research
One of the perks of running a busy blog like this one is the fact that the most original insults come your way. One of the best in this genre is probably comparing me to Donald Trump. Our “friend” Dana Ulman is not the only one, but he does that with some regularity. For example, he recently commented this little gem: “It seems that you are now emulating America’s liar-in-chief, Donald Trump. Should I now call you Edzard Trump?! Yep, he has adopted you…OR you have adopted him!”.
As this comparison is not an isolated occurrence, I better deal with it properly. Allow me therefore to attempt my own comparison between Edzard Ernst and Donald Trump. I find the comparison intriguing, if only as a study in how thoroughly opposites can be confused.
Trump’s relationship with the truth is famously transactional: facts are useful when they flatter and dispensable when they do not. In contrast, I have spent my career demonstrating that facts and truth have the habit of existing independently of one’s preferences. Where Trump manufactures certainty, I try to interrogate it.
Both Trump and I are accused of promoting “untruths”. In Trump’s case, the accusation reflects a well-documented indifference to reality. In my case, it typically signals that a proponent of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is displeased with the conclusions of my research.
Our rhetorical styles further widen the gulf, I hope. Trump’s language inflates, while mine tries to deflate. Trump deals in selfishly exaggerated declarations (e.g. “the best,” “the greatest,” “nobody knows more”). I usually prefer the quieter approach of citing and explaining the data, allowing the evidence to dismantle cherished beliefs without raising its voice.
Criticism, too, is handled differently, I think. Trump counters it with more lies, denial or insult; I normally try to respond with evidence and rational arguments, an approach that is arguably more irritating, as it leaves less room for theatrical rebuttal. After all, it is difficult to argue with a meta-analysis without first reading and understanding it.
If there is a shared trait, it is our ability to provoke. Yet even here, the symmetry is illusory. Trump provokes by disregarding evidence; I often try to provoke by insisting on it. The former invites belief without proof; the latter demands proof before belief.
It therefore appears that likening me to Trump (or vice versa) serves less as an argument than as an all too transparent attempt to avoid one. Still, I must confess a certain appreciation for its unintended comedy. In that spirit, I am tempted to thank Dana – and to encourage him to continue, if only in the hope that his future contributions might prove even more entertaining.
Keep up the good work, Dana!
And feel free to call me whatever you like.
The Journal of Evidence Based Homeopathy (JEBH)?
Yes, it does exist!
It was launched in 2023 by Willmar Schwabe India, as a twice yearly publication that presents itself as a peer-reviewed outlet for research, clinical trials, case studies, reviews, and theoretical pieces about homeopathy. Its own site describes it as a “groundbreaking” journal meant to promote the “evidence-based practice and understanding of homeopathy,” and lists the editor-in-chief as Dr. Ramachandran Valavan who seems to be on the payroll of Schwabe India. As far as I can see, the editorial board consist exclusively of Indian homeopathy supporters.
The publisher is Dr. Willmar Schwabe India Pvt. Ltd., with a Noida/Ghaziabad address in Uttar Pradesh, India. The firm is a branch of the well-known German manufacturer of homeopathic products. JEBH is a specialty homeopathy journal rather than a mainstream medical journal. Its language is strongly promotional, emphasizing “rigorous investigation,” “scientific exploration,” and “solid evidence,” but those claims are made by the journal itself rather than independently demonstrated in the material available here.
JEBH claims it is peer-reviewed. However, its articles often read like advocacy: they present homeopathy as being refined by “modern scientific exploration” and “real-world data,” and frequently treat positive case reports or reviews as confirmation of homeopathy’s validity. That style is, of course, not unusual in homeopathy publications, but from an evidence-based medicine perspective it is a ridiculous substitute for reproducible controlled data.
To give you a taster, here is the first section of a recent editorial published in the JEMH:
The Journal of Evidence-Based Homeopathy (JEBH) continues to strengthen its mission of uniting classical homeopathy with modern scientific exploration. This issue exemplifies how research, provings, and clinical observations converge to validate and refine homeopathic practice. The original articles section presents a diverse set of contributions from clinical case management to digital tools aiding repertorization. The featured case on Natrum muriaticum exemplifies the precision of individualized prescribing in addressing emotional and mental health concerns , while an insightful review on repertory software underscores the evolving integration of technology in clinical decision-making …
I wonder: does anyone know of another so-called “evidence-based” medical journal that is fully controlled, financed and run by a BIG PHARMA firm?
I don’t!
The JEBH confirms what we all suspected:
HOMEOPATHY IS UNIQUE.
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.
I was reminded of a paper that I published a long time ago – 23 years to be precise. It is entitled THE LECTURE FROM HELL. As it is not available online, let me give you a slightly revised version of it here:
When it comes to giving lectures, I have certainly made every mistake there is, and therefore I consider myself qualified to write this personal account on how to deliver THE LECTURE FROM HELL. I do this in the hope that others might learn from my imperfections.
In preparing for a lecture, it is best to be cool and leave things to the last minute. You are so gifted and competent that a few scribbles made on the way to the venue will easily suffice for fascinating your audience. Don’t bother enquiring who they are; what you have to say will capture the attention of a lay audience as much as that of a highly specialised one.
The kind people who have invited you will certainly have suggested a topic. Don’t get irritated by that; you know best what you can and want to talk about and, after all, it is always best to stick to what you know. If your subject is palliative cancer care, for instance, it should not be too difficult, after a few introductory sentences, to shift the attention to the most revealing survey you conducted on 10 back pain patients 25 years ago – cancer patients suffer from back pain too!
From the outset, you need to show the audience that you are better than they are. A good way of achieving this aim is to display your knowledge of as many acronyms as possible. Making abundant use of abbreviations has the added advantage that it could hide a few glitches in your arguments (or spelling). People might even think you are talking about palliative care after all.
Another golden rule is never produce evidence for your statements. Some people use visual aids to produce the evidence, but this is both tiring and confusing (and it would, of course, require much more preparation than you allowed for). If you want to use visual aids, use photographs of your kids (pets if you are childless) or your last holiday in Corfu. This will add the personal touch that people crave. Surely, if they had wanted evidence they would have gone to a library, not to your lecture.
It is advisable to spend as much time as possible with lengthy preliminaries, particularly if you are not really covering the subject as printed in the programme. Mention that you first met Cathy (who just introduced you) when you were both in nursery and give a full and colourful account of your relationship since then. If you haven’t actually been to nursery with Cathy, perhaps you could talk about the car accident you saw en route and what it made you think of. Or you could take the holistic approach, ask everyone to stand up, do a few relaxation exercises and feel the flow of energy in the body, room or universe. The obvious aim is to leave as little time as possible for the proper lecture. Thus, you can pretend to know much more about your subject than you had time to disclose and you can end your unfinished lecture with the upbeat exclamation ‘‘yeah! perhaps another time’’.
Most lecturers find the ensuing discussion period the most challenging part of their task. Not you! First, you have wisely ensured that there is no time left. Thus, the discussion slot will either be completely cancelled or it will be refreshingly brief. When the first difficult question comes your way, remember the important principle: you are so much cleverer than anyone else in this room! Make sure you show it. Arrogance has always been a perfect shield for hiding incompetence.
Another good strategy is to ridicule the person who dared ask the awkward question. Thus, they end up with egg on their face instead of you. If all else fails and you really don’t know how to answer, the best approach is to say: ‘‘this is a bit too complex right now; perhaps I could explain this to you later over coffee’’. Just ensure that you are safely on the way home when the coffee break starts.
Generally speaking, the overriding principles of a truly diabolically bad talk are quite simple. Lectures are neither the time nor place for transmitting knowledge to those who came to listen. Their predominant purpose is to massage the lecturer’s ego and increase their income. If you keep this in mind, you will stop worrying about things like evidence, structure and delivery and simply enjoy the outing.
I was reminded of this article because I saw the title of a recently published paper: HOW TO GIVE A BAD TALK. It starts as follows: “It is crucial to know how to communicate your work by delivering an effective talk, but our training for doing so is limited, so it is a skill often learned by watching others — who sometimes do it badly”.
Sadly, I could not read on; the journal asked almost 30 Euros for the privilege! So, I will never know what else I can do to give a truly poor lecture. Yet, I did learn something important: the knowledge of how to give a bad talk does not always come cheap!
I recently coined a new term: Chutzpah-Based Medicine (CBM). It requires a bit of an explanation which I herewith try to deliver. Medical decisions should rely on a rational hierarchy: systematic reviews at the top, followed by randomised clinical trials, observational studies, and way down at the bottom we anecdotal experience and opinion. The new paradigm of “Chutzpah-Based Medicine” (CBM) turns this pyramid upside down.
In CBM, double-blind trials are replaced by double-down charisma. Why wait 10 years for evidence when you can assert a medical breakthrough in 15 seconds on video with dynamic lighting, an unbuttoned linen shirt, and absolute, unshakable certainty? Here is an overview of the core tenets and leading luminaries of this revolutionary field.
The Dogmas of CBM
- The Confidence-to-Evidence Ratio: The validity of any health claim is directly proportional to the volume, velocity, and eye contact with which it is delivered.
- The “Big Pharma Secret” Axiom: If a treatment worked and had evidence, it would evidently be mainstream. Therefore, the total absence of evidence is the ultimate proof that “They” are trying to suppress it.
- Quantum Syllogism: If you insert the word “quantum” before anything, biology no longer applies, and anything becomes possible.
Four Ambassadors of CBM
- Gwyneth Paltrow
The undisputed pioneer of High-End CBM. Paltrow proved that with enough aesthetic minimalism and raw audacity, one can sell jade eggs, vaginal steaming, and “psychic vampire repellent” as essential wellness routines. Scientific consensus is but a sign of unrefined taste. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- Time for Gwyneth Paltrow’s ‘Emotional Detox Bath Soak’
- We all have misungerstood good old Gwyneth Paltrow. At heart, she is a true sceptic!
- What is it with Gwyneth Paltrow and the vagina?
- Rectal ozone therapy? Gwyneth seems to like it!
- Dr. Mehmet Oz
Before entering politics, Dr. Oz laid the groundwork for CBM. He demonstrated that a cardiothoracic surgeon could look directly into a camera and declare green coffee bean extract a “miracle burn in a bottle” without blinking. “Magic” is, according to Oz, a valid clinical outcome. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- It seems to me that Dr. Mehmet Oz is breaking the law!
- Donald Trump nominated SCAM promoter, Mehmet Oz, to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
- Columbia University cut ties with Dr. Mehmet Oz … or did they?
- Dr. Joseph Mercola
He is a true titan of digital CBM mastering the art of building a multi-million-dollar supplement empire by warning millions that modern medicine is a toxic conspiracy, while conveniently offering his own unapproved tanners, liposomal vitamins, and other SCAMs as the sole salvation. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- The ‘moral and intellectual decay’ of COVID disinformants
- The anti-vaccination movement is financed by the dietary supplement industry
- Deepak Chopra
Chopra brought profound philosophical chutzpah to CBM by blending endocrinology with poetic quantum bollox. By asserting that human bodies are “localized energy fields” capable of “quantum healing,” he elevated clinical vagueness into a high-margin spiritual enterprise. See also previous posts, e.g.:
- Deepak Chopra – Karma can be a real bitch!
- The ‘LOVETUNER’: Have a look at this, and you will never again think that Deepak Chopra is a charlatan
- Deepak Chopra’s finest hour
- Deepak Chopra enters my ‘ALT MED HALL OF FAME’
While Evidence-Based Medicine requires years of arduous testing, CBM offers immediate answers, simple villains, and premium-priced remedies. Why let a clinical trial get in the way of an excellent means of getting rich quickly?
The various forms of fasting have many, mostly positive health effects. The most obvious is that of losing weight and body fat. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of measuring the effects of a 14-day Periodic Fasting (PF) intervention (<200 cal) on multi-organs of primary interest (liver, visceral/subcutaneous/bone marrow fat, muscle) using non-invasive advanced magnetic resonance spectroscopic (MRS) and imaging (MRI) methods.
One subject participated in a 14-day PF under daily supervision of nurses and specialized physicians, ingesting a highly reduced intake: 200 Kcal/day coupled with active walking and drinking at least 3 L of liquids/day. The fasting was preceded by a 7-day pre-fasting vegetarian period and followed by 14 days of stepwise reintroduction of food. The longitudinal study collected imaging and biological data before the fast, at peak fasting, and 7 days, 1 month, and 4 months after re-feeding. Body fat mass in the trunk, abdomen, and thigh, liver and muscle mass, were respectively computed using advanced MRI and MRS signal modeling. Fat fraction, MRI relativity index T2* and susceptibility (Chi), as well as Fatty acid composition, were calculated at all-time points.
A decrease in body weight (BW: −9.5%), quadriceps muscle volume (−3.2%), Subcutaneous and Visceral Adipose Tissue (SAT −34.4%; VAT −20.8%), liver fat fraction (PDFF = 1.4 vs. 2.6 % at baseline) but increase in Spine Bone Marrow adipose tissue (BMAT) associated with a 10% increase in global adiposity fraction (PDFF: 54.4 vs. 50.9%) was observed. Femoral BMAT showed minimal changes compared to spinal level, with a slight decrease (−3.1%). Interestingly, fatty acid (FA) pattern changes differed depending on the AT locations. In muscle, all lipids increased after fasting, with a greater increase of intramyocellular lipid (IMCL: from 2.7 to 6.3 mmol/kg) after fasting compared to extramyocellular lipid (EMCL: from 6.2 to 9.5 mmol/kg) as well as Carnosine (6.9 to 8.1 mmol/kg). Heterogenous and reverse changes were also observed after re-feeding depending on the organ.
These results suggest that investigating the effects of a 14-day PF intervention using advanced MRI and MRS is feasible. Quantitative MR indexes are a crucial adjunct to further understanding the effective changes in multiple crucial organs especially liver, spin, and muscle, differences between adipose tissue composition and the interplay that occurs during periodic fasting.
This interesting and well-reported study supports the idea that fasting does not just “burn fat” uniformly; it shifts energy stores differently across organs and fat depots. Visceral fat appears more responsive and more durable in its reduction than subcutaneous fat, which is relevant because visceral fat is more strongly linked to cardiometabolic risk. Because this was a case report with one participant, the findings are best viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than definitive.
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.
This double-blind, three-arm randomised trial evaluated the efficacy of homeopathic medication in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). Patients at eleven outpatient clinics and two medical centres were randomised to receive:
- (1) individualised homeopathic case taking (IHCT) and standardised homeopathic medication with Galphimia Glauca (GG),
- (2) IHCT and individualised homeopathic treatment (IHG),
- (3) IHCT and placebo (PG).
The primary outcome was disease-specific quality of life, assessed using the Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) after three and four weeks. Secondary outcomes included response rate (≥0.5-point change in RQLQ), rescue medication use, and total nasal and non-nasal symptom scores (TNSS, TNNSS).
Sixty-two SAR patients (mean age ± SD: 46.9 ± 14.9; 43.5% female) were recruited, approximately 25% of the planned sample size. After weeks three and four, there were no significant differences in RQLQ (p=0.244) between GG (adjusted mean, 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.7), IHG (1.7, 1.2-2.3), and PG (1.4, 0.8-2.0). High response rates were observed (GG: 86.4%, IHG: 66.7%, PG: 81.3%), while RM use was 21.7%, 55.6%, and 29.4%, respectively. There were no relevant differences in RM score, TNSS and TNNSS between the three groups. Eight adverse events but no serious adverse events were reported.
The authors concluded that standardised and individualised homeopathic drugs were not superior compared to placebo suggesting that treatment response was not based on study medication. The validity of the study and its conclusions are limited by the fact that the recruitment target was not achieved.
Multicentre studies like this one are useful for recruiting large numbers of patients. SAR is a common condition; the recruitment of a large sample should therefore have been fairly straight forward. So, why was this study so woefully under-powered? An average of 6 patients per centre is dismal, to put it mildly!
This leaves us with a failed study of a failed (implausible) hypothesis; its negative findings cannot be properly interpreted (other than showing the incompetence of the trialists).
Why publish such a waste of resorces at all?
Search me!
I spent the last 2 months in France where it happened to be hot. Too hot for my taste! I could not do much during the day and, at night, I was unable to sleep well. As the heatwave carried on, it began to impact on my mood and health. I may be particularly sensitive to heat, but I am by no means the only one who suffered. Record-breaking temperatures and unprecedented ocean warming have triggered a global health emergency. Driven by climate change, modern heatwaves are predicted to strike with greater frequency, intensity, and duration, pushing human physiology to (and sometimes past) its limits.
Extreme heat operates as a silent killer by severely exacerbating pre-existing cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. It can also cause acute medical issues like severe dehydration, kidney damage, heatstroke, and even death. Extreme heat disproportionately impacts highly vulnerable groups, including older adults, children, outdoor laborers, and individuals who are unhealthy to start with. Urban populations face magnified dangers due to the urban heat island effect, which traps dense pockets of heat in city environments.
The consequences are already devastating. The recent heatwaves in Europe caused over 1,300 excess deaths within just a few weeks. Extreme heat contributes to a global toll of hundreds of thousands of heat-related fatalities each year. It also ripples through societal infrastructure. Extreme heat heavily strains our healthcare systems, disrupts local economies, worsens food and water insecurity worldwide, endangers local transport and other infrastructure. Here in France, for instance, we had prolonged cuts first of electricity and then on the Internet/telephone; many people and shops had to throw away the content of their fridges and freezers. Even more alarming: one of France’s largest rivers, the Loire, went completely dry.
An analysis of nearly 2,500 UK media articles covering the June heatwave found that most reports failed to connect the event to climate change, despite strong scientific evidence that global heating intensifies extreme weather. Approximately three-quarters of the articles made no reference to climate change or global warming, highlighting a significant gap between scientific consensus and public communication. Such omissions are problematic because they leave audiences without crucial context. Attribution science now allows researchers to quantify how much more likely or intense specific heatwaves have become due to greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from fossil fuel use. Without this information, heatwaves may be perceived as isolated or purely natural events rather than manifestations of a broader, human-driven trend. Failing to link extreme weather to climate change undermines public understanding and may weaken support for mitigation and adaptation policies.
The most worrying thing is that we are rapidly approaching irreversible thresholds. To mitigate this mounting catastrophe, immediate international cooperation is required. We must deploy both short-term adaptation strategies, such as robust local heat action plans and early warning weather networks, as well as aggressive, long-term global emissions reductions. And we also should vote out politicians who still:
- pretend that climate change is a hoax,
- blame their neighouring country, despite being huge polluters themselves,
- shout “drill baby, drill”,
- pretend that summers have always been hot,
- claim (against all medical knowledge) that humans will somehow manage to adapt to extreme heat.
Without urgent measures, the human and economic toll will escalate uncontrollably.
