. If other ploys, like the ones above, fail to silence the critics, the next step must be to attack and claim that the critics are corrupt. In fact, they receive money from some interested party, like Big Pharma. Why else would they spend their time exposing quackery?

Many people — quacks included — can only think of financial motivations; the possibility that someone might do a job for altruistic reasons does not occur to them. Therefore, it sounds most plausible that the critics are criticising for money — after all, the quacks also quack for money.

My advice: do your own research and find out for yourself who might be bought by whom, and who has a financial interest in quackery selling well.

Even Nobel prize-winners agree with us
It is true, there are some Nobel prize-winners who defend homeopathy or other bogus treatments. Whenever this happens, quacks have a field day, cite the Nobel laureate ad infinitum and imply that his or her views prove their notions to be correct.

Little do they know, in fact, that all they are doing is milking yet another classical fallacy, the ‘appeal to authority’. Incompetent statements from VIPs occur every day; they demonstrate merely that even exceedingly bright, successful or famous people can be as silly as the next person.

My advice is to check first what the Nobel laureate actually said — more often than not, a much-publicised quote turns out to be a misquote. Second, find out what his or her qualifications are for making such a statement; a Nobel prize in literature, for instance, is not an ideaal qualification for commenting on healthcare issues.

Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor at the University of Exeter, is the author of A Scientist in Wonderland and the awardee of the John Maddox Prize 2015 for standing up for science. He blogs at edzardernst.com.


  • Matt Francis

    How do you explain to someone that is being treated by a quack that they are a quack, without it getting awkward?

    • Mc

      You will almost certainly be wasting your time trying to convince the person they shouldn’t consult a quack, as they will be immune to conceding or understanding that they are labouring under logical fallacies and unsubstantiated beliefs. You have as much chance of success as convincing a religious person of their logical and factual errors.

      • I disagree: many will see quacks simply because they have been taken in by the marketing or sciency-sounding patter. Explaining to some that what they are being sold is not based in science and evidence could well persuade them – and worth a try. For homeopathy, explaining about dilutions can sometimes be enough to make someone who has never know about it see that it’s nonsense.

        • Mc

          Yes, I was being slightly hyperbolic. Based on general observation and anecdotal experience, I suspect that most users of quackery cannot be dissuaded, with a small minority who are open to persuasion.

      • Rab iBurns

        The trouble is that a lot of people seek out alternative systems of medicine as an alternative to a mainstream system of medicine they have already become disenchanted with through previous treatment.

      • Paul Sykes

        Because the errors are probably YOUR errors, not necessarily errors in the religious views or scriptures. Give me an error in your view to address.

  • I’d be very surprised if there were any but a very few doctors in traditional medicine who fall into the category described here. The first paragraph implies that there are.

    The emphasis on ‘natural’ rather reminds me of the foolish and entirely unsupported claims made by organic agriculture. It has been demonstrated over and over again that ‘organic’ food is no more nutritious than any similar product produced in mainstream agriculture. One thing sis for sure though – organic agriculture is only about half as productive per acre as modern agriculture.

    • Charlie Brown

      The emphasis on “natural” as suppose to “synthetic” in this context (and “cultural” in other contexts) is not what is the problem here, what the problem is in alternative medicine is that the practitioners claim their remedies have the effects that they dont, or they do but the practitioners are unable to show that.

      The irony of your reply is that you, similarly to the author, accused others (organic agriculture advocates) of making “foolish” and “unsupported” statements, and then you go off and do *exactly* the same. I dont know who demonstrated that organic food “is no more nutritious” than mainstream, but the problem of lower nutrient value of some conventionally grown products is only one of numerous problems conventional agriculture brought about.
      The thing that is “sure” namely organic agriculture being “as half as productive” according to you is also just as unsupported as the rest of your claims.

      • What do you want? A list of citations and technical references. This isn’t an academic paper.

        • Charlie Brown

          What makes you thin i want anything? I had objections to your comment, which you seem unable to address. Fine for me.

      • Damo

        Please, show me the paper that claims that organic is more nutritious than conventional and I will show yo the paper that shows that yields on organic farms are less than yields on conventional farms.

        • Charlie Brown

          So i am suppose to show you one paper that demonstrates one claim, and you show me another that demonstrates another claim, is that your proposal? I must ask what the purpose of this exchange would be, as i cant see any.

          • Damo

            My point being that there are numerous papers out there backing up what I said. Yet you Claim there are none. Show me evidence that backs up our claim before demanding to see mine. Glass houses, stones, throwing, etc.

          • Charlie Brown

            I think you must have confused the treads here, or confused me with someone else. I have no idea what you said, how many papers there are to support what you said and so i couldnt have possibly claimed there are “none” as i dont know what you re talking about.

          • Damo

            ” I dont know who demonstrated that organic food “is no more nutritious” than mainstream, but the problem of lower nutrient value of some conventionally grown products is only one of numerous problems conventional agriculture brought about. ”

            If you can’t follow your one logic, that is your problem, not mine.

          • Charlie Brown

            So, you have neither answer nor an argument then? Thats what i expected.

          • Damo

            So, blame me because you said yourself you have no proof. That was my point. You are the one without an argument. There are plenty of studies, and I could bring them up in a heartbeat, but you were the one making the claims, not me. When someone makes a claim like ” problem of lower nutrient value of some conventionally grown products” that person needs to back it up with evidence.

            Where is your evidence?

          • Charlie Brown

            I blamed *you*? For what? Im not sure if you re a troll or you te hallusinating. The one who was making claims is the person i replied to, without providing evidence. So lets start collecting evidence from the beginning, shallow we? I addition, i still have no idea what your claims are nor when is it that i said there is no evidence, for claims i never heard from a person i never talked to. Sounds like you the one who needs to keep up, if you re able to, that is.

          • Charlie Brown

            Also, evidence is available online for anyone who is able to operate Windows on most elementary levels. Im not a fan of discussion participants that are so lazy and incapable to the point of not being able to use a search engine.

          • Damo

            Yeah, I need to go find evidence of your made up facts. That is like lesson #1 in the science-denier handbook. You said that conventional farming is responsible for less nutritious food and also stated that organic has the same or better yields than conventional farming. I said show me proof of one and I will show you proof of why you are wrong about the second. The point is you won’t show me proof because none exists. As for the first poster–why should I attack him he is not the one making factually incorrect statements.

            Good bye and have a good life.

          • Charlie Brown

            So, after 5 posts you finally formulate your objection – you want me to show you a proof that organic food has higher nutrient content, however you immediately make a claim yourself that i cannot show you a proof you just asked me to show you, and wish me a good life. My conclusion is that you dont want any proof, in fact you appear to fake that interest in order to refute an evidence you didnt even obtain, as you a priori claim i cant provide it. I blamed *you*? For what? Im not sure if you re a troll or you te hallusinating. The one who was making claims is the person i replied to, without providing evidence. So lets start collecting evidence from the beginning, shallow we? I addition, i still have no idea what your claims are nor when is it that i said there is no evidence, for claims i never heard from a person i never talked to. Sounds like you the one who needs to keep up, if you re able to, that is. You also still appear unable to explain what i blamed you for, and when i said i have no evidence and what for. Wow what an effort for an entirely embaressing at best, and vacuous at worst, purpose.

          • Damo

            I asked for proof in the very first post. Now you are just downright lying.

            Please stop talking.

          • Charlie Brown

            You asked for a proof without having a claim, you asked a proof for, claiming i said something to you, which i understand is a part of your imagination, but still not enough to either make a sound argument or even elicit pitty. I see you still have no explanation for other meaningless claims you made, which i repeatidly asked you to clarify. Please stop embaressing yourself.

          • Damo

            “You asked for a proof without having a claim, you asked a proof for, claiming i said something to you, which i understand is a part of your imagination”

            WHEN DID I EVER SAY YOU SAID SOMETHING TO ME?

            I said you made a claim about the nutrition of organic foods–you also made a claim about organic yields–both of which are wrong. Then I asked for proof of said claims–granted I did it in a snarky way. The fact that you were talking to another person is irrelevant, you still publicly made a claim and I asked for proof.

            Everything I said after that, including my statement that said you shouldn’t ask for proof about my claims was in response to the comments I made. If you are so obtuse (or deliberately ignorant in order to get a rise out me–I don’t know which) that you can’t follow your own argument, I don’t have time for you. You need to provide evidence–and telling me to search for it is not good enough. Even my middle school teachers would want more than that.

          • Charlie Brown

            You said it when you stated i claimed “there are none” [papers] that support what *you* claim. I neither knew what you claimed at that point nor could i have, as follows, claimed there are “none”. You seem yo, on contrary, have incredibly a lot of time, which seems to be a consequnce of you trying to win an argument on falsifying statements and a priori rebuttals (both dishonest methods, but what do you care) than on whether i follow my own argument – which is not only what im doing, but im also following yours, which you seem to struggle with. If you have no sound arguments or relevant objections, lets call it a day, as i dont find insipid exchanges interesting or relevant.

          • Damo

            Yet you continue to participate. And your response is full of accusations leveled against me that perfectly define what you are doing.

            You keep changing the argument about what I said when I said it and claims that I made or think I made about this or that. Change the topic all you like. Anything to distract form the fact that there is no proof to your original claim that conventional farming has somehow decreased the nutrition in our food.

            Yes, you win, I am so frustrated by your obvious distractions about whatever that I now agree with your made up fact.

          • Charlie Brown

            I actually didnt change the topic. I asked a series of questions which you appear imcapable of answering. Also, forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but providing data on yield is not a counter- argument to a claim about nutritional value. It seemed unnecessarry to point put, untill you made it necessary.

          • Damo

            “but providing data on yield is not a counter- argument to a claim about nutritional value”

            See that is the thing. I never said it was. I said provide me evidence that nutrition is reduced due to conventional farming–and I would provide the evidence that yields are less on organic farming. You are the one that made the original claims that nutrition is less due to conventional farming and that yields are not half on organic farms. Two different claims (granted the original poster was wrong when he said half, but I never supported his claim, I just said they were not equal). You told the original poster that his claims were unsupported. But you made an entirely new claim–that conventional agriculture was the cause of declining nutritional content of our foods. Which is unsupported, which is the action you were accusing the original poster.

            Everything else you said since then has changed. I merely am asking–over and over again–for you to provide proof of this claim. The idea that I believe yield is somehow related to nutritional content is your invention . I was merely stating that you have no evidence for your unsupported claim. Which is why I originally said that if you can provide evidence for your statement about nutrition, I would provide evidence of my own claim that yields of organic farms are not equal to conventional farming.

            Everything else you have said is a distraction. I claimed that I could find evidence about yields–but you state that I made no claims. You just can’t provide proof for your own unsupported claim–which was your argument against the original poster.

            It seemed pointless that I needed to explain your own argument to you, until you made it necessary for me to do so.

            So, unless you want to talk about your original claim, that conventional farming is somehow responsible for lower nutrient content, I no longer wish to talk to you.

          • Charlie Brown

            Providing data on yield *as a response* to my claim on nutrition is what made your argument invalid. Since you figured since they are unrelated, i dont need to explain in detailed why that proposal makes your point meaningless.

          • Damo

            Except that never happened. Which if you went back and reread the posts, you would understand.

          • Charlie Brown

            I also never made a claim that “conventional farming is the *cause*” of anything, and find it increasingly vapid to just keep cotrecting your false claims, as making false and misconstrued claims is more or less the main point of your posts. I get you need attention, but please go look for it somewhere else.

          • Damo

            “I dont (sic) know who demonstrated that organic food “is no more nutritious” than mainstream, but the problem of lower nutrient value of some conventionally grown products is only one of numerous problems conventional agriculture brought about.”

            Would you like to misrepresent yourself one more time?

            As for accusations of needing attention, if that is truly what you believe, why do you keep responding (multiple times to each of my posts, as well).

            No need to answer–you can’t back up your unsupported claims like I asked–so go have a good time rhetorically masturbating, since I will no longer respond your senseless ramblings, that is exactly what you will be doing.

          • Charlie Brown

            Unforunately (sic) i was erroneosly thinking you will eventually present something worth discussing, but this is your 6th or 7th post where you still dont have a single argument or an answer to a single question i repeatedly asked. I also like to provide needy people with atention, but i have my limits. That is an answer to your question.

            As i noted earlier, it is enough for you to a priori dismiss any potential evidence, which you asked for and then immediately stated i dont need to present, because according to you, i dont have it, which is something you know is the case by some magical powers, i suppose – as there is no other way to know if i have or have not evidence. So, it just gets lower and more embarassing as we go on. Then however you still implicitly ask for it, and so you keep running in a circle – in order to, i presume, induce some feeling of having the upper hand, without actually having any solid argument.
            I have no idea why you seem to complusively miscinstrue what i said, even after you correctly quote it, so ill have to asign that to some cognitive impairment.
            You would be much better off working on your logic skills than you are coming up with applications of worn out phrases in attempts to insult – as a substitute to any content to your posts.
            I apologize that my posts were “sensless” to you, i do try to keep them simple, but there is only so much i can do – it still required *some* intellect in order to process it. I get that you are not at that level of intellect, so my comments appear sensless, a little bit like when a macaque is hearing human speech, but does not have the ability to comprehend it. My bad.

          • Damo

            So, the one thing I have consistently asked for, which you seem to enjoy dancing around, is what proof do you have for your claim about reduced nutrient levels in food grown using conventional farming methods.

            You have used everything you can think of to avoid answering this question. So, please present it.

            Also, you seem eager to explain to me that your posts are highly intelligible and that I should learn logic. But what logic is there, it is a simple question, what proof do you have that nutrition is affected by conventional farming?

            Also, you don’t really know what sic means, do you?

            I know I have said this before, but this time I mean it, I am done replying to you until you can provide me with proof about your original, unsupported statements.

          • Charlie Brown

            I already several times addressed you “consistently” asking for proof – every time you immediately suggested i dont have the proof, hence according to you i can not even respond to your request – so im not sure why you keep bringing it up. What follows from this is that i coudnt have been “avoiding” answering – you concluded a priori that i dont have an answer.
            Regarding what proof I do have, beside all of the above that shows how you keep contradicting yourself regarding this request – all the scientific evidence that is available “i have” and you could have also, except that you decided there isnt any – based on your lack of knowledge – a common fallacy commited by people unfamiliar with scientific and philosophical analytical tradition. If this was too complex, let me simplify it – *you not knowing about something does not mean it doesnt exist.* This might seem obvious, yet you keep committing this fallacy repeatedly.

            Is me knowing what “sic” means relevant for this discussion? You applied ‘sic’ in a wrong way in one of your posts, so i mocked it in the following. Rest assured, i have to use a lot of latin in my work – unlike you, i guess?

            I have nothing against you being “done with replying” which you have promised several times, then gave up on it, and so on. You could have been done even earlier, as it has nothing to do whether i “can” provide you with any proof, as you once again, concluded a priori i have no proof – another common weakness of people eager to partake in a debate, but unskilled to do so in a meaningfull way.

          • AutismDadd

            Nice. Damo needed a large helping of whoop-ass

          • AutismDadd

            Better calm down or you’ll blow a gasket.

          • Damo

            What are you even talking about dimwit?

          • AutismDadd

            I think you are responding to the wrong person.

          • Damo

            And that is why you are a dimwit, everytime you think, you are wrong.

          • AutismDadd

            Only a dimwit would conclude that. So its expert opinion then?

          • Damo

            I am pretty much done talking to you. If you want to trade insults and “I know you are, but what am I” go somewhere else. If you want to pretend that you have evidence–but are just too smart to show it, go somewhere else. If you want to pretend that you are the father of a “vaccine injured” child, go somewhere else.

          • AutismDadd

            I’m good with that.

    • Ron Roy

      Organic foods IF grown on properly fertilized soil is much more nutritious than chemically grown crops and they’re not contaminated with all the herbicides, fungicides and pesticides used on conventional crops.

      • This is complete rubbish, but just keep on paying through the nose for a foolish ideologically driven perception of quality. Not y problem. You’re the one that is paying extra. Mainstream food production chains in the UK are already massively policed and sampled for the things you speak of. They are not present in the products except in minuscule amounts and that means the merest traces that are way below any kind of biological impact. If this were not so, we would have massive life limiting health problems and we certainly don’t. The opposite is the case. People are living far longer than they ever did before and costing the country a fortune by drawing their pensions for thirty years -a thing virtually unheard of in past times when there was only ‘organic’ agriculture.

        EDIT:

        LOL – just looked up your other posts and not only are you an organic promoter, but you are also an anti vaccine freak. What a waste of space. What a fantasist saddo.

        • Damo

          You know, when I first started commenting, I found this people to just be misinformed people who stick in their uninformed two cents. But since then, I have learned that Mr. Roy and others truly believe these crazy things.

          • AutismDadd

            And you are quite prejudiced about those with different opinions.

          • Damo

            Which shows how little you know me. I embrace argument and debate, am open to changing my mind based on facts, and am not the same person I was ten years ago, or last year, or even last week. I am always considering what others have to say.
            What I am biased about is how you formed those opinions and if you even understand the difference between facts and opinions. It is my opinion that anti-vaxxers are evil. I base that opinion on the fact that vaccines are perfectly safe.
            Meanwhile it is your opinion that vaccines are unsafe, based on absolutely no facts.

          • AutismDadd

            No, you are so biased and prejudiced you think those things. You are not the person you claim to be.

          • Damo

            Ok, just show me one conclusive price of evidence, one of yours versus millions of theirs, and I will change sides.

          • AutismDadd

            Has that science been done yet?

        • Ron Roy

          I don’t pay extra and neither do my kids I have a 30 x 80 organic garden. And as far as minuscule amounts your full of it Sparky. A former business owner in my town almost died from that minuscule amount. He would cut grapefruit and oranges in a bowl then drink the leftover juice.He had to be rushed to the hospital after a few days of doing this and it took the doctors a day or so before they figured out it was the fungicides in the juice making him violently ill. Oh it’s cheaper to pay for organics than to pay for a doctors visit.

          • Jonathan Graham

            A former business owner in my town almost died from that minuscule amount. He would cut grapefruit and oranges in a bowl then drink the leftover juice

            So is your claim here that anyone who does this for a few days will get ill? I mean if the fungicides are dangerous and all.

            they figured out it was the fungicides in the juice making him violently ill

            Do you ever listen to yourself? My guess is no.

          • Ron Roy

            Hey pasty where am I wrong on this one? It DID happen. The man’s name was George Rasys ( now deceased ). Why don’t you call his former business partner at the Northland Dairy Bar in Berlin NH and ask him? Oh and to add to that ( and I can give you their phone numbers too ) two produce manager told me they had to wash their hands, before leaving work, because the fungicides on their hands when exposed to the sun would cause a rash on their hands. Put that in your pipe and smoke it pasty.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Hey pasty where am I wrong on this one?

            The list is really long but for starters…

            i) If this is a one-off then it’s really not about fungicides it’s just an error. In the same way dying from an homeopathic remedy which is supposed to have no arsenic in it actually has sufficient level to make you sick. So UNLESS you are claiming this will happen a significant number of times.

            ii) Call his partner? Did his partner perform lab results that he can provide me with? No? Then even if I talked to him, isn’t he going to repeat the same folk tale you’re telling me now?

            iii) Fungicides can make you ill but at dosage that are too high to be contained in a small amount of juice that comes from cutting fruit.

            iv) Hand rashes. While this can happen with carbamates (it doesn’t need sun exposure) handling fruit which has somewhere between 0.025 and 0.25 ppm.[1] Is going to take a really enormous number of contacts to do this before you start to see contact dermatitis. If it happens at all. People regularly go into groceries and touch all kinds of fruits and vegetables before the leave without rashes. I’ve gone apple picking and touched hundreds of apples. The usual cases are people who are actually working with insecticides at which point we are probably talking about exposures in the ten thousand to millions.

            [1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/539126

          • Ron Roy

            Johnny EVERYTHING that comes out of your mouth is BS.

          • Jonathan Graham

            …however you are unable to say specifically what I’ve said is wrong or why….kind of like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • AutismDadd

            Get help Hammy

          • Ron Roy

            I always listen to myself and I follow the advise I give others. Maybe that’s why I’ve managed to stay away from doctors and you cant.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I mean, listen to how implausible everything you say sounds. When do we hear about your belief in alien abductions?

          • AutismDadd

            DUH Hammy. Ron described a single case that resulted in the discovery that his particular oranges were covered in fungicide. It really quite simple, but I see you want to create a manifesto over it.

          • Jonathan Graham

            As mentioned if he isn’t talking about the general case then the utility of his statement drops considerably.

          • AutismDadd

            To you, but as a stand alone its a true case of poisoning.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No, not just to me. That’s pretty much the definition of general utility.

          • AutismDadd

            With you its futility. Fact twisting + blah blah = zzzzzzz

          • Jonathan Graham

            Sorry, single non-repeatable cases are by definition not very useful to talking about the general case.

          • AutismDadd

            Who cares? He is likely one of many, only he was affected to a greater extent and actually saw competent doctors who verified it.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Who cares?

            Because if we’re not talking about the general case then this isn’t anymore about eating store bought fruit than getting poisoned by a treatment labeled as homeopathic is about taking homeopathic treatments.

          • AutismDadd

            Should have known this would end with you laying an egg. And stay away from my goat.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Thanks for admitting I got your goat. 🙂

          • Caution: This area is under a bleat advisory. All users are urged to remain indoors and avoid strange goats.

          • AutismDadd

            You’re into bulls right?

          • Nah, I’ve never found cattle very endearing. Goats are adorable, though!

          • AutismDadd

            What ever floats your boat.

          • My boat floats with goats, it’s in my notes

          • AutismDadd

            what bloat

          • Not to gloat, but that’s bloat you can quote!

          • AutismDadd

            I need the antidote

          • Justthefacts

            You need an antidote to your trolling.

          • AutismDadd

            So clever (NOT)

          • AutismDadd

            How many shills did it take to come up with that? How many to change a light bulb?

          • AutismDadd

            Yea I have the vet bill to prove it.

          • AutismDadd

            Harassment. Stop It

          • Jonathan Graham

            Look, I get that you don’t like getting called out on your harassment. However targeting me for more harassment isn’t exactly making you a better person.

          • AutismDadd

            So you can do it but I can’t? Get real man.

          • Jonathan Graham

            That’s just it. I’m not doing it and if you can’t tell the difference then perhaps that explains your problem.

          • AutismDadd

            Lets reverse that, and be REAL

          • Jonathan Graham

            Dude, what you do and as testified by others and myself – the only thing you do – is targeted serial harassment. As you admitted you fail your own criteria for participating in a conversation. It would be a good idea if you could face your problem here.

          • AutismDadd

            Its not my problem that you and your ilk don’t like me. Frankly I don’t give a funky chicken .

          • Jonathan Graham

            I have no idea if these people dislike you. I don’t care enough about you to dislike you but they and I both point out that you engage in targeted serial harassment.

          • AutismDadd

            Great term, let me write that down.

          • Jonathan Graham

            People will keep calling you out on this. Even though you attempt to punish them.

          • AutismDadd

            HUH?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Ugh, you really don’t even understand yourself do you?

          • AutismDadd

            I need your statement translated.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Translation: You’re pretty messed up.

          • AutismDadd

            Now I’m really confused.

          • Justthefacts

            Is English your second language?

          • AutismDadd

            No. But butchered English can’t be understood.

          • Justthefacts

            You think an Englishman with an M.D. speaks “butchered English”?

            Try not to embarrass yourself, Colonial………

            Jonathan, let me apologize for all the backwoodsman nutcases that wouldn’t know the Queens English if it slapped them in the face………

          • AutismDadd

            Wingnut alert!

          • Dislike Adad? Not exactly. I find him irksome and find it rather absurd in a very irritating way that I have to protect his child from the idea that 400 dead from an easily preventable disease is a better option than said child being alive and autistic…isn’t that Adud’s job?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Good point. At least as far as the issues he discusses here as a protector of children Autism Dadd is kind of a failure.

          • shay simmons

            Adudd discusses issues? Since when?

          • Total idiocy. Your campaign against the ‘poison of vaccine’ just underlines your crass stupidity.

          • Ron Roy

            Great rebuttal Sparky. Did that require a lot of thought?

          • Ha ha ha ha ha ha – Clown.

          • Ron Roy

            Another ( AS Tony the tiger would say ) GREEEAAAAT answer. That college education is really paying off isn’t it?

          • AutismDadd

            Not by the sounds of it. They ramble on rather than print” DUH!”

          • AutismDadd

            Look who got a new dictionary!

          • What? Learned a new word or two did you? Here are a few more:

            Fraud
            Charlatan
            Quack
            Crook
            Liar
            Snake Oil Salesman

            Your stance on ‘organic agriculture’ and vaccine could use an understanding on all of them and some more. Maybe you should look up the term, ‘evidence based’ and try to understand it. One of the commonest causes of autism by the way is older fathers. This may or may not apply to you, but it is a major problem now that people are postponing their reproduction. The cause is that unlike women whose germ cells are formed during their embryonic stage and preserved while they are i their child bearing years, men continually generate new sperm cells throughout life, only unfortunately, they generate faulty ones as they get older and in older fathers, there is a high incidence of producing children who have autism and an unusually high tendency to schizophrenia. The faulty sperm cells arise because cell division during the man’s life causes a build up of faulty divisions which build up cumulative errors in the dna.

          • AutismDadd

            You can’t prove a word of that. Its ALL hypothetical

          • AutismDadd

            Garbage. Explain autism in younger Dad’s then.

          • Nothing more to say to you idiot.

          • AutismDadd

            In other words the older father hypothesis is nonsense.

          • ‘In other words… ‘ ?? No. You wrote, ‘Its ALL hypothetical’. But you’ve been presented with published, peer-reviewed evidence that it’s not ALL hypothetical. Just because you don’t like it or don’t want to acknowledge it doesn’t make it nonsense.

          • AutismDadd

            Get a grip. If you read that it can easily be debunked. And I did, explain why young fathers have children who regress into autism if older fathers are to blame? And present the percentage of older and younger fathers who children are affected.

          • Err, what? I’m sorry, but just denying and calling something ‘nonsense’ is not debunking. No one is saying young fathers never have autistic children; no-one is saying older fathers ‘are to blame’. (And what relevance the relative proportions of autistic children sired by older and younger fathers?) But the published data supports an association between increased incidence of autism and paternal age – so, it’s not ‘ALL hypothetical’, as you claimed. If you’ve debunked it, then do show how.

          • AutismDadd

            You’re talking correlation. Association is nonsense.

          • If you prefer correlation… but you’re arguing against yourself.

          • AutismDadd

            Hardly. You claim an association is evidence. What happened to correlation does not equal causation?

          • It’s evidence of an association, though general and not necessarily causal. But statistically, correlation describes a dependent relationship between two variables – it is a measure of association.
            You state you’ve debunked it, but you haven’t. You state it is ‘ALL hypothetical’, but it isn’t, because the published data is there to support it. You might deny it because you don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it any less valid.

          • AutismDadd

            Yea. Weak

          • What is ‘weak’?

          • Justthefacts

            No, you are a troll and you are nothing but nonsense. He has had enough of you.

          • AutismDadd

            bbrraat

          • Why do you think my refusal to continue engaging with an obsessive lunatic who ignores large scale scientific studies means that ‘the older father’s hypothesis’, is nonsense? But please – don’t respond to the question. I’m tired of you.

          • AutismDadd

            You received my responses and you failed to explain why young fathers have children regressing. It makes the older father idea moot.

          • Acleron

            It’s an observation, the conclusion is that older fathers sire more autistics. Why are you trying to deny it?

          • AutismDadd

            Because its bogus. It could be older fathers OK more vaccines for their children because of affluence.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Several studies I skimmed either controlled for socioeconomic status or were from countries where socioeconomic status was not correlated with autism. So your affluence -> more vaccines hypothesis doesn’t work. Of course if you tried reading these studies….

          • AutismDadd

            Or I could SKIM over them and notice words like “may suggest” and then flush them out of contention.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Right, you could do that and you could ignore papers from an author with an W in their name both are ways to look more than a little silly.

            You’re already skimming the paper. So you should be looking at the actual results. Strong effect size, good sample, good controls, tight confidence interval is worth a lot more than over interpreting a few words.

          • AutismDadd

            Hardly. If you have a strong convincing study then make a strong convincing dialogue to go with it. As soon as you say “may suggest” then its neither strong or convincing.

          • Laura J

            That is great! We are getting around to our garden this fall. Nature’s very best & it is so good!

        • AutismDadd

          So industrial farming is responsible for long life? Have any research to back that up?

      • Damo

        Ahh, do you have the evidence to back that up?

        Probably not, since you like killing children with made up evidence, you probably have no scruples over something so harmless as lying about organics.

        • Ron Roy

          Evidence: https://nacla.org/article/global-pesticide-pushers-latin-america

          http://www.countryfarm-lifestyles.com/How-Safe-is-Our-Food.html
          If you need more evidence I suggest googling it’s easy try it you’ll like it.

          • Damo

            I said evidence, not gobbledy-gook. Like how about showing me actual lab results from actual food. Or at least a study done that tested for pesticides.

          • Ron Roy

            First of all like I said many times I don’t post for you I post for people with an open mind sooooo. You’ll have to accept the links I posted. No matter what I post if you agreed you’d lose your job so why should I bother trying to convince you.

          • Damo

            In other words you post for the gullible because you want them to kill their children. Baby killer.

          • Ron Roy

            You’re the baby killer.

          • Damo

            Why would you say that? I am pro-vaccine, pro-medicine, pro-life. I am the opposite of you.

          • sabelmouse

            pro life , eh?!?

          • Damo

            Yeah as in, I am pro-vaccinating children so that they live. While you all are are racist pro-gotta kill all the brown people by denying them basic medical care and modern agriculture methods. In other words, I don’t advocate for death like you simpletons do.

          • sabelmouse

            lol!

          • Damo

            See, you laugh at the idea of childhood illness.

          • AutismDadd

            Dumo strikes again….yikes!

          • sabelmouse

            you have to wonder….

          • Damo

            I see you find being stuck in the 18th century funny.

            Aren’t you despicable racist luddites tired of always being wrong?

          • AutismDadd

            What rubbish.

          • Damo

            Considering that everything you say is a lie–that means that what I said was not rubbish.

          • AutismDadd

            Pro-vac twisted logic on full display

          • Damo

            Try imagining the following Venn diagram:

            One big circle that represents what you say, inside of that a smaller circle that represents your statement that what I said was rubbish. Following me so far? Good.

            Now prior to this conversation we have established that there is a gigantic circle that represents lies told. This is a really big circle and everyone has some portion of the smaller circle within that big circle. Ys even me, I have lied about something in my life. Now for some people the overlap is tiny. For some the overlap is big. But in AutismDudd’s case, his entire circle of things said is fully within the gigantic circle of lies told.

            There, now do you understand how logic works?

          • AutismDadd

            Yawn

          • Damo

            This explains a lot. If you had gotten enough sleep when you were in school, you would have paid better attention and then today you would understand science.

          • AutismDadd

            If my teachers blathered on like you parrots do I’d have slept a lot.

          • Ron Roy

            Pro life? If you were pro life you wouldn’t support the culturing of vaccines using cells of ABORTED fetuses.

          • AutismDadd

            He’s the shill calling for evidence, but accusing others of killing babies. Absurd/ludicrous.

          • Damo

            What am I shilling for?

            Yes, I am asking for evidence. Your statements don’t even make sense anymore.

            And yes, not vaccinating leads to death.

          • AutismDadd

            Vaccinating leads to death too.

          • Damo

            In very few (like almost never) cases, you are correct.

          • AutismDadd

            NVICP its called research

          • Justthefacts

            Less than one in 100 million. You are a lying troll.

          • AutismDadd

            That figure is a humongous lie

          • Justthefacts

            Prove it. citation please, troll.

          • AutismDadd

            Don’t need one.

        • sabelmouse

          says someone who get’s paid for the promotion of toxins being fed to children, as well being injected into them.

          • Damo

            Since there are not “toxins” being fed to children or injected in them and I don’t get paid to waste time arguing with uneducated racist child murderers, I have no idea what you are talking about.

            You, however, are a piece of shit.

          • sabelmouse

            oh, racist, you’d forgot to add that before. do you mean people who want food,water, and sanitation for all rather than making them involuntary pharma customers/victims?

          • Damo

            Yeah, involuntary, that is why they are lining up. Lies and evil.

          • sabelmouse

            some line up due to propaganda, others are being dragged.

          • AutismDadd

            Flagged for being a vulgar pro-vaccine injury advocate.

          • Damo

            Flag me if you like, but you know it is the truth. That is the saddest thing, you people knowingly lie for profit and/or ego, and don’t care about the fact that some parents take you seriously.

          • AutismDadd

            Wah…since when is telling the truth a lie? Oh yea when vaccines are involved

          • Damo

            You are right, every time I tell the truth about vaccines you try to paint it as a lie.

          • AutismDadd

            See you lied

          • Justthefacts

            Nope, you are the Troll and the liar.

          • AutismDadd

            Boring

          • Justthefacts

            Yes, you got nothing troll.

          • Damo

            Real mature.

          • AutismDadd

            Thank-you very much

          • Justthefacts

            You are just a troll

          • 655321

            AD, these guys are mules for a medical police state, and if they are even Americans, the system they are muling for will eat them for lunch.

          • AutismDadd

            All that’s needed is for their normal child to be harmed and an about-face will occur.

          • 655321

            If these freak shows are capable of reproducing.

        • AutismDadd

          The old “killin children” gambit.

          • Damo

            Isn’t that your whole argument? Vaccines kill children? Evidence says the opposite.

          • AutismDadd

            See…wrong again. Vaccines maim and make many sick for life. Yes some die quickly, others over time. Unvaccinated children are healthier. Reliance on vaccines has become overkill

          • Damo

            Evidence please?

          • AutismDadd

            NVICP

          • Damo

            That doesn’t mean anything without context. Try elaborating on it.

          • AutismDadd

            Its self-evident

          • Damo

            Please explain if it is so evident.

          • AutismDadd

            Wow you are as dumb as you seem.

          • Justthefacts

            Youdon’t know what self evident means, troll.

            You got nothing and everybody knows it.

          • Damo

            Yet you can’t explain something that is “self evident.”

          • AutismDadd

            It should be S.E. to you.

          • Damo

            What does that mean? Seems like you don’t know what you are talking about. At this point you should just admit that you were wrong and move on with your life.

          • AutismDadd

            I’m encouraging you to think, which you refuse to do. Your bad!

          • Damo

            No you are not, you are excusing your own ignorance.

          • AutismDadd

            What we have here is your failure to be able to communicate.

          • Damo

            I pretty well communicated my desire to see your evidence. I guess you have a failure at reading comprehension, or you would have told me all you know about how bad vaccines are.

          • AutismDadd

            I gave ample evidence NVICP. Now search for that which will convince you.

          • Damo

            I guess we have to begin with the definition of evidence, because you obviously don’t know what it means.

          • Acleron

            That’s what it always comes down to. Unfortunately they will always consider their ignorance is on a par with your knowledge.

          • AutismDadd

            The NVICP isn’t evidence? Who set it up, Wakefield, McCarthy and Mercola?

          • Damo

            What about the NVICP? Explain what it is and how it proves that vaccines are bad.

          • AutismDadd

            You’re done with me…remember?

          • AutismDadd

            Self evident doesn’t require explanation. That’s the point. If you don’t understand, that’s when you do research till you do. Hope that helps/

          • Acleron

            With you it merely means you cannot prove it.

          • AutismDadd

            Where did I say that?

          • Acleron

            It’s a conclusion based on the fact that so far you have been unable to do so.

          • AutismDadd

            That won’t hold up to scrutiny. Abandoned that line of thought ASAP

          • Damo

            You claim it is self evident because you don’t understand what you are talking about. It is not self evident, and I have done research. All the research shows that except in very few cases, vaccines are safe.

            If you know something that I don’t and truly want to educate me, you would share it. But you don’t, you are a fraud.

          • Acleron

            At least he appears to have learned that citing his fantasy web sites doesn’t work.

          • AutismDadd

            What’s fraudulent is the so-called research you hang your stance on.

          • Justthefacts

            Prove it. You are making that up. You got nothing.

          • AutismDadd

            Prove I’m making it up and that I have nothing.

          • Justthefacts

            You have said nothing thus proven.

            That was easy

          • AutismDadd

            Hardly. Just highlights you’re a useless troll

          • Justthefacts

            Stop talking to yourself.

      • Mary Ann

        While I am happy to agree with you about the herbicides etc, I am interested to know why you think that organic foods must be more nutritious. I believe it is wishful thinking.

        • Unless PROPER use of herbicides and pesticides is employed, it is extremely costly to protect crops and the cost of food would rise greatly and the productivity per acre would collapse to third world levels.

          No one is in favour of dangerous use of chemicals and the food supply chain takes great care that such behaviour is prevented. Anyone who thinks the supermarket chains accept contaminated product is an idiot. The absolute reverse is the case. Just ask any grower with a supermarket contract. They regularly refuse shipments on the slightest pretext of non-compliance.

          • Ron Roy

            I many South American countries there are few if any laws prohibiting the use of pesticides and we import those crops. Pesticides banned in the US are used there and the Dept. of Agriculture and the FDA allows the importation of those crops.

          • Bwaha ha ha ha ….. Keep your vaccine denier rubbish away from me. It is highly toxic.

          • AutismDadd

            Wow…clueless. Do you think grocery chains have labs that analyze product?

        • Ron Roy

          Notice I said ( properly fertilized soil ) If the advise of Sir Albert Howard and Robert Rodale was followed then an organic gardener / farmer would add manure, composted grass and leaves, dolomitic limestone, greensand, seaweed etc. in order to enrich the soil. Chemical gardeners / farmers usually add only nitrogen, phosphorous and potash to the soil.

          • Mary Ann

            Even Growmore contains more than just NPK these days.

            http://www.growmore.com/products/type/fertilizers.html

            Doesn’t improve the condition of the soil of course.

          • Ron Roy

            Most of those products contain about 8 minerals , which is better than none, but a natural fertilizer like seaweed has 56.

          • Damo

            Not true–farmers test for a variety of minerals in their soil–which you would know if you ever stopped insulting them long enough to talk to one.

          • Ron Roy

            Who’s insulting farmers? I get raw milk every Sunday from a local dairy farmer who also grows crops for his farm stand as a sideline. A lot of the info I get is from him. He and all his kids graduated from agricultural school. I also get information from small local organic farmers and gardeners. The only thing the dairy farmer adds to his soil is cow and chicken manure and lime. He does add mineral supplements to the silage of corn, soy, hay, fermented grass and grain he feeds his cows.

          • Damo

            Well, that one dairy farmer represents the whole? Go back to killing babies.

          • Ron Roy

            Shall I quote a dozen or more now retired farmers. Oh and that one farmer has three sons and two daughters that work on that farm and they agree with him also. Damo it’s people like you who are responsible for the untold suffering brought on by vaccines.

          • Damo

            Lol, you lie about a dairy farmer, you lie about vaccines, you lie about organics. Anything you can tell the truth about?

          • transportjohnny

            Ask Dummo just how smart he is to call someone a liar on the internet. He must be in the Choom gang!!!

      • Damo

        Ron, there you go again, lying.

        You have been shown time and time again why that is not true.

      • False. The organic industry uses herbicides and pesticides and they aren’t targeted like synthetic herbicides and pesticides. So they also kill beneficial insects and can affect humans negatively. Organic farming is in many ways more sustainable and humane but not more nutritious and safer save meats and dairy.

        • Ron Roy

          Care to name any of those herbicides and pesticides that organic growers use that can affect human health negatively?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Peracetic Acid
            http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926439
            Copper Sulfate
            http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9925784
            Hydrated Lime – Oh hey Ron get your contact dermatitis right here!
            http://www.graymont.com/sites/default/files/pdf/msds/msds_high_calcium_hydrated_lime.pdf
            Other more general chemical categories like sucrose octanoate esters
            http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC36182

            There is actually a rather long list of synthetic chemicals approved for organic farming.

          • Ron Roy

            Peracetic Acid is nothing more than acetic acid ( vinegar ) with hydrogen peroxide. I rinse my moth with hydrogen peroxide on occasion. Hydrated lime is nothing more than limestone that has been burned. It’s more caustic than regular limestone but there no residue whatsoever on any organic crop. Overuse of copper can cause problems by they don’t because unlike farmers who grow conventional crops farmers who grow organically are constantly monitored by the feds. There isn’t a long list of chemicals used by organic farmers. Go back to your coke and chips.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Saying “is nothing more” doesn’t change that each and every one of those has an MSDS showing human harm. Which is exactly what you asked for:

            Ron are you trying to say that the poison is in the dose? LOL!

            There isn’t a long list of chemicals used by organic farmers

            Then you have zero clue what you are talking about. 🙂

          • Acleron

            The idiots use bleach on their crops?

          • Ron Roy

            Johnny drinking too much water can cause harm. The organic industry if strictly regulated in part because asses like you and the chemical industry you would love to find fault with them.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Johnny drinking too much water can cause harm.

            So harm is in the dose. So as long as the synthetic chemicals used in organic farming are kept within established limits they are safe right? Ergo the synthetic chemicals used in regular farming are safe as long as they are kept in established limits.

            It’s pretty awesome that for someone who claims to know all about organic foods you didn’t have a single clue as to the long list of chemicals that are approved for use in organic farming.

          • Ron Roy

            Johnny the list of natural pesticides is extremely small and relatively non toxic as compare to the list of poisons used by conventional farmers.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Johnny the list of natural pesticides

            Don’t forget organic foods use synthetic pesticides too.

            relatively non toxic as compare to the list of poisons used by conventional farmers.

            but as you said the poison is in the dose. So all that matters is if they are being used to spec.

          • Ron Roy

            If it’s NOT poisonous to people the dose obviously doesn’t matter except to the insects. All I use is BT and diatomaceous earth if I use more than the recommended amount all that happens is a waste of my money,

          • Jonathan Graham

            If it’s NOT poisonous to people

            it is in some dosages. Same with regular insecticides.

          • Ron Roy

            Really? And what would that dose be?

          • Jonathan Graham

            I provided you the MSDS it’s all in there…again if you actually had any concern about being accurate…

          • Michael McCarthy

            “farmers who grow organically are constantly monitored by the feds”
            If by constantly you mean an annual “inspection”, which is simply a visit from an organic inspector looking for use of things banned in organic production, then sure. Organically grown produce isn’t even subject to regular pesticide testing.

          • Ron Roy

            Do just a little. See that? Little research before you make yourself look foolish. Wait a minute no don’t. Ok educate yourself:https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Pesticide%20Residue%20Testing_Org%20Produce_2010-11PilotStudy.pdf

          • Michael McCarthy

            Do learn to read. That was a pilot study that has yet to be implemented. (and the results of that pilot study weren’t very encouraging for promoting the myth that there are no pesticides on organic, but whatevs)

          • hyperzombie

            Holy crap! Did you just post a link to the USDA study proving that over 40% of Organic crops test positive for banned synthetic pesticides to prove that Organic farmers don’t use synthetic pesticides? So funny. Almost fell off my chair.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            USDA studies show that 96% of organic food meets or exceeds USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination.

            Compare that with the 100% of conventional GMOs that are contaminated with at least one and usually more synthetic pesticides that are not allowed in organic farming and that can not be washed off.

            Organic food has less contamination by pesticides than conventional GMO by magnitudes.

          • hyperzombie

            Nope and you do know this Ted.

            Hey where is Sparkles?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Everything I said is the truth.

            From the USDA 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
            Executive Summary

            “Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

            https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Pesticide%20Residue%20Testing_Org%20Produce_2010-11PilotStudy.pdf

            Why do you continue to lie about the facts?

          • hyperzombie

            The fact is that 43% of Organic produce tested POSITIVE for BANNED pesticides, that is almost half. 4% were above the limit.
            This is a total Fail, for organic producers and consumers should know this.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The fact is that 100% of conventional GMO food is contaminated with these same pesticides while only 4% of organic food pesticide contamination exceeds USDA organic standards.

            That is the truth. I’m sure you will continue your losing attempts to spin the facts away using half truth lies to deceive the readers about the WHOLE truth.

          • hyperzombie

            Funny, so no evidence of this so called 100% contamination. Strange.

            BTW they never tested Organic crops for glyphosate, maybe they should do it next time.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The evidence is self apparent to most people, but we all know you will try and spin it way. That is what industry PR astroturfers are sent here to do.

          • hyperzombie

            Once again if the evidence is so readily available, you should be able to post some.. I will wait.

          • How are we “industry PR astroturfers”? By that logic you are “organic industry PR astroturfers”.*

            *I grow my own fruits and vegetables using heirloom varieties, no pesticides and mechanical removal of weeds. I make all my own food.

          • Biron (& 100 Nobel Laureates)

            “The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

            Wow. I’m trying to decide whether this is a truism or non-sequitur. In any case, it provides not a stitch of information.

          • hyperzombie

            conventional GMO by magnitudes.

            Evidence?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Conventional GMO crops are 100% contamination by synthetic pesticides that are not allowed in organic agriculture.

            4% of organic crops exceed USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination.

            Those are the facts.

          • hyperzombie

            Do you have any evidence of 100% contamination? When they test conventional crops only 60% test positive for any pesticides, and they test for far more pesticides with conventional crops.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The evidence is self evident by the FACT that all major GMO crops were engineered to use the cancer causing synthetic pesticide Roundup/glyphosate that is not allowed in organic agriculture.

            Farmers buy these seeds so that they can use this pesticide.

          • hyperzombie

            So no evidence.. Another epic FAIL.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The evidence is self apparent to most people, but we all know you will
            try and spin it way. That is what industry PR astroturfers are sent
            here to do….

          • hyperzombie

            Well if it is self apparent you should be able to find some evidence, well unless you are making all these stats up?

          • Ron Roy

            You’re the failure.

          • hyperzombie

            Once again where is the evidence?

          • Acleron

            Any evidence that glyophospate causes cancer at the doses administered to humans through the food chain?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I’m glad you recognize the fact that humans are being administered glyphosate doses through the food chain.

            Glyphosate has been shown to cause breast cancer cell growth at part per TRILLION concentration.

            Here is more science to help you educate yourself.

            WHO Glyphosate Report Ends Thirty Year Cancer Cover Up
            http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/03/26/who-glyphosate-report-ends-thirty-year-cancer-cover-up/

            Glyphosate herbicide induces genotoxic effect and physiological disturbances in Bulinus truncatus snails
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357515000279

            Glyphosate
            http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SS-glyphosate.php

            Death as a Drug Side Effect in FAERS: Is Glyphosate Contamination a Factor?
            http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=62258

            Chronic Kidney Failure 5 Times Higher in Glyphosate-Ridden (Monsanto Roundup) Areas, Study Confirms
            http://www.globalresearch.ca/chronic-kidney-failure-5-times-higher-in-glyphosate-ridden-monsanto-roundup-areas-study-confirms/5434947

            Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity
            http://www.cdc.gov/niosh-rtecs/mc106738.html

            Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen receptors
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X12003459

            Glyphosate affects the spontaneous motoric activity of intestine at very low doses
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357514000947

            Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X09003047

            An acute exposure to glyphosate-based herbicide alters aromatase levels in testis and sperm nuclear quality
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668914001227

            A step further toward glyphosate-induced epidermal cell death: Involvement of mitochondrial and oxidative mechanisms
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668912000300

            A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicular cells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233311003341

            Studies on glyphosate-induced carcinogenicity in mouse skin: A proteomic approach
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187439190900390X

            Mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in immature rat hippocampus: Involvement of glutamate excitotoxic
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X14000493

            The herbicide glyphosate causes behavioral changes and alterations in dopaminergic markers in male Sprague-Dawley rat
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X14002162

            Glyphosate-induced stiffening of HaCaT keratinocytes, a Peak Force Tapping study on living cells
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047847712000597

            Glyphosate (Roundup) Carcinogenic In the PARTS PER TRILLION Range
            http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/breaking-glyphosate-roundup-carcinogenic-parts-trillion-range

            Endocrine Disrupters and Genetically Modified Organisms Negate Anti-Aging Protocols Leaving Only Specific Stem Cells as Effectiv
            https://www.academia.edu/8421849/Endocrine_Disrupters_and_Genetically_Modified_Organisms_Negate_Anti-Aging_Protocols_Leaving_Only_Specific_Stem_Cells_as_Effective_Counter_Measures

          • Acleron

            As a lot if those are repeats of the WHO report and on the assumption that people always give their best evidence first let us consider the WHO report.

            A joint WHO/UN report was published later with the claim that it was the most comprehensive report ever published on the subject. As you probably know, it concludes that glyophospate is not carcinogenic at the doses found on human food.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Nonsense.

            The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is the foremost cancer research center on the planet and they say that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. The WHO official position is the same as the IARC.

            The WHO report you are talking about was done by an ag industry dominated committee of the WHO and the WHO has not adopted that position as the official position of the WHO.

            The science and the facts are clear. Glyphosate causes cancer and many more health issues. It should be banned wold wide as it has in some countries already

          • Acleron

            Why are the tactics of the anti GMoers, anti vaxxers and all the quacks so boringly similar?

            Anybody who agrees with their position becomes ‘foremost’, ‘prestigious’ or any other superlative and anybody who disagrees is obviously a paid shill.

            The authors of the UN/WHO report concluded that although the balance of evidence is that glyophospate is not cancer causing at human dose they would be prepared to change their minds if better evidence occurred.

            This is a sane mind at work and compares favourably when compared to the everything GMO is evil cult.

          • hyperzombie

            Evidence??? I am waiting.

          • JoeFarmer

            “Organic food has less contamination by pesticides than conventional GMO by magnitudes.”

            Citation, please.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Conventional GMO crops are 100% contamination by synthetic pesticides that are not allowed in organic agriculture.

            4% of organic crops exceed USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination.

            Those are the facts.

            From the USDA 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
            Executive Summary

            “Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

            https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Pesticide%20Residue%20Testing_Org%20Produce_2010-11PilotStudy.pdf

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Oh c’mon now, Ted, give us the whole story. “USDA studies show 96% of organic food meets or exceeds USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination”. That means 4% of organic food contains ILLEGAL pesticide residues! What’s more, USDA reports nearly half of organic produce contains residues of up to 30 different pesticides!

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Your “Ted” diversion is getting old and moldy.

            !00% of conventional GMO food is contaminated with synthetic pesticides that are not allowed in organic agriculture.

            Your attempts to deceive with half truth lies is despicable but expected from you.

            From the USDA 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
            Executive Summary

            “Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

            https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Pesticide%20Residue%20Testing_Org%20Produce_2010-11PilotStudy.pdf

          • Farmer with a Dell

            You need to document your spurious claim that “100% of GMO food is contaminated with synthetic pesticides not allowed in organic agriculture, ’cause quite a few of the same active ingredients in conventional pesticides are allowed in organic farming.

            Thanks for documenting the incredible pesticide contamination of organic produce. If USDA hadn’t popped a quiz on those organic growers we would never have suspected 4% of organic produce has ILLEGAL pesticide residues! We also wouldn’t have imagined over 40% of organic produce is contaminated with up to 30 different pesticides…every thing from organic apples to organic bell peppers to organic broccoli to organic potatoes to organic strawberries to organic tomatoes. Wow, organic tomatoes contaminated with pesticides being chopped into salads, crushed and cooked into pasta sauce and salsa…all those great organic tomato products contaminated with pesticide residue…who’d a thunk it?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I don’t need to document anything for industry PR astroturfers with a disinformation agenda.

            95+% of conventional GMO crops were designed to be used with cancer causing Roundup/glyphosate that can not be washed off. Farmers don’t spend the money on the trit unless they are using the pesticide in the crop cultivation.

            You can try and spin the facts till the cows come home, but you will fail to pass off your fiction as truth to smart readers.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            OK, so you can’t document your lie…didn’t think you could. So just lash out, do a little name calling, toss around some vague conjecture and expect “smart readers” to accept your prevarications because…?

            Why do you insult the intelligence of readers? We all can easily see you don’t have a leg to stand on. We’ve learned not to trust you because of your lies and hoaxes and because you profit from the $60 billion organic industry… uh, what do you call it, Ted…”PR astroturfer”, isn’t that what you are up to?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Nonsense.

            I choose not to waste my time providing facts to agenda driven industry PR astroturfers.

            All your abusive gas-lighting and adolescent name calling is not going to change the actual facts.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Yep, a little more name calling should restore your credibility and clear a path for you to gracelessly storm off in a pout. And your cherished beliefs remain tenuously intact in spite of contadicting proven facts, still paying 2X and 3X the price to exercise those teetering beliefs. Oh well, all in a day’s work when a grocery shopper and her money are so easily parted, eh Ted?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            So you say.

            Nobody believes a word you say.

            Keep up the spin. It is showing us all how desperate you are.

          • Acleron

            Lol, you cannot/will not produce evidence to back up your claims.

            That which is asserted with no evidence can be similarly dismissed.
            Carl Sagan

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Carl Sagan was not aware of the conversation we are having here.

            There is a lot of evidence but agenda driven industry PR astroturfers will accept no evidence that doesn’t support their industry agenda.

            Keep spinning your nonsense.

          • Acleron

            Sagan was a wise man, his words encapsulate you very neatly.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Nonsense.

            You don’t speak for Sagan.

          • Acleron

            Strawman argument, I’m quoting him and pointing out his quote includes you. Perhaps you forgot this utterance of yours.

            ‘I don’t need to document anything for industry PR astroturfers with a disinformation agenda.’

            No evidence, no respect.

          • Ron Roy

            Holy crap did you bother reading it before fomenting? No oh well you should. The residues of the permitted pesticides for organic growers were within the permissible range. Hit in the head by too many pucks? The summation of the article:

            1
            Executive Summary
            The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990
            established
            national standards for the production and handling of
            organic agricultural products
            . The Act authorized the United States Depar
            tment of Agriculture (
            USDA
            ) to create
            the
            National Organic Program
            . This program is responsible for developing the USDA organic regulations and
            ensuring that organic farms and business comply with them. USDA accredits third
            -party certifying agents to
            certify organic farms and processing facilities, allowing them to sell, label, and represent their products as
            organic.
            The
            majority of pest control materials permitted in organic agriculture are naturally derived from a plant (e.g.
            ,
            pyrethrum), microorganism (e.g.
            ,
            Bacillus thuringiensis
            ), or other natural sources.
            Organic standards prohibit the
            us
            e of most synthetic substance
            s—
            including
            most
            pesticides used in conventional agriculture
            —for
            at least 3
            years
            prior to the harvest of an organic crop.
            Synthetic
            pest control materials
            allowed in organic crop production
            include
            elemental
            sulfur, insecticidal soap, horticultural oils,
            and copper hydroxide.
            The
            U.S.
            Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes the
            maximum allowed levels of pesticides, or EPA
            tolerances, which may be present on foods
            . Although
            most EPA
            -registered
            pesticides are prohibited in organic
            production, there can be inadvertent
            or indirect contact from neighboring conventional farms or shared
            handling facilities. As long as the operator hasn’t directly applied prohibited pesticides and has documented
            efforts to minimize exposure to them
            , the
            USDA organic regulations allow residues of prohibited pesticides up to
            5 percent of the EPA tolerance.

          • hyperzombie

            The residues of the permitted pesticides for organic growers were within the permissible range

            Totally FALSE.

            They did not test for any USDA Organic permitted pesticides, they only tested for BANNED pesticides. Why cant you read. How is this possible that you can type out posts, but you cant even read your own cites?

            Over 90% of conventional crops would also pass the USDA organic limit.

            Organic is a scam.

          • Ron Roy

            Gee tell that to a previous commenter that found it funny because he thought the pesticide residue was organic. ‘Organic is a scam.”Then why do a couple of your vaccine shill buddies eat organic? Maybe it’s because they want to avoid some of the pesticides that are systemic.Properly grown organic fruits and vegetables are much more nutritious.

          • hyperzombie

            Those pesticide residues were from the spraying of conventional crops in neighboring fields and they were within acceptable limits

            LOL, so you don’t know what the meaning of “can” is. There is no evidence that these pesticides are from overspray from conventional farmers. Stop Lying.
            The USDA and the EPA have no idea if the organic producers were using banned pesticides or not, there is no testing on Organic farms.

            Acceptable to whom? Do you think hard working consumers would accept the fact that almost half of Organic foods contain banned pesticides? Do you think that they would pay 2x more for a product that might be lower in pesticides?

          • Ron Roy

            I see you didn’t read all of that post. Those pesticide residues were
            from the spraying of conventional crops in neighboring fields and they
            were within acceptable limits: The
            U.S.
            Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes the
            maximum allowed levels of pesticides, or EPA
            tolerances, which may be present on foods
            . Although
            most EPA
            -registered
            pesticides are prohibited in organic
            production, there can be inadvertent
            or indirect contact from neighboring conventional farms or shared
            handling facilities. As long as the operator hasn’t directly applied prohibited pesticides and has documented
            efforts to minimize exposure to them
            , the
            USDA organic regulations allow residues of prohibited pesticides up to
            5
            percent of the EPA tolerance ”Organic is a scam.”Then why do a
            couple of your vaccine shill buddies eat organic? Maybe it’s because
            they want to avoid some of the pesticides that are systemic.Properly
            grown organic fruits and vegetables are much more nutritious.

          • JoeFarmer

            $300 cash and you can get a pencil-whipped organic cert.

            It’s the exact same deal as states that have/had annual or biennial vehicle inspection rules.

          • Michael McCarthy

            But they’re constantly monitored by the feds! *chuckle*

          • JoeFarmer

            Truth be told, they are monitored more closely by the company that leases them land, and by the neighbors.

            And really, science, reason and common sense aside, I don’t have anything against organic producers. If some guy decides the best day to sling manure on his crop based on as you said the other day, “rolling the chicken bones, that’s fine.

            But the more I do this, I believe you can’t win for losing in farming. Case in point: Last year we had 5 counties (out of 99) with Palmer Amaranth. This year we have 25 counties. And you know why? Exactly all of the Palmer discoveries this year have been in Conservation Reserve Program ground, where farmers have taken land out of production, bought “native” seed mix from legit suppliers, that ran short and imported “native” seed from other states.

            So now I have to deal with Palmer. Lucky me. But because I use modern herbicides, I’m going to be the bad guy…

          • hyperzombie

            Funny logic.
            Monsanto’s Round-up is nothing more than just a water softener like Calgon and Organic soap, just like the organic soap that Grandma used to make.

            ut there no residue whatsoever on any organic crop.

            Any evidence to back up this claim?

          • Ron Roy

            Hey Zombie do a little research before wait wait don’t do any research I kike it when I make a fool of you:http://www.reuters.com/article/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425

          • hyperzombie

            LOL, since when is a newspaper article from 3 years ago evidence of anything?

            In the article it states that the EPA is reviewing glyphosate in 2015, how did that work out? Is it now banned, restricted, what?

          • Michael McCarthy

            HAHAHAHA! He cites a newspaper article that is based on Seneff’s “work”.

          • Ron Roy

            3 years WOW ancient history.Glyphosate is on the verge of being banned in Europe two thirds of the Europeans want it banned. It will probable never be banned here Monsanto has bribed too many of our politicians not to mention the people who run the department of Agriculture and the EPA. Senator Kelley Ayotte from my state received a ten thousand dollar campaign contribution from Monsanto just before she voted on a bill that banned states from passing laws mandating the labeling of GM foods.

          • hyperzombie

            Glyphosate is on the verge of being banned in Europe two thirds of the Europeans want it banned.
            lol, 99% of Europeans have no idea what Glyphosate is. Roundup/glyphosate was just approved by the EU for another 10 years of use last year. Why would the ban the safest herbicide that they have?

            Senator Kelley Ayotte from my state received a ten thousand dollar campaign contribution from Monsanto j

            LOL, 10 g’s. That is nothing.

            bill that banned states from passing laws mandating the labeling of GM foods

            There is no law that bans states from labeling GMOs.

          • Ron Roy
          • hyperzombie

            Once again there is not a ban on labeling GMOs, anyone can in any state at anytime. It is 100% voluntary, just like the Organic, Non GMO, kosher, and Halal labels. Why do you lie.

          • Ron Roy

            You need new glasses. States are BANNED by the Federal government from passing mandatory GMO labeling laws.

          • hyperzombie

            And that is what I said. Just like Organic, Halal, kosher, and Non GMO these labels should be only voluntary.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Glyphosate is on the verge of being banned in Europe

            is over a year a “verge”? The European Commission is awaiting a report which is not due out until next November. It’s likely thought that they will renew the approval with a few changes is use.

          • Ron Roy

            Johnny you know there are powerful forces at work$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Just because the people are against it they are fighting this$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. You and your partners in crime remind me of a song sung my Groucho Marx in one of his movies. It goes like this” whatever it is I’m against it.” In your case it’s if it’s non toxic, natural, and healthy I’M AGAINST IT.

          • Jonathan Graham

            The point is, you said this is on the verge of being banned. “the verge” usually means that it’s close. The EC isn’t even going to make a decision until they see the RAC report. Which isn’t due for more than a year and when they do it’s doubtful that there’s going to be anything as radical as a ban.

            In your case it’s if it’s non toxic, natural, and healthy I’M AGAINST IT.

            It’s more like when someone makes ridiculous ignorant or overblown claims I’m against leaving them unchallenged.

          • Acleron

            Poor Roy seems to suffer a stutter around his $ sign when evidence is produced, a Freudian slip?

          • Ron Roy

            Speaking of slips. Yours is showing.

          • Acleron

            Another imagination of dear old Ron.

            Never mind Ron, inability to distinguish gender is quite understandable in someone so mentally disabled as you.

          • Ron Roy

            Just F with you. Although Acleron? really ACLERON?

          • Acleron

            Keep digging that hole.

          • Biron (& 100 Nobel Laureates)

            “Senator Kelley Ayotte from my state received a ten thousand dollar campaign contribution from Monsanto”

            So politicians are extorting biotech by threatening legislation sponsored by organic corporate interests. You are blaming the victim.

          • Biron (& 100 Nobel Laureates)

            “Glyphosate is on the verge of being banned in Europe”

            By who? Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats? Europe has them too.

          • JoeFarmer

            If there were any doubt at all that you were utterly clueless, you just sealed the deal, champ.

          • Ron Roy

            Please point out where I’m wrong chemical man. Citations please.

          • AutismDadd

            Great comeback, though it was only J Graham you whooped

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            All those chemicals are also approved for convention agriculture too.

            Most organic farmers us no pesticides.

          • Jonathan Graham

            There are quite a number of synthetic chemicals approved as pesticides for organic farming. So I’m not sure that’s correct.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            There are no synthetic pesticides approved for organic farming. Just because something is approved for use doesn’t mean that farmers are using it on their organic crops.

          • Jonathan Graham

            There are no synthetic pesticides approved for organic farming.

            Everything I listed is a synthetic substance approved for organic farming. Quite a number of them are explicitly labeled as pesticides. This information is easy to find.

            Just because something is approved for use doesn’t mean that farmers are using it on their organic crops.

            A long list of synthetic chemicals are specifically labeled as approved for organic farming. While that doesn’t guarantee use, economics does make it rather likely.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Nonsense, the only pesticides approved for use under certain specific conditions are all naturally occurring pesticides and not synthetic pesticides.

            Most organic farmers use no pesticides. USDA studies show that 96% or organic food meets or exceeds USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination.

            Compare that with the 100% of conventional GMOs that are contaminated with at least one and usually more synthetic pesticides that can not be washed off.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nonsense

            Everything I listed is easily found in US government literature. Interesting that you haven’t even checked your facts a little here. There’s a whole section in Title 7 specifically and clearly designating synthetic substances approved for use in organic farming – many are clearly labeled has insecticides.

            Most organic farmers use no pesticides.

            Seems made up.

            USDA studies show that 96% or organic food meets or exceeds USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination.

            In other words the synthetic pesticides used in them are not above whatever levels are specified.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            All pesticide approved for organic agriculture are naturally occurring substances.

            The FACT is that most organic farmers never use pesticides.

            FACT is that 96% of all organic food meets or exceeds USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination.

            FACT: 100% of conventional GMOs that are contaminated with at least one and usually more synthetic pesticides that can not be washed off.

            If you think this isn’t true then link to the source of your claims and show us all your proof.

          • Jonathan Graham

            All pesticide approved for organic agriculture are naturally occurring substances.

            If that somehow excludes synthetic substances then you are wrong. Again this is all covered in Title 7 part 205 – The National Organic Program. Why your opinions aren’t derived from this document is weird.

            Anyway if you want to keep making things up. I guess that’s your prerogative.

            The FACT is that most organic farmers never use pesticides.

            Sounds made up. No source for that is there?

            FACT is that 96% of all organic food meets or exceeds USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination.

            In other words the synthetic substances which are licensed for use are below the levels considered acceptable. So this really says nothing.

            100% of conventional GMOs that are contaminated with at least one and usually more synthetic pesticides that can not be washed off.

            Your first “that” is the wrong word. In any case you appear to be claiming that some subset of non-organic crops have some synthetic pesticide on them just like – as you claim – organic crops.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Meet Ted Miner, the Lowell Hubbs of the anti-GMO crowd.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Is that Cletus’s other name? It’s the first time I’ve met this dude.

            It’s interesting though that you can find all the information on synthetics in organic foods pretty easily: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1025eb0e6b67cadf9d3b40&rgn=div6&view=text&node=7:3.1.1.9.32.7&idno=7#se7.3.205_1601

            Not that it really maters if your insecticide is found in nature or not. Arsenic is found in nature and people generally have a poor reaction to it.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Yeah, Cletus is just one of Ted Miner’s many sockpuppets. Don’t be surprised if you get similar, uh, arguments from Duncan DeBunkerman, Razorjack, Goldfinger or Peaceful Warrior.
            Sometimes it is best just to ignore them, there is no rational debate.

          • JoeFarmer

            Don’t forget “Sparkle Plenty”!

            While I think Ted is about the lowest form of life imaginable, I have to admit that creating a sockpuppet from an old comic strip character is somewhat creative.

          • Or chat to each other about them, to debunk them for the lurkers?

            But thank you for the list of “living checklists” to follow.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Here are the facts:

            From the USDA 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
            Executive Summary

            “Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

            https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Pesticide%20Residue%20Testing_Org%20Produce_2010-11PilotStudy.pdf

            You can try and spin it away but your efforts will fail.

          • Jonathan Graham

            So organic crops have residues and some of those are synthetic. How is this different than what I said? It’s really, really different than what you claimed. That NO synthetics are used at all.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Many crops are contaminated by the spray drift from toxic synthetic pesticides used on conventional GMO crops.

            96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had
            residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent).

          • Jonathan Graham

            However again this is much different than what you were claiming. I gave a sample of the list of synthetic pesticides licensed for organic crops. All of which have MSDS showing human harm. Your claim was that no synthetic pesticides were used.

            However your source doesn’t support that claim. 🙂

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The contamination levels were very low on all but about 4% of the organic food tested and they were not from the use of forbidden pesticides but form contamination from nearby conventional farms.

            No to say that there are no bad actors in the organic food business, but organic food has been shown to be much cleaner than convention foods and that is why the people who have seen their health dramatically improve when switching to a clean health organic food diet and dumping cancer causing Roundup/glyphosate laden GMO foods.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Again, you seem to be ignoring the thing you were incorrect about and talking about something entirely irrelevant.

            I gave a list of synthetic substances which were approved for organic use (all of which have MSDS showing human harm) – you claimed no such substances are approved and that none were used.

            You have provided nothing which supports these points and I’ve provided direct evidence of their approval.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I’ll let the readers decide who has provided truthful information and who is pumping out industry PR astroturfer spin and disinformation.

            We can all see which team you play on and it is not the team of truth tellers.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Uh dude you claimed that no synthetic products were approved for organic farming. Right? It’s right up there. I provided the documentation. Not that it isn’t insane that you didn’t know about this to begin with. It’s clearly mentioned in Title 7 – Subtitle B – Chapter I – Subchapter M – Part 205. Which makes it pretty clear that you didn’t bother to check.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You obviously don’t understand how to interpreter the rules.

          • Jonathan Graham

            It lists a number of substances – specifically and clearly marked as synthetic – as approved specifically for organic farming. A number are clearly marked for there use case – like pesticides.

            So it seems like you’re just making things up.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Nonsense.

          • Jonathan Graham

            …and all you would have to do is look but the fact that you are entirely uninterested in checking your facts makes you a rather deceptive person. This isn’t just ignorance, it’s deliberate and willful.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Heh, of course of that “96% of organic food meets or exceeds USDA organic standards for pesticide contamination” embraces the reality that more than 40% of organic produce tested by USDA contains pesticide residues — that’s nearly half of organic produce contaminated with pesticide! Worse, some 4% of organic produce has ILLEGAL pesticide residues according to USDA testing!

            Plenty of pesticide being used in organic food. The survey by USDA found contamination with some 30 different pesticides on organic bell peppers. Contamination with from 8 to 19 different pesticides are found on organic broccoli, organic apples, organic strawberries, organic potatoes, organic tomatoes…

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Organic food is much cleaner and has less pesticides than convention GMO foods which are all contaminated with one and usually more synthetic pesticides that are not allowed in organic agriculture.

            See: From the USDA 2010 – 2011 Pilot Study Pesticide Residue Testing of Organic Produce
            Executive Summary

            “Of these 571 samples, 96 percent were compliant with USDA organic regulations. This means that the produce either had no detected residues (57 percent) or had residues less than 5 percent of the EPA tolerance ( 39 percent). Four percent of the tested samples contained residues above 5 percent of the EPA tolerance and were in violation of the USDA organic regulations. The findings suggest that some of the samples in violation were mislabeled conventional products, while others were organic products that hadn’t been adequately protected from prohibited pesticides.”

            https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Pesticide%20Residue%20Testing_Org%20Produce_2010-11PilotStudy.pdf

            You attempts to sell half truth lies are stunning by their depraved attempts to deceive the readers here.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            I encourage everyone to read the USDA pilot survey you have linked to. It’s stunning for anyone who, up to now, has been suckered into believing organic food is pesticide-free…it’s certainly not! Wow, some 30 different pesticides were found contaminating organic bell peppers, alone! Imagine organic farmers selecting from an arsenal of 30 pesticides to drench their organic crops with, it’s mind-blowing!!

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            The study shows us that 57% of organic food is pesticide free. It also says that some of the contaminated food was likely because of mis-labeled conventional foods being labeled as organic.

            It is not surprising to see the very low contamination levels on some foods with the toxic ag system that contaminates anything in the area with pesticide drift and contamination.

            Meanwhile the 100% of conventional GMO food is contaminated with cancer causing synthetic pesticides that are not allowed in organic agriculture.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Right, so you expect suckers to pay twice or three times the price for organic food, about half of which is contaminated with up to 30 different pesticides? Do you perceive any teeny tiny weakness in your marketing plan, there? You insult the intelligence of people who naively pay extravagant prices for organic food — now that we all acknowledge there are scores of pesticides lurking in some of that organic food should people still be expected to pay the premium price? Of course not! They should walk away from the organic snake oil sales pitch in anger and disgust because they’ve been taken advantage of all this time.

            You still haven’t documented your ridiculous claim that 100% of conventional GMO food is contaminated with cancer-causing synthetic pesticides. Without documentation for your obvious hyperbole we simply must conclude you are prevaricating, uh, making up spurious claims as you go along. So document the 100% prevalence and document the proven cancer-causing properties while you’re at it. If it isn’t a bald-faced lie it should be easy to cite credible peer-reviewed references. So, what’s the holdup? Just direct us to the proof and quit dodging and squirming.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You will have a hard time selling your industry PR astroturfer spin to the millions of people who have found their serious explainable health issues get much better or completely resolve when they ditch cancer causing pesticide laden GMO foods and switch to clean healthy and tasty organic food.

            The nations largest health care organization sent a newsletter to their patients. In that newsletter was an article by one of their nutritionists who explained GMOs and then told the patients to avoid them so as to not degrade their health. The health care organization had no “official” policy on GMOs because of the politics, but it cared enough about the concerns of it’s medical staff, it’s patients, and it’s bottom line to send out the warning. http://www.willamettelive.com/2012/news/corporate-giant-comes-out-against-gmos/

            There have been no long term independent studies of the health effects of GMOs on human health. Many health care organizations are recognizing that severe unexplainable symptoms that are being reported by their patients get better when GMOs are removed from their diet.

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Uh oh, Ted, your Kaiser newsletter claim was a hoax — you’ve been punked!

            http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/gmo-opponents-fall-hoax/

            https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-kaiser-permanente-warns-against-consuming-genetically-modified-foods.t962/

            Shame on you for continuing to try to trick good innocent people with that debunked old hoax. Again, you insult everyone’s intelligence.

            Oh, and regarding your concern for long term independent studies of health effects, you’re right, there are none for highly tested and regulated GE foods which, for some 20 years now, and billions and billions of meals have proven safe. Of far greater concern, of course, is the chilling fact that no long term independent human feeding studies have proven the safety of organic foods, foods which are grown in poop and are proven to have killed scores of people and seriously sickened thousands! Where are your studies proving the safety of organic foods, Ted? Oh, that’s right…you have none…because organic foods are demonstrated to be unsafe.

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/8/dead-bodies-demand-organic-food-moratorium/

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Unless you can link to some legitimate sites we can all see that have only industry astroturf site disinformation to try and spin away the facts.

            Here is what Kaiser had to say about the newsletter.

            From David Northfield, Media Relations Manager of Kaiser Permanente’s Communications & Organizational Research.

            Northfield responded on November 25. He said, “The article appearing in this fall’s issue of Partners in Health, Kaiser Permanente’s newsletter for members, was written by one of our nutritionists, and presents her views and insights on the subject. As a mission-based non-profit healthcare organization, we believe it is important to share information with our members on a wide range of topics related to health care and health, but we do not take an organizational position on every issue.”

            Northfield went on to say, “Kaiser Permanente believes the ongoing
            research and debate on bioengineered foods, or genetically modified
            organisms (GMOs), is important. We also recognize there are important conversations about related initiatives and propositions. While we believe these are important scientific and political debates, we do not have policy positions on these subjects.”

            Though Kaiser Permenente will not state an official policy on GMOs,
            the nutritionist-author of “What You Need To Know About GMOs” (who is not named,) described studies that showed significant physical damage caused by GMOs and listed ways its members could avoid them.

            http://www.willamettelive.com/2012/news/kaiser-speaks-about-gmos/

          • Farmer with a Dell

            Ah yes, the obtuse opinion of an unnamed author whose position Kaiser Permanente does not necessarily share. Oops, so the largest health corp in the land did NOT warn against GE foods. Well, OK then, why didn’t you say so in the first place? Heck, why would we think there should be scientifically valid medical opinion to back up your profound declaration that 100% of conventional GMO food is contaminated with cancer-causing pesticides. Sure, Ted, we’ll just take your word on it…NOT!

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You wish …..

            Keep spinning. We can all see that you are desperate to try and spin the actual facts away.

          • Ron Roy

            Peracetic Acid is nothing more than acetic acid ( vinegar ) with
            hydrogen peroxide. I rinse my moth with hydrogen peroxide on occasion.
            Hydrated lime is nothing more than limestone that has been burned. It’s
            more caustic than regular limestone but there no residue whatsoever on
            any organic crop. Overuse of copper can cause problems by they don’t
            because unlike farmers who grow conventional crops farmers who grow
            organically are constantly monitored by the feds. There isn’t a long
            list of chemicals used by organic farmers. Go back to your coke and
            chips.

          • hyperzombie

            Go back to your coke and
            chips.

            Would that be Organic cola and chips or just the regular kind that costs half as much but is just as fattening?

          • JoeFarmer

            Wut? You mean that a package of Newman’s organic Newman-Os aren’t any healthier than Oreos?

            Say it isn’t so!

            But if I buy hemp-based sans-a-belt pants, it’s still all good, right?

          • Ron Roy

            Cola and chips organic or not are still JUNK FOOD.

          • Acleron

            Ron Roy confusing the precursors of a compound with the compound itself. Try rinsing your moth with peracetic acid Ron.

          • shay simmons

            Perhaps he could sprinkle sodium and chloride on his mashed potatoes.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Did you forget you already posted this exact comment? That’s the second time this week. I think you need to take a nap. In case you also forgot my response it was:

            Saying “is nothing more” doesn’t change that each and every one of those has an MSDS showing human harm. Which is exactly what you asked for:
            Ron are you trying to say that the poison is in the dose? LOL!

            There isn’t a long list of chemicals used by organic farmers

            Then you have zero clue what you are talking about. 🙂

          • Mike Stevens

            Amazing how Ron thinks substances that have been proven safe to be in vaccines are “toxic”, yet substances shown to harm health that are permitted for organic food production are “harmless”.
            One might almost suspect he is biased, but of course he can’t be

          • Jonathan Graham

            …or that thresholds for safety somehow work differently for vaccines than for organic food production or that “the feds” are somehow more vigilant about organic foods than vaccines.

          • Ron Roy

            How do I know? You’re making it easy. First of all the Department of Agriculture is , like all other government agencies, bought and paid for by the large corporate farms and that being the case if they could shut down any organic farmer they would and finding anything toxic on organic produce would be just the excuse they need.

          • Acleron

            The excuse of every anti rationalist ever.

        • Damo

          Humane, yes, but I haven’t seen any evidence that it is more sustainable–especially when no-till enters the equation.

        • Cletus DeBunkerman

          Total nonsense.

          Please cite the source for your claims.

        • Ron Roy

          Wronggggggg.

          • hyperzombie

            Nope and your post below proves it.

        • sabelmouse

          oy/lol!

      • AutismDadd

        Conventional crops aren’t tended. They use chemicals to help them germinate and lab created seeds to withstand disease. Organic is as natural as can be, and its tended with fertilized soil and no chemicals. Anyone unable to understand that should repeat 1st grade.

  • Rab iBurns

    The author’s point regarding treatment of the root cause of disease criticises acupuncturists and chiropractors as having a false/prejudiced understanding of aetiology. It does not address the other part of the claim, namely that the “proper physician” one should consult instead has no understanding of, or interest in, the root cause of disease. Should the author’s silence on this point be understood as acquiescence?

    • Nick_Tamair

      Hi Rab. I think his underlying point is that physical illnesses have physical causes. Got a boil? The cause of this is a Staphylococcus aureus infection – and that’s the only cause that the physician need consider. The problem has no underlying intangible origin.To get rid of the boil, lance it, and perhaps prescribe a follow-up antibiotic..That treats the condition fully – there’s nothing else to be put right.

      In treating the patient the doctor should consider whether the he or she is exposed to insanitary conditions, or has a weakened immune system; if necessary, the physician should provide help and/or advice to overcome these disadvantages – but they only need to be considered as possible physical contributors to ill-health, not mystical ones.

      Best regards.

      • Rab iBurns

        Thanks for taking the time to reply, Nick. Couple of things come to mind in response: 1) there are conditions with multiple symptoms across multiple systems that result from a single cause/event, e.g., PTSD, 2) susceptibility – not all people produce (the same) physical symptoms when exposed to the same physical “pathogen”, and 3) some physical symptoms are caused by non-physical “pathogens”, e.g., when a person faints on hearing certain news.

        • Scottishprof

          All these things are true, but they’re minor truths. I’m sure it’s true that modern medicine could do a better job of being joined-up, and understanding the whole of the patients’ pathology. Unfortunately that takes time. Lots of it, at a very high cost. But it’s a dreadful fault of modern healthcare that the high cost & time requirements mean it’s often not possible to consider it at all.
          However when most quacks talk about things like “chiropractic adjustment can improve the function of the immune system”, or “Homeopathy considers the patient as a whole”, they’re usually telling major untruths. On a far higher scale than the things you mention.

      • Dan Keown

        This just isnt true though. The number of studies out there showing that emotional stress causes disease are legion. Just ONE example: http://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/takotsubo-cardiomyopathy-broken-heart-syndrome

      • Dan Keown

        Furthermore, Ernst shows what a quack HE really is with this comment : Traditional acupuncturists, for instance, are convinced that all disease is caused by an imbalance of life forces’. That’s just not true! And, as a so-called professor of complementary medicine he should know that!.. unless of course he’s a quack.

      • Peter

        Nick, how sweet. If you really think that the entire range of diseases and disorders humans can suffer from can be equated to a blokey ‘got a boil, staph infection, lance it, maybe antibiotics’ you either can’t have practised medicine or are a doctor to avoid (unless you’ve got a boil that is).

      • sabelmouse

        and then you get another boil, because …? why do you keep getting boil, and is treating boils enough or should an underlying condition be looked for and addressed?

  • Megalomaniacs4u

    Knew one doctor who started off with “Let us pray”

    • Mc

      “Let us pray that you don’t die under my quackish care”

      • Rab iBurns

        Or let us pray you tell me all your trouble – even the dark and embarrassing ones.

  • Boet

    Excellent article.

  • I do not agree with you on several of your points. If you are so knowledgeable then you know that Big Pharma Pills are sync. The are a copy of what is in nature. Also if I had not taken those pills back when I was younger I would not have 4th stage kidney failure today.
    I was told I had 3 months before I would need a kidney transplant or start dialysis. That was over 8 years ago. Due to diet, alternative herbs, and even healing meditation, I am able to live a guilty of life I would not have had I not taken the natural Path! So all is not quackery as you say. Also, my friend who had stage 2 breast cancer is now cancer free from using herbs and alternative methods of healing. So I think you are very small minded. Many healing therapies have been around for years that are much better than pills that kill your organs.

    • Mark Richards

      You’re so right those pills, and other treatments, that kill your organs are awful. That’s why no CAM quack is coming near me with their black salves, bleach enemas etc. etc.

      BTW, you really shouldn’t feel so guilty about recovering from kidney failure. Unless, of course, you’re lying about the whole thing.

  • Justyna Simmonds

    I would also add “it must get worse before it gets better”

    • Austen Patterson

      No, because this is true in some cases.

  • Jake

    This article makes some good points. There are many alternative practitioners that make outrageous claims with little to no evidence. That has to stop! With the amount of sick and suffering people in the world the public would be much better off if there was less discrimination and more unbiased multidisciplinary scientific investigation. Doing research takes a lot of resources to really meet today’s scientific standards. Modern medicine is a mixed bag as well. How so? Many medical procedures do not have sufficient evidence to support their claims either (even with unlimited resources) http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/efficacy-categorisations.html Even when they do have sufficient evidence, the treatment is often incorrectly prescribed. How often do people with the flu or cold (viruses) get prescribed antibiotics? Or people with stomach pain automatically get proton pump inhibitors. Pain, take a painkiller and see if it goes away without proper investigation. These are the most common reasons for seeking a doctor. Don’t you find it at least a little suspicious that the majority of traditional medicine treats everything like a chemical problem, even when it is obviously not caused by a chemical imbalanc? On the other side, sometimes people may actually need antibiotics, and instead they take a remedy which is not effective. SO how does the average person know what to do? Especially when most practitioners themselves have little clue. The solution……work together. The solution to any problem is working together. Instead we call each other names (quacks, drug pushers, rainbow healers), we make blanket statements, we exaggerate claims, etc. BTW the slogan… “Stimulating the immune system” is used most often by the vaccination programs.

    • Charlie Brown

      This was a good comment. The distinctions between science and pseudo-science are becoming blurred. And i can say that because i work with it 🙂

    • Sonja Henie

      “How often do people with the flu or cold (viruses) get prescribed
      antibiotics? Or people with stomach pain automatically get proton pump
      inhibitors.”

      Not at the office where I worked.

      What type of quack are you?

      • bwf309

        Hahahahahaha now that is funny.

        • Sonja Henie

          Gfy!

          • Ron Roy

            I’ve said this before but.. George Carlin used to say telling someone to Gfy is a good thing sooo Sonja why don’t you ever tell me that?

          • Joe

            I will do it for her GFY!

          • Ron Roy

            Why thank you Joe same to you. See we can get along. lol

      • Jake

        So you send out for cultures everytime a patient come in to check and see if is a bacterium or virus before prescribing antibiotics. If so I am impressed, but I imagine you are simply telling a tale.

        • Sonja Henie

          No, jagoff! For one thing, since you last darkened the door of a med school classroom, ie, never, rapid tests for strep have been developed. If the test is positive, we know for sure the person has strep, and we’d treat. If it was negative, we’d send a swab to the lab, and if it came back positive we’d treat. There are also dipsticks for urine that can detect WBCs and the like. If present, treat. If not, send to lab. Then there are clinical guidelines for ear infections re: when to treat, when to wait. We didn’t do a lot of proton-pump inhibitors; sometimes in babies with reflux.

          And genius chiro/naturo/homeo, you don’t treat viral infections except for flu, and yes, we required a positive test, which can be done in office, before treating.

          There is also such a thing as clinical judgement.

          I worked in pediatrics.

        • Ron Roy

          She’s good at telling tales.

          • Joe

            Says the man with no integrity.

          • bwf309

            She has a poor memory, she is old

          • Justthefacts

            Says the woo peddling chiropractor.

          • Sonja Henie

            Younger than you, pr*ck! You think you’re going to get my goat again, eh? You’re low-lying filthy scum. I won’t give you the satisfaction you woo-peddling lying liar. If you could prescribe (and SELL) vaccines, you would. G. . ood F. . or . . Y. . ou.

          • bwf309

            LOL 🙂 I think I already did. Have a nice day

          • Laura J

            She needs her latuda now

          • Acleron

            Good grief, I don’t want to see it if somebody does get your goat. LMAO.

          • Sonja Henie

            Oh, this has been going on a while. I’m serious. Called my kids potential prostitutes and IV drug users. Constant digs about my age when I’m younger than him. A major Jagoff as we say in Pittsburgh.

          • bwf309

            I never said anything about your daughters. You hallucinated that one all by yourself. You have a reading comprehension problem or need new glasses. That happens as we get older you know. And I don’t think you have Alzheimer’s, dementia maybe, but not Alzheimer’s.

          • Sonja Henie

            Trying to weasel out of it again, eh, Jagoff?

          • bwf309

            LOL, no weaseling required, as I have noted before, I don’t know your daughters and have no way of knowing if they use IV drugs or are prostitutes. If the shoe fits, wear it as the saying goes.

          • Sonja Henie

            I really wish a mod would stop this guy from spreading this nasty FUD about my daughters! I was going to be the better person and not say what he said about them, but he, being a Jagoff, brought it up. What a piece of fecal matter he is!

          • Damo

            Well, I really don’t know you, and I have no way of knowing if you really did breast feed until you were 14, but you know it might be true.

          • bwf309

            (could not resist) LOL, it could be or it could be that I started breast feeding at 14. That would be about right now for you, if you left your basement 🙂

          • Damo

            What are you talking about a basement for? Glad to know that you admit to breastfeeding at 14, but that sounds like you need some mental health help.

          • bwf309

            🙂 obviously over your head buwahahahaha

          • Sonja Henie

            Grow up. You act like you’re in middle school.

          • bwf309

            LOL, Seems to me that you are the one calling people “jagoff” telling them to “go F themselves” in such cute little ways. But then again perhaps that is why you think everyone else is in middle school. Have a nice day

          • Sonja Henie

            Linguists at Carnegie Mellon University have determined that “Jagoff” is not profantiy.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagoff

          • bwf309

            Nice to know. Still the type of retort someone in middle school would resort to. Have a nice day

          • Damo

            Aren’t you the one who claimed that mew pointing out that you are a fraud (a fact) is equivalent to school yard bullying?

          • Ron Roy

            Imagine having to live with her? WOW!

      • Ron Roy

        Doctors are ALWAYS prescribing antibiotics for ear infections and ear infections are caused by a virus.

        • No Ron, most ear infections are of viral aetiology and numerous viruses can cause ear infections. Not a virus and not all ear infections and not always. With the exception of one time (which was a raging bacterial infection), I and the paeds have always done “wait and see” with my children.

      • Diet dee

        i have been offer anti biotics(doc didn’t know what i had but just to be safe) and sometimes have overheard patient demand them

        • Sonja Henie

          The case you describe is a matter of clinical judgement. The poster was talking about routine administration. I don’t believe your second statement. You’d have to be standing in front of the door to a patient room to overhear like that.

    • The solution……work together.

      No the solution is to make medical practitioners adhere to science-based practices and overhaul the clinical trial and drug/device approval system. To quote SBM blogger Mark Crislip, “If you mix cow pie with apple pie, it does not make the cow pie taste better; it makes the apple pie worse.” That’s what you get if you try to “work together”.

      • hyperzombie

        Yeppers, same with the demands for compromise. You cant have a half science/ half faith based study, that would be crazy.

    • Mike Stevens

      You realise that BMJ Clinical Evidence assessed ALL treatment modalities, not just conventional, and that the alternative/complementary therapies came out looking very sorry for themselves?

      • Jake

        What is your point?

        • Mike Stevens

          You said many medical procedures do not have a sufficient evidence base, citing BMJ Clinical Evidence.
          I pointed out that the modalities highlighted as having the least evidence are the CAM ones like homeopathy, acupuncture etc.

          I would have thought my point was clear, but in case it’s not …the evidence base for conventional/orthodox treatments is far superior to that of CAM therapies.

          “Working together” is not a recipe for success.
          Remember, mixing apple pie with cow pie doesn’t improve the taste of the apple pie.

          • Jake

            Working together is not a recipe for sucess. LOL.

          • Acleron

            Bridge builders do not benefit from working with those who are anti bridge building.

            Car makers do not benefit from working with those who consider the horse as the epitome of transport.

            Doctors do not benefit from quacks who propose discredited treatments.

          • Mike Stevens

            Not when you suggest medicine should “work together” with quackery, no.

          • Ron Roy

            I agree they should not work together conventional medicine ( the real quackery ) would give the real healers a bad name.

          • Damo

            Why haven’t these “real healers” fixed your apparent dementia yet?

          • Ron Roy

            You’re looking in a mirror again Damo.

          • Acleron

            The real healers who can prove their skill or who?

          • Ron Roy

            Google ”Orthomolecular Medicine.”

          • Acleron

            Pseudoscience at its best.

            “Orthomolecular is a term that comes from ortho, which is Greek for “correct” or “right,” and “molecule,” which is the simplest structure that displays the characteristics of a compound. So it literally means the “right molecule.”

            Do you seriously swallow this guff? I can see you regurgitate it to others but do you fail to understand it is nonsense?

          • Jonathan Graham

            Except that your so-called “real healers” can only provide “hey I knew a guy who maybe this helped but it might not work for you” evidence. Why do their treatments constantly fail (or have poor evidence) once you move to more objective evaluations?

          • Ron Roy

            Really Johnny. Since this blog doesn’t allow links to be posted google Orthomolecular Medicine and you will see proof of natural non drug ) methods of healing.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Yawn. Again I asked for a study. Please supply it.

      • Jake

        The original article stated these were treatment commonly performed at a hospital. Please show me your proof.

  • Vego Kadiyala

    Wonderfully nailed.

    • Dan Keown

      Ernst is a quack professor who’s opinion has been invalidated by the march of public opinion. His knowledge of ‘alternative medicine’ is composed of statistics: it’s like having a conversation about football with a statto who’s never played it: Try telling Phelps that cupping doesn’t work. His inherent bias against ‘alternative medicine’ falls to bits by his own logic: ‘there is no alternative medicine just medicine that works or not.’
      Really, well in that case why do you keep going on about anything that’s not produced by massive pharmaceutical companies (can’t say Big Pharma..?!).I’d just ignore him but unfortunately the MSM keeps giving him disproportionate print-space. He’s a joke.

      • Dan Keown said:

        “Ernst is a quack professor who’s opinion has been invalidated by the march of public opinion.”

        ROFL!

  • Charlie Brown

    The article is very poorely written, which is a shame because medical quackery is a growing business of scaming people who’s health might be in danger. For example statement “there is nothing natural in thrusting a patient’s spine beyond the physiological range of motion (chiropractic)” is completely meaningless – chiropractors are not “thrusting” spine and not remotely pushing it out of its “range of motion”. The author clearly never visited a chiropractor, which may be unproblematic, until the person decide to write about something they know anything about.

    Claiming that bringing up BigPharma is automatically discrediting someone, or out them as a quack is similarly terribly uninformed. Many medical practicioners in western/modern medicine are very critical to the way pharmaseutical companies are polluting the knowledge on disease and medication, with their rigged clinical trials that no one can reproduce, as they keep data secret etc. Namely, its pharmaseutical companies that are often times selling medication that are hardly having any effect beyond placebo, just like alternative practicioners.
    Ben Goldacre, epidemiologist is a public speaker about numerous problems in medicine, from quacks to pharmaceuticals. I hope author does the minimum and at least sees a video of Goldachre speaking, if reading his book is too tiresome.

    The atomistic focus of modern medicine (and science in general) on the fragments (disease), and not on the system (the actual person and their environment) has been criticised by just about any relevant historian and philosopher of science from Faucault to Harraway. The author confuses the methodology with actual methods, namely taking a systemic approach, which is indeed desirable, does not guarantee that the actual method (say acupuncture, or homeopathy) is having a desirable effect.

    I hope the author goes home, spends a couple of years learning about the subject and then gives us a credible, well-informed and critical analysis of medical quackery, which is relevant approach to take. Untill then, maybe the author can refrain from writing incredible amount of nonsence, in order to accuse others they are doing nonsence. What an irony.

    • Scottishprof

      This is the possibly the funniest comment I have seen on the internet all year.
      It’s delightfully self-referential – the poster accusing the author of
      ignorance (for disagreeing with the poster’s views, one presumes), and
      in doing so exposing themselves as extraordinarily ignorant.
      It’s as if Usain Bolt wrote something, and you replied that Justin Gatlin is a good runner, and the author ought to go and see a video of him competing.
      Thank you! You made my day. And maybe go and look up some books by Edzard Ernst; I’m not sure he makes videos, but his books are phenomenal.

      Oh – and by the way – the pharmaceutical companies are guilty of some pretty bad stuff, like the quacks, but Prof. Ernst is right – anyone who talks about “Big Pharma” as an evil entity, rather than a complex and double-edged system, is pushing ill-informed opinion using slogans.

      • Charlie Brown

        All year, realy? I guess you dont go out very much. Or have much else to do than float in cyber space year after year.
        What is most relevant in your comment (and arguably, the only relevant aspect) is that you have in any way or form refuted what i said, but instead merely *accused* me of ignorance, without being capable of showing it, and then declaired some kind of victory. Not an uncommong occurence, most people use that method to give impression they in fact made an *argument*. Then you start deflecting, talking about Bolt, and proposing an example which is not only non-analogous, but not even remotely related. Wow, impressive.

      • Charlie Brown

        Also, you used term “self-referential” wrong.

        • Scottishprof

          Mmm. You’re quite right. It exemplifies exactly the thing it’s accusing someone else of. What’s the word for that? Not quite hypocrisy, which is telling people not to do something while doing it yourself. But similar. If you can tell me the correct word for this, to replace “self-referential”, I’d appreciate it.

          In the meantime, please do go and read some Edzard Ernst and stop wittering. And I’m sorry you couldn’t understand the Usain Bolt analogy.

          • Charlie Brown

            No need to be sorry, the only thing that is needed is an argument. After the second opportunity you missed to make an argument, lets conclude you dont have one and go on with our day. You might have time on your hands for exchanging vapid claims, but im kind of busy.

          • Damo

            Oh my, another logic 101 graduate who doesn’t understand rhetoric as much as he thinks he does.

    • Tony_Lloyd

      “I hope the author goes home, spends a couple of years learning about the subject and then gives us a credible, well-informed and critical analysis of medical quackery, which is relevant approach to take.”

      “A couple of years learning”: A medical qualification and more than a couple as professor of Complementary Medicine at Exeter satisfies that.

      “(W)ell-informed critical analysis”.
      – Detailed: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Edzard+Ernst&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
      – All in one place and written for the layman: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trick-Treatment-Alternative-Medicine-Trial/dp/0552157627

      • Charlie Brown

        “A medical qualification and a professorship” used to prove that someones argument is true, is a fallacy. Without knowing persons qualification, its impossible for you to evaluate the merit of an argument itself? (That was a rhetorical question.)

        • Tony_Lloyd

          Correct.

          But irrelevant.

          A medical qualification and a professorship in the subject satisfies your requirement of “a couple of years learning”.

          Does it not?

          • Charlie Brown

            Correct and essential.

            No it doesnt. I didnt imply the author should spend a couple of years of learning within the filed he perhaps has already spent a couple of years on. I *explicitly* said the author should spend time learning about the topic he was writing on – which is what you can likely notice, if you indeed read my comment – *implying* that he should also develop much more advanced critical skills than he currently operates with.

  • Does this seriously say ‘scientifically orientated’ in just the second paragraph? Stopped reading. Done. Maybe there’s a mass shortage of qualified editors out there.

  • Dan Keown

    He’s wrong.Most of these could be applied to Western docs and Ernst himself. As an example, what is an ecg (the most requested test in Emergency medicine) if not ‘energy’.

  • Dan Keown

    And I’ll give you a free slogan that most doctors NEVER use: ‘I read about that study.’ Professor of Pseudoscience isnt interested in ‘real’ medicine though… are you?

  • Peter

    Let’s start with number one, that quacks ‘treat the root of the disorder’. It’s the opposite. Any doctor who don’t investigate the root of the disorder is a quack. Let’s suppose you have chronic back or neck pain. The first question is why though almost always in conventional medicine the first response is medication. ‘Why’ might include poor posture, lack of exercise, too much or the wrong kind of exercise, chronic tension, deep exhaustion, depression, repetitive strain, some aspect of work, long sitting in the wrong chair at the wrong height etc. etc. What Ernst demonstrates here is scanty experience of or respect for sound medical practice.

    • Damo

      Well, maybe your doctor is an idiot, but mine gave me physical therapy after a barrage of tests when I had neck pain. Oh, he also gave me a limited number of pain pills–to be used in conjunction with the therapy.

      If you want his number, I will give it to you.

      • Andrew Gillies

        You didn’t say what the cause of the neck pain was…a sport injury…a postural issue…tension. I assume the doctor addressed this as part of the barrage of tests, and if it was something like a postural issue or stress related tension, you knew what steps to take after the physical therapy and pain pills had finished.

        • Damo

          The cause is irrelevant. The anecdote was only to prove that not all doctors are idiots.

          • Andrew Gillies

            Peter didn’t suggest that all doctors are idiots (if he had said that, I wouldn’t have joined in). He is saying that a doctor that doesn’t investigate the root of a disorder is a quack. I wondered if your doctor did investigate the root of the neck pain. If it was a simple sports injury then that probably wouldn’t be necessary, and physical treatment would be enough, but if the neck pain had its source in stress or postural problems, then I hope that your doctor addressed that as well as providing remedy for the immediate physical issue.

  • Dana Ullman

    One other important piece of advice: Ignore anything ever written by Edzard Ernst. He is a master of misinformation. It is more than ironic that the only research that he ever personally conducted testing homeopathic medicines showed that it worked (!) in the treatment of varicose veins. Ernst, E, Saradeth, T, and Resch, KL, Complementary Treatment of Varicose Veins – A Randomised, Place¬bo-controlled, Double-blind Trial. Phlebology (1990)5,157-163.

    No irony here, eh?

    • David N. Andrews MEd, CPSE

      Sod off, Dullman….

      You’re lying through your teeth and you’re lying through your arse.

    • Margaret Hardman

      I have a note he wrote to the milkman asking for an extra pint that morning. Should I ignore that as being wrong, Dana?

    • andrew_gilbey

      I think you’ll find it is called a false positive. If you conduct as many studies as Ernst, you will unfortunately fall prey to these sometimes. I don’t see it outweighing all the true negatives. The actual irony here is that Ullman sees fit to point this out.

      • Dana Ullman

        HaHaHa…thanx for proving that skeptics just LOVE to fabricate facts and to only believe in research when it supports their worldview. In actual fact, Ernst has hardly even conducted his own research. Instead, he primarily writes reviewing the research of others! Personally, I think that he stopped conducting research on homeopathy himself because he was worried that he would continue to PROVE that homeopathy works…and that would be the worst thing for his professional life (which is based on attacking homeopathy).

        But thanx Andrew for showing your completely unscientific attitude and your dis-belief in science (when it goes against your fundamentalism!).

        • andrew_gilbey

          😉

        • And what know you of science, other than its bastardisation? You want us to ignore your cherry-picking this time? Or you want us to have it as evidence that your livelihood is not based on an elaborate bluff?

          • Dana Ullman

            Hmmm…I cite research published in peer-review journals, and you spew your theories…big diff!

            And here’s the NEWEST review of homeopathic research that shows TWO things:
            — the HIGHEST QUALITY research verifies the efficacy of homeopathy
            — this research confirms that FOUR of the last FIVE large meta-analyses on homeopathic research shows that homeopathic medicines have effects that are different from placebo.

            Science over-trumps theory…and homeopathy wins!

          • Acleron

            That wouldn’t be the Mathis paper would it?

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25480654

            The one that had the peculiar selection criteria that managed to leave out the two most rigorous meta studies and included ones that broke even this strange criteria. The discerning viewer will have already guessed, the ones left out were negative for homeopathy and the ones included were positive.

            Cherry picking, the homeopathy’s only research tool used all the way from the lab bench to meta studies of meta studies.

          • Dana Ullman

            Cherry-picking is what you and othe pseudo-skeptics use to demean homeopathy…especially as evidenced by the Australian report! Get real…and try honesty (I know that is a stretch for you)…Heck, that Australian report chose to ignore ANY and ALL studies that had less than 150 subjects (how “convenient”!). The British Medical Journal stipulates that 20 subjects is the proper minimum…and even with that criteria, they found that only 11% of ALL conventional medical treatments have proven efficacy. If they increased it to 150 subjects, that number would probably diminish to 1% to 4%!

            But in any case, I’m glad that you now recognize that there are FOUR large meta-analyses that show support for the fact that homeopathic medicine DIFFER from placebo.

          • Acleron

            Lol, selecting objectively on quality as in Linde et al, Shang et al and the NHMRC is cherry picking? That is just crazy.

            No Ullman, selecting only those results you like is cherry picking, exactly as you do.

            So why do you want to include the poor evidence and reject the good evidence?

            Those four meta studies you think should support homeopathy were admitted by Mathie to be poor studies, he had no rational answer as to why he excluded the two better studies.

          • Dana Ullman

            Thanx for providing further evidence of your dishonesty! The Linde review acknowledged that homeopathy was different from placebo, even when looking only at the high quality studies.

            Second, the Australian study was published AFTER the Mathie review was submitted for publication (your academic sloppiness is evident again!)…and “how convenient” it is for you to be sloppy!

            For the record, Mathie’s review only evaluated randomized and double-blind trials!

          • Acleron

            Linde stated that his results agreed with Shang et al and with the latest data the effect he had originally seen was lessened. This statement is one you have continually omitted in your cherry picking.

            Where did I say that Mathie was published after the NHMRC? Didn’t you take that advice on remedial reading classes?

            And still trying to avoid the fact that the Matthie positives were poor quality and failed his own criteria. It demonstrates that you know little about academic rigor and even less about these papers you tout.

          • And of the three studies Mathie thought were ‘reliable evidence’, one was ‘preliminary’, one was a ‘pilot study’ and they were all small (n=81, 75 and 62).

            Dana Ullman said:

            “For the record, Mathie’s review only evaluated randomized and double-blind trials!”

            Were they all placebo controlled, Dana?

          • What theories? You’re coming over incoherent. ‘… here’s the NEWEST review… What? Where?

  • noel thomas

    Ernst tosses accusations of quackery and charlatanism around, giving no specific instances nor names, in the manner of Senator Joe McCarthy, who enjoyed brief fame, ‘exposing’ real and imagined communists, until sufficient people spoke up and exposed his lies.
    The GMC revalidated me, for five years, in 2015, as an NHS doctor providing free homeopathy to patients.
    The GMC presumably do not agree with Ernst that I am a bogus quack and charlatan, along with many colleagues providing homeopathy in primary care.
    Unwise generalisations, little porkies, or big lies, from Ernst ? Choose.
    But can one expect poor retired Ernst to be precise about who exactly he is labelling in his typical and unpleasant way ?
    He has struggled to build a reputation as a modern day Malleus Malleficarum, and he can hardly be expected to let go of that hard earned label, imaginary or not. He has books to sell, ( many cheap remaindered copies in Hay on Wye, recently ), fees on the talk circuit to consider, naive journalists to impress, and boring pot boilers like these Spectator pieces, to sell to unthinking journals.
    He has admitted elsewhere that he is a collector of fine Bordeaux wines, and such interests do not come cheap.
    Give the poor chap a chance to earn a few more pennies from the Spectator, and he will maybe return the favour, and caste aside his McCarthyite cloak ? Maybe mention his conflicting interests, too ?

    • Acleron

      No, at the moment the GMC is not taking action over those using discredited products/modalities.

      However, they should.

      • noel thomas

        Acleron clearly knows nothing of the GMC revalidation process for docs, and how they do their job, ( nor, probably, of the PSA accreditation process for non medical homeopaths ). Where can one find a denigrator of homeopathy who knows enough about the subject, even to pose a sensible question ?

        And if Acleron wishes to be taken more seriously than a school bully who, fearful of confrontation, throws stones from behind a bush, perhaps he will be brave enough to put his name to any future comments.

        • Acleron

          When you can find a homeopath that both has evidence that water and sugar has a positive effect in treating disease and knows the scientific meaning of evidence, get back to us.

          If the GMC are giving approval to modalities that have been shown not to work then they should stop now.

          Your attack on someone because they have pointed out the evidence surrounding a treatment shows that treatment not to work and the tactics of charlatans is quite disgraceful.

          • noel thomas

            If Acleron is miffed at suggestions he does not have the courage of his convictions, he should be aware that his displeasure with the GMC should be addressed to them, and that they will expect him to give his name and contact details. This is a prerequisite for any mature discussion. Meantime, please stay silent in the anonymous undergrowth, like a good bully should.

            If Acleron wishes to find a homeopath who has evidence that remedies work, he should consult the voluminous literature. Or speak personally with any active homeopath.

            We are a friendly sociable bunch, not secretive about our contact details.

            Acleron writes of my ‘attack on someone’ when I was responding, cheerfully, to assertions, from Ernst et al, that people like me are bogus quacks and charlatans.

            Interesting. With income only from the NHS, treating people with homeopathy where needed, because it produces safe effective cheap results where conventional meds do otherwise, ( I use conventional meds 80% ) I am accused of being bogus etc by Prof Ernst, now on an academic pension, not on the GMC register, but with a taste for fine Bordeaux, and presumably obliged to maintain his Malleus Malleficarum reputation, for personal reasons that we can only guess at, as he never mentions conflicting interests.

            And who calls who,’ bogus ‘?

            Any psychologists out there, to explain to readers how the psyche uses projection as a defensive mechanism ?

          • Acleron

            Miffed at nonsense from a homeopath? Lol.

            So no evidence, hardly surprising.

            The smear attack continues, quite what Professor Ernst’s taste in wine or his pension has to do with the subject only you would know. You obviously fail to know that his chair was funded by an alt-med supporter looking for positive evidence. By not only finding no evidence for the majority of it but evidence against it he risked his funding.

            The literature includes Linde et al, Shang et al and the Australian NHMRC report that accurately survey the supposed evidence. There isn’t any.

            So 20% of your treatment is with sugar and water, incredible.

          • noel thomas

            AHcleron is miffed because he is afraid to reveal who he is, and does not like it to be pointed out.
            He digs a bigger hole for himself by referring again to evidence, after mentions of science and evidence, in his previous post.
            When discussing science/evidence, what scientists, anywhere, would allow a dissenting colleague to question their evidence base when that colleague refuses to divulge his/her identity, and possible conflicting interests ?

            For AHcleron to query others’ scientific credentials and evidence base while afraid to reveal his/her own identity is ludicrous. Stop digging, before you get a bad back and need Arnica .
            Does Professor Ernst need an anonymous supporter like AHcleron to come to his rescue ?

            What does this say about the strength or weakness of the Professor’s position ?

            If the Professor and his supporters wish to lecture others on scientific credibility, the least they should do is find the courage to say who they are, and what conflicting interests they have.

          • Acleron

            Lol, still not miffed just faintly amused that you think my identity is more important than the argument from the evidence.

            Despite your bluster you are just demonstrating that you have no evidence that your sugar and water has any basis in medicine.

            You see, I am uninterested in your identity, merely your arguments and your evidence. So far they have been pathetic and none.

          • noel thomas

            AHcleron, along with his alter ego, probably enjoys a income which reflects the number of these posts he accumulates, to detail to his benefactors. Silly of me to give him a reason to post again and increase his pocket money, especially as he will not thank me, only express his usual mock horror !
            Since Professor Ernst retired, and can no longer so easily brush shoulders with important figures when visiting the Metropolis, and get Healthwatch worthies to sign his intemperate letters, it is understandable that he should feel a bit left out of the loop. Nothing like a few pebbles lobbed at colleagues ( ? ) for their complementary habits, to restore one’s sagging self esteem.
            Hence this recent piece, repeating the usual tired cliches, and insults. With a very few of his B Team of supporters to entertain masochistic readers.
            Given their frequent mentions of evidence, which in their innocent approach equates to RCTs, they might open their minds a little by reading of the qualitative v quantitative research debate in the BMJ earlier this year. http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i563
            Together with McGilchrist’s remarks on the importance of knowledge and experience in decision making, (you must have read his book), the evidence for homeopathy becomes very convincing. Except to those whose dominant left hemisphere, need for cash, and someone to kick, dictate otherwise.

            Enjoy your anonymity, boys, and the extra income I am generating for you !

          • Acleron

            Alter ego? I have no idea what you are burbling about here and suspect you don’t either.

            As you believe that scientific evidence is unnecessary I can see why you think that libellous, lying statements are OK. It will never occur to you that with all these payments flying around no evidence has been found. However there is evidence that homeopaths paid a journalist to smear critics, smears you are repeating.

            For all your misdirection you have certainly shown that you are willing to spend 20% of your time on worthless treatments. It is obviously galling that Prof. Ernst is held in far higher esteem by doctors and scientists than a quack like you will ever be.

          • noel thomas

            You are a brave boy, AHcleron, accusing me of smears and being libelous, ( please enumerate those smears) and then calling me a quack in your next para. All beneath the cover of your anonymity. These were the tactics of Senator Joe McCarthy, throw mud and misinformation endlessly, and some of it will stick, you hope. McCarthy, for all his faults, at least stood up and did not hide anonymously. If you case is so strong, find the courage to uncover your identity. And if you are sure I am a quack, you have a public duty to report me to the GMC. I have suggested the same when Professor Ernst et al have used such terms as bogus, quack and charlatan in the past. They, like you, like to throw these terms about, but have a strange reluctance to pass their concerns on to the GMC.

            Perhaps having the courage of one’s convictions is regarded as unnecessary by the professor and your anonymous self ?

            And all the time you, and he, lecture others on probity and evidence and their professional practice. A little inconsistent, perhaps ?

            We sympathise with the emptiness of your lives.

          • Acleron

            It requires little bravery to stand up to smear artists. Are you so stupid you don’t recognise your own smears?

            As to your use of bogus treatments, you have clearly admitted it. Even in those posts which you haven’t deleted. The rest have been safely copied.

            Yet again you demonstrate a complete lack of evidence for 20% of your work.

            As I stated at the beginning of your tiresomely repetitive gibberings, the GMC do not ban homeopaths from their register, however there is little doubt they should take action.

          • Acleron

            Just as a matter of vicarious interest, what’s with the misspelling of my tag?

  • Acleron

    A good summation of the tactics used by quacks, many of which are exemplified in the previous comments.

  • Ron Roy

    If I did go to a doctor I would go to one that fits the description of what the real quack calls a quack.

  • Mary Ann

    I wonder how many quacks actually believe what they say.

    • sabelmouse

      ask any doctor.

  • M Dekker

    “Stimulating the immune system” is one of the red flags in this article. But isn’t that pretty much exactly what vaccination does? Maybe this one needs to be rethought.

  • Andrew Gillies

    If you have a car and and you regularly smack your tyres into the kerb when parking, you will probably make regular trips to a garage to get repairs or new ones. If you want to stop smacking your wheels into the kerb, you go and get parking lessons. It’s not so different with a doctor and an alternative medicine practitioner. A doctor leans towards treating symptoms more than causes. Read Brandon Bays ‘The Journey’ which tells the story of how she treated cancer. Or ”The Horse Boy” by Rupert Isaacson…a father’s quest to help his son’s austism.

    • Yeah, docs don’t know anything about treating the underlying cause of those symptoms! But some quack snake oil salesman with no medical training holds the secrets “they” don’t want you to know!

      Give me a break.

      • Andrew Gillies

        I didn’t say they don’t know anything about treating underlying causes (they may well do), I said they lean towards treating symptoms more than causes. Please address what is said rather than what you imagine is said.

        • Whatever. Please address my point, which is that your original post is misleading and inaccurate, and that clueless quacks know better than trained medical professionals.

          • Andrew Gillies

            It’s not inaccurate. Alternative practitioners are more likely to offer more when it comes to addressing underlying causes. That’s not to say that allopathic medicine doesn’t have a valuable place…it does. A clueless quack would be clueless by definition, but a trained practitioner can be very helpful.

          • Just your use of the term allopathic sends my BS meters into the red. To which I will fall back on an old cliche: alternative medicine that has been proven to work is just called medicine.

          • Andrew Gillies

            Internet conversations are funny sometimes. My impression is that you felt compelled to respond, but didn’t really have much you could say, so you fell back on a vague insult followed by a cliche (one that I don’t have an issue with). The compulsion to reply is present here too. I guess it’s a classic case of last-word-itis.

          • Nah, not really. You can feel free to reply to this and have the last word. As for a vague insult, not at all. Just a statement that the use of that word is seen exclusively in the CAM world. I think the majority of CAM and homeopathy is pure bullshlt. The idea that substances diluted to far below the point where even a single molecule is likely to found in the final dose is going to give anything but a placebo effect is ludicrous. I have still yet to see any plausible scientific mechanism by which any of this is to be taken seriously.

            The rest reminds of purveyors of woofckery like David Avocado Wolfe, and his endless streams of fabricated BS. When this BS gets a sick, but treatable patient to forego evidence-based medicine, and instead waste their time and money on unproven quackery, people should be held responsible. Sorry, but pseudoscience makes me angry and stab-y.

            Last word is all yours.

          • Andrew Gillies

            Homeopathy is not something I know enough about to argue, but I did recommend a couple of books that are interesting. Another author worth reading is David R Hamilton, who focuses particularly on the power of the mind in becoming well, and he gives many case studies. In my opinion, you have correctly stated a problem in that someone might forego ‘evidence based medicine’ on the basis of a misleading promise. People can, and do, die making a point about alternative treatments. On the other hand, a close relative recently did reject a doctor’s recommendation to treat tumours on the bladder. The treatment would have involved chemo and potential bladder removal. He is at a point in his life where he just didn’t want to do that. He has no belief in the effectiveness of alternative treatment but a friend, who also has cancer, gave him cannabis oil to take, so he took it every night before bed. The tumours went away, to the doctor’s big surprise. So….I see this as a complex subject, and creating strong polarity between the two sides is not helpful.

          • Justthefacts

            The “Dilution Fallacy”:
            .
            With modern scientific processes, it is practically impossible to purify water to an impurity level below one in a trillion parts. This is 10 to the power of 12. This is not only very pure, it’s ultimately, the best you can do, ever.
            http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/facts-faits/faqs_bottle_water-eau_embouteillee-eng.php
            .
            A Hahnemann Homeopathic dilution is classified as “30C” which is dilution factor of 10 to the 50th power. Many Homeopathic dilutions go beyond this to 200C.
            https://web.archive.org/web/20020826082134/http://altmed.creighton.edu/Homeopathy/philosophy/dilution.htm
            .
            This means that for every homeopathic molecule, there are 10 to the power of 38 more molecules of unknown impurities of all kinds including some that are at the same homeopathic dilution.
            .
            The theory of homeopathy cannot be applied in the real world. All homeopathic dilutions are frauds by the very nature that they contain countless other unknown substances at the same homeopathic levels as the original diluted substance. It’s impossible to predict the claimed homeopathic effects.
            .
            Without questioning homeopathic theory, homeopathic treatments are a fraud in practice simply due to practical limitations.

            The glass that we use for everything, including packaging Homeopathic remedies, sheds silica in the water in it. The Amorphous silica dissolution rate into distilled water is approximately 10 mol/Sq m/s.

            http://www.geochem.geos.vt.edu/bgep/pubs/00%20icenhower%20and%20dove_geochimica%20cosmochimica%20acta.pdf

          • 655321

            Evidenced based medicine….evidence that medicine turns massive profit and conservatively takes 225,000 lives/year in the U.S. Alone.

          • *y*
            *a*
            *w*
            *n*

          • 655321

            Sorry facts put you to sleep. Would you be happier and keep better attention if you had a free lollipop?

          • Ron Roy

            The actual conservative number is much higher but that will do, These drug pushers will deny any number.

          • Justthefacts

            Evidenced based medicine have saved countless millions of lives. Now is when you deny that.

          • bwf309

            and killed millions more. Antibiotics alone saved millions of lives. However, over use of antibiotics is creating “super bugs” that are killing more and more people every day. The drugs aren’t the problem, “it is the belief system that drugs are the answer” that is the problem. Allopathic physicians and big pharma are the problem.

          • Justthefacts

            That is a lie. Its just like a woo selling chiropractor to try to say that medical science has killed more than they save. Even alternative medicine nutcases know that is a lie.

            Charlatan Nut case Chiropractors like you are the problem. You are just trying to drum up business for your woo business by telling lies about real science.

            You are an actual shill, Fred Bomonti.

          • bwf309

            Wow, another funny ignorant response from the anonymous twisttheefacts. Read again slowly my post, I did not say they killed more than they saved, I said they were killing more and more with over utilization of antibiotics.

            Really, I am a shill for my business? The only one that can be considered a shill for my business is you. I have never posted who I am or what I do, only you continually post my name, my business and my profession. I have never tried to encourage anyone to come to my office. Only you have identified my office. Send me a bill for your services Hahahahaha LOL

          • Acleron

            So at last we have an anonymous quack not saying that the benefits of medicine are less than the drawbacks.

            Now all you have to do is show the same for your modality

          • Justthefacts

            Promoting “alternothing” medicine IS promoting woo Chiropractic and that is what you are.

            Antibiotics alone has saved millions of lives and far, far more than anyone affected by “superbugs” yet you try to say the opposite with zero data. Again, you are selling bad ideas and worthless information.

          • bwf309

            You really have to keep up with the times twistthefacts. The FDA is pushing MD’s to prescribe antibiotics more judiciously and if Mikey had an honest bone in his body he would support this. But then that would be asking too much for a pharma gospeler lobbyist.

          • Justthefacts

            Come back from left field.

            The article is about alternative medicine quacks and you are stuck on nonsense about antibiotics. Your personal woo peddling agenda.

            You can’t keep up with the subject, much less the times.

          • bwf309

            That is rich coming from the #1 fact twister. Interesting how no one is commenting on immunotherapy being “woo” anymore https://www.fredhutch.org/en/treatment/treatment-research/immunotherapy.html An institution that has won 3 Nobel Prizes and multiple other awards. Maybe your hero Ernst is more of a fraud than you thought.

          • Justthefacts

            You are just a highly trained masseuse. You don’t know what “immunotherapy” is since that was NOT what was mentioned in the article. You are just spiraling into desperation.

          • Sonja Henie

            He’s not even that. He’s an azzhat!

          • bwf309

            LOL, Still have not looked at the website or if you have, are you are not willing to admit you are wrong. And BTW from the above article
            “- Stimulating the immune system is rarely a desirable therapeutic aim.

            — Stimulating a normal immune system is hardly possible.

            — For many of us, stimulating the immune system might even be a very risky business (if it were at all achievable).”
            Seems like he is wrong. Continue your spiral knowsnofacts.

          • Acleron

            The woo merchants penchant for uttering science terms but from a staggering depth of ignorance continues unabated.

            We have found that we can change the state of a tiny portion of the immune system in certain circumstances. It’s called vaccination. But the immune system is an extremely complex network of negative feedbacks. Generally changing the state of the entire system without undesired consequences is a nonsense and one only put forward by the usual subjects flogging their own brand of woo, chiropractors, homeopaths, nutrionists and herbalists all make this nonsense claim.

          • bwf309

            LOL Just refuse to check out Fred Hutch website don’t you. Amazing, another troll for big pharma that wants to occupy space and time. Read the website and the information on immunotherapy. Has nothing to do with chiropractic or any of the alternative professions. I am sure you won’t admit you were wrong however, but you do look rather stupid now.

          • Acleron

            Which products do they have on the market that generally boost the immune system. Do try to remember that this is the claim all woo merchants make.

          • bwf309

            Please try to remember that Fred Hutchinson is a world renown cancer research and treatment center and you would have known that had you gone to the website, as you have not I won’t be answering your comments any longer as you obviously are a troll with nothing else to do with your time. When you have actually been to the website and looked at the information, I won’t have to answer your questions and I will accept your apology

          • Acleron

            So no products, what a surprise, not!

            Your understanding of the immune system is as lacking as everything else in medicine and science. About what one would expect of a masseur with pretensions.

          • bwf309

            LOL

          • Justthefacts

            You are not an MD. You don’t have the training to make that call. You need to understand that you are a masseuse.You aren’t allowed to ” Stimulating the immune system”

            You are a very dangerous incompetent.

          • Mike Stevens

            Maybe he thinks correcting fictitious “subluxations” will kick start resting T cells or something.
            God knows with chiroquactors anything is possible.

            PS. How many chiropractors does it take to change a light bulb?
            None.
            The light bulb had its immune system stimulated, and doesn’t need changing.

          • Justthefacts

            Like most of the fanatically uneducated, they don’t understand that a “stimulated immune system” is a normal immune system that spends all day and all night being “stimulated”. Being “stimulated” is what an immune system just is. It’s like saying that Usain Bolt would be better if he would just run! (like I have to explain this to you…)

            They have this strange idea of the “boosted immune system” like a sci-fi magic thing and don’t understand that an actual “boosted immune system” is one of many diseases. If your immune system is doing more than a normal immune system, its probably attacking things it SHOULD NOT!

            People with a little knowledge are dangerous. This “stimulate the immune system” nonsense has been promoted by a few MDs in my life and in every case, hindsight has shown the actual case is that it was nonsense and they were just at a loss as to the actual condition. GPs are not gods but we expect them to be and some of them feel they should be.

          • AutismDadd

            What a stool sample. Each time you post your opinion your credibility drops lower. You’ll have to reach and stand on your toes to touch a snake’s belly in a wagon rut.

          • Mike Stevens

            If you think the quack concept of “stimulating the immune system” is synonymous with orthodox medical immunotherapy, you are even more stupid than I thought you were, Fred.

          • Sonja Henie

            X1,000,000!

          • Acleron

            Are you sure they know it is lie?

            That would imply a level of intelligence I have yet to see.

          • Justthefacts

            Maybe you are right. These zero evidence based nut cases read a headline and accept it as true. Not one of them bothered to check out the “3rd leading cause of death” non-sense. That number includes people who were properly treating and didn’t respond to treatment. In other words, everyone who was not cured. I’m surprised that all illnesses that go uncured by treatment is only the 3rd highest cause of death. 300 years ago, it was the 1st leading cause of death.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I think you mean the Ron Roy made-up number. 🙂

          • Ron Roy

            The third ( that’s the number 3 for you Johnny ) leading cause of death in the US is medical errors. http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mistakes-hit-records

          • Jonathan Graham

            Sure, when you combined hundreds of thousands of different procedures and interventions across billions of people means that getting a medical procedure is one of the safest things you can do.

          • Ron Roy

            Oh that’s not counting all the suffering and untold health problems others have because of misdiagnoses, wrong medications etc.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You realize that the number of medications used successfully is enormous. So adding wrong medications probably just makes medicine look safer.

          • bwf309

            3rd leading cause of death in the US, that is not “billions” of people, that is 330 million potential people, all of whom are not actually being treated for anything by medicine or anyone else. If it was 3rd leading cause of billions of people (and it may well be) it would be even more impressive as not all people are being treated at the same time.

          • Jonathan Graham

            3rd leading cause of death in the US, that is not “billions” of people, that is 330 million potential people

            It depends. Ron is talking about the deaths across procedures, interventions and prescriptions. A single person, in a year can have many of those each without dying. So when I calculate a hazard for something like this you end up counting people twice.

          • bwf309

            LOL, come on, even you can see that you are reaching to support your point here and the deaths are more on the order of 1.5 million, plus the the majority of the population has no procedures in a year. Give it up on this one point.

          • Jonathan Graham

            you are reaching to support your point

            24 million hospitalizations with procedures.
            50 million outpatient procedures.
            130 million ER visits alone.
            3 billion prescriptions are written annually.

            So no, billions is about right. Sorry.

          • bwf309

            Considering that those numbers do not indicate individual patients, nah I don’t think so, but live on in your ideal dream world and you too can be a statistic

          • Jonathan Graham

            Considering that those numbers do not indicate individual patients

            By design, because the think you want to know is if an activity is deadly. So you compare the number of activities resulting in death with the number of activities that didn’t.

            Looking at the number of people who died gives you the entirely wrong answer.

          • Justthefacts

            Yep. you got nothing and no sources.

          • AutismDadd

            Same old.

          • Justthefacts

            same old….Troll? Just like you to bring it back to you again.

          • bwf309

            Here, 200,000 to 400,000 based on hospital admissions, add in those that are taking inappropriate prescriptions and you get around 1.5 mil http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/862832?nlid=104512_3901&src=wnl_newsalrt_160503_MSCPEDIT&uac=208629BG&impID=1084165&faf=1

          • Jonathan Graham

            200,000 to 400,000 based on hospital admissions

            Your cite is exactly what I told you. Weird. Do you pretend like you’re giving me information?

            inappropriate prescriptions

            Well a) We are talking about deaths and b) Your 1.5M number is made up.

          • bwf309

            I was not very clearly implying the 1.2 million deaths per year from appropriately prescribed medications

          • Jonathan Graham

            cite?

          • Justthefacts

            That number is nonsense. Included in that “3nd leading casue” is:

            “An act that does not achieve its intended outcome;”

            So included in that “3nd” is treatments that did not work. It’s a nonsense figure. Don’t let the woo selling chiropractor tell you unsupported nonsense.

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/863788

          • Jonathan Graham

            Thanks.

          • AutismDadd

            WOO is coming up with the statement “An act that did not achieve its intended outcome” Now tell us why it didn’t.

          • Justthefacts

            You tell me troll. Do some research for once and figure out what “An act that does not achieve its intended outcome;” is.

            The rest of us know. (hint: I already explained it. Read the string before you troll).

          • AutismDadd

            Its a misleading medical statement meant to cover up wrong doing, what else.

          • Justthefacts

            That is just your mind fart. Trying looking up some facts.

          • AutismDadd

            Facts according to who?

          • Justthefacts

            Facts according to…. Facts?

            My God, you are stupid…..

          • AutismDadd

            Well doesn’t that set off the bozo meter?

          • Justthefacts

            Don’t use a meter just because it’s named after your father…..

          • Acleron

            Ouch!

          • AutismDadd

            Well if shills don’t respond with vulgarities, you can expect the juvenile.

          • Justthefacts

            You’re the
            one one that brought up bozo, little boy. Are you crying now?

          • AutismDadd

            Why would I cry, I’m trashing you.

          • Justthefacts

            Count the up votes and try not to be as delusional as usual.

          • AutismDadd

            Just keep inhaling

          • AutismDadd

            yea, who gives a hoot about 400,000 deaths?

          • Jonathan Graham

            As has been discussed there is plenty of effort being put into reducing iatrogenics. That doesn’t change that medicine is safe.

          • AutismDadd

            Like I indicated, who cares about 400,000 deaths.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Are you saying that you don’t care? Seems like it because I’ve already provided evidence that there is plenty going on to try and reduce iatrogenics. So clearly doctors and researchers care.

          • AutismDadd

            If you realizedit, and were being exposed for killing 400,000 people with medical treatments, I’d hope you’d try harder. Hardly requires Sherlock Holmes and Freud and Einstein to have a meeting about it.

          • Jonathan Graham

            If you realizedit

            …and clearly researchers and medical practitioners do recognize iatrogenics. It’s the only reason that you know anything about it. New techniques are being looked at all the time.

            and were being exposed for killing 400,000 people

            Except that your illustration here doesn’t represent the situation. The 200,000-400,000 is, as I demonstrated across millions to billions of interventions, procedures and prescriptions. So who exactly would you be calling to take responsibility? Everyone who performs every kind of procedure everywhere?

            have a meeting about it.

            …and I’m sure given the number of papers there are. That a meeting or two was had.

          • AutismDadd

            So apply that logic to the way the General Medical Council responded to a group of 13 professionals doing their jobs. Especially blaming Wakefield for errors done by another person, but blamed on him. Was that rational?

          • Jonathan Graham

            I have no idea what the General Medical Council did or did not do. Not really interested to tell the truth.

            Wakefield is demonstrably a moron of a scientist and I’m glad he’s not working in the field anymore. He’s the kind of person who is so stupid that he doesn’t even know that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Some of the backlash against him appears to stem from his attempts at getting media attention rather than the actual paper.

            Was that an honest mistake? Does that mean he doesn’t deserve what happened to him? Was it just a “perfect storm” of Wakefields arrogance and other people’s unjustified anger? Should we do the same thing to others like Shaw? Ask a priest not a mathematician.

          • AutismDadd

            Not interested in the truth….. See Hammy that’s why you have zero credibility. You will rant about things you have read in media rags like skepticalraptor etc and adopt it as truth. No wonder you love science, where the truth doesn’t matter, only the biased conclusions and the studies game plan that can be planned or altered to get the results you want. To me its foolish

          • Jonathan Graham

            Not interested in the truth

            No, just not interested in this particular thing about Wakefield. The main thing I’m interested in him as is a scientist. He sucks at it. End of interest. Is he being punished as a fraud but in reality he’s just a loudmouthed idiot? Sure it’s possible. Is there any reason to believe that this question can be answered any better than that?

            See Hammy that’s why you have zero credibility

            Generally I speak about science and math. Why can’t I have credibility in those things without caring that Wakefield is getting more than he deserves? I’m not really the person who gets to decide what people deserve anyway.

            You will rant about things you have read in media rags like skepticalraptor etc and adopt it as truth.

            Have I ever cited Skeptical Raptor? Probably not. The main thing I cite are research studies. I don’t adopt them was truth either. I weigh them as evidence. Perhaps you would have noticed that’s what my statement about weighing the “maybes” is about. If you weren’t working so hard to make yourself feel better about whatever you’re upset about concerning Wakefield.

            studies game plan that can be planned or altered to get the results you want.

            They can’t and again your opinion on experimental methodology isn’t worth anything.

          • AutismDadd

            Hey thanks for nothing.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Guess I have you cornered.

          • AutismDadd

            Guess again

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s likely the case. Sorry.

          • AutismDadd

            You make too many assumptions. You you base your conclusions on actual evidence. Then again if I said vaccines research “may suggest” they cause autism, you’d hoist me on your shoulders like a hero.

          • Justthefacts

            You got no truth or facts. You just troll nonsensical rants

          • AutismDadd

            Hey its the World Record Holder for brainfarts.

          • Justthefacts

            Yes, I am champion of putting up with yours.

          • AutismDadd

            Well inhale deeply and consider it self improvement.

          • Justthefacts

            Thanks for admitting the actual value of your posts.

          • AutismDadd

            Thanks hopefully I can help the little people.

          • Acleron

            Says somebody who swallowed the nonsense.

            Just think about that figure for a moment and consider the drop in the population it implies, let alone it is an extrapolation, totally uncontrolled, from 3, yes 3 health districts. Only an idiot could make up such a figure and only another idiot could blindly accept it.

          • Ron Roy

            Those figures are from medical journals.

          • Acleron

            The numbers are real, the conclusions are from Gary Null who has also concluded that anybody he disagrees with is secretly a lizard. You’ve been kippered, not surprisingly, Null may be an idiot but he knows his braindead market.

          • shay simmons

            I think this is also the Gary Null who managed to poison himself with his own supplements.

          • Ron Roy

            Speaking of idiots have you looked in the mirror?

          • Acleron

            Wasn’t me that extrapolated the results from a decidly poor paper on 3 health organisations to produce nonsense.

          • bwf309

            Have you graduated from high school yet? That is one of the most ridiculous statements made in quite some time

          • Acleron

            The repetition of somebody else’s insult is not improved by your regurgitation.

          • bwf309

            I did not know that someone else had noted your immaturity. The class of 2017? right?

          • Ron Roy

            That figure doesn’t include those made seriously ill by mediquacks or operated on where an operation wasn’t needed. Ask me for an example.

          • Jonathan Graham

            That figure doesn’t include those made seriously ill by mediquacks

            You mean actual doctors? Actually it does. If you mean people like yourself and the alternative medical crowd. It probably doesn’t.

          • AutismDadd

            An exaggeration at best.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope. I already provided the figures.

          • AutismDadd

            Figures can lead to whatever conclusion you want. Its why journals are full of trash science.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Sorry, your opinion on math and statistics isn’t worth anything. 🙂

          • AutismDadd

            See? Get that published

          • Jonathan Graham

            It’s just a fact. Your opinion on maters of statistics are likely to be wrong more than right.

          • AutismDadd

            Get the chart ready

          • AutismDadd

            How is this constructive?

          • Justthefacts

            And saved countless millions.

            Yet you promote “non-evidence” based medicine.

          • Justthefacts

            That’s a lie. That number includes treatments that were not successful, not just errors.

            “”An act that does not achieve its intended outcome;”

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/863788

            Just another example of the poor research skills associated with fake medicine supporters.

        • Mike Stevens

          Orthodox medicine is geared towards diagnosing the underlying cause, and addressing that as well as helping symptoms.
          I find most cam modalities don’t recognise causes for what they truly are, instead invoking some mumbo jumbo nonsense about the cause being “misaligned chakras”, or “negative imagery”. I see this whether the cause of the illness is an ascending urinary tract infection due to E. coli, or thyrotoxicosis due to autoimmune hyperthyroidism.

          This is hardly addressing or helping the underlying problem. The only sop I will give the cam con artists is that they sometimes look at nutrition in some depth, although even then it is filled with complete bs most of the time, with people encouraged to drink organic chlorophyll quinoa smoothies to cure the cancer that conventional medicine has failed to realise was entirely due to a lack of organic chlorophyll quinoa, presumably.

          • Sonja Henie

            “Orthodox medicine is geared towards diagnosing the underlying cause, and addressing that as well as helping symptoms.”

            Exactly! The idea that your gallbladder attack is caused by your “bad aura” (just to throw another one out there), and that if you fix your aura it’ll get better is nothing short of nuts. Just one example.

          • kfunk937

            Another scenario that scares me is some guy with referred LBP, who consults a chiropractor. After “workup” with X-Rays and having his arms yanked on (applied kinesiology), he is adjusted and goes home to bleed to death. No cases yet reported (thankfully), although there have been strokes following neck trauma treated as subluxation, and all the rest.

          • Mike Stevens

            You mean strokes directly CAUSED by cervical subluxation…

          • kfunk937

            Yes, that too (HVCM). But I had Katie May in mind.

        • Sonja Henie

          Generally western medicine starts with the symptoms that brought you in to the doctor in the first place, e.g. “chief complaint”. It goes from there.

          • Ron Roy

            ”It goes from there.” Downhill.One prescription over another and the problem is never solved.

          • Sonja Henie

            Says the person who hasn’t been to a doctor in what, 30-40 years?

          • Ron Roy

            I still talk to people, Actually I’m the president of a club where people are very health conscious and we hear all kinds of horror stories concerning the medical profession you support.

          • Ron Roy

            Idiot I still talk to people who do. And many regret it. I make them see the light. Now go pop another pill and go to bed.

          • Acleron

            Lol, if your performance here is anything to judge by, I suspect they walk away, shaking their heads and wondering why the men in white coats let you out.

          • Ron Roy

            Then why is my phone always ringing of the hook with people asking me if they should take this or that medication or about what they should do about various health problems?

          • Acleron

            Your comments here suggest that if that is true you are misinforming lots of people.

          • Neil.

            I think that should be “OFF” the hook,dear oh dear.

          • Ron Roy

            lol

          • Neil.

            One day somebody will take your advice and die.then you will be in deeps#&t.

          • Ron Roy

            Really Joe ? When is this supposed to happen? Been doing this for over 30 years and all I get is: ” thanks”.

          • Sonja Henie

            “I’m not a doctor, but I play on on TV”. I get it.

      • Ron Roy

        You were right until you went pass this point:Yeah, docs don’t know anything about treating the underlying cause of those symptoms!

        • So, you’re claiming that the quack snake oil salesman with no medical training holds the secrets “they” don’t want you to know? I’m just trying to make sure I understand the level of your derptitude.

          • Ron Roy

            I looked and looked to see if I ever said that and I couldn’t find a thing. Can you help me?

          • Seriously? Look harder; even you’re not that stupid.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “even you’re not that stupid”
            Are you accepting bets on that? What is the over/under?

          • Ron Roy

            Says one shill to another.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Says the mörön king.

          • Ron Roy

            All I said is that I haven’t been to a doctor in 30/40 years.

          • Who cares? And that’s not at all what you wrote.

          • Mike Stevens

            So how do you know that the holistic practitioners know more, if you haven’t seen an orthodox doctor in 40 years?

          • Ron Roy

            I read a lot and In the last few years spoke with many doctors and nurses about the medical system as it is and they’re fed up with conventional medicine. One doctor even stated” I’ve been practicing medicine for 14 years and I feel as though i never helped anybody.”

          • Mike Stevens

            You read a lot….?
            Let’s guess..Janet and John?

          • Ron Roy

            Jack & Jill

          • Acleron

            Surely you are overestimating.

          • Mike Stevens

            I guess so.

          • Ron Roy

            I still talk to them.

          • Mike Stevens

            In your dreams Ron.

          • Ron Roy

            Great comeback. I see that college education didn’t go to waste.

          • Mike Stevens

            At least I haven’t spent 40 years talking to people I don’t see.

            Tell me, are you cia parkers uncle?
            (He’s the one who fell asleep in the sun and woke up with schizophrenia)

          • Justthefacts

            So you “talk ” to them but have never “seen” them. Do you keep your eyes closed?

          • Ron Roy

            I hate to keep repeating myself but…. I HAD a business where I came in contact with many health professionals but since I sold that business I still on occasion see them in public places and no I don’t see them professionally. There does that satisfy you meager mind.

          • Justthefacts

            You LOVE to keep repeating yourself. You mutter your mindless litany on-line constantly to keep from thinking and convince yourself that your delusions are real. That is who you are….

            So your opinions are based on the “good ole days” when you thought you were relevant and you cna adjust your memories to suit you.

            Just get back to you litany: 9/11, chemtrails, vaccines, doctors are EVIL, and chant yourself to sleep.

          • Ron Roy

            No I’m claiming holistic practitioner are far more knowledgeable than conventionally trained brainwashed doctors.

          • That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read all day. No, all year. No, maybe ever.

          • Mike Stevens

            …This is Ron we are talking about, FSM.
            It’s not even the dumbest thing he’s said today.

          • His stupidity needs to be graphed on a logarithmic scale.

          • Ron Roy

            You obviously don’t read what your partners in crime post.

          • Jonathan Graham

            You can claim that but you can’t support it. Just like almost everything you say.

          • Justthefacts

            You. know checked the syllabus at the ” holistic practitioner” school and maybe you…… are HAHAHAHAHAHHA.

            The funny part is that there is no such thing as ” holistic practitioner” education!!!. You have to be ignorant to do it! HAHAHAHA.

          • Ron Roy

            No such thing as a holistic practitioner education? REALLY? Try the Ashford University or the Kapland University or the Midwest College of Oriental Medicine or …well that enough for starters. Sorry I had to interrupt your laughing. lol

          • Jonathan Graham

            Ashford University? That’s a purely online school right? So you think that someone can practice medicine having never seen a patient. Here’s the syllabus for Ashfords program. Perhaps you can point out which course involves treating patients.

            ANT 101 Introduction to Cultural Anthropology
            HWE 200 Introduction to Health & Wellness
            HCS 326 Holistic Health
            HCS 316 Cultural Diversity in Health & Illness
            HCS 321 Foundations of Complementary & Alternative Health
            SOC 313 Social Implications of Medical Issues
            HCS 339 Introduction to Western Herbalism; Basic Doctrine, Energetics and Classifications
            HCA 415 Community & Public Health
            HCA 430 Special Populations
            HCS 435 Spirituality, Health, & Healing
            HPR 460 Analysis of Health Research
            HCS 495 Complementary & Alternative Health Capstone
            HIM 301 Introduction to Health Informatics
            HCA 417 Electronic Health Records
            HIM 410 Health Informatics – A Systems Perspective
            HIM 435 Analyzing Healthcare Data

            Out of curiosity have you every actually thought before you speak? Because the answer appears to be “no”?

          • Justthefacts

            Really? On-line schools? I got a link that wiill sell you any degree for $500 dollars. Is that were you got your education?

            “Oriential medicine”? Do you get a happy ending with your degree?

            You get funnier every time……..

          • Joe

            And you have proof of that?

          • Ron Roy

            Joe how many times do MDs screw up or just commit fraud by performing unnecessary operations?

          • Ron Roy

            Glad you asked. Thanks Joe or Neil whatever you call yourself now.
            MDs have prescribed:Accutane / Baycol / Bextra / Cylert / Barvon / Darvocet / DBI ( Phenformin ) / DES / Duracet / Ergamisol all these drugs were FDA approved, and prescribed by doctors, then because of too many complications and deaths pulled off the market. And I was only ten of thirty five I could have listed. Now compare that to the little if any harm from holistic practitioners.

    • Laura J

      my favorite movie. it is a true story.

  • AutismDadd

    The biggest quack is this author. Pretty much all described as quackery applies to arguments that promote vaccination.

    • Acleron

      So no more evidence for this assertion than all your evidence free posts on vaccine sites.

      Cue the contentless postings.

      • AutismDadd

        Need a tissue?

        • Acleron

          Thank you for so promptly confirming my prediction.

        • Why would he need a tissue?

      • AutismDadd

        Cue the Acleron brain farts

        • Acleron

          Ah, the continuous evidence that some antivaxxers have nothing at all, thank you again.

          Like to confirm it anymore? I’d like to have a subthread I can reference that shows your vacuity.

          • AutismDadd

            You should ask yourself why you get derogatory replies

          • Acleron

            I know why I get them from you, you have nothing reasonable to say.

    • 655321

      Dead on AD.

    • Justthefacts

      ……… and promotes proper health care.

      You got nothing. Go away troll.

      • AutismDadd

        Look who’s trolling who. twistthefacts can’t even get that right. Why anyone would believe anything posted by twist is beyond logic.

        • sabelmouse

          does anybody?

          • AutismDadd

            Good point!

        • Justthefacts

          I am just calling you out, As a troll. You don’t have to trust me. Your trolling is obvious.

          If you don’t like it, stop trolling

          • AutismDadd

            Need a tissue shill?

  • bwf309

    Might want to talk to the researchers at Fred Hutch Cancer Research about “immune system stimulation” Obviously an article aimed at those that are not willing to take their heads out of the sand. Come on an pile on trolls

    • Justthefacts

      In 2001, The Seattle Times published a series of articles alleging that investigators at the center (including the Center’s co-founder Dr. E. Donnall Thomas) were conducting unethical clinical studies on cancer patients. The paper alleged that in two cancer studies conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, patients were not informed about all the risks of the study, nor about the study doctors’ financial interest in study outcome. The paper also alleged that this financial interest may have contributed to the doctors’ failure to halt the studies despite evidence that patients were dying sooner and more frequently than expected.[11] In response, the center formed a panel of independent experts to review its existing research practices, leading to adoption of “one of the nation’s toughest conflict-of-interest rules.

      Doughton, Sandi (August 4, 2009). “Hutch leader Lee Hartwell guided center’s ride to top, will retire next June”. The Seattle Times.

      • Ron Roy

        Why don’t we discuss doctor Farid Fata, who is now serving 45 years in jail, an oncologist who treated over 550 people for cancers they never had.

        • Justthefacts

          We don’t discuss that because that is a “strawman” you are posting to change the subject and not discuss how wrong you were.

          • Ron Roy

            A strawman? You consistently find fault with those who practice any form of healing that doesn’t put money into the coffers of the MEDICAL MAFIA. There are dishonest people in every profession but that doesn’t mean the profession is bad. Modern medicine is on the wrong path and all because the drug industry has managed to take control of every aspect of the medical profession. Those doctors who practice a less toxic more natural form of healing are always attacked by paid professionals as yourself so I guess the reason I mentioned Fata was to show that those you support can be just as bad and even worst when it comes to harming instead of helping our health.

          • Justthefacts

            No I find repeated fault in your logic and fault in false “alternative” medicine that has been shown NOT to work.

            There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t. There is no other “alternative”. Fata was a fraud and that is not medicine. The Fred Hutch Cancer Research was conducting unethical clinical studies and that is not medicine. All you have done is posted two “alternatives” to medicine involved in crime.

            That says a lot about your taste in alternative medicine…….

            How about those chemtrails again? Have you found any other satire sites to trust?

      • bwf309

        Buawhahahahha, that you think Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research is alternative and is not mainstream and your minions like kfunk and sonja agree with you is hilarious and shows how little you really research any topic. Immunotherapy is the latest approach to cancer from mainstream medicine. To quote their ads “Using the body’s own immune system to fight cancer” You are pathetic.

        • Justthefacts

          As the woo pusher chiropractor that you are, you are making things up as usual. All I did was post what the Seattle Times said. All They said is that the clinic was conducting unethical clinical studies on cancer patients.I posted that because it has a bearing on the value of their “theories”.

          On the other hand, YOU promote woo nonsense as medicine and you are a snake oil salesman pushing fake “alternative” treatments where “alternative” means “shown not to work”.

          There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t. You promote medicine that doesn’t work because it’s illegal for you to do medicine that works. You are actually a “charlatan” since the term “quack” is reserved for actual doctors.

          You are truly evil and pathetic as you push your magic on the unsuspecting.

          • bwf309

            LOL hohohohahaha you are so funny in a sick kind of way. You, YOU, question the value of Fred Hutch Cancer Research Center’s theories, that is so laughable and pathetic. One of the premier cancer research centers in the world versus you with your vast (but unknown as you are too ashamed to identify yourself) knowledge of all things medical. Hahahaha chuckle, made my day with how ignorant you are.

            And then of course your obligatory personal ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you were to reveal your true identity and background you might have some level of validity. You won’t because you are a coward and afraid.

          • Acleron

            Amazing how this has suddenly become a premier research centre with such a criminal record. Strange how so few have even heard if them.

          • bwf309

            Just goes to show you how little you know about health and health care. I will await your apology, (I won’t hold my breath for someone with as little knowledge and integrity as you seem to have.)

          • Acleron

            As I have actually been doing research for over half my life in health care I can guarantee that you won’t be receiving an apology for touting another institute, not professional jealousy but merely etiquette. Not that you appear to know either etiquette or professionalism.

            Most institutes do not suffer ethical or financial problems of this severity. Is that what they are famous for?

          • bwf309

            Wow LOL does this include your potty training? You obviously still have not looked at the information about Fred Hutch. You belittled another institution, besmirched it’s reputation and obviously live in some black hole if you have not heard of “the Hutch”

          • Justthefacts
          • bwf309

            Again, you look so stupid and ignorant and your sock puppet proponent as well. I am just so truly amazed at your ignorance ( and that is saying something, because I know you are really ignorant) and when I did not think you could look any dumber.

          • Justthefacts

            Yes, You were embarrassed and now you are angry. Are you going to cry now or just resort to name calling?

          • Justthefacts
          • Justthefacts

            The woo salesman can’t read. My post was word for word. Your problem is with the Seattle times. It si also a fact that “The Seattle Times published a series of articles alleging that
            investigators at the center (including the Center’s co-founder Dr. E.
            Donnall Thomas) were conducting unethical clinical studies on cancer
            patients. The paper alleged that in two cancer studies conducted in the
            1980s and early 1990s, patients were not informed about all the risks of
            the study, nor about the study doctors’ financial interest in study
            outcome. The paper also alleged that this financial interest may have
            contributed to the doctors’ failure to halt the studies despite evidence
            that patients were dying sooner and more frequently than expected.”

            Only you would try to turn direct facts into an opinion.

            As for pointing out that you are a woo selling chiropractor, I didn’t mention it until you mentioned “alternative medicine”. When you start shillin’, people need to know who you are.

          • bwf309

            LOL keep dancing you look silly. And remember it was you and your shill friend that posted my information, not me. I doubt seriously that anyone I know even reads the drivel that you and your other gospelers and pharma lobbyists post.

          • Justthefacts

            LOL keep lying you look typical. And remember it was you, the woo peddling chiropractor that started with the “Alternative” nonsense. i just point you out for the shill that your are.

            Is that all you got? A long winded wine? Poor baby doesn’t like being called out? Pick up your toys and go home if you can’t handle it.

          • bwf309

            LOL, this is fun seeing how immature and silly you can be. You seem rather emotionally invested in who I am and what I do. I am rather proud of what I do and the people I have been able to help.

          • Justthefacts

            I am sure you are rather proud of what I do and the people I have been able to help……..out of their money. Do you really think your massages are curative? This is fun seeing how immature and silly you can be……..

          • bwf309

            Still have not posted who you are and what you do and still have not admitted that I was correct on the Fred Hutch immunotherapy issue and still have not looked at the website I posted. You are batting 1000 on the immaturity scale.

          • Justthefacts

            If I was to say that your are correct, then both of us would be wrong.

            Why are you still hitting on me? I told you before that you are not my type.

          • AutismDadd

            Good question. Must be deaf and blind.

          • AutismDadd

            twistthefacts is some kind of bozo.

        • Acleron

          Generating an immune response against cancer cells has been an aim for over 50 years. Just because some quack claims they have done so is as meaningless as all their other claims. To convince, evidence is required of a standard that quacks have been unable to supply, ever.

          • bwf309

            You know Acleron, who or whatever that is, you are joining up with a bunch of very ignorant people who have nothing better to do with their lives or are paid by big pharma to distract honest people from finding alternatives to dangerous drugs and surgery. BUT for your information and the edification of the other ignoramuses here, here is the Fred Hutch link. You decide if this is a quack organization and if you have any integrity you will apologize for your ignorant attack on this institution. (please note the immunotherapy and if you still feel it is a quack organization you might send your opinion, anonymous of course, to the members of the board of directors which include the founder of Costco)

            http://www.fredhutch.org/en.html

          • Acleron

            When somebody can demonstrate immunotherapy for cancer in a clinical environment I will rejoice. So far only quacks claim it. Anybody who associates themselves with such claims without firm evidence is not somebody who the rest of us wish to support.

            It has been an aim since before I started in research, it is such an obvious aim that it is clear that only quacks claim they can do it.

            While I can appreciate that scientists are misinterpreted by PR flacks, I do not condone it.

            If vaccines were touted with the same evidence base they could be justifiably criticised.

          • bwf309

            You are some special kind of stupid. I will make this easy for you and I will give you the direct link and if you can just move the mouse and click on it you may wish to apologize.
            https://www.fredhutch.org/en/treatment/treatment-research/immunotherapy.html
            Before you started in research, you mean before potty training.

          • Justthefacts

            Oh yea. Fred Hutch.

            “Yet another misleading alt-med cancer testimonial”

            http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/12/yet-another-misleading-alt-med-cancer-te/

          • bwf309

            Wow, you are looking so stupid to anyone that happened to click on the link I posted. Can’t do anything but shake my head and marvel at the level of your ignorance. I think even Mike is embarrassed by having ever up-voted you.

          • Justthefacts

            You are a woo peddling chiropractor. Wow, you just look so stupid to anyone.

            You look even worse to anyone that happened to click on the link I posted.

      • AutismDadd

        You must have a Phduh.

  • munchygut

    How many chiropractors does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one, but it takes 27 visits.

    • bwf309

      How many MD’s does it take to change a lightbulb? Three, the GP, the specialist and the surgeon, but you end up in many pieces and only the filament glows dimly for a brief time before going out permanently.

      (this is fun)

      • Justthefacts

        By the way, BWF309 is a woo pushing chiropractor and obviously,…….a poor joke writer.

        • bwf309

          And knowsnofacts states the obvious and the “who cares”

          • Mike Stevens

            Philip hills?

          • Justthefacts

            If it was obvious, i wouldn’t have to point it out. You DON”T tell people you are a woo peddler when you post and yea, people care.

          • bwf309

            LOL, your fellow trolls and unemployed basement dwellers may care, nobody else really cares. But if it is so important, why don’t you disclose who you are and what your background is?

          • Justthefacts

            This seems real important to YOU also. You just can’t let it go, can you?

      • Damo

        Yeah, thankfully we don’t rely on them to change light bulbs, we rely on them to practice medicine.

        Quacks on the other hand, we rely on them to rip off thr gullible. And in the case of chiropractors, we just pray they don’t do serious injury in the meantime.

        Unfortunately, medical school failures will always find a way to exploit the sick and desperate.

        • bwf309

          Wow, a whole bunch of ignorant comedians today. FYI I never applied to, nor did I want to apply to a medical school. Neat how the uninformed attack the messenger rather than the message. Makes it easier to identify the ignorant and biased. (and yes I am biased towards the so called alternative medicine)

          • Damo

            Yeah, chiropractors are fraudsters and you not applying to med school doesn’t prove that your not.

          • bwf309

            What play ground do you frequent? “My daddy can beat up your daddy” and other childish comebacks seem to be your main tools of communication.

          • Damo

            I did not offer any violence. I merely pointed out that their is no evidence that chiropractors are actually treating anything and yet they don’t have the scruples to disclose that info as they are taking hard earned money of the gullible.

            Um, do you have scientific evidence that what you do works?

          • bwf309

            The quote is an analogy of what your comments sound like little boy. As far as evidence we can begin with the Fla Workers Comp study in 1966, The New Zealand Study in the 70″s, The Utah Workers Compensation study in the 70’s, Eisenberg’s paper in 94 and literally hundreds of others that show that chiropractic is twice as effective and costs half as much as medicine and PT in treating lower back, neck and headache pain. But then none of you would read them anyhow. Now go back to your playground little boy. Did you look at the Fred Hutch website or is that too mature for you?

          • Damo

            Apparently, you don’t know what analogy means.

          • bwf309

            Ummm “a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.” IOW a comparable TYPE of statement. Now go play with the other little boys and girls.

          • Damo

            Good job, now how is me calling you a fraud equivalent to inciting violence?

          • bwf309

            I realize you are slow, but the quote is something little boys and girls like you say, it is an immature statement made by people of your age, or they used to, and your thinking it has something to do with reality really, really, shows how far done the evolutionary chain our society has slipped. Now go play on the swings

          • Damo

            I said you were a fraud, I did not threaten you. You continue to compare me to a child, but your attitude shows that you are the childish one. I said you were a fraud and your response is that I threatened violence on your father. Than you say it is an analogy. Then you copy and paste a definition of analogy to show that you have reading comprehension skills–which only really shows that you have copy and paste skills. A better analogy would be that I am calling you a liar and you are responding “NOT UH”

            So, tell me how exactly does chiropractory cure anything–this time try and be an adult and think before you talk.

          • bwf309

            LOL just for giggles, chiropractic does not claim to “cure” anything, in fact thinking any modality will “cure” something is why we are in this healthcare mess in this country. The body itself does the “curing” not a drug, an adjustment, or a surgery. Your limited knowledge of and understanding of health and disease and the English language is what leads one to assume that you are a very young person. Your comprehension of the quote above and it’s relationship to the school yard is very telling. Now go play with the other kids.

          • Damo

            “The body itself does the “curing”…”

            And this is why you are a fraud.

            Please enlighten me some more on my limited knowledge of the English language (remember you are the one that presented a very poor analogy) and my age.

          • Acleron

            Not at all a comparable type of statement. For example, an analogy of mass distorting spacetime is a ball bearing on a stretched rubber membrane. An example of a comparable type of statement would be using a lie told by a chiropractor in comparison to a lie told by a homeopath.

          • bwf309

            LOL not going to play your childish games. Go play outside with your kid friends

          • Acleron

            And the repetitious childish insults are the sign of a mature chiropractic?

          • Damo

            Given his inability to understand what metaphors and analogies are, I think we just copies and pastes responses from others to his utter bullshit.

            “Oh, this person is saying mean things about me, I will just copy and paste what that one guy said to me when I said mean things to him.”

            Poster: “Do you have any evidence to back up your claim.”

            bwf’s repsonse: “Hey, grow up and stop acting like a child.”

          • Acleron

            I suppose when you deal in bs it becomes difficult to deal with people who can see through it.

            A friend has slipped a disc. The NHS assessment physiotherapist told him to goto a chiro. Had to spend an hour yesterday showing him the NHSchoices recommendations (light exercise and wait), the charges of the quack and the dangers of the quackery. It was time well spent but I cursed the physio making it necessary.

          • Laura J

            I certainly sleep better and feel great! Stress in the body is the start of disease.

          • Justthefacts

            What do you call that school you went to in Florida? The for profit school of ripping off the public?

          • bwf309

            Uhh, “Junior College!” Only college I went to in Florida.

      • Acleron

        How many idiotic anti medics does it take to light a bulb.

        Infinity is not great enough for their dimness.

        • Mike Stevens

          How many chiropractors does it take to change a lightbulb?
          Only one, but the light bulb never needed changing on the first place.

          • bwf309

            LOL, that is rich coming from a medic that removed tonsils and adenoids and appendixes, healthy lymph glands and gall bladders.

          • Mike Stevens

            Like you said, this is fun.

          • Justthefacts

            Are you jealous of a service you can’t perform? Is it just chance that you disagree with with any medical procedure that you are not qualified to do (AKA make money off of?)

            You are such an obvious shiller.

          • Ever notice how naturopaths clamor for the authority to prescribe sell real medicines that they otherwise claim are worse than useless?

          • Justthefacts

            For every product they say is all about “Big Pharma” and evil…..
            …….they got two more “natural” ones to sell ya.

            Hypocrisy squared.

          • shay simmons

            Snap.

          • AutismDadd

            Takes one to know one

          • Justthefacts

            I’m not involved in human treatments of any kind, unlike the chiropractor bwf309.

            …………..On the other hand, you are just a Troll….

          • AutismDadd

            Wow. So what grade did you drop out of school?

          • Justthefacts

            You said “school”? That tells a lot. You apparently have never been to “College”. I stopped at Phd. How about you schoolboy?

            ….you just got “schooled”………

          • AutismDadd

            A Phduh no doubt.

          • Justthefacts

            You still got nothing, troll

          • AutismDadd

            You need treatment

          • Justthefacts

            You need to be more concerned with your family instead of trolling.

          • bwf309

            LOL, no I don’t do unnecessary procedures like routine T&A or appendectomies. I do only what is necessary to help the patient recover without harmful side effects or death.

          • Justthefacts

            I hope you don’t do any procedures at all. You are a masseuse. Please don’t break the law. Leave it to the properly trained. They are called MDs.

          • Ron Roy

            You mean pharmaceutical trained.

          • Laura J

            I still have my tonsils…and everything else. Oh except the wisdom teeth on the upper jaw.
            Acleron, that is funny. At least they are both glass or ceramic.

          • bwf309

            Lucky not to have been around in the 50’s and 60’s when tonsils and adenoids were removed “to prevent sore throats” and appendectomies were performed because “you don’t need the appendix anyhow” isn’t that right Mikey?

          • Laura J

            Yeah you know? I had ear stuff, but not that bad…

          • Acleron

            A depiction of almost all anti medicine. Thank you.

          • Justthefacts

            Very good! Let me try!

            How many chiropractors does it take to change a lightbulb?

            None can do it. They can only try to convince you the lightbulb is changed!!

          • Mike Stevens

            How many chiropractors does it take to change a lightbulb?

            Four.
            One to feel for subluxations of the filament, one to break the glass during a cervical manipulation, one to convince the new lightbulb that it really is brighter than the old one, despite being 50 watts dimmer, and one to relieve the lightbulb of $500 for the privilege.

          • Justthefacts

            How many chiropractors does it take to change a lightbulb?

            Just one to to see that a D.O. can do it better from proper training…….

            The real question is “How many chiropractors does it take to massage a lightbulb?

          • Q: How many NCB “midwives” does it take to deliver a healthy baby?

            A: Why’s everybody so hung up on the health of the baby? Babies die in hospitals, too, you know!

          • Acleron

            The lightbulb is actually a kitchen plate.

          • Justthefacts

            How many chiropractors does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

            None, they don’t screw in a lightbulb, they screw their patients.

          • Acleron

            LMAO. Just what would you have done with snap fit connections. I dread to think.

          • Mike Stevens

            How many chiropractors does it take to change a lightbulb?

            One.
            But he’ll spend an hour trying to convince you that you need to replace every bulb in the entire building, even though there is nothing wrong with any of them.

          • And charge for the full hour.

        • bwf309

          Who said I was anti-medic? I am anti stupid medics like Mikey

          • Acleron

            How could you tell?

  • bwf309

    Like so many of Dr Ernst’s papers, books and article’s, he quotes himself and uses his own writings as a reference. Sad that so many feel in is this bastion of evidence based medicine.

    • Justthefacts

      You are a lying Woo peddling Chiropractor who just attacks real medicine.

      This opinion piece only has two references in it; one to the next in the series and one to Wikipedia. Stop making things up.

      ……………….And stop shilling for your woo business.

      • bwf309

        Ah then what you are saying is that this article is just Ernst’s unsubstantiated opinion regarding this subject with no evidence to back it up. I agree with that.

        And I do not attack real medicine, I attack those that misapply real medicine and make inaccurate statements about alternative care.

        As for shilling for my business, you are the only one that has been promoting my business.

        • Acleron

          I doubt that Justthefacts is saying that and of course it is not borne out by the many papers that Professor Ernst has published in peer reviewed, reputable journals.

          • Justthefacts

            He is right. Ernst has published good papers but this article is an opinion piece. There is very good reasons for his assertions but they are not exactly backed up by studies or referenced work. Sometimes editorials are just fine and this is one of them.

          • bwf309

            Had you actually ever read any of Dr Ernst’s paper and checked out the references you would see that I have spoken the truth. But why would one of you pharma gospelers check out the facts, you don’t need no stinkin facts to disparage someone. you can be like justtwistthefacts and make up anything you want about someone or something. Poor little insecure snail that it is.

          • Justthefacts

            You did speak the truth. You said he only referenced his own work because you didn’t read it before you trolled. I proved you wrong and you tried to bail out by agreeing with me.

            You got no basis for your self righteousness.

          • Sonja Henie

            He’s a lying azzhat!

          • AutismDadd

            You mean twistthefacts right?

        • Justthefacts

          Yep, it’s clearly an opinion piece. I think many quacks are well hidden beyond the tells described int he article. Maybe you should actually read the article BEFORE you post but, as a woo selling chiropractor, you are used to proceeding with zero evidence.

    • Acleron

      Is this another sock puppet of dullman? Projection perhaps?

      • Justthefacts

        Nope, he is a woo peddling chiropractor that loves to promote alternative nonsense.

        http://disq.us/938736

        • Acleron

          Depressing. Worse than the altmed crazies.

    • Sonja Henie

      There are many other articles that say basically the same thing, Fred, especially points 4, 5 and 6. Pages right out of the chiropractors’ woo book. Hit a nerve, eh?

      • bwf309

        Nah, babbling by the ilk of Ernst and those that find him credible is just that babbling, but it does let me toy with people like you. LOL

        • Laura J

          Ha getting a taste of “her own” medicine. Karma is great at times like these. She’s all over the pages.

          • Laura J

            Flag her. She’s awful to everyone else on every page.

          • Sonja Henie

            “She” is right here.

          • Sonja Henie

            Look you bee-atch! I have never, ever said sheer, utter fecal garbage about other people’s kids like that poseur of a health professional does about my kids. For the likes of me, I don’t know why the mods think it’s cute for him to infer that my kids are hookers and drug abusers. That’s totally out of the ball park. KIDS ARE OFF LIMITS!

  • Laura J

    Swimming is my first choice to exercise the whole body and mind before a chiropractor. Alas it does feel great to stretch the back myself especially in the cooler months.

  • Biron (& 100 Nobel Laureates)

    “Even Nobel prize-winners agree with us”

    When 100+ Nobel Prize winners (mostly scientists) condemn anti-GMO activism — and none support it — you are in good company.