Edzard Ernst - why he changed his mind!

BBC Radio 4 gave Professor Edzard Ernst a 15 minute slot to explain "Why I Changed My Mind' on Wednesday 4th May 2016. It was repeated on 12th May 2016. He was interviewed by Dominic Lawson. The programme demonstrates the lengths to which the BBC is prepared to go in order under undermine Alternative Medicine, and Homeopathy, in particular.

Lawson set the tone. Ernst, he stated, is hated by alternative health practitioners, the Prince of Wales tried to get him sacked, and he eventually lost his academic post because of the criticism he attracted for his work. Ernst was left to agree with this dreadfully unfair and unreasonable treatment. So Ernst was then led to explain his 'change of mind' about homeopathy. As a friend and colleague of mine said,

          "Ernst (says) that as a German, he was raised on Homeopathy, and later treated his patients with homeopathy. And it worked! But when he approached it 'scientifically', he concluded that it's merely placebo."

So let's be clear. Ernst's experience of homeopathy has  been that it does work, but that the science he has looked at does not demonstrate that it works. (Even this is wrong, but leave that for now!) So people do get better as the result of homeopathic treatment, but 'science', or at least Ernst's science, does not understand why it should. Ernst also said that he was convinced, at the time, that he was 'helping patients'.

Lawson then asked his most difficult question (sic). If he knew that homeopathy worked, why did it work? Ernst's response was that it was charlatanism and quackery, and was "quite puzzling' really. So as homeopathy worked, but science said it should not work, he went on to study this in his post at Exeter University.

Lawson, in the great tradition of BBC impartiality, (sic), continued to lead him on. "When did you decide that homeopathy was useless, delusional?"

Ernst said that when he 'did the science' it became clear that homeopathy is placebo.

Now, lets look at this word, placebo. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'the placebo effects' as"

          "A beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient’s belief in that treatment"

So by using the term 'placebo' Ernst is once again saying the homeopathy has a 'beneficial effect' on patients who are ill. Lawson did ask Ernst whether there was anything wrong using placebo if this brought positive benefits to patients. Ernst said that people got better anyway! (Is it really is a simple as this?)

Lawson, now thoroughly convinced of Ernst's arguments, asked him whether he thought homeopaths were lying. With some apparent grace, Ernst said that lying was a strong term, but they were 'deluded', and 'treated homeopathy as a religion'.

Lawson came back, asking why there were lots of qualified doctors who believe in homeopathy, and whether they should be struck off, or stopped from practising? No, said Ernst, they were just not thinking critically, and needed to be educated out of their delusions.

Presumably, for both Lawson and Ernst, using a medical therapy that worked and brought benefit to patients, but which science could not explain, should be restricted, if not banned altogether.

Lawson's final question clearly demonstrated his partiality. "Can we justify homeopathy, or any other kind of quackery? (My emphasis). "No", said Ernst, predictably!

The BBC regularly broadcasts these kind of anti-homeopathy, anti-alternative-medicine programmes, with never an attempt to redress the balance. They will never broadcast a programme that provides an alternative medical view. The BBC appears to be firmly in the camp of the conventional medical establishment, and committed to providing time to anti-homeopaths without any 'right of reply'.

Why, for example, was there no question about the quality of the 'science' Ernst is associated with?  Certainly, his science has come under serious scrutiny. For instance, I blogged about "The contribution of Professor Edzard Ernst to disinformation about Homeopathy" in September 2015. This followed an assessment made by Professor Robert Kahn about the quality of Ernst's science. This was his conclusion.

          "I have never seen a science writer so blatantly biased as Edzard Ernst: his work should not be considered of any worth at all, and discarded."

Kahn's paper shows, in his view, how 'science' has been taken over by ideology, (or as I suggested the financial interests of Big Corporations like Big Pharma). He revealed that in order to demonstrate homeopathy is ineffective over 95% of scientific research into homeopathy has to be discarded or removed!

There was, of course, no mention of this in the BBC programme!

So if Ernst's change of mind was 'scientific', it was based on bad science, the kind of science much discussed in this blog, bought science, cheque book science, the kind of science based on university faculties funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Ernst's funding dried up when his academic position had become untenable, and he lost the support of his financial backers. As my friends and colleague said, in response to the programme:

          "Ernst's religion is Science, not the well being of the patients. I wonder how many listeners will
be influenced by him as he does come across as an experienced and rational man?" 

I agree with her assessment. Anyone can come over as an 'experience and rational man' when given an uncritical platform, such as this BBC programme proved to be. Certainly, Peter Fisher, the Queen's homeopath, was one of his main critics. Why, Lawson asked Ernst, did homeopathy have 'such a grip' on the Royal Family? Ernst did not know, but he did know that "when they get really ill they do not go to a homeopathy, otherwise they would not get so old!"

At this point I began to wonder on what knowledge Ernst used to know how the Royal Family were being treated, and scientific basis his belief that their longevity was nothing to do with homeopathy? The question was never asked, so we will, I fear, never know!

BBC News Attacks Homeopathy Again

The BBC (and indeed most of the mainstream media) hates Homeopathy, in much the same way that it loves, and indeed, does all it can, to promote conventional medicine, and support the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies. The BBV, our public broadcaster, takes every opportunity to attack Homeopathy and Homeopaths, and in doing so, forgets entirely about its Editorial Guidelines which focus on 'Impartiality'.

The latest attack comes from BBC South West, and its "Inside Out" programme, which last night (14th January 2013) featured another attack on Homeopathy. You can watch it here. Or read about it here. However, in truth, you could save yourself time - it is the usual BBC News bias and bile, easily and simply described here. This programme follows an almost identical pattern to the notorious 'Newsnight' programme which gratuitously attacked Homeopathy in January 2011.

1. Underlying BBC's anti-Homeopathy programmes is the assumption that conventional medical vaccines (and drugs) are the treatments we should all be having (this time for Pertussin, or Whooping Cough). And if we do not avail ourselves of these treatments, there is a problem for the BBC to address. We are either foolish, or misguided. The MP for Totnes, Dr Sarah Wollaston, who figures in this programme, is a well-known and vocal opponent of Homeopathy (and supporter of drug-based medicine), who decries the fact that only 7 out of 10 children in her Devon constituency have been vaccinated against Pertussin. The DTP vaccine is, of course, given routinely to babies just a few months old - and parents have to 'opt out' to prevent their children having the injection. It is not a matter of parents 'forgetting' to get their children vaccinated!

The BBC's commitment to drug-based conventional medicine appears to be total. Their health and science correspondents appear to take the 'Sense About Science' approach to the Health Debate. And as a result, as far as the BBC is concerned, there is no Health Debate. The BBC's commitment to Big Pharma drugs can be seen in every news bulletin which presents them as 'magic bullets', and refuses to discuss their 'side-effects', 'adverse-reactions', or disease-inducing-effects (DIEs).

2. The programme completely ignores the obvious question that most good journalists would, at some point, want to ask - why are so many parents actively refusing to allow their children to have the DPT vaccination.

The BBC never moves beyond the assumption that such people are foolish, or badly informed, and that have no good or justifiable reason for doing so. The BBC never seems to want to investigate why people are asking Homeopaths for an alternative to something the NHS gives to them 'free'. What is their motivation? It is clear that the BBC does not want to ask them the question.

3. The programme ignores the 'good reasons' for refusing the DPT vaccine - that there are serious questions about both its effectiveness, and its safety for our children. These are not the quirky and unfounded prejudices of silly people. The concerns arise from solid evidence; from large numbers of parents who have children who were normal before vaccination, and sick afterwards; and from research evidence that is routinely ignored by the BBC.

• Evidence from USA that a deadly new pertussis strain is linked with whooping cough vaccine
• Outbreaks Proof That Whooping Cough Vaccines Don’t Work | International Medical Council on Vaccination.
• Whooping cough strain 'breaking through' vaccines - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
• Whooping Cough Vaccine – Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”. Child Health Safety.
• Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated.

It is this kind of evidence that persuade parents to seek alternative treatment, and to refuse conventional vaccinations. They are right in seeking safer and more effective treatments. They do not do so for any other reason than they feel that such vaccines are dangerous, and they no longer trust what the Conventional Medical Establishment, supported by the media, tells them. This biased BBC programme merely reinforces this view.

4. The programme makes the implicit assumption that the recent increase in the number of serious Pertussin cases, including a handful of deaths, are the result of children who have not received the DPT vaccine.

The ability of BBC News to make this assumption depends on their ability, and determination to ignore the growing evidence that various recent epidemics have affected vaccinated rather than unvaccinated children. Here are a few sources, there are many others, including a recent Mumps outbreak in the USA.

• Recent Evidence Shows Vaccinated Kids Account For 90% of Whooping Cough cases.
• Worst whooping cough outbreak in over 50 years happening among the fully vaccinated.
• Whooping Cough Epidemic Caused by Virulent New Pertussis Strain—And It’s the Result of Vaccine.
• Whooping Cough Outbreaks in Vaxed Children More and More Frequent.
• Whooping Cough May Spread Through Vaccinated Populations.

It is just not true that vaccinated children are safer than non-vaccinated children. Indeed, it is quite the reverse - regardless of what the BBC believes.

5. The programme, and particularly the presenter Sam Smith (who does not at any stage seek to adopt a stance of impartiality), makes repeated statements about Homeopathy - that there is no evidence supporting Homeopathy, that remedies have 'no active ingredients' so cannot possibly work.

This is, of course, the language and the attitudes of the Conventional Medical Establishment, but expressed here by a BBC presenter who appears to want to present herself as a concerned and impartial investigator.

It is difficult to determine whether the BBC takes this approach because it is ignorant of the centuries-old experience of Homeopathy, or the large and growing body of scientific studies that show that Homeopathy is an effective medical therapy, whose action is much more than just 'placebo'. If anyone wishes to know about the effectiveness of homeopathy, they just have to look at the evidence, available on the internet to everyone (although not the BBC apparently). Here are few few links to the treatment of Whooping Cough with Homeopathy/

• Homeopathy Makes a Real Difference in Whooping Cough | NAB Communities
• Homeopathy dramatically more effective at preventing and treating whooping cough than allopathic medicine
• A doctor makes the case for the Homeopathic treatment of Whooping Cough

Positive RCT evidence for the effectiveness of Homeopathy in 'upper-respiratory' complaints can be found in these two sources:

Bornhöft G, Wolf U, Ammon K, et al. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin, 2006; 13 Suppl 2: 19–29.

Bellavite P, Ortolani R, Pontarollo F, et al. Immunology and homeopathy. 4. Clinical studies – Part 1. Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM, 2006; 3: 293–301.

The repeated recitation of the 'their is no evidence for Homeopathy' mantra will no longer prevail for anyone who takes a proper interest in health, or who genuinely looks at the evidence, which is available for anyone who wants to see it. It would appear, however, that this is not good enough for Sam Smith, and the BBC. Or is it just that the conventional medical mantras are easier to understand.

6. To support the BBC's hypothesis, that there is 'no evidence' for Homeopathy, the programme called on 'experts', and several times during this 10 minute programme, Sam Smith called on 'experts' who were entirely from the Conventional Medical Establishment. What is their view of Homeopathy? Well, surprise, surprise, they didn't think it works, and it can be dangerous. So what did experts on Homeopathy say? They had no real say in the programme! And what they are quoted as saying was presented in a confusing and contradictory way, by a presenter who clearly misunderstood, or perhaps did not want to understand, what she was being told. Perhaps this not surprising in a programme that took no time, and made to effort, to understand Homeopathy, and how it works.

Edzard Ernst, as usual, was featured in the programme, a long-time opponent of Homeopathy, but a 'Professor of Complementary Medicine' at a University faculty funded largely by Big Pharma companies.

And Sam Smith held in her hand a letter from 'The Nightingale Collaboration', an off-shoot of 'Sense about Science', itself a 'charity' funded largely by Big Pharma companies. She failed to mention the association with Big Pharma, naturally!

It is strange, but typical, that the BBC believes it can gets expert information on homeopathic treatment by asking non-Homeopaths, indeed, asking people who are well known to be antagonistic to Homeopathy

The Homeopathic Community no longer expects fairness or impartiality from the BBC. Several Homeopaths (and Homeopathic Patients) complained to the BBC about their 2011 Newsnight programme, and the response to the complaint, as much as the programme itself, showed clearly that the BBC does not act impartially or fairly in matters related to health.

This raises an important question about the BBC. If this public broadcaster reports in this partial and unfair way in matters relating to health, how can anyone be sure that it is reporting impartially and fairly in other areas of public concern.

Footnote
Since this time, the BBC has continued its biased and partial reporting of homeopathy, and its unquestioning support for conventional medicine, and the pharmaceutical industry generally. To read more of the BBC breaking its own editorial guidelines, type in "BBC" at the top of this page.

BBC Breaks its Editorial Guidelines dealing with Homeopathy

The BBC prides itself for its 'balance' and impartiality when dealing with news and current affairs. However, it regularly fails to do so in its dealings with Homeopathy, and the health debate generally, ensuring that its viewers and listeners are not hearing a balanced view of this debate.


It did so most recently during The One Show on BBC1, when it used a spokesperson for conventional medicine, and allowed him to attack homeopathy with all the usual 'denialist' nonsense that is trotted out on such occasions. Some guests, and members of the audience, stood up for homeopathy. But my complaint emphasised that to achieve the merest semblance of balance it was inappropriate to use non-expert guests, and a random audience, to defend homeopathy. This is the BBC's response.

In the ‘One Show’ on 29 March 2011 we again approached the topic of Homeopathy, as we have done on many occasions.

During this discussion, Alex Jones commented that "lots of people are pro-homeopathy - I mean a friend of mine had really bad psoriasis and it did clear it so I suppose there's argument for both sides of it". Monty Don, too, explained that he used homeopathic medicine and expressed his belief that it could offer effective cures.

In making these remarks, both Alex Jones and Monty Don represented the views of many of our audience, that homeopathy can be effective. While these views were made as part of an unscripted, live studio discussion, they were balanced by input from Dr Mark Porter.

Throughout the discussion, he clearly and consistently expressed the opposing view: that homeopathy was a "triumph of marketing over science"; that the idea homeopathy is effective is "bunkum"; that "the evidence shows that it doesn't work"; that "there's not much science behind it" and that such science as there is "is not convincing". He also explained the process of dilution, and that "in most cases the result is so dilute that if you had the whole pill the size of the planet earth you would not have one molecule (of active ingredient)".

Balance is of the utmost importance to our programming and clearly, homeopathy is a subject that can polarise opinion.

I appreciate you feel quite strongly about this matter and I would like to thank you again for contacting us.


So apparently, the BBC are now employing conventional medical experts to counter the views of non-expert supporters of homeopathy! Quite an amazing situation!


The BBC is not alone in it lack of impartiality on homeopathy; the mainstream media in the UK is predominantly anti-natural medicine, and pro-conventional drugs. But as a public service broadcaster, the BBC has more responsibility to provide balance and impartiality, especially in such as important area as health. 


Conventional medical drugs are now the biggest single killer; their 'side-effects' are producing unprecedented levels of chronic disease, and homeopathy is under attack from the ConMed establishment because more are looking for safer, and more effective medical therapies. Put simply, we are a threat to their business!


But their response to my complaint shows that no-one can rely on the BBC to be impartial, especially with regards to health issues. Anyone looking for safer, more effective medical therapies have to look elsewhere for enlightenment.