conspiracy
Nearly every time that I talk to proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) I hear a lot about diet. Diet is a central theme to almost all of them, it seems. In such conversations, several issues often emerge and frequently take the form of accusations, e.g.:
- Conventional medicine neglects the importance of diet for our health.
- Medical students learn next to nothing about the subject.
- In conventional medicine, hardly any research is focussed on diet.
- By contrast, practitioners of SCAM know a lot about diet.
- Many are experts in the subject.
- Patients are well-advised to consult SCAM practitioners if they want to learn how to eat healthily.
- SCAM practitioners have developed a wide range of diets that keep their patients fit and healthy.
I usually try to object to some of these points. The truth is that medical students do learn about diet, that doctors are aware of its importance, and that research into diets is highly active.
Particularly about the last point, I can get rather irritated. Sadly, this impresses the SCAM fans very little. They have their opinion and rarely budge.
After one such conversation, I decided to go on Medline and produce some figures. Here they are:
- As of 6 October, there are 1 453 clinical trials listed on Medline as published in 2024.*
- Between 1957 and today, around 57 000 such trials have been published.
- Their number shows an almost exponential growth during this period.
- The diets tested range widely and include, for instance, the Mediteranean diet, the ketogenic diet, intermittent fasting, vegetarian diet, energy restricted diet, gluten-free diet.
- There are as good as no trials on any of the SCAM diets.
- The researchers doing the diet trials are almost exclusively conventional medics or nutritionist.
- I did not find any SCAM practitioners in the list of authors.
So, the next time a SCAM proponent bullshits you about diet, you can tell him or her to get lost!
*Not all are, in fact, clinical trials
It has been reported that the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) has revoked the certifications for two prominent US physicians. They are both (in)famous for leading an organization that promotes ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.
- Pierre Kory, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine, pulmonary disease, and internal medicine, according to the ABIM website.
- Paul Ellis Marik, MD, is no longer certified in critical care medicine or internal medicine.
Marik is the chief scientific officer and Kory is president emeritus of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, a group they founded in March 2020. The FLCCC gained notoriety during the height of the pandemic for advocating ivermectin as a treatment for COVID. It now espouses regimens of supplements to treat “vaccine injury” and also offers treatments for Lyme disease.
Kory and Marik stated, “we believe this decision represents a dangerous shift away from the foundation principles of medical discourse and scientific debate that have historically been the bedrock of medical education associations.” The FLCCC said in the statement that it, along with Kory and Marik, are “evaluating options to challenge these decisions.” Kory and Marik said they were notified in May 2022 that they were facing a potential ABIM disciplinary action. An ABIM committee recommended the revocation in July 2023, saying the two men were spreading “false or inaccurate medical information,” according to FLCCC. Kory and Marik lost an appeal. In a 2023 statement, Kory and Marik called the ABIM action an “attack on freedom of speech.”
To this, Wikipedia adds that, Marik is the inventor of the “Marik protocol”, also known as the “HAT” protocol, which proposes intravenous administration of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine as a treatment for preventing sepsis for people in intensive care. Marik’s own initial research, published with four other authors in Chest in 2017, showed a dramatic evidence of benefit. The single-center, observational study compared outcomes of 47 consecutive sepsis patients who were treated with HAT during a 7-month period to 47 consecutive control patients during the preceding 7-month period. The study reported 19 deaths in the control group and 4 deaths in the treatment group. Marik’s findings received attention on social media and National Public Radio, but drew criticism from the wider medical community for being science by press conference. ER doctor Jeremy Faust was one of a number of skeptics of the results, noting the low reliability of the study design and potential for bias. The controversy prompted other groups to conduct studies of the HAT protocol. A systematic review of six randomized and five non-randomized controlled trials in 2021 eventually concluded that the claimed benefits of the protocol could not be confirmed.
In November 2022, Pierre Kory and the FLCCC began marketing a cocktail of supplements and drugs (e.g. ivermectin and nitazoxanide) for other viruses, influenza and Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Like the FLCCC-advocated COVID treatments, the recommendations lacked credible supporting scientific evidence. The cocktail could cost over $500.
Wikipedia also mentions that, in March 2024, Kory and Marik published an op-ed in The Hill claiming that long COVID was caused by COVID-19 vaccination instead of COVID-19 infection. The op-ed was republished by the German disinformation outlet Disclose.tv. The fact-checking website Health Feedback found that the op-ed relied on anecdotes that did not provide evidence to support the claim.
Recent studies have demonstrated that sociopolitical attitudes partially explain variance in (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Other attitudes, such as those towards esoteric beliefs, so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and religion, have also been proposed. However, pertinent studies provide limited direction for public health efforts, as the impact of such attitudes has been tested in isolation or on different outcomes. Moreover, related associations between SARS-CoV-2 immunization drivers as well as views towards other modes of immunization (e.g., routine pediatric immunization), remain unclear.
Based on a sample of ~7400 survey participants (Germany), where esoteric belief systems and SCAM (Waldorf, homeopathy) are rather prevalent, and controlling for other sociological factors, this study found that:
- individuals with positive attitudes towards Waldorf education and homeopathy are significantly less likely to have received a (further) dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine compared to those with positive views of mainstream medicine;
- for the former, immunization decisions are primarily driven by external pressures, and for the latter overwhelmingly by voluntary considerations;
- attitudes influencing adult SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake similarly influence views towards routine pediatric immunization.
The authors concluded that their findings provide significant evidence informing a more nuanced design of public health and communication campaigns, and pertinent policies.
As the authors of this study point out, the attitudes towards mainstream medicine remained the single most influential factor for vaccine uptake. Individuals who viewed mainstream medicine highly favorably, received on average an estimated 1.48 (p < 0.001) more doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine than those who held very negative views. In contrast, those who viewed homeopathy highly positively received on average 0.51 (p < 0.001) fewer doses than those who viewed homeopathy highly negatively.
Regarding religious denominations, individuals self-classifying as Roman-Catholic or Protestant received on average 0.17 (p < 0.001) and 0.15 (p < 0.001) more vaccine doses than those self-classifying as non-denominational. The associations between other denominations and vaccine doses were statistically insignificant.
While these associations have been observed before or at least seem logical to me (and we discusses them frequently on this blog), one finding is, I think new (albeit not surprising, in my view): Supporters of the right-wing populist AfD received 1.37 (p < 0.001) fewer vaccine doses than the reference category Christian democrats.
So, does that in essence mean that the typical (German) vaccination hesitant person votes extereme right and loves SCAM?
Proponents of so-called alternative medicine tend to be critical of COVID-19 vaccines and often claim that they do more harm than good. Therefore, I have in the past repeatedly discussed studies that alleviate their concerns and will continue to do so in future. A new study will provide a valuable contribution to this ongoing discussion.
It has been shown that the first dose of COVID-19 vaccines leads to an overall reduction in cardiovascular events, and in rare cases, cardiovascular complications. There is less information about the effect of second and booster doses on cardiovascular diseases. Using longitudinal health records from 45.7 million adults in England between December 2020 and January 2022, this study compared the incidence of thrombotic and cardiovascular complications up to 26 weeks after first, second and booster doses of brands and combinations of COVID-19 vaccines used during the UK vaccination program with the incidence before or without the corresponding vaccination.
The findings reveaal that:
- The incidence of common arterial thrombotic events (mainly acute myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke) was generally lower after each vaccine dose, brand and combination.
- The incidence of common venous thrombotic events, (mainly pulmonary embolism and lower limb deep venous thrombosis) was lower after vaccination.
- There was a higher incidence of previously reported rare harms after vaccination: vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia after first ChAdOx1 vaccination, and myocarditis and pericarditis after first, second and transiently after booster mRNA vaccination (BNT-162b2 and mRNA-1273).
The authors concluded that these findings support the wide uptake of future COVID-19 vaccination programs.
This England-wide study offers reassurance regarding the cardiovascular safety of COVID-19 vaccines, with lower incidence of common cardiovascular events outweighing the higher incidence of their known rare cardiovascular complications. No novel cardiovascular complications or new associations with subsequent doses were found. The findings thus support the wide uptake of future COVID-19 vaccination programs.
Vaccine hesitancy has been defined as a continuum of attitudes, ranging from accepting vaccines with doubts to rejecting them. For good reasons, the topic has featured regularly on this blog, e.g.:
- Anthroposophic medicine and vaccine hesitancy: are there links?
- Endorsement of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and vaccine hesitancy among physicians
- So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and vaccine hesitancy among physicians: findings from Germany, Finland, Portugal, and France
- Echo chambers of vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- Vaccine hesitancy and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
- How to reduce vaccination hesitancy?
- Reasons for parental hesitancy or refusal of childhood vaccination
- Intelligence, Religiosity, SCAM, Vaccination Hesitancy – are there links?
- The American Medical Association take a stand against chiropractors, naturopaths, or homeopaths granting medical exemptions to vaccines
- Attitudes of Vaccination-Hesitant Parents Towards So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM)
- Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?
This new study aimed to explore the heterogeneity of a childhood-vaccine-hesitant group by using a person-oriented approach, i.e. latent profile analysis.
A non-representative cross-sectional sample of vaccine-hesitant Slovenians (N = 421, Mage = 35.21, 82.9% women) was used to identify differences based on their
- reliance on personal research (“self” researching instead of relying on science),
- over-confidence in knowledge,
- endorsement of conspiracy theories,
- complementary and alternative medicine,
- trust in the healthcare system.
The analysis revealed three profiles of vaccine-hesitant individuals. The most hesitant profile—vaccine rejecting—expressed the greatest reliance on personal research, expressed the highest endorsement of conspiracy theories and complementary and alternative medicine, showed moderate overconfidence in their knowledge, and expressed the highest levels of distrust in the healthcare system. Furthermore, the researchers found differences in sociodemographic structure and noted that the identified profiles differed in their attitudes regarding MMR, HPV, and Seasonal Influenza vaccinations.
The authors concluded as follows: our findings not only further confirm the heterogeneous nature of vaccine-hesitant groups but also offer critical insights for public health interventions. By acknowledging the existence of distinct profiles within the vaccine-hesitant population, strategies can be tailored to address the nuanced beliefs and attitudes of these subgroups more effectively.
- Skeptics who already express a certain level of trust in healthcare, may be most receptive to messages from medical professionals. Given that skeptics are typically older, higher-educated men, interventions could focus on leveraging their existing trust in healthcare professionals and providing detailed, evidence-based information to address their specific concerns.
- Self-directed researchers, who are characterized by high endorsement of CAM and conspiracy theories and moderate over-confidence, could benefit from interventions involving trusted community figures or CAM medicine experts who can bridge the gap between traditional and CAM perspectives. In addition, reaching out to younger women in this group through online platforms and providing credible information that counteracts misinformation could be effective.
- Conventionalists, who have the highest trust in the healthcare system and tend to include more educated individuals with a left-leaning political orientation, may respond well to public health messages that emphasize the collective benefits of vaccination. Campaigns could focus on reinforcing their positive views on the efficacy, safety, and importance of vaccines while leveraging their trust in physicians and public health institutions.
The effectiveness of targeted interventions for each specific subgroup could then also be examined, employing insights from the present study. For instance, tailored communication strategies could be tested to determine which messages and messengers are the most effective in regard to changing attitudes and behaviors within each profile.
Individuals with large followings can influence public opinions and behaviors, especially during a pandemic. In the early days of the COVID pandemic, US president Donald J Trump endorsed the use of unproven therapies. Subsequently, a death attributed to the wrongful ingestion of a chloroquine-containing compound occurred.
This paper investigated Donald J Trump’s speeches and Twitter posts, as well as Google searches and Amazon purchases, and television airtime for mentions of hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, azithromycin, and remdesivir. Twitter sourcing was catalogued with Factba.se, and analytics data, both past and present, were analyzed with Tweet Binder to assess average analytics data on key metrics. Donald J Trump’s time spent discussing unverified treatments on the United States’ 5 largest TV stations was catalogued with the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone, and his speech transcripts were obtained from White House briefings. Google searches and shopping trends were analyzed with Google Trends. Amazon purchases were assessed using Helium 10 software.
From March 1 to April 30, 2020, Donald J Trump made 11 tweets about unproven therapies and mentioned these therapies 65 times in White House briefings, especially touting hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. These tweets had an impression reach of 300% above Donald J Trump’s average. Following these tweets, at least 2% of airtime on conservative networks for treatment modalities like azithromycin and continuous mentions of such treatments were observed on stations like Fox News. Google searches and purchases increased following his first press conference on March 19, 2020, and increased again following his tweets on March 21, 2020. The same is true for medications on Amazon, with purchases for medicine substitutes, such as hydroxychloroquine, increasing by 200%.
The authors concluded that individuals in positions of power can sway public purchasing, resulting in undesired effects when the individuals’ claims are unverified. Public health officials must work to dissuade the use of unproven treatments for COVID-19.
Trump is by no means the only politician who misled the public in matters of healthcare through ignorance, or stupidity, or both. Other recent examples that we previously discussed include, for instance:
- Kirsty Adams (UK) – UK politician dabbles in faith healing
- Andrew Bridgen (UK) – British politician punished for calling COVID-vaccination the “biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust”
- Norbert Hofer (Austria) – When politicians become snake-oil salesmen
- Penny Mordaunt (UK) – Penny Mordaunt, defender of homeopathy
- Jeremy Corbyn (UK) – Jeremy Corbyn and homeopathy
- David Tredennick (UK) – David Tredinnick: perhaps the worst example of scientific illiteracy in government?
Yes, Trump is not the only, but he is the most influential and might well be the most ignorant one:
- Words of wisdom from Donald Trump on science and related matters
- The ‘Trump-Effect’ on vaccination attitudes
- Trump seems to think that UV might be the answer to the corona-pandemic – could he mean “ultraviolet blood irradiation”?
- Andrew Wakefield, Donald Trump, SCAM, and the anti-vaccination cult
- Unbelievable: ‘THE TRUMP WELLNESS-PLAN’
For this reason alone – and there are many more – I hope he will not soon become merely a dark and scary chapter in the history of the US.
The comment sections of this blog have provided plenty of reason to suspect that chiropractic is a cult, a health cult to be precise. A health cult is defined as a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator. The promulgator, in this case, is DD Palmer. As discussed previously, he ‘invented’ chiropractic and promoted many extraordinary claims and ideas, e.g.:
- I was the first to adjust the cause of disease
- Chiropractors adjust causes instead of treating effects
- 95% of all diseases are caused by subluxations of the spine
- Vaccination and inoculation are pathological; chiropractic is physiological
- It was my ingenious brain which discovered [chiropractic’s] first principle; I was its source; I gave it birth; to me all chiropractors trace their chiropractic lineage
- Among the wonderful achievements of this century, the discovery and development of chiropractic is preeminent; it is destined to replace all methods which treat effects
- Dis-ease is a condition of not ease, lack of ease
- His magnetic cure for cancer involved freeing the stomach and spleen of poisons
- Chiropractic is a science of healing without drugs
- Wants to turn chiropractic into a religion (as this would avoid chiropractors being sued for practising medicine without a license)
Since DD Palmer, the chiro-cult has changed. In fact, it has split into two camps. The ‘straights’ have become a Palmer worship cult, while the rest delude themselves of being based on evidence. That the former are cultists is impossible to deny. The latter reject such allegations but, in my mind, they too belong to a cult.
Let me explain.
The criteria for a cult can be defines as follows:
- Charismatic Leader: the ‘mixers’ might no longer worship Palmer, yet they are far from free of his ‘philosophy’; after all, they went to chiro-school where they were educated in the Palmer tradition.
- Isolation: chiropractors seek surprisingly little co-operation with other healthcare professionals and thus tend to be isolated.
- Control: chiropractors are under tight control of their professional bodies, peers, journals, etc. which all make sure that heretic ideas are kept at bay.
- Deception: chiropractors are masters of deception in persuading the public and their patients of the value of spinal manipulations, regardless of the actual evidence.
- Us vs. Them Mentality: chiropractors tend to create an “us vs. them” mentality, demonizing real doctors and promoting group cohesion.
- Exploitation: chiropractors have a long history of exploiting their patients; maintenance care is just one of many examples.
- Fear Tactics: chiropractors are scare mongers, for instance, when they diagnose subluxations even in perfectly healthy people and claim that this invented diagnosis needs urgent adjustments.
What, you don’t agree with these arguments?
In this case let me quote a different set criteria that might help to decide whether chiropractic might be a cult. Here they are:
- Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
- Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
- Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
- Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
- A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
- Abuse of members
- Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
- Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough”
- A belief that the leader is right at all times
- A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation
Bearing in mind that not all of the 10 criteria need to be fulfilled, I ask you: is chiropractic a cult?
It goes without saing that an article entitled “Homeopathic Cancer Therapy Research From 2018 To 2022: A Review of the Literature” interests me. It turned out to be a revellation in BS. Let me just show you its conclusion:
There continues to be an enormous interest in homeopathic treatment for cancer around the world. This is reflected by the number or studies and the increasingly better quality of studies investigating homeopathic cancer therapy. Some studies appear to signal a concern about lacking information among conventionally trained physicians on homeopathy and their limited ability to respond adequately to the increased demand among patients for homeopathic services. While it is still primarily patients rather than physicians that drive this mounting interest, studies reflect a rise in interest and call for innovation, in provision of integrative cancer treatment by combining multiple conventional and unconventional therapies. According to the majority of available studies, homeopathy can safely be added to conventional cancer treatment, and patients can benefit significantly in countering the adverse effects from that treatment, as well as improvement of their quality of life and survival.
In one our previous reviews of scientific research on homeopathic cancer treatment we had concluded that available studies confirm, “homeopathic drugs have proven biological action in cancer; in vitro and in vivo; in animals and humans; in the lower, as well as in the higher potencies. Cancer patients are faced with a life-and-death decision when choosing their treatment. Since most conventional treatments continue to be associated with severe adverse and sometimes fatal effects, while homeopathy has been found to be free from such effects, it would seem plausible and worthwhile, even urgent, to step up the research on, and even the provision of, homeopathic treatment of cancer and other diseases.”
This conclusion continues to apply to the time period covered in this review of published research on homeopathic cancer treatment.
What a remarkable few sentences!
Please allow me put the record straight on a few points:
- enormous interest in homeopathic treatment for cancer around the world – NOT TRUE.
- increasingly better quality of studies investigating homeopathic cancer therapy – WISHFUL THINKING, NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
- concern about lacking information among conventionally trained physicians on homeopathy and their limited ability to respond adequately to the increased demand – CONCERN IS, IN FACT, DIRECTED AT CHARLATANS USING OR PROMOTING HOMEOPATHY.
- homeopathy can safely be added to conventional cancer treatment – YES, BECAUSE IT IS A PLACEBO.
- patients can benefit significantly in countering the adverse effects from that treatment, as well as improvement of their quality of life and survival – ONLY IF, LIKE PROFESSOR MICHAEL FRASS, ONE FALSIFIES DATA.
- homeopathic drugs have proven biological action in cancer – NO.
- it would seem plausible and worthwhile, even urgent, to step up the research on, and even the provision of, homeopathic treatment of cancer and other diseases – NO, ACCORDING TO A BROAD INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS, SUCH RESEARCH WOULD BE AN UNETHICAL WASTE OF RESOURCES.
The truth of the matter is that homeopathy for cancer is a dangerous misconception that could hasten the death of many vulnerable patients.
Those who promote it are amongst the worst charlatans on the planet.
Conspiracy theories have become a frequent theme on this blog, e.g.:
- Believing in conspiracy theories: The role of emotional granularity and maladaptive emotion regulation
- How can we reduce the belief in conspiracy theories?
- Conspiracy theories and dangerous recommendations via YouTube videos
- Conspiracy theories, assumptions, opinions, evidence and scientific facts
- Conspiracy beliefs prompt consumers to use so-called alternative medicine
- Conspiracy Beliefs Predict Health Behavior and Well-being during the Pandemic
- Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines
- Mistrust + Misinformation —> CONSPIRACY THEORY
In fact, I have previously postulated that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) can be understood as a conspiracy theory.
A new paper asked a relevant question: who believes in conspiracy theories? Conspiracy theories are ubiquitous and can have negative consequences. Thus, there is an increasing need for evidence-based recommendations with respect to interventions and prevention measures. Present Bayesian three-level meta-analysis includes a synthesis of the extant literature with respect to 12 personality correlates and their relationship with conspiracy beliefs. On average, people who believe in pseudoscience, suffer from paranoia or schizotypy, are narcissistic or religious/spiritual and have relatively low cognitive ability, are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Heterogeneity was partially explained by the examined moderators and no strong evidence for publication bias was found. Implications for developing tailored interventions are discussed in the article.
Conspiracy is a “secret plot by two or more powerful actors … Conspiracies typically attempt to usurp political or economic power, violate rights, infringe upon established agreements, withhold vital secrets, or alter bedrock institutions”. Conspiracy theories are used to describe and explain purported conspiracies.
People who believe in conspiracy theories are, according to this meta-analysis, more likely than other people to hold pseudoscientific beliefs, exhibit paranoid ideation, suffer from schizotypy, be narcissistic, be religious/spiritual and have lower cognitive ability.
Reading the comments sections of my blog, I agree with this conclusion.
Yes, I have done it again: another book!
In order to let you know what it is all about, allow me to post the intoduction here:
Medicine has always relied on extraordinary innovators. Without them, progress would hardly have been possible, and we might still believe in the four humours and be treated with blood letting, mercury potions, or purging. The history of medicine is therefore to a large extent the history of its pioneers. This book is about some of them. It focusses on the mavericks who separated themselves from the mainstream and invented alternative medicine, healthcare that remained outside conventional medicine.
Few people would deny that differences of opinion are necessary for progress. This is true for healthcare as it is for any other field. Divergent views and legitimate debate have always been important drivers of innovation. Yet, some opinions have been so thoroughly repudiated by evidence as to be considered demonstrably wrong and harmful.
The realm of alternative medicine is full of such opinions. They are personified by men who created therapies based on wishful thinking, fallacious assumptions, and pseudoscience. Many of the alternative modalities – therapies or diagnostic methods – that are today so surprisingly popular have been originated by one single person. This book is about these men. It is an investigation into their lives, ideas, pseudoscience, and achievements and an attempt to find out what motivated each of these individuals to create treatments that are out of line with the known facts.
The book is divided into two parts. The first section sets the scene by establishing what true discoveries in medicine might look like. It offers short biographical sketches of my personal choice of some of my ‘medical icons’. In addition, it provides the necessary background about the field of alternative medicine. The second section is dedicated to the often strange men who invented these bizarre alternative treatments and diagnostic methods. In this section, we discuss in some detail the life and work of these individuals. Moreover, we critically evaluate the evidence for and against each of these modalities. An finally, we attempt to draw some conclusions about the strange men who invented bizarre alternative methods.
Having studied alternative medicine for more than three decades and having published more scientific papers on this subject than anyone else, the individuals behind the extraordinary modalities have intrigued me for many years. By describing these eccentric men, their assumptions, motivations, delusions, and failures, I hope to offer both entertainment as well as information. Furthermore, I aim at promoting my readers’ ability to tell science from pseudoscience and at stimulating their capacity of critical thinking.
