neglect
The US “Health Freedom Movement” (HFM) is a coalition of activists, alternative practitioners, supplement and device manufacturers, and libertarian or populist politicians who oppose strong government regulation of healthcare. They claim to defend the individual’s right to choose any treatment or product they consider beneficial, especially so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
Its roots lie in resistance to medical licensing and in movements around homeopathy, naturopathy, and chiropractic, which often portrayed organized medicine as a cartel limiting patient choice. The John Birch Society and other conservative groups use the term to oppose fluoridation, vaccination mandates, and federal health programs. During 1990s–2000s, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994, backed by a coalition of supplement companies and “health freedom” advocates, limited the FDA’s pre‑market control over supplements; libertarian politicians like Ron Paul and figures such as Prince/King Charles support aspects of this agenda. More recently, anti‑vaccination activism, opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and then COVID‑19 mandates and vaccines gave the HFM a major boost and re-grouped as “medical freedom” or “health freedom” across partisan lines, but with a strong right‑wing infrastructure.
The HFM’s main players include politicians (e.g. Ron Paul, Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) and media personalities (e.g. Gary Null, Kevin Trudeau, and many supplement‑selling influencers as well as SCAM doctors). Many of them have strong financial ties to supplement, wellness, or SCAM industry.
The HFM’s stated aims sound liberal: individual autonomy, informed and access to SCAM. In practice, however, its core goals are sharper and consistently deregulatory:
- Limit or abolish pre‑market safety and efficacy requirements for supplements and many SCAMs.
- Oppose or roll back mandatory childhood vaccination, COVID‑19 vaccination and mask rules, school-entry requirements, and sometimes even basic disease‑reporting obligations.
- Resist overarching government health programs, including water fluoridation, electronic health records, and population‑level data sharing, which they portray as surveillance or tyranny.
- Create broad legal shields for all types of SCAM practitioners and restrict the enforcement powers of medical boards and public‑health authorities.
While the rhetoric centres on “freedom” and “choice”, the policy is liberating commercial interests from evidence‑based standards and oversight. For this, the HFM uses a mixture of advocacy and classic populist agitation:
- Legislative lobbying: Drafting model bills that redefine or exempt SCAM practitioners, weaken vaccination requirements, and restrict state health departments’ emergency powers.
- Litigation: Groups such as the “Health Freedom Defense Fund” use lawsuits against mask mandates, vaccine requirements, and school or airline rules both as legal tools and as high‑visibility fundraising and mobilization devices.
- Electoral politics: Endorsing and funding candidates who promise to “reign in” public‑health agencies, defund WHO, or defy CDC guidance; in some places, anti‑vaccine activists have captured local hospital or school boards.
- Media ecosystems: Conferences, podcasts, Substack newsletters, and “documentaries” circulate narratives of regulatory capture, big‑pharma malfeasance, and heroic mavericks, often entwined with sales of supplements or courses.
These activities reinforce distrust of science and conventional medicine and thus create a host of issues and problems:
- Selective use of autonomy: Autonomy is invoked vigorously when opposing vaccines, fluoridation, or regulation of supplements, but tend to disregard it when patients are misled by misinformation, coercive marketing, or opaque conflicts of interest in the alternative sector itself. Yet protection against deception and unsafe products is essential for meaningful autonomy; “choice” among misrepresented options is not genuine choice.
- Systematic downplaying of risk and evidence: The HFM treats lack of evidence of benefit as if it were evidence of safety and legitimacy and often dismisses adverse‑event data. Regulators and critics must meet impossibly high standards, while proponents of SCAM face essentially none.
- Commercial conflicts of interest: Many leading voices within the HFM derive substantial income from selling SCAM. The HFM criticizes “Big Pharma” conflicts of interest while largely ignoring or concealing its own.
- Wilful ignorance of collective harms: Opposition to vaccination, masking, and quarantine treats infections as purely individual matters, neglecting that infectious disease risk is shared and that one person’s “choice” can impose morbidity and mortality on others. Yet any rights framework that leaves no space for legitimate public‑health constraints on individual choice is incompatible with controlling epidemics.
- Alliance with broader conspiracist and extremist currents: Sections of the HFM have fused with anti‑globalist, anti‑UN/WHO, and sometimes far‑right political currents, amplifying conspiracy narratives and distrust that spill over into many domains beyond health. Thus they corrode trust in institutions that are necessary for coordinating large‑scale health responses.
In a nutshell, the HFM is a deregulatory, commercially entangled project that uses the language of liberty to erode evidence‑based medicine and to normalise quackery as well as anti‑vaccination politics. To put it bluntly: the HFM does not seem to operate in the best interest of either the individual patient or the collective public health.
Violence and abuse are no longer confined to the margins of society; they have permeated workplaces, public services, streets, homes, schools, online forums, places of worship, and even political discourse. From retail staff and healthcare workers to religious minorities and women trapped in abusive relationships, aggression has become disturbingly commonplace.
The evidence is difficult to dismiss. Retail workers are subjected to abuse in unprecedented numbers, NHS staff face rising levels of physical assault, and antisemitic incidents have reached alarming levels. The Community Security Trust has documented record levels of antisemitism in recent years, underscoring that hatred of Jews is not merely a relic of the Nazi past but a resurgent and escalating threat. Domestic abuse remains equally pervasive: while some forms of physical violence may have declined, coercive control, stalking, economic abuse, and digitally enabled harassment have proliferated.
A growing body of research points to broader social and political drivers. A decade of austerity under Conservative governments, coupled with institutional erosion, strained public services, ongoing geopolitical conflicts, and the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis, has generated widespread frustration. When people feel neglected or abandoned, that frustration can readily turn into aggression directed at those closest at hand: a nurse, a shop assistant, a neighbour, a partner, or a stranger who looks like a “foreigner”
An additional—and perhaps even more troubling—factor is the brutalisation of public discourse. Donald Trump’s rhetoric has normalised cruelty, humiliation, racism, and dehumanisation. It does not merely tolerate aggression; it performs and rewards it, thereby encouraging its replication. This erosion of basic norms of decency matters because language does not simply describe violence—it facilitates it. When political leaders frame opponents as enemies, casually invoke the destruction of entire societies, or treat facts as optional, they lower the threshold for violence well beyond the political arena. To assume that such influences remain confined to the United States is both naïve and demonstrably false; they reverberate globally.
This dynamic is particularly dangerous in relation to racism and its most virulent form, antisemitism. The recent rise in antisemitic abuse in the UK has not occurred in a vacuum. It has been fuelled by conspiratorial thinking, online radicalisation, the trivialisation of antisemitic rhetoric as mere “banter” by public figures such as Nigel Farage, and a broader climate in which prejudice is normalised, disseminated, and converted into aggression. The language of quasi-fascist politics echoes familiar racist tropes, weaponizing grievance and casting minorities as threats. The result is not only an increase in hatred but also a social environment in which violence becomes a logical extension of that rhetoric.
The persistence of this problem is exacerbated by our tendency to compartmentalise it, thereby obscuring its systemic nature. Antisemitism and racism are treated as “community issues,” retail abuse as an occupational hazard, and domestic violence as a private tragedy. Such fragmentation diminishes the perceived scale of the crisis and encourages piecemeal responses that fail to address its underlying causes. Governments may introduce targeted legislation, create new offences, or publish strategies for individual sectors, yet neglect the broader social conditions from which violence emerges. In reality, violence is not a collection of discrete pathologies but part of a continuum that often begins with discontent and culminates in aggression.
A culture that tolerates aggressive rhetoric, routine incivility, and online abuse fosters an emotional climate in which more serious forms of violence become easier to justify, excuse, and ultimately perpetrate. For this reason, the rise in racial and antisemitic attacks, the abuse of frontline workers, and the persistence of domestic violence should not be viewed as separate phenomena. They are manifestations of the same underlying pathology.
What we are witnessing is not a series of isolated epidemics of violence but a broader crisis of social cohesion. If that diagnosis is correct, then the response cannot be limited to stricter laws alone. It must also include education, the rebuilding of social institutions, a renewed emphasis on mutual responsibility, and a cultural shift that rejects the normalisation of aggression as a marker of strength.
I am quite fond of garlic, but not as a cancer therapy. Dr. Mohsen Ali, a former doctor whose UK medical license was revoked by the General Medical Council (GMC) in January 2015, has been permanently struck off the medical register following a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) investigation into his running of an illegal clinic. The tribunal, which began proceedings on December 1, 2025, reconvened on January 14 and concluded from April 22 to 24, 2026, found Ali guilty of serious professional misconduct for preying on vulnerable cancer patients with unproven and dangerous treatments.
In 2018, Ali treated two patients from a semi-detached Leicester property described as a “squalid council house.” Patient A had stage three prostate cancer, while Patient B suffered from terminal ovarian cancer. Referred to Ali by word-of-mouth, both were told he could cure their cancers with a claimed 90% success rate. He charged Patient A up to £15,000 and Patient B between £10,000 and £12,000 for sessions involving intravenous vitamin C, garlic oil, ozone therapy, oxygenated water, and sodium bicarbonate injections.
Ali disparaged conventional medicine, asserting that the NHS was “killing them” through ineffective chemotherapy and radiotherapy, while “big pharma companies were making money.” During a phone call, he laughed off Patient A’s diagnosis, calling prostate cancer “easy to cure.” For Patient B, he overrode the NHS’s prognosis that nothing more could be done, promising her husband a full recovery. Patient B died shortly after stopping treatment, before police and Public Health England (PHE) probes began.
The case surfaced when Patient A emailed Leicestershire Police, prompting a GMC referral. A police raid uncovered a flyer at Ali’s address, advertising him as a “qualified doctor” who left the NHS because standard treatments “did not work.” It invoked “Allah the best healer” and boasted over 90% cure rates for cancers and other severe illnesses.
MPTS evidence revealed grave hygiene failures. PHE inspections described the property as a “dirty and unhygienic” shared residential-clinical space with visibly contaminated surfaces, reused equipment without decontamination, and no basic infection prevention measures. Ali reused intravenous bags, exposing patients to serious infection risks. The tribunal deemed his actions dishonest, as he knew these were not evidence-based cancer cures.
An expert witness confirmed no clinical studies support these so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) for curing any cancer. Ali also failed to obtain informed consent, particularly from Patient B. Absent from the hearing, he emailed the GMC denying claims of cure, but the flyer and patient testimonies contradicted him.
Ali, who graduated from Cairo University in 1994 and practiced in the UK from 2001 was erased him from the register, underscoring the dangers of unqualified SCAM practitioners – even (or perhaps especially) when they have a doctor title.
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 have repeatedly warned that Trump and his cronies are systematically destroying science and medicine in the US and beyond. Recently, I looked into Medline to see what other experts are publishing on this issue. I did not expect to find much and was surprised that a plethora of articles are now available that discuss the issues from vastly different perspectives. Here are the Medline-listed papers published in 2026 that include an abstract:
A reduction in U.S. foreign aid under the “America First” policy of President Donald Trump, who took office in 2025, has significantly impacted global health. As the world’s largest provider of foreign aid, the U.S. has frozen development aid to evaluate its alignment with national interests. This has led to the termination of numerous international health programs, including those addressing malaria, HIV, tuberculosis, and polio, and has caused funding shortages for non-profit and international organizations like GAVI and the World Bank. Projections indicate dire consequences. According to USAID, a potential 18 million additional malaria cases and 166,000 deaths could occur annually. Paralytic polio cases are expected to increase by 200,000 per year, and new tuberculosis cases could rise by 10.7 million by 2030. Recent studies estimate that new HIV infections and between 770,000 and 2.93 million HIV-related deaths from 2025 to 2030. This crisis presents an opportunity for the global community to rethink its approach to aid. Other forms of financing, such as private sector investment, CSR activities, and innovative mechanisms like the Global Fund, could fill the gap left by reduced ODA. The article also stresses the importance of strengthening governance in recipient countries, promoting self-reliance, and fostering international collaboration through shared data platforms and multilateral programs. Ultimately, the document argues that providing foreign aid is not just a moral obligation, but is also in the national security and economic interest of donor countries, including the United States.
A Science analysis shows more than 10,000 STEM Ph.D.s in the federal government left or lost their jobs after President Donald Trump took office.
Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election of Donald Trump, prejudice toward groups targeted during his campaign (e.g., Asian Americans, Mexicans) become more acceptable. By contrast, both Trump and Clinton voters reported less prejudice of their own. We conducted a 2024 conceptual replication, measuring perceived norms of prejudice and own-prejudice toward 128 groups, both before (N = 362) and after (N = 261) the U.S. election. We separately measured the negativity of Trump’s campaign rhetoric toward these groups (N = 188). Levels of prejudice and perceived norms of prejudice acceptability were mostly stable pre-/post-election, but Trump’s negative rhetoric predicted an increase in perceived acceptability of prejudice among targeted groups (replicating the 2016 results), and a rise in self-reported prejudice in the same groups post-election (reversing the 2016 results). Despite changes in the sociopolitical context between elections, the election of a leading politician who campaigned on prejudice was again associated with increases in the acceptability of prejudice.
The withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) raises crucial questions about its future as the governing international organization for health. The executive order on withdrawal was one of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term. Because the United States is WHO’s biggest funder and most powerful state backer, withdrawal could indicate an existential threat. However, almost simultaneously member states passed a new international Pandemic Agreement expanding WHO’s authority. How should these conflicting signals be understood? Analyzing WHO’s decline in a context of broader US and geopolitical shifts, the authors find that withdrawal is the outcome of the end to broader political orders of neoliberal internationalism on which WHO depended for legitimacy rather than idiosyncratic Trump politics. WHO’s reliance on certain international norms and power structures leave it compromised. US normative and institutional shifts are far more difficult for WHO to navigate than in past political eras. Therefore, international relations research suggests that avoiding catastrophic impacts depends on reform actions by WHO officials, other member states, and US actors. States and others in the United States will face harm from WHO decline, and the authors suggest that US actors have legal standing to challenge withdrawal. Complacency and inaction may be WHO’s biggest risk.
Throughout the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term in office, his administration has taken swift action to undermine the role that government health agencies play in the health policy-making process. This article makes the case that the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine government health agencies’ regulatory authority reflect a dislike and distrust of the people who serve in key civil service roles. It also provides evidence that efforts to roll back regulatory authority are part of a long-standing political strategy to cater to public dislike and distrust of scientific, medical, and academic experts. While the public could provide policy makers with an incentive to protect public health agencies and the people who staff them, recent public opinion research shows that many Americans simply do not know or do not care enough about the Trump administration’s actions to call for their elected officials to stop them. This article concludes by offering several health communication strategies and directions for future research (the “science of standing up for science”) that might inspire public concern about efforts to roll back government health agencies’ regulatory authority and might motivate people to show support for the civil servants who staff those agencies.
This paper focuses on how, during his second mandate, far-right leader Donald Trump tells a story of his nation as having been disrespected in the recent past by national elites and global ones, while the leader and their close circle have the mission to repair that status as part of United States foreign policy (i.e. respect for the status of the US). When narrating a better future, Trump travels to a remote national past to show the possibility of reinstating US stature in the international. While constructing that better future, Trump also starts to unfold a foreign policy story of success to cement the brighter future in a retrospective way given this future has purportedly been previously lived in a more remote national past. Relied on here is symbolic interactionist role theory, strategic narrative analysis and the notion of ‘heartland’ from populism scholarship; this paper also contributes to the study of narratives of roles and populism in the field of foreign policy analysis by engaging with the IR notion of ‘status’. Taking an interpretative analysis approach, this case study shows how far-right leaders like Trump can conceive and play the status or master role of their states in foreign policy via strategic narratives.
On the one hand, it is encouraging that the Trump-inflicted damage is being noticed and that there is strong opposition to Trump’s various actions. On the other hand, it is depressing to realise how deep and far-reaching the damage has already become
Science is supposed to be self-correcting. Papers get reviewed, checked, challenged – and only then published. That’s the idea, anyway. But the practice often looks different. Between 2022 and 2024, that system didn’t just creak a little, it fell over rather dramatically.
At the centre of the mess was a Hindawi journal with the reassuringly serious name Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM – we have discussed it repeatedly on this blog, e.g. here and here). What followed was one of the largest clean-ups in modern publishing: hundreds of papers retracted from eCAM, and more than about 10,000 from the publisher’s full catalogue.
The reason?
Investigations had uncovered widespread manipulation of the publication process.
A big part of the story involves “paper mills.” These are businesses that will, for a fee, produce a scientific paper with your name on it. No inconvenient need for actual experiments or real data or the nuicance of writing. Using a mix of recycled material, fabricated results, and increasingly AI-generated texts, these outfits can churn out papers that look perfectly respectable, at least until someone reads them closely. Think of it as fast food for academic careers: quick, convenient, and not especially good for long-term health.
Another key ingredient was the journal’s abundant use of “special issues.” These are themed collections of papers run by guest editors, usually experts invited to oversee a niche topic. In theory, this can be a great idea. In practice, it turned out to be a bit like handing over the keys to your flat and hoping nobody throws a party.
Investigations found that, in some cases, the system had been even more seriously gamed. Fake or compromised editors, reviewer suggestions pointing to non-existent experts, and tightly coordinated “peer review rings” meant papers could sail through the process with both ease and speed.
The whole thing started to fall apart when research integrity teams and independent sleuths noticed odd and concerning patterns: identical images appearing in different papers, statistical results that didn’t add up, and peer reviews that seemed to happen at impossible speed. At that point, Wiley, which by then had acquired Hindawi, stepped in and took a much closer look. The result: mass retractions, suspended special issues, and a lot of nearly identical retraction notices politely stating that the “peer review process had been compromised.”
The fallout hit so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) hard. As we all know, SCAM is an area that already faces plenty of skepticism; discovering that a sizable chunk of its literature had effectively skipped quality control didn’t help. More broadly, the episode exposed a structural problem: when publishing lots of papers becomes the goal – for journals and researchers alike – quality tends to quietly take a back seat.
After all this, the journal eCAM more or less ground to a halt. It stopped accepting new submissions, and its future as an active journal remains uncertain. Its archive is still online but now dotted with retraction notices that read like a greatest hits album of publishing failures. Meanwhile, the publisher has tightened the processes,verifying reviewer identities more carefully, restricting special issues, and deploying tools to catch suspicious patterns earlier.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that the system eventually did what it’s supposed to do: spot the problem and correct it. But the episode is a reminder that science doesn’t run on trust alone; it runs on verification. And when that verification slips, things can go wrong at scale, and with surprising speed. Or put another way: peer review works … as long as the “peers” actually exist and know their business.
Perjury is the criminal act of intentionally lying while under oath in a legal proceeding, where the lie concerns a material fact capable of influencing the outcome of the case. It is treated as a serious offense because it directly undermines the legal system’s core requirement: truthful testimony. If people can lie under oath without consequences, courts, juries, and investigators are unable to reliably determine the truth, which can lead to wrongful convictions, failed prosecutions, and a broader erosion of public trust in justice. In the United States, perjury is therefore treated as a serious felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison under federal law, and typically several years under state law (sometimes up to 7 years or more, depending on the jurisdiction). In addition to incarceration and fines, a perjury conviction can lead to loss of professional licenses, immigration consequences, and a permanent criminal record.
Considering the severity of the crime, it is perhaps surprising to find how many individuals associated with Donald Trump have committed perjury or have been credibly accused of it. The following list is not necessarily exhaustive.
Melania Trump (his current wife)
Melania Trump made a factually incorrect statement about her educational background while under oath in a 2013 civil deposition, when she claimed to hold a bachelor’s degree in architecture that she did not. Whether that statement would have qualified as prosecutable perjury was never tested in court, as authorities did not bring criminal charges against her.
Allen Weisselberg (Former CFO, Trump Organization)
In March 2024, Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury related to testimony he gave during Donald Trump’s civil‑fraud trial in New York. He was sentenced to five months in jail.
Michael Cohen (Former Personal Attorney)
Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to Congress about the timing and extent of negotiations for a “Trump Tower Moscow” project during the 2016 campaign. He was sentenced to 3 years in federal prison for a string of offenses, including this false‑statement charge, and the perjury‑related penalty was folded into that total sentence.
Roger Stone (Long‑time advisor)
Roger Stone was convicted in 2019 on seven felony counts, including making false statements to Congress and witness tampering, during the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His sentence was 40 months in federal prison plus a $20,000 fine. Donald Trump later commuted his sentence and subsequently issued a full presidential pardon.
Michael Flynn (Former National Security Advisor)
Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. The maximum penalty for that offense was up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. However, Flynn was never sentenced to prison; his case was delayed, then effectively set aside after the Justice Department moved to dismiss it, and Trump ultimately issued him a full pardon.
George Papadopoulos (Former Campaign Aide)
George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian‑linked individuals during the 2016 campaign. He was sentenced to 14 days in federal prison, plus a period of supervised release and additional sanctions, and served about 12 days behind bars.
Jeff Sessions (Former Attorney General)
During his 2017 confirmation hearing, Jeff Sessions stated under oath that he “did not have communications with the Russians.” It later emerged that he had met on multiple occasions with the Russian ambassador. Sessions maintained that his testimony was truthful from his own perspective, describing it as a matter of memory or focus rather than intentional deception. No criminal charges for perjury or false statements were filed.
Jared Kushner (Son‑in‑law and Advisor)
Jared Kushner faced intense scrutiny for multiple omissions on his security‑clearance forms (SF‑86), failing to disclose dozens of contacts with foreign officials. Many legal observers and commentators called for a perjury or false‑statement investigation, but no criminal charges were brought.
Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence)
In early 2025, following the “SignalGate” leaks, some members of Congress called for perjury investigations into Tulsi Gabbard’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. They alleged that she provided false or misleading statements about the security and nature of unsecured communications protocols used within the Intelligence Community. No criminal charges have been brought.
John Ratcliffe (CIA Director)
Similarly, John Ratcliffe faced calls for a perjury investigation after the SignalGate disclosures, with lawmakers alleging that he gave false testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the same unsecured communication protocols. No criminal charges have been filed.
Kash Patel (FBI Director)
In a September 2025 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Kash Patel was questioned about the FBI’s handling of more than 100,000 investigative files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Lawmakers raised concerns that large numbers of FBI personnel were diverted to “scrub” or redact references to Donald Trump before files were released publicly. Patel has vehemently denied those claims, calling them gross mischaracterizations. The discovery in early 2026 of missing interview notes containing previously undisclosed allegations against Trump has fueled accusations that he may have committed perjury, but no formal perjury charges have been filed to date.
Donald Trump (President of the US)
In 2022, a federal judge in Georgia noted that Trump likely committed perjury or filed a false declaration when he signed legal documents alleging thousands of instances of voter fraud in that state. Those allegations were based on claims his own legal team had already warned him were inaccurate. The judge’s observation highlighted the possibility of perjury, but no criminal prosecution for perjury has been initiated.
Further reading:
- Goodman, Ryan. “Perjury Chart: Trump Associates’ Lies, False, or Misleading Statements on Russia to Federal Authorities.” Just Security, 9 May 2019. https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-associates-lies-false-or-misleading-statements-on-russia-to-federal-authorities/
- “5 other former Trump associates who ran afoul of the law.” CBC News, 14 November 2019. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-advisers-charges-prison-1.5361119
- “Factbox: Here are eight Trump associates arrested or convicted of crimes.” Reuters, 20 August 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/factbox-here-are-eight-trump-associates-arrested-or-convicted-of-crimes-idUSKBN25G1YU/
- “Ex‑Trump Organization CFO pleads guilty to perjury charges.” ABC Eyewitness News (6ABC), 3 March 2024. https://www.6abc.com/post/allen-weisselberg-trump-cfo-organization-new-york/14490347/
- “Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg faces perjury sentencing.” ABC News, 9 April 2024. https://abcnews.com/US/former-trump-organization-cfo-allen-weisselberg-faces-perjury/story?id=109038178
- “Ex‑Trump Org. CFO pleads guilty to perjury charges.” CNN, 4 March 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/politics/allen-weisselberg-trump-org-cfo-plea-perjury
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.
Most scientists are not Trump-fans [to put it mildly]; this is a trend that is likely not to be reversed by Trumps recent appointment of the first 13 members to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Historically, it has served as a bridge between the White House and the broader scientific community, however, the 2026 iteration represents a Silicon Valley mockery of science. Nearly the entire roster consists of high-profile technology executives and venture capitalists, leaving academia with just a single representative: John Martinis, a 2025 Nobel Laureate in Physics from UC Santa Barbara.
The council’s composition is notable not just for its corporate focus, but for the sheer concentrated wealth of its members. At least 9 of the 13 appointees are billionaires, including some of the most influential figures in the global economy:
- Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) and Lisa Su (AMD): Representing the hardware backbone of the AI revolution.
- Mark Zuckerberg (Meta) and Sergey Brin (Google/Alphabet): Representing the titans of software and data.
- Larry Ellison and Safra Catz (Oracle): Longtime industrial allies with deep ties to federal infrastructure.
- Michael Dell (Dell Technologies) and Marc Andreessen (Andreessen Horowitz): Providing a mix of legacy hardware expertise and modern venture capital strategy.
Under the co-leadership of David Sacks (White House AI and Crypto Czar) and Michael Kratsios (OSTP Director), this council has a mandate that differs fundamentally from its predecessors. Previous administrations typically used PCAST to tackle broad issues like public health, climate science, and fundamental research. In contrast, the 2026 council is focused on “The Golden Age of Innovation,” with a specific emphasis on:
- AI Dominance: Ensuring the U.S. wins the global race for artificial intelligence.
- Energy Infrastructure: Accelerated deployment of advanced nuclear and fusion energy, represented by members like Jacob DeWitte (Oklo) and Bob Mumgaard (Commonwealth Fusion).
- Deregulation: Streamlining the “bureaucratic barriers” that the administration argues hinder technological speed.
This roster therefore marks a striking departure from the tradition established by FDR in 1933. While President Biden’s council was majority-academic and diverse in scientific disciplines, Trump’s PCAST is largely devoid of scientists. With up to 11 seats still vacant, the scientific community is now watching nervously to see if the second wave of appointments will continue to herald a boardroom for the billionairs and architects of the digital age.
As I said, scientists don’t like Trump. The reason is clear: he seems to value science mainly as a means to make money for himself or his cronies.
Tons of research (mostly surveys) exist on the reasons why some people – between 20 and 60% – use so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But these people are often the minority, and few of us ask why the majority do NOT employ SCAM. The research that does exist suggests that people decline SCAM for a variety of inter‑related reasons. It also suggests that non‑use is often a rational, deliberated position grounded in both experience and reason.
Satisfaction with conventional medicine
Across different conditions and populations, the most frequently cited reason for not using SCAM is that conventional treatment is perceived as sufficient. In an oncology sample, for example, 76% of non‑users reported that they saw “no need” for SCAM because standard therapy was considered adequate. Similar findings emerged in gastroenterology and primary‑care cohorts, in which effective conventional treatment was the single most common reason for non‑use, and many non‑users stated that they would only consider SCAM if standard treatments turned out to be ineffective.
Good health
Good self‑rated health also predicts SCAM non‑use. Population surveys consistently show that SCAM use is higher among those with chronic conditions, poorer functional status, or unresolved symptoms, whereas people who feel generally healthy are less likely to seek any additional, especially out‑of‑pocket, interventions. In that sense, non‑use is often an epiphenomenon of a relatively positive health trajectory: people tend to look beyond biomedicine only when they experience persistent suffering, side‑effects, or perceived medical failure.
Lack of good evidence of effectiveness
For many non‑users of SCAM, the absence of convincing scientific evidence is central. They perceive SCAM modalities as “unproven” or “insufficiently tested” and prefer interventions that have been evaluated in rigorous randomized trials, meta‑analyses, and regulatory assessment. A recent scoping review of SCAM identified “insufficient scientific evidence” as one of the most frequently reported barriers to use across multiple settings. In an Egyptian survey, almost 80% of non‑users reported “insufficient information and evidence to prove effectiveness” as a main reason for avoiding SCAM, and nearly three‑quarters stated that they were “not convinced” by it.
Safety concerns
Safety concerns are closely tied to this evidence gap. Non‑users often highlight the lack of robust regulation of SCAM products and practitioners, worries about adulteration or contamination of herbal preparations, and the risk of interactions with prescription medicines. In cancer cohorts, substantial proportions of non‑users explicitly mention fears of fraud and of harmful interactions between SCAM and chemotherapy or other oncological treatments. These concerns are reinforced by data documenting variable product quality and under‑reporting of adverse events in the SCAM sector, which for some patients strengthens the perception that, in the absence of solid evidence and oversight, the safest option is non‑use.
Money
Even among people who are in principle open to SCAM, structural barriers can make uptake impractical. Economic factors are salient: in most healthcare systems, SCAM services are not reimbursed or are only partially covered and therefore require substantial out‑of‑pocket payments. US survey data have shown that SCAM users incur meaningful additional financial burden, and that out‑of‑pocket spending on SCAM can be associated with self‑reported financial distress. For those on lower incomes, this cost gradient effectively acts as a barrier to ever starting SCAM.
Time
Time and access constraints constitute further deterrents. Many SCAM modalities require repeated sessions, travel, and scheduling flexibility, which can be difficult for people in full‑time employment or with caregiving responsibilities. A scoping review identified limited availability of services, a shortage of qualified professionals, logistical difficulties in reaching SCAM practitioners, and lack of public provision as recurrent obstacles to use, particularly in rural or underserved regions. When an intervention demands substantial time investment and travel, while its efficacy is uncertain and it is not covered by insurance, non‑use becomes a straightforward opportunity‑cost calculation.
Physician stance
Physician stance plays a powerful role in shaping decisions. Patients often look to their primary care physicians or specialists as gatekeepers of legitimate treatment options; when doctors do not recommend SCAM, or express doubts about it, patients tend to refrain from using it. Reviews of physician attitudes suggest that many are cautious about SCAM because of concerns about evidence, safety, and the risk that some patients might replace effective conventional treatment with unproven SCAMs. This caution, whether expressed explicitly or implicitly, contributes to the social norm that poorly evidenced therapies lie outside the mainstream of responsible care.
Lack of knowledge
Lack of knowledge about specific SCAM modalities is another consistent reason for non‑use. The National Health Interview Survey showed that “not knowing enough” about practices such as acupuncture, chiropractic, natural products, and yoga was commonly endorsed as a reason for never having tried them, even among individuals with back pain that might otherwise motivate experimentation. Meta‑analyses and scoping reviews corroborate “insufficient knowledge” and “inadequate information” as personal barriers across diverse settings.
Worldview
Finally, the decision not to use SCAM is also shaped by broader worldviews. Studies mapping attitudes underlying SCAM use and non‑use suggest that commitment to a scientific, reductionist understanding of illness, trust in biomedicine, and low levels of “holistic” or spiritual health beliefs predict lower SCAM uptake. Non‑use of SCAM thus reflects an active alignment with the epistemic norms of evidence‑based medicine and a preference for treatments that are conceptually compatible with biomedical explanations of disease.
Conclusions
Users of SCAM tend to score relatively high in intuitive thinking, while non-users of SCAM tend to score higher in analytical thinking. People who do not use SCAM are often employing a cautious, risk‑averse strategy. They prefer treatments that have demonstrable effectiveness beyond placebo and safety within regulated systems, particularly when their health is reasonably good, and they see little to gain from investing scarce time and resources in therapies they regard as weakly evidenced, commercially driven, or ideologically suspect. Non‑use, then, is a principled stance grounded in satisfaction with conventional care, skepticism about unproven claims, and a desire to minimise both medical and financial risk. In a word: non-use of SCAM seems to be a sign of prudence, common sense and an ability to think critically.
References
Astin, J. A. (1998). Why patients use alternative medicine: Results of a national study. JAMA, 279(19), 1548–1553.
Li, J., Verhoef, M. J., Best, A., Otley, A., & Hilsden, R. J. (2005). Why patients use or do not use complementary and alternative medicine: A qualitative study exploring beliefs about conventional medicine and CAM in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, 19(9), 567–572.
Lindeman, M. (2011). Biases in intuitive reasoning and belief in complementary and alternative medicine. Psychology & Health, 26(3), 371–382.
Najibi, S. M., Sarikhani, Y., Hajimonfarednejad, M., Nimrouzi, M., & Hashempur, M. H. (2025). A scoping review of the barriers and facilitators in the use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine: Insights for health policy development. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 44(1), 188
Paepke, D., et al. (2020). Prevalence and predictors for nonuse of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology, 146 (8), 2157–2166.
Rosenberg, E. I., et al. (1998). A review of the incorporation of complementary and alternative medicine by mainstream physicians. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158(21), 2303–2310.
