cult
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
Innovations in both the surgical and medical management of breast cancer over the past few decades have led to reductions in treatment-related morbidity and increases in overall survival. Despite these advancements in surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, endocrine therapy, and immunotherapy, a subset of patients continues to choose so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The objective of this study was to describe the association of SCAM with survival in patients with breast cancer.
This cohort study analyzed data from the National Cancer Database on female patients diagnosed with breast cancer from 2011 through 2021. Survival time was compared among patients who received conventional treatment, conventional treatment plus SCAM, and SCAM only. Data were analyzed from May 2025 to December 2025.
The primary outcome was 5-year survival. Unadjusted 5-year survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and adjusted survival was assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model controlled for age, race and ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity index, insurance type, facility type, region, year of diagnosis, cancer stage, and income.
Of 2 169 202 female patients with breast cancer identified, 2 157 219 (median [IQR] age, 62 [52-71] years) were included in the sample. A total of 2 106 665 patients (97.6%) received conventional therapy.
- 273 (<0.1%) received SCAM alone,
- 568 (<0.1%) received a combination of SCAM and coventional therapies,
- 49 713 (2.3%) received no treatment.
Compared with patients treated with conventional therapies, those treated with SCAM alone (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 3.67; 95% CI, 3.03-4.44; P < .001) or no treatment (AHR, 3.53; 95% CI, 3.48-3.58; P < .001) had the highest risks for mortality. Patients who received a combination of conventional therapies and SCAM were less likely to receive endocrine therapy (eg, 40.7% vs 65.2% in stage II; P < .001) and radiation (59.5% vs 36.6% in stage II; P < .001) compared with patients treated exclusively with conventional therapies. Receipt of a combination of conventional therapies and SCAM was associated with a higher mortality compared with being treated exclusively with conventional therapy (AHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.22-1.72; P < .001).
The authors concluded that, in this cohort study of data from female patients with breast cancer included in the NCDB, the use of SCAM instead of conventional therapies was uncommon but was associated with a reduction in survival time. Further study is warranted.
The full text of this study is worth reading. It shows clearly that patients who use SCAM – even as an additional therapy – tend to skip some live-saving treatments. Why? Possibly because SCAM therapists persuade them that this is a good idea. I have personally seen this happening several times. It means that the SCAM might well be harmless, but the SCAM therapist is not!
The list of investigations showing that SCAM is a risk factor for cancer patients undergoing oncological treatments is growing. The message for patients is important and clear: stay away from SCAM while receiving curative treatment. Later on, during the supportive or palliative phase of care, some forms of SCAM might be helpful for improving cancer patients’ quality of life. For people with a keen interest in this area, I recommend reading my book which attempts to define which forms of SCAM might be beneficial for cancer patients at what stage of the recovery.
The suppression of scientific data within US federal agencies represents a fundamental tension between independent public health expertise and political ideology. This conflict seems to have now reached a boiling point at the ‘Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’ (CDC), where the Trump administration’s political leadership has indefinitely delayed the publication of an important report demonstrating the continued benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine. This action marks a pivotal shift in how the US manages public health information, signalling an era where data is scrutinized not just for its accuracy, but for its alignment with a specific political narrative.
The controversy centres on a study conducted by career scientists within the CDC’s ‘National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases’. It analyzed data from the winter of 2025 and showed that COVID-19 vaccinations reduced the risk of hospitalization by 55% and emergency room visits by 50% among healthy adults. These figures provide a compelling argument for the vaccine’s role in mitigating the burden on the US healthcare system. However, despite being scheduled for release in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) in mid-March, the study remains unpublished.
The primary figure behind this delay is the Acting CDC Director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Appointed by the Trump administration and a vocal advocate for the “Great Barrington Declaration,” Bhattacharya has challenged the report’s methodology, specifically the “test-negative design”. This is an observational study design often used to estimate vaccine effectiveness. It compares people who seek care and are test-positive for the target infection with similar people who seek care but are test-negative. The key idea is simple:
- Recruit people with similar symptoms who come for testing.
- Split them into cases, who test positive, and controls, who test negative.
- Compare the odds of prior vaccination or another exposure between the two groups.
If vaccinated people are less common among the test-positive group than among the test-negative group, that suggests the vaccine is effective. This design is efficient because both cases and controls come from the same care-seeking population which reduces confounding. It is also practical during outbreaks, since cases and controls can be identified quickly from testing records.
While Bhattacharya frames his criticism as a commitment to rigorous quality control, the scientific community begs to differ and stress that the test-negative design has been the gold standard for assessing vaccine effectiveness for over twenty years. Indeed, a flu vaccine study using the exact same methodology was approved for publication by the same leadership just days prior, suggesting a double standard applied specifically to COVID-19 data.
This scandalous incident does not exist in a vacuum; it is a manifestation of a broader overhaul of US public health spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Under this leadership, the administration has sought to deprioritize standard immunization schedules and has integrated vaccine skeptics into the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). By suppressing data that proves vaccine efficacy, the administration creates a vacuum of information that can be filled by more skeptical, politically convenient narratives.
The consequences of all this are profound. When political appointees act as gatekeepers for scientific data, it erodes the public’s trust in the CDC as a neutral, evidence-based institution. High-profile resignations, such as that of Dr. Fiona Havers, suggest a demoralized workforce of career scientists who feel their objective research is being censored. Furthermore, by withholding data that quantifies the protection offered by vaccines, the government limits the ability of healthcare providers and citizens to make informed decisions about their own health risks.
In conclusion, the suppression of the 2026 CDC vaccine report is a watershed moment for scientific integrity in government. It illustrates the danger of a system where data is viewed through a lens of political utility rather than public safety. As the administration continues to reshape federal health policy, the ongoing struggle between career researchers and political leadership will likely define the future of public health transparency in the US. The losers, no doubt, will be the people – primarily in the US but likely also globally.
The Indian Ministry of Ayush was established in 2014 with a vision of reviving the profound knowledge of India’s ancient systems of medicine and ensuring the optimal development and propagation of the Ayush systems of healthcare. Earlier, the Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy (ISM&H) formed in 1995, was responsible for the development of these systems. It was then renamed as the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga, and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (Ayush) in November 2003 with focused attention towards education and research in these therapies.
In the global landscape of public health, India’s Ministry of AYUSH stands as a profound anomaly. While most middle‑ and high‑income countries have converged around evidence‑based, scientifically grounded medicine, India has instead expanded this large, state‑run administrative apparatus where cultural nationalism and traditionalist narratives dominates over clinical efficacy and scientific rigor. The Ministry’s current trajectory reveals a troubling pattern: the systematic promotion of unproven therapies, flawed research, and notorious breaches of ethical principles, particularly with respect to the treatment of India’s most vulnerable populations.
The Homeopathy Anomaly
The most glaring anomaly must be the Ministry’s continued, high‑level support for homoeopathy. India is currently the only country in the world that maintains a dedicated national ministry and a statutory regulatory framework – via the National Commission for Homoeopathy – specifically to promote a system widely regarded as implausible, ineffective and harmful. Global assessments, including those by no less than 28 independent organisations worldwide, have concluded that there is no reliable evidence that homeopathic remedies work beyond placebo. Yet the AYUSH Ministry funds and publicizes a central research council (the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, CCRH) as well as a network of homoeopathic hospitals and teaching institutions, with annual budget allocations now exceeding ₹4,400 crore (roughly 470–480 million US dollars at current exchange rates). By directing substantial taxpayer funds to homoeopathic research and infrastructure, the state effectively endorses a “placebo‑as‑medicine” model, elevating it to the status of a national health strategy. This is not merely an academic dispute; it is a policy outlier that places India’s healthcare posture at odds with well‑established chemical and physical principles, as well as with the recommendations of leading international scientific bodies.
The Facade of Rigor
The Ministry tends to defend its approach by claiming a pivot toward “evidence‑based” or “scientific” AYUSH medicine, but an examination of its research output suggests a facade of rigor rather than its substance. Much of the work produced by bodies such as the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda (CCRA) and their counterparts in Unani and Siddha consists of investigations that are methodologically weak and wide open to bias. Key methodological flaws recur:
- Small sample sizes: Many trials involve fewer than 50–100 participants, rendering them statistically underpowered.
- Lack of blinding: A large proportion of studies is open‑label, where both clinicians and patients know the assigned intervention, amplifying placebo effects and observational bias.
- Selective reporting and publication bias: Negative findings – where AYUSH interventions fail to demonstrate benefit – are rarely published.
By branding such useless studies as “scientific proof,” the Ministry engages in a form of “science‑washing.” This practice misleads the public, uncritical clinicians, and policymakers into believing that AYUSH therapies have undergone the same rigorous, independent scrutiny as conventional therapies.
The Ethical Violations
In my view, the most serious concern is ethical. Under the banner of “Self‑Reliant India” (Atmanirbhar Bharat), the Ministry has aggressively promoted AYUSH products, for instance, during the COVID‑19 pandemic. This push could be viewed as an exercise in cultural pride and national self‑reliance but, in fact, it carries serious risks.
Medical ethics rely on two core principles: informed consent and non‑maleficence. When a state body, backed by cabinet‑level authority, “flogs” unproven and potentially dangerous treatments to a largely rural population with limited health literacy, it undermines both. Many patients are not able to distinguish between an ancient tradition and a clinically validated drug, yet they may be led by government‑sponsored messaging to defer or abandon evidence‑based treatments.
This is particularly dangerous in chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension, where effective pharmacological control and regular monitoring are both available and potentially life‑saving. If patients substitute proven allopathic regimens with state‑endorsed AYUSH alternatives of uncertain efficacy, the consequences can be dire. They include uncontrolled blood glucose, stroke‑risk elevation, organ damage, and avoidable mortality. The Ministry’s conduct, in effect, offloads these risks onto the most vulnerable while shielding itself behind appeals to tradition and national identity.
Conclusion
The Ministry of AYUSH has become the institutional vehicle for a “pluralistic” health model that, in practice, functions as a state‑funded rejection of the scientific method. This constitutes a regression in public‑health governance rather than a progressive pluralism. Until the Ministry subjects its therapies to the same scrutiny as any other medicine, and until it accepts transparent, independent evaluations without recourse to political or cultural vindication, it will remain less a health body and more a department of cultural preservation and doctrine.
How accurate are Dana Ullman’s articles? To answer this amusing question, I asked the AI platform ‘Gemini’ to find all the false statements in one of Dana’s articles (yes, I do admit that I am reluctant to read though an entire nonsensical paper – it would give me a headache or worse). This is the precise task I asked for:
Give me a bullet point list of all false statements in this text: Lessons from the Flu Epidemic of 1918: The Dangers of Using Fever Suppressing Drugs for Viral Infections.
[In case you want to read this lengthy paper yourself, here is the link]And here is the response I got from Gemini (bold emphasis by AI):
The text you provided is a well-known article by Dana Ullman that blends historical events with controversial medical theories. While some of the historical context (like the 1917 aspirin patent expiration) is accurate, the medical conclusions and the data regarding homeopathy are widely considered false or highly misleading by the scientific and medical communities.
Here is a bulleted list of the primary inaccuracies and misleading statements in the text:
1. Misrepresentation of the 1918 Pandemic Deaths
- The “Aspirin Theory”: The text suggests that a “large number” of the 50 million deaths in 1918 were due to aspirin overdose. This is based on a hypothesis by Dr. Karen Starko. While high doses of aspirin likely contributed to some deaths, the scientific consensus remains that the vast majority of deaths were caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia and the extreme virulence of the H1N1 virus itself, not aspirin poisoning.
- Aspirin and Bleeding Lungs: The text claims bleeding in the lungs is a “known side effect of aspirin overdose.” While salicylates can cause pulmonary edema, the “hemorrhagic” (bloody) lungs seen in 1918 victims are a hallmark of the severe viral pneumonia caused by that specific strain of influenza, not a specific marker for aspirin toxicity.
2. Inaccuracies Regarding COVID-19 and NSAIDs
- NSAIDs and Blood Clots: The text states that ibuprofen and naproxen are “known to lead to blood clots.” This is a significant mischaracterization. While chronic, long-term use of certain NSAIDs is linked to a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, they are not a primary cause of the acute “clotting storms” seen in COVID-19 patients. In fact, many COVID-19 protocols involve using blood-thinning agents (like aspirin) to prevent clots.
- The 80% Risk Claim: The claim that NSAID users have an 80% greater risk of venous thromboembolism is taken from observational studies that show correlation, not causation. People taking NSAIDs often have underlying inflammatory conditions that already increase their risk of clots.
3. False Claims About Homeopathy’s Success
- 1918 Mortality Rates: The text claims a 1.2% death rate in homeopathic hospitals vs. 29% in conventional hospitals. These figures are widely considered unreliable and anecdotal. They were self-reported by homeopathic practitioners at the time, lacked standardized diagnostic criteria, and did not account for “selection bias”.
- WHO Recognition: The WHO does not recognize homeopathy as the “second largest system of medicine” in terms of efficacy or official endorsement. It only recognizes it as a widely used traditional practice.
4. Scientific Misconceptions About Fever
- Fever Suppression Spreading Virus: The text claims that suppressing a fever “can enable the virus to spread throughout the body.” Clinical studies have generally shown that taking antipyretics does not significantly worsen disease outcomes or increase viral shedding.
- The “Cytokine Storm” Claim: The article suggests that when a fever-suppressing drug wears off, a person may experience a “cytokine storm.” This is medically incorrect.
5. Out-of-Context Quotes
- Paul Offit and Jane Brody: The text quotes them in a misleading way. They are vocal supporters of conventional medicine and vaccines, and the usage here is considered cherry-picking.
Summary Note: The FDA and the CDC have both clarified that there is no scientific evidence that taking ibuprofen or other NSAIDs worsens COVID-19.
_________________________
I know, this is just one of his many nonsensical papers. But it nevertheless suggests that Dana puts in quite a lot of effort into misleading the public.
Aaron Siri is an American lawyer and anti‑vaccine activist. He has become a key figure in contemporary US vaccine‑policy debates, largely through his legal challenges and close ties to health‑policy critics such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His following five central claims about vaccines are a mix of selective quoting, misrepresentation of studies, and appeal to legal‑style rhetoric:
- Vaccines cause chronic illness
Siri’s central “smoking‑gun” claim rests on an unpublished Henry Ford Health‑system analysis allegedly showing that vaccinated children have far higher rates of chronic illness than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated children in this dataset had far more health‑care visits than unvaccinated children, so more conditions were diagnosed in them regardless of whether vaccines caused them. This is a textbook example of detection bias, but not evidence of causation. Moreover, the study has not passed peer review; its reported disease prevalences are inconsistent with known epidemiology. It is therefore widely seen as methodologically unsound.
- Vaccines were never properly tested against proper controls
Siri argues that many childhood vaccines have not been tested in inadequately-powered, placebo‑controlled trials. When an effective vaccine exists, medical ethics oppose using placebos in new trials, as that would deny protection to a control group. Moreover, his claim that older vaccines (e.g., tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis) “lack adequate controlled trials” is misleading because earlier trials were designed for different standards and later observational data, post‑licensure surveillance, and large‑scale cohort studies have filled the gaps. In other words, he exploits technical‑sounding language to imply a hiatus of evidence, when in reality the evidence base is broader and more heterogeneous than he portrays.
- The CDC/WHO inflates how many lives vaccines have saved
Siri has attacked the WHO’s estimate that vaccines have saved around 154 million lives, calling it “corruption of science”. The 154‑million figure comes from a modelling exercise [like most “lives‑saved” statements in public health]. It depends on assumptions but is based on vaccine‑coverage and mortality‑trend data, but it is not fabricated. Siri’s rebuttals focus on rhetorically dismissing the exercise as “advertising” rather than engaging its assumptions or proposing alternative, better‑validated models. His claim that this number is “corrupt” thus rests polemic than but not on a coherent technical critique of the underlying epidemiological models.
- Exploiting the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act and “lack of liability”
Siri blames the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for reducing oversight and downplaying risk, arguing that liability protection “corrupts” safety monitoring. Yet the law was designed to protect manufacturers from financially ruinous litigation and to create a dedicated federal compensation program for proven injuries, not to forbid safety monitoring. The US has multiple surveillance systems (VAERS, VSD, CISA) and expert advisory bodies (ACIP, NVAC) that continuously review vaccine safety. Siri’s critique thus conflates legal strategy with scientific oversight, implying that the absence of mass torts proves lax monitoring.
In conclusion, Siri’s vaccine claims are mostly built on:
- one deeply flawed, unpublished observational study,
- selective readings of older vaccine‑trial designs,
- unwarranted dismissal of WHO‑level modelling, and
- a legal framing that conflates liability shields with absence of safety science.
Epidemiologists, infectious‑disease specialists and other experts rightly regard Siri’s arguments as misrepresenting or misapplying biostatistics and failing to meet standards for causal inference. It would be a serious mistake to follow them!
Some papers on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are such that I am almost lost for words. Here is the abstract of such an article:
Background: Autism Spectrum Disorder is a complex neurodevelopmental condition with characteristic
challenges like persistent deficits in social communication, restricted and repetitive behaviors, sensory
processing anomalies. Defined by DSM-5criteria, it affects about 1in 100 children globally and 1in 36 in
united states and poses a significant burden for families and healthcare systems. Research on homoeopathy
and Bach flower Remedies as adjunctive or primary therapies has often explored by families and clinical
interest in complementary and alternative medicine for additional support.
Materials and Methods: A comprehensive study of related review articles, related different components
of Autism spectrum disorder treated with homeopathy treatment, Bach Flower Remedies and
complementary medicine in children were search out. Databases search is PubMed, Google Scholar,
ResearchGate and Web of Science, Scopus and Homoeopathic journal.
Result: Reviewed evidence indicates that no systematic studies have been done to manage autism
spectrum disorder with Bach flower Remedies as an adjuvant or primary treatment along with
homoeopathy. Although individualized homoeopathic treatment has promising results in reducing core
and associated symptoms in children including improvement in social interaction, hyperactivity,
communication and behavioral regulation. Although there is less data available thorough trails, Bach
Flower Remedies especially Rescue remedy that have help in treating the emotional dysregulations and
anxiety that are frequently connected with autism spectrum condition.
Conclusion: The available clinical data on autism spectrum with homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies
is not enough to provide new and sufficient evidence. To overcome this more well-designed study of RCT
and larger sample with standardized procedures will be able to help to this rising burden of autism
spectrum disorder.
In the article itself, the authors state the following: “This review article indicates that both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing. Based on the reviewed data from case series, controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews it can be state that individualized homeopathic treatment leads to clinically relevant improvement in core and associated symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.
Studies on Bach flower remedies specifically in autism spectrum disorder are very less but it suggests that Bach flower remedies offer practically accessible intervention for emotional and behavioural dimension mostly in anxiety, emotional dysregulation, sensory hyperactivity and resistance to change. Evidence from controlled trials and clinical studies shows a statistical and significant in symptom.
Homoeopathy and Bach flower remedies should not replace evidence-based behavioural and development intervention for autism spectrum disorder, but rather be investigation as complementary modalities within an integrative care framework. Despite of growing clinical observations, the field of homoeopathy and Batch Flower remedies in autism spectrum disorder is characterised by substantial and identifiable research gaps that limit the formulation of evidence-based clinical guidelines and urgent research priorities include the multicentric, double-blind RCTs with standardised diagnostic criteria and validated core outcome sets; longitudinal follow-up.”
Bearing in mind that this comes from the “Head of the Department, Department of Practice of Medicine, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to beUniversity), Homoeopathic Medical College”, this is remarkably embarrassing!
Why?
The review is badly written and poorly done. More importantly, according to the data provided by the authors, there is only one rigorous RCT. Here is its abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of Bach flower remedies in the treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), in a double blind prospective controlled study.
Methods: Fourty Children with ADHD, aged 7-11 years, diagnosed according to the DSM criteria, were randomised to Bach flower remedies or placebo treatments for a period of 3 months. Children’s performance was evaluated by the teacher before commencement of treatment and subsequently each month during the study period.
Results: Bach flower remedies have no statistically significant effect when compared to placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD. There was a significant correlation between treatment duration’s and improvement of performance, with no difference between the treatment group compared to the placebo.
Conclusions: There is no statistically significant difference between the effects of Bach flower remedies compared with placebo in the treatment of children with ADHD.
If a head of department nonetheless concludes that “both homoeopathy and Bach Flower Remedies are promising adjunct intervention in treatment of Autism spectrum disorder in children especially marked improvement in social interaction, communication, behavioural rigidity, emotional dysregulation and sensory processing”, it is, I fear, high time to replace him.
I recently came across an aricle entitled “Reiki for Stress Relief” which I thought was excptional even for the often surprising literature on Reiki. Here is the abstract:
Reiki is Holistic. It isn’t just about the mental, or just about the physical, but both, and an overall restoration and improvement to you. And as we know, often the mental and physical are linked.
While the scientific understanding of Reiki’s effects on emotional blocks is still evolving, many individuals report subjective benefits, such as emotional release, relaxation, and a greater sense of inner peace, following Reiki sessions.
As the philosophy of Reiki is grounded in holistic medicine and thought, it is imperative to continue that tradition and also integrate other scientific -backed therapies such as the ones your doctor may suggest if you have a serious medical or mental condition. A balanced approach is key, and Reiki is possibly a powerful tool and philosophy that can be the missing key or complement to your current care regimen.
This is impressive! Don’t you just love how it’s ‘grounded in holistic thought’ while the scientific understanding is ‘still evolving’ ? That’s a very elegant way of admitting ‘we’re still waiting for the first piece of evidence’. And we all appreciate the disclaimer to actually see a real doctor as soon as we are truly ill.
The Canadian comedian Mayce Galoni had perhaps the best measure of Reiki when he did his stand-up bit about his nephew “becoming a Reiki master” at the age of 21: “My 21-year-old nephew is now a Reiki master. I didn’t even know you could be a master of anything at 21… Reiki is the only career where you can get paid for doing exactly what I do when I can’t find the TV remote.”
Some homeopathy-fans claim that tiny “nanoparticles” survive even in remedies diluted a trillion trillion times (i.e. the process of manufacturing a high-potency homeopathic remedy). They furthermore assume that this phenomenon can explain how homeopathy works. This argument sounds ever so modern and sciency but – unless you are a bit of a dim-wit – it falls apart for several fairly straightforward reasons that almost anyone should be able to grasp.
Too Dilute
Imagine starting with a single drop of medicine and diluting it by adding 99 drops of water, shaking it up, then repeating that hundreds of times. By the 12C stage (about 1 part in 10^24), there’s statistically zero original molecules left – way before most remedies hit 30C or higher. Even if some nanoparticles somehow cling on from the mixing process or glass vials, they’d be so rare (fewer than one per bottle) that they couldn’t reliably affect your body like a real drug.
Breaks the Main Rule
Homeopathy’s main axiom is “like cures like” assumption: a substance that causes a headache in a healthy person should cure headaches when you’re sick. But nanoparticles would just deliver a tiny dose of the ingredient itself, acting like an extremely weak remedy – not following homeopathy’s main axiom. This would turn homeopathy back into normal medicine and miss the basis of its own theory.
Not Based on Materials
Not all homeopathic remedies start with physical ingredients. Some are “imponderables” like “X-ray” (sugar pills exposed to X-ray radiation, then diluted), “vacuum” (made by evacuating air from water), or even “moonlight.” There’s no material at all to leave nanoparticles behind, so this explanation can’t cover those products.
Useless Ingredients
Most homeopathic remedies are based on mother tinctures that have no heath effects, like sepia (ink from cuttlefish), cantharis (Spanish fly blister beetle), or even bits of the Berlin Wall. These aren’t bioactive – they don’t fight infections or reduce pain or do anything else in normal doses. Nanoparticles from such useless junk wouldn’t magically gain healing powers; they’d still do nothing useful for health.
Lack of Convincing Clinical Evidence
As discussed ad nauseam on my blog, there simply is no sound evidence to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Any benefits people feel are thus likely from expectation, natural recovery, or doctor attention – and not from nanoparticles. If homeopathy had any real effects to explain, nanoparticles might be worth debating; without them, it’s a dead end.
I do sympathise with the desperation of homeopaths. They feel they must identify a plausible mode of action for their remedies. Their 200 year old struggle to find anything at all is in many ways remarkable. Here are some of the main explanatory ideas homeopaths (or homeopathy-friendly authors) have previously proposed for how homeopathy might work:
- Vital force / life energy – the remedy is said to act on a non-physical “vital force” or life energy that supposedly governs health and disease.
- Water memory – water is claimed to “remember” substances once dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond any remaining molecules, via changes in water structure or hydrogen bonds.
- Electromagnetic signatures – remedies are said to carry subtle electromagnetic patterns or “information” of the original substance, sometimes claimed to be recordable, transmitted electronically, and imprinted on new water.
- Quantum coherence domains – models suggest water forms coherent quantum domains storing drug “information” as electromagnetic frequencies, inspired by Del Giudice and Preparata’s ideas, though lacking solid experimental support.
- Stable water clusters / clathrates – hypotheses that long-lived clusters or cage-like structures (clathrates) in water somehow encode the properties of the starting substance.
- Nanobubbles and interfaces – suggestions that gas nanobubbles or interfaces in the solution store and transmit information about the starting material.
- Hormesis-based explanations – the idea that ultra-low doses act via hormesis (beneficial effects of mild stress or toxins), extended to the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy.
- Resonance with the body – proposals that remedies resonate with biological systems (cells, tissues, or “vital force”) through frequency matching or electric resonance, rather than via chemistry.
- Quantum entanglement / non-locality – claims that patient, practitioner, and remedy become “entangled,” so healing occurs via non-local quantum effects rather than molecules or doses.
- Information medicine / encoding – framing remedies as carriers of abstract “information” rather than substance, supposedly acting like a software signal on the body’s “hardware.”
Is it not time for homeopaths to accept the only well-proven, plausible explanations as to why their patients feel better after taking their remedies?
- The empathetic therapeutic encounter.
- The natural history of the condition.
- Regression towards the mean.
- Concommittant conventional treatments.
- The placebo effect.
