cult
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.
Although currently the COVID-19 pandemic is no longer a public health challenge, the unprecedented utilization and integration of Ayush therapeutics and principles for the COVID-19 response in India represent a critical health systems and policy experiment which needs a systematic evaluation.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted, and the data were extracted till 9th July 2024 using three databases: Scopus, PubMed and DOAJ. A total of seven articles were included for the review, following the PICOS criteria of inclusion and exclusion. Of the 667 articles, seven articles were finally selected, and these articles underwent quality assessment using the AXIS assessment tool. The pooled proportion of the Indian population that utilized the Ayush systems was estimated at a 95% confidence interval, using a random effects model assuming potential heterogeneity. The pooled estimate, publication bias, heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis were graphically represented using a forest, funnel, Galbraith plots and leave-one-out meta-analysis. Additionally, the effects of the small studies were assessed using Egger’s and Begg’s tests. The total sample across the included studies was 789,735. Of the seven articles, six focused on the general population, and five focused on the utilization of the Ayurveda system of medicine. The pooled proportion of the Indian population that utilized the Ayush systems for COVID-19 was 40% (95% CI: 25% − 57%). Based on the policy relevance, risk of exposure, access to guidelines and pattern of utilization two subgroup analyses were carried out. Utilization of multiple systems of Ayush (48%) and utilization among the general population (46%) showed the highest proportion compared to Ayurveda and healthcare workers, respectively. The high heterogeneity (I2 = 99.98%) suggests that the pooled estimate should be interpreted with caution, and the sensitivity analysis found one study had a modest upward influence on the overall estimate.
The authors concluded that this systematic review found a 40% pooled estimate of utilization of Ayush systems from the included studies, suggesting the utilization of these systems to manage mild and asymptomatic conditions and for preventive purposes.
This review reports a 40% pooled utilization rate of Ayush systems for COVID-19 in India, based on just seven studies with a massive sample but extreme heterogeneity (I²=99.98%). Such high heterogeneity undermines the reliability of the pooled estimate, as noted in the study’s own caution and sensitivity analysis showing one study’s outsized influence.
Only seven articles met PICOS criteria from 667 screened, mostly surveys on self-reported use among general populations, without assessing clinical efficacy or outcomes. Quality via AXIS tool is mentioned, but broader Ayush COVID evidence reveals high risk of bias in many trials due to poor randomization, blinding, and variability in interventions. No causal link is drawn between Ayush use and health impacts; the paper merely quantifies popularity amid government promotion.
India faced ~2.4-4.7 million excess deaths in 2020-2021, 7-10x official COVID figures, driven by Delta wave surges, oxygen shortages, and healthcare collapse. Widespread Ayush integration for prevention and mild cases – endorsed by Ministry of Ayush! – did not correlate with better results; high utilization (40-48% in subgroups) coincided with catastrophic mortality levels. Sound evidence for Ayush benefits does not exist. One might therefore speculate that the promotion of Ayush may have diverted resources from proven measures like vaccination and antivirals. In other words, it seems likely that it cost many lives.
Guest post by Ken McLeod
Over the years these pages and many others have reported on the risks of using ayahuasca and kambo, psychoactive substances used by shamans, alt-med practitioners, cranks and downright frauds for spiritual, social, and medicinal purposes. Those risks go so far as an excruciatingly painful death, which has led to bans and severe restrictions in many countries including Australia. [1]
The Australian ban issued by the Therapeutic Goods Administration followed the death of Natasha Lechner who had ingested kambo in 2019. The Coroner’s report of her death said in part ‘it appears to me that a number of vulnerable people are drawn to using Kambo in circumstances where those who administer it may hold themselves out as part of a healing profession, and yet lack training in basic first aid.’ [2]
One report here from 17 February 2024 [3] is that of the death of Jarrad Antonovich who died from a perforated oesophagus after consuming ayahuasca and kambo frog toxin in October 2021, at the age of 46, while attending the ‘Dreaming Arts festival.’ This was a six-day retreat at Arcoora in northern New South Wales, Australia. See our article for more detail on ayahuasca and kambo and how the festival organisers and attendees responded to Mr Antonovich’s worsening condition.
In that article we reported that the New South Wales State Coroner had commenced an inquest into Mr Antonovich’s death and we promised to keep you informed.
So, keeping you informed; the Inquest began in May 2023 and was suspended in May 2024 when the Coroner referred the matter to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for consideration of whether charges should be laid.[4]
After the DPP’s lengthy consideration, on 5 March 2026 NSW Police arrested and charged ‘Soulore Solaris’, 52, a self-described ‘….Counsellor who facilitates Ayahuasca ceremonies’ with manslaughter over the death of Jarrad Antonovich at the Dreaming Arts Festival.[5] He was granted conditional bail to face Lismore Local Court on March 30 2026.
The media reported at length on the manner of Mr Antonovich’s death and on the reactions of the festival attendees to his worsening condition. Those reactions, as we reported in our article of 17 February2024, included:
– While Jarrad Antonovich‘s condition worsened there was resistance to calling for an ambulance. An ambulance was finally called at 11.30pm and took an hour to arrive because of the remote location.
- -One ambulance officer reported that a female told them to “move away from Jarrad because it was affecting his aura” and no one told them he had consumed Kambo. [6]
- -The event organiser Soulore “Lore” Solaris described Jarrad Antonovich’s death as ‘beautiful.’ [7]
- -Fred Woller, the site manager at Arcoora, was unaware those running the event did not have any medical training. [8]
- -Soulore “Lore” Solaris said Mr Antonovich ”…. had good support, a couple of kinesiologists with him and they couldn’t find anything wrong.” [9]
- -Mr Antonovich “was surrounded by people who loved him and an Aboriginal elder called Uncle Andrew who was chanting sacred songs and calling the spirit out of his body” and “the koalas were making a special sound that is known to the elders when the land accepts a spirit”. [10]
As usual, the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission conducted a thorough investigation and issued a comprehensive report. That is in their Statement of Decision on their imposing a Permanent Prohibition Order on ‘Soulore Solaris’. That Statement is so thorough, and their report of the events leading up to and following Mr Antonovich’s death are so harrowing, that readers should go that Statement. [11] How such an excruciating death can be described as ‘beautiful’ beats me.
What is not in the Statement is the mind-set of ‘Soulore Solaris,’ his gullible acolytes and festival attendees. The Courts will examine that of the accused, Solaris, but what I am interested in is how do all these others, ayahuasca and kambo practitioners and their supporters, come to the belief that they know more than all the health and medical experts and regulators in the world.
Surely they score 15 on the Richter Scale of ‘Dunning-Kreuger Effect.’
References
[1] https://tinyurl.com/4t6kpm35 and https://tinyurl.com/59mxe38m and NSW Coroners Report para 70 at https://tinyurl.com/2xxf26ac and ‘Shamanic Kambô Frog Hyponatremic Toxicity Leading to Brain Death: A Case Report’ Tran et al NLM https://tinyurl.com/59mxe38m
[2] Coroners Report paragraph 72 at https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/documents/findings/2024/Inquest_into_the_death_of_Natasha_Lechner.pdf
[3] https://edzardernst.com/2024/02/inquest-into-ayahuasca-and-kambo-death/
[4] ABC https://tinyurl.com/mr22yjah
[5] ABC https://tinyurl.com/bdz7nwty
[6] The Guardian http://tinyurl.com/328manjt
[7] ABC http://tinyurl.com/5n7ejydy
[8] The Guardian http://tinyurl.com/59wa3rmn
[9] ABC http://tinyurl.com/5n7ejydy
[10] ABC https://tinyurl.com/bdfb3y4y
[11] See their Statement of Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4ad4aju3. (The Statement of Decision gives a lot of useful material about these poisons and their ceremonies and the people who use them).
Quantum seems to be all the rage in the weird and wonderful world of SCAM; we have touched upon this phenomenon several times before:
- And the award for the most spectacular ‘quantum bollocks’ goes to …
- Bioresonance as an “Innovative Method of Bioquantum Medicine” – some ‘Christmas Cheer’ for all my readers
- The Healy quantum bollocks just won an award!
- “The effects of the biofield energy therapies are due to the healer’s quantum thinking” – please, do not believe such offensive nonsense!
- The ‘Healy’: deep cellular healing with quantum bollocks
- A quantum-physics perspective on acupuncture and other SCAMs???
- Explaining Homeopathy with Quantum Bollocks
One must commend the impressive ingenuity of those SCAM quantum enthusiasts who, with a flourish of terminology, elevate their bogus therapies to the stature of empirical science. By adorning every unverified practice with the mantle of “quantum,” they deftly sidestep the mundane demands of reproducible evidence, suggesting that subatomic phenomena might indeed orchestrate the restoration of elusive vital energies through SCAM.
How elegantly proponents extrapolate from the tunneling of electrons across potential barriers – observed under meticulously controlled laboratory conditions – to the purported realignment of human bioenergetic fields and restoration of ill health. Yet this analogy falters when confronted with biological reality, wherein macroscopic scales render quantum coherence untenable amid the decohering chaos of aqueous cellular environments. It is akin to attributing automotive propulsion to stellar fusion merely on the commonality of atomic constituents: a rhetorical sleight-of-hand masquerading as profundity.
Equally fantastic is the invocation of biophotons reimagined as conduits for universal life force akin to a metaphysical courier service. Dismiss the negligible intensities – orders of magnitude below thermal noise thresholds – and the absence of causal links in rigorous meta-analyses of SCAM, which align squarely with placebo benchmarks. Such reinterpretations transform faint biophysical curiosities into foundational pillars of alternative paradigms, much to the delight of their adherents.
One cannot overlook the charm of extending quantum entanglement, wherein particles maintain correlated states across distances, to the domain of interpersonal healing dynamics. Here, SCAM practitioners claim intuitive access to a patient’s suffering via non-local correlations, ostensibly validated by foundational theorems yet unsubstantiated by controlled trials. This extension, resilient to falsification, exemplifies a strategic deployment of scientific vernacular to cloak unverifiable assertions in an aura of legitimacy. In this alchemical transmutation of particle physics into a pseudo-scientific lottery – wherein the observer effect yields perpetual vindication for therapeutic claims – the empirical record remains an implacable adjudicator.
A few insightful quotes on the subject:
- “Quantum mysticism is considered by most scientists and philosophers to be pseudoscience or ‘quackery’.”
- “Physicist Murray Gell-Mann coined the phrase ‘quantum flapdoodle’ to refer to the misuse and misapplication of quantum physics to other topics.”
- “Quantum physics is confusing, so it’s magic.” — Professor Dave Explains
- “Quantum mysticism offers the universe as God, along with all the transcendence… without any of the burdens of organized religion. It’s a vapid stand-in for spirituality.” — Professor Dave Explains
- “The assumption that the colloquial and formal meanings of a term from physics – ‘energy’, ‘frequency’, ‘resonance’, etc. – are equivalent [lies] at the heart of all quantum mysticism.” — Philip Moriarty
- “It’s a lucrative industry because the message is so wonderfully compelling: we can think ourselves to success because we’re all part of one great interconnected universal wavefunction.” — Philip Moriarty
- “Quantum mysticism… draws upon ‘coincidental similarities of language rather than genuine connections’ to quantum mechanics.”
- “The quantum mystic is selling artificial transcendence. It’s the convenient sale of an enlightened self-image for the spiritual warrior in a hurry.” — Professor Dave Explains
Yesterday Dana commented on this blog the following:
… And while you’re there, I am still waiting for anyone here to review and critique my newest contribution to the PubMed literature: Rockefeller, the Flexner Report, and the American Medical Association: The Contentious Relationship Between Conventional Medicine and Homeopathy in America: https://www.cureus.com/articles/370572-rockefeller-the-flexner-report-and-the-american-medical-association-the-contentious-relationship-between-conventional-medicine-and-homeopathy-in-america#!/
I am far less fond than Ullman of ChatGPT, but I am also somewhat reluctant to read a long Ullman article, as it might be full of nonsense. So, in order to decide whether or not to read it, I gave the AI platform the following task:
Give me a critique of this article: https://www.cureus.com/articles/370572-rockefeller-the-flexner-report-and-the-american-medical-association-the-contentious-relationship-between-conventional-medicine-and-homeopathy-in-america#!/
This is what I got:
Here is a critical evaluation of the article “Rockefeller, the Flexner Report, and the American Medical Association: The Contentious Relationship Between Conventional Medicine and Homeopathy in America” by Dana Ullman, published in *Cureus (2025). I’ll assess it across authorship, argumentation, evidence, historiography, and scientific credibility.
1. Author background and potential bias
A major issue with the article is conflict of interest and author positioning.
- The author is the founder of Homeopathic Educational Services, which sells homeopathic products and books.
- He has “written and lectured extensively” promoting homeopathy.
- The work was partially supported by a member of the Rockefeller family.
Why this matters
This doesn’t automatically invalidate the research, but it creates a strong ideological incentive to reinterpret history in favor of homeopathy.
The article therefore reads less like neutral scholarship and more like advocacy-driven revisionist history.
2. Journal quality and peer-review context
The article appears in Cureus, which is a legitimate but controversial open-access journal.
Characteristics of the journal:
- Rapid peer-review and publication model
- Author-pay publication structure
- Generally lower prestige than major medical journals
This doesn’t mean the article is wrong, but it lacks the historiographical scrutiny typical of top history-of-medicine journals.
3. Central thesis of the article
The article argues that the decline of homeopathy in the U.S. was primarily due to institutional power and political suppression, not scientific inferiority.
Specifically it claims:
- Rockefeller funding helped institutionalize “scientific medicine”.
- The Flexner Report collaborated with the American Medical Association to marginalize homeopathy.
- Philanthropic decisions influenced which medical schools survived.
- Homeopathy declined due to economic and institutional pressure, not lack of efficacy.
These claims mix reasonable historical observations with questionable conclusions.
4. Strengths of the article
A. Interesting archival material
The paper highlights private reports written by Frederick T. Gates for John D. Rockefeller criticizing homeopathy.
If authentic and correctly interpreted, these documents do add nuance to how philanthropy shaped medical education.
B. Correct emphasis on institutional power
The article correctly notes that the Flexner reforms reshaped medical education through:
- philanthropy
- licensing standards
- laboratory science requirements
This is well established in medical historiography.
C. Recognizes economic drivers
The discussion of:
- philanthropy
- advertising revenue of the AMA
- licensing standards
reflects legitimate sociological analysis of professionalization.
5. Major weaknesses
A. Selective and misleading historiography
The article frames the history as a conspiracy or coordinated suppression.
For example, it claims the AMA secretly collaborated with Abraham Flexner on the Flexner Report.
But historians generally agree that:
- Flexner consulted many physicians
- The AMA influenced reform
- Yet the report itself was not a covert anti-homeopathy project
The paper overinterprets routine professional collaboration as conspiracy.
B. False equivalence about efficacy
The paper suggests homeopathy declined mainly due to institutional power.
However it ignores a central issue:
homeopathy failed empirical testing.
Modern evidence shows:
- Homeopathic dilutions usually contain no active molecules.
- Clinical trials show results consistent with placebo.
This is a fundamental reason the medical community rejected it.
The article largely avoids engaging with modern evidence.
C. Use of outdated or fringe sources
Some references include:
- 19th-century homeopathic mortality comparisons
- polemical books such as Divided Legacy
These sources are often considered unreliable by historians because:
- hospital records were inconsistent
- patient populations differed
- treatments were not comparable
The paper treats them as strong evidence.
D. Misinterpretation of historical success claims
The article claims homeopathy had dramatically lower death rates during epidemics.
This is a classic homeopathy narrative, but historians have identified problems:
- reporting bias
- different patient severity
- incomplete hospital records
So these comparisons are not reliable evidence of effectiveness.
E. Presentism and ideological framing
The article repeatedly implies:
- “scientific medicine” succeeded due to money
- homeopathy was suppressed despite effectiveness
This framing ignores a key historical reality:
By the early 20th century:
- laboratory science
- bacteriology
- pharmacology
were producing replicable results, while homeopathy remained theoretically implausible.
6. Logical problems in the argument
The paper assumes:
“Homeopathy declined because institutions suppressed it.”
But the historical process is more likely:
- Medical science became more empirical.
- Universities shifted to laboratory medicine.
- Treatments were evaluated experimentally.
- Homeopathy failed to demonstrate efficacy.
Institutional change followed scientific change, not the reverse.
7. Historians’ mainstream interpretation
Most historians of medicine interpret the Flexner era as:
- professionalization of medicine
- elimination of poorly resourced schools
- transition to research-based medicine
It did reduce diversity in medical approaches, but not primarily to suppress homeopathy.
Instead it enforced:
- laboratory training
- clinical science
- standardized education
8. Overall assessment
Strengths
- Interesting archival angle
- Raises legitimate questions about philanthropy
- Highlights institutional power in medical history
Weaknesses
- Strong author bias
- Selective evidence
- Conspiracy framing
- Avoidance of modern scientific evidence
- Misleading historical comparisons
Bottom line
The article is best understood as advocacy-oriented revisionist history, not a neutral historical analysis.
It contains some useful historical details but should be read critically and alongside mainstream scholarship on medical education reform.
✅ In short:
The paper raises valid points about power and philanthropy in medicine but overstates the case that homeopathy was suppressed rather than scientifically discredited.
______________________
I thank ChatGPT for this analysis helping my decision:
I think I don’t need to read Ullman’s new paper!
