Recent comments

The 30 most recent comments from all posts are listed below. Click on the post title to go to the comment on the post’s page.

• Comment by Richard Rasker on Is tolerance unethical when applied to homeopathy? Monday 06 July 2026: 08:07 By granting homeopathy a status it does not merit, we risk eroding the very standards that protect patients and uphold the credibility of medicine. And once homeopathy (or any other type of SCAM for that matter) has managed to attain said status, then we see that this tolerance which allowed it to insinuate itself into real medicine is not exactly reciprocated. One very recent example is India’s ministry of quackery calling for sanctions against a critical scientist and (real) doctor by the name of Cyriac Abby Philips.
• Comment by Norbert Aust on WORLD CUP: England vs Mexico – my medical concerns about this game Saturday 04 July 2026: 10:07 I remember a business trip to Bogota, Colombia. My hosts there were proud that their team beats the Brazilian football team on a regular basis – provided they were at their home stadium at more than 2600 m elevation.
• Comment by JK on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Saturday 04 July 2026: 09:07 Keep on laughing Talker.
• Comment by Talker on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Friday 03 July 2026: 22:07 Oh so you know it’s an opinion piece, yet you were waving it around like you found the evidence to convict EBM in the court of law. Your cartoonish idiocy is laughed out of the court.
• Comment by Talker on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Friday 03 July 2026: 22:07 @Richard At the rate RFK Jr and his goons are dismantling public health infrastructure and policy, we are seeing the reversal of that 150 years of progress in US. For example, measles and whooping cough rampaging in many states. I wonder if the water-shakers and other SCAMers are running in to fill the gap. I will wait for the day when shaken water and sugar pills catch up to EBM and cure measles.
• Comment by Richard Rasker on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Friday 03 July 2026: 21:07 @JK It doesn’t change the fact that we have to thank science for all progress, and that SCAMmers are just parasites in the world of healthcare. However, I agree that corporate entities subverting healthcare into a system to extract as much money as possible out of sick and often desperate people is also highly immoral, and calls for strong governmental regulation. Because those corporate entities are also parasites, just like SCAMmers. The only difference is that the treatments that they sell for extortionate prices often actually work.
• Comment by Richard Rasker on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Friday 03 July 2026: 19:07 @JK Check out the authors and their references. I did. And did you check out the comments? Even though I do not agree with a lot of things those authors say, science-based medicine can certainly be improved upon in quite a few aspects, justifying a certain amount of criticism. Also note that in science-based medicine, criticism is usually taken seriously: if something can be improved, then that improvement is often implemented (although it may sometimes take a long time …). The results speak for themselves: real medicine can cure and/or treat more conditions than ever before, and many conditions that were an almost certain death sentence 50 ago can now be treated effectively. Even cancer mortality has dropped by 25% over the past half-century. SCAM on the other hand will never improve. You can’t improve something that doesn’t work. And of course SCAM simply rejects all and any criticism they receive – again because they have no good answer. They will never admit that they’re basically parasites in the world of healthcare, selling patients false hope by lying to them that their treatments may work when there is no good evidence to that extent at all. And this is what I mean when I say that your accusations of ‘dishonesty’ and ‘immorality’ are better read as a confession. Because SCAMmers are the dishonest and immoral ones, not real doctors and scientists. And oh, almost all progress in the field of medicine and public health over the past 150 years or so was achieved by real scientists and real doctors. SCAM has contributed nothing to this development. It simply takes money from patients and gives only reassurance in return – if even that.
• Comment by JK on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Friday 03 July 2026: 19:07 I originally referred to opinion piece. Then Edzard referred to CAM articles in his reply. According to AI the BMJ editorial is more an opinion piece. Make of it what you can brain genius.
• Comment by Talker on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Friday 03 July 2026: 11:07 Referenced? You mean this opinion piece: https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702 titled “The illusion of evidence based medicine” You don’t understand the difference between an article and an opinion piece let alone identify the title of the opinion piece you gleefully “quoted”. What a buffoon!
• Comment by Mike Hodges on What effects did Brexit have on our health? Friday 03 July 2026: 11:07 Another impact of brexit to consider is the less easily definable/measurable – but still awfully significant – erosion of the country’s community cohesion, the rise of very negative feelings towards others (non-Brits, foreign-born workers, recent & historic migrants, etc.). Plus, in a corollary to esp. your first point above, the decline in mental health and well-being amongst the general population – and health workers in particular – in a landscape too often dominated by the shrill and strident xenophobia and racism promoted by many tabloids and rightwing politicians. And the hostile environment set by the UK Home Office, shamefully responsible for the gross mistreatment of many of the long-settled Windrush generation.
• Comment by JK on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Thursday 02 July 2026: 22:07 Er Richard …the article from the BMJ i referenced and quoted from was not written by me! Nor by any CAMist. Check out the authors and their references.
• Comment by JK on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Thursday 02 July 2026: 15:07 If I went to a UK GP and called myself dishonest and immoral then according to AI they might advise Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). EB I know but I would take my chances on this one. There are I believe no articles from CAMists stating that it is corrupt. However, there are articles from CAMists criticising CAM There is the Chiropractic Internal War on “Subluxation” NDs for vaccine movement with various articles Many articles eg Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (JACM) (now Dietary Supplements and Integrative Medicine), leading integrative medicine figure Dr. John Weeks frequently penned commentaries criticizing the alternative medicine community for harboring conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccine rhetoric, arguing that it destroys the credibility of legitimate CAM practices. Thank Darwin for AI
• Comment by Richard Rasker on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Thursday 02 July 2026: 14:07 @JK So what you’re basically saying is that 1. most medical research is carried out or paid by pharmaceutical companies, who 2. can simply make up any results they want with impunity, and that 3. the scientific and medical world swallow these fraudulent results hook, line and sinker, and even call it ‘science-based medicine’. oh, and 4. that this is a reason to trust uneducated quacks rather than highly trained scientists and real doctors. Amusing how your accusation mostly appears to be a confession.
• Comment by Edzard on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Thursday 02 July 2026: 13:07 you are mistaken: if you called yourself dishonest and immoral, this would be self-criticism. if the BMJ (the official journal of the UK doctors’ union) publishes an article along those lines, it is self-criticism. Now, please show me anything remotely similar in the realm of SCAM!
• Comment by JK on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Thursday 02 July 2026: 12:07 So an article titled ‘Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia’ is just ‘self criticism’! Cambridge dictionary definition of corrupted : to make someone or something become dishonest or immoral Dishonest and immoral does not =self criticism.
• Comment by Edzard on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Thursday 02 July 2026: 11:07 yes, self-criticism is an essential part of good medicine and a means of improving it. now, please show me an article that criticises SCAM in this way, published in a SCAM journal.
• Comment by JK on An excellent BMJ editorial sharply criticised the WHO’s stance on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) Thursday 02 July 2026: 10:07 Here is yet another opinion piece published in the BMJ in March 2022 that tells us CAMees what we already know. https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702 China and India are not going to fall for any ‘SCAM’ routine.
• Comment by Richard Rasker on Is Elon Musk – with the help of Donald Trump – going to kill millions? Wednesday 01 July 2026: 21:07 @Les Rose Don’t worry. Trump and the republicans are hard at work turning the US into a sh*thole country as well, with only a handful of corrupt, obscenely rich people at the top, and a poor, unhealthy and badly educated general population. No-one thinks of the US as a land of opportunity any more; it is quickly becoming a land of nightmares.
• Comment by Les Rose on Is Elon Musk – with the help of Donald Trump – going to kill millions? Wednesday 01 July 2026: 12:07 Migration is driven by global inequality. People try to move from poor countries to rich countries, to get a better life. It does not make sense for rich countries to make life worse in poor countries.
• Comment by Dave on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must be removed from office asap.  Monday 29 June 2026: 16:06 The whole administration needs to go ASAP but obviously wont. I didn’t think America would decay so quickly to the point where repairing the harms and trust will take years to undo. Unprecedented f***wittery. Here’s a view on the harms to children being actively undertaken. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/19/trump-administration-healthcare-for-kids
• Comment by RPGNo1 on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. must be removed from office asap.  Monday 29 June 2026: 13:06 Kennedy has even more problems on its hands. The 3000 high-qualified FDA employees who were laid off last year as part of the DOGE initiative must now be painstakingly replaced. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which cut more than 3,000 employees last year, has been authorized to hire 2,200 people, Lowell Zeta, acting chief of staff for the FDA commissioner, said on Tuesday at the BIO International Convention in San ‌Diego. The cuts were part of efforts by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to reshape federal public health agencies. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-fda-officials-say-hiring-picks-up-speed-with-more-than-2000-jobs-start-2026-06-24/
• Comment by Ashvetenry on Improvement in advanced Alzheimer’s disease following psilocybin-containing mushroom administration Monday 29 June 2026: 00:06 Let’s hope so. But several important questions remain. What are the adverse effects in this particularly vulnerable population? How safe is psilocybin in people with advanced dementia, especially given their frailty and comorbidities? How can a person with advanced dementia provide truly informed consent to receive an experimental treatment? Would consent by a legal representative be sufficient? And given these ethical and practical challenges, how feasible is it to obtain ethics approval for rigorous clinical trials? Can this important question ever be adequately researched?
• Comment by Edzard on Did (does) my research have any impact at all? Saturday 27 June 2026: 07:06 Inspired by Bjorn, I thought “why always poor little Dullman?”, and asked Gemini the following question: Conversation with Gemini please list the 10 main opponnts to edzard ernst, then summarise their impact as scientists and compare it to that of edzard ernst As the world’s first Professor of Complementary Medicine, Edzard Ernst shifted from practicing alternative therapies to rigorously testing them. In doing so, he became a lightning rod for criticism. His opponents span royalty, institutional bodies, traditional scientists, and alternative medicine advocates. The Academy of Medical Sciences + 1 The 10 main opponents to Edzard Ernst, their scientific impact, and how they compare to his legacy are outlined below. The 10 Main Opponents to Edzard Ernst 1. King Charles III (Formerly Prince Charles) Who They Are: The most influential public opponent. As Prince of Wales, he used his royal platform to champion “integrated health” and commissioned the controversial 2005 Smallwood Report promoting alternative medicine in the NHS. Wikipedia Scientific Impact: None as a practicing scientist. However, his institutional impact was massive, funneling millions into complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) advocacy via The Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health. Comparison to Ernst: Charles wielded political and cultural influence, whereas Ernst relied strictly on data. Their clash ultimately cost Ernst his funding and led to his early retirement from Exeter University, but Ernst won the scientific argument—the Prince’s Foundation dissolved in 2010 following a financial scandal and intense scientific pressure. 2. Dr. Peter Fisher Who They Are: The late homeopath to Queen Elizabeth II and Director of Research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine. Scientific Impact: Moderate within the CAM community. He published numerous papers trying to establish clinical evidence for homeopathy and served as the Editor-in-Chief of the journal Homeopathy. Comparison to Ernst: Fisher was a qualified physician who attempted to use scientific frameworks to defend homeopathy. However, Ernst’s systematic reviews repeatedly debunked Fisher’s findings, showing that Fisher’s positive results vanished when trials were properly blinded. 3. Prof. Harald Walach Who They Are: A German researcher and psychologist known for his studies on homeopathy, mindfulness, and alternative therapies. Scientific Impact: Highly controversial. Walach has published widely but has been heavily criticized for proposing pseudoscientific theories—like using “weak quantum theory” to explain how homeopathy works without active molecules. Comparison to Ernst: While both are prolific, Ernst operates strictly within standard biophysics and pharmacology. Ernst frequently called out Walach’s methodologies as a textbook example of twisting science to fit a preferred narrative. 4. Dr. Lionel Milgrom Who They Are: A chemist and practicing homeopath who became one of Ernst’s most vitriolic and vocal critics in medical journals and online forums. Scientific Impact: Low in mainstream medical science. Milgrom holds a background in chemistry but shifted to writing theoretical papers defending homeopathy, accusing Ernst of “scientific tunnel vision.” Comparison to Ernst: Milgrom’s work relies heavily on philosophical objections to Western scientific standards. Ernst, by contrast, commands vastly higher peer-reviewed authority and rejects Milgrom’s arguments as unscientific hand-waving. 5. Prof. George Lewith Who They Are: The late Professor of Health Research at Southampton University and a pioneer in researching CAM within mainstream British academia. EBSCO Scientific Impact: High. Lewith was a respected researcher who sought a middle ground, conducting large-scale trials on acupuncture and herbal medicine. Comparison to Ernst: Unlike other entries, Lewith was a true scientific peer. While Ernst grew increasingly convinced that 95% of CAM was pure placebo, Lewith argued that the placebo effect and holistic patient care had tangible clinical value that shouldn’t be entirely discarded. Ernst’s work remains methodologically tighter, but Lewith is respected for his efforts to bring rigorous trials to CAM. 6. Dana Ullman Who They Are: A prominent American author, publisher, and spokesperson for homeopathy. Scientific Impact: Negligible as a scientist. Ullman is a public advocate rather than a lab or clinical researcher. Comparison to Ernst: Ullman is a classic public debater who frequently clashed with Ernst on blogs and social media. Ernst routinely dismantled Ullman’s talking points by pointing out that Ullman cherry-picked single, flawed studies while ignoring the mountain of systematic reviews. 7. Christopher Smallwood Who They Are: An economist who authored the 2005 Smallwood Report, which claimed the NHS could save millions by adopting alternative therapies. Wikipedia Scientific Impact: None in medicine. His impact was purely economic and political. Comparison to Ernst: Smallwood looked at health through a financial lens, assuming CAM worked based on user satisfaction. Ernst famously blew the whistle on the report, calling it “complete misleading rubbish” because it assumed efficacy rather than proving it. Wikipedia 8. Dr. Richard Horton Who They Are: The long-standing Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. Scientific Impact: Monumental as an editor and gatekeeper of medical literature, though not a primary researcher in CAM. Goldsmiths, University of London Comparison to Ernst: Horton was not an opponent of Ernst’s science, but a fierce opponent of his conduct. Horton publicly rebuked Ernst for leaking the draft details of the Smallwood Report, accusing him of breaking scientific professional codes. While Ernst won the scientific battle regarding the report, Horton’s criticism severely damaged Ernst’s institutional standing. Wikipedia 9. The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) Who They Are: The professional body representing chiropractors in the UK. Scientific Impact: Institutional. They set standards for chiropractic care but do not produce mainstream biomedical research. Comparison to Ernst: When Ernst and science writer Simon Singh published Trick or Treatment?, they asserted that the BCA promoted chiropractic adjustments for childhood illnesses without evidence. The BCA sued Singh for libel (and implicitly targeted Ernst’s work). The resulting backlash backfired spectacularly on the BCA, forcing them to drop the suit and sparking a massive campaign that tightened UK laws regarding scientific free speech. The Guardian 10. Prof. Claudia M. Witt Who They Are: A highly influential researcher of complementary medicine at the University of Zurich and Charité Berlin. Scientific Impact: High. Witt is one of the most respected figures in modern CAM research, focusing heavily on “pragmatic randomized controlled trials” (how treatments perform in real-world clinics). Comparison to Ernst: Witt and Ernst represent a core methodological divide. Ernst insists on efficacy trials (does the treatment work better than a fake/placebo treatment in a blind test?). Witt focuses on effectiveness (does the patient get better in real life, even if a lot of it is placebo?). Witt’s scientific impact is highly regarded, though Ernst argued her approach often confuses the placebo effect with real medical efficacy. Scientific Impact Summary: Ernst vs. His Opponents Attribute Edzard Ernst Mainstream Scientific Opponents (e.g., Lewith, Witt) Alternative Advocates (e.g., Fisher, Walach, Ullman) Volume & Citations Extremely High: Over 1,000 papers, 50+ books, and a massive h-index. High: Highly cited in specific public health and integration circles. Low-Moderate: Mostly published in niche, CAM-specific journals. Methodological Approach Strict adherence to the gold standard of clinical trials and systematic reviews. Focus on pragmatic, real-world outcomes and healthcare integration. Often rely on alternative science paradigms or cherry-picked data. Overall Scientific Legacy Established the baseline framework for evaluating CAM scientifically. Contributed to how modern medicine handles patient-centered care. Viewed by mainstream science as defenders of unproven or disproven dogmas. The Takeaway: Edzard Ernst’s scientific impact is fundamentally foundational. While his opponents occasionally won political, legal, or institutional battles against him, Ernst’s uncompromising application of the scientific method standardizes how alternative therapies are evaluated today. AND WHO SAID THAT ai IS NOT FUN?
• Comment by Björn Geir on Did (does) my research have any impact at all? Saturday 27 June 2026: 00:06 I thoought it might be interesting to ask an AI-machine how it would rate his most ardent critic/adversary on the same metric. When thumbing through the list of contenders, I could think of only a handful who dare criticise the professor using their full name. Of these, I think our friend D. Ullman is outstandig. So let’s see how he would do in a heads-up comparison. Here is the unredacted reply by ChatGPT. I am sorry Dana, but you “asked” for this. I neither added nor retracted anything from this text. By the same metric Ernst seems to have used — “how did this person fare as a scientist?” — I would rate Dana Ullman much more as an advocate/publicist for homeopathy than as a scientist in the ordinary academic sense. A fair grading would be something like: Dimension *Dana Ullman, MPH Scientific training/standing: *MPH, not a physician or biomedical scientist by conventional academic appointment standards; publicly associated with Homeopathic Educational Services and homeopathy advocacy. Peer-reviewed research output: *Some PubMed-indexed publications, but a small and narrow body of work, mostly reviews, commentaries, historical/advocacy-style articles, and arguments defending homeopathy rather than original clinical or laboratory research. PubMed lists examples such as his 2003 AIDS/HIV homeopathy trial review, 2006 FASEB letter, 2010 Darwin/homeopathy article, 2021 Cureus review of government reports, 2021 hormesis/nanopharmacology paper, and 2025–2026 advocacy/historical pieces. Original contribution to knowledge: *Limited. His work mainly attempts to defend a pre-existing doctrine — homeopathy — rather than generate reproducible new evidence that changes biomedical understanding. Methodological reliability: *Weak. His writings often rely on selective reinterpretation of reviews and positive studies, while discounting the broader evidence assessments by independent bodies. Influence: *Substantial in homeopathy promotion and popular advocacy; modest to low in mainstream biomedical science. Conflict of intellectual/financial commitment: *Important. His Cureus article declares that he practises homeopathic medicine, authors/publishes books on the subject, and sells homeopathic products/services. Bottom-line scientific rating: *Poor to very poor as a biomedical scientist; effective as an advocate for homeopathy. The decisive issue is not that Ullman defends an unpopular hypothesis. Science can tolerate unpopular hypotheses. The problem is that homeopathy has repeatedly failed to build a robust, reproducible evidentiary base despite more than two centuries of opportunity, and its core claims remain biologically and chemically implausible at high dilutions. EASAC concluded that there is no robust, reproducible evidence that homeopathic products are effective for known diseases; NCCIH says there is little evidence supporting homeopathy for any specific health condition; and Australian/NHS-style reviews have reached similarly negative conclusions. Ullman’s scientific profile is therefore almost the mirror image of Ernst’s. Ernst began with personal and professional exposure to homeopathy and complementary medicine, then became known for systematic evaluation, criticism, and evidence synthesis. Ullman appears to have remained a committed defender of homeopathy and built much of his public identity around it. That does not make him dishonest, but it does make his work highly vulnerable to confirmation bias. My blunt assessment would be: Dana Ullman has fared badly as a scientist if the benchmark is independent, hypothesis-testing, self-correcting biomedical inquiry. He has fared well as a persistent campaigner for homeopathy. But those are not the same achievement — and in this case they point in opposite directions.
• Comment by Jashak on Neither medicine nor Germany need an ‘alternative’! Friday 26 June 2026: 13:06 This press conference of the “Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V.” on the topic is very informative and worth watching (German language). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYQfTGgBFnI
• Comment by Richard Rasker on Measles in the US – RFK Jr., his stupid rhetoric and irresponsible actions erode immunity Friday 26 June 2026: 09:06 @kurt youngmann Let’s hope they pursue a great deal of vengeance!!! Yes, I share your opinion, but I still think that they should be careful not to overstep the boundary between proportional punishment to the maximum extent of the law, and an all-out revenge campaign, possibly beyond what the law calls for. Not only is the latter one of the many major crimes that the Trump regime itself is committing, but it will also cause unnecessary extra hatred and division among supporters on both sides – while the end goal is the exact opposite, i.e. unifying the country wherever possible (yes, that’s a tall order, I know). IOW: I think that one of the main goals of any accountability is to try and restore a trustworthy government that serves the people (ALL people, not just one corrupt dictator like Trump). This is certainly not achieved by overstepping the boundaries of the law in order to get revenge.
• Comment by kurt youngmann on Measles in the US – RFK Jr., his stupid rhetoric and irresponsible actions erode immunity Thursday 25 June 2026: 19:06 “The only question is to what extent this accountability will be pursued. This mostly depends on how far the democrats are willing to go: do they merely want justice for all the bad things done by the Trump administration, or do they want to go further and also pursue a degree of vengeance?” Let’s hope they pursue a great deal of vengeance!!!
• Comment by Richard Rasker on Prominent Germans signed an ‘open letter’ in support of homeopathy and anthroposophic medicine Thursday 25 June 2026: 14:06 “patients want it” This is an interesting trope that I think deserves some more attention. One could argue that this is true, at least to a certain extent: yes, patients want treatments that are low-risk, mild, and generally not too unpleasant – which is what almost all of SCAM tends to offer. But once we look at individual SCAM modalities, this statement is clearly the result of lies and deception. People don’t want homeopathy/acupuncture/chiropractic etc. because is is a viable, proven effective treatment, but because homeopaths/acupuncturists/chiropractors etc. lie to them that it may work for their medical conditions. If those SCAMmers would be honest, and told (or better: warned) their customers that there is in fact no solid evidence that it has any real clinical effects, many of those customers would no longer ‘want’ that treatment – especially given the often considerable cost of such treatments.
• Comment by Edzard on Pete Hegseth’s Flu Shot Reversal: a gross failure of leadership that has already cost one life Thursday 25 June 2026: 13:06 Hegseth had to do a U-turn! https://www.kctv5.com/2026/06/25/pentagon-restores-mandatory-flu-shots-all-recruits-boot-camp-outbreak-sickens-nearly-300/?fbclid=IwY2xjawSqAPxleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETBWQkhqdmpUOXI4OHpFbUU5c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHrqyfuSy5FhPpWXT0NJdaHCjjcPPimCfR_oKIIKYTO0X8ZVw1m7kZlGgrnvl_aem_OmmEPSyqamuVy56YI4t-ZQ
• Comment by Richard Rasker on Is Trump suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)? – Please judge for yourself! Thursday 25 June 2026: 09:06 According to many experts in the field, Trump’s mental problems are not just limited to ‘plain’ NPD, but show signs of a particularly nasty variety called malignant narcissism. This is characterized by an unusual tendency to cruelty and vindictiveness, combined with psychopathy. And indeed, many of Trump’s actions are meant to harm other people, even if those actions are not in the interest of America or his own government at all. This notion is also supported by Trump’s tendency to actively destroy things that he can’t own or control – “If I can’t have it, no-one can”. And he really appears to enjoy the chaos, harm and destruction he is causing. Some experts also believe that Trump is showing signs of frontotemporal dementia, further exacerbating his antisocial and disinhibited behaviour – e.g. his horrible midnight social media posting sprees that would instantly end the career of any other politician. Note that this is the man who can single-handedly launch a nuclear attack on any country in the world, with only very limited ways in which suchs orders can be stopped.