children
Some papers on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are such that I am almost lost for words. Here is the abstract of such an article:
Background: Autism Spectrum Disorder is a complex neurodevelopmental condition with characteristic
challenges like persistent deficits in social communication, restricted and repetitive behaviors, sensory
processing anomalies. Defined by DSM-5criteria, it affects about 1in 100 children globally and 1in 36 in
united states and poses a significant burden for families and healthcare systems. Research on homoeopathy
and Bach flower Remedies as adjunctive or primary therapies has often explored by families and clinical
interest in complementary and alternative medicine for additional support.
Materials and Methods: A comprehensive study of related review articles, related different components
of Autism spectrum disorder treated with homeopathy treatment, Bach Flower Remedies and
complementary medicine in children were search out. Databases search is PubMed, Google Scholar,
ResearchGate and Web of Science, Scopus and Homoeopathic journal.
Result: Reviewed evidence indicates that no systematic studies have been done to manage autism
spectrum disorder with Bach flower Remedies as an adjuvant or primary treatment along with
homoeopathy. Although individualized homoeopathic treatment has promising results in reducing core
and associated symptoms in children including improvement in social interaction, hyperactivity,
communication and behavioral regulation. Although there is less data available thorough trails, Bach
Flower Remedies especially Rescue remedy that have help in treating the emotional dysregulations and
anxiety that are frequently connected with autism spectrum condition.
Conclusion: The available clinical data on autism spectrum with homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies
is not enough to provide new and sufficient evidence. To overcome this more well-designed study of RCT
and larger sample with standardized procedures will be able to help to this rising burden of autism
spectrum disorder.
In the article itself, the authors state the following: “This review article indicates that both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing. Based on the reviewed data from case series, controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews it can be state that individualized homeopathic treatment leads to clinically relevant improvement in core and associated symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.
Studies on Bach flower remedies specifically in autism spectrum disorder are very less but it suggests that Bach flower remedies offer practically accessible intervention for emotional and behavioural dimension mostly in anxiety, emotional dysregulation, sensory hyperactivity and resistance to change. Evidence from controlled trials and clinical studies shows a statistical and significant in symptom.
Homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies should not replace evidence-based behavioural and development intervention for autism spectrum disorder, but rather be investigation as complementary modalities within an integrative care framework. Despite of growing clinical observations, the field of homoeopathy and Batch Flower remedies in autism spectrum disorder is characterised by substantial and identifiable research gaps that limit the formulation of evidence-based clinical guidelines and urgent research priorities include the multicentric, double-blind RCTs with standardised diagnostic criteria and validated core outcome sets; longitudinal follow-up.”
Bearing in mind that this comes from the “Head of the Department, Department of Practice of Medicine, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to beUniversity), Homoeopathic Medical College”, this is remarkably embarrassing!
Why?
The review is badly written and poorly done. More importantly, according to the data provided by the authors, there is only one rigorous RCT. Here is its abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Bach flower remedies in the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in a double blind prospective controlled study.
Methods: Fourty Children with ADHD, aged 7-11 years, diagnosed according to the DSM criteria, were randomised to Bach flower remedies or placebo treatments for a period of 3 months. Children’s performance was evaluated by the teacher before commencement of treatment and subsequently each month during the study period.
Results: Bach flower remedies have no statistically significant effect when compared to placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD. There was a significant correlation between treatment duration’s and improvement of performance, with no difference between the treatment group compared to the placebo.
Conclusions: There is no statistically significant difference between the effects of Bach flower remedies compared with placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD.
If a head of department nonetheless concludes that “both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing”, it is, I fear, high time to replace him.
The Austrian news magazin PROFIL published a review of my new book. Both the book and the review are in German. I took the liberty of translating the latter for my readers who do not read German:
It is a list of horrors: poisoning, burning, electric shocks, sterilization, deliberate infection with malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, and hepatitis. People were subjected to organ removal and terrible experiments on children, which often ended in death — supposedly in the name of science. This is only a small glimpse of the atrocities committed by doctors during the Nazi era. Tens of thousands of people disappeared in German and Austrian torture institutions that went by the names of hospitals and asylums, where they were murdered, either there or in concentration camps.
All this took place in the name of a perverse idea of “racial hygiene”: to cleanse the “Reich” of supposedly hereditary diseases, to preserve the “health of the national body,” and to strengthen the “racial improvement” of the Aryan gene pool. Nazi ideologues initiated this pseudoscientific mass murder — and many doctors carried it out willingly.
“Without the medical profession, most of these atrocities would not have been possible. Doctors became willing pioneers of Nazi ideology,” writes Edzard Ernst about this dark chapter of his profession. Ernst is a physician who devoted his career mainly to the scientific investigation of alternative healing methods. At the University of Exeter in Britain, he was the first professor to study the effectiveness of homeopathy, acupuncture, and other complementary medicine, but his interest in the role of doctors during the Nazi period had emerged earlier — at Vienna’s General Hospital (AKH), where he worked until 1993. To his surprise, he found that historical documentation on Austrian medicine abruptly stopped in 1938.
The subject haunted him for decades, and now, in retirement, he has produced a non-fiction book on the topic. It is the first major compendium on Austrian physicians and their crimes during National Socialism. Although, fortunately, he is no longer the only one investigating this dark chapter, the number of publications remains small: only 37 academic articles are listed in the medical database Medline between 1995 and 2024.
The newly published book by Edzard Ernst mainly contains a comprehensive, alphabetically arranged listing of about 70 of the most significant Austrian perpetrators in medicine — from A for Asperger, Hans (even though this psychiatrist, after whom the syndrome was named, liked to portray himself as a victim and resister) to W for Wondraska, Alois, a Lower Austrian SS physician and concentration camp doctor.
One of the most notorious medical criminals, of course, is also given an entire chapter: Vienna’s Heinrich Gross, a doctor at the infamous “Am Spiegelgrund” clinic, where patients were selected, subjected to medical experiments, and killed. The broader program operated under the code name “Aktion T4” and aimed at the extermination of supposedly disabled and other “undesirable” people. Gross was one of those involved in implementing Aktion T4 in Austria.
The Gross case continued to attract wide media attention even in the 1990s — not least because this man, despite his Nazi role, was later able to enjoy an unimpeded, even brilliant career. At his former place of murder, later renamed Baumgartner Höhe, he studied the preserved brains of those he had helped murder (see image at the beginning of this article). Based on this material, he published papers on “mental deficiency,” rose to become head of the Second Psychiatric Department, wrote thousands of expert opinions, and received several research awards — a career path that was quite typical of Austrian Nazi perpetrators in the postwar period. The myth persisted that Austria had been the “first victim” of Nazi Germany.
Ernst’s book traces the contribution of Austria’s medical establishment from crude ideology to systematic mass murder: from the “dejudaization” of Austrian medicine within a few months in 1938, through forced sterilizations of at least 6,000 individuals and horrific human experiments, to the industrially organized “euthanasia” and murder of tens of thousands — pseudo-legitimized by science and medicine.
It is precisely the sober, encyclopedic presentation of the subject that makes the monstrosity of these deeds so tangible. And it allows readers — without needing to state it outright — to sense what might ultimately be meant when phrases like “population replacement” (Umvolkung) resurface today.
I have often voiced my concerns that some SCAM practitioners are against vaccinations, particularly homeopath, naturopaths and integrative medicine doctors. It seems, that many go even further and commit lucrative anti-vax fraud. Now, a shocking story seems to confirm that my concerns were justified.
A joint investigation by NDR, WDR, and the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) has uncovered a network of suspected fraud involving measles vaccinations in Bavaria. Health authorities currently suspect at least 27 medical practices of issuing false medical exemptions or recording vaccinations in certificates that never actually took place.
Since the Measles Protection Act came into effect in Germany in 2020, parents must prove their children are vaccinated against measles to attend daycare or school. The only exception is for children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, which must be documented by a doctor. This legal requirement has inadvertently created a market for “courtesy” certificates and forged documents.
A prominent figure in the report is the German physician Andreas Sönnichsen, who practices in Salzburg, Austria. Sönnichsen charges €240 for a one-hour consultation and openly admits to issuing general certificates of vaccine inability to any parent who requests one. His justification is that, because measles infection rates in Germany were low in 2025 (three cases per million inhabitants), he believes the risk of vaccine side effects outweighs the risk of the disease. However, health experts point out that unvaccinated children pose a severe risk to infants under nine months who are too young for the shot.
Due to a sharp rise in suspicious certificates, approximately 40 health offices in Bavaria and neighboring regions have formed the “Measles Protection Network.” They share information and maintain a list of 27 suspect practices, nearly all of which belong to homeopaths, natural health practitioners, or “integrative” doctors.
A significant criminal case involves a physician from the Landshut district, Volkhard P. He is accused of documenting 1,290 measles vaccinations without actually administering them. Investigators noted several “red flags”:
- He is not a pediatrician but certified many childhood vaccinations.
- Patients traveled over 100 kilometers to see him.
- Vaccination booklets were empty except for the two required measles entries.
Blood tests on children supposedly vaccinated by such doctors have repeatedly shown a total lack of antibodies, confirming that no immunization occurred.
Despite the efforts of local health offices, the report highlights major gaps in enforcement. In Bavaria, health offices are instructed to merely “take note” of vaccination records during school entry exams rather than conduct a standardized verification of authenticity. The Bavarian Ministry of Health maintains that the primary responsibility for checking records lies with school principals and daycare directors. However, these administrators are often overwhelmed and lack the training to identify fraudulent certificates.
While the Federal Ministry of Health notes that the Measles Protection Act has slightly increased vaccination rates, it currently has no plans to tighten the law, leaving the responsibility of oversight to individual states. Consequently, a significant portion of this fraud likely remains undetected, posing a continuing risk to public health.
Amongst the most disturbing elements of the Epstein case was his vision for his New Mexico estate, Zorro Ranch, which he described to associates as a potential site for personal eugenics experiments. Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices – used, for instance, by the Nazis during the Third Reich – that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. According to multiple accounts, Epstein intended to impregnate numerous women with his sperm in order to propagate his DNA across generations – a plan he tended to frame in quasi-scientific language.
Epstein acquired Zorro Ranch in 1993 from the family of former New Mexico governor Bruce King. The property spans more than 7,000 acres south of Santa Fe and includes a roughly 26,000-square-foot mansion, a private airstrip, extensive underground areas, and numerous auxiliary buildings. Epstein reportedly referred to the property as a future “baby ranch,” telling some acquaintances that as many as 20 women could be housed there at a time. While there is no hard evidence that such a program was ever implemented, the idea itself is documented mainly in journalistic reporting and in recollections of those who knew him.
Survivors have long alleged that Zorro Ranch was a site of sexual abuse. Annie Farmer, the sister of Marie Farmer, stated that she was sexually abused by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell during a visit to the ranch in the mid-1990s. Virginia Giuffre has also said she experienced abuse connected to Epstein and his network there.
Epstein cultivated relationships with prominent scientists and intellectuals in fields including genetics, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, and physics, and he provided funding to several research institutions. In conversations, some of which were later reported by journalists, he expressed admiration for ideas associated with heredity, intelligence, and human enhancement. The New York Times reported that Epstein spoke explicitly about wanting to “seed the human race with his DNA”.
After Epstein’s death in 2019, federal authorities executed search warrants at several of his properties, but notably there was no FBI raid on Zorro Ranch. The absence of a comprehensive forensic search has remained a point of controversy. The ranch itself sat largely unused for several years. It was publicly listed in 2021, failed to sell at the asking prices reported at the time, and was ultimately sold at auction in August 2023 to San Rafael Ranch LLC for an undisclosed sum.
The buyer was later identified as members of the family of Don Huffines, a former Texas state senator and real-estate developer. The new owners renamed the property Rancho San Rafael and announced plans to convert it into a Christian retreat centre, installing religious signage at the entrance. The symbolic transformation of the site has drawn criticism from some survivors and advocates, who argue that the property’s past has not been adequately investigated.
In early 2026, the New Mexico Attorney General reopened an investigation into alleged crimes connected to the ranch, citing survivor testimony, newly reviewed records, and unresolved questions about prior law-enforcement inaction. Among the allegations under review are claims of long-concealed criminal activity on the property.
Prince William’s Earthshot Prize claims to find, support and celebrate those who turn bold ideas into solutions for our planet. In early February 2026, Prince the Earthshot Prize charity was reported to the UK’s Charity Commission. This followed the release of millions of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. The complaint centers on a “founding partner” of the charity and their alleged communications with Epstein. The controversy stems from the multiple and at times salacious inclusions of Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, DP World chairman, in the latest release of “Epstein files” from the U.S. Department of Justice.
- Financial Link: DP World is a “Global Alliance Founding Partner” of the Earthshot Prize and has reportedly donated at least £1 million to the charity
- The Emails: Documents suggest that in April 2009, while Jeffrey Epstein was serving a jail sentence in Florida, he emailed bin Sulayem with the message: “Where are you? are you ok, I loved the torture video.” Other files reportedly contain sexist jokes sent from bin Sulayem to Epstein.
- Royal Connection: Prince William has been photographed with bin Sulayem on several occasions, including during a high-profile tour of the UAE in 2022 to promote Earthshot finalists.
The complaint was formally lodged on February 11, 2026, by Graham Smith, CEO of the anti-monarchy group Republic. The primary arguments are:
- Due Diligence: The complaint questions whether Earthshot performed adequate background checks on its major donors and partners.
- Official Misuse: Critics argue that Prince William used government-funded overseas visits (specifically to the Middle East) to promote what is essentially his private charitable project, drawing parallels to previous criticisms of Andrew’s conduct as a trade envoy.
- Transparency: Republic is calling for a “full and comprehensive investigation” into what the charity—and Prince William personally—knew about the donor’s associations.
A Charity Commission spokesperson confirmed they are aware of the concerns regarding the sources of funding for Earthshot and are assessing the information to determine if a formal investigation is required. While the Palace has not commented specifically on the Earthshot funding, a spokesperson stated that the Prince and Princess of Wales are “deeply concerned” by the broader Epstein revelations and that their thoughts remain with the victims. The charity has thus far declined to provide a formal comment on the specific complaint.
This development occurs at a sensitive time for the Royal Family, as fresh allegations also suggest Andrew may have shared confidential government trade reports with Epstein during his time as a UK trade envoy.
Robert F Kennedy Jr. has recently claimed that “none of the vaccines that are given during the first 6 months of life have ever been tested for autism.” What, if anything, is true about this frequently used argument?
To answer this question, it might be helpful to have a quick look at how vaccine testing works and what the specific research on infants shows.
When a new vaccine is first tested, the primary goal is to ensure it is safe (i.e. it causes no immediate toxic reactions) and effective (i.e. it creates the desired immune response). Autism is usually not diagnosed until a child is at least 18–24 months old. Because clinical trials for infant vaccines follow babies for weeks or months—not years—they cannot detect autism during that initial testing phase. Vaccines, like practically all other medical product, are not tested for every possible long-term condition during its initial Phase 3 trials. Instead, long-term safety is monitored through ‘post-market surveillance’ and epidemiological investigations. Hundreds of large epidemiological studies have thus tested the link between infant vaccines and autism. Their results fail to show such a link.
In late 2025, the CDC’s “Autism and Vaccines” webpage was updated under RFK Jr.’s direction. The page now states that saying “vaccines do not cause autism” is not an “evidence-based claim” because studies have not “ruled out” the possibility. Yet the CDC should know what students of medicine/science learn in their first year: it is impossible to “prove” that something never happens. You can only prove that, after looking at millions of people, no link was found. Therefore, organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) insist that the 40+ high-quality studies involving over 5 million children provide “clear and unambiguous” evidence that there is no link between vaccinations and autism. It is high time, I feel, that RFKJr and his cultists stop misleading the public (and possibly themselves), undergo some basic science education and catch up with the facts
Convinced?
No?
Then perhaps you need to look at just one of the many studies mentioned above:
Objective: To evaluate the association between autism and the level of immunologic stimulation received from vaccines administered during the first 2 years of life.
Study design: We analyzed data from a case-control study conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex, and MCO. In addition to the broader category of ASD, we also evaluated autistic disorder and ASD with regression. ASD diagnoses were validated through standardized in-person evaluations. Exposure to total antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides from vaccines was determined by summing the antigen content of each vaccine received, as obtained from immunization registries and medical records. Potential confounding factors were ascertained from parent interviews and medical charts. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations between ASD outcomes and exposure to antigens in selected time periods.
Results: The aOR (95% CI) of ASD associated with each 25-unit increase in total antigen exposure was 0.999 (0.994-1.003) for cumulative exposure to age 3 months, 0.999 (0.997-1.001) for cumulative exposure to age 7 months, and 0.999 (0.998-1.001) for cumulative exposure to age 2 years. Similarly, no increased risk was found for autistic disorder or ASD with regression.
Conclusion: In this study of MCO members, increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines during the first 2 years of life was not related to the risk of developing an ASD.
Still not convinced?
Then, I’m afraid, I cannot help you and perhaps you need to go back to school.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has, for many years, promoted claims that contradict established scientific consensus and common sense. Although he often frames his arguments as skepticism towards ‘the establishment’, his positions consistently conflict with the findings of sound science. This has led to widespread criticism from skeptics, scientists, physicians, and public health officials who argue that his rhetoric is steeped in misinformation.
The most prominent example is his long-standing insistence that vaccines cause autism, a claim that has been exhaustively studied and repeatedly disproven. Extensive epidemiological research involving millions of children across multiple countries has found no causal link between vaccination and autism, a conclusion affirmed by organizations such as the CDC and the WHO.
Kennedy has also continued to emphasize theories about mercury-based vaccine preservatives long after those substances were removed from most childhood vaccines, despite autism diagnosis rates continuing to rise—an outcome that directly contradicts his hypothesis and is not supported by sound evidence.
Recently his rejection of scientific consensus also expanded into the COVID-19 era. He characterized COVID vaccines as uniquely dangerous, suggested they could alter human DNA, and implied that public health agencies were concealing mass harm. These claims stand in overt contrast to real-world data from billions of administered doses, which show that serious adverse effects are rare and that vaccination dramatically reduces severe illness and death.
Similar patterns of misinformation appear in his claims about wireless technologies like 5G, which he has linked to immune suppression or cancer despite the well-established fact that such signals are non-ionizing and incapable of damaging DNA.
Underlying many of Kennedy’s positions is a recurring narrative that modern disease is primarily driven by hidden toxins and that public health institutions knowingly suppress cures or evidence of harm. While environmental exposures are a legitimate area of scientific study, Kennedy’s sweeping conclusions – often paired with sympathy for “detox” or so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – go far beyond what evidence supports.
In conclusion, Kennedy erodes trust in medicine and science, replacing science with insinuations and conspiracy theories. The outcome of his ‘war on science’ has been a normalization of falsehoods that have been tested, rejected, and shown to be harmful. In a nutshell: Kennedy is a danger to all our health and well-being. The sooner he is replaced, the better for science, progress and global health.
This pilot study evaluates changes in sensorimotor responses in premature infants after receiving craniosacral therapy. The study included a total of 63 infants born between 28 and 31 weeks of gestation. These infants underwent three craniosacral therapy treatments during their hospitalization. The assessment used
a sensorimotor reactivity scale to evaluate eye contact, response to two-point static and kinetic tactile stimulation, turning onto the side, and willingness to grasp and suck an offered finger. Differences in gross scores between pairs of measurements for each item were tested at a 5% significance level using the Wilcoxon paired test. All differences within the evaluated items were statistically significant (p<0.05).
The strongest effect of the statistically significant dependence was found in the eye contact item. This difference was more pronounced in bottle-fed infants than in breast-fed infants. Therefore, craniosacral therapy may have the potential to enhance self-regulation and promote healthy development in premature infants, but this finding needs to be supported by further research.
The author concluded that craniosacral therapy offers a natural way to strengthen self-regulation and the healthy development of premature babies. The therapy leads to significant improvements in infant sensorimotor responses, especially in eye contact, which is crucial for social interactions, cognitive and language development, and for the formation of an emotional bond with the parent. More significant positive changes were noted in bottle-fed infants. However, the study was observational, without a control group, and the results need to be confirmed by further research with better methodological quality. Thus, CST represents a promising approach to relieving tension, reducing stress, and improving the ability of self-regulation, concentration, and learning in very immature infants.
Where to begin?
Let me just point out two major limitations of the study.
- A pilot study is supposed to determine the feaibility of a project followed by a definitive trial. This study did not aim at doing this. It therefore is not a pilot study but a useless observation.
- The author states that the therapy leads to significant improvements… She thus claims that the therapy caused the observed outcome. This claim ignores numerous other causes, e.g. a placebo response, other therapies and care, or the natural history of the condition. The latter seems particularly important. Premature babies develope regardless of whether they receive treatments or not.
Craniosacral therapy is nonsense. Conducting nonsensical research of nonsense does not turn it in good sense.
Colic in infants causes excessive crying in an otherwise healthy and thriving baby. Colic is a common but poorly understood and often frustrating problem for caregivers. The objective of this trial was to study whether osteopathic treatments of infants with infantile colic / excessive crying (IC/EC) have an impact on the subjectively perceived psychological stress of caregivers compared to usual care.
The study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Infants aged 1 week to 3 months and who met Rome IV criteria for IC/EC were included. By means of external randomization, infants were allocated to an intervention group or a control group. Infants in the intervention group received three osteopathic treatments at intervals of one week. The treatments were custom-tailored and based on osteopathic principles. Controls received their osteopathic treatment after a 3 week untreated period. The primary outcome parameter was the assessment of parental psychological stress (three questions), measured using a numeric rating scale (NRS; 0-10). Furthermore, the average daily crying time (measured using the Likert scale), the crying intensity (measured using the NRS) and the parents’ self-confidence (measured using the Karitane Parenting Confidence Scale) were assessed.
A total of 103 infants (average age 39.4 ±19.2 days) were included, 52 in the intervention group and 51 in the control group. An inter-group comparison of changes revealed clinically relevant improvements in favor of the intervention group for the main outcome – parameter psychological stress – for all 3 questions (e.g., for question 2 respectively 3, NRS: between group difference of means 3.5; 95% CI: 2.6 to 4.4; p < 0.001). For the secondary outcome parameters of crying intensity and crying time/day, the changes were of similar magnitude.
The authors concluded that three osteopathic treatments given over a period of two weeks led to statistically significant and clinically relevant positive changes of parental psychological stress.
This is a cleverly designed study. I say ‘cleverly’ because the casual reader might not even notice that it compared osteopathic treatments with doing nothing. It is well-documented that just hadling babies with IC/EC has an effect on outcomes. Thus the positive effect may not have anything to do with osteopathy and be due simply to the extra attention given to the child. In other words, the positive result of the study was sure even before the 1st baby was entered into the trial.
I am impressed!
Perhaps this study should be in the textbook entitled:
HOW TO CHEAT WITH SEEMINGLY RIGOROUS CLINICAL TRIALS?
It has been reported that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took the top spot in this year’s Shkreli Awards from the Lown Institute. The annual awards call out greed and fraud in the healthcare industry. Lown Institute president Vikas Saini, MD, explained that the purpose of the awards is to call out “systemic problems” in which healthcare organizations and clinicians “chase money and greed to the point where they cut corners … with devastating results to patient care.”
Kennedy garnered the lion’s share of judges’ votes for his baseless claims about causes of autism that have baffled the public and angered medical experts. “Citing studies that showed correlation but no causal evidence, and despite clinicians, toxicologists, and major medical organizations having looked at the research and rejected the claim, he asserted a link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism,” the Lown judges said.
Kennedy then suggested infants undergoing circumcision have higher rates of autism because they likely received acetaminophen for pain, yet his evidence was an unreviewed and unpublished preprint, judges said. “While this spectacle of erratic scientific leadership around autism is supposedly tied to Making America Healthy Again, many are now asking not what Kennedy can do for his country, but how his country can undo what he has already done,” the judges wrote.
Saini stated that Kennedy may be asking reasonable questions, like what is causing autism. The problem is that he then “makes brash announcements … and trumpets them like the Second Coming, saying, ‘We’re going to just fix all this,’ which is playing fast and loose with the facts, and really undermines confidence in decision making and leadership.”
_________________________
Needless to say that I agree with this award. On this blog, I have repeatedly commented on Kennedy’s irrational and dangerous views, actions and initiatives. In my view, he does not belong into any position of responsibility, particularly in the area of healthcare. In a nutshell, he uses science like a drunken man uses a lamppost – not for illumination, but for support.
