cult
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), America’s anti-vaxer in-chief, famously claimed his brain has been eaten by a worm. While this assumption is as ridiculous as the man himself, the actions and delusions of RFK Jr. seem almost to confirm that something fundamental must be wrong with his intellectual abilities.
Recently he said that he will be working to get cell phones out of schools. “Cell phones produce electric magnetic radiation, which has been shown to do neurological damage to kids when it’s around them all day … It’s also been shown to cause cellular damage and even cancer … Cell phone use and social media use on the cell phone has been directly connected with depression, poor performance in schools, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse … The states that are doing this have found that it is a much healthier environment when kids are not using cell phones in schools.”
There are two seperate issues here:
- Limiting children’s use of cell phones might be – for several (not health-related) reasons – a reasonable idea.
- The assumption that cell phones cause the type of damage that RFK Jr. claimed is nonsense.
There is plenty of evidence on the subject, some more reliable that others. The most reliable data do not support what RFK Jr. claims. Here are a few systematic reviews on the subject:
A recent systematic review included 63 aetiological articles, published between 1994 and 2022, with participants from 22 countries, reporting on 119 different E-O pairs. RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones (ever or regular use vs no or non-regular use) was not associated with an increased risk of glioma [meta-estimate of the relative risk (mRR) = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.89-1.13), meningioma (mRR = 0.92, 95 % CI = 0.82-1.02), acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.85-1.24), pituitary tumours (mRR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.61-1.06), salivary gland tumours (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.78-1.06), or paediatric (children, adolescents and young adults) brain tumours (mRR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.51), with variable degree of across-study heterogeneity (I2 = 0 %-62 %). There was no observable increase in mRRs for the most investigated neoplasms (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma) with increasing time since start (TSS) use of mobile phones, cumulative call time (CCT), or cumulative number of calls (CNC). Cordless phone use was not significantly associated with risks of glioma [mRR = 1.04, 95 % CI = 0.74-1.46; I2 = 74 %) meningioma, (mRR = 0.91, 95 % CI = 0.70-1.18; I2 = 59 %), or acoustic neuroma (mRR = 1.16; 95 % CI = 0.83-1.61; I2 = 63 %). Exposure from fixed-site transmitters (broadcasting antennas or base stations) was not associated with childhood leukaemia or paediatric brain tumour risks, independently of the level of the modelled RF exposure. Glioma risk was not significantly increased following occupational RF exposure (ever vs never), and no differences were detected between increasing categories of modelled cumulative exposure levels.
Another recent systematic review included 5 studies that reported analyses of data from 4 cohorts with 4639 participants consisting of 2808 adults and 1831 children across three countries (Australia, Singapore and Switzerland) conducted between 2006 and 2017. The main source of RF-EMF exposure was mobile (cell) phone use measured as calls per week or minutes per day. For mobile phone use in children, two studies (615 participants) that compared an increase in mobile phone use to a decrease or no change were included in meta-analyses. Learning and memory. There was little effect on accuracy (mean difference, MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02) or response time (MD -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02) on the one-back memory task; and accuracy (MD -0.02; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.00) or response time (MD -0.01; 95%CI -0.04 to 0.03) on the one card learning task (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). Executive function. There was little to no effect on the Stroop test for the time ratio ((B-A)/A) response (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04, very low certainty) or the time ratio ((D-C)/C) response (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.05, very low certainty), with both tests measuring susceptibility to interference effects. Complex attention. There was little to no effect on detection task accuracy (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08), or response time (MD 0.02;95% CI 0.01 to 0.03), and little to no effect on identification task accuracy (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05) or response time (MD 0.00;95% CI -0.01 to 0.02) (low certainty evidence for all outcomes). No other cognitive domains were investigated in children. A single study among elderly people provided very low certainty evidence that more frequent mobile phone use may have little to no effect on the odds of a decline in global cognitive function (odds ratio, OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.58, 649 participants) or a decline in executive function (OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.37 to 3.05, 146 participants), and may lead to a small, probably unimportant, reduction in the odds of a decline in complex attention (OR 0.67;95%CI 0.27 to 1.68, 159 participants) and a decline in learning and memory (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.99, 159 participants). An exposure-response relationship was not identified for any of the cognitive outcomes.
A 2022 systematic review concluded that the body of evidence allows no final conclusion on the question whether exposure to RF EMF from mobile communication devices poses a particular risk to children and adolescents.
That RFK Jr. sprouts BS almost every time he opens his mouth should be an embarrassment to all US citizens. For the rest of the world, it is more than that. In fact, it is fast becomming a serious concern: sooner or later, his insane delusions will affect public health on a global scale!
Guest post by Ken McLeod
O’Neill has graced these pages several times. Now we report on the developing conflict between her and the Seventh Day Adventist Church she uses to facilitate her lecture tours.
The General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the top governing body for the SDA worldwide, has issued a statement calling banned naturopath Barbara O’Neill “disingenuous”, referring to the “questionable nature” of her teachings. Signed by Fred Hardinge, the General Conference’s nutrition and lifestyle specialist, says “it [the Conference] is not able to recommend her as a speaker for churches or any gatherings”.[1]
O’Neil was made the subject of a Permanent Prohibition Order in 2019 by the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, which found that she provided dangerous advice to vulnerable patients, that she did not have any qualifications in a health-related field, and that she failed to meet the expected standards of unregistered health professionals. [2]
That action stopped her from conducting her health seminars in Australia, so she has taken her business overseas. She has toured the world, conducting her health ‘lectures’ for the more credulous and naïve.[3]
At first her lecture tours were arranged via the Seventh Day Adventist Church community, and one interview refers to her program as “her ministry” several times.[4] Over time the Church leadership has become more concerned about the health misinformation that O’Neill provided to their congregants in that ‘ministry’.[5]
The General Conference statement was made public in the SDA newspaper The Fulcrum on 4 February 2025. The paper listed the SDA’s history of their concerns about O’Neill and reprinted a report to the General Conference by Hardinge.[6]
The Seventh-Day Adventist Church states “We encourage responsible immunisation/vaccination and have no religious or faith-based reason not to encourage our adherents to responsibly participate in protective and preventive immunisation programs. We value the health and safety of the population, which includes the maintenance of ‘herd immunity.” [7] O’Neill is an anti-vaxxer.
However, the statement does not mean that O’Neil is banned from SDA facilities. It says: “We are not the conscience of the individual church member and recognise individual choices.”
One insider told us that the General Conference has some authority, but it is not set in stone as would be a Catholic Church ex-cathedra ruling. SDA congregations could still invite her, but it becomes less likely because the local conferences will keep an eye on them, especially if they’re intending on having her speak in the church itself. “Adventists are very gullible when it comes to this kind of thing”, they said.
At first, Barbara O’Neill’s main venue was Living Springs Retreat in Alabama. Recordings of some of her recent seminars appear on their website but all they say now is “Please Note: We Occasionally Host Programs With Barbara O’Neill But She Is Not Here.” [8]
O’Neill’s current events program is quite packed and, at time of writing, included five lecture series at SDA venues in the USA and 19 at non-SDA venues.[9] Some of those non-SDA venues are linked to SDA churches. Queries were sent to each church asking if they intended to ignore the General Conference’s ‘recommendation’ but did not receive a response.
This is opening a schism of sorts within the Church, with some churches hosting her lectures, overtly or covertly.
Most of the 826 comments (so far) following The Fulcrum’s article are bitterly opposed to the General Conference’s statement and supportive of O’Neill, with posts like “Is the GC getting money from big pharma” and “Recommendations such as this from conference level and higher, means ‘uninvitable’ or, you know, risk losing your church building. It’s called soft power and our leaders are experts in that. This whole saga is nothing more than an attack on our God-given health message.” The phrase “Big Pharma” appears eight times.
O’Neill and her husband Michael have conducted interviews with supporters and attacked the General Conference. In one of seven video interviews that we found on YouTube, Barbara O’Neill says: “Honestly, just even writing this letter and distributing it to conferences and churches, this is not following the counsel of Jesus. … God is moving, and in the background, my beloved church is attacking the very work that God ordained me to do.”
Following that, the SDA magazine ‘Adventist Today’ ran another article on 14 March 2025 headlined ‘Defying General Conference Advice: Amazing Facts Promotes Aussie Health Crackpot Barbara O’Neill’[10] attacking her while naming and shaming the SDA broadcaster “Amazing Facts’ and the recalcitrant Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Amazing Facts is an SDA broadcaster ‘with multiple television and radio programs on hundreds of media outlets around the world.’ [11])
It seems that there is a real campaign going on within the Church to jettison her. Good.
References
1 SDA magazine The Fulcrum https://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2025/2/4/the-gc-takes-a-stand-against-barbara-oneill
2 https://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/decisions-orders/public-statements-and-warnings/public-statement-and-statement-of-decision-in-relation-to-in-relation-to-mrs-barbara-o-neill
3 For example https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/controversial-wellness-coach-barbara-oneill-set-to-host-talk-in-ireland-this-month/a1781099169.html
4 Belt Of Truth Live Ep 30 February 2025 https://www.youtube.com/live/A8-LJUMQP_I
5 https://atoday.org/whos-protecting-adventists-from-misinformation-part-2-health-quackery/
6 https://www.fulcrum7.com/news/2025/2/4/the-gc-takes-a-stand-against-barbara-oneill
7 https://gc.adventist.org/official-statements/immunization/
8 https://www.livingspringsretreat.com/june-training-with-barbara-oneill?rq=Barbara%20o%27neill
9 https://officialbarbaraoneill.com/pages/events
10 https://atoday.org/amazing-facts-endorses-health-crackpot-barbara-oneill/
11 https://www.amazingfacts.org/about-us/our-story
Thanks to Trump and his administration, US science is descending into chaos. Federal grants are being frozen, Scientists are getting fired and are leaving the US in droves, the NIH is under threat, crucial meetings are being postponed indefinitely and anti-science increasingly dominates the agenda of the White House.
US Universities are forced to cut back offers of admission for graduate students. Many have stopped hiring as the Trump administration threatens to take away federal money over their handling of a wide range of issues. Meanwhile, JD Vance does not miss an occasion to insult Europeans and to lecture us about free speach. The whole scenario is so utterly bizarre that it seems to originate from a 3rd class science fiction film.
Back in July 2024, when JD Vance first launched his attack on universities, I pointed out that fascist movements are known to be notoriously anti-intellectual and anti-science. Adolf Hitler said he regretted that his regime still had some need for its “intellectual classes,” otherwise, “one day we could, I don’t know, exterminate them or something.” And the ‘bon mot’, “when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun”, is attributed even to several of the top Nazis of the Third Reich.
At the time, my comparison to fascist regimes may have seemed exaggerated to some. Now it is fairly obvious to all but the most deluded that it was spot on. Those who are not afraid of what Trump and his sycophants are doing to science are simply not listening!
In response to the multiple threats to science, ‘Stand Up for Science‘ organized demonstrations of scientific communities throughout the US. The central event took place in Washington, D.C. on March 7, 2025, with approximately 2,000 participants in attendance. Parallel demonstrations occurred in more than 30 additional U.S. cities, with international solidarity events reported in several countries, including over 30 locations in France.
Several universities in Europe and elsewhere have also reacted; they are busy putting programmes in place to receive scientists who are fleeing the US. The consequence will inevitably be a significant ‘brain drain’ that will haunt the US for decades to come.
This study investigated the impact of spirituality and SCAM (so-called alternative medicine) use on perceptions of vaccine harmfulness, with a focus on COVID-19 and mandatory childhood vaccinations. Additionally, it examined whether spirituality indirectly influences vaccine hesitancy through SCAM use and beliefs in conspiracies.
A cross-sectional probability-based survey was conducted with over 1300 participants from South Tyrol, Italy, in 2023, using the GrAw-7 (Gratitude/Awe) scale as a measure of the experiential aspect of non-religious spirituality. Statistical analysis encompassed Spearman’s correlation and linear regression to assess the associations between spirituality and vaccine perceptions. A mediation model was applied to evaluate the role of spirituality in shaping attitudes towards vaccination.
The results show that higher experiential spirituality was associated with increased perceived harmfulness of COVID-19 and mandatory childhood vaccinations. Spirituality as well as perceived harmfulness of COVID-19 vaccination and mandatory childhood vaccination were correlated with age, increased SCAM utilisation and conspiracy ideation, while institutional distrust was solely associated with vaccine scepticism but not with spirituality; well-being and altruism were only associated with spirituality. Mediation analysis revealed that experiential spirituality accounted for a modest but significant portion of the influence of SCAM use and conspiracy thinking on vaccine perceptions.
The authors concluded that their study underscores the association between experiential spirituality and vaccine perceptions, particularly among individuals with a predisposition towards SCAM and those who exhibit conspiracy-related beliefs, highlighting the intricate relationships without implying causation. While spirituality does not appear to directly hinder vaccine uptake, it correlates with heightened perceptions of vaccine risks, particularly within contexts where alternative health practices and distrust in mainstream medical authorities are prevalent. This relationship emphasises that people who score high on spiritual awareness may be indirectly influenced to differ from others with respect to vaccination attitudes by promoting scepticism towards vaccine safety and efficacy. Even if we cannot change the spirituality of people, we know now that we can address information campaigns not only by attempting to build trust but also by addressing information to people preferring SCAM use and being spiritual at once. We think that this result is an important insight when focusing vaccine campaigns on vaccine-hesitant persons. These findings emphasise the importance of incorporating spiritual awareness, convictions, and beliefs into public health communication strategies. To address vaccine hesitancy within spiritually inclined populations, public health campaigns could explore framing vaccination in ways that resonate with values such as community care, personal responsibility, or altruism while ensuring that these messages are tailored to the diverse beliefs and perspectives of these groups. Moreover, collaboration with spiritual and community leaders could serve as a strategy to strengthen vaccine acceptance in populations that perceive health through a spiritual perspective. Future research should further explore the interactions between spirituality, SCAM use, and beliefs in conspiracies, with an emphasis on understanding how spirituality mediates health behaviours in culturally and religiously diverse contexts. Longitudinal studies and analyses across broader demographic groups are necessary to generalise these findings and refine public health interventions aimed at addressing spirituality-linked vaccine hesitancy.
My interpretation of these findings is that they confirm what we have repeatedly discussed here: There is a link between SCAM use and vaccination hesitance. It most likely is due to a cross-correlation: a certain mindset (that includes spirituality and several other phenomena) influences the distrust in vaccinations as well as the use of SCAM (and other things like, for instance, the belief in conspiracy theories).
Measles had been declared eliminated from the US in 2000. Now the disease is back with a vengeance. In February, an unvaccinated Texan child became the first person in a decade to die from measles in the US. Another death occurred in New Mexico.
The reason for the outbreak is simple: the uptake of the measles vaccine dropped below the 95% rate that is necessary for herd immunity. In the region where the current outbreak began, only 82% of the kids were vaccinated. This triggered the outbreak and, in turn, might mean that the US will lose its ‘measles elimination status’.
Only days after his appointment, Trump pledged to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization and to drastically cut the US Agency for International Development. Both moves are likely to cause more cases of measles and similarly vaccine-preventable diseases in the US and around the world. To make matters worse, Trump administration has fired hundreds of workers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
And to make matters even worse, Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the US most deluded antivaxer. Since being appointed, Kennedy has downplayed the importance of the current measles outbreak, postponed a meeting of the CDC vaccine advisers, made statements like “vaccinations are over-rated” and claimed that good nutrition and treatment with vitamin A as ways to reduce measles severity. He even praised the benefits of cod liver oil as a measure against measles. “There are adverse events from the vaccine,” Kennedy said in a March 11 interview. “It does cause deaths every year. It causes all the illnesses that measles itself causes, encephalitis and blindness, et cetera. And so people ought to be able to make that choice for themselves.” Further confirming his cluelessness Kennedy also stated: “When you and I were kids, everybody got measles, and measles gave you … lifetime protection against measles infection. The vaccine doesn’t do that… The vaccine wanes 4.5% per year.”
But Kennedy does not just propagate BS in interviews, he also plans to investigate whether vaccines cause autism — an assumption that has been discredited ad nauseam. A spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) said: “The rate of autism in American children has skyrocketed. CDC will leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out what exactly is happening.”
Meanwhile in Texas, some parents, who evidently believe Kennedy’s deluded nonsense, are giving unvaccinated children vitamin A, which, of course, is toxic at high doses.
Use of so-called alternative medicines (SCAM) is, as we have frequently discussed on this blog, associated with an anti-vax attitude or vaccine hesitancy. However, the nature of—and reasons for—this association are not entirely clear, not least because both SCAM and vaccine hesitancy are complex, heterogeneous phenomena.
A recent study aimed to determine which aspects of SCAM predict vaccine hesitancy and to probe the psychological roots of their association. In a two-stage survey (N1 = 1905, N2 = 1443), participants from Argentina, Germany and the USA reported vaccine/SCAM health behaviors, intentions and beliefs. They also responded to scales probing attitudes to science, individual differences in cognitive styles, and anomalous beliefs.
An Item-Response Theoretic model of vaccine responses revealed that, outside of either total acceptance or outright refusal of vaccines, hesitancy reflected a gap between past vaccination behaviors and future behavioral intentions. More than SCAM-use, vaccine hesitancy was predicted by SCAM-relevant health beliefs. An oppositional view of natural vs. biomedical care was central in this regard. Unscientific mindsets—both in attitudes to expertise and in anomalous beliefs—underpinned the psychological similarity of SCAM beliefs and vaccine hesitancy.
The authors concluded that the relationship between SCAM and vaccine hesitancy is primarily a matter of health-relevant beliefs centered on natural vs. scientific medicine. This relationship—and in particular, a gap between past vaccine behaviors and future be havioral intentions—reflects fundamentally unscientific mindsets. Thus, a key challenge in addressing this form of vaccine hesitancy is one of perspective taking: Scientists must find persuasive reasons to vaccinate which appeal to people who do not see science as the main route to medical knowledge.
These findings should seem fairly obvious to those of us who have followed the discussions on this blog and elsewhere around vaccines and vaccinations. In the present study, belief in ‘naturalness’ predicted vaccine acceptance – and did so consistently across countries – more than other health beliefs. The associations between vaccine acceptance and SCAM were not strongly related to sociodemographic factors. The only regular pattern was for gender, with women being both more vaccine resistant and more pro-SCAM than men.
Negative attitudes towards vaccines and belief in ‘naturalness’ were associated with a cluster of ‘anti-expert’ variables including distrust in science. Vaccine resistance was also associated with a range of anomalous beliefs or biased belief updating styles. These negative attitudes to scientific sources of information and unscientific belief contents are different aspects of an unscientific mindset.
I think, this makes sense and seems to confirm previous findings about the association between SCAM-use and vaccine hesitancy: the two are linked indirectly by a common denominator.
There are many interesting and complex interrelationships between religion ond so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Some of them were discussed here:
- ‘The power of all religions’ is being tested in a study with severely ill corona-virus patients
- Alternative medicine = ‘Ersatz’ religion?
- The ‘Healing Power of God’: a religious group was found guilty of manslaughter of a diabetic girl
- UK politician dabbles in faith healing
- The spiritual healers who sexually harass, molest, and rape female patients
- A ‘Christian Checklist’ for so-called alternative medicine
- Biblical Naturopathy, another SCAM that is new to me
- The ‘WORST PAPER OF 2022’ COMPETITION. Entry No 3: Effects of an Islamic-Based Intervention on Depression and Anxiety
- Daily prayer against severe COVID – an update of a study started two years ago
- Reincarnation therapy “can change your life”
- Does religiosity influence post-operative survival?
- Scientology and chiropractic: is there a link?
- he real danger of yoga!
The list might need to be up-dated with ‘Prophetic Medicine’. This term, I must admit, was new to me. So, I studied the paper and was enlightened. Here is its abstract:
Integrative medicine (IM) aims to create a comprehensive healthcare system by combining conventional medicine with complementary and alternative approaches. This model prioritizes patients, emphasizing the importance of the doctor–patient relationship. By integrating the most beneficial elements of both conventional and complementary medicine, patients can benefit from enhanced therapeutic outcomes while minimizing risks associated with their combination. Given this complexity, patients need access to qualified IM practitioners who can provide guidance on the potential benefits and drawbacks of these combined approaches. One notable complementary approach is prophetic medicine (PM), particularly prevalent in Muslim communities. This practice offers preventive and curative treatments based on the teachings and practices of Prophet Muhammad. Its global recognition is on the rise, attracting increasing interest from scientists regarding its potential benefits. For instance, cupping therapy, a technique employed in PM, has been shown to offer advantages over conventional medications for various ailments, including pain management and blood conditions, such as thalassemia, offering potentially superior outcomes. A precise delineation of the scope of PM practices is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the methodologies employed, their potential integration into contemporary healthcare systems, and the multifaceted factors influencing patient outcomes. By combining conventional medical practices with the principles of PM, IM can provide a more holistic approach to patient care. Hence, this paper explores this new model, its diverse applications, and its potential impact on IM.
The author’s lengthy conclusion in the article itself is as follows:
IM is gaining traction as it aims to improve patient care and alleviate suffering. Unlike merely combining CAM, IM emphasizes the holistic healing of the mind, body, and spirit. IM can be offered through consultations, standalone clinics, or even as a primary service. Many therapies rooted in PM can be particularly beneficial for patients facing challenging illnesses. However, the successful implementation of PM within an IM framework may be constrained by certain limitations. The most significant challenge is adapting cultural and religious beliefs to modern healthcare practices. To overcome these challenges, it is essential to establish clear, comprehensive, and universally applicable definitions and frameworks for IM. These frameworks should be comprehensive, well-developed, and consider historical roots, religious influences, and modern applications. Moreover, studies indicate that PM therapies are widely used around the world, yet there is a pressing need for a clear definition that encompasses these factors. Defining the scope of PM practices will facilitate a better understanding of the common methods, how they can be integrated into healthcare systems, and the various factors that influence patient care. Furthermore, PM practitioners require enhanced education and training to improve their understanding of traditional remedies and their effective application. Ultimately, addressing these challenges will likely lead to an improved IM model.
Who writes such remarkable nonsense?
The author of the paper is Saud Alsanad, an Associate Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the College of Medicine at the University of Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), Kingdome of Saudi Arabia. He is a founding member and the former CEO of the Saudi National Centre for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Riyadh, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia. Dr Alsanad is a registered pharmacist at the Saudi Commission for Health Specialists. He completed his PhD in Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the Reading School of Pharmacy, University of Reading, UK, under the supervision of Professor Elizabeth M Williamson.
Alsanad defines PM as medicine “based on the teachings and practices of Prophet Muhammad”. It includes a weird mix of modalities (for instance: spiritual and religious therapy as well as cupping). Would it not be reasonable to demand that each modality of whatever medicine must meet the accepted standards of effectiveness and safety that are applied in conventional medicine? If a therapy demonstrably generates more good than harm, we might consider it for integration into routine care. If not we shouldn’t even be called ‘medicine’!
Most of the treatments listed under the PM-umbrella fall into the second category. Therefore PM is arguably not medicine at all. Whether or not a therapy was mentioned by a this or that prophet is utterly immaterial and should really not matter in the age of evidence-based medicine.
This review is entitled “A narrative review of the impact of reiki and therapeutic touch on sleep quality and health in women” and aimed to evaluate the application methods of energy therapies, specifically Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, their health effects, and their positive impact on sleep quality, particularly in women.
The author who is from the Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Midwifery Department, Osmaniye, Turkey, states in her abstract that:
“energy therapies are holistic approaches designed to restore energy balance and enhance overall health. Reiki utilizes universal energy flow to promote physical, mental, and spiritual harmony. By balancing energy centers, Reiki helps alleviate stress, anxiety, and depression while being a generally safe practice with no reported side effects.”
The author continues by claiming that studies involving menopausal women suggest that Reiki improves sleep quality, reduces the time to fall asleep, and stabilizes sleep patterns.
Therapeutic Touch, the author explains:
“focuses on sensing and balancing the body’s energy fields, operating on the principle that energy imbalances contribute to illness. Research indicates that Therapeutic Touch alleviates stress, fatigue, anxiety, and pain, while enhancing sleep quality, relaxation, and overall quality of life. Studies in menopausal women confirm its effectiveness in addressing sleep disturbances and promoting well-being.”
The author concludes that energy therapies, particularly methods like Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, have garnered attention for their positive impact on women’s health and overall well being. These noninvasive, safe, and low-cost practices have shown promise, especially in areas such as sleep quality, stress management, and the alleviation of menopausal symptoms. However, the limited scientific literature in this field necessitates further research to solidify their efficacy.
The author also issues the following ecommendations:
• Theoretical and practical training on energy therapies should be integrated into nursing education
programs to enhance awareness and application.
• Randomized controlled trials should be conducted to investigate the effectiveness of energy
therapies across different age groups and health conditions.
• Research on women’s health should focus specifically on the effects of energy therapies on sleep
quality and menopausal symptoms.
• Public awareness of energy therapies should be increased, and their integration into healthcare systems
should be facilitated.
• Energy therapies should be recognized as complementary treatment options in health institutions,
contributing to patient satisfaction and stress management.
This paper is a good example to show why I have often warned that research of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is in serious danger to be no longer taken seriously. Scientists and rational healthcare professionals will simply dismiss it outright because it simply is pseudo-research masquarading as the real thing.
The review fails to contain a methods section which means we do not know on what evidence the conclusions are based. Once we have a closer look, we realize that the paper:
- relies on highly selected studies;
- does not even consider the implausibility of energy healing;
- fails to assess the methodological quality of the primaary studies.
All this is done so that the author – presumably a nurse who practices energy healing – can arrive at the conclusion she set out to draw.
Such papers are deeply disturbing because they mislead the reader and undermine trust in science.
PS
In case you are interested in a reasonable and evidence-based conclusion about energy healing, here is one I suggest:
A review of the evidence shows that energy healing flies in the face of science and is not supported by sound clinical evidence. Energy healing has therefore no place in rational healthcare.
I have to admit I don’t normally read the DALLAS MORNING NEWS -but perhaps I should! Here are a few excerpts from an article they just published:
Texas health experts are warning that vitamin A — found in food and in supplements such as cod liver oil — is not an alternative to measles vaccination. They’re urging Texans to vaccinate themselves and their children, as the West Texas measles outbreak continues to grow and after an unvaccinated child died from the illness.
Kennedy’s comments in the column — that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend vitamin A for people hospitalized with measles, and that studies have found vitamin A can help prevent measles deaths — are not inaccurate.
But they lack important context, said Dr. Peter Hotez, a vaccine expert at the Baylor College of Medicine. Hotez worries the missing context might mean people put their faith in vitamin A over vaccination — a decision that could cost lives. “The thing that I worry about is by [Kennedy] playing this up and others playing this up, it sends a false equivalency message, that somehow treating with vitamin A is equivalent to getting vaccinated, which is clearly not the case,” Hotez said…
“There’s zero evidence that it’s preventative,” said Dr. Christopher Dreiling, a pediatrician at Pediatric Associates of Dallas. Dreiling said he hasn’t had parents ask him about vitamin A for measles, but he wouldn’t be surprised if it started popping up after Kennedy’s comments. Dreiling’s main concern, he said, is that parents have correct information to make informed decisions…
____________________
Kennedy is, of course, not alone in pushing Vitamin A for measles. On this blog, we recently saw Dana Ullman (MPH, CCH) doing the same. On Feb 28, he wrote the following comment:
Thank YOU for verifying that the Texas hospital here seems to have killed these children. According to your article above, the head of this Texas hospital asserted, “Unfortunately, like so many viruses, there aren’t any specific treatments for measles.”
And yet, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, Vitamin A has clearly been shown: “Treatment with vitamin A reduces morbidity and mortality in measles, and all children with severe measles should be given vitamin A supplements, whether or not they are thought to have a nutritional deficiency.”
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199007193230304
And what might Kennedy and Ullman have in common (apart from being dangerous nut-cases and quackery-promoters)?
Simple: they both don’t understand science!
On this blog and elsewhere, we have many people doubting that COVID vaccinations were effective; some even claim that they were detrimental to our long-term health. In this context, cardiac conditions are often mentioned, as they constitute a significant category of potentially serious post-COVID conditions.
Perhaps these doubters will find this new analysis relevant. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the factors associated with the development of post-COVID cardiac conditions, the frequency of clinical outcomes in affected patients, and the potential prognostic factors. A systematic review was conducted using the databases EBSCOhost, MEDLINE via PubMed, BVS, and Embase, covering studies from 2019 to December 2023. A total of 8343 articles were identified, and seven met the eligibility criteria for data extraction. The protective effect of vaccination stood out among the associated factors, showing a reduced risk of developing post-COVID cardiac conditions. Conversely, COVID-19 reinfections were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular outcomes. Regarding the main outcomes in these patients, most recovered, although some cases persisted beyond 200 days of follow-up. The study included in the analysis of prognostic factors reported that the four children who did not recover by the end of the study were between two and five years old and had gastrointestinal symptoms during the illness.
The authors concluded that the present findings provide valuable contributions to a better understanding of the evolution of post-COVID cardiac conditions. Despite the limited number of eligible studies, this review offers insights that describe the progression of cardiac conditions, from their onset to medium-term follow-up of patients. The protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccination regimen was observed beyond the acute phase of the disease, reducing the risk of developing post-COVID cardiac conditions. Public policies encouraging vaccination should be promoted to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and reinfections. Given that both COVID-19 and heart diseases occupy a significant place on the global health agenda, post-COVID cardiac conditions deserve due attention. Although most patients recover in the short term, some require care for many months to prevent chronicity and complications, particularly in vulnerable groups such as children and older adults. COVID-19 emerged as a pandemic in 2020, and four years later, it continues to impact the entire planet. This study provides important evidence to guide government policies on post-COVID conditions surveillance, prevention, and targeted healthcare interventions. Although this review compiles the available evidence on the topic, it is clear that there is still much to learn about post-COVID cardiac conditions. Strengthening the research agenda by proposing and conducting primary studies on the subject is important. Additionally, this review should be regularly updated as new studies are published in the field.
I would be delighted to hear that this new analysis has persuaded some doubters that COVID vaccinations are, after all. helpful interventions – but (as always on such occasions) I will not hold my breath!
