progress
In the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial of 1946/47, some of the Nazi doctors who had committed crimes against humanity were prosecuted and sentenced. The trial has a historical significance far beyond its original remit. It established the influential “Nuremberg Code”, a set of ethical principles for human experimentation, emphasizing ethical imperatives to avoid harm to patients and study participants. The code then formed the basis for formal ethical guidelines across the world.
Three of the key features of the Code include:
- The human subject must give voluntary, informed consent before participating in a medical experiment.
- The experiment must be designed to yield results that are for the good of society.
- The experiment must be conducted by scientifically qualified persons who possess adequate training and skills.
As these principles have become generally accepted, it might be interesting to ask whether they are also implemented in research of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Here are my impressions based on the many studies I have reviewed on this blog:
- As I have repeatedly pointed out, fully informed consent may not even be possible in all areas of SCAM research. (In clinical practice, it is very often neglected, simply because patients would run a mile, if they knew what questionalbe treatment is being proposed.)
- Societal benefit of testing highly implausible SCAMs is frequently doubtful.
- SCAM researchers are frequently not scientifically qualified but, as we have seen with depressing regularity, they often abuse science not to test but to confirm their beliefs.
As mentioned, the principles of the ‘Nuremberg Code’ were incorporated in virtually all national ethical guidelines that exist today. They apply to medical research in all areas. This, of course, also includes SCAM! Yet, as I have often pointed out on this blog and elsewhere, in the realm of SCAM, they are frequently ignored. I find this increasingly intolerable and therefore appeal once again to SCAM researchers, funders, journal editors, reviewers and everyone else concerned to make sure that the basic principles of medical ethics are not violated by SCAM research.
Changes in the vaccine advisory process in the United States have disrupted immunization guidance, which reinforces the need for independent evidence review to inform decisions regarding immunization for respiratory viruses during the 2025-2026 season.
The researchers conducted a systematic review of U.S.-licensed immunizations against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and influenza. They searched databases on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science for updates of the most recent review by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) Evidence-to-Recommendations for each disease, which was performed during the 2023-2024 period. Outcomes included vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against hospitalization, other clinical end points, and safety.
Of 17,263 identified references, 511 studies met the inclusion criteria. Covid-19 mRNA vaccines against the XBB.1.5 subvariant had pooled vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization of 46% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34 to 55; from cohort studies) and 50% (95% CI, 43 to 57; from case-control studies) among adults and 37% (95% CI, 29 to 44) among immunocompromised adults. In a case-control study, vaccines against the KP.2 subvariant showed an effectiveness of 68% (95% CI, 42 to 82). Maternal RSV vaccination (for infant protection), nirsevimab for infants, and RSV vaccines in adults who were 60 years of age or older showed vaccine effectiveness of 68% or more against hospitalization. Influenza vaccination had a pooled vaccine effectiveness of 48% (95% CI, 39 to 55) in adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years and 67% (95% CI, 58 to 75) in children against hospitalization. Safety profiles were consistent with previous evaluations. The diagnosis of myocarditis associated with Covid-19 vaccines occurred at rates of 1.3 to 3.1 per 100,000 doses in male adolescents, with lower risk associated with longer dosing intervals. The RSVPreF vaccine was associated with 18.2 excess cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome per million doses in older adults; a significant association with preterm birth was not observed when the vaccine was administered at 32 to 36 weeks’ gestation.
The authors concluded that the evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of immunizations against Covid-19, RSV, and influenza during the 2025-2026 season.
On this blog, we have a surprising amount of commentators who seem unconvinced about the benefits of vaccinations, particularly the COVID vaccinations. Therefore, I thought that this recent article might help these confused people to better understand the current evidence.
In contrast to the self-appointed ‘experts’ claiming that vaccinations do more harm than good, the authors of this excellent paper come from the most reputable institutions in the US:
- 1Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
- 2Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
- 3Department of Pediatrics, Mass General Brigham for Children and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
- 4Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston.
- 5Department of Medicine (Infectious Diseases), University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
- 6Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
- 7Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, WI.
- 8Harvard Medical School, Boston.
- 9Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
- 10Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, School of Population and Global Health, McGill University, Montreal.
- 11Division of Infectious Diseases, Brown University Health and Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI.
- 12Division of General Internal Medicine and Infectious Disease, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
- 13Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Will this new paper convince many anti-vaxers? I sure hope so but somehow I also have my doubts.
Much of my blog is dedicated to poor research of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) conducted by biased researchers, published in lousy journals, edited by careless editors and reviewed by irresponsible reviewers. I have warned many times that this practice is polluting the medical literature with devastating consequences.
Over the years, this problem has sharply increased due to ‘paper mills’, AI and other issues. Eventually, I got the impression that hardly anyone cares about this rapid decline.
This article shows that I WAS WRONG! Here is its abstract but I urge everyone to study the pull paper:
Science relies on integrity and trustworthiness. But scientists under career pressure are lured to purchase fake publications from ‘paper mills’ that use AI-generated data, text and image fabrication. The number of low-quality or fraudulent publications is rising to hundreds of thousands per year, which—if unchecked—will damage the scientific and economic progress of our societies. The result is editor and reviewer fatigue, irreproducible experiments, misguided experiments, disinformation and escalating costs that devour funding from taxpayers intended for research. It is high time to reevaluate current publishing models and outline a global plan to stop this unhealthy development. A conference was therefore organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to draft an action plan with specific recommendations, as follows. (i) Academia should resume control of publishing using non-profit publishing models (e.g. diamond open-access). (ii) Adjust incentive systems to merit quality, not quantity, in a reputation economy where the gaming of publication numbers and citation metrics distorts the perception of academic excellence. (iii) Implement mechanisms to prevent and detect fake publications and fraud which are independent of publishers. (iv) Draft and implement legislations, regulations and policies to increase publishing quality and integrity. This is a call to action for universities, academies, science organizations and funders to unite and join this effort.
Of course, the paper was not written with SCAM in mind. The problem exists in all science. Yet I am convinced that in the realm of SCAM it is particularly acute. The actions proposed in the paper for improving the present situation are all very reasonable (but nobody should fool themselves by thinking that they are easy to implement!). Let’s hope that everyone concerned takes careful note and do what they can to avert an otherwise inevitable calamity.
I asked AI about my position on alternative and complementary medicine (CAM). Not that I don’t know it, but I was interested in the public perception of it. I used the term CAM because it is better known that “so-called alternative medicine” (SCAM), the term I mostly use these days.
Here is what AI replied:
Ernst’s position is not that all CAM is ineffective, but that all medicine—conventional or alternative—must be held to the same scientific standard: Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM).
| Core Argument | Explanation | Example / Key Quote |
| Only One Kind of Medicine | He rejects the terms “conventional” vs. “alternative.” There is only medicine that is effective (supported by rigorous evidence) and medicine that is not effective (bogus/quackery). | “For us, there is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is either medicine that is effective or not, medicine that is safe or not.” |
| Low Rate of Efficacy | Based on his systematic reviews, he estimates that only about 5–10% of all complementary and alternative medicine techniques are supported by solid, scientific evidence that they work beyond a placebo effect. | His analysis of 685 CAM treatment/condition pairings found only 7.4% were supported by sound data. |
| The Ethical Problem with Placebos | It is unethical to offer a treatment that is known to be nothing more than a placebo, even if the patient feels better. Good conventional doctors already leverage the placebo effect through empathy and good care alongside effective treatment. | “Just giving them a pure placebo, like homeopathy, is cheating the patient.” |
| The Risk of Indirect Harm | Even therapies with no direct physical side effects (like homeopathy) carry a high indirect risk. This occurs when patients use them instead of proven, life-saving conventional treatment (e.g., treating cancer or a serious infection with only CAM). | He emphasizes the danger of CAM practitioners advising clients against effective treatments like immunization or delaying a correct diagnosis. |
| The Need for Transparency | His fundamental plea is for honesty and informed consent. Patients should be told the truth about what they are buying, particularly that there is no scientific evidence for most CAM treatments. | “My plea is simply for honesty. Let people buy what they want, but tell them the truth about what they are buying.” |
Needless to say that I am pleased with this reply. I think it represents my position clearly, correctly and concisely.
THANK YOU AI!
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) affects over half a billion people worldwide. Current pharmacologic treatments offer limited efficacy and carry substantial risks, warranting the development of safe and effective alternatives. This multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the herbal extract VER-01 in CLBP.
It enrolled 820 adults with CLBP (VER-01, n = 394; placebo, n = 426) and included a double-blind 12-week treatment phase (phase A), a 6-month open-label extension (phase B), followed by either a 6-month continuation (phase C) or randomized withdrawal (phase D). The primary endpoint of phase A was a change in mean numeric rating scale (NRS) pain intensity, with a change in total neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI) score as a key secondary endpoint in participants with a neuropathic pain component (PainDETECT > 18). The primary endpoint for phase D was time to treatment failure.
The study met its primary endpoint in phase A, with a mean pain reduction of -1.9 NRS points in the VER-01 group (mean difference (MD) versus placebo = -0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.9 to -0.3; P < 0.001). Pain further decreased to -2.9 NRS points in phase B, with effects sustained through phase C. The study also met its key secondary endpoint of phase A, with a mean NPSI decrease of -14.4 (standard error, 3.3) points from baseline in the VER-01 arm (MD versus placebo = -7.3, 95% CI = -13.2 to -1.3; P = 0.017). Although phase D did not meet its primary endpoint (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.44-1.27; P = 0.288), pain increased significantly more with placebo upon withdrawal (MD = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.0-1.0; P = 0.034). In phase A, the incidence of adverse events-mostly mild to moderate and transient-was higher with VER-01 than with placebo (83.3% versus 67.3%; P < 0.001). VER-01 was well-tolerated, with no signs of dependence or withdrawal.
The authors of this well-designed trial concluded that this phase 3 study provides robust evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of VER-01 in the treatment of CLBP. These findings highlight the importance of further research with VER-01 in other chronic pain conditions and suggest that VER-01 could play an important role in modern pain management.
VER-01 was developed by the German biopharmaceutical company Vertanical. It is a standardized full-spectrum extract from a specific Cannabis sativa strain (DKJ127 L). This means it contains a defined mix of the plant’s compounds, including cannabinoids (such as low levels of THC—tetrahydrocannabinol—and trace amounts of CBD and cannabigerol), terpenes, and other bioactive compounds like beta-caryophyllene and alpha-bisabolol. It is designed to harness the synergistic “entourage effect” of these compounds.
The extract has also recently been shown to be superior to opioids. An RCT concluded that VER-01 demonstrated superiority over opioids in treating CLBP, both in terms of efficacy and gastrointestinal tolerability.
PS
Given the option of either having spinal manipulation (or any other form of unproven so-called alternative medicine) or a safe and standardised cannabis extract, I certainly know what I would choose!
PPS
Vertanical has submitted marketing applications for approval in several European countries (where it is expected to be sold under the brand name Exilby if approved). The company is also preparing for a late-stage trial in the US to support a subsequent filing with the FDA. If approved, VER-01 would be the first full-spectrum cannabis extract authorized specifically for chronic low back pain and potentially a new class of medicine for chronic pain management.
Skeptics are people who apply reason and critical thinking to evaluate claims and who advocate to rely on sound evidence, while resisting pseudoscience, superstition, and misinformation. Some of the outstanding qualities of a skeptic include:
- Critical thinking → Actively questioning claims, arguments, and evidence.
- Scientific mindset → Using the scientific method as the most appropriate tool for finding reliable knowledge.
- Provisional belief → Accepting claims only in proportion to the evidence, and being willing to change when better evidence emerges.
- Advocacy → Educating the public, promoting scientific literacy, and encouraging rational decision-making.
Surely, these are laudable and attractive qualities. I am even tempted to say that all rational people should be skeptics. Why then is it that skeptics and their work/organisations are not much more popular? When I attend meetings of skeptics, I am often dismayed by their disappointing size and their lack of impact outside their narrow circle of like-minded people. Why are those events not subjects of articles in local newpapers? Why is the press generally bored by or even adverse towards skeptics? Why have skeptics not managed to amass much more influence?
I have often wondered:
- Is it the lack emotional pull? While belief systems, conspiracy theories, spirituality etc. can offer comfort, meaning, or community, skepticism emphasizes uncomfortable doubt and correction.
- Does the perception of elitist put people off? Skeptics can come across as dismissive, overly intellectual, or simple nerds which might alienate average audiences.
- Could it be a lack “fun”? Debunking myths is unfortunately often far less exciting than believing in them.
Whatever the reason, we need to ask: what could be done about the lack of common appeal?
I wish I knew!
When I talk to ‘the common man or women’ about the subject, three themes crop up fairly regularly:
- Many consumers have no real idea what skeptics are and even relate them to the exact opposite, e.g. “climate skeptic” or “vaccine skeptic”. If I am right, then even the term “skeptic” might be problematic (several national skeptic organisations do not use the word in the name of their organisations!). In any case, it would be helpful to run repeated public campaigns in order to inform the public about the difference between skepticism and denialism.
- Those who roughly get the idea what a skeptic stands for often associate it with something negative – being AGAINST this or that or being cynical or sarcastic. If that is true, it would be helpful to continuously stress that skepticism is IN FAVOUR of sound evidence in all spheres; and surely this can only be a good thing.
- Those who know a bit more about what skeptics do often fail to see the relevance of the subjects they tackle. I too find ghost busting and several other topics that skeptics occasionally thrive on rather obscure, irrelevant, daft or even childish. In any case, whatever the subject might be, I think it is always necessary to point out the general relevance of it. Why does it matter to the man or woman in the street to investigate it?
I am sure skepticism has an important role to play in our societies – and because I am convinced of this, I feel that skepticism urgently needs to improve its public image.
Helene M. Langevin recently announced her retirement as director of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). Here are some excerpts from her announcement:
After seven years as director of the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), I will be retiring from my position on November 30, 2025. I am immensely grateful for the opportunity to serve in this role and for how deeply rewarding it has been.
I came to NCCIH with a mission to drive positive change in how we craft research questions that impact people’s ability to lead healthy lives. What I saw was an opportunity—and a pressing need—to advance scientific investigation into whole person health. By charting new understanding of how different domains of health—physiology, psychology, environment—interconnect and impact people across the bidirectional continuum between health and illness, I felt we could open new doors to improve the health of Americans and reduce the crushing burden of chronic disease in the United States…
I’m deeply proud of the many NCCIH-led initiatives during my tenure that NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya acknowledged in his message…
Following my retirement from NCCIH, I look forward to returning to where my academic career began, the University of Vermont. I will be joining the team there to help build a research program at the Osher Center for Integrative Health at UVM. I’m also excited to take on an advisory role at the Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health…
It has truly been my honor to serve as NCCIH director and contribute to the important body of research that has been built since the Center was founded in 1998. As we drive toward deeper knowledge about whole person health, I know that the questions that researchers are answering will help equip more people to live healthier lives.
_____________________
But what precisely are her contributions to the important body of research that has been built since the Center was founded in 1998? I pride myself of observing closely what is happening in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and I have to admit that nothing major springs into my mind. So, I asked AI and got this as her major contributions:
-
Whole Person Health Framework
She championed “whole person health” as a central paradigm, pushing the idea that health isn’t just absence of disease but involves integration across physiological, psychological, environmental, behavioral domains. -
Trans-NIH Integration & Collaboration
Under her leadership, NCCIH led or co-led several NIH-wide initiatives, breaking down silos. These included projects with many Institutes, Centers, and Offices to map healthy physiology and integrate research efforts.
In view of the fact that the centre was set up to find out which SCAMs work, this seems odd. Under her directorship the NCCIH’s budget has increased from ~$142 million in 2018 upwards. Surely, she has more to show for this kind of money?
Which forms of SCAM has she shown to be effective?
As far as I can see, the answer is NONE!
The Japanese physician and immunologist Shimon Sakaguchi, the American immunologist Fred Ramsdell and the American molecular biologist Mary Brunkow have been awarded this year’s Nobel Prize in Medicine. The work of the three researchers has completely changed our understanding of the immune system.
In 1995, Shimon Sakaguchi discovered a previously unknown type of immune cell, the Regulatory T cell (Treg). The immune system’s T cells are like an army, trained to kill invaders. The thymus eliminates any rogue T cells that might attack the body’s own cells—a process called “central tolerance.” But why then do some of us still develope autoimmune diseases?
Sakaguchi showed there was a second layer of protection outside the thymus. The Tregs act as brakes or peacekeepers, actively moving around the body to suppress other immune cells that get confused and mistakenly try to attack the body’s own organs.
In 2001, Mary Brunkow and Fred Ramsdell were studying a strain of mice that suffered from a severe, fatal autoimmune disorder. They managed to identify the exact genetic defect responsible for the disease: a mutation in a previously unknown gene they named Foxp3. They then found that a mutation in the human version of this gene also causes a severe, rare autoimmune disorder called IPEX syndrome. The broken Foxp3 gene meant the immune system started attacking the body. In other words, the Foxp3 gene was a master control switch for immune regulation.
Two years later, Sakaguchi was able to link the two discoveries by showing that the Foxp3 gene found by Brunkow and Ramsdell is the master switch that controls the development and function of the Regulatory T cells Tregs, which he had discovered.
The three Nobel laureats essentially demonstrated that, if you have properly functioning Tregs, thanks to a healthy Foxp3 gene, your immune system maintains peace or “self-tolerance”. If this system breaks down, your immune system turns on you, causing autoimmune disease. Their collective work created the field of peripheral immune tolerance and forms the basis for developing new treatments for conditions such as autoimmune diseases, cancer immunotherapy and organ transplantation.
Shingles or herpes zoster (HZ) is a neurotropic virus that causes a painful and hard to treat illness. Evidence is accumulating that HZ vaccinations might lower the risk of dementia. This effect is surprising but well-documented; here are 3 recent meta-analyses:
An international team of scientists aimed to evaluate the association of HZ infection, protective effects of antiviral treatment or vaccination on dementia. Systematic searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed from January 1, 1996, to October 31, 2024. Observational studies evaluating HZ infection, antivirals, or vaccination and dementia risk were selected. Risk of bias was examined with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed, with the rate ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) being pooled for dementia. Presence of heterogeneity was assessed with I2, and differences by study-level characteristics were estimated using subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Eighteen studies (N = 9.4 million) were included. Infection was associated with elevated risk of dementia (RR 1.14; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.25, I2 = 98%); this remained significant in the sensitivity analysis when the two case-control studies were removed (RR 1.17; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.30, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis based on sex, age, study population, bias scores, type of dementia or HZO did not show statistically significant differences in risk. Treatment with antivirals showed a small effect (RR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.99, I2 = 73%), but prophylaxis with HZ vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.83, I2 = 99%).
The authors concluded that there is a slightly raised dementia risk after HZ infection and reduced risks after antiviral treatment and prevention with vaccination. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to significant heterogeneity in pooled analyses.
Previous studies have reported a decreased risk of dementia with herpes zoster vaccination. Given this background, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between herpes zoster vaccination and the risk of dementia. An Indian/American team searched five databases until November 2023 for case-control, cross-sectional, or cohort studies investigating the association of herpes zoster vaccination and dementia. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled in the meta-analysis. Meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analysis were also conducted. The researchers evaluated a total of five studies (one cross-sectional, one case-control, and four cohort studies) that included a total number of 103,615 patients who were vaccinated with herpes zoster vaccine. All the studies were of high quality, ranging from 7 to 9. Due to the high heterogeneity (I2 = 100%, p < .00001) observed in our study, a random effect model was used for the analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.50, 1.43), p (overall effect) = .53), indicating that herpes zoster vaccination reduces the risk of dementia.
The authors concluded that herpes zoster vaccination is associated with a reduction of the risk of dementia. More epidemiological studies are needed to confirm the association.
Herpes zoster (HZ) infection may increase the risk of dementia, that causes a heavy socioeconomic burden. However, the epidemiological evidence between HZ vaccination and the risk of dementia remains inconclusive. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of HZ vaccination on the onset of dementia. The researchers searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus for cohort studies assessing the association between HZ vaccination and dementia risk up to 20th January 2025. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled adopting a random-effect model. Four eligible studies were included in the systematic review and five retrospective cohort studies in the meta-analysis. Among 14,493,383 dementia-free participants at baseline, 427,309 dementia cases occurred during 36-95 months of follow-up. All studies were of high quality. Pooled analysis of adjusted HRs indicated that HZ vaccination could reduce dementia risk by 29% (HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.66-0.76, I2 = 97.15%). Subgroup analyses revealed heterogeneity linked to definitions of dementia, exposure measurements, vaccination doses, deprivation index, and region. The results were stable in the sensitivity analyses, and no publication bias was found.
The authors concluded that HZ vaccination was notably related to a reduced risk of dementia. More mechanistic studies and epidemiological studies are warranted.
_______________
The effect seems powerful and faily consistent across different studies. But how can this be? Australian neuroscientists have suggested that subclinical zooster virus reactivation might act as a renewable peripheral immune stressor, amplifying microglial priming in aging brains. Shingles vaccination may suppress this viral reservoir, reducing cumulative inflammatory tone.
Whatever the mechanism, the news that zoster vaccination might strongly reduce the dementia risk is hugely encouraging. It could also, I hope, have the effect that the dangerous anti-vaccination attitude currently fuelled by the incompetent US govenment will be getting a little less popular.
PS
Needless to say that these vaccinations also reliably prevent shingles!
So please, do consider getting vaccinated.
To my surprise (and delight), I have been asked to become a patron of the Humanists UK Patron: Professor Edzard Ernst. I am not someone who easily joins clubs, groups or organisations. Yet, I accepted this invitation without hesitation. This Humanists UK state about themselves this:
Think for yourself, act for everyone
At Humanists UK, we want a tolerant world where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We work to support lasting change for a better society, championing ideas for the one life we have.
We do this because we’re humanists, people who shape our own lives in the here and now, because we believe it’s the only life we get.
Our work helps people be happier and more fulfilled, and by bringing non-religious people together we help them develop their own views and an understanding of the world around them.
We’re committed to putting humanism into practice. Through our ceremonies, pastoral support, education services, and campaigning work, we advance free thinking and freedom of choice so everyone can live in a fair and equal society.
More about us
We started out in 1896, and since then we’ve always been a growing movement at the forefront of social change. Today we’re trusted by over 150,000 members and supporters and over 70 local and special interest affiliates to promote humanism.
We put humanism into practice through effective campaigning and services, supporting lasting change for happier, more fulfilling lives. Our policies are informed with the support of over 200 of the UK’s most prominent philosophers, scientists, and other thinkers and experts and we seek to advance them with the help of over 120 parliamentarians in membership of the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group. We bring like-minded people together to make change happen, and we strive to be their voice in public debate, drawing on contemporary humanist thought and the worldwide humanist tradition.
We’ve been conducting non-religious funerals, weddings, and baby-namings for over 125 years. Our highly trained celebrants are the best you’ll find anywhere, and they support individuals to create authentic, bespoke ceremonies that put people and their stories at the heart of every occasion.
We also help vulnerable people easily access like-minded and effective non-religious pastoral support that is specially tailored to work for them. Our trained and accredited non-religious pastoral support volunteers operate across hospitals, prisons, and the armed forces.
If you want to support us in our work, please do join or donate. We are dependent on charitable giving to continue our work.
Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Our Safeguarding policy can be found here.
I feel honoured and would encourage everyone to consider becoming a member of this worthy organisation.
