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

I was surprised to discover that there is an entire website by a homeopath. He used to comment regularly on my blog but eventually got banned (I think). Now that chap writes pages and pages explaining that my criticisms of homeopathy are all wrong and that I actually haven’t got a clue. This seems to suggest that his homeopathy is not very effective for anger control. The texts are so intensely funny that I took the liberty of copying a short passage for you (without altering a single word).

Here we go:

When I started this blog in 2013, it was aimed to rebut Professor Edzard Ernst’s scientific examination and critique of homeopathy.

After 7 years of engaging with his posts, I realised that he does not have a clue about homeopathy due to rejecting the central tenet of homeopathy that disorder of the vital force leads to disease and, over time, to incurable medical conditions.

This blog aims to dispel false notions about the philosophy and practice of homeopathy and I recommend that the widely used clinical approach to homeopathy is discarded and replaced with spiritual/dynamic approach to homeopathy that is aligned with the principles set out in Hahnemann’s Organon of Medicine.

Dr. Edzard Ernst has, for more than two decades, engaged in a comical and polemical critique of what he considers to be ‘homeopathy’:

  • He does not hold a recognized qualification in homeopathy.
  • His understanding of homeopathy has, from the very outset, been below par: See my post ‘Arnica’.
  • He associated Bach Flower Remedies with ‘homeopathy’ because both use potentised substances.
  • He included Berlin Wall remedy in his new book, a remedy that he referred to as homeopathy’s finest in one of his blogs. Berlin Wall originated in the imagination of Colin Griffith (‘New Materia Medica’: isn’t that hilarious?) and it is not listed in the official Homeopathic Pharmacopeia.
  • He continues to write blogs about homeopathic treatment of certain clinical conditions and his study of the ‘adjunctive treatment’ of asthma with homeopathy is in opposition to Hahnemann’s instruction that no other medicines should be used during homeopathic treatment.
  • He seems to be unable to understand that homeopathy does not treat medical conditions, and that for classical homeopathy, as set out by Kent, most ‘medical conditions’ are beyond the curable stage of homeopathic treatment.
  • He seems not even to know in detail Hahnemann’s works: The Organon, Chronic Diseases, and Materia Medica Pura. Evidence of this is that, in 7 years, I never read a post that was written by him that engaged in a critique of these works.
  • He writes silly blogs about Boris Johnson almost being a homeopath.
  • He has, on last count, six pages of blogs written in derision and criticism of HRH Prince of Wales.
  • In discussion, he even asks the question: ‘are you speaking out of your arse?’
  • He did a bit of reading on the Russia collusion investigation that he seemed to think was negative against President Trump and worried that the Donald might start world war 3.
  • He rated himself as the world’s number one researcher in SCAM (so called alternative medicine of which homeopathy is one of the major forms of treatment).

I rate him as the world’s number one clown-critic of homeopathy.

Before Dr. Ernst started his journey to become the world eminent critic of homeopathy (and every other alternative health modality), he could have done two things:

  1. Undertaken a meticulous study of the works by Samuel Hahnemann and James Tyler Kent in order to gain an understanding of what Homeopathy is. I have yet to read a post by Edzard Ernst that provides a critique of the original works on homeopathy by the founders of homeopathy. Instead, he seems to have preferred to bypass the tedious work of reading texts and substituted his own interpretation of homeopathy in his critical reviews of ‘homeopathy’.

In Dr. Ernst’s view, the central tenet of homeopathy that there is a ‘vital force’ (living intelligence) in the human body must be rejected because it is an ‘outdated’ concept of ‘vitalism’. It seems to me, from my reading of his posts, that he considers atheism and materialist epistemology to be self-evident and idealist epistemology to be obviously deluded.  Edzard Ernst is obviously not the philosophical type because if he was then he would have realised that his rejection of the ‘principle of vitalism’ automatically invalidates homeopathy as a credible subject of scientific investigation. Why did he waste so much time studying something that is evidently nonsense?

  1. Before embarking on expensive and time consuming trials and meta analyses of homeopathy, Dr. Ernst ought to have first sought to find independently verified scientific evidence of homeopathic cures of non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses documented in clinical practice and publications. As far as I am aware, there is no hard medical scientific evidence that homeopathy cures any non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses and so how sensible was it that numerous researchers conducted RCTs over several decades to test whether or not homeopathy is an effective treatment for medical conditions?

END OF QUOTE

 

There is more, much more – and it’s all as hilarious as the above. So, whenever you are having a bad day and feeling a bit low, please read it. It is certain to cheer you up.

13 Responses to “I rate him as the world’s number one clown-critic of homeopathy”. Yes, of course, he is talking about me!

  • In discussion, he even asks the question: ‘are you speaking out of your arse?’

    Well, that seems to me like a completely legitimate question from a medical-diagnostic point of view. After all, he is specialized in researching uncommon and alternative medical phenomena …

  • At last! A homeopath who admits, in fact insists, that homeopathy does not treat medical conditions. So apart from the transfer of economic resources (normally one way only) what does it do?

    • good question!
      [homeopaths claim to treat the patient, not the condition]

      • Yes, treat the patient – a meaningless expression. A patient is presumably a person who has some characteristic which they would rather not have – aka a condition. if the aim is not to remove this characteristic – then what is the aim?

        As an aside my research has identified several types of persons. For example homeopaticos avariscuos and patienta gullibliana.

  • So much to unpick, so little time…
    “ He does not hold a recognized qualification in homeopathy.”

    I don’t think anyone should recognise a “qualification” in magical thinking and self delusion, such is homeopathy.

    “ due to rejecting the central tenet of homeopathy that disorder of the vital force leads to disease”

    Citation needed
    What is this force, how is it detected, measured and analysed, how is a disorder in it identified? I have never seen an attempt by a homeopath to present any cogent argument, let alone evidence. It is just a belief.

    And if he can tell us any laboratory that can differentiate between water and homeopathic water apart from the label, that would be nice.

  • “As far as I am aware, there is no hard medical scientific evidence that homeopathy cures any non self-resolving clinical conditions and illnesses……” I am very confused. Why is a homeopath stating homeopathy has no effect? Could this be some devious homeopathic cure for your (our) scepticism?

    • Your question is answered in Edzard’s post above.

      • But there is no condition without and out with the patient! No congestive heart failure without a failing heart and a fluid overloaded body, no neoplasia without a patient’s cells, no CRF without a kidney, no infection without an “infected”- so condition and patient are one and the same. I remain confused as to how this argument validates homeopathy in any way.

        • It doesn’t! It’s just part of the nonsense homeopaths come up with to sell their quackery. It doesn’t do anything but it doesn’t do it in a very effective way. The treat the patient/not the condition stuff is often used to imply that medicine is used solely to treat symptoms and not underlying causes, whereas homeopathy will holistically – do nothing!
          It really is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

      • I never said that the homeopathic view on this made the slightest bit of sense. I just pointed at where it was stated.

  • That website represents a very narrow sect of homeopathy. No time there for a lot of European homeopathy, with low-potency combination prescriptions!

    I recently bought, and have enjoyed reading, “Homeopthy in Perspective, A Critical Appraisal” by Dr. Anthony Campbell, who for some twenty years was a Consultant medical homeopath at the Royal London Homeopathic hospital.

    It is a very honest and well-written book. It was published in 2006, so is not as up-to-date on the results of reaserch as “Homeopathy, the Undiluted Facts”. But it’s good on the history and development of homeopathy, and the overlap with the ideas of Swedenborg, Mesmer and others. And really, it’s extremely honest, in assessing the effectiveness of 20 years clinical priactice of homeopathy.

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