progress
“Popularity takes the place of plausibility, tradition replaces validity, and individual experience is positioned above objective efficacy.”
This sentence (my translaation of the German original) comes from a book by Udo Endruscheit that I have been reading. It is entitled “Vom Zweifel zur Haltung: Eine Reise durch die Geschichte der Erkenntnis” (From Doubt to Conviction: A Journey Through the History of Knowledge) and outlines the epistemological development of truth from the early thinkers of antiquity to the postmodern voices of today. It traces how the concept of truth has changed, how it has been criticized, relativized, and deconstructed, and how these changes have shaped us and our thinking.
The statement was no necessarily meant to me applied to medicine, but it does aply capture a recurring epistemological pattern within large segments of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It describes a shift away from the truth towards criteria that are socially and psychologically compelling but scientifically nonsensical.
The substitution of popularity for plausibility is evident in the way many SCAMs have gained traction. Treatments such as homeopathy, naturopathic detox regimens, or paranormal energy-based healing have achieved global followings despite the fact that there can hardly be a mechanism of action that does not fly in the face of science. Their popularity is often driven by anecdotal endorsements, celebrity advocacy, and market forces rather than by convergence of experimental and theoretical support. Opinion counts more than truth, and the absence of plausibility in a SCAM is frequent and frequently ignored.
The elevation of tradition over validity is a defining feature of most SCAMs. Historical longevity is often presented as implicit evidence of effectiveness. “It would not have survived, if it were ineffective!” Yet, from a scientific perspective, tradition is a most unreliable indicator: ineffective or even harmful practices can persist for centuries in the absence of effectiveness and even safety. Bloodletting in pre-modern Western medicine offers a cautionary example. The critical issue is not whether a therapy is old, but whether it has been subjected to rigorous evaluation and shown to produce reproducible benefits that exceed placebo and other non-specific effects.
The dominance of individual experience over objective effectiveness is perhaps the most pervasive and psychologically persuasive cause of SCAM’s popularity. Patients’ testimonials, often sincere and seemingly compelling, are being touted as sufficient evidence of effectiveness. Yet individual experience is highly susceptible to regression to the mean, natural disease fluctuation, placebo effects, confirmation and other biases and confounders. Without proper comparisons, it is impossible to distinguish specific therapeutic effects from non-specific ones. Evidence-based medicine does not dismiss patient experience; rather, it contextualizes it with external evidence to avoid misleading us all.
The above statement by Udo Endruscheit was meant as a general characterisation of the way we currently handle and mishandle truth. As such it applies to much more than just SCAM. Yet, it also provides an apt critique of dominant tendencies within SCAM. Popularity, tradition, and personal experience are, of course, not inherently without value, but when they displace plausibility, validity, and objective effectiveness, they create a situation that is wide open to error, exploitation and often also harm.
In a nutshell: the truth matters; watering it down – as we all currently tend to do – carries serious risks in medicine as much as in life.
PS
I almost forgot!
Yes, I do recommend reading Udo’s most fascinating book.
Because homeopathic remedies are usually diluted to the point where none of the original substance remains (often beyond Avogadro’s number), the ethical concerns with this treatment must focus on veracity (truth-telling), patient autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Here are some of the problems that ensue**:
Violations of Veracity and Informed Consent
Informed consent is an essential element of medical ethics and dictates that a patient must be given full, accurate, and evidence-based information regarding a treatment’s nature, mechanisms, risks, and efficacy to make an autonomous decision.
Homeopathy operates on two main principles: “like cures like” (Law of Similars) and the “law of minimum dose” (the more diluted a substance, the more potent it becomes). Scientifically, these principles contradict established kowledge of chemistry, physics, and pharmacology. Presenting these concepts nevertheless as scientifically valid violates veracity.
When a practitioner administers or sells a homeopathic remedy without explicitly stating that it contains no active ingredients and performs no better than a placebo in clinical trials, the patient’s autonomy is compromised. In other words, patients are making a healthcare choice based on deception or omission.
Maleficence
While homeopathics are physically inert and thus unlikely to cause direct harm, homeopathy poses a severe threat via indirect harm.
The most critical ethical issue occurs when patients use homeopathy for severe, progressive, or life-threatening conditions (such as cancer, severe infections, or chronic diseases like diabetes). Delaying or entirely replacing evidence-based medicine with placebo treatments (i.e. homeopathy) violates the duty of non-maleficence (do no harm). It can lead to preventable suffering, worsening of the condition, or even death in extreme cases.
Homeopathic “Vaccines” (Homeoprophylaxis) is an apt example. Some homeopaths offer all sorts of homeopathic vaccinations as alternatives to standard immunizations. Marketing these as effective protection against potentially deadly diseases like measles, polio, or pertussis erodes public herd immunity, leaves individuals entirely unprotected, and can endanger us all. This is a massive failure of both individual and public health ethics.
Beneficence
Beneficence requires healthcare providers to act in the best interest of the patient by offering treatments that provide a tangible, therapeutic benefit.
While the empathetic, unhurried nature of a homeopathic consultation can provide psychological comfort, homeopaths cannot ethically justify charging high fees for what is essentially a placebo wrapped in pseudo-medicine. Relying on a mechanism that depends on the patient remaining ignorant of the treatment’s true nature is fundamentally paternalistic and violates modern standards of beneficence.
Justice and the Exploitation of Vulnerability
The ethical principle of justice involves fairness, equity, and the responsible distribution of healthcare resources. It is regularly violated in the realm of homeopathy.
Homeopathic remedies are cheap to manufacture, yet they are marketed at unjustifiably inflated prices. Targeting vulnerable populations, such as the chronically ill, parents anxious about medication side effects in their children, or low-income individuals seeking cheap alternatives, is an ethical violation of justice.
When public the health insurance programs of certain countries, or mainstream pharmacies fund or promote homeopathic products alongside effective medicines, they misallocate resources and mislead the public. In other words, they give a false stamp of authority to quackery, draining resources that could support evidence-based public health initiatives.
So, how unethical is homeopathy? My short answer is: VERY!
** for a more detailed discussion, please have a look at our book.
The long-standing consensus surrounding moderate alcohol consumption has recently been disrupted by a landmark review. Initiated under a US congressional mandate to evaluate the evidence base for the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the study—convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) alongside the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—concluded that even a single alcoholic beverage per day significantly elevates the risks of serious chronic illness and premature death. After unexplained bureaucratic delays, the release of this taxpayer-funded research delivers a sobering truth: there is no net health benefit derived from alcohol consumption at any level.
For decades, public perception was shaped by data suggesting that a daily glass of wine or beer could act as a cardiovascular shield. This new review systematically dismantles that notion by identifying significant methodological biases in the previous evidence. Chief among these is the “sick quitter” effect, wherein baseline categories of non-drinkers inadvertently included individuals who had abstained precisely because of pre-existing, severe health conditions. By correcting for these distortions, the review demonstrated that health risks accumulate linearly. Alcohol acts as a dose-dependent toxin with no safe lower threshold, and even minimal daily intake accelerates linear risk trajectories for:
- liver cirrhosis,
- severe hypertension,
- various malignancies, including esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancers.
Beyond chronic pathology, low-level consumption also:
- impairs cognitive architecture,
- accelerating brain aging,
- elevates the immediate probability of physical injury.
The friction surrounding the report’s delayed release has exposed systemic vulnerabilities at the intersection of federal policy and corporate lobbying. Historically, US dietary guidelines defined moderate drinking as up to two drinks per day for men and one for women. The new scientific consensus exposes these thresholds as dangerously obsolete, highlighting a stark disconnect between federal health advice and contemporary medical data.
This friction might underscore the impact of the commercial determinants of health, exposing how multi-billion-dollar alcohol conglomerates employ aggressive public relations campaigns and sophisticated scientific interference to preserve market shares. By aggressively marketing alcohol as a benign staple of a healthy lifestyle, the industry had successfully obscured its intrinsic risks. The new evidence shifts the conversation from personal indulgence to an important public health issue.
Update (July 2026): a US government–commissioned analysis of alcohol-related risk was published. Here is its abstract:
The purpose of this study was to estimate the lifetime risk of alcohol-attributable mortality and morbidity in the United States based on a person’s average lifetime weekly alcohol consumption to assess the impact of per-occasion alcohol consumption on health.
Lifetime risks were estimated using a cause-specific modeling approach that combined exposure data from national health surveys, relative risks, population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and morbidity data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. A narrative review assessed the health impact of per-occasion alcohol consumption on health.
At low levels of consumption, no protective net effect of alcohol consumption on health was observed. Elevated mortality and morbidity risks were associated with alcohol consumption starting at relatively low levels. Males consuming >6.5 (95% CI [<1, 13.5]) and females consuming >7.0 (95% CI [<1, 11.5]) drinks per week had life-time alcohol-attributable mortality risks >1:1,000. At >8.5 (95% CI [2.5, 13]) drinks per week for both males and females, these risks increased to >1:100. At 14 drinks per week for males (the upper limit of the former Dietary Guidelines for males), the risk of an alcohol-caused death was 1:25 (4%). Drinking patterns also impacted risk. Above 1 drink per occasion, higher consumption was associated with progressively increased risks of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and injury.
Alcohol consumption, including at what may be perceived as “moderate” levels, is associated with increased mortality and morbidity risks. These results support tightening alcohol use guidance in the United States, for both males and females, to no more than 1 drink per day.
Public health significance statement: The Alcohol Intake and Health Study shows that for Americans, even what is socially considered “moderate drinking” increases the risk of dying or developing health problems, helping people better understand the net health impact of alcohol. Furthermore, by identifying the levels of alcohol use that raise the risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and injury, these findings can guide individuals, families, and communities in making safer choices about drinking patterns. The results also support changing the U.S. Dietary Guidelines on alcohol to recommend that current adult drinkers consume 1 drink or less in a day.
Authors and independent observers have described the report as having been sidelined during the Trump administration, citing conflicts with industry interests and existing “moderate drinking is safe” messaging.
You wake up with a headache on a rainy day.
Did the rain cause your headache?
Or was it perhaps the late-night coffee?
You then take a homeopathic remedy, and an hour later the pain is gone.
Did the remedy cause this?
Or was it the shower you took, the placebo effect, or something else entirely?
Perhaps you don’t care? But, if we want to make progress, we ought to care and find the answers. Sorting out coincidence from actual cause is crucial for making progress. Causality is one of the most important concepts in research, because humans are naturally prone to seeing patterns where none exist. We are all easily fooled, and regularly even by ourselves. Mistaking a correlation (two things coicidentally happening in sequence) for a cause (one thing creating the other) can lead to wrong decisions, useless treatments, wasted resources, and often to significant harm. To prevent this, scientists have long relied on structured frameworks to prove when one event truly triggers another.
In the late 19th century, the German physician Robert Koch wanted a foolproof way to prove that a specific microbe caused a specific disease. He developed the “Koch’s Postulates”, a four-step checklist that transformed medicine:
- The microbe must be present in every case of the disease.
- The microbe must be isolated from the sick host and grown in a lab.
- The lab-grown microbe must cause the same disease when introduced to a healthy host.
- The microbe must be isolated again from the newly infected host.
While these rules worked beautifully for many infectious diseases, they have limits. Some viruses cannot be grown easily in a lab, and some people carry bacteria without ever getting sick. And, of course, there are many diseases that are not due to microbes.
As medicine evolved to tackle chronic, non-infectious conditions like heart disease or cancer, Koch’s checklist thus fell short. For instance, smoking causes lung cancer, but you cannot easily “isolate” smoking in a lab, nor does every smoker get cancer. To solve this riddle, the UK epidemiologist Austin Bradford Hill introduced a broader toolkit in 1965, today known as the “Bradford Hill Criteria”. Instead of a strict pass or fail test, it uses several simple viewpoints to weigh the evidence:
- Strength: Is the connection large or powerful?
- Consistency: Do different studies produce the same result?
- Temporality: Did the cause occur before the effect?
- Biological Gradient: Does more exposure lead to more severe outcomes?
- Biological plausibility: Does the connection make sense with what we already know?
Without the guardrails of causality, medicine would still be based mostly on guesswork. Koch’s postulates gave us the clarity to cure deadly infections, and the Bradford Hill criteria allowed us to take on different public health threats like tobacco. By forcing us to ask how and why things happen, these criteria allow us to ensure that medical science is built on truth rather than mere coincidence.
In the realm of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), causality has a particularly improtant role. This is because proponents often claim causality, while science rejects it:
Homeopathy:
Proponent claim: The fact that many patients get better after taking a homeopathic remedy proves that homeopathy works.
Reality: There are many other, more convincing explanations for this outcome.
Applied Kinesiology
Proponent claim: Muscle response strength proves nutrient deficiencies, toxin exposure, or food allergies.
Reality: No consistent relationship between muscle testing results and actual health status. The practice fails basic reliability tests; different practitioners get different results from the same patient.
Reiki
Proponent claim: Practitioners channel “healing energy” from assumed sources that improves health and prompts recovery.
Reality: No such energy exists. Well-controlled studies show Reiki performs no better than placebo. The claimed energy has no basis in physics or biology.
Acupuncture
Proponent claim: Inserting needles at specific points along “meridians” releases blocked qi and cures various conditions.
Reality: Most ot the patient-blind acupuncture trials show no difference from placebo acupuncture (needles placed randomly or not penetrating skin). Cochrane Reviews find acupuncture does no better than placebo. The meridian system has no anatomical basis.
_________________
These 4 examples illustrate the fundamental problem: SCAM proponents routinely mistake correlation for causation, or propose causal mechanisms that have no basis in established physics, chemistry, or biology. Without satisfying the above-mentioned criteria, these claims remain unproven speculation rather than scientific fact.
To put it bluntly:
CAUSALITY MATTERS!
As explained in my previous post, plausibility matters. The post was predominantly about biological plausibility – but things can be a little more complex, and it would be foolish to deny the fact that there are two kinds of plausibility; biological and clinical.
Biological plausibility concerns compatibility with established physiology, biochemistry, and pathology. It asks whether a credible pathway exists by which an assumed cause could produce an effect. And it takes into account current knowledge from biology and other natural sciences. Within the Bradford Hill framework, biological plausibility helps distinguish mere statistical associations from actual causes. For more details see my previous post.
Clinical plausibility, by contrast, is based on much softer criteria, such as clinical observation and real-world outcomes. Here, the core question is whether a claimed effect fits observed patient patterns, e.g.:
- temporal relationships,
- dose-response gradients,
- reproducibility across cohorts,
- alignment with known clinical phenotypes.
Supported by case series, observational studies, clinical trials, or epidemiological studies, an intervention can be clinically plausible long before its underlying biology is understood. This has historically been the case for many drugs; an apt example is aspirin which has been used clinically long before a biologically plausible mechanism was discovered..
The two forms of plausibility should be complementary. Ideally, a robust causal claim satisfies both mechanistic logic and clinical observation. Biological plausibility without clinical evidence remains speculative. Clinical plausibility without a known mechanism invites skepticism and further inquiry.
The deficit of biological plausibility is a major indictment of many forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). They often offer no tenable mechanism and fail under rigorous testing. Conversely, demanding full mechanistic clarity before accepting consistent clinical data is likely to hinder progress in healthcare.
In relation to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), the issue was summarised more than 20 years ago as follows:
In summary, the way to prove the efficacy of most CAM therapies is with well-designed RCTs, and there is no reason to believe that clinical trial designs cannot be developed that allow even complex CAM therapies to be evaluated. The procedures involved can be sophisticated, complex and expensive, however, and this confronts investigators with the challenge of identifying which of the myriad of existing and future CAM therapies merit the effort and expense of definitive RCT evaluation. The challenge should be met as it is in conventional drug discovery, through plausibility-building research. Whenever possible, efforts should be made to establish a credible mechanism of action for a candidate CAM therapy, because this will increase its biological plausibility and reduce the risk of false-negative RCT results. When biological plausibility is lacking, clinical plausibility alone must be the basis for determining whether or not to proceed to the costlier phase of definitive RCTs. The creation of a plausibility-building CAM research strategy will require thought, instruction, funding, and collaboration among conventional clinical investigators and CAM advocates. The advantages are many: fairness, low cost and the creation of rules of engagement for CAM evaluation that foster balanced partnerships between CAM advocates and mainstream clinical scientists.
Ultimately, in my view, not a dogmatic stance but a balanced integration of both biological and clinical plausibility should underpin rational decisions about which medical hypotheses to pursue, adopt, or discard.
Evidence‑based medicine (EBM) was developed to make clinical decisions more reliable by grounding them more solidly in good research. Thus, randomised clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis became crucial for healthcare. That development brought undeniable progress, but it also created a problem: if we focus exclusively on such evidence, we might neglect an important question:
IS THE TREATMENT IN QUESTION BIOLOGICALLY PLAUSIBLE?
Put simply, EBM asks “Does it work in this study?” without first asking “Could it reasonably work at all?”
The neglect of biological plausibility can lead to wasted resources, misleading conclusions and, in some cases, the promotion of nonsense. The issue is, of course, particularly relevant in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) known for its frequent lack of plausibility. A simple example might explain this more clearly: in homeopathy, we see an abundance of poor-quality studies with a positive result. This could easily lead to the overall impression that homeopathy works, while in fact it cannot reasonably work at all.
So, how can we reasonably take account of this complication? It turns out there are several options:
Option 1 Gatekeeping
One way to account for plausibility within EBM is to use it to decide what we test in the first place. Before launching an expensive clinical trial, we can ask for a clear explanation of how the proposed intervention might reasonably work. If no such rationale can be articulated without contradicting science, it is reasonable to conclude that the intervention lacks sufficient plausibility to justify the time, money and ethical burden involved in testing it on patients. In practice, this kind of gatekeeping often happens informally, but making it explicit and mandatory could help keep overtly implausible interventions from consuming scarce resources.
Option 2 Prior probability
Plausibility can also be integrated into how we interpret trial results. Some trialists treat a statistically significant result as an infallible signal that the therapy was effective. When a trial result is “statistically significant”, it means the data we observed would be unlikely if the treatment had no effect. Prior probability is another way of expressing plausibility. If a hypothesis is highly plausible given existing scientific knowledge, a positive trial fits into a broader, coherent picture. If a hypothesis is highly implausible, a positive trial is more likely to be a false positive, an artefact of bias, chance, methodological flaws, or fraud. In other words, for low‑plausibility claims, we need stronger and more consistent evidence before accepting them as true. The less plausible a claim is, the more extraordinary the evidence must be.
Option 3 Guidelines
Guideline development offers another opportunity to embed plausibility into EBM. When expert panels prepare recommendations, they typically grade the strength of evidence according to study design, risk of bias, and consistency of results. They might also add a distinct step in which they rate the plausibility of the intervention. This rating could be justified explaining how well the intervention fits with established knowledge. Guideline writers could then let this plausibility rating influence the strength of their recommendations.
Health technology assessments have been moving in this direction for some time. It makes guideline documents more transparent: clinicians could see not only what the trials showed, but also how the intervention was judged to fit into or contradict broader scientific understanding.
Option 4 Causation
Finally, causation frameworks are being used to bring plausibility into EBM. When we decide whether an association is causal, we often rely on criteria such as consistency, temporality and strength of association. Biological plausibility is another of these criteria. Using it systematically means asking whether there is a logical pathway from intervention to outcome that passes through known mechanisms and observed effects. If such a pathway can be sketched in a way that accords with science, plausibility is high. If not, plausibility is low, and we should be more cautious about drawing causal conclusions from statistical associations alone.
EBM has revolutionized healthcare, but evaluating evidence in a vacuum can carry the risk of validating the absurd. To minimise this risk, we might consider integrating biological plausibility into EBM, a possibility that has long been discussed by many experts in the field. This approach is not a rejection of EBM, but a vital safeguard for it which ensures that the evidence aligns with and strengthened by fundamental science and existing knowledge. By demanding extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, medicine can better protect its resources, maintain intellectual integrity, and ensure that clinical practice rests on a foundation that is both statistically sound and scientifically reasonable.
Conversion therapy is a form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual, or to change their gender identity from transgender or non-binary to cisgender. The practice is built on the false premise that being LGBTQ+ is a mental illness or a developmental flaw that can and should be “cured.” It can range from talk therapy and prayer groups to extreme and physically abusive techniques, such as aversion therapy. Major medical, psychiatric, and psychological organizations worldwide have overwhelmingly rejected conversion therapy. Research consistently shows that it is completely ineffective and causes severe psychological harm, including high rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide. Because of these dangers, dozens of countries have banned or heavily restricted the practice.
Amongst all the many dubious SCAM therapies, conversion therapy must be amongst the most vile, as discussed previously several times, e.g.:
- “Gay exorcism” and conversion therapy by the “Forward In Faith Church International Incorporated” in Scotland
- The ‘Association of Catholic Doctors’ and homeopathic conversion therapy
- Conversion therapy is ‘despicable and degrading’. IT SHOULD BE BANNED EVERYWHERE
Now the Church of England has decided to permit a General Synod event promoting “sexual identity transformation”, i.e. conversion therapy. Entitled “People Change: Sexual Identity Transformation”, the event features Matthew Grech, who claims to have left behind a homosexual lifestyle. Hosted by General Synod member Rebecca Hunt, the meeting highlights speakers who claim to have experienced “positive, beneficial change,” aligning with the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage. Although the Church cancelled an associated exhibition stand, the meeting itself is going ahead despite a 2017 Synod vote overwhelmingly rejecting conversion therapy.
This story unfolded shortly after the UK Government published its draft Conversion Practices Bill, aimed at banning abusive attempts to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Humanists UK have long advocated for a comprehensive, loophole-free ban on these discredited and harmful practices, which seek to change, suppress, or “cure” LGBT individuals through coercive counselling, pseudo-psychological interventions, or intense prayer.
Crucially, data from the National LGBT Survey highlights that faith groups are the primary setting for conversion therapy. Furthermore, the LGBT+ charity Galop has documented numerous cases of faith-based conversion abuse.
Laura Newlyn, Policy and Campaigns Manager at Humanists UK, emphasized that conversion practices cause lasting harm, particularly to young and vulnerable individuals facing intense pressure from religious communities. She rejected the idea that these practices constitute harmless pastoral care or ordinary prayer, stressing that most of the public, including most Christians, support a ban. Humanists UK maintains that any effective legislation must fully cover religious settings and eliminate exemptions for “consent” or religious practices to ensure all LGBT individuals are protected from abuse.
I suppose nobody need eplanations what the Epstein files are, or what crimes they depict, or how often Trump is mentioned in them. What many might not know is that even the United Nations (UN) have commented on these documents
Independent human rights experts, operating under mandates from the UN Human Rights Council, have warned that the Epstein files reveal evidence of a possible global criminal enterprise involving systematic sexual abuse, trafficking, and exploitation of women and girls. Due to the scale, transnational reach, and systematic nature of these atrocities, the experts stated that the documented conduct may meet the legal threshold for crimes against humanity. Under international law, this threshold applies to acts like sexual slavery, torture, and trafficking when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.
The disclosure follows the “Epstein Files Transparency Act” of 2025, which led to the US Department of Justice releasing over three million pages, 2,000 videos, and 180,000 images in January 2026. The background involves wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while facing minor-recruitment and sexual exploitation charges, and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.
The experts emphasized that states are legally obligated to investigate these crimes, which were fueled by corruption, supremacy, and extreme misogyny. They called for independent and impartial investigations into all individuals, financial structures, and official entities implicated, asserting that resignations are not a substitute for criminal accountability.
The experts praised the resilience of the survivors but criticized “grave errors” in the release process that exposed sensitive victim information, risking retaliation and stigma. They urged the adoption of victim-centered standard operating procedures for future disclosures and demanded that governments act decisively, declaring that no one is too wealthy or powerful to be above the law.
“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said. “It is imperative that governments act decisively to hold perpetrators accountable,” the experts said. “No one is too wealthy or too powerful to be above the law.”
Trump and his team have repetedly responded to Epstein-file in general. Trump himself seems keen to disregard the experts, do precisely what they warned against, and move on. As far as I know, there is no statement of Trump or his team commenting directly on the UN experts’ “crimes against humanity” document itself.
The Church of Scientology has spent decades insisting that psychiatry is a terrorist conspiracy, antidepressants are a gateway to mass murder, and only its own “tech” can save humanity from the menace of Prozac and similar “poisons”. One might imagine this worldview would remain safely quarantined within L. Ron Hubbard’s realm of loons.
But then Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became Secretary of Health and Human Services!
By pure coincidence Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” crusade, unveiled with the MAHA Action Plan to Curb Psychiatric Overprescribing, just happens to target the very same SSRIs that Scientology and its front group CCHR have been demonising for years. Antidepressants are singled out, deprescribing is framed as a patriotic duty, and psychotherapy and lifestyle tweaks are held up as the noble alternative to “overmedicalization.” The American Psychiatric Association calls SSRIs evidence‑based treatment; Kennedy, channelling his inner CCHR lawyer, suggests they’re harder to quit than heroin and may be helping to fuel mass violence.
Enter Wisner Baum, the mass‑tort firm whose senior partners have long, colourful histories with Scientology and its covert operations. This firm has spent years suing antidepressant manufacturers and other psychiatric technologies. And Kennedy has quietly pocketed over $850,000 in fees from them, while keeping a continuing financial interest as HHS Secretary. It is hard to imagine a neater arrangement: a Scientology‑linked law firm sues drug companies; a Scientology‑approved health secretary casts doubt on those same drugs from the cabinet; and fee income flows merrily along.
So, is Kennedy formally a Scientologist?
No, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence for that. But perhaps the label becomes somewhat unimportant, when the nation’s top health official is advancing policy that mirrors Scientology’s doctrine and staying financially intertwined with its legal defender. Whether or not he has taken the oath or not (and I am not saying he has), he seems to be doing the work of Xenu, the mysterious extraterrestrial ruler of a galactic confederacy.
A recent paper published in the Lancet was entitled “Wellbeing for people and the planet: how to value everyone and everything on a thriving planet beyond 2030“. Here is its abstract:
Humanity is crossing multiple planetary boundaries while facing rising inequality, democratic fragility, and worsening mental health, exposing the incompatibility of unlimited gross domestic product-driven growth with a finite, socially interdependent planet. Only 17% of the Sustainable Development Goal targets are on track, indicating the need for a deeper transformation rather than faster implementation. Synthesising evidence across disciplines, we argue that human beings are evolutionarily wired for cooperation and relational wellbeing, and not perpetual consumption and status competition. This argument underpins a post-2030 shift in a global development paradigm that places multidimensional wellbeing, of people and the planet, at its core. We outline three mutually reinforcing systemic shifts: deliberative democracy that gives communities real power to shape collective futures; economic democracy that redirects finance, enterprise design, and fiscal policy towards equitable, regenerative outcomes; and transformed land and resource governance that recognises ecological limits and the rights of nature. By aligning institutions with the cooperative nature of humans and the Earth’s regenerative capacity, societies can achieve flourishing lives for all within planetary boundaries, offering a scientifically grounded agenda for the decades beyond 2030.
While reading the article, I asked myself: will our current leaders and governments accept shared limits, long time horizons, and fair trade-offs? In practice, men like Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin would probably view this framework through the lens of power, national and personal advantage, as well as political control, rather than collective wellbeing. In addition, sizable sections of the public might simply be too ignorant to comprehend the need for such a strategy. In other words, the proposal may sound morally strong but could be politically unrealistic.
If Trump or Putin were asked to follow the strategy, I fear that several objections would appear immediately.
- First, they would reject the idea that planetary limits should constrain national ambition, especially as they seem to think that economic or military strength or even personal advantage matter more than global cooperation.
- Second, they would treat wellbeing metrics as soft or ideological compared with jobs, growth, security, or sovereignty.
- Third, they would use the language of wellbeing selectively, supporting parts that could further their agendas, while ignoring parts that require sacrifice, redistribution, or international restraint.
Of course, such caveats do not make the paper and its arguments wrong, but they suggest a significant gap between theory and practice. The altruistic strategy is strongest when actors are willing to cooperate and are able to think long term. I am afraid that it is weak in a world where leaders like Trump or Putin can gain by rejecting climate obligations, weakening institutions, or prioritising short-term national interest. In other words, the paper offers a vision for a better governing ethic, but it does not solve the problem of how to make uncooperative or authoritarian leaders comply.
So, my concern is not that the strategy is useless, but that it is unrealistic and far too dependent on political goodwill. A system that works only when leaders are already committed to fairness and restraint cannot be a robust system. What we also need, therefore, is a strategy by which we are able to get such leaders … improving the education of the general public might be a start.
