Alternative view 2

This is the cheapest form of bullying and ad hominem attack, and as such is exactly what we have come to expect from the homeopathy industry, although not from THES. It is entirely normal to expect that your ideas will be subjected to critical examination. This is the case in medicine, engineering, history, and literature. In the world of alternative medicine, critical appraisal of ideas is unheard of, and when anyone dares to question the ideas, they are met with hostility, and a sense of wounded victimhood. The ultimate goal of the homeopaths' energetic campaign is to prevent their ideas being examined, at whatever cost necessary. This does a great disservice to alternative medicine, which - but for the intolerance of some of its adherents, their blindness to the modest risks of their discipline, and their blank refusal to discuss them - could be a perfectly useful addition to the healing professions. Dr Ben Goldacre www.badscience.net

Ms Shine states that Professor Edzard Ernst is failing to meet the criteria of his appointment based solely on her disagreement with his research demonstrating the failure of homeopathy as a recognised treatment modality (if one discounts the placebo response). <p>That homeopathy is disenfranchised from other CAMs when scrutinised using objective and extensive evaluation of the clinical evidence by Professor Ernst and his team is insufficient reason for such petulance. <p>It is disingenuous of Ms Shine to imply Lady Laing 'very possibly used' homeopathy. On such level of evidence she 'very possibly' may also have used Shamanism, orthomolecular medicine, Kelloggs cornflakes or even stargazing as treatment modalities. <p>Using the allegory of 'searching for electricity using a microscope' is a futile parallel to conventional medicine and its robust research techniques being used to judge homeopathy - and other CAMs (of which Professor Ernst is less dismissive). <p>By such criteria one could abandon any level of science or medical knowledge to promote one's own beliefs. Thus the moon is made of green cheese, eating green leafy vegetables only benefit those who read the THE, and homeopathy is a science.

There is indeed now a "significant body of high quality research" about homeopathy. And the outcome of that research is that the sugar pills don't work. There's a surprise. <p>But one can hardly expect Michelle Shine to admit that since she makes her living by selling people medicines that contain no medicine. She makes the outrageous, and dangerous, claim that "All conditions can be treated (mental, emotional and physical)". She claims that a sugar pill is "our number one remedy" for malaria, an idea that endangers the public so much that, if it is not criminal, it ought to be, <p>Ernst, on the other hand, has no financial interests to cloud his judgement. He has done a great service to everyone (including any honest CAM enthusiast) by assessing carefully and honestly what works and what doesn't. The only people not to applaud his efforts are those who are making money by selling treatments that don't work .(Well, perhaps also the odd vice chancellor who is getting bums on seats teaching students about things that don't work as though they were effective).

What a low attack on Professor Edzard Ernst. If this is representative of the homeopathic community's response to someone who dares criticise their beliefs and practices then they should be hanging their heads in shame. <p>An academic's first commitment is to honestly appraise, develop and report the evidence in their chosen field. Michelle Shine would appear to prefer to see Ernst promulgate the canards and deceptions of alternative medicine. That professors do exist in UK Universities who do appear to engage in uncritical indoctrination of discredited pseudoscience is no indictment of Ernst, but a dreadful reflection of the state of Higher Education and where it is going.

It is an interesting point that Ms Shine raises. I would like to know which qualifications in complementary medicine are held by the current Chair. I assume they are ample, but someone may be able to clarify. I ask because I think I am not the only member of the public to be slightly bemused by the current chair holder's appetite for 'mud slinging' at CAMs. His arguments are, it is true, presented as contributions to scientific discussion but they tend to be very 'media-friendly' rather than academic in tone. (I recall, for instance, his comparison of homeopathy and 'witchcraft'). <p>I was cured of debilitating illness by a homeopath, after my GP advised me to resign from my job and predicted that I would need a wheelchair. After a course of homeopathy, I was soon back in full-time work, as witnessed by family, friends, neighbours and colleagues (plus a dash of clinical assessment by the GP who declared me fit). I made no other change in medication or lifestyle to account for my dramatice recovery and I most certainly did not 'believe in' homeopathy because I had never heard of it before (in fact the prediction of my well-meaning GP had made me feel extremely pessimistic). <p>A single cured case does not constitute evidence but many thousands of such cases do and, since such cases abound, it is in the interests of humanity that our curiosity should be aroused and dispassionate observation (the very basis of science) used to understand this profoundly beneficial system of medicine so that as many people as possible may be helped by it. <p>As for the explanation, the frontiers of science are forever extending. We can never predict the future but one thing I think most people would agree on is that the frontiers of science will not remain static the 21st century. Splitting the atom, am I right in thinking, provoked even more disbelief at the time than the action of the potentized remedy does today, among some (though by no means most) scientists?

The core of research and scholarship is critical examination of ideas, methods, and theories. <p>People who endow chairs, and centres at Universities, presumably hope to encourage scholarship: not uncritical advocacy, promotion and PR. The Rufford Laing foundation's website actually states that they fund "scientific research into efficacy of complementary health treatments", which is exactly what Edzard Ernst has been doing since he took the Laing Chair. <p>To me this contemptible attack on Ernst for being a scholar rather than a booster demonstrates rather clearly the intellectual bankruptcy of Ms Shine, and of the practise she claims to be defending.

Professor Ernst's own book (with Simon Singh) gives his background in studying and applying homeopathy. <br>"There is a significant body of high-quality scientific research supporting homoeopathy, which can now be added to more than 200 years of case histories - all of which verifies homoeopathy as a valid system of medicine." <br>Citations for this would be welcomed.

Whether or not Ernst, or any of us, are scholars will be a moot point one humdred years from now. We will all be very dead and science will have moved on considerably, I hope, and history will judge us. Perhaps it will not bother! <p>There is currently a great deal of rhetoric on both sides of the argument for and against homoeopathy, but everyone has the right to state their case. We are not in the school playground and have to take it all on the chin! But one thing we should all remember, despite the current 'fallout' of internet-based slanging matches and large and deeply offended egos, is that true scientific knowledge progresses in spite of these different viewpoints - indeed it often appears to thrive on them! <p>If we all thought in exactly the same way, and studied in the same way, we would miss things - too much linear thinking! So attempting to silence your opposition is not really in everyone's best interests! <p>There is a huge amount of verbal ping-pong going on at the moment - at some point we are all going to find it boring and move on, from trying to change other people's minds to focus on improving our own. <p>Science is still in its infancy. None of us knows everything - otherwise there would be no research departments in universities at all! The main problem with homoeopaths is that they take into account the 'unknown' factor of the so-called Vital Force, which makes a huge difference to the way they think, and is why they clash with 'real scientists' so often. Real scientists just talk dismissively about the 'placebo effect' when they see homoeopathy working. But neither they cannot explain what the driver is behind this very powerful 'placebo effect'! Nor do they seem to feel it's necessary to investigate. <p>A bit like saying the moon is made of Green Cheese, really...

Further, the same site says: "The Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation provided a grant of £106,045 to support George Lewith’s part-time research position leading the Complementary and Integrated Medicine Research Unit (CAM) in 2007/08." <p>This is at the University of Southampton.

I think the best response to this rather poor letter would be to use Edzard Ernst's own words: <p>"People mistakenly think I must be a promoter of complementary medicine - that I should have an allegiance to the camp. I don't. My allegiance is firstly to the patient - I feel that very strongly as an ex-clinician - and secondly to science. If in the course of that I have to hurt the feelings of homeopaths I regret that, but I can't help it."

Jane Hammond: if Ernst's allegiance is 'firstly to the patient' and patients get better with homeopathy, how is denigrating homeopathy beneficial to patients?

Ah! Then R.M.Laing was even worse that I thought... ;) <p>The chair with new conception, which I said about, could carry out the test of different methods of so-called complementary medicine. Moreover this chair would openly proclaim as its aim - the struggle against ANY quackery in science and medicine. <p>The appearance of the first Chair with such conception would mean the beginning of open extrusion of quackery from the system of Higher Education. It would be the end of quackery in Universities. Besides, my remark about David Colquhoun as a potential Head of new Chair means the threat for another idiotic rule of Britain higher education. It is well-known thing that David Colquhoun is a retired scientist. And my proposal would mean the abolishment of discrimination of Britain scientists on the basis of age. <p>My proposal about the possible consultation job at new Chair for E.Ernst was made only because other quackbasters (Andy Lewis, Ben Goldacre, David Colquhoun, etc) defend actively E.Ernst. I have special point of view about this question. I oppose ANY quackery in science and medicine. That is why the current position of Ernst as a professor of CAM is sufficient reason for me to consider him as a quack despite his criticism of quackery. Nevertheless, I think that he is able to show himself as a good scientist. I suppose he has sufficient experience for this both in medicine and in scientific investigations. There is no necessity for him to be engaged in quackery.

Homeopathy4health writes: <p>"...the Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation is run by Maurice's son John Hedley Laing. In 2007 this foundation gave £20,000 to fund an information centre manager and CAM database at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital: www.rufford.org. Hardly an endorsement for the work of Ernst and the Peninsular School of Medicine. <p>Further, the same site says: "The Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation provided a grant of £106,045 to support George Lewith’s part-time research position leading the Complementary and Integrated Medicine Research Unit (CAM) in 2007/08." <p>I don't quite see the point being made. The Laing Foundation funds sources of information about, and research into, CAM. Both Lewith and his unit, and Ernst and his, publish research into CAM, although Ernst is far more sceptical than Lewith. <p>Is H4H backing Michelle Shine's view, essentially that Ernst's chair should be occupied by an uncritical promoter of CAM? How does uncritical promotion meet the standard for academic scientific enquiry and scholarship? <p>If CAM is to be "integrated" into the medical mainstream, which is what most CAM advocates claim they want, it should be subjected to the same kind of, and standard, of rigorous enquiry as modern mainstream interventions, whether biomedical or psychological.. If a given CAM method is is effective, the trials will show this and it will become an accepted therapy. This is precisely what Ernst tries to do. <p>Far too many CAM advocates seem to basically want "integration" to mean, as David Colquhoun and others put it "integrating treatments that don't work with ones that do". When Ernst speaks out against this kind of doublethink he is actually doing CAM a service by trying to drag it into a world where lying to patients is no longer acceptable.

H4H asks "how is denigrating homeopathy beneficial to patients?" <p>Ernst is merely pointing out the obvious that homeopathy is a highly implausible treatment that has failed the test of being subject to rigorous analysis. You cannot denigrate a lie. <p>Ernst is being the patients advocate by carefully explaining this science in the face of continued homeopathic propaganda and misinformation. He should be applauded for his efforts, not be the subject of snide attacks.

I requote: Ernst said: "Then you start working in a homeopathic hospital and people get better" <p>Is that a lie too?

Jane Hammond states: "Ernst is merely pointing out the obvious that homeopathy is a highly implausible treatment that has failed the test of being subject to rigorous analysis." <p>The effects of potentised remedies are highly implausible only if you limit your scientific approach to that of chemistry, and if you rigorously use an inappropriate test. If a wider range of scientific investigatory techniques are used, and if appropriate tests are used, then the results have the chance of according with the clinical evidence - 200 years of clinical evidence. <p>The claim that homeopathy does not work because potentised remedies have 'failed' certain tests is especially nonsensical when drugs fail the same tests without calling into question the whole uncoordinated edifice of drug therapy. This clearly should be a case of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, but the 'sceptics' never extend the latter failures to a systemic criticism of the multi-billion pound pharmaceutical industry. <p>The attacks on homeopathy are not scientific, but based on prejudice, as shown by Ernst and Baum's statement that :"All serious thinkers should have a closed mind on the question of homeopathy: it is anti-scientific and simply does not work." No respectable scientist would associate themselves with such a statement in the face of the overwhelming evidence of patients recovering when treated homeopathically.

Ben Goldacre said: "This is the cheapest form of bullying and ad hominem attack". <p>I hardly think it comes remotely near his own unfounded accusation that homeopaths are murderers - a statement he well knows would have been actionable if he had named any individual homeopath.

Homeopathy4health, you said :" I requote: Ernst said: "Then you start working in a homeopathic hospital and people get better". Is that a lie too?"" <p>Any (least!) notion of logic is absent in your comment. Ernst's words neither a lie nor a truth. It is merely statement, observation. Lie or truth can't exist themselves. In concordance with the laws of logic, the lie or the truth can be determined only by the operation of COMPARISON between one statement and other one. These things are taught even in secondary school. Didn't you know about these things? Oh, then - it is not surprising, that you are busy with the trifles, such as homeopathy. <p>Nevertheless, it is easy to show that mentioned statement is a lie. It is necessary for this merely to compare it with other statement of this type. <p>For example, if mentioned people were at home without any treatment, they would get better too. Without any difference in quality! Neither better nor worse. By the same way. What does it mean? It means that homeopathic treatment is not effective at all. It is nothing, zero, vacuum! And it means that homeopathic treatment is A LIE! Comparison is a basis of a testing. That is why homeopaths (and other quacks) are so afraid of any testing! The testing can show that all complementary medicine is a lie! By the way, the mentioned example is so-called test with placebo. Thus, when they say that homeopathic treatment is not better that placebo, it means that the homeopathic treatment is a lie, illusion. Though, as for differences in mentioned example, there was one "little" difference. Those patients would get better at home free of charge, but in homeopathic hospital they had to pay homeopaths. Pay? What pay? Pay for NOTHING?!! But it means that homeopathy is not only a lie, and it is dirty fraud, the attempt of homeopaths to line their pockets by trade of NOTHING! It is particularly detestable act, considering that they prey upon the sick people! <p>However, I can make another comparison, more strong, which will show us the size and deepness of the homeopathic lie. If these people were under treatment in good hospital of conventional medicine, they would recover from their diseases better, more quickly and completely than when they were in homeopathic hospital or at home? What does this comparison mean? It means that homeopathy is more that simple lie. Homeopathy is dangerous, harmful and bloodcurdling lie, because it prevents patient from effective treatment. It doesn't allow sick people to become healthy. Homeopathy it is A CRIME. <p>At last, I shall make even more severe comparison to show the favourable conditions for existense of this lie. If these people were under treatment in bad hospital, they would die, sorry, "kick the bucket". And those few, who could survive, would become the incurable chronic patients. Thus the result would be hugely worse than the treatment in homeopathic hospital or at home, saying nothing about good conventional hospital. This comparison shows that homeopathy can appear and prosper only there, where bad medicine exists. That is why all homeopaths love so poor countries! For example, countries of Africa, whose less developed economics and insufficient education of politicians doesn't allow to support public health on the proper level. AIDS, malaria, and other terrible diseases are the curse of these countries. And it is necessary to use effective ways for fight against these diseases. For instance, to fight against malaria, the governments of these countries must spend money for the bog reclamation and other engineering measures, for control of mosquitos, for effective treatment of malaria, for education of own national specialists: engineers, physicians, biologists, for education of all citizens. The governments must ask the support of international organizations for these aims. But instead of it, homeopaths thrust and tout them the useless homeopathic remedies for "cure" of malaria. And people (and sometimes even members of governments, answered for public health) yield to the mendacious advices of homeopaths. How must this activity of homeopath be called? What is it? It is crime! Yes, quackbasters called it "killing" and it is right name for such activity. <p>Have you understood now, what is homeopathy and homeopaths from real LOGIC point of view?!

William Alderson claims that homeopathy becomes plausible when we do not limit our scientific approach to chemistry, but fails to say what we should be considering. Magic Fairy Dust? Some homeopathic dissemblers like to invoke the mysteries of quantum physics and water memory. This is totally without foundation, but delights the homeopathic galleries. <p>We also see Alderson accuse Goldacre of calling homeopaths murderers - something he has never done. He has said that homeopaths could kill their customers if they prescribe sugar pills to protect people against dangerous diseases like malaria. That is a fact. <p>The idea that Alderson considers legal threats as a way of countering this serious charge just highlights the dangers of homeopathy. They are unable to address serious criticism of their trade without kicking and screaming like spoilt children. The original letter above is in the same vein. Don't like the message? Try to get the messenger sacked. <p>Shameful.

I had to laugh when I read William Alderson's comment that: <p>"The effects of potentised remedies are highly implausible only if you limit your scientific approach to that of chemistry, and if you rigorously use an inappropriate test." <p>So... if you decide that the known laws of chemistry (and physics and biology) are not working for you, somehow you can claim they mysteriously don't apply and conjure up an alternate reality in which no molecules are more "potent" than some - any - molecules. <p>This is essentially saying that homeopathy is <b>only</b> implausible if you rather meanly insist on reality and reject magic. <p>Alternatively, you could conclude that it is nonsense, at which point you can believe all the trials, and all the experiments, that have repeatedly shown exactly what you would expect: no molecules - no effect.

"The attacks on the homeopathy can be scientific if they are made from the scientific point of view. However, if these attacks are made from other reasonable point of view, they are not scientific, nevertheless, it doesn't mean that such attacks are anti-scientific. It is great difference! For example, James Randi criticises the quackery from point of the circus trick art. It is not science, however his criticism is right and reasonable. It is a truth. Or, for instance, Ben Goldacre criticises the homeopathy from point of honest journalism and good medical practice. It is right and quite relevant criticism too. <p>Moreover - the attack on the homeopathy can be even false, if it is made by the homeopath, who wants merely to save his skin by this double game. But, paradoxically! - even in this case the attack is false only partly. The homeopath is a liar (his real intentions differs from his words), but the words of criticism, which he parrots, is a truth. Thus - in all cases the attacks on the homeopathy are right, useful and honest activity! But ANY defence of homeopathy (taking into account the mendacious essence of homeopathy, which I've exposed in my previous comment) is harmful, anti-scientific, dangerous and even criminal affair!"

Svetlana Pertsovich said: <br>"However, I can make another comparison, more strong, which will show us the size and deepness of the homeopathic lie. If these people were under treatment in good hospital of conventional medicine, they would recover from their diseases better, more quickly and completely than when they were in homeopathic hospital or at home?" <p>Perhaps you should read "Homoeopathy for the First Aider" by Dr. Dorothy Shepherd. She found that people got well very much more quickly with homeopathic treatment.

Andy Lewis and Austin Elliott seem to want to attack the first part of my statement but ignore the second part. <p>As regards the first part: biophysics is a relatively recent field in biology and the degree of physics' importance to an understanding of biology is still unclear. However, I see no reason to assume that it will never supersede chemistry as the primary source of explanations of how organisms work. As such a repetition of the mantra "there is no molecule of the substance in the remedy" is silly, particularly as no homeopath maintains there is (above 12c). What is known is that at the level of cellular interactions with molecules, the results are wholly unpredictable, presenting a chemical analysis of drug effects with a serious and unresolved problem. <p>The second part about the tests used is not answered, and since the claims of homeopathy's failure to work are based on these tests, they need to be shown to be entirely appropriate if we are to take them seriously. The application of a double standard by 'sceptics' in their approach to tests is also a serious flaw in their arguments.

Andy Lewis commented: <br>"We also see Alderson accuse Goldacre of calling homeopaths murderers - something he has never done. He has said that homeopaths could kill their customers" <p>Goldacre said (The Guardian 16/11/07): <br>"homeopathy could have value as placebo, on the NHS even, although there are ethical considerations, and these serious cultural side-effects to be addressed. But when they're suing people instead of arguing with them, telling people not to take their medical treatments, killing patients ..." <p>I would have thought that killing a customer would be murder. Are there circumstances in which it is not?

William Alderson would appear to know as much about law as he does about science. My guess is that a charge of manslaughter might be more appropriate as I am sure there is no malice on the part of the homeopath - just negligence under a duty of care. <p>I note with pleasure that Alderson also dives off into gobbledygook physics to try to rescue homeopathy from implausibility by saying "What is known is that at the level of cellular interactions with molecules, the results are wholly unpredictable, presenting a chemical analysis of drug effects with a serious and unresolved problem. " <p>Does anyone here have any idea what this means?

Absence of logic in reasonings of defenders of homeopathy is not the only demerit. Now William Alderson demonstrates also the attempt to palter with facts and juggle with words. <p>He quotes my words about the comparison between good medicine and homeopathy, but further he refers to Dorothy Shepherd's book. Are there the comparison between GOOD medicine and homeopathy in her "writings"?! Such comparison is absent there at all. Firstly, all her cases are the typical comparison between BAD medicine and homeopathy. However, I said about such comparison in my comment above. Read attentively. Bad medicine is main basis for appearance and prosperity of homeopathy and other quackery! Bad medicine is when bad doctor can't cure of the disease. Shepard uses just similar cases. Moreover, she is bad doctor herself. As we see from her biography, she studied medicine and had the experience in conventional medicine. And the fact of her conversion into homeopath after such experience means that she was very bad doctor. He is mediocrity and zero as a doctor. She couldn't understand medicine and fell into quackery. <p>Secondly, any good conventional (!) doctor knows (MUST know) a lot of methods of cure, including the methods of cure without drugs. All these methods are well founded and quite explainable from point of reason and science. My statement is not second-hand knowledge - there were three generations of doctors and medical specialists in my family and I finished medical University myself. And I know much more astounding cases of treatment from practice of good doctors than Shepard described (without drugs, hypnosis, psychological influence, diet, etc,etc,etc). All these cases are the experience of good conventional medicine and they are scientifically/reasonably founded. But this old woman tries to attribute to useless homeopathic sugar pills all effects of her treatment! Still worse - she dares to recommend the use of such remedies in most dangerous states - in cases, when emergency aid is required (the first medical aid) and in cases of epidemic diseases. This is really crime. Or obnubilation of the intellect. <p>Andy Lewis said: "...I am sure there is no malice on the part of the homeopath - just negligence under a duty of care." Oh, Andy, you are too kind to these quacks... Dorothy Shepard's actions could be regarded more severely than "negligence" or even "criminal omission". Shepard (as well as Edzard Ernst, for example) has higher medical education. And if she tries, being a doctor, to treat patients with quackery methods, then her intentions are a malice. It is likely that some illiterate hoodoo woman from remote village has not a malice, using sugar pills. But medical doctors, using homeopathy instead of normal methods of medicine are criminals. <p>I judge from point of GOOD medicine. From such point of view the homeopaths (as well as other quacks at all) were, are and will be the enemies of medicine, science and reason.

Andy Lewis asks: "....any idea what this means?" <br>What it means?.. ;) Nothing. Zero... <br>What "interactions with molecules" does Alderson try to mention, if he agrees that homeopaths don't use molecules at all??

Andy Lewis, I think you will find "intent" is the word you were looking for, not "malice", and while the implication of Ben Goldacre's remarks is that homeopaths are actively killing patients, and that their actions are intentional, I will accept that he may have meant manslaughter. <p>What is more important is that both you and jdc325 refer to negligence by a practitioner as leading to deaths. Negligence is not unheard of among those who prescribe drugs, nor murder, yet I have not heard you or Ben Goldacre or others brand orthodox doctors as collectively "killing patients". As with tests, a double standard is brought into play when 'sceptics' discuss negligence and homeopathy. <p>In the light of the level of hospital admissions as a result of problems with drug treatments, it would also be better to provide actual figures for those made ill by homeopathy and by drugs. I suspect that the numbers would reflect very favourably on homeopathic treatment.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that this was the Times Higher Education site. It appears to be a playground for those with fixed prejudices and little ability to be rational.

William Alderson points out that double standards are being used, but he did not mention another favourite approach of those opposed to homeopathy: circular arguments. <p>The gist of Svetlana Pertsovich's tirade is that homeopathy does not work; therefore any claim by a doctor that is does work means that the doctor is a bad doctor; since the doctor is a bad doctor their views are wrong; therefore when they say homeopathy works they are wrong and homeopathy does not work. <p>jdc325 and Andy Lewis avoid answering reasonable requests for data comparing drug therapy and homeopathy on the basis that homeopathy does not work or is implausible. This is not the scientific approach of enquiry, but one of preconviction, anathema to scientific investigation. <p>Catherine Collins referred to "conventional medicine and its robust research techniques being used to judge homeopathy - and other CAMs". These research techniques (RCTs) are not robust, and have for decades been questioned from within conventional medicine. Their application to CAM therapies requires careful thought if the results are not to be meaningless. As Michelle Shine points out, Edzard Ernst has a history of ignoring the results of carefully planned RCTs while freely quoting inappropriate studies which support ant-CAM views. An example of this is acupuncture where a number of Ernst's allegations led to careful research by Hugh MacPherson. Macpherson's work disproved the allegations, but it appears that it has subsequently been ignored by Ernst, though Ernst has stopped making the allegations. <p>In this context Shine's comments on Ernst raise reasonable questions about his fitness for the post he holds. After all there is a huge difference between being positively and scientifically critical of one's field and being negatively prejudiced against it. <p>His fitness is also questionable after an incident in 2007. He and David Colquhoun were among those who signed a letter attacking support for homeopathy sent to Primary Care Trusts on NHS headed paper without authorisation for this use of the NHS logo. This is not the action of someone seriously seeking to strengthen the foundations of knowledge, but of someone with a view to promote and no scruples about how it is done.

Oh, what a sly nick... Give-science-chance?? Who is it? Who does try to speak for science? The person, who doesn't concern to science at all! Moreover - the representative of anti-science! Do you see now, who does use dishonest arguments actually? "Give science chance, but don't forgot that it was he, who said these words, so give HIM chance!" <p>Yes, interesting manner of discussion... <p>Nevertheless, he tries in vain. We shall give science chance, certainly. However, it will be REAL Science and real scientists, but not this sir and even not Edzard Ernst (though homeopaths so want to assure us, that Ernst is NOT their colleague). Only real scientists must to carry out the testing and experimental investigations of all medical methods. <p>And he ascribe me in vain his own demagogic manner. My arguments are straight and clear. Bad doctor is who can't cure of a disease (see above, it was said!). And homeopathy doesn't work, because numerous trials have shown it. <p.Homeopathy is actually the absence of treatment. And when bad doctor brings to grave condition of the patient with his wrong treatment and then abolish the treatment at all (or passes on to homeopathy - it is same!) the patient get better. That is why bad doctors and homeopathy likes so each other. Homeopathy seems to work against the background of bad medicine. And bad doctors hide their mistakes (dangerous mistakes!) with homeopathy.

"...I was under the impression that this was the Times Higher Education site..." <p>Yes, it is really the Times Higher Education site. And you hope vainly to turn Higher Education into your territory. <p>"... It appears to be a playground for those with fixed prejudices and little ability to be rational..." <p>You are wrong. It is not playground. It is a battle-field against quackery.

Jane MacPherson said: "You hope vainly to turn Higher Education into your territory. ... It is not playground. It is a battle-field against quackery." <p>So... would you employ Svetlana Pertsovich in a higher educational establishment on this showing? <p>In observing weblogs dealing with homeopathy I have occasionally thought that it would be interesting to parody the nonsensical arguments of those opposed to homeopathy by taking them to their logical extreme. It would now seem that either someone else has already done this, or that the 'parody' exists as a reality. I have no other explanation for Pertsovich's comments. Either way they turn the site into a particularly juvenile playground.

May I put a simple suggestion? <p>Is there a homeopathist out there who would be prepared to mount a controlled double-blind trial of the homeopathic cure of his/her choice? <p>There never is. Not one. <p>On her beautifully laid out website, Michelle Shine says: <p>"Michelle treats both adults and children for a variety of complaints that include both physical and emotional problems." <p>Michelle, from the wide variety of conditions you treat, could you select but one and allow it to be subjected to scientific validation? I suspect the answer will be a firm "no" - shame, for if one of your treatments COULD be validated, that would be a firm rebuttal to all the "badscience" writers. Please, please, prove us wrong. <p>Ernst is completely open minded. He will consider anything. All he asks is that you bring the evidence. Can you produce that evidence?

Interesting switch... The quacks want "logic extreme". And they don't like the youth ;)) <p>OK. Let we try it actually! Doesn't Britain Higher Education (and whole Britain) want to choose the young healthy opinion, good science and medicine, honesty and truth? Well! Let Britain choose ancient overworn doctrine, smelled of age-old mould and putridity; lie, sham and quackery. Doesn't this country and its Higher Education want to choose the youth and the future? Let they choose the ancient idiotism and the past. And we shall see - whether Britain and its Higher Education will survive or not! <p>Yes, Jane MacPherson is right - it is a battle. And if homeopaths think that it is a game, then it is a game of survival! If Britain choose the homeopathy, CAM, other quackery, then it will kill itself without the only shot. <p>Moreover, if sly old fox E. Ernst, which was never a good scientist (!), will be chosen, the result will not be better. Yes, he is clever and knowing. He makes right conclusions. But he has not right to play main role in fight against quackery. His role and voice are merely consultative. Real scientists and good medical specialists must play main role. <p>The youth is not a minus, it is a plus. It is new scientific discoveries, new technologies, progress. But the old age, despite of its great experience and wisdom, can sometimes prevents from a right solution even very clever people. Or else how to explain that Baum's group (13 (12!) oldest scientists, who wrote known letter against homeopathy) bears with presence of homeopath among them? Yes, they are brilliant great scientists! Their initiative is very important and exceptionally valuable. We must decidedly support it. But - with one little amendment. We absolutely support 12 oldest scientists from Baum's group. But 13th member?... He is still homeopath... <p>Thus, "logic extreme" for juvenile playground, noisy with children's voices, can be only senility and sepulchral crosses. I don't think that our world has so degraded, that it will choose the latter.

Dr John Crippen (NHS BLOG DOCTOR) make demands that appear perfectly reasonable ... so long as you do not ask exactly what is meant by the terms he uses. <p>Take: "a controlled double-blind trial of the homeopathic cure of his/her choice". 1. A cure in orthodox medicine is defined differently from a cure in homeopathy, so one would need to agree which term is being used. 2. To use the orthodox definition to test the action of homeopathic treatment is to use an inappropriate measure, rendering the test invalid. 3. Even if the orthodox medical definition is used, it requires five years for it to be confirmed, making such a trial highly impractical and expensive. 3. If the homeopathic term is used, then account also has to be taken of the fact that the cure of each individual may require a sequence of prescriptions with the choice of remedy depending on the reaction to previous prescriptions. If the practitioner is ignorant of what treatment the patient has actually received then his/her judgement is undermined. It is like playing golf without being told where the ball is or whether you have hit it. This makes designing a double-blinded trial very difficult. 4. RCT's are based on using a single medicine for a group of patients conforming to a definition of a particular illness. However, in homeopathy the same group might well need different remedies for each individual, and a group requiring the exactly same remedy could easily have wholly different orthodox definitions of illness. <p>The 'simple' requirement is nothing like simple in practice. <p>Or take: "could you select but one [condition] and allow it to be subjected to scientific validation?" 5. The definition of the condition would need to be agreed, since orthodox medicine defines them on the basis of common symptoms, whereas homeopathy defines the condition on the basis of individuality of symptoms. 6. Orthodox definitions are arbitrary and subject to change, becoming increasingly refined as knowledge increases (e.g. apoplexy becomes a TIA or a stroke; a stroke is either ischaemic or haemorrhagic, etc.). The logical conclusion of this process is to define the condition in terms of the individual patient's symptoms (as homeopaths do). 7. To test homeopathic treatment on the basis of an orthodox definition of a condition is to use an inappropriate measure rendering the trial invalid. 8. To test treatment against an abstract and arbitrary standard is unscientific 9. Randomised control trials can only produce scientifically valid results if they are so well designed that all significant factors except the particular one being tested are cancelled out between the arms of the trial. If they fail to produce a binary result (one in which all the verum arm results differ from all the placebo arm results), then there must be at least one other significant factor acting. In such a case the trial has failed to produce a test of the particular factor being investigated, since the relative significance of the unknown factors and the one under investigation cannot be known. This explains the failure of orthodox drugs in practice after RCT testing. 10. What is the theoretical framework within which this "scientific validation" is to take place? Drug tests use RCTs precisely because there is no consistent theory, no science of medicine. There are only piecemeal hypotheses. <p>Again an apparently simple demand is shown to have extremely complex ramifications. In their eagerness to condemn it, opponents of homeopathy all too often rely on using this type of short-hand in order not to provide opportunities for scientific investigation but to conceal the truth.

Hmmm... Dr. Crippen's "simple suggestion" is unlikely to help homeopaths now. Only two weeks ago it might be a heaven-sent opportunity for them. But now... <p>If homeopaths don't bring the evidence, we shall say (quite right) that homeopathy don't work. But if they bring the evidence to Edzard Ernst and he states that given homeopathic treatment works, I shall say ( and all good science will say, because I've formulated its opinion here) that homeopathy DON'T work and Edzard Ernst tries merely to blanch over his colleagues. <p>Neither the testimonies of high-ranking homeopath nor certifications from university chairs of homeopathy (or other quackery chairs - the shame of some universities!!) can be a sufficient ground for validation of homeopathy. <p>The only method exists. Bring the evidence of your treatment effectiveness to real scientists plus good doctors. If they consider (carry out scientific investigations and testing) and say that this treatment is effective, it will be a sufficient ground for its validation. <p>By the way, Dr. Crippen's comment helped to show how easily and simply Edzard Ernst could become the advocate of homeopathy. Oh, his authority! Even quackbasters believe him! Nevertheless, his authority and his opinion is not a medical and scientifical standard. And the only thing , which you could get from Edzard Ernst is his miserable 10000 pounds ;) <p>Good medicine and real science are the only standard.

To givescienceachance: I'm afraid that your response to the challenge for homeopaths to produce double-blinded evidence of efficacy can be summed up as follows: Homeopaths are too scared to submit their medicine to trial, so they invent wild and unsupportable excuses to avoid it. <p>Truly, these excuses have been around since Hahnemann was still alive. And that old codger was just too cantankerous and stuck in his ways even then to give way. Nothing has changed since... <p>Perhaps homeopaths would like to try this little test themselves. In the privacy of their own practice, perhaps. Have someone else put a 30C remedy (any one will do) and blank solvent the same as the remedy was made with in identical unmarked bottles. Now use any method, that's ANY method, you like to reliably distinguish them one from the other. No cheating, of course. Then try the same process with other 30C remedies. Do that reliably 10 times in a row...then you can come back and talk to us about the efficacy of homeopathy. <p>Until then, you are, as they say in the USA, just whistlin' Dixie.