Monthly Archives: December 2025
During the 1st year of his second presidency, Trump and his administration changed US science beyond recognition. Officials started instantly firing thousands of researchers and other government employees and cut billions of dollars of US support for global-health programmes, including dismantling the US Agency for International Development (USAID). They also arrested some scholars from outside the United States as they stepped up efforts to restrict entry into the country and free speech. The US government then took steps to exert total control over universities by withholding tens of billions of dollars in research grants.
These actions are part of a broader plan to bend science for political purposes. “The attack on science must be seen as one component of a larger attack on information, on facts, on independent analysis,” says John Holdren, a physicist at Harvard, “I think Trump sees science as the fortress of the opposition.”
Some people and institutions have fought the government over such changes. Harvard University sued the Trump administration after it cancelled billions of dollars in grants amid claims that Harvard had failed to combat campus antisemitism. Several lawsuits have been filed challenging both the administration’s firing of employees and its cancellation of grants. Climate scientists pushed back against the administration’s efforts to deny the threat of global warming. And six former surgeons general who served during both Republican and Democrat administrations published an article in The Washington Post criticizing Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They wrote that he was “endangering the health of the nation” by amplifying misinformation and undermining public confidence in medicine and the very public-health agency that he oversees — the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest biomedical funder. “The consequences aren’t abstract,” the surgeons general wrote. “They are measured in lives lost, disease outbreaks and an erosion of public trust that will take years to rebuild.”
Now we are all bracing ourselves for what 2026 might bring. I say “we” because Trump’s destruction of science is not just an American calamity, it will have effects across the globe.
In the UK, honours for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are relatively rare and unsurprisingly controversial. Recently, I reported that Robin Daly, has been awarded an MBE in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the field of integrative cancer care and his tireless work through ‘Yes to Life’.
Since the 2026 New Year’s honours list is just out, I thought it would be interesting to see who else has been given a ‘gong’.
There seems to be nobody in the current list – so, let’s see who in the realm of SCAM has been honoured previously. Here is what I found:
Christina Cunliffe received an OBE in the 2025 ‘King’s Birthday Honours List’ for her 25-year career in developing chiropractic education in the UK and internationally.
Richard Brown got an MBE in 2021 for services to disability and a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2025 for his global impact on the chiropractic profession.
The late George Lewith was given a CBE in 2017 for “Services to Health Research and Complementary Medicine.”
Michael Dixon was honoured twice (2015 and 2024) for his personal service to the Royal Family and his work with the College of Medicine promoting holistic care.
Peter Fisher received an CVO in 2018 for personal service to the Queen as her homeopathic physician.
Christopher Hedley received an MBE in 2015 for services to the profession of herbalists and herbal education.
Simon Fielding was awarded his OBE in the 1998 for his services to osteopathy.
As we see several of these people have also received another honour: they are in my ‘ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME’!
Coincidence?
Who knows?!
The above list is surprisingly short, and I am almost certain that it is woefully incomplete. Since it would be nice to have a more complete list, I ask my readers to name other SCAM professionals who have received a gong in the past.
This year’s ‘Christmas issue’ of the BMJ comes with a remarkable editorial. Please allow me to quote a few passages from it:
We live in a world of lies, damned lies, and AI hallucinations. A US publication calculated that Donald Trump told 30 573 lies during his first term as president. Trump is neither alone nor atypical—except that his rate of lying and the thickness of his brass neck may be unprecedented…
We live in the era of the Big Lie. The more powerful you are, the bigger the lie you can tell. Nobody holds you to account. We no longer call lies “lies”: they are alternative facts, different versions of the truth, and—in perhaps the most sinister twist—hallucinations. Our old fashioned, and possibly unfashionable, view … is that words and facts do matter…
… the term “hallucination” deserves greater scrutiny. An AI hallucination is a fabrication, a lie, a bullshit. Why does it earn such a soft name, which seeks to hide the failure or error rate of an AI tool? The answer inevitably lies in money. Tech guru and science fiction writer Cory Doctorow argues that tech companies’ primary interest is to convince investors and markets of their relentless growth. Hype about AI’s capabilities sells. Hallucinations cover its failures…
As we end the year of the Big Lie, what’s clear is that the world isn’t ruled by citizens. It never was. It’s no longer ruled by the great religions, although they may delude themselves that it is. Nor is it primarily ruled, hubris aside, by politicians or dictators. Without a doubt—and more clearly than ever before—the world bows to the power of the corporation. Hail the multinational, the conglomerate. All hail the tech bros. We live in their age of surveillance capitalism. There are many words for this unspoken calamity, but “hallucination” is regrettably not one of them.
Inspriewed by these words, I decided to list some of the biggest lies from the world of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) as they emerged during 2025. Here they are together with some ot the blog posts that disclosed them:
- HOMEOPATHY CURES CANCER Homeopathy as a therapy for cancer? A new review from India, Homeopathy in the Fight Against Breast Cancer: ANOTHER DEATH BY HOMEOPATHY, Finally! The long-awaited ‘retraction notice’ of the infamous study by Frass et al (on homeopathy for cancer) has been published
- TRADITIONAL USAGE GUARANTEES SAFETY Kampo-induced liver injury: A case report and a systematic review
- CHIROPRACTIC IS HARMLESS Katie May died after chiropractic manipulation – but that’s not the chiro’s fault, claims chiro Steven P. Brown, Death following chiropractic neck manipulation, a rare event?, “Horrifying truth about chiropractors and why paralysis, strokes and deaths are far more common than you’d imagine”, Chiropractic Manipulation: Two Months in Bed With Pain and a Herniated a Disc, nother stroke following chiropractic neck manipulation, “After seeing the chiropractor, I was seeing things and blacking out”, Chiropractic spinal manipulation: what harm can it cause?, Patient suffers spinal bleed after chiropractor visit, Acute Spinal Epidural Hematoma: A Serious Complication of Chiropractic Therapy
- HOMEOPATHY IS INCREASINGLY POPULAR Homeopathy continues its retreat in Germany, A change of mind: The German Green Party is now against the reimbursement of homeopathy
- THE GCC IS FIT FOR PURPOSE Following the death of a young woman, the UK General Chiropractic Council received a ‘Prevent Future Deaths’ report
- THE SCAM INDUSTRY IS BENIGN The “dark underbelly” of the alternative health industry
- VARIOUS FORMS OF ENERGY HEALING ARE EFFECTIVE Faith-healing: US parents were convicted of child-abuse and murder, Is Reiki effective for postmenopausal symptoms? No, I’m afraid not!, Non- Physical Beings Assisting in Reiki Sessions: is this the most impressive BS of the year?, Healing crystals: do they work beyond placebo? … Short answer: No, Distant Reiki for Health and Wellbeing of Dogs – WHAT IS NEXT?, Impact of ‘biofield energy’ treatment on broiler chicken growth performance, feed efficiency, carcass characteristics, and meat quality, Reiki for postmenopausal symptoms? No, thanks!, Qigong for Well-Being in Pregnancy?, A placebo-controlled, randomized trial confirms: REIKI IS BOGUS!
- HOMEOPATHY IS EVIDENCE-BASED The “SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON HOMEOPATHY”: does this amount to scientific misconduct?, The Mechanism of Action of Homeopathy! … Someone please inform the Nobel Prize Committee, The role of homeopathy in managing 50 common conditions, The (In)Effectiveness of Homeopathic Remedies in Treating Respiratory Infections, The absurdity of homeopathy, homeopaths and their arguments, Homeopathy for odontogenic infections?, A new study of agrohomeopathy – will it change the hitherto negative evidence?, Homoeopathy as a Complementary Approach to Migraine Management? No, thanks!, A Brazilian cow with cancer cured by homeopathy?, COMIC RELIEF: “The Principle of Homeopathy”, Homeopathy in chronic disease management: a “critical” review of the evidence, “Homeopathy addresses anemia’s complexities with finesse”
- SCAM IS ETHICAL Legal And Ethical Challenges of So-Called Alternative Medicine, Why homeopaths cannot possibly obtain informed consent from their patients, The Nuremberg Code: is it being followed by researchers of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?
- ACUPUNCTURE IS A PANACEA Acupuncture for the Management of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, The characteristics and essence of meridians and acupoints (or: How the ‘Flat Earth Society’ can demonstrate that our planet has the shape of a disc), Acupuncture for Patients With Major Depressive Disorder? No, definitely no!
In SCAM, we live indeed in the era of the Big Lie, and not just since 2025! I will continue to do my best in disclosing untruths and farauds in 2026 and [I hope] beyond.
Why?
Mainly because I want to prevent harm done to vulnerable patients.
Homeopathy is among the most popular kinds of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Patients have different opinions about homeopathy because there is still debate about its efficacy and scientific foundation, despite its popularity. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to compare homeopathic therapies to conventional medicine in terms of patient satisfaction for a range of health issues.
Secifically, the Indian researchers aimed to compare levels of patient satisfaction with homeopathic vs conventional treatments in terms of:
- treatment results,
- side effects,
- cost,
- and overall experience.
A varied group of patients undergoing therapy for long-term diseases like anxiety, asthma, and arthritis provided the data. Patients’ levels of satisfaction with their therapy, its duration, their perceptions of safety, and the quality of their interactions with their providers were measured using a standardized survey that contained Likert-scale items.
Patients who had homeopathic treatment were more likely to be satisfied with their tailored care and the low frequency of adverse effects, according to the results. On the other hand, patients receiving conventional treatments were more satisfied with the rapid alleviation of their symptoms and the fact that their treatments were based on solid evidence. But many patients in both categories were worried about how much their treatments would cost and whether or not they would be beneficial in the long run. Perceivable treatment efficacy, safety, and the total healthcare experience are three of the many aspects that impact patients’ levels of satisfaction.
The authors concluded that the significance of patient-centered care and the necessity for additional research to comprehend the elements contributing to contentment in various treatment modalities highlight the value of both conventional and homeopathic treatments.
This amazingly incompetent paper was published in the ‘Indian Journal of Ayurvedic & Alternative Medicine’ by Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma. He is the dean of the Faculty of Homoeopathy, Govt. Ayush University, Kurukshetra Professor, JRK Homoeopathic Medical College, Rohtak Teacher Code Registered with National Homoeopathic Commission, Govt. of India.
Amazingly incompetent?
I better justify this verdict!
But where to begin? I cannot possibly discuss all the fatal flaws of this paper. Let me just mention a few obvious ones:
- A “standardized survey” was used to measure the outcomes. But was it validated to ensure that it quantified what the researcher thought to measure? No!
- Were the two patient groups comparable? No!
- Were they objective? No, the homeopathy group has chosen to consult homeopaths. Thus the results are as meaningful as asking people who choose to buy a hamburger whether they like eating beef.
- The conclusions are pure fantasy and do not follow from the data.
You may feel that all this is irrelevant nonsense – and you would be entirely correct. Yet, I think that this paper might still be important for one reason: it was published by the dean of the Faculty of Homoeopathy, Govt. Ayush University, Kurukshetra Professor. Imagine the dean of the faculty of cosmology of a reputable university wrote a paper claiming without any eveidence that the earth was flat. That, in my view, would be the equivalent of the above article.
Happy holidays and a healthy new year [avoiding all charlatanism].
Frohes Fest und ein gesundes Neues Jahr [unter Meidung von Scharlatanerie].
节日快乐，祝新年健康 [远离虚假欺骗].
छुट्टियों की शुभकामनाएँ और एक स्वस्थ नया साल [पाखंड से बचते हुए].
Felices fiestas y un saludable año nuevo [evitando toda charlatanería].
عطلة سعيدة وسنة جديدة صحية [مع تجنب كل أشكال الدجل]
Joyeuses fêtes et une nouvelle année saine [en évitant toute charlatanerie].
শুভ ছুটির দিন এবং একটি সুস্থ নতুন বছর [সব ধরণের ভণ্ডামি এড়িয়ে]।
Boas festas e um ano novo saudável [evitando toda charlatanice].
Веселых праздников и здорового Нового года [избегая всякого шарлатанства].
Selamat berlibur dan selamat tahun baru yang sehat [hindari segala bentuk klenik].
Buone feste e un anno nuovo in salute (evitando ogni ciarlataneria).
Καλές γιορτές και ένας υγιής νέος χρόνος (αποφεύγοντας κάθε τσαρλατανισμό).
Kellemes ünnepeket és egészséges új évet (mindenféle sarlatánságot elkerülve).
Wesołych świąt i zdrowego nowego roku (unikając wszelkiego szarlataństwa).
Glædelig jul og et sundt nytår (uden nogen form for charlataneri).
Hyvää joulua ja tervettä uutta vuotta (välttäen kaikkea puoskarointia).
Gleðilega hátíð og heilbrigðis á nýju ári (og laust við alla skottulækningar).
PS
I’ll be back soon
In my frantic ambition to stay young for ever (just kidding!), I came across an interesting article about the “longevity doctor” Mohammed Enayats who claims to have cut his biological age from 41 to 24, while plugging treatments at his Chelsea-based “futuristic health lounge HUM2N” Dr Enayat is said to be a “rockstar visionary” creating the “tomorrowland of health”. Of course, he lacks any published research into longevity, but he cites a decade of experience as a GP and specialisation in “functional” medicine, the rebranded term for so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
For longer living – aka “biohacking” – HUM2N offers intravenous ozone therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration has warned against such treatment, saying there isn’t enough evidence that it’s either useful or safe. The journal Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine reported the case of a 36-year-old woman who was admitted to hospital in Australia suffering severe neurological complications shortly after being given IV ozone to “boost immunity”. On this blog, we discussed this treatment several times, e.g.:
- CAM-CANCER: a most valuable source of information
- “Dr” Patrick Vickers and “the world’s premier clinic for the treatment of cancer and advanced disease”
And in my book, I have an entire chapter on it which concludes: “Unless sound positive evidence emerges, the risk/benefit balance of ozone therapy for any condition fails to be positive.”
Furthermore, HUM2N also offers expensive hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which has real life-saving uses for rare situations, such as divers with decompression sickness, but is widely sold by alternative-health practitioners as a SCAM for anything from ADHD to hair loss, despite the risks of serious lung and ear injuries (see Eye 1647). On this blog, we have repeatedly discuused this treatment and its dangers, e.g.:
- Former chiropractor fined after death of MS patient receiving hyperbaric oxygen therapy
- A 5-year old boy has been ‘incinerated’ in an oxygen chamber undergoing alternative treatment for ADHD
- “Dr” Patrick Vickers and “the world’s premier clinic for the treatment of cancer and advanced disease”
When asked about the scientific basis for such treatments, Dr Enayat sent a long list of articles and papers, mostly relating to experimental uses to treat specific health conditions rather than providing evidence of improving longevity. “We are transparent where evidence is emerging rather than conclusive,” he insisted.
Another cornerstone of HUM2N’s offerings is NAD+, a bodily coenzyme it describes as the “miracle molecule”. For £1,995, the treatment is claimed by HUM2N to improve IVF success rates – when asked for evidence of this, Dr Enayat cited a study into mice that itself cautions “highly limited” effects on humans with “numerous questions unanswered” and no human trials. He said NAD+ treatments were “clearly positioned as exploratory, not a proven disease-modifying therapy”.
Controversial skincare treatment intravenous glutathione is sold for £195 a pop. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute warned consumers earlier this year that the treatments are “not licensed for cosmetic use here and pose significant health risks”, frequently causing nasty side effects especially when administered intravenously, including kidney or liver damage and anaphylaxis. When challenged, Dr Enayat agreed that “strong clinical data” for benefits of this treatment “exist only in specific niches”. Dr David Gems, professor of biogerontology at University College London’s Institute of Healthy Ageing, described it as “surprising that a registered GP would be so relaxed about offering some of these quack treatments”. And Dr Michael Sagner of King’s College London’s ARK ageing research unit described any advertised “biohacking” as a red flag, with most treatments being useless and some dangerous.
So, what should we think about Dr Enayat’s “tomorrowland of health”?
I don’t know about you, but I get the feeling that staying well away from it might be the best chance to reach an right old age.
This pilot study evaluates changes in sensorimotor responses in premature infants after receiving craniosacral therapy. The study included a total of 63 infants born between 28 and 31 weeks of gestation. These infants underwent three craniosacral therapy treatments during their hospitalization. The assessment used
a sensorimotor reactivity scale to evaluate eye contact, response to two-point static and kinetic tactile stimulation, turning onto the side, and willingness to grasp and suck an offered finger. Differences in gross scores between pairs of measurements for each item were tested at a 5% significance level using the Wilcoxon paired test. All differences within the evaluated items were statistically significant (p<0.05).
The strongest effect of the statistically significant dependence was found in the eye contact item. This difference was more pronounced in bottle-fed infants than in breast-fed infants. Therefore, craniosacral therapy may have the potential to enhance self-regulation and promote healthy development in premature infants, but this finding needs to be supported by further research.
The author concluded that craniosacral therapy offers a natural way to strengthen self-regulation and the healthy development of premature babies. The therapy leads to significant improvements in infant sensorimotor responses, especially in eye contact, which is crucial for social interactions, cognitive and language development, and for the formation of an emotional bond with the parent. More significant positive changes were noted in bottle-fed infants. However, the study was observational, without a control group, and the results need to be confirmed by further research with better methodological quality. Thus, CST represents a promising approach to relieving tension, reducing stress, and improving the ability of self-regulation, concentration, and learning in very immature infants.
Where to begin?
Let me just point out two major limitations of the study.
- A pilot study is supposed to determine the feaibility of a project followed by a definitive trial. This study did not aim at doing this. It therefore is not a pilot study but a useless observation.
- The author states that the therapy leads to significant improvements… She thus claims that the therapy caused the observed outcome. This claim ignores numerous other causes, e.g. a placebo response, other therapies and care, or the natural history of the condition. The latter seems particularly important. Premature babies develope regardless of whether they receive treatments or not.
Craniosacral therapy is nonsense. Conducting nonsensical research of nonsense does not turn it in good sense.
This paper reports a project aimed to develop and refine an integrative medicine (IM) elective to improve health education and learning, thereby enhancing future physicians’ knowledge, skills, and self-care practices. Three separate cohorts of third- and fourth-year medical students (n=18) participated in a four-week immersive IM elective. Weekly and post-elective evaluations were used to assess changes in attitudes, behaviors, and self-reported IM knowledge for each cohort. Descriptive analyses were performed, and just-in-time student feedback was used to iteratively refine the IM curriculum.
Students attended at least 85% of class days. Anonymous weekly course evaluation ratings for meeting course expectations, education depth, and usefulness for patient care ranged between 4 and 5 on a Likert scale, with 5 as the most favorable. Post-course evaluations and the impact of the course on attitudes related to patient care, personal lifestyle, and self-awareness also ranged from 4 to 5. Knowledge scores significantly improved (p<.01), with moderate to large effect sizes (Hedges g’s>0.8).
The authors concluded that the implementation of an immersive elective curriculum in IM resulted in high levels of satisfaction, changes in attitudes and behaviors, as well as knowledge scores. Just-in-time feedback and curricular revisions made this curriculum effective for student training. We consider this our first step in integrating IM into the required curriculum for all students, ensuring that, as educators, we close the knowledge gap in IM among future physicians. Empowered with that knowledge, we anticipate them serving their future patients with a more holistic and patient-centered approach.
This ‘research’ was supported by the Bernard Osher Foundation Endowment. There are eleven integrative health programs receiving Osher support. The programs feature research, education, and clinical care in integrative medicine. The Foundation has also supported a career development award program for complementary medicine practitioners through the National Institutes of Health. Since the Osher Foundation is hopelessly biased towards IM, we understand why the authors’ 2nd sentence in the abstract categorically states: “integrative medicine (IM) is cost-effective and clinically effective for enhancing health and well-being”. We also comprehend why the entire article is devoid of even an attempt to critically analyse or doubt the value of IM.
And by jove, there is plenty to criticise. On this blog, we have often done so, e.g.:
- Memorandum ‘INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE’
- Integrative Medicine or Infiltrative Pseudoscience?
- More uncomfortable thoughts on ‘integrative medicine’
- The reality of ‘integrative medicine’ consists of little more than re-discoveries from conventional medicine, platitudes and outright nonsense
- Integrative medicine physicians tend to harbour anti-vaccination views
- Integrative medicine: one of the most colossal deceptions in healthcare today
- Integrated/integrative medicine: a paradise for charlatans?
The fact is that IM is nonsense: the aspects that are good about IM are ‘stolen’ from real medicine and certainly not unique to it, while the aspects related to the integration of un- or disproven (and thus dangerous) modalities are best left to disintegrate. To put it bluntly:
An elective in nonsense will result in harmful nonsense!
The objective of this systematic review was to investigate trustworthiness, i.e. the methodological rigor, transparency, good governance, research integrity, and absence of misconduct, of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of osteopathic manual therapy.
The team searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, ostmed.dr, and Chiroindex for RCTs evaluating osteopathic treatments (January 2021-June 2024). Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane tool 2, while trustworthiness was assessed with the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Screening Tool and the REAPPRAISED checklist. Journal trustworthiness, misleading representations in abstracts (“spin”), and results plausibility (via meta-analysis) were also assessed. Findings were synthesized descriptively.
Sixty-one RCTs were included (median sample size 45, interquartile range (IQR) 30-76), largely studying healthy volunteers (29%). The findings are sobering:
- Most had high RoB (74%).
- Only 7% acknowledged potential conflicts from authors’ professional ties.
- Only 27% of contactable authors engaged with reviewers.
- Only 7 abstracts (12%) were free of spin.
- Methodological concerns included poor missing data handling (31%), selective analyses (38%), unacknowledged multiple testing (36%), and outcome switching (12%).
- Meta-analysis found two outliers and 5 further with very large effects.
- 19% of the studies provided inadequate data for pooling.
- Limitations included incomplete reports and lack of validated trustworthiness assessment tools.
The authors concluded that adherence to best practices in osteopathic RCTs needs improvement to enhance evidence-based decision-making, reduce research waste, and enhance reproducibility. Further research should explore whether these findings apply to other small, under-resourced fields.
Considering that many of the authors are affiliated to osteopathic institutes, this is a remarkably critical review. Its results cannot surprise anyone who regularly studies the literature in this field. What is surprising, however, is the conclusion: ADHERENCE TO BEST PRACTICES NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. This is undoubtedly true, but it is not the most direct conclusion of what the data show. In my mind, it should be something more akin to this:
MOST OSTEOPATHIC RCTs ARE OF POOR QUALITY AND THEIR FINDINGS ARE THUS UNRELIABLE.
The elective “Introduction to Homeopathic Medicines” at the University of the Pacific, Thomas J. Long School of Pharmacy was first offered in fall 2024. It is led by Professor of Pharmacy Practice Kate M. O’Dell, and has the aim of introducing future pharmacists to a category of products that is growing in popularity. As the most accessible health care professionals, pharmacists are often the first point of contact for patients seeking guidance on medications.
“As future pharmacists, students should be competent in counseling patients on products that are sold in pharmacies, including homeopathic drug products,” O’Dell claims. “Pharmacists who are knowledgeable about homeopathic medicines can provide a level of care that is not yet widely adopted in current practice.”
“The homeopathy elective course was one of the most eye-opening experiences I have had during pharmacy school,” said Marry Ann Danial ’26, a PharmD student who took the course last year. “It pushed me to look beyond traditional treatment options and really think about how we, as pharmacists, approach patient care holistically. I appreciate how the course encouraged open discussion and curiosity while still grounding everything in scientific evidence.”
The elective was launched through a partnership with Boiron. Founded in 1932, Boiron is the largest global manufacturer of homeopathic drug products, with products distributed to 50 countries. “We are grateful for the thoughtful engagement and leadership of Shane McCamey, director of training and business development at Boiron USA, for providing valuable support to launch the first, formalized 13-week structured curriculum in homeopathic medicines at a U.S. pharmacy school,” O’Dell said. The partnership has already inspired student research and national visibility. Five students from the inaugural class presented a poster at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Midyear Clinical Meeting in 2024, sharing their findings and demonstrating how Pacific continues to lead innovation in pharmacy education and patient care. “This experience helped me grow as both a communicator and researcher, and it gave me a deeper appreciation for how integrative approaches can enhance patient outcomes,” Danial said. “Overall, this elective reminded me that good medicine isn’t just about the drug but it’s about understanding the patients and their individual needs.”
_________________
To call a course for pharmacy students on homeopathy an “innovation in pharmacy education and patient care” is a bit rich.
- Firstly, such courses are far from new.
- Secondly, they are the opposite of progressive, at least in the way they are conducted when Boiron is a sponsor.
Yes, pharmacists should, of course, know about homeopathy in order to be able to advise customers responsibly. But that, by definition, must exclude promotion and conflicts of interest.
Years ago, I used to get invited by pharmacists to give lectures about homeopathy. I used to give them the undeluted facts. Many found this hard to swollow, and the invitations stopped. This and many other indicators suggest to me that today’s pharmacists behave much more like sales persons than ethical healthcare providers. That too was a message that I used to tell pharmacists.
Perhaps I should not wonder why the invitations stopped!?!
