MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

anxiety

1 2 3 12

Qi-gong is a branch of Traditional Chinese Medicine that employs meditation, exercise, deep breathing and other techniques with a view of strengthening the assumed life force ‘qi’ and thus improving health and prolong life. Qi-gong has ancient roots in China and has recently also become popular in other countries. There are several distinct forms of qi-gong which can be categorized into two main groups, internal qi-gong and external qi-gong. Internal qi-gong refers to a physical and mental training method for the cultivation of oneself to achieve optimal health in both mind and body. Internal qi-gong is not dissimilar to tai chi but it also employs the coordination of different breathing patterns and meditation. External qi-gong refers to a treatment where qi-gong practitioners direct their qi-energy to the patient with the intention to clear qi-blockages or balance the flow of qi within that patient. According to Taoist and Buddhist beliefs, qi-gong allows access to higher realms of awareness.

The assumptions of qi-gong are not scientifically plausible. But this does not stop enthusiasts to submit it to clinical trials.

A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest study was conducted with 231 adolescent girls aged 13-17 years suffering from premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Participants underwent a 4-week Qi Gong therapy program, with five 45-minute sessions weekly. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire and Modified PMS Scale, analysing pre- and post-intervention symptoms through descriptive statistics, paired t-tests and chi-square tests.

The intervention significantly reduced PMS severity, with mild PMS cases increasing from 48 (20.78%) to 166 (71.86%) post-intervention. Paired t-tests revealed a highly significant mean difference in PMS scores (T = 12.251, p < 0.001).

The authors concluded that Qi Gong therapy offers a holistic, non-invasive approach for managing PMS by addressing both physiological and emotional dimensions to the condition. Its ability to balance hormones, alleviate stress and improve overall quality of life makes it a valuable addition to PMS care. 

This study originated from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecological Nursing, Nootan college of Nursing, Sankalchand Patel university, Visnagar, Gujarat, India; the Department of Pediatric Nursing of the same institution and the Department of Psychiatric Nursing of the same institution. One would have hoped that its authors know better than to draw such conclusions from such a study. Here are some points of concern:

  • There is no reason why the treatment should be holistic.
  • The study did not have a control group; causal inferences are thus not waarranted.
  • The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment addressed either physiological or emotional dimensions.
  • The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment did anything to hormones.
  • The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment alleviated stress.
  • The study did not produce any evidence to show that the treatment improved quality of life.
  • I see no resason why the treatment should be promoted as a valuable addition to PMS care.
  • The PMS severity changed after the treatment and not necessarily because of it.
  • The true reasons it changed might be multifold, e.g.: placebo, regression towards the mean, social desirability.
  • Misleading the public by drawing far-reaching conclusions has the potential to do untold harm.

I have said it often, and it saddens me to have to say it again:

If the quality of research into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) does not improve dramatically, nobody can blame the public to not take SCAM seriously any more.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), America’s anti-vaxer in-chief, famously claimed his brain has been eaten by a worm. While this assumption is as ridiculous as the man himself, the actions and delusions of RFK Jr. seem almost to confirm that something fundamental must be wrong with his intellectual abilities.

Recently he said that he will be working to get cell phones out of schools. “Cell phones produce electric magnetic radiation, which has been shown to do neurological damage to kids when it’s around them all day … It’s also been shown to cause cellular damage and even cancer … Cell phone use and social media use on the cell phone has been directly connected with depression, poor performance in schools, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse … The states that are doing this have found that it is a much healthier environment when kids are not using cell phones in schools.”

There are two separate issues here:

  • Limiting children’s use of cell phones might be – for several (not health-related) reasons –  a reasonable idea.
  • The assumption that cell phones cause the type of damage that RFK Jr. claimed is nonsense.

There is plenty of evidence on the subject, some more reliable than others. The most reliable data do not support what RFK Jr. claims. Here are a few systematic reviews on the subject:

A recent systematic review included 63 aetiological articles, published between 1994 and 2022, with participants from 22 countries, reporting on 119 different E-O pairs. RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones (ever or regular use vs no or non-regular use) was not associated with an increased risk of glioma [meta-estimate of the relative risk (mRR) = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.89-1.13), meningioma (mRR = 0.92, 95 % CI = 0.82-1.02), acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.85-1.24), pituitary tumours (mRR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.61-1.06), salivary gland tumours (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.78-1.06), or paediatric (children, adolescents and young adults) brain tumours (mRR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.51), with variable degree of across-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0 %-62 %). There was no observable increase in mRRs for the most investigated neoplasms (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma) with increasing time since start (TSS) use of mobile phones, cumulative call time (CCT), or cumulative number of calls (CNC). Cordless phone use was not significantly associated with risks of glioma [mRR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.46; I2 = 74 %) meningioma, (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.70-1.18; I2 = 59 %), or acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.16; 95 % CI = 0.83-1.61; I2 = 63 %). Exposure from fixed-site transmitters (broadcasting antennas or base stations) was not associated with childhood leukaemia or paediatric brain tumour risks, independently of the level of the modelled RF exposure. Glioma risk was not significantly increased following occupational RF exposure (ever vs never), and no differences were detected between increasing categories of modelled cumulative exposure levels.

Another recent systematic review included 5 studies that reported analyses of data from 4 cohorts with 4639 participants consisting of 2808 adults and 1831 children across three countries (Australia, Singapore and Switzerland) conducted between 2006 and 2017. The main source of RF-EMF exposure was mobile (cell) phone use measured as calls per week or minutes per day. For mobile phone use in children, two studies (615 participants) that compared an increase in mobile phone use to a decrease or no change were included in meta-analyses. Learning and memory. There was little effect on accuracy (mean difference, MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02) or response time (MD -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02) on the one-back memory task; and accuracy (MD -0.02; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.00) or response time (MD -0.01; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.03) on the one card learning task (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). Executive function. There was little to no effect on the Stroop test for the time ratio ((B-A)/A) response (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04, very low certainty) or the time ratio ((D-C)/C) response (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05, very low certainty), with both tests measuring susceptibility to interference effects. Complex attention. There was little to no effect on detection task accuracy (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08), or response time (MD 0.02;95% CI 0.01 to 0.03), and little to no effect on identification task accuracy (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05) or response time (MD 0.00;95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). No other cognitive domains were investigated in children. A single study among elderly people provided very low certainty evidence that more frequent mobile phone use may have little to no effect on the odds of a decline in global cognitive function (odds ratio, OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58, 649 participants) or a decline in executive function (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.05, 146 participants), and may lead to a small, probably unimportant, reduction in the odds of a decline in complex attention (OR 0.67;95%CI 0.27 to 1.68, 159 participants) and a decline in learning and memory (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.99, 159 participants). An exposure-response relationship was not identified for any of the cognitive outcomes.

A 2022 systematic review concluded that the body of evidence allows no final conclusion on the question whether exposure to RF EMF from mobile communication devices poses a particular risk to children and adolescents.

That RFK Jr. spouts BS almost every time he opens his mouth should be an embarrassment to all US citizens. For the rest of the world, it is more than that. In fact, it is fast becoming a serious concern: sooner or later, his insane delusions will affect public health on a global scale!

The primary aim of this ‘mixed-methods, feasibility pilot study’ was to evaluate the feasibility of providing Reiki at a behavioral health clinic serving a low-income population. The secondary aim was to evaluate outcomes in terms of patients’ symptoms, emotions, and feelings before and after Reiki.
The study followed a pre-post experimental design. Reiki was offered to adult outpatients at a community behavioral health center in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients with a stable mental health diagnosis completed surveys before and after the Reiki intervention and provided qualitative feedback. Patients were asked to report their ratings of:
  • pain,
  • anxiety,
  • fatigue,
  • feelings (eg, happy, calm)

on 0- to 10-point numeric rating scales. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests.

Among 91 patients who completed a Reiki session during the study period, 74 (81%) were women. Major depressive disorder (71%), posttraumatic stress disorder (47%), and generalized anxiety disorder (43%) were the most common diagnoses. The study was feasible in terms of recruitment, retention, data quality, acceptability, and fidelity of the intervention. Patient ratings of pain, fatigue, anxiety, stress, sadness, and agitation were significantly lower, and ratings of happiness, energy levels, relaxation, and calmness were significantly higher after a single Reiki session.
The authors concluded that the results of this study suggest that Reiki is feasible and could be fit into the flow of clinical care in an outpatient behavioral health clinic. It improved positive emotions and feelings and decreased negative measures. Implementing Reiki in clinical practice should be further explored to improve mental health and well-being.
One might have expected better science from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester; in fact, this is not science at all; it’s pure pseudo-science! Here are some critical remarks:
  • What on earth is a ‘mixed-method, feasibility, pilot study’? A hallmark of pseudo-researchers seems to be that they think they can invent their own terminology.
  • There is no objective, validated outcome measure.
  • The conclusion that ‘Reiki is feasible‘ has been known and does not need to be tested any longer.
  • The conclusion that ‘Reiki improved positive emotions and feelings and decreased negative measures’ is false. As there was no control group, these improvements might have been caused by a whole lot of other things than Reiki – for instance, the extra attention, placebo effects, regression towards the mean or social desirability.
  • The conclusion that ‘implementing Reiki in clinical practice should be further explored to improve mental health and well-being’ is therefore not based on the data provided. In fact, as Reiki is an implausible esoteric nonsense, it is a promotion of wasting resources on utter BS.

Does it matter?

Why not let pseudo-scientists do what they do best: PSEUDO-SCIENCE?

I think it matters because:

  • Respectable institutions like the Mayo Clinic should not allow its reputation being destroyed by quackery.
  • The public should not be misled by charlatans.
  • Patients suffering from mental health problems deserve better.
  • Resources should not be wasted on pseudo-research.
  • ‘Academic journals like ‘Glob Adv Integr Med Health’ have a responsibility for what they publish.
  • ‘The ‘Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health‘ that seems to be behind this particular journal claim to be “the world’s most comprehensive community for advancing the practice of whole health, with leading expertise in research, clinical care, and education. By consolidating the top institutions in the integrative medicine space, all working in unison with a common goal, the Academic Consortium is the premier organizational home for champions of whole health. Together with over 86 highly esteemed member institutions from the U.S., Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico, our collective vision is to transform the healthcare system by promoting integrative medicine and health for all.” In view of the above, such statements are a mockery of the truth.

 

Thanks to Trump and his administration, US science is descending into chaos. Federal grants are being frozen, Scientists are getting fired and are leaving the US in droves, the NIH is under threat, crucial meetings are being postponed indefinitely and anti-science increasingly dominates the agenda of the White House.

US Universities are forced to cut back offers of admission for graduate students. Many have stopped hiring as the Trump administration threatens to take away federal money over their handling of a wide range of issues. Meanwhile, JD Vance does not miss an occasion to insult Europeans and to lecture us about free speach. The whole scenario is so utterly bizarre that it seems to originate from a 3rd class science fiction film.

Back in July 2024, when JD Vance first launched his attack on universities, I pointed out that fascist movements are known to be notoriously anti-intellectual and anti-science. Adolf Hitler said he regretted that his regime still had some need for its “intellectual classes,” otherwise, “one day we could, I don’t know, exterminate them or something.” And the ‘bon mot’, “when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun”, is attributed even to several of the top Nazis of the Third Reich.

At the time, my comparison to fascist regimes may have seemed exaggerated to some. Now it is fairly obvious to all but the most deluded that it was spot on. Those who are not afraid of what Trump and his sycophants are doing to science are simply not listening!

In response to the multiple threats to science, ‘Stand Up for Science‘ organized demonstrations of scientific communities throughout the US. The central event took place in Washington, D.C. on March 7, 2025, with approximately 2,000 participants in attendance. Parallel demonstrations occurred in more than 30 additional U.S. cities, with international solidarity events reported in several countries, including over 30 locations in France.

Several universities in Europe and elsewhere have also reacted; they are busy putting programmes in place to receive scientists who are fleeing the US. The consequence will inevitably be a significant ‘brain drain’ that will haunt the US for decades to come.

In 1993, I was appointed Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter. After settling in, I started to wonder what a suitable initial research project would be. Someone alerted me to some funds made available by the University for small projects – if I remember corretly, the amount was less that £30 000. Apparently, the grant was to be unbeaurocratic and, as I was newly appointed and everyone was wondering what I might get up to, I decided to go for it.

I sat down and recycled an idea that I had long wanted to test by never quite has the time to realize: a simple clinical trial where patients suffering from a common, benign condition [I think I chose insomnia] would be randomized into two groups. Both groups would be treated with a mild sleeping aid [I think I chose valarian]. The only difference between the two groups was that

  • the experimental group would get an empathetic consultation, while
  • the control group would get a normal one.

Thus the aim of the trial was to see whether empathy would impact on the outcome. My plan was that the prescribing clinician would be trained such that he/she could behave either normally or empathetically at will.

After I had submitted the proposal it was ‘peer reviewed’ by University staff. As it happened, my reviewer was John Tooke – he later became professor and medical director of the medical school at Exeter and later again moved to London and became the ‘Head of the School of Life & Medical Sciences’ at UCL but, at the time, he was just a doctor in the local hospital (if you are interested, there is more about Tooke in my memoir). Tooke’s assessment of my proposal was, to put it mildly, not positive and, of course, I never did get the funding. His critique explained that in the English language we call it ‘sympathy’ and not ’empathy’.

So, the study outlined above never got done, and every time I hear the word ’empathy’, I am reminded of this little anecdote. Like, for instance, a few days ago when I read that Elon Musk in his infinite wisdom had pronounced that: “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy”

I have to admit: this thought scares me!

The question I ask myself is this: to what extent does a neglect of emapthy contribute to the professional success of some people?

In any case, I am jolly glad that in the English language does have a word ’empathy’. I am even more profoundly glad that many people I know do have empathy. And I agree with Hannah Arendt who once wrote that “The death of human emapthy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism

 

 

PS

empathy = the ability to share someone else’s feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person’s situation

sympathy = (an expression of) understanding and care for someone else’s suffering

 

This story of a woman suffering from early-stage breast cancer is in many ways remarkable. After being diagnosed, she scheduled consultations with surgeons but, because it was the holiday season, appointments were delayed. She therefore decided to use the time proactively and arranged a consultation with ‘Dr. T,’ an integrative medical doctor. She wanted to explore if supplements could support her health while I waited for treatment.

Dr. T mentioned another holistic practitioner, ‘Dr. D’, who specialized in thermography, a thermal imaging technique that maps blood flow on the breast’s surface. Dr. D had allegedly “healed” a breast cancer patient without surgery, radiation or chemotherapy. The patient was intrigued and made an appointment with Dr. D. and had a thermogram.

This involved nine thermal images taken with a special camera, followed by a “cold challenge” where the patient submerged her hands in icy water. She was told that healthy tissue cools in sync with the brain’s signals, while cancerous tumors show up as hot spots.

Discussing the findings with the patient, Dr, D. explained that the thermography had not detected a breast cancer; it it had only revealed “extra heat” in the area. This, the doctor explained, would put her in the “high-risk” category. He explained further that cancer was caused by “too many COVID vaccines,” and therefore the patient shouldn’t get another. “What about the fact that my mom had the same type of cancer, in the same breast, at the same age?” She asked in disbelief. “No, it’s definitely the vaccines,” the doctor insisted, before pivoting to his next pitch: Super Mineral Water, a product he sold in his clinic, which he claimed could “detox” the patient’s body and possibly help cure her.

At this point, the patient, who happened to be a science writer by profession, was horrified and embarrassed — not just by the quackery, but also by her own naiveté for walking into this mess. She took the only sensible action possible: she grabbed her things and left as quickly as she could.

____________________

When we discuss so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), we regularly forget alternative diagnostic methods. Thermography might be counted as one of them, particularly when it is used for diagnosing cancer. A systematic review of the evidence concluded that currently there is not sufficient evidence to support the use of thermography in breast cancer screening, nor is there sufficient evidence to show that thermography provides benefit to patients as an adjunctive tool to mammography or to suspicious clinical findings in diagnosing breast cancer.

The danger with alternative diagnostic methods are mainly twofold.

  1. False positive diagnoses (FPD): this means a clinician uses an alternative diagnostic technique and concludes that the patient is suffering from disease xy, while she is, in fact, healthy. FPDs usually prompt lengthy treatments. They thus cause harm by firstly prompting worries and secondly expence.
  2. False negative diagnoses (FND): this means a clinician uses an alternative diagnostic technique and concludes that the patient is healthy, while she is, in fact, ill. FNDs prompt the patient to no treat her condition in a timely fashion. This can cause untold harm, in extreme cases even death.

In the case above, Dr, D. tried to combine the two options. He issued a FND that could have cost the patient’s life. Simultaneously, he made a FPD that was aimed at filling his pocket.

The story has fortunately a happy ending. After escaping the quack doctor, the patient received proper treatment and made a full recovery.

Reflexology (originally called ‘zone therapy’ by its inventor) is a manual technique where pressure is applied to the sole of the patient’s foot (and sometimes also other areas such as the hands or ears). It must be differentiated from a simple foot massage that is agreeable but makes no therapeutic claims beyond relaxation. Reflexology is said to have its roots in ancient cultures. Its current popularity goes back to the US doctor William Fitzgerald (1872–1942) who did some research in the early 1900s and thought to have discovered that the human body is divided into 10 zones each of which is represented on the sole of the foot.

Reflexologists thus drew maps of the sole of the foot where all the body’s organs are depicted. Numerous such maps have been published and, embarrassingly, they do not all agree with each other as to the location of our organs on the sole of our feet. By massaging specific zones which are assumed to be connected to specific organs, reflexologists believe to positively influence the function of these organs. Reflexology is mostly used as a therapy, but some therapists also claim they can diagnose health problems through feeling tender or gritty areas on the sole of the foot which, they claim, correspond to specific organs.

The assumptions made by reflexologists contradict our current knowledge of anatomy and physiology and are thus not biologically plausible. Reflexology has been submitted to clinical trials in numerous different conditions. A systematic review concluded that “the best clinical evidence does not demonstrate convincingly reflexology to be an effective treatment for any medical condition.” Recent review tend to be more positive suggestin, for instance, that foot reflexology produced significant improvements in sleep disturbances , or that reflexology may provide additional nonpharmacotherapy intervention for adults suffering from depression, anxiety, or sleep disturbance. However, due to the poor quality of most of the primary studies, such statements must be interpreted with caution.
[references see my book]

This randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of foot reflexology on the sexual function of lactating women. It was conducted in selected health centers of Isfahan in 2022 on 64 lactating women (32 women in each group of intervention and control). The samples were selected using the convenience sampling method and were randomly divided into two groups using a random number table. Each participant in the intervention group received 10 sessions of foot reflexology, and each session lasted for 50 minutes (25 minutes for each foot) and was held every three days. The female sexual function index (FSFI) questionnaire was completed by all participants before the intervention and four weeks after the end of the treatment period. The control group received routine care and completed the questionnaire before the intervention and 9 weeks later. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20 and independent/paired t-tests.

Results showed that the subjects of the two groups were homogeneous in demographic and fertility characteristics at the beginning of the study. The total mean score of sexual function in the intervention group was 20.36 ± 4.16 before the intervention and 28.05 ± 2.89 after the intervention. In the control group, this score was 20.51 ± 3.75 before the intervention and 20.54 ± 3.71 nine weeks after it. A comparison of the total mean score of sexual function and dimensions showed a significant difference between the two groups four weeks after the intervention ( <0.001). In the intervention group, significant changes were observed in the total mean score of sexual function and its dimensions four weeks after the intervention compared to before the intervention. However, in the control group, there were no significant changes in this score and its dimensions nine weeks later compared to before the intervention.

The authors concluded that lactating women in the two groups did not have a desirable sexual function before the intervention. However, foot reflexology in the present study could effectively improve the sexual function of women in the reflexology group. Therefore, it is recommended to employ foot reflexology therapy in health centers to help lactating women restore their sexual function.

This conclusion might hold if we assume that firstly reflexology was a plausibe therapy (which it is not, see above) and secondly postulated that patient-blinding and placebo effects (features that the present trial did not have) are unimportant in such a study. Yet, the latter assumption cannot be true. A total of 500 minutes of a foot massage must surely prompt a placebo response! Therefore, the notion that the reflexology treatment caused the observed outcomes is unwarranted – almost certainly the effects were mainly due to placebo.

So, what we have here is a hugely over-optimistic conclusion, something we all long got used to in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But far worse, in my view, is the fact that the authors do not even leave it at that. They also issue a gerneral and far-reaching recommendation for foot reflexology as a means for restoring sexual function to lactating women.

This is not just poor science, it is stupid and irresponsible!

Many individuals with depression explore so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), including spiritual healing. This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to assess the feasibility of a study that integrated spiritual healing with standard care versus standard care alone for adults with moderate depression.
28 adult patients with depression were randomized to receive either:
  • spiritual healing alongside usual care (n = 14);
  • or usual care alone (n = 14).

The healing sessions were highly individualized. The healer positioned her hands over various areas of the client’s body (head, chest, knee, hip, and feet) intending to adjust the energy flow within the client. Outcomes were measured by changes in the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care (BDI) scores pre-and post-intervention. Participants’ experiences with spiritual healing were explored through a process evaluation.

The BDI scores captured significant changes in depression severity, with the intervention group showing the greatest mean difference from baseline (BDI 23.0) to week 16 (BDI 14.9), compared to the control group which worsened from baseline (BDI 24.2) to week 16 (BDI 26.7). In addition, participants expressed satisfaction with the study components and procedures, and all completed the questionnaires at designated times. Recruiting from clinical practice proved suboptimal due to conflicts with primary care physicians’ schedules leading to fewer participants in the study than planned. Measures to minimize loss to follow-up were effective.
The authors concluded that spiritual healing may be a beneficial option for individuals who suffer from moderate depression. The participants in this study were satisfied with the spiritual healing treatment, and adherence rates were high. Future RCTs should consider recruiting participants through different avenues to enhance research feasibility to alleviate the burden on family care physicians’ offices.
Where to start?
Here are just some of the most obvious concerns that render the conclusion nonsensical and false:
  1. A pilot study is for testing the feasibility and not for calculating outcomes.
  2. In any case, this was not a pilot study but an effectiveness trial that failed because of recruitment difficulties.
  3. As it followed the infamous ‘A+B versus B’ design that produces a positive result even for a placebo treatment, the study (if we disregard the small sample size and take its findings seriously) merely shows that placebo can be effective.
  4. The conclusion is therefore wrong and should read: spiritual healing causes a placebo response in individuals who suffer from moderate depression.
  5. The National Research Center of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), Faculty of Health Science, Institute of Community Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway which seems to be the main institution responsible for this nonsense should be questioned how they justify spending money and time on such pseudoscience.

On 27 January, the EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. issued this MEMORANDUM FOR HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES:

… Financial assistance should be dedicated to advancing Administration priorities, focusing taxpayer dollars to advance a stronger and safer America, eliminating the financial burden of inflation for citizens, unleashing American energy and manufacturing, ending “wokeness” and the weaponization of government, promoting efficiency in government, and Making America Healthy Again. The use of Federal resources to advance Marxist equity, transgenderism, and green new deal social engineering policies is a waste of taxpayer dollars that does not improve the day-to-day lives of those we serve…

each agency must complete a comprehensive analysis of all of their Federal financial assistance programs to identify programs, projects, and activities that may be implicated by any of the President’s executive orders. In the interim, to the extent permissible under applicable law, Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal…

The memorandum effectively froze funding for research, and understandably sent shockwaves through the US science community. A federal judge in Washington temporarily blocked the order yesterday, but it had already caused panic. Many US universities already advised faculty members against spending federal grant dollars on travel, new research projects, equipment etc., and the National Science Foundation canceled all of its grant review panels.

Some legal experts argue that Trump’s order is not legal: The US Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to appropriate funds. While lawyers are now trying to sort out the mess Trump created, scientists are spooked because, should Trump get away with his idiocy, the harm to science not just in the US but worldwide would simply be immeasurable.

I am not a religious person, but that does not mean that I disagree with everything the clergy says or does. On the contrary, I recently found myself even in full agreement.

On 21 January, during the inaugural prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral, the Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde pleaded with Donald Trump to show Christian mercy to immigrants and members of the LGBT+ community. She spoke gently with empathy and, I feel, with good reason.

Later that day, in an interview with CNN, Budde said she wanted to remind everyone of the people “who are frightened in our country … They are our fellow human beings who have been portrayed in the harshest of lights. I wanted to counter as gently as I could with a reminder of their humanity and place in our wider community. I wanted to say there is room for mercy and a broader compassion.”

The Republican Mike Collins stated on social media: “The person giving this sermon should be added to the deportation list“. Trump was also unimpressed. In a social media post, Trump wrote:

“The so-called Bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a Radical Left hard line Trump hater. She brought her church into the World of polictics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart. She failed to mention the large number of illegal migrants that came into our Country and killed people. Many were deposited from jails and mental institutions. It is a giant crime wave that is taking place in the USA. Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was a very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology!”

Why do I think that the bishop had good reason to speak out? Within hours of his inauguration, Trump signed executive orders undoing much of President Biden’s legacy. They included:

  • the initiative towards mass deportation of migrants;
  • a ban on immigration raids in schools, churches, hospitals, relief centres, and “places where children gather”;
  • the initiative that children born in the US without a parent who is a lawful resident or US citizen are no longer automatically extended US citizenship;
  • the rolling back of the US climate commitments;
  • the order to start drilling for oil in the Arctic and offshore;
  • the declaration that his administration would recognise only male and female sexes;
  • the initiative towards leaving the WHO;
  • a pardon for the 1500 criminals who stormed the US Capitol in January 2021, some serving sentences as long as 18 years for violence and assault.

Pope Francis has described the plans for deportations as a “disgrace”. I would go further and add that Trump is a disgraceful, grave danger to the entire world.

1 2 3 12
Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories