Cancer
Smoking kills! Since most people now know about this fact, they have been looking for alternatives that are safe. Here I will discuss two of them: vaping and nicotine pouches.
VAPING
Vaping devices are electronic nicotine delivery systems that heat liquid into an inhalable aerosol. They have surged in popularity. Despite marketing claims to the contrary, substantial evidence reveals significant health risks.
Addiction
Nicotine, the primary active ingredient in most vape liquids, is one of the most addictive substances known. Research indicates that 17.8% of e-cigarette users report feeling “very addicted,” while 42.3% consider e-cigarettes equally or more addictive than combustible cigarettes. The addictive potential is amplified by several factors: modern vape devices use nicotine salts that deliver nicotine more rapidly and in higher concentrations than traditional cigarettes, and the high nicotine concentrations in many devices (often not listed on packaging) accelerate dependence. The more a person vapes, the more their brain and body adapt to nicotine, making cessation increasingly difficult. When nicotine enters the system, it triggers dopamine release, creating a “feel-good” sensation that reinforces continued use. However, nicotine’s effects wear off rapidly, triggering cravings and establishing a cycle of dependence. Nearly all vapes circulating contain nicotine, even when not listed on packaging, making prevaping users unknowingly vulnerable to addiction.
Toxicity
Vaping exposes users to a complex toxic chemical cocktail. The e-liquids contain propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin. These are ingredients meant to be eaten, not inhaled which become toxic when heated. When vaporized, these components transform into dangerous chemicals including acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde, all of which can cause lung disease and cardiovascular disease. The two primary e-cigarette ingredients in the US are toxic to cells, with toxicity increasing alongside the number of additives in the e-liquid. Acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds present in e-cigarettes, can cause acute lung injury, COPD, asthma, and potentially lung cancer. Vitamin E acetate, a thickening agent sometimes added to THC-containing vape products, was identified by the CDC as a “chemical of concern” in vaping-associated lung injuries. Flavoring agents pose additional risks. Diacetyl, a flavoring chemical linked to “popcorn lung” (bronchiolitis obliterans), is present in many flavored vapes and causes irreversible lung damage. Secondhand emissions contain nicotine, ultrafine particles, volatile organic compounds like benzene usually found in car exhaust, and heavy metals including nickel, tin, and lead. The FDA has not found any e-cigarette to be safe and effective for smoking cessation.
Cardiovascular disease
Vaping is associated with significant cardiovascular risks. Research has linked nicotine-containing e-cigarettes to acute changes in blood flow, including increased blood pressure and heart rate. These physiological effects can lead to atherosclerosis and increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Other e-cigarette ingredients, particularly flavoring agents, independently carry risks associated with heart and lung diseases in animal studies. A recent analysis found a significant association between former or current e-cigarette users and the development of several respiratory diseases within two years of use, suggesting cardiovascular and respiratory systems are simultaneously compromised.
Brain damage
The human brain does not fully develop until approximately age 25, making young users uniquely vulnerable. Regular nicotine vape use causes changes to brain development that negatively affect learning, concentration, mood, and memory. Nicotine rewires the brain, changing the parts responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and mood regulation. These changes can interfere with mood and make users more likely to become addicted to nicotine and other drugs. Nicotine exposure during adolescence also increases feelings of stress and worsens depression and anxiety. Vaping hasn’t been around long enough to see irreversible diseases yet, but biologically, damage is happening and inflammation is occurring—creating conditions that will lead to diseases later.
References
- American Lung Association. (n.d.). Health Risks of E-Cigarettes and Vaping. https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/e-cigarettes-vaping/impact-of-e-cigarettes-on-lung
- American Lung Association. (2025). The Truth About What Vaping Is Doing to Your Body. https://www.lung.org/blog/illnesses-vaping-causes
- Panagis Galiatsatos, M.D., MHS. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
- European Journal of Public Health. (2022). Understanding addiction in e-cigarette users – the EVAPE project. Oxford Academic. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/32/Supplement_3/ckac130.078/6765989
- National Institutes of Health. (2024). The Risks of Vaping. NIH News in Health. https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2020/05/risks-vaping
- American Heart Association. (2023). As E-Cigarette Use Grows, More Research Needed on Long-Term Effects of Vaping. https://www.stroke.org/en/news/2023/07/17/as-e-cigarette-use-grows-more-research-needed-on-long-term-effects-of-vaping
- NSW Health. (n.d.). Vaping – Nicotine Addiction | Young People Factsheet. https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/tobacco/Factsheets/vaping-nicotine-addiction-young-people-factsheet.pdf
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Health Effects of Vaping. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/e-cigarettes/health-effects.html
- National Institutes of Health. (2025). NIH-Funded Studies Show Damaging Effects of Vaping, Smoking on Blood Vessels. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-studies-show-damaging-effects-vaping-smoking-blood-vessels
- Johns Hopkins Medicine. (2025). 5 Vaping Facts You Need to Know. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/5-truths-you-need-to-know-about-vaping
NICOTINE POUCHES
Nicotine pouches are small, smokeless, tobacco-free pouches containing nicotine. They have existed for a long time but have recently rapidly gained popularity, particularly among young people. They are often claimed to be safer alternatives to cigarettes. Is this claim true?
Addiction
Nicotine pouches are highly addictive by design. Nicotine is a well-established addictive drug that activates reward pathways in the brain, leading to dependence. Research demonstrates that nicotine salts used in pouches deliver higher concentrations more rapidly than traditional nicotine products, accelerating addiction. Among young people who try nicotine pouches, 73% continue using them, indicating strong addictive potential. The average user consumes half a can daily (8-12 pouches), with 10 pouches at 6mg equivalent to 1–1½ packs of cigarettes or 1½ e-cigarette pods daily. Alarmingly, the number of youths using nicotine pouches has doubled in the US since 2021, reaching now ~400,000 users. This rapid uptake among youth suggests that the product’s smokeless, odorless features make nicotine use more accessible and socially acceptable, facilitating addiction before users fully understand the consequences.
Toxicity
Nicotine pouches contain unregulated and potentially toxic levels of nicotine. While nicotine itself is not unregulated, many products in the US lack FDA authorization and are on the market illegally without proper safety testing. A 2022 study found that 26 of 44 nicotine pouch products contained cancer-causing chemicals, including ammonia, formaldehyde, chromium, and nickel. These contaminants likely result from inadequate manufacturing processes and quality control. The absence of standardized regulation means nicotine concentrations can vary significantly between products and even within batches, making dosing unpredictable. Furthermore, non-tobacco nicotine products may seem healthier than smoking, but they come with their own laundry list of health effects, and public health experts recommend avoiding nicotine altogether.
Cardiovascular disease
The cardiovascular risks associated with nicotine pouches are well-documented. Nicotine increases blood pressure, heart rate, and blood flow to the heart while constricting arteries. These physiological effects can lead to atherosclerosis and heart attacks. The American Heart Association explicitly warns that nicotine can damage the heart and other vital organs. However, some industry-sponsored research claims that nicotine administered through pouches has only transient effects on blood pressure and heart rate in healthy users, with no demonstrated long-term cardiovascular damage. This discrepancy highlights the importance of independent research versus industry-funded studies. Nevertheless, the mechanistic evidence—nicotine’s vasoconstrictive and hemodynamic effects—strongly suggests increased cardiovascular risk, particularly with chronic use or in individuals with pre-existing conditions.
Brain dmage
Nicotine damages brain development. The human brain does not fully develop until approximately age 25, making adolescents and young adults uniquely vulnerable to nicotine’s neurotoxic effects. Nicotine exposure during adolescence alters the development of the prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for attention, learning, memory, and impulse control. These changes can be permanent, leading to lasting cognitive deficits and difficulties with concentration and memory. Additionally, adolescent nicotine exposure increases the risk of psychiatric disorders, including anxiety and depression, and priming the brain for addiction to other substances. Nicotine pouches are particularly dangerous for youth precisely because of these developmental vulnerabilities. Given that 400,000 US youths now use nicotine pouches, the public health implications are substantial.
References
- American Lung Association. (2024). ZYN 101: What to Know About Big Tobacco’s Latest Addiction. https://www.lung.org/blog/zyn-nicotine-addiction
- American Heart Association. (2025). Triple Threat: The Hidden Dangers of E-Cigarettes, Oral Nicotine Pouches, and Vaping. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-lifestyle/quit-smoking-tobacco/triple-threat-e-cigarettes-oral-nicotine-pouches
- Cleveland Clinic. (2024). Are Nicotine Pouches Safe? Health.ClevelandClinic.org. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-nicotine-pouches-safe
- Dentalcare.com. (2025). Nicotine Impact on Adolescent Brain Development. CE693. https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/ce-courses/ce693/nicotine-impact-on-adolescent-brain-development
- Verywell Health. (2024). Is Zyn Bad for Your Heart? https://www.verywellhealth.com/is-zyn-bad-for-your-heart-8735079
- Yale Medicine. (2024). What Parents Should Know About Nicotine Pouches. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/nicotine-pouches
- initiative to Undo. (2024). The Effects of Nicotine on the Adolescent Brain. https://www.undo.org/addicting-kids/the-effects-of-nicotine-on-the-adolescent-brain
- Tobacco Free Coalition. (2025). Not Your Grandparent’s Tobacco: The New Nicotine Products. https://www.tobaccofreeco.org/the-new-nicotine-products-2/
___________________________________
Having lost several friends to lung cancer, I am convinced that the best alternative to smoking is quitting.
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.
I am quite fond of garlic, but not as a cancer therapy. Dr. Mohsen Ali, a former doctor whose UK medical license was revoked by the General Medical Council (GMC) in January 2015, has been permanently struck off the medical register following a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) investigation into his running of an illegal clinic. The tribunal, which began proceedings on December 1, 2025, reconvened on January 14 and concluded from April 22 to 24, 2026, found Ali guilty of serious professional misconduct for preying on vulnerable cancer patients with unproven and dangerous treatments.
In 2018, Ali treated two patients from a semi-detached Leicester property described as a “squalid council house.” Patient A had stage three prostate cancer, while Patient B suffered from terminal ovarian cancer. Referred to Ali by word-of-mouth, both were told he could cure their cancers with a claimed 90% success rate. He charged Patient A up to £15,000 and Patient B between £10,000 and £12,000 for sessions involving intravenous vitamin C, garlic oil, ozone therapy, oxygenated water, and sodium bicarbonate injections.
Ali disparaged conventional medicine, asserting that the NHS was “killing them” through ineffective chemotherapy and radiotherapy, while “big pharma companies were making money.” During a phone call, he laughed off Patient A’s diagnosis, calling prostate cancer “easy to cure.” For Patient B, he overrode the NHS’s prognosis that nothing more could be done, promising her husband a full recovery. Patient B died shortly after stopping treatment, before police and Public Health England (PHE) probes began.
The case surfaced when Patient A emailed Leicestershire Police, prompting a GMC referral. A police raid uncovered a flyer at Ali’s address, advertising him as a “qualified doctor” who left the NHS because standard treatments “did not work.” It invoked “Allah the best healer” and boasted over 90% cure rates for cancers and other severe illnesses.
MPTS evidence revealed grave hygiene failures. PHE inspections described the property as a “dirty and unhygienic” shared residential-clinical space with visibly contaminated surfaces, reused equipment without decontamination, and no basic infection prevention measures. Ali reused intravenous bags, exposing patients to serious infection risks. The tribunal deemed his actions dishonest, as he knew these were not evidence-based cancer cures.
An expert witness confirmed no clinical studies support these so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) for curing any cancer. Ali also failed to obtain informed consent, particularly from Patient B. Absent from the hearing, he emailed the GMC denying claims of cure, but the flyer and patient testimonies contradicted him.
Ali, who graduated from Cairo University in 1994 and practiced in the UK from 2001 was erased him from the register, underscoring the dangers of unqualified SCAM practitioners – even (or perhaps especially) when they have a doctor title.
This review was aimed at analyzing the scientific evidence on Reiki intervention as a nursing care strategy for people with cancer. For this purpose, the researchers searched six databases, including primary studies, in Portuguese, Spanish and/or English, about the evidence on the use of Reiki intervention as a care strategy for cancer patients, totaling five publications.
The included studies suggest potential benefits of Reiki intervention, such as pain relief, reduction of physical symptoms (fatigue and insomnia) and improvement in emotional aspects, such as anxiety and stress. However, the results are still limited in terms of methodological robustness and generalizability.
The Brazilian authors concluded that, although the findings indicate beneficial effects of Reiki in people with oncological diseases, there is a limited production of clinical trials aimed at the application of this therapy in clinical nursing practice. Reiki can be considered a complementary strategy in nursing care, as long as it is integrated into an individualized therapeutic plan. It is recommended that studies with greater methodological rigor be carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of Reiki applied by oncology nurses.
The authors explain that “Reiki is a practice that uses the laying on of hands and symbols to channel universal life energy to recharge, realign and rebalance the human energy field. Its objective is to undo energetic blockages that compromise the flow of vital energy, and maintain harmony between the body, mind and spirit.” With just 2 sentences, the authors inply that Reiki has a sound scientific basis which they do not question in their paper at all. Yet phenomena such as live energy, regarging, realigning and rebalancing human energy fields, energetic blockages in the human body, flow of vital energy could not be less scientific. In fact, they are pure fantasy and have no basis in reality.
The authors also explain that 20 % (n=1) of the included studies were qualitative, 20 % (n=1) were quasi-experimental, 20 % (n=1) were reports of professional experience, and 40 % (n=2) consisted of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). On closer scrutiny, none of the RCTs was sufficiently rigorous to allow firm, positive conclusions. In other words, there is no good evidence and the conclusion that Reiki is beneficial for cancer patients is nonsense.
The authors note that, in 2017, with the publication of Ordinance No. 849, of March 27, Reiki was officially included in the Brazilian public health network. In view of the above mentioned lack of plausibility combined with a lack of effectiveness, this inclusion seems wholly irresponsible.
The case of the 14-year-old girl who died of cancer is now occupying the Klagenfurt Regional Court for the second time. The girl’s parent elected to trust miracle healers and esoteric practitioners. Ultimately, the 14-year-old arrived at the hospital far too late—the cancer was already so advanced that the girl died less than two days later.
The parents have already been convicted of torture and neglect. During their criminal trial, the doctor came into the prosecution’s focus. He had administered four infusions of “cat’s claw” to the 14-year-old. The doctor admitted to this last year during his testimony as a witness, where he raved about the “miracle plant” cat’s claw, claiming it could heal almost anything.
He was also accused of using a pendulum to “test” the girl’s tumor and certifying it as benign. His response at the time was that he does not use a pendulum; rather, he had “dowsed” the tumor using a biotensor—a small metal spring. He claimed that when he failed to get a clear result, he urgently recommended the parents seek a biopsy, which they strictly refused. He alleged they eventually broke off treatment with him.
According to the indictment, the doctor is allegedly responsible for a further patient’s death by administering the herbal infusion. The man had collapsed after receiving it, suffered a heart attack and a stroke, and died weeks later from the consequences.
Furthermore, the doctor is accused of “grossly negligently causing a danger to the life and health of at least 6,550 people from May 2007 to May 2025.” Contrary to the standards of medical practice, he is said to have intravenously administered essences that were only approved as food products. The prosecutor referred to an analysis of the infusion solutions: “These were not pure; they contained soil and ash particles.” They were reportedly “brewed together in a backyard” – the contamination, she noted, could lead to the formation of blood clots. During his questioning, the trained intensive care physician rejected all guilt: “I feel in no way responsible.” He stated he had treated numerous cancer patients—for example, with cat’s claw or high-dose vitamin C.
In the case of the 14-year-old, the doctor insisted he was able to “see that something was not right” using the device. He claimed he only learned much later that the parents had canceled a biopsy appointment after their session with him. Furthermore: “Father and daughter always rejected any conventional medical therapy or diagnostics.” He maintained that he always noted his infusions could only boost the immune system and improve well-being, but never promised anything.
Regarding the case of the other deceased man, the doctor argued that the patient had already received 17 infusions from him prior to the incident in question and had always felt better afterward. After the final infusion, the patient felt unwell for a while, but his condition supposedly improved. The doctor claimed it was absolutely not anaphylactic shock: “Otherwise, I wouldn’t have let him go home.”
The defendant questioned each and every expert opinion obtained for the case. Regarding the statement that it is impossible for a tumor to shrink due to his infusions, he said, “I wouldn’t sign off on that.” As for the infusions, he claimed they were filtered multiple times and specially prepared for intravenous use.
A date for this has not yet been set. So, watch this space!
Innovations in both the surgical and medical management of breast cancer over the past few decades have led to reductions in treatment-related morbidity and increases in overall survival. Despite these advancements in surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, endocrine therapy, and immunotherapy, a subset of patients continues to choose so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The objective of this study was to describe the association of SCAM with survival in patients with breast cancer.
This cohort study analyzed data from the National Cancer Database on female patients diagnosed with breast cancer from 2011 through 2021. Survival time was compared among patients who received conventional treatment, conventional treatment plus SCAM, and SCAM only. Data were analyzed from May 2025 to December 2025.
The primary outcome was 5-year survival. Unadjusted 5-year survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and adjusted survival was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model controlled for age, race and ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity index, insurance type, facility type, region, year of diagnosis, cancer stage, and income.
Of 2 169 202 female patients with breast cancer identified, 2 157 219 (median [IQR] age, 62 [52-71] years) were included in the sample. A total of 2 106 665 patients (97.6%) received conventional therapy.
- 273 (<0.1%) received SCAM alone,
- 568 (<0.1%) received a combination of SCAM and coventional therapies,
- 49 713 (2.3%) received no treatment.
Compared with patients treated with conventional therapies, those treated with SCAM alone (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 3.67; 95% CI, 3.03-4.44; P < .001) or no treatment (AHR, 3.53; 95% CI, 3.48-3.58; P < .001) had the highest risks for mortality. Patients who received a combination of conventional therapies and SCAM were less likely to receive endocrine therapy (eg, 40.7% vs 65.2% in stage II; P < .001) and radiation (59.5% vs 36.6% in stage II; P < .001) compared with patients treated exclusively with conventional therapies. Receipt of a combination of conventional therapies and SCAM was associated with a higher mortality compared with being treated exclusively with conventional therapy (AHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.22-1.72; P < .001).
The authors concluded that, in this cohort study of data from female patients with breast cancer included in the NCDB, the use of SCAM instead of conventional therapies was uncommon but was associated with a reduction in survival time. Further study is warranted.
The full text of this study is worth reading. It shows clearly that patients who use SCAM – even as an additional therapy – tend to skip some live-saving treatments. Why? Possibly because SCAM therapists persuade them that this is a good idea. I have personally seen this happening several times. It means that the SCAM might well be harmless, but the SCAM therapist is not!
The list of investigations showing that SCAM is a risk factor for cancer patients undergoing oncological treatments is growing. The message for patients is important and clear: stay away from SCAM while receiving curative treatment. Later on, during the supportive or palliative phase of care, some forms of SCAM might be helpful for improving cancer patients’ quality of life. For people with a keen interest in this area, I recommend reading my book which attempts to define which forms of SCAM might be beneficial for cancer patients at what stage of the recovery.
Sufficient evidence concerning the impact of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) on clinical outcomes for breast cancer patients in Taiwan is not available. This study sought to examine the association between TCM integration and post-operative outcomes among women undergoing mastectomies.
Utilizing a large insurance database, the Taiwanese researchers identified a cohort of adult women who underwent breast cancer surgery during the 2010–2019 period. They compared sociodemographic profiles and comorbidities between TCM users and non-users. Multiple logistic regression models were employed to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both mortality and postoperative complications.
Among 91,298 eligible patients, the one-year pre-operative prevalence of TCM utilization was 40%. Compared to the control group, TCM users demonstrated:
- a significantly lower likelihood of postoperative stroke (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62–0.93),
- and a reduced requirement for intensive care (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59–0.91).
Moreover, the cumulative exposure of more than 4 TCM consultations within the year preceding surgery was linked to a decreased risk of stroke (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.95).
The authors concluded that “our findings indicate that integrating TCM during the year preceding breast cancer surgery is correlated with lower risks of postoperative stroke and a reduced requirement for intensive care. Nevertheless, these observed benefits warrant further verification through prospective and large-scale clinical investigations. Based on these results, we suggest that both Western medical practitioners and public health administrators should be mindful of TCM’s role in the comprehensive care of patients with breast cancer.”
In the paper itelf, the authors “hypothesize that pre-operative TCM integration contributes to the observed reduction in stroke risk and intensive care requirements following mastectomy. These prior insights provide a plausible biological foundation for the favorable outcomes observed in our study”. In other words, they believe that the associations is causal.
I beg to differ!
Much research has demonstrated that people who use so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in addition to conventional therapies differ from those who don’t. In general, they tend to be more health concious – if not, they would not go to the trouble of using and paying for SCAM. This difference alone suffices to bring about the observed outcomes – even if TCM has no or perhaps a slightly negative overall health effect.
But let’s be generous!
Let’s assume the authors are correct in assuming that the association is causal and that TCM brought about the observed outcomes.
What does that actually mean?
TCM consists of many different modalities. If we just focus on oral medications and assume that there are 1000 different ones [in fact, the number is about 6 times higher], which one do we take to experience the observed outcome? Perhaps all of them?
What I am trying to point out that such research is meaningless; it has zero practical consequences, even if its results were real – which they probably are not.
In the end, it boils down to one main thing: the promotion of unproven (and occasionally dangerous) TCM.
The attitude of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFKJr.) on science and evidence-based medicine has long been a source for concern, particularly if we consider his total lack of expertise combined with his immense power to influence public health of the US and beyond. Here are several key quotes and recurring themes that define his perspective:
- “The CDC is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. The agency’s advisory committee is essentially a front for the vaccine manufacturers.”
- “Tony Fauci’s career has been a long-running effort to prioritize the interests of Big Pharma over public health.”
- “The FDA, the NIH, the CDC—all these agencies have become the sock puppets of the industries they are supposed to regulate.”
- “The scientists who are supposed to be the guardians of our children’s health are instead taking money from the companies that are poisoning them.”
- “We are living in an era where ‘evidence-based medicine’ has been replaced by ‘reimbursement-based medicine.’ The data is cooked to favour the product.”
- “I am not anti-vaccine. I am pro-science and pro-safety. I want the same kind of rigorous, double-blind, placebo-controlled testing for vaccines that we require for every other medication.”
- “When people say ‘follow the science,’ they usually mean ‘follow the decree of the person in power.’ Science is a process of constant questioning, not a set of holy commandments.”
- “Consensus is the enemy of science. Science is about dissent; it’s about looking at the outliers and the data that doesn’t fit the narrative.”
- “The minute you say ‘the science is settled,’ you are no longer talking about science; you are talking about religion and totalitarianism.”
- “Public health policy is no longer based on the best available evidence; it’s based on the best available lobbyists.”
- “I don’t necessarily believe all the scientists, because I can read science myself. That’s what I do for a living. I read science critically.”
- “I spent 40 years cross-examining experts… I know how to tell when someone is lying to me about the data.”
- “I am pro-science. I’ve spent my life fighting for science-based policies. What I am against is ‘captured’ science that serves a corporate bottom line.”
- “I advise parents: do your own research… don’t take my word for it, and don’t take the government’s word for it.”
- “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me… I think what we’re going to try to do is to lay out the pros and cons… with replicable studies.”
- “People should be skeptical of any medical advice. They need to look at the primary sources, not the summaries provided by the pharmaceutical industry.”
- “Trusting the experts is not a feature of democracy and it’s not a feature of science. It’s a feature of religion and totalitarianism.”
- “We train physicians to wield the latest surgical tools, but not to guide patients on how to stay out of the operating room in the first place.”
- “The science [on nutrition] is indisputable, and the void [in medical training] is clear… future physicians must graduate prepared to prevent disease.”
- “I’m not scared of a germ. I used to snort cocaine off of toilet seats.”
- “One of the worst parts of addiction was my total incapacity to keep contracts with myself. I didn’t want to be someone who woke up every morning thinking about drugs.”
- “All of us have kind of a God-sized hole in us that we’re trying to fill. And addicts… try to fill that hole inside of you with things that change the way you feel about yourself.”
- “You can’t live off the laurels of the spiritual awakening. You have to renew it every day. You have to wake up every day and say ‘reporting for duty sir,’ and give up control every day.”
- “I had a dark spot on my brain scans… doctors concluded I had a tumor. I was scheduled for an operation by the same surgeon who operated on my uncle.”
- “The abnormality was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died.”
- “I probably got it in South Asia… I was traveling in a lot of places where you can get those kinds of parasites.”
- “I have cognitive problems, clearly. I have short-term memory loss, and I have longer-term memory loss that affects me.”
- “It didn’t require treatment. The worm died on its own, and the symptoms cleared up over time.”
- “I recovered from the memory loss and mental fogginess… I have no aftereffects from the parasite.”
- “Questioning my health is a hilarious suggestion, given the competition.”
RFKJr., as U.S. HHS Secretary since early 2025, was tasked by Trump with restoring trust in healthcare agencies. However, polls show trust has further eroded under his leadership, with KFF data indicating widespread disapproval – nearly 60% of adults – and drops in confidence for CDC, FDA, and vaccine info sources. His tenure involved firing CDC vaccine advisors, slashing HHS staff by 25%, revising childhood vaccine schedules (e.g., dropping hep B at birth), and canceling research grants, sparking measles outbreaks and expert backlash. Public health leaders cite these as science-defying moves worsening distrust across parties. Only 37% trust RFK Jr. as a health info source (KFF Jan 2026). Major health organizations, like the WHO and the American Academy of Pediatrics, point to decades of peer-reviewed, large-scale epidemiological studies that contradict the plethora of demonstrably wrong assertions of RFKJr.
One could almost pity RFKJr. for his naive stupidity – I say ‘almost’ because his stance is not just pitiful and embarrassing, it is evidently dangerous. If a chap having a beer in your local pub came out with such nonsense, you would laugh; if RFKJr. does it and then – horror of horrors – tries to act on it, it gets frightfully dangerous for us all.
Conclusion:
Even Trump cannot be as mean as to allow RFKJr. continue the destruction of public health!
He must be replaced before it is too late!
This article recounts the 5-year long odyssee of a few concerned and fiercely determined individuals [including myself] to get a published paper retracted that clearly was riddled with scientific misconduct and thus detrimental to science and dangerous to vulnerable patients. Here is the abstract of our just-published paper:
Scientifc misconduct threatens patient safety, progress, and trust in medicine. On October 3, 2020, Frass and colleagues published a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in The Oncologist (published by Wiley at the time) claiming that add-on homeopathy signifcantly prolonged survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Since homeopathy contradicts established scientifc principles, doubts about the trial’s validity quickly emerged. Concerns were frst published in October 2020, followed in 2021 by a detailed analysis alleging scientifc misconduct. This prompted the Medical University of Vienna, the afliation of the study’s lead author, to request an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). After conducting an in-depth review, OeAWI concluded in September 2022 with a clear recommendation for retraction. However, The Oncologist issued only an ‘Expression of Concern’ at the time, despite fve co-authors formally requesting the withdrawal of their authorship— a demand that remained unaddressed as of November 2025. Repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), yielded only vague assurances that the matter was“under review,” with multiple deadlines passing without resolution. Finally, by November 24, 2025, The Oncologist retracted the paper. However, the retraction notice fails to address the specifc concerns raised about the study’s results and conclusions, nor does it provide a clear rationale for the retraction itself. Meanwhile, the paper has been cited more than 60 times (according to Google Scholar) and is widely circulated online as“proof” that homeopathy benefts cancer patients. This highlights the harmful consequences of delayed editorial action. According to COPE guidelines, misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and transparently. Our case reveals the opposite: incomplete corrections, prolonged inaction, and even the defense of implausible claims. Against the backdrop of increasing organized scientifc fraud, this experience underscores the urgent responsibility of journals and publishers to protect the scientifc record and prevent harm to patients.
Our paper details the highly unethical behaviour of the editors of THE ONCOLOGIST who put many lives at risk through their incomprehensible inaction. In my view, this was nothing short of a scandal. I do encourage you all the read the full paper which is freely available to everyone.
The objective of this study was to “critically assess the evidence presented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effectiveness of acupuncture on fatigue in cancer patients”. In April 2024 a systematic search was conducted searching five electronic databases to find studies concerning the use, effectiveness and potential harm of acupuncture therapy on cancer patients.
From all (1599) search results, 15 studies with 1346 patients were included. Acupuncture methods varied – e.g., traditional-, electro-, mind-regulating and ATAS-acupuncture – and were compared to sham acupuncture, usual care, or other controls.
- Studies comparing acupuncture to sham acupuncture reported mixed results: while some found significant effects on cancer-related fatigue, others found no advantages.
- Studies comparing acupuncture to usual care or waitlist controls often reported positive effects. However, the reliability of these findings is limited, as 14 of 15 studies were rated as “high risk of bias” by the RoB-2 tool due to issues like insufficient blinding and incomplete data analysis.
- Only one study, with low risk of bias, showed a significant reduction in fatigue with acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture (p < 0.001).
- GRADE evaluation showed very low certainty of evidence.
The authors concluded that the heterogenous results and methodological limitations of the existing studies prevent us from drawing definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture in the treatment of cancer-related fatigue. Despite the inclusion of 15 studies, the overall evidence remains insufficient due to widespread problems in study design and inconsistent results. This analysis highlights the need to use more rigorous designs and more comprehensive assessment tools in future studies to better understand the role of acupuncture in the management of fatigue after cancer treatment.
So, only one study, with low risk of bias, showed a significant reduction in fatigue with acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture. Let’s have a look at it:
Background: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a distressing symptom that is the most common unpleasant side effect experienced by lung cancer patients and is challenging for clinical care workers to manage.
Methods: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial to evaluate the clinical effect of acupuncture on CRF in lung cancer patients. Twenty-eight patients presenting with CRF were randomly assigned to active acupuncture or placebo acupuncture groups to receive acupoint stimulation (LI-4, Ren-6, St-36, KI-3, and Sp-6) twice per week for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome was the change in intensity of CFR based on the Chinese version of the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI-C). As the secondary endpoint, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung Cancer Subscale (FACT-LCS) was adopted to assess the influence of acupuncture on patients’ quality of life (QOL). Adverse events and safety of treatments were monitored throughout the trial.
Results: Our pilot study demonstrated feasibility among patients with appropriate inclusion criteria and good compliance with acupuncture treatment. A significant reduction in the BFI-C score was observed at 2 weeks in the 14 participants who received active acupuncture compared with those receiving the placebo (P < 0.01). At week 6, symptoms further improved according to the BFI-C (P < 0.001) and the FACT-LCS (P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events in either group (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Fatigue is a common symptom experienced by lung cancer patients. Acupuncture may be a safe and feasible optional method for adjunctive treatment in cancer palliative care, and appropriately powered trials are warranted to evaluate the effects of acupuncture.
Fancy that! The only study to produce some apparently sound evidence turns out to be a pilot study. Such studies are supposed to test feasibility, not effectiveness! In view of all this, it is far, I think, to draw a definitive conclusion, after all:
At present there is no compelling evidence that acupuncture works for cancer-related fatigue.
