commercial interests
Although currently the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer a public health challenge, the unprecedented utilization and integration of Ayush therapeutics and principles for the COVID-19 response in India represent a critical health systems and policy experiment which needs a systematic evaluation.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, and the data were extracted till 9th July 2024 using three databases: Scopus, PubMed and DOAJ. A total of seven articles were included for the review, following the PICOS criteria of inclusion and exclusion. Of the 667 articles, seven articles were finally selected, and these articles underwent quality assessment using the AXIS assessment tool. The pooled proportion of the Indian population that utilized the Ayush systems was estimated at a 95% confidence interval, using a random effects model assuming potential heterogeneity. The pooled estimate, publication bias, heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis were graphically represented using a forest, funnel, Galbraith plots and leave-one-out meta-analysis. Additionally, the effects of the small studies were assessed using Egger’s and Begg’s tests. The total sample across the included studies was 789,735. Of the seven articles, six focused on the general population, and five focused on the utilization of the Ayurveda system of medicine. The pooled proportion of the Indian population that utilized the Ayush systems for COVID-19 was 40% (95% CI: 25% − 57%). Based on the policy relevance, risk of exposure, access to guidelines and pattern of utilization two subgroup analyses were carried out. Utilization of multiple systems of Ayush (48%) and utilization among the general population (46%) showed the highest proportion compared to Ayurveda and healthcare workers, respectively. The high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.98%) suggests that the pooled estimate should be interpreted with caution, and the sensitivity analysis found one study had a modest upward influence on the overall estimate.
The authors concluded that this systematic review found a 40% pooled estimate of utilization of Ayush systems from the included studies, suggesting the utilization of these systems to manage mild and asymptomatic conditions and for preventive purposes.
This review reports a 40% pooled utilization rate of Ayush systems for COVID-19 in India, based on just seven studies with a massive sample but extreme heterogeneity (I²=99.98%). Such high heterogeneity undermines the reliability of the pooled estimate, as noted in the study’s own caution and sensitivity analysis showing one study’s outsized influence.
Only seven articles met PICOS criteria from 667 screened, mostly surveys on self-reported use among general populations, without assessing clinical efficacy or outcomes. Quality via AXIS tool is mentioned, but broader Ayush COVID evidence reveals high risk of bias in many trials due to poor randomization, blinding, and variability in interventions. No causal link is drawn between Ayush use and health impacts; the paper merely quantifies popularity amid government promotion.
India faced ~2.4-4.7 million excess deaths in 2020-2021, 7-10x official COVID figures, driven by Delta wave surges, oxygen shortages, and healthcare collapse. Widespread Ayush integration for prevention and mild cases – endorsed by Ministry of Ayush! – did not correlate with better results; high utilization (40-48% in subgroups) coincided with catastrophic mortality levels. Sound evidence for Ayush benefits does not exist. One might therefore speculate that the promotion of Ayush may have diverted resources from proven measures like vaccination and antivirals. In other words, it seems likely that it cost many lives.
Today, there is a strong scientific and medical consensus that homeopathy lacks reliable evidence of efficacy. Many of the strongest rejections come, after independent evaluations of the evidence, from national and international scientific bodies of undoubted repute. Here is my list:
- Advertising Standards Authority (UK) The ASA requires that efficacy claims for homeopathic products be supported by robust clinical evidence and has ruled that unsupported claims are misleading.
- American Academy of Pediatrics (USA) Warns that unproven alternative treatments, including homeopathy, should not delay or replace effective medical care, particularly in children.
- American College of Medical Toxicology & American Academy of Clinical Toxicology (USA) Jointly stated “no evidence exists” homeopathy is effective, noting it can be harmful by delaying evidence-based care; they recommended “against using homeopathic treatment for disease or prevention.”
- American Medical Association (USA) Issed statements that there is “no good-quality evidence” homeopathy is effective for any condition and opposed its integration into mainstream practice.
- Argentine Medical Association (AMA, Argentina) The AMA has criticized homeopathy’s inclusion in medical practice, stating it lacks scientific evidence and warning against its promotion as a valid treatment.
- Belgian Health Authority The Belgian Federal Public Service Health halted reimbursement for homeopathy in 2020, following advice from the College of Physicians that it lacks scientific evidence.
- Canadian Health Authorities Health Canada mandates warning labels on unlicensed claims: “This product is neither approved nor authorized for any indication,” aligning with evidence that homeopathy lacks reliable clinical support.
- Canadian Medical Association (CMA) Via editorials in its journal (CMAJ), the CMA has condemned the licensing of homeopathy as a “loophole” that implies efficacy without scientific proof, stating it “makes a joke of the regulatory process.”
- Chief Medical Officer for England (Dame Sally Davies) Publicly called homeopathic preparations “rubbish” that function only as placebos with no therapeutic benefit beyond psychological effects.
- European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) Issued a 2017 statement finding “no evidence that homeopathic products are effective” and reiterated that explanations for homeopathy’s efficacy are “scientifically implausible.”
- Federal Trade Commission (USA) Requires that homeopathic products must not claim effectiveness without evidence; otherwise, they must clearly state a lack of scientific support.
- Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Asserted “no convincing evidence” for homeopathy’s clinical efficacy, as its mechanisms contradict established chemistry and physics.
- Food and Drug Administration (USA) States “No homeopathic product is FDA-approved”; products are not reviewed for safety or effectiveness. The FDA also warns they may pose risks.
- French Academy of Medicine Rejected homeopathy as scientifically invalid, stating its theoretical basis and clinical evidence are inadequate or absent.
- German Medical Association (Germany) In 2020, removed homeopathy from the model further education curriculum for doctors, declaring it “is not a medical procedure based on scientific findings.”
- House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK) In its 2010 report, concluded “the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.”
- Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (UK) Followed committee advice by restricting licensing; homeopathic products should not make medical claims without evidence and are no longer endorsed as medicines.
- National Cancer Institute (USA) States homeopathy has “not been shown to be effective” for cancer treatment or symptom relief, with no rigorous studies supporting benefit beyond placebo.
- National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, Australia) After reviewing over 1,800 studies, it concluded “there are no health conditions for which there is reliable evidence that homeopathy is effective.”
- National Health Service (NHS, England) Formally stated “no NHS funding will be spent on homeopathic medicines,” with guidance that homeopathy performs “no better than placebos.”
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK) NICE does not recommend homeopathy in any clinical guideline and bases its recommendations on the best available evidence.
- Royal Society (UK) Numerous Fellows have publicly criticized homeopathy, and the Society has supported evidence-based medicine principles incompatible with homeopathy’s claims.
- Russian Academy of Sciences Described homeopathy as “pseudoscience” with principles that “contradict known laws of chemistry, physics, and biology.”
- Spanish Medical Associations (Collegiate Medical Organization of Spain) In 2018, rescinded recognition of homeopathy as a “medical procedure,” declaring it “not scientifically sound.”
- Swedish Medical Association The Swedish Medical Association and National Board of Health declared homeopathy scientifically unfounded in 2010, advising against its use in healthcare.
- Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences Concluded homeopathy lacks scientific evidence and should not be reimbursed by health insurance.
- Swiss Federal Office of Public Health After a 2005-2011 review, it rejected renewed inclusion in basic health insurance (though it was later reintroduced in 2017 under specific political conditions).
- World Health Organization (WHO) Explicitly stated homeopathy “should not be used” for serious diseases like HIV, tuberculosis, or malaria, warning reliance “can be dangerous.”
___________________
And what about institutions supporting homeopathy? I am aware of just one:
- Ministry of AYUSH (India) “Homoeopathy is a cost-effective system of medicine and is widely practiced for both acute and chronic conditions.”
_______________________
Across decades of systematic reviews and independent evaluations by scientific and medical authorities worldwide, no credible evidence has emerged to support the efficacy of homeopathy. Its principles conflict with well-established scientific laws, and its effects are indistinguishable from those of placebo in rigorous studies. The broad convergence of expert opinion is therefore this: homeopathy has no effects beyond placebo. Its continued use represents a divergence from evidence-based medicine, and reliance on it, particularly as an alternative to effective care, poses a clear risk to public health.
You probably heard about American Academy of Pediatrics et al. v. Kennedy et al., the law suit brought by the AAP and several other medical organisations against Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr). The case was ruled on March 16, 2026. Judge Brian E. Murphy of the US District Court for Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from overhauling the national childhood vaccine schedule. Judge Murphy’s decision addressed the US government’s deviation from historical and legal standards:
- “There is a method to how decisions about vaccine recommendations have historically been made—a method scientific in nature and codified into law through procedural requirements. Unfortunately, the government has disregarded those methods and thereby undermined the integrity of its actions.”
In reference to the controversial reconstitution of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), where 17 members were replaced by appointees chosen by RFK Jr., Judge Murphy noted:
- “The appointment process, in general, and thus the full committee was tainted.”
These are clear, strong and necessary statements. The harmful ideas and actions of RFK Jr. have become legion. Sadly, this also includes the area of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). RFK Jr. has long been a vocal proponent of SCAM. Here is a(n almost certainly incomplete) list of what, in the past, he said on this subject:
- “FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric oxygen, chelating agents, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”
- “If you want to use alternative medicines, you should have the right to do that. The government shouldn’t be telling you that you can’t use a natural product that’s been used for thousands of years.”
- “We are seeing an explosion of chronic disease. We need to look at our food system and look at the way we’re treating our bodies, focusing on nutrition and holistic health rather than just a pill for every ill.”
- “I’m going to tell the NIH: We’re going to stop studying infectious diseases for a while and we’re going to start studying chronic diseases… We’re going to look at why our children are so sick, and we’re going to look at the environmental factors, including the toxins in our food and the lack of natural remedies.”
- “Regenerative agriculture and clean eating are the best ‘alternative medicines’ we have. We are literally poisoning our children with processed foods and then wondering why we have a mental health crisis.”
- “The evidence is overwhelming that substances like psilocybin and ivermectin—I mean, psilocybin and MDMA—can provide breakthroughs for PTSD and depression that traditional SSRIs simply cannot match.”
- “During the pandemic, the authorities should have been telling people to get sun, exercise, and take Vitamin D and Zinc. Instead, they told us to stay indoors and wait for a vaccine.”
- “The chiropractic profession has long sought greater recognition… Under [this] leadership, HHS is expected to promote greater integration of chiropractic care into federal health programs.”
- During his visits to institutions like Life University and Sherman College of Chiropractic, he has praised the field for its “vital role in addressing today’s healthcare challenges” without relying on pharmaceuticals.
- He has signalled support for initiatives like the “Data Lake project,” which seeks to provide scientific validation and evidence-based data for chiropractic treatments to help them become more “mainstream.”
- “FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of… peptides, vitamins, clean foods, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”
- He has advocated for allowing supplement makers to make broader “disease-prevention claims” (e.g., Vitamin A for measles or Zinc for the common cold) without the same level of FDA oversight required for synthetic drugs.
- “I am a supplement enthusiast… [I] can’t even remember all the ones I take.” He has frequently promoted specific substances like Methylene Blue and high-dose Vitamin D as “best-kept secrets” of biohacking and longevity.
- “If you want to use alternative medicines, you should have the right to do that. The government shouldn’t be telling you that you can’t use a natural product that’s been used for thousands of years.”
- “We shouldn’t be telling people they can’t use a natural product just because it doesn’t fit the microbiological paradigm of the last 50 years.”
- “The best way to overcome depression is to wake up each morning and pray: ‘Please make me useful to another human being today.’ That is medicine.”
- We are going to prioritize non-opioid pain management. This means bringing therapies like acupuncture out of the ‘alternative’ fringe and into the center of our federal health strategy.”
- “The science is there for acupuncture, but the funding hasn’t been because you can’t patent a needle. We are going to change the NIH’s priorities to fund the studies that Big Pharma won’t.”
- “MAHA is about choice. If a patient finds relief through acupuncture rather than a bottle of Percocet, the system should support that, not penalize it.”
- “We have become a sedentary, indoor species. Qigong and mindful movement are essential for moving the ‘qi’—or what we might call the cellular energy—that prevents the stagnation leading to chronic disease.”
- “The FDA’s war on public health includes the aggressive suppression of… anything that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. This includes natural products and traditional medicines used for thousands of years.”
- “Why do we treat TCM like a superstition while we’re importing 90% of our synthetic precursors from China? We should be looking at the wisdom of their traditional botanical medicine to help solve our own chronic disease epidemic.”
The incompetence of RFK Jr. could be hilariously funny. Yet, I’m afraid, considering the power he has, it is not funny at all. In fact, I find it frightening. As you probably know, I am not alone in criticising RFK Jr. Here are a few prominent people who seem to agree with me:
- “RFK Jr. is a fountain of misinformation… His claims about vaccines are not just wrong; they are dangerous and have led to real-world harm, including the deaths of children.” — Dr. Peter Hotez, Dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine.
- “He takes a small grain of truth and surrounds it with a mountain of lies. He is an expert at cherry-picking data to support a predetermined, unscientific conclusion.” — Dr. Paul Offit, Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
- “Kennedy was a significant part of the reason that the vaccination rate in Samoa dropped so low… When you have a celebrity coming in and telling people vaccines are dangerous, people listen, and in this case, children died.” — Dr. Helen Petousis-Harris, Vaccinologist and Associate Professor at the University of Auckland.
- “His rhetoric on ‘environmental toxins’ often lacks any grounding in toxicology or dose-response relationships. He uses the language of science to promote pseudoscience.” — David Gorski, MD, PhD, surgical oncologist and editor of Science-Based Medicine.
- “By attacking the integrity of the FDA and CDC without evidence, Kennedy isn’t just questioning policy—he is dismantling the very foundations of public trust necessary to manage a pandemic or any health crisis.” — Dr. Ashish Jha, former White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator and Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.
- “Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s views on vaccines are not a ‘different perspective.’ They are a rejection of 70 years of established biological science.” — Dr. Richard Pan, Pediatrician and former California State Senator.
- “RFK Jr. preys on the anxieties of parents. He uses fear to fill the vacuum left by a lack of scientific literacy, which is the most cynical form of advocacy.” — Seth Mnookin, Professor at MIT and author of The Panic Virus.
- “To compare public health measures like masking or vaccines to the Holocaust is not only historically illiterate but a profound insult to the victims of actual atrocities. It disqualifies him as a serious voice in health policy.” — The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum (Official Statement in response to Kennedy’s rhetoric).
- “The tragedy of RFK Jr. is that he uses his considerable platform and famous name to promote theories that have been debunked dozens of times over. In public health, facts save lives; his ‘facts’ do the opposite.” — Dr. Jerome Adams, former U.S. Surgeon General.
I CONGRATULATE JUDGE MURPHY FOR HIS COURAGE AND I DO HOPE THAT HIS RULING IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF KENNEDY’S MEDICAL VANDALISM.
This landmark study, often called the “Nürnberger Kochsalzversuch”, is historically significant as probably the first recorded instances of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. It was conducted to test a specific claim made by a leading practitioner of the time. By the mid-1830s, homeopathy had gained significant popularity among the upper classes in Nuremberg, then part of the Kingdom of Bavaria (Stolberg, 2006). This success frustrated the city’s medical establishment Thus, in 1834, Friedrich Wilhelm von Hoven, the city’s highest-ranking public health official, published a scathing critique of homeopathy using the pseudonym “E.F. Wahrhold” (Cukaci et al., 2020). Johann Jacob Reuter, a prominent local homeopath, responded by challenging von Hoven to a test which became the now famous Nürnberger Kochsalzversuch. Reuter claimed that even a healthy person would experience “extraordinary sensations” if they ingested a dilution of ordinary table salt (Sodium Chloride, or Natrum Muriaticum, as homeopaths like to call it) (Stolberg, 2006).
The trial was organized by a “Society of Truth-loving Men,” supported by George Löhner, a local newspaper editor who also wrote the final report (Cukaci et al., 2020). To ensure impartiality, they implemented a – for the time revolutionary – study design:
- 100 identical glass vials were prepared.
- 50 were filled with pure distilled snow water (the placebo),
- 50 were filled with a salt dilution prepared exactly as Reuter had instructed (one grain of salt diluted 29 times at a 1:100 ratio.
- The vials were numbered, shuffled, and divided into two lots at random in front of a public audience.
- A sealed list recorded which vial/number contained which substance.
- Neither the distributors/trialists nor the participants knew the contents of the vials.
- The vials were distributed to volunteers.
- They were asked to record any unusual symptoms over the following three weeks.
The results could not have been clearer. Of the participants who reported back (approx. 50–54 individuals), the vast majority experienced no symptoms at all. Moreover, there was no difference between the verum and the control group.
The organizers concluded that, as the “symptoms” were evenly distributed between the salt and water groups, Reuter’s claim was discredited. They attributed any reported symptoms to imagination, self-deception, or preconceived opinion (Stolberg, 2006).
The study has historical importance. It is now celebrated by as a pioneering moment in clinical methodology. It could have established the importance of double-blinding, placebo-controls, and randomisation to eliminate bias. I say “it could have” because, in fact, it did nothing of the sort.
- It took until the 1930s that blinding started appearing in more formal academic settings; and only after 1948 (see below), became blinding accepted widely a “best practice”.
- In 1955, Henry Beecher published his landmark paper claiming that roughly 35% of patients improved on placebo alone. The Kefauver-Harris Amendment of 1962 finally legally mandated that manufacturers prove a drug is “effective” compared to a control, usually a placebo.
- Sir Ronald A. Fisher, a statistician working at an agricultural research station in England, realized that if you test two different fertilizers on two different patches of land, the soil quality might be better in one patch than the other, which would ruin the data. He proposed that only by randomly assigning treatments could you “cancel out” unknown variables (like soil acidity or moisture). His 1925 book, Statistical Methods for Research Workers, provided the mathematical proof that randomization was the only way to eliminate this form of bias.
- The MRC Streptomycin Trial of 1948 finally marked the official birth of the randomized clinical trial (RCT).
But – most importantly in the context of this blog – the trial could have established that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos. Sadly, this fact is still being ignored by all homeopaths, most healthcare systems, and far too many consumers across the world.
References
Beecher, H. K. (1955). The Powerful Placebo. Journal of the American Medical Association, 159(17), 1602–1606. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1955.02960340022006
Cukaci, C., Freissmuth, M., Mann, C., Marti, J., & Sperl, V. (2020). Against all odds—the persistent popularity of homeopathy. Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 132(9-10), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-020-01624-x Cited by: 99
Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver & Boyd. (Bodmer, 2003; Larson, 2008).
Jamison, J. C. (2016). The Entry of Randomized Assignment into the Social Sciences. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2739005 Cited by: 29
Stolberg, M. (2006). Inventing the randomized double-blind trial: the Nuremberg salt test of 1835. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(12), 642–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107680609901216
In the US, a felon is defined as a person who has been convicted of a felony. A felony is the most serious category of criminal offense. The US legal system distinguishes folonies from “misdemeanors” (less serious) and “infractions” (minor violations like speeding tickets). Apart from Trump himself, there are remarkably numerous felons (or ex-felons, since technically one is no longer a felon after receiving a pardon) in or around the US government at present. Here is a list:
Peter Navarro (Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing)
Convicted for two counts of contempt of Congress in 2024 for defying subpoenas.
Navarro is the primary architect of the administration’s “Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs” agenda. His role involves designing tariff structures, including the 25% across-the-board tariffs, and enforcing “Buy American, Hire American” policies. He acts as a key policy translator for the President’s economic instincts and is working to establish a new “External Revenue Service” to collect tariff payments.
Charles Kushner (U.S. Ambassador to France and Monaco)
Convicted in 2005 of tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions.
Kushner is the father of Jaret, Trump’s son-in-law. He represents U.S. interests in France and Monaco. His tenure has been marked by diplomatic friction; he has recently been involved in public disputes with French officials over administration comments regarding internal French political matters. His duties include managing bilateral relations, though he has faced recent “summons” from the French Foreign Ministry which he reportedly declined to attend personally.
Alice Marie Johnson (“Pardon Czar”)
Sentenced to life in 1996 for cocaine conspiracy and money laundering.
She leads the administration’s clemency efforts, reviewing and recommending individuals for presidential pardons and commutations. Her focus is on identifying non-violent offenders who she believes were over-sentenced. She also coordinates with the White House Faith Office and the Attorney General to ensure that those released have support systems to prevent recidivism.
Paul Manafort (Political Consultant and Advisor)
Convicted in 2018 of bank fraud, tax fraud, and witness tampering.
Manafort serves as a senior strategist and consultant. He leverages his extensive history in “hardball politics” to advise on campaign strategy, convention rules, and international political relations. He has historically been a bridge between the administration and various foreign interests.
Roger Stone (Lobbyist and Strategic Advisor)
Convicted in 2019 of lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice.
Stone operates as a “political fixer” and strategist. In addition to providing informal advice to the President, he is currently active as a lobbyist for major infrastructure and energy projects, such as the Uinta Basin Railway. He also uses his media platform to communicate the administration’s “attack-oriented” political messaging to the “MAGA” base.
__________________
What, you now rightly ask, is the situation in other countries?
Here is the list of high-ranking governmental felons in some other major nations:
Canada: 0
France: 0
Germany: 0
UK: 0
In the early 19th-century Austrian Empire, few figures held as much power over the physical and institutional health of the state as Dr. Andreas Joseph von Stifft (1760–1836) – after all, he was the personal physician to Emperor Franz I! He had risen from fairly modest origins, studied and trained at the University of Vienna, gained attention with a reform plan for the Josephinum, was then appointed second Stadtphysikus, and subsequently Hofarzt and imperial Leibarzt. As long‑serving director of medical studies and high state official, he reorganised curricula, promoted new disciplines and institutions, and helped shape public health policy in the Austrian Empire. In a nutshell: he was one of the most influencial doctors of his time.
His place in the history of medicine is well-documented. But his role in the history of homeopathy is less well-known: Stifft was homeopathy’s most formidable antagonist, employing his influence to orchestrate a near-total ban of the practice. His power was rooted in his commitment to the influencial Vienna Medical School and in the rigorously state-controlled medical hierarchy of the Austrian Empire. He considered the medical profession to be an important pillar of the conservative Restoration era. To Stifft, Samuel Hahnemann’s “Law of Similars” was therefore not merely a medical deviation; it was a threat to the scientific and administrative order he had spent building all his life.
Stifft’s most direct blow against homeopathy was the Imperial Decree of 1819 prohibiting the use of homeopathy altogether. He had managed to convince the Emperor that homeopathy was a “danger to the public” because it bypassed the well-established pharmacy system. By encouraging physicians to prepare their own remedies, homeopathy threatened the economic stability of apothecaries, who were vital tax-paying entities and strictly monitored by the state.
Under Stifft’s guidance, the decree framed homeopathy as:
- Scientifically Unsound: Stifft dismissed the concept of potentization (extreme dilution) as mystical nonsense.
- A Threat to Public Safety: He feared that patients would forgo “proven” treatments like bloodletting or mercury-based purges in favour of “sugar pills.”
- Administrative Chaos: If every doctor became their own pharmacist, the state’s ability to regulate drug quality and safety would collapse.
Stifft’s influence was so absolute that even high-ranking aristocrats who supported homeopathy had to seek treatments in secrecy. Practicing homeopathy could lead to the loss of a medical license or even imprisonment. Ultimately, Stifft represented the medical establishment’s attempt to use state power to control heathcare. Yet homeopathy’s survival among the nobility and its perceived success during epidemics eventually led to the repeal of his ban in 1837, only months after Stifft had died.
The 1831 cholera epidemic pitted the aggressive, often debilitating methods of the medical establishment against the placebos of homeopathy. The outcome of this comparison was so statistically undeniable that it effectively broke the political stranglehold Stifft had maintained over Austrian medicine.
When cholera first reached Europe in 1831, the medical establishment was helpless. The “heroic” treatments of the time – championed by Stifft – involved:
- Excessive bloodletting (often until the patient fainted).
- Strong purgatives (like Calomel/Mercury) to “flush out” the disease.
- Blistering agents applied to the skin.
In cholera characterised by rapid dehydration and exhaustion, these treatments proved to be more lethal than the disease itself. Mortality rates in regular hospitals often soared between 40% and 60%. In contrast, Samuel Hahnemann recommended remedies like highly diluted Camphor, Cuprum, and Veratrum. They had no effect, of course, but no effect was miles better that killing patients with ‘heroic medicine’. While Stifft had argued that homeopathy was a threat to “public safety,” the public could see that people were surviving in homeopathic wards while dying in state-run ones.
By 1837, just one year after Stifft’s death, Emperor Ferdinand I (the successor to Franz I) officially repealed the ban of homeopathy. The “miracle” of 1831 had proven that the state could no longer justify the suppression of a method that seemed to “do no harm” during a time when official medicine was doing plenty.
I find the story fascinating not least for one reason: the success of homeopathy is mainly due to the failures of conventional medicine. This was true at the time of Stifft, and it is true today when far too many conventional doctors fail to realize how important time, compassion and empathy (which homeopaths often have in spades) are for curing patients.
Guest post by Ken McLeod
Over the years these pages and many others have reported on the risks of using ayahuasca and kambo, psychoactive substances used by shamans, alt-med practitioners, cranks and downright frauds for spiritual, social, and medicinal purposes. Those risks go so far as an excruciatingly painful death, which has led to bans and severe restrictions in many countries including Australia. [1]
The Australian ban issued by the Therapeutic Goods Administration followed the death of Natasha Lechner who had ingested kambo in 2019. The Coroner’s report of her death said in part ‘it appears to me that a number of vulnerable people are drawn to using Kambo in circumstances where those who administer it may hold themselves out as part of a healing profession, and yet lack training in basic first aid.’ [2]
One report here from 17 February 2024 [3] is that of the death of Jarrad Antonovich who died from a perforated oesophagus after consuming ayahuasca and kambo frog toxin in October 2021, at the age of 46, while attending the ‘Dreaming Arts festival.’ This was a six-day retreat at Arcoora in northern New South Wales, Australia. See our article for more detail on ayahuasca and kambo and how the festival organisers and attendees responded to Mr Antonovich’s worsening condition.
In that article we reported that the New South Wales State Coroner had commenced an inquest into Mr Antonovich’s death and we promised to keep you informed.
So, keeping you informed; the Inquest began in May 2023 and was suspended in May 2024 when the Coroner referred the matter to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for consideration of whether charges should be laid.[4]
After the DPP’s lengthy consideration, on 5 March 2026 NSW Police arrested and charged ‘Soulore Solaris’, 52, a self-described ‘….Counsellor who facilitates Ayahuasca ceremonies’ with manslaughter over the death of Jarrad Antonovich at the Dreaming Arts Festival.[5] He was granted conditional bail to face Lismore Local Court on March 30 2026.
The media reported at length on the manner of Mr Antonovich’s death and on the reactions of the festival attendees to his worsening condition. Those reactions, as we reported in our article of 17 February2024, included:
– While Jarrad Antonovich‘s condition worsened there was resistance to calling for an ambulance. An ambulance was finally called at 11.30pm and took an hour to arrive because of the remote location.
- -One ambulance officer reported that a female told them to “move away from Jarrad because it was affecting his aura” and no one told them he had consumed Kambo. [6]
- -The event organiser Soulore “Lore” Solaris described Jarrad Antonovich’s death as ‘beautiful.’ [7]
- -Fred Woller, the site manager at Arcoora, was unaware those running the event did not have any medical training. [8]
- -Soulore “Lore” Solaris said Mr Antonovich ”…. had good support, a couple of kinesiologists with him and they couldn’t find anything wrong.” [9]
- -Mr Antonovich “was surrounded by people who loved him and an Aboriginal elder called Uncle Andrew who was chanting sacred songs and calling the spirit out of his body” and “the koalas were making a special sound that is known to the elders when the land accepts a spirit”. [10]
As usual, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission conducted a thorough investigation and issued a comprehensive report. That is in their Statement of Decision on their imposing a Permanent Prohibition Order on ‘Soulore Solaris’. That Statement is so thorough, and their report of the events leading up to and following Mr Antonovich’s death are so harrowing, that readers should go that Statement. [11] How such an excruciating death can be described as ‘beautiful’ beats me.
What is not in the Statement is the mind-set of ‘Soulore Solaris,’ his gullible acolytes and festival attendees. The Courts will examine that of the accused, Solaris, but what I am interested in is how do all these others, ayahuasca and kambo practitioners and their supporters, come to the belief that they know more than all the health and medical experts and regulators in the world.
Surely they score 15 on the Richter Scale of ‘Dunning-Kreuger Effect.’
References
[1] https://tinyurl.com/4t6kpm35 and https://tinyurl.com/59mxe38m and NSW Coroners Report para 70 at https://tinyurl.com/2xxf26ac and ‘Shamanic Kambô Frog Hyponatremic Toxicity Leading to Brain Death: A Case Report’ Tran et al NLM https://tinyurl.com/59mxe38m
[2] Coroners Report paragraph 72 at https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/documents/findings/2024/Inquest_into_the_death_of_Natasha_Lechner.pdf
[3] https://edzardernst.com/2024/02/inquest-into-ayahuasca-and-kambo-death/
[4] ABC https://tinyurl.com/mr22yjah
[5] ABC https://tinyurl.com/bdz7nwty
[6] The Guardian http://tinyurl.com/328manjt
[7] ABC http://tinyurl.com/5n7ejydy
[8] The Guardian http://tinyurl.com/59wa3rmn
[9] ABC http://tinyurl.com/5n7ejydy
[10] ABC https://tinyurl.com/bdfb3y4y
[11] See their Statement of Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4ad4aju3. (The Statement of Decision gives a lot of useful material about these poisons and their ceremonies and the people who use them).
I have long felt that Cureus is a very strange journal:
- It publishes an incredilby high volume of papers: ~50,000 in 2025.
- An unusual high percentage of these articles are on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
- Its article retraction rate seems one dimension higher than the average.
- It charges hefty fees for submissions needing language, formatting, or reference corrections.
- Estimates of its profits vary hugely: $3.5M revenue (Growjo), $1.4M (SignalHire), or $25-50M (Cience).
Now RETRACTION WATCH (RW) have reported that Clarivate has removed Cureus from its Master Journal List. The move means Cureus will no longer be indexed in Web of Science or receive an impact factor. Thus, researchers are less likely to submit to the journal.
Clarivate put indexing for the journal on hold last September for concerns about article quality, which the journal has been criticized for in the past. Cureus has retracted about 125 papers since Springer Nature acquired the title in late 2022. Last year, the journal closed six of its academic channels critics described as dressed-up paper mills, and has had to repeatedly retract plagiarized articles, as we’ve previously reported.
In August, Cureus eliminated author suggestions for peer reviewers in an attempt to decrease potential conflicts of interest. The journal has had authorship issues in the past, as RW previously reported. In 2021, a medical resident in New Jersey invited his wife to review his papers without disclosing their relationship, resulting in five retractions. In 2019, another author faked reviewer accounts for two well-known neurosurgeons and was discovered only after a routine editorial audit.
Rebecca Krahenbuhl, a communications manager at Clarivate, told RW a journal is removed from the Master Journals List when it “no longer meets” 24 quality criteria. These criteria include appropriate citations, adequate and effective peer review, and primarily original scholarly content, according to the company’s website. Krahenbuhl also told RW journals are typically on hold for an average of around six weeks, but in cases where publishers “engage” with Clarivate, the company allows journals to remain on hold for longer “to allow time for publishers to conduct their own investigations and take corrective action should they decide to do so.”
Graham Parker-Finger, the publishing director at Cureus, told us the journal was “very disappointed” in Clarivate’s decision and noted the journal would continue “to offer fast, affordable, trusted and quality-assured publishing for the global medical community.”
Yesterday Dana commented on this blog the following:
… And while you’re there, I am still waiting for anyone here to review and critique my newest contribution to the PubMed literature: Rockefeller, the Flexner Report, and the American Medical Association: The Contentious Relationship Between Conventional Medicine and Homeopathy in America: https://www.cureus.com/articles/370572-rockefeller-the-flexner-report-and-the-american-medical-association-the-contentious-relationship-between-conventional-medicine-and-homeopathy-in-america#!/
I am far less fond than Ullman of ChatGPT, but I am also somewhat reluctant to read a long Ullman article, as it might be full of nonsense. So, in order to decide whether or not to read it, I gave the AI platform the following task:
Give me a critique of this article: https://www.cureus.com/articles/370572-rockefeller-the-flexner-report-and-the-american-medical-association-the-contentious-relationship-between-conventional-medicine-and-homeopathy-in-america#!/
This is what I got:
Here is a critical evaluation of the article “Rockefeller, the Flexner Report, and the American Medical Association: The Contentious Relationship Between Conventional Medicine and Homeopathy in America” by Dana Ullman, published in *Cureus (2025). I’ll assess it across authorship, argumentation, evidence, historiography, and scientific credibility.
1. Author background and potential bias
A major issue with the article is conflict of interest and author positioning.
- The author is the founder of Homeopathic Educational Services, which sells homeopathic products and books.
- He has “written and lectured extensively” promoting homeopathy.
- The work was partially supported by a member of the Rockefeller family.
Why this matters
This doesn’t automatically invalidate the research, but it creates a strong ideological incentive to reinterpret history in favor of homeopathy.
The article therefore reads less like neutral scholarship and more like advocacy-driven revisionist history.
2. Journal quality and peer-review context
The article appears in Cureus, which is a legitimate but controversial open-access journal.
Characteristics of the journal:
- Rapid peer-review and publication model
- Author-pay publication structure
- Generally lower prestige than major medical journals
This doesn’t mean the article is wrong, but it lacks the historiographical scrutiny typical of top history-of-medicine journals.
3. Central thesis of the article
The article argues that the decline of homeopathy in the U.S. was primarily due to institutional power and political suppression, not scientific inferiority.
Specifically it claims:
- Rockefeller funding helped institutionalize “scientific medicine”.
- The Flexner Report collaborated with the American Medical Association to marginalize homeopathy.
- Philanthropic decisions influenced which medical schools survived.
- Homeopathy declined due to economic and institutional pressure, not lack of efficacy.
These claims mix reasonable historical observations with questionable conclusions.
4. Strengths of the article
A. Interesting archival material
The paper highlights private reports written by Frederick T. Gates for John D. Rockefeller criticizing homeopathy.
If authentic and correctly interpreted, these documents do add nuance to how philanthropy shaped medical education.
B. Correct emphasis on institutional power
The article correctly notes that the Flexner reforms reshaped medical education through:
- philanthropy
- licensing standards
- laboratory science requirements
This is well established in medical historiography.
C. Recognizes economic drivers
The discussion of:
- philanthropy
- advertising revenue of the AMA
- licensing standards
reflects legitimate sociological analysis of professionalization.
5. Major weaknesses
A. Selective and misleading historiography
The article frames the history as a conspiracy or coordinated suppression.
For example, it claims the AMA secretly collaborated with Abraham Flexner on the Flexner Report.
But historians generally agree that:
- Flexner consulted many physicians
- The AMA influenced reform
- Yet the report itself was not a covert anti-homeopathy project
The paper overinterprets routine professional collaboration as conspiracy.
B. False equivalence about efficacy
The paper suggests homeopathy declined mainly due to institutional power.
However it ignores a central issue:
homeopathy failed empirical testing.
Modern evidence shows:
- Homeopathic dilutions usually contain no active molecules.
- Clinical trials show results consistent with placebo.
This is a fundamental reason the medical community rejected it.
The article largely avoids engaging with modern evidence.
C. Use of outdated or fringe sources
Some references include:
- 19th-century homeopathic mortality comparisons
- polemical books such as Divided Legacy
These sources are often considered unreliable by historians because:
- hospital records were inconsistent
- patient populations differed
- treatments were not comparable
The paper treats them as strong evidence.
D. Misinterpretation of historical success claims
The article claims homeopathy had dramatically lower death rates during epidemics.
This is a classic homeopathy narrative, but historians have identified problems:
- reporting bias
- different patient severity
- incomplete hospital records
So these comparisons are not reliable evidence of effectiveness.
E. Presentism and ideological framing
The article repeatedly implies:
- “scientific medicine” succeeded due to money
- homeopathy was suppressed despite effectiveness
This framing ignores a key historical reality:
By the early 20th century:
- laboratory science
- bacteriology
- pharmacology
were producing replicable results, while homeopathy remained theoretically implausible.
6. Logical problems in the argument
The paper assumes:
“Homeopathy declined because institutions suppressed it.”
But the historical process is more likely:
- Medical science became more empirical.
- Universities shifted to laboratory medicine.
- Treatments were evaluated experimentally.
- Homeopathy failed to demonstrate efficacy.
Institutional change followed scientific change, not the reverse.
7. Historians’ mainstream interpretation
Most historians of medicine interpret the Flexner era as:
- professionalization of medicine
- elimination of poorly resourced schools
- transition to research-based medicine
It did reduce diversity in medical approaches, but not primarily to suppress homeopathy.
Instead it enforced:
- laboratory training
- clinical science
- standardized education
8. Overall assessment
Strengths
- Interesting archival angle
- Raises legitimate questions about philanthropy
- Highlights institutional power in medical history
Weaknesses
- Strong author bias
- Selective evidence
- Conspiracy framing
- Avoidance of modern scientific evidence
- Misleading historical comparisons
Bottom line
The article is best understood as advocacy-oriented revisionist history, not a neutral historical analysis.
It contains some useful historical details but should be read critically and alongside mainstream scholarship on medical education reform.
✅ In short:
The paper raises valid points about power and philanthropy in medicine but overstates the case that homeopathy was suppressed rather than scientifically discredited.
______________________
I thank ChatGPT for this analysis helping my decision:
I think I don’t need to read Ullman’s new paper!
Debates on researching SCAM frequently hinge on the tension between theoretical plausibility and empirical testing. The central question is this: should interventions that contradict well-established scientific principles nonetheless be subjected to clinical trials? This issue raises fundamental concerns about the allocation of research resources, the epistemology of medical science, and the boundary between scientific openness and credulity.
In medical research, plausibility refers to the compatibility of a treatment’s purported mechanism of action with established biochemical and physiological knowledge. Treatments such as homeopathy, reiki, bioresonance, etc., etc. are typically judged to be implausible because their mechanisms violate basic physical principles (Ernst, 2010; Offit, 2013). One could argue that conducting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on such interventions is methodologically and ethically questionable, as the prior probability of efficacy is exceedingly low (Goodman, 1999) and the probability of a positive result obtained with a rigorous trial approaches zero. Framed in Bayesian terms, if a hypothesis begins with a negligible prior probability, even seemingly positive trial outcomes are unlikely to meaningfully change its posterior credibility (Spiegelhalter, 2019).
But insisting that only theoretically plausible hypotheses merit empirical testing risks scientific conservatism. Medical history includes numerous examples – such as the discovery of the antipyretic and antithrombotic effects of aspirin – where therapeutic value was demonstrated before mechanisms were fully understood (Vane, 2000). Advocates of broader testing argue that empirical methods should retain the capacity to surprise theory and that excluding “implausible” ideas a priori risks reinforcing disciplinary dogma (Ioannidis, 2012). This appeal to epistemic humility emphasizes observation as a safeguard against the overreach of theoretical reasoning.
However, defenders of plausibility-based research prioritization contend that such humility must be balanced against the always finite resources for research and the ethical responsibility of researchers. Health research funding is limited, and prioritizing the study of implausible treatments may divert attention from interventions with rational mechanistic foundations and higher expected utility (Sampson, 2005). Additionally, the evidentiary record of clinical trials in SCAM demonstrates a consistent pattern: small, underpowered studies occasionally produce marginally positive results that fail replication, while systematic reviews of rigorous studies yield null or inconclusive conclusions (Shang et al., 2005; Ernst et al., 2011). In such cases, further testing is more likely to perpetuate public misunderstanding than to advance medical knowledge.
So, what is the solution? An epistemologically coherent approach, frequently advocated in evidence-based medicine, is to calibrate evidential standards to plausibility. Highly improbable claims should first demonstrate compelling preclinical signals – biochemical, mechanistic, or reproducible physiological effects – before human trials are considered (Goodman, 1999; Howick, 2011). This proportionality upholds methodological rigor without foreclosing the possibility of genuine empirical discovery. It respects Bayesian reasoning: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Science must remain open to the unexpected yet disciplined in method and theory. Medical research is usually at its most productive when it operates between the two extremes—dogmatism that refuses to test unconventional claims, and indiscriminate empiricism that tests everything without theoretical guidance. The prudent path lies in aligning the scope of empirical investigation with scientific plausibility, ensuring openness tempered by rational constraint.
References
- Ernst, E. (2010). “A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy.” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 69(5), 577–582.
- Ernst, E., Pittler, M. H., Wider, B., & Boddy, K. (2011). The Desktop Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Elsevier.
- Goodman, S. N. (1999). “Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: The P value fallacy.” Annals of Internal Medicine, 130(12), 995–1004.
- Howick, J. (2011). The Philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine. Oxford University Press.
- Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2012). “Scientific inbreeding and same-team replication: Type D personality as an example.” Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 72(6), 408–410.
- Offit, P. A. (2013). Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine. HarperCollins.
- Sampson, W. (2005). “Antiscience trends in the rise of the ‘alternative medicine’ movement.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 775(1), 188–197.
- Shang, A., et al. (2005). “Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy.” The Lancet, 366(9487), 726–732.
- Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The Art of Statistics. Pelican Books.
