Monthly Archives: February 2026
Homeopathy rests on two main axioms: “like cures like,” where a substance causing symptoms in healthy individuals treats similar symptoms in the sick, and potentization through serial dilution and succussion, often to dilutions so extreme that no original molecules remain. Both axioms fly in the face of science. Yet, homeopaths have put forward a range of theories to explain how their remedies might exert effects on the human body.
Water memory
An early theory posits water memory, suggesting that the solvent – typically water and alcohol – retains a structural imprint of the original solute even after dilutions surpass Avogadro’s number. Proponents of this notion argue that vigorous shaking during succussion organizes water molecules into stable clusters or gels, encoding remedy-specific information that can interact with biological systems. This idea gained notoriety from Jacques Benveniste’s 1988 experiments, which claimed diluted antibodies retained biological activity, though subsequent attempts to replicate them failed under better controlled conditions. Extensions of the concept invoke hydrogen-bonded networks or fractal patterns in water, purportedly persisting long enough to influence cellular hydration and signalling. Homeopathic remedies often come as globuli, i.e. water-free, which is just one of many reasons why the water theory does not hold water.
Nanoparticles
The nanoparticle hypothesis proposes that trace particles of the source material or silica from glass containers persist through preparation. These nanostructures, detected in some studies via electron microscopy, allegedly act as catalytic templates, adsorbing original molecules epitaxially and triggering nonlinear responses in cells at ultralow doses. This mechanism aligns with observations of metal oxides in succussed remedies, suggesting they enhance bioavailability and elicit adaptive physiological shifts without relying on bulk pharmacology. There are many reasons why this theory is more than doubtful. How would it, for instance, explain the action of the many homeopathic remedies that are not based on materials at all, e.g. X-ray, vaccuum, or light?
Electromagnetic signalling
Electromagnetic signalling offers another biophysical explanation, contending that succussion generates low-frequency electromagnetic fields or photon emissions from the remedy, which water or DNA can store and transmit. Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier reportedly captured such signals from diluted bacterial DNA, even digitizing them for remote replication. Quantum electrodynamics models further claim remedies restore coherence to disrupted electromagnetic fields in diseased organisms, with influences like MHz resonances exciting enzyme complexes or quantum tunnelling facilitating information transfer beyond molecular proximity.
This theory also fails the basic scientific test of empirical validation. Homeopathic remedies beyond typical dilutions (e.g., 12C or higher) contain no original molecules, so any claimed signals from succussion must be imprinted solely in water. The structure of water randomizes in femtoseconds via Brownian motion and hydrogen bond breakage, erasing any stable “memory” or electromagnetic imprint from trivial mechanical shaking. Moreover, Luc Montagnier’s DNA signal experiments, central to this theory, have not been independently replicated despite years of scrutiny.
Hormesis
Hormesis and allostasis describe how minute stimuli provoke beneficial adaptive responses, inverting the conventional dose-response curve into a biphasic pattern where low doses stimulate resilience. Homeopathic remedies purportedly modulate interconnected immune, endocrine, and neural networks, leveraging time-dependent sensitization to reverse maladaptive patterns and foster systemic homeostasis, akin to complexity theory’s emphasis on small perturbations rebalancing chaotic systems. Yet, hormesis requires measurable material doses of environmental stressors to trigger specific biphasic responses, unlike homeopathic remedies typically diluted beyond
Molecular imprinting
Molecular imprinting extends the logic of similitude, envisioning potentized solvents forming three-dimensional “imprints” complementary to pathogenic molecules, binding and neutralizing them much like antibodies. This restores a putative vital force, echoing Hahnemann’s holistic vitalism, while additional ideas invoke reactive oxygen species leaving bioenergetic signatures, exclusion zone structured water amplifying information in cells, or thermodynamic shifts reducing molecular crowding to boost reactivity.
Numerous arguments are against this theory, e.g.:
- Water’s hydrogen bonds rearrange randomly in picoseconds due to thermal motion, preventing stable 3D “imprints” from dilution-succussion that could mimic antibody binding.
- High potencies exceed Avogadro’s limit, leaving no template molecules to form such structures, unlike lab molecularly imprinted polymers requiring persistent chemicals.
- Tests using molecularly imprinted chromatography failed to detect differences between homeopathic remedies and plain solvent, undermining claims of functional imprints.
- NMR studies similarly find no spectral changes in potentized solutions versus controls.
- Even if fleeting imprints existed, they could not neutralize pathogens systemically or restore “vital force,” as meta-analyses confirm homeopathy equals placebo across conditions. ROS signatures or exclusion zone water remain speculative without measurable impacts in blinded trials.
Placebo
Despite their apparent ingenuity, none of these theories (which interconnect – nanoparticles emitting signals via quantum effects, for instance) are accepted outside homeopathy as the true explanation for homeopathy’s reported effects. As discussed repeatedly on this blog, the true explanation for the outcomes observed after homeopathic treatments lies in the placebo response and other non-specific effects such as the therapeutic encounter. Rigorous studies find outcomes indistinguishable from placebos in blinded trials, with benefits arising from patient expectations, therapeutic ritual, and contextual healing rather than any specific remedy action. This psychological mechanism, well-documented across medicine, underscores why homeopathy persists culturally despite lacking empirical support for its dilutions.
References
- Bellavite, P. (2015). Hypotheses and findings on the action mechanism(s) of homeopathy: Progress in the last 20 years. World Homeopathy Summit Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from http://paolobellavite.it/files/285_2015_WorldHomeoSummitConference.pdf
- Benveniste, J. (1988). Molecular memory of water. Nature, 333(6176), 816–818. (Original claim; see also Nature Editorial, 1988, 334, 287–290 for retraction context).
- Calabrese, E. J. (2008). Hormesis: Why it is important to biphasic dose responses. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 38(2), 249–252.
- Chikramane, P. S., et al. (2010). Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain diagnostic molecules: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy, 99(4), 231–242.
- Del Giudice, E., et al. (2010). Water dynamics at the root of metamorphosis in living matter. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 29(1), 28–46.
- Del Giudice, E., & Vitiello, G. (2016). Role of the electromagnetic field in the water coherence of living systems. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 35(3), 165–178.
- Ernst, E. (2002). A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 54(6), 577–582.
- Ernst, E. (2012). Proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are physically impossible. Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 17(3), 149–150.
- Hahnemann, S. (1810). Organon of Medicine (6th ed., 1921 trans. by W. Boericke).
- Josephson, B. D., & Pallieri, G. (2012). Quantum processes in biology and the prospects for homeopathy. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 18(6), A1–A2 (abstract).
- Konovalov, A. I., & Ryzhkina, I. S. (2012). A model for homeopathic remedy effects: Low dose nanoparticles induce hormesis and allostasis. PMC, PMC3570304. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3570304/
- Mathie, R. T., et al. (2014). Method for appraising model validity of randomised controlled trials of homeopathic treatment: Multi-rater concordance study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 102.
- Montagnier, L., et al. (2011). Electromagnetic signals are produced by aqueous nanostructures derived from bacterial DNA sequences. Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences, 1(2), 81–90.
- National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (2015). Statement on homeopathy. Australian Government.
- Pollack, G. H. (2013). The fourth phase of water: Beyond solid, liquid, and vapor. Ebner & Sons.
- Roy, R., et al. (2005). The structure of liquid water and aqueous systems: A tentative model. Materials Research Innovations, 9(4), 577–608.
- Samal, S., & Geckeler, K. E. (2001). Unexpected clustering of fullerenes in aqueous solutions. Chemistry: A European Journal, 7(19), 4284–4288.
- Walach, H. (2000). Magic of signs: A non-local interpretation of homeopathy. British Homeopathic Journal, 89(3), 127–131.
During the German occupation of Poland in the 2nd World War, the intersection of science and resistance produced one of the most striking episodes of humanitarian subversion: the creation of a fictitious typhus epidemic by Polish physicians Eugeniusz Lazowski and Stanisław Matulewicz. As Piotr Heller recounts in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung article “Die erfundene Epidemie” (“The Invented Epidemic,” February 8, 2026), their actions embodied both the moral responsibilities of medical professionals and the potential of scientific knowledge to challenge totalitarian authority.¹
Working in the southeastern Polish town of Rozwadów, Lazowski and Matulewicz faced the systematic persecution of Polish and Jewish civilians under Nazi rule. Drawing upon bacteriological methods familiar to interwar medicine, Matulewicz discovered that injections containing dead Proteus vulgaris bacteria (specifically the OX19 strain) produced a serological cross-reaction indistinguishable from Rickettsia prowazekii, the pathogen responsible for epidemic typhus.² Because German medical authorities relied on these serological assays to identify outbreaks, the false positives created the impression of a region devastated by disease. The German administration, fearful of contagion, declared a quarantine zone around the affected villages—thus preventing deportations and forced labor raids.
Historians estimate that this heroically fabricated epidemic saved approximately 8,000 people.³ The success of the ruse demonstrates not only the professionalism and courage of Lazowski and Matulewicz but also the contradictions within Nazi biopolitical governance. The same system that sought epidemiological purity and racial control became paralyzed by its own bureaucratic procedures and medical paranoia. In this sense, the “invented epidemic” redirected the regime’s obsession with hygiene against itself, transforming fear into a mechanism of protection.
In a broader historical and ethical perspective, the case exemplifies how scientific expertise combined with courage can resist ideological co-option. Scholars such as Michael A. Grodin and Ulf Schmidt have documented the ways in which medicine under National Socialism was corrupted by political ideology;⁴ in contrast, Lazowski and Matulewicz’s deception repurposed medical authority to uphold humanitarian values.
Their story remains particularly relevant today, as misinformation and distrust continue to shape responses to public health crises. The episode underscores that science cannot be ethically neutral: its applications are frequently situated within moral and political contexts.
References
- Piotr Heller, “Die erfundene Epidemie,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, February 8, 2026.
- Eugene Lazowski, Private War: Memoirs of a Doctor in Occupied Poland (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1993), 58–61.
- Norman Davies, Rising ’44: The Battle for Warsaw (London: Pan Macmillan, 2003), 72.
- Michael A. Grodin, ed., Medicine and Medical Ethics in Nazi Germany: Origins, Practices, Legacies (New York: Berghahn Books, 2009); Ulf Schmidt, Justice at Nuremberg: Leo Alexander and the Nazi Doctors’ Trial (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
This article recounts the 5-year long odyssee of a few concerned and fiercely determined individuals [including myself] to get a published paper retracted that clearly was riddled with scientific misconduct and thus detrimental to science and dangerous to vulnerable patients. Here is the abstract of our just-published paper:
Scientifc misconduct threatens patient safety, progress, and trust in medicine. On October 3, 2020, Frass and colleagues published a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in The Oncologist (published by Wiley at the time) claiming that add-on homeopathy signifcantly prolonged survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Since homeopathy contradicts established scientifc principles, doubts about the trial’s validity quickly emerged. Concerns were frst published in October 2020, followed in 2021 by a detailed analysis alleging scientifc misconduct. This prompted the Medical University of Vienna, the afliation of the study’s lead author, to request an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). After conducting an in-depth review, OeAWI concluded in September 2022 with a clear recommendation for retraction. However, The Oncologist issued only an ‘Expression of Concern’ at the time, despite fve co-authors formally requesting the withdrawal of their authorship— a demand that remained unaddressed as of November 2025. Repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), yielded only vague assurances that the matter was“under review,” with multiple deadlines passing without resolution. Finally, by November 24, 2025, The Oncologist retracted the paper. However, the retraction notice fails to address the specifc concerns raised about the study’s results and conclusions, nor does it provide a clear rationale for the retraction itself. Meanwhile, the paper has been cited more than 60 times (according to Google Scholar) and is widely circulated online as“proof” that homeopathy benefts cancer patients. This highlights the harmful consequences of delayed editorial action. According to COPE guidelines, misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and transparently. Our case reveals the opposite: incomplete corrections, prolonged inaction, and even the defense of implausible claims. Against the backdrop of increasing organized scientifc fraud, this experience underscores the urgent responsibility of journals and publishers to protect the scientifc record and prevent harm to patients.
Our paper details the highly unethical behaviour of the editors of THE ONCOLOGIST who put many lives at risk through their incomprehensible inaction. In my view, this was nothing short of a scandal. I do encourage you all the read the full paper which is freely available to everyone.
The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and clinician-supported biopsychosocial self-management vs medical care for adults with increased risk of chronic disabling LBP.
This 2 × 2 factorial randomized clinical trial enrolled participants in 3 research clinics at the Universities of Minnesota and Pittsburgh from November 2018 to May 2023; final follow-up was in June 2024. Adults with acute or subacute LBP at moderate to high risk of chronicity based on the STarT Back tool were randomized to 1 of 4 groups, with interventions lasting up to 8 weeks. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 2024 to June 2025.
These interventions were:
- Spinal manipulation therapy (n = 201),
- supported self-management (n = 305),
- combined supported self-management with spinal manipulation (n = 193),
- guideline-based medical care (n = 301).
Physical therapists and chiropractors provided spinal manipulation and supported self-management.
The 2 primary outcomes averaged over a follow-up of 1 year were monthly low back disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire) and weekly pain intensity (numerical rating scale). Secondary analysis examined the proportion of participants achieving a 50% or higher reduction in the primary outcome measures.
Among the 1000 participants randomized (mean [SD] age, 47 [16] years; 58% female), 93% completed the trial. The omnibus test for differences across the 4 treatment groups was statistically significant for disability (P = .001; supported self-management, 4.7; spinal manipulation, 5.5; combined supported self-management with spinal manipulation, 4.8; medical care, 5.9) but not pain intensity (P = .16; supported self-management, 2.8; spinal manipulation, 3.0; combined supported self-management with spinal manipulation, 2.8; medical care, 3.0). Averaged over 12 months, LBP disability was significantly lower compared with medical care for supported self-management (mean difference, −1.2 [95% CI, −1.9 to −0.5]) and supported self-management with spinal manipulation (mean difference, −1.1 [95% CI, −1.9 to −0.3]) but not spinal manipulation alone (mean difference, −0.4 [95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4]). Group differences in pain intensity were not statistically significant; point estimates ranged from −0.2 to 0. Both supported self-management groups had higher proportions of patients achieving a 50% or greater reduction in disability (supported self-management, 67%; spinal manipulation, 54%; combined supported self-management with spinal manipulation, 65%; medical care, 54%).
The authors concluded that for patients with acute or subacute LBP at increased risk of chronic disabling LBP, clinician-supported biopsychosocial self-management showed statistically significant but small reductions in disability, but not pain, vs medical care over 1-year follow-up, and spinal manipulation alone showed no significant difference for either outcome.
These findings are very bad news for chiropractors (the profession that uses spinal manipulations more than any other): spinal manipulation does not generate effects that are in the least convincing. This is particularly remarkable, since the study was not blinded. It means that, even the undoubtedly powerful placebo effect associated with spinal manipulation did not render the outcome more favourable.
I said it many times, and I will say it again: For LBP, many therapies generate similarly marginally positive effects but no treatment is truly convincing. In this situation, we should choose one that is at least inexpensive and free of severe adverse effects. And that evidently cannot be spinal manipulation!
Prince William’s Earthshot Prize claims to find, support and celebrate those who turn bold ideas into solutions for our planet. In early February 2026, Prince the Earthshot Prize charity was reported to the UK’s Charity Commission. This followed the release of millions of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The complaint centers on a “founding partner” of the charity and their alleged communications with Epstein. The controversy stems from the multiple and at times salacious inclusions of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, DP World chairman, in the latest release of “Epstein files” from the U.S. Department of Justice.
- Financial Link: DP World is a “Global Alliance Founding Partner” of the Earthshot Prize and has reportedly donated at least £1 million to the charity
- The Emails: Documents suggest that in April 2009, while Jeffrey Epstein was serving a jail sentence in Florida, he emailed bin Sulayem with the message: “Where are you? are you ok, I loved the torture video.” Other files reportedly contain sexist jokes sent from bin Sulayem to Epstein.
- Royal Connection: Prince William has been photographed with bin Sulayem on several occasions, including during a high-profile tour of the UAE in 2022 to promote Earthshot finalists.
The complaint was formally lodged on February 11, 2026, by Graham Smith, CEO of the anti-monarchy group Republic. The primary arguments are:
- Due Diligence: The complaint questions whether Earthshot performed adequate background checks on its major donors and partners.
- Official Misuse: Critics argue that Prince William used government-funded overseas visits (specifically to the Middle East) to promote what is essentially his private charitable project, drawing parallels to previous criticisms of Andrew’s conduct as a trade envoy.
- Transparency: Republic is calling for a “full and comprehensive investigation” into what the charity—and Prince William personally—knew about the donor’s associations.
A Charity Commission spokesperson confirmed they are aware of the concerns regarding the sources of funding for Earthshot and are assessing the information to determine if a formal investigation is required. While the Palace has not commented specifically on the Earthshot funding, a spokesperson stated that the Prince and Princess of Wales are “deeply concerned” by the broader Epstein revelations and that their thoughts remain with the victims. The charity has thus far declined to provide a formal comment on the specific complaint.
This development occurs at a sensitive time for the Royal Family, as fresh allegations also suggest Andrew may have shared confidential government trade reports with Epstein during his time as a UK trade envoy.
On this blog, some people insist that homeopathy goes from strength to strength. Here I counter this notion by pointing out that several contries have stopped reimbursing homeopathy and that loss of trust in homeopathy has grown significantly.
Several converging factors explain the erosion of confidence:
- Lack of evidence of effectiveness: Large reviews by national and international bodies (for example the Australian NHMRC and the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council) concluded there is no reliable evidence that homeopathic remedies are effective for any health condition beyond placebo.
- Scientific implausibility: Homeopathy’s principles (high dilutions, “water memory”) conflict with established chemistry and physics, which weakens its credibility among scientists and the informed publics.
- Placebo and expectation effects: Empirical work suggests any benefits are best explained by non-sepecific effects such as placebo responses, contextual care, and patient expectations rather than pharmacological action of the remedies.
- Health literacy: Studies indicate that higher health literacy is associated with greater perceived credibility of conventional medicine and relatively lower credibility of homeopathy, which means better-informed patients tend to trust it less.
- Safety and opportunity costs: Critics emphasize that relying on ineffective remedies can delay effective treatment, prolong illness, and in some cases contribute to preventable harm or death.
A range of actors has shaped this loss of trust:
- Scientific bodies and advisory councils: Organizations such as the NHMRC in Australia and EASAC in Europe have issued high‑profile reports stating that homeopathy lacks robust evidence of efficacy and should not be claimed to treat health conditions.
- National health systems and regulators: NHS England, for instance, has advised against prescribing homeopathy, describing it as unsafe or ineffective where better, cost‑effective options exist, and warning that giving it institutional endorsement risks misleading patients.
- Skeptical and consumer‑protection movements: Skeptics’ groups and consumer advocates have campaigned against public funding of homeopathy and organized public “overdose” demonstrations to highlight the extreme dilutions and question the idea that the products contain active ingredients.
- Critical scientists and physicians: Numerous clinicians and researchers have published analyses arguing that homeopathy violates basic scientific and ethical principles, has no explanatory power, and undermines science‑based medicine.
The loss of trust has produced several consequences across healthcare systems and societies:
- Several public health systems have reduced or eliminated reimbursement and institutional support for homeopathy, reallocating funds towards treatments backed by compelleing evidence.
- Market contraction and repositioning: Declining official endorsement and critical media coverage have contributed to shrinking markets in some countries.
- Manufacturers and practitioners increasingly market homeopathy as “wellness” or “complementary” rather than curative medicine, a notion that would make Hahnemann turn in his grave.
- Homeopathy has become a touchstone in broader debates about scientific literacy, misinformation, and the role of the state in regulating ineffective therapies.
Taken together, these dynamics show how rigorous research, scientific critique, regulatory action, and changing public expectations will gradually strip a once‑popular therapy of its medical legitimacy. Or, to put it bluntly: in medicine, evidence will aways win against belief, even if it takes several decades.
While hiring remains the cornerstone of university excellence, the priorities and mechanics of recruitment vary significantly across borders. Drawing from the systems I am most familiar with, here is a breakdown of how academic careers are forged in the US, UK, Germany, France and Austria.
United States: The High-Stakes Tournament
Academic hiring in the U.S. functions as a high-stakes “tournament” where prestige and productivity are the primary currencies.
Key Drivers: Success hinges on a robust publication record in top-tier journals, a pedigree from elite institutions, and a proven ability to secure substantial external funding.
The Ritual: The process is exhaustive. After a meticulous committee review, finalists undergo a grueling “fly-out,” consisting of formal job talks, teaching demonstrations, and a series of faculty interviews.
The Paradox: While teaching loads can be demanding (often 4–5 courses per year), tenure is almost exclusively determined by research output, a model that rigorously rewards early-career hyper-productivity.
United Kingdom: Streamlined Excellence
In the UK, research excellence is the undisputed priority, though the recruitment process is notably more compressed than its American counterpart.
The REF Factor: Candidates are primarily evaluated on their “REF potential”—their ability to contribute high-impact publications to the Research Excellence Framework.
Efficiency: Recruitment is streamlined; committees often shortlist from massive pools and conduct relatively brief interviews, frequently forgoing the extended “job talk” common elsewhere.
Culture: While the system highly values international mobility, its specific metrics and institutional hierarchies can occasionally feel opaque to those outside the Commonwealth circuit.
Germany: Tradition Meets Bureaucracy
The German model is a blend of rigorous academic tradition and formal transparency.
The Gatekeeper: The Habilitation (a secondary, post-PhD qualification) remains the standard prerequisite for a full professorship.
The Process: Hiring is characterized by public job announcements and a formal “Berufungsverfahren,” which includes trial lectures and committee pre-selection.
Balance: In DFG-funded environments, high research expectations are balanced against intensive teaching duties (typically 9 Semesterwochenstunden, or roughly 4 courses per year). While the process is highly transparent, heavy bureaucracy can lead to lengthy recruitment timelines.
France: The National Gatekeeper
France employs a unique, centralized gatekeeping system that prioritizes institutional equilibrium over raw competitive output.
The CNU: Before applying for “teacher-researcher” positions, candidates must first pass a national qualification exam administered by the Conseil National des Universités.
Internal Focus: The system is known for “endo-recruitment”—a tendency to favor internal promotions. This is reflected in the fact that only about 17% of hires are foreign nationals.
Structure: Recruitment focuses on a stable balance between teaching and research, with teaching loads varying significantly depending on the specific type of institution.
Austria: The Search for Consensus
Austria’s academic hiring system closely mirrors the German model, emphasizing a formal, legally structured process combined with rigorous committee-led evaluation.
Metric of Success: Research excellence is the primary currency. Candidates are judged on their publication record in reputable journals, their success in securing third-party funding, and their integration into global academic networks.
The Procedure: The “Berufungsverfahren” (appointment process) is highly regulated. It involves public advertisements, a formal search committee, and a series of external reviews of the candidate’s research dossier.
The Audition: Finalists are invited for public job talks that include both research presentations and teaching demonstrations. The process concludes with a delicate sequence of faculty votes and final approval by the university rectorate.
Academic Balance: While teaching is essential—candidates are expected to plug into existing curricula—it generally remains secondary to research prestige during the selection phase.
_____________________
I have experience with several of these systems, both as a academic candidate as well as a member of hiring panels. In my view, no system is faultless. Which is the best? I am honestly not sure.
Calcaneal spur is a common cause of chronic heel pain and functional disability. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of individualized homeopathic (IH) medicines compared to placebo (PL) in managing this condition.
128 participants with chronic heel pain from calcaneal spur were randomly assigned to receive either IH (n = 64) or an identical PL (n = 64) for 6 months. Both groups received standard advice on general management (such as foot exercises and contrast baths). The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity from baseline measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). The secondary outcome was the change in lower extremity function measured by the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Analysis was done using an intention-to-treat approach with a mixed-effects model for repeated measures.
The analysis revealed a statistically significant group × time interaction for VAS pain scores (F-value = 35.12, p < 0.001). At 6 months, the IH group showed a significantly greater mean reduction in pain compared to the PL group (mean difference: −33.28; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −44.3 to −22.2; p < 0.001). Similarly, a significant group × time interaction was observed for LEFS scores (F-value = 33.87, p < 0.001). At 6 months, the IH group had a greater improvement in function (mean difference: 13.78; 95% CI: 9.1–18.4; p < 0.001). Both results were clinically significant. No serious adverse events were reported.
The authors concluded that individualized homeopathy resulted in statistically and clinically significant improvements in pain and function for patients with calcaneal spur compared to PL. These findings suggest that homeopathy may be a viable treatment option for this condition.
This study seems well-designed and is clearly documented. I have read it thoroughly and did not find major flaws. Why, then do I have doubts?
- I have never heard of a homeopathy advocating homeopathy for calcaneal spur.
- I don’t see why homeopathy could alleviate pain.
- The paper reads a little bit as being “too good to be true”.
- The study was conducted at the Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College & Hospital, West Bengal, (India’s retraction rate has recently climbed to third place worldwide (5,412 total), rate 2.0002 per 1,000).
In any case, before we can accept homeopathy as a treatment of pain caused by calcaneal spur, we need an independent confirmation, preferably not from ardent supporters of homeopathy.
- “The Law of Karma: What you sow is what you reap. If you plant carrots, don’t expect to harvest watermelons.”
- “If you want to see change in the world, become the change you want to see.”
- “If you want to reach a state of Bliss — make a decision to relinquish the need to control, the need to be approved and the need to judge.”
- “Negative people deplete your energy. Surround yourself with love and nourishment and do not allow the creation of negativity in your environment.”
- “If you want to do really important things in life and big things in life, you can’t do anything by yourself. And your best teams are your friends and your siblings.”
- “Everyone is acting from his own level of consciousness. This is all we can ask of ourselves or anyone else.”
You probably guessed: these gems of wisdom originate from, Deepak Chopra, the guru of platitude-loving Americans. If you don’t want to spend your money on buying one of his books, you can go on the Internet, find one of several available ‘bullshit generators’ and create similarly profound wisdoms all by yourself.
As Deepak is seen to be virtually overflowing with wisdom, spirituality, consciousness, and holistic health, it is perhaps surprising to find his inclusion in the Epstein Files. The link stems primarily from email correspondence and other communications between him and Epstein that have been made public as part of the ongoing disclosures. The records show repeated exchanges dating from at least 2016 through 2019 — well after Epstein’s 2008 conviction as a sex offender — in which the two men discuss a range of topics. These include scheduling meetings or meetings plans, mentions of other public figures, discussions tied to Chopra’s book projects, and exchanges that veer into casual and at times explicit language about “girls” or women. One of the widely circulated emails has Chopra writing to Epstein, “God is a construct. Cute girls are real,” in an apparently informal exploration of consciousness and personal views.
Another released thread shows discussions about meeting logistics, references to public figures such as Marla Maples (the former wife of Donald Trump), and social anecdotes that reveal the personal tenor of some exchanges. These materials were part of the dataset provided to Congress under subpoena as part of its oversight of the Epstein files.
Inclusion in the Epstein Files does not establish that Chopra was involved in any criminal activity or exploitative conduct. U.S. authorities and journalists emphasise that the raw disclosures document communications and connections — not necessarily illegal behavior — and require careful interpretation.
Nonetheless, many of the public reactions to Chopra’s appearance in these disclosures have been sharp. Social media posts and news coverage have highlighted the tone of certain messages, leading to debate and scrutiny from both followers and critics. In response to the heightened attention and criticism, Deepak Chopra issued a public statement acknowledging the gravity of what has been revealed and offering regret for the way some past communications may read in light of what the world now widely knows about Epstein’s crimes. He wrote on social media that he was “deeply saddened by the suffering of the victims in this case” and that he “unequivocally condemn[s] abuse and exploitation in all forms.” Chopra also stated that any contact he had with Epstein was “limited and unrelated to abusive activity,” and he described some of his past messages as reflecting “poor judgment in tone.”
One such ‘sharp reaction’ appeared on Facebook. As it is quite funny as well as very poignant, allow me to show it to you:
Annie McCubbin 6 February at 10:20
WOW DEEPAK THIS SEEMS TO BE A QUANTUM OF A MESS YOU’VE GOT YOURSELF INTO.
Well looky looky here. In the quantum field of possibilities, Deepak has manifested himself one thousand three hundred mentions in the Epstein files.
With the cavalier camaraderie of two average dudes leaning on the bonnet of a pick-up truck, Chopra and Epstein, amid nauseating pseudo intellectual discourse, discuss the noises cute girls make, and whether or not Deepak had found Epstein a cute Israeli.
This, it should be noted, is ten years after Epstein was registered as sex offender of children.
Chopra has made an admission, of sorts. It has the tone of someone who has spent his life beguiling his followers from behind a screen of opaque confounding verbiage, so I guess it’s true to form when he writes the sentence: –
‘Some past emails have surfaced that reflect poor judgement in tone. I regret that and understand how they read today given what was publicly known at the time.’
No Deepak, you purveyor of impenetrable piffle, it’s not how they read ‘today’, it’s just how they read. So how about you take out the obfuscating ‘today’, turn comments back on, come out from behind the infinite consciousness of the karmic trance of the egoic super self, and face the music.
These emails are not anachronistic innocent exchanges between two older gentlemen musing in a reflective way about the opposite sex. No, these men presented a clear and present danger to women. These exchanges are between a seventy-one-year grifter who has promised his millions of followers hope and healing, and a sixty-four-year-old registered sex offender who had been charged with procuring a minor for prostitution.
So, this great spiritual leader. This purveyor of divine transcendence. This guru who imbues his incomprehensible gobbledy gook with the historical spiritual relevance of the subcontinent, has shown a complete paucity of decency, care and morality
Not only are his discussions with Epstein disturbing but they’re peppered with moments where he cynically mocks his own spiritual repartee.
Perhaps his millions of followers who may have felt spiritually dull witted, may be relieved to discover that his entire shtick is a simple reordering of the following eighteen words:-Consciousness, meditation, infinite, universe, god, vibration, stillness, mirror, manifest, luminous. elemental, connection, awareness, love, gratitude, eternal, karma, and divine.
His collection of books, videos, podcasts, products like ‘The ritual care kit.’ supplements and ‘wellness retreats.’ are not the result of Deepak’s deep wisdom but merely pseudoscientific quasi spiritual guff, concocted with all the care of a four-year-old making a cake with dirt, a hair clip, their mothers Estée Lauder anti-aging cream and the stuffing from the dog’s toy rabbit.
Why do so many of us collapse so willingly into the arms of these grifter gurus?
Well, we are told the answer to our emptiness is to look within. We are just an inspirational quote away from happiness. We are seduced by bite sized morsels of the transcendent to sooth our souls.
We can ask what is missing from my life, and the answer will be delivered in three hours via Amazon. $35 plus shipping. How easy is it to sit on our couches and have the soothing tone of Deepak deliver an immersive learning experience into our noise cancelling head phones? Maybe we may muse, it would be truly beneficial to attend one of his wellness retreats. What’s money when we’re on the path to enlightenment? Perhaps we’ll discover the divine goddess within? Seems easier than fighting for the actual rights of women.
Connecting to the self is given a big rap in wellness circles but it seems to be at the cost of reconnecting with others.
The self-care, self-love movement, implying poverty or illness is a misalignment with the abundance on offer from the universe, absolves its’ followers of any responsibility to help others. You sick or poor? Manifest better.
It has been a fabulous distraction from the rapacity of the neocons, dismantling our social structures and denuding our public services, confident in the knowledge we’re too busy healing from within to look outward.
But the empty void within will not be filled by listening to the lilting tones of Deepak. By all means work out your maladaptive patterns and beliefs by talking to a psychologist but maybe swear off the gurus for a bit. It seems they all, at some point, fall from grace.
Chopra while preaching love compassion and peace, was showing off to his convicted sex offender friend, that he can play the misogynistic game as good as the big boys. Meanwhile women all over the world are dying at the hands of their partners. Men schooled and supported in the ideology that women are lesser beings to be controlled, used, punished and discarded.
To so lightly squander the loyalty of your trusting audience seems careless of you Deepak, but maybe the grifting isn’t over. Maybe you can obfuscate out of this, and have an online well published dark night of the soul replete with a brand-new great awakening. There has to be a couple of apps and a book in it.
I hope not. I hope this tearing in the space time continuum has revealed the black hole of grifting where the snake oil salesman sit waiting with their three easy payment options.
Anyway, let us end on one of Deepak’s quotes. ‘Karma memory and desire are just the software of the soul.’
Well Deepak, better strap in, I hear karma can be a real bitch.
Psoriasis is an immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease. By more than a decade of clinical validation, Jueyin granules (JYG) have demonstrated multi-target synergistic immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects, offering a characteristic Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) therapeutic approach for psoriasis.
Aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral JYG in treating psoriasis with blood-heat syndrome. Participants with body surface area (BSA) score less than 10 were allocated to receive JYG or placebo treatment in a 1:1 ratio through central area division and block randomization. The primary outcome is reduction of the psoriasis area severity index (PASI) score and proportion of participants achieving a greater than 50 % reduction in PASI scores (PASI50) at week 8.
Between November 2019 and April 2022, 195 participants were randomly assigned to receive JYG (n = 99) or a placebo (n = 96) at five centers. The JYG group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in PASI and BSA scores than the placebo group at week 8 (both P < 0.001) and maintained these improvements at week 16 (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively). By week 8, 51.09 % of participants in the JYG group achieved PASI50, compared to 20.65 % in the placebo group (P < 0.001). However, there were no statistical differences in dermatology life quality index (DLQI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, or relapse rate.
The authors concluded that this study provides conclusive evidence that JYG is a safe and effective treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate psoriasis. The current findings support its use as a complementary and alternative therapy for psoriasis.
I think this paper needs a few explanations:
- What are Jueyin granules? This is a formula consisting of eight Chinese herbs (Haliotis diversicolor, Flos Lonicerae Japonicae, Radix Rehmanniae exsiccate, cortex moutan, Herba Hedyotisdiffusae, Folium isatidis, Smilax china L. and Radix Curcumae)
- What is the history? The formula was developed in the 1950s by Han Xia, a Chinese surgeon, and have been used to treat psoriasis for over 50 years by Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine.
- How did he develop it? We don’t know.
- Is the formula available outside China? No, not to the best of my knowledge.
- How reliable is this new trial? As we have discussed repeatedly on this blog, there are good reasons to mistrust Chinese studies.
- If we accept the findings nonetheless, are the conclusions valid? No! Firstly, this study cannot establish the safety of the formula. Secondly, a single trial cannot ‘conclusively’ establish the effectiveness of a therapy.
- Why does a respected journal publish such a dubious study? SERACH ME!
