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

We probably all think we know what is meant by ‘pseudo-science’. But, in fact, the more you think about it, the less certain you are likely to become. Many very smart people have tried shed some light on this question and, in the end, had to admit that it is far from clear.

In his book ‘Decision Making and Rationality in the Modern World‘, Keith Stanovich makes a fresh attempt to tackle the problem. Here is a list of criteria that he deems important:

• The use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific, but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner. For example, “energy therapies” for psychological problems are often premised on biofeedback, meridian lines, quantum energies, and a host of other concepts that may sound impressive, but lack evidence.

• A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence. Evidence for pseudoscience is typically anecdotal and consequently difficult to verify. For a class example, instructors may want to show students the Q-Ray bracelet website 1 and read the many quotes submitted by Q-Ray users. Although the quotes sound compelling, there is no scientific evidence to support any claims attached to them. In fact, the Q-Ray company lost a lawsuit in 2011 and was ordered to refund over $11 million dollars to people who purchased a Q-Ray bracelet.

• Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence (Truzzi, 1978Sagan, 1995). In pseudosciences, assertions are often highly implausible in light of existing knowledge yet are not backed by convincing evidence. For a class example, instructors may wish to describe how infomercials promoting Q-Ray bracelets state that the “bracelet rips [pain] right out of the body 2.” and are “designed to optimize your natural positive energy 1.”

• Unfalsifiable claims – Most pseudoscientific claims are incapable of being refuted in principle. For example, proponents of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) believe the human body has an invisible energy force called Qi (Zollman and Vickers, 1999). Qi is a crucial component of TCM, even though it cannot be measured or tested scientifically.

• An absence of connectivity to other research (Stanovich, 2010). Connectivity refers to the extent to which assertions build on extant knowledge. For example, homeopathic practitioners state that homeopathic treatments become stronger as they become more dilute, and that water has memory. Both of these claims run counter to established scientific knowledge (Singh and Ernst, 2008).

• Absence of adequate peer review. Peer review is far from perfect, but it is a key safeguard against error. Instructors may wish to encourage students to contrast the claims advanced by the authors of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed articles.

• Lack of self-correction. Pseudosciences frequently persist despite refutation. Often, proponents of pseudoscience will use the idea that since the treatment or idea has been used for thousands of years it must be correct (e.g., astrology), an error often called the ad antiquetem fallacy (or, argument from antiquity).

Yes, I know, nothing fundamentally new here. Nonetheless, I thought the list was thought-provoking, particularly as it harps back to themes which we have discussed regularly on this blog. Stanovich’s list is certainly not comprehensive. Feel free, if you think you can add new aspects to the features that characterise pseudoscience.

35 Responses to Characteristics of pseudoscience

  • really dont know why i bother repeating myself,but if you look you can see that water memory has been scientifically verified in 2016 by nobel scientist Monsignor,please check this out

    • “really dont know why i bother repeating myself”
      NEITHER DO I!
      [because it’s not true]

      • I would suggest use of the phrase “scientifically verified” is a good marker of nonsense (maybe it’s a special case of psychobabble)
        thanks for the book tip – i just ordered it.

    • I think by “Monsignor” you may mean Luc Montagnier: https://subtle.energy/nobel-laureate-says-water-has-a-memory/

      Am I right? Or perhaps there’s a Monsignor I’ve not read about, doing similar work; in which case I’d be interested to read about it.

      I’m sure we all agree that in matters of science (or anything, really) it’s quite important to get the details right! I was interested to note the following claim, on the website linked above:

      “He demonstrates how the informational signal of virus DNA can be captured in water and transformed into a digital signal that can be emailed to another computer on the other side of the world. The digital file is received by this distant computer and used to reconstitute the virus DNA in a glass of water”.

      I am not totally sure what this is meaning – even though English is my first language. I THINK – but am totally open to correction – that it means the glass of water on the other side of the world already has virus DNA in it, and that the digital signal “reconstitutes” this already-present virus DNA. If my interpretation is correct, a lot hange on the definition of the word “reconstitutes”. Can you help me with that, Sean?

      Also, what is meant by “virus DNA”? I understand that it is necessary to differentiate between DNA viruses and RNA viruses, but never having studied biology, my knowledge of this is extremely sketchy.

      If, on the other hand, the two sentences I pasted above, are saying that a glass of water with no virus DNA in it, had virus DNA put into it by a digital signal emailed from the other side of the world, then that is so big a discovery that virtually all science will have to stop, and start again from new beginnings. Unless, of course, the claim is not true.

      I have not (yet) watched the YouTube video on the website. Perhaps that will make everything clear……

      • David B,

        I’m afraid I haven’t watched the YouTube video either. I tend to reserve YouTube for watching musical performances, of which there are many that are worthwhile. Which reminds me that I would love to ask you some time about temperaments as they relate to piano tuning…

        From what I can establish, Montagnier was a microbiologist who won the Nobel prize in Medicine for identifying the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

        Much later, in 2009, at the age of 77, he published a research study entitled “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences” in which he concluded that viral and bacterial DNA which had been prepared in highly diluted and agitated aqueous solutions were able to emit specific radio waves, and another study which purported to show that viral RNA in the blood of AIDS patients treated with antiretroviral drugs could be detected electromagnetically. This work was published in a journal of which he was the editor without having undergone peer review, and so far nobody else has been able to replicate his findings.

        I suppose that if such an electromagnetic signal could be detected then the measurements could be digitised and transferred electronically, though it seems rather far-fetched to suggest that this signal could then somehow be transferred back to another container of water and that would reconstitute the oridinal DNA.

        On the other hand, if you have a DNA sample it is a standard process to amplify it using the polymerase chain reaction, then to sequence it (most molecular biology labs have a machine that will do this in an afternoon). The sequence can then be emailed to a number of commercial biotech companies who can synthesise it for you and send it back by courier. However, I don’t think that is quite what Montagnier was talking about.

        It seems to me that this is a manifestation of what can happen when successful academics stray beyond their specialist expertise into areas where they have no background or training, and yet, having reached the top of their profession, to widespread acclaim, fail to realise that in other fields they are still novices. Or possibly he has just lost the plot, as Tesla did in his later years.

        At least Einstein had the sense to decline the presidency of Israel when it was offered to him.

    • “Monsignor [noun]: The title of various senior Roman Catholic posts, such as a prelate or an officer of the papal court.”
      https://www.lexico.com/definition/monsignor

      Perhaps you meant Luc Montagnier. See:
      Luc Montagnier and the Nobel Disease by David Gorski
      https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/luc-montagnier-and-the-nobel-disease/

      • Yes. One was aware of this clerical appellation. One cannot rule out the possibility of a senior Catholic cleric working in a scientific field, to whose work Sean refers…….

    • Luc Montagnier

    • NO – it hasn’t! this is psychobabble, pseudoscience – and demonstrably untrue!

    • You should at least get the name right. It is Montagnier not Monsignor and no, he did not verify water memory scientifically in 2016.

    • really dont know why i bother repeating myself,but if you look you can see that water memory has been scientifically verified in 2016 by nobel scientist Monsignor,please check this out

      Even if this was the case, (which it isn’t, because, you know… research), how do the homeopathy proponents account for the bulk use of pillules to deliver their product? Sugar memory?

      Or, for that matter, the use of alcohol as the solvent to carry this supposed ‘memory’?

  • Dear Ernie,
    you might wonder why I use this derogative way to address you. Well, this is because I discovered that you have FOOLED ME with your stories about pseudoscience for several years!

    But since yesterday, this is over. I have now joined team Ullman, Hümmer, Sandra, and all the other heroes. Not only did I find definitive proof that homeopathy works, I even discovered an effect that I will call “SUPRA HOMEOPATHY (TM)” from now on!

    The following case report is 100% true.

    This Saturday, I woke up in the morning and noticed that my right eye was red, itching and clearly swollen. I had no clue where this came from or what this was, but since I enrolled as a volunteer at a local election the next day, I was worried that I could not go if this would get worse.

    So first, I tried some allopathic eye drops (Azelastin), but this did not help much. Most of the allopathic doctors of course are closed on Saturdays (another proof that they do not care for holistic patient treatment…) so going there was no option. Then I thought I might go to a pharmacy and ask for help.

    And THEN, this DECISIVE THOUGHT crossed my mind: “I wonder if they would try to sell some homeopathic BS to me if I would go…”.
    And guess what: in the following hours AFTER THIS THOUGHT, symptoms were starting to get BETTER AND BETTER. And yesterday morning, the eye was completely FINE and I went to the local election.

    You might call this an anecdote, but I KNOW it is true!
    So my LOGICAL conclusions are that:
    1. Even THINKING about a homeopathic remedy can already relive symptoms (probably on a quantum energy level). This is very logical, because thinking is even LESS materialistic than diluting a chemical substance (=>huge potentization effect)
    2. Allopathic medicine is useless, it does not care about an individual patient like me. Money is all that counts.
    3. You are a just a self-proclaimed “Professor” that misleads gullible people to become so-called “Skeptics”. From your ivory tower, you might call SUPRA HOMEOPATHY (TM) another case of pseudoscience.
    But as you must admit, you are just ignorant of all the possible quantum- and nanoeffects, that might explain the miraculous healing I experienced.

    So: GOOD DAY, SIR!

    • another convert has seen the light
      Hosianna !!!

    • Furthermore, we should not rule out the possibility that if you washed or showered while having these thoughts, the potency of your thought energy may have been transferred to the washing or shower water and imprinted upon it, such that even as I type, it will be producing measurable beneficial biochemical effects within the municipal drainage system.

      Thoughts, after all, depend on electromagnetic phenomena, and we have seen from the work of Benveniste and Montagnier that information can be stored in water by such means.

      • WOW, David… MIND BLOWN is all that I can say to your completely accurate inference.
        Unfortunately, I did NOT take a shower right then. But if a similar health problem occurs again, I promise that I won´t miss the opportunity. I´ll jump right in the shower and perform SUPRA HOMEOPATHY… as hard as I can.
        I actually feel kind of guilty now that I missed the opportunity to spread the ultimate cure for sore eyes around my community
        🙁

        • Well, as they say, hindsight is 20/20 vision.

          The discoverer of a major phenomenon is to be forgiven subsequent small lapses, in the initial flush of excitement. No doubt Archimedes forget his keys on going out, after shouting Eureka!

    • @Jashak

      I would have approached the ocular problem you described with homeopathy and followed the advice of my family homeopath who I have always been able to consult 24/7 via telephone. I have a cabinet full of hundreds of individual homeopathic remedies of different potencies and several first aid remedy kits, such as this one:

      https://www.homeopathyworks.com/top-100-remedy-kit/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8NLlu8bp6wIVUNbACh1MdQ6XEAAYASAAEgJiHfD_BwE

      If there was a similimum, my homeopath would most likely have recommended one of these remedies:

      https://www.homeopathyworks.com/top-100-remedy-kit/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8NLlu8bp6wIVUNbACh1MdQ6XEAAYASAAEgJiHfD_BwE

      • Dear Sandra,
        I am not sure why anyone would prefer using homeopathic consultations or remedies to my new treatment “SUPRA HOMEOPATHY” (TM; all rights reserved).
        Since my treatment is for free and -as I have strong evidence for- works perfectly… wouldn´t you be stupid if you would pay money for a homeopath or a homeopathic remedy?!

  • Missing in the list is the matter that usually emersed in the charge to some matter of pseudoscience there is some charismatic leader or some maverick scientist leading the way or at least lurking in the background.

    Anti-vaccine has plenty of celebrities, and of course has Dr. Wakefield. Chiropractic was founded by D. D. Palmer, Homeopathy by Samuel Hahnemann, remote healing by Edgar Cacey. It goes on with no end and they all seem to translate their abilities into cash.

    • Edgar Cayce

      But to your wider point, yes, pseudo-science does share this characteristic, but the distinction s blurred.
      From dark to light (omitting many):

      Flexner
      Pasteur (number one! What a lovely bucolic name, splendid for propaganda.)
      Jenner
      Fleming
      Nightingale (the epidemiologist with the lamp)
      Marshall and Warren
      Crick and Leary
      Pauling
      Lister
      Semmelweis

      and on and on

  • I have a copy of the book that Ernst mentions. In essence it does not say or mention homeopathy. However, it is interesting how Ernst mentions it as his last way of trying to stop something that is already embedded in society.

    “The use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific, but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner. For example, “energy therapies” for psychological problems are often premised on biofeedback, meridian lines, quantum energies, and a host of other concepts that may sound impressive, but lack evidence.”

    As for homeopathy, the use of the concept of energy is well established in both medical philosophy and physics. Your accusation is absurd.

    “A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence. Evidence for pseudoscience is typically anecdotal and consequently difficult to verify. For a class example, instructors may want to show students the Q-Ray bracelet website 1 and read the many quotes submitted by Q-Ray users. Although the quotes sound compelling, there is no scientific evidence to support any claims attached to them. In fact, the Q-Ray company lost a lawsuit in 2011 and was ordered to refund over $11 million dollars to people who purchased a Q-Ray bracelet.”

    “Typically” is very ambiguous. And even if anecdotal evidence was “typically” used by “pseudoscientists,” it is by no means an excuse to invisibilize that there is currently a body of evidence solid enough to say that homeopathy is better than placebo.

    “Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence (Truzzi, 1978; Sagan, 1995). In pseudosciences, assertions are often highly implausible in light of existing knowledge yet are not backed by convincing evidence. For a class example, instructors may wish to describe how infomercials promoting Q-Ray bracelets state that the “bracelet rips [pain] right out of the body 2.” and are “designed to optimize your natural positive energy 1.””

    Truzzi dismissed the adage of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, since paradoxically it is an unfalsifiable claim.

    “Unfalsifiable claims – Most pseudoscientific claims are incapable of being refuted in principle. For example, proponents of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) believe the human body has an invisible energy force called Qi (Zollman and Vickers, 1999). Qi is a crucial component of TCM, even though it cannot be measured or tested scientifically.”

    It’s obvious Ernst didn’t read Popper!

    “An absence of connectivity to other research (Stanovich, 2010). Connectivity refers to the extent to which assertions build on extant knowledge. For example, homeopathic practitioners state that homeopathic treatments become stronger as they become more dilute, and that water has memory. Both of these claims run counter to established scientific knowledge (Singh and Ernst, 2008).”

    Ernst, you’re not a physicist, but your partner Simon. Your word in this field is irrelevant to that of prominent scientists like Luc Montagnier and his team of physicists who say the opposite to you and Sigh. Your book has no scientific value and Sigh has severe conflicts of interest with Sense About Science.

    “Absence of adequate peer review. Peer review is far from perfect, but it is a key safeguard against error. Instructors may wish to encourage students to contrast the claims advanced by the authors of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed articles.”

    Homeopathy journal is an example that contradicts your claim.

    “Lack of self-correction. Pseudosciences frequently persist despite refutation. Often, proponents of pseudoscience will use the idea that since the treatment or idea has been used for thousands of years it must be correct (e.g., astrology), an error often called the ad antiquetem fallacy (or, argument from antiquity).”

    In reality that comment applies to you and ECSO, a group of sectarians who despite all the evidence favorable to homeopathy continue to insist on infallible nonsense like Truzzi’s phrase, reproached by himself. The world is spinning and you, Ernst, are left behind.

    • Another exercise in piss-poor flimflam and handwaving, Lolsie, but still no evidence. As far as I recall, all you’ve posted so far are a few links to iris Bell’s long-derided exercises in misappropriation of the laboratory method to supposedly show basophil degranulation triggered by homeopathic remedies. Where are the unarguable, knock-down well-conducted clinical trials? If homeopathy worked as well as you claim, surely there would be loads which you could link to to shut up us nasty cynics with all our well-conducted trials which demonstrate no effect, like the Cochrane ones here

      Oh no. There I am presenting evidence and an argument again in the way that you claim I don’t. Ball’s in your court, Pops. I’m expecting another swing and a miss whilst you claim that the ball is the wrong shape and someone’s given you a bat you’re not used to.

    • what arrant, ignorant drivel. “Sigh” – you can’t even get the name right!
      “Homeopathy journal” – as if anything even remotely useful could ever get published in such a rag.

      Luc Montagnier is a classic example of “Nobel disease” – like Linus Pauling and Brian Josephson and so many others he fell prey to thinking he was an expert in areas outside his area of expertise and that he was invincible – hence:
      “Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier inaccurately claims that the novel coronavirus is man-made and contains genetic material from HIV” – utter poppycock!
      also:
      he believed he had found evidence of structure “like DNA in water” to show homeopathy worked!
      Totally deluded – this is a good reason the French do not allow old men to get government research funds to waste on such crap! Like Benveniste before him he has disappeared down a rabbit hole of ultradiluted nonsense.

      • There is no evidence for “Nobel disease”. Although if you disagree with me you can tell me if it is included in the DSM manual. Montagnier’s paper are avaliable on the Net, and their research was replicated many times.

  • Seems to be a day for mis-spellings

    ad antiquitatem (with the stress on the missing second ‘a’, long)

    which could be conflated with other fallacies often employed in pseudo-skeptic propaganda
    ad verecundiam (false authority – reference to popular papers by hugely biased players, say)

    ad populum (common knowledge fallacy – as in your point about lack of connectivity between familiar allopathy and its unfamiliar and much misunderstood complement homeopathy)

    and I suppose your own old favourite
    the Prime Pseudo-Skeptic Fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam – appeal to ignorance – suggesting that a lack of available evidence implies a lack of effect.

  • There are plenty of easily seen effects in real life that have yet to be explained by western establishment science….yet the latter continues to express itself condescendingly as if a whole range of phenomena are simply not existing.Example….. water divining, which is known to have been accurately used for many centuries worldwide,do check out the history.
    At the same time anything supposedly happening in outer space such as black holes forming is reported almost with a fanfare for the ‘God genius’ Einstein(i do not subscribe exactly to this mathmaticians decription of the universe but side here with Nikola Tesla a noted sceptic of Einstein,what did he invent ??an awful lot more than Einstein!)but i agree with the sceptic…practice counts more than than theory and thats why i can say homeopathy has worked for me ,not all the time but more often than not
    Now Montagnier (sorry i got the name wrong)has a nobel prize in your discipline,but you are taking a condescending position against his research because of the area he is working in?

    • the results of water divining disappear when submitted to a rigorous experiment.
      homeopathy has worked for me: https://edzardernst.com/2020/09/reasons-why-ineffective-treatments-can-appear-to-be-effective/
      just try to think a bit, Sean!

      • i have read your article,i find alot of its points rather weak…yes i sadly came into believing in pseudoscience because in my own life modern establishment medicine failed me with something that it was slow to take seriously at the time,namely IBS ,which is now taken seriously.Various hospitals and painful enemas and testing had no solution,i turned to a pseudoscience which diagnosed accurately my internal issue and treated me within a month, a condition i had had for 12 years.
        Within the human body your kind of science has a limited view of systems,it will seek to examine microscopically then arrive at a solution involving often complex therapies, and huge amounts of money and of course there are scams and fraudsters,just as in the world of pseudoscience.
        it seems what your whole ‘spiel’ is about,is your belief that the noble scientist and rigerous scientific method are the only tools and measured and ‘accepted’ cause and effect at this point in time is all your science will discove,r rather like an old fortress keeping out its future intrepretations of the universe.
        Please dont give me a lame and easy answer

        • there is no answer to this level of stupidity and ignorance.

        • IBS is a heavily stress and conflict related functional intestinal motility problem. By definition, nothing somatic (body related) is found when excluding somatic causes, like your Dr seems to have dutifully done. Patients often misunderstand when the doctor explains and run for do called alternative medicine. Not the least when they suggest underlying psychological factors. When they are
          then pampered by the practitioner and promised a fake “cure” of any kind, they may feel relief, which can alleviate the underlying stress and thereby seem like a cure. Also entering a cultish faith based social environment may provide the so ial interaction they needed to get out of the underlying conflict and stress inducing situation.not bad in itself but the problem is if they are financially or socially fleeced when they could just have listened to the real doctor and tried to work on the underlying problem, which can be related to lifestyle, unemployment, school-stress, relationship problems, anxiety disorder etc. etc.

    • Sean

      i do not subscribe exactly to this mathmaticians decription of the universe but side here with Nikola Tesla a noted sceptic of Einstein,what did he invent ??an awful lot more than Einstein!

      As far as I know Einstein didn’t invent anything. He noted the experimental observation that the speed of light was constant not matter how and where you measured it, and explored what might follow if this were true. The result was his theory of special relativity, which made predictions about the behaviour of objects moving very fast and which differed from the predictions of Newtonian mechanics. He went further and the result was general relativity, which explains gravity. Both of these theories make specific predictions such as time dilation and gravitational lensing, which have been borne out by experiment many times since then and which form the basis of much of modern technology (for instance the effect of gravity on time needs to be taken into account in order for SatNav to function). So far nobody has been able to falsify relativity experimentally.

      Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize, however, for his work on the photoelectric effect, which showed that light was quantised.

      I would be interested to know what aspect of Einstein’s work you take issue with.

  • “our well-conducted trials which demonstrate no effect, like the Cochrane ones here”

    “our”. You make me laugh Lenny. NHS website mentioned six reviews about homeopathy.

    Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments

    There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of other homeopathic medicines for adverse symptoms and skin reactions related to radiotherapy. Two small studies were positive but both had an unclear risk of bias

    .

    Homeopathic Oscillococcinum® for preventing and treating influenza and influenza‐like illness.

    In our review, we directly address the subject of high dilution (How the interventionmightwork). Studiesin recentdecades with a variety of instruments have demonstrated the ability to distinguish various homeopathic medicines as well as different potencies of the same medicines. Recent studies reveal that homeopathic remedies contain nanoparticles of source materials formed by mechanical grinding in lactose and/or succussion (forceful agitation) in ethanolic solutions combined with silica nanostructures formed during succussions in glass.[iv] Other studies using various physical and physico-chemical methods have demonstrated persistent structural modifications as a resultof homeopathic preparation methods. e.g.[v],[vi], [vii] These technologies have not yetbeen appliedto Oscillococcinum ® , but the assertion that no such instrument exists is incorrect.

    Homeopathy for chronic asthma

    The currently available evidence is insufficient to assess reliably the possible role of homeopathy in the treatment of asthma

    Homeopathic medicinal products for preventing and treating acute respiratory tract infections in children

    There is insufficient evidence from two pooled individualised treatment studies (N = 155) to determine the effect of homeopathy on short-term cure (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.09 to 19.54; very low-quality evidence) and long-term cure rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.96; very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were reported inconsistently; however, serious events were not reported. One study found an increase in the occurrence of non-severe adverse events in the treatment group.

    Homeopathy for dementia

    In view of the absence of evidence, it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia.

    Homoeopathy for induction of labour

    This review included two trials. There were no differences seen in any of the primary outcome measures described in this review. Unfortunately, the quality of the trials was difficult to assess because of insufficient detail in the research papers, and the small sample sizes provide inadequate power. There is little research to assess the effectiveness of remedies in stimulating the onset of labour. The lack of data in this area is compounded by a lack of relevant clinical outcome data which could be included into this review. The use of caulophyllum may not represent common homoeopathic practice, where the prescribing of a therapy would be more individualised.

    Leny, of the 6 Cochrane reviews: one did not find data to analyze and the rest mentioned insufficient evidence o “convincing”, not lack of evidence. Even the most negative, Hawke review, has to admit that there is some evidence, even if at the end of the article it contradicts itself. The quality assesment is not objective as an statician pointed out:

    For most trials of homeopathy the quality guidelines are post hoc, like de Lange’s trial. This trial was conducted by the renowned Dutch EMGO medical research institute in a university hospital. [20] At that time (1994) it was considered a top quality trial, but later degraded to low quality by Hawke et al. [21] Apparently, even a top research institute–with no conflicting interests – cannot foresee future quality criteria.

    • Pops

      You don’t prove a negative. Science doesn’t work like that.

      Are you trying to imply that those stack of quotes constitute a ringing endorsement for homeopathy?

      Truly pathetic.

      • Science also proves negative, otherwise you could not say that homeopathy ” does not work.” But I can not expect much from a fool who thinks that others are fools and believes that no one will read what he shares, as in this case the Cochrane reviews.

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