conspiracy
This AI-verdict made me wonder: Who is for and who against the critical evaluation of so-called alternative medicine? And I asked a follow-up question:
Can you try to quantify this and give me % figures who is against a critical evaluation of alternative medicine, who is for it, and who is neutral. Can you do this for 1. the general population, 2. proponents of alternative medicine and 3. skeptics?
Here is the reply I got from Gemini:
To quantify these dynamics accurately, we have to look at large-scale sociological data on public attitudes toward science, peer-reviewed medical data (such as surveys by Pew Research, YouGov, and the European Commission), and the behavioral patterns of online discourse.
When it comes to a “critical evaluation” (meaning scientific testing to prove if a therapy works beyond a placebo), the groups break down along very distinct ideological lines. Here is how the percentages estimate across your three requested demographics:
Breakdown of Attitudes Toward Critical Evaluation
1. The General Population
The broader public is largely pragmatic, but a major chunk is passively open to alternative therapies without strictly demanding clinical trial proof.
- Against Critical Evaluation (~15% – 20%): These individuals hold a strong distrust of mainstream pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions. They believe alternative medicine operates on a different “energy” or “holistic paradigm” that standard science is fundamentally incapable of or biased against measuring.
- For Critical Evaluation (~35% – 45%): This group highly values evidence-based medicine, expects consumer safety protection, and agrees that if a therapy claims to cure an illness, it should prove it under a microscope or in a randomized controlled trial.
- Neutral / Passive Consumers (~40% – 50%): This is the massive middle. They don’t track clinical trials, but they will try acupuncture for back pain or take turmeric if a friend recommends it. They view alternative medicine through a lens of “well, it can’t hurt to try,” evaluating it based on personal anecdotes rather than scientific data.
2. Proponents of Alternative Medicine
This group includes dedicated practitioners, wellness influencers, and avid consumers of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM).
- Against Critical Evaluation (~70% – 80%): The vast majority actively resist standard scientific evaluation, often viewing figures like Edzard Ernst as hostile prosecutors rather than objective evaluators. They argue that randomized controlled trials are “too reductionist” to capture holistic healing or claim that clinical science is rigged by corporate interests.
- For Critical Evaluation (~5% – 10%): A small minority of CAM practitioners (often in fields like medical acupuncture or osteopathy) welcome rigorous trials, hoping to find a mechanism of action that will grant them mainstream medical legitimacy and insurance coverage.
- Neutral (~10% – 15%): These are individuals who focus strictly on the individual client experience. They don’t care about data or institutional pushback either way; their attitude is simply “if my client says they feel better, that is the only science I need.”
3. Skeptics & Pro-Science Advocates
This demographic comprises secular organizations, evidence-based medical professionals, and science communicators who actively follow work like Ernst’s.
- Against Critical Evaluation (<1%): Virtually non-existent in this group, as evaluation is their core tenet. The only micro-fraction here might be extreme fringe elements who feel certain alternative therapies are so fundamentally absurd (like breatharianism) that evaluating them is a waste of scientific funding.
- For Critical Evaluation (~90% – 95%): The overwhelming majority. They strongly defend the stance that there is no such thing as “alternative” medicine—there is only medicine that has been proven to work and medicine that hasn’t. They view critical evaluation as an ethical necessity for patient safety.
- Neutral (~5%): A tiny sliver who may agree with the premise of science but feel indifferent about fighting the cultural battle against wellness trends, preferring to let people believe what they want as long as it isn’t directly killing them.
The Reality of the “Viral Sharing Power”
The Disparity: While alternative health advocates outnumber skeptics in raw volume and content creation—churning out high-yield, emotionally comforting narratives—the pro-science corrections achieve highly concentrated “viral bursts.”
When a prominent alternative health claim is cleanly and definitively debunked by data, it provides a highly shareable, “gotcha” piece of content for the large, silent neutral majority and the highly active skeptic network. A data-driven correction acts as a high-utility intellectual tool, allowing regular people to cut through multi-million dollar wellness marketing, which is why a single well-structured critique can match or outpace the reach of thousands of individual wellness posts.
______________________
I know, there are good reasons for being cautious about such AI analyses. Yet, unless someone can point me to more reliable data, I will go with this one – not least because it coincides with my own experience and also because I quite like its findings.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric is systematically racialized and frequently functions as a “dog whistle” to mobilize his racist followers. Here are but a few examples:
- July 1989 (On the Central Park Five): “I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes.” (From a full-page newspaper advertisement Trump took out regarding five Black and Latino teenagers accused of assault; the men were later fully exonerated by DNA evidence, but Trump repeatedly refused to apologize or rescind the sentiment).
- October 1993 (House Subcommittee Hearing on Native American Casinos): “They don’t look like Indians to me… and they don’t look like Indians to Indians.” (Questioning the authenticity of Connecticut tribal members operating competing casinos).
- June 2015 (Presidential Announcement Speech): “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
- January 2018 (Oval Office Meeting on Immigration): “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” (Referring to immigrants from Haiti and African nations during a bipartisan meeting, as corroborated by attending senators).
- July 2019 (On Baltimore and Rep. Elijah Cummings): “Cumming [sic] District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place… No human being would want to live there.”
- July 2019 (Twitter Statements on Democratic Congresswomen): “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done.” (Directed at four minority Democratic congresswomen, three of whom were born in the United States).
- December 2019 (Speech to the Israeli American Council): “A lot of you are in the real estate business, because I know you very well. You’re brutal killers, not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me—you have no choice… You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax.” (Invoking the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish people are solely motivated by money and financial self-interest).
- December 2023 (Campaign Rally in New Hampshire): “They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”
- April 2026 (televised national address from the White House, marking Trump’s first formal address to the nation since the outbreak of the military conflict with Iran) “We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks… We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age, where they belong.”
An analysis of his public statements and Truth Social posts revealed a abhorrent pattern: approximately 80% of the individuals he labels as “low IQ” are people of colour, specifically Black or Hispanic public figures. The term could theoretically be used as a neutral insult; however, Trump’s skewed application clearly evokes a long history of racist pseudo-science once upon a time used to justify claims of intellectual inferiority among non-white populations. Trump often reserves his most vitriolic attacks on intelligence for non-white targets. He often compounds these insults with additional degrading language, such as:
- Ketanji Brown Jackson: Described as “that new, Low IQ person, that somehow found her way to the bench”.
- Maxine Waters: Repeatedly labelled “extraordinarily low IQ” and “the face of the Democrat party”.
- Don Lemon: Referred to as “the dumbest man on television”.
When targeting white opponents, Trump tends to use labels like “crooked,” “weak,” or “disgraceful.” In contrast, his attacks on Black and Brown figures – including his description of congress women of colour as “mentally deranged” or “sick” – focus on cognitive or mental fitness, echoing historical tropes used to exclude marginalised groups from public life.
Research into the 2016 and 2020 elections suggests that support for Trump was more strongly tied to racial resentment and xenophobia than to “economic anxiety.” Exposure to such rhetoric can measurably increase the public expression of prejudice. Trump’s rhetoric often aligns with his administration’s policy priorities, which were frequently criticized as racially discriminatory:
- The “Muslim Ban”: An executive order targeting several Muslim-majority nations.
- Immigration Enforcement: Hardline policies, such as “zero tolerance” at the border, which disproportionately affected Latinx communities.
- Overt Commentary: Infamous descriptions of African nations as “shithole countries” and the use of the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory to describe immigration.
Beyond specific insults, Trump’s broader narrative frequently utilizes dehumanizing imagery. He has, for instance, frequently amplified or “retweeted” supporters who use racist caricatures – such as those depicting the Obamas in a derogatory manner. Recent comments labelling nations like India and China as “hellholes” further underscore a worldview defined by national/ racial hierarchies.
Taken together, the combination of targeted slurs, racially skewed insults, and discriminatory policies provides a substantial evidentiary base for arguing that Trump’s rhetoric is not merely accidental, but a strategic effort to appeal to xenophobic and white-nationalist segments of the electorate.
Does that make him a racist?
Or are his comments merely an expression of his profound stupidity?
I let you decide.
I remember it well: when I was a kid, I went every day in the evening to a nearby farm to fetch a litre of luke warm raw milk. I was lucky; I never caught tuberculosis or any other infection that is transmitted in this way.
Today, raw milk has become the centrepiece of a heated debate. Once only on rural homesteads, unpasteurized milk is now being championed by a powerful coalition of political figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., promoters of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and “trad wife” influencers. This movement frames raw milk as a “magical health secret” suppressed by a corrupt establishment. However, beneath the veneer of “food freedom” and nostalgic aesthetics lies a complex interplay of populism, nutritional misinformation, outright BS, and significant public health risks.
The issue is largely fuelled by RFK Jr. and his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) idiocy. For him, raw milk is less of a dietary preference and more of a symbol of resistance against federal overreach. He frequently characterizes the FDA’s restrictions on raw milk as a “war on farmers” and an example of “regulatory capture.” In his worm-eaten mind, federal agencies are not protecting the public from pathogens but are instead protecting the profits of “Big Dairy” by criminalising traditional foodways. By pushing for the legalisation of raw milk, Kennedy taps into a deep-seated distrust of institutions that has intensified in the post-pandemic US. He frames the choice to drink unpasteurized milk as a fundamental civil liberty, positioning himself as a defender of the individual against a nasty “nanny state.”
Simultaneously, the “trad wife” and SCAM movements are providing the lifestyle framework for raw milk promotion. On social media, influencers portray a return to traditional domesticity, featuring sourdough starters, hand-churned butter, and glass jars of creamy, raw milk. In this context, raw milk provides a “moral signal” for those who have little else to worry about. What counts is the willingness to go to great lengths to bypass industrial food systems and provide “pure” and “natural” nourishment for the whole family – because pasteurisation “kills” the milk, destroying vital enzymes and probiotics that could cure everything from asthma to lactose intolerance.
As soon as these claims are held up to scientific scrutiny, the “magic” begins to dissipate. The core argument – namely that raw milk is nutritionally superior – is largely unsupported by sound evidence. Modern pasteurisation is as non-invasive as possible. While heat slightly reduces levels of Vitamin C, milk is not a primary source of that vitamin anyway. Moreover, the levels of protein, calcium, and essential minerals remain virtually identical to the raw product. Furthermore, the valuable “enzymes” touted by advocates are enzymes that the human stomach acid neutralizes before they can be absorbed.
On top of all this, there is potential for serious harm. The most dangerous aspect of the raw milk nonsense is the dismissal of microbial risk. Before pasteurisation became standard in the early 20th century, milk was a leading cause of tuberculosis, typhoid, and scarlet fever. Today, even on the most meticulously managed farms, cows can naturally shed E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria and contamination can occur in a split second during the milking process. The rise of the H5N1 (Bird Flu) virus in dairy cattle in recent years has added a lethal new variable; while pasteurisation effectively inactivates the virus, raw milk remains a potential vector for human infection. A recent study showed, for instance, that unpasteurized milk, consumed by only 3.2% of the population, and cheese, consumed by only 1.6% of the population, caused 96% of illnesses caused by contaminated dairy products.
So, the current raw milk frenzy puts a spotlight on the ignorance of those who support it. While raw milk is marketed as a health-conscious return to nature, it is primarily a brainless and unnecessary revival of long-forgotten risks. Pasteurization is – after immunisation (that is also rejected by these clowns) – one the most successful public health interventions in history. Advocates are not just embracing “food freedom”; they are embracing a level of risk that modern medicine spent a century eliminating.
The US “Health Freedom Movement” (HFM) is a coalition of activists, alternative practitioners, supplement and device manufacturers, and libertarian or populist politicians who oppose strong government regulation of healthcare. They claim to defend the individual’s right to choose any treatment or product they consider beneficial, especially so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Its roots lie in resistance to medical licensing and in movements around homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic, which often portrayed organized medicine as a cartel limiting patient choice. The John Birch Society and other conservative groups use the term to oppose fluoridation, vaccination mandates, and federal health programs. During 1990s–2000s, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, backed by a coalition of supplement companies and “health freedom” advocates, limited the FDA’s pre‑market control over supplements; libertarian politicians like Ron Paul and figures such as Prince/King Charles support aspects of this agenda. More recently, anti‑vaccination activism, opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and then COVID‑19 mandates and vaccines gave the HFM a major boost and re-grouped as “medical freedom” or “health freedom” across partisan lines, but with a strong right‑wing infrastructure.
The HFM’s main players include politicians (e.g. Ron Paul, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and media personalities (e.g. Gary Null, Kevin Trudeau, and many supplement‑selling influencers as well as SCAM doctors). Many of them have strong financial ties to supplement, wellness, or SCAM industry.
The HFM’s stated aims sound liberal: individual autonomy, informed and access to SCAM. In practice, however, its core goals are sharper and consistently deregulatory:
- Limit or abolish pre‑market safety and efficacy requirements for supplements and many SCAMs.
- Oppose or roll back mandatory childhood vaccination, COVID‑19 vaccination and mask rules, school-entry requirements, and sometimes even basic disease‑reporting obligations.
- Resist overarching government health programs, including water fluoridation, electronic health records, and population‑level data sharing, which they portray as surveillance or tyranny.
- Create broad legal shields for all types of SCAM practitioners and restrict the enforcement powers of medical boards and public‑health authorities.
While the rhetoric centres on “freedom” and “choice”, the policy is liberating commercial interests from evidence‑based standards and oversight. For this, the HFM uses a mixture of advocacy and classic populist agitation:
- Legislative lobbying: Drafting model bills that redefine or exempt SCAM practitioners, weaken vaccination requirements, and restrict state health departments’ emergency powers.
- Litigation: Groups such as the “Health Freedom Defense Fund” use lawsuits against mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and school or airline rules both as legal tools and as high‑visibility fundraising and mobilization devices.
- Electoral politics: Endorsing and funding candidates who promise to “reign in” public‑health agencies, defund WHO, or defy CDC guidance; in some places, anti‑vaccine activists have captured local hospital or school boards.
- Media ecosystems: Conferences, podcasts, Substack newsletters, and “documentaries” circulate narratives of regulatory capture, big‑pharma malfeasance, and heroic mavericks, often entwined with sales of supplements or courses.
These activities reinforce distrust of science and conventional medicine and thus create a host of issues and problems:
- Selective use of autonomy: Autonomy is invoked vigorously when opposing vaccines, fluoridation, or regulation of supplements, but tend to disregard it when patients are misled by misinformation, coercive marketing, or opaque conflicts of interest in the alternative sector itself. Yet protection against deception and unsafe products is essential for meaningful autonomy; “choice” among misrepresented options is not genuine choice.
- Systematic downplaying of risk and evidence: The HFM treats lack of evidence of benefit as if it were evidence of safety and legitimacy and often dismisses adverse‑event data. Regulators and critics must meet impossibly high standards, while proponents of SCAM face essentially none.
- Commercial conflicts of interest: Many leading voices within the HFM derive substantial income from selling SCAM. The HFM criticizes “Big Pharma” conflicts of interest while largely ignoring or concealing its own.
- Wilful ignorance of collective harms: Opposition to vaccination, masking, and quarantine treats infections as purely individual matters, neglecting that infectious disease risk is shared and that one person’s “choice” can impose morbidity and mortality on others. Yet any rights framework that leaves no space for legitimate public‑health constraints on individual choice is incompatible with controlling epidemics.
- Alliance with broader conspiracist and extremist currents: Sections of the HFM have fused with anti‑globalist, anti‑UN/WHO, and sometimes far‑right political currents, amplifying conspiracy narratives and distrust that spill over into many domains beyond health. Thus they corrode trust in institutions that are necessary for coordinating large‑scale health responses.
In a nutshell, the HFM is a deregulatory, commercially entangled project that uses the language of liberty to erode evidence‑based medicine and to normalise quackery as well as anti‑vaccination politics. To put it bluntly: the HFM does not seem to operate in the best interest of either the individual patient or the collective public health.
In a world where logic is fast becoming optional, chemtrails are all the rage. A good example is Andrea Whitehead (AW). She was a Reform UK candidate for the 2024 United Kingdom General Election. Apparently, she is convinced that airplane vapor trails might actually be sinister chemicals sprayed as part of a Bill Gates-led global depopulation plot. Yes, the contrails that appear when a plane passes in the sky turn out to be part of an elaborate scheme!
The chemtrails conspiracy theory is a belief system so scientifically illiterate that even the most determined conspiracy theorist might raise an eyebrow. According to AW and many others like her, those innocent white streaks left by aircraft at high altitude are not merely condensation trails (water vapor freezing at cold temperatures), but they are deliberate chemical dispersals designed to cull the human population. And who’s pulling the strings? None other than billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates.
What is good to know is that AW is not alone. She has support from a range of other political figures. Here are a few examples:
- Cron, Kevin – United States – Democratic Party (Yolo County Board of Supervisors Chair, California) – Invited chemtrail advocate Dane Wigington to share “knowledge” after local children were diagnosed with rare cancer; acknowledged “credible and compelling evidence” warranting investigation
- DeSantis, Ron – United States – Republican Party – Governor of Florida; expressed support for Florida’s anti-weather-modification bill, stating “Floridians are proud of our sunshine”
- Greene, Marjorie Taylor – United States – Republican Party – Former U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 14th district (resigned January 2026); introduced the Clear Skies Act (2025) banning weather modification as a felony; posted after Hurricane Helene: “Yes, they control the weather”
- Kennedy Jr., Robert F. – United States – Independent (appointed Health Secretary by Trump Administration) – U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (since 2025); openly endorsed chemtrail theory in 2024, posted on X (August 2025): “We are going to stop this crime,” suggesting Defense Department adds chemicals to jet fuel
- Paul, Ron – United States – Republican Party – Former U.S. Senator from Texas; his name is frequently invoked by chemtrail conspirators as offering “support” for their views, though direct endorsement is less clear.
Is the chemtrails conspiracy a particular right-wing obsession?
Or is the common denominator perhaps simply lack of intelligence?
Reform UK has backed multiple candidates promoting everything from chemtrails to climate denial to anti-vaccine material to anti-semitism and other forms of racism. I find it impressive how they managed to collect such a glittering array of pseudoscience under one political banner. When confronted with this delightful package of misinformation, Reform UK’s response was predictably suave. They defended their candidates, suggesting that opponents were merely “scraping the barrel” and that these candidates reflected the “centre of public opinion.”
Right on!
Nothing says centrist opinion like believing the government is secretly spraying poison from airplanes to kill people.
The chemtrails theory itself is about as scientifically credible as believing the moon is made of Cheddar cheese. Condensation trails, or contrails, have been understood by atmospheric scientists for many decades. They form when water vapor from aircraft exhaust freezes at high altitudes—approximately -40°C to -60°C. That’s it. That’s the entire conspiracy. Water vapor freezing. To ignore this knowledge and come out with the culling of entire populations requires an overdose of wilful ignorance.
Bill Gates, for his part apparently no angel either, has become the conspiracy theorist’s golden boy, falsely accused of everything from tracking chips in vaccines to solar geoengineering to now apparently cloud-based population control. I must admit, it seems remarkable how he is claimed to manage single-handedly to sustain an entire industry of conspiracy content creators. Someone should really hire him for a Marvel movie as the world’s most perpetually accused villain.
The chemtrail story exposes an uncomfortable reality of current political discourse: that fringe conspiracy theories can now propel people into serious electoral contests. In 2024, Whitehead’s chemtrails enthusiasm didn’t disqualify her from consideration; it merely made headlines and arguably even increased her chances. What vibrantly democratic processes where ignorant population-culling chemtrail believers can aspire to parliamentary office!
On the same day as we celebrated the defeat of the Nazis 81 years ago, a Holocaust denier has been elected to public office. In the Sefton Council UK local elections held this week, Jay Leslie Cooper, a Reform UK candidate for Bootle West ward, secured a seat with 705 votes. This outcome is remarkable due to Cooper’s prior social media posts denying the Holocaust. The ward, which elects three councillors, saw Cooper join two Labour victors, marking Reform’s local gain amid broader scrutiny of its candidate vetting.
Pre-election reporting by the Liverpool Echo exposed Cooper’s controversial statements. In one post, he described the Holocaust as a “hoax” and “propaganda,” claiming “there were not 6 million Jews in Europe at the time.” He also promoted 9/11 conspiracy theories, labelling them part of a broader “hoax” narrative. The Echo detailed these views in an April 24 article titled “The vile views of this Bootle West Reform UK candidate,” noting Cooper’s online history as well as his candidacy announcement.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who himself has been accused of vile antisemitic statements made during adolescence, responded swiftly post-election saying that Cooper was “not welcome” in the party and adding, “with thousands of candidates some problems can slip through vetting.” Reform announced an investigation into the allegations, while Farage acknowledged the optics were poor in a YouTube clip: “Nigel Farage says new Merseyside councillor who said Holocaust was a hoax…”.
The episode highlights the issue of extremism in British politics. Labour figures condemned the events, including MP Steve Reed who tweeted: “A holocaust denier is now an elected councillor. Reform must act.” This case also highlights tensions in UK local elections, where voter priorities like cost-of-living can overshadow candidate scrutiny. Reform’s strong showing during the local elections raises worrying questions about Nazi ideologies in populist movements.
As of today, Cooper remains a councillor pending party action.
Sources
Reform candidate who said Holocaust was a hoax wins seat in local elections – Liverpool Echo
(20+) Reform WIN more than 80% of available seats – Liverpool Echo News | Facebook
Trump and his allies have produced many claims that experts have flagged as false, misleading, or dangerously unscientific. Below is a (probably incomplete) selection:
- In April 2020, Trump suggested during a press briefing that scientists explore whether injecting or “bringing disinfectant inside the body” could treat COVID‑19. Medical experts immediately warned that this would be dangerous or lethal.
- At the same briefing, he also floated the idea of “hitting the body with a very powerful light,” including using UV light inside the body to kill the virus, a suggestion that clinicians stressed had no scientific basis and could be harmful.
- Throughout 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed the virus would “just disappear” like a “miracle,” even as case counts and deaths surged.
- He heavily promoted hydroxychloroquine as a “game changer” long after clinical trials had shown it to be ineffective against COVID‑19 and associated with serious adverse effects.
- In February 2020, Trump claimed the number of COVID‑19 cases in the US would soon be “down to close to zero.”
- Trump frequently claimed that COVID‑19 was “just like the flu,” despite the fact that its mortality rate and impact on health systems were substantially higher.
- In late 2025 and early 2026, the Trump administration falsely claimed that acetaminophen use during pregnancy was linked to a much higher risk of autism, despite the lack of clear evidence and warnings from experts that this messaging was misleading.
- The administration also promoted leucovorin as a treatment for autism, a claim that has little robust evidence and is not supported by mainstream medical guidelines.
- Following the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS in late 2024, federal vaccine guidance was rolled back in several areas, including flu recommendations for some groups and changes to how RSV and other vaccines were positioned. This created confusion and encouraged a further “decoupling” of some state health policies from traditional CDC guidance.
- Trump has claimed that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, a statement that has no credible scientific basis.
- Trump has claimed that sea levels will rise by only “1/8 of an inch over the next 200 to 300 years,” contradicting widely accepted projections that show substantially higher rise even over the next 30 years along US coasts.
- Trump has also claimed that the human body is like a battery with a finite amount of energy, and that exercise is harmful because it “depletes” that energy, a view that runs counter to mainstream physiology and public‑health guidance.
- Trump claimed that drinking fizzy diet soda “kills cancer cells” because the drinks kill grass when spilt, implying they might do the same to cancer inside the body.
- In 2026, Dr. Mehmet Oz, as head of CMS, falsely claimed that 5 million New Yorkers were using Medicaid personal‑care services—nearly 75% of all enrolees—when the actual figure is far lower.
- RFK Jr. has spent decades claiming that thimerosal, a mercury‑based preservative in some vaccines, causes autism. Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines in 2001 as a precaution, yet autism rates continued to rise, and large studies have found no causal link.
- RFK Jr. frequently claims that no vaccines have ever been tested against a true saline placebo. In fact, many vaccines have been tested against saline placebos in clinical trials, and others were tested against earlier versions or standard care, in line with evolving ethical standards.
- RFK Jr. pushed for the removal of fluoride from all US water systems, falsely labelling it an “industrial waste” and a key cause of lower IQ, bone fractures, and cancer, despite the bulk of evidence supporting its safety and dental benefits at standard levels.
- RFK Jr. has also falsely claimed that polyunsaturated fats such as canola or soybean oil are toxic and the primary driver of obesity and inflammation in America, a view that contradicts large‑scale dietary and epidemiological data.
- RFK Jr. has falsely claimed that WiFi causes “leaky brain” and that 5G is a tool for mass surveillance and causes cancer, assertions that have no support from mainstream science.
- RFK Jr. has become an advocate for the federal legalisation of raw milk, downplaying the risks of Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. Yet pasteurization remains a cornerstone of public‑health measures to prevent foodborne illness.
- RFK Jr. has wrongly suggested a link between the use of SSRIs and the rise in mass shootings, a claim not supported by credible data.
- Janette Nesheiwat (JN), a Fox News contributor and Trump’s nominee for US Surgeon General, withdrew her nomination in May 2025 following allegations that she had significantly misrepresented her credentials. Her official bio and LinkedIn profile claimed she received her medical degree from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; in fact she attended the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten.
- JN repeatedly described herself as “double board‑certified,” but investigators found verified certification only in family medicine.
- Casey Means (CM), Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General, is a Stanford‑educated physician who left surgical residency before completion and whose medical license has been inactive since 2019. She has not practiced clinical medicine in years and has limited experience overseeing large‑scale public‑health systems.
- CM has built a profile as a health‑tech entrepreneur and co‑founder of Levels, promoting “functional medicine” and the MAHA movement.
- CM has made strong claims that continuous glucose monitoring and metabolic optimization can prevent or “cure” a wide range of modern diseases, a view that overstates the evidence and oversimplifies complex chronic conditions.
As indicated in the title of this post: if you waant to say healthy, it is wise to ignore the incompetent president and his equally incompetent cronies.
The Nazi’s endorsement of homeopathy during the Third Reich was a complex fusion of pseudo-science, ideology and pragmatic policy. Homeopathy was deemed to align ideologically with National Socialism’s völkisch worldview and, foremost, it was considered to be practical:
- It had pure German (“Aryan”) origins.
- It was considered to be natural.
- It was inexpensive.
- It was abundantly available.
- It was deemed to be harmless.
Several top Nazis also promoted “New German Healing” (Neue Deutsche Heilkunde), which integrated natural therapies like homeopathy into healthcare emphasizing racial purity, folk traditions, and self-reliance. Conventional medicine (“Schulmedizin”) was derided as “Jewish medicine” (verjudete Medizin), tainted by Jewish physicians who were disproportionately represented in German academia and practice. By purging Jews – over 5,000 doctors were expelled by 1935 – the Nazis created a vacuum which they filled with “Aryan” alternatives, e.g. the “Heilpraktiker” framing homeopathy as a proud German invention free from “internationalist” or capitalist pharmaceutical dependencies.
Pragmatic motives amplified this support. Homeopathy was inexpensive, used mostly locally available materials and promised self-sufficiency amid wartime shortages of synthetic drugs. Heinrich Himmler championed it personally, funding research and integrating it into SS clinics; Rudolf Hess, the “Deputy of the Führer”, was also a vocal advocate. The regime licensed homeopathic training, established research institutes, and started a most comprehensive research program of homeopathy. In one of the darkest chapters, the SS conducted experiments at the Dachau concentration camp to test homeopathic treatments for various conditions. Authors from the era celebrated homeopathy as compatible with Nazi racial hygiene, linking it to family doctors fostering generational health.
However, the outcomes were far from what homeopaths had hoped for. The Donner Report on the Nazi’s large research program of 1941–1943 revealed “wholly negative” findings: homeopathic remedies failed catastrophically. Official evaluations deemed it ineffective for epidemics, leading to its sidelining in military hospitals by 1943. After the war, German homeopaths suppressed these findings by making the documents disappear.
Yet the Nazi legacy endures. Nazi promotion entrenched homeopathy in German culture, at least partly explaining its persistence today. This contributed to vaccine hesitancy during COVID-19, as historical distrust of “allopathic” medicine (like “Schulmedizin, a derogatory term created by Hahnemann) lingered.
The Third Reich history of homeopathy highlights how pseudo-science tends to thrive under authoritarianism, masking inefficacy with nationalism, dogma or untruths. While the Nazis tolerated homeopathy for ideological purity, its empirical failure exposed the regime’s bankruptcy.
The parallels to what is currently happening to healthcare in the US are difficult to overlook.
I have repeatedly warned that Trump and his cronies are systematically destroying science and medicine in the US and beyond. Recently, I looked into Medline to see what other experts are publishing on this issue. I did not expect to find much and was surprised that a plethora of articles are now available that discuss the issues from vastly different perspectives. Here are the Medline-listed papers published in 2026 that include an abstract:
A reduction in U.S. foreign aid under the “America First” policy of President Donald Trump, who took office in 2025, has significantly impacted global health. As the world’s largest provider of foreign aid, the U.S. has frozen development aid to evaluate its alignment with national interests. This has led to the termination of numerous international health programs, including those addressing malaria, HIV, tuberculosis, and polio, and has caused funding shortages for non-profit and international organizations like GAVI and the World Bank. Projections indicate dire consequences. According to USAID, a potential 18 million additional malaria cases and 166,000 deaths could occur annually. Paralytic polio cases are expected to increase by 200,000 per year, and new tuberculosis cases could rise by 10.7 million by 2030. Recent studies estimate that new HIV infections and between 770,000 and 2.93 million HIV-related deaths from 2025 to 2030. This crisis presents an opportunity for the global community to rethink its approach to aid. Other forms of financing, such as private sector investment, CSR activities, and innovative mechanisms like the Global Fund, could fill the gap left by reduced ODA. The article also stresses the importance of strengthening governance in recipient countries, promoting self-reliance, and fostering international collaboration through shared data platforms and multilateral programs. Ultimately, the document argues that providing foreign aid is not just a moral obligation, but is also in the national security and economic interest of donor countries, including the United States.
A Science analysis shows more than 10,000 STEM Ph.D.s in the federal government left or lost their jobs after President Donald Trump took office.
Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election of Donald Trump, prejudice toward groups targeted during his campaign (e.g., Asian Americans, Mexicans) become more acceptable. By contrast, both Trump and Clinton voters reported less prejudice of their own. We conducted a 2024 conceptual replication, measuring perceived norms of prejudice and own-prejudice toward 128 groups, both before (N = 362) and after (N = 261) the U.S. election. We separately measured the negativity of Trump’s campaign rhetoric toward these groups (N = 188). Levels of prejudice and perceived norms of prejudice acceptability were mostly stable pre-/post-election, but Trump’s negative rhetoric predicted an increase in perceived acceptability of prejudice among targeted groups (replicating the 2016 results), and a rise in self-reported prejudice in the same groups post-election (reversing the 2016 results). Despite changes in the sociopolitical context between elections, the election of a leading politician who campaigned on prejudice was again associated with increases in the acceptability of prejudice.
The withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) raises crucial questions about its future as the governing international organization for health. The executive order on withdrawal was one of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term. Because the United States is WHO’s biggest funder and most powerful state backer, withdrawal could indicate an existential threat. However, almost simultaneously member states passed a new international Pandemic Agreement expanding WHO’s authority. How should these conflicting signals be understood? Analyzing WHO’s decline in a context of broader US and geopolitical shifts, the authors find that withdrawal is the outcome of the end to broader political orders of neoliberal internationalism on which WHO depended for legitimacy rather than idiosyncratic Trump politics. WHO’s reliance on certain international norms and power structures leave it compromised. US normative and institutional shifts are far more difficult for WHO to navigate than in past political eras. Therefore, international relations research suggests that avoiding catastrophic impacts depends on reform actions by WHO officials, other member states, and US actors. States and others in the United States will face harm from WHO decline, and the authors suggest that US actors have legal standing to challenge withdrawal. Complacency and inaction may be WHO’s biggest risk.
Throughout the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term in office, his administration has taken swift action to undermine the role that government health agencies play in the health policy-making process. This article makes the case that the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine government health agencies’ regulatory authority reflect a dislike and distrust of the people who serve in key civil service roles. It also provides evidence that efforts to roll back regulatory authority are part of a long-standing political strategy to cater to public dislike and distrust of scientific, medical, and academic experts. While the public could provide policy makers with an incentive to protect public health agencies and the people who staff them, recent public opinion research shows that many Americans simply do not know or do not care enough about the Trump administration’s actions to call for their elected officials to stop them. This article concludes by offering several health communication strategies and directions for future research (the “science of standing up for science”) that might inspire public concern about efforts to roll back government health agencies’ regulatory authority and might motivate people to show support for the civil servants who staff those agencies.
This paper focuses on how, during his second mandate, far-right leader Donald Trump tells a story of his nation as having been disrespected in the recent past by national elites and global ones, while the leader and their close circle have the mission to repair that status as part of United States foreign policy (i.e. respect for the status of the US). When narrating a better future, Trump travels to a remote national past to show the possibility of reinstating US stature in the international. While constructing that better future, Trump also starts to unfold a foreign policy story of success to cement the brighter future in a retrospective way given this future has purportedly been previously lived in a more remote national past. Relied on here is symbolic interactionist role theory, strategic narrative analysis and the notion of ‘heartland’ from populism scholarship; this paper also contributes to the study of narratives of roles and populism in the field of foreign policy analysis by engaging with the IR notion of ‘status’. Taking an interpretative analysis approach, this case study shows how far-right leaders like Trump can conceive and play the status or master role of their states in foreign policy via strategic narratives.
On the one hand, it is encouraging that the Trump-inflicted damage is being noticed and that there is strong opposition to Trump’s various actions. On the other hand, it is depressing to realise how deep and far-reaching the damage has already become
Perjury is the criminal act of intentionally lying while under oath in a legal proceeding, where the lie concerns a material fact capable of influencing the outcome of the case. It is treated as a serious offense because it directly undermines the legal system’s core requirement: truthful testimony. If people can lie under oath without consequences, courts, juries, and investigators are unable to reliably determine the truth, which can lead to wrongful convictions, failed prosecutions, and a broader erosion of public trust in justice. In the United States, perjury is therefore treated as a serious felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison under federal law, and typically several years under state law (sometimes up to 7 years or more, depending on the jurisdiction). In addition to incarceration and fines, a perjury conviction can lead to loss of professional licenses, immigration consequences, and a permanent criminal record.
Considering the severity of the crime, it is perhaps surprising to find how many individuals associated with Donald Trump have committed perjury or have been credibly accused of it. The following list is not necessarily exhaustive.
Melania Trump (his current wife)
Melania Trump made a factually incorrect statement about her educational background while under oath in a 2013 civil deposition, when she claimed to hold a bachelor’s degree in architecture that she did not. Whether that statement would have qualified as prosecutable perjury was never tested in court, as authorities did not bring criminal charges against her.
Allen Weisselberg (Former CFO, Trump Organization)
In March 2024, Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury related to testimony he gave during Donald Trump’s civil‑fraud trial in New York. He was sentenced to five months in jail.
Michael Cohen (Former Personal Attorney)
Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to Congress about the timing and extent of negotiations for a “Trump Tower Moscow” project during the 2016 campaign. He was sentenced to 3 years in federal prison for a string of offenses, including this false‑statement charge, and the perjury‑related penalty was folded into that total sentence.
Roger Stone (Long‑time advisor)
Roger Stone was convicted in 2019 on seven felony counts, including making false statements to Congress and witness tampering, during the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His sentence was 40 months in federal prison plus a $20,000 fine. Donald Trump later commuted his sentence and subsequently issued a full presidential pardon.
Michael Flynn (Former National Security Advisor)
Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. The maximum penalty for that offense was up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. However, Flynn was never sentenced to prison; his case was delayed, then effectively set aside after the Justice Department moved to dismiss it, and Trump ultimately issued him a full pardon.
George Papadopoulos (Former Campaign Aide)
George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian‑linked individuals during the 2016 campaign. He was sentenced to 14 days in federal prison, plus a period of supervised release and additional sanctions, and served about 12 days behind bars.
Jeff Sessions (Former Attorney General)
During his 2017 confirmation hearing, Jeff Sessions stated under oath that he “did not have communications with the Russians.” It later emerged that he had met on multiple occasions with the Russian ambassador. Sessions maintained that his testimony was truthful from his own perspective, describing it as a matter of memory or focus rather than intentional deception. No criminal charges for perjury or false statements were filed.
Jared Kushner (Son‑in‑law and Advisor)
Jared Kushner faced intense scrutiny for multiple omissions on his security‑clearance forms (SF‑86), failing to disclose dozens of contacts with foreign officials. Many legal observers and commentators called for a perjury or false‑statement investigation, but no criminal charges were brought.
Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence)
In early 2025, following the “SignalGate” leaks, some members of Congress called for perjury investigations into Tulsi Gabbard’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. They alleged that she provided false or misleading statements about the security and nature of unsecured communications protocols used within the Intelligence Community. No criminal charges have been brought.
John Ratcliffe (CIA Director)
Similarly, John Ratcliffe faced calls for a perjury investigation after the SignalGate disclosures, with lawmakers alleging that he gave false testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the same unsecured communication protocols. No criminal charges have been filed.
Kash Patel (FBI Director)
In a September 2025 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Kash Patel was questioned about the FBI’s handling of more than 100,000 investigative files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Lawmakers raised concerns that large numbers of FBI personnel were diverted to “scrub” or redact references to Donald Trump before files were released publicly. Patel has vehemently denied those claims, calling them gross mischaracterizations. The discovery in early 2026 of missing interview notes containing previously undisclosed allegations against Trump has fueled accusations that he may have committed perjury, but no formal perjury charges have been filed to date.
Donald Trump (President of the US)
In 2022, a federal judge in Georgia noted that Trump likely committed perjury or filed a false declaration when he signed legal documents alleging thousands of instances of voter fraud in that state. Those allegations were based on claims his own legal team had already warned him were inaccurate. The judge’s observation highlighted the possibility of perjury, but no criminal prosecution for perjury has been initiated.
Further reading:
- Goodman, Ryan. “Perjury Chart: Trump Associates’ Lies, False, or Misleading Statements on Russia to Federal Authorities.” Just Security, 9 May 2019. https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-associates-lies-false-or-misleading-statements-on-russia-to-federal-authorities/
- “5 other former Trump associates who ran afoul of the law.” CBC News, 14 November 2019. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-advisers-charges-prison-1.5361119
- “Factbox: Here are eight Trump associates arrested or convicted of crimes.” Reuters, 20 August 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/factbox-here-are-eight-trump-associates-arrested-or-convicted-of-crimes-idUSKBN25G1YU/
- “Ex‑Trump Organization CFO pleads guilty to perjury charges.” ABC Eyewitness News (6ABC), 3 March 2024. https://www.6abc.com/post/allen-weisselberg-trump-cfo-organization-new-york/14490347/
- “Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg faces perjury sentencing.” ABC News, 9 April 2024. https://abcnews.com/US/former-trump-organization-cfo-allen-weisselberg-faces-perjury/story?id=109038178
- “Ex‑Trump Org. CFO pleads guilty to perjury charges.” CNN, 4 March 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/politics/allen-weisselberg-trump-org-cfo-plea-perjury
