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.)