NEW!
NEW!
Updated Edition!
I suppose nobody need eplanations what the Epstein files are, or what crimes they depict, or how often Trump is mentioned in them. What many might not know is that even the United Nations (UN) have commented on these documents
Independent human rights experts, operating under mandates from the UN Human Rights Council, have warned that the Epstein files reveal evidence of a possible global criminal enterprise involving systematic sexual abuse, trafficking, and exploitation of women and girls. Due to the scale, transnational reach, and systematic nature of these atrocities, the experts stated that the documented conduct may meet the legal threshold for crimes against humanity. Under international law, this threshold applies to acts like sexual slavery, torture, and trafficking when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.
The disclosure follows the “Epstein Files Transparency Act” of 2025, which led to the US Department of Justice releasing over three million pages, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images in January 2026. The background involves wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while facing minor-recruitment and sexual exploitation charges, and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.
The experts emphasized that states are legally obligated to investigate these crimes, which were fueled by corruption, supremacy, and extreme misogyny. They called for independent and impartial investigations into all individuals, financial structures, and official entities implicated, asserting that resignations are not a substitute for criminal accountability.
The experts praised the resilience of the survivors but criticized “grave errors” in the release process that exposed sensitive victim information, risking retaliation and stigma. They urged the adoption of victim-centered standard operating procedures for future disclosures and demanded that governments act decisively, declaring that no one is too wealthy or powerful to be above the law.
“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said. “It is imperative that governments act decisively to hold perpetrators accountable,” the experts said. “No one is too wealthy or too powerful to be above the law.”
Trump and his team have repetedly responded to Epstein-file in general. Trump himself seems keen to disregard the experts, do precisely what they warned against, and move on. As far as I know, there is no statement of Trump or his team commenting directly on the UN experts’ “crimes against humanity” document itself.
The IGeL-Monitor is a German information portal that reviews self-pay medical services offered in doctors’ offices. It summarizes the likely benefit and harm of these services in plain language so patients can make more informed decisions. It is run by the “Medizinischer Dienst Bund” and uses evidence-based assessments rather than advertising or provider opinion.
The IGeL‑Monitor has recently focussed on osteopathy for non‑specific low back pain and judged the evidence as “unclear” stating that the current evidence does not reliably show a benefit, nor does it demonstrate meaningful harm. The reassessment pooled evidence from ten randomised clinical trials including about 1,160 participants. While some trials suggested small improvements in pain or function, the overall certainty of these findings was low due to methodological weaknesses in the primary studies. The reviewers therefore concluded that there is no convincing, high‑quality proof that osteopathic manual therapy provides a clinically relevant advantage over sham or usual care.
A further concern highlighted in the assessment is publication bias: positive trials may be preferentially published. This phenomenon that exaggerates apparent benefits.
No clear pattern of harm from osteopathic treatment was identified. Adverse events were inconsistently and inadequately recorded in the trials. This fact not only limits the confidence about safety, but is also a clear breach of medical ethics.
The IGeL‑Monitor reiterates its previous (2018) position: with current data one cannot reliably endorse osteopathy as an effective out‑of‑pocket intervention for non‑specific low back pain, nor can one identify significant risk. Hence the label “unclear.” For patients considering osteopathy as a self‑paid service, the IGeL‑Monitor recommends being informed about the uncertain benefit and the weak evidence base when weighing potential costs against likely outcomes.
The new assessment is in agreement with much that I have been saying on this blog. I nevertheless would like to add one important point: back pain is the one condition for which the evidence is relatively sound. There are many other conditions for which osteopathy is being relentlessly promoted as an effective therapy with even less or no reliable evidence at all.
The Church of Scientology has spent decades insisting that psychiatry is a terrorist conspiracy, antidepressants are a gateway to mass murder, and only its own “tech” can save humanity from the menace of Prozac and similar “poisons”. One might imagine this worldview would remain safely quarantined within L. Ron Hubbard’s realm of loons.
But then Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of Health and Human Services!
By pure coincidence Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” crusade, unveiled with the MAHA Action Plan to Curb Psychiatric Overprescribing, just happens to target the very same SSRIs that Scientology and its front group CCHR have been demonising for years. Antidepressants are singled out, deprescribing is framed as a patriotic duty, and psychotherapy and lifestyle tweaks are held up as the noble alternative to “overmedicalization.” The American Psychiatric Association calls SSRIs evidence‑based treatment; Kennedy, channelling his inner CCHR lawyer, suggests they’re harder to quit than heroin and may be helping to fuel mass violence.
Enter Wisner Baum, the mass‑tort firm whose senior partners have long, colourful histories with Scientology and its covert operations. This firm has spent years suing antidepressant manufacturers and other psychiatric technologies. And Kennedy has quietly pocketed over $850,000 in fees from them, while keeping a continuing financial interest as HHS Secretary. It is hard to imagine a neater arrangement: a Scientology‑linked law firm sues drug companies; a Scientology‑approved health secretary casts doubt on those same drugs from the cabinet; and fee income flows merrily along.
So, is Kennedy formally a Scientologist?
No, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for that. But perhaps the label becomes somewhat unimportant, when the nation’s top health official is advancing policy that mirrors Scientology’s doctrine and staying financially intertwined with its legal defender. Whether or not he has taken the oath or not (and I am not saying he has), he seems to be doing the work of Xenu, the mysterious extraterrestrial ruler of a galactic confederacy.
An article entitled “Beyond the Appearance of Rigor: Trustworthiness, Integration, and Standardization in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” caught my eye. The name “Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” is, I think, impressive as it demonstrates the seemingly infinite ability of SCAM-promoters to come up endlessly with new and ridiculous terms! Please allow me nonetheless to continue calling it so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
The paper itself might be summarised as follows:
SCAMs struggles to fit into mainstream science. Trustworthiness isn’t just about flashy, individual study results; it requires a reliable system of transparent data and independent replication. However, forcing SCAM into mainstream healthcare via scientific scrutiny, standardisation and integration is a double-edged sword. It strips away the personalized, holistic essence of these therapies. Instead of abandoning science or changing the therapies, researchers need to use creative, flexible scientific methods that document the real-world complexity of SCAM without trying to force it into an artificial mold.
I have heard this argument often, particularly early on when I started applying science to SCAM. SCAM proponents were initially taken by the idea; later, when the results were often not what they expected, they were less impressed and argued that, because science failed to produce positive results, something must be wrong with it and in need of improvement. Specifically, the arguments were:
- SCAM is individualised,
- SCAM is holistic,
- SCAM is complex,
- SCAM is subtle,
- SCAM depends on the skill of the practitioner.
And therefore, SCAM cannot be fitted into the straitjacket of science, particularly not in the one imposed by the randomised clinical trial.
It took many years to convince some SCAM proponents that these notions were erroneous, that science is not always perfect but that no better method for testing exists, that many mainstream interventions (e.g. physiotherapy, psychotherapy) are just as complex, holistic, etc. as is SCAM. Eventually the argument that SCAM defies scientific evaluation disappeared – not totally, but almost.
Now, 30 years later, it is back!
One cannot even blame the SCAM enthusiasts for reviving it. Thirty years of research and very little of SCAM has been proven to work – unless one gives SCAM a huge ‘benefit of the doubt’ and pretends poor science constitutes proof. Even the treatments that SCAM proponents celebrate as evidence-based fall apart once we scratch the surface and discover how poor and irreproducible the evidence mostly is.
Yes, I do sympathise with the frustration of SCAM proponents as they gradually realise all this. Many of them know only too well that their most solid evidence can be taken apart by any first-year medical student with rudimentary skills of critical evaluation. Many of them therefore have long moved away from hypothesis testing research and prefer the type of investigation that never generates a negative finding (e.g. surveys, qualitative studies, sociological approaches). Others, including the two authors of the above-mentioned paper, prefer to go full circle and revive the notions we dealt with decades ago claiming we need different standards for SCAM than for the rest of medicine.
Perhaps someone should tell them that double standards are never a good idea?
A recent paper published in the Lancet was entitled “Wellbeing for people and the planet: how to value everyone and everything on a thriving planet beyond 2030“. Here is its abstract:
Humanity is crossing multiple planetary boundaries while facing rising inequality, democratic fragility, and worsening mental health, exposing the incompatibility of unlimited gross domestic product-driven growth with a finite, socially interdependent planet. Only 17% of the Sustainable Development Goal targets are on track, indicating the need for a deeper transformation rather than faster implementation. Synthesising evidence across disciplines, we argue that human beings are evolutionarily wired for cooperation and relational wellbeing, and not perpetual consumption and status competition. This argument underpins a post-2030 shift in a global development paradigm that places multidimensional wellbeing, of people and the planet, at its core. We outline three mutually reinforcing systemic shifts: deliberative democracy that gives communities real power to shape collective futures; economic democracy that redirects finance, enterprise design, and fiscal policy towards equitable, regenerative outcomes; and transformed land and resource governance that recognises ecological limits and the rights of nature. By aligning institutions with the cooperative nature of humans and the Earth’s regenerative capacity, societies can achieve flourishing lives for all within planetary boundaries, offering a scientifically grounded agenda for the decades beyond 2030.
While reading the article, I asked myself: will our current leaders and governments accept shared limits, long time horizons, and fair trade-offs? In practice, men like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin would probably view this framework through the lens of power, national and personal advantage, as well as political control, rather than collective wellbeing. In addition, sizable sections of the public might simply be too ignorant to comprehend the need for such a strategy. In other words, the proposal may sound morally strong but could be politically unrealistic.
If Trump or Putin were asked to follow the strategy, I fear that several objections would appear immediately.
- First, they would reject the idea that planetary limits should constrain national ambition, especially as they seem to think that economic or military strength or even personal advantage matter more than global cooperation.
- Second, they would treat wellbeing metrics as soft or ideological compared with jobs, growth, security, or sovereignty.
- Third, they would use the language of wellbeing selectively, supporting parts that could further their agendas, while ignoring parts that require sacrifice, redistribution, or international restraint.
Of course, such caveats do not make the paper and its arguments wrong, but they suggest a significant gap between theory and practice. The altruistic strategy is strongest when actors are willing to cooperate and are able to think long term. I am afraid that it is weak in a world where leaders like Trump or Putin can gain by rejecting climate obligations, weakening institutions, or prioritising short-term national interest. In other words, the paper offers a vision for a better governing ethic, but it does not solve the problem of how to make uncooperative or authoritarian leaders comply.
So, my concern is not that the strategy is useless, but that it is unrealistic and far too dependent on political goodwill. A system that works only when leaders are already committed to fairness and restraint cannot be a robust system. What we also need, therefore, is a strategy by which we are able to get such leaders … improving the education of the general public might be a start.
In the US, the dismantling of public health is in full swing. That this development would sooner or later involve chiropractic had to be expected:
- The shady love affair between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Chiropractic Profession
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his harmful ideas about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- The ‘International Chiropractors Association’ Congratulated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on His Selection as ‘Secretary of Health and Human Services’
- Eric S Kaplan, the strange chiropractor-friend of Donald Trump
- What does Trump think about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?
Thus, the recently launched MAHA Chiropractic Hub cannot come as a surprise. The new Hub is a national lobbying and promotional initiative designed to position chiropractic care as a drug-free, “prevention-first” solution to chronic disease and to reshape US healthcare policy in its favour. Launched as part of the broader “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, the Hub is a coordinated partnership between the MAHA Centre, MAHA Action, and various chiropractic associations, practitioners, and educators. The initiative promotes chiropractic as a root-cause fix for a broken system.
However, medical researchers and public health experts note that the broader claims of chiropractic, particularly those regarding “prevention-first” wellness and treating chronic non-musculoskeletal diseases, lack a credible evidence base. While an optimistic reading of the clinical evidence might support spinal manipulation for short-term relief of acute lower back pain, high-quality scientific data remains weak or non-existent for its efficacy in managing systemic health issues, preventing disease, or acting as a primary care substitute.
Operationally, the Hub seems to organize its strategy around 4 main pillars:
- Public Relations & Branding: Launching a national media campaign to rebrand chiropractic as a credible, prevention-focused discipline, an effort critics argue pushes past the boundaries of evidence-based medicine.
- Legislative Lobbying: Pressing for the Chiropractic Medicare Coverage Modernization Act and the full enforcement of Section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act to expand federal funding and reimbursement.
- Military & Veterans Integration: Promoting chiropractic within Defense Health and Army medical structures for musculoskeletal injuries and pushing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to expand access and reduce wait times.
- Targeted Outreach: Explicitly marketing these non-drug, non-surgical options to vulnerable or specialized demographics, including children, military personnel, veterans, and seniors.
By targeting federal policy and public perception, the Hub seeks to institutionalise chiropractic care across major public health sectors. In the true MAHA tradition, skepticism from the medical and scientific communities regarding the effectiveness and safety of chiropractic is being ignored.
What is next?
You may well ask!
A homeopath to run the FDA, or the flat earth society taking over NASA?
Nothing can surprise me now!
In my view, it gets increasingly hard to ignore parallels between US anti-regulatory health movements and historical eugenics programs like the one enacted by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Evaluating the rhetoric of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. regarding disease, public health infrastructure, and chronic illness, an underlying philosophy emerges of prioritizing a return to idealized “natural health”, while dismantling the medical systems designed to protect the vulnerable. This, I would argue, echoes the tenets of “eugenics” as practiced by the Nazi regime.
To understand this comparison, we must examine the foundational ideology of Nazi eugenics. It was a concept wrapped in the language of public health and hygiene, biological purification, and economic efficiency. The Nazis aimed to eliminate what they deemed to be lebensunwertes Leben (life unworthy of life). German physicians at the time feared that medical science was keeping the weak alive at the expense of the strong, thereby subverting the natural laws of selection. The Nazis viewed chronic illness and disability to be a drain on the collective national body (Volksgesundheit). Their conclusion was that the elimination of the genetically inferior was a biological necessity.
A modern variant of this ideology manifests in rhetoric that views chronic illness not as a collective societal responsibility requiring robust medical intervention, but as a biological failure stemming from a corrupted modern infrastructure. Kennedy’s actions focus on dismantling federal health agencies and drastically alter the regulatory framework governing medicine. In public addresses, he has consistently attacks established medical consensus, stating that public health policies are “ruining our children’s health” and leading to an “epidemic of chronic disease.”
Further alignment with eugenicist thinking lies in the proposed solutions to this perceived crisis. Rather than strengthening protective medical care, the rhetoric frequently leans towards a form of biological determinism that views modern medical interventions, such as vaccines and standard pharmaceuticals, as inherently corrupting influences that prevent the human body from achieving its “natural” state. This brand of anti-science rhetoric effectively abandons the vulnerable, stating that the aggressive opposition to standard medical treatments threatens to reverse decades of progress in child survival and disproportionately harms those with compromised immune systems.
When politicians advocate dismantling public health protections in order to let ‘natural immunity’ or ‘cleansing’ of dependencies determine who survives and who does not survive, they risk endorsing a “survival-of-the-fittest” ideology that overlaps with social Darwinist and eugenic ways of thinking. By declaring chronic illness as something to be purged via the withdrawal of institutional medical support, the rhetoric subtly shifts from a message of health advocacy to one of biological exclusion.
Please don’t get me wrong! I do not for a moment seek to diminish the crimes and atrocities of Nazi eugenics; they remain a singular and unprecedented horror. My purpose, rather, is to highlight that any ideology which calls for the erosion of medical safeguards for the sick rests on a perilous philosophical kinship with the Nazi project of privileging the “healthy” over the “infirm.” By recognising these parallels, we may hope to remain vigilant and help forestall the repetition of such history.
Homeopaths tend to voice a standard set of arguments when confronted with irrefutable evidence against homeopathy. In the discussion sections of this blog, we heard them all:
- “The negative trials are flawed designed.” They claim these trials were done by ungifted therapists or used the wrong remedies, wrong potencies, wrong dosing schedules, etc. Therefore, they do not reflect true homeopathic practice.
- “Homeopathy is individualised, RCTs can’t capture it.” They argue that randomised clinical trials are inherently unsuitable because homeopathic treatment must be tailored to each patient, rendering RCTs “unfair” or even “unscientific.”
- “Only a fraction of the evidence has been considered.” They assert that critics cherry-pick negative evidence and ignore positive small trials, case series, or observational data that they regard as equally valid.
- “There is much positive evidence.” They point to older or methodologically weak positive studies and claim these outweigh or at least balance the otherwise negative body of evidence.
- “Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are biased and/or politically motivated.” They allege that negative evaluations are driven by ideological hostility to homeopathy, Big Pharma influence, or institutional bias.
- “Statistical significance is not the same as clinical reality.” They argue that statistics miss “real-world” benefits observed in practice and that evidence-based medicine is too narrow.
- “Evidence-based medicine overvalues RCTs and undervalues experience.” They insist that long clinical experience, case reports, patient testimonies, etc. should count as strong evidence and that their accumulated practice is itself proof of efficacy.
- “Patient demand and satisfaction are evidence.” They use high patient satisfaction, repeat consultations, and word-of-mouth popularity as a proxy for effectiveness.
- “Millions use it worldwide.” They argue that longstanding, global usage implies that it must work; otherwise it would have disappeared.
- “Conventional medicine is not perfect either.” They respond to criticism by highlighting harms, errors, and historical reversals in conventional medicine, implying that science-based critics lack moral authority.
- “If it were only placebo, it wouldn’t work on XY.” They claim efficacy in infants, animals, or unconscious patients as evidence that placebo cannot fully explain the effects.
- “Mechanisms aren’t fully known, but that doesn’t matter.” They liken homeopathy to earlier medical advances whose mechanisms were unknown at the time (e.g. aspirin), arguing that lack of a plausible mechanism is not a valid reason to reject positive clinical observations.
- “Physics and chemistry are incomplete; future science will explain it.” They invoke concepts like quantum physics, nanostructures, or complex systems to argue that current science is still too limited to explain homeopathy.
- “Regulatory / institutional conspiracies.” They suggest that powerful pharmaceutical or medical lobbies seek to suppress homeopathy to protect their financial interests.
- “Homeopathy is cheap and safe; risk–benefit favours it.” They argue that even if evidence is thin, the very low risk and low cost justify its use.
- “The therapeutic encounter itself is part of the effect.” They turn criticisms about placebo and context effects into a strength: the long consultation, empathy, and attention are claimed to be legitimate and central components of homeopathy.
- “Freedom of choice / patient autonomy.” They shift from scientific to ethical/political ground, insisting that patients should be free to choose homeopathy regardless of scientific consensus.
- “Skeptics misunderstand what homeopathy really is.” They claim that people conflate homeopathy with herbalism, confuse potencies, or misunderstand Hahnemann’s principles, so their critiques do not address true homeopathy.
- “Critics don’t see the individual ‘miracle’ cases.” They counter population-level data with vivid anecdotes of dramatic improvements which they regard as decisive.
- “Negative evidence is ‘absence of evidence’, not ‘evidence of absence’.” They argue that failed trials or negative reviews merely show that efficacy hasn’t been proved yet, not that homeopathy does not work.
- “Science evolves; today’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ may be overturned.” They claim that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that homeopathy will eventually be vindicated when paradigms shift.
In discussions with homeopaths, these points are repeated endlessly. One could easily get the impression of a broken record. All of the above arguments have in common that – even as some of then contain a kernel of truth – they are erroneous. In theory it could be easy to point this out to the stereotypical homeopathy promoter; in practice, however, it often is impossible, since the broken record continues turning senselessly.
A recent survey of the “Österreichische Gesellschaft für Marketing” (OMG), a Viennese opinion research and market research institute shows a notable shift in public attitudes towards homeopathy. In 2010, nearly one in five Austrians reported greater confidence in homeopathy than in evidence-based medicine. By 2026, that proportion had fallen to just one in ten (10%), indicating a substantial erosion of support over the past decade and a half. Interestingly, the percentage differed acconding to politics; for voters of the right-wing freedom party and the greens the percentages were notably higher (15 and 19% respectively).
Several factors likely contribute to this trend. One important driver is the increasingly critical stance adopted by mainstream media. Over recent years, reporting on homeopathy has become more evidence-focused, often highlighting the lack of plausible mechanisms and robust clinical efficacy beyond placebo. This shift in media tone may have played a significant role in reshaping public perceptions, particularly among more scientifically literate audiences.
Equally important is the growing distance between homeopathy and the scientific community. As medical research continues to emphasize rigorous methodology and reproducibility, homeopathy has struggled to meet these standards. The accumulation of negative or inconclusive findings in high-quality trials has further weakened its credibility within academic medicine.
Yet, the responsibility for declining trust does not rest solely with external critics. Instances of scientific misconduct within homeopathy research – such as studies later found to involve highly probable data manipulation and subsequently retracted – have likely contributed to skepticism. In particular, the now infamous study by the Vienna-based Michael Frass might have contributed to the decline. Such events undermine not only individual studies but also the broader integrity of the field.
Overall, the Austrian data suggest a gradual but meaningful realignment toward evidence-based medicine, driven by both external scrutiny and internal weaknesses within homeopathy itself. This surely must be good news. But, as a rational person, I still ask myself, how is it possible that 1 in 10 Austrians have greater confidence in homeopathy than in evidence-based medicine?
To me, this indicates that much more work is needed to inform the public responsibly about homeopathy and other bogus alternative treatments.
France, like most countries, has long had its fair share of pseudoscience (see also my previous post). What is new, I feel, is the fact that opposition to the promotion of this dangerous nonsense is becoming more visible and hopefully more effective.
The recent revelations about pseudoscientific content in the biology and geology (sciences de la vie et de la Terre) teacher‑training program at the “Institut National Supérieur du Professorat et de L’Education” in Dijon illustrate how deeply irrational ideas and outright quackery can infiltrate institutions that should embody and promote scientific rigour. For several years, future secondary‑school biology teachers enrolled in the master’s degree programme “Métiers de l’Enseignement, de L’Education et de la Formation, Sciences de la Vie et de la Terre” were reportedly offered modules on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), such as “self‑healing,” homeopathy, and “mind over cancer,” where the power of mindset was presented as more important than chemotherapy. Such teaching does not simply represent a minor pedagogical eccentricity; it directly undermines the principles of evidence‑based medicine and science education.
Instead of learning how to critically appraise data, distinguish levels of evidence, and communicate scientific uncertainty, these trainees were exposed to narratives that elevate anecdote, belief and spurious “energy” concepts over controlled clinical trials and established oncological knowledge. More troubling still, students describe a climate in which questioning these contents could be seen as a lack of openness, thus inverting the very logic of critical thinking: scepticism toward dubious claims was implicitly discouraged, while credulity was smuggled in as a virtue.
The institutional response – acknowledging that “certain contents” might be problematic and promising internal reviews – remains inadequate as long as it treats pseudoscience as a marginal excess, rather than as a systemic failure of quality control and epistemic standards. In a context where schools already face conspiracy thinking and health misinformation, the responsibility of teacher‑training institutes is not merely to avoid obvious charlatanism, but to actively inoculate future teachers against it.
If those tasked with teaching biology and geology to the next generation are introduced to homeopathic and “mind‑healing” discourses without critical thinking, the boundary between science and pseudoscience becomes dangerously blurred. Defending that boundary is not an academic luxury; it is a matter of public health, intellectual integrity, and respect for the patients and families who depend on honest, evidence‑based information.
As calling out pseudoscience in France gets more effective, we will doubtlessly hear more about this issue. And as this development gathers momentum, the French will become more rational … yes, I know, I am an incurable optimist!
