Monthly Archives: May 2026
Spinal manipulative therapies, including chiropractic and osteopathic maneuvers, are widely practiced for musculoskeletal complaints. However, serious complications such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak with subsequent intracranial hypotension (IH) have been described. The pathophysiological mechanism is presumed to involve mechanical stress on the spinal dura during high-velocity movements, leading to dural tears, particularly in the cervicothoracic region.
A team of Italian neuroscientists conducted a scoping review in accordance with the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, through a comprehensive search of PubMed and Scopus. They complemented the review with an illustrative case from their own institution.
The researchers identified 21 eligible papers, including 21 patients with IH following spinal manipulation. Most patients were women (81%), aged 29-54 years, and the majority underwent cervical maneuvers.
SMT techniques vary, most often involving high-velocity cervical maneuvers. The most frequent were axial tension with rotation in seven cases (33.3%), unspecified cervical manipulation in four cases (19%), and thoracic spinal manipulation in two cases (9.5%). Less common single-case techniques included rotation with hyperextension, combined cervical and thoracic mobilization, axial tension with lateral flexion, and occipital/shoulder tension technique (n = 1 case each).
Symptom onset was typically within the first week, and all presented with orthostatic headache, often accompanied by nausea, neck pain, tinnitus, or visual disturbances. Neuroimaging consistently revealed features of IH, with pachymeningeal enhancement and subdural collections as the most frequent findings; spinal imaging frequently demonstrated extradural CSF collections. Management was conservative in about one-third of cases, but most required epidural blood patching, which was effective in the majority. Surgical repair was necessary in rare, refractory cases, particularly in the presence of structural spinal abnormalities. Overall prognosis was favorable, with 95% of patients achieving full recovery.
The authors’ illustrative case highlights the potential for severe complications such as subdural hematomas and recurrence if the underlying leak is not addressed:
A 65-year-old patient without a previous history of headache presented with a progressively worsening headache, with orthostatic features, poorly responsive to medical therapy, that has lasted for the past 20 days. The patient denied any recent trauma. He reported having undergone cervical osteopathic manipulations within the past 3 months for recurrent cervicalgia. A brain MRI without contrast was performed, showing a large bilateral subdural hematoma with significant mass effect on the cortical gyri. The patient was admitted to the emergency department and underwent neurosurgical evacuation of a bilateral chronic subdural hematoma via burr holes. Subsequently, endovascular embolization of the middle meningeal arteries was performed as an adjunctive treatment to reduce the risk of recurrence. The surgical procedure was performed without complications. A cranial CT scan showed a reduction in the volume of the hematoma. Therefore, the patient was discharged. However, after a transient improvement in the symptoms, the patient continued to present a fluctuating headache without positional features, with four to five episodes per month. He was readmitted to our clinic and, upon arrival at the ER, a head CT scan showed an increase in pneumocephalus and a recurrence of the hematoma. The following day, an MRI of the neuraxis with contrast was performed, which revealed radiological findings suggestive of IH: pachimeningeal enhancement, subdural fluid collection, dural venous engorgement, cervical spinal longitudinal extradural collection, and effacement of the suprasellar cistern. The Bern score was 7. Given these findings, a surgical revision of the previous burr holes was performed without periprocedural complications. After the first day, a non-targeted epidural blood patch (EBP) was performed under local anesthesia by injecting 16 mL of autologous blood into the L3–L4 epidural space. The procedure was uneventful. A cranial CT scan showed satisfactory surgical outcomes, highlighting a reduction in the volume of the hematoma and of the pneumoencephalus. The patient was subsequently discharged with complete resolution of the headache.
The authors concluded that clinicians should recognize the possibility of CSF leaks after spinal manipulation, especially in patients with new-onset orthostatic headache.
I feel compelled to point out that, considering the multiple risks of upper spinal manipulations and the almost total lack of evidence of benefit from such treatments, the risk/benefit balance of spinal manipulation is clearly not positive. It follows, I think, that it would be wise for patients not to allow such therapies being carried out, and for healthcare professionals to discourage them.
On the same day as we celebrated the defeat of the Nazis 81 years ago, a Holocaust denier has been elected to public office. In the Sefton Council UK local elections held this week, Jay Leslie Cooper, a Reform UK candidate for Bootle West ward, secured a seat with 705 votes. This outcome is remarkable due to Cooper’s prior social media posts denying the Holocaust. The ward, which elects three councillors, saw Cooper join two Labour victors, marking Reform’s local gain amid broader scrutiny of its candidate vetting.
Pre-election reporting by the Liverpool Echo exposed Cooper’s controversial statements. In one post, he described the Holocaust as a “hoax” and “propaganda,” claiming “there were not 6 million Jews in Europe at the time.” He also promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, labelling them part of a broader “hoax” narrative. The Echo detailed these views in an April 24 article titled “The vile views of this Bootle West Reform UK candidate,” noting Cooper’s online history as well as his candidacy announcement.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who himself has been accused of vile antisemitic statements made during adolescence, responded swiftly post-election saying that Cooper was “not welcome” in the party and adding, “with thousands of candidates some problems can slip through vetting.” Reform announced an investigation into the allegations, while Farage acknowledged the optics were poor in a YouTube clip: “Nigel Farage says new Merseyside councillor who said Holocaust was a hoax…”.
The episode highlights the issue of extremism in British politics. Labour figures condemned the events, including MP Steve Reed who tweeted: “A holocaust denier is now an elected councillor. Reform must act.” This case also highlights tensions in UK local elections, where voter priorities like cost-of-living can overshadow candidate scrutiny. Reform’s strong showing during the local elections raises worrying questions about Nazi ideologies in populist movements.
As of today, Cooper remains a councillor pending party action.
Sources
Reform candidate who said Holocaust was a hoax wins seat in local elections – Liverpool Echo
(20+) Reform WIN more than 80% of available seats – Liverpool Echo News | Facebook
Following my post about the decline in homeopathy-use in Europe, several people dismissed it by saying something like this: Who cares about Europe? Across the globe, homeopathy is state-funded in a majority of countries!!!
This is NOT correct. A correct description of the situation would be that homeopathy is currently state-funded or reimbursed in a minority of countries. In most other countries, it is paid out of pocket or covered only by private insurance. Yes, homeopathy is integrated into national health systems in some countries, explicitly listing Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico, Pakistan, and Switzerland, but this is NOT the global norm.
The counter-argument by homeopathy-fans is this: The states that support homeopathy tend to be very large (e.g. India and Brazil). Therefore, the majority of the world population has access to state-sponsored homeopathy.
This statement seems to be false as well. It is true, of course, that India alone accounts for about 18% of the world’s population, and India does publicly support homeopathy through its health system and the Ministry of AYUSH. But the claim that, for the majority of the world population, homeopathy is state-funded is not based on good evidence. Most of the world’s population lives outside the small number of countries where homeopathy is publicly reimbursed or embedded in state systems.
Even with India included, the evidence available here does not justify a world-population majority claim. The publicly supported/reimbursed countries are still a rather small group, and, as far as I can see, they constitute neither most countries nor most of humanity. In several large countries homeopathy-use exists without state funding or with only private coverage, which weakens any global majority argument. Should someone nevertheless claim that “the majority of the world population has access to state-sponsored homeopathy”, I would ask him or her to show me the evidence for the claim. As far as I can see, it does not exist.
A more accurate statement would therefore be the following:
A substantial share of the world’s population lives in countries where homeopathy has some level of state support, mainly because of India, but there is no good evidence to prove that this amounts to a majority of the world population.
For decades, European health systems have maintained an uneasy coexistence between evidence-based medicine and a range of so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs). Among the most prominent has been homeopathy. That evidence free ride seems now coming to an end. Driven to some degree by budget pressure and by a much larger extend by a stronger emphasis on clinical evidence, many governments have reduced or ended public reimbursement for homeopathy, prompting an important question: which European countries will follow next?
The early movers: the UK and France
As we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog, the UK was among the first major European systems to move away from public funding of homeopathy. In 2017, NHS England recommended that general practitioners stop prescribing homeopathic remedies because of the lack of evidence for clinical effectiveness, and NHS guidance now states that the NHS no longer funds homeopathy. France followed a similar path. After a review by the French National Authority for Health (HAS), the government gradually reduced reimbursement from 30 percent to 15 percent in 2020 and then to zero in 2021.
Germany’s contested turn
As I frequently reported, Germany, the country of Samuel Hahnemann’s birth, became the next major and somewhat convoluted battleground. In 2022, Health Minister Karl Lauterbach publicly argued that homeopathy had no place in a science-based statutory health insurance system, and in 2024 there was a serious political push to end coverage. But the story did not end there: by 2025, that effort had been reversed, and homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine remained covered under statutory health insurance. The most recent turn in this saga is that the days of reimbursement of homeopathy in Germany are counted.
Spain
Spain has taken a particularly forceful stance against SCAM. Its Ministry of Health has pursued a plan aimed at restricting misleading promotion, excluding SCAM from health centres and universities, and improving consumer warnings; however, Spain has not simply “banned” homeopathy, and the products remain available under regulatory controls.
Belgium
Belgium is also restrictive: homeopathy may be practised only by doctors, dentists, and midwives, and the Belgian health-technology authorities advised against compulsory insurance reimbursement.
Switzerland
Switzerland is the clearest exception to the broader European trend. Following the 2009 referendum, several forms of were incorporated into basic insurance, and homeopathy has been covered under mandatory health insurance for services provided by qualified physicians. Recently, it was decided to halt the renewed evaluation of homeopathy.
Italy
Italy is different again: homeopathic products are regulated as medicines, but they are not normally funded through the national health service, so public reimbursement has never been central to their use.
Other countries
In much of Scandinavia and in many central and eastern European states, public reimbursement of homeopathy is generally absent or minimal, even when homeopathy is legally permitted. The Baltic states and several Balkan countries are typically more restrictive in practice, with homeopathy either outside the public system or allowed only under limited professional regulation. Slovenia and Croatia are notable for tighter professional restrictions, with homeopathy not generally open to medical doctors in the way it is in some western European systems.
The future
Across much of Europe, the trend clearly is towards tighter regulation of homeopathy, reduced reimbursement, and greater insistence on sound evidence of benefit. Thus homeopathy is increasingly being pushed out of the public sphere and into private purchase or supplementary insurance. In other words, European public healthcare systems are increasingly treating homeopathy in one of the following ways:
- obsolete because of lack of evidence,
- low-priority,
- non-essential expense.
PS
An interesting ‘aside’ is the fact that the “European Committee for Homeopathy” ignores much of the evidence by falsely stating the following:
“In some areas of the United Kingdom homeopathic treatment by doctors is covered by the National Health System. In Belgium and Latvia the fees for homeopathic treatment are partially covered by the statutory health insurance. In Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom by private insurance companies. The costs for homeopathic medicines are covered by the statutory health insurance in Belgium (partially), France (partially), Portugal (only magistral formula) and Switzerland, by additional private insurance companies in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.”
PPS
In case you happen to be in Vienna during the next week, please come to my lecture:
Gesellschaft der Ärzte, Wien, 13.5.2026, 19:00 – 19:45 Uhr, „Sogenannte Alternativmedizin – Nutzen und Risiken am Beispiel Homöopathie“
Violence and abuse are no longer confined to the margins of society; they have permeated workplaces, public services, streets, homes, schools, online forums, places of worship, and even political discourse. From retail staff and healthcare workers to religious minorities and women trapped in abusive relationships, aggression has become disturbingly commonplace.
The evidence is difficult to dismiss. Retail workers are subjected to abuse in unprecedented numbers, NHS staff face rising levels of physical assault, and antisemitic incidents have reached alarming levels. The Community Security Trust has documented record levels of antisemitism in recent years, underscoring that hatred of Jews is not merely a relic of the Nazi past but a resurgent and escalating threat. Domestic abuse remains equally pervasive: while some forms of physical violence may have declined, coercive control, stalking, economic abuse, and digitally enabled harassment have proliferated.
A growing body of research points to broader social and political drivers. A decade of austerity under Conservative governments, coupled with institutional erosion, strained public services, ongoing geopolitical conflicts, and the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis, has generated widespread frustration. When people feel neglected or abandoned, that frustration can readily turn into aggression directed at those closest at hand: a nurse, a shop assistant, a neighbour, a partner, or a stranger who looks like a “foreigner”
An additional—and perhaps even more troubling—factor is the brutalisation of public discourse. Donald Trump’s rhetoric has normalised cruelty, humiliation, racism, and dehumanisation. It does not merely tolerate aggression; it performs and rewards it, thereby encouraging its replication. This erosion of basic norms of decency matters because language does not simply describe violence—it facilitates it. When political leaders frame opponents as enemies, casually invoke the destruction of entire societies, or treat facts as optional, they lower the threshold for violence well beyond the political arena. To assume that such influences remain confined to the United States is both naïve and demonstrably false; they reverberate globally.
This dynamic is particularly dangerous in relation to racism and its most virulent form, antisemitism. The recent rise in antisemitic abuse in the UK has not occurred in a vacuum. It has been fuelled by conspiratorial thinking, online radicalisation, the trivialisation of antisemitic rhetoric as mere “banter” by public figures such as Nigel Farage, and a broader climate in which prejudice is normalised, disseminated, and converted into aggression. The language of quasi-fascist politics echoes familiar racist tropes, weaponizing grievance and casting minorities as threats. The result is not only an increase in hatred but also a social environment in which violence becomes a logical extension of that rhetoric.
The persistence of this problem is exacerbated by our tendency to compartmentalise it, thereby obscuring its systemic nature. Antisemitism and racism are treated as “community issues,” retail abuse as an occupational hazard, and domestic violence as a private tragedy. Such fragmentation diminishes the perceived scale of the crisis and encourages piecemeal responses that fail to address its underlying causes. Governments may introduce targeted legislation, create new offences, or publish strategies for individual sectors, yet neglect the broader social conditions from which violence emerges. In reality, violence is not a collection of discrete pathologies but part of a continuum that often begins with discontent and culminates in aggression.
A culture that tolerates aggressive rhetoric, routine incivility, and online abuse fosters an emotional climate in which more serious forms of violence become easier to justify, excuse, and ultimately perpetrate. For this reason, the rise in racial and antisemitic attacks, the abuse of frontline workers, and the persistence of domestic violence should not be viewed as separate phenomena. They are manifestations of the same underlying pathology.
What we are witnessing is not a series of isolated epidemics of violence but a broader crisis of social cohesion. If that diagnosis is correct, then the response cannot be limited to stricter laws alone. It must also include education, the rebuilding of social institutions, a renewed emphasis on mutual responsibility, and a cultural shift that rejects the normalisation of aggression as a marker of strength.
Dame Shirley Porter died on May 2. She passed away in Herzliya, Israel, where she had spent much of her time since the early 2000s. Dame Shirley had been the former leader of Westminster City Council and a dominant figure in 1980s UK municipal politics. Once hailed as the “Iron Lady of the town halls,” her career was ultimately defined by the “homes for votes” scandal, which led to her being labeled by the district auditor as the “most corrupt” politician of her era.
The daughter of Tesco founder Sir Jack Cohen, Porter used her wealth to influence both politics and public policy. Beyond the well-documented legal battles over her misuse of council powers – which eventually saw her pay a £12.3m settlement in 2004 – Porter was a prolific, if often controversial, philanthropist. Notably, she was the primary financial backer of the Smallwood Report (2005). Entitled The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the NHS, the report was commissioned by the then Prince of Wales and written by economist Christopher Smallwood. The study was heavily criticized by myself and several others for advocating that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to be funded by the UK taxpayer. The editor of The Lancet, dismissed the findings as “dangerous nonsense” and I suggested the report’s pro-SCAM conclusions were written befor anyone had even looked at the evidence.
Dame Shirely was also a trustee of the London Institute for Mathematical Sciences and as a co-founder of the Porter Foundation. Through these organizations, she funded major capital projects including the Porter School of Environmental Studies at Tel Aviv University and various galleries at the V&A and the National Portrait Gallery.
She is survived by her daughter, Linda.
Despite overwhelming evidence proving that homeopathics are pure placebos, a faction of German healthcare professionals – predominantly people who profit from homeopathy – continues to argue against their removal from statutory insurance. They claim that defunding homeopathy would eliminate vital treatment options, ultimately driving patients toward more expensive conventional interventions. However, from a health economics perspective, this argument is fundamentally flawed; subsidizing treatments that lack proven efficacy is not a cost-saving measure, but rather a misallocation of limited healthcare resources.
Recognizing this inconsistency, German policymakers have finally shifted towards a more evidence-based approach. The federal cabinet recently approved a draft law to reform the statutory health insurance system, which includes a pivotal provision: homeopathic and anthroposophic medicines, along with their associated services, will no longer be eligible for reimbursement as optional benefits (Satzungsleistungen) by public insurers.
This legislative move serves as a long-overdue correction to a historically irrational policy that was initiated by the Nazis during the Third Reich. Excluding these treatments, the government is now finally acknowledging that public healthcare contributions should not fund therapies devoid of scientific backing. This decision brings Germany in line with other European countries like France and the UK, and marks a significant alignment of national policy with the dual principles of evidence-based medicine and responsible fiscal management.
At its core, this reform addresses a long-standing critique of how so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has been integrated into the German healthcare system. For many decades, institutional tolerance allowed ineffective treatments to gain a veneer of legitimacy and public financing. Consequently, this shift is more than a mere technical adjustment; it represents a symbolic turning point in the relationship between science, medicine, and public policy.
The removal of homeopathy from insurance coverage is undoubtedly both scientifically justified and economically imperative. It signals a decisive transition of German medicine towards a more rational, evidence-based healthcare system that prioritizes proven outcomes over tradition.
Recent excesses of antisemitism in the UK and elsewhere prompt me to occasionally deviate from the core subject of this blog. I hope you share my concerns and understand my decision.
Nigel Farage had a checkered political career. Currently, he is the Leader of Reform UK. His ascent is marked not least by a tension between multiple accusations of antisemitism and his contemporary efforts to cultivate support within the Jewish community. Navigating this divide requires distinguishing between corroborated documentation, historical allegations, and the evolving rhetorical strategies of his adult career.
The most severe and graphic allegations of racism regarding Farage’s early life stem from his time at Dulwich College during the early 1980s. Numerous former classmates have provided testimonies claiming that Farage exhibited overt neo-fascist and antisemitic behaviour, including allegations that he sang racist songs and directed antisemitic slurs at Jewish students.
Specific Alleged Statements:
- Growled “Hitler was right” or “Gas them” at Jewish classmate Peter Ettedgui, sometimes adding a hissing sound to mimic gas showers.
- Used racial slurs like the “W-word” (for Black people) and “P-word” (for South Asians).
- Had a “big issue with anyone called Patel,” targeting those with South Asian names.
Specific Alleged Actions:
- Led or taught younger cadets the “Gas ’em all” song (“Gas them all, gas them out, gas them all, into the chambers they crawl”) on CCF coaches and trips.
- Marched through a Sussex village at night shouting Hitler Youth songs, as reported in a 1981 teacher’s letter opposing his prefect appointment.
- Made the Nazi salute in public and school settings, while praising Adolf Hitler.
- Mocked Black, Jewish, and Asian students; picked on Asian juniors by asking their origin and gesturing “that’s the way back.”
- Put a pupil in detention for not joining in with racist behavior, as prefect.
While Farage has consistently denied these accounts, characterizing them as exaggerated “schoolboy banter” rather than genuine malice, the credibility of these reports is heightened by contemporary evidence. Specifically, a 1981 letter from a teacher, Chloe Deakin, formally warned the school’s headmaster against appointing Farage as a prefect, citing his “publicly professed racist” and “neo-fascist” views. While this document confirms that faculty were deeply concerned about his extremist sentiments at seventeen, the specific content of his alleged taunts remains grounded in testimonial accounts rather than verified transcripts.
As Farage transitioned into public life, criticisms shifted from interpersonal school behaviour to his use of specific political rhetoric. In various broadcasts between 2009 and 2018, Farage discussed topics that critics argue invoked traditional antisemitic tropes. For instance, his comments regarding the influence of a “Jewish lobby” on American foreign policy and his frequent, pointed attacks on billionaire philanthropist George Soros—framed through the lens of “globalist” interference—have been described by advocacy groups as “dog-whistling,” a practice of signaling coded messages to extremist elements. Farage has consistently defended these remarks as legitimate critiques of ideological and political influence, asserting that his focus is on the power dynamics of global institutions rather than on ethnic groups.
In recent years, particularly as leader of Reform UK, Farage has made a concerted effort to align himself with the British Jewish community. This strategy is evidenced by the 2026 launch of the “Reform Jewish Alliance,” an organization aimed at courting Jewish voters by emphasizing shared concerns regarding security and the protection of Judeo-Christian values. Farage has positioned himself as a defender of Israel and a critic of the UK government’s response to rising antisemitism, often arguing that the primary threats to Jewish life in Britain stem from mass migration.
The question, I feel, is whether these policy stances opportunistically replace one form of racism with another, or whether they reflect a real effort to build a political alliance. In any case, to me his current posture seems more of a strategic pivot than a true departure from the antisemitic rhetoric of his past.
So, is Nigel Farage a racist and an antisemite?
I let you decide.
Zack Polanski the current Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, previously worked as a professional “cognitive hypnotherapist”.
My own assessment of hypnotherapy states that is the use of a trance-like state (hypnosis) for therapeutic purposes. It can be traced back to ancient cultures, but more recently Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) introduced hypnotherapy into medicine. Initially Mesmer was highly successful—until a Royal Commission investigated his method of ‘animal magnetism’ and concluded its effects were entirely due to imagination. Hypnotherapy induces in many but not all individuals a state of deep relaxation that is potentially helpful in a range of conditions. Today, there are different schools of hypnotherapy, e.g. Ericksonian hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioural hypnotherapy, curative hypnotherapy. Various different healthcare professionals practise hypnotherapy, including doctors, dentists, psychologists and nurses. Hypnotherapy is used to treat many conditions or symptoms, from pain and stress to irritable bowel syndrome and drug dependency. The evidence from clinical trials is mixed. Most systematic reviews emphasise the often poor-quality of the primary studies, e.g.:
“Hypnosis reduces pain intensity and anxiety ratings in adults undergoing burn wound care. However, because of the limitations discussed, clinical recommendations are still premature.”
“Due to exploratory designs and high risk of bias, the effectiveness of hypnosis or hypnotherapy in stress reduction remains still unclear.”
“There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision.”
“We have not shown that hypnotherapy has a greater effect on six month quit rates than other interventions or no treatment. The effects of hypnotherapy on smoking cessation claimed by uncontrolled studies were not confirmed by analysis of randomised controlled trials.”
“Current research concerning the efficacy of hypnosis to relieve insomnia is lacking in key methodological elements”
Contrary to what is often claimed, hypnotherapy is not entirely free of adverse effects. It has been associated with the ‘false memory syndrome’ where unpleasant recollections that have never occurred are implanted into the patient’s brain. Hypnotherapy should not be used by patients who suffer from psychoses or personality disorders.
Polanski’s practice was based at a clinic on Harley Street, a London district renowned for private healthcare. His work focused on personal development, confidence building, and body-image issues. Polanski’s hypnotherapy career became a subject of public scrutiny due to a 2013 report by The Sun newspaper, in which it was claimed that during a consultation, Polanski offered to use hypnosis to facilitate breast enlargement. While Polanski later stated the piece was a “misleading” representation of his methods and intended as an experiment in internal self-image, recent investigative reporting has cast doubt on his subsequent narrative.
Although Polanski has frequently asserted that he apologized for the article “the day after” its publication in a BBC radio interview. This claim is, however, contested. In a 2013 interview with BBC Radio Humberside, Polanski reportedly discussed the technique and stated that “the evidence is growing” regarding its efficacy. Independent analysis of the clinical evidence-base for hypnotherapy fails to find good evidence regarding physical outcomes. Similarly, the evidence regarding the efficacy of hypnotherapy for personal development and confidence building is at best varied, with outcomes often depending on the specific application and individual context. My own assessment does not arrive at a positive conclusion.
Polanski has claimed he was misrepresented in the Sun article. Yet, he also wrote in a 2019 blog post that he did not believe the journalist had done a “bad job” or misrepresented him. In that same post, he noted that the coverage led to numerous inquiries from men seeking similar hypnotic treatments for other physical augmentations, all of which he stated he declined.
The “breast enlargement” claim has been frequently cited by political opponents and the media to question Polanski’s judgment and credibility. The story has resurfaced repeatedly during his political campaigns, including through confrontations from members of the public and intense scrutiny during his time as leader.
Polanski maintains that his background in hypnotherapy provides him with unique insights into mental health and communication, which he views as assets in his political role. I would add that, for many of the conditions for which it is promoted, hypnotherapy is not an evidence-based treatment.
Polanski has expressed regret for the “distraction” the story has caused his party, even as critics continue to challenge the consistency of his account regarding the original 2013 events.
Recent statements concerning US pharmaceutical pricing have drawn renewed attention to an entirely new horizon in mathematics. The method, associated with remarks by Donald Trump and repeated by several of his sycophants, departs from standard arithmetic in a manner that is rhetorically vigorous but mathematically ridiculous.
Percentage change is defined relative to a single, clearly specified baseline. A decrease from $600 to $100 is therefore calculated as (600-100)/600×100 = 83.3%. In other words, the price falls by 83.3% relative to the original $600 price. This is the method used in economics, finance, accounting, retail pricing, and presumably even by the secondary-school mathematics teachers who attempted to educate Trump.
However, the new alternative math proceeds differently. It implicitly combines two distinct operations: first, the increase from $100 to $600, correctly described as a 500% rise when measured against the initial $100; and second, the subsequent decrease from $600 back to $100. Rather than evaluating this decrease against the higher price, however, the method appears to retain the earlier, lower baseline, thereby generating a claim of a “600% saving.” The arithmetic equivalent of moving the goalposts and then declaring victory by an even larger margin.
Within standard mathematics, this shift in baseline is not permissible. Percentage changes are inherently asymmetric because they depend entirely on the reference point selected. The same absolute difference – in this case, $500 – produces different percentage values depending on whether it is measured relative to $100 or $600. This is not a technical loophole but the entire point of percentages.
The problem with this approach becomes clearer if one follows it to its logical conclusion. Under standard arithmetic, a 100% price reduction means the price has fallen all the way to zero: a $100 product reduced by 100% costs nothing. A reduction greater than 100% would therefore produce a negative price, meaning the seller would have to pay the customer to accept the product. If one claims that a fall from $600 to $100 represents a 600% decrease, the numbers cease to correspond to any coherent pricing system. The calculation implies that prices can fall not merely to zero, but to values several times smaller than zero.
The attraction of the Trump method is easy to understand. By selecting whichever baseline produces the largest possible percentage, the resulting figure acquires an air of spectacular achievement. It transforms an already substantial price reduction into something approaching numerical performance art.
Trump’s alternative arithmetic therefore succeeds in generating impressively large numbers by abandoning the one feature percentages require most: consistency. The result is as unsound as most things about Trump. Yet it seems rhetorically effective – particularly with “low IQ people”, as Trump likes to call his followers.
In other words, by cherry-picking the baseline for maximum impact, the Trump method turns an already solid 83% cut into a sensational “600% savings”. It sacrifices precision for hype – effective populism perhaps, poor math for sure!
None of this would be worth mentioning, of course, if it were the only incident where Trump misleads his public. Sadly, he is telling multiple and often much more consequential untruths on a daily basis.
