WHO
Trump and his allies have produced many claims that experts have flagged as false, misleading, or dangerously unscientific. Below is a (probably incomplete) selection:
- In April 2020, Trump suggested during a press briefing that scientists explore whether injecting or “bringing disinfectant inside the body” could treat COVID‑19. Medical experts immediately warned that this would be dangerous or lethal.
- At the same briefing, he also floated the idea of “hitting the body with a very powerful light,” including using UV light inside the body to kill the virus, a suggestion that clinicians stressed had no scientific basis and could be harmful.
- Throughout 2020, Trump repeatedly claimed the virus would “just disappear” like a “miracle,” even as case counts and deaths surged.
- He heavily promoted hydroxychloroquine as a “game changer” long after clinical trials had shown it to be ineffective against COVID‑19 and associated with serious adverse effects.
- In February 2020, Trump claimed the number of COVID‑19 cases in the US would soon be “down to close to zero.”
- Trump frequently claimed that COVID‑19 was “just like the flu,” despite the fact that its mortality rate and impact on health systems were substantially higher.
- In late 2025 and early 2026, the Trump administration falsely claimed that acetaminophen use during pregnancy was linked to a much higher risk of autism, despite the lack of clear evidence and warnings from experts that this messaging was misleading.
- The administration also promoted leucovorin as a treatment for autism, a claim that has little robust evidence and is not supported by mainstream medical guidelines.
- Following the appointment of RFK Jr. to HHS in late 2024, federal vaccine guidance was rolled back in several areas, including flu recommendations for some groups and changes to how RSV and other vaccines were positioned. This created confusion and encouraged a further “decoupling” of some state health policies from traditional CDC guidance.
- Trump has claimed that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, a statement that has no credible scientific basis.
- Trump has claimed that sea levels will rise by only “1/8 of an inch over the next 200 to 300 years,” contradicting widely accepted projections that show substantially higher rise even over the next 30 years along US coasts.
- Trump has also claimed that the human body is like a battery with a finite amount of energy, and that exercise is harmful because it “depletes” that energy, a view that runs counter to mainstream physiology and public‑health guidance.
- Trump claimed that drinking fizzy diet soda “kills cancer cells” because the drinks kill grass when spilt, implying they might do the same to cancer inside the body.
- In 2026, Dr. Mehmet Oz, as head of CMS, falsely claimed that 5 million New Yorkers were using Medicaid personal‑care services—nearly 75% of all enrolees—when the actual figure is far lower.
- RFK Jr. has spent decades claiming that thimerosal, a mercury‑based preservative in some vaccines, causes autism. Thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines in 2001 as a precaution, yet autism rates continued to rise, and large studies have found no causal link.
- RFK Jr. frequently claims that no vaccines have ever been tested against a true saline placebo. In fact, many vaccines have been tested against saline placebos in clinical trials, and others were tested against earlier versions or standard care, in line with evolving ethical standards.
- RFK Jr. pushed for the removal of fluoride from all US water systems, falsely labelling it an “industrial waste” and a key cause of lower IQ, bone fractures, and cancer, despite the bulk of evidence supporting its safety and dental benefits at standard levels.
- RFK Jr. has also falsely claimed that polyunsaturated fats such as canola or soybean oil are toxic and the primary driver of obesity and inflammation in America, a view that contradicts large‑scale dietary and epidemiological data.
- RFK Jr. has falsely claimed that WiFi causes “leaky brain” and that 5G is a tool for mass surveillance and causes cancer, assertions that have no support from mainstream science.
- RFK Jr. has become an advocate for the federal legalisation of raw milk, downplaying the risks of Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. Yet pasteurization remains a cornerstone of public‑health measures to prevent foodborne illness.
- RFK Jr. has wrongly suggested a link between the use of SSRIs and the rise in mass shootings, a claim not supported by credible data.
- Janette Nesheiwat (JN), a Fox News contributor and Trump’s nominee for US Surgeon General, withdrew her nomination in May 2025 following allegations that she had significantly misrepresented her credentials. Her official bio and LinkedIn profile claimed she received her medical degree from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; in fact she attended the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St. Maarten.
- JN repeatedly described herself as “double board‑certified,” but investigators found verified certification only in family medicine.
- Casey Means (CM), Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General, is a Stanford‑educated physician who left surgical residency before completion and whose medical license has been inactive since 2019. She has not practiced clinical medicine in years and has limited experience overseeing large‑scale public‑health systems.
- CM has built a profile as a health‑tech entrepreneur and co‑founder of Levels, promoting “functional medicine” and the MAHA movement.
- CM has made strong claims that continuous glucose monitoring and metabolic optimization can prevent or “cure” a wide range of modern diseases, a view that overstates the evidence and oversimplifies complex chronic conditions.
As indicated in the title of this post: if you waant to say healthy, it is wise to ignore the incompetent president and his equally incompetent cronies.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has, for many years, promoted claims that contradict established scientific consensus and common sense. Although he often frames his arguments as skepticism towards ‘the establishment’, his positions consistently conflict with the findings of sound science. This has led to widespread criticism from skeptics, scientists, physicians, and public health officials who argue that his rhetoric is steeped in misinformation.
The most prominent example is his long-standing insistence that vaccines cause autism, a claim that has been exhaustively studied and repeatedly disproven. Extensive epidemiological research involving millions of children across multiple countries has found no causal link between vaccination and autism, a conclusion affirmed by organizations such as the CDC and the WHO.
Kennedy has also continued to emphasize theories about mercury-based vaccine preservatives long after those substances were removed from most childhood vaccines, despite autism diagnosis rates continuing to rise—an outcome that directly contradicts his hypothesis and is not supported by sound evidence.
Recently his rejection of scientific consensus also expanded into the COVID-19 era. He characterized COVID vaccines as uniquely dangerous, suggested they could alter human DNA, and implied that public health agencies were concealing mass harm. These claims stand in overt contrast to real-world data from billions of administered doses, which show that serious adverse effects are rare and that vaccination dramatically reduces severe illness and death.
Similar patterns of misinformation appear in his claims about wireless technologies like 5G, which he has linked to immune suppression or cancer despite the well-established fact that such signals are non-ionizing and incapable of damaging DNA.
Underlying many of Kennedy’s positions is a recurring narrative that modern disease is primarily driven by hidden toxins and that public health institutions knowingly suppress cures or evidence of harm. While environmental exposures are a legitimate area of scientific study, Kennedy’s sweeping conclusions – often paired with sympathy for “detox” or so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – go far beyond what evidence supports.
In conclusion, Kennedy erodes trust in medicine and science, replacing science with insinuations and conspiracy theories. The outcome of his ‘war on science’ has been a normalization of falsehoods that have been tested, rejected, and shown to be harmful. In a nutshell: Kennedy is a danger to all our health and well-being. The sooner he is replaced, the better for science, progress and global health.
Yesterday, I posted the account of a WHO summit on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). I deliberately abstained from any comment. Yet, the arguments put forward do certainly deserve some critical evaluation. In particular, I feel that this paragraph needs discussing:
The WHO says its Summit on Traditional Medicine is essentially about repeating this sifting process for traditional remedies used in other parts of the world. It aims to apply rigorous scientific analysis to all them in order to properly assess their claimed benefits and potential harms. By 2034, it says, it will publish a definitive list of which traditional treatments work – and which don’t. “Working on traditional medicine doesn’t mean we will use shortcuts or endorse things that are unproven,” Dr Sylvie Briand, the WHO’s Chief Scientist, told The Telegraph at the conference in New Delhi. The aim was first to document what traditional treatments existed around the world “and then see what could be more useful to address the disease of this century”.
To many readers such words (which are voiced regularly) might seem entirely reasonable. Yet, they clearly are not! So, let me pick them apart.
Applying rigorous scientific analysis to all SCAMs in order to properly assess their claimed benefits and potential harms. This plan looks fine – but only if you know little bit about the subject:
- It is obvious that not every nonsensical idea merits proper assessment. Many can be rejected out of hand by simply using common sense. A Peruvian man’s piercing ululation, for instance, might not require scientific testing – or, to put it bluntly, testing nonsense will result in nonsense and is a waste of money.
- It is a demonstrable fact that many other SCAMs have already been assessed properly and most have been found wanting. In my recent book, for example, I have evaluated 202 SCAMs and found only a handfull that pass muster. The problem for the WHO and other such organisations or individuals is not that the evidence is unavailable, but that they elect to ignore it.
- And that leads to a further important point. What the WHO and other organisations or individuals call “to properly assess” might not coincide with what scientists would consider a critical evaluation of the best available evidence. As we have seen with depressing regularity on this blog, biased assessments inevitably result in false-positive conclusions.
By 2034, the WHO will publish a definitive list of which traditional treatments work and which don’t. This might look encouragingly ambitious but it is not. On the conreary, it is discouragingly naive and totally impossible. Let me use just one of the many hundred SCAM modalities, acupuncture, to explain this in more detail:
- There are dozens of different types of acupuncture, e.g. traditional, Western, Korean, Japanese, needle, ear, body, scalp, tongue, electro, etc., etc.
- Acupuncture is touted as a panacea; this means each form of acupuncture would need to be tested in clinical trials of thousands of different conditions.
- Moreover, there are uncounted different treatment schedules with acupuncture.
- Even if rigorous, one trial can never enough for a firm verdict. To make sure that the result of one single trial is not a fluke, we need several independent replications.
- Combining all these imponerabilities would require thousands clinical trials and many decades before one could claim that one has established that this form of acupuncture works for this condition, and that form of acupuncture does not.
- In case the eventual verdict for acupuncture for any given condition is negative, some clever dick would surely emerge and claim, “but, of course, you did not do the test correctly! So, your verdict is mistaken”
- Add to this the fact that hundreds of different SCAM modalities exist and most of them claim to be a cure-all, we would not need a decade but several centuries to arrive at the embarrassingly naive aim of the WHO.
Considering these problems, I fear, that the ‘WHO Summit on Traditional Medicine’ might be full of good will [to be entirely honest, I am not even sure that this is true!] but this and similarly ignorant, naive and promotional initiatives certainly are leading us up an expensive, wasteful and dangerous garden path.
PS
Oh, I almost forgot!
To criticize is easy, some will say.
Why does Ernst not show us how it should be done properly?
How do we arrive at a point where we can say: THIS SCAM WORKS FOR THIS CONDITION, AND THAT SCAM DOES NOT?
The proper way of achieving this goal is to do what we do in all medicine and remember that the onus of proof lies on the shoulders of those who make the therapeutic claim. In other words, if acupuncturists claim that a certian type of acupuncture can effectively treat asthma, for example, let them come up with the evidence! Until the evidence is on the table, the claim should be viewed as unproven which means the treatment cannot be recommended.
Simple!
The WHO says it is sifting the wheat from the chaff in order to save lives – but critics fear it is pandering to India and China; this TELEGRAPH article is worth reading in full; here I will merely quote a few passages from it.
Mongolian shamans beat wicker drums to summon ancestral spirits. A Peruvian man in a headdress unleashes a piercing ululation. And a man from Kentucky tells me the body can rid itself of cancer if you eat the right shrubs. It is a line-up one might expect at the healing field at Glastonbury but this is a conference centre in New Delhi and the event has been organised by the World Health Organization; the WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine. It’s the second gathering of its kind, following an inaugural meeting in Gujarat in 2023, and the three-day event has drawn hundreds of delegates from around the world. Alongside yoga instructors, aromatherapists, Chinese herbal practitioners and a small army of homeopaths, sit senior WHO officials, leading scientists and health ministers from across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Only Gwyneth Paltrow and her wellness website Goop is missing. They are here to “harness the potential” of traditional medicine, a catch-all term for practices that pre-date, and sit outside, modern evidence-based healthcare; therapies that for the most part have long been dismissed as quackery by mainstream science. What counts as “traditional medicine” ranges from drinking herbal teas to Indian Ayurveda, a holistic “wellness system” combining oils, herbs, homeopathy, yoga and meditation to “balance” and “heal” the body. To critics – and there are many – the scene is absurd.
So why is the WHO – a global authority on evidence-based health – giving a platform to this stuff? Has it fallen victim to the seductive power of TikTok-based wellness like so many of the west’s middle classes? Or has it – as some critics allege – been bought off by the traditional medicine super powers of India and China? …
The WHO says its Summit on Traditional Medicine is essentially about repeating this sifting process for traditional remedies used in other parts of the world. It aims to apply rigorous scientific analysis to all them in order to properly assess their claimed benefits and potential harms. By 2034, it says, it will publish a definitive list of which traditional treatments work – and which don’t. “Working on traditional medicine doesn’t mean we will use shortcuts or endorse things that are unproven,” Dr Sylvie Briand, the WHO’s Chief Scientist, told The Telegraph at the conference in New Delhi. The aim was first to document what traditional treatments existed around the world “and then see what could be more useful to address the disease of this century”.
One idea is that some traditional practices like yoga and meditation, while perhaps not offering direct curative benefits, could play an important role in preventative medicine. After all, so-called non-communicable diseases, often caused by lifestyle factors such as poor diet, chronic stress and a lack of exercise are now by far the biggest killers across the globe. “Many traditional systems of medicine take a holistic view and focus on strengthening the person as a whole, not just treating isolated symptoms,” Dr Sung Chol Kim, Unit Head for Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine at the WHO told The Telegraph in Delhi. But others are sceptical. They fear the WHO, which is struggling for funding in the wake of the US leaving the organisation and widespread aid cuts, is simply pandering to India and China where traditional medicine is big business. Even if well intentioned, they worry that the discovery process the WHO has set in motion will end up promoting and legitimising quackery. “I think highly of the WHO. However, by giving a platform to traditional medicine practitioners who promote treatments that are unproven – or even disproven – such as homeopathy, the organisation risks legitimising quackery. That, in my view, is both unethical and irresponsible,” said Dr Edzard Ernst, a British-German academic who specialises in the study of complementary and alternative medicine…
Even within the WHO, there is tension over what is being platformed at the summit. One senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described homeopathy … as “complete nonsense”. “There is not one shred of evidence anywhere, absolutely anywhere, that suggests it works,” the official said, while acknowledging pressure to engage rather than alienate powerful member states. Dr Ernst, the British-German academic, said: “Many experts are puzzled by this attitude. The most likely explanation is that the WHO is bowing to political will instead of science.” ….
Globally, an estimated 4.6 billion people already use some form of traditional medicine. In sub-Saharan Africa, millions rely on traditional healers as their first – and sometimes only – point of care. Its use can delay access to appropriate treatment, and some practices have been linked to the spread of disease. This week, 41 people were reported to have died after undergoing rituals to initiate them into manhood in South Africa, a central part of which involves unsafe and brutal circumcisions. Another example, common in places like Uganda, Benin, and Burkina Faso, includes small skin incisions into which herbs are rubbed – sometimes referred to as “vaccinations” – increasing the risk of HIV transmission through the reuse of razors and knives. Efforts to regulate practitioners are underway, but progress remains slow. Malawi’s Minister for Health and Sanitation, Madalitso Baloyi, said her government wants clear guidance from the WHO. “As a Ministry, we want to ensure [traditional remedies] are tested and quality checked,” she told The Telegraph. She added that, at the moment, traditional medicine is being done “behind closed doors”, and that the WHO process would help bring it into the open where it can be better monitored.
Yet the WHO seems undeterred. “Some traditional remedies will probably be found to be really active and really useful. Others will just be a placebo – for example, you feel better when you drink tea,” said Dr Reeder. The WHO argues that investing in traditional medicine could also help tackle the leading killers of the 21st century: non-communicable diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and mental illness. Holistic approaches to wellness incorporating exercise, a more considered diet and stress reduction could complement conventional treatments, placing “an emphasis on prevention over cure,” said Dr Tedros…
The ‘Bull World Health Organ’ has just published a theme issue on ‘Traditional Medicine’. Here are some extracts from the accompanying editorial that I thought were remarkable:
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) new Global traditional medicine strategy 2025–2034 aims to advance the contribution of evidence-based traditional, complementary and integrative medicine to the highest attainable standard of health and well-being…
Traditional medicine is the primary or preferred care for billions of people worldwide. Analysis of 71 nationally representative surveys shows its wide spread use for hypertension, diabetes and hypercholesterolemia, often alongside conventional care. The clinical potential is considerable …
However, challenges remain; for instance, while acupuncture is recommended for migraine, many guidelines show methodological and procedural gaps.
Traditional medicine is increasingly used in the health, wellness and bioeconomy sectors. Nonetheless, an analysis revealed that less than 1% of global health research funding is dedicated to traditional medicine, an inequity that undermines efforts to build the required evidence base.
Traditional medicine is more than a collection of therapies; it represents a worldview in which health is harmony within and between individuals, communities and ecosystems. Restoring this balance is a scientific, rights-based and sustainability imperative.
I think these lines (there are several other issues as well, and I recommend reading the full article) require a few comments.
The WHO aim to “advance the contribution of evidence-based traditional, complementary and integrative medicine” seems laudable, yet it also raises concerns: once any form of medicine is “evidence-based”, it is not “traditional, complementary and integrative”. Then it is by definition EBM, evidence-based medicine! Thus, the entire premise of the WHO Global traditional medicine strategy 2025–2034 makes no sense.
The fact that “traditional medicine is the primary or preferred care for billions of people worldwide” does not necessarily mean that its “clinical potential is considerable”. More likely it means that billions have to rely on obsolete forms of medicine from the dark ages because they cannot afford effective treatments. This is far from an opportunity; it is a challenge for us to improve this inhuman situation.
The fact that “acupuncture is recommended for migraine”, while the evidence for this (and almost all similar) recommendations are not supported by sound evidence, amounts to a scandal. One would have hoped that, instead of promoting unproven ‘traditional medicine’, an urgent task of the WHO would be to warn people of bogus and often dangerous claims that are ubiquitous in this sector.
The fact that “1% of global health research funding is dedicated to traditional medicine” might look unfair at first glance. But global health research funding is in the range of US$ 200 billion per year. Thus 1% would amount to 2 billion, and I suggest that one could do plenty of good research with this money. Instead, the sector tends to waste its funds on lousy pseudo-research, as anyone interested can confirm by reading this blog. Why does the WHO not point this out and take measures to stop pseudo-science in the realm of ‘traditional medicine’? Do they really think that offensive ideological platitudes such as “restoring balance is a scientific, rights-based and sustainability imperative” cuts the mustard?
My recommendation to the WHO is as simple as it is important: if you want to create meaningful articles, documents or strategies on ‘traditional medicine’ (or indeed any other subject), don’t charge biased proponents with the task but recruit a few well-informed critical thinkers as well.
Measles had been declared eliminated from the US in 2000. Now the disease is back with a vengeance. In February, an unvaccinated Texan child became the first person in a decade to die from measles in the US. Another death occurred in New Mexico.
The reason for the outbreak is simple: the uptake of the measles vaccine dropped below the 95% rate that is necessary for herd immunity. In the region where the current outbreak began, only 82% of the kids were vaccinated. This triggered the outbreak and, in turn, might mean that the US will lose its ‘measles elimination status’.
Only days after his appointment, Trump pledged to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization and to drastically cut the US Agency for International Development. Both moves are likely to cause more cases of measles and similarly vaccine-preventable diseases in the US and around the world. To make matters worse, Trump administration has fired hundreds of workers from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
And to make matters even worse, Trump appointed Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the US most deluded antivaxer. Since being appointed, Kennedy has downplayed the importance of the current measles outbreak, postponed a meeting of the CDC vaccine advisers, made statements like “vaccinations are over-rated” and claimed that good nutrition and treatment with vitamin A as ways to reduce measles severity. He even praised the benefits of cod liver oil as a measure against measles. “There are adverse events from the vaccine,” Kennedy said in a March 11 interview. “It does cause deaths every year. It causes all the illnesses that measles itself causes, encephalitis and blindness, et cetera. And so people ought to be able to make that choice for themselves.” Further confirming his cluelessness Kennedy also stated: “When you and I were kids, everybody got measles, and measles gave you … lifetime protection against measles infection. The vaccine doesn’t do that… The vaccine wanes 4.5% per year.”
But Kennedy does not just propagate BS in interviews, he also plans to investigate whether vaccines cause autism — an assumption that has been discredited ad nauseam. A spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) said: “The rate of autism in American children has skyrocketed. CDC will leave no stone unturned in its mission to figure out what exactly is happening.”
Meanwhile in Texas, some parents, who evidently believe Kennedy’s deluded nonsense, are giving unvaccinated children vitamin A, which, of course, is toxic at high doses.
Trump’s inauguration yesterday and his immediate actions thereafter were frightening. One of the first things he did was to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO). He signed an executive action in the Oval Office to the process for terminating US membership:
“World Health ripped us off,” Trump said to reporters as he signed. His frustration with the WHO goes back to the height of the COVID era when he repeatedly criticized the WHO. At that point in 2001, he had already initiated a withdrawal. Yet, he failed to complete the process under US law governing the timeline for withdrawal and funding obligations to the agency.
The loss for the WHO would unquestionably be significant. The US is the WHO’s biggest donor and contributes about one fifth of the WHO’s total budget. But the withdrawal would also be a big loss for the US. The WHO plays a pivotal role in monitoring global health threats. Without a seat at the WHO’s international table, the US risks losing access to valuable data on emerging disease threats.
Trump’s order stated that the US was withdrawing “due to the organization’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic that arose out of Wuhan, China, and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.”
“This is the most cataclysmic decision,” said Lawrence Gostin, professor of global health law at Georgetown University and director of WHO’s Center on Global Health Law. “[This is] a grave wound to American national interests and our national security. This will really leave our agencies – like the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and NIH [National Institutes of Health] flying blind.”
The process of withdrawing from the WHO will last one year. This means that there is a slim chance for Trump’s advisors to persuade him to come to his senses. One can only hope.
While medical experts across the world have expressed dismay at Trump’s appointment of Robert Kennedy, the ‘International chiropractors Association’ has just published this remarkable note:
Donald J. Trump made it official that he was nominating Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Secretary-designee Kennedy has spent his entire career championing the health of the nation through education, advocacy, research and when needed litigation.
Among his many accomplishments are protecting the environment with Riverkeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council His work at Riverkeeper succeeded in setting long-term environmental legal standards. Kennedy won legal battles against large corporate polluters. He became an adjunct professor of environmental law at Pace University School of Law in 1986 and founded the Pace’s Environmental Litigation Clinic which he co-directed for a decade.
It would be in the Pace Law Review that the landmark paper, “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury” (https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr) would be published in 2011.
Kennedy became laser focused on the autism epidemic while giving lectures on the dangers of mercury in fish, he was repeatedly approached by the mothers of children born healthy who regressed into autism after suffering adverse reactions from childhood vaccines, including their concern about the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, being used in vaccines including the Hepatitis B vaccine given at birth. Kennedy’s approach to the issue was the same as it always, looking at the science. He assembled a team who gathered all the science and reviewed the issues with him. This resulted in the publication of the book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak
The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines.
After establishing and leading the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense, last year Kennedy stepped back from the organization to throw his hat in the ring to be President. Becoming the embodiment of his uncle John F. Kennedy’s famous quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!”, Kennedy reached out to President Trump to form an alliance to focus on the crisis of chronic disease in the United States, and suspended his campaign to focus on the Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) Initiative.
ICA President, Dr. Selina Sigafoose Jackson, who is currently in Brazil promoting the protection of chiropractic as a separate and distinct profession stated, “Many ICA members have been supporters of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s philanthropic activities and are all in on the MAHA Initiative. The Mission, Vision, and Values of the ICA align with the stated goals of the MAHA Initiative. We stand ready to provide policy proposals and experts to serve as advisors to the incoming Administration and to Secretary Kennedy upon his swearing in.”
____________________________
Perhaps I am permitted to contrast this with some health-related truths about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (my apologies, if the list is incomplete – please add to it by posting further important issues):
- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has, since about 20 years, been a leading figure of the anti-vaccine movement.
- During the epidemic, he pushed the conspiracy theory that “the quarantine” was used as cover to install 5G cell phone networks.
- He claimed that “one out of every six American women has so much mercury in her womb that her children are at risk for a grim inventory of diseases, including autism, blindness, mental retardation and heart, liver and kidney disease.”
- He wrote that, “while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, Dr. Fauci declared that hydroxychloroquine should only be used as part of a clinical trial. For the first time in American history, a government official was overruling the medical judgment of thousands of treating physicians, and ordering doctors to stop practicing medicine as they saw fit.”
- He pushed the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 had been “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.”
- He claimed in a 2023 podcast interview that “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective”.
- In a 2021 podcast, he urged people to “resist” CDC guidelines on when kids should get vaccines.
- He founded Children’s Health Defense’ that spreads fear and mistrust in science. One chiropractic group in California had donated $500,000 to this organisation.
- In 2019, he visited Samoa where he became partly responsible for an outbreak of measles, which made 5,700 people sick and killed 83 of them.
- He called mercury-containing vaccines aimed at children a holocaust. In 2015, he compared the horrors committed against Jews to the effects of vaccines on children. “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”
- He repeatedly alleged that exposure to chemicals — “endocrine disruptors” — is causing gender dysphoria in children and contributing to a rise in LGBTQ-youth. According to him, endocrine disruptors are “chemicals that interfere with the body’s hormones and are commonly found in pesticides and plastic.”
- He stated “Telling people to “trust the experts” is either naive or manipulative—or both.”
- He plans to stop water fluoridation.
- He slammed the FDA’s “suppression” of raw milk.
- He said that a worm ate part of his brain which led to long-lasting “brain fog.”
- He has a 14-year-long history of abusing heroin from the age of 15. The police once arrested him for possession; he then faced up to two years in jail for the felony but was sentenced to two years probation after pleading guilty.
- He stated: “WiFi radiation … does all kinds of bad things, including causing cancer…cell phone tumors behind the ear.”
- He claimed that rates of autism have increased even though “there has been no change in diagnosis and no change in screening either.” Yet, both have changed significantly.
- He wrote: (Fauci’s) “obsequious subservience to the Big Ag, Big Food, and pharmaceutical companies has left our children drowning in a toxic soup of pesticide residues, corn syrup, and processed foods, while also serving as pincushions for 69 mandated vaccine doses by age 18—none of them properly safety tested.”
- He stated that cancer rates are skyrocketing in the young and the old – a statement that is evidently untrue.
- He authored a viral post on X: “FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.”
- He has also aligned himself with special interests groups such as anti-vaccine chiropractors.
- He stated categorically: “You cannot trust medical advice from medical professionals.”
- He said he’s going to put a pause on infectious diseases research for 8 years.
- He promoted the unfounded theory that the CIA killed his uncle, former President John F. Kennedy.
- He linked school shootings to the increased prescription of antidepressants.
- An evaluation of verified Twitter accounts from 2021, found Kennedy’s personal Twitter account to be the top “superspreader” of vaccine misinformation on Twitter, responsible for 13% of all reshares of misinformation, more than three times the second most-retweeted account.
PS
Let me finish with a true statement: The World Health Organization has estimated that global immunization efforts have saved at least 154 million lives in the past 50 years.
Many fans of so-called alternative medicine have, as discussed ad nauseam on this blog, an irrational attitude towards vaccinations. They frequently claim that they do more harm than good. I wonder whether the data from a very large study might convince them other wise.
The WHO launched the ‘Expanded Programme on Immunization’ (EPI) in 1974 to make life-saving vaccines available to all globally. To mark the 50-year anniversary of EPI, this analysis sought to quantify the public health impact of vaccination globally since the programme’s inception.
his modelling study used a suite of mathematical and statistical models to estimate the global and regional public health impact of 50 years of vaccination against 14 pathogens in EPI. For the modelled pathogens, we considered coverage of all routine and supplementary vaccines delivered since 1974 and estimated the mortality and morbidity averted for each age cohort relative to a hypothetical scenario of no historical vaccination. These modelled outcomes were then used to estimate the contribution of vaccination to globally declining infant and child mortality rates over this period.
Since 1974, vaccination has averted 154 million deaths, including 146 million among children younger than 5 years of whom 101 million were infants younger than 1 year. For every death averted, 66 years of full health were gained on average, translating to 10·2 billion years of full health gained. Vaccination has thus accounted for 40% of the observed decline in global infant mortality, 52% in the African region. In 2024, a child younger than 10 years is 40% more likely to survive to their next birthday relative to a hypothetical scenario of no historical vaccination. Increased survival probability is observed even well into late adulthood.
The authors concluded that since 1974 substantial gains in childhood survival have occurred in every global region. We estimate that EPI has provided the single greatest contribution to improved infant survival over the past 50 years. In the context of strengthening primary health care, our results show that equitable universal access to immunisation remains crucial to sustain health gains and continue to save future lives from preventable infectious mortality.
>So, will this excellent and compelling analysis concince many irrational anti-vaxers? Somehow, I have my doubts.
The WHO has just released guidelines for non-surgical management of chronic primary low back pain (CPLBP). The guideline considers 37 types of interventions across five intervention classes. With the guidelines, WHO recommends non-surgical interventions to help people experiencing CPLBP. These interventions include:
- education programs that support knowledge and self-care strategies;
- exercise programs;
- some physical therapies, such as spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and massage;
- psychological therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy; and
- medicines, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines.
The guidelines also outline 14 interventions that are not recommended for most people in most contexts. These interventions should not be routinely offered, as WHO evaluation of the available evidence indicate that potential harms likely outweigh the benefits. WHO advises against interventions such as:
- lumbar braces, belts and/or supports;
- some physical therapies, such as traction;
- and some medicines, such as opioid pain killers, which can be associated with overdose and dependence.
As you probably guessed, I am particularly intrigued by the WHO’s positive recommendation for SMT. Here is what the guideline tells us about this specific topic:
Considering all adults, the guideline development group (GDG) judged overall net benefits [of spinal manipulation] across outcomes to range from trivial to moderate while, for older people the benefit was judged to be largely uncertain given the few trials and uncertainty of evidence in this group. Overall, harms were judged to be trivial to small for all adults and uncertain for older people due to lack of evidence.
The GDG commented that while rare, serious adverse events might occur with SMT, particularly in older people (e.g. fragility fracture in people with bone loss), and highlighted that appropriate training and clinical vigilance concerning potential harms are important. The GDG also acknowledged that rare serious adverse events were unlikely to be detected in trials. Some GDG members considered that the balance of benefits to harms favoured SMT due to small to moderate benefits while others felt the balance did not favour SMT, mainly due to the very low certainty evidence for some of the observed benefits.
The GDG judged the overall certainty of evidence to be very low for all adults, and very low for older people, consistent with the systematic review team’s assessment. The GDG judged that there was likely to be important uncertainty or variability among people with CPLBP with respect to their values and preferences, with GDG members noting that some people might prefer manual
therapies such as SMT, due to its “hands-on” nature, while others might not prefer such an approach.
Based on their experience and the evidence presented from the included trials which offered an average of eight treatment sessions, the GDG judged that SMT was likely to be associated with moderate costs, while acknowledging that such costs and the equity impacts from out-of-pocket costs would vary by setting.
The GDG noted that the cost-effectiveness of SMT might not be favourable when patients do not experience symptom improvements early in the treatment course. The GDG judged that in most settings, delivery of SMT would be feasible, although its acceptability was likely to vary across
health workers and people with CPLBP.
The GDG reached a consensus conditional recommendation in favour of SMT on the basis of small to moderate benefits for critical outcomes, predominantly pain and function, and the likelihood of rare adverse events.
The GDG concluded by consensus that the likely short-term benefits outweighed potential harms, and that delivery was feasible in most settings. The conditional nature of the recommendation was informed by variability in acceptability, possible moderate costs, and concerns that equity might be negatively impacted in a user-pays model of financing.
___________________________
This clearly is not a glowing endorsement or recommendation of SMT. Yet, in my view, it is still too positive. In particular, the assessment of harm is woefully deficient. Looking into the finer details, we find how the GDG assessed harms:
WHO commissioned quantitative systematic evidence syntheses of randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) to evaluate the benefits and harms (as reported in included trials) of each of the
prioritized interventions compared with no care (including trials where the effect of an
intervention could be isolated), placebo or usual care for each of the critical outcomes (refer to Table 2 for the PICO criteria for selecting evidence). Research designs other than RCTs
were not considered.
That explains a lot!
It is not possible to establish the harms of SMT (or any other therapy) on the basis of just a few RCTs, particularly because the RCTs in question often fail to report adverse events. I can be sure of this phenomenon because we investigated it via a systematic review:
Objective: To systematically review the reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials of chiropractic manipulation.
Data sources: Six databases were searched from 2000 to July 2011. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were considered, if they tested chiropractic manipulations against any control intervention in human patients suffering from any type of clinical condition. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validation were performed independently by two reviewers.
Results: Sixty RCTs had been published. Twenty-nine RCTs did not mention adverse effects at all. Sixteen RCTs reported that no adverse effects had occurred. Complete information on incidence, severity, duration, frequency and method of reporting of adverse effects was included in only one RCT. Conflicts of interests were not mentioned by the majority of authors.
Conclusions: Adverse effects are poorly reported in recent RCTs of chiropractic manipulations.
The GDG did not cite our review (or any other of our articles on the subject) but, as it was published in a very well-known journal, they must have been aware of it. I am afraid that this wilfull ignorance caused the WHO guideline to underestimate the level of harm of SMT. As there is no post-marketing surveillance system for SMT, a realistic assessment of the harm is far from easy and needs to include a carefully weighted summary of all the published reports (such as this one).
The GDG seems to have been aware of (some of) these problems, yet they ignored them and simply assumed (based on wishful thinking?) that the harms were small or trivial.
Why?
Even the most cursory look at the composition of the GDG, begs the question: could it be that the GDG was highjacked by chiropractors and other experts biased towards SMT?
The more I think of it, the more I feel that this might actually be the case. One committee even listed an expert, Scott Haldeman, as a ‘neurologist’ without disclosing that he foremost is a chiropractor who, for most of his professional life, has promoted SMT in one form or another.
Altogether, the WHO guideline is, in my view, a shameful example of pro-chiropractic bias and an unethical disservice to evidence-based medicine.
