doctors
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.
When – about 14 years ago – it was my turn, I looked forward to retirement: endless sleep-ins, zero airport security lines for lectures at distant places, no more struggling to keep awake at boring meeting, and a calendar so beautifully blank it belongs in a modern art museum. I looked forward to the complete absence of so-called peers – mostly people who had no idea about my research – criticising or trying to influence my work. And even more I rejoiced in the prospect of having no university administrators needlessly complicating my life, while taking a big chunk of my research funding for the benefit.
When you retire as an academic, you genuinely believe you’ve escaped the university rat race – only to soon realize you’ve just been traded to a different league with much worse perks. Suddenly, your mornings are dictated not by an alarm clock, but by a relentless, self-imposed to-do list. You’re busier than ever, while operating alone and on a budget that makes your old expense-account days feel like the reign of Louis XIV.
Of course, not all academics keep on working after retirement. Some manage to just drop everything from one day to the next thinking they will now look after the garden, trimm roses, walk the dog, etc. I know many who have chosen this type of approach to retirement. For a few months, it all seems to go fine. Then they realise the increaingly painful emptiness and lack of purpose. More often than not, a low mood creeps in, followed by depression and/or taking to the bottle (perhaps this is why the Exeter medical school gave me a set of huge [and apparently expensive] wine glasses as a leaving present?).
No, staying active and doing what one likes must be the secret of remaining sane after retirement – at least for me. So, I rolled up my sleeves and got on with it. I started this blog (thanks Alan) where I have now published well over 3000 posts. I also began writing colums for newspapers – in English, German and French, to make it a bit more interesting. And then I got into books; this turned out to be more fun (and far less money) than expected. Since retiring I so far managed an average of about one per year – 16 to be precise, and currently three more in the pipeline.
Yes, I do keep myself busy, but this approach does unquestionably have its surprises. The real shocker, is the devastating loss of infrastructure. Yesterday you were a visionary leader; today, you are your own secretary, IT department, mailroom clerk, travel agent, and administrative assistant – and frankly, your staff is frightfully incompetent! There is nobody to filter out annoying requests, meaning you are fully exposed to every crank on the planet. Your former co-workers no longer do the knuckle work of the research, so things get slower and slower. Technical assistance is nowhere to be found; when the printer jams or the Wi-Fi malfunctions, you are on your utterly incompetent own. Every little task takes hours or days. You’ve traded business casual for sweatpants or shorts, but the “hassle” didn’t disappear; if anything, it becomes bigger and bigger. It just rebranded itself as a full-time, unpaid internship where you are both the demanding boss and the disgruntled employee.
But am I not supposed to enjoy life during retirement?
I promise you, I do that too!
Some friends keep asking me whether I don’t want to finally retire for real, relax and be happy.
“What do you mean?”, I respond.
“Well, you know, do what you really like.”
“But that’s what I am doing!”
It is true – honestly.
I am productive because I am content – and not the other way round.
Dr. Toby Rogers, a political economist and fellow at the libertarian Brownstone Institute, ignited a firestorm in March 2026 when he declared the current childhood vaccination program “one of the greatest crimes in human history” (“libertarian” refers to someone who advocates for extreme individual liberty—particularly freedom from government mandates and regulations—believing that the state should be minimized and that individuals should have absolute autonomy over their own bodies, property, and choices without state coercion).
Rogers’ 2026 statement is not an isolated outburst but the culmination of years of vaccine skepticism. After his partner’s son was diagnosed with autism in 2015, Rogers abandoned his original doctoral focus to study autism’s causes, reviewing nearly 1,000 studies over four years. He concluded that vaccines are the primary driver of the autism epidemic. The overwhelming scientific consensus, however, is that vaccines are safe and that autism’s rise stems from improved diagnosis, broader criteria, and complex genetic and environmental factors unrelated to immunization (see the plethora of previous posts on this subject). His PhD thesis, The Political Economy of Autism, and subsequent publications have been widely criticized by the scientific community. Its methodological flaws include:
- selection bias,
- cherry-picking,
- inclusion of weak studies,
- dismissing robust epidemiological research.
Rogers’ 2026 statement elevates personal conviction and contested research over scientific rigor and public health reality. Rogers argues that children receive too many vaccines too early, warning of “cumulative effects” on developing immune systems. Yet the Institute of Medicine has found no evidence of major safety concerns with the current childhood immunization schedule, and the National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly affirmed that vaccines are safe and effective. Rogers dismisses the 22 major studies confirming vaccine safety as “worthless” because they lacked a true unvaccinated control group—a standard that is both ethically impossible and scientifically unnecessary given the massive population data demonstrating vaccine safety over decades.
Rogers’ evidence relies heavily on a handful of independent studies to support his claims. These studies have been criticized for small sample sizes, selection bias, failure to control for confounders, and methodological flaws so severe that some of Rogers’ co-authored papers, such as “Autism Tsunami,” were retracted from peer-reviewed journals. His claim that vaccinated children have dramatically higher rates of autism and chronic disease rests on research that has not withstood independent replication or scrutiny by mainstream scientists. By contrast, the scientific community’s confidence in vaccine safety derives from massive, longitudinal studies involving millions of children, rigorous clinical trials, and decades of population surveillance.
Rogers’ credibility is compromised not least because he is a regular contributor to Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that has a long history of spreading debunked claims. Roger’s testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Investigations in September 2025, titled “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” tried to position him as a whistleblower exposing “flawed science.” In reality, it relied on the same flawed studies and conspiracy narratives that have been repeatedly discredited by the scientific community.
Rogers receives funding from several anti-vaccine and libertarian organizations, though specific salary figures are not publicly disclosed :
- Brownstone Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by economist Jeffrey Tucker that promotes vaccine skepticism, “medical freedom,” and opposition to public health mandates. The institute is funded by libertarian donors and provides fellowships to researchers who align with its ideology.
- Children’s Health Defense is explicitly an anti-vaccine organization led by Mary Holland (CEO) and founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The organization has illuminated funding sources through IRS 990 filings, showing it raised millions of dollars and pays researchers, speakers, and staff. In Rogers’ Senate testimony, he explicitly stated: “Since then I’ve continued my research with Children’s Health Defense, as an independent journalist, and as a Fellow at Brownstone Institute”.
- Rogers also appears at MAHA Institute conferences (Make America Healthy Again), which is aligned with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s movement and features speakers from anti-vaccine organizations including Children’s Health Defense.
Rogers’s financial ties to anti-vaccine organizations create clear conflicts of interest. His research supports the organizational mission of Children’s Health Defense and Brownstone Institute, and his income appears tied to producing content that aligns with these organizations’ anti-vaccine advocacy. The political economy of Rogers’ work is thus ironic: while he critiques the “political economy of autism” and government response, his own research is funded by private organizations with clear ideological and financial incentives to promote vaccine skepticism.
Rogers is not a medical doctor. He has a doctorate in political economy from the University of Sydney and a Master’s in public policy. He holds no medical degree or formal training in medicine, immunology, epidemiology, or vaccine science. His expertise is in political economy, not medical or vaccine research, which means his claims about vaccine safety and autism lack the scientific credentials required to make authoritative medical assertions.
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
Guest post by Ken McLeod
It seems like it was a century ago, but it’s been only six years since the COVID19 pandemic hit the world. Governments reacted in similar ways implementing severe public health measures such as lockdowns and mandatory wearing of facemasks. When those public health measures hit, they hit hard. The city of Melbourne was locked down for 111 days, for example,[1] alongside social distancing, curfews, and closed borders.
And then the vaccines arrived and were added to those rules. On 7 October 2021, the Victorian Chief Health Officer issued public health Directions that required, unless a valid medical exemption was given for medical reasons by a registered medical practitioner, ‘manufacturing workers’ must receive a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by 15 October 2021 (or have a booking to do so) and must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by 26 November 2021.3 The refusal or failure by an employer to comply with the Directions was an offence which carried a significant penalty.
Antivaxxers were quick to exploit those exemptions and regrettably, out of tens of thousands of registered medical practitioners, some were willing to put their own unfounded beliefs above the science.
One of those doctors was Dr Denes C.Borsos, originally from Romania, practicing in the Australian state of Victoria in the picturesque country town of Colac, pop 22,000.
Dr Borsos issued 189 COVID-19 vaccination exemptions and 122 face mask exemptions to his patients, largely in the period from 11 to 14 October 2021. In the period from 11 to 13 October 2021, Dr Borsos saw approximately 221 patients in his practice.
Evidently word had got around. According to the Geelong Advertiser, a local newspaper, reported that on 14 October 2021 police were forced to disperse a crowd of alleged antivaxxers who had flocked to his clinic following reports that he was handing out vaccine exemptions.[2] According to AusDoc “Police were called to Dr Denes Borsos’ practice….following reports that about 100 people were lined up for a kilometre outside his clinic waiting for vaccine exemptions.” [3]
Health Care Commission Inspectors visited his clinic on 18 October 2021 and issued Borsos a $1,817 fine and an Infringement Notice which said that:
- Dr Borsos contravened public health directions; and
- undermined the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
- failed to meet his obligations as a registered medical practitioner; and
- inappropriately wrote referrals to specialist cardiology practitioners for each of those patients; and
- failed to make adequate clinical records for each of those patients except in the cases of eight patients where Dr Borsos failed to make any clinical records; and
- engaged in inappropriate billing practices, in that he falsely claimed benefits from Medicare for 84 patients.
On 24 December 2021 the Medical Board of Australia issued Borsos with an immediate suspension of his registration and referred the case to the Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
In his submission to the Tribunal Borsos branded the vaccine an ‘experimental bioweapon’ and that the Medical Board was ‘wrong, cruel and arrogant’ and accused it of ‘stretching the legislation like bubble gum’. [4]
Meanwhile Borsos then ran as an independent candidate for the Victorian seat of Polwarth, Victoria, on 26 Nov 2022. Of 53,064 eligible voters, Borsos received 2,017 votes, or 3.8 % [5] of votes.
Then in 2024 Borsos made two applications to Australia’s paramount Court, the High Court of Australia, for leave to appeal. On both occasions leave was refused. At least he was in good company; two other failed applicants were suspended antivax medical practitioners, Mark Hobart and Valerie Peers. [7]
At the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing on 13 May 2025:
- Dr Borsos stated that if a patient stated that they did not wish to have a COVID-19 vaccination, this was sufficient justification to grant the patient a vaccination exemption;
- Borsos claimed that Covid 19 is a scam, the PCR tests are a fraud and the COVID jabs are intentionally harmful;
- When Dr Borsos was asked whether the referrals to cardiologists were used as a justification for the vaccination exemptions, he stated that the justification for the vaccination exemptions was that the patient wanted an exemption;
- Dr Borsos did not accept the authority of Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) Guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination exemptions. [8]
- Borsos said of his referrals of 196 patients to un-named specialist cardiology practitioners [the patient] “is pressured at work to have the COVID jab and is very concerned about the risk of myocarditis, and the implications of getting injured.” [9]
- Borsos claimed that his opinion should override that of the expert and regulatory authorities.
We might never know how many of Borsos’ clients went on to suffer illness because of his irresponsible actions. We do know, however, of one real victim.
Mr Ross Edwards was employed by Bulla Dairy Foods as a Plant Operator at their Colac factory. After being employed by Bulla for 17 years, his employment was terminated effective 25 October 2021, because he had chosen not to be vaccinated against COVID-19: a requirement under Victorian Government public health orders.
Mr Edwards had obtained an ‘exemption’ from Borsos on 13 October 2021. He contended to the Fair Work Commission that his dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, but the dismissal was upheld.
The Commission’s decision says that in addition to Mr Edwards, Dr Borsos also provided exemptions to four other employees of Bulla. More than a dozen other employees were terminated. [10] So at least 13 people lost their jobs due to Borsos’ irresponsibility.
And Borsos lost his career and can’t apply for registration until 2031.
REFERENCES
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10846680/
[2] Geelong Advertiser November 3 2021 ‘Colac GP agrees to stop practicing medicine….’ Harrison Tippet
[3] AusDoc 4 November 2021 GP at Centre of Vax exemption case agrees to stop practicing
[4] Daily Mail ‘Doctor who blamed Shane Warne’s death on vaccines is banned from for five years: ‘Career destroyed’ ‘Ian Vickers https://tinyurl.com/3pk9xm3f
[5]https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/results/state-election-results/2022-state-election-results/results-by-district/polwarth-district-results/polwarth-results-distribution
[7] Leave refused [2024] HCASL 256
[8] Medical Board of Australia v Borsos (Review and Regulation) 2025 VCAT 15 July 2025 VCAT reference No Z294/2024
[9] Medical Board of Australia v Borsos (Review and Regulation) 2025 VCAT 15 July 2025 VCAT reference No Z294/2024
[10] Fair Work Commission Decision https://tinyurl.com/yc5a8ukk
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.
Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) is a major cause of disability worldwide. Conventional pharmacological treatments offer limited benefits and carry potential risks, prompting interest in alternative approaches, including homeopathy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the short-term efficacy and safety of a standardised homeopathic biotherapic (Lumbar Vertebra, LM2 potency) for CNSLBP.
A randomised, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 120 participants diagnosed with CNSLBP. Participants received both the biotherapic and placebo in two treatment phases separated by a washout period. The primary outcome was pain intensity (numeric rating scale); secondary outcomes included functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index), adverse events and use of pain medications. Data were analysed using random effects generalised linear models.
Both the biotherapic and placebo interventions led to significant within-group reductions in pain and disability (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively). However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two interventions for either outcome (pain: p = 0.435; disability: p = 0.840). The magnitude of change in pain intensity did not reach the pre-defined minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and mean pain scores at the study endpoint remained above the inclusion threshold. Adverse events were mild and comparable across groups.
The authors concluded that no specific effect of the Lumbar Vertebra LM2 biotherapic was demonstrated. Improvements are likely due to non-specific effects such as the therapeutic environment, patient expectations and placebo response. Clinicians should consider the substantial role of non-specific responses in CNSLBP and avoid medications with unfavourable risk–benefit profiles.
One the one hand, the authors from the Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Sao Paulo, the School Health Unit, Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, Sao Paulo, and the epartment of Social Medicine, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil should be congratulated for publishing a squarely negative result in the journal ‘Homeopathy’ that is known for publishing even the most implausible positive findings.
On the other hand, one might criticise them: why on earth did they ever conceive the hypothesis that homeopathy in general or “Lumbar Vertebra LM2 biotherapic” in particular might be effective for CNSLBP (the study did not receive any funding or financial support, apart from the study medications donated by HN-Cristiano Pharmacy (Santana, São Paulo, Brazil), which had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation or discussion of the results)? I have never met a homeopaths who would make such a claim, and one could easily argue that such a trial is an unethical waste of resources.
Following my post about the decline in homeopathy-use in Europe, several people dismissed it by saying something like this: Who cares about Europe? Across the globe, homeopathy is state-funded in a majority of countries!!!
This is NOT correct. A correct description of the situation would be that homeopathy is currently state-funded or reimbursed in a minority of countries. In most other countries, it is paid out of pocket or covered only by private insurance. Yes, homeopathy is integrated into national health systems in some countries, explicitly listing Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico, Pakistan, and Switzerland, but this is NOT the global norm.
The counter-argument by homeopathy-fans is this: The states that support homeopathy tend to be very large (e.g. India and Brazil). Therefore, the majority of the world population has access to state-sponsored homeopathy.
This statement seems to be false as well. It is true, of course, that India alone accounts for about 18% of the world’s population, and India does publicly support homeopathy through its health system and the Ministry of AYUSH. But the claim that, for the majority of the world population, homeopathy is state-funded is not based on good evidence. Most of the world’s population lives outside the small number of countries where homeopathy is publicly reimbursed or embedded in state systems.
Even with India included, the evidence available here does not justify a world-population majority claim. The publicly supported/reimbursed countries are still a rather small group, and, as far as I can see, they constitute neither most countries nor most of humanity. In several large countries homeopathy-use exists without state funding or with only private coverage, which weakens any global majority argument. Should someone nevertheless claim that “the majority of the world population has access to state-sponsored homeopathy”, I would ask him or her to show me the evidence for the claim. As far as I can see, it does not exist.
A more accurate statement would therefore be the following:
A substantial share of the world’s population lives in countries where homeopathy has some level of state support, mainly because of India, but there is no good evidence to prove that this amounts to a majority of the world population.
For decades, European health systems have maintained an uneasy coexistence between evidence-based medicine and a range of so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs). Among the most prominent has been homeopathy. That evidence free ride seems now coming to an end. Driven to some degree by budget pressure and by a much larger extend by a stronger emphasis on clinical evidence, many governments have reduced or ended public reimbursement for homeopathy, prompting an important question: which European countries will follow next?
The early movers: the UK and France
As we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog, the UK was among the first major European systems to move away from public funding of homeopathy. In 2017, NHS England recommended that general practitioners stop prescribing homeopathic remedies because of the lack of evidence for clinical effectiveness, and NHS guidance now states that the NHS no longer funds homeopathy. France followed a similar path. After a review by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), the government gradually reduced reimbursement from 30 percent to 15 percent in 2020 and then to zero in 2021.
Germany’s contested turn
As I frequently reported, Germany, the country of Samuel Hahnemann’s birth, became the next major and somewhat convoluted battleground. In 2022, Health Minister Karl Lauterbach publicly argued that homeopathy had no place in a science-based statutory health insurance system, and in 2024 there was a serious political push to end coverage. But the story did not end there: by 2025, that effort had been reversed, and homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine remained covered under statutory health insurance. The most recent turn in this saga is that the days of reimbursement of homeopathy in Germany are counted.
Spain
Spain has taken a particularly forceful stance against SCAM. Its Ministry of Health has pursued a plan aimed at restricting misleading promotion, excluding SCAM from health centres and universities, and improving consumer warnings; however, Spain has not simply “banned” homeopathy, and the products remain available under regulatory controls.
Belgium
Belgium is also restrictive: homeopathy may be practised only by doctors, dentists, and midwives, and the Belgian health-technology authorities advised against compulsory insurance reimbursement.
Switzerland
Switzerland is the clearest exception to the broader European trend. Following the 2009 referendum, several forms of were incorporated into basic insurance, and homeopathy has been covered under mandatory health insurance for services provided by qualified physicians. Recently, it was decided to halt the renewed evaluation of homeopathy.
Italy
Italy is different again: homeopathic products are regulated as medicines, but they are not normally funded through the national health service, so public reimbursement has never been central to their use.
Other countries
In much of Scandinavia and in many central and eastern European states, public reimbursement of homeopathy is generally absent or minimal, even when homeopathy is legally permitted. The Baltic states and several Balkan countries are typically more restrictive in practice, with homeopathy either outside the public system or allowed only under limited professional regulation. Slovenia and Croatia are notable for tighter professional restrictions, with homeopathy not generally open to medical doctors in the way it is in some western European systems.
The future
Across much of Europe, the trend clearly is towards tighter regulation of homeopathy, reduced reimbursement, and greater insistence on sound evidence of benefit. Thus homeopathy is increasingly being pushed out of the public sphere and into private purchase or supplementary insurance. In other words, European public healthcare systems are increasingly treating homeopathy in one of the following ways:
- obsolete because of lack of evidence,
- low-priority,
- non-essential expense.
PS
An interesting ‘aside’ is the fact that the “European Committee for Homeopathy” ignores much of the evidence by falsely stating the following:
“In some areas of the United Kingdom homeopathic treatment by doctors is covered by the National Health System. In Belgium and Latvia the fees for homeopathic treatment are partially covered by the statutory health insurance. In Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom by private insurance companies. The costs for homeopathic medicines are covered by the statutory health insurance in Belgium (partially), France (partially), Portugal (only magistral formula) and Switzerland, by additional private insurance companies in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.”
PPS
In case you happen to be in Vienna during the next week, please come to my lecture:
Gesellschaft der Ärzte, Wien, 13.5.2026, 19:00 – 19:45 Uhr, „Sogenannte Alternativmedizin – Nutzen und Risiken am Beispiel Homöopathie“
Despite overwhelming evidence proving that homeopathics are pure placebos, a faction of German healthcare professionals – predominantly people who profit from homeopathy – continues to argue against their removal from statutory insurance. They claim that defunding homeopathy would eliminate vital treatment options, ultimately driving patients toward more expensive conventional interventions. However, from a health economics perspective, this argument is fundamentally flawed; subsidizing treatments that lack proven efficacy is not a cost-saving measure, but rather a misallocation of limited healthcare resources.
Recognizing this inconsistency, German policymakers have finally shifted towards a more evidence-based approach. The federal cabinet recently approved a draft law to reform the statutory health insurance system, which includes a pivotal provision: homeopathic and anthroposophic medicines, along with their associated services, will no longer be eligible for reimbursement as optional benefits (Satzungsleistungen) by public insurers.
This legislative move serves as a long-overdue correction to a historically irrational policy that was initiated by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Excluding these treatments, the government is now finally acknowledging that public healthcare contributions should not fund therapies devoid of scientific backing. This decision brings Germany in line with other European countries like France and the UK, and marks a significant alignment of national policy with the dual principles of evidence-based medicine and responsible fiscal management.
At its core, this reform addresses a long-standing critique of how so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has been integrated into the German healthcare system. For many decades, institutional tolerance allowed ineffective treatments to gain a veneer of legitimacy and public financing. Consequently, this shift is more than a mere technical adjustment; it represents a symbolic turning point in the relationship between science, medicine, and public policy.
The removal of homeopathy from insurance coverage is undoubtedly both scientifically justified and economically imperative. It signals a decisive transition of German medicine towards a more rational, evidence-based healthcare system that prioritizes proven outcomes over tradition.
