Monthly Archives: May 2026
Guest post by Ken McLeod
It seems like it was a century ago, but it’s been only six years since the COVID19 pandemic hit the world. Governments reacted in similar ways implementing severe public health measures such as lockdowns and mandatory wearing of facemasks. When those public health measures hit, they hit hard. The city of Melbourne was locked down for 111 days, for example,[1] alongside social distancing, curfews, and closed borders.
And then the vaccines arrived and were added to those rules. On 7 October 2021, the Victorian Chief Health Officer issued public health Directions that required, unless a valid medical exemption was given for medical reasons by a registered medical practitioner, ‘manufacturing workers’ must receive a first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine by 15 October 2021 (or have a booking to do so) and must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by 26 November 2021.3 The refusal or failure by an employer to comply with the Directions was an offence which carried a significant penalty.
Antivaxxers were quick to exploit those exemptions and regrettably, out of tens of thousands of registered medical practitioners, some were willing to put their own unfounded beliefs above the science.
One of those doctors was Dr Denes C.Borsos, originally from Romania, practicing in the Australian state of Victoria in the picturesque country town of Colac, pop 22,000.
Dr Borsos issued 189 COVID-19 vaccination exemptions and 122 face mask exemptions to his patients, largely in the period from 11 to 14 October 2021. In the period from 11 to 13 October 2021, Dr Borsos saw approximately 221 patients in his practice.
Evidently word had got around. According to the Geelong Advertiser, a local newspaper, reported that on 14 October 2021 police were forced to disperse a crowd of alleged antivaxxers who had flocked to his clinic following reports that he was handing out vaccine exemptions.[2] According to AusDoc “Police were called to Dr Denes Borsos’ practice….following reports that about 100 people were lined up for a kilometre outside his clinic waiting for vaccine exemptions.” [3]
Health Care Commission Inspectors visited his clinic on 18 October 2021 and issued Borsos a $1,817 fine and an Infringement Notice which said that:
- Dr Borsos contravened public health directions; and
- undermined the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
- failed to meet his obligations as a registered medical practitioner; and
- inappropriately wrote referrals to specialist cardiology practitioners for each of those patients; and
- failed to make adequate clinical records for each of those patients except in the cases of eight patients where Dr Borsos failed to make any clinical records; and
- engaged in inappropriate billing practices, in that he falsely claimed benefits from Medicare for 84 patients.
On 24 December 2021 the Medical Board of Australia issued Borsos with an immediate suspension of his registration and referred the case to the Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
In his submission to the Tribunal Borsos branded the vaccine an ‘experimental bioweapon’ and that the Medical Board was ‘wrong, cruel and arrogant’ and accused it of ‘stretching the legislation like bubble gum’. [4]
Meanwhile Borsos then ran as an independent candidate for the Victorian seat of Polwarth, Victoria, on 26 Nov 2022. Of 53,064 eligible voters, Borsos received 2,017 votes, or 3.8 % [5] of votes.
Then in 2024 Borsos made two applications to Australia’s paramount Court, the High Court of Australia, for leave to appeal. On both occasions leave was refused. At least he was in good company; two other failed applicants were suspended antivax medical practitioners, Mark Hobart and Valerie Peers. [7]
At the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal hearing on 13 May 2025:
- Dr Borsos stated that if a patient stated that they did not wish to have a COVID-19 vaccination, this was sufficient justification to grant the patient a vaccination exemption;
- Borsos claimed that Covid 19 is a scam, the PCR tests are a fraud and the COVID jabs are intentionally harmful;
- When Dr Borsos was asked whether the referrals to cardiologists were used as a justification for the vaccination exemptions, he stated that the justification for the vaccination exemptions was that the patient wanted an exemption;
- Dr Borsos did not accept the authority of Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) Guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination exemptions. [8]
- Borsos said of his referrals of 196 patients to un-named specialist cardiology practitioners [the patient] “is pressured at work to have the COVID jab and is very concerned about the risk of myocarditis, and the implications of getting injured.” [9]
- Borsos claimed that his opinion should override that of the expert and regulatory authorities.
We might never know how many of Borsos’ clients went on to suffer illness because of his irresponsible actions. We do know, however, of one real victim.
Mr Ross Edwards was employed by Bulla Dairy Foods as a Plant Operator at their Colac factory. After being employed by Bulla for 17 years, his employment was terminated effective 25 October 2021, because he had chosen not to be vaccinated against COVID-19: a requirement under Victorian Government public health orders.
Mr Edwards had obtained an ‘exemption’ from Borsos on 13 October 2021. He contended to the Fair Work Commission that his dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, but the dismissal was upheld.
The Commission’s decision says that in addition to Mr Edwards, Dr Borsos also provided exemptions to four other employees of Bulla. More than a dozen other employees were terminated. [10] So at least 13 people lost their jobs due to Borsos’ irresponsibility.
And Borsos lost his career and can’t apply for registration until 2031.
REFERENCES
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10846680/
[2] Geelong Advertiser November 3 2021 ‘Colac GP agrees to stop practicing medicine….’ Harrison Tippet
[3] AusDoc 4 November 2021 GP at Centre of Vax exemption case agrees to stop practicing
[4] Daily Mail ‘Doctor who blamed Shane Warne’s death on vaccines is banned from for five years: ‘Career destroyed’ ‘Ian Vickers https://tinyurl.com/3pk9xm3f
[5]https://www.vec.vic.gov.au/results/state-election-results/2022-state-election-results/results-by-district/polwarth-district-results/polwarth-results-distribution
[7] Leave refused [2024] HCASL 256
[8] Medical Board of Australia v Borsos (Review and Regulation) 2025 VCAT 15 July 2025 VCAT reference No Z294/2024
[9] Medical Board of Australia v Borsos (Review and Regulation) 2025 VCAT 15 July 2025 VCAT reference No Z294/2024
[10] Fair Work Commission Decision https://tinyurl.com/yc5a8ukk
The effect of calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation on fractures and falls in adults were assessed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised clinical trials were eligible, if they compared calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation with placebo or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) not receiving drug treatment for osteoporosis. The primary outcome was the risk of any fracture. Secondary outcomes included the risk of hip fracture, non-vertebral fracture, vertebral fracture, and falling, as well as the total number of falls. Pairs of reviewers independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the second version of Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. Findings were synthesised using random effects meta-analyses and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, with application of thresholds for absolute effects considered important.
The review included 69 trials involving 153 902 participants. Participants in most of the trials were community dwelling (87%) and not at high risk of fractures or falls (73%). For the primary outcome of any fracture, little to no effect was found from use of calcium supplements (11 trials, 9067 participants; risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.01; moderate certainty), vitamin D supplements (36 trials, 92 045 participants; 1.00, 0.95 to 1.06; high certainty), or combined supplementation (15 trials, 51 126 participants; 0.91, 0.84 to 0.99; high certainty). Calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation appeared to have little to no effect on other fracture and fall outcomes, based largely on moderate to high certainty of evidence. The findings remained robust after an extensive exploration of heterogeneity across multiple subgroup analyses. Evidence for high risk patients or those requiring residential care was limited for many outcomes for calcium monotherapy and for combined supplementation.
The authors concluded that, based on absolute risk reductions and thresholds considered clinically meaningful, this review found little to no benefits from use of calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation on the prevention of fractures and falls.
An accompanying BMJ editorial points out that observational studies have associated low dietary calcium and low serum levels of vitamin D with low bone density and falls. Consequently, calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation has been widely promoted for preventive musculoskeletal health in older adults…
Th editorial concludes that other interventions, such as balance and resistance exercise, and several multicomponent interventions (eg, combining exercise, hazard assessment, or education with other interventions tailored to risk assessment) have been shown to offer meaningful prevention of falls and falls related injuries.
This new systematic review is a prime example for the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact. But all is not negative – think of the money that can now be saved and put to better use!
Ten years ago, I wrote a blog post entitled “Data fabrication in China is an ‘open secret’”. Even though this seems chauvinistic and/or xenophobic, I often quote it (the last time yesterday) because it is, I think, hugely important for interpreting the plethora of studies that currently come out of China. But perhaps it is unfair; maybe the situation has improved? To find out, I asked AI (Gemini). Here is the reply I got:
There is substantial new evidence, and the overarching verdict has not changed—if anything, the systemic skepticism you described a decade ago has been thoroughly validated by both Western watchdogs and massive structural crackdowns from the Chinese government itself.
The picture today is a fascinating mix of institutional panic, rigorous data-auditing, and an ongoing battle against “paper mills” and publication bias.
Here is where the situation stands, categorized by the specific issues you raised.
1. Government Crackdowns and the “Clean Up”
The 80% fabrication scandal from China’s National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) triggered a wave of regulatory panic. Over the last decade, China has transitioned from ignoring the problem to implementing aggressive top-down enforcement.
- The Anti-Corruption Campaign: Regulators have launched sweeping, unannounced inspections targeting hospitals, clinical research organizations (CROs), and investigator-initiated trials. High-ranking officials in medical associations and pharmaceutical executives are routinely investigated and arrested for data manipulation and healthcare fraud.
- New Data Protection & Exclusivity Laws: The NMPA implemented strict “Drug Trial Data Protection Implementation Measures.” While designed to protect legitimate proprietary data, these measures heavily penalize companies that submit incomplete or untraceable clinical information, effectively cutting off market access for non-compliant firms.
- Criminalization of Falsification: China’s Supreme People’s Court explicitly ruled that fabricating clinical trial data can be prosecuted as a criminal offense under “marketing fake and substandard commodities,” which carries severe prison sentences in extreme cases.
2. The Acupuncture & TCM Dilemma: Still 100% Positive?
Regarding Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and acupuncture, recent methodological reviews show that while reporting transparency has slightly improved due to international trial registries, the underlying publication bias remains heavily skewed.
Acupuncture trials still suffer from an extraordinarily high risk of bias (RoB). Large-scale meta-analyses mapping decades of acupuncture RCTs highlight several persistent failure points:
| Methodological Domain | Status / Finding |
| Allocation Concealment | Over 60% of evaluated acupuncture RCTs still have an “unclear” risk of bias, meaning it is impossible to verify if the investigators rigged who got the real vs. sham treatment. |
| Blinding Failure | Up to 47% of trials score a “high risk of bias” in blinding participants and personnel, which is catastrophic for a therapy heavily reliant on placebo effects. |
| Selective Outcome Reporting | Roughly 30% to 40% of published acupuncture studies show discrepancies when compared directly to their original registry protocols—almost always changing the primary outcome to favor statistical significance. |
While a tiny handful of high-profile, rigorously blinded acupuncture studies have been published in Western journals (like JAMA) showing genuine, modest efficacy for specific conditions (like knee osteoarthritis or chronic lower back pain), the vast majority of domestic Chinese literature remains a monolithic wall of positive results.
3. The New Crisis: Global Paper Mills
The problem has evolved past isolated clinical trial fraud into an automated industry. Over the past few years, the global scientific community has been rocked by the “Paper Mill” crisis.
These are commercial entities—predominantly operating out of China—that fabricate entire scientific papers, complete with fake data, fake western blots, and AI-generated text, selling authorship to doctors and medical students.
Why this happens: In China, medical doctors at teaching hospitals have historically faced strict “publish or perish” quotas to gain promotions or retain clinical titles, even if their primary job is 100% patient care. This created an immense economic motivation to buy fake data.
In response, international publishing conglomerates (like Wiley, Elsevier, and Springer Nature) have retracted thousands of peer-reviewed papers tracing back to these mills, forcing a reckoning in how data integrity is validated pre-publication.
The Verdict
Your conclusion from ten years ago remains the gold standard for navigating this literature.
It is not chauvinistic; it is basic scientific hygiene. When analyzing evidence originating from these environments, the scientific consensus aligns with your advice:
- Enforce Absolute Skepticism: Treat un-replicated, single-center trials with extreme doubt.
- Mandate Raw Data Access: Major journals now frequently demand the raw, anonymized patient data sheets before accepting Chinese clinical trials. If the authors refuse to share data, the study is discarded.
- Require Prospective Registration: If a trial was registered after patient recruitment began, or if the primary endpoints were shifted mid-study, the findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating at best, and entirely compromised at worst.
The situation has moved from an “open secret” to an open war on data fabrication—but until the systemic incentives for faking data are completely dismantled, the pinch of salt remains mandatory.
_________________
Honestly, I had hoped that things would have improved. I am shocked that this is not the case. And I am disappointed that there is not much more being written about this. IT IS A SCANDAL THAT ENDANGERS US ALL!
What consequences should we draw?
I for one will be extra skeptical about research – particularly about the tsunami of papers from the realm ot TCM – that comes from China.
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a refractory neuropathic pain condition with limited therapeutic options. Although electroacupuncture has demonstrated potential analgesic effects, high-quality evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials remains limited.
This multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial determined whether electroacupuncture reduces pain severity compared with sham electroacupuncture and evaluated its safety in patients with PHN. It took place at 7 tertiary hospitals in China and enrolled participants from October 2020 to July 2022, with the last follow-up in September 2022. Data analyses were performed from August to December 2025. Participants with PHN aged 45 to 75 years and moderate to severe pain (11-point Numeric Rating Scale [NRS-11] score ≥4) were recruited. Of 1072 patients screened, 624 were excluded. The remaining 448 participants were randomized to electroacupuncture (n = 225) or sham electroacupuncture (n = 223); 383 participants (85.49%) completed the trial. Patients received 20 sessions of electroacupuncture or sham electroacupuncture over 4 weeks, followed by a 4-week posttreatment follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the NRS-11 scores from baseline to week 4, with responders defined as participants achieving a 30% or more reduction in NRS-11 scores.
Of 448 participants, the mean (SD) age was 63.19 (9.26) years, 233 (52.01%) were male, and 215 were female (47.99%). At week 4, the electroacupuncture group had a greater decrease in the NRS-11 scores (−1.52) than the sham electroacupuncture group (−0.99) with an adjusted mean difference of −0.53 (95% CI, −0.61 to −0.43; P < .001), and the responder rate was significantly higher in the electroacupuncture group (46.68%) than in the sham electroacupuncture group (24.28%) (adjusted risk difference, 22.40%; 95% CI, 13.02%-31.79%; P < .001). These treatment benefits persisted through a 1-month follow-up; no clinically significant adverse events were observed.
The authors concluded that, among patients with PHN in this study, electroacupuncture provided a statistically significant reduction in pain severity, increased responder rates, and improved pain-related functional outcomes. These benefits suggest that electroacupuncture may be a useful nonpharmacological option for integrated management of PHN.
Here are a few points of concern and criticism:
- The authors state that the study was funded by the Evidence-Based Capacity Building Project for Traditional Chinese Medicine from National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by China Association of Chinese Medicine, Youth Talent Project of Jiangsu Province Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine Double-Hundred Talent Program. Yet, they insist they had no conflict of interest.
- Acupuncture studies from China are as good as never negative. As frequently noted on this blog, the vast majority of Chinese studies seem to rely on falsified data.
- The authors imply that their study was patient-blind; yet there is no way that this is true: 1) The verum was administered to elicit ‘de-qi’, while the sham was not. 2) The electrical current in the verum group induced mild muscle twitching, while the sham group had no such experience. This means the verum patients knew the were receiving verum and thus were expecting an effective therapy. By contrast, the control group would have comprehended that they were given a placebo and were disappointed. These effects inevitably contribute to the outcome. In fact, I would agruge that they suffice in bringing them about without any contribution of a specific acupuncture effect. At the very minimum, the authors should have discussed these issues fully and critically.
- The acupuncturists of this study were also not blind. It is possible – I would argue, even likely – that they influenced patients to report or experience more positive results. Again, I would suggest that such effects suffice to generate a false-positive outcome.
- Even if there was a true effect of the verum beyond placebo, the question is, was it caused by acupuncture or the electrical current? There is a sizable body of evidence suggestion that electrotherapy might be effective for PHN!
In conclusion, the assertion that “electroacupuncture provided a statistically significant reduction in pain severity, increased responder rates, and improved pain-related functional outcomes” is uncritical, promotional and unjustified. I am once again dismayed that a reputable journal publishes such overt rubbish.
Homoeopathy and I is the title of a paper that I published in 2009. My aim was to denounce the popular notion that held I had started my research with a grudge against homeopathy. The honest truth is that – if anything – my attitude was even slightly positive. Here is the key section from this 2009 paper:
In 1993, I was appointed to the world’s first Chair in Complementary Medicine, and it became my job to investigate scientifically all sorts of complementary treatments, including homoeopathy. In the course of this activity, my co-workers and I published numerous articles on homoeopathy. Systematically, reviewing the totality of my publication list, I found a total of 46 papers with ‘homeopathy’ in the title. The following quotes from these articles were selected to best describe my attitude toward homoeopathy at the time:
• Homeopathicremedies are believed by doctors and patients to be almost totally safe (8).
• It might be argued that arnica …is ineffective but homeopathy may still works (9).
•…only 23% of Australian homeopaths believe that immunisation is important (10).
• Homeopathy, I fear, has soon to come up with … more convincing evidence (11)…
• Future evaluations of homeopathy should be performed to a high scientific standard (12)…
•…studies on the safety of the practice of homeopathy must not be ignored (13)…
•…systematic reviews based on Medline searches can lead to similar (possibly slightly less positive) overall conclusions (14)…
•…a detailed eye-witness account claiming that all attempts [by researchers during the ‘Third Reich’] to show that homeopathy works has led to negative results (15).
•…the best way forward is clearly to do rigorous research (16)…
• Thus, the question of whether homeopathy works or not has remained unanswered for 200 years (17).
• The most pressing question, ‘Is homeopathy clinically more effective than placebo’, needs to be answered conclusively (18).
• There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus (19)…
• Some of the well-argued cases against homeopathy should become essential reading for all homeopaths (20).
•…the published evidence to date does not support the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies … are more efficacious than placebo (21)…
•…homeopathic remedies are associated with the same clinical effects as placebo (22).
•…the picture painted by Linde and colleagues … may well be slightly more positive (23)…
•…[our] goal is to conduct rigorous, impartial research in [homeopathy] (24)
• The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials (25).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are not uniform (26).
•…at present, the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies is not known (27).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are obviously far from uniform (28).
•…the trial data … do not suggest that homeopathy is effective (29)…
•…the definitive answer, in my view, has to come from a series of rigorous trials (30).
• Large, multicentre trials of homeopathic remedies … represent the best way of advancing the debate (31).
•…the re-analysis of Linde et al. can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos (32).
•…randomised clinical trials … do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies (33).
•…both homeopaths and university heads of medical departments clearly advocate further research into the effectiveness of homeopathy (34).
•…homeopathy is not different from placebo (35).
•…the best clinical evidence … does not warrant positive recommendations (36).
•…the evidence is insufficient for firm recommendations (37).
•…the results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo (38)…
-
- This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies … are superior to placebo(39).
•…this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists (40).
•…Mathie’s methodology was not as strong as it should have been, and this deficit has led to conclusions that may be falsely positive (41).
•…homeopathy may actually be more expensive than good conventional care (42).
•…the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies … do not outweight the potential for harm (43).
•… homeopathic remedies are placebos, but homeopaths can be skilled doctors who may significantly help their patients (44).
• Our analysis … found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy (45)…
•… promotion can be regrettably misleading, dangerous and counterproductive (46).
•…do we condone treatments because of their popularity or their effectiveness? (47)
•…homeopathy is not based on solid evidence and, over time, this evidence seems to get more negative (48).
• The evidence from rigorous clinical trials … testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition (49).
• There is no evidence at all that homeopathic remedies can change the natural history of any cancer (50).
•…context effects of homeopathy … are entirely sufficient to explain the benefit many patients experience (51)…
• Amongst all the placebos that exist, homeopathy has the potential to be an exceptionally powerful one (52)…
•…recommendations by professional homeopathic associations are not based on the evidence (53)…
[all references can be found in the original paper]
Since then (2009) I – often together with others – have published several further articles with “homeopathy” in the title. This means that my original paper needs updating. Here are the titles of (and links to) these articles (appologies, if I missed a few):
- Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy?
- Homeopathy
- Homeopathy: what does the “best” evidence tell us?
- Homeopathy, non-specific effects and good medicine.
- A systematic review of homoeopathy for the treatment of fibromyalgia.
- Homeopathy, a “helpful placebo” or an unethical intervention?
- The ethics of British professional homoeopaths.
- Homoeopathy debate. Protecting patients?
- Pharmacists and homeopathic remedies.
- Homeopathy in severe sepsis.
- Call for doctors not to practice homeopathy or refer to homeopaths.
- Homeopathy for eczema: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials.
- The most thorough assessment to date of homeopathy
- Should doctors recommend homeopathy?
If you study these articles, you will find that my arguments around homeopathy remained entirely evidence-based. The overall point is, I hope, clear: I did not embark on my research into homeopathy aiming to disprove it or to dismiss it outright [a claim I still hear with some regularity]. To begin with (in 1993), I was not only open but positively inclined. At all times, however, I was keen to follow the best available evidence. If my attitudes/verdicts became less and less positive, it is merely because the evidence became more and more overtly negative.
The death of Kristian Trend, a forty-year-old spiritual wellness coach who collapsed and died following a “Kambo” cleansing ritual in Leicester, serves as a sobering cautionary tale about the extremes of the modern alternative health movement. Having overcome a severe battle with cancer in his twenties, Trend dedicated his life to holistic wellness, meditation, and nutrition, documenting his journey under the moniker “Kristian The Feel Good Guy.”
Kambo, a waxy substance secreted by the giant leaf frog of the Amazon basin, has traditionally been utilized by indigenous tribes for its intense physiological properties. Its translation into Western “detox” circles strips away its cultural context, replacing it with pseudoscientific promises of physical rejuvenation and mental clarity. The actual ceremony is an agonizing physical ordeal: participants consume massive quantities of water before facilitators inflict superficial burns on their skin, applying the frog toxin directly to the open wounds. This practice triggers a violent systemic shock characterized by soaring heart rates, dramatic blood pressure fluctuations, severe vomiting, and acute diarrhea. Though proponents mistake this intense physical trauma for a purgative cleansing process, medical experts confirm there is no empirical evidence supporting these purported benefits.
In reality, the toll of Kambo can be lethal. Over the past decade, the substance has been increasingly linked to severe health crises, including liver failure, acute heart attacks, and sudden death. This compounding medical evidence has led nations like Australia, Brazil, and Chile to implement strict bans on the substance. Trend’s death is believed to mark the first documented Kambo fatality in the UK.
In the wake of this tragedy, Trend’s mother, Angie, has channelled her grief into calling for an immediate UK ban on Kambo to prevent further loss of life. Her public appeal emphasizes the vulnerability of individuals who, like her son, fall victim of pseudoscience and seek deeper spiritual connection and bodily purity, yet find themselves exposed to unregulated, highly toxic substances under the guise of “self-care.”
I am always delighted when I find authors who think in a similarly rational way as I. When it comes to the subject if INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE, this sadly is a rare occasion. I know that most medics would be critical of it, but only few are sufficiently insensed to publish a paper on their criticism. Here is the abstract of a recent article that is a rare exception:
The term integrative medicine claims to describe a third category in clinical practice, somewhere between conventional evidence-based medicine and alternative therapies. This article argues that this category is conceptually confused and often misleading. If an intervention is supported by good evidence, is safe in practice, clinically useful and cost-effective, it should simply become part of regular medicine. If an intervention does not have such evidence, it does not become stronger by being called integrative. The article examines how the language of integrative medicine works. It shows how one attractive label can bring together two very different things: evidence-based supportive care on the one hand, and weakly supported or unproven interventions on the other. This creates the impression that both have the same clinical status, even when they do not. The article also discusses the possible consequences for patients, including confusion about evidence, false confidence in unproven treatments, and reduced adherence to effective care. Drawing on more than a decade of experience evaluating complementary medical claims through foundation IOCOB (a foundation to study complementary medicine) , it argues for a simpler and more honest approach. Proven interventions should be called medicine. Unproven interventions should be called unproven. Disproven interventions should be called disproven. There are not two equal medicines waiting to be synthesised. There is only medicine that has earned its place, and medicine that has not.tive medic ine m
True words well expressed!
We have discussed interated medicine on this blog more often than I care to mention. The response of proponents usually is that INTEGRATED MEDICINE is so much more than just using alternative treatments. If we look at this claim, we quickly realise that the “so much more” are things stolen from conventional medicine (which proponents denounce by their claim of neglecting these things). If they feel that important bits of healthcare are being neglected, the proper reaction would be to reform medicine and rectify the situation. Instead the proponents put their money on INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE which undeniably is at least partly an attempt to smuggle unproven treatments into healthcare.
I wrote “at least partly” which is, in fact, generous to the extreme! If we look up what the clinics of INTEGRATED MEDICNE actually offer, we quickly realise that it is much more that “partly” – it is their main and lucrative business.
Sorry, but to me this is deeply dishonest!
I came across an interesting article about chiropractic. Let me try to summarise it for you:
Texas’s system for disciplining chiropractors has become much less transparent, making it harder for patients to know whether a provider has faced regulatory action or not. Disciplinary cases reported by the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners and the National Practitioner Data Bank have dropped sharply even as the number of licensed chiropractors has risen, which prompted patient advocates to ask whether the public is being misled.
A rule change adopted in 2019 that narrowed what the chiropractic board can publicly disclose seems at the heart of this. According to board executive director Boyd Bush, the result is that roughly 70 cases, mostly minor administrative matters such as late license renewals, are no longer appearing in the public-facing record. Bush argues the change was intended to prevent chiropractors from suffering disproportionate consequences, such as losing patients or paying higher insurance premiums, for technical violations that do not directly affect patient care.
That explanation contrasts with the view of patient advocate Ware Wendell of Texas Watch, who says the public needs clearer, more usable information when choosing care. His concern is that a chiropractor can have regulatory action behind the scenes while still appearing to have “no board action taken” in public-facing materials, leaving patients unaware of relevant history.
Moreover, not all chiropractor-related enforcement is handled by the chiropractic board. In some cases, the Texas Medical Board has issued cease-and-desist orders against chiropractors accused of practicing medicine without a license, including claims involving neurology expertise, stem cell therapy, diabetes treatment, thyroid disorders, and chronic degenerative diseases. That overlap between boards adds confusion and can make it even harder for the public to interpret what level of discipline or risk a practitioner has faced.
A broader policy debate sits behind the story. Lawmakers tried to reduce inter-board oversight last session through Senate Bill 268, but Governor Greg Abbott vetoed it, citing public health and safety concerns. The Texas Chiropractic Association, meanwhile, says complaints should be handled by the boards with direct oversight, while a 2017 Sunset Advisory Commission review had already criticized the chiropractic board for slow complaint resolution and weak enforcement.
The article closes by noting that the board says it has improved the backlog, but the transparency issue is likely to return in the next legislative session. Evidently, a tension exists between protecting chiropractors from over-penalization for minor offenses and ensuring patients can see meaningful disciplinary history before seeking treatment.
On this blog, we have discussed repeatedly that dishonesty and transgressions are by no means rare events in the realm of chiropractic. I think it is time that this profession gets its act together, puts more emphasis on ethics during education/training, and becomes transparent, even if it might not enhance their public image in the short-term.
This AI-verdict made me wonder: Who is for and who against the critical evaluation of so-called alternative medicine? And I asked a follow-up question:
Can you try to quantify this and give me % figures who is against a critical evaluation of alternative medicine, who is for it, and who is neutral. Can you do this for 1. the general population, 2. proponents of alternative medicine and 3. skeptics?
Here is the reply I got from Gemini:
To quantify these dynamics accurately, we have to look at large-scale sociological data on public attitudes toward science, peer-reviewed medical data (such as surveys by Pew Research, YouGov, and the European Commission), and the behavioral patterns of online discourse.
When it comes to a “critical evaluation” (meaning scientific testing to prove if a therapy works beyond a placebo), the groups break down along very distinct ideological lines. Here is how the percentages estimate across your three requested demographics:
Breakdown of Attitudes Toward Critical Evaluation
1. The General Population
The broader public is largely pragmatic, but a major chunk is passively open to alternative therapies without strictly demanding clinical trial proof.
- Against Critical Evaluation (~15% – 20%): These individuals hold a strong distrust of mainstream pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions. They believe alternative medicine operates on a different “energy” or “holistic paradigm” that standard science is fundamentally incapable of or biased against measuring.
- For Critical Evaluation (~35% – 45%): This group highly values evidence-based medicine, expects consumer safety protection, and agrees that if a therapy claims to cure an illness, it should prove it under a microscope or in a randomized controlled trial.
- Neutral / Passive Consumers (~40% – 50%): This is the massive middle. They don’t track clinical trials, but they will try acupuncture for back pain or take turmeric if a friend recommends it. They view alternative medicine through a lens of “well, it can’t hurt to try,” evaluating it based on personal anecdotes rather than scientific data.
2. Proponents of Alternative Medicine
This group includes dedicated practitioners, wellness influencers, and avid consumers of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).
- Against Critical Evaluation (~70% – 80%): The vast majority actively resist standard scientific evaluation, often viewing figures like Edzard Ernst as hostile prosecutors rather than objective evaluators. They argue that randomized controlled trials are “too reductionist” to capture holistic healing or claim that clinical science is rigged by corporate interests.
- For Critical Evaluation (~5% – 10%): A small minority of CAM practitioners (often in fields like medical acupuncture or osteopathy) welcome rigorous trials, hoping to find a mechanism of action that will grant them mainstream medical legitimacy and insurance coverage.
- Neutral (~10% – 15%): These are individuals who focus strictly on the individual client experience. They don’t care about data or institutional pushback either way; their attitude is simply “if my client says they feel better, that is the only science I need.”
3. Skeptics & Pro-Science Advocates
This demographic comprises secular organizations, evidence-based medical professionals, and science communicators who actively follow work like Ernst’s.
- Against Critical Evaluation (<1%): Virtually non-existent in this group, as evaluation is their core tenet. The only micro-fraction here might be extreme fringe elements who feel certain alternative therapies are so fundamentally absurd (like breatharianism) that evaluating them is a waste of scientific funding.
- For Critical Evaluation (~90% – 95%): The overwhelming majority. They strongly defend the stance that there is no such thing as “alternative” medicine—there is only medicine that has been proven to work and medicine that hasn’t. They view critical evaluation as an ethical necessity for patient safety.
- Neutral (~5%): A tiny sliver who may agree with the premise of science but feel indifferent about fighting the cultural battle against wellness trends, preferring to let people believe what they want as long as it isn’t directly killing them.
The Reality of the “Viral Sharing Power”
The Disparity: While alternative health advocates outnumber skeptics in raw volume and content creation—churning out high-yield, emotionally comforting narratives—the pro-science corrections achieve highly concentrated “viral bursts.”
When a prominent alternative health claim is cleanly and definitively debunked by data, it provides a highly shareable, “gotcha” piece of content for the large, silent neutral majority and the highly active skeptic network. A data-driven correction acts as a high-utility intellectual tool, allowing regular people to cut through multi-million dollar wellness marketing, which is why a single well-structured critique can match or outpace the reach of thousands of individual wellness posts.
______________________
I know, there are good reasons for being cautious about such AI analyses. Yet, unless someone can point me to more reliable data, I will go with this one – not least because it coincides with my own experience and also because I quite like its findings.
Yesterday, I received a comment that ended stating: “… this site, and quite possibly Edzard, has well and truly lost the plot.” The author has made many comments before that led me to ignore him; so, I did not think twice about what he had to express. Yet, later it started me wondering what people feel about my blog and my work in general. I have to admit that I know very little about these questions. What is more, I have no idea how to find out.
What does one do in such a situation?
Yes, you guessed it, one asks AI. Specifically, I asked AI (Gemini) what people state about me and my work on social media.
Here is the response:
Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter and the world’s first professor in this field, occupies a highly polarized space in public and academic discourse. Because he evaluates alternative therapies strictly through the lens of evidence-based medicine, opinions of him are cleanly split based on how the observer views the relationship between science and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
1. The Pro-Evidence & Skeptical Community
Within mainstream medicine, scientific research, and skeptical organizations, Ernst is widely praised as a heroic, objective defender of public health.
- Rigorous Science First: Proponents point out that Ernst is uniquely qualified to critique CAM because he is formally trained in multiple modalities and practiced them early in his career. Online advocates frequently rally around his blunt philosophy on medicine. As Ernst famously co-wrote in his book Trick or Treatment:
“There is either medicine that is effective or not, medicine that is safe or not. So-called alternative therapies need to be assessed and then classified as good medicines or bogus medicines.”
- The Defender of Patient Safety: On social media, users routinely share his warnings regarding the “indirect harm” of alternative medicine, arguing that unscientific advice can be fatal. Ernst summarized this stance sharply in a peer-reviewed paper: “Alternative practitioner’s claims about ‘root causes’ and holistic care are usually pure nonsense; their pampering may be agreeable, but it can undoubtedly cost lives.”
- A “Whistleblower” Against Pseudo-Science: Proponents view him as a courageous figure who faced severe institutional backlash—including losing his department’s funding after publicly criticizing King Charles III (then the Prince of Wales) for promoting homeopathy. On platforms like Reddit, supporters echo the sentiment that Ernst “stands up for clinical truth when institutions bow to royal influence and political correctness.”
2. The CAM Practitioner & Advocate Community
Among alternative healthcare providers, natural health advocates, and some “integrated medicine” proponents, Ernst is viewed with deep hostility and suspicion.
- “The Scourge of Alternative Medicine”: Detractors frequently use social media to label him as a close-minded dogmatist who is fundamentally biased. A common refrain in CAM forums and X replies accuses him of severe bias: “Ernst does not investigate alternative medicine to see if it works; he designs reviews with the explicit purpose of proving it doesn’t.”
- Accusations of Scientific Flaws: Specific professional groups have actively challenged his data. For example, within the chiropractic community, critics point to his reviews on the dangers of spinal manipulation and claim he misattributed injuries caused by untrained practitioners to qualified chiropractors. In a formal response published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, chiropractic researchers directly attacked his methodology, stating:
“Ernst, by incorrectly labelling care providers as chiropractors… has added to the over-reporting of deaths… the fact that the care providers were not chiropractors is easily confirmed.”
- Institutional Deafness: On wellness blogs and natural health spaces, critics state that his clinical, data-first approach misses the point of holistic healing entirely. As one practitioner noted in an online debate: “He treats patients like spreadsheets. He completely disregards the mind-body connection, individual patient testimony, and the cold reality that conventional medicine fails millions of people every day, forcing them to look elsewhere.”
While Edzard Ernst is swimming against a massive volume of alternative health advocates who view him as their “nemesis reserving his most poisonous venom for their professions,” his data-driven, pro-science corrections achieve significantly higher viral sharing power among the public.
_____________
Nothing truly new, of course, but quite interesting nevertheless, I thought.
