Talk:Edzard Ernst/Archive 1

Archive 1

Articles on Quackwatch mentioning him

• http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altbraid.html by a Stanford prof of Medicine
• http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/ernst.html about the Press, by Ernst
• http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/fact.html A review of the journal - FACT by Stephen Barrett

QUakwatch is often attacked as being all written by Barrett - that is one out of three articls on this subject, and it is far from unusual for house staff or an editor to write a review of a journal. Midgley 09:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

First comments

The most notable scholar of complementary medicine of the 20th and 21st centuries? Midgley 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The PMS site being down currently, there's a nice little biography here. Elsevier Science I think counts as RS. Can't find a birth date. Tearlach 18:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As of this instant Elsevier is undergoing essential maintenance! He was born and qualified and attained a medical professorship in Germany before being head-hunted over here, has qualifications in a variety of physical - some might say alternative - treatments. Maurice Laing (director of Laing construction, who constructed his Chair) deserves I guess a footnote if not his own page. I made some notes and lost them in a WP + Firefox incident, I can remake them. Midgley 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Laing construction, who constructed his Chair A picturesque image. Tearlach 11:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One tries - WP:brilliant prose is it, may be permissible in talk pages. So strange no comp.med person had written this - given he is the first Prof of the subject, AFAICS. Still, I shall be content to fill in a nook or cranny here and there. 12:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is very celibratory of Edzard Ernst and shows nothing of the controversy or criticism that surrounds his published work. John858995 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia become soft?

In the search for fairness and in this day and age of libel and litigation is it the case that Wikipedia has now lost its verve and thrust?

Some pages are becoming increasingly difficult to edit and when they are edited the edits are quickly removed for one reason or another?

We now have a "donate" banner on top of every page, is our beloved free information site no longer free in more than one sense?

Maybe it will be sponsored by Macdonalds or Starbucks next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maybeitstrue (talk • contribs) 03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see the talk page guidelines, and use this talk page to discuss specific improvements to the article on Edzard Ernst. To be specific, your edits were removed because you made a sweeping negative statement in a biographical article. Please take a look at our policy on biographical material, and provide appropriate sources for material that you'd like to insert. MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine

What is the difference between the existing book (Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial) and the forthcoming book (Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine), and shouldn't the latter be listed in the article too??
(Note: the difference is not the binding — both are/will be available in paperback and hardback.)
—DIV (128.250.80.15 (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC))
P.S. Cross-posted on Talk:Simon Singh

Could the forthcoming one simply be a US edition under a slightly different title? I notice, for example, that both books have 352 pages. The existing version is published by Bantam Press, a UK imprint, the forthcoming one by W. W. Norton & Company, an American publisher. Brunton (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that is precisely correct. It is merely the UK versus US editions. Don't know why they changed the subtitle. --Krelnik (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Edzard Ernst did not set up the Department of Complementary Medicine at Exeter University. It was established years before by Simon Mills(Herbalist) and Roger Hill(Acupuncturist). They devoted much of their lives at this time to establish credible scientific academic qualifications in complementary health recognised by Exeter University. These ran very successfully until Edzard Ernst was appointed. The courses where discontinued when Roger and Simon were effectively disempowered by the person they had actually been instrumental in appointing. They have now moved on to greater and more influential positions. It is interesting to not the lack of any original research and the total reliance on meta analysis. What is the validity of meta analysis when the person doing the meta analysis questions the validity of the contributing studies? The biter bit methinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbarnes25 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If the person or persons doing a meta-analysis don't question the validity of the contributing studies, it certainly has no validity. Brunton (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

credible scientific academic qualifications. Indeed. Midgley (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

according to the Peninsula medical school (reference in page) "In 1993 he established the Chair in Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter." This accords with my recollection. Mills and Hill certainly worked in Exeter, but I do not think the department was established by them or before the appointment of a chair. (Indeed, as I understand universities, prior to a chair being appointed, there can be no department. Midgley (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Interview in Macleans

An interesting interview in a RS:

• Q&A: Edzard Ernst on alternative medicine. Maclean's, Julia Belluz, November 2, 2011

Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent addition

An editor recently added “but did not complete any course in homeopathy and has not gained the appellation "Homeopath" in his native Germany.” I'm not sure that's correct - the interview they cite says Edzard Ernst didn't take any of the so called “Weiterbildungskurse Homöopathie” A-F, but those didn't exist back when he became a physician. In the interview Ernst says he qualified for the additional title but never applied to carry it.

Interviewer: Haben Sie die ärztliche Zusatzbezeichnung Homöopathie?

Ernst: Ich habe die Voraussetzungen dafür erworben, mich aber nie um den Titel beworben.

Translation: I: Do you carry the additional title “Homeopath”? - E: I qualified for that title but never applied to carry it.

Both the interview and the following commentary (which, I guess, was what the editor actually wanted to cite) were published in the newsletter of the occupational union of German “homeopathic physicians” DZVhÄ. I wouldn't consider this a neutral source (I'm not even sure it qualifies as reliable source), so I suggest to change the wording to “but never registered as a homeopath”. This makes clear Ernst never carried the title (which is consistent with the interview) but avoids implying that he didn't acutally have any training in homeopathy. The full sentence would read: “He has received training in acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, homoeopathy, massage therapy and spinal manipulation,[5] but never formally registered as a homeopath.[6][7]”. --Six words (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable solution to me. bobrayner (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

4+ weeks should be a long enough time to give interested editors the opportunity to comment, so I'm going to change the wording now. --Six words (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's back again, so I tagged it, if it isn't responded to I will remove it. " He has received some training in acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, homoeopathy, massage therapy and spinal manipulation.[5] but never formally registered as a homeopath, nor completed any course in homeopathy.[6][Full citation needed]" The language makes it look like he dropped out of homeopathic courses.Daffydavid (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, these courses were introduced in 1993 - the year Ernst went to Exeter. Back in the late 70s/early 80s there were no such courses so he didn't take them; the interview doesn't suggest he dropped out, just that he didn't apply for this title back then. In the commentary following this interview, the author argues that since he didn't take these courses, he cannot call himself a homeopath. Nowadays this is certainly true (since 1993 you needed to take six courses each lasting one week and until 2002 you needed to analyse 50 cases and document 10 cases or to have half a year of training that covered these requirements - source (German); since 2002 instead of those 50+10 cases you need to either have "engaged in homeopathy" for three years or have had one year of (homeopathic) training in a hospital - source (German)), but I don't know if these requirements were retroactive (actually, I doubt it). Even if they were, Ernst didn't work as a homeopath, so why would he have cared about that? It's really not as "shocking" as the DZVhÄ pretends it is. --Six words (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If the courses were only introduced later, they are not relevant to his qualifications as a homoeopath, so I'm removing it. Brunton (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

For it to be said he received "some training" means what in terms of credentials? I had a friend who showed me some aspects of law, though I wouldn't claim I had some training in it. There seems to be nothing specific here about his "training" and he himself claims he never completed a course, which clearly suggests he never completed it, not that there wasn't one. So please explain how the article can be left as it is? As it stands it suggests that he has some expertise, which is not evident.

I suggest that "He has received training in acupuncture, autogenic training, herbalism, homoeopathy, massage therapy and spinal manipulation, but never formally registered as a homeopath." is removed as it isn't evidenced beyond heresay. Cjwilky (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be unfamiliar with the term but it's verified by what we call a reference on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

"We... on wikipedia" ...erm...right. Is that sarcasm, superiority games or just missing the point? Either way, its not the way to discuss issues on wiki is it?

The word I used was evidenced. The reference is to his profile, but there's no back up in anyway what he actually means. I rerenced a point that made clear he hadn't completed a course - his own words. However, that apparently doesn't count. Cherry picking comes to mind. Cjwilky (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a source that explicitly says he has received training for homeopathy. According to the translation provided by Six Words he has qualified for the title of homeopath in Germany, at the very top of this section. How is this hearsay? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean the source that mentions training that is his own bio that is there to show he is qualified for the post relating to complementary therapies? There is nothing there that validates that. It a very dubious source. The translation provided by six words proves nothing either.

So we have 1) He admits to never having completed a course. 2) He mentions training but there is nothing specific there - ie nothing verifiable. 3) He also says he is qualified but never applied for the "title". Doesn't that all sound at least a little suspect, but significantly unverifiable except that he makes claims. Though interestingly we are not allowed to say he hasn't completed a course which is a fact that comes from his mouth just as much as the above. Cherry picking, as our dear departed friend would say.

In an article such as this we should have very solid evidence and there isn't any forthcoming.Cjwilky (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahnemann never completed these courses either. People tend not to complete courses that were not in place when they were trained. Brunton (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing but an attempt at an ad hominem argument anyway - “he's not a homeopath, so his opinion is worthless”. Ernst has been a professor since 1988, he knows how to interpret and review medical studies (not that being a homeopath would help with that), and that is what he has done - review and interpet homeopathy studies, not “play homeopath”. Saying that you need to be an experienced homeopath to interpret the outcomes of such studies is admitting that there's no objectively detectable positive effect of the treatments. --Six words (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed This strikes me as an attempt to discredit anybody who is not homeopathically "certified" (whatever the hell that means in this context) - which would automatically exclude most of the experts on one side of the debate, i.e. the side that adheres to the scientific method and allopathic medicine (or "medicine") and says that homeopathy is ineffective bunkum. And if you think about it from a homeopathic perspective, surely the less qualifications you have, the more of an expert you are? ;-) Famousdog (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange assumptions you make. I'm not the one saying he needs to have homeopathy training :) Where is the evidence that there wasn't any training for homeopathy back in the day, as I understand it there was. The point is there is no good evidence he does have any training, no more so than that he never completed a course, so why have it in the article?

That Hahnemann didn't have training as he was the originator of homeopathy is by the by. Does it claim he does in the article about him?Cjwilky (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that "there is no good evidence he does have any training, no more so than that he never completed a course" (my emphasis). The fact is that there are many, many profiles of Ernst in reliable, third-party sources (and the unreliable DZVhÄ interview) for the first statement and one source for the latter (the unreliable DZVhÄ interview). Now that source claims to report Ernst's own words, so this leaves us with this situation:

1) Ernst's words are accurately reported.

In which case, he clearly wasn't bothered about revealing this fact and, as several other editors comment above, it is irrelevant to his subsequent, excellent work, which has everything to do about being an expert in the scientific method and medicine generally and nothing to do with whether he's a "qualified" quack.

2) Ernst's words are inaccurately reported.

In which case, I would have thought that Ernst would have kicked up a stink. He hasn't. So, again, he clearly wasn't bothered about revealing this fact.

I imagine that 1) reflects the actual state of affairs. The DZVhÄ interview accurately reports his words, but Ernst doesn't give a sh*t and neither do I or several other editors here. Here's a riddle for you: Does completing a course in stupidity make you more or less stupid than someone who didn't complete the course? Famousdog (talk) 09:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And to take what you say to its natural conclusion, why isn't there any mention about other training he may have had eg driving, coookery, archery? Simply because "someone" thinks it is relevant.

The one interview is the source of many repetitions though as you say he has never denied it so presumably it is true. On the other hand, just because there are several profiles saying the same thing, doesn't make it anything more than an urban myth. To be generous, both are equally valid. Cherry picking is the essence here. Cjwilky (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Cj, the difference is whether or not it is a reliable source RS. This is not cherry picking, that is what you are trying to do here and at the Homeopathy page. Provide a RS and everyone would be glad to put the info in. Putting it in does however mean being true to the source. The language must be unambiguous. Daffydavid (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

DD, The sources have been outlined here already. The arguments I made clearly in my previous edit. Please explain why one is and the other isn't reliable. Looking at Cherry_picking_(fallacy), I don't understand what exactly you are refering to - which point am I ignoring in preference to what? I said both are equal.

Its a bit of a smokescreen, but please be specific with the cherry picking in the Homeopathy article you refer to, generalisations are rarely productive, and usually inflammatory, when acusing, and I'm sure you are intending to be helpful :) Cjwilky (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with DD, and disagreeing with your hopeless parody of my argument, the reason the article doesn't mention Ernst's training in other areas "eg driving, cookery (or) archery" is that no RS has referred to his training in those fields because the authors of said RSs haven't thought it relevant. As I said above, "I (and presumably) several other editors" may be of the opinion that Ernst's training as a homeopath is irrelevant, but it is here firstly because it is reliably sourced to many independent sources (and if you have any evidence that they are all copying it from some dubious source, please prove it) and secondly because it is (some would argue) relevant to his academic work on alternative medicine. That he didn't register as a homeopath or complete a course in homeopathy can only (ultimately) be traced back to one source - and that is not independent, potentially biased and therefore unreliable. Famousdog (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Times Higher Education article

A new article in an impeccable RS:

• Ernst decries firms' large dose of cash for pro-homeopathy website. Paul Jump, Times Higher Education, 9 August 2012

Brangifer (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

New article: Edzard Ernst: outspoken professor of complementary medicine.

A new article:

• Edzard Ernst: outspoken professor of complementary medicine. His uncompromising research into alternative medicine has won him friends – and enemies – in high places

Brangifer (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! bobrayner (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)