The 30 most recent comments from all posts are listed below. Click on the post title to go to the comment on the post’s page.
- Comment by Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH on My answer to Dana Ulman’s question: “Should I now call you Edzard Trump?!” Sunday 26 July 2026: 19:07 Edzard Trump rises again! And the fact that you say that there is no scientific evidence that homeopathic medicines is additional evidence of your pathological lying. Let me repeat this clinical evidence (again): One of the strongest statements verifying the efficacy of homeopathic medicines was the confirmation that four of the five leading previous systematic reviews of homeopathic research found a benefit from homeopathic treatment over that of placebo: “Five systematic reviews have examined the RCT research literature on homeopathy as a whole, including the broad spectrum of medical conditions that have been researched and by all forms of homeopathy: four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, with important caveats, the homeopathic intervention probably differs from placebo.” Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, Legg LA, Clausen J, Moss S, Davidson JR, Ford I. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews 2014; 3:142. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-142 http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/3/1/142 Homeopathic Clinical Research has been Published in Many of the BEST and MOST RESPECTED Medical Journals in the World Some people and some media still claim that “there is no research that shows that homeopathic medicines are effective. HOWEVER, many of the best and most respected medical journals in the world have published studies on homeopathy that have shown its efficacy: Homeopathic clinical studies have been published in The Lancet, BMJ (British Medical Journal), Pediatrics, European Journal of Pediatrics, Pediatrics Infectious Disease Journal, Chest (the journal of the American College of Chest Physicians), Cancer (the journal of the American Cancer Society), Rheumatology (journal of the British Society of Rheumatology), PlosOne, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (the journal of multiple societies of obstetrics and gynecology), and Cureus (published by Oxford University Press). Specific references and links to provided to each of these journals at this article: https://danaullman.substack.com/p/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-claimshttps://danaullman.substack.com/p/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-claims
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Sunday 26 July 2026: 18:07 What a totally disengenous response. It is so curious that you quoted such a short part of ChatGPT’s answer…and worst of all, this questionable reply is contexted in “the way homeopathy claims.” I call this questionable because who is this person named “homeopathy.” It is probably that you doctored this response to be clumsy. I now challenge you to provide the FULL and unedited response. Second, I challenge you to give ChatGPT my 1st question to ChatGPT and give them the response I got…and then, ask ChatGPT to comment upon this response. That said, I question how honest you will be here.
- Comment by on My answer to Dana Ulman’s question: “Should I now call you Edzard Trump?!” Sunday 26 July 2026: 16:07 thank you, that’s hilarious! And BTW homeopathic medicines ARE implausible
- Comment by on My answer to Dana Ulman’s question: “Should I now call you Edzard Trump?!” Sunday 26 July 2026: 15:07 Dear Edzard Trump, I called you out for your pathological lying. You claim, that homeopathy contradicts established knowledge of chemisty, physics, and pharmacology: “Homeopathy operates on two main principles: “like cures like” (Law of Similars) and the “law of minimum dose” (the more diluted a substance, the more potent it becomes). Scientifically, these principles contradict established kowledge of chemistry, physics, and pharmacology.” And then, you acknowledge that AI, and ChatGPT specificially, maintains an accurate assessment of homeopathy, but when you have been alerted to THREE dialogues that I have had with ChatGPT on how homeopathic nanodoses will squarely in KNOWN laws of chemistry, physics, and pharmacology, you suddenly claim ignorance. In the same comment where I referred to you as “Edzard Trump,” I wrote: https://danaullman.substack.com/p/are-there-plausible-scientific-explanations Are there plausible scientific explanations for how homeopathic medicines can work? Dana Ullman’s dialogue with ChatGPT! https://danaullman.substack.com/p/dialogue-with-chatgpt-on-compelling Dialogue with ChatGPT on Compelling Scientific Explanations for How Homeopathic Medicine May Work…and Its Thoughts on Skeptics Who Still Claim that Homeopathic Medicines are “Implausible” https://danaullman.substack.com/p/user-friendly-non-technical-description How and Why Homeopathic Nanodoses can have Powerful Biological Effects…A User-Friendly Non-Technical Description THESE DIALOGUE OBLITERATE YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE ACTIONS OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES ARE “IMPLAUSIBLE.” From this moment onward, ANY assertion from anyone on this list that claims that homeopathic medicines are “implausible” are simply lies and misinformation. …AND for the record, you have never addressed the issues raised in these ChatGPT comments. Instead of your usual ad homs and your claims that “the science is settled,” how about addressing this issue in substantative ways for a change?
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Saturday 25 July 2026: 19:07 Oh dear Richard you are still quoting an article from 2016 from the US where there were clearly no FDA controls in place. If homeopathic preparations ‘often’ contained high levels of harmful substances then the all powerful MHRA who ensure that controls are in place would be shutting all the UK pharmacies down immediately. Make a complaint to the MHRA without evidence and you will be ignored. The same would happen if I made an idiot complaint about Covid vaccines still being available because of one example of contaminated vaccines. See link below. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ddw-online.com/johnson-johnson-forced-to-destroy-15-million-covid-vaccine-doses-after-mix-up-10578-202104/&ved=2ahUKEwj7mbD1u-6VAxXdVkEAHcuXKi8Q_r4PegYIAAg1EAQ&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw03wuSyRu-ctL7fFoTCKxqc&ust=1785090892093000 I
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Saturday 25 July 2026: 15:07 “I almost feel sorry for you….” Almost, were it not for the arrogance, the belligerance, and the taking of people’s money.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Saturday 25 July 2026: 11:07 Oh dear, Dana. I asked Chat GPT “Are there any plausible explanations for how homeopathic nanodoses can work based on modern understandings of the physics of water and drawing from material sciences” “The nuanced position is neither “it’s impossible because water is simple” nor “modern physics explains homeopathy.” Rather, modern science has revealed complex nanoscale behaviour in liquids and materials, but those discoveries have not yet bridged the gap to demonstrating that homeopathic nanodoses work in the way homeopathy claims.” So that’s your bonfire pissed on again. And Dana, why are you asking for explanations of how homeopathy might be effective when we all know that it has no effectiveness?
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Saturday 25 July 2026: 11:07 What a wonderful example of your clueless, incoherent sputtering, Dana. Well done. Now. Explain to us what difference any of these studies in your precious HIGH IMPACT JOURNALS have made. I’ll save you the effort. They’ve done nothing. Nada. Zip. Fuck-all. Recognised as the garbage that they are, they’ve been ignored. Same as happens with everything you say, Dana. Utterly insignificant and of no consequence whatsoever. Homeopathy remains the nonsense it always has been and you remain the incompetent, arrogant, incoherent and insignificant loon you always have been.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Saturday 25 July 2026: 11:07 As Jean Cocteau said: Being hated by idiots is the price you have to pay for not being one of them.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Saturday 25 July 2026: 10:07 …and if you want evidence for this, it was presented in this thread: https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/the-ultimate-proof-of-homeopathys-effectiveness/
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Saturday 25 July 2026: 10:07 Dana, we’ve been through all this before. Gully was a hydropath, who used sugar pills as a minor adjunct to hydropathy (remember Darwin’s description of his “hydropathical diary”?), and said that he “never much cared for the doctrine of ‘like curing like’.” Darwin’s progress under Gully was typical of the normal progress of the chronic condition that he had been suffering from for years, and continued to suffer from for years after Gully’s treatments. Gully was not a homeopath, and he didn’t cure Darwin.
- Comment by on Measles in the US – RFK Jr., his stupid rhetoric and irresponsible actions erode immunity Saturday 25 July 2026: 09:07 The number of measles infections in the US has risen to its highest level in 35 years. The CDC health agency reported that 2,318 cases have been recorded so far this year; there were 2,289 cases in the entire previous year. This marks the highest figure since the 1989–1991 period, when more than 55,000 infections and 123 deaths were recorded. […] 93 percent of the cases occurred in unvaccinated individuals; the rest had received one or two doses of the measles vaccine. A vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) provides 97 percent protection after two doses. https://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/diagnose/usa-verzeichnen-hoechste-zahl-an-masern-infektionen-seit-35-jahren-a-cbd195b9-b710-4cca-8d5c-9eb4db78483b Thank you very much, Robert F. Kennedy jr. *Sarcasm off*
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Saturday 25 July 2026: 00:07 @Dana Ullman In all of homeopathy’s history, there were only 36 positive RCT’s published in regular journals. Let that sink in … Just 36 positive results in respectable journals. If homeopathy were be effective in any way, we should see thousands upon thousands of positive RCT’s, showing us how homeopathy could effectively treat a huge number of ailments. But no, all we have is a couple of dozen positive results, more often than not with minute effect sizes – exactly what one would expect from a fake treatment. I almost feel sorry for you, given that you appear to have wasted your entire life defending this stupid quackery.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 23:07 Oh, come on Danny Boy, Luc Montagnier?? Surely, you can do better than that. How can you not have noticed that much of his work has been discredited and harshly criticized by the scientific community? Moreover, when asked by Canada’s CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed, Montagnier replied that one “cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy.” And immunisations proving the principles of homeopathy? Even an uneducated layman like myself understands the fundamental difference between the two. Vaccines use precise, measurable doses of weakened or dead viruses and bacteria to stimulate specific antibody production and cellular immunity that science can measure. Homeopathy, on the other hand, just mimics the body’s symptoms. Do you really not see the difference? Oh, and just a minor detail: Most remedies don’t even produce symptoms at all, because the do not contain any substance that would. They do during “provings”, you say? No. Results of provings are heavily edited by “master provers” who cherry-pick reported symptoms to fit preconceived ideas of the remedy’s effect. When tested by proper scientists, highly dilluted remedies produce no symptoms in trial subjects. The arrogant way in which you present your weak arguments is really quite pathetic.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 16:07 Oh really…Are you now pretending to be ignorant or just being so???? It seems that you are now emulating America’s liar-in-chief, Donald Trump. Should I now call you Edzard Trump?! Yep, he has adopted you…OR you have adopted him! My most recent blog was: Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Claims that Physicians & Scientists’ Skepticism of Homeopathic Medicine is “Pathological Disbelief” https://danaullman.substack.com/p/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-claims But heck, you probably have never heard of Luc Montagnier: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/luc-montagnier-homeopathy-taken-seriously_b_814619 And how about the FIRST scientist to win the Nobel Prize in Medicine: Emil Adolf von Behring (1854–1917) Emil Adolf von Behring won the first Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology for his discovery of the diphtheria antitoxin. Later, he discovered the tetanus antitoxin. For many years he served as military captain of the medical corps to the Pharmacological Institute at the University of Bonn, and then was given a position at the Hygiene Institute of Berlin in 1888 as assistant to Robert Koch (1843–1910), one of the pioneers of bacteriology. He then became professor of hygienics in the Faculty of Medicine at the prestigious University of Marburg. Because of his significant discoveries in immunology, Behring retains a highly regarded place in its early history. In 1892 Behring actually experimented with serial (homeopathic) dilutions and found paradoxically enhanced immunogenic activity, but he was advised to suppress this experiment due to the aid and comfort it would provide to homeopaths. Only after he won the Nobel Prize did he feel comfortable in making public these experiments (Behring, 1905; Coulter, 1994, 97). Behring broke from orthodox medical tradition by recognizing the value of the homeopathic law of similars: “In spite of all scientific speculations and experiments regarding smallpox vaccination, Jenner’s discovery remained an erratic blocking medicine, till the biochemically thinking Pasteur, devoid of all medical classroom knowledge, traced the origin of this therapeutic block to a principle which cannot better be characterized than by Hahnemann’s word: homeopathic. Indeed, what else causes the epidemiological immunity in sheep, vaccinated against anthrax than the influence previously exerted by a virus, similar in character to that of the fatal anthrax virus? And by what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence, exerted by a similar virus than by Hahnemann’s word “homeopathy”? I am touching here upon a subject anathematized till very recently by medical penalty: but if I am to present these problems in historical illumination, dogmatic imprecations must not deter me.” (Behring, 1905)[NOTE: Please note that the Nobel Prize-winning scientist is quoted in 1905 as referring to anthrax as a virus, when, in fact, we know today that it is a bacteria.] Behring actually made a plea for homeopathy to be granted “citizenship of medicine” (medicinisches Biirgerrecht) and that it no longer be taboo for physicians to practice it. Behring even said he would go to a homeopath himself: “If I were confronted with a hitherto incurable disease and could see no way to treat it other than homeopathy, I can assure you that I would not be deterred from following this course by dogmatic considerations” (Behring, 1905; Coulter, 1994, 98). Behring also showed a certain sophisticated understanding of Hahnemann’s contribution to medicine and pharmacology: “The concept that the sick person reacts differently to medications than the healthy one, which had to be established empirically by therapeutic trials, also played a role in Hahnemann’s thinking” (from a Behring article in 1915, quoted in Coulter, 1994, 96). The point here is that Behring understood that homeopaths determine the effectiveness of a medicine by conducting experiments in toxicology in which relatively healthy people are given repeated doses of a substance until symptoms of overdose are created. Every simple or complex substance will create its own toxicological syndrome of symptoms, and homeopathic doses of that substance can and will heal people who have that similar symptom complex. The logic here is because symptoms of illness, from whatever cause, are adaptive efforts of the body to fight infection or adapt to some sort of stress, the use of a medicinal agent that mimics the body’s defenses will provide immunological benefit to the sick person. In 1898 Behring asserted that Koch’s discovery of the Tuberculin bacilli and his use of it to treat people for tuberculosis falls under the homeopathic principle, as does Pasteur’s rabies therapy (Coulter, 1994, 96). Koch and Pasteur could not and certainly would not give homeopathy credit for any insight or contribution to their discovery, or if they did, they and their new medicine would have been harshly attacked. By the mid-1890s, as a result of Koch’s claims, London homeopath Dr. James Compton-Burnett (1840–1901) used homeopathic doses of the tuberculous sputum to treat fifty-four people, calling this medicine Bacillinum. Compton-Burnett aptly differentiated his medicine from Koch’s: “The difference between our old friend [homeopathic] Tuberculinum or Bacillinum and that of Koch lies in the way it is obtained; our is the virus of the natural disease itself, while Koch’s is the same virus artificially obtained in an incubator from colonies of bacilli thriving on beef-jelly; ours is the chick hatched under the hen. Koch’s is the chick hatched in an incubator.” (Compton-Burnett, 1890, xiii–xiv)
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 16:07 This was a good article but I would not recommend it to friends That would suggest I thought they were so stupid they actually needed to hear about this snake oil
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 15:07 Ohhhh…so now you respect AI and that it is not “hallucinating”! In THAT case, here are three conversations that I had with ChatGPT on explanations for how homeopathic nanodoses can work based on modern understandings of the physics of water and drawing from material sciences: https://danaullman.substack.com/p/are-there-plausible-scientific-explanations Are there plausible scientific explanations for how homeopathic medicines can work? Dana Ullman’s dialogue with ChatGPT! https://danaullman.substack.com/p/dialogue-with-chatgpt-on-compelling Dialogue with ChatGPT on Compelling Scientific Explanations for How Homeopathic Medicine May Work…and Its Thoughts on Skeptics Who Still Claim that Homeopathic Medicines are “Implausible” https://danaullman.substack.com/p/user-friendly-non-technical-description How and Why Homeopathic Nanodoses can have Powerful Biological Effects…A User-Friendly Non-Technical Description THESE DIALOGUE OBLITERATE YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE ACTIONS OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES ARE “IMPLAUSIBLE.” From this moment onward, ANY assertion from anyone on this list that claims that homeopathic medicines are “implausible” are simply lies and misinformation.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 15:07 Oh, do ALL OF THE HIGH IMPACT JOURNALS appeal to authority? Your broken record is broken….and it is the placebo in this situation
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 15:07 Oh, do ALL OF THE HIGH IMPACT JOURNALS appeal to authority? Your broken record is broken….and it is the placebo in this situation
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 15:07 Well, for starters, Darwin proven that belief in homeopathy is NOT necessary to get remarkably good results.
- Comment by on The Journal of Evidence Based Homeopathy ?!?! Friday 24 July 2026: 13:07 I did not know that you can do irony, Mutus!
- Comment by on The Journal of Evidence Based Homeopathy ?!?! Friday 24 July 2026: 13:07 The Journal of Evidence-Based Homeopathy, keep up the great work 👍
- Comment by on The lecture from hell Friday 24 July 2026: 12:07 When I was training to become a teacher (over 50 years ago!), I studied presentation skills within a module on audio and visual aids in education. The most common mistakes then are still prevalent and are to do with the use of slides (then photographic, now Power Point): 1. View screen too small or inappropriately placed. (Thankfully modern leture theatres are better equipped.) 2. Too much text on a slide. 3. Text too small to read from a distance. 4. Too little time to read or study each frame. 5. Talking too much whilst the audience is trying to view the frame. 6. Meaningless graphs. i.e. labelling unclear. I agree with the “too many acronyms and abbreviations.” We may know what we’re talking about but not everyone in the audience – or it would be pointless telling them. I have sat through too many poorly delivered lecture by excellent professors in the medical field. (It caused me to submit a paper which was printed in a medical journal about how to talk to patients.)
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 11:07 oh, what fun!!! AND HERE IS A CRITIQUE BY AI OF YOUR CHAT GPT STATEMENT: The statements are too weakly framed to defend homeopathy ethically in any robust sense. They correctly note that ethical assessment is not identical to scientific validity, but they ignore that a practice built on implausible claims can still be ethically compromised by deception, delay of effective care, and institutional endorsement of falsehoods. Where the argument is sound The first sentence is right that ethics depends partly on how something is practiced: disclosure, honesty, informed choice, and referral when serious illness is possible matter morally. That is a standard point in informed-consent discussions in complementary medicine. It is also true that “insufficient evidence” alone does not automatically prove that every individual act involving homeopathy is unethical. A patient who is fully informed, not misled, and not diverted from effective treatment may be in a different moral category from a practitioner who markets homeopathy as effective medicine. Where the logic fails The key flaw is that the statements treat ethics as if it were mostly a matter of delivery style, when for homeopathy the central issue is the content of the claim itself. If the practice rests on propositions that are scientifically unsupported, then presenting those propositions in a clinical setting risks misleading patients even when the tone is gentle and the consent form is polished. The second sentence is especially slippery. “It does not logically follow” is true in the narrowest formal sense, but it is rhetorically misleading because it suggests that the ethical burden is mainly on critics to prove that every case is unethical. In reality, a medical practice that systematically trades on false or unjustified beliefs has a heavy ethical deficit even before one looks at individual bedside manners. Why “informed choice” is not enough “Patients retain the freedom to make informed decisions” sounds persuasive, but it understates how easily autonomy is distorted when the product being offered is wrapped in therapeutic language that implies efficacy. Autonomy requires not just freedom, but truthful information; otherwise the choice is formally voluntary but substantively misinformed. That matters because homeopathy is often defended as harmless “choice,” yet critics have long pointed out the ethical risks of false belief, wasted resources, and failure to seek effective care. Once those harms are present, appealing to patient freedom does not rescue the practice; it only shows that the patient was allowed to be misled on their own terms. The stronger critique A sharper formulation would be: homeopathy can only be defended ethically in the rare case where it is offered with complete honesty about its lack of evidential support, without exaggerated claims, without substitution for necessary medical care, and without using the authority of healthcare to legitimize false beliefs. But that stripped-down version leaves little recognizable as mainstream therapeutic practice, which is precisely why many ethicists judge homeopathy itself, not just some bad uses of it, to be ethically problematic. So the original statements are best read as a partial defense of patient autonomy, not a convincing ethical defense of homeopathy as a clinical practice. The problem is not just what some practitioners do badly; it is that the practice is difficult to separate from misleading claims and the normalization of ineffective treatment.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 09:07 Congratulations Edzard, Gemini Ai hardly surprisingly rather likes your blog post. It is near perfect! Chat GPT though when I asked it to critique the article from a homeopathic view point gave the following summary. Sometimes you take one example of a homeopath doing something and then extrapolate to cover all homeopaths. This is why in the UK Trading Standards and the MHRA ignore this kind of article. SUMMARY FROM CHAT GPT OF EDZARD’S ARTICLE WHEN ASKED TO CRITIQUE IT The article’s fundamental weakness is that it assumes that the lack of acceptance of homeopathy within mainstream biomedical science automatically establishes that homeopathy is unethical. However, these are separate questions. The ethical evaluation of homeopathy should depend on how it is practiced: whether patients are given accurate information, whether practitioners make appropriate claims, whether patients are encouraged to seek necessary medical care, and whether patients retain the freedom to make informed decisions. Even if one accepts that the scientific evidence for homeopathy is insufficient, it does not logically follow that every use of homeopathy is inherently unethical.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 09:07 Here’s another very practical reason why homeopathy is unethical: https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC12303440#sec1 In short: most homeopathic preparations should contain nothing detectable at all – yet in reality, they are often found to contain harmful substances such as lead, industrial solvents and a host of other contaminants. There are also examples where homeopathic dilutions of toxic substances still contained significant – and sometimes even deadly – amounts of said substances, e.g.: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/10/fda-homeopathic-teething-gels-may-have-killed-10-babies-sickened-400/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-51319-w It appears that ‘quality control’ is not exactly a priority of water-shaking clowns.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 08:07 I discussed this with AI; after some toing and froing, it came up with this answer: The evidence I have supports this conclusion: there is no broad, verified set of current elite scientists publicly endorsing homeopathy, and any name-by-name list would need careful checking against public statements, not just citation rankings.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 07:07 You do love an appeal to authority don’t you, Dana. So why don’t you tell us which governments endorse homeopathy and which leading hospitals use it.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Friday 24 July 2026: 02:07 A hundred times I asked you, Mr Ullman, a hundred (1C) times. People will reasonably conclude that you did not answer because you cannot.
- Comment by on How unethical is homeopathy? Thursday 23 July 2026: 18:07 What ON EARTH does Darwin’s and Rockefeller’s private health care choices have to do with anything???
