anxiety
On the same day as we celebrated the defeat of the Nazis 81 years ago, a Holocaust denier has been elected to public office. In the Sefton Council UK local elections held this week, Jay Leslie Cooper, a Reform UK candidate for Bootle West ward, secured a seat with 705 votes. This outcome is remarkable due to Cooper’s prior social media posts denying the Holocaust. The ward, which elects three councillors, saw Cooper join two Labour victors, marking Reform’s local gain amid broader scrutiny of its candidate vetting.
Pre-election reporting by the Liverpool Echo exposed Cooper’s controversial statements. In one post, he described the Holocaust as a “hoax” and “propaganda,” claiming “there were not 6 million Jews in Europe at the time.” He also promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, labelling them part of a broader “hoax” narrative. The Echo detailed these views in an April 24 article titled “The vile views of this Bootle West Reform UK candidate,” noting Cooper’s online history as well as his candidacy announcement.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who himself has been accused of vile antisemitic statements made during adolescence, responded swiftly post-election saying that Cooper was “not welcome” in the party and adding, “with thousands of candidates some problems can slip through vetting.” Reform announced an investigation into the allegations, while Farage acknowledged the optics were poor in a YouTube clip: “Nigel Farage says new Merseyside councillor who said Holocaust was a hoax…”.
The episode highlights the issue of extremism in British politics. Labour figures condemned the events, including MP Steve Reed who tweeted: “A holocaust denier is now an elected councillor. Reform must act.” This case also highlights tensions in UK local elections, where voter priorities like cost-of-living can overshadow candidate scrutiny. Reform’s strong showing during the local elections raises worrying questions about Nazi ideologies in populist movements.
As of today, Cooper remains a councillor pending party action.
Sources
Reform candidate who said Holocaust was a hoax wins seat in local elections – Liverpool Echo
(20+) Reform WIN more than 80% of available seats – Liverpool Echo News | Facebook
Violence and abuse are no longer confined to the margins of society; they have permeated workplaces, public services, streets, homes, schools, online forums, places of worship, and even political discourse. From retail staff and healthcare workers to religious minorities and women trapped in abusive relationships, aggression has become disturbingly commonplace.
The evidence is difficult to dismiss. Retail workers are subjected to abuse in unprecedented numbers, NHS staff face rising levels of physical assault, and antisemitic incidents have reached alarming levels. The Community Security Trust has documented record levels of antisemitism in recent years, underscoring that hatred of Jews is not merely a relic of the Nazi past but a resurgent and escalating threat. Domestic abuse remains equally pervasive: while some forms of physical violence may have declined, coercive control, stalking, economic abuse, and digitally enabled harassment have proliferated.
A growing body of research points to broader social and political drivers. A decade of austerity under Conservative governments, coupled with institutional erosion, strained public services, ongoing geopolitical conflicts, and the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis, has generated widespread frustration. When people feel neglected or abandoned, that frustration can readily turn into aggression directed at those closest at hand: a nurse, a shop assistant, a neighbour, a partner, or a stranger who looks like a “foreigner”
An additional—and perhaps even more troubling—factor is the brutalisation of public discourse. Donald Trump’s rhetoric has normalised cruelty, humiliation, racism, and dehumanisation. It does not merely tolerate aggression; it performs and rewards it, thereby encouraging its replication. This erosion of basic norms of decency matters because language does not simply describe violence—it facilitates it. When political leaders frame opponents as enemies, casually invoke the destruction of entire societies, or treat facts as optional, they lower the threshold for violence well beyond the political arena. To assume that such influences remain confined to the United States is both naïve and demonstrably false; they reverberate globally.
This dynamic is particularly dangerous in relation to racism and its most virulent form, antisemitism. The recent rise in antisemitic abuse in the UK has not occurred in a vacuum. It has been fuelled by conspiratorial thinking, online radicalisation, the trivialisation of antisemitic rhetoric as mere “banter” by public figures such as Nigel Farage, and a broader climate in which prejudice is normalised, disseminated, and converted into aggression. The language of quasi-fascist politics echoes familiar racist tropes, weaponizing grievance and casting minorities as threats. The result is not only an increase in hatred but also a social environment in which violence becomes a logical extension of that rhetoric.
The persistence of this problem is exacerbated by our tendency to compartmentalise it, thereby obscuring its systemic nature. Antisemitism and racism are treated as “community issues,” retail abuse as an occupational hazard, and domestic violence as a private tragedy. Such fragmentation diminishes the perceived scale of the crisis and encourages piecemeal responses that fail to address its underlying causes. Governments may introduce targeted legislation, create new offences, or publish strategies for individual sectors, yet neglect the broader social conditions from which violence emerges. In reality, violence is not a collection of discrete pathologies but part of a continuum that often begins with discontent and culminates in aggression.
A culture that tolerates aggressive rhetoric, routine incivility, and online abuse fosters an emotional climate in which more serious forms of violence become easier to justify, excuse, and ultimately perpetrate. For this reason, the rise in racial and antisemitic attacks, the abuse of frontline workers, and the persistence of domestic violence should not be viewed as separate phenomena. They are manifestations of the same underlying pathology.
What we are witnessing is not a series of isolated epidemics of violence but a broader crisis of social cohesion. If that diagnosis is correct, then the response cannot be limited to stricter laws alone. It must also include education, the rebuilding of social institutions, a renewed emphasis on mutual responsibility, and a cultural shift that rejects the normalisation of aggression as a marker of strength.
Zack Polanski the current Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, previously worked as a professional “cognitive hypnotherapist”.
My own assessment of hypnotherapy states that is the use of a trance-like state (hypnosis) for therapeutic purposes. It can be traced back to ancient cultures, but more recently Anton Mesmer (1734–1815) introduced hypnotherapy into medicine. Initially Mesmer was highly successful—until a Royal Commission investigated his method of ‘animal magnetism’ and concluded its effects were entirely due to imagination. Hypnotherapy induces in many but not all individuals a state of deep relaxation that is potentially helpful in a range of conditions. Today, there are different schools of hypnotherapy, e.g. Ericksonian hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioural hypnotherapy, curative hypnotherapy. Various different healthcare professionals practise hypnotherapy, including doctors, dentists, psychologists and nurses. Hypnotherapy is used to treat many conditions or symptoms, from pain and stress to irritable bowel syndrome and drug dependency. The evidence from clinical trials is mixed. Most systematic reviews emphasise the often poor-quality of the primary studies, e.g.:
“Hypnosis reduces pain intensity and anxiety ratings in adults undergoing burn wound care. However, because of the limitations discussed, clinical recommendations are still premature.”
“Due to exploratory designs and high risk of bias, the effectiveness of hypnosis or hypnotherapy in stress reduction remains still unclear.”
“There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision.”
“We have not shown that hypnotherapy has a greater effect on six month quit rates than other interventions or no treatment. The effects of hypnotherapy on smoking cessation claimed by uncontrolled studies were not confirmed by analysis of randomised controlled trials.”
“Current research concerning the efficacy of hypnosis to relieve insomnia is lacking in key methodological elements”
Contrary to what is often claimed, hypnotherapy is not entirely free of adverse effects. It has been associated with the ‘false memory syndrome’ where unpleasant recollections that have never occurred are implanted into the patient’s brain. Hypnotherapy should not be used by patients who suffer from psychoses or personality disorders.
Polanski’s practice was based at a clinic on Harley Street, a London district renowned for private healthcare. His work focused on personal development, confidence building, and body-image issues. Polanski’s hypnotherapy career became a subject of public scrutiny due to a 2013 report by The Sun newspaper, in which it was claimed that during a consultation, Polanski offered to use hypnosis to facilitate breast enlargement. While Polanski later stated the piece was a “misleading” representation of his methods and intended as an experiment in internal self-image, recent investigative reporting has cast doubt on his subsequent narrative.
Although Polanski has frequently asserted that he apologized for the article “the day after” its publication in a BBC radio interview. This claim is, however, contested. In a 2013 interview with BBC Radio Humberside, Polanski reportedly discussed the technique and stated that “the evidence is growing” regarding its efficacy. Independent analysis of the clinical evidence-base for hypnotherapy fails to find good evidence regarding physical outcomes. Similarly, the evidence regarding the efficacy of hypnotherapy for personal development and confidence building is at best varied, with outcomes often depending on the specific application and individual context. My own assessment does not arrive at a positive conclusion.
Polanski has claimed he was misrepresented in the Sun article. Yet, he also wrote in a 2019 blog post that he did not believe the journalist had done a “bad job” or misrepresented him. In that same post, he noted that the coverage led to numerous inquiries from men seeking similar hypnotic treatments for other physical augmentations, all of which he stated he declined.
The “breast enlargement” claim has been frequently cited by political opponents and the media to question Polanski’s judgment and credibility. The story has resurfaced repeatedly during his political campaigns, including through confrontations from members of the public and intense scrutiny during his time as leader.
Polanski maintains that his background in hypnotherapy provides him with unique insights into mental health and communication, which he views as assets in his political role. I would add that, for many of the conditions for which it is promoted, hypnotherapy is not an evidence-based treatment.
Polanski has expressed regret for the “distraction” the story has caused his party, even as critics continue to challenge the consistency of his account regarding the original 2013 events.
Trump’s anti-science stance is well-known. What we did not know is how far he might venture in this direction. On Friday, April 24, 2026, the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of firing all sitting members of the National Science Board (NSB). This body acts as the governing board for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and serves as an independent advisory arm to the President and Congress on matters of national science policy.
While Trump does have the legal authority to appoint these members, they are historically granted staggered, six-year terms to ensure the board remains a non-partisan anchor for US research. The mass termination via email happened without a stated cause or immediate replacement plan. Trump’s action has raised significant concerns regarding the future of independent scientific funding and oversight in the United States.
The terminated members include:
- Dan Reed (Chair): A computer scientist and former Microsoft executive with deep expertise in high-performance computing and “big data” infrastructure.
- Victor R. McCrary (Vice Chair): A physical chemist and research VP at the University of the District of Columbia; highly regarded for his work in technology transfer and innovation.
- Willie E. May: The former Director of NIST and a leading expert in metrology (the science of measurement) and chemical standards.
- Arati Prabhakar: An applied physicist and former Director of DARPA; she is a specialist in transitioning high-risk research into commercial technologies.
- Dario Gil: Senior VP at IBM and Director of IBM Research; a global authority on quantum computing and the ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
- Keivan Stassun: An astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University known for his research on exoplanets and his efforts to increase diversity in the physical sciences.
- Julia Phillips: A materials scientist and retired VP of Sandia National Laboratories; an expert in thin-film research and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
- Roger Beachy: A biologist and pioneer in plant biotechnology; he was instrumental in developing the first genetically modified food crops (virus-resistant tomatoes).
- Marvi Matos Rodriguez: An aerospace engineer and executive specializing in fusion energy and advanced material systems for the energy sector.
- Sudarshan S. Babu: An engineering professor at the University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory; a top expert in advanced 3D printing and manufacturing.
- Aaron Dominguez: An experimental particle physicist and Provost at Catholic University of America who contributed to the Higgs boson discovery at CERN.
- Melvyn Huff: A mathematician and educator focused on the development of rigorous mathematics curricula and analytical modelling.
As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has the right to remove any official who is not explicitly protected by “for cause” language, ensuring the agency follows the administration’s policy goals. Nonetheless, this is a “norm-breaking” action that ignores the statutory design of staggered terms. It effectively turns an independent advisory body into a political one, which most likely will lead to legal challenges regarding the “independence” of the NSF.
Because the White House has failed to issue an official statement justifying the dismissals, the reason for this spectacular action remains speculative. Considering recent tensions between the administration and the board, as well as broader policy shifts, the dismissals are seen not primarily as a targeted attack on science itself, but more as a systematic effort to remove independent oversight and “unelected experts” who might challenge the Executive Branch’s policy directives.
The conclusion, I fear, is this:
in the US, democracy is now in its dying days.
It’s hard to believe: my very 1st paper was published exactly 50 years ago. I remember it like it was yesterdy! It was a busy time with lots of distractions: at the time, I was preparing for my finals at the medical school, playing in jazz clubs 2-4 times per week, and having a rather tumultous love-life. On top of all that, I had to finish the work on my doctorate which then produced the said article.
The experimental work on the doctorate did not at all progress as hoped. I needed blood samples from the poor women who were admitted with septic abortion, a very serious condition. More often than not, the poor patient was dead before I could get a blood sample. When finally the sample was complete and the results were in, I had to calculate the stats on my little HP pocket calculator. Once this was done, I had to draw graphs by hand and write up my thesis. 
The article for publication was then written mostly by my supervisor, Dr. Henner Graeff, who later became Professor and head of gynaecology at the TMU, Munich. He was a good supervisor, excellent scientict, and a very kind man. Sadly, he died in 2011; I owe him a lot.
For what it’s worth, here is the Medline-listed abstract of out paper:
Soluble fibrin monomer complexes (SFMC) were determined in patients with septic abortion (body temperatures of more than 39 degree C and/or chills without apparent signs of endotoxic shock), with infected abortion, with non-infected abortion and with normal pregnancies. Quantitative gel filtration (4% agarose) of beta-alanine precipitated plasma samples yielded the relative (percent of total fibrinogen content) and absolute (mg/100 ml plasma) amount of SFMC. The relative (5.5+/-1.4%, mean+/-SD) and absolute (21.5+/-8.6 mg/100 ml) amount of SFMC was significantly increased in patients with septic abortion compared to patients with normal pregnancies or non-infected abortion (p less than 0.001). Patients with infected abortion (p less than 0.001). Patients with infected abortion already revealed increased levels of SFMC (4.3+/-1.2%, 14.2+/-6.8 mg/100 ml) though their platelet count was still unaltered (infected abortion: 221+/-47 X 10(3) platelets/mm3; septic abortion; 99+/-36 X 10(3) platelets/mm3). The use of heparin in patients with septic abortion resulted in a decrease in SFMC. Chain characterization of SFMC frequently revealed a slight degradation of the alpha-chains probably due to fibrinolytic activity in vivo; gamma-gamma dimers representing intermolecular covalent bindings were not observed. The findings are in agreement with our former assumption that patients with septic abortion have a pronounced state of hypercoagulability.
PIP: The effect of septic abortion on plasma levels of soluble fibrin monomer complexes (SFMC) was studied by quantitative gel filtration (4% agarose) of beta-alanine precipitated plasma samples. Pregnant patients and those with infected or noninfected abortions were also studied. The relative and absolute amounts of SFMC were significantly (p less than .001) increased in cases of septic abortion compared with cases of normal pregnancy or uninfected abortion. Patients with infected abortion showed increased absolute and relative levels of SFMC, though not to the extent of septic abortion cases. However, unlike septic abortion cases, platelet count was not reduced. When heparin was used in septic abortion cases, SFMC decreased. A slight degradation of the alpha-chains of SFMC probably due to in vivo fibrinolytic activity was observed. The findings confirm that patients with septic abortion have a marked degree of hypercoagulability.
When I think back to all this, I am tempted to say that today’s medical students have it relatively easy – but, of course, that’s precisely what the old relics of every generation have always said.
I recently came across an aricle entitled “Reiki for Stress Relief” which I thought was excptional even for the often surprising literature on Reiki. Here is the abstract:
Reiki is Holistic. It isn’t just about the mental, or just about the physical, but both, and an overall restoration and improvement to you. And as we know, often the mental and physical are linked.
While the scientific understanding of Reiki’s effects on emotional blocks is still evolving, many individuals report subjective benefits, such as emotional release, relaxation, and a greater sense of inner peace, following Reiki sessions.
As the philosophy of Reiki is grounded in holistic medicine and thought, it is imperative to continue that tradition and also integrate other scientific -backed therapies such as the ones your doctor may suggest if you have a serious medical or mental condition. A balanced approach is key, and Reiki is possibly a powerful tool and philosophy that can be the missing key or complement to your current care regimen.
This is impressive! Don’t you just love how it’s ‘grounded in holistic thought’ while the scientific understanding is ‘still evolving’ ? That’s a very elegant way of admitting ‘we’re still waiting for the first piece of evidence’. And we all appreciate the disclaimer to actually see a real doctor as soon as we are truly ill.
The Canadian comedian Mayce Galoni had perhaps the best measure of Reiki when he did his stand-up bit about his nephew “becoming a Reiki master” at the age of 21: “My 21-year-old nephew is now a Reiki master. I didn’t even know you could be a master of anything at 21… Reiki is the only career where you can get paid for doing exactly what I do when I can’t find the TV remote.”
The news was hard to miss: the (s)ex-prince Andrew was arrested and questioned for 11 hours! At the heart of this story is, of couse, Andrew’s friendship with Epstein. While the royal family and their PR-teams are frantically busy in ‘damage limitation’, it might be worth remembering that Epstein was by no means their only ill-judged friendship. In fact, the list of individuals who were once close to the royal family – people they might now prefer us to forget about – is uncomfortably long. Here is a (probably incomplete) list in alphabetical order.
Bishop Peter Ball
Peter Ball, once a popular Anglican bishop, was later convicted of sexually abusing 18 young men. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) revealed that Charles maintained a friendly correspondence with Ball even after Ball accepted a police caution in 1993. Charles, the then-Prince of Wales, told a subsequent inquiry that he had been “deceived” into believing the allegations were minor “indiscretions.” However, critics point to letters in which Charles referred to Ball’s accuser as a “ghastly man.”
Bin Laden Family
In 2022, The Sunday Times revealed that Charles had accepted a £1 million donation for his charitable fund from Bakr and Shafiq bin Laden, half-brothers of Osama bin Laden. The meeting took place in 2013 at Clarence House. Although the bin Laden family had disowned Osama decades earlier, the optics of the heir to the throne accepting money associated with that name were widely criticized. Clarence House said that all due diligence had been carried out and that the funds were used entirely for charitable purposes.
Jeffrey Epstein
Ex-prince Andrew’s close friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein remains the most damaging of all the recent scandals for the monarchy. Introduced in 1999 by Ghislaine Maxwell, the two men stayed in contact even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. Epstein used his royal ties to project an image of respectability, while Andrew relied on him for social and business connections in the US.
According to Andrew, the friendship ended after Epstein’s 2019 arrest. The fallout continues to be immense even afrer Epstein’s death. Andrew’s disastrous Newsnight interview that same year exposed both his arrogance and lack of empathy for victims. In 2022, he was stripped of his military affiliations and the use of his “HRH” style, effectively reduced to private life as Andrew, Duke of York. More recently, Andrew lost the rest of his privileges and is now even under investigation for passing trade secrets to Epstein.
Gary Goldsmith
Gary Goldsmith, the Princess of Wales’s maternal uncle, has often proved a public relations headache for both the Middleton and Windsor families. Convicted in 2017 for assaulting his wife, Goldsmith has repeatedly courted media attention about his royal connections. His appearance on Celebrity Big Brother in 2024, where he discussed his royal ties, was widely seen as indiscreet and damaging to the Palace’s preference for privacy.
Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz
Saudi businessman Mahfouz bin Mahfouz was at the centre of the 2021 “cash-for-honours” controversy involving the then-Prince of Wales’s charitable foundation. Mahfouz donated more than £1.5 million to royal charities, including the restoration of Dumfries House. It was alleged that Charles’s aide Michael Fawcett offered to help secure a knighthood and British citizenship in return. The Metropolitan Police investigated but brought no charges; Fawcett resigned from his post as the foundation’s chief executive.
Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani (HBJ)
Between 2011 and 2015, Hamad bin Jassim, the former Prime Minister of Qatar, handed over €3 million in cash to the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund – reportedly in suitcases and Fortnum & Mason carrier bags. Though officials confirmed the money was immediately deposited and properly accounted for, the secretive nature of the exchanges sparked outrage and plenty of ridicule.
Tarek Obaid
Saudi businessman Tarek Obaid, co-founder of PetroSaudi, was implicated in the 1MDB corruption scandal, one of the largest financial fraud cases in history. Prince Andrew reportedly facilitated business introductions for Obaid while serving as the UK’s Special Representative for Trade and Investment (2001–2011). After details of the 1MDB scandal became public, Andrew’s involvement raised questions about the level of scrutiny applied to his overseas associations.
Jimmy Savile
Jimmy Savile’s connection with the Royal Family began in the late 1960s and expanded throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Far from being a casual acquaintance, Savile became a confidant and informal adviser to Charles who often consulted him on public relations, social issues, and even institutional management. Between 1986 and 1989, he reportedly shared draft speeches with Savile and sought his input on how to respond to crises. Savile was a frequent guest at royal residences and spent several Christmases at Sandringham. His 1990 knighthood, awarded for charitable fundraising, further entrenched his elite status. After his death in 2011, revelations about his serial sexual abuse of children led to intense public scrutiny of his royal access and prompted the Palace to overhaul its vetting process for celebrity advisers (see also my previous post on this subject).
Yang Tengbo (Chris Yang)
Yang Tengbo, also known as Chris Yang, was a businessman and director of the Hampton Group who played a key role in Prince Andrew’s “Pitch@Palace” enterprise initiative, particularly in China. He was treated as a close associate and attended Andrew’s 60th birthday celebration at Royal Lodge in 2020. In 2023, the Home Office barred Yang from entering the UK, citing evidence that he had engaged in “covert influence activity” on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front Work Department. Prince Andrew’s office stated he had severed contact with Yang following official advice.
_________________
Will the frantic ‘damage limitation’ operation of the ‘firm’ be enough to save the crown?
Watch this space.
If there’s one thing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knows how to do, it’s to turn public health into performance art. This year’s most expensive commercial—airing during Super Bowl LX—wasn’t about cars, beer, or even crypto. It was about butter. And beef tallow. The ad, titled “The Fight of My Life,” showed a misty‑eyed Mike Tyson reminiscing about his sister’s death, his own struggles with junk food, and his new “fight” for America’s health. Then came the punchline: “Processed Food Kills.” As the tear streaks dried, the nation was directed to Realfood.gov, the Kennedy‑backed campaign for dietary redemption.
It may have looked like a public‑service announcement but, in truth, it was a $10 million morality play written by the Make America Healthy Again Center, a nonprofit fundraising off the idea that kale and ketosis can save civilization. Tyson might have been in black‑and‑white, but Kennedy’s fingerprints—messianic, conspiratorial, and slightly greasy with butterfat—were everywhere.
The Realfood.gov guidelines mark Kennedy’s biggest policy move yet: an official endorsement of meat, lard, and “ancestral eating.” The new pyramid, or as Kennedy calls it “the Flipped Pyramid,” positions steak above grains—literally and figuratively. Sugar is treated like a biological weapon, while “seed oils” are branded the new nicotine. It’s a nutrition plan designed for the modern age—if the modern age were 1826. The rhetoric of “real food” has a populist ring, but the science behind it is as wobbly as a gelatin mold. Nowhere are there meaningful public‑health solutions for Americans who can’t afford grass‑fed ribeye or artisanal butter.
Then came the twist only 2026 could deliver: Kennedy’s nutrition crusade teamed up with Elon Musk’s AI, Grok, to help Americans “get real answers about real food.” What could possibly go wrong? Plenty, it turns out! Within days, Grok was trending for explaining which vegetables are safest for “alternative use,” prompting Musk to tweet that “vegetables are best enjoyed orally.” The government quietly deleted Grok’s name, a digital walk of shame across cyberspace. It was the perfect metaphor for Kennedy’s health vision: self‑righteous, tech‑obsessed, and totally incapable of predicting the obvious glitch.
When critics pointed out that 70% of the American food supply is ultra‑processed because people can’t afford fresh alternatives, Kennedy’s defenders shouted “Big Food propaganda.” When nutrition experts questioned the pseudoscientific obsession with “ancestral fats,” they were accused of suppressing the truth. The result is a movement that treats dietary policy like a crusade, replacing science with sanctimony and public health with personality cult. Kennedy isn’t reforming nutrition—he’s branding it.
In the end, the MAHA campaign isn’t really about saving Americans from junk food. It’s about saving Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from irrelevance. By mixing Super Bowl spectacle, Silicon Valley tech, and nostalgia for the “real food” of an imagined past, Kennedy has served up his own special dish: a reheated and stale serving of populist showmanship seasoned with pseudoscience and self‑importance.
Robert F Kennedy Jr. has recently claimed that “none of the vaccines that are given during the first 6 months of life have ever been tested for autism.” What, if anything, is true about this frequently used argument?
To answer this question, it might be helpful to have a quick look at how vaccine testing works and what the specific research on infants shows.
When a new vaccine is first tested, the primary goal is to ensure it is safe (i.e. it causes no immediate toxic reactions) and effective (i.e. it creates the desired immune response). Autism is usually not diagnosed until a child is at least 18–24 months old. Because clinical trials for infant vaccines follow babies for weeks or months—not years—they cannot detect autism during that initial testing phase. Vaccines, like practically all other medical product, are not tested for every possible long-term condition during its initial Phase 3 trials. Instead, long-term safety is monitored through ‘post-market surveillance’ and epidemiological investigations. Hundreds of large epidemiological studies have thus tested the link between infant vaccines and autism. Their results fail to show such a link.
In late 2025, the CDC’s “Autism and Vaccines” webpage was updated under RFK Jr.’s direction. The page now states that saying “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an “evidence-based claim” because studies have not “ruled out” the possibility. Yet the CDC should know what students of medicine/science learn in their first year: it is impossible to “prove” that something never happens. You can only prove that, after looking at millions of people, no link was found. Therefore, organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) insist that the 40+ high-quality studies involving over 5 million children provide “clear and unambiguous” evidence that there is no link between vaccinations and autism. It is high time, I feel, that RFKJr and his cultists stop misleading the public (and possibly themselves), undergo some basic science education and catch up with the facts
Convinced?
No?
Then perhaps you need to look at just one of the many studies mentioned above:
Objective: To evaluate the association between autism and the level of immunologic stimulation received from vaccines administered during the first 2 years of life.
Study design: We analyzed data from a case-control study conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex, and MCO. In addition to the broader category of ASD, we also evaluated autistic disorder and ASD with regression. ASD diagnoses were validated through standardized in-person evaluations. Exposure to total antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides from vaccines was determined by summing the antigen content of each vaccine received, as obtained from immunization registries and medical records. Potential confounding factors were ascertained from parent interviews and medical charts. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations between ASD outcomes and exposure to antigens in selected time periods.
Results: The aOR (95% CI) of ASD associated with each 25-unit increase in total antigen exposure was 0.999 (0.994-1.003) for cumulative exposure to age 3 months, 0.999 (0.997-1.001) for cumulative exposure to age 7 months, and 0.999 (0.998-1.001) for cumulative exposure to age 2 years. Similarly, no increased risk was found for autistic disorder or ASD with regression.
Conclusion: In this study of MCO members, increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines during the first 2 years of life was not related to the risk of developing an ASD.
Still not convinced?
Then, I’m afraid, I cannot help you and perhaps you need to go back to school.
The rapid expansion of mindfulness research has generated both enthusiasm and controversy regarding its actual clinical value. While meditation is often regarded as the central mechanism of mindfulness-based interventions, other components such as psychoeducation and informal practice may play an equally significant role in improving mental health outcomes.
This critical review examined the relative contributions of these elements to the therapeutic impact of mindfulness and clarifies the extent to which its effects are comparable to established treatments, particularly Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT).
Evidence from meta-analyses and high-quality trials indicated that mindfulness programs achieve moderate efficacy in reducing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and stress, but effect sizes are frequently inflated by the methodological limitations of the studies. Importantly, cognitive and emotional regulation skills, especially acceptance and non-judgment, appear to sustain long-term benefits more consistently than meditation alone.
The authors point out that high-quality studies tend to report smaller effect sizes for mindfulness meditation compared to studies with methodological limitations. This suggests that the benefits of it may have been overestimated in less robust research. However, even in well-controlled trials, meditation has shown moderate effects in reducing stress and anxiety, highlighting its potential therapeutic value while reinforcing the need for continued scrutiny of its long-term impact and mechanisms of action.
Mindfulness meditation is often regarded as the central component of mindfulness programs, yet its role should be critically examined in relation to other key elements. While some studies highlight meditation as a primary mechanism for short-term reductions in stress and anxiety, others suggest that cognitive and behavioral learning processes may play an equally or even more significant role in sustaining long-term benefits. This raises important questions about whether meditation alone is sufficient to drive mindfulness-related improvements or if its effects are dependent on complementary psychoeducational and cognitive strategies.
The authors concluded that the primary challenge in mindfulness-based interventions is determining which aspects are responsible for contributing to their effectiveness, and what mechanisms may be at work. While meditative practice, often associated with mindfulness training and stress reduction, has demonstrated benefits in alleviating symptoms of anxiety and depression, a critical question remains: is meditation alone sufficient to sustain these effects over time, or are additional cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors necessary? Understanding whether the long-term benefits of mindfulness stem from mindfulness meditation alone, or also from additional contributions from complementary psychological processes, is essential for refining its clinical applications and preventing its overgeneralization as a universal remedy.
Recent high-quality evidence continues to support the moderate but consistent clinical efficacy of MBIs across populations and settings. However, these benefits appear to depend not only on meditation but also on psychoeducational and cognitive–behavioral elements that promote acceptance, non-judgment, and emotional regulation. Such skills have shown comparable or even greater contributions to long-term mental health outcomes than formal meditation practice alone.
Although mindfulness-based interventions have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing anxiety and depression, direct comparisons with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) remain limited. Evidence from recent meta-analyses suggests that both approaches may yield comparable therapeutic outcomes, possibly through shared mechanisms involving cognitive restructuring and self-regulation. In contrast, findings on Transcendental Meditation (TM) are more heterogeneous and should be interpreted with caution, as TM differs conceptually and methodologically from mindfulness-based approaches. Nonetheless, further well-controlled, longitudinal research is required to clarify whether sustained meditation practice provides additional or distinct long-term advantages.
The psychoeducational components of mindfulness, which encourage present-moment awareness and a non-judgmental attitude, may play a significant role in reducing rumination—a core mechanism underlying anxiety and depression. This raises the question of whether long-term symptom improvement is primarily driven by the internalization of these cognitive and emotional strategies rather than by meditation itself.
Overall, mindfulness-based interventions show moderate clinical efficacy, with outcomes highly dependent on their specific components—meditation, psychoeducation, and informal practice. Cognitive and emotional regulation skills such as acceptance and non-judgment may be the most critical drivers of long-term well-being. Identifying how these elements interact to sustain psychological benefits is key for optimizing intervention design and ensuring mindfulness remains a scientifically grounded and contextually adaptable therapeutic tool.
I have often commented on what I see as the current hype around mindfulness. To me, the evidence suggests that it is not nearly as effective as its proponents are trying to make it out to be. Much of the observed outcomes are due to expectation and conditioning, in other words, they are caused by a placebo response. Yet, I think the authors of this review have a point, even though they seem not very good at making it concisely.
