fallacy
The defence of anthroposophical medicine – or of any other unproven modality – as articulated, for example, by figures like Weleda CEO Tina Müller, presents a vision of patient-centred care and economic pragmatism. However, when held against the light of current clinical standards and the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), it reveals significant cracks.
The most profound problem lies in the definition of scientific evidence. Proponents often point to decades of “positive experience” and high patient satisfaction as proof of effectiveness. Yet, in the hierarchy of science, anecdotal success sits at the very bottom. Anthroposophical treatments lack biological plausibility. Their perceived benefits are largely indistinguishable from context effects (such as placebo). Anthroposophical medicine might provide more time, empathy, and personal attention – factors that undoubtedly improve a patient’s well-being but do not validate the effectiveness of the specific remedies used. When independent bodies subject these treatments to rigorous, high-quality trials, the purported effects usually vanishe.
Anthroposophical medicine represents merely a tiny percentage of our healthcare expenditures. Therefore, proponents argue, little money would be saved by getting rid of it. This argument is a calculated distraction from the ethical core of the issue. While the fiscal burden may be marginal, the scientific cost is immense. A statutory health insurance system is built on a social contract of solidarity; it functions under the premise that public funds are reserved for treatments of proven value and effectiveness. To fund therapies that lack plausibility as well as reproducible results is to erode the credibility of medicine and rational thought. It is not a question of the amount of money, but the principle of integrity: every Euro, £ and $ spent on unproven treatments is a euro, £, and $ diverted from underfunded and often life-saving healthcare.
The regularly made appeal to the Swiss Model as a beacon of success also requires a more critical reading. The integration of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in Switzerland was, at its heart, a result of direct democracy rather than evidence. While the Swiss public voted for inclusion, the majority of the medical community remains deeply sceptical. To cite Switzerland as “proof” that anthroposophical medicine has fulfilled the criteria of EBM is to conflate political popularity with scientific validation. Democracy can decide how a nation spends its money, but it cannot vote a reliable evidence-base into existence.
Finally, we must consider the human risk of legitimizing non-evidenced-based practices. When a state-sanctioned insurance system places such therapies on the same pedestal as EBM, it risks misleading vulnerable individuals. For patients facing chronic or life-threatening illnesses, the “integrative” path can lead to a dangerous delay in seeking conventional, life-saving interventions. By treating subjective belief and peer-reviewed science as equal peers, we risk entering a “post-truth” medical era where the desire for a “natural” or “holistic” experience outweighs the necessity for proof.
In conclusion, while the call for a more “human” and “holistic” medical system might be noble, it must not come at the expense of scientific rigor. It is deeply misleading to imply that this is an ‘either or’; good medicine will always be based on both. A healthcare system that prioritizes popularity over proof risks becoming a system of expensive comfort rather than one of effective healing. True patient appreciation lies not in offering unproven choices, but in ensuring that every treatment covered by the public purse is supported by sound evidence. Not following this strategy is a disservice to patients and to progress.
So, the next time you hear people defending anthroposophical medicine or any other unproven modality, please look behind the smoke screen and find out why they do it. More often than not, you will then identify a massive conflict of interest. My advice is to listen to independent experts and to dismiss the people with an axe to grind.
Trump and his allies have produced many claims that experts have flagged as false, misleading, or dangerously unscientific. Below is a (probably incomplete) selection:
- In April 2020, Trump suggested during a press briefing that scientists explore whether injecting or “bringing disinfectant inside the body” could treat COVID‑19. Medical experts immediately warned that this would be dangerous or lethal.
- At the same briefing, he also floated the idea of “hitting the body with a very powerful light,” including using UV light inside the body to kill the virus, a suggestion that clinicians stressed had no scientific basis and could be harmful.
- Throughout 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed the virus would “just disappear” like a “miracle,” even as case counts and deaths surged.
- He heavily promoted hydroxychloroquine as a “game changer” long after clinical trials had shown it to be ineffective against COVID‑19 and associated with serious adverse effects.
- In February 2020, Trump claimed the number of COVID‑19 cases in the US would soon be “down to close to zero.”
- Trump frequently claimed that COVID‑19 was “just like the flu,” despite the fact that its mortality rate and impact on health systems were substantially higher.
- In late 2025 and early 2026, the Trump administration falsely claimed that acetaminophen use during pregnancy was linked to a much higher risk of autism, despite the lack of clear evidence and warnings from experts that this messaging was misleading.
- The administration also promoted leucovorin as a treatment for autism, a claim that has little robust evidence and is not supported by mainstream medical guidelines.
- Following the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS in late 2024, federal vaccine guidance was rolled back in several areas, including flu recommendations for some groups and changes to how RSV and other vaccines were positioned. This created confusion and encouraged a further “decoupling” of some state health policies from traditional CDC guidance.
- Trump has claimed that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, a statement that has no credible scientific basis.
- Trump has claimed that sea levels will rise by only “1/8 of an inch over the next 200 to 300 years,” contradicting widely accepted projections that show substantially higher rise even over the next 30 years along US coasts.
- Trump has also claimed that the human body is like a battery with a finite amount of energy, and that exercise is harmful because it “depletes” that energy, a view that runs counter to mainstream physiology and public‑health guidance.
- Trump claimed that drinking fizzy diet soda “kills cancer cells” because the drinks kill grass when spilt, implying they might do the same to cancer inside the body.
- In 2026, Dr. Mehmet Oz, as head of CMS, falsely claimed that 5 million New Yorkers were using Medicaid personal‑care services—nearly 75% of all enrolees—when the actual figure is far lower.
- RFK Jr. has spent decades claiming that thimerosal, a mercury‑based preservative in some vaccines, causes autism. Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines in 2001 as a precaution, yet autism rates continued to rise, and large studies have found no causal link.
- RFK Jr. frequently claims that no vaccines have ever been tested against a true saline placebo. In fact, many vaccines have been tested against saline placebos in clinical trials, and others were tested against earlier versions or standard care, in line with evolving ethical standards.
- RFK Jr. pushed for the removal of fluoride from all US water systems, falsely labelling it an “industrial waste” and a key cause of lower IQ, bone fractures, and cancer, despite the bulk of evidence supporting its safety and dental benefits at standard levels.
- RFK Jr. has also falsely claimed that polyunsaturated fats such as canola or soybean oil are toxic and the primary driver of obesity and inflammation in America, a view that contradicts large‑scale dietary and epidemiological data.
- RFK Jr. has falsely claimed that WiFi causes “leaky brain” and that 5G is a tool for mass surveillance and causes cancer, assertions that have no support from mainstream science.
- RFK Jr. has become an advocate for the federal legalisation of raw milk, downplaying the risks of Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. Yet pasteurization remains a cornerstone of public‑health measures to prevent foodborne illness.
- RFK Jr. has wrongly suggested a link between the use of SSRIs and the rise in mass shootings, a claim not supported by credible data.
- Janette Nesheiwat (JN), a Fox News contributor and Trump’s nominee for US Surgeon General, withdrew her nomination in May 2025 following allegations that she had significantly misrepresented her credentials. Her official bio and LinkedIn profile claimed she received her medical degree from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; in fact she attended the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten.
- JN repeatedly described herself as “double board‑certified,” but investigators found verified certification only in family medicine.
- Casey Means (CM), Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General, is a Stanford‑educated physician who left surgical residency before completion and whose medical license has been inactive since 2019. She has not practiced clinical medicine in years and has limited experience overseeing large‑scale public‑health systems.
- CM has built a profile as a health‑tech entrepreneur and co‑founder of Levels, promoting “functional medicine” and the MAHA movement.
- CM has made strong claims that continuous glucose monitoring and metabolic optimization can prevent or “cure” a wide range of modern diseases, a view that overstates the evidence and oversimplifies complex chronic conditions.
As indicated in the title of this post: if you waant to say healthy, it is wise to ignore the incompetent president and his equally incompetent cronies.
The Nazi’s endorsement of homeopathy during the Third Reich was a complex fusion of pseudo-science, ideology and pragmatic policy. Homeopathy was deemed to align ideologically with National Socialism’s völkisch worldview and, foremost, it was considered to be practical:
- It had pure German (“Aryan”) origins.
- It was considered to be natural.
- It was inexpensive.
- It was abundantly available.
- It was deemed to be harmless.
Several top Nazis also promoted “New German Healing” (Neue Deutsche Heilkunde), which integrated natural therapies like homeopathy into healthcare emphasizing racial purity, folk traditions, and self-reliance. Conventional medicine (“Schulmedizin”) was derided as “Jewish medicine” (verjudete Medizin), tainted by Jewish physicians who were disproportionately represented in German academia and practice. By purging Jews – over 5,000 doctors were expelled by 1935 – the Nazis created a vacuum which they filled with “Aryan” alternatives, e.g. the “Heilpraktiker” framing homeopathy as a proud German invention free from “internationalist” or capitalist pharmaceutical dependencies.
Pragmatic motives amplified this support. Homeopathy was inexpensive, used mostly locally available materials and promised self-sufficiency amid wartime shortages of synthetic drugs. Heinrich Himmler championed it personally, funding research and integrating it into SS clinics; Rudolf Hess, the “Deputy of the Führer”, was also a vocal advocate. The regime licensed homeopathic training, established research institutes, and started a most comprehensive research program of homeopathy. In one of the darkest chapters, the SS conducted experiments at the Dachau concentration camp to test homeopathic treatments for various conditions. Authors from the era celebrated homeopathy as compatible with Nazi racial hygiene, linking it to family doctors fostering generational health.
However, the outcomes were far from what homeopaths had hoped for. The Donner Report on the Nazi’s large research program of 1941–1943 revealed “wholly negative” findings: homeopathic remedies failed catastrophically. Official evaluations deemed it ineffective for epidemics, leading to its sidelining in military hospitals by 1943. After the war, German homeopaths suppressed these findings by making the documents disappear.
Yet the Nazi legacy endures. Nazi promotion entrenched homeopathy in German culture, at least partly explaining its persistence today. This contributed to vaccine hesitancy during COVID-19, as historical distrust of “allopathic” medicine (like “Schulmedizin, a derogatory term created by Hahnemann) lingered.
The Third Reich history of homeopathy highlights how pseudo-science tends to thrive under authoritarianism, masking inefficacy with nationalism, dogma or untruths. While the Nazis tolerated homeopathy for ideological purity, its empirical failure exposed the regime’s bankruptcy.
The parallels to what is currently happening to healthcare in the US are difficult to overlook.
The Indian Ministry of Ayush was established in 2014 with a vision of reviving the profound knowledge of India’s ancient systems of medicine and ensuring the optimal development and propagation of the Ayush systems of healthcare. Earlier, the Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homoeopathy (ISM&H) formed in 1995, was responsible for the development of these systems. It was then renamed as the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga, and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (Ayush) in November 2003 with focused attention towards education and research in these therapies.
In the global landscape of public health, India’s Ministry of AYUSH stands as a profound anomaly. While most middle‑ and high‑income countries have converged around evidence‑based, scientifically grounded medicine, India has instead expanded this large, state‑run administrative apparatus where cultural nationalism and traditionalist narratives dominates over clinical efficacy and scientific rigor. The Ministry’s current trajectory reveals a troubling pattern: the systematic promotion of unproven therapies, flawed research, and notorious breaches of ethical principles, particularly with respect to the treatment of India’s most vulnerable populations.
The Homeopathy Anomaly
The most glaring anomaly must be the Ministry’s continued, high‑level support for homoeopathy. India is currently the only country in the world that maintains a dedicated national ministry and a statutory regulatory framework – via the National Commission for Homoeopathy – specifically to promote a system widely regarded as implausible, ineffective and harmful. Global assessments, including those by no less than 28 independent organisations worldwide, have concluded that there is no reliable evidence that homeopathic remedies work beyond placebo. Yet the AYUSH Ministry funds and publicizes a central research council (the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy, CCRH) as well as a network of homoeopathic hospitals and teaching institutions, with annual budget allocations now exceeding ₹4,400 crore (roughly 470–480 million US dollars at current exchange rates). By directing substantial taxpayer funds to homoeopathic research and infrastructure, the state effectively endorses a “placebo‑as‑medicine” model, elevating it to the status of a national health strategy. This is not merely an academic dispute; it is a policy outlier that places India’s healthcare posture at odds with well‑established chemical and physical principles, as well as with the recommendations of leading international scientific bodies.
The Facade of Rigor
The Ministry tends to defend its approach by claiming a pivot toward “evidence‑based” or “scientific” AYUSH medicine, but an examination of its research output suggests a facade of rigor rather than its substance. Much of the work produced by bodies such as the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda (CCRA) and their counterparts in Unani and Siddha consists of investigations that are methodologically weak and wide open to bias. Key methodological flaws recur:
- Small sample sizes: Many trials involve fewer than 50–100 participants, rendering them statistically underpowered.
- Lack of blinding: A large proportion of studies is open‑label, where both clinicians and patients know the assigned intervention, amplifying placebo effects and observational bias.
- Selective reporting and publication bias: Negative findings – where AYUSH interventions fail to demonstrate benefit – are rarely published.
By branding such useless studies as “scientific proof,” the Ministry engages in a form of “science‑washing.” This practice misleads the public, uncritical clinicians, and policymakers into believing that AYUSH therapies have undergone the same rigorous, independent scrutiny as conventional therapies.
The Ethical Violations
In my view, the most serious concern is ethical. Under the banner of “Self‑Reliant India” (Atmanirbhar Bharat), the Ministry has aggressively promoted AYUSH products, for instance, during the COVID‑19 pandemic. This push could be viewed as an exercise in cultural pride and national self‑reliance but, in fact, it carries serious risks.
Medical ethics rely on two core principles: informed consent and non‑maleficence. When a state body, backed by cabinet‑level authority, “flogs” unproven and potentially dangerous treatments to a largely rural population with limited health literacy, it undermines both. Many patients are not able to distinguish between an ancient tradition and a clinically validated drug, yet they may be led by government‑sponsored messaging to defer or abandon evidence‑based treatments.
This is particularly dangerous in chronic conditions such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension, where effective pharmacological control and regular monitoring are both available and potentially life‑saving. If patients substitute proven allopathic regimens with state‑endorsed AYUSH alternatives of uncertain efficacy, the consequences can be dire. They include uncontrolled blood glucose, stroke‑risk elevation, organ damage, and avoidable mortality. The Ministry’s conduct, in effect, offloads these risks onto the most vulnerable while shielding itself behind appeals to tradition and national identity.
Conclusion
The Ministry of AYUSH has become the institutional vehicle for a “pluralistic” health model that, in practice, functions as a state‑funded rejection of the scientific method. This constitutes a regression in public‑health governance rather than a progressive pluralism. Until the Ministry subjects its therapies to the same scrutiny as any other medicine, and until it accepts transparent, independent evaluations without recourse to political or cultural vindication, it will remain less a health body and more a department of cultural preservation and doctrine.
The ‘Smallwood Report‘, entitled “The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the NHS” was published in October 2005. It recommended greater integration of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) into the UK’s National Health Service and to address “effectiveness gaps” in treating chronic and psychosocial conditions, claiming potential cost savings.
Its core recommendations were:
- NICE assessment: Urged Health Ministers to task the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) with a full review of the cost-effectiveness of therapies like acupuncture, chiropractic, osteopathy, herbal medicine, and homeopathy.
- Targeted applications: Suggested these SCAM options for lower back pain (manipulative therapies over conventional), asthma (homeopathy), common colds (echinacea), and other chronic issues where orthodox medicine falls short, potentially reducing absenteeism and NHS costs by hundreds of millions.
- Implementation steps: Promote GP referrals to SCAM, target deprived communities, prioritize research on cost-effectiveness/safety, address regulatory barriers, and use case studies showing reduced GP visits and secondary care savings.
At the time, I called its evidence “grossly misleading,” citing ignored Cochrane reviews showing no superiority for most of the claims. Many critics agreed with me, and the Lancet editor Richard Horton famoulsy called it “dangerous nonsense”.
As the recommendations were pure BS, it is comforting to note that – 20 years later – they have been largely ignored.
NICE assessments:
NICE has issued selective endorsements—e.g., acupuncture and manipulative therapies for low back pain—but stopped short of broad SCAM evaluations, often citing “insufficient evidence” or requiring further trials, directly countering the report’s call for comprehensive cost-effectiveness reviews. No large-scale NICE program emerged to validate the report’s claimed savings (hundreds of millions annually), and guidelines frequently dismiss or deprioritize unproven modalities like homeopathy.
NHS integration status:
- Limited GP referrals: Sporadic pilots exist (e.g., acupuncture in some pain clinics, osteopathy/chiropractic for musculoskeletal issues), often GP-led and adjunctive, but not systematic; social prescribing now favors mindfulness over traditional SCAM.
- Funding barriers: Most Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) classify SCAM as “low priority” absent robust evidence, funding only exceptional cases in palliative or pain management pathways; many services closed due to austerity post-2010.
- No deprived-community focus: The report’s equity push for high-need areas saw negligible uptake, with barriers like clinician resistance and regulatory hurdles persisting.
The report’s optimistic case studies (e.g., Glastonbury) proved anecdotal and unscaled, undermined by critiques highlighting flawed evidence (e.g., ignored Cochrane reviews). Today, NHS policy emphasizes evidence-based conventional care, with SCAM relegated to private or niche settings – realization sits at ~10-20% for endorsed therapies, 0% for broader vision.
In other words, ignoring the report has saved the NHS many millions. More importantly, it has prevented UK evidence-based healthcare from getting watered down by ineffective therapies.
Could that also have happened without my loud protests (e.g. here and here) at the time?
Nobody can know for sure?
But when I feel a little bit down, I tell myself that I had an important role in saving the UK millions!
How accurate are Dana Ullman’s articles? To answer this amusing question, I asked the AI platform ‘Gemini’ to find all the false statements in one of Dana’s articles (yes, I do admit that I am reluctant to read though an entire nonsensical paper – it would give me a headache or worse). This is the precise task I asked for:
Give me a bullet point list of all false statements in this text: Lessons from the Flu Epidemic of 1918: The Dangers of Using Fever Suppressing Drugs for Viral Infections.
[In case you want to read this lengthy paper yourself, here is the link]And here is the response I got from Gemini (bold emphasis by AI):
The text you provided is a well-known article by Dana Ullman that blends historical events with controversial medical theories. While some of the historical context (like the 1917 aspirin patent expiration) is accurate, the medical conclusions and the data regarding homeopathy are widely considered false or highly misleading by the scientific and medical communities.
Here is a bulleted list of the primary inaccuracies and misleading statements in the text:
1. Misrepresentation of the 1918 Pandemic Deaths
- The “Aspirin Theory”: The text suggests that a “large number” of the 50 million deaths in 1918 were due to aspirin overdose. This is based on a hypothesis by Dr. Karen Starko. While high doses of aspirin likely contributed to some deaths, the scientific consensus remains that the vast majority of deaths were caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia and the extreme virulence of the H1N1 virus itself, not aspirin poisoning.
- Aspirin and Bleeding Lungs: The text claims bleeding in the lungs is a “known side effect of aspirin overdose.” While salicylates can cause pulmonary edema, the “hemorrhagic” (bloody) lungs seen in 1918 victims are a hallmark of the severe viral pneumonia caused by that specific strain of influenza, not a specific marker for aspirin toxicity.
2. Inaccuracies Regarding COVID-19 and NSAIDs
- NSAIDs and Blood Clots: The text states that ibuprofen and naproxen are “known to lead to blood clots.” This is a significant mischaracterization. While chronic, long-term use of certain NSAIDs is linked to a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, they are not a primary cause of the acute “clotting storms” seen in COVID-19 patients. In fact, many COVID-19 protocols involve using blood-thinning agents (like aspirin) to prevent clots.
- The 80% Risk Claim: The claim that NSAID users have an 80% greater risk of venous thromboembolism is taken from observational studies that show correlation, not causation. People taking NSAIDs often have underlying inflammatory conditions that already increase their risk of clots.
3. False Claims About Homeopathy’s Success
- 1918 Mortality Rates: The text claims a 1.2% death rate in homeopathic hospitals vs. 29% in conventional hospitals. These figures are widely considered unreliable and anecdotal. They were self-reported by homeopathic practitioners at the time, lacked standardized diagnostic criteria, and did not account for “selection bias”.
- WHO Recognition: The WHO does not recognize homeopathy as the “second largest system of medicine” in terms of efficacy or official endorsement. It only recognizes it as a widely used traditional practice.
4. Scientific Misconceptions About Fever
- Fever Suppression Spreading Virus: The text claims that suppressing a fever “can enable the virus to spread throughout the body.” Clinical studies have generally shown that taking antipyretics does not significantly worsen disease outcomes or increase viral shedding.
- The “Cytokine Storm” Claim: The article suggests that when a fever-suppressing drug wears off, a person may experience a “cytokine storm.” This is medically incorrect.
5. Out-of-Context Quotes
- Paul Offit and Jane Brody: The text quotes them in a misleading way. They are vocal supporters of conventional medicine and vaccines, and the usage here is considered cherry-picking.
Summary Note: The FDA and the CDC have both clarified that there is no scientific evidence that taking ibuprofen or other NSAIDs worsens COVID-19.
_________________________
I know, this is just one of his many nonsensical papers. But it nevertheless suggests that Dana puts in quite a lot of effort into misleading the public.
We all know, I think, what homeopaths say about homeopathy. We also know what everyone else says about it. And the two set of opinions could not be more different. In this context, it might be interesting to learn what writers have to say about the subject. Here is a list of quotes from the non-medical, non-scientific literature (I am sure there are many more; if you know some, please let me know):
Boyd, W. (Restless, 2006)
“She had a small leather case of homeopathy remedies, Nux Vomica, Pulsatilla, Arnica, that she treated like a traveling reliquary.”
Coetzee, J.M. (Elizabeth Costello, 2003)
“He is a believer in homeopathy, in the healing power of water, in the memory of water. He is a man of the eighteenth century, really.”
Cunningham, M. (The Hours, 1998)
“She has tried everything: homeopathy, psychotherapy, prayer. She is a woman who lives in the hope of a miraculous adjustment.”
Enright, A. (The Gathering, 2007)
“My mother had a great belief in homeopathy, which is just a way of saying she had a great belief in nothing at all, provided it came in a very small bottle.”
Franzen, J. (The Corrections, 2001)
“Enid was deep into a phase of homeopathy, convinced that a decillionth of a gram of honeybee sting would cure her husband’s tremors.”
Márquez G.G. (“Serenade: How My Father Won My Mother”, 2001)
“…devoted his talent as an autodidact to a science on the decline: homeopathy.”
Hustvedt, S. (The Blazing World, 2014)
“He was the kind of man who treated his neuroses with homeopathy and his physical ailments with intense, silent resentment.”
McEwan, I. (Solar, 2010)
“He had no time for homeopathy, which he considered a form of witchcraft for people who were too polite to carry crystal wands.”
O’Farrell, M. (Instructions for a Heatwave, 2013)
“She kept a kit of homeopathy in her bag, tiny glass vials of white pills that looked like the breath of ghosts.”
Self, W. (How the Dead Live, 2000)
“Lily’s faith in homeopathy was such that she believed if she diluted her own death enough, she might eventually become immortal.”
St. Aubyn, E. (At Last, 2011)
“He had reached that stage of desperation where even homeopathy seemed like a robust and evidence-based option.”
H.G. Wells (Tono-Bungay, 1909)
“By the time my uncle had taken to homeopathy, I realized that his faith in science was of a very elastic kind.”
George Bernard Shaw (Preface to The Doctor’s Dilemma, 1906)
“I have a faith in homeopathy that would make a Harley Street physician shudder, though I suspect it rests less on evidence than on temperament.”
Thomas Mann (The Magic Mountain, 1924)
“He spoke of homeopathy with a curious mixture of irony and conviction, as though the less there was of it, the more there must be.”
Aldous Huxley (Eyeless in Gaza, 1936)
“She placed her trust in homeopathy, preferring infinitesimal certainties to the gross invasions of modern medicine.”
Doris Lessing (The Golden Notebook, 1962)
“She was experimenting with diets and homeopathy, as if the body might be coaxed into sanity by gentler means.”
Margaret Atwood (Cat’s Eye, 1988)
“My mother believed in homeopathy, in small doses and invisible forces, which seemed to me another way of saying she believed in hope.”
Zadie Smith (White Teeth, 2000)
“He dabbled in homeopathy, convinced that the less substance there was, the more profound the cure.”
David Lodge (Therapy, 1995)
“I tried homeopathy for a while, but it seemed to require a belief in something so small it might not exist at all.”
Hilary Mantel (Giving Up the Ghost, 2003)
“Homeopathy offered the promise of healing without intrusion, a whisper of cure rather than a command.”
Martin Amis (The Information, 1995)
“He regarded homeopathy as a joke that had somehow outlived the punchline.”
______________________
It seems to me that, when it comes to homeopathy, the writers tend to agree with the scientists.
Aaron Siri is an American lawyer and anti‑vaccine activist. He has become a key figure in contemporary US vaccine‑policy debates, largely through his legal challenges and close ties to health‑policy critics such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. His following five central claims about vaccines are a mix of selective quoting, misrepresentation of studies, and appeal to legal‑style rhetoric:
- Vaccines cause chronic illness
Siri’s central “smoking‑gun” claim rests on an unpublished Henry Ford Health‑system analysis allegedly showing that vaccinated children have far higher rates of chronic illness than unvaccinated children. Vaccinated children in this dataset had far more health‑care visits than unvaccinated children, so more conditions were diagnosed in them regardless of whether vaccines caused them. This is a textbook example of detection bias, but not evidence of causation. Moreover, the study has not passed peer review; its reported disease prevalences are inconsistent with known epidemiology. It is therefore widely seen as methodologically unsound.
- Vaccines were never properly tested against proper controls
Siri argues that many childhood vaccines have not been tested in inadequately-powered, placebo‑controlled trials. When an effective vaccine exists, medical ethics oppose using placebos in new trials, as that would deny protection to a control group. Moreover, his claim that older vaccines (e.g., tetanus–diphtheria–pertussis) “lack adequate controlled trials” is misleading because earlier trials were designed for different standards and later observational data, post‑licensure surveillance, and large‑scale cohort studies have filled the gaps. In other words, he exploits technical‑sounding language to imply a hiatus of evidence, when in reality the evidence base is broader and more heterogeneous than he portrays.
- The CDC/WHO inflates how many lives vaccines have saved
Siri has attacked the WHO’s estimate that vaccines have saved around 154 million lives, calling it “corruption of science”. The 154‑million figure comes from a modelling exercise [like most “lives‑saved” statements in public health]. It depends on assumptions but is based on vaccine‑coverage and mortality‑trend data, but it is not fabricated. Siri’s rebuttals focus on rhetorically dismissing the exercise as “advertising” rather than engaging its assumptions or proposing alternative, better‑validated models. His claim that this number is “corrupt” thus rests polemic than but not on a coherent technical critique of the underlying epidemiological models.
- Exploiting the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act and “lack of liability”
Siri blames the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act for reducing oversight and downplaying risk, arguing that liability protection “corrupts” safety monitoring. Yet the law was designed to protect manufacturers from financially ruinous litigation and to create a dedicated federal compensation program for proven injuries, not to forbid safety monitoring. The US has multiple surveillance systems (VAERS, VSD, CISA) and expert advisory bodies (ACIP, NVAC) that continuously review vaccine safety. Siri’s critique thus conflates legal strategy with scientific oversight, implying that the absence of mass torts proves lax monitoring.
In conclusion, Siri’s vaccine claims are mostly built on:
- one deeply flawed, unpublished observational study,
- selective readings of older vaccine‑trial designs,
- unwarranted dismissal of WHO‑level modelling, and
- a legal framing that conflates liability shields with absence of safety science.
Epidemiologists, infectious‑disease specialists and other experts rightly regard Siri’s arguments as misrepresenting or misapplying biostatistics and failing to meet standards for causal inference. It would be a serious mistake to follow them!
I am sure that many of my readers have no idea what ‘Slinding Cupping Therapy’ is. It is a TCM therapy that, according to the authors of this paper, receives much appreciation for treating plaque psoriasis. This study was designed to test the hypothesis that sliding cupping therapy is non-inferior to narrowband ultraviolet B (NBUVB) therapy in improving disease severity in patients with plaque psoriasis.
This prospective trial recruited 60 patients with plaque psoriasis who were randomized to receive either sliding cupping intervention or NBUVB treatment. The cup was moved 30 times for each skin lesion until the target skin area turned purple. The initial dose (mJ/cm2) of ultraviolet radiation b (UVB) was determined based on sun-reactive skin types I through VI, which ranged from 300 mJ/cm2 to 800 mJ/cm2. Both treatments were performed 3 times per week for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score at week 8, with secondary endpoints, including Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA), body surface area, visual analogue scale scores, and quality of life measures.
The total response rates were 69% (18/26) and 79% (19/24) for patients receiving sliding cupping intervention and those receiving NBUVB treatment, respectively, which showed no significant difference (P = .526). The PASI scores, body surface area, and PGA were reduced in patients with plaque psoriasis at W0, W4 and W8 after either sliding cupping intervention or NBUVB treatment (P <.001), and these reductions were not significantly different between the patients receiving sliding cupping intervention and those receiving NBUVB treatment at W0, W4, W8, and W12. At W8, the mean percentage reduction in PASI was 62.4% (95% CI, 54.9–69.8) in the sliding cupping group and 66.9% (95% CI, 59.6–74.2) in the NBUVB group, with no significant difference between groups. The total response rates were 69.23% (18/26) and 79.17% (19/24), respectively (P = .526). Patients receiving sliding cupping intervention and those receiving NBUVB treatment did not show statistically significant differences in these outcomes at W0, W4, W8, and W12 (P >.05).
The authors concluded that the overall results suggest that sliding cupping therapy exhibits statistically similar efficacy and safety profiles as NBUVB treatment, especially at 8 weeks after treatment.
Sliding cupping therapy is a form of cupping in which cups producing mild suction are placed on oiled skin and then moved along the body surface, generating a “reverse massage” that lifts rather than compresses the subcutaneous tissues. The negative pressure is thought to increase local blood flow and lymphatic drainage, reduce perceived muscle tension, and temporarily improve range of motion, though high‑quality clinical evidence for most claimed benefits remains limited.
The treatment is used mainly by massage therapists, physiotherapists, and TCM practitioners in musculoskeletal and sports‑rehab settings, as well as in wellness and spa‑oriented clinics; it is commonly applied to the back, shoulders, neck, limbs, and along fascial lines or acupuncture meridians, often for pain, stiffness, “trigger‑point”‑type tension, and post‑exercise recovery. The popularity of this therapy is best characterised as a niche within broader cupping and fascial‑release practice rather than a mainstream standard treatment.
The new study is a text-book example of how to mislead people with seemingly reliable research. The fact that it was grossly under-powered – and not the effectiveness of the sliding cupping therapy – is obviously the cause of the lack of a difference between the effective therapy (NBUVB) and the sliding quackery.
Let me give you an example: say, we compare antibiotics (A) to homeopathy (H) as treatments for bacterial pneumonia. We treat 10 patientsin each group, and 8 of them recover in group A within a week, while in the H-group the amount is 6 (many patients recover even without an effective treatment). We run statistical tests which tell us that the difference is not significant. Thus we falsely conclude that homeopathy is as effective as antibiotics in the treatment of pneumonia. The 2 treatments were, in fact, not equal but the lack of power of the small study failed to detect the existing difference.
It seems rather obvious to me that a similar thing has happened with the above study. Its authors are to be congratulated for cheating so slyly that neither the editors nor the reviewers of the journal ‘Medicine’ managed to see through their simple litte trick.
Some homeopathy-fans claim that tiny “nanoparticles” survive even in remedies diluted a trillion trillion times (i.e. the process of manufacturing a high-potency homeopathic remedy). They furthermore assume that this phenomenon can explain how homeopathy works. This argument sounds ever so modern and sciency but – unless you are a bit of a dim-wit – it falls apart for several fairly straightforward reasons that almost anyone should be able to grasp.
Too Dilute
Imagine starting with a single drop of medicine and diluting it by adding 99 drops of water, shaking it up, then repeating that hundreds of times. By the 12C stage (about 1 part in 10^24), there’s statistically zero original molecules left – way before most remedies hit 30C or higher. Even if some nanoparticles somehow cling on from the mixing process or glass vials, they’d be so rare (fewer than one per bottle) that they couldn’t reliably affect your body like a real drug.
Breaks the Main Rule
Homeopathy’s main axiom is “like cures like” assumption: a substance that causes a headache in a healthy person should cure headaches when you’re sick. But nanoparticles would just deliver a tiny dose of the ingredient itself, acting like an extremely weak remedy – not following homeopathy’s main axiom. This would turn homeopathy back into normal medicine and miss the basis of its own theory.
Not Based on Materials
Not all homeopathic remedies start with physical ingredients. Some are “imponderables” like “X-ray” (sugar pills exposed to X-ray radiation, then diluted), “vacuum” (made by evacuating air from water), or even “moonlight.” There’s no material at all to leave nanoparticles behind, so this explanation can’t cover those products.
Useless Ingredients
Most homeopathic remedies are based on mother tinctures that have no heath effects, like sepia (ink from cuttlefish), cantharis (Spanish fly blister beetle), or even bits of the Berlin Wall. These aren’t bioactive – they don’t fight infections or reduce pain or do anything else in normal doses. Nanoparticles from such useless junk wouldn’t magically gain healing powers; they’d still do nothing useful for health.
Lack of Convincing Clinical Evidence
As discussed ad nauseam on my blog, there simply is no sound evidence to show that homeopathy works better than a placebo. Any benefits people feel are thus likely from expectation, natural recovery, or doctor attention – and not from nanoparticles. If homeopathy had any real effects to explain, nanoparticles might be worth debating; without them, it’s a dead end.
I do sympathise with the desperation of homeopaths. They feel they must identify a plausible mode of action for their remedies. Their 200 year old struggle to find anything at all is in many ways remarkable. Here are some of the main explanatory ideas homeopaths (or homeopathy-friendly authors) have previously proposed for how homeopathy might work:
- Vital force / life energy – the remedy is said to act on a non-physical “vital force” or life energy that supposedly governs health and disease.
- Water memory – water is claimed to “remember” substances once dissolved in it, even after dilution beyond any remaining molecules, via changes in water structure or hydrogen bonds.
- Electromagnetic signatures – remedies are said to carry subtle electromagnetic patterns or “information” of the original substance, sometimes claimed to be recordable, transmitted electronically, and imprinted on new water.
- Quantum coherence domains – models suggest water forms coherent quantum domains storing drug “information” as electromagnetic frequencies, inspired by Del Giudice and Preparata’s ideas, though lacking solid experimental support.
- Stable water clusters / clathrates – hypotheses that long-lived clusters or cage-like structures (clathrates) in water somehow encode the properties of the starting substance.
- Nanobubbles and interfaces – suggestions that gas nanobubbles or interfaces in the solution store and transmit information about the starting material.
- Hormesis-based explanations – the idea that ultra-low doses act via hormesis (beneficial effects of mild stress or toxins), extended to the extreme dilutions used in homeopathy.
- Resonance with the body – proposals that remedies resonate with biological systems (cells, tissues, or “vital force”) through frequency matching or electric resonance, rather than via chemistry.
- Quantum entanglement / non-locality – claims that patient, practitioner, and remedy become “entangled,” so healing occurs via non-local quantum effects rather than molecules or doses.
- Information medicine / encoding – framing remedies as carriers of abstract “information” rather than substance, supposedly acting like a software signal on the body’s “hardware.”
Is it not time for homeopaths to accept the only well-proven, plausible explanations as to why their patients feel better after taking their remedies?
- The empathetic therapeutic encounter.
- The natural history of the condition.
- Regression towards the mean.
- Concommittant conventional treatments.
- The placebo effect.
