Guest post by Nikil Mukerji
In early January 2024, Edzard asked whether the German sceptics’ organisation GWUP had “lost the plot” (here and here). Yes, he said – and there was hardly any hope for it. Long celebrated for its rigorous defence of science and critical thinking, GWUP had been hijacked by ideologues, trading evidence and logic for rigid dogmas and taboos, vilifying dissent, and shutting down debate. But this is only half the story. There’s been a happy ending. GWUP has risen from the ashes – more committed to its original mission than ever. Here’s what happened.
1. How GWUP Got Ideologically Captured
In 1987, GWUP was launched as Germany’s branch of the international sceptic movement. Vowing to subject extraordinary claims to evidence and logic, Amardeo Sarma and a handful of co-founders set out to illuminate the mysteries of the occult, esotericism, and parascience through rigorous scientific testing. Expanding its remit to patient and consumer protection, GWUP also turned scepticism into a valuable public service. The GWUP swiftly became both a bulwark against health-scam charlatans and a trusted beacon of rationality in matters medical. Over thirty years, its membership grew steadily, approaching the mark of 2,000, as the 2010s came to a close. Then, the COVID-19 pandemic hit and in-person events were cancelled. Like many other organisations, GWUP had to call off its annual conference, SkepKon. But this didn’t stop GWUP’s growth. Its membership surged, propelled by comedian Tommy Krappweis’s Twitch talk “Ferngespräch” – a weekly discussion format that regularly touched on sceptical themes and invited active GWUP members. Host Krappweis regularly promoted the organisation’s name, which encouraged many viewers to join GWUP’s ranks, eager to support what they perceived as its cause: opposing views like homoeopathy, astrology, and COVID-19 misinformation that they disliked and passionately opposed.
Sarma’s leadership team, intent on recruiting younger, more diverse voices, initially embraced this influx heartily and met it with an open mind. But after a while, it became apparent that “Ferngespräch” was no good match for GWUP. Its followers were not steeped in the sceptical evidence-first ethos. Instead, many of them shared the fervent convictions and combative tactics of contemporary “woke” activism – including the notion that the world is essentially a fight between good and evil and that dissenters do not just think differently but are enemies.
The views of many new members only superficially resembled GWUP’s scepticism and constituted, instead, a form of pseudo-scepticism. This was noticed too late, namely when woke ideology had already spread through the entire organisation. Sceptics know that excessive open-mindedness may cause one’s brain to fall out. In the case of GWUP, however, the organisation’s brain didn’t fall out. Rather, ideology crept in – and subsequently drove the entire community crazy.
2. How GWUP’s Ideological Capture Changed Its Culture and Led to a Hostile Takeover
The advent of wokeness destroyed GWUP’s formerly formidable debate culture. Open, reasoned discussions gradually gave way to veritable shouting matches in which nonconfirmists were derided as “old white men,” accused of “mansplaining” and “fragility” to defend their “privileges”. Calls to police language and enforce “safe-space” rules fractured discussion into identity-based camps, while demands to censor opposing views supplanted the once-cherished principle of open inquiry.
Starting in 2022, longstanding GWUP members began pushing back, only to be met with the vitriol of the new woke faction that pressed for their exclusion. I can attest to this, as I, too, was at the receiving end of it. Woke members demanded, amongst other things, that my talk at the annual GWUP conference, SkepKon, be cancelled because I had criticised a field called “critical studies”, which is the academic origin of what we call “wokeness” in popular culture. This demand came from a person who, in all earnestness, has described her understanding of scientific scepticism as “science hooliganism”.
Alexander Waschkau – one of the Ferngespräch talking heads – professed that he’d rather “eat glass” than discuss my ideas and then accused me of peddling antisemitic conspiracy theories – all of this without any evidence to support it and knowing full well that such horrific allegations can destroy a person’s reputation and career.
At this point, the majority of Sarma’s leadership team firmly dug in their heels, defending GWUP’s founding values of open debate, honest inquiry, and reasonable dialogue. So, the ever-growing woke faction changed its strategy. In a political sleight-of-hand, it downplayed its ambitions in the weeks leading up to the May 2023 annual meeting—publicly feigning withdrawal while meticulously lining up loyalists as surprise candidates. Carefully keeping their plans of a coup secret, they flipped the board majority in their favour in a surprise vote, installing one of their own – Holm Hümmler – as chairman. Hümmler’s election to the chair initiated GWUP’s transformation from a champion of open scientific scepticism into an enforcer of rigid ideological conformity.
3. What Happened Under the Woke Rule
Edzard’s January 2024 blog posts chronicle a rapid and disquieting shift at GWUP in the wake of Holm Hümmler’s elevation to chair. An organisation once lauded for its spirited embrace of open dialogue instead lapsed into a regime of public shaming that stifled any hint of dissent. For instance, when philosopher Andreas Edmüller took the podium to deliver a talk on “The WOKE Phenomenon,” he anticipated rigorous debate—only to be met with a torrent of jeers.
Rather than offer sympathy for the unwarranted hostility, Hümmler himself stepped forward to admonish Edmüller, publicly castigating him for allegedly deploying “alt-right” rhetoric. Veteran GWUP member Stefan Kirsch—a fixture in the organisation’s communications apparatus—was summarily stripped of his role after he simply shared a link to Edmüller’s presentation on GWUP’s X/Twitter feed. In Kirsch’s stead, Hümmler installed an ally notorious for vitriolic online commentary. Edzard found himself at the receiving end of his disdainful public pronouncements.
Behind closed doors, Hümmler and his board majority orchestrated one takeover move after another to insulate woke ideology from critique. As Edzard recounts, Hümmler even overruled an independent selection committee to excise SkepKon talks he disliked, disregarding the fair and transparent selection process that had been agreed upon prior.
Perhaps most troubling, Hümmler muzzled GWUP’s scientific council, sealing off internal communication channels and preventing those who opposed him from alerting the broader membership to his consolidation of power.
4. How GWUP Came Back From the (Brain-)Dead
Edzard was blunt in his January 2024 posts: he no longer believed the general assembly could rescue GWUP from its ideological turn away from reason. Yet, as Chair Holm Hümmler and his “woke” majority ratcheted up cancel-culture tactics—ousting dissenters, rewriting program lineups, and muzzling internal critics—a countervailing force crystallised. Each heavy-handed manoeuvre only broadened the ranks of sceptics who refused to trade open inquiry for ideological conformity, setting the stage for a spirited pushback at the next annual meeting.
In response, board member André Sebastiani launched Skeptische Gesellschaft—a grassroots forum where members could spotlight Hümmler’s behind-the-scenes manoeuvres and reignite an open, transparent debate over GWUP’s future. Early in 2024, Edzard resigned his GWUP membership after more than ten years, signalling profound disillusionment within the organisation. And even GWUP’s founder, Amardeo Sarma, announced he would step back from all his roles—a move that prompted council member Ulrich Berger to declare his intention to table a recall vote against Chair Holm Hümmler.
Confronted by mounting dissent, Hümmler ultimately relented, issuing an unexpected call for an early board election. The scientific council then pressed André Sebastiani to run against him. Rising to the challenge, Sebastiani assembled a slate of members committed to GWUP’s original mission and mounted a concise yet vigorous campaign. When the May 2024 assembly convened—with record turnout—Team Sebastiani triumphed, winning a clear majority and restoring GWUP’s enduring pledge to fearless, evidence-based scepticism.
5. Rebuilding GWUP’s Scientific Scepticism
One thing is clear: GWUP is back – and more committed to its original mission than ever! Since reclaiming its leadership, GWUP’s new team has thrown itself into steering the organisation back to its founders’ aspirations: to wield critical thinking across every field, free from ideological bias; to challenge and dismantle unfounded claims, whoever dares to voice them; and to share evidence and arguments in a way that can move both minds and hearts.
Achieving this revival is no small feat. While countless initiatives have contributed to putting GWUP back together and preparing it for decades to come, three foundational pillars stand out in my view:
- Firstly, we have codified a clear set of guiding principles for all members: an unwavering openness to all viewpoints, an unrelenting focus on facts, a steadfast immunity to ideological pressure, a cooperative spirit, a commitment born of personal choice, and a welcoming attitude towards member initiatives. By openly inviting anyone who embraces these values to join its ranks, GWUP ensures that its community remains true to the ideals that first inspired its founders.
- Secondly, we have underscored that GWUP is, above all, a community united by a common purpose. The bonds between our members—the social capital that turns ideas into action—rank among our most treasured assets, and we have doubled down on nurturing them. This year, we hosted our largest SkepKon ever, drawing record numbers of speakers and attendees and reaffirming the strength of our community.
- Finally, we’ve embraced the central lesson of Popper’s paradox of tolerance: “[I]f we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant,” Popper writes, “then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.” Accordingly, we have strengthened our ranks against those who would disrupt civil discourse.
At GWUP, every member is free to debate any idea, even those others deem wholly irrational. No topic is off-limits, and we refuse to impose artificial deadlines on discussions. Yet we draw the line at personal attacks: our zero-tolerance policy ensures that individuals who harass or defame members—like the notorious podcaster Alexander Waschkau, who has repeatedly sought access to our online community—are now barred from entry. By protecting our community in this way, we preserve an environment where robust yet courteous debate can flourish, bounded only by the mutual respect that underpins civil conversation.
6. What You Can Do to Help
If you want to help, you can do so by doing what Edzard does. This includes, first and foremost, speaking up. Dive into fierce public debates, but do so with respect and poise, making evidence and reason your lodestar rather than feelings and ideological allegiance.
Also, you can support or join a sceptical organisation near you. What happened to GWUP can happen everywhere, and if you value science and reason, adding your voice to a sceptical organisation increases the chance that ideological land grabs falter at the threshold. And if you are German-speaking or happen to live in a German-speaking country, you are more than welcome to join GWUP.
We’d be delighted to have you rebuild scientific scepticism with us – and make it better than ever! (If you add “Book Edzard Ernst” into the comment field of your application of GWUP membership, we’ll send you a free copy of Edzard’s new book “Wer Recht hat, heilt”, Alibri 2025.)
67 Responses to How GWUP Lost the Plot – and Found It Again
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Please deliver proof of the accusation, that I said, Nikil is peddling antisemetic theories. Otherwise delete this allegation. Thanks.
You can find proof in this video:
https://youtu.be/KazM8JXIJPc?si=sDKSAiJAr_-ANZN2&t=352
(The link contains the corresponding timestamp.)
There you can see a screenshot of a Discord(?) message in which you write:
“Jap, da scheint ein internationaler Trend nun auch hier bei den Skeptikern Fuß zu fassen.
Und wenn nun ein Mitglied des Vorstandes in einem neuen Video von “Kulturmarxismus” spricht – einem Narrativ der Alt-Right Bewegung in den USA – und damit anti-jüdische Verschwörungserzählungen bedient, dann wird mir richtiggehend übel.”
translated:
Yep, it seems an international trend is now gaining a foothold here among the sceptics.
And when a member of the board talks about ‘cultural Marxism’ in a new video – a narrative of the Alt-Right movement in the USA – and thus serves anti-Jewish conspiracy narratives, it really makes me sick.
At the time, Nikil was a member of the board and your message refers to a YouTube video on the ‘Boys of Reason’ channel featuring Nikil.
After further considerration, I request that you do not publish my previous comment.
Instead, we are considering taking legal action against the defamatory statements made here.
Personally, I must say, that Alexa and I are deeply disappointed in you, Edzard.
In general, I appreciate that the “new” GWUP tries to be more open reagarding the topics that should be addressed, even in opposition to current societal trends.
However, I’m concerned about the fact that their official social media channels now started to support content in favour of the COVID19 the lab leak hypothesis, despite the fact that it is not based on any scientific evidence until today. In contrast, all available evidence points to a zoonotic origin of the virus (as just one example, see WHO SAGO report, 27.06.0225).
Making matters worse, promoting the lab leak hypothesis has clear harmful consequences for scientist and trust in science in general, as pointed out e.g. here: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24
However despite the evidence-based scientific conclusions point to the opposite, GWUP promotes a talk by A. Edmüller titled “The lab leak hypothesis always was respectable”, where Edmüller praises figures like Roland Wiesendanger, Günter Theißen & Valentin Bruttel (1:02:50), who have all been discredited multiple times with respect to their “pro lab leak” ideas.
Additionally, GWUP promoted the following, utterly flawed & pseudo-scientific 3Sat TV program pushing the lab leak theory in their social media.
https://www.3sat.de/wissen/nano/250630-sendung-corona-virus-ursprung-pandemie-verschwoerung-covid19-neue-fakten-zur-labortheorie-nano-100.html
@Edzard, since you are a fellow of the GWUP, do you have thoughts on this issue, do you think that it is warranted for a sceptical organisation to share such unscientific, conspiracy-related nonsense on social media (without any critical comments) simply in an effort to promote free discussions?
thanks (I am not a GWUP member and only found out yesterday that I am a fellow [perhaps also I forgot, as I attach very little importance to such things]) – I feel that the GWUP should have a right – perhaps even the duty – to debate all credible theories in relation to Covid or any other subject. Personally, I never looked into this specific subject in much detail and therefore have no firm or evidence-based opinion.
are you aware that you are also listed as a member of their science council though?
https://www.gwup.org/ueber-uns-uebersicht/wissenschaftsrat/
yes
Hang on, how can you be a member of their scientific council (Wissenschaftsrat) if you’re not a member? You’re listed on their website … What is going on here?
Evidently, one can be a member of their scientific council (Wissenschaftsrat) without being a GWUP member: because that’s what I am.
I am a member of the scientific council (Wissenschaftsrat) purle to help with my expertise in alt med. For that I do not need to be a member of the organisation. One can be a consultant of any organisation without belonging to it.
That is fascinating, given that members of the GWUP have been told on multiple occasions that that isn’t at all possible. Given that the information plenty of us have received was that the WR is explicitly not set up as a group of (potentially external) consultant, but rather as an internal organsiational body.
That is fascinating, given that members of the GWUP have been told (more than once) that this isn’t at all possible. We have in fact been told that the WR is not set up as a group of (potentially external) consultants, but rather as an internal organsiational body.
Jashak, I think you slightly misunderstand the point that Edmüller (in my opinion) was making in his presentation.
It was NOT his claim, that the lab leak hypothesis is proven, more likely etc.
It WAS his claim, that doing research in the lab leak hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory and should not have been suppressed by the scientific mainstream.
It might not make a difference for you, I just wanted to clarify how I saw the presentation.
@Stefan,
yes, I of course know this. Edmüller CLAIMS that he only wants to argue that the lab leak hypothesis is not per se a conspiracy theory from an epistemological point of view – a topic that I am not at all interested in. Actually, I am surprised that this PHILOSOPHICAL issue seems to be more important for some GWUP members that the SCIENTIFIC question of the origin of the pandemic, since, as far as I remember, the “W” in GWUP stands for “Wissenschaft” and they are not primarily a philosophical debate club.
But back to Edmüller, the one-sided way he presents the hypothesis, also when you read “between the lines”, and the fact that he clearly glorifies debunked contrarian viewpoints of the people mention before lets me suspect that there could be other underlying motives than only clarifying a philosophical / rhetorical point.
Also, please note that this “suppression” narrative is false. The lab leak hypothesis was never suppressed , and it still is not suppressed today. There is simply no evidence supporting it. The possibility of a hypothetical lab leak was explicitly mentioned even in the earliest scientific review articles about this topic, you can easily look that up.
Thanks for the answer! I agree, credible hypothesis should be discussed, but if a scientific, sceptical organization does it, they have a responsibility to put it into context with the available scientific evidence and thus avoid taking part in spreading harmful misinformation.
I think the topic is incredibly interesting and have followed the literature to some extent since the start of the pandemic. To make a long story short, there are two main hypotheses, zoonosis and lab leak. Huge amounts of scientific and independent streams of data were published until today that strongly suggest a zoonosis (indeed most likely several independent events) that occured at the infamous Huanan Market in Wuhan.
No hard data exists that would prove a lab leak, only rumours, conspiracy theories and hearsay about secret service reports etc. (never published, of course) and misinterpretations of e.g. genetic sequences by non-experts.
In case you should find some interest in the topic, I recommend reading this recent and quite comprehensive review article – and then comparing it to the rubbish 3sat program that was, to my dismay, promoted by the GWUP social media accounts.
https://www.annualreviews.org/docserver/fulltext/virology/11/1/annurev-virology-093022-013037.pdf?expires=1754391301&id=id&accname=ar-372119&checksum=44783B30DBDE39FA393780534EA0DFD3
thanks
In an entirely different context (https://edzardernst.com/2022/09/the-very-unpleasant-time-when-charles-accused-me-of-having-breached-confidentiality/) I have stated this : in general, I am not a joiner of parties, clubs or interest groups. So, it has not necessarily much to do with the GWUP that I am not a member.
I just saw that the crucial sentence even appears on my Wiki-page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst)
So there are multiple possible outcomes here then:
1.
You weren’t even aware of being a Fellow, meaning a person who is prominently featured by the GWUP, until yesterday, although you have been listed on their website for months, if not years. I.e. it’s entirely possible that your claim from 2022 is just as confused or uninformed as your assumption that you weren’t a fellow. You’ve effectively proven above that you’ve advertised for them in that capacity without even knowing it.
2.
You have in fact not been a member and the people who are now leading the GWUP – who baselessly accuse others of breaking rules and undermining it – have
a) either lied when they said that only members could join the WR, when it was opportune for them as they wanted to make entry impossible for people whom they wanted to keep out, or
b) they do in fact do what the accuse others of: bend the rules until they break when it fits their agenda.
And as a side note: I think I do not have to tell somebody who is a giant of skeptical thinking that a quote being listed in a wiki article does not make it any more true or valid.
what a load of BS!
Also funny how you bury comments as soon as they contain things that might be inconvenient for you and the GWUP. No matter the fact that hey include coherent, factual arguments and no insults or anything of the like.
I’ve heard a lot from the GWUP – and you – about the importance of open discourse, about “woke” tone policing and “cancel culture”, about how you all are willing to fight for open discourse and for people being able to speak, even if what they say is inconvenient. Hell, even if it appears insulting to some. Moral guidelines that clearly only apply as long as you are not the ones for whom what is said will be incovenient. Peak double standards.
“you bury comments as soon as they contain things that might be inconvenient for you and the GWUP”
really?
without details, this is just nonsense!
We both know that you had not published that comment I posted earlier when my second came through. It didn’t get through moderation. dishonest behaviour on your part, honestly.
I have no idea what you are on about. It is true that I don’t publish comments instantly – this is because I sometime do other things than working on my blog.
I think you like conspiracy theories, don’t you
Conveniently (for me) – your site is more honest than you are. People can just look at the timestamps and they will see that something is off there.
Either way, I’d rather spend my time with people who are willing to engage honestly with their critics. I have no patience for such games. Truly sad to see somebody for whom I’ve had huge respect for a very long time behave that way.
“Conveniently (for me) – your site is more honest than you are. People can just look at the timestamps and they will see that something is off there.”
You are seeing that which you want to believe.
Those of us who’ve been commenting here for many years know that you’re talking out of your arse. Grow up, FFS!
Pete, don’t you worry about me and me seeing what I want to see. Besides, I am of the age when “yelling at the youth” becomes a sport, so no worries about me growing up either.
My point is: I have screenshots that prove that my first comment had been rejected and removed from the page when I posted the second and it was awaiting moderation. Zero daylight between the original post and my second comment. Why I took those screenshots? Well, because I am used to those kinds of games from the people Edzard is platforming and running defense for here (although he allegedly has no skin the game). Therefore, I do very much know what i have in fact seen. And as somebody who has been commenting here for many years, you certainly also know how the moderation system works and that you see your own comments as long as they are awaiting review.
And trust me, this is not at all what I “want to believe.” I would much rather not see that kind of behaviour from a grown man whose work and advocacy I’ve admired for decades. I wish I had seen something entirely different. Namely the Edzard Ernst whom I’ve respected for a very long time: a man who is critical not only of others but also of himself and who, if presented with arguments and evidence, is willing to examine whether he has been misled. And I am sure that person is still there, it’s just being drowned out by very loud voices. And that is a sad state of affairs.
It might be my mistake after all: I looked into the ‘bin’ and found 2 of your comments which were identical. perhaps I meant to bin one and both went. I restored both now and appologise if it was my mistake.
However, I do not see why my error [if it was one] should lead you to a conspiracy.
@Mouserat
I smell a conspiracy theorist and denialist.
If you say so. I’ll bow out of here.
And either way: I truly hope you are mindful of what you’ve taught me and many others over the years. Namely that evidence and critical thinking are crucial and should carry much more weight than embellished stories. Even if people who you trust tell them to you. It’s always worth seeing wether there is any evidence underpinning them.
Thanks for clarifying, Edzard! That’s probably the reason then.
And RPGNo1: I smell somebody trying to defame others without any good arguments, but you do you.
Either way, I’m out. Have a good day everybody.
so, your comment [posted twice[ was this:
That is fascinating, given that members of the GWUP have been told on multiple occasions that that isn’t at all possible. Given that the information plenty of us have received was that the WR is explicitly not set up as a group of (potentially external) consultant, but rather as an internal organsiational body.
1) you need to show us evidence that “members of the GWUP have been told on multiple occasions that that isn’t at all possible. Given that the information plenty of us have received was that the WR is explicitly not set up as a group of (potentially external) consultant, but rather as an internal”
2) you need to explain why this is a big deal for you – it could be a simple error or misunderstanding; in any case, I cannot see a conspiracy lurking behind it.
Check this Comment
Seeing conspiracy theorists everywhere as a conspiracy paradox
Nicolas Vermeulen
Communications Psychology volume 3, Article number: 115 (2025) Cite this article
Concerns about the consequences of conspiracy theories have grown. Widespread belief in unfounded conspiracy theories is only one associated risk. Conversely, academics mustn’t commit the reverse error, in adopting a Protective Conspiracy Framing and labelling credible theories and proposals conspiracies when these would deserve scientific scrutiny.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-025-00298-3
“… the lab leak hypothesis has clear harmful consequences for scientist and trust in science …”
I agree with you. But people, as Schnell, Schön, Stapel, Wakefield, harms the trust in science in the first place. Only exposing this deception by science will be able to restore the damaged trust. And did in the cases above.
Corps spirit, lack of transparency (China) and dogma (prohibition of discussion) cannot do this. Quite the opposite, in fact. Science is not beyond criticism.
Firstly, I am not a GWUP member (yet). But it should not make any difference.
“In general, I appreciate that the “new” GWUP tries to be more open reagarding the topics that should be addressed, …”
Sounds good, but on all topics? Even the controversial ones?
“… lab leak hypothesis, despite the fact that it is not based on any scientific evidence …”
Secondly, that was not the topic of Nikil’s post. And since Ezard is not a member of GWUP or its board and was not involved in the lecture in question, a discussion on this topic does not make much sense here. But anyway.
Evidence in the meaning of proof was IMHO not the subject of the lecture in question. You just interpreted it that way.
“… unscientific, conspiracy-related nonsense …”
Really? Even your cited sources does not say that.
I have no expertise on that topic. But that is not necessary. The question is, is the lab leak hypothesis scientific nonsense/wrong or not. It continues to be the subject of intense debate (e.g. Sachs et al., Lancet). And even your source (SAGO) does not completely reject it. The majority of scientific studies and experts lean towards the zoonosis hypothesis, but the laboratory leak hypothesis is not entirely implausible. And that is the point in question. That should be enough for sceptics to discuss. Nothing more.
As a sceptic, one does not reject a hypothesis (laboratory leak) out of hand, but discusses the possibilities neutrally and objectively and also questions the majority opinion. What is wrong with that?
And – back to the topic – Erdmüller just stated that it worth discussing not that it the (most) possible origin of Covid-19 as I understand him.
Your statement I cited above shows exactly what Nikil criticized in his post here: dogmas and taboos, vilifying dissent, and trying shutting down debate.
@Hani,
read carefully. I wrote:” I agree, credible hypothesis should be discussed, but if a scientific, sceptical organization does it, they have a responsibility to put it into context with the available scientific evidence and thus avoid taking part in spreading harmful misinformation.“
To make it clear: I am IN FAVOUR of discussing different hypothesis, including the lab leak idea, as it has been done within the scientific community right from the beginning of the pandemic and until today. So, misrepresenting my viewpoint as dogmatic and trying to shut down debates is idiotic rubbish.
We should follow the evidence and be cautious not unwarranted agendas. As a matter of fact, the available evidence today points to a zoonosis. Thus, I oppose a ONE-SIDED PROMOTION of the lab leak, and claims that it would be backed up by scientific evidence – which it is not. I am in principle open-minded to which hypothesis is correct, and I am happy to accept the lab leak hypothesis, if it is backed up by more convincing evidence than the other hypotheses are. Until this evidence is provided, I accept the state of the evidence that clearly points towards a zoonosis.
Regarding Edmüllers talk:
I do not like it. Besides the philosophical issues, a surprisingly extensive part deals with virological and molecular biology topics, e.g. viral structures & phylogeny, nucleic acid sequence motifs, furin cleavage sites (which he, annoyingly, calls “Furinspalte” instead of the correct term “Furinspaltstelle”), biological laboratory safety issues, etc. These are all areas in which he has obviously only very limited knowledge, but apparently strong opinions. It is quite telling that he exclusively presents aspects that appear to agree with a lab leak, not mentioning any of the aspects that disagrees with this idea (of which there a several). Also, he makes quite a big deal out of the fact that some intermediate lines have not yet been detected (timestamp 37:10), making it look like this points to a lab leak – which is it not. This very biased way of presenting the topic, misleadingly omitting all the scientific evidence pointing towards a zoonosis, spiced up with email citations that are taken out of context and obscure secret service anecdotes, and finally the glorification of e.g. Wiesendanger, Bruttel etc. (who, quite tellingly, were not able to put together even one serious scientific publication on the topic), in my opinion clearly indicates that he -to say the least- has no objections to promote the lab leak idea. I bet if you showed this manipulative talk to someone not closely following to the topic, he/she would take home the message that a lab leak has been very likely.
PS, I find your statement “I have no expertise on that topic. But that is not necessary.” very funny, thanks for that. However, I hope that this is not the motto you live by.
“… is idiotic rubbish …”; what I ask myself is this: where does the emotion and anger come from?
[not just here but generally when German skeptics oppose the GWUP and related topics]
The physicist and cabaret artist Vince Ebert will publish his new book „Wot Se Fack, Deutschland? – Warum unsere Gefühle den Verstand verloren haben“ shortly. As I read in an interview, this book also aims to address examples such as those provided by Jashak in his answers (emotions trump rationality).
I think I will buy the book. 😉
Fair question, especially since I would think of myself that I am per see not a very emotional type of person.
But I admit that I can get quite annoyed if claims are made that I would spread “dogmas and taboos, vilifying dissent, and trying shutting down debate.”, as Hani did. So maybe I am more emotional that I thought, who knows.
@RPGNo1:
No clue what you mean, but have fun with the book.
I did not mean just you but several or most of the people who have posted here in opposition to the GWUP and related topics.
I am not opposed to the GWUP, I am a member (who would, btw, have left if “team Sebastiani” would not have been elected). Having followed the highly emotional and personal “woke war” within the old GWUP, I however think that I understand what you mean.
As for me, I am happy to be corrected, if you or anyone else thinks that I am wrong or unfair in my position that GWUP should not promote content that favours the “lab leak” hypothesis without critical and evidence-based commenting.
– “idiotic rubbish”
– “flawed & pseudo-scientific”
– “unscientific, conspiracy-related nonsense”
– making fun of me in your post scriptum
Why so defensive?
Once again: even your WHO source does not completely rule out the hypothesis of a laboratory accident. How can you then justify ‘unscientific, conspiracy theory nonsense’ etc.? The current state of research and your source, which clearly point to a zoonosis, do not automatically make the hypothesis of a laboratory accident a conspiracy theory or justify defamation. And that is precisely what Erdmüller’s lecture is about.
It is not about the hypothesis of a laboratory accident being likely to be true. I listened to the lecture again. At 41:30, he explicitly states that this is not compelling evidence for the laboratory hypothesis or it is true (51:34). And he said at least four times that the peculiarities could also have developed naturally (25:30, 27:03, 30:56, 34:45).
But I also found some points worthy of criticism. In some places, claims were made without citing sources, and there were some things I would have phrased differently in three places. But that alone does not make the lecture a propagation of conspiracy theories.
And regarding your post scriptum: I don’t need expertise on this topic because I’m not challenging it from a technical standpoint. I’m more concerned with how to discuss such controversial topics in an openly and how to deal with explanations that are currently unlikely, especially in skepticism (regardless of Erdmüller) in general. If you don’t like the way Erdmüller presents his topic, that’s your opinion. And you are, of course, entitled to it.
@Hani,
no straw man fallacy, please. I never said that the experts (or I, for that matter) ruled out the lab leak hypotheses. Although I have little credence in it, I do not rule it out and will change my mind, once convincing evidence is presented.
*why unscientific? At present, the lab leak is based on rumours and hearsay, not evidence.
*why conspiracy-related? The lab leak hypothesis per se may or may not be a conspiracy theory as defined in philosophy. It is, however, imo at least RELATED because if true, it follows that malicious scientists & governments would have covered this whole thing up.
Edmüller mentioned the name of Dr. Peter Daszak. Instead of re-watching Edmüller´s talk, why don´t you have a look as Daszak´s expert point of view? Maybe you then also understand how harmful spreading these rumours can be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTGM4u-l_YY
And yes, I also noticed that Edmüller claims that his talk is not about the truth of the lab leak hypotheses. I feel a little bit silly to point this out: sometimes people say one thing but then do another. Let´s call this misleading (although other words come to my mind). If you don´t agree, follow me on a thought experiment:
Imagine that you take 1000 random persons and show Edmüller´s talk to them. You ask them before and after to estimate, on a scale from 0 to 100, if a lab leak likely caused the pandemic. Be honest, what outcome would you expect?
Also, ask yourself: Why did Edmüller exclusively glorify lab leak proponents like Wiesendanger and Bruttel, but cast doubts on the actions of Shi Zhengli´s lab, Drosten, Daszak & Fauci? Why not mentioning of all the hate, threats and even personal attacks that they and their families had to endure? Strange, don´t you think?
I once had a look at Wiesendanger´s amazingly funny “Studie zum Ursprung der Coronavirus-Pandemie”, which -to put it mildly- is mainly a meaningless collection of media stuff, but certainly not a serious scientific work. The quarks team already debunked this “great contribution” back in 2021, Edmüller should know this.
https://www1.wdr.de/mediathek/audio/quarks-science-cops/audio-war-corona-ein-chinesischer-laborunfall-der-fall-wiesendanger-100.html
Btw, I have posted my thoughts about this issue before on Bluesky. Feel free to continue the discussion there, the blog of EE is probably not be the best place to continue, and I apologize to him for my long statements.
https://bsky.app/profile/ernstjweiss.bsky.social
It’s very strange what the pseudo-sceptical podcasters say, but when you criticise people with narcissistic needs, they go crazy. 🤣
Certainly agree with the latter part of that statement. This article is perfect proof of it.
Very interesting Check https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/pseudo-skepticism
That is fascinating, given that members of the GWUP have been told on multiple occasions that that isn’t at all possible. Given that the information plenty of us have received was that the WR is explicitly not set up as a group of (potentially external) consultant, but rather as an internal organsiational body.
Thank you Edzard for staying strong. Hopefully, the positive direction that GWUP is on will continue and your cooperation with them intensifies again.
This is no evidence. I am very sorry.
– Where is this posting taken from? (Even you do not seem to know.)
– What was the context?
– Is it even real?
And even if it is real, where does it say, I meant Nikil? It is only the guy talking, who is making this connection (in a rather meager try to defame me, I would say).
So unless there is unrefutebale proof that Nikil is meant I stand by the fact that the allegations in the article above are wrong.
I would futhermore put forward that I never received a mail or message by Nikil in which he asked me to clarify this alleged posting. I would say, that this would be the normal way to communicate under civil persons, rather than a long article (not the first one of it’s kind) which defames not only me but tens of thousands of skeptical people in Germany who are labelled as “braindead” and “pseudoskeptical”.
I am very sad to see, how far the German Skeptics (GWUP) have come.
As a matter of fact I have far more important things to do, than react to some obscure allegations.
So unless there ist more “PROOF” I will not waste any further time in this comments.
So you want us to believe that you don’t remember whether it was you who posted this?
… As a matter of fact I have far more important things to do, than react to some obscure allegations …
From the looks of things, you really have nothing better to do.
You are so interested in the the allegations that you are threatening Edzard Ernst (!) with legal action against the (allegedly) defamatory statements made here.
But otherwise everything is going well, right?
In German, might one conclude: NICHT ALLE TASSEN IM SCHRANK?
The posting in question appeared on the WildMics-Discordserver and is still visible (at least it was yesterday). So are you trying to gaslight us here?
most probably!
[no ‘groosses Licht’ but a gaslight?]
I assume you little rascals have taken tons of screenshots of it before the posts can be “eaten by the dog”? 😉
WHAT IS IT WITH GERMAN (PSEUDO_SKEPTICS?
Are they for real?
I publish a post fom a guest editor;
some don’t like what he said;
instead of having it out with him, I get attacked in the most primitive way.
DO YOU THINK THAT’S NORMAL?
Edzard, they think they are the moral (TM) ones, so they are allowed to do anything.
Since you side with the current GWUP, you are the worst! (sarcasm).
I don’t know how many of them there are, but they are enough to poison every discourse.
great!……I only speeches ein bisschen Deutsche aber……sign me up-how/where do I join GWUP ?
Join the german Skeptics https://www.gwup.org/infos/mitglied-werden/
We would be happy, to have you on board!
https://www.gwup.org/infos/mitglied-werden/
You’re telling me it was true that the woke invaded the pseudo-skeptic headquarters, and now their little pseudoskeptics LGBT “monsters”, who were taught to insult with “chemophobic,” are using “transphobic” and accusing their own teachers of being conspiracy theorists? I should laugh in Rasker’s face.
You are talking nonsense. Whatever you have been drinking, eating, smoking, snorting or injecting, take LESS of it, not MORE.
Sorry RPG, it’s inevitable to laugh at this situation where the pseudo-skeptics who have liked to censor for years, complain that now the woke pseudo-skeptics they fed are censoring them (they call it “canceling”).
Sorry, @Sandbox, it is inevitable to laugh at you, because you have misunderstood the definition of the word “censorship” and you are using it incorrectly. Which, incidentally, often happens with pseudo-intellectuals like you. 😀
I haven’t misunderstood. GWUP complains about cancel culture, when GWUP and other “skeptical” groups have been doing the same thing for years. The difference is that while homeopathic groups did not have the same media representation, the wokes did. I remember that the Giordano Bruno Foundation supported the wokes of GWUP. That’s funny, very funny, RPG. This was bound to happen since Skeptical Inquirer supports the far right and G. Osborne’s ideas of biological determinism. And even more ironic is James Randi, who called himself a social Darwinist but was gay. (Pseudo)“Skeptics” are like schizophrenics who say that others are mentally ill.
All’s well that ends well.
What a relief, that this shitshow ist history.
GWUP has a future and a lot to do.
Not only eco-hippies are now antivaxxers, but the american secretary of health and right wingers too.