Updated Edition!
Many families explore so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) to manage autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and many SCAM practitioners claim to be able to treat ASD effectively. This review evaluated the efficacy and safety of SCAM therapies, including acupuncture, cupping, massage, dietary changes, herbal medicine, apitherapy, and Ayurveda medicine.
Systematic searches were carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies of SCAM interventions for ASD. The review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including various study types. Data extraction focused on design, population, intervention, outcomes, and bias risk.
The inclusion criteria were met by 45 studies, which encompassed six SCAM modalities. Acupuncture and massage consistently exhibited enhancements in sensory processing, communication, and social interaction levels. Dietary interventions, particularly probiotic supplementation and gluten-/casein-free regimens, had beneficial effects on behavioral and GI domains. While Ayurveda therapies such as Medhya Rasayanas (Bacopa monnieri), Swarnaprashana, and Panchakarma techniques improved cognition and reduced social deficits in small clinical series, herbal and apitherapy treatments primarily demonstrated neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory effects in preclinical studies. Control groups received no treatment, sham interventions, or standard care. The methodological limitations and heterogeneity of the study design limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions.
The authors conclused that the evidence indicates that SCAM approaches, including acupuncture, massage, and Ayurveda therapies, may be effective adjuncts in the management of ASD. The current body of research is constrained by the moderate-to-high risk of bias, variable protocols, and small sample sizes. Standardized, large-scale randomized trials are required to establish efficacy and safety. Clinicians should balance patient safety with innovation by adopting an integrative, evidence-informed approach.
This is almost complete nonsense:
- The authors claim to have followed the PRISMA guidelines. As one of the co-authors of these guidelines, I can affirm that this is untrue.
- The authors included 10 animal studies that provided mechanistic support for clinical findings, 18 RCTs, 12 pre-post controlled studies, and 5 case series or pilot studies comprised the designs. Several of these study types are unable to “evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCAM therapies” which is the stated aim of the review.
- Most of the included studies fail to control for placebo effects. Therefore, they cannot provide evidence regarding the “efficacy” of the treatments in question.
In view of these – and many other – flaws of the review, I fear that I might have to re-write the conclusions:
Many SCAMs have been studied as treatments for ASD. The results of these investigations fail to show that any of them is effective in alleviating the symptoms of ASD. Unless sound evidence emerges, SCAM cannot be recommended for ASD.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has, for many years, promoted claims that contradict established scientific consensus and common sense. Although he often frames his arguments as skepticism towards ‘the establishment’, his positions consistently conflict with the findings of sound science. This has led to widespread criticism from skeptics, scientists, physicians, and public health officials who argue that his rhetoric is steeped in misinformation.
The most prominent example is his long-standing insistence that vaccines cause autism, a claim that has been exhaustively studied and repeatedly disproven. Extensive epidemiological research involving millions of children across multiple countries has found no causal link between vaccination and autism, a conclusion affirmed by organizations such as the CDC and the WHO.
Kennedy has also continued to emphasize theories about mercury-based vaccine preservatives long after those substances were removed from most childhood vaccines, despite autism diagnosis rates continuing to rise—an outcome that directly contradicts his hypothesis and is not supported by sound evidence.
Recently his rejection of scientific consensus also expanded into the COVID-19 era. He characterized COVID vaccines as uniquely dangerous, suggested they could alter human DNA, and implied that public health agencies were concealing mass harm. These claims stand in overt contrast to real-world data from billions of administered doses, which show that serious adverse effects are rare and that vaccination dramatically reduces severe illness and death.
Similar patterns of misinformation appear in his claims about wireless technologies like 5G, which he has linked to immune suppression or cancer despite the well-established fact that such signals are non-ionizing and incapable of damaging DNA.
Underlying many of Kennedy’s positions is a recurring narrative that modern disease is primarily driven by hidden toxins and that public health institutions knowingly suppress cures or evidence of harm. While environmental exposures are a legitimate area of scientific study, Kennedy’s sweeping conclusions – often paired with sympathy for “detox” or so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) – go far beyond what evidence supports.
In conclusion, Kennedy erodes trust in medicine and science, replacing science with insinuations and conspiracy theories. The outcome of his ‘war on science’ has been a normalization of falsehoods that have been tested, rejected, and shown to be harmful. In a nutshell: Kennedy is a danger to all our health and well-being. The sooner he is replaced, the better for science, progress and global health.
Non-specific low back pain is a common condition with substantial socioeconomic implications. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy is said to generate benefits in pain reduction and improvement of physical function in patients with pain-associated disorders like osteoarthritis. However, studies had heterogeneous settings. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of PEMF on pain and function on patients with non-specific low back pain.
A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PEDro was performed (from inception until 15/5/2023). Outcome measures assessed pain and function.
Nine randomized controlled trials with 420 participants (n = 420) were included. The studies compared PEMF vs. placebo-PEMF, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. conventional physical therapy alone, PEMF and conventional physical therapy vs. placebo-PEMF and conventional physical therapy, PEMF vs. high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) vs. conventional physical therapy, and osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and PEMF vs. PEMF alone vs. placebo-PEMF vs. OMT alone. Five of the nine included studies showed statistically significant pain reduction and improvement in physical function in comparison to their control groups (p < 0.05). There was substantial heterogeneity among the groups of the study, with a wide range of duration (10-30 min), treatments per week (2-7/week), applied frequencies (3-50 Hz), and intensities (2mT-150mT). No serious adverse event had been reported in any study. The included studies showed solid methodological quality, with an overall score of 7.2 points according to the PEDro scale.
The authors concluded that the results of the present systematic review suggest that the use of PEMF for patients with non-specific low back pain is beneficial in terms of pain reduction and enhancement of physical function, particularly if used as an addition to conventional physical therapy modalities. It has also been shown that PEMF is a safe therapy for the treatment of non-specific low back pain. Further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes and standardized protocols are necessary. The studies should also focus on determining the optimal parameters of frequency and intensity to advance PEMF application for all pain disorders.
PEMF therapy is a non-invasive treatment widely used by physiotherapist and some practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It applies low-frequency electromagnetic waves to the body. PEMF therapy acts like a wireless charger for your body, sending pulses of energy that penetrate deep into your tissues to jumpstart cellular recovery. Because your body contains conductive fluids (like blood) and charged ions (like calcium and potassium), the PEMF device is said to induce very small electrical currents within your tissues. In turn, the induced current is claimed to stimulate the mitochondria. This, according to proponents, boosts the production of ATP. The pulses are also said to influence the movement of ions across cell membranes, particularly calcium which triggers a cascade of beneficial biochemical reactions, such as the release of nitric oxide, which dilates blood vessels to improve circulation. Lastly, PEMF are claimed to help “calm” the chemical signals that cause chronic inflammation, switching the cellular environment from a state of stress to a state of healing.
While these assumptions look like wild extrapolations, the more crucial question is whether PEMF is clinically effective. The present review seems to tell us that it works for back pain. Yet, I am not convinced.
Most of the RCTs are not of good quality. Many did not blind patients or therapists. Only 2 made a direct comparison against a placebo, and those did not blind patients or check the success of blinding them. As the authors noted, there is plenty of heterogeneity in the included RCTs. All this adds up to a high level of uncertainty about the effectiveness of PEMF.
In summary, I fear that the authors of this review are too optimistic and lack critical thinking in evaluating the existing evidence. My conclusion therefore differs from theirs:
Many RCTs suggest that PEMF is effective for non-specific low back pain. Yet, due to serious limitations of the primary studies, no firm conclusion can be drawn.
Please allow me to deviate today from my usual agenda, i.e. so-called alternative medicine. I feel that I should write about the contribution of war to global warming which, in turn, will inevitably affect our health as individuals and our chances of survival as humans. 2025 was the third-warmest year on record; the global average temperature over the past three years has now surpassed 1.5 ℃ above pre-industrial levels — an increase that nations pledged in the 2015 Paris Agreement to prevent.
Recent research from organizations like the “Conflict and Environment Observatory” and “Scientists for Global Responsibility” has pioneered methodologies to quantify the effects of war on climate. The climate impact of war can be devided into three distinct categories:
1. Impact of Direct Military Operations
High-intensity combat involves massive amounts of jet fuel, diesel, and marine fuel. For example, a single F-35 fighter jet consumes roughly 5,600 liters of fuel per flight hour. In addition, supply chain emissions, i.e. producing weapons, ammunition, and moving supplies need to be considered. They account for the largest share of a military’s carbon footprint. Many countries do not disclose these data, making global calculations difficult.
2. Impact of Collateral Environmental Damage
Wars cause immediate, unintended releases of greenhouse gases through the destruction of carbon-storing infrastructure and landscapes. Shelling often causes massive fires in forests, wetlands, and industrial sites. For instance, in the first two years of the war in Ukraine, wildfires caused by combat accounted for roughly 21% of the total conflict-related emissions. Strikes on oil refineries, gas pipelines, and power plants release methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. When airspace is closed due to conflict, civilian flights must take longer routes, burning significantly more fuel.
3. Impact of Post-War Reconstruction
The most significant long-term climate cost of war might be the carbon required to rebuild what was destroyed. Rebuilding cities requires vast quantities of cement and steel, two of the most carbon-polluting industries globally. Moving and processing millions of tonnes of rubble requires thousands of truck journeys and heavy machinery, all of which emit CO2.
These three types of impact add up and are huge: The total military activity is estimated at 5.5% of global emissions. In other words, if the world’s militaries were a country, they would be the 4th largest emitter, ranking after China, USA, and India.
So, cconventional wars warm the planet.
What about nuclear warfare?
Even worse, I’m afraid – but in the opposite direction!
Experts calculate that a large-scale nuclear war would cause so much soot and smoke. In turn, this would block the sunlight and thus lead to a “Nuclear Winter”. Global temperatures could then decrease by about 10 degrees Celsius or more in a matter of weeks. This effect would be profound and would quickly lead to mass starvation.
As so often, the conclusion is ‘disarmingly’ obvious:
STOP ALL WARS!
Obvious, yes.
Realistic?
No!
The authors found very low‐certainty evidence (downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and imprecision) that SMT may result in a medium reduction in pain compared to no treatment at one month (MD ‐13.99, 95% CI ‐27.33 to ‐0.66; I2 = 89%; 4 studies, 325 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. They found low‐certainty evidence (downgraded for study limitations and imprecision) that SMT may result in a large improvement in functional status compared to no treatment at one month (SMD ‐0.84, 95% CI ‐1.32 to ‐0.35; I2 = 71%; 4 studies, 312 participants).
SMT versus other conservative interventions
Low‐certainty evidence (downgraded for inconsistency) indicated that SMT may result in little to no difference in pain (MD ‐4.72, 95% CI ‐8.26 to ‐1.17; I2 = 89%; 31 studies, 4109 participants) and may result in a small improvement in functional status (SMD ‐0.25, 95% CI ‐0.38 to ‐0.11; I2 = 73%; 28 studies, 3940 participants) compared to other conservative interventions at one month.
These effects, however, should be interpreted with caution due to the substantial statistical heterogeneity for which there is no clear explanation.
Less than half of the studies (47%) reported on adverse events, of which 12 studies reported these systematically. Adverse events in the SMT group were limited to muscle soreness, stiffness, and/or transient increase in pain. None of the studies registered any serious complications related to either the experimental or control group treatment. The evidence is very uncertain about the adverse effects of SMT.
Authors’ conclusions: When SMT is compared to sham SMT/placebo, it may result in a small improvement in pain and medium improvement in functional status in adults with chronic low back pain. When compared to no treatment, SMT may result in a medium improvement in pain and a large improvement in functional status. When compared to other conservative interventions, SMT may result in little to no difference in pain and a small improvement in functional status. The evidence is of low to very low certainty, largely due to the fact that the effects of SMT were examined in trials conducted in different settings and populations, with different types of SMT technique, dosage, and frequency of treatment. Continuing to conduct RCTs in the same manner will neither strengthen the evidence nor our confidence in it.
Once again, it has been confirmed that most trials of SMT are, because of their failure to report adverse effects, in violation of ethical standards. But the importance of this excellent review lies elsewhere. Despite 76 published RCTs, there is huge uncertainty about the benefits of SAM. What should we make of this fact?
In my view, it highlights that:
- the studies are often of poor quality;
- the effect of SMT are so small that they are negligibel;
- patients with back pain should look for treatments that are safe and effective;
- the choice can therefore not be SMT.
Here’s a data-based comparison specifically focused on scientific papers on homeopathy by Dana Ullman and Edzard Ernst — including quantity and scientific respect/impact.
🧾 1. Quantity of Scientific Publications on Homeopathy
📌 Dana Ullman
From PubMed and scholarly databases:
-
Dana Ullman has authored scientific papers that mention or discuss homeopathy, including:
-
An analysis of four government-funded reviews of research on homeopathic medicine (2021) — a review about homeopathy evidence.
-
Exploring possible mechanisms of hormesis and homeopathy (2021) — a review proposing mechanisms for homeopathy.
-
Controlled clinical trials evaluating homeopathic treatment in people with HIV (2003) — review of trials.
-
-
Overall, Ullman has a handful (~a few) peer-reviewed homeopathy-related papers indexed in PubMed. A precise total would require a database search, but it’s clearly in the low dozens or fewer in mainstream medical/biomedical indexes.
Many of Ullman’s writings on homeopathy are books, commentaries, or advocacy pieces outside conventional scientific journals. These don’t necessarily count as original peer-reviewed scientific research in standard scientific metrics.
📌 Edzard Ernst
Edzard Ernst has a long research career in complementary and alternative medicine, including homeopathy. Examples from PubMed:
-
Multiple original research and review papers focusing on the evidence base of homeopathy and clinical evidence — e.g. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy (2002).
-
Clinical and methodological pieces about homeopathy in high-impact journals (e.g., Homeopathy: What Does the “Best” Evidence Tell Us?).
-
Other papers addressing clinical and methodological aspects of homeopathy (e.g., Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?).
-
Editorials and commentaries examining the evidence base and plausibility of homeopathy.
Ernst has numerous peer-reviewed publications on homeopathy, spanning systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical evaluations, and broader evidence surveys — likely dozens or more. For perspective, Ernst’s total scientific output exceeds 1,000 peer-reviewed articles overall, many addressing homeopathy during his complementary medicine research career.
📊 Summary — Quantity
| Researcher | Approx. PubMed-indexed homeopathy papers |
|---|---|
| Dana Ullman | A small number (a few to ~10-20) of indexed homeopathy-related papers |
| Edzard Ernst | Many more (likely dozens+) indexed papers addressing homeopathy or its evidence base |
➡️ Edzard Ernst has published more scientific papers on homeopathy than Dana Ullman.
🧠 2. Scientific Respect & Impact in the Scientific Community
📌 Edzard Ernst
🔹 Widely recognized in evidence-based medicine for applying rigorous methods to evaluate complementary therapies, including homeopathy.
🔹 His homeopathy research is published in mainstream, indexed journals and is often cited in systematic reviews/meta-analyses.
🔹 His work is cited by other researchers and included in high-visibility evidence syntheses (e.g., Cochrane and independent systematic reviews).
Scientific consensus views his homeopathy publications as critical evaluations based on best-available evidence, contributing to the mainstream understanding that homeopathy lacks reproducible efficacy beyond placebo.
📌 Dana Ullman
⚠️ Many of Ullman’s papers on homeopathy tend to be advocacy-oriented or speculative (e.g., proposing mechanisms like nanoscale effects) rather than clinical evidence showing efficacy.
⚠️ His work is less frequently cited in mainstream medical research and less influential in systematic evidence evaluations compared to work by critics like Ernst or independent reviews.
⚠️ The broader scientific community does not generally regard homeopathy as effective, and Ullman’s conclusions supporting homeopathy are not embraced by most evidence-based researchers.
⭐ Final Comparison — Scientific Respect
| Criterion | Dana Ullman | Edzard Ernst |
|---|---|---|
| Number of homeopathy papers (indexed, peer-reviewed) | Limited | Substantially more |
| Published in mainstream scientific journals | Some, but fewer and often niche | Many — mainstream medical and evidence-based journals |
| Influence on scientific consensus | Low (largely advocacy) | High (critical, evidence-based evaluation) |
| Citation impact in evidence syntheses | Low | High |
____________________
PS
Again, I ask my readers to forgive me for doing another childish hoax.
But please understand: what would I not do to please my friend Dana!?!
The objective of this study was to explore the nature of retraction notices associated with so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) focused journals. Data related to retractions in SCAM journals were extracted from the Retraction Watch Database for the period 2000-2025.
The analysis found that there were 902 notices associated with 42 SCAM journals. Overall, the percentage of retractions relative to all papers published in the named journals is low (<1%) however a single journal was responsible for 84% of retractions. The majority of these retractions occurred in 2023 as the result of a wider publisher investigation into paper mills and sham peer-review. Similar to other studies, retraction was rarely due to a single cause but reflected a mix of data integrity concerns, peer-review issues, evidence of plagiarism and other issues. The average time between original publication and retraction was 19 months (mode 10 months) with 98% of publications having multiple authors. The main country of origin of authors of retracted works were China, India and South Korea.
The authors concluded that published peer-reviewed literature is used in a range of ways, as the foundation for future studies, incorporated in systematic reviews, clinical decision-making and in training of practitioners and clinicians. While this study has demonstrated that retractions in the complementary and alternative medicine literature is generally at a lower level, any evidence of publication integrity breach is a concern and should be cause for ongoing monitoring.
The way I see it, there are several problems with this study and its conclusion.
1. Do we know that SCAM journals are as willing to retract papers as are other journals? The answer, I am afraid, is NO!
2. Retraction Watch compiles retractions by monitoring publisher websites, publisher metadata, and community tips, but not all publishers report or label retractions consistently. In other words,
Retraction Watch relies on a mix of automated checks and manual curation, but it still can’t catch every retraction, especially from smaller or inconsistent sources. This means that we have no evidence that retractions from SCAM journals were fairly represented in the sample investigated in this study.
In view of this, the conclusions need to be re-formulated, I fear:
In the sample analysed for the present survey, retractions in the SCAM literature might be at a lower level than in the non-SCAM literature. This observation could be due to more than one phenomenon and requires independent replication.
I have reported several times previously on my blog that France has a problem with the promotion of unproven therapies into its routine healthcare, e.g.:
- No to the reimbursement of pseudo-therapies! An open letter from France
- Bad news for France: Patrick Hetzel, the new Minister for Higher Education and Research seems to be an anti-scientist
- France outlaws practices which expose patients to a serious health risk
- Dispute about so-called alternative medicine practitioners in France
- Osteopathy in France: widely accepted yet based on little more than wishful thinking
Now three presssure goups promoting unproven treatments seem to have succeeded to arrange a meeting in the French Senate. Therefore, the French ‘Collectif No Fakemed’ together with GEPS, GEMPPI have published an open letter addressed to the President of the Senate. Here is my translation of it:
Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr President of the Senate,
On 22 January, the Group for the Evaluation of Personalised Complementary Therapies (GETCOP) and the National Chamber of Health Practitioners (CNPS), with the support of the initiative of Integrative and Complementary Medicine (CUMIC), three important pressure groups promoting non-conventional care, are organising a meeting at the Senate, through Senator Laurence Muller-Bronn, entitled “Why and how to ensure the safe introduction of health practices? ” (https://archive.is/gsS64).
Let us make no mistake, these associations are seeking to promote and legitimise pseudo-medicines before the Senate and, more broadly, among our fellow citizens. These practices, which have not been proven to be effective, present risks of therapeutic abuse (loss of chance of recovery, undesirable side effects, social cost) and sectarian abuse. These pressure groups thus present legislators with a singular vision of health that runs counter to evidence-based medicine and may influence public decision-making. Indeed, among the announced speakers are well-known promoters of non-conventional practices, often esoteric, some of whom are linked to sectarian groups reported in parliamentary reports or by Miviludes (see below).
At a time when the press and institutions are constantly pointing the finger at these pressure groups, and when the Ministry of Health has launched a study on “Combating obscurantism and misinformation in health”, the results of which will be presented in January, it seems totally inconsistent that the national representation should endorse such an event.
We therefore call on Mr Gérard Larcher, President of the Senate, all senators and the State to ensure that this event, which calls into question the foundations of science and rationality in medicine, is cancelled outright, in accordance with Law No. 2024-420 of 10 May 2024 aimed at strengthening measures to combat sectarian aberrations and supporting victims.
Reference: a few examples of speakers announced for 22 January
– Valérie Broni, administrator of the CNPS, is a personal development coach and mentor. She offers treatments based on a biophotonic process, which has never been validated, that supposedly allows for a quick ‘scan’ of the body by simply recording data from the fingers in order to optimise one’s health. She also practises art therapy, psycho-energetics, Emotional Freedom Technique, Tong Ren, Cardiac Coherence, Matrix Reimprinting, all of which are approaches
identified by Miviludes (https://archive.is/qvFCZ, https://archive.is/eQnLx, https://archive.is/cskFN).
– Henri Tsiang, a Qi Gong teacher, offers a range of therapeutic practices derived from Chinese medicine, none of which are recognised by the Public Health Code: Taoist energy arts, meditation, Dao Yin, therapeutic Qi Gong, Tui Na massage, etc. (https://archive.is/UKvpf, https://archive.is/zThbn, https://urlr.me/Vm2Uga).
– Reza Moghaddassi, a philosopher associated with GETCOP and promoter of the concept of ‘integrative medicine,’ emphasises the role of meditation in healing. He participates in unique meetings such as the ‘International Symposium on Health, Meditation and Consciousness, Healing the Body, Healing the Soul’ (https://archive.is/Jw7vu).
– Dr Bernard Payrau, president of GETCOP and administrator of CNPS, claims affiliation with CERAP, a pseudo-institute of the Fasciatherapy movement, an extension of the Sri Ram Chandra sectarian group (https://urlr.me/a2t5Ce, https://urlr.me/AKtuTn). Fasciatherapy has been particularly
singled out by the press, as well as in the two volumes of Senate Report No. 480 produced on behalf of the Commission of Inquiry into the influence of sectarian movements in the field of health, under the direction of its President, Senator Alain Milon, and its Rapporteur, Senator Jacques Mézard, submitted to the Presidency of the Senate on 3 April 2013 (https://urlr.me/8eSnvg, https://urlr.me/Ty42qc).
– Prof. Fabrice Berna, Vice-President of Training at CUMIC, strongly advocates the integration of alternative medicine into healthcare pathways and the training of future doctors (https://urlr.me/taWAqR), while at the same time questioning the competence of Miviludes (https://archive.is/0AdP2). He is an
important member of a movement targeted by Miviludes, the Free University of Samadeva (https://urlr.me/vxN8sF, https://archive.is/DNLRk).
– Prof. Laurence Verneuil, Vice-President of Research at CUMIC (https://urlr.me/M7bWda), is a member of the Health United movement, whose purpose is to promote a myriad of pseudo-therapies that have not been scientifically validated (https://archive.is/T3LOj). United Health works very regularly with
the Men-Tsee-Khang Tibetan Medical and Astrological Institute, which places astrological analysis of diseases, including cancers and leukaemias, at the centre of its practice (https://urlr.me/vesJyZ, https://urlr.me/6Y8AJR).
In his recent comment, Dana Ullman asked AI to analyse my critique of a yoga study. I thought this was good fun and therefore decided to do a similar exercise. I asked AI:
Dana Ullman, please summarize his his life-time achievement in medical sciences.
Here is the reply I got:
Dana Ullman — Lifetime Achievements in Relation to the Medical Sciences
Dana Ullman is not a medical scientist and has not contributed original research, clinical trials, or theoretical advances to the medical sciences. His lifetime achievements instead lie in public advocacy, education, and popularization of homeopathy, a system of alternative medicine that remains outside the scientific consensus.
1. Popularization of Homeopathy
-
Ullman has been one of the most prominent American communicators of homeopathy to lay audiences.
-
Through books, lectures, and media appearances, he helped sustain public awareness of homeopathy during a period when evidence-based medicine increasingly dominated medical science.
2. Educational Infrastructure (Non-Scientific)
-
He co-founded Homeopathic Educational Services, which provides training and informational materials about homeopathy.
-
These programs focus on belief-based and historical frameworks, not on experimentally validated biomedical science.
3. Authorship and Public Discourse
-
Ullman authored several widely circulated books, including:
-
Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines
-
Discovering Homeopathy
-
-
His writing emphasizes anecdotal evidence, traditional doctrine, and patient testimonials rather than reproducible scientific data.
4. Engagement With Scientific and Regulatory Institutions
-
Ullman has actively participated in public debates involving organizations such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, primarily to argue against stricter regulation of homeopathic products.
-
His role has been adversarial rather than contributory to medical science, often disputing mainstream scientific standards of evidence.
5. Standing Within Medical Science
-
Homeopathy, the field Ullman represents, is widely regarded by the scientific community as biologically implausible and unsupported by high-quality clinical evidence.
-
Consequently, Ullman’s work is considered outside the domain of medical science, even though it interacts with scientific institutions and public health policy.
Overall Assessment
Dana Ullman’s lifetime achievement is not in advancing medical science, but in:
-
Sustaining a major alternative-medicine movement
-
Influencing public perception and policy discussions
-
Acting as a long-term ideological counterpoint to evidence-based medicine
His historical significance lies in science communication and cultural influence, not in scientific discovery or medical innovation.
___________________________________________________
Yes, you are correct!
This is unfair!!!
We need a comparison to see how critical AI evaluates.
So, I asked AI another question:
Edzard Ernst, please summarize his his life-time achievement in medical sciences.
Here is the reply:
Edzard Ernst — Lifetime Achievements in Medical Sciences
Edzard Ernst is a physician-scientist whose career fundamentally reshaped how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is evaluated within evidence-based medicine. His lifetime contribution lies in applying rigorous scientific methods to an area that had long lacked systematic scrutiny.
1. Pioneer of Evidence-Based Evaluation of CAM
-
Ernst was the first professor worldwide dedicated to complementary medicine at a conventional medical school, holding a chair at the University of Exeter.
-
He transformed CAM research by insisting on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, applying the same standards used in pharmacology and clinical medicine.
2. Foundational Research Output
-
Authored or co-authored over 1,000 scientific papers in peer-reviewed medical journals.
-
His work systematically evaluated treatments such as homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, and herbal medicine, often demonstrating lack of efficacy or unacceptable risk.
-
His research is widely cited and has influenced clinical guidelines, regulatory discussions, and public health policy.
3. Establishment of a Research Discipline
-
Ernst helped establish CAM evaluation as a legitimate academic field, even while concluding that many CAM therapies fail scientific testing.
-
He trained researchers and clinicians in critical appraisal, leaving a lasting methodological legacy beyond his own publications.
4. Influential Books and Science Communication
-
Authored influential books bridging academia and the public, including:
-
Trick or Treatment?
-
Edzard Ernst’s Desk Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine
-
-
These works are noted for translating complex medical evidence into accessible language without compromising scientific rigor.
5. Defense of Scientific Integrity in Medicine
-
Ernst became a prominent defender of scientific standards, patient safety, and medical ethics, often in the face of political and institutional pressure.
-
His willingness to publish unfavorable results about popular therapies strengthened norms against publication bias and conflict-driven research.
6. Global Impact and Recognition
-
His conclusions have been cited by organizations such as the World Health Organization and national health bodies.
-
Ernst is widely regarded as the most influential critic-scientist of alternative medicine in modern medical history.
Overall Assessment
Edzard Ernst’s lifetime achievement in medical sciences is defined by:
-
Introducing scientific accountability to alternative medicine
-
Protecting patients from ineffective or harmful treatments
-
Strengthening the principles of evidence-based medicine across disciplines
His legacy is not tied to a single discovery, but to a systematic correction of how medicine evaluates claims, making his contribution both enduring and foundational.
_______________________________________
I hope you forgive me this little bit of childish fun.
Perhaps you even enjoyed it as much as I did?
Opioid withdrawal involves sympathetic hyperactivity and reduced parasympathetic tone, which standard pharmacological treatments may not adequately address, contributing to relapse vulnerability. This study evaluated yoga as adjuvant therapy to accelerate opioid withdrawal recovery and assess its impact on heart rate variability, anxiety, sleep, and pain.
This 2-arm, early-stage randomized clinical trial was conducted at an addiction medicine inpatient ward in India from April 30, 2023 to March 31, 2024. The outcome assessors and data analyst were blinded to group allocation. Participants included adults aged 18 to 50 years with opioid use disorder experiencing mild to moderate withdrawal symptoms (Clinical Opiate Withdrawal Scale [COWS] scores 4-24). Exclusion criteria included severe withdrawal, neurological conditions affecting autonomic function, severe psychiatric conditions, and recent yoga training. Of 68 individuals screened, 59 were randomized (30 yoga and 29 control participants).
Participants in the yoga group received (A) 10 supervised 45-minute sessions during 14 days alongside (B) standard buprenorphine treatment, including relaxation practices, postures, breathing techniques, and guided relaxation. Participants in the control group received (B) standard buprenorphine treatment only. Co-primary outcomes included time to withdrawal stabilization (COWS score <4) and heart rate variability parameters. Secondary outcomes included anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale), sleep latency, and pain scores. Assessments were conducted at baseline (day 1) and day 15.
Fifty-nine participants (59 male [100%]; mean [SD] age, 25.6 [3.9] years) completed intent-to-treat analysis. Participants in the yoga group recovered faster than those in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 4.40; 95% CI, 2.40-8.07; P < .001), with a median stabilization time of 5 days (95% CI, 4-6 days) for those in the yoga group vs 9 days (95% CI, 7-13 days) for the control group. Participants in the yoga group showed superior heart rate variability improvements with large effects on low frequency (LF) power (ω2 = 0.16), high frequency (HF) power (ω2 = 0.14), and LF/HF ratio (ω2 = 0.12); all effects were statistically significant (P < .001). Mediation analysis showed that increases in parasympathetic activity accounted for 23% of the treatment effect (indirect HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-2.03). Anxiety reduction was significantly greater among those in the yoga group (ω2 = 0.28; P < .001), with moderate improvements in sleep latency (a 61-minute reduction; P = .008) and pain (P = .004).
The authors concluded that in this randomized clinical trial, yoga significantly accelerated opioid withdrawal recovery and improved autonomic regulation, anxiety, sleep, and pain. These findings support integrating yoga into withdrawal protocols as a neurobiologically informed intervention addressing core regulatory processes beyond symptom management.
This conclusion is demonstrably wrong, and I am dismayed that a reputable journal published it.
The study followed the infamous ‘A+B versus B’ design. It is infamous because it is seemingly rigorous (“A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL”!!!), while invariably generating a positive result for the tested intervention – even if it happens to be nothing more than a placebo tretment. And because of this, it is, in my view, unethical to use it for concluding about the specific effects of the tested intervention. I have explained this so often that I hesitate to do it again:
- Imagine the treatments as two amounts of money.
- Amount (treatmet) A equals £1.
- Amount (treatment) B equals £2.
- If one (the verum) group gets A+B, it will have £3.
- If the other (control) group gets just £2, it will have £2.
- A+B is always more that B.
- If A is a placebo, the A+B > B still applies, due to the existance of placebo effects
- QED!
The crux is obviously that the A+B vs B design only appears to be rigorous but, in fact, does NOT control for placebo effects. Since placebo effects exist, the A+B vs B design must produce a positive result, even if the verum is ineffective and merely generates a placebo response.
As the type of yoga employed in this study is bound to generate a sizable placebo effect, it would easily be enought to cause the observed outcomes. Let me put it even more bluntly: this study design is unable to tell us whether the yoga therapy or a placebo response was responsible for the observed result*.
In view of this, I will re-formuate the first sentence of the conclusion as follows:
In this randomized clinical trial, a placebo effect accelerated opioid withdrawal recovery and improved autonomic regulation, anxiety, sleep, and pain.
But what about the 2nd sentence of the conclusion?
Arguably, it is even worse!
To claim that the findings of one single study sufiice for calling for the integration of the tested treatment into routine healthcare ignores the need for independent replications and is therefore dangerous nonsense.
*(Btw: this is also the reason why it is so popular with pseudoscientists trying to show that their pet therapy works.]
