fraud
Recent statements concerning US pharmaceutical pricing have drawn renewed attention to an entirely new horizon in mathematics. The method, associated with remarks by Donald Trump and repeated by several of his sycophants, departs from standard arithmetic in a manner that is rhetorically vigorous but mathematically ridiculous.
Percentage change is defined relative to a single, clearly specified baseline. A decrease from $600 to $100 is therefore calculated as (600-100)/600×100 = 83.3%. In other words, the price falls by 83.3% relative to the original $600 price. This is the method used in economics, finance, accounting, retail pricing, and presumably even by the secondary-school mathematics teachers who attempted to educate Trump.
However, the new alternative math proceeds differently. It implicitly combines two distinct operations: first, the increase from $100 to $600, correctly described as a 500% rise when measured against the initial $100; and second, the subsequent decrease from $600 back to $100. Rather than evaluating this decrease against the higher price, however, the method appears to retain the earlier, lower baseline, thereby generating a claim of a “600% saving.” The arithmetic equivalent of moving the goalposts and then declaring victory by an even larger margin.
Within standard mathematics, this shift in baseline is not permissible. Percentage changes are inherently asymmetric because they depend entirely on the reference point selected. The same absolute difference – in this case, $500 – produces different percentage values depending on whether it is measured relative to $100 or $600. This is not a technical loophole but the entire point of percentages.
The problem with this approach becomes clearer if one follows it to its logical conclusion. Under standard arithmetic, a 100% price reduction means the price has fallen all the way to zero: a $100 product reduced by 100% costs nothing. A reduction greater than 100% would therefore produce a negative price, meaning the seller would have to pay the customer to accept the product. If one claims that a fall from $600 to $100 represents a 600% decrease, the numbers cease to correspond to any coherent pricing system. The calculation implies that prices can fall not merely to zero, but to values several times smaller than zero.
The attraction of the Trump method is easy to understand. By selecting whichever baseline produces the largest possible percentage, the resulting figure acquires an air of spectacular achievement. It transforms an already substantial price reduction into something approaching numerical performance art.
Trump’s alternative arithmetic therefore succeeds in generating impressively large numbers by abandoning the one feature percentages require most: consistency. The result is as unsound as most things about Trump. Yet it seems rhetorically effective – particularly with “low IQ people”, as Trump likes to call his followers.
In other words, by cherry-picking the baseline for maximum impact, the Trump method turns an already solid 83% cut into a sensational “600% savings”. It sacrifices precision for hype – effective populism perhaps, poor math for sure!
None of this would be worth mentioning, of course, if it were the only incident where Trump misleads his public. Sadly, he is telling multiple and often much more consequential untruths on a daily basis.
I am quite fond of garlic, but not as a cancer therapy. Dr. Mohsen Ali, a former doctor whose UK medical license was revoked by the General Medical Council (GMC) in January 2015, has been permanently struck off the medical register following a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) investigation into his running of an illegal clinic. The tribunal, which began proceedings on December 1, 2025, reconvened on January 14 and concluded from April 22 to 24, 2026, found Ali guilty of serious professional misconduct for preying on vulnerable cancer patients with unproven and dangerous treatments.
In 2018, Ali treated two patients from a semi-detached Leicester property described as a “squalid council house.” Patient A had stage three prostate cancer, while Patient B suffered from terminal ovarian cancer. Referred to Ali by word-of-mouth, both were told he could cure their cancers with a claimed 90% success rate. He charged Patient A up to £15,000 and Patient B between £10,000 and £12,000 for sessions involving intravenous vitamin C, garlic oil, ozone therapy, oxygenated water, and sodium bicarbonate injections.
Ali disparaged conventional medicine, asserting that the NHS was “killing them” through ineffective chemotherapy and radiotherapy, while “big pharma companies were making money.” During a phone call, he laughed off Patient A’s diagnosis, calling prostate cancer “easy to cure.” For Patient B, he overrode the NHS’s prognosis that nothing more could be done, promising her husband a full recovery. Patient B died shortly after stopping treatment, before police and Public Health England (PHE) probes began.
The case surfaced when Patient A emailed Leicestershire Police, prompting a GMC referral. A police raid uncovered a flyer at Ali’s address, advertising him as a “qualified doctor” who left the NHS because standard treatments “did not work.” It invoked “Allah the best healer” and boasted over 90% cure rates for cancers and other severe illnesses.
MPTS evidence revealed grave hygiene failures. PHE inspections described the property as a “dirty and unhygienic” shared residential-clinical space with visibly contaminated surfaces, reused equipment without decontamination, and no basic infection prevention measures. Ali reused intravenous bags, exposing patients to serious infection risks. The tribunal deemed his actions dishonest, as he knew these were not evidence-based cancer cures.
An expert witness confirmed no clinical studies support these so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) for curing any cancer. Ali also failed to obtain informed consent, particularly from Patient B. Absent from the hearing, he emailed the GMC denying claims of cure, but the flyer and patient testimonies contradicted him.
Ali, who graduated from Cairo University in 1994 and practiced in the UK from 2001 was erased him from the register, underscoring the dangers of unqualified SCAM practitioners – even (or perhaps especially) when they have a doctor title.
Trump’s anti-science stance is well-known. What we did not know is how far he might venture in this direction. On Friday, April 24, 2026, the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of firing all sitting members of the National Science Board (NSB). This body acts as the governing board for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and serves as an independent advisory arm to the President and Congress on matters of national science policy.
While Trump does have the legal authority to appoint these members, they are historically granted staggered, six-year terms to ensure the board remains a non-partisan anchor for US research. The mass termination via email happened without a stated cause or immediate replacement plan. Trump’s action has raised significant concerns regarding the future of independent scientific funding and oversight in the United States.
The terminated members include:
- Dan Reed (Chair): A computer scientist and former Microsoft executive with deep expertise in high-performance computing and “big data” infrastructure.
- Victor R. McCrary (Vice Chair): A physical chemist and research VP at the University of the District of Columbia; highly regarded for his work in technology transfer and innovation.
- Willie E. May: The former Director of NIST and a leading expert in metrology (the science of measurement) and chemical standards.
- Arati Prabhakar: An applied physicist and former Director of DARPA; she is a specialist in transitioning high-risk research into commercial technologies.
- Dario Gil: Senior VP at IBM and Director of IBM Research; a global authority on quantum computing and the ethics of Artificial Intelligence.
- Keivan Stassun: An astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University known for his research on exoplanets and his efforts to increase diversity in the physical sciences.
- Julia Phillips: A materials scientist and retired VP of Sandia National Laboratories; an expert in thin-film research and a member of the National Academy of Engineering.
- Roger Beachy: A biologist and pioneer in plant biotechnology; he was instrumental in developing the first genetically modified food crops (virus-resistant tomatoes).
- Marvi Matos Rodriguez: An aerospace engineer and executive specializing in fusion energy and advanced material systems for the energy sector.
- Sudarshan S. Babu: An engineering professor at the University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory; a top expert in advanced 3D printing and manufacturing.
- Aaron Dominguez: An experimental particle physicist and Provost at Catholic University of America who contributed to the Higgs boson discovery at CERN.
- Melvyn Huff: A mathematician and educator focused on the development of rigorous mathematics curricula and analytical modelling.
As the head of the Executive Branch, the President has the right to remove any official who is not explicitly protected by “for cause” language, ensuring the agency follows the administration’s policy goals. Nonetheless, this is a “norm-breaking” action that ignores the statutory design of staggered terms. It effectively turns an independent advisory body into a political one, which most likely will lead to legal challenges regarding the “independence” of the NSF.
Because the White House has failed to issue an official statement justifying the dismissals, the reason for this spectacular action remains speculative. Considering recent tensions between the administration and the board, as well as broader policy shifts, the dismissals are seen not primarily as a targeted attack on science itself, but more as a systematic effort to remove independent oversight and “unelected experts” who might challenge the Executive Branch’s policy directives.
The conclusion, I fear, is this:
in the US, democracy is now in its dying days.
The defence of anthroposophical medicine – or of any other unproven modality – as articulated, for example, by figures like Weleda CEO Tina Müller, presents a vision of patient-centred care and economic pragmatism. However, when held against the light of current clinical standards and the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), it reveals significant cracks.
The most profound problem lies in the definition of scientific evidence. Proponents often point to decades of “positive experience” and high patient satisfaction as proof of effectiveness. Yet, in the hierarchy of science, anecdotal success sits at the very bottom. Anthroposophical treatments lack biological plausibility. Their perceived benefits are largely indistinguishable from context effects (such as placebo). Anthroposophical medicine might provide more time, empathy, and personal attention – factors that undoubtedly improve a patient’s well-being but do not validate the effectiveness of the specific remedies used. When independent bodies subject these treatments to rigorous, high-quality trials, the purported effects usually vanishe.
Anthroposophical medicine represents merely a tiny percentage of our healthcare expenditures. Therefore, proponents argue, little money would be saved by getting rid of it. This argument is a calculated distraction from the ethical core of the issue. While the fiscal burden may be marginal, the scientific cost is immense. A statutory health insurance system is built on a social contract of solidarity; it functions under the premise that public funds are reserved for treatments of proven value and effectiveness. To fund therapies that lack plausibility as well as reproducible results is to erode the credibility of medicine and rational thought. It is not a question of the amount of money, but the principle of integrity: every Euro, £ and $ spent on unproven treatments is a euro, £, and $ diverted from underfunded and often life-saving healthcare.
The regularly made appeal to the Swiss Model as a beacon of success also requires a more critical reading. The integration of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) in Switzerland was, at its heart, a result of direct democracy rather than evidence. While the Swiss public voted for inclusion, the majority of the medical community remains deeply sceptical. To cite Switzerland as “proof” that anthroposophical medicine has fulfilled the criteria of EBM is to conflate political popularity with scientific validation. Democracy can decide how a nation spends its money, but it cannot vote a reliable evidence-base into existence.
Finally, we must consider the human risk of legitimizing non-evidenced-based practices. When a state-sanctioned insurance system places such therapies on the same pedestal as EBM, it risks misleading vulnerable individuals. For patients facing chronic or life-threatening illnesses, the “integrative” path can lead to a dangerous delay in seeking conventional, life-saving interventions. By treating subjective belief and peer-reviewed science as equal peers, we risk entering a “post-truth” medical era where the desire for a “natural” or “holistic” experience outweighs the necessity for proof.
In conclusion, while the call for a more “human” and “holistic” medical system might be noble, it must not come at the expense of scientific rigor. It is deeply misleading to imply that this is an ‘either or’; good medicine will always be based on both. A healthcare system that prioritizes popularity over proof risks becoming a system of expensive comfort rather than one of effective healing. True patient appreciation lies not in offering unproven choices, but in ensuring that every treatment covered by the public purse is supported by sound evidence. Not following this strategy is a disservice to patients and to progress.
So, the next time you hear people defending anthroposophical medicine or any other unproven modality, please look behind the smoke screen and find out why they do it. More often than not, you will then identify a massive conflict of interest. My advice is to listen to independent experts and to dismiss the people with an axe to grind.
- IHMPs (verum; n = 67),
- or identical-looking placebos (control; n = 67)
Both treatments were administered alongside standard concomitant care including sitz baths, pelvic floor exercises, and dietary advice.
- Department of Repertory, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- East Bishnupur State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Chandi Daulatabad Block Primary Health Centre, under Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, Parganas, India.
- Department of Pathology & Microbiology, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- Department of Materia Medica, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, India.
- Department of Organon of Medicine and Homoeopathic Philosophy, National Institute of Homoeopathy, Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India, Salt Lake, Kolkata, India.
- Department of Community Medicine, D. N. De Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Government of West Bengal, Tangra, India.
This list does not inspire me with confidence that this study is reliable.
Next I looked around for further trials of homeopathy for hemorrhoids – and I found another study by the same authors published 2 years earlier in the same dodgy journal:
Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) in treating hemorrhoids compared with placebo. Design: This is a double-blind, randomized (1:1), two parallel arms, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: The trial was conducted at the surgery outpatient department of the State National Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. Subjects: Patients were 140 women and men, aged between 18 and 65 years, with a diagnosis of primary hemorrhoids grades I-III for at least 3 months. Excluded were the patients with grade IV hemorrhoids, anal fissure, and fistula, hypertrophic anal papillae, inflammatory bowel disease, coagulation disorders, rectal malignancies, obstructed portal circulation, patients requiring immediate surgical intervention, and vulnerable samples. Interventions: Patients were randomized to Group 1 (n = 70; IHMs plus concomitant care; verum) and Group 2 (n = 70; placebos plus concomitant care; control). Outcome measures: Primary-the anorectal symptom severity and quality-of-life (ARSSQoL) questionnaire, and secondary-the EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS); all of them were measured at baseline, and every month, up to 3 months. Results: Out of the 140 randomized patients, 122 were protocol compliant. Intention-to-treat sample (n = 140) was analyzed. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 two tailed. Statistically significant between-group differences were elicited in the ARSSQoL total (Mann-Whitney U [MWU]: 1227.0, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D-5L VAS (MWU: 1228.0, p = 0.001) favoring homeopathy against placebos. Sulfur was the most frequently prescribed medicine. No harm or serious adverse events were reported from either of the groups. Conclusions: IHMs demonstrated superior results over placebo in the short-term treatment of hemorrhoids of grades I-III. The findings are promising, but need to be substantiated by further phase 3 trials.
Are we to believe that the authors were able to pull off 2 large almost identical studies within just 2 years?
Pull the other one!
This review was aimed at analyzing the scientific evidence on Reiki intervention as a nursing care strategy for people with cancer. For this purpose, the researchers searched six databases, including primary studies, in Portuguese, Spanish and/or English, about the evidence on the use of Reiki intervention as a care strategy for cancer patients, totaling five publications.
The included studies suggest potential benefits of Reiki intervention, such as pain relief, reduction of physical symptoms (fatigue and insomnia) and improvement in emotional aspects, such as anxiety and stress. However, the results are still limited in terms of methodological robustness and generalizability.
The Brazilian authors concluded that, although the findings indicate beneficial effects of Reiki in people with oncological diseases, there is a limited production of clinical trials aimed at the application of this therapy in clinical nursing practice. Reiki can be considered a complementary strategy in nursing care, as long as it is integrated into an individualized therapeutic plan. It is recommended that studies with greater methodological rigor be carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of Reiki applied by oncology nurses.
The authors explain that “Reiki is a practice that uses the laying on of hands and symbols to channel universal life energy to recharge, realign and rebalance the human energy field. Its objective is to undo energetic blockages that compromise the flow of vital energy, and maintain harmony between the body, mind and spirit.” With just 2 sentences, the authors inply that Reiki has a sound scientific basis which they do not question in their paper at all. Yet phenomena such as live energy, regarging, realigning and rebalancing human energy fields, energetic blockages in the human body, flow of vital energy could not be less scientific. In fact, they are pure fantasy and have no basis in reality.
The authors also explain that 20 % (n=1) of the included studies were qualitative, 20 % (n=1) were quasi-experimental, 20 % (n=1) were reports of professional experience, and 40 % (n=2) consisted of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). On closer scrutiny, none of the RCTs was sufficiently rigorous to allow firm, positive conclusions. In other words, there is no good evidence and the conclusion that Reiki is beneficial for cancer patients is nonsense.
The authors note that, in 2017, with the publication of Ordinance No. 849, of March 27, Reiki was officially included in the Brazilian public health network. In view of the above mentioned lack of plausibility combined with a lack of effectiveness, this inclusion seems wholly irresponsible.
The case of the 14-year-old girl who died of cancer is now occupying the Klagenfurt Regional Court for the second time. The girl’s parent elected to trust miracle healers and esoteric practitioners. Ultimately, the 14-year-old arrived at the hospital far too late—the cancer was already so advanced that the girl died less than two days later.
The parents have already been convicted of torture and neglect. During their criminal trial, the doctor came into the prosecution’s focus. He had administered four infusions of “cat’s claw” to the 14-year-old. The doctor admitted to this last year during his testimony as a witness, where he raved about the “miracle plant” cat’s claw, claiming it could heal almost anything.
He was also accused of using a pendulum to “test” the girl’s tumor and certifying it as benign. His response at the time was that he does not use a pendulum; rather, he had “dowsed” the tumor using a biotensor—a small metal spring. He claimed that when he failed to get a clear result, he urgently recommended the parents seek a biopsy, which they strictly refused. He alleged they eventually broke off treatment with him.
According to the indictment, the doctor is allegedly responsible for a further patient’s death by administering the herbal infusion. The man had collapsed after receiving it, suffered a heart attack and a stroke, and died weeks later from the consequences.
Furthermore, the doctor is accused of “grossly negligently causing a danger to the life and health of at least 6,550 people from May 2007 to May 2025.” Contrary to the standards of medical practice, he is said to have intravenously administered essences that were only approved as food products. The prosecutor referred to an analysis of the infusion solutions: “These were not pure; they contained soil and ash particles.” They were reportedly “brewed together in a backyard” – the contamination, she noted, could lead to the formation of blood clots. During his questioning, the trained intensive care physician rejected all guilt: “I feel in no way responsible.” He stated he had treated numerous cancer patients—for example, with cat’s claw or high-dose vitamin C.
In the case of the 14-year-old, the doctor insisted he was able to “see that something was not right” using the device. He claimed he only learned much later that the parents had canceled a biopsy appointment after their session with him. Furthermore: “Father and daughter always rejected any conventional medical therapy or diagnostics.” He maintained that he always noted his infusions could only boost the immune system and improve well-being, but never promised anything.
Regarding the case of the other deceased man, the doctor argued that the patient had already received 17 infusions from him prior to the incident in question and had always felt better afterward. After the final infusion, the patient felt unwell for a while, but his condition supposedly improved. The doctor claimed it was absolutely not anaphylactic shock: “Otherwise, I wouldn’t have let him go home.”
The defendant questioned each and every expert opinion obtained for the case. Regarding the statement that it is impossible for a tumor to shrink due to his infusions, he said, “I wouldn’t sign off on that.” As for the infusions, he claimed they were filtered multiple times and specially prepared for intravenous use.
A date for this has not yet been set. So, watch this space!
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.
The Nazi’s endorsement of homeopathy during the Third Reich was a complex fusion of pseudo-science, ideology and pragmatic policy. Homeopathy was deemed to align ideologically with National Socialism’s völkisch worldview and, foremost, it was considered to be practical:
- It had pure German (“Aryan”) origins.
- It was considered to be natural.
- It was inexpensive.
- It was abundantly available.
- It was deemed to be harmless.
Several top Nazis also promoted “New German Healing” (Neue Deutsche Heilkunde), which integrated natural therapies like homeopathy into healthcare emphasizing racial purity, folk traditions, and self-reliance. Conventional medicine (“Schulmedizin”) was derided as “Jewish medicine” (verjudete Medizin), tainted by Jewish physicians who were disproportionately represented in German academia and practice. By purging Jews – over 5,000 doctors were expelled by 1935 – the Nazis created a vacuum which they filled with “Aryan” alternatives, e.g. the “Heilpraktiker” framing homeopathy as a proud German invention free from “internationalist” or capitalist pharmaceutical dependencies.
Pragmatic motives amplified this support. Homeopathy was inexpensive, used mostly locally available materials and promised self-sufficiency amid wartime shortages of synthetic drugs. Heinrich Himmler championed it personally, funding research and integrating it into SS clinics; Rudolf Hess, the “Deputy of the Führer”, was also a vocal advocate. The regime licensed homeopathic training, established research institutes, and started a most comprehensive research program of homeopathy. In one of the darkest chapters, the SS conducted experiments at the Dachau concentration camp to test homeopathic treatments for various conditions. Authors from the era celebrated homeopathy as compatible with Nazi racial hygiene, linking it to family doctors fostering generational health.
However, the outcomes were far from what homeopaths had hoped for. The Donner Report on the Nazi’s large research program of 1941–1943 revealed “wholly negative” findings: homeopathic remedies failed catastrophically. Official evaluations deemed it ineffective for epidemics, leading to its sidelining in military hospitals by 1943. After the war, German homeopaths suppressed these findings by making the documents disappear.
Yet the Nazi legacy endures. Nazi promotion entrenched homeopathy in German culture, at least partly explaining its persistence today. This contributed to vaccine hesitancy during COVID-19, as historical distrust of “allopathic” medicine (like “Schulmedizin, a derogatory term created by Hahnemann) lingered.
The Third Reich history of homeopathy highlights how pseudo-science tends to thrive under authoritarianism, masking inefficacy with nationalism, dogma or untruths. While the Nazis tolerated homeopathy for ideological purity, its empirical failure exposed the regime’s bankruptcy.
The parallels to what is currently happening to healthcare in the US are difficult to overlook.
Might this be a fitting task for AI?
Let’s see; I gave ‘Gemini’ the following task: “Give me a list of the 10 biggest charlatans in the field of alternative medicine + a short explanation why they are generally considered to be charlatans”
Here is the response:
The term “charlatan” is highly subjective and often used by critics to describe individuals who promote medical treatments that lack scientific evidence or conflict with established biology. While many practitioners in alternative medicine are viewed by their followers as pioneers, they are often labeled charlatans by the scientific community due to claims of “miracle cures,” the rejection of conventional data, or the sale of unproven products.
The following list includes ten figures who are frequently cited in skeptical and medical literature as major examples of this phenomenon:
1. Kevin Trudeau
Trudeau is perhaps the most famous modern example of a medical “hawker.” He authored Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About, a book that alleged a massive conspiracy between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies to hide cures for cancer and other diseases.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: He was repeatedly sued by the FTC for making false claims and was eventually sentenced to 10 years in prison for criminal contempt related to his deceptive infomercials.
2. “Dr. Sebi” (Alfredo Bowman)
Despite not being a medical doctor, Bowman gained a massive following by claiming he could cure AIDS, cancer, and diabetes through a strictly alkaline diet and herbal supplements.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: He claimed that all disease is caused by “mucus” and that his “African Bio-Mineral Balance” could eliminate it—a claim with no basis in human physiology. He was successfully sued by the New York Attorney General for practicing medicine without a license.
3. Andrew Wakefield
A former physician, Wakefield is the primary source of the modern anti-vaccine movement. In 1998, he published a fraudulent study in The Lancet suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: His study was found to be based on manipulated data and unethical treatment of children. He was subsequently stripped of his medical license, but he continues to profit from anti-vaccine activism.
4. Belle Gibson
An Australian wellness influencer, Gibson built a massive brand claiming she had cured her terminal brain cancer through diet, exercise, and alternative therapies.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: It was eventually revealed that she never had cancer. She also admitted to withholding thousands of dollars in promised donations to various charities.
5. Joseph Mercola
Mercola is an osteopathic physician who runs one of the most profitable “alternative health” websites in the world. He has frequently promoted homeopathic remedies and criticized standard medical practices like vitamin K shots for newborns.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: He has received multiple warning letters from the FDA for selling unapproved and misbranded products, such as “thermography” as a superior replacement for mammograms (which it is not).
6. Stanislaw Burzynski
A physician in Texas, Burzynski has spent decades selling “antineoplastons” as a cure for various cancers at his private clinic.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: Despite over 40 years of operation, he has never produced a peer-reviewed, Phase III clinical trial proving his treatments work. Critics argue he exploits desperate patients, charging them hundreds of thousands of dollars for unproven therapy.
7. Robert O. Young
The author of The pH Miracle, Young popularized the idea that “acidosis” is the cause of all disease and that an “alkaline diet” can cure everything from obesity to Stage IV cancer.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: In 2016, he was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. It was revealed that one of his “patients,” a woman with breast cancer, paid him thousands for intravenous baking soda treatments before she ultimately died.
8. Hulda Clark
Clark was a naturopath who claimed that all diseases (including cancer and HIV) were caused by parasites and could be cured by a device she invented called the “Zapper,” which used low-voltage electricity.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: Her claims were entirely unscientific; she believed “electronic frequencies” could kill parasites instantly. She eventually died of multiple myeloma (a blood cancer), a disease her own device supposedly could have cured.
9. Matthias Rath
A German physician, Rath has aggressively promoted high-dose vitamin therapy as a cure for HIV/AIDS and heart disease.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: He ran advertisements in South Africa discouraging people from using antiretroviral drugs, claiming vitamins were a safer alternative. This campaign is estimated to have led to thousands of unnecessary deaths.
10. Gwyneth Paltrow (Goop)
While Paltrow is an actress, her lifestyle brand Goop has become a central hub for “luxury” alternative medicine, selling items like “Jade Eggs” for vaginal health and “Body Vibes” stickers.
-
Why labeled a charlatan: Goop has been forced to pay settlements for making unsubstantiated medical claims. Critics argue the brand uses “wellness” as a shield to sell pseudo-scientific products to wealthy, health-conscious consumers.
____________________
I have to say, this list disappoints me: hardly any of the above individuals would have appeared on my personal list of the 10 biggest charlatans!
Will I disclose my personal list?
No, I don’t think so.
