Unhealthy Distrust: How paranoid thinking drives health and wellness pseudoscience
I recently came across a great article discussing the differences between the concepts of medicine and wellness, and it got me thinking about the pervasiveness of pseudoscience throughout the new age health and fitness culture. In an effort to not simply re-hash the article in my own words, I will focus on one point in particular, that of the relationship between medicine, religion, and conspiratorial thinking. As the author of that article noted, “Medicine and religion have long been deeply intertwined, and it’s only relatively recently that they have separated. The wellness-industrial complex seeks to resurrect that connection.”
In the context of the article, the ‘wellness-industrial complex’ seems to be limited only to the vitamin and supplement industry, with its many products claiming to ‘cleanse’ and ‘purify’ our supposed self-destructive habits of everyday life. However, I would contend that much of the arguments made in the article could logically be applied to the alternative health community at large. Indeed, many alternative therapies require suspending our understandings of realty and accepting religious or otherwise mystical beliefs. From the ‘memory’ of water that homeopathy purports, to the ‘meridians’ expounded by traditional Chinese healers, there is no shortage of unscientific nonsense within alternative medicine.
With regards to how conspiratorial thinking shapes support for the wellness-industrial complex, I believe could also be extended to the whole range of alternative health. This should be no surprise to anyone, as both religious thinking and conspiracy theories have a common bond of providing a sense of order and control, in an otherwise chaotic world. As the author writes:
“Belief in medical conspiracy theories, such as the idea that the pharmaceutical industry is suppressing ‘natural’ cures, increases the likelihood that a person will take dietary supplements. So to keep selling supplements and earthing mats and coffee enema kits and the other revenue generating merchandise, you can’t just spark fear. You must constantly stoke its flames.
There can be no modern wellness industry without medical conspiracy theories.”
Indeed, nearly all of the alternative health market relies on fear or distrust from patients who are often times already in a very vulnerable state. In fact, this kind of misinformation and conspiratorial theorizing are at the heart of the anti-GMO, anti-vaccination, and pro-organic movements as well. My argument is that the cult-like following of these alternatives is precisely what makes it so hard to convince their practitioners and followers that there is simply no science (or at most, very little science) to back up their claims.
Additionally, it is also this cult-like adherence that causes so many consumers of alternative treatments to get overly emotional and even offended when they are told that they have been duped. In my opinion, this is the major propagator of all anti-science movements. It is a vicious cycle of leaders and followers, where once a follower has ‘bought in’, they then become leaders in their own right, constantly expounded the evils of big pharma, medical associations, corporations and anyone else who encourages conventional treatments. Unfortunately, this means that in order to combat such pious thinking, those in favor of encouraging evidence-based approaches to health and wellness are going to have to ruffle quite a few feathers in doing so.
Anti-vaccination misinformation
The anti-vaxxers are without a doubt the low-hanging fruit here. The fact of the matter is that they are a very small, but very loud minority of zealots who use exaggerated methods to push their agenda. However, while their methods may be exaggerated, one should keep in mind that similar methods of misinformation are employed by other peddlers of pseudoscience on a regular basis, though oftentimes with more subtle execution.
It’s hard to pinpoint where to start with anti-vaccination arguments because there are just too many, and in true conspiracy theory fashion, if you were to take them all and hang them on a wall you would find contradictions abound. So let’s start with the very common tactic of evoking chemophobia. This usually starts with using either: (1) the most scientific — and thus unfamiliar — names someone can find for certain ingredients (e.g. aluminum phosphate, thimerosol); (2) very familiar sounding ingredients that have become buzzwords due to unwarranted bad press or negative ‘common knowledge’ (e.g. MSG, formaldehyde); or (3) the weirdest or most transgressive sounding ingredients (e.g. mouse brain, aborted fetuses).
Chemophobia works because it is the most honest way to misinform laymen. In most cases that I have come across, the ingredients that anti-vaxxers like to name are, in fact, technically true. It’s the way in which they are presented that is disingenuous and misleading. Memes and ‘infographics’ are passed around the internet identifying certain ingredients as neurotoxins, for example. What they don’t mention, though, is that there are thousands of known neurotoxins, many of which humans ingest rather safely every day (wine, anyone?). It is the dose that makes the poison, and all of the ingredients that are currently used in vaccines have been tested to insure that they are at levels considered safe for human consumption.
Another common trope from anti-vaxxers is quoting doctors or other perceived authority figures that are also anti-vaccination. The truth is, anyone can find an “expert” in a field who holds beliefs considered unconventional by their peers. Climate scientists have climate change deniers, biologists have creationists, historians have holocaust deniers…the list goes on. A classic example of this in the anti-vaxx community is the citing of Andrew Wakefield’s research purporting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Despite the paper being retracted in light of cherry-picking data and conflict-of-interest issues (Wakefield’s research was funded in-part by lawyers involved in suits against vaccine manufacturers), this unfounded link between vaccines and autism is still touted by many anti-vaxxers as gospel.
What is especially noteworthy about anti-vaxxers’ appeal to authority is that it is highly selective, and often contradictory. For example, I came across two images on an anti-vaxx Pinterest board, side by side with two very different messages. The first one states:
“Just so we’re clear, I get my vaccine information from the following: Center for Disease Control, Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Institute of Health, World Health Organization, immunologists, toxicologists, accredited scientists. ALL PUBLIC RECORDS.”
The image next to it read:
“Imagine if…Thousands of people were diagnosed with e. coli after eating at McDonald’s. But McDonald’s was allowed to investigate itself and claimed there was no link. Would you still trust McDonald’s after this? THAT’S HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THE CDC.”
I’m getting mixed signals here. Should I trust the CDC and the other organizations mentioned in the first image? All of whom, by the way, stress the safety and importance of vaccination. Or should I go with the McDonald’s analogy and reject them because they’re all just shills getting paid by big pharma? The answer from anti-vaxxers is simple. If it’s a doctor or organization making a statement against vaccines, clearly we should accept their authority on the subject. However, when any doctor or organization claims that vaccines are safe, we should remember that they are all conspirators being paid off by vaccine manufacturers to do their bidding.
Of course, when all else fails, if you can’t scare people with ingredients or convince them there is a global conspiracy, you can always double-down and just flat out lie. Ever hear the claim that doctors make big bonuses just for vaccinating your kids? Well, they don’t. This ‘fact’ is so often repeated that even some pro-vaccination folks believe it and actually try to craft arguments of justification. It’s a perfect example that if you say something enough times, people will stop questioning and just accept it.
The truth is that there is incentive for doctors to vaccinate children, but it’s not coming from vaccine manufacturers. The incentive to vaccinate children comes from insurance providers through a form of fee schedule payout for routine, preventative care. So why would insurance companies incentivize vaccination? Because vaccines work! Insurance companies don’t want you to get sick. When people get sick, they have to pay out more money, and that is not good for profits. So it is in the insurance companies’ best interests that you stay healthy. This means providing incentives for doctors to do regular preventative care including weight assessments, counseling, breast cancer screenings, and yes, vaccinations.
OMG: GMOs (are perfectly safe for consumption)
Genetically modified organisms — or GMOs — are often demonized as ‘franken-foods’ that are unnatural and therefore dangerous. The tactics used to vilify GMOs are quite similar to those utilized by the anti-vaxx camp. However, rather than exploiting the general public’s lack of knowledge regarding medicine to impose fear, anti-GMO fanatics focus on genetic and biological science ignorance to work people up in to a frenzy. Top it off with a touch of anti-capitalist conspiracy theories, and you have the perfect storm for a Monsanto-maligning lynch mob.
So what is it about GMOs that gets some people so worked up? Anti-GMO sentiment is not nearly as relegated to the lunatic fringe as anti-vaccination, but the cult-like following of the anti-GMO movement is nearly indistinguishable. The protests are just as loud, the ad hominem insults are just as prevalent, and the resistance to evidence is just as pervasive. The most common (and admittedly, the most reasonable) argument against GMOs is that they are a relatively new technology, and as such, they should be approached with caution. Many claim that the safety of GMO foods has not been tested, and point to distant correlations between the rise of GMOs and the diagnoses of certain diseases. Of course, correlation does not prove causation, but we ought to at least be careful, right?
The fact of the matter is that GMOs have been tested, rather thoroughly, and for a number of decades. Research on GMOs is quite extensive, and there are over 2,000 peer-reviewed, scientific studies documenting the safety of GMO crops and food. On top of that, every major science and health organization in the world have concluded that foods containing GMOs pose no greater health risks than conventionally grown foods. Still, the anti-GMO movement makes every attempt to downplay the science by claiming that any positive research is all funded by Monsanto. While Monsanto may have a fairly shady history as a corporation, and indeed does fund its own research, with regards to GMOs their funding accounts for only a fraction of the studies mentioned above.
Although the science may not be on the side of the anti-GMO crowd, some European governments have caved to their emotional pleas for tighter regulations in the name of public health. Unfortunately, there are a number of examples where courts go against scientific evidence and rule in favor of those who simply scream the loudest. To put it simply, the countries that chose to ban GMO crops and food did so not because they were presented with some groundbreaking, scientific findings exclusive only to them, but rather because they were bullied by a small minority of individuals with an ill-informed agenda. While many of us would like to think that laws are put in to place based on rational supporting evidence, the unfortunate truth is that many laws are more of a reflection of public perceptions and beliefs. Facts are not a prerequisite for legislation.
While foods containing GMOs are not outright banned in the United States, there is a strong push from activists to mandate the labeling of such foods. This is the subtle fear-mongering I alluded to earlier in this section. The argument from anti-GMO proponents is that consumers have a basic right to know whether or not their food contains GMOs, so that they can make their own decisions. This sounds rational enough at face value, but the argument implies that there is something different and possibly dangerous about GMOs, which simply isn’t true. Arguing that people should be informed is great, but why stop at GMOs? Why not require labeling all foods with where they are grown? Or how about labels informing consumers on the gender of the person who farmed the food? These examples may seem ridiculous and irrelevant — and they are — but they are no more irrelevant to public health and safety than the idea of labeling GMOs.
The subtlety of pro-organic pseudoscience
Even if you’re not an anti-vaccination zealot or an anti-GMO fear mongerer, most people tend to have general beliefs that organic foods are at least a healthier option compared to their conventionally grown counterparts. Once again, this is a perception that is not supported by scientific evidence. What’s worse, many of the beliefs about what makes organic food “organic” in the first place are inaccurate or flat-out wrong as well (such as the often repeated “grown without pesticides” claim; or better-yet, the claim that organic foods are grown without the use of chemicals at all — which would be impossible). To be labeled as USDA Certified Organic, foods have to be grown or raised under very specific conditions which are arbitrarily defined by the federal government and, of course, manufacturers must pay fees to the federal government as well.
So what does it really matter if some people are okay with spending more money to feel better about what they and their family consumes? Let me be clear, there is nothing particularly wrong with choosing to buy and eat more organic foods. However, there is something very wrong with spreading misinformation and fear by implying that foods that are not organic are somehow unsafe or unhealthy. Unfortunately, this is how the marketing and labeling of organic products works. The use of the USDA certification logo and phrases like “100% All Natural” are subtle influencers that rely on the logical fallacy of appealing to nature as a guideline for what is healthy and what is not.
‘Subtle’ is the key word here, as most pro-organic marketing tend to focus on the benefits of organic rather than the ‘dangers’ of non-organic food. Nevertheless, if you were to ask a pro-organic consumer why not just buy the non-organic option for a lower price, you will undoubtedly be setting yourself up for a lecture on the evils of conventional food processing, supported by the same ideologies that drive the anti-vaccination and anti-GMO crowds. Once again, you will find that many of these arguments are drawn from emotion and paranoia, rather than any empirical evidence.
Final thoughts
The fact that those who promote these movements get so emotional when presented with evidence contrary to their beliefs is telling. It suggests that they often identify with such movements to the point where criticism of the idea is an attack on the individual directly. This could not be further from the truth. When doctors, scientists, and strangers on the internet argue that GMOs are safe, vaccines are important, and organic foods are over-hyped, the intention is help consumers make more informed decisions.
Unfortunately, as with many conspiracy theorists, alternative health and wellness proponents often see themselves as beholden to some sort of ‘special’ knowledge. This mentality only strengthens their adherence to such beliefs, and, I would argue, only encourages the attachment to other alternative beliefs. It is no surprise then that one who is inclined to, say, buy organic products, would be highly likely to also seek out non-GMO products. Rarely is one single conspiratorial belief held by an individual. Believing and promoting conspiracy theories takes a certain mentality of systematic ignorance and a deep distrust for conventional, and often more rational, narratives.
In other words, alternative beliefs about health and wellness tend to be constructed around a deeper underlying ideology. Whether the boogeyman is the government, Big Pharma, doctors, or evil corporations like Monsanto, it is an underlying fear or distrust that drives a sort of low-level paranoia toward mainstream medicine and science. And it is that collective fear and paranoia that creates communities of conspiracy theorists living in an echo chamber of pseudoscience.
