Celebs not the best health advisors? Really?
December 27th, 2008
|
| Share |
A rare piece of extremely good, yet all to obvious advice in the mainstream media turned up in the London Times. It seems that the paper is advising readers that the fact that someone is well known for their acting, music or sexy bod does not necessarily mean you should put any value on their health advice. Obvious though this may sound, there are plenty of people who do consider the advice of celebrities on matters they know absolutely nothing on. Many people seem to think that the conviction or apparent sensatiry of a celebrity is more important than the factual acuracy of the statements made. (And when it comes to conviction and sencerity, lets not forget many of these people are actors to begin with and make their living on being dramatic.)
From Madonna’s quest to “neutralise radiation” to Tom Cruise’s dismissals of psychiatry, celebrities are seldom shy about expressing their views on health and science – even when they appear not to know what they are talking about.
A roll call of public figures such as Cruise and Delia Smith have offered bogus advice or “quackery” this year, according to scientists and doctors. The charity Sense About Science is concerned that celebrities mislead the public when they endorse theories, diets or health products while misrepresenting the science involved.
Some – such as Oprah Winfrey and Kate Moss – espouse “detox” regimes, while others, such as Sharon and Kelly Osbourne, believe (mistakenly) that the Pill can cause cancer.
Nor are politicians exempt from lending credence to health myths. The US President-elect is among several American public figures who continue to suggest that the MMR vaccination is a potential cause of autism, despite an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence to the contrary.
And yes, it’s true that Obama made statements indicating he believed that vaccinations may be linked to autism. However, McCain made an even stronger statement on the topic. I don’t want to excuse bad science by noting worse, so I’ll just say that both of them need to be smacked hard enough to wake up and smell the reality brewing.
Both Mr Obama and his rival for the presidency, John McCain, responded to stories about vaccines by highlighting the rise in diagnoses in children of autism.
Mr Obama told a campaign rally in April: “We’ve seen a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it’s connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it.” In February Mr McCain had remarked on the rise in autism cases, saying that there was “strong evidence that indicates it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines”.
These messages are not harmless, because despite common sense suggesting that a doctor or a reputable medical journal would be the best place to find information, people do listen to these celebrities when they go on television and state their own stupid cases. Celebrity advocy has done real damage to vaccination rates and bogus information on the birth control pill can lead to unwanted pregnancies which can ruin a woman’s life, create health problems and strain social systems.
The medical advice given by various celebrities ranges from unfounded to the bizarre. For example:
Demi Moore, the actress, surprises the experts with her use of “highly trained medical leeches” to “detoxify” her blood.
Kate Moss, the model, is reported to be on a strict “detox” diet of fruit and vegetables at a health spa in Thailand. But nutritionists note that such regimes exclude important food groups such as protein.
Moss’s friend Stella McCartney, the designer, was criticised last year for saying that a chemical found in skin creams was also found in antifreeze. Gary Moss, a pharmacologist, said that the chemical, propylene glycol, was versatile and its use in cosmetics was not “scary”, as claimed.
Well antifreeze is generally diluted with a chemical known as dihydrogen monoxide (water) which is likely to be found in most, if not all skin cremes. However, these days the very word “chemical” has become associated with fear.
Claims of benefits from things like detox regimines are especially difficult to fight because these myths are being furthered on multiple fronts. In addition to those who are just ignorant and have fallen into the beleif that modern life is filling everyone with toxins, there are companies pushing detox products for profit. A few celebrity endorsements is just one more way that false and dangerous claims can be desceminated.
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Good Science, Politics, Quackery, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
December 27th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I am almost at the point where I could dismiss all of this as Darwin in action. Anyone that thinks that being a nude model, or a stand-up comedian qualifies a person to give medical advice, maybe should be taken out of the gene-pool.
As for ‘detox,’ I’m sure most of these bimbos are only extending the BS they were served up in the high class clinics they have all spent time in. In my day these were call ‘tanks’ and people went to ‘dry out’ in them because they were addicted not poisoned. And while I feel sorry for anyone in that condition, its being known for a long time that facing up to what it is, is always the best policy.
What is worse, I suspect that claiming support for some outrageous procedure is going to be seen as a vehicle to get some media attention (which is what I suspect Moore’s infatuation with leeches is all about) adding hypocrisy to stupidity in this matter.
Quote Comment
December 27th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Not ‘being known’ -been known, danmit
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2008 at 12:35 am
I would go with the Darwinism argument except for the fact that for one thing this does not seem to stop people from reproducing and also there’s one HUGE problem I have with it and that is the medical cost. When some idiot gets an infection from a leach or gets sick because they’re not vaccinated you know who pays the doctors and drug costs? We all do. It’s both through taxes and insurance premiums depending on how the system works where you are.
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2008 at 12:51 am
You know I think it would be 100% fair if insurance companies charged higher for health insurance or even dropped people based on their usage of alternative health products and avoidance of good preventative medicine.
You’re not vaccinated? that’s an indication of very poor management and understanding of your health. Premium increased 20%. You use homeopathic products on a regular basis? Premium increased another 10%.
Can you imagine the backlash about that? I think it’d be fair though. The auto insurance companies can increase your fees if you drive a car they consider unsafe or if you have poor driving habits. A fire insurance company can increase the fees if they are insuring a structure that can easily catch fire.
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Russ said:
By God that’s the best idea yet.
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Russ said:
Make an exception for people who have an allergy (medically proven – not just alleged) against vaccines. Otherwise it is an excellent proposal.
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Haha. I love the Tom Cruise picture. WEEEEE!
Quote Comment
December 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I think that having premiums increased by things like not being vaccinated or otherwise rejecting modern medicine is a good idea. I don’t think you could do it on homeopathic stuff though, because how would you prove someone uses it or does not? Vaccines they could provide proof of. I agree though that it should have exceptions for those who have allergies and therefore can’t be vaccinated.
It would be a great way to encourage vaccination, but I don’t think it will happen. Too much power for the “vaccine rights” groups.
Quote Comment
December 29th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Wait, people are flipping out about propylene glycol? I hope they don’t use sex lube — PEG-3350 is the primary component!
Now, if they were all het up about ethylene glycol, that would be another matter entirely, as that stuff is quite poisonous. But propylene glycol is “generally recognised as safe” by the FDA, for crying out loud!
Quote Comment
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:44 am
DV82XL said:
Yeah, detoxing. I think that can mean two things. There is the “detoxing” thing from drugs or alcohol. Like you say, analogous to a drunk drying out. There is something to the whole notion that you have to go through a period of detox or whatever you want to call it, because with some drugs like heroin the withdrawl is horrible and you have to be basically kept from going crazy or killing yourself for a while before your system adapts to not having it in there.
There’s the other kind of detoxing though that is not related to an addiction. People use the term “detoxing” to talk about removing those silly magical toxins from their body by pumping water up their butt or using foot pads or something. That’s not exactly the same thing. It’s like “cleansing of bad chemicals” or whatever you want to call it.
Quote Comment
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Q said:
See to me, ‘detoxify’ is a process of removing toxins. When someone is addicted, the metabolites of the drugs leave the body rather swiftly once they stop taking them, and what they are going through is readapting the limbic system and the autonomic nervous systems to the absence of the chemical.
It may help sufferers to believe that they feel bad because the poisions are leaving their bodies, but that is no more the case than the other ‘detox’ regimes that the quacks are serving up.
The only time the term should be used is if someone has a high body burden of some heavy metal like cadmium and it’s being chelated out, or something similar.
Quote Comment
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Yes, detoxing is something real that happens if someone is poisoned and they have to use chelation, kidney dialysis, diaretics or some combination to try to rapidly remove the material from the system. Also it could be the case if someone has a health condition that causes the build up of unwanted chemicals in the body, such as if their liver or kidneys can’t adequately remove them.
However, any time someone talks about detoxifying their colon or blood or body and they’re not referring to the treatment of acute poisoning then its bull****. I’ve heard of people saying they needed to remove the toxins from their body from cell phones and wireless products. That doesn’t even make any goddamned sense.
Drug detoxing is a euphemism. It’s not that the concept is not valid or anything but it really should be called something else like ‘therapeutic withdrawl’ or ‘withdrawl management’
Quote Comment
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
However to me the ne plus ultra of celebrity-endorsed medical stupidity still remains the sphincter-bleaching procedure that is still popular with many in that crowd. I know it’s childish, but every time I see it mentioned, it cracks me up. It’s just so damned symptomatic of every popular stupidity out there, I can’t help it.
Quote Comment
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 am
DV82XL said:
Well, if public face is that of an ****, you might as well be one with a good complexion.
Quote Comment
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 am
OOps. I got censored there.
Well, if public face is that of an a-hole, you might as well be one with a good complexion.
Quote Comment
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
How is that picture of Demi Moore attractive? Even before adding the leaches, I don’t find a woman with her hand in her butt sexy. Oh well, that’s just me anyway. Maybe she’s bleaching it.
Quote Comment