I am deeply saddened to have to report to you that not only has Dana Ullman’s circumcised-penis-in-a-shirt look apparently become popular among homeopathy shills, so has his practice of taking the name of scientific studies and meta-analyses in vain. I don’t know why they do it: all this stuff is online and easily verified. Are they really that balls-out brazen that they imagine potential marks are too fucking stupid to look anything up? Probably. Are they themselves so fucking stupid that they think blocking anybody who spots and denounces their shenanigans on social media will silence criticism, and make everything nice and cosy again? Certainly.
Here’s an example: Daniel Dereser, of Boiron Canada. That’s him in the appallingly inept photo on the left. Dereser blocked me for pointing out, quite politely and with evidence, that his claim in the tweet below is incorrect.
2005 Lancet meta-analysis showing strong evidences on … Continue reading
