NEW!
NEW!
Updated Edition!
Gut microbiota composition might have a role in the pathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and faecal microbiota transplantation has been proposed as a means of restoring healthy gut microbiota for individuals with this condition. A Norwegian team aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of faecal microbiota transplantation in patients with IBS.
In this parallel-group, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, conducted at five hospitals in Norway, they enrolled men and women aged 18–65 years with moderate-to-severe IBS. IBS diagnosis was defined by the Rome IV criteria and an IBS-Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS) score of 175 points or higher. A colonoscopy within 5 years before study enrolment was required for all participants aged 50 years or older to rule out colorectal cancer, and participants with IBS with predominantly diarrhoea required negative biopsies to exclude microscopic colitis. Participants were randomly assigned 2:1 to faecal microbiota transplantation with faeces samples from either healthy donors (intervention) or the participants themselves (placebo group). All investigators, participants, and study personnel involved in treatment administration, patient care, and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Treatments were delivered as a once-only rectal enema. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a reduction of 75 points or more in IBS-SSS score at 90 days after treatment compared with baseline, assessed in all patients who received their allocated treatment. All participants were advised to report any adverse event during follow-up to their study contact, preferably by telephone. A patient representative was involved in the planning of the trial. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04691544).
Between May 5, 2021, and July 14, 2022, we assessed 2304 individuals for eligibility, and 450 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the intervention group (299) or placebo group (151); two randomly assigned participants were excluded from analyses because their allocated treatments were switched. 293 (65%) of 448 participants were women, 155 (35%) were men, and the median age was 36 years (IQR 29–44). 119 (40%) participants in the donor faecal microbiota transplantation group and 57 (38%) in the placebo group showed an improvement of at least 75 points on the IBS-SSS at 90 days after treatment. The absolute difference was 1·9 percentage points (95% CI –8·1 to 12·0; p=0·76). The proportion of participants with adverse events was similar in the two study groups.
The authors concluded that the trial did not show a clinical benefit of faecal microbiota transplantation in patients with IBS. These findings suggest that microbiota modulation alone might be insufficient for symptom improvement in IBS.
Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been much hyped in recent years as an alternative solution for all sorts of health problems. It normally involves transferring processed stool from a donor into a recipient’s gastrointestinal tract. Its principal established use is recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, particularly after repeated relapses despite appropriate antibiotic treatment. The evidence shows that FMT substantially reduces recurrences. Evidence for other conditions, including ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, obesity and neurological disorders, is much less conclusive. Although some studies report benefits, results are inconsistent and vary according to donor selection, preparation, dose and administration route.
Short-term adverse effects commonly include abdominal cramps, bloating, nausea, diarrhoea and constipation. The method of administration may also cause complications such as bleeding or bowel perforation. A further distinctive risk is transmission of infectious organisms, including multidrug-resistant bacteria; serious infections and deaths have been reported despite screening.
The current study is very well done and the results are clear: patients with IBS should avoid the cost, hassle, and harm of FMT.
I know many people – myself included – whose blood pressure increases when Trump is mentioned. But this post is not about the anger and stress by which the orange felon might jeapardise our health ans wellbeing. It is about the substantial body of evidence indicating that Trump’s policies worsened several key determinants of public health and longevity of the American people.
During his first term, the number of uninsured Americans rose by around 2.3 million. This development followed sustained efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) legislatively and, after this attempt had failed, to undermine it administratively. Independent projections suggested that full ACA repeal would have added 21–32 million uninsured people, disproportionately affecting low-income and other vulnerable groups. And loss of insurance is, of course, associated with higher mortality and worse healthcare.
US health performance deteriorated relative to other countries during Trump’s tenure. By 2018, US life expectancy was already 3.4 years shorter than the G7 average, with an estimated 461,000 excess deaths. The Lancet Commission attributes part of this gap to Trump-era policies: politicisation of science, weak federal pandemic preparedness, fragmented response, and erosion of public health institutions. It estimates that, if the US had matched G7 death rates, roughly 40% of US COVID deaths in 2020 (~ 188,000 lives) could have been averted. The commission explicitly states that health worsened further during Trump’s term.
Trump’s second term saw deep cuts to the funding of agencies and programmes that underpin long-term health, including substantial reductions in budgets and staffing at NIH and CDC. This, in turn, prompted adverse effects on data collection, infectious disease research, and scientific output. Cuts to Medicaid and ACA premium subsidies, together with moves reducing vaccination rates will limit access as well as quality of care, and increase vulnerability to infectious diseases. Fiscal and regulatory choices worsen social and environmental determinants of health, including higher pollution exposures and related respiratory and cardiovascular disease.
Although US life expectancy reached a record high of about 79 years in 2024, experts caution that longevity trends reflect long-term factors more than any effects of a single administration. The current health-related policies are predicted to have significant adverse effects on longevity.
Key references
- The Commonwealth. The second Trump presidency: Health care themes, policies, and implications. 2025.
- The Lancet Commission on Public Policy and Health in the Trump Era. US health status worsened dramatically under President Trump compared with other G7 countries. BMJ 2021;372:n439.
- Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The Trump Administration’s Health Care Sabotage. 2021.
- Urban Institute. Repeal of the Affordable Care Act. 2024.
- Blendon RJ et al. Politics is making us sick: The negative impact of political polarization on the health of American adults during the Trump administration. PLoS One 2022.
- KFF / media reports. U.S. life expectancy hits a new high, as deaths from overdoses and COVID fall. 2026.
Medical practice is often perceived through the lens of patient autonomy and non-judgmental care. In discussions regarding ineffective modalities like homeopathy, physicians are frequently advised to maintain a position of neutral tolerance, respecting patient preference, being open-minded, etc., etc. I have arrived at the conclusion that this attitude and behaviour is wrong, unhelpful, not in the best interest of the patient, and therefore unethical! True neutrality towards ineffective therapies is neither fair nor benign – it is a failure of medical responsibility.
A treatment that does not work beyond a placebo effect causes harm not necessarily through direct toxicity, but by displacing evidence-based care. When a suffering patient relies on ineffective remedies, critical diagnostic and therapeutic interventions will be delayed or abandoned altogether. Suffering that could be mitigated and diseases that might be cured are instead allowed to persist. Silence vis a vis such a prospect is not a neutral backdrop; it functions as tacit validation, leading patients to believe that bogus therapies hold equivalent scientific standing to proven medical science.
As physicians, the commitment to our patients requires active advocacy for the patient’s well-being. Honesty is integral to and essential for the therapeutic relationship. An honesty requires explaining to patients what amounts to the best available evidence; this is not an option amongst several, it is an ethical duty. When doctors remains silent about ineffective treatments, they breach their obligation of preventing harm. If a doctor is ill-informed about the ineffectiveness of a therapy, he is in breach of his professional duty to be up-to-date.
Therefore, non-neutrality is an imperative of ethical practice. Speaking out against unproven remedies with clarity, knowledge, empathy, and scientific integrity protects patients from financial exploitation and preventable harm. In medicine, failing to challenge bogus therapies is not a neutral stance; it amounts to an unethical omission of care.
It takes a special kind of geopolitical sophistication to hear a president of the US suggest that vaporizing millions of your fellow countrymen is “a very small price to pay” and think, “Yes, absolutely, he is right again!” Yet there they were in Grand Island, Nebraska: cheering, clapping, and chuckling dimly right on cue.
Trump, for all his ignorant hyperbole, was merely being himself, a man whose understanding of national security rarely extends past his own ego. But his audience? They achieve a level of mindless docility that is so intensely stupid that it makes Trump look almost normal.
When a leader nonchalantly offers up Los Angeles and San Diego as acceptable collateral damage to validate a foreign war (started presumably only to distract from the Epstein Files), normal humans might feel a faint chill of alarm. Not this bunch of brainless Trumpists! To them, American lives are divided into two categories: “Us” (patriotic, right-wing folks in Nebraska) and “Them” (those terrible, latte-sipping liberals in California). If a nuclear missile happens to wipe out two major metropolitan centres, thousands of military personnel, and billions in infrastructure, at least it “owns” the left.
The cheering must have relied on a diabolical mixture of cognitive dissonance, ignorance, inhumanity and raw spite. Some attendees treated the idea of incineration as a hilarious joke, suggestin that, in the US, nothing currently unites a stadium full of imbecils quite like the thought of their political rivals getting incinerated. Others might have convinced themselves it was just “tough talk,” apparently believing that strategic brilliance consists of telling foreign enemies which domestic cities they are allowed to blow up first.
Trump may dream up the absurd script, but his crowd provides the applause that keeps the circus running. To listen to him trade away American cities like chits in a poker game and respond with a standing ovation requires a level of foolishness so breathtakingly complete, it almost deserves a trophy. And this is precisely why I find this so concerning: Trump will be gone one day, but the millions that supported him will still be there.
How to prevent an even greater disaster than Trump already is? To me, it seems obvious: education! Events like the one above make it evident, I fear, that a very large section of the US public is dangerously uninformed and hopelessly uneducated.
A recent high-quality study published in ‘Nature Metabolism’ has attracted much international attention. Umderstandably – it links glucosamine (a popular supplement used predominantly for osteoarthritis pain) intake to faster cognitive decline in people with early memory problems.
The study by researchers at the University of Florida analysed more than a decade of electronic health records from nearly 60,000 people with cognitive decline. They reported that individuals with mild cognitive impairment who regularly used glucosamine were about 25% more likely to progress to dementia than non-users. Among people already diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias, regular use was associated with a roughly 25% higher mortality risk.
The study is more convincing than a simple database analysis because the authors also examined biological mechanisms. Analysis of post-mortem brain tissue and experiments in Alzheimer’s mouse models found increased protein “sugar-tagging,” or hyperglycosylation, in Alzheimer’s-affected brains. In mice, glucosamine increased this process and worsened cognitive performance, while interventions that reduced glycan synthesis improved cognition. This work makes a harmful effect in susceptible brains biologically credible.
Nevertheless, the human findings remain preliminary. People who take glucosamine may differ from those who do not in arthritis severity, pain, general health, medication use, diet, and access to care. Even with statistical adjustment, such differences can distort observed associations. The study also does not show that glucosamine harms people with normal cognition, nor does it prove that stopping the supplement would slow decline or prolong life. The researchers themselves state that human clinical trials are needed.
The sensible interpretation is therefore measured concern rather than alarm. For someone with mild cognitive impairment or established dementia, discussing continued glucosamine use with a clinician seems prudent, particularly if its benefit for joint symptoms is modest. For cognitively healthy people, the evidence does not yet justify a blanket warning. In short, the study provides a credible biological warning signal, but no reason to panic.
Faith can allegedly move mountains – but it evidently does not prevent the deaths of children in the US state of Idaho. ProPublica reported how 4 (!) children in one Idaho family died from treatable illnesses because their parents, members of the faith-healing sect Followers of Christ, did not seek medical care, and state law effectively prevented authorities from intervening to protect the surviving siblings. The Followers of Christ are a small, insular Pentecostal sect in the western US whose defining doctrine is faith healing: members believe illness should be treated through prayer, fasting, and the laying on of hands by elders, and that seeking medical care signals weak faith or even disobedience to God.
Emma Joyce, 3, died in August 2009 after days of vomiting until she stopped breathing in her parents’ arms. The next summer, her sister Ava Joan, also a toddler, became lethargic, would barely eat or drink, and vomited black fluid, a sign of internal bleeding, before dying in July 2010. Less than two years later, a toddler brother died from the same diabetic complication, and nine years after that a 4‑year‑old brother died after weeks of similar symptoms. The parents told officers they did not take the children to doctors because their religion regards modern medicine as a sinful lack of faith.
Idaho’s child-abuse statutes contain broad religious exemptions that exclude faith-healing practices from the legal definition of “neglect.” As a result, parents in sects like the Followers of Christ are shielded from criminal prosecution for conduct that would otherwise be charged as neglect, and crucially police and child-welfare workers lack grounds to step in after a child’s death to check on or protect surviving siblings. Unless there is evidence of a crime, deputies cannot act and do not notify child-protection agencies when a death is attributed to choosing prayer over medicine.
Healthcare professionals who reviewed records for ProPublica identified at least 15 avoidable child deaths in the sect between 2015 and 2025, including multiple sibling deaths in five families. Many died of conditions experts said could have been resolved with basic medical interventions. Neighbouring Oregon began rolling back similar exemptions in 1999, enabling prosecution and giving courts leverage to order medical care for surviving and future children. In Idaho, by contrast, the first doctor many of these children ever encounter is the pathologist performing an autopsy.
The legal position in England and Wales is different from the statutory exemptions that have historically existed in some US states. Parents with parental responsibility normally have authority to consent to medical treatment for their children. But that authority is not absolute. Where parents and doctors disagree about treatment, the courts can determine what is in the child’s best interests. Religious conviction does not give parents an automatic right to insist that a child be denied medically indicated treatment. The law does not have to decide whether Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Christian Science or any other religion is true. It has to decide what should happen to a particular child. Once a child faces serious and preventable harm, the relevant question is therefore not whether the parents’ belief is sincere but whether their decision protects the child’s welfare.
Religious freedom should protect people from coercion in matters of belief. It should not protect beliefs from criticism, evidence or the consequences of demonstrable harm. A society that excuses preventable suffering because it fears offending religious sensibilities has got its priorities backwards. Children should not have to die to prove that a religion is wrong about medicine. And when a belief system demands that they do, skepticism is not intolerance. It is an ethical necessity.
PS
An apt comment on X: “Idaho bans abortion, but allows child murder for religious reasons.”
Humour is said to be the best therapy. It certainly can act as a psychological release valve that defuses anxiety, exposes absurdity, and keeps us grounded. But its cathartic power comes with a catch: genuine humour requires self-examination, an embrace of ambiguity, and the ability to laugh about oneself. For people on the political far-right, humour – particularly its satirical variety – is not a therapy to enjoy, but a threat to get rid of.
The Third Reich struggled with it in exemplary fashion. In February 1939, The New York Times, for instance, reported that Joseph Goebbels ended the careers of 5 German comedians, including the then famous cabaretist Werner Finck. Their crime? They had dared to make witticisms about the Nazi regime’s mannerisms and monumental building schemes (both of which also happen to be characteristics of Donald J Trump). The Nazis frequently insisted they possessed a formidable sense of humour, one that could “kill opponents with ridicule”. They liked to laugh about opponents but disliked being laughed about. Werner Finck thus found himeslf in a concentration camp.
Today’s far-right movements presents themselves as fearless crusaders against political correctness, celebrating the “owning” of opponents as brave truth-telling. Yet, the moment the punchline turns towards their own leaders, symbols, or grievances, they react with exquisite sensitivity, recasting parody as persecution or incitement. Contempt for minorities and journalists is promoted as courage, while mockery of the leader is treated as treason.
Far-right humour has become a contradiction in terms. It merely functions is a test of obedience and a cult in which one laughs not because a line is funny, but to signal ideological loyalty. Genuine humour, by contrast, is considered to be dangerous because it creates ambiguity. It highlights the gap between official hybris and lived reality, allowing the audience to notice that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Nazis, right-wingers, dictators, and strongmen all hate humour because public ridicule breaks the spell of solemnity on which blind obedience so utterly depends.
When Donald Trump reacts to humour, he demonstrates to all of us that he misunderstands satire to be a hostile and thus punishable conspiracy. The clearest example of Trump’s humourlessness occurred in September 2025 with Jimmy Kimmel. Following Kimmel’s mocking of Trump, Disney and ABC were warned that broadcasters could do things “the easy way or the hard way.” Facing regulatory pressure and affiliate revolts, ABC temporarily suspended Kimmel’s show. Trump then celebrated the decision as “great news” and even suggested that networks offering unfavourable coverage should lose their broadcast licences.
No, Kimmel was not sent to a concentration camp like Werner Finck, but the underlying sentiment is nevertheless similar: right-wing power uses the state machinery and regulatory intimidation to prevent satirical humour or – heaven forbid! – outright criticism. The far-right movements’ demand for “free speech” reveals itself as a lip service and a one-way hierarchy where power shall mock but shall never be mocked. Trump and other Nazis incapable of laughing at themselves want to make sure that everyone else stop laughing too.
These days , it is not often that I have the pleasure of acting as a co-author of a paper. Today, I am proud to present you the latest one:
Several previous systematic reviews (SRs) have summarized the evidence on the safety and effectiveness of dry needling (DN). Existing SRs often have methodological limitations, and many are outdated, leading to inconsistent and conflicting conclusions. The aim of this umbrella review (UR) is to evaluate the available SRs on the safety and effectiveness of DN across various clinical conditions, and to re-evaluate and contextualize the previously conflicting evidence.
PubMed, MEDLINE (via Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, PEDro and Epistemonikos were searched (from Jan 2000 to Dec 2025) for relevant SRs. In this UR, SRs investigating DN with or without usual care (UC) performed by various healthcare professionals for treating musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal pain or dysfunction in human subjects were considered eligible. Non-systematic or narrative reviews were excluded. We strictly followed the PRIOR guidelines, assessed methodological quality using ROBIS tool, extracted effect sizes from meta-analyses, and evaluated overlap using the Corrected Covered Area (CCA).
A total of 75 SRs including 45,032 individuals met the eligibility criteria. Fifty SRs (66.6%) reported author conclusions favoring DN, 17 SRs (22.6%) reported equivocal conclusions, and eight SRs (10.6%) reported negative conclusions; these categories reflect the direction of conclusions stated by the SR authors. Fifty-seven SRs (76%) demonstrated high risk of bias across multiple domains, particularly in study selection, data appraisal, and synthesis. Among the 18 SRs judged to be at low risk of bias, 12 (66.6%) reported favorable conclusions, five (27.7%) equivocal conclusions, and one (5.5%) negative conclusion. Thirty‑six SRs (48%) reported adverse-effects (AEs), while the remaining 39 (52%) failed to provide any AE data. The amount of overlap was slight (CCA = 1.09).
We concluded that this UR provides a comprehensive mapping of the existing systematic review literature on DN. Although many reviews report beneficial effects of DN, the certainty of evidence remains limited due to high risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity. Accordingly, no definitive conclusions regarding clinical effectiveness in reducing pain and disability can be drawn, and the findings should be interpreted with caution. Safety reporting was inconsistent across SRs, with AEs frequently underreported. High-quality, condition-specific SRs and randomized clinical trials are required.
Yes, I know; it is frustrating to be unable to draw firmer conclusions about the value of a therapy, particularly when plenty of research does exist. The crux – as so often in so-called alternative medicine – is not a lack of evidence but a lack of reliable evidence. Far too many trials and reviews are flimsy and thus unreliable. This should be a lesson to those who are emarking on primary studies: poor quality trials are often worse than no trials at all. So, if you go to the trouble of conducting research, please make it rigorous!
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth’s creation of an Office of Religious Affairs within his ‘Ministry of War’ marks a decisive fusion of fitness, faith, and force (FFF). Hegseth – the man with a documented history of adultery and alcohol abuse, alongside a 2017 sexual assault allegation – elevates “spiritual fitness” to the same operational tier as physical readiness. Announced only a few days ago, the office will report directly to Hegseth himself, bypassing normal bureaucratic channels to ensure chaplains have “an advocate at the highest levels” – no, not God but Pete! The mandate of the new office includes sponsoring research and tools to “assess spiritual fitness, spiritual readiness, and spiritual resilience”.
These terms remain undefined; so, let me suggest a few practical definitions:
- Spiritual Fitness is what happens when the Pentagon decides your prayer life needs a Fitbit, and your salvation can be optimized like a CrossFit WOD.
- Spiritual Readiness is a bureaucratic euphemism for “Are you Christian enough to deploy?”
- Spiritual Resilience means reciting Psalms while ignoring the Geneva Conventions, because Hegseth told you America fights by its own rules.
Hegseth’s vision is dominated by his Christian nationalist worldview. A member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), he has described liberal culture as a “spiritual battle” requiring “faithful, dangerous Christian kids” educated in classical Christian schools. His 2024 book, The War on Warriors, describes military lethality as a moral imperative, arguing that “America should fight by its own rules” rather than abide by Geneva Conventions he deems unfairly restrictive. The new office’s funding priorities – faith-based homeschool support, suicide-reduction initiatives, and contracts with religious nonprofits – reflect this ideology beautifully.
While Hegseth insists that “nothing…shall be construed to compel religious participation,” the practical narrowing of recognized faiths tells another story: the Pentagon’s official list of religions was recently slashed from 200 to 31, with 22 Christian groups and atheists, pagans, and humanists removed entirely. Spiritual fitness, in this context, risks becoming a euphemism for doctrinal conformity, a metric not of inner peace, but of ideological alignment. As Hegseth declared in his Quantico address: “Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God.” In an era where education is “warfare” and children are “fodder” in a cosmic conflict, spiritual readiness may well mean preparing warriors not just to fight, but to believe they are fighting for God Himself.
That a paper entitled “Homeopathy in Geriatric Healthcare: A Critical Review of Applications, Evidence, Safety and Patient-Centred Care” caught my eye is not surprising. The paper itself, however, offers plenty of surprises. Here is its abstract:
Population ageing has created increasing demand for healthcare approaches capable of addressing multiple chronic conditions, functional limitations, medication-related concerns, and declining quality of life among older adults. Geriatric healthcare is particularly complex because older people frequently experience multimorbidity, polypharmacy, frailty, chronic pain, sleep disturbances, anxiety, gastrointestinal complaints, and other long-term health problems. These circumstances have encouraged some older adults and caregivers to explore complementary and alternative medical systems, including homeopathy. Homeopathy is characterized by the principles of similars, individualization, and potentization through serial dilution and succussion. Supporters often describe it as a gentle and holistic approach that may complement conventional care. This paper critically examines the potential role of homeopathy in geriatric healthcare, focusing on chronic pain, osteoarthritis, sleep problems, anxiety, gastrointestinal complaints, respiratory conditions, and general quality of life. It also discusses polypharmacy, patient expectations, therapeutic relationships, safety, treatment substitution, informed decision-making, caregiver involvement, and ethical considerations. Existing evidence concerning homeopathy remains controversial. Some studies and meta-analyses have reported outcomes favoring homeopathy, while other systematic reviews have identified methodological limitations, publication bias, heterogeneity, and insufficient evidence to establish reliable efficacy for specific diseases. In older adults, these uncertainties are particularly important because delayed diagnosis or discontinuation of effective treatment may have serious consequences. Although highly diluted preparations may reduce some direct pharmacological risks, products labeled homeopathic are not universally identical in composition or risk. Moreover, indirect harms can arise when patients replace proven treatment with ineffective alternatives. The paper argues that patient-centred geriatric care should respect individual preferences while maintaining evidence-based diagnosis and treatment. Homeopathy should not replace essential medication, vaccination, rehabilitation, or emergency care. Future research should prioritize well-designed trials involving older populations, clinically meaningful outcomes, long-term follow-up, medication-interaction assessment, safety monitoring, and health-economic analysis. A coordinated approach involving patients, caregivers, physicians, pharmacists, and complementary practitioners may help promote transparency and reduce preventable harm.
Phraseology like “some studies and meta-analyses have reported outcomes favoring homeopathy” is technically true but misleading without immediate context: such positive findings consistently vanish in high-quality, preregistered trials and are best explained by placebo effects, regression to the mean, and publication bias. Major health authorities conclude there is no reliable evidence homeopathy exceeds placebo for any condition.
The abstract rightly flags indirect harms (treatment substitution, delayed diagnosis), its call for “well-designed trials” in older adults is ethically questionable. After decades of research and hundreds of systematic reviews, further efficacy trials are unlikely to resolve fundamental mechanistic implausibility and may divert resources from interventions with proven benefit.
My biggest surprise with this paper came when I looked at the author and her affiliation:
Amelia Rothen
Department of Computer Science, Hartwell University, Germany
As I am unaware of either, I asked AI about them. Here is the response:
Based on available evidence, neither the person nor the institutional affiliation as described appears to be real in the way the citation implies.
Hartwell University is not a German institution
Hartwell University is a real entity, but it is not located in Germany and has no Department of Computer Science in any conventional academic sense. It is an online, unaccredited, evangelical Christian university based in Palm Harbor, Florida, USA, operating under Hartwell Education, Inc.. Its catalog explicitly states:hartwelluniversity+3
- It is not accredited by any agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or CHEA (though it has expressed intentions to seek accreditation).kvue+2
- It offers degrees in general studies, psychology, counseling, business, leadership, biblical studies, Christian education, and apologetics—not computer science.hartwelluniversity+1
- It is hosted by New Hope Church Palm Harbor and describes itself as “evangelical and nondenominational”.hartwelluniversity+1
In 2024, U.S. media reported concerns after a Texas school district (Bastrop ISD) used Hartwell University courses to help staff obtain teaching credentials, only for employees to discover the institution lacked accreditation. Reddit discussions from 2024–2025 also highlight skepticism about its legitimacy and transparency.kvue+2
There is no evidence of a German campus, a computer science department, or any European presence.
No verifiable record of “Amelia Rothen” in computer science
Searches across academic databases (dblp, university directories, research portals) and general web sources yield no credible record of an “Amelia Rothen” affiliated with computer science in Germany or elsewhere. The name does not appear in:
- German university staff directories
- Computer science publication indexes (e.g., dblp)
- Research project listings or conference proceedings
The only “Amelia Rothen” references that surface in peripheral contexts (e.g., GitHub, Steam profiles) are unrelated to academia and lack institutional affiliation.
Likely explanation
This looks like a fabricated or placeholder citation, possibly generated by an AI or copied from a source that invented an affiliation to lend false credibility. The combination of a plausible-sounding name, a generic department (“Computer Science”), a real but obscure institution (Hartwell University), and a wrong country (Germany instead of Florida) is a known pattern in hallucinated references.
If you encountered this in a paper, website, or AI-generated text, it should be treated as unreliable and not used as a source.
_________________________
It gets worse!
Virtually the next paper I stumbled over (again via Google Scholar) was afurther single-author review of homeopathy:
Homeopathy in Women’s Health: A Critical Review of Therapeutic Applications, Clinical Evidence and Patient-Centred Care
Lukas Fenwick
School of Computing, Norvale Institute of Technology, Sweden
Its contents seemed similarly promotional of homeopathy without glarring errors – in a word, nothing to write home about. But what about the author and his affiliation? As I did not know ether, I again asked AI. Here is the response:
Based on available evidence, neither “Lukas Fenwick” nor the “Norvale Institute of Technology, Sweden” appears to be real in any verifiable academic sense.
Norvale Institute of Technology does not exist in Sweden
There is no record of an institution called “Norvale Institute of Technology” in Sweden’s official higher education system. Searches across:
- Swedish university and research institute directories (DiVA portal, Vinnova project database, WASP Sweden, major universities like Lund, Uppsala, KTH, Chalmers)
- Swedish company and organisation registers
- General web sources
yield no mention of “Norvale Institute of Technology” as an educational or research entity in Sweden. The name does not correspond to any known Swedish technical university, university college, or research institute. “Norvale” itself does not appear as a place name or institutional brand in Sweden.
No academic trace of “Lukas Fenwick” in computer science
Similarly, there is no credible academic record of a researcher named “Lukas Fenwick” affiliated with computer science in Sweden or elsewhere. The name does not appear in:
- Publication databases (e.g., DiVA, ORCID-linked lists, dblp)
- Swedish research project funding records
- University staff directories
The only “Fenwick” references that surface are unrelated (e.g., a developer named “Lucas Fenwick” on dev.to, with no Swedish or academic affiliation).dev
Likely explanation
This citation matches the pattern of a fabricated or AI-hallucinated reference: a plausible-sounding name, a generic department (“School of Computing”), a non-existent institution (“Norvale Institute of Technology”), and a country loosely associated with tech (Sweden). Such constructions are common in AI-generated text that invents sources to appear authoritative.
If you encountered this in a paper, report, or online article, it should be treated as unreliable and not used as a source.
_______________________________
You might remember: we recently had a very similar case: FAKE THERAPY, FAKE PAPER, FAKE AUTHOR, FAKE INSTITUTE, Homeopathy and Women’s Health: A Critical Review. I am truly puzzled! Who would want do write a paper [possibly with AI support] and invent a name and a affiliation? Which journal (in all three cases, the journal does exist but does not normally publish papers on homeopathy) would publish such nonsense? Why? What is the benefit to the person doing all this?
If you know some answers, please do enlighten me.
