research
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) likes to present itself as a champion of disease prevention. Its advocates routinely claim to promote health before disease develops, to strengthen the body’s defences, and to address root causes rather than symptoms. This rhetoric is highly attractive, because prevention sounds proactive, humane, and economical. Crucially, it is also good for the SCAM practitioner’s bank account. Yet there is a snag: almost none of the preventive claims made for SCAM are supported by reliable evidence, whereas the prevention that works comes overwhelmingly from conventional medicine and science.
To show preventive benefit, an intervention must demonstrably reduce the incidence of symptom, disease, complication, or mortality in properly designed studies. That may require randomised trials, epidemiological studies, large cohorts, reproducible findings, and enough follow-up to show that fewer people actually experienced the given endpoint. Mainstream medicine has repeatedly met this standard. Immunization, blood pressure control, smoking cessation, lipid lowering, cancer screening, and risk-factor modification are all products of biomedical research, not of alternative healing traditions.
SCAM, by contrast, tends to use prevention in a loose, impressionistic, and unfalsifiable way. A practitioner may claim that a treatment “balances energy,” “supports immunity,” or “keeps the body in harmony,” but such phrases do not establish a preventive effect. They are placeholders for evidence, not evidence itself. In practice, the absence of disease after treatment is treated as proof that the treatment worked, even though the same outcome occurs every day without any intervention at all.
Acupuncture is a good example. Its defenders portray it as a preventive system capable of preserving general health or warding off illness, but the evidence base does not support that claim. Some reviews do suggest that acupuncture may help with some pain-related and symptom-focused conditions, yet its preventive value is largely unproven. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that acupuncture prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Chiropractic care is even more revealing because preventive claims are often tied to the doctrine of spinal “subluxation” and nervous system dysfunction. Yet the literature on prevention is thin and methodologically weak. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that chiropractic prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Herbalism benefits from the romantic appeal of “natural” remedies, but that appeal should not be confused with demonstrated preventive efficacy. Individual plant compounds have certainly inspired real drugs, yet that is a triumph of pharmacology, not of herbalism as a system. When herbal medicines are tested for prevention, results are usually weak, inconsistent, or insufficient to support recommendation. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that herbal medicine prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
Homeopathy is one of the most extreme cases within SCAM. It is often sold as gentle, individualized, and even preventive, but its basic principles are scientifically implausible, and its clinical evidence is either flawed or negative. Preventive homeopathy, including ideas such as “homeoprophylaxis,” is particularly problematic because it can give people a false sense of security while displacing interventions that genuinely prevent disease, such as vaccination. I am not aware of solid evidence to show that homeopathy prevents anything – but, if I am wrong, please do correct me.
SCAM speaks almost constantly about prevention, but the evidence for actual preventive benefit is close to non-existent. What we know about prevention, what truly reduces disease incidence and improves population health, comes from conventional medicine, epidemiology, public health, and biological science. SCAM will no doubt continue to borrow the language of medicine and prevention, but – as far as I can see – it has failed to supply the proof.
For several decades, eggs were commonly portrayed as a major cause of raised cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. That position has been substantially revised: current evidence suggests that dietary cholesterol has a relatively modest effect on blood cholesterol in most people, whereas saturated and trans fats are more important determinants of LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk.
The physiology is more nuanced than the older “cholesterol-in, cholesterol-out” model implied. The liver does synthesise cholesterol endogenously, and many people compensate for increased dietary cholesterol by reducing hepatic production, but the degree of compensation varies considerably between individuals. For that reason, eggs are not best understood as “heart-healthy” in all circumstances, but rather as a food whose impact depends on the wider dietary pattern and the individual’s metabolic risk profile.
There is stronger support for improving lipid profiles by changing the quality of dietary fat and increasing fibre intake. Replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats, particularly polyunsaturated fats, is associated with lower LDL cholesterol and a reduced risk of cardiovascular events, while soluble fibre helps lower LDL cholesterol by interrupting enterohepatic bile acid recycling. In practical terms, this means that foods such as olive oil, nuts, seeds, legumes, oats, vegetables, and oily fish are more consistently supported than a narrow focus on single items such as eggs.
Low-carbohydrate and ketogenic diets are more complex. Many people lose weight on them, which may improve some cardiometabolic markers, but a subset of lean individuals show pronounced rises in LDL cholesterol and related atherogenic markers during carbohydrate restriction. Emerging evidence also indicates that gut microbial changes may contribute to altered lipid metabolism, although this area is still developing and should not be overstated.
Highly restrictive “detox” or “alternative” dietary programs are unsupported by clinical evidence and may be nutritionally unbalanced and thus harmful. They might be claimed to “purify” the body or reset metabolism, but heart health is better served by sustainable patterns that improve LDL cholesterol, support fibre intake, and minimise excess saturated fat.
What does all that mean in practice? Here are a few simple rules that follow from the new insights:
- Do not over-emphasize dietary cholesterol (e.g., eggs) as a primary driver of cardiovascular risk.
- Focus instead on reducing saturated and trans fat intake.
- Replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats, especially polyunsaturated fats (e.g., use olive oil, eat nuts and seeds).
- Increase intake of soluble fibre (e.g., oats, legumes, vegetables) to help lower LDL cholesterol.
- Consider overall dietary patterns rather than judging single foods in isolation.
- Recognize that individual responses to dietary cholesterol vary; tailor intake accordingly if lipid levels are a concern.
- Include foods with consistent cardiovascular benefit, such as oily fish, plant-based foods, and whole grains.
- Be cautious with low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diets, particularly if lean, and monitor lipid profiles if following such diets.
- Prioritize sustainable, balanced eating patterns over restrictive or extreme diets.
- Avoid “detox” or alternative dietary regimens lacking clinical evidence, as they are ineffective or harmful.
Key references
- Carson JAS, Lichtenstein AH, Anderson CAM, et al. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular risk: a science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2020;141:e39–e53.
- Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1279–1290.
- Hooper L, Martin N, Jimoh OF, et al. Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(5):CD011730.
- British Heart Foundation. Healthy eating – reduce your risk of developing heart disease. 2023. – Search
- NHS. Facts about fat. 2022. – Search
- Ketogenic Diet reduces friendly gut bacteria and raises cholesterol levels
- Gut bacteria can break down cholesterol | Nature Reviews Cardiology
- Healthy eating: applying All Our Health – GOV.UK
So-called alternative medicine (SCAM) remains widely used worldwide, yet longstanding concerns persist regarding the balance and reliability of the evidence presented in SCAM journals. This investigation examined long-term trends in publication practices within leading SCAM journals, with particular attention to changes in publication types and the prevalence of positive versus negative study outcomes as indirect indicators of potential publication bias.
The authors conducted a complete census of articles published in four leading SCAM journals at two contemporary time points (2018 and 2023), replicating the design and classification framework of a seminal 2001 analysis covering 1995 and 2000. Articles were categorised by publication type, subject area, and author-reported study outcome (positive, negative, or inconclusive, corresponding to the “open” category used in the original 2001 study). Descriptive analyses were used to compare trends over time and with earlier findings.
The total number of published articles increased substantially between the earlier and contemporary periods. The proportion of empirical studies, particularly clinical trials, rose over time. However, the prevalence of positive outcomes also increased markedly, with positive findings accounting for over 80% of published articles in the contemporary period, compared with 49% in the earlier study. Negative and inconclusive outcomes remained relatively infrequent.
The authors concluded that despite growth in publication volume and a shift toward empirical study designs, SCAM journals continue to exhibit a pronounced predominance of positive outcome reporting. These findings suggest that longstanding concerns regarding publication bias in SCAM publishing have not diminished over time and appear to have intensified, with selective publication and related reporting and dissemination practices plausibly contributing to the observed patterns. This has important implications for research integrity and evidence-based decision-making in medical practice.
It is great to see that our past research [the 2001 study mentioned above is one of my team] is being continued. It is less great, of course, to learn that the SCAM-bias continues and might even be on the increase. The reasons why there are so few negative results in SCAM journals might be complex. Two possible clues are:
- The quality of SCAM research tends to be low, and poor quality research tends to generate positive findings, particularly if it is conducted by pseudo-researchers who abuse science for confirming their beliefs rather than for testing hypotheses (see also the ALTERNATIVE HALL OF FAME on this blog).
- If nonetheless a high quality study emerges in SCAM – which, of course, does happen every now and then – it tends to produce a negative result and is likely to get published in a good quality journal rather than in one of the dodgy SCAM journals.
As I have often noted, the end-effect is bad for all concerned: SCAM and SCAM journals are slowly becoming the laughing stock of science. Consequently, nobody takes them seriously. If one day an effective therapy should emerge, we all might faile to notice. In a nutshell: publication bias harms us all!
When – about 14 years ago – it was my turn, I looked forward to retirement: endless sleep-ins, zero airport security lines for lectures at distant places, no more struggling to keep awake at boring meeting, and a calendar so beautifully blank it belongs in a modern art museum. I looked forward to the complete absence of so-called peers – mostly people who had no idea about my research – criticising or trying to influence my work. And even more I rejoiced in the prospect of having no university administrators needlessly complicating my life, while taking a big chunk of my research funding for the benefit.
When you retire as an academic, you genuinely believe you’ve escaped the university rat race – only to soon realize you’ve just been traded to a different league with much worse perks. Suddenly, your mornings are dictated not by an alarm clock, but by a relentless, self-imposed to-do list. You’re busier than ever, while operating alone and on a budget that makes your old expense-account days feel like the reign of Louis XIV.
Of course, not all academics keep on working after retirement. Some manage to just drop everything from one day to the next thinking they will now look after the garden, trimm roses, walk the dog, etc. I know many who have chosen this type of approach to retirement. For a few months, it all seems to go fine. Then they realise the increaingly painful emptiness and lack of purpose. More often than not, a low mood creeps in, followed by depression and/or taking to the bottle (perhaps this is why the Exeter medical school gave me a set of huge [and apparently expensive] wine glasses as a leaving present?).
No, staying active and doing what one likes must be the secret of remaining sane after retirement – at least for me. So, I rolled up my sleeves and got on with it. I started this blog (thanks Alan) where I have now published well over 3000 posts. I also began writing colums for newspapers – in English, German and French, to make it a bit more interesting. And then I got into books; this turned out to be more fun (and far less money) than expected. Since retiring I so far managed an average of about one per year – 16 to be precise, and currently three more in the pipeline.
Yes, I do keep myself busy, but this approach does unquestionably have its surprises. The real shocker, is the devastating loss of infrastructure. Yesterday you were a visionary leader; today, you are your own secretary, IT department, mailroom clerk, travel agent, and administrative assistant – and frankly, your staff is frightfully incompetent! There is nobody to filter out annoying requests, meaning you are fully exposed to every crank on the planet. Your former co-workers no longer do the knuckle work of the research, so things get slower and slower. Technical assistance is nowhere to be found; when the printer jams or the Wi-Fi malfunctions, you are on your utterly incompetent own. Every little task takes hours or days. You’ve traded business casual for sweatpants or shorts, but the “hassle” didn’t disappear; if anything, it becomes bigger and bigger. It just rebranded itself as a full-time, unpaid internship where you are both the demanding boss and the disgruntled employee.
But am I not supposed to enjoy life during retirement?
I promise you, I do that too!
Some friends keep asking me whether I don’t want to finally retire for real, relax and be happy.
“What do you mean?”, I respond.
“Well, you know, do what you really like.”
“But that’s what I am doing!”
It is true – honestly.
I am productive because I am content – and not the other way round.
Dr. Toby Rogers, a political economist and fellow at the libertarian Brownstone Institute, ignited a firestorm in March 2026 when he declared the current childhood vaccination program “one of the greatest crimes in human history” (“libertarian” refers to someone who advocates for extreme individual liberty—particularly freedom from government mandates and regulations—believing that the state should be minimized and that individuals should have absolute autonomy over their own bodies, property, and choices without state coercion).
Rogers’ 2026 statement is not an isolated outburst but the culmination of years of vaccine skepticism. After his partner’s son was diagnosed with autism in 2015, Rogers abandoned his original doctoral focus to study autism’s causes, reviewing nearly 1,000 studies over four years. He concluded that vaccines are the primary driver of the autism epidemic. The overwhelming scientific consensus, however, is that vaccines are safe and that autism’s rise stems from improved diagnosis, broader criteria, and complex genetic and environmental factors unrelated to immunization (see the plethora of previous posts on this subject). His PhD thesis, The Political Economy of Autism, and subsequent publications have been widely criticized by the scientific community. Its methodological flaws include:
- selection bias,
- cherry-picking,
- inclusion of weak studies,
- dismissing robust epidemiological research.
Rogers’ 2026 statement elevates personal conviction and contested research over scientific rigor and public health reality. Rogers argues that children receive too many vaccines too early, warning of “cumulative effects” on developing immune systems. Yet the Institute of Medicine has found no evidence of major safety concerns with the current childhood immunization schedule, and the National Academy of Sciences has repeatedly affirmed that vaccines are safe and effective. Rogers dismisses the 22 major studies confirming vaccine safety as “worthless” because they lacked a true unvaccinated control group—a standard that is both ethically impossible and scientifically unnecessary given the massive population data demonstrating vaccine safety over decades.
Rogers’ evidence relies heavily on a handful of independent studies to support his claims. These studies have been criticized for small sample sizes, selection bias, failure to control for confounders, and methodological flaws so severe that some of Rogers’ co-authored papers, such as “Autism Tsunami,” were retracted from peer-reviewed journals. His claim that vaccinated children have dramatically higher rates of autism and chronic disease rests on research that has not withstood independent replication or scrutiny by mainstream scientists. By contrast, the scientific community’s confidence in vaccine safety derives from massive, longitudinal studies involving millions of children, rigorous clinical trials, and decades of population surveillance.
Rogers’ credibility is compromised not least because he is a regular contributor to Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that has a long history of spreading debunked claims. Roger’s testimony before the US Senate Subcommittee on Investigations in September 2025, titled “How the Corruption of Science has Impacted Public Perception and Policies Regarding Vaccines,” tried to position him as a whistleblower exposing “flawed science.” In reality, it relied on the same flawed studies and conspiracy narratives that have been repeatedly discredited by the scientific community.
Rogers receives funding from several anti-vaccine and libertarian organizations, though specific salary figures are not publicly disclosed :
- Brownstone Institute is a libertarian think tank founded by economist Jeffrey Tucker that promotes vaccine skepticism, “medical freedom,” and opposition to public health mandates. The institute is funded by libertarian donors and provides fellowships to researchers who align with its ideology.
- Children’s Health Defense is explicitly an anti-vaccine organization led by Mary Holland (CEO) and founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The organization has illuminated funding sources through IRS 990 filings, showing it raised millions of dollars and pays researchers, speakers, and staff. In Rogers’ Senate testimony, he explicitly stated: “Since then I’ve continued my research with Children’s Health Defense, as an independent journalist, and as a Fellow at Brownstone Institute”.
- Rogers also appears at MAHA Institute conferences (Make America Healthy Again), which is aligned with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s movement and features speakers from anti-vaccine organizations including Children’s Health Defense.
Rogers’s financial ties to anti-vaccine organizations create clear conflicts of interest. His research supports the organizational mission of Children’s Health Defense and Brownstone Institute, and his income appears tied to producing content that aligns with these organizations’ anti-vaccine advocacy. The political economy of Rogers’ work is thus ironic: while he critiques the “political economy of autism” and government response, his own research is funded by private organizations with clear ideological and financial incentives to promote vaccine skepticism.
Rogers is not a medical doctor. He has a doctorate in political economy from the University of Sydney and a Master’s in public policy. He holds no medical degree or formal training in medicine, immunology, epidemiology, or vaccine science. His expertise is in political economy, not medical or vaccine research, which means his claims about vaccine safety and autism lack the scientific credentials required to make authoritative medical assertions.
Smoking kills! Since most people now know about this fact, they have been looking for alternatives that are safe. Here I will discuss two of them: vaping and nicotine pouches.
VAPING
Vaping devices are electronic nicotine delivery systems that heat liquid into an inhalable aerosol. They have surged in popularity. Despite marketing claims to the contrary, substantial evidence reveals significant health risks.
Addiction
Nicotine, the primary active ingredient in most vape liquids, is one of the most addictive substances known. Research indicates that 17.8% of e-cigarette users report feeling “very addicted,” while 42.3% consider e-cigarettes equally or more addictive than combustible cigarettes. The addictive potential is amplified by several factors: modern vape devices use nicotine salts that deliver nicotine more rapidly and in higher concentrations than traditional cigarettes, and the high nicotine concentrations in many devices (often not listed on packaging) accelerate dependence. The more a person vapes, the more their brain and body adapt to nicotine, making cessation increasingly difficult. When nicotine enters the system, it triggers dopamine release, creating a “feel-good” sensation that reinforces continued use. However, nicotine’s effects wear off rapidly, triggering cravings and establishing a cycle of dependence. Nearly all vapes circulating contain nicotine, even when not listed on packaging, making prevaping users unknowingly vulnerable to addiction.
Toxicity
Vaping exposes users to a complex toxic chemical cocktail. The e-liquids contain propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin. These are ingredients meant to be eaten, not inhaled which become toxic when heated. When vaporized, these components transform into dangerous chemicals including acetaldehyde, acrolein, and formaldehyde, all of which can cause lung disease and cardiovascular disease. The two primary e-cigarette ingredients in the US are toxic to cells, with toxicity increasing alongside the number of additives in the e-liquid. Acrolein, a herbicide primarily used to kill weeds present in e-cigarettes, can cause acute lung injury, COPD, asthma, and potentially lung cancer. Vitamin E acetate, a thickening agent sometimes added to THC-containing vape products, was identified by the CDC as a “chemical of concern” in vaping-associated lung injuries. Flavoring agents pose additional risks. Diacetyl, a flavoring chemical linked to “popcorn lung” (bronchiolitis obliterans), is present in many flavored vapes and causes irreversible lung damage. Secondhand emissions contain nicotine, ultrafine particles, volatile organic compounds like benzene usually found in car exhaust, and heavy metals including nickel, tin, and lead. The FDA has not found any e-cigarette to be safe and effective for smoking cessation.
Cardiovascular disease
Vaping is associated with significant cardiovascular risks. Research has linked nicotine-containing e-cigarettes to acute changes in blood flow, including increased blood pressure and heart rate. These physiological effects can lead to atherosclerosis and increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Other e-cigarette ingredients, particularly flavoring agents, independently carry risks associated with heart and lung diseases in animal studies. A recent analysis found a significant association between former or current e-cigarette users and the development of several respiratory diseases within two years of use, suggesting cardiovascular and respiratory systems are simultaneously compromised.
Brain damage
The human brain does not fully develop until approximately age 25, making young users uniquely vulnerable. Regular nicotine vape use causes changes to brain development that negatively affect learning, concentration, mood, and memory. Nicotine rewires the brain, changing the parts responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and mood regulation. These changes can interfere with mood and make users more likely to become addicted to nicotine and other drugs. Nicotine exposure during adolescence also increases feelings of stress and worsens depression and anxiety. Vaping hasn’t been around long enough to see irreversible diseases yet, but biologically, damage is happening and inflammation is occurring—creating conditions that will lead to diseases later.
References
- American Lung Association. (n.d.). Health Risks of E-Cigarettes and Vaping. https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/e-cigarettes-vaping/impact-of-e-cigarettes-on-lung
- American Lung Association. (2025). The Truth About What Vaping Is Doing to Your Body. https://www.lung.org/blog/illnesses-vaping-causes
- Panagis Galiatsatos, M.D., MHS. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
- European Journal of Public Health. (2022). Understanding addiction in e-cigarette users – the EVAPE project. Oxford Academic. https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/32/Supplement_3/ckac130.078/6765989
- National Institutes of Health. (2024). The Risks of Vaping. NIH News in Health. https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2020/05/risks-vaping
- American Heart Association. (2023). As E-Cigarette Use Grows, More Research Needed on Long-Term Effects of Vaping. https://www.stroke.org/en/news/2023/07/17/as-e-cigarette-use-grows-more-research-needed-on-long-term-effects-of-vaping
- NSW Health. (n.d.). Vaping – Nicotine Addiction | Young People Factsheet. https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/tobacco/Factsheets/vaping-nicotine-addiction-young-people-factsheet.pdf
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Health Effects of Vaping. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/e-cigarettes/health-effects.html
- National Institutes of Health. (2025). NIH-Funded Studies Show Damaging Effects of Vaping, Smoking on Blood Vessels. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-studies-show-damaging-effects-vaping-smoking-blood-vessels
- Johns Hopkins Medicine. (2025). 5 Vaping Facts You Need to Know. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/5-truths-you-need-to-know-about-vaping
NICOTINE POUCHES
Nicotine pouches are small, smokeless, tobacco-free pouches containing nicotine. They have existed for a long time but have recently rapidly gained popularity, particularly among young people. They are often claimed to be safer alternatives to cigarettes. Is this claim true?
Addiction
Nicotine pouches are highly addictive by design. Nicotine is a well-established addictive drug that activates reward pathways in the brain, leading to dependence. Research demonstrates that nicotine salts used in pouches deliver higher concentrations more rapidly than traditional nicotine products, accelerating addiction. Among young people who try nicotine pouches, 73% continue using them, indicating strong addictive potential. The average user consumes half a can daily (8-12 pouches), with 10 pouches at 6mg equivalent to 1–1½ packs of cigarettes or 1½ e-cigarette pods daily. Alarmingly, the number of youths using nicotine pouches has doubled in the US since 2021, reaching now ~400,000 users. This rapid uptake among youth suggests that the product’s smokeless, odorless features make nicotine use more accessible and socially acceptable, facilitating addiction before users fully understand the consequences.
Toxicity
Nicotine pouches contain unregulated and potentially toxic levels of nicotine. While nicotine itself is not unregulated, many products in the US lack FDA authorization and are on the market illegally without proper safety testing. A 2022 study found that 26 of 44 nicotine pouch products contained cancer-causing chemicals, including ammonia, formaldehyde, chromium, and nickel. These contaminants likely result from inadequate manufacturing processes and quality control. The absence of standardized regulation means nicotine concentrations can vary significantly between products and even within batches, making dosing unpredictable. Furthermore, non-tobacco nicotine products may seem healthier than smoking, but they come with their own laundry list of health effects, and public health experts recommend avoiding nicotine altogether.
Cardiovascular disease
The cardiovascular risks associated with nicotine pouches are well-documented. Nicotine increases blood pressure, heart rate, and blood flow to the heart while constricting arteries. These physiological effects can lead to atherosclerosis and heart attacks. The American Heart Association explicitly warns that nicotine can damage the heart and other vital organs. However, some industry-sponsored research claims that nicotine administered through pouches has only transient effects on blood pressure and heart rate in healthy users, with no demonstrated long-term cardiovascular damage. This discrepancy highlights the importance of independent research versus industry-funded studies. Nevertheless, the mechanistic evidence—nicotine’s vasoconstrictive and hemodynamic effects—strongly suggests increased cardiovascular risk, particularly with chronic use or in individuals with pre-existing conditions.
Brain dmage
Nicotine damages brain development. The human brain does not fully develop until approximately age 25, making adolescents and young adults uniquely vulnerable to nicotine’s neurotoxic effects. Nicotine exposure during adolescence alters the development of the prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for attention, learning, memory, and impulse control. These changes can be permanent, leading to lasting cognitive deficits and difficulties with concentration and memory. Additionally, adolescent nicotine exposure increases the risk of psychiatric disorders, including anxiety and depression, and priming the brain for addiction to other substances. Nicotine pouches are particularly dangerous for youth precisely because of these developmental vulnerabilities. Given that 400,000 US youths now use nicotine pouches, the public health implications are substantial.
References
- American Lung Association. (2024). ZYN 101: What to Know About Big Tobacco’s Latest Addiction. https://www.lung.org/blog/zyn-nicotine-addiction
- American Heart Association. (2025). Triple Threat: The Hidden Dangers of E-Cigarettes, Oral Nicotine Pouches, and Vaping. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-lifestyle/quit-smoking-tobacco/triple-threat-e-cigarettes-oral-nicotine-pouches
- Cleveland Clinic. (2024). Are Nicotine Pouches Safe? Health.ClevelandClinic.org. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-nicotine-pouches-safe
- Dentalcare.com. (2025). Nicotine Impact on Adolescent Brain Development. CE693. https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/ce-courses/ce693/nicotine-impact-on-adolescent-brain-development
- Verywell Health. (2024). Is Zyn Bad for Your Heart? https://www.verywellhealth.com/is-zyn-bad-for-your-heart-8735079
- Yale Medicine. (2024). What Parents Should Know About Nicotine Pouches. https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/nicotine-pouches
- initiative to Undo. (2024). The Effects of Nicotine on the Adolescent Brain. https://www.undo.org/addicting-kids/the-effects-of-nicotine-on-the-adolescent-brain
- Tobacco Free Coalition. (2025). Not Your Grandparent’s Tobacco: The New Nicotine Products. https://www.tobaccofreeco.org/the-new-nicotine-products-2/
___________________________________
Having lost several friends to lung cancer, I am convinced that the best alternative to smoking is quitting.
During outbreaks of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), public health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) combat “infodemics”, i.e. surges of false information and unproven so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) polluting social media (Bedrosian et al., 2016; Fung et al., 2016; Obol & Nzedibe, 2024). Because these SCAMs are ineffective and frequently dangerous, authorities issue warnings against their use. Here are just a few of the many claims that can be found:
- Bathing in or drinking hot, highly saturated saltwater solutions can sweat out or kill the Ebola virus (Fung et al., 2016). Public health agencies strongly advise against this practice. It does nothing to prevent or treat EVD and can cause severe illness and death from acute hypernatremia (Vijaykumar et al., 2019).
- Solutions containing silver nanoparticles act as powerful natural antimicrobials capable of neutralizing the Ebola virus inside the body (Fung et al., 2016). The WHO has explicitly stated that Nano Silver is an unproven compound with no demonstrated efficacy against Ebola. Authorities recommend avoiding these products, as silver accumulation can cause irreversible organ damage and a condition called argyria (which permanently turns the skin blue/gray).
- Consuming large quantities of specific botanical items, such as raw onions, ginger, or alligator peppers, can stave off infection (Nsoesie & Oladeji, 2020). These “natural cures” possess no therapeutic effects capable of stopping viral replication of the filovirus family. Relying on them creates a false sense of security, which delays life-saving, evidence-based triage and supportive care (Fridman et al., 2025; Nsoesie & Oladeji, 2020).
- Ebola has been attributed to spiritual curses or witchcraft that can only be reversed by traditional spiritual cleansing (Bedrosian et al., 2016). Public health organizations work alongside local communities to pivot away from these practices. Delaying medical intervention to seek traditional spiritual healing drastically increases community transmission and prevents patients from receiving SOTA antiviral therapies and fluid replacement, lowering survival rates (Obol & Nzedibe, 2024).
- A homeopath market “e-remedies” online, claiming that the “energy signature” of a remedy could be digitized into an audio file (Moffitt, 2018). He claimed that listening to a specific, hissing MP3 file could stimulate the body’s immune system to fight off Ebola. This prompted an investigation by the Medical Board of California into the doctor’s license for promoting unscientific and unproven online remedies (Moffitt, 2018).
- Some chiropractors claim that spinal manipulations can prevent Ebola infections, because misalignments interfere with the nervous system. Since the nervous system coordinates the immune responses, these misalignments weaken the body’s ability to recognize and destroy the Ebola virus (Terry Chiropractic Boulder). People “have nothing to fear but fear itself” regarding outbreaks if they keep their spines properly aligned to maximize their natural innate immunity. Global public health authorities and mainstream scientific institutions strongly reject these claims. There is zero credible scientific evidence demonstrating that manual spinal manipulation enhances immune competence or protects an individual against Ebola (Côté et al., 2020).
Ebola infection requires immediate, professional medical treatment. Treatments include monoclonal antibody therapeutics along with intensive supportive care. Relying on internet remedies significantly delays proper clinical treatment and increases the risk of mortality.
References
Bedrosian, S. R., Young, E. C., Smith, L. A., Cox, J. D., Manning, C., Pechta, L., Telfer, J. L., Gaines-McCollom, M., Harben, Kathy, Holmes, Wendy, Lubell, K. M., McQuiston, J. H., Nordlund, Kristen, O’Connor, John, Reynolds, B. S., Schindelar, J. A., Shelley, Gene, & Daniel, K. L. (2016). Lessons of Risk Communication and Health Promotion — West Africa and United States. MMWR Supplements, 65(3), 68–74. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6503a10
Fridman, I., Boyles, D., Chheda, R., Baldwin-SoRelle, C., Smith, A. B., & Elston Lafata, J. (2025). Identifying Misinformation About Unproven Cancer Treatments on Social Media Using User-Friendly Linguistic Characteristics: Content Analysis. JMIR Infodemiology, 5, e62703. https://doi.org/10.2196/62703
Fung, I. C.-H., Fu, K.-W., Chan, C.-H., Chan, B. S. B., Cheung, C.-N., Abraham, T., & Tse, Z. T. H. (2016). Social Media’s Initial Reaction to Information and Misinformation on Ebola, August 2014: Facts and Rumors. Public Health Reports®, 131(3), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491613100312
Moffitt, M. (2018). State doubts Los Gatos doctor can cure ebola with hissing MP3 files. SFGATE. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/dr-bill-gray-medical-license-homeopathy-treatment-12954925.php
Nsoesie, E. O., & Oladeji, O. (2020). Identifying patterns to prevent the spread of misinformation during epidemics. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-014
Obol, S. J., & Nzedibe, O. (2024). Critical perspective on infodemic and infodemic management in previous Ebola outbreaks in Uganda. Frontiers in Public Health, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1375776
Terry Chiropractic Boulder. (2014). Hold On Ebola: How Bolstering Your Immune System Can Help You Avoid Disease. https://terrychiropracticboulder.com/blog/hold-on-ebola-how-bolstering-your-immune-system-can-help-you-avoid-disease/
Vijaykumar, S., Jin, Y., & Pagliari, C. (2019). Outbreak communication challenges when misinformation spreads on social media. Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação e Inovação em Saúde, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.29397/reciis.v13i1.1623
For some time, I had suspected that the stupidity of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. runs deep. Just how deep, is a surprise even to me. Let me give you just two examples from a choice of plenty:
EXAMPLE No 1
In January 2026, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released far-reaching new Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2025–2030. They dramatically “flipped the food pyramid” by encouraging Americans to consume red meat and whole milk, sources previously discouraged by public health experts because of their contributios to heart disease and other chronic conditions.
“American households must prioritize whole, nutrient-dense foods—protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains—and dramatically reduce highly processed foods. This is how we Make America Healthy Again”, Kennedy commented. “Thanks to the bold leadership of President Trump, this edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans will reset federal nutrition policy, putting our families and children first as we move towards a healthier nation,” Secretary Rollins said. “At long last, we are realigning our food system to support American farmers, ranchers, and companies that grow and produce real food. Farmers and ranchers are at the forefront of the solution, and that means more protein, dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, and whole grains on American dinner tables.”
The scientific community responded with outrage, calling it a reckless abandonment of evidence-based nutrition and science. Promoting saturated fats and red meats contradicts decades of medical research and will increase cardiovascular disease rates across the US.
EXAMPLE No 2
In a hilarious revelation Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took to Joe Rogan’s podcast to inform the world that the UK has become a dystopian nightmare. “It’s like the Soviets. It’s like Kafka,” he declared in February 27, 2026.
The trigger for this epiphany? David Lammy, the UK’s Deputy Prime Minister, announced plans to scrap jury trials for offenses carrying less than three years imprisonment. Instead, a judge will decide. Lammy felt that this was necessary because of the backlog that meant cases could not be heard for years. RFK Jr., ever the historian, reminded listeners that the UK was once the “birthplace of Magna Carta”. Now, according to him, the UK is a “dictatorship over speech restrictions”.
Joe Rogan was horrified. “Existential threat to freedom of thought!” he cried, as if the UK had outlawed laughter or something. The pair seemed genuinely shocked that a country with a functioning parliament and a Prime Minister might have different ideas about justice than, say, a certain American podcast audience.
The comparison to Kafka is particularly weird: Kafka’s The Trial features a man arrested by a mysterious bureaucracy for an unspecified crime. Meanwhile, RFK Jr. seems to be arguing that replacing juries with judges in minor cases is the moral equivalent of the Soviet Union. A bold claim, especially from someone whose vis part of a government that checks people’s social media upon arrival – one of several reasons why I would never travel to the US, while these people are in power. But not as bold as Kennedy’s Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines. In his 2025 HHS confirmation hearing, Senator Raphael Warnock pressed him on statements likening the CDC to a “Nazi death camp,” which RFK Jr. denied, claiming he was comparing injury rates rather than the institution itself.
Perhaps the real dystopia is RFK Jr. spending his time lecturing other countries while the US degrades into a Kafkaesque nightmare of its own?
Quackademia, a term created [as far as I remember] by David Colquhoun for the infiltration of quackery into academia, has often been discussed on this blog, e.g.:
- Quackademia in Canada: the first bachelor’s degree in Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Quackademia galore: An Oxford ‘university’ starts a course in ‘veterinary chiropractic’
- Quackademia at its most rampant: the ‘Certificate in Holistic Health and Healing Arts’ (HHHA) at the University of New Mexico
- Another blow to quackademia: TCM course at a Sydney university is to be stopped
- Vienna 2019: the end of quackademia
- Quackademia down under
- Quackademia revisited
- Quackademia
Now growing backlash against quackademia seems to finally emerge also in France – opposition against university programs that give academic legitimacy to unproven so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The Higher Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education is preparing to review these courses, after criticism that universities are lending credibility to practices that have not been scientifically validated.
Across France, more than 200 university diplomas are said to exist in areas such as reflexology, aromatherapy, auriculotherapy, hypnosis, acupuncture, homeopathy, meditation, and related practices. Critics argue that this amounts to a form of institutional “entryism,” because the university label can make such practices look medically endorsed even when they are not.
The main concern is not just whether these therapies work, but whether universities should be teaching them at all. A January report on health misinformation reportedly recommended banning the academic labeling of healthcare practices that have not been validated, and that recommendation is at the center of the debate. Experts warn that, if a SCAM is scientifically validated, it belongs in medicine; if it is not, it may still be studied, but should not be taught as an academic medical qualification. They also warn that these programs can mislead the public and create a false impression of legitimacy. Yet, some deans and faculty leaders say that certain courses, especially acupuncture, hypnosis, or mindfulness, can be acceptable when used for specific indications and when properly framed. They distinguish those from programs in naturopathy, aromatherapy, or homeopathy, which they see as much harder to justify inside medical faculties.
As the Conference of Medical Deans is preparing to examine the issue rigorously, they should – I feel – also consider the ethical implications. Teaching dangerous nonsense to naive students is not just not academic, it is deeply unethical. If done well, this excercise should lead to a major cleanup of universities regarding SCAM, or at the very least to much tighter rules about what can carry an academic label.
Having observed French quackademia for decades, I am tempted to exclaim:
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!
The effect of calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation on fractures and falls in adults were assessed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised clinical trials were eligible, if they compared calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation with placebo or no treatment in adults (≥18 years) not receiving drug treatment for osteoporosis. The primary outcome was the risk of any fracture. Secondary outcomes included the risk of hip fracture, non-vertebral fracture, vertebral fracture, and falling, as well as the total number of falls. Pairs of reviewers independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the second version of Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. Findings were synthesised using random effects meta-analyses and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, with application of thresholds for absolute effects considered important.
The review included 69 trials involving 153 902 participants. Participants in most of the trials were community dwelling (87%) and not at high risk of fractures or falls (73%). For the primary outcome of any fracture, little to no effect was found from use of calcium supplements (11 trials, 9067 participants; risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.01; moderate certainty), vitamin D supplements (36 trials, 92 045 participants; 1.00, 0.95 to 1.06; high certainty), or combined supplementation (15 trials, 51 126 participants; 0.91, 0.84 to 0.99; high certainty). Calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation appeared to have little to no effect on other fracture and fall outcomes, based largely on moderate to high certainty of evidence. The findings remained robust after an extensive exploration of heterogeneity across multiple subgroup analyses. Evidence for high risk patients or those requiring residential care was limited for many outcomes for calcium monotherapy and for combined supplementation.
The authors concluded that, based on absolute risk reductions and thresholds considered clinically meaningful, this review found little to no benefits from use of calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation on the prevention of fractures and falls.
An accompanying BMJ editorial points out that observational studies have associated low dietary calcium and low serum levels of vitamin D with low bone density and falls. Consequently, calcium, vitamin D, or combined supplementation has been widely promoted for preventive musculoskeletal health in older adults…
Th editorial concludes that other interventions, such as balance and resistance exercise, and several multicomponent interventions (eg, combining exercise, hazard assessment, or education with other interventions tailored to risk assessment) have been shown to offer meaningful prevention of falls and falls related injuries.
This new systematic review is a prime example for the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact. But all is not negative – think of the money that can now be saved and put to better use!
