aetiology
Trump and his allies have produced many claims that experts have flagged as false, misleading, or dangerously unscientific. Below is a (probably incomplete) selection:
- In April 2020, Trump suggested during a press briefing that scientists explore whether injecting or “bringing disinfectant inside the body” could treat COVID‑19. Medical experts immediately warned that this would be dangerous or lethal.
- At the same briefing, he also floated the idea of “hitting the body with a very powerful light,” including using UV light inside the body to kill the virus, a suggestion that clinicians stressed had no scientific basis and could be harmful.
- Throughout 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed the virus would “just disappear” like a “miracle,” even as case counts and deaths surged.
- He heavily promoted hydroxychloroquine as a “game changer” long after clinical trials had shown it to be ineffective against COVID‑19 and associated with serious adverse effects.
- In February 2020, Trump claimed the number of COVID‑19 cases in the US would soon be “down to close to zero.”
- Trump frequently claimed that COVID‑19 was “just like the flu,” despite the fact that its mortality rate and impact on health systems were substantially higher.
- In late 2025 and early 2026, the Trump administration falsely claimed that acetaminophen use during pregnancy was linked to a much higher risk of autism, despite the lack of clear evidence and warnings from experts that this messaging was misleading.
- The administration also promoted leucovorin as a treatment for autism, a claim that has little robust evidence and is not supported by mainstream medical guidelines.
- Following the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS in late 2024, federal vaccine guidance was rolled back in several areas, including flu recommendations for some groups and changes to how RSV and other vaccines were positioned. This created confusion and encouraged a further “decoupling” of some state health policies from traditional CDC guidance.
- Trump has claimed that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, a statement that has no credible scientific basis.
- Trump has claimed that sea levels will rise by only “1/8 of an inch over the next 200 to 300 years,” contradicting widely accepted projections that show substantially higher rise even over the next 30 years along US coasts.
- Trump has also claimed that the human body is like a battery with a finite amount of energy, and that exercise is harmful because it “depletes” that energy, a view that runs counter to mainstream physiology and public‑health guidance.
- Trump claimed that drinking fizzy diet soda “kills cancer cells” because the drinks kill grass when spilt, implying they might do the same to cancer inside the body.
- In 2026, Dr. Mehmet Oz, as head of CMS, falsely claimed that 5 million New Yorkers were using Medicaid personal‑care services—nearly 75% of all enrolees—when the actual figure is far lower.
- RFK Jr. has spent decades claiming that thimerosal, a mercury‑based preservative in some vaccines, causes autism. Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines in 2001 as a precaution, yet autism rates continued to rise, and large studies have found no causal link.
- RFK Jr. frequently claims that no vaccines have ever been tested against a true saline placebo. In fact, many vaccines have been tested against saline placebos in clinical trials, and others were tested against earlier versions or standard care, in line with evolving ethical standards.
- RFK Jr. pushed for the removal of fluoride from all US water systems, falsely labelling it an “industrial waste” and a key cause of lower IQ, bone fractures, and cancer, despite the bulk of evidence supporting its safety and dental benefits at standard levels.
- RFK Jr. has also falsely claimed that polyunsaturated fats such as canola or soybean oil are toxic and the primary driver of obesity and inflammation in America, a view that contradicts large‑scale dietary and epidemiological data.
- RFK Jr. has falsely claimed that WiFi causes “leaky brain” and that 5G is a tool for mass surveillance and causes cancer, assertions that have no support from mainstream science.
- RFK Jr. has become an advocate for the federal legalisation of raw milk, downplaying the risks of Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. Yet pasteurization remains a cornerstone of public‑health measures to prevent foodborne illness.
- RFK Jr. has wrongly suggested a link between the use of SSRIs and the rise in mass shootings, a claim not supported by credible data.
- Janette Nesheiwat (JN), a Fox News contributor and Trump’s nominee for US Surgeon General, withdrew her nomination in May 2025 following allegations that she had significantly misrepresented her credentials. Her official bio and LinkedIn profile claimed she received her medical degree from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; in fact she attended the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten.
- JN repeatedly described herself as “double board‑certified,” but investigators found verified certification only in family medicine.
- Casey Means (CM), Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General, is a Stanford‑educated physician who left surgical residency before completion and whose medical license has been inactive since 2019. She has not practiced clinical medicine in years and has limited experience overseeing large‑scale public‑health systems.
- CM has built a profile as a health‑tech entrepreneur and co‑founder of Levels, promoting “functional medicine” and the MAHA movement.
- CM has made strong claims that continuous glucose monitoring and metabolic optimization can prevent or “cure” a wide range of modern diseases, a view that overstates the evidence and oversimplifies complex chronic conditions.
As indicated in the title of this post: if you waant to say healthy, it is wise to ignore the incompetent president and his equally incompetent cronies.
In recent decades, acupuncture has attracted extensive research spanning an astonishingly wide array of medical conditions, from chronic pain and neurological disorders to infectious diseases and psychiatric ailments. However, the proposed mechanisms of action—ranging from peripheral sensory stimulation to central nervous system modulation—fail to provide a coherent, biologically plausible explanation for efficacy across this disparate spectrum (Zhao et al., 2022; WHO, 2003).
The aim of this post is to examine the breadth of published acupuncture trials, delineate the leading scientific hypotheses for its mode of action, and outline the profound implausibility of these mechanisms universally applying to such varied pathologies, ultimately framing acupuncture as non-specific rather than a specific therapeutic modality (Meissner et al., 2019; Ernst, 2018).
Acupuncture has been subjected to thousands of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews across virtually every medical specialty. A comprehensive 2022 evidence map published in BMJ Open synthesized 120 systematic reviews, encompassing 1,402 individual RCTs and addressing 77 distinct conditions within 12 broad therapeutic categories (Zhao et al., 2022). These categories include neurological disorders, musculoskeletal conditions, cardiovascular diseases, and beyond, reflecting a research enthusiasm that transcends conventional biomedical boundaries.
Neurological applications dominate, with trials targeting stroke sequelae such as hemiplegia and aphasia, vascular dementia symptoms, migraines, tension headaches, and facial nerve palsies like Bell’s palsy (Li et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022; WHO, 2003). Musculoskeletal trials are equally prolific, examining low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, tennis elbow (lateral epicondylitis), sciatica, shoulder periarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and even gouty arthritis (Li et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2022; Choi et al., 2019; Lam et al., 2020; WHO, 2003). Cardiovascular research has probed essential hypertension, primary hypotension, and pain from thromboangiitis obliterans (Shanghai Medical Clinic, 2025; WHO, 2003). Gynecological and obstetric domains feature prominently, including dysmenorrhea, labor induction, breech presentation correction, pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting, and fertility enhancement (e.g., improved clinical pregnancy rates in IVF protocols) (Zhao et al., 2022; Shanghai Medical Clinic, 2025; Smith et al., 2021; Carr, 2022; WHO, 2003).
Acupuncture trials also extend to psychiatric conditions like generalized anxiety disorder (especially in perimenopause), depression, and other mental disturbances (Zhao et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2025; WHO, 2003); respiratory issues such as allergic rhinitis and hay fever (Li et al., 2022; Shanghai Medical Clinic, 2025; WHO, 2003); gastrointestinal disorders including acute and chronic gastritis, biliary colic, and postoperative nausea/vomiting (Zhao et al., 2022; Shanghai Medical Clinic, 2025; WHO, 2003); urogenital and nephrological problems like renal colic and radiation-induced leucopenia (often in renal contexts) (Shanghai Medical Clinic, 2025; WHO, 2003); infectious diseases such as acute bacillary dysentery, pertussis (whooping cough), and epidemic hemorrhagic fever (WHO, 2003); pediatric applications, albeit more limited, for post-extubation pain relief and whooping cough (ClinicalTrials.gov, 2013; WHO, 2003); and oncology support for cancer-related fatigue and chemotherapy/radiation side effects (Zhao et al., 2022; Shanghai Medical Clinic, 2025). Additional niches include ear-nose-throat conditions (e.g., rhinitis), eye disorders, connective tissue diseases, metabolic/nutritional imbalances, and skin pathologies (Zhao et al., 2022; WHO, 2003).
This extraordinarily wide spectrum, drawn from seminal analyses like the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2003 review of controlled clinical trials (WHO, 2003) and Cochrane overviews on pain (Choi et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2011), clearly demonstrates that acupuncture is considered by its proponents to be a ‘cure all’. This begs the question whether such an assumption can be reasonable. The effect sizes are typically modest, and true acupuncture is often no different from sham interventions (e.g., superficial needling at non-acupoints), suggesting limited specific efficacy (Lee et al., 2011).
The scientific literature proposes a constellation of mechanisms to explain how acupuncture might work, integrating peripheral, spinal, supraspinal, and systemic processes. These are often conceptualized through the “Neural Acupuncture Unit” (NAU) model, which posits low-threshold mechanosensitive afferents (Aδ and C fibers) at acupoints converging with brain networks to elicit bidirectional signaling (Zhang et al., 2012).
- Peripheral and Local Mechanisms. Needle manipulation is claimed to induce immediate tissue responses: adenosine triphosphate (ATP) breakdown to adenosine activates A1 receptors, dampening nociceptor firing (Kelly & Suckley, 2016); axonal reflexes release neuropeptides like substance P and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), modulating local inflammation; and stromal cells exhibit cytoskeleton remodeling, with collagen fibers “wrapping” around needles to propagate mechanical signals (Kelly & Suckley, 2016; Zhang et al., 2012; Li et al., 2025). The characteristic deqi sensation (aching, soreness) correlates with these events, potentially amplifying sensory input (Staud & Price, 2014).
- Spinal Cord Level. Ascending afferents are said to activate the gate control system, presynaptic inhibition, and diffuse noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC), releasing endogenous opioids (β-endorphin, enkephalins, dynorphins), serotonin, norepinephrine, and acetylcholine to suppress nociceptive transmission in the dorsal horn (Kelly & Suckley, 2016; Zhang et al., 2012; Staud & Price, 2014). This underpins analgesia and autonomic regulation, such as reduced sympathetic outflow (Kelly & Suckley, 2016).
- Central Nervous System Modulation. Functional neuroimaging (fMRI, PET) reveals deactivated limbic hyperactivity (amygdala, anterior cingulate), normalized hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity, and enhanced prefrontal connectivity, particularly in pain, stress, and mood disorders (Kelly & Suckley, 2016; Zhang et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2025). Top-down expectancy modulates descending inhibitory pathways, integrating with reward and mirror neuron systems (Zhang et al., 2012).
- Systemic and Humoral Effects. Acupuncture is also thought to influence immune homeostasis by shifting cytokine profiles (e.g., ↑IL-10, ↓TNF-α, ↓IL-6), autonomic balance (vagal enhancement), and endocrine axes, providing a basis for visceral, metabolic, and inflammatory conditions (Kelly & Suckley, 2016; Li et al., 2025). Recent integrative studies emphasize network pharmacology, where multi-point stimulation perturbs interconnected pathways (Li et al., 2025).
These potential mechanisms have been empirically observed in animal models and/or human imaging studies. They might offer a partial rationale, primarily for analgesia and stress-related syndromes (Kelly & Suckley, 2016; Zhang et al., 2012). The question, however, is whethr they can provide a full explanation for acupuncture’s efficacy in all the above-named conditions.
No synthesis of these mechanisms plausibly accounts for acupuncture’s claimed benefits across unrelated conditions, exposing a core scientific paradox. Musculoskeletal pain might align with local adenosine/opioid effects and spinal gating (Kelly & Suckley, 2016), but how do these explain microbial clearance in bacillary dysentery, hypertensive vascular remodeling, or synaptic imbalances in major depression? (Meissner et al., 2019; Ernst, 2018). Gynecological infertility involves ovarian endocrinology, distant from needle-evoked sensory cues; infectious pertussis implicates Bordetella immunity, not HPA modulation (WHO, 2003; Meissner et al., 2019). This biological implausibility echoes homeopathy critiques: a single intervention cannot verifiably target such heterogeneous pathophysiologies without invoking non-specific forces (Fabrizio et al., 2010).
Trial data reinforce these doubts: meta-analyses consistently show that verum acupuncture is hardly different from sham acupuncture, and sham elicit up to 80% of verum’s effects (Kelly & Suckley, 2016; Meissner et al., 2019; Fabrizio et al., 2010; Kaptchuk et al., 2013). Such considerations implicate patient and therapist expectations, therapeutic ritual, and patient-practitioner alliance as the true mechanism behing the observed outcomes (Meissner et al., 2019; Kaptchuk et al., 2013). Neuroimaging effects often mirror expectancy manipulations in non-needling studies, suggesting top-down confounds (Fabrizio et al., 2010). Lab phenomena (e.g., adenosine release) occur but yield trivial clinical effects, dwarfed by psychosocial amplification (Fabrizio et al., 2010).
Acupuncture’s elaborate ritual maximizes contextual healing, outperforming inert pills but lacking disease-modifying specificity (Meissner et al., 2019; Ernst, 2018). Paradoxes abound—positive preclinical signals evaporate in blinded RCTs; cultural bias inflates Asian trial positives; poor sham penetration and blinding failures perpetuate illusions (Fabrizio et al., 2010; Ernst, 2018). For non-pain conditions, evidence thins further, with publication bias and flexible outcome reporting inflating apparent successes (Fabrizio et al., 2010).
Acupuncture carries risks including minor issues like bleeding, needle site pain, vegetative reactions (e.g., dizziness or nausea), and symptom aggravation, alongside rarer serious events such as pneumothorax, infections, or organ injury. Overall, at least one adverse event in 9.31% of patients undergoing a treatment series or 7.57% of treatments, with half of these being mild local reactions. Serious adverse events seem to be uncommon. Reliable prevalence figures do not exist because there is no adequate surveillance system in place (Ernst 2006).
Acupuncture’s trial proliferation signals cultural and patient-driven demand rather than mechanistic or evidential triumph. Its broad therapeutic claims by far overreach evidence (Staud & Price, 2014). Rigorous advancement would require objective biomarkers (e.g., cytokine assays, EEG), dose-response optimization, adaptive sham designs, and large pragmatic trials stratifying contextual from specific effects (Zhang et al., 2012; Fabrizio et al., 2010). Until compelling evidence exists, acupuncture remains a testament to human suggestibility’s power, but not a biomedical panacea.
References
- Carr, D. (2022). Acupuncture as Treatment for Female Infertility. Medical Acupuncture, 34(1), 12-21.
- Choi, D., et al. (2019). Cochrane reviews on acupuncture therapy for pain: a snapshot of the current evidence. Systematic Reviews, 8, 231.
- ClinicalTrials.gov. (2013). Pediatric Laser Acupuncture and Renal Biopsy (NCT01879826).
- Ernst, E. (2006). Acupuncture–a critical analysis. J Intern Med, 259(2):125-37.
- Ernst, E. (2018). Acupuncture Research: The Problem. Pain Medicine, 19(6), 1287-1288.
- Fabrizio, P., et al. (2010). Paradoxes in Acupuncture Research: Strategies for Moving Forward. Explore (NY), 6(4), 231-239.
- Kaptchuk, T. J., et al. (2013). Are All Placebo Effects Equal? Placebo Pills, Sham Acupuncture, or Placebo Needle in Irritable Bowel Syndrome. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e67485.
- Kelly, R., & Suckley, S. (2016). Mechanisms of acupuncture. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 20, 1-11.
- Lam, M., et al. (2020). Acupuncture and Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain. Medical Acupuncture, 32(6), 357-366.
- Lee, M. S., et al. (2011). Acupuncture for pain: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, 17(3), 187-189.
- Li, T., et al. (2022). Evidence on acupuncture therapies is underused in clinical practice. Frontiers in Medicine.
- Li, Y., et al. (2025). Integrative research on the mechanisms of acupuncture. Neural Regeneration Research.
- Meissner, K., et al. (2019). Acupuncture for the Treatment of Pain – A Mega-Placebo? Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 1119.
- Shanghai Medical Clinic. (2025). WHO Approved Acupuncture List of Conditions.
- Smith, C. A., et al. (2021). An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture for Respiratory Diseases. Frontiers in Public Health.
- Staud, R., & Price, D. D. (2014). Acupuncture therapy: mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety. International Review of Neurobiology, 111, 171-189.
- Wang, L., et al. (2025). Possible antidepressant mechanism of acupuncture. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 19, 1512073.
- WHO. (2003). Acupuncture: Review and Analysis of Reports on Controlled Clinical Trials.
- Zhang, R., et al. (2012). Neural Acupuncture Unit: A New Concept for Interpreting Effects and Mechanisms of Acupuncture. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2012, 429412.
- Zhang, Y., et al. (2025). Patient-reported outcome tools of acupuncture clinical trials. Journal of Pain Research.
- Zhao, C., et al. (2022). Evidence mapping and overview of systematic reviews of the effects of acupuncture therapies. BMJ Open, 12(6), e056803.
Trump said it more than once, for instance here, that on Monday [today] he will announce the true cause of autism: “I think we found an answer to autism. How about that? Autism. Tomorrow, we’re going to be talking in the Oval Office and the White House about autism, how it happens, so we won’t let it happen anymore. And how to get at least somewhat better when you have it so that parents can help their child, their beautiful child,” Trump said. Elsewhere he and his minons claimed that it will be based on the most comprehensive analysis ever conducted. It was also hinted that the cause will NOT be a vaccine!
So what will it be?
There have been multiple reports that Trump will claim that paracetamol taken during pregnancy causes autism.
And it gets better: it is being speculated that they also have identified a cure: leucovorin! This drug is essentiall folinic acid; Medline lists over 20 papers suggesting it might be helpful for children with autism. For example, one RCT showed that the change in CARS score was higher in the folinic acid group (3.6 ± 0.8) compared to the placebo group (2.4 ± 0.7, p < 0.001). The theory behind using leucovorin for autism is that some individuals with the condition have a metabolic abnormality called cerebral folate deficiency. In these cases, the brain has low levels of folate (a crucial nutrient for brain development) despite normal folate levels in the rest of the body. This can be caused by the immune system producing antibodies that block the transport of folate into the brain. Leucovorin, a form of folate, can bypass this blockage and help restore folate levels in the brain. However, the claim that leucovorin cures autism is unfounded. There merely is promising, albeit limited, evidence to suggest that it may be an effective treatment for specific symptoms in a subgroup of individuals with autism who have an underlying folate metabolism abnormality.
The paracetamol claim aligns with a recent review by Mount Sinai and Harvard researchers that suggested a possible link between prenatal acetaminophen use and an increased risk of autism and ADHD. Its authors found an increased risk of adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes following prenatal APAP exposure. Further studies are urgently needed with; precise indication of use and exposure assessment of use both in utero and in early life. Given the current findings, pregnant women should be cautioned against indiscriminate use of APAP. These results have substantial public health implications. Officials might therefore plan to advise pregnant women to avoid using the drug in pregnancy.
Yet, there is contradicting evidence too: a large sibling study from Drexel University and Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet published in April 2024, for example, found no evidence to support a causal link between the drug’s use during pregnancy and an increased risk of autism. And just days ago, Japanese and US authors concluded that although PS-matched analyses indicated small increases in risk, sensitivity analyses suggested that unmeasured confounding, misclassification and other biases may partially explain these associations.
So, whatever Trump’s big announcement will claim, it might neither be conclusive nor new nor innovative. But it will certainly be a big show trying to highlight the achievements of his administration.
I for one advise caution: the claim that paracetamol causes autism is not supported by a scientific consensus. While some studies have shown an association, others, including large-scale and more reliable sibling studies, have cast doubt on a direct causal link, suggesting that other underlying factors may be at play. I might remind Trump, RFKJr and his team of pseudoscientists of two things:
CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION
and
REAL SCIENCE RELIES ON RIGOROUS RESEARCH AND NOT ON POLITICAL THEATRE
There is now an embarraassing amount of examples of RFKJr’s behavior, actions and public statements that can only be described by using the term hubris:
Despite his denials, Kennedy is a die hard vaccine sceptic as well as an anti-vaccine activist. He is spreading dangerous and deadly conspiracies, and his actions go repeatedly against the scientific consensus. His policies are based on myths and pseudoscience and a blatant disregard for science and evidence-based public health.
Kennedy has implemented a sweeping overhaul of US vaccine policy, and is accused of reckless mismanagement and administrative incompetence that has led to chaos and disorganization inside and outside of his department. This includes reducing staff at federal agencies and promoting a reorganization of HHS that can only weaken the US’s ability to address future health problems.
The firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez and the subsequent resignations of other senior CDC officials are a direct result of their refusal to rubber-stamp his ideological anti-vaccine agenda and unscientific and dangerous demands. One official, Demetre Daskalakis, resigned with a warning that the “ideological agenda” which is being pushed by Kennedy “will result in death and disability.”
Kennedy’s actions seem to be driven by a desire to please a political base. They reveal a complete disregard for science and a judgmental view of public health and science. In other words, he is weaponizing public health for political gain.
Most recently, Kennedy stated disgusting confidence: “I know what a healthy child is supposed to look like. I’m looking at kids as I walk through the airports today…and I see these kids that are just overburdened with mitochondrial challenges…and I know that’s not how our children are supposed to look.” This, of course, is complete, utter and embarrassing nonsense. It might even be funny (in that it highlights his incompetence) but sadly it foremost is, like so many of his statements, extremely dangerous. A man who thinks like this must not be near a health department; much rather he should be in a straight jacket.
I am hardly alone with my criticism. Here are but a few comments from prominent people related to Kennedy’s recent statement on “mitochondrial challenges” that I picked up yesterday on ‘X’:
- The man is a lying grifter who is doing grave harm.
- Medicine and public health have added three decades to the human lifespan. Vaccination alone produced 40% of the reduction in child deaths. And now a disturbed and unqualified man driven by crackpot theories is destroying the foundations of this work, including CDC.
- Every. Single. Time RFK tries to pontificate on health and medicine he spouts absolute gibberish that crumbles with a 30sec Google search. This is what happens when you form views based on social media nonsense and pure quackery. Anyone with internet access can see through it.
- We now are facing the greatest threat to public health in the USA since it became a country. The spillover will task the entire world and will become the major threat to global public health.
- Non-doctor, non-medically trained weirdo RFK Jr. says he can medically diagnose kids just by looking at them.
- Wtf is a Mitochondrial challenged face? Unless he’s in the prednisone ward, how is he seeing so much inflammation too? Is the worm seeing?
- RFK Jr uses long scientific sounding words and talks very confidently. He is therefore able to convince many that he knows what he is talking about. But to actual experts it’s very obvious he hasn’t got a clue. A sophisticated and successful con man.
- RFKjr is the leading cause of threats to global health security.
- Who’s the most dangerous cabinet member? RFK Jr Tulsi Gabbard Kash Patel Pete Hegseth I go for RFK Jr with Tulsi a close second.
- Ex-heroin addict with a parasitic brain worm, zero medical degrees, zero background in healthcare, or any formal scientific training thinks he can diagnose children just by looking at them??? This is insane. This man is going to LITERALLY kill us.
- The non-doctor is diagnosing children from 30 meters distance with fake diseases and invented psychological conditions that have no basis in reality. He does get credit for cramming a remarkable amount of stupidity into the fewest amount of words possible.
- Excuse me, @SenBillCassidy, perhaps now is the time to stand up, say you were wrong to confirm this crank, and advocate for his removal.
- RFK JR: “I’m looking at kids…and I see they are just overburdened with mitochondrial challenges, inflammation—you can tell from their faces” Me: I’m looking at the HHS Secretary and I see an anti science crank who doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
The national and international outrage is enorm – rightly so! – and many of us have called for Kennedy’s resignation. Sadly, he is allowed to continue displaying his disgusting hubris unabated. We will all feel its effects soon.
US medical professionals, pleaase stop this lunatic!
Robert F Kennedy Jr. posted the following statement on ‘X’ on 6 July 2025:
“In 1970, Autism was rare: fewer than 1 in 10,000 children. Today, it’s 1 in every 31. We owe it to our children to find out why.”
To understan this, it is worth considering the history of autism. Here are 5 milestones:
- 1911: Eugen Bleuler introduces the term “autism” to describe symptoms related to schizophrenia.
- 1926: Grunya Sukhareva writes about six children with autistic traits in a scientific German psychiatry and neurology journal.
- 1943: Leo Kanner publishes his paper on “early infantile autism,” describing 11 children with unique characteristics.
- 1944: Hans Asperger describes Asperger’s syndrome, a variant of autism.
- 1980: Autism is officially recognized as a separate disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III).
So, can anyone be surprised that, in 1970, autism was a relatively rare diagnosis?
No, not really!
But perhaps Kennedy has a point when he is concerned about the cause of autism?
No, not really!
- Changes in diagnostic criteria and tools: Broader definitions and improved diagnostic methods have led to more frequent diagnoses.
- Increased awareness and recognition: Greater awareness on all levels has resulted in more children being diagnosed.
- Growing population and demographic changes: Increased parental age may be a contributory factor.
- Genetic factors: Genetic mutations may play a role in the development of autism.
- A combination of the phenomena listed above as well as other factors that are as yet not known.
What is fairly sure – also based on tons of research – is that the increase of of autism is not caused by vaccinations.
So, why does Kennedy contine to pronounce dangerous BS on the subject?
I am not sure – perhaps it has something to do with the worm that has apparently eaten part of his brain (evidently the part that deals with the comprehension of science).
And when will he stop acting as a slinger of BS?
That, I’m afraid, is up to you, my American friends!
Common Harms of CSM
- Musculoskeletal discomfort: Temporary soreness, stiffness, or pain in the muscles or joints after treatment.
- Headaches: Some individuals may experience headaches following spinal manipulation.
- Fatigue: Feeling tired or experiencing fatigue after treatment.
These harms occur after CSM in about 50% of all patients. They impact on their quality of life and usually last 1-3 days.
Serious Harms of CSM
- Vertebral artery dissection (VAD) and stroke: A tear in the vertebral artery can lead to stroke; the harm can be permanent.
- Death: A stroke can be fatal.
- Atlantoaxial dislocation
- Spinal cord injury: Damage to the spinal cord, potentially resulting in numbness, weakness, or paralysis.
- Herniated discs: Manipulation can exacerbate existing disc issues or cause a new disc herniation.
- Fractures: Osteoporotic patients or those with bone conditions are at risk of vertebral fractures.
- Cauda equina syndrome: Compression of nerves in the lower spine, potentially causing bowel or bladder dysfunction.
- Nerve damage: Injury to spinal nerves, leading to numbness, tingling, or weakness.
- Eye Injuries: these include central retinal artery occlusion, nystagmus, Wallenberg syndrome, ptosis, loss of vision, ophthalmoplegia, dipiopia and Horner’s syndrome.
The frequency of these harms is not known.
Other Risks
- Neglect: This happens whenever a chiropractor treats a condition that can more effectively be treated with another therapy.
- Misleading advice: This occurs whenever a chiropractor gives advice outside his area of competence, for instance, a recommendation against immunisations.
- False diagnoses: Chiropractors often diagnose a ‘vertebral subluxation’, a condition that exists only in their fantasy.
- Worsening of existing conditions: Manipulation may exacerbate underlying spinal problems or conditions like spinal instability.
- Waste of money: This occurs each time a patient pays for ineffective CSM.
The frequency of these risks is not well-documented but can be estimated to be very high.
_____________________________
I have often pointed out that the value of a therapy is not solely determined by its potential for harm. It depends crucially on the risk/benefit profile. The benefits of CSM are few and mostly uncertain. Thus the question arises:
DO THE BENEFITS OF CSM OUTWEIGH ITS RISKS?
I let you, the reader, answer this question.
PS
References for the above statements can be found in my book.
I was fascinated and horrified in equal measure to watch Donald Trump speaking at the CPAC talking about a medical topic – autism to be precise. Here are his words (minus the gibberish he always adds to disguise the stupidity of his phrases):
…15 years ago, there was one case per 10 000, some say 20 000 US citizens. Now the figure is 1 in 36. There’s something wrong. Bobby (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) is gonna find it, working with Dr. Oz; by the way, working with Dr. Oz…
The audience of conservatives cheered blissfully!
What Trump said at the CPAC was not original. He uttered almost identical nonsense before (except he also claims the rate is now 1 in 34); it seems to be one of his set pieces for amusing the intellactually challenged.
A few days ago Trump signed an executive order (EO) calling for the creation of a ‘Make America Healthy Again’ Commission, which the White House says will be “tasked with investigating and addressing the root causes of America’s escalating health crisis.” In the EO, the figures are, however, a little different: “Autism spectrum disorder now affects 1 in 36 children in the United States — a staggering increase from rates of 1 to 4 out of 10,000 children identified with the condition during the 1980s.”
- 15 years ago was not the 1980s;
- 1 in 10 000 is not the same as 1 to 4 out of 10,000 children.
But, as we are often told, we must not take Trump literally; it’s the ‘BIG PICTURE’ that counts!
A little research reveals that the 1 in 36 prevalence figure originates from this survey. It was not focussed on autism but on autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
- Autism is a specific disorder within the broader category of ASD.
- ASD refers to a range of conditions that share some commonalities.
- Autism has distinct characteristics and symptoms.
- ASD includes conditions like autism, Asperger’s syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder, and an unspecified form of pervasive developmental disorder.
Is it really too difficult for Trump to differentiate between autism and ASD?
Or is the reason that this would not fit his agenda?
The survey concluded that “findings from the ADDM Network 2020 surveillance year indicate higher ASD prevalence than previous estimates from the ADDM Network and continuing evidence of a marked shift in the demographic composition of children identified with ASD compared with previous years. Although earlier ADDM Network reports have shown higher prevalence among higher-SES White children compared with other groups, the latest data indicate consistently higher prevalence among Black and Hispanic children compared with White children, and no consistent association between ASD and SES. Furthermore, this is the first ADDM Network report in which the prevalence of ASD among girls has exceeded 1%. Since 2000, the prevalence of ASD has increased steadily among all groups, but during 2018–2020, the increases were greater for Black and Hispanic children than for White children. These data indicate that ASD is common across all groups of children and underscore the considerable need for equitable and accessible screening, services, and supports for all children.”
The authors of the survey caution that the findings in their report are subject to at least seven limitations.
- First, the methods rely on the availability, quality, and completeness of existing information and records to ascertain ASD cases and other indicators. Although all sites had access to special education classification data, certain sites did not have access to education records for their entire population, limiting the ability to identify children with ASD exclusively identified and served through their schools. Sites requested records from public school special education programs but did not review private school education records. Incomplete information could lead to misclassifying children’s cognitive ability, overestimating the age when they were first evaluated or when ASD was diagnosed, or failing to ascertain that the children were identified as having ASD. Sex information reflects what is represented in children’s records and might not reflect their gender identity.
- Second, the case definition for intellectual disability was measured using a child’s latest cognitive test or examiner statement of a child’s cognitive ability. Diagnostic and special education eligibility criteria for intellectual disability requires concurrent adaptive functioning deficits. IQ scores are not necessarily stable measures of intellectual ability over time, can increase among children with ASD in response to intensive early therapeutic interventions, and might be unstable during early childhood. The age at which children had their most recent test or examiner impression of cognitive ability varied by site.
- Third, the ADDM Network sites are not intended to be representative of the states in which the sites are located. ADDM Network sites are selected through an objective and competitive process, and findings do not necessarily generalize to all children aged 8 years in the United States. Interpretations of temporal trends can be complicated by changing surveillance areas, case definitions, data source access, and diagnostic practices.
- Fourth, small numbers result in imprecise estimates for certain sites and subgroups, and estimates falling below the selected threshold for statistical precision were suppressed.
- Fifth, the surveillance data system does not collect the number of ASD ICD codes a child received at a specific source, limiting comparability to analyses of claims/billing databases that consider number of ICD codes received.
- Sixth, the COVID–19 pandemic resulted in reduced access to records from some sources at certain sites; it was often possible to electronically obtain some data elements from these sources but not manually review the full contents of records. Disruptions in services and school closures during 2020 might have resulted in less documentation of ASD in records, which could decrease ASD ascertainment by ADDM sites.
- Seventh, the prevalence of undetected ASD in each community as well as false-positive ASD diagnoses and classifications are unknown.
So, Trump charged Robert F. Kennnedy Jr. to investigate why ASD is on the increase. As it happens, Kennedy already knows the conclusion of this investigation. He has often stated widely debunked claims that autism is caused by vaccinations. For instance, in a 2023 interview with Fox News, he squarely claimed that “autism comes from vaccines”. This theory was popularised by the discredited ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield based on a fraudulent paper that was later retracted by the Lancet. Multiple studies have subsequently demonstrated that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
Luckily Kennedy has Dr. Oz – yes the very Dr. Oz who has featured many times on my blog (see for instance here, here and here) – to help him get to the bottom of what Trump believes to be a mystery. Those two will be quite an unbeatable team (neither of them has ever done proper research in this area; Oz promotes any quackery that fills his pockets, and Kennedy would not recognise reliable science, if it bit him in his behind)! Perhaps they could start their investigation by reading the many papers that have already found at least some of the plausible reasons for the above-cited figures, e.g:
- The Real Reasons Autism Rates Are Up in the U.S. | Scientific American
- Is Autism Really Increasing?
- Factors Causing an Increase in Autism | Psych Central
- Autism: Cases on the Rise; Reason for Increase a Mystery
- Recognising autism in healthcare – PubMed
Oh, I almost forgot: they don’t need to read such demanding papers. They already have the answer to the autism mystery!
PS
It does not happen every day that the prestigeous German FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG publishes an in-depth analysis of TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) and even discusses several of the themes that we, here on this blog, have often debated. Allow me, therefore, to translate a few passages from the recent FAZ article entitled “Der Fluch der alten Dinge” (The Curse of Old Things):
… TCM has countless followers in many countries. ‘TCM is a wonderful medicine that thinks ‘holistically’, that sees not just one organ but the whole person and that offers very good treatment options,’ says Dominik Irnich. He heads the German Medical Association for Acupuncture. Although there is not evidence for all indications, TCM is ‘a scientifically based option for a number of diseases, the effects of which have been proven many times over’…
Meanwhile, Beijing wants to utilise the positive image of TCM to present itself in a good light and promote exports. The current five-year plan also provides for the creation of around 20 TCM positions for epidemic prevention and control. Critics, on the other hand, see patients at risk due to insufficiently tested therapies – and medicine as a whole: many studies are hardly valid and distort the state of science…
The top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is using the ‘old things’ to increase its global influence and utilise TCM not only in its own country, but also as an export hit. The global TCM market is estimated to be worth many billions of euros annually, but there are no reliable figures – not least because it often includes illegally traded products such as rhino horn or donkey skin, which has led to mass killings.
Officially, Beijing prosecutes illegal trade and promotes science-based medicine, but the interests are intertwined. Even under Mao, traditional methods were used in China as a favourable alternative to imported medicines, and Beijing is currently increasingly allowing them to be reimbursed. At the same time, China’s leadership is trying to anchor TCM products in healthcare worldwide, for example as part of a ‘health Silk Road’ in Africa. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the state not only used TCM products en masse in its own country, Chinese foreign representatives also distributed them to Chinese people in Europe. This included a product based on gypsum, apricot kernels and plant parts called Lianhua Qingwen. According to a report published by the consulate in Düsseldorf, this was distributed even though the sale of medicines outside of pharmacies is generally punishable by law.
Beijing has also been successful at the level of the World Health Organisation (WHO), which promotes traditional medicine from China. ‘This was part of the interests and election programme of former Chinese Director-General Margaret Chan,’ says WHO consultant Ilona Kickbusch. The WHO drew up standards for acupuncture training, including knowledge of the ‘function and interactive relationship of qi, blood, essence and fluid’, as the document states.
In 2019, the WHO member states decided to add a chapter on ‘traditional medicine’ to the standard classification of diseases. Doctors can now code alleged patterns of ‘qi stagnation’ or yang deficiency of the liver. The umbrella organisation of European science academies EASAC criticised this as a ‘significant problem’: doctors and patients could be misled and pressure could be exerted on healthcare providers to reimburse unscientific approaches. Nature magazine found: ‘The WHO’s association with drugs that have not been properly tested and could even be harmful is unacceptable for the organisation that has the greatest responsibility and power to protect human health.’ …
In general, the study situation on therapies that are categorised as TCM is extremely confusing. The evidence is ‘terrible’, says the physician Edzard Ernst, who has analysed such procedures. ‘There are thousands of studies – that’s part of the problem.’ Many studies come from China, but it is known that a large proportion are invalid or falsified. It is almost impossible to report critically on TCM there: according to media reports, a doctor was imprisoned for three months in 2018 after criticising a TCM remedy. In 2020, Beijing even considered banning criticism of TCM, but refrained from doing so after an outcry.
According to Ernst, the quality of even some of the meta-analyses from the respected Cochrane Collaboration is ‘hair-raising’ due to the inclusion of unreliable studies, and according to some Chinese researchers, acupuncture works for everything. Prof. Unschuld said at an event a year ago that he was asked in China not to address critical issues.
‘In a country without the open and free critical culture that is common in democratic countries, the control mechanisms are missing,’ says Jutta Hübner, Professor of Integrative Oncology at Jena University Hospital. The inclusion of Chinese studies, which almost never report negative results, can create a much too positive image of TCM at a formally very high level of scientific evidence, without the results being reliable…
Instead of allowing the research to be carried out by proponents, it would be desirable ‘if the universities in particular remembered that they have the duty to be critical,’ says physician Edzard Ernst. However, some university clinics prefer to advertise TCM methods in order to attract patients and money.
Joe Dispenza is not all that well known in Europe but, in the US, he is all the rage as a health guru. Despite pretending to be a top (neuro)scientist and expert of quantum physics, Dispenza has, as far as I can see, just three Medline-listed papers to his credit. Here are their abstracts:
No 1 is entitled “Meditation-induced bloodborne factors as an adjuvant treatment to COVID-19 disease”
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Management of the pandemic has relied mainly on SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, while alternative approaches such as meditation, shown to improve immunity, have been largely unexplored. Here, we probe the relationship between meditation and COVID-19 disease and directly test the impact of meditation on the induction of a blood environment that modulates viral infection. We found a significant inverse correlation between length of meditation practice and SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as accelerated resolution of symptomology of those infected. A meditation “dosing” effect was also observed. In cultured human lung cells, blood from experienced meditators induced factors that prevented entry of pseudotyped viruses for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein of both the wild-type Wuhan-1 virus and the Delta variant. We identified and validated SERPINA5, a serine protease inhibitor, as one possible protein factor in the blood of meditators that is necessary and sufficient for limiting pseudovirus entry into cells. In summary, we conclude that meditation can enhance resiliency to viral infection and may serve as a possible adjuvant therapy in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.
No 2 is entitled “The Mathematical Characterization of the Complexity Matching during a Healing Circle Meditation”
The aim of the study is to evaluate the complexity matching between the HRVs of the group of Healers and the Healee during the various stages of the meditation protocol by employing a novel mathematical approach based on the H-rank algorithm. The complexity matching of heart rate variability is assessed before and during a heart-focused meditation in a close non-contact healing exercise. The experiment was conducted on a group of individuals (eight Healers and one Healee) throughout the various phases of the protocol over a ~75-minute period. The HRV signal for the cohort of individuals was recorded using high resolution HRV recorders with internal clocks for time synchronization. The Hankel transform (H-rank) approach was employed to reconstruct the real-world complex time series in order to measure the algebraic complexity of the heart rate variability and to assess the complexity matching between the reconstructed H-rank of the Healers and Healee during the different phases of the protocol. The integration of the embedding attractor technique was used to aid in the visualization of reconstructed H-rank in state space across the various phases. The findings demonstrate the changes in the degree of reconstructed H-rank (between the Healers and the Healee) during the heart-focused meditation healing phase by employing mathematically anticipated and validated algorithms. It is natural and thought-provoking to contemplate the mechanisms causing the complexity of the reconstructed H-rank to come closer; it can be explicitly stated that the purpose of the study is to communicate a clear idea that the H-rank algorithm is capable of registering subtle changes in the healing process, and that there was no intention of delving deep to uncover the mechanisms involved in the HRV matching. Therefore, the latter might be a distinct goal of future research.
No 3 is entitled “Large effects of brief meditation intervention on EEG spectra in meditation novices”
This study investigated the impact of a brief meditation workshop on a sample of 223 novice meditators. Participants attended a three-day workshop comprising daily guided seated meditation sessions using music without vocals that focused on various emotional states and intentions (open focus). Based on the theory of integrative consciousness, it was hypothesized that altered states of consciousness would be experienced by participants during the meditation intervention as assessed using electroencephalogram (EEG). Brainwave power bands patterns were measured throughout the meditation training workshop, producing a total of 5616 EEG scans. Changes in conscious states were analysed using pre-meditation and post-meditation session measures of delta through to gamma oscillations. Results suggested the meditation intervention had large varying effects on EEG spectra (up to 50 % increase and 24 % decrease), and the speed of change from pre-meditation to post-meditation state of the EEG co-spectra was significant (with 0.76 probability of entering end-meditation state within the first minute). There was a main 5 % decrease in delta power (95 % HDI = [-0.07, -0.03]); a global increase in theta power of 29 % (95 % HDI = [0.27, 0.33]); a global increase of 16 % (95 % HDI = [0.13, 0.19]) in alpha power; a main effect of condition, with global beta power increasing by 17 % (95 % HDI = [0.15, 0.19]); and an 11 % increase (95 % HDI = [0.08, 0.14]) in gamma power from pre-meditation to end-meditation. Findings provided preliminary support for brief meditation in altering states of consciousness in novice meditators. Future clinical examination of meditation was recommended as an intervention for mental health conditions particularly associated with hippocampal impairments.
Unimpressed?
Me too!
It seems noteworthy that none of these articles support any of the many outlandish therapeutic claims Dispenza makes. In these papers, Dispenza give his affiliation as “Encephalon, LLC, Rainier, WA”. My seraches for this institution led me to the website of Dispenza’s company that tries to sell you all sorts of strange stuff and bombards you with irritating platitudes about spirituality and related subjects. Here you will also find several of Dispenza’s books. Naturally, they were big successes. The latest volume is called ‘Becoming Supernatural‘. Its topics include:
- Demystifying the body’s seven energy centers and how you can balance them to heal
- How to free yourself from the past by reconditioning your body to a new mind
- How you can create reality in the generous present moment by changing your energy
- The difference between third-dimension creation and fifth-dimension creation
- The secret science of the pineal gland and its role in accessing mystical realms of reality
- The distinction between space-time vs. time-space realities
By now, I am beginning to suspect that “Dr. Joe”, as he likes to wrongly depict himself, is an 18 carrat bullshitter, and I feel like learning more about him and his incredible popularity.
So, who is Joe Dispenza?
Dispenza trained as a chiropractor and, in 1986, he had a cycling accident that left him with six compressed vertebrae – at least that is what he likes to tell journalists. Allegedly, doctors told him he might never walk again and recommended spine surgery. But he knew better, checked himself out of the hospital, and reconstructed his vertebrae with his mind. Within 10 weeks he was walking again. “I made a deal with myself that if I was ever able to walk again I would spend the rest of my life studying the mind-body connection,” he claimed in a 2018 interview. If you don’t know about vertebral compression fractures, this sounds like an unusal recovery. If you, however, know about such injuries, the course of events is not abnormal.
Ever since, Dispenza uses his mind to heal others. His website contains ~40 testimonials of people claiming he cured their cancer or their multiple sclerosis or their infertility. Under the heading of “coherence healing,” the site boasts Dispenza and his disciples have “produced profound biological changes in multitudes of individuals around the world” and “observed hundreds of healings from a wide variety of health conditions.” In a 2020 interview Dispenza bragged about bringing children onstage at his retreats to cure them of “really serious health conditions.” He claimed to have cured a 76-year-old woman of Parkinson’s. He said his treatments cured illness faster than chemotherapy and that “profound and prestigious universities” in the United States wanted to study his methods. “[We’ve seen] tumors disappearing, people stepping out of wheelchairs, blind people seeing, deaf people hearing—crazy stuff,” he stated. “This is biblical proportions stuff.”
Dispenza likes to present himself as a scientist. “Learning” becomes “forging new synaptic connections” and changing one’s behavior becomes “reorganizing circuits.” He claims that meditating in the presence of others—combining “coherent fields,” as he calls this—opens up “interference patterns of fractal geometry that are doors to dimensions.” During performances, he occasionally brings followers on stage to share the “miracles” they experienced at the workshops that day, such as a woman who claimed she regained her depth perception after decades of encephalitis. “She got a biological upgrade … and all she did was make up her mind to do it,” he told the audience.
Back in 2012, I published a post entitled “How to become a charlatan” where I provide several practical instructions for all who intend to persue this career:
1. Find an attractive therapy and give it a fantastic name
Did I just say “straight forward”? Well, the first step isn’t that easy, after all. Most of the really loony ideas turn out to be taken: ear candles, homeopathy, aura massage, energy healing, urine-therapy, chiropractic etc. As a true charlatan, you want your very own quackery. So you will have to think of a new concept.
Something truly ‘far out’ would be ideal, like claiming the ear is a map of the human body which allows you to treat all diseases by doing something odd on specific areas of the ear – oops, this territory is already occupied by the ear acupuncture brigade. How about postulating that you have super-natural powers which enable you to send ‘healing energy’ into patients’ bodies so that they can repair themselves? No good either: Reiki-healers might accuse you of plagiarism.
But you get the gist, I am sure, and will be able to invent something. When you do, give it a memorable name, the name can make or break your new venture.
2. Invent a fascinating history
Having identified your treatment and a fantastic name for it, you now need a good story to explain how it all came about. This task is not all that tough and might even turn out to be fun; you could think of something touching like you cured your moribund little sister at the age of 6 with your intervention, or you received the inspiration in your dreams from an old aunt who had just died, or perhaps you want to create some religious connection [have you ever visited Lourdes?]. There are no limits to your imagination; just make sure the story is gripping – one day, they might make a movie of it.
3. Add a dash of pseudo-science
Like it or not, but we live in an age where we cannot entirely exclude science from our considerations. At the very minimum, I recommend a little smattering of sciency terminology. As you don’t want to be found out, select something that only few experts understand; quantum physics, entanglement, chaos-theory and Nano-technology are all excellent options.
It might also look more convincing to hint at the notion that top scientists adore your concepts, or that whole teams from universities in distant places are working on the underlying mechanisms, or that the Nobel committee has recently been alerted etc. If at all possible, add a bit of high tech to your new invention; some shiny new apparatus with flashing lights and digital displays might be just the ticket. The apparatus can be otherwise empty – as long as it looks impressive, all is fine.
4. Do not forget a dose of ancient wisdom
With all this science – sorry, pseudo-science – you must not forget to remain firmly grounded in tradition. Your treatment ought to be based on ancient wisdom which you have rediscovered, modified and perfected. I recommend mentioning that some of the oldest cultures of the planet have already been aware of the main pillars on which your invention today proudly stands. Anything that is that old has stood the test of time which is to say, your treatment is both effective and safe.
5. Claim to have a panacea
To maximise your income, you want to have as many customers as possible. It would therefore be unwise to focus your endeavours on just one or two conditions. Commercially, it is much better to affirm in no uncertain terms that your treatment is a cure for everything, a panacea. Do not worry about the implausibility of such a claim. In the realm of quackery, it is perfectly acceptable, even common behaviour to be outlandish.
6. Deal with the ‘evidence-problem’ and the nasty sceptics
It is depressing, I know, but even the most exceptionally gifted charlatan is bound to attract doubters. Sceptics will sooner or later ask you for evidence; in fact, they are obsessed by it. But do not panic – this is by no means as threatening as it appears. The obvious solution is to provide testimonial after testimonial.
You need a website where satisfied customers report impressive stories how your treatment saved their lives. In case you do not know such customers, invent them; in the realm of quackery, there is a time-honoured tradition of writing your own testimonials. Nobody will be able to tell!
7. Demonstrate that you master the fine art of cheating with statistics
Some of the sceptics might not be impressed, and when they start criticising your ‘evidence’, you might need to go the extra mile. Providing statistics is a very good way of keeping them at bay, at least for a while. The general consensus amongst charlatans is that about 70% of their patients experience remarkable benefit from whatever placebo they throw at them. So, my advice is to do a little better and cite a case series of at least 5000 patients of whom 76.5 % showed significant improvements.
What? You don’t have such case series? Don’t be daft, be inventive!
8. Score points with Big Pharma
You must be aware who your (future) customers are (will be): they are affluent, had a decent education (evidently without much success), and are middle-aged, gullible and deeply alternative. Think of Prince Charles! Once you have empathised with this mind-set, it is obvious that you can profitably plug into the persecution complex which haunts these people.
An easy way of achieving this is to claim that Big Pharma has got wind of your innovation, is positively frightened of losing millions, and is thus doing all they can to supress it. Not only will this give you street cred with the lunatic fringe of society, it also provides a perfect explanation why your ground-breaking discovery has not been published it the top journals of medicine: the editors are all in the pocket of Big Pharma, of course.
9. Ask for money, much money
I have left the most important bit for the end; remember: your aim is to get rich! So, charge high fees, even extravagantly high ones. If your treatment is a product that you can sell (e.g. via the internet, to escape the regulators), sell it dearly; if it is a hands-on therapy, charge heavy consultation fees and claim exclusivity; if it is a teachable technique, start training other therapists at high fees and ask a franchise-cut of their future earnings.
Over-charging is your best chance of getting famous – or have you ever heard of a charlatan famous for being reasonably priced? It will also get rid of the riff-raff you don’t want to see in your surgery. Poor people might be even ill! No, you don’t want them; you want the ‘worried rich and well’ who can afford to see a real doctor when things should go wrong. But most importantly, high fees will do a lot of good to your bank account.
Could it be that Joe Dispenza is the most successful pupil of my crash-course in charlatanism?
PS
I have been asked by the NY Post to answer a few questions about Dispenza. Allow me to present them to you here:
What makes Dispenza so dangerous (his advice, obsession with manifesting, etc.)?
Dispenza is at his most dangerous firstly when he implies that he can cure serious illness. In this way, he can cause the premature death of many patients. Secondly, he systematically undermines rational thinking which inevitably will cause significant harm to the already badly damaged US society. As Voltaire once pointed out: those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Why, in your opinion, has he amassed a cult-like following?
In 2012 I published a satirical piece entitled ‘How to become a charlatan’ (How to become a charlatan (edzardernst.com)). It seems to me that Dispenza followed my instructions to the letter providing a masterclass on fooling the public. He is a textbook example of a charismatic pseudoscientist (e.g.: I am a “researcher of epigenetics, quantum physics & neuroscience“) touting pure bullshit (e.g.: “new science is emerging that empowers all human beings to create the reality they choose”). He may be a charlatan but he is very good at it, runs a highly sophisticated campaign, and is laughing all the way to the bank.
For readers who find themselves enamored by Dispenza, what advice would you give them?
My advise is to take a step back and do a reality check: ‘Dr.Joe’ is not a medical doctor or neuroscientist but a chiropractor. He does not understand quantum physics. He has not published any meaningful scientific studies. His proclamations are nothing but platitudes or empty phrases. My advice also is to ask yourself: are you sure you are not the victim of your own gullibility?
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common chronic disorder associated with psychological distress and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Therefore, stress management is often employed in the hope of alleviating IBS symptoms. But does it work?
This systematic review investigated the effects of stress management for adults with IBS on typical symptoms, HRQoL, and mental health. The predefined criteria included:
- patients: adults with IBS;
- intervention: stress management;
- control: care as usual or waitlist;
- outcome: patient-relevant;
- study-type: controlled trials.
Two researchers independently reviewed the publications retrieved through electronic searches and assessed the risk of bias using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklist. The researchers performed a meta-analysis with homogeneous trials of acceptable quality.
After screening 6656 publications, 10 suitable randomized trials of acceptable (n = 5) or low methodological quality (n = 5) involving 587 patients were identified. The meta-analysis showed no effect of stress management on IBS severity 1-2 months after the intervention (Hedges’ g = -0.23, 95%-CI = -0.84 to -0.38, I2 = 86.1%), and after 3-12 months (Hedges’ g = -0.77, 95%-CI = -1.77 to -0.23, I2 = 93.3%). One trial found a short-term reduction of symptoms, and one trial found symptom relief in the long term (at 6 months). One of two studies that examined HRQoL found an improvement (after 2 months). One of two studies that examined depression and anxiety found a reduction of these symptoms (after 3 weeks).
The authors concluded that stress management may be beneficial for patients with IBS regarding the short-term reduction of bowel and mental health symptoms, whereas long-term benefits are unclear. Good quality RCTs with more than 6 months follow-up are needed.
Considering the actual evidence, I find the conclusions rather odd. Would it not have been more honest to state something along the following lines?:
There is currently no convincing evidence to suggest that stress management benefits IBS patients.
So why, be not more open and less misleading?
Could some of the authors’ affiliations provide a clue?
- Department for Internal and Integrative Medicine, Sozialstiftung Bamberg Hospital, Bamberg, Germany.
- Department for Integrative Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Medical Faculty, Bamberg, Germany.
Quite possibly, yes!
