The Skeptic podcast, bringing you the best of the magazine’s expert analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal since its relaunch as online news source in September 2020.
I was looking on social media for videos about sustainable fashion and content discussing how to avoid cheaply made garments with short lifespans, and the value of opting instead for classic pieces that endure beyond trend cycles. I was then quickly funnelled towards videos of women telling me how to dress modestly and classically, emulating the look of classic, Gatsby-esque ‘old money’. I’m not ashamed to admit I let them draw me in a bit. Very attractive people strolling around European cities in well-fitting, muted shades has a real aspirational charm.
It got me thinking about changes I’ve made to my own wardrobe. I noticed that I’ve been favouring more neutral colours and thinking about my clothes in terms of timelessness. I couldn’t help but wonder if I’d been a victim of the same value system without realising, perhaps subtly guided by the same predatory algorithm into believing that what my summer wardrobe really needed was a smart shirt, implying it’s somehow inherently better than, say, a T-shirt.
The Old Money trend has had a considerably longer life cycle than other styles precisely because it feels aspirational in a time of economic uncertainty. In such periods, minimalism feels safer, less risky. Experimentation with personal style becomes less common as people try to present the most palatable version of themselves to avoid social or professional rejection.
The old money aesthetic draws on the style associated with generational wealth, reflecting an understated, elite look. Typical features include tailored garments such as blazers, trousers, and trench coats; neutral, classic colour palettes like navy, black, beige, and grey; luxury fabrics like cashmere, wool, silk, and linen; and subtle logos, or none at all. In a similar vein, I also found videos promoting Quiet Luxury pieces, promoting minimalism, refinement, and the subtle signalling of wealth through quality and design.
Conservatism thrives on the belief that answers lie in the past rather than the future; on nostalgia, and how the trends we follow in clothing reflect broader cultural values. While I’m not suggesting that choosing to dress up and favouring a quiet luxury style makes one inherently conservative, embracing traditional aesthetics can be one step on the ladder. These styles are conservative by definition: they aim to preserve an idealised past that may never have existed.
It would be easy to say I’m overthinking a fashion trend, but what is more conservative than aspiring to traditionalism? Reflecting critically on how trends shape us is essential to being aware of their influence.
Absorbing conservative messaging
Although these videos appear designed to a conservative aesthetic and agenda, I discovered them while researching sustainability practices. This shows that different viewpoints can independently reach similar conclusions about the value of timeless clothing — something worth recognising and understanding.
The feeling that I might have been inadvertently absorbing conservative messaging left me feeling quite disjointed. After sitting with the feeling I realised the significant difference, even when the outcomes appear the same, between avoiding cheaply and unethically produced items and fearing the appearance of something looking cheap. For conservatives promoting the old money style, it doesn’t matter whether something is expensive or sustainably produced, as long as it appears elegant, understated, or expensive, at least from a distance or in a short clip.
Without close inspection, the two can appear almost identical, making it easy to slip from ethical concerns about clothing into the belief that modern styles are inherently cheap, unsophisticated, or brash.
The predatory aspect here is something that I kept coming up against after engaging with the old money aesthetic videos. At a time when economic mobility is increasingly out of reach for most young people, cosplaying wealth has become more and more popular. That is what so much of this aesthetic feels like to me, a yearning for a lifestyle that no longer exists in the same way, or at least for the aspirations once attached to it: home ownership, being the sole breadwinner, having ample disposable time. These now feel incredibly out of reach in our economy, because we live in a late capitalist nightmare where almost everyone has to work a lot harder.
Other trends that romanticise the past, like the trad wife movement, also sell a version of time that people associate with stability or a life of leisure. And the thing is, it works; it is appealing in those ways, but only if you squint and don’t think about it too hard.
And in myself, in the current climate, I’ve been experiencing anxiety about the future – as I think we all have, especially young people. I turned twenty-two last week, and I’m worried about my job and property-ownership prospects, along with most in my cohort. But it is those exact anxieties that they are preying on, trying to lead us into the mindset that ‘the old ways are the best’. But dressing like the fifth Roy sibling from Succession won’t make you a homeowner or exempt you from work, and it’s predatory for these conservative creators to try and sell you on that idea. It’s likely pushing people down the alt-right pipeline.
The rise of Cringe
All these preferences rely on having a direct opposite, an implied enemy, which I would say is the appearance of doing ‘too much’ or ‘trying too hard’. I have seen the term ‘cringe’ crop up time and time again in videos promoting classic, timeless fashion. It’s usually used in the context of comparing “cringe” versus “classy”, contrasting the supposed second-hand embarrassment or disgust you feel when looking at modern styles like baggy clothes, streetwear, punk-type looks, or dressed-down styles, with the relaxed, timeless, secure feeling of ‘high-class’ tailoring.
‘Cringe’ as an adjective has risen in popularity over the last ten years, and I would confidently classify it as a conservative trait, reinforcing conservative beliefs that ‘less is more’. The behaviours or individuals that frequently get called cringe online tend to be people considered different, those putting themselves out there, trying something new in an unconventional manner. Cringe culture, as it exists online, is at its core the mockery of the unconventional, and what is more conservative than that? Calling things cringe may not seem harmful, but it reflects and stokes an attitude that dislikes change, innovation, experimentation, and creativity.
Ultimately, conservatives’ only real joke about liberals has people with blue hair in the punchline. Said supposed joke usually also includes adjacent jabs about piercings, tattoos, eyeliner, etc. Underneath that well-flogged dead horse is the disgust they feel toward people freely expressing themselves beyond the mould. There is a belief of many conservatives, I’ve found, that they are the blueprint. I mean, many say they are the silent majority, and any innovation or growth is unnatural and transgressive.
As well as a rejection of what is over-the-top, there is also a rejection of what is different. But also, classism is baked into every aspect of this preservationist mindset, with a tendency to look down on those who cannot afford to dress more sophisticatedly. Another inherent, antithetical villain of quiet luxury is being seen as cheap.
Coffee in the sunshine. Photo by Rosa Rafael on Unsplash
A lot of modern conservatism, more so in the US, is focused on building personal wealth and centring one’s close family unit. There is something very individualistic, or if benevolent, done within a very narrow scope. This, I feel, ties into that – the idealisation and the aspiring to the landed gentry levels of generational wealth that it takes to truly carry off the old money look requires a fixated level of ambition and truly buying into the idea of entrepreneurship and personal growth, pursued within the capitalist system rather than against it.
That’s again very conservative, aiming to win the predatory game of chance rather than improving it to be fairer. The fear of looking cheap, also baked into this style, is then not looking like you’ve earned that money, like you were born at the top rather than working your way up.
What you will also see in all content surrounding the old money aesthetic, like the “clean girl” before it, is only thin, able-bodied and conventionally attractive white people. As with nearly everything else promoted and embraced by young conservatives, exclusion is essential to the look. The prominence of these figures in this aspirational trend reflects an idealised, exclusionary past, echoing the logic of white supremacist ideologies that promote a purified and homogeneous vision of society. This is ultimately where this was all leading; this trend is all the other things I’ve discussed, but at the end of the day, it really is just a stand-in for white supremacy.
Aesthetic conservatism is linked with political conservatism, particularly through the lens of “nostalgia politics”. The old money look being pushed on social media subtly reinforces traditional hierarchies tied to race, class, and gender. This becomes particularly visible when such aesthetics are used to mock or devalue contemporary styles associated with marginalised groups, such as streetwear, queer fashion, or alternative subcultures, being branded as “cringe” or “low status”.
Framing the old money aesthetic as a cultural soft-power tool for conservative values is therefore not an exaggeration. The end goal, I feel, is yet another method of exclusionary and classist recruitment tactics by the right, targeted primarily at fashion-conscious young people anxious about their future while trying to discover their identity through clothing.
Have you ever stumbled on a slick YouTube video predicting the end of “consumerist civilisation” and inviting you to join a Creative Society that will, by 2036, abolish hunger, debt and taxes? Congratulations; you’ve just knocked on AllatRa’s door.
The AllatRa movement began in Ukraine in 2014, as a publisher for the esoteric books of the supposed author Anastasia Novykh. Those books introduce a messianic figure called Nomo whose biography looks suspiciously like Vladimir Putin’s. The man the books revolve around is Igor Danilov, once a coal miner and back‑street chiropractor, whom followers describe as a “higher‑level being”.
Outwardly AllatRa calls itself a volunteer “platform that transcends politics and religion”. Look a little deeper and you’ll find it boasts “millions” of members and lists its head office in Atlanta, Georgia – a handy state for registering non‑profits with minimal scrutiny of their finances.
Despite the Atlanta address, AllatRa’s corporate web stretches from Cyprus and Czechia to Belize. Investigative journalists at Slidstvo.info mapped at least 21 entities, including offshore companies, tied to the group.
That spider web lets AllatRa look “poor and volunteer‑run” in one country while holding hard assets in another. The same investigation uncovered a long‑running crowdfunding drive that, between 2014 and 2021 alone, pulled in almost ₴7.5 million (about US $200,000).
For years the movement claimed it had “no bank accounts and no profits”. Yet a 2024 US‑FARA filing by lobbyist Allen Egon Cholakian lists an annual AllatRa PR budget of $150,000 and gives Cholakian’s own fee as $8,000.
Extra cash flows in from Novykh book sales, merch and “business partners” – some under sanctions or insolvency. Offshore firms in Cyprus and Belize help muddy the trail. Slidstvo’s reporters asked the leadership why a “purely volunteer” project needs shell companies; they’re still waiting for an answer.
Helping along the “Nazis‑in‑Ukraine” myth
“Ukraine is ruled by Nazis; it must be denazified.” The Kremlin rolled out that line on 24 February 2022 – and AllatRa echoed it within hours. Ukraine’s security service (SBU) later raided more than 20 local AllatRa cells and seized material calling for missile strikes on western Ukraine and the creation of a “Union of Slavic Peoples” led from Moscow.
So, a group that markets pacifism is recycling Kremlin war‑justification narratives in spiritual wrapping. Their videos still talk of the “fascist Kyiv regime” and “Slavic brotherly love,” blithely ignoring the fact that Ukraine has a democratically elected Jewish president and the far-right polls at the margins.
AllatRa’s PR says it is a “helpful, apolitical platform”. But in SBU‑seized documents, AllatRa outlines their three‑step roadmap: (1) viral content blitz; (2) founding political parties; (3) a global referendum to replace current systems with AllatRa’s “creative” model.
The same files describe a “scientific climate forum”. In reality, AllatRa denies human‑driven warming and warns that a rupture of the Mariana Trench will destroy Earth in 2036 – unless, of course, humanity adopts the Creative Society. Fear is harvested, then channelled into a political offer.
The law on the side of AllatRa
In October 2024 Slovak prosecutor Lucia Pavlaninová opened a criminal case against reporter Kristina Ciroková of Czech newspaper Seznam Zprávy over her cult‑coverage articles. The International Federation of Journalists condemned the move as power abuse – and it emerged that Pavlaninová herself had previously promoted Creative Society events. The Slovak prosecutor‑general dropped the case; Pavlaninová now faces disciplinary action.
Why should you care? When public officials bend the law for a disinformation cult, your right to reliable information is next in line.
On 1 April 2025, MP Stanislav Berkovec (ANO) hosted a media seminar where four AllatRa women spoke – masquerading as the non‑existent “Parents’ Free Association.” The Czech Interior Ministry has long warned MPs about the group’s pro‑Russia leanings, but Berkovec shrugged: “I can’t vet their private lives.” That is exactly how spiritual marketing morphs into political lobbying: parliament confers instant legitimacy.
Why this should matter to you
AllatRa rebrands at lightning speed and hunts for prestige; in spring 2024, its envoys secured a brief audience with Pope Francis. Months later, the group hired a US lobbyist to charm Congress. VSquare tracked 275 connected social‑media accounts that had pumped out 83,000+ videos to a cumulative two billion views.
If you think AllatRa isn’t in your feed, you may just not have noticed. It deploys the classic firehose of falsehood; flood audiences with so many “alternative facts” that certainty itself erodes.
AllatRa blends spirituality, volunteer glamour and utopian pledges – but beneath the glow sit pro‑Kremlin narratives, opaque finances and active lobbying. Critical thinking – finding the source, verifying the context, asking awkward questions – is the best immunisation against such hybrid movements.
This article originally appeared in The Skeptic, Volume 5, Issue 4, from 1991.
In the field of strange beliefs which go against common sense, one of the strangest is the idea that we live not on the outside surface of a sphere, but on the inside. In the USA in 1869 an angel appeared to Cyrus Reed Teed. It told him that the Earth is hollow and that we live on its inner surface and that the stars, Moon and Sun are all tiny bodies inside the sphere moving along very complicated paths.
In 1870 he described this in his book The Cellular Cosmogony, or the Earth a Concave Sphere. He believed God wanted him to found a new religion, so he changed his name to Koresh and began a cult called Koreshanity. It soon attracted believers. In the 1890s he took his colony of believers to Florida where they built the town of Estero. It was not until 1949 that the cult’s magazine, Flaming Sword, finally ceased publication.
The idea of an inside-out universe was also adopted in inter-war Germany by Peter Bender. He, and after his death Karl Neupert, led a cult which published several books during the Nazi period. They attracted the attention of the Nazi leadership, some of whom were attracted to many strange beliefs. In April 1942, a secret expedition, approved by Hitler and Himmler, set off to the Baltic island of Rügen. Led by Dr Heinz Fischer, it included some of Germany’s top radar experts.
After they arrived, their radar equipment was pointed into the sky at an angle of 45 degrees. The other scientists in the expedition assumed this was merely a test of the equipment. It was only after the radar had remained in this strange position for several days that Fischer told them exactly why they were there. Hitler wanted the inside-out cosmos theory proved scientifically. This was to be done by sending radar waves up into the sky where they would eventually hit another part of the inside of the sphere and be reflected back. After doing this the expedition were then to try to get an image of the British fleet in Scapa Flow.
The inside-out universe idea still has some supporters. Martin Gardner (Skeptical Inquirer vol 12, p355) recorded that in 1981 a mathematician, Mostafa Abdelkader, described in a mathematical paper how the universe could be mapped point by point into the inside-out cosmos model. In this mapping the further an object is above the surface of the Earth, the nearer it is to the centre of the hollow Earth, and the smaller it is. All the laws of the normal universe would be much more complicated, but to an observer in that universe everything would appear to be the same as to an observer in the normal universe.
Both models of the universe are valid, but in the inside-out cosmos the laws of physics are much more complicated. As there are no advantages in using this model, Occam’s Razor suggests it should be discarded.
Read more in Umberto Eco’s The Book of Legendary Lands, 2013
In veterinary medicine (as in human medicine) we are often faced with people who believe that, despite our oath to advocate for our patients, there are veterinary professionals who are actively trying to harm animals.
As history shows with the likes of Harold Shipman, there are certainly sad and disastrous events that occur in human and veterinary medicine that we can learn from to ensure they never happen again. They are, thankfully, rare.
Yet sometimes, people believe – magnified and exacerbated by social media – that there is widespread harm being done because a mass of professionals is ‘in’ on a conspiracy, trying to make money, trying to harm pets, and more. This is not true. But, as with most things, the loud and vocal minority can make a lasting impact – especially when they set out to attack the integrity of a compassionate profession.
One example is anti-vaccination rhetoric. A 2020 study into human vaccination concluded that, over a 20-year period, vaccines were remarkably safe. Similarly, a 2004 canine study found no temporal association between vaccination and ill-health in dogs. Although there is always risk with any medication, and medication reactions obviously do occur, the preponderance of the evidence supports minimal risk of harm from vaccines. Even when we look more closely at some specific brands of vaccination that are particularly vilified, the evidence still suggests incredibly uncommon and rare adverse events.
You need only to look at the re-emergence of measles in the UK and USA; countries that had previously, due to vaccination, almost managed to eliminate the disease. New data suggests that it could soon become endemic again if vaccination levels remain as they are.
This re-emergence was fundamentally caused by a now-disproven paper that linked autism to a vaccine, and subsequent erosion of trust in science by misinformation. The General Medical Council found the paper’s author, former doctor Andrew Wakefield, guilty of serious professional misconduct – but, despite the publication’s withdrawal and being disproved by numerous studies, there are still people who continue to cite Wakefield’s research as evidence of the harms of vaccines.
Medical skepticism has been subject to social-psychological research, which found strong correlations between vaccine skepticism and adherence to complementary and alternative medicine and conspiracy ideation. A 2019 study by Cuevas et al. suggests that mistrust toward healthcare may unfavourably affect patient-clinician interactions and patients’ outcomes. To tackle it, we can’t just present facts, because facts do not change minds; we need to implement a more systemic long-term strategy to address the root causes of medical mistrust.
One 2020 paper (Scherer et al.) looked at three theoretical perspectives on why certain people are susceptible to online misinformation: lack of knowledge or literacy to discriminate between true and false information; having strong pre-existing beliefs or ideological motivations; and neglecting to sufficiently reflect about the truth or accuracy of news content encountered on social media.
Addressing pre-existing beliefs, research from Toomey et al. found that factors such as worldview, religion, and political beliefs have strong associations with rejection of science related to controversial issues. Not only that, but our bias towards those factors also means that we see data compatible with the beliefs we currently hold as more ‘valid’ than data that could refute those beliefs. This was further supported by a 2015 paper that showed acceptance of scientific evidence depends on the availability of such alternative points of view as religious faith and political ideology; if scientific results conflict with a readily available alternative view, individuals are less likely to defer to the research.
Furthermore, we are highly sensitive to the beliefs and actions of those in our immediate circle or community – is this the hunter-gatherer ancestral background rearing its head? One paper by Douglas et al., (2017) reported social motives (the desire to belong and to maintain a positive image of the self and the in-group) as a driver of conspiracy ideology.
Browsing Facebook, a very effective way to build mistrust in medicine – human or animal. Image by cottonbro studio, Pexels
So, while behavioural change can occur at the individual level, broader impacts require a focus on social networks and systems. This is a great example of how social media platforms are exacerbating these beliefs, as people enter an echo-chamber and feel part of that community or movement. Trying to engage in reasonable discussion with individuals who choose to engage aggressively is likely futile; data that runs contrary to their view is likely to drive them further away.
Additionally, the physical strain of your time and resources and mental drain on your emotions means direct confrontation is not likely to change minds. Does this mean we shouldn’t ever ‘call out’ or counteract medical misinformation? Perhaps not.
There is often a silent majority, quietly reading, sitting on the fence. These people, not yet aligned to any particular view, will potentially read your professional, calm, polite and robust replies, and you may make a difference to them. Evidence does show that those people exposed to correct information are less susceptible to conspiracy or misinformation than those who have not been exposed to the correct information first. This is called inoculation theory – offering a logical basis for developing a psychological “vaccine” against misinformation.
A paper by Douglas et al. (2017) discusses factors such as epistemic motives (the human desire to find causal explanations for events, building up a stable, accurate, and internally consistent understanding of the world) and existential motives (the need for people to feel safe and secure in their environment and to exert control over the environment) as other reasons people will latch on to alternative or conspiracy views – because it gives them an answer and control over a situation they feel out of control of.
This is noteworthy in veterinary medicine – sadly, animals get ill and die, and sometimes these events are unexpected. We do not always do a post mortem to confirm diagnosis, maybe due to financial cost, or owners’ wishes. Owners, in their understandable deep emotional state of grief or mental duress (anyone who has lost an animal companion can attest to this), can try to find answers as to what happened – and can settle on blaming the vaccine/medication the pet had a week, month or even year prior, especially when anti-vax info is easily accessible when you start to search for it. Again, vaccine reactions do occur – this is the importance of pharmacosurveillance – but overall they have been proven incredibly safe.
Toomey et al.’s 2023 study concluded that most attitudes and behaviours regarding research decision-making are not based on the rational evaluation of evidence, but determined instead by a host of contextual, social, and cultural factors and values. Therefore, providing additional information – even in accessible formats – is not likely to lead to significant changes.
So, facts will not always change minds, and a social media argument is unlikely to be beneficial, helpful or fruitful to you or the other person, and will probably cause both of you considerable anger, anxiety and frustration. Ultimately, you both believe you’re right, and on reflection want the same thing – a healthy, happy pet (you’re just going about it via different routes, one of which may not be evidence-based). But there is some indication that effective techniques exist.
With that in mind, how do we best get people to evaluate, remember and engage in evidence-based information?
‘Message elaboration’ is a term that broadly refers to the amount of effort that an audience of a message has to use to process and evaluate a message, remember it, and subsequently accept or reject it. One paper from 2022 looked into the presentation of a message and its contents, evaluating how successfully it was received. The results indicated that including statistical evidence in messaging reduced elaboration, improving audiences’ understanding, with fewer misperceptions and increased perceived message believability. Facebook messages presented in this way also were associated with higher audience intentions to share, like and comment, showing greater engagement and favourability. The research also found that messages including text and an image had better message elaboration than image-only messages. This shows that, if we want to engage effectively with people on social media, we should consider how we present our messaging, as well as what we’re saying.
Benecke and DeYoung’s 2019 study looks at the broader picture, and identifies the need for a long-term educational strategy. In their work, they explain that medical professionals must take a different approach to education, including outreach to vulnerable communities and individuals; they also note that social media platforms have an active role to play in monitoring and banning false information.
In terms of bridging the gap between medical professionals and the public, and opening up conversation that’s more likely to help than hinder, we need more spaces for group dialogue, where we can listen to multiple perspectives and “embodied knowledge”, which can help us alter our message to make it more likely to be well-received, and to think more carefully about whom we seek to target with our message. In essence, we should tackle medical misinformation, but we must be strategic in how we do so.
Direct contact with clients and veterinary teams can also end in a positive or negative interaction. Perceived dismissive attitudes, judgement or defensive behaviour by a veterinary team will likely build bigger walls and shut down opportunity for conversation and compromise.
Some of these issues can be mitigated by ‘physician-focused’ changes. For example, a study found the effects of mistrust can be countered using patient-centered communication skills. These include soliciting the patient’s concerns and priorities, and being responsive to the healthcare needs and belief system the patient identifies with. One study found that medical professionals might be able to buffer patients’ levels of medical mistrust using patient-centred communication.
Medical misinformation is rife in human and veterinary medicine. It is frustrating, and can cause poor patient outcomes. But we, as veterinary professionals, have to accept some accountability in how our behaviour shapes communication and our perceived image. There is no simple answer as to how we tackle it, but ensuring we engage in the right way can ensure we help, rather than hinder, communication with those with alternative views.
Further Reading
Kraft, Patrick & Lodge, Milton & Taber, Charles. (2015) Why People “Don’t Trust the Evidence”. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
The Skeptic podcast, bringing you the best of the magazine’s expert analysis of pseudoscience, conspiracy theory and claims of the paranormal since its relaunch as online news source in September 2020.
On my long commute home from work one day, I passed a sign that read “Holistic Health and Healing Expo” and I was reminded of the events that Michael Marshall and Alice Howarth attend and talk about on the Skeptics with a K podcast. I wondered whether this might be something to see firsthand so I emailed the podcast website, asking if it would be worth my time.
The host was nice enough to reply encouragingly with some helpful tips as to how to make the most of my experience. I talked my wife, Aimee, who was rightfully leery, into going along for support – reassuring her that we were not going to be confrontational, but to witness first hand and try to understand why these events appeal to so many people.
At the Morgantown Expo Center, we paid $10 apiece to get a wristband for the day. Besides that, there was ample opportunity to spend money, but I only bought some incense sticks for my son at home. For our 10 dollars we got a swag bag with a very nice coffee mug, a sample of elderberry and echinacea tea, a plastic sachet of tiny purple crystals, a strange stick of wood from ‘Appalachian ShaMomma’ with a card reading “mountains are calling… You going to answer?” (I have no idea of its purpose, as I did not see the stand), and an array of literature.
Crystals, books, tuning forks, Buddha bells, little statues, art, potions, teas and herbs lined the hall in various booths and tables. Everyone, with few exceptions, seemed very genuine and nice. Most of the vendors seemed to be true believers in their areas of “expertise”. I guess I should not have been surprised at how many of the presenters were trained masters of their professions, many of which were sufferers who decided to take up the calling themselves.
The first stand we visited, we both later agreed, was the toughest thing we encountered – the Health Benefits of X39 Stem Cell Activation Patches, run by Dr J. Thomas Acklin MD, who told us he was a former Johns Hopkins-trained neuroscientist. Dr Acklin was very forthright, asking what our ailments were. Aimee told him that she had thyroid disorder. He said, “No you didn’t”. I also apparently did not have the diabetes, which would probably come as a surprise to those who diagnosed me. We were informed that medical professionals were being purposefully deceptive, but it was never explained as to how or in what way.
Tricksy doctors, always making things up..! Photo by Movidagrafica, via Pixabay
Dr Acklin explained that he was disillusioned by the medical profession, so he left to produce X39 for “Microbiome reconstruction… rapid minor pain relief, reduced inflammation, better sleep”, and a whole host of other things. His partner explained how our stem cells migrate throughout the body to regions of distress, once they’re called by a “targeted and specific light frequency”. And almost like they were immunological entities.
We, however, knew this was not the way stem cells work – Aimee and I each have master’s degrees in advanced biology. She works at a large pharma company and I work as Molecular Microbiologist in a laboratory. I also taught in biology, up until the pandemic. Stem cells are generated locally or in bone marrow where they do migrate to the need area as a response to cell signalling whereas our immune system searches for problems and reacts accordingly. Their patches were designed to produce light frequencies that penetrate skin when attached to problem areas such as shoulder pain or malfunctioning beta cells in the pancreas. This man was very taxing, and when the first lecture session was called over the loudspeaker, we gladly excused ourselves.
My favourite booth was our second stop, where we met Bob Micklus and the Flowers in the Forest. It had a cabinet with rows of little blue dropper bottles labelled with flower names. Bob, soft-spoken and diligent, explained how each of his solutions did not contain any of the plant on the label. Water, according to Bob, has memory. His solutions worked like what seemed to me to be homeopathy with a botanical twist. Bob pointed to a compendium of plants and their respective benefits, qualities like “divine healing” and “stress relief”. He touted something he called “Florida Water”, which I read later goes for $10 for around 60ml. Three drops go in a glass of water daily, though for extreme cases they could be taken undiluted.
I would say about 70% of the booths were tailored to women. My wife, who is in her mid-40s, remarked how most of the attendees were women about her age. Men made up only a small part of the crowd. When Aimee and I split up, some of the booth operators seemed reluctant to spend much time on me; I assume because I was not their target demographic. No one seemed ready or willing to explain Reiki to me in any great detail at any of the four booths I visited alone.
While I was doing my best to avoid being too confrontational with the vendors, the thing I found hardest to hold my tongue over was where people with real issues were looking desperately for answers and miracles that modern medicine could not provide. Aimee noted a severely disabled man using a wheelchair rolling in the door and, who she imagined, frustrated with established medical treatments, was desperately looking for miracles.
Overall, our first visit to a Holistic Health and Healing Expo was quite fun, although my wife was thoroughly worn out from the long one-on-one chats she had with people who seemed well-meaning and thoroughly convinced by their own bad ideas. It’s an adventure we will always remember. Will we be quick to repeat it? Who knows…
It is curious to note how, in emergency situations, proposals appear that promise quick, safe and “natural” solutions. This is nothing new; we have already seen things like this in dengue epidemics, COVID-19 and cancer treatment. Even more worryingly, this has also found its way into obstetric emergencies, such as the “study” entitled “Use of Acupuncture in Cases of Hypertensive Emergencies during Pregnancy”.
Based on parts of a final paper for a postgraduate course in Acupuncture at CETN (Center for Studies of Natural Therapies), the supposed study illustrates the problem well: it is an experimental proposal that does not produce useful results, can delay conventional treatment and put the lives of pregnant women at risk.
The “study” in question reports cases of pregnant women with hypertension – supposedly classified as “hypertensive emergencies” – who underwent auricular acupuncture and bleeding from the apex of the ear, with the aim of reducing blood pressure. Although the text mentions the possibility of drug treatment after an initial “stabilization”, it is clear that alternative interventions were prioritised as the first treatment, instead of effective and urgent management of the hypertensive condition. This is alarming; an obstetric emergency cannot be held hostage by therapies without demonstrated efficacy and safety.
As is usual in “studies” of this type, the absence of a rigorous methodology is clearly evident: there is no control group (or, if there is, it is not adequately presented), the exact number of patients analysed is unknown (the number of participants in each subgroup is not even mentioned), there is no information on whether there was randomisation (probably non-existent, given the lack of a control group), nor is there any description of any type of reliable diagnostic criterion for classifying blood pressure as a “hypertensive emergency”. On the contrary, the cutoff point for considering inclusion in the study was a pressure above 120×80 mmHg; a value that, let’s face it, does not constitute an urgent or emergency condition according to any cardiology or obstetrics guidelines.
It is plausible that most of these patients, therefore, were not even in a condition of imminent risk, which calls into question any supposed effectiveness of the practice.
This “alternative protocol” draws attention precisely because it is indicative of a larger problem: the spread of pseudoscientific practices in healthcare. It perfectly exemplifies the creation of a seductive narrative to justify unfounded treatments. The original text evokes concepts from Traditional Chinese Medicine to explain pre-eclampsia, such as “wind rising from the liver”, “Yin deficiency” or “damp-heat”, without, at any point, providing evidence for this.
By trying to “fit” a very serious obstetric condition, such as pre-eclampsia, into merely traditional standards that have not been validated in the medical-scientific sphere, they attempt to legitimise dangerous practices that can delay or replace treatments that would have a real impact on reducing complications and maternal and foetal mortality.
The rush that saves lives
In obstetric emergencies, every minute counts. Pre-eclampsia can worsen rapidly, leading to seizures, pulmonary oedema, and other serious complications. If the patient is led to believe that “natural” measures must come first, she risks losing valuable time before receiving proven effective medication. The momentary feeling of “wellbeing,” without monitoring and without adequate monitoring of vital signs, can mask progression to lethal stages.
On the contrary, all of them indicate immediate clinical intervention, not only with the use of antihypertensives that are safe for pregnancy (such as nifedipine, hydralazine and, where available, labetalol), but also with the use of magnesium sulphate, which is essential for the prevention of seizures, careful evaluation of foetal well-being, hospitalisation, intensive monitoring in the most severe cases and, depending on the severity and gestational age, termination of pregnancy.
Causes of maternal mortality in Brazil in 2023. Hypertension is the highest specific cause of death, accounting for 27% of cases (40.9% of deaths had an indirect cause)
It is understandable that pregnant women may be afraid of medications, especially if they are uncertain about side effects or risks to the foetus. Unfortunately, this uncertainty leaves room for promises of “harmless” or “chemical-free” techniques.
The result is dangerous confusion, since what is at stake is the health of both mother and baby. When it comes to pre-eclampsia, supposed temporary relief does not guarantee that the disease will not continue to advance silently.
Added to this is our harsh reality: hypertension is the leading cause of direct maternal death in Brazil (and the leading cause as an isolated cause). We need more efficient prenatal care and quick responses when signs of pre-eclampsia appear, not dubious protocols that further delay correct referral.
Pseudoscientific bingo
This study serves as a perfect example of pseudoscientific logic, featuring elements that are common to this type of biased study:
Lack of explicit inclusion criteria and use of outdated nomenclature: women with blood pressure above 120×80 mmHg were labeled as having a “hypertensive emergency”. This is a gross mistake, as it does not comply with international standards. Furthermore, the article uses nomenclature that is no longer in use, such as DHEG (hypertensive disease specific to pregnancy).
Hasty conclusions: based on specific observations, the author concludes that “in 61.5% of cases, acupuncture was successful in reducing blood pressure levels”. Success based on what parameters? How long does this supposed effect last?
Absence of a control group: no comparison is made with pregnant women who simply rested and then had their blood pressure measured (which would not be indicated in an emergency, but is recommended in hypertensive crises, after 15 minutes, since with rest, in the latter, the blood pressure can actually drop); or pregnant women who received standard treatment with appropriate medications; or even pregnant women who received another harmless intervention (placebo). Without control, there can be no talk of efficacy. And when there is no evidence of efficacy, there is no therapeutic effectiveness, as we have already discussed.
Confusion between correlation and causation: Given the lack of reliable methodology, the study cannot prove that it was acupuncture that reduced blood pressure – or even that it was dangerously high at the beginning of the study.
Omission of critical data: no report of loss to follow-up (if patients returned to the emergency room with worsening of their condition), no mention of relevant maternal or neonatal outcomes (e.g. maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, incidence of eclampsia, neurological damage, etc.).
Vague, grandiose (and dangerous) claims: The final message that auriculotherapy “can be used to reduce blood pressure levels in pregnant women seeking emergency services” states much more than the data presented allows us to conclude. And worse, readers of the article may understand that it is acceptable to refuse or postpone obstetric management recommended by medical guidelines, believing in a false solution.
The “complementary” discourse: Advocates of alternative therapies often argue that they do not want to replace evidence-based practices, but rather complement them. In an ideal world, this justification might even sound reasonable. However, in practice, we see that such interventions are often presented as sufficient or as “first line” (as, in fact, this study suggests). Furthermore, time and money are both scarce resources. In this way, the “complementary” ends up becoming a trap that takes the focus away from what really needs to be done – and, in this case, done quickly.
“Emotional” causes for multifactorial organic issues: many “alternative interventions” are based on the mistaken notion that high blood pressure (especially during pregnancy) is the result exclusively of stress or emotional changes. We do not deny that psychological factors can momentarily affect blood pressure, but the pathophysiology of preeclampsia cannot be explained by “excessive nervousness” or anxiety. Reducing the complexity of this issue to a purely “psychoemotional” issue creates the dangerous feeling that simply relaxing (with lavender, teas, foot baths or auriculotherapy) is enough to control blood pressure. Patients with blood pressure lability (blood pressure that “rises with stress”) or with white coat hypertension (blood pressure that only rises during a medical appointment) have a higher risk of developing pre-eclampsia. This in itself is already a warning sign, requiring medical referral.
Systemic problem
Unfortunately, this study is not just an isolated daydream; it reveals what often happens when people in vulnerable situations (such as pregnant women) encounter, in the health system or on social networks, professionals who offer “quick and natural solutions” to serious problems. These are solutions based on beliefs without scientific basis and which can delay effective care.
This is not about demonising any practice that is not strictly pharmacological. The problem here is the use of unvalidated therapies as substitutes or barriers to conventional treatment, especially when the clock is ticking. The idea that “it doesn’t hurt to try” ignores the risk of delaying effective interventions.
There is also a social dimension. A poorly founded study, but with the guise of “academic research,” may be disseminated in lectures, social networks, or less discerning media outlets. Many people firmly believe that everything they discover through Google searches and online pages is true. Patients who read about the subject on the internet may ask: “Why not try acupuncture first, since an article said it works and is less invasive?” Not to mention the cases in which authorities and professional associations end up legitimising such practices simply because of their popularity.
Dr Google rarely provides useful information, especially on complex topics in times of high stress. Image by Foundry Co from Pixabay
The role of professionals who fight for a more scientific medicine is to monitor, report and inform the population about the risks involved in practices like this. There is no room, in emergency situations, for “experimental therapies” that do not meet the basic criteria of plausibility and ethical criteria of clinical research.
Final considerations
By proposing (and promoting) auricular acupuncture as a priority intervention in “hypertensive emergencies” during pregnancy, the “study” risks confusing professionals and patients, since the mere appearance of “academic research” may give a false impression of legitimacy. Although the initiative presents itself as “experimental,” it does not meet the scientific criteria required for this. The lack of an adequate methodological design, the absence of a control group, and the incorrect definition of the inclusion criteria seriously compromise the validity of the results presented.
Even more alarming is the fact that, under the guise of an experimental protocol, pregnant women were subjected to an intervention that delayed the administration of proven-effective conventional treatments, which constitutes a flagrant ethical violation. We were unable to find the aforementioned study published in any national or international journal, which in fact seems impossible to us, given so many serious problems and biases. However, we assume that it was approved by a Research Ethics Committee (REC), which, if proven, is unacceptable. How can a research project to treat hypertensive emergencies with auriculotherapy be authorised? How can a study with so many methodological flaws be allowed?
The real line in healthcare is not between “conventional” and “alternative” medicine, but between what is evidence-based and what is not. In emergencies, we cannot forgo what really works. If there is one lesson from this episode, it is the warning it provides: maternal health is not a place of illusion. When dealing with pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, every minute of delay in providing appropriate care can cost a life – or two.
