Monthly Archives: October 2025
It has been reported that Nigel Farage’s ‘Reform UK’ has received an award for being the organisation that engaged in the “most prolific promotion of pseudoscience” during 2025. Each year the UK’s The Skeptic magazine, names their pseudoscientist of the year, and awards them the ‘Rusty Razor’ prize. This year it went to Reform UK in recognition of the party’s “widespread embrace of climate change denialism and antivaccine misinformation.”
In this post, I will exclude the important issue about climate and focus on the misinformation related to health. At Reform UK’s party conference last month, controversial doctor Aseem Malhotra gave a speech claiming that “mRNA jabs have likely killed or seriously harmed millions of people”, that the World Health Organisation had been “captured” by Bill Gates, and that Covid vaccines were “highly likely” a significant factor in cancer diagnoses amongst members of the royal family. The year before, Richard Tice called for a full inquiry into the “serious problem” of thousands of people dying from Covid vaccine side-effects, a claim which is of course unfounded. In a September interview, Nigel Farage parrotted comments from Donald Trump linking autism to paracetamol use. Farage even compared it to the thalidomide scandal. In addition, he claimed that migrants were kidnapping and eating swans from London parks.
Michael Marshall, Editor of The Sceptic, said: “Whilst the political positions Reform UK put forward are outside of the scope and remit of The Skeptic and our awards, their positions on science are not. On current polling, Reform UK is the party with the most support in the country, yet they have shown that they have no problem with spreading pseudoscientific misinformation that aligns with the interests of their donors, no interest in vetting their members and candidates for holding dangerously misguided views about science and health, and no issue with fostering and indulging all manner of conspiracy theories if they think there’s a vote in it.” Marshall branded Reform “a threat to science and reason, and deserving of being singled out as winners of our 2025 Rusty Razor award.”
I ask myself, why do Farage and company do it?
Why do they make overtly false health claims?
Don’t they know that these endanger the health of their followers?
The way I see it, there are several possibilities:
- They are too stupid to realize that the claims are wrong.
- They blindly repeat every BS Trump proclaims.
- They think they can win votes by misleading the public.
- They don’t care a toss.
I find it hard to decide – what do you think?
This case report recounts the story of a cow in Brazil diagnosed with Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma. The authors from the Department of Research, Idis Lamasson Institute, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil reported that “the mass grew suddenly and then V.a homeopathic therapy by Injectcenter- Brazil was administered three times a week intramuscular close to the lesion with potencies D3, D6 and D9 close to the mass for eleven months.”
The authors observed that “after eleven months of treatment, that the clinical evolution of homeopathic V.a. in the
D3, D6, and D9 dynamizations promoted complete remission of the Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma, preventing metastases. The patient is currently (2025) in her fourth pregnancy and has achieved longevity without recurrence of the neoplasm. The in vitro articles that reported the antineoplastic action of homeopathic dynamizations of Viscum album contributed to the protocol used in this patient. Further research should be conducted on therapeutic proposals for production animals not intended for slaughter”.
The term “V.a homeopathic therapy by Injectcenter®- Brazil” refers to a homeopathic treatment utilizing the homeopathically diluted preparation of the plant Viscum album (V.a), i.e. mistletoe. It seems unclear whether the treatment was, as the authors stated, homeopathic or whether it was, in fact, anthroposophic. Viscum album is a standard therapy in anthroposophic medicine where it is not normally potentised but fermented and diluted.
A Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma is a malignant tumor that requires aggressive therapy (usually surgery) to prevent local spread, recurrence, metastases and eventual death. Without treatment, the tumor is expected to continue to grow.
For several reasons, the case report is difficult to interpret:
- It is poorly written.
- It lacks important detail; in particular, it does not state, for instance, that the mistletoe treatment was the only therapy the cow received.
- It probably confuses homeopathy with antroposophic medicine.
Therefoe, the cow’s survival could be due to:
- Conventional therapies.
- False-positive diagnosis.
- Spontaneous remission.
Of course, fans of homeopathy [including the authors of this case report] will argue that the outcome was due to the effectiveness of homeopathy. I am, however, unconvinced. What I am convinced of is this: it is unethical to treat a severely ill animal with an unproven therapy.
In November 2020, Frass et al published the study that prompted much confusion and concern. Its conclusions were as follows:
QoL improved significantly in the homeopathy group compared with placebo. In addition, survival was significantly longer in the homeopathy group versus placebo and control. A higher QoL might have contributed to the prolonged survival. The study suggests that homeopathy positively influences not only QoL but also survival. Further studies including other tumor entities are warranted.
On 7 October 2020, I was probably the first to voice concerns about this most suspicious piece of research in a blog post that raised no less than 13 questions about this trial:
-
- What is the purpose of group 3? The authors call it a control group and state it allows assessing the real homeopathic effect on the homeopathic cohort as the real effect will be the natural historical effect minus the placebo effect and the homeopathic effect. Does that make sense?
- Was the study under-powered? From my reading of the text, the answer seems to be yes.
- What is the full list of conventional treatments the patients received, and did they differ between the 3 groups?
- If I understand it correctly, the study patients did not receive immuno-oncological therapy. Does that fact not render the study unethical?
- What homeopathic potencies were prescribed in group 1? The paper says: The constituents of the different homeopathic remedies were mainly of plant, mineral, or animal origin. This is unlikely, as most homeopathic remedies contain nothing.
- The authors seem to have used individualised homeopathy according to Hahnemann’s instructions. Did Hahnemann not strictly forbid combining his approach with other types of treatment?
- How well respected is THE ONCLOLOGIST, the journal that published the paper?
- Was the article peer-reviewed? If so, by whom?
- Was the placebo indistinguishable from the verum?
- Was the success of patient-blinding checked?
- Have similar findings regarding survival been reported previously? The authors call this finding ‘unexpected’; I find it more than that; it is baffling.
- Should we accept such surprising findings, or would it be more prudent to wait until independent replications are available?
- The first author of this trial is Prof Frass who has featured on this blog several times before (see for instance here, here, here, here and here). Frass has published several studies of homeopathy and invariably manages to produce positive results. Am I the only one to find this odd?
Subsequently many more in-depth critiques have been published by colleagues on this blog and elsewhere, e.g.: A thorough analysis of Prof M. Frass’ recent homeopathy trial casts serious doubts on its reliability. This was followed by several complaints to The Oncologist, the journal that had published the article. Frass countered with a statement:
This is a brief summary followed by a more detailed comment of the most important points, which is why the work is so exceptionally robust and valid. Any falsification, fabrication or manipulation of the data can therefore be ruled out:
1. The study was accompanied and monitored by the planning statistician with the help of the computer-aided randomization program Randomizer of the Medical University of Graz. This program automatically writes a protocol (= audit trail), so that every inclusion or exclusion process was recorded. Subsequent exclusion (‘post-hoc exclusion’) is therefore not possible, as every step has been monitored.
2. The authors, most of whom are not interested in homeopathy, had control of and access to the study data at all times.
3. The study was analysed in a four-stage procedure, which is unusual for an academic study: the data were entered into the tamper-proof Research, Documentation and Analysis (RDA) platform of the Medical University of Vienna, then forwarded by the planning statistician to the analysing statistician by means of an elaborate clearing process at the University. This quadruple evaluation check proves the extraordinary quality of the results.
We therefore confirm the reliability, veracity and accuracy of the data presented in our article published in The Oncologist.
Link to the study: https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13548
More detailed comment available here
The Oncologist published am ‘expression of concern‘:
In August 2022, the journal editors received credible information from the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity about potential data falsification and data manipulation in this article. While The Oncologist editorial team investigates and communicates with the corresponding author, the editors are publishing this Expression of Concern to alert readers that, pending the outcome and review of a full investigation, the research results presented may not be reliable.
A seemingly endless discussion with many dozens of e-mails ensued with the journal editors and publishers who not only resisted all demands to withdraw the study, ignored the wishes of co-authors to have their name withdrawn, but eventually published a remarkably incompetent editorial more or less vindicating Frass and his dubious research. Our long and frustrating attempts to get the study withdrawn continued unabated.
Meanwhile the ÄRZTEGESELLSCHAFT FÜR KLASSISCHE HOMÖOPATHIE (ÄKH) and other homeopathic organisations celebrated Frass as their hero e.g.:
In 2020, an article appeared in the journal ‘The Oncologist’ about an RCT study in which Prof Dr Michael Frass and others had shown that homeopathic treatment as an add-on therapy can improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Two years later, serious allegations were levelled against the research team. The authenticity of the study was questioned and there was talk of manipulation and fraud. Prof Michael Frass and his colleagues responded in writing and in detail to all the accusations, and the facts they presented were able to refute all the allegations – with the positive result that the journal ‘The Oncologist’ confirmed in September 2024 that it would not retract the article published in 2020. It rehabilitated Prof Frass and his team with an editorial confirming the value of the study. In addition, a revised S-3 guideline in May 2024 continued to list homeopathy as an optional recommendation for certain oncological patients. Our warmest congratulations!
In 2024, ‘Retraction Watch’ took on the issue and published the following summary thus far:
A paper that claimed to show a homeopathic intervention improved quality of life and survival for people with advanced lung cancer has received an extensive correction two years after a research integrity watchdog asked the journal to retract the article over concerns about manipulated data, Retraction Watch has learned.
The two scientists who sounded the alarm on the paper are not satisfied with the correction, they told us.
The article, “Homeopathic Treatment as an Add‐On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled, Double‐Blind, Three‐Arm, Multicenter Study,” appeared in The Oncologist in November 2020. Michael Frass, the lead author of the paper, is a homeopathic practitioner who was working at the Medical University of Vienna, at the time the work was published.
The paper has been cited 18 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, and was included in a German medical organization’s guideline about complementary treatment for cancer patients. Many homeopathy organizations posted about the study on X as evidence of the approach’s benefit, helping propel the article to the top 5% of all research articles for which Altmetric, a publication data company, has tracked online attention.
The article also attracted the notice of Norbert Aust, a retired mechanical engineer who started the Homeopathy Information Network in Germany, and Viktor Weisshäupl, a retired anesthesiologist now working on the Initiative for Scientific Medicine in Austria. The pair undertook an analysis of the study protocols and data posted to ClinicalTrials.gov.
They found several differences between the initial registration posted in January 2012, a protocol dated January 2011 but uploaded in July 2019, and the published paper. These differences included the number of participants, study arms, exclusion criteria, follow-up time, and cancer types included in the study. Aust and Weisshäupl also noted the study protocol said the software the authors used to analyze their data was a version not yet available in 2011.
“In conclusion, it seems likely that the substantial modifications of crucial study parameters that occurred after the study had been started and results had become available biased the results in favor of homeopathy,” Aust and Weisshäupl wrote in a description of their findings on Edzard Ernst’s blog in June 2021.
According to another article Aust and Weisshäupl published in Skeptical Inquirer in 2023, the pair reported their findings to the Medical University Vienna, which referred the matter to the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity.
In a report dated September 2022 and obtained by Retraction Watch, the Austrian watchdog said its investigation “found numerous manipulations,” and asked The Oncologist’s editor in chief Susan Bates to retract the article.
Among the findings:
- “The presentation of the study as double-blind placebo controlled is untrue.”
- “Substantial” changes to the study protocol while it was running, including to the primary endpoint, that were not mentioned in the publication, “suggestive of data manipulation.”
- “Many patients were excluded post-hoc, which is suggestive of data manipulation.”
- “Fully implausible” survival data, “compatible with selective deletion of records.”
- “The patients in the homeopathy group report a quality of life that is much higher than that of the general population known from other surveys. For patients with stage four non-small cell lung cancer this is highly implausible.”
The Oncologist published an expression of concern in October 2022 citing “credible information from the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity about potential data falsification and data manipulation in this article.”
“While The Oncologist editorial team investigates and communicates with the corresponding author, the editors are publishing this Expression of Concern to alert readers that, pending the outcome and review of a full investigation, the research results presented may not be reliable,” the notice stated.
On Tuesday, the journal published an extensive correction to the article, stating:
Additional details not included in the original publication have since been provided by the authors and reviewed by the editors to clarify these concerns. These omissions do not affect the results of this study.
Frass told us he and his team were “pleased that after a profound and thorough investigation by The Oncologist it has now been proven that the paper is correct. The Commission’s allegations are unsubstantiated and completely unfounded.” He provided a diagram he and a friend made which he said showed “all allegations could be refuted adequately.”
Along with the correction, the journal published an editorial by Bates and another editor describing how The Oncologist published the paper in a section dedicated to the results of clinical trials that might not otherwise be posted. It concluded:
The Oncologist and its CTR section hope that—by turning to the laboratory to determine whether any fraction of a homeopathic remedy holds a thread of promise—science identifies what is in these mixtures and that, in turn, potential anticancer compounds are then developed through conventional pathways.
We reached out to Bates for comment, and received the following response from a spokesperson for Oxford University Press, the journal’s publisher:
In 2022 The Oncologist received a letter about “Homeopathic Treatment as an Add-On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Three-Arm, Multicenter Study” from the Commission for Research Integrity of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI) and the journal issued an expression of concern. The journal has since conducted a thorough investigation and based on guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), determined that a correction is the appropriate response to the concerns raised. The accompanying editorial provides further context. The correction and editorial are the journal’s full response.
The correction doesn’t address the issues Aust, Weisshäupl, and the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity found with the study, Aust told us.
“They explain some trifles,” he said, “but the elephant in the room is not mentioned.” He also wondered why a letter to the editor he and Weisshäupl submitted in 2021 had not been published.
The editorial’s question of whether some components in the homeopathic intervention could be therapeutic “is completely irrelevant,” Aust said.
“If some results are obtained by data manipulation and falsification, then it is pointless to argue if there might have been some effect by the preparations that were administered,” he said. “The data are not valid and it is wrong, unethical and might cause harm for patients if they stay published like solid outcomes of some rigorous trial.”
Our continued efforts to get the Frass study withdrawn have been summarised on 16 October 2025 in a guest post by Victor Weisshäupl here on this blog. As of 27 October 2025, the journal still advertised the questionable study, albeit with three caveats:
But now, after almost 5 years of insistance on our part, there has been a new development: the awful study will be retracted! This news came first via the ÄKH; a few days ago, they published the following statement about it (my translation):
In October 2025, the study was once again attacked with arguments that were absurd from a homeopathic point of view, namely that Michael Frass had changed the dosage and potency during the treatment of the study patients and that he had used the same medicines in his practice as in the study (conflict of interest). Unfortunately, these arguments led to the study being withdrawn after all.
As Frass is the vice-president of the ÄKH, we can take this as indicating that Frass has been informed by OUP and/or The Oncologist that his paper is about to be withdrawn. So far so good! What is odd, however, is the reasons given for the decision. They were not the subject of our complaints! Most likely, this is yet anouther attempt of Frass to white-wash the findings of his ghastly study. We will know more as soon as an official retraction notice becomes available – so, me entitling this post “the end” might not be entirely correct.
WATCH THIS SPACE.
Migraine affects more than 3 billion people worldwide, impacting mental, social, and economic well-being. Despite a wide range of pharmacological treatments, many patients experience limited relief or adverse effects, prompting interest in integrative approaches such as homoeopathy. This scoping review aimed to systematically explore and map the existing evidence on the role of homoeopathy in the management of migraine.
A comprehensive search was conducted across major databases and search engines, including PubMed, Medscape, Science Direct, Google Scholar, CCRH Homoeopathic Archives, and the AYUSH portal, covering studies published between 1990 and 2024. The search was limited to English or translated studies from peer-reviewed sources, indexed databases, and library publications.
A total of 37 full-text studies were screened. The review focused on
- randomized controlled trials,
- prospective studies,
- and retrospective observational studies
reporting clinical outcomes using validated tools such as VAS Scale, HIT 6, 24-Hr-MQoLQ, MOS SF-36 or MIDAS scores. Case reports, case series, editorials, letters, conference proceedings, and reviews lacking original research were excluded. Study selection, data extraction, and quality verification were independently performed by the reviewers according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
- 6 RCTs,
- 6 observational studies,
- 1 correlational study,
- and 1 quasi-experimental study
were included, while 23 were excluded. The centesimal scale was most commonly used, with potencies of 30, 200, and 1M. Among the 14 studies, 11 showed positive results for homoeopathy in reducing migraine frequency, severity, and duration. However, 3 studies found no significant difference between the homoeopathy and placebo groups, indicating potential placebo effects. While most findings are promising, some studies question homoeopathy’s specific effectiveness over placebo.
The Indian authors who are affiliated with various homeopathic institutions concluded that this scoping review highlights the potential role of homoeopathic treatment in the management of migraine as evidenced by previous studies. However, a notable gap in high-quality, well-designed research highlights the need for generating stronger levels of evidence to validate these findings.
That’s funny!
My own assessment, based on 4 RCTs, concluded that this systematic review has not produced compelling evidence to suggest that individualized homeopathic treatment is more effective than placebo in the prevention of migraine or headache attacks. However, due to several caveats (e.g., paucity of RCTs) it seems premature to make final judgment on this matter.
How can we explain this discrepancy?
In my view, there are several options:
- The Indian reviewers included Non-randomised studies and mischaracterised some trials.
- The Indian reviewers failed to take into account the lousy quality of the positive trials.
- The Indian reviewers did not aim to test the effectiveness of homeopathy but wanted to prove it.
In fact, I fear that all of these reasons apply.
And why am I so confident that homeopathy is not useful in the management of migraine? Just think about it: The Indian authors state correctly that “migraine affects more than 3 billion people worldwide, impacting mental, social, and economic well-being”. If it worked, would homeopathy not be the long-established treatment of choice for migraine?
‘Anti-nutrients‘ (ANs) are compounds found primarily in plant-based foods that interfere with the absorption and utilization of certain nutrients. Essentially, thet consitute a plant’s defense mechanism against predators. ANs include a range of compounds.
- Phytates (Phytic Acid): Found in whole grains, seeds, nuts, and legumes. They can bind to minerals like iron, zinc, magnesium calcium etc and reduce their absorption.
- Lectins: Found in legumes and grains, they can interfere with nutrient absorption and cause digestive discomfort.
- Oxalates (Oxalic Acid): Present in leafy greens, they bind to calcium and other minerals, making them less available for absorption.
- Tannins: Found in tea, coffee, and some legumes, they can inhibit the absorption of iron and interfere with the digestion of protein.
- Goitrogens (Glucosinolates): Found in cruciferous vegetables (e.g. broccoli, cabbage, and kale), they can interfere with iodine uptake by the thyroid gland.
For avoiding problems, it is relevant to remember that most ANs are reduced or deactivated by normal food preparation methods like soaking, sprouting, boiling, and fermentation.
So, why the hooha?
Diets like keto, paleo, and carnivore eliminate or restrict whole food groups (like grains and legumes) that are high in ANs. Proponents of these diets hype the topic of anti-nutrients to justify excluding these plant foods. In the wellness sphere, the negative aspects of ANs tend to be exaggerated, leading to fear-mongering about consuming perfectly healthy foods.
Several of the compounds classified as ANs (e.g. phytates and tannins) have, in fact, significant health benefits. Reasonable experts acknowledge that ANs exist and can inhibit nutrient absorption. However, they stress that for the vast majority of people consuming a varied and well-prepared diet, the negative effects are negligible.
In summary, for most people consuming a balanced diet, ANs should not be a major concern. The overall benefits of eating whole, plant-based foods far outweigh the potential negative effects of ANs.
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) affects over half a billion people worldwide. Current pharmacologic treatments offer limited efficacy and carry substantial risks, warranting the development of safe and effective alternatives. This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the herbal extract VER-01 in CLBP.
It enrolled 820 adults with CLBP (VER-01, n = 394; placebo, n = 426) and included a double-blind 12-week treatment phase (phase A), a 6-month open-label extension (phase B), followed by either a 6-month continuation (phase C) or randomized withdrawal (phase D). The primary endpoint of phase A was a change in mean numeric rating scale (NRS) pain intensity, with a change in total neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI) score as a key secondary endpoint in participants with a neuropathic pain component (PainDETECT > 18). The primary endpoint for phase D was time to treatment failure.
The study met its primary endpoint in phase A, with a mean pain reduction of -1.9 NRS points in the VER-01 group (mean difference (MD) versus placebo = -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.9 to -0.3; P < 0.001). Pain further decreased to -2.9 NRS points in phase B, with effects sustained through phase C. The study also met its key secondary endpoint of phase A, with a mean NPSI decrease of -14.4 (standard error, 3.3) points from baseline in the VER-01 arm (MD versus placebo = -7.3, 95% CI = -13.2 to -1.3; P = 0.017). Although phase D did not meet its primary endpoint (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.44-1.27; P = 0.288), pain increased significantly more with placebo upon withdrawal (MD = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.0-1.0; P = 0.034). In phase A, the incidence of adverse events-mostly mild to moderate and transient-was higher with VER-01 than with placebo (83.3% versus 67.3%; P < 0.001). VER-01 was well-tolerated, with no signs of dependence or withdrawal.
The authors of this well-designed trial concluded that this phase 3 study provides robust evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of VER-01 in the treatment of CLBP. These findings highlight the importance of further research with VER-01 in other chronic pain conditions and suggest that VER-01 could play an important role in modern pain management.
VER-01 was developed by the German biopharmaceutical company Vertanical. It is a standardized full-spectrum extract from a specific Cannabis sativa strain (DKJ127 L). This means it contains a defined mix of the plant’s compounds, including cannabinoids (such as low levels of THC—tetrahydrocannabinol—and trace amounts of CBD and cannabigerol), terpenes, and other bioactive compounds like beta-caryophyllene and alpha-bisabolol. It is designed to harness the synergistic “entourage effect” of these compounds.
The extract has also recently been shown to be superior to opioids. An RCT concluded that VER-01 demonstrated superiority over opioids in treating CLBP, both in terms of efficacy and gastrointestinal tolerability.
PS
Given the option of either having spinal manipulation (or any other form of unproven so-called alternative medicine) or a safe and standardised cannabis extract, I certainly know what I would choose!
PPS
Vertanical has submitted marketing applications for approval in several European countries (where it is expected to be sold under the brand name Exilby if approved). The company is also preparing for a late-stage trial in the US to support a subsequent filing with the FDA. If approved, VER-01 would be the first full-spectrum cannabis extract authorized specifically for chronic low back pain and potentially a new class of medicine for chronic pain management.
This post is inspired by an article by Michael Miller entitled ‘6 Reasons Why People Believe Health Misinformation‘ published recently in PSYCHOLOGY TODAY. Miller identified the following reasons:
- Reasons 1 and 2: Mistrust of Experts and Personal Autonomy
- Reason 3: Misinformation Makes Money (and Advances Other Agendas)
- Reason 4: Misinformation Sounds Like It’s True
- Reasons 5 and 6: Charisma and Simplicity Sell Soothing Misinformation
In my post, I will try to avoid much overlap with Miller’s paper and name 6 reasons why people believe misinformation specifically about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The evidence for the reasons I list comes from 30 years of research into SCAM and from stuying many thousands of papers published on these and related issues.
VIPs
Almost 20 years ago, Max Pittler and I published an article entitled ‘Celebrity-based medicine‘; here is its abstract:
Objective: To collect contemporary accounts of celebrity use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), to aid clinicians in determining which CAM treatments patients are likely to use.
Design: Articles published during 2005 and 2006 reporting celebrity use of CAM.
Results: 38 celebrities were found to use a wide range of CAM interventions. Homeopathy, acupuncture and Ayurveda were the most popular modalities.
Conclusions: There may be many reasons why consumers use CAM, and wanting to imitate their idols is one of them.
Lots has changed since but wanting to imitate idols, VIPs and celebrities is still a powerful motivator, in fact, more powerful than ever before. The number of VIPs who have jumped on the SCAM bandwaggon has increase manyfold. As we have often discussed here, many of them now have even started to profit from the need of consumers to admire their stupidity of using worthless, expensive and often dangerous treatments.
Desperation
Many people who employ SCAM are unwell, suffer symptoms or even fight for their lives. They are desperate and leave no stone unturned to get better. In their desperation, they come across the many irresponsible promises of the SCAM industry. Like drowning individuals they cling to every bit of straw they can grab. And SCAM practitioners are often only too willing to offer (and charge for) false hope.
Consumers want to believe
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” We all – well almost all – want to believe that there is more than our rationality lets us to believe. Science does not know everything, many feel, and turn to pseudoscience. From there it it only a small step to turn from medicine to SCAM, particularly if they have enough money in their pocket to give it a try. This is regrettable, no doubt, but it also is the undeniable truth.
Journalists’ promotion
Journalists have a bizarrely keen interest in SCAM. This is presumably because certain sections of the public – those who are in favour of SCAM – like to read about it. And this means that a reinforcing spiral drives the odd phenomenon: plenty of people are in favour of SCAM –> they want to read positive things about SCAM –> journalists deliver what is wanted, namely uncritical promotion of SCAM –> more and more people get convinced about the value of SCAM.
Disappointment
Many of us are disappointed with what conventional healthcare offers to them. I can fully understand this sentiment. In theory, modern medicine is better than it ever was. In practice, it all too often is abominable. This can be due to phenomena ranging from human or professional incompetence to marode healthcare systems to financial constraints. Whatever the reason, people who are disappointed look elsewhere and, for many, SCAM seems an obvious solution.
Naivety
I often tell people: IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IT PROBABLY IS. It’s a simple principle that sadly is not often heeded, particularly by individuals who are gullible and tend to believe or even lap up whatever SCAM practitioners promise. Some may call it ignorance or even stupidity, I prefer naivety – whatever it is, it renders people easy prey of the SCAM industry.
The list of reasons why consumers believe the misinformation that is currently abundantly available about SCAM is almost endless. Different people have (and different situations bring forth) different reasons. Understanding them might enable us to minimise some of the damage misinformation causes.
One key element of damage limitation must be reliable information which is the raison d’etre of my blog.
Have you heard about the “Trivedi Effect”?
No?
Let me tell you all about it.
This study aimed to compare the growth, meat quality, nutrition, consumer preference, and shelf life of biofield-treated birds with those of the unblessed/untreated control (UBCONG).
Commercial genotypes (Cobb 430Y) of white broiler eggs/chicks were used. The eggs were split into two groups: an UBCONG and a biofield (blessings) energy-treated group. Body weight and feed intake were recorded weekly, and meat quality was assessed using nutritional and sensory parameters.
The mean feed conversion ratio was found to be significantly better in the groups of biofield-treated eggs (BTEG; p < 0.01), biofield-treated chicks (BTCG; p < 0.001), and BTEG and chicks [Double biofield (blessing) energy treatment on both eggs and chicks group (DBECG); p < 0.001] than in the UBCONG. Edible meat weight was significantly increased in both BTCG (p < 0.05; 62.69%) and DBECG (p < 0.001; 77.19%) compared with that in UBCONG. Carbohydrate was significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 189.47% and 363.16% in BTEG and DBECG, respectively, compared to UBCONG. Vitamin B3 was significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 26.45% in BTEG compared with UBCONG. Minerals such as iron and copper were significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 2614.92% and 316.67%, respectively, in DBECG compared to UBCONG. The levels of unsaturated fats, monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), C18:1-oleic acid, C18:2-linoleic acid, and C18:3-linolenic acid were significantly (p < 0.001) increased by 96.06%, 111.39%, 72.92%, 88.91%, 66%, and 145.35%, respectively, compared with those of UBCONG. The scoring of sensory parameters (color, flavor, taste, tenderness, juiciness, and overall quality/acceptability) was significantly improved (p < 0.001) in the biofield treatment groups compared with the UBCONG. The shelf-life examination of raw chicken meat indicated that it was safe for storage for up to 21 days.
The authors concluded that the biofield (blessing) energy treatment significantly improved growth-related parameters compared with the UBCONG. This treatment also improved the meat quality compared to the increased levels of carbohydrate, PUFA, MUFA, and few minerals such as Ca, Fe, Zn, and Cu than UBCONG.
The trouble here, it seems to me, is that biofield energy is an invention; IT DOES NOT EXIST!
Perhaps, we need to ask how this study came into being. Its authors (1st author Mahendra Kumar Trivedi) come from ‘TRIVEDI GLOBAL INC’. Mahendra Kumar Trivedi has a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and managed to publish around 50 Medline-listed studies on the ‘Trivedi Effect’, all showing that it is effective as a panacea.
Trivedi Global, Inc. is a US-based company founded by Mahendra Kumar Trivedi. The company is centered around The Trivedi Effect, which they describe as an evidence-based phenomenon in which an individual can harness an inherently intelligent energy from nature and transmit it to living organisms and non-living materials, anywhere in the world through thought intention, to significantly enhance potency and beneficially alter their characteristics. Mahendra Kumar Trivedi claims to have discovered his ability to induce this effect in 1995.
The apparently substantial revenue for Trivedi Global, Inc. is primarily generated from commercializing the “Trivedi Effect”:
- Collaborating with companies to “energize” or “treat” their products using the Trivedi Effect before they are sold to the public.
- Offering energy transmissions or “Consciousness Energy Healing Treatments” and hosting associated wellness events or programs for individuals.
- Training other individuals as “Biofield Energy Healers” to utilize the Trivedi Effect.
Key products and services of the company include:
- Mahendra Kumar Trivedi and other “Trivedi Healers” transmitting the Biofield Energy to individuals or materials remotely.
- Paid, structured training program to develop a person’s “innate healing abilities.”
- Applying the “Trivedi Effect” to ingredients, food, or consumer products.
Detailed and specific pricings for these services seem to be not publicly available.
So, what should we make of the above-mentioned, new study? Let me express it as politely as I can: I do not trust its findings until I see an independent replication.
Skeptics are people who apply reason and critical thinking to evaluate claims and who advocate to rely on sound evidence, while resisting pseudoscience, superstition, and misinformation. Some of the outstanding qualities of a skeptic include:
- Critical thinking → Actively questioning claims, arguments, and evidence.
- Scientific mindset → Using the scientific method as the most appropriate tool for finding reliable knowledge.
- Provisional belief → Accepting claims only in proportion to the evidence, and being willing to change when better evidence emerges.
- Advocacy → Educating the public, promoting scientific literacy, and encouraging rational decision-making.
Surely, these are laudable and attractive qualities. I am even tempted to say that all rational people should be skeptics. Why then is it that skeptics and their work/organisations are not much more popular? When I attend meetings of skeptics, I am often dismayed by their disappointing size and their lack of impact outside their narrow circle of like-minded people. Why are those events not subjects of articles in local newpapers? Why is the press generally bored by or even adverse towards skeptics? Why have skeptics not managed to amass much more influence?
I have often wondered:
- Is it the lack emotional pull? While belief systems, conspiracy theories, spirituality etc. can offer comfort, meaning, or community, skepticism emphasizes uncomfortable doubt and correction.
- Does the perception of elitist put people off? Skeptics can come across as dismissive, overly intellectual, or simple nerds which might alienate average audiences.
- Could it be a lack “fun”? Debunking myths is unfortunately often far less exciting than believing in them.
Whatever the reason, we need to ask: what could be done about the lack of common appeal?
I wish I knew!
When I talk to ‘the common man or women’ about the subject, three themes crop up fairly regularly:
- Many consumers have no real idea what skeptics are and even relate them to the exact opposite, e.g. “climate skeptic” or “vaccine skeptic”. If I am right, then even the term “skeptic” might be problematic (several national skeptic organisations do not use the word in the name of their organisations!). In any case, it would be helpful to run repeated public campaigns in order to inform the public about the difference between skepticism and denialism.
- Those who roughly get the idea what a skeptic stands for often associate it with something negative – being AGAINST this or that or being cynical or sarcastic. If that is true, it would be helpful to continuously stress that skepticism is IN FAVOUR of sound evidence in all spheres; and surely this can only be a good thing.
- Those who know a bit more about what skeptics do often fail to see the relevance of the subjects they tackle. I too find ghost busting and several other topics that skeptics occasionally thrive on rather obscure, irrelevant, daft or even childish. In any case, whatever the subject might be, I think it is always necessary to point out the general relevance of it. Why does it matter to the man or woman in the street to investigate it?
I am sure skepticism has an important role to play in our societies – and because I am convinced of this, I feel that skepticism urgently needs to improve its public image.
Gua Sha is a form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that I have reoprted about before, e.g.:
- Gua sha: who cares how it works, when it is unproven that it works?
- Gua sha, a reasonable therapy?
- Gua Sha: torture or treatment?
Chronic nonspecific low back pain (CNSLBP) is associated with thoracolumbar fascia (TLF) dysfunction. However, the structural effects of Gua Sha, a Traditional Chinese Medicine technique, remain unclear.
This study aimed to explore the acute and short-term effects of Gua Sha therapy on TLF thickness, pain intensity, and related physiological parameters in patients with CNSLBP.
Thirty-two participants with CNSLBP were randomized to receive Gua Sha or hot pack therapy, a commonly used conservative treatment for low back pain, once a week for 4 weeks. The effects of the two treatments were compared. TLF thickness, pain, and related parameters were measured at baseline and immediately after the first and fourth interventions. A 2 (group) × 3 (time) repeated measures ANOVA was used for data analysis.
With increasing intervention, both groups showed significant improvements in pain intensity and dysfunction (P < .001), significant reductions in tissue hardness and pressure pain threshold (P < .05), and significant increases in skin temperature and lumbar flexibility (P < .001). However, only the Gua Sha group significantly reduced TLF thickness immediately after the first intervention (MD = 0.388, 95% CI: 0.101-0.675; P = .01) and immediately after the fourth session (MD = 0.607, 95% CI: 0.199-1.015, P = .005). The heart rate variability-related indicators did not reach statistical significance (P > .05), but their trends were favorable.
The authors concluded that Gua Sha can effectively relieve pain, improve function, and regulate tissue mechanical properties in CNSLBP patients and its effects may be achieved through multiple pathways. Although the single and 4-session interventions were not significantly better than heat in improving fascial thickness, it performs better in pain and flexibility clinical outcomes, supporting its potential value as a complementary therapy. Future studies with larger samples and longer periods are needed to clarify its mechanism of action and optimize treatment options.
Gua sha, sometimes referred to as “scraping”, “spooning” or “coining”, is a traditional Chinese treatment that has
spread to several other Asian countries. It has long been popular in Vietnam and is now also becoming well-known in the West. The treatment consists of scraping the skin with a smooth edge placed against the pre-oiled skin surface, pressed down firmly, and then moved downwards along muscles or meridians. According to its proponents, gua sha stimulates the flow of the vital energy ‘chi’ and releases unhealthy bodily matter from blood stasis within sore, tired, stiff or injured muscle areas.
It is easy to imagine that Gua Sha is associated with sizable placebo effects. This means one needs to think carefully about how to control for tham in clinical trials, if we want to know whether the treatment works beyond placebo. I am not sure how to achieve this, but I am quite certain that the current study failed to do it. Thus its results merely showed that Gua Sha is just as useless as another therapy thay is unproven for CNSLBP.
And what about the thoracolumbar fascia thickness? I think that its significance is entirely speculative. Moreover, the reliability of its measurement seems questionable. Most likely, it is yet another red herring in a paper already more than full of fishy stuff.
PS
I stated it many times before, but I must say it again: almost any odd SCAM (e.g. chiropractic!) works a little for back pain – particularly if you test it in lousy studies and don’t control for placebo effects.
