holistic
An article entitled “Beyond the Appearance of Rigor: Trustworthiness, Integration, and Standardization in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” caught my eye. The name “Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine” is, I think, impressive as it demonstrates the seemingly infinite ability of SCAM-promoters to come up endlessly with new and ridiculous terms! Please allow me nonetheless to continue calling it so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
The paper itself might be summarised as follows:
SCAMs struggles to fit into mainstream science. Trustworthiness isn’t just about flashy, individual study results; it requires a reliable system of transparent data and independent replication. However, forcing SCAM into mainstream healthcare via scientific scrutiny, standardisation and integration is a double-edged sword. It strips away the personalized, holistic essence of these therapies. Instead of abandoning science or changing the therapies, researchers need to use creative, flexible scientific methods that document the real-world complexity of SCAM without trying to force it into an artificial mold.
I have heard this argument often, particularly early on when I started applying science to SCAM. SCAM proponents were initially taken by the idea; later, when the results were often not what they expected, they were less impressed and argued that, because science failed to produce positive results, something must be wrong with it and in need of improvement. Specifically, the arguments were:
- SCAM is individualised,
- SCAM is holistic,
- SCAM is complex,
- SCAM is subtle,
- SCAM depends on the skill of the practitioner.
And therefore, SCAM cannot be fitted into the straitjacket of science, particularly not in the one imposed by the randomised clinical trial.
It took many years to convince some SCAM proponents that these notions were erroneous, that science is not always perfect but that no better method for testing exists, that many mainstream interventions (e.g. physiotherapy, psychotherapy) are just as complex, holistic, etc. as is SCAM. Eventually the argument that SCAM defies scientific evaluation disappeared – not totally, but almost.
Now, 30 years later, it is back!
One cannot even blame the SCAM enthusiasts for reviving it. Thirty years of research and very little of SCAM has been proven to work – unless one gives SCAM a huge ‘benefit of the doubt’ and pretends poor science constitutes proof. Even the treatments that SCAM proponents celebrate as evidence-based fall apart once we scratch the surface and discover how poor and irreproducible the evidence mostly is.
Yes, I do sympathise with the frustration of SCAM proponents as they gradually realise all this. Many of them know only too well that their most solid evidence can be taken apart by any first-year medical student with rudimentary skills of critical evaluation. Many of them therefore have long moved away from hypothesis testing research and prefer the type of investigation that never generates a negative finding (e.g. surveys, qualitative studies, sociological approaches). Others, including the two authors of the above-mentioned paper, prefer to go full circle and revive the notions we dealt with decades ago claiming we need different standards for SCAM than for the rest of medicine.
Perhaps someone should tell them that double standards are never a good idea?
Homeopaths tend to voice a standard set of arguments when confronted with irrefutable evidence against homeopathy. In the discussion sections of this blog, we heard them all:
- “The negative trials are flawed designed.” They claim these trials were done by ungifted therapists or used the wrong remedies, wrong potencies, wrong dosing schedules, etc. Therefore, they do not reflect true homeopathic practice.
- “Homeopathy is individualised, RCTs can’t capture it.” They argue that randomised clinical trials are inherently unsuitable because homeopathic treatment must be tailored to each patient, rendering RCTs “unfair” or even “unscientific.”
- “Only a fraction of the evidence has been considered.” They assert that critics cherry-pick negative evidence and ignore positive small trials, case series, or observational data that they regard as equally valid.
- “There is much positive evidence.” They point to older or methodologically weak positive studies and claim these outweigh or at least balance the otherwise negative body of evidence.
- “Meta-analyses and systematic reviews are biased and/or politically motivated.” They allege that negative evaluations are driven by ideological hostility to homeopathy, Big Pharma influence, or institutional bias.
- “Statistical significance is not the same as clinical reality.” They argue that statistics miss “real-world” benefits observed in practice and that evidence-based medicine is too narrow.
- “Evidence-based medicine overvalues RCTs and undervalues experience.” They insist that long clinical experience, case reports, patient testimonies, etc. should count as strong evidence and that their accumulated practice is itself proof of efficacy.
- “Patient demand and satisfaction are evidence.” They use high patient satisfaction, repeat consultations, and word-of-mouth popularity as a proxy for effectiveness.
- “Millions use it worldwide.” They argue that longstanding, global usage implies that it must work; otherwise it would have disappeared.
- “Conventional medicine is not perfect either.” They respond to criticism by highlighting harms, errors, and historical reversals in conventional medicine, implying that science-based critics lack moral authority.
- “If it were only placebo, it wouldn’t work on XY.” They claim efficacy in infants, animals, or unconscious patients as evidence that placebo cannot fully explain the effects.
- “Mechanisms aren’t fully known, but that doesn’t matter.” They liken homeopathy to earlier medical advances whose mechanisms were unknown at the time (e.g. aspirin), arguing that lack of a plausible mechanism is not a valid reason to reject positive clinical observations.
- “Physics and chemistry are incomplete; future science will explain it.” They invoke concepts like quantum physics, nanostructures, or complex systems to argue that current science is still too limited to explain homeopathy.
- “Regulatory / institutional conspiracies.” They suggest that powerful pharmaceutical or medical lobbies seek to suppress homeopathy to protect their financial interests.
- “Homeopathy is cheap and safe; risk–benefit favours it.” They argue that even if evidence is thin, the very low risk and low cost justify its use.
- “The therapeutic encounter itself is part of the effect.” They turn criticisms about placebo and context effects into a strength: the long consultation, empathy, and attention are claimed to be legitimate and central components of homeopathy.
- “Freedom of choice / patient autonomy.” They shift from scientific to ethical/political ground, insisting that patients should be free to choose homeopathy regardless of scientific consensus.
- “Skeptics misunderstand what homeopathy really is.” They claim that people conflate homeopathy with herbalism, confuse potencies, or misunderstand Hahnemann’s principles, so their critiques do not address true homeopathy.
- “Critics don’t see the individual ‘miracle’ cases.” They counter population-level data with vivid anecdotes of dramatic improvements which they regard as decisive.
- “Negative evidence is ‘absence of evidence’, not ‘evidence of absence’.” They argue that failed trials or negative reviews merely show that efficacy hasn’t been proved yet, not that homeopathy does not work.
- “Science evolves; today’s ‘overwhelming evidence’ may be overturned.” They claim that scientific consensus has been wrong before and that homeopathy will eventually be vindicated when paradigms shift.
In discussions with homeopaths, these points are repeated endlessly. One could easily get the impression of a broken record. All of the above arguments have in common that – even as some of then contain a kernel of truth – they are erroneous. In theory it could be easy to point this out to the stereotypical homeopathy promoter; in practice, however, it often is impossible, since the broken record continues turning senselessly.
Tolerance is widely regarded as a moral virtue, a cornerstone of pluralistic societies and a safeguard against dogmatism. Yet, tolerance can sometimes be misplaced. Thomas Mann suggested that “tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil”. In a similar vein, I propose that tolerance can become unethical when applied to homeopathy.
Homeopathy presents itself as a benign and natural alternative to or complement of conventional medicine. Its appeal lies partly in its historical pedigree and partly in its promise of gentle healing without side effects. However, beneath this veneer lies a system of belief that is fundamentally incompatible with science and ethics. Its core principles – the notions that like cures like and that substances become more potent through extreme dilution – contradict basic laws of physics, chemistry and pharmacology. After more than two centuries of use and more that 500 clinical studies, there is no credible evidence that homeopathic remedies perform better than placebos.
In many areas of life, tolerance for differing beliefs is both appropriate and necessary. However, medicine is different. It is not merely a matter of opinion; it is a field grounded in empirical evidence, where opinions can have direct and drastic consequences for health and survival. To tolerate ineffective and therefore potentially harmful treatments within this domain risks legitimizing misinformation and undermining public trust in evidence-based care.
The ethical problem intensifies when homeopathy is integrated into healthcare systems or endorsed by public institutions. Such endorsement conveys an implicit message of efficacy and legitimacy, misleading patients who may lack the expertise to critically evaluate medical claims. This is particularly concerning in cases where patients choose homeopathic remedies as an alternative therapy, i.e.in place of effective treatments, potentially resulting in preventable harm. Here, tolerance can easily degenerate into complicity.
Defenders of homeopathy often invoke patient choice and patient autonomy. While these are important principles, they do not justify the abdication of professional responsibility. True respect for patients involves providing accurate information and protecting them from ineffective or deceptive practices. Allowing patients to choose homeopathy without clear, despite all the evidence that speaks against it is not an expression of respect but a failure of duty.
Moreover, the commercial dimension of homeopathy raises additional ethical concerns. The marketing of homeopathic products often exploits the language of science and medicine while evading the standards that govern them. Consumers are led to believe they are purchasing effective treatments. In reality, they are buying fake medicines that contain no active ingredients. This practice tolerance has degenerated into exploitation.
A society that prides itself on scientific progress and rational inquiry cannot afford to suspend its critical faculties in the name of tolerance. While civility and openness are essential virtues, they must not be confused with randomness or indiscriminate acceptance. Tolerance has limits, particularly when it intersects with matters of public health and scientific integrity.
Thus, the tolerance extended to homeopathy is not merely misplaced; it is ethically problematic. By granting homeopathy a status it does not merit, we risk eroding the very standards that protect patients and uphold the credibility of medicine. In this context, I feel that intolerance is not a vice but a necessary stance, one that affirms the primacy of evidence, reason, and the ethical obligation to do no harm.
“Science and pseudoscience diverge particularly sharply in their ethical and moral foundations. While science is built upon principles of honesty, openness, and responsibility, pseudoscience undermines these values often by placing ideology and belief over evidence and truth. Science is not least an ethical enterprise, and the divide between science and pseudoscience is a matter of profound moral importance. The ethical stakes become especially acute when pseudoscience causes harm…”
These lines come from my recent book, THE LEOPARD LILY PROJECT, which is only marginally about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Yet they do apply well to SCAM which does not merely fail the test of scientific rigor but also fails the test of medical ethics. When a practice trades empirical validation for dogmatic ideology, it ceases to be an innocent alternative and becomes a profound moral transgression. SCAM regularly promises holistic salvation while actively undermining the principles of honesty, openness, and responsibility, effectively replacing rigorous scrutiny with profitable mystique.
The ethical stakes transition from academic to tragic whenever a vulnerable patient is guided away from effective treatments. SCAM cloaks itself in the gentle language of empathy and natural, holistic, individualised healing, yet its business model relies on exploiting the desperation of the sick. Informed consent is rendered impossible when patients are fed misleading or even fabricated data and disproven promises. By substituting anecdotes for evidence, SCAM weaponizes false hope, monetizing the fear of illness under the guise of medical autonomy. SCAM fosters a broader culture of conspiratorial thinking that systematically erodes public trust in collective public health infrastructure.
When conventional physicians prescribe a treatment, they are bound by evidence, medical ethics, regulatory oversight, and a legal duty of care. When SCAM practitioners prescribe an unproven therapy, they operate in an ethical void, often shielded from accountability by vague disclaimers.
Science remains an ethical enterprise acknowledging its own limitations and subjecting its claims to rigorous correction. Pseudoscience demands faith instead of evidence and leaves its patients to bear the physical consequences of its intellectual dishonesty. To pick up and rephrase the theme from my recent book: evidence-based medicine and SCAM diverge particularly sharply in their ethical and moral foundations.
I am always delighted when I find authors who think in a similarly rational way as I. When it comes to the subject if INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE, this sadly is a rare occasion. I know that most medics would be critical of it, but only few are sufficiently insensed to publish a paper on their criticism. Here is the abstract of a recent article that is a rare exception:
The term integrative medicine claims to describe a third category in clinical practice, somewhere between conventional evidence-based medicine and alternative therapies. This article argues that this category is conceptually confused and often misleading. If an intervention is supported by good evidence, is safe in practice, clinically useful and cost-effective, it should simply become part of regular medicine. If an intervention does not have such evidence, it does not become stronger by being called integrative. The article examines how the language of integrative medicine works. It shows how one attractive label can bring together two very different things: evidence-based supportive care on the one hand, and weakly supported or unproven interventions on the other. This creates the impression that both have the same clinical status, even when they do not. The article also discusses the possible consequences for patients, including confusion about evidence, false confidence in unproven treatments, and reduced adherence to effective care. Drawing on more than a decade of experience evaluating complementary medical claims through foundation IOCOB (a foundation to study complementary medicine) , it argues for a simpler and more honest approach. Proven interventions should be called medicine. Unproven interventions should be called unproven. Disproven interventions should be called disproven. There are not two equal medicines waiting to be synthesised. There is only medicine that has earned its place, and medicine that has not.tive medic ine m
True words well expressed!
We have discussed interated medicine on this blog more often than I care to mention. The response of proponents usually is that INTEGRATED MEDICINE is so much more than just using alternative treatments. If we look at this claim, we quickly realise that the “so much more” are things stolen from conventional medicine (which proponents denounce by their claim of neglecting these things). If they feel that important bits of healthcare are being neglected, the proper reaction would be to reform medicine and rectify the situation. Instead the proponents put their money on INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE which undeniably is at least partly an attempt to smuggle unproven treatments into healthcare.
I wrote “at least partly” which is, in fact, generous to the extreme! If we look up what the clinics of INTEGRATED MEDICNE actually offer, we quickly realise that it is much more that “partly” – it is their main and lucrative business.
Sorry, but to me this is deeply dishonest!
The Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Products (AEMPS) has just published a comprehensive technical report entitled “Homeopathy and Homeopathic Products: Evaluation of Evidence on Their Efficacy and Safety”, which categorically concludes that there is no scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy as a therapeutic tool. After a systematic review of scientific literature and evaluations by state agencies internationally, the report states that the observed effects are comparable to placebo.
The report, which analyzed 64 systematic reviews published since 2009, highlights that most studies suggesting benefits from homeopathy have low methodological quality, often invalidated by small samples, short follow-up periods, or biases in randomization. Furthermore, it notes that as the quality and rigor of clinical trials increase, the supposed effect of homeopathy diminishes until it disappears entirely.
From a scientific standpoint, the principles of homeopathy clash with the laws of physics and current pharmacology. In typical dilutions like 12 CH—where one part of the original substance is mixed with 100 parts of solvent twelve times consecutively—it is mathematically impossible for a single molecule of the original ingredient to remain in the preparation, breaking any cause-and-effect relationship between the product and the therapeutic effect.
To illustrate this disproportion, the report points out that a dilution of just 6 CH (far less extreme than 12 CH) equates to dissolving a packet of sugar in the entire Mediterranean Sea. For this reason, the AEMPS classifies theories like “water memory”—the belief that the liquid retains the properties of a substance even without its molecules—as empirically baseless postulates that challenge scientific and rational thinking.
In compliance with European and national regulations, the AEMPS has completed a regularization process that has resulted in the market withdrawal of numerous products. As of the report’s publication date, no homeopathic product with authorized therapeutic indications exists in Spain. The 976 that remain registered did so via a simplified procedure, based on extreme dilutions ensuring the preparation’s innocuousness, which does not require proof of therapeutic effect and legally prohibits any therapeutic claims on labeling.
Spain aligns with a global trend of health institutions adopting critical stances:
- United Kingdom: The Science and Technology Committee recommended halting public funding and requiring labeling warnings about lack of efficacy.
- Australia: The National Health and Medical Research Council concluded that homeopathy should not be used for chronic or serious diseases.
- France: The Haute Autorité de Santé eliminated public reimbursement for these products in 2021 due to lack of demonstrated efficacy.
- Germany: Approval is expected in 2026 for the definitive removal of homeopathy coverage from statutory health insurance.
- United States: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers these products “unapproved new drugs,” and the Federal Trade Commission requires warnings that there is no scientific evidence of their functioning.
Although there is a popular belief that these preparations are innocuous because they are “natural,” serious adverse reactions have been reported, including poisonings from poor dosing and infant deaths linked to teething products in other countries.
However, the AEMPS warns that the main associated risk is the abandonment or delay of proven effective medical treatments. Citizens opting for homeopathy to treat serious or chronic conditions may endanger their health by replacing evidence-based therapies with products lacking such evidence.
The AEMPS report reaffirms the Ministry’s commitment to public health protection and evidence-based medicine. In line with other international agencies, it emphasizes the need for transparent information so citizens can make safe health decisions. The conclusion of the report is firm:
Given the lack of evidence of efficacy, homeopathy cannot be considered a valid therapeutic alternative, and its use must not lead to delaying or abandoning treatments proven to be effective.
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.
I recently came across an aricle entitled “Reiki for Stress Relief” which I thought was excptional even for the often surprising literature on Reiki. Here is the abstract:
Reiki is Holistic. It isn’t just about the mental, or just about the physical, but both, and an overall restoration and improvement to you. And as we know, often the mental and physical are linked.
While the scientific understanding of Reiki’s effects on emotional blocks is still evolving, many individuals report subjective benefits, such as emotional release, relaxation, and a greater sense of inner peace, following Reiki sessions.
As the philosophy of Reiki is grounded in holistic medicine and thought, it is imperative to continue that tradition and also integrate other scientific -backed therapies such as the ones your doctor may suggest if you have a serious medical or mental condition. A balanced approach is key, and Reiki is possibly a powerful tool and philosophy that can be the missing key or complement to your current care regimen.
This is impressive! Don’t you just love how it’s ‘grounded in holistic thought’ while the scientific understanding is ‘still evolving’ ? That’s a very elegant way of admitting ‘we’re still waiting for the first piece of evidence’. And we all appreciate the disclaimer to actually see a real doctor as soon as we are truly ill.
The Canadian comedian Mayce Galoni had perhaps the best measure of Reiki when he did his stand-up bit about his nephew “becoming a Reiki master” at the age of 21: “My 21-year-old nephew is now a Reiki master. I didn’t even know you could be a master of anything at 21… Reiki is the only career where you can get paid for doing exactly what I do when I can’t find the TV remote.”
- “The Law of Karma: What you sow is what you reap. If you plant carrots, don’t expect to harvest watermelons.”
- “If you want to see change in the world, become the change you want to see.”
- “If you want to reach a state of Bliss — make a decision to relinquish the need to control, the need to be approved and the need to judge.”
- “Negative people deplete your energy. Surround yourself with love and nourishment and do not allow the creation of negativity in your environment.”
- “If you want to do really important things in life and big things in life, you can’t do anything by yourself. And your best teams are your friends and your siblings.”
- “Everyone is acting from his own level of consciousness. This is all we can ask of ourselves or anyone else.”
You probably guessed: these gems of wisdom originate from, Deepak Chopra, the guru of platitude-loving Americans. If you don’t want to spend your money on buying one of his books, you can go on the Internet, find one of several available ‘bullshit generators’ and create similarly profound wisdoms all by yourself.
As Deepak is seen to be virtually overflowing with wisdom, spirituality, consciousness, and holistic health, it is perhaps surprising to find his inclusion in the Epstein Files. The link stems primarily from email correspondence and other communications between him and Epstein that have been made public as part of the ongoing disclosures. The records show repeated exchanges dating from at least 2016 through 2019 — well after Epstein’s 2008 conviction as a sex offender — in which the two men discuss a range of topics. These include scheduling meetings or meetings plans, mentions of other public figures, discussions tied to Chopra’s book projects, and exchanges that veer into casual and at times explicit language about “girls” or women. One of the widely circulated emails has Chopra writing to Epstein, “God is a construct. Cute girls are real,” in an apparently informal exploration of consciousness and personal views.
Another released thread shows discussions about meeting logistics, references to public figures such as Marla Maples (the former wife of Donald Trump), and social anecdotes that reveal the personal tenor of some exchanges. These materials were part of the dataset provided to Congress under subpoena as part of its oversight of the Epstein files.
Inclusion in the Epstein Files does not establish that Chopra was involved in any criminal activity or exploitative conduct. U.S. authorities and journalists emphasise that the raw disclosures document communications and connections — not necessarily illegal behavior — and require careful interpretation.
Nonetheless, many of the public reactions to Chopra’s appearance in these disclosures have been sharp. Social media posts and news coverage have highlighted the tone of certain messages, leading to debate and scrutiny from both followers and critics. In response to the heightened attention and criticism, Deepak Chopra issued a public statement acknowledging the gravity of what has been revealed and offering regret for the way some past communications may read in light of what the world now widely knows about Epstein’s crimes. He wrote on social media that he was “deeply saddened by the suffering of the victims in this case” and that he “unequivocally condemn[s] abuse and exploitation in all forms.” Chopra also stated that any contact he had with Epstein was “limited and unrelated to abusive activity,” and he described some of his past messages as reflecting “poor judgment in tone.”
One such ‘sharp reaction’ appeared on Facebook. As it is quite funny as well as very poignant, allow me to show it to you:
Annie McCubbin 6 February at 10:20
WOW DEEPAK THIS SEEMS TO BE A QUANTUM OF A MESS YOU’VE GOT YOURSELF INTO.
Well looky looky here. In the quantum field of possibilities, Deepak has manifested himself one thousand three hundred mentions in the Epstein files.
With the cavalier camaraderie of two average dudes leaning on the bonnet of a pick-up truck, Chopra and Epstein, amid nauseating pseudo intellectual discourse, discuss the noises cute girls make, and whether or not Deepak had found Epstein a cute Israeli.
This, it should be noted, is ten years after Epstein was registered as sex offender of children.
Chopra has made an admission, of sorts. It has the tone of someone who has spent his life beguiling his followers from behind a screen of opaque confounding verbiage, so I guess it’s true to form when he writes the sentence: –
‘Some past emails have surfaced that reflect poor judgement in tone. I regret that and understand how they read today given what was publicly known at the time.’
No Deepak, you purveyor of impenetrable piffle, it’s not how they read ‘today’, it’s just how they read. So how about you take out the obfuscating ‘today’, turn comments back on, come out from behind the infinite consciousness of the karmic trance of the egoic super self, and face the music.
These emails are not anachronistic innocent exchanges between two older gentlemen musing in a reflective way about the opposite sex. No, these men presented a clear and present danger to women. These exchanges are between a seventy-one-year grifter who has promised his millions of followers hope and healing, and a sixty-four-year-old registered sex offender who had been charged with procuring a minor for prostitution.
So, this great spiritual leader. This purveyor of divine transcendence. This guru who imbues his incomprehensible gobbledy gook with the historical spiritual relevance of the subcontinent, has shown a complete paucity of decency, care and morality
Not only are his discussions with Epstein disturbing but they’re peppered with moments where he cynically mocks his own spiritual repartee.
Perhaps his millions of followers who may have felt spiritually dull witted, may be relieved to discover that his entire shtick is a simple reordering of the following eighteen words:-Consciousness, meditation, infinite, universe, god, vibration, stillness, mirror, manifest, luminous. elemental, connection, awareness, love, gratitude, eternal, karma, and divine.
His collection of books, videos, podcasts, products like ‘The ritual care kit.’ supplements and ‘wellness retreats.’ are not the result of Deepak’s deep wisdom but merely pseudoscientific quasi spiritual guff, concocted with all the care of a four-year-old making a cake with dirt, a hair clip, their mothers Estée Lauder anti-aging cream and the stuffing from the dog’s toy rabbit.
Why do so many of us collapse so willingly into the arms of these grifter gurus?
Well, we are told the answer to our emptiness is to look within. We are just an inspirational quote away from happiness. We are seduced by bite sized morsels of the transcendent to sooth our souls.
We can ask what is missing from my life, and the answer will be delivered in three hours via Amazon. $35 plus shipping. How easy is it to sit on our couches and have the soothing tone of Deepak deliver an immersive learning experience into our noise cancelling head phones? Maybe we may muse, it would be truly beneficial to attend one of his wellness retreats. What’s money when we’re on the path to enlightenment? Perhaps we’ll discover the divine goddess within? Seems easier than fighting for the actual rights of women.
Connecting to the self is given a big rap in wellness circles but it seems to be at the cost of reconnecting with others.
The self-care, self-love movement, implying poverty or illness is a misalignment with the abundance on offer from the universe, absolves its’ followers of any responsibility to help others. You sick or poor? Manifest better.
It has been a fabulous distraction from the rapacity of the neocons, dismantling our social structures and denuding our public services, confident in the knowledge we’re too busy healing from within to look outward.
But the empty void within will not be filled by listening to the lilting tones of Deepak. By all means work out your maladaptive patterns and beliefs by talking to a psychologist but maybe swear off the gurus for a bit. It seems they all, at some point, fall from grace.
Chopra while preaching love compassion and peace, was showing off to his convicted sex offender friend, that he can play the misogynistic game as good as the big boys. Meanwhile women all over the world are dying at the hands of their partners. Men schooled and supported in the ideology that women are lesser beings to be controlled, used, punished and discarded.
To so lightly squander the loyalty of your trusting audience seems careless of you Deepak, but maybe the grifting isn’t over. Maybe you can obfuscate out of this, and have an online well published dark night of the soul replete with a brand-new great awakening. There has to be a couple of apps and a book in it.
I hope not. I hope this tearing in the space time continuum has revealed the black hole of grifting where the snake oil salesman sit waiting with their three easy payment options.
Anyway, let us end on one of Deepak’s quotes. ‘Karma memory and desire are just the software of the soul.’
Well Deepak, better strap in, I hear karma can be a real bitch.
The US stands on the precipice of the destruction of public health. This might be best exemplified by the loss of its measles-free status. In 2000, the U.S. had been classified as having “eliminated” measles, meaning the virus was no longer constantly circulating within its borders. Following a year of record-breaking outbreaks, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) is now reviewing whether to officially revoke this status.
The technical definition of losing elimination status is the continuous transmission of the same strain of a virus for more than 12 months. In 2025, the US experienced over 2,400 confirmed cases—the highest count since 1991—driven by major outbreaks in Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, and Utah. While health officials once relied on high vaccination rates to “wall off” imported cases, that protection has now crumbled. National MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccination rates for kindergartners have fallen below the 95% threshold required for achieving herd immunity. This leaves communities vulnerable to the kind of rapid spread seen over the past year.
The resurgence of measles is inextricably linked to the shift in federal health policy under Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). His influence has transformed vaccine hesitancy in the US from a fringe movement into a pillar of federal discourse. Kennedy has frequently misused his position to question the safety and necessity of the MMR vaccine, at one point suggesting that “natural infection” might be preferable to vaccination—a claim experts call dangerously misleading given that measles can cause encephalitis, permanent hearing loss, and death. Under Kennedy’s leadership, the CDC has been staffed with notorious anti-vaxers and reduced the number of recommended childhood vaccines and emphasized “personal choice” over community mandates. This shift has emboldened several states to loosen school entry requirements, leading to a record number of non-medical vaccine exemptions. By replacing members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) with anti-vaxers, Kennedy has signaled a move away from the decades of scientific consensus that underpinned the 2000 elimination achievement.
Kennedy – who has no medical background and does clearly not understand science – argues that the primary threat to US health is not infectious disease but chronic illness (e.g., diabetes, obesity, and autism), which he feels are linked to environmental factors and food quality. His alternatives include advocating for “real food,” reducing ultra-processed foods, and discouraging the use of seed oils and certain pesticides. He has promoted the consumption of unpasteurized dairy, despite warnings from health officials regarding bacterial risks. He advocates for ending water fluoridation, claiming it contributes to chronic health issues in children. Kennedy also believes that “natural infection” – contracting the disease itself – can be a preferable alternative to vaccination for certain illnesses. He has expressed his support for un- or disproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for viral infections, as well as the use of psychedelics and stem cells in broader health contexts. His MAHA plan promotes a “holistic” approach that combines conventional medicine withhis complementary therapies like supplements and acupuncture.
To make matters even worse, the US officially completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 22, 2026. This finalized a process that began on January 20, 2025, when Trump signed Executive Order 14155 on his first day in office. His previous attempt during his 1st term to leave the WHO was reversed by the Biden administration in 2021.
Losing measles-free status is more than a symbolic blow; it has practical and dire consequences. It signals to the world that the US public health infrastructure is failing to contain one of the most contagious diseases known to man. It means that “rare” outbreaks will become a permanent fixture of American life, requiring constant vigilance for infants too young to be vaccinated and the immunocompromised. And it bodes badly, of course, for the time when the next pandemic will emerge.
As the CDC completes its genomic sequencing to determine if the 2025 outbreaks constitute a single, unbroken chain of transmission, the US faces a choice. We are witnessing a “natural experiment” in real-time—one where the cost of Kennedy’s sick ideology is being paid in the form of preventable hospitalizations and lives lost. To put it bluntly: either the US gets rid of Kennedy and swiftly reverses his detrimental initiatives, or many US citizens will suffer ill health and even die because of his actions.
