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

Yesterday’s blog disclosed the fact that the German ‘Natur und Medizin’, an organisation of the ‘Carstens Stiftung’, had published slanderous lies about me. Consequently, I published an ‘open letter’ urging them to correct their mistake so that they would spare us the agony and cost of using legal action.

I never doubted for a minute that they would do this (I do not assume they are stupid, just a tiny bit dishonest) – and, as it turned out, I was correct. Here is a reminder of what they had originally published:

… er ist dafür bekannt, dass er kein gutes Haar an komplementären Therapieverfahren lässt. Notfalls greift er auch zu absichtlichen Falschdarstellungen[17], erfindet Daten[18] oder behauptet einfach, klinische Studien, die nicht die Negativ-Ergebnisse erbringen, die er erwartet, seien schlicht und ergreifend Betrug.[19]…

My rough translation:

… he [Edzard Ernst] is known for not finding anything positive in SCAM. If all else fails, he uses deliberate misrepresentation [17], invents data [18], or simply claims that clinical trials which did not generate the negative findings he expected are simply falsifications [19]…

The corrected new text passage is a little longer and now reads as follows (my rough translation):

… he [Edzard Ernst] is known for not finding anything positive in SCAM. Analyses of his publications by independent scientists draw the conclusion that he represents case-reports demonstrably wrongly [17] and that he arbitrarily alters or omits data [18]. He claims occasionally that high-quality studies of SCAM which do not generate the negative findings he expected appeared to be scientifically sound, but are nevertheless not believable [19]…

… er ist dafür bekannt, dass er kein gutes Haar an komplementären Therapieverfahren lässt. Analysen seiner Publikationen durch unabhängige Wissenschaftler gelangen zu der Schlussfolgerung, dass er Fallberichte nachweislich falsch darstelle[17] und Daten willkürlich verändere oder auslasse[18]. Er selbst behauptet mitunter über methodisch hochwertige Studien zur Komplementärmedizin, die nicht die Negativ-Ergebnisse erbringen, die er erwartet, sie sähen zwar nach wissenschaftlichen Maßstäben überzeugend aus, seien aber dennoch ‚unglaubwürdig‘.[19]… 

I would like to take this occasion to sincerely thank the ‘Natur und Medizin’ and the ‘Carstens Stiftung’ for this – much obliged guys, you made my day!

  • They have shown wisdom in not wasting money on expensive lawyers (even though my brother, who is a lawyer, might have enjoyed the windfall).
  • They have shown courage to hide behind papers like the one by Robert Hahn which have been discussed on this blog and elsewhere and found to be deluded.
  • They have shown strength by not meekly apologising to me about their attempt to slander me and my work.
  • They show leadership and innovative spirit by employing Jens Behnke, the author of the above lines, who does not seem to let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Last not least, my personal thanks to dear Jens (after your generosity, I am thinking about dedicating an entire blog post to you; your employer needs to know what a genius they have in you – watch this space) for yet again having demonstrated that the phenomenon known as ERNST’ S LAW is 100% correct.

39 Responses to My victory over Jens Behnke, ‘Natur und Medizin’ and the ‘Carstens Stiftung’

  • Dr. phil. Behnke is known to be quite a weird, somewhat creepy homeopathy apologist.
    Analysis of his appearance in a recent documentary [1] by an independent scientist [2] leads to the conclusion that he is demonstrably deluded, arbitrarily alters facts to fit his homeopathy lobbyist narrative and omits data that reliably demonstrate that homeopathy is nothing more than an expensive, theatrical placebo.
    ______________________
    References:
    [1] „Homöopathie – Die Macht der Kügelchen“
    https://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/player/Y3JpZDovL2Rhc2Vyc3RlLmRlL3JlcG9ydGFnZSBfIGRva3VtZW50YXRpb24gaW0gZXJzdGVuL2RkMjZmY2I1LTM5ODctNDcyZS04ZWMzLTU0ZWUxYjNhNzRmNQ/
    (From 23:00 onward).

    [2] Me, 2020 (unpublished)

  • Really?!? It is so easy for you to proclaim victory when Jens’ new critique nailed you even more than the original.

    You are like the General who wasn’t able to put Humpty Dumpty back together with all the King’s horses and all the King’s men by simply demanding more horses and more men.

    It ain’t gonna work for the General or for you. Sorry.

    • Hi Dana
      I love you too!!!
      thanks for your little slapstick comedy – always welcome.

    • Where can one actually learn not to understand texts? Is it a standard requirement for pseudomedical practitioners?

    • Ah, Dana. How we’ve missed you. Your inconsequential jabberings always give an intriguing view into the rather demented mindset of homeopathy freaks. Looks like you’ve managed to get as firm as grasp as ever of the wrong end of the stick.

  • Sorry for writing in German.

    Vielleicht etwas griffelspitzig, ‘negative Ergebnisse erwarten’ (bezogen hierauf “..die nicht die Negativ-Ergebnisse erbringen, die er erwartet..” mag vielleicht zutreffen, aber die Aussage würde eigentlich eher “telepathische” oder die “Fähigkeit in den Kopf zu sehen” erfordern und ist kaum oder schwierig machbar. Im Prinzip sind alle Formulierungen, die Aussagen über psychisches unzugängliches Verhalten treffen, allgemein eher kaum und schwierig zu machen.
    Dachte das wäre vielleicht eine Anmerkung wert, weiß nicht.
    Ich freue mich sehr mit und lese hier immer wieder sehr gerne mit. Super Sache!
    Fröhliche Kein-Wirkstoff-Keine-Wirkung–Grüße
    Paul

  • Jens Behnke has written a totally devistating review of Natalie Grams’ book…and all that Edzard could say about it is how he has inaccurately attacked. Jens then rewrote the critique about Edzard and made it worse for him, but Edzard claimed a “victory.” This is a such classic response by a skeptic! Thanx.

    And now, it is impossible for Edzard and his lawyers to do anything about it because he now thinks that the review is perfect. Perfect indeed!

    Further, Jens’ review totally knocked out Natalie Grams’ contentions…though no defense of Grams was provided. Perfect again!

    You’re batting 1,000%.

    Even the criticisms of my comments are placebo responses with nothing there, literally nothing. At least in homeopathy, there’s now evidence of nanoparticles of the original substance…and there’s a growing body of evidence from the memory in water (in a soon-to-be-published article). More on this later…

    You can claim victory again!

    • as you say, Dana: PERFECT!

    • Dana, oh Dana!
      Do you read German?
      Have you read Grams’ book?
      If the answer to either question is no, you cannot know whether the review was ‘devastating’ or rubbishing and unfair!
      HAVE YOU NOT JUST OUTED YOURSELF AS A COMPLETE IDIOT AND CHARLATAN?

      • I don’t have to read German to read Jens’ review AND then to read YOUR critique of his critique.

        Because YOU didn’t comment on the 99.9% of the lambasting that Jens did and because you seemingly have no adequate analysis of it, you’ve helped me understand that Grams is standing firmly on JELLO.

        Bill Cosby was previously the spokesperson for Jello…and well, that didn’t go very well for Bill, did it?

        The fact that you make ANY deal about my inability to read German as a statement about anything shows us all that we too are standing on Jello. No ground, just wobbling thinking and acting…and just pure sugar, that is, sweetness but empty calories, heavy cavities, and too much fatness between the ears.

        • exactly what I thought!
          ARE YOU AWARE THAT YOU COME ACROSS AS AN IMBECILE?
          [I don’t mind in the slightest that you cannot read German – even though it would have helped you to comprehend what gibberish Hahnemann’s original texts truly are – what I do mind, however, is that you are ready to judge Grams’ book without having ever read it; this discloses you as a fraud, doesn’t it?]

          • No..not at all. And the fact that you prefer to attack me rather than provide any real or substantative review of Jens’ critique of Grams book speaks VOLUMES.

            The fact that you can’t stop your broken record of personal attacks WITHOUT substance is the precise evidence of your inability to defend Gram. Thanx. You’ve created a record of arrogance ignorance…two perfect qualities of a really bad scientist.

          • you think that criticising someone for trashing a book that he has not read is a ‘personal attack’?
            grow up Dana!
            [sorry – is that also a personal attack?]

    • Even the criticisms of my comments are placebo responses with nothing there, literally nothing. At least in homeopathy, there’s now evidence of nanoparticles of the original substance…and there’s a growing body of evidence from the memory in water (in a soon-to-be-published article). More on this later…

      *yawns* Yeah, Dana, whatever. The Nobel prizes will be in the bag, won’t they?

      Presumably there will also be lots of top-end well-conducted studies forthcoming showing unarguably the overwhelming effectiveness of magic shaken water in treating all forms of illness?

      This, Dana, will be highly unlikely because homeopaths, for all their arm-waving and pomposity, have still been unable to demonstrate this. Watching them trying to contort reality to explain this is always amusing.

      Homeopathy will remain as it is now. An imaginary therapy beloved by fools and charlatans. It will continue to make absolutely no ingress into mainstream patient care and you and your ilk will continue to be laughed at by science and scientists.

      (Oh and Dana, if you could show me the nanoparticles of dolphin sonar, light of venus and radioactivity in those remedies, I’d be most impressed. And you still don’t know what the word “nanoparticle” means.)

      It’s lovely the way you continue to demonstrate your own foolishness to us.

      (Do you want me to post this in German since you are now, apparently, a master of that language as well?)

      • Hey Lenny,

        In reference to physics, which ONE is it that explains stuff…particles or waves? And based on YOUR linear, limited, reductionistic, and plain-ole stupid thinking, it “cannot” be both. Right?

        Thanx for showing your true colors (are you only black or white…because in your universe, rainbows don’t exist).

        Slam dunk.

        • in German, please, Dana!

        • In reference to physics, which ONE is it that explains stuff…particles or waves?

          Your understanding of physics appears to be about a century out of date.

        • In reference to physics, which ONE is it that explains stuff…particles or waves?

          Ooh, is Dana about to give us a lecture on quantum physics? I can’t wait!
          :popcorn:

          (Quantum physics: The branch of physics with which people who know nothing about quantum physics can explain anything.

        • Kindly explain to us, Dana, how what you believe about physics applies to homeopathy? You’re the one who was talking about detectable particles.

          I do like it when you use your beloved term “slam dunk”. It’s the sound we associate with you dropping something on your foot and trying to make out that it didn’t hurt.

          You are a stupid, stupid little man, Dana. Time and again you bring only sputtering and yammering to this blog and are made to slink off with your tail between your legs when your dreams of significance are shattered by the powers of cold, hard, logical science.

          In all the years you’ve been posting here you have provided NOTHING of any substance. Homeopathy remains an object of ridicule, as do you. All your handwaving, all your posturing, all your bloviating. Ask yourself? What has it achieved?

          Nothing. Nil. Nada. Apart from providing us with a few laughs and repeatedly demonstrating just how idiotic and self-delusional you need to be to convince yourself that shaken water has mystical powers.

          • Now, now!
            you might chase him off; and then we would have only Roger and RG to laugh about – and they are not half as amusing as Dana.

          • Laugh all you like, my motivation is to warn those ignorant of the pitfalls of SBM. And I use your platform to do it, so I’m laughing at you.

            I could care less about what you think Edzard.

            That said, my voice here will diminish more here in the future, it already has.

          • too generous really – to allow me to laugh when and about whom I want. THANKS

          • my motivation is to warn those ignorant of the pitfalls of SBM

            You want to warn about what you perceive to be wrong with SBM, so you use a blog devoted to SCAM to do it? Yeah, right, that really makes sense… /s

            I could care less about what you think Edzard

            Could you really? That’s slightly interesting, but only because I couldn’t care less about what you think 🙂

            my voice here will diminish more here in the future

            Despite the laughter and scorn it provokes, any impending diminution of your voice is welcome news; I look forward to it.

          • @EE

            Generous of you to allow me to ridicule you on your own platform… Yes, you’re a joke.

            Even though we disagree, the one voice I respect here on the side of SBM is Dr. JMK
            Keep posting Doc, your voice has validity.

          • I could care less about what you think Edzard.

            For those of us not in the USA I shall translate this into English:

            “I couldn’t care less about what you think, Edzard.”

          • @Steve Tonkin

            Steve said:
            “You want to warn about what you perceive to be wrong with SBM, so you use a blog devoted to SCAM to do it? Yeah, right, that really makes sense… ”

            No Steve, I use a blog devoted to BASHING sCAM, and a blog devoted to promoting SBM. So this makes perfect sense…. yes.

          • @RG, you wrote:

            I use a blog devoted to BASHING sCAM, and a blog devoted to promoting SBM.

            Presumably the first blog is this one (and it’s instructive that you perceive “examining and analysing” as shouty-caps “BASHING”). But which, as a matter of interest, is the other one that you characterise as ” devoted to promoting SBM”?

            I would agree with you that it would make perfect sense to use the second blog to warn about what you perceive to be wrong with SBM, but the first (this one)? Only in your dreams.

    • “Jens Behnke has written a totally devistating review of Natalie Grams’ book”

      Could you please refer to the parts with devastating arguments?

  • Does Dana Ullmann even know Natalie Grams? She has been more of a German phenomenon so far. Her book “Homeopathy reconsidered” was translated into English only last year. Has it even been published in the USA yet?

    It seems that Dana Ullmann took the Wikipedia article as an opportunity to write an ad hominem attack without substance.

    And as for the so-called “water memory” of homeopathic remedies: Dana not only rides a dead horse, but digs the carcass out of the grave first.

  • Mr. Ullman, do you really think nanoparticles make murus berlinensis reasonable as a medical remedy?

    If you don‘t know what murus b. is, please see here: https://www.zeit.de/2009/46/WOS-Mauermittel (regrettably in German only).

  • “You have obviously included some verry serious inaccuracy and errors in your work, right? Such as “…represents case-reports demonstrably wrongly [17] and that he arbitrarily alters or omits data [18].””
    No, I don’t think so.

  • The reality is that you, Dana Ullman or even Jens Behnke are constructing your own realities. I call this delusion.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories