alternative therapist
How accurate are Dana Ullman’s articles? To answer this amusing question, I asked the AI platform ‘Gemini’ to find all the false statements in one of Dana’s articles (yes, I do admit that I am reluctant to read though an entire nonsensical paper – it would give me a headache or worse). This is the precise task I asked for:
Give me a bullet point list of all false statements in this text: Lessons from the Flu Epidemic of 1918: The Dangers of Using Fever Suppressing Drugs for Viral Infections.
[In case you want to read this lengthy paper yourself, here is the link]And here is the response I got from Gemini (bold emphasis by AI):
The text you provided is a well-known article by Dana Ullman that blends historical events with controversial medical theories. While some of the historical context (like the 1917 aspirin patent expiration) is accurate, the medical conclusions and the data regarding homeopathy are widely considered false or highly misleading by the scientific and medical communities.
Here is a bulleted list of the primary inaccuracies and misleading statements in the text:
1. Misrepresentation of the 1918 Pandemic Deaths
- The “Aspirin Theory”: The text suggests that a “large number” of the 50 million deaths in 1918 were due to aspirin overdose. This is based on a hypothesis by Dr. Karen Starko. While high doses of aspirin likely contributed to some deaths, the scientific consensus remains that the vast majority of deaths were caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia and the extreme virulence of the H1N1 virus itself, not aspirin poisoning.
- Aspirin and Bleeding Lungs: The text claims bleeding in the lungs is a “known side effect of aspirin overdose.” While salicylates can cause pulmonary edema, the “hemorrhagic” (bloody) lungs seen in 1918 victims are a hallmark of the severe viral pneumonia caused by that specific strain of influenza, not a specific marker for aspirin toxicity.
2. Inaccuracies Regarding COVID-19 and NSAIDs
- NSAIDs and Blood Clots: The text states that ibuprofen and naproxen are “known to lead to blood clots.” This is a significant mischaracterization. While chronic, long-term use of certain NSAIDs is linked to a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, they are not a primary cause of the acute “clotting storms” seen in COVID-19 patients. In fact, many COVID-19 protocols involve using blood-thinning agents (like aspirin) to prevent clots.
- The 80% Risk Claim: The claim that NSAID users have an 80% greater risk of venous thromboembolism is taken from observational studies that show correlation, not causation. People taking NSAIDs often have underlying inflammatory conditions that already increase their risk of clots.
3. False Claims About Homeopathy’s Success
- 1918 Mortality Rates: The text claims a 1.2% death rate in homeopathic hospitals vs. 29% in conventional hospitals. These figures are widely considered unreliable and anecdotal. They were self-reported by homeopathic practitioners at the time, lacked standardized diagnostic criteria, and did not account for “selection bias”.
- WHO Recognition: The WHO does not recognize homeopathy as the “second largest system of medicine” in terms of efficacy or official endorsement. It only recognizes it as a widely used traditional practice.
4. Scientific Misconceptions About Fever
- Fever Suppression Spreading Virus: The text claims that suppressing a fever “can enable the virus to spread throughout the body.” Clinical studies have generally shown that taking antipyretics does not significantly worsen disease outcomes or increase viral shedding.
- The “Cytokine Storm” Claim: The article suggests that when a fever-suppressing drug wears off, a person may experience a “cytokine storm.” This is medically incorrect.
5. Out-of-Context Quotes
- Paul Offit and Jane Brody: The text quotes them in a misleading way. They are vocal supporters of conventional medicine and vaccines, and the usage here is considered cherry-picking.
Summary Note: The FDA and the CDC have both clarified that there is no scientific evidence that taking ibuprofen or other NSAIDs worsens COVID-19.
_________________________
I know, this is just one of his many nonsensical papers. But it nevertheless suggests that Dana puts in quite a lot of effort into misleading the public.
We all know, I think, what homeopaths say about homeopathy. We also know what everyone else says about it. And the two set of opinions could not be more different. In this context, it might be interesting to learn what writers have to say about the subject. Here is a list of quotes from the non-medical, non-scientific literature (I am sure there are many more; if you know some, please let me know):
Boyd, W. (Restless, 2006)
“She had a small leather case of homeopathy remedies, Nux Vomica, Pulsatilla, Arnica, that she treated like a traveling reliquary.”
Coetzee, J.M. (Elizabeth Costello, 2003)
“He is a believer in homeopathy, in the healing power of water, in the memory of water. He is a man of the eighteenth century, really.”
Cunningham, M. (The Hours, 1998)
“She has tried everything: homeopathy, psychotherapy, prayer. She is a woman who lives in the hope of a miraculous adjustment.”
Enright, A. (The Gathering, 2007)
“My mother had a great belief in homeopathy, which is just a way of saying she had a great belief in nothing at all, provided it came in a very small bottle.”
Franzen, J. (The Corrections, 2001)
“Enid was deep into a phase of homeopathy, convinced that a decillionth of a gram of honeybee sting would cure her husband’s tremors.”
Márquez G.G. (“Serenade: How My Father Won My Mother”, 2001)
“…devoted his talent as an autodidact to a science on the decline: homeopathy.”
Hustvedt, S. (The Blazing World, 2014)
“He was the kind of man who treated his neuroses with homeopathy and his physical ailments with intense, silent resentment.”
McEwan, I. (Solar, 2010)
“He had no time for homeopathy, which he considered a form of witchcraft for people who were too polite to carry crystal wands.”
O’Farrell, M. (Instructions for a Heatwave, 2013)
“She kept a kit of homeopathy in her bag, tiny glass vials of white pills that looked like the breath of ghosts.”
Self, W. (How the Dead Live, 2000)
“Lily’s faith in homeopathy was such that she believed if she diluted her own death enough, she might eventually become immortal.”
St. Aubyn, E. (At Last, 2011)
“He had reached that stage of desperation where even homeopathy seemed like a robust and evidence-based option.”
H.G. Wells (Tono-Bungay, 1909)
“By the time my uncle had taken to homeopathy, I realized that his faith in science was of a very elastic kind.”
George Bernard Shaw (Preface to The Doctor’s Dilemma, 1906)
“I have a faith in homeopathy that would make a Harley Street physician shudder, though I suspect it rests less on evidence than on temperament.”
Thomas Mann (The Magic Mountain, 1924)
“He spoke of homeopathy with a curious mixture of irony and conviction, as though the less there was of it, the more there must be.”
Aldous Huxley (Eyeless in Gaza, 1936)
“She placed her trust in homeopathy, preferring infinitesimal certainties to the gross invasions of modern medicine.”
Doris Lessing (The Golden Notebook, 1962)
“She was experimenting with diets and homeopathy, as if the body might be coaxed into sanity by gentler means.”
Margaret Atwood (Cat’s Eye, 1988)
“My mother believed in homeopathy, in small doses and invisible forces, which seemed to me another way of saying she believed in hope.”
Zadie Smith (White Teeth, 2000)
“He dabbled in homeopathy, convinced that the less substance there was, the more profound the cure.”
David Lodge (Therapy, 1995)
“I tried homeopathy for a while, but it seemed to require a belief in something so small it might not exist at all.”
Hilary Mantel (Giving Up the Ghost, 2003)
“Homeopathy offered the promise of healing without intrusion, a whisper of cure rather than a command.”
Martin Amis (The Information, 1995)
“He regarded homeopathy as a joke that had somehow outlived the punchline.”
______________________
It seems to me that, when it comes to homeopathy, the writers tend to agree with the scientists.
Some homeopathy-fans claim that tiny “nanoparticles” survive even in remedies diluted a trillion trillion times (i.e. the process of manufacturing a high-potency homeopathic remedy). They furthermore assume that this phenomenon can explain how homeopathy works. This argument sounds ever so modern and sciency but – unless you are a bit of a dim-wit – it falls apart for several fairly straightforward reasons that almost anyone should be able to grasp.
Too Dilute
Imagine starting with a single drop of medicine and diluting it by adding 99 drops of water, shaking it up, then repeating that hundreds of times. By the 12C stage (about 1 part in 10^24), there’s statistically zero original molecules left – way before most remedies hit 30C or higher. Even if some nanoparticles somehow cling on from the mixing process or glass vials, they’d be so rare (fewer than one per bottle) that they couldn’t reliably affect your body like a real drug.
Breaks the Main Rule
Homeopathy’s main axiom is “like cures like” assumption: a substance that causes a headache in a healthy person should cure headaches when you’re sick. But nanoparticles would just deliver a tiny dose of the ingredient itself, acting like an extremely weak remedy – not following homeopathy’s main axiom. This would turn homeopathy back into normal medicine and miss the basis of its own theory.
Not Based on Materials
Not all homeopathic remedies start with physical ingredients. Some are “imponderables” like “X-ray” (sugar pills exposed to X-ray radiation, then diluted), “vacuum” (made by evacuating air from water), or even “moonlight.” There’s no material at all to leave nanoparticles behind, so this explanation can’t cover those products.
Useless Ingredients
Most homeopathic remedies are based on mother tinctures that have no heath effects, like sepia (ink from cuttlefish), cantharis (Spanish fly blister beetle), or even bits of the Berlin Wall. These aren’t bioactive – they don’t fight infections or reduce pain or do anything else in normal doses. Nanoparticles from such useless junk wouldn’t magically gain healing powers; they’d still do nothing useful for health.
Lack of Convincing Clinical Evidence
As discussed ad nauseam on my blog, there simply is no sound evidence to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Any benefits people feel are thus likely from expectation, natural recovery, or doctor attention – and not from nanoparticles. If homeopathy had any real effects to explain, nanoparticles might be worth debating; without them, it’s a dead end.
I do sympathise with the desperation of homeopaths. They feel they must identify a plausible mode of action for their remedies. Their 200 year old struggle to find anything at all is in many ways remarkable. Here are some of the main explanatory ideas homeopaths (or homeopathy-friendly authors) have previously proposed for how homeopathy might work:
- Vital force / life energy – the remedy is said to act on a non-physical “vital force” or life energy that supposedly governs health and disease.
- Water memory – water is claimed to “remember” substances once dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond any remaining molecules, via changes in water structure or hydrogen bonds.
- Electromagnetic signatures – remedies are said to carry subtle electromagnetic patterns or “information” of the original substance, sometimes claimed to be recordable, transmitted electronically, and imprinted on new water.
- Quantum coherence domains – models suggest water forms coherent quantum domains storing drug “information” as electromagnetic frequencies, inspired by Del Giudice and Preparata’s ideas, though lacking solid experimental support.
- Stable water clusters / clathrates – hypotheses that long-lived clusters or cage-like structures (clathrates) in water somehow encode the properties of the starting substance.
- Nanobubbles and interfaces – suggestions that gas nanobubbles or interfaces in the solution store and transmit information about the starting material.
- Hormesis-based explanations – the idea that ultra-low doses act via hormesis (beneficial effects of mild stress or toxins), extended to the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy.
- Resonance with the body – proposals that remedies resonate with biological systems (cells, tissues, or “vital force”) through frequency matching or electric resonance, rather than via chemistry.
- Quantum entanglement / non-locality – claims that patient, practitioner, and remedy become “entangled,” so healing occurs via non-local quantum effects rather than molecules or doses.
- Information medicine / encoding – framing remedies as carriers of abstract “information” rather than substance, supposedly acting like a software signal on the body’s “hardware.”
Is it not time for homeopaths to accept the only well-proven, plausible explanations as to why their patients feel better after taking their remedies?
- The empathetic therapeutic encounter.
- The natural history of the condition.
- Regression towards the mean.
- Concommittant conventional treatments.
- The placebo effect.
Our resident defender of the indefensible, DUllman, regularly comes out with the notion that Darwin was a great fan of homeopathy. I always found this hard to believe. So, I asked AI: “What did Darwin have to say about homeopathy”. Here is the reply I got:
Darwin lived during a time when Victorian medicine was often “heroic” (a polite way of saying they used leeches and mercury), so homeopathy’s “do no harm” approach was gaining traction. However, as a rigorous man of science, Darwin found the core logic of homeopathy hard to swallow.
Darwin’s Scientific Skepticism
Darwin’s primary issue with homeopathy was the principle of infinitesimals—the idea that a substance becomes more potent the more it is diluted. In an 1844 letter to his friend and botanist J.D. Hooker, Darwin wrote:
“It is a disheartening reflection to think how much it [homeopathy] is spreading; & it is a sign of how little even the best educated people know of the laws of evidence.”
He famously compared the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy to dropping a single pin into the Atlantic Ocean and expecting it to affect the entire body of water. To a biologist who studied the physical mechanisms of nature, the idea of “water memory” or “spiritual powers” in medicine felt like a step backward into mysticism.
The Personal Twist: Dr. Gully
Despite his intellectual disdain, Darwin was a desperate man. He suffered from chronic, mystery illnesses for most of his life (vomiting, palpitations, and exhaustion). In 1849, he sought treatment from Dr. James Gully, a famous practitioner of “Hydropathy” (water cures) who also practiced homeopathy.
- The Treatment: Darwin underwent rigorous “water cures”—cold wraps, scrubbing, and strictly regulated diets.
- The Result: He actually felt better! However, being the scientist he was, he attributed his recovery to the rest, the diet, and the water treatments, rather than the homeopathic “globules” Gully occasionally prescribed.
___________________________
Yet again, it seems to me, Darwin proved to be correct in his [self-]critical analysis!
This landmark study, often called the “Nürnberger Kochsalzversuch”, is historically significant as probably the first recorded instances of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. It was conducted to test a specific claim made by a leading practitioner of the time. By the mid-1830s, homeopathy had gained significant popularity among the upper classes in Nuremberg, then part of the Kingdom of Bavaria (Stolberg, 2006). This success frustrated the city’s medical establishment Thus, in 1834, Friedrich Wilhelm von Hoven, the city’s highest-ranking public health official, published a scathing critique of homeopathy using the pseudonym “E.F. Wahrhold” (Cukaci et al., 2020). Johann Jacob Reuter, a prominent local homeopath, responded by challenging von Hoven to a test which became the now famous Nürnberger Kochsalzversuch. Reuter claimed that even a healthy person would experience “extraordinary sensations” if they ingested a dilution of ordinary table salt (Sodium Chloride, or Natrum Muriaticum, as homeopaths like to call it) (Stolberg, 2006).
The trial was organized by a “Society of Truth-loving Men,” supported by George Löhner, a local newspaper editor who also wrote the final report (Cukaci et al., 2020). To ensure impartiality, they implemented a – for the time revolutionary – study design:
- 100 identical glass vials were prepared.
- 50 were filled with pure distilled snow water (the placebo),
- 50 were filled with a salt dilution prepared exactly as Reuter had instructed (one grain of salt diluted 29 times at a 1:100 ratio.
- The vials were numbered, shuffled, and divided into two lots at random in front of a public audience.
- A sealed list recorded which vial/number contained which substance.
- Neither the distributors/trialists nor the participants knew the contents of the vials.
- The vials were distributed to volunteers.
- They were asked to record any unusual symptoms over the following three weeks.
The results could not have been clearer. Of the participants who reported back (approx. 50–54 individuals), the vast majority experienced no symptoms at all. Moreover, there was no difference between the verum and the control group.
The organizers concluded that, as the “symptoms” were evenly distributed between the salt and water groups, Reuter’s claim was discredited. They attributed any reported symptoms to imagination, self-deception, or preconceived opinion (Stolberg, 2006).
The study has historical importance. It is now celebrated by as a pioneering moment in clinical methodology. It could have established the importance of double-blinding, placebo-controls, and randomisation to eliminate bias. I say “it could have” because, in fact, it did nothing of the sort.
- It took until the 1930s that blinding started appearing in more formal academic settings; and only after 1948 (see below), became blinding accepted widely a “best practice”.
- In 1955, Henry Beecher published his landmark paper claiming that roughly 35% of patients improved on placebo alone. The Kefauver-Harris Amendment of 1962 finally legally mandated that manufacturers prove a drug is “effective” compared to a control, usually a placebo.
- Sir Ronald A. Fisher, a statistician working at an agricultural research station in England, realized that if you test two different fertilizers on two different patches of land, the soil quality might be better in one patch than the other, which would ruin the data. He proposed that only by randomly assigning treatments could you “cancel out” unknown variables (like soil acidity or moisture). His 1925 book, Statistical Methods for Research Workers, provided the mathematical proof that randomization was the only way to eliminate this form of bias.
- The MRC Streptomycin Trial of 1948 finally marked the official birth of the randomized clinical trial (RCT).
But – most importantly in the context of this blog – the trial could have established that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. Sadly, this fact is still being ignored by all homeopaths, most healthcare systems, and far too many consumers across the world.
References
Beecher, H. K. (1955). The Powerful Placebo. Journal of the American Medical Association, 159(17), 1602–1606. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1955.02960340022006
Cukaci, C., Freissmuth, M., Mann, C., Marti, J., & Sperl, V. (2020). Against all odds—the persistent popularity of homeopathy. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 132(9-10), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-020-01624-x Cited by: 99
Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver & Boyd. (Bodmer, 2003; Larson, 2008).
Jamison, J. C. (2016). The Entry of Randomized Assignment into the Social Sciences. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2739005 Cited by: 29
Stolberg, M. (2006). Inventing the randomized double-blind trial: the Nuremberg salt test of 1835. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(12), 642–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609901216
In the early 19th-century Austrian Empire, few figures held as much power over the physical and institutional health of the state as Dr. Andreas Joseph von Stifft (1760–1836) – after all, he was the personal physician to Emperor Franz I! He had risen from fairly modest origins, studied and trained at the University of Vienna, gained attention with a reform plan for the Josephinum, was then appointed second Stadtphysikus, and subsequently Hofarzt and imperial Leibarzt. As long‑serving director of medical studies and high state official, he reorganised curricula, promoted new disciplines and institutions, and helped shape public health policy in the Austrian Empire. In a nutshell: he was one of the most influencial doctors of his time.
His place in the history of medicine is well-documented. But his role in the history of homeopathy is less well-known: Stifft was homeopathy’s most formidable antagonist, employing his influence to orchestrate a near-total ban of the practice. His power was rooted in his commitment to the influencial Vienna Medical School and in the rigorously state-controlled medical hierarchy of the Austrian Empire. He considered the medical profession to be an important pillar of the conservative Restoration era. To Stifft, Samuel Hahnemann’s “Law of Similars” was therefore not merely a medical deviation; it was a threat to the scientific and administrative order he had spent building all his life.
Stifft’s most direct blow against homeopathy was the Imperial Decree of 1819 prohibiting the use of homeopathy altogether. He had managed to convince the Emperor that homeopathy was a “danger to the public” because it bypassed the well-established pharmacy system. By encouraging physicians to prepare their own remedies, homeopathy threatened the economic stability of apothecaries, who were vital tax-paying entities and strictly monitored by the state.
Under Stifft’s guidance, the decree framed homeopathy as:
- Scientifically Unsound: Stifft dismissed the concept of potentization (extreme dilution) as mystical nonsense.
- A Threat to Public Safety: He feared that patients would forgo “proven” treatments like bloodletting or mercury-based purges in favour of “sugar pills.”
- Administrative Chaos: If every doctor became their own pharmacist, the state’s ability to regulate drug quality and safety would collapse.
Stifft’s influence was so absolute that even high-ranking aristocrats who supported homeopathy had to seek treatments in secrecy. Practicing homeopathy could lead to the loss of a medical license or even imprisonment. Ultimately, Stifft represented the medical establishment’s attempt to use state power to control heathcare. Yet homeopathy’s survival among the nobility and its perceived success during epidemics eventually led to the repeal of his ban in 1837, only months after Stifft had died.
The 1831 cholera epidemic pitted the aggressive, often debilitating methods of the medical establishment against the placebos of homeopathy. The outcome of this comparison was so statistically undeniable that it effectively broke the political stranglehold Stifft had maintained over Austrian medicine.
When cholera first reached Europe in 1831, the medical establishment was helpless. The “heroic” treatments of the time – championed by Stifft – involved:
- Excessive bloodletting (often until the patient fainted).
- Strong purgatives (like Calomel/Mercury) to “flush out” the disease.
- Blistering agents applied to the skin.
In cholera characterised by rapid dehydration and exhaustion, these treatments proved to be more lethal than the disease itself. Mortality rates in regular hospitals often soared between 40% and 60%. In contrast, Samuel Hahnemann recommended remedies like highly diluted Camphor, Cuprum, and Veratrum. They had no effect, of course, but no effect was miles better that killing patients with ‘heroic medicine’. While Stifft had argued that homeopathy was a threat to “public safety,” the public could see that people were surviving in homeopathic wards while dying in state-run ones.
By 1837, just one year after Stifft’s death, Emperor Ferdinand I (the successor to Franz I) officially repealed the ban of homeopathy. The “miracle” of 1831 had proven that the state could no longer justify the suppression of a method that seemed to “do no harm” during a time when official medicine was doing plenty.
I find the story fascinating not least for one reason: the success of homeopathy is mainly due to the failures of conventional medicine. This was true at the time of Stifft, and it is true today when far too many conventional doctors fail to realize how important time, compassion and empathy (which homeopaths often have in spades) are for curing patients.
The regualtion of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) differs from country to country which can and does cause a lot of confusion. Here are very brief summaries of some of the countries that I know best:
UK Policy
The UK government adopts a cautious, evidence-based stance on SCAM, with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regulating herbal and homeopathic products for safety and quality, requiring accurate labelling without efficacy claims. Practitioner oversight is largely voluntary through bodies like the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC), while the NHS tends to fund mainly therapies demonstrating clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety per NICE guidelines. This approach, shaped by responses to inquiries like the 2000 House of Lords report, prioritizes patient protection, clinician discretion, and avoidance of unproven treatments to safeguard public resources, without mandating statutory registration for most SCAM practitioners.
US Policy
In the US, much of SCAM falls under the FDA’s oversight as dietary supplements via the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), mandating pre-market safety notification but exempting efficacy proof, with strict rules against disease-treatment claims. The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) at NIH funds some research into SCAM but does not regulate practice; Medicare and Medicaid offer no routine reimbursement, except for acupuncture as a treatment of chronic low back pain. Licensing varies by state—e.g., naturopaths are regulated in 25 states, without federal endorsement of unproven therapies to balance innovation and safety.
Germany Policy
Germany integrates SCAM into its statutory health insurance system, reimbursing popular therapies like homeopathy, herbalism, acupuncture, and anthroposophic medicine when prescribed by doctors, often via the “IGeL” self-pay catalog for non-standard uses. Non-physician practitioners require Heilpraktiker certification under federal law, while products follow the Medicines Act (AMG) with simplified registration for SCAM remedies. This tradition-rooted policy, supported by major insurers like TK and AOK, fosters a hybrid model that aims at combining some regulatory rigor with broad access for patient choice in primary care settings.
France Policy
France regulatesSCAM through the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines (ANSM), requiring marketing authorization for homeopathy and herbal products based on safety dossiers, though simplified for traditional use. Assurance Maladie reimburses select therapies at reduced rates, phasing out full coverage amid efficacy critiques, with practitioners either physicians or under voluntary syndicates like the Syndicat des Médecins Homéopathes. Post-2021 policy shifts emphasize evidence-based medicine, restricting public funding to proven interventions while allowing private practice, reflecting a tension between cultural acceptance and demands for evidence to justify taxpayer expense.
Austria Policy
Austria’s policy mirrors Germany’s, with social health insurers reimbursing SCAM therapies like acupuncture, homeopathy, osteopathy, and herbal medicine when delivered by licensed physicians under the Ärztegesetz, or voluntarily via the Austrian Umbrella Organization for Quality in Complementary Medicine (ÖZK). Austria does not allow ‘Heilpraktiker’ to practice. Products align with EU standards, including simplified authorizations for SCAM remedies through the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES). This integrative approach aims at prioritizing evidence from clinical studies for coverage decisions, supporting patient-centred care within universal healthcare while mandating professional qualifications to ensure safety, with ongoing evaluations balancing tradition and scientific validation.
What ever the regulatory details are, we should, I think, bear in mind something that I state whenever SCAM regulation is being discussed:
Even the most rigorous regulation of nonsense must result in nonsense.
Guest post by Ken McLeod
Over the years these pages and many others have reported on the risks of using ayahuasca and kambo, psychoactive substances used by shamans, alt-med practitioners, cranks and downright frauds for spiritual, social, and medicinal purposes. Those risks go so far as an excruciatingly painful death, which has led to bans and severe restrictions in many countries including Australia. [1]
The Australian ban issued by the Therapeutic Goods Administration followed the death of Natasha Lechner who had ingested kambo in 2019. The Coroner’s report of her death said in part ‘it appears to me that a number of vulnerable people are drawn to using Kambo in circumstances where those who administer it may hold themselves out as part of a healing profession, and yet lack training in basic first aid.’ [2]
One report here from 17 February 2024 [3] is that of the death of Jarrad Antonovich who died from a perforated oesophagus after consuming ayahuasca and kambo frog toxin in October 2021, at the age of 46, while attending the ‘Dreaming Arts festival.’ This was a six-day retreat at Arcoora in northern New South Wales, Australia. See our article for more detail on ayahuasca and kambo and how the festival organisers and attendees responded to Mr Antonovich’s worsening condition.
In that article we reported that the New South Wales State Coroner had commenced an inquest into Mr Antonovich’s death and we promised to keep you informed.
So, keeping you informed; the Inquest began in May 2023 and was suspended in May 2024 when the Coroner referred the matter to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for consideration of whether charges should be laid.[4]
After the DPP’s lengthy consideration, on 5 March 2026 NSW Police arrested and charged ‘Soulore Solaris’, 52, a self-described ‘….Counsellor who facilitates Ayahuasca ceremonies’ with manslaughter over the death of Jarrad Antonovich at the Dreaming Arts Festival.[5] He was granted conditional bail to face Lismore Local Court on March 30 2026.
The media reported at length on the manner of Mr Antonovich’s death and on the reactions of the festival attendees to his worsening condition. Those reactions, as we reported in our article of 17 February2024, included:
– While Jarrad Antonovich‘s condition worsened there was resistance to calling for an ambulance. An ambulance was finally called at 11.30pm and took an hour to arrive because of the remote location.
- -One ambulance officer reported that a female told them to “move away from Jarrad because it was affecting his aura” and no one told them he had consumed Kambo. [6]
- -The event organiser Soulore “Lore” Solaris described Jarrad Antonovich’s death as ‘beautiful.’ [7]
- -Fred Woller, the site manager at Arcoora, was unaware those running the event did not have any medical training. [8]
- -Soulore “Lore” Solaris said Mr Antonovich ”…. had good support, a couple of kinesiologists with him and they couldn’t find anything wrong.” [9]
- -Mr Antonovich “was surrounded by people who loved him and an Aboriginal elder called Uncle Andrew who was chanting sacred songs and calling the spirit out of his body” and “the koalas were making a special sound that is known to the elders when the land accepts a spirit”. [10]
As usual, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission conducted a thorough investigation and issued a comprehensive report. That is in their Statement of Decision on their imposing a Permanent Prohibition Order on ‘Soulore Solaris’. That Statement is so thorough, and their report of the events leading up to and following Mr Antonovich’s death are so harrowing, that readers should go that Statement. [11] How such an excruciating death can be described as ‘beautiful’ beats me.
What is not in the Statement is the mind-set of ‘Soulore Solaris,’ his gullible acolytes and festival attendees. The Courts will examine that of the accused, Solaris, but what I am interested in is how do all these others, ayahuasca and kambo practitioners and their supporters, come to the belief that they know more than all the health and medical experts and regulators in the world.
Surely they score 15 on the Richter Scale of ‘Dunning-Kreuger Effect.’
References
[1] https://tinyurl.com/4t6kpm35 and https://tinyurl.com/59mxe38m and NSW Coroners Report para 70 at https://tinyurl.com/2xxf26ac and ‘Shamanic Kambô Frog Hyponatremic Toxicity Leading to Brain Death: A Case Report’ Tran et al NLM https://tinyurl.com/59mxe38m
[2] Coroners Report paragraph 72 at https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/documents/findings/2024/Inquest_into_the_death_of_Natasha_Lechner.pdf
[3] https://edzardernst.com/2024/02/inquest-into-ayahuasca-and-kambo-death/
[4] ABC https://tinyurl.com/mr22yjah
[5] ABC https://tinyurl.com/bdz7nwty
[6] The Guardian http://tinyurl.com/328manjt
[7] ABC http://tinyurl.com/5n7ejydy
[8] The Guardian http://tinyurl.com/59wa3rmn
[9] ABC http://tinyurl.com/5n7ejydy
[10] ABC https://tinyurl.com/bdfb3y4y
[11] See their Statement of Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4ad4aju3. (The Statement of Decision gives a lot of useful material about these poisons and their ceremonies and the people who use them).
Yesterday Dana commented on this blog the following:
… And while you’re there, I am still waiting for anyone here to review and critique my newest contribution to the PubMed literature: Rockefeller, the Flexner Report, and the American Medical Association: The Contentious Relationship Between Conventional Medicine and Homeopathy in America: https://www.cureus.com/articles/370572-rockefeller-the-flexner-report-and-the-american-medical-association-the-contentious-relationship-between-conventional-medicine-and-homeopathy-in-america#!/
I am far less fond than Ullman of ChatGPT, but I am also somewhat reluctant to read a long Ullman article, as it might be full of nonsense. So, in order to decide whether or not to read it, I gave the AI platform the following task:
Give me a critique of this article: https://www.cureus.com/articles/370572-rockefeller-the-flexner-report-and-the-american-medical-association-the-contentious-relationship-between-conventional-medicine-and-homeopathy-in-america#!/
This is what I got:
Here is a critical evaluation of the article “Rockefeller, the Flexner Report, and the American Medical Association: The Contentious Relationship Between Conventional Medicine and Homeopathy in America” by Dana Ullman, published in *Cureus (2025). I’ll assess it across authorship, argumentation, evidence, historiography, and scientific credibility.
1. Author background and potential bias
A major issue with the article is conflict of interest and author positioning.
- The author is the founder of Homeopathic Educational Services, which sells homeopathic products and books.
- He has “written and lectured extensively” promoting homeopathy.
- The work was partially supported by a member of the Rockefeller family.
Why this matters
This doesn’t automatically invalidate the research, but it creates a strong ideological incentive to reinterpret history in favor of homeopathy.
The article therefore reads less like neutral scholarship and more like advocacy-driven revisionist history.
2. Journal quality and peer-review context
The article appears in Cureus, which is a legitimate but controversial open-access journal.
Characteristics of the journal:
- Rapid peer-review and publication model
- Author-pay publication structure
- Generally lower prestige than major medical journals
This doesn’t mean the article is wrong, but it lacks the historiographical scrutiny typical of top history-of-medicine journals.
3. Central thesis of the article
The article argues that the decline of homeopathy in the U.S. was primarily due to institutional power and political suppression, not scientific inferiority.
Specifically it claims:
- Rockefeller funding helped institutionalize “scientific medicine”.
- The Flexner Report collaborated with the American Medical Association to marginalize homeopathy.
- Philanthropic decisions influenced which medical schools survived.
- Homeopathy declined due to economic and institutional pressure, not lack of efficacy.
These claims mix reasonable historical observations with questionable conclusions.
4. Strengths of the article
A. Interesting archival material
The paper highlights private reports written by Frederick T. Gates for John D. Rockefeller criticizing homeopathy.
If authentic and correctly interpreted, these documents do add nuance to how philanthropy shaped medical education.
B. Correct emphasis on institutional power
The article correctly notes that the Flexner reforms reshaped medical education through:
- philanthropy
- licensing standards
- laboratory science requirements
This is well established in medical historiography.
C. Recognizes economic drivers
The discussion of:
- philanthropy
- advertising revenue of the AMA
- licensing standards
reflects legitimate sociological analysis of professionalization.
5. Major weaknesses
A. Selective and misleading historiography
The article frames the history as a conspiracy or coordinated suppression.
For example, it claims the AMA secretly collaborated with Abraham Flexner on the Flexner Report.
But historians generally agree that:
- Flexner consulted many physicians
- The AMA influenced reform
- Yet the report itself was not a covert anti-homeopathy project
The paper overinterprets routine professional collaboration as conspiracy.
B. False equivalence about efficacy
The paper suggests homeopathy declined mainly due to institutional power.
However it ignores a central issue:
homeopathy failed empirical testing.
Modern evidence shows:
- Homeopathic dilutions usually contain no active molecules.
- Clinical trials show results consistent with placebo.
This is a fundamental reason the medical community rejected it.
The article largely avoids engaging with modern evidence.
C. Use of outdated or fringe sources
Some references include:
- 19th-century homeopathic mortality comparisons
- polemical books such as Divided Legacy
These sources are often considered unreliable by historians because:
- hospital records were inconsistent
- patient populations differed
- treatments were not comparable
The paper treats them as strong evidence.
D. Misinterpretation of historical success claims
The article claims homeopathy had dramatically lower death rates during epidemics.
This is a classic homeopathy narrative, but historians have identified problems:
- reporting bias
- different patient severity
- incomplete hospital records
So these comparisons are not reliable evidence of effectiveness.
E. Presentism and ideological framing
The article repeatedly implies:
- “scientific medicine” succeeded due to money
- homeopathy was suppressed despite effectiveness
This framing ignores a key historical reality:
By the early 20th century:
- laboratory science
- bacteriology
- pharmacology
were producing replicable results, while homeopathy remained theoretically implausible.
6. Logical problems in the argument
The paper assumes:
“Homeopathy declined because institutions suppressed it.”
But the historical process is more likely:
- Medical science became more empirical.
- Universities shifted to laboratory medicine.
- Treatments were evaluated experimentally.
- Homeopathy failed to demonstrate efficacy.
Institutional change followed scientific change, not the reverse.
7. Historians’ mainstream interpretation
Most historians of medicine interpret the Flexner era as:
- professionalization of medicine
- elimination of poorly resourced schools
- transition to research-based medicine
It did reduce diversity in medical approaches, but not primarily to suppress homeopathy.
Instead it enforced:
- laboratory training
- clinical science
- standardized education
8. Overall assessment
Strengths
- Interesting archival angle
- Raises legitimate questions about philanthropy
- Highlights institutional power in medical history
Weaknesses
- Strong author bias
- Selective evidence
- Conspiracy framing
- Avoidance of modern scientific evidence
- Misleading historical comparisons
Bottom line
The article is best understood as advocacy-oriented revisionist history, not a neutral historical analysis.
It contains some useful historical details but should be read critically and alongside mainstream scholarship on medical education reform.
✅ In short:
The paper raises valid points about power and philanthropy in medicine but overstates the case that homeopathy was suppressed rather than scientifically discredited.
______________________
I thank ChatGPT for this analysis helping my decision:
I think I don’t need to read Ullman’s new paper!
The “Epstein Files” contain references to several healthcare professionals, medical researchers, and wellness advocates. Their mentions range from personal relationships and scientific funding to administrative roles. Here is a [probably incomplete] list:
Dr. Eva Andersson-Dubin (Physician): A former Miss Sweden and Epstein’s long-time girlfriend. Epstein reportedly funded her medical education. She and her husband, Glenn Dubin, remained part of Epstein’s inner circle for many years, though she has stated she was unaware of his criminal behaviour. Recent files highlighted a 2010 email where she invited Epstein to her home while her daughter was 15, despite Epstein being a registered sex offender at the time. She has consistently maintained she was unaware of the extent of his crimes.
Dr. Peter Attia (Physician and ‘longevity expert’): Frequently mentioned in recent document releases. Emails show him discussing longevity science and health optimization with Epstein. He has since expressed regret over the association, noting the difficulty of reconciling Epstein’s public persona with his private actions. Attia resigned as a CBS News contributor on February 23, 2026, and stepped down as Chief Science Officer of the company David. Newly released emails from 2016 were described as “crude” and “indefensible.” Attia issued a public apology, admitting to “poor judgment” while denying any criminal involvement.
Deepak Chopra (Integrative Medicine): Appears in calendars and email threads – see my previous post. Chopra is under fresh scrutiny following the February 23 disclosure of hundreds of messages from 2016–2019. Files reveal he facilitated a $25,000 donation from Epstein to a UC San Diego research lab. Chopra stated he only suggested Epstein visit the lab for scientific interest and expressed deep sadness for the victims.
Dr. George Church (Geneticist, Harvard): Met with Epstein to discuss funding for genetics research. He has since publicly apologized for his “poor judgment” in interacting with Epstein even after his 2008 conviction. While his name appeared in the 2026 “Epstein Library” regarding historical funding discussions, there have been no new reports of disciplinary action or fresh scandals beyond his previous 2019 apology.
Dr. Martin Nowak (Evolutionary Biologist, Harvard): As the director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, he received significant funding from Epstein. He was a primary point of contact for Epstein’s attempts to influence the Harvard scientific community. He has since been placed on paid administrative leave by Harvard. This follows “new information” in the DOJ files, including 8,000 mentions and records of Epstein’s staff arranging travel for Nowak and a graduate student to Epstein’s private island in 2014.
Dr. Eric Lander (Geneticist): Mentioned in 2012 logs regarding a potential gene-sequencing venture. Lander has clarified that he met Epstein briefly but did not accept funding or maintain a relationship. The 2026 release has not produced new evidence of a deeper relationship or accepted funding.
Dr. Dan Ariely (Psychologist/Author): Documents released in 2026 included emails where Ariely engaged in social banter with Epstein; one specific exchange involved a request for the contact information of a woman he met through Epstein. His name appeared 636 times in the 2026 files. Reports highlighted a 2012 email where he asked for the contact info of a “redhead” he met through Epstein. Further emails from 2014 show Ariely seeking funding for a film and travel tips. Ariely responded in the Duke Chronicle, stating his contact was infrequent and mostly logistical.
Dr. Steven Pinker (Cognitive Psychologist): His name appears in flight logs and email threads. Pinker explicitly and publicly distanced himself in July 2019, following Epstein’s federal indictment. At that time, he released statements to various media outlets expressing regret for any perceived associations and reiterating his long-standing personal dislike of Epstein.
Dr. Jonathan Haidt (Social Psychologist): Mentioned as an attendee or invitee to various intellectual salons and events where Epstein was present.
It is important to stress that a mention in the files does, of course, not necessarily imply any participation of or knowledge in criminal activities.
