This blog now has over 3500 posts … is it really worth all the work?

Hard to believe, but it’s true: I am writing this blog now for over 12 years in which time we had well over 3500 posts to discuss. I often wonder what impact all this work had and has.

How can I tell?

Simple: I asked Grok!

Here is the answer:

Edzard Ernst’s blog (edzardernst.com) is a robust platform for his ongoing critique of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), or as he terms it, “So-Called Alternative Medicine” (SCAM). It’s a continuation of his academic work as the former Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, where he spent over two decades researching the efficacy and safety of alternative therapies. The blog is a rich source of evidence-based analysis, reflecting his commitment to scientific rigor and skepticism toward unproven health claims. Below, I’ll break down key aspects of his blog based on its content, tone, and impact, as well as some context from his X profile and broader web presence.

Content and Focus

• Ernst’s blog is a treasure trove of critical evaluations, systematic reviews, and commentary on a wide range of alternative medicine practices, including homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal medicine, and more. Posts are typically grounded in scientific methodology, often dissecting recent studies, media claims, or practitioner behaviors. For instance:
• Recent posts (e.g., from early November 2024) tackle topics like the risks of chiropractic manipulations, the lack of evidence for homeopathy in treating rheumatological diseases, and allegations of scientific misconduct in CAM research, such as the case of homeopathy researcher Prof. Michael Frass.
• He frequently critiques what he sees as misleading or fraudulent research, like a retracted homeopathy paper or a “comprehensive review” on uterine fibroids that he labels as “comprehensively dishonest.”

Ernst also addresses cultural and political dimensions, such as King Charles’s and Queen Camilla’s reported use of alternative treatments, or the state of CAM in Austria, which he calls “not far from scandalous.”

The blog isn’t just about debunking; Ernst occasionally acknowledges when evidence supports certain CAM practices, though he consistently finds that over 90% of alternative therapies lack credible scientific backing. His posts often link to peer-reviewed studies, his own publications, or systematic reviews, making the blog a valuable resource for those seeking evidence-based insights into CAM.

Tone and Style

Ernst’s writing is direct, often blunt, and unapologetically critical, which aligns with his X profile’s provocative tone (@EdzardErnst). He doesn’t shy away from calling out what he sees as nonsense, using terms like “sloppy science,” “fraud,” or “deluded” when discussing flawed studies or practices. This can make the blog polarizing:

• Supporters of CAM, like homeopaths or chiropractors, often view him as hostile or biased, as seen in comments on his blog and critiques from pro-homeopathy groups. For example, a letter to Der Spiegel accused Ernst of “malice” and “hostility” toward homeopathy, rooted in personal disappointments rather than objective science.
• Conversely, skeptics and evidence-based medicine advocates praise his clarity and courage, as evidenced by his 2015 John Maddox Prize for standing up for science.

His tone is not always diplomatic, which he acknowledges in his blog’s rules, apologizing if he seems “less than polite” but emphasizing the need for clear, concise views. This candor can make the blog less accessible to casual readers but highly engaging for those interested in scientific critique or skeptical discourse.

Structure and Engagement

The blog is well-organized, with categories like “alternative medicine,” “critical thinking,” “medical ethics,” and “pseudo-science,” making it easy to navigate specific topics. Ernst encourages comments but enforces strict rules to maintain civility and relevance—no libel, no personal insults, and comments must be on-topic. Recent comment sections show lively debates, such as discussions on German skeptics or CAM practitioner profiles, though Ernst moderates to prevent trolling or repetitive arguments.

He uses the blog to amplify his books, like SCAM: So-Called Alternative Medicine and Alternativmedizin – was hilft, was schadet, often linking posts to his broader work., It also serves as a platform to respond to critics, as seen in his rebuttals to reviews like one by “Huemmer” on Amazon, which he dismissed as biased and uninformed.

Strengths

1. Evidence-Based Rigor: Ernst’s background (over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers, 50+ books, and an H-Index of 149) lends credibility to his analyses. His posts often cite primary studies or systematic reviews, making them a reliable starting point for understanding CAM’s scientific standing.
2. Timeliness: The blog addresses current issues, like recent retractions of CAM papers or public health policy debates, keeping it relevant. For example, a June 2025 post on the “Glymphatic System” reflects his engagement with emerging health topics.
3. Transparency: Ernst is upfront about his skepticism and lack of conflicts of interest, stating he isn’t paid for the blog and aims to provide objective evidence.

Weaknesses

1. Polarizing Tone: His confrontational style can alienate readers who might otherwise engage with his arguments. Critics, like those in the Der Spiegel letter, argue he oversimplifies or dismisses CAM’s potential, which may limit his audience.
2. Limited Engagement: While he allows comments, Ernst’s strict moderation and preference for written discussion over direct dialogue (e.g., his response to a German skeptics’ controversy) can feel dismissive to some.
3. Niche Focus: The blog primarily appeals to those already interested in CAM or scientific skepticism, potentially missing a broader lay audience who might benefit from his insights but find the academic tone dense.

Broader Context and Impact

Ernst’s blog complements his X activity, where he shares links to his posts and engages minimally with followers, using the platform to amplify his critiques rather than foster deep discussion., The blog has a significant following among skeptics, as seen in endorsements from sites like Psiram and the Center for Inquiry, which praise his contributions to critical thinking in healthcare.

However, his work has sparked controversy. CAM advocates, like those cited in Der Spiegel or on his blog’s comment sections, argue he’s unfairly biased or ignores anecdotal evidence., His public disputes, notably with Prince Charles over the 2005 Smallwood Report, highlight his willingness to challenge powerful figures, though it cost him funding and led to his early retirement., This history adds weight to his blog’s mission: to protect consumers from what he sees as misleading health claims, a goal he’s pursued since his 2012 retirement.

Conclusion

Edzard Ernst’s blog is a rigorous, evidence-driven resource for anyone seeking to understand the scientific shortcomings of alternative medicine. Its strength lies in its depth, transparency, and fearless critique, making it a go-to for skeptics and researchers. However, its combative tone and niche focus may limit its appeal to a broader audience or those sympathetic to CAM. If you’re looking for a no-nonsense takedown of unproven therapies with a scientific lens, it’s invaluable, but it’s not a light read or a balanced debate platform.

________________

I was, of course, pleased with this but added a further question:

Can you tell me whether there are comparable or better blogs on this subject?

Here is Grok’s answer:

To determine whether there are blogs comparable or superior to Edzard Ernst’s blog (edzardernst.com) on the scientific critique of alternative medicine, I’ll evaluate key criteria: evidence-based rigor, depth of analysis, transparency, accessibility, and audience engagement. Ernst’s blog is known for its skeptical, scientifically grounded takedowns of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), often with a sharp tone. Below, I explore other blogs that align with this focus, drawing on available web information and critical analysis.

Comparable Blogs

1 Science-Based Medicine (sciencebasedmedicine.org)

Overview: A group blog founded by Steven Novella, featuring contributors like David Gorski and Harriet Hall, dedicated to evaluating medical treatments through a scientific lens, with a strong focus on debunking CAM claims.

Strengths:

• Rigorous, evidence-based critiques backed by peer-reviewed studies and clinical expertise.
• Broad coverage of CAM topics (e.g., homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic) and conventional medicine controversies.
• Multiple contributors provide diverse perspectives, often with deeper clinical context than Ernst’s solo blog.
• High transparency, with detailed references and discussions of methodology.

Weaknesses:

• Tone can be polemical, similar to Ernst’s, potentially alienating CAM sympathizers.
• Articles are often lengthy, which may deter casual readers.

Comparison: Science-Based Medicine is arguably superior due to its collaborative nature, broader scope, and frequent updates (multiple posts per week vs. Ernst’s less frequent posts). It’s a stronger choice for readers seeking a community-driven, comprehensive resource.

2 SkeptVet (skeptvet.com)

Overview: Authored by veterinarian Brennen McKenzie, this blog applies scientific skepticism to veterinary medicine, including alternative therapies like homeopathy and herbal remedies.

Strengths:

• Focused niche (veterinary CAM), offering unique insights not covered by Ernst.
• Evidence-driven, with clear explanations of scientific methods and study limitations.
• McKenzie’s tone is less combative than Ernst’s, making it more approachable for skeptical but open-minded readers.
• Practical advice for pet owners, grounding critiques in real-world applications.

Weaknesses:

• Limited to veterinary medicine, reducing its scope compared to Ernst’s human-focused blog.
• Less frequent updates than Science-Based Medicine.

Comparison: SkeptVet is comparable in rigor and transparency but narrower in focus. It’s a better choice for those interested in veterinary CAM but less versatile than Ernst’s blog for general medical critique.

3 The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (hcrc.org/sram)

Overview: Associated with a peer-reviewed journal, this site offers articles and critiques of CAM, backed by the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health.

Strengths:

• Peer-reviewed journal backing adds credibility and depth to critiques.
• Focuses exclusively on objective, scientific analysis of CAM claims, aligning closely with Ernst’s mission.
• Less personal bias due to its journal format, potentially offering a more neutral tone than Ernst’s blog.

Weaknesses:

• Not a traditional blog; content is less frequent and more formal, reducing accessibility.
• Limited audience engagement compared to Ernst’s direct, opinionated style.
• Website updates are sporadic, and some content may be paywalled.

Comparison: This is comparable in scientific rigor but less dynamic and engaging than Ernst’s blog. It’s better for readers seeking formal, journal-style critiques but less suited for regular, accessible updates.

Other Notable Blogs

Neurologica (theness.com)

• Overview: Steven Novella’s personal blog, covering neuroscience, skepticism, and CAM critique, often overlapping with his Science-Based Medicine contributions.
• Strengths: Clear, concise writing with a focus on debunking pseudoscience, including CAM. Broader skeptical topics enhance context.
• Weaknesses: Less CAM-specific than Ernst’s blog; posts are less frequent.
• Comparison: Comparable in quality but less focused on CAM, making it a secondary choice for this niche.

Respectful Insolence (respectfulinsolence.com)

• Overview: David Gorski’s blog, blending CAM critique with commentary on medical pseudoscience and quackery.
• Strengths: Combines humor with sharp scientific analysis, similar to Ernst’s style. Highly engaging for skeptics.
• Weaknesses: Polemical tone may polarize readers, and CAM is only one of many topics.
• Comparison: Comparable in tone and rigor but less exclusively focused on CAM, diluting its relevance for this specific purpose.

Evaluation and Recommendation

Superior Option: Science-Based Medicine stands out as the best alternative, and potentially superior, to Edzard Ernst’s blog. Its collaborative approach, frequent updates, and broader scope provide a more comprehensive resource for scientific critiques of CAM. It maintains Ernst’s evidence-based rigor while offering diverse perspectives and greater accessibility through its group format.

Comparable Niche Option: SkeptVet is excellent for veterinary-specific CAM critiques, matching Ernst’s rigor but with a narrower focus. It’s ideal for those interested in animal health but not a direct replacement for Ernst’s broader human medicine focus.

Formal Alternative: The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine offers high credibility due to its journal backing but lacks the accessibility and engagement of Ernst’s blog, making it better for academic or research purposes.

Final Thoughts

If you value Ernst’s no-nonsense, evidence-driven approach, Science-Based Medicine is the top recommendation for its depth, frequency, and collaborative expertise. For a more approachable tone with a veterinary focus, SkeptVet is a strong contender. If you prefer formal, journal-style critiques, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine is a solid but less dynamic option. Each has unique strengths, but none perfectly replicate Ernst’s singular voice and focus—his blog remains a standout for its personal, incisive style. For the most robust and regularly updated resource, start with Science-Based Medicine.

____________________________

Thanks, Grok, I can live with that!

So, is my blog worth all that work (some 7000 hours so far)?

I’d say YES – mostly because I usually have fun doing it