Kyle Barbour outlines how the death of public reason has made room for figures advancing spurious claims about health.

______________________________________

In 2023, the Council of Canadian Academies released an expert panel report which calls attention to the rise of misinformation in our society and the negative effects that it can have on social cohesion and collective action. From the report, we might infer that North American society is undergoing a crisis of public reason extending from the domains of politics to public health. As the ubiquity of lies and misinformation erode the public’s trust in expertise, the stage is set for the rise of personalities who wield their influence with little concern for the effect that their words have on others. By making unsubstantiated claims while holding significant political influence, politicians, scientists, and wellness “influencers” who are careless with their speech can disrupt the very ability for society to recognize and dispute incorrect and harmful claims concerning science and health.

This situation is made even more dangerous by self-proclaimed medical gurus who have no expertise and rely upon anecdotes and spurious research to support their claims, as well as by qualified researchers who make unsubstantiated claims outside their field of expertise. In both situations, we have what is often elegantly referred to as “bullshit”: a form of misinformation wherein the agent neither knows nor cares whether their claim is true or false. These are not agents of evil bent on destroying society, but in their attempts to garner greater influence they may say whatever is needed to provoke, generate attention, or bolster a point, without considering the truth of what is said.

Photo Credit: Needpix.com. Image Description: An image symbolizing the digital media.

To take one of the most prominent examples of contemporary, unqualified health gurus, we might look to the Netherlands’ Wim Hof. Recognized as a formidable athlete, Hof has used this athletic ability to garner influence in the alternative health community where he advertises the “Wim Hof Method” of prolonged ice baths and breathing techniques. Hof’s popularity has sky-rocketed over the last several years with a wellness empire which includes an assortment of lectures, courses, and retreats as well as clothing, books, and even music. While there is some evidence to support Hof’s method, it remains controversial. A systematic review called for better studies to be conducted as, “the quality of the [extant] studies is very low”. Despite the lack of scientific backing, Hof and his company proclaim the method provides a, “natural path to strength, health and happiness”.  When we consider the inadequate scientific evidence that supports the Wim Hof Method and the fact that several deaths have been linked to it, Hof is not in a position to offer sound medical advice, or for people to trust his claims as providing any kind of path to health.

Further examples are readily available from during the COVID-19 pandemic: an Islamic “prophetic medicine man” suggested drinking camel urine, televangelist Kenneth Copeland offered to “blow the wind of God” at you to remove the virus, and J.K. Rowling has suggested misguided breathing techniques to relieve infection symptoms. In each of these cases we have public figures who provide health advice without having any actual expertise to support their claims.

If we turn from the non-expert health sage to the seemingly more convincing archetype of the certified healthcare professional who makes unsubstantiated claims, we are treading on much more perilous ground. Dr. Ben Carson has suggested that he cured his cancer with sugar pills while omitting the surgery he had to treat it. Dr. Deepak Chopra has promoted washing one’s eyes with the waste water generated by brushing one’s teeth. Dr. Jordan Peterson has advocated for a carnivore diet to relieve numerous health issues. In each of these cases we have certified experts in one domain who make claims that go against a widespread scientific consensus in another domain and which they cannot support with their own expertise. It’s easy to see how politicians might move from making similarly careless, misinformed claims in politics to making claims about health and medicine if it would help them to increase political advantage.

The schism characterizing North America’s political scene is largely based on the disintegration of public reason and a lack of trust in our institutions and other citizens. These sources of schism have already begun to spill over from the purely political to affect our public health systems. Without a shared sense of public discourse, it is difficult for any spurious claims, medical or otherwise, to be disputed by persons who are considered trustworthy across political divisions. When confronted with difficult questions and spurious claims, we need a generally acceptable way of evaluating the varied responses that may emerge. Such a method of evaluation will require a shared sense of what constitutes evidence, truth, and expertise. With the decline of public reason in our contemporary “post-truth” era, such evaluative criteria are widely debated and regarded with suspicion. Without a shared understanding of reason and values, it is unclear how we might restore a public sense of the common good which is fundamental to democratic action and required to bring about any meaningful progress against the complicated global problems that confront us all.

___________________________________________________________

Kyle Barbour is a Master of Health Ethics student at Memorial University and recent graduate of the University of Guelph with a PhD in Philosophy. This commentary was originally written in the context of a graduate seminar on health misinformation and lies.