In recent weeks and months, I have been thinking quite a lot about the various types of scientists. This is partly due to me finishing a book entitled: Bizarre Medical Ideas: … and the Strange Men Who Invented Them. Partly it is related to the sorry tale of the GWUP that I have been boring you with repeatedly here. As a consequence of my contemplations, I have added more categories to the usual two types of scientists.


Scientists gather information through observation and experimentation, formulate hypothesis, and then test them. They work in vastly different areas but have certain attitudes or qualities in common, e.g. critial thinking and an open mind. As scientists tend to publish their findings, a very simple (but not fool-proof) way to identify a scinetist is to look him/her up, for example by finding his/her H-Index. (The H-Index is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal has published at least h papers that have each been cited at least h times. For instance, if someone has 10 papers that were cited 10 times, his H-Index would be 10. If another scientist has 50 papers that were cited 50 times, his H-Index would be 50.)


Pseudo-scientists are people who pretend to produce science but, in fact, they generate pseudoscience. The demarkation of pseudo-science from science is sometimes difficult, as we have seen several times on this blog, e.g.:

The pseudo-scientist does have no or just a few publications in the peer-reviewed literature and no H-Index to speak of.


The term ‘would-be scientist’ is not one that is commonly used, nor is it one that has an accepted definition. The way I see it, would-be scientists are aspiring to become scientist. They are on the way to become a scientist but have not quite arrived yet. To the would-be scientist I say: good luck to you; I hope you make it and I look forward to reading about your scientific achievements. The would-be scientist is, however, not the topic of my post.


The predent-scientist (PS) is the one who I want to focus on here. He – yes, the PS is usually male – talks a lot about science; so much so that outsiders would get the impression that he actually is a scientist. Crucially, the PS himself has managed to delude himself to the point where believes to be a scientist.

While scientists tend to be media-shy, the PS enjoys the limelight to generate the impression of being a scientist. He talks eloquently and at length about science. Much of what he says or writes might even be correct. The PS is often quite well-versed and knows (most of) his stuff.

The crucial difference between the PS and the scientist is that the PS produces no or very little science; neither does he intend to. To identify the PS, an easy (but not fool-proof) method is to him look up. Typically, he has published several articles in the popoular press or books for the lay public, but – as he does not conduct scientific research – he does not generate papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. This void, however, has never stopped the PS from appearing in the media speaking about science, nor from occupying prominent positions in the world of science, nor from avidly rubbing shoulders with scientists. Few people see anything wrong with that, mainly because the PS has convinced them (most importantly himself) that he actually is a scientist. While the scientist is trained in doing science, the PS is trained in talking about science.

Don’t get me wrong, the PS can have his merits. He often presents science to the public more or less accurately and frequently is rhetorically superior to the scientist. I nevertheless have reservations about the PS (and the recent pandemic has shown us how dangerous PSs can beome). The questions to ask ourselves are the following:

  • Does PS have a truly open mind?
  • Can he set aside ideologies?
  • Will he change his opinion vis a vis new evidence?
  • Is he prepared to consider criticism?
  • Does he avoid ‘black and white’ thinking?
  • Is he sufficiently humble?
  • Is he honest with himself and others?

These questions refer to important attitudes that scientists learn – often the hard way – while doing science. If someone lacks this experience, such attitudes are likely to be under-developed. Perhaps, it all boils down to honesty: if a man who has never done any amount of science to speak of has convinced himself to be a scientist, he arguably is dishonest with himself and the public.

In order to make my points as clearly as possible, I admittedly caricaturized the extremes of a wider spectrum; my appologies for that. In reality, the different types of scientists rarely exist as entirely pure forms. Frequently, people are mixtures of two types, either because they did different things during different periods of their lives, or because they simply are hybrids.

To provide a few examples, let me show you 14 H-Indices (according to ‘Google Scholar’) of people (in alphabetical order) who you might have heard of, for instance, because they have featured on my blog. I leave it up to you to decide how well they fit in any of my three categories and who might qualify to be a PS.

  1. Fabrizio Benedetti – H-Index = 83
  2. David Colquhoun – H-Index = 78
  3. Ian Chalmers – H-Index = 84
  4. Michael Dixon – H-Index = 0
  5. David Gorski – H-Index = 30
  6. Holm Hümmler – H-Index = 0
  7. Ted Kaptchuk – H-Index = 103
  8. Jos Kleinjen – H-Index = 104
  9. Andreas Michalsen – H-Index = 0
  10. Michael Mosely – H-Index = 0
  11. Dana Ullman – H-Index = 0
  12. Dale Thompson (alias DC) – H-Index = 0
  13. Chris van Tulleken – H-Index = 0
  14. Harald Walach – H-Index = 9

My conclusion: the PS, a person who presents himself as a scientist without having done any meaningful amount of science himself, is a man who is not entirely honest. The H-Index can be helpful for identifying PSs. An index of zero, for instance, seems to send out a fairly clear message. In the case low indices, it is advisable to go one step further and study the actual articles That mede up the index. However, the H-Index tells us nothing about whether someone presents himself as a scientist; this information must be gleaned from the person him(her)self.




59 Responses to The ‘pretend-scientist’: … talking about science does not make you a scientist!

  • Dana? A pretend scientist? I wouldn’t even credit him with that title.

    Flagrant, ignorant, brass-necked bullshitter is about as far as I’d go with him.

    • DUllman clearly belongs in category 2 as does Dale Thompson.

      In my view, Harald Walach is a mixture of category 2 and 4. He talks a lot of pseudo-scientific nonsense, but occasionally also has lucid moments. He loves public moments and you could clearly see his disappointment when his endowed professorship at “Hogwarts an der Oder” aka European University Viadrina was not continued. That is why he accepted teaching assignments in Poznan or Witten/Herdecke in order to revalue himself.

      • “That is why he accepted teaching assignments in Poznan or Witten/Herdecke in order to revalue himself.”

        Is Harald Walach a successful masochist? I mean successful in destroying himself? Both affiliations, Poznan and Witten/Herdecke, he successfully destroyed with an unsurpassed masterpiece, the study about the masks. It was so brilliantly insane that both universities had no other choice than to kick him out immediately.

        Well, looking closely, it is even possible to show that he lies.

        “Harald Walach lügt”

        We always thought about how he made a living. The homeopathy mafia, of course, is, in whatever way, for sure behind the scene, delivering money. But the mask story is not associated with homeopathy, but its idea is based somewhere in the brains of anti-vaxxers, who, for whatever reasons, are anti-maskers too. Did the anti-maskers pay him?

        Interesting, where Julian found him:

        “It’s frightening where you find Walach.
        Karger has now assigned him to Lithuania:
        “Harald Walach – Kazimieras Simonavicius University, Vilnius, Lithuania””

        That place is related with Anthroposophs.

        Interesting, who is heading the Carstens-Stiftung: Michalsen, an Anthroposoph.

        The Carstens-Stiftung, founded by their founders, Carstens and Carstens, as a support instrument for homeopathy, is headed by an Anthroposoph, who in an interview with National Geographic said expressis verbis:

        Natürlich ist die Theorie der Homöopathie völlig unglaubwürdig. Wir haben bei uns ein, zwei Ärzte, die in besonderen Situationen auch darauf zurückgreifen. Und ich lasse sie gewähren, weil Beobachtungsstudien an der Charité trotz des fehlenden Nachweises einer spezifischen Wirksamkeit zum Beispiel bei Allergien gewisse Effekte zeigen. Homöopathie ist wahrscheinlich ein Superplacebo.

        Translated with
        Of course, the theory of homeopathy is completely implausible. We have one or two doctors who use it in special situations. And I allow them to do so because observational studies at the Charité show certain effects despite the lack of proof of specific efficacy, for example in allergies. Homeopathy is probably a superplacebo.

        “BREAKING: Andreas Michalsen ist enttarnt! Carstens-Stiftung in Aufruhr!”

        How about the h-index of Michalsen, by the way?

  • Well ok, a H-Index of 0 is a clear indication that the person is not a publishing scientist.
    I would like to point out, however, that these metrics (H index, i10 index etc.) are unreliable if you intend to make judgments about how scientific and critical a person is. You, Prof. Ernst, are certainly well aware of the issues related to these metrics, but readers of your post might be tempted to start ranking people´s scientific character according to their H-number.

    My own H-index (had to look it up) is slightly higher than 30. Does this mean that I am a “better” scientist than Prof. Gorski? Of course not. There are many issues with all these numbers, and I generally dislike them.

    On the one hand, a comparably low H-index can be a consequence of the fact that the topic is not considered interesting for publication at that time, no matter how good a scientist the person is. As an example, I am certain that Katalin Karikó, who won a Nobel Price last year, had a far lower H-index than warranted for most of her life.

    On the other hand, senior scientist / group-leaders can easily accumulate very high H-factors, simply because they are good “science-managers”, i.e. having many skilled persons working in their lab. In my personal experience, group leaders by no means are better scientists than their staff.

    I am aware that you have not made the mistake of ranking the persons scientific character by their H-indices, I just wanted to emphasize that the H-index is problematic and can only be used as a rough indication, as you did.

    • you are right, it’s a mere indication. I suggest it’s helpful for putting people into a category but not for ranking them. and I stated twice that even for that it’s not fool=proof.

    • Quite telling to see Ted Kaptchuk and Jos Klejnen neck-to-neck in H- index for so extremely different reasons.

  • For the record, my masters degree from UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health is in the field of “health education.” As a health educator, I report on research. That doesn’t mean that I claim to be a “scientist,” but I report on science (and on scientism!).

    Once again, Ernie, you’ve set up your typical straw man argument.

    Oh…and once again, Ernie, you’ve purposefully forgot several MD/scientists/homeopaths who probably have relatively good H-scores:
    — Jennifer Jacobs, MD
    — Michael Frass, MD
    — Wayne Jonas, MD

    And speaking about science, is it “convenient” that you have yet to report on a new study published in one of NATURE’s journals:

    I look forward to hearing your explanations for how murine macrophage cell lines are so susceptible to a placebo effect.

    Yippee, I now get to watch the spin-master at work, creatively fabricating misinformation. Cognitive dissonance can be a bitch, especially for those as invested as you are in claiming that there is no effect from homeopathic doses. My sympathies…

    • Thank you once again Dana for bringing out a smile over your naive obsession with the shaken water industry’s bungling attempts to substantiate a mistake that was first disproven in 1835.
      I am afraid your science schooling may not have been succesful? You seem to have missed essential parts about how science substantiates things.
      You first need to establish that a medicine really works and a plausible theory about its mechanism of action before you confirm how it works. It just isn’t science to play with an electron microscope until you find impurities in your sample of shaken water and then write a shitload of sciency gobbledygook and guesswork around the photos of said junk and wild asumptions about the importance of rat-cell research. That may however please your religious leaders (the AYUSH). Conjecture does not make shaken water work, even if it happens to miraculously get published in a journal with a respectably sounding name.

    • Oh Dana – you managed to misunderstand my post: it is not about the H-Indices of prominent homeopath.
      for what it’s worth, and because it’s you, I quickly looked up the three you mentioned on GOOGLE SCHOLAR:
      — Jennifer Jacobs, MD -> HI = 0
      — Michael Frass, MD -> HI = 0
      — Wayne Jonas, MD -> HI = 0
      Happy now?

      • A reminder, Dana, that it’s always good idea to check that there’s water in the pool before you dive in.

        Jacobs, Frass and Jonas are, like you, ideologically-blinded fools. They publish the results of their pseudoscientific dissemblings so their fellow fools can nod in agreement.

        Everyone else ignores them because they, like you, are inconsequential halfwits.

      • Thanks for verifying that the H-index itself is so biased. Each of the 3 physicians I referenced have conducted numerous trials and meta-analyses in high impact journals, including The Lancet, Pediatrics, Archives in Internal Medicine, Chest, amongst others.

        When a measurement tool is so biased, it become useless.

        • thanks for confirming that your intellect is evidently too limited to comprehend what the H-Index is [clue: it’s not about the numeber of published papers, nor where they were published]

        • Jesus, Dana. We know you’re an idiot but you seem to be so happy to display it.

          The H-Index is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal has published at least h papers that have each been cited at least h times. For instance, if someone has 10 papers that were cited 10 times, his H-Index would be 10. If another scientist has 50 papers that were cited 50 times, his H-Index would be 50

          It is not just about the number of papers but the number of citations. I.e. the impact of the paper, not just the journal itself.

          Homeopathic goons gather zero citations for their papers because their work is recognised as the garbage it is and is ignored.

          No bias, Dana. Just hard reality that you are so reluctant to confront, Homeopathy is utter bunk, always has been, always will be, just as you remain only a hapless, jabbering object of ridicule.

    • Mr Ullman has again referred to the same Arsenic album 30C paper that he quoted on two separate occasions during January:

      𝟏. Dana Ullman on Thursday 11 January 2024 at 14:11

      𝟐. Dana Ullman on Saturday 27 January 2024 at 21:00

      • @Pete Attkins
        Maybe it’s time to contact Springer Nature and explain to them why that article should be retracted (and burned, and the ashes buried). It is a very poor, pseudoscientific plea for homeopathy, paid for and likely even commissioned by the India Ministry of Quackery Propaganda, a.k.a. AYUSH.
        It is impossible that this dung beetle feast has undergone any measure of peer review, unless those ‘peers’ were the same type of credulous fools who created it in the first place (i.e. other homeopaths).

        At the very least, I think I should send the publisher a properly motivated expression of concern.

        • I have two suggestions for Springer Nature. Suspend all operations until:

          ● you have read, and fully understood, the book How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-Based Medicine by Trisha Greenhalgh OBE FRCP FRCGP FMedSci

          ● you have, at long last, chosen to actually read, and fully understand, submitted papers BEFORE publishing them.

      • I knew I was familiar with the cited paper.

        DUllman seems to be suffering from progressive dementia if he keeps posting the same crap over and over again on this blog.

    • @Dana Ullman
      In my opinion, the main reason why you are not a scientist, and never will be, is that you categorically ignore any factual criticism of what you believe(!) in. Your response is invariably one of arrogance, derision towards the critic, and simply repeating the offending claims, just in a louder voice. At no point do you address or even acknowledge the core of the criticism itself – probably because that would imply that you might be wrong, which of course is unthinkable.

      All this may make you an exemplary homeopath – but not a scientist.

  • Stephen Hawking H-index 133
    Edzard Ernst H-index 146!
    No wonder Edzard won the Ockham award.

  • It is funny to see how characters like Richard Rasker, RPG or Lenny disqualify scientists as “fools” just because they investigate or investigated the subject of homeopathy. Funny because none of the three “skeptics” cited have anywhere near an H-index. Richard Rasker, Aust, or in general most “skeptics” are not even proper scientists, they are in general pseudoscientists. The few other scientists who sometimes comment on Ernst’s blog tend to be scientists with few papers.
    Now, it is true that if one compares Ernst’s H-index vs others of his opponents like Jonas Wayne or Jennifer Jacobs, one finds that Ernst has a good ranking. But let’s make it a bit more interesting:

    Edzard: 140
    Luc Montagnier: 85
    Jacques Benveniste: 49
    Brian Josephson: –
    Paul Posadzki: –
    Klaus Linde: 70
    Richard Rasker: 0
    Carl Sagan: 68
    Nikil Mukerji: –
    georges charpak: –

    According to Ernst’s minions, three Nobel laureates (two in favour of homeopathy) are “dumb” because they have no h-index. While Ernst’s colleagues the same because they don’t have h-index either. Ullman is right, the h-index is biased, it is ridiculous that “skeptics” do not realize that when their “heroes” are taken into account. If Ernst has a high h-index it is because most of his publications are letters to the editor, editorials and commentaries that inflate his number of publications, not because of the quality of his research which has generally been rated low by both detractors (such as ironically Shang et al) and proponents (Mathie et al).

    • I fear you have not understood my post; please read it again.

    • Tell me, Sunbead. How did you find out what my H-Index is? Or RPGs? We post anonymously. More rubbish dragged out of your arse?

      Much as I hate to piss on your chips, a simple Google search shows Josephson to have an H-index of 23, Posadzki of 42. Mukerji of 11 and Charpak an index of 44.

      Like Ullman, you seem to be happy to display your own stupidity on this platform and believe “fact”=”I said it”.

      We know homeopathy proponents are narcissistic, pompous and ignorant. Thank you for proving this further.

    • @Sunbead

      It is funny to see how characters like Richard Rasker, RPG or Lenny disqualify scientists as “fools” just because they investigate or investigated the subject of homeopathy.

      As long as homeopaths fail to come up with even one preparation 12C+ that shows clear, consistent and independently repeatable effects, it is fully justified to conclude that a) homeopathy does not work, and b) homeopaths are fools, not scientists – regardless whether they choose to mess around with scientific equipment or not (a.k.a. Tooth Fairy Science).

      • Oh, Rasker, so you can no longer fight all the mounting experimental evidence of homeopathy, and you think that with one rhetorical question you can throw out all the evidence? Your question is a classic example of moving the goalposts fallacy. I still remember those old days when many “skeptics” claimed that “homeopaths don’t do research”, or “there is not a single clinical trial”, although there already were. Or a classic that I remember very well, in forums of “skeptics”, they mentioned that “not even a Nobel Prize validates homeopathy”. It is very funny, because even if they show you that there are some examples of homeopathics that have consistently demonstrated an effect (Oscillococcinum is a base example that has consistently and repeatedly proven symptom reduction), you will always dismiss it with another rhetorical question anyway. It is funnier when you realize that your comments are just hatred towards homeopaths, and paranoia (like when you call non-homeopaths “homeopaths” just because they are interested in this subject). You see homeopaths everywhere, and your cause is already a fanaticism not far from the extremist religious groups that see in everything who does not agree with an “apostate”. This is curiously well described in sociological literature, “skeptics” who think they do science but are only advocates of scientism which is an ironically pseudoscientific ideology.

        • Oscillococcinum is a base example that has consistently and repeatedly proven symptom reduction

          Another unevidenced assertion, kiddo. You’re getting good at this.

          Any chance you could point out where Oscillococcinum is in the homeopathic materia medica? You ‘ve said elsewhere that our criticisms of Berlin Wall were invalid on this basis. You can’t have it both ways, halfwit.

          And what does the best evidence say? Not much, as you’d expect.

          • Lenny, you are very funny. Indeed, the Berlin Wall does not appear in any materia medica, you finally got it. Now, I used Oscillococcinum as an example because this is not as such an individualized homeopathic, but an isopathic. And Rasker asked for an example of a single “homeopathic” at ultramolecular dosage that consistently proves effect. Since many “skeptics” in their books, blogs and videos consider Oscillococcinum a homeopathic, you should have no problem. I will explain it to you so that with your mental age I can understand it:

            Berlin Wall is generally unanimously rejected by homeopaths as a real homeopathic. And no, the “true scotch fallacy” does not apply here as Berlin Wall is only sold by a single pharmacy in the UK.

            Oscillococcinum although an isopathic, worldwide some proponents and “skeptics” alike consider it a “homeopathic” at ultramolecular doses.

            The only thing you have been able to find is a Cochrane review by Mathie et al that actually in its meta-analysis proves and confirms that Oscillococcinum has an effect in reducing symptoms of the common cold (ironically Ernst has a review confirming this same effect, just as Vickers confirmed it in 2006). The rest of the conclusion is similar to a typical Cochrane review, that more studies are needed and most of them (positive or negative) were of low quality. Does this cancel out the high quality positive ones? No, Lenny, no!

          • Oh dear Sunbead. You make this much, much too easy.

            Berlin Wall is generally unanimously rejected by homeopaths as a real homeopathic.

            Unevidenced and self-contradictory assertion. Something is unanimous or not unanimous. Berlin Wall has been subjected to provings and carries as much validity as any other remedy i.e. none whatsoever.

            And no, the “true scotch fallacy” does not apply here

            It is a prima facie example of the “no true scotsman” logical fallacy. But we know you don’t understand logical fallacies as you have demonstrated numerous times in this thread.

            Berlin Wall is only sold by a single pharmacy in the UK.

            Utter bollocks. A simple Google search will show you many outlets around the world which sell it. Here’s one in the USA.

            The only thing you have been able to find is a Cochrane review by Mathie et al

            No. I showed a Cochrane review – accepted as the best evidence. Conducted by homeopaths. And which was unable to draw any conclusions as to the effectiveness of the remedy.

            Does this cancel out the high quality positive ones?

            You really don’t know what a systemic review is or how one is performed, do you?

            What “high quality positive ones”? Links to what you consider to be such a study, please. We can have a laugh. We know that homeopaths think “high quality” = “shows a positive result for homeopathy”

            You could win this argument easily, Sunbead. Show us the unarguable, knock-down evidence that homeopathy works. The well-conducted and replicated clinical studies with an unarguable strong positive result for homeopathy. If it works as you say, they must be out there.

            Curious that you, as with all the other homeoloons who troll around here with their facile and witless arguments, are never able to end the argument in such a way. Why might it be that such evidence doesn’t exist? Can you explain it, Sunbead?

            I can.

        • @Sunbead

          Oscillococcinum is a base example that has consistently and repeatedly proven symptom reduction

          This is a lie. Even most positive study outcomes are still extremely tentative, with lots of weasel words such as ‘may be effective’ and ‘probably reduces symptoms. Even many homeopaths don’t think that it works.

          In fact, oscillococcinum may well be the most hilariously erroneous concoction of all of homeopathy: a completely ineffective ‘remedy’ based on one man’s faulty observation of bacteria that don’t even exist, for a disease that is not even caused by bacteria, and made from duck innards that have nothing whatsoever to do with this disease, diluted to an absolutely ludicrous 1 on 10 to the power of 400.

          The fact that oscillococcinum is still promoted and sold by homeopaths just tells us that they are a) fools, and b) greedy.

          • “Even many homeopaths don’t think that it works”

            Rasker, again you lie, you turn an honest conclusion based on limited evidence into a negative just because of your subjective bias. Again you are the typical example of a “skeptic” who does not go beyond the abstract or a part of it or repeats what you read on Wikipedia or some low quality blog. If it were up to you, most Cochrane reviews should be negative because most have evidence of insufficient quality.
            That the original name and original use of Oscillococcinum was born from an erroneous observation is like saying that glyphosate is wrong to apply to weeds only because its original use was to prevent corrosion of pipes. You deflect from the question you yourself raised, whether it has proven to have a consistent effect beyond placebo. I have given an example that over the years has proven effect, both in low, moderate and a few high quality trials.

          • Mathie RT, Frye J, Fisher P.
            Homeopathic Oscillococcinum® for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like illness.
            Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 28;1(1):CD001957.
            PMID: 25629583;
            PMCID: PMC6726585.

            Plain language summary

            Review question
            To determine whether homeopathic Oscillococcinum® is more effective than placebo in the prevention and/or treatment of influenza and influenza‐like illness in adults or children.

            Key results
            The findings from the two prevention trials did not show that Oscillococcinum® can prevent the onset of flu. Although the results from the four other clinical trials suggested that Oscillococcinum® relieved flu symptoms at 48 hours, this might be due to bias in the trial methods. One patient reported headache after taking Oscillococcinum®. The evidence is current to September 2014.

            Quality of the evidence
            The overall standard of research reporting was poor, and thus many aspects of the trials’ methods and results were at unclear risk of bias. We therefore judged the evidence overall as low quality, preventing clear conclusions from being made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of flu and flu‐like illness.

            The above study is referenced by Dana Ullman for this product:
            Oscillococcinum 6 Doses — for flu/influenza!

        • Sunbead above: Oscillococcinum is a base example that has consistently and repeatedly proven symptom reduction

          How the amazing duck turned into a holy cow

          Ocean on Thursday 11 November 2021 at 18:14
          Oscillococcinum is in fact one of the few homeopathic medications that consistently proves to reduce the duration of flu symptoms…

          Addressed on the same article by:
          ● Richard Rasker on Thursday 11 November 2021 at 21:07
          ● Lenny on Friday 12 November 2021 at 07:58

    • You do not have to be a scientist to conclude that homeopathy does not work. All you need is simple school knowledge of physics and chemistry, e.g. Avogadro constant.

      As far as Luc Montagnier and Jacques Benveniste are concerned:
      1) The two gentlemen suffered from the Nobel disease.
      2) You are using the argumentum ad verecundiam.

      • Correction: Brian Josephson won a Nobel prize and is a supporter of various pseudoscientific theories, including homeopathy.

      • The “argument” that is only “need high school knowledge” is so funny and at the same time ridiculous that it has always been used a lot by “skeptics”. You do this to avoid the cognitive dissonance of all the specialized literature that contradicts your ignorance on the subject.

        • The fundamentals of chemistry and physics do not change just because articles are published in “specialized”, i.e. fact-ignoring pseudoscientific literature. They also do not change because you or Dana live in a self-referencing bubble in which you are always confirming each other’s false assumptions.

          • “The fundamentals of chemistry and physics” is too general a statement, I asked you for specific fundamentals. Nobody in homeopathy wants to change all the fundamentals of physics and chemistry, if you had read what you call “pseudoscientific literature” it is usually based on previous knowledge. The only thing that homeopathy changes is our understanding of the behavior of liquids under special conditions of “succussion”, and the use of the principle of similarity. In fact, it is curious, hormesis is a particular case similar to the principle of similarity that is increasingly accepted in the mainstream literature. The memory of water is another particular case that little by little (slower than hormesis for now) is gaining ground in some physico-chemical books. Does this contradict what we know about physiology? Not in general, it does not change our knowledge about the general functioning and cellular structure, it only adds that there are other probable routes of communication, and for this there is indirect evidence that did not come out of homeopathy but is relevant.

          • Sunbead wrote: “… hormesis …”.

            Where are the biphasic dose–response curves for, as a bare minimum, each of the commonly prescribed homeopathic remedies, from each of the manufacturers.

            Obviously, the actual dose delivered by the final product will depend on the preparation methodology. Boiron, for example, uses the Korsakovian dilution method (identified by appended “K” or “CK”) for some remedies — including Oscillococcinum® 200CK.

            Despite ‘Sunbead’ stating on Friday 01 March 2024 at 22:30 that “No one in homeopathy uses ‘ultrapure water’ ”, Boiron informs us:

            What does the “CK” listed after the active ingredient stand for?

            Korsakovian dilutions are manufactured using a device specially designed to ensure that the dilution process is reproducible from one dilution to the next. Only one vial is used for the entire process. Using ultra-purified water as the solvent, the machine removes 99% of the Mother Tincture and replaces it with the same volume of solvent. The vial is succussed for 10.5 seconds. The result is called 1CK. The 2CK is prepared identically from the 1CK. The automatic process using only 1 vial allows higher dilutions to be reached. The most common Korsakovian dilutions are 200CK, 1,000CK (also called 1M), 10,000CK (10M), 50,000 CK (50M) and 100,000CK (100M or CM).

            Just in case anyone has forgotten the pertinent question:

            Where are the (biphasic or otherwise) dose–response curves for, as a bare minimum, each of the commonly prescribed homeopathic remedies, from each of the manufacturers?

    • And what about the following, whose comment contents and style are remarkably similar:

      • Astro [𝟏]
      • Censored by Ernst
      • Lollypop
      • Now!
      • Ocean
      • Sunbead

      𝟏. This is what it needs to get banned from my blog
      Published Friday 27 August 2021

      • @Pete Attkins
        You can add these names to the list:
        Yung bae
        MP3_Jukebox (on Les Rose’s blog site)

        • It is always the same guy, or they share the same brain-cell.

          • What fun it is to watch them go around and not debunk my argument, the “skeptics” only have insults and that’s the best they can give. When will they show the H-index of Rasker, RPG, Aust, Lenny and other curious minions who often comment defending Ernst?

      • Then you have to censor the one who thinks differently, even if Ernst says “you have to back up the claim”, which you usually never back up and also try to doxx your opponents. But of course, in the media you guys pretend to be the “victims”, when you are the typical bullies as usual.

  • How funny are the “skeptics”, they did not respond to my arguments, but the same old nonsense:
    A) They respond with insults.
    B) They use Wikipedia as a source.
    C) They use ad hominem attacks like “Nobel disease” or “this Nobelist believes in Y therefore he must be wrong to talk about X”.
    D) They claim that “X doesn’t work” without providing more than their opinions or with the authority of “the laws of such and such say that” without saying which laws.
    E) They use as authority characters with no scientific relevance such as Novella’s blog and Todd Carroll’s page that are based mostly on fallacies of false authority (remember that neither Novella, Carroll and Hall are allologists with no relevant academic contribution).

    And the coolest thing, when they can’t they try to doxx mez/b>. How ridiculous and pathetic our little “skeptic” friends have become. Not one of them has been able to refute anything I have commented, I am still waiting for Rasker’s “refutation” of Demangeat’s work, since more than a year ago.
    While they are trying to find out my identity, I am still waiting for Lenny, RPG, and other minions to prove their H-index and their great “contributions to science”. No sirs, insults and harassment and attempts at doxxing are not worth it.

    I also hope that instead of trying to figure out my PI, they can explain that interesting anomaly in the number of inflated citations in Ernst’s papers that inflates his H-index through letters to the editor, editorials, and comments on polemics.

    Thank you very much for trying to doxx me, I was looking for evidence that “skeptics” engage in that and you have given me what I have been looking for.

    • Not one of them has been able to refute anything I have commented

      Yes we have. Directly. Several times in this thread already. Like Dana, you have very selective reading and comprehension skills.

      As we’ve said, you’re just another of the pathetic, ignorant and utterly insignificant homeopathy trolls who crops up periodically on this blog scattering insults, assertions and ad homs because that’s all they have. Bring us a bit of credible evidence to back up your assertions if you have any. You won’t because you trolls never can because there isn’t any. Crawl back into your hole, troll.

      • Lenny, in your comment you just insulted me and threw ad hominem fallacies, without even refuting anything I have described about you. You are part of an ideologically sectarian group that never or rarely admits its mistakes. You only reflect a lot of anger, frustration and ego.
        It is quite comical that when you mention that you want “credible evidence” you just confirmed what I said, the use of the moving the goalposts fallacy. What and when is “credible”? I know you will respond with “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”; this cliché phrase makes no sense as you use it. I have explained it to you at other times:

        The phrase Randi used without a context was made by Hume more than 300 years ago! What does this phrase say? Well, that an extraordinary statement is equal to a “miracle” in a religious sense. But the studies I have posted are not based on “miraculous things” nor do they appeal to divinities (which may or may not exist), but on natural phenomena. Moreover, these studies are generally controlled (and some very rigorous). Hume did not take into account the controlled study (in those years this type of studies were not done, controlled medical experimentation was just beginning and Lind’s study with twelve people was not yet done).

        Hume has no place when speaking of controlled studies. So your “credible” is just your prejudice based on your ignorance of scientific methodology. You are the true troll and doxxer!

        • It is fun when AltMed loons demonstrate that they understand logical fallacies just as well as they understand science.

          An evidenced statement of fact is not an ad hom.

          Your assertions were refuted. You just chose to ignore them.

          Are you pathetic? Yes. Absurd and laughable are synonyms. You have demonstrated this repeatedly.

          Are you ignorant? Yes. You have demonstrated this repeatedly in refusing to accept what science and evidence has repeatedly demonstrated.

          Are you insignificant? Yes. Nothing you have asserted has ever been accepted or changed any aspect of the practice of medicine or the direction of science.

          Are you a troll? Yes. See every post here.

          “The studies I have posted”

          You’ve not posted any. All you’ve done is pull assertions out of your arse.

          Am I a doxxer? No. ‘Doxxing’ is yet another word you plainly don’t understand.

          • What’s funny Lenny, is that again you don’t respond to anything in my comment. What is the “proven claim” you speak of, your insults and ad hominem fallacies?
            I don’t understand what proof you have given, since you only comment insults and usually repeat worn out links from your cronies without often reading what you share. Your favorite word seems to be “arse”, and denigrate any participant who disagrees with you. what’s the matter Lenny, can’t you have a single debate without resorting to name calling? You are no longer a child or a teenager, Lenny.

        • @Sunbead

          You are part of an ideologically sectarian group that never or rarely admits its mistakes. You only reflect a lot of anger, frustration and ego.

          That’s homeopaths to a tee. You finally took a look in the mirror, did you?

          • No Richard, when I looked in the mirror I remembered your book, which has the peculiarity of generally lacking a bibliography. And I remembered that the only way you could have written a book for Springer Nature is if your friend Ernst had recommended you, not because of your merits. Your book is still very funny to me, who would have thought that only a few months later Hamre, et al and other authors would have debunked your nonsense?

    • You have no arguments but you are playing pigeon chess: You knock the pieces over, crap on the board, and fly back to your flock to claim victory

      • This phrase is typical of many “skeptics” who, when they do not see how to defend themselves, bring up a worn-out phrase. In any case, a correct use of that phrase would be on my part, since you have not been able to refute anything I have said in my comment.

    • @Sunbead

      Thank you very much for trying to doxx me

      Well well, we really seem to have struck a nerve there, now did we?
      Anyway, this has nothing to do with doxxing. We just listed the different names under which you posted your mildly amusing homeotrollings. At no point was any personally identifying information revealed (or even searched for). If anything, you are the one who is misbehaving here – see Rule 13:
      “Commentators should use only one name or identifier.”

    • @Sunbead:
      “E) They use as authority characters with no scientific relevance such as Novella’s blog and Todd Carroll’s page that are based mostly on fallacies of false authority (remember that neither Novella, Carroll and Hall are allologists with no relevant academic contribution).”

      Homeopathy is bad for the brain. Sunbead should read the organon! It is not “allologists”, but allopaths!

      Also to note: School children of the first grades have no “academic contribution” – at least to my knowledge. But school-children can very well debunk homeopathy. Because that is so easy to show.

      Homeopathy is such a stupid fraud. Well, why then are there even professors of a number of universities pushing it? Are they stupid? Or are they paid? Or both?

  • Why is Sunbead complaining about being insulted? Doesn’t he want to be taken seriously? At the level that suits him?

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.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

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.