Prince Charles
Dame Shirley Porter died on May 2. She passed away in Herzliya, Israel, where she had spent much of her time since the early 2000s. Dame Shirley had been the former leader of Westminster City Council and a dominant figure in 1980s UK municipal politics. Once hailed as the “Iron Lady of the town halls,” her career was ultimately defined by the “homes for votes” scandal, which led to her being labeled by the district auditor as the “most corrupt” politician of her era.
The daughter of Tesco founder Sir Jack Cohen, Porter used her wealth to influence both politics and public policy. Beyond the well-documented legal battles over her misuse of council powers – which eventually saw her pay a £12.3m settlement in 2004 – Porter was a prolific, if often controversial, philanthropist. Notably, she was the primary financial backer of the Smallwood Report (2005). Entitled The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the NHS, the report was commissioned by the then Prince of Wales and written by economist Christopher Smallwood. The study was heavily criticized by myself and several others for advocating that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to be funded by the UK taxpayer. The editor of The Lancet, dismissed the findings as “dangerous nonsense” and I suggested the report’s pro-SCAM conclusions were written befor anyone had even looked at the evidence.
Dame Shirely was also a trustee of the London Institute for Mathematical Sciences and as a co-founder of the Porter Foundation. Through these organizations, she funded major capital projects including the Porter School of Environmental Studies at Tel Aviv University and various galleries at the V&A and the National Portrait Gallery.
She is survived by her daughter, Linda.
The news was hard to miss: the (s)ex-prince Andrew was arrested and questioned for 11 hours! At the heart of this story is, of couse, Andrew’s friendship with Epstein. While the royal family and their PR-teams are frantically busy in ‘damage limitation’, it might be worth remembering that Epstein was by no means their only ill-judged friendship. In fact, the list of individuals who were once close to the royal family – people they might now prefer us to forget about – is uncomfortably long. Here is a (probably incomplete) list in alphabetical order.
Bishop Peter Ball
Peter Ball, once a popular Anglican bishop, was later convicted of sexually abusing 18 young men. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) revealed that Charles maintained a friendly correspondence with Ball even after Ball accepted a police caution in 1993. Charles, the then-Prince of Wales, told a subsequent inquiry that he had been “deceived” into believing the allegations were minor “indiscretions.” However, critics point to letters in which Charles referred to Ball’s accuser as a “ghastly man.”
Bin Laden Family
In 2022, The Sunday Times revealed that Charles had accepted a £1 million donation for his charitable fund from Bakr and Shafiq bin Laden, half-brothers of Osama bin Laden. The meeting took place in 2013 at Clarence House. Although the bin Laden family had disowned Osama decades earlier, the optics of the heir to the throne accepting money associated with that name were widely criticized. Clarence House said that all due diligence had been carried out and that the funds were used entirely for charitable purposes.
Jeffrey Epstein
Ex-prince Andrew’s close friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein remains the most damaging of all the recent scandals for the monarchy. Introduced in 1999 by Ghislaine Maxwell, the two men stayed in contact even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Epstein used his royal ties to project an image of respectability, while Andrew relied on him for social and business connections in the US.
According to Andrew, the friendship ended after Epstein’s 2019 arrest. The fallout continues to be immense even afrer Epstein’s death. Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight interview that same year exposed both his arrogance and lack of empathy for victims. In 2022, he was stripped of his military affiliations and the use of his “HRH” style, effectively reduced to private life as Andrew, Duke of York. More recently, Andrew lost the rest of his privileges and is now even under investigation for passing trade secrets to Epstein.
Gary Goldsmith
Gary Goldsmith, the Princess of Wales’s maternal uncle, has often proved a public relations headache for both the Middleton and Windsor families. Convicted in 2017 for assaulting his wife, Goldsmith has repeatedly courted media attention about his royal connections. His appearance on Celebrity Big Brother in 2024, where he discussed his royal ties, was widely seen as indiscreet and damaging to the Palace’s preference for privacy.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz
Saudi businessman Mahfouz bin Mahfouz was at the centre of the 2021 “cash-for-honours” controversy involving the then-Prince of Wales’s charitable foundation. Mahfouz donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities, including the restoration of Dumfries House. It was alleged that Charles’s aide Michael Fawcett offered to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship in return. The Metropolitan Police investigated but brought no charges; Fawcett resigned from his post as the foundation’s chief executive.
Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani (HBJ)
Between 2011 and 2015, Hamad bin Jassim, the former Prime Minister of Qatar, handed over €3 million in cash to the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund – reportedly in suitcases and Fortnum & Mason carrier bags. Though officials confirmed the money was immediately deposited and properly accounted for, the secretive nature of the exchanges sparked outrage and plenty of ridicule.
Tarek Obaid
Saudi businessman Tarek Obaid, co-founder of PetroSaudi, was implicated in the 1MDB corruption scandal, one of the largest financial fraud cases in history. Prince Andrew reportedly facilitated business introductions for Obaid while serving as the UK’s Special Representative for Trade and Investment (2001–2011). After details of the 1MDB scandal became public, Andrew’s involvement raised questions about the level of scrutiny applied to his overseas associations.
Jimmy Savile
Jimmy Savile’s connection with the Royal Family began in the late 1960s and expanded throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Far from being a casual acquaintance, Savile became a confidant and informal adviser to Charles who often consulted him on public relations, social issues, and even institutional management. Between 1986 and 1989, he reportedly shared draft speeches with Savile and sought his input on how to respond to crises. Savile was a frequent guest at royal residences and spent several Christmases at Sandringham. His 1990 knighthood, awarded for charitable fundraising, further entrenched his elite status. After his death in 2011, revelations about his serial sexual abuse of children led to intense public scrutiny of his royal access and prompted the Palace to overhaul its vetting process for celebrity advisers (see also my previous post on this subject).
Yang Tengbo (Chris Yang)
Yang Tengbo, also known as Chris Yang, was a businessman and director of the Hampton Group who played a key role in Prince Andrew’s “Pitch@Palace” enterprise initiative, particularly in China. He was treated as a close associate and attended Andrew’s 60th birthday celebration at Royal Lodge in 2020. In 2023, the Home Office barred Yang from entering the UK, citing evidence that he had engaged in “covert influence activity” on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department. Prince Andrew’s office stated he had severed contact with Yang following official advice.
_________________
Will the frantic ‘damage limitation’ operation of the ‘firm’ be enough to save the crown?
Watch this space.
I recently asked ‘GOOGLE GEMINI’ about my problems with King Charles. The reply was concise, to the point and roughly correct:
Edzard Ernst’s “problem” with King Charles (then Prince Charles) stemmed from a fundamental disagreement over the promotion and integration of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) within mainstream healthcare, particularly the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.
Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:
- King Charles’s Advocacy for CAM: King Charles has been a long-time, vocal proponent of various alternative therapies, including homeopathy, and has actively lobbied for their greater inclusion in the NHS. He established and supported organizations like The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health to promote these views.
- Ernst’s Evidence-Based Approach: Edzard Ernst, as the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, took a strictly evidence-based approach. His research consistently aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CAM treatments through rigorous scientific methods (like systematic reviews and meta-analyses). He concluded that the vast majority of alternative therapies lacked scientific evidence of effectiveness beyond a placebo, and some were even potentially harmful.
- Clash over the Smallwood Report (2005): A major point of contention was a report commissioned by Prince Charles in 2005, written by economist Christopher Smallwood, which claimed CAM was cost-effective and should be available on the NHS. Ernst was initially involved in this report but withdrew his name and publicly denounced it as “complete misleading rubbish,” stating that the conclusions were written before the evidence was properly reviewed. He argued the report failed to address whether CAM treatments were actually effective.
- Lobbying and “Black Spider Letters”: Ernst criticized King Charles for “relentlessly meddling” in UK health politics and for using his influence to push for unproven treatments. This included Charles’s infamous “black spider letters” (so-called due to his distinctive handwriting) to government officials, lobbying for the inclusion of alternative therapies, such as homeopathy, in the NHS.
- “Duchy Originals” Products: Ernst also criticized products sold by Duchy Originals (a company founded by Prince Charles) that made unproven health claims, such as “Detox Tincture,” calling them “outright quackery” and “financially exploiting the vulnerable.”
- Impact on Ernst’s Career: The dispute had personal repercussions for Ernst. Prince Charles’s private secretary, Sir Michael Peat, filed a complaint with Exeter University, alleging that Ernst had breached confidentiality regarding the Smallwood report. Although Ernst was eventually “cleared of wrongdoing,” he stated that the ensuing 13-month university investigation was “very unpleasant” and led to the cessation of funding for his research unit, ultimately contributing to his early retirement. He felt that the university, despite clearing him, treated him as “persona non grata.”
In essence, the “problem” was a clash between the King’s personal conviction and advocacy for alternative medicine, and Ernst’s unwavering commitment to scientific rigor and evidence-based healthcare. Ernst believed that the King’s promotion of unproven therapies was irresponsible, potentially harmful to public health, and undermined scientific progress in medicine.
______________________
In case you want to learn the full details about “the King’s personal conviction and advocacy for alternative medicine”, please read the book below.
I recently received the following comment on a post from 2022 on King Charles and Laurence van der Post:
I doubt that Van der Post was the original influence on Charles to adhere to alternative or natural medicine. After all, his mother was a patient of homeopath Marjorie Blackie in the 1960s and ’70s. Other than that it does look like much of Van der Post’s influence on Charles might have been benign and helpful, even if he was not an entirely trustworthy figure. And you have to ask, has anyone around Prince Charles ever been a most trustworthy figure? His father, brother Andrew, even his Mum?
The question, “has anyone around Prince Charles ever been a most trustworthy figure? “, prompted me to look into an aspect that had been on my mind for some time and my book CHARLES THE ALTERNATIVE KING did not cover:
Jimmy Savile.
As most readers will know, Jimmy Savile was a British VIP, DJ, and television presenter who became infamous posthumously for his extensive sexual abuse of hundreds of victims over decades. His connections to high-profile figures, including Margaret Thatcher, and BBC personnel, are well-documented. Far less well-known are his relations with King Charles (at the time Prince Charles, of course). Here is what my research found about it:
Savile’s relationship with King Charles started in the 1980s and lasted until Savile’s death. It was facilitated by Savile’s high-profile work with charities, particularly hospitals like Stoke Mandeville and Leeds General Infirmary. According to Dan Davies, the Duke of Edinburgh viewed Jimmy Savile as “useful for his eldest son when it came to the common touch”. Charles reportedly saw Savile as a charismatic figure with a knack for public engagement. And Princess Diana would describe Savile as “her husband’s mentor”. Eventually, this led to Savile being invited into the royal circle as an informal advisor. His advisory role focused on public relations, e.g.:
- He provided guidance on how Charles could improve his public image. This included suggestions on public appearances and managing press interactions.
- Catherine Mayer’s biography mentions that Savile was involved in drafting or advising on speeches for Charles.
- Savile’s connections gave him an opportunity to offer Charles advice on navigating the public eye. Letters from Charles to Savile, spanning 20 years, reveal a trusting relationship, with Charles addressing Savile as “My Dear Jimmy” and seeking his input on various matters.
Savile’s involvement in health policy discussions with Charles was significant, particularly given Charles’ keen interest and activities in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) e.g.:
- In her biography, Catherine Mayer recounts discussions about hospital services at Highgrove (date unspecified but likely 1980s-1990s), where health officials were surprised to hear Charles introduce Savile as “my health adviser, Jimmy Savile”. This story once was also repeated to me once by an eye-witness of the event.
- The new wing of the National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville Hospital was opened by Princess Diana, accompanied by Prince Charles and Jimmy Savile, on August 4, 1983.
- Charles repeatedly wrote to Savile asking for advice on various health-related matters.
Handwritten letters from Charles, uncovered after Savile’s death in 2011, revealed a personal rapport, with Charles inviting Savile to dinners at Highgrove and Buckingham Palace. Moreover, Charles once thanked Savile for advice on a “health matter” and expressed his hope for his continued input.
During the 1980s, when Charles’ marriage to Diana was under strain, Savile was reportedly called upon to help. A 2012 report mentions Savile being asked to assist with damage control after a documentary painted the royal family in a negative light. Charles sent Savile a Christmas card in 2003, Cuban cigars and gold cufflinks for his 80th birthday with a note saying, “Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country, Jimmy”. Charles also considered Savil for an official role as a media adviser and even as a potential godfather to Prince Harry in 1984.
Upon Savile’s death in October 2011, a Clarence House spokeswoman stated, “The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall were saddened to hear of Jimmy Savile’s death and their thoughts are with his family at this time.” In 2012, when Savile’s widespread sexual abuse finally was made public, no personal reaction by Charles is on record. A 2012 statement from Clarence House emphasized that Charles had no awareness of Savile’s criminal behavior.
Yet, allegations about Savile’s had been circulating for decades, e.g.:
- The first recorded incident of abuse linked to Savile dates back to 1955 in Manchester, where he managed a dance hall.
- While employed as a presenter on Top of the Pops and Jim’ll Fix It, rumors about Savile’s behavior with young girls were reportedly “common knowledge” within the BBC and among those who worked closely with him. A female victim reported to the police, for example, that she was assaulted by Savile, but the file was lost, and no action was taken.
- The earliest known police investigation into Savile occurred in 1958. It concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges for sexual offenses.
- During the 1970s, Savile was a regular visitor to Duncroft, a girls’ school in Surrey for emotionally disturbed teenagers. There he abused girls, and one victim reported being placed in isolation for days after complaining about Savile’s inappropriate touching.
- In a 2000 TV documentary by Louis Theroux, Savile addressed rumors about being a pedophile and claimed his knighthood in 1990 cleared him of suspicion.
- Savile was interviewed under caution by police in 2007 regarding allegations of abuse.
- In 2008, he initiated legal action against a newspaper for linking him to abuse. The police investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge him.
- In 2009, the police investigated an assault at Duncroft School, but the Crown Prosecution Service determined there was not enough evidence to proceed.
- A 2011 Newsnight investigation into Savile’s actions was scheduled for broadcast on December 7, 2011, but was canceled by BBC executives.
The fact that Charles had so heavily and regularly relied on Savile for advice on various important matters, including healthcare, raises questions, I think, about common sense, due process, critical assessment and informed judgment – not only of Charles but also his of the presumably extensive staff in charge of guarding him
Main sources:
In Plain Sight: The Life and Lies of Jimmy Savile eBook : Davies, Dan: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
Charles: The Heart of a King eBook : Mayer, Catherine: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store
Prince Charles’ Letters to Pedophile Jimmy Savile Revealed in Documentary
Ithy – Understanding the Relationship Between Prince Charles and Jimmy Savile
Prince Charles wrote to Jimmy Savile for PR advice, newly revealed letters claim | The Independent
PS
I probably have missed several points and events; please let me know, if you know more.
It has been reported that King Charles’ charity, formerly the Prince’s Foundation, is compelled to return £110,000 to the Indian government. The funds were earmarked for an NHS alternative medicine clinic championed by Charles, which never materialised. The proposed clinic was aimed at integrating Indian traditional medicine into the UK’s healthcare system.
But why did the plan fail?
The answer is simple: the National Health Service (NHS) did not approve it.
The history of the UK ‘Ayurvedic Centre of Excellence’ goes back several years. Here is an excerpt of my book ‘CHARLES, THE ALTERNATIVE KING‘ where I discuss it as one of Charles’ many pipe dreams in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM):
In 2018, India’s prime minister Narendra Modi paid a visit to the Science Museum in London where he inspected the ‘5000 Years of Science and Innovation’ exhibition. The event was hosted by Charles and included the announcement of new ‘Ayurvedic Centres of Excellence’, allegedly a ‘first-of-its-kind’ global network for evidence-based research on yoga and Ayurveda. The first centre was said to open in 2018 in London. Funding was to come partly from the Indian government and partly from private donors. The central remit of the new initiative was reported to be researching the effects of Ayurvedic medicine.
Dr Michael Dixon (yes, you may have met him several times before, e.g. here, here, or here) commented: “This is going to be the first Ayurvedic centre of excellence in the UK. We will be providing, on the NHS, patients with yoga, with demonstrations and education on healthy eating, Ayurvedic diets, and massage including reflexology and Indian head massage. And all this will be subject to a research project led by Westminster University, to find out whether the English population will take to yoga and these sorts of treatments. Whether they will be helped by it and finally whether it will reduce the call on NHS resources leading to less GP consultations, hospital admissions and operations.”
On its website, the College of Medicine and Integrated Health announced that a memorandum of understanding with India’s Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) had been signed “to create centres of excellence in the UK … Dr Michael Dixon agreed the joint venture to provide the UK centres, which will offer and research traditional Indian medicine… The Indian government will match private UK donations to fund the AYUSH centres in the UK”. In November 2019, the following press release by the president of India offered more details:
The Prince of Wales called on the President of India, Shri Ram Nath Kovind, at Rashtrapati Bhavan today (November 13, 2019).
Welcoming the Prince to India, the President congratulated him on his election as the head of the Commonwealth. He said that India considers the Commonwealth as an important grouping that voices the concerns of a large number of countries, including the Small Island Developing States.
The President said that India and the United Kingdom are natural partners bound by historical ties and shared values of democracy, rule of law and respect for multi-cultural society. As the world’s pre-eminent democracies, our two countries have much to contribute together to effectively address the many challenges faced by the world today.
The Prince planted a Champa sapling – plant native to the subcontinent which has several uses in Ayurveda – in the Herbal Garden of Rashtrapati Bhavan. He was taken around the garden and shown different plants that have medicinal properties. The Prince showed a keen interest in India’s alternative model of healthcare.
The President thanked the Prince of Wales for his support for Ayurveda research. The Prince of Wales Charitable Foundation and the All India Institute of Ayurveda signed an MOU during the visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the UK in April 2018. Under the MOU, the All India Institute of Ayurveda and the College of Medicine, UK will be conducting clinical research on Depression, Anxiety and Fibromyalgia. They will also be undertaking training programme for the development of Standard Operating Protocol on “AYURYOGA” for UK Health professionals.
_________________________
END OF EXCERPT
Charles’ initiative, encompassing Ayurveda, yoga, naturopathy, and homeopathy, was intended to be a landmark project, with the Indian government contributing £110,000 to the King’s Foundation for its implementation. However, the NHS, responsible for St Charles Hospital, never endorsed the project. Despite initial talks, the proposed collaboration did not progress, and the clinic failed to materialise. According to the west London clinical commissioning group (CCG), which oversaw the hospital at the time, there was no official involvement, and discussions ceased in 2020.
Under charity law, funds designated for a specific project cannot be diverted without donor permission and regulatory approval. The King’s Foundation has acknowledged the need to return the remaining budget to the Indian government but has not disclosed when this decision was made or why the funds were not promptly returned.
The initiative faced opposition from the NHS, as a year before the clinic’s launch, NHS England’s CEO Simon Stevens had issued guidance discouraging the prescription of homeopathy and herbal remedies, citing their limited efficacy and misuse of NHS funds.
Despite the failed project, connections between key figures persist. Dr Michael Dixon played a significant role in finalising agreements with the Indian government. The King’s Foundation defended its actions, stating that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the project shifted online, resulting in reduced costs. They claim to have contacted the Indian government for the return of unused funds, emphasising that the money remains in a restricted account.
As the controversy unfolds, questions arise about the intersections between alternative medicine advocacy, royal endorsements, and international collaborations within the context of public healthcare.
An article in the Daily Mail reported that the original plan proposed that Ayush treatments would be provided to patients, who would be referred by local GPs, at St Charles Hospital in Kensington. Isaac Mathai, who runs Soukya, a homeopathic yoga retreat in Bangalore which Charles and Camilla have visited, was an adviser to the project at St Charles Hospital.
The Indian government made a payment from the budget of the Ayush Ministry, which Mr Modi has used as a tool of diplomacy to promote Indian medicine and culture worldwide, to the King’s Foundation. It was proposed the charity would use its expertise to help set up the clinic. But the NHS at no point agreed to the plans.
A spokesman of the west London clinical commissioning group (CCG), which administered St Charles Hospital at the time, said: ‘Provision of homeopathy and herbal treatments were not considered as part of the project by the CCG. The aim of the project was to test the use of yoga and massage to support the overall health and wellbeing of patients with long-term conditions.’ A King’s Foundation spokesman added that the initial intention had been to deliver Indian traditional medicine at St Charles Hospital.
The last few days, I spent much of my time answering questions from journalists on the subject of Charles lll. [interestingly, almost exclusively journalists NOT writing for UK newspapers]. Unsurprisingly, they all wanted to know about the way Charles managed to close down my research department at Exeter University some 10 years ago.
The story is old and I am a bit tired of repeating it. So, nowadays I often refer people to Wikipedia where a short paragraph sums it up:
Ernst was accused by Prince Charles’ private secretary of having breached a confidentiality agreement regarding the 2005 Smallwood report. After being subjected to a “very unpleasant” investigation by the University of Exeter, the university “accepted his innocence but continued, in his view, to treat him as ‘persona non grata’. All fundraising for his unit ceased, forcing him to use up its core funding and allow its 15 staff to drift away.”[15] He retired in 2011, two years ahead of his official retirement.[10][25] In July 2011, a Reuters article described his “long-running dispute with the Prince about the merits of alternative therapies” and stated that he “accused Britain’s heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles and other backers of alternative therapies on Monday of being ‘snake-oil salesmen’ who promote products with no scientific basis”, and that the dispute “had cost him his job – a claim Prince Charles’s office denied”.[14][26] Ernst is a republican, and has supported Republic, an organisation which campaigns for the abolition of the British monarchy.[27]
Re-reading it yesterday, I noticed that the text is not entirely correct (a full account can be found here). Let me explain:
- There never was a formal confidentiality agreement with signature etc. But I did feel bound to keep the contents of the Smallwood report confidential.
- The investigation by my University was not just ‘very unpleasant’, it was also far too long. It lasted 13 months! I had to take lawyers against my own University!
- In addition, it was unnecessary, not least because a University should simply establish the facts and, if reasonable, defend its professor from outside attacks. The facts could have been established over a cup of tea with the Vice Chancellor in less than half an hour.
- When my department had been destroyed in the process, I retired voluntarily and was subsequently re-employed for half a year to help find a successor. In retrospect, I see this move as a smart ploy by the University to keep me sweet and prevent me from going to the press.
- A successor was never hired; one good candidate was found but he was told that he had to find 100% of the funds to do the job. Nobody of high repute would have found this acceptable, and thus the only good candidate was not even tempted to accept the position.
- The snake oil salesman story is an entirely separate issue (see here) that happened years later.
- It is true that Charles’s office denied that Charles knew about his 1st private secretary writing to my Vice Chancellor asking him to investigate my alleged breach of confidence. However, as Sir Michael Peat started his letter with the words “I AM WRITING … AS THE PRINCE OF WALES’ PRIVATE SECRETARY…, I find this exceedingly hard to believe.
- Even though Charles did a sterling job in trying, I did not become a republican. I do have considerable doubts that Charles will be a good King (his reign might even be the end of the monarchy), and I did help the republican cause on several occasions but I never formally joined any such group (in general, I am not a joiner of parties, clubs or interest groups).
To one of the journalists who recently interviewed me, I explained that I do not in the slightest feel sore, bitter, or angry on a personal level. Going into early retirement suited me perfectly fine, and thanks to that decision I enjoy life to the full. The significance of this story lies elsewhere: Charles’ intervention managed to permanently close the then worldwide-only department that systematically and critically investigated so-called alternative medicine. If you know another, please let me know.
It is not often that I publish a paper with a philosopher in a leading journal of philosophy. In fact, it is the first time, and I am rather proud of it – so much so that I must show my readers (the article is freely available via the link below and I encourage everyone to read the full text) the abstract of our article entitled WHY HOMOEOPATHY IS PSEUDOSCIENCE (Synthese (2022) 200:394):
Homoeopathy is commonly recognised as pseudoscience. However, there is, to date, no systematic discussion that seeks to establish this view. In this paper, we try to fill this gap. We explain the nature of homoeopathy, discuss the notion of pseudoscience, and provide illustrative examples from the literature indicating why homoeopathy fits the
bill. Our argument contains a conceptual and an empirical part.
In the conceptual part, we introduce the premise that a doctrine qualifies as a pseudoscience if, firstly, its proponents claim scientific standing for it and, secondly, if they produce bullshit to defend it, such that, unlike science, it cannot be viewed as the most reliable knowledge on its topic. In the empirical part, we provide evidence that homoeopathy fulfils both criteria. The first is quickly established since homoeopaths often explicitly claim scientificity.
To establish the second, we dive into the pseudo-academic literature on homoeopathy to provide evidence of bullshit in the arguments of homoeopaths. Specifically, we show that they make bizarre ontological claims incompatible with natural science, illegitimately shift the burden of proof to sceptics, and mischaracterise, cherry-pick, and misreport the evidence. Furthermore, we demonstrate that they reject essential parts of established scientific methodology and use epistemically unfair strategies to immunise their doctrine against recalcitrant evidence.
And here is our conclusion:
At the beginning of the paper, we noted that homoeopathy is commonly named one of the prototypical pseudosciences. However, there has been, to date, no comprehensive discussion as to what makes it a pseudoscience. Moreover, the problem is not trivial since the most well-known and influential demarcation criteria, such as Popper’s falsifiability criterion and Kuhn’s problem-solving criterion, cannot account for it, as we have shown. We have tried to fill this research gap using a novel bullshitology-based approach to the demarcation problem. Following this approach, we have argued that homoeopathy should be regarded as pseudoscience because its proponents claim scientific standing for it and produce argumentative bullshit to defend it, thus violating important epistemic standards central to science.
The death of our Queen is a sad event, even for those who are far from being Royalists. It is the end of an era; she was unique and symbolized the UK both nationally and abroad. I met her once (in fact, she expressed the wish to meet me when she visited Exeter University [full story here]). She was charming and very well-informed; we talked longer than the protocol allowed and, eventually, she was urged to move on by the officials.
In the last 24 hours, many people have written to me and asked whether I will now change the title of my recent biography of Charles. Others have asked whether Charles will continue to promote so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Some journalists inquired about what sort of monarch Charles will become.
To all these questions, I have answered: “I DON’T KNOW”. All I can offer regarding my predictions about the future of the monarchy is a short passage from the final chapter of my biography of Charles that briefly touches upon some of these issues. Here it is:
It is clear to many observers that Charles has the urge to make a positive contribution to the future of his country. Most agree that he is full of goodwill. In some areas, for example, the Prince’s Trust [1], he was highly successful in his endeavor. In the field of alternative medicine, however, success has evaded him. One might ask, therefore, how he could have channeled his enthusiasm, influence, and hard work in a more productive direction. In my view, this would not have been difficult and could have been achieved by operating along the following lines:
- Work not against but alongside the medical and scientific establishment.
- Involve some of the country’s top scientists.
- Raise sufficient funds for rigorous research projects conducted at leading universities.
- Encourage his team of science advisers to defend unpopular views and, if necessary, contradict Charles’ views.
- Focus on treatments that are biologically plausible and supported by encouraging evidence, e.g. rational phytotherapy (chapter 15).
- Make sure that the potential harm of alternative medicine is fully investigated and that the findings are adequately publicized.
- Become a defender of science and reason.
Some of these principles are not all that dissimilar to those of the US Bravewell Collaborative (chapter 20). Charles would only have needed to follow their example. It seems that he and his advisers did not consider this to be viable.
As he becomes king, Charles could have looked back at his activities around alternative medicine in the knowledge that – like with some of his other ‘good causes’ – he has provided tangible benefits to the people. Many of the negative headlines that Charles had to endure about his involvement in alternative medicine could have been different, his reputation within the world of science would be intact, and the alternative medicine community might respect him even more.
According to his own statement, Charles will stop his lobbying once he is king. When asked if his campaigning would carry on when he is king, Charles replied: “No, it won’t. I’m not that stupid.” [2] If that happens, alternative medicine will have lost one of its most enthusiastic supporters. In this case, I will look back on this period with a degree of sadness.
Despite everything, I still believe that alternative medicine has a few hidden gems to discover. To find them, we foremost need good science. To conduct the research, we need people with influence to support it. Charles could have so easily been that person. Instead, he took consistently poor advice and chose to follow a different path. He pursued a largely anti-science agenda and promoted the uncritical integration of unproven treatments into the NHS. In this way, I am afraid, he became an obstacle to progress in healthcare and generated more harm than good. My predominant feeling about that is sadness over a missed opportunity.
[1] https://www.princes-trust.org.uk/
[2] https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/news/a24839545/prince-charles-role-monarch/
I had totally forgotten this amusing little episode: According to THE GUARDIAN, Jacob Rees-Mogg (JRM) once tweeted that I should be locked up in the Tower of London!
If you are not from the UK, you may not know this Member of Parliament. So, let me explain.
JRM is the MP for North East Somerset and currently the ‘Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency’. His personal net worth is estimated to be well over £100 million. I probably don’t need to add much more about JRM; there is plenty about him on the Internet and on social media, for instance, this little gem:
Some of JRM’s medically relevant voting records are revealing:
- He voted against raising welfare benefits five times in 2013.
- He voted against higher benefits over long periods for those unable to work as a result of an illness or disability: 14 votes over 5 years.
- Between 2012-2016, he voted 52 times to reduce the spending on welfare benefits.
- He voted to exempt pubs and clubs where food is not served from the smoking ban in October 2010.
- He voted against a law to make private vehicles smoke-free if a child is present.
- He voted against allowing terminally ill people to be given assistance in ending their lives.
Wikipedia mentions that Rees-Mogg is against abortion in all circumstances, stating: “life begins at the point of conception. With same-sex marriage, that is something that people are doing for themselves. With abortion, that is what people are doing to the unborn child.” In September 2017, he expressed “a great sadness” on hearing about how online retailers had reduced pricing of emergency contraception.
In October 2017, it was reported that Somerset Capital Management, of which Rees-Mogg was a partner, had invested £5m in Kalbe Farma, a company that produces and markets misoprostol pills designed to treat stomach ulcers but widely used in illegal abortions in Indonesia. Rees-Mogg defended the investment by arguing that the company in question “obeys Indonesian law so it’s a legitimate investment and there’s no hypocrisy. The law in Indonesia would satisfy the Vatican”. Several days later, it was reported that the same company also held shares in FDC, a company that sold drugs used as part of legal abortions in India. Somerset Capital Management subsequently sold the shares it had held in FDC. Rees-Mogg said: “I am glad to say it’s a stock that we no longer hold. I would not try to defend investing in companies that did things I believe are morally wrong”.
In a nutshell, JRM seems to stand for pretty much everything that I am against. But that is no reason to send me to the Tower of London. So, what exactly was JRM referring to when he wanted me locked up?
The Guardian article explains: At a press conference to mark his retirement [Ernst] agreed with a Daily Mail reporter’s suggestion that the Prince of Wales is a “snake-oil salesman”. In the living room of his house in Suffolk he unpacks the label with the precision on which he prides himself. “He’s a man, he owns a firm that sells this stuff, and I have no qualms at all defending the notion that a tincture of dandelion and artichoke [Duchy Herbals detox remedy] doesn’t do anything to detoxify your body and therefore it is a snake oil.” Far from regretting the choice of words and the controversy it has generated, he appears to relish it.
Looking back at all this bizarre story, I am surprised that JRM did not advocate chopping my head off in the Tower of London. He must have been in a benevolent mood that day!
In a previous post, I reported about the ‘biggest ever’, ‘history-making’ conference on integrative medicine. It turns out that it was opened by none other than Prince Charles. Here is what the EXPRESS reported about his opening speech:
Opening the conference, Charles said:
“I know a few people have seen this integrated approach as being in some way opposed to modern medicine. It isn’t. But we need to combine this with a personal approach that also takes account of our beliefs, hopes, culture and history. It builds upon the abilities of our minds and bodies to heal, and to live healthy lives by improving diet and lifestyle.”
Dr. Michael Dixon, Chair of the College of Medicine, said:
“Medicine, as we know it, is no longer affordable or sustainable. Nor is it able to curb the increase in obesity, mental health problems and most long-term diseases. A new medical mindset is needed, which goes to the heart of true healthcare. The advantages and possibilities of social prescription are limitless. An adjustment to the system now will provide a long-term, sustainable solution for the NHS to meet the ever-increasing demand for funding and healthcare professionals.”
_______________________
Charles very kindly acknowledges that not everyone is convinced about his concept of integrated/integrative medicine. Good point your royal highness! But I fear Charles did not quite understand our objections. In a nutshell: it is not possible to cure the many ills of conventional medicine by adding unproven and disproven therapies to it. In fact, it distracts from our duty to constantly improve conventional medicine. And pretending it is all about diet and lifestyle is simply not true (see below). Moreover, it is disingenuous to pretend that diet and lifestyle do not belong to conventional healthcare.
Dr. Dixon’s concern about the affordability of medicine is, of course, justified. But the notion that “the advantages and possibilities of social prescription are limitless” is a case of severe proctophasia, and so is Dixon’s platitude about ‘adjusting the system’. His promotion of treatments like Acupuncture, Alexander Technique, Aromatherapy, Herbal Medicine, Homeopathy, Hypnotherapy, Massage, Naturopathy, Reflexology, Reiki, Tai Chi, Yoga Therapy will not adjust anything, it will only make healthcare less efficient.
I do not doubt for a minute that doctors are prescribing too many drugs and that we could save huge amounts by reminding patients that they are responsible for their own health while teaching them how to improve it without pills. This is what we learn in medical school! All we need to do is remind everyone concerned. In fact, Charles and his advisor, Michael, could be most helpful in achieving this – but not by promoting a weird branch of healthcare (integrative/integrated medicine or whatever other names they choose to give it) that can only distract from the important task at hand.
