I Challenge Edzard Ernst and the Evil Empire Part IV

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, also denounced homeopathy, but it was on the same grounds as she dismissed allopathy. Professor Edzard Ernst, first chair of Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the University of Exeter in England does not apply such a global perspective to the subject in his argument against homeopathy. His own assertions seep through his dismissals, sweeping aside the evidence with the same dinghy reasoning.

Just as homeopathy competed with her faith healing, it competes with his, the faith healing of the of the hard drug racket of Pfizer, GlaxoSnithKilne and Aventis.

Ernst is their front man. 
Professor Ernst says the evidence for homeopathic verum is insufficient, and so it must be placebo. Very well then, where is his evidence for homeopathic placebo?

What? Yes of course. You don’t think acccusations of guilt don’t need to be proven, do you? Then why is the placebo charge that bears with it the appellation of sham sotolerated?

The accuser must prove it, or suffer the same penalty. And Ernst can’t prove it!
Look, do the math. Homeopathy (H) not equaling verum (V) is not proof for H equaling placebo (P). P must be proven for H by the same terms demanded for H proving V.
But it gets even worse. Ernst doesn’t define what he means by placebo!
Edzard Ernst makes no reference to scientific tests for placebo. Edzard Ernst gives us no theory for psychosomatic, psychogenic effects. Edzard Ernst does not even define what he means by placebo, because placebo is not a scientific term. It is a word from another kingdom.
There are multiple definitions for placebo. In Latin placebo means “to please.” Placebo is primarily a religious term, the opening words for the evening prayers of Vespers. A placebo used to refer to someone who would come to a funeral for the free food and drink. They could be spotted as phonies because it would be the first words out of their mouths when they entered.
And so it is with Ernst, coming to the funeral he’s set for something he’s trying to kill.
“Homeopathy’s dead,” announces Ernst as he enters the hall of science “Placebo” is his word for admission, and the pseudoscientists he lords it over bow and pray to their golden pseudoscience calf!.
But homeopathy is not dead.

In the first installment of this series, I challenged Edzard Ernst to a duel. I challenged him to match me, study for study, placebo for verum, head to head, arm and leg, mano a mano. He shows us a scientific study that shows homeopathy is “placebo,” I show one for verum, the opposite of placebo.
In medical jargon, medical means a sham, verum means the truth.
And that is what I’m here to do. My colleagues and I are here to reveal the lie, show the truth, heal the sick, cleanse the leper, dissolve the cancer, stop malaria, end diabetes, cast out demons. And as an added bonus, not only will we do that, I will reveal the classical science behind the homeopathic remedy, its modus operandi, how it works and its physical structure, right down to the atom.
In ten years of study I have met every shape of skeptic and argument that the broad breadths of the world can furnish, and never to date have I lowered my arm. Every argument against homeopathy is based on fallacy and lie, as spread by the likes of Edzard Ernst.
Excuse me. I, John Benneth, have lectured in the world’s most prestigious halls before the most learned audiences, such as Hahnemann College in London, and the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge. I have stood before the most discerning audiences. But, as one of the world’s greatest physicists was likened to say, no one has yet proven me wrong. And they won’t. They can’t. I am about to reveal to the world one of its greatest mysteries. the supramolecular mechanics of the world greatest medicine, hitherto unknown.
My testaments are supported . . not by entertainers, magicians, pseudoscientists or journalist doctors nor convicted racketeers, as Ernst’s are, but by real scientists, Nobel laureates and professors of the material sciences.
I don’t draw upon the inhabitants of fantasy land like Edzard Ernst, James Randi, John Beddington or David Colquhoun do. I don’t need to posture and pose as if Avogadro finished this sentence, as Michael Shermer and Simon Singh will do. I don’t need to scribble a column for a white washing newspaper like Ben Goldacre does. No! I look to the hard sciences for my answers.
So I can say, without doubt or wish for more, that the case for the world’s greatest medicine is now complete. And with the help of Edzard Ernst, I will spread the truth about homeopathy.
I speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Listen, there were times when I thought that money and reputation spoke louder than the truth. The problem was I was not listening, there was quite enough to go around for all to enjoy. Someone is always standing about who doesn’t care about the money, and that’s the guy who blows the whistle.

Listen! and you will learn one of the greatest truths ever known to Man.
John Benneth, PG Hom. – London (Hons.)

COMING SOON: John Benneth’s Structure of Belief

7 comments on “I Challenge Edzard Ernst and the Evil Empire Part IV

  1. Kaviraj says:

    Descartes laid the philosophical groundwork for the modern scientific period, by separating subjective cognition from objective bodies, thereby also dividing epistemology from ontology, reducing knowing to indifferent “observation.” This is the perspective of consciousness and its object, of which material science only imperfectly studies the object. In reality these two are not separated but dialectically related and sublimated in the higher comprehending original unity of self-consciousness. Physical scientists fail to study these higher categories of reality and are therefore left with an incomplete understanding of a mere superficial nature that is inadequate to comprehend the core truth.

    But scientific, rational inquiry will not stop until a comprehensive idea is reached that is coherent with the full range of our knowledge of life. That spectrum of knowledge is not circumscribed merely by chemistry, physics and mathematics.


    • Nigel says:

      That is hilarious. Do you take yourself seriously?

      Are you trying to suggest that you can obtain knowledge through direct subjective experience of reality? (That appears to be what homeopaths want to be able to do). After all, objective experiments don’t come out too good.

      Then again, I am guessing – because actually, you are engaging in false erudition. You are attempting to appear philosophically sophisticated when in fact you are talking gobbledygook.


  2. Kaviraj says:

    It must be properly appreciated that homoeopathic knowledge is also systematic, scientific and rational but requires a different epistemic-ontological grounding than the impersonal/materialist paradigm assumes.


    • Adam says:

      Sometimes it’s hard to tell on these crazy alt-med websites, so you’re going to have to help me out here.

      Are you being serious or just taking the piss?


  3. Guy Chapman says:

    This is your funniest column to date! All you have done is attack people for asking you to prove what you claim. That is schoolyard rhetoric and not science.

    You have chosen to play on the field of science by positioning homeopathy as a branch of medicine and claiming the title “doctor”. That means you will be judged by the rules of science. That will continue to happen even if you attack every single scientist in the world, by name.

    Now a question for you: do you find Ben Goldacre to be suddenly wise and credible when he dissects the manipulation of the scientific publishing process by the pharmaceutical industry? Is it only when he applies the same standards to the claims of homeopathy that he is “white washing” and “scribbling”? Is this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/27/pharmaceuticalindustry a masterpiece, or is he just covering up for his hatred of homeopathy by focusing *most of his output* on criticising failings in mainstream medicine?

    Another question for you: how would you describe someone who uses an “Electro Physiological Feedback Xrroid” to misdiagnose and “treat” someone who in fact has undiagnosed leukaemia? Do you support “energy medicine” or do you treat it with scepticism?


    • Kaviraj says:

      You are the one laying the charges. You prove guilty and since you cannot, we are innocent.

      Guy, you fool, you don’t understand anything. Stop making a fool of yourself. We know how you skeptics work. You deny all scientific evidence and tell us we are guilty.

      Yet you have not proven anything. Show us your 200 studies that prove it is placebo. You cannot, you empty-headed bluffer!


    • Kaviraj says:

      Ben Goldacre only publishes critiques of pharmaceutical quackery that has been exposed elsewhere already. He is just covering his @ss.


What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s