Yesterday, I received a comment that ended stating: “… this site, and quite possibly Edzard, has well and truly lost the plot.” The author has made many comments before that led me to ignore him; so, I did not think twice about what he had to express. Yet, later it started me wondering what people feel about my blog and my work in general. I have to admit that I know very little about these questions. What is more, I have no idea how to find out.
What does one do in such a situation?
Yes, you guessed it, one asks AI. Specifically, I asked AI (Gemini) what people state about me and my work on social media.
Here is the response:
Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter and the world’s first professor in this field, occupies a highly polarized space in public and academic discourse. Because he evaluates alternative therapies strictly through the lens of evidence-based medicine, opinions of him are cleanly split based on how the observer views the relationship between science and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
1. The Pro-Evidence & Skeptical Community
Within mainstream medicine, scientific research, and skeptical organizations, Ernst is widely praised as a heroic, objective defender of public health.
- Rigorous Science First: Proponents point out that Ernst is uniquely qualified to critique CAM because he is formally trained in multiple modalities and practiced them early in his career. Online advocates frequently rally around his blunt philosophy on medicine. As Ernst famously co-wrote in his book Trick or Treatment:
“There is either medicine that is effective or not, medicine that is safe or not. So-called alternative therapies need to be assessed and then classified as good medicines or bogus medicines.”
- The Defender of Patient Safety: On social media, users routinely share his warnings regarding the “indirect harm” of alternative medicine, arguing that unscientific advice can be fatal. Ernst summarized this stance sharply in a peer-reviewed paper: “Alternative practitioner’s claims about ‘root causes’ and holistic care are usually pure nonsense; their pampering may be agreeable, but it can undoubtedly cost lives.”
- A “Whistleblower” Against Pseudo-Science: Proponents view him as a courageous figure who faced severe institutional backlash—including losing his department’s funding after publicly criticizing King Charles III (then the Prince of Wales) for promoting homeopathy. On platforms like Reddit, supporters echo the sentiment that Ernst “stands up for clinical truth when institutions bow to royal influence and political correctness.”
2. The CAM Practitioner & Advocate Community
Among alternative healthcare providers, natural health advocates, and some “integrated medicine” proponents, Ernst is viewed with deep hostility and suspicion.
- “The Scourge of Alternative Medicine”: Detractors frequently use social media to label him as a close-minded dogmatist who is fundamentally biased. A common refrain in CAM forums and X replies accuses him of severe bias: “Ernst does not investigate alternative medicine to see if it works; he designs reviews with the explicit purpose of proving it doesn’t.”
- Accusations of Scientific Flaws: Specific professional groups have actively challenged his data. For example, within the chiropractic community, critics point to his reviews on the dangers of spinal manipulation and claim he misattributed injuries caused by untrained practitioners to qualified chiropractors. In a formal response published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, chiropractic researchers directly attacked his methodology, stating:
“Ernst, by incorrectly labelling care providers as chiropractors… has added to the over-reporting of deaths… the fact that the care providers were not chiropractors is easily confirmed.”
- Institutional Deafness: On wellness blogs and natural health spaces, critics state that his clinical, data-first approach misses the point of holistic healing entirely. As one practitioner noted in an online debate: “He treats patients like spreadsheets. He completely disregards the mind-body connection, individual patient testimony, and the cold reality that conventional medicine fails millions of people every day, forcing them to look elsewhere.”
While Edzard Ernst is swimming against a massive volume of alternative health advocates who view him as their “nemesis reserving his most poisonous venom for their professions,” his data-driven, pro-science corrections achieve significantly higher viral sharing power among the public.
_____________
Nothing truly new, of course, but quite interesting nevertheless, I thought.
6 Responses to What people say on social media about me and my work
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
“The Scourge of Alternative Medicine. Ernst does not investigate alternative medicine to see if it works; he designs reviews with the explicit purpose of proving it doesn’t.”
Naughty professor.
But many times the Prof has emphasised (as have many others) that it is for those who make claims for the efficacy of any therapy/treatment/process to demonstrate its effectiveness – that it ‘works’.
And here SCAMs fail. Which is why they have to be labelled SCAM unless and until proponents come up with the plausible, reproducible (scientific) evidence of their benefit (other than placebo responses).
We’re waiting…
Until then, alternative medicine is “Condimentary Medicine” – pleasurable, but with no substantial effect on outcome.
Like any condiment.
And it is wrong to assert that “conventional medicine fails millions of people every day.”
It may be true that conventional medicine has not succeeded yet, but lack of success should not be regarded as a “failure”.
Camists, those who practise CAM, should not get in the way of progress.
Camees, those who receive CAM care, must be more patient.
“Ernst does not investigate alternative medicine to see if it works; he designs reviews with the explicit purpose of proving it doesn’t.”
Well that is patently a lie.
“Ernst, by incorrectly labelling care providers as chiropractors… has added to the over-reporting of deaths… the fact that the care providers were not chiropractors is easily confirmed.”
Some numbers would be interesting, instead of a blanket statement possibly implying that all “chiropractic” deaths are the result of manipulation by non-chiropractors.
“He treats patients like spreadsheets. He completely disregards the mind-body connection, individual patient testimony, and the cold reality that conventional medicine fails millions of people every day, forcing them to look elsewhere.”
Well that is patently a lie.
This myth that medically qualified Doctors are not holistic, while non medically qualified ‘practitioners’ are holistic, always annoys me. Every medically qualified Doctor is well aware of the mind-body connection. I can vouch for this at the level of my own local NHS Health Practice, and at Consultant level in my local hospital. As for “conventional medicine fails millions of people every day, forcing them to look elsewhere”: Well, nobody ever claimed that medicine has a 100% success rate. But let’s compare the success rate of medicine, with that of “looking elsewhere”.
‘He treats patients like spreadsheets’
Translation – damn this pesky data that shows why i am wrong’
I am paraphrasing but i think Carl Sagan said something like ‘its better to know if something works rather than whether it makes you feel good.
Yes indeed. Please be their Nemesis. Keep up the good work, the blog is the Wikipedia of SCAM scams.
“Ernst does not investigate alternative medicine to see if it works; he designs reviews with the explicit purpose of proving it doesn’t.”
Well, nothing wrong with that, now is there? If I want to show that e.g. a particular brand of ladder is unsafe, I design a review that is focused on things like stability, maximum load, slippery rungs etcetera – NOT on the fact that (some) people may succeed in using it to climb to the roof.
Exactly. That’s a good definition of what experimental design should be.