bias
I must admit that, in recent months, I neglected my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME. As my regular readers will know, this is an assembly of extraordinary researchers – extraordinary in the sense that they all have been busy studying so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) without ever managing to publish a single negative result.
At present, the ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME includes the following 27 men and women:
- Miek Jong (homeopathy, Norway)
- Josef M Schmid (homeopathy, Germany)
- Meinhard Simon (homeopathy, Germany)
- Richard C. Niemtzow (acupuncture, US)
- Helmut Kiene (anthroposophical medicine, Germany)
- Helge Franke (osteopathy, Germany)
- Tery Oleson (acupressure , US)
- Jorge Vas (acupuncture, Spain)
- Wane Jonas (homeopathy, US)
- Harald Walach (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Andreas Michalsen ( various SCAMs, Germany)
- Jennifer Jacobs (homeopath, US)
- Jenise Pellow (homeopath, South Africa)
- Adrian White (acupuncturist, UK)
- Michael Frass (homeopath, Austria)
- Jens Behnke (research officer, Germany)
- John Weeks (editor of JCAM, US)
- Deepak Chopra (entrepreneur, US)
- Cheryl Hawk (chiropractor, US)
- David Peters (osteopathy, homeopathy, UK)
- Nicola Robinson (TCM, UK)
- Peter Fisher (homeopathy, UK)
- Simon Mills (herbal medicine, UK)
- Gustav Dobos (various SCAMs, Germany)
- Claudia Witt (homeopathy, Germany/Switzerland)
- George Lewith (acupuncture, UK)
- John Licciardone (osteopathy, US)
Today, an article by Stephanie Benz published in L’Express caught my attention. It mentions a man who might well qualify as a candidate for my illustre assembly. As it is in French, let me summarise it for you.
The article focusses on the bixarre actions of Professor Julien Nizard. He is the vice-dean of Nantes University’s medical school, who stands accused of abusing his academic standing to promote SCAM, while suppressing scientific critique. Serving as an institutional shield for pseudo-sciences, Nizard uses his leadership at the university and within the Collège Universitaire de Médecine Intégrative et Thérapies Complémentaires (CUMIC) to introduce SCAM into official medical training.
The article explicitly notes Nizard’s defense, instruction, or validation of several SCAM practices, including:
- Acupuncture
- Hypnosis / Hypnotherapy
- Osteopathy
- Socio-aesthetic care (often used as part of supportive cancer care)
- Auriculotherapy (ear acupuncture)
- Various other “soft medicines” and non-medicinal interventions (INMs) lacking robust, peer-reviewed clinical proof.
To shield his SCAM programs from internal dissent, Nizard has allegedly turned to unusual administrative and legal pressures against critical faculty members and advocates of evidence-based medicine, like the Collectif No Fakemed. His tactics are said to include:
- Legal Threats and Institutional Action: Nizard has reportedly threatened to drag critical colleagues before the National Order of Physicians (CNOM) or pursue defamation lawsuits to silence them.
- Professional Hostility: Internal whistleblowers and professors attempting to uphold strict evidence-based standards report facing a hostile work environment, administrative stonewalling, and explicit professional pressure meant to damage their academic standing if they publicly oppose his pseudo-scientific initiatives.
- Political Manipulation: He uses behind-the-scenes lobbying at the ministerial level to bypass traditional university peer-review processes, relying on political influence to institutionalize practices that fail to meet baseline clinical research standards.
The article motivated me to look up Julien Nizard in order to find out what papers he has published in the realm of SCAM. The result is impressive. I found 7 abstracts of his SCAM-related papers listed on Medline.
Recent guidelines for managing fibromyalgia highlight the importance of a graded-care approach, tailoring treatment to predominant symptoms, and appropriately integrating nonpharmacological treatments and complementary medicine (CM). Many fibromyalgia patients turn to nonpharmacological treatment and CM for various reasons, including concerns about medication side effects and persistent symptoms despite pharmacological treatment. In addition, these approaches are sometimes mistakenly, but often, perceived as natural and, therefore, widely accepted as well-tolerated with minimal risks. However, as with many patients using CM, fibromyalgia patients frequently engage in these practices without informing their physicians, often because of fear of a negative reaction. This can occur in contexts that lack adequate safeguards, such as treatment by noncertified practitioners, undocumented practices, excessive costs, or unsafe environments. In this narrative review, we first provide updated definitions of these practices, discuss their potential benefits and associated risks, and explore the challenges in their evaluation. We then summarize key findings from the literature before proposing a structured approach for discussing these practices with fibromyalgia patients. This includes assessing their prior experiences, expectations, and motivations for long-term adherence. We also offer guidance on selecting qualified practitioners and ensuring a sufficiently safe treatment environment. Finally, we highlight essential “red flags” that pain specialists and health care providers should discuss with patients, emphasizing the need for caution or even discontinuation of certain practices when these warning signs are present.
The majority of nurses have a favourable opinion of complementary therapies. This makes it easier to identify the therapies used by patients. Being trained in and practising a complementary therapy strengthens the nursing skills and helps to give it new meaning. Nurses must play an active part in the ongoing structuring of integrative medicine in France.
Neuropsychiatric disorders are one of the frequent complications of neurocognitive disease, and have an impact on the quality of life of patients and caregivers. Non-phamacologic interventions are recommended as first-line treatment. The Snoezelen method is a multisensory stimulation method based on the assumption that acting on sensoriality can improve neuropsychiatric symptoms and thus quality of life, but its level of evidence is controversial. To explore this, we performed a systematic literature review of randomized controlled articles focusing on the use of the Snoezelen method in patients with cognitive disorders. Eighteen studies were included. The clinical outcomes studied were multiple (behavior, mood, cognition, functional capacities and biomedical parameters). When the Snoezelen method was compared to the “standard activities” group, it appears to be effective on short-term behavior. This was more negligible when the method was compared to others non-pharmacological interventions. Although the Snoezelen method could be effective on mood, cognition, and functional abilities, its level of evidence remains low. Furthers mixed studies (quantitative and qualitative) would be an interesting approach to delve into this topic in the most holistic way by integrating the patients, the caregivers and the cost of the method.
Background: Low Back Pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide, 90% of which is nonspecific. Manual therapy is one of the recommended treatment modalities. However, reported outcomes may be variable. This review aims to identify their scope in the context of the development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), which is defined as « an agreed standardised set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in specific areas of health or health care ».
Methods: A scoping review with risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of manual therapy for nonspecific LBP was conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PEDro, WebOfScience and ClinicalTrials.gov, from 2010 up to August 2024. Manual therapy was considered the use, alone or in combination, of manipulations (high velocity, low amplitude), mobilisations (low-grade velocity, small-to-large amplitude) or soft tissue relaxation (especially massage, trigger points, muscle contractions).
Results: Out of 3929 articles, 147 RCTs and 74 protocols were included. Two main outcomes emerged: pain intensity (assessed by numerical rating scale or visual analogue scale) and disability (mostly assessed by Rolland-Morris Disability Questionnaire or Oswestry Disability Index). Range of motion is the most frequent clinical outcome assessed. Psychological factors such as fear-avoidance beliefs, kinesiophobia and catastrophising, and healthcare consumption, particularly medication, are also frequent. Most of the outcomes were patient-reported outcomes.
Conclusion: Consistent with a previous COS on nonspecific low back pain, manual therapy appears to address the same outcomes. Clinical trials in manual therapy should focus on using the existing COS by measuring pain intensity using a numerical rating scale, disability using the ODI 2.1a or the 24-item RMDQ, health-related quality of life using the SF-12 or the 10-item PROMIS. Additionally, due to the gap between clinical research and pain experience, trials should consider conducting subgroup analyses to identify effects on outcomes related to gender or age, paying particular attention to health inequalities by carrying out analyses based on socioeconomic status, as these factors are well known to significantly impact pain experience and access to care.
Background: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective technique to treat patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease. The surgical procedure of DBS implantation is generally performed under local anesthesia due to the need for intraoperative clinical testing. However, this procedure is long (5-7 h on average) and, therefore, the objective that the patient remains co-operative and tolerates the intervention well is a real challenge.
Objective: To evaluate the additional benefit of electroacupuncture (EA) performed intraoperatively to improve the comfort of parkinsonian patients during surgical DBS implantation.
Methods: This single-center randomized study compared two groups of patients. In the first group, DBS implantation was performed under local anesthesia alone, while the second group received EA in addition. The patients were evaluated preoperatively, during the different stages of the surgery, and 2 days after surgery, using the 9-item Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), including a total sum score and physical and emotional subscores.
Results: The data of nine patients were analyzed in each group. Although pain and tiredness increased in both groups after placement of the stereotactic frame, the ESAS item “lack of appetite”, as well as the ESAS total score and physical subscore increased after completion of the first burr hole until the end of the surgical procedure in the control group only. ESAS total score and physical subscore were significantly higher at the end of the intervention in the control group compared to the EA group. After the surgical intervention (D2), anxiety and ESAS emotional subscore were improved in both groups, but the feeling of wellbeing improved in the EA group only. Finally, one patient developed delirium during the intervention and none in the EA group.
Discussion: This study shows that intraoperative electroacupuncture significantly improves the tolerance of DBS surgery in parkinsonian patients. This easy-to-perform procedure could be fruitfully added in clinical practice.
Background: It is currently considered that around 30% of chronic pain patients are totally refractory to medical treatment. Among patients who remain responsive to medical treatment, it is estimated that between 20% and 50% are likely to discontinue treatment due to severe side effects. Given these therapeutic difficulties, a significant number of patients turn to complementary therapies.
Objective: The LineQuartz® is a medical device that combines 3 complementary therapies, namely, music therapy, light therapy, and chromotherapy. We propose to evaluate its effectiveness in chronic pain patients.
Methods: Between October 2021 and October 2022, 44 patients aged between 23 and 85 years (mean: 55.4 years) were included in a prospective study. All patients had background pain intensity greater than 4/10 on the Numerical Pain Scale (NS). Treatment consisted of 4 half-hour sessions, divided into one session per week for 3 weeks (21 days). Patients were assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD) the day before starting treatment (Day 0) and the day after the end of treatment (Day 22).
Results: Apart from the BPI item, “relationship with others,” all items improved significantly (p < 0.050). Background pain intensity (NS) and frequency of painful attacks improved very significantly (p < 0.001). The HAD anxiety subscore was also significantly improved (p < 0.001). Discussion. This open pilot study supports the idea that LineQuartz® has a place among complementary therapies dedicated to the treatment of chronic pain. However, these results need to be confirmed by a controlled study.
Context: In addition to curative care, supportive care is beneficial in managing the anxiety symptoms common in patients in sterile hematology unit. We hypothesize that personal massage can help the patient, particularly in this isolated setting where physical contact is extremely limited. The main objective of this study was to show that anxiety could be reduced after a touch-massage® performed by a nurse trained in this therapy.
Methods: A single-center, randomized, unblinded controlled study in the sterile hematology unit of a French university hospital, validated by an ethics committee. The patients, aged between 18 and 65 years old, and suffering from a serious and progressive hematological pathology, were hospitalized in sterile hematology unit for a minimum of three weeks, patients were randomized into either a group receiving 15-minute touch-massage® sessions or a control group receiving an equivalent amount of quiet time once a week for three weeks. In the treated group, anxiety was assessed before and after each touch-massage® session, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaire with subscale state (STAI-State). In the control group, anxiety was assessed before and after a 15-minute quiet period. For each patient, the difference in the STAI-State score before and after each session (or period) was calculated, the primary endpoint was based on the average of these three differences. Each patient completed the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Questionnaire before the first session and after the last session.
Results: Sixty-two patients were randomized. Touch-massage® significantly decreased patient anxiety: a mean decrease in STAI-State scale score of 10.6 [7.65-13.54] was obtained for the massage group (p ≤ 0.001) compared with the control group. The improvement in self-esteem score was not significant.
Conclusion: This study provides convincing evidence for integrating touch-massage® in the treatment of patients in sterile hematology unit.
_________________________
Are you as impressed as I am?
Not only has this vice-dean of a medical school shown how to properly defend SCAM by innovative means including legal threats, he has also found the time to publish 7 Medline-listed papers on various forms of SCAM! I am even more impressed that someone with so little valid SCAM research can become such an ardent “defender of the indefensible”. But what impresses me most is this: in all his publications, I cannot find a single negative result, nor a word of SCAM-related criticism.
This, by Jove, is a remarkable achievement!
I hope you all agree that it deserves inclusion into my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME.
Bienvenue Julien!
Tolerance is widely regarded as a moral virtue, a cornerstone of pluralistic societies and a safeguard against dogmatism. Yet, tolerance can sometimes be misplaced. Thomas Mann suggested that “tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil”. In a similar vein, I propose that tolerance can become unethical when applied to homeopathy.
Homeopathy presents itself as a benign and natural alternative to or complement of conventional medicine. Its appeal lies partly in its historical pedigree and partly in its promise of gentle healing without side effects. However, beneath this veneer lies a system of belief that is fundamentally incompatible with science and ethics. Its core principles – the notions that like cures like and that substances become more potent through extreme dilution – contradict basic laws of physics, chemistry and pharmacology. After more than two centuries of use and more that 500 clinical studies, there is no credible evidence that homeopathic remedies perform better than placebos.
In many areas of life, tolerance for differing beliefs is both appropriate and necessary. However, medicine is different. It is not merely a matter of opinion; it is a field grounded in empirical evidence, where opinions can have direct and drastic consequences for health and survival. To tolerate ineffective and therefore potentially harmful treatments within this domain risks legitimizing misinformation and undermining public trust in evidence-based care.
The ethical problem intensifies when homeopathy is integrated into healthcare systems or endorsed by public institutions. Such endorsement conveys an implicit message of efficacy and legitimacy, misleading patients who may lack the expertise to critically evaluate medical claims. This is particularly concerning in cases where patients choose homeopathic remedies as an alternative therapy, i.e.in place of effective treatments, potentially resulting in preventable harm. Here, tolerance can easily degenerate into complicity.
Defenders of homeopathy often invoke patient choice and patient autonomy. While these are important principles, they do not justify the abdication of professional responsibility. True respect for patients involves providing accurate information and protecting them from ineffective or deceptive practices. Allowing patients to choose homeopathy without clear, despite all the evidence that speaks against it is not an expression of respect but a failure of duty.
Moreover, the commercial dimension of homeopathy raises additional ethical concerns. The marketing of homeopathic products often exploits the language of science and medicine while evading the standards that govern them. Consumers are led to believe they are purchasing effective treatments. In reality, they are buying fake medicines that contain no active ingredients. This practice tolerance has degenerated into exploitation.
A society that prides itself on scientific progress and rational inquiry cannot afford to suspend its critical faculties in the name of tolerance. While civility and openness are essential virtues, they must not be confused with randomness or indiscriminate acceptance. Tolerance has limits, particularly when it intersects with matters of public health and scientific integrity.
Thus, the tolerance extended to homeopathy is not merely misplaced; it is ethically problematic. By granting homeopathy a status it does not merit, we risk eroding the very standards that protect patients and uphold the credibility of medicine. In this context, I feel that intolerance is not a vice but a necessary stance, one that affirms the primacy of evidence, reason, and the ethical obligation to do no harm.
A recent paper entitled “Research Ethics and Integrity and the Different Forms of Misconduct: Applications and Challenges in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research” caught my eye. As the subject is close to my heart and often covered on this blog, I studied it carefully. Here is the abstract:
Research ethics and integrity are foundational to the credibility, safety, and societal trust of scientific inquiry. As the use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) grows globally, concerns about research misconduct (including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) have become increasingly salient. With up to 80% of populations in certain countries utilizing TCIM, the field’s expansion underscores the need for rigorous, ethically grounded evidence to guide practice and policy. However, around 470 TCIM-related articles have been retracted to date, as indicated on the Retraction Watch database, which may be due to ethical or non-ethical concerns. This educational article critically examines the state of ethics and integrity in TCIM research, drawing on case studies of misconduct and highlighting the broader consequences for patient safety, scientific credibility, and healthcare integration. In addition, the educational article explores emerging ethical dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence (AI), including risks of automated fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and opacity in research reporting. To strengthen ethical conduct, we propose strategies spanning four domains: 1) improving education and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration to enhance research literacy, 2) embedding open science practices to promote transparency and reproducibility, 3) leveraging meta-research to monitor and advance research quality, and 4) developing policies and safeguards for responsible AI use. Upholding high ethical standards in TCIM research is essential not only to ensure reliable evidence but also to protect patients, sustain public trust, and enable meaningful integration of TCIM within evidence-based healthcare systems.
The full conclusions of the authors are as follows: “With the increasing global use of TCIM therapies, it is crucial for TCIM researchers to uphold high ethical standards to ensure the feasibility, validity, efficacy and safety of TCIM interventions. TCIM research challenges such as heterogeneity, complexity, and lack of standardization practices, alongside issues with research training and funding, create both transformative opportunities and ethical dilemmas that require reflection. Addressing these challenges requires a firm commitment to enhancing research ethics and integrity in TCIM. This commitment must be translated into action through multifaceted strategies: improving research and ethics literacy, fostering open science practices, and ensuring the transparency, integrity, and reproducibility of TCIM research. Strengthening ethical and research practices will not only support its continued development as a discipline but also maximize its potential to contribute to global health.”
I find it most commendable that this subject has finally been addressed by a group of researchers, most of who are known advocates of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). I hope that this is proves to be a step in the right direction for the fileld of SCAM.
Yet, I fear that it is a small or even tiny step. The reason for my fear is that several important issues related to research ethics and integrity in SCAM are let untouched by the authors. In my view, the one of the most important amongst them is the SCAM researcher him/herself. As often discussed on this blog, SCAM research is unique amongst all areas of medical research for being populated by individuals who have a strong ideological bias in favour of SCAM.
These (pseudo)scientists tend to abuse science by trying to prove that their beliefs are correct. Rather than trying to falsify their hypotheses, they would bend over backwards to show that their favourite SCAM is effective. I tried to demontrate this clearly by establishing my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME on this blog.
As to the many other omissions of important ethical concerns from the above paper, I recommend having a look at our book “More Harm than Good?: The Moral Maze of Complementary and Alternative Medicine“. It offers a much more complete review of the ethical issues involved in SCAM research (amusingly, it was not cited in the paper above).
In the US, scientific research is facing a new bureaucratic obstacle marked by a stringent escalation in research security enforcement by major federal funding bodies. Traditionally, the US has positioned itself as the vanguard of open, globalized scientific inquiry, a model predicated on the understanding that breakthrough discoveries thrive on cross-border intellectual synergy. However, recent regulatory shifts initiated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) indicate a retreat from this paradigm. By retroactively and rigidly redefining international authorship as a national security risk, federal grant managers threaten to balkanise academic collaboration and stifle scientific progress.
At the core of the current crisis is the administrative weaponization of the “foreign component” clause. Historically, the NIH mandated prior approval only when federal funds were explicitly exported or when critical project segments were physically conducted abroad. Contemporary enforcement, however, relies heavily on automated digital auditing systems that flag any international institutional affiliation on published papers as evidence of an unauthorised foreign component. This algorithmic surveillance penalizes benign, routine academic practices. US-based principal investigators have been forced to expunge highly cited, peer-reviewed publications from their federal progress reports simply because a co-author was an international scholar, a foreign student working within an US lab, or a colleague who provided isolated research materials.
This bureaucratic overreach is amplified by a lack of institutional transparency. Rather than issuing clear, standardized guidelines through formal rule-making channels, agencies are executing these directives via private, ad-hoc communications between individual grant managers and researchers. This strategy of decentralised intimidation leaves academic institutions without uniform legal recourse, compelling university compliance offices to draft defensive internal policies. For instance, researchers are now advised to attach granular, defensive footnotes to their manuscripts explicitly certifying the physical, geographic location of every contributor during the research process to avoid automated funding freezes.
The ramifications extend beyond administrative inconvenience, posing a existential threat to the integrity of global science. Faced with the existential threat of funding termination or legal prosecution, US scientists are disincentivised from pursuing crucial international partnerships. Others may choose to obfuscate federal sponsorship on collaborative papers to circumvent algorithmic detection, thus undermining the transparency of research funding.
Update:
In June 2026 the White House OMB released proposed revisions to the federal Uniform Guidance that would tighten oversight of federal awards, explicitly addressing foreign collaborations, reporting, and recipient responsibilities; commentators warn these changes could widen the administrative burden on grantees and institutional compliance offices. Coverage in major science outlets and policy analyses framed these actions as part of a broader administration push to overhaul transparency and control in federal research funding. Critics argue some proposals risk politicising grant making and chilling international collaboration.
News pieces and policy briefs describe more aggressive enforcement by grant managers (including retrospective audits and requests to remove or explain foreign co‑authorship), plus institutions drafting defensive procedures to avoid triggering automated audits. Scientists, scientific societies, and international collaborators have expressed concern that tighter rules and algorithmic detection of foreign affiliations will disincentivize open co‑authorship and complicate routine global partnerships.
The proposed Uniform Guidance revisions will follow a formal notice-and-comment process; watch for the final rule text and agency-specific implementing guidance because those will determine the precise legal obligations and whether the most burdensome interpretations survive.
The WHO’s supportive stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has been discussed on this blog many times before. Now a BMJ editorial criticized the WHO for uncritically promoting SCAM within mainstream health systems. It argues that WHO’s new strategy gives undue legitimacy to interventions whose evidence base is often weak, inconsistent, or absent. The author’s main concern is not cultural respect or patient choice, but the risk that policy language about “integration,” “tradition,” and “people-centred care” can blur the line between evidence-based medicine and therapies that have not demonstrated reliable benefit. The article points out that, while some traditional practices may be harmless or even useful, broad institutional support should depend on rigorous proof of safety and effectiveness. It also warns that promoting such therapies may waste scarce resources, confuse patients, and create false equivalence with established medical care. More broadly, the editorial presents this as a scientific and ethical issue: global health bodies should strengthen standards, not weaken them. The WHO should prioritize robust clinical evidence, transparent regulation, and careful harm-benefit assessment before endorsing any therapy for widespread use. In short, the article sees WHO’s current approach as a misguided attempt to accommodate alternative medicine rather than critically evaluate it.
The team of international authors of the editorial argue that an ideal strategy should mandate pharmacovigilance, including adverse event reporting, as a prerequisite. Large workforces should be redirected toward evidence-based primary care, such as screening, vaccination, chronic disease identification and maternal health. Research funding should prioritise independent clinical trials with negative results published as systematically as positive ones. The WHO Traditional Medicine Global Library must catalogue documented harms alongside knowledge claims. Commercial conflicts of interest must be transparent. And WHO’s messaging must remain unequivocally aligned with scientific consensus – a proven tool against misinformation that mixed messaging would fatally undermine.
The authors conclude that “billions use traditional medicine – many from uninformed choices. The ethical response is not to validate what remains unvalidated, but to expand access to what withstands scrutiny. Patients everywhere deserve nothing less.”
Readers might remember that I posted my own critique of the WHO’s new strategy on this blog already on 6/11/2025. Here is an excerpt of my post:
The WHO aim to “advance the contribution of evidence-based traditional, complementary and integrative medicine” seems laudable, yet it also raises concerns: once any form of medicine is “evidence-based”, it is not “traditional, complementary and integrative”. Then it is by definition EBM, evidence-based medicine! Thus, the entire premise of the WHO Global traditional medicine strategy 2025–2034 makes no sense.
The fact that “traditional medicine is the primary or preferred care for billions of people worldwide” does not necessarily mean that its “clinical potential is considerable”. More likely it means that billions have to rely on obsolete forms of medicine from the dark ages because they cannot afford effective treatments. This is far from an opportunity; it is a challenge for us to improve this inhuman situation.
The fact that “acupuncture is recommended for migraine”, while the evidence for this (and almost all similar) recommendations are not supported by sound evidence, amounts to a scandal. One would have hoped that, instead of promoting unproven ‘traditional medicine’, an urgent task of the WHO would be to warn people of bogus and often dangerous claims that are ubiquitous in this sector.
The fact that “1% of global health research funding is dedicated to traditional medicine” might look unfair at first glance. But global health research funding is in the range of US$ 200 billion per year. Thus 1% would amount to 2 billion, and I suggest that one could do plenty of good research with this money. Instead, the sector tends to waste its funds on lousy pseudo-research, as anyone interested can confirm by reading this blog. Why does the WHO not point this out and take measures to stop pseudo-science in the realm of ‘traditional medicine’? Do they really think that offensive ideological platitudes such as “restoring balance is a scientific, rights-based and sustainability imperative” cuts the mustard?
My recommendation to the WHO is as simple as it is important: if you want to create meaningful articles, documents or strategies on ‘traditional medicine’ (or indeed any other subject), don’t charge biased proponents with the task but recruit a few well-informed critical thinkers as well.
It is good that the BMJ editorial concurs with my assessment. The question is, will it have an effect? Considering the multiple times we had to criticise the WHO for its irresponsible stance on SCAM, it would be high time for adopting an evidence-based attitude.
Critics of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) often point out that much of it lacks plausibility. Proponents of SCAM tend to think that this is an irrelevance. So, what is plausibility, and why does it matter?
Think of scientific plausibility as a reality check. Before scientists spend time and money testing a new idea, they ask a basic question: Does it actually line up with what we already know about how the universe works? While an idea being plausible doesn’t automatically make it true, it acts as a crucial filter. It helps us separate ideas that are worth investigating from those that break the fundamental laws of logic, physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
This is exactly where many SCAMs fall apart. Their claims often contradict basic science before a study even begins. Take homeopathy, for example. It relies on the idea that a substance can cure an illness, even if it is diluted over and over again, often to the point where not a single molecule of the original ingredient is left. This directly defies molecular theory and the well-established “dose-response relationship,” which simply states that the amount of a substance matters. Similarly, practices like “energy healing” postulate mysterious vital energies that cannot be seen, felt, or measured by any instrument known to modern science.
This matters because it changes how we look at “proof.” In science, if an idea is highly unlikely from the start, a single positive study usually isn’t a breakthrough. Instead, it’s much more likely to be a fluke, a statistical error, the result of a flawed experiment or even fraud.
Instead of trying to fix these scientific contradictions, proponents of SCAM often change the subject or move the goalpost. They might, for instance, that claim the scientific method is closed-minded or simply ignore negative results. But you cannot bypass the rules of reality. If a treatment claims to do something that contradicts everything we know about nature, it requires extraordinary proof to be taken seriously.
I do understand why SCAM enthusiasts try to ignore the issue of plausibility. But ignoring it runs several risks. For instance, it risks doing research that is entirely wasteful. More importantly perhaps, it risks paying undue attention to false positive results which, in turn, can seriously harm vulnerable patients – just think of a cancer patient who has fallen victim to the claims of homeopaths – backed by multiple, implausible and fase-positive results – suggesting that homeopathy can cure cancer.
“Science and pseudoscience diverge particularly sharply in their ethical and moral foundations. While science is built upon principles of honesty, openness, and responsibility, pseudoscience undermines these values often by placing ideology and belief over evidence and truth. Science is not least an ethical enterprise, and the divide between science and pseudoscience is a matter of profound moral importance. The ethical stakes become especially acute when pseudoscience causes harm…”
These lines come from my recent book, THE LEOPARD LILY PROJECT, which is only marginally about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Yet they do apply well to SCAM which does not merely fail the test of scientific rigor but also fails the test of medical ethics. When a practice trades empirical validation for dogmatic ideology, it ceases to be an innocent alternative and becomes a profound moral transgression. SCAM regularly promises holistic salvation while actively undermining the principles of honesty, openness, and responsibility, effectively replacing rigorous scrutiny with profitable mystique.
The ethical stakes transition from academic to tragic whenever a vulnerable patient is guided away from effective treatments. SCAM cloaks itself in the gentle language of empathy and natural, holistic, individualised healing, yet its business model relies on exploiting the desperation of the sick. Informed consent is rendered impossible when patients are fed misleading or even fabricated data and disproven promises. By substituting anecdotes for evidence, SCAM weaponizes false hope, monetizing the fear of illness under the guise of medical autonomy. SCAM fosters a broader culture of conspiratorial thinking that systematically erodes public trust in collective public health infrastructure.
When conventional physicians prescribe a treatment, they are bound by evidence, medical ethics, regulatory oversight, and a legal duty of care. When SCAM practitioners prescribe an unproven therapy, they operate in an ethical void, often shielded from accountability by vague disclaimers.
Science remains an ethical enterprise acknowledging its own limitations and subjecting its claims to rigorous correction. Pseudoscience demands faith instead of evidence and leaves its patients to bear the physical consequences of its intellectual dishonesty. To pick up and rephrase the theme from my recent book: evidence-based medicine and SCAM diverge particularly sharply in their ethical and moral foundations.
Internal HHS and CDC communications leaked by the US Senate HELP Committee expose a truly scary crisis of institutional integrity. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. systematically dismantled evidence-based public health infrastructure to implement his personal, ideological and dangerous agenda. This was not merely a shift in administrative policy; it was an aggressive, top-down politicisation of science that directly compromised public safety.
It is now clear that less than 24 hours after his confirmation on 29/30 January 2025 – in the midst of a severe flu season that had already claimed 16,000 lives, including 68 children – Kennedy issued a direct mandate to halt active flu vaccine public service advertisements. Internal communications from HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon explicitly confirm this “was a direct ask from Secretary Kennedy.”
The institutional damage caused by Kennedy’s actions extends far beyond suppressed messaging into structural purges. In fact, it seems likely that Kennedy committed perjury. During his confirmation hearings, Kennedy misled lawmakers regarding his intentions to restrict vaccine access and his past anti-vaccine interventions. Once in power, his chief of staff enforced an “absolute need for political review” over career scientists. Kennedy subsequently fired the entire 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with people with strong anti-vaccine views. When career CDC Director Susan Monarez resisted rubber-stamping these politically motivated recommendations, Kennedy fired her, triggering a wave of high-level resignations among the agency’s top medical officers.
The leaked emails also confirm that Kennedy bypassed standard scientific clearance protocols to dispatch handpicked researchers into confidential CDC databases. This was a deliberate attempt to weaponize raw public health data to manufacture evidence for a spurious vaccine-autism link that has been thoroughly debunked by global longitudinal studies involving millions of children.
By substituting ideological loyalty for empirical evidence, the US administration has compromised the foundational mechanics of medicine. When a federal health agency is forced to prioritize dogma over data, the ultimate cost is inevitably paid in preventable human disease and death.
The conclusion: Kennedy has likely committed the serious crime of perjury, has shown to be a danger to our (the damage can quickly spread beyond the US) health, and in my view has to be removed from office asap.
A legal report has been published on 25 June 2026 examining whether the German political party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is unconstitutional under German Basic Law. The study represents the most extensive and methodologically rigorous analysis of the party to date. Conducted over a period of 13 months, the project involved a team of eight experts in constitutional law, right-wing extremism, and data analysis. They systematically evaluated more than 3 million statements by the AfD and identified approximately 2,500 pieces of evidence deemed legally relevant.
A key finding of the report is that, when assessed against the criteria used by the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in party ban proceedings, the AfD meets the threshold for being classified as unconstitutional. The authors state that a formal prohibition request submitted to the Court would “likely succeed.” Importantly, they emphasize that their approach was “open-ended” and aligned with established constitutional jurisprudence, and that their methodology received external validation from two established constitutional law professors.
The report highlights several patterns in AfD positions and rhetoric that it interprets as incompatible with the democratic constitutional order. These include:
- proposals to criminally prosecute political opponents,
- the idea of revoking citizenship from certain criminal offenders who are German nationals,
- calls for the systematic legal discrimination of Muslims.
It also points to demands for unrestricted deportations and statements by supporters denying the legitimacy or existence of transgender individuals. These examples are presented as indicative rather than exhaustive.
The report seeks to shift what it characterizes as a stalled political and legal debate about the AfD’s constitutional status. By providing a large-scale empirical and legal foundation, it implicitly strengthens arguments in favour of initiating formal proceedings to ban the party. In Germany, such a process can only be initiated by constitutional bodies such as the Bundestag, Bundesrat, or federal government, and requires demonstrating both anti-constitutional aims and active efforts to undermine the democratic order.
The report calls on citizens to contact members of parliament to raise awareness of the findings and encourage political action. This reflects an attempt to translate the report’s conclusions into legislative momentum.
Overall, the document combines elements of academic research, legal argument, and political campaigning. Its central significance lies not only in its conclusions but in its potential to influence public discourse and decision-making. Let’s just hope its effect is just that.
Having narcissistic tendencies, e.g. bragging or making yourself the center of attention, are normal, if they occur only occasionally. However, Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is different. With NPD, symptoms are more severe, occur regularly and in different situations and environments, and make relationships with others challenging.
The 9 most common symptoms of NPD are the following:
- Grandiose sense of self-importance.
- Preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- Belief that they are “special” and should associate only with high-status people or institutions.
- Need for excessive admiration.
- Strong sense of entitlement.
- Interpersonally exploitative behaviour, using others to achieve their own ends.
- Lack of empathy, with little recognition of others’ feelings or needs.
- Envy of others, or belief that others are envious of them.
- Arrogant or haughty attitudes and behaviours.
Now, let’s consider a person who is almost constantly in our minds, mainly because he makes the headline news practically every day:
DONALD J TRUMP.
Does he perhaps display any of the above-listed symptoms? Let’s find out by going through them one by one and citing concrete examples**:
- Trump displays grandiose sense of self-importance regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in August 2019, he told reporters, “I am the chosen one”.
- Trump displays preoccupation with fantasies of success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he said he was “always the best athlete” before his first presidential physical in January 2018.
- Trump displays his belief that he is “special” and should associate only with high-status people or institutions regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in his 2018 rally line about the “elite,” he said, “We’re the elite… We’re the super-elite”.
- Trump displays a need for excessive admiration regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: according to a 2026 analysis, he has a “relentless demand for exaltation,” wants “praise, admiration, and accolades,” and even accepts honors that critics said were meant for others.
- Trump displays a strong sense of entitlement regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he defended accepting a luxury Boeing 747 from Qatar by saying it would be “stupid” to turn down a “free plane,” and the aircraft was reported to be intended for his use as Air Force One.
- Trump displays interpersonally exploitative behaviour, using others to achieve their own ends regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: in the border detention context, he “exploits his power” and “leverages cruelty strategically,” especially in policies that harmed vulnerable migrants and children.
- Trump displays lack of empathy, with little recognition of others’ feelings or needs regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: the family-separation policy at the US border, which causes severe suffering, while Trump continues to treat it as a political instrument rather than a human tragedy.
- Trump displays envy of others, or belief that others are envious of them regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: he has repeatedly made unverified claims about his inauguration crowd size, television ratings, and rally attendance, frequently comparing them directly to Obama’s numbers in an attempt to prove he is more widely loved
- Trump displays arrogant or haughty attitudes and behaviours regularly and to an extreme degree. Example: While accepting the party’s nomination in Cleveland, Ohio, Trump delivered a dark assessment of the US, describing a nation plagued by rising crime, economic decay, and international humiliation. After spending a large portion of the speech detailing these systemic crises, he uttered (in grammatically wrong English): “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.”
So is Trump suffering from NPD?
Judge for yourself.
I guess he is not suffering from but enjoying it!
___________________
And what is the solution? Treatment of NPD can be difficult because people with NPD may not feel therapy is necessary, so progress often depends on motivation and a good therapeutic fit. There is no effective drug treatment and talking therapies are usually recommended. In Trump’s case, removal from office would obviously be an acutely necessary measure.
__________________
**I am sure you know of much better examples (the coice is truly vast); feel free to cite them in the comments.
