progress
This AI-verdict made me wonder: Who is for and who against the critical evaluation of so-called alternative medicine? And I asked a follow-up question:
Can you try to quantify this and give me % figures who is against a critical evaluation of alternative medicine, who is for it, and who is neutral. Can you do this for 1. the general population, 2. proponents of alternative medicine and 3. skeptics?
Here is the reply I got from Gemini:
To quantify these dynamics accurately, we have to look at large-scale sociological data on public attitudes toward science, peer-reviewed medical data (such as surveys by Pew Research, YouGov, and the European Commission), and the behavioral patterns of online discourse.
When it comes to a “critical evaluation” (meaning scientific testing to prove if a therapy works beyond a placebo), the groups break down along very distinct ideological lines. Here is how the percentages estimate across your three requested demographics:
Breakdown of Attitudes Toward Critical Evaluation
1. The General Population
The broader public is largely pragmatic, but a major chunk is passively open to alternative therapies without strictly demanding clinical trial proof.
- Against Critical Evaluation (~15% – 20%): These individuals hold a strong distrust of mainstream pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions. They believe alternative medicine operates on a different “energy” or “holistic paradigm” that standard science is fundamentally incapable of or biased against measuring.
- For Critical Evaluation (~35% – 45%): This group highly values evidence-based medicine, expects consumer safety protection, and agrees that if a therapy claims to cure an illness, it should prove it under a microscope or in a randomized controlled trial.
- Neutral / Passive Consumers (~40% – 50%): This is the massive middle. They don’t track clinical trials, but they will try acupuncture for back pain or take turmeric if a friend recommends it. They view alternative medicine through a lens of “well, it can’t hurt to try,” evaluating it based on personal anecdotes rather than scientific data.
2. Proponents of Alternative Medicine
This group includes dedicated practitioners, wellness influencers, and avid consumers of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).
- Against Critical Evaluation (~70% – 80%): The vast majority actively resist standard scientific evaluation, often viewing figures like Edzard Ernst as hostile prosecutors rather than objective evaluators. They argue that randomized controlled trials are “too reductionist” to capture holistic healing or claim that clinical science is rigged by corporate interests.
- For Critical Evaluation (~5% – 10%): A small minority of CAM practitioners (often in fields like medical acupuncture or osteopathy) welcome rigorous trials, hoping to find a mechanism of action that will grant them mainstream medical legitimacy and insurance coverage.
- Neutral (~10% – 15%): These are individuals who focus strictly on the individual client experience. They don’t care about data or institutional pushback either way; their attitude is simply “if my client says they feel better, that is the only science I need.”
3. Skeptics & Pro-Science Advocates
This demographic comprises secular organizations, evidence-based medical professionals, and science communicators who actively follow work like Ernst’s.
- Against Critical Evaluation (<1%): Virtually non-existent in this group, as evaluation is their core tenet. The only micro-fraction here might be extreme fringe elements who feel certain alternative therapies are so fundamentally absurd (like breatharianism) that evaluating them is a waste of scientific funding.
- For Critical Evaluation (~90% – 95%): The overwhelming majority. They strongly defend the stance that there is no such thing as “alternative” medicine—there is only medicine that has been proven to work and medicine that hasn’t. They view critical evaluation as an ethical necessity for patient safety.
- Neutral (~5%): A tiny sliver who may agree with the premise of science but feel indifferent about fighting the cultural battle against wellness trends, preferring to let people believe what they want as long as it isn’t directly killing them.
The Reality of the “Viral Sharing Power”
The Disparity: While alternative health advocates outnumber skeptics in raw volume and content creation—churning out high-yield, emotionally comforting narratives—the pro-science corrections achieve highly concentrated “viral bursts.”
When a prominent alternative health claim is cleanly and definitively debunked by data, it provides a highly shareable, “gotcha” piece of content for the large, silent neutral majority and the highly active skeptic network. A data-driven correction acts as a high-utility intellectual tool, allowing regular people to cut through multi-million dollar wellness marketing, which is why a single well-structured critique can match or outpace the reach of thousands of individual wellness posts.
______________________
I know, there are good reasons for being cautious about such AI analyses. Yet, unless someone can point me to more reliable data, I will go with this one – not least because it coincides with my own experience and also because I quite like its findings.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric is systematically racialized and frequently functions as a “dog whistle” to mobilize his racist followers. Here are but a few examples:
- July 1989 (On the Central Park Five): “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.” (From a full-page newspaper advertisement Trump took out regarding five Black and Latino teenagers accused of assault; the men were later fully exonerated by DNA evidence, but Trump repeatedly refused to apologize or rescind the sentiment).
- October 1993 (House Subcommittee Hearing on Native American Casinos): “They don’t look like Indians to me… and they don’t look like Indians to Indians.” (Questioning the authenticity of Connecticut tribal members operating competing casinos).
- June 2015 (Presidential Announcement Speech): “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
- January 2018 (Oval Office Meeting on Immigration): “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” (Referring to immigrants from Haiti and African nations during a bipartisan meeting, as corroborated by attending senators).
- July 2019 (On Baltimore and Rep. Elijah Cummings): “Cumming [sic] District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place… No human being would want to live there.”
- July 2019 (Twitter Statements on Democratic Congresswomen): “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.” (Directed at four minority Democratic congresswomen, three of whom were born in the United States).
- December 2019 (Speech to the Israeli American Council): “A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me—you have no choice… You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax.” (Invoking the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish people are solely motivated by money and financial self-interest).
- December 2023 (Campaign Rally in New Hampshire): “They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”
- April 2026 (televised national address from the White House, marking Trump’s first formal address to the nation since the outbreak of the military conflict with Iran) “We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks… We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age, where they belong.”
An analysis of his public statements and Truth Social posts revealed a abhorrent pattern: approximately 80% of the individuals he labels as “low IQ” are people of colour, specifically Black or Hispanic public figures. The term could theoretically be used as a neutral insult; however, Trump’s skewed application clearly evokes a long history of racist pseudo-science once upon a time used to justify claims of intellectual inferiority among non-white populations. Trump often reserves his most vitriolic attacks on intelligence for non-white targets. He often compounds these insults with additional degrading language, such as:
- Ketanji Brown Jackson: Described as “that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench”.
- Maxine Waters: Repeatedly labelled “extraordinarily low IQ” and “the face of the Democrat party”.
- Don Lemon: Referred to as “the dumbest man on television”.
When targeting white opponents, Trump tends to use labels like “crooked,” “weak,” or “disgraceful.” In contrast, his attacks on Black and Brown figures – including his description of congress women of colour as “mentally deranged” or “sick” – focus on cognitive or mental fitness, echoing historical tropes used to exclude marginalised groups from public life.
Research into the 2016 and 2020 elections suggests that support for Trump was more strongly tied to racial resentment and xenophobia than to “economic anxiety.” Exposure to such rhetoric can measurably increase the public expression of prejudice. Trump’s rhetoric often aligns with his administration’s policy priorities, which were frequently criticized as racially discriminatory:
- The “Muslim Ban”: An executive order targeting several Muslim-majority nations.
- Immigration Enforcement: Hardline policies, such as “zero tolerance” at the border, which disproportionately affected Latinx communities.
- Overt Commentary: Infamous descriptions of African nations as “shithole countries” and the use of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory to describe immigration.
Beyond specific insults, Trump’s broader narrative frequently utilizes dehumanizing imagery. He has, for instance, frequently amplified or “retweeted” supporters who use racist caricatures – such as those depicting the Obamas in a derogatory manner. Recent comments labelling nations like India and China as “hellholes” further underscore a worldview defined by national/ racial hierarchies.
Taken together, the combination of targeted slurs, racially skewed insults, and discriminatory policies provides a substantial evidentiary base for arguing that Trump’s rhetoric is not merely accidental, but a strategic effort to appeal to xenophobic and white-nationalist segments of the electorate.
Does that make him a racist?
Or are his comments merely an expression of his profound stupidity?
I let you decide.
Violence and abuse are no longer confined to the margins of society; they have permeated workplaces, public services, streets, homes, schools, online forums, places of worship, and even political discourse. From retail staff and healthcare workers to religious minorities and women trapped in abusive relationships, aggression has become disturbingly commonplace.
The evidence is difficult to dismiss. Retail workers are subjected to abuse in unprecedented numbers, NHS staff face rising levels of physical assault, and antisemitic incidents have reached alarming levels. The Community Security Trust has documented record levels of antisemitism in recent years, underscoring that hatred of Jews is not merely a relic of the Nazi past but a resurgent and escalating threat. Domestic abuse remains equally pervasive: while some forms of physical violence may have declined, coercive control, stalking, economic abuse, and digitally enabled harassment have proliferated.
A growing body of research points to broader social and political drivers. A decade of austerity under Conservative governments, coupled with institutional erosion, strained public services, ongoing geopolitical conflicts, and the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis, has generated widespread frustration. When people feel neglected or abandoned, that frustration can readily turn into aggression directed at those closest at hand: a nurse, a shop assistant, a neighbour, a partner, or a stranger who looks like a “foreigner”
An additional—and perhaps even more troubling—factor is the brutalisation of public discourse. Donald Trump’s rhetoric has normalised cruelty, humiliation, racism, and dehumanisation. It does not merely tolerate aggression; it performs and rewards it, thereby encouraging its replication. This erosion of basic norms of decency matters because language does not simply describe violence—it facilitates it. When political leaders frame opponents as enemies, casually invoke the destruction of entire societies, or treat facts as optional, they lower the threshold for violence well beyond the political arena. To assume that such influences remain confined to the United States is both naïve and demonstrably false; they reverberate globally.
This dynamic is particularly dangerous in relation to racism and its most virulent form, antisemitism. The recent rise in antisemitic abuse in the UK has not occurred in a vacuum. It has been fuelled by conspiratorial thinking, online radicalisation, the trivialisation of antisemitic rhetoric as mere “banter” by public figures such as Nigel Farage, and a broader climate in which prejudice is normalised, disseminated, and converted into aggression. The language of quasi-fascist politics echoes familiar racist tropes, weaponizing grievance and casting minorities as threats. The result is not only an increase in hatred but also a social environment in which violence becomes a logical extension of that rhetoric.
The persistence of this problem is exacerbated by our tendency to compartmentalise it, thereby obscuring its systemic nature. Antisemitism and racism are treated as “community issues,” retail abuse as an occupational hazard, and domestic violence as a private tragedy. Such fragmentation diminishes the perceived scale of the crisis and encourages piecemeal responses that fail to address its underlying causes. Governments may introduce targeted legislation, create new offences, or publish strategies for individual sectors, yet neglect the broader social conditions from which violence emerges. In reality, violence is not a collection of discrete pathologies but part of a continuum that often begins with discontent and culminates in aggression.
A culture that tolerates aggressive rhetoric, routine incivility, and online abuse fosters an emotional climate in which more serious forms of violence become easier to justify, excuse, and ultimately perpetrate. For this reason, the rise in racial and antisemitic attacks, the abuse of frontline workers, and the persistence of domestic violence should not be viewed as separate phenomena. They are manifestations of the same underlying pathology.
What we are witnessing is not a series of isolated epidemics of violence but a broader crisis of social cohesion. If that diagnosis is correct, then the response cannot be limited to stricter laws alone. It must also include education, the rebuilding of social institutions, a renewed emphasis on mutual responsibility, and a cultural shift that rejects the normalisation of aggression as a marker of strength.
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.
Guest post by Udo Endruscheit
Two years ago, in a guest post on this blog, I described the long and winding history of homeopathy in Switzerland — a story marked by political expectations, institutional entanglements, and repeated attempts to reconcile a lack of evidence with a desire for legitimacy. I ended that article with the hope that the country would not embark on yet another “honour lap” around the same unresolved questions.
In 2024, however, Switzerland initiated a new evaluation of homeopathy — a renewed attempt to clarify its role within the national health insurance system. It was, in many ways, the beginning of yet another loop in the same story.
Now, in 2026, that loop has come to an unexpected end. The evaluation was halted.
Not postponed, not softened, not watered down — simply stopped.
And this stop is not merely a political gesture. It marks the structural endpoint of a system that has exhausted its internal possibilities.
A system designed to avoid the evidence question
To understand why Switzerland has arrived at this point, one must look beyond the political headlines and examine the institutional landscape that has shaped the country’s approach to homeopathy for more than a decade.
Three elements are central:
- The political mandate created by the 2009 referendum, which placed homeopathy and other CAM modalities into the basic health insurance package.
- The professional environment, in which thousands of Swiss physicians hold CAM qualifications and the national medical association (FMH) views integrative medicine positively.
- The academic anchor, the Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine (IKIM) at the University of Bern, which provides an appearance of scientific legitimacy without producing evidence capable of resolving the core question of efficacy.
This combination created a system in which homeopathy became institutionally normalised — not because of evidence, but because of political and professional expectations.
The HTA as a detour — and the beginning of the dead end
When the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) was tasked with evaluating homeopathy after the referendum, it faced an impossible dilemma:
- The clinical evidence was weak to non‑existent.
- The political expectation was strong.
- A direct assessment of the evidence would have produced a negative result.
The solution was a detour: a Health Technology Assessment (HTA). But HTAs are not designed to determine efficacy. They assume efficacy has already been established through robust clinical research. Their purpose is to assess cost‑effectiveness, safety, and system impact.
The Swiss HTA did the opposite. In its conclusion, it stated:
“The effectiveness of homeopathy can be considered as proven when internal and external validity criteria are taken into account.”
This is a remarkable inversion of the HTA principle. The report asserted efficacy — without the evidence required to do so — while simultaneously admitting that the actual HTA questions (such as cost‑effectiveness) could not be answered reliably.
In retrospect, this HTA was not the beginning of a solution. It was the beginning of a dead end. A system that asserts efficacy without evidence cannot move forward. It can only circle around itself.
The IKIM: an academic structure without academic function
The IKIM at the University of Bern has played a central role in stabilising this circular logic. Its research output is broad in appearance but narrow in substance. It avoids the central question of efficacy and instead focuses on:
- sociological aspects,
- patient satisfaction,
- model validity,
- and experimental approaches that are not independently reproducible.
The IKIM does not produce evidence. It produces normality — the impression that homeopathy is a legitimate academic field simply because it is housed within a university.
This normality has been crucial for maintaining the political and professional acceptance of homeopathy in Switzerland. But it has also contributed to the structural dead end: an academic institution that cannot resolve the evidence question because it is not designed to ask it.
The 2026 decision: not a surprise, but a consequence
Against this background, the 2026 decision to halt the renewed evaluation of homeopathy is not really surprising. It is the logical endpoint of a system that has exhausted its internal possibilities.
- The evidence has not improved.
- The HTA detour has failed to provide a foundation.
- The institutional structures have stabilised expectations but not knowledge.
- The political mandate cannot be fulfilled without contradicting scientific standards.
The result is a dead end. Not because anyone wanted it, but because the system was built in such a way that no other outcome was possible.
A lesson beyond Switzerland
The Swiss case is often cited by proponents of homeopathy as a model of political and professional acceptance. But the 2026 decision reveals a different lesson:
A system that tries to reconcile political expectations with a lack of evidence will eventually reach a point where it can neither move forward nor turn back.
Switzerland has reached that point. The “endless story” of homeopathy in the Swiss health system has not been resolved — but it has reached its structural conclusion.
And unfortunately that conclusion is not a triumph of evidence. It is the recognition that evidence cannot be replaced by institutional normality. But one thing it certainly isn’t: an endorsement of homeopathy, even if its advocates will once again try to interpret it that way.
The defence of anthroposophical medicine – or of any other unproven modality – as articulated, for example, by figures like Weleda CEO Tina Müller, presents a vision of patient-centred care and economic pragmatism. However, when held against the light of current clinical standards and the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), it reveals significant cracks.
The most profound problem lies in the definition of scientific evidence. Proponents often point to decades of “positive experience” and high patient satisfaction as proof of effectiveness. Yet, in the hierarchy of science, anecdotal success sits at the very bottom. Anthroposophical treatments lack biological plausibility. Their perceived benefits are largely indistinguishable from context effects (such as placebo). Anthroposophical medicine might provide more time, empathy, and personal attention – factors that undoubtedly improve a patient’s well-being but do not validate the effectiveness of the specific remedies used. When independent bodies subject these treatments to rigorous, high-quality trials, the purported effects usually vanishe.
Anthroposophical medicine represents merely a tiny percentage of our healthcare expenditures. Therefore, proponents argue, little money would be saved by getting rid of it. This argument is a calculated distraction from the ethical core of the issue. While the fiscal burden may be marginal, the scientific cost is immense. A statutory health insurance system is built on a social contract of solidarity; it functions under the premise that public funds are reserved for treatments of proven value and effectiveness. To fund therapies that lack plausibility as well as reproducible results is to erode the credibility of medicine and rational thought. It is not a question of the amount of money, but the principle of integrity: every Euro, £ and $ spent on unproven treatments is a euro, £, and $ diverted from underfunded and often life-saving healthcare.
The regularly made appeal to the Swiss Model as a beacon of success also requires a more critical reading. The integration of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in Switzerland was, at its heart, a result of direct democracy rather than evidence. While the Swiss public voted for inclusion, the majority of the medical community remains deeply sceptical. To cite Switzerland as “proof” that anthroposophical medicine has fulfilled the criteria of EBM is to conflate political popularity with scientific validation. Democracy can decide how a nation spends its money, but it cannot vote a reliable evidence-base into existence.
Finally, we must consider the human risk of legitimizing non-evidenced-based practices. When a state-sanctioned insurance system places such therapies on the same pedestal as EBM, it risks misleading vulnerable individuals. For patients facing chronic or life-threatening illnesses, the “integrative” path can lead to a dangerous delay in seeking conventional, life-saving interventions. By treating subjective belief and peer-reviewed science as equal peers, we risk entering a “post-truth” medical era where the desire for a “natural” or “holistic” experience outweighs the necessity for proof.
In conclusion, while the call for a more “human” and “holistic” medical system might be noble, it must not come at the expense of scientific rigor. It is deeply misleading to imply that this is an ‘either or’; good medicine will always be based on both. A healthcare system that prioritizes popularity over proof risks becoming a system of expensive comfort rather than one of effective healing. True patient appreciation lies not in offering unproven choices, but in ensuring that every treatment covered by the public purse is supported by sound evidence. Not following this strategy is a disservice to patients and to progress.
So, the next time you hear people defending anthroposophical medicine or any other unproven modality, please look behind the smoke screen and find out why they do it. More often than not, you will then identify a massive conflict of interest. My advice is to listen to independent experts and to dismiss the people with an axe to grind.
The Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Products (AEMPS) has just published a comprehensive technical report entitled “Homeopathy and Homeopathic Products: Evaluation of Evidence on Their Efficacy and Safety”, which categorically concludes that there is no scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy as a therapeutic tool. After a systematic review of scientific literature and evaluations by state agencies internationally, the report states that the observed effects are comparable to placebo.
The report, which analyzed 64 systematic reviews published since 2009, highlights that most studies suggesting benefits from homeopathy have low methodological quality, often invalidated by small samples, short follow-up periods, or biases in randomization. Furthermore, it notes that as the quality and rigor of clinical trials increase, the supposed effect of homeopathy diminishes until it disappears entirely.
From a scientific standpoint, the principles of homeopathy clash with the laws of physics and current pharmacology. In typical dilutions like 12 CH—where one part of the original substance is mixed with 100 parts of solvent twelve times consecutively—it is mathematically impossible for a single molecule of the original ingredient to remain in the preparation, breaking any cause-and-effect relationship between the product and the therapeutic effect.
To illustrate this disproportion, the report points out that a dilution of just 6 CH (far less extreme than 12 CH) equates to dissolving a packet of sugar in the entire Mediterranean Sea. For this reason, the AEMPS classifies theories like “water memory”—the belief that the liquid retains the properties of a substance even without its molecules—as empirically baseless postulates that challenge scientific and rational thinking.
In compliance with European and national regulations, the AEMPS has completed a regularization process that has resulted in the market withdrawal of numerous products. As of the report’s publication date, no homeopathic product with authorized therapeutic indications exists in Spain. The 976 that remain registered did so via a simplified procedure, based on extreme dilutions ensuring the preparation’s innocuousness, which does not require proof of therapeutic effect and legally prohibits any therapeutic claims on labeling.
Spain aligns with a global trend of health institutions adopting critical stances:
- United Kingdom: The Science and Technology Committee recommended halting public funding and requiring labeling warnings about lack of efficacy.
- Australia: The National Health and Medical Research Council concluded that homeopathy should not be used for chronic or serious diseases.
- France: The Haute Autorité de Santé eliminated public reimbursement for these products in 2021 due to lack of demonstrated efficacy.
- Germany: Approval is expected in 2026 for the definitive removal of homeopathy coverage from statutory health insurance.
- United States: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers these products “unapproved new drugs,” and the Federal Trade Commission requires warnings that there is no scientific evidence of their functioning.
Although there is a popular belief that these preparations are innocuous because they are “natural,” serious adverse reactions have been reported, including poisonings from poor dosing and infant deaths linked to teething products in other countries.
However, the AEMPS warns that the main associated risk is the abandonment or delay of proven effective medical treatments. Citizens opting for homeopathy to treat serious or chronic conditions may endanger their health by replacing evidence-based therapies with products lacking such evidence.
The AEMPS report reaffirms the Ministry’s commitment to public health protection and evidence-based medicine. In line with other international agencies, it emphasizes the need for transparent information so citizens can make safe health decisions. The conclusion of the report is firm:
Given the lack of evidence of efficacy, homeopathy cannot be considered a valid therapeutic alternative, and its use must not lead to delaying or abandoning treatments proven to be effective.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting. Papers get reviewed, checked, challenged – and only then published. That’s the idea, anyway. But the practice often looks different. Between 2022 and 2024, that system didn’t just creak a little, it fell over rather dramatically.
At the centre of the mess was a Hindawi journal with the reassuringly serious name Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM – we have discussed it repeatedly on this blog, e.g. here and here). What followed was one of the largest clean-ups in modern publishing: hundreds of papers retracted from eCAM, and more than about 10,000 from the publisher’s full catalogue.
The reason?
Investigations had uncovered widespread manipulation of the publication process.
A big part of the story involves “paper mills.” These are businesses that will, for a fee, produce a scientific paper with your name on it. No inconvenient need for actual experiments or real data or the nuicance of writing. Using a mix of recycled material, fabricated results, and increasingly AI-generated texts, these outfits can churn out papers that look perfectly respectable, at least until someone reads them closely. Think of it as fast food for academic careers: quick, convenient, and not especially good for long-term health.
Another key ingredient was the journal’s abundant use of “special issues.” These are themed collections of papers run by guest editors, usually experts invited to oversee a niche topic. In theory, this can be a great idea. In practice, it turned out to be a bit like handing over the keys to your flat and hoping nobody throws a party.
Investigations found that, in some cases, the system had been even more seriously gamed. Fake or compromised editors, reviewer suggestions pointing to non-existent experts, and tightly coordinated “peer review rings” meant papers could sail through the process with both ease and speed.
The whole thing started to fall apart when research integrity teams and independent sleuths noticed odd and concerning patterns: identical images appearing in different papers, statistical results that didn’t add up, and peer reviews that seemed to happen at impossible speed. At that point, Wiley, which by then had acquired Hindawi, stepped in and took a much closer look. The result: mass retractions, suspended special issues, and a lot of nearly identical retraction notices politely stating that the “peer review process had been compromised.”
The fallout hit so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) hard. As we all know, SCAM is an area that already faces plenty of skepticism; discovering that a sizable chunk of its literature had effectively skipped quality control didn’t help. More broadly, the episode exposed a structural problem: when publishing lots of papers becomes the goal – for journals and researchers alike – quality tends to quietly take a back seat.
After all this, the journal eCAM more or less ground to a halt. It stopped accepting new submissions, and its future as an active journal remains uncertain. Its archive is still online but now dotted with retraction notices that read like a greatest hits album of publishing failures. Meanwhile, the publisher has tightened the processes,verifying reviewer identities more carefully, restricting special issues, and deploying tools to catch suspicious patterns earlier.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that the system eventually did what it’s supposed to do: spot the problem and correct it. But the episode is a reminder that science doesn’t run on trust alone; it runs on verification. And when that verification slips, things can go wrong at scale, and with surprising speed. Or put another way: peer review works … as long as the “peers” actually exist and know their business.
Guest post by Richard Rasker
Homeopathy has existed for 230 years already, but so far, good evidence for any efficacy is lacking. The Big Problem of course is that most homeopathic dilutions, if prepared correctly, don’t contain a single molecule of the original substance any more, which means that they cannot possibly (and don’t) have any effect – which is also the overwhelming consensus among scientists.
Yet undaunted, homeopaths not only keep claiming that their dilutions actually do something beyond placebo, but they also come up with various mechanisms to explain that even their most extreme dilutions still contain something that can have an effect. The latest claims involve nanoparticles, which are basically particles of the original, undiluted substance with sizes in the 1-100 nanometer range.
Here, I take a closer look how this nanoparticle hypothesis may or may not apply to one particular homeopathic preparation, natrum muriaticum or homeopathically diluted table salt (sodium chloride, NaCl). This ‘remedy’ was already created by Samuel Hahnemann himself, and still widely used by homeopaths today. Homeopaths ascribe a stunning range of ‘symptoms’ and thus therapeutic properties to this homeopathic salt.
If the nanoparticle hypothesis indeed describes the essential mechanism behind homeopathy, then it must by necessity apply to ALL homeopathic preparations, including natrum muriaticum.
According to homeopaths, homeopathic nanoparticles
1. are created by simply diluting and shaking a homeopathic solution,
2. are persistent, i.e. they somehow escape the normal dilution rate of 1:100 per dilution step,
3. are stable, i.e. they don’t break down easily,
4. enter a patient’s body by ingestion, and travel to the very sites where they are needed,
5. have almost miraculous therapeutic effects in patients,
6. yet evoke the exact opposite effects in healthy people (cf. ‘provings’).
However, there are problems:
Ad. 1: Table salt in an unsaturated solution does not form nanoparticles period. It always dissociates into sodium ions (Na+) and chlorine ions (Cl-). Yes, it is possible to create NaCl nanoparticles, but this is a very delicate process taking place outside a watery solution, and involves several other chemicals. Even then, those nanoparticles aren’t very stable, and dissociate into ions again within 24 hours; also they can’t be administered in liquid or pill form. But it is ludicrous to claim that a salty solution can produce NaCl nanoparticles simply by diluting and shaking the solution. Also, no homeopathic NaCl nanoparticles have ever ever been observed in a watery solution. The same goes for many other highly soluble substances that are often used in homeopathy.
Ad. 2: Homeopaths point to various mechanisms how their homeopathic substances supposedly get concentrated at the surface of the solution, where they somehow evade the 1:100 dilution ratio that occurs with each dilution step. One of these proposed mechanisms is so-called froth flotation – but froth flotation does not work for soluble substances like salt. In fact, people working on desalination projects would give their right arm for an easy way to get dissolved salt to concentrate by just shaking it. There is no evidence that such a localized concentration effect has ever been observed for salt, or for any other highly soluble substance.
Homeopaths also claim that it is this surface layer that is preferentially transferred to the next dilution step. They are wrong. In korsakovian dilution, all dilution steps take place in one small container. After every dilute-and-shake step, the container is upended, tossing out almost all of its contents – including the surface layer; it is then assumed that 1 percent of the solution is left behind, to be diluted by adding 99% water again. But even with the Hahnemannian method, dilution is usually done with a pipette – which means a liquid sample is taken from below the surface, not from a ‘surface monolayer’. Only when carefully pouring over liquid from one container into another can most of the surface layer be preserved in any consistent way. But this is very likely not how most homeopathic dilutions are made, especially in an industrial context. Exit persistence, even for insoluble substances that may actually aggregate at the surface as claimed.
Ad. 3: As no NaCl nanoparticles are formed or transferred, the only stable substance present is the water used.
Ad. 4: Any solid table salt nanoparticles will immediately dissociate again the moment they are ingested by a patient. No salt nanoparticles make it beyond the mouth and stomach, let alone that they are taken up and travel through the body in their original nanoparticle form.
Ad. 5, 6: No specific effects have ever been observed for homeopathically diluted salt. The Nuremberg Salt Trial of 1835 confirmed that natrum muriaticum does nothing special in healthy people, and there are no trials showing clear and repeatable effects in any patients suffering from any condition whatsoever. Which is of course to be expected: we all have some 200 grams of sodium chloride in our body, and it is de facto impossible that an infinitely diluted ghost of salt (or even a few milligrams of salt) can have any effects at all.
But lack of effects aside: if the nanoparticle hypothesis doesn’t apply to natrum muriaticum, then it doesn’t apply to homeopathy period – because otherwise, there would have to be multiple mechanisms of action for homeopathy, which is astronomically unlikely.
So what DO homeopaths have? Basically, they have a few (with the emphasis on ‘few’) studies where they purchased particular homeopathic preparations from manufacturers, and examined samples from those preparations using a Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM) – at which point they found nanoparticles of the original substance.
So how can this be explained? Easy: the manufacturer most likely botched the dilution process or took shortcuts, resulting in a certain amount of the original substance ending up in what should be a 30C or 200C or whatever dilution – and that is what the researchers found. But why did they find nanoparticles? Also easy: TEM samples can’t contain water, so they are dried by evaporating the water. At which point any dissolved substance will clump together and/or crystallize – forming small solid (nano)particles, even if there weren’t any nanoparticles in the solution to begin with.
To the best of my knowledge, researchers never created a homeopathic dilution from scratch while monitoring/analyzing it for the presence of nanoparticles, nor did they actually test the proposed mechanisms involved. Again, they simply purchased a few homeopathic preparations, found nanoparticles, and then went wild, fantasizing about how those nanoparticles got there, and jumping to the conclusion that those nanoparticles not only have magical therapeutic properties, but also ‘explain’ all of homeopathy. This assuming things and jumping to conclusions is the hallmark of pseudoscience, not science.
Also note that most claims about nanoparticles are based on one paper by Chikramane et al., in which exclusively metal-based homeopathic preparations are analyzed. No trials with salt or other soluble substances could be found.
What is more: several studies mention analyzing homeopathic preparations, without finding any trace of the original substance, nanoparticles or otherwise.
In other words: homeopathic nanoparticles are just nonsensical, pseudo-scientific nanobabble. They certainly don’t ‘explain’ homeopathy. If 30C or 200C or whatever diluted homeopathic preparations still contain traces of the original substances, then that is likely due to a flawed dilution process. This is infinitely more plausible than those hypothetical musings about elusive nanoparticles, highly variable (read: unreliable) transfer mechanisms and completely unexplained (and so far unobserved) effects on living organisms.
Some homeopathy-fans claim that tiny “nanoparticles” survive even in remedies diluted a trillion trillion times (i.e. the process of manufacturing a high-potency homeopathic remedy). They furthermore assume that this phenomenon can explain how homeopathy works. This argument sounds ever so modern and sciency but – unless you are a bit of a dim-wit – it falls apart for several fairly straightforward reasons that almost anyone should be able to grasp.
Too Dilute
Imagine starting with a single drop of medicine and diluting it by adding 99 drops of water, shaking it up, then repeating that hundreds of times. By the 12C stage (about 1 part in 10^24), there’s statistically zero original molecules left – way before most remedies hit 30C or higher. Even if some nanoparticles somehow cling on from the mixing process or glass vials, they’d be so rare (fewer than one per bottle) that they couldn’t reliably affect your body like a real drug.
Breaks the Main Rule
Homeopathy’s main axiom is “like cures like” assumption: a substance that causes a headache in a healthy person should cure headaches when you’re sick. But nanoparticles would just deliver a tiny dose of the ingredient itself, acting like an extremely weak remedy – not following homeopathy’s main axiom. This would turn homeopathy back into normal medicine and miss the basis of its own theory.
Not Based on Materials
Not all homeopathic remedies start with physical ingredients. Some are “imponderables” like “X-ray” (sugar pills exposed to X-ray radiation, then diluted), “vacuum” (made by evacuating air from water), or even “moonlight.” There’s no material at all to leave nanoparticles behind, so this explanation can’t cover those products.
Useless Ingredients
Most homeopathic remedies are based on mother tinctures that have no heath effects, like sepia (ink from cuttlefish), cantharis (Spanish fly blister beetle), or even bits of the Berlin Wall. These aren’t bioactive – they don’t fight infections or reduce pain or do anything else in normal doses. Nanoparticles from such useless junk wouldn’t magically gain healing powers; they’d still do nothing useful for health.
Lack of Convincing Clinical Evidence
As discussed ad nauseam on my blog, there simply is no sound evidence to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Any benefits people feel are thus likely from expectation, natural recovery, or doctor attention – and not from nanoparticles. If homeopathy had any real effects to explain, nanoparticles might be worth debating; without them, it’s a dead end.
I do sympathise with the desperation of homeopaths. They feel they must identify a plausible mode of action for their remedies. Their 200 year old struggle to find anything at all is in many ways remarkable. Here are some of the main explanatory ideas homeopaths (or homeopathy-friendly authors) have previously proposed for how homeopathy might work:
- Vital force / life energy – the remedy is said to act on a non-physical “vital force” or life energy that supposedly governs health and disease.
- Water memory – water is claimed to “remember” substances once dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond any remaining molecules, via changes in water structure or hydrogen bonds.
- Electromagnetic signatures – remedies are said to carry subtle electromagnetic patterns or “information” of the original substance, sometimes claimed to be recordable, transmitted electronically, and imprinted on new water.
- Quantum coherence domains – models suggest water forms coherent quantum domains storing drug “information” as electromagnetic frequencies, inspired by Del Giudice and Preparata’s ideas, though lacking solid experimental support.
- Stable water clusters / clathrates – hypotheses that long-lived clusters or cage-like structures (clathrates) in water somehow encode the properties of the starting substance.
- Nanobubbles and interfaces – suggestions that gas nanobubbles or interfaces in the solution store and transmit information about the starting material.
- Hormesis-based explanations – the idea that ultra-low doses act via hormesis (beneficial effects of mild stress or toxins), extended to the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy.
- Resonance with the body – proposals that remedies resonate with biological systems (cells, tissues, or “vital force”) through frequency matching or electric resonance, rather than via chemistry.
- Quantum entanglement / non-locality – claims that patient, practitioner, and remedy become “entangled,” so healing occurs via non-local quantum effects rather than molecules or doses.
- Information medicine / encoding – framing remedies as carriers of abstract “information” rather than substance, supposedly acting like a software signal on the body’s “hardware.”
Is it not time for homeopaths to accept the only well-proven, plausible explanations as to why their patients feel better after taking their remedies?
- The empathetic therapeutic encounter.
- The natural history of the condition.
- Regression towards the mean.
- Concommittant conventional treatments.
- The placebo effect.
