An evaluation is the process of judging the merit, worth, quality, or value of something based on reliable evidence. It can be done on the basis of existing systematic reviews.

That’s interesting—you list several medical and scientific societies, but you don’t include any links. I looked for statements from the Argentine Medical Association and didn’t find any official statements against homeopathy. You also mention that the WHO said such-and-such, but again, you don’t provide any official position (there are only some old news articles from 2009 involving certain WHO officials and the Voice Young of Science group from Sense About Science). I notice contradictions in your blog because you have posts complaining about the WHO for endorsing homeopathy. So which is it?

I find this very strange because you say these are “independent evaluations,” but aside from the two mentioned earlier, more than half of the list you cite did not conduct a review of clinical trials.

If I limit myself to the ones you mention, I never found any evaluation by the Russian Academy of Sciences; there’s just a strange five-part document that isn’t an evaluation either, but rather a “memorandum” involving a few members (well, not all of them anymore, since they were dismissed).

The rest—the UK report—isn’t an evaluation either, and it can’t even be said to have been accepted by the government, but rather by a small group of lawmakers and other activists with Sense About Science (how strange).

Has the FDA conducted any review of the literature, Mr. Ernst? Health Canada? FASEB? FTC? Advertising Standards Authority? No, no, no, and no—and absolutely not.

Could you then tell me, of the few that did conduct reviews, which one do you consider the best?

One could almost assume that a worm has eaten the part of his brain where self-doubt was located.

Na, much larger parts of his brain must have disappeared, leaving behind a hollow chamber where any crazy ideas can echo around indefinitely, ending up in our world as soon as he opens his mouth.

HE EVEN HAS A wIKI-PAGE! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._McCullough

I guess the respected Dr’s like Dr McCollough and his facts and figures

Interesting, Tracy. Dr. Peter A. McCullough. Respected, you say? So respected that he has had his licence removed for spreading egregious falsehoods. And his facts and figures? You mean the two papers he published, both of which have been retracted because of gross methodological errors? That Dr McCullough?

Please let us know what your qualifications are in science and medicine that make you think you are qualified to comment on this matter.

I guess the respected Dr’s like Dr McCollough and his facts and figures and Ed Dowd wrote on book demonstrating figures based on data not manipulated and all the rest. I guess you feel safe lying to yourself and not following respected people presenting facts. Nut history when it looks back will look at this as a time where people stayed like you ignorant and close minded or those that looked to the NEW science making sense of the world we now live in and smashing long held old beliefs on our world and us

evidently, a case of Coprolalia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprolalia]

he seems to be too limited to realise that he is blocked and continues to send comments which are in the same style as before.

Go and get some professional help for your tantrums, Rumpelstiltskin!