David Colquhoun is one of the most vociferous and prejudiced voices against alternative health on the planet. Not only that, to force his prejudiced position on the public he has used documented unethical methods. It prompted a conventional medical journal editor to ask the following when he found out that an article he had published from David Colquhoun had citations to skeptic blogs and non-existent journals:
” Is it acceptable to make up a reference to try and slip any unsupported statement into a “scientific” argument and thereby give it some degree of credibility?” asked Frank Frizelle, the chief editor of the conventional Medical Journal.
As far as his writing and speaking on the subject he frequently refers to skeptic blogs as a source for his “professional” opinion and as far as I can tell he is totally against any alternative to drug company medicine. He has frequently called homeopaths “murderers” and frequents blogs and web sites that also hurl unsubstantiated derogatory names at alternative health practitioners and defend the practice of calling women homeopaths, “c#nts”.
What is he doing on a supposed unbiased parliamentary regulatory committee, setting standards for Complementary and Natural Healthcare?
You really shouldn’t believe everything you read.
The reference in question is here
My apology for using a different reference to the same article is here.
My qualifications for assessing evidence are perhaps most easily summed up by referring to a textbook on statistics that I wrote Lectures on Biostatistics Clarendon Press, 1970.
You are right that I have called the practice of recommending homeopathy as a cure for malaria “culpable homicide”. That practice has, of course, been rounddly condemned by the Queen’s homeopathic physician, Peter Fisher. It is certainly not true that I have ever used the description c**t for anyone at all.
All this is, in any case, irrelevant to the CNHC which does not deal with homeopathy.
Again, you attempt to link to a skeptic web site to explain your lapse of ethical behaviour when it comes to alternatives. As they are not linking here, I do not link to sites that attempt to confound bigoted opinions with science. You also tolerate and even encourage the terrible behaviour of individuals on these sites that you appear frequently on. You are welcome to explain your lapses here though.
And yes, you of all people should not be on a competence board for alternative health practitioners of any sort.
And as far as your “culpable homicide” comment- I find it very very ironic. Since the conventional malarial treatment drug Lariam is linked to homicidal behaviour.
Do you think that the massive amount of genocide and homicide in areas where the drug is endemic is because of this pharmaceutical drug use? Should the pharmacists, drug companies, medical doctors and drug promoters like yourself be criminally culpable for this state of affairs as you imply by your commentt?
Thanks for posting the comment, but you removed both links and that makes it hard to explain my “lapses”. I’ll try anyway. I referred, parenthetically, to an article by Preston Long. which I had read on the web. I gave the journal reference rather than the web link and that was a misdemeanour for which I apologised very publicly. It was in a journal that is now defunct, but I found it eventually and posted the reprint (but you censored the link to it). The article was identical with the one I had read on the web. Most people do not see this as a serious breach of ethics, though it was certainly a mistake. Perhaps you should have explained more clearly what happened.
I certainly think that drug companies should be responsible under the law if they endanger people by, for example, concealing data about side effects. Some huge fines have been imposed for this sort of behaviour, and quite right too. I’d welcome prosecutions.
Forget about turning this into an inquisition about homeopathy. I’m glad you recognize there is much criminal activity in the conventional drug field and the next step is to increase the prosecution of those promoting drugs that turn out to kill people such as Vioxx which injured and killed over 50,000 people in the US alone, more than civilian casualties in the Iraqi war. (I’m sure you would appreciate the Iraqi reference).
And then you said: “Most people do not see this as a serious breach of ethics, though it was certainly a mistake.”
Most people? I think you are confusing your opinions and backing them up with what you read on the internet versus publishing something in a medical journal as a scientific fact. Just the slimy work of an expert at camouflaging their opinion for “science.” I don’t really think you get the serious repercussions of attempting to do anything to delegitimize alternative health modalities. I think it is absolutely shocking that you are on a board evaluating any alternative health modality.
And the editor of the New Zealand Medical Journal you tried your deception on also sees it differently than you:
The letter which you quote was not written by the editor of the journal. It was written by a chiropractor, in an email to the editor, Since it was written, I found the original journal article and in my first comment I gave a link to a reprint of it, which you deleted. The original journal article was indeed identical with the version of that paper that had been reproduced on the web.
I don’t mind at all being criticised if I make a mistake, but please keep the criticisms accurate. It is hard to explain what I mean when you delete relevant links from my comments.
David Colquhoun does not hide his hatred for alternatives or that he promotes pharmaceutical drug only perpective- I’ll give him that.
But the council that is by parliamentary decree directed to regulate certain alternative health modalities should be impartial. I see that having him on this council is going directly against parliament’s directive. I think that we in the UK should hold the Board directly accountable for this travesty.
I agree about it being an absolute travesty and an attempt at sabotaging any attempt at the public’s use of alternatives. UK consumers want alternatives!
David Colquhoun is an old guy with very rigid opinions that appear like they won’t change. It is important to just carry on with all the marvelous work and cures of chiropractics, homeopathy and alternative health- the public deserves our service and the parliamentary council should facilitate it rather than sabotage it.
The above quote about unethical behaviour of David Colquhoun is from the editorial itself. I’ll look into questions about the editor who is a medical doctor before publishing more comments.
All the quotes above are from the editorial in that journal. If in fact some of them were not from the editor personally at the very least he deemed them important enough to include in an editorial.
David Colququon being on a regulatory committee about something he speaks so vociferously against is the epitome of unethical behaviour but he is obviously not a stranger to that sort of behaviour.
He is obstructing parliament and those who are in charge of the committee should be ashamed of themselves and should be charged with obstructing parliament.
@textprint
I could hardly be charged with obstructing parliament, if only because no case has yet come before the Conduct and Competence Committee for me and my collegues to judge. The only complaints received so far were dealt with by the Investigating Committee, not by me,
In any case, the rules state that the CNHC has to make judgements on the basis of its own Code of Cunduct, and that was devised by the CNHC (with no input from me), not directly by parliament.
I think perhaps you should reserve your criticisms until such time as I do something that you disagree with.
I find it remarkable that you would consider yourself not obstructionist. Even the thought of you being on any committee evaluating an alternative health modality or practitioner is simply beyond belief. But having said that and having you on the committee it seems to me that you and those who appointed you should be now held in contempt of parliament. Any consumer, (and there are lots of them) and practitioner of CAM should be calling for that or at the very least getting you and those who supported your appointment out of there.
You already have some pretty ugly pre-judgments about the practitioners you will be “judging”. Your web site is a forum for even more contemptuous and bigoted opinions about these practitioners. How absolutely unethical and seriously wrong this all is.
@textprint
Since we are talking about ethics, perhaps you would care to give me your opinion about whether it is ethical to recommend homeopathy for the treament or prevention of malaria or cholera?
I could probably find out for myself if I knew your name, but unlike me you have chosen to hide behind a pseudonym.
@David Colquhoun- you have made this statement, (it is not really a question is it?) many times and my answer to you was do you think it is ethical to promote and give conventional drugs for malaria that cause homicidal rage and killing as an effect?
But already, you are saying that homeopaths who recommend their therapy are doing something wrong and the only show in town is pharmaceutical drugs and now you want to argue the ethics of this on a blog.
You are clearly showing your prejudice and not acting particularly like a good member in standing of a committee. Is your membership just grandstanding?
Amazing statements from you Mr. Colquhoun. You know that many prominent skeptic- your colleagues are anonymous. I wouldn’t take the high ground here.
And here is a good answer to your question: http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba/
Perhaps we should stick to homeopathy, because it does not come under the aegis of the CNHC. I’d remin d you that the Queen’s Hoemopathic Physicician, and clinical director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, Peter Fisher, is on my side, not yours when it comes to the malaria question. He said that claims for malaria prevention made him “very angry”. If, as it seems, you disagree with him, I’d be interested to hear you argue it out with him.
I do feel too, that you should take a bit more care to find out my views. I’m on record as being highly critical of the pharmacutical industry. There have been far too many cases of dishonest behaviour by Big Pharma and I condemn them.
Believe it or not, my aim is merely to discover the truth about medical treatments, and it makes little difference to that aim whether the treatments are labelled ‘alternative’ or ‘regular’. It is really surprisingly hard to achieve that aim. For example it has become increasingly apparent that SSRIs have little or no efficacy in mild/moderate depression. St John’s Wort had been shown to have similar efficacy to SSRIs, and for a while I thought that it was just about the best-documented herbals. But tif course if SSRIs don’t work then neither does St John’s Wort.
I shold dispel another myth. I have no wish to make homeopathy or any other sort of alternative medicine illegal. But alternative medicine practitioners, just like everyone else, must obey the law of the land. The relevant laws are mostly in the Consumer Protection Unfair Trading Regulations (May 2008). Enforcement of those laws is the responsibility of Trading Standards, not the CNHC. If you feel those laws are bad then by all means try to get them changed, but that means addressing parliament, not the CNHC. The duty of the CNHC is only to ensure that practitioners comply with its Code of Conduct. May I recommend that you read that code?
Groan. Why is that when skeptics come on this site they first start with a pejorative dialogue, but a dialogue and then it disintegrates into hurling threats. Before it was that they threatened that I should be injected with rabies and now you threatening me with the “code,” “law of the land” and “enforcement”.
Threats and anger- sounds like the same basis for invading Iraq.
It seems that homeopathy makes you angry. Sigh. It is actually a wonderful therapy even though it does not fit into your very narrow view of what is effective medicine. Unfortunate. And because of your angry, narrow view and resorting to threats, you do not belong on any committee evaluating an alternative health practitioner.
Interestingly, neither E and M or textprint said that they favoured the use of homeopathy over conventional medication in the treatment of malaria.
But that didn’t prevent Colquhoun from all but accusing them of being criminals. But this is a typical ploy of skeptics- hysterically criticize homeopathy for a theoretical problem that has not arisen or show one or two situations that have happened as proof of its danger out of the hundreds of thousands of homeopathic treatments per year. Goldacre in Lancet showed ONE malpractice suit against a homeopath as evidence of homeopathy’s danger and Colquhoun likes to quote the one manslaughter case dubiously related to homeopathy. Both conveniently leave out the hundreds of criminal convictions against medical doctors and the thousands of malpractice suits yearly against medical doctors and pharmaceutical companies.
Homicidal deaths from the conventional anti-malarial drug is a verifiable and not a theoretical problem. We are talking about a REAL situation and not some nasty theory from the skeptics. Notice how Colquhoun does not address that directly.
And this is especially a serious real problem when you introduce a drug that causes homicidal action into an area that is already endemic with killing. But of course, Colquhoun would not put that under “big pharma excess” but rather acceptable risk.
Cynthia, That is correct, no where on this blog does it say to stop conventional medications. In fact, from what I see, in real time, when an individual sees a homeopath they get more engaged in their health treatment and that includes seeing a conventional medical doctor.
But the real point of this post is as you say that since alternative health modalities are much safer than conventional pharmaceuticals David Colququon attempts to utilize imaginary hypothetical problems to attack homeopaths and other alternative practitioners.
He did that with the chiropractors in the medical journal, as quoted in this post, using serious misinformation, accusations and false sources, (including other skeptic web sites). This was discovered leading to the unethical tag to his current career of attempting to impugn the reputations of alternative health practitioners. He attempted to say that this unethical behaviour was a “mistake” but right here he does it again.
David Colquhoun- Why do you imply that these individuals have done something criminal? Wasn’t this the same tactic and excuse as the United States government used to invade Iraq? They created a false impression of criminality?
You say you don’t want to make homeopathy illegal but instead you insidiously attempt to make it SEEM illegal.
With all this “insidious” negative energy and obfuscating tactics going on, it is important that homeopaths and consumers of homeopathy, (who by the way, contrary to the skeptics and Colquhoun are bright, intelligent people) start to really be committed to protecting their right to access alternative health and homeopathy.
You can start here: http://www.hmc21.org/
I am sorry Mr. Colquhoun, but with all due respect, I will not publish your last comment. Again you accuse someone of killing individuals without any substantiation. Even in your own words you say “may have been responsible for…” but then give a ridiculously high number as an estimate of deaths. This is the same modus you have used with chiropractics when you said that chiropractors are the leading cause of strokes. Do you know how damaging these fallacious and unsubstantiated accusations could be?
Luckily, with your ethical lapses and exaggerations clearly called out there is little chance that you or skeptics are taken as credible sources any more. But unfortunately some of the medical doctors reading the medical journal you wrote your statements about chiropractors in may not have had the opportunity to know about your exaggerations and use of false sources.
A little academic prestidigitation from the followers of their great leader Randi the magician.
I am appalled at what you are doing Mr. Colququon. I am a professional and have been treated by homeopathy and a homeopath for over 30 years. My homeopath should be treated like a national treasure instead of with your innuendoes. She has always been there, dedicated and effective. I have also seen a chiropractor occasionally with excellent results.
I must say, by seeing these alternative practitioners, myself, friends and family have SAVED the National Health Service loads of money. I do not need medications even though when I started homeopathy I had multiple health problems which medical doctors could not help.
Stop persecuting alternative health practitioners! Get off that committee. You don’t belong there. You just want to use it as a soapbox or to prove your pre-determined weird prejudice that alternative health causes death and regular medicine is harmless. Homeopathy is effective, life giving and cost saving!
@elephantsandmice
[edited]
@older but wiser
I have said repeatedly that I don’t wish to prevent you from visiting your homeopath if that is what you wish, so I don’t really see the relevance of your comment.
More generally, the CNHC is meant to be a regulatory body. Some alternative practitioners want regulation because they see it as increasing their status. Others don’t want any form of regulation whatsoever, and are quite happy to remain on the fringes. There seems to be very little unanimity on that question. Homeopaths seem mostly not to want any form of regulation, and that is what they have got. They are not covered by the CNHC at all.
On the other hand one section of herbalists, and most acupuncturists and TCM people pushed hard to get statutory regulation, which would be more stringent that the CNHC.
I’d welcome the views of those who contribute here on the obvious dilemma that results. Do you want no regulation whatsoever for any sort of alternative medicine (much as homeopathy has now)? Do you want voluntary regulation (of the sort provided by the CNHC)? Or do you want statutory regulation?
I repeat, the job of the CNHC is to uphold its Code of Conduct. Have you read that code? Is there anything in it to which you object? Certainly nobody so far has raised any objection to the code, so it isn’t obvious to me what all the indignation is about.
Again I have had to edit out a reference to an individual using an alternative health method and causing murder. It seems like every other comment has something like this in it. Then you go on to make sure that everyone knows the rules and laws and focuses on that. You have a grim reaper mentality.
At first I thought it was simply a tendency to exaggeration but I’m coming to the reluctant conclusion it is delusional. I find this to be a problematic mentality for someone sitting on a committee which should be supposedly impartial.
Further, the reality, and I mention reality to you again, is that alternative health has a great safety record and enhances health and well being of both individuals and the general public in a deep and important way.
At the very least, I would pity the person who would have to appear before you for a minor infraction with your bigoted concept that anyone who practices alternative health is verging on homicide.
The purpose of these regulatory bodies is not only to protect the public but also to enhance the profession they are regulating. I have never heard you say anything positive about alternative health practitioners. You just seem to focus on Codes of Conducts, regulations and statutory regulation and want us to do the same. I don’t find your delusional underpinning and intention therefore, making room for a reasonable dialogue about these issues nor for it to be a good basis for an impartial member of a Committee exercising them. It is one thing for these to be a basis of discussion on skeptic blogs with individuals that share your bigotry and delusional ideas and another for a serious alternative health professional to discuss.
I had hoped to have an open and courteous discussion, but that is hard when you continue to edit out the most powerful bits of my arguments.
You say to me that “You just seem to focus on Codes of Conducts, regulations and statutory regulation and want us to do the same.”. That is not all that I am interested in of course, but this post is about the CNHC and, like it or not, the CNHC is a regulatory body. with a duty to uphold its Code of Conduct, so it seems a natural matter to talk about. I had nothing to do with writing the code of conduct, and so far I’ve had no role in enforcing it either. But it is not the job of the CNHC to act as an advertising agency for the topics that it regulates, as some of your readers seem to want it to do,
@ David Colquhoun- you said: “the most powerful bits of my argument”- This is ridiculous. You are, of course, referring to your unsubstantiated conjectures of murder and mayhem caused by Alternative Health Practitioners that I rightly edited out. This blog will not spread or be part of the malicious gossip and rumors even though you may think they are “powerful”. They have no valid references except from various skeptic web sites that share your bigoted views.
You have quite correctly censored David Colququon’s bigoted and nasty opinions on alternative health.
In looking at other blogs and web sites I see his real enmity towards alternative health practitioners- no holds barred. So Mr. Colququon stating a desire to simply benignly dialogue about the CNHC looks harmless enough at first glance but from his activities on other blogs and web sites it is just an entry-way into entrapping alternative health practitioners.
His benign presentation is total rubbish. The game the skeptics play is to use any disingenuous means to get across their points and threats.
In David Colququon’s case he has used illegitimate sources and unethical means in an attempt to substantiate his threats but got caught. And now he is furiously backtracking to make it look like a “mistake”. Oh, just a small mistake that impunes the whole profession of chiropractics. Oh, and lets throw in innuendoes of murder and homicide towards another alternative health profession.
And so yes, again, this individual does not belong on the CNHC- impartiality should be part of a basic right of anyone being judged and he is so far from it.
@textprint
I can’t help wondering how you seem so sure it was right for my comments to be censored when you haven’t seen what I wrote!
My interest lies in evidence. That is why one of my first publications was a textbook of statistics. I maintain that I apply exactly the same standards of evidence whether I’m talking about regular medicine or alternative medicine.
I do realise that some people prefer faith to evidence, but at least you can’t accuse me of being inconsistent. You might be interested, for example, in my analysis of some of the evidence produced by the World Cancer Research Fund in a report chaired by Professor Sir Michael Marmot. There is certainly nothing ‘alternative’ about him. I hope you’ll agree that it raises some interesting problems about the interpretation of results in conventional medicine.
The people running the CNHC made a huge blunder by appointing David Colquhoun to their Prof. Conduct Committee. CNHC may have thought it a clever move to give themselves some sort of image of legitimacy but his being there has been a significant disincentive for a number of professions joining the the CNHC.
@ David Colquhoun
For someone supposedly so interested in evidence you propagate a lot of pretty nasty fallacious OPINIONS about alternative health and alternative health practitioners. You should come clean with yourself and others about this rather than pretending that its all statistics with you.
I agree with the comments of Elephants and Mice.
On his web site here [edited] and here [edited] basically David Colquhoun calls homeopaths liars and other nasty names. He is more an inquisitor. His position on this committee is a sham and his comments here are just a ruse and the height of dishonesty.
Yes, he should come clean here about his hatred for alternatives and stop acting as if he is just interested in statistics. He has built up quite a list of accusations towards homeopaths and alternative practitioners and products and proves it by heresay and linking to the likes of Stephen Barrett.
@homeopathyforsure
Actually I have never called homopaths liars. I believe that almost all are quite genuine in their beliefs, and if they tell a patient something that is not true, it is not done with an intention to deceive.
Neither is it true that I have a “hatred” of alternative medicine. What is true is that I’m unenthusiastic about treatments that don’t work. That includes a substantial amount of conevntional medicine too. SSRIs for mild/moderate depression would be a good example. The fact that they have tirned out to be almost completely ineffective is a result of large and careful clinical trails, plus the uncovering of some dishonesty by the manufactures who. disgracefully, failed to disclose some negative results. I would point out, though, that this outcome is not very good for herbalists either, They have been saying for some time, and quite correctly, that St John;s Wort is as good as SSRIs for depression. It now seems that neither is much good, Depression, I fear, is something that we must add to the (rather long) list of things to which medicine has not yet founjd a solution.
Hurray! You said something positive about homeopaths!
” I believe that almost all are quite genuine in their beliefs”- Very cool! Yea.
But…there would be many people that would disagree with you about homeopathy not working. Your words and argument here is different than what appears to be the actions of yourself and fellow science skeptics- it is an attempt to purge the world of homeopathy and alternative health.
And it is obvious that you have little appreciation for a system of medicine or approach that treats individuals rather than diseases. This is key to a methodology that proves it works such as in Professor Iris Bell MD, PhD’s 30 years of clinical research or Lionel Milgrom’s another scientific researcher conclusions. Dr. Iris Bell has much more experience in clinical medicine as opposed to your years of elucidations of corporate drug company pharmaceutical issues. I’m glad you disparage the drug companies that do not reveal negative results but it seems a rather weak attempt at seeming even handed.
By the way, as a characteristic of a patient who may need homeopathic Hypericum, (St. John’s wort) depression would not be high on the list as an indication.
To David Colquhoun:
Why is it that the skeptics like to say one thing somewhere and another when they are criticized? There are many comments by you on skeptic blogs that counter your expressions here. It is obvious that you hide your real intentions here but not elsewhere, particularly on skeptic blogs.
You know that you are committed to supporting a corrupt and broken system and are an anti-alternative health extremist. You will do anything to evangelize this position including having corrupt individuals like Stephen Barrett on your web site, (as E and M has pointed out).
In any case, you have learned well just how to obfuscate at the right time from your cohort Tracy Brown a drug company public relations person who claims to be only interested in “science” and “evidence” but is actually a public relationships person.
BP has also managed to have many scientists like yourself who are apologists for their destruction of the environment. These scientists seem independent but when you get down to it they are anything but. BP and drug companies even have their own “journalists” doing stories. It is amazing how sophisticated these corporations have become at obfuscating what is good for the public. An apologist like you just keeps it going and by attacking alternative health you keep shifting the focus away from the big pharmaceutical company sham and onto such a small and beneficial group such as homeopaths.
@homeopathyforsure
I’m not Stephen Barrett and I’m not Tracy Brown. I’m me. I may or may not agree with their assessments of the evidence. I read the evidence and form my own opinions. I am not reponsible for theirs.
I have a lot of sympathy with your views about the corruption that so often seems to plague large corporations. Big Pharma and BP are two good examples. Howver you shouldn’t forget that alternative medicine is also big business now (indeed chunks of it are owned now by Big Pharma now) and so it it is not really surprising that the same problems arise as in any other big business.
@ David C- “I am not reponsible for theirs.”
What a cop out. Maybe it is just that you are incapable of perceiving when you are making ethical decisions as by your “mistake” in referring to a non-existent journal as a source for your opinions. Someone who is an expert in “statistics” may not be an expert in ethics. And that is the reason you should not be on the committee.
But back to your last comment- You feature these people on your web site. To say that they are not you is obvious but if you support them, feature them or their activities on your web site it is very obvious that you believe in them. Their methods are questionable and corrupt. You don’t have to feature them but YOU do choose to do that.
@homeopathyforsure
The “non-existent journal” is not non-existent at all, though it is now defunct. It is because it went defunct that it took me a while to get hold of a copy of it (though luckily the entire text had been reproduced on the web). In my first comment, I put in a link to the original reprint from the original journal, but for some reason that beats me the link was removed. Before reprimanding me about “referring to a non-existent journal” it really behoves you to check you facts, don’t you think?
Come to think about it, I’m mildly puzzled why people on this site, which seems to be largely concerned with homeopathy (not the concern of the CNHC) is so concerned by an opinion about chiropractic, which is quite unrelated to homeopathy (and also isn’t the business of the CNHC).
Was this “journal” defunct already when you used it as your major reference for the article that slammed chiropractors?
@ DC-
I feel it is essential to have freedom to access all alternative health care modalities and not just restricting it to the conventional pharmaceutical side like you espouse. Thus commenting on your war on chiropractics is as important as anything else.
@ elephantsandmice
You asked
“Was this “journal” defunct already when you used it as your major reference for the article that slammed chiropractors?”
.
The answer is yes. The article in question appeared in last ever year of the existence of of the Journal of Quality Healthcare. This was all explained in my first comment on your blog, but you deleted the link to it. If I may quote
“It turns out that Journal of Quality Healthcare shut down in 2004, without leaving a trace on the web, or even in the British Library. It was replaced by a different journal, Patient Safety and Quality Healthcare (PSQH) A reprint was obtained from them. It is indeed the same as the web version that I’d read, and it highlighted the quotation in question.”
Point is, in your zealotry to defame chiropractors you quoted a defunct journal lifting the quote from a skeptic web site and did not do your due diligence. A tragic poor end to a career.
No, as I pointed out already, the journal was not defunct at the time the article in question was published. I also pointed out that the article had been reproduced word-for-word on the web, which is where I first encountered it. There was no reason to think that the site that reproduced the text would have altered it, and they hadn’t.
The silly thing is that it wasn’t even a particularly good paper, It had no original research, and the quotation that I took from it was quite peripheral to my main arguments which concerned the validity or otherwise of the term ‘subluxation’. Since that time, as you’ll be aware, the General Chiropractic Council itself has renounced that term, so I’m in agreement with the GCC about that point.
If this incident ended my career, I can’t say that the editors of Nature or the Journal of Physiology seem to have noticed. They are still taking my papers on single ion channel biophysics anyway.
Have been following this post-
David Colquhoun said: “Come to think about it, I’m mildly puzzled why people on this site… is so concerned by an opinion about chiropractic….”
You are an apologist, teacher and promoter of pharmaceuticals – you are one to complain! Quite an ironic statement considering you pontificate about the dangers of chiropractics yet your training is in pharmaceutical drug company science.
Yes, a lot of excuses about this journal article and lots of explaining to do. But it seems to me that you flubbed it all.
Science skeptics are in these days with editors of journals- there has been a great deal of criticism about the quality of journal articles critical of CAM but it doesn’t stop more arrogant and unsubstantiated crap from being published.
Again you want me to publish your comment containing unsubstantiated opinions about chiropractics as fact. No way.