MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

fraud

1 2 3 27

Recently, I wrote about the court case of a French naturopath. Last week, the judge has issued his verdict. Miguel Barthéléry was sentenced to a two-year suspended prison term and to a fine of 5 000 Euros. Two cancer patients had died following his treatments and recommendations. Barthéléry was also found guilty of impersonating a doctor and illegally practising medicine. In addition, he was also banned for life from practising as a healthcare professional.

The Paris criminal court found that Miguel Barthéléry had deliberately created confusion about his qualifications by presenting himself as a doctor on the internet and in text messages to the two victims. The defendant had claimed to have a doctorate and a post-doctorate from the United States. The judgment “has the consequence of dissuading all those who engage in the same abuses, they are now warned that we can not do anything with the health of people,” said the judge.

The case had begun in February 2019 with the complaint of the companion of a man who had died two months earlier of testicular cancer. Diagnosed in 2016, the patient had not consulted a doctor but had preferred to follow a “health plan” drawn up by the naturopath. It was based on fasting and cures, raw food, and essential oils. Later, the family of a Belgian physiotherapist, who died of uterine cancer at the age of 39, joined the legal case. However, according to Code Source, the Parisien podcast, the case is more extensive, with seven further suspicious deaths of Barthéléry’s patients.

Barthéléry’s lawyer said that the decision “raises questions more generally about the appreciation that we now have of alternative therapeutic practices, which now seem, although not prohibited by law, to be subject to condemnation by the courts.”

 

I have repeatedly likened so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to a cult – not a religious cult, of course, but to a ‘health cult’. A health cult is defined as a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator. So, are you a member of a health cult?

In case you are a proponent of SCAM, you might be in danger. Here are a few questions you should ask yourself:

  1. Is your SCAM based on dogma, such as ‘LIKE CURES LIKE’ or ‘SUBLUXATIONS ARE THE CAUSE OF DISEASE?
  2. Does the cult demand you accept its dogma or doctrine as truth?
  3. Is it set forth by a single guru or promulgator?
  4. Is your SCAM supposed to cure all ills?
  5. Is belief used by proponents of your SCAM as a substitute for evidence?
  6. Does the SCAM determine your diet and/or lifestyle?
  7. Does the SCAM exploit you financially?
  8. Does your SCAM impose rigid rules and regulations?
  9. Does your SCAM practice deception?
  10. Does your SCAM have its own sources of information/propaganda?
  11. Does your SCAM cultivate its own lingo?
  12. Does your SCAM discourage or inhibit critical thinking?
  13. Are questions about the values of your SCAM discouraged or forbidden?
  14. Do the proponents of your SCAM reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words?
  15. Do they assume that health problems are the result of not adhering to the dogma?
  16. Does your SCAM instill fear into members who consider leaving?
  17. Do the proponents of your SCAM depict conventional medicine as ineffective or harmful?
  18. Are you asked to recruit new members to your SCAM?

Please try to answer these questions honestly and self-critically.

If more than a handful turn out to be positive, you have, in my view, a reason to be concerned. In this case, I would recommend you go to a library and start reading a few books that provide critical analyses of SCAM.

 

The General Chiropractic Council (GCC) regulates chiropractors in the UK, Isle of Man, and Gibraltar to ensure the safety of patients undergoing chiropractic treatment. The GCC sets the standards of chiropractic practice and professional conduct that all chiropractors must meet.

By providing a lengthy ruling in the case of the late John Lawler and his chiropractor, Arlene Scholten, the GCC has recently established new standards for chiropractors working in the UK, Isle of Man, and Gibraltar (see also today’s article in The Daily Mail). If I interpret the GCC’s ruling correctly, a UK chiropractor is henceforth allowed to do all of the following things without fearing to get reprimanded, as long as he or she produces evidence that the deeds were done not with malicious intentions but in a state of confusion and panic:

  • Treat a patient with treatments that are contraindicated.
  • Fail to obtain informed consent.
  • Pose as a real doctor without informing the patient that the practitioner is just a chiropractor who has never been near a medical school.
  • Cause the death of a patient by treatment to the neck.
  • Administer first aid in a way that makes matters worse.
  • Tell lies to the ambulance men who consequently failed to employ a method of transport that would save the patient’s life.
  • Keep inaccurate patient records that conceal what treatments were administered.

In previous years, the job of a chiropractor had turned out to be demanding, difficult, and stressful. This was due not least to the GCC’s professional standards which UK chiropractors were obliged to observe. The code of the GCC stated prominently that “our overall purpose is to protect the public.

All this is now a thing of the past.

The new ruling changed everything. Now, UK chiropractors can relax and can happily pursue their true devotion, namely to keep their bank manager happy, while not worrying too much about the welfare and health of their patients.

In the name of all UK chiropractors, I herewith express my thanks to the GCC for unashamedly protecting first and foremost the interests of their members, while tacitly discarding medical ethics and evidently not protecting the public.

MAKE CHIROPRACTIC GREAT AGAIN!

Guest post by Norbert Aust and Viktor Weisshäupl

Imagine you recently published an excellent and rigorous trial providing solid evidence that a certain therapy is able to help patients suffering from some inevitably fatal condition. You proved that your therapy is able to significantly prolong the patients’ lifetime, much longer than with the current state-of-the-art therapeutic approach. But the patients not only live considerably longer, but they also do so with a much better quality of life (QoL) and subjective well-being. In short: this therapy marks some progress that would otherwise take years or decades of scientific effort.

And then someone comes forward and points out your data apparently were manipulated. Essential parameters of this trial were modified sometime after data collection was completed, with the patients’ outcome and first analyses available. Thus the results were biased in a certain direction and the critics show that the results as published in your study show characteristics that such manipulations would evoke. After all, this holds an implication of scientific misconduct that could, if verified, ruin your academic reputation more or less completely.

What would you do?

Ignore the preposterous concerns because you know your methods and performance were rigorous and solid? After all, anytime some real academic criticism arises you are ready to prove your findings are well-founded results of accepted scientific methods. Or would you publish data or documents that your critics were too ignorant to find or to understand, and thus to stop such rumours once and for all? Maybe you could even clarify some of the issues raised by those critics, maybe add some follow-up information or data to ensure no more misunderstandings occur. Or would you try to find some clues for a libel lawsuit?

Well, we thought some of the above would happen after we contacted the authors of the recent study on adjunct homeopathy in non-small cell lung cancer. On that date, we forwarded our detailed analysis to the lead author and all the co-authors.

Of course, we even considered the possibility, not very likely though, that we would receive some explanation for the numerous exclusion criteria while other serious conditions that coincide with advanced age did not preclude enrollment. Or an updated CONSORT diagram accounting for the patients excluded. Or some explanation just why the numerous amendments to the protocol were necessary but not important enough to mention them in the published paper.

But nothing of this happened as yet (July 2021). Instead on June 14 and 16, 2021, not two weeks after our messages to the authors, the registration data at ClinicalTrials were updated once again and a new version of the protocol was uploaded [3]. And this update looks pretty much like it is meant to cover up and blur the former data that we based our analysis on. Of course, these data and the former version of the protocol are available still – just one layer further down, and you have to scroll to the bottom of the page to find the small link “history of changes”. Maybe not many visitors will do that.

In contrast to the versions before, now the uploaded data are in line with the study as published, namely, they include a full list of the exclusion criteria and the reduced observation time for QoL, which was the primary outcome. Note: throughout the trial until the end of data assessment those parameters were set with pregnancy as the only exclusion criterion and two years follow up time, only to be amended in the protocol uploaded two months after data collection was complete and analysis presumably was well underway.

In addition, there is a new version of the study protocol, this one dated Feb. 6, 2014. Of course, this protocol is fairly new, in spite of the date it carries. Why would the older version allegedly from January 2011 be uploaded to the register in September 2019, if this more actual version already had existed and was available?

Contrary to the prior version all the clues are removed that would indicate that this document was finished at a much later point in time than given in its date: References to some future software versions that were released years after the protocol was allegedly compiled are dropped. And this strange literature reference “25” that corresponds to the reference list in the final study as published but is pointless in the protocol without any reference list, is removed too. And of course, again contrary to the prior version, the exclusion criteria are identical with the final study as is the shortened follow-up time for QoL.

New to the protocol is a section “Bringing in the patient’s voice”, where the authors disclose how they want to “systematically research the ethical, legal, socio-political, and science theoretical dimensions of homeopathy as in the case of lung cancer (non-small-cell lung carcinoma) exemplified” in some “integral social scientific study”, where some “focus groups” of 4 to 10 participants together with their relatives, friends and caregivers included should be used to study “interactions between individuals, collectively shared and uncontested assumptions, and the emergence of collective meaning”.

But from all of this more or less meaningless but very sciency sounding socio-speak, not a single word found its way into the study. Nothing. So it is pointless to try to figure out what the content of this part of the investigation is all about.

Why then was this chapter added? This “integral social scientific study” was to start after the “third or fourth homeopathic treatment” (But why should patients not be included in this “research” from the very first beginning?). Is it perhaps to give some rationale why the follow-up time for QoL was to end after the third homeopathic treatment?

So what we see, when we look up the study at ClinicalTrials now, is a perfectly matching set of data and a protocol that corresponds to the study as published and looks as if it was published at a time where the trial was underway and the patients were still blinded. If you do not look very closely everything now appears to be perfect.

And here we would like to forward some critique to the register: The purpose of the study register is to prevent not only publication bias but misleading manipulation from happening as well. They do quite a good job in preserving former versions of data and documents and keeping them available to the public. Many national study registers do not offer this service. But you must be of a suspicious mind and of some persistence to actively search and find and check the history of modifications. Thus, a cover-up like the one we are witnessing here might well prove successful. We, therefore, propose to improve the presentation of the registration: If vital amendments occurred that may affect the outcomes – such as protocol changes, extensions of exclusion criteria, modifications of follow-up time – this should be indicated upfront in the study’s record instead of some small hint to “history of changes” at the very bottom of the page.

In conclusion, there appears to be no proof that the results of the study were produced using rigorous scientific methods. And the issues we raised in our report to the authors remain unresolved.

This multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled trial was aimed at assessing the long-term efficacy of acupuncture for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Men with moderate to severe CP/CPPS were recruited, regardless of prior exposure to acupuncture. They received sessions of acupuncture or sham acupuncture over 8 weeks, with a 24-week follow-up after treatment. Real acupuncture treatment was used to create the typical de qi sensation, whereas the sham acupuncture treatment (the authors state they used the Streitberger needle, but the drawing looks more as though they used our device) does not generate this feeling.

The primary outcome was the proportion of responders, defined as participants who achieved a clinically important reduction of at least 6 points from baseline on the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index at weeks 8 and 32. Ascertainment of sustained efficacy required the between-group difference to be statistically significant at both time points.

A total of 440 men (220 in each group) were recruited. At week 8, the proportions of responders were:

  • 60.6% (95% CI, 53.7% to 67.1%) in the acupuncture group
  • 36.8% (CI, 30.4% to 43.7%) in the sham acupuncture group (adjusted difference, 21.6 percentage points [CI, 12.8 to 30.4 percentage points]; adjusted odds ratio, 2.6 [CI, 1.8 to 4.0]; P < 0.001).

At week 32, the proportions were:

  • 61.5% (CI, 54.5% to 68.1%) in the acupuncture group
  • 38.3% (CI, 31.7% to 45.4%) in the sham acupuncture group (adjusted difference, 21.1 percentage points [CI, 12.2 to 30.1 percentage points]; adjusted odds ratio, 2.6 [CI, 1.7 to 3.9]; P < 0.001).

Twenty (9.1%) and 14 (6.4%) adverse events were reported in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. No significant difference was found in changes in the International Index of Erectile Function 5 score at all assessment time points or in peak and average urinary flow rates at week 8.

The authors concluded that, compared with sham therapy, 20 sessions of acupuncture over 8 weeks resulted in greater improvement in symptoms of moderate to severe CP/CPPS, with durable effects 24 weeks after treatment.

Previous studies of acupuncture for CP/CPPS have been unconvincing. Our own systematic review of 2012 included 9 RCTs and all suggested that acupuncture is as effective as a range of control interventions. Their methodologic quality was variable; most were associated with major flaws. Only one RCT had a Jadad score of more than 3. We concluded that the evidence that acupuncture is effective for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome is encouraging but, because of several caveats, not conclusive. Therefore, more rigorous studies seem warranted.
This new study looks definitely more rigorous than the previous ones. But is it convincing? To answer this question, we need to consider a few points.

The study was sponsored by the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences and the National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The trialists originate from the following institutions:

  • 1Guang’anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China (Y.S., B.L., Z.Q., J.Z., J.W., X.L., W.W., R.P., H.C., X.W., Z.L.).
  • 2Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China (Y.L.).
  • 3ThedaCare Regional Medical Center – Appleton, Appleton, Wisconsin (K.Z.).
  • 4Hengyang Hospital Affiliated to Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Hengyang, China (Z.Y.).
  • 5The First Hospital of Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China (W.Z.).
  • 6Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China (W.F.).
  • 7The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei, China (J.Y.).
  • 8West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China (N.L.).
  • 9China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China (L.H.).
  • 10Yantai Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Yantai, China (Z.Z.).
  • 11Shaanxi Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Xi’an, China (T.S.).
  • 12The Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China (J.F.).
  • 13Beijing Fengtai Hospital of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, Beijing, China (Y.D.).
  • 14Xi’an TCM Brain Disease Hospital, Xi’an, China (H.S.).
  • 15Dongfang Hospital Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China (H.H.).
  • 16Luohu District Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen, China (H.Z.).
  • 17Guizhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guiyang, China (Q.M.).

These facts, together with the previously discussed notion that clinical trials from China are notoriously unreliable, do not inspire confidence. Moreover, one might well wonder about the authors’ claim that patients were blinded. As pointed out above, the real and sham acupuncture were fundamentally different: the former did generate de qi, while the latter did not! A slightly pedantic point is my suspicion that the trial did not test the efficacy but the effectiveness of acupuncture, if I am not mistaken. Finally, one might wonder what the rationale of acupuncture as a treatment of CP/CPPS might be. As far as I can see, there is no plausible mechanism (other than placebo) to explain the effects.

So, is the evidence that emerged from the new study convincing?

No, in my view, it is not!

In fact, I am surprised that a journal as reputable as the Annals of Internal Medicine published it.

On FACEBOOK I recently found this advertisement posted by ‘LifeCell Health’

Guys, weight loss starts at our gut. The reishi mushroom targets this key area of the body and promotes weight loss in a unique way, by changing our gut bacteria to digest food in a manner that improves weight loss and can even prevent weight gain. By combining 3 of the most researched mycological species on the planet, LifeCell Myco+ delivers a blend of weight loss mushrooms like no other: Improve gut health, speed up weight loss, enhance immune function, natural energy and more with our blend of Reishi, Turkey Tail, and Shiitake mushrooms. Each mushroom has been the subject of several in-vivo studies proving their efficacy when it comes to weight loss.

🍄Why Mushrooms Work.
✔️Reishi: Prevents weight gain by altering bacteria inside the digestive system
✔️Shiitake: Helps the body develop less fat by nourishing good gut bacteria.
✔️Turkey Tail: Reduces inflammation and helps prevent weight gain.

That sounded interesting, I thought, and I investigated a bit further. On the website of the firm, I found this text:

By combining 3 of the most researched mycological species on the planet, LifeCell Myco+ delivers an organic wellness formula unlike any other. Improve gut health, speed up weight loss, enhance immune function, natural energy and more with our blend of Reishi, Turkey Tail, and Shiitake mushrooms.

Keeping a healthy balance of beneficial bacteria in your gut is critical for maintaining a strong immune system. Your gut bacteria interact with immune cells and directly impact your immune response. Turkey tail mushrooms contain prebiotics, which help nourish these helpful bacteria. An 8-week study in 24 healthy people found that consuming 3,600 mg of PSP extracted from turkey tail mushrooms per day led to beneficial changes in gut bacteria and suppressed the growth of the possibly problematic E. coli and Shigella bacteria.

Next, I conducted a few Medline searches but was unable to find any trial data suggesting that any of the three mushrooms or their combination might reduce body weight. So, I wrote to the company:

Dear Madam/Sir

I am intrigued by your product MYCO +. Would you be kind enough to send me the studies showing that it can reduce body weight?

Many thanks

Edzard Ernst

What followed was a bizarre correspondence with several layers of administrators in the firm. They all said that I should discuss this with the next higher person. So, I asked myself up the hierarchy of LiveCell. The last email I received was this one:

Good morning Edzark,

Thank you for your email and I hope you are enjoying your day.

It is great to hear that you are interested in our LifeCell Myco.  I have forwarded your request for additional information and once received I will be sure to forward the information to you.

What do I conclude from this experience?

Apart from being unable to get my name right, the people responsible at ‘LifeCell Health’ seem also not able to send me the evidence I asked for. This, I fear, means that there is no such evidence which means the claims are unsubstantiated. Scientifically, this might amount to misconduct; legally, it could be fraudulent.

But I am, of course, no lawyer and therefore leave it to others to address the legal issues.

 

PS

If anyone happens to know of some evidence, please let me know and I will correct my post accordingly.

 

Two chiropractors conducted a retrospective review of publicly available data from the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Their aim was to determine categories of offense, experience, and gender of disciplined doctors of chiropractic (DC) in California and compare them with disciplined medical physicians in California.

Retrospective reviews of publicly available data from the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

The DC disciplinary categories, in descending order, were

  • fraud (44%),
  • sexual boundary issues (22%),
  • other offences (13%),
  • abuse of alcohol or drugs (10%),
  • negligence or incompetence (6%),
  • poor supervision (2%),
  • mental impairment (.3%).

The authors concluded that the professions differ in the major reasons for disciplinary actions. Two thirds (67%) of the doctors of chiropractic were disciplined for fraud and sexual boundary issues, compared with 59% for negligence and substance misuse for medical physicians. Additional study in each profession may reveal methods to identify causes and possible intervention for those who are at high risk.

The two authors of this paper should be congratulated for their courage to publish such a review. These figures seem shocking. But I think that in reality some of them might be far higher. Take the important matter of competence, for instance. If you consider it competent that chiropractors treat conditions other than back pain, you might arrive at the above-mentioned figure of 6%. If you consider this as incompetent, as I do, the figure might be one order of magnitude higher (for more on unprofessional conduct by chiropractors see here).

The abstract of the paper does not provide comparisons to the data related to the medical profession. Here they are; relative to doctors, chiropractors are:

  • 2x more likely to be involved in malpractice,
  • 9x more likely to be practising fraud,
  • 2x more likely to transgress sexual boundaries.

The frequency of fraud is particularly striking. Come to think of it, however, it is not all that amazing. I have said it before: chiropractic is in my view mostly about money.

Bernie Garrett is a professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia. He is being mentioned here because he has written a book entitled THE NEW ALCHEMISTS which deals (mostly) with so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It is a well-written, informative, critical, and evidence-based text that I can recommend wholeheartedly. It will be available in the UK on 29 July but you can pre-order it already.

On Amazon, It is being advertised with the following words:

How to identify and see through deceptive and unethical health marketing practices Health scams come in all shapes and sizes-from the suppression of side-effects from prescription drugs to the unproven benefits of ‘traditional’ health practices-taking advantage of the human tendency to assume good intentions in others. So how do we avoid being deceived? Professor of Nursing, Bernie Garrett explores real-world examples of medical malpractice, pseudo and deceptive health science, dietary and celebrity health fads, deception in alternative medicine and problems with current healthcare regulation, ending with a simple health-scam detection kit. And he looks at how these practices and ineffective regulations affect our lives.

The book is written for the interested layperson. But I am sure that healthcare professionals will like it too, not least because it is fully referenced. Its aim is to inform and prevent consumers from being deceived and exploited by charlatans, an aim shared with this blog – while reading the book, I often got the impression that Bernie Garrett might be a regular reader of my blog.

This does not mean that I did not learn a lot from reading Bernie’s book. On the contrary, there was a lot that I did not know before and that is worth knowing. For instance, were you aware that you can earn a ‘Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, Advanced Diploma’ or Reiki master qualification for $ 12.99 in a 6-hour online course (if you want to know where you’ll have to get Bernie’s book)?  Well, I didn’t.

Yes, I did enjoy reading this book, and I share Bernie’s views on SCAM. In his overall conclusions, he writes: “The sad truth is, many health fraudsters are highly skilled manipulators, and do not always end up being held to account for their crimes, and many continue to profit from them.” Because this is so, it is good to have another splendid book that will help us in our struggle to inform the public responsibly.

I recently discussed the incredible paper by Walach et al. To remind you, here is its abstract again:

COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.

Method: We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases
with fatal side effects.

Result: The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.

Conclusions: This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

In my post, I pointed out that the analysis was deeply flawed and its conclusion ridiculous. Many other observers agreed, and several editorial board members of the journal, Vaccines, that unbelievably had published this junk resigned. Yesterday, the journal reacted by retracting the paper. Here is their statement:

The journal retracts the article, The Safety of COVID-19 Vaccinations—We Should Rethink the Policy.

Serious concerns were brought to the attention of the publisher regarding misinterpretation of data, leading to incorrect and distorted conclusions.

The article was evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief with the support of several Editorial Board Members. They found that the article contained several errors that fundamentally affect the interpretation of the findings.

These include, but are not limited to:

The data from the Lareb report (https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen) in The Netherlands were used to calculate the number of severe and fatal side effects per 100,000 vaccinations. Unfortunately, in the manuscript by Harald Walach et al. these data were incorrectly interpreted which led to erroneous conclusions. The data was presented as being causally related to adverse events by the authors. This is inaccurate. In The Netherlands, healthcare professionals and patients are invited to report suspicions of adverse events that may be associated with vaccination. For this type of reporting a causal relation between the event and the vaccine is not needed, therefore a reported event that occurred after vaccination is not necessarily attributable to vaccination. Thus, reporting of a death following vaccination does not imply that this is a vaccine-related event. There are several other inaccuracies in the paper by Harald Walach et al. one of which is that fatal cases were certified by medical specialists. It should be known that even this false claim does not imply causation, which the authors imply. Further, the authors have called the events ‘effects’ and ‘reactions’ when this is not established, and until causality is established they are ‘events’ that may or may not be caused by exposure to a vaccine. It does not matter what statistics one may apply, this is incorrect and misleading.

The authors were asked to respond to the claims, but were not able to do so satisfactorily. The authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree.

In my blog post about the paper, I wrote: Let’s hope the journal editor in chief (who failed miserably when publishing this idiocy) has the wisdom to retract it swiftly. I am glad that the retraction has been done quickly. This shows that the important self-cleansing process of science is working.

Two questions still remain to be answered:

  1. Were Walach et al just incompetent or did they wilfully try to mislead us?
  2. How much nonsense is Walach allowed to publish before he is finally stopped?

Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and legal advisor of Donald Trump, is already facing a billion-dollar lawsuit for defamation. He also had his license to practice law revoked by the New York Bar Association for spreading lies about the 2020 election. I therefore can imagine that he needs some cheering up and could do with some good news.

Well, Rudy, here it is!

Giuliani has been given a very special award.

In recognition of his truly outstanding achievements in dishonesty and his contribution to disinformation, Rudy Giuliani is the winner of the Center for Inquiry’s first Full of Bull Award!

A rogue’s gallery of celebrity hucksters was drawn up who best represent the threat posed by the wholesale rejection of reality. Calling out these infamous purveyors of flimflam and nonsense, the Center for Inquiry asked the public to vote for who was the worst offender.

It could not have been an easy choice, but now the voters have spoken: 41.7 percent of voters chose Giuliani over these other superspreaders of the infodemic:

Why Giuliani? He really gave his all to rise above the field over the past year as a dedicated champion of bogus COVID-19 cures at the peak of a global pandemic and chief spreader of the highly dangerous Big Lie about the 2020 election. “America’s Mayor” no more, Giuliani has slid to the fringes of conspiracy theories and quack medicine, truly embodying what it takes to be an all-around Full of Bull champion.

At the time of reporting, no reaction of the awardee was available. Yet, we can be confident that Rudy will treasure the award above all other distinctions and that he will display it prominently in his office. The Center for Inquiry wants to thank everyone for voting and for being a part of the reality-based community, it intends to remain committed to taking on bull artists of all stripes.

1 2 3 27
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories