alternative therapist
Tolerance is widely regarded as a moral virtue, a cornerstone of pluralistic societies and a safeguard against dogmatism. Yet, tolerance can sometimes be misplaced. Thomas Mann suggested that “tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil”. In a similar vein, I propose that tolerance can become unethical when applied to homeopathy.
Homeopathy presents itself as a benign and natural alternative to or complement of conventional medicine. Its appeal lies partly in its historical pedigree and partly in its promise of gentle healing without side effects. However, beneath this veneer lies a system of belief that is fundamentally incompatible with science and ethics. Its core principles – the notions that like cures like and that substances become more potent through extreme dilution – contradict basic laws of physics, chemistry and pharmacology. After more than two centuries of use and more that 500 clinical studies, there is no credible evidence that homeopathic remedies perform better than placebos.
In many areas of life, tolerance for differing beliefs is both appropriate and necessary. However, medicine is different. It is not merely a matter of opinion; it is a field grounded in empirical evidence, where opinions can have direct and drastic consequences for health and survival. To tolerate ineffective and therefore potentially harmful treatments within this domain risks legitimizing misinformation and undermining public trust in evidence-based care.
The ethical problem intensifies when homeopathy is integrated into healthcare systems or endorsed by public institutions. Such endorsement conveys an implicit message of efficacy and legitimacy, misleading patients who may lack the expertise to critically evaluate medical claims. This is particularly concerning in cases where patients choose homeopathic remedies as an alternative therapy, i.e.in place of effective treatments, potentially resulting in preventable harm. Here, tolerance can easily degenerate into complicity.
Defenders of homeopathy often invoke patient choice and patient autonomy. While these are important principles, they do not justify the abdication of professional responsibility. True respect for patients involves providing accurate information and protecting them from ineffective or deceptive practices. Allowing patients to choose homeopathy without clear, despite all the evidence that speaks against it is not an expression of respect but a failure of duty.
Moreover, the commercial dimension of homeopathy raises additional ethical concerns. The marketing of homeopathic products often exploits the language of science and medicine while evading the standards that govern them. Consumers are led to believe they are purchasing effective treatments. In reality, they are buying fake medicines that contain no active ingredients. This practice tolerance has degenerated into exploitation.
A society that prides itself on scientific progress and rational inquiry cannot afford to suspend its critical faculties in the name of tolerance. While civility and openness are essential virtues, they must not be confused with randomness or indiscriminate acceptance. Tolerance has limits, particularly when it intersects with matters of public health and scientific integrity.
Thus, the tolerance extended to homeopathy is not merely misplaced; it is ethically problematic. By granting homeopathy a status it does not merit, we risk eroding the very standards that protect patients and uphold the credibility of medicine. In this context, I feel that intolerance is not a vice but a necessary stance, one that affirms the primacy of evidence, reason, and the ethical obligation to do no harm.
A recent paper entitled “Research Ethics and Integrity and the Different Forms of Misconduct: Applications and Challenges in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research” caught my eye. As the subject is close to my heart and often covered on this blog, I studied it carefully. Here is the abstract:
Research ethics and integrity are foundational to the credibility, safety, and societal trust of scientific inquiry. As the use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) grows globally, concerns about research misconduct (including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) have become increasingly salient. With up to 80% of populations in certain countries utilizing TCIM, the field’s expansion underscores the need for rigorous, ethically grounded evidence to guide practice and policy. However, around 470 TCIM-related articles have been retracted to date, as indicated on the Retraction Watch database, which may be due to ethical or non-ethical concerns. This educational article critically examines the state of ethics and integrity in TCIM research, drawing on case studies of misconduct and highlighting the broader consequences for patient safety, scientific credibility, and healthcare integration. In addition, the educational article explores emerging ethical dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence (AI), including risks of automated fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and opacity in research reporting. To strengthen ethical conduct, we propose strategies spanning four domains: 1) improving education and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration to enhance research literacy, 2) embedding open science practices to promote transparency and reproducibility, 3) leveraging meta-research to monitor and advance research quality, and 4) developing policies and safeguards for responsible AI use. Upholding high ethical standards in TCIM research is essential not only to ensure reliable evidence but also to protect patients, sustain public trust, and enable meaningful integration of TCIM within evidence-based healthcare systems.
The full conclusions of the authors are as follows: “With the increasing global use of TCIM therapies, it is crucial for TCIM researchers to uphold high ethical standards to ensure the feasibility, validity, efficacy and safety of TCIM interventions. TCIM research challenges such as heterogeneity, complexity, and lack of standardization practices, alongside issues with research training and funding, create both transformative opportunities and ethical dilemmas that require reflection. Addressing these challenges requires a firm commitment to enhancing research ethics and integrity in TCIM. This commitment must be translated into action through multifaceted strategies: improving research and ethics literacy, fostering open science practices, and ensuring the transparency, integrity, and reproducibility of TCIM research. Strengthening ethical and research practices will not only support its continued development as a discipline but also maximize its potential to contribute to global health.”
I find it most commendable that this subject has finally been addressed by a group of researchers, most of who are known advocates of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). I hope that this is proves to be a step in the right direction for the fileld of SCAM.
Yet, I fear that it is a small or even tiny step. The reason for my fear is that several important issues related to research ethics and integrity in SCAM are let untouched by the authors. In my view, the one of the most important amongst them is the SCAM researcher him/herself. As often discussed on this blog, SCAM research is unique amongst all areas of medical research for being populated by individuals who have a strong ideological bias in favour of SCAM.
These (pseudo)scientists tend to abuse science by trying to prove that their beliefs are correct. Rather than trying to falsify their hypotheses, they would bend over backwards to show that their favourite SCAM is effective. I tried to demontrate this clearly by establishing my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME on this blog.
As to the many other omissions of important ethical concerns from the above paper, I recommend having a look at our book “More Harm than Good?: The Moral Maze of Complementary and Alternative Medicine“. It offers a much more complete review of the ethical issues involved in SCAM research (amusingly, it was not cited in the paper above).
“Science and pseudoscience diverge particularly sharply in their ethical and moral foundations. While science is built upon principles of honesty, openness, and responsibility, pseudoscience undermines these values often by placing ideology and belief over evidence and truth. Science is not least an ethical enterprise, and the divide between science and pseudoscience is a matter of profound moral importance. The ethical stakes become especially acute when pseudoscience causes harm…”
These lines come from my recent book, THE LEOPARD LILY PROJECT, which is only marginally about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Yet they do apply well to SCAM which does not merely fail the test of scientific rigor but also fails the test of medical ethics. When a practice trades empirical validation for dogmatic ideology, it ceases to be an innocent alternative and becomes a profound moral transgression. SCAM regularly promises holistic salvation while actively undermining the principles of honesty, openness, and responsibility, effectively replacing rigorous scrutiny with profitable mystique.
The ethical stakes transition from academic to tragic whenever a vulnerable patient is guided away from effective treatments. SCAM cloaks itself in the gentle language of empathy and natural, holistic, individualised healing, yet its business model relies on exploiting the desperation of the sick. Informed consent is rendered impossible when patients are fed misleading or even fabricated data and disproven promises. By substituting anecdotes for evidence, SCAM weaponizes false hope, monetizing the fear of illness under the guise of medical autonomy. SCAM fosters a broader culture of conspiratorial thinking that systematically erodes public trust in collective public health infrastructure.
When conventional physicians prescribe a treatment, they are bound by evidence, medical ethics, regulatory oversight, and a legal duty of care. When SCAM practitioners prescribe an unproven therapy, they operate in an ethical void, often shielded from accountability by vague disclaimers.
Science remains an ethical enterprise acknowledging its own limitations and subjecting its claims to rigorous correction. Pseudoscience demands faith instead of evidence and leaves its patients to bear the physical consequences of its intellectual dishonesty. To pick up and rephrase the theme from my recent book: evidence-based medicine and SCAM diverge particularly sharply in their ethical and moral foundations.
In the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), “chemical” has long been a dirty word. This phenomenon, known as chemophobia – an irrational fear of synthetic substances – drives a multi-billion-dollar industry obsessed with the “all-natural.” While it stems from an understandable desire for safety (and for making money out of the fear of the public), the chemophobia of SCAM relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic chemistry and toxicology, building a false dichotomy between wholesome nature and malicious chemistry.
To truly dismantle this anxiety, one needs to look no further than a perfect example from nature: the humble apple. If an organic, all-natural apple were required to carry an ingredient label written by a chemist, it would look far more intimidating than any processed food label. A single bite of an apple delivers a complex cocktail of chemical compounds. Beyond its bulk structure of water, dietary pectin, and sugars like fructose and sucrose, an apple is a dense matrix of amino acids—including glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and tyrosine—and fatty acids like linoleic and palmitic acid. It is enriched with vitamins and minerals, from ascorbic acid and alpha-tocopherol to potassium and magnesium. Even its delightful aromas and flavors are synthesized by nature using a mixture of volatile organic compounds: esters like butyl acetate, alcohols like hexan-1-ol, aldehydes like trans-2-hexenal, and a sharp dose of malic acid. More surprisingly perhaps, this wholesome fruit features nature’s own “toxins.” Apples naturally contain trace amounts of formaldehyde, and their seeds contain amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside that degrades into deadly hydrogen cyanide when digested.
The chemical reality of this simple apple highlights the core fallacy of chemophobia: the belief that natural compounds are inherently safe, while synthetic ones are unavoidably toxic. In reality, nature is a master chemist, and the foundational rule of toxicology dictates that it is mostly the dose that makes the poison. Anything can be toxic in excess—even water—and many synthetic molecules are identical to, or safer than, their natural counterparts. Aspirin, for instance, has less side-effects that an extract of willow bark!
The chemophobia of SCAM proponents strips away all nuance and treats the mere presence of a complicated chemical name as an absolute hazard. By fostering a deep-seated distrust of science, it steers ill-informed individuals away from life-saving conventional treatments towards unproven quackery. True health literacy requires moving past misleading branding and recognising that everything in our universe, from a crisp apple to a synthetic antibiotic, is made of chemicals.
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) likes to present itself as a champion of disease prevention. Its advocates routinely claim to promote health before disease develops, to strengthen the body’s defences, and to address root causes rather than symptoms. This rhetoric is highly attractive, because prevention sounds proactive, humane, and economical. Crucially, it is also good for the SCAM practitioner’s bank account. Yet there is a snag: almost none of the preventive claims made for SCAM are supported by reliable evidence, whereas the prevention that works comes overwhelmingly from conventional medicine and science.
To show preventive benefit, an intervention must demonstrably reduce the incidence of symptom, disease, complication, or mortality in properly designed studies. That may require randomised trials, epidemiological studies, large cohorts, reproducible findings, and enough follow-up to show that fewer people actually experienced the given endpoint. Mainstream medicine has repeatedly met this standard. Immunization, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, lipid lowering, cancer screening, and risk-factor modification are all products of biomedical research, not of alternative healing traditions.
SCAM, by contrast, tends to use prevention in a loose, impressionistic, and unfalsifiable way. A practitioner may claim that a treatment “balances energy,” “supports immunity,” or “keeps the body in harmony,” but such phrases do not establish a preventive effect. They are placeholders for evidence, not evidence itself. In practice, the absence of disease after treatment is treated as proof that the treatment worked, even though the same outcome occurs every day without any intervention at all.
Acupuncture is a good example. Its defenders portray it as a preventive system capable of preserving general health or warding off illness, but the evidence base does not support that claim. Some reviews do suggest that acupuncture may help with some pain-related and symptom-focused conditions, yet its preventive value is largely unproven. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that acupuncture prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Chiropractic care is even more revealing because preventive claims are often tied to the doctrine of spinal “subluxation” and nervous system dysfunction. Yet the literature on prevention is thin and methodologically weak. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that chiropractic prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Herbalism benefits from the romantic appeal of “natural” remedies, but that appeal should not be confused with demonstrated preventive efficacy. Individual plant compounds have certainly inspired real drugs, yet that is a triumph of pharmacology, not of herbalism as a system. When herbal medicines are tested for prevention, results are usually weak, inconsistent, or insufficient to support recommendation. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that herbal medicine prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Homeopathy is one of the most extreme cases within SCAM. It is often sold as gentle, individualized, and even preventive, but its basic principles are scientifically implausible, and its clinical evidence is either flawed or negative. Preventive homeopathy, including ideas such as “homeoprophylaxis,” is particularly problematic because it can give people a false sense of security while displacing interventions that genuinely prevent disease, such as vaccination. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that homeopathy prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
SCAM speaks almost constantly about prevention, but the evidence for actual preventive benefit is close to non-existent. What we know about prevention, what truly reduces disease incidence and improves population health, comes from conventional medicine, epidemiology, public health, and biological science. SCAM will no doubt continue to borrow the language of medicine and prevention, but – as far as I can see – it has failed to supply the proof.
During outbreaks of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), public health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) combat “infodemics”, i.e. surges of false information and unproven so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) polluting social media (Bedrosian et al., 2016; Fung et al., 2016; Obol & Nzedibe, 2024). Because these SCAMs are ineffective and frequently dangerous, authorities issue warnings against their use. Here are just a few of the many claims that can be found:
- Bathing in or drinking hot, highly saturated saltwater solutions can sweat out or kill the Ebola virus (Fung et al., 2016). Public health agencies strongly advise against this practice. It does nothing to prevent or treat EVD and can cause severe illness and death from acute hypernatremia (Vijaykumar et al., 2019).
- Solutions containing silver nanoparticles act as powerful natural antimicrobials capable of neutralizing the Ebola virus inside the body (Fung et al., 2016). The WHO has explicitly stated that Nano Silver is an unproven compound with no demonstrated efficacy against Ebola. Authorities recommend avoiding these products, as silver accumulation can cause irreversible organ damage and a condition called argyria (which permanently turns the skin blue/gray).
- Consuming large quantities of specific botanical items, such as raw onions, ginger, or alligator peppers, can stave off infection (Nsoesie & Oladeji, 2020). These “natural cures” possess no therapeutic effects capable of stopping viral replication of the filovirus family. Relying on them creates a false sense of security, which delays life-saving, evidence-based triage and supportive care (Fridman et al., 2025; Nsoesie & Oladeji, 2020).
- Ebola has been attributed to spiritual curses or witchcraft that can only be reversed by traditional spiritual cleansing (Bedrosian et al., 2016). Public health organizations work alongside local communities to pivot away from these practices. Delaying medical intervention to seek traditional spiritual healing drastically increases community transmission and prevents patients from receiving SOTA antiviral therapies and fluid replacement, lowering survival rates (Obol & Nzedibe, 2024).
- A homeopath market “e-remedies” online, claiming that the “energy signature” of a remedy could be digitized into an audio file (Moffitt, 2018). He claimed that listening to a specific, hissing MP3 file could stimulate the body’s immune system to fight off Ebola. This prompted an investigation by the Medical Board of California into the doctor’s license for promoting unscientific and unproven online remedies (Moffitt, 2018).
- Some chiropractors claim that spinal manipulations can prevent Ebola infections, because misalignments interfere with the nervous system. Since the nervous system coordinates the immune responses, these misalignments weaken the body’s ability to recognize and destroy the Ebola virus (Terry Chiropractic Boulder). People “have nothing to fear but fear itself” regarding outbreaks if they keep their spines properly aligned to maximize their natural innate immunity. Global public health authorities and mainstream scientific institutions strongly reject these claims. There is zero credible scientific evidence demonstrating that manual spinal manipulation enhances immune competence or protects an individual against Ebola (Côté et al., 2020).
Ebola infection requires immediate, professional medical treatment. Treatments include monoclonal antibody therapeutics along with intensive supportive care. Relying on internet remedies significantly delays proper clinical treatment and increases the risk of mortality.
References
Bedrosian, S. R., Young, E. C., Smith, L. A., Cox, J. D., Manning, C., Pechta, L., Telfer, J. L., Gaines-McCollom, M., Harben, Kathy, Holmes, Wendy, Lubell, K. M., McQuiston, J. H., Nordlund, Kristen, O’Connor, John, Reynolds, B. S., Schindelar, J. A., Shelley, Gene, & Daniel, K. L. (2016). Lessons of Risk Communication and Health Promotion — West Africa and United States. MMWR Supplements, 65(3), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6503a10
Fridman, I., Boyles, D., Chheda, R., Baldwin-SoRelle, C., Smith, A. B., & Elston Lafata, J. (2025). Identifying Misinformation About Unproven Cancer Treatments on Social Media Using User-Friendly Linguistic Characteristics: Content Analysis. JMIR Infodemiology, 5, e62703. https://doi.org/10.2196/62703
Fung, I. C.-H., Fu, K.-W., Chan, C.-H., Chan, B. S. B., Cheung, C.-N., Abraham, T., & Tse, Z. T. H. (2016). Social Media’s Initial Reaction to Information and Misinformation on Ebola, August 2014: Facts and Rumors. Public Health Reports®, 131(3), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491613100312
Moffitt, M. (2018). State doubts Los Gatos doctor can cure ebola with hissing MP3 files. SFGATE. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/dr-bill-gray-medical-license-homeopathy-treatment-12954925.php
Nsoesie, E. O., & Oladeji, O. (2020). Identifying patterns to prevent the spread of misinformation during epidemics. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-014
Obol, S. J., & Nzedibe, O. (2024). Critical perspective on infodemic and infodemic management in previous Ebola outbreaks in Uganda. Frontiers in Public Health, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1375776
Terry Chiropractic Boulder. (2014). Hold On Ebola: How Bolstering Your Immune System Can Help You Avoid Disease. https://terrychiropracticboulder.com/blog/hold-on-ebola-how-bolstering-your-immune-system-can-help-you-avoid-disease/
Vijaykumar, S., Jin, Y., & Pagliari, C. (2019). Outbreak communication challenges when misinformation spreads on social media. Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação e Inovação em Saúde, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.29397/reciis.v13i1.1623
I found an interesting article in the hilarity-prone journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’. I hope it might amuse you:
The concept of antidotes in homeopathy holds a central place in classical doctrine and daily clinical practice, yet remains l argely unexplored in scientific literature. Antidotes are traditionally defined as substances, remedies, environmental factors or physiological and emotional influences capable of suppressing, altering or interrupting the action of a homeopathic medicine. From a classical homeopathic perspective, any factor capable of modifying the totality of symptoms—thereby influencing remedy selection and follow-up—may be regarded as a potential antidoting influence. Unlike conventional pharmacological antidotes, which act through molecular interactions, homeopathic antidoting is conceived as an interference with the organism’s adaptive and regulatory response. This review revisits the historical foundations of antidotes, examines their clinical importance and explores potential scientific re-interpretations grounded in contemporary neurobiology, psychophysiology and systems medicine. Classical authors, including Hahnemann, Kent, Allen and Boericke, are critically reviewed, and the phenomenon of antidoting is discussed in light of stress physiology, placebo–nocebo mechanisms, hormesis and network regulation. We propose that antidotes represent early empirical descriptions of system-level modulation rather than substance antagonism. Finally, research perspectives are outlined to encourage methodological investigation of antidoting using modern biomedical tools.
Homeopaths administer an antidote when they fear a remedy produces too strong a reaction, to moderate the response. According to homeopathic belief, accidental antidoting commonly occurs through exposure to things like:
- coffee,
- camphor,
- mint,
- menthol,
- eucalyptus,
- strong odors.
- essential oils,
- perfumes,
- toothpaste,
- emotional shock,
- physical shock,
- dental work,
- numerous drugs.
An antidote, according to homeopathic teaching, specifically stops the previous remedy’s action. Each remedy has particular antidotes; for example, Natrum muriaticum is antidoted with mint, while Arnica may be antidoted by coffee. I should add that this concept is, of course, not scientifically validated and therefore pure fantasy.
Has anyone seen a reaction to a homeopathic remedy that is too strong and needs moderation?
No?
Me neither!
Hold on, Arsenic D1 perhaps?
But I am sure the author does not refer to this scenario. Homeopathic remedies are understood to be highly diluted; they contain nothing – even if it says Arsenic on the label. Placebos do not need antidotes because they don’t cause strong reactions.
Therefore, antidotes to homeopathy are a nonsense!
Hold on, this might not be correct. I just thought of a powerful antidote to homeopathy:
SCIENCE!
I came across an interesting article about chiropractic. Let me try to summarise it for you:
Texas’s system for disciplining chiropractors has become much less transparent, making it harder for patients to know whether a provider has faced regulatory action or not. Disciplinary cases reported by the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners and the National Practitioner Data Bank have dropped sharply even as the number of licensed chiropractors has risen, which prompted patient advocates to ask whether the public is being misled.
A rule change adopted in 2019 that narrowed what the chiropractic board can publicly disclose seems at the heart of this. According to board executive director Boyd Bush, the result is that roughly 70 cases, mostly minor administrative matters such as late license renewals, are no longer appearing in the public-facing record. Bush argues the change was intended to prevent chiropractors from suffering disproportionate consequences, such as losing patients or paying higher insurance premiums, for technical violations that do not directly affect patient care.
That explanation contrasts with the view of patient advocate Ware Wendell of Texas Watch, who says the public needs clearer, more usable information when choosing care. His concern is that a chiropractor can have regulatory action behind the scenes while still appearing to have “no board action taken” in public-facing materials, leaving patients unaware of relevant history.
Moreover, not all chiropractor-related enforcement is handled by the chiropractic board. In some cases, the Texas Medical Board has issued cease-and-desist orders against chiropractors accused of practicing medicine without a license, including claims involving neurology expertise, stem cell therapy, diabetes treatment, thyroid disorders, and chronic degenerative diseases. That overlap between boards adds confusion and can make it even harder for the public to interpret what level of discipline or risk a practitioner has faced.
A broader policy debate sits behind the story. Lawmakers tried to reduce inter-board oversight last session through Senate Bill 268, but Governor Greg Abbott vetoed it, citing public health and safety concerns. The Texas Chiropractic Association, meanwhile, says complaints should be handled by the boards with direct oversight, while a 2017 Sunset Advisory Commission review had already criticized the chiropractic board for slow complaint resolution and weak enforcement.
The article closes by noting that the board says it has improved the backlog, but the transparency issue is likely to return in the next legislative session. Evidently, a tension exists between protecting chiropractors from over-penalization for minor offenses and ensuring patients can see meaningful disciplinary history before seeking treatment.
On this blog, we have discussed repeatedly that dishonesty and transgressions are by no means rare events in the realm of chiropractic. I think it is time that this profession gets its act together, puts more emphasis on ethics during education/training, and becomes transparent, even if it might not enhance their public image in the short-term.
This AI-verdict made me wonder: Who is for and who against the critical evaluation of so-called alternative medicine? And I asked a follow-up question:
Can you try to quantify this and give me % figures who is against a critical evaluation of alternative medicine, who is for it, and who is neutral. Can you do this for 1. the general population, 2. proponents of alternative medicine and 3. skeptics?
Here is the reply I got from Gemini:
To quantify these dynamics accurately, we have to look at large-scale sociological data on public attitudes toward science, peer-reviewed medical data (such as surveys by Pew Research, YouGov, and the European Commission), and the behavioral patterns of online discourse.
When it comes to a “critical evaluation” (meaning scientific testing to prove if a therapy works beyond a placebo), the groups break down along very distinct ideological lines. Here is how the percentages estimate across your three requested demographics:
Breakdown of Attitudes Toward Critical Evaluation
1. The General Population
The broader public is largely pragmatic, but a major chunk is passively open to alternative therapies without strictly demanding clinical trial proof.
- Against Critical Evaluation (~15% – 20%): These individuals hold a strong distrust of mainstream pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions. They believe alternative medicine operates on a different “energy” or “holistic paradigm” that standard science is fundamentally incapable of or biased against measuring.
- For Critical Evaluation (~35% – 45%): This group highly values evidence-based medicine, expects consumer safety protection, and agrees that if a therapy claims to cure an illness, it should prove it under a microscope or in a randomized controlled trial.
- Neutral / Passive Consumers (~40% – 50%): This is the massive middle. They don’t track clinical trials, but they will try acupuncture for back pain or take turmeric if a friend recommends it. They view alternative medicine through a lens of “well, it can’t hurt to try,” evaluating it based on personal anecdotes rather than scientific data.
2. Proponents of Alternative Medicine
This group includes dedicated practitioners, wellness influencers, and avid consumers of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).
- Against Critical Evaluation (~70% – 80%): The vast majority actively resist standard scientific evaluation, often viewing figures like Edzard Ernst as hostile prosecutors rather than objective evaluators. They argue that randomized controlled trials are “too reductionist” to capture holistic healing or claim that clinical science is rigged by corporate interests.
- For Critical Evaluation (~5% – 10%): A small minority of CAM practitioners (often in fields like medical acupuncture or osteopathy) welcome rigorous trials, hoping to find a mechanism of action that will grant them mainstream medical legitimacy and insurance coverage.
- Neutral (~10% – 15%): These are individuals who focus strictly on the individual client experience. They don’t care about data or institutional pushback either way; their attitude is simply “if my client says they feel better, that is the only science I need.”
3. Skeptics & Pro-Science Advocates
This demographic comprises secular organizations, evidence-based medical professionals, and science communicators who actively follow work like Ernst’s.
- Against Critical Evaluation (<1%): Virtually non-existent in this group, as evaluation is their core tenet. The only micro-fraction here might be extreme fringe elements who feel certain alternative therapies are so fundamentally absurd (like breatharianism) that evaluating them is a waste of scientific funding.
- For Critical Evaluation (~90% – 95%): The overwhelming majority. They strongly defend the stance that there is no such thing as “alternative” medicine—there is only medicine that has been proven to work and medicine that hasn’t. They view critical evaluation as an ethical necessity for patient safety.
- Neutral (~5%): A tiny sliver who may agree with the premise of science but feel indifferent about fighting the cultural battle against wellness trends, preferring to let people believe what they want as long as it isn’t directly killing them.
The Reality of the “Viral Sharing Power”
The Disparity: While alternative health advocates outnumber skeptics in raw volume and content creation—churning out high-yield, emotionally comforting narratives—the pro-science corrections achieve highly concentrated “viral bursts.”
When a prominent alternative health claim is cleanly and definitively debunked by data, it provides a highly shareable, “gotcha” piece of content for the large, silent neutral majority and the highly active skeptic network. A data-driven correction acts as a high-utility intellectual tool, allowing regular people to cut through multi-million dollar wellness marketing, which is why a single well-structured critique can match or outpace the reach of thousands of individual wellness posts.
______________________
I know, there are good reasons for being cautious about such AI analyses. Yet, unless someone can point me to more reliable data, I will go with this one – not least because it coincides with my own experience and also because I quite like its findings.
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.
