wellness
Mehmet Oz has featured regularly on this blog, e.g.:
- 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?
- Quackery promoter, Dr. Mehmet Oz, is running for the U.S. Senate
- Trump, Kennedy and Oz just announced plenty of untruths about autism and its treatment
Currently, he serves in Trump’s administration as “Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services” (CMS). He also is (or was?) a “Global Advisor & Stakeholder” for the company ‘iHerb’, and was appointed to that role in 2023. The company itself is a global e-commerce platform that was founded in 1996 and has its headquarters in California. iHerb specializes in health and wellness products. iHerb’s mission is to make health and wellness products accessible to everyone. The company operates as a direct-to-consumer retailer. iHerb sells a wide variety of products, including:
- Vitamins, minerals, and supplements (VMS)
- Sports nutrition
- Beauty and personal care products
- Grocery items
- Baby and pet care products
Crucially, iHerb sells several products with leucovorin, i.e. folinic acid, the drug that, even though unproven, is now officially used for autism in the US. As far as I can see, most of the products that Oz promotes are not based on sound evidence.
Based on available information from a financial disclosure analysis, Mehmet Oz’s work as an advisor for ‘iHerb’ has earned him as much as $25 million in company stock. The disclosure, which lists asset values in ranges rather than precise figures, shows that this stock was part of his overall financial portfolio.
Several experts have raised concerns that Oz’s financial interests in various healthcare and supplement companies, including iHerb, could create a conflict of interest. As the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a position that oversees a vast budget and a significant portion of the U.S. healthcare system, his past and present ties to the industry have been highlighted as potential issues. The concern is that a government official in such a powerful position could use their influence to benefit their own financial holdings or those of companies they are affiliated with. This is especially relevant given that Medicare Advantage, a program he would oversee, allows customers to use prepaid cards to buy over-the-counter medicines and supplements—a market that companies like iHerb are in.
Mehmet Oz has publicly disclosed his financial interests. A financial filing shows that his investments in ‘iHerb’ represented one of his largest financial holdings. In a filing with the Office of Government Ethics, Oz has committed to divesting his equity holdings in healthcare companies, including his iHerb stock, within 90 days of confirmation. He has also pledged to resign from his advisory role with ‘iHerb’. The Office of Government Ethics has stated that based on its review, it believes Oz is in compliance with applicable laws and regulations concerning conflicts of interest. The situation remains a point of public discussion and has drawn the attention of consumer advocacy groups. For example, the group Public Citizen has asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate whether Oz’s social media posts promoting iHerb violated FTC guidelines on undisclosed endorsements, as his posts did not always clearly state his financial connection to the company.
Based on current public information, there are serious questions and concerns about whether Mehmet Oz has divested all of his interests as pledged, particularly with respect to his holdings in ‘iHerb’. The latest publicly available filings detail his assets and his intent to divest, but do not show the final completed sale. iHerb itself has publicly stated that the company is no longer affiliated with Dr. Oz and is not working with him or the administration. However, this does not independently confirm the liquidation of his personal vested stock.
A failure to timely follow the pledge can and should trigger a chain of events that leads to serious civil and criminal penalties, as well as significant political repercussions.
It has been reported that the US surgeon general nominee, Casey Means, earned hundreds of thousands of dollars promoting supplements and other health and wellness products, details likely to invite new scrutiny about potential conflicts of interest for the author and entrepreneur.
Means, a close ally of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the sister of White House adviser Calley Means, has not yet been scheduled to appear before Congress for her confirmation hearing. But a filing dated Sept. 10 and posted by the Office of Government Ethics suggests her nomination cleared conflict-of-interest checks within the federal government.
The supplements industry has ties with several members of the Trump administration, including Medicaid director Mehmet Oz and health adviser Calley Means. An AP investigation this summer found that Casey Means had repeatedly failed to disclose her partnerships with supplements companies and other businesses promoted in her
newsletter, social media accounts, and elsewhere.
Among the payments included in the new disclosures for newsletter sponsorship and partnership fees are $12,000 from herbal remedies firm Apothekary; $27,431 from algae supplements company ENERGYbits; $16,461 from fiber supplements company Florasophy; $27,000 from probiotics company Pendulum Therapeutics; $46,000 from
supplements company Pique; $536 from prenatal vitamin company WeNatal; and $16,104 from basil seed supplements company Basil Seed Works. Means received a total of more than $130,000 in sponsorship fees from supplement company Amazentis, including a $55,000 book tour sponsorship.
_________________
In May this year, I wrote this about Means:
RFK Jr wrote on X: “The Surgeon General is a symbol of moral authority who stands against the financial and institutional gravities that tend to corporatize medicine. Casey Means was born to hold this job. She will provide our country with ethical guidance, wisdom, and gold-standard medical advice.” Yet her suitability for Surgeon General is a contentious issue.
Means holds a 2014 MD from Stanford University and a bachelor’s degree in human biology. She is an advocate for addressing chronic diseases through nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle changes. Her book “Good Energy”, co-authored with her brother Calley, argues that metabolic dysfunction is a root cause of most chronic illnesses. As a “wellness influencer”, Means has demonstrated an ability to communicate health concepts to a broad audience.
Critics point out that Means dropped out of her residency at Oregon Health & Science University months before completion. This means she is not board-certified and has very limited clinical experience; for instance, she never saw patients without supervision. Her medical license has been inactive since 2024, and she has done as good as no own original research. Unlike past Surgeons General, who had extensive backgrounds in public health administration and infectious disease, Means has no government or public health leadership experience. Her focus is on functional medicine and wellness, both areas that lack rigor and are close to quackery.
It gets worse: Means has expressed skepticism about vaccines, suggesting in a 2024 newsletter that the current vaccine schedule contributes to the decline of pediatric health. Her endorsement of dangerous nonsense like energy healing and raw milk seems worrying. Moreover, Means also co-founded Levels, a company selling continuous glucose monitors to non-diabetics, and markets supplements and other dubious health products. RFKJr’s claim that Means will offer “ethical guidance” seems particularly odd: she has no training in medical ethics and some of her past actions are outright unethical. Physicians like Dr. Neil Stone have therefore called Means “grossly underqualified”.
The Surgeon General must provide science-based guidance, oversee >6,000 officers, and address diverse and serious public health issues. Means’ inexperience and narrow focus limits her effectiveness. Crucially, her history of promoting of vaccine skepticism and quack medicine undermines trust in science-based policies.
In summary, Means seems wholly unsuited for the job of Surgeon General. In the interest of the US public health, her appointment should not be confirmed by the Senate.
SAY NO MORE!
Reiki is a form of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that never ceases to surprise me. Recently I came across a truly weird study. Here is its abstract:
Reiki is a biofield therapy currently used in hospitals worldwide. Scientific evidence supports its effectiveness in addressing many physical and emotional conditions in human patients. However, few studies currently exist demonstrating the effects of Reiki on animal health. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of distant Reiki on owner assessment of the health and wellbeing of adult dogs by measuring frequent complaints in veterinary practice. The research was conducted as a blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Eleven variables were examined, analyzing changes after 3 and 6 weeks of distant Reiki treatment. The statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test to compare changes between the groups. The study demonstrated that dogs receiving distant Reiki showed significant pain reduction compared with the control group. After the third (P = .05) and sixth sessions (P = .02), all dogs in the Reiki group showed some pain reduction. No significant difference was observed in the other variables analyzed. Study results suggest that Reiki may have beneficial effects, particularly for pain relief in dogs. These preliminary results warrant further research to more accurately assess the effectiveness of Reiki in veterinary medicine.
Already the very first sentence of the abstract does not inspire me with confidence. Only a deeply biased person would state such an exaggeration. This seems to not be science but pure wishful thinking.
Studying the full paper, we find that it elaborates on Reiki a lot but does not tell us what happened in the control group. As the author calls this a placebo-controlled trial, we must assume that the dogs in that group received a placebo. But what sort of placebo exactly? There is no generally accepted placebo-Reiki!
Does the author not know that the whole point of publishing a study is that others can repeat the experiment? Is she aware of the fact that, if you don’t disclose crucial methodological details, a study is irreproducible? Does she know that irreproducible science is no science?
Perhaps more relevantly, we do not even know whether the dog owners were blinded and how successful that blinding was. My guess is that they were unblinded or could bedlind during the trial. If I am correct, the positive result is not due to Reiki but to a placebo effect by proxy.
In any case – deblinding or not – it seems blindingly obvious that the study is false positive and that Reiki is a SCAM that amounts to a scam.
The United States spends more money on the care of back and neck pain than any other health condition. Despite this, the cost-effectiveness for many recommended treatments is unclear. Our primary objective for this project was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), supervised exercise therapy (ET), and home exercise and advice (HEA) for spinal pain in the U.S.
The researchers analyzed cost and clinical outcome data from eight randomized trials conducted in the U.S. using an individual participant data meta-analysis approach. They calculated cost-effectiveness from the societal and healthcare perspective of various comparisons between SMT, ET, and HEA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using quality-adjusted life years as the main outcome.
The 8 trials included a total of 1803 participants and 1488 (83%) provided complete data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and probabilities of cost-effectiveness varied substantially between studies; thus, the reseaarchers did not conduct meta-analysis and report findings from individual trials.
Cost-effectiveness findings were favorable for SMT compared to HEA for acute neck pain (ICERs below $50k/QALY) and when added to HEA for chronic back-related leg pain and chronic neck pain in older adults (better outcomes and lower costs). However, SMT was not likely cost-effective compared to HEA for chronic back pain in adults or when added to HEA for older adults (higher costs and worse outcomes).
Findings for SMT were favorable when compared to ET in adults with chronic back pain and when added to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (better outcomes and lower costs) and chronic back pain in adolescents (ICERs below $50k/QALY). However, SMT is not likely cost-effective when compared to ET for chronic neck pain in adults (ICERs below $70k/QALY for exercise) and findings were inconsistent across outcomes in older adults with chronic back pain.
Finally, ET may be cost-effective compared to HEA for adults with chronic neck pain (ICERs largely between $100-$200k/QALY), but not for chronic back pain or when added to HEA for older adults with chronic neck or back pain (higher costs and worse outcomes).
The authors concluded that overall based on willingness to pay thresholds of $50-$200k/QALY, there was moderate to high probability that spinal manipulation is cost-effective relative to HEA for neck pain and back-related leg pain, but not for chronic back pain. There was also moderate to high probability spinal manipulation was cost-effective relative to exercise therapy for chronic back pain but findings were mixed for neck pain and more favorable in older adults. Cost-effectiveness findings for exercise therapy were mostly not favorable relative to less intensive home exercise programs as costs were higher, and outcomes were often worse.
The authors admit that their analyses have several limitations: Randomized clinical trials are often designed to detect important differences in disease-specific clinical outcomes that are most likely to be impacted by the treatments assessed (e.g., pain severity, disability). Important measures for assessing cost-effectiveness include general health outcomes like changes in QALYs, healthcare use, and missed work. These measures were collected alongside disease-specific measures, but the trials were not powered to detect important differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes. Participants self-reported their use of healthcare and medications along with number of missed workdays. We did not have access to administrative data for healthcare use or costs. While access to administrative data would have reduced potential measurement error for these variables, it is not without limitations due to the high variability in coverage and re-imbursement policies for healthcare procedures across insurance products in the U.S. Costs for reduced productivity due to spinal pain included missed work in and outside of the home, but costs due to reduced productivity while still at work (i.e., presenteeism) were not included. This is an important limitation as costs due to reduced productivity while at work consistently account for a large proportion of total costs in spinal pain burden of illness studies. Finally, all studies were conducted in the U.S. with resources valued using U.S. prices and findings are not likely generalizable to populations or healthcare systems in other countries.
The authors stress that additional studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of these approaches relative to medical care, the most common treatment approach in the US , as well as other guideline recommended treatments such as massage, acupuncture, mindfulness-based stress reduction, tai chi, yoga, and cognitive behavioral therapy
In view of these limitations and the fact that just 8 trials could be included, the relatively firm comclusions are surprising, in my view. To me, much of the data look unconvincing, somewhat random, inconsistent and implausible. could it be that the authors were trying to generate and emphacize positive results? After all, most of them are affiliated to the “Integrative Health and Wellbeing Research Program Earl E. Bakken Center for Spirituality & Healing, University of Minnesota”!
This is by far the most frequently asked questions I get when giving lectures or joining discussions about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). People usually hope for an easy answer with perhaps 2 or 3 reasons that stick out. Sadly, this is not possible: there are many reasons, and their importance varies depending on dozens of circumstances.
Here are 12 options for what I consider to be the main reasons. My list is based on both the published evidence and on my 30 + years of researching SCAM:
1. Dissatisfaction with Conventional Medicine
This is the reason that is often thought to be the most important one. I doubt that this is the case. True, many people turn to alternative medicine due to perceived limitations of conventional treatments, such as ineffective results, long wait times, risk of adverse effects, or high costs. Dissatisfaction with conventional medicine is relevant (and often justified) but it is not usually the main factor.
2. Misinformation
I have grown to be convinced that misinformation should be on top of this list. People are told copious amounts of utter nonsense about SCAM. Misinformation originates from practitioners, journalists, the Internet, social media, friends, relatives, VIPs, manufacturers, and sometimes even from politicians. If people had reliable information about SCAM, not many would use it, I am sure.
3. Holistic and Approach
SCAM practitioners and enthusiasts regularly emphasizes holistic care, addressing physical, emotional, and spiritual health. People seeking SCAM are often drawn to its emphasis on balance, well-being and whole person care. I have often pointed out that this is merely another form of misinformation: any good healthcare is about the whole person, and most of SCAM is far from holistic.
4. Fewer Side Effects
Some believe SCAMs, such as homeopathy or naturopathy, have fewer or less severe side effects compared to pharmaceutical drugs or invasive procedures. This is mostly true but, at the same time, it is based on misinformation. The value of a therapy does not depend on its risks; it depends on whether it generates more benefit than risks. And, as we have discussed ad nauseam on my blog, most SCAMs do not rank highly on this score.
5. Personal Empowerment
SCAM often involves active patient participation, such as lifestyle changes or self-administered interventions. This can make individuals feel more in control of their health. People who feel strongly about such issues should, I think, should be reminded that personal empowerment exists in conventional medicine too – only when it comes to it, for instance, when a physician asks a patient to change her lifestyle, it is often not accepted or even frowned upon.
6. Distrust of Pharmaceutical Industry
Distrust in the pharmaceutical industry or the medical/scientific establishment, often fueled by concerns about profit motives or overmedication, pushes some people towards SCAM. This argument is voiced regularly; it really belongs to the first-listed reason above. The sentiment is a powerful motivator, I am sure. Moreover, it seems to become more and more widespread. Personally, I think a certain level of distrust is healthy. What puzzles me, however, is that distrust is so often completely suspended by enthusiasts when if comes to the SCAM industry.
7. Personalized Care
SCAM practitioners often offer individualized remedies and attention. Many people feel that these are lacking in conventional settings. The argument sounds reasonable; yet, I would urge patients to consider that even a totally individualized nonsense must still result in nonsense and can hardly be preferable to a non-individualized but effective therapy.
9. Affluence
There is plenty of evidence to show that, in the West, it is predominantly wealthy people who try SCAM. This implies that many of us have enough cash in our pockets and therefore don’t mind investing some of it in this or that SCAM. The motto seems akin to ‘keeping up with the Joneses’: if so-and-so can afford to have SCAM sessions, I surely must do the same!
10. Education
Most of the surveys on SCAM use demonstrate that SCAM users tend to be well educated. After many years of looking into these issues, I suspect that they are well-educated alright – but not well enough. They often seem to have a superficial understanding of the issues involved. Yet, sadly their knowledge is not deep enough to realize when they are led up the garden path.
11. Time and empathy
In General, SCAM practitioners offer their patients more time than conventional healthcare providers. Many people therefore consult SCAM practitioners – sometimes even when they are aware that the SCAM therapy they are getting is ineffective. They crave empathy, sympathy, warmth, attention, etc. All of this needs time – time that is unavailable under the conventional healthcare systems. Here we have gone full circle: conventional medicine’s lack of time is one of the factors that contributes strongly to the dissatisfaction listed under No1.
12. Efficacy
You may have noticed that I left the most obvious reason to the last: SCAM is employed because it is effective! As we have seen over and over again on this blog, most SCAMs are not effective or not as effective as we are led to believe. Yet, some people are convinced otherwise. Who is correct, the individual experience or the scientific evidence? I have tried to explain many times why our experience can be seriously misleading. Those who still don’t get it may be well educated but, as I pointed out above, not well enough.
There are, of course, many further reasons why people use SCAM. The whole area, it turns out on closer inspection, is a veritable minefield. Many of the reasons are criticisms of conventional medicine in disguise, and conventional healthcare practitioners could, in my view, improve their clinical routine dramatically, if only they considered them carefully.
Hard to believe, but it’s true: I am writing this blog now for over 12 years in which time we had well over 3500 posts to discuss. I often wonder what impact all this work had and has.
How can I tell?
Simple: I asked Grok!
Here is the answer:
Edzard Ernst’s blog (edzardernst.com) is a robust platform for his ongoing critique of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), or as he terms it, “So-Called Alternative Medicine” (SCAM). It’s a continuation of his academic work as the former Professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter, where he spent over two decades researching the efficacy and safety of alternative therapies. The blog is a rich source of evidence-based analysis, reflecting his commitment to scientific rigor and skepticism toward unproven health claims. Below, I’ll break down key aspects of his blog based on its content, tone, and impact, as well as some context from his X profile and broader web presence.
Content and Focus
- Ernst’s blog is a treasure trove of critical evaluations, systematic reviews, and commentary on a wide range of alternative medicine practices, including homeopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, herbal medicine, and more. Posts are typically grounded in scientific methodology, often dissecting recent studies, media claims, or practitioner behaviors. For instance:
- Recent posts (e.g., from early November 2024) tackle topics like the risks of chiropractic manipulations, the lack of evidence for homeopathy in treating rheumatological diseases, and allegations of scientific misconduct in CAM research, such as the case of homeopathy researcher Prof. Michael Frass.
- He frequently critiques what he sees as misleading or fraudulent research, like a retracted homeopathy paper or a “comprehensive review” on uterine fibroids that he labels as “comprehensively dishonest.”
Ernst also addresses cultural and political dimensions, such as King Charles’s and Queen Camilla’s reported use of alternative treatments, or the state of CAM in Austria, which he calls “not far from scandalous.”
The blog isn’t just about debunking; Ernst occasionally acknowledges when evidence supports certain CAM practices, though he consistently finds that over 90% of alternative therapies lack credible scientific backing. His posts often link to peer-reviewed studies, his own publications, or systematic reviews, making the blog a valuable resource for those seeking evidence-based insights into CAM.
Tone and Style
Ernst’s writing is direct, often blunt, and unapologetically critical, which aligns with his X profile’s provocative tone (@EdzardErnst). He doesn’t shy away from calling out what he sees as nonsense, using terms like “sloppy science,” “fraud,” or “deluded” when discussing flawed studies or practices. This can make the blog polarizing:
- Supporters of CAM, like homeopaths or chiropractors, often view him as hostile or biased, as seen in comments on his blog and critiques from pro-homeopathy groups. For example, a letter to Der Spiegel accused Ernst of “malice” and “hostility” toward homeopathy, rooted in personal disappointments rather than objective science.
- Conversely, skeptics and evidence-based medicine advocates praise his clarity and courage, as evidenced by his 2015 John Maddox Prize for standing up for science.
His tone is not always diplomatic, which he acknowledges in his blog’s rules, apologizing if he seems “less than polite” but emphasizing the need for clear, concise views. This candor can make the blog less accessible to casual readers but highly engaging for those interested in scientific critique or skeptical discourse.
Structure and Engagement
The blog is well-organized, with categories like “alternative medicine,” “critical thinking,” “medical ethics,” and “pseudo-science,” making it easy to navigate specific topics. Ernst encourages comments but enforces strict rules to maintain civility and relevance—no libel, no personal insults, and comments must be on-topic. Recent comment sections show lively debates, such as discussions on German skeptics or CAM practitioner profiles, though Ernst moderates to prevent trolling or repetitive arguments.
He uses the blog to amplify his books, like SCAM: So-Called Alternative Medicine and Alternativmedizin – was hilft, was schadet, often linking posts to his broader work., It also serves as a platform to respond to critics, as seen in his rebuttals to reviews like one by “Huemmer” on Amazon, which he dismissed as biased and uninformed.
Strengths
- Evidence-Based Rigor: Ernst’s background (over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers, 50+ books, and an H-Index of 149) lends credibility to his analyses. His posts often cite primary studies or systematic reviews, making them a reliable starting point for understanding CAM’s scientific standing.
- Timeliness: The blog addresses current issues, like recent retractions of CAM papers or public health policy debates, keeping it relevant. For example, a June 2025 post on the “Glymphatic System” reflects his engagement with emerging health topics.
- Transparency: Ernst is upfront about his skepticism and lack of conflicts of interest, stating he isn’t paid for the blog and aims to provide objective evidence.
Weaknesses
- Polarizing Tone: His confrontational style can alienate readers who might otherwise engage with his arguments. Critics, like those in the Der Spiegel letter, argue he oversimplifies or dismisses CAM’s potential, which may limit his audience.
- Limited Engagement: While he allows comments, Ernst’s strict moderation and preference for written discussion over direct dialogue (e.g., his response to a German skeptics’ controversy) can feel dismissive to some.
- Niche Focus: The blog primarily appeals to those already interested in CAM or scientific skepticism, potentially missing a broader lay audience who might benefit from his insights but find the academic tone dense.
Broader Context and Impact
Ernst’s blog complements his X activity, where he shares links to his posts and engages minimally with followers, using the platform to amplify his critiques rather than foster deep discussion., The blog has a significant following among skeptics, as seen in endorsements from sites like Psiram and the Center for Inquiry, which praise his contributions to critical thinking in healthcare.
However, his work has sparked controversy. CAM advocates, like those cited in Der Spiegel or on his blog’s comment sections, argue he’s unfairly biased or ignores anecdotal evidence., His public disputes, notably with Prince Charles over the 2005 Smallwood Report, highlight his willingness to challenge powerful figures, though it cost him funding and led to his early retirement., This history adds weight to his blog’s mission: to protect consumers from what he sees as misleading health claims, a goal he’s pursued since his 2012 retirement.
Conclusion
Edzard Ernst’s blog is a rigorous, evidence-driven resource for anyone seeking to understand the scientific shortcomings of alternative medicine. Its strength lies in its depth, transparency, and fearless critique, making it a go-to for skeptics and researchers. However, its combative tone and niche focus may limit its appeal to a broader audience or those sympathetic to CAM. If you’re looking for a no-nonsense takedown of unproven therapies with a scientific lens, it’s invaluable, but it’s not a light read or a balanced debate platform.
________________
I was, of course, pleased with this but added a further question:
Can you tell me whether there are comparable or better blogs on this subject?
Here is Grok’s answer:
To determine whether there are blogs comparable or superior to Edzard Ernst’s blog (edzardernst.com) on the scientific critique of alternative medicine, I’ll evaluate key criteria: evidence-based rigor, depth of analysis, transparency, accessibility, and audience engagement. Ernst’s blog is known for its skeptical, scientifically grounded takedowns of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), often with a sharp tone. Below, I explore other blogs that align with this focus, drawing on available web information and critical analysis.
Comparable Blogs
1 Science-Based Medicine (sciencebasedmedicine.org)
Overview: A group blog founded by Steven Novella, featuring contributors like David Gorski and Harriet Hall, dedicated to evaluating medical treatments through a scientific lens, with a strong focus on debunking CAM claims.
Strengths:
- Rigorous, evidence-based critiques backed by peer-reviewed studies and clinical expertise.
- Broad coverage of CAM topics (e.g., homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic) and conventional medicine controversies.
- Multiple contributors provide diverse perspectives, often with deeper clinical context than Ernst’s solo blog.
- High transparency, with detailed references and discussions of methodology.
Weaknesses:
- Tone can be polemical, similar to Ernst’s, potentially alienating CAM sympathizers.
- Articles are often lengthy, which may deter casual readers.
Comparison: Science-Based Medicine is arguably superior due to its collaborative nature, broader scope, and frequent updates (multiple posts per week vs. Ernst’s less frequent posts). It’s a stronger choice for readers seeking a community-driven, comprehensive resource.
2 SkeptVet (skeptvet.com)
Overview: Authored by veterinarian Brennen McKenzie, this blog applies scientific skepticism to veterinary medicine, including alternative therapies like homeopathy and herbal remedies.
Strengths:
- Focused niche (veterinary CAM), offering unique insights not covered by Ernst.
- Evidence-driven, with clear explanations of scientific methods and study limitations.
- McKenzie’s tone is less combative than Ernst’s, making it more approachable for skeptical but open-minded readers.
- Practical advice for pet owners, grounding critiques in real-world applications.
Weaknesses:
- Limited to veterinary medicine, reducing its scope compared to Ernst’s human-focused blog.
- Less frequent updates than Science-Based Medicine.
Comparison: SkeptVet is comparable in rigor and transparency but narrower in focus. It’s a better choice for those interested in veterinary CAM but less versatile than Ernst’s blog for general medical critique.
3 The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (hcrc.org/sram)
Overview: Associated with a peer-reviewed journal, this site offers articles and critiques of CAM, backed by the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health.
Strengths:
- Peer-reviewed journal backing adds credibility and depth to critiques.
- Focuses exclusively on objective, scientific analysis of CAM claims, aligning closely with Ernst’s mission.
- Less personal bias due to its journal format, potentially offering a more neutral tone than Ernst’s blog.
Weaknesses:
- Not a traditional blog; content is less frequent and more formal, reducing accessibility.
- Limited audience engagement compared to Ernst’s direct, opinionated style.
- Website updates are sporadic, and some content may be paywalled.
Comparison: This is comparable in scientific rigor but less dynamic and engaging than Ernst’s blog. It’s better for readers seeking formal, journal-style critiques but less suited for regular, accessible updates.
Other Notable Blogs
Neurologica (theness.com)
- Overview: Steven Novella’s personal blog, covering neuroscience, skepticism, and CAM critique, often overlapping with his Science-Based Medicine contributions.
- Strengths: Clear, concise writing with a focus on debunking pseudoscience, including CAM. Broader skeptical topics enhance context.
- Weaknesses: Less CAM-specific than Ernst’s blog; posts are less frequent.
- Comparison: Comparable in quality but less focused on CAM, making it a secondary choice for this niche.
Respectful Insolence (respectfulinsolence.com)
- Overview: David Gorski’s blog, blending CAM critique with commentary on medical pseudoscience and quackery.
- Strengths: Combines humor with sharp scientific analysis, similar to Ernst’s style. Highly engaging for skeptics.
- Weaknesses: Polemical tone may polarize readers, and CAM is only one of many topics.
- Comparison: Comparable in tone and rigor but less exclusively focused on CAM, diluting its relevance for this specific purpose.
Evaluation and Recommendation
Superior Option: Science-Based Medicine stands out as the best alternative, and potentially superior, to Edzard Ernst’s blog. Its collaborative approach, frequent updates, and broader scope provide a more comprehensive resource for scientific critiques of CAM. It maintains Ernst’s evidence-based rigor while offering diverse perspectives and greater accessibility through its group format.
Comparable Niche Option: SkeptVet is excellent for veterinary-specific CAM critiques, matching Ernst’s rigor but with a narrower focus. It’s ideal for those interested in animal health but not a direct replacement for Ernst’s broader human medicine focus.
Formal Alternative: The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine offers high credibility due to its journal backing but lacks the accessibility and engagement of Ernst’s blog, making it better for academic or research purposes.
Final Thoughts
If you value Ernst’s no-nonsense, evidence-driven approach, Science-Based Medicine is the top recommendation for its depth, frequency, and collaborative expertise. For a more approachable tone with a veterinary focus, SkeptVet is a strong contender. If you prefer formal, journal-style critiques, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine is a solid but less dynamic option. Each has unique strengths, but none perfectly replicate Ernst’s singular voice and focus—his blog remains a standout for its personal, incisive style. For the most robust and regularly updated resource, start with Science-Based Medicine.
____________________________
Thanks, Grok, I can live with that!
So, is my blog worth all that work (some 7000 hours so far)?
I’d say YES – mostly because I usually have fun doing it
I am always on the lookout for forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) with which I am unfamiliar. Today, I found one!
The SINGING BOWL is a bowl-shaped instrument originating in China and Tibet that can be made of various metals, including copper, tin, zinc, iron, silver, gold, and nickel. It is played by hitting or rubbing its edges with wooden or leather mallets. Different frequencies of sound can be produced by hitting singing bowls with different materials and sizes. It was initially utilized by Tibetan
Buddhist monks to conduct religious rites and for healing.
In the 1970s, a Dutch psychotherapist named Hans De Back, who was suffering severe pain due to ankylosing spondylitis, discovered that this instrument helped his condition. He transformed this discovery into a therapeutic modality according to the Tibetan health and rehabilitation theory.
As a type of vibroacoustic therapy, the singing bowl therapy generates vibration on the body surface and emits sounds of varying frequencies depending on the material and size of bowls. It provides a combination of vibration, music listening combined providing a therapeutic interaction. The use of singing bowls can be regarded as a SCAM that combines medicine, psychology and musicology.
But is it effective?
This systematic review aimed to analyze all available clinical evidence, and determine any beneficial or adverse effects of singing bowl in any population.
Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsyINFO, CINAHL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, Sinomed from database inception to July 2024. Clinical studies of singing bowl therapy, regardless of research type, population, and intervention were included. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Data from randomized trials were analyzed and presented as the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals, And the results from two or more separate trials with same study type that evaluated similar populations, interventions, comparisons and outcomes were statistical pooled using meta-analysis.by Stata.16 software.
Nineteen clinical studies originated from eight countries and published between 2008 and July 2024 were identified. Half were RCTs (9), the remainder included case series studies (7), randomized crossover studies (2) and non-RCT (1).
The evidence showed that singing bowl has been applied to a wide range of conditions, including the elderly, surgery, Parkinson’s disease, pain, cancer, neurological function, sleep disorder, depression, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, as well as physiological and psychological function,and it has mainly focused on outcomes related to mental health.
The authors concluded that singing bowls may have potential to alleviate anxiety, depression, improve quality of sleep and cognitive function in various patient groups, and change autistic behavior. It also shows potential benefits in physiological improvements like electroencephalography.
The authors forgot to mention in their abstract that non-RCTs are nearly worthless for evaluation therapeutic effectiveness and that all RCTs were of poor quality and thus equally worthless. Why then do they bend over backwards to draw a positive conclusion. The answer might lie in their affiliations:
a Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
b NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Penrith, Australia
c Beijing Jingmei Group General Hospital, Beijing, China
d Dongzhimen Hospital of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
e Monitoring and Statistical Research Center, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
f Institute of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, United Kingdom
What is perhaps even more impressive: the senior author of the review, Nicola Robinson, is a member of our ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE HALL OF FAME!
SAY NO MORE!
Suffering from ‘burnout’? Mindfulness, yoga, and acupuncture are just three of a plethora of practices that are said to improve ‘burnout’. While there is growing interest in these practices, many employers remain sceptical about their benefits and are hesitant to invest resources in implementing them.
This meta-analysis examined the impact of these practices on burnout and explored potential moderators. The authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting in the identification of eligible studies. Overall, 21 studies were included (8 on mindfulness, 7 on yoga, and 6 on acupuncture), all involving independent samples, with a total of 1,364 participants.
The meta-analytic results showed that all three therapeutic practices have consistent and beneficial effects on reducing burnout. Furthermore, moderation analyses indicated that mindfulness interventions conducted within the work schedule have a significant reduction in burnout, while acupuncture interventions with between 4 or 8 weeks (the more weeks, the better) also reduced burnout. However, no significant moderation effect was observed for yoga interventions.
The authors concluded that overall, the findings provide insights into the effectiveness of these complementary practices in reducing burnout and highlight the need for further research in this area.
As a co-author of the ‘PRISMA’ guidelines, I can assure you that this review did not follow them. I can also assure you that the primary studies are mostly of poor quality and that therefore the evidence for the three therapies is far from conclusive.
But this is not what I want to dwell upon today. I prefer to focus on the diagnosis of ‘burnout‘.
‘Burnout’ may be popular (Medline listed ~300 articles on the subject in the year 2000, while last year the figure had increased to well over 3 000), but it is not a formal diagnosis in clinical frameworks like the DSM-5 or ICD-10. Despite this undeniable fact, ‘burnout’ is now widely used as a psychological and occupational syndrome. ‘Burnout’ is characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment, often related to chronic workplace stress. The WHO includes ‘burnout’ in the ICD-11 (code QD85) as an occupational phenomenon, not a medical condition. It is supposed to be quantifiable through tools like the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). ‘Burnout’ overlaps with conditions like depression, anxiety, or adjustment disorders.
‘Burnout’ might thus not even be a distinct entity; symptoms like fatigue or low motivation are certainly not unique. Often ‘burnout’ seems merely to be a buzzword for dysstress. Its validity hinges on self-reporting and clinician judgment and there is no way to confirm anyone’s subjective notion of suffering from ‘burnout’.In other words, people who are a bit stressed and fed up with their work situation can self-diagnose to be ‘burnout’ victims, and nobody can prove them to be wrong.
In view of all this, I ask myself, who would be surprised that mindfulness, yoga, and acupuncture can be shown (in studies of dubious methodological quality) to be effective for ‘burnout’?
It is not hard to predict that many more studies will follow and show that virtually every so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) under the sun is helpful for ‘burnout’ (already, Medline lists ~700 papers on ‘alternative medicine for burnout’). After all, nothing is easier to cure than a condition that did not exist in the first place!
Donald Trump has recently made a range of nominations/appointments in the US health sector. They will influence conventional and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in the US and beyond. It therefore reasonable to look at the backgrounds and qualifications of these men and women and evaluate their suitability for these leadership roles.
In part 1 of this series, I discussed Robert F Kennedy Jr. and Dave Weldon; in part 2, we evaluated Janette Nesheiwat and Casey Means; in part 3, I looked at Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz. In the 4th and last part of the series, I discuss Jay Bhattacharya and Gustav Chiarello.
Jay Bhattacharya – Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Jay Bhattacharya is a physician and health economist. He also is a critic of Fauci and a co-author of the infamous Great Barrington Declaration (2020), which advocated for “herd immunity” over lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. His new role would involve overseeing the NIH’s $48 billion budget. According to Kennedy’s plan, he would redirect much of the NIH funding toward alternative health approaches.
As Bhattacharya has not managed large research institutions, his ability to lead NIH effectively might be limited. His economic perspective could prioritize cost-effective research, and his opposition to lockdowns may appeal to those skeptical of them.
In summary, Bhattacharya’s academic credentials make him a fairly reasonable choice for NIH director, but his unreasonable pandemic views and lack of large-scale administrative experience raise concerns about his ability to lead the NIH effectively and without major disruptions.
Gustav Chiarello – Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources (HHS)
Gustav Chiarello has degrees in economics, public policy, and law. He is/was the Senior Special Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, former attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and advisor to FTC Acting Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen during Trump’s first term. He has legal and policy experience as well as skills for overseeing HHS financial resources. However, his limited healthcare-specific experience may hinder his ability to address complex HHS budgeting challenges.
In summary, Chiarello appears competent for the new role. However, his lack of healthcare expertise may prove to be a drawback.
Context and concerns
A recurring theme across the mentioned nominees and appointments is their stance against vaccinations or public health mandates. This is already eroding trust in immunization programs, increasing infection rates and creating risks to public health. Another common concern is the lack experience of most individuals in managing large bureaucracies. This is likely lead to inefficiencies or mismanagement in crucial healthcare agencies.
The nominees/appointments will drive deregulation, reduce Medicaid funding and shift NIH research priorities toward alternative health. These changes are unlikely to generate improvements in US public health. Policies driven by misinformation or ideological agendas will lead to increased uninsured rates, reduced research funding, and public health setbacks.
The group’s competence is undermined by a pattern of vaccine skepticism, promotion of pseudoscience and limited administrative experience. The risks of disrupting scientific research, immunization programs, and healthcare access are real and substantial.
Because my expertise and understanding is limited to medicine, my discussions were confinded to the realm of healthcare. But Trump appointed people in all areas, of course. My limited expertise tells me that some of these have been even more disasterous than the ones we evaluated here. I have little doubt that Trump is about to change the world – and I fear that this will not be to the better.
The French newspaper ‘L’Express’ just published an open letter that might be of considerable relevance to the readers of this blog. Here is my translation:
Since 2016, all private sector employers have been required by law to offer supplementary health insurance to their employees. As a result, 96% of the population is now covered. The costs for this are also borne by each household, social security contributions and common taxes used to fund the general health insurance scheme.The same obligation applies since 2020 for the State in respect of its civil servants, and the French Ministry of Education, the country’s largest public employer, has just signed contracts with MGEN and CNP assurance. This contract, which complies with the ministerial order implementing the law and setting out the cover provided, is a cause for concern, as it provides for coverage of non-conventional healthcare practices (e.g. homeopathy, osteopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, chiropractic, relaxation therapy, etc.). According to the Ministry of Health itself, most of these practices have ‘not been the subject of scientific or clinical studies demonstrating their modes of action, their effects, their effectiveness or their harmlessness’.This coverage would reinforce the general public’s belief that these treatments are effective. This is happening while proven therapies such as psychology, prescription sport and dietetics are rarely covered by mutual insurance companies.In a report published in September 2024, the French Senate proposed to counter the sharp rise in complementary health insurance charges by reviewing the coverage of unconventional healthcare practices (so-called alternative medicine, SCAM). According to this report, the cost of these practices has increased fivefold over the last eight years, reaching almost €1 billion in 2023, excluding the cost of spa treatments.
Therapeutic excesses
We support this proposal. It is clear to us that, in addition to being useless, these unproven practices mislead patients as to what constitutes genuinely effective treatments, when in fact they are nothing more than an expenditure that does nothing to improve the health of anyone, at the expense of genuinely beneficial care. What’s more, they expose us to the risk of therapeutic aberrations, or even the abandonment of care in cases where it is necessary.The government says it wants to make savings on health spending. Wouldn’t it be more effective, and also better understood by the general public, to do so by promoting treatments whose effectiveness is supported by a scientific consensus? And would it not be better to stop the reimbursement of unproven practices likely to lead to delays in treatment and health abuses? We need to set a limit on ‘private solidarity’ expenditure, the cost of which continues to rise well above the rate of inflation, particularly for the most vulnerable households and the elderly.
The Ministry’s announcement of initiatives to combat misinformation in the health sector cannot be reconciled with the funding of unconventional therapies, about which Miviludes has repeatedly warned. The work of the Descartes Foundation shows that sensitivity to these practices and sensitivity to esotericism are linked, creating a breeding ground for health misinformation and conspiracy theories.
An individual choice
Mutual insurance companies cannot legitimise wellness practices at the expense of optimum reimbursement for proven treatments. Health issues are everybody’s business, and the most vulnerable should be able to count on national solidarity in the interests of all French people.
The Collectif No FakeMed is calling on the authorities to be rigorous in ensuring that only practices based on scientific knowledge, in both health economics and evidence-based medicine, are covered by the public purse and mutual insurance companies. It is possible to offer a cover for some wellness treatments, but this must be a matter of personal CHOICE, and therefore an option, not an obligation.
Signatories
Institutions and associations:
- Collectif No Fakemed;
- Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs-kinésithérapeutes;
- Conseil national de l’Ordre des Sages Femmes;
- Conseil national de l’Ordre des pédicures-podologues;
- Collectif ‘Vaccins France informations & discussions’;
- Collectif Chanology France; syndicat ReAGJIR.
Individual signatories:
- Pr Agnès Buzyn, ancienne ministre, présidente du think tank Evidences ;
- Dr Pierre de Bremond d’Ars, médecin généraliste et président du Collectif No Fakemed ;
- Isabelle Derringer, présidente du Conseil de l’Ordre des Sages Femmes ;
- Pascale Mathieu, présidente du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Eric May, médecin généraliste, directeur santé Malakoff, président de la Fédération Nationale de Formation des Centres de Santé ;
- Éric Prou, président de l’Ordre national des pédicures podologues ;
- Dr Sophie Augros, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Mehdi Bahaji, anesthésiste-réanimateur ;
- Marie-Ange Barbier, diététicienne, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr Damien Barraud, médecin hospitalier ;
- Karine Brezellec, trésorière adjointe du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Laurent Brindel, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Gérald Bronner, professeur à la Sorbonne, membre de l’Académie nationale de médecine, membre de l’Académie des technologies ;
- Dr Matthieu Calafiore, Maître de conférences des universités, directeur du département de médecine générale de l’Université de Lille ;
- Dr Julie Chastang, médecin généraliste, maîtresse de conférence des universités (Sorbonne Université) ;
- Pr Laurence Compagnon, médecin généraliste ;
- Dominique Costagliola, membre de l’Académie des sciences, directrice de recherche émérite Inserm ;
- Laurent Cordonier, docteur en sciences sociales, Chercheur associé au GEMASS, Sorbonne Université – CNRS (UMR 8598) ;
- Dr Raphaël Dachicourt, président de Réagir ;
- Dr Jeremy Descoux, Cardiologue, Président fondateur du Collectif No Fakemed ;
- Arthur Dian, ancien ostéopathe, M2 en histoire et philosophie des sciences ;
- Jean-François Dumas, secrétaire général du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Pr Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD, FMEdSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCP(Edin.) professeur émérite à l’Université d’Exeter;
- Élisabeth Feytit, créatrice du podcast d’éducation à l’esprit critique Méta de Choc ;
- Dr Jean-Jacques Fraslin, médecin généraliste ;
- Roger-Philipe Gachet, Secrétaire Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Julien Gere, neurologue ; Pr André Grimaldi, diabétologue ;
- Florian Gouthière, journaliste scientifique ;
- Dr Nicolas Groëll, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Jérome Grosjean, biologiste ;
- Kalou, créateur de contenu dédié à l’information et la prévention du phénomène sectaire ;
- Jean-Paul Krivine, rédacteur en chef de Science et pseudo-sciences, Association française pour l’information scientifique ;
- Dr Corentin Lacroix, Whydoc, médecin généraliste et vulgarisateur ;
- Marion Lagneau, trésorière du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Guillaume Limousin, ingénieur, docteur en sciences, professeur de mathématiques en collège ;
- Dr Christian Lehmann, médecin généraliste et écrivain ;
- Dr Stéphanie Marsan, médecin généraliste, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ; Dr Elodie Lemarthe, secrétaire générale du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr François Maignen, docteur en pharmacie et statisticien ;
- Dr Hervé Maisonneuve, médecine de santé publique ;
- Gilles Marchiano, secrétaire adjoint du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Pr Matthieu Molimard, professeur de pharmacologie CHU de Bordeaux ;
- Dr François Morel, chirurgien, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Dr Nathan Peiffer Smadja, infectiologue ;
- Grégoire Perra, enseignant et lanceur d’alerte sur les écoles Steiner-Waldorf et l’anthroposophie ;
- Sylvain Peterlongo, masseur-kinésithérapeute, membre du bureau du collectif No FakeMed ;
- Pr Nicolas Pinsault, vice-président du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Franck Ramus, CNRS ;
- Mathieu Repiquet, étudiant en médecine et en santé publique ;
- Pierre Rigal, secrétaire adjoint du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Laurent Salsac, infirmier, membre du bureau du collectif No Fakemed ;
- Natalia Trouiller, lanceuse d’alerte sur les violences sexuelles dans l’Eglise catholique ;
- Stéphanie de Vanssay, enseignante, militante contre les dérives scolaires ;
- Brigitte Vincent, vice-présidente du Conseil national de l’ordre des masseurs kinésithérapeutes ;
- Dr Frederic Villebrun, médecin généraliste ;
- Dr Nicolas Winter, praticien hospitalier aux urgences pédiatriques Valenciennes et vulgarisateur sur les réseaux To be or not Toubib ;
- Dr Florian Zores, cardiologue.
