There is an elephant in the room and it is the pharmaceutical companies and the real and present problematic issues with drug effects. As a strategy, there is a concerted attack on the mice- alternative health- as an attempt to make the public ignore the elephant.
I was frustrated with the pharmaceutic company sponsored skeptics and what they throw around in the name of “science” and “medicine” and their bullying.
Homeopathy is such a positive alternative with such great benefits, scientific proof, that it needs to be clarified, highlighted and helped along.
I decided to start a blog.
I am with you on this one! So many good alternatives (would you rather take Arsenicum or a flu shot that increases your chances of getting hospitalized for Swine Flu?), so little exposure to them! We could solve the whole health care crisis and make everyone much healthier if we all just did homeopathy…
Ann E.
I agree wholeheartedly that no one(on either side) should be subject to bullying, nor have their claims rubbished by misrepresentation of terms such as ‘science’ and ‘medicine’. It also obscures the real issue, which is that no one has been able to provide bona fide scientific evidence that homeopathy is more effective than placebo.
And I take that back – my comments hare re-appeared! Must have been a browser caching problem on my PC. Apologies.
Considering that there are over 400 papers from scientific journals – peer-reviewed no less – giving proof that homoeopathy is better than placebo in humans, plus 180 peer-reviewd articles that it also works on plants, the argument that it is just a placebo effect no longer holds any water.
Considering also that this campaign to destroy homoeopathy is unconstitutional – robbing the people of a choice in healthcare – thank you for voicing a different sound than the opinionated screams of quackery from the skeptics.
The fact that they call themselves “skeptics in the pub” should give rise to grave doubts about their validity. They are little more than the musings of inebriety by intoxicated people.
Thanks for such an outspoken blog. Please do write something more about Professor Ernst… here’s why: he’s recently bragged repeatedly about his track record, including ‘over 1000′ academic papers in 30 years. If you do the maths, that works out at one paper published every 10-11 days for 30 years. Systematic reviews, for which Ernst is (in)famous, sometimes as sole author, are supposed to take a minimum of 6-9 months. Most academic authors can hope to publish 2-8 papers a year. Fraud in academe is rife anyway, as we know. If someone has quite such a prolific publishing career, some alarm bells should ring in editors’ offices. They haven’t. It took over 20 years before someone publicly took note of the – in fact readily available – fact that Ernst had no proper homeopathic qualifications at all. Maybe ‘it’s just one of those things’ – nobody with a loud enough voice has bothered with this question to date.
One of Ernst’s key research assistants, Barbara Wider, sometimes co-author, has a PhD – in German Literature. No science. I think there was at least one other without any science credentials doing research for Ernst some years ago. Not damning in itself, but certainly not good practice in a serious research department with such a spcecialised focus.
Ernst has extensive public speaking engegagements (pharma and skeptic conventions), stil has his departement to run at Exeter, runs two journals as editor, sits on at least one editorial board, does peer review, writes three different columns, twitters profusely, writes books, does lots of media work, interviews etc … .
Even Maggie Thatcher could not have coped with a workload like this and yet produced serious scientific research. Vickers commented about academic quality here http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?typ=pdf&doi=322397, but neither he nor anyone else in academic circles seems to ever have wondered whether there may be a more serious issue here. The man seems to be made of Teflon – but perhaps a blog with a high profile like yours could give the question of Ernst’s implausibly prolific research output a public airing?
Do let the world know when the scientific proof for homeopathy turns up. No doubt it’ll arrive at about the same time as my cheque from Big Pharma.
Your denial of the scientific proof for homeopathy is exactly the point of this blog- a good read would be the report prepared for the Swiss government.
And so you don’t get paid by big pharma- OK,you are just one of the lemmings- what is your point?
I’m denying nothing, jusqt waiting to see it. Show us the sausages, love, I’ll fry up the mushrooms and tomatoes.
Well, you could look at the Swiss government report which affirms homeopathy’s efficacy and safety- actually done by scientists and researchers and not those looking for fame and money or those with a big axe to grind. And you could look at the fact that there are sincere scientists working on homeopathy and not just flakes as you seem to imply. You don’t have to paint the whole teapot black as you do as a result of one or two hurtful experiences that you may have had.
And I was quite disturbed by some violent utterances against alternative health practitioners on your web site/blog. Whatever personal issues you have, I hear that, but they don’t have to lead to such all black teapot views and violent utterances even in a joking manner.
It’s not a Swiss Government report, it’s a badly-performed “study” by homeopathy advocates.
The only people with an axe to grind are the proponent of fake science. Me, I just want to avoid misery and suffering in the people you want to flog sugar pills to.
Did you read the report or are you going on hearsay from other people who hold your rigid beliefs?
If you would read the report you would find that actually, unlike those people that are feeding you the information, real scientists and researchers authored the report. Did you review their qualifications? You can now call them “Homeopathy advocates” but you ignore the fact that they have actually satisfied your demands of real scientists and researchers showing that yes, in fact, homeopathy is scientific.
So when a real scientist and researcher comes to a positive conclusion about homeopathy’s benefits and effectiveness you bizarrely slough it off as not being scientific. You continue to promote an irrational, ad hominen conclusion. It does not makes sense when you call well published professors of medicine and legitimate researchers proponents of “fake science”.
Read it, but didn’t bother blogging because others have done that for me.
Here, this might help you understand the problemls with that “report”
You’re welcome.
I expect more from you – if there are problems with the report as analyzed by skeptic cult members, you still have to admit that there are scientists and researchers out there who think that homeopathy has value. If you then feel that the opinion of skeptics, magicians, bigots and other members of your cult completely negate these well qualified researchers and scientists then you have essentially set up a hierarchy of science based on some pretty bizarre cult-like qualifications.
If you remove the links to debunings of pseudoscintific claptrap, I’m going to have trouble provings anything. I note your plentiful ad hominems and conclude that you have no further arguments to provide. There will always be fools who believe in magic, and those who are easily drawn into cults like homeopathy. Sometimes these people call themselves scientists. They are, at best, deluded.
I don’t link to skeptic web sites.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. put it very succinctly: “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.”
But you’ve brought up a good point- now who is the judge of who is in a cult and who is scientific? You? The magician? The fraudulent Ernst? The pharmaceutical companies? I think a bit of humility on the part of skeptics would go a long way. To attack a scientist and accuse him or her of being deluded because after careful consideration he or she concludes that homeopathy is scientific, effective and safe is pretty dastardly way of dealing with someone’s expert opinion.
By the way, I don’t feel the same way about you- I don’t come from that same prejudiced view of skeptics even though the actions might make one make sweeping generalizations of apparent venomous bigotry. I feel that you personally have struggled and that with a little bit of open mindedness you just might just see that homeopathy has some beneficial possibilities and that homeopaths are attempting to help people.
before you call me or my work fraudulent,consider this:we conducted and published 30 -40 clinical trials,~300 reviews and the rest of my publications are comments,editorials etc [which i do in a day or two,if necessary].we had 19 years and up to 20 co-workers to do all this.AND NOW,PLEASE WITHDRAW THE ALLEGATION OF FRAUD.
Can you explain to me how the water used in homeopathic dilutions has any existing “memory” erased?
Yes, and your baseless allegations and bloated opinions about homeopathy’s danger impacts 1000′s of homeopaths, their livelihood and their families.
Did you not lie about your credentials?- Just about takes away any credibility you or these papers may have. Not to mention the bias and the axe to grind that you bring to your work. All the journals that published them should withdraw these trials and papers since they are the fruit of a very poisonous tree.
From the German interview with a homeopathic journal, Mr. Ernst you know better than to talk about homeopathy’s safety since it is practised in hospitals and even conventional clinics with an excellent safety record. You knew that. You are just trying to continue your hateful campaign.
i said that i worked in a homeopathic hospital,not that i qualified as a homeopath ;and that’s the truth
Prof. Ernst could be a moon man or a lunatic, but the point is, I can read his papers and follow the methodology and verify what he has done is actually an unbiased way of analysis. Given the big money homeopathy has access to, it should be trivial to employ someone to do the same large scale experiments and analyses. If homeopathy does work, and someone did a good enough set of studies in an unbiased manner, then they’d be looking at a Nobel Prize and opening up new areas of chemistry, physics and biology. Big Pharma would also love to be on the cutting edge of a whole new way of treating people. Incentive enough I would have thought. I don’t know why this hasn’t been done and why being critical of flaws in studies (which is, often infuriatingly, ubiquitous to science) is seen as by homeopathy advocates as some conspirational vendetta.
the main risk of homeopathy lies not in the remedy but in the homeopaths.if they advise to use it for serious conditions – and they certainly do that,look on the internet,for instance – lives will be shortened.
AND NOW PLEASE REMOVE THE CLAIMS OF ME OR MY WORK BRING FRAUDULENT FROM THIS SITE.
“I don’t link to skeptic web sites.”
And here was I thinking that it’s supposed to be the
scientificbeg pardon, sceptics who all have closed minds and a cult mentality. If it challenges your beliefs, you won’t even read it?I feel sorry for you. Seriously.
@Edd
“big money homeopathy has access to” -laughing out loud
And it is only a matter of time before Big pharma starts to work with homeopathic remedies. That would be an unfortunate day for serious homeopathic practitioners.
And obviously you haven’t read the Swiss studies by scientific and research expert, who unlike Ernst do not need money from skeptic and pharmaceutical lecturing to get by…
@anarchic teapot- you are making the assertion that skeptic websites are scientific- what a lot of self deluded BS. And the babbling attack from a babbler? Crazy man.
@e ernst- since you self-admittedly have absolutely no experience in clinical medicine but are an academic, for you to start opining about the clinical application of medicine- conventional or alternative is very problematic. Are you suggesting that certain surgeries should not be performed because you have not done an evidence based study on them? On the other hand, the Swiss government study looked at homeopathy in real clinical time and not theoretically like you do and concluded it was safe and effective.
And whether you stated you trained in homeopathy or did not – you allowed for MANY years your publishers and others to state you did. Was this just simply an oversight?
When did I say tha t I have no clinical experience? I have been a clinician for half of my professional career,roughly.AND NOW!PLEASE REMOWE ALL THE LIES ABOUT ME!!!
@ernst- your supporters and you state you are an academic as an excuse for your behaviour.
But you do call for academics and yourself to rule what clinicians do and many clinicians would disagree strongly to this opinion. It would be good if you addressed some of the issues here rather than calling them lies when they don’t agree with your views.
I attempt to be accurate and the interview you gave to the German journal is referenced. It may be that you thought since it was in German it would never have been published in English and reveal the inconsistencies.
Edzard. The red trousers are a hit
e&m. Your argument is that your analysis of the Swiss study is better than the one Edzard refers to. But you won’t link to his.
You see the problem here?
Andy
OH! OK, Andy, I do see the problem-mmm, yes.
But I don’t link to skeptic web sites and I haven’t linked to the actual Swiss study either.
And I long ago gave up on trying to change the hardened attitude and political position of skeptics. It is a pharmaceutical company sponsored political movement and not a scientific one, is it not? So why discuss science in an open exchange anyways- you will never change your views even when good scientists and researchers, like for the Swiss studies present real and informed scientific conclusions?
And Edzard Ernst as a political leader is more interested in the media cycle than the science of it all is he not? As such, manipulating information and even credentials is considered par for the course.
No. You haven’t linked to any analysis of the Swiss study. You show no analysis of your own, you refuse to link to Edzard’s…why bring it up at all?
I admit that I’m baffled by a few things. The whole idea that opposition to homeopathy is something sponsored by big pharma, for example. I was a founder of 10:23, I’ve been an activist against homeopathy for about 3 years. Not just homeopathy btw. Other things I disagree with too. In all that time and effor i’ve never heard of any involvement from big pharma. What is that argument about? Seriously, no pun intended, there’s nothing in it. So how do you think that sponsorship shows itself?
The other thing is that that I don’t have a political position on this topic. For me it’s more similar to a consumer rights situation. From my perspective selling homeopathy has disclosure issues where the customer is not fully informed. It’s not political. At least not in my definition of political. So why is it so important to you to emphasise your belief that opposition to homeopathy is politically motivated or commercially influenced? Speaking for most people I know we just think its junk and shouldn’t be sold without full disclosure. That’s a consumer rights point. Do you see?
Andy
Hello Andy- Thank you for responding.
I see the crux of the problem for you is contained in this one sentence you stated:
“Speaking for most people I know we just think its junk and shouldn’t be sold without full disclosure.”
Well, you don’t speak for most people! You don’t speak for the MILLIONS of people who use and practice homeopathy on a daily basis.
By revealing your modus, you are confusing your tiny sphere of influence and the sphere of other skeptics with “most people” and I find that not only egocentric but very dangerous for our society.
Many of the people who use homeopathic services and take homeopathic remedies are well educated professionals. You don’t speak for these consumers so stop acting like you do!
You can attack, call them names and depict them in your usual denigrating fashion but the reality is there are many well educated and critical thinking individuals who know and appreciate homeopathy as an important part of health care- on both a personal and national level. They include the tens of thousands of medical doctors and researchers world wide who have had scientific training and yes, study and practise or research homeopathy.
When a small group of self absorbed and intolerant individuals think they speak for “everyone” and terrorize and ridicule a group of people, as a result, we have a big problem in our society. Good people will see through it and to the core of the intolerance and bigotry that it represents.
I agree with Andy- there should be a disclosure statement included with every homeopathic remedy:
It should read:
“WARNING: AN OFFICIAL AND COMPREHENSIVE SWISS GOVERNMENT STUDY AUTHORED BY PROMINENT RESEARCHERS AND CLINICIANS HAS CONCLUDED THAT HOMEOPATHY IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.”
Ok For Andy’s sake you need to include:
“A group led by a magician has the opinion that homeopathic remedies are ‘junk and shouldn’t be sold’ “
I’m a skeptic but I’m not “sponsored by pharmaceutical” industry, so am I OK?
Really, that’s the biggest thing you can pull out of what I said to respond to?
I gave you a first hand example of my experience and motivation and instead of listening t that and responding you’ve taken a turn of phrase and written three or four paragraphs on how that describes me and the the other people you haven’t met. Negatively of course.
Come on. I’m right at the heart of the events you describe. How does this supposed big pharma sponsorship show itself?
Andy
@Andy- Is that all you got in response to what I said? I think what I said is vital to the issues you have presented and how your group has a fetish with homeopathy when 1000′s die each year from iatrogenic and drug induced disease. The fetish is just where Tracy Brown and the drug companies want you positioned- a public relations risk management strategy. So you are a pawn- what is the difference?
And are you saying that Sense about Science has never received pharmaceutical money?
@4tits- yes you are OK.
What does sense about science have to do with me and what I think?
You have now twice used insinuation instead of answering questions. You are also guilty of quite a bit of gainsay, which is lazy.
I can see that I am not welcome in your dominion. That seems to please you. And it’s good that you have the humility to agree with me.
Andy, I feel that I have directly gone to the objectionable core of what you have said (“think”) and your organization. It is unfortunate that you deny the substance of it and don’t even want to discuss these issues.
My preference would be to have a dialogue with you, because as I have said, I too have a great deal of skepticism when it comes to medicine and drugs. But my experience with skeptics who belong to the organizations of skeptics, is that your opinions are intractable. So what next?
Of course you feel that way. You appear to be motivated by “winning” with every post you make. Including this last one.
I’ll meet you. No problem. At least that would be a real conversation.
You should have my email addy there. email me. Sometime in May. Preferably just you and me.
If you don’t have it just Google me. Unlike you, I am not anonymous.
Andy
And there are many skeptic bloggers that are anonymous.
And what a lovely invitation Andy! You are so sweet.
But you haven’t answered any of my questions and you also like to confound your roll in all this. On the one hand you say you are a founder of a skeptic organization, obviously a leader yet you distance yourself from the whole movement as if it doesn’t exist and you are alone in your fetish.
I don’t get it.
But what about answering some questions that I have posed?
What?
Goodbye.
Coward- can’t even stand up for the organization that you started. Coward.
It seems you are just looking for someone to bully- sorry I didn’t qualify.
Andy- E&M has a legitimate point in questioning your relationship with your organization and the work you do that is against alternative health methods.
For example, I think it was very short sighted and even irresponsible of you to promote the ingestion of any substance that is natural or pharmaceutical to the point of over dose- especially when it comes to children.
One of the leading causes of liver failure in children is the ingestion of acetominophen. This is both in an appropriate way and overdose way. This would be an important consumer issue where serious death and morbidity results that your group could be looking at.
Instead, you encourage children to overdose! This might have actually been your bright idea which I would hope in hind sight, you would see for what it was- a serious error in judgment. But I’m not sure if you are actually willing to discuss any of these kinds of issues, except over a beer with your cronies who only agree with you.
I didn’t start any organisation. I belong to a loose organisation of like minded people. More like a community than an organisation. I was one of the founders, and helped organise, 10:23, which is where you are confusing people. I have nothing to defend. But there is plenty I could explain.
Anyone reading this who would like a reasoned discussion that has two sides to it knows how they can contact me. I’d love to talk to them because I am genuinely baffled about how these beliefs ( the big pharma ones, in particular relating to the anti homeopathy activism) come about and would love to know more about it.
As for you Elephant or Mouse, I just think you don’t have the chops. You are a disappointing adversary.
Andy
@Andy- Ah, OK you give up. I see and then blame me for that.
But what about answering the question of why you have waded into the waters of medicine and yet focus on homeopathy when 1000′s die of iatrogenic and pharmaceutically related deaths each year.
Andy- not a leader but helped organize and founder of a skeptic organization? That sounds like a leader to me- but maybe you are just mincing words to deflect responsibility for the actions of the organization and other skeptics. Its like being an “organizer” of a political party but then saying you aren’t really part of the organization or don’t believe in the political principals because all members are just individuals.
@patternmaker. Excellent. A chance to talk. He/she would have a legitimate point if he/she was responding to the answers I am giving. There is no value in my responding if all that happens is the words are turned into some kind of cheap attack. It’s a bit like being in the stocks. Anyway, we’ll see how this goes.
It would appear you are referring to paracetomol, as I know it.
yes, we considered the negative aspects of the “overdose” campaign carefully. We wanted not to encourage or trivialise the concept of it, especially considering the possibility that even seeing the word appear in the paper could make someone recall a less happy time. But we took two steps that we felt mitigated this problem sufficiently. I’m pretty confident you won’t think we did enough but I hope you will see that we thought about it and took some mitigating actions. First of all we always referred to it as a stunt. All the press recognised it as such. In other words something not to be taken too seriously. Secondly, the word itself was always used within quotation marks. This was carried forward by the press in most part and was successful.
We took a number of other measures for event safety that were also successful. The media raised your point a couple of times but not much. Nobody saw that as a serious risk with the mitigation in place. Or without, for that matter.
The 10:23 campaign was designed specifically to campaign against homeopathy. If we had decide to campaign for the issue you mention I have no doubt it would have been a good campaign. But that’s not what we came together for. You may have heard Ben Goldacre taking the pharmeceutical industry to task on their publishing of research data. This is an idea I am interested in which is “against” big pharma. I may do something later in the year.
I’m interested in consumer rights as I interpret them.
Andy- your explanation tells me your thinking is seriously wrong! You “carefully” considered the possibility of problems, “negative aspects” related to an overdosing “stunt” and still went ahead with it?!?
If even one child was impacted by observing what you did the consequences are serious and problematic. Yes, I believe in the value of even one life over the value getting a stunt done to get a point across.
Some serious ethical issues here with you and your organization. Although, I cringed when E&M called your interest in homeopathy a “fetish”, I know consider that to be perhaps an accurate description.
@patternmaker I know. It sounds confusing but there aren’t any leaders in skepticism. There are people who are more vocal, or more effective or who have more or less resources available. There are even people who think they ought to be in charge. But nobody is telling anyone what to do. There is no governing or organising body for skepticism in the UK. Skeptics just tend to rally around causes depending on what floats their boat or winds them up the most. No different to anyone else really. You could say skeptics have a similar view point on supernatural and pseudoscientific topics. But it’s just birds of a feather.
Just to be clear, I was project leader for the first 10:23 campaign and someone else did that in 2011. But I wasn’t in charge. Nobody was. A number of skeptical groups chose not to join in.
But 10:23 is yesterday’s news. There have been many more achievements since then. Even you can have little argument with the campaign to equalise the playing field on freedom of speech and stopping the biggest wallet from stifling press freedom through unfair injunctions and lawsuits. Perhaps we can at least agree on matters such as this?
@patternmaker
Well I went to some trouble writing my responses when I have a lot on my plate just now. And I’ve just read your post above.
I’ll tell you why that means I’m out of here. Re-read your last snetence and you’ll agree it’s a “sign off”. Why are you doing that. I’m just talking here, like I was asked to. So why the finality?
Honestly. I don’t get this. It’s like knitting fog using barbed wire under a blindfold. Everything is equally serious. Everything might inflame a public outcry.
Your point about “even if one child…”. I wonder how you feel about that one the other way around.
You’ve heard of the Sams case right? So here is your sentence re-worded. And remember no-one came to any harm as a result of our campaign.
Even if one child was killed as a result of an irrational belief in homeopathy it’s worth banning on those grounds alone. Yes, I believe that the life of a child is precious and that of course homeopathy which is demonstrably flawed should not be given the oxygen of publicity in case it risks a life just by being in the media.
Agree?
I’m off. Please, I’ve tried. Give me some credit for that and try not to talk about me behind my back. Or in the elephant or mouses case, shoot me in it.
Andy- even more disconcerting information about how you and your organization function- “Skeptics just tend to rally around causes depending on what floats their boat or winds them up the most.” It relates to my other comment about the impact of doing a public overdosing stunt- you do not seem to think clearly about the consequences of your actions but rather, as you have stated- act on whims.
There are some very serious individuals who have dedicated their lives to homeopathy, acupuncture or alternative health-, they have families, live decent lives, contribute to the community in a kind and caring fashion, and you and your friends are bent on destroying them and their families.
There are millions of consumers who swear by homeopathy helping them with serious health problems- you would like to take that away from them as well.
And then, as E&M states there are thousands of people dying of iatrogenesis but you would rather follow what ‘floats your boat’.
Its getting even stranger.
Andy- Sorry for that statement. I just got riled up by your disregard of life and what seemed like a horrible ethical decision by you and your group.
Your logic (and tit for tat) does not add up-
You don’t really know the impact of overdosing in front of children do you? But you obviously thought it was problematic. I would say seriously irresponsible- but even if you felt it was just problematic it should not have been done.
And to justify that stunt and the consequences by saying someone died from not getting conventional treatment is just plain bizarre.
Regulating homeopaths is one way of preventing the issue you have. Not banning it. Are you suggesting we ban surgery because people die from it? And keep in mind, that there are many surgical procedures that have no evidence based studies to back them up. Many doctors misdiagnose something serious as benign which leads to serious consequences and death. Should we ban doctors?
Depicting all homeopaths as anti- conventional medicine is based on your own conclusions and not reality. The homeopath that I and my family go to, always suggests that I get tests, and stay monitored and treated by a medical doctor. Many homeopaths are medical doctors. Again, regulation of homeopaths is the solution.
I don’t have an organisation. There are thousands of people dying of all sorts of things.
Your perspective is flawed by a determination to find me wrong.
Like I said before about heffalump and scouse, a disappointing adversary. Yep. you too.
Now i really must go and fight some battles that have been handed to me by my uber master who controls all my spare time activities and makes me do stupid things that people disagree with.
And this time I almost certainly mean it.
I liked this interaction- thank you- both of you-
Andy you said it all, revealed it all, as far as I’m concerned: “Your perspective is flawed by a determination to find me wrong.”
You have made that conclusion about homeopathy and homeopaths already have you not? And from what I have seen, it is completely unchangeable- the major flaw in your and other skeptics’ perspectives.
So we are at the same place, but hope that something got through-
And the last word goes to…..
Bad show Andy- YOU crap out, are inconsistent in your arguments and then claim victory.
Yes, E&M- you pointed out many inconsistencies which I see as part of the problem with the skeptics. The skeptic conclusions are shallow but intractable- sigh. And they want homeopathic supporters to start the discussion from their suppositions rather than discuss the reality of 200 years of successful and safe homeopathic practice. This success includes the modern Swiss study which affirms homeopathy’s effectiveness and safety.
Perhaps its time for them to stop being so intractable?
Andy- I forgot this and its a good an answer to your claims of danger-
http://elephantsandmice.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/bizarre-statistical-anomalies/
Given some comments in this thread, it’s worth re-iterating that Edzard Ernst will brazenly state falsehoods when cornered, and has been caught a number of times doing so. E.g. pertinently: Ernst’s claim in this thread and elsewhere that he supposedly ‘never’ really claimed that he’s a homeopath? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/?tool=pubmed (this study has also been cited as an example of Ernst’s poor quality work)
Quote “Conflict of interest: The author is a trained homeopath”.
It couldn’t get clearer than that. Plus many interviews in English and in German where Ernst either directly stated or led the journalist to believe and suggest to readers that he ‘was’ a homeopath properly trained from within the German medical system.
Is Ernst’s ongoing series of lies about homeopathy and his own status some sort of ueber-chutzpa, or is this bordering on pathology?
Thank you Alwaysquestion!! This is an amazing bit of sleuthing. Yes,it is clear now that he has stated that he is a trained homeopath and lied about it, even by his own words now. So everyone take a look at this and stop lying with him. And it is a good question that you ask about him- seems the fertile ground that most skeptic leaders operate from.
If it is alright I’m going to use this link in the main entry on this fraud.
My pleasure. Please see comment there crediting Claus Fritzsche’s H.Blog with showing up this key point & more about Ernst’s claims and credentials (http://www.cam-media-watch.de/?p=5604 – look for section 3.3, reference 12).
e ernst said:
March 24, 2012 at 1:05 pm
“i said that i worked in a homeopathic hospital,not that i qualified as a homeopath ;and that’s the truth”
Claus Fritzsche says:
In 2002 Edzard Ernst confirmed (Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002 December; 54(6): 577–582. ):
“Conflict of interest: The author is a TRAINED homeopath; he has no financial interests in this area.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874503/?tool=pubmed
Cambridge Dictionaries Online: “training”
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/training?q=training
“the process of learning the skills you need to do a particular job or activity”
For me Edzards comment sounds like hair splitting to conceal sth.
By the way … regarding Edzards SNAKE OIL SALESMAN fairy tale. In 2005 Richard Horton chief editor of THE LANCET wrote in a letter to THE TIMES:
“Sir, Your report (August 24) that the Prince of Wales has commissioned a study that is wholly biased in favour of alternative medicine raises troubling questions. But not, as you and Professor Edzard Ernst seem to suggest, about a plot to introduce unproven treatments into the NHS.
Professor Ernst seems to have broken every professional code of scientific behaviour by disclosing correspondence referring to a document that is in the process of being reviewed and revised prior to publication. This breach of confidence is to be deplored.
Peer review of draft findings by experts is a vital part of the scientific process. But it can only function effectively if draft reports are allowed to be circulated, commented upon and corrected within an environment of trust and confidence before their public release.
If that system breaks down, as it has done in this case, freedom of thought and unreserved critical scrutiny of that thought will be eroded for fear of public reaction to controversial opinions.
There should indeed be a robust debate about the Prince of Waless report when it is finally published …“
Here is a copy of this letter:
http://www.pressmon.com/cgi-bin/press_view.cgi?id=766325
Keep up your good work, Claus. Thank you for your efforts.