Monthly Archives: August 2025
In the realm of so-called alternative medicine, one often comes across weird articles. Some are clearly weirder than others. This paper belongs into the former category. Here is its abstract:
The belief in non- physical beings playing crucial roles in illness and healing is widespread across diverse cultures. Our previous study found reports of alleged non- physical beings during energy medicine sessions. To evaluate the perceived presence and characteristics of non- physical beings mentioned during Reiki sessions. Six seers observed 40 Reiki sessions, and quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the seers, participants, and Reiki practitioners. The presence and function of the non-physical beings during the sessions and the correspondence between quantitative and qualitative data types were evaluated. All sessions had reports of alleged non- physical beings, with angelic beings, spirit guides, and possession/spirit attachments most commonly noted. The reported entities mainly aided the healing process, but some were also linked to pathology. While this study did not explore the effectiveness of treatment, the findings do highlight the potential importance of ostensible non- physical entities in Reiki, warranting further investigation.
The authors concluded that “this report presents exploratory data analyses from a parent study in which six seers observed 40 Reiki sessions. The analysis shows that seers reported perceptions of non- physical beings, such as RM’s and Participant’s Guides, Unspecified Spiritual Beings/Helpers, Angelic Presences, Unhelpful Beings (e.g.,
spirit attachments), ETI, and Animal Spirits during all of the sessions. However, other than for ETI and Unhelpful Beings, agreement between raters regarding the type of non- physical beings reported was low, suggesting that caution should be exercised when reviewing these reports. Most of these beings were perceived as aiding the Reiki session by grounding, supporting, and healing. On the other hand, Unhelpful Beings were mentioned as contributing to pathology by blocking or attaching. Although many sessions showed alignment between the coded
data and textual data, the correlations were not significant when individual seer scores were retained; multiple comparison corrections were applied. This study is unique and significant in its systematic approach to quantifying and analyzing the correspondence of observers’ perceptions of non- physical beings in healing sessions, especially given the limited research this topic has received. However, this study also highlights the need for future research into the role of non- physical beings in energy medicine healing, including control conditions, to ensure that the reported perceptions are specific to the healing process and not to other factors. Future research prompted by these results includes exploring the potential differences in healing outcomes for individuals who report encounters with various non- physical beings during Reiki energy medicine sessions. Investigating this could provide support for the argument that, as physical and mental health practitioners increasingly recognize the impact of spiritual connections on disease and pathology, it becomes crucial to reframe traditional understandings of conditions like psychosis to include the influence of non- physical beings (Pederzoli et al. 2021)”.
The authors discuss that energy healing practitioners often assert that they must connect with a source of healing, such as God, spirit, or the Earth’s energy, and then channel or facilitate that energy to the client. Others describe a more direct intervention of God, spirits, or other external agents. This connection with non- physical sources is believed to be crucial for effective healing.
Wow!
Who can publish such weird stuff pretending this is science?
And to what institution does the author of this paper belong?
I am tempted to start a competition for ‘THE MOST IMPRESSIVE BULLSHIT OF THE YEAR’.
The article originates from the “Research Department, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Novato, California, USA“. This seems to be a well-funded institute with ~ 20 staff. They state: “At the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), we are inspired by the power of science to explain phenomena not previously understood, harnessing the best of the rational mind to make advances that further our knowledge and enhance our human experience.”
They have an impressively long list of publications. The very first in the list rang a bell; they cite it as follows:
Astin et al (2000). The efficacy of “distant healing”: A systematic review of randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. pdf
It rang a bell because I and a co-worker of mine are 2 of its 3 authors:
The efficacy of “distant healing”: a systematic review of randomized trials.
The 1st author, John Astin worked at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
As far as I can make out, none of us had or have any connection to the Institute of Noetic Sciences!
How come then that they list our paper as one of their own?
Fraud?
No, I imagine that an angelic being or perhaps a spirit guide must have mis-filed it … got to prove that “non-physical beings”can make mistakes too! To err is not just human; it’s also super-human.
There is now an embarraassing amount of examples of RFKJr’s behavior, actions and public statements that can only be described by using the term hubris:
Despite his denials, Kennedy is a die hard vaccine sceptic as well as an anti-vaccine activist. He is spreading dangerous and deadly conspiracies, and his actions go repeatedly against the scientific consensus. His policies are based on myths and pseudoscience and a blatant disregard for science and evidence-based public health.
Kennedy has implemented a sweeping overhaul of US vaccine policy, and is accused of reckless mismanagement and administrative incompetence that has led to chaos and disorganization inside and outside of his department. This includes reducing staff at federal agencies and promoting a reorganization of HHS that can only weaken the US’s ability to address future health problems.
The firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez and the subsequent resignations of other senior CDC officials are a direct result of their refusal to rubber-stamp his ideological anti-vaccine agenda and unscientific and dangerous demands. One official, Demetre Daskalakis, resigned with a warning that the “ideological agenda” which is being pushed by Kennedy “will result in death and disability.”
Kennedy’s actions seem to be driven by a desire to please a political base. They reveal a complete disregard for science and a judgmental view of public health and science. In other words, he is weaponizing public health for political gain.
Most recently, Kennedy stated disgusting confidence: “I know what a healthy child is supposed to look like. I’m looking at kids as I walk through the airports today…and I see these kids that are just overburdened with mitochondrial challenges…and I know that’s not how our children are supposed to look.” This, of course, is complete, utter and embarrassing nonsense. It might even be funny (in that it highlights his incompetence) but sadly it foremost is, like so many of his statements, extremely dangerous. A man who thinks like this must not be near a health department; much rather he should be in a straight jacket.
I am hardly alone with my criticism. Here are but a few comments from prominent people related to Kennedy’s recent statement on “mitochondrial challenges” that I picked up yesterday on ‘X’:
- The man is a lying grifter who is doing grave harm.
- Medicine and public health have added three decades to the human lifespan. Vaccination alone produced 40% of the reduction in child deaths. And now a disturbed and unqualified man driven by crackpot theories is destroying the foundations of this work, including CDC.
- Every. Single. Time RFK tries to pontificate on health and medicine he spouts absolute gibberish that crumbles with a 30sec Google search. This is what happens when you form views based on social media nonsense and pure quackery. Anyone with internet access can see through it.
- We now are facing the greatest threat to public health in the USA since it became a country. The spillover will task the entire world and will become the major threat to global public health.
- Non-doctor, non-medically trained weirdo RFK Jr. says he can medically diagnose kids just by looking at them.
- Wtf is a Mitochondrial challenged face? Unless he’s in the prednisone ward, how is he seeing so much inflammation too? Is the worm seeing?
- RFK Jr uses long scientific sounding words and talks very confidently. He is therefore able to convince many that he knows what he is talking about. But to actual experts it’s very obvious he hasn’t got a clue. A sophisticated and successful con man.
- RFKjr is the leading cause of threats to global health security.
- Who’s the most dangerous cabinet member? RFK Jr Tulsi Gabbard Kash Patel Pete Hegseth I go for RFK Jr with Tulsi a close second.
- Ex-heroin addict with a parasitic brain worm, zero medical degrees, zero background in healthcare, or any formal scientific training thinks he can diagnose children just by looking at them??? This is insane. This man is going to LITERALLY kill us.
- The non-doctor is diagnosing children from 30 meters distance with fake diseases and invented psychological conditions that have no basis in reality. He does get credit for cramming a remarkable amount of stupidity into the fewest amount of words possible.
- Excuse me, @SenBillCassidy, perhaps now is the time to stand up, say you were wrong to confirm this crank, and advocate for his removal.
- RFK JR: “I’m looking at kids…and I see they are just overburdened with mitochondrial challenges, inflammation—you can tell from their faces” Me: I’m looking at the HHS Secretary and I see an anti science crank who doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
The national and international outrage is enorm – rightly so! – and many of us have called for Kennedy’s resignation. Sadly, he is allowed to continue displaying his disgusting hubris unabated. We will all feel its effects soon.
US medical professionals, pleaase stop this lunatic!
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of Reiki applied to women in the postmenopausal period on menopausal symptoms and depression levels.
This randomized controlled study was conducted with postmenopausal women registered in a family health center. The sample of the study consisted of 82 women (Reiki=41, control=41). While four sessions of Reiki were applied to the women in the Reiki group, once a week for 4 weeks, all participants in the control group received routine care provided by health professionals at the family health center. The Menopause Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inventory were used to collect data. The data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0, with independent and dependent t-tests, and effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. The analysis was conducted using the per-protocol approach, where only participants who fully completed the intervention and adhered to the protocol were included in the analysis.
The mean scores of menopausal complaints (17.31 vs. 21.73; p<0.01), somato-vegetative complaints (2.70 vs. 3.85; p<0.01), and psychological complaints (10.07 vs. 12.60; p<0.05) were significantly reduced in the Reiki group compared to the control group. Similarly, the mean score of depression (9.63 vs. 15.90; p<0.001) was significantly decreased in the Reiki group compared to the control group.
The authors concluded that Reiki practice significantly reduced menopausal symptoms and depression levels in postmenopausal women. These findings suggest that Reiki may be an effective complementary treatment option for women going through menopause.
I beg to differ!
The study was designed along the A+B versus B design which we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog. It does not control for placebo effects which means it generates positive results without fail, even for the most ineffective therapies.
In view of this, I should re-write the conclusions as follows:
Placebo effects significantly reduce menopausal symptoms and depression levels in postmenopausal women. These findings do not suggest that Reiki may be an effective complementary treatment option for women going through menopause.
The United States spends more money on the care of back and neck pain than any other health condition. Despite this, the cost-effectiveness for many recommended treatments is unclear. Our primary objective for this project was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), supervised exercise therapy (ET), and home exercise and advice (HEA) for spinal pain in the U.S.
The researchers analyzed cost and clinical outcome data from eight randomized trials conducted in the U.S. using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach. They calculated cost-effectiveness from the societal and healthcare perspective of various comparisons between SMT, ET, and HEA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using quality-adjusted life years as the main outcome.
The 8 trials included a total of 1803 participants and 1488 (83%) provided complete data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probabilities of cost-effectiveness varied substantially between studies; thus, the reseaarchers did not conduct meta-analysis and report findings from individual trials.
Cost-effectiveness findings were favorable for SMT compared to HEA for acute neck pain (ICERs below $50k/QALY) and when added to HEA for chronic back-related leg pain and chronic neck pain in older adults (better outcomes and lower costs). However, SMT was not likely cost-effective compared to HEA for chronic back pain in adults or when added to HEA for older adults (higher costs and worse outcomes).
Findings for SMT were favorable when compared to ET in adults with chronic back pain and when added to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (better outcomes and lower costs) and chronic back pain in adolescents (ICERs below $50k/QALY). However, SMT is not likely cost-effective when compared to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (ICERs below $70k/QALY for exercise) and findings were inconsistent across outcomes in older adults with chronic back pain.
Finally, ET may be cost-effective compared to HEA for adults with chronic neck pain (ICERs largely between $100-$200k/QALY), but not for chronic back pain or when added to HEA for older adults with chronic neck or back pain (higher costs and worse outcomes).
The authors concluded that overall based on willingness to pay thresholds of $50-$200k/QALY, there was moderate to high probability that spinal manipulation is cost-effective relative to HEA for neck pain and back-related leg pain, but not for chronic back pain. There was also moderate to high probability spinal manipulation was cost-effective relative to exercise therapy for chronic back pain but findings were mixed for neck pain and more favorable in older adults. Cost-effectiveness findings for exercise therapy were mostly not favorable relative to less intensive home exercise programs as costs were higher, and outcomes were often worse.
The authors admit that their analyses have several limitations: Randomized clinical trials are often designed to detect important differences in disease-specific clinical outcomes that are most likely to be impacted by the treatments assessed (e.g., pain severity, disability). Important measures for assessing cost-effectiveness include general health outcomes like changes in QALYs, healthcare use, and missed work. These measures were collected alongside disease-specific measures, but the trials were not powered to detect important differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes. Participants self-reported their use of healthcare and medications along with number of missed workdays. We did not have access to administrative data for healthcare use or costs. While access to administrative data would have reduced potential measurement error for these variables, it is not without limitations due to the high variability in coverage and re-imbursement policies for healthcare procedures across insurance products in the U.S. Costs for reduced productivity due to spinal pain included missed work in and outside of the home, but costs due to reduced productivity while still at work (i.e., presenteeism) were not included. This is an important limitation as costs due to reduced productivity while at work consistently account for a large proportion of total costs in spinal pain burden of illness studies. Finally, all studies were conducted in the U.S. with resources valued using U.S. prices and findings are not likely generalizable to populations or healthcare systems in other countries.
The authors stress that additional studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these approaches relative to medical care, the most common treatment approach in the US , as well as other guideline recommended treatments such as massage, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction, tai chi, yoga, and cognitive behavioral therapy
In view of these limitations and the fact that just 8 trials could be included, the relatively firm comclusions are surprising, in my view. To me, much of the data look unconvincing, somewhat random, inconsistent and implausible. could it be that the authors were trying to generate and emphacize positive results? After all, most of them are affiliated to the “Integrative Health and Wellbeing Research Program Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota”!
This systematic review was aimed at evaluating if musculoskeletal manipulations (MMs), including osteopathic manipulation and chiropractic care, are effective to improve quality of life, pain intensity and function in older adults with musculoskeletal disorders.
Randomised controlled trials, controlled non-randomised trials and open label trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of MM such as osteopathic manipulation, chiropractic manipulation, myofascial release, craniosacral therapy, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapies in older people (age ≥65 years) with musculoskeletal disorders. The main outcomes included pain intensity, functionality and quality of life. Additionally, other related outcomes were considered, such as medical use duration, mood, mobility, motion, strength and endurance. Finally, we considered any adverse events.
Selection and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. The effect estimates for each study were performed using Review Manager V.5.14. Continuous outcomes were analysed using the mean difference (95% CI). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 (RoB 2). No meta-analysis was performed.
Five parallel randomised controlled trials were included, with a total sample size of 676 participants (41.6% women with a mean age of 77.3 years): 34 with chronic pain, 265 with neck pain and 377 with low back pain. MMs were not effective in patients with chronic pain, neither in pain intensity nor in functionality.
For neck pain, considering the main outcomes, only in one of the two studies was there a statistically significant improvement in neck pain intensity only at week 12 for spinal manipulative treatment (SMT)+home exercise (HE) compared with HE alone (ES=-0.90 (95% CI -1.46 to -0.34); p=0.002).
For low back pain, SMT+HE showed a statistically significant reduction in pain at 12 weeks compared with HE (ES=-0.79 (95% CI -1.39 to -0.19) p=0.010.
For neck pain and low back pain, no statistically significant improvement in functional status and quality of life was observed with MM compared with any control group.
RoB 2 showed a high risk of bias in three studies and some concerns in the others. At the domain level, the lowest risk was observed in the randomisation process (80% with some concerns). All five studies reported adverse events, none of which were serious.
The authors concluded that this systematic review highlights the need for further investigation into complementary therapies, particularly osteopathy, for chronic pain management and prevention in elderly individuals. The results of the current work emphasise that there is a need to further investigate this topic and move the focus more on the promotion of healthy and management behaviours (eg, more physical activity, self-efficacy and adaptive coping, less healthcare utilisation, medication use) and less on the pain symptoms. The fundamental need for complementary medicine, and in particular MM such as chiropractic care and osteopathic manipulative treatment, is the development of clinical trials and RCTs to assess efficacy on quality of life, pain, functionality and general health of the elderly patient. These will help us to determine where MM can be significant.
This, it seems to me, is merely a polite way of stating that neither chiropractic nor osteopathy are supported by sound evidence, and that therapeutic claims by chiropractors and osteopaths are usually hugely exaggerated. Therefore, the prudent thing to do, if you are suffering from back or neck pain, is to use treatments that are less expensive and less likely to cause severe, sometimes life-threatening adverse effects.
On 15 August, I received an interesting e-mail. Here it is; I have not changed a word:
Hi,
I have developed a revolutionary antipathogenic treatment I have proof of a full reversal of AIDS and removal of HIV virus and antibodies to international testing standards.
I have removed Viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitic, prionic, and mycobacterium infections. So far 60 infections, conditions, diseases and syndromes have been reversed.
Homeopathy only works once you have the immune system working perfectly and no one has a working immune system.
The treatment is based on the LPO system and this forms the first line of defence for the immune system for all mammals and bird life which proves its use by the dinosaurs prior to when bird life and mammals split away from the dinosaur lineage at at least 200 million years.
All human cells and beneficial bacteria are immune to its actions. All pathogens have no protection and using bioreasonance as diagnosis the body is totally infection free within 15 minutes from a loading of50-70 infections prior to dose.
I have a medical trial result of removing full blown AIDS in 72 out of 72 patients and removing counts of millions of HIV virus to undetectable and a negative result to HIV antibodies 1-3 months later tested to international standards.
All diseases are simply untreated infections.
Kindest regards
Frank Ludlow
Ps I have successfully treated every disease including 60 listed as incurable by allopathic medicine. All antibiotic immune infections, every type of cancer, autism spectrum, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, dementia, corona virus etc etc etc
Naturally, I was amused/intrigued and thus replied: “Fascinating, please provide more info. Best regards Edzard Ernst”
So far, I have not reseived a reply. But I was still keen to learn more. 
A quick search on the Internet brought ample results.
Many UK papers had published about Frank Ludlow. The BBC, for example, had reported about a man with this name in 2020. And, around the same time, THE SUN had published an article stating that “Frank Ludlow, 59, was given a suspended ten-month jail sentence yesterday after cops in London caught him sending bogus remedies to customers in France and the US back in March.”
So, on reflection, I think I will not pursue the new wonder drug of Frank Ludlow any further – but perhaps the police should?
During his confirmation hearings to become the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services in January 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made statements under oath that were later contradicted by his actions. For instance, he:
- Claimed he would not limit access to vaccines but later, he did in many ways the opposite.
- Denied being “anti-vaccine,” yet later, he even refused to state that vaccines do not cause autism and criticized or abolished long-standing public health guidelines.
- Insisted he had reliquished his financial interest in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, but refused to answer questions about a 10% stake in any settlement agreements.
- Said he would devote “appropriate resources” to preventing a future pandemic, but later, he announced significant cuts to health research across the US.
Lying under oath is perjury, a felony under US federal law. It is punishable by prison sentence of up to five years!
Kennedy is, of course, in ‘good company’: a number of Trump’s seem also guity of perjury; here are but a few examples.
- Jeff Sessions, Attorney General: During his confirmation hearing, he was asked if he or anyone in the Trump campaign had any contact with Russian officials during the 2016 election. He stated that he had not. It was later revealed that he had, in fact, met with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
- Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: Pruitt testified that he had never used a private email account to conduct official business as Oklahoma’s attorney general. Later reports showed that obtained emails showing he did use a personal account for official business.
- Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education: During her hearing, DeVos stated she had not been involved with her family’s foundation that had given millions to groups opposing LGBTQ+ rights. Later tax filings revealed that she had been the vice president of the foundation’s board for 17 years.
- Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury: Mnuchin testified that his former bank, OneWest Bank, had not used “robo-signing” to improperly foreclose on homeowners. Later, numerous reports and a judge’s ruling showed that the bank’s employees had signed foreclosure documents in bulk.
- Tom Price, Secretary of Health and Human Services: Price insisted that a special discount he received on a biotech stock was available to all investors. Later, a report revealed that fewer than 20 investors were offered the same discount.
- Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense: During his confirmation hearings, Hegseth trivialized his previous statements against women in military combat roles. This is an overt contradiction of his long-held views.
So, are these officials guilty of perjury?
To me, there seems to be little doubt.
Why are they not on trial or in prison?
Is it because MAGA and the Trump administration have succeeded not only in vandalized US science and public health, but also in suspending the rule of law?
I hope not!
One of my aims with this blog is to further critical thinking. I am doing this now since well over a decade, it is therefore high time to ask:
WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?
Critical thinking is the process of analyzing information with a view of forming an evidence-based and reliable judgment. Instead of accepting information at face value, critical thinking involves a deeper, more rigorous and rational process. The core characteristics of critical thinking are:
- Skeptical inquiry: asking questions, not just accepting answers unchecked. A critical thinker constantly probes for clarity and evidence, challenging assumptions and the status quo.
- Analytical evaluation: breaking down complex information into smaller parts to understand how they relate, evaluating the credibility of sources, identifying biases and assessing the strength of evidence.
- Open-minded objectivity: aiming to put aside personal beliefs and biases, considering different viewpoints and adjusting a position convincing evidence.
- Purposeful reflection: aiming to reach a reasoned conclusion, making an informed decision, reflecting on ones own thought processes and correcting flaws in ones arguments.
Regular Thinking tends to be automatic, unstructured, influenced by intuition, beliefs, emotions, habits, experiences, etc. It is useful for mundane things such as deciding what to wear or what to have for dinner. It is akin to what Daniel Kahneman called ‘fast thinking’.
Critical Thinking is more of a deliberate, systematic and rational process. It’s slower and requires conscious effort. It is useful for analyzing a research paper, solving a difficult problems or making a significant life decision. It is akin to what Daniel Kahneman called ‘slow thinking‘.
In essence, critical thinking is a refined and disciplined form of contemplation that aims for clarity, accuracy, and fairness, while regular thinking is for the obvious stuff of every-day life. In other words, most people have both forms of thinking at their disposal and each serves a different set of purposes.
GULLIBLITY
But what about the many people who are unable to think critically and employ regular thinking in the wrong way? In the comments section of this blog, we have met several of them – for instance, people who believe in disproven treatments like homeopathy, individuals who are convinced that the germ theory of disease is false, or guys who subscribe to anti-vaccination myths. They tend to be passionate about their beliefs and seem to fall easily for even the most obvious misinformation. They are unable to understand science and unwilling to change their mind. When confronted with convincing evidence, they conclude that it is a conspiracy. These people, I am afraid, are usually lost to the world of critical thinking – but, to look on the bright side, on this blog, they fulfill an important puropse: they greatly enhance the critical thinking skills of the rest of us.
Thanks guys!
This study investigated the efficacy of cognitive functional therapy (CFT) versus a sham procedure for pain intensity and disability for patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). It is a randomised sham-controlled trial conducted in a primary care public health service. A total of 152 participants were randomly assigned to the CFT group (n=76) and the sham group (n=76). The CFT group received six 1 hour individualised sessions; the sham procedure group received six individual sessions of neutral talking+detuned photobiomodulation (low-level laser therapy) equipment. Both groups received an education booklet with information on strategies for CLBP self-management. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability at 6 weeks. Participants were assessed preintervention, postintervention (at 6 weeks), and 3 and 6 months after randomisation.
The researchers obtained primary outcome data from 97.4% (n=74) of participants in the CFT group and 98.7% (n=75) from the sham group. The CFT group showed greater effects in pain intensity (mean difference (MD)=-1.8; 95% CI -2.5 to -1.1) and disability (MD=-9.9; 95% CI -13.2 to -6.5) postintervention compared with the sham group. The effect remained at the 3-month and 6-month follow-ups.
The authors concluded that CFT showed sustained clinical efficacy compared with a sham procedure for treating pain intensity and disability in patients with CLBP.
In recent months, there have been many studies of CFT showing promise for LBP, e.g.:
- In people with lifting-related LBP undergoing CFT, increased trunk velocity during lifting showed potentially large correlations with reductions in disability and improvements in pain self-efficacy.
- Within-person changes in lifting technique varied among individuals. Greater trunk ROM and velocity, lower knee ROM and velocity, and faster lifting movements often co-occurred with lower levels of pain and functional limitation. This reflects a transition along a continuum from squat-like towards semi-squat-like and stoop-like lifting techniques.
- Following eight weeks of intervention, both ET and ET + CFT improved functional disability, pain, lumbar pelvic motor control, and biopsychosocial indicators in individuals with CNLBP. Notably, while the combined intervention group (ET + CFT) showed greater improvements across most outcomes, it was significantly different from the exercise-only group only on the Kinesiophobia scale. These findings suggest that cognitive functional therapy may enhance the effectiveness of exercise therapy by addressing psychological factors, such as fear of movement, that contribute to pain and disability in CNLBP.
- Improvements in pain catastrophizing (PC) and pain self-efficacy (PSE) were strongly correlated with increased trunk velocity-but not trunk or lumbar ROM-in people with CLBP who were undergoing CFT. These findings are consistent with CFT that explicitly trains “nonprotective” spinal movement in conjunction with positively reframing pain cognitions
- Cognitive functional therapy intervention had a greater effect on the vertical ground reaction force parameters. The reason for the greater effect of cognitive functional therapy intervention on vertical ground reaction force parameters can be partially explained due to the multimodal therapy used through cognitive exercises and motor control.
So, what exactly is this new wonder therapy? CFT is an approach invented and promoted by physiotherapists to analyse the behavioural psychology, beliefs and patterns of movement of LBP patients. Subsequently, the therapist would assist patients in understanding their pain and determine strategies to manage it within their goals of activities, participation, and lifestyle. CFT employs a multifaceted clinical reasoning framework to identify modifiable factors of an individuals presentation based on their personal characteristics and lifestyle and assessing their response to pain. CFT is supposed to help patients become autonomous, and self-manage their pain with their own personalised treatment.
A CFT intervention would usually involve, over several sessions:
- Making sense of the patient’s pain, and helping them to understand the pain.
- Exposure with Control (show and train the patient their movement with alterations in movement pattern and control)
- Training postural control
- Training their movement with or without gradual exposure
- Providing visual feedback with mirror or video
- Integrating these patterns in functional tasks
- Providing reassurance of safe movement of the body
- Making the patient feel more comfortable and accustomed to the movement
- Lifestyle changes, such as sleeping patterns, and breathing techniques
- Outcome (leading to a positive outcome, where the patient would behave normally, and feel rejuvenated).
It seems to me that CFT condenses and formalizes much of what good clinicians have been doing intuitively all along – simply because it is common sense and physiologically plausible. It also seems to me that it is not the huge breakthrough that it is currently hyped to be. It probably is a step in the right direction but not a magic wand for getting rid of back pain.
There has never been a proof that Trump takes Adderall or other illicit drugs. Yet, it is impossible to overlook his current physical and mental decline. This, I think, begs the question whether long-term Adderall misuse might be involved. To find out more, we should ask: what does long-term Adderall use do to you?
As this particular issue is a bit outside my expertise, I asked Gemini. Here is the answer:
The long-term effects of taking Adderall for decades, whether as prescribed or misused, can be significant and multifaceted, impacting both the body and the brain. While some research indicates that when taken as prescribed and monitored by a doctor, it can be relatively safe for many people, chronic use, especially at high doses or without a prescription, carries serious risks.
Effects on the Brain and Mental Health
- Neurochemical Changes: Adderall works by increasing the levels of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain. Over decades, chronic use can lead to the depletion of the brain’s natural reserves of these neurotransmitters. This can result in dependence, where the brain relies on the drug to function normally, and a need for higher and higher doses to achieve the same effect (tolerance).
- Cognitive Impairment: While Adderall is prescribed to improve focus, long-term use, particularly misuse, can paradoxically lead to cognitive issues. This can include “brain fog,” difficulty with memory, and problems with learning and recall, especially when not taking the medication.
- Psychiatric Issues: Long-term use can increase the risk of developing or worsening mental health conditions. Some users may experience:
- Depression, anxiety, and mood swings.
- Psychosis, which can include hallucinations, paranoia, and delusions, even in individuals without a pre-existing history of mental illness.
- Aggression and irritability.
- Addiction and Dependence: A significant long-term risk is the development of a stimulant use disorder. This involves both psychological and physical dependence, where an individual may experience intense cravings and withdrawal symptoms (e.g., severe fatigue, lethargy, and an inability to experience pleasure) if they stop or reduce their use.
Effects on the Body
- Cardiovascular System: This is one of the most serious and well-documented long-term risks. Adderall is a stimulant that raises heart rate and blood pressure. Over many years, this can strain the cardiovascular system and increase the risk of serious conditions, even at therapeutic doses. These can include:
- Hypertension (high blood pressure).
- Arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat).
- Heart attack and stroke.
- In rare cases, cardiomyopathy (damage to the heart muscle).
- Physical Side Effects: Many of the common short-term side effects can persist or worsen over time. These include:
- Insomnia and other sleep disturbances.
- Loss of appetite and significant weight loss, which can lead to malnutrition.
- Gastrointestinal problems like nausea and constipation.
- Dry mouth, which can lead to dental problems.
- Raynaud’s phenomenon, a condition that causes numbness and coldness in the fingers and toes.
___________________________
Does that ring a bell?
If so, we should be worried!
