Mimicry theory refers to the idea that individuals or groups imitate (mimic) others, usually to achieve specific goals or outcomes.
Here are some examples:
- 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.
I believe that mimicry theory helps explain how homeopathy tries hard to present itself as a legitimate medical practice, despite lacking empirical support. I am not sure that many homeopaths will subscribe to my theory of the ‘minicry theory of homeopathy’, but I feel that – after decades of researching this area, interacting with homeopaths and trying my best to cope with their mimicry-loaded comments on my blog – it has considerable potential.
60 Responses to The ‘mimicry theory of homeopathy’
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Of course there’s also this popular phrase: “Homeopathy: the air guitar of medicine”.
Fun fact: there are actual air guitar championships: https://airguitarworldchampionships.com/en/home/
Yep…homeopathy IS a type of “medical biomimicry” as I have described in a dozen or so articles, including:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/15593258211022983
For those of us who believe in evolution (and not just give lip service to it), our symptoms of illness are not “breakdown” as much as they are the organism’s way to defend itself and to SURVIVE!
Therefore, it makes sense to mimic our body’s defenses!
And further, those pharmacological agents that work against the body’s symptoms (like a HUUUUGE % of conventional drugs do!), these drugs suppress the natural evolutionary efforts to defend itself, to heal, and to survive. It is no wonder that such conventional drugs provide short-term benefits but long-term problems…and such problems are deeper and more chronic.
Thanx for introducing your virgin learners here of the wisdom of homeopathic medicine.
@Dullman
Why are you so angry and acting like Rumpelstiltskin? Are you seeing your fortunes slip away? Are the coins no longer jingling loudly in your wallet? 😀
I endorse this wise insight 100%.
If I am ever in discussion with a homeopath, or proponent, I will explain:
“You provide a perfect example of the insights provided by mimicry theory. Thank you very much.”
Your “theory” fails because homeopaths pioneered the use of double-blinding (the mustard gas experiment) before the Salk vaccine. It also fails because Hahnemann pioneered personalized medicine, the care of psychiatric patients, and a rudimentary use of placebos. And we could add that pro-homeopaths were also pioneers in hormesis and in stimulating biophoton research, continuing the work of Gurswitch. And these are just a few examples.
In fact, even if they “mimic” it, there would be nothing wrong with adopting scientific and technical aspects, as that is what other disciplines do. Your “theory” makes no sense and reflects your lack of knowledge in the history and philosophy of science.
Although you call yourself a “trained homeopath,” you yourself have stated in your biography that you never completed formal training in homeopathy, so you cannot legally be a homeopath. Furthermore, your own former homeopathic colleagues have criticized several of your works for misnaming remedies. Or even your own contradictions, such as saying that all homeopathic remedies “are nothing,” but admitting in others that technically there are remedies in which there is substance.
your ability to write absolute nonsense is remarkable!
Oh Edzie…ad homs don’t work. Please cite a single bit of “nonesense.” As they say, put up or STFU!
Dana. You still don’t understand what an ad hom is, do you? Everything Sandbox writes is nonsense. Same as you. You’re a pair of blathering idiots. Which is not an ad hom but a statement of evidenced fact.
The mustard gas experiments were carried out in WW2. And were of isopathy rather than homeopathy. The numbers involved were too low to draw any conclusions and were unreplicated. Their results were dismissed by authorities due to methodological concerns.
The nazis also carried out trials of homeopathy. The results were disastrous.
The homeopaths continue to whinge about this as well.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2485267/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Controlled trials had been carried out for years prior to that.
Homeopaths were involved in one of the first RCTs, though. The Nuremberg salt trials. Which of course showed any effects of homeopathy to be the result of the delusions of the homeopaths. And in the finest traditions of homeopathy, the water-shakers refused to accept the results. And still do.
But carry on, Dana. It’s always fun to witness you flat-earthism. And for your continued failure to answer why all your petulant stamping and shouting has consistently failed to increase the acceptance of homeopathy as a mainstream therapy.
You’re just insulting, Lenny.
1. This doesn’t change the fact that the mustard gas report predated Johns Salk’s. And you’re very wrong. The mustard gas experiments were repeated and considered rigorous, but they were censored by the same government that requested them from homeopaths (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4224645/), and the same government that years later would publish the “Evidence Check 2” garbage. It’s quite a coincidence.
2. The mustard gas report is omitted from many pseudoskeptic books. In fact, many pseudoskeptics are unaware of these experiments. Why? Because pseudoskeptics used to say (like Barry Beyerstein in the 1990s https://www.dcscience.net/beyerstein_science_vs_pseudoscience.pdf) that “pseudoscientists never do controlled trials.” The mustard gas report shattered the “pseudoscience claims” of many pseudoskeptic propagandists.
3. It’s curious that you now make the distinction with isopathy, when you usually spend your time mentioning Oscilloccinum as a paradigm example of homeopathy, although it is also isopathy.
4. The Nazi study was never supported by data; the only thing that exists is a report with the testimony of a Nazi (ironic) (Donner https://www.kwakzalverij.nl/behandelwijzen/homeopathie-2/a-total-disaster-for-homeopathy/). Donner (also ironic) says in his report that he accepts the similia principle, something that neither Ernst nor the Belgian pseudoskeptic (Nyenhyus) who keeps quoting it ever mention.
5. You’re very clueless, Lenny. The Nuremberg Salt Experiment is not a clinical trial evaluating efficacy, but rather a proving. Although this trial was considered rigorous for its time, the mustard gas experiments definitely surpass it by far. The Salt experiment had 50 participants, the gas experiment had 293 (240 in a controlled follow-up study, with 113 of them in a placebo control) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21459296/).
6. If you’re going to use a proving ground as a refutation, at least include recent studies (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475491615000685). The Walach experiments are definitely much more rigorous than the Salt experiment.
Lenny…you’ve just been taken to the wood shed. You’ve been skinned…but in too much denial to admit it.
The fact that you differentiate “isopathy” from “homeopathy” is additional evidence of your daftness. So, are you saying that isopathy is totally legit? If so, say it. C’mon, say it! But nope, you’re in too much denial.
What fun.
Oh dear, Sandbox.
You really should read the crap that you imagine supports your masturbatory fantasies of significance.
The London trials were of five different remedies. 127 were treated. So that is in fact five separate n=25 (or thereabouts) trials. Which even your stunted intellect should recognise as being inadequate to draw any statistically solid conclusions.
The results were not censored. They were seen as the bumwash that they are and were ignored.
Then as now, medical science regards homeopathy as pseudoscience, with no credible underlying mechanism and no reliably demonstrated efficacy beyond placebo effects. Wave those little hands and stamp those little feet and make your specious arguments if you wish. All you do is make a bigger public tit of yourself.
Recent?
That’s from ten years ago, Sandbox.
But it is of use. It means there’s been ten years for all of medicine to sit up and take notice of it.
Has this happened?
Nope.
It’s just another piece of worthless tooth-fairyism, designed to validate the fantasies of you and your fellow loons. Of course if you feel it has had any impact outside the ongoing circle-jerk of water-shakers, please feel free to show me how.
I’ll wait.
@Lenny
I’m pretty certain that this person knows this, and that it is one major reason to hide behind pseudonyms – which IMO makes him a troll. At least Ullman has the guts to spread his beliefs, wrong as they are, under his own name.
Lenny, Lenny, again, it sounds like you have serious comprehension problems:
1. The London trials were 293 applications. But broken down by controlled trials, it’s 240 (127 medicated vs. 113 controls).
2. If you think a sample of 240 is “insufficient to draw solid conclusions,” you’d be rejecting one of the two criteria of your beloved NHRMC in 2015. Remember, NHRMC required at least 150 patients.
3. The results were indeed censored by the British government, as Michael Emmans Dean confirms in his article. But hey, you’re a dentist, surely you can show us your historical research published in scientific journals (not mere descriptive and uncritical accounts like Ernst did with his essays on the Nazis).
4. Ironically, if you’re saying a sample of 240 isn’t enough, then the Nuremberg salt test is a joke, since the total sample size for that trial was only 50 patients. And it used a rudimentary statistical test, compared to the London trials, which already used more sophisticated tests.
5. You doesn’t represent what “medical science” says. You’re just an elderly dentist who just keeps repeating that it’s “pseudoscience” (you provide no evidence for this; the Ernst and Mukerji article has already been completely dismantled, so…). Saying it’s “not credible” is very similar to the tobacco industry saying that it’s “neither good science nor credible” to link cigarettes to cancer. What a curious “coincidence”.
Rasker, my name is irrelevant. Instead, focus on explaining why you complain about Ullman using some references from the 1990s in his paper while your friends are constantly quoting an old experiment (the Nuremberg salt) from over 100 years ago.
Lenny:
10 years since Walach’s review is short time compared to the Nuremberg salt test (1835), which is almost 200 years old. Also, note that Walach only summarized the provings from his group and did not include the provings from other countries.
@Sandbox
You are irrelevant because your statements are false and irrelevant. You are a pompous windbag with a blatant lack of knowledge in medicine and natural sciences.
My conflicts of interest revisited https://edzardernst.com/2025/08/my-conflicts-of-interest/ via @edzardernst
Oh dear, Sandbox. Here we go again. There’s only one person here with comprehension problems and it isn’t me. For once in your unfortunate life take your thumb out of your arse and actually read what people post rather than what you think they’ve posted.
You just make a bigger tit of yourself with every post. It’s why you’re utterly inconsequential. Just another witless homeopathy goon.
And you need to look up what the difference is between “censored” and “classified”.
I most certainly do or, indeed, “does” to match your laughably inept grammar.. I’m a practicing clinician and representing what medical science says is part of my job. Unlike witless, ignorant quacks like you.
Dana has been fond of posting results from Chat GPT. If we ask it what medical science has to say about homeopathy, what answer comes out?
Well that’s your bonfire pissed on again.
And out come the ad homs. Always a good sign of someone losing an argument. You also have no idea who I am and how old I am. Your imaginations aren’t facts.
Run along now, Sandbox. You’re the same hapless, witless and ineffectual troll you always have been.
RPG:
I thought you’d have something really interesting to say, but no. That’s a shame. I was hoping you’d be a formidable opponent…
Lenny:
1. So it bothers you that I’m picky. Interesting Lenny, I’m starting to understand why you’re so superficial.
2. We already know you’re a dentist, but I still can’t find a single publication by you in any peer-reviewed journal. This indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of how to do research.
3. Chat GTP is fueled by pseudoskeptics in many cases, so it’s no surprise that it returns results copied from Wikipedia. In fact, I’ve tested it, and Chat GTP often gets confused; if you add favorable studies, it curiously distorts them.
4. Well, I have an idea of who you are, since you’ve been commenting nonsense on various blogs for several years. From your profile picture, it’s not difficult to deduce that you’re around 50 years old or maybe older (if you’re younger, I’m sorry).
5. I don’t know why it bothers you when I call you a dentist. If you think this is an attack, it shouldn’t be hard for you to show your master’s degree, doctorate, or at least your published articles. Hey, at least Rasker (an electromedical technician) has published a book (probably not peer-reviewed, with Ernst’s help). But it’s convenient for you to play the victim when you’re always insulting.
@Lenny
Litter‘Sandbox’ is just trying to lure us into the weeds, to draw the attention away from the fact that this mustard gas experiment clearly shows that homeopathy is completely useless.It’s very simple: if homeopathy was any good for treating mustard gas exposure, then even the first trial series with (IIRC) a couple of dozen volunteers should have shown strong, unequivocal effects in several of these participants.
None of that was observed. So those water-shaking clowns, desperate for coming up with any effects whatsoever, muddied the water by running a new, extended trial, now throwing multiple ‘remedies’ into the mix. Which, as expected, produced a tiny positive result. Which, even if not a statistical artefact, still showed that homeopathy was useless as a practical treatment.
Or to put it like this: if real pharmaceutical products would show the same effect sizes as the very best homeopathic trials, then they would (and/or should) be deemed a dismal failure.
@Dana Ullman
?? I don’t see any ad hominem. Edzard’s comment is a statement of fact: homeopaths talk nonsense a lot of the time – including this time. The comment from ‘Sandbox’ is in fact a prime example of the mimicry principle: it contains several sentences in the English language that on superficial reading might resemble scientific discussion, but on closer inspection either make no sense at all or contain personal attacks, and certainly don’t engage with the topic at hand.
he uses ad homs so regularly and clearly does not understand what they are!
The only ones who keep insulting you are you, Lenny, RPG, Mojo, Rasker, and Rawlins. Ernst has done it too. Your book is yet another example of how you don’t know how to use sources (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-29444-0), and given that Ernst just mentioned in a post that his books don’t usually pass peer review, I’m starting to think Springer didn’t peer review your book. Which is curious considering that on page X (before the pagination) you keep saying that one solution to confirmation bias is peer review. And I’m surprised by Springer since they’ve published books in the past (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/1-4020-2156-9) like Professor Sukul’s, which I’d like to think were peer reviewed. If they weren’t, the difference is huge. In your book, you barely managed to cite 78 references. Professor Sukul’s has around 500 references. While in your book you tried to appear “friendly” (falsely), you failed to connect the themes and got lost, Professor Sukul gave a serious and professional discussion.
@Sandbox
Your sandbox has a crack and is now leaking. 😀
When arguments run out, homeopathy supporters become aggressive and insulting. A well-known pattern.
RPG “Your sandbox has a crack and is now leaking. 😀 When arguments run out, homeopathy supporters become aggressive and insulting. A well-known pattern.”
No one has actually called you “idiot” or “moron” or “retarded,” but you and others have. I don’t know why you want to reverse the facts.
Hm, correction: “[pioneering] a rudimentary use of placebos.”
We can leave out this ‘rudimentary’ – from the onset, homeopaths have great expertise in treating people with placebos. The irony of course being that they fail to see that their treatments are in fact placebo treatments exclusively.
Rasker, if homeopathy is only placebo, you still need to explain how newborns respond, since you should know that no one to date has proven that the placebo phenomenon exists in newborns. We only have research that the placebo phenomenon develops in children when they already have a more developed nervous system and understand verbal commands.
You need to explain how all non-human animals respond. We have evidence from small trials that dogs, cows, horses, rats, and cats respond to placebos, but we have no evidence that penguins or fish do. Even so, the pro-homeopathy group is the first to have conducted a controlled trial against placebo and homeopathy in penguins. https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/s-0042-1751308
What experiments have you done on these types of animals, Rasker?
” Ernst just mentioned in a post that his books don’t usually pass peer review”
No, I pointed out that books are not normally peer-reviewed, contrary to scientific articles.
“No, I pointed out that books are not normally peer-reviewed, contrary to scientific articles.”
https://www.springernature.com/la/policies/book-publishing-policies
https://www.springernature.com/gp/reviewers/book-peer-reviewers-code-of-conduct
Technically, your Springer books should have been peer-reviewed, and you should have declared your conflicts of interest with CSI(COP), Sense About Science, GWUP, Science Media Centre, and other pseudoskepticist activist organizations. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the code of conduct policies. If your books were exempt from peer review, that undermines their credibility.
I always declare my conflicts of interest truthfully.
“I always declare my conflicts of interest truthfully”
If that were true, your affiliations would appear in your books and articles, starting with the Science Media Centre and CSICOP. But in all the articles you’ve published, that never appears!
My conflicts of interest revisited https://edzardernst.com/2025/08/my-conflicts-of-interest/ via @edzardernst
You are talking nonsense. One of the first double-blind experiments disproved homeopathy.
RPG, do you have reading problems? The Nuremberg Salt Experiment is considered pioneering in its rigor for its time, using placebo control, statistics, and double-blinding. But the experimental sample size is 50 volunteers, the experiment was directed by a fanatical cleric who believed homeopathy was an offense against God, and it’s not a trial testing the efficacy of homeopathy. It’s merely a proving experiment (evaluating whether the chosen potency induces symptoms different from those of the placebo). Even if we assume that the conclusions of the salt experiment are still correct, it would only prove that that potency could not induce symptoms, and would not rule out the rest of the potentized substances. Even if we assume the conclusions of the salt experiment are still correct, it would only prove that that potency could not induce symptoms, and would not rule out the other substances. There are more recent provings like this one with over 200 participants:
https://www.ijrh.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1549&context=journal
Oh, so you were caught making a false statement (or a lie) and are now throwing up smokescreens to distract. So typical of pseudo-experts.
No, RPG, I’m not blowing smoke. I’m simply citing a more recent, better-planned, and larger sample size proving than the one you cite from almost two centuries ago. It’s not difficult to understand.
The homeopathic meatball again regurgitates its codswallop:
Ullman D.
Exploring Possible Mechanisms of Hormesis and Homeopathy in the Light of Nanopharmacology and Ultra-High Dilutions.
Dose-Response. 2021 June 14;19(2):15593258211022983.
doi:10.1177/15593258211022983.
PMID: 34177397; PMCID: PMC8207273.
Here are just a few of its previous regurgitations:
https://edzardernst.com/2022/03/the-body-of-evidence-on-homeopathy-is-rotten-to-the-core/#comment-138306
https://edzardernst.com/2022/09/why-homeopathy-is-pseudoscience/#comment-140946
https://edzardernst.com/2022/10/trials-of-homeopathy-a-new-database/#comment-141802
https://edzardernst.com/2024/01/germany-will-remove-the-option-for-health-insurance-companies-to-include-homeopathic-and-anthroposophic-services-in-their-statutes/#comment-149611
https://edzardernst.com/2025/02/robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-playing-fast-and-loose-with-our-health/#comment-155218
Under which I expanded upon its source of funding, here.
Regarding the ‘paper’ itself:
• many of its 113 references are defunct.
• it is mostly, if not entirely, just a pathetic appeal to possibility, as indicated by these word counts:
possible 16
possibilities 1
possibility 1
possibly 1
QUOTE Appeal to Possibility, Logically Fallacious
When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.
Exception: There are no exceptions. Possibility alone never justifies probability.
— Bo Bennett (2017). Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies.
E&OE.
The oldest reference in Ullman’s article is from 1995, and the most recent is from 2020 (the article was accepted until 2021). There’s nothing wrong with citing older references if relevant.
You say the article appeals to the fallacy of possibility, but this appeal only holds true if a supposedly “impossible” phenomenon is assumed to be fact. Given that Ullman provides quite a few references (ignored by pseudoskeptics) that support plausibility, and unlike many pseudoskeptics, he at least took the time to cite some opposing references.
I said many of its 113 references are defunct, imbecile.
Use a goddam dictionary BEFORE you reply.
The correct term for your inability to correctly understand simple sentences is functional illiteracy.
Another recent example of your functional illiteracy was:
Lenny: “The small-cell study was a blinded RCT…”
‘Sandbox’: “Why do you call it a “small study,” Lenny?”
Lenny: “I called it a small-cell study, bozo. As with all homeopathy freaks, you read only what you want to read. And rarely understand it.”
QED.
1. Why are they “obsolete”? Both the Shang et al. meta-analysis and the Linde trial used a virtually identical data set of homeopathy trials. And yet, I still see many pseudoskeptics citing the Shang study, which is seven years newer than Linde’s 1997 study.
2. Because we were talking about the NHRMC report, and I mentioned the 150-patient criterion used by that institution. I gave him the example that even taking into account the NHRMC’s condition, the Frass et al. trial refuted the NHRMC’s criterion (that there were no differences between homeopathy and placebo in trials with at least 150 patients). Lenny then came to complain about the size, without specifying that he was referring to the type of cancer in the Frass et al. trial. If Lenny can’t distinguish the context, it’s not my fault.
Like the pseudoskeptic fanatics, you don’t respond to my argument, you go off topic, you insult, you lose control and you gloat like a pigeon on the board throwing the pieces and pooping.
Dear persistent troll,
You just want to argue, instead of actually bothering to check the references yourself.
defunct adjective
no longer living, existing, or functioning
— Merriam-Webster
no longer existing, living, or working correctly.
no longer existing or in use
synonym: broken
— Cambridge Dictionary
Now, read each of the 113 references yourself and tell us how many of them are defunct, imbecile.
A FEW EXAMPLES
Ref 77 Google Scholar link defunct: shows Ullman’s article, not ref 77.
Ref 78 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pbmed/20088708 defunct: “404 page not found”
Ref 81 Crossref defunct: “DOI NOT FOUND”
Ref 90
https://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2015.154 defunct;
Crossref link defunct;
Google Scholar link defunct: “Sorry, we couldn’t find this article.”
Ref 107
Google Scholar link defunct: “Sorry, we couldn’t find this article.”
Very shoddy, inadequately peer-reviewed, work that is long overdue for an update.
Now (using Ullman’s foul language) STFU.
@Sandbox
Go play in your own sandbox with other water-shaking fools.
Oh right, you are the sandbox. In which case, go play with yourself.
Pete:
So you’re not objecting to Ullman’s review, but instead are obfuscating the issue by seeing if certain words are “obsolete” according to a dictionary. Interesting.
Dear Pete, you also have to use your own judgment and know that web pages often undergo something called maintenance. In these cases, it’s not uncommon for URLs to change. In books like those by Natalie Grams or other pseudoskeptics, I’ve also encountered the problem of broken links.
The solution to these types of errors (not the authors’ fault) is to save them on Wayback Machine and post them. If the authors didn’t do this, you can try to find them.
Reference 77 works fine: https://www.pollacklab.org/research
Reference 78 also exists: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20088708/ (the error is Pubmed’s, which for some time now requires you to include the “/” at the end of the link)
Reference 81 also exists: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21523296/ Or if you can’t open it from Pubmed: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2011/em/c1em00002k
Reference 90 found: https://www.nature.com/articles/nindia.2015.154
Reference 107 in Ullman doesn’t have a link, but you can easily find it: https://books.google.com.mx/books?hl=es&lr=&id=LyqM4iNLDC4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=TzBuN6wRnb&sig=qhEB_bvC-znfmcxMpolkwyBrjfI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
So what’s the problem?
Talker:
You should control that aggressiveness, but since you mention it, I am interested in conducting a pilot experiment with potentized preparations after doing my documented research. So I want to learn about all the objections the pseudoskeptics might have to see if I’m wrong (although so far I’ve only received insults).
I love the fact that Pete is so inept that he has the audacity to complain that I provide a reference as far back as 1995. Wow, now that he has spit his wad, is this a placebo response. There is lterally NOTHING there to his critique.
And Sandbox is making mincemeat out of him and Ernst and anyone else who dares to bare his or her ignorance.
Slam dunk after slam dunk after slam dunk. The hits keep coming…and the embarrassment is increasingly rich.
And wait until they see my next article! I look forward to them defending the shananigans of the AMA. It is gonna be a hoot!
Therefore, HOMEOPATHY WORKS !!
Dear Mr Ullman, it was you / your alter ego ‘Sandbox’ who twisted my words into that blatant lie.
It’s arrogant of you to repeatedly tell people to read your document and its references, which I have done and wasted my time wrestling with its many defunct (broken) links.
I particularly dislike filthy little liars. Let’s see…
If this returns the paper PMID 20088708 then you / ‘Sandbox’ is a liar:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20088708
It’s actually a double lie because that isn’t the URL in your paper, which is:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pbmed/20088708
defunct because it returns “404 page not found”.
Imbecile doesn’t know what a digital object identifier is for.
Ref 81 Crossref (https://doi.org/10.1039/c1em00002)
defunct: “DOI NOT FOUND”
Neither the imbecile nor the peer reviewers bothered to check that incorrect DOI.
Considering all the other errors in the references, it is indeed a shoddy, inadequately peer-reviewed work that is long-overdue for an update.
Update your paper, which isn’t difficult, or STFU.
As to your pathetic attempts at insults, the readers may have forgotten what I think of them:
https://edzardernst.com/2023/02/a-letter-to-the-editor-of-the-lancet-we-need-to-drop-homeopathy-in-india/#comment-144381
The best illustrations of the sheer depth of your stupidity are the times I’ve posted a comment that is supportive of a fair point, but your alarmingly fragile ego is compelled to twist my words into a lie — as you have done above, and your sock puppet ‘Sunbead’ did here:
https://edzardernst.com/2024/01/homeopathy-does-not-work-beyond-context-effects-not-even-in-switzerland/#comment-150070
Truly imbecilic behaviours, which I’m sure you’ll soon repeat with yet another sock puppet.
Ullman: “Usually, it is 50+ skeptics against just ME”.
Sorry we’ve come up short, again,
😀😂🤣
You have requested that I “update” my paper!! Gad, thanx for that belly-laugh.
You OBVIOUSLY have never gotten an article published in a peer-review journal.
You somehow think that I have the power to do this. You are no longer worthy of responding to your silly and even darn-right stupid comments.
And now you think that I am Sandbox. #LOL! Sorry, you cannot get any more daft.
You can’t even detect when someone is taking the mickey out of you, imbecile.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I haven’t lied about anything; all the references Ullman provides exist. Even the one from Nature India. It turns out you don’t have your own criteria. Even if some sources appear as “defunct,” you should be able to use a normal search engine and check if they exist. I found all the sources. If PubMed gives you an error, you can find the source on the original site.
It’s a shame you have no arguments against Ullman’s review. So far, I’ve only noticed the following:
1. Insult Ullman and ad hominem attacks.
2. Mock Ullman’s appearance.
3. Provide irrelevant comments (such as complaining about a few non-functional links whose source anyone can verify using a simple browser).
4. Think I’m Ullman.
5. Calling sources for scientific articles “doing Gishgallop.”
6. Denying that Edzard Ernst has undisclosed conflicts in his books.
7. Deny that Ernst’s books are not peer-reviewed and cry about it.
1. Cry baby. Here, take a handkerchief.
2. Garbage
3. Smoke grenade
4. Garbage
5. Cry baby
6. Garbage
7. Garbage
😛
You respond like a religious fanatic who engages in Gish Gallop, ironic of “skeptics.”
You and your fantasies, Dana. The only thing Sandbox is doing is, like you, making a bigger and bigger tit of himself.
Nobody’s going to pay it any attention, Dana. Nobody ever does. Because you’re an ignorant, insignificant clown.
@Lenny
This article is quite interesting:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672251338358
Also see this interview with the leading author:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/07/conspiracy-theorists-think-their-views-are-mainstream/
And from what I see here, the word ‘Conspiracy’ can be swapped for ‘Homeopathy’ without altering even one other word.
Which would mean that compulsive homeopathy believers such as Ullman
– are hugely overconfident, also in other areas than homeopathy (e.g. science), and thus
– cannot imagine ever being wrong, and
– truly think that non-believers and critics are a rather dimwitted minority who refuse to see the Truth.
… while in reality of course being a tiny minority, the fringe, with no public support to speak of. As you correctly state.
Interesting reading, Richard.
We might have to help Dana with some of the big words though.
In case you’re interested, Lenny…
Gordon Pennycook publications indexed by Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AIbJenwAAAAJ&hl=en
Edzard referred to On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit in his article Detecting bullshit (2023).
Oh, Rasker, interesting article. I’d read about Gordon P., but I hadn’t noticed that he’s also part of CSICOP and works closely with Susan Gerbic (https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/slow-down-filter-and-reflect-with-gordon-pennycook/). I skimmed the article you linked, and it strikes me that Gordon believes Monsanto’s document manipulation is a “conspiracy theory.” It’s curious, because Monsanto’s manipulation is well documented, even in peer-reviewed articles (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733321000925); in fact, only corrupt people deny this. Since E. Ernst is part of the Science Media Centre and knows Hank Campbell and Sense About Science (who were paid by Monsanto), it makes sense that Gordon would produce ionic garbage articles to deny Monsanto’s manipulation.
‘Sandbox’ = ‘Stupid and bovine xcrement’.
Hey Rich…your comment is totally “rich.” You’re not even trying to respond to Sandbox except with an ad hom!
Yep, that is ALL you have because he/she is proving that the responders here are all faux skeptics and are just Big Pharma shills (and Big Ag shills). Enjoy your Round-up on your antidepressants! Have a taste of your own medicines!
I bet even Edzie is cringing with embarrassment.