bullshit
Trump’s appearance at the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Dinner yesterday rapidly descended into a public unravelling. Rather than using the occasion to project confidence, humour and presidential composure, he transformed it into a rambling assault on the press, political opponents and even the organisers of the event. What should have been an evening of wit and satire became yet another illustration of his primitivity and increasingly erratic behaviour.
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Trump’s performance was not its length but its tone. The Correspondents’ Dinner traditionally rewards self-deprecating humour, demonstrating that a president possesses enough confidence to laugh at himself. Rejecting that convention entirely, Trump resorted to personal insults, inelegant mockery and familiar grievances, singling out journalists including Kaitlan Collins, Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon.
When one of his remarkably crude jokes failed to resonate, he neither recovered gracefully nor moved on. Instead, he blamed his speechwriters, dismissed his prepared remarks as “frickin’ stupid”, and publicly distanced himself from his own performance. Rather than displaying resilience, he exposed an inability to cope with even mild social failure.
In my view, Trump’s behaviour is psychologically revealing. It reflects a personality style characterised by grandiosity, a profound need for admiration, low tolerance of frustration and hypersensitivity to criticism. Individuals with pronounced narcissistic traits often externalise failure, shifting blame to others rather than accepting responsibility themselves. Trump’s spontaneous denunciation of his own script was a textbook example of this defensive manoeuvre. Rather than adapting to an audience that was not responding as hoped, he converted an awkward moment into yet another occasion of victimhood and betrayal.
Equally striking was Trump’s inability to modulate his behaviour to suit the occasion. Intelligent political leaders recognise the demands of different settings and adjust their tone accordingly. Yet, Trump appeared unable to distinguish between a campaign rally and an event designed around humour and mutual tolerance between politicians and journalists. His persistent return to personal grievances shows not merely poor political judgement but impaired behavioural flexibility.
From a medical perspective, the performance also raises questions about executive functioning. Executive functions are the cognitive processes responsible for planning, inhibiting inappropriate responses, adapting to changing circumstances and regulating emotions. Throughout the speech, Trump abandoned prepared material, drifted into tangential attacks, failed to recognise when jokes were unsuccessful, and did to recover from minor setbacks.
Of course, none of these observations proves neurological pathology, and no diagnosis can responsibly be made from a public appearance alone. Nevertheless, together with uncounted similar events, they are behaviours compatible with diminished executive control and reduced cognitive flexibility.
I fear that the evening confirmed a now all too familiar combination of narcissistic defensiveness, impulsivity and poor emotional regulation. The performance showed strikingly poor judgement, limited adaptability and an inability to restrain impulses. For a man in Trump’s position, that was probably the most revealing aspect of the evening. My concern is not that his poor joke fell flat; politicians survive this sort of thing all the time. My concern is that, when confronted with even a trivial setback, Trump is incapable of responding adequately.
Personally, I would be less concerned about the future of the world, if Americans would finally realise what is happening and get this man out of the White House.
“Popularity takes the place of plausibility, tradition replaces validity, and individual experience is positioned above objective efficacy.”
This sentence (my translaation of the German original) comes from a book by Udo Endruscheit that I have been reading. It is entitled “Vom Zweifel zur Haltung: Eine Reise durch die Geschichte der Erkenntnis” (From Doubt to Conviction: A Journey Through the History of Knowledge) and outlines the epistemological development of truth from the early thinkers of antiquity to the postmodern voices of today. It traces how the concept of truth has changed, how it has been criticized, relativized, and deconstructed, and how these changes have shaped us and our thinking.
The statement was no necessarily meant to me applied to medicine, but it does aply capture a recurring epistemological pattern within large segments of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It describes a shift away from the truth towards criteria that are socially and psychologically compelling but scientifically nonsensical.
The substitution of popularity for plausibility is evident in the way many SCAMs have gained traction. Treatments such as homeopathy, naturopathic detox regimens, or paranormal energy-based healing have achieved global followings despite the fact that there can hardly be a mechanism of action that does not fly in the face of science. Their popularity is often driven by anecdotal endorsements, celebrity advocacy, and market forces rather than by convergence of experimental and theoretical support. Opinion counts more than truth, and the absence of plausibility in a SCAM is frequent and frequently ignored.
The elevation of tradition over validity is a defining feature of most SCAMs. Historical longevity is often presented as implicit evidence of effectiveness. “It would not have survived, if it were ineffective!” Yet, from a scientific perspective, tradition is a most unreliable indicator: ineffective or even harmful practices can persist for centuries in the absence of effectiveness and even safety. Bloodletting in pre-modern Western medicine offers a cautionary example. The critical issue is not whether a therapy is old, but whether it has been subjected to rigorous evaluation and shown to produce reproducible benefits that exceed placebo and other non-specific effects.
The dominance of individual experience over objective effectiveness is perhaps the most pervasive and psychologically persuasive cause of SCAM’s popularity. Patients’ testimonials, often sincere and seemingly compelling, are being touted as sufficient evidence of effectiveness. Yet individual experience is highly susceptible to regression to the mean, natural disease fluctuation, placebo effects, confirmation and other biases and confounders. Without proper comparisons, it is impossible to distinguish specific therapeutic effects from non-specific ones. Evidence-based medicine does not dismiss patient experience; rather, it contextualizes it with external evidence to avoid misleading us all.
The above statement by Udo Endruscheit was meant as a general characterisation of the way we currently handle and mishandle truth. As such it applies to much more than just SCAM. Yet, it also provides an apt critique of dominant tendencies within SCAM. Popularity, tradition, and personal experience are, of course, not inherently without value, but when they displace plausibility, validity, and objective effectiveness, they create a situation that is wide open to error, exploitation and often also harm.
In a nutshell: the truth matters; watering it down – as we all currently tend to do – carries serious risks in medicine as much as in life.
PS
I almost forgot!
Yes, I do recommend reading Udo’s most fascinating book.
The Journal of Evidence Based Homeopathy (JEBH)?
Yes, it does exist!
It was launched in 2023 by Willmar Schwabe India, as a twice yearly publication that presents itself as a peer-reviewed outlet for research, clinical trials, case studies, reviews, and theoretical pieces about homeopathy. Its own site describes it as a “groundbreaking” journal meant to promote the “evidence-based practice and understanding of homeopathy,” and lists the editor-in-chief as Dr. Ramachandran Valavan who seems to be on the payroll of Schwabe India. As far as I can see, the editorial board consist exclusively of Indian homeopathy supporters.
The publisher is Dr. Willmar Schwabe India Pvt. Ltd., with a Noida/Ghaziabad address in Uttar Pradesh, India. The firm is a branch of the well-known German manufacturer of homeopathic products. JEBH is a specialty homeopathy journal rather than a mainstream medical journal. Its language is strongly promotional, emphasizing “rigorous investigation,” “scientific exploration,” and “solid evidence,” but those claims are made by the journal itself rather than independently demonstrated in the material available here.
JEBH claims it is peer-reviewed. However, its articles often read like advocacy: they present homeopathy as being refined by “modern scientific exploration” and “real-world data,” and frequently treat positive case reports or reviews as confirmation of homeopathy’s validity. That style is, of course, not unusual in homeopathy publications, but from an evidence-based medicine perspective it is a ridiculous substitute for reproducible controlled data.
To give you a taster, here is the first section of a recent editorial published in the JEMH:
The Journal of Evidence-Based Homeopathy (JEBH) continues to strengthen its mission of uniting classical homeopathy with modern scientific exploration. This issue exemplifies how research, provings, and clinical observations converge to validate and refine homeopathic practice. The original articles section presents a diverse set of contributions from clinical case management to digital tools aiding repertorization. The featured case on Natrum muriaticum exemplifies the precision of individualized prescribing in addressing emotional and mental health concerns , while an insightful review on repertory software underscores the evolving integration of technology in clinical decision-making …
I wonder: does anyone know of another so-called “evidence-based” medical journal that is fully controlled, financed and run by a BIG PHARMA firm?
I don’t!
The JEBH confirms what we all suspected:
HOMEOPATHY IS UNIQUE.
I was reminded of a paper that I published a long time ago – 23 years to be precise. It is entitled THE LECTURE FROM HELL. As it is not available online, let me give you a slightly revised version of it here:
When it comes to giving lectures, I have certainly made every mistake there is, and therefore I consider myself qualified to write this personal account on how to deliver THE LECTURE FROM HELL. I do this in the hope that others might learn from my imperfections.
In preparing for a lecture, it is best to be cool and leave things to the last minute. You are so gifted and competent that a few scribbles made on the way to the venue will easily suffice for fascinating your audience. Don’t bother enquiring who they are; what you have to say will capture the attention of a lay audience as much as that of a highly specialised one.
The kind people who have invited you will certainly have suggested a topic. Don’t get irritated by that; you know best what you can and want to talk about and, after all, it is always best to stick to what you know. If your subject is palliative cancer care, for instance, it should not be too difficult, after a few introductory sentences, to shift the attention to the most revealing survey you conducted on 10 back pain patients 25 years ago – cancer patients suffer from back pain too!
From the outset, you need to show the audience that you are better than they are. A good way of achieving this aim is to display your knowledge of as many acronyms as possible. Making abundant use of abbreviations has the added advantage that it could hide a few glitches in your arguments (or spelling). People might even think you are talking about palliative care after all.
Another golden rule is never produce evidence for your statements. Some people use visual aids to produce the evidence, but this is both tiring and confusing (and it would, of course, require much more preparation than you allowed for). If you want to use visual aids, use photographs of your kids (pets if you are childless) or your last holiday in Corfu. This will add the personal touch that people crave. Surely, if they had wanted evidence they would have gone to a library, not to your lecture.
It is advisable to spend as much time as possible with lengthy preliminaries, particularly if you are not really covering the subject as printed in the programme. Mention that you first met Cathy (who just introduced you) when you were both in nursery and give a full and colourful account of your relationship since then. If you haven’t actually been to nursery with Cathy, perhaps you could talk about the car accident you saw en route and what it made you think of. Or you could take the holistic approach, ask everyone to stand up, do a few relaxation exercises and feel the flow of energy in the body, room or universe. The obvious aim is to leave as little time as possible for the proper lecture. Thus, you can pretend to know much more about your subject than you had time to disclose and you can end your unfinished lecture with the upbeat exclamation ‘‘yeah! perhaps another time’’.
Most lecturers find the ensuing discussion period the most challenging part of their task. Not you! First, you have wisely ensured that there is no time left. Thus, the discussion slot will either be completely cancelled or it will be refreshingly brief. When the first difficult question comes your way, remember the important principle: you are so much cleverer than anyone else in this room! Make sure you show it. Arrogance has always been a perfect shield for hiding incompetence.
Another good strategy is to ridicule the person who dared ask the awkward question. Thus, they end up with egg on their face instead of you. If all else fails and you really don’t know how to answer, the best approach is to say: ‘‘this is a bit too complex right now; perhaps I could explain this to you later over coffee’’. Just ensure that you are safely on the way home when the coffee break starts.
Generally speaking, the overriding principles of a truly diabolically bad talk are quite simple. Lectures are neither the time nor place for transmitting knowledge to those who came to listen. Their predominant purpose is to massage the lecturer’s ego and increase their income. If you keep this in mind, you will stop worrying about things like evidence, structure and delivery and simply enjoy the outing.
I was reminded of this article because I saw the title of a recently published paper: HOW TO GIVE A BAD TALK. It starts as follows: “It is crucial to know how to communicate your work by delivering an effective talk, but our training for doing so is limited, so it is a skill often learned by watching others — who sometimes do it badly”.
Sadly, I could not read on; the journal asked almost 30 Euros for the privilege! So, I will never know what else I can do to give a truly poor lecture. Yet, I did learn something important: the knowledge of how to give a bad talk does not always come cheap!
I recently coined a new term: Chutzpah-Based Medicine (CBM). It requires a bit of an explanation which I herewith try to deliver. Medical decisions should rely on a rational hierarchy: systematic reviews at the top, followed by randomised clinical trials, observational studies, and way down at the bottom we anecdotal experience and opinion. The new paradigm of “Chutzpah-Based Medicine” (CBM) turns this pyramid upside down.
In CBM, double-blind trials are replaced by double-down charisma. Why wait 10 years for evidence when you can assert a medical breakthrough in 15 seconds on video with dynamic lighting, an unbuttoned linen shirt, and absolute, unshakable certainty? Here is an overview of the core tenets and leading luminaries of this revolutionary field.
The Dogmas of CBM
- The Confidence-to-Evidence Ratio: The validity of any health claim is directly proportional to the volume, velocity, and eye contact with which it is delivered.
- The “Big Pharma Secret” Axiom: If a treatment worked and had evidence, it would evidently be mainstream. Therefore, the total absence of evidence is the ultimate proof that “They” are trying to suppress it.
- Quantum Syllogism: If you insert the word “quantum” before anything, biology no longer applies, and anything becomes possible.
Four Ambassadors of CBM
- Gwyneth Paltrow
The undisputed pioneer of High-End CBM. Paltrow proved that with enough aesthetic minimalism and raw audacity, one can sell jade eggs, vaginal steaming, and “psychic vampire repellent” as essential wellness routines. Scientific consensus is but a sign of unrefined taste. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- Time for Gwyneth Paltrow’s ‘Emotional Detox Bath Soak’
- We all have misungerstood good old Gwyneth Paltrow. At heart, she is a true sceptic!
- What is it with Gwyneth Paltrow and the vagina?
- Rectal ozone therapy? Gwyneth seems to like it!
- Dr. Mehmet Oz
Before entering politics, Dr. Oz laid the groundwork for CBM. He demonstrated that a cardiothoracic surgeon could look directly into a camera and declare green coffee bean extract a “miracle burn in a bottle” without blinking. “Magic” is, according to Oz, a valid clinical outcome. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- It seems to me that Dr. Mehmet Oz is breaking the law!
- Donald Trump nominated SCAM promoter, Mehmet Oz, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
- Columbia University cut ties with Dr. Mehmet Oz … or did they?
- Dr. Joseph Mercola
He is a true titan of digital CBM mastering the art of building a multi-million-dollar supplement empire by warning millions that modern medicine is a toxic conspiracy, while conveniently offering his own unapproved tanners, liposomal vitamins, and other SCAMs as the sole salvation. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- The ‘moral and intellectual decay’ of COVID disinformants
- The anti-vaccination movement is financed by the dietary supplement industry
- Deepak Chopra
Chopra brought profound philosophical chutzpah to CBM by blending endocrinology with poetic quantum bollox. By asserting that human bodies are “localized energy fields” capable of “quantum healing,” he elevated clinical vagueness into a high-margin spiritual enterprise. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- Deepak Chopra – Karma can be a real bitch!
- The ‘LOVETUNER’: Have a look at this, and you will never again think that Deepak Chopra is a charlatan
- Deepak Chopra’s finest hour
- Deepak Chopra enters my ‘ALT MED HALL OF FAME’
While Evidence-Based Medicine requires years of arduous testing, CBM offers immediate answers, simple villains, and premium-priced remedies. Why let a clinical trial get in the way of an excellent means of getting rich quickly?
The Medical Journalists’ Association (MJA) has outlined six practical tips to help scrutinise health claims responsibly and accurately. They are primarily meant for journalists but, I think, they are also usefull for the general public, particularly when dealing with health claims in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM):
Check the source
Assess whether the claim originates from credible, peer-reviewed research and a reputable institution. Be wary of press releases, anecdotal reports, or media outlets known for sensationalism. Specifically for claims about SCAM, we might also add caution regarding the many third class SCAM journals.
Look for conflicts of interest
Investigate who funded the research and whether any authors or organisations stand to profit from the findings. Industry sponsorship can introduce bias, even in otherwise well-conducted studies. For claims about SCAM, we should remember that financial interest might be secondary to ideological ones.
Examine the study design
Consider whether the research used appropriate methods – such as randomisation, control groups, and adequate sample sizes – to support its conclusions. Observational studies, or case reports, or trials with the often-discussed ‘A+B versus B’ design, for example, cannot prove causation.
Consider the magnitude and relevance of effects
Distinguish between statistical significance and clinical importance. A tiny effect may be statistically significant in a large trial but meaningless in practice. Also ask whether the study population is representative and the outcome can be generalised.
Look for independent replication
Single studies should be treated cautiously until confirmed by other researchers. Consistent findings across multiple studies increase confidence in a claim.
Beware of over-interpretations
Scrutinise whether the authors or media coverage extrapolate beyond what the data support. For instance, generalising from animal studies to humans, or implying benefits without evidence of improved health outcomes.
___________________
If I may, I will add an 7th to the six by the MJA. It is one that I have issued many times previously and that is, I think, essential in SCAM:
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!
Exaggerated or false health claims are endemic in SCAM. These 7 tips might be useful in disclosing them and in minimising the harm they can do.
The Church of Scientology has spent decades insisting that psychiatry is a terrorist conspiracy, antidepressants are a gateway to mass murder, and only its own “tech” can save humanity from the menace of Prozac and similar “poisons”. One might imagine this worldview would remain safely quarantined within L. Ron Hubbard’s realm of loons.
But then Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of Health and Human Services!
By pure coincidence Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” crusade, unveiled with the MAHA Action Plan to Curb Psychiatric Overprescribing, just happens to target the very same SSRIs that Scientology and its front group CCHR have been demonising for years. Antidepressants are singled out, deprescribing is framed as a patriotic duty, and psychotherapy and lifestyle tweaks are held up as the noble alternative to “overmedicalization.” The American Psychiatric Association calls SSRIs evidence‑based treatment; Kennedy, channelling his inner CCHR lawyer, suggests they’re harder to quit than heroin and may be helping to fuel mass violence.
Enter Wisner Baum, the mass‑tort firm whose senior partners have long, colourful histories with Scientology and its covert operations. This firm has spent years suing antidepressant manufacturers and other psychiatric technologies. And Kennedy has quietly pocketed over $850,000 in fees from them, while keeping a continuing financial interest as HHS Secretary. It is hard to imagine a neater arrangement: a Scientology‑linked law firm sues drug companies; a Scientology‑approved health secretary casts doubt on those same drugs from the cabinet; and fee income flows merrily along.
So, is Kennedy formally a Scientologist?
No, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for that. But perhaps the label becomes somewhat unimportant, when the nation’s top health official is advancing policy that mirrors Scientology’s doctrine and staying financially intertwined with its legal defender. Whether or not he has taken the oath or not (and I am not saying he has), he seems to be doing the work of Xenu, the mysterious extraterrestrial ruler of a galactic confederacy.
An article entitled “Beyond the Appearance of Rigor: Trustworthiness, Integration, and Standardization in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” caught my eye. The name “Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” is, I think, impressive as it demonstrates the seemingly infinite ability of SCAM-promoters to come up endlessly with new and ridiculous terms! Please allow me nonetheless to continue calling it so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
The paper itself might be summarised as follows:
SCAMs struggles to fit into mainstream science. Trustworthiness isn’t just about flashy, individual study results; it requires a reliable system of transparent data and independent replication. However, forcing SCAM into mainstream healthcare via scientific scrutiny, standardisation and integration is a double-edged sword. It strips away the personalized, holistic essence of these therapies. Instead of abandoning science or changing the therapies, researchers need to use creative, flexible scientific methods that document the real-world complexity of SCAM without trying to force it into an artificial mold.
I have heard this argument often, particularly early on when I started applying science to SCAM. SCAM proponents were initially taken by the idea; later, when the results were often not what they expected, they were less impressed and argued that, because science failed to produce positive results, something must be wrong with it and in need of improvement. Specifically, the arguments were:
- SCAM is individualised,
- SCAM is holistic,
- SCAM is complex,
- SCAM is subtle,
- SCAM depends on the skill of the practitioner.
And therefore, SCAM cannot be fitted into the straitjacket of science, particularly not in the one imposed by the randomised clinical trial.
It took many years to convince some SCAM proponents that these notions were erroneous, that science is not always perfect but that no better method for testing exists, that many mainstream interventions (e.g. physiotherapy, psychotherapy) are just as complex, holistic, etc. as is SCAM. Eventually the argument that SCAM defies scientific evaluation disappeared – not totally, but almost.
Now, 30 years later, it is back!
One cannot even blame the SCAM enthusiasts for reviving it. Thirty years of research and very little of SCAM has been proven to work – unless one gives SCAM a huge ‘benefit of the doubt’ and pretends poor science constitutes proof. Even the treatments that SCAM proponents celebrate as evidence-based fall apart once we scratch the surface and discover how poor and irreproducible the evidence mostly is.
Yes, I do sympathise with the frustration of SCAM proponents as they gradually realise all this. Many of them know only too well that their most solid evidence can be taken apart by any first-year medical student with rudimentary skills of critical evaluation. Many of them therefore have long moved away from hypothesis testing research and prefer the type of investigation that never generates a negative finding (e.g. surveys, qualitative studies, sociological approaches). Others, including the two authors of the above-mentioned paper, prefer to go full circle and revive the notions we dealt with decades ago claiming we need different standards for SCAM than for the rest of medicine.
Perhaps someone should tell them that double standards are never a good idea?
In the US, the dismantling of public health is in full swing. That this development would sooner or later involve chiropractic had to be expected:
- The shady love affair between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Chiropractic Profession
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his harmful ideas about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- The ‘International Chiropractors Association’ Congratulated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on His Selection as ‘Secretary of Health and Human Services’
- Eric S Kaplan, the strange chiropractor-friend of Donald Trump
- What does Trump think about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?
Thus, the recently launched MAHA Chiropractic Hub cannot come as a surprise. The new Hub is a national lobbying and promotional initiative designed to position chiropractic care as a drug-free, “prevention-first” solution to chronic disease and to reshape US healthcare policy in its favour. Launched as part of the broader “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, the Hub is a coordinated partnership between the MAHA Centre, MAHA Action, and various chiropractic associations, practitioners, and educators. The initiative promotes chiropractic as a root-cause fix for a broken system.
However, medical researchers and public health experts note that the broader claims of chiropractic, particularly those regarding “prevention-first” wellness and treating chronic non-musculoskeletal diseases, lack a credible evidence base. While an optimistic reading of the clinical evidence might support spinal manipulation for short-term relief of acute lower back pain, high-quality scientific data remains weak or non-existent for its efficacy in managing systemic health issues, preventing disease, or acting as a primary care substitute.
Operationally, the Hub seems to organize its strategy around 4 main pillars:
- Public Relations & Branding: Launching a national media campaign to rebrand chiropractic as a credible, prevention-focused discipline, an effort critics argue pushes past the boundaries of evidence-based medicine.
- Legislative Lobbying: Pressing for the Chiropractic Medicare Coverage Modernization Act and the full enforcement of Section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act to expand federal funding and reimbursement.
- Military & Veterans Integration: Promoting chiropractic within Defense Health and Army medical structures for musculoskeletal injuries and pushing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to expand access and reduce wait times.
- Targeted Outreach: Explicitly marketing these non-drug, non-surgical options to vulnerable or specialized demographics, including children, military personnel, veterans, and seniors.
By targeting federal policy and public perception, the Hub seeks to institutionalise chiropractic care across major public health sectors. In the true MAHA tradition, skepticism from the medical and scientific communities regarding the effectiveness and safety of chiropractic is being ignored.
What is next?
You may well ask!
A homeopath to run the FDA, or the flat earth society taking over NASA?
Nothing can surprise me now!
Homeopaths tend to voice a standard set of arguments when confronted with irrefutable evidence against homeopathy. In the discussion sections of this blog, we heard them all:
- “The negative trials are flawed designed.” They claim these trials were done by ungifted therapists or used the wrong remedies, wrong potencies, wrong dosing schedules, etc. Therefore, they do not reflect true homeopathic practice.
- “Homeopathy is individualised, RCTs can’t capture it.” They argue that randomised clinical trials are inherently unsuitable because homeopathic treatment must be tailored to each patient, rendering RCTs “unfair” or even “unscientific.”
- “Only a fraction of the evidence has been considered.” They assert that critics cherry-pick negative evidence and ignore positive small trials, case series, or observational data that they regard as equally valid.
- “There is much positive evidence.” They point to older or methodologically weak positive studies and claim these outweigh or at least balance the otherwise negative body of evidence.
- “Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are biased and/or politically motivated.” They allege that negative evaluations are driven by ideological hostility to homeopathy, Big Pharma influence, or institutional bias.
- “Statistical significance is not the same as clinical reality.” They argue that statistics miss “real-world” benefits observed in practice and that evidence-based medicine is too narrow.
- “Evidence-based medicine overvalues RCTs and undervalues experience.” They insist that long clinical experience, case reports, patient testimonies, etc. should count as strong evidence and that their accumulated practice is itself proof of efficacy.
- “Patient demand and satisfaction are evidence.” They use high patient satisfaction, repeat consultations, and word-of-mouth popularity as a proxy for effectiveness.
- “Millions use it worldwide.” They argue that longstanding, global usage implies that it must work; otherwise it would have disappeared.
- “Conventional medicine is not perfect either.” They respond to criticism by highlighting harms, errors, and historical reversals in conventional medicine, implying that science-based critics lack moral authority.
- “If it were only placebo, it wouldn’t work on XY.” They claim efficacy in infants, animals, or unconscious patients as evidence that placebo cannot fully explain the effects.
- “Mechanisms aren’t fully known, but that doesn’t matter.” They liken homeopathy to earlier medical advances whose mechanisms were unknown at the time (e.g. aspirin), arguing that lack of a plausible mechanism is not a valid reason to reject positive clinical observations.
- “Physics and chemistry are incomplete; future science will explain it.” They invoke concepts like quantum physics, nanostructures, or complex systems to argue that current science is still too limited to explain homeopathy.
- “Regulatory / institutional conspiracies.” They suggest that powerful pharmaceutical or medical lobbies seek to suppress homeopathy to protect their financial interests.
- “Homeopathy is cheap and safe; risk–benefit favours it.” They argue that even if evidence is thin, the very low risk and low cost justify its use.
- “The therapeutic encounter itself is part of the effect.” They turn criticisms about placebo and context effects into a strength: the long consultation, empathy, and attention are claimed to be legitimate and central components of homeopathy.
- “Freedom of choice / patient autonomy.” They shift from scientific to ethical/political ground, insisting that patients should be free to choose homeopathy regardless of scientific consensus.
- “Skeptics misunderstand what homeopathy really is.” They claim that people conflate homeopathy with herbalism, confuse potencies, or misunderstand Hahnemann’s principles, so their critiques do not address true homeopathy.
- “Critics don’t see the individual ‘miracle’ cases.” They counter population-level data with vivid anecdotes of dramatic improvements which they regard as decisive.
- “Negative evidence is ‘absence of evidence’, not ‘evidence of absence’.” They argue that failed trials or negative reviews merely show that efficacy hasn’t been proved yet, not that homeopathy does not work.
- “Science evolves; today’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ may be overturned.” They claim that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that homeopathy will eventually be vindicated when paradigms shift.
In discussions with homeopaths, these points are repeated endlessly. One could easily get the impression of a broken record. All of the above arguments have in common that – even as some of then contain a kernel of truth – they are erroneous. In theory it could be easy to point this out to the stereotypical homeopathy promoter; in practice, however, it often is impossible, since the broken record continues turning senselessly.
