Illustration by Drew Shannon
We are witnessing an unprecedented assault on scientific truth that has adversely affected public health in the U.S. and to a lesser extent in Canada. Note the following views as expressed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Dr. Peter Marks.
Mr. Kennedy, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, has promoted the theory that coronavirus vaccines contained a microchip intended to control people. He has endorsed the false notion that antidepressants are linked to school shootings. In multiple interviews, he has claimed that vitamin A and cod liver oil are effective treatments for measles. He also said that while vaccines prevent illness, they also cause severe illnesses and even death. [1]
Dr. Marks, the Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine official, resigned last month, stating: “Undermining confidence in well-established vaccines that have met the high standards for quality, safety and effectiveness that have been in place for decades at F.D.A. is irresponsible, detrimental to public health, and a clear danger to our nation’s health, safety and security.” [2]
Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Marks embody two opposing belief systems. These systems, or ideologies, serve as frameworks for understanding the world.
What you believe, is what you perceive. The stronger one is attached to a particular ideology, the more one tends to distort reality. It is like seeing the world through tinted glasses. All of us do this, consciously or unconsciously, while believing we are totally rational, even nonpartisan.
These ideologically tinted glasses are responsible for the divergence in viewpoints of Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Marks and the millions of us who are watching this drama unfold. It leads to mutual antagonism, questioning of motives and tragic consequences, as evidenced by the alarming new outbreaks of measles in unvaccinated children in North America.
Measles is among the most contagious diseases known. If exposed to someone infected, nine out of 10 unvaccinated children are likely to catch the virus. While it can be a highly unpleasant illness in mild cases, it can also have very serious complications such as ear infections, pneumonia, and encephalitis – a serious brain inflammation that can result in lasting neurological issues or even death. On average, measles claims the lives of one to three out of every 1,000 infected children.
Even a single dose of the vaccine is highly effective in preventing infection. Under usual circumstances, it is recommended that the measles vaccine be given at 12 to 15 months and again at age 4 to 6. Scientific research has shown unequivocally that the measles vaccine does NOT cause autism or other permanent neurologic or developmental problems. The best way to protect against measles is to get vaccinated.
Louis Pasteur demonstrated in the 1860s that diseases were caused by microorganisms. Pasteur is the father of vaccinations and the pasteurization of milk. In his time, he was violently criticized by a fellow scientist, Antoine Béchamp, who believed that bacteria change form in response to disease. In other words, they do not cause disease but arise from tissues during disease states. Pasteur’s theory won out over Béchamp’s. Today, 150 years later, Béchamp’s ideas have been rediscovered and repurposed by science skeptics and used to justify all manner of oils, tinctures and supplements. [3].
Let us examine some of the major factors that may account for the distrust of and, in some quarters, the downright attack on medical science and its practitioners.
One of the favourite tactics of these science skeptics is to contemptuously refer to credentialed scientists and academics as elitists. The Cambridge dictionary defines elitist as “someone who believes that some things should be controlled or owned only by the richest or best educated people.” In other words, the message to you is, ‘they are only out for themselves. Therefore, you Mr. Public, should not listen to them’. Well, just take a look at who these skeptics are. They may not be the best educated but odds-on they are some of the wealthiest people around. Sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
Meanwhile, increasing numbers of bad actors from our adversaries are spreading disinformation that threatens democracy. Part of this disinformation campaign’s objective is to erode the public’s confidence in scientific authority and medical treatments and create more chaos and distrust in democratic institutions.
Parents with newborns or young children exposed to a tsunami of such messages in the media and social networks that question the value of vaccinations will often seek advice from their family doctor – if they have one – or try a walk-in clinic. When they show up for their appointment seeking information about vaccination they will likely be shunted to a nurse practitioner rather than the doctor. As excellent and knowledgeable as this person may be, in the eyes of the parents, he or she is not the doctor. Whatever they say may not carry the same persuasive force as hearing from the doctor who may even have delivered the child they are concerned about.
Should a parent or parents get to see a doctor, he or she will very briefly explain what’s involved in having their child vaccinated and shoo the parents out as quickly as possible with, ‘make an appointment for your child to be vaccinated right away’. Often, they leave still confused, not having had their concerns addressed.
Conflicting reports of new research findings in medicine don’t help. One day, we are told to avoid eating more than two eggs a week. Next month – an egg a day is fine. Doctors used to advise people to drink milk to treat their ulcers. Today’s mantra is milk can’t relieve an ulcer. In fact, it will aggravate it by stimulating your stomach to produce more acid. “These guys don’t know what they are doing,” I hear people say. “Why listen at all?”
In Canada there are 6.5 million people without a primary care physician. [4] The scarcity of doctors, both primary physicians and specialists, has naturally led to an increasing number of people seeking advice and treatment from alternative medicine practitioners such as doctors of osteopathy, chiropractic and naturopathy.
Part of the popular appeal of these practitioners is the way they respond to people’s unmet needs. These practitioners seem more friendly and spend more time with their patients than their medical counterparts.
Alternative medicine practitioners have focused their attention not on drugs, which they are not licensed to prescribe, but rather on vitamins and supplements made of naturally grown mushrooms, plants, fruits, seeds, etc. This, together with the influence of Eastern healing practices such as yoga, meditation or acupuncture, has coalesced into a new wellness culture that values everything organic and natural and tends to disparage everything pharmaceutical or manufactured. Personally, I have utilized many of the practices of holistic medicine and found them beneficial. But drugs, surgery, chemotherapy and the like may be necessary sometimes. Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
The wellness industry functions with little oversight and frequently relies on personal experiences, anecdotal accounts, intuition, and hopeful beliefs. [5] Since it emphasizes individual perception and instinctive understanding, wellness culture is especially susceptible to unsupported health claims, misinformation and conspiracy theories. This environment often elevates personal stories of change above expert advice, giving more weight to individual beliefs than to scientific or professional perspectives.
Alongside the growing number of alternative medicine practitioners in communities, there has been a dramatic rise in lifestyle and health influencers on social media. These influencers often advocate for alternative wellness approaches over traditional medical treatments. Many of them blend New Age ideas with wellness rhetoric and fringe political ideologies from both the left and right. As they gain large followings, they become micro-celebrities, much like the Pied Piper from the Brothers Grimm tale, guiding their followers toward personal websites and less regulated platforms – such as Gab, Parler, MEWE, Tik Tok and Telegram – where they can evade what they view as ‘social engineering’ and ‘medical tyranny’.
For some, their wellness brand generates income through the sale of products, courses, and supplements that claim to enhance emotional and nutritional health. For others, monetization comes from blogs, books, films, and retreats and festivals that are marketed as pathways to self-discovery, heightened awareness, and spiritual enlightenment. [6]
The issue stems from the interconnectedness between unregulated, dubious health products – such as cancer-curing coffee enemas or devices claiming to eliminate parasites through bodily electrical currents – and misleading political rhetoric and prosperity gospel ideology. At its core, this unholy alliance promotes the idea that both health and wealth are attainable through strong, unwavering faith [7]
So, what is the scientific approach?
Science is a collaborative process that relies on a system of peer review and critical evaluation to ensure accuracy and ongoing improvement. Scientific discoveries – especially in fields like medicine – often drive technological innovations, including new surgical techniques, treatments and drugs.
The scientific method typically starts with forming hypotheses, or informed predictions. These are confirmed or found deficient by observations, testing phenomena, and analyzing data.
Study results are shared with peers through journal clubs, local and national meetings, and international conferences. Ultimately, they are published in peer-reviewed journals. Once published, the broader scientific community further evaluates the work by replicating experiments, analyzing results, and offering critiques. This ongoing evaluation helps maintain the credibility and reliability of scientific research. As more studies are conducted, the collective understanding continues to grow and improve. Because scientific ideas are tested thoroughly, they are generally viewed as trustworthy.
So how do we separate the wheat from the chaff and decide who to believe? Here are my five rules for practising information hygiene.
1. Who wrote the story or who is putting it out? You want to be informed by a person who is free of political or ideological agendas, who follows the data dispassionately. If you are not familiar with that person, turn to your search engine and look to neutral sources for biographical information.
2. What is the track record of the writer or proponent? Have they in the past made mountains out of mole hills to concoct wild theories from kernels of truth and to promote, frankly, quack medicine?
3. What is the actual research study the story is based on? Take the claim that vitamin A is as good at preventing measles as receiving the measles vaccine. If you spend a few minutes researching you will discover that this claim is based on a 1991 paper in The American journal of clinical nutrition, from South Africa. Sixty hospitalized children aged 4–24 months with complicated measles received a World Health Organization recommended dose of vitamin A or placebo. There was one death in the placebo group, no deaths in the experimental group. [8] That’s it. Nothing about vitamin A providing protection from catching measles. The best that can be said about vitamin A based on this and similar studies from third world countries is that Vitamin A improved the recovery of some very sick and probably undernourished children.
4. Differentiate between well-intentioned influencers and unscrupulous influencers.
Unscrupulous Influencers promote products/services without disclosing they’re sponsored or affiliated. They hide or downplay how they profit from it. They guarantee massive and instant success, loss of weight, perfect skin, etc., with little to no effort. They only respond to praise. They’re often associated with conspiracy theories.
Scrupulous influencers disclose sponsored content clearly and are upfront about their affiliations. They don’t jump on every trend or promote things outside their niche. They respond to comments and are open to feedback or constructive criticism. They do not advocate any political or religious views.
5. Beware of AI fabrications.
AI systems reflect the data they’re trained on and the biases of their creators. Therefore, not everything you receive from ChatGPT or similar systems, is reliable. Once again, if it sounds too good to be true or too far-fetched, check it out.
Finally, a plea to my colleagues: Try to build long-term, respectful relationships with your patients, listen to their concerns and be willing to take the time to provide accurate information in language they can understand. By fostering an alliance based on trust that feels personal and caring, doctors can play a crucial role in counteracting the corrosive influence of disinformation of the wellness-conspiracy-prosperity gospel.
References
1. Kekatos, Mary (2025). RFK Jr. claims measles can be treated with vitamin A, linked to poor diet. Here’s what science says. abc News.
2. Jewett, Christina, Stolberg, Sheryl G and Weiland, Noah (2025). Top F.D.A. Vaccine Official Resigns, Citing Kennedy’s ‘Misinformation and Lies’ New York Times
3. Gorski, D. (2010). Germ theory denialism: A major strain in “alt-med” thought. Science-Based Medicine, 9.
4. CMA Healthcare. https://www.cma.ca/healthcare-for-real/why-it-so-hard-find-familydoctor#:~:text=More%20than%20one%20in%20five,nurse%20practitioner%20they%20see%20regularly.
5. Baker SA, Rojek C (2020) The online wellness industry: why it’s so difficult to regulate. The Conversation,
6. Baker, S. A. (2022). Alt. Health Influencers: how wellness culture and web culture have been weaponized to promote conspiracy theories and far-right extremism during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 25(1), 3-24.
7. Manjoo, Farhad (2022). Alex Jones and the Wellness-Conspiracy Industrial Complex. The New York Times.
8. Coutsoudis, A., Broughton, M., & Coovadia, H. M. (1991). Vitamin A supplementation reduces measles morbidity in young African children: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 54(5), 890-895.1991