Monthly Archives: July 2025
The story of how my new book came to get published is long and tedious – too long and tedious to be told here in full. Let me therefore try to give you just a very brief summary:
- The ‘Apotheken Umschau‘ is a journal with a circulation of 6m in Germany.
- As it has a history of being very much pro-SCAM (so-called alternative medicine), I was surprised to be invited some 5 years ago to write a critical article about the subject.
- I was even more surprised to be invited weeks later to write a book along similar lines.
- I submitted a full book proposal and suggested the title WER RECHT HAT HEILT which is a play on words; the German dogma for SCAM practitioners is WER HEILT HAT RECHT [He who heals is right] which I turned around into He who is right heals. In English, this does not work very well but in German it is – I hope – quite funny.
- The proposal was swiftly accepted and I got cracking.
- When I had almost finished writing the book, I was informed that my suggested title was disallowed by the publisher’s lawyers.
- The publisher then changed the title and, as I had written the text around the agreed title, I had to rewrite much of the text.
- I nevertheless managed to meet the contractual deadline and submitted my manuscript on time.
- After a few months the first proofs arrived, and, to my surprise, the publisher had altered several crucial sections of my text. These alterations made my text less critical about SCAM.
- We then exchanged many emails and had several video conferences. Altogether I must have exchanged some 200 emails with this publisher of which about a third remained unanswered (my estimate).
- Eventually, we agreed that the publisher had the right to correct my (often rusty) German but not the content or gist of the book.
- It followed a long period of finalizing the wording of the text, the subtitles and of proofreading.
- When this was finished, I was told that the book’s publication was imminent. That was around 3 years ago.
- Looking on Amazon one day, I was struck to see my book advertised under yet another title. It had not been agreed with me. In fact, I had not even been informed about it (and hated it).
- I asked the publisher what was going on and was not given a satisfactory answer.
- Now followed a long period of silence where nothing at all happened, despite me sending increasingly angry emails from time to time.
- Then, suddenly, it was all ‘go’ again and work on the book restarted afresh.
- One day, I was told that now even my original title, ‘WER RECHT HAT HEILT’ was acceptable.
- I thus revised large sections of the book a third time.
- Now, things seemed to advance smoothly, and my book started to be advertised on numerous websites with the title page depicting ‘WER RECHT HAT HEILT’.
- But now, another surprise awaited me: I was informed that my book would need to be ‘peer-reviewed’ by two ‘experts’. I have published plenty of books and never had encountered peer-review apart from that on the initial book proposal.
- Eventually, I received the reviewers comments which were both worryingly incompetent and intensely annoying.
- I nevertheless addressed them all, if only by explaining why the reviewer was, in my view, mistaken.
- When this process was over, I was informed that the last touches were now being made on the graphics and that publication was imminent.
- However, nothing happened and my many emails asking for an explanations did not result in satisfactory explanations.
- Finally, at the end of 2024, I was informed that my book would not be published. The alleged reason was that I had not adequately responded to the comments of the reviewers.
- In my view, the whole painfully long process was marked by a level of unprofessionalism on the side of the publisher that, in my extensive experience as an author, I had never encountered before.
- Luckily, the copyright was returned to me.
- Now I was free to contact another publisher, the ALIBRI VERLAG, and they accepted to publish my book.
- I then revised and updated my text yet again and, within just 4 months, my book finally saw the light of day.
In retrospect, I quite understand that publishers who are into promoting SCAM and heavily rely on advertising cannot afford to publish a book criticising SCAM. This would, of course, be bad for business! What I don’t get, however, is
why ask me and accept my book outline in the first place?
PS
As the book is in German, I will soon post a translation of a short section that explains what it is all about.
- Biological Mimicry: In biology, mimicry refers to the phenomenon where one species evolves to resemble another, often for survival advantages like predator avoidance.
- Social Mimicry: In social sciences, mimicry theory explores how individuals mimic behaviors, mannerisms, or speech patterns of others to build rapport, establish social connections, or manipulate others.
- Postcolonial Mimicry: In postcolonial studies, mimicry theory refers to the ways colonized peoples imitate and adapt the culture of the colonizers, often as a strategy of survival, resistance, or subversion.
“Man is the creature who does not know what to desire, and he turns to others in order to make up his mind. We desire what others desire because we imitate their desires”, claimed the inventor of mimicry theory, René Girard (1923–2015).
Here I propose that homeopathy too can be viewed and explained by that kind of mimicry. Homeopaths attempt to mimic the appearance or approach of real medicine in order to gain legitimacy, credibility and income.
- Homeopaths adopt certain trappings or terminology of evidence-based medicine without necessarily adhering to its underlying principles or scientific rigor.
- They behave like real healthcare professional without having any effective healthcare at their disposal.
- They dispense homeopathics that are bar of any active molecules pretending they are real medicines.
- Etc, etc.
No, the article I am referring to is NOT entitled ‘ANIMAL CHIROPRACTIC (AC) IS NONSENSE’ – quite to the contrary, it is entitled ‘Animal Chiropractic. A Basic Description and Its Importance in Veterinary Practice’. Yet, I feel that the former title would be more suitable.
Judge for yourself. Here is the abstract:
Properly applied AC can be safe and effective. Only licensed health care professionals who have completed extensive postgraduate training should offer AC. As we initially described, AC’s goal is to improve afferent and efferent homeostasis, stability of joints through better sensitivity, and efferent motoric response to improve joint stability. By providing AC, veterinarians can help their patients achieve the highest level of function, independence, and quality of life possible. In this article, we have described AC as a valuable modality that, by improving afferent input and positive modulation of the ventral horn cells and their efferent motor neurons, can positively affect patient strength, stability, and mobility. Therefore, improved conditioning, performance, and postoperative recoveries can enhance patient outcomes by including AC in veterinary practice.
“Any evidence?”, I hear you ask.
Yes, there is an entire paragraph entitled ‘Efficacy and safety’; here it is in full:
There have been several articles published showing the efficacy of AC. Most articles published discussing effectiveness and safety have been from human research, reporting a very low incidence of injuries when provided by licensed and trained professionals. Other national agencies have published information showing the statistical significance of SMT in humans over other treatment therapies.
Surely, this cannot be all!
But it is!
So, let me help out and provide a full summary of the evidence:
THERE IS NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT ANIMAL CHIROPRACTIC DOES MORE GOOD THAN HARM.
And that’s why I think the article should best be entitled:
ANIMAL CHIROPRACTIC IS NONSENSE.
PS
And on reflection, I even think that ‘nonsense’ might be too polite a term for describing it correctly
Influenza poses a major health challenge due to its variability, pandemic potential and absence of an effective cure. These fact render prevention crucial. This cross-sectional study aimed to explore the link between influenza vaccination and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) practices among Palestinian adults, along with factors influencing vaccination rates. It also evaluated participants’ attitudes towards SCAM and beliefs regarding herbal and vitamin use for influenza management.
The study was carried out between 18/02/2024 and 23/04/2024. A self-administered online questionnaire was shared through social media and personal communication. This questionnaire was aimed at all adults aged 18 and above. Both descriptive and regression analyses were performed.
The study included 363 participants, revealing an influenza vaccination rate of only 9%. A significant correlation was found between vaccination status and the use of:
- manipulative therapies,
- body-based methods,
- mind-body medicine.
No significant relationship was noted with herbal remedies or alternative medical systems.
Higher income and better health status were linked to increased vaccination likelihood (P-value<0.05), indicating a need for targeted public health campaigns. Although 63% of participants were familiar with SCAM, 34% had never used it for influenza, highlighting a knowledge gap. Popular natural remedies like Vitamin C, ginger, and honey reflect a trend toward preventive healthcare despite concerns over costs and skepticism about SCAM’s effectiveness.
The authors concluded that vaccine hesitancy is influenced by multiple factors, including context and types of SCAM use. Cultural beliefs and personal health philosophies significantly shape attitudes toward SCAM use and vaccination.
On this blog, we have discussed dozens of papers showing a link between various forms of SCAM and uptake of various form of vaccinations (please use the search fascility, if you want to know the details). We have seen that consumers from all parts of the world are less likely to vaccinate, if they are enthusiastic about SCAM. The reasons for this association, and the role of SCAM practitioners in it seem fairly clear:
- SCAM practitioners tend to advise against vaccination;
- SCAM practitioners tend to claim that their own treatments protect against infections;
- SCAM practitioners tend to stress the risks of vaccinations;
- SCAM practitioners tend to claim that vaccinations are not effective;
- SCAM practitioners tend learn these fallacies during their training;
- SCAM practitioners tend to get bombarded with such messages in their ‘professional’ literature;
- Many consumers believe the nonsense they hear from SCAM practitioners, particularly if they share their anti-establishment/science mind-set.
The damage caused in this way by SCAM practitioners is untold. Is it not time to educate SCAM practitioners properly in order to prevent the damage they do to public health?
The current editorial in the Journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’ is entitled “A Turning Point for Homeopathy?”. It hinges on the often discussed wishful thinking of homeopaths that the mechanism of action (MoA) of homeopathic remedies is explicable by the presence of nanoparticles in the remedy. Here is the crucial section:
… the homeopathy community should consolidate a modern collective view on homeopathy’s physical mechanism of action as one based on the presence of nanoparticles in its ultradiluted medicines. The nanoparticle theory is given further weight in the current issue with the Original Research article by Van Wassenhoven et al, ‘Characterization of aqueous ultra-high homeopathic potencies: nanoparticle tracking analysis’, which concludes that the material nature of the potencies investigated is ‘most likely […] a mixture of nanobubbles and elements from the atmosphere and container’.[2] The latter authors’ statement, ‘The idea that homeopathic medicines are non-material, proposed both by opponents of homeopathy and traditional homeopathic practitioners, cannot be sustained in the light of these findings’, independently mirrors Professor Dei’s viewpoint.
On this blog, I have repeatedly pointed out that this is utter nonsense. What are the nanoparticles of the many non-material homeopathic remedies such as vaccum or X-rays? Even if nanoparticles of, for instance, Arnica were contained in a remedy, how would that explain its MoA?
- Target Identification: The specific biological target(s) the medicine interacts with, such as proteins (enzymes, receptors), nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), or other biomolecules.
- Binding and Interaction: The type of interaction between the medicine and its target, including binding affinity, specificity, and the molecular forces involved (e.g., hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions).
- Biochemical Consequences: The effects of the medicine-target interaction on the target’s function, such as enzyme inhibition or activation, receptor agonism or antagonism, or modulation of gene expression.
- Signaling Pathways: The downstream signaling cascades or pathways affected by the medicine-target interaction, including the key molecules and cellular processes involved.
- Cellular and Physiological Effects: The resulting changes in cellular behavior, physiology, or biochemistry, such as changes in cell growth, differentiation, or survival, or alterations in tissue function.
- Therapeutic Outcome: The ultimate clinical effect of the medicine, including the alleviation of symptoms, modification of disease progression, or cure of the underlying condition.
- Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: The relationship between the medicine’s concentration, its effects on the target, and the resulting therapeutic outcome, including factors such as absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination.
- Dose-Response Relationship: The correlation between the medicine’s dose and its effects, including the optimal therapeutic dose range and potential toxicities.
- Molecular Specificity and Selectivity: The degree to which the medicine selectively targets the intended biological pathway or process, minimizing off-target effects and potential side effects.
I came across an interesting article that is most relevant to the subject of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Here is its abstract:
The dream of a universal cure has persisted throughout history, evolving from ancient myths to modern pseudoscience. This essay explores the cultural and cognitive resilience of the panacea archetype, tracing its transformation from ancient elixirs and patent medicines to contemporary pseudotreatments, including homeopathy, Radithor, MMS, and ivermectin. These so-called cures endure not merely due to misinformation but because they are embedded within emotionally and cognitively compelling narratives. Drawing from mythology, literature, cognitive psychology, and historical analysis, we examine how panaceas offer more than promises of healing: they provide meaning, control, and hope, especially during times of crisis and uncertainty. Key narrative patterns—heroic discoverers, persecuted truths, villainous establishments, and testimonial-driven validation—align with cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, illusion of causality, and need for cognitive closure. These dynamics are further amplified by digital echo chambers, institutional distrust, and the politicization of medical beliefs. The persistence of panaceas is not merely a failure of science communication but a reflection of deep human vulnerabilities—emotional, epistemological, and social. Understanding the structure and appeal of these narratives is essential not only for combating medical misinformation but also for restoring public trust in scientific and medical institutions.
The term “panacea” comes from ancient Greek mythology where it was the name of the goddess of universal remedy, a daughter of Asclepius, the god of medicine and healing. The name is a compound of the words “pan” meaning “all” and “akeia” meaning “cure”. A panacea is thus a cure all.
SCAM is littered with panaceas:
- Homeopathy is supposed to cure all diseases according to its inventor.
- Chiropractic is supposed to cure all diseases according to its inventor.
- Osteopathy is supposed to cure all diseases according to its inventor.
- Acupuncture is supposed to cure all diseases according to TCM philosophy.
- Bach flower remedies are supposed to cure all diseases according to its inventor.
- Schuessler Salts are supposed to cure all diseases according to its inventor.
- Etc., etc.
The reason for all these assumption lies in a misunderstanding of the origin of disease:
- Hahnemann was convinced that all illness originates from a weakness of the life forces.
- Palmer was convinced that all illness originates from subluxations of the spine.
- Still was convinced that all illness originates from a malalignment of joints.
- TCM proponents are convinced that all illness originates from an imbalance of the two life forces.
- Bach was convinced that all illness originates from emotional states.
- Schuessler was convinced that all illness originates from mineral imbalances.
The allure of such concepts is understandable: they are so much simpler than reality! When the naive enthusiasm wears off, it is time for some rational and critical thinking. The causes of disease are manifold, and (sadly) there is no (and never will be) a panacea. If then, faced with the evidence, the enthusiasm does not give way to reason, it amouunts no longer to allure but to stupidity.
One might think that fact-checking and AI will render the survival of bullshit (BS) difficult. But is that true? I am not sure.
Who better to ask than AI?
I therefore asked META AI to help me out.
This is the response I got:
________________________
Fact-checking and AI can help reduce misinformation, but their impact on “BS” (misinformation, spin, or nonsense) is complex:
Fact-checking’s role:
- Increased accuracy: Fact-checking initiatives can correct false claims and provide reliable information.
- Awareness: Fact-checking raises awareness about misinformation, encouraging critical thinking.
AI’s role:
- Detection: AI-powered tools can detect potential misinformation, flagging suspicious content for review.
- Analysis: AI can analyze large datasets to identify patterns and trends in misinformation.
Limitations:
- Context matters: AI might struggle to understand nuances, sarcasm, or context-dependent information.
- Bias and error: AI models can perpetuate biases or make mistakes if trained on flawed data.
- Cat-and-mouse game: Misinformation creators might adapt and find ways to evade detection.
Popularity of BS:
- Emotional appeal: Misinformation often taps into emotions, making it more memorable and shareable.
- Echo chambers: Social media algorithms can reinforce existing beliefs, making it harder for fact-checking to penetrate.
While fact-checking and AI can help mitigate misinformation, their effectiveness depends on various factors, including implementation, context, and user behavior.
Will BS become less popular? Likely, but it will remain a challenge. Critical thinking, media literacy, and ongoing efforts to improve fact-checking and AI detection will be crucial in reducing its spread.
________________________
This sounds reasonable.
Judging from the comments sections of my blog, I am not optimistic that BS is on the way out. “Critical thinking, media literacy, and ongoing efforts to improve fact-checking and AI detection will be crucial in reducing its spread.” Yes, but in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), we also would require a minimum of science literacy, understanding of medicine, common sense and willingness to abandon preconceived ideas when faced with overwhelming evidence.
In the 30+ years that I am researching SCAM, I have seen little of these qualities in those who promote SCAM.
PS
Can someone make a list of prominent SCAM enthusiasts who have changed their mind in the face of sound evidence that contradicted their belief?
Here is mine:
___
___
___
___
___
[You might say that Natalie Grams and Brit Hermes are two examples. I would beg to differ: they were NOT prominent SCAM enthusiasts but they both (rightly) came to prominence only because of their courageous opposition to SCAM]The present paper described a rare and lethal adverse event following leech therapy. A 63-year-old man was referred to Nemazee Teaching Hospital (Shiraz, Iran) in December 2020 with a two-week history of progressive right lower extremity swelling, erythema, and ecchymosis. One week before symptom onset, he had undergone leech therapy on the lateral calf and upper thigh of the right lower extremity, administered by a traditional healer.
Physical examination revealed gangrene of the right leg and absence of all pulses. Color Doppler sonography of the leg and computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the thoracic aorta to the lower extremities revealed complete thrombosis of all right lower extremity arteries, extending to the right iliac artery and abdominal aorta. With a diagnosis of arterial occlusive disease and septic thrombophlebitis, the patient received intravenous antibiotics and anticoagulant therapy. Due to the ineffectiveness of medical treatments, a right lower extremity amputation was
performed.
The patient expired 5 days postoperatively due to septic shock and multiorgan failure.
The adverse effects of leech therapy include:
- Infection: Leeches can introduce bacteria like Aeromonas hydrophila into the wound, potentially causing infections
- Allergic reactions: Some people may be allergic to leech saliva, which can cause an allergic reaction
- Prolonged bleeding: Leeches inject an anticoagulant, which can lead to prolonged bleeding at the site of the bite
- Scarring: Leech bites can leave scars
- Anemia: In rare cases, excessive bleeding caused by leeches can lead to anemia
- Pain or discomfort at the site of the leech bite
- Swelling or redness around the bite area
- Itching or rash after the leech is removed
- Potential for transmission of diseases
- Psychological distress or anxiety related to the use of leeches
The effect of leech therapy consists mainly in the anticoagulation due to the hiriduin from the leech (it is also advocated for ‘detox’ [which is nonsense] and for pain [where the effect is too small to matter]). I would argue that this desired effect is achievable more safely by conventional means and that the risk/benefit balance of leech therapy is squarely negative.
In other words: don’t do it!
On this blog, we have repeatedly discussed BLEACH and several of the individuals promoting it (who I called ‘BLEACH BOYS’) as a cure for just about everything, e.g.:
- Beware of the ‘Bleach Boys’ – hydrogen peroxide and chlorine dioxide
- Anti-vaxxer jailed for selling bleach (MMS) as a cure for Covid-19
- Miracle Mineral Supplement (MMS): accidental ingestion by an infant
- Selling bleach as ‘miracle’ cure (MMS): Father and three sons are going to prison
- Selling bleach solution as ‘miracle’ cure? No, it’s a dangerous ‘snake oil’!
- A well-known opponent of vaccination has died of COVID after self-treatment with MMS
- MMS-salesman Andreas Kalcker has been arrested in Argentina
The US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mentioned bleach, i.e. chlorine dioxide, during his Senate confirmation hearing. Specifically, he referenced chlorine dioxide while praising Trump for “looking at all of the different remedies” for Covid, using it as an example of the open-mindedness that Kennedy characterized as a “demonstration of leadership”. It has been reported that this encouraged those advocating the use of bleach solution (also known as Miracle Mineral Solution, Chlorine Dioxide Solution, Water Purification Solution, and God’s Detox) as a panacea, and influencers are now pushing to get bleach approved as a mainstream treatment. “We are thrilled that RFK Jr. is in charge,” said Michelle Herman, who sells a nasal spray containing chlorine dioxide. Apparently she already discussed the topic with Kennedy.
“The bleachers are back, making connections with powerful people, reaching RFK and Trump,” says Fiona O’Leary, an Ireland-based activist who has spent years trying to highlight the dangers of toxic bleach solutions being sold as an autism cure. “Bleachers want RFK to approve chlorine dioxide as a treatment for autism, cancer, and other conditions. It is like watching a horror show.”
Days after the confirmation hearing, Pierre Kory claimed on a podcast that Kennedy had called him to discuss the use of bleach ahead of the hearing: “Bobby thought they were going to come after him on that. So I basically told Bobby what the real story was on it.” Kennedy has praised Kory on social media, calling him a “brave dissident doctor” and “honest, brave, and sincere.”
Herman says that she met Kennedy in October 2023: “I was honored to meet him in late 2023 and was able to talk with him for about 30 minutes. I shared that, very similar to the war on ivermectin, the war on chlorine dioxide was the same story … He listened intently, indicated he was not familiar with it, but was nonetheless very intrigued and asked for more information.”
One of the most notorious figures within the bleaching community, Mark Grenon, was sentenced to a stint in federal prison in 2023 alongside three of his sons for selling bleach as a cure for Covid. A self-styled archbishop of the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing, Grenon was released from prison in September 2024, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website. While Grenon initially told a supporter on Facebook that he was “not allowed” to become part of groups promoting chlorine dioxide, he has appeared on numerous podcasts and livestreams in recent months to promote the use of bleach. An individual with the username Mark_Grenon is also now listed as an administrator of Oates’ Chlorine Dioxide Testimonies Telegram group, which has more than 30,000 members.
In one question-and-answer session hosted on Zoom related to “curing” cancer with chlorine dioxide, Grenon said that chlorine dioxide is “growing worldwide.” In another recent online interview, Grenon claimed a member of his church treated a 4-month-old baby with liver cancer by soaking them in a bath of water topped up with 100 drops of chlorine dioxide. Last month, Grenon attended the Truth Seekers conference at Trump’s resort, which was filled with bleach enthusiasts and antisemitic conspiracy theorists. Grenon was pictured at the event alongside Herman and Oates as well as Kerri Rivera, who has long promoted chlorine dioxide as a treatment for autism. Rivera has been living in Mexico in recent years; previously, German authorities investigated accusations that she had caused bodily harm to a child, though no charges were ultimately filed.
Andreas Kalcker, another bleach activist, was also at the conference. Kalcker was charged by authorities in Argentina in 2021 following the death of a 5-year-old boy whose parents gave him Kalcker’s chlorine dioxide solution with the belief that it would ward off Covid. In an interview published recently on Rumble, Kalcker said he once met Kennedy at the AutismOne conference in Chicago in 2013 where they were both speakers.
For years, a central aim of some chlorine dioxide advocates has been to remove a key warning about chlorine dioxide issued by the US Food and Drug Administration in August 2019, during Trump’s first term in office. It was viewed as a significant block to more widespread adoption of the treatment by doctors. “The solution,” the news release read, “when mixed, develops into a dangerous bleach which has caused serious and potentially life-threatening side effects.”
“RFK has to rescind that FDA warning against chlorine dioxide,” said Herman during a March livestream on Rumble, an alternative video sharing platform. “That’s what stops everybody in their tracks. Every doctor, no matter how much guts they have, they see that warning and they get nervous, they get scared … that’s got to be rescinded.”
The FDA warning was last live on the agency’s site on May 15, according to an archived version of the site available on the Internet Archive. Proponents of the toxic solution view the removal of the warning as a victory. “I was genuinely surprised, and as someone from China, I couldn’t imagine our own government quietly removing a public warning without any announcement,” said Xuewu Liu, who promotes the treatment of cancerous tumors by directly injecting them with chlorine dioxide. “This quiet removal won’t immediately change everything, but it opens a door.”
While the removal of the warning is a huge boon for those promoting the toxic bleach solution, it is just the first step in a push to make chlorine dioxide a mainstream treatment. In her livestream interview in March, Herman said she suggested that someone hold a “Make America Healthy Again roundtable” to discuss chlorine dioxide, while getting the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct research into chlorine dioxide and setting standards for the toxic solution. “We know that there is awareness and support for repurposed drugs and what are termed ‘alternative’ therapies, and we hope that the restraints and prosecutions will cease,” said Herman. “Will they outright approve these therapies? We just don’t know. More realistically, they will hopefully encourage further evaluations towards such approvals.”
Many consumers hold a positive or neutral view of homeopathy. This is primarily because they don’t fully understand what it is, how absurd its assumptions really are, and how dangerous the homeopathic approach to healthcare truly is. A very common misconception, for instance, is that homeopathy is a natural and/or herbal treatment. However, both assumptions are mistaken. Homeopathic remedies are often not derived from natural or herbal substances (see below), and most are so highly diluted they contain no active substance at all. For those who value rational thought, this characteristic alone renders homeopathy utterly absurd.
The “absurdity” of homeopathy stems from several aspects:
- Claims that defy basic scientific principles: Proponents often assert a belief in “water memory” as the mechanism for remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s number, meaning not a single original molecule remains. This operates outside the realm of scientific reality.
- Attributing any positive outcome to homeopathy: Homeopathy is often credited with curing serious conditions, despite lacking a plausible mechanism. This ignores natural recovery, the placebo effect, or concurrent conventional treatments.
- Dismissing scientific criticism as “Big Pharma conspiracy”: Some proponents frequently use this trope to invalidate negative scientific findings rather than engaging with evidence.
- Making outlandish claims about what homeopathy can cure: Some proponents claim efficacy for virtually everything, including severe infectious diseases, cancer, or even as a substitute for vaccinations. This is widely considered irresponsible and dangerous.
- Using pseudoscientific jargon: Terms like “energetic vibrations,” “quantum fields,” or “miasms” are often employed without clear, testable scientific definitions.
While it’s difficult and perhaps even unfair to name prominent exponents of these absurdities, certain types of proponents and their arguments are easily identified:
- Those who reject conventional medicine entirely for homeopathy: These individuals promote a “gentle” and “holistic” approach, often viewing conventional medicine as harsh and reductionist. This stance can tragically lead patients to forgo evidence-based treatments for serious illnesses (e.g., cancer, severe infections, diabetes) in favor of homeopathy, which has no proven specific effect. The belief that homeopathy alone suffices for all ailments, regardless of severity, is dangerously unscientific.
- Proponents of “new” or “extreme” provings and remedies: These homeopaths expand the materia medica to include unusual substances. Some conduct “provings” (testing remedies on healthy individuals) with incredibly abstract or implausible “substances” like emotions, dreams, vacuum, X-rays, cosmic energies, or even highly diluted Coca-Cola or parts of the Berlin Wall. The idea that these could be potentized into remedies with specific effects moves into the realm of fantasy rather than scientific inquiry.
- Those making grand claims about “water memory” or “quantum healing”: These individuals attempt to provide a theoretical basis for homeopathy that goes beyond the known laws of physics and chemistry. Their explanations often involve misinterpretations or misapplications of complex scientific concepts (like quantum mechanics or the structure of water) to justify a mechanism for which there is no evidence. They frequently speak of “information transfer” or “energetic imprints” without any empirical way to measure or verify these phenomena. The scientific consensus is that such claims are pseudoscientific.
- Promoters of homeopathic “vaccinations” or alternatives to proven public health measures: Offering what they claim are “natural” and “safer” alternatives to conventional vaccines is perhaps one of the most dangerous forms of advocacy. Promoting “homeopathic nosodes” (highly diluted disease products) as equivalents to vaccines is scientifically unfounded and can put individuals and communities at risk by fostering vaccine hesitancy and reducing herd immunity. Public health bodies universally condemn such practices.
Many homeopaths are, in my experience, entirely sincere in their beliefs and genuinely hope to help people (they will even feel ‘hard done by’ when reading this post). However, it’s crucial to remember, I think, that sincerity does not make a charlatan less, but more, dangerous. I have long felt that, if consumers truly understood what homeopathy is all about, their attitude towards it would dramatically change.
