bias
Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is a refractory neuropathic pain condition with limited therapeutic options. Although electroacupuncture has demonstrated potential analgesic effects, high-quality evidence from rigorous randomized clinical trials remains limited.
This multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial determined whether electroacupuncture reduces pain severity compared with sham electroacupuncture and evaluated its safety in patients with PHN. It took place at 7 tertiary hospitals in China and enrolled participants from October 2020 to July 2022, with the last follow-up in September 2022. Data analyses were performed from August to December 2025. Participants with PHN aged 45 to 75 years and moderate to severe pain (11-point Numeric Rating Scale [NRS-11] score ≥4) were recruited. Of 1072 patients screened, 624 were excluded. The remaining 448 participants were randomized to electroacupuncture (n = 225) or sham electroacupuncture (n = 223); 383 participants (85.49%) completed the trial. Patients received 20 sessions of electroacupuncture or sham electroacupuncture over 4 weeks, followed by a 4-week posttreatment follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in the NRS-11 scores from baseline to week 4, with responders defined as participants achieving a 30% or more reduction in NRS-11 scores.
Of 448 participants, the mean (SD) age was 63.19 (9.26) years, 233 (52.01%) were male, and 215 were female (47.99%). At week 4, the electroacupuncture group had a greater decrease in the NRS-11 scores (−1.52) than the sham electroacupuncture group (−0.99) with an adjusted mean difference of −0.53 (95% CI, −0.61 to −0.43; P < .001), and the responder rate was significantly higher in the electroacupuncture group (46.68%) than in the sham electroacupuncture group (24.28%) (adjusted risk difference, 22.40%; 95% CI, 13.02%-31.79%; P < .001). These treatment benefits persisted through a 1-month follow-up; no clinically significant adverse events were observed.
The authors concluded that, among patients with PHN in this study, electroacupuncture provided a statistically significant reduction in pain severity, increased responder rates, and improved pain-related functional outcomes. These benefits suggest that electroacupuncture may be a useful nonpharmacological option for integrated management of PHN.
Here are a few points of concern and criticism:
- The authors state that the study was funded by the Evidence-Based Capacity Building Project for Traditional Chinese Medicine from National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by China Association of Chinese Medicine, Youth Talent Project of Jiangsu Province Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine Double-Hundred Talent Program. Yet, they insist they had no conflict of interest.
- Acupuncture studies from China are as good as never negative. As frequently noted on this blog, the vast majority of Chinese studies seem to rely on falsified data.
- The authors imply that their study was patient-blind; yet there is no way that this is true: 1) The verum was administered to elicit ‘de-qi’, while the sham was not. 2) The electrical current in the verum group induced mild muscle twitching, while the sham group had no such experience. This means the verum patients knew the were receiving verum and thus were expecting an effective therapy. By contrast, the control group would have comprehended that they were given a placebo and were disappointed. These effects inevitably contribute to the outcome. In fact, I would agruge that they suffice in bringing them about without any contribution of a specific acupuncture effect. At the very minimum, the authors should have discussed these issues fully and critically.
- The acupuncturists of this study were also not blind. It is possible – I would argue, even likely – that they influenced patients to report or experience more positive results. Again, I would suggest that such effects suffice to generate a false-positive outcome.
- Even if there was a true effect of the verum beyond placebo, the question is, was it caused by acupuncture or the electrical current? There is a sizable body of evidence suggestion that electrotherapy might be effective for PHN!
In conclusion, the assertion that “electroacupuncture provided a statistically significant reduction in pain severity, increased responder rates, and improved pain-related functional outcomes” is uncritical, promotional and unjustified. I am once again dismayed that a reputable journal publishes such overt rubbish.
Homoeopathy and I is the title of a paper that I published in 2009. My aim was to denounce the popular notion that held I had started my research with a grudge against homeopathy. The honest truth is that – if anything – my attitude was even slightly positive. Here is the key section from this 2009 paper:
In 1993, I was appointed to the world’s first Chair in Complementary Medicine, and it became my job to investigate scientifically all sorts of complementary treatments, including homoeopathy. In the course of this activity, my co-workers and I published numerous articles on homoeopathy. Systematically, reviewing the totality of my publication list, I found a total of 46 papers with ‘homeopathy’ in the title. The following quotes from these articles were selected to best describe my attitude toward homoeopathy at the time:
• Homeopathicremedies are believed by doctors and patients to be almost totally safe (8).
• It might be argued that arnica …is ineffective but homeopathy may still works (9).
•…only 23% of Australian homeopaths believe that immunisation is important (10).
• Homeopathy, I fear, has soon to come up with … more convincing evidence (11)…
• Future evaluations of homeopathy should be performed to a high scientific standard (12)…
•…studies on the safety of the practice of homeopathy must not be ignored (13)…
•…systematic reviews based on Medline searches can lead to similar (possibly slightly less positive) overall conclusions (14)…
•…a detailed eye-witness account claiming that all attempts [by researchers during the ‘Third Reich’] to show that homeopathy works has led to negative results (15).
•…the best way forward is clearly to do rigorous research (16)…
• Thus, the question of whether homeopathy works or not has remained unanswered for 200 years (17).
• The most pressing question, ‘Is homeopathy clinically more effective than placebo’, needs to be answered conclusively (18).
• There is evidence that homeopathic treatment can reduce the duration of ileus (19)…
• Some of the well-argued cases against homeopathy should become essential reading for all homeopaths (20).
•…the published evidence to date does not support the hypothesis that homeopathic remedies … are more efficacious than placebo (21)…
•…homeopathic remedies are associated with the same clinical effects as placebo (22).
•…the picture painted by Linde and colleagues … may well be slightly more positive (23)…
•…[our] goal is to conduct rigorous, impartial research in [homeopathy] (24)
• The claim that homeopathic arnica is efficacious beyond a placebo effect is not supported by rigorous clinical trials (25).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are not uniform (26).
•…at present, the relative efficacy of homeopathic remedies is not known (27).
• The results of recent systematic reviews are obviously far from uniform (28).
•…the trial data … do not suggest that homeopathy is effective (29)…
•…the definitive answer, in my view, has to come from a series of rigorous trials (30).
• Large, multicentre trials of homeopathic remedies … represent the best way of advancing the debate (31).
•…the re-analysis of Linde et al. can be seen as the ultimate epidemiological proof that homeopathic remedies are, in fact, placebos (32).
•…randomised clinical trials … do not allow a firm conclusion as to the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies (33).
•…both homeopaths and university heads of medical departments clearly advocate further research into the effectiveness of homeopathy (34).
•…homeopathy is not different from placebo (35).
•…the best clinical evidence … does not warrant positive recommendations (36).
•…the evidence is insufficient for firm recommendations (37).
•…the results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo (38)…
-
- This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies … are superior to placebo(39).
•…this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists (40).
•…Mathie’s methodology was not as strong as it should have been, and this deficit has led to conclusions that may be falsely positive (41).
•…homeopathy may actually be more expensive than good conventional care (42).
•…the proven benefits of highly dilute homeopathic remedies … do not outweight the potential for harm (43).
•… homeopathic remedies are placebos, but homeopaths can be skilled doctors who may significantly help their patients (44).
• Our analysis … found insufficient evidence to support clinical efficacy of homeopathic therapy (45)…
•… promotion can be regrettably misleading, dangerous and counterproductive (46).
•…do we condone treatments because of their popularity or their effectiveness? (47)
•…homeopathy is not based on solid evidence and, over time, this evidence seems to get more negative (48).
• The evidence from rigorous clinical trials … testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition (49).
• There is no evidence at all that homeopathic remedies can change the natural history of any cancer (50).
•…context effects of homeopathy … are entirely sufficient to explain the benefit many patients experience (51)…
• Amongst all the placebos that exist, homeopathy has the potential to be an exceptionally powerful one (52)…
•…recommendations by professional homeopathic associations are not based on the evidence (53)…
[all references can be found in the original paper]
Since then (2009) I – often together with others – have published several further articles with “homeopathy” in the title. This means that my original paper needs updating. Here are the titles of (and links to) these articles (appologies, if I missed a few):
- Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy?
- Homeopathy
- Homeopathy: what does the “best” evidence tell us?
- Homeopathy, non-specific effects and good medicine.
- A systematic review of homoeopathy for the treatment of fibromyalgia.
- Homeopathy, a “helpful placebo” or an unethical intervention?
- The ethics of British professional homoeopaths.
- Homoeopathy debate. Protecting patients?
- Pharmacists and homeopathic remedies.
- Homeopathy in severe sepsis.
- Call for doctors not to practice homeopathy or refer to homeopaths.
- Homeopathy for eczema: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials.
- The most thorough assessment to date of homeopathy
- Should doctors recommend homeopathy?
If you study these articles, you will find that my arguments around homeopathy remained entirely evidence-based. The overall point is, I hope, clear: I did not embark on my research into homeopathy aiming to disprove it or to dismiss it outright [a claim I still hear with some regularity]. To begin with (in 1993), I was not only open but positively inclined. At all times, however, I was keen to follow the best available evidence. If my attitudes/verdicts became less and less positive, it is merely because the evidence became more and more overtly negative.
I came across an interesting article about chiropractic. Let me try to summarise it for you:
Texas’s system for disciplining chiropractors has become much less transparent, making it harder for patients to know whether a provider has faced regulatory action or not. Disciplinary cases reported by the Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners and the National Practitioner Data Bank have dropped sharply even as the number of licensed chiropractors has risen, which prompted patient advocates to ask whether the public is being misled.
A rule change adopted in 2019 that narrowed what the chiropractic board can publicly disclose seems at the heart of this. According to board executive director Boyd Bush, the result is that roughly 70 cases, mostly minor administrative matters such as late license renewals, are no longer appearing in the public-facing record. Bush argues the change was intended to prevent chiropractors from suffering disproportionate consequences, such as losing patients or paying higher insurance premiums, for technical violations that do not directly affect patient care.
That explanation contrasts with the view of patient advocate Ware Wendell of Texas Watch, who says the public needs clearer, more usable information when choosing care. His concern is that a chiropractor can have regulatory action behind the scenes while still appearing to have “no board action taken” in public-facing materials, leaving patients unaware of relevant history.
Moreover, not all chiropractor-related enforcement is handled by the chiropractic board. In some cases, the Texas Medical Board has issued cease-and-desist orders against chiropractors accused of practicing medicine without a license, including claims involving neurology expertise, stem cell therapy, diabetes treatment, thyroid disorders, and chronic degenerative diseases. That overlap between boards adds confusion and can make it even harder for the public to interpret what level of discipline or risk a practitioner has faced.
A broader policy debate sits behind the story. Lawmakers tried to reduce inter-board oversight last session through Senate Bill 268, but Governor Greg Abbott vetoed it, citing public health and safety concerns. The Texas Chiropractic Association, meanwhile, says complaints should be handled by the boards with direct oversight, while a 2017 Sunset Advisory Commission review had already criticized the chiropractic board for slow complaint resolution and weak enforcement.
The article closes by noting that the board says it has improved the backlog, but the transparency issue is likely to return in the next legislative session. Evidently, a tension exists between protecting chiropractors from over-penalization for minor offenses and ensuring patients can see meaningful disciplinary history before seeking treatment.
On this blog, we have discussed repeatedly that dishonesty and transgressions are by no means rare events in the realm of chiropractic. I think it is time that this profession gets its act together, puts more emphasis on ethics during education/training, and becomes transparent, even if it might not enhance their public image in the short-term.
This AI-verdict made me wonder: Who is for and who against the critical evaluation of so-called alternative medicine? And I asked a follow-up question:
Can you try to quantify this and give me % figures who is against a critical evaluation of alternative medicine, who is for it, and who is neutral. Can you do this for 1. the general population, 2. proponents of alternative medicine and 3. skeptics?
Here is the reply I got from Gemini:
To quantify these dynamics accurately, we have to look at large-scale sociological data on public attitudes toward science, peer-reviewed medical data (such as surveys by Pew Research, YouGov, and the European Commission), and the behavioral patterns of online discourse.
When it comes to a “critical evaluation” (meaning scientific testing to prove if a therapy works beyond a placebo), the groups break down along very distinct ideological lines. Here is how the percentages estimate across your three requested demographics:
Breakdown of Attitudes Toward Critical Evaluation
1. The General Population
The broader public is largely pragmatic, but a major chunk is passively open to alternative therapies without strictly demanding clinical trial proof.
- Against Critical Evaluation (~15% – 20%): These individuals hold a strong distrust of mainstream pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions. They believe alternative medicine operates on a different “energy” or “holistic paradigm” that standard science is fundamentally incapable of or biased against measuring.
- For Critical Evaluation (~35% – 45%): This group highly values evidence-based medicine, expects consumer safety protection, and agrees that if a therapy claims to cure an illness, it should prove it under a microscope or in a randomized controlled trial.
- Neutral / Passive Consumers (~40% – 50%): This is the massive middle. They don’t track clinical trials, but they will try acupuncture for back pain or take turmeric if a friend recommends it. They view alternative medicine through a lens of “well, it can’t hurt to try,” evaluating it based on personal anecdotes rather than scientific data.
2. Proponents of Alternative Medicine
This group includes dedicated practitioners, wellness influencers, and avid consumers of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).
- Against Critical Evaluation (~70% – 80%): The vast majority actively resist standard scientific evaluation, often viewing figures like Edzard Ernst as hostile prosecutors rather than objective evaluators. They argue that randomized controlled trials are “too reductionist” to capture holistic healing or claim that clinical science is rigged by corporate interests.
- For Critical Evaluation (~5% – 10%): A small minority of CAM practitioners (often in fields like medical acupuncture or osteopathy) welcome rigorous trials, hoping to find a mechanism of action that will grant them mainstream medical legitimacy and insurance coverage.
- Neutral (~10% – 15%): These are individuals who focus strictly on the individual client experience. They don’t care about data or institutional pushback either way; their attitude is simply “if my client says they feel better, that is the only science I need.”
3. Skeptics & Pro-Science Advocates
This demographic comprises secular organizations, evidence-based medical professionals, and science communicators who actively follow work like Ernst’s.
- Against Critical Evaluation (<1%): Virtually non-existent in this group, as evaluation is their core tenet. The only micro-fraction here might be extreme fringe elements who feel certain alternative therapies are so fundamentally absurd (like breatharianism) that evaluating them is a waste of scientific funding.
- For Critical Evaluation (~90% – 95%): The overwhelming majority. They strongly defend the stance that there is no such thing as “alternative” medicine—there is only medicine that has been proven to work and medicine that hasn’t. They view critical evaluation as an ethical necessity for patient safety.
- Neutral (~5%): A tiny sliver who may agree with the premise of science but feel indifferent about fighting the cultural battle against wellness trends, preferring to let people believe what they want as long as it isn’t directly killing them.
The Reality of the “Viral Sharing Power”
The Disparity: While alternative health advocates outnumber skeptics in raw volume and content creation—churning out high-yield, emotionally comforting narratives—the pro-science corrections achieve highly concentrated “viral bursts.”
When a prominent alternative health claim is cleanly and definitively debunked by data, it provides a highly shareable, “gotcha” piece of content for the large, silent neutral majority and the highly active skeptic network. A data-driven correction acts as a high-utility intellectual tool, allowing regular people to cut through multi-million dollar wellness marketing, which is why a single well-structured critique can match or outpace the reach of thousands of individual wellness posts.
______________________
I know, there are good reasons for being cautious about such AI analyses. Yet, unless someone can point me to more reliable data, I will go with this one – not least because it coincides with my own experience and also because I quite like its findings.
Yesterday, I received a comment that ended stating: “… this site, and quite possibly Edzard, has well and truly lost the plot.” The author has made many comments before that led me to ignore him; so, I did not think twice about what he had to express. Yet, later it started me wondering what people feel about my blog and my work in general. I have to admit that I know very little about these questions. What is more, I have no idea how to find out.
What does one do in such a situation?
Yes, you guessed it, one asks AI. Specifically, I asked AI (Gemini) what people state about me and my work on social media.
Here is the response:
Edzard Ernst, Emeritus Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter and the world’s first professor in this field, occupies a highly polarized space in public and academic discourse. Because he evaluates alternative therapies strictly through the lens of evidence-based medicine, opinions of him are cleanly split based on how the observer views the relationship between science and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
1. The Pro-Evidence & Skeptical Community
Within mainstream medicine, scientific research, and skeptical organizations, Ernst is widely praised as a heroic, objective defender of public health.
- Rigorous Science First: Proponents point out that Ernst is uniquely qualified to critique CAM because he is formally trained in multiple modalities and practiced them early in his career. Online advocates frequently rally around his blunt philosophy on medicine. As Ernst famously co-wrote in his book Trick or Treatment:
“There is either medicine that is effective or not, medicine that is safe or not. So-called alternative therapies need to be assessed and then classified as good medicines or bogus medicines.”
- The Defender of Patient Safety: On social media, users routinely share his warnings regarding the “indirect harm” of alternative medicine, arguing that unscientific advice can be fatal. Ernst summarized this stance sharply in a peer-reviewed paper: “Alternative practitioner’s claims about ‘root causes’ and holistic care are usually pure nonsense; their pampering may be agreeable, but it can undoubtedly cost lives.”
- A “Whistleblower” Against Pseudo-Science: Proponents view him as a courageous figure who faced severe institutional backlash—including losing his department’s funding after publicly criticizing King Charles III (then the Prince of Wales) for promoting homeopathy. On platforms like Reddit, supporters echo the sentiment that Ernst “stands up for clinical truth when institutions bow to royal influence and political correctness.”
2. The CAM Practitioner & Advocate Community
Among alternative healthcare providers, natural health advocates, and some “integrated medicine” proponents, Ernst is viewed with deep hostility and suspicion.
- “The Scourge of Alternative Medicine”: Detractors frequently use social media to label him as a close-minded dogmatist who is fundamentally biased. A common refrain in CAM forums and X replies accuses him of severe bias: “Ernst does not investigate alternative medicine to see if it works; he designs reviews with the explicit purpose of proving it doesn’t.”
- Accusations of Scientific Flaws: Specific professional groups have actively challenged his data. For example, within the chiropractic community, critics point to his reviews on the dangers of spinal manipulation and claim he misattributed injuries caused by untrained practitioners to qualified chiropractors. In a formal response published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice, chiropractic researchers directly attacked his methodology, stating:
“Ernst, by incorrectly labelling care providers as chiropractors… has added to the over-reporting of deaths… the fact that the care providers were not chiropractors is easily confirmed.”
- Institutional Deafness: On wellness blogs and natural health spaces, critics state that his clinical, data-first approach misses the point of holistic healing entirely. As one practitioner noted in an online debate: “He treats patients like spreadsheets. He completely disregards the mind-body connection, individual patient testimony, and the cold reality that conventional medicine fails millions of people every day, forcing them to look elsewhere.”
While Edzard Ernst is swimming against a massive volume of alternative health advocates who view him as their “nemesis reserving his most poisonous venom for their professions,” his data-driven, pro-science corrections achieve significantly higher viral sharing power among the public.
_____________
Nothing truly new, of course, but quite interesting nevertheless, I thought.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric is systematically racialized and frequently functions as a “dog whistle” to mobilize his racist followers. Here are but a few examples:
- July 1989 (On the Central Park Five): “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.” (From a full-page newspaper advertisement Trump took out regarding five Black and Latino teenagers accused of assault; the men were later fully exonerated by DNA evidence, but Trump repeatedly refused to apologize or rescind the sentiment).
- October 1993 (House Subcommittee Hearing on Native American Casinos): “They don’t look like Indians to me… and they don’t look like Indians to Indians.” (Questioning the authenticity of Connecticut tribal members operating competing casinos).
- June 2015 (Presidential Announcement Speech): “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
- January 2018 (Oval Office Meeting on Immigration): “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” (Referring to immigrants from Haiti and African nations during a bipartisan meeting, as corroborated by attending senators).
- July 2019 (On Baltimore and Rep. Elijah Cummings): “Cumming [sic] District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place… No human being would want to live there.”
- July 2019 (Twitter Statements on Democratic Congresswomen): “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.” (Directed at four minority Democratic congresswomen, three of whom were born in the United States).
- December 2019 (Speech to the Israeli American Council): “A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me—you have no choice… You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax.” (Invoking the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish people are solely motivated by money and financial self-interest).
- December 2023 (Campaign Rally in New Hampshire): “They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”
- April 2026 (televised national address from the White House, marking Trump’s first formal address to the nation since the outbreak of the military conflict with Iran) “We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks… We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age, where they belong.”
An analysis of his public statements and Truth Social posts revealed a abhorrent pattern: approximately 80% of the individuals he labels as “low IQ” are people of colour, specifically Black or Hispanic public figures. The term could theoretically be used as a neutral insult; however, Trump’s skewed application clearly evokes a long history of racist pseudo-science once upon a time used to justify claims of intellectual inferiority among non-white populations. Trump often reserves his most vitriolic attacks on intelligence for non-white targets. He often compounds these insults with additional degrading language, such as:
- Ketanji Brown Jackson: Described as “that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench”.
- Maxine Waters: Repeatedly labelled “extraordinarily low IQ” and “the face of the Democrat party”.
- Don Lemon: Referred to as “the dumbest man on television”.
When targeting white opponents, Trump tends to use labels like “crooked,” “weak,” or “disgraceful.” In contrast, his attacks on Black and Brown figures – including his description of congress women of colour as “mentally deranged” or “sick” – focus on cognitive or mental fitness, echoing historical tropes used to exclude marginalised groups from public life.
Research into the 2016 and 2020 elections suggests that support for Trump was more strongly tied to racial resentment and xenophobia than to “economic anxiety.” Exposure to such rhetoric can measurably increase the public expression of prejudice. Trump’s rhetoric often aligns with his administration’s policy priorities, which were frequently criticized as racially discriminatory:
- The “Muslim Ban”: An executive order targeting several Muslim-majority nations.
- Immigration Enforcement: Hardline policies, such as “zero tolerance” at the border, which disproportionately affected Latinx communities.
- Overt Commentary: Infamous descriptions of African nations as “shithole countries” and the use of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory to describe immigration.
Beyond specific insults, Trump’s broader narrative frequently utilizes dehumanizing imagery. He has, for instance, frequently amplified or “retweeted” supporters who use racist caricatures – such as those depicting the Obamas in a derogatory manner. Recent comments labelling nations like India and China as “hellholes” further underscore a worldview defined by national/ racial hierarchies.
Taken together, the combination of targeted slurs, racially skewed insults, and discriminatory policies provides a substantial evidentiary base for arguing that Trump’s rhetoric is not merely accidental, but a strategic effort to appeal to xenophobic and white-nationalist segments of the electorate.
Does that make him a racist?
Or are his comments merely an expression of his profound stupidity?
I let you decide.
This study was conducted to determine the effect of Reiki performed on children with leukemia between the ages of 5-7 years on pain, vital signs, oxygen saturation, and quality of life. It was a double-blind, pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study. The research sample consisted of 66 children with leukemia aged 5-7 years who were hospitalized in pediatric oncology wards of a university hospital between December 2020 and November 2021. The balanced block randomization method was used for randomization. The data were collected using Information Form, Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale (W-BPS), Vital Signs Follow-up Form, The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 3.0 Cancer Module. Reiki was performed to the Reiki group for 20-30 min once per day, for 3 consecutive days and pseudo-Reiki was applied to the pseudo-Reiki group by an independent nurse during the same application period.
There was no statistically significant difference in vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature) and SpO2 values among the groups (p > 0.05). However, both children’s and mothers’ evaluations on days 1, 2, and 3 after the intervention showed that pain scores in the Reiki group were significantly lower than in the pseudo-Reiki and control groups (p < 0.001), and quality of life was significantly higher (child:p < 0.001; mother:p < 0.01) compared to the pseudo-Reiki and control groups.
The authors concluded that Reiki did not affect the vital signs of the children but was effective in reducing pain and increasing the quality of life compared with the pseudo Reiki and control groups. It is recommended that Reiki therapy be used in addition to medical treatment to reduce pain and improve quality of life in children with leukemia aged 5-7 years.
The whole point of having a control group receiving pseudo-Reiki is to control for placebo effects. For this purpose, it is necessary to fool the patients well and make sure that they are unable to tell Reiki from pseudo-Reiki. I would guess – I have no aceess to the full paper – that this was not the case in this study. If I am correct, the positive outcome is likely to be due to expectation of a positive healing effect and unrelated to any specific effect of Reiki.
In any case, it is irresponsible nonsense to recommend Reiki – or any therapy – on the basis of just one positive study. For that one would need several independent confirmations with high quality studies that firmly establish a cause effect relationship. The current study does not fall into that category, and I am not aware of a single trial that does.
The US “Health Freedom Movement” (HFM) is a coalition of activists, alternative practitioners, supplement and device manufacturers, and libertarian or populist politicians who oppose strong government regulation of healthcare. They claim to defend the individual’s right to choose any treatment or product they consider beneficial, especially so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Its roots lie in resistance to medical licensing and in movements around homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic, which often portrayed organized medicine as a cartel limiting patient choice. The John Birch Society and other conservative groups use the term to oppose fluoridation, vaccination mandates, and federal health programs. During 1990s–2000s, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, backed by a coalition of supplement companies and “health freedom” advocates, limited the FDA’s pre‑market control over supplements; libertarian politicians like Ron Paul and figures such as Prince/King Charles support aspects of this agenda. More recently, anti‑vaccination activism, opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and then COVID‑19 mandates and vaccines gave the HFM a major boost and re-grouped as “medical freedom” or “health freedom” across partisan lines, but with a strong right‑wing infrastructure.
The HFM’s main players include politicians (e.g. Ron Paul, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and media personalities (e.g. Gary Null, Kevin Trudeau, and many supplement‑selling influencers as well as SCAM doctors). Many of them have strong financial ties to supplement, wellness, or SCAM industry.
The HFM’s stated aims sound liberal: individual autonomy, informed and access to SCAM. In practice, however, its core goals are sharper and consistently deregulatory:
- Limit or abolish pre‑market safety and efficacy requirements for supplements and many SCAMs.
- Oppose or roll back mandatory childhood vaccination, COVID‑19 vaccination and mask rules, school-entry requirements, and sometimes even basic disease‑reporting obligations.
- Resist overarching government health programs, including water fluoridation, electronic health records, and population‑level data sharing, which they portray as surveillance or tyranny.
- Create broad legal shields for all types of SCAM practitioners and restrict the enforcement powers of medical boards and public‑health authorities.
While the rhetoric centres on “freedom” and “choice”, the policy is liberating commercial interests from evidence‑based standards and oversight. For this, the HFM uses a mixture of advocacy and classic populist agitation:
- Legislative lobbying: Drafting model bills that redefine or exempt SCAM practitioners, weaken vaccination requirements, and restrict state health departments’ emergency powers.
- Litigation: Groups such as the “Health Freedom Defense Fund” use lawsuits against mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and school or airline rules both as legal tools and as high‑visibility fundraising and mobilization devices.
- Electoral politics: Endorsing and funding candidates who promise to “reign in” public‑health agencies, defund WHO, or defy CDC guidance; in some places, anti‑vaccine activists have captured local hospital or school boards.
- Media ecosystems: Conferences, podcasts, Substack newsletters, and “documentaries” circulate narratives of regulatory capture, big‑pharma malfeasance, and heroic mavericks, often entwined with sales of supplements or courses.
These activities reinforce distrust of science and conventional medicine and thus create a host of issues and problems:
- Selective use of autonomy: Autonomy is invoked vigorously when opposing vaccines, fluoridation, or regulation of supplements, but tend to disregard it when patients are misled by misinformation, coercive marketing, or opaque conflicts of interest in the alternative sector itself. Yet protection against deception and unsafe products is essential for meaningful autonomy; “choice” among misrepresented options is not genuine choice.
- Systematic downplaying of risk and evidence: The HFM treats lack of evidence of benefit as if it were evidence of safety and legitimacy and often dismisses adverse‑event data. Regulators and critics must meet impossibly high standards, while proponents of SCAM face essentially none.
- Commercial conflicts of interest: Many leading voices within the HFM derive substantial income from selling SCAM. The HFM criticizes “Big Pharma” conflicts of interest while largely ignoring or concealing its own.
- Wilful ignorance of collective harms: Opposition to vaccination, masking, and quarantine treats infections as purely individual matters, neglecting that infectious disease risk is shared and that one person’s “choice” can impose morbidity and mortality on others. Yet any rights framework that leaves no space for legitimate public‑health constraints on individual choice is incompatible with controlling epidemics.
- Alliance with broader conspiracist and extremist currents: Sections of the HFM have fused with anti‑globalist, anti‑UN/WHO, and sometimes far‑right political currents, amplifying conspiracy narratives and distrust that spill over into many domains beyond health. Thus they corrode trust in institutions that are necessary for coordinating large‑scale health responses.
In a nutshell, the HFM is a deregulatory, commercially entangled project that uses the language of liberty to erode evidence‑based medicine and to normalise quackery as well as anti‑vaccination politics. To put it bluntly: the HFM does not seem to operate in the best interest of either the individual patient or the collective public health.
In a world where logic is fast becoming optional, chemtrails are all the rage. A good example is Andrea Whitehead (AW). She was a Reform UK candidate for the 2024 United Kingdom General Election. Apparently, she is convinced that airplane vapor trails might actually be sinister chemicals sprayed as part of a Bill Gates-led global depopulation plot. Yes, the contrails that appear when a plane passes in the sky turn out to be part of an elaborate scheme!
The chemtrails conspiracy theory is a belief system so scientifically illiterate that even the most determined conspiracy theorist might raise an eyebrow. According to AW and many others like her, those innocent white streaks left by aircraft at high altitude are not merely condensation trails (water vapor freezing at cold temperatures), but they are deliberate chemical dispersals designed to cull the human population. And who’s pulling the strings? None other than billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates.
What is good to know is that AW is not alone. She has support from a range of other political figures. Here are a few examples:
- Cron, Kevin – United States – Democratic Party (Yolo County Board of Supervisors Chair, California) – Invited chemtrail advocate Dane Wigington to share “knowledge” after local children were diagnosed with rare cancer; acknowledged “credible and compelling evidence” warranting investigation
- DeSantis, Ron – United States – Republican Party – Governor of Florida; expressed support for Florida’s anti-weather-modification bill, stating “Floridians are proud of our sunshine”
- Greene, Marjorie Taylor – United States – Republican Party – Former U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 14th district (resigned January 2026); introduced the Clear Skies Act (2025) banning weather modification as a felony; posted after Hurricane Helene: “Yes, they control the weather”
- Kennedy Jr., Robert F. – United States – Independent (appointed Health Secretary by Trump Administration) – U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (since 2025); openly endorsed chemtrail theory in 2024, posted on X (August 2025): “We are going to stop this crime,” suggesting Defense Department adds chemicals to jet fuel
- Paul, Ron – United States – Republican Party – Former U.S. Senator from Texas; his name is frequently invoked by chemtrail conspirators as offering “support” for their views, though direct endorsement is less clear.
Is the chemtrails conspiracy a particular right-wing obsession?
Or is the common denominator perhaps simply lack of intelligence?
Reform UK has backed multiple candidates promoting everything from chemtrails to climate denial to anti-vaccine material to anti-semitism and other forms of racism. I find it impressive how they managed to collect such a glittering array of pseudoscience under one political banner. When confronted with this delightful package of misinformation, Reform UK’s response was predictably suave. They defended their candidates, suggesting that opponents were merely “scraping the barrel” and that these candidates reflected the “centre of public opinion.”
Right on!
Nothing says centrist opinion like believing the government is secretly spraying poison from airplanes to kill people.
The chemtrails theory itself is about as scientifically credible as believing the moon is made of Cheddar cheese. Condensation trails, or contrails, have been understood by atmospheric scientists for many decades. They form when water vapor from aircraft exhaust freezes at high altitudes—approximately -40°C to -60°C. That’s it. That’s the entire conspiracy. Water vapor freezing. To ignore this knowledge and come out with the culling of entire populations requires an overdose of wilful ignorance.
Bill Gates, for his part apparently no angel either, has become the conspiracy theorist’s golden boy, falsely accused of everything from tracking chips in vaccines to solar geoengineering to now apparently cloud-based population control. I must admit, it seems remarkable how he is claimed to manage single-handedly to sustain an entire industry of conspiracy content creators. Someone should really hire him for a Marvel movie as the world’s most perpetually accused villain.
The chemtrail story exposes an uncomfortable reality of current political discourse: that fringe conspiracy theories can now propel people into serious electoral contests. In 2024, Whitehead’s chemtrails enthusiasm didn’t disqualify her from consideration; it merely made headlines and arguably even increased her chances. What vibrantly democratic processes where ignorant population-culling chemtrail believers can aspire to parliamentary office!
Insomnia is a prevalent disorder that is associated with substantial impairment. Homeopathy has been proposed as a complementary treatment for insomnia, but its clinical effects remain uncertain.
This systematic review assessed the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of homeopathic treatments for insomnia. Prospective comparative studies evaluating any homeopathic preparation for insomnia were included. Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, seven additional databases, and three trial registries were conducted through August 2025. Risk of bias, intervention complexity, model validity, and pragmatism were assessed using respectively RoB 2, ROBINS-I, iCAT, MVHT, and RITES. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 364 participants) and four non-randomized studies (NRSIs; n = 517) met the inclusion criteria. In adults, sleep quality (MD = −2.6 points; 95% CI −5.5 to 2.6; low certainty) and insomnia severity (MD = −3.2; 95% CI −5.68 to −0.72, moderate certainty) were reported in one RCT each. For total sleep time, the pooled MD of three RCTs was 0.65 hours (95% CI −0.9 to 2.2; low certainty). In children, one open-label RCT suggested a difference in insomnia severity, but certainty of evidence was very low. Adverse events were rarely reported, resulting in low certainty evidence.
The authors concluded that the current evidence is mainly limited by imprecision and risk of bias. The available evidence does not allow firm conclusions regarding the effects of homeopathy for insomnia. High-quality, replicated trials with systematic adverse event monitoring are needed.
15 years ago, I published a similar review entitled “Homeopathy for insomnia and sleep-related disorders: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials” (Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies Volume 16(3) September 2011 195–199)). Here is its abstract:
The aim of this review was the critical evaluation of evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy for insomnia and sleep-related disorders. A search of MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register was conducted to find RCTs using any form of homeopathy for the treatment of insomnia or sleep-related disorders. Data were extracted according to predefined criteria; risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. Six randomised, placebo-controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Two studies used individualised homeopathy, and four used standardised homeopathic treatment. All studies had significant flaws; small sample size was the most prevalent limitation. The results of one study suggested that homeopathic remedies were superior to placebo; however, five trials found no significant differences between homeopathy and placebo for any of the main outcomes. Evidence from RCTs does not show homeopathy to be an effective treatment for insomnia and sleep-related disorders.
The findings of the two reviews are remarkably similar. For the following reasons, I find this notable:
- One would have hoped that 15 years are a long enough time for clarifying the issue, particularly as insomnia is not an unimportant condition for homeopathy.
- The new review is authored by well-known proponents. It seems unexpected that they (almost) go as far as admitting that the evidence for homeopathy as a treatment for insomnia is not positive.
- We have here, I think, a textbook example of how proponents of homeopathy prettify results that do not confirm their belief.
SO FAR, SO GOOD.
But now consider this: There are two further reviews of the same subject!
The first is entitled “Homoeopathy for insomnia: A meta-analysis of clinical evidence – Journal of Integrated Standardized Homoeopathy“. Here is its abstract:
Objectives: Insomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder characterised by challenges in initiating, maintaining or achieving restorative sleep, resulting in compromised daytime functionality. Traditional therapeutic modalities frequently encompass pharmacological treatments, which may have adverse effects and potential for dependency. Numerous patients pursue alternative methodologies, such as homoeopathy, which is attributed to its personalised, holistic and non-invasive treatment framework. This thorough examination assesses the effectiveness of homoeopathy in promoting better sleep quality and overall wellness in people with insomnia by analysing randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Material and Methods: This meta-analysis sought to ascertain whether homoeopathy induces a statistically significant enhancement in the management of insomnia, concentrating on aspects of sleep quality, duration and general well-being. All RCTs addressing insomnia treated with homoeopathic interventions were included in this review. All studies were meticulously documented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three evaluators independently reviewed and compiled the literature, extracting comprehensive details regarding participants, study designs, therapeutic interventions and follow-up pertaining to homoeopathic treatment. The primary outcome of the investigation was disease assessment based on sleep diary scores, with an additional outcome being the enhancement of quality of life.
Results: The analysis revealed that homoeopathic remedies exhibited statistically significant improvement over placebo in the management of insomnia. The overall pooled effect size, standardised mean difference (random), was −0.60, standard error (random) was 0.42 and confidence interval (random) at 95% ranged from −0.93 to −0.26. The risk of bias was assessed for all studies.
Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows that homoeopathic remedies are effective in treating insomnia, but more studies are required for accuracy.
The last review is entitled “Effectiveness of Homeopathic Interventions for Insomnia and Sleep Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis“. Here is its abstract:
Insomnia is a common sleep disorder, and many individuals seek alternative treatments like homeopathy. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of homeopathic interventions for insomnia and sleep-wake disorders. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for studies published between 2010 and 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies involving adults (≥18 years) with primary insomnia receiving any homeopathic intervention compared to placebo, no treatment, or active care. Primary outcomes included validated sleep quality measures (e.g., Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Four reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for controlled trials, and a narrative synthesis for non-randomized studies. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The search yielded 1304 records; 12 studies (nine RCTs and three non-randomized) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed a large, statistically significant positive effect of homeopathy on sleep outcomes (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI [0.24, 1.38], p = 0.0055), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 86.04%) and publication bias (Egger’s test, p = 0.0079). Most studies had high or critical risk of bias, and overall certainty was low. Homeopathic interventions showed a large positive effect on sleep outcomes, but due to high bias, heterogeneity, and publication bias, evidence remains low-certainty and insufficient to support effectiveness. High-quality RCTs are needed.
What should we make of this?
We now have two reviews concluding that there is no good evidence and two implying that homeopathy is effective for insomnia! This clearly demonstrates how easy it is to mislead the public with seemingly rigorous reviews.
I must say, I pity all the interested lay people who are trying to make sense of this mess.
How can they arrive at the best available, most reliable evidence?
We have here, I think, another textbook example; one of how important it is to run reality checks. But surely, we cannot possible ask of a lay person to understand why the last two reviews are badly misleading. What we need is an accessible tool for differentiating the science from the pseudoscience, the reliable from the unreliable.
Unfortunately, such a tool does not exist. But there are a few indicators:
- Is the journal that published the review reputable?
- Are the authors affiliated to reputable institutions?
- Do the authors have a history of critical analysis or one of uncritical promotion?
- Do they explain clearly and provide the essential details of their work?
These are issues that lay people might be able to check relatively easily. The above 4 reviews demonstrate that using them does not always provided an entirely clear cut-off. However, it might give some valuable pointers into the right direction.
