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

Cancer

This abstract caught my attention; it is unusual in that it reports not a trial but a protocol of a trial of homeopathy. I think it deserves a short comment:

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) poses a significant challenge in cancer care and affects the quality of life of many patients. Despite the prevalence and impact of the condition, identifying effective therapies remains a challenge. Non-pharmacological remedies, such as complementary therapies including homeopathy, are under-researched. A clinical trial with n-of-1 design has therefore been planned to evaluate the potential of individualized homeopathic medicinal products (IHMPs) in the management of CRF.A series of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, n-of-1 trials will be conducted. Each participant will undergo three rounds of two intervention phases in a randomly determined order. The study will be performed at the Oncology Outpatient Department of D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital. Participants with CRF who meet pre-defined eligibility requirements will be enrolled. The FACIT-F sub-scale is the primary outcome measure; Short Form-36 and the Wu Cancer Fatigue Scale are the secondary outcomes. All outcomes will be measured at baseline, on day 7 and then every 10 days for 2 months. The sample size will be the number of patients who can be recruited during the 18-month period of the trial. The Numerical Rating Scale (0-10) measuring fatigue severity will be used in screening and preliminary evaluation of the degree of fatigue. Comprehensive blood tests to evaluate various physiological factors related to CRF will also be performed. An assessment of the effect of the IHMPs will be obtained per individual and by aggregating the data of all participants via meta-analysis.The results of our study will clarify the possible therapeutic effects of IHMPs for patients with CRF, as well as improve our understanding of the n-of-1 study design as it is applied to homeopathy research.

‘N of one’ trials make sense for testing the hypothesis that a treatment reproducibly works not for all but only for some individuals. If that is the case, a conventional trial would produce a negative overall result by drowning the positive cases in the sea of negative findings.

Evidently, the Indian authors believe that this is true for homeopathy. Therefore the study design they probose seems reasonable.

Hold on!

Reasonable?

Skeptics would argue that there is nothing reasonable about the assumption that homeopathy can reduce cancer fatigue beyond placebo. They would thus predict that – provided the study is rigorously conducted and reported – the end result of this series of N=1 studies will be negative and that the whole excercise is a waste of resources.

I agree – but I still fear that the results will yield some positive findings and the authors will conclude that, indeed, some individuals do reproducibly benefit from homeopathy beyond placebo. I suspect this will happen because already the protocol was published in the journal ‘HOMEOPATHY’ rather than in a respected journal. What is even more concerning are the affiliations of the authors:

  • 1Department of Pathology and Microbiology, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
  • 2Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
  • 3Department of Radiation Oncology, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.

This, I fear, suggests that the above mentioned precondition might not be met and the study might not be rigorously conducted and reported.

WATCH THIS SPACE!

Yes, we have met him before. Recently, I came across Vickers again though one of my recent posts describing the story of a young Cambridge student who died following his advice.

Vickers describes himself as follows:

Dr. Patrick Vickers is the Creator and Founder of the Advanced Gerson Therapy Protocol; the world’s premier protocol for the treatment of cancer and degenerative disease. Chronicled in the epic documentary, The Truth About Cancer: A Global Quest, and a repeatedly invited guest on countless podcasts around the globe, Dr. Vickers is one of the most recognizable faces in natural medicine and the face of the Gerson Therapy around the world. His patient is also chronicled in the documentary, The Beautiful Truth.

At the age of 11, after witnessing a miraculous recovery from a chiropractic adjustment, Dr. Vickers’ passion for natural medicine was inspired. Born and raised outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Dr. Vickers obtained undergraduate degrees in Pre-Med from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and LIFE University in Marietta, Georgia before going on to receive his Doctorate of Chiropractic from New York Chiropractic College in Seneca Falls, New York in 1997.

While a student at NYCC, Dr. Vickers befriended the iconic Charlotte Gerson; the last-living daughter of Dr. Max Gerson, M.D. who Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, called, “The most eminent genius in medical history,” as Dr. Gerson was reversing a vast majority of degenerative diseases, including terminal cancer, up until his death in 1959. To date, eight movies have chronicled Dr. Gerson’s work.

Upon graduation and recognizing Dr. Vickers fervent passion for Dr. Gerson’s therapy, Charlotte Gerson invited Dr. Vickers to come live with her and study Dr. Gerson’s handwritten files of all his active patients from 1905-1959. Dr. Vickers remains one of the few people in the world to ever study Dr. Gerson’s personal files.

Fifteen years ago, seeing a desperate need to preserve Dr. Gerson’s legacy and the progression of his therapy, Dr. Vickers created the Advanced Gerson Therapy Protocol and Clinic which, rapidly, became the world’s premier clinic for the treatment of cancer and advanced disease.

With the rapidly changing, increasingly dangerous. societal, political and economic conditions in Mexico and around the world today, making it nearly impossible to efficiently, safely and peacefully carry out the Gerson Therapy in a clinical setting. Dr. Vickers has recently created his Three-Month, Advanced Gerson Protocol Home Program to replace all former, clinical operations. With no evidence to suggest that clinical outcomes are increased by receiving the Gerson Therapy in a clinical setting, Dr. Vickers remains dedicated to providing the most comprehensive, patient-centric protocol for cancer and degenerative disease while guaranteeing the greatest personalized attention and cost-effective solution available anywhere in the world today.

_____________________________

Allow me to make just 7 short point based on Vickers statements:

  1. Dr. Patrick Vickers: he is a chiro and not a proper doctor (are US chiros allowed to treat cancer?*).
  2. the world’s premier protocol: I see no evidence for this claim.
  3. miraculous recovery from a chiropractic adjustment: it ought to be ‘miraculous’, as chiropractic adjustments are not based on evidence.
  4. Dr. Gerson was reversing a vast majority of degenerative diseases, including terminal cancer: there is no sound evidence that Gerson ever reversed a single case of cancer.
  5. the world’s premier clinic for the treatment of cancer and advanced disease: this must be the most pompous untruth I’ve heard for a long time.
  6. the most comprehensive, patient-centric protocol for cancer and degenerative disease: this must be the second most pompous untruth I’ve heard for a long time.
  7. cost-effective solution: I see no evidence for this claim.

________________________

As Vickers seems a bit shy about disclosing all the facts, let me try to add to his CV what he seems to have forgotten:

Vickers founded and directed the Northern Baja Gerson Center in Rosarito, Mexico. The clinic offered treatments like:

Hyperthermia therapy (water based treatment)
Oxygen enhancement therapies
Ozone therapy
Hyperbaric oxygen chamber
Laetrile (B17)
High dose intravenous vitamin C
Chelation
Beamer math
Coley’s toxins therapy
Dendritic cell therapy
Infrared therapy
Frankincense oil
Natural enzymes
CoQ10

Due to “challenges” in operating clinics in Mexico, Vickers transitioned to offering his “Three-Month Advanced Gerson Protocol Home Program” whichincludes Gerson-specific supplies (e.g., coffee, flax oil, potassium powder), high-dose supplements like curcumin, selenium, CoQ10, and niacin, educational videos and regular consultations with Vickers and his team. The program is as unproven as Gerson’s original therapy. Vicker’s Medline-listed papers seem to amount to exactly zero!

Vickers asserts that Gerson Therapy is heavily censored by medical authorities and media due to its threat to the conventional medical industry. He cites alleged suppression of Dr. Gerson’s work as evidence. Vickers claims his therapy has the potential to disrupt the trillion-dollar medical industry. Vickers is active on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, sharing patient stories. He is a frequent guest on podcasts like BetterHealthGuy, Rational Wellness, and CancerTalks, discussing the Gerson therapy. Vickers’ approach is rooted in a belief that conventional cancer treatments are limited or even detrimental and that the Gerson therapy offers a more natural, effective alternative. None of these claims are supported by sound evidence.

The Gerson therapy’s demanding nature (e.g., ~13 hours of juicing daily, multiple enemas) , ineffectiveness and high cost renders it little more than a truly dangerous, disagreeable rip-off. And what does that make a chiro pretending to be a dotor advocating it as a cancer cure?
Perhaps I let you answer that question for yourselves.
*

In the United States, chiropractors are not legally allowed to treat cancer as a primary condition. Chiropractors are not licensed to diagnose, treat, or manage cancer, as this falls under the purview of medical doctors and other licensed healthcare providers. However, some chiropractors may offer supportive care to cancer patients, such as pain management or improving mobility. Any claim by a chiropractor to “treat” or “cure” cancer would likely be considered outside their legal scope and could be misleading or dangerous. 

Kay Allison “Kate” Shemirani (born 1965) is, according to Wikipedia, a British conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccine activist and former nurse who lost her licence to practise in 2020 for misconduct. She is best known for promoting conspiracy theories about COVID-19, vaccinations and 5G technology. Shemirani has been described by The Jewish Chronicle as a leading figure of a movement that includes conspiracy theorists as well as far-left and far-right activists.

When Kate’s daughter, Paloma was diagnosed with cancer, doctors told her she had a high chance of survival with chemotherapy. But in 2024, seven months later, she died – having refused the treatment. Now Marianna Spring for the BBC reported that Paloma’s brothers blame their mother’s anti-medicine conspiracy theories for Paloma’s death aged 23. Here are a few excerpts of this excellent article:

Kate and her ex-husband, Paloma’s father Faramarz Shemirani, wrote to the BBC saying they have evidence “Paloma died as a result of medical interventions given without confirmed diagnosis or lawful consent”. Paloma’s elder brother Sebastian disagrees: “My sister has passed away as a direct consequence of my mum’s actions and beliefs and I don’t want anyone else to go through the same pain or loss that I have.” Both brothers believe social media companies should take stronger action against medical misinformation – which the BBC has found is being actively recommended on several major sites. “I wasn’t able to stop my sister from dying. But it would mean the world to me if I could make it that she wasn’t just another in a long line of people that die in this way,” says Gabriel.

It is getting harder to fight medical misinformation because of the prominence of figures such as Robert F Kennedy Jr, who have previously expressed unscientific views – says oncologist Dr Tom Roques, vice-president of the Royal College of Radiologists. When you have a US health and human services secretary “who actively promotes views like the link between vaccines and autism that have been debunked years ago, then that makes it much easier for other people to peddle false views,” he says. “I think the risk is that more harmful alternative treatments are getting more mainstream. That may do people more active harm.”

Paloma brothers say it was their father who first got into conspiracy theories, which piqued their mother’s interest. The children absorbed outlandish ideas, including that the Royal Family were shape-shifting lizards, says Gabriel. “As a young child, you trust your parents. So you see that as a truth,” he says.

According to her sons, Kate Shemirani’s anti-medicine views were accelerated in 2012, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Even though she had the tumour removed through surgery, she credits alternative therapies for her recovery. On social media, she explains how she used juices and coffee enemas, i.e. the Gerson therapy.

In late 2023, Paloma began to have chest pains and breathing difficulties. Eventually, her doctors gave her the diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Untreated, this type of cancer can be fatal, but doctors told Paloma she had an 80% chance of recovery if she had chemotherapy.

Kate Shemirani texted Paloma’s boyfriend, Ander, to say: “TELL PALOMA NOT TO SIGN [OR] VERBALLY CONSENT TO CHEMO OR ANY TREATMENT.” Medical staff discussed safeguarding concerns about Paloma among themselves and wrote that they had “a concern regarding parental influence” on her. But they also thought that she did have the capacity to make her own decisions.

For advice, Paloma reached out to a former partner of Kate Shemirani called Patrick Vickers, an alternative health practitioner. When Paloma asked him about the “80% chance of cure” the doctors had said chemotherapy would offer, Mr Vickers said that was “exaggerated”. He encouraged her to start Gerson therapy and to maybe consider chemotherapy if her symptoms did not improve after six weeks. Mr Vickers told the BBC that any “assertions that I played a role in her [Paloma’s] death are legally inaccurate”.

Paloma made up her mind. She decided not to pursue chemotherapy – at least for the time being – and would try Gerson therapy to start with. Some of her friends noticed how she became more and more unwell. On one video call, Paloma said she had a new lump in her armpit, and her mother had told her it meant that the cancer was going out of her body. Sebastian and Gabriel were so worried that Gabriel started a legal case. He was not arguing Paloma did not have capacity, but he wanted an assessment of the appropriate medical treatment for her.

But events overtook them and the case ended without a conclusion in July – because Paloma had died. She had suffered a heart attack caused by her tumour. She was taken to hospital, but after several days, her life support was switched off.

Gabriel & Sebastian Shemirani Paloma, smiling at the camera as she sits on the wall outside King's College, Cambridge, with the windows of the chapel illuminated and a dark blue twilight sky behind her. She is wearing a warm black jacket but has bold make-up with pink eyeshadow for a night out.

_________________________

Another tragic and avoidable death brought about by the dreadful Gerson therapy. We have discussed this treatment many times before, e.g.:

If only Paloma had looked at my blog! I could have easily met up with her and tried to persuade her to save her own life.

 

 

 

PS
Watch out for one of my next posts; it will focus on the above-cited Patrick Vickers. 

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.

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