fallacy
“Crusade Against Naturopathy” (Kreuzzug gegen Naturheilkunde) is the title of a recent article (in German – so, I translated for you) published in ‘MULTIPOLAR‘. It is a defence of – no, not naturopathy – quackery. The authors first defend the indefencible Heilpraktiker. Subsequently, they address what they call ‘The Homeopathy Controversy‘. This is particularly ridiculous because homeopathy is not a form of naturopathy. Yes, it uses some natural materials, but it also employs any synthetic substance that you can think of.
The section on homeopathy contains many more amusing surprises; therefore, I have translated it for you [and added a few numers in square brackets that refer to my brief comments below]:
According to a representative survey conducted by the Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research in 2023, 35 per cent of homeopathy users are fully convinced of its effectiveness, while 55 per cent rate it as partially effective. Only nine per cent of respondents described homeopathic medicines as completely ineffective. [1]
Nevertheless, Health Minister Karl Lauterbach announced at the beginning of 2024 that he wanted to abolish homeopathy as a health insurance benefit. Stefan Schmidt-Troschke, paediatrician and managing director of the ‘Gesundheit Aktiv Association’, then launched a petition for the preservation of homeopathic medicines as statutory benefits in statutory health insurance. The petition was signed by more than 200,000 people. In March 2024, the cancellation of homeopathy and anthroposophic medicines as additional statutory benefits was revoked. [2]
Shortly afterwards, in May 2024, the ‘German Medical Assembly’ passed a motion against homeopathy to bring about a total ban for doctors. Dr Marc Hanefeld, official supporter of the ‘Informationsnetzwerk Homöopathie’, was behind the motion. Doctors should be banned from practising homeopathy in future, as well as billing via statutory and private health insurance. [3]
The case of the Charité University Hospital in Berlin shows just how much influence opponents of homeopathy have: for years, the hospital’s website stated ‘that homeopathic medicine can cure or improve even the most serious conditions’. After fierce protests – including from the health journalism portal MedWatch – the statement was removed. [4]
My comments:
- Effectiveness is not something to be quantified by popular votes. Responsible healthcare professionals employ rigorous clinical trials for that purpose.
- Lauterbach caved in because of the pressure from the Green Party and insists that his plans are merely postponed.
- The ‘German Medical Assembly’ decided that the use of homoeopathy in diagnostics and therapy does not constitute rational medicine. German doctors continue to be free to practice homeopathy, if they so wish.
- The notion that ‘homeopathic medicine can cure or improve even the most serious conditions’ is so obviously and dangerously wrong that it had to be corrected. This has little to do with the influence of opponents but is due to the influence of the evidence.
I feel that, if proponents of homeopathy want to save their beloved quackery from the face of the earth, they could at least get their facts right and think of some agruments that are a little less ridiculous.
I came across this remarkable chapter entitled “Reiki in Companion Animals “. As it comes from the Department of Clinical Studies and the Department of Veterinary Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, the paper ought to be taken seriously, I thought. It seems that I was mistaken!
Here is the unaltered abstract:
The word “Reiki” is derived from two Japanese words “Rei” and “kei” meaning spiritually guided life energy. Reiki helps an individual to feel from disease, grow emotionally, spiritually and mentally. In case of animal, Reiki helps to build trust between pets and owner, promotes healing decrease psychological issues and keep an animal healthy. The major energies Reiki attunement include earth energy, heavenly energy and heart energy. Furthermore, the three degrees of chakra i.e., the heart chakra, the throat chakra and third eye chakra, allow an individual to love unconditionally, open path to consciousness and build trust, respectively. Some practitioner in Reiki train for years to understand the energy and how to navigate delicate and subtle energy which shifts within themselves and their participants, where instead of realigning your bones and muscles tension. The process of Reiki is something anyone can learn and something you can learn fairly swiftly, especially for animals. Reiki allows us to perform at a level where our positive energy flows freely. Reiki should not be an alternative to veterinarian medical care, but seen instead as an aid in the diagnosis to recovery.
Are you as baffled as I am? Here are some of my most immediate questions:
What is “Reiki attunement”?
What is “earth energy”?
What is “heavenly energy”?
What is “heart energy”?.
What is “the heart chakra”?
What is “the throat chakra”?
What is “the third eye chakra”?
What is an “open path to consciousness”?
What is “a level where our positive energy flows freely”?
None of these terms or concepts are defined. Why not? The answer is that they are not definable; they are mystical notions without meaning aimed at a gullible public (a polite way of avoiding the word bullshit).
Needless to say that the rest of the chapter is packed with some of the worst proctophasia and pseudo-science I have ever come across. The fact is that Reiki is nonsense, and nonsense should not be used to treat either humans or animals. If you are not convinced, please explain to me what this sentence tries to tell us: “Some practitioner in Reiki train for years to understand the energy and how to navigate delicate and subtle energy which shifts within themselves and their participants, where instead of realigning your bones and muscles tension.”
QED!
Homeopathy was founded some two hundred years ago by Dr Samuel Christian Hahnemann. Over time, it has grown to be among the most frequently used forms of alternative medicine in Europe and the USA. It is underpinned by the principle of ‘like cures like’, where highly diluted substances are used for therapeutic purposes, by producing similar symptoms to when the substance is used in healthy people. Many studies have been published on the value of homeopathy in treating diseases such as cancer, depression, psoriasis, allergic rhinitis, asthma, otitis, migraine, neuroses, allergies, joint disease, insomnia, sinusitis, urinary tract infections and acne, to name a few. An international team recently published a “comprehensive review” of the literature on homeopathy and evaluated its effectiveness in clinical practice.
Their conclusions were as follows:
The current evidence supports a positive role for homeopathy in health and wellbeing across a broad range of different diseases in both adult and paediatric populations. However further research to assess its cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy in larger studies is required. These findings may encourage healthcare providers and policymakers to consider the integration of homeopathic therapies into current medical practice, to provide a greater sense of patient autonomy and improve the consumer experience.
Medicine is dynamic and continues to evolve. Conventional medicine, while backed by the largest body of evidence thus far to support its safety and efficacy, still has its limitations in terms of side effects and subsequent effects on quality of life. This analysis calls for more in-depth assessment of the current research on homeopathy across a larger range of diseases.
And their ‘Key Summary Points’ were:
- While homeopathy is among the most frequently applied forms of alternative medicine, there is a lack of familiarity with this therapeutic modality within everyday medical practice.
- This review examines some of the available evidence in relation to the impact of homeopathy on a variety of common chronic diseases.
- Homeopathy was found to have the potential for symptom improvement in certain diagnoses within the fields of internal medicine, oncology, obstetrics and mental health.
- Although there is a paucity of studies on homeopathy within the context of standard clinical practice, an opportunity exists for further research into its application by utilising conventional study designs.
To understand how the researchers could arrive at these conclusions, we need to have a look at their methodology. This is their full description:
We conducted a literature review to answer the following research questions:
- What is the current knowledge on the use of homeopathy in clinical practice?
- Has the use of homeopathy achieved beneficial results in patients being treated for specific clinical entities?
Results were then appraised in relation to:
- Population: patients using homeopathy, physicians and homeopaths who reported using homeopathic agents in the included studies
- Intervention: homeopathic remedies
- Control: conventional treatment or no treatment
- Outcome: improvement in patients’ conditions (or positive results)
Keywords were searched in respect of homeopathy (homeopathy; formulas, homeopathic; pharmacopoeias, homeopathic; materia medica and vitalism) and clinical practice (complementary and alternative medicine, health). The following search terms were used: (“homeopathy” OR “formulas, homeopathic” OR “pharmacopoeias, homeopathic” OR “materia medica” OR “vitalism”) AND (“health” OR “complementary and alternative medicine”).
Two electronic databases were searched using the search terms homeopathy, cancer therapy, type 2 diabetes, complementary and alternative medicine, COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. Material retrieved was examined to omit overlapping results or duplicates. Publications in languages other than English, and those without full texts accessible online, were excluded.
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any new study with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
___________________________
Two crucial things are missing here:
- An adequate description of which articles were included and which were discarded. A look at the reference list discloses that only articles in favour of homeopathy were considered.
- A description of the critical evaluation performed of the included evidence. A look at the text shows that no critical evaluation took place.
Thus this paper turns out to be not a ‘comprehensive review’ but a ‘comprehensive white-wash’ of homeopathy. Using the methodology of the authors it would be easy, for instance, to publish a comprehensive review demonstrating that the earth is flat.
I sugget the journal editors, peer-reviewers and authors of this idiotic paper bow their heads in shame!
Being a dedicated crook and a liar himself, Donald Trump has long had an inclination to surround himself with crooks and liars. As discussed repeatedly, this preferance naturally extends into the realm of healthcare, Some time ago, he sought the advice of Andrew Wakefield, the man who published the fraudulent research that started the myth about a causal link between MMR-vaccinations and autism.
Early November this year, Trump stated that, if he wins the election, he’ll “make a decision” about whether to outlaw some vaccines based on the recommendation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a notorious vaccine critic without any medical training. The president doesn’t have authority to ban vaccines but he can influence public health with appointments to federal agencies that can change recommendations or potentially revoke approvals.
Now that he did win the election, Trump suggested that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his pick to run Health and Human Services, will investigate supposed links between autism and childhood vaccines, a discredited connection that has eroded trust in the lifesaving inoculations.
“I think somebody has to find out,” Trump said in an exclusive interview with “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker. Welker noted in a back-and-forth that studies have shown childhood vaccines prevent about 4 million deaths worldwide every year, have found no connection between vaccines and autism, and that rises in autism diagnoses are attributable to increased screening and awareness.
Trump, too stupid to know the difference between correlation and causation, replied: “If you go back 25 years ago, you had very little autism. Now you have it.” “Something is going on,” Trump added. “I don’t know if it’s vaccines. Maybe it’s chlorine in the water, right? You know, people are looking at a lot of different things.” It was unclear whether Trump was referring to opposition by Kennedy and others to fluoride being added to drinking water.
Kennedy, the onetime independent presidential candidate who backed Trump after leaving the race, generated a large following through his widespread skepticism of the American health care and food system. A major component of that has been his false claims linking autism to childhood vaccinations. Kennedy is the founder of a prominent anti-vaccine activist group, Children’s Health Defense. The agency Trump has tasked him with running supports and funds research into autism, as well as possible new vaccines.
The debunked link between autism and childhood vaccines, particularly the inoculation against mumps, measles and rubella, was first claimed in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield who was later banned from practicing medicine in the UK. His research was found to be fraudulent and was subsequently retracted. Hundreds of studies have found childhood vaccines to be safe.
Autism diagnoses have risen from about 1 in 150 children in 2000 to 1 in 36 today. This rise has been shown to be due to increased screening and changing definitions of the condition. Strong genetic links exist to autism, and many risk factors occurring before birth or during delivery have been identified.
If Trump does, in fact, ‘outlaw’ certain vaccinations, he would endanger the health of the US as well as the rest of the world. Will he really be that stupid?
We had to deal with Hongchi Xiao several times before:
- Slapping therapy? No thanks!
- China Power and Influence
- Slapping therapy: therapist arrested and charged with manslaughter by gross negligence
Slapping therapy is based on the notion that slapping patients at certain points of their body has positive therapeutic effects. Hongchi Xiao, a Chinese-born investment banker, popularised this SCAM which, he claims, is based on the principles of Traditional Chinese Medicine. It is also known as ‘Paida’—in Chinese, this means ‘to slap your body’. The therapy involves slapping the body surface with a view of stimulating the flow of ‘chi’, the vital energy postulated in Traditional Chinese Medicine. Slapping therapists believe that this ritual restores health and eliminates toxins. They also claim that the bruises which patients tend to develop after the treatment are the visible signs of toxins coming to the surface. Hongchi Xiao advocates slapping as “self-healing method” that should be continued until the skin starts looking bruised. He and his follows conduct workshops and sell books teaching the public which advocate slapping therapy as a panacea, a cure-all. The assumptions of slapping therapy fly in the face of science and are thus not plausible. There is not a single clinical trial testing whether slapping therapy is effective. It must therefore be categorised as unproven.
Now it has been reported that Hongchi Xiao has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for the death of a 71-year-old diabetic woman who stopped taking insulin during one of his workshops.
Hongchi Xiao, 61, was convicted of manslaughter by gross negligence for failing to get medical help for Danielle Carr-Gomm as she howled in pain and frothed at the mouth during the fourth day of a workshop in October 2016. The Californian healer promoted paida lajin therapy which entails getting patients to slap themselves repeatedly to release “poisonous waste” from the body. The technique has its roots in Chinese medicine and has no scientific basis and patients often end up with bruises, bleeding — or worse.
Xiao had extradited from Australia, where he had been convicted of manslaughter after a 6-year-old boy died when his parents withdrew his insulin medication after attending one of his workshops in Sydney. “I consider you dangerous even though you do not share the characteristics of most other dangerous offenders,” Justice Robert Bright said during sentencing at Winchester Crown Court. “You knew from late in the afternoon of day one of the fact that Danielle Carr-Gomm had stopped taking her insulin. Furthermore, you made it clear to her you supported this.” Bright added Xiao only made a “token effort” to get Carr-Gomm to take her insulin once it was too late and had shown no sign of remorse as he even continued to promote paida lajin in prison.
Carr-Gomm was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in 1999 and was desperate to find a cure that didn’t involve injecting herself with needles, her son, Matthew, said. She sought out alternative treatments and had attended a previous workshop by Xiao in Bulgaria a few months before her death in which she also became seriously ill after ceasing her medication. However, she recorded a video testimonial, calling Xiao a “messenger sent by God” who was “starting a revolution to put the power back in the hands of the people to cure themselves and to change the whole system of healthcare.”
Xiao had congratulated Carr-Gomm when she told other participants at the English retreat that she had stopped taking her insulin. By day three, Carr-Gomm was “vomiting, tired and weak, and by the evening she was howling in pain and unable to respond to questions,” prosecutor Duncan Atkinson said.
A chef who wanted to call an ambulance said she deferred to those with holistic healing experience. “Those who had received and accepted the defendant’s teachings misinterpreted Mrs. Carr-Gomm’s condition as a healing crisis,” Atkinson said.
______________
A healing crisis?
A crisis of collective stupidity, I’d say!
If you live in the UK, you could not possibly escape the discussion about the ‘Assisted Dying Bill’ which passed yesterday’s vote in the House of Commons (MPs have voted by 330 to 275 in favour of legalising voluntary assisted suicide). Once the bill passed all the further parliamentary hurdles – which might take several years – it will allow terminally ill adults who are
- expected to die within six months,
- of sound mind and capable of managing their own affairs
to seek help from specialised doctors to end their own life.
After listening to many debates about the bill, I still I have serious concerns about it. Here are just a few:
- Palliative care in the UK is often very poor. It was argued that the bill will be an incentive to improve it. But what, if this is wishful thinking? What if palliative care deteriorates to a point where it becomes an incentive to suicide? What if the bill should even turn out to be a reason for not directing maximum efforts towards improving palliative care?
- How sure can we be that an individual patient is going to die within the next six months? Lawmakers might believe that predicting the time someone has left to live is a more or less exact science. Doctors (should) know that it is not.
- How certain can we be that a patient is of sound mind and capable of managing their own affairs? By definition, we are dealing with very ill patients whose mind might be clouded, for example, by the effects of drugs or pain or both. Lawmakers might think that it is clear-cut to establish whether an individual patient is compos mentis, but doctors know that this is often not the case.
- In many religions, suicide is a sin. I am not a religious person, but many of the MPs who voted for the bill are or pretend to be. Passing a law that enables members of the public to commit what in the eyes of many lawmakers must be a deadly sin seems problematic.
In summary, I feel the ‘Assisted Dying Bill’ is a mistake for today; it might even be a very grave mistake for a future time, if we have a government that is irresponsible, neglects palliative care even more than we do today and views the bill as an opportunity to reduce our expenditure on pensions.
THE TIMES recently published an interview with (my ex-friend) Michael Dixon, a person who has featured regularly on this blog. Here is a short passage relevant to our many discussions about homeopathy:
“Can I say on the record I’ve never studied homeopathy,” he says. “I’ve never even offered homeopathy. What I have done is said that if patients feel they’ve benefited from homeopathy, what’s the problem?”
The problem, scientists would argue, is that homeopathy undermines trust in real, evidence-based medicine. Homeopathic remedies are made by diluting active ingredients in water, often so that none of the original substance remains. Homeopathy has been banned on the NHS since 2017, because it is “at best a placebo”.
For Dixon, however, this “trench warfare” divide between alternative and conventional medicine is too binary. Even if something is scientifically impossible, as long as it helps his patients that is all that matters, Dixon says. “Many years ago, a Christian faith healer started seeing some of my patients. She made a lot of them better. I didn’t care a damn if it’s placebo — they got better,” he says.
While he thinks homeopathy can serve a purpose on the NHS, he draws a line at the “madness of some of the more wayward complementary practitioners” who will argue for using homeopathy to vaccinate children. “I would always advocate against anyone going for complementary medicine if there’s good evidence-based conventional medicine.”
Apart from
- the hilarious implication that a faith healer is NOT a “wayward practitioner”,
- the fact that, as far as I know, nobody ever claimed that Dixon studied homeopathy,
- the fact that Dixon does not understand what, according to scientists, the problems with homeopathy are,
his statements seem very empathetic at first glance.
Dixon’s key argument – if patients feel they’ve benefited from homeopathy, why not prescribe it – is an often-voiced notion. But that does not make it correct!
A physician’s duty is not primarily to please the patient. His/her duty foremost is to behave responsibly and to treat patients in the most effective way. And this includes, in a case where the patient feels to have benefitted from a useless or dangerous treatment, to inform the patient about the current best evidence. To me, this is obvious, to others, including Dixon, it seems not. Let me therefore ask you, the reader of these lines: what is the right way to act as a GP?
SCENARIO DIXON
Patient wants a treatment that is far from optimal and claims to have experienced benefit from it. The GP feels this is enough reason to prescribe it, despite plenty of evidence that shows the treatment in question has at best a placebo effect. Thus the doctor agrees to his/her patient taking homeopathy.
SCENARIO ERNST
Patient wants a treatment that is far from optimal and claims to have experienced benefit from it. The doctor takes some time to explain the the therapy is not effective and that, for the patient’s condition, there are treatments that would be better suited. The patient reluctantly agrees and the doctor prescribes a therapy that is backed by sound evidence (in case the patient resists, he/she is invited to see another doctor).
I admit that risking to lose a patient to another colleague is not an attractive prospect, particularly if the patient happens to be your King. But nobody ever said that medicine was easy – and it certainly is not a supermarket were customers can pick and choose as they please.
What do you think?
While medical experts across the world have expressed dismay at Trump’s appointment of Robert Kennedy, the ‘International chiropractors Association’ has just published this remarkable note:
Donald J. Trump made it official that he was nominating Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Secretary-designee Kennedy has spent his entire career championing the health of the nation through education, advocacy, research and when needed litigation.
Among his many accomplishments are protecting the environment with Riverkeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council His work at Riverkeeper succeeded in setting long-term environmental legal standards. Kennedy won legal battles against large corporate polluters. He became an adjunct professor of environmental law at Pace University School of Law in 1986 and founded the Pace’s Environmental Litigation Clinic which he co-directed for a decade.
It would be in the Pace Law Review that the landmark paper, “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury” (https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr) would be published in 2011.
Kennedy became laser focused on the autism epidemic while giving lectures on the dangers of mercury in fish, he was repeatedly approached by the mothers of children born healthy who regressed into autism after suffering adverse reactions from childhood vaccines, including their concern about the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, being used in vaccines including the Hepatitis B vaccine given at birth. Kennedy’s approach to the issue was the same as it always, looking at the science. He assembled a team who gathered all the science and reviewed the issues with him. This resulted in the publication of the book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak
The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines.
After establishing and leading the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense, last year Kennedy stepped back from the organization to throw his hat in the ring to be President. Becoming the embodiment of his uncle John F. Kennedy’s famous quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!”, Kennedy reached out to President Trump to form an alliance to focus on the crisis of chronic disease in the United States, and suspended his campaign to focus on the Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) Initiative.
ICA President, Dr. Selina Sigafoose Jackson, who is currently in Brazil promoting the protection of chiropractic as a separate and distinct profession stated, “Many ICA members have been supporters of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s philanthropic activities and are all in on the MAHA Initiative. The Mission, Vision, and Values of the ICA align with the stated goals of the MAHA Initiative. We stand ready to provide policy proposals and experts to serve as advisors to the incoming Administration and to Secretary Kennedy upon his swearing in.”
____________________________
Perhaps I am permitted to contrast this with some health-related truths about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (my apologies, if the list is incomplete – please add to it by posting further important issues):
- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has, since about 20 years, been a leading figure of the anti-vaccine movement.
- During the epidemic, he pushed the conspiracy theory that “the quarantine” was used as cover to install 5G cell phone networks.
- He claimed that “one out of every six American women has so much mercury in her womb that her children are at risk for a grim inventory of diseases, including autism, blindness, mental retardation and heart, liver and kidney disease.”
- He wrote that, “while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, Dr. Fauci declared that hydroxychloroquine should only be used as part of a clinical trial. For the first time in American history, a government official was overruling the medical judgment of thousands of treating physicians, and ordering doctors to stop practicing medicine as they saw fit.”
- He pushed the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 had been “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.”
- He claimed in a 2023 podcast interview that “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective”.
- In a 2021 podcast, he urged people to “resist” CDC guidelines on when kids should get vaccines.
- He founded Children’s Health Defense’ that spreads fear and mistrust in science. One chiropractic group in California had donated $500,000 to this organisation.
- In 2019, he visited Samoa where he became partly responsible for an outbreak of measles, which made 5,700 people sick and killed 83 of them.
- He called mercury-containing vaccines aimed at children a holocaust. In 2015, he compared the horrors committed against Jews to the effects of vaccines on children. “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”
- He repeatedly alleged that exposure to chemicals — “endocrine disruptors” — is causing gender dysphoria in children and contributing to a rise in LGBTQ-youth. According to him, endocrine disruptors are “chemicals that interfere with the body’s hormones and are commonly found in pesticides and plastic.”
- He stated “Telling people to “trust the experts” is either naive or manipulative—or both.”
- He plans to stop water fluoridation.
- He slammed the FDA’s “suppression” of raw milk.
- He said that a worm ate part of his brain which led to long-lasting “brain fog.”
- He has a 14-year-long history of abusing heroin from the age of 15. The police once arrested him for possession; he then faced up to two years in jail for the felony but was sentenced to two years probation after pleading guilty.
- He stated: “WiFi radiation … does all kinds of bad things, including causing cancer…cell phone tumors behind the ear.”
- He claimed that rates of autism have increased even though “there has been no change in diagnosis and no change in screening either.” Yet, both have changed significantly.
- He wrote: (Fauci’s) “obsequious subservience to the Big Ag, Big Food, and pharmaceutical companies has left our children drowning in a toxic soup of pesticide residues, corn syrup, and processed foods, while also serving as pincushions for 69 mandated vaccine doses by age 18—none of them properly safety tested.”
- He stated that cancer rates are skyrocketing in the young and the old – a statement that is evidently untrue.
- He authored a viral post on X: “FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.”
- He has also aligned himself with special interests groups such as anti-vaccine chiropractors.
- He stated categorically: “You cannot trust medical advice from medical professionals.”
- He said he’s going to put a pause on infectious diseases research for 8 years.
- He promoted the unfounded theory that the CIA killed his uncle, former President John F. Kennedy.
- He linked school shootings to the increased prescription of antidepressants.
- An evaluation of verified Twitter accounts from 2021, found Kennedy’s personal Twitter account to be the top “superspreader” of vaccine misinformation on Twitter, responsible for 13% of all reshares of misinformation, more than three times the second most-retweeted account.
PS
Let me finish with a true statement: The World Health Organization has estimated that global immunization efforts have saved at least 154 million lives in the past 50 years.
The BMJ just published an article entitled “Disinformation enabled Donald Trump’s second term and is a crisis for democracies everywhere“. Please allow me to show you a few excerpts from this paper:
Donald Trump did not win the 2020 election, but asserting that he did became a prerequisite for Republicans standing for nomination to Congress or the Senate to win their primaries. An entire party became a vehicle for disinformation. Trump did win the 2024 presidential election, and key to that victory was building on the success of that lie. If you control enough of the information ecosystem, truth no longer matters…
… Readers of The BMJ will recall the huge amounts of misinformation (wrong or misleading content that is unknowingly shared) and disinformation (false content that is deliberately spread) during the covid-19 pandemic, some generated or amplified by politicians. This reduced vaccine uptake, promoted ineffective treatments, and encouraged attacks on health workers. In the past, factually incorrect statements might have had only local consequences, but a lie can now circle the world in seconds. Yet the speed in which disinformation can spread is only part of the problem…
… Part of Musk’s reason for buying Twitter was to influence the social discourse. And influence he did—by using his enormous platform (203 million followers) to endorse Trump, spread disinformation about voter fraud and deep fakes of Kamala Harris, and amplify conspiracy theories about everything from vaccines to race replacement theory to misogyny. Musk’s platform is effective: his endorsement of Trump coincided with Republican leaning posts being algorithmically favoured over Democrat leaning posts. A more mundane example: after Musk published three non-evidence based posts on X that favoured one medication over another, sales of the former rose by 18% while the other fell by 11%. …
The warning signs are clear for democracies around the world. Firstly, governments must regulate social media companies more rigorously. Brazil’s victorious dispute with X shows what is possible, and a major battle between the European Commission and Musk is under way. Beyond that, we must grapple with how to hold the world’s richest people to account when they directly interfere with national and international politics.
Secondly, public health agencies must create robust surveillance systems for infodemics just as they have for epidemics. They must monitor the emergence of disinformation and counter it or, ideally, anticipate and counter (pre-bunk) it among vulnerable audiences (and build population resilience). Independent organisations that are countering disinformation are already being deliberately targeted (https://counterhate.com/). And we must accelerate research on “inoculating” people against the algorithms and content that attempt to radicalise them.
Finally, politicians and the public health community must not be afraid of calling out disinformation, and we must all support and applaud them in doing so. And moving beyond responding to false rhetoric, we must also get on the front foot and create compelling counter narratives of a better politics that can support a kinder, more inclusive, and socially just world.
___________________________
I’d like to thank the authors (Martin McKee, professor of European public health, Christina Pagel, professor of operational research, and Kent Buse, co-founder of ‘Global Health) for their courage to speak out and stand up for the truth. I am in full agreement with them and encourage all my readers to study their excellent paper in full.
This study seeked to examine and compare the respective impacts of warm foot baths and foot reflexology on depression in patients undergoing radiotherapy.
A randomized clinical trial was conducted at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iran in 2019, following CONSORT guidelines. Participants included non-metastatic cancer patients aged 18-60 undergoing a 28-day radiotherapy course. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either warm footbaths or foot reflexology as interventions, performed daily for 20 min over 21 days. The data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.
Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in demographic attributes between the two groups. Both interventions led to a significant reduction in depression scores post-treatment compared to pre-treatment assessments. Foot reflexology showed a greater reduction in depression scores compared to footbaths with warm water.
The authors concluded that both warm footbaths and foot reflexology are effective in alleviating depression in patients undergoing radiotherapy, with foot reflexology showing a greater impact on improving depression levels. The study recommends foot reflexology as a preferred intervention for managing depression in these patients if conditions and facilities permit.
Proponents of reflexology suggest that manipulating specific points on the sole of the foot influences the physiological responses of corresponding organs. By exerting pressure on these reflex areas, numerous nerve endings in the soles are claimed to get activated, triggering the release of endorphins. This process helps block the transmission of pain signals, promotes comfort, reduces tension, and fosters a sense of tranquility. These assumptions fly in the face of science, of course. Yet, they impress many patients. By contrast, a footbath is just a footbath. Nobody makes any hocucpocus claimes about it.
What I am trying to explain is this: the placebo effect associated with a footbath is bound to be smaller than that of reflexology. And the minimal difference in outcomes (9.5 versus 8.9 on a scale ranging from 0 to 63) observed in this study are likely to be unrelated to reflexology itself – most probably, they are due to placebo responses.
So, what would you prefer, a footbath that is straight forwardly agreeable, or a treatment like reflexology that generates slightly better effects due to placebo and expectation but indoctrinates you with all sorts of pseudoscientific nonsense that undermines rational thinking about your health?
