big pharma
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.
The defence of anthroposophical medicine – or of any other unproven modality – as articulated, for example, by figures like Weleda CEO Tina Müller, presents a vision of patient-centred care and economic pragmatism. However, when held against the light of current clinical standards and the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), it reveals significant cracks.
The most profound problem lies in the definition of scientific evidence. Proponents often point to decades of “positive experience” and high patient satisfaction as proof of effectiveness. Yet, in the hierarchy of science, anecdotal success sits at the very bottom. Anthroposophical treatments lack biological plausibility. Their perceived benefits are largely indistinguishable from context effects (such as placebo). Anthroposophical medicine might provide more time, empathy, and personal attention – factors that undoubtedly improve a patient’s well-being but do not validate the effectiveness of the specific remedies used. When independent bodies subject these treatments to rigorous, high-quality trials, the purported effects usually vanishe.
Anthroposophical medicine represents merely a tiny percentage of our healthcare expenditures. Therefore, proponents argue, little money would be saved by getting rid of it. This argument is a calculated distraction from the ethical core of the issue. While the fiscal burden may be marginal, the scientific cost is immense. A statutory health insurance system is built on a social contract of solidarity; it functions under the premise that public funds are reserved for treatments of proven value and effectiveness. To fund therapies that lack plausibility as well as reproducible results is to erode the credibility of medicine and rational thought. It is not a question of the amount of money, but the principle of integrity: every Euro, £ and $ spent on unproven treatments is a euro, £, and $ diverted from underfunded and often life-saving healthcare.
The regularly made appeal to the Swiss Model as a beacon of success also requires a more critical reading. The integration of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in Switzerland was, at its heart, a result of direct democracy rather than evidence. While the Swiss public voted for inclusion, the majority of the medical community remains deeply sceptical. To cite Switzerland as “proof” that anthroposophical medicine has fulfilled the criteria of EBM is to conflate political popularity with scientific validation. Democracy can decide how a nation spends its money, but it cannot vote a reliable evidence-base into existence.
Finally, we must consider the human risk of legitimizing non-evidenced-based practices. When a state-sanctioned insurance system places such therapies on the same pedestal as EBM, it risks misleading vulnerable individuals. For patients facing chronic or life-threatening illnesses, the “integrative” path can lead to a dangerous delay in seeking conventional, life-saving interventions. By treating subjective belief and peer-reviewed science as equal peers, we risk entering a “post-truth” medical era where the desire for a “natural” or “holistic” experience outweighs the necessity for proof.
In conclusion, while the call for a more “human” and “holistic” medical system might be noble, it must not come at the expense of scientific rigor. It is deeply misleading to imply that this is an ‘either or’; good medicine will always be based on both. A healthcare system that prioritizes popularity over proof risks becoming a system of expensive comfort rather than one of effective healing. True patient appreciation lies not in offering unproven choices, but in ensuring that every treatment covered by the public purse is supported by sound evidence. Not following this strategy is a disservice to patients and to progress.
So, the next time you hear people defending anthroposophical medicine or any other unproven modality, please look behind the smoke screen and find out why they do it. More often than not, you will then identify a massive conflict of interest. My advice is to listen to independent experts and to dismiss the people with an axe to grind.
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) affects over half a billion people worldwide. Current pharmacologic treatments offer limited efficacy and carry substantial risks, warranting the development of safe and effective alternatives. This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the herbal extract VER-01 in CLBP.
It enrolled 820 adults with CLBP (VER-01, n = 394; placebo, n = 426) and included a double-blind 12-week treatment phase (phase A), a 6-month open-label extension (phase B), followed by either a 6-month continuation (phase C) or randomized withdrawal (phase D). The primary endpoint of phase A was a change in mean numeric rating scale (NRS) pain intensity, with a change in total neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI) score as a key secondary endpoint in participants with a neuropathic pain component (PainDETECT > 18). The primary endpoint for phase D was time to treatment failure.
The study met its primary endpoint in phase A, with a mean pain reduction of -1.9 NRS points in the VER-01 group (mean difference (MD) versus placebo = -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.9 to -0.3; P < 0.001). Pain further decreased to -2.9 NRS points in phase B, with effects sustained through phase C. The study also met its key secondary endpoint of phase A, with a mean NPSI decrease of -14.4 (standard error, 3.3) points from baseline in the VER-01 arm (MD versus placebo = -7.3, 95% CI = -13.2 to -1.3; P = 0.017). Although phase D did not meet its primary endpoint (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.44-1.27; P = 0.288), pain increased significantly more with placebo upon withdrawal (MD = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.0-1.0; P = 0.034). In phase A, the incidence of adverse events-mostly mild to moderate and transient-was higher with VER-01 than with placebo (83.3% versus 67.3%; P < 0.001). VER-01 was well-tolerated, with no signs of dependence or withdrawal.
The authors of this well-designed trial concluded that this phase 3 study provides robust evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of VER-01 in the treatment of CLBP. These findings highlight the importance of further research with VER-01 in other chronic pain conditions and suggest that VER-01 could play an important role in modern pain management.
VER-01 was developed by the German biopharmaceutical company Vertanical. It is a standardized full-spectrum extract from a specific Cannabis sativa strain (DKJ127 L). This means it contains a defined mix of the plant’s compounds, including cannabinoids (such as low levels of THC—tetrahydrocannabinol—and trace amounts of CBD and cannabigerol), terpenes, and other bioactive compounds like beta-caryophyllene and alpha-bisabolol. It is designed to harness the synergistic “entourage effect” of these compounds.
The extract has also recently been shown to be superior to opioids. An RCT concluded that VER-01 demonstrated superiority over opioids in treating CLBP, both in terms of efficacy and gastrointestinal tolerability.
PS
Given the option of either having spinal manipulation (or any other form of unproven so-called alternative medicine) or a safe and standardised cannabis extract, I certainly know what I would choose!
PPS
Vertanical has submitted marketing applications for approval in several European countries (where it is expected to be sold under the brand name Exilby if approved). The company is also preparing for a late-stage trial in the US to support a subsequent filing with the FDA. If approved, VER-01 would be the first full-spectrum cannabis extract authorized specifically for chronic low back pain and potentially a new class of medicine for chronic pain management.
Mehmet Oz has featured regularly on this blog, e.g.:
- Donald Trump nominated SCAM promoter, Mehmet Oz, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
- Columbia University cut ties with Dr. Mehmet Oz … or did they?
- Quackery promoter, Dr. Mehmet Oz, is running for the U.S. Senate
- Trump, Kennedy and Oz just announced plenty of untruths about autism and its treatment
Currently, he serves in Trump’s administration as “Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services” (CMS). He also is (or was?) a “Global Advisor & Stakeholder” for the company ‘iHerb’, and was appointed to that role in 2023. The company itself is a global e-commerce platform that was founded in 1996 and has its headquarters in California. iHerb specializes in health and wellness products. iHerb’s mission is to make health and wellness products accessible to everyone. The company operates as a direct-to-consumer retailer. iHerb sells a wide variety of products, including:
- Vitamins, minerals, and supplements (VMS)
- Sports nutrition
- Beauty and personal care products
- Grocery items
- Baby and pet care products
Crucially, iHerb sells several products with leucovorin, i.e. folinic acid, the drug that, even though unproven, is now officially used for autism in the US. As far as I can see, most of the products that Oz promotes are not based on sound evidence.
Based on available information from a financial disclosure analysis, Mehmet Oz’s work as an advisor for ‘iHerb’ has earned him as much as $25 million in company stock. The disclosure, which lists asset values in ranges rather than precise figures, shows that this stock was part of his overall financial portfolio.
Several experts have raised concerns that Oz’s financial interests in various healthcare and supplement companies, including iHerb, could create a conflict of interest. As the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a position that oversees a vast budget and a significant portion of the U.S. healthcare system, his past and present ties to the industry have been highlighted as potential issues. The concern is that a government official in such a powerful position could use their influence to benefit their own financial holdings or those of companies they are affiliated with. This is especially relevant given that Medicare Advantage, a program he would oversee, allows customers to use prepaid cards to buy over-the-counter medicines and supplements—a market that companies like iHerb are in.
Mehmet Oz has publicly disclosed his financial interests. A financial filing shows that his investments in ‘iHerb’ represented one of his largest financial holdings. In a filing with the Office of Government Ethics, Oz has committed to divesting his equity holdings in healthcare companies, including his iHerb stock, within 90 days of confirmation. He has also pledged to resign from his advisory role with ‘iHerb’. The Office of Government Ethics has stated that based on its review, it believes Oz is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning conflicts of interest. The situation remains a point of public discussion and has drawn the attention of consumer advocacy groups. For example, the group Public Citizen has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether Oz’s social media posts promoting iHerb violated FTC guidelines on undisclosed endorsements, as his posts did not always clearly state his financial connection to the company.
Based on current public information, there are serious questions and concerns about whether Mehmet Oz has divested all of his interests as pledged, particularly with respect to his holdings in ‘iHerb’. The latest publicly available filings detail his assets and his intent to divest, but do not show the final completed sale. iHerb itself has publicly stated that the company is no longer affiliated with Dr. Oz and is not working with him or the administration. However, this does not independently confirm the liquidation of his personal vested stock.
A failure to timely follow the pledge can and should trigger a chain of events that leads to serious civil and criminal penalties, as well as significant political repercussions.
Many consumers hold a positive or neutral view of homeopathy. This is primarily because they don’t fully understand what it is, how absurd its assumptions really are, and how dangerous the homeopathic approach to healthcare truly is. A very common misconception, for instance, is that homeopathy is a natural and/or herbal treatment. However, both assumptions are mistaken. Homeopathic remedies are often not derived from natural or herbal substances (see below), and most are so highly diluted they contain no active substance at all. For those who value rational thought, this characteristic alone renders homeopathy utterly absurd.
The “absurdity” of homeopathy stems from several aspects:
- Claims that defy basic scientific principles: Proponents often assert a belief in “water memory” as the mechanism for remedies diluted beyond Avogadro’s number, meaning not a single original molecule remains. This operates outside the realm of scientific reality.
- Attributing any positive outcome to homeopathy: Homeopathy is often credited with curing serious conditions, despite lacking a plausible mechanism. This ignores natural recovery, the placebo effect, or concurrent conventional treatments.
- Dismissing scientific criticism as “Big Pharma conspiracy”: Some proponents frequently use this trope to invalidate negative scientific findings rather than engaging with evidence.
- Making outlandish claims about what homeopathy can cure: Some proponents claim efficacy for virtually everything, including severe infectious diseases, cancer, or even as a substitute for vaccinations. This is widely considered irresponsible and dangerous.
- Using pseudoscientific jargon: Terms like “energetic vibrations,” “quantum fields,” or “miasms” are often employed without clear, testable scientific definitions.
While it’s difficult and perhaps even unfair to name prominent exponents of these absurdities, certain types of proponents and their arguments are easily identified:
- Those who reject conventional medicine entirely for homeopathy: These individuals promote a “gentle” and “holistic” approach, often viewing conventional medicine as harsh and reductionist. This stance can tragically lead patients to forgo evidence-based treatments for serious illnesses (e.g., cancer, severe infections, diabetes) in favor of homeopathy, which has no proven specific effect. The belief that homeopathy alone suffices for all ailments, regardless of severity, is dangerously unscientific.
- Proponents of “new” or “extreme” provings and remedies: These homeopaths expand the materia medica to include unusual substances. Some conduct “provings” (testing remedies on healthy individuals) with incredibly abstract or implausible “substances” like emotions, dreams, vacuum, X-rays, cosmic energies, or even highly diluted Coca-Cola or parts of the Berlin Wall. The idea that these could be potentized into remedies with specific effects moves into the realm of fantasy rather than scientific inquiry.
- Those making grand claims about “water memory” or “quantum healing”: These individuals attempt to provide a theoretical basis for homeopathy that goes beyond the known laws of physics and chemistry. Their explanations often involve misinterpretations or misapplications of complex scientific concepts (like quantum mechanics or the structure of water) to justify a mechanism for which there is no evidence. They frequently speak of “information transfer” or “energetic imprints” without any empirical way to measure or verify these phenomena. The scientific consensus is that such claims are pseudoscientific.
- Promoters of homeopathic “vaccinations” or alternatives to proven public health measures: Offering what they claim are “natural” and “safer” alternatives to conventional vaccines is perhaps one of the most dangerous forms of advocacy. Promoting “homeopathic nosodes” (highly diluted disease products) as equivalents to vaccines is scientifically unfounded and can put individuals and communities at risk by fostering vaccine hesitancy and reducing herd immunity. Public health bodies universally condemn such practices.
Many homeopaths are, in my experience, entirely sincere in their beliefs and genuinely hope to help people (they will even feel ‘hard done by’ when reading this post). However, it’s crucial to remember, I think, that sincerity does not make a charlatan less, but more, dangerous. I have long felt that, if consumers truly understood what homeopathy is all about, their attitude towards it would dramatically change.
Robert F Kennedy Jr. posted the following statement on ‘X’ on 6 July 2025:
“In 1970, Autism was rare: fewer than 1 in 10,000 children. Today, it’s 1 in every 31. We owe it to our children to find out why.”
To understan this, it is worth considering the history of autism. Here are 5 milestones:
- 1911: Eugen Bleuler introduces the term “autism” to describe symptoms related to schizophrenia.
- 1926: Grunya Sukhareva writes about six children with autistic traits in a scientific German psychiatry and neurology journal.
- 1943: Leo Kanner publishes his paper on “early infantile autism,” describing 11 children with unique characteristics.
- 1944: Hans Asperger describes Asperger’s syndrome, a variant of autism.
- 1980: Autism is officially recognized as a separate disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III).
So, can anyone be surprised that, in 1970, autism was a relatively rare diagnosis?
No, not really!
But perhaps Kennedy has a point when he is concerned about the cause of autism?
No, not really!
- Changes in diagnostic criteria and tools: Broader definitions and improved diagnostic methods have led to more frequent diagnoses.
- Increased awareness and recognition: Greater awareness on all levels has resulted in more children being diagnosed.
- Growing population and demographic changes: Increased parental age may be a contributory factor.
- Genetic factors: Genetic mutations may play a role in the development of autism.
- A combination of the phenomena listed above as well as other factors that are as yet not known.
What is fairly sure – also based on tons of research – is that the increase of of autism is not caused by vaccinations.
So, why does Kennedy contine to pronounce dangerous BS on the subject?
I am not sure – perhaps it has something to do with the worm that has apparently eaten part of his brain (evidently the part that deals with the comprehension of science).
And when will he stop acting as a slinger of BS?
That, I’m afraid, is up to you, my American friends!
- United States: $12,474 per capita
- Germany: $6,191 per capita
- Canada: $6,207 per capita
- Australia: $6,597 per capita
- France: $6,517 per capita
- Italy: $3,066 per capita
- United Kingdom: $5,139 per capita.
Extraordinary! The US spends 4 times more than Italy? Does that correlate with life expectancy? The short answer is NO! Here are the life expectancy averages for men and women (data from 2023/4):
- United States
- Men: 75.8 years
- Women: 81.1 years
- United Kingdom
- Men: 79.54 years
- Women: 83.33 years
- Canada
- Men: 80.74 years
- Women: 85.03 years
- Australia
- Men: 82.43 years
- Women: 85.97 years
- Germany
- Men: 79.21 years
- Women: 83.88 years
- France
- Men: 80.6 years
- Women: 86.2 years
- Italy
- Men: 81.75 years (or 81.94 years according to some sources)
- Women: 85.87 years (or 86.01 years according to some sources)
So, the United States have the highest per capita healthcare costs but ranks lowest in life expectancy. The UK has lower healthcare costs per capita while achieving higher life expectancies. Germany has higher healthcare costs per capita and relatively high life expectancies. France has moderate healthcare costs per capita ($6,400 and $6,600) and higher life expectancies.
How can this be? In the hope of getting a glimps of an answer, I searched the costs for a few specific interventions (where data were available for the listed countries). Here we go.
The estimated costs of a flu jab in various countries:
- United Kingdom:
Free for people aged 65 and over, pregnant women, those with certain long-term health conditions, and healthcare workers on the NHS.
Otherwise, costs range from £9.95 to £21.95 at pharmacies.
- United States:
Costs vary depending on the provider, insurance coverage, and type of flu vaccine.
Private sector costs per dose range from $19.48 to $32.45 for standard flu vaccines and $73.36 to $79.17 for high-dose vaccines for seniors.
CDC contract prices per dose range from $13.92 to $22.21 for standard flu vaccines and $56.40 to $56.45 for high-dose vaccines for seniors.
- Germany:
Statutory health insurance typically covers the cost of flu vaccinations for people 60 and older, certain chronic conditions, and some other risk groups.
Without insurance or for non-covered groups, prices can range from €15 to €35 per shot, but exact costs are not readily available.
- Canada:
Flu shots are often covered by provincial health plans for seniors and those with certain health conditions.
Without coverage, prices can range from $20 to $40 CAD per shot, but exact costs vary by province and provider.
- Australia:
Free flu vaccinations are available for people aged 65 and over, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 6 months and over, pregnant women, and people with certain medical conditions under the National Immunisation Program.
Otherwise, costs can range from $15 to $30 AUD per shot at some pharmacies and clinics.
- France:
Flu vaccinations are covered by the national health insurance for people 65 and older and those with certain health conditions.
For others not covered, prices can range from €10 to €25 per shot, but exact costs are not readily available.
- Italy:
Free flu vaccinations are offered to people 65 and older, pregnant women, and those with certain health conditions.
For others, costs can range from €15 to €30 per shot, but exact costs are not readily available.
The costs of a simple eye test in various countries:
- United Kingdom:
Basic Eye Test: £25-£30, depending on the optician.
Free Eye Test: Eligible for those under 16, over 60, with diabetes or glaucoma, or receiving certain benefits.
- United States:
Average Cost: around $100, but can range from $50 to $250.
- Canada:
Specsavers Canada: $99, including an OCT scan, at participating locations.
Free Eye Test: Eligible seniors have their eye exam costs covered by provincial healthcare.
The estimated costs for simple and surgical molar extractions:
- Germany
Simple extraction: around $113
Surgical extraction: costs may vary, but Germany has an average dental procedure cost of $210
- United Kingdom
Simple extraction: $495
Surgical extraction: $2,930
- USA
Simple extraction: $200
Surgical extraction: $4,000
- Canada
Simple extraction: $150-$198
Surgical extraction: $2,000
- Australia
Simple extraction: $160-$350
Surgical extraction: $2,500
- France
Simple extraction: around $126 (tooth extraction average cost)
Surgical extraction: costs may vary
- Italy
Simple extraction: $97
Surgical extraction: costs may vary, but Italy has an average dental procedure cost of $173.
The estimated costs of an acupuncture session in different countries:
- United States: $60-$150, with initial visits ranging from $100-$150 and cosmetic acupuncture sessions costing $120-$200. Community acupuncture clinics offer more affordable options at $25-$50 per session.
- Canada: $95-$135, with prices higher in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.
- United Kingdom: £40-£70 per session, with first sessions potentially costing $88-$100 due to consultations.
- Australia: AUD 75-AUD 120 per session, depending on location and practitioner experience.
________________________
Do these data make sense?
I am not sure.
If anything, they seem to suggest that the US is very poor value for money when it comes to healthcare. Of course, this is all going to change now that Trump and Kennedy are in charge …
… SADLY, NOT FOR THE BETTER, I’M AFRAID!
Robert F Kennedy Jr. is, as we all know, the United States secretary of health and human services. He went to Harvard, graduating in 1976 with a Bachelor of Arts in American history and literature. He earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1982 and a Master of Laws from Pace University in 1987. He has no education or training in science or medicine, yet he became one of America’s most voiciferous anti-vaccination campainers. Trump nominated him as Health secretary but more than 80 organizations voiced opposition to Kennedy’s nomination. Despite of all opposition, Kennedy got the job.
- He claimed: “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective.” (2023 podcast, as cited during his Senate confirmation hearing.)
- He said: “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” (July 2023 conversation, reported by the New York Post.)
- He claimed the polio vaccine “killed more people than it saved.” (Reported in posts on X.)
- He stated that the HPV vaccine “causes cancer.” (Reported in posts on X.)
- He noted that “Thimerosal is immensely toxic to the brain tissue” (Reported in posts on X.) … yet, it is harmless in the doses used in vaccines.
- He claimed the 1918 Spanish flue epidemic was caused by the flue vaccine … which did not even exist at that time.
- He claimed: “Replacing the seed oils used to cook Big Macs with beef tallow would make the burgers good for people.” (February 2025 interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham.)
- He insisted that “Autism comes from vaccines.” (in 2023, as cited by Common Dreams.)
- He claimed that fluoride in public water causes “cancer, IQ loss, thyroid disease, and other health problems.” (posts on X and interviews, as reported in 2024.)
- He said that “WiFi radiation causes cancer, cellphone tumors, and opens your blood-brain barrier.” (a 2023 podcast with Joe Rogan.)
- He remarked that the “NIH told doctors and patients not to report injuries after taking an abortion drug.” (a February 2025 interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham.)
- He claimed that “Lyme disease is a bioweapon.” (Reported in posts on X.)
- It undermines public health efforts.
- It endangers individual well-being.
- It leads to vaccine hesitancy.
- It causes outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles.
- It promotes distrust in medical institutions.
- It discourages people from seeking evidence-based treatments.
- It promotes unproven or harmful alternatives.
- It spreads fear and uncertainty amplifying anxiety.
- It leads to social polarization.
- It delays critical interventions.
- It increases health disparities.
- It strains healthcare systems.
- It contributed to millions of preventable deaths during pandemics.
- It erodes trust in science.
- It fosters dangerous behaviors.
- It threatens collective health outcomes.
- It particularly puts vulnerable populations, including those with lower health literacy, at risk.
Conclusion?
Yes, you guessed it Kennedy is a menace and should resign asap!
“What does Trump think about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?”
Does anyone know?
Does he even know himself?
Time to ask GROK!
Here is the answer I got when asking exactly that question (the bold print was added by me in an attempt to highlight what I felt was important):
There is no definitive, up-to-date public statement from Donald Trump explicitly outlining his views on alternative medicine as a broad category. However, based on available information from his actions, statements, and policy moves, we can piece together some insights into his stance, particularly during his presidency and recent activities up to May 2025.
Key Points on Trump’s Views and Actions Related to Alternative Medicine:
1 Skepticism of Mainstream Medical Institutions:
- Trump has often expressed distrust toward mainstream medical and scientific establishments, which aligns with sentiments in some alternative medicine communities. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, he promoted unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, despite limited scientific evidence supporting their efficacy for COVID-19. His endorsements led to significant increases in prescriptions and public interest, highlighting his influence and willingness to back therapies outside mainstream medical consensus.
- This skepticism is further evidenced by his support for figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has a history of promoting alternative health perspectives and questioning mainstream medical practices, such as vaccines. Trump appointed RFK Jr. to lead the “Make America Healthy Again” Commission, which focuses on chronic diseases and could potentially explore non-conventional approaches.
2 Support for Experimental and Compassionate Use Treatments:
- Trump has advocated for policies like the “Right-to-Try” legislation, which allows terminally ill patients to access experimental drugs not yet fully approved by the FDA. This reflects a willingness to bypass traditional medical regulatory pathways to provide access to treatments that might be considered alternative or unproven. In his 2018 State of the Union address, he emphasized giving patients a chance to try such treatments, framing it as a matter of patient empowerment.
- During his own COVID-19 treatment in October 2020, Trump received an experimental antibody cocktail from Regeneron under compassionate use rules, which was not widely available to the public. This move raised ethical questions but also showed his openness to non-standard treatments when personally relevant.
3 Limited Direct Engagement with Alternative Medicine:
- There is little evidence that Trump has explicitly endorsed practices like acupuncture, homeopathy, or naturopathy, which are commonly associated with alternative medicine. For example, the Trump Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis (2017) did not reference nonpharmacologic or integrative approaches like acupuncture in its interim report, despite growing mainstream support for such methods in pain management.
- However, a 2025 budget proposal from Trump reportedly included eliminating funding for the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), suggesting a lack of priority or potential skepticism toward federally funded research into complementary therapies.
4 Overlap with Alternative Medicine Communities:
- Trump’s rhetoric and appeal have resonated with some alternative medicine communities due to shared distrust of mainstream institutions. A 2020 Washington Post article noted parallels between Trump’s base and alternative medicine advocates, both of whom often reject “mainstream” narratives (e.g., media or medical establishment) in favor of empowerment through “doing your own research.” This ideological overlap doesn’t necessarily mean Trump endorses alternative medicine outright but indicates a cultural alignment with some of its proponents.
- His association with figures like RFK Jr. and Dr. Mehmet Oz, who have at times supported controversial or alternative health ideas, further ties him to this space, though his personal stance remains less explicit.
5 Focus on Patient Empowerment and Deregulation:
- Trump’s broader healthcare agenda emphasizes deregulation, patient choice, and reducing reliance on federal oversight, which could indirectly support alternative medicine by lowering barriers to unorthodox treatments. His executive orders on healthcare, such as those promoting price transparency and flexibility in health plans, align with a philosophy of giving individuals more control over their healthcare decisions, a principle often championed by alternative medicine advocates.
Analysis and Gaps:
- Lack of Explicit Policy on Alternative Medicine: Trump has not articulated a clear, comprehensive stance on alternative medicine as a field (e.g., acupuncture, herbal remedies, or chiropractic care)v His focus has been more on specific unproven treatments (e.g., hydroxychloroquine) or policies that indirectly affect the broader healthcare landscape.
- Context of COVID-19: His promotion of unproven COVID-19 treatments was controversial and led to real-world consequences, such as increased prescriptions and a reported death linked to chloroquine misuse. This suggests a willingness to endorse therapies with limited evidence when they align with his narrative or political goals, but it’s not a blanket endorsement of all alternative medicine.
- Potential Contradictions: The proposed cut to NCCIH funding contrasts with his support for figures like RFK Jr., who might advocate for exploring alternative approaches. This could indicate a pragmatic or inconsistent approach rather than a unified stance.
Conclusion:
Donald Trump’s views on alternative medicine appear to be less about endorsing specific practices and more about a broader distrust of mainstream medical institutions, a focus on patient empowerment, and a willingness to support unproven or experimental treatments in certain contexts. His actions, such as promoting hydroxychloroquine, supporting Right-to-Try, and aligning with figures skeptical of conventional medicine, suggest an openness to non-traditional approaches, particularly when they resonate with his base or personal circumstances. However, his budget proposal to defund the NCCIH indicates he may not prioritize federal support for researching complementary therapies. Without a direct statement from Trump, his stance remains inferred from these actions and associations. For the most current perspective, checking recent statements or posts on platforms like Truth Social could provide further clarity, but as of May 2025, no such explicit statement is widely documented.
____________________
The next question is: WHO CARES?
Why should it matter what the spiritus rector of the KKK bar of human decency thinks?
Sadly, the answer is BECAUSE HE HAS INFLUENCE.
My prediction is that Trump will remain uninterested in SCAM until the moment he sees an oportunity to make millions of it. Let’s hope this never happens!
Donald Trump has recently made a range of appointments in the health sector of the US. They will strongly influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US as well as worldwide. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their fit for leadership roles in healthcare. In part 1 of this series, we looked at Robert F.Kennedy Jr. and David Weldon. Now I will focus on Trumps nominations for Surgeon General
Janette Nesheiwat – Surgeon General
We featured Janette once before. She trained as a family and emergency medicine physician, became the medical director at CityMD and also a Fox News contributor. She has no significant public health leadership experience. As the Surgeon General, she would require shaping national health policy and communicating science to the public, areas where she has no training or experience. She also lacks expertise in public health and epidemiology. Her Fox News role and online vitamin sales raise doubts about her prioritization of evidence-based public health over media-driven health promotion. The Surgeon General is the nation’s leading spokesperson on public health, overseeing the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and issuing science-based health advisories. Nesheiwat would be a disaster for such a position.
Nesheiwat’s nomination was eventually withdrawn by Trump. This suggests internal concerns about her fitness for the job.
Casey Means – Surgeon General
RFK Jr wrote on X: “The Surgeon General is a symbol of moral authority who stands against the financial and institutional gravities that tend to corporatize medicine. Casey Means was born to hold this job. She will provide our country with ethical guidance, wisdom, and gold-standard medical advice.” Yet her suitability for Surgeon General is a contentious issue.
Means holds a 2014 MD from Stanford University and a bachelor’s degree in human biology. She is an advocate for addressing chronic diseases through nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle changes. Her book “Good Energy”, co-authored with her brother Calley, argues that metabolic dysfunction is a root cause of most chronic illnesses. As a “wellness influencer”, Means has demonstrated an ability to communicate health concepts to a broad audience.
