doctors
We all have seen scenes where Trump is dozing or falling asleep in the middle of something important and in front of running cameras. We also have seen situations where he seems to be as high as a kite, rambling endlessly, repeating utter nonsense out of context without being able to stop himself.
Such contrasting behavior might suggest that, on occasion, he is on some kind of stimulant, while, in other situations, when he did not take drugs, he has a hard time staying awake. But is there any evidence for a drug habit?
I asked “GROK” and received the following answer:
There is no definitive evidence that Donald Trump takes specific stimulants. Allegations have circulated, particularly about Adderall, based on anecdotal claims from former associates like Noel Casler, who worked on The Apprentice, and observations of Trump’s behavior, such as sniffing during 2016 debates or dilated pupils in certain speeches. These claims suggest possible use of stimulants like Adderall or phentermine, often tied to speculation about ADHD or energy boosts. A 2024 Pentagon report also noted the Trump White House Medical Unit dispensed large quantities of modafinil (Provigil) and other controlled substances with lax oversight, but it didn’t confirm Trump’s personal use.
On the other hand, Trump has denied drug use, and his physician during his first term, Dr. Ronny Jackson, reported no signs of substance abuse. Some argue behaviors attributed to stimulants could reflect ADHD or stress rather than drug use. Without medical records or direct confirmation, these remain unverified allegations. Always approach such claims with skepticism, as they often stem from political biases or incomplete information.
Yes, I do always approach such claims with skepticism, thank you! But perhaps one should also have skepticism toward Trumps own affirmations of being ‘clean’. I have seen too many druggies who swore to me to not take anything except the occasional Aspirin.
And what about Dr. Ronny Jackson? Is he trustworthy?
Let’s ask GROK again.
Here is the (slightly shortened) answer:
Assessing Dr. Ronny Jackson’s trustworthiness requires examining his professional history, allegations against him, and public sentiment, while critically evaluating available evidence. Below is a balanced analysis based on verified information, avoiding reliance on unconfirmed claims.
Background
Dr. Ronny Jackson is a former U.S. Navy rear admiral, White House physician (2006–2018), and current U.S. Representative for Texas’s 13th Congressional District (since 2021). He served as Physician to the President under Barack Obama and Donald Trump, earning praise for his medical service, including a clean bill of health for Trump in 2018. His military awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal and Legion of Merit, reflecting a distinguished career.
Allegations and Controversies
Jackson’s trustworthiness has been questioned due to several incidents:
1 2018 VA Nomination and Misconduct Allegations:
- In March 2018, Trump nominated Jackson for Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The nomination was withdrawn in April 2018 amid allegations of professional misconduct, including:
- Excessive Drinking: Reports alleged Jackson consumed alcohol on duty, including during overseas trips, and once knocked on a female subordinate’s hotel room door while intoxicated, creating discomfort.
- Overprescribing Medication: Nicknamed “Candyman,” Jackson was accused of dispensing drugs like Ambien and Provigil without proper prescriptions, earning a reputation for lax medical practices.
- Hostile Work Environment: A 2021 Pentagon Inspector General report found Jackson berated subordinates, made sexual and denigrating comments, and fostered a workplace of “fear and intimidation.” Only 13 of 60 interviewed colleagues reported positive experiences.
- Response: Jackson denied these allegations, calling them “false and fabricated” and a “political hit job” tied to his Trump support. He claimed pride in his work environment and rejected accusations of on-duty drinking or sexual impropriety.
- Outcome: The Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs postponed his confirmation hearing, and Jackson withdrew, citing the controversy as a distraction.
2 Navy Demotion (2022):
- In July 2022, the Navy demoted Jackson from rear admiral to captain, citing “substantiated allegations” from the 2018 Inspector General investigation, including inappropriate behavior and drinking on duty.
- Jackson continued to present himself as an admiral on his congressional website until at least March 2024, raising questions about transparency.
3 Medical License Status:
- Jackson’s Virginia medical license expired in May 2020, and his Florida license, listed as “military active,” is only valid for practice in military facilities and expires in January 2025. He has no Texas medical license.
- Posts on X have claimed Jackson is “unlicensed” and question his credibility as a medical source, particularly regarding his 2024 memo on Trump’s health after an assassination attempt. These posts reflect public skepticism but are not conclusive evidence.
4 2023 Rodeo Incident:
- In July 2023, Jackson was briefly detained at a Texas rodeo while attempting to assist a teenager having a seizure. Body camera footage showed him arguing with officers, using profanity, and claiming to be an ER doctor, despite his expired licenses. A sheriff’s report suggested he appeared intoxicated, which Jackson denied. He apologized for his language but defended his intent to help.
- Texas’s Good Samaritan law protects unlicensed individuals providing emergency aid, so his actions were legally permissible, but the incident fueled perceptions of impulsiveness or unprofessionalism.
Critical Analysis
- Credibility Concerns:
- The Pentagon Inspector General’s report, based on 78 witnesses, provides substantial evidence of inappropriate behavior, undermining Jackson’s claims of a positive work environment. The Navy’s demotion further validates these findings, as it is a rare and serious action.
- His continued use of the “admiral” title post-demotion suggests a lack of transparency, potentially eroding trust.
- The “Candyman” allegations and lax drug-dispensing practices, if true, indicate a breach of medical ethics, though frequent or occasional drinking on duty, even if not conclusively proven, raises questions about judgment in high-stakes roles.
- Medical License: While Jackson’s expired licenses do not legally prevent him from offering emergency aid (as at the rodeo), his claim of being a “board-certified ER doctor” in 2023 could mislead the public about his current medical authority. His Florida license’s “military active” status limits its scope, and his lack of a Texas license may reduce confidence in his medical pronouncements, such as the 2024 Trump memo.
- Political Bias: Jackson’s strong alignment with Trump may color perceptions of his trustworthiness. Supporters view him as a victim of partisan attacks, while critics see his denials as deflecting accountability. The Inspector General’s nonpartisan investigation, however, lends weight to the allegations.
- Public Sentiment: Posts on X reflect distrust among some users, labeling Jackson as “unreliable” or “not credible” due to his license status and past allegations. These sentiments, while not evidence, highlight a polarized public view.
Conclusion
Dr. Ronny Jackson’s trustworthiness is a mixed picture. His distinguished military and medical career, including service to three presidents, demonstrates competence and dedication. However, substantiated allegations of workplace misconduct, drinking on duty, and lax medical practices, corroborated by a Pentagon investigation and Navy demotion, significantly damage his credibility. His expired medical licenses and misrepresentation of his naval rank further erode trust, particularly in medical or official contexts. While Jackson denies wrongdoing and enjoys support from Trump and his constituents, the weight of evidence suggests caution in relying on his judgment or statements without corroboration.
For a definitive assessment, primary sources like the full Pentagon Inspector General report or court records (if any) would be ideal, but the available evidence leans against unqualified trust. If you’re evaluating Jackson’s trustworthiness for a specific context (e.g., medical advice, political representation), I can tailor the analysis further—let me know!
_________________________
So, does Trump take drugs?
We cannot know for sure.
But in a way, it would be better (for the world and for our chances to survive the next 4 years) than the other explanation of his often extremely eratic behavior: dementia.
In this article, two German researchers investigated the persuasions of homeopathy users:
(a) whether and how homeopathy should be used to treat serious conditions like cancer,
(b) the role of science and the relevance of scientific evidence regarding homeopathy.
Using latent profile analysis (N = 225), they identified subgroups of homeopathy users that differ in their normative beliefs about the use of homeopathy in serious conditions:
- supporters of standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions (~9%),
- people who are open toward standalone use (~43%),
- supporters of supplementary use (~35%),
- supporters of both supplementary use and non-use in serious conditions (~13%).
The findings indicate that subgroups that supported or were open toward the standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions held the most negative attitudes toward science.
The authors concluded that despite being a minority in our sample, homeopathy users that support the standalone use of homeopathy to treat serious conditions like cancer clearly exist. These individuals are at risk of harming their own (and others’) health. In combination with the large subgroup of undecided users that emerged in our sample, these findings highlight the need for interventions aimed at preventing harmful homeopathy use. Most likely, before factual communication of scientific evidence can have a persuasive effect, negative attitudes toward science among homeopathy users need to be targeted.
The authors pont out that their findings highlight the need for interventions aimed at preventing the use of homeopathy in the treatment of serious conditions. Such interventions could take place at both a structural (e.g. legal restrictions or stricter sanctions for practitioners that conduct or allow such treatments, better financing of evidence-based medicine so that doctors have more time for their patients) and individual level (e.g. educational efforts targeting homeopathy users). Regarding the latter, it needs to be kept in mind that both subgroups most in need of interventions (i.e. the subgroups supporting or being open toward the standalone use of homeopathy in serious conditions) indicated the most negative attitudes toward science: They cared the least about scientific evidence regarding homeopathy and perceived science to be the most corrupt and limited. Given these characteristics, simply informing members of these subgroups about the scientific consensus regarding homeopathy—as is typically recommended in the psychological literature to address beliefs in conflict with scientific evidence —might not be an effective strategy. Instead, interventions might first have to create a shared understanding of the importance and value of scientific evidence and evidence-based treatments. This might entail, for example, a more foundational education about how the scientific method works, and why it is superior to, for example, relying on personal experiences and observations in making causal judgments.
WISE WORDS INDEED!
We probably have all heard these claims:
- Conventional doctors under-rate the importance of nutrition for our health.
- They know nothing about the subject.
- Medical schools completely ignore the importance of nutrition.
- Only practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) know enough about nutrition.
I have to admit that such cliches have gone on my nerves for a very long time. So, let me try to address them and put the record straight:
- This claim is an unwarranted generalization. Some doctors may indeed under-rate the importance of nutrition for our health. Many doctors under-rate many important issues in many situations. Some doctors are negligent or unmotivated or poorly traained. Some doctors are just bad! If your doctor falls in this category, please change doctor!
- Another unwarranted generalization. Most doctors know a lot about nutrition and are competent to advise you what is best for your needs.
- I have taught at 5 medical schools in 3 countries and can assure you that medical schools do not ignore the importance of nutrition. It is true that there may not be dedicated courses for students on this subject. Arguably, that would not be productive. Nutrition is usually taught in the context of the disease with which it can effectively help. For instance, the treatment and prevention of diabetes needs a specific diet, so do several liver, kidney, heart, skin conditions, obesity, various forms of malnutrition, etc. In our experience, this approach to medical education is more productive than a dedicated course on nutrition.
- It is true that many SCAM practitioners pride themselves to be competent in advising their patients about nutrition. It is also true that most give such advice. And it is allso true that, according to my experience, much of this advice is nonsense, not based on good evidence or even counter-productive. I am not aware of reliable data on this specific point and therefore added the caveat “in my experience”. If anyone knows about solid evidence on this point, please let me know.
The ex-influencer and recent nominee for US Surgeon General, Casey Means, is one of those who endlessly bemoans that medical schools are negligent about nutrition. She wrote, for instance: “I took zero nutrition courses in medical school.” To this, I cannot resist replying that
- firstly, she should have paid more attention when nutrition was dealt with in the context of all the other courses that she hopefully did attend,
- secondly she could (and should) have booked herself on one of the many postgraduate courses, particularly if she was aware that she had missed important sections of her learning schedule.
Let me conclude my rant with stating:
- Nutrition is an essental part of evidence-based medicine.
- Almost all the evidence on the subject originates from mainstream research.
- Nutritional advice from SCAM practitioners, influencers, etc. is often not evidence-based.
The French newspaper ‘L’Express’ just published an open letter that might be of considerable relevance to the readers of this blog. Here is my translation:
Since 2016, all private sector employers have been required by law to offer supplementary health insurance to their employees. As a result, 96% of the population is now covered. The costs for this are also borne by each household, social security contributions and common taxes used to fund the general health insurance scheme.The same obligation applies since 2020 for the State in respect of its civil servants, and the French Ministry of Education, the country’s largest public employer, has just signed contracts with MGEN and CNP assurance. This contract, which complies with the ministerial order implementing the law and setting out the cover provided, is a cause for concern, as it provides for coverage of non-conventional healthcare practices (e.g. homeopathy, osteopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, chiropractic, relaxation therapy, etc.). According to the Ministry of Health itself, most of these practices have ‘not been the subject of scientific or clinical studies demonstrating their modes of action, their effects, their effectiveness or their harmlessness’.This coverage would reinforce the general public’s belief that these treatments are effective. This is happening while proven therapies such as psychology, prescription sport and dietetics are rarely covered by mutual insurance companies.In a report published in September 2024, the French Senate proposed to counter the sharp rise in complementary health insurance charges by reviewing the coverage of unconventional healthcare practices (so-called alternative medicine, SCAM). According to this report, the cost of these practices has increased fivefold over the last eight years, reaching almost €1 billion in 2023, excluding the cost of spa treatments.
Therapeutic excesses
We support this proposal. It is clear to us that, in addition to being useless, these unproven practices mislead patients as to what constitutes genuinely effective treatments, when in fact they are nothing more than an expenditure that does nothing to improve the health of anyone, at the expense of genuinely beneficial care. What’s more, they expose us to the risk of therapeutic aberrations, or even the abandonment of care in cases where it is necessary.The government says it wants to make savings on health spending. Wouldn’t it be more effective, and also better understood by the general public, to do so by promoting treatments whose effectiveness is supported by a scientific consensus? And would it not be better to stop the reimbursement of unproven practices likely to lead to delays in treatment and health abuses? We need to set a limit on ‘private solidarity’ expenditure, the cost of which continues to rise well above the rate of inflation, particularly for the most vulnerable households and the elderly.
The Ministry’s announcement of initiatives to combat misinformation in the health sector cannot be reconciled with the funding of unconventional therapies, about which Miviludes has repeatedly warned. The work of the Descartes Foundation shows that sensitivity to these practices and sensitivity to esotericism are linked, creating a breeding ground for health misinformation and conspiracy theories.
An individual choice
Mutual insurance companies cannot legitimise wellness practices at the expense of optimum reimbursement for proven treatments. Health issues are everybody’s business, and the most vulnerable should be able to count on national solidarity in the interests of all French people.
The Collectif No FakeMed is calling on the authorities to be rigorous in ensuring that only practices based on scientific knowledge, in both health economics and evidence-based medicine, are covered by the public purse and mutual insurance companies. It is possible to offer a cover for some wellness treatments, but this must be a matter of personal CHOICE, and therefore an option, not an obligation.
Signatories
Institutions and associations:
- Collectif No Fakemed;
- Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs-kinésithérapeutes;
- Conseil national de l’Ordre des Sages Femmes;
- Conseil national de l’Ordre des pédicures-podologues;
- Collectif ‘Vaccins France informations & discussions’;
- Collectif Chanology France; syndicat ReAGJIR.
Individual signatories:
- Pr Agnès Buzyn, ancienne ministre, présidente du think tank Evidences ;
- Dr Pierre de Bremond d’Ars, médecin généraliste et président du Collectif No Fakemed ;
- Isabelle Derringer, présidente du Conseil de l’Ordre des Sages Femmes ;
- Pascale Mathieu, présidente du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Eric May, médecin généraliste, directeur santé Malakoff, président de la Fédération Nationale de Formation des Centres de Santé ;
- Éric Prou, président de l’Ordre national des pédicures podologues ;
- Dr Sophie Augros, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Mehdi Bahaji, anesthésiste-réanimateur ;
- Marie-Ange Barbier, diététicienne, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr Damien Barraud, médecin hospitalier ;
- Karine Brezellec, trésorière adjointe du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Laurent Brindel, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Gérald Bronner, professeur à la Sorbonne, membre de l’Académie nationale de médecine, membre de l’Académie des technologies ;
- Dr Matthieu Calafiore, Maître de conférences des universités, directeur du département de médecine générale de l’Université de Lille ;
- Dr Julie Chastang, médecin généraliste, maîtresse de conférence des universités (Sorbonne Université) ;
- Pr Laurence Compagnon, médecin généraliste ;
- Dominique Costagliola, membre de l’Académie des sciences, directrice de recherche émérite Inserm ;
- Laurent Cordonier, docteur en sciences sociales, Chercheur associé au GEMASS, Sorbonne Université – CNRS (UMR 8598) ;
- Dr Raphaël Dachicourt, président de Réagir ;
- Dr Jeremy Descoux, Cardiologue, Président fondateur du Collectif No Fakemed ;
- Arthur Dian, ancien ostéopathe, M2 en histoire et philosophie des sciences ;
- Jean-François Dumas, secrétaire général du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Pr Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, FMEdSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCP(Edin.) professeur émérite à l’Université d’Exeter;
- Élisabeth Feytit, créatrice du podcast d’éducation à l’esprit critique Méta de Choc ;
- Dr Jean-Jacques Fraslin, médecin généraliste ;
- Roger-Philipe Gachet, Secrétaire Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Julien Gere, neurologue ; Pr André Grimaldi, diabétologue ;
- Florian Gouthière, journaliste scientifique ;
- Dr Nicolas Groëll, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Jérome Grosjean, biologiste ;
- Kalou, créateur de contenu dédié à l’information et la prévention du phénomène sectaire ;
- Jean-Paul Krivine, rédacteur en chef de Science et pseudo-sciences, Association française pour l’information scientifique ;
- Dr Corentin Lacroix, Whydoc, médecin généraliste et vulgarisateur ;
- Marion Lagneau, trésorière du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Guillaume Limousin, ingénieur, docteur en sciences, professeur de mathématiques en collège ;
- Dr Christian Lehmann, médecin généraliste et écrivain ;
- Dr Stéphanie Marsan, médecin généraliste, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ; Dr Elodie Lemarthe, secrétaire générale du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr François Maignen, docteur en pharmacie et statisticien ;
- Dr Hervé Maisonneuve, médecine de santé publique ;
- Gilles Marchiano, secrétaire adjoint du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Pr Matthieu Molimard, professeur de pharmacologie CHU de Bordeaux ;
- Dr François Morel, chirurgien, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr Nathan Peiffer Smadja, infectiologue ;
- Grégoire Perra, enseignant et lanceur d’alerte sur les écoles Steiner-Waldorf et l’anthroposophie ;
- Sylvain Peterlongo, masseur-kinésithérapeute, membre du bureau du collectif No FakeMed ;
- Pr Nicolas Pinsault, vice-président du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Franck Ramus, CNRS ;
- Mathieu Repiquet, étudiant en médecine et en santé publique ;
- Pierre Rigal, secrétaire adjoint du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Laurent Salsac, infirmier, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Natalia Trouiller, lanceuse d’alerte sur les violences sexuelles dans l’Eglise catholique ;
- Stéphanie de Vanssay, enseignante, militante contre les dérives scolaires ;
- Brigitte Vincent, vice-présidente du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Frederic Villebrun, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Nicolas Winter, praticien hospitalier aux urgences pédiatriques Valenciennes et vulgarisateur sur les réseaux To be or not Toubib ;
- Dr Florian Zores, cardiologue.
Yes, this was the (rather sensationalist) headline of a recent article in the Daily Mail that I allegedly wrote. Its unusual genesis might interest some of you.
I was contacted by a journalist who asked for a telephone interview on the subject of chiropractic as well as my recent book. I agreed under the condition that we do this not over the phone but in writing via email. So, he sent me his questions and I supplied the responses; here they are:
· What’s the absolute worst case scenario of seeing a chiropractor?
The worst that can happen is that you die. Certain manipulations that chiropractors regularly do can injure an artery that supplies part of the brain. This would then result in a stroke; and a stroke can of course be fatal. This is what happened, for example, to the American model Katie May. She had pinched a nerve in her neck on a photoshoot and consulted a chiropractor who manipulated her neck. This caused a tear to an artery in her upper spine. The result was a massive stroke of which she died a few days later.
· How did you first become interested in the topic?
I learned hands on spinal manipulation as a junior doctor. Later, as the head of the department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the University of Vienna, we used such techniques routinely. In 1993, I became chair of Complementary Medicine in Exeter, and my task was to scientifically investigate alternative therapies such as chiropractic. Recently, I decided to summarize all our research in a book.
· What did you learn from your research?
In essence, our investigations found that almost all the claims that chiropractors make are unsubstantiated. Their manipulations are not nearly as effective as they claim. More worryingly, they are also not free of risks. About 50% of patients who see a chiropractor suffer from side effects after spinal manipulation. These are usually not severe and disappear after 2 or 3 days. But, in addition, very serious complications like stroke, death, bone fractures, paralysis can also occur. Chiropractors say that these are rare, and I hope they are right, but the truth is that nobody knows because there is no system of monitoring such events. We once asked British neurologists to report cases of neurological complications occurring within 24 hours of cervical spine manipulation over a 12-month period. This unearthed a total of 35 cases. Particularly striking was the fact that none of these cases had previously been reported anywhere. So, the underreporting was exactly 100%. This tells me that, when chiropractors claim there are just a few such incidents, in truth there might be a few hundred or even thousand.
· Is there an especially shocking finding?
What I find particularly unnerving is the way chiropractors regularly disregard medical ethics. Take the issue of informed consent, for example. It means that we all have to fully inform patients about the treatment we plan to give. In the case of chiropractic spinal manipulation, it would need to include that the therapy is of doubtful effectiveness, that other options are more likely to help, and that the treatment carries very frequent minor as well as probably rare major risks. I do understand why chiropractors do often not provide this information – it would chase away most patients and thus impact of their income. At the same time, I feel that chiropractors should not be allowed to violate fundamental principles of medical ethics. This is not in the interest of patients!!!
· Why do you think patients are so keen on chiropractors?
I am not sure that they really are so keen; some are but the vast majority are not. Our own research suggests that, depending on the country, between 7 and 33% of the population see chiropractors. This means that between 93 and 67% have enough sense to avoid chiropractors.
· But what does the evidence actually show about the efficacy of chiropractic?
As it happens our most recent summary has just been published. It concluded that “it is uncertain if chiropractic spinal manipulation is more effective than sham, control, or deep friction massage interventions for patients with headaches” [Is chiropractic spinal manipulation effective for the treatment of cervicogenic, tension-type, or migraine headaches? A systematic review – ScienceDirect]. For other conditions the evidence tends to be even less convincing. The only exception might be chronic low back pain, according to another recent summary [Analgesic effects of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomised trials | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine]. But here too, I would argue that other treatments are safer and cheaper.
· Are some chiropractors worse than others?
The profession is divided into 2 groups, the ‘straights’ and the ‘mixers’. The former believe in all the nonsense their founding father, DD Palmer, proclaimed 120 years ago, including that spinal manipulation is the only treatment for virtually all our ailments, and that vaccinations must be avoided at all cost. The mixers have realized that Palmer was a charlatan of the worst kind, focus on musculoskeletal conditions and use treatments borrowed from physiotherapy. Needless to say that the mixers might be bad, but the straights are even worse.
· What can patients do to keep safe?
Avoid chiropractors, go to a library and read my book.
· If you have backpain or joint pain what can you do instead?
There is lots people can do but advice has to be individualized. By far the best is to prevent back pain from happening. Here advice might include more exercise, loosing weight, changing your mattress, avoiding certain things like heavy lifting, etc. If you are acutely suffering, see a physio or a doctor, keep moving and be aware that over 90% of back pain disappears within a few days regardless of what you do.
________________________
I had insisted that I see his edits before this gets published, and a little while later I received the edited version. To my big surprise, the journalist had transformed the interview into an article allegedly authored by me. I told him that I was uncomfortable with this solution, and we agreed that he would make it clear that the article was merely based on an interview with me. I then revised the article in question and the result was the mentioned article published still naming me as its author but with a footnote: “As told in an interview with Ethan Ennals”
Never a dull day when you research so-called alternative medicine!
King Charles is, as we all know, one of the world’s most subborn (i.e. despite convincing evidence) supporter of homeopathy:
- After managing to get osteopathy and chiropractic regulated by statute, Charles had planned to do the same with homeopathy. Jonathan Dimbleby wrote in 1995: “It is now hoped that a Homeopathy Bill will be laid before the House in 1995 or 1996”
- Charles advocates homeopathy not just for humans but also for animals. Farmers in the UK, for instance, are being taught how to treat their livestock with homeopathy “by kind permission of His Royal Highness, The Prince Of Wales”
- Ainsworth, the UK homeopathic pharmacy, carries Charles’ royal warrant.
- Charles often supports homeopathic events with his presence and speeches. For instance, he opened the Glasgow Homeopathic hospital.
- The Smallwood report commissioned by Charles concluded that millions of pounds could be saved, if only the NHS used more homeopathy.
- The College of Medicine and Integrated Medicine of which Charles is a patron regularly promotes homeopathy.
- Charles regularly lobbied politicians urging them to make more homeopathy available via the NHS.
- In 2019, the Faculty of Homeopathy announced that His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales had accepted to become Patron of the Faculty of Homeopathy.
About a year ago, it was announced that the King is suffering from cancer. Since then, his illness is almost a daily subject of news and speculation. From what we hear, Charles is coping famously and well on the way to recovery (at least that is what I sincerely hope). Many who discuss the subject of Charles’ cancer are convinced that his relatively good health can only have one reason:
HOMEOPATHY
They are convinced that his treatment plan is prominently or even exclusively based on homeopathy. Here are some statements that I recently picked up on ‘X’:
- King Charles cured his cancer with herbal remedies & homeopathy & didn’t shed a hair like his DIL, if true they had cancer
- King Charles uses homeopathy. Is for his cancer in Bangalore.
- He hasn’t been sick at all ,he uses homeopathy and nobody that uses homeopathy will die of cancer .Was all to push a cancer so called vax ,like the other so called vaccines !!William unfortunately is more of the same ,and also Charles isn’t king !!
- Homeopathy . It is the only guaranteed cure for Cancer and majority of chronic illnesses worldwide proved. Although sneared at by our guilty House of Lords Health Committee. HRH King Charles was the patron of Homeopathic council for many many years, why is that ?
- King Charles has cancer diagnosis and elects to use natural remedy and Kate Middleton has cancer and opts for chemotherapy. I think that is weird. I understand the monarchy has always sought homeopathy as a first route for treatment and pharmaceutical as a last resort.
- Told my mom i think I have bone cancer and now shes making me eat onions is this the homeopathy stuff that king charles guy is doing
- As an Avid Homeopathy Enthusiast King Charles now has the superpower to cure cancer.
Similar hints can be found in articles about Charles’ cancer, e.g.: King Charles is likely using an “oxygen tent” and his proclivity for homeopathic remedies to help him battle cancer. Some also argue that Dr. Michael Dixon, who two years ago has been appointed as the HEAD OF THE ROYAL MEDICAL HOUSEHOLD, would have seen to Charles’ treatment being homeopathic in nature.
But all of this is pure speculation!
The question clearly is whether there is any reliable evidence.
I have done my best to find some … and I failed (if a reader knows more, please let me know). To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that Charles’ cancer is being treated with homeopathy. Contrary to the many who assume that he is being cured by a homeopath, I have always felt this to be most unlikely. I am sure that Charles receives the very best conventional treatments that scientific medicine has to offer.
Homeopathy is harmless – except when it kills you!
Death by homeopathy has been a theme that occurred with depressing regularity on my blog, e.g.:
- Death by homeopathy
- Another death by homeopathy
- Death by homeopathy?
- The case of a boy tortured to death with homeopathy
- Homeopathy is the death of the patient suffering from gangrene
Now, there is yet another sad fatality that must be added to the list. This case report presents a 61-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer who opted for homeopathic treatments instead of standard oncological care. She presented to the Emergency Department with bilateral necrotic breasts, lymphedema, and widespread metastatic disease. Imaging revealed extensive lytic and sclerotic lesions, as well as pulmonary emboli. Laboratory results showed leukocytosis, lactic acidosis, and hypercalcemia of malignancy.
During hospitalization, patient was managed with anticoagulation and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Despite disease progression, patient declined systemic oncological treatments, leading to a complicated disease trajectory marked by frailty, sarcopenia, and functional quadriplegia, ultimately, a palliative care approach was initiated, and she was discharged to hospice and died.
This case highlights the complex challenges in managing advanced cancer when patients choose alternative therapies over evidence-based treatments. The role of homeopathy in cancer care is controversial, as it lacks robust clinical evidence for managing malignancies, especially metastatic disease.
Although respecting patient autonomy is essential, this case underscores the need for healthcare providers to ensure patients are fully informed about the limitations of alternative therapies. While homeopathy may offer emotional comfort, it is not a substitute for effective cancer treatments. Earlier intervention with conventional oncology might have altered the disease course and improved outcomes. The eventual transition to hospice care focused on maintaining the quality of life and dignity at the end-of-life, emphasizing the importance of integrating palliative care early in the management of advanced cancer to enhance patient and family satisfaction.
Even though such awful stories are far from rare, reports of this nature rarely get published. Clinicians are simply too busy to write up case histories that show merely what sadly must be expected, if a patient refuses effective therapy for a serious condition and prefers to use homeopathy as an “alternative”. Yet, the rather obvious truth is that homeopathy is no alternative. I have pointed it out many times before: if a treatment does not work, it is dangerously misleading to call it alternative medicine – one of the reasons why I nowadays prefer the term so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
But what about homeopathy as an adjunctive cancer therapy?
In 2011, Walach et al published a prospective observational study with cancer patients in two differently treated cohorts: one cohort with patients under complementary homeopathic treatment (HG; n = 259), and one cohort with conventionally treated cancer patients (CG; n = 380). The authors observed an improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment.
Walach and other equally deluded defenders of homeopathy (such as Wurster or Frass) tend to interpret these findings as being caused by homeopathy. Yet, this does not seem to be the case, as they regularly forget about the possibility of other, more plausible explanations for their results (e.g. placebo or selection bias). I am not aware of a rigorous trial showing that adjunctive homeopathy has specific effects when used by cancer patients (if a reader knows more, please let me know; I am always keen to learn).
So, is there a role for homeopathy in the fight against cancer?
My short answer:
No!
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is coming out with so much stupidity, ignorance and quackery that it is getting difficult to keep up. A recent article reported that he touted two particular medications that have not been shown to work as first-line treatments for measles:
- the steroid budesonide,
- the antibiotic clarithromycin.
Kennedy claimed on X that the medications had been instrumental in treating around 300 children in Texas, and told Fox News that doctors prescribing them had seen “very, very good results.”
Consequently, families in Texas have turned to questionable remedies — in some cases, also prompted by the recommendation of two Texas doctors, Dr. Ben Edwards and Dr. Richard Bartlett. Kennedy called Edwards and Bartlett “extraordinary healers” who have “treated and healed” hundreds of children with budesonide and clarithromycin, sharing a photo of himself and the doctors with three Mennonite families whose children had become ill. Two of the families had each recently lost a daughter to measles: 6-year-old Kayley Fehr died in February and 8-year-old Daisy Hildebrand died last week. Neither child was vaccinated.
Edwards, a conventionally trained doctor who has shifted to promoting natural remedies and prayer, has been operating a makeshift clinic in Seminole, offering children these unproven treatments — including, according to a video posted by an anti-vaccine group, while he said he was sick with measles. Edwards has allied himself with the anti-vaccine movement in recent months, hosting influencers and activists on his podcast, including Andrew Wakefield.
“There is no evidence to support the use of either aerosolized budesonide or clarithromycin for treatment of children with measles,” said Dr. Adam Ratner, a spokesman for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Prescribing treatments that have not been vetted in clinical trials amounts to experimenting on patients, added Dr. Susan McLellan, a professor in the infectious diseases division at the University of Texas Medical Branch.
During the measles outbreak, both Edwards and Bartlett have each warned of risks associated with the MMR vaccine: Edwards claimed, falsely, that it causes “potentially” hundreds of deaths a year and Bartlett has said that the complications caused by measles, including brain swelling and pneumonia, can also be caused by the vaccine. In reality, the MMR vaccine, which is only given to children with healthy immune systems, has been overwhelmingly safe since its approval more than five decades ago, and has saved an estimated 94 million lives worldwide.
Public health experts said touting these medications as first-line treatments sends the wrong message. “By mentioning such treatments without that context, RFK Jr. continues to distract away from the prevention measure that incontrovertibly works — the vaccine,” said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
A national public health organization is calling for RFK Jr. to resign citing “implicit and explicit bias and complete disregard for science.” Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said in a statement that concerns raised during Kennedy’s confirmation hearing last month have been realized, followed by massive reductions in staff at key health agencies.
What’s next? I aslk myself.
Perhaps homeopathy as a savior of the US healthcare system?
Watch this space.
Faith healing is the attempt to bring about healing through divine intervention. It is a form of paranormal or ‘energy’ healing. The Bible and other religious texts provide numerous examples of divine healing, and believers see this as a proof that faith healing is possible. There are also numerous reports of people suffering from severe diseases, including cancer and AIDS, who were allegedly healed by divine intervention.
Faith healing often takes the form of laying on hands where the preacher channels the divine energy via his hands into the patient’s body. Faith healing has no basis in science, is biologically not plausible. Some methodologically flawed studies have suggested positive effects e.g. , however, this is not confirmed by sound clinical trials.
Faith healing is often alleged to be safe, and many of us might thus say: WHY NOT? The truth, however, is that it can turn into a dangerous, even fatal SCAM. It has been reported that two parents from Lansing, USA who shunned medical care for their critically ill newborn daughter because of their religious beliefs, despite warnings the baby could die, were convicted on murder and child-abuse charges stemming from the infant’s death.
Less than 24 hours after Abigail Piland was born in 2017, a midwife and her apprentice noticed the infant was very ill and advised the mother to seek immediate medical attention. The mother declined, saying the baby was “born complete” and “God makes no mistakes.” “When you see abnormal, it can stand out pretty stark,” Laurie Vance, the apprentice, testified. “We could tell pretty immediately there were concerns because of the coloring of her skin. Her skin had become yellow.” Abigail died less than two days later, the result of a treatable condition known as hemolytic disease of the newborn.
Abigail died on the morning of Feb. 9, 2017. The parents and a group of friends prayed over Abigail’s lifeless body, and no one at the home called 911 to report the death, according to testimony. Rachel Piland’s brother, Joel Kerr, who lives in San Jose, California, testified Monday that he called Child Protective Services and Lansing police after learning from other family members that Abigail had died. The baby had been dead for about nine hours by the time investigators arrived on the night of Feb. 9.
Joshua and Rachel Piland, who had been free on bond since the case began about eight years ago, were led from the courtroom in handcuffs after a jury in Ingham County Circuit Court convicted them of second-degree murder and first-degree child abuse following a two-week trial.
The jury was allowed to consider lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter and third-degree child abuse, as well as not-guilty verdicts. They nonetheless convicted the Pilands on the most serious charges. Both charges carry a maximum sentence of up to life in prison. Sentencing is set for June 11.
The jury deliberated about four hours over two days before returning its verdicts after listening to days of often complex testimony by police, lay witnesses and medical doctors.
“It’s about Abigail,” Deputy Chief Assistant Ingham County Prosecutor Bill Crino had said during closing arguments in the trial. “She didn’t choose to be born into this situation. She was vulnerable. She was not communicative. She didn’t have a voice. Today, she gets a voice.”
The attorneys for the Pilands had argued they cared for their daughter as best they could. They said Crino failed to prove the parents acted with the intent necessary for them to be guilty of murder or involuntary manslaughter.
The US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy (JFKJr) famously claimed that vitamin A could work “as a prophylaxis” of measles infection. That claim is not just wrong, it also is dangerous. Overuse of vitamin A can have serious health consequences. As a result of JFKJr yet again promoting dangerous nonsense, doctors treating patients during the measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico are now facing the problem of vitamin A toxicity.
At Covenant Children’s Hospital in Lubbock, near the outbreak’s epicenter, several patients have been found to have abnormal liver function on routine lab tests, a probable sign that they’ve taken too much of the vitamin, according to Dr. Lara Johnson, pediatric hospitalist and chief medical officer for Covenant Health-Lubbock Service Area.
Vitamin A is fat-soluble. It therefore accumulate in organs like the liver when over-doesed. Excess vitamin A can cause dry skin and eyes, blurry vision, bone thinning, skin irritation, liver damage and other serious issues. In pregnant women, it can even lead to birth defects. Recovery for patients with acute toxicity is normally rapid, if the vitamin is discontinued. But the more serious problems with vitamin A toxicity are not always reversible.
The Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade association for dietary supplement and functional food manufacturers, issued a statement warning parents against using high doses of vitamin A to try to keep their children from getting measles. “While vitamin A plays an important role in supporting overall immune function, research hasn’t established its effectiveness in preventing measles infection. CRN is concerned about reports of high-dose vitamin A being used inappropriately, especially in children,” the statement says.
JFKJr made his remarks in an interview with Fox News medical correspondent Dr. Marc Siegel. Snippets of the interview were featured in four Fox News or Fox Business segments airing on March 4. “They have treated most of the patients, actually, over 108 patients in the last 48 hours. And they’re getting very, very good results, they report from budesonide, which is a steroid, it’s a 30-year-old steroid,” Kennedy said in the longest of the segments. “And clarithromycin [an antibiotic] and also cod liver oil, which has high concentrations of vitamin A and vitamin D. We need to look at those therapies and other therapies,” he said in another segment. “We need to really do a good job of talking to the front-line doctors and see what is working on the ground, because those therapeutics have really been ignored by the agency for a long, long time.”
Local doctors are increasingly concerned about the growing popularity of unproven remedies for preventing and treating measles. They fear that they are causing people to delay critical medical treatment and to reject vaccination, the only proven way to prevent a measles infection.
The measles outbreak has now affected at least 379 people across Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Kansas has reported 23 measles cases, and officials said that they may also be linked to the outbreak. The best measure to get to grips with the outbreak, I think, would be to make JFKJr shut up and let those who understans the issues get on with it.
