pseudo-science
This study was conducted to determine the effect of Reiki performed on children with leukemia between the ages of 5-7 years on pain, vital signs, oxygen saturation, and quality of life. It was a double-blind, pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study. The research sample consisted of 66 children with leukemia aged 5-7 years who were hospitalized in pediatric oncology wards of a university hospital between December 2020 and November 2021. The balanced block randomization method was used for randomization. The data were collected using Information Form, Wong-Baker FACES Pain Scale (W-BPS), Vital Signs Follow-up Form, The Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 3.0 Cancer Module. Reiki was performed to the Reiki group for 20-30 min once per day, for 3 consecutive days and pseudo-Reiki was applied to the pseudo-Reiki group by an independent nurse during the same application period.
There was no statistically significant difference in vital signs (heart rate, respiratory rate, body temperature) and SpO2 values among the groups (p > 0.05). However, both children’s and mothers’ evaluations on days 1, 2, and 3 after the intervention showed that pain scores in the Reiki group were significantly lower than in the pseudo-Reiki and control groups (p < 0.001), and quality of life was significantly higher (child:p < 0.001; mother:p < 0.01) compared to the pseudo-Reiki and control groups.
The authors concluded that Reiki did not affect the vital signs of the children but was effective in reducing pain and increasing the quality of life compared with the pseudo Reiki and control groups. It is recommended that Reiki therapy be used in addition to medical treatment to reduce pain and improve quality of life in children with leukemia aged 5-7 years.
The whole point of having a control group receiving pseudo-Reiki is to control for placebo effects. For this purpose, it is necessary to fool the patients well and make sure that they are unable to tell Reiki from pseudo-Reiki. I would guess – I have no aceess to the full paper – that this was not the case in this study. If I am correct, the positive outcome is likely to be due to expectation of a positive healing effect and unrelated to any specific effect of Reiki.
In any case, it is irresponsible nonsense to recommend Reiki – or any therapy – on the basis of just one positive study. For that one would need several independent confirmations with high quality studies that firmly establish a cause effect relationship. The current study does not fall into that category, and I am not aware of a single trial that does.
I remember it well: when I was a kid, I went every day in the evening to a nearby farm to fetch a litre of luke warm raw milk. I was lucky; I never caught tuberculosis or any other infection that is transmitted in this way.
Today, raw milk has become the centrepiece of a heated debate. Once only on rural homesteads, unpasteurized milk is now being championed by a powerful coalition of political figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., promoters of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), and “trad wife” influencers. This movement frames raw milk as a “magical health secret” suppressed by a corrupt establishment. However, beneath the veneer of “food freedom” and nostalgic aesthetics lies a complex interplay of populism, nutritional misinformation, outright BS, and significant public health risks.
The issue is largely fuelled by RFK Jr. and his “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) idiocy. For him, raw milk is less of a dietary preference and more of a symbol of resistance against federal overreach. He frequently characterizes the FDA’s restrictions on raw milk as a “war on farmers” and an example of “regulatory capture.” In his worm-eaten mind, federal agencies are not protecting the public from pathogens but are instead protecting the profits of “Big Dairy” by criminalising traditional foodways. By pushing for the legalisation of raw milk, Kennedy taps into a deep-seated distrust of institutions that has intensified in the post-pandemic US. He frames the choice to drink unpasteurized milk as a fundamental civil liberty, positioning himself as a defender of the individual against a nasty “nanny state.”
Simultaneously, the “trad wife” and SCAM movements are providing the lifestyle framework for raw milk promotion. On social media, influencers portray a return to traditional domesticity, featuring sourdough starters, hand-churned butter, and glass jars of creamy, raw milk. In this context, raw milk provides a “moral signal” for those who have little else to worry about. What counts is the willingness to go to great lengths to bypass industrial food systems and provide “pure” and “natural” nourishment for the whole family – because pasteurisation “kills” the milk, destroying vital enzymes and probiotics that could cure everything from asthma to lactose intolerance.
As soon as these claims are held up to scientific scrutiny, the “magic” begins to dissipate. The core argument – namely that raw milk is nutritionally superior – is largely unsupported by sound evidence. Modern pasteurisation is as non-invasive as possible. While heat slightly reduces levels of Vitamin C, milk is not a primary source of that vitamin anyway. Moreover, the levels of protein, calcium, and essential minerals remain virtually identical to the raw product. Furthermore, the valuable “enzymes” touted by advocates are enzymes that the human stomach acid neutralizes before they can be absorbed.
On top of all this, there is potential for serious harm. The most dangerous aspect of the raw milk nonsense is the dismissal of microbial risk. Before pasteurisation became standard in the early 20th century, milk was a leading cause of tuberculosis, typhoid, and scarlet fever. Today, even on the most meticulously managed farms, cows can naturally shed E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria and contamination can occur in a split second during the milking process. The rise of the H5N1 (Bird Flu) virus in dairy cattle in recent years has added a lethal new variable; while pasteurisation effectively inactivates the virus, raw milk remains a potential vector for human infection. A recent study showed, for instance, that unpasteurized milk, consumed by only 3.2% of the population, and cheese, consumed by only 1.6% of the population, caused 96% of illnesses caused by contaminated dairy products.
So, the current raw milk frenzy puts a spotlight on the ignorance of those who support it. While raw milk is marketed as a health-conscious return to nature, it is primarily a brainless and unnecessary revival of long-forgotten risks. Pasteurization is – after immunisation (that is also rejected by these clowns) – one the most successful public health interventions in history. Advocates are not just embracing “food freedom”; they are embracing a level of risk that modern medicine spent a century eliminating.
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.
In a world where logic is fast becoming optional, chemtrails are all the rage. A good example is Andrea Whitehead (AW). She was a Reform UK candidate for the 2024 United Kingdom General Election. Apparently, she is convinced that airplane vapor trails might actually be sinister chemicals sprayed as part of a Bill Gates-led global depopulation plot. Yes, the contrails that appear when a plane passes in the sky turn out to be part of an elaborate scheme!
The chemtrails conspiracy theory is a belief system so scientifically illiterate that even the most determined conspiracy theorist might raise an eyebrow. According to AW and many others like her, those innocent white streaks left by aircraft at high altitude are not merely condensation trails (water vapor freezing at cold temperatures), but they are deliberate chemical dispersals designed to cull the human population. And who’s pulling the strings? None other than billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates.
What is good to know is that AW is not alone. She has support from a range of other political figures. Here are a few examples:
- Cron, Kevin – United States – Democratic Party (Yolo County Board of Supervisors Chair, California) – Invited chemtrail advocate Dane Wigington to share “knowledge” after local children were diagnosed with rare cancer; acknowledged “credible and compelling evidence” warranting investigation
- DeSantis, Ron – United States – Republican Party – Governor of Florida; expressed support for Florida’s anti-weather-modification bill, stating “Floridians are proud of our sunshine”
- Greene, Marjorie Taylor – United States – Republican Party – Former U.S. Representative for Georgia’s 14th district (resigned January 2026); introduced the Clear Skies Act (2025) banning weather modification as a felony; posted after Hurricane Helene: “Yes, they control the weather”
- Kennedy Jr., Robert F. – United States – Independent (appointed Health Secretary by Trump Administration) – U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (since 2025); openly endorsed chemtrail theory in 2024, posted on X (August 2025): “We are going to stop this crime,” suggesting Defense Department adds chemicals to jet fuel
- Paul, Ron – United States – Republican Party – Former U.S. Senator from Texas; his name is frequently invoked by chemtrail conspirators as offering “support” for their views, though direct endorsement is less clear.
Is the chemtrails conspiracy a particular right-wing obsession?
Or is the common denominator perhaps simply lack of intelligence?
Reform UK has backed multiple candidates promoting everything from chemtrails to climate denial to anti-vaccine material to anti-semitism and other forms of racism. I find it impressive how they managed to collect such a glittering array of pseudoscience under one political banner. When confronted with this delightful package of misinformation, Reform UK’s response was predictably suave. They defended their candidates, suggesting that opponents were merely “scraping the barrel” and that these candidates reflected the “centre of public opinion.”
Right on!
Nothing says centrist opinion like believing the government is secretly spraying poison from airplanes to kill people.
The chemtrails theory itself is about as scientifically credible as believing the moon is made of Cheddar cheese. Condensation trails, or contrails, have been understood by atmospheric scientists for many decades. They form when water vapor from aircraft exhaust freezes at high altitudes—approximately -40°C to -60°C. That’s it. That’s the entire conspiracy. Water vapor freezing. To ignore this knowledge and come out with the culling of entire populations requires an overdose of wilful ignorance.
Bill Gates, for his part apparently no angel either, has become the conspiracy theorist’s golden boy, falsely accused of everything from tracking chips in vaccines to solar geoengineering to now apparently cloud-based population control. I must admit, it seems remarkable how he is claimed to manage single-handedly to sustain an entire industry of conspiracy content creators. Someone should really hire him for a Marvel movie as the world’s most perpetually accused villain.
The chemtrail story exposes an uncomfortable reality of current political discourse: that fringe conspiracy theories can now propel people into serious electoral contests. In 2024, Whitehead’s chemtrails enthusiasm didn’t disqualify her from consideration; it merely made headlines and arguably even increased her chances. What vibrantly democratic processes where ignorant population-culling chemtrail believers can aspire to parliamentary office!
Insomnia is a prevalent disorder that is associated with substantial impairment. Homeopathy has been proposed as a complementary treatment for insomnia, but its clinical effects remain uncertain.
This systematic review assessed the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of homeopathic treatments for insomnia. Prospective comparative studies evaluating any homeopathic preparation for insomnia were included. Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, seven additional databases, and three trial registries were conducted through August 2025. Risk of bias, intervention complexity, model validity, and pragmatism were assessed using respectively RoB 2, ROBINS-I, iCAT, MVHT, and RITES. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 364 participants) and four non-randomized studies (NRSIs; n = 517) met the inclusion criteria. In adults, sleep quality (MD = −2.6 points; 95% CI −5.5 to 2.6; low certainty) and insomnia severity (MD = −3.2; 95% CI −5.68 to −0.72, moderate certainty) were reported in one RCT each. For total sleep time, the pooled MD of three RCTs was 0.65 hours (95% CI −0.9 to 2.2; low certainty). In children, one open-label RCT suggested a difference in insomnia severity, but certainty of evidence was very low. Adverse events were rarely reported, resulting in low certainty evidence.
The authors concluded that the current evidence is mainly limited by imprecision and risk of bias. The available evidence does not allow firm conclusions regarding the effects of homeopathy for insomnia. High-quality, replicated trials with systematic adverse event monitoring are needed.
15 years ago, I published a similar review entitled “Homeopathy for insomnia and sleep-related disorders: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials” (Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies Volume 16(3) September 2011 195–199)). Here is its abstract:
The aim of this review was the critical evaluation of evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy for insomnia and sleep-related disorders. A search of MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register was conducted to find RCTs using any form of homeopathy for the treatment of insomnia or sleep-related disorders. Data were extracted according to predefined criteria; risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. Six randomised, placebo-controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Two studies used individualised homeopathy, and four used standardised homeopathic treatment. All studies had significant flaws; small sample size was the most prevalent limitation. The results of one study suggested that homeopathic remedies were superior to placebo; however, five trials found no significant differences between homeopathy and placebo for any of the main outcomes. Evidence from RCTs does not show homeopathy to be an effective treatment for insomnia and sleep-related disorders.
The findings of the two reviews are remarkably similar. For the following reasons, I find this notable:
- One would have hoped that 15 years are a long enough time for clarifying the issue, particularly as insomnia is not an unimportant condition for homeopathy.
- The new review is authored by well-known proponents. It seems unexpected that they (almost) go as far as admitting that the evidence for homeopathy as a treatment for insomnia is not positive.
- We have here, I think, a textbook example of how proponents of homeopathy prettify results that do not confirm their belief.
SO FAR, SO GOOD.
But now consider this: There are two further reviews of the same subject!
The first is entitled “Homoeopathy for insomnia: A meta-analysis of clinical evidence – Journal of Integrated Standardized Homoeopathy“. Here is its abstract:
Objectives: Insomnia is a prevalent sleep disorder characterised by challenges in initiating, maintaining or achieving restorative sleep, resulting in compromised daytime functionality. Traditional therapeutic modalities frequently encompass pharmacological treatments, which may have adverse effects and potential for dependency. Numerous patients pursue alternative methodologies, such as homoeopathy, which is attributed to its personalised, holistic and non-invasive treatment framework. This thorough examination assesses the effectiveness of homoeopathy in promoting better sleep quality and overall wellness in people with insomnia by analysing randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Material and Methods: This meta-analysis sought to ascertain whether homoeopathy induces a statistically significant enhancement in the management of insomnia, concentrating on aspects of sleep quality, duration and general well-being. All RCTs addressing insomnia treated with homoeopathic interventions were included in this review. All studies were meticulously documented in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three evaluators independently reviewed and compiled the literature, extracting comprehensive details regarding participants, study designs, therapeutic interventions and follow-up pertaining to homoeopathic treatment. The primary outcome of the investigation was disease assessment based on sleep diary scores, with an additional outcome being the enhancement of quality of life.
Results: The analysis revealed that homoeopathic remedies exhibited statistically significant improvement over placebo in the management of insomnia. The overall pooled effect size, standardised mean difference (random), was −0.60, standard error (random) was 0.42 and confidence interval (random) at 95% ranged from −0.93 to −0.26. The risk of bias was assessed for all studies.
Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows that homoeopathic remedies are effective in treating insomnia, but more studies are required for accuracy.
The last review is entitled “Effectiveness of Homeopathic Interventions for Insomnia and Sleep Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis“. Here is its abstract:
Insomnia is a common sleep disorder, and many individuals seek alternative treatments like homeopathy. However, evidence for its effectiveness remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of homeopathic interventions for insomnia and sleep-wake disorders. A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for studies published between 2010 and 2025. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies involving adults (≥18 years) with primary insomnia receiving any homeopathic intervention compared to placebo, no treatment, or active care. Primary outcomes included validated sleep quality measures (e.g., Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Four reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for controlled trials, and a narrative synthesis for non-randomized studies. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The search yielded 1304 records; 12 studies (nine RCTs and three non-randomized) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed a large, statistically significant positive effect of homeopathy on sleep outcomes (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI [0.24, 1.38], p = 0.0055), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 86.04%) and publication bias (Egger’s test, p = 0.0079). Most studies had high or critical risk of bias, and overall certainty was low. Homeopathic interventions showed a large positive effect on sleep outcomes, but due to high bias, heterogeneity, and publication bias, evidence remains low-certainty and insufficient to support effectiveness. High-quality RCTs are needed.
What should we make of this?
We now have two reviews concluding that there is no good evidence and two implying that homeopathy is effective for insomnia! This clearly demonstrates how easy it is to mislead the public with seemingly rigorous reviews.
I must say, I pity all the interested lay people who are trying to make sense of this mess.
How can they arrive at the best available, most reliable evidence?
We have here, I think, another textbook example; one of how important it is to run reality checks. But surely, we cannot possible ask of a lay person to understand why the last two reviews are badly misleading. What we need is an accessible tool for differentiating the science from the pseudoscience, the reliable from the unreliable.
Unfortunately, such a tool does not exist. But there are a few indicators:
- Is the journal that published the review reputable?
- Are the authors affiliated to reputable institutions?
- Do the authors have a history of critical analysis or one of uncritical promotion?
- Do they explain clearly and provide the essential details of their work?
These are issues that lay people might be able to check relatively easily. The above 4 reviews demonstrate that using them does not always provided an entirely clear cut-off. However, it might give some valuable pointers into the right direction.
Dame Shirley Porter died on May 2. She passed away in Herzliya, Israel, where she had spent much of her time since the early 2000s. Dame Shirley had been the former leader of Westminster City Council and a dominant figure in 1980s UK municipal politics. Once hailed as the “Iron Lady of the town halls,” her career was ultimately defined by the “homes for votes” scandal, which led to her being labeled by the district auditor as the “most corrupt” politician of her era.
The daughter of Tesco founder Sir Jack Cohen, Porter used her wealth to influence both politics and public policy. Beyond the well-documented legal battles over her misuse of council powers – which eventually saw her pay a £12.3m settlement in 2004 – Porter was a prolific, if often controversial, philanthropist. Notably, she was the primary financial backer of the Smallwood Report (2005). Entitled The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the NHS, the report was commissioned by the then Prince of Wales and written by economist Christopher Smallwood. The study was heavily criticized by myself and several others for advocating that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to be funded by the UK taxpayer. The editor of The Lancet, dismissed the findings as “dangerous nonsense” and I suggested the report’s pro-SCAM conclusions were written befor anyone had even looked at the evidence.
Dame Shirely was also a trustee of the London Institute for Mathematical Sciences and as a co-founder of the Porter Foundation. Through these organizations, she funded major capital projects including the Porter School of Environmental Studies at Tel Aviv University and various galleries at the V&A and the National Portrait Gallery.
She is survived by her daughter, Linda.
Guest post by Udo Endruscheit
Two years ago, in a guest post on this blog, I described the long and winding history of homeopathy in Switzerland — a story marked by political expectations, institutional entanglements, and repeated attempts to reconcile a lack of evidence with a desire for legitimacy. I ended that article with the hope that the country would not embark on yet another “honour lap” around the same unresolved questions.
In 2024, however, Switzerland initiated a new evaluation of homeopathy — a renewed attempt to clarify its role within the national health insurance system. It was, in many ways, the beginning of yet another loop in the same story.
Now, in 2026, that loop has come to an unexpected end. The evaluation was halted.
Not postponed, not softened, not watered down — simply stopped.
And this stop is not merely a political gesture. It marks the structural endpoint of a system that has exhausted its internal possibilities.
A system designed to avoid the evidence question
To understand why Switzerland has arrived at this point, one must look beyond the political headlines and examine the institutional landscape that has shaped the country’s approach to homeopathy for more than a decade.
Three elements are central:
- The political mandate created by the 2009 referendum, which placed homeopathy and other CAM modalities into the basic health insurance package.
- The professional environment, in which thousands of Swiss physicians hold CAM qualifications and the national medical association (FMH) views integrative medicine positively.
- The academic anchor, the Institute for Complementary and Integrative Medicine (IKIM) at the University of Bern, which provides an appearance of scientific legitimacy without producing evidence capable of resolving the core question of efficacy.
This combination created a system in which homeopathy became institutionally normalised — not because of evidence, but because of political and professional expectations.
The HTA as a detour — and the beginning of the dead end
When the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) was tasked with evaluating homeopathy after the referendum, it faced an impossible dilemma:
- The clinical evidence was weak to non‑existent.
- The political expectation was strong.
- A direct assessment of the evidence would have produced a negative result.
The solution was a detour: a Health Technology Assessment (HTA). But HTAs are not designed to determine efficacy. They assume efficacy has already been established through robust clinical research. Their purpose is to assess cost‑effectiveness, safety, and system impact.
The Swiss HTA did the opposite. In its conclusion, it stated:
“The effectiveness of homeopathy can be considered as proven when internal and external validity criteria are taken into account.”
This is a remarkable inversion of the HTA principle. The report asserted efficacy — without the evidence required to do so — while simultaneously admitting that the actual HTA questions (such as cost‑effectiveness) could not be answered reliably.
In retrospect, this HTA was not the beginning of a solution. It was the beginning of a dead end. A system that asserts efficacy without evidence cannot move forward. It can only circle around itself.
The IKIM: an academic structure without academic function
The IKIM at the University of Bern has played a central role in stabilising this circular logic. Its research output is broad in appearance but narrow in substance. It avoids the central question of efficacy and instead focuses on:
- sociological aspects,
- patient satisfaction,
- model validity,
- and experimental approaches that are not independently reproducible.
The IKIM does not produce evidence. It produces normality — the impression that homeopathy is a legitimate academic field simply because it is housed within a university.
This normality has been crucial for maintaining the political and professional acceptance of homeopathy in Switzerland. But it has also contributed to the structural dead end: an academic institution that cannot resolve the evidence question because it is not designed to ask it.
The 2026 decision: not a surprise, but a consequence
Against this background, the 2026 decision to halt the renewed evaluation of homeopathy is not really surprising. It is the logical endpoint of a system that has exhausted its internal possibilities.
- The evidence has not improved.
- The HTA detour has failed to provide a foundation.
- The institutional structures have stabilised expectations but not knowledge.
- The political mandate cannot be fulfilled without contradicting scientific standards.
The result is a dead end. Not because anyone wanted it, but because the system was built in such a way that no other outcome was possible.
A lesson beyond Switzerland
The Swiss case is often cited by proponents of homeopathy as a model of political and professional acceptance. But the 2026 decision reveals a different lesson:
A system that tries to reconcile political expectations with a lack of evidence will eventually reach a point where it can neither move forward nor turn back.
Switzerland has reached that point. The “endless story” of homeopathy in the Swiss health system has not been resolved — but it has reached its structural conclusion.
And unfortunately that conclusion is not a triumph of evidence. It is the recognition that evidence cannot be replaced by institutional normality. But one thing it certainly isn’t: an endorsement of homeopathy, even if its advocates will once again try to interpret it that way.
When a top journal like PNAS (Procedings of the Nationsl Academy of Science) publishes an article entitled “What’s the science behind acupuncture?“, I must take notice. Here is my take on the (sadly disappointing) effort:
My very short summary of the paper (I do encourange my readers to read it in full)
The article starts from the premise that acupuncture is proven to work, an assumption that – as we will see in a minute – is not based on sound evidence. It describes the evolution of acupuncture from a traditional practice rooted in ancient concepts like “qi” and “meridians” to a modern medical treatment increasingly validated by science. It argues that practitioners like Min Chen are today able to provide evidence-based explanations for their work. While early clinical trials were plagued by the “sham” acupuncture paradox, the text argues that more recent, rigorous studies and technological projects are bridging the gap between Eastern philosophy and evidence-based medicine, suggesting that acupuncture’s effects are physiological realities rather than mere placebo.
My concerns of the paper
The article attempts to bridge the gap between Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and conventional medicine suggesting that several anatomical discoveries “correspond” to ancient meridians. This, however, is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Finding a morphological structure (e.g. fascia) and claiming it represents the meridian system ignores that meridians were conceptualized as functional energetic conduits, not anatomical vessels. Citing an 80% overlap between acupoints and connective tissue planes lacks specificity. Given the ubiquity of connective tissue in the human frame, any randomized point on the body would likely “overlap” with a tissue plane, rendering the “meridian” map a possible exercise in pattern-seeking rather than anatomical discovery.
The paper acknowledges the “most puzzling” finding that sham acupuncture often produces results comparable to “true” acupuncture. This, it would seem to me, invalidates the foundational TCM theory of specific “acupoints” and “meridians” is invalidated. Yet, the article suggests that sham acupuncture is “not a true placebo” because it also triggers biological pathways. If needling anywhere produces an effect, acupuncture is merely a generalized, non-specific neuro-modulatory stimulus.
The article quotes Chen on “harmonizing organ functions” and “regulating qi” as well as researchers referring to “fibroblast activation” and “vagus nerve stimulation”. The author seems to consider both to be true; yet they seem mutually exclusive. Translating metaphysical concepts into physical phenomena does not “validate” the original theory but merely replaces it.
The article employs the opioid crisis to justify the rise of acupuncture. Yes, the need for non-pharmacological pain management is urgent, but clinical necessity does not equate to scientific validity. The text quotes the “lasting benefits” observed in some meta-analyses without discussing the often fatal flaws in these papers. Furthermore, it fails to cite the substantial body of evidence suggesting that acupuncture is not effective. Moreover, it hardly mentions the small effect sizes and hence limited clinical usefulness found in the positive studies.
The final section of the paper essentially rebrands acupuncture as “bioelectronic medicine”. If its mechanism of action is purely the electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve or the release of endogenous opioids, then the TCM concepts are all but superfluous. If a cheap and wearable TENS unit is more or less equivalent, the “meridian” and “qi” myths are obsolete.
In summary, the paper reads, I fear, only marginally better than a Chinese government promotional text – most disappointing for an article published in a journal of high standing. It attempts to preserve the cultural prestige of TCM while stripping it of its internal logic in order to make it compatible with science. For acupuncture to gain a true “scientific footing”, research must, in my view, move beyond finding “tantalizing” correlations. It should address fundamental problems, e.g.:
- As long as we have no convincing proof that acupuncture works beyond placebo, discussions about its mechanisms are futile.
- If qi, acupoints and meridians are illusions and irrelevant for the clinical outcome, then the science is not validating acupuncture but merely re-discovering a well-known non-specific form of peripheral nerve stimulation.
Trump’s anti-science stance is well-known. What we did not know is how far he might venture in this direction. On Friday, April 24, 2026, the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of firing all sitting members of the National Science Board (NSB). This body acts as the governing board for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and serves as an independent advisory arm to the President and Congress on matters of national science policy.
While Trump does have the legal authority to appoint these members, they are historically granted staggered, six-year terms to ensure the board remains a non-partisan anchor for US research. The mass termination via email happened without a stated cause or immediate replacement plan. Trump’s action has raised significant concerns regarding the future of independent scientific funding and oversight in the United States.
The terminated members include:
- Dan Reed (Chair): A computer scientist and former Microsoft executive with deep expertise in high-performance computing and “big data” infrastructure.
- Victor R. McCrary (Vice Chair): A physical chemist and research VP at the University of the District of Columbia; highly regarded for his work in technology transfer and innovation.
- Willie E. May: The former Director of NIST and a leading expert in metrology (the science of measurement) and chemical standards.
- Arati Prabhakar: An applied physicist and former Director of DARPA; she is a specialist in transitioning high-risk research into commercial technologies.
- Dario Gil: Senior VP at IBM and Director of IBM Research; a global authority on quantum computing and the ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
- Keivan Stassun: An astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University known for his research on exoplanets and his efforts to increase diversity in the physical sciences.
- Julia Phillips: A materials scientist and retired VP of Sandia National Laboratories; an expert in thin-film research and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
- Roger Beachy: A biologist and pioneer in plant biotechnology; he was instrumental in developing the first genetically modified food crops (virus-resistant tomatoes).
- Marvi Matos Rodriguez: An aerospace engineer and executive specializing in fusion energy and advanced material systems for the energy sector.
- Sudarshan S. Babu: An engineering professor at the University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory; a top expert in advanced 3D printing and manufacturing.
- Aaron Dominguez: An experimental particle physicist and Provost at Catholic University of America who contributed to the Higgs boson discovery at CERN.
- Melvyn Huff: A mathematician and educator focused on the development of rigorous mathematics curricula and analytical modelling.
As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has the right to remove any official who is not explicitly protected by “for cause” language, ensuring the agency follows the administration’s policy goals. Nonetheless, this is a “norm-breaking” action that ignores the statutory design of staggered terms. It effectively turns an independent advisory body into a political one, which most likely will lead to legal challenges regarding the “independence” of the NSF.
Because the White House has failed to issue an official statement justifying the dismissals, the reason for this spectacular action remains speculative. Considering recent tensions between the administration and the board, as well as broader policy shifts, the dismissals are seen not primarily as a targeted attack on science itself, but more as a systematic effort to remove independent oversight and “unelected experts” who might challenge the Executive Branch’s policy directives.
The conclusion, I fear, is this:
in the US, democracy is now in its dying days.
The defence of anthroposophical medicine – or of any other unproven modality – as articulated, for example, by figures like Weleda CEO Tina Müller, presents a vision of patient-centred care and economic pragmatism. However, when held against the light of current clinical standards and the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), it reveals significant cracks.
The most profound problem lies in the definition of scientific evidence. Proponents often point to decades of “positive experience” and high patient satisfaction as proof of effectiveness. Yet, in the hierarchy of science, anecdotal success sits at the very bottom. Anthroposophical treatments lack biological plausibility. Their perceived benefits are largely indistinguishable from context effects (such as placebo). Anthroposophical medicine might provide more time, empathy, and personal attention – factors that undoubtedly improve a patient’s well-being but do not validate the effectiveness of the specific remedies used. When independent bodies subject these treatments to rigorous, high-quality trials, the purported effects usually vanishe.
Anthroposophical medicine represents merely a tiny percentage of our healthcare expenditures. Therefore, proponents argue, little money would be saved by getting rid of it. This argument is a calculated distraction from the ethical core of the issue. While the fiscal burden may be marginal, the scientific cost is immense. A statutory health insurance system is built on a social contract of solidarity; it functions under the premise that public funds are reserved for treatments of proven value and effectiveness. To fund therapies that lack plausibility as well as reproducible results is to erode the credibility of medicine and rational thought. It is not a question of the amount of money, but the principle of integrity: every Euro, £ and $ spent on unproven treatments is a euro, £, and $ diverted from underfunded and often life-saving healthcare.
The regularly made appeal to the Swiss Model as a beacon of success also requires a more critical reading. The integration of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in Switzerland was, at its heart, a result of direct democracy rather than evidence. While the Swiss public voted for inclusion, the majority of the medical community remains deeply sceptical. To cite Switzerland as “proof” that anthroposophical medicine has fulfilled the criteria of EBM is to conflate political popularity with scientific validation. Democracy can decide how a nation spends its money, but it cannot vote a reliable evidence-base into existence.
Finally, we must consider the human risk of legitimizing non-evidenced-based practices. When a state-sanctioned insurance system places such therapies on the same pedestal as EBM, it risks misleading vulnerable individuals. For patients facing chronic or life-threatening illnesses, the “integrative” path can lead to a dangerous delay in seeking conventional, life-saving interventions. By treating subjective belief and peer-reviewed science as equal peers, we risk entering a “post-truth” medical era where the desire for a “natural” or “holistic” experience outweighs the necessity for proof.
In conclusion, while the call for a more “human” and “holistic” medical system might be noble, it must not come at the expense of scientific rigor. It is deeply misleading to imply that this is an ‘either or’; good medicine will always be based on both. A healthcare system that prioritizes popularity over proof risks becoming a system of expensive comfort rather than one of effective healing. True patient appreciation lies not in offering unproven choices, but in ensuring that every treatment covered by the public purse is supported by sound evidence. Not following this strategy is a disservice to patients and to progress.
So, the next time you hear people defending anthroposophical medicine or any other unproven modality, please look behind the smoke screen and find out why they do it. More often than not, you will then identify a massive conflict of interest. My advice is to listen to independent experts and to dismiss the people with an axe to grind.
