You Might Have Already Fallen for MAHA’s Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter Jaybee00
- Start date
“How does someone become an anti-vaxxer or come to believe that chemotherapy is more dangerous than cancer? It can begin with what seems like a harmless health tip: Cut seed oils or artificial food dyes from your diet. From there, the road can get treacherous. It’s paved with good intentions, surrounded by misinformation and filled with influencers who say they just want to make you, and America, healthy again.
Using artificial intelligence to identify narrative patterns across nearly 12,000 videos and podcasts from the world of wellness, New York Times Opinion Video reconstructed the MAHA conspiracy theory rabbit hole. In the video above, hear from people who found themselves sucked to the bottom of it. They developed an extreme distrust of the health care system, with tragic consequences. All the while, the people peddling anti-health-care content — people now empowered by and working in the Trump administration — have raked in their share of the $460 billion wellness industry, profiting from the paranoia they fueled.
Does that mean it’s game over for evidence-based medicine? As former followers of these MAHA influencers will tell you, there’s a path out of the rabbit hole, too.”
Using artificial intelligence to identify narrative patterns across nearly 12,000 videos and podcasts from the world of wellness, New York Times Opinion Video reconstructed the MAHA conspiracy theory rabbit hole. In the video above, hear from people who found themselves sucked to the bottom of it. They developed an extreme distrust of the health care system, with tragic consequences. All the while, the people peddling anti-health-care content — people now empowered by and working in the Trump administration — have raked in their share of the $460 billion wellness industry, profiting from the paranoia they fueled.
Does that mean it’s game over for evidence-based medicine? As former followers of these MAHA influencers will tell you, there’s a path out of the rabbit hole, too.”
I was wondering: was there a peak for ethical media? From my memories, there were times when science journals, newspapers, etc, were reasonably trustworthy. Is that just biased memories on my part, or biases selection of media in those times?
If media was more trustworthy in the past, what went wrong? Did some laws or regulations get weakened until they no longer protected the public? I'm sure that money is involved, but that's what laws and other regulations were intended to control. Were publishers appropriately punished for false stories before, and now avoid the punishments and instead are financially rewarded?
If media was more trustworthy in the past, what went wrong? Did some laws or regulations get weakened until they no longer protected the public? I'm sure that money is involved, but that's what laws and other regulations were intended to control. Were publishers appropriately punished for false stories before, and now avoid the punishments and instead are financially rewarded?
I think what went wrong was social media where everyone has a bullhorn, not so much main stream media.
hotblack
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
There’s some good evidence that the most extreme views get over represented on social media, on various topics.
Things like cable TV and tabloids are somewhere in between. But the more fragmented any media ecosystem is the less it needs to cater for a wide audience so the more extreme it can be.
Kitty
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I seriously doubt the media has ever been trustworthy.
The problem with the law and regulation that it mostly doesn't exist, it never did. It's just that within living memory, it hasn't been common for so many people to exploit that fact so blatantly.
Part of the reason might be that to succeed at this game you need particular economic and social conditions. There have to be ills in the world that you can blame someone for, and it doesn't wash if everything's more or less okay for large parts of the population.
Adding this to my grievance of having "diet and exercise advise" listed as a "low level risk" for consulting artificial intelligence in healthcare.
MrMagoo
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I think it was harder to question the media pre-internet. You could be suspicious but hard to get your own research done, or it was done by fringe interest groups and you’d have to “find” them for yourself.
Tabloids got really into “science says red wine is good for your heart” in the late 90s, that was a slippery slope of its own IMO.
Tabloids got really into “science says red wine is good for your heart” in the late 90s, that was a slippery slope of its own IMO.
wingate
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I often feel a mix of things with this kind of video/article.
Makes me angry to watch influencers and the likes of rfk exploit and profit off people using pseudoscience and other nonsense. Just sickening. Especially when it endangers the population at large, not just those who seek out alt treatments.
At the same time, I often get the sense that the people writing articles and producing movies haven't had the kinds of experiences many of us have had where medical professionals have harmed us, not believed us, or not been able to provide help for our condition. So, I often think they could take a more critical look at medicine’s faults and shortcomings that lead people to look at alternative (but dubious) sources of help.
Makes me angry to watch influencers and the likes of rfk exploit and profit off people using pseudoscience and other nonsense. Just sickening. Especially when it endangers the population at large, not just those who seek out alt treatments.
At the same time, I often get the sense that the people writing articles and producing movies haven't had the kinds of experiences many of us have had where medical professionals have harmed us, not believed us, or not been able to provide help for our condition. So, I often think they could take a more critical look at medicine’s faults and shortcomings that lead people to look at alternative (but dubious) sources of help.
shak8
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Outstanding podcast from vaccinologist Peter Hotez, climate scientist Michael Mann and Paul Krugman (nobel prize winning economist, whose substack is this podcast's origin).
They trace the origins of the current decline and fall of science in the US.
paulkrugman.substack.com
They trace the origins of the current decline and fall of science in the US.
Science Under Siege: A Talk With Peter Hotez and Michael Mann
Lysenko comes to America
paulkrugman.substack.com
Hoopoe
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
My mother subscribed to the emailing list of one of these people and over time was influenced by them. It started with an interest in healthy nutrition and things that could help her sleep. Especially during the pandemic she bought into all the weird misinformation and blamed Bill Gates, thought the pandemic was a conspiracy, and the virus harmless. Weirdly, we live in Italy and she even had a pro Trump phase and a phase where she didn't like Ukrainians, and she also believed various absurd, borderline conspiracy claims about the EU. It seems clear that these are the networks through which pro-Kremlin propaganda is also spread.
I suspect this approach to propaganda works because the people interested in supplements and alternative medicine tend to have various health problems that medicine cannot help with (or has only treatments they cannot afford). This then leads to marginalization, negative feelings which can be exploited by propaganda, unhappiness with the status quo that makes them a target for populism.
I suspect this approach to propaganda works because the people interested in supplements and alternative medicine tend to have various health problems that medicine cannot help with (or has only treatments they cannot afford). This then leads to marginalization, negative feelings which can be exploited by propaganda, unhappiness with the status quo that makes them a target for populism.
Last edited:
hotblack
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Absolutely the case. And it’s why it is inherent on healthcare and science professionals and institutions to maintain trust because rebuilding it is so hard. Many seem to miss this responsibility unfortunately.
Through my experiences of ME/CFS and how we’re treated I have become much more sympathetic to those who fall into this trap. If you’re dismissed by established medicine this stuff is much more appealing, even if you know it is quackery to start with.
Institutions and individuals have a responsibility to be better and to admit mistakes and show humility. Those are far more powerful than the arrogance and self defence we often see.
Thanks! Krugman is great.
One of the most powerful arguments that convinced me my doctor was right about my illness being psychogenic (obviously he was wrong) was that I didn't want to be one of 'those' people.
And yet my doctors were wrong and my faith in them and the scientific establishment was shattered. Medical and scientific leaders cannot hope to hold the alternative medicine people to a high standard they do not themselves hold. They must find the rigour and integrity they have lost, and rebuild trust. It is the only way out of this.
Hoopoe
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I also believe psychologization of unexplained illness is one of the factors that drives people towards alternative medicine.
Treat people like idiots or children, show them that they are not valued, lie and attempt to manipulate them, give them bullshit placebo treatments, prioritize the doctor's convenience over the well-being of the patient, abandon patients with devastating illness... all of this is part of the psychologization of unexplained illnes. The harm to the patient's dignity and often also their psychological and physical health is significant and long lasting. Trust can be lost nearly irrevocably. Patients then search for other ways to meet their need of a treatment.
Treat people like idiots or children, show them that they are not valued, lie and attempt to manipulate them, give them bullshit placebo treatments, prioritize the doctor's convenience over the well-being of the patient, abandon patients with devastating illness... all of this is part of the psychologization of unexplained illnes. The harm to the patient's dignity and often also their psychological and physical health is significant and long lasting. Trust can be lost nearly irrevocably. Patients then search for other ways to meet their need of a treatment.
Last edited:
DigitalDrifter
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Agreed. This is what pushed me to turning to Sarah Myhill over a decade ago. I took her tests then she had me popping a ton of her vitamins, minerals, and supplements, none of which led to any improvement. If my GPs & psychiatrists just believed me, treated me with respect and consideration then I would never have had doubts about mainstream medicine.
hotblack
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I agree with you both and it’s one factor I think is seriously underestimated. I haven’t seen a plan anywhere for rebuilding trust with patients who have been pushed away from mainstream medicine. Even if we get the scientific developments for ME/CFS we hope for there is a huge trust deficit that acts as a barrier to trials, treatments, etc. This needs to be acknowledged in any plan for education or research.
Maybe it's due to the drop in the cost of presenting information. When publishing and distributing a newspaper was a major investment, it was important to compete with other papers, which meant the quality of writers and reporters, and such factors as trusworthiness. I think there was generally a newspaper regarded as "the rag", intended for entertainment rather than information. That old style of media production just can't compete with cheap blogs or social media. I'm just guessing that it still survives in niche markets where quality of information is critical. You won't base your airline or nuclear reactor maintenance on information from social media.
shak8
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
At the end of the Paul Krugman podcast is the assertion that scientists need to be spokespersons in the public eye--get out there and talk about what are the facts, why they matter and what is not true or effective, and what we don't know, disseminate information to the public better, despite their institutions' (research, academia) reining them in, promoting ("objectivity") silence.
I love the TWIV podcasts (Microbe TV virology et al podcasts) and during the pandemic, their strict adherence to virology science via an eminent virologist and infectious disease doc, and other scientists, kept me informed and able to protect myself from being infected and gave me reassurance. They presented current research results and adjusted their facts when an update warranted it. They also addressed quack treatments and why those were ineffective from a virology perspective (such as invermectin).
Of course, the TWIV podcasts attract an educated and/or health professions audience.
Alas, in the US, I fear that the level of science education and resultant ability to critically assess information is limited on average. My historical (b.1953) perspective is the rise of Fox so-called News broadcasts and social media have destroyed the importance of, or the concept of fact-based reporting.
We used to be seriously informed by CBS, NBC newcasts. (My father worked in and taught medical journalism.)
I love the TWIV podcasts (Microbe TV virology et al podcasts) and during the pandemic, their strict adherence to virology science via an eminent virologist and infectious disease doc, and other scientists, kept me informed and able to protect myself from being infected and gave me reassurance. They presented current research results and adjusted their facts when an update warranted it. They also addressed quack treatments and why those were ineffective from a virology perspective (such as invermectin).
Of course, the TWIV podcasts attract an educated and/or health professions audience.
Alas, in the US, I fear that the level of science education and resultant ability to critically assess information is limited on average. My historical (b.1953) perspective is the rise of Fox so-called News broadcasts and social media have destroyed the importance of, or the concept of fact-based reporting.
We used to be seriously informed by CBS, NBC newcasts. (My father worked in and taught medical journalism.)
Last edited:
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It does not. Because so-called evidence-based medicine never played the actual game. It ended up doing the exact opposite of what it was built for: a system to produce garbage pseudoscience, mixed with possibly valid data but no way to tell. It can't be game over when the game doesn't matter because the outcome is rigged.
It's a system built to perfection to produce exactly the kind of pseudoscience that the conspiracy fantasy communities love. In fact, they already love precisely the destructive kind that was unleashed on us, for the same reasons: it's basically cheap excuses for negligence based on bigoted reasoning, a fallacious reason to throw in the trash millions of people they see as far beneath them.
I would actually suggest that widespread beliefs in psychosomatic ideology and their ideas basically provide the most fertile conditions for pseudoscience to take root and thrive. It's one of the most harmful ideologies in human history, right there with the worst of them, the ones that set continents on fire and massacred people by the millions.
Just all of the above. Spot on. As long as they maintain the door wide open to magical thinking they like, they will be promoting magical thinking they don't like. Magical thinking doesn't discriminate.
Decades of realizing it makes no difference. There have been zero consequences for promoting lies and pseudoscience for decades. Everyone got the message: it doesn't even matter, credibility is a social construct that has little to do with actual credibility. This started long before social media, but it sure amplified it. And when you look at examples relating to psychosomatic ideology, it never actually mattered, so it's not as if there was a point in time that was some true "golden age".
Clickbait just sells more. News media are businesses, and they make business decisions that make their products worse but increase their revenue. It's an easy choice for them, it doesn't matter.
I just saw today a bunch of headlines about some conference RFK and his goons did yesterday, and this "good mental health through good physical health" was very prominent. The work of our biopsychosocial overlords will be very useful to the conspiracy fantasists.