NEW!
Updated Edition!
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!
The Spanish Agency for Medicines and Medical Products (AEMPS) has just published a comprehensive technical report entitled “Homeopathy and Homeopathic Products: Evaluation of Evidence on Their Efficacy and Safety”, which categorically concludes that there is no scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of homeopathy as a therapeutic tool. After a systematic review of scientific literature and evaluations by state agencies internationally, the report states that the observed effects are comparable to placebo.
The report, which analyzed 64 systematic reviews published since 2009, highlights that most studies suggesting benefits from homeopathy have low methodological quality, often invalidated by small samples, short follow-up periods, or biases in randomization. Furthermore, it notes that as the quality and rigor of clinical trials increase, the supposed effect of homeopathy diminishes until it disappears entirely.
From a scientific standpoint, the principles of homeopathy clash with the laws of physics and current pharmacology. In typical dilutions like 12 CH—where one part of the original substance is mixed with 100 parts of solvent twelve times consecutively—it is mathematically impossible for a single molecule of the original ingredient to remain in the preparation, breaking any cause-and-effect relationship between the product and the therapeutic effect.
To illustrate this disproportion, the report points out that a dilution of just 6 CH (far less extreme than 12 CH) equates to dissolving a packet of sugar in the entire Mediterranean Sea. For this reason, the AEMPS classifies theories like “water memory”—the belief that the liquid retains the properties of a substance even without its molecules—as empirically baseless postulates that challenge scientific and rational thinking.
In compliance with European and national regulations, the AEMPS has completed a regularization process that has resulted in the market withdrawal of numerous products. As of the report’s publication date, no homeopathic product with authorized therapeutic indications exists in Spain. The 976 that remain registered did so via a simplified procedure, based on extreme dilutions ensuring the preparation’s innocuousness, which does not require proof of therapeutic effect and legally prohibits any therapeutic claims on labeling.
Spain aligns with a global trend of health institutions adopting critical stances:
- United Kingdom: The Science and Technology Committee recommended halting public funding and requiring labeling warnings about lack of efficacy.
- Australia: The National Health and Medical Research Council concluded that homeopathy should not be used for chronic or serious diseases.
- France: The Haute Autorité de Santé eliminated public reimbursement for these products in 2021 due to lack of demonstrated efficacy.
- Germany: Approval is expected in 2026 for the definitive removal of homeopathy coverage from statutory health insurance.
- United States: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers these products “unapproved new drugs,” and the Federal Trade Commission requires warnings that there is no scientific evidence of their functioning.
Although there is a popular belief that these preparations are innocuous because they are “natural,” serious adverse reactions have been reported, including poisonings from poor dosing and infant deaths linked to teething products in other countries.
However, the AEMPS warns that the main associated risk is the abandonment or delay of proven effective medical treatments. Citizens opting for homeopathy to treat serious or chronic conditions may endanger their health by replacing evidence-based therapies with products lacking such evidence.
The AEMPS report reaffirms the Ministry’s commitment to public health protection and evidence-based medicine. In line with other international agencies, it emphasizes the need for transparent information so citizens can make safe health decisions. The conclusion of the report is firm:
Given the lack of evidence of efficacy, homeopathy cannot be considered a valid therapeutic alternative, and its use must not lead to delaying or abandoning treatments proven to be effective.
It’s hard to believe: my very 1st paper was published exactly 50 years ago. I remember it like it was yesterdy! It was a busy time with lots of distractions: at the time, I was preparing for my finals at the medical school, playing in jazz clubs 2-4 times per week, and having a rather tumultous love-life. On top of all that, I had to finish the work on my doctorate which then produced the said article.
The experimental work on the doctorate did not at all progress as hoped. I needed blood samples from the poor women who were admitted with septic abortion, a very serious condition. More often than not, the poor patient was dead before I could get a blood sample. When finally the sample was complete and the results were in, I had to calculate the stats on my little HP pocket calculator. Once this was done, I had to draw graphs by hand and write up my thesis. 
The article for publication was then written mostly by my supervisor, Dr. Henner Graeff, who later became Professor and head of gynaecology at the TMU, Munich. He was a good supervisor, excellent scientict, and a very kind man. Sadly, he died in 2011; I owe him a lot.
For what it’s worth, here is the Medline-listed abstract of out paper:
Soluble fibrin monomer complexes (SFMC) were determined in patients with septic abortion (body temperatures of more than 39 degree C and/or chills without apparent signs of endotoxic shock), with infected abortion, with non-infected abortion and with normal pregnancies. Quantitative gel filtration (4% agarose) of beta-alanine precipitated plasma samples yielded the relative (percent of total fibrinogen content) and absolute (mg/100 ml plasma) amount of SFMC. The relative (5.5+/-1.4%, mean+/-SD) and absolute (21.5+/-8.6 mg/100 ml) amount of SFMC was significantly increased in patients with septic abortion compared to patients with normal pregnancies or non-infected abortion (p less than 0.001). Patients with infected abortion (p less than 0.001). Patients with infected abortion already revealed increased levels of SFMC (4.3+/-1.2%, 14.2+/-6.8 mg/100 ml) though their platelet count was still unaltered (infected abortion: 221+/-47 X 10(3) platelets/mm3; septic abortion; 99+/-36 X 10(3) platelets/mm3). The use of heparin in patients with septic abortion resulted in a decrease in SFMC. Chain characterization of SFMC frequently revealed a slight degradation of the alpha-chains probably due to fibrinolytic activity in vivo; gamma-gamma dimers representing intermolecular covalent bindings were not observed. The findings are in agreement with our former assumption that patients with septic abortion have a pronounced state of hypercoagulability.
PIP: The effect of septic abortion on plasma levels of soluble fibrin monomer complexes (SFMC) was studied by quantitative gel filtration (4% agarose) of beta-alanine precipitated plasma samples. Pregnant patients and those with infected or noninfected abortions were also studied. The relative and absolute amounts of SFMC were significantly (p less than .001) increased in cases of septic abortion compared with cases of normal pregnancy or uninfected abortion. Patients with infected abortion showed increased absolute and relative levels of SFMC, though not to the extent of septic abortion cases. However, unlike septic abortion cases, platelet count was not reduced. When heparin was used in septic abortion cases, SFMC decreased. A slight degradation of the alpha-chains of SFMC probably due to in vivo fibrinolytic activity was observed. The findings confirm that patients with septic abortion have a marked degree of hypercoagulability.
When I think back to all this, I am tempted to say that today’s medical students have it relatively easy – but, of course, that’s precisely what the old relics of every generation have always said.
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.
I have repeatedly warned that Trump and his cronies are systematically destroying science and medicine in the US and beyond. Recently, I looked into Medline to see what other experts are publishing on this issue. I did not expect to find much and was surprised that a plethora of articles are now available that discuss the issues from vastly different perspectives. Here are the Medline-listed papers published in 2026 that include an abstract:
A reduction in U.S. foreign aid under the “America First” policy of President Donald Trump, who took office in 2025, has significantly impacted global health. As the world’s largest provider of foreign aid, the U.S. has frozen development aid to evaluate its alignment with national interests. This has led to the termination of numerous international health programs, including those addressing malaria, HIV, tuberculosis, and polio, and has caused funding shortages for non-profit and international organizations like GAVI and the World Bank. Projections indicate dire consequences. According to USAID, a potential 18 million additional malaria cases and 166,000 deaths could occur annually. Paralytic polio cases are expected to increase by 200,000 per year, and new tuberculosis cases could rise by 10.7 million by 2030. Recent studies estimate that new HIV infections and between 770,000 and 2.93 million HIV-related deaths from 2025 to 2030. This crisis presents an opportunity for the global community to rethink its approach to aid. Other forms of financing, such as private sector investment, CSR activities, and innovative mechanisms like the Global Fund, could fill the gap left by reduced ODA. The article also stresses the importance of strengthening governance in recipient countries, promoting self-reliance, and fostering international collaboration through shared data platforms and multilateral programs. Ultimately, the document argues that providing foreign aid is not just a moral obligation, but is also in the national security and economic interest of donor countries, including the United States.
A Science analysis shows more than 10,000 STEM Ph.D.s in the federal government left or lost their jobs after President Donald Trump took office.
Following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election of Donald Trump, prejudice toward groups targeted during his campaign (e.g., Asian Americans, Mexicans) become more acceptable. By contrast, both Trump and Clinton voters reported less prejudice of their own. We conducted a 2024 conceptual replication, measuring perceived norms of prejudice and own-prejudice toward 128 groups, both before (N = 362) and after (N = 261) the U.S. election. We separately measured the negativity of Trump’s campaign rhetoric toward these groups (N = 188). Levels of prejudice and perceived norms of prejudice acceptability were mostly stable pre-/post-election, but Trump’s negative rhetoric predicted an increase in perceived acceptability of prejudice among targeted groups (replicating the 2016 results), and a rise in self-reported prejudice in the same groups post-election (reversing the 2016 results). Despite changes in the sociopolitical context between elections, the election of a leading politician who campaigned on prejudice was again associated with increases in the acceptability of prejudice.
The withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) raises crucial questions about its future as the governing international organization for health. The executive order on withdrawal was one of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term. Because the United States is WHO’s biggest funder and most powerful state backer, withdrawal could indicate an existential threat. However, almost simultaneously member states passed a new international Pandemic Agreement expanding WHO’s authority. How should these conflicting signals be understood? Analyzing WHO’s decline in a context of broader US and geopolitical shifts, the authors find that withdrawal is the outcome of the end to broader political orders of neoliberal internationalism on which WHO depended for legitimacy rather than idiosyncratic Trump politics. WHO’s reliance on certain international norms and power structures leave it compromised. US normative and institutional shifts are far more difficult for WHO to navigate than in past political eras. Therefore, international relations research suggests that avoiding catastrophic impacts depends on reform actions by WHO officials, other member states, and US actors. States and others in the United States will face harm from WHO decline, and the authors suggest that US actors have legal standing to challenge withdrawal. Complacency and inaction may be WHO’s biggest risk.
Throughout the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term in office, his administration has taken swift action to undermine the role that government health agencies play in the health policy-making process. This article makes the case that the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine government health agencies’ regulatory authority reflect a dislike and distrust of the people who serve in key civil service roles. It also provides evidence that efforts to roll back regulatory authority are part of a long-standing political strategy to cater to public dislike and distrust of scientific, medical, and academic experts. While the public could provide policy makers with an incentive to protect public health agencies and the people who staff them, recent public opinion research shows that many Americans simply do not know or do not care enough about the Trump administration’s actions to call for their elected officials to stop them. This article concludes by offering several health communication strategies and directions for future research (the “science of standing up for science”) that might inspire public concern about efforts to roll back government health agencies’ regulatory authority and might motivate people to show support for the civil servants who staff those agencies.
This paper focuses on how, during his second mandate, far-right leader Donald Trump tells a story of his nation as having been disrespected in the recent past by national elites and global ones, while the leader and their close circle have the mission to repair that status as part of United States foreign policy (i.e. respect for the status of the US). When narrating a better future, Trump travels to a remote national past to show the possibility of reinstating US stature in the international. While constructing that better future, Trump also starts to unfold a foreign policy story of success to cement the brighter future in a retrospective way given this future has purportedly been previously lived in a more remote national past. Relied on here is symbolic interactionist role theory, strategic narrative analysis and the notion of ‘heartland’ from populism scholarship; this paper also contributes to the study of narratives of roles and populism in the field of foreign policy analysis by engaging with the IR notion of ‘status’. Taking an interpretative analysis approach, this case study shows how far-right leaders like Trump can conceive and play the status or master role of their states in foreign policy via strategic narratives.
On the one hand, it is encouraging that the Trump-inflicted damage is being noticed and that there is strong opposition to Trump’s various actions. On the other hand, it is depressing to realise how deep and far-reaching the damage has already become
A BMJ Open study found that five popular AI chatbots gave problematic medical advice about half the time, with nearly
20% of answers judged highly problematic. The main concern is not just outright errors, but that the chatbots often sound confident while giving incomplete, misleading, or hard-to-check guidance. Researchers from the US, Canada, and the UK asked ChatGPT, Gemini, Meta AI, Grok, and DeepSeek a set of health questions across five categories. The questions covered areas such as vaccines, cancer, nutrition, and stem cells.
About 50% of the responses were judged problematic, and around 20% were highly problematic. Grok performed worst, with the highest rate of problematic answers, while ChatGPT and Meta AI also scored poorly. Collectively, the chatbots did somewhat better on closed-ended prompts and on topics like vaccines and cancer, but worse on open-ended questions and on areas like nutrition and stem cells.
The authors concluded that this study identifies deficiencies in how generative AI- driven chatbots respond to everyday health and
medical queries in misinformation- prone fields. Approximately half of all outputs were deemed problematic, citations were frequently incomplete or fabricated, and chatbot response readability tended to be complex. Models also responded to adversarial queries without
adequate caveats and with rare refusals to answer. As the use of AI chatbots continues to expand, our data highlight a need for public education, professional training and regulatory oversight to ensure that generative AI supports, rather than erodes, public health.
The paper discloses the danger that people may trust AI advice that sounds authoritative, while it is, in fact, wrong, incomplete or potentially harmful. The researchers stress that these systems are not licensed clinicians and do not have the judgment needed for diagnosis or treatment decisions. Few healthcare professionals will be surprised by these findings.
AI has its uses, no doubt. But it is just a tool and as such it needs to be used wisely. For health questions, it should obviously be treated only as a starting point and never as a substitute for a clinician.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting. Papers get reviewed, checked, challenged – and only then published. That’s the idea, anyway. But the practice often looks different. Between 2022 and 2024, that system didn’t just creak a little, it fell over rather dramatically.
At the centre of the mess was a Hindawi journal with the reassuringly serious name Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM – we have discussed it repeatedly on this blog, e.g. here and here). What followed was one of the largest clean-ups in modern publishing: hundreds of papers retracted from eCAM, and more than about 10,000 from the publisher’s full catalogue.
The reason?
Investigations had uncovered widespread manipulation of the publication process.
A big part of the story involves “paper mills.” These are businesses that will, for a fee, produce a scientific paper with your name on it. No inconvenient need for actual experiments or real data or the nuicance of writing. Using a mix of recycled material, fabricated results, and increasingly AI-generated texts, these outfits can churn out papers that look perfectly respectable, at least until someone reads them closely. Think of it as fast food for academic careers: quick, convenient, and not especially good for long-term health.
Another key ingredient was the journal’s abundant use of “special issues.” These are themed collections of papers run by guest editors, usually experts invited to oversee a niche topic. In theory, this can be a great idea. In practice, it turned out to be a bit like handing over the keys to your flat and hoping nobody throws a party.
Investigations found that, in some cases, the system had been even more seriously gamed. Fake or compromised editors, reviewer suggestions pointing to non-existent experts, and tightly coordinated “peer review rings” meant papers could sail through the process with both ease and speed.
The whole thing started to fall apart when research integrity teams and independent sleuths noticed odd and concerning patterns: identical images appearing in different papers, statistical results that didn’t add up, and peer reviews that seemed to happen at impossible speed. At that point, Wiley, which by then had acquired Hindawi, stepped in and took a much closer look. The result: mass retractions, suspended special issues, and a lot of nearly identical retraction notices politely stating that the “peer review process had been compromised.”
The fallout hit so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) hard. As we all know, SCAM is an area that already faces plenty of skepticism; discovering that a sizable chunk of its literature had effectively skipped quality control didn’t help. More broadly, the episode exposed a structural problem: when publishing lots of papers becomes the goal – for journals and researchers alike – quality tends to quietly take a back seat.
After all this, the journal eCAM more or less ground to a halt. It stopped accepting new submissions, and its future as an active journal remains uncertain. Its archive is still online but now dotted with retraction notices that read like a greatest hits album of publishing failures. Meanwhile, the publisher has tightened the processes,verifying reviewer identities more carefully, restricting special issues, and deploying tools to catch suspicious patterns earlier.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that the system eventually did what it’s supposed to do: spot the problem and correct it. But the episode is a reminder that science doesn’t run on trust alone; it runs on verification. And when that verification slips, things can go wrong at scale, and with surprising speed. Or put another way: peer review works … as long as the “peers” actually exist and know their business.
Perjury is the criminal act of intentionally lying while under oath in a legal proceeding, where the lie concerns a material fact capable of influencing the outcome of the case. It is treated as a serious offense because it directly undermines the legal system’s core requirement: truthful testimony. If people can lie under oath without consequences, courts, juries, and investigators are unable to reliably determine the truth, which can lead to wrongful convictions, failed prosecutions, and a broader erosion of public trust in justice. In the United States, perjury is therefore treated as a serious felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison under federal law, and typically several years under state law (sometimes up to 7 years or more, depending on the jurisdiction). In addition to incarceration and fines, a perjury conviction can lead to loss of professional licenses, immigration consequences, and a permanent criminal record.
Considering the severity of the crime, it is perhaps surprising to find how many individuals associated with Donald Trump have committed perjury or have been credibly accused of it. The following list is not necessarily exhaustive.
Melania Trump (his current wife)
Melania Trump made a factually incorrect statement about her educational background while under oath in a 2013 civil deposition, when she claimed to hold a bachelor’s degree in architecture that she did not. Whether that statement would have qualified as prosecutable perjury was never tested in court, as authorities did not bring criminal charges against her.
Allen Weisselberg (Former CFO, Trump Organization)
In March 2024, Allen Weisselberg pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury related to testimony he gave during Donald Trump’s civil‑fraud trial in New York. He was sentenced to five months in jail.
Michael Cohen (Former Personal Attorney)
Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to lying to Congress about the timing and extent of negotiations for a “Trump Tower Moscow” project during the 2016 campaign. He was sentenced to 3 years in federal prison for a string of offenses, including this false‑statement charge, and the perjury‑related penalty was folded into that total sentence.
Roger Stone (Long‑time advisor)
Roger Stone was convicted in 2019 on seven felony counts, including making false statements to Congress and witness tampering, during the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His sentence was 40 months in federal prison plus a $20,000 fine. Donald Trump later commuted his sentence and subsequently issued a full presidential pardon.
Michael Flynn (Former National Security Advisor)
Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. The maximum penalty for that offense was up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. However, Flynn was never sentenced to prison; his case was delayed, then effectively set aside after the Justice Department moved to dismiss it, and Trump ultimately issued him a full pardon.
George Papadopoulos (Former Campaign Aide)
George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian‑linked individuals during the 2016 campaign. He was sentenced to 14 days in federal prison, plus a period of supervised release and additional sanctions, and served about 12 days behind bars.
Jeff Sessions (Former Attorney General)
During his 2017 confirmation hearing, Jeff Sessions stated under oath that he “did not have communications with the Russians.” It later emerged that he had met on multiple occasions with the Russian ambassador. Sessions maintained that his testimony was truthful from his own perspective, describing it as a matter of memory or focus rather than intentional deception. No criminal charges for perjury or false statements were filed.
Jared Kushner (Son‑in‑law and Advisor)
Jared Kushner faced intense scrutiny for multiple omissions on his security‑clearance forms (SF‑86), failing to disclose dozens of contacts with foreign officials. Many legal observers and commentators called for a perjury or false‑statement investigation, but no criminal charges were brought.
Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence)
In early 2025, following the “SignalGate” leaks, some members of Congress called for perjury investigations into Tulsi Gabbard’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. They alleged that she provided false or misleading statements about the security and nature of unsecured communications protocols used within the Intelligence Community. No criminal charges have been brought.
John Ratcliffe (CIA Director)
Similarly, John Ratcliffe faced calls for a perjury investigation after the SignalGate disclosures, with lawmakers alleging that he gave false testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the same unsecured communication protocols. No criminal charges have been filed.
Kash Patel (FBI Director)
In a September 2025 hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Kash Patel was questioned about the FBI’s handling of more than 100,000 investigative files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Lawmakers raised concerns that large numbers of FBI personnel were diverted to “scrub” or redact references to Donald Trump before files were released publicly. Patel has vehemently denied those claims, calling them gross mischaracterizations. The discovery in early 2026 of missing interview notes containing previously undisclosed allegations against Trump has fueled accusations that he may have committed perjury, but no formal perjury charges have been filed to date.
Donald Trump (President of the US)
In 2022, a federal judge in Georgia noted that Trump likely committed perjury or filed a false declaration when he signed legal documents alleging thousands of instances of voter fraud in that state. Those allegations were based on claims his own legal team had already warned him were inaccurate. The judge’s observation highlighted the possibility of perjury, but no criminal prosecution for perjury has been initiated.
Further reading:
- Goodman, Ryan. “Perjury Chart: Trump Associates’ Lies, False, or Misleading Statements on Russia to Federal Authorities.” Just Security, 9 May 2019. https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-associates-lies-false-or-misleading-statements-on-russia-to-federal-authorities/
- “5 other former Trump associates who ran afoul of the law.” CBC News, 14 November 2019. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-trump-advisers-charges-prison-1.5361119
- “Factbox: Here are eight Trump associates arrested or convicted of crimes.” Reuters, 20 August 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/factbox-here-are-eight-trump-associates-arrested-or-convicted-of-crimes-idUSKBN25G1YU/
- “Ex‑Trump Organization CFO pleads guilty to perjury charges.” ABC Eyewitness News (6ABC), 3 March 2024. https://www.6abc.com/post/allen-weisselberg-trump-cfo-organization-new-york/14490347/
- “Former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg faces perjury sentencing.” ABC News, 9 April 2024. https://abcnews.com/US/former-trump-organization-cfo-allen-weisselberg-faces-perjury/story?id=109038178
- “Ex‑Trump Org. CFO pleads guilty to perjury charges.” CNN, 4 March 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/politics/allen-weisselberg-trump-org-cfo-plea-perjury
