pseudo-science
I found an interesting article in the hilarity-prone journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’. I hope it might amuse you:
The concept of antidotes in homeopathy holds a central place in classical doctrine and daily clinical practice, yet remains l argely unexplored in scientific literature. Antidotes are traditionally defined as substances, remedies, environmental factors or physiological and emotional influences capable of suppressing, altering or interrupting the action of a homeopathic medicine. From a classical homeopathic perspective, any factor capable of modifying the totality of symptoms—thereby influencing remedy selection and follow-up—may be regarded as a potential antidoting influence. Unlike conventional pharmacological antidotes, which act through molecular interactions, homeopathic antidoting is conceived as an interference with the organism’s adaptive and regulatory response. This review revisits the historical foundations of antidotes, examines their clinical importance and explores potential scientific re-interpretations grounded in contemporary neurobiology, psychophysiology and systems medicine. Classical authors, including Hahnemann, Kent, Allen and Boericke, are critically reviewed, and the phenomenon of antidoting is discussed in light of stress physiology, placebo–nocebo mechanisms, hormesis and network regulation. We propose that antidotes represent early empirical descriptions of system-level modulation rather than substance antagonism. Finally, research perspectives are outlined to encourage methodological investigation of antidoting using modern biomedical tools.
Homeopaths administer an antidote when they fear a remedy produces too strong a reaction, to moderate the response. According to homeopathic belief, accidental antidoting commonly occurs through exposure to things like:
- coffee,
- camphor,
- mint,
- menthol,
- eucalyptus,
- strong odors.
- essential oils,
- perfumes,
- toothpaste,
- emotional shock,
- physical shock,
- dental work,
- numerous drugs.
An antidote, according to homeopathic teaching, specifically stops the previous remedy’s action. Each remedy has particular antidotes; for example, Natrum muriaticum is antidoted with mint, while Arnica may be antidoted by coffee. I should add that this concept is, of course, not scientifically validated and therefore pure fantasy.
Has anyone seen a reaction to a homeopathic remedy that is too strong and needs moderation?
No?
Me neither!
Hold on, Arsenic D1 perhaps?
But I am sure the author does not refer to this scenario. Homeopathic remedies are understood to be highly diluted; they contain nothing – even if it says Arsenic on the label. Placebos do not need antidotes because they don’t cause strong reactions.
Therefore, antidotes to homeopathy are a nonsense!
Hold on, this might not be correct. I just thought of a powerful antidote to homeopathy:
SCIENCE!
For some time, I had suspected that the stupidity of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. runs deep. Just how deep, is a surprise even to me. Let me give you just two examples from a choice of plenty:
EXAMPLE No 1
In January 2026, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released far-reaching new Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030. They dramatically “flipped the food pyramid” by encouraging Americans to consume red meat and whole milk, sources previously discouraged by public health experts because of their contributios to heart disease and other chronic conditions.
“American households must prioritize whole, nutrient-dense foods—protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains—and dramatically reduce highly processed foods. This is how we Make America Healthy Again”, Kennedy commented. “Thanks to the bold leadership of President Trump, this edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will reset federal nutrition policy, putting our families and children first as we move towards a healthier nation,” Secretary Rollins said. “At long last, we are realigning our food system to support American farmers, ranchers, and companies that grow and produce real food. Farmers and ranchers are at the forefront of the solution, and that means more protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains on American dinner tables.”
The scientific community responded with outrage, calling it a reckless abandonment of evidence-based nutrition and science. Promoting saturated fats and red meats contradicts decades of medical research and will increase cardiovascular disease rates across the US.
EXAMPLE No 2
In a hilarious revelation Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took to Joe Rogan’s podcast to inform the world that the UK has become a dystopian nightmare. “It’s like the Soviets. It’s like Kafka,” he declared in February 27, 2026.
The trigger for this epiphany? David Lammy, the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister, announced plans to scrap jury trials for offenses carrying less than three years imprisonment. Instead, a judge will decide. Lammy felt that this was necessary because of the backlog that meant cases could not be heard for years. RFK Jr., ever the historian, reminded listeners that the UK was once the “birthplace of Magna Carta”. Now, according to him, the UK is a “dictatorship over speech restrictions”.
Joe Rogan was horrified. “Existential threat to freedom of thought!” he cried, as if the UK had outlawed laughter or something. The pair seemed genuinely shocked that a country with a functioning parliament and a Prime Minister might have different ideas about justice than, say, a certain American podcast audience.
The comparison to Kafka is particularly weird: Kafka’s The Trial features a man arrested by a mysterious bureaucracy for an unspecified crime. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. seems to be arguing that replacing juries with judges in minor cases is the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union. A bold claim, especially from someone whose vis part of a government that checks people’s social media upon arrival – one of several reasons why I would never travel to the US, while these people are in power. But not as bold as Kennedy’s Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines. In his 2025 HHS confirmation hearing, Senator Raphael Warnock pressed him on statements likening the CDC to a “Nazi death camp,” which RFK Jr. denied, claiming he was comparing injury rates rather than the institution itself.
Perhaps the real dystopia is RFK Jr. spending his time lecturing other countries while the US degrades into a Kafkaesque nightmare of its own?
Quackademia, a term created [as far as I remember] by David Colquhoun for the infiltration of quackery into academia, has often been discussed on this blog, e.g.:
- Quackademia in Canada: the first bachelor’s degree in Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Quackademia galore: An Oxford ‘university’ starts a course in ‘veterinary chiropractic’
- Quackademia at its most rampant: the ‘Certificate in Holistic Health and Healing Arts’ (HHHA) at the University of New Mexico
- Another blow to quackademia: TCM course at a Sydney university is to be stopped
- Vienna 2019: the end of quackademia
- Quackademia down under
- Quackademia revisited
- Quackademia
Now growing backlash against quackademia seems to finally emerge also in France – opposition against university programs that give academic legitimacy to unproven so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The Higher Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education is preparing to review these courses, after criticism that universities are lending credibility to practices that have not been scientifically validated.
Across France, more than 200 university diplomas are said to exist in areas such as reflexology, aromatherapy, auriculotherapy, hypnosis, acupuncture, homeopathy, meditation, and related practices. Critics argue that this amounts to a form of institutional “entryism,” because the university label can make such practices look medically endorsed even when they are not.
The main concern is not just whether these therapies work, but whether universities should be teaching them at all. A January report on health misinformation reportedly recommended banning the academic labeling of healthcare practices that have not been validated, and that recommendation is at the center of the debate. Experts warn that, if a SCAM is scientifically validated, it belongs in medicine; if it is not, it may still be studied, but should not be taught as an academic medical qualification. They also warn that these programs can mislead the public and create a false impression of legitimacy. Yet, some deans and faculty leaders say that certain courses, especially acupuncture, hypnosis, or mindfulness, can be acceptable when used for specific indications and when properly framed. They distinguish those from programs in naturopathy, aromatherapy, or homeopathy, which they see as much harder to justify inside medical faculties.
As the Conference of Medical Deans is preparing to examine the issue rigorously, they should – I feel – also consider the ethical implications. Teaching dangerous nonsense to naive students is not just not academic, it is deeply unethical. If done well, this excercise should lead to a major cleanup of universities regarding SCAM, or at the very least to much tighter rules about what can carry an academic label.
Having observed French quackademia for decades, I am tempted to exclaim:
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!
Ten years ago, I wrote a blog post entitled “Data fabrication in China is an ‘open secret’”. Even though this seems chauvinistic and/or xenophobic, I often quote it (the last time yesterday) because it is, I think, hugely important for interpreting the plethora of studies that currently come out of China. But perhaps it is unfair; maybe the situation has improved? To find out, I asked AI (Gemini). Here is the reply I got:
There is substantial new evidence, and the overarching verdict has not changed—if anything, the systemic skepticism you described a decade ago has been thoroughly validated by both Western watchdogs and massive structural crackdowns from the Chinese government itself.
The picture today is a fascinating mix of institutional panic, rigorous data-auditing, and an ongoing battle against “paper mills” and publication bias.
Here is where the situation stands, categorized by the specific issues you raised.
1. Government Crackdowns and the “Clean Up”
The 80% fabrication scandal from China’s National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) triggered a wave of regulatory panic. Over the last decade, China has transitioned from ignoring the problem to implementing aggressive top-down enforcement.
- The Anti-Corruption Campaign: Regulators have launched sweeping, unannounced inspections targeting hospitals, clinical research organizations (CROs), and investigator-initiated trials. High-ranking officials in medical associations and pharmaceutical executives are routinely investigated and arrested for data manipulation and healthcare fraud.
- New Data Protection & Exclusivity Laws: The NMPA implemented strict “Drug Trial Data Protection Implementation Measures.” While designed to protect legitimate proprietary data, these measures heavily penalize companies that submit incomplete or untraceable clinical information, effectively cutting off market access for non-compliant firms.
- Criminalization of Falsification: China’s Supreme People’s Court explicitly ruled that fabricating clinical trial data can be prosecuted as a criminal offense under “marketing fake and substandard commodities,” which carries severe prison sentences in extreme cases.
2. The Acupuncture & TCM Dilemma: Still 100% Positive?
Regarding Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and acupuncture, recent methodological reviews show that while reporting transparency has slightly improved due to international trial registries, the underlying publication bias remains heavily skewed.
Acupuncture trials still suffer from an extraordinarily high risk of bias (RoB). Large-scale meta-analyses mapping decades of acupuncture RCTs highlight several persistent failure points:
| Methodological Domain | Status / Finding |
| Allocation Concealment | Over 60% of evaluated acupuncture RCTs still have an “unclear” risk of bias, meaning it is impossible to verify if the investigators rigged who got the real vs. sham treatment. |
| Blinding Failure | Up to 47% of trials score a “high risk of bias” in blinding participants and personnel, which is catastrophic for a therapy heavily reliant on placebo effects. |
| Selective Outcome Reporting | Roughly 30% to 40% of published acupuncture studies show discrepancies when compared directly to their original registry protocols—almost always changing the primary outcome to favor statistical significance. |
While a tiny handful of high-profile, rigorously blinded acupuncture studies have been published in Western journals (like JAMA) showing genuine, modest efficacy for specific conditions (like knee osteoarthritis or chronic lower back pain), the vast majority of domestic Chinese literature remains a monolithic wall of positive results.
3. The New Crisis: Global Paper Mills
The problem has evolved past isolated clinical trial fraud into an automated industry. Over the past few years, the global scientific community has been rocked by the “Paper Mill” crisis.
These are commercial entities—predominantly operating out of China—that fabricate entire scientific papers, complete with fake data, fake western blots, and AI-generated text, selling authorship to doctors and medical students.
Why this happens: In China, medical doctors at teaching hospitals have historically faced strict “publish or perish” quotas to gain promotions or retain clinical titles, even if their primary job is 100% patient care. This created an immense economic motivation to buy fake data.
In response, international publishing conglomerates (like Wiley, Elsevier, and Springer Nature) have retracted thousands of peer-reviewed papers tracing back to these mills, forcing a reckoning in how data integrity is validated pre-publication.
The Verdict
Your conclusion from ten years ago remains the gold standard for navigating this literature.
It is not chauvinistic; it is basic scientific hygiene. When analyzing evidence originating from these environments, the scientific consensus aligns with your advice:
- Enforce Absolute Skepticism: Treat un-replicated, single-center trials with extreme doubt.
- Mandate Raw Data Access: Major journals now frequently demand the raw, anonymized patient data sheets before accepting Chinese clinical trials. If the authors refuse to share data, the study is discarded.
- Require Prospective Registration: If a trial was registered after patient recruitment began, or if the primary endpoints were shifted mid-study, the findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating at best, and entirely compromised at worst.
The situation has moved from an “open secret” to an open war on data fabrication—but until the systemic incentives for faking data are completely dismantled, the pinch of salt remains mandatory.
_________________
Honestly, I had hoped that things would have improved. I am shocked that this is not the case. And I am disappointed that there is not much more being written about this. IT IS A SCANDAL THAT ENDANGERS US ALL!
What consequences should we draw?
I for one will be extra skeptical about research – particularly about the tsunami of papers from the realm ot TCM – that comes from China.
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a refractory neuropathic pain condition with limited therapeutic options. Although electroacupuncture has demonstrated potential analgesic effects, high-quality evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials remains limited.
This multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial determined whether electroacupuncture reduces pain severity compared with sham electroacupuncture and evaluated its safety in patients with PHN. It took place at 7 tertiary hospitals in China and enrolled participants from October 2020 to July 2022, with the last follow-up in September 2022. Data analyses were performed from August to December 2025. Participants with PHN aged 45 to 75 years and moderate to severe pain (11-point Numeric Rating Scale [NRS-11] score ≥4) were recruited. Of 1072 patients screened, 624 were excluded. The remaining 448 participants were randomized to electroacupuncture (n = 225) or sham electroacupuncture (n = 223); 383 participants (85.49%) completed the trial. Patients received 20 sessions of electroacupuncture or sham electroacupuncture over 4 weeks, followed by a 4-week posttreatment follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the NRS-11 scores from baseline to week 4, with responders defined as participants achieving a 30% or more reduction in NRS-11 scores.
Of 448 participants, the mean (SD) age was 63.19 (9.26) years, 233 (52.01%) were male, and 215 were female (47.99%). At week 4, the electroacupuncture group had a greater decrease in the NRS-11 scores (−1.52) than the sham electroacupuncture group (−0.99) with an adjusted mean difference of −0.53 (95% CI, −0.61 to −0.43; P < .001), and the responder rate was significantly higher in the electroacupuncture group (46.68%) than in the sham electroacupuncture group (24.28%) (adjusted risk difference, 22.40%; 95% CI, 13.02%-31.79%; P < .001). These treatment benefits persisted through a 1-month follow-up; no clinically significant adverse events were observed.
The authors concluded that, among patients with PHN in this study, electroacupuncture provided a statistically significant reduction in pain severity, increased responder rates, and improved pain-related functional outcomes. These benefits suggest that electroacupuncture may be a useful nonpharmacological option for integrated management of PHN.
Here are a few points of concern and criticism:
- The authors state that the study was funded by the Evidence-Based Capacity Building Project for Traditional Chinese Medicine from National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by China Association of Chinese Medicine, Youth Talent Project of Jiangsu Province Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine Double-Hundred Talent Program. Yet, they insist they had no conflict of interest.
- Acupuncture studies from China are as good as never negative. As frequently noted on this blog, the vast majority of Chinese studies seem to rely on falsified data.
- The authors imply that their study was patient-blind; yet there is no way that this is true: 1) The verum was administered to elicit ‘de-qi’, while the sham was not. 2) The electrical current in the verum group induced mild muscle twitching, while the sham group had no such experience. This means the verum patients knew the were receiving verum and thus were expecting an effective therapy. By contrast, the control group would have comprehended that they were given a placebo and were disappointed. These effects inevitably contribute to the outcome. In fact, I would agruge that they suffice in bringing them about without any contribution of a specific acupuncture effect. At the very minimum, the authors should have discussed these issues fully and critically.
- The acupuncturists of this study were also not blind. It is possible – I would argue, even likely – that they influenced patients to report or experience more positive results. Again, I would suggest that such effects suffice to generate a false-positive outcome.
- Even if there was a true effect of the verum beyond placebo, the question is, was it caused by acupuncture or the electrical current? There is a sizable body of evidence suggestion that electrotherapy might be effective for PHN!
In conclusion, the assertion that “electroacupuncture provided a statistically significant reduction in pain severity, increased responder rates, and improved pain-related functional outcomes” is uncritical, promotional and unjustified. I am once again dismayed that a reputable journal publishes such overt rubbish.
Homoeopathy and I is the title of a paper that I published in 2009. My aim was to denounce the popular notion that held I had started my research with a grudge against homeopathy. The honest truth is that – if anything – my attitude was even slightly positive. Here is the key section from this 2009 paper:
In 1993, I was appointed to the world’s first Chair in Complementary Medicine, and it became my job to investigate scientifically all sorts of complementary treatments, including homoeopathy. In the course of this activity, my co-workers and I published numerous articles on homoeopathy. Systematically, reviewing the totality of my publication list, I found a total of 46 papers with ‘homeopathy’ in the title. The following quotes from these articles were selected to best describe my attitude toward homoeopathy at the time:
• Homeopathicremedies are believed by doctors and patients to be almost totally safe (8).
• It might be argued that arnica …is ineffective but homeopathy may still works (9).
•…only 23% of Australian homeopaths believe that immunisation is important (10).
• Homeopathy, I fear, has soon to come up with … more convincing evidence (11)…
• Future evaluations of homeopathy should be performed to a high scientific standard (12)…
•…studies on the safety of the practice of homeopathy must not be ignored (13)…
•…systematic reviews based on Medline searches can lead to similar (possibly slightly less positive) overall conclusions (14)…
•…a detailed eye-witness account claiming that all attempts [by researchers during the ‘Third Reich’] to show that homeopathy works has led to negative results (15).
•…the best way forward is clearly to do rigorous research (16)…
• Thus, the question of whether homeopathy works or not has remained unanswered for 200 years (17).
• The most pressing question, ‘Is homeopathy clinically more effective than placebo’, needs to be answered conclusively (18).
• There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus (19)…
• Some of the well-argued cases against homeopathy should become essential reading for all homeopaths (20).
•…the published evidence to date does not support the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies … are more efficacious than placebo (21)…
•…homeopathic remedies are associated with the same clinical effects as placebo (22).
•…the picture painted by Linde and colleagues … may well be slightly more positive (23)…
•…[our] goal is to conduct rigorous, impartial research in [homeopathy] (24)
• The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials (25).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are not uniform (26).
•…at present, the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies is not known (27).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are obviously far from uniform (28).
•…the trial data … do not suggest that homeopathy is effective (29)…
•…the definitive answer, in my view, has to come from a series of rigorous trials (30).
• Large, multicentre trials of homeopathic remedies … represent the best way of advancing the debate (31).
•…the re-analysis of Linde et al. can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos (32).
•…randomised clinical trials … do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies (33).
•…both homeopaths and university heads of medical departments clearly advocate further research into the effectiveness of homeopathy (34).
•…homeopathy is not different from placebo (35).
•…the best clinical evidence … does not warrant positive recommendations (36).
•…the evidence is insufficient for firm recommendations (37).
•…the results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo (38)…
-
- This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies … are superior to placebo(39).
•…this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists (40).
•…Mathie’s methodology was not as strong as it should have been, and this deficit has led to conclusions that may be falsely positive (41).
•…homeopathy may actually be more expensive than good conventional care (42).
•…the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies … do not outweight the potential for harm (43).
•… homeopathic remedies are placebos, but homeopaths can be skilled doctors who may significantly help their patients (44).
• Our analysis … found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy (45)…
•… promotion can be regrettably misleading, dangerous and counterproductive (46).
•…do we condone treatments because of their popularity or their effectiveness? (47)
•…homeopathy is not based on solid evidence and, over time, this evidence seems to get more negative (48).
• The evidence from rigorous clinical trials … testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition (49).
• There is no evidence at all that homeopathic remedies can change the natural history of any cancer (50).
•…context effects of homeopathy … are entirely sufficient to explain the benefit many patients experience (51)…
• Amongst all the placebos that exist, homeopathy has the potential to be an exceptionally powerful one (52)…
•…recommendations by professional homeopathic associations are not based on the evidence (53)…
[all references can be found in the original paper]
Since then (2009) I – often together with others – have published several further articles with “homeopathy” in the title. This means that my original paper needs updating. Here are the titles of (and links to) these articles (appologies, if I missed a few):
- Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy?
- Homeopathy
- Homeopathy: what does the “best” evidence tell us?
- Homeopathy, non-specific effects and good medicine.
- A systematic review of homoeopathy for the treatment of fibromyalgia.
- Homeopathy, a “helpful placebo” or an unethical intervention?
- The ethics of British professional homoeopaths.
- Homoeopathy debate. Protecting patients?
- Pharmacists and homeopathic remedies.
- Homeopathy in severe sepsis.
- Call for doctors not to practice homeopathy or refer to homeopaths.
- Homeopathy for eczema: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials.
- The most thorough assessment to date of homeopathy
- Should doctors recommend homeopathy?
If you study these articles, you will find that my arguments around homeopathy remained entirely evidence-based. The overall point is, I hope, clear: I did not embark on my research into homeopathy aiming to disprove it or to dismiss it outright [a claim I still hear with some regularity]. To begin with (in 1993), I was not only open but positively inclined. At all times, however, I was keen to follow the best available evidence. If my attitudes/verdicts became less and less positive, it is merely because the evidence became more and more overtly negative.
The death of Kristian Trend, a forty-year-old spiritual wellness coach who collapsed and died following a “Kambo” cleansing ritual in Leicester, serves as a sobering cautionary tale about the extremes of the modern alternative health movement. Having overcome a severe battle with cancer in his twenties, Trend dedicated his life to holistic wellness, meditation, and nutrition, documenting his journey under the moniker “Kristian The Feel Good Guy.”
Kambo, a waxy substance secreted by the giant leaf frog of the Amazon basin, has traditionally been utilized by indigenous tribes for its intense physiological properties. Its translation into Western “detox” circles strips away its cultural context, replacing it with pseudoscientific promises of physical rejuvenation and mental clarity. The actual ceremony is an agonizing physical ordeal: participants consume massive quantities of water before facilitators inflict superficial burns on their skin, applying the frog toxin directly to the open wounds. This practice triggers a violent systemic shock characterized by soaring heart rates, dramatic blood pressure fluctuations, severe vomiting, and acute diarrhea. Though proponents mistake this intense physical trauma for a purgative cleansing process, medical experts confirm there is no empirical evidence supporting these purported benefits.
In reality, the toll of Kambo can be lethal. Over the past decade, the substance has been increasingly linked to severe health crises, including liver failure, acute heart attacks, and sudden death. This compounding medical evidence has led nations like Australia, Brazil, and Chile to implement strict bans on the substance. Trend’s death is believed to mark the first documented Kambo fatality in the UK.
In the wake of this tragedy, Trend’s mother, Angie, has channelled her grief into calling for an immediate UK ban on Kambo to prevent further loss of life. Her public appeal emphasizes the vulnerability of individuals who, like her son, fall victim of pseudoscience and seek deeper spiritual connection and bodily purity, yet find themselves exposed to unregulated, highly toxic substances under the guise of “self-care.”
I am always delighted when I find authors who think in a similarly rational way as I. When it comes to the subject if INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE, this sadly is a rare occasion. I know that most medics would be critical of it, but only few are sufficiently insensed to publish a paper on their criticism. Here is the abstract of a recent article that is a rare exception:
The term integrative medicine claims to describe a third category in clinical practice, somewhere between conventional evidence-based medicine and alternative therapies. This article argues that this category is conceptually confused and often misleading. If an intervention is supported by good evidence, is safe in practice, clinically useful and cost-effective, it should simply become part of regular medicine. If an intervention does not have such evidence, it does not become stronger by being called integrative. The article examines how the language of integrative medicine works. It shows how one attractive label can bring together two very different things: evidence-based supportive care on the one hand, and weakly supported or unproven interventions on the other. This creates the impression that both have the same clinical status, even when they do not. The article also discusses the possible consequences for patients, including confusion about evidence, false confidence in unproven treatments, and reduced adherence to effective care. Drawing on more than a decade of experience evaluating complementary medical claims through foundation IOCOB (a foundation to study complementary medicine) , it argues for a simpler and more honest approach. Proven interventions should be called medicine. Unproven interventions should be called unproven. Disproven interventions should be called disproven. There are not two equal medicines waiting to be synthesised. There is only medicine that has earned its place, and medicine that has not.tive medic ine m
True words well expressed!
We have discussed interated medicine on this blog more often than I care to mention. The response of proponents usually is that INTEGRATED MEDICINE is so much more than just using alternative treatments. If we look at this claim, we quickly realise that the “so much more” are things stolen from conventional medicine (which proponents denounce by their claim of neglecting these things). If they feel that important bits of healthcare are being neglected, the proper reaction would be to reform medicine and rectify the situation. Instead the proponents put their money on INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE which undeniably is at least partly an attempt to smuggle unproven treatments into healthcare.
I wrote “at least partly” which is, in fact, generous to the extreme! If we look up what the clinics of INTEGRATED MEDICNE actually offer, we quickly realise that it is much more that “partly” – it is their main and lucrative business.
Sorry, but to me this is deeply dishonest!
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.
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.
