MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

The anti-vaccination attitudes of alternative practitioners such as chiropractors, homeopaths and naturopaths are well documented and have been commented upon repeatedly here. But most of these clinicians are non-doctors; they have not been anywhere near a medical school, and one might therefore almost excuse them for their ignorance and uneducated stance towards immunisations. As many real physicians have recently taken to practicing alternative therapies under the banner of ‘integrated medicine’, one may well ask: what do these doctors think about vaccinations?

This study tried to answer the question by evaluating the attitudes and practices regarding vaccination of members of the American Board of Integrative and Holistic Medicine (ABIHM). Prospective participants were 1419 diplomats of the ABIHM. The survey assessed members’ (1) use of and confidence in the vaccination recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and of medical-specialty associations, (2) confidence in the manufacturing safety of vaccines and in manufacturer’s surveillance of adverse events, and (3) attitudes toward vaccination mandates. The questionnaire included 33 items, with 5 open-ended questions that provided a space for comments.

The survey was completed by 290 of 1419 diplomats (20%). Its findings showed a diversity of opinions in many vaccination issues. Integrative medicine physicians were less likely to administer vaccinations than physicians in traditional allopathic medicine. Among the 44% who provide vaccinations, 35% used alternative schedules regularly. Integrative medicine physicians showed a greater support of vaccination choice, were less concerned about maintaining herd immunity, and were less supportive of school, day care, and employment mandates. Toxic chemical and viral contaminants were of greater concern to a higher percentage of integrative medicine physicians. Integrative medicine physicians were also more likely to accept a connection between vaccinations and both autism and other chronic diseases. Overall, there was dissatisfaction with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System as well as the vaccination recommendations of the CDC and their primary specialty.

The authors concluded that significant variations in the vaccination attitudes and practices of integrative medicine physicians. This survey provides benchmark data for future surveys of this growing specialty and other practitioners. It is important for public health leaders and the vaccination industry to be aware that integrative medicine physicians have vaccination attitudes and practices that differ from the guidelines of the CDC and the Advisory Council on Immunization Practices.

Now we know!

Physicians practicing integrative medicine (the 80% who did not respond to the survey were most likely even worse) not only use and promote much quackery, they also tend to endanger public health by their bizarre, irrational and irresponsible attitudes towards vaccination.

From bad to worse!

56 Responses to Integrative medicine physicians tend to harbour anti-vaccination views

  • I am sorry Edzard but your posts are getting more emotional and less scientific:
    ‘tend to harbour’ – is this a scientific theorem?

    ‘the 80% who did not respond to the survey were most likely even worse’:
    This statement leaves me speechless, it is speculative conjecture at its worst. You made fun of Dana regarding his testimony in court but Edzard if you made the statement that I have cited in court there would be howls of laughter.

    Do you get it now: the finger you point at others has three fingers pointing back at you.

    • yes it was meant to be speculative;
      I see nothing emotional in the post.
      this is a blog, not a scientific paper [I have published plenty of those, but nor as blog posts], and its also not a statement for the courts. try to make more sense next time, please.

  • I am still struggling with the question if integrative medicine is an attempt to integrate complementary medicine with conventional healthcare or if its main aim is to replace conventional healthcare eg.as an fully fledged alternative healthcare option.
    This post sheds a bit of light on this question but I have to say that some comments made on your previous post made it very clear that we are dealing with alternative medicine being promoted under the umbrella term of integrative medicine.

  • I do deplore this term “traditional allopathic medicine”. Presumably they mean evidence based medicine, which is not based on tradition but on science. “Allopathic” is a made-up term coined by homeopaths, and means nothing other then to separate their brand of quackery from medicine that works. But far worse, is when such terms are used by people who should know better, such as these authors.

    • very true!

      • No, what ‘allopathic’ means is treating illnesses like they are separate ‘things’: medicine for the ‘cough’, medicine for the ‘constipation’, medicine for the hbp, and medicine for the insomnia. Drug list: A4 page.

        Holistic medicine, eg. homeopathy: one remedy for the cough, constipation, hbp and insomnia.

        One again: Edzard has not got a clue.

        • what an idiotic comment!
          you are surpassing yourself, Greg.
          here is a section from my book 9https://www.amazon.co.uk/Homeopathy-Undiluted-Including-Comprehensive-Z/dp/3319435906):
          Allopathy is a term coined by Hahnemann for conventional medicine in order to differentiate the two. Allopathic treatments bear no relation to the nature of the symptoms they aim to cure. Originally allopathy was meant as a derogatory term, but it nevertheless became commonly used and has today almost entirely lost its negative connotation. In Germany, for instance, most pharmacies display large signs ‘ALLOPATY HOMEOPATHY’ to signify that they sell both conventional medicines and homeopathic remedies.

          • Allopathic homeopathy is the same as ‘practical’ homeopathy: treating specific ‘conditions’ like those mentioned above. Arnica for bruising, Wyethia for allergy, Coffea for insomnia…

            Best way of using homeopathy to treat allopathically is to combine remedies in low potencies which is what many companies do (Weleda, Reckeweg, Heel etc). Easy and safe OTC pharmacy for general use.

            Did you say, ‘what an idiotic comment’? Coming from a person like you, this is hardly surprising. I wonder what it must be like when you really ‘get going’. You insult half the world with your blogs that you admit are not ‘scientific papers’.

            Finally we have the truth stated by Edzard.

          • “Allopathic homeopathy is the same as ‘practical’ homeopathy”
            neither of these terms are recognised terms according to the INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF HOMEOPATHY (https://www.amazon.co.uk/International-Dictionary-Homeopathy-Jeremy-Swayne/dp/0443060096/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488548296&sr=1-1&keywords=INTERNATIONAL+DICTIONARY+OF+HOMEOPATHY)
            the correct term is ‘clinical homeopathy’
            this is again from my book:
            CLINICAL HOMEOPATHY
            While ‘classical homeopathy’ relies on individualised prescribing according to the ‘like cures like’ principle and selects the optimal remedy for each patient based on the findings from provings, clinical homeopathy resembles more the way drugs are prescribed in conventional medicine; it selects the appropriate remedy according to the condition of the patient, while largely disregarding the ‘like cure like’ principle.
            However, clinical and classical homeopathy are not mutually exclusive; in fact, there is considerable overlap between the two approaches, and they are often used in parallel by the same clinician. In other words, if the symptoms of a patient reveal a very clear indication for a certain homeopathic remedy, clinical homeopathy is used even by classical homeopaths. For instance, Arnica is considered a clear indication for cuts and bruised; so is Coffea for insomnia, Drosera for cough, Opium for constipation etc., and these remedies would be employed regularly by classical homeopaths.
            Clinical homeopathy is also used by many non-homeopaths as well as by consumers when they self-prescribe. It does not require an understanding any of the principles of homeopathy nor its fine details. Moreover, clinical homeopathy is also the predominant approach in veterinary homeopathy.

        • I once visited a little town called Yass, in outback NSW Australia. There you can buy a T-shirt with the print “New York, Tokyo, London, Yass, Rome”. Funny, great, but this is what these people are trying to do. Split up healthcare into more than one option and provide those options, such as Yass, as an equal to the unsuspecting public. It is called name recognition.

        • Wow, greg! You are very ignorant of how physicians are trained to evaluate and treat patients. We do not just diagnose “cough” and treat it, but carefully go through a differential diagnosis which involves the “whole” patient and their environment. Alternatives preach as if they invented nutrition and health, but you have just stolen from real medicine and claim to offer some “natural” unheard of means of magic. Give us a break! Physicians are trained to be physicians who are forced to practice with unrealistic time constraints in the office. Alternatives are trained to be con artists with your sales gimmicks of catch words/phrases as toxins, cleanses, natural potions, nutrients, magical touch, meridians, etc.

        • QUOTE
          Allopathic medicine or allopathy is an expression commonly used by homeopaths and proponents of other forms of alternative medicine to refer to mainstream medicine. Specifically it refers to the use of pharmacologically active agents or physical interventions to treat or suppress symptoms or pathophysiologic processes of diseases or conditions.[39] The expression was coined in 1810 by the creator of homeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843).[40] In such circles, the expression “allopathic medicine” is still used to refer to “the broad category of medical practice that is sometimes called Western medicine, biomedicine, evidence-based medicine, or modern medicine” (see the article on scientific medicine).[41]

          Use of the term remains common among homeopaths and has spread to other alternative medicine practices. The meaning implied by the label has never been accepted by conventional medicine and is considered pejorative.[42] More recently, some sources have used the term “allopathic”, particularly American sources wishing to distinguish between Doctors of Medicine (MD) and Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) in the United States.[40][43] William Jarvis, an expert on alternative medicine and public health,[44] states that “although many modern therapies can be construed to conform to an allopathic rationale (e.g., using a laxative to relieve constipation), standard medicine has never paid allegiance to an allopathic principle” and that the label “allopath” was from the start “considered highly derisive by regular medicine”.[45]

          Many conventional medical treatments clearly do not fit the nominal definition of allopathy, as they seek to prevent illness, or remove the cause of an illness by acting on the etiology of disease.[46][47]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine#Allopathic_medicine

    • It is a simple attempt to create, in the public’s mind, different ‘types’ of medicine. It works well for them.

    • Sorry for the late addition…

      Allopathy was a term coined by Hahnemann to describe anything that wasn’t homeopathy. At this point it also included all the things we still consider alt-med today as well as what was considered “modern” medicine 200 years ago.

      Since then it has been adopted by the wider group of alternatives to medicine to gather medicines and treatments that have been proven to work into a single label that is often used in a derogatory manner.

      For this reason, when I see this term, I tend to point out “you mean actual medicine.”

      • “Allopathy” is no longer a term used exclusively by non-medical folks. It, in fact, is an appropriate term to describe the modern practice of medicine.

        Medical Definition of allopathy(Merriam Wbster)
        plural allopathies
        1
        : a system of medical practice that aims to combat disease by use of remedies (as drugs or surgery) producing effects different from or incompatible with those produced by the disease being treated—compare homeopathy
        2
        : a system of medical practice making use of all measures that have proved of value in treatment of disease

  • Prof., are you still dragging mass murderer Edzard Ernst’s Big Book of Lies everywhere you go? You’re starting to sound like Donald Trump, spouting the same thing over and over again to everyone you meet.
    When you sit down at the table at a restaurant, do you take your book out and frantically read passages of it to the waiter, too,
    in his heat
    the policeman
    on his beat,
    and your prison cellmate
    Boo?
    Could you send me another case of them? I’m running out of the last case you sent me, I’m on the last copy and I prefer using your book to toilet paper . .
    Thank you for not frantically quoting the part where you gushingly refute the homeopathicity of the common vaccine, as it is no mere coincidence that Jenner’s was presented in 1796, the same year Hahnemann first used the word ‘homeopathy’, and because this is a challenge to common ignorance, Hahnemann’s eureka and the quantum chemistry of immunology would be totally lost on your claque.
    Clap please.

    • If you disagree with someone’s stance you should address the arguments rather than simply name calling. If you are keen to promote homeopathy you are not doing the discipline any favours with this approach.

      Allopathy was defined by Hahnemann in the Organon and originally referred to the practices of heroic medicine which attempted to counter symptoms by theatrical means such as bleeding, purging and so on. Hahnemann, to his credit, was an early campaigner aganst the practice of bleeding. But medicine has moved on and the simplistic ‘allopathy’ label no longer applies. Present day physicians practice rational or science-based medicine, there is no such thing as ‘allopathy’ other than in the imaginations of non-science-based practitioners attempting to create the illusion homeopathy has a similar standing to real medicine.

      It is homeopathy which has remained stuck in the past based as it is on magical thinking, the doctrine of signatures and arbitrary, immutable ‘laws’.

      Niall

      • “If you are keen to promote homeopathy you are not doing the discipline any favours with this approach.”
        I think he is paid by BIG PHARMA!!!

      • Nial,
        You don’t know you’re talking about. You’ve fallen into a pit of lies. You are simply spouting back what you’ve heard in an echo chamber. You don’t understand homeopathy because you don’t understand fourth-phase mechanics. You have no idea what the real chemistry behind homeopathy is. You don’t even know the meaning of the word and how it applies to immunology. If not “homeopathic,” how else would you describe the action of cowpox serum on smallpox?
        Talk about stupidity, it makes me laugh to think how many times you’ve been stuck in the arm with homeopathy after badmouthing it.
        Now for a little science lesson: The reason you can’t find a single molecule in a supramolecular (homeopathic) solution is because it’s gone through a phase change in a process called molecular dissociation in which the intended solute becomes completely ionized and indefinitely perpetuated in a phenomenon conventionally called “infinite dilution.” Physical assays demonstrate what I’m asserting, but I seriously doubt your confirmation bias will allow you to accept them.
        The problem with homeopathy is that it took about 100 years for ionic theory to explain it and by that time, the bigotry of ignorance had set in for permanent residence.
        I’ve laid this out on numerous articles in my blog, the John Benneth Journal, but of course this gets no reprieve from the likes of Ernst and his claque, who can only respond with name-calling. So I find the height of ignorance and hypocrisy in your complaint to me about name-calling that in itself is nothing more than that.

  • I don’t know much about the competition between various health professions, but am an educated person. I came across this site recently and have found it to be informative. Some of the comments by the doctors don’t match my own experiences, though.

    I started seeing a chiropractor for a blown disc in my back a few months ago. My doctor did scans, sent me to a pain doctor for shots which didn’t work, and then to physical therapy which didn’t help much. Then I had to go to a surgeon who told me I might need surgery even though I didn’t want it. The surgeon suggested I see a chiropractor. Wow!

    I was able to stand straight within the first week and I got discharged this week because I’m much better. I’m now doing a host of exercises that the chiro and the therapist taught me. I know, I know, what does this have to do with vaccinations?

    The first visit to the chiropractor included a short health class. It was only a half-hour class but it focused on the need for vaccinations and public health. I asked the doctor why vaccinations were discussed and he said they were probably the most significant public health advance of the 20th century. He also said he was not qualified to give the shots but that he would contact our medical doctors if we thought we weren’t up to date with them for us or our kids.

    • interesting but: the plural of anecdote is anecdotes and not evidence.
      the evidence shows that many chiros are anti-vax e. g. http://edzardernst.com/2014/07/why-so-many-chiropractors-advise-against-immunisation/

      • Edzard,

        On the post you link to, the first link on the post goes to a PubMed page displaying 0 results. I’m assuming that’s where the evidence is (was) – as the second link in that post mentions a couple of surveys (where the respondents aren’t as ‘anti-vax’ as the profession is made out to be) and the third link is basically an op-ed (anecdote).

        Thought you should know the first link needs updated.

      • Anecdotal evidence as opposed to what? Peer reviewed published evidence? Men have been hung, lost children found and elections lost on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Since when has forensics been limited to peer-reviewed evidence? In fact, can it not be said that all great discoveries began with “anecdotal evidence?” The dismissal of evidence as anecdotal is a skeptic copout.

        • In medicine, anecdotes are not evidence

          • And, for many years, anecdotal evidence has taken second place to scientific evidence in courts of law. Eyewitness testimony is demonstrably unreliable. But, of course, a Dunning-Kruger case like Benneth proudly tells us that “men have been hung… on nothing more than anecdotal evidence”, without grasping the point that many men have been hung on that basis for crimes they didn’t commit.

        • “Anecdotal evidence as opposed to what?”

          As opposed to double-blind placebo controlled trials (DBPCT), meta-analyses, systematic reviews and so on.

          Anectodal evidence has its place when it comes to highlighting problems or airing an initial hypothesis but it it inadequate as firm proof of anything, particularly something as unlikely as homeopathy. There is no way from anecdotes alone of telling whether any other factors may have played a part in an alledged ‘cure’, how many instances of, say, homeopathic treatment were not associated with ‘cure’ or were associated with undesirable outcomes or even whether the recollections of the person telling the story are accurate. One of the main reasons for the prominence of the DBPCT is that it compensates for the human failings we are all prone to – lapses of memory, cognitive bias and the will to believe.

          There’s a good starting point on the subject of the hierarchy of evidence in wikipedia here – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence

          Niall

        • I find it absurd that in your ‘profession’ you still haven’t learnt the important difference between the terms “hung” and “hanged”.

          However, very little in life is more absurd, and more bizarre, than your behaviour exhibited herein:
          “Warning: this video is demeaning and obnoxious. It’s a set of short clips from the original which was briefly online and then gone; ‘Randi, Queen of Denial’, starring and written by John Benneth ”
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXmYP9VAvlA

          See also:
          http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2010/10/john-benneth-brian-josephson-and-an-absurd-talk-at-cambridge.html
          https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/john-benneth/
          http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/22-john-benneth.html

          • @Pete

            Any proof that people in John’s profession consistently confuse “hanged” and “hung,” or are you simply making stuff up again in a failed attempt to be comical? No need to comment….I already know the answer.

          • Apparently Pete was unable to prove his fallacious statement regarding his allegation of the consistent misuse by members of a certain profession of “hanged” and “hung.” No surprises from Pete.

      • What a dope. It’s so easy to trap a lunkhead with his own stupid arguments. No wonder Ernst got the sack at Exeter. By strict definition ‘anecdote’ means ‘things unpublished,’ from an- ‘not’ + ekdotos, from ekdidōnai ‘publish.’

        So, by that criterion, homeopathy stands head and shoulders above allopathy perforce its FDA recommended (by statute) accepted and approved, and of course PUBLISHED, Materia Medica.

        More specifically read this part of the FDA statute:

        ‘A guide to the use of homeopathic drugs (including potencies, dosing, and other parameters) may be found by referring to the following texts: A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D., (3 volumes; Health Science Press) [http://homeoint.org/clarke/index.htm ] and A Clinical Repertory to the Dictionary of Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D. (Health Science Press). These references must be reviewed in conjunction with other available literature on these drug substances.’ https://www.fda.gov/iceci/compliancemanuals/compliancepolicyguidancemanual/ucm074360.htm

        I should add here is a bit of dicta, since most of the whiners here are dumb limeys, that Clarke was a Piccadilly homeopath, and at this point I probably shouldn’t forgo the opportunity to jump up and down on the subject of a little bit more.

        In reading the (U.S.) FDA’s recommended (U.K.) Clarke I have counted 1,357 occurrences of the word ‘cured,’ as in, ‘I have cured’ or so-and-so ‘was cured’ of something like ‘soldier’s heart’ (PTSD) ‘railway spine’ (undiagnosed back pain)

        Here is FDA recommended Clarke’s clinical semiotics for Lycopodium, one substance out of 1,000 listed in his 1,600 page Materia Medica:

        ‘Abdomen, distended. Abortion. Albuminuria. Aneurism. Angina pectoris. Aphasia. Asthma. Axilla, offensive perspiration of. Biliousness. Borborygmi. Bright’s disease. Cancer. Cataract. Constipation. Consumption. Corns. Cough. Cramps. Cystitis. Debility. Diphtheria. Distension. Dropsies. Dysentery. Dysmenorrhœa. Dyspepsia. Ear, eczema behind. Eczema. Ephelis. Epistaxis. Epithelioma. Excoriation. Eye, inflammation of; polypus of canthus. Face, eruption on. Feet, perspiring. Fibroma. Flatulence. Gall-stone colic. Glands, swelling of. Goître. Gout. Gravel. Hæmaturia. Hæmorrhoids. Hair, falling out. Hands, chapped. Heartburn. Heart, diseases of. Hemiopia. Hernia. Hydropericardium. Hypochondriasis. Hysteria. Impotence. Influenza. Intermittents. Intertrigo. Irritation. Labour-pains, abnormal. Lip, cancer of. Liver, derangement of. Liver-spots. Locomotor ataxy. Lungs, affections of. Menstruation, disorders of. Metrorrhagia. Nævus. Nymphomania. Otorrhœa. Panaritium. Paralysis. Paralysis agitans. Peritonitis. Phlegmasia dolens. Physometra. Plica polonica. Pneumonia. Polypus, of eye; of ear; of nose. Proctalgia. Prostatitis. Pylorus, affections of. Quinsy. Renal colic. Rheumatism. Rhagades. Sciatica. Sleep, abnormal. Speech, disordered; stammering. Strains. Sunstroke. Taste, abnormal. Throat, sore. Tongue, coated; cramp in. Typhoid fever. Urine, abnormal. Varicosis. Warts. Water-brash. Whooping-cough. Worms. Yawning.’

        These are only the clinical indications. Clarke goes on to provide a semiotic register of the remedy divided into 27 physiological, mental and conditional domains: http://homeoint.org/clarke/l/lyc.htm

        Furthermore, Clarke’s materia Medica is only one of a few hundred that support it with similar observations.
        Allopathy has nothing comparable to this. By comparison, the evidence for allopathy is specious. While allopathy helplessly relies on the suspicious reports of its for-profit patent holders pushing nostrums for singular conditions, homeopathy provides a comprehensive report on the symptoms of human suffering.

        • Whoops! I left out a couple of words out of the last sentence. .
          ‘While allopathy helplessly relies on the suspicious reports of its for-profit patent holders pushing nostrums for singular conditions, homeopathy provides a comprehensive report on the symptoms of human suffering AND CURE’.

          • Nope John. Wrong again. Homeopathy does NOT provide a comprehensive report on symptoms of human suffering.

            First, homeopathic “provings” are hopelessly underpowered which means that the sympoms recorded could as well have been obtained by flipping a coin.

            Second, a homeopathic “proving” excludes all symptoms that are not easily accessible by lay persons, even such easy ones as blood pressure. In fact, homeopathy uses *only* symptoms that have been accessible by standards of Hahnemann, i.e. around 1840. Given the broadness of modern detection methods claiming that homeopathy provides a comprehensive report on symptoms is a lie.

            Remember, John. I *have* seen homeopathic provings and have calculated the stats behind them.

          • I think what is vastly underpowered here is your argument against homeopathy. As you’re just now becoming aware, there is an overwhelmingly large body of literature recommended by the FDA to which you have just now become introduced. I know you like everyone to think otherwise, but your grasp of the subject is weak.
            In a concordant repertory of indications by collected materia medica, I count a listing ofover 70,000 symptoms and clinical conditions and their remedies. If this isn’t a comprehensive index of human sufferings and their cures, tell me what is. Where can I go to access something better than that? What is it your allopathy has to offer me? Frankly, I don’t see a comparison. So tell me, where do I go if I got a problem? The Merck manual? The drugstore? A doctor? The patent office?
            LOL! You guys are really good at criticizing things you’ve made a few assumptions about, but when it comes to coming up with something better or just simply comparable, you’re empty-handed.
            Where is it? Let’s see some of this applied science of yours.
            Homeopathy is a powerful doctrine of medicine. Not only does the homeopathic materia medica provide listings of remedies for clinical conditions, it provides a semiological index that allows me to deduce a remedy for unnamed and unknown diseases . . something unheard of in allopathy.
            Haven’t you bellyachers got anything better to do with your time? Not only is the crap you peddle vastly underpowered, it falls flat on its face. With the growing number of medical deaths caused by negligence, misdiagnosis, medical error and outright poisoning, you’d be better off rectifying your own chop shop before complaining about something you literally know nothing about.
            You haven’t got a case against homeopathy. What you have is a grand terror of it.

          • Quote: “Homeopathy is a powerful doctrine of medicine.”

            This is where the problems begin. Doctrinal science is NEVER good.

            “Not only does the homeopathic materia medica provide listings of remedies for clinical conditions, it provides a semiological index that allows me to deduce a remedy for unnamed and unknown diseases . . something unheard of in allopathy.”

            OK, you called for it and now you will get it. Do you know how a study power is calculated ? How a required sample size is calculated ? What Benajmini Hochberg is ? What the FWER and the FDR are ? No ? I will give you an example:

            Homeopathic provings according to the European Committee of Homeopathy: Study size 10 to 20 per arm. Statistics: none. However, they recommend to take symptoms into account which have been observed in at least 2 patients. This is a statistical statement that can be tested. The result is: for one (!!) symptom one needs at least 6 out of 10 (and not 2) and a study size of 70 per arm. With douzens of sysmptoms (which i typically the readout of a homeopathic proving) the required study size reaches thousands.

            Second, despite having been busy collecting symptoms like “having the urge to pee against a wall” or “aversion against the constant babbling of the mother in law” Homeopaths are incapable of diagnosing such a simple thing like hypertension. Strictly speaking they can’t even diagnose a fever since none of the 70.000 symptoms describes what a fever (i.e. body temperature above 37C) or heightened blood pressure (>140/100) is.

            I.o.W. John, your collection of human suffering is worth *nothing*. It is a collection of self descriptions based on psychopathology rather than reality. It is fiction and not even science fiction at that.

            Now remember, John. I have evaluated homeopathic provings. You have not. You are really messing around with the wrong person.

        • From that FDA link:

          A product’s compliance with requirements of the HPUS, USP, or NF does not establish that it has been shown by appropriate means to be safe, effective, and not misbranded for its intended use.

          So the wonderful FDA recommendations you blather on about at such length effectively deny the products actually make any medical sense!

          • Well, pardon me, Frank, but where in the FDA statute does it say, as you would have it, that homeopathy doesn’t make any medical sense? What the FDA says about a (one) product’s compliance with statutory requirements . . not meaning it to be safe, etc., . . applies to any product under its purview, whether homeopathic or not.
            Your toothbrush for example. We know toothbrushes as a class are safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, but whether any one toothbrush will be safe or effective is dependent on how it is used.
            So you lose again, don’t you, Frank? If the FDA statute said what you want it to say, you would’ve been the first to bring it up, right? But so far, in every argument with skeptics about homeopathy, I am always the first one to bring up the FDA statute because it testifies and demonstrates the true, inarguable effectiveness of homeopathy; and the response by skeptics has always been whining and complaining of the sort you’ve done here, your assumption being that homeopathic products are not legitimate. You can see from the FDA statute and its recommended reading, that they are not only legitimate but highly effective in curing conditions for which allopathy has no treatment for, much less cure.
            Note that no matter how much you may object, the FDA disclaimer is referring to a product, any one product, but not homeopathy in general; neither does it say, as you would have it, that homeopathic products are in general unsafe, ineffective and misbranded.
            So where does that leave you, Frank? You’ve had 200 years to disprove homeopathy, and as can be seen by the FDA statute, you’ve failed miserably to do it.

        • Well, John, let’s dissect things a bit. J.H. Clarke died 1931.

          First his clinical knowledge is hopelessly outdated. Take for instance cancer of the lip. Today this does not exist anymore. Squamous cell cancer, Melanoma, Basalioma, etc.

          Second, the symptoms described do not contain one single symptom that had not been accessible around 1840. In fact it even neglects a large proportion of symptoms already accessible by the time Clarke died. In other words, homeopathy did not develop since Hahnemann – except useless, underpowered provings.

          Third, in order to establish that many symptoms robustly, one need a trial of tens of thousands of probands.

          Fourth, none of the Materia Medica is peer reviewed, much less tested for efficacy, which means they are essentially fiction.

          Fifth, homeopathic companies DO patent the things they sell.

          • @TMOHR

            What?????? What possibly could you mean by stating, ” Take for instance cancer of the lip. Today this does not exist anymore. Squamous cell cancer, Melanoma, Basalioma, etc.”?

            Since when did lip cancers cease to exist? Do you know something that the majority of the world’s health professionals don’t? Please clarify your statement which, on its face, was preposterously naive/ignorant, if not totally nonsensical.

          • Silence from TMohr as he Googles “lip cancer.” Surprise! Lip cancers still do exist. It’s doubtful we will see much more from Tom on this subject.

    • It appears you have chosen a very good doctor who has helped you greatly. I find it interesting that your surgeon recommended that you see a chiropractic doctor. I, too, see many patients who have been referred by their surgeons, PM&R’s and PCP’s. Do you live in the USA? If so, what state? If not, in what country do you live?

      Thanks for your comments, Real.

      • Logos-Bios, you too are messing with the wrong one. Lip cancer is a summary term like lung cancer or skin cancer. It is not a diagnosis like it was in the 30ties and like it is used by Clarke. Today we know that “lip cancer” is a group of cancers ranging from melanoma to squamous cell carcinoma which are located at the lip. This means that prognosis and treatment options differ a lot.

        Let me explain something to you: cancer research is my domain as you easily can confirm by looking me up in pubmed. Do you have any scientific publications in the field ? No ? Or any at all ? No ? So I guess this is settled.

  • Up Old Hahnemann River

    What a chore for Thomas Mohr
    when he paddles without an oar
    Up Old Hahnemann River
    Canoe a straddle
    With needed paddle
    Comes Edzard Ernst
    All a daddle
    Hope he’s not
    an Indian giver
    He says
    “If you’re the wrong guy
    “I’ll stick this paddle.
    “In your eye”
    Rebounds Thomas in a pique
    “You said this was a Creek
    “Now it certainly galls
    “I sit here and shiver
    “going over the falls
    “Up old Hahnemann River”
    Says Edzard in a roar
    “When you piss
    “Remember this
    “Less is more,
    “Less is more!
    ”Up Old Hahnemann River!”

    • Oh, John, how nice, thank you, I love Vogon poetry. BTW, congrats to your Yves Lasne price. It is given by the Academie Privee des sciences (a grant by to quote: “to a young researcher studying homoéopathic dilutions under the aspect of Biophysics”). As I have seen you are a corresponding member of this Academie (one of two) with no research at all. I also have seen that they publish highschool projects. How desperate they must be. Let me guess, the next winner is Saurav Arora ?

    • BTW, I published your pearl of Vogon poetry on facebook. Publicly Viewable. Together with the original post that lead to it, and your Yves Lasnes award. Doubtlessly it will enhance the standing of the Academie Privee des sciences greatly to have such a distinguished member on their rolls as a corresponding member.

  • I guess we are observing the basis of homeopathy in a nutshell.

    In case someone wonders, I have been enjoying some awesome skiing in the Rocky mountains.
    An occasional look at the proceedings here has been quite enlightening. Even a tad amusing at times, namely observing the cute bromance within our resident cabal of quack commenters – the L-B, Greg and John “The Homeopathic Hatter” Benneth stroking each other’s fragile ego’s with their condescending quacks.

    • @Geir

      Edzard’s claque (Geir, Frank, Pete, et al) have weighed in with a number of comments. I must admit that I have been most fond of Geir’s recent insult. Although I typically slough off and ignore the dullard’s often meritless prattle, I find it interesting that he would think of me while he’s vacationing in the Rockies; interesting, but a bit unsettling. He must still be sore about being unable to refute adequately Dr. Flum’s blistering criticisms of the previously mentioned( in former threads) and contrived diminution(by bariatric surgeons) of the fatality/morbidity risks of bariatric surgery. In any event, I always appreciate Geir’s “thoughts,” such as they are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please answer the following: *

Recent Comments

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


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories