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

Cancer

1 2 3 30

King Charles is, as we all know, one of the world’s most subborn (i.e. despite convincing evidence) supporter of homeopathy:

  • After managing to get osteopathy and chiropractic regulated by statute, Charles had planned to do the same with homeopathy. Jonathan Dimbleby wrote in 1995: “It is now hoped that a Homeopathy Bill will be laid before the House in 1995 or 1996”
  • Charles advocates homeopathy not just for humans but also for animals. Farmers in the UK, for instance, are being taught how to treat their livestock with homeopathy “by kind permission of His Royal Highness, The Prince Of Wales”
  • Ainsworth, the UK homeopathic pharmacy, carries Charles’ royal warrant.
  • Charles often supports homeopathic events with his presence and speeches. For instance, he opened the Glasgow Homeopathic hospital.
  • The Smallwood report commissioned by Charles concluded that millions of pounds could be saved, if only the NHS used more homeopathy.
  • The College of Medicine and Integrated Medicine of which Charles is a patron regularly promotes homeopathy.
  • Charles regularly lobbied politicians urging them to make more homeopathy available via the NHS.
  • In 2019, the Faculty of Homeopathy announced that His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales had accepted to become Patron of the Faculty of Homeopathy.

About a year ago, it was announced that the King is suffering from cancer. Since then, his illness is almost a daily subject of news and speculation. From what we hear, Charles is coping famously and well on the way to recovery (at least that is what I sincerely hope). Many who discuss the subject of Charles’ cancer are convinced that his relatively good health can only have one reason:

HOMEOPATHY

They are convinced that his treatment plan is prominently or even exclusively based on homeopathy. Here are some statements that I recently picked up on ‘X’:

  • King Charles cured his cancer with herbal remedies & homeopathy & didn’t shed a hair like his DIL, if true they had cancer
  • King Charles uses homeopathy. Is for his cancer in Bangalore.
  • He hasn’t been sick at all ,he uses homeopathy and nobody that uses homeopathy will die of cancer .Was all to push a cancer so called vax ,like the other so called vaccines !!William unfortunately is more of the same ,and also Charles isn’t king !!
  • Homeopathy . It is the only guaranteed cure for Cancer and majority of chronic illnesses worldwide proved. Although sneared at by our guilty House of Lords Health Committee. HRH King Charles was the patron of Homeopathic council for many many years, why is that ?
  • King Charles has cancer diagnosis and elects to use natural remedy and Kate Middleton has cancer and opts for chemotherapy. I think that is weird. I understand the monarchy has always sought homeopathy as a first route for treatment and pharmaceutical as a last resort.
  • Told my mom i think I have bone cancer and now shes making me eat onions is this the homeopathy stuff that king charles guy is doing
  • As an Avid Homeopathy Enthusiast King Charles now has the superpower to cure cancer.

Similar hints can be found in articles about Charles’ cancer, e.g.: King Charles is likely using an “oxygen tent” and his proclivity for homeopathic remedies to help him battle cancer. Some also argue that Dr. Michael Dixon, who two years ago has been appointed as the HEAD OF THE ROYAL MEDICAL HOUSEHOLD, would have seen to Charles’ treatment being homeopathic in nature.

But all of this is pure speculation!

The question clearly is whether there is any reliable evidence.

I have done my best to find some … and I failed (if a reader knows more, please let me know). To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that Charles’ cancer is being treated with homeopathy. Contrary to the many who assume that he is being cured by a homeopath, I have always felt this to be most unlikely. I am sure that Charles receives the very best conventional treatments that scientific medicine has to offer.

Homeopathy has indeed been a favorite of the royal family for many years – but only as long as they are healthy! As soon as they fall ill, they insist on effective medicine; and that does evidently NOT include homeopathy.

Homeopathy is harmless – except when it kills you!

Death by homeopathy has been a theme that occurred with depressing regularity on my blog, e.g.:

Now, there is yet another sad fatality that must be added to the list. This case report presents a 61-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer who opted for homeopathic treatments instead of standard oncological care. She presented to the Emergency Department with bilateral necrotic breasts, lymphedema, and widespread metastatic disease. Imaging revealed extensive lytic and sclerotic lesions, as well as pulmonary emboli. Laboratory results showed leukocytosis, lactic acidosis, and hypercalcemia of malignancy.

During hospitalization, patient was managed with anticoagulation and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Despite disease progression, patient declined systemic oncological treatments, leading to a complicated disease trajectory marked by frailty, sarcopenia, and functional quadriplegia, ultimately, a palliative care approach was initiated, and she was discharged to hospice and died.

This case highlights the complex challenges in managing advanced cancer when patients choose alternative therapies over evidence-based treatments. The role of homeopathy in cancer care is controversial, as it lacks robust clinical evidence for managing malignancies, especially metastatic disease.

Although respecting patient autonomy is essential, this case underscores the need for healthcare providers to ensure patients are fully informed about the limitations of alternative therapies. While homeopathy may offer emotional comfort, it is not a substitute for effective cancer treatments. Earlier intervention with conventional oncology might have altered the disease course and improved outcomes. The eventual transition to hospice care focused on maintaining the quality of life and dignity at the end-of-life, emphasizing the importance of integrating palliative care early in the management of advanced cancer to enhance patient and family satisfaction.

Even though such awful stories are far from rare, reports of this nature rarely get published. Clinicians are simply too busy to write up case histories that show merely what sadly must be expected, if a patient refuses effective therapy for a serious condition and prefers to use homeopathy as an “alternative”. Yet, the rather obvious truth is that homeopathy is no alternative. I have pointed it out many times before: if a treatment does not work, it is dangerously misleading to call it alternative medicine – one of the reasons why I nowadays prefer the term so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).

But what about homeopathy as an adjunctive cancer therapy?

In 2011, Walach et al published a prospective observational study with cancer patients in two differently treated cohorts: one cohort with patients under complementary homeopathic treatment (HG; n = 259), and one cohort with conventionally treated cancer patients (CG; n = 380). The authors observed an improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment.

Walach and other equally deluded defenders of homeopathy (such as Wurster or Frass) tend to interpret these findings as being caused by homeopathy. Yet, this does not seem to be the case, as they regularly forget about the possibility of other, more plausible explanations for their results (e.g. placebo or selection bias). I am not aware of a rigorous trial showing that adjunctive homeopathy has specific effects when used by cancer patients (if a reader knows more, please let me know; I am always keen to learn).

So, is there a role for homeopathy in the fight against cancer?

My short answer:

No!

RUDOLF STEINER died 100 years ago today – a good reason, I think, to remember the utter nonsense he postulated (not only) in the realm of healthcare. Here is a slightly abbreviated section from my recent book:

Rudolf Steiner was born on 25 February 1861 in Kraljević, Austrian-Hungarian empire. At the age of 9, Steiner allegedly had his first spiritual experience; he saw the spirit of his deceased aunt. Realizing Rudolf’s potentials, his father sent his son first to a ‘Realschule’ in Wiener Neustadt and then to the ‘Technische Hochschule’ (Technical University) in Vienna where he studied mathematics, physics, chemistry, botany, biology, literature, and philosophy. While Steiner was still a student, he was appointed as the natural science editor of a new edition of Goethe’s works.

In 1890, Steiner moved to Weimar, Germany, where he was employed at the Schiller-Goethe Archives. Concurrently, he started working for his doctoral degree, which he received in 1891 from the University of Rostock; the title of his dissertation, later published as a book, was ‘Wahrheit und Wissenschaft’ (Truth and Science).
In 1897, Steiner moved to Berlin, where he joined esoteric circles and studied Eastern and occult religions. In 1899, he married Anna Eunicke. Subsequently, Steiner met Marie von Sivers, an actress from the Baltic region and also a devotee of anthroposophy. They got married in 1914.

Steiner had by then joined the Theosophical Society and, in 1902, was made its General Secretary. Years of disagreement with key members of the organisation prompted him to leave the society in 1912. On 28 December of that year, Rudolf Steiner, along with a group of prominent German theosophists, founded the Anthroposophic Society.

Anthroposophy, a term borrowed from the 19th-century Swiss philosopher and physician Ignaz Troxler, is based on the notion that there is a spiritual world that is accessible only to the highest faculties of mental knowledge. Steiner rejected experimentation as a means of gaining knowledge; instead, he relied on imagination, inspiration and intuition. He claimed that his anthroposophy centered on “knowledge produced by the higher self in man.” He believed that humans once participated more fully in spiritual processes of the world through a dreamlike consciousness, but had since become restricted by their attachment to material things.

In 1913 at Dornach, near Basel, Switzerland, Steiner built the first ‘Goetheanum’, which he called a “school of spiritual science.” The building was destroyed by a fire in 1922 and subsequently replaced by the new ‘Goetheanum’ that still exists today. Steiner also worked on various other projects, including education (Waldorf schools) and biodynamic agriculture.

In the late 1910s, Steiner and his mistress, Ita Wegman, started working with medical doctors to create his anthroposophic medicine. In 1920, they founded the ‘Klinisch-Therapeutische Institut’ in Arlesheim, and on 21 March 1921, they organised the first of a series of courses for doctors in Dornach. This day is now considered to be the birth of anthroposophic medicine. In the same year, pharmacists and physicians gathered under Steiner’s guidance to create the pharmaceutical company, ‘Weleda’. At around the same time, Wegman founded the first anthroposophic medical clinic, the ‘Ita Wegman Clinic’ in Arlesheim.

Anthroposophic medicine cannot be adequately described through a single therapeutic modality. It has been aptly called a ‘pluriversum of theories and practices under the umbrella of an anthroposophic worldview’. The anthroposophic concept comprises a range of medications many (but not all) of which are plant-based, as well as art therapy, eurhythy (dance therapy), special dietary approaches, physiotherapy and other modalities. According to Steiner, humans have four ‘bodies’: The physical body, the ‘etheric’ body – which is based on formative forces, the ‘astral’ body – which reflects a person’s emotions and inner drives, and a conscious body – which is the domain of the ego and self.

For non-anthroposophist, these concepts are hardly comprehensible. They are based on associations between planets, metals and organs, from which therapeutic rules are derived. These affinities also form the basis of the many anthroposophical medicines, which are produced by liquefaction, aeration, solidification, combustion, potentiation and other processes. The history of the constituents of anthroposophic remedies is often considered to be more important than their material composition. According to Steiner and his substantial writings, “the spirit of the plant, which is drawn out of the tree by the parasitic plant act on the astral”. During the years before his death, Steiner, who had no medical background, often saw patients himself. He would then stare at them and divine both the diagnosis and the treatment; in other words, he acted as a clairvoyant lay-healer.

The Nazi movement had an ambivalent attitude to Steiner and to anthroposophic medicine. On the one hand, several leading Nazis such as Hess were clearly in favour of anthroposophic medicine. Steiner’s wife, Marie Steiner-von Sivers (1867 – 1948) who made significant contributions to anthroposophic medicine had publicly expressed sympathy for the Nazi regime since its beginnings. On the other hand, a political theorist of the Nazi movement, Dietrich Eckart, criticised Steiner in 1919 and (wrongly) suggested that he was a Jew. In 1921, Adolf Hitler accused Steiner of being a tool of the Jews, while other Nazis even called for a “war against Steiner”. In 1922, Steiner gave a lecture in Munich which was disrupted by Nazi thugs. Such hostilities led Steiner to leave his home in Berlin and move to Dornbach; he stated that, if the Nazis came to power in Germany, it would no longer be possible for him to live in Germany.

From 1923 on, Steiner showed signs of increasing frailness. He nonetheless continued to lecture widely. His last lecture was given in late September 1924. Steiner died at Dornach on 30 March 1925 in the presence of Ita Wegman.

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

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

There are two separate issues here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________

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

The danger with alternative diagnostic methods are mainly twofold.

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

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

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

Today is World Cancer Day. It is an international day observed every 4 February to raise awareness about cancer, encourage its prevention, and mobilise action to address the global cancer epidemic. Cancer and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are closely linked, for instance, through the fact that large proportions of desperate cancer patients use SCAM, many in the hope to cure their disease. I have therefore often tried to instill some rational thought into the debate by discussing the emerging, largely negative evidence on SCAM for cancer. Here are just a few recent examples:

To mark the day, I had a look at what people post on ‘X’ about SCAM and cancer cure. Here are some of the more amazing assumptions, claims and comments that I found (warts and all):

  • The Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton has been diagnosed with Cancer – there is a high probability she has Turbo Cancer, caused by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines she took in 2021.
  • Blue butterfly pea flowers (Clitoria ternatea) is one of the best CANCER KILLING and CANCER PROTECTIVE plants available to man.
  • Dandelion root far more effective in fighting cancer cells than chemotherapy.
  • In Kenya, research shows 76% of cancer patient who turn to traditional medicine instead of chemotherapy have drastically improved.
  • I’ve just been diagnosed w cancer and will approach it with nutrition, suppl,and cont’d exercise… other alternative therapies as well. Been an RN for decades and have witnessed the horrors and pitfalls of modern medicine. Must b your own best advocate.
  • I had a niece, a cousin and a friend die same week of the big C. was an eye-opener for me cause chemo did not help them at all….so looked at the alternative medicine….down in Mexico. but it was too late. cancer spread like wildfire.
  • I pray to God that no one has to suffer through cancer but I agree with you 1000% alternative medicine as a matter fact we already know that there are three that can cure cancer. I ivermectin is one and I can’t remember the other two.
  • Cancer has been proven to be eliminated with alternative medicine you denounce without a single study. I’m starting to think you hate the American people.
  • Next time you or your loved one gets cancer, use “alternative medicine“.
  • Most Doctors use drugs for treatment of symptoms because that’s how they are trained. No nutrition or alternative medicine is taught or encouraged. In cancer treat Drs are required to only recommend chemo because they could lose their license for alternative nedicine referrals.
  • Spiritual causes of illness, including cancer, are often explored within alternative approaches to healing and holistic philosophies. Although traditional medicine does not recognize spiritual causes, many spiritual traditions and energetic practices.
  • I pray that you look to alternative medicine, don’t listen to the current medical model as it is designed to keep people sick, western medicine does not heal. Chinese medicine does like others around the world. A primary cause of cancer is parasites. Western medicine doesn’t look.
  • Chemotherapy is brutal, attacking both cancer and healthy cells. Alternative solutions do exist, but mainstream medicine often won’t offer them. Take control of your research, explore your options, and question everything.
  • I cured my cancer symptoms using alternative medicine, including Ayurveda. Not drugs.
  • I’m a double cancer survivor and I was in a clinical trial testing chemo in 2013-2014. Chemo is poison and big pharma. Alternative medicine is better. Changed must be made. I love that PresidentTtump has done this. And I can’t wait for RFKJr to lead HHS.
  • Cancer kills you if you follow the advice of the medical establishment. There are many alternative cures for cancer and even more ways to prevent it in the first place. Do some research into naturopathic medicine if you truly want to be healthy.
  • Maybe Trump should redirect that 500 billion to alternative medicine/supplement/ivermectin research that will eradicate cancer. And what is causing cancer. Don’t need a mRNA cancer vaccine. We already have the tools to stop cancer
  • Please get checked for parasites which is what cancer is. Try alternative medicine and see how that works – I bet it does.
  • I have a friend who cured her own breast cancer with alternative methods. There are cures out there. Mainstream medicine just won’t recognize them.
  • Everything is fake in medical field nowadays. Not only petition but also pathogen hypothesis medical academic papers about virus, cancer etc.. We need to build an alternative medicine field ASAP.

[I could have gone on almost for ever]

 

I had not expected to find much wisdom on ‘X’, but what I did find truly horrified me. For every sensible Tweet, there seem to be 10 imbecillic and dangerous ones. Imaging a desperate cancer patient reads these lies, misleading claims, nonsensical statements and conspiracy theories!

To set the record straight, let me state these two simple facts:

There is no SCAM that would change the natural history of any form of cancer.

What is more, there never ill be one! As soon as a treatment might look promising as a cancer cure, it will be investigated by mainstream scientists and – if it turns out to be helpful – integrated into conventional oncology. In other words, it will become evidence-based medicine.

You don’t believe me without evidence?

Ok, then please read my book on the subject.

 

 

PS

And yes, there are some SCAMs that might have a role in improving QoL, but that’s a different topic.

 

Most of my readers are probably aware of Robert F Kennedy Jr‘s attitudes to vaccinations and other crucial health issues See, for instance, here:

In my view, they render him a disastrous candidate for health secretary. In case you are concerned about this appointment, you might be able to prevent it; anyone can submit a comment here:

Hearing to consider the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., of California, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services


Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Time: 10:00 AM

Location: 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

________________________________

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) did submit a comment. Here are some of their argumentss:

Beyond the fact that he has no training in medicine or public health, Kennedy has long espoused dangerous views and spread misinformation about health issues. To protect the American public, the Senate Committee on Finance must reject his nomination.

Kennedy Is Opposed to Vaccinations

• Kennedy has made a career out of spreading misinformation about the supposed ill effects of vaccinations despite being wrong on the science: Vaccines are among the safest and most beneficial advances in modern medicine.
• His organization, Children’s Health Defense (CHD), has promoted the harmful belief that vaccinations cause childhood autism, again without evidence. CHD is one of the leading anti-vaccine organizations in the world.
• In Samoa, Kennedy contributed to a deadly measles outbreak in 2019 by sowing distrust in vaccinations. This cost more than eighty lives, mostly of children, until a door-to-door vaccination campaign proved to be ameliorative.
• Kennedy personally claimed to the prime minister of Samoa that an epidemic of measles was caused by mothers and children receiving the measles vaccine. This led to reduced vaccination uptake, with less than one-third of eligible one-year-olds in Samoa receiving the vaccine.
• As Dr. Paul Offit makes clear, Kennedy is not a vaccine “skeptic”; he is a vaccine “cynic” who ignores scientific evidence when it does not lead to his preferred outcome.

How Kennedy Could Abuse the Position

• As Secretary of HHS, Kennedy could use the “bully pulpit” to cast doubt on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. This will lead countless Americans to avoid vaccinations and become sick (and die) from preventable diseases. Already, vaccinations among kindergarten students have remained below the federal target of 95 percent for four straight years.
• Howard Lutnick, chair of Donald Trump’s transition team, admits that Kennedy wants scientific studies on vaccines conducted for one reason only: “He wants the data so he can say these things are unsafe.” In fact, vaccines are more thoroughly studied than most medications, and there is overwhelming data that approved vaccines are safe and effective.
• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), under Kennedy’s watch, could discourage pharmaceutical companies from pursuing vaccine research and development. The FDA determines the type of clinical trials required to test a vaccine and can slow the review of results, thus putting costly roadblocks in front of these companies.
• Kennedy would also have purview over the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest funder of biomedical research. He has promised to force the NIH to cease any studies into infectious diseases for eight years.
__________________

I know, chances that the disaster can be averted are not great – but the least we can do is try.

On this blog, we have repeatedly noticed that Indian researchers of homeopathy as good as never publish negative findings. A recent paper entitled “Efficacy of homoeopathic therapy in cancer treatment” seems to falsify this hypothesis. Here is its full abstract:

In order to boost their immune system, enhance their mental and physical health, and reduce the discomfort associated with cancer and conventional therapies, many cancer patients turn to homoeopathic methods. Because these very watered-down therapies have no discernible mechanism of action, homoeopathy is quite contentious. The purpose of this study is to provide a concise summary and critical analysis of the effectiveness of homoeopathic medicines in cancer treatment, whether used alone or in conjunction with other therapies. The following databases have been used for literature searches: Amed (beginning in 1985), CINHAL (beginning in 1982), EMBASE (beginning in 1974), Medline (beginning in 1951), and CAMbase (beginning in 1998). This review included data from randomised and non-randomized controlled clinical studies that involved cancer patients or those with a history of cancer who received either a single homoeopathic treatment or a combination of treatments. The trials were evaluated for their methodological quality using the Jadad score. Our inclusion criteria were satisfied by six research, five of which were randomised clinical trials and one of which was not; nevertheless, the methodological quality of these investigations varied, with some exhibiting high standards. There is not enough evidence to establish homoeopathic therapy’s clinical effectiveness in cancer treatment, according to our review of the relevant literature.

Yes, there are a few things that one might criticize here. For instance efficacy is not the same as effectiveness and the conclusion could be clearer, in my view, e.g. stating “there is no reliable evidence to suggest that homeopathy is an effective cancer treatment.” Yet, on the whole, this paper is remarkable considering its country of origin.

It comes from the “Department of homeopathic, Kakatiya University Warangal” in India. I tried to find the department but only found the university. In the realm of healthcare, this institution seems to have an emphasis on pharmacy. Perhaps that explains a lot?

In any case, I am delighted that some progress seems to be emerging now even in India regarding its research on homeopathy.

PROGRESS AT LAST?

The use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is popular among cancer patients. SCAM includes vitamins, minerals, phytotherapy, homeopathy, nutritional supplements and probiotics. SCAM use may lead to unwanted risks by interacting with anticancer drugs; therefore, it is important for healthcare providers to be aware of SCAM use by their patients. This article describes the prevalence and potential risk of SCAM use in an adult Dutch cancer population. This is the first study in which SCAM use was investigated using medication reconciliation.

A descriptive, observational study was conducted at Amsterdam UMC between August 2021 and July 2022. Data regarding the use of SCAM was obtained by medication reconciliation reviews with inpatients and outpatients with cancer who received systemic anticancer treatment. Acquired data were evaluated by the research team, and the risks of interactions were classified into relevant, potential, unknown or no interaction. Ultimately, patient-specific recommendations on the use of SCAM were provided.

Of the 100 included patients, 73% used SCAM during the past year and 41% used SCAM actively while receiving anticancer treatment. The most common SCAMs were vitamins and multivitamins (both 28%). Some 10% of SCAM were classified as having a relevant interaction with one or more concurrently used anticancer drugs. No association between age or gender and SCAM use was found, while outpatients used significantly more SCAM than inpatients (72.7% vs 32.1%; p=0.001). Patients received personalised advice from the hospital pharmacy about their SCAM use.

The authors conclused that more than 40% of oncology patients investigated in this study used SCAM while receiving anticancer treatment, leading to unwanted risks. This prevalence is higher than reported in other studies, possibly due to the use of medication reconciliation interviews. To guarantee safety and efficacy of anticancer treatment, communication between healthcare professionals and patients about SCAM is essential.

I concur wholeheartedly with the authors’ conclusions. In fact, I have warned about the dangers of SCAM-cancer drug interactions for about 30 years.

Did my warnings have any effects?

I am sad to say that probably they resulted in very little.

Findings like the above beg the question: WHY DO CANCER PATIENTS USE SCAM?

One answer is that they a desperate, and I entirely understand and sympathise with their fear. But patients should realise that the risks of using SCAM is not offset by any benefit.

The authors of the above investigation state that the most frequently reason for using SCAM was the hope for an improvement in the immune system.  But – as pointed out many times on this blog – SCAM cannot not do that. Yes, it is often advertised for this purpose, but such claims are bogus.

No SCAM improves the natural history of any cancer and many SCAMs have the potential do make it worse. Those SCAM entrepreneurs who claim otherwise are, in my view, criminal. And those patients who fall for their bogus claims surely deserve better.

“As a medical doctor having taken care of thousands of patients in my life, I strive to ensure the health safety and superior wellbeing of my patients. I continue to encourage, educate and inform not only my patients, but the public to stay strong and healthy any time, not just during a pandemic. Our body is our temple and what we put in it and what we don’t affects the way we feel, think and function. Essential vitamins and minerals are key component to daily functioning but thats not always possible in this day and age with our busy hectic lifestyles, so after years of educating my patients, now I made it a little easier to get all the nutrition you need to live strong and stay healthy.”

These are the words from an advertisement for “Immune System Support for your Active Life” sold by Dr. Janette Nesheiwat who was just nominated as Donald Trump’s next SURGEON GENERAL. Amongst other items, she sells 60 capsules of ‘B+C BOOST Plus D3 & Zinc‘ for US$26.99.

Her website describes the new US Surgeon General as follows:

Dr. Janette Nesheiwat is a top Family and Emergency Medicine doctor. She brings a refreshingly no-nonsense attitude to the latest medical news, breaking down everything you need to know to keep you- and your family- healthy at all times.

Whether caring for her patients in the ER, serving on the front lines of disaster relief with the Red Cross, or sharing need-to-know info with TV audiences, Dr. Nesheiwat’s mission is not only to save lives—but to change them, by giving real people the treatment and the expertise they need.

Her sincere and straightforward approach is a product of her background. She was one of five kids raised by a widowed mother, and also completed US Army ROTC Advanced Officer Training in Ft. Lewis, Washington prior to becoming a Family and Emergency Physician. She has led medical relief missions around the globe and today she is a medical news correspondent and the Medical Director at CityMD.

I was always telling my patients who were unwell drink some tea, take some vitamin b12 and vitamin C. I found myself repeating my all natural regimen to my patients over and over “take some B12 and C to Boost” your immune system. Thats how I came up with BC Boost. Although I am a doctor, I am not quick to prescribe drugs unless I feel necessary as we want to put into our body the most natural wholesome ingredients.

Vitamin B12 is a cofactor in DNA synthesis. It helps maintain healthy blood cells and nerve function as well as prevent anemia which causes fatigue, a common complaint in those who are sick, tired, run down. Vitamin C is needed for development of collagen and a strong immune system as well as body repair and growth.

Yes, you are quite right, Dr. Nesheiwat might have forgotten one or two not-so-unimportant details:

  1. If you eat a healthy diet, you don’t need vitamins.
  2. If you do need vitamins, you can buy them cheaper elsewhere.
  3. These vitamins do not boost your immune system.
  4. Boosting the immune system could actually do a lot of harm to the many people suffering from auto-immune diseases.

But never mind, we can nevertheless be confident that Dr. Nesheiwat will bring great joy to the US supplement industry. I am less confident, however, that she did public health a great service when, in her role as a regular ‘Fox News’ commentator, she warned that wearing face masks during the pandemic exposed consumers to toxic substances linked to seizures and cancer.

Dr. Janette spreading misinformation about vaccines, masks, and COVID on FOX News.

1 2 3 30
Subscribe via email

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

Recent Comments

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

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

Archives
Categories