Homeopathy4health

4 June 2008

Edzard Ernst’s uncritical endorsement of EBM is ‘empirical quackery’

Dr Michael Fitzpatrick’s review of the book ‘Trick or Treatment’ by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst at  spiked-online (they say: “an independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms”) makes the following observations and criticisms of interest:

“Despairing of their capacity to engage with serious adversaries or big issues, former left-wingers are inclined to re-fight the battles of the past and to seek out soft targets for their invective: current favourites include neo-fascists, creationists and conservative religionists. Though any small success of these forces is trumpeted as a menace to civilisation, in reality they are as marginal as they have ever been. Exaggerating these threats enables liberals to imagine a return to their glory days, and allows them to evade the real problems of the present.”

“Alternative medicine, the focus of a new critique titled Trick or Treatment? by the science writer Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, ‘the world’s first professor of complementary medicine’, has become another target of the radical backlash. Following the spectacular success of a series of works promoting militant secularism, a spate of books and blogs now signals a new crusade against alternative medicine.”

“it is light on references”

“My reservations about Trick or Treatment? concern its uncritical endorsement of what the health policy expert Rudolph Klein has characterised as the ‘new scientism’ of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (1), its incoherent advice to doctors on telling the truth and its curiously paternalistic approach towards patients.

According to Singh and Ernst, ‘evidence-based medicine’, a term coined by the epidemiologist David Sackett in 1992, has ‘revolutionised medical practice’. They acknowledge that ‘prior to the development of evidence-based medicine, doctors were spectacularly ineffective’. However, ‘once the medical establishment had adopted such simple ideas as the clinical trial, then progress became swift’. As a result, ‘today’, less than two decades later, according to this remarkable telescoping of the familiar narrative of progress from darkness to enlightenment, ‘the clinical trial is routine in the development of new treatments and medical experts agree that evidence-based medicine is the key to effective health care’.

While it is true that evidence-based medicine (EBM) has made some useful contributions to contemporary medical practice, notably in the systematic use of randomised controlled trials in the study of therapeutic interventions, it is nonsense to claim that it has played a major role in the successes of modern medicine (such as vaccines, antibiotics, steroids, anaesthetics, surgical techniques) which arose from developments in the basic medical sciences.”

“To some of its critics, in its disparagement of theory and its crude number-crunching, EBM marks a return to ‘empiricist quackery’ in medical practice.”

“Why are so many GPs tolerating, promoting or even using bogus treatments?’ is the provocative question posed by Singh and Ernst to my colleagues in primary health care. They consider various possibilities (though they do not seem to apply their commitment to an evidence-based approach to their speculations in this area). Could it be that GPs are simply ignorant of the facts that alternative medicine is useless? They raise the possibility that some GPs may be true believers in alternative therapies, but – understandably – find this too terrifying a subject to investigate further. They believe that many GPs are so inconsiderate towards their patients that this drives them into the sympathetic, empathetic arms of alternative therapists. But for them the most likely explanation is that GPs are simply lazy and respond to their patients’ relentless minor complaints by ‘fobbing them off with placebos’, in the form of ‘bogus remedies’ and referrals to alternative therapists.”

“Singh and Ernst criticise GPs for ‘encouraging patients’ to seek out alternative therapists. In a bizarre parallel with the world of drug addiction, they argue that ‘introducing patients to alternative therapists in relation to a minor condition could act as a gateway to a longer-term reliance’. One taste of a (tasteless) homeopathic pill or twist of an acupuncture needle could lead to a serious habit, and they may end up refusing vaccinations and stopping prescription drugs.

This is getting silly.”

I have received the following further comments from Ralf Jeutter PhD RSHom:

“The quotes from the book presented by Fitzpatrick show how superficial Singh and Ernst’s critique is. It is primarily based on the assumption that EBM is a reliable tool with which to judge treatments, totally ignoring that EBM is far from accepted as that.  Fitzpatrick calls it ‘incoherent advice to doctors’; the ‘founder’ of EBM, Sackett, wrote: ‘EBM … never replaces clinical skills, clinical judgment and clinical experience’, thus refuting in one single sentence everything Ernst claims: that EBM is the most reliable and generally accepted standard for assessing clinical effectiveness.

Ernst is a dramatiser who has lost perspective of real academic/scientific issues when he writes that ‘prior to the development of evidence-based medicine, doctors were spectacularly ineffective.’ If he really means this it is clear that he has an utterly uncritical enthusiasm for what is only the latest fashion in medicine, one that is neither established nor universally accepted. The one appeal it has is its mind numbing simplicity, which totally ignores clinical realities.

The review also highlights how desperate Ernst is to find ANYTHING to discredit CAM: apparently it is habit forming on a par with, well, seriously habit forming things. Rightly Fitzpatrick says: ‘This is silly’.

Ernst loses academic credibility by refusing to acknowledge the real complexity of research into CAM. Moreover he refuses to acknowledge that most conventional treatments and interventions are not evidence based. He has found a way of making headlines by propagating very crude science indeed. His academic status is further undermined by acting much more like a quackbuster of recent years than as somebody who should be encouraging more research (including research methodologies into CAM) to benefit the profession and patients.

It really does not become a Professor of CAM to dismiss such a longstanding and successful practice like homeopathy as ‘bogus’ and ‘nonsense’. As an academic he has had to make a determined effort to ignore the plethora of research which has grown around homeopathy over the last 200 years: pre-clinical fundamental research; fundamental research into physics and chemistry as far as it has a bearing on homeopathy; experiments on plants with ultra-high dilutions; experiments on animals and animal tissue with ultra-high dilutions; in-vitro studies; clinical studies, be they observational or comparative studies; controlled studies of nosological clinical homeopathy to randomised clinical isopathic and epidemiological studies. He has also ignored the dedicated hard work of many researchers into CAM and associated fields: dismissing all of this as useless activity which has yielded nothing and will never yield anything. I think it would suit Prof. Ernst to show more respect to his colleagues and a modicum of modesty.

Ernst has come to the conclusion that homeopathy doesn’t work by cherry-picking what he considers to be state-of-the-art research methodologies, which conflict in many instances with clinical realities.

It appears that it is Ernst’s desire to call a premature end to homeopathy which informs his understanding of ‘science’. Homeopathy has survived many fads, fashions and detractors, and will no doubt survive this latest attempt at discrediting it. In my own modest predicition, Ernst, in all likelihood, will become a footnote in the history of homeopathy, like so many before him.  He is an academic who mistakes scientific models with reality.”

11 Comments »

  1. [...] tenom894 wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt“Alternative medicine, the focus of a new critique titled Trick or Treatment? by the science writer Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, ‘the world’s first professor of complementary medicine’, has become another target of the radical backlash … [...]

    Pingback by Edzard Ernst’s uncritical endorsement for EBM is ‘empirical quackery’ — 4 June 2008 @ 4:11 pm

  2. [...] milliesays wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptDr Michael Fitzpatrick’s review of the book ’Trick or Treatment’ by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst at  spiked-online (they say: “an independent online phenomenon dedicated to raising the horizons of humanity by waging a culture war of words against misanthropy, priggishness, prejudice, luddism, illiberalism and irrationalism in all their ancient and modern forms”) makes the following observations and criticisms of interest: “Despairing of their capacity to engage with serious adversaries or big issues, former left-wingers are inclined to re-fight the battles of the past and to seek out soft targets for their invective: current favourites include neo-fascists, creationists and conservative religionists. Though any small success of these forces is trumpeted as a menace to civilisation, in reality they are as marginal as they have ever been. Exaggerating these threats enables liberals to imagine a return to their glory days, and allows them to evade the real problems of the present.” “Alternative medicine, the […] [...]

    Pingback by Edzard Ernst’s uncritical endorsement of EBM is ‘empirical quackery’ — 10 June 2008 @ 2:14 pm

  3. [...] seriously question the facts and the reasoning in the book, so opponents resort to other tactics. A homeopathy website resorts to denying that science is a useful tool. It essentially calls evidence-based medicine [...]

    Pingback by Science-Based Medicine » Trick or Treatment — 26 August 2008 @ 1:00 pm

  4. ‘What is the value of a book by authors who are error prone and haphazard in the definitions, reach of a subject, etc.? The most significant thing I learned from “Trick or Treatment” is that the authors only bring to bear a low level of science, that their literature search capability is poor, or very selective, and that they are out of their depth’

    Richard King, Chartered Engineer, Healer, Psychic

    http://www.psychicengineer.com/PE_Trick%20or%20Treatment%20Review.htm

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 9 September 2008 @ 5:59 pm

  5. If a CAM treatment is effective, why is it so difficult to produce evidence?

    If we don’t have evidence that something works, how can we make informed decisions? Are you seriously suggesting that anecdotes are better than hard evidence? I am confused as to what your position could possibly be…? Evidence doesn’t matter?!?

    Ryan

    Comment by Ryan Biggs — 9 September 2008 @ 7:39 pm

  6. It appears that there is an interesting book that one could read as to how homeopathy works, which is titled.

    “The Emerging Science of Homeopathy: Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology”
    written by
    Paolo Bellavite, MD and Andrea Signorini, MD,
    which is a second edition printed in 2002 of a (revised?) first edition, which was titled differently and first appeared in 1995.

    (I’ve just seen it mentioned at the laughingsock’s site and though that readers of this blog would also be interested – and gimpy and other have already seen the reference on the other site, I hope.)

    Comment by ez — 10 September 2008 @ 12:53 am

  7. I concur with Ryan.

    Additionally I would like to add the the problem with most of CAM is not just that it lacks evidence of efficacy, but also that the foundation is purely philosophical (not based on tangible observations or evidence). Whether it is Samuel Hahnemann’s principles in Homeopathy or Qi flowing in meridians in TCM it’s all philosophy.

    Regardless of whether clinical judgment or clinical experience is a prerequisite for CAM to work properly EBM techniques may be applied to test and verify it. The techniques are not evil, they are not anti-CAM they just allow you to rule out anectotal noise as well as placebo and psychological factors.

    If the _actual_ number of skilled representatives of a particular CAM discipline are so few and far between that their amazing results are drowned by the negatively contributing representatives then I think that says a lot about that particular CAM.

    Comment by Simen — 6 January 2009 @ 3:01 pm

  8. Lionel Milgrom sums up the progress of Scientism:

    http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/anh-feature-beware-scientism%E2%80%99s-onward-march

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 25 April 2010 @ 5:36 pm

  9. “Professor Ernst claims to have studied all alternative medicine, including homeopathy, but so far, no one has discovered where he studied homeopathy, despite an extensive search of all known homeopathic training schools and colleges. No investigator has discovered any evidence of his enrollment in any alternative medicine training school or college, and Professor Ernst has not published any alternative medicine educational credentials at all, beyond his claim to have them!

    Professor Ernst appears to be producing a continual stream of attack against alternative therapies, using his position as Chair of Alternative Medicine at Exeter University to issue his pronouncements. Odd?”

    http://avilian.co.uk/2008/12/professor-edzard-ernst-who-is-this-guy

    Comment by homeopathy4health — 9 August 2010 @ 7:13 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers

%d bloggers like this: