diet
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) likes to present itself as a champion of disease prevention. Its advocates routinely claim to promote health before disease develops, to strengthen the body’s defences, and to address root causes rather than symptoms. This rhetoric is highly attractive, because prevention sounds proactive, humane, and economical. Crucially, it is also good for the SCAM practitioner’s bank account. Yet there is a snag: almost none of the preventive claims made for SCAM are supported by reliable evidence, whereas the prevention that works comes overwhelmingly from conventional medicine and science.
To show preventive benefit, an intervention must demonstrably reduce the incidence of symptom, disease, complication, or mortality in properly designed studies. That may require randomised trials, epidemiological studies, large cohorts, reproducible findings, and enough follow-up to show that fewer people actually experienced the given endpoint. Mainstream medicine has repeatedly met this standard. Immunization, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, lipid lowering, cancer screening, and risk-factor modification are all products of biomedical research, not of alternative healing traditions.
SCAM, by contrast, tends to use prevention in a loose, impressionistic, and unfalsifiable way. A practitioner may claim that a treatment “balances energy,” “supports immunity,” or “keeps the body in harmony,” but such phrases do not establish a preventive effect. They are placeholders for evidence, not evidence itself. In practice, the absence of disease after treatment is treated as proof that the treatment worked, even though the same outcome occurs every day without any intervention at all.
Acupuncture is a good example. Its defenders portray it as a preventive system capable of preserving general health or warding off illness, but the evidence base does not support that claim. Some reviews do suggest that acupuncture may help with some pain-related and symptom-focused conditions, yet its preventive value is largely unproven. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that acupuncture prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Chiropractic care is even more revealing because preventive claims are often tied to the doctrine of spinal “subluxation” and nervous system dysfunction. Yet the literature on prevention is thin and methodologically weak. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that chiropractic prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Herbalism benefits from the romantic appeal of “natural” remedies, but that appeal should not be confused with demonstrated preventive efficacy. Individual plant compounds have certainly inspired real drugs, yet that is a triumph of pharmacology, not of herbalism as a system. When herbal medicines are tested for prevention, results are usually weak, inconsistent, or insufficient to support recommendation. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that herbal medicine prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Homeopathy is one of the most extreme cases within SCAM. It is often sold as gentle, individualized, and even preventive, but its basic principles are scientifically implausible, and its clinical evidence is either flawed or negative. Preventive homeopathy, including ideas such as “homeoprophylaxis,” is particularly problematic because it can give people a false sense of security while displacing interventions that genuinely prevent disease, such as vaccination. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that homeopathy prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
SCAM speaks almost constantly about prevention, but the evidence for actual preventive benefit is close to non-existent. What we know about prevention, what truly reduces disease incidence and improves population health, comes from conventional medicine, epidemiology, public health, and biological science. SCAM will no doubt continue to borrow the language of medicine and prevention, but – as far as I can see – it has failed to supply the proof.
The health-related news comimg out of the US get more worrying by the day. In June 2026, a New World screwworm was detected in Texas cattle for the first time since 1966, a catastrophic failure traceable to the Trump administration’s systematic dismantling of animal disease prevention programs. The flesh-eating parasite, whose larvae consume living tissue and can kill livestock within days, has returned due to preventable policy choices.
Trump slashed over $382 million in USAID funding dedicated to international disease monitoring, including specific programs tracking screwworm spread through Central America and Mexico. More than 100 US-funded FAO programs were thus terminated, representing nearly 10% of the FAO’s planned budget. Scientists had warned for months that screwworm was advancing north through Mexico, accumulating 9,574 confirmed cases by late 2025, yet the administration cut surveillance funding precisely when vigilance was most critical.
The consequences are now undeniable. An infected three-week-old calf was discovered in La Pryor, Texas, approximately 30 miles from the Mexican border, triggering a 20-kilometer quarantine zone. The pest could further shrink the US cattle herd, already at its lowest level in 75 years, potentially costing Texas alone up to $1.8 billion in economic losses through livestock deaths, medication expenses, and labor costs.
Beyond negligence, Trump actively undermined US ranchers. In October 2025, he announced plans to import Argentine beef to lower grocery prices, calling domestic cattle producers’ concerns about tariffs as not understanding economics. The cattle industry condemned this as “undermining the future of farmers” and creating “turmoil at a crucial time”. Canadian authorities subsequently imposed temporary livestock import restrictions from affected Texas areas, emblematic of the international trade vulnerabilities the outbreak creates.
The administration’s response – claiming they “bought time” while defending against inevitable predictions that models showed screwworm entering in 2025 – reads as damage control rather than genuine accomplishment. Meanwhile, the USDA established sterile fly releases and quarantines, emergency measures that should have been unnecessary with proper preventative funding.
Trump’s agricultural policy combines reckless budget cuts with market interference that harms American producers. The screwworm outbreak is not merely bad luck; it is the direct result of prioritizing ideological slashing of foreign aid over protecting American food security and the livelihoods of ranchers who already face record-high consumer prices and shrinking herds.
New World screwworm poses serious, potentially fatal dangers to humans through myiasis, where larvae burrow into and consume living tissue. While primarily affecting livestock, humans can be infested as well – particularly those with open wounds, diabetes, or peripheral vascular disease. The first US human case was confirmed in August 2024. Infestations cause painful, foul-smelling wounds that worsen rapidly and can lead to death if untreated, with scalp involvement carrying an 8% mortality rate as larvae may burrow through the skull into the brain.
Update 11/6/26:
USDA had already confirmed the first US livestock case in decades in a 3-week-old calf in Zavala County, Texas, and by June 9, 2026 it was reporting six domestic animal detections, including cases in Texas, New Mexico, and a goat in Gillespie County.
A few final points:
- Precautions consist in measures like keeping wounds clean and covered, wearing protective clothing, using insect repellent, and sleeping indoors with screens are essential.
- Treatment might include Ivermectin – yes, the drug that was hyped for COVID might finally come into its own.
- The US meat market share in Europe is extremely small, less than 1% of Europe’s total meat consumption.
- The whole story might seem insignificant, would it not confirm the many other ways in which the Trump administration is almost systematically endangering public health in the US and beyond (see previous posts).
For several decades, eggs were commonly portrayed as a major cause of raised cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. That position has been substantially revised: current evidence suggests that dietary cholesterol has a relatively modest effect on blood cholesterol in most people, whereas saturated and trans fats are more important determinants of LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk.
The physiology is more nuanced than the older “cholesterol-in, cholesterol-out” model implied. The liver does synthesise cholesterol endogenously, and many people compensate for increased dietary cholesterol by reducing hepatic production, but the degree of compensation varies considerably between individuals. For that reason, eggs are not best understood as “heart-healthy” in all circumstances, but rather as a food whose impact depends on the wider dietary pattern and the individual’s metabolic risk profile.
There is stronger support for improving lipid profiles by changing the quality of dietary fat and increasing fibre intake. Replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated fats, is associated with lower LDL cholesterol and a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, while soluble fibre helps lower LDL cholesterol by interrupting enterohepatic bile acid recycling. In practical terms, this means that foods such as olive oil, nuts, seeds, legumes, oats, vegetables, and oily fish are more consistently supported than a narrow focus on single items such as eggs.
Low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diets are more complex. Many people lose weight on them, which may improve some cardiometabolic markers, but a subset of lean individuals show pronounced rises in LDL cholesterol and related atherogenic markers during carbohydrate restriction. Emerging evidence also indicates that gut microbial changes may contribute to altered lipid metabolism, although this area is still developing and should not be overstated.
Highly restrictive “detox” or “alternative” dietary programs are unsupported by clinical evidence and may be nutritionally unbalanced and thus harmful. They might be claimed to “purify” the body or reset metabolism, but heart health is better served by sustainable patterns that improve LDL cholesterol, support fibre intake, and minimise excess saturated fat.
What does all that mean in practice? Here are a few simple rules that follow from the new insights:
- Do not over-emphasize dietary cholesterol (e.g., eggs) as a primary driver of cardiovascular risk.
- Focus instead on reducing saturated and trans fat intake.
- Replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats (e.g., use olive oil, eat nuts and seeds).
- Increase intake of soluble fibre (e.g., oats, legumes, vegetables) to help lower LDL cholesterol.
- Consider overall dietary patterns rather than judging single foods in isolation.
- Recognize that individual responses to dietary cholesterol vary; tailor intake accordingly if lipid levels are a concern.
- Include foods with consistent cardiovascular benefit, such as oily fish, plant-based foods, and whole grains.
- Be cautious with low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diets, particularly if lean, and monitor lipid profiles if following such diets.
- Prioritize sustainable, balanced eating patterns over restrictive or extreme diets.
- Avoid “detox” or alternative dietary regimens lacking clinical evidence, as they are ineffective or harmful.
Key references
- Carson JAS, Lichtenstein AH, Anderson CAM, et al. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular risk: a science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e39–e53.
- Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1279–1290.
- Hooper L, Martin N, Jimoh OF, et al. Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(5):CD011730.
- British Heart Foundation. Healthy eating – reduce your risk of developing heart disease. 2023. – Search
- NHS. Facts about fat. 2022. – Search
- Ketogenic Diet reduces friendly gut bacteria and raises cholesterol levels
- Gut bacteria can break down cholesterol | Nature Reviews Cardiology
- Healthy eating: applying All Our Health – GOV.UK
For some time, I had suspected that the stupidity of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. runs deep. Just how deep, is a surprise even to me. Let me give you just two examples from a choice of plenty:
EXAMPLE No 1
In January 2026, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released far-reaching new Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030. They dramatically “flipped the food pyramid” by encouraging Americans to consume red meat and whole milk, sources previously discouraged by public health experts because of their contributios to heart disease and other chronic conditions.
“American households must prioritize whole, nutrient-dense foods—protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains—and dramatically reduce highly processed foods. This is how we Make America Healthy Again”, Kennedy commented. “Thanks to the bold leadership of President Trump, this edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will reset federal nutrition policy, putting our families and children first as we move towards a healthier nation,” Secretary Rollins said. “At long last, we are realigning our food system to support American farmers, ranchers, and companies that grow and produce real food. Farmers and ranchers are at the forefront of the solution, and that means more protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains on American dinner tables.”
The scientific community responded with outrage, calling it a reckless abandonment of evidence-based nutrition and science. Promoting saturated fats and red meats contradicts decades of medical research and will increase cardiovascular disease rates across the US.
EXAMPLE No 2
In a hilarious revelation Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took to Joe Rogan’s podcast to inform the world that the UK has become a dystopian nightmare. “It’s like the Soviets. It’s like Kafka,” he declared in February 27, 2026.
The trigger for this epiphany? David Lammy, the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister, announced plans to scrap jury trials for offenses carrying less than three years imprisonment. Instead, a judge will decide. Lammy felt that this was necessary because of the backlog that meant cases could not be heard for years. RFK Jr., ever the historian, reminded listeners that the UK was once the “birthplace of Magna Carta”. Now, according to him, the UK is a “dictatorship over speech restrictions”.
Joe Rogan was horrified. “Existential threat to freedom of thought!” he cried, as if the UK had outlawed laughter or something. The pair seemed genuinely shocked that a country with a functioning parliament and a Prime Minister might have different ideas about justice than, say, a certain American podcast audience.
The comparison to Kafka is particularly weird: Kafka’s The Trial features a man arrested by a mysterious bureaucracy for an unspecified crime. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. seems to be arguing that replacing juries with judges in minor cases is the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union. A bold claim, especially from someone whose vis part of a government that checks people’s social media upon arrival – one of several reasons why I would never travel to the US, while these people are in power. But not as bold as Kennedy’s Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines. In his 2025 HHS confirmation hearing, Senator Raphael Warnock pressed him on statements likening the CDC to a “Nazi death camp,” which RFK Jr. denied, claiming he was comparing injury rates rather than the institution itself.
Perhaps the real dystopia is RFK Jr. spending his time lecturing other countries while the US degrades into a Kafkaesque nightmare of its own?
I remember it well: when I was a kid, I went every day in the evening to a nearby farm to fetch a litre of luke warm raw milk. I was lucky; I never caught tuberculosis or any other infection that is transmitted in this way.
Today, raw milk has become the centrepiece of a heated debate. Once only on rural homesteads, unpasteurized milk is now being championed by a powerful coalition of political figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., promoters of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and “trad wife” influencers. This movement frames raw milk as a “magical health secret” suppressed by a corrupt establishment. However, beneath the veneer of “food freedom” and nostalgic aesthetics lies a complex interplay of populism, nutritional misinformation, outright BS, and significant public health risks.
The issue is largely fuelled by RFK Jr. and his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) idiocy. For him, raw milk is less of a dietary preference and more of a symbol of resistance against federal overreach. He frequently characterizes the FDA’s restrictions on raw milk as a “war on farmers” and an example of “regulatory capture.” In his worm-eaten mind, federal agencies are not protecting the public from pathogens but are instead protecting the profits of “Big Dairy” by criminalising traditional foodways. By pushing for the legalisation of raw milk, Kennedy taps into a deep-seated distrust of institutions that has intensified in the post-pandemic US. He frames the choice to drink unpasteurized milk as a fundamental civil liberty, positioning himself as a defender of the individual against a nasty “nanny state.”
Simultaneously, the “trad wife” and SCAM movements are providing the lifestyle framework for raw milk promotion. On social media, influencers portray a return to traditional domesticity, featuring sourdough starters, hand-churned butter, and glass jars of creamy, raw milk. In this context, raw milk provides a “moral signal” for those who have little else to worry about. What counts is the willingness to go to great lengths to bypass industrial food systems and provide “pure” and “natural” nourishment for the whole family – because pasteurisation “kills” the milk, destroying vital enzymes and probiotics that could cure everything from asthma to lactose intolerance.
As soon as these claims are held up to scientific scrutiny, the “magic” begins to dissipate. The core argument – namely that raw milk is nutritionally superior – is largely unsupported by sound evidence. Modern pasteurisation is as non-invasive as possible. While heat slightly reduces levels of Vitamin C, milk is not a primary source of that vitamin anyway. Moreover, the levels of protein, calcium, and essential minerals remain virtually identical to the raw product. Furthermore, the valuable “enzymes” touted by advocates are enzymes that the human stomach acid neutralizes before they can be absorbed.
On top of all this, there is potential for serious harm. The most dangerous aspect of the raw milk nonsense is the dismissal of microbial risk. Before pasteurisation became standard in the early 20th century, milk was a leading cause of tuberculosis, typhoid, and scarlet fever. Today, even on the most meticulously managed farms, cows can naturally shed E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria and contamination can occur in a split second during the milking process. The rise of the H5N1 (Bird Flu) virus in dairy cattle in recent years has added a lethal new variable; while pasteurisation effectively inactivates the virus, raw milk remains a potential vector for human infection. A recent study showed, for instance, that unpasteurized milk, consumed by only 3.2% of the population, and cheese, consumed by only 1.6% of the population, caused 96% of illnesses caused by contaminated dairy products.
So, the current raw milk frenzy puts a spotlight on the ignorance of those who support it. While raw milk is marketed as a health-conscious return to nature, it is primarily a brainless and unnecessary revival of long-forgotten risks. Pasteurization is – after immunisation (that is also rejected by these clowns) – one the most successful public health interventions in history. Advocates are not just embracing “food freedom”; they are embracing a level of risk that modern medicine spent a century eliminating.
The US “Health Freedom Movement” (HFM) is a coalition of activists, alternative practitioners, supplement and device manufacturers, and libertarian or populist politicians who oppose strong government regulation of healthcare. They claim to defend the individual’s right to choose any treatment or product they consider beneficial, especially so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Its roots lie in resistance to medical licensing and in movements around homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic, which often portrayed organized medicine as a cartel limiting patient choice. The John Birch Society and other conservative groups use the term to oppose fluoridation, vaccination mandates, and federal health programs. During 1990s–2000s, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, backed by a coalition of supplement companies and “health freedom” advocates, limited the FDA’s pre‑market control over supplements; libertarian politicians like Ron Paul and figures such as Prince/King Charles support aspects of this agenda. More recently, anti‑vaccination activism, opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and then COVID‑19 mandates and vaccines gave the HFM a major boost and re-grouped as “medical freedom” or “health freedom” across partisan lines, but with a strong right‑wing infrastructure.
The HFM’s main players include politicians (e.g. Ron Paul, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and media personalities (e.g. Gary Null, Kevin Trudeau, and many supplement‑selling influencers as well as SCAM doctors). Many of them have strong financial ties to supplement, wellness, or SCAM industry.
The HFM’s stated aims sound liberal: individual autonomy, informed and access to SCAM. In practice, however, its core goals are sharper and consistently deregulatory:
- Limit or abolish pre‑market safety and efficacy requirements for supplements and many SCAMs.
- Oppose or roll back mandatory childhood vaccination, COVID‑19 vaccination and mask rules, school-entry requirements, and sometimes even basic disease‑reporting obligations.
- Resist overarching government health programs, including water fluoridation, electronic health records, and population‑level data sharing, which they portray as surveillance or tyranny.
- Create broad legal shields for all types of SCAM practitioners and restrict the enforcement powers of medical boards and public‑health authorities.
While the rhetoric centres on “freedom” and “choice”, the policy is liberating commercial interests from evidence‑based standards and oversight. For this, the HFM uses a mixture of advocacy and classic populist agitation:
- Legislative lobbying: Drafting model bills that redefine or exempt SCAM practitioners, weaken vaccination requirements, and restrict state health departments’ emergency powers.
- Litigation: Groups such as the “Health Freedom Defense Fund” use lawsuits against mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and school or airline rules both as legal tools and as high‑visibility fundraising and mobilization devices.
- Electoral politics: Endorsing and funding candidates who promise to “reign in” public‑health agencies, defund WHO, or defy CDC guidance; in some places, anti‑vaccine activists have captured local hospital or school boards.
- Media ecosystems: Conferences, podcasts, Substack newsletters, and “documentaries” circulate narratives of regulatory capture, big‑pharma malfeasance, and heroic mavericks, often entwined with sales of supplements or courses.
These activities reinforce distrust of science and conventional medicine and thus create a host of issues and problems:
- Selective use of autonomy: Autonomy is invoked vigorously when opposing vaccines, fluoridation, or regulation of supplements, but tend to disregard it when patients are misled by misinformation, coercive marketing, or opaque conflicts of interest in the alternative sector itself. Yet protection against deception and unsafe products is essential for meaningful autonomy; “choice” among misrepresented options is not genuine choice.
- Systematic downplaying of risk and evidence: The HFM treats lack of evidence of benefit as if it were evidence of safety and legitimacy and often dismisses adverse‑event data. Regulators and critics must meet impossibly high standards, while proponents of SCAM face essentially none.
- Commercial conflicts of interest: Many leading voices within the HFM derive substantial income from selling SCAM. The HFM criticizes “Big Pharma” conflicts of interest while largely ignoring or concealing its own.
- Wilful ignorance of collective harms: Opposition to vaccination, masking, and quarantine treats infections as purely individual matters, neglecting that infectious disease risk is shared and that one person’s “choice” can impose morbidity and mortality on others. Yet any rights framework that leaves no space for legitimate public‑health constraints on individual choice is incompatible with controlling epidemics.
- Alliance with broader conspiracist and extremist currents: Sections of the HFM have fused with anti‑globalist, anti‑UN/WHO, and sometimes far‑right political currents, amplifying conspiracy narratives and distrust that spill over into many domains beyond health. Thus they corrode trust in institutions that are necessary for coordinating large‑scale health responses.
In a nutshell, the HFM is a deregulatory, commercially entangled project that uses the language of liberty to erode evidence‑based medicine and to normalise quackery as well as anti‑vaccination politics. To put it bluntly: the HFM does not seem to operate in the best interest of either the individual patient or the collective public health.
Trump and his allies have produced many claims that experts have flagged as false, misleading, or dangerously unscientific. Below is a (probably incomplete) selection:
- In April 2020, Trump suggested during a press briefing that scientists explore whether injecting or “bringing disinfectant inside the body” could treat COVID‑19. Medical experts immediately warned that this would be dangerous or lethal.
- At the same briefing, he also floated the idea of “hitting the body with a very powerful light,” including using UV light inside the body to kill the virus, a suggestion that clinicians stressed had no scientific basis and could be harmful.
- Throughout 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed the virus would “just disappear” like a “miracle,” even as case counts and deaths surged.
- He heavily promoted hydroxychloroquine as a “game changer” long after clinical trials had shown it to be ineffective against COVID‑19 and associated with serious adverse effects.
- In February 2020, Trump claimed the number of COVID‑19 cases in the US would soon be “down to close to zero.”
- Trump frequently claimed that COVID‑19 was “just like the flu,” despite the fact that its mortality rate and impact on health systems were substantially higher.
- In late 2025 and early 2026, the Trump administration falsely claimed that acetaminophen use during pregnancy was linked to a much higher risk of autism, despite the lack of clear evidence and warnings from experts that this messaging was misleading.
- The administration also promoted leucovorin as a treatment for autism, a claim that has little robust evidence and is not supported by mainstream medical guidelines.
- Following the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS in late 2024, federal vaccine guidance was rolled back in several areas, including flu recommendations for some groups and changes to how RSV and other vaccines were positioned. This created confusion and encouraged a further “decoupling” of some state health policies from traditional CDC guidance.
- Trump has claimed that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, a statement that has no credible scientific basis.
- Trump has claimed that sea levels will rise by only “1/8 of an inch over the next 200 to 300 years,” contradicting widely accepted projections that show substantially higher rise even over the next 30 years along US coasts.
- Trump has also claimed that the human body is like a battery with a finite amount of energy, and that exercise is harmful because it “depletes” that energy, a view that runs counter to mainstream physiology and public‑health guidance.
- Trump claimed that drinking fizzy diet soda “kills cancer cells” because the drinks kill grass when spilt, implying they might do the same to cancer inside the body.
- In 2026, Dr. Mehmet Oz, as head of CMS, falsely claimed that 5 million New Yorkers were using Medicaid personal‑care services—nearly 75% of all enrolees—when the actual figure is far lower.
- RFK Jr. has spent decades claiming that thimerosal, a mercury‑based preservative in some vaccines, causes autism. Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines in 2001 as a precaution, yet autism rates continued to rise, and large studies have found no causal link.
- RFK Jr. frequently claims that no vaccines have ever been tested against a true saline placebo. In fact, many vaccines have been tested against saline placebos in clinical trials, and others were tested against earlier versions or standard care, in line with evolving ethical standards.
- RFK Jr. pushed for the removal of fluoride from all US water systems, falsely labelling it an “industrial waste” and a key cause of lower IQ, bone fractures, and cancer, despite the bulk of evidence supporting its safety and dental benefits at standard levels.
- RFK Jr. has also falsely claimed that polyunsaturated fats such as canola or soybean oil are toxic and the primary driver of obesity and inflammation in America, a view that contradicts large‑scale dietary and epidemiological data.
- RFK Jr. has falsely claimed that WiFi causes “leaky brain” and that 5G is a tool for mass surveillance and causes cancer, assertions that have no support from mainstream science.
- RFK Jr. has become an advocate for the federal legalisation of raw milk, downplaying the risks of Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. Yet pasteurization remains a cornerstone of public‑health measures to prevent foodborne illness.
- RFK Jr. has wrongly suggested a link between the use of SSRIs and the rise in mass shootings, a claim not supported by credible data.
- Janette Nesheiwat (JN), a Fox News contributor and Trump’s nominee for US Surgeon General, withdrew her nomination in May 2025 following allegations that she had significantly misrepresented her credentials. Her official bio and LinkedIn profile claimed she received her medical degree from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; in fact she attended the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten.
- JN repeatedly described herself as “double board‑certified,” but investigators found verified certification only in family medicine.
- Casey Means (CM), Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General, is a Stanford‑educated physician who left surgical residency before completion and whose medical license has been inactive since 2019. She has not practiced clinical medicine in years and has limited experience overseeing large‑scale public‑health systems.
- CM has built a profile as a health‑tech entrepreneur and co‑founder of Levels, promoting “functional medicine” and the MAHA movement.
- CM has made strong claims that continuous glucose monitoring and metabolic optimization can prevent or “cure” a wide range of modern diseases, a view that overstates the evidence and oversimplifies complex chronic conditions.
As indicated in the title of this post: if you waant to say healthy, it is wise to ignore the incompetent president and his equally incompetent cronies.
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
Easter is the time to surprise our fellow humans, preferably with something nice. One does not need to be a clairvoyant to predict that many of us will use chocolate for this purpose. Overindulgence in chocolate is therefore not a rare event today.
How bad is that for your health?
Chocolate has both potential benefits and risks for our wellbeing. What makes the difference between good and bad are:
- the type (dark vs. milk/white),
- the quantity,
- individual health factors.
Its high (cocoa >70%) content antioxidants may improve heart health by lowering blood pressure, enhancing blood flow, and reducing LDL cholesterol oxidation. Some studies link moderate intake of dark chokolate (e.g., 20-45g weekly) to lower cardiovascular disease risk, better cognitive function, and mood boosts via endorphins and theobromine. It might also aid insulin sensitivity and reduce stroke risk in observational data. Some studies suggest small amounts (e.g., 30g daily of 70%+ cocoa) may reduce depressive symptoms by 50-70% compared to non-chocolate-eaters, via compounds like phenylethylamine, theobromine, and serotonin precursors that boost endorphins and calm inflammation. But, be warned: the evidence is promising but not definitive; large trials show inconsistent results, and overeating negates perks via weight gain.
Its high calorie, sugar and fat content promote weight gain, obesity, and tooth decay. Regular consumption can trigger migraines in sensitive people due to tyramine and phenylethylamine, and may weaken bone density over time. Multiple studies link chocolate consumption to increased acne lesions, especially in young adults. One study found men eating chocolate capsules developed more comedones, papules, and pustules within days, with dose-dependent effects. Mechanisms include sugar-induced insulin spikes boosting sebum, cocoa’s promotion of inflammation (e.g., IL-1β) and corneocyte desquamation, plus bacterial colonization on skin surfaces.
The conclusion, I guess, is that our habit of stuffing ourselves with chocolate over Easter is not altogether healthy, particularly if we consider that Easter eggs are often filled with the worst type. Yet it might still be healthier than what they do in Papua New Guinea.
In this country, “Easter tobacco trees” replace chocolate eggs, unsuited to the tropical climate, with trees or branches adorned by tobacco sticks and cigarette packets as communal offerings. The churches erect these “Easter tobacco trees” for Easter Sunday services. Congregants then decorate the trees with tobacco products before distributing them post-service as gifts or “treats,” akin to egg hunts elsewhere. Feasts of leftovers follow, blending Christian ritual with cultural adaptation.
Personally, I must say that I prefer chocolate overindulgence to proven carcinogens.
Large-scale randomized trials have found that multivitamin–multimineral (MVM) supplements and cocoa flavanols may benefit several age-related chronic conditions among older adults, but it remains unclear whether these two supplements directly slow the biological aging process. This prespecified ancillary study evaluated the 2-year effect of a daily MVM (Centrum Silver) and cocoa extract (500 mg cocoa flavanols per day, including 80 mg (−)-epicatechin) on five DNA methylation measures of biological aging (PCHannum, PCHorvath, PCPhenoAge, PCGrimAge and DunedinPACE) among 958 participants (482 women and 476 men) in the Cocoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS).
Compared with placebo, daily MVM supplementation modestly reduced the rate of increase of second-generation epigenetic clocks, with a between-group difference in yearly change of −0.113 years (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.205 to −0.020; P = 0.017) for PCGrimAge and −0.214 years (−0.410 to −0.019; P = 0.032) for PCPhenoAge. MVM had a stronger effect on PCGrimAge among those with accelerated biological aging at baseline (−0.236 [−0.380 to −0.091]).
Compared with those with normal or decelerated biological aging (−0.013 [−0.130 to 0.104]; P = 0.018 for interaction). Cocoa extract did not have an effect on the five epigenetic clocks tested. Although the statistically significant but small effects of daily MVM supplementation on slowing biological aging are encouraging, additional studies are needed to determine the clinical relevance of daily MVM supplementation on epigenetic clocks and whether such effects can help explain the beneficial effects of MVM supplementation on aging-related chronic conditions.
Experts who were not involved in the new study urged caution. While the researchers saw an effect with two epigenetic clocks, three other epigenetic clocks included in the study showed no statistically significant change to their speed. “The multivitamin produced small favorable changes in two epigenetic aging markers, but not across all the clocks that were measured,” says José Ordovás, a professor of nutrition and genetics at Tufts University. “That makes the finding interesting, but it is still far from showing that multivitamins broadly slow aging or improve longevity.”
One of the study’s strengths is that the researchers carefully matched the characteristics of people in the vitamin group to those in the placebo group, says Zachary Clayton, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz, who was also not involved with the research. “However, the magnitude of the observed differences was modest, and their clinical significance remains uncertain,” he says. The study doesn’t take a person’s exact diet or physical activity during the two-year period into account, and those factors can’t be ruled out as having an effect on biological aging, he adds.
Still, in nutrition science, randomized clinical trials of this kind are rare. They aren’t generally required to sell supplements like multivitamins, even if the makers claim specific health benefits. Additional trials, the authors note, “are needed to confirm these findings and determine the role of [multivitamins] in extending healthy aging not only among older adults, but also across the lifespan.”
In addition to these criticisms, I would add a few further points:
- Scientists emphasize that “biological age” as measured by DNA methylation is a biomarker, a surrogate endpoint, but not a direct health outcome. It is currently unknown if a 2-month reduction in an epigenetic clock actually translates into a lower risk of disease, disability, or a longer life.
- The 2-year duration of the study is a great achievement for such a trial; yet it still is considered relatively short for assessing biological aging, which is a process that accumulates over decades. Longer-term data is needed to see if these small changes persist or lead to meaningful health differences.
- The fact that those study participants who started “biologically older” saw the most benefit could be a statistical artifact known as “regression to the mean” rather than a true systemic effect of the supplements.
- The study participants were primarily of Caucasian descent and over the age of 60. This limits the ability to generalize the findings to younger populations or diverse ethnic groups.
- Epigenetic alterations are only one of several “hallmarks of aging.” Because the study did not measure other factors like DNA damage, protein stability, or cellular communication, it provides only a very narrow “snapshot” of the aging process.
- The multivitamin might not have “slowed aging” in a general sense, but could have corrected minor, undiagnosed nutrient deficiencies in some participants, which then reflected positively on their biomarkers. If that were true, supplementation of non-deficient volunteers would have no effect.
