commercial interests
I suppose nobody need eplanations what the Epstein files are, or what crimes they depict, or how often Trump is mentioned in them. What many might not know is that even the United Nations (UN) have commented on these documents
Independent human rights experts, operating under mandates from the UN Human Rights Council, have warned that the Epstein files reveal evidence of a possible global criminal enterprise involving systematic sexual abuse, trafficking, and exploitation of women and girls. Due to the scale, transnational reach, and systematic nature of these atrocities, the experts stated that the documented conduct may meet the legal threshold for crimes against humanity. Under international law, this threshold applies to acts like sexual slavery, torture, and trafficking when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.
The disclosure follows the “Epstein Files Transparency Act” of 2025, which led to the US Department of Justice releasing over three million pages, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images in January 2026. The background involves wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while facing minor-recruitment and sexual exploitation charges, and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.
The experts emphasized that states are legally obligated to investigate these crimes, which were fueled by corruption, supremacy, and extreme misogyny. They called for independent and impartial investigations into all individuals, financial structures, and official entities implicated, asserting that resignations are not a substitute for criminal accountability.
The experts praised the resilience of the survivors but criticized “grave errors” in the release process that exposed sensitive victim information, risking retaliation and stigma. They urged the adoption of victim-centered standard operating procedures for future disclosures and demanded that governments act decisively, declaring that no one is too wealthy or powerful to be above the law.
“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said. “It is imperative that governments act decisively to hold perpetrators accountable,” the experts said. “No one is too wealthy or too powerful to be above the law.”
Trump and his team have repetedly responded to Epstein-file in general. Trump himself seems keen to disregard the experts, do precisely what they warned against, and move on. As far as I know, there is no statement of Trump or his team commenting directly on the UN experts’ “crimes against humanity” document itself.
The IGeL-Monitor is a German information portal that reviews self-pay medical services offered in doctors’ offices. It summarizes the likely benefit and harm of these services in plain language so patients can make more informed decisions. It is run by the “Medizinischer Dienst Bund” and uses evidence-based assessments rather than advertising or provider opinion.
The IGeL‑Monitor has recently focussed on osteopathy for non‑specific low back pain and judged the evidence as “unclear” stating that the current evidence does not reliably show a benefit, nor does it demonstrate meaningful harm. The reassessment pooled evidence from ten randomised clinical trials including about 1,160 participants. While some trials suggested small improvements in pain or function, the overall certainty of these findings was low due to methodological weaknesses in the primary studies. The reviewers therefore concluded that there is no convincing, high‑quality proof that osteopathic manual therapy provides a clinically relevant advantage over sham or usual care.
A further concern highlighted in the assessment is publication bias: positive trials may be preferentially published. This phenomenon that exaggerates apparent benefits.
No clear pattern of harm from osteopathic treatment was identified. Adverse events were inconsistently and inadequately recorded in the trials. This fact not only limits the confidence about safety, but is also a clear breach of medical ethics.
The IGeL‑Monitor reiterates its previous (2018) position: with current data one cannot reliably endorse osteopathy as an effective out‑of‑pocket intervention for non‑specific low back pain, nor can one identify significant risk. Hence the label “unclear.” For patients considering osteopathy as a self‑paid service, the IGeL‑Monitor recommends being informed about the uncertain benefit and the weak evidence base when weighing potential costs against likely outcomes.
The new assessment is in agreement with much that I have been saying on this blog. I nevertheless would like to add one important point: back pain is the one condition for which the evidence is relatively sound. There are many other conditions for which osteopathy is being relentlessly promoted as an effective therapy with even less or no reliable evidence at all.
The Church of Scientology has spent decades insisting that psychiatry is a terrorist conspiracy, antidepressants are a gateway to mass murder, and only its own “tech” can save humanity from the menace of Prozac and similar “poisons”. One might imagine this worldview would remain safely quarantined within L. Ron Hubbard’s realm of loons.
But then Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of Health and Human Services!
By pure coincidence Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” crusade, unveiled with the MAHA Action Plan to Curb Psychiatric Overprescribing, just happens to target the very same SSRIs that Scientology and its front group CCHR have been demonising for years. Antidepressants are singled out, deprescribing is framed as a patriotic duty, and psychotherapy and lifestyle tweaks are held up as the noble alternative to “overmedicalization.” The American Psychiatric Association calls SSRIs evidence‑based treatment; Kennedy, channelling his inner CCHR lawyer, suggests they’re harder to quit than heroin and may be helping to fuel mass violence.
Enter Wisner Baum, the mass‑tort firm whose senior partners have long, colourful histories with Scientology and its covert operations. This firm has spent years suing antidepressant manufacturers and other psychiatric technologies. And Kennedy has quietly pocketed over $850,000 in fees from them, while keeping a continuing financial interest as HHS Secretary. It is hard to imagine a neater arrangement: a Scientology‑linked law firm sues drug companies; a Scientology‑approved health secretary casts doubt on those same drugs from the cabinet; and fee income flows merrily along.
So, is Kennedy formally a Scientologist?
No, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for that. But perhaps the label becomes somewhat unimportant, when the nation’s top health official is advancing policy that mirrors Scientology’s doctrine and staying financially intertwined with its legal defender. Whether or not he has taken the oath or not (and I am not saying he has), he seems to be doing the work of Xenu, the mysterious extraterrestrial ruler of a galactic confederacy.
An article entitled “Beyond the Appearance of Rigor: Trustworthiness, Integration, and Standardization in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” caught my eye. The name “Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” is, I think, impressive as it demonstrates the seemingly infinite ability of SCAM-promoters to come up endlessly with new and ridiculous terms! Please allow me nonetheless to continue calling it so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
The paper itself might be summarised as follows:
SCAMs struggles to fit into mainstream science. Trustworthiness isn’t just about flashy, individual study results; it requires a reliable system of transparent data and independent replication. However, forcing SCAM into mainstream healthcare via scientific scrutiny, standardisation and integration is a double-edged sword. It strips away the personalized, holistic essence of these therapies. Instead of abandoning science or changing the therapies, researchers need to use creative, flexible scientific methods that document the real-world complexity of SCAM without trying to force it into an artificial mold.
I have heard this argument often, particularly early on when I started applying science to SCAM. SCAM proponents were initially taken by the idea; later, when the results were often not what they expected, they were less impressed and argued that, because science failed to produce positive results, something must be wrong with it and in need of improvement. Specifically, the arguments were:
- SCAM is individualised,
- SCAM is holistic,
- SCAM is complex,
- SCAM is subtle,
- SCAM depends on the skill of the practitioner.
And therefore, SCAM cannot be fitted into the straitjacket of science, particularly not in the one imposed by the randomised clinical trial.
It took many years to convince some SCAM proponents that these notions were erroneous, that science is not always perfect but that no better method for testing exists, that many mainstream interventions (e.g. physiotherapy, psychotherapy) are just as complex, holistic, etc. as is SCAM. Eventually the argument that SCAM defies scientific evaluation disappeared – not totally, but almost.
Now, 30 years later, it is back!
One cannot even blame the SCAM enthusiasts for reviving it. Thirty years of research and very little of SCAM has been proven to work – unless one gives SCAM a huge ‘benefit of the doubt’ and pretends poor science constitutes proof. Even the treatments that SCAM proponents celebrate as evidence-based fall apart once we scratch the surface and discover how poor and irreproducible the evidence mostly is.
Yes, I do sympathise with the frustration of SCAM proponents as they gradually realise all this. Many of them know only too well that their most solid evidence can be taken apart by any first-year medical student with rudimentary skills of critical evaluation. Many of them therefore have long moved away from hypothesis testing research and prefer the type of investigation that never generates a negative finding (e.g. surveys, qualitative studies, sociological approaches). Others, including the two authors of the above-mentioned paper, prefer to go full circle and revive the notions we dealt with decades ago claiming we need different standards for SCAM than for the rest of medicine.
Perhaps someone should tell them that double standards are never a good idea?
A recent paper published in the Lancet was entitled “Wellbeing for people and the planet: how to value everyone and everything on a thriving planet beyond 2030“. Here is its abstract:
Humanity is crossing multiple planetary boundaries while facing rising inequality, democratic fragility, and worsening mental health, exposing the incompatibility of unlimited gross domestic product-driven growth with a finite, socially interdependent planet. Only 17% of the Sustainable Development Goal targets are on track, indicating the need for a deeper transformation rather than faster implementation. Synthesising evidence across disciplines, we argue that human beings are evolutionarily wired for cooperation and relational wellbeing, and not perpetual consumption and status competition. This argument underpins a post-2030 shift in a global development paradigm that places multidimensional wellbeing, of people and the planet, at its core. We outline three mutually reinforcing systemic shifts: deliberative democracy that gives communities real power to shape collective futures; economic democracy that redirects finance, enterprise design, and fiscal policy towards equitable, regenerative outcomes; and transformed land and resource governance that recognises ecological limits and the rights of nature. By aligning institutions with the cooperative nature of humans and the Earth’s regenerative capacity, societies can achieve flourishing lives for all within planetary boundaries, offering a scientifically grounded agenda for the decades beyond 2030.
While reading the article, I asked myself: will our current leaders and governments accept shared limits, long time horizons, and fair trade-offs? In practice, men like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin would probably view this framework through the lens of power, national and personal advantage, as well as political control, rather than collective wellbeing. In addition, sizable sections of the public might simply be too ignorant to comprehend the need for such a strategy. In other words, the proposal may sound morally strong but could be politically unrealistic.
If Trump or Putin were asked to follow the strategy, I fear that several objections would appear immediately.
- First, they would reject the idea that planetary limits should constrain national ambition, especially as they seem to think that economic or military strength or even personal advantage matter more than global cooperation.
- Second, they would treat wellbeing metrics as soft or ideological compared with jobs, growth, security, or sovereignty.
- Third, they would use the language of wellbeing selectively, supporting parts that could further their agendas, while ignoring parts that require sacrifice, redistribution, or international restraint.
Of course, such caveats do not make the paper and its arguments wrong, but they suggest a significant gap between theory and practice. The altruistic strategy is strongest when actors are willing to cooperate and are able to think long term. I am afraid that it is weak in a world where leaders like Trump or Putin can gain by rejecting climate obligations, weakening institutions, or prioritising short-term national interest. In other words, the paper offers a vision for a better governing ethic, but it does not solve the problem of how to make uncooperative or authoritarian leaders comply.
So, my concern is not that the strategy is useless, but that it is unrealistic and far too dependent on political goodwill. A system that works only when leaders are already committed to fairness and restraint cannot be a robust system. What we also need, therefore, is a strategy by which we are able to get such leaders … improving the education of the general public might be a start.
In the US, the dismantling of public health is in full swing. That this development would sooner or later involve chiropractic had to be expected:
- The shady love affair between Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Chiropractic Profession
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his harmful ideas about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- The ‘International Chiropractors Association’ Congratulated Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on His Selection as ‘Secretary of Health and Human Services’
- Eric S Kaplan, the strange chiropractor-friend of Donald Trump
- What does Trump think about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?
Thus, the recently launched MAHA Chiropractic Hub cannot come as a surprise. The new Hub is a national lobbying and promotional initiative designed to position chiropractic care as a drug-free, “prevention-first” solution to chronic disease and to reshape US healthcare policy in its favour. Launched as part of the broader “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, the Hub is a coordinated partnership between the MAHA Centre, MAHA Action, and various chiropractic associations, practitioners, and educators. The initiative promotes chiropractic as a root-cause fix for a broken system.
However, medical researchers and public health experts note that the broader claims of chiropractic, particularly those regarding “prevention-first” wellness and treating chronic non-musculoskeletal diseases, lack a credible evidence base. While an optimistic reading of the clinical evidence might support spinal manipulation for short-term relief of acute lower back pain, high-quality scientific data remains weak or non-existent for its efficacy in managing systemic health issues, preventing disease, or acting as a primary care substitute.
Operationally, the Hub seems to organize its strategy around 4 main pillars:
- Public Relations & Branding: Launching a national media campaign to rebrand chiropractic as a credible, prevention-focused discipline, an effort critics argue pushes past the boundaries of evidence-based medicine.
- Legislative Lobbying: Pressing for the Chiropractic Medicare Coverage Modernization Act and the full enforcement of Section 2706 of the Affordable Care Act to expand federal funding and reimbursement.
- Military & Veterans Integration: Promoting chiropractic within Defense Health and Army medical structures for musculoskeletal injuries and pushing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to expand access and reduce wait times.
- Targeted Outreach: Explicitly marketing these non-drug, non-surgical options to vulnerable or specialized demographics, including children, military personnel, veterans, and seniors.
By targeting federal policy and public perception, the Hub seeks to institutionalise chiropractic care across major public health sectors. In the true MAHA tradition, skepticism from the medical and scientific communities regarding the effectiveness and safety of chiropractic is being ignored.
What is next?
You may well ask!
A homeopath to run the FDA, or the flat earth society taking over NASA?
Nothing can surprise me now!
Homeopaths tend to voice a standard set of arguments when confronted with irrefutable evidence against homeopathy. In the discussion sections of this blog, we heard them all:
- “The negative trials are flawed designed.” They claim these trials were done by ungifted therapists or used the wrong remedies, wrong potencies, wrong dosing schedules, etc. Therefore, they do not reflect true homeopathic practice.
- “Homeopathy is individualised, RCTs can’t capture it.” They argue that randomised clinical trials are inherently unsuitable because homeopathic treatment must be tailored to each patient, rendering RCTs “unfair” or even “unscientific.”
- “Only a fraction of the evidence has been considered.” They assert that critics cherry-pick negative evidence and ignore positive small trials, case series, or observational data that they regard as equally valid.
- “There is much positive evidence.” They point to older or methodologically weak positive studies and claim these outweigh or at least balance the otherwise negative body of evidence.
- “Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are biased and/or politically motivated.” They allege that negative evaluations are driven by ideological hostility to homeopathy, Big Pharma influence, or institutional bias.
- “Statistical significance is not the same as clinical reality.” They argue that statistics miss “real-world” benefits observed in practice and that evidence-based medicine is too narrow.
- “Evidence-based medicine overvalues RCTs and undervalues experience.” They insist that long clinical experience, case reports, patient testimonies, etc. should count as strong evidence and that their accumulated practice is itself proof of efficacy.
- “Patient demand and satisfaction are evidence.” They use high patient satisfaction, repeat consultations, and word-of-mouth popularity as a proxy for effectiveness.
- “Millions use it worldwide.” They argue that longstanding, global usage implies that it must work; otherwise it would have disappeared.
- “Conventional medicine is not perfect either.” They respond to criticism by highlighting harms, errors, and historical reversals in conventional medicine, implying that science-based critics lack moral authority.
- “If it were only placebo, it wouldn’t work on XY.” They claim efficacy in infants, animals, or unconscious patients as evidence that placebo cannot fully explain the effects.
- “Mechanisms aren’t fully known, but that doesn’t matter.” They liken homeopathy to earlier medical advances whose mechanisms were unknown at the time (e.g. aspirin), arguing that lack of a plausible mechanism is not a valid reason to reject positive clinical observations.
- “Physics and chemistry are incomplete; future science will explain it.” They invoke concepts like quantum physics, nanostructures, or complex systems to argue that current science is still too limited to explain homeopathy.
- “Regulatory / institutional conspiracies.” They suggest that powerful pharmaceutical or medical lobbies seek to suppress homeopathy to protect their financial interests.
- “Homeopathy is cheap and safe; risk–benefit favours it.” They argue that even if evidence is thin, the very low risk and low cost justify its use.
- “The therapeutic encounter itself is part of the effect.” They turn criticisms about placebo and context effects into a strength: the long consultation, empathy, and attention are claimed to be legitimate and central components of homeopathy.
- “Freedom of choice / patient autonomy.” They shift from scientific to ethical/political ground, insisting that patients should be free to choose homeopathy regardless of scientific consensus.
- “Skeptics misunderstand what homeopathy really is.” They claim that people conflate homeopathy with herbalism, confuse potencies, or misunderstand Hahnemann’s principles, so their critiques do not address true homeopathy.
- “Critics don’t see the individual ‘miracle’ cases.” They counter population-level data with vivid anecdotes of dramatic improvements which they regard as decisive.
- “Negative evidence is ‘absence of evidence’, not ‘evidence of absence’.” They argue that failed trials or negative reviews merely show that efficacy hasn’t been proved yet, not that homeopathy does not work.
- “Science evolves; today’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ may be overturned.” They claim that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that homeopathy will eventually be vindicated when paradigms shift.
In discussions with homeopaths, these points are repeated endlessly. One could easily get the impression of a broken record. All of the above arguments have in common that – even as some of then contain a kernel of truth – they are erroneous. In theory it could be easy to point this out to the stereotypical homeopathy promoter; in practice, however, it often is impossible, since the broken record continues turning senselessly.
A recent survey of the “Österreichische Gesellschaft für Marketing” (OMG), a Viennese opinion research and market research institute shows a notable shift in public attitudes towards homeopathy. In 2010, nearly one in five Austrians reported greater confidence in homeopathy than in evidence-based medicine. By 2026, that proportion had fallen to just one in ten (10%), indicating a substantial erosion of support over the past decade and a half. Interestingly, the percentage differed acconding to politics; for voters of the right-wing freedom party and the greens the percentages were notably higher (15 and 19% respectively).
Several factors likely contribute to this trend. One important driver is the increasingly critical stance adopted by mainstream media. Over recent years, reporting on homeopathy has become more evidence-focused, often highlighting the lack of plausible mechanisms and robust clinical efficacy beyond placebo. This shift in media tone may have played a significant role in reshaping public perceptions, particularly among more scientifically literate audiences.
Equally important is the growing distance between homeopathy and the scientific community. As medical research continues to emphasize rigorous methodology and reproducibility, homeopathy has struggled to meet these standards. The accumulation of negative or inconclusive findings in high-quality trials has further weakened its credibility within academic medicine.
Yet, the responsibility for declining trust does not rest solely with external critics. Instances of scientific misconduct within homeopathy research – such as studies later found to involve highly probable data manipulation and subsequently retracted – have likely contributed to skepticism. In particular, the now infamous study by the Vienna-based Michael Frass might have contributed to the decline. Such events undermine not only individual studies but also the broader integrity of the field.
Overall, the Austrian data suggest a gradual but meaningful realignment toward evidence-based medicine, driven by both external scrutiny and internal weaknesses within homeopathy itself. This surely must be good news. But, as a rational person, I still ask myself, how is it possible that 1 in 10 Austrians have greater confidence in homeopathy than in evidence-based medicine?
To me, this indicates that much more work is needed to inform the public responsibly about homeopathy and other bogus alternative treatments.
Tolerance is widely regarded as a moral virtue, a cornerstone of pluralistic societies and a safeguard against dogmatism. Yet, tolerance can sometimes be misplaced. Thomas Mann suggested that “tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil”. In a similar vein, I propose that tolerance can become unethical when applied to homeopathy.
Homeopathy presents itself as a benign and natural alternative to or complement of conventional medicine. Its appeal lies partly in its historical pedigree and partly in its promise of gentle healing without side effects. However, beneath this veneer lies a system of belief that is fundamentally incompatible with science and ethics. Its core principles – the notions that like cures like and that substances become more potent through extreme dilution – contradict basic laws of physics, chemistry and pharmacology. After more than two centuries of use and more that 500 clinical studies, there is no credible evidence that homeopathic remedies perform better than placebos.
In many areas of life, tolerance for differing beliefs is both appropriate and necessary. However, medicine is different. It is not merely a matter of opinion; it is a field grounded in empirical evidence, where opinions can have direct and drastic consequences for health and survival. To tolerate ineffective and therefore potentially harmful treatments within this domain risks legitimizing misinformation and undermining public trust in evidence-based care.
The ethical problem intensifies when homeopathy is integrated into healthcare systems or endorsed by public institutions. Such endorsement conveys an implicit message of efficacy and legitimacy, misleading patients who may lack the expertise to critically evaluate medical claims. This is particularly concerning in cases where patients choose homeopathic remedies as an alternative therapy, i.e.in place of effective treatments, potentially resulting in preventable harm. Here, tolerance can easily degenerate into complicity.
Defenders of homeopathy often invoke patient choice and patient autonomy. While these are important principles, they do not justify the abdication of professional responsibility. True respect for patients involves providing accurate information and protecting them from ineffective or deceptive practices. Allowing patients to choose homeopathy without clear, despite all the evidence that speaks against it is not an expression of respect but a failure of duty.
Moreover, the commercial dimension of homeopathy raises additional ethical concerns. The marketing of homeopathic products often exploits the language of science and medicine while evading the standards that govern them. Consumers are led to believe they are purchasing effective treatments. In reality, they are buying fake medicines that contain no active ingredients. This practice tolerance has degenerated into exploitation.
A society that prides itself on scientific progress and rational inquiry cannot afford to suspend its critical faculties in the name of tolerance. While civility and openness are essential virtues, they must not be confused with randomness or indiscriminate acceptance. Tolerance has limits, particularly when it intersects with matters of public health and scientific integrity.
Thus, the tolerance extended to homeopathy is not merely misplaced; it is ethically problematic. By granting homeopathy a status it does not merit, we risk eroding the very standards that protect patients and uphold the credibility of medicine. In this context, I feel that intolerance is not a vice but a necessary stance, one that affirms the primacy of evidence, reason, and the ethical obligation to do no harm.
A recent paper entitled “Research Ethics and Integrity and the Different Forms of Misconduct: Applications and Challenges in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research” caught my eye. As the subject is close to my heart and often covered on this blog, I studied it carefully. Here is the abstract:
Research ethics and integrity are foundational to the credibility, safety, and societal trust of scientific inquiry. As the use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) grows globally, concerns about research misconduct (including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism) have become increasingly salient. With up to 80% of populations in certain countries utilizing TCIM, the field’s expansion underscores the need for rigorous, ethically grounded evidence to guide practice and policy. However, around 470 TCIM-related articles have been retracted to date, as indicated on the Retraction Watch database, which may be due to ethical or non-ethical concerns. This educational article critically examines the state of ethics and integrity in TCIM research, drawing on case studies of misconduct and highlighting the broader consequences for patient safety, scientific credibility, and healthcare integration. In addition, the educational article explores emerging ethical dilemmas posed by artificial intelligence (AI), including risks of automated fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and opacity in research reporting. To strengthen ethical conduct, we propose strategies spanning four domains: 1) improving education and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration to enhance research literacy, 2) embedding open science practices to promote transparency and reproducibility, 3) leveraging meta-research to monitor and advance research quality, and 4) developing policies and safeguards for responsible AI use. Upholding high ethical standards in TCIM research is essential not only to ensure reliable evidence but also to protect patients, sustain public trust, and enable meaningful integration of TCIM within evidence-based healthcare systems.
The full conclusions of the authors are as follows: “With the increasing global use of TCIM therapies, it is crucial for TCIM researchers to uphold high ethical standards to ensure the feasibility, validity, efficacy and safety of TCIM interventions. TCIM research challenges such as heterogeneity, complexity, and lack of standardization practices, alongside issues with research training and funding, create both transformative opportunities and ethical dilemmas that require reflection. Addressing these challenges requires a firm commitment to enhancing research ethics and integrity in TCIM. This commitment must be translated into action through multifaceted strategies: improving research and ethics literacy, fostering open science practices, and ensuring the transparency, integrity, and reproducibility of TCIM research. Strengthening ethical and research practices will not only support its continued development as a discipline but also maximize its potential to contribute to global health.”
I find it most commendable that this subject has finally been addressed by a group of researchers, most of who are known advocates of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). I hope that this is proves to be a step in the right direction for the fileld of SCAM.
Yet, I fear that it is a small or even tiny step. The reason for my fear is that several important issues related to research ethics and integrity in SCAM are let untouched by the authors. In my view, the one of the most important amongst them is the SCAM researcher him/herself. As often discussed on this blog, SCAM research is unique amongst all areas of medical research for being populated by individuals who have a strong ideological bias in favour of SCAM.
These (pseudo)scientists tend to abuse science by trying to prove that their beliefs are correct. Rather than trying to falsify their hypotheses, they would bend over backwards to show that their favourite SCAM is effective. I tried to demontrate this clearly by establishing my ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME on this blog.
As to the many other omissions of important ethical concerns from the above paper, I recommend having a look at our book “More Harm than Good?: The Moral Maze of Complementary and Alternative Medicine“. It offers a much more complete review of the ethical issues involved in SCAM research (amusingly, it was not cited in the paper above).
