Monthly Archives: May 2025
The Trump administration released a report billed as a “clear, evidence-based foundation” for action on a range of children’s health issues. But the report, from the presidential “Make America Healthy Again Commission”, cited studies that did not exist, as reported by the NEW YORK TIMES and several further publications. These included fictitious studies on direct-to-consumer drug advertising, mental illness and medications prescribed for children with asthma.
“It makes me concerned about the rigor of the report, if these really basic citation practices aren’t being followed,” said Katherine Keyes, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University who was listed as the author of a paper on mental health and substance use among adolescents. Dr. Keyes has not written any paper by the title the report cited, nor does one seem to exist by any author.
Dr. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, said the errors in the report were characteristic of the use of generative artificial intelligence. He said that, while he did not know whether the government had used A.I. in producing the report or the citations, “we’ve seen this particular movie before, and it’s unfortunately much more common in scientific literature than people would like or than really it should be.”
Asked at a news conference on Thursday whether the report had relied on A.I., the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, deferred to the Department of Health and Human Services. Emily Hilliard, a spokeswoman for the department, did not answer a question about the source of the fabricated references and downplayed them as “minor citation and formatting errors.” She said that “the substance of the MAHA report remains the same — a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic-disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children.”
Researchers previously told The Times that they agreed with many of the report’s points, like its criticism of synthetic chemicals in the U.S. food supply and of the prevalence of ultraprocessed foods. But doctors have disagreed with some of the report’s other suggestions, including that routine childhood vaccines may be harmful. this notion is clearly not evidence-based and relies on an incorrect understanding of immunology.
The report also originally cited a paper on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs published in The Lancet in 2005. A paper with that title does exist, but it was a perspective piece from an expert, not a study. It was published in a different journal five years earlier, and was not written by the cited author.
The report also pointed to what it said was a 2009 paper in The Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology by “Findling, R.L., et al.,” on the advertising of psychiatric medications. A spokesman for Virginia Commonwealth University, where Dr. Robert L. Findling works as a professor of psychiatry, said Dr. Findling had not written the article.
Furthermore some correctly cited papers were inaccurately summarized. For example, the report said that the fifth edition of a guide used by psychiatrists to classify mental health conditions had loosened criteria for A.D.H.D. and bipolar disorder, driving a 40-fold increase in diagnoses in children from 1994 to 2003. But that edition was not published until 2013. The diagnoses mentioned in the cited study would have been made using an earlier version. In addition, the data appeared to originate from a 2007 study that refers to an approximately 40-fold increase in the diagnosis of bipolar disorder among youth from 1994 to 2003, but does not mention increases in A.D.H.D. prevalence.
Having followed what is going on in the White House in relation to academia and science (e.g. here, here and here), one can hardly be surprised about any of that. There seems to be misconduct everywhere – so why not also scientific misconduct?
Let me answer this one myself:
Because it is dangerous and undermines trust!
Let me therefore offer some practical, constructive advice as to how to deal with the problem of scientific misconduct [I can assure you that I have ample experience with that!]:
- Dismiss the individuals who are directly responsible.
- Get everyone off their drugs.
- Send everyone, including the top echelon, to intensive courses about science and ethics (possibly at Harvard).
- Make sure that everyone has understood the material.
- Recruit several outstanding scientists with a proven track record of publishing in top journals to lead the team.
- Re-do the report.
- Make sure it gets independently peer-reviewed before putting it in the public domaine.
From what I hear, these measures might not be popular – with Trump railing against Harvard and Kennedy against top journals – but, believe me, drastic measures are necessary to get on top of the mess that seems to dominate (not just) the science in the White House.
I have noticed that an Indian team has recently started to publish a series of articles about the role of homeopathy in treating specific diseases. They seem to mislead us and conclude that homeopathy is promising (but more research is needed). Here are two examples:
The role of homeopathy in managing hypothyroidism
Hypothyroidism is a common endocrine disorder characterized by insufficient production of thyroid hormones, leading to various physiological and psychological symptoms. While conventional treatment typically involves synthetic hormone replacement, there is increasing interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), particularly homeopathy, for managing this condition. This article explores the principles of homeopathy and its potential role in hypothyroidism management. It discusses common homeopathic remedies, their individualized applications, and the holistic approach of treating underlying factors contributing to the disorder. Although anecdotal evidence and some observational studies suggest benefits, the scientific community remains divided due to a lack of robust clinical trials. This article emphasizes the need for further research while highlighting homeopathy as a potential adjunct therapy for patients seeking a more personalized approach to hypothyroidism management.
Role of homeopathy in Parkinson’s disease: A holistic approach
Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder primarily affecting movement, with symptoms such as tremors, rigidity, bradykinesia, and postural instability. Conventional treatment primarily relies on dopamine replacement therapy, but it has limitations, including side effects and reduced efficacy over time. Homeopathy, a complementary and alternative medical system, has gained attention for its potential to support PD patients. This article explores the role of homeopathy in Parkinson’s disease, focusing on its holistic approach, commonly used remedies and scientific evidence.
As there are many diseases, the team can go on publishing these papers almost ad infinitum. This exercise seems both tedious and misleading. So, I had the idea of saving everyone time by publishing the review below. In contrast to the Indian papers, my analysis is strictly evidence-based relying on the current best available data.
So, allow me to present my cutting-edge analysis of
HOMEOPATHY FOR MANAGING THE 50 MOST COMMON CONDITIONS:
- Acne: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Allergic rhinitis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Anemia: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Anxiety disorders: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Arthritis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Asthma: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Atherosclerosis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Back pain: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Bipolar disorder: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Bronchitis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Cataracts: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Celiac disease: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Chlamydia: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Chronic kidney disease: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Common cold: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Conjunctivitis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Coronary artery disease: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Covid-19: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Dementia: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Depression: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Diabetes: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Diarrheal diseases: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Eczema: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Endometriosis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Epilepsy: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Erectile dysfunction: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Fatty liver disease: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Fibromyalgia: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Gallstones: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Gastritis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Gastroesophageal reflux disease: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Glaucoma: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Gonorrhea: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Gout: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Heart failure: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Hepatitis B: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Herpes: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Hypertension: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Influenza: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Irritable bowel syndrome: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Malaria: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Migraine: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Obesity: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Osteoporosis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Pneumonia: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Psoriasis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Stroke: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Tuberculosis: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
- Urinary tract infection: the role of homeopathy is nil, non-existent, zero.
You will notice, no doubt, that I have made this comprehensive research available for free. Should there be interest, I am ready to dedicate a few further weeks of my precious time and extend this research to
“HOMEOPATHY FOR THE 100 MOST COMMON CONDITIONS”.
However, I need to warn you: for this extension of my work, I will have to charge a modest, hourly fee. Please send in for a quote.
In part 1 of this series, we had a look at the Trump family’s academic achievements, and in part 2, we discussed the concerted measures Trump is currently taking against US academia. In the last part of the series, I ask:
Why does he do it?
It would be easy but simplistic, I think, to claim his actions are just petty revenge. Trump’s war on academia rather seems to stem from a mix of ideological, political, and personal motivations:
- Trump and his supporters often view universities as strongholds of liberal or “woke” ideologies, promoting ideas like diversity, equity, and inclusion, critical race theory, or gender studies. They argue that such concepts foster an anti-conservative indoctrination.
- Trump’s actions tap into a general distrust of intellectuals, experts and elites. This populist anti-intellectualism is powerful in American life. Trumps attacks on universities, especially the Ivy League, portray them as out-of-touch, hostile to conservative principles and detached from the real world of the average US citizen.
- Trump promotes the misunderstanding that the campus protests over the Israel-Hamas conflict constitute evidence of antisemitism. In reality, these moves are less about antisemitism and more a protest against war crimes.
- Having himself graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, Trump seems to have both reverence and resentment towards the US top universities. On the one hand, he highlights the prestige of Ivy League credentials (e.g., praising Dr. Mehmet Oz’s Harvard degree). On the other hand, he attacks these institutions as symbols of an elite that never accepted and continue to ridicule him. This personal dynamic fuels his targeting of institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia.
- Trump aims at revoking visas for international students, particularly those involved in protests, and at declaring DEI programs as discriminatory. This, I think, highlights his wish to fascilitate the alignment of universities with his own fascistoid ideology.
- By framing colleges as centers of “communist” or “terrorist” indoctrination, Trump wants to appeal to his often uneducated voters who are dismissive of academia.
Trump’s actions can best be understood as being part of a broader authoritarian strategy to control intellectual discourse and suppress dissent, echoing historical efforts by figures like Hitler, Mussolini or Orbán to align universities with his own ideology. His focus on issues like “woke” or anti-semitism are merely a distraction from his ambition of ‘Gleichschaltung‘. His war on academia combines ideological opposition, populist appeal, petty personal grievances, and the perceived need to control institutions, free speech and academic freedom.
One key question in all this must be: what might be the consequences of Trump’s behavior? I am afraid they are not nice:
- Cutting funds will slow down innovation, delay breakthroughs, and weaken industries dependent on academic research, like tech or medicine. This is bound to have long-term economic ripple effects.
- Trump’s restrictions on international students, faculty, and specific academic programs will lead to a brain drain similar to the McCarthy-era purges. In turn, the US will lose global competitiveness.
- Trump’s ‘Gleichschaltung’ of academia must stifle free inquiry. This will weaken the US’s role as a hub for open intellectual exchange and impact on everything from policy debates to cultural influence.
- Funding freezes and visa restrictions will strain university budgets. If they persist, this could lead to closures or reduced access for underrepresented students, exacerbating inequality.
- Targeting specific disciplines will deepen cultural divides. Painting universities as “the enemy” will further erode public trust in academia. This might reduce enrollment and thus exacerbate existing funding difficulties.
- Making studying in the US less attractive will further shift talent to other countries. In turn, this will diminish America’s worldwide cultural and intellectual influence.
I sincerely hope, therefore, that Trump soon comes to his senses. His war on academia is certain to cause a lot of harm. And it is a war that he cannot win. Academia will be thriving long after the nightmare of Trump, his family and his sycophants is over. Academia and everything that is connected to it might suffer for a while, but it will always recover – and when it does, US universities will teach the history of Trump for what it was: an autocratic takeover of academia and democracy.
Aim of this study was to investigate associations between use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and uptake of COVID-19 and flu vaccines in a nationally representative US sample.
The results of this secondary analysis of National Health Interview Survey 2022 data indicated that after accounting for potential confounders, the overall use of SCAM did not significantly predict uptake of COVID-19 (p = 0.745) or flu vaccination (p = 0.123).
Vaccination uptake was lower for both COVID-19 and flu vaccines respectively, in individuals who visited:
- chiropractors (AOR = 0.78, 95% CI [0.69, 0.89], p < 0.001; AOR = 0.71, 95% CI [0.63, 0.81], p < 0.001),
- naturopaths (AOR = 0.66, 95% CI [0.51, 0.86], p = 0.002; AOR = 0.72, 95% CI [0.55, 0.94], p = 0.017).
Uptake rates were higher for both COVID-19 and flu vaccines respectively, for those who employed:
- acupuncturists (AOR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.15, 1.86], p = 0.002; AOR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.08, 1.63], p = 0.008),
mind-body medicine [increased likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination uptake (AOR = 1.24, 95% CI [1.08, 1.42], p = 0.002), but not flu vaccine (p = 0.264)].
Visiting a massage therapist was not a significant predictor for COVID-19 and flu vaccines, respectively (p = 0.128, p = 0.232).
Overall, the pattern of associations of SCAM use with COVID-19 vaccination uptake was comparable to that of flu vaccination uptake.
We have discussed many similar studies before, e.g.:
- Attitudes of Vaccination-Hesitant Parents Towards So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM)
- Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?
- Use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and its association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status
- Reasons for parental hesitancy or refusal of childhood vaccination
- Are people who oppose COVID-19 vaccinations intellectually challenged?
- Interest in so-called alternative medicine is linked to vaccination coverage
- Vaccination rates of Canadian healthcare professionals: those of chiropractors and naturopaths are at the lowest
- Preference of so-called alternative medicine predicts negative attitudes to vaccination
- Intelligence, Religiosity, SCAM, Vaccination Hesitancy – are there links?
- A naturopath promoting fake news about COVID vaccinations
- More information on homeopaths’ and anthroposophic doctors’ attitude towards vaccinations
- The UK Society of Homeopaths, a hub of anti-vaccination activists?
- Are anthroposophy-enthusiasts for or against vaccinations?
- Far too many chiropractors believe that vaccinations do not have a positive effect on public health
- Naturopaths’ counselling against vaccinations could be criminally negligent
- HOMEOPATHS AGAINST VACCINATION: “The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone”
- Use of alternative medicine is associated with low vaccination rates
- Integrative medicine physicians tend to harbour anti-vaccination views
- Vaccination: chiropractors “espouse views which aren’t evidence based”
Generally speking, these studies show that SCAM-users are less likely to approve of vaccinations than non-users. The present study partly confirms this finding and shows that, at least in the US, chiropractors and naturopaths are primarily responsible for the association.
My conclusion:
yet another reason to avoid these types of practitioners!
- Trump ordered his administration to freeze US $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in multi-year contract value to Harvard. He alleged that this action was prompted by Harvard’s failure to address antisemitism and comply with federal demands. Trump’s action came after the Harvard President, Alan Garber, had refused to meet demands such as auditing the student body and faculty for viewpoint diversity as well as shutting down diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
- An additional $450 million in taxpayer-funded grants was cut based on claims of fostering anti-Zionist extremism and violating civil rights.
- Trump also tried to bar Harvard from accepting students from countries other than the US and to force foreign students who are currently studying at Harvard to leave.
- Columbia Universit got US $400 million in federal contracts and grants canceled. This was because Trump felt Columbia was harboring antisemitism and promoting “anti-American” values. Columbia was also briefly placed on a federal “watchlist” before a court injunction blocked further punitive action.
- The Department of Education sent letters to 60 further universities threatening enforcement actions for non-compliance with anti-discrimination provisions in the Civil Rights Act.
- Funding was frozen for institutions like Princeton ($450 million) and Cornell ($1 billion), often tied to accusations of failing to curb pro-Palestinian protests or DEI initiatives.
- An Executive Order on Campus Accountability of April 11, 2025 directed the Department of Education to withhold federal funding from colleges deemed “hostile environments” under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, based on complaints of antisemitism. The aim was to justify funding cuts to universities that were alleged to be tolerant of pro-Palestinian protests.
- An Executive Order on DEI of January 2025 called for the elimination of federal funding for programs and grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, labeling them as “unlawful discrimination.” This has led to universities pausing or dismantling DEI initiatives to avoid financial penalties.
- An Executive Order on Accreditation Reform of April 2025 aimed to overhaul the accreditation system by encouraging new accreditors to increase competition and hold universities accountable for “ideological overreach.” This move is an attempt to manipulate accreditors to enforce compliance with the administration’s priorities.
- An Executive Order on Gain-of-Function Research of May 5, 2025 imposed strict regulations on federally funded experiments involving pathogens, banning funding for such research abroad and increasing penalties for violations.
- The Trump administration revoked over 300 F-1 visas, often targeting international students without clear explanations or due process.
- The Trump administration deleted records of international students, impacting their ability to study in the U.S.
- An Executive Order on Immigration Screening of January 29, 2025 established stringent vetting standards, including enhanced screening for visa applicants and stricter oversight of foreign nationals in the U.S. This has led to detentions and deportations of students and researchers because of their political views.
- The Department of Justice launched civil rights investigations into multiple campuses, accusing them of fostering antisemitic environments.
- A Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, established under Executive Order 14188 on January 29, 2025, announced visits to 10 universities, including Harvard and Columbia, to address alleged antisemitic harassment.
- The administration threatened to review the tax-exempt status of universities like Harvard, accusing them of inaccurately disclosing foreign funding sources.
- The Trump administration slashed National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding.
- The National Science Foundation (NSF) budget faces proposed cuts of up to two-thirds, threatening academic research broadly.
- Grants for research on climate change, gender studies, and health disparities in underrepresented groups have been frozen or canceled.
- The Trump administration has pressured universities to alter curricula, e.g. instructions to West Point to stop teaching courses on critical race theory and gender studies.
- The Trump administration fired hundreds of government scientists and reduced staff at agencies like the NIH, NSF, and Department of Education.
- Led by Elon Musk’ DOGE justified untold funding cuts and staff reductions allegedly to eliminate waste.
- Columbia was forced to oust its president, alter protest policies, and appoint a new administrator to oversee its Middle Eastern Studies department.
This is certainly a concerted and multi-layered action against academia. Its aim seems to be achieve what the Nazis called ‘Gleichschaltung’, i.e. the complete subordination and alignment with the governments ideology. In the next part of the series, we will explore what motivations might be behind it.
PS
The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked interest in So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM), both as a remedy for managing symptoms and in relation to its association with vaccine hesitancy and resistance to public health measures. European cross-national evidence remains sparse. This article provides a comparative analysis of SCAM use across European countries between 2014 and 2023. It assesses changes in the prevalence of use of different SCAM modalities and explore their associations with sociodemographic factors.
Analyses used weighted European Social Survey (ESS) data to estimate proportions and logistic regression with robust standard errors, controlling for gender, age, education, income, and country of residence.
The findings indicate that overall SCAM use in Europe has remained relatively stable during this period, although there were notable differences between countries and between treatment modalities, with some showing increases and others decreases in use. Foe example, there was a notable increase in SCAM use in:
- Lithuania (from 34.1% to 43.9%),
- France (33.1% to 41.6%),
- Belgium (25.1% to 30.3%),
- some increase in the Netherlands (14.6% to 18.7%),
- Poland (13.0% to 16.7%).
Conversely, other counties saw decreases in SCAM use:
- Germany (40.1% to 35.4%),
- Finland (35.8% to 28.0%).
Exclusively relying on SCAM without consulting medical professionals remains stable at approximately 8% of SCAM users. The typical user profiles of SCAM have remained consistent: women, mid-age groups and highly educated people tend to use SCAM more than other groups.
The authors concluded that, while SCAM use may have spiked temporarily during the pandemic, our analysis shows no evidence of a sustained long-term increase in its overall prevalence.
I am not usually impressed by the plethora of prevalence surveys on SCAM that get published. However, this one is different. The European Social Survey is a biennial cross-sectional survey conducted through face-to-face interviews. The dataset included weights to account for non-response and country-specific properties of sampling designs. Respondents were asked about their use of various healthcare modalities over the past 12 months using dichotomous survey items. The included SCAM modalities were acupuncture, acupressure, traditional Chinese medicine, chiropractics, osteopathy, homeopathy, herbal treatment, hypnotherapy, massage therapy, reflexology, and spiritual healing.
Thus the findings reported here are more meaningfull that those of most surveys. Yet, there are still considerable problems when interpreting the results. They relate, for instance, to the categories of SCAM included. With >400 different SCAM modalities, it is far from easy to decide which to include and which to exclude. Thus, even this survey must be consumed with a pinch of salt.
For me the main message that emerges from the findings is that, contrary to the wishful thinking of so many SCAM proponents, the popularity of SCAM across Europe is not markedly increasing.
I have worked in academia almost my entire professional life: first in Germany, then in Austria and finally in the UK. I therefore think that I know this world quite well. Recently, I have been observing with an increasing degree of concern what is happening to academia in the US. This matters to me, firstly because I have many friends, co-workers and colleagues in this sector, and secondly because major problems in the US will inevitably affect academia across the world.
This is why I took a keen interest in the US developments and tried to understand what exactly is going on there. To do this, we have to inquire about Trump’s weird relationship with academia. And to comprehend that, we ought to start by looking at family Trump’s experience.
Donald Trump started his education by attending the Kew-Forest School where he remained until the 7th grade. Trump himself has acknowledged that his behavior during this time could be described as disruptive. A classmate, Paul Onish, later recalled that Trump spent so much time in detention that his peers nicknamed it “DTs” (short for “Donny Trump”). Another classmate, Donald Kass, noted that Trump had a reputation for “saying anything that came into his head”.
Seeking to instill a little discipline, his parents, therefore sent him, aged 13, to the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school. A classmate from the Academy later said that Trump “yelled at his classmates. He pushed them around. … He ruled dormitory life with an iron fist.” Trump graduated from the Academy in 1964.
He then attended Fordham University in the Bronx for two years before transferring to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. There he earned a bachelor’s degree in economics in 1968. There’s no record of him pursuing further formal education beyond his undergraduate degree. Biographies, like those by authors Michael Kranish and Marc Fisher, mention that Trump’s assertive personality persisted during his university years. William T. Kelley, a marketing professor at Wharton allegedly called Trump “the dumbest goddamn student I ever had.”
Yet, Trump claimed repeatedly that he had been best in class, etc. Yet, there is no evidence for this, and Trump has threatened legal action against his former educational institutions in case they released his grades. Whichever way we look at it, Trumps academic career was at best unimpressive and at worst mediocre.
It is therefore all the more surprising that, later in life, Trump ventured into academia again – albeit this time as an entrepreneur. In 2004, he together with two associates opened ‘TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC’, not an accredited university but a for-profit education company. It claimed to provide ‘real estate and wealth-building seminars’ as well as Trump’s business strategies.
Initially, this institution offered online courses, audio packages, and workbooks focused on real estate investing, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation. It promised students a way to learn Trump’s ‘real estate secrets’. The University soon expanded to include individual mentorships and multi-day workshops, with prices up to $35,000 for “elite programs”.
By 2010, the institution increasingly faced criticism. It was alleged that it used misleading marketing, employed unqualified instructors, taught high-pressure sales tactics, and ripped off students. As it was not an accredited university, the use of the term “university” in the name violated state law. Trump reacted in 2010 by rebranding his company as the “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative”. Only one year later, it ceased operation.
Multiple lawsuits, including a class-action followed. It was alleged that Trump’s institution had misrepresented its offerings as well as its instructors’ credentials, and it was claimed that Trump had been running an unlicensed, illegal educational institution that had defrauded students of over $40 million. Finally, in November 2016, Trump settled three lawsuits for US $25 million.
And what about Trump’s family?
- Donald Trump Jr. graduated, as did his father, from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 2000 with a BSc in Economics. A 2004 New York magazine profile and a former classmate both noted instances of Trump Jr. being visibly intoxicated on campus. In a 2004 interview, he himself admitted drinking heavily at Wharton stating, “I used to drink a lot and party pretty hard”. In 2001, he was once arrested for public drunkenness.
- Ivanka Trump also graduated from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania (in 2004) with a BSc in Economics. She seems to have been a diligent student and never caused any problems at Wharton.
- Eric Trump graduated from Georgetown University in 2006 with a Bachelor’s degree in Finance and Management. Eric stated in 2021 that he was “not even that proud” of his alma mater, calling it “crazy as hell,” “off the charts,” and “out of their mind.”
- Trump’s current wife, Melania, attended the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia but left after one year to pursue modeling. There have been speculations that she misrepresented her academic credentials to obtain the ‘Einstein visa’, which would constitute visa fraud. However, her attorney maintained that no university connection is cited in her visa application.
- Trump’s youngest son, Barron, it has been rumored on social media, was turned down by Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford, but these claims are not supported by official sources. Barron is currently enrolled at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Trump claimed that Barron had been accepted to multiple universities and made this choice because he preferred it to the other options.
It seems to me that Trump’s own and his family’s complex experiences with various US universities might be relevant for understanding Trump’s bewildering relationship with academia in the US.
I am always on the lookout for forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) with which I am unfamiliar. Today, I found one!
The SINGING BOWL is a bowl-shaped instrument originating in China and Tibet that can be made of various metals, including copper, tin, zinc, iron, silver, gold, and nickel. It is played by hitting or rubbing its edges with wooden or leather mallets. Different frequencies of sound can be produced by hitting singing bowls with different materials and sizes. It was initially utilized by Tibetan
Buddhist monks to conduct religious rites and for healing.
In the 1970s, a Dutch psychotherapist named Hans De Back, who was suffering severe pain due to ankylosing spondylitis, discovered that this instrument helped his condition. He transformed this discovery into a therapeutic modality according to the Tibetan health and rehabilitation theory.
As a type of vibroacoustic therapy, the singing bowl therapy generates vibration on the body surface and emits sounds of varying frequencies depending on the material and size of bowls. It provides a combination of vibration, music listening combined providing a therapeutic interaction. The use of singing bowls can be regarded as a SCAM that combines medicine, psychology and musicology.
But is it effective?
This systematic review aimed to analyze all available clinical evidence, and determine any beneficial or adverse effects of singing bowl in any population.
Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsyINFO, CINAHL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Sinomed from database inception to July 2024. Clinical studies of singing bowl therapy, regardless of research type, population, and intervention were included. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Data from randomized trials were analyzed and presented as the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals, And the results from two or more separate trials with same study type that evaluated similar populations, interventions, comparisons and outcomes were statistical pooled using meta-analysis.by Stata.16 software.
Nineteen clinical studies originated from eight countries and published between 2008 and July 2024 were identified. Half were RCTs (9), the remainder included case series studies (7), randomized crossover studies (2) and non-RCT (1).
The evidence showed that singing bowl has been applied to a wide range of conditions, including the elderly, surgery, Parkinson’s disease, pain, cancer, neurological function, sleep disorder, depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, as well as physiological and psychological function,and it has mainly focused on outcomes related to mental health.
The authors concluded that singing bowls may have potential to alleviate anxiety, depression, improve quality of sleep and cognitive function in various patient groups, and change autistic behavior. It also shows potential benefits in physiological improvements like electroencephalography.
The authors forgot to mention in their abstract that non-RCTs are nearly worthless for evaluation therapeutic effectiveness and that all RCTs were of poor quality and thus equally worthless. Why then do they bend over backwards to draw a positive conclusion. The answer might lie in their affiliations:
a Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
b NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia
c Beijing Jingmei Group General Hospital, Beijing, China
d Dongzhimen Hospital of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
e Monitoring and Statistical Research Center, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
f Institute of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom
What is perhaps even more impressive: the senior author of the review, Nicola Robinson, is a member of our ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME!
SAY NO MORE!
“What does Trump think about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?”
Does anyone know?
Does he even know himself?
Time to ask GROK!
Here is the answer I got when asking exactly that question (the bold print was added by me in an attempt to highlight what I felt was important):
There is no definitive, up-to-date public statement from Donald Trump explicitly outlining his views on alternative medicine as a broad category. However, based on available information from his actions, statements, and policy moves, we can piece together some insights into his stance, particularly during his presidency and recent activities up to May 2025.
Key Points on Trump’s Views and Actions Related to Alternative Medicine:
1 Skepticism of Mainstream Medical Institutions:
- Trump has often expressed distrust toward mainstream medical and scientific establishments, which aligns with sentiments in some alternative medicine communities. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, despite limited scientific evidence supporting their efficacy for COVID-19. His endorsements led to significant increases in prescriptions and public interest, highlighting his influence and willingness to back therapies outside mainstream medical consensus.
- This skepticism is further evidenced by his support for figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a history of promoting alternative health perspectives and questioning mainstream medical practices, such as vaccines. Trump appointed RFK Jr. to lead the “Make America Healthy Again” Commission, which focuses on chronic diseases and could potentially explore non-conventional approaches.
2 Support for Experimental and Compassionate Use Treatments:
- Trump has advocated for policies like the “Right-to-Try” legislation, which allows terminally ill patients to access experimental drugs not yet fully approved by the FDA. This reflects a willingness to bypass traditional medical regulatory pathways to provide access to treatments that might be considered alternative or unproven. In his 2018 State of the Union address, he emphasized giving patients a chance to try such treatments, framing it as a matter of patient empowerment.
- During his own COVID-19 treatment in October 2020, Trump received an experimental antibody cocktail from Regeneron under compassionate use rules, which was not widely available to the public. This move raised ethical questions but also showed his openness to non-standard treatments when personally relevant.
3 Limited Direct Engagement with Alternative Medicine:
- There is little evidence that Trump has explicitly endorsed practices like acupuncture, homeopathy, or naturopathy, which are commonly associated with alternative medicine. For example, the Trump Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis (2017) did not reference nonpharmacologic or integrative approaches like acupuncture in its interim report, despite growing mainstream support for such methods in pain management.
- However, a 2025 budget proposal from Trump reportedly included eliminating funding for the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), suggesting a lack of priority or potential skepticism toward federally funded research into complementary therapies.
4 Overlap with Alternative Medicine Communities:
- Trump’s rhetoric and appeal have resonated with some alternative medicine communities due to shared distrust of mainstream institutions. A 2020 Washington Post article noted parallels between Trump’s base and alternative medicine advocates, both of whom often reject “mainstream” narratives (e.g., media or medical establishment) in favor of empowerment through “doing your own research.” This ideological overlap doesn’t necessarily mean Trump endorses alternative medicine outright but indicates a cultural alignment with some of its proponents.
- His association with figures like RFK Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who have at times supported controversial or alternative health ideas, further ties him to this space, though his personal stance remains less explicit.
5 Focus on Patient Empowerment and Deregulation:
- Trump’s broader healthcare agenda emphasizes deregulation, patient choice, and reducing reliance on federal oversight, which could indirectly support alternative medicine by lowering barriers to unorthodox treatments. His executive orders on healthcare, such as those promoting price transparency and flexibility in health plans, align with a philosophy of giving individuals more control over their healthcare decisions, a principle often championed by alternative medicine advocates.
Analysis and Gaps:
- Lack of Explicit Policy on Alternative Medicine: Trump has not articulated a clear, comprehensive stance on alternative medicine as a field (e.g., acupuncture, herbal remedies, or chiropractic care)v His focus has been more on specific unproven treatments (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) or policies that indirectly affect the broader healthcare landscape.
- Context of COVID-19: His promotion of unproven COVID-19 treatments was controversial and led to real-world consequences, such as increased prescriptions and a reported death linked to chloroquine misuse. This suggests a willingness to endorse therapies with limited evidence when they align with his narrative or political goals, but it’s not a blanket endorsement of all alternative medicine.
- Potential Contradictions: The proposed cut to NCCIH funding contrasts with his support for figures like RFK Jr., who might advocate for exploring alternative approaches. This could indicate a pragmatic or inconsistent approach rather than a unified stance.
Conclusion:
Donald Trump’s views on alternative medicine appear to be less about endorsing specific practices and more about a broader distrust of mainstream medical institutions, a focus on patient empowerment, and a willingness to support unproven or experimental treatments in certain contexts. His actions, such as promoting hydroxychloroquine, supporting Right-to-Try, and aligning with figures skeptical of conventional medicine, suggest an openness to non-traditional approaches, particularly when they resonate with his base or personal circumstances. However, his budget proposal to defund the NCCIH indicates he may not prioritize federal support for researching complementary therapies. Without a direct statement from Trump, his stance remains inferred from these actions and associations. For the most current perspective, checking recent statements or posts on platforms like Truth Social could provide further clarity, but as of May 2025, no such explicit statement is widely documented.
____________________
The next question is: WHO CARES?
Why should it matter what the spiritus rector of the KKK bar of human decency thinks?
Sadly, the answer is BECAUSE HE HAS INFLUENCE.
My prediction is that Trump will remain uninterested in SCAM until the moment he sees an oportunity to make millions of it. Let’s hope this never happens!
Recently, I was trying to find out more about the “HUFELAND MEDAILLE” – not the one once created by the GDR, but the award given yearly since the mid-1950s by the German “Zentralverband der Ärzte für Naturheilverfahren und Regulationsmedizin e.V.” (ZAEN, Association for Doctors of Natural and Regulatory Medicine). This is when I came across Dr. Michael M. Hadulla who describes himself as follows:
– Specialist in pediatrics and adolescent medicine
– Doctor of homeopathy
– Acupuncture
– Depth psychology
– Authorized continuing education provider for homeopathy in Baden-Württemberg
– Former vice president of the ZAEN
– Author of numerous books
On Hadulla’s website I also found an article about me (!) which is too good to be missed:
Letter to the editor on a highly polemical interview by Edzard Ernst (Spiegel 2022)
Edzard Ernst’s interview, “Enemies of the Enlightenment,” was not good: It reveals a mood of disappointment, malice, and downright hostility toward homeopathy and the entire English royal family, especially King Charles III. This disappointment may be rooted in E. Ernst’s biography, which had already suffered a shipwreck at the Munich Naturheilklinik Wien (Natural Healing Clinic in Vienna), as well as in his academic failure in England, when Prince Charles forced him into early retirement.
E. Ernst now presents himself as a victim of an esoteric-spiritual homeopathic conspiracy. But the opposite is true: the pharmacological-chemical industry is powerful, even overwhelmingly powerful. As a pediatrician, also with experience in intensive care medicine, I can truly draw up a list of victims myself: from thalidomide (a highly praised sleeping pill at the time) in the 1950s with its horrific deformities, to X-ray contrast agents as the cause of numerous cancers, to the increasing antibiotic resistance (approximately 50,000 sepsis deaths each year in Germany), to the long-term side effects of cortisone, to the serious side effects of psychotropic drugs, some of which create “zombie” creatures.
‘I am sick of the constant, tedious repetition of evidence and statistics: For 200 years now, we homeopaths have had well-documented case studies with names and diagnoses, doctor’s letters, and laboratory results that clearly demonstrate that well-chosen homeopathic remedies heal. This is evidence in the Latin sense: evidere = immediately evident. E. Ernst’s definition of science is also extremely poor: Science is more than just linear-causal reasoning; it’s more comprehensive: “We explain nature; we understand humanity.” Not only did the renowned philosopher Gadamer receive homeopathic treatment throughout his life; an atomic physicist also finds his way to my practice.
E. Ernst is being crude when he claims that Samuel Hahnemann invented homeopathy. No, no, and no again. Samuel Hahnemann discovered it in the millennia-old knowledge of the Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, and Arabs. He knew all these languages, compiled this knowledge, and compiled it into the first pharmacist’s lexicon, entirely in the spirit of the Enlightenment. Speaking of the Enlightenment: Kant’s “Sapere aude” stood above the St. Afra Gymnasium as a motto for Samuel Hahnemann, too. The fact that Samuel Hahnemann, with his homeopathy, made the leap from the crudely material to the spiritually informative has been debated for over 200 years.
Bibliography
- Hadulla, MM; Pfeil, TA: Children’s drawings in homeopathy. The house-tree-human test and the animal family as valuable tools for identifying the entirety of symptoms. ZKH, 2009.
- Hadulla, MM; Richter, O.: Anamnesis, a highly important but forgotten art. Zaenmagazin, 2023.
- Hadulla, MM; Richter, O.: Parents, Child, Neurosis: Conflict Resolution in the Family – Homeopathy and Psychotherapy. Physicians’ Journal for Natural Healing, 2004.
- Hadulla, MM; Richter, O.: Tobacco and Vertigo (=Dizziness) of the Most Severe Form. An Odyssey to “Aeolus,” the Lord of the Winds. ZKH, 2018.
- Hadulla, MM: Mandragora. Gallbladder colic and headaches. AHZ, 2021.
- Hadulla, MM: Stramonium in its Ambivalence. Between Violence and Religious Longing. AHZ, 2022.
- Hadulla, M. M: Homeopathic treatment of Covid-19 supported by naturopathic measures. Zaenmagazin, 2023.
- Hadulla, MM: Carcinosinum and Medorrhinum in the treatment of sleep disorders – Two case studies. AHZ, 2008.
- Meyer, CB: A Case in Case Study Methodology. Field Methods, Sage Publications, 2001.
- Hadulla, MM; Richter, O.; Fattahi, N.: 101 Case Histories from Practice for Practice. ML Verlag, Uelzen 1999.
- Kiene, H.; Hamre, HJ; Martin, D.: Homeopathy also has a legitimate place in science-based medicine. Ärzte Zeitung, 2024.
As far as I know, DER SPIEGEL never did publish this ‘letter’.
What a pity!
I love everything about it; I adore Hadulla’s ability to re-invent history, to freely fabricate my CV, to produce nonsense on stilts, etc. (in case you waant to compare this ‘homeopathic truth’ to reality, I recommend looking at this, this or this). The Hadulla letter is unintended humor allopathic doses!
Perhaps the most adorable detail of them all is the appended bibliography. Evidently, Hadulla has published heaps of similar nonsense in journals that are even more irrelevant than his texts!
