bias
Recently, I was trying to find out more about the “HUFELAND MEDAILLE” – not the one once created by the GDR, but the award given yearly since the mid-1950s by the German “Zentralverband der Ärzte für Naturheilverfahren und Regulationsmedizin e.V.” (ZAEN, Association for Doctors of Natural and Regulatory Medicine). This is when I came across Dr. Michael M. Hadulla who describes himself as follows:
– Specialist in pediatrics and adolescent medicine
– Doctor of homeopathy
– Acupuncture
– Depth psychology
– Authorized continuing education provider for homeopathy in Baden-Württemberg
– Former vice president of the ZAEN
– Author of numerous books
On Hadulla’s website I also found an article about me (!) which is too good to be missed:
Letter to the editor on a highly polemical interview by Edzard Ernst (Spiegel 2022)
Edzard Ernst’s interview, “Enemies of the Enlightenment,” was not good: It reveals a mood of disappointment, malice, and downright hostility toward homeopathy and the entire English royal family, especially King Charles III. This disappointment may be rooted in E. Ernst’s biography, which had already suffered a shipwreck at the Munich Naturheilklinik Wien (Natural Healing Clinic in Vienna), as well as in his academic failure in England, when Prince Charles forced him into early retirement.
E. Ernst now presents himself as a victim of an esoteric-spiritual homeopathic conspiracy. But the opposite is true: the pharmacological-chemical industry is powerful, even overwhelmingly powerful. As a pediatrician, also with experience in intensive care medicine, I can truly draw up a list of victims myself: from thalidomide (a highly praised sleeping pill at the time) in the 1950s with its horrific deformities, to X-ray contrast agents as the cause of numerous cancers, to the increasing antibiotic resistance (approximately 50,000 sepsis deaths each year in Germany), to the long-term side effects of cortisone, to the serious side effects of psychotropic drugs, some of which create “zombie” creatures.
‘I am sick of the constant, tedious repetition of evidence and statistics: For 200 years now, we homeopaths have had well-documented case studies with names and diagnoses, doctor’s letters, and laboratory results that clearly demonstrate that well-chosen homeopathic remedies heal. This is evidence in the Latin sense: evidere = immediately evident. E. Ernst’s definition of science is also extremely poor: Science is more than just linear-causal reasoning; it’s more comprehensive: “We explain nature; we understand humanity.” Not only did the renowned philosopher Gadamer receive homeopathic treatment throughout his life; an atomic physicist also finds his way to my practice.
E. Ernst is being crude when he claims that Samuel Hahnemann invented homeopathy. No, no, and no again. Samuel Hahnemann discovered it in the millennia-old knowledge of the Greeks, Romans, Hebrews, and Arabs. He knew all these languages, compiled this knowledge, and compiled it into the first pharmacist’s lexicon, entirely in the spirit of the Enlightenment. Speaking of the Enlightenment: Kant’s “Sapere aude” stood above the St. Afra Gymnasium as a motto for Samuel Hahnemann, too. The fact that Samuel Hahnemann, with his homeopathy, made the leap from the crudely material to the spiritually informative has been debated for over 200 years.
Bibliography
- Hadulla, MM; Pfeil, TA: Children’s drawings in homeopathy. The house-tree-human test and the animal family as valuable tools for identifying the entirety of symptoms. ZKH, 2009.
- Hadulla, MM; Richter, O.: Anamnesis, a highly important but forgotten art. Zaenmagazin, 2023.
- Hadulla, MM; Richter, O.: Parents, Child, Neurosis: Conflict Resolution in the Family – Homeopathy and Psychotherapy. Physicians’ Journal for Natural Healing, 2004.
- Hadulla, MM; Richter, O.: Tobacco and Vertigo (=Dizziness) of the Most Severe Form. An Odyssey to “Aeolus,” the Lord of the Winds. ZKH, 2018.
- Hadulla, MM: Mandragora. Gallbladder colic and headaches. AHZ, 2021.
- Hadulla, MM: Stramonium in its Ambivalence. Between Violence and Religious Longing. AHZ, 2022.
- Hadulla, M. M: Homeopathic treatment of Covid-19 supported by naturopathic measures. Zaenmagazin, 2023.
- Hadulla, MM: Carcinosinum and Medorrhinum in the treatment of sleep disorders – Two case studies. AHZ, 2008.
- Meyer, CB: A Case in Case Study Methodology. Field Methods, Sage Publications, 2001.
- Hadulla, MM; Richter, O.; Fattahi, N.: 101 Case Histories from Practice for Practice. ML Verlag, Uelzen 1999.
- Kiene, H.; Hamre, HJ; Martin, D.: Homeopathy also has a legitimate place in science-based medicine. Ärzte Zeitung, 2024.
As far as I know, DER SPIEGEL never did publish this ‘letter’.
What a pity!
I love everything about it; I adore Hadulla’s ability to re-invent history, to freely fabricate my CV, to produce nonsense on stilts, etc. (in case you waant to compare this ‘homeopathic truth’ to reality, I recommend looking at this, this or this). The Hadulla letter is unintended humor allopathic doses!
Perhaps the most adorable detail of them all is the appended bibliography. Evidently, Hadulla has published heaps of similar nonsense in journals that are even more irrelevant than his texts!
A real-time search of recent posts on X (conducred by Grok) identify accounts actively spreading pro-homeopathy misinformation, focusing on claims that lack scientific backing or contradict established evidence (e.g., homeopathy curing serious diseases when studies show it’s no better than placebo).
Here’s what Gook found:
No single account stands out as the definitive “most” prolific spreader of pro-homeopathy misinformation, but several accounts consistently promote homeopathy with misleading claims. These include wellness influencers, alternative health practitioners, and accounts tied to homeopathic organizations. For example:
JoetteCalabrese
(associated with the Academy of Practical Homeopathy) promotes “Practical Homeopathy®” as a “powerful, empowering, healing gift” for treating family ailments, claiming it’s a viable alternative to conventional medicine. Posts often frame homeopathy as a solution to distrust in corporate medicine, which can mislead followers into bypassing evidence-based treatments. Her posts, like those from April 2023, emphasize homeopathy’s efficacy without citing rigorous studies, relying on anecdotes and emotional appeals.
HomeopathyPlus
and similar accounts share frequent posts about homeopathy treating conditions like colds, allergies, or even chronic illnesses, often without acknowledging the lack of scientific evidence. These accounts amplify unverified success stories or cite outdated studies, contributing to misinformation.
AYUSHMinistry
(India’s Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy) has been linked to misleading claims, like promoting Arsenicum album 30 as a COVID-19 preventive in 2020, which was debunked by the WHO and lacked evidence. While not the most active recently, its influence as an official body amplifies the reach of such claims.
The volume of misinformation is diffuse rather than dominated by one account. Wellness influencers and practitioners tend to post more frequently (daily or weekly), while organizational accounts like AYUSH have broader reach due to their authority. A 2022 study noted that positive homeopathy posts on Twitter (now X) often outnumber negative ones, with traction tied to communities distrustful of mainstream medicine, like those aligned with certain political or religious views.
That private accounts of homeopathy enthusiasts promote misinformation is not surprising. That the account of a ministry does the same is, I think, surprising (or would scandalous be the better term?). Perhaps someone could remind the people behind AYUSH that they have a responsibility towards public health and that the propagation of misinformation is a dereliction of their duties?
It often seems to me that, in the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), we encounter more misinformation than information. Misinformation poses a serious threat to the proper functioning of societies worldwide. But who is particularly prone to fall for it?
In this study, an international team of psychologists wanted to find out. 66,242 individuals from 24 countries completed the Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST) and indicated their self-perceived misinformation discernment ability. Multilevel modelling showed that the following types of induliduals were more vulnerable to misinformation:
- Generation Z,
- non-male,
- less educated,
- more conservative individuals.
While individuals’ confidence in detecting misinformation was generally associated with better actual discernment, the degree to which perceived ability matched actual ability varied across subgroups. Whereas women were especially accurate in assessing their ability, extreme conservatives’ perceived ability showed little relation to their actual misinformation discernment. Across all generations, Gen Z perceived their misinformation discernment ability most accurately, despite performing worst on the test.
The authors concluded that their analyses provide the first systematic and holistic profile of misinformation susceptibility.
The authors also point out that their sample provides the most global and geographically diverse portrait of misinformation susceptibility to date. They note that, due to the fact that the MIST test is currently only available in English, their findings skew towards participants from English-speaking countries and participants with high English language proficiency. Therefore, the current findings may not be generalizable to cultures or populations whose first language is not English. An important next step would thus be translating and revalidating the MIST into other languages to further examine the cultural generalizability and specificity of misinformation susceptibility.
PS
I am glad to report that I meet none of the above criteria for being particularly prone to misinformation!
Suffering from ‘burnout’? Mindfulness, yoga, and acupuncture are just three of a plethora of practices that are said to improve ‘burnout’. While there is growing interest in these practices, many employers remain sceptical about their benefits and are hesitant to invest resources in implementing them.
This meta-analysis examined the impact of these practices on burnout and explored potential moderators. The authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting in the identification of eligible studies. Overall, 21 studies were included (8 on mindfulness, 7 on yoga, and 6 on acupuncture), all involving independent samples, with a total of 1,364 participants.
The meta-analytic results showed that all three therapeutic practices have consistent and beneficial effects on reducing burnout. Furthermore, moderation analyses indicated that mindfulness interventions conducted within the work schedule have a significant reduction in burnout, while acupuncture interventions with between 4 or 8 weeks (the more weeks, the better) also reduced burnout. However, no significant moderation effect was observed for yoga interventions.
The authors concluded that overall, the findings provide insights into the effectiveness of these complementary practices in reducing burnout and highlight the need for further research in this area.
As a co-author of the ‘PRISMA’ guidelines, I can assure you that this review did not follow them. I can also assure you that the primary studies are mostly of poor quality and that therefore the evidence for the three therapies is far from conclusive.
But this is not what I want to dwell upon today. I prefer to focus on the diagnosis of ‘burnout‘.
‘Burnout’ may be popular (Medline listed ~300 articles on the subject in the year 2000, while last year the figure had increased to well over 3 000), but it is not a formal diagnosis in clinical frameworks like the DSM-5 or ICD-10. Despite this undeniable fact, ‘burnout’ is now widely used as a psychological and occupational syndrome. ‘Burnout’ is characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment, often related to chronic workplace stress. The WHO includes ‘burnout’ in the ICD-11 (code QD85) as an occupational phenomenon, not a medical condition. It is supposed to be quantifiable through tools like the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). ‘Burnout’ overlaps with conditions like depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorders.
‘Burnout’ might thus not even be a distinct entity; symptoms like fatigue or low motivation are certainly not unique. Often ‘burnout’ seems merely to be a buzzword for dysstress. Its validity hinges on self-reporting and clinician judgment and there is no way to confirm anyone’s subjective notion of suffering from ‘burnout’.In other words, people who are a bit stressed and fed up with their work situation can self-diagnose to be ‘burnout’ victims, and nobody can prove them to be wrong.
In view of all this, I ask myself, who would be surprised that mindfulness, yoga, and acupuncture can be shown (in studies of dubious methodological quality) to be effective for ‘burnout’?
It is not hard to predict that many more studies will follow and show that virtually every so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) under the sun is helpful for ‘burnout’ (already, Medline lists ~700 papers on ‘alternative medicine for burnout’). After all, nothing is easier to cure than a condition that did not exist in the first place!
We all have seen scenes where Trump is dozing or falling asleep in the middle of something important and in front of running cameras. We also have seen situations where he seems to be as high as a kite, rambling endlessly, repeating utter nonsense out of context without being able to stop himself.
Such contrasting behavior might suggest that, on occasion, he is on some kind of stimulant, while, in other situations, when he did not take drugs, he has a hard time staying awake. But is there any evidence for a drug habit?
I asked “GROK” and received the following answer:
There is no definitive evidence that Donald Trump takes specific stimulants. Allegations have circulated, particularly about Adderall, based on anecdotal claims from former associates like Noel Casler, who worked on The Apprentice, and observations of Trump’s behavior, such as sniffing during 2016 debates or dilated pupils in certain speeches. These claims suggest possible use of stimulants like Adderall or phentermine, often tied to speculation about ADHD or energy boosts. A 2024 Pentagon report also noted the Trump White House Medical Unit dispensed large quantities of modafinil (Provigil) and other controlled substances with lax oversight, but it didn’t confirm Trump’s personal use.
On the other hand, Trump has denied drug use, and his physician during his first term, Dr. Ronny Jackson, reported no signs of substance abuse. Some argue behaviors attributed to stimulants could reflect ADHD or stress rather than drug use. Without medical records or direct confirmation, these remain unverified allegations. Always approach such claims with skepticism, as they often stem from political biases or incomplete information.
Yes, I do always approach such claims with skepticism, thank you! But perhaps one should also have skepticism toward Trumps own affirmations of being ‘clean’. I have seen too many druggies who swore to me to not take anything except the occasional Aspirin.
And what about Dr. Ronny Jackson? Is he trustworthy?
Let’s ask GROK again.
Here is the (slightly shortened) answer:
Assessing Dr. Ronny Jackson’s trustworthiness requires examining his professional history, allegations against him, and public sentiment, while critically evaluating available evidence. Below is a balanced analysis based on verified information, avoiding reliance on unconfirmed claims.
Background
Dr. Ronny Jackson is a former U.S. Navy rear admiral, White House physician (2006–2018), and current U.S. Representative for Texas’s 13th Congressional District (since 2021). He served as Physician to the President under Barack Obama and Donald Trump, earning praise for his medical service, including a clean bill of health for Trump in 2018. His military awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal and Legion of Merit, reflecting a distinguished career.
Allegations and Controversies
Jackson’s trustworthiness has been questioned due to several incidents:
1 2018 VA Nomination and Misconduct Allegations:
- In March 2018, Trump nominated Jackson for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The nomination was withdrawn in April 2018 amid allegations of professional misconduct, including:
- Excessive Drinking: Reports alleged Jackson consumed alcohol on duty, including during overseas trips, and once knocked on a female subordinate’s hotel room door while intoxicated, creating discomfort.
- Overprescribing Medication: Nicknamed “Candyman,” Jackson was accused of dispensing drugs like Ambien and Provigil without proper prescriptions, earning a reputation for lax medical practices.
- Hostile Work Environment: A 2021 Pentagon Inspector General report found Jackson berated subordinates, made sexual and denigrating comments, and fostered a workplace of “fear and intimidation.” Only 13 of 60 interviewed colleagues reported positive experiences.
- Response: Jackson denied these allegations, calling them “false and fabricated” and a “political hit job” tied to his Trump support. He claimed pride in his work environment and rejected accusations of on-duty drinking or sexual impropriety.
- Outcome: The Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs postponed his confirmation hearing, and Jackson withdrew, citing the controversy as a distraction.
2 Navy Demotion (2022):
- In July 2022, the Navy demoted Jackson from rear admiral to captain, citing “substantiated allegations” from the 2018 Inspector General investigation, including inappropriate behavior and drinking on duty.
- Jackson continued to present himself as an admiral on his congressional website until at least March 2024, raising questions about transparency.
3 Medical License Status:
- Jackson’s Virginia medical license expired in May 2020, and his Florida license, listed as “military active,” is only valid for practice in military facilities and expires in January 2025. He has no Texas medical license.
- Posts on X have claimed Jackson is “unlicensed” and question his credibility as a medical source, particularly regarding his 2024 memo on Trump’s health after an assassination attempt. These posts reflect public skepticism but are not conclusive evidence.
4 2023 Rodeo Incident:
- In July 2023, Jackson was briefly detained at a Texas rodeo while attempting to assist a teenager having a seizure. Body camera footage showed him arguing with officers, using profanity, and claiming to be an ER doctor, despite his expired licenses. A sheriff’s report suggested he appeared intoxicated, which Jackson denied. He apologized for his language but defended his intent to help.
- Texas’s Good Samaritan law protects unlicensed individuals providing emergency aid, so his actions were legally permissible, but the incident fueled perceptions of impulsiveness or unprofessionalism.
Critical Analysis
- Credibility Concerns:
- The Pentagon Inspector General’s report, based on 78 witnesses, provides substantial evidence of inappropriate behavior, undermining Jackson’s claims of a positive work environment. The Navy’s demotion further validates these findings, as it is a rare and serious action.
- His continued use of the “admiral” title post-demotion suggests a lack of transparency, potentially eroding trust.
- The “Candyman” allegations and lax drug-dispensing practices, if true, indicate a breach of medical ethics, though frequent or occasional drinking on duty, even if not conclusively proven, raises questions about judgment in high-stakes roles.
- Medical License: While Jackson’s expired licenses do not legally prevent him from offering emergency aid (as at the rodeo), his claim of being a “board-certified ER doctor” in 2023 could mislead the public about his current medical authority. His Florida license’s “military active” status limits its scope, and his lack of a Texas license may reduce confidence in his medical pronouncements, such as the 2024 Trump memo.
- Political Bias: Jackson’s strong alignment with Trump may color perceptions of his trustworthiness. Supporters view him as a victim of partisan attacks, while critics see his denials as deflecting accountability. The Inspector General’s nonpartisan investigation, however, lends weight to the allegations.
- Public Sentiment: Posts on X reflect distrust among some users, labeling Jackson as “unreliable” or “not credible” due to his license status and past allegations. These sentiments, while not evidence, highlight a polarized public view.
Conclusion
Dr. Ronny Jackson’s trustworthiness is a mixed picture. His distinguished military and medical career, including service to three presidents, demonstrates competence and dedication. However, substantiated allegations of workplace misconduct, drinking on duty, and lax medical practices, corroborated by a Pentagon investigation and Navy demotion, significantly damage his credibility. His expired medical licenses and misrepresentation of his naval rank further erode trust, particularly in medical or official contexts. While Jackson denies wrongdoing and enjoys support from Trump and his constituents, the weight of evidence suggests caution in relying on his judgment or statements without corroboration.
For a definitive assessment, primary sources like the full Pentagon Inspector General report or court records (if any) would be ideal, but the available evidence leans against unqualified trust. If you’re evaluating Jackson’s trustworthiness for a specific context (e.g., medical advice, political representation), I can tailor the analysis further—let me know!
_________________________
So, does Trump take drugs?
We cannot know for sure.
But in a way, it would be better (for the world and for our chances to survive the next 4 years) than the other explanation of his often extremely eratic behavior: dementia.
In this article, two German researchers investigated the persuasions of homeopathy users:
(a) whether and how homeopathy should be used to treat serious conditions like cancer,
(b) the role of science and the relevance of scientific evidence regarding homeopathy.
Using latent profile analysis (N = 225), they identified subgroups of homeopathy users that differ in their normative beliefs about the use of homeopathy in serious conditions:
- supporters of standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions (~9%),
- people who are open toward standalone use (~43%),
- supporters of supplementary use (~35%),
- supporters of both supplementary use and non-use in serious conditions (~13%).
The findings indicate that subgroups that supported or were open toward the standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions held the most negative attitudes toward science.
The authors concluded that despite being a minority in our sample, homeopathy users that support the standalone use of homeopathy to treat serious conditions like cancer clearly exist. These individuals are at risk of harming their own (and others’) health. In combination with the large subgroup of undecided users that emerged in our sample, these findings highlight the need for interventions aimed at preventing harmful homeopathy use. Most likely, before factual communication of scientific evidence can have a persuasive effect, negative attitudes toward science among homeopathy users need to be targeted.
The authors pont out that their findings highlight the need for interventions aimed at preventing the use of homeopathy in the treatment of serious conditions. Such interventions could take place at both a structural (e.g. legal restrictions or stricter sanctions for practitioners that conduct or allow such treatments, better financing of evidence-based medicine so that doctors have more time for their patients) and individual level (e.g. educational efforts targeting homeopathy users). Regarding the latter, it needs to be kept in mind that both subgroups most in need of interventions (i.e. the subgroups supporting or being open toward the standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions) indicated the most negative attitudes toward science: They cared the least about scientific evidence regarding homeopathy and perceived science to be the most corrupt and limited. Given these characteristics, simply informing members of these subgroups about the scientific consensus regarding homeopathy—as is typically recommended in the psychological literature to address beliefs in conflict with scientific evidence —might not be an effective strategy. Instead, interventions might first have to create a shared understanding of the importance and value of scientific evidence and evidence-based treatments. This might entail, for example, a more foundational education about how the scientific method works, and why it is superior to, for example, relying on personal experiences and observations in making causal judgments.
WISE WORDS INDEED!
We probably have all heard these claims:
- Conventional doctors under-rate the importance of nutrition for our health.
- They know nothing about the subject.
- Medical schools completely ignore the importance of nutrition.
- Only practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) know enough about nutrition.
I have to admit that such cliches have gone on my nerves for a very long time. So, let me try to address them and put the record straight:
- This claim is an unwarranted generalization. Some doctors may indeed under-rate the importance of nutrition for our health. Many doctors under-rate many important issues in many situations. Some doctors are negligent or unmotivated or poorly traained. Some doctors are just bad! If your doctor falls in this category, please change doctor!
- Another unwarranted generalization. Most doctors know a lot about nutrition and are competent to advise you what is best for your needs.
- I have taught at 5 medical schools in 3 countries and can assure you that medical schools do not ignore the importance of nutrition. It is true that there may not be dedicated courses for students on this subject. Arguably, that would not be productive. Nutrition is usually taught in the context of the disease with which it can effectively help. For instance, the treatment and prevention of diabetes needs a specific diet, so do several liver, kidney, heart, skin conditions, obesity, various forms of malnutrition, etc. In our experience, this approach to medical education is more productive than a dedicated course on nutrition.
- It is true that many SCAM practitioners pride themselves to be competent in advising their patients about nutrition. It is also true that most give such advice. And it is allso true that, according to my experience, much of this advice is nonsense, not based on good evidence or even counter-productive. I am not aware of reliable data on this specific point and therefore added the caveat “in my experience”. If anyone knows about solid evidence on this point, please let me know.
The ex-influencer and recent nominee for US Surgeon General, Casey Means, is one of those who endlessly bemoans that medical schools are negligent about nutrition. She wrote, for instance: “I took zero nutrition courses in medical school.” To this, I cannot resist replying that
- firstly, she should have paid more attention when nutrition was dealt with in the context of all the other courses that she hopefully did attend,
- secondly she could (and should) have booked herself on one of the many postgraduate courses, particularly if she was aware that she had missed important sections of her learning schedule.
Let me conclude my rant with stating:
- Nutrition is an essental part of evidence-based medicine.
- Almost all the evidence on the subject originates from mainstream research.
- Nutritional advice from SCAM practitioners, influencers, etc. is often not evidence-based.
When Harald Walach et al first published it, I did report about their paper entitled “Treatment effects in pharmacological clinical randomized controlled trials are mainly due to placebo”. The objective of their analysis was to determine what contributes to the size of the placebo effect in clinical drug trials by meta-regressions of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials.
Walach and his co-authors concluded that the high correlation of r= .73 between placebo improvement and treatment improvement rates is genuine and not explainable by study or disease characteristics. We conclude from our data that the placebo-effect is the major driver of treatment effects in clinical trials that alone explains 69% of the variance. This leaves only limited space for effects due to pharmacological substances. Context effects are more important than pharmacological ones in the conditions studied by us.
At the time, I called this SLOPPY SCIENCE and explained:
- The authors lumped together trials of various drugs as though they are a homogeneous entity in terms of effectiveness beyond placebo (which, of course, they are not).
- The placebo response is the measured improvement of a patient in a clinical trial after receiving a sham treatment. Yet, the authors claim “the placebo response in clinical trials has four components: regression to the mean (RTM), measurement artefacts, natural tendency (NT) of the disease, and the genuine placebo effect”. This is nonsense, and I even fear that the authors know it.
- The paper’s ‘highlight’ claims that contextual factors like expectations and doctor-patient interactions drive healing. Yet, these phenomena are seperate from the placebo-effect and were not the subject of this investigation.
- Correlation is not causation.
Now RETRACTION WATCH have published interesting news about Walach’s article:
… Stephen Rhodes, a researcher at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center in Ohio, criticized the study in a letter to the editor in February, citing a “number of errors that lead to some sweeping conclusions.” In the letter, Rhodes wrote those leaps “reflect a misunderstanding of what a ‘treatment effect’ is,” noting that in a placebo-controlled trial, the measure can’t be “due to placebo.”
We asked Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a sleuth and research fellow at the University of Wollongong in Australia, to take a look at the paper. Meyerowitz-Katz called the work “bizarre” and told us the results seem to indicate “simply being in a clinical trial is the main component of healing.” The studies included in the analysis had “very low average treatment effects,” meaning they didn’t show a huge benefit for the interventions tested. The clinical trials included had another issue: one was retracted in 2018 after journal editors realized all its participants had been enrolled and randomized on the same day. “I do not think that a meta-analysis which includes work retracted nearly a decade ago can be relied on as evidence,” Meyerowitz-Katz said. When he attempted to replicate the methods, Meyerowitz-Katz wasn’t able to do so. The researchers claimed to have taken one of the formulas from a previous paper; however, the referenced paper used a regression model, and the formula was not listed, he said. Meyerowitz-Katz also pointed out a potential undisclosed conflict of interest. Walach runs the Change Health Science Institute, which promotes “homeopathy and various COVID-19 conspiracy theories,” he said.
Walach, in response to Meyerowitz-Katz’s comments, called the term “conspiracy theory” “an analytically void terminology, because it is dependent on the political mainstream view, which is in turn dependent on political power.” He did not respond to any of Meyerowitz-Katz’s critiques of the paper.
Meyerowitz-Katz touched on many of the same issues Rhodes had raised in his letter. Rhodes questioned if the results really suggest there is “limited space for effects due to pharmacological substances,” quoting from the original paper. He also wrote by weighing clinical trials by study size rather than standard deviation, the researchers are “throwing information away.”
The researchers responded to Rhodes in their own letter to the editor, conceding they should have used “treatment response” rather than “treatment effect” in the title “to avoid confusion.” The authors also argued they had demonstrated “whenever a treatment is very effective, so is the improvement in the placebo group and vice versa.”
Retraction Watch sent questions to the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, including the above critiques of the paper. Andrea Tricco, the co-editor-in-chief of the publication, told us the journal was investigating the concerns and was “treating this as a matter of highest urgency.” Stefan Schmidt, the corresponding author of the paper, told us his group has been asked to give “a detailed reply within 30 days.”
PS
I think it is only fair to add this note by RETRACTION WATCH:
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on X or Bluesky, like us on Facebook, follow us on LinkedIn, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Donald Trump has recently made a range of nominations/appointments in the US health sector. They will influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US and beyond. It therefore reasonable to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and evaluate their suitability for these leadership roles.
In part 1 of this series, I discussed Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dave Weldon; in part 2, we evaluated Janette Nesheiwat and Casey Means; in part 3, I looked at Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz. In the 4th and last part of the series, I discuss Jay Bhattacharya and Gustav Chiarello.
Jay Bhattacharya – Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Jay Bhattacharya is a physician and health economist. He also is a critic of Fauci and a co-author of the infamous Great Barrington Declaration (2020), which advocated for “herd immunity” over lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. His new role would involve overseeing the NIH’s $48 billion budget. According to Kennedy’s plan, he would redirect much of the NIH funding toward alternative health approaches.
As Bhattacharya has not managed large research institutions, his ability to lead NIH effectively might be limited. His economic perspective could prioritize cost-effective research, and his opposition to lockdowns may appeal to those skeptical of them.
In summary, Bhattacharya’s academic credentials make him a fairly reasonable choice for NIH director, but his unreasonable pandemic views and lack of large-scale administrative experience raise concerns about his ability to lead the NIH effectively and without major disruptions.
Gustav Chiarello – Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (HHS)
Gustav Chiarello has degrees in economics, public policy, and law. He is/was the Senior Special Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, former attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and advisor to FTC Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen during Trump’s first term. He has legal and policy experience as well as skills for overseeing HHS financial resources. However, his limited healthcare-specific experience may hinder his ability to address complex HHS budgeting challenges.
In summary, Chiarello appears competent for the new role. However, his lack of healthcare expertise may prove to be a drawback.
Context and concerns
A recurring theme across the mentioned nominees and appointments is their stance against vaccinations or public health mandates. This is already eroding trust in immunization programs, increasing infection rates and creating risks to public health. Another common concern is the lack experience of most individuals in managing large bureaucracies. This is likely lead to inefficiencies or mismanagement in crucial healthcare agencies.
The nominees/appointments will drive deregulation, reduce Medicaid funding and shift NIH research priorities toward alternative health. These changes are unlikely to generate improvements in US public health. Policies driven by misinformation or ideological agendas will lead to increased uninsured rates, reduced research funding, and public health setbacks.
The group’s competence is undermined by a pattern of vaccine skepticism, promotion of pseudoscience and limited administrative experience. The risks of disrupting scientific research, immunization programs, and healthcare access are real and substantial.
Because my expertise and understanding is limited to medicine, my discussions were confinded to the realm of healthcare. But Trump appointed people in all areas, of course. My limited expertise tells me that some of these have been even more disasterous than the ones we evaluated here. I have little doubt that Trump is about to change the world – and I fear that this will not be to the better.
Donald Trump has recently made a range of nominations/appointments in the US health sector. They will influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US and beyond. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their suitability for these leadership roles.
In part 1 of this series, I discussed Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dave Weldon. In part 2 we evaluated Janette Nesheiwat and Casey Means. Today, I will look at Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz.
Marty Makary – Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Marty Makary is a surgical oncologist at the Johns Hopkins University, member of the National Academy of Medicine, and author of two bestsellers. He also has published over 250 scientific papers and led World Health Organization patient safety initiatives. In addition, he has expertise in researching medical errors and healthcare transparency. Since his FDA role would involve regulating food safety, drugs, and vaccines, such experience can be relevant.
Yet, there are concerns: Makary opposed both COVID-19 vaccine mandates and child masking. He wrongly predicted herd immunity by April 2021. In an interview with CBS News, he said that the FDA was looking at updated coronavirus vaccines and there was “a bit of a public trust problem.” He has no experience running a large regulatory agency like the FDA.
In summary, Makary is among the more qualified of Trump’s nominees. However, his lack of regulatory experience and controversial views on aspects of the COVID-pandemic are reasons for concern.
Mehmet Oz – Administrator of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
Mehmet Oz has already featured several times on my blog, e.g.:
- Donald Trump nominated SCAM promoter, Mehmet Oz, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
- Columbia University cut ties with Dr. Mehmet Oz … or did they?
- Quackery promoter, Dr. Mehmet Oz, is running for the U.S. Senate
By training, Oz is a cardiothoracic surgeon and might thus be seem by some to be solidly grounded in evidence based medicine. However, as a talk show host and media personality, he promoted (for good money) every form of medical quackery under the sun. His wife is a Reiki healer, and it can be assumed that she influenced his descent into overt charlatanism. Rational thinkers view Oz as one of America’s foremost purveyor of medical nonsense.
Furthermore, Oz has no experience in managing large government agencies such as Medicare and Medicaid which, after all, serve over 100 million Americans. He therefore is a significant liability for the CMS, which administers a substantial portion of the federal budget.
In summary, Oz’s clinical expertise is dated and overshadowed by his lack of administrative experience as well as his long history of promoting (and profitting from) dangerous quackery. His appointment is likely to be a disaster and not in the interest of the US public.
