EBM
Donald Trump has recently made a range of nominations/appointments in the US health sector. They will influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US and beyond. It therefore reasonable to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and evaluate their suitability for these leadership roles.
In part 1 of this series, I discussed Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dave Weldon; in part 2, we evaluated Janette Nesheiwat and Casey Means; in part 3, I looked at Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz. In the 4th and last part of the series, I discuss Jay Bhattacharya and Gustav Chiarello.
Jay Bhattacharya – Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Jay Bhattacharya is a physician and health economist. He also is a critic of Fauci and a co-author of the infamous Great Barrington Declaration (2020), which advocated for “herd immunity” over lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. His new role would involve overseeing the NIH’s $48 billion budget. According to Kennedy’s plan, he would redirect much of the NIH funding toward alternative health approaches.
As Bhattacharya has not managed large research institutions, his ability to lead NIH effectively might be limited. His economic perspective could prioritize cost-effective research, and his opposition to lockdowns may appeal to those skeptical of them.
In summary, Bhattacharya’s academic credentials make him a fairly reasonable choice for NIH director, but his unreasonable pandemic views and lack of large-scale administrative experience raise concerns about his ability to lead the NIH effectively and without major disruptions.
Gustav Chiarello – Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (HHS)
Gustav Chiarello has degrees in economics, public policy, and law. He is/was the Senior Special Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, former attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and advisor to FTC Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen during Trump’s first term. He has legal and policy experience as well as skills for overseeing HHS financial resources. However, his limited healthcare-specific experience may hinder his ability to address complex HHS budgeting challenges.
In summary, Chiarello appears competent for the new role. However, his lack of healthcare expertise may prove to be a drawback.
Context and concerns
A recurring theme across the mentioned nominees and appointments is their stance against vaccinations or public health mandates. This is already eroding trust in immunization programs, increasing infection rates and creating risks to public health. Another common concern is the lack experience of most individuals in managing large bureaucracies. This is likely lead to inefficiencies or mismanagement in crucial healthcare agencies.
The nominees/appointments will drive deregulation, reduce Medicaid funding and shift NIH research priorities toward alternative health. These changes are unlikely to generate improvements in US public health. Policies driven by misinformation or ideological agendas will lead to increased uninsured rates, reduced research funding, and public health setbacks.
The group’s competence is undermined by a pattern of vaccine skepticism, promotion of pseudoscience and limited administrative experience. The risks of disrupting scientific research, immunization programs, and healthcare access are real and substantial.
Because my expertise and understanding is limited to medicine, my discussions were confinded to the realm of healthcare. But Trump appointed people in all areas, of course. My limited expertise tells me that some of these have been even more disasterous than the ones we evaluated here. I have little doubt that Trump is about to change the world – and I fear that this will not be to the better.
Donald Trump has recently made a range of appointments in the health sector of the US. They will strongly influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US as well as worldwide. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their fit for leadership roles in healthcare. In part 1 of this series, we looked at Robert F.Kennedy Jr. and David Weldon. Now I will focus on Trumps nominations for Surgeon General
Janette Nesheiwat – Surgeon General
We featured Janette once before. She trained as a family and emergency medicine physician, became the medical director at CityMD and also a Fox News contributor. She has no significant public health leadership experience. As the Surgeon General, she would require shaping national health policy and communicating science to the public, areas where she has no training or experience. She also lacks expertise in public health and epidemiology. Her Fox News role and online vitamin sales raise doubts about her prioritization of evidence-based public health over media-driven health promotion. The Surgeon General is the nation’s leading spokesperson on public health, overseeing the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and issuing science-based health advisories. Nesheiwat would be a disaster for such a position.
Nesheiwat’s nomination was eventually withdrawn by Trump. This suggests internal concerns about her fitness for the job.
Casey Means – Surgeon General
RFK Jr wrote on X: “The Surgeon General is a symbol of moral authority who stands against the financial and institutional gravities that tend to corporatize medicine. Casey Means was born to hold this job. She will provide our country with ethical guidance, wisdom, and gold-standard medical advice.” Yet her suitability for Surgeon General is a contentious issue.
Means holds a 2014 MD from Stanford University and a bachelor’s degree in human biology. She is an advocate for addressing chronic diseases through nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle changes. Her book “Good Energy”, co-authored with her brother Calley, argues that metabolic dysfunction is a root cause of most chronic illnesses. As a “wellness influencer”, Means has demonstrated an ability to communicate health concepts to a broad audience.
Donald Trump has recently made a range of appointments in the health sector of the US. They will strongly influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US as well as worldwide. It therefore seems worth to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and critically evaluate their fit for leadership roles in healthcare.
In this series of posts, I intend to scrutinize them two by two:
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)
- RFKJr. is an environmental lawyer, former presidential candidate, vocal vaccine skeptic, critic of the pharmaceutical industry, and advocate of the long-debunked assumption that autism is caused by MMR vaccinations. He has no scientific, medical or public health education or training and is a prominent figure in the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement, emphasizing chronic disease reduction and agency reform.
He lacks experience managing large bureaucracies or healthcare systems. He has no experience or expertise in running agencies like HHS, which oversees a $1.7 trillion budget and 80,000 employees.
Kennedy’s leadership undermines public trust in immunization programs, potentially increasing preventable disease outbreaks. He aims to purge staff at FDA and NIH and redirect half of NIH’s $48 billion budget to preventive, alternative, and holistic approaches. This will inevitably disrupt scientific research and weaken evidence-based policy-making. His lack of public health experience and unscientific views pose risks to healthcare access, reproductive rights, and innovation.
In summary, Kennedy’s lack of relevant experience and history of promoting misinformation make him a high-risk choice for HHS. His actions so far indicate that he will significantly disrupt US healthcare and cause long-term damage to the US and beyond. His appointment was not in the best interest of progress and the US public.
Dave Weldon – Director of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Weldon is an internist, former Republican congressman, and Army veteran. He has 40 years of medical practice but limited public health leadership experience. Weldon’s congressional tenure focused on fiscal and social issues. He has no record of managing public health crises or large agencies. He has in the past endorsed debunked claims linking thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative for vaccines, to autism thus raising alarms about his alignment with anti-vaccine sentiments and hindering the CDC’s task of promoting immunization. Paul Offit has therefore criticized Weldon’s nomination, noting his lack of traditional public health training.
Trump’s statement that Weldon will “restore the CDC to its true purpose” suggests a focus on transparency and combating corruption. However, as there’s no compelling evidence of systemic corruption in the CDC, this seems akin to the promotion of a conspiracy theory.
In summary, Weldon’s lack of relevant experience and history of promoting misinformation make him an odd choice for the directorship of the CDC. It is to be feared that his appointment will weaken medical progress and the US healthcare system.
I had never tried it before, but yesterday I could no longer resist. so, I asked GROK the following question:
Who are the leading researchers in alternative medicine?
Here is the answer in full:
-
Andrew Weil, MD
-
Contribution: Founder of integrative medicine, Weil is a prominent figure advocating for the combination of conventional and alternative therapies. He established the Andrew Weil Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona, which trains physicians and conducts research on CAM practices.
-
Focus: His work emphasizes holistic health, nutrition, and mind-body interventions. He has authored numerous books, such as Spontaneous Healing, promoting evidence-based alternative approaches.
-
Impact: Weil’s influence is significant in mainstreaming integrative medicine, though critics argue his advocacy sometimes outpaces rigorous scientific evidence for certain therapies.
-
-
Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD
-
Contribution: A former professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter, Ernst is one of the most prolific researchers evaluating the efficacy and safety of CAM. He co-authored Trick or Treatment with Simon Singh, critically assessing therapies like acupuncture and homeopathy.
-
Focus: Ernst’s work focuses on applying rigorous scientific standards to CAM, often highlighting methodological flaws in existing studies. He is a skeptic of unproven therapies, advocating for evidence-based practice.
-
Impact: His critical approach has shaped the debate on CAM’s scientific validity, though some alternative practitioners view his work as overly dismissive.
-
-
Dietlind L. Wahner-Roedler, MD
-
Contribution: A researcher at the Mayo Clinic, Wahner-Roedler has studied physician attitudes toward CAM and the knowledge base for therapies like acupuncture and herbal medicine. Her 2006 study surveyed internists at Mayo Clinic, revealing mixed attitudes toward CAM integration.
-
Focus: Her research explores how CAM can be integrated into conventional medical settings, emphasizing evidence-based applications and physician education.
-
Impact: Her work provides insights into bridging CAM and conventional medicine, particularly in academic medical centers.
-
-
George Lewith, MD
-
Contribution: A UK-based professor at the University of Southampton, Lewith was a leading advocate for CAM research, particularly in acupuncture and homeopathy. He published extensively on clinical trials and mechanisms of action for these therapies.
-
Focus: Lewith’s research aimed to provide scientific validation for CAM, exploring placebo effects and patient outcomes.
-
Impact: His work helped legitimize CAM research in the UK, though some studies faced criticism for small sample sizes or inconclusive results.
-
-
David Eisenberg, MD
-
Contribution: A Harvard Medical School professor, Eisenberg is known for his landmark 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, which documented the widespread use of CAM in the United States. His work prompted increased federal funding for CAM research.
-
Focus: Eisenberg’s research focuses on CAM utilization trends, safety, and integration into healthcare systems.
-
Impact: His studies have influenced policy, leading to the establishment of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH).
-
-
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH): Part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, NCCIH funds research into CAM therapies, prioritizing rigorous clinical trials. It supports studies on acupuncture, herbal supplements, and mind-body practices, with a budget of $128.8 million in 2010. Critics note that despite significant funding, many studies yield inconclusive results due to methodological challenges.
-
CAMbrella: A European research network involving 16 institutions across 12 countries, CAMbrella fosters collaborative research on CAM’s efficacy and safety.
-
International Society for Complementary Medicine Research (ISCMR): This multidisciplinary organization supports global research into CAM, facilitating knowledge exchange among professionals.
The field of alternative medicine is polarized. Proponents like Weil and Lewith argue for its potential to address gaps in conventional medicine, such as chronic disease management or patient dissatisfaction. However, skeptics like Ernst highlight that much CAM research suffers from poor methodology, small sample sizes, or bias, with therapies often failing to outperform placebos in well-designed trials. The NCCIH’s substantial funding has not always translated into clear evidence of efficacy, raising questions about resource allocation. Additionally, some alternative therapies rely on anecdotal evidence or cultural tradition rather than scientific validation, complicating their acceptance in mainstream medicine.
-
Diversity of CAM: CAM includes hundreds of practices, from acupuncture to energy healing, making it difficult to identify researchers who lead across all areas. Most specialize in specific modalities.
-
Lack of Centralized Data: Unlike conventional medicine, CAM lacks a unified research infrastructure, and many practitioners are not primarily researchers, focusing instead on clinical practice.
-
Evolving Field: The shift from “alternative” to “complementary and integrative” medicine reflects growing acceptance, but research standards are still developing, and many studies are underpowered or inconclusive.
-
Mild to Moderate Side Effects (Common):
-
Temporary soreness, stiffness, or discomfort at the manipulation site (affects 30-55% of patients).
-
Headaches or fatigue, typically resolving within 24-48 hours.
-
-
Serious Complications (Rare):
-
Vertebral Artery Dissection (VAD): Cervical manipulation (neck adjustments) can, in rare cases, cause a tear in the vertebral artery, potentially leading to stroke. Estimated incidence: 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 5.8 million adjustments. Risk is higher in patients with pre-existing vascular conditions.
-
Disc Herniation or Nerve Compression: Spinal manipulation may worsen or cause disc issues, leading to pain, numbness, or weakness (incidence unclear but rare).
-
Cauda Equina Syndrome: Extremely rare, where lumbar manipulation might compress nerves, causing severe neurological symptoms like loss of bladder control.
-
-
Other Risks:
-
Misdiagnosis or Delayed Diagnosis: Chiropractors may miss serious conditions (e.g., fractures, tumors, infections) if not properly evaluated, delaying medical treatment.
-
Contraindications: Manipulation is riskier for patients with conditions like osteoporosis, spinal cord compression, or inflammatory arthritis. Inappropriate application can lead to fractures or worsening symptoms.
-
-
Practitioner Variability:
-
Risks increase with inexperienced or poorly trained chiropractors. Techniques like high-velocity, low-amplitude thrusts require precision to avoid injury.
-
-
Choose a licensed chiropractor with verified credentials.
-
Disclose full medical history, especially vascular or neurological conditions.
-
Seek medical evaluation for red flags (e.g., severe pain, neurological symptoms) before chiropractic care.
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.
I suppose we all heard that DONALD TRUMP has recently turned his genius towards the film industry. Specifically, he wrote:
“The Movie Industry in America is DYING a very fast death. Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw our filmmakers and studios away from the United States. Hollywood, and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing the Department of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all Movies coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT MOVIES MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!”
Well done Donnie!
After this decisive move, the hero of the mentally challenged announced another, even more far-reaching and long-awaited measure:
“TARIFFS ON RATIONAL THOUGHT”
On his patform ‘UNTRUTH ASOCIAL’, Trump proclaimed:
Rational thinking in America is DYING a very fast death. Other Countries are offering all sorts of incentives to draw scientists and other experts away from the United States. Universities and many other areas within the U.S.A., are being devastated and pseudo-science is thriving as a result. This is a concerted effort by other Nations and, therefore, a National Security threat. It is, in addition to everything else, messaging and propaganda! Therefore, I am authorizing all my government Departments and other relevant bodies of the US administration, to immediately begin the process of instituting a 100% Tariff on any and all RATIONAL THOUGHTS coming into our Country that are produced in Foreign Lands. WE WANT SCIENCE MADE IN AMERICA, AGAIN!
Trump’s latest move earned criticism as soon as it became public. Democrats pointed out that it was Trump himself who had driven US scientists to seek employment outside their home country. A spokesperson of the Whit House responded with merely a two-word-statement:
FAKE NEWS!
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) tends to prioritize inherent general immunity instead of vaccination, thereby contributing to widespread vaccine hesitancy or refusal amidst the general public. The objective of this investigation was to furnish evidence regarding the profiles and drivers of seasonal influenza vaccine hesitancy (IVH) among TCM clinicians. Between January and May 2022, the Chinese researchers conducted a nationwide survey in China with embedded an influenza vaccine hesitancy scale to 3085 registered clinicians (1013 TCM and 2072 Western medicine (WM) clinicians).
The results suggest that TCM clinicians exhibit lower possibility of influenza vaccine uptake and are less likely to recommend the immunisation to the patients. 58.3 % TCM clinicians and 52.3 % WM clinicians were categorized as being influenza vaccine hesitant. Compared to WM clinicians, TCM clinicians have lower confidence in vaccine (p < 0.001) and are less inclined to accept others’ vaccination recommendation (p < 0.001). Higher educational attainment in TCM (postgraduate: OR = 1.98, 95 %CI,1.30–3.02; doctor: OR = 2.20, 95 %CI, 1.28–3.77) and ignorance of influenza vaccination cost policy (OR = 1.76, 95 %CI, 1.18–2.63) are significantly associated with increased influenza vaccine hesitancy.
The authors concluded that the concerns and doubts towards influenza vaccine is highly prevalent in the Chinese clinicians, especially those practicing TCM. High TCM educational degrees and ignorance of influenza vaccination cost policies are two primary risk factors for developing influenza vaccine hesitancy.
The findings are, I think, far from surprising. There is plenty of evidence about the negative stance towards influenza and other vaccination that practitioners or proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) display, e.g.:
- Do views about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), nature and god influence people’s vaccination intentions?
- Use of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) and its association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status
- Chiropractors Aren’t The Solution To The Primary Care Shortage: the thorny issue of vaccination
- An osteopath and anti-vaccination activist received a well-deserved and long-overdue indefinite suspension
- Prison sentence for a German HEILPRAKTIKER who issued false vaccination certificates
- Interest in so-called alternative medicine is linked to vaccination coverage
- Naturopath jailed for selling fraudulent vaccination documents
- Vaccination rates of Canadian healthcare professionals: those of chiropractors and naturopaths are at the lowest
- A Professor for Integrative and Anthroposophical Medicine claims that severe adverse effects of COVID vaccinations are 40 times more frequent than officially recognized
- Preference of so-called alternative medicine predicts negative attitudes to vaccination
- Intelligence, Religiosity, SCAM, Vaccination Hesitancy – are there links?
- A well-known opponent of vaccination has died of COVID after self-treatment with MMS
- The International Chiropractors Association’s Statement on Vaccination
- A naturopath promoting fake news about COVID vaccinations
- More information on homeopaths’ and anthroposophic doctors’ attitude towards vaccinations
- The UK Society of Homeopaths, a hub of anti-vaccination activists?
- HOMEOPATHY = “the complete alternative to vaccination” ?!?!
- Are anthroposophy-enthusiasts for or against vaccinations?
- Far too many chiropractors believe that vaccinations do not have a positive effect on public health
- Naturopaths’ counselling against vaccinations could be criminally negligent
- HOMEOPATHS AGAINST VACCINATION: “The decision to vaccinate and how you implement that decision is yours and yours alone”
- Use of alternative medicine is associated with low vaccination rates
- Integrative medicine physicians tend to harbour anti-vaccination views
- Vaccination: chiropractors “espouse views which aren’t evidence based”
With so much evidence and unquestionable serious harm being caused by these SCAM anti-vaxxers, the obvious question is this:
WHY IS SO LITTLE BEING DONE ABOUT IT?
Yes, it’s CAW again!
How best should we celebrate?
- I could show you how often we had to discuss the harm chiropractic does to patients.
- I could tell you about the contraproductive advice chiropractors tend to issue to anyone who wants to hear it.
- I could list the fatalities chiropractic manipulations have caused.
- I could write about the unethical transgressions many chiropractors commit.
- I could elaborate on the financial fraud some chiropractors are involved in.
- I could write about the dishonest cherry-picking that chiropractors like to engage in.
But that would not be nice, and they would say that I have an axe to grind, a chip on my shoulder, that I am incompetent, don’t know what I am writing about, in the pocket of BIG PHARMA, etc.
So, I decided to celebrate the CAW by reporting on a chiropractic success story, a type of article that chiropractors like: a case report of a patient cured by chiropractic treatments.
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) has been the leading cause of disability globally for the past few decades, resulting in decreased quality of life physically and emotionally. This case report is, according to its authors, important in the medical literature to add to studies reporting successful conservative treatment of CLBP and chronic neck pain (CNP). Triage, diagnosis, and understanding of economical and conservative therapeutics can, the authors stress, benefit patients; providers as well as institutions and third party payors benefit from improved outcomes.
A 39-year old male presented with severe CLBP who had experienced no long-term success with prior chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). After symptoms began to worsen in spite of receiving SMT, the patient sought treatment for his pain, abnormal spine alignment, and poor sagittal alignment at a local spine facility. History and physical examination demonstrated altered spine and postural alignment including significant forward head posture and reduced cervical and lumbar lordosis and coronal plane abnormalities. Treatment consisted of a multi-modal regimen focused on strengthening postural muscles, specific spine manipulation directed toward abnormal full-spine alignment, and specific Mirror Image traction aiming to improve spine integrity by realigning the spine toward a more normal position. The treatment consisted of 36 treatments over three months. All original tests and outcome measures were repeated following care.
Objective and subjective outcome measures, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic mensuration demonstrated improvement at the conclusion of treatment and maintained at 1-year follow-up re-examination.
The authors concluded that this is case demonstrates that the CBP orthopedic chiropractic treatment approach may represent an effective method to treat abnormal spinal alignment and posture. This study adds to the literature regarding conservative methods of treating spine pain and spinal disorders.
What, you are NOT impressed?
- You even claim that the patient’s symptoms worsend despite long-term SMT?
- You insist that such a case poves nothing and certainly does not justify the conclusion?
- You point out that one of the authors is a compensated researcher for CBP Non-Profit, Inc., while another one is a compensated consultant and researcher for Chiropractic BioPhysics, NonProfit, Inc. and one is the CEO of Chiropractic BioPhysics® (CBP®)?
- And you note that this paper was funded by Chiropractic BioPhysics?
Let me tell you this: you are a spoilt sport! We are, after all, in the realm of chiropractic research where things are different. What is normally called promotion florishes here as research, and the rules of science, ethics or even common sense are suspended.
Dysmenorrhea affects 40–80% of women causing discomfort, pain and absenteeism. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of shiatsu massage and abdominal stretching exercises in reducing primary dysmenorrhea among adolescent girls.
A quasi-experimental design with a pre-post test two-group comparison was employed. Sixty-six adolescent girls
with primary dysmenorrhea were purposively selected and divided into two groups: one received shiatsu massage therapy, and the other performed abdominal stretching exercises. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests with a significance level set at p < 0.05.
The results showed that both interventions significantly reduced menstrual pain (p = 0.000). However, the shiatsu group experienced a greater average pain reduction (2.36 points) compared to the stretching group (1.55 points).
The authors concluded that their results of this study indicate that shiatsu massage therapy demonstrates a greater effectiveness in alleviating primary menstrual pain, commonly referred to as dysmenorrhea, when compared to abdominal stretching exercises, exhibiting a notable difference of 0.8 points in pain reduction between the two interventions.
The authors also offer the following suggestion: This intervention can be used in midwifery and healthcare settings, with Shiatsu materials serving as educational tools for adolescents on dysmenorrhea and reproductive health.
In my recent book, I reviewed the evidence on shiatsu (for references, see the original): It is a (mostly) manual therapy that was popularised by Japanese Tokujiro Namikoshi (1905–2000). It developed out of the Chinese massage therapy, ‘tui na’. The word shiatsu means finger pressure in Japanese; however, a range of devices is also being promoted for shiatsu. In 1940, Tokujiro Namikoshi established the Japan Shiatsu College in Tokyo. He taught many practitioners, some of whom subsequently developed their own version of shiatsu. Shiatsu follows the principles of Traditional Chinese Medicine based on chi, meridians, yin and yang, etc. These are philosophical concepts at best but lack scientific and biological plausibility. The amount of pressure used during treatment can be considerable and therefore, Shiatsu is experienced by some patients as (mildly) painful. Shiatsu is a treatment which includes not just the pressure applied by the therapist at specific points but also awareness of body posture, breathing and exercise. Shiatsu is claimed to stimulate the body’s vital energy. One observational study concluded that “clients receiving shiatsu reported improvements in symptom severity and changes in their health-related behaviour that they attributed to their treatment, suggestive of a role for shiatsu in maintaining and enhancing health.” A similar study observed a wide range of common, immediate and longer term effects. These included effects on initial symptoms, relaxation, sleeping, posture, and experiences of the body. There have been very few controlled clinical trials. One low-quality trial suggested that shiatsu massage seems to be effective in managing agitation in mechanically ventilated patients . A systematic review found no convincing data to suggest that shiatsu is effective for any specific health condition. Even though some patients experience the treatment as painful, Shiatsu is generally considered to be a safe therapy. It is, however, not totally free of risks. One observational study found that 12–22% “of patients reported ‘negative effects’ after shiatsu treatment,” and several case reports have associated Shiatsu also with serious complications (END OF QUOTE).
Because ther are so few studies of shiatsu, every new trial is potentially valuable. The present study, however, is a disappointment in this respect. It did not make the slightest attempt to control for any type of bias. Its findings are thus entirely meaningless. Most likely, they have little or nothing at all to do with the treatments administered but are due to placebo effects, natural history of the condition, selection bias, etc.
My suggestion, therefore, differs dramatically from that of the authors: if you suffer from dysmenorrhea – or, indeed, any other condition – you are well advised to avoid implausible and unproven treatments and opt for one of the many therapies thaat are supported by sound evidence.
A popular ‘TikTok creator’ claims that he became bedridden for months after a chiropractic adjustment to his neck left him with a herniated disc, causing him “the worst pain I’ve ever experienced” and the loss of his life savings in medical bills. Tyler Stanton, a Nashville-based ‘content creator’ stated that he’s been recovering from an injury sustained when a chiropractor adjusted his neck.
In a TikTok video Stanton said he’d been working out a lot before his birthday because “I wanted to be in the best shape of my life.” He’d been feeling some tightness in his back, so he went to see a chiropractor. At first, the chiropractor struggled to “get my back to crack,” but finally he was able to do it. Stanton said when they had the same trouble with his neck, “on the second time where he tried to crack my neck, he put a lot of force behind it, and I heard one huge and painful pop,” Stanton explained. “I knew immediately that something was wrong … the whole room was spinning. My equilibrium was just completely f—ked. I was like instantly, like, profusely sweating.”
It took him a half hour of lying down to “be good enough to walk out the door,” but as soon as he got home, he began “violently throwing up, uncontrollably. I can’t see straight.” Stanton says he went promptly to bed even though it was the middle of the day, and when he woke up the next morning moving to turn his phone alarm off caused him “the worst pain I’ve ever experienced in my entire life.” Stanton described it as “static” all over the “entire right side of my body. It was really scary, I had no idea what was happening, but I knew something was really wrong.”
He went to the hospital, where it was determined that the chiropractor had “herniated my C6,” the disc at the base of the neck. Over the next month, he spent a few weeks “on and off” in the hospital, because the “pain was so bad.” He received epidural injections, and “they didn’t even make a dent into the pain. Like, it literally did nothing.”
At this point, his options were surgery — which he said, “I’ve heard so many horror stories about that” — or physical therapy and learning to live with a herniated disc. He chose the second option, explaining he has a “a pharmacy” at home of pain medication. “I ended up just having to go home and lay down for about two more months. It took, like, three months to get my feeling back in my arm.”
He thought of legal action, as the injury “really hurt me financially … my savings just evaporated … I still deal with pain. I’m still limited on what I can do physically. It just destroyed me mentally, financially, physically — all of it.”
In a later update Stanton said that it’s been hard for him to create content since he herniated his disc. “People asking me why I keep disappearing and why I stopped posting … I didn’t really want to say much about it because one thing I’ve learned over the years being on the internet is that if you have a following, no one cares if you’re sad,” he said. “To be honest with you, I love to come on here and make you guys laugh, but it’s hard to when s—t just ain’t funny.”
_________________
Having treated many patients with herniated discs, I can confirm: it’s not funny!
Having read about many cases of serious complications after chiropractic manipulations, I assume that this one – like so many others – will not enter into the medical literature where sufficient details might be provided to allow a fuller evaluation – doctors are simply too busy to write up the events and findings for publication. The case will also not appear in any system that monitors adverse events, because chiropractors have in their ~120 Years history not been able to establish such a thing. The result will be that this event – as so many like it – will pass virtually undocumented and unnoticed.
And this suits whom exactly?
Yes, it suits the chiros who can continue to falsely claim that, as there are just few records to the contrary,
“our maipulations are entireely safe!”
