commercial interests
The Indian Ministry of Ayush was established in 2014 with a vision of reviving the profound knowledge of India’s ancient systems of medicine and ensuring the optimal development and propagation of the Ayush systems of healthcare. Earlier, the Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy (ISM&H) formed in 1995, was responsible for the development of these systems. It was then renamed as the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga, and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (Ayush) in November 2003 with focused attention towards education and research in these therapies.
In the global landscape of public health, India’s Ministry of AYUSH stands as a profound anomaly. While most middle‑ and high‑income countries have converged around evidence‑based, scientifically grounded medicine, India has instead expanded this large, state‑run administrative apparatus where cultural nationalism and traditionalist narratives dominates over clinical efficacy and scientific rigor. The Ministry’s current trajectory reveals a troubling pattern: the systematic promotion of unproven therapies, flawed research, and notorious breaches of ethical principles, particularly with respect to the treatment of India’s most vulnerable populations.
The Homeopathy Anomaly
The most glaring anomaly must be the Ministry’s continued, high‑level support for homoeopathy. India is currently the only country in the world that maintains a dedicated national ministry and a statutory regulatory framework – via the National Commission for Homoeopathy – specifically to promote a system widely regarded as implausible, ineffective and harmful. Global assessments, including those by no less than 28 independent organisations worldwide, have concluded that there is no reliable evidence that homeopathic remedies work beyond placebo. Yet the AYUSH Ministry funds and publicizes a central research council (the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, CCRH) as well as a network of homoeopathic hospitals and teaching institutions, with annual budget allocations now exceeding ₹4,400 crore (roughly 470–480 million US dollars at current exchange rates). By directing substantial taxpayer funds to homoeopathic research and infrastructure, the state effectively endorses a “placebo‑as‑medicine” model, elevating it to the status of a national health strategy. This is not merely an academic dispute; it is a policy outlier that places India’s healthcare posture at odds with well‑established chemical and physical principles, as well as with the recommendations of leading international scientific bodies.
The Facade of Rigor
The Ministry tends to defend its approach by claiming a pivot toward “evidence‑based” or “scientific” AYUSH medicine, but an examination of its research output suggests a facade of rigor rather than its substance. Much of the work produced by bodies such as the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda (CCRA) and their counterparts in Unani and Siddha consists of investigations that are methodologically weak and wide open to bias. Key methodological flaws recur:
- Small sample sizes: Many trials involve fewer than 50–100 participants, rendering them statistically underpowered.
- Lack of blinding: A large proportion of studies is open‑label, where both clinicians and patients know the assigned intervention, amplifying placebo effects and observational bias.
- Selective reporting and publication bias: Negative findings – where AYUSH interventions fail to demonstrate benefit – are rarely published.
By branding such useless studies as “scientific proof,” the Ministry engages in a form of “science‑washing.” This practice misleads the public, uncritical clinicians, and policymakers into believing that AYUSH therapies have undergone the same rigorous, independent scrutiny as conventional therapies.
The Ethical Violations
In my view, the most serious concern is ethical. Under the banner of “Self‑Reliant India” (Atmanirbhar Bharat), the Ministry has aggressively promoted AYUSH products, for instance, during the COVID‑19 pandemic. This push could be viewed as an exercise in cultural pride and national self‑reliance but, in fact, it carries serious risks.
Medical ethics rely on two core principles: informed consent and non‑maleficence. When a state body, backed by cabinet‑level authority, “flogs” unproven and potentially dangerous treatments to a largely rural population with limited health literacy, it undermines both. Many patients are not able to distinguish between an ancient tradition and a clinically validated drug, yet they may be led by government‑sponsored messaging to defer or abandon evidence‑based treatments.
This is particularly dangerous in chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension, where effective pharmacological control and regular monitoring are both available and potentially life‑saving. If patients substitute proven allopathic regimens with state‑endorsed AYUSH alternatives of uncertain efficacy, the consequences can be dire. They include uncontrolled blood glucose, stroke‑risk elevation, organ damage, and avoidable mortality. The Ministry’s conduct, in effect, offloads these risks onto the most vulnerable while shielding itself behind appeals to tradition and national identity.
Conclusion
The Ministry of AYUSH has become the institutional vehicle for a “pluralistic” health model that, in practice, functions as a state‑funded rejection of the scientific method. This constitutes a regression in public‑health governance rather than a progressive pluralism. Until the Ministry subjects its therapies to the same scrutiny as any other medicine, and until it accepts transparent, independent evaluations without recourse to political or cultural vindication, it will remain less a health body and more a department of cultural preservation and doctrine.
In the ever-evolving farce of populist politics, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has launched yet another crusade, this time to expand access to a group of “natural” peptides that the FDA previously restricted because of safety concerns and inadequate human data. In 2026, that campaign acquired fresh momentum: Kennedy publicly urged the FDA to restore access to roughly 14 of the previously restricted peptides, and reports in late March indicated that the agency was expected to loosen some of those restrictions, though no final rule had yet been published.
Peptides — short chains of amino acids — have become the darlings of the “biohacking” crowd, praised as a fountain of youth and marketed for everything from rapid fat loss to cognitive enhancement. The compounds at the center of this controversy are largely those the FDA placed in Category 2, meaning bulk drug substances that raise significant safety concerns or lack sufficient data to support compounding. That classification effectively bars compounding pharmacies from making them for routine use unless the regulatory status changes.
Among the best-known substances in the dispute are the following:
- BPC-157: Often marketed as the “Body Protection Compound,” it is promoted for gut and tendon repair. The FDA’s concern has centered on the absence of adequate human safety data and unresolved safety questions.
- Thymosin Beta-4 (TB-500): Promoted for injury recovery. It has been flagged because of concerns about growth-related effects and the lack of a proper human evidence base.
- GHK-Cu: Used in some cosmetic products in topical form, but the injectable version has been controversial because of impurity risks and limited safety information.
- CJC-1295: Marketed for growth-hormone stimulation, with safety concerns tied to its endocrine effects and broader cardiovascular uncertainty.
- Ipamorelin: Another growth-hormone-related peptide, restricted because of unresolved safety and manufacturing concerns.
- Ibutamoren (MK-677): Often sold as a “SARM” alternative, though it is not one, and has raised concerns about metabolic and long-term safety.
- AOD-9604: A fragment of human growth hormone marketed for fat loss, but without a robust clinical safety record.
- Dihexa: Promoted for cognitive repair and Alzheimer’s-related claims, despite a lack of adequate human clinical evidence.
- Selank and Semax: Russian-developed nootropics marketed for anxiety and focus, but not supported by the kind of regulatory review expected for routine therapeutic use.
- Melanotan II: Known as the “Barbie drug,” used for tanning and libido, and associated with serious adverse-effect concerns.
- PT-141 (Bremelanotide): An approved version exists as Vyleesi, but compounded versions have raised concerns about dose consistency and safety.
Kennedy has framed the FDA’s crackdown as a kind of conspiracy by “Big Pharma” against so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). In reality, the agency’s restrictions were driven by the absence of convincing clinical data and, in some cases, by serious safety concerns. His push to reopen access presents itself as “liberating” healthcare, but it risks bypassing the very safeguards designed to keep experimental or poorly studied substances from being marketed as remedies.
Many of these compounds are produced in gray-market labs or loosely regulated compounding settings, where contamination and purity problems are a real concern. Peptides are biologically active signaling molecules, not harmless wellness supplements, and altering those signals can produce unpredictable effects, including effects on tumor growth, metabolism, blood pressure, and other systems. And the appeal to “naturalness” is a classic fallacy: a substance being naturally derived says nothing about whether it is safe, effective, or appropriate for widespread use.
The most troubling part of this campaign is the message behind it: distrust expert regulation, trust ideological certainty instead. Kennedy has turned a complex issue of drug safety and compounding oversight into a culture-war emblem. By pushing for broad access to experimental compounds without the normal evidentiary standards, he is not modernizing medicine; he is reviving the logic of patent-medicine quackery, where the promise of a cure mattered more than proof, and where the cure was often more dangerous than the disease.
How accurate are Dana Ullman’s articles? To answer this amusing question, I asked the AI platform ‘Gemini’ to find all the false statements in one of Dana’s articles (yes, I do admit that I am reluctant to read though an entire nonsensical paper – it would give me a headache or worse). This is the precise task I asked for:
Give me a bullet point list of all false statements in this text: Lessons from the Flu Epidemic of 1918: The Dangers of Using Fever Suppressing Drugs for Viral Infections.
[In case you want to read this lengthy paper yourself, here is the link]And here is the response I got from Gemini (bold emphasis by AI):
The text you provided is a well-known article by Dana Ullman that blends historical events with controversial medical theories. While some of the historical context (like the 1917 aspirin patent expiration) is accurate, the medical conclusions and the data regarding homeopathy are widely considered false or highly misleading by the scientific and medical communities.
Here is a bulleted list of the primary inaccuracies and misleading statements in the text:
1. Misrepresentation of the 1918 Pandemic Deaths
- The “Aspirin Theory”: The text suggests that a “large number” of the 50 million deaths in 1918 were due to aspirin overdose. This is based on a hypothesis by Dr. Karen Starko. While high doses of aspirin likely contributed to some deaths, the scientific consensus remains that the vast majority of deaths were caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia and the extreme virulence of the H1N1 virus itself, not aspirin poisoning.
- Aspirin and Bleeding Lungs: The text claims bleeding in the lungs is a “known side effect of aspirin overdose.” While salicylates can cause pulmonary edema, the “hemorrhagic” (bloody) lungs seen in 1918 victims are a hallmark of the severe viral pneumonia caused by that specific strain of influenza, not a specific marker for aspirin toxicity.
2. Inaccuracies Regarding COVID-19 and NSAIDs
- NSAIDs and Blood Clots: The text states that ibuprofen and naproxen are “known to lead to blood clots.” This is a significant mischaracterization. While chronic, long-term use of certain NSAIDs is linked to a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, they are not a primary cause of the acute “clotting storms” seen in COVID-19 patients. In fact, many COVID-19 protocols involve using blood-thinning agents (like aspirin) to prevent clots.
- The 80% Risk Claim: The claim that NSAID users have an 80% greater risk of venous thromboembolism is taken from observational studies that show correlation, not causation. People taking NSAIDs often have underlying inflammatory conditions that already increase their risk of clots.
3. False Claims About Homeopathy’s Success
- 1918 Mortality Rates: The text claims a 1.2% death rate in homeopathic hospitals vs. 29% in conventional hospitals. These figures are widely considered unreliable and anecdotal. They were self-reported by homeopathic practitioners at the time, lacked standardized diagnostic criteria, and did not account for “selection bias”.
- WHO Recognition: The WHO does not recognize homeopathy as the “second largest system of medicine” in terms of efficacy or official endorsement. It only recognizes it as a widely used traditional practice.
4. Scientific Misconceptions About Fever
- Fever Suppression Spreading Virus: The text claims that suppressing a fever “can enable the virus to spread throughout the body.” Clinical studies have generally shown that taking antipyretics does not significantly worsen disease outcomes or increase viral shedding.
- The “Cytokine Storm” Claim: The article suggests that when a fever-suppressing drug wears off, a person may experience a “cytokine storm.” This is medically incorrect.
5. Out-of-Context Quotes
- Paul Offit and Jane Brody: The text quotes them in a misleading way. They are vocal supporters of conventional medicine and vaccines, and the usage here is considered cherry-picking.
Summary Note: The FDA and the CDC have both clarified that there is no scientific evidence that taking ibuprofen or other NSAIDs worsens COVID-19.
_________________________
I know, this is just one of his many nonsensical papers. But it nevertheless suggests that Dana puts in quite a lot of effort into misleading the public.
As well as making such unsubstantiated claims, Meduņecka failed to mention that she was being paid to promote them. “After PTAC’s repeated invitations to perform voluntary actions, the person has not taken measures to ensure that the commercial practices implemented by themselves comply with the requirements of regulatory acts. At the same time, the person has not cooperated with the institution in the administrative process,” PTAC noted. Therefore, the PTAC concluded that the violation was significant, especially taking into account Meduņecka’s status as the owner and true beneficiary of a company called SIA “Smartlife”.
“When assessing the offense committed by the individual, PTAC has taken into account the offense’s scope, nature, duration, impact on the legal interests of consumers (especially vulnerable groups of society – children and their parents, people with oncological diseases), the role of the person in the violation and the circumstances of the violation analyzed in the decision,” PTAC said.
______________________
There have, of course, been several other cases where “influencers” or wellness personalities were sanctioned for false or unsubstantiated health claims, especially when they also failed to disclose paid promotion, e.g.:
- Belle Gibson (Australia) was fined A$410,000 after falsely claiming she had cured brain cancer through diet and alternative therapies, a case that became one of the best-known influencer health fraud stories.
- Teami (US) was targeted by the FTC in a settlement over detox tea promotion: the company used influencers who made false health claims and failed to disclose their paid relationship, and the settlement included a $1 million payment.
- France’s DGCCRF has cracked down on influencers promoting supplements and “health” products with misleading claims; the watchdog said false claims and concealed advertising can lead to fines of up to €300,000 and prison terms in serious cases.
- Turkey’s Advertising Board has fined influencers for supplement promotions that implied medical or health benefits without authorization, including cases where the posts suggested stress, anxiety, or insomnia relief.
- UK: the ASA has repeatedly sanctioned influencers for misleading health or weight-loss claims, including a 2024 ruling involving Katie Price and The Skinny Food Co.
The recurring issues are usually:
- false or unsubstantiated health claims,
- disguised advertising, and promotion of products,
- targeting vulnerable audiences such as people with serious illnesses or parents of children.
The above cases are laudable; yet they are extremely rare exceptions. In view of the plethora of false health claims made by “influencers” and considering the risks of such activities, these pubishments are far too seldom. If you ask me, the authorities should be adequately staffed to persue each case swiftly and punishments should such that they can act as an effective deterrant.
So, why do our governments not get their acts together? Surely, this cannot be a question of money, as the fines would even bring in a tidy profit! Could it be that the “wellness industry” is rich and influential enough to prevent large-scale punitive actions? Could it be that our governments do not appreciate the damage false health claims cause to people’s finances and health? Or could it be that they simply don’t care?
Most scientists are not Trump-fans [to put it mildly]; this is a trend that is likely not to be reversed by Trumps recent appointment of the first 13 members to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Historically, it has served as a bridge between the White House and the broader scientific community, however, the 2026 iteration represents a Silicon Valley mockery of science. Nearly the entire roster consists of high-profile technology executives and venture capitalists, leaving academia with just a single representative: John Martinis, a 2025 Nobel Laureate in Physics from UC Santa Barbara.
The council’s composition is notable not just for its corporate focus, but for the sheer concentrated wealth of its members. At least 9 of the 13 appointees are billionaires, including some of the most influential figures in the global economy:
- Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) and Lisa Su (AMD): Representing the hardware backbone of the AI revolution.
- Mark Zuckerberg (Meta) and Sergey Brin (Google/Alphabet): Representing the titans of software and data.
- Larry Ellison and Safra Catz (Oracle): Longtime industrial allies with deep ties to federal infrastructure.
- Michael Dell (Dell Technologies) and Marc Andreessen (Andreessen Horowitz): Providing a mix of legacy hardware expertise and modern venture capital strategy.
Under the co-leadership of David Sacks (White House AI and Crypto Czar) and Michael Kratsios (OSTP Director), this council has a mandate that differs fundamentally from its predecessors. Previous administrations typically used PCAST to tackle broad issues like public health, climate science, and fundamental research. In contrast, the 2026 council is focused on “The Golden Age of Innovation,” with a specific emphasis on:
- AI Dominance: Ensuring the U.S. wins the global race for artificial intelligence.
- Energy Infrastructure: Accelerated deployment of advanced nuclear and fusion energy, represented by members like Jacob DeWitte (Oklo) and Bob Mumgaard (Commonwealth Fusion).
- Deregulation: Streamlining the “bureaucratic barriers” that the administration argues hinder technological speed.
This roster therefore marks a striking departure from the tradition established by FDR in 1933. While President Biden’s council was majority-academic and diverse in scientific disciplines, Trump’s PCAST is largely devoid of scientists. With up to 11 seats still vacant, the scientific community is now watching nervously to see if the second wave of appointments will continue to herald a boardroom for the billionairs and architects of the digital age.
As I said, scientists don’t like Trump. The reason is clear: he seems to value science mainly as a means to make money for himself or his cronies.
Aaron Siri is an American lawyer and anti‑vaccine activist. He has become a key figure in contemporary US vaccine‑policy debates, largely through his legal challenges and close ties to health‑policy critics such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His following five central claims about vaccines are a mix of selective quoting, misrepresentation of studies, and appeal to legal‑style rhetoric:
- Vaccines cause chronic illness
Siri’s central “smoking‑gun” claim rests on an unpublished Henry Ford Health‑system analysis allegedly showing that vaccinated children have far higher rates of chronic illness than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated children in this dataset had far more health‑care visits than unvaccinated children, so more conditions were diagnosed in them regardless of whether vaccines caused them. This is a textbook example of detection bias, but not evidence of causation. Moreover, the study has not passed peer review; its reported disease prevalences are inconsistent with known epidemiology. It is therefore widely seen as methodologically unsound.
- Vaccines were never properly tested against proper controls
Siri argues that many childhood vaccines have not been tested in inadequately-powered, placebo‑controlled trials. When an effective vaccine exists, medical ethics oppose using placebos in new trials, as that would deny protection to a control group. Moreover, his claim that older vaccines (e.g., tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis) “lack adequate controlled trials” is misleading because earlier trials were designed for different standards and later observational data, post‑licensure surveillance, and large‑scale cohort studies have filled the gaps. In other words, he exploits technical‑sounding language to imply a hiatus of evidence, when in reality the evidence base is broader and more heterogeneous than he portrays.
- The CDC/WHO inflates how many lives vaccines have saved
Siri has attacked the WHO’s estimate that vaccines have saved around 154 million lives, calling it “corruption of science”. The 154‑million figure comes from a modelling exercise [like most “lives‑saved” statements in public health]. It depends on assumptions but is based on vaccine‑coverage and mortality‑trend data, but it is not fabricated. Siri’s rebuttals focus on rhetorically dismissing the exercise as “advertising” rather than engaging its assumptions or proposing alternative, better‑validated models. His claim that this number is “corrupt” thus rests polemic than but not on a coherent technical critique of the underlying epidemiological models.
- Exploiting the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act and “lack of liability”
Siri blames the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for reducing oversight and downplaying risk, arguing that liability protection “corrupts” safety monitoring. Yet the law was designed to protect manufacturers from financially ruinous litigation and to create a dedicated federal compensation program for proven injuries, not to forbid safety monitoring. The US has multiple surveillance systems (VAERS, VSD, CISA) and expert advisory bodies (ACIP, NVAC) that continuously review vaccine safety. Siri’s critique thus conflates legal strategy with scientific oversight, implying that the absence of mass torts proves lax monitoring.
In conclusion, Siri’s vaccine claims are mostly built on:
- one deeply flawed, unpublished observational study,
- selective readings of older vaccine‑trial designs,
- unwarranted dismissal of WHO‑level modelling, and
- a legal framing that conflates liability shields with absence of safety science.
Epidemiologists, infectious‑disease specialists and other experts rightly regard Siri’s arguments as misrepresenting or misapplying biostatistics and failing to meet standards for causal inference. It would be a serious mistake to follow them!
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.
I recently came across an aricle entitled “Reiki for Stress Relief” which I thought was excptional even for the often surprising literature on Reiki. Here is the abstract:
Reiki is Holistic. It isn’t just about the mental, or just about the physical, but both, and an overall restoration and improvement to you. And as we know, often the mental and physical are linked.
While the scientific understanding of Reiki’s effects on emotional blocks is still evolving, many individuals report subjective benefits, such as emotional release, relaxation, and a greater sense of inner peace, following Reiki sessions.
As the philosophy of Reiki is grounded in holistic medicine and thought, it is imperative to continue that tradition and also integrate other scientific -backed therapies such as the ones your doctor may suggest if you have a serious medical or mental condition. A balanced approach is key, and Reiki is possibly a powerful tool and philosophy that can be the missing key or complement to your current care regimen.
This is impressive! Don’t you just love how it’s ‘grounded in holistic thought’ while the scientific understanding is ‘still evolving’ ? That’s a very elegant way of admitting ‘we’re still waiting for the first piece of evidence’. And we all appreciate the disclaimer to actually see a real doctor as soon as we are truly ill.
The Canadian comedian Mayce Galoni had perhaps the best measure of Reiki when he did his stand-up bit about his nephew “becoming a Reiki master” at the age of 21: “My 21-year-old nephew is now a Reiki master. I didn’t even know you could be a master of anything at 21… Reiki is the only career where you can get paid for doing exactly what I do when I can’t find the TV remote.”
Some homeopathy-fans claim that tiny “nanoparticles” survive even in remedies diluted a trillion trillion times (i.e. the process of manufacturing a high-potency homeopathic remedy). They furthermore assume that this phenomenon can explain how homeopathy works. This argument sounds ever so modern and sciency but – unless you are a bit of a dim-wit – it falls apart for several fairly straightforward reasons that almost anyone should be able to grasp.
Too Dilute
Imagine starting with a single drop of medicine and diluting it by adding 99 drops of water, shaking it up, then repeating that hundreds of times. By the 12C stage (about 1 part in 10^24), there’s statistically zero original molecules left – way before most remedies hit 30C or higher. Even if some nanoparticles somehow cling on from the mixing process or glass vials, they’d be so rare (fewer than one per bottle) that they couldn’t reliably affect your body like a real drug.
Breaks the Main Rule
Homeopathy’s main axiom is “like cures like” assumption: a substance that causes a headache in a healthy person should cure headaches when you’re sick. But nanoparticles would just deliver a tiny dose of the ingredient itself, acting like an extremely weak remedy – not following homeopathy’s main axiom. This would turn homeopathy back into normal medicine and miss the basis of its own theory.
Not Based on Materials
Not all homeopathic remedies start with physical ingredients. Some are “imponderables” like “X-ray” (sugar pills exposed to X-ray radiation, then diluted), “vacuum” (made by evacuating air from water), or even “moonlight.” There’s no material at all to leave nanoparticles behind, so this explanation can’t cover those products.
Useless Ingredients
Most homeopathic remedies are based on mother tinctures that have no heath effects, like sepia (ink from cuttlefish), cantharis (Spanish fly blister beetle), or even bits of the Berlin Wall. These aren’t bioactive – they don’t fight infections or reduce pain or do anything else in normal doses. Nanoparticles from such useless junk wouldn’t magically gain healing powers; they’d still do nothing useful for health.
Lack of Convincing Clinical Evidence
As discussed ad nauseam on my blog, there simply is no sound evidence to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Any benefits people feel are thus likely from expectation, natural recovery, or doctor attention – and not from nanoparticles. If homeopathy had any real effects to explain, nanoparticles might be worth debating; without them, it’s a dead end.
I do sympathise with the desperation of homeopaths. They feel they must identify a plausible mode of action for their remedies. Their 200 year old struggle to find anything at all is in many ways remarkable. Here are some of the main explanatory ideas homeopaths (or homeopathy-friendly authors) have previously proposed for how homeopathy might work:
- Vital force / life energy – the remedy is said to act on a non-physical “vital force” or life energy that supposedly governs health and disease.
- Water memory – water is claimed to “remember” substances once dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond any remaining molecules, via changes in water structure or hydrogen bonds.
- Electromagnetic signatures – remedies are said to carry subtle electromagnetic patterns or “information” of the original substance, sometimes claimed to be recordable, transmitted electronically, and imprinted on new water.
- Quantum coherence domains – models suggest water forms coherent quantum domains storing drug “information” as electromagnetic frequencies, inspired by Del Giudice and Preparata’s ideas, though lacking solid experimental support.
- Stable water clusters / clathrates – hypotheses that long-lived clusters or cage-like structures (clathrates) in water somehow encode the properties of the starting substance.
- Nanobubbles and interfaces – suggestions that gas nanobubbles or interfaces in the solution store and transmit information about the starting material.
- Hormesis-based explanations – the idea that ultra-low doses act via hormesis (beneficial effects of mild stress or toxins), extended to the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy.
- Resonance with the body – proposals that remedies resonate with biological systems (cells, tissues, or “vital force”) through frequency matching or electric resonance, rather than via chemistry.
- Quantum entanglement / non-locality – claims that patient, practitioner, and remedy become “entangled,” so healing occurs via non-local quantum effects rather than molecules or doses.
- Information medicine / encoding – framing remedies as carriers of abstract “information” rather than substance, supposedly acting like a software signal on the body’s “hardware.”
Is it not time for homeopaths to accept the only well-proven, plausible explanations as to why their patients feel better after taking their remedies?
- The empathetic therapeutic encounter.
- The natural history of the condition.
- Regression towards the mean.
- Concommittant conventional treatments.
- The placebo effect.
Sufficient evidence concerning the impact of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) on clinical outcomes for breast cancer patients in Taiwan is not available. This study sought to examine the association between TCM integration and post-operative outcomes among women undergoing mastectomies.
Utilizing a large insurance database, the Taiwanese researchers identified a cohort of adult women who underwent breast cancer surgery during the 2010–2019 period. They compared sociodemographic profiles and comorbidities between TCM users and non-users. Multiple logistic regression models were employed to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for both mortality and postoperative complications.
Among 91,298 eligible patients, the one-year pre-operative prevalence of TCM utilization was 40%. Compared to the control group, TCM users demonstrated:
- a significantly lower likelihood of postoperative stroke (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62–0.93),
- and a reduced requirement for intensive care (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59–0.91).
Moreover, the cumulative exposure of more than 4 TCM consultations within the year preceding surgery was linked to a decreased risk of stroke (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.95).
The authors concluded that “our findings indicate that integrating TCM during the year preceding breast cancer surgery is correlated with lower risks of postoperative stroke and a reduced requirement for intensive care. Nevertheless, these observed benefits warrant further verification through prospective and large-scale clinical investigations. Based on these results, we suggest that both Western medical practitioners and public health administrators should be mindful of TCM’s role in the comprehensive care of patients with breast cancer.”
In the paper itelf, the authors “hypothesize that pre-operative TCM integration contributes to the observed reduction in stroke risk and intensive care requirements following mastectomy. These prior insights provide a plausible biological foundation for the favorable outcomes observed in our study”. In other words, they believe that the associations is causal.
I beg to differ!
Much research has demonstrated that people who use so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in addition to conventional therapies differ from those who don’t. In general, they tend to be more health concious – if not, they would not go to the trouble of using and paying for SCAM. This difference alone suffices to bring about the observed outcomes – even if TCM has no or perhaps a slightly negative overall health effect.
But let’s be generous!
Let’s assume the authors are correct in assuming that the association is causal and that TCM brought about the observed outcomes.
What does that actually mean?
TCM consists of many different modalities. If we just focus on oral medications and assume that there are 1000 different ones [in fact, the number is about 6 times higher], which one do we take to experience the observed outcome? Perhaps all of them?
What I am trying to point out that such research is meaningless; it has zero practical consequences, even if its results were real – which they probably are not.
In the end, it boils down to one main thing: the promotion of unproven (and occasionally dangerous) TCM.
