Since the pandemic, easy to access and quick to produce podcasts and blogs have become dominant sources of health information. And misinformation. Don't get me wrong, I like Andrew Huberman and Steve Bartlett: with their conversational tone and easy accessibility, their podcasts feel like a trusted friend sharing advice. However, podcasters and their platforms often blur the line between credible health insights and unverified claims in the chase for audience and wealth, leading to a surge of misinformation.
Popular podcasts tend to showcase guests with bold, controversial ideas. This certainly seems to be a recurring pattern, once mainstream guests and their views have been presented. And controversial content is perfect content to increase clicks and ratings. Yet, these interviews are rarely debates, hosts seldom challenge their guests when claims are made counter to mainstream evidence as might be done in a 'proper' interview, that is, one conducted by a journalist. This allows sensational claims often go unchecked under the umbrella of the host 'creating a space for conversation' and to 'air 'alternate views' that might be otherwise discredited.
In this article, we explore how to critically assess health information from online sources and avoid the pitfalls of misinformation in an era where virality often trumps veracity. As ever, when it comes to your own health, please talk to your doctor or medical practitioner most familiar with your medical history before implementing any changes in diet, exercise or lifestyle; especially if you are under treatment.
Steven Bartlett "Diary of a CEO" Podcast
This issue has recetnly been highlighted by the UK's BBC News with a feature on popular podcaster Steven Bartlett "Diary of a CEO" - whose channel and many interviews we ourselves have enjoyed.
However, recently some of the health guests have offered information and advice that we have had trouble digesting. Watch the news story below. Popular influencers like Dr Aseem Malhotra, Jessie Inchauspé (aka The Glucose Goddess, who we feature here), Dr Mark Hyman, all come under fire...
Notably Bartlett has previously fallen foul of the UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), that reprimanded the meal replacement brand Huel and the health app Zoe over reviews posted by Bartlett on their platforms. The ASA determined that these reviews could not be considered unbiased due to his close ties with both companies, Bartlett being an investor in Zoe and serving as a director at Huel.
The Case for Journalism
For a deeper dive into other aspects of health and misinformation, US investigative journalist Scott Carney regularly posts on the influence of money and conflicts of interest within the health and wellness field.
Individuals under the spotlight include everyone from top health podcaster, beloved by millions, Dr Andrew Huberman to the popular ice bath and breath work advocate Wim Hof and more. Click on image below to learn more...
What are the Warning Signs?
When it comes to discerning health truth or, half truth, from fiction, what signs and language can we look out for? Below are some key flags...
1. Overly Bold or Sensational Claims
Promises of “miracle cures” or “quick fixes”; a product to sell.
Use of phrases like “scientifically proven” without providing credible evidence or references to peer-reviewed studies.
Referencing scientific studies based on very small sample sizes, or paid for by the company promoting the product. A small scale trial in mice (or humans) versus, say, a meta-analysis of studies looking at health outcomes in human studies.
A view counter to the totality or preponderance of the evidence.
2. Reliance on Anecdotes Over Evidence
Heavy use of personal stories or testimonials as "proof" of effectiveness, rather than data or scientific studies.
3. Lack of Transparency
Failure to disclose sponsorships, affiliate links, or personal financial interest in the product or service being promoted.
4. Fear-Based Marketing
Statements designed to create panic, such as “doctors won’t tell you this” or “avoid this dangerous ingredient.”
Appeals to distrust in medical professionals or established science.
5. Misuse of Scientific Terms
Buzzwords like “detox,” “boosts immunity,” or “balances hormones,” often used without clear definitions or measurable outcomes.
Misrepresentation of scientific studies, cherry-picking data, or citing irrelevant research.
6. Lack of Credentials
Influencers with little or no relevant education or professional background in health, medicine or science.
7. Push for Expensive or Exclusive Products
Frequent promotion of supplements, programs, or services that are costly and not backed by reputable health authorities.
8. Suppression of Criticism
Blocking or dismissing critics who ask for evidence or question claims, often labeling them as "haters" or "closed-minded."
10. Appeal to Naturalism
Claims that "natural" is always better, ignoring the complexities and risks of natural substances.
Final Thoughts
It is crucial to recognise that not all content shared by bloggers, podcasters or their guests - even those with massive followings - is rooted in credible science. Often the podcasters priority is to entertain or build an audience, not to educate responsibly.
The dangers of this are significant. Listeners may accept unproven remedies or reject scientifically sound advice, believing the confidence of an influencer over rigorous evidence. This can lead to delayed medical treatment, the misuse of supplements or even the adoption of harmful practices. Misleading health claims can also erode trust in medical professionals, fostering a culture where anecdote outweighs expertise, research and scientific evidence.
Not limited by broadcast regulations, where there are certain standards of duty of care, do popular hosts have greater responsibility to protect their audience from misinformation?
Does a tenured university professor such as Dr Huberman - well paid by sponsors in the health sector - have a greater duty of care to his health focused listeners than a marketing CEO and podcaster like Steve Bartlett?
Is the audience able to discriminate between fact and fiction? Do the Glucose Goddess's often anecdotal statements have scientific validity applicable to the broader population? While many people say they benefit from her advice, many if the health field state that some of her advice is harmful.
Should Bartlett or, say, Joe Rogan, be providing a platform to speakers whose views and opinions are not sufficiently caveated or supported by the evidence and are potentially harmful?
I happen to enjoy the podcasts of all three but I am now increasingly critical, wary, of the content. We have to be mindful of the fact that science evolves and new evidence needs to be taken into account. So understanding the validity of the evidence is crucial.
We follow numerous podcasters, doctors and scientists online. And they do not always agree or speak in unison. Science evolves, it can be hard to keep up with the research, research can also be critiqued. Those that we folllow, Drs Alo, Mike Isreatel, Mathew Nagra, Layne Norton, Idrees Mughal (read more about them in our Movers and Shakers page) are all bold to call out BS and at times disagree with, and call out, each other. Where there is legitimate debate over science, we need to hear it. And when it comes from Bartlett or Huberman, we must also be mindful that they remain a fantastic source of good health information and inspiration, that positively affects the lives of millions.
So - after all that we have written above - here is our own sales pitch... For most people improving health is about finding motivation and prioritising self-care with an ultimate goal of taking action; hopefully heading in the right direction. If you want to take effective and targeted steps that fit into your unique lifestyle, The Whole Health Practice is here to help.
Whether your interest is in balance or longevity, to beat chronic illness or to enhance your mental health and well-being, our consultations and programs deliver results that are tailored to your needs.
Our foundational Whole Health Consult identifies and prioritises the key factors - known and unknown - that affect health and wellbeing. It provides targeted recommendations tailored to you, the individual, and your unique lifestyle.
Stay Healthy,
Alastair
Join me, or scroll down to contact us and learn more about our services:
Achieve Your Health Goals
Your health, physical – mental – social - is complex and affected by multiple factors within and outside of your control. Our consults and programmes address the whole person, the root causes of ill health and maximising your health, performance & vitality.
Contact us to arrange an introductory call, to learn how we can support your and your team's journey to health. We are based in Singapore and work with clients globally.
Take the first step. Book a Whole Health Consult to assess, identify and prioritise key factors (known and unknown) that affect your health. And receive personalised recommendations on how to address them.
Want to put recommendations into action? Learn more about our programmes for individuals or teams.
Related Studies and Resources
What is health literacy? CDC website
Adebesin F, Smuts H, Mawela T, Maramba G, Hattingh M. The Role of Social Media in Health Misinformation and Disinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Bibliometric Analysis. JMIR Infodemiology. 2023 Sep 20;3:e48620. doi: 10.2196/48620. PMID: 37728981; PMCID: PMC10551800.
Magnus JR, Peresetsky AA. A Statistical Explanation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 25;13:840180. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.840180. PMID: 35401341; PMCID: PMC8992690. doi: 10.1136/fmch-2020-000351. PMID: 32414834; PMCID: PMC7239702.
Sylvia Chou WY, Gaysynsky A, Cappella JN. Where We Go From Here: Health Misinformation on Social Media. Am J Public Health. 2020 Oct;110(S3):S273-S275. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305905. PMID: 33001722; PMCID: PMC7532328.
Comments